Christianity is heavily feminized, and has been for atleast a century. Likely two or more.
No, seriously. Historically, women have been seen as the spiritual center of the family, while the husband deals with earthly matters. So scripture and teachings on sunday are focused and interpreted to appeal to... women! Women also influence the purse strings of the family, encouraging more spending toward the church. Win win.
Christianity as taught is cucked because it's operating from a feminine perspective and prerogative. Women are weak, must be protected, and they refuse to even acknowledge women's power and privilege in modern society.
If you want a very radical contrast, look at how appealing Joshua Graham in Fallout New Vegas is to everyone, despite(more likely, because of) how religious he is. His interpretation is very powerful, direct, masculine interpretation of scripture, forcing you to action and urging you to fight evil. He is a godly man, unashamed in his worship, yet will proactively respond with lethal force if necessary without hesitation.
Quite the difference from modern 'let someone else abuse you and become their bitch boy if they act against you'.
I don't know about videos, but the bible is actually a quite interesting read. Yeah, there's some oddities, but loads and loads of it require really no explanation. Women are put under the rule of men in the first few pages. It's very consistent throughout on the roles of women, yet feminist theologists want to try to offer "context" or whatever to change things that are written clearly and directly in any legitimate translation.
Any good videos to jump start an interest in exploring what Christianity used to look like in that context?
You won't get this from videos. One way is to explore the writing of historical Christian intellectuals, such as Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas. It can be quite heavy but that is part of the point - I would say engaging with Christianity using reason and our rational ability is a quintessentially masculine way of doing so. In contrast, the feminine takes complex concepts and tends to simplify these to caricatures often based on on emotional reasoning, such as "love of neighbor and love of enemy" as meaning "being nice to everyone so you don't upset them", which is certainly not what Christ meant.
I don't know specifics but the best place to start is probably going to be about the Guelphs vs. the Ghibellines.
It was a conflict between patriarchal monarchs and gynocratic priests, essentially. The priests won which set the stage for the Catholic Church being able to significantly increase its power and this is when things started becoming incredibly gynocratic comparted to the more patriarchal imperium that was the legacy of antiquity.
Almost all the best Christians were before this period in time where the Catholic Church was able to consolidate its power to that of being above the monarchs and it's no surprise the great schism happened not soon after this stage was set because this power of the church corrupted society immensely as things started becoming more gynocratic and decadent.
Christianity has always been gynocratic even at the very beginning. The whole reason Christianity took off over traditional Roman values/beliefs is because traditional Roman values/beliefs has a male-centric slant since they were very action oriented based. You only gain glory by doing something glorious and women weren't able to compete with men in being able to do anything glorious so women disliked this religion. Christianity on the other hand said you just had to be a good person and you got everything you wanted in life so women loved this because it allowed them an equal opportunity for the same sort of grand salvation as men by basically doing nothing. Not to mention, Christianity encouraged monogamy and devotion to women compared to more traditional antiquity beliefs that saw women as a sort of possession akin to a prize for a man to do as he please with. Women felt compared to how things were previously, that Christianity gave them more control over the men in their lives.
Christianity is heavily feminized, and has been for atleast a century. Likely two or more.
And the solution to this, from my point of view, is for men to rightfully reassert their positions within Christianity as the leaders. The start is for men to start going to church again and playing an active role. Men need to stop conceding ground to women and recapture what they have lost.
No, seriously. Historically, women have been seen as the spiritual center of the family, while the husband deals with earthly matters. So scripture and teachings on sunday are focused and interpreted to appeal to... women! Women also influence the purse strings of the family, encouraging more spending toward the church. Win win.
I think this may be true in recent times - probably due to the rise of feminism in the West and is knock-on effects - but in my view this is certainly not what God intended. Christianity is meant to be patriarchal because that is the natural order of things. It is men's role to lead. This could not be any more explicit than Ephesians 5:24:
As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
As Christians, men are meant to lead spiritually and they need to do so again. They can do so by getting themselves in order - turning away from sin and being faithful to the Gospel - and being role models and eventually leaders as they continue to develop spiritually and in their relationship with God in their local Christian communities. And spreading the Good News to other men to do the same.
And the solution to this, from my point of view, is for men to rightfully reassert their positions within Christianity as the leaders.
Part of the issue is male leadership in the church. IE, the priesthood.
No, not in the way you're thinking. See, I had a weird upbringing, so I'm familiar with what men have to go through to become an actual priest. And one of the things involved is a college education.
Priests aren't stupid. I think most of them are very, very smart. Educated, at the very least. Smart enough to realize what could be the most threatening factor to civilization as it stands - single, violent young men at odds and bereft from the world as a whole.
Hence the overall push - to start young, and keep pushing the modern interpretation of scripture, shorn of historical context, neutered of violence and pushed overall to be docile.
Do I have proof? No. This is pure theory, pure conjecture. And likely just one factor among many. But I don't think I'm wrong. We'll see.
No doubt there are many contributing components. I don't disagree with your comment, but I would put it another way - the priesthood reflects the population they are from, or in other words, we get the priests we deserve.
I still think the most important factor, at least the one the individual men can actually make a dent into, is that men as a whole are too enslaved by sin to lead as Christians. You just need to look at this forum to see multitudes of men defending their own enslavement by pornography, masturbation and fornication (sexual sins are probably to most easy to fall into, especially for men, which is why chastity is a universal virtue). At a first step, individual men need to choose not to sin for their own sake, i.e. their own personal salvation, and once they start doing so they can step into the role God intends - to lead their societies according to His law.
Christianity is heavily feminized, and has been for atleast a century. Likely two or more.
No, seriously. Historically, women have been seen as the spiritual center of the family, while the husband deals with earthly matters. So scripture and teachings on sunday are focused and interpreted to appeal to... women! Women also influence the purse strings of the family, encouraging more spending toward the church. Win win.
Christianity as taught is cucked because it's operating from a feminine perspective and prerogative. Women are weak, must be protected, and they refuse to even acknowledge women's power and privilege in modern society.
If you want a very radical contrast, look at how appealing Joshua Graham in Fallout New Vegas is to everyone, despite(more likely, because of) how religious he is. His interpretation is very powerful, direct, masculine interpretation of scripture, forcing you to action and urging you to fight evil. He is a godly man, unashamed in his worship, yet will proactively respond with lethal force if necessary without hesitation.
Quite the difference from modern 'let someone else abuse you and become their bitch boy if they act against you'.
I don't know about videos, but the bible is actually a quite interesting read. Yeah, there's some oddities, but loads and loads of it require really no explanation. Women are put under the rule of men in the first few pages. It's very consistent throughout on the roles of women, yet feminist theologists want to try to offer "context" or whatever to change things that are written clearly and directly in any legitimate translation.
You won't get this from videos. One way is to explore the writing of historical Christian intellectuals, such as Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas. It can be quite heavy but that is part of the point - I would say engaging with Christianity using reason and our rational ability is a quintessentially masculine way of doing so. In contrast, the feminine takes complex concepts and tends to simplify these to caricatures often based on on emotional reasoning, such as "love of neighbor and love of enemy" as meaning "being nice to everyone so you don't upset them", which is certainly not what Christ meant.
No videos, sorry. I'm going off of a deranged combination of 400-level history courses and the occasional weird article here and there.
I don't know specifics but the best place to start is probably going to be about the Guelphs vs. the Ghibellines.
It was a conflict between patriarchal monarchs and gynocratic priests, essentially. The priests won which set the stage for the Catholic Church being able to significantly increase its power and this is when things started becoming incredibly gynocratic comparted to the more patriarchal imperium that was the legacy of antiquity.
Almost all the best Christians were before this period in time where the Catholic Church was able to consolidate its power to that of being above the monarchs and it's no surprise the great schism happened not soon after this stage was set because this power of the church corrupted society immensely as things started becoming more gynocratic and decadent.
Christianity has always been gynocratic even at the very beginning. The whole reason Christianity took off over traditional Roman values/beliefs is because traditional Roman values/beliefs has a male-centric slant since they were very action oriented based. You only gain glory by doing something glorious and women weren't able to compete with men in being able to do anything glorious so women disliked this religion. Christianity on the other hand said you just had to be a good person and you got everything you wanted in life so women loved this because it allowed them an equal opportunity for the same sort of grand salvation as men by basically doing nothing. Not to mention, Christianity encouraged monogamy and devotion to women compared to more traditional antiquity beliefs that saw women as a sort of possession akin to a prize for a man to do as he please with. Women felt compared to how things were previously, that Christianity gave them more control over the men in their lives.
Read the Bible yourself to start
And the solution to this, from my point of view, is for men to rightfully reassert their positions within Christianity as the leaders. The start is for men to start going to church again and playing an active role. Men need to stop conceding ground to women and recapture what they have lost.
I think this may be true in recent times - probably due to the rise of feminism in the West and is knock-on effects - but in my view this is certainly not what God intended. Christianity is meant to be patriarchal because that is the natural order of things. It is men's role to lead. This could not be any more explicit than Ephesians 5:24:
As Christians, men are meant to lead spiritually and they need to do so again. They can do so by getting themselves in order - turning away from sin and being faithful to the Gospel - and being role models and eventually leaders as they continue to develop spiritually and in their relationship with God in their local Christian communities. And spreading the Good News to other men to do the same.
Part of the issue is male leadership in the church. IE, the priesthood.
No, not in the way you're thinking. See, I had a weird upbringing, so I'm familiar with what men have to go through to become an actual priest. And one of the things involved is a college education.
Priests aren't stupid. I think most of them are very, very smart. Educated, at the very least. Smart enough to realize what could be the most threatening factor to civilization as it stands - single, violent young men at odds and bereft from the world as a whole.
Hence the overall push - to start young, and keep pushing the modern interpretation of scripture, shorn of historical context, neutered of violence and pushed overall to be docile.
Do I have proof? No. This is pure theory, pure conjecture. And likely just one factor among many. But I don't think I'm wrong. We'll see.
No doubt there are many contributing components. I don't disagree with your comment, but I would put it another way - the priesthood reflects the population they are from, or in other words, we get the priests we deserve.
I still think the most important factor, at least the one the individual men can actually make a dent into, is that men as a whole are too enslaved by sin to lead as Christians. You just need to look at this forum to see multitudes of men defending their own enslavement by pornography, masturbation and fornication (sexual sins are probably to most easy to fall into, especially for men, which is why chastity is a universal virtue). At a first step, individual men need to choose not to sin for their own sake, i.e. their own personal salvation, and once they start doing so they can step into the role God intends - to lead their societies according to His law.
Its why in movies there is the crazy religious white lady that gets people killed heheh.