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.
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.
Christians embrace Our Lord Jesus Christ as King and Savior, and as one Person of the Holy Trinity of God.
Today's Jews are defined by their rejection of Jesus Christ. (The Jews of the Old Testament that embraced Our Lord are no longer Jews, but Christians). It is my belief that by rejecting God, they no longer worship Him but someone else.
Forgiveness, of course, requires true repentance and penance, and righting the wrongs of sin. Your understanding of Christianity appears to be rather incomplete.
You have not sinned against me, so there is no need for me forgive you.
So you're completely helpless against a hostile subversive force undermining your church.
No. As a Christian, it is my role follow Christ to the best of my ability. One thing He requires of me is obedience, including obedience to the hierarchy of the Church. Yet this is not blind obedience. You edited out how I phrased my statement of obedience "I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me". The point is that if I am to dissent with the hierarchy of the Church, I must be very sure that this out of love for God, not my own selfishness or because I have been seduced by Satan. The starting point must always be that I am wrong, and the Church is right. After all, Jesus said:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
In any case, the point here is rather moot, because apparently the charge against me is that I am foolish for choosing to obey the Church over some random atheists on the internet. If that makes me foolish in your eyes, then so be it. I'd rather be called foolish then be led astray.
No, I am not God's special chosen one. I am simply one of His humble servants. You are free to think what you want of me, just as you are free to follow Christ if you choose to do so.
Christians also insist that we forgive the most run-through whores and marry them in their 30s.
Indeed, Christians must be willing to forgive the sins of others, as God forgives our sins. But whether you want to marry is entirely up to you. Everyone has their own calling. I have said so before, on this very forum.
In fact, I'd say if you are searching for true meaning in your life, you will only find in the Christ. You will not find it in marrying or having children, despite anything other Christians may tell you.
How is this not just good advice despite who says it?
Because there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Because even if sometimes, as a weak human, I may sometimes desire my enemies to be destroyed or harmed, that may not be God's will. In fact, it is probably not His will, as I know He desires all of us people to be brought into His light and be saved.
Because the successor to the chair of Saint Peter, who Christ placed in charge of His Church, has not deemed that this is the correct response to those who spread what I consider falsehoods, so out of obedience and respect, I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me.
As an atheist, I WANT Christianity to be a strong religion as truth be told,
As an atheist, your goals for Christianity differ from the goals of Christians and the goals of Christ Himself. As your comment implies, you see Christianity only as a political tool to achieve your political aims. You see it as a way to enforce your desired moral outcomes, not God's moral outcomes. That is not Christianity.
In contrast, a Christian sees his religion as Truth. Christ is the Son of God. He is Lord and King. We obey Christ becomes it is our duty to so. He has tasked us with loving God and loving our neighbours as well as our enemies. Fundamentally, a Christian's main motivation is to achieve God's will, not the will of humans. Therein is the clear distinction between your goals and my goals.
In some cases, I may be able to work you to achieve particular aims. But I will not apologize for calling out your attempt to tell me how I should be acting as a Christian. If I need guidance, I will turn to prayer and the Holy Spirit, not a random atheist on the internet.
You do, of course, have the free will to become accept Christ in your life as King and Saviour and become Christian. It is my hope that you do so.
Good, that should be the message, now excommunicate anyone off message or tell them they aren't Christians.
If I recall correctly, you are an atheist, not a Christian. Christians don't want or need atheists telling them how to be Christians any more than they want or need Jews telling them how to be Christians.
So of course, this article doesn't help define "dignity," and it isn't clear how significant it is, if really at all.
No, but the full declaration does. It defines several forms of dignity.
The full declaration is here.
Yet, your comment above indicates you are relying on a report by a journalist to tell you what the declaration says and "how significant it is". The declaration isn't that long, so perhaps it's worth reading rather than relying on a journalist?
Evolutionary psychology is the generally the domain of people who know nothing about evolution beyond a high school level (e.g. psychologists). It doesn't incorporate modern ideas about evolution from the biological sciences - what about genetic drift? Gene flow? Multi-level selection? Non-genetic inheritance? Basically, it involves individuals coming up with 'fun' sounding rationalizations for their pet theories based on an unfalsifiable appeal to 'natural selection' and 'fitness'. These theories are not even based on attempts to perform mathematical modelling of evolutionary trajectories, which is what evolutionary biologists would do (even if these simplistic models are no doubt flawed themselves).
Evolution, especially that of human behavior, is far more complicated that these evolutionary psychology 'theories' would have it, and in my opinion beyond the ability of any human to properly comprehend due to its extreme complexity involving so many variables, most of which could never even be measured properly. It is the domain of God.
There are other, far better, uses of our rational minds than arguments based on 'evolutionary psychology'.
ps. 'Briffault's Law' is also flawed when applied to humans. Even a casual observer of humans would observe that throughout history, unlike animals such as birds, it is the human females, not human males that seek to attract male attention by improving their appearance using makeup and clothes, seductive dancing etc. This clearly indicates females are competing amongst themselves to be chosen by their preferred males. These males are determining whether and with what females to associate with. To put it another way, how is the 80/20 rule and ideas surrounding 'Chad' consistent with Briffault's Law? Chad, a male, is obviously choosing which females to associate with. None of this means that males don't also have to compete amongst themselves to associate with their preferred females, but simply that your simplistic "Briffault's Law" does not apply to humans.
In my opinion, what she is observing is one of God's built-in mechanisms for ensuring His creation abides by His natural order. Men and women are not identical. Feminism, i.e. allowing women to control the state of the society, does not work as this is not the role of women. Feminism inevitable leads to the collapse of that society. A patriarchal society, where men control the state of the society, which is men's role, will take its place.
From a practical point of view, this is way societies should align themselves with His natural order. In doing so, they can be successful and thrive. Fail to do so, and they run a real risk of butting against the mechanisms He has but in place to ensure they stay as intended.
is it possible to be modern and fertile? So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
She is also wrong as she is using 'modern' as if it is absolute term instead of relative. Taking 'modern' to mean "characteristic of the present age", then every generation is 'modern' compared to past generations, and so yes, there were in fact modern and fertile societies.
What she really means is:
is it possible to be feminist and fertile. So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
But stating it that way would be too hard-hitting for her and her feminist audience.
Unless you are an incel genius like Isaac Newton or Nikolai Tesla then producing those children and doing your best to impart your values on to them, in spite of everything arrayed against you, is your "greater purpose".
No. For a Christian, the "greater purpose" is spreading the Good News of our Lord and King Jesus Christ to all people. This may involve having children, but everyone has their own calling. Your statement is steeped in materialism, where "scientific" advancement in a material sense, as exhibited by Newton or Tesla, or increasing the number of people in the world by having children, is the only "purpose" in life. This would have it that the saints throughout the ages who died or were martyred as virgins to spread Christianity to all the corners of the world were not achieving a "greater purpose", and were less important than Newton or Tesla.
In secular Western societies, for many individuals, their calling may be to re-evangelize to their brothers and sisters who are in apostasy or never truly exposed to the Word. This is a greater purpose, and all Christians are called to do so, even if they are single and do not feel the calling to have children.
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:12)
That and free hard-core porn on demand. Imagine the twisted perception of women and sex that comes from that cocktail.
Feminism and pornography (or at least sexual liberalisation) go hand-in-hand. Female power is largely derived from the ability to manipulate men using female sexuality.
While it's true that pornography corrupts the minds of boys and men, in my view, the biggest issue of this is that it enslaves boys and men to their sexual passions, making them good servants of "sexual-liberated" girls and women, who can use their sexualities to manipulate boys and men to achieve their own aims.
Another example of this is the prevalent attitude in Western societies that the amount of pre-marital sex a man has is an indicator of his "value". In other words, a male who is a successful fornicator is a "high-quality" man. How can this be? This only makes sense in a perverted feminist world where the most "useful" men are those that women can have sexual power over.
For boys and men to rise above feminism and become anti-feminist, they do need to be chaste and stop using pornography and fornicating. They need to take control of their lives so they can no longer be manipulated by shitty women using sex to control them.
(Another issue is that the rise of feminism has meant that male-female relationships have been badly corrupted, which means that many men and boys who want to do the right thing and contain their sexual passions within a monogamous relationship, as God intended, are unable to do so without ending up in bad relationships. Luckily, the part of solution to this is again male chastity - as this men to filter prospective partners better prior to entering into a relationship that could result in children, leaving him tied to her for life, whether or not she will be a good wife or mother. In other words, chastity better equips men to say "no" to a bad deal).
We've always been gynocentric. Even the oldest religions have a basis in gynocentrism.
No. I disagree. This is of those "evolutionary psychology" myths which is simply a modern rationalisation of the behavior observed in current society, as is the rest of your comment (evolutionary psychology is bunk, but that is a topic for a different time).
Human society has always had a basis in differing roles for men and women, not gynocentrism per se. I'm not sure what you mean by "the oldest religions", but it's clear to me that Christianity, as an example, is patriarchal, not gynocentric. The difference is that under patriarchy, it is the male role to lead society and men have natural authority over women. Part of the role may be to provide for and care for women in their families and societies, but this is an example differing roles of men and women (equally, women were expected to care for their families and societies including their men, using their feminine abilities and talents).
That "gynocentrism" is natural is a myth usually justified by modern thinking that is inherently flawed. For example, a common "evolutionary psychology" argument is that women are more intrinsically valuable, usually justified based on something to do with how many babies a man vs a woman could have, which makes no sense since the limiting factor in human populations is the ability to successful provide for the population and raise children to adulthood, for which men play a more important role than women. This is the reason males (boys) have been historically valued more than females (girls). We can see that even today in countries such as China.
It is only feminist societies in which this is reversed. Yes, this is partly to do male roles in Western society becoming less important as there is less of a need to physical strength, but in is more to do with the prevailing attitudes in society rather than reality. Even in modern Western societies women do not survive independently of men, their survival is still supported by men except not men in their families, but the men who do all the useful jobs like maintaining the food and water supplies, electricity and transport, mining resources and building homes etc.
I also disagree that the "natural" sexual strategy of humans naturally follow is "a tournament species". This makes no sense. Humans have always lived in societies. While there may have been examples of successful "tournament" human societies when one man gets all the women, this is generally a poorly surviving society as it requires other means to coercing the majority of men (who have no wives or children) to defend and provide for that society. As opposed to a society made up of stable families, in which all members of the society have a strong stake of their own in maintaining the society. In the latter example, it does not mean there is no hierarchy in the society. The "best" men (who win "tournaments") still get the "best" women. But the men below that also get women, simply not the "best" ones.
Others have already pointed out the prevalence of tradcucks and tradthots, but I'll also make the point that many people in the 'boomer' generation are strongly feminist, even if they don't call themselves that.
The sudden switch to a completely gynocentric society (as opposed to one where men and women had different domains) did not come from hardcore feminists, but rather due to the attitudes prevalent among most people. If you observe boomers, you'll find that boomer men in particular strongly believe that women were 'behind' entirely because of unfair discrimination. They might, for example, point out how "it's about time that women were common in male-dominated professions" or be at pains to point out the "genius of women" or other such thing. Many of these men have swallowed feminist rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Having come of age and spending most of their years of employment in male-dominated fields were women were not represented, they never actually had a chance to observe what women were like in the workplace, and so fall on their default chivalrous attitude where they take women's word for it.
It is only men and boys of younger generations that have actually been exposed to what women are really like and thus are better able to see feminist bullshit for what it is. Even then, men and boys post-boomer have suffered in a different way - they were constantly bombarded from their childhood onwards with feminist rhetoric and have had this drummed into them and need to be able to rise above this to become anti-feminist.
It goes without saying that I think that feminist rhetoric is harmful to men and boys in particular, and harmful to society in general, and men who realize this should do whatever they can to oppose it.
Don't stick your dick in crazy
Yes, but part of the issue is that often men don't know how crazy a woman is before they fuck her. A more effective solution is "don't fornicate".
Or unitarianism.
If you accept the Gospel as truth, then the divinity of Christ is clear. If you are struggling to accept the Gospel, then ask yourself the question that Pilate asked - Quid est veritas?
The only place you can truly find the answer to that question is within yourself. Search within yourself and I trust that you will find what you are seeking there. You will find Him, now or eventually.
All the best.
Christ is King
Christ is King
Ah yes. This is why all those saints who were chaste virgins throughout the ages were deeply troubled by their "swollen prostate glands". It is a well known, fact, of course. Proven by Modern Science.
That worked SO well in schools and didn't just deliver kids to the left so easily along with culture loss too..
I really hope you aren't indicative of the churches in your area otherwise those kids aren't going to go to religion but the left...again..
You are suggesting that it is necessary to condone pornography and masturbation to children to "get them on your side". You should really reflect on what you are saying here.
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.