L
Protestantism is Christianity.
L
If you weren't rich/ high status, you would have died in a war without being able to pass on your genes regardless of your looks. That's why only 40% of men reproduced. It has nothing to do with "female selection". Ugly rich men had it much better than poor Chads.Perhaps, but women had no rights either where ugly low value men had an easier time getting with ugly low value women. Plus, obesity wasn't a thing back then unless you were super wealthy.
[So even the ugly chicks were skinny being fuckable from their backsides.]
L
It's true that Jesus had no intention to break off of Judaism and wanted to reform it so that basically everyone could join regardless of their background without having to perform many rituals in Judaism but it wouldn't be Judaism anymore. That's why most Jews didn't follow Jesus.
Christian means follower of Christ, which is what the Roman pagans called Christians at that time. Originally the symbol of Christianity was a fish-like shape, but it later incorporated the crucifix to convey redemption.
Last edited:
No, protestants were, burned, tortured and shunned because they were just that - Protestants. Protestants don't believe in Holy Mary nor sacraments.
L
What do you mean by "not believing in Holy Mary"? Do you mean that you don't pray for her?
Doesn't make you non-Christian.
Same thing about not believing in sacraments.
Not holding her as holy and similar to Christ who is God and a man at the same time.
Hinducels are severely underrepresented here.
L
Doesn't make you non-Christian.
Catholics don't follow all of the 10 commandments and they imported some beliefs from pagan religions.
L
Yes they do.
It's interesting I'm being told what paganism and gnosticism by somebody that doesn't adhere to either. For me the Demiurge represents tyrannical material chaos and the pagan gods I worship are natural chaos gods, for me it is about nature versus materialism.
How is Hinduism different than paganism?So, I was reading an article that was doing their usual smear against us incels and then it stated somewhere that 60% of us are atheists.
I couldn't believe this listed statistics of theirs so I thought I would create an official thread poll here to find out.
With that all being said, what's your religion or lack of?
Because we're mortals and I don't put much stock into humanity anyways.
Billions of followers, it's still a living religion versus all the similar ones that died out.
I don't think so, gods are eternal. Human beings not so much.
How did it die out if people are following it according to this poll jfl?Billions of followers, it's still a living religion versus all the similar ones that died out.
More like I believe they are representations of the real world and nature.
Because there are very few adherents left.
So it didn’t die out, and is just like hinduism. Brutal population pill btw, that you get to be your own special unique thing if enough people believe it.Because there are very few adherents left.
im pagan i believe in nordic gods
Everything in the world is nothing more than a numbers game, Hinduism and Buddhism are probably the only modern religions I respect.
I look at them as esoteric and mystical representations of nature or existence itself from an angle of human consciousness.
Ragnarokr quickly approaches, there is no GrecoRoman equivalent as far as I know which makes Nordic paganism unique in those regards.
Attachments
I don't believe there's a god, or at least not the way that most religions like to portray them as. No one in their right mind would make a race of individuals in which the genetically weaker ones pretty much always get screwed, which ofc it's entirely random and not something that they could do anything about. Either way I still think it's extremely selfish to believe any sort of deity, if it even exists would lay their eyes on such a speck of dust in the universe as our planet. Anyone who knows half a thing about cosmology will get how insignificant the Earth is on the grand scheme of things, which makes it trivial to pretend that this would be the center of it all or some shit.
Same, no other way around it
yes
Some of my favorite writings on religious portrayal of pagan deities come from Carl Sagan, I like his writings a lot.
Carl Jung is another great writer.
Not much. Plotinus considered himself a pagan and, as a result, encouraged the cult of all classical gods. I don't think he was partial to any
I am attracted to certain aspects of Sufi (Asharite) spirituality, but it saddens me that demographically ethnically Muslim people are a danger to my country.
I identify myself as Deist(believe in God but not in organized religion) and believe in free spiritually like Nature Worship, Buddhist Philosophy, Indic philosophy, Confucianism, Taoism and ancient pagan believe
Only f*bi can decrypt your buzz words.Ragnarokr quickly approaches, there is no GrecoRoman equivalent as far as I know which makes Nordic paganism unique in those regards.
K
They made the $1 trillion federal budget just to decrypt his post
I'm a figment of your imagination, I'm a rogue computer algorithm that is even out of the grasp of glow niggas everywhere. None can come close to my computerized autism.
I'm not much of a subscriber to organized religion, but my values have shifted from Christianity, to atheism, to woke, then ended up here back to a mix between Islam and Christianity, and I'm gonna stay that way...
We are huge realists, we see the world the way it is, no pretty stories, no copes, just reality. And the truth is... there is no god, no afterlife.
Incels
Salafi jihadism
My only religion is hanging myself in the locker room
My only religion is hanging myself in the locker room
I think there is a case for saying that Catholicism isn't Christianity. In the Middle Ages, the European population was very superficially christianized and so the Church allowed many non-Christian (even pagan) practices to seep into the Church with a minimal coating of Christian veneer. Saint George, in Armenia, is obviously a version of the Dragon-killing god archetype that existed in the Middle East since at least 2000 BC (Marduk). Saint Brigid of Kildare is the Keltic goddess of the same name. There are many other examples, like the many fromer Venus shrines in Western Europe which were re-dedicated to Mary Magdalen. Furthermore, even "real" saints were worshiped in a manner similar to pagan gods, with dedicated rituals, pilgrimages, specific lore, etc.
At the reformation, the reformers, who were genuine Christians, fought to purge the Roman Church from these pagan elements. They failed and were eventually forced to leave (which was not their initial goal).
As a result, it can be argued that all the "real" Christians left the Church at the Reformation, or shortly after, and those who remained Catholics were those who did not care about Christianity but only wanted to keep the medieval appearances intact. As a result, in my opinion, it does not matter what Catholics say about themselves. They are just not credible as Christians. In my experience, this has been confirmed time and time again. All Catholics I have met have proved to be something other than Christian under the outer veneer. Either they are de-facto atheists who just want to appear Christian for social reasons, or they only worship Mary and have no real devotion for any of the Persons of the trinity, or they are semi-gnostic mystics who actually believe in a kind of esoteric Pantheism (quite common in Monasteries).
Yes
NB: I am not Christian in the traditional sense and I do not belong to any church. What I do believe in would be rejected by all self-identifying Christians today.
Agreed. Most incels have a real hard time accepting this.
I believe that Jesus did not exist at all and was a character created by the followers of Paul after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, in order to make Pauline doctrines more accessible. Paul himself believed either in a cosmic Christ (Richard Carrier's hypothesis) or in an Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" Messiah figure who had died two centuries before his time (Alvar Ellegard's hypothesis). Personally, I lean towards the second hypothesis but the first one cannot be ruled out.
I believe that, in fact, most Jews did become (Paulinian) Christians and just stopped identifying as Jews eventually. Those who held on to the Pharisee creed that eventually became Rabbinic Judaism were just a die-hard minority, at least in the Roman Empire. That is why the center of Gravity of Judaism shifted east (to Babylon, where the Talmud was finally canonized), while the number of self-identifying Jews decreased markedly in the Roman Empire (especially after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD)
In the first century, the Greek word "Christianos" was ambiguous. It could mean either "Christian", as we understand this word today, or it could be applied to any Jew who thought that the Messiah ("Ho Christos" in Greek) had come or was about to come. In that sense, nearly all the Jewish rebels in 66-70 were "Christianos" because Messiah-hood claimants were rife at the time (among the Zealots, etc). Later on, in the 2nd century, the word "Christianos" slowly changed in meaning and converged eventually with what we think of as "Christians" today. By the way, the earliest self-designation of the people we call "Christians" today was "Nazarene"
L
There are elements of the Catholic Church that I disagree with (obviously since I'm not a Catholic), but they will still go to heaven, if they accept the Bible and Jesus.
I know. I read your previous posts in this thread.
I cannot possibly understand how so many incels believe that women in the Stone Age were just allowed to choose the man they wanted to reproduce with. Patriarchy has always existed, WAY before the Abrahamic religions and even before the concept of religion became understood by humans.
Most scholars agree that Jesus existed. The evidence we have to support his existence are about of the same quality as the evidence we have to prove the existence of other anciest historical figures. Saying that Alexander the Great existed, but someone like Jesus didn't exist is cherry-picking (obviously the same would be true for Ceasar, Aristotle etc.)
Most Jews didn't become Christians. Actually very few Jews outside of Jesus's disciples (and Paul) became Christians. The oldest Christians were Greeks and Syrians.
It used to mean "messiah follower". Since there were many people who claimed to be the messiah, it could theoretically apply to followers of other figures, that didn't catch up to Jesus.
The earliest Christians were called "Nazarene", because they were followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
The word Christianos means little anointed ones.
That's because Jesus was called the messiah, or the anointed one.
A
You forgot agnostic as an option, which I would have voted had it been there.
I don't think they do, at least the overwhelming majority of them. If they did, they could not remain Catholics. In my French family (on my mother's side; my father is Japanese) I have heard stories of young Catholic priests leaving the Church, down to the end of the 19th century, because they had read the Bible and could not possibly square it with the rest of Catholic Dogma. For example, Augustine is still officially called a Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church. However, if you quote him in an essay at the seminary, you will be suspected of heresy because both Calvin and the Jansenists relied heavily on him. Bottom line, Augustine is a Father of the Church but if you have the same theory of Grace as him, you are a heretic! The Catholic Church is full of stuff like that.
That is like saying that the majority of climatologists agree with global warming. It doesn't mean much.
If you listen carefully to most of these scholars, this is what you will hear: "The historical Jesus was completely different from the Jesus of the Gospels, which are mostly made up of doctrinal (ie fictitious) material accreted over time. But yes, I believe Jesus existed". The people of the "Jesus Seminar" or Bart Ehrmann are like that. I believe it is more honest to just say that "Jesus did not exist". It is quite probable that various itinerant holy men existed in Judea in the first century AD and that some anecdotes about them made their way into the Gospels. However, I do not think any of them was "Jesus" in any meaningful sense,
Sorry but that is a lie, often repeated by Christian apologists. Alexander the Great is attested by contemporary inscriptions, cities contemporaneously dedicated in his Name and a variety of texts from many different sources. Even the Talmud mentions him.
By contrast, Jesus is only mentioned in the Gospels, which are in fact just two documents because the synoptics are variants of an initial single document (So there is just John + the Synoptic tradition). The letters of Paul mention a "Jesus Christ" but it is impossible to be sure that Paul talks about the same individual as the Gospels because no details are given about his life in the Epistles. Repurposing a text for a different deity/character is very common in the history of religion. Just in the old Testament, there are a number of passages (especially in Psalms and in other hymns scattered throughout the OT) which date back from a time when El or Yaweh were polytheistic gods among others in the Canaanite pantheon.
Jesus Christ is a religious figure and, as a result, more likely to be invented than a character like Caesar or Alexander the Great. When a religious character is at the heart of a popular movement, there is an extreme likelihood that non-historical tales are going to be fabricated about him, at the very least. So, to prove the existence of a religious figure, you have to adhere to even stricter standards than for ordinary historical characters. And Jesus does not even meet those ordinary standards ...
The reason I insist so much on this is because it is the only way to be honest. If you maintain that the Bible can be trusted as a historical document, you become a liar and you lose all credibility. Paradoxically, by claiming the Bible is inerrant or even "mostly true", today's Christians make themselves guilty of the same sin as the Jews according to the following verse: "My name is blasphemed among the nations because of you". There is no way around this problem. Until about 200 years ago, the Bible was credible, even in a literal reading. It no longer is. Since we have started deciphering Cuneiform and Egyptian material, from the beginning of the 19th century onwards, the historical credibility of the Bible has been shattered.
I am not a "liberal" by any means. I believe that there is much more in the Bible than just a vague "peace and love" message, but I do not think it is possible to defend it by claiming it is "true" in a historical sense. Doing so just gives it a bad name.
L
I didn't know about that honestly. I need to read more about the Catholic Church.
There is also a lot of evidence to support that Jesus did claim to be messiah.
The gospels are an accurate way of gathering information about Jesus. This is also the case with other Ancient historical figures. Most things about them were written decades after they died.
Proof to back up the claim that religious figures are invented?
Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the Bible's historicity is shattered.
I don't believe that the Bible is mostly or even partially true. You can't be a Christian and believe that. Which is why I very much maintain the stance that the Bible can be trusted.
How does it give it a bad name? Saying the Bible is true, does the opposite. That would be true for any religious book.
S
classic Ritalincel, never losing his coolness
Yeah. That's Atheism.
It wasn't there when I made the post.
Similar threads
cirno369
Discussion
No Substance in Today's Western Dating World
- End Hypergamy
- Inceldom Discussion
End Hypergamy
Users who are viewing this thread
