Tags
blogging, chaos, clowns in the asylum, culture, faith, foolishness, internet culture, opinion, rants, red pills, words
So the Red Pills seem to now be launching a full-blown attack on Christianity itself, declaring faith to be a “beta farm” that de-masculinizes men. Like I didn’t see this coming half a dozen times. I should be angry or prepared to launch some kind of come back or something, but I just feel sad. Heartbroken for all the men who believe such lies, depressed about the social engineering going on here, saddened for those who are lost and confused and will read these blogs and flee from God, rather than running towards him.
So, out of courtesy I have to link to Tomassi, affectionately known as the Irrational Male, who writes Losing My Religion. Vox Day, never one to miss an opportunity to drive people away from faith, joins in the fray, Churchianity and the Feminized Church.
Ah teh stoopid, it is strong in these two. Someone once quipped, who needs the enemy when you have Christians themselves forever attacking you? Ah, truer words were never spoken from the gallows themselves.
Here’s the deal, “we are the church.” The church is not a building, it is us and we are accountable for it. Faith is not an institution, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The church, the Body of Christ is made up of many parts, composed of people who are following Christ. Jesus Christ is where our eyes are to be, He is where our faith is to be placed. He is steadfast, the same today as yesterday. One cannot actually lose their faith if ones eyes are on Him, because He isn’t going anywhere. It is not Him that gets lost, it is us.
Everyday is an opportunity to write a story for the world to see. In some ways we get to write our own stories, our own narratives, for ourselves and for others. We should make it a good one, one aligned with His will. Something I am certain of, we will all be held accountable for the stories we do write, for every word we speak, for the impact it has on others. That’s a scary thought if you are someone full of words, but I am certain of it, we will all answer for the things we do and say.
Vox Day, Tomassi, Dalrock, are all very popular, they have a huge platform that would enable them to share the faith, to spread the good news, to actually bring men towards healing, towards Christ, and yet they don’t, they miss opportunity after opportunity and choose instead to worship at the foot of their red pill ideology.
I am nobody, a tiny little blog, but one thing I am certain of, one thing I can tell you with absolute conviction, Jesus Christ is the one who actually builds men, the real kind of men, the authentic kind, the ones willing to be remade into the image of their Creator, to become better versions of themselves. Accept no other substitutes because there are none. There are only foolish and broken men who claim His name and yet worship everything but Him.
It’s good to lose your “religion,” if your “religion” is built on nothing more than shifting sand.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
So much love for this! “Faith is not an institution…” Yes. Thank you. There is actually no such thing as “Christian Education” or a “Christian marriage” or a “Christian nation.” Because none of those things are people, therefore none of them can follow Christ. There is only education, marriage, society etc. in which Christians participate, and THAT makes all the difference!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Faith is not an institution…”
Right? Who wants to live in an institution? An asylum is more like it. Who let the clowns out? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay. This is quite simple. Why must we make it so hard?
1. Draw a circle around yourself.
2. Change the man in the circle.
3. Reach out to everybody you can touch from your circle. Teach them how to change.
4. Step out of the circle.
5. Grab the nearest man and pull him into your circle.
6. Teach him how to make his own circle. Toss him out of yours, but keep the side of your circle touching his.
7. Repeat until Jesus comes back.
See? Easy? And not a high falutin theory in the whole process.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You’re awesome, Wally. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
Very good Wally!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks much Andy. It’s just not that hard.
LikeLike
So easy isn’t it? That’s why the intellectuals don’t get it. Great post Ib😍
LikeLiked by 2 people
Outstanding Wally….Rock on with your bad self!! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Lorra…very kind
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. Red Pill began as an atheist movement, just check out the original Reddit forums. It isn’t surprising that it should routinely come back to its roots.
2. Like a lot of atheistic movements, they make things into God which are not God: race, culture and sex are important, but not they are not God.
3. Like a lot of atheistic movements they are not always wrong. Many pastors and preachers do in fact present a version of marriage that puts all responsibility for success or failure on men, none on women. (That having been said, Red-Pills and feminists both agree with the pastors and preachers that women are essentially infants: Red-Pill argues that women are driven entirely by hormones and selfishness, feminists deny that a woman can ever be held accountable for her actions and must never suffer any consequences, so they are just mirror images of each other.)
LikeLiked by 4 people
Read through the comments on my post. Read the testimonies of these men.
Put down your real religion, your blind faith and dedication to the sisterhood-above-all-else, and read them. You’ll find that it’s the feminized church that has driven men away from your professed faith far more effectively than any Red Pill blogger ever could.
I doubt you will though because you’re too absorbed with exactly the feminine-primacy I describe in this essay.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. Most Christian denominations don’t even permit female ministers. Churches don’t teach Game, because it’s unscriptural—contrary to what the Gamers teach.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Each time I’ve read a reference to the feminized church (this all only very recently) I do kind of wonder why men attend churches that have female “pastors”. And if that was the real problem why not just fix that problem. But I guess that’s not the root of it anyway. There was something wrong before choosing to accept women in that role.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. Most Christian denominations don’t even permit female ministers.”
Interesting. You dismiss his claim, but you provide no proof of your claim. I wonder if it is true, because of the following:
Per the Association of Religion Data Archives, 57.7% of leaders of congregations, not denominations, said women are permitted to be the head clergyperson or primary religious leader of the congregation.
However, only 11.4% of the congregations actually have a woman as the religious leader of the congregation.
Note: If this study is statistically valid, then I would suspect that most Christian denominations do permit female ministers, because the Roman Catholic church and Southern Baptists do not allow them and I think these two denominations are the largest denominations in the USA (and Roman Catholic is the largest denomination in the world).
LikeLike
Your comment surprises me somewhat, OKR. Would you agree with a priority and a responsibility of choosing correctly to worship with the group in your local area you believe to be closest to what God wants of His church? And to be the best you can be as a functioning member in that group?
I guess maybe it’s me. But the more I’ve pondered this topic the more I don’t understand how there are so many churches that have decided to put women in these roles and men who have presumably gone along with that but are upset with it. Maybe it’s just outside of my sphere enough that I’m missing some important piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The largest denominations—which represent the overwhelming majority of Christians, have all-male clergy. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Baptist sects make up the bulk of Christians. Even the denominations that allow female clergy have barely over 10% of ordained female pastors.
Even so, Rollo provides no evidence even that these female-led churches are Feminist. I’ve heard that some of the Pentecostal/ Charismatic sects have female pastors, and they’re a pretty conservative group.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric,
“Anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. Most Christian denominations don’t even permit female ministers. Churches don’t teach Game, because it’s unscriptural—contrary to what the Gamers teach.” (emphasis mine)
It seems you may be conflating denominations with congregations and permit with have. Specifically, there may be as many as 1000 denominations in the USA, so the 10 or so denominations you give is far from the majority. I don’t know how many of those denominations allow women ministers. Do you have numbers and source?
As to the number of women who are lead pastors, the study I found showed 11.4% of congregations have this. That includes the denominations you listed as male-only clergy, so the actual percentage in the other denominations must be greater than 11.4% (and thus greater than the “barely over 10%” you state).
In short, your claim about denominations and female ministers is questionable (although it might be true), and thus is no better proof than anecdotal evidence. Consequently, why should anyone accept your claim that Game is unscriptural?
Actually, I think Rollo provides some evidence but not definitive proof that many churches are strongly influenced by feminism. You see, a definition of anecdotal evidence is information you obtain from a subjective report, an observation, or some kind of example that may or may not be reliable. (emphasis mine). If 1,000 people say they saw a UFO at a given time and place, you would consider that evidence to be more reliable than 1 person saying they saw it.
By the way, your statement about Pentecostal Charismatic sects seems to be anecdotal.
LikeLike
fromscratchmom,
I’m missing something, because I don’t understand the reason for your questions, but I will answer them. Yes, I agree on the first question, with the caveat that the local group would need to be reasonably close to God’s design. For example, I do not think I could worship with a group who, for example, had women preaching, performed weddings for homosexuals, accepted abortion as a woman’s right, etc. I might try for a while but I expect I would find I needed to leave, “shaking the dust off my feet”.
I think you are misunderstanding how congregations (and denominations) have gotten to the point of having women in church leadership roles. Depending on the group, the decision-making process may be a select few, or up to an entire congregation. If a few, suppose those few believe in egalitarianism, and they decide to have women leaders. If a larger group decides, suppose that most of the women and many of the men believe women have the right and ability to lead, then they can have a majority and decide to have women leaders. In the case of a denomination, usually larger congregations have more votes, so a few large congregations with more egalitarian views can override the wishes of the rest, and decide to have women leaders. Once a decision has been made in accordance with the existing process, it is difficult to return back. It is even more difficult after the decision, because more women become leaders and influencers.
Now, in all of these cases, there may be many men who are opposed to women being leaders. However, they were unable to prevent it because they had insufficient power or were not involved in the decision-making process. They did not “go along with it”, but were unable to prevent it. They may try to reverse the decision, but, if they are unsuccessful long enough, then they likely will leave, “shaking the dust off their feet”.
How did these “Christians” come to believe in egalitarianism? My supposition would be that feminism has become so accepted that it has permeated into the Church unknowingly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank-you for answering OKR. I asked at least partly because I realized that my whole paradigm was off-kilter with this whole issue enough to make it all a little incomprehensible to me. So I tried to see parts of it that might explain some of the differences.
I may be beginning to get at some of what is wrong underlying this stuff at least from my point of view. But it may be difficult to address without accidentally touching on other tangents and controversies.
First I do not think there is anything in New Testament teaching or example to authorize or condone large structures that have authority over local congregations. So I don’t identify with a group that is a part of that sort of “denomination”. Your description of how these groups made these decisions and individuals reminds me of that and of my related political and social philosophy that smaller is nearly always better.
There can be benefits to organizing, pooling resources, etc but it seems it nearly always leads first to a point of diminishing return and later to diffused responsibility where there should have been individual responsibility and power; waste, largesse, and cronyism; frustration, corruption, and eventual collapse.
First a handful of people so you need to help someone out who’s struggling in life financially. Then they see that that’s not the only person who needs help. And they decide they should pool resources. They organize a non-profit organization. Much good is done. But decades down the road you have an organization plagued by corruption wastefulness and evil like the Red Cross or the United away with a ton of people with good intentions who see the good that those organizations do and can’t sort out their cognitive dissonance to also see all the evil.
There are related parts to this but I have to just post this much for now and then try to get back to this in a few minutes …or hours…or…
LikeLike
So then if anyone wants to follow along to see my paradigm and its interplay with this problem then I have to address how do local autonomous congregations function and how do individuals function within them. Humans still mess up. We all still sin. And small organizations are not devoid of conflicts and mistakes to address.
The epistles give us the pattern. Mistakes will happen. People should sometimes individually and sometimes as a group be rebuked, admonished, taught, and guided.
It sometimes feels as if it’s impossible because we have to discern between matters of Liberty and matters of true doctrine versus false teaching. Some things are directly addressed. I know a few young vegans who truly feel they are taking the higher spiritual path. They are at liberty to do that and to think that wayBut not to abhor the those of us who eat meat. They know and I know there should be no spiritual division between us. Not all matters are directly addressed as that one is. Sometimes there are disagreements about songbooks or the order of worship or if everyone has to kneel or everyone has to stand. They should be worked through (relatively easily one might hope). But not all matters are quite so obviously Liberty. Sometimes people teach that Christ wasn’t really risen in the third day or isn’t really God or didn’t exist but is a lovely teaching story. But not all matters are so obvious in being teachings of men that contradict the word of God (false teachings).
So with our human foibles we will still struggle and make mistakes and have to repent and learn and grow. But hey even the first century church was full of that. There would be no epistles if not for all the crazy stuff those churches were needing correction on!
I think it’s possible, even likely, that many people need to rethink some basics of what they are going along with and if it’s right in God’s eyes related to women pastors, denominational structures and authorities, and probably a bunch of other stuff too. I pray they will.
I also pray that God will convict me of it if I’m wrong on these topics and teach me better.
LikeLike
I realize I didn’t say it directly. So here it is. If there is false teaching we are told to oppose it and even to mark the false teachers in a way that shows congregational autonomy only goes so far. Congregations should communicate with each other! So ideally …well ideally there would be no false teaching… But ideally there is some loose agreement and recognition and connection between autonomous congregations that see each other as sound congregations without any need for a formal structure to acknowledge ithe connection or to have to cast other congregations out of if they succumb to false teaching.
So I can envision a day when the fruits of it show that women pastors is unsound and those groups either away because people of good conscience leave when it becomes legalized (or at some point later) or become something clearly different from the Lord’s church when those who stayed accept other problematic teachings. (Or you could say the same about my church if you believe in the one in error over that matter and time will tell what fruits each produce in the long run.)
LikeLike
fromscratchmom,
Until the last 4 years, I have worshiped with a “denomination” that has no group with oversight of any local congregation. I now attend another “denomination” of the same sort (they came from the group originally). That seems to be the New Testament pattern, except they did look to the Apostles for guidance.
“I think it’s possible, even likely, that many people need to rethink some basics of what they are going along with and if it’s right in God’s eyes related to women pastors, denominational structures and authorities, and probably a bunch of other stuff too. I pray they will.”
I think it is far too common for people to accept what they have been taught and are being taught without studying for themselves.
“But ideally there is some loose agreement and recognition and connection between autonomous congregations that see each other as sound congregations without any need for a formal structure to acknowledge the connection or to have to cast other congregations out of if they succumb to false teaching.”
Unfortunately, and this may be more true in the USA than the rest of the world, every congregation or denomination wants to be independent of others. So, for example, as you have experienced, there is usually easy opportunity for someone to sin egregiously, perhaps even be excommunicated, but still be welcomed without question by another group. Now, there are groups that require a letter from the previous church’s leaders to accept a new member, but many do not.
“So I can envision a day when the fruits of it show that women pastors is unsound and those groups wither away ….”
I think that denominations accepting of women ministers are already decreasing in attendance, but I suppose they consider that to be due to some other reason. It may only be on the day of judgment that the truth will be seen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rollo:
“Sisterhood-above-all-else”, “feminine primacy”
Incorrect and inappropriate vocabulary choices, just like all the other ‘spherians. Yet another example of why you are simply uneducated, irresponsible little boys who may chronologically be adult men….possibly. You write as though you are immature teenagers. I used to have a modicum of respect for you until I got a chance to read some of the more chilling articles written by your likes.
Perhaps immature little boys isn’t the truth — more like pathological egoists. We have had plenty of those. We don’t need any more of them. Your choices of vocabulary would earn you soap in your mouths from a vigilant mother, something you obviously didn’t have (or your father prevented her from doing so by threats, and don’t think of trying to give a snarky comment back, because I have seen fathers who act like this, and you have NOTHING to say about it, UNDERSTAND?) or you would think twice before you speak and act in the way you do. So — shut your mouth until you learn to behave yourself properly.
A comment on the capitalized words up above will be ignored for the “immature little baby boy screaming that he can’t get his way” that it is. You have said quite enough, and you can just jolly well keep it to yourself on your own little spot in the web. Nobody cares a hoot about what you have to say.
IB,
Again, they’re immature brats. Don’t give them credibility. I know I, and others have said this to you — they’re like toddlers having a tantrum, they only want attention. Don’t give it to them.
Whew…..I don’t like getting this worked up about it, but there comes a point when these “men” need to be put FIRMLY into their place, especially when they write like uneducated reprobates (which is exactly what they are). Don’t give them credibility, don’t, don’t, don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hoho. That was an epic finger wagging. I sure do feel put firmly in my place…
Its still not gonna help your daughter when she runs into on of us “Red Pillers”. We shall see how much her church is worth then.
Zing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think in this year’s political climate, the masks are starting to come off and Game’s cultishness and White Supremacism are coming out in the open. These guys are exposing themselves more and more for what they really are. Vox even came out today and said that we need laws to control female sexuality—some Libertarian, lol
LikeLiked by 3 people
They are very, very dangerous men. And we even have Christian, not to mention Catholic, women who give them credibility! The whole thing is frightening. The day will come when these enabling women will wonder, in terror, what they were thinking, and it will then be too late for them……that’s what’s most sad. There will be very little anybody can do for them at that point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that they are dangerous; the problem is that ignoring them won’t make them go away. Their movement is growing because it’s gone on for too long without being challenged (except from Feminists and others on the Political Left). They need to be called out by Christians and Conservatives. because they don’t represent us, but claim to speak for us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An interesting post made by a Vet here on WP might be of use; I can’t say the speaker is ir is not a Christian, though his talking points are of much value in dealing with aggressive people:
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/30/podcast-230-how-to-deal-with-aggressive-people/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheArtOfManliness+%28The+Art+of+Manliness%29&mc_cid=9a81dda07f&mc_eid=45bfc24ffc
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, stumbled on your blog when I was reading about the alt-right, who I have tried for years to avoid but have come up more and often lately.
I’m surprised this doesn’t get brought up more often, but Vox Day does not believe in the Trinity. So it’s pretty amusing that he sets himself up as the arbiter of “real Christianity” when he rejects such a fundamental of the faith.
But actually, I welcome the alt-right’s attack on Christianity, if only to show their fundamental incompatibility. In some ways they probably understand Christianity better than those who think they are reconciliable.
I’m Catholic, so I would view the relation between faith and institutions a little differently (while not disagreeing with you entirely). But that’s a topic for another time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But actually, I welcome the alt-right’s attack on Christianity, if only to show their fundamental incompatibility.”
That’s a good point. Thank you, I appreciate that perspective.
LikeLike
IB,
“So the Red Pills seem to now be launching a full-blown attack on Christianity itself, declaring faith to be a “beta farm” that de-masculinizes men.”
This is not the first time that “Christianity” has been “attacked”. Consider Martin Luther, who posted 95 theses counter to the Roman Catholic church teaching regarding indulgences. He did this, not because he wanted to destroy Christianity, but “out of love and zeal for the truth and the desire to elucidate it”. It resulted in radical change in the Church.
What if “the Red Pills” are correct, and the church and its leaders are teaching contrary to God’s will?
LikeLike
The great majority of red-pillers are atheists, and one of if not the biggest “red pill Christian” leaders (Vox Day) does not even believe in the Trinity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I understand it, the crux of the argument is that most “churches” today have been influenced by feminism to the point that they are unattractive to masculine men. This is not a new concept, and, contrary to what one would think from reading this blog and comments, it is not restricted to “Red Pill” blogs.
As far as I am concerned, I don’t care who claims “church” today is anti-masculinity, but only whether the claim is true or not, and if it is negatively impacting the mission of the Church or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What if “the Red Pills” are correct, and the church and its leaders are teaching contrary to God’s will?”
Well, here’s something that’s way different. “We are the church” and as such, there are no excuses. So if I looked about and saw the church in shambles, I’d take it to Christ and beg to be forgiven for allowing “the church,” to become so broken, something I have done a few times. Then I’d set out to do everything in my power to make it better, to clean up the mess I am responsible for. It’s His church, we were handed a sacred trust, we are all responsible for it. Being in Christ, that responsibility makes me my brother’s keeper. I can’t wash my hands of “the church” anymore than I could wash my hands of broken family and be done with it.
In my case, I don’t have a whole lot of power to fix the entire church, the whole body of Christ, but I sure do have an obligation join a group of believers and become the best follower of Christ I can be. What I cannot do, is sit on my behind and lament that I am “losing my religion,” because…too many women in the world. Ironically, that kind of wimpy, defeatest, chronically victimized attitude really is somewhat feminized, but that isn’t coming from “the church,” that’s coming from the red pills themselves.
“What if the church and its leaders are teaching contrary to God’s will?”
Like that hasn’t been going on since Jesus walked the earth? Like we aren’t warned about false teachings and wolves in sheeps clothing? We’re supposed to have our eyes on Jesus Christ. Extra important for men, since your own statistics claim women only make up about 11% of church leadership. So that means if church leadership is wrong, 89% of it is coming from men, making the whole point irrelevant anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, WE need to repent, not THEY need to repent. Repentance shouldn’t be a few-times-a-year thing; our stance should be repentance – removing the log in my own eye.
Women have been doing nothing less or more than the men have modeled for them – looking in the Bible for the justification to do what they want to do – case in point: the many men in the manosphere who try to use Scripture to defend and advocate for polygamy, obviously apparently convinced that they are able to understand and interpret Scripture better than doctors of Scripture. Why should women not do the same?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Yes, WE need to repent, not THEY need to repent. Repentance shouldn’t be a few-times-a-year thing; our stance should be repentance – removing the log in my own eye.”
Yes, this.
It is not usually easy but without it what walk are we walking? I’ve been there having to do it by myself when a group fell to error and I had to leave after a couple of years unable to help correct it with that group, in fact unable to get any traction or reasonable discussion whatsoever toward discussing the error that was being taught. I ended up having to find a new group to join with on my own while my ex (soon to be) began wavering in faith, losing his religion. I still joined with a group I considered to be sound and fought to keep respect for the one wavering and yet not just walk away and ignore God and my own questions as he appeared to be doing. If he had found a group I have little doubt that I would have followed his lead. But now after events a few years later have played out I consider it a God thing that God helped me through hardship and trying circumstances to find a truly sound group rather than following along with a lot of wavering and drifting in the wind. It seem as if it was a very close call. And now he has joined a very unsound group that apparently doesn’t believe in the call to repentance at all. And I know, there but for the grace of God go I! So I wonder how is it that he has become less strong and less authority based (more feminized) while I have to be my own head (in the earthly sense) lean on God and worship with a sound group without him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eavan,
I agree that each individual is responsible for their own repentance. However, a call for others to repent is certainly appropriate for those with the gift of prophecy.
“Women have been doing nothing less or more than the men have modeled for them ….
[…]
Why should women not do the same?” “
Are you seriously suggesting that it is okay for women to misuse scripture because some men do? Aren’t all Christians called to live according to the Truth? Is it right to try to justify our sinful behavior because others do this?
Regarding polygamy, I think a very small number of men (e.g. Toad, who is very vocal) advocate for polygamy. As a result, I think this is a peculiar example to use for comparison of men’s and women’s misuse of scripture.
LikeLike
fromscratchmom,
“And I know, there but for the grace of God go I!”
I don’t really see it as only by the grace of God. You had learned the Truth, you chose to follow it, tried to correct the error but weren’t successful, left the group, and found a group that does follow the Truth. Your choices and actions were done of your own free will, and God was certainly involved in providing you strength and wisdom during the process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB,
As I understand it, part of the argument is that the “men” who are church leaders are either non-masculine men or afraid of losing the pro-women members and their money, so they are not acting in the interests of masculine men. As a result, the “church” is skewed towards non-masculine, and there is no reason to suppose it will ever balance out. Indeed, just as you said, you “don’t have a whole lot of power to fix the entire church”, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to change the direction a congregation/denomination is headed. This is especially true once power and authority has been allowed to those who accept a more egalitarian perspective.
Returning to Martin Luther, he started with “voicing” his complaints in writing. Apparently, there were many who agreed, and his protest quickly turned into a movement that was the birth of Protestantism. If there is validity to the claims about feminization of the church, then God will deal with it appropriately and in His own timeframe.
I find your statements about Christians working to correct their own congregation and men being responsible for the “church’s” failures are incongruous with your own husband’s behavior. Unless I am mistaken, he left your previous church without attempting to change it and is no longer involved with any congregation. Have you communicated your beliefs on this topic to him?
LikeLike
“As I understand it, part of the argument is that the “men” who are church leaders are either non-masculine men or afraid of losing the pro-women members and their money, so they are not acting in the interests of masculine men.”
Do you not hear the irony in that? It is actually a declaration that the men leading in “the church” are too arrogant, too egotistical, too masculine and macho, so they refuse to recognize the interests of the allegedly more masculine men, the red pills.
Ai yi yi. And who’s fault is this? Feminists, of course.
LikeLike
IB,
No, I don’t see the irony in that. I see that you perceive arrogance, egotism, and machismo as being masculinity. I don’t.
LikeLike
The red pills do. So the problem seems to be some kind of perversion of masculinity, not a feminized church.
LikeLike
IB,
It is true that all Christian men, even church leaders, are sinners and fail to live to God’s ideal. I do not think many of them are intentionally taking advantage of opportunity in churches to follow their own selfish desires.
It is also true that all Christian women are sinners and fail to live to God’s ideal. Ultimately, that sin is their responsibility and not that of any man. I think few of them are intentionally sinning out of selfishness.
I think feminism is so entrenched in our society that it has permeated into the Church. This has resulted in additional sin by both men and women.
Let’s look into all the causes of sin and failure of the Church. But let’s only eliminate possible causes when we all agree that they are not true.
For example, feminization of churches has been proposed to be a cause by many over many years. This idea is not limited to Red Pillians.
It is fact that total attendance in churches in the USA has been decreasing for at least the last 20 years. It is fact that the percentage of men attending has decreased over the last 20 years. What are the reasons? Supposing feminization of churches is not significant, what do you think are the reasons? Please provide support rather than only suppositions. Otherwise, it’s effectively anecdotal evidence.
LikeLike
Two different things are going on here, Okrickety. First off, we can talk about spreading the good news, increasing the number of men in faith, looking at what the church MAY be doing that is an obstacle for some men. Second we can simply declare “the church is a beta farm that will de-masculinize you so you should avoid the church because the Holy Spirit has been co-opted by the feminine imperative.”
The later is what the red pills are doing, Tomassi, Dalrock, and Vox Day, among others. The later is what I object to.
LikeLike
Well said IB
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love it when you stir up the nest by presenting the truth. It makes those who hate God more accountable at deaths door and flames a little hotter!
LikeLiked by 2 people
IB, this is totally off topic with your blog post above, but I thought you might be interested to get a glimpse of this organization/effort that I have been aware of and really hopeful and excited about since I first heard about it ~9 months ago getting going in Indiana. I hope to attend some seminars some day. With God, the future is bright even when its filtered through a bit of earthly chemical brain imbalance (depression and myriad symptoms of that and other things)
LikeLike
OKR: My point being that the “right” to interpret Scripture according to private opinion has long been claimed by low Protestant (meaning so-called non-liturgical persuasions) men. Why should women be denied this right? Why do men who claim Scripture is plain in its meaning then find a right to polygamy and various other perversions therein?
LikeLike
Interesting, Eavan. I don’t believe that the low Protestant men have declared the right to interpret scripture anyway they wish, or rather, 98% of them are going to interpret and all arrive on the same page. It’s that 2% of lunkheads that misuse scripture to justify just about anything from polygamy to slavery. Unfortunately, quite a few of them are also Catholic.
As to your other point however, I really do view women as imitators, we tend to reflect men, we receive the examples we have been shown. Reflect and multiply. So, I agree with you, when we have men using scripture to justify something like outright abuse, we shouldn’t be surprised to see a few women come along behind them and start using scripture to justify feminism.
LikeLike
“I really do view women as imitators, we tend to reflect men, we receive the examples we have been shown. Reflect and multiply.”
I don’t see women as imitators. In fact, I perceive that idea as demeaning to women. Why do you state “men” as the examples? Why wouldn’t women also imitate the examples of other women? It’s my perception that much female behavior today is following the example of other women. For example, Madonna, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, etc.
Regardless, “multiply” is especially concerning in the case of bad examples. When women see a bad example, they not only follow it, but take it a step further? If true, it’s no wonder society has reached this point.
LikeLike
Actually, Protestantism is all about disagreement over the interpretation of Scripture. It’s just the high church Protestants are more likely to depend on Tradition while low church depends on private interpretation, or “the plain reading of Scripture.” I’ve heard sermons preached on the Scriptural necessity of men having beards followed by a sermon by a different man explaining the Scriptural necessity of men being clean-shaven, all on the same day, the one preached immediately after the other. You would likely call both those men “lunkheads”, but each of them was quite earnestly convinced that the Holy Spirit was speaking to him about an important element of Scriptural interpretation.
So 2% of lunkheads are responsible for all the denominations, each of which believes they have special Scriptural insight that the others don’t have?
LikeLike
Eavan, I’m not sure I’m following particularly well here. It isn’t always safe to derive meaning from context and bake assumptions and whatnot. Would you mind defining a few of your terms for me?
High-Protestant
Low-Protestant
Non-liturgical
Would you it be your belief that regular folk can’t read the Word for themselves but must have clergy to tell them what it really says?
LikeLike
Eavan,
It seems that, given opportunity and ability, religious groups will separate over just about any conceivable issue. Satan has often been successful in his endeavors.
I believe that there are groups of well-intentioned Christians where the truth of scripture has been ignored or misunderstood. When this is recognized, it would seem that a return to God’s Truth would be accepted by all. Unfortunately, there seems to usually be those unwilling to do so, and very often the one group separates into two groups.
It is my opinion that some of these issues are not worthy of separation, but some of them likely are. There are probably disagreements on that topic alone.
Are some small minority of believers (I think “2%” is just a number IB pulled out of the air) responsible for all denominations? Very possibly. If there are others in a group who are willing to follow, then it would not be difficult to get a large number of denominations over hundreds of years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eavan,
As IB said, I don’t think most suppose the right to interpret scripture any way they wish. I think women have the right to read and understand scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit, but I do think women should then study and discuss this with their husband or with their father. They may be in agreement, but perhaps they will be corrected, or perhaps they will be a helpmeet and the husband will see his error.
[2 Tim. 3:2-5 NASB] 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
I think the above passage provides the reason that men (and the passage does seem to referring only to males here) will misuse scripture to justify their sin — Satan provides a temptation and they sin because of their human desires.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m curious then – if most don’t suppose they can interpret Scripture any way they wish, what do most suppose about the proper interpretation of Scripture?
LikeLike
Eavan,
I am going to suppose that “interpret Scripture any way they wish” is what is called eisegesis, that is, a person interpreting and reading information into the text that is not there. In other words, they claim that the scripture means what they want it to say.
The alternative is called exegesis. Exegesis is used to denote an approach to interpreting Bible passages utilizing critical analysis. It is the thorough investigation of Biblical text, within various contexts, to discover the original meaning. For the Christian, it should be what is called “revealed exegesis”, believing that the Bible is God’s Word, with the Holy Spirit as the inspiration behind the writers.
Exegesis, done correctly, will use various tools, for example, multiple translations, concordances, dictionaries, commentaries, lexicons, and books by Christian authors. It will consider the immediate text, the surrounding context, cultural context, and context of related scriptures. All of these resources will be used to determine the best understanding of the text. It is seldom mentioned, but prayer and openness to the leading of the Holy Spirit are likely to be significant in the process, too.
Much of this has been eased greatly with the internet and bible study software. For example, in the recent discussion of forgiveness and repentance, I often used blueletterbible dot org for translations, concordance, and lexicons, biblehub dot com for its commentaries, and, of course, google dot com to find a scripture I could not pinpoint, and to see the thoughts of others. There are many other similar websites you can find. One develops one’s own preferences as to their utility.
Doing this will give a much better understanding of scripture. Sometimes, it will result in changing one’s beliefs if one finds that the so-called experts are wrong. In fact, I strongly suspect that the first time this occurs, one will never again presume that a speaker or writer is correct solely because of their own endorsement or that of others. However, I do think one’s discernment is improved by more exposure to the Truth, and, of course, less exposure to poor teaching. As one’s own knowledge and understanding increases, it becomes easier to recognize incorrect teaching.
As to what most suppose about understanding scripture, it is difficult to say. I only know that most people, even in my experience with a relatively biblically-conservative “denomination”, are inclined to accept the statements of the so-called experts, rather than question and study it personally.
[1 Peter 3:15 NASB] 15 “…, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post Insanity! Yes, Christianity is rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ, in Scripture and Tradition. That can never change, and I believe that this is the Christianity that is still being practiced by the majority of Christians today. Christianity has never been what Dalrock and co. talk about, because Jesus Christ never preached hate and oppression of females.
That said, while I don’t agree whatsoever that Christianity is becoming ‘feminized,’ I must admit that there there is a slightly different problem in modern Christianity. Many Christians of my generation seem to interpret whatever they want from the Bible, to such an extent that MOST seem to agree that homosexuality and other clear sins are permissible. And while this doesn’t really extend to Catholics, I’ve heard stories of people being taught a shallower, pacifistic and politically correct version of Catholicism at the RCIA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It’s good to lose your “religion,” if your “religion” is built on nothing more than shifting sand.”
*mic drop*
LikeLiked by 3 people
“It is not Him that gets lost, it is us.” Nail hit firmly on its head!!! Why oh why, Lord, do we not see that it isn’t You who have walked away from us but WE who have walked away from YOU?
We try to tackle the world on our own will and understanding and foolishly stop asking for His guidance…It happens so quickly that we rarely notice. Our lives start going a bit unhinged and we cry out to God that we don’t understand why we are having challenges in our lives. Then we start wondering at HIS silence.
But it is we who are silent as He waits patiently for us to turn, once again, to Him. Funny how my life falls back into place when I realize MY silence, that I was lost…again!
I praise You Lord for Your faithfulness and undying love! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Anonymous
“Whew…..I don’t like getting this worked up about it, but there comes a point when these “men” need to be put FIRMLY into their place”
Truly amazing, at least this woman has the _____ to come out and say it.
LikeLike
“Eavan, I am going to suppose that “interpret Scripture any way they wish” is what is called eisegesis, that is, a person interpreting and reading information into the text that is not there. In other words, they claim that the scripture means what they want it to say.”
I’ll respond to this and then stop highjacking the thread (sorry, IB).
Everybody practices eisegesis to one extent or another when they interpret Scripture because the human heart is dark. That’s why private interpretation is a problem. You can’t interpret anything except through your own glasses and your glasses are colored by your experiences in ways of which you will never be aware
You mention studying about forgiveness in the Blue Letter Bible. I did the same, discussed my conclusions with my husband, he agreed, and I posted. You studied and posted your conclusions. I found it interesting that you took one meaning of the Greek for forgiveness (cancel debt) among a whole list of meanings (all “leave” in one form or another) and concluded that unconditional forgiveness is not what God means. But your conclusion helped me see a different side of the topic. I would not have considered your argument at all if I believed that my understanding of Scripture is wholly informed by the Holy Spirit and that I’m fully qualified to interpret. Throughout history even doctors of Scripture, the ones who can actually read the original languages, have had extended discussions trying to understand Scripture and have wrestled through to understand the meaning. We should listen to them. Just because they’re dead doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
When the denizens of the manosphere go around proclaiming that they have understanding of Scripture that no doctor of the Church ever has had they should be marked as false prophets. But they never are; they are allowed to lie about the Gospel, bring others around to their false teaching, and everybody is cool. Toad is only one example. Christian men admire, link to, and take their cues from perverts, but if somebody calls them on that it’s because he’s a “mangina”. It is not possible to love perversion and Christ. Many years ago Leon Podles wrote an important book about the feminization of the Church that has been much discussed and often taken to heart, but nobody has said anything about this until an atheist proclaims it and then it’s true and every “real man” should abandon the Church, never mind that the Church is actually full of real men raising their families in Christ. Oh! But they’re “betas” produced on “beta farms”. Can you not see how wicked it is for Christian men to agree when men such as these call men such as my husband, son, and son-in-law pejorative names? These so-called betas are doing the real work of civilization while red pills advocate tearing it all down and Christian men agree – yep, burn it all down, including the women and children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scratchmom:
High-Protestant: Churches whose liturgies are closer to the Catholic Church in their worship. This includes Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches. Some of these groups call themselves reformed.
Low-Protestant: Churches that see sacraments as symbolic. This group is mostly Evangelical. The furthest expression of this is Quaker, which teaches that all people have a “light within” and that personal interpretation rather than creeds informs faith.
Non-liturgical: Churches that believe to follow planned readings and prayers is “dead”, so they have planned services without planned prayers.
I believe that Christians should read Scripture and pray. What I don’t believe is that Scripture is always completely plain and easy to understand. Those of us who have been reading Scripture for years have forgotten that we have received interpretations of it from many sources. In fact, the English Bible you own is an interpretation that you accept as authoritative so you don’t think of it as interpreted. Having a conversation with a newly Christian pagan who is trying to read Scripture made this very clear to me. Scripture is not plain in its meaning to him and he relies heavily on other Christians to help him understand it. I think it is the height of hubris for anybody to claim they don’t need help understanding the Scriptures or that Christian doctrine is plain in them. God’s Word is deeper and wider than we can imagine and for us to think that we understand the mind of God because He is gracious enough to write to us astounds me. The Bible is the story of God’s interactions with His Creation, not an easily understood at a 3rd grade level instruction manual and we should be careful about proclaiming that we easily understand it.
LikeLike
Thank-you for your reply. It was close to what I thought from context and background knowledge. But it’s helpful to get your direct answer!
I’d fit with the non-liturgical and/or low Protestant groupings.
I think there’s something to be said for some scripture being more plain and that you could look at some “interpretations” (for lack of a better word) of some groups as “you need help to mess that up that badly!” But of course you’re absolutely right that people do also sometimes need help to learn and to study. We’re given example in Acts 8 with the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch taught by Phillip.
One concern with this is whether or not we let others stand between ourselves and God where if an individual or a large group submits to false teachings we simply follow them in it rather than personally follow God even when it’s as hard as seeing a beloved person, group, or clergy go wrong and we’ll feel separated from them.
The opposite problem is people who simply refuse to believe their is any such thing as Truth or a God who is unchanging; not confused; not lacking the intelligence, wisdom, love and power to give us his word Ashe intended it and guide us in it throughout the ages without being subject to the larger and smaller whims and fads of societies and cultures over time. So they claim everyone can have their “own truth” that is “true for them” and dismiss others as well as troublesome scriptures by saying things like “that’s your interpretation” Yes, those folks do seem to think that they can interpret scripture anyway they please.
Neither position is pleasing to God or in keeping with his Word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Funny that the thing, at the end of a long hard day, that reminded me I’d wanted to come back and see your answer was an article on this very topic. 😉
http://www.radicallychristian.com/stop-dismissing-scripture-with-thats-just-your-interpretation
LikeLiked by 1 person
Powerful! Thank you so much. You are exactly right. If we claim to have “Lost” our faith, we’ve moved, not our Lord Jesus Christ. And, sadly, Christians attacking other Christians seems to be an ever-increasing wickedness. We are the church; the One Body of Jesus. We should stick together like the one flesh we are, not attack other body parts. God bless you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am embarrassed to say that I have only recently discovered the Christian apologist, John Lennox. As you undoubtedly know, Lennox is an Oxford professor of mathematics. He has a kindly manner, a easy way of speaking, and a sharp intellect. Lennox is wholly unashamed of his religion and — like you — well capable of defending it. He has written numerous books and can, also, be found on YouTube. I highly recommend him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, much appreciated 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://enthusiasticagnostic.com
LikeLike
Pingback: Alt-Christianity? | See, there's this thing called biology...
Yes. There is a thing called biology. And if you study it you learn that 80% of women want 20% of the men. And that is Rollo’s main point. Everything on his site comes from that fact of biology.
Biology is an attack on the church? OK. So was science generally is earlier ages.
LikeLike
“….if you study it you learn that 80% of women want 20% of the men”
Actually, you learn no such thing. That is rubbish and runs contrary to what we know of biology. Tomassi’s “main point” is generally rooted in confusion rather than facts.
LikeLike