Is Christianity beta?

[–]masterrod5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]sansurnt0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sansurnt0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There's a reason not many people believe in the bible or religion anymore though, and you basically just stated it.

What earth do you live in? There are billions a of people that believe in religion. In fact more than half the world.

We understand that people cannot be put into roles

The point is that they are the roles that church chooses. Roles is how we think as humans. Greeks were one of the known groups that discussed the roles that people play. A role is simply a way, usually spoken in terms of archetypes. There is plenty of information that implies we pass down archetypes from our ancestors. The bible simply gives frame works for people to work within relationships. Christianity is also an institution based heavily on marriages, and keeping them together. So it's important that the frameworks work for members.

everyone's an individual who does not live their life according to what a book written 2000 years ago wants

If only the science supported your view. In fact, our minds have evolved extremely slowly. So yes even books written 2000 years ago has relevance. The bible isn't the only book that exist that speaks on the human condition. Unfortunately, we aren't all individuals.

We also now understand that the bible was written by humans and had no divine guidance to it.

Irrelevant about device guidance. First of all science has no disprove god exists. No one knows. What we do know is that the Bible has been effective for some people, and not for others. You are welcome to choose what you like. But to say that Christianity as a whole is beta, is simply incorrect.

To be submissive can also be dangerous as we see from the redpill.

Submissive? There is no way you can lead someone with out being sensitive to their needs. The key is to be sensitive to needs but not let them supersede or impede the direction. Submissive in terms of red pill refers to relinquishing the responsibility of the direction of the relationship to the woman. Surely one can be will fully submissive at times in that quest.

From what I've read there is a few guys over at the redpill that would be perfectly fine with abuse and marital rape.

There are cultures that think that's the way it should be. But we're talking about Christianity being beta?

[–]sansurnt0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

By not many people, I mean mainly in the first/second world among the young (my) generation, and also not to the extent of taking it literally. Many people do not believe in religion on a fundamental level. I didn't mean it in terms of evolution, I meant in terms of culture. We live in a society where individuals, unless they are children, do not have to depend on anyone. Women have economic dependence and can live their lives on their own. They are no longer thought that their is a way they must be. For the first time in a long time, they are though that being themselves and speaking out is okay. I never said Christianity was beta, I used to be a fervent believer, I just got sick of having my life planned out and a book telling me that I should be things that I knew I wasn't. People telling me that I should be submissive solely because I am a woman is the most nerve grating thing to me, because I'm just not and I never was. I'm okay with people choosing to be submissive but thinking that all women should be is just ludicrous. Yes, there are cultures like that but believing that it's okay in the first world is generally a red light for psychopathy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of those redpillers and would just like to be a good husband, but you're not going to get good advice off the redpill on how to treat a woman. You don't seem angry nor only out to get sex, which is what a vast amount of redpillers focus on.

[–]masterrod0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

By not many people, I mean mainly in the first/second world among the young (my) generation, and also not to the extent of taking it literally

I still don't think that's accurate

Many people do not believe in religion on a fundamental level.

Sure. Fundamentalist are a bit extreme.

I didn't mean it in terms of evolution, I meant in terms of culture

Well, the western world is largely based on Bible, so I'm not sure what you mean.

We live in a society where individuals, unless they are children, do not have to depend on anyone.

That's not really true either. We depend on everyone in a society. Especially America. You must mean that people can be individuals, as in earn their own wage etc.

I never said Christianity was beta

Well that is the topic?

I just got sick of having my life planned out and a book telling me that I should be things that I knew I wasn't. People telling me that I should be submissive solely because I am a woman is the most nerve grating thing to me, because I'm just not and I never was.

Submissive and understanding how to willfully surrender to your mate are two different things. I think you misinterpret this idea. There are benefits to submission, and there is also power in it. Regardless, willful surrender is necessary for growth in any discipline. And loving is a skill and discipline. For example, you must at some point surrender to the process of life, because we simply do not control it. In our surrender to life, we can progress through it.

You might also know that many battered women turn to Christianity for salvation. There's a reason.

but you're not going to get good advice off the redpill on how to treat a woman.

There are good elements of how to treat a woman on redpill. There is also advice that I wouldn't repeat. As is any group, everything can't be taken as verbatim.

You don't seem angry nor only out to get sex, which is what a vast amount of redpillers focus on.

Sex is important. And I like sex. I just don't have anything to be angry about women.

[–]sansurnt-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you get what I mean by I'm not submissive. I can't be lead by someone, I don't just give up my opinions when someone expects me to. I'll only be submissive to the same extent as my partner is. Submissive as a definition basically means to give up your opinions for someone else. I really don't think it's necessary for me in a relationship, I'd rather have a relationship in which I could debate with my partner and was considered on an equal standing as him. I grew up in a family where there was no head of the household, my parents were both extremely opinionated and got a long without either of them being submissive. That's why I'll never get why they introduced me to religion. It goes against everything they are and against what the society in which I'm surrounded stands for. For being known as an extremely religious country, Ireland, particularly among the young has become vastly atheist and liberal. Women are expected to reach the top of their careers and can choose to keep it up if they so wish to after having a child. They're also in positions of power, so when I read the red pill it just seems so foreign to me. Women are children? Women need to be lead? Women aren't capable of philosophical thinking? Generally more stupid? Shouldn't be taking seriously? lie about being raped most of the time? I've even read a highly up-voted quote about how women are only good for sex and babies!? Where is the evidence for any of this? I've never seen it in my life. As far of what I've seen on the red pill is that they believe the only way to get a woman to like them is to deceive them into believing you're something you're not and keep that up for the whole relationship? In what world is that healthy? Sex is important but the red pill holds the notion that sex isn't important and is bad for women. No one deserves a virgin if they are not a virgin themselves. Sorry, for any typos that might be in this, I'm in a hurry to get to work. If you reply, I'll reply later.

[–]masterrod0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I can't be lead by someone, I don't just give up my opinions when someone expects me to.

If this is true you can't be taught anything. You are incapable of love, and you don't like passion.

I don't just give up my opinions when someone expects me to.

So you have no etiquette either?

I'll only be submissive to the same extent as my partner is.

Fair enough. Relationships must have some balance.

Submissive as a definition basically means to give up your opinions for someone else.

Not necessarily. You may surrender to a moment. Really the bible talks more about willful surrender than out right submission. It's important to know the difference.

I really don't think it's necessary for me in a relationship, I'd rather have a relationship in which I could debate with my partner and was considered on an equal standing as him

Who said you couldn't do this? Or where does the Bible say this is wrong? As far as I'm concerned you should debate with your partner. That's how you can build trust in him, and vice versa.

I grew up in a family where there was no head of the household, my parents were both extremely opinionated and got a long without either of them being submissive.

I doubt this strongly. If your parents stayed together someone took the lead. There are too many decisions to be made as a family person for someone not to take a lead at all. In most relationships the lead changes. So, RP's perspective puts the onus on the mind to find the way to lead.

Referencing parents is one of the biggest mistakes most people make. Your perception of your parents relationships is their relationship, but that may not be your relationship. May not even be the best for you and your partner.

That's why I'll never get why they introduced me to religion. It goes against everything they are and against what the society in which I'm surrounded stands for.

I doubt your parents are against love. Keep in mind the most successful religions focus on love more so than anything else. Keep in mind also romantic love in the west is closely linked to the bible.

Women are children?

People in relationships often act like children when they are in love. Actually both men and woman. It's a consequence of closeness.

Women need to be lead?

Women are usually more emotional, and will follow strong emotional direction. Women usually prioritize their emotions, so keeping a woman requires leadership. Surely, she can choose to be with someone, but the idea of RP is to make staying a better choice than the other options.

Women aren't capable of philosophical thinking?

Women don't think like men.

Generally more stupid?

This always cracks me up. But really this means women are usually prioritize their logic over emotions. So it isn't uncommon for woman to say she knows something because she feels it. It's important to understand this when dealing with women.

Shouldn't be taking seriously?

A woman will often say something but not mean exactly what she says. It's important to understand her, or put a filter on what she says.

lie about being raped most of the time?

This does happen, but not true all the time.

I've even read a highly up-voted quote about how women are only good for sex and babies!?

Well some men feel like this.

Where is the evidence for any of this?

There's plenty of evidence if you want to search. The evidence will also show men can act in this way as well.

Another way to think of this is that if you act in a masculine way your woman will more likely act feminine.

I've never seen it in my life.

Surprising.. I take it you're woman.

As far of what I've seen on the red pill is that they believe the only way to get a woman to like them is to deceive them into believing you're something you're not and keep that up for the whole relationship?

Well, RP is about personal growth. So the goal is to become alpha, by acting as if. At any rate, RP is a result base so the idea is that if you are acting Alpha you will get you success with a women. If you're not getting women then you aren't alpha. It's simple logic but effective in terms of measuring performance.
Moreover, deception is a tool it isn't the goal.

Sex is important but the red pill holds the notion that sex isn't important and is bad for women.

huh?

No one deserves a virgin if they are not a virgin themselves.

Well we don't always get what we deserve. RP advocates low sex count, but i'm not sure if that means virgin.

Sorry, for any typos that might be in this, I'm in a hurry to get to work. If you reply, I'll reply later.

Have fun at work.

[–]sansurnt0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How did you get "I can't be taught" from me saying "I can't be lead"? I can be taught but I will not let someone lead my life for me. Being taught and being lead are completely different things. Being taught is receiving information and having the choice to do what you please with it, being lead is being given information and having no choice in what to do with it.

I give up or change my opinion when someone gives me facts or when I've seen evidence of something, I'm not just going to change my mind because another human being thinks I should. It has nothing to do with etiquette, I just view my opinion to be equally valid to any other persons opinion.

It's not the bible that says you shouldn't debate a woman, it's the whole of the redpill that implies it.

The only time one of my parents would have to take the lead was in social matters, my father is a shy man so my mam takes care of dealing with other people. I think we may have grown up in very different households. Perhaps a head of the household was necessary in your family, not in mine.

Wait, wasn't it last week that most of the manosphere and MRAs ,on fathers day, were claiming that men were more sensitive and emotional but weren't allowed to show it due to social stigma? They even gathered reports and studies on this. I don't know if it's true or not but it seems that people will use the whole "more emotional" thing when it suits them. Perhaps it's a cultural difference but men and women here are known for roughing it through mentally hard times equally as well. The country never really went through the "good times", Women were treated horribly by the state for years, in fact most who were born during or before the 60's have some horror stories to tell. They made it through without any emotional guidance. In fact, if there was any to be had, it was generally taken from them. I'll admit, teenage girls tend to be more emotional then teenage boys but after that it seems to depend in the individual and personal experience.

Because women don't think like men means they can't be philosophical? Do you really believe that? You can continue to believe it but I've once again seen no proof of it.

Your next points are sweeping generalizations of a whole gender. You really believe there's not much variety don't you? I've met some wonderful people throughout my life who've blown away any stereotype I've ever placed on a set of people. I learned around the age of ten that humans weren't stereotypes. Perhaps you're young, but you'll go through a lot eventually and meet many people and realize that people don't fit into nice little boxes. Not even redpillers fit in one nice little box. Sure, some women are illogical but so are some men. Some women are mean, funny, caring, brave as are some men. There's a large intra-gender variety. If I wrote off all men as being stoic, brave and unemotional then my second oldest brother and some guys I've met throughout my life wouldn't exist.

The red pill has claimed many times that as a woman's sexual partner count rises her purpose and personality is quashed.

Yes, some men do believe this and instead of trying to stop it you remain on the site that encourages them to think this? I've just seen a post over at the redpill that claimed a 16 year old lied about being raped, if they even had bothered to look into it they'd have found out the the perpetrators actually admitted to it. They don't seem as keen to acknowledge that sometimes false rape claims happen as much as they seem to be keen to trivialize rape claims.

This bits of topic but it bothers me nonetheless-The first thing that got me interested in the red pill was when there was a highly upvoted comment that stated "it's not women's fault they can't ponder the stars or Greek philosophy, it's just how they are". It's hilarious because I own two celestron telescopes and have been a member of astronomy Ireland for 3 years while my best female friend of eight years is infatuated by the literature she reads in her classical studies courses. I don't like classical studies in the slightest but ,hey, we're all different. I knew that women could do these things yet I was being told that they couldn't. I think that a lot when I'm reading the red pill. It's fascinating in a strange way, like they refuse to believe that any woman who does not slot into their narrow view of how a woman should be, exists. If she does though, she should immediately expect to be doubted and to have some insults thrown at her by a good few of them.

[–]masterrod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How did you get "I can't be taught" from me saying "I can't be lead"? I can be taught but I will not let someone lead my life for me. Being taught and being lead are completely different things. Being taught is receiving information and having the choice to do what you please with it, being lead is being given information and having no choice in what to do with it.

Consider you're being taught by an expert in a field. In that case there isn't a question you simply have to surrender to the way they think, and allow them to lead your understanding. When you say something like "I can't be lead", that means literally you believe you no one can teach you anything. But worst that means you can't surrender to the power of a moment.

I give up or change my opinion when someone gives me facts or when I've seen evidence of something, I'm not just going to change my mind because another human being thinks I should. It has nothing to do with etiquette, I just view my opinion to be equally valid to any other persons opinion.

Fair enough. There is nothing wrong with your position.

It's not the bible that says you shouldn't debate a woman, it's the whole of the redpill that implies it.

Well, here's the thing with that, I don't know one woman that is totally submissive to their husband. Women should do what they want. And if their in an RP relationship allow the man to lead if he's proven himself. A woman that can't for any circumstances be lead, or even sometime relinquish the lead, can't be in an RP relationship.

The only time one of my parents would have to take the lead was in social matters, my father is a shy man so my mam takes care of dealing with other people. I think we may have grown up in very different households. Perhaps a head of the household was necessary in your family, not in mine

You grew up in Ireland, so I'm sure things were different. I think total head of household has a lot of connotation. Even if we get rid of this term. There a times where one family member must lead. Maybe your father left the lead the to your mother and that worked for them. There's no way you could know this, and there's no way you could know their private talks. The main point is that in order for relationships to work, or get through the tough spots, someone must lead, and in RP that means the man.

Wait, wasn't it last week that most of the manosphere and MRAs ,on fathers day, were claiming that men were more sensitive and emotional but weren't allowed to show it due to social stigma? They even gathered reports and studies on this. I don't know if it's true or not but it seems that people will use the whole "more emotional" thing when it suits them. Perhaps it's a cultural difference but men and women here are known for roughing it through mentally hard times equally as well. The country never really went through the "good times", Women were treated horribly by the state for years, in fact most who were born during or before the 60's have some horror stories to tell. They made it through without any emotional guidance. In fact, if there was any to be had, it was generally taken from them. I'll admit, teenage girls tend to be more emotional then teenage boys but after that it seems to depend in the individual and personal experience.

I'm merely referring to prioritizing emotions. For example, by in large women read romantic novels and watch romantic comedies. The reason is because women care very deeply about their emotions. For men emotions are largely secondary, which is why the manosphere has made people aware that father's have emotions too. And for sex, emotions are often secondary for men.
This is important to getting laid. Because if a woman doesn't feel right doing something sexually, she simply won't. Or if you can't make a lady feel something, there isn't much a foundation in your relationship. In RP lingo that might be gina tingles, but the message is clear, "if she doesn't feel you won't fuck." Men by in large do not work that way.

Because women don't think like men means they can't be philosophical? Do you really believe that? You can continue to believe it but I've once again seen no proof of it.

No it means that men and women typically have different philosophies on how to get to the same goal. It's important to be cognizant of that fact. You don't pick up women, how would you even verify proof if I were to give it to you?

Your next points are sweeping generalizations of a whole gender.

Gender but not sex. Two different ideas.

You really believe there's not much variety don't you?

There really isn't. If you believe in archetypes there are finite types of people, still all that doesn't really matter. The amount people that exist in the world and the people you attract are different. And you must also accept that you aren't going to meet a statistically significant number of people, so the use of a fully egalitarian few won't be applicable. So although there maybe variety, the chances of experience full variety is slim to nil.

I've met some wonderful people throughout my life who've blown away any stereotype I've ever placed on a set of people. I learned around the age of ten that humans weren't stereotypes.

I'm talking about archetypes not stereotypes.

Sure, some women are illogical but so are some men.

People that prioritize emotions are illogical. The more important point is that if a person assumes a more masculine role, then their mate will assume a more feminine roll. Incidentally, logic is balanced with emotion in all relationships.

There's a large intra-gender variety.

Would be nice if that were true, but unfortunately it isn't. Personality are surely different among people. But elements of polarity as it relates to masculine and feminine is necessary to understand when dealing with women, and especially if the goal is sex or a relationship.

The red pill has claimed many times that as a woman's sexual partner count rises her purpose and personality is quashed.

This is an ideal. RP suggest men go after younger women, LTRs, plates are a different story. Regardless, a young woman should have few partners, but not all of us go after younger women.

The first thing that got me interested in the red pill was when there was a highly upvoted comment that stated "it's not women's fault they can't ponder the stars or Greek philosophy, it's just how they are".

This is actually a very deep quote. This refers to the fact that women are more apt to believe in magic, and also magic as relates to love/passion. It's not so much they can't, it's that they by in large do not want to.

I don't like classical studies in the slightest but ,hey, we're all different.

Would be nice, but unfortunately we're more similar than we are different. Even the way men and women act.

I think that a lot when I'm reading the red pill. It's fascinating in a strange way, like they refuse to believe that any woman who does not slot into their narrow view of how a woman should be, exists. If she does though, she should immediately expect to be doubted and to have some insults thrown at her by a good few of them.

Yep, as any group. I personally love all women. But I'd have a problem with a woman that can't trust me enough to lead the relationship at times. I'm also okay with that responsibility.

[–]robesta0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LambdaMale1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celi921 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arazon4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]derpthetroll2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zaorish92 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

It's beta if you take it seriously. It's full of manipulation and power talk though.

If you read the bible you see the 48 tools of power all over the place: extremely bold leaders making and breaking their own rules, appealing eloquently to whatever ideal fits their self-interest in the situation, manipulating in-group / out-group identity, making impossible promises of rewards in exchange for huge real-world power gains. If you are good at that sort of manipulation you can use religion to great effect. Not sure if thats doable for the average guy though.

Christianity's best aspect is that it sets up a paper ultimate alpha male for women so that they are less likely to cheat.

Theoretically historically it made the Western culture less violent than others but I doubt that since Asian cultures are equally nonviolent.

[–]W_O_M_B_A_T1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point1 point1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]W_O_M_B_A_T0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2niczar0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]6482620 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]captainbloodd1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]captainbloodd-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]invisiblephrend2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Austintvtious1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]captainbloodd0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zaorish90 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]captainbloodd2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gold_Leaf_Initiative0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point1 point1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Young0ne23-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Is Christianity beta?
Author	wakka54
Upvotes	1
Comments	35
Date	June 24, 2014 4:17 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/28z53f/is_christianity_beta/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/is-christianity-beta.140436 https://theredarchive.com/post/140436

Comments