The idea that women are inherently virtuous, and that men need women to sanctify them is deeply ingrained. You won’t find either of these concepts in Scripture, but even commenters on this site can’t distinguish between the moral views of Courtly Love/Chivalry and the Bible.
SkylerWurden explains that the Courtly Love tale of St. George and the dragon is really teaching the Christian message, a message about the glorious power of the virtuous pagan woman:
I still don’t see it. The way I read the story is this:
St. George is representing the Christian ideal and Christianity here. The dragon is obviously the devil and the townsfolk are the pagans under the thrall of the devil, with the Princess representing the virtuous pagan (being that she is willing to sacrifice herself to save the townsfolk). St. George, with the power of Christ, wounds the devil, and the virtuous pagan girl gives him (now representing Christ) her virginity. Once she gives over her virginity to Christ, she can now snare the devil and instead of being controlled by him and under his boot, she is greater than him and has bound him up. That is, she has conquered temptation by handing over her virtue to God. As she leads the dragon back to the people, they see that the power of Christ and of virtuous living has conquered the dragon and are converted, and then St. George (again standing in for Christ) slays the dragon and ends releases them from slavery.
jbarruso explains that men can’t follow Christ (and have virtue) unless they love a woman:
You’ve missed the symbolism. The dragon is the beast inside every man externalized. No man is any good to anyone especially God until he’s tamed his inner beast. The way he does that is by obediently loving God and the way he demonstrates that is selflessly loving a woman. For a man this isn’t possible apart from the Lord Jesus the Christ. And the cross. The problem is mankind sees everything through our immense self. We believe the sun revolves around the earth and God around us. St. George is nothing without the Lord. So essentially George is obedient to the Lord as a sleighs his inner beast for the love of a woman ehich demonstrates his love for God. George does what Adam failed to do.
Where in the Bible or even the history of Jewish tradition is Adam ever commanded to slay his inner beast for the love of a woman? When does the topic of a woman’s love even come up? If your answer is honest, it’s never. Therefore, how could George have demonstrated what Adam failed, since it’s not accurate to say that Adam failed in this manner?
Women are not virtuous. They are not our Saviors. They are sinners like all the rest of us who provide us with the opportunity to demonstrate our love for God by “loving others.” This is why it’s not good that man is alone.
Did barruso come to us a straw man from Corinth? If not, Paul’s got a letter for him.
These two explanations remind me of that Dire Strait’s lyric – two men claim they’re Jesus; one of them must be wrong.
So, if a man doesn’t allow a woman to sanctify him she becomes strong and independent?
If I connect the dots properly, uterus worship given to us by the replacement of true faith with chivalrous courtly love fomented modern feminism.
Pingback: The love of a virtuous pagan woman tames the beast inside. | @the_arv
Dalrock shows the pleasant side of this faux Christianity, men hoping for upward spiritual mobility with the help of superior women.
I see little in the comments here about the other sign of this belief system: that men are low (helpless, inferior) compared to women. This quickly becomes misandry. Lots of that out there today. It’s pitiful to see men in its grip.
No reforms are possible until men recover their pride in being men.
That’s bogus.
When I married my wife, my beast was not tamed.
It was UNLEASHED!!!!
LOL.
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. – Romans 5:19
The two greatest commands are to love God and others as yourself. Jesus, as the “bridegroom,” demonstrated this in relation to His “bride.”
Basically if you try to replace Jesus with a woman…it’s your downfall as a man.
The Bible doesn’t teach “tame the inner beast”. The Bible teaches that, upon salvation, the inner man is renewed, and it’s remnants of the old man (who was crucified) that is the problem.
There’s no beast inside the inner man. There is no devil inside the inner man. There is only the sin of the flesh.
The sin of the flesh is not be tamed. It is to be killed.
Assuming this is supposed to be a Christian allegory and not gyno-worship (which I do not accept as the meaning of this; I think it’s just straight-up gyno-worship), it’s best to not invent new allegories that are already clearly explained.
Remember when suburban Christians glommed onto “I am an empty vessel; fill me” and they thought Yoga must be OK because it involves trying to spiritually empty oneself? There’s enough in the book; you don’t have to invent new symbols and new explanations.
@Larry
This quickly becomes misandry. Lots of that out there today. It’s pitiful to see men in its grip.
I agree with this. We need to quit letting ourselves be the butt of the joke. I don’t mean turn into belligerant anger monkeys every time a woman makes a snide comment about her husband, but we should be able to calmly and rationally rebut this behavior. It won’t make you the most popular guy in the room, but it’s fairly effective long term.
From the introduction of my copy of my “Le Morte d’Arthur.” Doesn’t apply to St. George, but relevant to the discussion.
Robert Graves writes: “For while the seigneurial class consented to fight for the Cross as an emblem of Western Civilization, the ascetic morality preached by Jesus did not appeal to them in the least. Jesus’ grave warning that ‘he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword’ was read as a joyful reassurance that he would die gloriously in battle and be translated into a Celtic Paradise in the twinkling of an eye. Moreover, the Western conception of personal honor could not be reconciled with turning the other cheek, and leaving God to avenge injuries. I recall no distressed damsels in the entire Bible, the heroes all being national deliverers, not individual adventurers.”
As the “Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture’ (Bernard Orchard, et al., ed.s) states:
“It can hardly be doubted that the feminine pronoun had its origin in the error of an early copyist of Vg. In his Lib. Quaest. Heb. in Gen. St Jerome quotes the Old Latin version of this text with the masc. (ipse) and translates the Hebrew with the same, PL 23, 943, and ipse is the reading of various Vg MSS. It is therefore highly improbable that he translated ipsa here [comment on Gen. 3:15b [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]].”
Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers (largest lay-run apostolate of Roman Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States) explains this as follows “the use of the feminine form in some editions of the Vulgate is due to an early copyist’s error.”
Joe-
Damn right.
To: Skyler and j
Skyler’s comments are laugh out loud, guffaw, guffaw. Either a supreme troll or extreme newb to the red pill. I wish Dalrock had highlighted the actual line where Skyler says: “handing over her virtue to God”, along with equating virginity to virtue (well for women anyway, what about men?). He starts saying she is inherently virtuous, i.e. born with virtue (NOPE! she was born with original sin). Then she “hands” her virginity (girdle) to George. So after the boning, George has a little gifted package of virtue (guffaw) that he uses to harness the dragon. But George is Christ (um OK). So she bones (marries) Christ (Er awkward). Later he says the Princess gave her virtue to God (Um, so Christ=God, the Trinity or something?). So she actually got hammered by God/Jesus (wow, just wow). Then it gets better. She “conquers her temptation by “by handing over her virtue to God”. So by boning the hunky, hot George/Christ/God, she conquered temptation (GUFFAW GUFFAW). And now that the two had hot monkey sex out of wedlock, they are now living a life of *virtue* and the townsfolk are SAVED. LZOZLLZOZLLZLLLL.
I’m missing the issue.
You say it’s about “The glorious power of the virtuous pagan woman”.
Well, yeah. ALONG WITH the virtuous power of St. George and the Cross.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
“squid_hunt says:
April 27, 2018 at 11:00 am
@Larry
This quickly becomes misandry. Lots of that out there today. It’s pitiful to see men in its grip.
I agree with this. We need to quit letting ourselves be the butt of the joke. I don’t mean turn into belligerant anger monkeys every time a woman makes a snide comment about her husband, but we should be able to calmly and rationally rebut this behavior. It won’t make you the most popular guy in the room, but it’s fairly effective long term.”
What if it’s the pastor making the snide comments?
I’ve mentioned it here before, but for those that didn’t see it…
My pastor started a sermon with “Stupid Things Men Say (and do)”.
He then said “I’ll pick on the men. We don’t want to make the women mad at us’.
He then went on to humiliate and marginalize men.
What about making the MEN mad?
So, I sat on it for a week. Then I sent an email. I stated my case in a calm, rational but firm manner.
I got no response. I have received responses before, just not to this. So it’s not like he doesn’t see his email.
I’m losing my patience with this kind of talk. If it happens again, I’ll confront in person, but in private of course. I have to think that I’m not the only one that noticed and said something. I’m hoping he learned his lesson.
As an aside, by wife never makes snide remarks about me, nor I about her. We knew a long time ago to build each other up to others and NEVER to join the “complain train” like some women and men do. She hears other women do it, and says it’s sounds terrible.
Bruno,
It is reborn, not renewed. That is a major difference and seeing it has many implications few realize today.
@Joe
I would recommend staying in the realm of reconciling. His behavior is destructive and jerkish. Go through the steps. Then you have to ask yourself if you can live with it and how badly it’s harming your family. At some point, you should consider the possibility of finding another church. It’s usually best if you don’t leave angry, but sometimes you still have to go.
I guess Sts. Aquinas, Possenti, Tikhon, etc. weren’t really men of God then.
Joe,
“I have to think that I’m not the only one that noticed and said something.”
Almost certainly you *were* the only one to say something.
“I’m hoping he learned his lesson.”
Of course he didn’t. He sees his values mirrored on TV and in films. To him your email expressed views of a fringe — men’s rights groups, guys beating on drums in the woods, weirdos.
Most churches I’ve seen (not all, esp not Mormons) consist of three large groups: old folks (don’t care), kids (don’t count), and women. Women set the tone because they are there. Rightly so.
“I’ll confront in person, but in private of course.”
That’s a waste of time. It’s just self-expression, a girl’s game. His values are rooted in our society’s values.
To get action you must first get his attention by appealing to a shared value: attendance. Talk to him — better yet, to the Deacons — about the relatively few young men (20 – 50) in the audience. How can the church increase that? Then gently talk about the message, as *one* of your suggestions (the penultimate one, second from last). Be positive.
Maybe some of you know better than me, but I just learned that the highest degree of glory (Heaven) for the Mormons are only for those who have been married. This idea reminds me of Swedenborgism. Is there any relationship between these two?
Humans are hardwired to place female well-being at a much higher premium than male well-being. There were fully justified biological reasons for this, which only became obsolete very recently (since women now only use 0-20% of their childbearing capacity in the modern era, and funneling resources to women no longer has a direct correlation to the survival of children).
This sort of hardwiring is extremely difficult to consciously transcend.
This, among other reasons, is why Artificial Intelligence is going to be catastrophic for women and cuckservatives. AI will simply make millions of decisions in a way that seeks out the most productive, logical outcome (which, by definition, will be less favorable to women than the way human society makes decisions).
First of all I must ask SkylerWurden where did he get that interpretation of the tale.
But it does make sense to me. The interpretation doesn’t say that every woman is virtuous, or that the pagan woman was inherrently virtuous, or even that the pagan woman was virtuous before meeting Christ/Saint George. And it has no holes on the “give the girdle/bind with the girdle” issue.
His [the pastor’s] values are rooted in our society’s values.
Then he’s useless as a pastor and his “church” is useless (or even toxic) as a part of the Body of Christ. Sadly, that is the NORM for very nearly ALL churches in North America today. Sand, not salt, and more darkness, not a ray of light amid the darkness of the world.
@Joe, @Larry
It’s important to stress that the biblical route is approach the person first. Then bring a friend. Then a tribunal. And again, if you can live with it and it’s not directly causing your family harm, you should live with it. Once a year is not unendurable. Weekly/monthly might be worth more serious consideration.
@Joe
If it is possible I would ask if you can buy him lunch. Then I would meet him with great cheer, and in the course of the conversation let him know your concern. The way I would frame it is that the women in the congregation are commanded to respect their husbands, fathers, and elders. When he gives sermons “picking on men”, he is making it harder for the women in the congregation to follow what the Bible instructs. This is hard enough for them given our anti Christian, anti husband/father culture. When their own pastor joins in with the culture (even in jest) and tempts them to sin in this way it places a very heavy burden on them.
Then, having said your piece on the topic, I would let it go (from a conversational point of view). If he commits to not doing this again in the future, outstanding! If he says he needs to contemplate it, that is good as well. If he gives no answer at all, allow the conversation to move to another topic. Putting him on the spot more directly at this time won’t help him repent (in my opinion). The challenge with bringing this kind of issue up with the pastor is he is still in a position of authority. So you need to be careful how you deliver this rebuke. Do it as gently as possible while still being clear/honest. I would also avoid framing it as “You need to do X”, as this would be you grasping his authority.
At the end, your responsibility is to lead your family spiritually, and his responsibility is to lead the congregation. Your responsibility includes making sure they are in a church where they will receive accurate instruction. From this perspective, your aim in the meeting is to help a brother. If you aren’t able to do this, then ultimately you will of course have to consider if his church is a fitting place to bring your family. But I wouldn’t reference this in the lunch unless he asks you directly.
@”squid_hunt says:
April 27, 2018 at 11:57 am
@Joe
I would recommend staying in the realm of reconciling. His behavior is destructive and jerkish. Go through the steps. Then you have to ask yourself if you can live with it and how badly it’s harming your family. At some point, you should consider the possibility of finding another church. It’s usually best if you don’t leave angry, but sometimes you still have to go.”
It’ s not harming my family. My kids are grown and don’t go to our Church. My wife was actually helping in the nursery, and didn’t hear it. I did tell her about it later. She was disappointed.
************************************************************************************************************
@Larry Kummer, Editor
“To get action you must first get his attention by appealing to a shared value: attendance. Talk to him — better yet, to the Deacons — about the relatively few young men (20 – 50) in the audience. ”
You hit the nail on the head there. Our Church has few young people. Lots of women. It’s mostly the location. It’s farther away from large population centers with no apartments nearby where young people would live. Many homes are on acreage. It does take some $$ to live in that area, which many younger people don’t have.
I think women flock to the Church because the leadership panders to them for attendance. If the women go, the women will bring their kids. Dad may come too, but grudgingly, or not at all.
Look at the stuff for women at any Church. There’s multiple things for them to be involved in, but usually only ONE for men, and that’s nearly always meeting at a restaurant once a month. No thanks.
I bailed on an internationally respected Bible Study, partially for that reason. It was an old mans club. Old men who beat up on themselves. Ugh.
Unfortunately (not really) for me, although I’m in nearly 60, my body doesn’t know yet. I could keep up with the 20 somethings when I did Crossfit. I stopped going when the “box” as we called them, moved. I just don’t relate to guys my own age. I relate better to those in their 20’s and 30’s. It seems like guys my age are just beat up and tired, and I just can’t relate. Must be genetic. When my dad was 78, he bought a motorcycle and rode it nearly coast to coast. Then he sold it. It was just something he wanted to do. Still at 83 is very healthy and has lots of energy.
Meanwhile, If all I do is bitch at the blue pillness at my Church, then I’m just a whiny bitch. I’m trying to change things. I actually taught an adult class for the first time in my life. I throw out tidbits of red pill. I plan to do more.
@Dalrock
“The way I would frame it is that the women in the congregation are commanded to respect their husbands, fathers, etc. When he gives sermons “picking on men”, he is making it harder for the women in the congregation to follow what the Bible instructs. This is hard enough for them given our anti Christian, anti husband/father culture. When their own pastor joins in with the culture (even in jest) and tempts them to sin in this way it places a very heavy burden on them.”
*******************************************************************************************************
Holy cow. That is very nearly word for word what I wrote to him in the email !!
I’m working on it…
feeriker,
Then he’s useless as a pastor and his “church” is useless (or even toxic) as a part of the Body of Christ.
Even worse, the pastorbator has a complete lack of genuine faith.
Anyone who thinks that a pastor ‘rooted in our society’s values’ can get off the hook has admitted that Democracy = Misandry = Incompatible with Christianity (or any other functional ideology of any merit).
The idea that women are inherrently virtuous, and that men need women to sanctify them is deeply ingrained.
There’s no shortage of pastors who talk about how young men without wives are just “boys who can shave,” and that like Adam they must have “a helpmate suitable to them” in order to be considered real men. But for all of their bluster, how many examples do we really even have in the Bible of men who had wives that were unquestionably more righteous than they, or that helped their husbands faithfully follow the mission God gave them? Sarah was chosen to be mother of the Jewish people, but she openly scoffed at the idea when she heard it from God Himself and then pretty much threw away her promised role when she persuaded her husband to have a son with another woman. Jacob’s first wife Leah conned him into marriage so that she wouldn’t have to die single, and that might have worked for her if only her husband hadn’t responded by conspiring to wed her sister Rachel (the woman he’d really wanted) just a week later. Neither wife was happy about having to share a husband, and they worked out their frustration by tossing him back and forth like a sort of sexual football until one of them finally died. Job’s wife even famously went so far as to encourage her husband to “Curse God and die.”
When you look at most of the wives in the Old Testament, there might be only one who’s known mostly for her virtue, without any serious faults listed: Ruth. The act that proved her righteousness and fidelity was not leading a people group, or preaching to thousands, or making some great demonstration of public charity. It was in remaining so consistently loyal to her deceased husband that she provided for his mother, then relocated to his homeland before marrying one of his kinsmen and bearing his children so that his people’s bloodline would continue. Any chance you’ll hear a pastor tell the wives in his congregation that this is a gold standard for feminine Christian behavior, and that they should consider aspiring to the same with their own husbands?
I don’t believe marriage is a curse (or that it’s supposed to be, at least) but when you read about what the husbands in the Bible had to endure I have trouble figuring out where pastors got this idea that living life with a woman attached is what makes a man holy. Paul’s advice to the Corinthians, by contrast, makes far more sense: “Those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”
Really? He was created man before God thought of a helpmate. The reason why was because it wasn’t good that he was alone.
Obviously some of these pastors reveal their woman worship as the basis of masculinity quite regularly.
@Dalrock: “Then I would meet him with great cheer, and in the course of the conversation let him know your concern. The way I would frame it is that the women in the congregation are commanded to respect their husbands, fathers, and elders. When he gives sermons “picking on men”, he is making it harder for the women in the congregation to follow what the Bible instructs. ”
I have never, ever met a pastor with the humility to accept correction from a parishoner. Left a number of churches over that crap before I gave up on churches altogether.
Well except my interpretation of the story has nothing to do with the other commenter, nor did I suggest that it was the love of a virtuous pagan woman that slew the Dragon (I said it was Christ who did the slaying) and finally, I did not say anything at all about St. George falling in love with the woman or being loved by her (in the story, St George does not marry the princess).
I don’t want to say that you’re deliberately misrepresenting my comments, but I’ve seen it before and it’s pretty clear that is part of your AMOG script.
One of the overseers (they had 3) at my past church started a sermon with “Husbands, look to your wives and say you are sorry.” I noted to the pastor that this was really offensive, since each husband didn’t necessarily have anything to apologize for. The pastor didn’t see a problem with it. This was the one I was invited to leave since I challenged them too much while processing my divorce.
Note that the speaker did not tell the wives to do the same.
Feeriker,
To a point, though all churches, even the best, are going to be colored by the culture they operate in. That is simply human nature. Preachers should certainly preach the Word and oppose it where possible or needed, but it does color how we see things. All of us are that way to some extent, even those replying here.
Even worse, the pastorbator has a complete lack of genuine faith.
This really cannot be emphasized heavily enough. The fear of both women and the State (to the extent that there is any longer a difference between the two) is rampant in and all-consuming in America’s Protestant churches today and has rendered them impotent, both as forces for evangelizing the Word and teaching and leading their own flocks. As someone here said not long ago, people worship what they fear, which explains the churchian idolatry of both women and the institutions of the temporal state (specifically, its appendages of force [i.e., police and military]).
Our God makes it well known that He is a jealous God and the Scriptures are replete with examples of His wrath and His punishments for idolatry. Any pastor even cursorily familiar with Scripture is well aware of this. Why they continue to delude themselves into thinking that God will bless them and their “churches” when they not only do not put their trust in Him to guide and shield them in the preaching of His truth, but replace Him with idols is one of the universe’s most enduring mysteries.
Dear Dalrock,
Think of the “Religion of Amor” as a delicate blossom on the grand trees of classical Christianity.
Worshipping the flower while forgetting the tree is a sin.
In our present era, they are chopping down the trees, while men are yet defending the “precious blossoms of muh ladies,” even though those blossoms are now withering upon the dead branches.
The religion of amor, in so far as it encourages adultery and fornication, is very un-Christian and ought be called out and burned.
However, I think Dante got it right.
Dear Joe,
The second a pastor stated, “We must not upset the women,” I would likely take my family elsewhere, or at least ask him to also teach Genesis once or twice a month. Of course, the next church may not be that different. Perhaps read the KJV Bible to your kids once a week too? Just fifteen minutes the words alone a week would work wonders. There i no need to even criticize your pastors. Just read the words once a week to your children, and pick the passages where your pastor is falling short in communicating. That way they still get the Word while enjoying the general benefits of a Church which at least teaches that one OUGHT to follow the Lord, unlike today’s schools. Best Wishes in all!
Joe,
At least you have a wife for some fellowship. Try being an older single guy with no family or friends. That is my situation now and it really sucks. The church is no help in this area. Mine has several men’s groups, but few really build the connections I see as being vitally necessary today.
DA,
How many could handle the example Peter gave about Sarah calling her husband “lord”? Note that this was in the NT, where Jesus is clearly the Lord. It is still written that a wife calling her husband lord is a good goal, but I have never heard it preached. I had one associate pastor even tell me it was wrong, in spite of it being in the Scriptures. And this was a guy who preached hard messages for the young singles, yet he was blind in this area.
To a point, though all churches, even the best, are going to be colored by the culture they operate in.
Of course. The church today, however, refuses to go against the culture at all for fear of ridicule or persecution. There is a very big difference.
“…although I’m in nearly 60, my body doesn’t know yet. I could keep up with the 20 somethings when I did Crossfit. I stopped going when the “box” as we called them, moved. I just don’t relate to guys my own age. I relate better to those in their 20’s and 30’s. It seems like guys my age are just beat up and tired, and I just can’t relate. Must be genetic. When my dad was 78, he bought a motorcycle and rode it nearly coast to coast. Then he sold it. It was just something he wanted to do. Still at 83 is very healthy and has lots of energy.”
^ @Joe: My most important friendships have been with older Christian men. I traded loyalty, service, and a willingness to learn and grow as a person for their mentorship, work contracts and referrals, and wisdom.
The hardest part is the year or two before they succumb to some illness, such as cancer, and pass on to be with the Lord. You find yourself standing in front of someone that you genuinely care about, who’s been a genuine friend and made your life better, that’s on the verge of death.
You have to maintain your composure while continuing your part in being of service to your aging friend when it’s no longer materially reciprocal for you. It’s not the way of the world, but it is God’s way. I wouldn’t trade one those godly men for all the tea in China, that’s for sure.
@BurnerPrime
Actually we are called to ‘hand over our virtue to God’ and to be perfectly honest we are also called (men and women) to hand over our sexuality to God also. Christians must be oriented toward God in all things.
I eagerly await a quote of me saying such a thing. If you have to lie to make your point then your point is wrong by default.
Interesting criticism here. Apparently following Christ is not following God?
You’ve obviously learned well at the feet of dalrock of deliberate misinterpretation.
Pingback: The love of a virtuous pagan woman tames the beast inside. | Reaction Times
You guys haven’t learned the first lesson of church:
The Bible is properly taught by a well-credentialed, well-paid expert.
Correcting these experts is as blasphemous as correcting your surgeon mid-surgery.
This goes hand in hand with the definition of true religion:
-Attending church
-Getting others to attend church
-Generously tithing to church.
The church is not broken, doesn’t need fixing: it’s working perfectly as designed.
It’s a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) business.
@ Skyler
I think your interpretation is pretty good. It shows though how the tale inverted how it worked in reality.
Christ crushed the head of the serpent…Christ came into the world because a virgin followed the will of the God.
@Joe @Larry
Joe, start a group within the church and focus on the misandry. Every example you can drag up from sermons helps. Show the messages that come in from outside. Simply shoot to build awareness, and show the contrast to scripture. Casting a beam out of your eye before criticizing a mote in another’s eye is good, but ignoring the beam in another’s eye while searching out an (imagined) mote in your own is not. That’s pretty much what your pastor is doing.
The more that the men of the church see this, the more its going to cause that delightful CogDis. Rather than just leaving, once you’ve built your group up to something noticeable, walk simultaneously out of the sermon and go to the lobby (if any) and have coffee with your group. Go back in when the misandry stops.
If 10 guys got up and walked out in a 100 person congregation, that’s noticeable. Obviously it has to scale, but the tongues will start wagging. What happens afterward is anyone’s guess.
It’s a modern man’s first impulse to retreat from the battlefield and go elsewhere rather than fight. You don’t actually have to. 10 married men with an average of 2 kids is 40 people. That’s a lot to try to excommunicate, and what about those poor spouses? How does it look when the church has to try to forbid your attendance? How can they actually do it? Have the police arrest you for trespass? Yeah, that looks good for recruitment. Remind the church leadership of that, regularly.
That’s Larry’s informal group in action, if you can muster the balls to do so on such rabbits.
Does he [sleigh] his inner beast with bells on?
There’s no shortage of pastors who talk about how young men without wives are just “boys who can shave,” and that like Adam they must have “a helpmate suitable to them” in order to be considered real men.
Those types don’t seem to understand that many of the young men are in complete agreement about getting that suitable helpmate, but they don’t take council with those young men to learn anything of their perspectives.
1. There is a substantial shortage, bordering on zero, of young women who have any interest in being a suitable helpmate. They have perhaps never heard the term, but even in concept the idea has little appeal to the modern church chick. Helpmate doesn’t sound anything like equal partner.
2. Reliable, steady Eddie young men have to wait until, in a comprehensive reworking of an old saying, young women have sowed their wild oats. Move too soon and he risks being publicly assigned to the friend zone, which all the other young women will honor, taking him out of contention completely unless he makes a permanent change of venue.
3. There should be a number 3, but I forgot it.
It is incorrect to lump jbarruso and SklyerWurden together. jbarruso fell into the “sanctifying woman” trap, but SkylerWurden is advancing a more nuanced interpretation that merits serious consideration. I can’t make his argument better than he already has, but I would encourage anyone who doesn’t see the distinction to read his interpretation more carefully. Or go read my comment on the previous post because I was poking at a similar, though slightly different, thing.
@Lost Patrol
Yeah. I think “Try harder, dummy.” fairly well misses the mark on the whole II Tim. 2:24 “apt to teach, gentle unto all men” requirement.
@SkylerWurden, actually, you did say that, in so many words…
“Being a woman, her “virtue” is largely seen as being tied up with her virginity, hence it is a symbol of virginity that she hands over.”
All females are born virgins. Virtue is tied-up with virginity. She is born virtuous.
Q.E.D.
As far as her being noble and virtuous for sacrificing herself, that does not comport at all with the Golden Legend. She DREW THE LOT and only after pressure from the town did the King relent and send her. She did not volunteer or anything of the sort. She showed no virtue in that regard, only doing what she was commanded to do by her father and the town. As so many had suffered the fate before her, it was fairness and obligation, not virtuous sacrifice.
And while we’re at it, she already followed God, so how was she a pagan?
“She said: For God’s sake, good knight, go your way, and abide not with me, for ye may not deliver me.”
Sounds like they were not Christians, that’s all. And George held the town hostage until they all got baptized. Real nice guy that one- SUPER virtuous.
Dear Dalrock,
Please do comment on Dante, for it is the MOST PROMINENT poem wherein the love of a woman replaces Christ.
This esteemed professor (Smiling Through the Cultural Catastrophe: Toward the Revival of Higher Education) cites C.S. Lewis on AMOR & The Allegory of Love and states that Dante saw Beatrice as Christ–you’ll enjoy the few pages here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=RY0cHJg9K6kC&pg=PT11&dq=smiling+cultural&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitqMDOnNnaAhVrslQKHf3TCDcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=religion%20of%20amor&f=false
Yes! Write an essay on Dante as he seems to have trumped all the poets/troubadors in Exalting the Religion of Love. And too, Dante’s Inferno, at the same time, is a Christian Epic!
Please do reflect on all this! 🙂
@BillyS
Someone on the other thread called it “the only real man in the room preaching.” Evangelicalism is a cult, the pastors are the charismatic cult leader. In order to maintain his position as the cult leader, he needs to destroy his rivals, other men, in the eyes of the congregation. Just go to youtube and you can watch hundreds if not thousands of Evangelical pastors doing the same thing.
Just like an authoritarian state wants to destroy the family, because the family represents a competing authority structure that keeps state power checked, so the Evangelical cult leaders want to destroy the families in their congregations, thus destroying any center of power than can keep them in check. What better way to do that then by symbolically cucking the men of the church in front of their wives?
Sometimes they are overtly sexual about it, with all this stuff about putting them men in aprons and making them do the dishes – go ask a dominatrix, she’ll recognize it right away – it’s called “forced feminization” a recognized “kink” that “subbie” men pay good money for.
These Evangelical churches are cults full of sexual perverts. I can’t imagine why any Christian would attend one. Even the devil can quote scripture.
So a man cant follow Christ unless he loves a woman?
I guess Paul, he who wrote a chunk of New Testament and was by his words, single, didnt actually follow Christ? Interesting. Maybe he loved his mother or sisters and this type of love substituted for the redeeming power of romantic love.
While I wholeheartedly disagree with the necessity of getting married for men to be whole or redeemed of whatever other term you wish to use, I do believe that marriage can and will change a man in ways a single person will never experience. Marriage, similar to experiencing trials and tribulations in life, is just one of innumerable methods God uses to mold us more into His image. God uses a wife/spouse, not to complete you or redeem you, but to make you realize how much you need Him. it forces you to rely on Him. Likewise, having children is another mechanism used to mold us into His image. I can only speak for myself, but the idea of safely leading my wife and 5 kids through this life as the head of house and the spiritual leader is a daunting task. One I cant do on my own. it definitely fosters a realization that reliance on God is a necessity and it hopefully results in driving you to your knees before Him. This, I think, is one of the greatest benefits of getting married and having kids.
And before anyone says anything, I am not saying that being married is necessarily more spiritual or better than remaining single. God works in and on the lives of single people just as he does married ones and as far as i know, there is no singleness disqualifier when it comes to following Jesus.
Damn Crackers @ 12:16 pm:
“Maybe some of you know better than me, but I just learned that the highest degree of glory (Heaven) for the Mormons are only for those who have been married. This idea reminds me of Swedenborgism. Is there any relationship between these two?”
What the hill is Swedenborgism? *Googles* Oh. Does not involve Captain Picard in Sweden. Had to check because “Jedi” is reportedly a legitimate faith in the UK now. That would be an epic nerdgasm… UK Star Wars priests against Swedish Star Trek priests….
Per the… ‘Borgs’ website, no, there’s no relationship. A real Mormon can set me straight but Mormonism teaches that a married couple become new “Jesus-equivalents” who populate a new planet after death. That’s why marriage is extra-special. Swedenborgism is just Unitarianism with no special emphasis on marriage according to what I see on their “beliefs” page.
Postscript, I am misinformed. Jedi is not a religion according to the UK gov’t.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38368526
19 December 2016
Jediism, the worship of the mythology of Star Wars, is not a religion, the Charity Commission has ruled. The commission rejected an application to grant charitable status to The Temple of the Jedi Order. It said Jediism did not “promote moral or ethical improvement” for charity law purposes in England and Wales. … The commission said to be classed as a religion it must also have a positive beneficial impact on society in general and raised concerns that Jediism may, in part, have an “inward focus” on its members. …
Daniel Jones, leader of the Church of Jediism in the UK, said Jedi would continue to do charity work without any legal status and was convinced “Jediism’s status will change in the next five years”.
Jediism has more adherents than Rastafarians and Jains, according to the 2011 census.
But the number of Jedi fell sharply from 2001, when 390,000 people said they were followers of The Force.
That’s because Episode 2 came out in 2002 and fans realized Episode 1 wasn’t a mistake.
“vfm7916 says:
April 27, 2018 at 2:33 pm
@Joe @Larry
Joe, start a group within the church and focus on the misandry”
This has occurred to me…
Thoughts are formulating…
“…a woman makes a snide comment about her husband, but we should be able to calmly and rationally rebut this behavior. It won’t make you the most popular guy in the room, but it’s fairly effective long term.”
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
However, you err here by thinking like a man. A woman won’t stop denigrating her man– or men, in general– until doing so unambiguously lowers her status with other women.
The only antidote is intensive social shaming, a nasty rebuke or four, delivered by her peers.
Nothing else matters to her: reason, consequences, your opinion, my opinion; all background noise or inadvertent positive reinforcement. (ie. “OMG! CONFLICT! ATTENTION! EMOOOOTIONS!!1! I feel alive!”)
You have to propagandize the hens at the top of the pecking order. The rest takes care of itself.
“The idea that women are inherrently virtuous, and that men need women to sanctify them is deeply ingrained. You won’t find either of these concepts in Scripture, but even commenters on this site can’t distinguish between the moral views of Courtly Love/Chivalry and the Bible.”
Almost I can say is: “Nailed it!” There is that thing about the virtue of the virgin Mary, which was necessary for the dignity of God to send his only begotten Son, yes? It’s not like pedestalization comes without any plausible scriptural backing at all.
The chaste woman gets us closer to God and salvation.
However, the counter examples of St. Paul are numerous and much more explicit. Nevertheless, scripture is not followed unless its followers can cherrypick for validation. Eve is another possible counter example. So then, should we conceptually allow for both chaste women and foul women in general? At what point is it tilting at windmills to win the hearts of eminence fronts (a la Red Pill)? Each man must and will decide for himself. We are not all created equal, even if we is only men. I contend that AWALT. Do the field work and the empirical evidence will be overwhelming.
Gunner Q relays that Mormons suppose to recieve a new planet. I know that must be a vicious lie and rumor, but then I see all the search results from mainstream news outlets. WTF? “Say it ain’t so, Glen, say it ain’t so!”
GBFM
Please do comment on Dante, for it is the MOST PROMINENT poem wherein the love of a woman replaces Christ
Hardly anyone reads Dante. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.
This would be a great topic for an essay on your blog, GBFM…
Still not buying Dalrock’s interpretation.
Elijah goes to a widow. He tells her to make food for him. Does that make it a story about the awesome power of a virtuous widow? No, it shows how in faith, the weak and poor are a source of blessing through God’s power. What they had was insufficient, and God makes it abundant when the widow listens to God’s servant Elijah.
Likewise, for St. George and the dragon, the weakness of a young woman and her inadequate girdle leashes a fearsome dragon. “Be not afeard” – this was not St. George desperately looking for solutions when the cross has failed, but a deliberate demonstration to her and her people how defeated the dragon was. Any virgin power only exists within the context of the cross defeating the dragon, and baptism killing the dragon. There’s truth to that, too, as without Christianity, what good is virginity? “magic AIDS drug”
That said, as a story, it’s open to interpretation, and chivalric interpretation will take the wrong lessons. But chilvaric types do the same to Bible stories, such as making Vashti into a hero, or overplaying Deborah as an example of Grrlpower rather than male cowardice.
Thanks Anonymous Reader!
Yes! “Hardly anyone reads Dante. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.” Yes!
But Dalrock is developing the history as to how we arrived here, so Dante, as the most influential Christian Poet EVER, must be included! Dante exalted the Religion of Amor as no other before nor since.
Anonymous Reader, please do not banish Dante and Christ from a Christian blog, and replace them with Fireproof.
@HipsterR That was some thesis. I have lived in the Bible Belt only late in life. That’s how I saw the mega-churches but without that concise clarity. It’s not just about the money then. The congregation has to feel it. The lemma to your thesis must be that some men like being cucks, or that a male sucker is born every minute. The preacher wants to feel it too. It is not necessarily a chore but ‘a love’. The more I apply the Triune Brain Model the more scary life is.
GBF
But Dalrock is developing the history as to how we arrived here, so Dante, as the most influential Christian Poet EVER, must be included! Dante exalted the Religion of Amor as no other before nor since.
You have made your request multiple times. Likely he’s seen it.
Now you’re just nagging him, on his own blog, like some girl who wants the cute guy to notice her.
Anonymous Reader, please do not banish Dante and Christ from a Christian blog, and replace them with Fireproof.
GBFM please troll harder. Maybe on your own blog?
Anonymous Reader says:
Hardly anyone reads Dante. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.
Hardly anyone reads Homer. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.
Hardly anyone reads Matthew. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.
Hardly anyone reads Mark. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.
Hardly anyone reads Luke. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.
Hardly anyone reads John. People show Fireproof to mid high kids.
As I have said numerous times, the genius of the feminism movement was that it enlisted the likes of Anonymous Reader to deconstruct, disparage, dismiss, and destroy the Great Books for Men.
Genius!
Where is ‘George’ in the Bible? Nowhere is where. There’s a dragon, yes, prominent in Revelation, clearly identified with satan. There is no George, however.
Maybe these folks are thinking of The Beatles?
Anyway, just try telling them there’s no George in Scripture. Or Ringo. They’ll resent you for understanding something they don’t, hate whatever truth is in you, explain they were waxing metaphoric, then call themselves Christians. Each man makes up his own story now, and seeks after his ‘own’ truth. Obedience and hierarchy are for losers, who cares how God set it up. Build those followers and rack up those page hits.
The Bible is whatever I say it is, and if I say ‘Saint George’ is important, then don’t contradict me. It’s more important to feel good about myself, and look good in front of my friends, than to get nearer the King by cleaving to the (largely objective) truth.
GBFM: Let us speak of Dante and Christ.
Feminist-controlled Churchian: Shut it down!
GBFM: Let us speak of Dante and Christ.
Feminist-controlled Churchian: Shut it down!
GBFM: Let us speak of Dante and Christ.
Feminist-controlled Churchian: Shut it down!
While Christian Men should be claiming their rightful, exalted heritage, they are instead dutifully rejecting and disparaging it, as they were programmed to do.
@BillyS
One of the overseers (they had 3) at my past church started a sermon with “Husbands, look to your wives and say you are sorry.” I noted to the pastor that this was really offensive, since each husband didn’t necessarily have anything to apologize for. The pastor didn’t see a problem with it. This was the one I was invited to leave since I challenged them too much while processing my divorce.
Note that the speaker did not tell the wives to do the same.
It can only get worse, and it will! Now that Pound #MeToo is such a hit, it seems that Evangelical women are trying to jump on the bandwagon with their own #ChurchToo hashtag to shine a light on how viciously they have been oppressed by the males that make up less than %40 of the national church population. Because even when men are in the minority we somehow still manage to end up forcing our will on a population that vastly outnumbers us.
Your apology story will probably also be replicated as a model for other churches as well — but this time for all men, and not just husbands. While I didn’t get to see this in person, Relevant magazine reports that at least one preacher is finding that the aforementioned hashtag has provided him with a handy new way to publicly spank the men of his church:
Coming soon to a church near you! In the future, men will have to begin their repentance prayers by confessing that they are guilty of being born a male and thus bringing disappointment to God.
Article can be found here: https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/if-we-want-less-metoo-stories-heres-what-has-to-happen/
Funny, but it is my understanding that saints defeat the Dragon in the following way.
“And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.” Rev. 12:11 ESV
Of course many (probably most) in the church (including pastors) actually love this present world (like Demas in 2 Tim. 4:10) rather than Christ, and will sooner or later abandon the Lord. Such folks will never enter His Rest.
In this present age, everyone who wants to live a godly life will be persecuted.
Most modern church leaders are not persecuted like Paul, because they do not share the same Faith as Paul. Many God be merciful to us all.
9 marks wants to tame men
https://www.9marks.org/article/what-the-church-can-and-should-bring-to-the-metoo-movement/
apparantly “metoo” is some divine intervention from God
Is it OK for a Christian Man to read Dante, Homer, Milton, Virgil, Socrates, Euclid, Plato, and Shakespeare?
I can’t wait for Pastors to come out and say
a real Chivalrous Godly man does not burden his wife with breastfeeding
http://time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter
Just thought I would throw this into the mix. It is the obverse side of a gold sovereign, it is the picture of St George slaying the dragon. The princess is nowhere to be seen:
So basically to become a true Christian, a man has to become a pussy whipped … uh … pussy.
Oh, bdash77, I wish you’d included some sort of warning with that link. Now I can never unsee it. The beard…the leg hair…the giant boob…aughhhh.
Pound #MeToo
Now that right there is funny.
Wikipedia reports: “Ultimately, Lancelot’s affair with Guinevere is a destructive force.[20] It results in the death of two of Gawain’s brothers Gaheris and Gareth at Lancelot’s hand during his and Ector’s violent rescue of Guinevere from being burned at the stake for her infidelity, a war waged against Lancelot by the vengeful Gawain and King Arthur in France, and Mordred’s betrayal of Arthur to seize the throne for himself.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot#Later_years_and_death
Lancelot’s affair with Guinevere is a destructive force.
And too, Helen’s affair with Paris was a most destructive force, leading to the ten-year siege of Troy and the deaths of many many men.
The Great Books and Arthurian Romance teach that adultery is a most destructive force. Is that why Churchians detest the Great Books for Men perchance?
Darwinian Arminian (who is on a roll lately) and bdash 77 have each found articles by woman pastors that explain how the already abased and fearful churchmen need to grovel harder.
More of this is welcome. Pour it on ladies. It will help to separate the wheat from the chaff. Maybe not in the way you think or hope.
feeriker,
This really cannot be emphasized heavily enough.
Indeed. I do my best to reiterate this as often as applicable, but it seems that the mountain is of infinite height.
The idea that women are inherrently virtuous, and that men need women to sanctify them is deeply ingrained.
In reality :
i) Men vote for what benefits all people, while women vote for what benefits women only.
ii) Many men will die for women that they don’t even know. How many women will spend even $20 of their own money on a man that is outside of the top 5% of sexual attractiveness?
iii) Most importantly : The more a particular subject has to do with the advancement of civilization, the less women are interested in it. This correlation is so precise as to be uncanny. It is quite fair to say that women and civilizational progress are in direct opposition to each other.
Only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women, and that 13% is concentrated in subjects like soap opera storylines, etc. (you will see grammar and first-person writing that you will be startled to find on Wikipedia, such as ‘he cheated on her and I didn’t like it’). By contrast, an article about, say, Extrasolar planets or Moore’s Law will be the work of a 100% male contributor roster.
Dalrock,
Typo : “The idea that women are inherrently virtuous, ”
There should be just one ‘r’ in ‘inherent’.
[D: Thanks! Fixed.]
Yep nope.
Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, John the Baptist, Jesus Himself and Paul the Apostle.
No wives doing any “taming.”
^
Mary tried to tame a 12 year old Jesus
and she got a tongue lashing in return…
and when the wives were doing taming, they were called evil/sinful
ahem Jezebel with Ahab
ahem- Sarah telling Abraham to disobey God and have a Child with her maid.
Literally SARAH has caused the death of MILLIONS of people when she tried to sway Abram away from God
but Churchians are like NOOO!
Priscilla and Aquila worked together and Priscilla built tents ( Ignoring the fact that prior to the 1900’s all women identified with their husband’s profession except if the husband was in the army- a tentmaker , had a tentmaker wife, a shepherd had a shepherd wife a farmer had a farmer wife
but since they worked together
it is license for all Women to usurp and rule men….
The best one is Deborah
Churchians- Deborah was a leader , she had a supportive huisband
do they even read their bible?
Deborah’s husband was off fighting wars
Deborah was the only judge that NEVER moved- oh I wonder why, that is right she was supporting her husband and running her house
I have heard so many men use Deborah as an example as to why men should submit and support their wives careers…
they also Ignore the Deborah was AWARE that a Woman bossing and commanding a man was an INSULT to men….
You guys haven’t learned the first lesson of churchianity:
Fixed it for you (your descriptions/definitions that follow are spot on). NEVER confuse churchianity with the Christian church (i.e., the Body of Christ).
Is it OK for a Christian Man to read Dante, Homer, Milton, Virgil, Socrates, Euclid, Plato, and Shakespeare?
Perfectly okay. Now a churchian, on the other hand…
A Christian trusts, loves, obeys, and follows the Lord Jesus Christ (not the feminine imperative).
If we do not serve God, then we will serve idols (and the feminine imperative is one of the greatest idols of all time).
@DQ
You’re forgetting Georgia the country!
Literally SARAH has caused the death of MILLIONS of people when she tried to sway Abram away from God
Sarah also had the dubious distinction of being the only person in Scripture to look at an angel in the face, and then tell a bold faced lie.
And that was the best example of a righteous woman the Apostle could come up with.
It so happens that in Georgia ancient Colchis is located, from which Medea originated, who accompanied Jason and his Argonauts, one of the oldest stories known to mankind. Euripides based his tragedy Medea on this myth, and it is the most performed Greek tragedy of the 20th century. In the myth, Medea helps Jason by defeating a sleepless dragon/serpent that guards the golden fleece hung on a tree by putting it to sleep with sorcery. As this myth is one of the most retold of history, it is not hard to imagine elements might be reused in the tale of St.George and the dragon. As for the role of Medea, in Euripides’ tragedy it is such that she is seen as a champion of modern feminism, which explains it modern popularity. For those less familiar:
“Medea, a former princess of the “barbarian” kingdom of Colchis, and the wife of Jason; she finds her position in the Greek world threatened as Jason leaves her for a Greek princess of Corinth. Medea takes vengeance on Jason by killing Jason’s new wife as well as her own children, after which she escapes to Athens to start a new life.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play) )
It is heralded as (proto-)feminist because “of its nuanced and sympathetic portrayal of Medea’s struggle to take charge of her own life in a male-dominated world” and because of Medea’s “skill and determination in manipulating powerful male figures to achieve her own ends”.
The details of the story are even more sickening:
“Since Jason brought shame upon her for trying to start a new family, Medea resolves to destroy the family he was willing to give up by killing their sons. Medea does have a moment of hesitation when she considers the pain that her children’s deaths will put her through. However, she steels her resolve to cause Jason the most pain possible and rushes offstage with a knife to kill her children. As the chorus laments her decision, the children are heard screaming. Jason then rushes onto the scene to confront Medea about murdering Creon and Glauce and he quickly discovers that his children have been killed as well. Medea then appears above the stage with the bodies of her children in the chariot of the sun god Helios. [..] She confronts Jason, reveling in his pain at being unable to ever hold his children again: ‘I do not leave my children’s bodies with thee; I take them with me that I may bury them in Hera’s precinct. And for thee, who didst me all that evil, I prophesy an evil doom.’ She escapes to Athens with the bodies.”
Medea, heroine of feminism!
To make things worse: in the myth Medea fell in love with Jason and promised to help him, but only on the condition that if he succeeded, he would take her with him and marry her. Jason agreed, but later decides to not marry Medea, but marry another wife, although he already had children out of wedlock with Medea. Hence at the start of the tragedy she was not even his wife as is reported in the Wikipedia article.
And look what is wounding or killing the dragon….the cross. Not the wiles of a virtuous pagan woman.
If you think that’s bad….you forgot about Eve.
“She gives her virginity to Christ…”. How nauseating.
O/T
Sometimes reading around these parts is depressing, hopeless even. When that happens, I write about something good to remind myself that all of this crap can change, one family at a time.
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2018/04/28/perfection/
Carry on.
@Dalrock: sometimes a girdle is just a girdle. In the story you’ve highlighted you have conveniently skipped the part about periodic blood sacrifice — including human sacrifice – confronted by the Cross. The king, putative high-priest, orders appeasement of the beast via the periodic sacrifices. The earthly king is contrasted with the King who confronts the black maw of Death by stretching Himself from earth to heaven and embracing East to West.
If you insist that the girdle – i.e. a long belt probably looped around the waist, across the breasts, over the shoulders and down the back (remember she is dressed in a wedding garment) – is somehow symbolic then you’d need to alight upon a fertility symbol. In that case, the beast is tamed by the power of Christ and the princess converts by doffing her symbolic connection with the local fertility deity.
However, I think the girdle is just a girdle and functions, opportunistically, as a leash. To that end I do not think this story of St. George has any bearing on your courtly love thesis.
I don’t know if its been mentioned before, but I would point out that in Eastern Orthodox tradition it is George himself who slays the dragon.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/George_the_Trophy-bearer
While the myth predates the data – the data that married men are different from unmarried is pretty robust. Causality might go many directions but the data is persistent. Men appear to experience a bigger change with marriage than women do. Maybe that is the man choosing to be responsible. It could also be an illusion- good men get married. Most of the data is not prospective. That would be better.
On Mormons and the next life:
What is the Christian consensus opinion about what people do in Heaven? Like other Christians, Mormons have a wide variety of opinions. Some believe the things other have mentioned – people redeemed by Christ will go on to do things like have a world. This is probably an extreme view even among hard core Mormons and few espouse it but some leaders did propose this at one point and it sounds extreme so it makes the news. It might be more common than I know but I don’t know anyone who seems to belief that in those terms. Mormons do believe in the continuation of family – that part is universal. But What will we do? Serve God in his efforts to save people from their sins but in what capacity I don’t know. It’s also not that important to me. What I focus on is following Christ and accepting His grace and trying to be better.
Anyway- this is a diversion so my apologies.
Earl — “Christ came into the world because a virgin followed the will of the God.”
Uh, no Earl. Just no.
The reason that Christ manifested on this vile planet was NOT because Mary Done Good and Saved Us All. Like the awesome Co-Redemptrix she is!
Nice try tho. You woman-worshippers never give up.
Bart — “Funny, but it is my understanding that saints defeat the Dragon in the following way.
“And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.” Rev. 12:11 ESV”
That’d be correct. Got it to do yet, too.
Hey mebbe some of them ‘saints’ are even named George? :O)
“Of course many (probably most) in the church (including pastors) actually love this present world (like Demas in 2 Tim. 4:10) rather than Christ, and will sooner or later abandon the Lord. Such folks will never enter His Rest. In this present age, everyone who wants to live a godly life will be persecuted.”
Yes. It’s been going on for decades in America already, but the false churches insist upon not seeing it. Much less confronting it. Most folks are cowards.
Scripture makes a strange and discomfiting statement about how in the end times, Christians will be at the forefront of persecuting other Christians — those clinging to the True Faith.
That passage would have been difficult to fathom, even a few decades ago. Now? It should be pretty clear to those paying attention, and not allergic to the truth.
Really…do you even read the Bible? And at no point did I say any of that. I said she followed the will of God. I don’t get the reaction to things that were clearly pointed out in Scripture about Mary.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A+26-38&version=NIV
In light of the comments regarding Arthur, here’s my $0.02.
IMO, one of the great novels of the English language is “The Once and Future King” by T.H. White. I don’t have a copy on hand anymore, but I recall that White steps aside from the story at one point to tell us readers that Malory’s title was “Le Morte d’Arthur”, that this literally translates to “The Death of Arthur”, that this death of Arthur was the result of the sin of incest and adultery that he committed, however inadvertently. Later when Lancelot and Guinevere commit adultery, that opens the door to the destruction of Camelot by the result of Arthur’s sin. In other words, the sin of adultery has consequences and they aren’t good. White goes into those consequences and they are many in the story. They were good people, but they sinned and fell from grace and took the kingdom down with them.
Kevin @ 1:08 pm:
“What is the Christian consensus opinion about what people do in Heaven?”
1 John 3:2 “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”
In other words, nobody knows and anybody who claims to is reliably wrong. There will be “a new heaven and a new earth” which means we’ll likely be living in a different reality with a different set of laws of physics. We have no frame of reference for that.
A meditation I’ve had on the subject: Per Genesis, God created this reality in six days. Taking John 14:2-3 at face value, God has been creating the next world for 2,000 years and counting. That gives one an inkling of the scale we’re talking about.
Gunner Q says:
April 28, 2018 at 7:43 pm
There are a few glimpses in the scriptures:
Matt. 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Ok, so there is some festivities going on, there also must be some vineyards to produce said wine.
Both John and Isaiah go into some detail, but it raises more questions than it answers.
If we are going to spend like infinity years holding hands and singing Kumbya, I’ll kill myself after the first 10,000 refrains.
Kevin, the Mormons are polytheists and believe in false prophets, and do not hold the Bible as the highest/most authoritative holy book. For those reasons, please do not refer to them as Christians. That’s no more accurate than North Korea being a democratic republic.
ray says: Earl — “Christ came into the world because a virgin followed the will of the God.”
Uh, no Earl. Just no.
I saw that too and agree with you ray. Christ came in the fullness of time. And Mary was a favored virgin, yet a sinner also.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
If God was Jesus father, and Mary was sinless, Christ would not have been born under the law.
Earl must have been on a roll, because I also saw the following:
earl says: “He was created man before God thought of a helpmate.”
earl’s God doesn’t think too far ahead. Apparently he created a mate for all the other creatures, but forgot Adam was going to need one.
Hopefully I’m just reading those things wrong.
“What is the Christian consensus opinion about what people do in Heaven?”
The best answer I ever heard is: You will not be disappointed.
@Scott
Revelation 3:21 King James Version (KJV)
”21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”
Heaven involves ruling the Cosmos with God. We get a seat in his Cabinet. There is a good reason one of the parables involved the gifting of cities to good and faithful servants.
@Sharkly
Its a fallacy to think that Mary’s disobedience would somehow derail God. In Esther we see that God always gets his way despite the actions of man:
Esther 4:14
”For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”
When Haman sought to destroy the Jews.
@Scott
Since we no longer can die. We may actually be in hell. If Kumbya for infinity is our fate.
@GunnerQ
”Per Genesis, God created this reality in six days.”
The scale of the universe in six days:
You are…that was the retort that a man needs a woman to become a ‘real man’, ‘complete man’, etc. Adam was already created man before Eve came into the world.
What’s your rationale for that? How else would of Christ been born then? Above the very laws that God handed down? That would sound like rebellion to me.
Its a fallacy to think that Mary’s disobedience would somehow derail God. In Esther we see that God always gets his way despite the actions of man:
Very true indeed. God’s purpose shall always be done, even if it means that a donkey must speak, or stones must cry out.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 46:10
Even when people think they are opposing His will, they are actually fulfilling it, as the passage shows:
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Acts 4: 27, 28.
Even the devil and his cohorts were fooled, as they unwittingly fulfilled God’s purpose, even when they thought they were doing harm to His Son:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 Corinthians 2:7, 8
I am in church right now listening to how men need to serve their wives as Jesus did to his disciples. We are not to rule over our wives. Christ is our example and we need to be like him. So according to this doctrine Christ doesnt rule over us. He just serves us. This thinking is now so pervasive what is believed in the evangelical churches. Jesus is just a non judgemental God that is there to satisfy our desires and whim. No wonder we are so messed up.
So Jesus is the Cruxtoid wimminz’ gay boyfriend now. Got it.
I’ve read your holy book. What happened if Jesus ordered someone to do a thing, and they refused to do that thing? I’m curious how that turned out. Maybe your feminist Cruxtoid priest could tell you, and you could pass it on to me.
Consider the use of Anon’s line: complete lack of genuine faith in your reply to whatever claptrap Father Radfem spouts in response.
Regards,
Boxer
It’s just further proof, Dal, of a peculiarity about your blog. And I am not the only one who has noticed this. A few years back a commenter on the PUA site Return of Kings noted it too.
And this peculiarity is this:
The level of rationality, of intelligent thought, between yourself versus a large segment of your commenters, perhaps a majority of your commenters, is unusually broad. Noticeably more so than most bloggers.
When I read your thoughts I am edified.
When I read many, many of your commenters thoughts, even many of your veteran commenters’ thoughts, I cringe.
God help us.
“What happened if Jesus ordered someone to do a thing, and they refused to do that thing? I’m curious how that turned out.”
King Saul, Jonah and the “man of God” in 1 Kings 13 come to mind. A mixed bag of reactions, actually, but no example you’d care to follow.
No but her obedience to God is the reason why she is highly favored.
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.’
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-30&version=NIV
Disillusioned,
I am in church right now listening to how men need to serve their wives as Jesus did to his disciples. We are not to rule over our wives. Christ is our example and we need to be like him. So according to this doctrine Christ doesnt rule over us. He just serves us. This thinking is now so pervasive what is believed in the evangelical churches.
WHY are you in such a church? Such a church is in the service of Satan himself.
It’s certainly not a church that submits to Christ. And you can use the model of marriage Paul used when it came to Christ and the church.
If Christ doesn’t rule the church…something else is ruling it.
I said: If God was Jesus father, and Mary was sinless, Christ would not have been born under the law.
earl asks: What’s your rationale for that? How else would of Christ been born then? Above the very laws that God handed down? That would sound like rebellion to me.
For Mary to be sinless, then she would have had to also be born of a virgin since the wages of sin is death, and the curse of death is passed down from Adam through the male line. Mary died because of sin’s wages. Jesus did not die solely because of any power of this world, He was given the authority form His Father God to lay down His life, and to take it back up again. Although He came to die, Jesus was not under the curse of death passed down from our earthly fathers. He who descended form Heaven could have transfigured and also ascended back into heaven. Mary needed to be a human so that Jesus could be both God and man.
1 timothy 1:9a understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners
God is not subject to His laws for mankind. For example; how could God the ever living Spirit, honor his Father and Mother? Jesus however, was made flesh, born of a virgin who also sinned, so that as a human he was born under the law, even though as God he is not subject to it but is the Judge of all other men. Just like Jesus explained to Peter, that he did not owe the temple tax, but he paid it to not cause offense. It isn’t rebellion for God to transcend the laws of nature that he has applied to all flesh, nor would it have been rebellion for Jesus to break the Sabbath law made for men as He was accused of doing. However, Jesus humbled Himself to be born of Mary, and be born under the law that He might fulfill it and be sacrificed to save those under the law.
I’m not sure if that clears things up, or just gives you more to question. LOL
That’s what I think. I didn’t have time to put together all the supporting verses right this moment. However, if there is any part you don’t believe, let me know, and I can try to show you that part from the Bible.
‘However, if there is any part you don’t believe, let me know, and I can try to show you that part from the Bible.’
This probably puts together more retorts than what I can put here.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
‘The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be. ‘
where do people get this idea that Mary was Sinless?!!
this is HERESY, can’t believe it is being tolerated here….
this is like basic 101 theology
“My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47). Observe that she referred to the Lord as “my Savior”—not merely “a Savior,” or “the Savior.” No sinless person needs a Savior. Clearly this statement implies that Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us (Romans 3:23).
if Christian think Mary is sinless, no wonder majority of the church loves feminism
can’t even follow basic principles and we expect Christians to oppose feminism….
@earl
Although I find some lines of reasoning here dubious, your response is a bit lame.
After the fall all humans were subject to death because of sin (wages of sin is death).
All have sinned as Romans says. There is no theological nor historical necessity to claim Mary never sinned, as a matter of fact it requires special pleading (“If anyone shall say that a man [..] throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins [..], except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema.” The weird thing is, this statement condemns saying that the man Jesus avoided all sins, whereas it makes an exception for Mary) which goes against common reading of scripture. And to what end? It only distracts from the sinless live of Jesus God’s Son who was made a spotless sacrifice BECAUSE he was sinless.
Furthermore, we have on record that Mary was unclean and had to bring a sacrifice in the temple for her purification.
I would lie to thank Earl for stating that women were responsible for the end all and be all of Jesus Christ. And I would like to thank all the rest of the Churchians for shutting down every conversation about Jesus, Dante, Homer, Moses, and Socrates–every conversation ever, screaming “Ree ree!! Shut it down shut it down! No speak of Dante & Jesus here! Ree! Ree!”
Here is what ye have wrought:
http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/pastor-defends-conducting-beyonce-mass/
bdash 77: where do people get this idea that Mary was Sinless?!!
this is HERESY, can’t believe it is being tolerated here….
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is basic Catholic theology. I think it’s also believed by the Orthodox church.
Sinless people have no need for a Saviour
Sinless people don’t need to go to temples and give offerings.
Sinless people would not have questioned Jesus when he was teaching the religious leaders….
so HALF the Christian population does not know the basics of the Gospel…?!! ” All have sinned an fallen short….”
.
Jeez now this whole Churchian feminism thing seems so minor
We are expecting Churchians to follow the bible on Gender but they can’t even agree on the Gospel….
I think it’s also believed by the Orthodox church.
Not so.
where do people get this idea that Mary was Sinless?!!
this is HERESY, can’t believe it is being tolerated here….
this is like basic 101 theology
The faux-outrage act is wearing a bit thin, sir.
You should really sit back, take a few cleansing breaths, think through things, and calm down before you post – it would add greatly to your posts’ value.
earl, I read your link to the doctrines of Mary being immaculately conceived without a sin nature, and her bodily assumption into heaven. Now I know where the disconnect is. I thought catholics stopped believing that sort of thing a long time ago. Apparently you still do. Are those beliefs widespread among catholics? I think I’ve talked to some that didn’t believe it that way.
I’ll put the tract in a nutshell for others:
The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings. In this tract we’ll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that Fundamentalist writers frequently object to—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. … The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain … The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. … Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. … The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. … Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ. … Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture. The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world. …. The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
Yeah, I have to disagree. I think the popes were clearly fallible men, adding their own views and traditions to the Bible, while obscuring and distracting from the Gospel, and foisting their particular church and all of its dogmas and traditions and sacramental peculiarities onto people like they were a requirement. And I do think their “veneration” of Mary, the “Blessed Virgin”, sounds quite difficult to distinguish from “worth-ship”. I feel like whether they’re venerating the sinless Blessed Virgin who never died, and is united with the salvific work of Christ, or whether they’re a sect of goddess worshipers prostituting their earthly empire for God’s heavenly kingdom, is splitting hairs to me. I’m just surprised that they think their conjecture and traditions are infallible, and that they throw the baby away and keep the bathwater, concerning the Words of God, and their traditions.
About the Dogma of Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception “not so much because of proofs in Scripture or ancient tradition, but due to a profound sensus fidelium and the Magisterium” (sensus fidelium: the supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.)
It is defined ex cathedra as:
“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”
Here it does NOT include that Mary never sinned, but the council of Trent did declare that (see my earlier comment).
Just saying.
1 John 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Not a word on any exception for Mary
@ Poke Salad
faux outrage?
Not much to think about when it is blatantly obvious….
actually hilarious that people believe such nonsense…
In the gospels, only Matthew and Luke mention the events involving Mary before and directly after the birth of Jesus. Only Luke tells about the Annunciation and the Magnificat. Mark only mentions Mary in 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.” John only mentions Mary at the wedding at Cana and at the cross. No theological significance except for the virgin birth is explicitly attributed to Mary in the gospels.
Outside of the gospels Mary mother of Jesus is mentioned at most twice
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Romans 16:6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.
This also has no explicit theological significance attributed to Mary.
That’s all. Of all the multitude of teachings of inspired Scripture both by Jesus, the apostles and the other inspired writers of the NT, not a single one attributes explicit theological significance to Mary. That tells us something.
The only explicit mention of ‘mother’ by Jesus that has explicit theological significance is mentioned by three Synoptic writers
Mt 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
That is, His family made claim on special significance for being blood-relatives, whereas Jesus rejects that significance.
If one is honest, quite the opposite is true: in God’s own words in Gen 3:16 He identities women as the agent of Satan (rebellion) and men as the agent of God (ruling them, as their savior).
Apt comic again:
http://www.redpanels.com/227/
@Luke
I am LDS, I know what I believe, and I only refer to Mormons as Christians, because, you know, I worship Christ as my personal redeemer. I am glad you have a definition you like for what is Christian and it excludes me. Give yourself a gold star. I have a different definition (if it makes you feel good, it does not exclude you). Arguing about our definitions of Christians is not the purpose of this blog and is boring and nonproductive. Its even less interesting that Catholics vs protestants on the role of Mary or maybe the United Palestinians fronts.
Tim Challies gets honest about the word “submit”:
https://www.challies.com/articles/why-we-cringe-at-submit/
But Challies’ last paragraph does not really put aside the worldliness he complains about:
‘So when we encounter this word “submit” in the Bible and especially in Ephesians 5, Paul is not making a statement about the relative value of husbands and wives, but about their unique ordering, their unique functions. He is simply saying, “Families will function best when one person leads and the other person follows that leadership.”’
He is still afraid to say, “Families will function best when the husband leads and the wife follows that leadership.”
Pingback: The Permanent Revolutionary – v5k2c2.com
Hmm,
Great catch and point about Tim. That lack is so prominent among leaders. I would love to hear their answer on what they think they would lose if they said it the way you did. I think if asked, their honest answer would have to be related to fear.
@ Kevin says:
April 30, 2018 at 8:41 am
“I am LDS, I know what I believe, and I only refer to Mormons as Christians, because, you know, I worship Christ as my personal redeemer.”
Except that the Christ you worship is not the Christ of the Bible. They may have the same name, but they’re not the same person. The God you worship is not the God of the Bible. Again, they may have the same name, but they’re not the same person.
@Hmm
Challies is a huge Matt Chandler and Jen Wilkin fan
he has many posts praising women who travel around the country, write books and teach women about Godly motherhood while their husbands sit at home , support them and care for the kids.
He loves “servant leadership” and basically uses it to deny headship.
I always thought the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was developed as an answer to St. Augustine’s concept of Original Sin. It was a mechanism to show how Christ could be born without Original Sin.
bdash 77: Sinless people don’t need to go to temples and give offerings.
Jesus also had no need to be baptized by John. But Jesus did so anyway, as an act of solidarity with man. He was born a Jewish man (a mortal, in the flesh), and He did all the rituals required of Jewish men, even if He personally didn’t require them due to his sinlessness. I suppose the same might be true of Mary.
Imagine if Earl
had put all his energy proclaiming that women were entirely responsible for Jesus
into actually defending Jesus and Dante
in the Greater Culture.
@RPL
Baptism cannot be compared to temple sin offerings. Jesus did not need to go to the temple to bring sacrifices for sin, as he did not sin. Mary did bring sacrifice.
Dear GBFM:
Dante was not a prophet. He was a propagandist, who wrote horrorshow descriptions of Hell, which are nowhere found in the Bible, nor in the works of the church fathers. His goal was to scare people into donating money to the church, rather than increasing faith in the discipline of Christianity.
The easiest way to tell Dante as a propagandist is the language he wrote his Divine Comedy in (hint: it wasn’t Latin or Greek).
Best,
Boxer
Boxer on cue: “Reee Reeee ! Shut Dante down shut it down!! Reeee !! REeeee!!”
Boxer’s heroes are the deconstructionists, and he dutifully follows the commands of the feminists, laying waste to Dante and Christ, saying “Look at me! I am so much greater than Dante, as I write in English! Reee! Reeeee! SHUT DANTE AND CHRIST DOWN!”
Dear GBFM:
I find equating a lowbrow hack, like Dante, to a great thinker, like St. Paul, funnier even than your response…
Have you read The Divine Comedy? There is very little in that text which is compelling. Comparing it to the New Testament is insulting.
Because Jesus Christ did not write in Greek nor Latin, Boxer detests and spits on our Lord Jesus Christ, as his feminist masters command him to do.
Boxer on cue: “Reee Reeee ! Shut LOW BROW Dante down shut it down!! Reeee !! REeeee!!”
Boxer’s heroes are the deconstructionists, and he dutifully follows the commands of the feminists, laying waste to Dante and Christ, saying “Look at me! I am so much greater than Dante, as I write in English! Reee! Reeeee! SHUT DANTE AND CHRIST DOWN!”
Here’s what T.S. Eliot had to say on Dante:
http://tseliot.com/prose/what-dante-means
Boxer of course hates T.S Eliot as much as he hates Christ and Dante, as T.S. Eliot is an intellectual Christian.
Because Jesus Christ did not write in Greek nor Latin, Boxer spits on our Lord Jesus Christ, as his feminist masters command him to do.
Dear GBFM:
Despite our long history of disagreeing, on pretty much everything, I’m glad to see you’re still around. You’re still funny as heck. I trust you’ve been well. You’ve been missed.
Of course, everyone who knows me can attest to my devotion to feminism.
Regards,
Boxer
Because Jesus Christ did not write in Greek nor Latin, Boxer spits on our Lord Jesus Christ and calls Him a LOW BROW, as his feminist masters command him to do.
I read the account in Luke on the parties responsible. Imagine if you put your all your energy into that instead of Dante and Homer Simpson.
“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,
That’s what Christ said. Who cares which level of Hell you end up at…it’s not a place you want to end up.
Dante places adulterers and fornicators and liars and deceivers in hell.
Because BOXER works for the adulterers and fornicators and liars and deceivers, he must RAIL against Dante and Jesus Christ, deeming them LOW BROW as they did not write in Greek nor Latin.
Earl, like Boxer, longs to ban, deconstruct, and degrade DANTE and HOMER, as they have come to ABOLISH Western Civilization, serving their feminist masters.
And Paul says they won’t inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
Who needs Dante when you have the New Testament. Unless you are against Acts through Revelation.
Earl would deny everyone here Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and all the Technology he uses to spread his hatred of Christ, Dante, Newton, and Copernicus. Earl HATES the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, and his feminist masters hath leveraged his vast hatred.
Being against Acts through Revelation which includes the Scripture that has the model for marriage…Christ and the church seems to have more connotation for serving feminists masters than being against Homer Simpson or Dante’s Peak.
Earl HATES and DOES NOT BELIEVE Western Science, as it did not appear between Acts through Revelation.
Earl’s church will have no electric lights, and everyone will have to ride horses there. He will be the only one allowed internet access, and only to attack Dante, Newton, and Christ.
Earl Loves belittling Dante, Newton, Homer, Socrates, and Christ, as his feminist masters give him a cookie each time he deconstructs a Great Book.
Well it isn’t responsible for my salvation like it is for GBFM…but it does provide some nice day to day benefits.
Earl states that our LORD JESUS CHRIST is NOT responsible for his salvation, but only the virgin Mary and the Words between Acts through Revelations.
He would ban and crucify Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus from his church, along with electric light and running water. Earl will be the only one allowed internet access, and only to attack Dante, Newton, and Christ.
One of the most remarkable things of our era
hath been all the time that “Good Christian Men of the West”
have spent in attacking
deconstructing
belittling
and crucifying
HOMER MOSES DANTE JESUS NEWTON GALILEO COPERNICUS SHAKESPEARE
They spit on their Noble Fathers
and their brothers who defend their Noble Father
and then
they wonder why
their women
detest them.
Earl and Boxer
would have voted to Crucify Christ
because Christ did not write in Greek
and because Christ
did not pen Acts through Revelations
Earl and Boxer would
have gleefully crucified Chirst
as they do today
as they get a cookie from their feminist master
for dutifully deconstructing the West
and shout
“We are the only Men in the Room! Hear us Roar!”
Hey Earl, I am under the impression that when a Nun takes her vows she puts on her habit for the first time. Does the ceremony usually involve her taking off any clothing beforehand?
@Kevin
Thanks for posting, always fun to read troll-bait from a mormon. “What do you believe happens in Heaven?” HA HA, what happens is true Mormons rise into Upper Celestial Glory with their own planet….
The Pearl of Great Price makes clear the true belief of the devil-worshiping masons. Good luck selling that here, you can’t hide from the volumes of false teachings with an indexable world wide web; it is the doom of Captain Gold-Plate.
@GBFM:
Homer, Dante, Shakespeare; Morons!
Kevin: Christians hold the Holy Bible as their holy book. You (apparently knowingly) follow false prophets, heretics, which makes you an apostate. The Bible gives criteria for how to tell if a prophet is legit or not. If actual, everything they prophesy is true. There is no shortage of absolute, thigh-slapping, 100% bovine-excretory, howlers of false prophesies by your cult’s founders. You really should learn more about this long-running scam. I pray that you will abandon Joesmithism and come to give your faith to the Jesus of the Holy Bible.
Mormons base large parts of their religion on the so-called book of Mormon revealed by an angel in New York to Joseph Smith in 1827, written in “Reformed Egyptian”, translated by Joseph Smith by placing a so-called ‘seer stone’ in the bottom of a hat, placing the hat over his face, and directly dictating its English “translation” by supposed magic (he did not even had to look at the original!). After this, the original was returned to the angel Moroni and has disappeared. Reportedly only eleven witnesses have “seen” the original after the translation was finished, but of course no one knows “Reformed Egyptian”. As a matter of fact no secular scholar acknowledge even the existence of such a language.
If that does not tell you enough already about Mormonism or its founder: Smith also constantly received additional revelations. These included corrections to the bible itself, which was according to him corrupted, but was “restored” by him by additional revelations.
If you’re still doubting, you can study the content of his “revelations”. Among them:
– polygamy
– celestial marriage
– baptism for the dead
And Egyptologists have proven that material used by Smith in his “Book of Abraham” is composed of Egyptian material (which Smith bought) including the “Book of the Dead” and “Book of Breathing” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_appraisal_of_the_Book_of_Abraham)
Hence, Joseph Smith was a giant fraud and deceiver, which founded a new religion (loosely modeled after Christianity) based on his “revelations”.
I don’t know…does a marriage ceremony where a woman puts on a wedding dress and recites her vows usually involve her taking off clothing beforehand?
@earl
Apparently some see a nun as ‘wedded’ to Christ: “A consecrated virgin is a woman who publicly vows to live in perpetual virginity as an exclusive spouse of Christ. [..]The Christian concept originated in the Vestal Virgins of ancient Roman religion.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecrated_virgin)
It builds upon imagery that is incorrectly applied. Christ the bridegroom and the Church is the bride, not the individual Christian. Same imagery in the Old Testament: God is the husband, Israel the wife, not the individual Israelite.
I think Dalrock had already earlier referred to an article about this bridal imagery and the impact of the feminization of the Church, but it is still worthwhile to read. I’ve included some of the most relevant quotes how feminization of the Church was caused by this new interpretation of Christ as bridegroom to each individual Christian.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-feminization-of-christianity/
“But in the Middle Ages, female mystics, [..] began developing an interpretation of the bridegroom/bride relationship as representing that which existed not only between Christ and the collective church, but Christ and the individual soul. Jesus became not only a global savior, but a personal lover, whose union with believers was described by Christian mystics with erotic imagery. [..] they developed a new way for the Christian to relate to Christ – one marked by intimate longing.”
“For example, the German nun Margareta Ebna (1291-1351) described Jesus as piercing her “with a swift shot from His spear of love” and exulted in feeling his “wondrous powerful thrusts against my heart,” though she complained that “[s]ometimes I could not endure it when the strong thrusts came against me for they harmed my insides so that I became greatly swollen like a woman great with child.””
“The idea of Christian-as-Bride-of-Christ would migrate from Catholicism to Protestantism, and be picked up even by the dour Puritans [..] grew to become part and parcel of American Christianity, especially its evangelical strain, and continues to play a significant role in influencing the language and ethos of the faith today.”
“making the goal of the Christian faith to, [..] develop a “rapturous love affair with Christ” just doesn’t resonate with most men, who struggle to relate to Deity as a blushing virginal bride. The idea of Jesus as committed companion and loving protector is more appealing to women, they say, while men are looking for a leader — a mighty, conquering king to suffer, rather than cuddle, with.”
“Under this theory, the rise of bridal imagery not only made the Christian narrative less compelling to men, it also pushed the faith’s overall ethos in a more feminine direction. The values associated with brides, especially in centuries past — love, protection, comfort, passivity, obedience, dependence, receptivity – came to dominate the ethos of the Christian gospel, and be privileged over its more masculine qualities of suffering, sacrifice, and conflict.”
Haha! On average their ‘clothing’ has been removed multitudes of times by dozens of men already. The wedding merely conveys the serious of this fling over all the others, making the wedding dress a mere formality, nothing to get overly concerned about. It certainly doesn’t denote purity in any way, shape or form.
@Everybody
Please not another Catholic/Protestant debate!
All you arguments (from both sides) have been repeated for the last 500 years. The assumptions are different so the conclusions are different.
I estimate that the number of people that changed their opinions because of a debate like this is about 0.01%.
But if you want to waste your time like this, you can go to a Patheos blog called Biblical Reasons for Catholicism or something like that. The guy (a Catholic called Dave) spends his life debating Protestants. As usual, the debates take years and go nowhere but hey it is better to do that that enjoy cocaine. You can go there and indulge in your favorite obsession.
Dalrock is a blog about Christian manosphere, not about sectarian debates. Thank you for your understanding
Earl the Catholic and Boxer the Mormon seem to be the vocally and vehemently opposed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Dante, Virgil, and Homer.
To be fair, they do seem to be experts on undergarments, sacred girdles, and magical underwear, not necessarily through actually touching said object in real life, but rather through a devoted study program which disparages and ignores the Great Books for Men.
@Paul – Good article about the feminization of Christianity. Although, do we have any stats on male vs. female Church worship in the Early Middle Ages? I tend to think of the feminization of the Church started with the Desert Church Fathers and St. Jerome. The severe asceticism of these figures is a far cry from St. Paul telling husbands to use their wives bodies whenever they need (except for time of prayer). The severe asceticism also draws more from Stoic and other pagan ideas rather than early Christianity.
There may be a reason that St. Jerome had a circle of followers who were all matronly women while in Rome.
“Let foolish virgins roam abroad; do you for your part stay within with the Bridegroom [Christ]. If you shut your door, and according to the Gospel precept pray to your Father in secret, He will come and knock, and He will say: “Behold I stand at the door and knock: if any man open, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me.”(120) And you forthwith will eagerly make reply: “It is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying ‘Open to me, my sister, my nearest, my dove, my undefiled.'” – Letter to the Chaste Eustochium from St. Jerome, 383 AD.
Some interpret discussions on the role of Mary as a specific Roman Catholic – Protestant debating topic. It isn’t. The view on the role of Mary, the view on sexuality, the view on virginity, all have direct relation to at least the historical developments of the role of women (and men) in the church, which is directly relevant to this blog.
@DC
It is indeed a fascinating topic to me too. The historical developments within the Church on topics of virginity, sexuality, marriage, the role of Mary all play a role in development of thinking on the role of men and women (not surprisingly, as the difference between men and women is first of all sexual in nature). Studying these topics sheds more light on these topics and show the different viewpoints. But it is a broad subject!
I have conducted a bit of research, and I can find no evidence of the Church opposing Dante’s Inferno.
It must thus be a Boxer/Mormon/Earl thing to hate and attack Epic Christian Poetry, Science, Reason, and Faith.
“In the midway of this our mortal life
I found me in a gloomy wood astray
Gone from the path direct”
and so it continues for thirty four cantos and that’s just The Inferno. Never previously heard Dante referred to as a hack: Hell seems largely to be inhabited by Italians.
Opus writes: “Dante’s Inferno seems largely to be inhabited by Italians.”
Opus the scholar: “The Iliad & Odyssey seem largely to be inhabited by Greeks & Trojans.”
Opus the scholar: “The Bible seems largely to be inhabited by Jews.”
Opus the scholar: “Moby Dick seems largely to be inhabited by sailors.”
Opus the scholar: “Hamlet seems largely to be inhabited by Danes.”
Praise thy Exalted Revelations!!
Opus the Exalted Christian Scholar on Moby Dick:
“Call me Ishmael.
and so it continues for five hundred pages and that’s just Moby Dick. Never previously heard Melville referred to as a hack: Whaling ships seem largely to be inhabited by sailors.”
O glory be to God for delivering unto us this divine revelation!
Broken inside leftardesses with “daddy issues” from growing up in radical leftist rebellious, immoral, single female “households” band together under creepesses led by a creep. What could go wrong?:
@Luke, @Coloradomtman, @Oscar, @Paul
Gentleman, let it go. We can disagree about the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints divinity. You will just have to trust me that I love the Bible and Jesus and relax. I am just as apostate from your protestantism as you are an apostate from Catholicism. If you want to argue about religious sects we can have lunch sometime but its pointless to discuss on a blog. Its just not the right environment. I am not sure what you think you are going to do spitting your 150 year old accusations at me. Its boring for me, I bet its boring for most others. I can answer every objection and it would be similar to the endless rounds of debates between Catholics and Protestants (or Lutherans and Methodists, or Church of Christ vs Baptists) that sometimes even show up on this blog and almost always result in a thread dying. No one changes their mind because they are not here to learn about religion.
Don’t we have enough enemies already without trying to fight about our definitions of who is and who isn’t a Christian? We don’t need splitters. The red pill can include Christians and atheists, Catholics and Protestants, Christians of all types. You guys need to be a little more secure in your faith so you don’t feel the need to attack everyone that varies from your views. If I knock on your door to testify about Jesus and the Book of Mormon – by all means let me have it and we can debate. But this stuff is so pointless on the internet.
I think it is very good
for Catholics and Protestants
to split hairs
and focus ALL their energy
on undergarments
and deconstructing the Great Books
and belittling Dante and Homer and Christ
after all
it is what your
feminist masters
are demanding
get to it
churchian bros!
da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says: Earl and Boxer would have gleefully crucified Chirst
You argue like a Leftist and sound like a troll. You twist your opponent’s words and impute all sorts of extremist nonsense to them.
You seem incapable of disagreeing respectfully. Someone says, “I don’t think they should build a playground on that lot,” and you reply, “Why do you want to murder all the children?”
Red Pill Latecomer,
You seem incapable of disagreeing respectfully. Someone says, “Dante is a hack and Jesus is only Jesus because his mom wore magic underwear,” and you reply, “Yes Dante sucks and magic underwear is cool.”
You argue like a Leftist, as you hate the GREAT BOOKS for men without ever having read them, as your feminist teacher and mom’s boyfriend (and his son) taught you to do.
@Kevin
If we cannot debate on the internet, all is lost
Change of scene: Doug Wilson answers some mail on his article “The Economics of Sexual Purity”. Look at the first five letters.
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/irish-setters-write-few-letters.html
@Paul: The question is not whether to debate on the internet, but where. Many of us would like to keep the meta at this site closer to the topic at hand, and not argue over denominations and such. It’s tiring scrolling past irrelevant topics and arguments to connect back to the topic at hand.
And geez, GBFM, lighten up! Dante won’t solve the problems and issues this site addresses. It’s not clear to me that Great Books didn’t contribute to the mess we’re in now.
Hmm states: “And geez, GBFM, lighten up! Dante won’t solve the problems and issues this site addresses.” How so? So you agree with the feminists?
Hmm states: “It’s not clear to me that Great Books (Homer, the Bible, Virgil, Dante) didn’t contribute to the mess we’re in now.”
So Hmmm, the Great Books–Homer, the Bible, and Virgil–are responsible for the decline of civilization and the West?
lolzozoz Hmm is another feminist-trained soy boy who hates the Great Books–Homer, the Bible, Shakespeare, and Virgil.
Hmmm hates Homer, the Bible, Dante, and Virgil–his Fathers–and then he wonders why women detesteth him.
@Hmm
To each his own
I estimate that the number of people that changed their opinions because of a debate like this is about 0.01%.
Correct. My reversion/conversion to Orthodoxy was a several year long process that was far more experiential than it was intellectual.
I will say though, since converting I have had a little over 20 guys contact me offline to discuss Orthodoxy. Somewhere around 15 of them are now Orthodox. My guess is its because I don’t shove it down anyones throat.
What importance do Dante, Virgil, and Homer have anyway? Were their stories divinely inspired by God and useful for teaching like Scripture is?
They were probably the CS Lewis’s of their day. There you go…I just gave you troll bait.
He’s GBFM the Projector.
GBFM would be the guy telling the Sanhedrin that Jesus said he would destroy God’s temple and rebuild it in three days because he hated Homer and Plato and wanted to destroy Jewish civilization.
OT but it seems like everyone wants to attack the churchian Christians for being misogynistic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/04/30/in-a-metoo-moment-will-southern-baptists-hold-powerful-men-accountable/?utm_term=.90371eba947a
even their complementarianism is not enough!
Also the Christian youth groups are now praising
this pilot
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/tammie-jo-shults-emergency-plane-landing/
she did an awesome job
but she is being r praised for her faithfulness
GOD helped her overcome MALE discrimination in the military
She is being held as a model Godly woman who smashed discrimination and Works while having kids and a husband. ( Her husband supports her career- pilot as well so spends time caring for the kids so she can fly…)
I could not say anything to respond.
Does God want women to break down Male domains ?
@imnobody
”Please not another Catholic/Protestant debate!”
1+1=2. It is true no matter what side one is on. Someone probably has wrong assumptions or wrong reasoning. Christianity is like that being a declaration of truth. And purging error. This of course may result in error purging truth just as much as Truth purging error.
Ever since the Nicene Council and the Schism of the Eastern and Western Churches. Its excommunication and counter-excommunication.
Personally I would want Christ himself to make it impossible for fake Christians to claim to be Christian. Make it much more simpler.
@Paul
Indeed. Its a shame that its reduced to tribalism in the end. And being in pursuit of truth is taking one side or another. But its probably guaranteed to piss both sides off. I have just as much disdain of the cucktianity of the evangelicals myself.
Its like being blamed for always taking X side or always against Y despite X being right despite Y being wrong most of the time. Reminscent of dysfunctional family situation I have been witness to.
Kevin, just one question:
churchian woman (who put feminist principles over those of the Bible) have torn out and wiped their rears with the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Ephesians, Timothy, Titus, Corinthians, and Proverbs, among others. How many books of the Bible have you torn out of your Bible, replacing them with Mormonscam BS nonsense? (Hint: start with Revelation 22:19, where it says that ANYONE who takes away OR ADDS stuff is headed to a very hot place after death.)
Look, an easy way to tell that the founder of a religion is a scammer is if he says “God told me that I don’t have to work, I get your stuff for free, and I get to bang your young wife and daughter”. That does not apply to Jesus, but boy, does it ever apply to Mohammed, David Koresh, Joe Smith, and Brigham Young. You might want to pick better company.
GBFM is a troll, certainly, but there’s a method to his madness. I have a fondness for him, not least because when he makes fun of me, he is actually funny.
Dante doesn’t belong in the same sentence as Virgil or Homer, much less St. Paul. Honestly, compare:
Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
with:
Thereby Cocytus wholly was congealed.
With six eyes did he weep, and down three chins
Trickled the tear-drops and the bloody drivel.
At every mouth he with his teeth was crunching
A sinner, in the manner of a brake,
So that he three of them tormented thus.
To him in front the biting was as naught
Unto the clawing, for sometimes the spine
Utterly stripped of all the skin remained.
One of these is inspirational, the other is miserable. One is thought-provoking, the other is hateful claptrap. I leave it to you, brothers, to judge which.
Best,
Boxer
I am sure there is a circle of Hell that Dante has designed for just such as Boxer though for the life of me I cannot recall which one it might be. Boxer’s dislike of Dante seems to me to be of the same literary cast as those who, say, dislike Ian Fleming because it is not Jane Austen. Even if Boxer is not partial to the Florentine many are, which is why there are over fifty and counting translation into English of La Comedia. Above I quoted from the blank verse Carey; I wonder which translation Boxer is using but whichever it is it is not tersa rima and I don’t think it is Carey.
I too find GBFM amusing though in moderate doses but I remain doubtful that he has ever read any of the books he touts as being good for men.
@GBFM: Why wait for Dalrock? Why don’t you lay out for us here how Dante’s pedestalization of Beatrice in The Divine Comedy and in real life provides an example to us?
The arguments about who has the “Real” Jesus strike me as pointless in this venue. Not to say unimportant, but the real reason for anyone being here is that something is fundamentally wrong with all of our respective groups, be they churches, schools, or society at large. If that were not the case, we could happily live within our groups in paradise, fully insulated from the evils that affect other groups. If any group had all of the solutions and none of the problems, most of us would go there whether or not we actually believe all of the teachings of the group. In short, denomination bashing doesn’t help here because we ALL experience the same problems.
Dear Opus:
This is a fair critique of my position. I’ll cop to reading things like The Shining and The Story of O in my youth. My fave theatrical work by your most famous literary countryman was (and still is) Titus Andronicus. So, the lowbrow clearly appeals to me.
That doesn’t mean that Stephen King or Pauline Réage are at the same level as Virgil or St. Paul.
Longfellow’s translation is online at:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1001/1001-h/1001-h.htm#CantoXXXII
If you’re alluding to another as superior, I’ll take your word at it. The last thing I am is a scholar of Dante, or Stephen King…
Best,
Boxer
“Boxer’s dislike of Dante seems to me to be of the same literary cast as those who, say, dislike Ian Fleming because it is not Jane Austen.”
As I recall from my college days, Dante used his girlfriend Beatrice as his angelic spirit-guide in the second and third books. This despite (or because) Beatrice had married another man and died by the time he wrote. Hello, mangina!
Da GBFM saw Boxer performing last night and discovered the true meaning of Hell!
Hell is this, for all eternity:
Please note Boxer is wearing magical underwear, which, although not found in Dante, is found in his worship of a false prophet.
Please do keep in mind that when Boxer is belittling Dante, Homer, Moses, and Jesus, he is wearing the below garter as he believes the “magical underwear” exalts him closer to his True Mormon God:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
While Dante places polygamists and adulters in hell, Boxer worships them.
Hence one can see more reasons why Boxer hates Dante. They are very similar, in fact, to the reasons he hates Christ and Moses.
Homer, Dante, Moses, the Bible, and Newton are no longer taught at the university.
Even though Boxer and his feminist masters hath triumphed, Boxer has not yet slowed down in crucifying Dante in each and every post. Even in his triumphant destruction of Christ and Dante throughout the greater culture, his deep-seated, black-hole hatred is not sated.
I think GBFM needs a hobby.
squid_hunt: I think GBFM needs a hobby.
spicy & fierce!
I’m just saying. You seem bored.
@KA: “The arguments about who has the “Real” Jesus strike me as pointless in this venue.”
I don’t think much argument has been made about that. I do not even deny that there are Mormons who are Christians. And the RCC acknowledges Protestants are Christians (but is cautious about Mormons). But for the record I want to put the facts to the table for everyone to see and check that Jospeh Smith was a fraud and deceiver. To continue in that is unwise.at the least. And Mormon doctrine is really far off to the point that many churches have difficulties in calling it Christianity.
Related: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/01/school-threatens-to-make-bras-mandatory-for-female-students-following-nipple-controversy/
Breitbart Magazine is one of the most ‘conservative’ on the planet. But check the comments on this article. They are overwhelmingly AGAINST Branden River High for not allowing this girl to parade her nipples at the school.
Breitbart changed its original headline, which I complained about. Originally it said the school suspended the girl ‘Because Nipples’. I went off about that as it suggests rebuke of the school for doing its job.
This, in the hour of #MeToo, the public takedown of “America’s Dad,” and the endless other feminist pogroms against boys and men. Astonishing hypocrisy and denial from Breitbart. The support of these ‘conservatives’ for the ‘rights’ of this legal MINOR very much verifies the claims of this blog, and other venues, that there is no actual conservatism in the United Sisterhood. There is only varying degrees of Total Feminism.
The air they breathe, indeed.
Yes Ray! “The support of these ‘conservatives’ for the ‘rights’ of this legal MINOR very much verifies the claims of this blog, and other venues, that there is no actual conservatism in the United Sisterhood. There is only varying degrees of Total Feminism.”
In the universities they deconstruct Dante, Homer, and Christ while not wearing magical underwear.
In the church, Boxer/churchians deconstruct Dante, Homer, and Christ while wearing magical underwear, proclaiming themselves to be the only “real men” in the room, roaring and beating their chests.
No fat girls or even slightly heavy ones at that high school! I don’t remember my high school being quite so thin, and that was a long time ago.
Or perhaps that was just a staged photo op with the few that are thin.
GBFM — ‘And I would like to thank all the rest of the Churchians for shutting down every conversation about Jesus, Dante, Homer, Moses, and Socrates–every conversation ever, screaming “Ree ree!! Shut it down shut it down! No speak of Dante & Jesus here! Ree! Ree!”’
Seeing’s how you finally got the names in the right order, talk about it all you want. Nobody’s stopping you.
Thanks Ray,
In the West, Jesus comes first. This holds true for Western science, art, philosophy, poetry, and history.
It is quite remarkable how many folks here hate Western science, art, philosophy, poetry, and history, and thus Jesus too.
Michelangelo’s masterpiece The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel was inspired by Dante:
https://www.florenceinferno.com/the-last-judgement-michelangelo/
As a Western Christian Man, this is your rightful heritage.
Every time Boxer/Earl spit upon it, they are spitting upon both you and Jesus, in addition to Dante and Michelangelo.
Jesus: Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Boxer/Mormon: Ye shall know them by the fruit of their looms.
I think you can hear this in certain young women’s justification to chase irresponsible alpha badboys who are 6’2″, and have six-pack abs:
“You just don’t know him, dad. I can change him!”
So there’s no confusion, I love Earl, he’s a loyal Christian and a strong man. I also have deep regard for Catholics, but not for Catholic doctrines/sacraments, which have been influenced by angels and humans since the late first century A.D.
I was raised in the Catholic Church and am far better for it, despite its doctrinal corruptions, false vicars (all popes following Peter), and global promotion of Mariolatry, and thus, goddess-worship/feminism. This ‘debate’ is VERY germane to the overall theme of this blog; I’m aware that it makes many uncomfortable, including our host, but that was part of my intent in correcting (not rebuking) brother Earl.
The hoaxes at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe etc. have yet to congeal into their final purpose, which is connected to the coming global antichrist, incremental/progressive goddess-worship in popular culture, and the mass belief in the AC’s authenticity. Remember that ‘a woman rides the Beast’. My warnings about Mary and the deceptions surrounding her partly address that onrushing threat.
Mary was a fine woman, who conceived Christ immaculately, meaning without sex, NOT meaning absence of sin. She had sins and faults, just like every other individual manifesting here, excluding King Jeshua. She was not snatched to heaven like Jeshua, Enoch, and Eli-jah; she died a natural, very human death.
Mary is not the co-Redemptrix of Humanity, sitting with Father and Christ in the Throne-room. Satan laid that groundwork, and long afterward, the Western world (including most of Christianity) still cleaves to the doctrines of Equality/Egalite between male and female. Ain’t accidental. Catholicism’s erroneous Marian doctrines played a huge part in the mass acceptance of the satanic principles of the Enlightenment and related political revolts, principally the American and French Revolutions, which essentially were a single entity. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite are not of Christ, any more than the statue of Goddess Libertas in N.Y. harbor.
Christ addressed end-time Catholics via Thyatira in Revelation 2, and warned therein of continuing goddess-worship. However, it’s important to note that the King ACCEPTS certain members of Thyatira/Catholicism, despite the error. In part, because they honor the name of Jesus, and are not ashamed of it.
However, the incident in which the King sat inside a house and taught about His TRUE FAMILY (Matthew 12:46-50) while ‘Queen Mary’ and Christ’s bio-brothers cooled their heels OUTSIDE should tell all Christians, including Catholics, what’s up. The ‘Queen of Heaven’ and ‘Co-Redeemer’ of humanity, if truly equal with Christ, certainly would not have put up with that exclusion for an instant. Indeed, if Mary truly were Co-Redeemer etc., Jeshua surely would have stated THAT, as well as rushing to bring her inside the house. But He didn’t. Not anywhere in His sermons, epistles, or coms with His disciples. Nor did His disciples even suggest such a thing.
Certainly an event/truth as huge as humanity and the universe having a FEMALE CO-REDEEMER, who complements Christ and opens the way to Him, would have been stated very explicitly somewhere in Scripture . . . and almost certainly addressed in detail by the King Himself. But . . . He failed ever to even bring it up? Come on, folks. Some of you aren’t being honest with yourselves.
My purpose in these notes isn’t to alienate Catholics, but to show them their error, about which I would not lie, in hopes of bringing them closer to Father, which also is the obvious aim of this site generally. Please consider this information, disturbing as it may be, in that light.
@ray: “global promotion of Mariolatry, and thus, goddess-worship/feminism [..] is VERY germane to the overall theme of this blog”
Veneration of Mary at least has similarities with goddess-worship and with feminism, so I agree the topic is relevant to this blog as far as we’re discussing it to better understand man-woman relationships.
Dear Boxer,
It surprises me given your antipathy by reason of its gruesomeness to The Inferno of Dante (I have no particular view as to the superiority of any particular translation) that your favourite play of Shakespeare’s is the one *spoiler alert* where the heroine has her tongue cut out and the eponymous hero is fed pies made of his murdered children’s body parts.
Regards, Opus
Pingback: GBFM Goes Real Life – v5k2c2.com
Strawman. My objection wasn’t to the lurid depictions of Inferno, it was to the association of its author to St. Paul.
Anyway, you’ve got Titus all wrong. It’s him who grinds Chiron and Demetrius into hamburger, and makes tacos out of them, to feed to their mother. The two villains are the cutters-of-tongues-and-hands in the first place, so it has a celebratory tone.
Why, there they are! He shouts at the climax, Both, baked in that pie! Wherein their mother daintily hath fed, on self-same flesh that she herself hath bred! ’tis true! ’tis true! Witness my knife’s sharp point, skank-ho bitch!
It’s what I’d imagine Rob Zombie would have come up with, had he been a filmmaking contemporary of the bard. Really great stuff, but not very thought-provoking.
Best,
Boxer
The Immaculate Conception wasn’t about Christ’s conception…it was about Mary’s.
Christ was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon her and the Most High overshadowing Mary.
Earl: “The Immaculate Conception wasn’t about Christ’s conception…it was about Mary’s.”
No.
“Christ was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon her and the Most High overshadowing Mary.”
Yes.
Mary = Emaculate Conception
Jesus = Virgin Birth
Well you’re wrong….and RichardP is right.
Ray sez:
And earl sez:
Why don’t you guys discuss the actual issue? The way I see it, it’s a metaphysical consistency that God would be born to someone who had been previously protected from the “original sin” that exists in the world.
If you disagree with this, you either have to be a strict monotheist (like a Mormon or a Jew) and claim that Jesus was fully human, or you have to be an atheist, and hold that Jesus never existed. It simply doesn’t make sense that God would grow in the womb of a carnal and corrupt woman.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
I admire the Catholics, who have thought such things through to the end.
Regards,
Boxer
@earl
Ignore him
Its better to engage with men who are interested in truth and debating the truth. Who make actual arguments rather than flaming.
Boxer says:
“If you disagree with this, you either have to be a strict monotheist (like a Mormon…
Mormons are technically polytheists, which excludes them from being deemed Christians. (Just acknowledging Christ’s life doesn’t work, as the Muslims do that.)
From Liberalpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Mormonism
“Mormons also believe that there are other gods and goddesses outside the Godhead, such as a Heavenly Mother who is the wife of God the Father, and that faithful Mormons may attain godhood in the afterlife.[3] Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood.[4]
This conception differs from the traditional Christian Trinity in several ways, one of which is that Mormonism has not adopted or continued the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same substance or being.
The Mormon conception of God also differs substantially from the Jewish tradition of ethical monotheism in which elohim (אֱלֹהִים) is a completely different conception.”
And: https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-mormonism-polytheistic
“Q: I understand Mormonism is polytheistic because it teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods. When I recently told a pair of Mormon missionaries they were polytheists, they heatedly denied it, claiming their church teaches the doctrine of the “Godhead” of the Trinity and worships only one God. What’s up?”
“A: The answer to your question is: Yes, Mormonism is essentially polytheistic. But let’s make sure we’re straight on our terms. In Catholic lingo, “Godhead” is another way of saying Trinity in that we understand the Godhead as one God comprised of three divine Persons–not three distinct gods. Polytheism means the worship of a plurality of gods.
Some Mormons, recognizing their theology is polytheistic, prefer to soften it by referring to their religion as “henotheistic,” which means the belief in many gods but the worship of one chief god.
… Mormonism teaches that God the Father is essentially a “perfected man” and is limited by a body of flesh and bone and thus is limited to time and space. He happens to reside on a planet near an uncharted star called “Kolob” (Abraham 3:3-9).
Since Mormons worship both God the Father (Doctrine and Covenants 18:40) and Jesus Christ (3 Nephi 11:17; 2 Nephi 25:29), and since they believe the Father and Jesus are two separate gods, they truly are polytheists.”
Dear Fellas:
There’s a whole lot of trolling going on, among men who ought to be poking fun at their common enemies, but this is the way men amuse themselves generally.
I appreciate Earl for his even temper, and his ability to debate stuff even with people who waste time yapping about things they clearly know nothing about. Folks like me sit on the sidelines and pick up new ideas from him, so all is not lost.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer: “It simply doesn’t make sense that God would grow in the womb of a carnal and corrupt woman. ”
First of all: why? Second: a lot of the things of true things of God do NOT make sense.
“But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are” (1 Co 1:27,28)
Pingback: Get It Right Next Time | Σ Frame
Pingback: What is the blue pill? | Dalrock