/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>1099

Perhaps I should have titled the thread

Is God Worth Waiting For[ever, til death]?

>>1099

>Why is Jesus a failure at changing women?

He isn't.

All have sinned and fell short of God's glory. Blame society, parents, the education system, women's conformity. Jesus can only work with those who allow Him to help.

Maybe the women in your sample aren't born again

>>1101

None of them are ever different, though.

Like, the ones who are supposedly the holy ones are just like Nancy Pelosi or something. Like they're just preppy bitchy bitches, and their mate value calculation is no different. They value not the least Christian dimensions.

I do mean all of them, I'm not off here, there is no one.

>>1102

But, like, they're not going to even talk to me LOL.

>>1103

For better or worse I've seen the gamut.

~

I guess the good news is that I'm right. Religion, though it changes men, it cannot change women, therefore:

Religion is really just a service to women, or perhaps to society, or some grand scheme.

But it is not something which serves men, this is plain enough!

>>1112

>Religion is really just a service to women, or perhaps to society, or some grand scheme.

totally naturalist view of Christianity

The Bible says that anyone in Christ is a new creation

>>1113

You have an exceptional point. Therefore, there are no Christian women.

>>1114

because you've never met any?

Christian women do seem to turn sort of kind of nice when they get old. But they always hold their old mate-value equation arrogance, and that status relative to the rest.

THERE NEVER IS AN APPRECIATION OF THE WORTH OF A PERSON ON A CHRISTIAN/MORAL CALCULATION

>>1116

This isn' t your blog man

>>1117

You're not a Christian.

>>1118

Why?

>>1120

You're rude.

>>1123

lol

>>1125

Yes, I know. Christians don't believe in the Bible. But if the Bible is true, it's to hell with you.

>>1126

Aren't you the one who just said that religion was merely a social good and that women couldn't be saved?

>>1127

I never said it was a social good.

And, as far as "saving" women, who knows? I'm merely pointing out that they aren't - INSOFAR AS LOVE/DATING IS CONCERNED - an iota changed. That's not to say they aren't changed at all, obviously.

I'm just fascinated by this. There exist no Christian women. Insofar as that area is concerned, obviously.

I accept and understand that, eg., Christian women are way less likely to have abortions, affairs, that kind of thing. But when it comes to that narrow and open window, that area of choosing a mate, there is no God in a woman.

Any of them, actually.

And, it seems to me, that this constitutes a systemic failure of religion, for all ordinary men. For men interested in becoming a monk or something, I guess it's fine enough, I suppose.

We could also observe that women have no patience for the study of the Bible, or for what the Bible has to say. And I find this quite interesting, because, of course, there do exist men who care, though they aren't especially typical either, but the women simply don't exist.

In other words, Christianity, in the sense of the Bible, and what it has to say, this sort of thing, it is no different from any of the myriad of male preoccupations, and women exist entirely outside of the remotest concept of discipline.

And, if you don't believe me, consider this: Women don't come here. If they do, you can be assured they're not looking for a husband.

>>1112

Ah so you're just a contrarian. Not wasting anymore time on you thanks :)

>>1099

>Men are supposed to be higher in the social hierarchy than women, keeping them in check

>This is seen throughout history in almost every single place in the world

>Society turns secular

>Women now on top or equal with men

>Now women are openly whores and take pride in premarital sex and materialism

>Why did Jesus do this

A married man is the head of his wife as Christ is head of the Church, what makes you think that this is not mirrored in anyway within society as a whole?

>>1133

>Ah so you're just a contrarian. Not wasting anymore time on you thanks :)

Well, you're not a Christian.

>>1134

That makes a bit of sense. The woman becomes the property of Satan, as she makes her mate selection, Satanically, and then perhaps her husband imposes Christianity on her, but in that window, where she is given freedom, she is incapable of Christianity.

It's interesting to me how it is:

1. Women select men who are "bad boys", dragging them to church ("missionary dating")

2. Because of that, there's a shortage of Christian women

3. And so at least some men must look outside of Christianity for their wives

4. But since women cannot be compelled to consider the religion of their men, the men must simply tolerate whatever religious feelings the woman has

5. Church shrinks

>>1137

>Well, you're not a Christian.

Says the literal jew.

>>1112

>But, like, they're not going to even talk to me LOL

that's because you're supposed to approach them, dummy

>>1140

As the Bride of Christ you are expected to do most of the footwork in your relationship with Christ, your groom.

Think about it.

>>1139

Can you attempt actually following along?

>>1174

Ok but we're talking about literal romantic relationships

>>1139

>follow me into my hopeless misery and believe that the world is as shit as my shit coloured glasses make it out to be

no thanks

>>1176

Jesus had a standard, and you believe that Satan sets the pace for romance?

>>1181

what?

Are you saying the principle that men pursue women is satanic?

>>1182

According to the Bible, it's against the principles of Christianity. But who needs the Bible?

>>1191

How is it against the Bible?

>>1192

see

>>1174

And of course, do not be unequally yoked.

Satanist women expect the guy to do the chasing.

>>1193

See

>>1176

The symbolism of church being bride of Christ is totally unrelated to how a man romantically approaches a woman

>>1197

Not really.

Christ wooed the Church (Matthew 4:19)

Christ spoke kind words to the Church (Matthew 5-7)

Christ took the Church out to dinner (Matthew 26:17-30)

Christ most definitely dated the Church like a man should date a woman.

>>1192

>>1197

And let us add these two verses. The first one is famous:

John 3:16

> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This, you will notice, has the Son given, but it's your job to do all the work. You believe, you chase him, as the bride of Christ.

And this is how Christian women are - if you can find one. But the devil owns women, at an over 99.99% level.

Second selected verse:

Genesis 3:16

A much less well-known 3:16

> To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Now, this verse is very amusing, because some translations choose to modify what the woman will do:

VARIATIONS

(((VARIATIONS)))

[These make the subsequent phrase redundant. A doubtful practice - who needs to fluff? God?]

"Brenton Septuagint": thy submission shall be to thy husband

Douay-Rheims: thou shalt be under thy husband's power

Probably Written by a married man:

NET: You will want to control your husband

NLT: you will desire to control your husband

Probably Written by an unmarried man:

ISV: since your trust is turning toward your husband

Probably Written by a divorced man:

ESV: Your desire shall be contrary to your husband

NIV (used above)

FOR your husband

(((NIV))): Your desire will be for your husband

Berean: Your desire will be for your husband

NASB: Yet your desire will be for your husband

CSB: Your desire will be for your husband

GMT: you will still have desire for your husband

HCSB: Your desire will be for your husband

NHEB: Your desire will be for your husband

"GOD'S WORD": you will long for your husband

NAS '77: Yet your desire shall be for your husband

WEB: Your desire will be for your husband

KJV

TO your husband

KJV: and thy desire shall be to thy husband

"Jubilee Bible 2000": thy desire shall be to thy husband

"King James 2000": and your desire shall be to your husband

AKJV: your desire shall be to your husband

ASV: thy desire shall be to thy husband

Webster's: thy desire shall be to thy husband

ESV: thy desire shall be to thy husband

Darby

[her desire IS her husband - poetic/mystical]

Darby: and to thy husband shall be thy desire

JPS Tanakh '17: thy desire shall be to thy husband

Unremarkable variation

CEV: But you will still desire your husband

Also, there are versions I didn't check. I just used Bible Hub.

Bottom line: the consensus is that the woman who is obeying God (and not Satanic - only 2 choices, Satanic and Godly) chases her man. The man doesn't chase. In fact, just like Jesus, he doesn't say much.

Truth is, there are no Christian women. Face facts, my niggers.

>>1099

Jesus has never failed.

Also id say charisma/money/looks.

Long term money/charisma/looks

>>1226

Charisma, though, that's not "poor in spirit". But I quite agree. Jesus definitely failed to acquire any women in this age! Perhaps this is the greatest evidence ever that this is the end times.

>>1236

"He dug up some stats on “Love Is Blind Day” — a promotion for OKCupid’s short-lived blind-dating app — when photos were completely removed from the site. It turns out users had longer, more involved online conversations — until photos were restored and people saw whom they were talking with, leading Rudder to conclude that “people are exactly as shallow as their technology allows them to be.” He also looked back at when OKCupid let people rate each other on looks and personality separately (today, it’s an overall rating) and found that words only affected someone's ratings by 10 percent. Users with sexy photos and no text on their profiles got high personality ratings, showing that, online, your pictures are the only thing that matters."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/okcupid-experiments-users-discovers-everyone-shallow-n166761

>>1239

>>1236

These two charts are consistent in women who attend churches, to my oberservation, regardless of the type (and other religious have the same tendency).

The devil has all the women. So, if a woman likes you, you should examine your life. You are probably rude, arrogant, and going to hell.

>>1239

What is wrong with this

Prosperity and security are desirable traits for a man

>>1235

DON'T BLASPHEME JESUS

>>1242

Don't lie about it. You know there are no Christian women. Or, if we were to speak of them existing, nowhere near enough, not even 1 Christian woman in 100,000 Christian men, and I'm not talking "Sunday Morning Christian" men here.

>>1241

What this chart:

>>1239

Is showing is this rule:

< "My man must make greater-than or equal to me."

This means it would be preferable for women to be destitute, if we are to have a society that reproduces, anyhow. Tucker Carlson has discussed this.

From a Christian perspective, we would find this sad, because Jesus said, "Woe to the rich" - so as Christians we would see a great deal to be avoided on the far rich side.

Now, you say to me, "what does it matter, that worldly concerns, the principles of hell, dominate, indeed erase all sign of Christ in all women, Christian or not?" And I think, "do you believe in evidence of belief… at all?"

Then we must ask this question: "What is Christianity, that it has no women?" Or not? Continue the farce? How?! How, now that you know?

>>1245

>Now, you say to me, "what does it matter, that worldly concerns, the principles of hell, dominate, indeed erase all sign of Christ in all women, Christian or not?"

No, I said

>Prosperity and security are desirable traits for a man

Go mgtow somewhere else dude

>>1246

Not according to Jesus, here's what Jesus said:

"Woe to the rich."

But you're expressing to me a pantheistic concept of our existence, sexuality, and love, they are the property of hell, and his standards. And what remains for God? To band-aid it all up, and repeat the cycle forever.

>>1260

You're not as profound as you think you are

>>1263

You're not a Christian, and I think that it might surprise you that I can be certain of this, and, I think, you will never know how. Yet, on that statement alone I can be assured your destination is hellfire, and that the Bible itself condemns you.

>>1285

What you just said proves you yourself are lacking man, perhaps you should come down from your prelest. I hope you get better.

>>1286

That's not an argument, man. That's just a fallacy - ad hominem.

You say, "what you just said proves you are yourself lacking".

But that wasn't present in the least in what I said. In fact, precisely absent from everything I said was information about myself, and only an observation which arose out of two things:

1. Knowledge of the Bible

2. Knowledge of your statement, this one:

>>1263

And now you have told me a third thing:

3. You have no interest in the Bible, what it says, what it means, what Jesus said, or what he meant.

That's not surprising. Doesn't everyone use religion to merely affirm what they already want to do?

>>1293

bait

>>1294

An accusation of no substance.

>>1099

>Why is Jesus a failure at changing women?

Jesus isn't a failure, Jesus is God. OP, (you) are the failure. Instead of kevetching on the Internet and blaming God for your iniquity, improve yourself and make yourself worthy of a wife.

Seriously, OP, get off the internet and learn something about the real world.

>>1303

So uh. Insults. Well, it's true that Jesus failed to convert the jews, for example. This idea that Jesus never failed is quite silly. "Many are called, few are chosen". Or the Parable of the Sower. The Sower fails, most of the time.

But isn't it interesting Jesus fails to generate in young women Christianity. Yes, I do see women, as they age, finding, to some extent, Christianity. Though they hold within them, even to the end, to their 80's, a certain knowledge-arrogance they bear, knowing themselves up-caste in accords with their own worldly-satanic principle.

That is their foundation, and unto the end. They are Satan's property, every woman of the church, at least in her prime years, and this is proved solidly, not merely by surveys or studies, but by big data, the whole, all of them have been measured, all of them are living excrement.

And that was the topic I wished to discuss, this failure of Christianity (and all other religions) to have any effect on women in their prime, insofar as their mating decisions are concerned.

So, I watch, and I examine, and I measure, and thereby I know. Yet I am told not to believe my lying eyes, and to shut up, and to worship the whores of hell, women, while I see them in direct opposition to moral principle.

Ain't gonna happen, hell's slaves, who are underneath hell's handmaidens, indeed all women, including the eligible ladies of the churches and other religions, all under hell's comman.

>>1285

cringefest

>>1330

Yes, but did you not know that if you are rude you go to hell? And you are being rude. But I don't think many people are real Christians, because most who claim to be Christians are very rude, and are therefore very much going to hell, but what does the Bible know about Christianity?!

>>1335

>if you are rude you go to hell

Mom theology

Prove it from the Bible

>>1337

You aren't interested in changing, and I'm more interested in you going to hell, so, our interests are perfectly aligned with your continued ignorance.

>>1341

>I want you to go to hell

Ironically you've proven yourself unaligned with God, a fruit that would indicate YOU do not have the spirit

Just get over yourself

>>1344

"Get behind me, Satan."

The one who said this was Jesus Christ, whom you do not know.

shoo shoo incel

>>1102

How tacky would it be to hang this on my wall?

>>1865

I'm a girl and i think this is tacky

>>1866

>girl (male)

That settles it then