Uncategorized

The Anti-Feminism Wisdom Of The Bible

314 Comments

A few articles on ROK have touched upon basic biblical wisdoms and how they can apply to us here in the manosphere. What they haven’t elaborated upon is just how useful God’s biblical advice is regarding the leadership role of men and what His vision is for the interactions of men and women.

It goes without saying that God views (through his representatives) the phenomena of females controlling males aka feminism as utterly revolting. To that effect, I’m going to list just three verses for your perusal. These are from the Old Testament, so a proper temporal context is recommended.

1. Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

us-flag-and-bible-cross

“…thy desire shall be to thy husband…rule over thee” is key.  Here in the Old Testament, God himself is essentially saying that a woman’s natural state is to long for a husband, and a man’s natural role is to be a ruler over his wife. She can thank her actions in the Garden of Eden for this little fact (as well as the punishment suffering) which most of us are already familiar with. Paul later adapted this to mean “head” for the New Testament Christian but a leadership role is apparent in either case.

How many examples have we seen in society where females have claimed that they don’t need men, yet in magazines and even within their own bizarre behaviors the truth has shown much to the contrary?

With regard to marriage, the feminist movement (along with homosexuals and the pro-abortion supporters) has long tried to wage war on this religious institution for the purpose of marginalizing the role that heterosexual husbands and fathers have played. This is because when you divorce the natural leadership role of the husband from the relationship, you allow for the female to interpret the roles in marriage, parenting, and sexuality as she sees fit, or more appropriately, as she is told it should fit.

Most females are natural copycats, and possess conformist thinking rather than critical thinking. If this was not the case, Oprah and Dr. Oz would not hold the kind of hypnotic power over females that they financially enjoy today. Today’s elitist feminists (female and male) have learned to tap into that group-think power by indoctrinating other females into their ranks in order to get them to support this SJW cause or that one.

2. Pro 31:3 Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

Adam-and-Eve-Garden

Eve rhymes with deceive…coincidence?

What the bible (King Lemuel specifically) is saying here is pretty simple: don’t waste all your energies on the pursuit of females because they will bring about your ruin. Don’t become a beta man who orbits a female like a satellite does a planet.

How many modern day kings have had their downfall financially and otherwise, because they chose to spend too much effort on chasing tail? Gary Hart could be considered an example. His presidential candidacy was torpedoed because of his infidelities. While Bill Clinton proved that venery doesn’t necessarily prevent one from obtaining the presidency, he nonetheless endured much deserved humiliation for his philandering endeavors and he is still considered a joke even today. You are more than the sum of your reproductive parts, brother.

3. Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

j8055

The most misunderstood man on earth

This one from Isaiah is pretty profound, and speaks volumes about how things were even back then. It seems that females have been in the business of trying to control men (through themselves and betas) for years. In addition, the modern day interpretation of “children are their oppressors” can easily apply to millennials and how they are led astray by feminist indoctrination in media and of course in social justice schools of so called higher thought.

Regrettably, these millennials end up furthering SJW causes as they advance in age and take up positions of power and influence, perpetuating the cycle of culture rot more and more. Furthermore, allowing a woman or beta male to hold a position of influence within society allows for anti-masculine teachings to become commonplace to the detriment of society as a whole.

“Destroying the way of thy paths” is therefore prophetic with regard to academic institutions, custody cases, and gender-based affirmative action initiatives which all have the common denominator of transforming females into the ersatz dominant sex.

hqdefault

The patron skank of modern feminists

The modern day feminist movement recognizes the red pill wisdom of the Bible as an unacceptable threat, which is why they’ve tried their best to discredit it as misogynistic, dismiss it as irrelevant, and sabotage it through the phenomena of feminized churches. Too many beta Christian males have been molded into religious feminists as a result of that last one.

Regardless of all these circumstances, the Bible is still considered the world’s most popular book and it will withstand social justice fads until the inevitable book burnings that come with a full-scale tyrannical takeover. Even an atheist red piller who frequents ROK or other sites on the manosphere can appreciate what the Bible is talking about here.

Read More: All Forms Of Feminism Are Anti-Male 

314 thoughts on “The Anti-Feminism Wisdom Of The Bible”

  1. No matter how much they try and whine, no amount of “feminism” and “female empowerment” and “you go giirrlllism” is ever going to change the sentence that God himself pronounced in Genesis 3:16. EVER. Excellent article.

    1. In Genesis 3:16 God created red pill men and women. A truly empowered women is a women who knows her role, just like men.

  2. Why would feminists fear church? . The modern mangina pastor wants men to man up and marry a slut. These pastors want men to marry single mom’s and pay for kids not their own. These pastors blame men for letting eve eat the Apple. These mangina pastors also give millions to trashy single moms while turning away men who need help. I assure you these verses are not spoken in church. . Feminists and trad cons are essentially the same.

    1. The article points this out:
      “The modern day feminist movement recognizes the red pill wisdom of the Bible as an unacceptable threat, which is why they’ve tried their best to discredit it as misogynistic, dismiss it as irrelevant, and sabotage it through the phenomena of feminized churches. Too many beta Christian males have been molded into religious feminists as a result of that last one.”

      1. Even the 2011 NIV attempts to create a translation favourable to feminism hence corrupting the counsel of god to his flock and making sin acceptable.

        2. Which is why I’m never buying an NIV bible again. If I buy another Bible, it’s gonna be a King James bible. Yep, I’m old-school. Although the sentence structure of the English language of that time is different than it is now, a lot of the verses seem to be written more concisely compared to the NIV.

    2. Naaahhh… The modern mangina pastor wants men to marry another men !
      Gay is FUN !

      1. or marry women and have gay sex on the “down low,” as in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church of Chicago.

      3. Yeah, this is why more and more people are eschewing denominational churches. An increasing amount of churches are non-denominational, many of which are conservative (i.e. evangelical and they actually follow the Bible).
        With the Presbyterian Church allowing gay marriage, I wouldn’t be surprised if that denomination dies in 20 years unless they get back to their senses and stop allowing gay marriages.

    3. These mangina pastors begin to alter the Bible to suit their financial needs. Hardly Christians anymore.

      2. Yeah, and people then make a bunch of crappy translations to make money, without caring about whether they actually get the translation correct.

    4. The blue pill interpretation of the religion by these pastors is strangling the west today. I have many “Christian” friends who sincerely believe that God wants men and women to be equal, have an equal say in marriage, with men not being the boss of the family, because it is not what is intended by God, but just the conspiracy of evil men. Many of them are pro abortion, and pro divorce. What astounds me is that they really believe it.
      I personally believe that they have never opened a Bible in their lives, and the religious knowledge that they have been consuming is from their mangina pastors who never discuss the red pill verses in the Church. Their interpretation of religion thus is so stained that if they were ever to actually read these verses, they would still not believe it, and would find an excuse for it. The most common of these excuses is this, “The Bible was written in ancient times, and pertained to the roles of men and women at that time, that’s all”
      If this is so, then why do they believe in other concepts of the Bible, such as charity, forgiveness, love, etc? Why not dismiss all of them as ancient concepts? Why not dismiss the entire Bible then, and not be hypocrites calling themselves Christians and act as if they obey the Bible?
      The fact is my friends, that even if the Bible was written in ancient times, it’s wisdom pertains to every situation in the modern times. Even Jesus said that the heaven and the earth may pass but the words of his mouth will never pass. So how can we say the the biblical roles of men and women pertain to the ancient times? No, since Bible is the word of God, his word regarding the roles of men and women hold true, in the modern times too because his words never pass away. This is what the modern Christians never understand. According to them, all the other concepts of Bible like, love forgiveness are valid even today, but the concept of the roles of men and women are not because they were for the “ancient times”. This cherry picking is the height of hypocrisy.

      1. To be fair, the Bible is not only the word of God, but the word of 325 AD council of nicea led by a pagan emperor.

        2. No the bible was canonized in 325 at the council of nicea that was setup and organized by constantine. Many many books were left out and many versions of the books that were included were left out as well.

        4. How many people talk about of which they know nothing? Before criticizing you should delve in the material of what you are attacking.

        7. I agree, this is correct, however, the canonnized books must fit into criterion to be considered as proper scripture. I don’t recall all the criterion in accuracy, but there were such notes as: There must be an example of El-Shem/YHWH/LORD etc speaking directly to a person or people, accuracy within known facts of the time, etc. There was thought into it, and the ‘pagans’ were used as a control so there were no efforts to distort the word as anything but an accurate documentary.

        10. I’m aware of this books. It’s not a surprise either that people tried to write things and make it look like it was also the word of God.
          But there is something that this books can’t do. They don’t agree with what the rest of the Bible says. And that is something beautiful of the Bible. It doesn’t contradict itself.It’s the word of God, after all.
          This other books directly contradict teachings of Jesus, or God himself, as well of what we learn from prophets an kings of old. So, that is why they aren’t part of the canon.
          Even if men tried to taint the Bible with men’s teachings, God wouldn’t let them. And He didn’t.

        11. Believe whatever you wish. God wouldn’t let man taint his religion which is why we had the crusades, the burnings, slavery, the selling of sacraments, and the cover up and actual molesting of little boys by the Church among numerous other things. If you want to really blow your mind look up how long it took for all of the sacraments to become sacraments.
          PS none of those books that I know of contradict Jesus’ teachings. PS the prophets of kings of old were written down around 1000 years after they occurred. Ever heard of the Chinese whisper game?

        12. The catholic church(and the rest of the churches) are not God’s religion.
          So it’s not a surprise all the horrible things that they have done, including adding paganic rites to the pure teachings of the Bible.
          About the Old testament, few of them were written 1000 or more years(the first parts of Genesis) after the events ocurred, in fact it is more common the opposite.

        14. Wrong. At the time of Nicea the canon of the Bible was already established. So which books were to be in or out was not an agenda item during the council. But believe what you want. Rumors and suspicions are hard to eradicate. Then, more important, if you read the apocryphal books, you yourself can see why they are not in the canon: they simply lack the seal of authority from above.

        15. Where do you people come up with this stuff? They hadn’t even decided on whether or not Jesus was God until that Council. Hell, even the Bible today varies depending on your denomination. I have read nearly all ofthe apocryphal books (albeit a while ago) and read the Bible (KJV) several times through.

      2. And, regardless of the text of the Bible, any reading that would make one perpetually miserable is invalid. If God (1) created you and (2) loves you, then God wants you to use the brain He gave you for your own advancement and happiness.

    5. They article doesn’t say feminists fear church, it says they fear the wisdom of the bible.
      That’s a significant difference, since today’s churches have been undermined by modern culture.

    6. You’re certainly right about manginas behind the pulpit, James. But the article is about what the Bible says, not what about feminized churchians say.

  3. Frankly I’m for the end of patriarchy to. If women are free to distribute pussy when and how they choose men should be free to distribute the fruits of their labor when and how they choose. No more alimony, palimony or child support. Want a man to support his child, give him custody. Oh and shared property should go to the person who earned the money to pay for it.
    The bible is red pill as fuck but as has been pointed out before all major churches are joining in on the “lets shame the white guy game” so fuck them.

    1. Big daddy govt won’t let men refuse to give cunts their money and labor. That’s the problem. Women can fuck bad boys, men have to pay via taxes to support sluts

      1. Big daddy gov is on the verge of becoming the biggest “deadbeat dad” in history. Every western givernment, national, state, provincial, municiple, is on the verge of going broke. Buy popcorn now. I noticed I typed government as givernment… it seems more fitting so Ill leave it that way.

    2. Great point about repealing alimony and child support with the forwarding of the feminist agenda.

    4. But remember if “patriarchy” falls “matriarchy” takes it’s place. In a matriarchy I believe alimoney and child support will increase. If you think men have it tough now just wait until the gov begins printing women on money in place of G.Washington and Franklin, and begin to build statues for “female empowerment leaders”. I wouldn’t be suprised if the American flag was changed so that “women and men equally have a say as to how it should look” or something else ridiculous like that.

      1. Patriarchy is the idea men should support others. We are ending that. No more voting for other people’s money. Women want something they can work for it. If a man does anything for her she can pay for it in whatever currency she likes.

    5. How naïve and foolish. As another commenter stated, once Patriarchy (the male prerogative and yes, the assurance of genetic descendants) is gone only matriarchy and chaos are at hand. Really black America predicted your future (and of most of the West if trends continue).

      1. You are assuming they can find the resources to keep this dog and pony show going. How much do those single mother communities you referenced as black America produce.

      2. Notice how large cities that go defunct and bankrupt are issued then a black mayor finally. New Orleans, Detroit, the presidency? And once the place is culturally dead as well, flatlined, then a woman is installed.

  4. As John Milton writes in Paradise Lost, Book 4, where Eve addresses Adam in the Garden before the Fall:

    To whom thus Eve with perfet beauty adornd.
    My Author and Disposer, what thou bidst
    Unargu’d I obey; so God ordains,
    God is thy Law, thou mine: to know no more
    Is womans happiest knowledge and her praise.

  6. Calling the Bible misogynistic is so fucking stupid there are no adjectives I can think of to describe how stupid it actually is. Why would God create woman, and then instruct man to hate her? Doesn’t make sense, does it? Then again, nothing these mentally retarded fuckwits say makes sense so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

    1. There is an instance in the bible God instructs men to love their wives and enjoy them. God never once wanted men to hate women, it would’ve stated the relationship between man and women to be an abomination if that was the case, much like sexual relations between animals and humans are an abomination to God.

      1. That’s a good point to emphasize, given the gender-acrimony of the times. Through the Bible, God instructs males to love females, and females to obey males. Rebelling against that is presuming to know better than God, and setting oneself above the natural created order.
        Scripture affirms that human males were created directly from the breath (pneuma or spirit) of Father, and human females were created from the male, as helpers and comforters for the male. This relationship, originally good, was (and is) corrupted and manipulated.
        What we think of as masculinity, and take for granted as masculinity, is a gift of love from Father. It is a sacred trust, and we are expected to protect and transmit this gift for future generations of boys and men. In this way, everybody benefits, females and nations and planet.
        Scripture is my navigational tool. It does not fail. The Feminist State is not afraid of the ‘churches’, but they are afraid of men inspired and guided by the wisdom of the Bible.
        Cheers.

    2. Fact is, patriarchy, including the Bible, is a system to protect women. Without the restraint of a patriarchal system, women are at the mercy of man and their own worst instincts.

      2. Women are just like undisciplined children. They grow wild LIKE WEEDS and eventually self destruct. THE CRACK ORDER of patriarchy isn’t just a band aid or crutch for our imperfect compromised species. It is as essential and vital as AN ARTIFICIAL LUNG for the continuance of our life on this Earth. With man rule suspended we see quickly enough what we took for granted. We clearly see the handicaps of our species. We make provisions. We always ‘shake awake’ and do a slap down on an uppity bitch, nipping feminism in the bud. Our species must survive. Only under an external assault when we slumber or are drugged out would we not ‘shake awake’ to put down bitch insurrection. That is, under a DOUBLE WHAMMY assault against us where we are sedated against our will could feminism prove to be permanantly fatal for our species. Otherwise, we would have already chopped the bitch disruption down YESTERDAY.

  9. Although I’m not a Christian (I’m a Sikh), I have immense respect for all true Christian (and all other faiths) men and women who earnestly and steadfastly follow their faith (I’m not talking about mangina pastors and born again sluts).
    It is extremely difficult to stick to your guns and very easy to fall to temptation in today’s society. The media constantly projects feminist, Hollywood and liberal dogma 24×7 and it is largely responsible for accelerating the decline of our civilization.
    In today’s morally deprived, ethically bankrupt society, there is much good to learn and gain from religion for self-improvement.
    All red-pill men, religious or not, should stand their ground and not consume mass media and fight greed, lust, anger, ego and materialistic attachment to improve their lives.
    It is mass media that is the true opium of the masses, and not religion as stated by Karl Marx.

    1. Many atheists denounce religion as the opium of the masses. Now, so many people are doped up on anti-depressants, anti-anxiety pills, and pain-killers. In our own “enlightened” time, opiates are the opium of the masses.

      1. Many atheists denounce religion as the opium of the masses.
        But crack cocaine is the opium of liberal atheism !

      3. As a traditional Catholic I’ve have found anything but. Its more like an ephedra laced bitters cocktail.

      5. But how can any reasonable man take on faith all the tenets of some book that is most likely not the direct translation of God?
        I’m not trolling. I respect tradition and I see the tremendous value of a shared belief system. But you cannot expect every man to take all of this on faith.
        I’m speaking of the innate differences in men. Some will make decisions on pure reason and others will base decisions on a sense of right and wrong, a sense of what it beautiful and ugly.
        But for the true scientific mind, religion will not suffice, and there is no point fighting that fact.

        1. “The man of science is a poor philosopher” – A.Einstein
          One of the saddest facts in today’s world is scientism, and science taking the place of philosophy when it can never be as good.

        2. “But how can any reasonable man take on faith all the tenets of some book that is most likely not the direct translation of God?”
          Isn’t it? The bible has been here for thousands of years. And for pretty much the same time people everywhere have been trying to destroy it.
          Yes, I’m aware that many religions, starting with the Catholic church, tried to corrupt the teachings of God, or at least taint them with paganic rites and celebrations.
          And yet, the bible is still here. All the words that are written there are the words of God, talking to us and teaching us to be better every day. All of its principles are still applicable to us, even when some mandates are not because of the times we live in.

        3. There are multiple ways people come to regard the Bible as being divinely inspired.
          One way is through prophecy and history. Jews believed that the messiah would be a great leader who would defeat the Romans. They interpreted this in military (worldly) terms, but Jesus fulfilled this prophecy in religious (spiritual) terms. Some lone nutjob from a backwater province of the empire started a pretend-cannibal cult and then died. That his religion would spread and become the dominant religion of Rome, displacing countless ancient pagan gods and beliefs, is remarkable. Even more remarkably, Christianity continued to spread throughout the world and has endured for two thousand years. Some view this as proof evidence of Christianity’s divine origins.
          Another way is to take the Bible in pieces and consider authority. There is a lot of wisdom and good advice in the Bible, insights into human nature, individual and social, that are truthful. Recognizing these truths can be a foundation for faith in other parts of the Bible. If you see the truth in some of the things Jesus says, you might believe that he was a wise, insightful person. If you then read something he says that you don’t understand, then maybe this wise and insightful person understands something you don’t (yet), and so you should trust (have faith in) him. If Moses, Jesus, Paul, and a bunch of others seem like wise and insightful people, whose religious beliefs corroborate each others and are intimately connected with their insights, maybe they’re onto something.

        4. What intrigues me most about the Bible is how old it is and that it is written in a poetic grand narrative. It can certainly be argued that the Bible is the greatest book ever written.
          I suppose my agnostic position is that accumulating wisdom is a wonderful thing but the Bible is not the only source of wisdom, as you yourself surely know Mr. Socrates. Unless you decide that it is a divine book, the wisdom therein is up for testing and debate just like ideas put forth in any other context.
          I’m all for getting wisdom out of the Bible, but to believe that Jesus was God’s son (the same God of the Old Testament), and that he saved us by sacrificing himself to the political authority, requires a leap of faith that I just am not driven to make.
          I also wonder if there is a cost to oneself for choosing to make that leap.

        5. I think you’d have trouble convincing a philosopher to order only any one in particular, when there is a whole buffet of religions to sample from.

        6. “And yet, the bible is still here. All the words that are written there are the words of God”
          I just don’t see how the first half of this statement proves the second half.

        7. Yes, I’m aware that many religions, starting with the Catholic church, tried to corrupt the teachings of God, or at least taint them with paganic rites and celebrations.

          Well that was the Protestant Church since Luther in a fit of frustration removed something like seven books because they proved his teachings to the BS. The Catholic church put the books in order and invented the verse numbering system that even today your mutilated bibles use.

        8. Well, since you are curious, allow me to tell my views on the costs to make the leap…. on a personal level, you will have to abide by God’s Commandments, and follows Christ’s lifestyle, which won’t be an easy thing, since each one of us have our own personal vices here and there that may go against God’s Law at some point. But if you are willing to meet Jesus when He returns, then I say that’s a more than excellent deal.
          And on an interpersonal level, well, it depends on where you live.. here in the leftist West, the worst it can get once you tell that to people is: (read this in an extremely gay voice) “Eeewwww, the Bible?? Thath thooo like 2000 yearth ago!! Theriouthly??? Wake up! We’re like in the twenty firthth thentury, you Jethuth freak!! Eeeewwww!!”
          Now in the Islamic East, people are paying the ultimate price for believing that, with ISIS beheading them and all that. I have a colossal amount of respect for these martyrs and I personally believe that they, along with all of God’s suffering people from all the eras are referenced in Revelations 20:4 :
          “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

        9. The cost is letting go of petty desires (“Woo! Get hammered all day, everyday!) and excesses (“Imma fuck that bitch, and that bitch, and that ho, etc.”)

        12. God made sure that his word to us survived through thousands of years, regardless of who tried to burn it and burn the people who owned it. And the same goes to emperors, presidents, other religious leaders, and whoever you can think about that tried to ban or to limit the Bible.
          And yet, as I said, the Bible is still here, to help us and guide us, especially in the dark days we live in.

        13. The Catholic church had gone the wrong path just from its beginning. Later the protestant church tried to fix some things, but like you say they didn’t pay attention to the things they didn’t like.
          In the words of Jesus(Matthew 15:3,7-9): 3 “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?
          7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”
          This is what churches have been teaching. Their doctrines, not the teachings of God.

        17. The scientific method flows from your relgious beliefs, they are not separate. Philosophers invented science to study metaphysics and understand the nature of God and creation. The belief that our world is structured, rational, constant, meaningful, and the belief that we can know facts about the world and that we ought to seek knowledge about the world, are all religious/metaphysical/philosophical viewpoints. Metaphysics guides science, science without philosophy becomes a monstrosity and a sham.

      6. Dont blame atheists for that. Nobody told u to dope urself up to get through life…

      1. From what I remember, Jeanne D’Arc was still very feminine and only used a masculine appearance when she had no other choie. Even in prison she didn’t want to where a dress because the guards wanted to rape her. Jeanne imo was feminine based on my knowledge.

  11. The bible is also good for teaching chill’ren’s respect for their elders.
    Kings 2:23-24
    23 “And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
    24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.”

    1. When aspergtheists copy pasta thatpassage about the bears kkilling the “youfs” I say that this occurred before concealed carry protected people from Trayvons in the wilderness.

      1. Oh so Stephen Hawking’s advancements in the understanding of the universe isn’t getting anything done? Please shut the fuck up rofl, Atheism just shines through miles ahead of Christianity and other religions on an intellectual level 😀 please go read your bible while we do the real work towards society

        1. It shines so much that it leaves a glistening red trail wherever it’s pushed. Just ask guys like Stalin and Mao lol.

        2. So the anti-slavery philosophy of St. Augustine led to the decline of using human labor for every fabrication process, and to the wide spread implimentation of the water wheel to grind grain, process lumber, textile, etc. Has done more for human society by developing the tool of automated industry.
          How the fuck exactly are Hawking’s speculations improving life for humanity? Scientists are not Engineers, though I doubt you understand the principles of either.

      2. So Stephen Hawking’s advancements in the field of Theoretical Physics and deeper understanding of the universe isn’t making progress? Please enlighten me on some intelligent Christians making progress in the world haha! That is just one instance, I could name several. Atheism is actually contributing to the betterment of society.

  13. A bit of a break in the popular narrative.
    1 Esdras 4
    13 Then the third young man, Zerubbabel, who had spoken of women and truth, began to speak: 14 “Gentlemen, isn’t the king great, aren’t men abundant, and isn’t wine strong? Who is it, though, that masters them or rules over them? Isn’t it women? 15 Women give birth to the king and to all the people who rule over the sea and land. 16 From women they all are born. It was women who brought up those men who plant the vineyards from which wine is produced.
    17 “Women make men’s clothes. They bring men honor. Without women, men aren’t even able to exist. 18 If men gather gold and silver or any valuable thing, and then see a desirable and beautiful woman, 19 they forget everything to gaze at her. With mouths wide open, they stare at her. All choose her over gold, silver, or any other valuable thing. 20 A man leaves his own father, who raised him, and his own country, and clings to his own wife. 21 With his wife he departs this life, with no memory of his father or mother or country. 22 Therefore, surely you must recognize that women rule over you!
    “Don’t you work and labor, yet you bring everything and give it to women? 23 A man takes his sword, goes out to travel abroad to raid, steal, and sail the sea and rivers. 24 He faces lions; he walks in darkness; when he steals and robs and plunders, he carries it back to the woman he loves. 25 A man loves his own wife much more than his father or mother.26 Many men have lost their heads over women, and have become slaves on account of them. 27 Many have perished, stumbled, or sinned because of women.
    28 “Now don’t you believe me? Isn’t the king great in his authority? Don’t all countries fear to touch him? 29 I once saw the king and Apame his mistress, the daughter of the eminent Bartacus, sitting by his right side. 30 She took the crown from the king’s head and put it on her own head, and slapped the king with her left hand. 31 At this the king would stare at her with his mouth wide open. If she smiles at him, he laughs; but if she should get angry with him, he humors her so that she may be reconciled to him. 32 Gentlemen, aren’t women powerful, since they can do such things?”

    1. I believe this is saying, “The power of pussy is real” everything stated here basically sums up the fact that anything a man does is only for two things; money, and pussy.
      Men should read this and heed its warning, never underestimate the power that women DO in fact hold over men, even to this day a man would allow his wife to cheat if she apologized.
      Are women/pussy powerful? Yes, yes indeed.

      1. Unless you are monk. Then you brew beer, distill spirits, and copy ancient texts, among many other things.

      2. “Men are run ragged by female sexuality all their lives. From the beginning of his life to the end, no man ever fully commands any woman. It’s an illusion. Men are pussy-whipped. And they know it. That’s what the strip clubs are about; not woman as victim, not woman as slave, but woman as goddess.”
        — Camille Paglia

  14. I encourage everyone, especially Western men, to read the Bible. Plenty of guys say “fuck religion” and just ignore it. Even if you’re an atheist, understanding more about the Bible will help you understand more about Western culture, and it actually does contain a lot of wisdom independent of its historical veracity.

    1. I think people look at religion and think, “Crusades, misogynistic, patriarchy, etc.” then begin to read everything after already deciding ro view the bible as “evil”

    2. Even if you are an atheist one should recognize that religion was not imposed by aliens. Being man-made it is a testament to how man thinks. Anyone who respects the wisdom of the ancients has to square the remarkable similarities among how major (i.e successful) religions organize society.

    3. I’m an agnostic but I second your point.
      I’ve read passages from the bible and it is incredibly red pill (particularly the Old Testament).
      The book of Job and Abraham almost sacrificing His son are my favourite passages of those I’ve read.
      I agree that it is a real window into western thought.

  15. The Satanic Bible is more Red Pill.
    The Nine Satanic Statements
    Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
    Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
    Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
    Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
    Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
    Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
    Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
    Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
    Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
    The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
    Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
    Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
    When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
    If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
    Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
    Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
    Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
    Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
    Do not harm little children.
    Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
    When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

    1. “Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.”?
      Hardly red pill.
      I’ve read almost all of the Satanic Bible. It’s the product of a paranoid narcissist bored and disillusioned. It’s a product of its era.

      1. Alot of the Satanic Bible was a rip off of the much more red pill and manly “Might Is Right” by Ragnar Redbeard.

      2. No kidding, it reads like Alister Crowley’s joke text.
        “Bother No one”? fuck that, I bother whom I like.

    4. If you’re talking about levay the author of the satanic bible its true he is a bit red pill but he does not really speak of the Christian Satan.
      Christian Satan have nothing but hate for man and seeks the downfall of man

  16. I’m afraid this is where I differ from, what seems to be, most of my red-pill brothers. That being said, I do not resent or begrudge you for your beliefs. I have a singular disgust in all things religion. Disgust borne from observation of human behavior growing up in Christian churches into my early adulthood. Views hardened when I was subject to personal attacks for standing up for what I believed to be right. Seeing those that agreed with me in private and encouraged me to do the right thing, shy away and turn their faces in public because of the backlash. As much as Muslims wage an overt, aggressive war on infidels… those in the Christian and Catholic churches wage a covert and passive-aggressive war on their version of the infidel. The gossiping, ostracizing, and turned backs all designed to exclude and alienate those that disagree with the community. To say that it impacted my psyche is an understatement. On the one hand you have this idea of what is right based on careful reflection, logic, and reason. On the other you are told it’s completely wrong because the bible says so and you must get right with God. My mind was literally torn between my faith and my reason. Reason won out.
    I realized that you can rationalize any course of action that you desire, through the bible. There is a very disturbing lack of accountability for one’s actions because one can rationalize them. If for some reason one couldn’t then there was always the fact that you were forgiven for your sins anyhow as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Then, there is the hamstering. I have heard untold Christians tell me: “It was a bad church you went to!” “Not all Christians are like that!” “You’re not really forgiven if you still do evil things like they did, they have to TRULY repent and change!” Do you hear the strains of NAWALT?
    It is actually a tougher road to shun the bible and hold yourself accountable for all of your actions. To truly think of the impact that your actions have on self and others. No one thinks for you and no one is present to forgive your shortcomings. One must develop a personal code to abide by, this is far more qualitative than following a singular book. If I were to stand in front of God today, I would have no fear because I would stand and take accountability for every action that I ever took… Good, bad, and ugly. I wonder how many Christians if they stood in front of God would have a bible in their hands saying: “I was justified, I was right! It says so right here, let me explain it to you!”
    Just because there is red-pill wisdom in the bible, does not mean it is a good book to follow. The same goes for the Qur’an and other religious texts. It is far too easy for men to rationalize the terrible things that they do through these texts. Red-pill wisdom can be found everywhere and in just about any piece of ancient literature that you read. Because red-pill truisms are an essential fabric of our existence and can be observed and noted.
    Reason, logic, and reflection are all a man truly needs.

      1. I’m afraid I’m not sure how to respond to that. Human beings as a whole are violent creatures. It does not matter whether a group believes in God or not, that group is capable of mass murder. Whether it’s Atheists, Christians, Ancient Romans, Fascists etc… It comes down to the individual level… you must make a conscious, individual choice that you are not going to succumb to your baser instincts.

        1. State sponsored group think is the same as church group think. The individual lowers himself to the pool of the collective. The group is never a greater mind or body politic but rather a dysfunctional motley assembly without a conscience of their own. The individual submerged into the group think surrenders his autonomous conscience and the collective group is no greater than any one individual member prior to falling in. The zero point is always the same. ZERO. That’s why church or state drones when given the green light will club their neighbors brains in with a club during a crusade campaign or throw their own mother into a boiling cook pot or abort their young. Their first fallacy is to pedestalize the church or state. Thereafter any dictate gives motive to the individual to act with surrogate justification while their conscience is overridden by the group think.

    2. History has proven that even though man is a violent animal, those tendencies are better controlled under the framework of religion. Atheist regimes have only begotten death and destruction wherever they were applied, even today godless countries are amongst the nations with the lowest birthrates.
      No theocracy has killed as many people as communism, even the French Revolution broke the records in cruelty and body count. Whether you like it or not, atheism and nihilism are the best tools to rationalize any anti-social behaviour. And don’t be a fool, Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere is godless and has been for a long long time.

      1. I admit you have me at a loss here. I am not familiar enough with the differences in body count of atheist and religious societies. Though I am aware of the low birthrate in Godless societies.
        Still you can’t discount the body count that religion has brought either. Just because it happens to be less than the Godless socieities does not make it right…
        There are too many folks that believe they have to pick one or the other. So they do their best to pick the one that they believe has less bodies associated with it. Or more justice. Or a better lifestyle. This is lazy. It’s easier to rationalize your bad choices by saying there is no God, or that God has forgiven you already. It’s much harder to actually change what you are doing.
        Developing your moral code should be really difficult. Every decision should be made with the awareness that you are fully accountable. Your belief system should be rigorously tested throughout your life.

        1. atheist societies bodycounts:
          Mao Tse Tung’s communism: 60 million killed during the ‘great progressive leap forward’ of dispossessing landowners.
          Stalin’s Atheistic Communism: 40 million killed during the ‘great progressive leap forward’ into Lysenkoism, disposessing landowners.
          Hitler’s socialist Germany: 30 million killed during his ‘great leap forward’. (Note, the Nazi Party abandoned religion in 1913, despite atheist claims that Nazis were Catholic… complete bullshit)
          Pol Pot: Cambodia, “Enlightened communism” again driving turning city folk into farmers and farmers into city folk. murdered between 1 and 3 million peasants and political opponents. “great progressive leap forward”
          Kim Il Sung: same as pol pot, communist, atheist, asian. similar death toll in korea.
          There’s a host of smaller dictators that have murdered tens of thousands, but to REALLY murder millions, you have to be atheist and socialist. Kings, religious dictators, and military dictators are really only able to kill on a small scale… it takes divorcing yourself from any sort of deific morality in order to REALLY commit atrocities.

        2. What happens is that in the real world, only a handful of people can theoretically can develop a ethos able to ensure a peaceful and productive co-existence. Even now as we speak I can assure the ethic system you develop is at least partly based on the Christian teachings since that construct (the Christian morality) underpins almost all thought systems in the Western world. The only way you would develop something original is if you lose your memory completely and start from zero.
          Even now in our godless societies, though withered and divorced from any form of traditional spirituality as it is, concepts like due process and ethics are still based on Christian principles. As those principles are being uprooted, pieces of “great thought” like this are becoming commonplace http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

          Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

        3. If you’re going to do the body count game then you have to consider the fact that the modern weapon technology that these atheists had available to them was far superior to what the crusaders had.
          But even still science shows that the most deaths throughout history were commited by religious.This includes primitive tribal populations (who are also spiritual/religious.)
          Modern humans arose around 100kya and were living as these primitive tribes today live until about 10kya.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IhhK-foddE

        4. Bullshit. most deaths throughout history were caused by misadventure. ‘deaths by religion’ are a farce. The crusaders were not fighting for religion, they were fighting punitive raids against muslim slavers who kept adventuring into their lands, with an official papal sanction so they wouldn’t go to hell for killing moors.
          Even modern day islamic extremists are not fighting for religion. They are fighting for glory and because of the fact that most of them will never know what the inside of a woman feels like. Excess male population is always disposable and ready to die and kill for a chance at pussy, even imaginary pussy. Cloaking it in religion is an easy way to scare us westerners and gain moral sanction.
          Even Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with religion. It was about making a statement to their new slaves that disrespect will not be tolerated.
          That old ‘most deaths are caused by religion’ canard is a trip, repeated verbatim by every retard that thinks quoting atheist talking points makes them some sort of intellectual.
          Okay, Genius, so, if you are so smart that you don’t need God, Why don’t you explain the real reason behind the ‘dark ages’? Let me give you a hint… it had nothing to do with religion.

        5. Hitler and Stalin were not fighting/killing for Atheism either. The argument here is who have killed more people, Atheists or believers. I’ve provided the empirical data that ends this discussion and you have provided your ridiculus opinion. No need to waste anymore time on this.
          Now to answer your question, the dark ages was caused by Europeans adopting the element of another racial groups culture at the expense of their own (kinda like we are still doing today.) That element being Christianity from the semetic culture. Eventually abandoning the European culture element of science, reason and logic and making it heresy to continue any of these disciplines that was contrary to Christian dogma.
          I find it quite humorous that you consider yourself a red pill man yet sill believe in the ghost in the machine, sky and worship the Jew a stick. LOL!

        6. Incorrect. The ‘Dark ages’ was begun by mass human migration, and continued through a near depopulation of Europe caused by invasion and plagues.
          But, you liberals and your love for ‘spinning the truth’.
          You have provided exactly zero data of any sort, and claiming you have and then ‘won the internets’ is retarded. I suggest you go back to huffpo where ‘evidence’ of that sort is still supported.
          I never claimed to be Christian. I simply recognize it’s importance to western culture, and what lack of a defining moral characteristic means to civilization. Frankly, without hell there is no reason not to act like a monster.

        7. The reason I asked the question, in case you hadn’t noticed, was to discover exactly how deeply you were enmeshed into the anti-civilization movement… based on your response, it seems you are so heavily invested in the cult of egalitarianism that further discussion with yuou is utterly irrelevant. You are an entryist and a shill.

        8. So religion advances civilization. Of course, this is why most of the middle east is living in the stone age.
          ‘egalitarian’ projects the man who fights for the survival of the semetic meme of Christianity.
          ‘Frankly, without hell there is no reason not to act like a monster.’
          I’ll let the other viewers have fun with this one.

        9. Byzantines. Scholars and Classicists pretty much reject the term “Dark Ages” and Edward Gibbon.

        10. Most wars in history were not originated by religious differences. The reasons were in most cases resource scarcity (fertile lands, gold, wealth, ambition and greed), and sometimes unsustainable feedback loops that without war would collapse on their own (excess male population + polygamy=eternal wars of conquest). Only a few were for religion, (Islamic conquest and the backlash in the form of Crusades and other punitive expeditions, the Northern Crusades, the Arab raids in Africa etc.)
          However what made the bloodthirsty regimes of the 20th century different was the fact that they tried directly to brainwash the populations innermost beliefs and Weltanschauung, something not even most kings tried to do. Not only they tried to change the religion of their subjects (from whatever they believed to atheism) but tried to change human nature itself (work for the collective, your bloodline and even your life are meaningless, you are the proletariat blablabla)

          Now to answer your question, the dark ages was caused by Europeans adopting the element of another racial groups culture at the expense of their own (kinda like we are still doing today.) That element being Christianity from the semetic culture. Eventually abandoning the European culture element of science, reason and logic and making it
          heresy to continue any of these disciplines that was contrary to Christian dogma.

          Is simply amazing how ignorant people is when they really strive to, since the means to educate oneself beyond the Elementary school indoctrination curricula are there. Based on your theory, I should be going on my flying car manufactured in Borneo by the people of that place right. As other have already posted, barbarian invasions, mass pillage and a general collapse of the rule of law was the reason behind the Middle Ages. If anything the Monasteries preserved all they could from Rome and Greece, moreover in those times when distractions such as science were dangerous (not because the Church but because without permanent standing armies, your city was always on the danger of being overrun by barbarians, lines of commerce disrupted by bandits and a long etcetera).
          The Catholic Church virtually resurrected the love of Science. Nikolaus von Kues amongst many others advanced the sciences and produced the knowledge necessary for the rise of Calculus later on (even Newton declared that he was “standing on the Shoulder of giants” in reference to his work)

        11. Hitler used whatever means at his disposal including faith to push for his agenda. To say or imply he was a person of faith however is dubious at best. Stalin on the other hand was a staunch atheist who supported anti religious policies that oppressed people of faith under his regime.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
          You didn’t “end’ anything with your submission , and your arrogance there is disturbing.
          I find it amusing that you choose to equate the dark ages with Christianity when the renaissance included Christianity as a source and historians Edward Lindberg and David Grant have written articles that argue that the medieval period has been unjustly branded as a time of wanton supersticion and unreason.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Grant
          “I find it quite humorous that you consider yourself a red pill man yet sill believe in the ghost in the machine, sky and worship the Jew a stick. LOL!”
          With the exception of the anonymous trolls, most everyone else here respects the religious views of others despite their own atheist beliefs. Then there’s guys like you, an arrogant antitheist who mocks and ridicules people who don’t believe in the same faith that you do. (the faith of no faith)
          You are just as much a troll as them. You possess very little red pill understanding because you’re operating under the influence of chronic arrogance made possible by a blue pill intellectual narcissism.
          Get lost…this site deserves better than people like you.

        12. Posting an opinion from a self professed atheist hardly ends the debate on which philosophy has caused more death in the world. It’s the equvalent of asking a muslim which religions is the best to join lol
          http://www.salon.com/2007/10/15/pinker_goldstein/
          For the record, most atrocities have been committed under atheist/antitheist (in name or defined by action) regimes which oppressed people in general and otherwise subverted religious expression specifically and worse. This happened here in the US as well when the US government passed the “agricultural adjustment act” which was pushed to keep market prices up but had the “unintended” effect of creating pockets of famine with historians speculation that it led to the deaths of millions of American citizens. This was created under democrat president FDR and under a government which you would be hard pressed to call “religious” at the time, given its structure and policy. Read more about it, starting here:
          http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/crops_17.html
          “Democide” is the term that was popularized by scientist RJ Rummel as a means of indicating instances where a government acted to create policy designed to murder their populations for specific reasons.
          Even if you want to argue the token argument that religion is just as pernicious as non faith based governments (by mentioning islam) the problem lies with the fact that you can only cite Islam as the violent faith that supports the “religious = genocidal” argument with any real justification. Can you list any other modern day faiths that push for the murder of non believers and possess considerable numbers to rightfully consider them a threat?
          Even today antitheist or antitheist by application governments continue to persecute Christians from one degree to another, such as the UK with its anti religious speech laws and China with its blatant anti faith policies. Both of these are but two examples of how worldwide those who subscribe to atheism or possess an antitheist position are waging war against those of faith using the mechanism of weaponized government whenever and wherever they gain an initial foothold in government.
          To conclude: you can clearly see even today that despite the existence of Islam, there are more countries waging war against faith (in hot and cold fashions) that are doing so not because of faith, but because of a hatred against it.
          Your views on the subject of faith leads me to believe you would be no different if you held influence in these types of governments.

        13. “So religion advances civilization. Of course, this is why most of the middle east is living in the stone age.”
          Red herring statement. The US itself was founded on JudeoChristian principles which helped form the foundations for modern law today, such as biblical condemnations against perjury, theft, murder, and even once upon a time adultery and homosexuality.
          Get a clue junior…you’re not as informed as you think.

        14. Well if it isn’t the guy that like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Or perhaps your cognitive dissonance forces you too.
          What red herring? if it wasn’t their religion holding them back then what was it? You don’t need Christianity to form civilizations with law and order.
          The argument here is who have killed more people, atheists or believers. The video I posted wasn’t opinion, it was the presentation of scientific data on the matter. You haven’t provided anything to counter it either.
          If you’re so informed then why do you still cling to believing in creation fairytales that don’t have one shred of evidence to support them? ‘Red Pill’ essencially means Truth and discarding BS.Yet you prefer to believe in BS (Chistianity/creationism) over truth and have the nerve to call other people arrogant???
          Sure there are parts of the Bible that give good moral guidance yet at the same time their are parts that would be considered immoral. (i.e. slavery.)
          Calling Atheism a faith is like calling the fact that you don’t believe in Santa Claus a ‘faith.’

        15. No i don’t like to argue, i prefer to intellectually debate in a civilized fashion except in instances where i’m addressing shameless ignorance dressed up in the pomp of intellectual superiority. No wonder i seek out your remarks for special scrutiny like a dung beetle seeks out the nearest piece of shit…you satisfy me in that regard.
          “What red herring? if it wasn’t their religion holding them back then what was it? You don’t need Christianity to form civilizations with law and order.”
          You are using one instance of extreme religion (Islam) to try and invalidate them all. As i said, red herring.
          “The argument here is who have killed more people, atheists or believers. The video I posted wasn’t opinion, it was the presentation of scientific data on the matter. You haven’t provided anything to counter it either.”
          The point is moot when one considers (according to your verbiage) that atheists are operating on a similar zealotry which allows them to “believe” their non faith as superior to those of faith.
          Atheism as it’s commonly defined by those most vocal in practicing it is the seinfeld religion aka the religion about nothing that militant a(nti)theists use to try and push their worldview as the dominant one, irrespective of the FACT that they have no legitimate proof to invalidate religion as a whole or the existence of God specifically. Their targets almost always focus on judeoChrisitanity which makes a person wonder if they have issue with all of faith or just that one in particular because of its prominence in the US.
          Given my remarks i have already shown you where and why atheists would be far more likely to commit atrocities than those of faith. Whereas Islam is like a lightning rod for criticism, governments that operate on non faith or anti faith based initiatives manage to escape the same kind of exacting scrutiny; no surprise there since militant atheists are the ones doing the arrogant scrutinizing.
          “If you’re so informed then why do you still cling to believing in creation fairytales that don’t have one shred of evidence to support them? ‘Red Pill’ essencially means Truth and discarding BS.Yet you prefer to believe in BS (Chistianity/creationism) over truth and have the nerve to call other people arrogant???”
          No shred of evidence? Perhaps you should actually read the thing you so willingly scorn.
          For instance: The bible talks about how you need matter and light before the plants, and plants before the animals, and animals before the people. If you are at all familiar with the basics of science, you understand that this process is logical and necessary in that exact order for life to exist…not bad for a book of superstitions…right?
          Or maybe you could explain how the bible writer of Isaiah 40:22 was able to deduce that the earth was round decades before Plato began teaching the same in his schools of higher thought?
          Oh wait let me guess…”dumb luck”…right?
          You think you have me pegged but the truth is far from what passes for your understanding. I was an atheist in my youth so i understand your iconoclastic nature far better than you do my pious one. It’s why i can so easily address your religious antipathy…I’ve encountered it before and always using the same tired banality.
          “Sure there are parts of the Bible that give good moral guidance yet at the same time their are parts that would be considered immoral. (i.e. slavery.)”
          The bible didn’t condone slavery, it listed examples of slavery that were forced on those of faith and instances of what could be considered a “voluntary servitude” that would last for a period of 7 years, upon which the person was set free. This is no different from what you and i understand a modern day butler or maid to be…they were referred to as bondsmen. What you and i consider actual slavery is what the Pharoahs subjected the hebrews to and the bible presents no similar instance on Hebrews doing the same to others.
          “Calling Atheism a faith is like calling the fact that you don’t believe in Santa Claus a ‘faith.’”
          Atheism is a faith when self professed atheists operate on a BELIEF that CANNOT deny the existence of God.
          If you can’t disprove something in the lab, you cannot intellectually disprove it outside the lab. Any attempt to do so on behalf of those who claim to be the sole proprietors of logic and reason ends up becoming the secular equivalent of religious fervor and the perfect definition of hypocrisy.
          But by all means…PROVE to me that there is no God and i will denounce my faith immediately.

    3. So then because modern Americans have destroyed the Representative Republic of the Founding Fathers does that mean a Representative Republic is a false ideal?
      Any office, any institution, society, group can be corrupted and opened to abuse. Christ and St. John the Baptist spent a good portion of their preaching lambasting the hypocrisy and abuses of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

      1. It means that the Representative Republic is just that: An ideal. To trust that a Republic is unshakeable and incorruptible is folly. To believe that you can take an ideal and make it reality with no issues is also folly. This is proven out by modern Americans, as you say. So then when folks still say the Representative Republic is still the best form of government the world has seen and then say it’s the people that have screwed it up! That points to a very irrational way of thinking. The fact is: even though it started out great, it becomes unreasonable to participate in, and idealize, a form of government as corrupt. The key thing though? We recognize that it is corrupt and no longer to our benefit to participate in what was once an ideal, so we can work to fix it.
        I think what you are asking me is, in essence: because modern Christians have destroyed the true representation of the bible and the teachings of Christ, does that mean that the bible and the teachings of Christ are not worth following? My response to that is: the bible and the teachings of Christ started out as a great moral ideal, but the corruption has made it a very irrational and unreasonable thing to participate in and idealize. The key difference between this and your above point? The bible is believed to be infallible. Which allows people to believe that their interpretation of it is infallible. Which makes fighting immorality and corruption impossible.

        1. Exactly, in the Old Testament has instances where God raised up prophets to correct His people because of corruption. The New Testament has Christ and St. John the Baptist speaking truth to power.
          People are assholes, that is a given. The details are up to debate. Just today I have been dealing with some holier-than-thou traditional Catholics. I hear what you are saying, I am a lapsed Catholic because I can’t stand other dissident Catholics.
          In traditional Catholic teaching it is understood that man’s interpretation is fallible. This is considered a constant that is why the Church got into studying and preserving philosophy, the study of ancient languages, and developing scholasticism.

        2. Interesting… I did not know that traditional Catholicism believed that man’s interpretation of the bible is fallible. Do they believe that the Bible itself is fallible, being written by men after all? How do you glean anything divine from something believed to be fallible in it’s interpretation?
          As an aside, I really like the new Pope. Some controversial stuff there, but he seems extremely kind and loving towards people.

        3. The new pope is nothing more than a PC mouthpiece. Of course you like him, he is there to be liked, not to be the prime interpreter for god.
          The last pope had spine. Too bad his patronage was so short.

        5. The technical term is the “inspired word” of God, the writers are human and they write with the thoughts, feelings, and words of their time and place, but the principles and truths are eternal. But it not to be taken that God is dictating word for word what is in the text. And that is as far as I am qualified to expound on this.
          An off hand example is in the early Church, the Doctors of the Church wondered why the taking of the Holy Land was so savage. They answer they gave was: it was how they fought at the time.
          A better place to start is with the Four Senses of Scripture: the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical:
          This is a decent place to start. http://marikablogs.blogspot.com/2009/05/aquinas-on-four-senses-of-scripture.html
          I am more expert on the cultural and historical traditions of the Church not theological. But I can say that the Medieval interest in epistemology (the science of knowing) laid the ground work the modern scientific method.
          As far as the Popes, I hate Church politics. Sedevacantist vs. SSPX vs. Novus Ordo vs. Strict interpretation SSPX vs. Jurisdictional Latin Mass Catholics…

        7. Well that brings a whole host of questions to mind, but I think I’ll simply start with your link and work my way from there. I appreciate the response!

        8. No problem, just one caveat, be leary of anything associated with the Brothers Diamond.

        10. Oh fuck here we go.
          Shake and bake theologians and mail order cannon lawyers screeching and throwing shit at the computer screen like a bunch of sperg bird monkeys on exlax. And not a word of Latin wording among them.
          Listen give it a rest for the sake of the unintiated and reaffirm that the only time the pope is infallible is when promulgating doctrine ex cathedra.

        11. “Shake and bake theologians and mail order cannon lawyers screeching and throwing shit at the computer screen like a bunch of sperg bird monkeys on exlax. And not a word of Latin wording among them.
          “Listen give it a rest for the sake of the unintiated and reaffirm that the only time the pope is infallible is when promulgating doctrine ex cathedra.”
          You Latins and your legalisms.

        12. I don’t need to speak Latin to understand “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and how the rejection of this simple, yet fundamental dogma has undone the organized Catholicism from within, took away its proselytism spirit and the very vitality that was main factor behind its success as a civilizational force in the West and wherever it went. If Christianity is one more acceptable way to reach God and even an Atheist or a protestant can be saints (Francis statements, not mine), then why bother. Just saying…
          P.S. Based on that simple test, practically all popes since VII were heretics…

    4. “Views hardened when I was subject to personal attacks for standing up for what I believed to be right.”
      And what would that be exactly? That’s a pretty important detail to leave out from your narrative, if you be not ashamed of it.
      “There is a very disturbing lack of accountability for one’s actions because one can rationalize them. If for some reason one couldn’t then there was always the fact that you were forgiven for your sins anyhow as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your savior.”
      “Once Saved, Always Saved” is unique to (some but not all) Protestantism. Before about 500 years ago, everyone was pretty clear on the idea that if you were willfully committing serious sins, and died in your sins, not having repented, that you were serious risk of being damned for eternity.

      1. I did not think it mattered. The key point was the disagreement with my views leading to being shunned. I have mentioned it in my comments before, to make a long story short: My girlfriend at the time had an abusive Father. Over the two years I knew her it became clear to me that he was verbally and mentally abusing her. Fear was her constant companion. Slowly, but surely I watched a vibrant girl become a shadow of her former self. Skittish as a colt. I spoke about this with her best friend who’s Father was a pastor of the church. The pastor knew my ex’s Father as well. All of her friends, including her best friend, and those that I considered friends told me that they agreed that something needed doing because they had watched the same deterioration in my ex.
        When I discussed it with the pastor he made it very clear that he was not going to interfere in what he considered to be in her Father’s domain firstly because there is no physical abuse and secondly because the bible gives the Father absolute power over his children. I disagreed. Eventually I found out from the pastor’s daughter that he was afraid that my ex’s Father would challenge him publicly and he did not want to deal with it. I watched all of those same friends who encouraged me to do something turn away with mumbles of “It probably was not abuse after all.” They also stopped speaking to me. I also watched my ex girlfriend rationalize that it must have been her that was wrong all along, that perhaps this is just how Fathers are, she said this completely defeated, sobbing, and constantly like repetition would make it true. Soon after she was gone from my life and I left the church.
        Over the next couple of years I went back and forth. Was I wrong? Was I right? Was it blown out of proportion? Was it not? The Father has absolute power over family, as the bible says, but it was obvious to most involved that a human being was being affected in a horrible way. I should have gone straight to her Father and confronted him directly, but every single person involved, including the daughter, the pastor, the best friend, etc… told me that was the wrong thing to do.
        At the end it came down to this: I don’t believe in inflicting any kind of pain on another human being, be it physical or emotional. Therefore, based on my own moral code it was wrong. Perhaps based on the Christian views it was not wrong, but ultimately I have to live with myself and I could not live within a system that I disagreed with on moral grounds.
        Many Christians have tried to tell me that I was wrong, or that that church was wrong, but it does not matter. I know where my morals lie, I know how I want to live my life so that at my deathbed I have no cause for regrets. I know how to live my life in a way that I can look at myself in the mirror every morning and see a good man looking back.

  17. King David’s kingdom started on its downward spiral because of his fooling around with Bathsheba, and the subsequent coverup by murdering her husband.
    King Solomon ended up losing his way with God because he was more concerned about the pursuit of women than he was with staying close to God.

  19. Wisdom from the bible has always been underestimated and denounced by pseudo-intellectual athiest liberals/marxists and the satanic pop culture.
    Colossians 2:18- Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord
    Ephesians 5:23- For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body and is himself its Savior.
    Deutoronomy 22:5-A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a
    woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.
    “A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will
    fear the Lord.” (Eccles.26:25)
    “The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy
    daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself
    through overmuch liberty.” (Eccles. 26:9-10)

    1. So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she had hidden him.” 2 Kings 6:29

    3. Corintians 1 – 14:34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]

      1. I get so pissed off when women are speaking at my church. A Roman Catholic Church too, some not faggy protestant bullshit with homo pastors and gay marriages. Christianity has it right – its the administration thats getting it wrong. Muslims don’t deviate like this

        1. If they don’t want to follow the rules, quit and join another club. Or start your own.
          If Catholics would follow the “no birth control” rule, they would outbreed the Muzzies.

        2. In Conservative anabaptist churches (mennonites, amish, huterites) it’s entirely different. There are options out there, you just have to be willing to seek truth.

    5. you create a picture of church that is less common than and more alien to me than actual aliens.

  20. Sorry, as much as I believe in the teachings I had to sadly walk away. I found the churches teachings to be grossly inconsistent with what is in the bible. For instance, we are told by the church that we are suppose to have 1 woman, marry her and then have sex with her afterwards. And that you should not have pre-martial sex because Jesus implies there should be no divorce allowed and that whoever you first have sex with you spirit is united with.
    However, when we look at the bible and of the prophets who god chose and who are held in high regard by the jews. We find men like king solomon with hundreds of wives, concubines, and presumably girlfriends and other women they have sex with. Yet these men presumably make it into heaven.
    Now throw on the fact that finding a virgin over 18 is slim picking and finding in her 20s in near impossible. No matter what as a man you’d be damned under such a rule. According to the churches own rules, if you sleep with a woman who slept with someone else first it is adultery. So no matter what, even if you wait and find a girl in her late 20s who slept around in college it is no worse than if you slept with a bunch of different girls. You won’t be able to comply with their rules because there are no virigins for you to marry.

    1. However, when we look at the bible and of the prophets who god chose and who are held in high regard by the jews. We find men like king solomon with hundreds of wives, concubines, and presumably girlfriends and
      other women they have sex with. Yet these men presumably make it into
      heaven.

      Monogamy was adopted for practical reasons. If polygamy had continued, the West would be the middle east. There is no way around that.

      Now throw on the fact that finding a virgin over 18 is slim picking and
      finding in her 20s in near impossible. No matter what as a man you’d be
      damned under such a rule.

      By the way what do you propose? Marry proven sluts knowing that no matter how alpha you are they are not giving you her best? Ignore the saying “you cannot turn a whore into a housewive” at your own peril. Sorry but I fear there are no easy solutions.

      1. Never contract your marriage with the state and never let your faith be policed and regulated by the state which is what you are doing by participating in a state approved church. Try ‘overpreaching’ red pill power points in any state church and you likely will be surrounded by its ‘blue cell’ pro state protectorate immune system. Try negotiating a dowery with the dad of the young virgin church hottie with loyal wide hips and ferrari baby machine screaming at your soul from behind her dress and the church hens and biddies have you crucified like Senator Packwood. You can’t win in a state church. Old bitches do as much if not more damage running the operational posts in any house of worship as they would sticking their noses into government positions and politics.

        1. Time was, the only running they’d do was to get pies to the bake sale on time.

      2. Monogamy was a Roman custom. How is it any more practical? And how would the west be the middle east. You realize the middle east was much better off than europe for most of the last 2000 years. Heck even the Turks were much more advanced and colonized europe and greece. I don’t see why polygamy would have any adverse effects on the west.
        I am not ignoring the saying, simply showing why it is impossible to avoid whores at this point for most western men. It is impossible for most men to have sex with virgins in today’s world.. So if it is true sleeping with non-virgins =adultery, then almost all christian men will be destined into being adulterous not by choice but by force because of women.

        1. Monogamy was a Roman custom. How is it any more practical? And how
          would the west be the middle east. You realize the middle east was much
          better off than europe for most of the last 2000 years. Heck even the
          Turks were much more advanced and colonized europe and greece. I don’t
          see why polygamy would have any adverse effects on the west.

          In regards to polygamy I already answered the question in the comment above. Polygamy is only practical when there is a high male mortality, otherwise is a time bomb. In reference to the Middle East do you realize that Europe surpassed the ME centuries ago (in the late 1600s) after Constantinople. Do you realize that the Islamic empire civilization was advanced mostly by their robbery of knowledge from the west, the Byzantine empire and the Levant (former domain of the Greco-Roman civilization) and that Arabic science advanced in spite of Islam and polygamy not because of them?

        2. Most of Europe did not pass the Ottomans in the 1600’s, the Ottoman’s were raiding and controlling most of east europe and enslaving whites from greece to iceland during the 1600s in the barbary slave trade.
          It wasn’t until the late 1800s it started to decline and it was not surpassed by europeans until industrialization hit britain, and france and those countries were able to modernize in the 1800s. As for islam, it seemed to be well connected to advancing civilizations. After all, I don’t see many secular states of note arising in these regions.
          What about the mormons, they practice polygamy, isn’t it practical if you just marry off the girls younger than the boys? Also women liv elonger than men on average so it shouldn’t be too hard to maintain.

        3. Seems you conflate territorial extension with superiority. Since the 1680s the Ottomans were on the wane, basically after the failed siege of Vienna. Never again they could threaten Western Europe. You should read the history of the Holy German Empire and how after that siege, they could get to Belgrade and the Balcans. Basically the tide turned and in the 1700 all the Turks could do in the Western fronts was to withdraw. In the 1800s the decline was in terminal state and was thus called the sick man of Europe.
          Signs of the decline were already observed when Süleyman the Great died (16th century) when their inability to win Malta and later beat the Spanish Empire in the battle of Lepanto shattered their absolute domination of the Mediterranean,but the decline turned severe in the late 17th century
          Mormons. You want to extrapolate what one sect (who has the freedom to expel the “excess” boys from the community into a saner society) do into a whole social system? Look the Middle East already shows why polygamy doesn’t work unless 30% of males die in war. What part do you not understand?

        4. The name of the ‘Mormon’ church is the Church of the Latter Day Saints. It has been over 100 years since the church itself decreed no more polygamy.
          There are small break away churches which separated from the main church so they could continue with polygamy. They have a different name, often including the word Fundamentalist or something similar.

      3. Please explain how “if polygamy had continued, the West would be the middle east.”
        The Middle East is one of the few places on earth where men can marry virgins.

        1. The Middle East is a dysfunctional place. Polygamy only works when there is a high male mortality. Otherwise you will always have a bulge of unmarriageable young men whose low status will bar them from family life. In ancient times these “disposable” men were perfect and were the bread and butter of the Islamic empires (win a few war brides in the holy war or die for Allah and have 72 virgins for you). Of course their motivation to go to war will always be high.
          Nowadays, the excess of men is causing serious trouble and since there is no surplus of women, the extremist groups are having a field day recruiting the rejected of their respective societies, hence the lure of ISIS and why it has proven so dangerous to the “nations” of the Middle East. Even without war other pathologies have risen. After all “goatfuckers” and “boylovers” are stereotypes that didn´t come from ether my friend…

    2. Christ answered this question, His answer was “because your hearts are hard.” And the answer for today with promiscuity is: you always get what is coming to you. Take it how you want.
      From a purely natural ideal stand point, monogamy works. Males and females are born in about equal numbers, pairing up every available number leads to stable sustainable growth patterns: e.g. the Amish who double their numbers every couple of decades, and- to satisfy you overpopulation alarmists- whose families have a smaller carbon footprint than a single urbanite female.
      Married men with children have a vested interest in the society. Intersocial conflict is kept to a minimum.

        1. “Wars” during the Neolithic period probably did not involve high fatalities, in fact through most the bronze age warfare was a specialist game in the Ancient Near East.

    3. “However, when we look at the bible and of the prophets who god chose and who are held in high regard by the jews. We find men like king solomon with hundreds of wives, concubines, and presumably girlfriends and other women they have sex with. Yet these men presumably make it into heaven.”
      Just because the bible lists it, doesn’t mean the bible condones it.
      These kings fell prey to their own desires, and not coincidentally ended up being punished by God. David and Solomon were just two examples.
      This is the equivalent of considering a US history textbook of being in favor of slavery simply because it mentions it.
      Nowhere did God say a man or king was meant to have mutiple wives…that was ALL man.

        1. He didn’t verbatim, but in EVERY example where He or Jesus spoke about Marriage it was always with the 1/1 male/female ratio.
          These kings which the hebrews desired because of their inability to lead themselves through scripture became fans of themselves over God, and started doing things which displeased God, including having multiple wives.
          Moses for his part addressed this: “Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”
          Nathan rebuked David for his many ungodly actions, upto and including the taking of Bathsheba for a Wife.
          Just because the bible mentions Hebrew Kings having multiple Wives and God not killing them for it, it doesn’t mean that God was ok with it.
          Put it this way: A parent doesn’t necessarily punish a child severely for every bad thing, because some things a parent doesn’t mention to the child as being bad beforehand. The parent will usually address it with a warning. Deep down the parent is disappointed because he or she hoped the child would refrain from doing those bad things anyway out of love and respect.
          God sent Nathan to rebuke Daniel for his many indiscretions, having multiple wives was just one of them.

        2. Moses had multiple wives. And you are misinterpreting the text.
          “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”
          Here it is saying do not have TOO many wives so that you turn away from God. And do not have too much gold and
          silver so that you turn away from god. He is not saying do not have more than 1 wife or more than 1 piece of gold. He is saying do not let it become an obession where you just want to have 3000 wives and 3000 pieces of gold.
          Nathan rebuked david because bathsheba relationship was adulterous and outside of marriage, not because she was a wife of his.
          At the time of jESUS many jews were in polygamous relations and Jesus did not forbid them nor say they were not permitted.
          There is no evidence that any biblical character was ever “rebuked” for having a polygamous marriage. Although there is evidence of God warning them not to be obsessed with them. But God warns us not to obsess with money, but that doesn’t mean we should have more than $1 or 1 gold coin. ir even a bag of money or a bag of gold coin.

        3. “Moses had multiple wives. And you are misinterpreting the text.”
          I’m “misinterpreting” it? Scriptural citation, please.
          “Here it is saying do not have TOO many wives so that you turn away from God. And do not have too much gold and”
          I disagree. You are inserting the word “too” to indicate that a plurality of wives is acceptable when the verse is indicating or implying no such thing. It is implying that he shouldn’t have wives at all, given that they are likely to turn his heart away from God.
          Nothing in your follow up to that is backed up by scripture. That is your hermeneutical interpretation alone unless you can provide scriptural evidence to support it.
          “Nathan rebuked david because bathsheba relationship was adulterous and outside of marriage, not because she was a wife of his.”
          That was a part of it, but as i said it wasn’t just that. There was treachery and deceit involved as well as the adultery that David committed. The deceit is spoken of in 2 Samuel 12:12 “For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”
          “At the time of Jesus many jews were in polygamous relations and Jesus did not forbid them nor say they were not permitted.”
          Red herring. As i said, just because the bible lists it, it doesn’t mean the bible (God) condones it.
          Furthermore and again as i said before: Jesus only used the one man/woman paradigm when talking about marriage…if He was really ok with polygamy, wouldn’t he have mentioned it in his many words on the subject?
          Let me list for you all the verses where Christ speaks about Marriage…see if you notice a pattern.
          Wife:
          Mat_5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
          Mat_5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
          Mat_18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
          Mat_19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
          Mat_19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
          Mat_19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
          Mar_10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
          Mar_10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
          Mar_10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
          Luk_14:20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
          Luk_14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
          Luk_16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
          Luk_17:32 Remember Lot’s wife.
          Luk_18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake,
          Mark 10:11 and 29 are especially profound, because here (verse 11) Jesus is talking about how simply Marrying another Woman after having already been Married (except in the instance of fornication) is adultery in the eyes of the Lord. In verse 29 Jesus uses many plurals in his example EXCEPT when it came to a Father, Mother AND Wife….why didn’t Jesus use the plural form of “wives” if He was indeed ok with polygamy? The answer is because polygamy was not ok with God and it was therefore not spiritually ok with Jesus to validate as legitimate for the common Man through His teachings.
          God allowed it but it didn’t mean he was ok with it, since He had plans for the kings involved that required a certain patience with their moral shortcomings.
          Jesus used only 2 verses when speaking about Wives, and both of them used in the plural context (more than one Man involved):
          Mat_19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
          Luk_17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
          Again, Jesus in no way speaks about polygamy being ok.
          “There is no evidence that any biblical character was ever “rebuked” for having a polygamous marriage.”
          Not specifically but as i listed with Nathan, that was a part of it…after all, there is no commandment indicating that a Man should do as Adam and Eve did, yet Christians understand that they sinned before the Lord.
          Not everything that God dislikes is listed in the bible…it’s the reason why cyber hacking wouldn’t be ok with God either 🙂

        4. “I disagree. You are inserting the word “too” to indicate that a plurality of wives is acceptable when the verse is indicating or implying no such thing. It is implying that he shouldn’t have wives at all, given that they are likely to turn his heart away from God.”
          -If we accept your interpretation, then we’d have to accept god doesn’t want us to have more than one piece of gold or one piece of silver or any money. So by that logic none of us should have money. Its a pretty silly way of interpreting it. The verse clearly demonstrates multiple money or wives is acceptable, just not too much. He is saying do not multiply wives so that your heart tturn away from God. If you can multiply wives and still not turn your heart away from god, that is permissible. If you have alot of money, but are still a good person, it is ok.
          “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”
          “Mat_19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
          So Jesus implicitly embraces plural marriages here. Because if you put away your wife with the exception of fornication and marry another does not commit adultery.
          “Mar_10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”
          Precisely, if you DIVORCE your wife and marry another you commit adultery. But it doesn’t say if you marry another it is adultery if you don’t divorce. Here the sin is divorce not multiple wives.
          Further the jewish law of yibbum which appears in deut and was repeated by moses and pops up in the new testament makes it clear a brother ought marry his brother’s widow. Thus multiple marriages would have been the norm as most of the brothers would already have been married if we are talking the typical adult jew family.
          Matthew 22
          “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25”
          “The requirement of yibbum was expected even if the surviving brother already had a wife, polygamy being an acceptable practice in the Torah.”
          http://www.blainerobison.com/hebroots/levirate.htm
          jews only stopped practicing polygam in europe around 1000 ad to stop being singled out by christians.
          “Over the centuries yibbum waned in favor in Judaism because it became associated with the practice of polygamy. About A.D. 1000 a rabbinic assembly convened by the Ashkenazi Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (960-1040) issued an edict prohibiting polygamy for a thousand years, thereafter known as “the ban of R. Gershom.” The ban of Gershom was adopted because of pressure from the predominant Christian culture, which viewed polygamy as barbaric. The concession did not ease antisemitism nor did it end Jewish polygamy.
          Sephardic Jewish communities in the Moslem countries of the East did not acknowledge Gershom’s edict. The famous 12th century Sephardic legal scholar, physician, and philosopher, Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) supported Talmudic tradition and reiterated laws regulating plural marriage in volume four of his Code called The Book of Women.”
          And cyber hacking is theft. The bible makes clear it approved of polygamy, no one said it was wrong. NONE. They forbid gambling and stealing and all manners of behaviour but never do they forbid having multiple wives, in fact in the case of your brother dying they tell you to marry his wife, even if you are already married.

        5. “-If we accept your interpretation, then we’d have to accept god doesn’t want us to have more than one piece of gold or one piece of silver or any money. So by that logic none of us should have money. Its a pretty silly way of interpreting it. The verse clearly demonstrates multiple money or wives is acceptable, just not too much. He is saying do not multiply wives so that your heart tturn away from God. If you can multiply wives and still not turn your heart away from god, that is permissible. If you have alot of money, but are still a good person, it is ok.”
          Not necessarily, since God never said that wealth was a sin. Money is not a sin, the LOVE of money is. A Man may have many riches and indeed, God directly granted this to kings like Solomon but he NEVER did so with Women as Wives…he simply ALLOWED the kings to have their Wives because he knew it’s what they wanted, but that doesn’t mean he was ok with it.
          “So Jesus implicitly embraces plural marriages here. Because if you put away your wife with the exception of fornication and marry another does not commit adultery.”
          How do you logically arrive at this conclusion? He is making ONE EXCEPTION to indicate when DIVORCE is ok…your logic here is fundamentally flawed. I question your interpretation of the texts.
          “Precisely, if you DIVORCE your wife and marry another you commit adultery. But it doesn’t say if you marry another it is adultery if you don’t divorce. Here the sin is divorce not multiple wives.”
          You are reading more into the text than the text is saying…the problem is, if you were correct then Jesus would have used multiple wives as an acceptable example in his teachings. Nowhere is what i am saying more apparent than in Matthew 19:29 which you conveniently refrained from addressing. I will repost it for you:
          Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
          Again, if you are correct, why didn’t Jesus include WIVES in his remarks here? Why did He ONLY use the singular for Wife, yet plural for most everything else?
          “Further the jewish law of yibbum which appears in deut and was repeated by moses and pops up in the new testament makes it clear a brother ought marry his brother’s widow. Thus multiple marriages would have been the norm as most of the brothers would already have been married if we are talking the typical adult jew family.”
          What the Jews did is not necessarily God ordained, I keep reminding you that just because the bible included it, it doesn’t mean God was ok with it. I believe Jesus addressed this when He spoke about the pharisees following the law on the surface but not in spirit.
          I keep asking you to use scripture to back up your claims about God/Jesus being ok with polygamy, but you seem reluctant to do so. Paraphrasing without citation is not the equivalent of scripture. Why is that?
          “”The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25”
          “The requirement of yibbum was expected even if the surviving brother already had a wife, polygamy being an acceptable practice in the Torah.”
          http://www.blainerobison.com/h…
          jews only stopped practicing polygam in europe around 1000 ad to stop being singled out by christians.”
          “Over the centuries yibbum waned in favor in Judaism because it became associated with the practice of polygamy. About A.D. 1000 a rabbinic assembly convened by the Ashkenazi Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (960-1040) issued an edict prohibiting polygamy for a thousand years, thereafter known as “the ban of R. Gershom.” The ban of Gershom was adopted because of pressure from the predominant Christian culture, which viewed polygamy as barbaric. The concession did not ease antisemitism nor did it end Jewish polygamy.
          Sephardic Jewish communities in the Moslem countries of the East did not acknowledge Gershom’s edict. The famous 12th century Sephardic legal scholar, physician, and philosopher, Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) supported Talmudic tradition and reiterated laws regulating plural marriage in volume four of his Code called The Book of Women.”
          So let me get this straight…you are saying God is ok with polygamy because the saducees were practicing it…the same people who along with the pharisees were united in their hatred for Jesus? I call strawman on that one. Where did Jesus say “yes, thou shall have more than one Wife?”
          I think your confusion here is equating what is acceptable in Jewish orthodoxy with what is/was acceptable in Christianity. Even though Christ was a Jew He was nonetheless betrayed by them because he exposed their hypocrisy and their man made beliefs they sought to pass off as scriptural. Polygamy may be acceptable today in Judaism and it may have been ok in the talmud and in their interpretation of the Torah for back then but scripture does not support this view as being GOD ORDAINED.
          I’m sure you already realize that the Torah includes much more than JUST the first five books…you mentioned Yibbum so i’m certain of that. I must remind you however that Jewish commentaries are NOT scriptural…the greatest fact that separates mainstream Judaism from mainstream Christianity is JESUS….so how then do you expect me to believe as factual that polygamy is ok in the bible past and present, when you can cite proof from only Jewish anecdotal commentaries? While we are on the subject, where does Deuteronomy say that polygamy is ok? Where does God say it?
          Copy pastying hermeneutical interpretations of scripture from jewish researchers doesn’t convince me of the validity of your argument.
          “And cyber hacking is theft. The bible makes clear it approved of polygamy, no one said it was wrong. NONE. They forbid gambling and stealing and all manners of behaviour but never do they forbid having multiple wives, in fact in the case of your brother dying they tell you to marry his wife, even if you are already married.”
          Not necessarily…a person may simply be hacking in to find out information about himself that is otherwise concealed. Like with polygamy however it is WRONG because God in no way would support something which goes against the law of Caesar AND more importantly, He did not specifically approve of verbatim. Whenever a gray area arises where we are uncertain whether a potential action is ok with God, we must take the spirit of the law into consideration, and not simply the letter.
          What verse says that you can take a wife with God’s blessing even if you already married? Post it for me.
          By the way, is Paul wrong here?
          “1Co_7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
          The bible DOES NOT approve of polygamy…it only lists it for historical reference for every human being and especially for people of faith. Find me one ONE verse where it says that a Man may marry more than one wife with God’s approval. Find me where God says He approves of it.
          PS: Are you aware Blaine is citing from the NASB? Modern bibles are notorious for taking liberties with the interpretation of the Word and the NASB is no exception.
          http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/lie-dice.htm

  21. Back when I was in a traditional Latin Mass Catholic High School the priests emphasized to us boys: ‘you should be the leaders in any relationship, don’t be willing to do anything for the girls, your priorities should come first, women want a man who takes charge.’
    And it was destroyed by beta-beggers, henpecked husbands, and nagging house wives who thought they were better theologians than priests. The priests tried but were constantly subverted by the females.

      1. They learned everything they needed to know from the confessional.
        Ms. Cocktease: “Forgive me father for I have sinned.”
        Father: “Yes my child, how long has it been since your last confession?”
        Ms. Cocktease: “It has been a week. Since then I have committed ten acts of impurity.”
        Father: “With yourself or with others?”
        Ms. Cocktease: “Umm, both..”
        Father: “Did these acts involve adultery?”
        Ms. Cocktease: “Yes, with my best friend’s husband. We didn’t do it. Just oral. And only because Jenny is being a bitch and Dan really has always loved me, he just married her because she is slut that got pregnant when he was drunk and tricked him into marriage and I am a much better person than her. And its not like I am going to get pregnant like that little whore because we’re not really fornicating.”
        Father: “The Church and the Faith teaches that all mortal sins are wrong regardless of our feelings. They made vows before God to love, honor, and obey, and you are complicit in his sin and possibly ruining their marriage. These are grave matters whether intercourse took place or not. We are to avoid the near occasions of sin.”
        Ms. Cocktease: “But Father I’m not the liar she is, I mean she is fooling around behind his back. and its not like we went all the way. Besides he pressured me into it because she is not fulfilling her wifely duties.”
        And so on.

        1. I laffed. Many Catholics think the confessional is for telling the priest their problems instead of their sins. I was taught to keep it to number and kind: “I committed [X] [Y] number of times.”

        2. The confessional was a lot like a public restroom, the guy’s line moved a lot faster. “Be contrite, be quick, be gone!” So I went during the weekly school mass when it was sex segragated.

    2. The trend is unnatural and coerced by the state. The result is arrested population growth. Pest exterminators come in the same way and spray chemicals that confuse and disrupt ‘mimic’ sexual dysfunction. Certain chemicals can rid a house of cockroaches permanantly after the last age and die out. The reproduction was deactivated by normal hormonal sex signals being adultrated or supressed. With bugs, these chems work more effectively than the toxins which have instant kill but eventually become tolerated by the target colony. WE’RE BEING KILLED OFF one race, one tribe at a time. The targeting is out in the open and is specific. It is ALL PERFECTLY clear to see

      1. I think we can ascribe a bit to human nature and free will. Humans are not insects, children are more involved than a clutch of cockroach eggs.
        Women have always been difficult. We are killing ourselves off by choice. We broke the social contract of the family, etc.
        But ascribing all the ills in the world to some vast all powerful conspiracy is defeatist, and gives way to much credit to evil as a force.
        A lot of things are clear: like the sun going around the earth…

        1. The penchant to self blame is versed over and over in the docile state sheep churches. Sermon after peace and love pay Caesar sermon to ‘man up and take accountability’. Still our numbers dwindle.
          Men it’s time to MAN YOUR DICKS and FIRE UP YOUR BALLS. The slaying has not yet began. Every new family started is an abortionist thwarted, their pathetic murderous career gutterballed. Every young virgin conquered and domesticated is a wild slut that will never be. FIRE THOSE DICKS rrratatat-tat-tat like a wall of Gatling guns. BAM BAM BAM. Bag dat ass. Knock em up and take them captive. They are our other half, half of them stolen from us and the other half wayward and lost. They are OUR sheep. All you swingin’ dicks RIISE UP. We live for OUR master.

      3. When he knew she was wrong, and when what she said contradicted what God had told him. I don’t think men are precluded from listening to their wives. She is supposed to be a help-meet. “Darling the kids need lunch money for tomorrow.”
        But, in the USA, they listen even when they know she is wrong and the Dearie churches insist it is more important you listen to your wife than to be right. She has feeeeelings, doncha’ know?

        1. ^This
          Most men know that the woman is wrong and listen to her anyway (and follow her lead) for fear of upsetting her or hurting her feelings. It’s one of the greatest mistakes a married man can make.

        2. I sure can’t say you are wrong on that. The problem is, many women will tell their husbands, if you don’t obey me, I am going to divorce you and you will never see your kids again.
          I learned over the years another name for one-man army is: cadaver.
          A man alone can do nothing with all other men against him. And that is what we have in the United States.
          Men do not meet at the gates to help each other deal with life. They attack; attack; and no where is it worse than in the “christian churches.”
          The leaders of the churches are probably going to have some rude surprises on Judgment Day.

    5. Wait, they ACTUALLY said that?! Awesome!! I mean, that’s just written in the Bible that the husband is head of the wife, but it would be awesome if they still said that today in church.

      1. In ended up failing in the long run for three reasons: 1) the women had the power of the state backing them, and social media, 2)the men had this good ol’ boy attitude of “she’s my better half” which the priests warned us about, 3) the men ended up working long hours to support their families while the women had time to socialize.
        The outcome a lot of my peers who got married out of the academy have ended up divorced amid accusations of spousal abuse (none of it substantiated by anything more than her word and her friends’ words.) And the wife is free to engage in her hypergamous instincts “just like Jessica my friend in Topeka who is having a hell of a time at 29 going out to bars and meeting guys.”
        So what is happening in the larger society is happening in the Traditional Catholic community, unless you are a priest or monk.

  22. Jezebel is the perfect example of a feminist in Biblical times. Most modern pastors talk about her promiscuity, but there was so much more about her that made her truly disgusting.
    She really is the patron saint of feminism. Hell, even her own daughter caused even more trouble for the southern kingdom of Israel than she ever did.

  23. The ultimate reference to the Bible is in Genesis. Women were made from the rib of man. Without a man first being created, women would never exist. This is the ultimate reality that feminists can never get over or get past. All effort at feminist supremacy are therefor doomed.

  24. “tried their best to discredit it as misogynistic, dismiss it as
    irrelevant, and sabotage it through the phenomena of feminized churches”
    Easter eggs are the cornerstone of the plot. :tinfoilhat:

  26. “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”… well, here we have it: God Himself has declared that Game shall work on women.

  27. Feminism is the abomination of desolation. Feminazis in the bible created groves (goddess worship/idolatry) with help from their simps to worship themselves in and out of the churches. Deuteronomy 16:21-22 Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God, which thou shalt make thee. Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the Lord thy God hateth.

  28. Yea, Timothy had something to say about it too.
    1 Timothy 2 9-15
    9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
    10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
    11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

  30. God is to man as man is to woman.
    When man abandoned God, women also broke the covenant with man. God made women to teach men what it’s like to take His job.

      1. God made dinosaur. God killed dinosaur. God made man. Man kills God. Man makes dinosaurs. Dinosaurs kill man.

        2. People can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact there is little or no relevance to the Old testament. Mainly because they are ignorant and the facts withheld. Yeshua Bar Josef was a radical that taught ethics, never claimed to be the “Son of God” but the “Son of Man.” He called out the hypocrites and directly challenged the Sadducees and Pharisees. He really seemed to piss of the Sanhedrin Council, who levied excessive taxes above and beyond the Romans and required, by “religious law” to purchase sacrifices at the temple. Which is why “Jesus” went postal. Jesus is held in disdain to this day because he challenged Jewish law exceptional well and extremely clever. If anything he challenged people to have a personal relationship with “Their Father, in Heaven” and be self-reliant and take individual responsibility for their salvation, not to sin against themselves or others.
          Modern Christianity has little are NO direct lineage to any message he taught. He was an Essene. The Gnostics and Cathars being closer on message, but branded Heretics by the Catholic’s, who claim to come from St. Peter. Remember, modern Christianity is a direct descendant of the Council of Nicea. That council declared him the “Son of God.” The Catholic’s canonized specific books and rewrote them to fall in line with their doctrine. Read about what they did to the Cathars. Note that the Catholic Church calls Mary the “Mother of God.” Even the Catholic titles are Roman religious titles of office.
          Christianity has been overlain with a ton of “Solar Deity Mythos” and pre and post Christian pagan symbols. I’d suggest people read the Nag Hammadi Library rather than read what others wrote about it. Markedly different messages. Or you could continue to be spoon fed by a clergy who prefers you be numb. There is a lot of talk about the role of women which some people tend to believe it advocated “equality” but gender roles remained intact. Women are easy marks due to their nature. Women are being conned and bullshitted by the left to destroy the last sacred vestige of the family, a healthy relationship between a husband and wife.
          Nothing in the new testament alludes to a religion that considers a certain tribe being “chosen” and all others sub-human cattle.

        3. Don’t you know Dan Brown, Marx and Freud are not a historical references? And you talk about women being easy to con,
          Normally though, women are the first ones to swallow the B.S. you wrote…

        4. Yeah, because the only thing you need to do “Is accept the lord as your personal savior.” You don’t have to do anything yourself. We can go about our daily business and wait for Jesus to save the believers during the rapture. No personal responsibility is required whatsoever. Has shit to do with Dan Brown or Freud.
          Things you have to accept: Jesus walked on water. Jesus turned water to wine. Completely irrelevant whether true or not to any kind of personal growth. The fact people need a third party to intercede in salvation (a church) is a joke. That is the last thing a modern church wants is a congregation that doesn’t need them.

      2. “A polytheism assumes the existence of numerous gods, each of whom is essentially the personification of some force of nature and may, in his or her own province act independently of other gods in his or her relations with mortals.”
        This is bullshit. Leftist Academic faggotry as usual. The Ancient Greeks were, by definition, polytheistic, yet they believed in an “unknown god” named Iao (of this god’s names) that was the supreme divine origin of all things including the other gods (angels of The One). Pythagoras and Plato, as well as Neo-Platonic philosophers referred to this god as the Monad. “The One”.

  32. It is always dangerous to pull quotes from holy books, rendering them contextless. It is even more than dangerous to then read them literally.

    1. “It is always dangerous to pull quotes from holy books, rendering them
      contextless. It is even more than dangerous to then read them
      literally.”
      Spoken like an openly sodomite clergyman wearing rainbow vestments.

      1. Actually, no. I am neither a sodomite nor a rainbow celebrating church supporter. Either way, left and right can manipulate theological positions when quotes are used in this fashion. It can be a dangerous enterprise, backfire.

    2. I believe the author already addressed this, when he said “a proper temporal context is recommended.”

      1. The other side could just as early put it in “a proper temporal” contact of their own liking.

        1. Yes, and the difference between both is the motivation.
          Some motivate for truth, others against it.
          Wisdom comes with the experience of identifying which is which.

        2. Hermeneutics and theological texts move way beyond “motivation”. Stalin and Betty Friedan felt their motivation was worthy for their ideological causes, & of course we both agree they were both tyrannical ideologues.

        3. The problem with hermeneutics is that it tends to superimpose an already existing and possibly conflicting belief unto biblical scriptures, in essence watering them down to fit the viewpoint of the person doing the watering.
          I much prefer an exegetical approach that emphasizes an objective approach where inspiration of understanding is drawn from the reading material.
          Theological texts like with anything else can be weaponized to manipulate rather than simply motivate.
          As far as Stalin and Friedan are concerned, i wouldn’t lump in Friedan with Stalin. Now if you had said Margaret Sanger and Stalin, i would be in total agreement.

        4. You make a valid point, however, I think using a rhetorical means that transcends “ideology”, which is possible, is best when dealing with male/ female, white/ black, & left/right. Out speaking your opponent with reason is most effective, and this transcends “motivation”. In the education field I hear feminists&gay proponents mention how The Bible is nothing but men killing. So, reading this female article set me off as if I was listening to the feminists& gays in education. Picking quotes&events and compacting then into a procrustean bed is for the birds& those without reason.

        5. “Out speaking your opponent with reason is most effective, and this transcends “motivation”. ”
          One can only be bound so much by the guidelines of reason when one has chosen to speak on matters that require a intellectual tolerance for pious discourse.
          In layman’s terms, in order to give unbiased intellectual consideration to intangibles such as faith and the consequential views therein, one must be willing to intellectually allow for things which do not necessarily exist within the strict context of logic and reason.
          Doing so will allow that person of a self professed “non faith” to be much more receptive to indulge in the premise of the “religious” person. Doing so would demonstrate a true tolerance and respect for perspectives which differ from his or her own.
          If i am understanding you correctly, you are saying that people should use strict black/white reason when making arguments, but the problem is that within this context a religious person’s arguments are automatically invalidated in totum.
          For ex: this article writer is basing logical reasoning off of a religious perspective which would be invalidated under the guidelines of “strict” reasoning where only black/white issues that leave no margin for intangibles (such as the supernatural) can be debated.
          Please do not use reason as a means of garroting a person of faith’s otherwise logical arguments.
          “So, reading this female article set me off as if I was listening to the feminists& gays in education. Picking quotes&events and compacting then into a procrustean bed is for the birds& those without reason.”
          It shouldn’t set you off; indeed i read it and reread it for any shameless proselytizing and i found none. In fact, it seems as if the article writer went out of his way to mention that even those of non faith possess red pill understanding, most notably within his last statement.
          How many fundamentalists would be willing to concede that?

        6. Yep, this forum isn’t always concerned with logic/reason: it is more of a place where guys work together to locate & dineate a superstitious movement looking to foolishly downplay us, not only in a personal sphere, but political as well. The dialogue is good, however, I am reduced to using my phone. Please, dobexcuse the truncated nature of my response due the medium I’m using.

        7. Well just like with the Founding Fathers of the US, the red pill community will not necessarily agree on every single issue.
          That doesn’t mean that some are right or wrong, it just means that some have not been exposed to the same kinds of undeniable evidences that others have.
          We are all ignorant to some degree or another…this is the basics of mortality. It’s STAYING ignorant that becomes a problem for the red pill thinker seeking more red pill understanding.
          Simply having the red pill doesn’t mean one knows all truth, and it doesn’t mean one won’t regress to a blue pill manner of thought because of X factors.
          If you followed my advice, you already exercised it in action with regards to me since i consider myself a person of faith. I am able to debate and instruct on all things logical and pious whenever possible, because i understand the balance necessary in order to reconcile those.
          There is faith in my logic and logic in my faith.

  33. I have come full circle in my attitudes toward religion, particularly Christianity. When I was much younger, I was at church weekly, prayed every night and quite religious all around. Then I started to question the power the institution of religion had over my life. This questioning led to rebellion and I actively spoke out about religion. Now, I am vocal about needing religion.
    Society used to be bound by the teachings and morals found in religion, even if the notion of eternal punishment in the afterlife was real or imagined, it helped society to adhere to those principles. Religion generally kept society in line. As a result, society (generally) flourished. Compare that to today, where everyone is less confined by religious teachings. There is no “community” feeling anymore (of course this could also come from the increase in technology we have today). Let’s not get started on the degeneracy that comes with a religion-less society……….

  34. I’m convinced the bible is an ancient quantum psychology book.
    it’s just cryptic, and of course people in upper echelons aka initiates/acolytes know the true interpretations
    The future you are yet to experience already exists, time is an illusion says quantum physics and the energy of the mind/thought
    Every-time we make a decision, All possible outcomes of that decision already exist in an infinite number of multiple universes, the blueprint for reality precedes you and is conditioned so that your decisions change reality
    Since time is an illusion, your success already has happened in another universe, you simply have to meet that reality through decisions and bending your mental energy(thoughts are photons) you apply these “light” principles and bend time to your will and meet the universe in which your desired outcomes exist.
    knowledge is power.

    1. If by any chance you understand French, you should checkout Philippe Guillemant’s theories. The guy is a physic researcher, and his theories sort of match what you’re saying.

    2. Bunch of retarded hypothesis, there aren’t an infinite number of multiple universes because it’s illogical and would not be compatible with the nature of consciousness (e.g there being infinite “you”s in infinite universes all having different lives by chance). Stop trusting today’s scientists too much, science has gone bananas, it’s about entertainment and wild assumptions which create more wild assumptions to support those wild assumptions and so on..

    3. Btw you say it from an optimistic point of view, as oh your success has happened in another world, but it would also mean that in another world you are being gangbanged by 5 thugs while a monkey vomits you because why not.. it’s physically possible.

        1. Time is of variable rate, proportional to entropy. So far as anybody can tell time is simply our sense perception of entropy.
          One can construct mathematical models in which time oscillates, but it does so as a spring, linearly.
          At the level of a fundamental particle time can be shown to oscillate, but other particles in the system behave in a manner that maintains entropy and there is no such thing as a fundamental particle in isolation.
          The Wheel of Time may be a workable metaphor, but it is inaccurate. Time does not turn, it vibrates.

        2. Your perception of time is relative. When you’re a child a year seems like an eternity, sometimes even a day does.When you’re older a year flies by quickly.Wasting time and money to try to extend human bodily life is futile because even if you managed to extend it to 1k years your perception may compensate for it and it won’t seem any longer than 100 years.So the only way to increase lifespan is to alter the perception of time. I have drugs that can do this.

      2. Everything is happening in an infinitely divided second (which doesn’t exist either)

  35. red pill america was founded on the bible – was the greatest nation on earth, the flag on the moon reinforces this claim. now we have strayed and the devil himself runs the show.

  36. Not a big fan of the Book of Old Jewish Fairy Tales…….but, to each his own I suppose.

    1. Would you prefer Odin?
      Havamal #38:
      The speech of a maiden should no man trust
      nor the words which a woman says;
      for their hearts were shaped on a whirling wheel
      and falsehood fixed in their breasts.

  38. Timely article. You could have gone much farther, but it’s probably too much for the anti-Christians as is. In fact, I’m pleasantly surprised RoK approved this post. Anyway, thanks.

  39. “The Biblical family… ”
    Like whose, exactly? Abraham’s, maybe? Cain and Abel? Noah’s family? Lot’s? King Solomon’s? King David’s? Who exactly are the role models we’re supposed to emmulate here?

    1. Satan, he was the only good one. He wanted to give the elixir of intelligence and knowledge to the new hybrid humans that were created when the men on the ship began shagging the good looking but dumb earth females. The men (the gods) and the earth females were almost an identical species but the earth girl offspring were still sort of dumb even after producing. When Capt. Lord discovered what Col. Saytan had been doing he was pissed and closed down the Garden (an experimental station) and dispersed the inhabitants before Saytan could give them the elixir of life which would allow them to live as long as the gods ( like 800 years). Saytan and Lord had a really big fight with each having about 1/2 the crew on their side.Eventually Lord took off in the ship with his men leaving Saytan and his men behind.They eventually died,and the little elixir of life Saytan kept had dried up. After that, the ages of earth people keep going down generation after generation as you can read in Genesis. Until it says that humans shall live no longer than 120 years and no one has lived beyond that to today.

      1. Some advice: If you’re older than 120 then whatever you do, don’t tell anyone your age, not even your doctor. Change your name frequently as well. Ever notice how centurions who allow the local paper to do a photo op and publicize their age will strangely NEVER make it to the next year?
        THE MAGIC NUMBER IS SEVEN – –
        All wild beasts upon this earth typically live to be SEVEN times the maturing age. A dog or cat matures in 1 yr and lives avg. 7 yrs. Same 1 in 7 rule applies for rodents, butterfly, mosquito, you name it.
        Man is the exception. Humans mature in 20 yrs. and live only 2 to 3.5 times maturing age or 40 to 70 when most humans suffer organ failures primarily. Currently humans have THE LOWEST expectancy as far as the 1/7 rule goes. The 7x rule would have humans living avg. 140 yrs. otherwise. It is commanded also TO FAST 1 day in 7. To SHUT DOWN and close the doors on your system and give your organs a rest. Most church goers do the opposite and gorge after services at the local all you can eat stuffay fluffay. They get home and lay on their fat asses exhausted. They may be lying down inactive but their taxed system, their kidneys, their liver is hard at work burning rubber trying to process all the crap. Their poor organs NEVER get a rest and thus fail prematurely.
        Similarly, if you bought a new car from the dealer and ran it continuously, leaving the engine idling all night and driving it the following day and did this repeatedly, the engine would throw a rod or lose compression within the first year. Simply put IT WOULD DIE long before the 4 yr. warranty period.
        1 day in 7 REST, FAST and drink water if necessary. It is commanded.

  40. This goes to show you the there is a divide
    Bible: Red Pill
    Most Churches: Blue Pill
    Feminists and the leftist allies have infiltrated and destroyed most Christian churches in the last 100 years or so.

    1. Gibbons allegedly said the Christians destroyed the Roman Empire with this nonsense. I don’t have access to the entire series so haven’t read it myself.

  41. “The voice, too, should not be languid, nor feeble, nor womanish in its tone—such a tone of voice as many are in the habit of using, under the idea of seeming important. It should preserve a certain quality, and rhythm, and a manly vigour. For all to do what is best suited to their character and sex, that is to attain to beauty of life. This is the best order for movements, this the employment fitted for every action. But as I cannot approve of a soft or weak tone of voice, or an effeminate gesture of the body, so also I cannot approve of what is boorish and rustic. Let us follow nature. The imitation of her provides us with a principle of training, and gives us a pattern of virtue.” St. Ambrose of Milan
    Historical Christianity is masculinity.

  42. It may sound gay, but, in and out of Christianity, the relationship of God to man is that of a man to a woman. Isreal (mankind) is the bride of God (Christ). The spiritual head of the family, a man is a demi-God to his wife (or wives) – the intermediary between her and God – and she submits to and is chastened by her husband as he submits to and is chastened by God. Any contrary interpretation of any religion is heresy.

    1. The Reason you find it Gay is because you’ve chosen to look at the Relationship between God and Man as a perverted one, I guess I missed all the parts in the Bible that said and God made Love to Abraham in the way a Man would lay with a woman, or referred to a Sexual relationship occurring between God and man at any point. There is nothing Gay about God’s Relationship to Man, yes Man submits to God , but the relationship is different than a wife submitting to her Husband because it’s submitting to the Living God , when a Wife submits to her Husband it’s to another Human being. You are Right in saying a wife submits to her Husband, and the Man submits to God ,( However the woman also submits to God as well) , but there is nothing Homosexual about Man’s relationship and worship of God.

      1. I didn’t say, “I find it gay.” I said, “it may sound gay.” And, for a gay man, it might actually be genuinely gay. Not sure on that one . . .
        A wife submits to God via her husband (one must respect the chain of spiritual command), while intellectually acknowledging that he, unlike God, is flawed, mortal, and fallible.

        1. It’s not at all gay. The man’s dick is the woman’s only salvation. It is her LIFELINE TO GOD. Thrust between her chaste loins, through the shaft of HIS dick, her soul takes a memorable and nerve quaking TOBOGGAN RIDE on lapture silvered wings. Once cruising altitude is reached, the woman gets as close as she will ever get to the actual FACE OF GOD.

    2. I’m a God to my dog.He’s probably amazed at how I can get all of this food and share it with him.

    3. Israel is not makekind. Israel is Israel. Gods true people the israelites are still scattered. Hence why the bible says JUDAH his chosen tribe will be called up first then other tribes thereafter. Then the gentiles

  43. People say fuck religion cuz its let so many people down. ive seen good people perish and crappy people prosper. Of course here comes the biblical nonsense full of inconsistencies and half truths blaming people for desires they were created with. Why should u have to die to be whole? What about this lifetime?? If god Is soo good why Is evil so fuckin powerful?? no answers just a repetitve loop back to the bible…Meanwhile the pastor drives around in a car thats more expensive than some of the congregations homes while the flock starves and lives In shelters. Ive lived my life up until this point getting close to this god who cant live up to his own promises. All u hear are excuses (gods timing, soveriegn being) while people suffer world wide.people generally suck, dont blame it on the devil. He’s keeping the church in business. Most times if u put god to the test he fails miserably. We all know that women are evil(thats nothing new) and if u think u need to be a good person cuz some ghost is watching you and will punish you if ur not your screwed

  44. My favorite red pill bible verse is Proverbs 21:19 “It is better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife”

    1. I thought that it was better to live on the roof than with a nagging wife.
      There was another character whose name I can’t remember who would sleep outside. Being out in the damp air caused some sort of fungus to grow on him or his ear or something like that. Anyone recall his name?

      1. Both are in there. There is a third one in some translations: He who can control a contentious woman can control the winds.
        In three places the Bible says you cannot control a rebellious woman. But, the Christian churches today preach if you are a real man, your wife will submit to you. That is where they got “man fault.”
        Pure lies. Submission must be initiated voluntarily by women not by men. The Bible, as I have noted here, makes this perfectly clear.

  45. Rolling Stone retracts UVA rape hoax article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/business/media/rolling-stone-retracts-article-on-rape-at-university-of-virginia.html
    “The report, published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone, said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.”

  46. This is all too deep for you pyjama boys to understand so leave it to the Elites like myself. You pickup boys can’t get a female to go out with you let along solve the mysteries of the Universe lol You think it’s a big deal to even kiss a girl even though they’re giving it away lol

  48. I don’t even bother with bringing this up anymore to even ultra super fundamentalist type of Christians.
    If you give every single example of simply old school beliefs along with any of the content you wrote about in your post, they can and will doublethink their way out of it.
    This in relation to people against alcohol, magic in media, celebrating Christmas/Easter due to it being pagan in origin. The women want their feminism. They have pussy husbands that they mentally throw up when the image of submitting to them comes up. On some level, I can’t blame them. Who wants a dumb idiot to lead them?

  49. I agree with this completely. Christianity has eroded though the ages, especially in the last couple decades, with the expansion of materialism and self-indulgence.
    Pastors look for money, as there are less and less that are diligent to giving to the church, so they now look to appease the general populace, rather than be the scale of righteousness that they are commanded by God to be.
    Feminism, gay acceptance, abortion, tolerance of other gods, the list is growing, and the men who reject this “New Christianity” packaged as the the Oprah approved drivel are ejected for being too offensive and ‘hurting the church’.
    Thankfully, my pastor outright states the wrongness of this stuff. God bless him.
    We as men of God need to learn to stand in truth and love. Love isn’t what we have been taught as late, with the passivity of acceptance, but the truth of what is right and wrong. If you love your child, you will tell them what hurts them, and to stay away from it, not to stand by and watch them get hurt or die. So also should our plight be against evil, and those who do evil. Show Gods love, but showing them what is wrong, according to his word.

  50. Leave it to an article centered on faith, which specifically lists an isolated series of verses to push for the premise that there is red pill wisdom in the bible (insofar as its opposition to feminism is concerned) to bring out the truth in some people.
    Articles like these serve to illustrate just who is red pill and who is not.
    A red pill person will tolerate views that do not conform to his own and will construct his views with respect to the given majority here, which is undeniably pro faith.
    A blue pill person however will come here with the intent to offend, or otherwise attack different views and will show little to no respect to people who disagree, especially if they are religious.
    I am referring to the presence of atheist (in actuality antitheist) trolls here with an established account.
    News flash people: the article isn’t trying to convert you, nor is it asking you to believe in an invisible deity, it’s simply listing some verses to show you how even back then Men of faith were aware of just how dangerous unchecked feminism truly is. If the goal of this site is to make Men aware of what feminism has done to society, this article serves as a historical reference point to give further context to that.
    You hate God?…fine. I’m red pill enough not to care but don’t disrespect those who love God while doing so…that is total blue pill all the way.
    Wait until an article appears that is deliberately trying to convert you…then you will have more justification for theophobic views rooted in secular bias and ignorance.

    1. I think a big part of many men’s reluctance to take the bible as a source of wisdom is leftist mainstream media propaganda. i was a victim of this myself. Religion – primarily Christianity, is vilified constantly in a society that’s saturated with cultural marxism. It’s considered an evil all powerful boogyman and its members are portrayed as batshit crazy.
      There’s also the issue of many churches having a huge blindspot towards feminism. They selectively ignore the bible’s teachings/warnings on women due to political correctness and upping their attendance. Walk into an average church and you’ll think it’s blue pill as fuck. It now takes work to find a church that hasn’t been pozzed with cultural marxists and “Grrll Power” bullshit.
      But damn, whoever wrote some of those passages in Proverbs was the Roosh of 58AD.

      1. I used to be an atheist antitheist myself; at my worst i wanted people of faith to take an IQ test just to exist. You might say i wasn’t a very nice person.
        These people you mention need to do some real research and understand that religion (especially the judeoChristian one) has been given a bad rap by governments that scapegoat religion in order to take the lens of accountability off of them.
        They also need to research that the sorry state of the Church in no way reflects the scriptures they are supposed to be based on…indeed, the bible talks about phonies coming in Christ’s name who would deceive others for a variety of reasons.
        If a wretch antitheist like myself can be saved because of divine intervention coupled with objective research, no one else has the excuse to stay blue pill ignorant when it comes to the truth of the bible.

    2. It doesn’t seem to be the presence of atheists (nominally, people who do not believe in God), that causes this movement to occur.
      Rather it seems to be the presence of a doctrine, that is short-sighted and has arisen in modern times, that denies past, present and future. This short-sightedness causes people to live for the moment and to deny any idea of a next world.
      This nihilistic doctrine is mixed with materialism, denial and disrespect/disregard for the sacred, denial of the fruit of good and bad actions, and the idea that there is no mother and father.
      In short, it is wrong view, as the Buddha would say.
      I think some people call this postmodernism, but I’ve never been sure what the term means.
      The doctrine denies that there is a this-world and the next-world, that there are any brahmins or recluses who realize for themselves a this-world and a next-world etc etc.
      The kind of world these people inhabit, seems to be dominated by “science”, materialism, nihilism etc.
      They have a hard time maintaining this view because they constantly have to convince themselves that after death they will “cease to exist”.
      Which, if you think about it, is something you can only imagine.

      1. It’s been called humanism and progressivism as well, or cultural marxism.
        I prefer to refer to it as satanism.
        Anything that goes against the sanity of gender roles established in the bible, whether by intent or happenstance, is satanic, whether it’s done through deliberate identification or not and irrespective of the self imposed title.
        It is nihilistic in nature, but when it comes to science that is where the roots of their hypocrisy shows.
        The movement(s) is supposed to be grounded on the concept of logic and reason, and yet they prefer to pass off as maxim the belief that God doesn’t exist, irrespective of the fact that they cannot prove as much through the scientific method.
        That which you cannot disprove in the lab, you cannot discredit outside the lab.
        I have more respect for agnostics who’s view can best be summed up as “maybe God does exist, maybe he doesn’t”
        I was a former antitheist atheist myself, so i know whereof i speak regarding this. I wanted to establish a “mindocracy” where only the most intelligent would rule, and only those who met the IQ limit could survive. Anyone of any faith would not have qualified for either.
        Thank you for the response.

      2. Hey bro I caught your comment on not being sure what postmodernism is. I will endeavour to explain it based on a presentation I made in church a few years back.
        The main difference between modernism and postmodernism is in the presuppositions underlying both of them.
        Modernism has the following underlying presuppositions.
        1. Truth is universal. It does not change depending upon the point of view of the observer.
        2. Truth is timeless. If it was true yesterday then it will be true today and it will be true tomorrow.
        3. Truth is location independent. Something that is true here on earth will be true everywhere else in the universe.
        These truths are unqualified truths.
        Then there are qualified truths. It is possible that at the same moment that I look outside and see a blue sky that you look outside and see a black, grey or red sky. These difference depend upon the qualifications of time, weather and location. eg. the person seeing the black sky is in a different timezone to myself.
        The post modernist rejects the idea of absolute truth. All truth is allegedly relative to them. Of course their whole premise is self refuting because they are holding to a maxim that there is no absolute truth generally without realising that they’ve just uttered an absolute truth claim.
        This kind of person will respond upon hearing an absolute truth by saying “Well that may be true for you but not for me.” Their favourite field of discussion to do this in is in religion/philosophy.
        Of course they are often hypocritical in their stance because they like the modernist will avoid a bottle of poison on the grounds that it will kill them. So they are in essence cherry picking as to what the truth will be for them.
        In academic circles it has been falling out of favour is the hypocrisy of this line of thinking has become clear.

        1. Ok that makes a lot of sense. I’ve always thought of postmodernism as a feeling, that arises from watching movies without inherent meanings or plot. Plus all the definitions I read online are super weird.
          But from what I gather, as you define it, a postmodernist is someone who absolutely states there is no absolute truth. Which as you say is retarded. So good!

        2. The other thing a postmodernist will do will be to go to strenuous efforts to avoid being defined in any kind of way. To try and do so will open you to charges of pidgeon holing or stereotyping.
          They want to be the special snowflake.

  51. A couple of pieces of red pill wisdom that are worth adding to the article. In Genesis 2 Adam names his wife “woman” thus establishing his dominion over her according to the principle “He who names has authority over that which is named”.
    The second piece of red pill wisdom involves the sin of Adam which was somewhat different to that of his wife. In fact it seems that he committed two sins. Genesis 3:17 my paraphrase – Because you have listened to your wife and eaten of the tree…. So it seemed that it was the job of the husband at times to refuse to listen to the wife.
    In fact I would say that the whole bible is littered with red pill wisdom. The problem is that most of us holy rollers have been marinated too much in blue pill to see them. Paul is red pill enough that he is referred to as misogynist by a lot of women in our church. In fact for red pillers one way to see the red flags would be to ask the women what they make of Paul’s command for wives to submit to their husbands.

    1. “In fact for red pillers one way to see the red flags would be to ask the women what they make of Paul’s command for wives to submit to their husbands.”
      *Clap clap*
      I do this myself. I remember this one female who would argue with me about the interpretation. No matter what verse i showed to support my position she would always try to find some wishy washy way to blow it off. No surprise there, since she was the “head” of the youth study class..IN CHURCH.
      I capitalized that to give special emphasis of just how wrong that scenario is.

      1. Yup. Being subservient to the man was their curse.Their had equality in the beginning but fucked it up with their greed and lust for forbidden shiny things. So naturally women would try to fight the curse.

        1. The “Adam and Eve” story is wonderful for pointing out the emotional vulnerability and gullible tendencies of the female.

  52. It’s such a pity that Luther had the gall to cut Sirach out of the Protestant Canon, it’s the most Red Pill book in the Bible.

  53. Hi guys. Didn’t anyone tell you Rip Van Winkles this is the 21st Century? Time to wake up now.

  54. Does anyone else find it ironic that the folks over at Jezebel (who seem to have a satanic agenda) literally named themselves after one of the false prophets, who inspired her royal husband (King Ahab) to worship false gods, as well as causing the death of an innocent man, wherefore these crimes against God and the people of Israel she was thrown out of her window by members of her court retinue and her corpse eaten by dogs?
    I mean, it can’t get more ironic than that. That’s LITERALLY a symbol of anti-Christianity, and thus anti-God, anti-all-that-is-sacred-and-holy, righteous, the straight and narrow path etc.
    Epic, epic, irony.
    It’s all here in this pamphlet.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezebel

    1. I find it interesting that it was the eunuchs who pushed Jezebel out of the window.
      Could there be a massive blue piller revolt in the future?

      1. That would certainly be poetic justice.
        If history is any indication, once peasants have emotionally had it with being ruled they usually tend to treat their aristocratic masters with brutal regard.
        Since feminists have trained males to function as females (manginas) in order to become their useful lapdogs, they view them as a conquered threat. However, if these males ever cast off their philosophical leashes thanks to a moment of Menlightenment, they may still react emotionally in their actions toward their former feminist overlords. Given that a male naturally has a size and strength advantage over a female, this would therefore result in a dire set of circumstances for the so called “empowered” feminists.
        Perhaps (and ironically enough) deep down what feminists consider empowering may very well be their considerable influence over manginas through a sabotaging of their natural literal and figurative strength. If they should ever lose that power…they would certainly find cause to be in the grip of fear and uncertainty.
        We should buy stock in popcorn…i have a feeling this would make the french revolution look like a day at the circus.

        1. That sounds very much like the part of Nineteen Eighty-Four where Winston believes that if the proles should become “conscious of their own strength” they’d be a deadly force. We’ll have to wait and see but I think the wheels on Jehu’s chariot are already in motion. The insanity of feminism today can only appeal to men so effeminate that the only testosterone content would be found on the lips and thighs of their masters.
          I keep thinking back to the Jezebel scenario and how Jehu only said to the eunuchs, “throw her down”. That suggests what you said that they’ve already been fed up and probably already were plotting to kill Jezebel. This particular situation with manginas will be harder to break. We’re not only going against some hardcore societal brainwashing but also the biological drive of men to persevere which is frequently exploited by women to get the man to blame himself rather than the woman for his failures, especially in terms of relationships.
          I still think its possible.
          Isn’t the red pill movement a reformed blue pillers movement?

        2. I was thinking of Napoleon with Animal Farm but i like your reference as well 🙂
          “Isn’t the red pill movement a reformed blue pillers movement?”
          I don’t believe so. In the most rudimentary understanding of the terms, blue pill equates to ignorance especially lotophagic ignorance, and the red pill equates to a keen discernment especially one that stems from wisdom.
          Everyone in the world is born ignorant. Whether we stay that way or not depends initially on our external influences. Generally speaking, people are indoctrinated to remain ignorant by those with an ignoble agenda in order to keep them better controlled. This differs from people who are weaned off ignorance through altruistic knowledge most commonly found in the teachings of parents.
          In order for someone to “choose” to remain ignorant, they must first be ignorant to begin with, therefore it isn’t really a choice, it’s simply a continuation of initial ignorance.
          Let me go to the cinematic source material more closely in my next response.
          When Morpheus offered the blue and red pill to Neo, it was with the expectation and belief that he would choose the red pill; esoteric knowledge that only few could handle. Morpheus had been studying him for awhile and he believed that Neo would make the “right” choice…i put quotations on the word right to make a pun of sorts, since Morpheus offered him the right pill in his RIGHT hand.
          http://counterinception.com/sites/default/files/pictures/MatrixBluePillRedPill.jpg
          Since you are familiar with the bible, you are probably familiar with this verse:
          “Ecc 10:2 A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.”
          or more appropriately:
          “Psa 118:15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
          Psa 118:16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.”
          and from Jesus Himself:
          “Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”
          The bible lists over 100 positive figurative references to the right hand, and over 2 dozen negative ones to the left. Most common practices related to the exercising of faith were done with the right hand, and unclean behaviors (such as bathroom duties) were done with the left. I therefore take it as no small coincidence that the political right is more welcoming of faith and the political left is fundamentally hostile to it…the right represents established order, cultural orthodoxy, spiritual adherence and temporally immune common sense. The left on the other hand (pun intended) represents new approaches and revolutionary counterculture beliefs encapsulated within the duplicitous term of “progressive” policies.
          Given all this, ask yourself what Morpheus and Neo were meant to symbolize, intentionally or otherwise? God and Man. The red pill arguably could be Jesus, the blue pill could be the world or the devil or both.
          I’m saying all this as a means of emphasizing that, just as satan used mendacity in order to deceive Eve and keep her ignorant (blue pill) so too does the world do with humans in the world, in order to bring about their a gauche ruin.
          Of course, simply taking the red pill does not mean one will simply REMAIN a red pill thinker. Indeed, there have been instances where people regress to blue pill thinking because they lacked the wisdom to properly handle all the truth that comes with a deliberate acknowledgement of unfiltered truth.
          Cypher likely willingly took the red pill before the events of the Matrix but in the first movie he chose to take the blue pill (through his actions) in order to go back into the matrix because he lacked the WISDOM to understand why the red pill is necessary….he was ignorant from the beginning, and was staying true to his shade because of a lack of wisdom. It’s possible that Morpheus had not yet refined his research methods when freeing others in the matrix like Cypher but i don’t want to get off point here.
          You need wisdom before awareness, because it gives you the understanding of why awareness is not a convenience, it is a necessity of life. Wisdom is the bountiful earth that sprouts the seed of keen awareness especially spiritual awareness.
          Think of how disastrous it would have been if blue pill minds in the middle ages had the awareness to perceive microorganisms…they would have all gone mad. Years later scientific study provided the wisdom necessary to give the layman the awareness to deduce things beyond the limitations of his peripheral sensibility of sight.
          To speak in a more contemporary sense, think of how pernicious it would be for modern day blue pill minds to be able to visually perceive of the supernatural, such as angels and especially demons, without the aid of spiritual wisdom…you know how that would go.
          In this example, the bible provides the wisdom necessary to understand that things exist beyond the confines of our limited eyes and ignorant minds in order to make our spirit become aware of them or at least their influence. It gives us spiritual awareness that frees the mangina from the feminatrix, which in itself is a smaller manifestation of the satanic illuminatrix that we were all at some point or another, under the influence of.
          Choice, cause/effect and consequences are three points of an equilateral triangle in the life of a human being…they are all united.
          The thing here that isn’t a choice is ignorance…which is why we are born ignorant at the center of this triangle and go through life choosing the poorly lit doorway of free will or the illuminated doorway of free will aka remaining ignorant.
          Wisdom is the key.
          Sorry for the ramble. I love to wax philosophically on things like this.

        3. “Isn’t the red pill movement a reformed blue pillers movement?”
          Blue pillers don’t move as a movement, they aren’t united in some cause. A blue pill person will not see the world in terms of red pill or blue pill, subsequently they will be unable to explain why some people get laid and others don’t. A blue pill person is just “a person”, albeit an unformed one who has an entitlement-complex.
          Red people automatically place the world into blue pill or red pill, and subsequently they enter the plane of the latter.

    2. I’m sure it’s no coincidence. Those harpies seem to find it amusing to take a reviled figure in the bible in order to make her their symbol of defiance.

  55. I wouldn’t trust any church without a pastor with the balls to enforce the rule that women are to keep their heads covered and their mouths shut in the church.

    1. I agree with you. Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” and John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” The majority of churches already sold out a long time ago and shown proven hatred towards God. Paganism (celebrating halloween, valentines, easter bunny, etc), female worship (modern day groves), promoting homosexuality, divorces and the list goes on.

  56. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
    –I Corinthians 2:9-10 (KJV), emphasis mine.
    Notice that God doesn’t want men being effeminate? Well, not all Bible translations have this word. The New International Version (NIV), which has superseded the KJV in popularity and usage, replaces the word “effeminate” with “male prostitutes” because the NIV has a feminist bent to it and the feminists that were on the translation committee had an agenda that was in opposition to producing an accurate translation of God’s word. They didn’t want men to know that they weren’t supposed to be complete and utter manginas. There are many other translation errors in the NIV besides just this one. Same can be said for pretty much all of the other new translations produced in the past 50 years.
    I say that even though the KJV is 404 years old, it’s still the best. Like, would you want to update the wording on Shakespeare’s plays, which were written around the same time? Of course not! So why would you update the Bible? I mean, if you compare the language to the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution written nearly 200 years later, it was already out of date by then. But no one thought it necessary to produce a new translation.

  57. Fuck the old testament though. Its just extreme kike culture. The parts about rape & genocide, and the ridiculousness of their God, makes it intolerable.

Comments are closed.