Now we are in trouble

I not aware that Christianity is currently holiness spiraling.

Christianity mostly appears to be dead outside of Russia and a few places in eastern Europe, but people would rather hang onto it than embrace a religion that’s going to require them to place their children and grandchildren on the alter to sacrifice them to the demon gods of progressism. In the end the elites are likely to make everyone fully convert to progressism just as they’ve mostly made churches already convert to it.

That has been my entire argument. You are strangling your own story by presenting yourself as a man of hard-hitting truths, which you suddenly forget when the life of Christ is mentioned. It’s incoherent. In your current presentation, I can’t sell you. I can sell many of your ideas, but I can’t sell you as a person, and that is what is necessary.

>Then let him teach us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding Christ.

When has he not done that? I first learned here Jesus was trying to convince the Jews not to start a war with Rome by holiness cycling and most of the entire New Testament started making complete sense.

One can’t prove that Jesus wasn’t God, and man, and rose again on the 3ed day. It’s unknowable. What you can prove is that Christianity tends to produce good outcomes when Jesus is viewed as God, Man and rose again on the 3ed day, while the version that doesn’t believe such things doesn’t produce good outcomes.

Good beliefs in the unknowable should be judged by outcomes.

@com; I think the question is childish and demanding of something that the asker knows does not exist at the time of asking.

But assuming you are asking in good faith: it could be in whatever direction Jim points towards. But if he points us back the way we came, then no.

Game is enough hard to express in words. You want me to tell the whole truth about matters beyond mortal comprehension?

No, just the whole truth on the story of Christ.

Which you have spoken here, before. And then you suddenly stopped doing so.

I have spoken the truth on this matter.

You have not. Once upon a time you did, and among other things you said that the disciples likely paid off the guard in front of jesus’s tomb. But then you changed your mind, and now you are incapable of discussing a historic perspective of Jesus Christ.

@Dave

I suspect that Prince Charming is a shill.

Pooch, your ancestors did not accept female leadership and neither should you. You just need to figure out who was the last true pope, and disregard all edicts issued by the subsequent false popes.

Although The fact that Francis has not allowed full blown female priests yet gives me hope that Satan has not fully taken the Vatican completely even if the resistance against him is small.

Nah. Catholic countries fertility crashed around the same time the Protestant ones did.

@Dave

We have lived in a historically unusual time when the entryists used the Enlightenment memeplex, combined with the malaise of Christendom, and persuaded everyone in the West that the Peace of Westphalia regime and individual religious freedom / marketplace of ideas are one and the same. Now that the entry has been completed, they’re closing the hatch behind them & pulling the ladder. They have a total control over the religion of the population, as is historically normal and proper. As @Pooch points out, hard to have ancestral faith when the gubmint forces female bishops on you. Hard to breed when that’s illegal, too.

Consider the Christian churches in Eastern Europe 1950-1990, to see how spectacularly the communist state wiped the floor with them, without even really trying.

A faith that cannot or will not enforce itself within the ingroup is not gonna survive. You can wrap yourself in a pablum of feel-good Christian apologetics, but in the end, Gnon helps those who help themselves. Personally, perhaps the most important revelations of Jimianity is that a man only has one spare cheek to turn.

@R7

A case in point why cripples shouldn’t be delegated authority. Where’s the shill test that I asked for yesterday, faggot?

@Jim I apologize for heightening your moderation load.

@R7

Thank you for the prompt. AoC is dear to my heart, so I will be a bit more verbose.

Women have little agency, little interest in higher ideals such as rule of law, and a disturbing propensity for lying without even realising they are lying. You can sort of work around it by requiring young women to be chaperoned, and one can perhaps see why you would use AoC to shift the responsibility for her sexual chastity in a modern setting where women come and go everywhere, but this leaves unaddressed the bigger problem, which is that she will only report the encounters that she at some later time regrets, and not the encounters where she crawled for miles over broken glass to meet Jeremy Meeks, leading to some very happy feelings, nor the perhaps more mundane problem of girls keeping pets (“boyfriends”) with whom they have unproductive sex until just about the time they are hitting the wall, leading to progressively worse and worse feelings, and often false rape accusations.

But that’s still a defensive frame; I personally like the mindset that women are not people in the same sense that men are people. In fact most modern males are not men either, being soyboys, NPCs, or natural slaves, but that’s an aberration. Women in their most pristine and natural form are not people, have no business trying to be people, and pretending they are hasn’t made it so.

We imagine how we would feel if we were raped; we project. Women feel very differently. We feel horribly, even as reactionaries, when we learn of our women having been raped, because we feel profound sadness that something precious was broken, and rage that it cannot be repaired. But this is misguided.

It is the consequence of pretending you have some sort of a relationship of equals with your female relatives, by blood or otherwise, or that you can be friends with women. Make-believe, no different than simping on e-girls. It fills a void left by the lack of sons, criminalisation of proper authority over one’s wife and children, lack of mannerbund wrought by the criminalisation of male spaces. Dogs are more loyal than daughters, wives are not loyal at all, mothers kill their own sons en passant to their new lover. Many such stories. To paraphrase Jim, the anger at the never-ending stream of news of women being “raped”, and raped, is a transfer of anger towards ZOG, which violently forbids us to own even one woman ourselves.

We treat cattle horribly in the current day and age, but the ancestral European attitude towards cattle and women alike is the Christian doctrine of a Good Shepherd: love, cherish, protect; when reasonable to do so kill. The words “hudband”, “husbandry”, and their definitions, somehow have escaped the red pen of the censors, and the plain understanding of their meaning obviously recommends exactly this attitude.

Tl;dr: (C) describes the Jimian position, which is the position of Deut 22:22-29. See above for thought crimes.