Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
umseriously said:
What is this general's thoughts on remigration? Including the possibility of forced remigration at gunpoint too.
Click to expand...
I'm fully favorable on it, though I want it to happen peacefully and without unnecessary violence. Those foreigners are human too and deserve to be treated as such, even when they have to go.
 
Sooty Soot said:
Inspiring Philiosophy
Click to expand...
Not a fan of this guy. His situation is awful, but his content is bad. There are a million different reasons to critique islam, but the women, violence and political stuff are not the real problems with islam (on the contrary). Also not sourced with actual theology books (or at all) so most of his arguments are like his opinion mana
 
24nagging said:
but the women, violence and political stuff are not the real problems with islam
Click to expand...
Hard disagree.
Part of the effects of Original Sin on women includes their domination by men. The fact this mostly-universal phenomenon is observed doesn't mean it's commended. Same with violence. Sometimes God weighs His options and concludes vaporizing a city beats asking them to stop being evil nicely. We are not God, and cannot apply violence as precisely and efficiently as it would be necessary to use it righteously.
This may come off as making peace with evil, but even though Christians should vote with their faith we shouldn't seek to make sin illegal.

If Islam was true, all those things would be fine. The opening problem is that Islam is false, so every subsequent problem is even worse.

Personally? The personal, emotional appeals aren't that convincing for the truth of any one religion. That said, it's still the strongest argument when dealing with people -It's why the problem of evil always comes up despite it being "technically" solved- Your average Joe/Jane doesn't have the time to discuss Trinity vs Tawheedo, but you can ask them whether the would side with a perfect, innocent man or a pedophile warlord.
 
Last edited:
BIG SHOT Autos said:
Eager to cut off little girls' clits and rape them?
Click to expand...
that's not islam, that's just brown people stuff
Venial Sneeds said:
Part of the effects of Original Sin on women includes their domination by men
Click to expand...
When I say that I (mostly not fully) agree on the islamic approach to women am talking about the vail and their dependence on their fathers or husbands (which is something that is being reduced in islamic societies anyway), not the FGM, acid attacks, or the violence against them in general. But even so, they don't do that because of islam, they do that because it's their "culture" to do so, so it's a bad argument against islam that comes from a liberal-feminist perspective and not a theological-philosophical claim
Islam errs on women not because their impositions on them, but because of causes and ends of those impositions:

Tl;dr: vails are cool and should be mandatory in Christian societies (like they used to)
Cassius Crayfish said:
They are real problems that stem from it being a Satanic inversion of the gospel.
Click to expand...
The real problems. Aka the main ones. Islam is wrong because their conception of God is false, not because Iran wants nukes or Saudi Arabia kills journos or they say mean things about jews
 
24nagging said:
Islam is wrong because their conception of God is false
Click to expand...
You can't separate them out from each other - their treatment of women is wrong because their conception of God is false, but that also means that their treatment of women is itself proof of its wrongness, and is therefore a real problem.
 
24nagging said:
When I say that I (mostly not fully) agree on the islamic approach to women am talking about the vail and their dependence on their fathers or husbands (which is something that is being reduced in islamic societies anyway), not the FGM, acid attacks, or the violence against them in general. But even so, they don't do that because of islam, they do that because it's their "culture" to do so, so it's a bad argument against islam that comes from a liberal-feminist perspective and not a theological-philosophical claim
Click to expand...
I don't know, treating women as livestock is neither Christian nor beneficial to society. Anyways, as a Christian man how is your family/dating life going?
 
You won't beat Islam with just theology. Most Muslims don't give a shit about that or they're not allowed to question their faith by their Imams. Only way is going at its culture and even then you have to be careful in our humanitarian secular world so as not to insult people's deep traditions of child marriage and revenge killing.
It's one of the reasons why niggery Islamic Polemics works, at least initially. You shout down the rabid islamist about what a faggot Muhammad was and they may walk away eventually if they have any brain cells left. But that shit won't build any kind of solid counter foundation to fight shitslam where it really counts, it's history and culture and it's a whole other battlefield there.
 
Cassius Crayfish said:
their treatment of women is wrong
Click to expand...
it's actually pretty cool. Women shouldn't dress immodestly and be fully independent from men. This is very Christian even; we've had a very long tradition of women vailing in the west before the french revolution. Of course wife betting is wrong, but again, again, not unique to islam nor because of it.
The man The only man said:
treating women as livestock
Click to expand...
it really depends on where you are, but this is mostly not true in muslim countries (they are actually liberalizing pretty quickly). In Saudi Arabia they can drive cars, they can play sports, they can even go to collage (not good). Same in Iran and plenty of other parts of the islamic world.
they get badly treated in the interior of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mauritania, Sudan, and all the other poor and undeveloped places of the world. AND AGAIN, this is not unique to or because of islam
CAPTAIN HAPPY said:
Only way is going at its culture
Click to expand...
is it? Outside of the unique problems of muslims in Europe, going at people's cultures when you are talking religion is pretty silly. There isn't A muslim country, just like there isn't A Christian country. You are attacking a boogieman idea of what an islamic country is that doesn't really mesh with the reality on the ground.
It's like attacking buddhism because of the culture. There are TONS of cultural differences between Mongolia, the Tibet, Buthan, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Sri Lanka. So it's kind of silly to attack it on those grounds. Same with islam

my point with all this is to say that critiquing islam via culture is not only futile, but not good argumentation at all. And on top of that, the muslims that do convert to Christianity do so because they get convinced by the THEOLOGICAL claims of Christianity, not because they are liberals that want women's rights and gay liberation or something. By attacking "muslim culture" you are just antagonizing muslims that might be keen to know what the Christian message is.
 
24nagging said:
it's actually pretty cool.
Click to expand...
It really is not. Women are made in the image and likeness of God equally to men. Islam does so much to demolish this concept that it is impossible to describe it as "pretty cool". Your stated justification about "modesty" has nothing to do with the Christian idea, because it assumes that men lack discipline so much that seeing ANY uncovered part of a woman's body will turn them into lustful beasts - thus reducing not only women's imago dei, but men's as well.
 
I'm not a fashion history student, but I'm struggling to find "modest" examples of pre revolutionary dress. I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on waists and breasts. Hats never seem to be designed to cover hair. Rather to either communicate wealth & status for the rich, or for practicality and warmth for those further down the ladder.

Unless we're talking women covering heads in churches (and conversely, men removing hats) which plenty of churches both in and out of Europe still require. Sometimes that feels right and respectful towards approaching God. Although in my own church, as much as I try not to judge, I find that it comes across a bit OTT and LARP-y. Maybe that's a "me problem" to fix in myself though.

Having been financially dependent on a man (from a white, Christian family) who thought that this meant that I couldn't/wouldn't ever leave him, that I should fear his abandonment etc I feel the need to suggest that there's a LOT that needs fixing about men/humanity before we start telling women to be 100% dependent on men. In this fallen world I could never see that happening.

Saying "domestic abuse is wrong" whilst handing over the perfect societal conditions to enable it, is like saying "keeping transwomen out of female bathrooms won't stop the rapists from getting in" imho.

Our vulnerability during pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing (its not like humans get up and start walking about like a foal does shortly after birth) and related dimorphism lends itself towards committed monogamous relationships wherein the man takes on the majority of protecting and providing.

Incidentally these are direct consequences from the Fall. I imagine that this will be resolved after the Last Judgment. As beautiful as this arrangement can be, it's a reminder of our fallen nature and this should always be borne in mind when engaging with it.

Making women 100% dependent on men does nothing to promote the safety and dignity of women and children who are in the image and likeness of God. And, as mentioned, reduces men to wild rape beasts with no self control. Free will becomes diminished in both cases.

I've sperged on earlier in this thread about how the muslim rape gangs in the UK has directly affected me. I'm afraid I'm also of the opinion that no honest reading of the Bible advocates for seeing brown people as lesser, in terms of being also in the image and likeness of God and how conflicting this can be, having been around what I have been.

However experience with decent men from Muslim families who don't practice Islam themselves has led me to conclude that the problem stems from the religion, not familial culture or menalin.
 
Last edited:
24nagging said:
they can even go to collage (not good).
Click to expand...
Don't get why women getting educated is inherently a bad thing. Although there are 100% gendered roles in the Church, it isn't the 1700s anymore, women can have lives outside of housekeeping. I see no reason as to why they can't seek education if they so choose. For starters, we do legitimately need them in the work force. Data shows that currently over half of all graduate level students are women, not perusing bullshit degrees either like ones that actually apply to the betterment of society, so them suddenly bowing out of all higher education would make things inherently worse for the world as a whole. If you don't like educated women then you may as well throw out the majority of future healthcare workers, teachers, and lawyers. Also, can a woman not be educated and also be faithful to God at the same time? Why the need to restrict them from learning in the first place? They aren't dangerous animals or anything lmfao, they're equals. If you're gonna advise people to not go to college you could at least spell it correctly.

Also, your bar for women being liberalized in the Middle East being "they can play sports now" is crazy in it's own right lol
 
Hey chuds,
Over at the Catholic thread we were looking over leadership corruption rates in our church and came up with this:
Untitled.png

Anyone we might be missing?
 
Battery Low said:
I'm not a fashion history student, but I'm struggling to find "modest" examples of pre revolutionary dress. I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on waists and breasts. Hats never seem to be designed to cover hair. Rather to either communicate wealth & status for the rich, or for practicality and warmth for those further down the ladder.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this. To add, there's also madonna/whore complex. A lot of people usually disagree with me on this, but "modesty" among larpers is basically just a fetish. Women are still objects to these men.

Piss Jugman said:
Don't get why women getting educated is inherently a bad thing.
Click to expand...
He doesn't see women as people. Simple as. Where was that post when he talked about abortions being bad because women aren't getting their rightful punishment from God or something? Literal sociopath, no wonder why he simps brown satanists.
 
Battery Low said:
Unless we're talking women covering heads in churches (and conversely, men removing hats) which plenty of churches both in and out of Europe still require. Sometimes that feels right and respectful towards approaching God. Although in my own church, as much as I try not to judge, I find that it comes across a bit OTT and LARP-y. Maybe that's a "me problem" to fix in myself though.
Click to expand...
This practice stems from a confused understanding of how hair interacts with sexual potency; ancient Greeks thought the long hair drew sexual potency from the head down to the uterus, so covering a woman's hair was so they would be modest in church. Men with long hair were thought to be detracting from their own hair / sperm potency.

 
Cassius Crayfish said:
Your stated justification about "modesty" has nothing to do with the Christian idea, because it assumes that men lack discipline so much that seeing ANY uncovered part of a woman's body will turn them into lustful beasts
Click to expand...
have you seen any painting from the medieval era? they are all vailed. It's not so much that men are weak, but rather that women with uncovered heads where considered seductresses because long hair was considered very attractive. Consider that in this age most people didn't had enough high caloric and high protein foods, so most were skinny and short, with the women not having as big of a bosom as they do now, so long hair was one of the few ways women could "show off" if you will, hence why it was considered imperative for them to cover it.
Now in the modern age, women's average bosoms and buttocks sizes have grown massively, making long hair something more quaint in terms of sex appeal, making the need for head covering less obvious.
But, the appeal is there. Look how Christian women (specially online) leave their hair long and their make it a big factor in their appearance. That's no accident. Man's concupiscence runs deep. A woman's legs, shoulders, eyes and hair, things that in men we don't admire, we find very appealing, and if there is a brother among us that is weak in these matters, for his sake, the women should cover this parts. Hence why sex segregation is a good thing
This is something that Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians: "But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is one and the same as if she were shaven. For if the woman is not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
Saint Paul is also telling us that the vail is a symbol of their subordination to men, which means that in other aspects of social life women ought to be subordinated to men. I find this aspect more obvios so I won't expand.

In regards to the "any uncovered part" thing, you seem to missunderstand what vailing means. Yes, you could go to the extreme of full head to toe covering (like nuns do and is very meritorious for them), but it can be as mild as just covering your head (like plenty of eastern Christian women do). Of course, women should cover their legs up to their knees, their shoulders, lats, bosoms, and back in general, but here we are talking about the merits of covering your head in the manner of the muslims, and the muslims do a bang up job of enforcing this. Now they are loosing this tradition, or worse, their women are using make up on top whilst having their head covering which completely misses the point of using a vial, so again, the muslims are not as extreme as they may seem and they are in fact becoming less so by the day.
Battery Low said:
but I'm struggling to find "modest" examples of pre revolutionary dress
Click to expand...
xd
Luther-Predigt-LC-WB.jpg
also, please quote what you are responding to, because I have no context for what you are saying.
Piss Jugman said:
Don't get why women getting educated is inherently a bad thing
Click to expand...
it comes down to understanding both the nature of women, and the relationship they have with men and male spaces. Outside of that, if you double the population of X, X becomes less rare; meaning that if you double the population of lawyers, a law degree becomes less valuable. When it comes to women getting education (higher end) is that they are naturally going to go for degrees that appeal to their female nature, like the gender studies, sociology, antropology, etc, so they are naturally going to chose worthless degree. But if they chose something more valuable, like law or architecture, two things happen: 1) the student body becomes less fraternal and more fragmentated because now you have males competing for the females, and the males have to think of their actions in terms of how it will impact the females (you can't say what you want, about what you want, how you want it because it might upset the females. For example: abortion, gay rights, race differences, IQ differences in men and women, etc), thus changing the social hierarchy not in terms of competence, but in terms of social dominance. 2) because females have lower IQ at the ends of the distribution and because they are less likely to support minority opinions due to their lower testosterone, professors have to change the curriculom, how they give classes, and over all lower the standards so that females can more easily pass. Professors get judged by the number of students that passes their classes, so they are incentivized to do so; plus you have the threat of the woman complaining to the faculty for something they might have said
So yeah, in the sort term we might get less people with degrees in the humanities and nurses, but hey more money for the ones that already are.
Piss Jugman said:
can a woman not be educated and also be faithful to God at the same time? Why the need to restrict them from learning in the first place?
Click to expand...
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be submissive, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is shameful for women to speak in the church."
Piss Jugman said:
Also, your bar
Click to expand...
it's not my bar mate, it just is
if X becomes more Y then X is becoming more Y, no matter how much or how little
you from your western liberal (as in classical liberal as in john smith as in locke) might think that watching women play sports badly is normal, but it has not been the norm in the Middle East for a very long time. So for them it is more liberalizing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom