[IDrinkYourMilkShake]

As a teenager, during my protestant conformation-time I read the whole Bible. I was very fascinated by the old testament, but more out of a historical perspective such as the story oabout Noah was written down (in a different version) way before in the epic of Gilgamesh, so how far can we trace back that sory? how the story about Cain and Abel might be a symbolic metaphore for the conflict between nomads and peseants, and just to get in what context the roots of the worlds largest religion herritage from.

[JDog212]

(07-14-2015 01:18 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Found a copy of the "feminist" version of the bible (NIV) in a cafe book shelf. The introduction proclaimed how it was using gender neutral language. The cover is hot pink:

This is exactly what Christianity has become in the modern West. And this is why people think the Bible is lame. I'm a 16 year old boy in Texas and I feel like I've been cheated into believing a warped version of my religion all my life. I never truly felt comfortable with it all. I grew up thinking the Bible was lame and church was just something wives forced their cuckolded husbands to go to (which it is). But about a year ago, I visited Europe for the first time and I had some deep conversations with my red-pilled, 26 year old brother. I looked around the area and was deeply struck by the history. The churches in Europe were a completely different experience than what you get in a Texas mega-church. I realized that for more than a millennia, people fought, bled, died and built some of the most magnificent structures in history for the sake of their Christian faith. It wasn't just something people groaned about because they had to stop playing video games on Sunday mornings to go to church with their mommy. For the first time, I started reading the Bible (which Western Christians never do). I was shaken by what I read. What kind of politically correct, filtered BS was shoved down my throat all my life? Why had my pastor never taught us about verses calling for women to be submissive? Why had I never heard of all this "real stuff?" The things that religious communities have made taboo: the sex, the violence, the wisdom and truth that exceeds belief in God.

There is no way that the God of the Bible is pleased with what the West has become. We have turned into a submissive matriarchy, something the Bible forbids. It is the fault of men that this has happened. We allowed feminists to rip our balls off and that is actually a sin. The Bible strictly commands men to be loving and caring for their women, but it also calls them to be leaders and subdue women who step outside their boundaries. For this reason, the Western world is dying. We abandoned our strength in God and so we are being overtaken by hordes of Muslims at the applause of the ungodly feminists we sinfully allowed to control us.

I only wish that Christians still withheld their strength. The way I see it, 90% of Christians in the West are no Christians at all. They are weak-minded fools who could easily be convinced to abandon their faith. I'm sure I could tell a fellow Christian that Jesus said, "Islam is a religion of peace!" and they would believe it (because they know as much about history as they do their faith). A few weeks ago, I was listening to a wonderful Christian girl from my school literally talk about getting banged during a Wednesday night church service (and subsequently posting bible verses on twitter). To wrap my thoughts up in one sentence: I find it deeply disturbing that Christianity of today thinks effeminate men are okay, but saying "shit" is a deadly sin. Christianity has been hijacked in the West. I look towards nations like Poland for hope, even though I'm not Catholic.

I hope you make a video soon about your Biblical experiences, Roosh! God bless!

[SirTimothy]

^^^^

[TheMost]

The Bible is extremely Red Pill. But Christianity has been cucked for a very long time. Someone showed me the Greek Orthodox "Akathist" hymn series, where they worship the Virgin Mary. It was written about 600 AD. It was so blue pill I wanted to vomit. It is no coincidence that Islam started pushing Orthodox Christianity back, right around that time. The Akathist is apparently one of the major hymn/prayer things for Orthodox Christians.

Christianity CAN be masculine, but it is cyclical. Judaism and Islam also go through these cycles, but a bit milder.

Also no coincidence, Christianity always recovered once it started going back to the Old Testament.

[doodlebug786]

(04-22-2016 08:19 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:28 PM)doodlebug786 Wrote:  

From this arrogance god then cursed them that they will not have a land till the end of time...and so far that has held true.

haha ok you don't get it. Let me put it to you this way, In america you have your nation, there is no dispute about its borders or owners, nor conflict. You are safe and secure and comfortable.
The people of Israel has constant dispute and conflict, they are always in stress and there is no comfort. they have no true home. This is their curse. The whole world keeps talking about their legitimacy and borders, it will never be settled unlike the nations we live in.
Hope that makes more sense.

[CynicalContrarian]

JDog212; here's another eye-opener.

Try find any Biblical passage that specifically says Sunday is the Sabbath.

I'll be waiting...

[Kid Twist]

(04-23-2016 08:43 PM)TheMost Wrote:  

The Bible is extremely Red Pill. But Christianity has been cucked for a very long time. Someone showed me the Greek Orthodox "Akathist" hymn series, where they worship the Virgin Mary. It was written about 600 AD. It was so blue pill I wanted to vomit. It is no coincidence that Islam started pushing Orthodox Christianity back, right around that time. The Akathist is apparently one of the major hymn/prayer things for Orthodox Christians.

Christianity CAN be masculine, but it is cyclical. Judaism and Islam also go through these cycles, but a bit milder.

Also no coincidence, Christianity always recovered once it started going back to the Old Testament.

There are many confused thoughts in this post. Why? You ask questions or draw concepts that are not relevant to the discussion.

First, (most) religions do not deal with the things "of this world" as their primary motive or effort to explain "Truth". Therefore, "red pill" is irrelevant to the conversation.

Second, and this is odd because of the word choice so prevalent on this board, but ironically God is called a cuckold in the Old Testament as a concept that Israel is his bride and she betrays him all the time.

There are so many things to unpack here, but the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) wasn't the longest lasting modern empire (300-1453) because it was weak in any way you are acting like it was (it was Orthodox), nor was it, or is it blue pill, nor did it ever "worship" the Virgin Mary.

Basically, red pill/blue pill is commentary on the state of fallen human beings and has nothing to do with said religions, who try to teach about living life in fallen states in the hope of finding and incorporating eternal truths in the lives of its adherents.

[Truth Teller]

(04-26-2016 11:37 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

JDog212; here's another eye-opener.

Try find any Biblical passage that specifically says Sunday is the Sabbath.

I'll be waiting...

The early church moved it to Sunday in order to commemorate Jesus' resurrection, which took place "on the first day of the week."

[Truth Teller]

The fall of the Byzantine Empire wasn't because of any blue pill/red pill masturbatory nonsense.

It was a result of continuing structural weaknesses and a disaster of a political situation.

[CynicalContrarian]

(05-02-2016 04:30 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The early church moved it to Sunday in order to commemorate Jesus' resurrection, which took place "on the first day of the week."

Yes, I'm familiar with the how & why of the change (to coincide with more pagan traditions) & the catholic church taking that ball & running with it.

Yet it still stands, that there are no Biblical passages that indicate any change from Saturday.

[billbudsocket]

Also, where in the Bible does it say that the Sabbath is a day of worship? That seems to also be a modern invention not based on actual scripture.

[Kid Twist]

(05-02-2016 04:31 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The fall of the Byzantine Empire wasn't because of any blue pill/red pill masturbatory nonsense.

It was a result of continuing structural weaknesses and a disaster of a political situation.

Thank you, Truth Teller. Again, I love your posts because they are accurate.

The next step is to call it truly for what it was: The Eastern Roman Empire, or even more provocatively, the "Roman Empire" which moved precisely because Rome was attacked. It's curious that the longest surviving modern empire (as I said, 300-1453, think of it!) is not taught in the west, at all, and even words in English refer to something as "byzantine" in a derogatory way. Rome, as we know it now, was really Franco-Roman, strengthened politically by the Frankish rulers, who then instigated the Great Schism and further led to more deleterious relations between East and West in a complex fashion, as Islam rose to power and conquest.

[Kid Twist]

(05-03-2016 09:20 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

Also, where in the Bible does it say that the Sabbath is a day of worship? That seems to also be a modern invention not based on actual scripture.

It is not, it is the day of rest, fulfilled again when Jesus "rested" after having recreated creation by descending into Hades and rising again on the 3rd day. It becomes the 1st day and the 8th day, akin to the idea of "epiousion" in the Lord's Prayer (it is not "daily" bread, it is the "superessential" bread). I just made that reference up (as far as I know), because the 8th day is the superessential Sabbath, perfect beyond 7, the perfect number. If we are "living in the Resurrection" as the holy fathers say, we are working with God (day 1) and if we are working with him, we are becoming like Him through his gifts, graces, and energies.

It really is beautiful.

[fellowhuntsman]

(05-20-2015 10:46 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

I started reading the Old Testament (KJV primarily) and thought I'd get a thread going for some questions and observations.

One comment is on Abraham and how willing he is to "lie" about his wife being his sister and pass her on to different rulers just to save his own skin. Why would god reward this?

God promised Abram that anyone that attempted to hurt him or his family would be punished while those that blessed him would be blessed. The blessing did not rely on Abram's righteousness (what he did or didn't do) but on his faith in God keeping his promise to bless him with a nation if he left Chaldea and went to the land of Canaan. It's similar to how the promise to David was different than his treatment of Saul. God promised not to leave David even if he sinned but to discipline him. He left Saul after Saul didn't wait for Samuel.

[Orion]

(05-03-2016 12:54 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Thank you, Truth Teller. Again, I love your posts because they are accurate.

The next step is to call it truly for what it was: The Eastern Roman Empire, or even more provocatively, the "Roman Empire" which moved precisely because Rome was attacked. It's curious that the longest surviving modern empire (as I said, 300-1453, think of it!) is not taught in the west, at all, and even words in English refer to something as "byzantine" in a derogatory way. Rome, as we know it now, was really Franco-Roman, strengthened politically by the Frankish rulers, who then instigated the Great Schism and further led to more deleterious relations between East and West in a complex fashion, as Islam rose to power and conquest.

Yes, the biggest argument for relativization of Eastern Roman Empire is that east was supposedly the "less important " part, which is complete nonsense.

Eastern Roman Empire became cultural, economical and political center 200 years ago before Western Empire even fell ! With Constantinople being capital for same amount of time.

Not only that, but the famed Rome ceased to be capital even earlier, since many rulers considered it a decadent metropolis, and instead ruled from Ravenna etc.

The entire "Byzantine" narrative is entirely sourced from Catholic influence on scholarly thought.

That being said, it is fair to say that Carolingian Empire was at least in some way a decent continuation of Western Roman thought. Unfortunately, it didn't live long enough, and Papal interference didn't help either.

[Kid Twist]

It's refreshing to see that many on here have nuanced and knowledgeable viewpoints, especially with regard to Eastern (true, ancient) Christianity.

[scrambled]

(05-08-2016 06:57 AM)Orion Wrote:  

Not only that, but the famed Rome ceased to be capital even earlier, since many rulers considered it a decadent metropolis, and instead ruled from Ravenna etc.

The capital was moved for military reasons, as Ravenna is much easier to defend than Rome, not because Rome was "decadent"--a mass of people in a capital city always seem to be decadent.

Mass of humans + money + power = decadence; what do you think Byzantium was like? &c

Highly Defensible Ravenna:

[da_zeb]

(05-03-2016 07:12 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:30 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The early church moved it to Sunday in order to commemorate Jesus' resurrection, which took place "on the first day of the week."

Yes, I'm familiar with the how & why of the change (to coincide with more pagan traditions) & the catholic church taking that ball & running with it.

Yet it still stands, that there are no Biblical passages that indicate any change from Saturday.

I'm not sure what your point is. Nowhere does the Bible say that Friday is the Sabbath either. All it says is that God rested on the seventh day after his labours. That's all that is important. Not which day of the week it falls on.

[da_zeb]

(05-03-2016 12:54 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:31 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The fall of the Byzantine Empire wasn't because of any blue pill/red pill masturbatory nonsense.

It was a result of continuing structural weaknesses and a disaster of a political situation.

Thank you, Truth Teller. Again, I love your posts because they are accurate.

The next step is to call it truly for what it was: The Eastern Roman Empire, or even more provocatively, the "Roman Empire" which moved precisely because Rome was attacked. It's curious that the longest surviving modern empire (as I said, 300-1453, think of it!) is not taught in the west, at all, and even words in English refer to something as "byzantine" in a derogatory way. Rome, as we know it now, was really Franco-Roman, strengthened politically by the Frankish rulers, who then instigated the Great Schism and further led to more deleterious relations between East and West in a complex fashion, as Islam rose to power and conquest.

The most important factor in the long Byzantine decline, from which all the others flowed was the disasterous reign of the Emperor Justinian in the 6th Century.

The Gothic War of the mid 6th Century was Justinian's attempt to recapture Italy from the Ostrogoths for the Roman Empire. He barely succeeded, but at the cost of laying waste to the entirety of Italy and the depopulation of most of the great Italian cities, including Rome. How bad was the destruction? Under Ostrogothic rule Italy was undergoing a cultural and economic resurgance. In the early 6th Century, Rome may still have had a population of over 300,000 people. By the middle of the century it had dropped to about 30,000. The wealthiest, most sophisticated part of Western Europe was now an agricultural backwater.

The Gothic War also sucked up vast amounts of Imperial treasure and troops at the time the Eastern Empire was suffering from a Bubonic Plague pandemic with severe depopulation throughout the eastern Mediterranean.

Justinian's adventures in Western Europe gave the Persian Sassanid Empire the opportunity to attack Asia Minor while Constantinople's focus was in the West, capturing a fair amount of territory and causing further economic disruption. Rome was eventually forced to get rid of the Persians by buying them off - paying annual tribute for the return of the lost territories.

At the same time as he was busy fighting everyone else, Justinian sought to impose orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity over the entirety of the Empire. At this time there were significant populations of Miaphysite Christians in Egypt and the Near East. Justinian sought to suppress them which created a great deal of discontent amongst the affected populations.

Between the plague and all of Justinian's wars, the Empire's finances were stretched to the breaking point so Justinian raised taxes to make up for it ensuring even more discontent among his heavily put-upon subjects.

Less than sixty years after his death the empire had still not recovered its strength when the Islamic Conquest began. It was unable to mount an effective defence, and having alienated its citizens through high taxes and religious persecution could not count on them opposing their new Muslim rulers who initially ruled with a light touch.

The former territories of the Western Empire with their main centres of commerce and industry completely destroyed in the fighting of the century before, were unable to provide any aid to the Eastern Empire and were themselves easy prey for the Muslim armies. Needless to say, the destruction wrought by Justinian's Armies wasn't forgotten by those who suffered it, and combined with the collapse of trade between the Eastern and Western Mediterranean what had been a common civilization (for example, Latin was only completely supplanted by Greek in the Imperial administration in the 7th Century) began to drift apart, economically, culturally, and theologically.

[Kid Twist]

Interesting analysis, I don't necessarily disagree. Long Byzantine decline? The fact still remains, they maintained an Empire for a time that was and is still unheard of in history, especially "Modern" history. As far as what we see now in the world, though, I can't speak on the economics/finances of it, but culturally and theologically, the control of Rome and the new "papacy" instituted by Charlemagne and the Franks who gained power absolutely over that region and its peoples directly caused the "Great Schism" and sent the East and West irreparably to what we now see (Filioque, division of church and that communion, Venetians sacking Constantinople in 1204, even after the crusades in which there was "help" but also looting, etc.) --- leading up to 1453

ps - my original point is that you have this idea that "Rome" rose and fell (in 250-300 years?) but barely a single schoolkid gets taught that the Eastern Roman Empire went over 1100.

What's worse, [mainstream/general] Catholics and Protestants believe that "Constantine" was Empire over the "Catholic" Church, as in the modern sense of the world

It is just total ignorance.

[dnx]

I'm agnostic, but Roosh's post about the whores in the bible inspired me to read the Holy Bible with the modern translation.