[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / doomer / egy / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

ee9ee1  No.795369

(Great /pol/ thread)

https://8ch.net/pol/res/13026829.html

I think that Christians, atheists and LARPagans call all agree : Women are dressing as little as literal Whores and that it has an extremely bad effect on society, leading to the ultra-sexualisation of the society, leading to degenerate sexually promiscuity (((hookup culture))) and thus corrupting men and women and destroying the foundation of marriage and procreation.

We also can agree that women are being more and more "entitled", more and more masculine and degenerate, and less and less submissive,quiet and modest. We have to thanks (((cultural Marxism))) and (((feminism))) for that.

So I propose this thread so that we can talk and share pics on why it's important for women to dress modestly (with a lot of clothes), how hookup culture is harmful to the entire family structure in society, how women ought to behave, pictures of well dressed women, about sexual purity for both men and women and the purpose of sex (not orgasm and pleasure but procreation inside of marriage), …

a2f2f5  No.795409

File: 6dd710a3e0327aa⋯.jpg (135.93 KB, 810x1024, 405:512, 14233.jpg)

>>795369

This is the only place I know of where you can discuss women's modesty/purity without being censored or meeting fierce resistance, so good thread idea OP. I'll just leave this gem here.


86a24c  No.795410

>>795409

prophecy tbh


ee9ee1  No.795416

C'mon mods, censoring the OP's pic which was heavily censored already?


71bdf8  No.795420

File: 5cd5f24445b15a2⋯.jpg (76.92 KB, 473x640, 473:640, d2bacd6f1068415d0d0472cad0….jpg)

Who cares? You're just objectifying women in a different way. The world turns women into sex objects, betas turn women in to qt objects. Circle jerking with a bunch of losers online over "muh pure virgin gf" is pointless. They don't exist and they won't until god cleanses the earth during the 3 days of darkness.


a291c5  No.795430

>>795416

What was it?

>>795420

You sound like a shill.


ee9ee1  No.795431

>>795430

>What was it?

The same OP's pic than the /pol/ thread.


d37f35  No.795434

>>795430

A shill for what?


c55893  No.795436

>>795420

Based.

The guys whining about how women dress are substituting one fetish for another.


ee9ee1  No.795437

File: b55a64a8f10681b⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 427.15 KB, 717x869, 717:869, Whore.png)

>>795436

Yeah, better all walk naked guys !!!


d37f35  No.795440

>>795437

No. Women need to dress modestly so as not to tempt men. They don't need to dress modestly to please men. If you want women to wear dresses because you like to see women in dresses, you're no different from guys who want to see women in bikinis or yoga pants.


ee9ee1  No.795441

>>795440

> They don't need to dress modestly to please men.

Are are a redditor are what? What kind of feminist cuckold is this ?

Women ought do dress modestly and femininely, meaning with a dress. Women ought to obey their husbands and their brothers and if they are given free reign, they will lead society to astray with their natural tendency to corrupt and seduce people into lust and thus destruction.

Go back to reddit preach your happy Jesus propaganda.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/


8be28a  No.795442

>>795441

>Women ought to obey their husbands and their brothers

lol >>>/islam/


ee9ee1  No.795443

File: 45289f1d05ee1ca⋯.jpg (300.42 KB, 1511x749, 1511:749, 1536682424415.jpg)

File: 9b72cae755470dc⋯.png (593.65 KB, 1801x1009, 1801:1009, 1537650992866.png)

File: 8f94bdd74fb2a47⋯.jpg (462.35 KB, 1583x2048, 1583:2048, 1538961277150.jpg)

File: b54b6e85bf1e800⋯.gif (25.53 KB, 1085x1524, 1085:1524, 1540670833811.gif)

File: 99f49fb7cf7c63f⋯.png (839.38 KB, 701x951, 701:951, 1543401647731.png)

>>795442

>lol >>>/islam/

Thank you for confirming that your are a Pr*t*st*n Happy Jesus heretic.


f73c4a  No.795444

>>795443

>replies with a bunch of images

It feels like I'm on facebook. Do you have an argument or just a bunch of reaction gifs?


a291c5  No.795445

File: c79da26a0b04ef0⋯.jpg (5.25 KB, 250x208, 125:104, coffee.jpg)

>>795442

>>795444

>>795420

>1 post by ID

Great, discord shills found our board.


a7c72c  No.795446

>>795444

First things that come to mind are 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:1.


64c520  No.795447

>>795441

>Are are a redditor are what?

I understand deeply how influences like /pol/ and whatever else can skew your point of view. I feel bad for you, but take a second to look at this properly. What anon said was

>Women should not dress modestly because a man finds it pleasing

Which is 100% correct. If you are gaining some sort of erotic enjoyment out of women wearing dresses, then it is no different lust than getting some sort of erotic enjoyment out of women wearing yoga pants or whatever.

As an additional note, I don't think you are saying any of this out a Christian interest. I think you have a motivation in stamping out "degeneracy" or "feminist propaganda" and "preserving our society" and other memes that you attempt to bolster by saying a Christian ought to hold the same interest. A Christian, however, ought to hold to the good for the sake of the Good. You are attempting to hold onto the good(so much as you really are, which does not appear to be greatly) for the sake of what exactly? "Society", the appearance of a "better time" or what else? Anon's point, that this isn't a Christian thread but something else wrapped in Christian appearance is correct.

>>795445

This board has been dead, at least in quality, for a long time. I doubt anyone cares enough to shill here. I am sorry because I contributed to the decline of quality. I would like this board to improve.


a291c5  No.795448

>>795447

>If you are gaining some sort of erotic enjoyment out of women wearing dresses

No one ITT said this. You and your discord friends are dishonestly assuming this.

>I doubt anyone cares enough to shill here

The fact that this thread got swarmed by literal 1 posts by ID because it dared criticize modern women suggests otherwise.


a2f2f5  No.795449

File: 98324592350273c⋯.png (95.32 KB, 1261x362, 1261:362, 1423242.png)

>>795440

>Women need to dress modestly so as not to tempt men

This. Christian women need to stop blaming men for everything and have some personal accountability.

>inb4 20 women predictably spam "judge not, and be not judged"

Christian men have no problem making judgements about one another, because we want to see ourselves improve. Only Christian women have a problem with being judged.

>or the parable about the adulterous woman

Everyone seems to forget the part where Jesus tells the woman "Go and sin no more".


64c520  No.795451

>>795448

>No one ITT said this.

<Women don't need to dress modestly to please men

<Are you a redditor or what? What kind of feminist cuckold is this?

The implication is clearly that women do need to dress modestly to please men. At the least, it is implied that pleasing men by dressing modestly is desirable.

>dared criticize modern women suggests otherwise.

Is that what happened though? Isn't it really that anons are just correcting the mistakes of OP and other anons?

>>795449

>This. Christian women need to stop blaming men for everything and have some personal accountability.

Of course, it goes both ways. Your pic was basically "I'm hard wired to get aroused and I can't help it". If someone wanted to, they could easily say a women is hard wired to be arousing, they can't help it. There are a whole host of things wrong with what you said, but there is no need to go into any great depth. If you accepted you do indeed have control to not inflame your lustand this is certainly one of the harder trials. look at the nofap thread for how difficult we find it then we need not place the blame solely on women dressing in a certain manner. Additionally, you might in a spirit of charity want women to dress more modestly because that is carrying anothers burden. You also would act in a more pure manner in respect of this ideal.


a291c5  No.795453

>>795451

That chain of posts started with 71bdf8 and c55893 assuming that advocating for modesty is itself a form of fetishism.


64c520  No.795454

>>795453

Given the response to them, I can't say they were entirely wrong.


a2f2f5  No.795456

>>795451

>If someone wanted to, they could easily say a women is hard wired to be arousing, they can't help it

Sure they can - by wearing less revealing clothing. Women aren't helpless infants incapable of dressing themselves. They know better.

>If you accepted you do indeed have control to not inflame your lust

>you might in a spirit of charity want women to dress more modestly because that is carrying anothers burden

I agree with these statements.

>then we need not place the blame solely on women dressing in a certain manner

No, but they are not blameless either. Talk to any Christian woman about the issue of modesty and watch her lash out at you and take not the slightest bit of responsibility for the way she dresses. That's where my issue lies.

>You also would act in a more pure manner in respect of this ideal

Of course. Even the most scantily-dressed of Christian women I do my best to ignore. I only ask that they do their part in being good Christians as well.


17760d  No.795459

>>795420

>Who cares?

God. If a women dresses in an unmodest way she becomes a seductress and in biblical times she would be seen as a harlot.


a7b8fb  No.795466

File: d9042d1234c9df3⋯.jpg (5.84 MB, 4920x4161, 1640:1387, anti-fornication s.jpg)

>>795420

>You're just objectifying women in a different way.

Of course there are guys who will force themselves on even modest women, but Modest woman encourage a different set of values than clad women.

>Circle jerking with a bunch of losers online over "muh pure virgin gf" is pointless.

Thats wrong, it's proven that the less partners a woman has the successful the marriages are.


9a34e9  No.795536

>>795447

>I understand deeply how influences like /pol/

> "muh /pol/"

You are not welcome there you judaizing pr*testant heretic.


64c520  No.795537

>>795456

>Sure they can - by wearing less revealing clothing. Women aren't helpless infants incapable of dressing themselves. They know better.

My point was this: If a man can say he is biologically hard wired noticing, then a women could say she is biologically hardwired to want to be noticed. If that is the case, she really could not help it, any more than the man could help noticing. So to fall back on "men have a biological weakness" but to say it can't be applied to women as well is really bad reasoning.

>>795536

The first line of OP is literally

>Great /pol/ thread

How was it incorrect to point out the obvious connection between OP's /pol/ tendencies and the spirit of the post he made, and the spirit of many of the posts made in this thread?


9a34e9  No.795544

File: 2aa5001d086437a⋯.png (22.3 KB, 806x236, 403:118, Moral.png)

>>795447

>A Christian, however, ought to hold to the good for the sake of the Good.

> you have a motivation in stamping out "degeneracy" or "feminist propaganda" and "preserving our society"

So you want to tell me that all of these things aren't for the sake of the Good, that sexual purity and sexual modesty isn't the Good? That modest dresses for women isn't the Good, that fighting this Jewish death cult parasite that is feminism isn't the Good and that preserving society with sexual pure, modest women (and men) with traditional natural roles for each sexes and having a pure society for better marriage and strong families to procreate a lot of children and to raise them in pure loving families isn't Good ?

Is this some kind of sick joke ? What kind of Christian are you ?

>if you are gaining some sort of erotic enjoyment out of women wearing dresses

What kind of idiotic reasoning is that ? Women wearing dresses that are good looking and that hide the form and curves of the body and drastically reduce the exposition of the flesh is obviously not lusting but the complete contrary. It's modesty, it's sexual modesty, it's simplicity, it promotes beauty and love instead of lusting and envy for the flesh. And yes, femininity and womanhood is deeply associated with dresses, that's the way it's meant to be in Christian societies, women have to dress modestly not to arouse and tempt men and yet, they have to look attractive and beautiful in the same time to make them good-looking and to allow love (opposed to lust and fornication) and thus to allow pure marriage and strong families.

Now, thanks to (((feminism))), women started to dress pants like men which is a disgrace and then, they wear clothes that are really sticky to the skin and they also wear as little clothes as literal whores. They are turning themselves into sex daemons and corrupting and undermining the Social Order and Moral Order of Society, ultra-sexualizing society, turning society from Love,Faith and Spirituality to Lust/fornication, atheism and materialism/carnal materialism and thus leading to cultural suicide and demographic suicide, since it completely obliterate the foundation of society, namely pure and strong marriages.

>>795537

>If a man can say he is biologically hard wired noticing, then a women could say she is biologically hardwired to want to be noticed.

This is a christian board,we are taught that men and women aren't born inherently good by nature but that we have a (very) bad side, our fallen side because of the original sin. But yet, we are taught that we have that not only we can but we have an obligation to control our passions, to control our urges and impulses with the use of Logos (reason), which will control the Ethos (the Will) which will control the Pathos (Emotions, passions). We are rational creatures, we can control our passions and we will never be tempt beyond what we can manage so we have no rational excuses to sin.

Men are visual and Women are beautiful, that's the why it's supposed to be. The reason we are civilized and christian is because we submit ourselves to the diktates of the Moral Law, which will guaranty the Social Order. If a woman can't help herself not to dress as a literal whore and to parade her boobs and ass like a savage monkey, then men also can't help themselves to take women by force and rape them violently, since we are "biologically hard wired" for it. If you want to free yourself from the Moral Law, then you just ask for society to go back to the primitive animalistic ways, just like savage tribes in South America. The fact we have civilization is because we have rules and often times, the very first step to society and civilization are dresses for women. I also think that men ought to wear decent clothes that don't overexpose muscles but it's a lesser problem, women are way less visual than men.

So men have a biological weakness toward rape and rough sex and also to be violent and kill and women have a biological weakness to dress and parade like literal whores, yet the bible and the Christian tradition is clear that we have to use reason to deal around that, to deal around the original sin and so that we have to submit our will to reason, to Logos. And that's why we have civilization, that's why we have spirituality, that's why we have LOVE (instead of Lust and Fornication) that's why we have Faith. And by letting women dress as little as whores, and by promoting non-feminine clothes and roles, you are destroying and corrupting all of the founding of society, it's a direct assault on the foundation of Society and that's intolerable, we ought not let individuals undermine and corrupt the Social Order because of "Americanism", "Liberalism" and "Freedom", those are all protestant heresies which will allow Satan and Jews to use them as vector to spread darkness and corruption at an epidemic rate, without any levers to defend against it.


9a34e9  No.795545

File: bc9843810992da3⋯.png (2.23 MB, 1501x1911, 1501:1911, 1542846555640.png)

>>795537

>>795537

>How was it incorrect to point out the obvious connection between OP's /pol/ tendencies and the spirit of the post he made, and the spirit of many of the posts made in this thread?

Often times, /pol/ and /christian/ have similar ideas, except on race obviously, so the muh /pol/ bogeyman doesn't work here, and if you read the title and the thread on /pol/, you would realize that it is very christian by nature, since sexual purity is the a duty of the most importance to Christians.


9a34e9  No.795551

>>795549

>hardcore anti-government

If by "anti-governement", you mean "don't tread on me", "let me do what I want as long as I don't infringe on your freedom", then you have been infected with the libertarian ideology which will every society to suicide, that be cultural or demographic.


a2f2f5  No.795553

>>795537

>If a man can say he is biologically hard wired noticing, then a women could say she is biologically hardwired to want to be noticed

That doesn't make sense; both sexes are "hardwired" to lust. Try getting ripped (if you aren't already) and walking around in public with nothing but shorts on. Women will be stealing glances at you left and right, because they are hardwired in the same way as men… not that you should dress that way in public mind you, as that would be immodest.


9a34e9  No.795555

>>795553

>Women will be stealing glances at you left and right, because they are hardwired in the same way as men…

They also are "hardwired" to lust on the flesh on men, but on a different manner. Men are way more visual than women and men tend to love parts of the body of women. Women tend to love the whole person instead of specific body parts. We are different. But still, I agree that men should also wear decent clothes, there are too much immodest men nowadays too, wearing tight shirt to show muscles and small t-Shirt unnecessarily exposing muscles but it's a lot more destructive when women do it.


eeca48  No.795556

>>795420

>come on guys….if you're not objectifying women you are objectifying them anyway.

weak shill.

You realize that mere sinning in thoughts with her is a sin of lust right? Therefore every girl in yoga pants facilitates the sin for every guy she passes by

>they can resist

sure. But offering the sin so easily, even dressing for this purpose to stir the lust in men is not modest, it is not nice, it is even sinful in essence.

>who cares?

Who cares right?

Who cares that our societies are over sexualized, with guys drooling all the time over clad dressed women

Who cares that even very young girls dress this way

Who cares that our civilization sinks into the abyss in the midst of sterile hookup culture

Who cares?

>Who cares


eeca48  No.795559

>>795537

>How was it incorrect to point out the obvious connection between OP's /pol/ tendencies and the spirit of the post he made, and the spirit of many of the posts made in this thread?

It's ok/ I do not mind /pol/. It is a pol thread and it is not a bad thing necessarily.

But i realize you're probably that "muh pol" anon from christian pol thread - judging by the use of red text/greentext flood.

>>795454

> I can't say they were entirely wrong.

Sure goys…just let's not be modest, do not require it from women. You do not want to fetishize it right? Right?


eeca48  No.795560

File: 6c7eb3d384cee10⋯.jpeg (158.86 KB, 600x901, 600:901, bq-5c5ee7fc11bb1.jpeg)

>>795447

>I think you have a motivation in stamping out "degeneracy" or "feminist propaganda" and "preserving our society" and other memes that you attempt to bolster by saying a Christian ought to hold the same interest.

Christian should strive to correct his brothers who strayed away from God. So promoting degeneracy makes you a bad Christian by default.

> "Society", the appearance of a "better time" or what else?

How about fixing the society so people do not get to hell and so our children do not live in a hellhole? That you consider to be un-christian? ok.

>If you are gaining some sort of erotic enjoyment out of women wearing dresses, then it is no different lust than getting some sort of erotic enjoyment out of women wearing yoga pants or whatever.

That's right goy…there is nothing in between. However the woman dresses you may be "turned on" so give up on modesty, do not want women to dress modestly there is no point.

>muh POOOOL

no comment

>This board has been dead, at least in quality,

Nope.

> anyone cares enough to shill here

There are shills. You probably are not one, you're just misguided protestant or something of the sort.

>I would like this board to improve

By posting "nazi drag queen" and "muh paganism memes" in /pol/ thread?

By whinning muh pol?

Seriously doubt that.

>If a man can say he is biologically hard wired noticing, then a women could say she is biologically hardwired to want to be noticed.

The point is that they handle they lust so the society does not turn into animalistic lustful state.

Just so you know…we are allowed to enjoy beauty of women. If they are dressed modestly like pic related you can do it without having sexual thoughts. You cannot do that if she wears yoga pants. But do not worry I do not expect any serious argument from you other than twisting words, implying bs etc. I think I have debated with you several times and each time it led nowhere.

>>795544

>Is this some kind of sick joke ? What kind of Christian are you ?

I believe you are talking with the guy from pol thread. Do not expect any honest argument or reasoning.

>And yes, femininity and womanhood is deeply associated with dresses, that's the way it's meant to be in Christian societies, women have to dress modestly not to arouse and tempt men and yet, they have to look attractive and beautiful in the same time to make them good-looking and to allow love (opposed to lust and fornication) and thus to allow pure marriage and strong families.

Now, thanks to (((feminism))), women started to dress pants like men which is a disgrace and then, they wear clothes that are really sticky to the skin and they also wear as little clothes as literal whores. They are turning themselves into sex daemons and corrupting and undermining the Social Order and Moral Order of Society, ultra-sexualizing society, turning society from Love,Faith and Spirituality to Lust/fornication, atheism and materialism/carnal materialism and thus leading to cultural suicide and demographic suicide, since it completely obliterate the foundation of society, namely pure and strong marriages.

Exactly


eeca48  No.795563

File: 8114efaf8e169ca⋯.jpeg (143.84 KB, 600x600, 1:1, bq-5c979bbf80eca.jpeg)

File: 0bb14fc7753dd65⋯.jpeg (326.81 KB, 662x999, 662:999, bq-5c6c28a2b34f5.jpeg)

File: 61f2d95f2e5751e⋯.png (792.29 KB, 640x800, 4:5, 31947415_1626289187467180_….png)

File: 9665593465323a2⋯.jpeg (87.53 KB, 500x750, 2:3, bq-5c65941b50ec5.jpeg)

File: 624cac7e801c61e⋯.jpeg (264.79 KB, 750x1000, 3:4, bq-5c8670e156e39.jpeg)

Posting few pics. Notice the dresses. It is nothing like "modern clothing". It is modest yet it shows off the female beauty. You are able to enjoy the beauty created by God without having the lustful thoughts. I seriously doubt you can do that if the girl wears yoga pants or she's barely dressed. I do not know how about you but seeing this I do not get sinful thoughts. All I see is nicely dressed beautiful woman who shows her beauty but not to the detriment of others and to her own detriment.

Think about it for a second.


eeca48  No.795564

>>795442

Nice shilling. Women should obey their husbands that is christianity. Get over it


3d3acc  No.795568

>>795447

This board would improve with a new board owner who could be bothered to judge anions here equally.

And bring back flags.


488a7f  No.795569

>>795420

>objectifying is wrong

No it isnt prove me wrong.


64c520  No.795570

>>795544

>So you want to tell me that all of these things aren't for the sake of the Good, that sexual purity and sexual modesty isn't the Good?

They are good, but the question is "Why do you want them?". If you want them for a bad reason, then you aren't wanting them for the sake of the Good(the Good is God by the way) but are at least in part motivated by a more base, less noble intention. For example, if a person was to want to prevent abortion, but only because it meant more white children in the world, we could not say he desired a good for the Good, but he desired a good for either a good or some other worldly reason(like "Whites make all good things. blacks/Asians/Hispanics/etc don't make anything good. We need more whites"). It is obvious to anyone that such a reason is not the Good. Your insistence on mentioning "jewish death cults, feminism, better marriages" etc betrays that you are caring primarily about the worldly benefits of such a practice, which is fine, but a Christian should, I think, care about them for the sake of it being the right thing whether or not there are any benefits at all. Perhaps I am overly harsh, but if I am it is only because I feel you are focusing on the wrong reasons and it will bring harm to you or another.

> Women wearing dresses that are good looking and that hide the form and curves of the body and drastically reduce the exposition of the flesh is obviously not lusting but the complete contrary

There are many people today who lust over them precisely because they are so contrary to the standard today. I am saying that if such a person is there, they are only exchanging one source of lust for another.

>>795560

>So promoting degeneracy makes you a bad Christian by default.

Doing it for the wrong reasons doesn't make you a good Christian either.

>By posting "nazi drag queen" and "muh paganism memes" in /pol/ thread?

I don't know what you are talking about.

> If they are dressed modestly like pic related you can do it without having sexual thoughts

Yeah of course. You can do the same with a woman wearing yoga pants. You can get inflamed with passion at a woman wearing yoga pants, just as you can when she is wearing your pic. Is what we wear a problem for us? I won't dispute that. Is the solution to return to dresses? Maybe, I don't intend to argue on that at least. Can a person be inflamed with lust when a woman is wearing a dress? Yes. Can a person be inflamed with lust because a woman is wearing a dress? Yes. I suspect many people who advocate for it do so out of some degree of lust. I want to make clear that is bad since many anons here are not capable of making such a distinction or may be misleading themselves thinking they have no impure motive when the contrary is or could be the case.


488a7f  No.795571

>>795440

>They don't need to dress modestly to please men.

but they should

Women should be attractive to men. The whole problem is that women are trying to pkease their own thirst for status instead of pleasing actual decent men.

Women shpuld never ever be independent from men, they belong together.

>>795447

Shill. Men can like women in ways thatbare not erotic. In fact dressing modestly, is very helpful for this purpose.


64c520  No.795572

>>795570

Just to make it more clear where I am coming from with base and less noble reasoning example, look at replies to

>>795337

This thread demonstrates what I believe to be a fundamentally uncharitable, and unchristian, view of the world by anons.

>>795341

>>795488 (I don't want to believe this is a genuine post though)


488a7f  No.795573

>>795537

Pol has a superior spirit compared to lukewarm judaizers like you.

>>795570

>Doing it for the wrong reasons doesn't make you a good Christian either.

>If you cant do the right thing in a perfect manner you shouldnt even make the effort

jew confirmed


b578fd  No.795578

>>795573

This is so true, it hurts. You come on /christian/ and you get a bunch of soft boys telling you you're not a "real christian" because you aren't a literal cuck, or they call you a piece of shit for your sins because they are all holy and pure saints who never sin. Then you go to /pol/ and they at least mean well. They want to change things for the better, they want some kind of unity. A lot of them are winnie the poohed up losers, so they get each other and they have a kindred spirit. But /christian/is just filled with self-righteous normies who like to circle jerk about how holy they are. I seriously don't get how there are so many normies here. I feel like this board must get linked a lot on r/christianity or something. I feel almost no brotherhood towards people on this board, but I feel right at home on /fit/ and /pol/ and /r9k/, even though I haven't browsed the latter two in a long time. I only come here because there's no porn


eeca48  No.795596

>>795570

This is exactly what I wrote about. You twist words then claim the moral highground. Those who want chastity should all think deeply about "muh reasons". Look man…most men who want this have the right reasons…to return the society to morality. That itself is good. Here we have that "we want more whites" is a bad reason. I will argue that me wanting more of my people in my nation is not a bad thing because this country(and Europe) belongs to europeans, not to migrants. There's nothing wrong with that. And no…I do not judge things based on "muh superiority". Other peoples have the right to do the same. in THEIR own countries.

>Your insistence on mentioning "jewish death cults, feminism, better marriages" etc betrays that you are caring primarily about the worldly benefits of such a practice,

You realize that we are responsible for the "wordly things" and will be judged accordingly right?

>Yeah of course. You can do the same with a woman wearing yoga pants. You can get inflamed with passion at a woman wearing yoga pants, just as you can when she is wearing your pic.

Sure man. You may be inflamed by a nun dressed from head to toe. As you can be left with peace if you take a peek on porn. But the point is that the less clothes, the more the chance of you sinning.

>Yes. I suspect many people who advocate for it do so out of some degree of lust.

What makes you believe that?

>>795573

I will make this clear: I will pick /pol/ over centrist pseudointellectuals like you anytime. At least they have some standards…well some of them. Your shilling in this thread can be summed up: Hey guys guys, think again before shaming sluts and yoga pants, it is just your fault you have lustful thoughts when the woman is poorly dressed. I mean it is of course bad by fellow christians but please think again about the "reasons" because "muh nation" is a bad reason. Also morality is a bad reason because as I have said the problem is solely on your side and holding women up to some standards would not be nice. It would not be good because I do not consider your reasons to be good. Also I get the feeling that you advocate for modesty because you get kick out of this (????????) and therefore muh lust. As >>795573 said. This is a very jewish way of arguing. Constant preaching from above, making morals relative, rather shaming those who want to return to morals while claiming to be "objective".

I will pick /pol/ even retards who are there before lukewarm any time. Any.

>>795578

This is so true. It got better recently but man the sanctimoniousness of some normies here. /pol/ is bad because they want to change things, "real christians" should never do anything because "insert a stupid reason here". Political threads are full of shill saintposting. muh pol this muh pol that. Meanwhile the purity thread is full of opposite direction if you know where I aim. This is 8ch I do not understand that so many blue pilled anons are here.


64c520  No.795655

>>795596

> I will argue that me wanting more of my people in my nation is not a bad thing because this country(and Europe) belongs to europeans, not to migrants. There's nothing wrong with that.

My concern here is that Christianity is being used a front for a largely secular concern, or is being used for a secular way of thinking. That is, the reason women should dress modestly is not because it makes marriages more stable, though it may, and not because it is better for the nation, though it may be, but because it is aligned to the proper way of living. When you say something should be done because it results in this given benefits, you are giving more priority to the consequence of an action than the content of the action itself, and in this case we could say it exchanges the cause(being good) with the effect(some good things happen) and I don't believe that is a proper thing to do.

>But the point is that the less clothes, the more the chance of you sinning.

And I made clear there is a justifiable reason for demanding modesty, because it is carrying another's burden. I don't view "because it makes marriages more stable" as a proper reason, but it is a nice consequence if it be true.

> Constant preaching from above, making morals relative, rather shaming those who want to return to morals while claiming to be "objective".

I don't believe I have done any of these. I have only expressed the idea that reasons and intentions matter and can't be discarded in place of merely pragmatic concerns.

>>795573

<If you cant do the right thing in a perfect manner you shouldnt even make the effort

Definitely not what I said.


64c520  No.795656

>>795655

I forgot to include

My other concern was that a person is advocating for women dressing modestly because he finds it attractive in the same way a person may advocate women to wear yoga pants because he finds them attractive. That is certainly a danger that can exist(as you admit) and I only wanted to point it out so that it can be recognized that is not a good way of thinking.


eeca48  No.795664

>>795656

>My other concern was that a person is advocating for women dressing modestly because he finds it attractive in the same way a person may advocate women to wear yoga pants because he finds them attractive.

Prove it. I seriously doubt people get more turned on by modest dress than yoga pants. And your "concern" actually just looks like preaching from above the jewish style.

>>795655

>My concern here is that Christianity is being used a front for a largely secular concern

Again you twist what has been said and you are the only one expressing the "merely secular concern". You are the one pushing that those who mind sexualized clothing are secretly turned on by modest clothing, thus just pushing their form of degeneracy.

You sure do sound like a concern troll that intends to derail the thread. Look I am going to be harsh: You probably are not as smart/virtuous as you think you are and you try to project your own insecurities here - objectifying women. What has been said is in no way secular - straightening people so they do not get to hell is in no way secular. The secular way is to claim that yoga pants are ok because its all in your head.

After reading through 8 posts of yours I agree with >>795573 that you probably are a jew. Debating style fits, subversion fits, preaching from above fits. You either are one or you follow their line of thinking very, very closely. Thanks for provving that even on christian there will be sshills to contradict modesty thread.

Have a nice day anon.


fd97bf  No.795698

>>795664

I know you know this but let it be said for that Jewish shill. Women who dress modestly are attractive to men not because the modest clothing makes them more sexually attractive, but that it suggests to the man that the woman is a virgin. Men (barring monastics) fundamentally want one virgin wife no matter what the Freudians or degenerates say. It’s what I want and what most men I know want in their heart of hearts.

The implication that modest clothing is some kind of sexual fetish is just nonsense. It’s just Freudianism where everything wholesome has to be interpreted as a sexual fetish. Modest clothing is a suggestion of the woman’s character and her fidelity.


fd97bf  No.795700

>>795655

This here is why Normie “Christianity” is toxic because it intellectualises what should be common sense to avoid being against the current year. Just look at any icon of Mary or any other female saint and she is veiled. This stuff is obvious, unless you’re going to make the semi-heretical argument that Christian women shouldn’t be emulating Mary.

The modernists reveal their heresy in their own arguments. They attack others as “incels” the sane cheap shot that feminists use. The amount of mental gymnastics done to appease the yoga pants wearing female fornicator is ridiculous.


b0f2b2  No.795726

The kind of B.S. I've seen in this thread is why nothing gets done. I remember college. Every time I closed my eyes, I had to push away the, literally, dozens of perfectly formed butts perfectly outlined in spandex I had seen that day alone, because 30% of the women on that campus wore skin tight clothing every day of the year (and I'd bet 90% wore it on occasion), and most of them were at the peak of their physical attractiveness. Christian men on that campus would, in meetings with each other, discuss ways of keeping lustful thoughts from our heads, because a simple walk across campus could potentially provide weeks worth of material in what degenerates call the 'spank bank.' It was so bad that I made a point of telling girls I knew rather well and who dressed modestly how much I appreciated it and was sure to compliment how much their clothing made them look good without provoking lust.

Any time a local pastor tried to take a stand against the degeneracy (most of these women went to church), the backlash was swift and horrible.

>Can't you men just stop lusting? We're not responsible for your sin!

Or the even popular:

>Wearing a nice, three piece suit has the same effect on us, so stop shaming us.

Women are physically incapable of understanding the effect a scantily clad woman has on a man, and this lack of sympathy or even simple obeying of the commandment against putting stumbling blocks in the way of your brothers is making things worse.

And now, we have Christian brothers, who should know better, making excuses for them because 'muh fetish.' The fact that some men fetishize women in certain types of clothes is the worst excuse I have ever seen for shutting down discussion of female modesty. Men naturally know that women are self-conscious about their appearance, so they talk about how good women can look in modest clothing to let them know that they don't have to dress like a thot to be attractive, and whenever they do, some contrarian/shill/male feminist has to show up and claim that this show of support is just proof that there is literally NOTHING WOMEN CAN DO TO HELP MEN WITH THEIR LUST! Take your defeatist self to the nearest church and ask God why you are so invested in shutting down anybody who advocates trying to make things better. All you're doing is shooting the message because you don't think the messenger is genuine enough.


6fdb18  No.795749

>>795578

>Then you go to /pol/ and they at least mean well. They want to change things for the better, they want some kind of unity.

I'm not anyone that's posted here but you can't unify around anything but the truth, and that's the thing sorely missing there. Verbally wanting to do something and effectually doing it are two separate things.

Now secondly a lot of the other problem you're talking about with condescending is due to the current staff.

>>795726

A bit of self control goes a long way, and yes I do know generally what you're talking about. It's just a question of not liking harlots and being surrounded by them. But I know that in the end of the day God will be on the right side.

That's why nothing of the sort even bothers me now.


fd97bf  No.795804

>>795726

Brilliant article here on the tradition of head coverings for women in Orthodoxy. This is 2000 years old tradition, not some sexual fetish as someone previously suggested.

http://www.stluketheblessed.com/womens-headcoverings/

Virtually every single female icon is veiled.

Yoga pants are obscene.


eeca48  No.795830

>>795698

>I know you know this but let it be said for that Jewish shill.

I think so too the freudian spirit is just palpable.

>>795726

>Take your defeatist self to the nearest church and ask God why you are so invested in shutting down anybody who advocates trying to make things better. All you're doing is shooting the message because you don't think the messenger is genuine enough.

THIS.

>>795749

> you can't unify around anything but the truth, and that's the thing sorely missing there.

Truth is there but it is among rubbish. I am not saying one should become a mere /pol/ack. I am just saying I will pick /pol/acks who seek truth even though misguided, over lukewarm christians who just countersignal /pol/ because "muh pol" and then saintpost.


eeca48  No.795831

This thread is a proof that once a thread gets derailed it's all over. This could have been a good thread so I will create another one for this topic.


160002  No.795858

>>795831

Go to reddit if you want people to stay on topic, normie


eeca48  No.795932

>>795858

>not wanting shills in every thread means you're a "normie"

ok


d05c9d  No.797671

>>795436

>not wanting women to dress like harlots is a fetish

The absolute state of /christian/




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / doomer / egy / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]