When the dudes at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog aren’t wistfully looking forward to the days in which sexbots and artificial wombs make mere flesh-and-blood ladies obsolete, they’re pondering the crucial spiritual questions of our age, like how to pick up hot sluts at church. Any church, really, so long as it’s full of hot sluts. The blogger there – who doesn’t give his name, so let’s just call him Anti – recently highlighted this observation, from commenter The Fifth Horseman:
[C]hurch would be a great place for a PUA to run Game …
1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.
2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.
3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?
4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.
Jesus wept.
But Anti didn’t, and added his two cents to the discussion:
All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women. Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them. Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20. … I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. …
When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”. These women will put out for you. You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues). The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.
Absolutely. All you need to do, fellas, is to approach them calmly and confidently, look quickly down at your crotch, then directly into their eyes, and ask them: “Would you like to meet … Little Jesus”
Verily, I say unto you, it works every time.
Beth: The Nascent Church wasn’t. It was ignored by both the Jews, and the Romans.
Recall that by the time of Paul, it wasn’t just a few dozen people. Paul was writing letters to communities all across Rome (Rome, Antioch, Corinth, I forget all the place the named letters, such as Timothy and Philemon, were located), the people numbered thousands. And that was just the communities Paul was tending. Peter, and Mark, Matthew, Timothy, the Johns, were all tending to various flocks. The Gnostics were out there.
It was a really quickly growing cult. Buy the time of Nero, a large number of Christians were in Rome (the communities there to whom Paul was writing). Then there was a war with the Jews (the First Jewish War, in which Josephus was fighting for the Jews, not the Second, where he was fighting with the Romans. I mention him because he is one of the non-Christian sources we have for the factual existence of Jesus).
Now we get to some speculative problems, which relate to etymology, and possible reasons for both the Romans and the Jews (Sanhedric and Pharisaic) to have wanted Jesus dead.
The first reference to the town/city of Nazareth, is ca 200 AD. There may have been a town there but if so it was really small, and apparently called something else.
There is another word, nazrite which meant, “brigand/rebel”. The word, “theif” used to describe the two men crucified with Jesus, also meant “brigand/rebel”. So it seems that the verse about, “coming to bring the sword” and the other verse about buying swords… may have been subtext for why he was seen as a problem.
The Romans had long had problems with the Jews, and so there was a problem with Christians, who were like Jews, but pushy.
Come the 150s, and they were growing like blazes, and in their churches all social order was falling away. Paul’s exhortation to for women to cover their heads.. was an appeal to equality. Only “proper” women were allowed to wear headcovers outside the church. Paul was saying the harlot, the slave, the maiden were all equal to the proper women of the upper classes. No one could look around the room and scorn anyone.
And a whole lot more of that sort of social levelling and threats to public order. Add the way any outgroup can be used to keep the ingroup from attacking the upper classes, and you have a recipe for oppression. Add the Roman love for blood sport, and the persecutions were much gorier, than the pogroms which followed them.
God. Your hair is why decent hair, that stays up in a bun, has to so cautious when it goes out! The world would be a much safer place for all of hair kind if you took better care of yours!
I mean, what has more mass than an elephant?
The Roman Catholic Church?
And this is why I need to learn more…send me recommendations of books on Library thing. 🙂
@Pecunium:
The old testament passages concerning slavery were out-of-context readings of Paul?
Exodus 21:20-21 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
I guess my point is this. You say its not the book, its the people. The problem is that the people hold the book up as the moral guideline, God’s message to the people of the world. And yet, the bible is clearly immoral in many places (according to modern day morality, but if God is truly timeless, this shouldn’t be an issue). It is true that bad people will do bad things, and find any justification they can for it, but to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens “To get a good person to bad things, you need religion.” The book is a bad one, independant of how people use it.
I really want to keep this from turning into a big rant, but the New Testament is the first place the concept of eternal punishmen (ie hell) is mentioned, and while the “love your neighbor” theme is a strong one, it is mixed in with surrender and worthlessness (we are sheep, the Lord is our shepherd). Again, the book is a bad one.
I saw some hair in a nice bun… I sent it back to the kitchen. 🙂
Seriously, I did see a woman with her hair in a bun, and I was slightly envious. I have to braid mine. If I could tuck it under my helmet (the way she was doing) and not have it feel the back of my head was being squeezed in a vice, I’d much nicer hair when I got places.
She as a pretty good rider too.
That is not true! My hair just never stays in place no matter how much shellac I slather on.
See, all hair needs is good discipline. As a child, my hair was longer, but it was rebellious in its teenage years, so I kept it buzzed down and strictly managed. Now that it has learned some self control, I let it grow out again. All you hair-ents out there just need to keep better control of your wild locks. I’m sure mine has no hint of psychological trauma as a result….
My hair has never behaved in the history of my head. Even as an infant…
Kirby: I mistook you. The OT slavery of Isreal doesn’t map to any modern slavery. The slave had to be allowed the chance to leave after seven years. But I was referring to the NT.
And.. while there are two (count them two) references to Hell in the NT, they are vague (one is obviously parable, The Beggar and the Rich Man), and the other is in John, the last of the Gospels to be written, the most metaphoric, and that passage (that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin) is hard to parse at best (in part because blasphemy is actually a very specific thing, and not one that can be done by accident, one must, “Curse the Name of God with God”).
So again, I agree that one can pick and choose, and come up with justification for just about anything but… In rebuttal I’ll offer a much shorter, coherent, document: one which was written all at one time.
The US Constitution.
I’ll also add one name, in terms of how such a simple (compared to the Bible) document can be made to mean just about anything.
Antonin Scalia.
Kirby: I realise that is your reading, and not, therefore, invalid, but I don’t think the gloss of the text you get is the text. I think it’s millenia of interpretations, and the background radiation of the US fundies making it be all about, “giving your life over to Jesus”.
My hair is always quite rebellious. And often cow-licky. I’m sure that the only reason that no giraffes have munched on it is because I have kept it so shirt lately. My hair also might have some identity issues, what with how often I change it.
Maybe I should invest in some better discipline before I scold Beth?
(And I would totally contribute to the bible discussions, but I don’t actually know enough to say anything really thoughtful.)
And I keep my hair short, rather then shirt, to be perfectly honest.
@Pecunium:
You have a good point. The concept of hell was fleshed out recently, when priests were attempting to scare their congregation into revival by painting a grusome picture of fire and brimstone. See, the problem is that I’m not claiming that documents can’t be interpreted and misinterpreted, even when its clear they are not supposed to be “bad” documents, and the constitution is a great example.
My point was saying that even if the bible weren’t misinterpreted, it would still be an immoral book, and I would offer the same evidence as before again. I think this may be our only point of disagreement.
@Pecunium
“Kirby: I realise that is your reading, and not, therefore, invalid, but I don’t think the gloss of the text you get is the text. I think it’s millenia of interpretations, and the background radiation of the US fundies making it be all about, “giving your life over to Jesus”.”
Again, there are some very specific things in the bible that are clearly about stuff like submission. Unfortunately, although I’ve read through the bible myself, I don’t remember the passages very well, so it would take some time for me to dig specific examples up. Here is one I remember off the top of my head.
The story of Abraham and Isaac is usually spun as a wonderful example of Abraham’s devotion to God. Here’s the thing though; God is supposed to be the source of morality, and yet he commands Abraham to kill his son, a very immoral act. Its true at the last second he says “stop” and that it was some kind of test, but really what kind of test is that? Are we supposed to be blind followers, doing whatever God says just because? Even if it is clearly against his own rules (“thou shalt not kill”)? How is that a moral act? If God had not said “stop,” would killing his son be a moral action?
I’m sorry these posts are so long… but I think there are some pretty clear examples of things in the bible that are very immoral, and if you do glean some moral or good teachings from it, it is you deciding what is good, not the bible itself.
@ Beth: The Romans persecuted the early Christians, Jews, and any other religion that did not comply with the state religion. Typically the Romans would incorporate local deities into their pantheon after concurring that area. Since most religions at that time were pantheistic, it wasn’t a real issue for most concurred peoples to follow the Roman state religion (which included all these deities). The major problem the Romans had with the Jews and Christians was that they flat out refused to accept any god but their own (Fun fact: the Romans incorporated Yahweh into their pantheon upon conquering Judea).
Romans were not what modern people would classify as especially religious, but they were superstitious and careful not to offend any major gods/goddesses. They really against atheism for that reason. The Christians were particularly persecuted by the Romans for several reasons but mostly because the Romans thought the Christians were atheists. Since Jesus had been tried as a criminal and put to death, the Romans could “prove” that he was not divine. So in the Roman mind since these Christians were worshiping a human, they were not worshiping a god, hence they were atheists. Also the phrasing of “eat my body, drink my blood” freaked out a lot of Romans who thought that the Christians were secretly practicing cannibalism.
Loving this whole thread post-NWO.
Pecunium, do you have any other book recommendations on the history of Christianity?
Crap, typo. Should read CONQUEREd that area not “concurred”. >_<
I thought it was “thou shall not murder.” King James is very pretty looking and sounding but it is very badly translated.
Guys, guys, guys, I think I found Mr. Slave! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnPddKWIC_g&feature=related Assuming he’s actually Irish, that is.
Oh and for anyone interested, the Arch of Titus depicts the Romans carrying back a menorah as they couldn’t find any busts or statues of Yahweh to use for their temple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carrying_off_the_Menorah_from_the_Temple_in_Jerusalem_depicted_on_a_frieze_on_the_Arch_of_Titus_in_the_Forum_Romanum.JPG
@Elizabeth:
I was under the impression that the translation “thou shall not murder” was used because lots of killing had taken place elsewhere in the bible, and that would be inconsistant. You might be right though, a quick search brought of the original hebrew “ratsah,” which translates to criminal acts of killing.
I still stand by the killing of the son, though, even if it isn’t directly contradictory. I would say that it is an immoral action that God makes moral simply by commanding it. *shrug*
it is logically inconsistent to test someone’s faith by telling them to kill their own child after telling them to be fruitful and multiply.
@Alex:
“Alright, you ready? Horses, we ride on horses, right? We ride on horses’ backs. The only one that could have known about this is God. Horses have backs. What else do you need? Horses have backs because we ride on their backs.”
O_O *bursts out laughing, rolling on the floor*
That… Is.. Absolutely epic!
@kirbywarp,
There’s a whole site devoted to violence in the Bible. You might be able to find what you’re looking for more easily there. Commentary aside, it does have full passages. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html