Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › The Impossible sexual box for Catholic MGTOW's.
This topic contains 76 replies, has 35 voices, and was last updated by 
qeeqo 3 years, 2 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
No offense, but Catholics are full of s~~~. I’m not saying God doesn’t exist, but most of what Catholics believe is NOT supported by the Bible
The bible is full of s~~~ as well so don’t get anyone started down this dark road before i pull out the passages about God commanding the rape of little girls (while violently killing everyone else), the parts where God lets a man kill 42 kids for insulting his baldness or the command that God demands us cut the foreskins of little boys and the story where David kills 200 Philistines so he can cut off their foreskins just so the king would give him his daughters ass.
So which path are you gonna take? the path to peace or the path to debate?
Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.
QeeQo
I’m Catholic and MGTOW–it really isn’t as hard as you’re making it. Now I’m not going to waste your time or mine responding to the guys on the thread who chose to just attack the religion without involving serious analysis or offering something constructive. Nor an I going to re-hash the Protestant reformation So lets look at some truth:
Our faith is based upon the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, the priesthood was established by Jesus, but the daily functions of doctrine/dogma are in fact human creations. The orthodoxy of Jesus is very simple: Love God and forgive everyone…the end. Yet the church has thousands of laws and regulations etc. Jesus didn’t pen this stuff, but it WAS penned by individuals under the auspices of authority conferred by Jesus.
Yes the church encourages marriage and frowns on sex out of marriage. But they know it happens. I think you misunderstand confession. Absolution is premised upon the promise and intention not to sin again BUT the flip side is that God knows you WILL sin again because that is our nature and it is why God NEVER withholds forgiveness. Do you have any idea how many times I’ve had to confess using G-D something? and absolution is premised upon me recognizing it is wrong and TRYING not to do so in the future…but every week there I am with the same old sin again.
I have found prayer is very effective. If you need help just ask–you will get it.
God made you horny and then punishes you for jerking off.
Really.
Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.
Read the section under religion of The Manipulated Man and that’s my stance on all religion.
In my opinion, are species are more likely to have been dropped off to mine gold in Africa and then be forced to call our creator God. We probably murdered him along the way. (ego) So, my approach to the shenanigans is there is no God, until the real God decides to show himself, or herself, nah who are we kidding himself.
Although it is awfully c~~~ish to insist you be referred to as God. No offense to those who are religious.
Marriage is a control construct on many levels.
If you feel the need to toss off, do so.
I don’t believe any god wants that much control over a man. The only creatures that I have run into that demand that much control over me have been the clergy, politicians, and women.As a kid, I remember having “life is a gift from God” repeatedly stated.
As I grew older and saw more of the world, and saw people for what they were. I came to the conclusion that as with any “gift”, I choose how I will use/spend/exchange/adapt it for my own damn self. Nobody (in any context of that word) can tell me which mythical deity and which imaginary set of “good” rules I HAVE to follow.
I personally follow no religion, however I am somewhat spiritual in my own way.There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it
Going the church’s way is not Going Your Own Way.
What does organized religion add to your life besides threats and empty promises?
You can walk away from the catholic church as readily as you can walk away from marriage and every other bulls~~~ institution that would restrict your liberty. You should probably begin now.
Let’s go back to the basics. Before we can comment on a theistic religion, we need to understand what is meant by “God” not only in the Chrestian* religion, but also in the other theistic religions. Here is the start of Chapter 2 of George H. Smith’s book mentioned above.
*Lloyd M. Graham says they were first known as Chrestians, not Christians.
Available at Amazon.com
Smith, George H.
Atheism: The Case Against God.
Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books, 1979
ISBN 0-87975-124-XChapter 2
The Concept of GodI
The Meaning of “God”- Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable value in any dialogue, so the theist, before he sets out to explain why we should believe in god, must first explain what he means by the word “god.”
What is the theist attempting to establish the existence of? What is the nature of god? How are we to identify him (or it)? At least some of the attributes of this supposed creature must be known before anything can be considered relevant to establishing his existence. As one theist put it, “With no description or definition to work from, we will literally fail to know what we are talking about.” For example, consider the following dialogue:
Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.”
Mr. White: “Prove it.”
Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.”If this exchange is less than satisfactory, much of the blame exists with Mr. White: his demand for proof is premature.
Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is: until and unless he does so, “unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some description of an “unie,” the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent.
When confronted with the claim that a god exists, the person who immediately demands proof commits the same error as does Mr. White. His first response should be,
- “What is it for which you are claiming existence?”
- The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Until he does so, “god” makes no more sense than “unie”: both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is logically absurd.
Nothing can qualify as evidence for the existence of a god unless we have some idea of what we are searching for. Even if it is demanded that the existence of god be accepted on faith, we still must know what it is we are required to have faith in. As W.T. Blackstone puts it:
Until the content of a belief is make clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.The meaning of “god” and other religious terms has been a center of controversy in modern philosophical thought. A.J. Ayer, in his famous Language, Truth and Logic (published in 1935) argued that “to say that ‘God exists’ is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And…no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess and literal significance.”
The principle upon which Ayer based his rejection of theology is now considered to be defunct, but philosophers continue to debate the pitfalls and merits of religious language. Indeed, much of the recent literature in the area of philosophical theology concerns itself with the meaning and use of religious terms.
Because of this emphasis, most theistic philosophers are painfully aware of the problems of defining and clarifying the concept of god. There remains, however, an insufficient understanding among many theists as to the importance of this task. Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore to be undertaken at the theist’s convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility. Assuming that the theist does not believe his theism to be nonsense, he has the responsibility of explaining the content of his belief. Failing this, to state that “god exists” is to communicate nothing at all: it is as if nothing has been done.
What, then, is meant by the word “god?” This is not a simple question. There have been many historical concepts of god, from the anthropomorphic deities of the Greeks to the omnipotent god of Christianity. Some gods are all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, while others are not. Some gods are objects of reverence, while others are not. Some gods communicate with man, while others do not. Differences such as these make it impossible to give a detailed description of a god that will encompass every religion—-and securing widespread agreement on the meaning of “god” is a formidable, if not impossible, task.
Much of the confusion surrounding the idea of god seems from the fact that the word “god” is among the most abused terms in the history of man, ranking with such notorious words as “freedom,” “justice,” and “love.” Atheism is an unpopular stance (especially if one happens to be a clergyman), so some people conveniently attach the word “god” to any belief with a range of significance, such as nature, the universe, love or an ultimate goal in one’s life. As Anthony Flew notes, these idiosyncratic usages of “god” make it “comparatively easy to secure very wide verbal agreement on the existence of God. But much of this is exposed as unreal when we probe the different meanings given to the key word.” Today the professed theist and atheist may agree on all accepted points except an appropriate label for their position—and it is instructive to note that, historically, more blood has been spilled in religious wars between theists of different persuasions than between theists and atheists.
Self-proclaimed theists will have to decide among themselves what, if anything, they have in common when they profess to believe in a god. I shall use the term “god” generally to designate any supernatural or transcendent being, and when I claim not to believe in a god, I mean that I do not believe in anything “above” or “beyond” the natural, knowable universe.
This concept of god carries two obvious implications: first, a god must be something other than part of the natural universe. Second, a god must be a being of some kind which is presumed by the theist to exist.
Although this generic idea of a god is applicable to the traditional varieties of theistic belief, especially within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, some alleged theists object to the portrayal of a god as supernatural or transcendent. These theists point to he “naturalistic” conceptions of god which identify god with some aspect of the natural universe. According to these theories, god is not “out there” above or beyond nature. Instead, he is an integral part of existence and must be regarded as “immanent,” or indwelling, rather than transcendent.Pantheism—the identification of “god” with nature—is a well-known instance of naturalistic theism. But the pantheist (or any alleged theist who wishes to describe his god solely in naturalistic terms) is open to the charge of reducing his god to triviality. If god is taken to be synonymous with nature or some aspect of the natural universe, we may then ask why the term “god” is used at all. It is superfluous and highly misleading. The label of “god” serves no function (except, perhaps, to create confusion), and one must suspect that the naturalistic theist is simply an atheist who would rather avoid this designation.
If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term “god” was used as a synonym for the continent of America, one’s assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational. To expand this concept of god to include Europe, Asia, the planet Earth, our solar system—or the entire universe—is equally absurd.
Our second requirement for the term “god”—that it must signify a being which is presumed to exist—has also come under attack by contemporary theologians. Paul Tillich, the most influential Protestant theologian of recent years, has written that “grave difficulties attend the attempt to speak of God as existing.” …the question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer—whether negative or affirmative—implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.For Tillich, to state that “God is being-itself” is the only direct and nonsymbolic statement that can be made about God. God is the name for the “infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being…” Since “God is depth,” argues Tillich, “you cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever.” For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow.
Being itself is surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not. He who knows about depth knows about God.Through a series of linguistic contortions, Tillich manages to erase the distinction between theism and atheism in one fell swoop. In the Dynamics of Faith he comes close to maintaining that atheism is a self-contradictory position.
The fundamental symbol of our ultimate concern is God. It is always present in any set of faith, even if the act of faith includes the denial of God. Where there is ultimate concern, God can be denied only in the name of God…he who denies God as a matter of ultimate concern affirms God, because he affirms ultimacy in his concern.
Walter Kaufmann has aptly termed Tillich’s acrobatics as “conversion by definition.” “And,” continues Kaufmann, “to call attention to its occasionally crushing effect on unsuspecting victims, one may christen it the bear’s hug.”
Tillich represents an existentialist influence on Christianity and—true to the tradition of existentialism—it is difficult to make sense of out of what he says. Tillich denies that he is a supernaturalist or a naturalist, both of which he considers to be “insufficient and religiously dangerous solutions.” Instead, Tillich’s god is “self-transcendent.”
God as the ground of being infinitely transcends that of which he is the ground. He stands against the world, in so far as the world stands against him, and he stands for the world, thereby causing it to stand for him…. Only in this sense can we speak of “transcendent” with respect
to the relation of God and the world.At best, Tillich’s concept of god is esoteric; at worst, it is incoherent. By “god,” Tillich does not mean simply straightforward material existence. God as “being itself” or the “ground of being” is something to which the concepts of existence and nonexistence cannot apply. Therefore, we shall do something that spells death for any theologian: we shall take him at his word. Tillich’s god, whatever he is, cannot be said to exist. The atheist has no quarrel with this assertion. All things considered, it is a generous concession to the atheistic position.
In his best-selling Honest to God, John A.T. Robinson continues the crusade to convert the atheists of the world through linguistic maneuvers. Following Tillich’s lead, Robinson rejects entirely the notion of a supernatural god who is ”out there.” “God is, by definition, ultimate reality. And one cannot argue whether ultimate reality exists. One can only ask what ultimate reality is like….”
Contrary to the widespread belief, which has persisted throughout the centuries, that the conflict between theism and atheism concerns the nonexistence of a supernatural being, Robinson assures us that “the line between those who believe in God and those who do not bears little relation to their profession of the existence or nonexistence of such a Being. It is a question, rather, of their openness to the holy, the sacred, in the unfathomable depths of even the most secular relationship.”Aside from its blatant arbitrariness, this contemporary approach has a distinct advantage over the traditional approach to the belief in a god. Whereas the Christian of yesterday had to expend a great deal of time and energy to win converts, the modern theologian has instituted a convenient time-saving device. By juggling a few terms here and there, the atheists of the world (whether they know it or not) are suddenly believers in a god. Through a deft feat of theological legerdemain, Tillich and Robinson have attempted to rid the world of atheism.
The efforts of Tillich, Robinson and other theologians to purge the concept of god of its supernaturalism have come under heavy attacks by theists of a more traditional vein. These critics rightly charge that Honest to God does not eliminate atheism so much as it extends the term “god” in a confused and arbitrary way to include atheism. E.L. Mascall, an Anglican priest, maintains that Robinson is “so anxious to claim as a Christian anyone who, in spite of his professions of atheism or agnosticism, evidences a serious and generous attitude to life, that he is ready to atheise or agnosticise the Christian faith to almost any extent to bring the professing unbeliever within it.” Moreover, Mascall recognizes that “to suggest that ‘atheists’ are really unconscious crypto-theists is to do them a grave injustice.”To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so-called “theist” or “Christian” is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “god” carries no metaphysical significance. Robinson’s equation of “god” with “ultimate reality” (whatever that means” injects confusion into an already confusing subject. His procedure is no more justified than if an atheist defined atheism as “the serious concern with one’s own life”—thereby transforming every person who takes life seriously into an atheist.
Philosophical discussions should be as clear and precise as possible, and to restrict the concept of god to a supernatural being is in the interest of clarity. We have seen that the idea of god is extremely vague, having been used with many different meanings. Since the word “god” is likely to create confusion, we should institute a policy of verbal and conceptual economy in connection with its use. It should not be tacked on as excess baggage to an idea that can be better described in nontheistic terms.
i was brought up catholic and NEVER was i told anything regarding masturbation.
nothing.
zilch.
nada.have been living as a functional atheist because of my anger towards God for creating me as a sexual being.
If we work with the premise, that the Creator is infallible. That God, unlike men, does not make mistakes when it comes to His Creations.
Then we can rightly deduce, that if we feel a sexual urge, it was placed there by God Himself.
Religion is one of the biggest Red Pills that a man can take. It is not easy, especially when we have been raised with very strong beliefs.
But to question your religion, is truly the beginning of wisdom. As God, does not subscribe to any of our human religious systems.
God would not need such things.
Any religions which contradict the laws of Nature. Nature being a direct Creation of God. Is surely a perversion.
When was the last time any of us shamed 2 rhino’s who are mating? Or horses?
We generally accept and see that to mate, in the animal kingdom is natural and right.
And yet for us, as children of God, we have to suppress the very urge that the Creator has given us Himself.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe in God. I believe in some of what Scripture teaches. I also follow the wisdom of Eastern Religions. Such as Daoism. Where the male potency, is something that is cultivated. And not shunned. Or shamed.
I give you credit, for questioning this matter, and for choosing your God given right to enjoy sexual release.
That is what any logical man would do.
I believe that God loves me. He has given me life. Has created fruits and animals. There is an abundance of food and water.(Used to be at least).
Why would God want me to not act on an urge He created? That would seem highly presumptuous on my part. And certainly on the part of Religion.
Good for you, for reaching your own conclusions and following those.
Do not be angry with God. God does not err. Be angry with those who have led you to the beliefs that you hold about masturbation. They are the ones responsible. At least for their trickery and brainwashing.
Try to stay away from Catholic forums. They will only drone out the rhetoric of shame, and just repeat what has been burned into their minds. Limiting their understanding and their lives in so many ways. In an effort to limit and stifle yours.
Unshackle yourself. Live free. Live exactly as God designed you to be.
I have been living with a f~~~ it attitude with an increasing sense of foreboding about death.
That is the right attitude. In every possible way.
To have struggled with this, since your 20’s? This is what Religion does to people. It binds and shackles them.
God loves us. That is probably Jesus’s main message to the world.
Why would God not want you to be happy?
No offense, but Catholics are full of s~~~. I’m not saying God doesn’t exist, but most of what Catholics believe is NOT supported by the Bible. Does God say that you have to confess your sins to another man? No. Does God say you can’t masturbate? No. God doesn’t even say that you HAVE to be married in order to have sex. He just suggests that it’s the best option (and it is, for the sake of the children and creating a family). What he really states is that it’s best to remain celibate, but if you can’t do that then you should marry and form a family.
Very accurate and true.
I’m not saying that Catholics are evil, just that the institution itself is evil.
Exactly right. The institution itself is the evil. Not Catholics.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
1 Peter 3:15King James Version (KJV)
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Why do I believe in God? ^ God says we are created in is image, among many other points the Scriptures cover. What is God’s image?
John 4:24King James Version (KJV)
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
What/Who is God? ^^ God is Spirit, therefore His image is spirit. God can only give what God is. The gift of holy spirit to us. He being the Holy Spirit. His gift was given to Adam & Eve.
Genesis 1:27King James Version (KJV)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:17King James Version (KJV)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The gift of spirit from God the Giver, is what died, after Adam & Eve disobeyed.
What is the first thing God would have us know & understand, according to Scripture?
2 Peter 1:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
What does this verse mean & say?^^ There are only two scenarios that can ‘play’ out from this. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other verse anywhere, that covers this with this level of clarity. It is like a gem & it is vital/key in our attempts at trying to understand. There are key verses throughout the Bible that are like this.
1. The Scripture cannot be interpreted & nor can it ever be understood…
OR
2. The Scripture interprets itself, and God has it recorded & explained, so that we can know what He means, and what He would have us know & understand.
If we subscribe to the first scenario, then you understand why we have so many religions & denominations.
Example: Take 20 people (that all believe there is a God/Creator) and ask them what a verse means. If all 20 of them go with the first scenario, and they all have their own interpretation, you now have 20 religions!
If we subscribe to the second scenario, then we have to search the Scriptures to find out what a verse means.
The key to this is the context in regards to any and all scripture(s). Some context spans more than a whole chapter, to define what is being talked about. Other scriptures stand on their own so to speak, and can be understood without having to read a whole chapter or more, to understand what it is talking about.
Then you have some verses of scripture that require scripture ‘buildup’ in order to understand what is being talked about.
Example: In the 4 Gospels….Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, the account & record in regards to the crucifixion, are given from FOUR different viewpoints. Some aspects are covered in more detail, and other aspects are expounded on in a ‘broader’ sense in regards to that event…
BUT, if one wants the whole picture, all 4 Gospels have to be looked at, as a whole (or unit) to see the bigger picture.
Without doing this, it ‘appears’ that The Scripture contradicts itself in regards to this event.
It is not my intent to preach/lecture or ‘peddle’ my anti religion or my ‘pro’ spirituality on to others here, just explaining why I choose to believe what I do & why.
All they really bring to the table is their theological knowledge and the Sacraments.
I don’t see the logical connection between “their theological knowledge and the Sacraments”, as it relates to you being a Man Going His Own Way (MGHOW).
Life can be challenging enough being a MGHOW while living day to day in the gynocentric matrix, but your attempt to receive a supernatural stamp of approval must be very frustrating to say the least.
Personally, my life became much more relaxed and logical once I walked away from all the “theological knowledge and the Sacraments” of the Catholic Church. I no longer wished to live under the desires of how a society, church, or women wanted me to live MY life. I think it’s unfortunate for yourself that you are tormented by your God/religion.
I wish you Peace, Health, and Prosperity my friend. Go easy on yourself !!
There is no connection between the sacraments and theological knowledge and a man going his own way. It was an answer to what priests nderstand about marriage etc.
I have had tremendous periods of peace and calmness when I was praying, participating n the sacraments and involved in charity work. like every thing in my life it is cyclical. I have had a problem with perseverance my whole life.
I did have a priest tell me that God judges no one on single events but the entirety of our lives.
I can’t rework my thinking until I get it all out there. Even the times that i am engaged, and active with my faith this is the one area that always f~~~s me up. I feel like I’m playing damnation roulette when I fap and if I die before I get to confession. These are thinking patterns since my 20’s.
Logically I know in my head that being condemned to hell for a lifelong pattern of fapping does not square with an infinitely loving and merciful God, but this element is there and causes grief in people. I’m trying to figure out how to accept it for what it is, put it in Gods hands and move forward so I can start rebuilding my life. I want my life to finally begin at 58 and have a relationship with Christ that I can peacefully live with.
my parents were very devout, both dead now, and they gave me no instruction about the Church and fapping. No one talked about fapping in those days… too shameful. The Church doesn’t address it either. It just sits in the Catechism for those of us that over think everything to digest on our own.
Mgtower said, “Where is the plan of salvation in that kind of thinking?” that line has really grabbed me, and it is what I fundamentally need to square so i can course correct. still thinkin bout that one.
That being said, I’m from a mixed Protestant/Catholic family so I’ve been well exposed to both sides. I think being forced to attend three hour Pentecostal services at age seven f~~~ed me up with regard to religion. I never had issues with Mass even as a child.
my folks were charismatic Catholics and m dad was a Catholic deacon who also lead a non denominational charismatic prayer group. I did 2 years of missionary work serving n’t the poor with A Jesuit in Juarez with a group of hands in the air speaking in tongues catholics. The gravity of something sin was drilled into us.
I am not good at getting the motivation to actualize change and find it impossible on my own.
You’re not alone brother, I take away immeasurable fortunes in understanding my fellow man and every once in a while offering him genuine hope or mental pain relief by helping him untie the bound tight and aging mental knots, every once in a while this alters their destiny and prevents them from taking their own lives, time and time again we hear men saying “thank-you MGTOW, you saved my life”, something we can all be proud of!
Just by being here you are actualizing change in many ways unseen by the naked eye. Hell is for people that choose to go there against every warning they ignore. It’s not our predisposition otherwise there would be no hope at all.
While I don’t have suicidal ideation. i have a brother in law who hung himself 3 weeks ago so dealing with this s~~~ is a huge thing in a mans life, and other than shrinks men have no where to turn for help… definitely not women.
Romans 10:9-10King James Version (KJV)
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Christ HAS already paid for our sins & we are saved if we believe that^^^.
Any and all sins we commit after is considered us breaking fellowship with God our Heavenly Father.
If we confess our broken fellowship, He forgives us…
Psalm 103:12King James Version (KJV)
12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
In other words, He remembers it no more. The east & west never meet.
Romans 8:1King James Version (KJV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
We are not to live in guilt & shame. God does not sit there with a spiritual baseball bat waiting to behead us for being imperfect men.
He just wants us to be honest with Him in our walk with Him…
Religion(s) are man’s way to God, made by man, Not God
Spirituality/Bible is/are Good’s way to God, according to Scripture.Hope that helps in regards to Salvation. There are many other versus, but trying to keep it from being a long(er) post.
I am borrowing my brother sidecar wisdom here against the Church call for marrige.
<iframe class=”wp-embedded-content” sandbox=”allow-scripts” security=”restricted” style=”position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);” src=”/forums/topic/you-must-marry/embed/#?secret=4MB41Zp0ZZ” data-secret=”4MB41Zp0ZZ” width=”500″ height=”282″ title=”“"You must marry!"” — MGTOW” frameborder=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no”></iframe>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Well I don’t see god stepping up to pay the f~~~ing alimony. And Jesus himself never wifed up that Magdalene whore, so why the f~~~ should I? You want men to marry? Then you should be preaching to the f~~~ing government and the f~~~ing courts to get the f~~~ out of marriage. And until you do that, and until they do, don’t f~~~ing presume to tell me what the f~~~ I must do. And don’t you f~~~ing dare to presume to speak for the almighty. Better men than you already have.”“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.”
– First Corinthians, Chapter Seven, Verse Eight“You f~~~ing disagreeing with the Apostle and Saint Paul of Motherf~~~ing Tarsus?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Also Jesus himself is against the Church.
http://portlandporcupine.com/jac/http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/45129-10-judgments-jesus-made-against-religious-church-systems
Do you need God or Do you need the Church?
Did God tell you to marry or sign the slave contract?
Did God tell you to marry the government?
We are in a unique time for sure. I missed it by a generation when the Christian paradigm of marriage was viable. It was for my parents. The courts have made it so punitive towards men it’s not a viable option. What I’m thinking here is that God understands what women have done to themselves and accepts that there is no other outlet. These ain’t normal to mes fo sho.
As much as I hate Karl Marx, his observation that religion is the opiate of the masses is spot on correct.
Out of all his voluminous works, that’s the only thing he got correct.
with the prospect of hell as a consequence of free will that kind of kills the opioid effect.
So glad that I am an Orthodox christian, no pesky rules and categorizing masturbation as a mortal sin.
Orthodox dogma doesn’t dictate masturbation as a mortal sin, in fact for Orthodox christians a sin is every action that pulls us away from God. In this regard masturbation is seen as a very minor sin when compared to having multiple sexual partners without being married or committing adultery.
Orthodoxy in this regard preaches self control and guides the flock accordingly, there are no set rules in this regard. A priest I once talked with told me to practice self control under the guidance of God but if the urges are uncontrollable then masturbate, its better than the alternatives that will harm both you and someone else.
That’s the rub and why it f~~~s with me. Why the demand for self control for those who are single over a biological imperative? it literally seems like it is asking for the impossible.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2011
^^^King David wanted Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. In short, David committed adultery with her, and she became pregnant, and then David sent her husband Uriah to the front line of his army to be killed, basically, murdered.
https://gotquestions.org/man-after-God-heart.html
^^^Question: “How could David be considered a man after God’s own heart?”
^^^Answer: To understand why David was a man after God’s own heart, we need to see what characteristics he had to qualify for such an exalted description.
I’d say that fapping/rubbing one out, is by far, way better than all that David did, in order to have Bathsheba, and yet, even so, David got his heart right with God & found favor with Him.
Our Heavenly Father looks at our heart towards Him. I strive for being as honest & humble before Him as best I can, through Christ.
1 John 1:8-10King James Version (KJV)
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
^^^Sin in this context of Scripture, refers to when we have broken fellowship.
God knows we will, we are not perfect & He is faithful & just to forgive us.
Hope it brings you some peace/clarity brother.
Dude, thank you, this one really helps. I am going to copy it and use it to remind myself. God can’t be as legalistic as I’ve made Him out to be cause no one would make it if he was. Now I need to delve deeper why David who facilitated murder so he could live in adultry was after God’s own heart.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
