[Dr. Howard]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/rel.../13894197/

The south continues to go against the trend of other pussy churches. This organization is still against gay marriage and now is telling people to get married younger.

Of course getting married younger means that there will be more time to pop out kids and bolster the ranks of the church but there is also something else to it:

Quote:

Marriage helps keep young people from sexual sin in the midst of their sexual maturity

There you go, the church is saying "marrying younger keeps women off of the cock carousel" which makes sense to me.

[TravelerKai]

(08-13-2014 04:11 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/rel.../13894197/

The south continues to go against the trend of other pussy churches. This organization is still against gay marriage and now is telling people to get married younger.

Of course getting married younger means that there will be more time to pop out kids and bolster the ranks of the church but there is also something else to it:

Quote:

Marriage helps keep young people from sexual sin in the midst of their sexual maturity

There you go, the church is saying "marrying younger keeps women off of the cock carousel" which makes sense to me.

It's a good start.

Maybe next year they can single out the women and fully explain why their youth is their greatest asset and weapon to guard against all the birth disorders, weight and hormone issues 30+ year olds have, and social dysfunction we are all fighting against these days. But I can appreciate the progression. It's definitely going to take more than Dalrock writing for change in the church if it is going to happen.

[Dr. Howard]

(08-13-2014 04:22 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:11 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/rel.../13894197/

The south continues to go against the trend of other pussy churches. This organization is still against gay marriage and now is telling people to get married younger.

Of course getting married younger means that there will be more time to pop out kids and bolster the ranks of the church but there is also something else to it:

Quote:

Marriage helps keep young people from sexual sin in the midst of their sexual maturity

There you go, the church is saying "marrying younger keeps women off of the cock carousel" which makes sense to me.

It's a good start.

Maybe next year they can single out the women and fully explain why their youth is their greatest asset and weapon to guard against all the birth disorders, weight and hormone issues 30+ year olds have, and social dysfunction we are all fighting against these days. But I can appreciate the progression. It's definitely going to take more than Dalrock writing for change in the church if it is going to happen.

I've just started into a men's bible study group, I'll post where on the blue or red pill spectrum it lands.

[Uzisuicide]

I'm proud of the Southern Baptists. One of the last vestiges of Protestantism that hasn't been poisoned by the secular humanists.

[Suits]

My personal experience in life has been that happiness is a choice, not something you buy with a lot of money.

Things that will screw up happiness are impossible situations where you feel that you have no control or freedom.

That's why staying single works much better for me.

However, if marriage could be an institution that delivered on certain promises and people surrounded themselves with a community of people who shared the same values and drew happiness from enjoying the relationships in their lives rather than buying expensive cars and paying for HBO, there is no reason why young people couldn't be beginning successful marriages at a young age.

Unfortunately, within my church communities, even Christians have bought whole sale into the commercialistic approach to achieving happiness.

Despite being someone who grew up in a family where our parents modeled a minimalist, non-conformist, non-commercial lifestyle, they still encouraged me to go to "a good Christian university" which, by the time I graduated, had a $28,000 tuition price tag per year. While financial aid packages were very generous and helpful, even with 50% off the sticker price and working 20 hours a week for my entire experience as an undergrad, I still wound up with $50K debt.

By the time that I finished my degree, I had concluded that if the school had been genuinely committed to New Testament ideals, they would have found a way to offer a world class education that didn't land every student (that wasn't from a extremely rich family) in a debt hole so debt that they had no choice but to engage in the rat race until it was paid off.

If these Christians were really committed to serving God, they would have wanted graduates to be debt free and truly available to serve him as well. Instead, while building several impressive, but very expensive new buildings on campus, tuition went up $9000 per year during the time that I was enrolled as an undergrad.

Christians want the comfort of having eternal life, but most of the Christians I meet are making no real sacrifices in how they live their lives. Those born in the Western world continue to live life at a Western standard of living, even where it is unnecessary.

Rich Christians still buy nice cars, even though a more affordable vehicle would do the job just as well.

While there very well may be communities of Christians who do not fit this description and I'd like to find them if they exist, as a whole, this religion isn't in any way actually committed to the same type of sacrifice and values that Jesus clearly was.

They want to have their cake and eat it to and they do.

By my calculations, if churches didn't all insist on having their own church building, most of which only get a few hours of use each week and instead pooled resources with other churches, they'd have enough money left over to eliminate world hunger.

But meanwhile, while kids starve to death all over the impoverished world every day, nice, well dressed Christians are praying for God to "give me a good Christian husband."

While I appreciate the sentiment, simply encouraging young people to get married younger and avoid sexual sin as a result barely scratches the surface on the larger problem, that Christians are more in the business of getting theirs than they are of living the type of sacrificial, giving life that their founder is famous for.

[SteveMcMahon]

(08-13-2014 07:36 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Rich Christians still buy nice cars, even though a more affordable vehicle would do the job just as well.

While there very well may be communities of Christians who do not fit this description and I'd like to find them if they exist, as a whole, this religion isn't in any way actually committed to the same type of sacrifice and values that Jesus clearly was.

They want to have their cake and eat it to and they do.

By my calculations, if churches didn't all insist on having their own church building, most of which only get a few hours of use each week and instead pooled resources with other churches, they'd have enough money left over to eliminate world hunger.

But meanwhile, while kids starve to death all over the impoverished world every day, nice, well dressed Christians are praying for God to "give me a good Christian husband."

I can't say much about the theology, but from a practical and economics point of view, the last thing the Third World needs is more well-intentioned handouts.

Charity is good as a temporary hand-up to people in an emergency caused by a natural disaster or war. But it's not sustainable as a permanent sort of international dole.

If you just hand out food to starving millions you'll soon have starving billions. Who will feed them then?

Third World countries need to get rich the same way our ancestors did - move away from subsistence agriculture, switch to high intensity modern farming and build factories, freeing people from the medieval peasant lifestyle and creating more wealth. This is in fact what's happening across much of Africa and Asia - a heartening but rarely reported fact is that poor people in poor countries have been getting richer and better fed since the 90's - not thanks to foreign aid, but due to economic growth.

As for the wealthy Christians, nearly every single person in the modern West is amazingly rich by the standards of Jesus' day. Three square meals a day, fresh fruit and veg all year round, indoor plumbing and easy foreign travel and electricity were things that even the Pharoahs of old could only dream of.

Rather than feeling guilty for having access to these things, we should look forward to the day when everybody in the world can enjoy them. And it shouldn't take long in historical terms - because the West has already done the heavy lifting in developing the technology and trialling the institutions and social conditions that create mass prosperity, the developing world needs only copy what has proven to work elsewhere.

In my lifetime alone, China has gone from a GDP per capita of $193 to $6000. Roughly, that means the average Chinese is more than 30 times richer today compared to 35 years ago. This is the fastest and greatest anti-poverty programme in human history, and it's all thanks to allowing people to pursue their own selfish desires to get richer in a free market.

So maybe the BMW driving Christians have a point.

[The Beast1]

(08-13-2014 07:36 PM)Suits Wrote:  

My personal experience in life has been that happiness is a choice, not something you buy with a lot of money.

Things that will screw up happiness are impossible situations where you feel that you have no control or freedom.

That's why staying single works much better for me.

However, if marriage could be an institution that delivered on certain promises and people surrounded themselves with a community of people who shared the same values and drew happiness from enjoying the relationships in their lives rather than buying expensive cars and paying for HBO, there is no reason why young people couldn't be beginning successful marriages at a young age.

Unfortunately, within my church communities, even Christians have bought whole sale into the commercialistic approach to achieving happiness.

Despite being someone who grew up in a family where our parents modeled a minimalist, non-conformist, non-commercial lifestyle, they still encouraged me to go to "a good Christian university" which, by the time I graduated, had a $28,000 tuition price tag per year. While financial aid packages were very generous and helpful, even with 50% off the sticker price and working 20 hours a week for my entire experience as an undergrad, I still wound up with $50K debt.

By the time that I finished my degree, I had concluded that if the school had been genuinely committed to New Testament ideals, they would have found a way to offer a world class education that didn't land every student (that wasn't from a extremely rich family) in a debt hole so debt that they had no choice but to engage in the rat race until it was paid off.

If these Christians were really committed to serving God, they would have wanted graduates to be debt free and truly available to serve him as well. Instead, while building several impressive, but very expensive new buildings on campus, tuition went up $9000 per year during the time that I was enrolled as an undergrad.

Christians want the comfort of having eternal life, but most of the Christians I meet are making no real sacrifices in how they live their lives. Those born in the Western world continue to live life at a Western standard of living, even where it is unnecessary.

Rich Christians still buy nice cars, even though a more affordable vehicle would do the job just as well.

While there very well may be communities of Christians who do not fit this description and I'd like to find them if they exist, as a whole, this religion isn't in any way actually committed to the same type of sacrifice and values that Jesus clearly was.

They want to have their cake and eat it to and they do.

By my calculations, if churches didn't all insist on having their own church building, most of which only get a few hours of use each week and instead pooled resources with other churches, they'd have enough money left over to eliminate world hunger.

But meanwhile, while kids starve to death all over the impoverished world every day, nice, well dressed Christians are praying for God to "give me a good Christian husband."

While I appreciate the sentiment, simply encouraging young people to get married younger and avoid sexual sin as a result barely scratches the surface on the larger problem, that Christians are more in the business of getting theirs than they are of living the type of sacrificial, giving life that their founder is famous for.

As a Christian, you should know in Jesus' own words that there will always be poor. This fallen world will always have poor and starving child ren. Jesus went so far as to advocate for the importance of a homebase for fellowship (eg a church).

However yes, most Christians have fallen asleep and forgotten the lessons that Jesus preached during his ministry. A lot of people have put their faith in themselves instead of the salvation offered by Jesus. Being able to do this consistantly is incredibly difficult and takes a lot of prayer and soul searching.

[Suits]

^You both make good points, but I don't think either invalidates my central argument.

First, while I'm also a critique of short-sighted handout charities, the fact of the matter is that people who claim to be living for Jesus have resources that could be used effectively to make a difference. I also believe that the poor will always be with us, but my issue is not with the fact that so-called Christians show no more concern for the problems in the world than their secular counterparts.

I'm all for seeking a comfortable existence, but there is definitely a point where the spending of money in an effort to make existence on earth comfortable crosses a line into self-centered selfishness.

If you look at the early New Testament church, they weren't living like modern Christians.

Second, I don't know how someone who outwardly advocates "storing up treasure in heaven" could ignore the needs of others to the degree that modern Christians do. Yes, the poor will always be with us, but did that stop Jesus from healing the sick, raising the dead, etc?

Much poverty is imposed by war. Without eliminating the war itself, it's very difficult to provide the local populations a decent standard of living.

Like it or not, there will be mentally ill people wander the streets of major cities till this world comes to an end, but there are also situations that could be resolved, the only thing stopping that from happening is the strategic distribution of resources.

There is already good work being done in this area, but there are still lots of areas in the world where there is plenty of need and no reason not to provide assistance, if you honestly believe that "storing up treasures on earth" is a bad strategy.

I've taken trips through south-east Asia and there is community after community there that would benefit from the simplest of educational efforts. My university dorm suitemate works for a non-profit that trains farmers on how to use more advanced techniques (trickle irrigation, for example) and I've seen the video footage of the size of the vegetables these farmers are able to grow as a result.

His organization does good work, but there are thousands of farms that could benefit from this technology and education that they just don't have time to get to.

My main concern with the Christian church, however, is not whether it makes sense to try to help the less fortunate, but rather that they are no less focused on their own wealth acquisition, a point that at least frenchie seems to agree with.

As to Steve's point, I do see the potential of a desire driven market. My point simply is that Western Christians are already so wealthy and by and large have such comfortable existences that merely tithing 10% doesn't compute with the message they claim.

As for China, however, we've also seen the rich begin siphoning off more and more of the countries wealth. While standard of living has increased over all, the countryside has more or less been left behind. As a few people in the cities get richer, a lot of the country isn't much better off.

Selfishness may invigorate an economy, but it can also cause unnecessary poverty. It's a double edged sword that requires balance.

However, I'm probably out of my depth when it comes to an economic discussion on the merits of capitalism.

Let me just say that I have no problem with seeking a comfortable lifestyle, I just don't like it when people claim to believe one thing, but display actions that prove otherwise.

In my opinion, the modern Christian is a perfect example of doing exactly this.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

I am an agnostic and as far as the religions created by humans go, those are all fairy tales, but my wife and I have much more in common with devout Christians such as Baptists and Mormons than with other non-religious couples. Most atheist/agnostic couples in the US are barren, childless, leftist losers.

Be fruitful and multiply. Honor your parents. Good advice, even if you don't believe in any gods.

[SteveMcMahon]

(08-14-2014 07:16 PM)Suits Wrote:  

^You both make good points, but I don't think either invalidates my central argument.

First, while I'm also a critique of short-sighted handout charities, the fact of the matter is that people who claim to be living for Jesus have resources that could be used effectively to make a difference. I also believe that the poor will always be with us, but my issue is not with the fact that so-called Christians show no more concern for the problems in the world than their secular counterparts.

I dunno, Christians do a lot for charity. Could they do more? Of course. Mother Theresa said you should give till it hurts. That's probably good advice for saints, not so much for people who have mortgages and families depending on them.

Me personally, I have the government taking over 40% of my income at source, and another 20% sales tax on nearly everything I spend the remainder on. And then Council Tax, Road Tax, hidden carbon taxes built into my rising energy bills, etc. The greater part of these taxes is spent providing free services to other people I don't know and probably wouldn't like. I still give money to charities every month, but I think I've reached my own giving horizon. Possibly a lot of Christians feel the same way.

(08-14-2014 07:16 PM)Suits Wrote:  

I'm all for seeking a comfortable existence, but there is definitely a point where the spending of money in an effort to make existence on earth comfortable crosses a line into self-centered selfishness.

If you look at the early New Testament church, they weren't living like modern Christians.

Definitely true. I don't think many people would want to live like the Essenes or the Colossians though. Looking at religion from a social point of view rather than a theological one - if all you have to offer people is a life of unrelenting asceticism, you won't get many followers. If a faith can't accomodate the natural human desire to better one's lot, it's not going to become a major world religion.

That's people for you.

(08-14-2014 07:16 PM)Suits Wrote:  

As to Steve's point, I do see the potential of a desire driven market. My point simply is that Western Christians are already so wealthy and by and large have such comfortable existences that merely tithing 10% doesn't compute with the message they claim.

As for China, however, we've also seen the rich begin siphoning off more and more of the countries wealth. While standard of living has increased over all, the countryside has more or less been left behind. As a few people in the cities get richer, a lot of the country isn't much better off.

Absolutely. The benefits of wealth creation rarely apply evenly throughout the population. There are millionaires and billionaires in China and people who don't have a pot to piss in. But that's a better problem to have than nobody having a pot to piss in.

(08-14-2014 07:16 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Let me just say that I have no problem with seeking a comfortable lifestyle, I just don't like it when people claim to believe one thing, but display actions that prove otherwise.

In my opinion, the modern Christian is a perfect example of doing exactly this.

Man is a rationalising animal. Our stated beliefs are often different to our revealed preferences. The same applies to Christians as it does Hindus or Buddhists or Atheists or Socialists or Capitalists or My Little Pony fans.

Hypocrisy can be infuriating, but sometimes it's useful as a sort of psychological lubricant that lets ordinary folks get on with their lives without being exposed to terrifying levels of self awareness.

Can you imagine a world in which everybody was absolutely honest with themselves and others all the time?

"Yes, sweetheart, that dress does make you look fat. Also, I'm shagging the au pair."

"Why do I want to work for your company? I need the money to spend on weed and my alcoholism."

"Of course there's a vegetarian option... you can fuck off"

It'd be madness I tell you. So I'm not convinced we'd want to live in a world where people were 100% committed to observing every single stricture of their faith.

[rpg]

The church has everything bass ackwards these days. Sex is going to happen period. Try to stop sex is like trying to stop the rain. Baiting people into marriage for "legal" sex opens up even more problems and complications. What marriage is at its root is a unit based on commitment, teamwork and cooperation. If there is none of these the marriage is doomed.
When I get a higher post count I want to write a post debunking virginity. The pedastalization of virginity has caused mountains of grief for many people. If people would discreetly have sex with someone they like, with a healthy marriage in view to.a wholesome candidate rather than trying to live reality tv, the world would be a more productive place.

[Gorgiass]

(08-14-2014 05:39 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

I can't say much about the theology, but from a practical and economics point of view, the last thing the Third World needs is more well-intentioned handouts.

Charity is good as a temporary hand-up to people in an emergency caused by a natural disaster or war. But it's not sustainable as a permanent sort of international dole.

If you just hand out food to starving millions you'll soon have starving billions. Who will feed them then?

Third World countries need to get rich the same way our ancestors did - move away from subsistence agriculture, switch to high intensity modern farming and build factories, freeing people from the medieval peasant lifestyle and creating more wealth. This is in fact what's happening across much of Africa and Asia - a heartening but rarely reported fact is that poor people in poor countries have been getting richer and better fed since the 90's - not thanks to foreign aid, but due to economic growth.

As for the wealthy Christians, nearly every single person in the modern West is amazingly rich by the standards of Jesus' day. Three square meals a day, fresh fruit and veg all year round, indoor plumbing and easy foreign travel and electricity were things that even the Pharoahs of old could only dream of.

Rather than feeling guilty for having access to these things, we should look forward to the day when everybody in the world can enjoy them. And it shouldn't take long in historical terms - because the West has already done the heavy lifting in developing the technology and trialling the institutions and social conditions that create mass prosperity, the developing world needs only copy what has proven to work elsewhere.

In my lifetime alone, China has gone from a GDP per capita of $193 to $6000. Roughly, that means the average Chinese is more than 30 times richer today compared to 35 years ago. This is the fastest and greatest anti-poverty programme in human history, and it's all thanks to allowing people to pursue their own selfish desires to get richer in a free market.

So maybe the BMW driving Christians have a point.

British government doesn't have an accountability rating agency like good charities do. They squander loads on propping up freeloaders who pop out another meal ticket every 9 months by a different daddy, not that the US is much better at efficiently spending tax money. To me the difference is that these people had options for education and self improvement and wasted them, the people in need Suits is talking about don't have that option.

Handouts don't have to be food, although starving kids are not going to be able to learn effective farming methods. Education was already mentioned but is critical to this, and good teachers, even volunteering their time still need food, plane tickets to get there and basic necessities to work. (Nearly) eradicating polio using volunteers has cost billions.

Speaking of - it has been shown that reducing infant mortality has the unexpected effect of lowering overall birth rates because people realize they don't need to breed like rabbits just to have a few survive, so donating to medical care is another option to raise standards. Modern equipment isn't free and someone is going to have to roll a lot of Bidis to buy a Massey Fergusen - small business loans are another effective charitable option.

The list could go on, and the fact remains that someone who claims to follow Jesus' teachings but would rather upgrade to a 7 series BMW than stick with a 5 series and pull some third world kids out of the hole they were born in will always be a hypocrite in the eyes of many.

[Parlay44]

Sex isn't sinful unless it's for money. Divorce isn't really sinful either ...unless it's for money.

[infowarrior1]

(08-15-2014 02:31 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 05:39 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

I can't say much about the theology, but from a practical and economics point of view, the last thing the Third World needs is more well-intentioned handouts.

Charity is good as a temporary hand-up to people in an emergency caused by a natural disaster or war. But it's not sustainable as a permanent sort of international dole.

If you just hand out food to starving millions you'll soon have starving billions. Who will feed them then?

Third World countries need to get rich the same way our ancestors did - move away from subsistence agriculture, switch to high intensity modern farming and build factories, freeing people from the medieval peasant lifestyle and creating more wealth. This is in fact what's happening across much of Africa and Asia - a heartening but rarely reported fact is that poor people in poor countries have been getting richer and better fed since the 90's - not thanks to foreign aid, but due to economic growth.

As for the wealthy Christians, nearly every single person in the modern West is amazingly rich by the standards of Jesus' day. Three square meals a day, fresh fruit and veg all year round, indoor plumbing and easy foreign travel and electricity were things that even the Pharoahs of old could only dream of.

Rather than feeling guilty for having access to these things, we should look forward to the day when everybody in the world can enjoy them. And it shouldn't take long in historical terms - because the West has already done the heavy lifting in developing the technology and trialling the institutions and social conditions that create mass prosperity, the developing world needs only copy what has proven to work elsewhere.

In my lifetime alone, China has gone from a GDP per capita of $193 to $6000. Roughly, that means the average Chinese is more than 30 times richer today compared to 35 years ago. This is the fastest and greatest anti-poverty programme in human history, and it's all thanks to allowing people to pursue their own selfish desires to get richer in a free market.

So maybe the BMW driving Christians have a point.

British government doesn't have an accountability rating agency like good charities do. They squander loads on propping up freeloaders who pop out another meal ticket every 9 months by a different daddy, not that the US is much better at efficiently spending tax money. To me the difference is that these people had options for education and self improvement and wasted them, the people in need Suits is talking about don't have that option.

Handouts don't have to be food, although starving kids are not going to be able to learn effective farming methods. Education was already mentioned but is critical to this, and good teachers, even volunteering their time still need food, plane tickets to get there and basic necessities to work. (Nearly) eradicating polio using volunteers has cost billions.

Speaking of - it has been shown that reducing infant mortality has the unexpected effect of lowering overall birth rates because people realize they don't need to breed like rabbits just to have a few survive, so donating to medical care is another option to raise standards. Modern equipment isn't free and someone is going to have to roll a lot of Bidis to buy a Massey Fergusen - small business loans are another effective charitable option.

The list could go on, and the fact remains that someone who claims to follow Jesus' teachings but would rather upgrade to a 7 series BMW than stick with a 5 series and pull some third world kids out of the hole they were born in will always be a hypocrite in the eyes of many.

Looks like our modern conception of hypocrisy has strayed far from its original intention:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/...er-people/

[Suits]

(08-15-2014 02:48 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Sex isn't sinful unless it's for money. Divorce isn't really sinful either ...unless it's for money.

Not according to modern Christians' interpretation of the Bible. Could you go into more detail if you believe that they are confused?

[Parlay44]

(08-16-2014 02:58 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 02:48 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Sex isn't sinful unless it's for money. Divorce isn't really sinful either ...unless it's for money.

Not according to modern Christians' interpretation of the Bible. Could you go into more detail if you believe that they are confused?

That's my interpretation. Anything related to money is considered business. Sex is supposed to be about love. If you're paying for love it's a business and not the real experience of the act of sex.

Same with divorce. If a woman truly loved you but it didn't work out for whatever reason she should walk away from the relationship without alimony to show you and the world that it was never about your money. To marry a man and take half his hard earned money in a divorce is sinful.

[Gorgiass]

(08-16-2014 12:39 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Looks like our modern conception of hypocrisy has strayed far from its original intention:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/...er-people/

Alex Jones fan, eh?

Quote:

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Or in modern terms with respect to this discussion, buy a $20k Toyota instead of an $80k BMW and spend the difference on preventing the starvation deaths of millions in Africa before worrying about whether someone somewhere is preventing uterine implantation of a zygote by taking Plan B.

[The Beast1]

(08-15-2014 02:31 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

.
The list could go on, and the fact remains that someone who claims to follow Jesus' teachings but would rather upgrade to a 7 series BMW than stick with a 5 series and pull some third world kids out of the hole they were born in will always be a hypocrite in the eyes of many.

Hypocrites for buying nice things? Nowhere in the bible does it say, "Give all of your money to the poor to be poor to receive salvation." In fact it says quite the opposite.

From the bible:

Jesus Anointed at Bethany

6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,1 7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. 8 And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but ayou will not always have me. "

(08-15-2014 02:48 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Sex isn't sinful unless it's for money. Divorce isn't really sinful either ...unless it's for money.

Ugh what bible are you reading? Where did you get this interpretation?

[Suits]

(08-16-2014 01:05 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 02:31 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

.
The list could go on, and the fact remains that someone who claims to follow Jesus' teachings but would rather upgrade to a 7 series BMW than stick with a 5 series and pull some third world kids out of the hole they were born in will always be a hypocrite in the eyes of many.

Hypocrites for buying nice things? Nowhere in the bible does it say, "Give all of your money to the poor to be poor to receive salvation." In fact it says quite the opposite.

From the bible:

Jesus Anointed at Bethany

6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,1 7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. 8 And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but ayou will not always have me. "

The distinct impression I get from the New Testament is that it is the attitude that is important.

The woman was doing good, because she realized that action selfishly (keeping a valuable resource to herself) was not right. Wanting to give something valuable to the saviour of the world meant that her attitude was in the right place.

When a rich man approaches Jesus, he is told that for salvation he needs to give all his valuables to the poor and he goes away sad, because he realizes that he will never be able to give everything away. He is too selfish.

My reading is that, while the poor will always be with us, people who want eternal life a la Christian style, cannot be attached to earthly valuables, because it demonstrates a lack of faith in eternal life.

The Christian, it seems, based on New Testament writings and the example of early Christian leaders, should be totally OK with giving up everything on earth, because the value of eternal life far outweighs the value of anything they could possess on earth. Anyone who truly believes, wouldn't place any value on earthly possessions.

So, it really isn't a matter of whether giving up earthly possessions will solve anything on earth. It is more the issue that any one who truly believes in the eternal life that Christians preach would have absolutely no interest in earthly possessions.

Personally, I'm not in any hurry to invite suffering on earth, so I do what I must to ensure a lifestyle that reduces that chance of suffering (aside from cancer). I make sure that I have a place to live and also to share with others, a healthy diet and activities to prevent monotony. And I am happy.

Meanwhile, I watch so-called Christians acquire far more than what is necessary to allow for a comfortable life and the choice of happiness.

By any historical comparison, virtually anyone going to church in the West today would have Jesus telling them to go sell all their possessions, because they are clearly all so f***ing attached to them.

My point being, is that if modern Christians are too selfish to resemble anything close to a New Testament lifestyle, how can we expect that they aren't also too selfish to stay committed to their marriages, even when the going gets tough?

Disclaimer: For those who have resist the urge to prioritize possessions and have essentially given all that they have to the poor, good job.

For the rest, don't expect your divorce rate to come down to that of atheists.

[blacknwhitespade]

I'm glad at least some Christian churches are waking up to the failures of later marriage/perpetual singlehood and rejecting the "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" philosophy. Motherfucking Joshua Harris.

Women especially should be encouraged to make finding a husband a top priority during their youthful early/mid-twenties. I don't think it's healthy at all for a woman to be single beyond 27 or so. Perpetual singlehood has also fucked up many a good, well-intentioned Christian man. Celibacy and no casual dating (or serial dating as they call it in the church) is like watching your (potential) masculinity rot away and it's hard to get out of that rut. I've spent the last three years of my life fighting to get out of those habits, develop my masculinity, meet some women, and finally explore my creative and masculine potential. If it's not too late, I might still find a great Christian woman, but unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) part of me doesn't give a shit anymore.

[The Beast1]

(08-17-2014 08:01 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(08-16-2014 01:05 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 02:31 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

.
The list could go on, and the fact remains that someone who claims to follow Jesus' teachings but would rather upgrade to a 7 series BMW than stick with a 5 series and pull some third world kids out of the hole they were born in will always be a hypocrite in the eyes of many.

Hypocrites for buying nice things? Nowhere in the bible does it say, "Give all of your money to the poor to be poor to receive salvation." In fact it says quite the opposite.

From the bible:

Jesus Anointed at Bethany

6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,1 7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. 8 And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but ayou will not always have me. "

The distinct impression I get from the New Testament is that it is the attitude that is important.

The woman was doing good, because she realized that action selfishly (keeping a valuable resource to herself) was not right. Wanting to give something valuable to the saviour of the world meant that her attitude was in the right place.

When a rich man approaches Jesus, he is told that for salvation he needs to give all his valuables to the poor and he goes away sad, because he realizes that he will never be able to give everything away. He is too selfish.

My reading is that, while the poor will always be with us, people who want eternal life a la Christian style, cannot be attached to earthly valuables, because it demonstrates a lack of faith in eternal life.

The Christian, it seems, based on New Testament writings and the example of early Christian leaders, should be totally OK with giving up everything on earth, because the value of eternal life far outweighs the value of anything they could possess on earth. Anyone who truly believes, wouldn't place any value on earthly possessions.

So, it really isn't a matter of whether giving up earthly possessions will solve anything on earth. It is more the issue that any one who truly believes in the eternal life that Christians preach would have absolutely no interest in earthly possessions.

Personally, I'm not in any hurry to invite suffering on earth, so I do what I must to ensure a lifestyle that reduces that chance of suffering (aside from cancer). I make sure that I have a place to live and also to share with others, a healthy diet and activities to prevent monotony. And I am happy.

Meanwhile, I watch so-called Christians acquire far more than what is necessary to allow for a comfortable life and the choice of happiness.

By any historical comparison, virtually anyone going to church in the West today would have Jesus telling them to go sell all their possessions, because they are clearly all so f***ing attached to them.

My point being, is that if modern Christians are too selfish to resemble anything close to a New Testament lifestyle, how can we expect that they aren't also too selfish to stay committed to their marriages, even when the going gets tough?

Disclaimer: For those who have resist the urge to prioritize possessions and have essentially given all that they have to the poor, good job.

For the rest, don't expect your divorce rate to come down to that of atheists.

Not at all. It's a lot more complicated than that. Let me help your interpretation.

I'm going to steal a good explanation from a website my pastor pointed me to. I'm going to quote it here:

Quote:

Most Christians believe we are justified and saved by faith alone, but good works are the necessary result and evidence of that salvation. In contrast, there is a modern doctrine, popularized by some evangelists and organizations, that believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior is all that is required for salvation, and we can never lose that salvation. According to that doctrine, we are saved by belief in Christ alone; it is not necessary to repent, and good works do not necessarily result from being saved. Bible passages such as John 3:16 and John 10:27-29, as well as Paul's teachings in Romans 8:35-39 and 2 Corinthians 1:20-22 are cited in support. This doctrine has tremendous popular appeal because it teaches that we can be assured of our salvation without the obligation to change our sinful ways. In this view, God loves us and accepts us just as we are, and it is up to God to change us if He wants to.
However, the overall weight of Biblical evidence points to the conclusion that a person who goes on willfully sinning has either intentionally abandoned his or her faith or never sincerely made a faith commitment in the first place. True faith involves a commitment to trust God and to do our best to live according to His commandments:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (NIV, Hebrews 10:26-31)

Cling tightly to your faith in Christ, and always keep your conscience clear. For some people have deliberately violated their consciences; as a result, their faith has been shipwrecked. (NLT, 1 Timothy 1:19)

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (NIV, Galatians 5:19-26)

Other relevant passages include Matthew 7:21-23, 10:22, 25:31-46, Luke 10:25-37, John 14:21-23, John 15:6, Romans 2:6-10, Galatians 6:8-9, Ephesians 5:5-6, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, 2 Timothy 2:12, Hebrews 6:4-6, James 2:14-24, and 2 Peter 2:20-21.
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/f....htm#VIIIA

The part I bolded is the most important part of this entire explanation. Truly trusting God requires that the individual focus on what concerns him or her in her daily life. Surprisingly, money and recourses are not everyone's focus in life. A great deal of people do worry about self preservation needs. By trusting in the Lord to provide when it is necessary, you let the healing power of Christianity to take hold and assist in.

The only commandment that you need to follow is to "Love others as you love yourself". This is actually a two part equation that many people tend to neglect. How can you love others if you never truly loved yourself? The golden rule takes the original 10 commandments and expands it ever more than that making it a really flexible tool to help individuals heal both inner and outer demons.

The key takeaway here is Christianity makes no effort to claim it is a panacea to the world's ills. The bible teaches that the world is and will always be a fallen world. By trusting in the will and power of our Lord we can transcend the illusions and fears of sin. Remember what I said earlier, not everyone is concerned with money or career status. A lot of people are just happy getting by so their fears and concerns are rooted elsewhere.

The rich man who Jesus talked to and said, "Give up all of your possessions and follow me" too was an example of a man who acknowledged the power of Christ but was unable to let go of his fears related to truly "trusting" God.

Instead of giving your money to charity, a Christian can better the lives of his fellow man by say starting a business with it and employing people. His money will then go and help other people less concerned with such a thing.

Does this make sense? It's really hard to understand what the bible says unless someone has a "crisis of faith" or as many of us know and call a "red - pill" moment. I'm more than happy to help explain the depth of what the message speaks. Just let me know.

Edit: Remember, there are a lot of "Cinos" (Christian in name only) out there. A lot of Christians have lost their trust in Jesus and still rely on the false comforts of worldly ambitions, experiences, and material things. I had a recent mini crisis of faith where I felt I lost my connection to Jesus. What really happened was I started to become more concerned with worldly ambitions and things than just simply trusting in that the Lord will provide. It takes a lot of work to maintain that relationship. Something that no one really mentions.

(08-18-2014 10:46 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Women especially should be encouraged to make finding a husband a top priority during their youthful early/mid-twenties. I don't think it's healthy at all for a woman to be single beyond 27 or so. Perpetual singlehood has also fucked up many a good, well-intentioned Christian man. Celibacy and no casual dating (or cereal dating as they call it in the church) is like watching your (potential) masculinity rot away and it's hard to get out of that rut. I've spent the last three years of my life fighting to get out of those habits, develop my masculinity, meet some women, and finally explore my creative and masculine potential. If it's not too late, I might still find a great Christian woman, but unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) part of me doesn't give a shit anymore.

I've experienced similar events in my life. Take a breathe my friend, the Lord will provide you with your "Eve" soon enough.

[Suits]

(08-18-2014 10:46 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

I'm glad at least some Christian churches are waking up to the failures of later marriage/perpetual singlehood and rejecting the "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" philosophy. Motherfucking Joshua Harris.

Actually, I'm not sure if Joshua Harris advocated perpetual singlehood or later marriage. He got married fairly young himself.

I read his books. The first advocated not dating to date, but dating with the singular intent of finding a spouse.

The second was a roadmap for find a spouse.

He also advocated trusting in God's plan for your life, especially in the first book, when he himself was single.

But I think he is all for a quick, early marriage.

I think that his books offer excellent advice for women, but terrible advice for men. It certainly didn't do me any favours.

Quote:

Women especially should be encouraged to make finding a husband a top priority during their youthful early/mid-twenties. I don't think it's healthy at all for a woman to be single beyond 27 or so. Perpetual singlehood has also fucked up many a good, well-intentioned Christian man.

I honestly don't think that Christians have articulated a game plan for how people should pursue marriage. I think that they are open to case-by-case love stories, which means, that while marrying your high school sweetheart isn't generally advocated as a game plan, they are open to it being something that does sometimes work out for the odd person.

Quote:

Celibacy and no casual dating (or serial dating as they call it in the church) is like watching your (potential) masculinity rot away and it's hard to get out of that rut. I've spent the last three years of my life fighting to get out of those habits, develop my masculinity, meet some women, and finally explore my creative and masculine potential.

The church had lots of advice for me on how to not have sex, not date the wrong person, how to wait for the person that God created for me to marry.

However, at no point did a single person in the Christian look at the awkward kid that I was, recognize my potential, and make the slightest bit of effort to take me under their wing and teach me some alpha traits.

I have no doubt that the right woman might have been ready to marry me at some point in my life, but the church did me no favours in helping me become the man that would be ready to marry her.

I write this in jest, of course. I don't honestly believe that there is "one person you need to marry." But I do believe that I may have met some decent candidates in college if I'd been ready to impress.

It wasn't until I discovered game on my own as 23 years of age that I got any help with developing into the man that I'd been waiting to become my whole life. Of course, the church was no help in that.

I think most people in the church just looked at me and hoped I'd meet a nice, quiet girl. No one ever gave any indication that they say anything more in me that what I appeared to be at the time.

If you look at pastors and church leaders, they aren't generally people without a backbone. Sure, they have to tow the line when if comes to expressing the right beta doctrine, condemning fathers on Father's Day and worshiping mothers on Mother's Day.

But they don't walk around slouching. They dress decently, in respect to the acceptable dress code at their church.

The can command an audience, usually having learned the skills of story telling a public speaking.

The truth is that, despite the rhetoric, the men that are looked up to and run the show even within church circles are reasonably alpha in their behaviour.

But no one in my experience with the church believed that all men should be alpha and that masculinity could be taught. Rather, they seemed to believe that people are just the way that they are and that's the end of it.

Despite being a regular church attender for years and years, well into my adulthood, recently I've been at a bit of a crossroads, because while I very much respect the man that Jesus appears to be, I'm not terribly impressed with what the Christian's doctrinal knowledge has to offer the world.

Quote:

If it's not too late, I might still find a great Christian woman, but unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) part of me doesn't give a shit anymore.

Following the church's recommended path for your life will mean that the natural alpha guys will marry beautiful wives and believe that God wanted them to have a beautiful guys and socially awkward guys like me (if they never discover game) well end up either alone or with someone that they aren't really attracted to.

Fortunately, discovering game and having one particularly kind mentor within the game community got me on the right path to beginning the behave like a man, so not many people would describe me as socially awkward now (although they'd definitely say that I'm clearly unorthodox), so I feel lucky.

But now I wonder if there is a place for me in the church at all or even if I want there to be a place for me there.

[ddjembe mutombo]

(08-13-2014 04:11 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/rel.../13894197/

The south continues to go against the trend of other pussy churches. This organization is still against gay marriage and now is telling people to get married younger.

Of course getting married younger means that there will be more time to pop out kids and bolster the ranks of the church but there is also something else to it:

Quote:

Marriage helps keep young people from sexual sin in the midst of their sexual maturity

There you go, the church is saying "marrying younger keeps women off of the cock carousel" which makes sense to me.

I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church. They are seen as bigots in the US, but I think that many of their beliefs are for the better. The only issue with Southern Baptist churches is that their pastors can sometimes border likeness of a televangelist. However, if you find a church with a sincere pastor then you are set.

[infowarrior1]

(08-16-2014 10:13 AM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

(08-16-2014 12:39 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Looks like our modern conception of hypocrisy has strayed far from its original intention:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/...er-people/

Alex Jones fan, eh?

Quote:

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Or in modern terms with respect to this discussion, buy a $20k Toyota instead of an $80k BMW and spend the difference on preventing the starvation deaths of millions in Africa before worrying about whether someone somewhere is preventing uterine implantation of a zygote by taking Plan B.

Not his fan anymore. With his idiocy on TV. He seems like a plant to make dissenters look bad.

[The Beast1]

(08-18-2014 10:21 PM)Suits Wrote:  

However, at no point did a single person in the Christian look at the awkward kid that I was, recognize my potential, and make the slightest bit of effort to take me under their wing and teach me some alpha traits.

I have no doubt that the right woman might have been ready to marry me at some point in my life, but the church did me no favours in helping me become the man that would be ready to marry her.

This is an unfortunate problem that is slowly changing in some of the more fundamentalistic groups I hang out with.

A lot of the more evangelical groups do focus on bringing men up properly. They want to protect those beta traits and foster the more "alpha leadership" qualities. You get a well rounded man when he has the ability to be emotionally open while also being tough in the face of adversary.

(08-18-2014 11:47 PM)ddjembe mutombo Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:11 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/rel.../13894197/

The south continues to go against the trend of other pussy churches. This organization is still against gay marriage and now is telling people to get married younger.

Of course getting married younger means that there will be more time to pop out kids and bolster the ranks of the church but there is also something else to it:

Quote:

Marriage helps keep young people from sexual sin in the midst of their sexual maturity

There you go, the church is saying "marrying younger keeps women off of the cock carousel" which makes sense to me.

I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church. They are seen as bigots in the US, but I think that many of their beliefs are for the better. The only issue with Southern Baptist churches is that their pastors can sometimes border likeness of a televangelist. However, if you find a church with a sincere pastor then you are set.

My pastor went to a Southern Baptist Church for seminary and I can agree with you on this.