[rw95]

(01-30-2016 01:48 PM)The Father Wrote:  

It would be better if women waited. Guys need to have more than one sex partner. It's that way in nature, too: The male has a heard that he fucks regularly - but no one else can fuck his females.

So as for those women we are "ruining" - they are mostly already ruined. The ones who hold out and have few (or ideally no) sex partners until they meet the one they can devote themselves to, you can't ruin those girls so easily. Also, the other thing ruining women is the family court system that encourages them to dump perfectly good husbands for fun and profit.

I disagree with you there. If we took that approach to society, it would basically end up with what we have now: the top 10-20% of men monopolizing 80-90% of the women. Civilization can only exist by the efforts of beta males. (And let's be real here, all of us here are betas in one way or another. If we were natural Alphas, we wouldn't need to learn anything about "game," or be having philosophical discussions on the existence of God or the decline of western civilization.) One woman for one man and vice versa is the best way for a society to be stable, and that would require women and men to stay chaste until marriage.

The only way I could see a society getting around this is by having legal and well-regulated prostitution.

[Felix88]

I used to not believe in God, but after some personal experiences, now I do.

[CodyB]

I don't believe in god.

I do believe that humans have developed the need for religion/faith to enforce accountability and morality within its society. I do believe that faith serves as a platform of corruption for its leaders and that what eventually transpires is widespread pilfering and taxation that lands in the pockets of the elites.

[MrFish]

I can't believe in god, even though I would like to. It would simplify life a great deal. Living in servitude of that almighty being.

I'm convinced god is a man-made notion. To persuade people to do the 'right' thing. I feel it was a much needed tool in darker times, when most did not comprehend the full extend of their actions. Today, most of us realise that we can't, for instance, go out and kill anyone who we dislike. Our society would crumble. We don't need a 'holy' book to tell us so.

The other use of the notion of god is to be able to explain what we cannot comprehend. When people did not understand lightning, they explained it by saying it was Thor's hammer. Now every time we encounter something we cannot fathom many people still mark this as the work of god. When we encounter super complex biological structures, for instance, some say this must be the work of the almighty. What they fail to comprehend is evolution and how it relates to billions of years in time. Yes, billions, that's how many years have gone by since the Earth was first formed. We cannot comprehend such a timespan, our human minds were not designed to do so. 2000 years? Sure, we can imagine 2000 years ago. 10000 years? Maybe if we try really hard, we could comprehend the notion of 10000 years. 1 milion? That's where it get's really hard. Now 1 billion. Do you truly comprehend how much time 1 billion years is? If you do, then you'll realise that 4 billion years is enough time for such complex systems to form naturally, by sheer means of survival.

Our human minds are naturally curious and we want to understand everything around us. If we can't, because of lack of knowledge or because we've simply reached the limits of our mental capabilities, we try to fill in the blanks. A magical being with unlimited power fits these blanks perfectly, always.

[Elster]

Difficult question,doesnt help that I ve fed from an early age on the kind of presudo solipsist literature (both fictional and of a more purely pshilosophical nature) that questions the validity of all and nothing the way a dog farts unconcernedly.

I have come to respect and beware when neccesary the very concept of "faith".
Whether one sees it as a divine grant or somethinggiven by some force or entity so complex and superior to ours,or as a biologically based overriding emergency code or what have you-
It gives a man strength and resolution otherwise unaccesible save by external and often disastrous means(a good example though a bit cliche would be drug abuse)

One time I got really pissed and started ranting about how marvelous the homophones "Fate" and "Faith" were. Today,sober,I still think it is a powerful coincidence

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-03-2016 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Orthodox Christianity fixes this issue by claiming that God exists completely apart from the material world (similar to almost every other denomination), but His "energies" exist in the world and humans can undergo a certain mysticism that allows them to participate in these energies. It's an interesting solution, and the book that I above recommended should explain it in full.

I would add some Kantian insight to this: Our senses are incapable of detecting the "Thing in itself" of where God resides. He is around us all the time, but we incapable of detecting him. By achieving spiritual growth on this life, are we able to reach him in the next.

This concept is actually deeply rooted in science with the ideas of extra-dimensional physics that humans are unable to comprehend ever. The theory is quite interesting, and if anything comes back to the circular argument that we can never hope to understand everything the world contains.

That's the mentality I go through life with. I can truly hope to understand nothing and the conceptions I know right now may be proven wrong in due time. I think people would live much more happily would they come to accept being wrong at times. I'm happy being an eternal student whom passes on any knowledge I can accrue.

A bit of a paradox, but to be human is to be fickle and hypocritical at times.

[Disco_Volante]

I started to sincerely return to Catholicism, but no sooner I started going to church again they start up with the bullshit.

GET MARRIED YOUNG MAN! WHY AREN'T YOU MARRIED? YOU MUST GET MARRIED OR ITS A MORTAL SIN!

I completely hate the idea of marriage. Women are horrible, why the fuck would I want to commit 50 fucking years to a woman to follow my religion. The priest understands female nature and doesn't have to put up with a wife, yet he demands we have to. It's fucking bullshit. They just can't help themselves, it's a relentless push to get me to give my balls away to a fattening, nagging cow. (and if she's thin now, just wait 10 years or less). It's obvious women get the far, far better deal with marriage. Men get fucked on every front with little benefit. It's a big shit test.

What a raw deal they try and force on you. The growth of Islam, New World Order, and the evil pope has me convinced Christianity is probably correct, but for fucks sake what the fuck does that have to do with forcing me to marry a bitch for 50 years. I hate this situation.

I start to reflect that God may be real, but to follow God I have to live with a woman (who's only attractive for 8 more years tops) for 50 fucking years? horseshit.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-11-2016 05:49 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

I started to sincerely return to Catholicism, but no sooner I started going to church again they start up with the bullshit.

GET MARRIED YOUNG MAN! WHY AREN'T YOU MARRIED? YOU MUST GET MARRIED OR ITS A MORTAL SIN!

I completely hate the idea of marriage. Women are horrible, why the fuck would I want to commit 50 fucking years to a woman to follow my religion. The priest understands female nature and doesn't have to put up with a wife, yet he demands we have to. It's fucking bullshit. They just can't help themselves, it's a relentless push to get me to give my balls away to a fattening, nagging cow. (and if she's thin now, just wait 10 years or less). It's obvious women get the far, far better deal with marriage. Men get fucked on every front with little benefit. It's a big shit test.

What a raw deal they try and force on you. The growth of Islam, New World Order, and the evil pope has me convinced Christianity is probably correct, but for fucks sake what the fuck does that have to do with forcing me to marry a bitch for 50 years. I hate this situation.

I start to reflect that God may be real, but to follow God I have to live with a woman (who's only attractive for 8 more years tops) for 50 fucking years? horseshit.

Only marry when you want to have kids, and bring that up ever time this is asked. What's the point of marriage if its without sincerity? Most people shut up after I bring that up.

Just start establishing a relationship with people in the community. Don't need to dive right into it immediately. Belief is in faith not in just your actions. Be a man of faith and respond with just causes.

[Disco_Volante]

^^ Exactly. I can't pretend to 'sincerely' value any woman that much anymore. When I'm not horny I don't even want to be around them. They aren't funny, not particularly useful. The ONLY reason you would be attracted to a woman in the first place is to have sex with her. So why have an elaborate ceremony and say a bunch of words I don't even mean. It's a show, a ruse. For me to get married would be a lie.

This is why women behave with no consequences. There are entire religions dedicated to forcing men to wife them up. Society guilts the fuck out of men to fall for this shit, and most fall for it.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-11-2016 06:09 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

^^ Exactly. I can't pretend to 'sincerely' value any woman that much anymore. When I'm not horny I don't even want to be around them. They aren't funny, not particularly useful. The ONLY reason you would be attracted to a woman in the first place is to have sex with her. So why have an elaborate ceremony and say a bunch of words I don't even mean. It's a show, a ruse. For me to get married would be a lie.

This is why women behave with no consequences. There are entire religions dedicated to forcing men to wife them up. Society guilts the fuck out of men to fall for this shit, and most fall for it.

That's why the number one thing I look for in a woman is if she's pleasant or not and constantly shit testing her on the smallest things. If she doesn't know how to be pleasant, then tough luck I'll be dropping her like a sack.

I don't believe in trying to work out failing relationships like a lot of these hacks do. I refuse to go into that mentality.

[Easy_C]

(02-03-2016 04:40 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:48 PM)The Father Wrote:  

It would be better if women waited. Guys need to have more than one sex partner. It's that way in nature, too: The male has a heard that he fucks regularly - but no one else can fuck his females.

So as for those women we are "ruining" - they are mostly already ruined. The ones who hold out and have few (or ideally no) sex partners until they meet the one they can devote themselves to, you can't ruin those girls so easily. Also, the other thing ruining women is the family court system that encourages them to dump perfectly good husbands for fun and profit.

I disagree with you there. If we took that approach to society, it would basically end up with what we have now: the top 10-20% of men monopolizing 80-90% of the women. Civilization can only exist by the efforts of beta males. (And let's be real here, all of us here are betas in one way or another. If we were natural Alphas, we wouldn't need to learn anything about "game," or be having philosophical discussions on the existence of God or the decline of western civilization.) One woman for one man and vice versa is the best way for a society to be stable, and that would require women and men to stay chaste until marriage.

The only way I could see a society getting around this is by having legal and well-regulated prostitution.

You don't need to hypothesize. There's numerous examples of polygamous societies out therea and most of them are shitty places to live.

[Disco_Volante]

They say your conscious sentience transfers to the afterlife (heaven or hell) upon death. Whereas mentally retarded people go to limbo.

So my question is, if mentally retarded people go to limbo, what happens with Alzheimer's patients? Their mind is completely gone too.

Have you ever been to a nursing home? All the old folk, their minds are completely gone, how could their conscious be transferred to an afterlife when it's already gone!? Similar to a retarded person.

You can't say mentally retarded people are free from judgement because they lack the mental capacity for their decisions, but then you tell me old people who can't remember shit, all of a sudden their conscious has the mental capacity to discern right from wrong? How would their conscious 'reset' to when it had understanding?

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-12-2016 03:29 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

They say your conscious sentience transfers to the afterlife (heaven or hell) upon death. Whereas mentally retarded people go to limbo.

So my question is, if mentally retarded people go to limbo, what happens with Alzheimer's patients? Their mind is completely gone too.

Have you ever been to a nursing home? All the old folk, their minds are completely gone, how could their conscious be transferred to an afterlife when it's already gone!? Similar to a retarded person.

You can't say mentally retarded people are free from judgement because they lack the mental capacity for their decisions, but then you tell me old people who can't remember shit, all of a sudden their conscious has the mental capacity to discern right from wrong? How would their conscious 'reset' to when it had understanding?

It's just a disease that rots the mind. I'd imagine when humanity is being judged they will be at their best mental capacity in order to truly answer for their sins.

[Paracelsus]

(02-12-2016 03:29 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

They say your conscious sentience transfers to the afterlife (heaven or hell) upon death. Whereas mentally retarded people go to limbo.

So my question is, if mentally retarded people go to limbo, what happens with Alzheimer's patients? Their mind is completely gone too.

Have you ever been to a nursing home? All the old folk, their minds are completely gone, how could their conscious be transferred to an afterlife when it's already gone!? Similar to a retarded person.

You can't say mentally retarded people are free from judgement because they lack the mental capacity for their decisions, but then you tell me old people who can't remember shit, all of a sudden their conscious has the mental capacity to discern right from wrong? How would their conscious 'reset' to when it had understanding?

Respectfully, this whole line of argument rests on a false premise: that it is conscious sentience as understood and enjoyed by man and woman on Earth that winds up in Heaven.

Biblically a rare few people are taken body and soul into Heaven. Jesus is one. Elijah is one of the others out of the OT, from memory heading up on a flaming chariot. Catholicism holds that the Virgin Mary was taken into Heaven the same way, thus the Doctrine of the Assumption. Everyone else winds up with their corporeal bodies in the grave, awaiting Christ's Last Judgment.

The Sadducees tried a similar bullshit-ish argument on Christ at Matthew 22:23-33, asking what happens to the state of marriage in Heaven, especially to a guy who is a widower multiple times. Jesus tells them that at the Resurrection, people don't live like they do on Earth, they live like angels in Heaven. While he doesn't go on to extend the explanation, angels are understood across Christian literature to be noncorporeal (albeit capable of physical interaction with human beings) and fundamentally different in every way from human beings. It's not even comparing apples with oranges, it's trying to teach archery to a rock.

The point being: the state of one's mind and soul in the afterlife is not fundamentally understandable while you stand here on Earth. It's a different phenomenon entirely.

[Disco_Volante]

Quote:

The point being: the state of one's mind and soul in the afterlife is not fundamentally understandable while you stand here on Earth. It's a different phenomenon entirely.

Then why does the church go out of their way to make the distinction about infants and retards entering limbo? Like you said, afterlife is wildly different so what does it matter?

They acknowledge the tangible, earthly reality that these people don't have the mental capacity and therefore can't be judged.
I'm simply pointing out there are a variety of other cases where a person's mental capacity is gone for whatever reason.
All of a sudden you disregard this distinction in mental capacity as 'bullshit'.

[Paracelsus]

(02-12-2016 10:36 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Quote:

The point being: the state of one's mind and soul in the afterlife is not fundamentally understandable while you stand here on Earth. It's a different phenomenon entirely.

Then why does the church go out of their way to make the distinction about infants and retards entering limbo? Like you said, afterlife is wildly different so what does it matter?

They acknowledge the tangible, earthly reality that these people don't have the mental capacity and therefore can't be judged.
I'm simply pointing out there are a variety of other cases where a person's mental capacity is gone for whatever reason.
All of a sudden you disregard this distinction in mental capacity as 'bullshit'.

First, I apologise for calling the argument 'bullshit-ish' or indeed insinuating that it was. The Sadducees were out to trip up Jesus and you're asking in good faith.

Second, if the suggestion is that mental retardation carries over into the afterlife, I'd say that Jesus suggests otherwise given what he said to the Sadducees about married people in the afterlife. (Indeed I might have misread your post as insinuating that, and I might well have got that wrong.)

The next thing is that the Catholic Church itself does not support the idea of Limbo, and hasn't for a few years.

Bear in mind this disposal happened under Benedict XVI, who as Ratzinger was one of the more conservative theologians out there. But even Catholic catechism hadn't mentioned Limbo since about 1992. So if you're getting that message from Catholic priests or lay, the first suggestion is that they might be somewhat out of date.

That aside, dealing with the case of the mentally retarded, the theological position even when Limbo was still in fashion would have been that if the retarded were baptised, they pretty much could not commit a mortal sin and therefore could not be refused heaven. Catholic theology requires the full and knowing consent of the will to commit a mortal sin, something that would seem pretty much absent in someone who is mentally retarded or mentally ill.

Compare the doctrine in cases of exorcism: theologically any sin a possessed person commits while so possessed is not committed by the person whose body is not in their control, so for those sins they remain blameless.

A mentally ill person might still theologically be capable of venial sin, but dying with venial sins on your soul does not exclude you from Heaven; at best it leaves you with a term in Purgatory.

In the case of unbaptised infants: consistent with the fact the Catholic Church has dispensed with Limbo, remember that the Catholic Church only acknowledges one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but it never placed limits on God's grace to forgive sins outright if He so chose to outside the Church's boundaries. If I remember right, below a certain age a child was not considered capable of committing a mortal sin in the eyes of God because they did not have their full reasoning faculties (also see: doli incapax, the legal concept that you don't charge kids below the age of 10 with criminal charges for much the same reason.) On top of that, Limbo was never a part of the articles of faith of the Catholic Church in the sense one was required to believe wholly in it or in the idea that unbaptised infants were always in Limbo: it was a speculation advanced which turned into a generalised belief, but the existence of Limbo was never a Church doctrine.

I would therefore suggest the issue of unbaptised infants (and unbaptised mentally retarded who might as well be) for the Church is back into the same box as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: it's a solid "Don't know."

[FunkCoup]

I believe in a kind of intelligent, interpersonal web between people that exists beyond the material world as we know it. I'm also a skeptic, so I wouldn't espouse this belief if I didn't have experience with it.

[Aurini]

[Samseau]

(02-11-2016 05:49 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

I started to sincerely return to Catholicism, but no sooner I started going to church again they start up with the bullshit.

GET MARRIED YOUNG MAN! WHY AREN'T YOU MARRIED? YOU MUST GET MARRIED OR ITS A MORTAL SIN!

I completely hate the idea of marriage. Women are horrible, why the fuck would I want to commit 50 fucking years to a woman to follow my religion. The priest understands female nature and doesn't have to put up with a wife, yet he demands we have to. It's fucking bullshit. They just can't help themselves, it's a relentless push to get me to give my balls away to a fattening, nagging cow. (and if she's thin now, just wait 10 years or less). It's obvious women get the far, far better deal with marriage. Men get fucked on every front with little benefit. It's a big shit test.

What a raw deal they try and force on you. The growth of Islam, New World Order, and the evil pope has me convinced Christianity is probably correct, but for fucks sake what the fuck does that have to do with forcing me to marry a bitch for 50 years. I hate this situation.

I start to reflect that God may be real, but to follow God I have to live with a woman (who's only attractive for 8 more years tops) for 50 fucking years? horseshit.

Leave that church. Don't take the Catholic church too seriously, it's been corrupted for a long time now.

Denominations do not matter very much. Find a priest who teaches the Bible as it was written and with the intent of those who wrote it. I am an orthodox, and I can tell you that the quality of our priests is much higher than average but there are still some bad ones. Ultimately it's about finding a good priest, the labels around the denominations are mostly bullshit. God has no label.

[The Father]

(02-14-2016 06:44 AM)FunkCoup Wrote:  

I believe in a kind of intelligent, interpersonal web between people that exists beyond the material world as we know it. I'm also a skeptic, so I wouldn't espouse this belief if I didn't have experience with it.

That sounds like a very Buddhist perspective...the universe flows through us and we can interact with it on a higher plane if we become more enlightened.

[Truth Teller]

(02-15-2016 10:45 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Leave that church. Don't take the Catholic church too seriously, it's been corrupted for a long time now.

Denominations do not matter very much. Find a priest who teaches the Bible as it was written and with the intent of those who wrote it. I am an orthodox, and I can tell you that the quality of our priests is much higher than average but there are still some bad ones. Ultimately it's about finding a good priest, the labels around the denominations are mostly bullshit. God has no label.

I am a Catholic, and I largely agree with you.

There's a Catholic group at my university. The men are largely weak and pathetic. Most of them I don't bother with. The women are distasteful and unpleasant, with a handful of exceptions. One of the few fellow Catholics I like is a Navy vet. He and I actually know something of the outside world. As a result, we're disliked by many.

Also, I can't stand the current Pope. Love and kindness is great, but you have to preach that in combination with the Atonement.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church now is asking men to take a more active stance in the church, so things might start looking up.

[Paracelsus]

(02-15-2016 07:14 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Interestingly, the Catholic Church now is asking men to take a more active stance in the church, so things might start looking up.

Were you talking about this article?

There's a particularly significant quote in it:

Quote:

CWR: Were there any particular surprises in your research?

Christoff: One of the key findings that really shocked me was the large numbers of practicing Catholic men who lack fraternity. Only about one in six practicing Catholic men feels like they have strong bonds of brotherhood in their parishes. That is shocking to me. The fact is that we haven’t cultivated a spirit of brotherhood and fraternity. Fraternity is critical, for when you have high levels of fraternity and brotherhood in parishes, men pray more, they go to confession more, they go to Mass more, and they’re more active in their parishes. There are large numbers of Catholic men who are hungry and will respond if their priest specifically and systematically evangelizes them. Many priests haven’t yet made the active evangelization and catechesis of men a personal priority.

Maybe RVF should start hosting meetups in Catholic churches

[Samseau]

I hate to be that asshole that does the whole "Ortho vs. Catholic" thing, but the Orthodox Churches have more men than women. Only denomination in the world with this quality. Fraternity is very common in our churches. We barely pay attention to the women. Most of the time they are silent like they are supposed to be. I still see women with headscarves in service. We talk about things openly, for example talking about sex isn't going to get you thrown out of the group.

[Rush87]

(01-24-2016 07:45 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 07:39 PM)storm Wrote:  

lol

Why? It's just an honest question. I value the opinions of the men on this board more than the average guy in the street.

It's a great question and one that nobody should ever laugh at. You have some of the most forward thinking people on planet earth providing logical evidence both for and against the concept of a 'God'.

The problem I have with the thought that goes along with 'belief' in a God is that it's a rabbit hole. Every few years the sum total of human knowledge is almost doubled and much of what we thought decades ago only serves to be disproven decades later.

Add to this the fact that our planet is but a spec of sand in greater 'known' universe, a universe that could still theoretically be spherical and you start to wonder what you can really hope to achieve by pondering the thought…

I think the best we can hope to do is look at ourselves on a micro scale and pose the questions: "What makes human's human?" [And maybe this can help someone come to their own conclusions].

In the greater scheme of things [At least as a thought experiment]: It is interesting that billions of people who are but a blip in an expansive universe have independent thought.

From here you can go down an endless rabbit hole as well… In the past I've operated off of blind faith one way or another. As my knowledge increases I lean more towards the concept of a God. That being said, my knowledge, nor the knowledge of anyone on planet earth is even slightly capable of answering that question with any kind of real validity.

[Khan]

(02-16-2016 08:42 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I hate to be that asshole that does the whole "Ortho vs. Catholic" thing, but the Orthodox Churches have more men than women. Only denomination in the world with this quality. Fraternity is very common in our churches. We barely pay attention to the women. Most of the time they are silent like they are supposed to be. I still see women with headscarves in service. We talk about things openly, for example talking about sex isn't going to get you thrown out of the group.

I've noticed the same thing about Orthodoxy. In general, it seems to be far less under the influence of liberalism/progressivism than Catholicism, for example.

What are your thoughts about the reason for this? I've always suspected it must have something to do with the fact that Orthodox Churches are autocephalous. Maybe that makes Orthodoxy less susceptible to the import of foreign ideology (liberalism, feminism and other blue pill nonsense), unlike the Catholic Church, which is universal in nature.