Religious & Morality Spergging of the Catboy Covenant - Debate the most autistic points of Nick & Friends ethics and morality

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • 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
The current far-right fad of tradcath LARPing is really embarassing, but holy shit does Catboi take it to the cringe epicenter. It's bad enough that all these alt-right incel losers brag about reading the bible in between their porn-doused wank sessions, but the literal faggotry is next level.
I always just assume it's a LARP if they convert to eastern orthodox or le basedarino trad cath. Seems to have worked well so far. There's small conservative local evangelical churches everywhere in the US, someone going out of their way to find some exotic thing is only a step less retarded than whites women going to India to learn from a poo schizo monk
 
I always just assume it's a LARP if they convert to eastern orthodox or le basedarino trad cath. Seems to have worked well so far. There's small conservative local evangelical churches everywhere in the US, someone going out of their way to find some exotic thing is only a step less retarded than whites women going to India to learn from a poo schizo monk
If you don't actually care about whether your religion is true, sure. Isn't pretending to believe in a religion what a LARP is? Isn't that what going to your local Baptist or Evangelical church just because it's "based" would be?

Granted a lot of people do LARP as Ortho or Cath for political reasons, but if you actually go to an Ortho parish (and a few guys in RCIA, until they learn better) your typical converts are going to be talking about inconsistencies within their previous belief systems. A lot of them are former protestants coming out of those "based" evangelical churches, too. If you look into the Campus Crusade for Christ/Evangelical Orthodox back in the day, you can see what this has looked like on a mass scale. There's a good number of parishes in California under Antioch that all used to be dyed-in-the-wool American prots.

People have this odd idea that religious beliefs are of a different kind than other beliefs about the world. If you say so-and-so is God, you're making a claim of fact rather than opinion. You have to be able to back that up with good reasons. It's not any different than if you're claiming anything else about the world. Saying people should just go to their nearest Evangelical church is like saying people should just go to their nearest medicine man just because he's closer and other people go there. How do you know that he's qualified to help you, and that he's not some quack who's more likely to hurt you?
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
If you don't actually care about whether your religion is true, sure. Isn't pretending to believe in a religion what a LARP is? Isn't that what going to your local Baptist or Evangelical church just because it's "based" would be?

Granted a lot of people do LARP as Ortho or Cath for political reasons, but if you actually go to an Ortho parish (and a few guys in RCIA, until they learn better) your typical converts are going to be talking about inconsistencies within their previous belief systems. A lot of them are former protestants coming out of those "based" evangelical churches, too. If you look into the Campus Crusade for Christ/Evangelical Orthodox back in the day, you can see what this has looked like on a mass scale. There's a good number of parishes in California under Antioch that all used to be dyed-in-the-wool American prots.

People have this odd idea that religious beliefs are of a different kind than other beliefs about the world. If you say so-and-so is God, you're making a claim of fact rather than opinion. You have to be able to back that up with good reasons. It's not any different than if you're claiming anything else about the world. Saying people should just go to their nearest Evangelical church is like saying people should just go to their nearest medicine man just because he's closer and other people go there. How do you know that he's qualified to help you, and that he's not some quack who's more likely to hurt you?
I think the reason people see it as a LARP is because there's no fundamental life change, at least so far as the outside world is concerned. The way it works in Judaism, and I imagine in Islam as well, is that becoming religious entails a sea change in your whole life, not just going to a different synagogue more often. Most people coming from non-observant Judaism to Orthodoxy will stop watching TV and movies or listening to secular music, for instance. It used to be the norm, and still is for many communities, to limit internet use as much as possible. I don't think there are many Christians that take similar steps. There's also the fact that there isn't much ritual observance in Christianity outside of prayer/sacraments/worship. You can't test a tradcath by asking if they keep kosher or fast during Ramadan. You can't identify them IRL by looking for tzitzit or a kufi. So when all the religious commitment that others can see is soyjaking about BASED St. Nicholas DESTROYING that heretical cuck Arius, yeah, people are going to call you a LARPer.
 
I always just assume it's a LARP if they convert to eastern orthodox or le basedarino trad cath.
Usually with tradcaths, it’s all larp. But a lot of the ortho converts I’ve seen are usually grew up Protestant or Roman Catholic and converted due to issues with their faith, such as no child baptism in some forms of Protestantism, or issues they have with the pope for some Roman Catholics. Then again, it does attract a lot of the “whoa…. It’s sooooo mystical and tradpilled!” type of people. While orthodoxy is certainly much more “traditional” than most modern day forms of Christianity, you can tell who the larpers are from how they talk about traditions.
 
Usually with tradcaths, it’s all larp. But a lot of the ortho converts I’ve seen are usually grew up Protestant or Roman Catholic and converted due to issues with their faith, such as no child baptism in some forms of Protestantism, or issues they have with the pope for some Roman Catholics. Then again, it does attract a lot of the “whoa…. It’s sooooo mystical and tradpilled!” type of people. While orthodoxy is certainly much more “traditional” than most modern day forms of Christianity, you can tell who the larpers are from how they talk about traditions.
I've actually noticed a pattern now that I think about it. Speaking about E celebs in the circles we hang around in online as well as their followers and other commenters.... When E-celebs convert to orthodoxy, it's generally genuine, whereas when mom e celebs do I tends to be a LARP. I think of people like Roosh for example, he seems to be a genuine Christian with a real life change when he converted to orthodoxy. Catholicism seems to be the other way. E celebs who claim to be le ebin tradcaths are retarded grifters, whereas tradcath commenter are genuinely informed and knowledgeable.
 
I think what bothers me the most is the sexism, as Christianity is arguably the one of the nicest moralfagging religion to women. Retarded men have just ruined it or created false morality around purity culture that doesn't have biblical basis.

Genesis 1:27 says god created mankind and womankind in his own image. By virtue of creation they have equal worth and dignity, when Adam and Eve fell into sin that fucked everything up. Despite this, he gave the high honor of birthing Christ to a woman because of her gender not in spite of it. No omegaverse for men, women get to host the body of christ.

Jesus taught women specifically the same as men and women were some of his biggest followers. There are laws that ensure women get fair treatment including widows and single women. He paid equal attention to women who sought him for healing and forgiveness often to the shock of men within that society who were used to a very misogynistic one. A woman saw the first resurrection and women who brought news of the resurrection to the world.

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”... this also means that they should probably not be racist or anti-semites as it was Christianity that is what freed the slaves and Jesus was from the long nose tribe.

I've heard one of these faggots doing Ephesians 5:22 in bad faith. "wives are to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord.” out of context this seems sexist. BUT, the very next words command husbands to love their wives “just as Christ loved the church” and to love them “as their own bodies,” providing and "just as christ loves the church" . If you take into consideration that Christ acted as a servant to. The final passage is a mutual submission to one another as partners with reverence for Christ. Jesus' disciples commanded us to do the same —even sacrificing his life for the sake of women in John 13.

The talks of rape/etc. within the bible were often because that's what happened at the time. I think Deuteronomy was the biggest one but a description of something is different from "this is what you should do".

Genesis 3:16 is another that these faggots cite (incorrectly) which is " your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you". The Hebrew phrase in question does not include a verb and is literally "toward your husband your desire" this "will be" is added to clarify as a future statement. The ongoing clarification from Adam & Eve is that "your desire will be to control your husband but he will rule over you". However, the statement that this will take place is not a biblical command nor is it saying that it is correct, it is saying it will happen. There is no biblical command for men to dominate women nor is there for women to dominate men. There are plenty of things said in the bible that "will" happen that are not good nor are they commands for it to happen.

Only because of equality offered in Christian cultures were many rights afforded to western women. Voting was first an idea gotten from Native American tribes where men and women would equally pick their leaders. The women who lived with these native women and had them speak at their conferences for voting rights fought for equal rights of all women to vote and used the bible as proof of equality to appeal to the western sentiment. Christianity does not have a hate boner for women and it's why things that the maidenless (and ladless) AFers sneed & feed about like Women's Suffrage was supported.

Saying the bible supports misogyny is just as misguided as saying the bible is feminist. If you take the history and people they were talking to in account, it was promoting complimentary parts. Insecure moids have also attempted to bolster misogyny using science, "history", laws of various nations and other preposterous things that are often misleading or downright false (IQ anyone?).

TL;DR- Nick & Tristian & other sneed n feed sexist groys are equal to women in the eyes of their God. Die mad about it.
one of the funniest things is in Christianity's infancy one of the main appeals was it heavily appealed to women
also jay dyer is a fucking tard who upon any sign of losing says "Your cringe bro", "have you even read the council of nicea?" and got felted by a retarded furry
 
You know what’s weird? Nick talks a lot about his beliefs and why he believes what he does and all that, but I have yet to see him ever get mad or seem bothered by those who say/do things he doesn’t believe in, he usually just gives an amused head shake. The only time he ever seems to get mad is when somebody says something bad about him or does something against him.
I think the only belief he’s truly passionate about is the anti-Jew stuff, because he feels they are responsible for deplatforming him (so again, it circles back to him).
Maybe it used to be different back in the day. IDK.
 
What's your problem with IP?
Like many of us Internet e-ologians, he is self-taught, which is fine. Someone has to teach you, and most of us don't have money or time to obstain PhDs in patristics. IP has also made attempts to be original when it comes to apologetics. This is not inherently wrong, though it is worth caution because novelty is not an end but a means to an end, and it cannot be "too new" or you risk bringing paganism or heresies into your tradition, and the attached metaphysics/philosophy latent in your original ideas force you to make distasteful concessions.

IP however has repeatedly made original arguments that are original because they are his own personal mistakes. His evidence for the Exodus for instance was so bad he took down an hour long video he worked on for months because the scholarship was so unstable and dubious. His arguments for the Trinity are unique, which is rarely a good sign, and it was not the least bit Scripturally based unlike for instance Saint Gregory of Nyssa. He makes repeated incursions into complex discussions of which he has no qualifications either in letter nor in learning, and I would be unsurprised if he was timid to delve into Church Fathers and ended up reading Confessions and calling it.

I don't watch IP. Your time is better spent reading an actual book, or if you need auditory stimmies, listening to someone with credentials or merit discuss a topic with someone equally educated.

I know that you think that without the Pope there's no way to be sure about doctrine, or anything else by extension. It's not the case, though. We don't need the Pope to know doctrine anymore than we need the Pope to know that 1 + 1 = 2. The Eucharist is Christ's body, not Franks. The mind we enter into to have knowledge is Christ's mind.
Your hostility to all things Catholic, and my posts in general, is a nu-thodox echo of better interlocutors. Daniel Jones was more entertaining and scrappy at least when he was posting a decade ago on Energetic Procession. I didn't even make an epistemic claim. You should read more Joseph Farrell and Fr. John Romanides, you're running out of good material. Maybe dip into David Icke since online Orthos lack positive identity in their convert stage -- "Protestant arguments against Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic arguments against Protestants" to quote Meyendorff.
 
He does have a degree in philosophy, though. I'd reply to you but you turned it off. He usually tends to cite scholarly sources, perhaps his earlier work was more sloppy but he's extremely careful about that to my knowledge. He also released a new version of the Exodus video last year, so again, that's a bit older. He worked on it with the Egyptologist David Falk, who was the original critic of the first one. However Falk's opinion is still in the minority, but IP is still able to correct mistakes and improve on his content. I really do enjoy his apologetics, it's more on the scientific and scholarly side of things but I don't mind that, that in itself doesn't make it bad. Obviously it should be backed or checked with scripture though. He has a bit of a habit of relying too much on secular sources at times, I do admit.
 
They are just LARPers, they aren't really zealous or pious. They latch to catholicism like american self-described communists to soviet union or neo-nazis to nazi germany. None of them has any resemblence of actual knowledge about the beliefs they supposedly espouse. It's just a way for them to be part of something bigger and give them sense of belonging and a clear moral compass.
Pretty much this. If anyone with knowledge of religion ever argued with them, they would crumble regardless if it was a religious or secular person. In short: They are taking the Lord's name in vain.
 
He does have a degree in philosophy, though. I'd reply to you but you turned it off. He usually tends to cite scholarly sources, perhaps his earlier work was more sloppy but he's extremely careful about that to my knowledge. He also released a new version of the Exodus video last year, so again, that's a bit older. He worked on it with the Egyptologist David Falk, who was the original critic of the first one. However Falk's opinion is still in the minority, but IP is still able to correct mistakes and improve on his content. I really do enjoy his apologetics, it's more on the scientific and scholarly side of things but I don't mind that, that in itself doesn't make it bad. Obviously it should be backed or checked with scripture though. He has a bit of a habit of relying too much on secular sources at times, I do admit.
 
Why'd you reply to me blank?
Website bugged out on me. Even if IP has some kind of philosophy degree, you can make it well into a PhD without learning the basics of ancient metaphysics or a smidge of theology. Out of the two philosophy postgrads I know, one has only a working understanding of Aristotle (out of necessity for his dissertation on moral gravity) and the other had not studied classical primary sources at all (despite studying post-Humean ethics). It is almost certain that IP made it out of a program without having read any theology or plausible he never studied the philosophical bases of Christian theology. The danger of relying on philosophy, even if it is only for apologetic purposes, is that it does not take much of a push at all to start retrofitting theology to your philosophy. The most notorious evidence of this is in William Lane Craig, who has peddled his heresies for over two decades to helpless students and uncritical observers.
 
I'm pretty sure the Taliban would have tossed homosexual paedophilic sodomites like Ali Alexander off the tallest building they can find.
Ali Alexander would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too old. Islamic State would hoof clapped out catamites off buildings long before they'd reach even their late teens. They've each other for man love stuff and the nappy wearing is the result or proof. The Taleban actually took action against the custom of transgender child prostitution. That said the eye shadow and flamboyant hair styles and strictness with women surely makes them rather palatable to the Mexican children fuehrer.

1683141019564.png

1683141471941.jpeg
pt2_6836555735231746411842_3_ff0d8fbcc8e42e8652c7818893f9c1cf.jpg
 
What'd he do? Seems like you don't like a lot of these folks.
You're right, I don't like a lot of these people, because most of them make grave mistakes. Liking a lot of different people's theology isn't a precondition for being right or holy. It's actually the opposite. I'll cut IP slack since WLC straight out denies basic Christian dogmas, which extends all the way into a subversive denial of the Incarnation event itself. He is neo-Apollinarian, a Monothelite and non-Trinitarian (at least in a coherent sense). You can find this stuff easily even if you just went to the guy's Wikipedia page or watched any of his lecture series; it's not an esoteric or mysterious criticism.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole