How do Protestants cope with the societies they have created?

[Syaoran Li]

The ones who push it online are arrogant and dumb as fuck. I mean I can understand if you know nothing about the negative aspects of Catholicism's history if like grew up sheltered in the Philippines Catholic school system or something, but these idiots are American and are so deluded they think the Reformation was actually a bad thing. Not to mention their criticisms of "fundies" are the exact ones copy and pasted from Gen X liberals but with the massive cognitive dissonance from the fact they advocate for even dumber ideological politics masquerading as right wing.

Problem is that Gen X liberals were mostly right about the fundies and a lot of their criticisms were valid. Take it from someone who grew up in the buckle of the Bible Belt. And unlike a lot of the kids in my hometown, my parents were not fundies, so the "Fuck you, Mom and Dad!" angle doesn't even apply to me like it does for people like Lindsay Ellis.

Yeah, the fedora-tippers and wokesters took things way too far but the fundies and paleocons made it so damn easy for them to go off the deep end (and for the neocons to also play the fundies like a damn fiddle from the 1980's until the mid-2000's)

 

[Mothra1988]

Problem is that Gen X liberals were mostly right about the fundies and their criticisms were mostly valid. Take it from someone who grew up in the buckle of the Bible Belt. And unlike a lot of the kids in my hometown, my parents were not fundies, so the "Fuck you, Mom and Dad!" angle doesn't even apply to me like it does for people like Lindsay Ellis.

Yeah, the fedora-tippers and wokesters took things way too far but the fundies and paleocons made it so damn easy for them to go off the deep end (and for the neocons to also play the fundies like a damn fiddle from the 1980's until the mid-2000's)

I disagree. Like most things, it's a mixed bag, good and bad, and the media exaggerated the fuck out of certain aspects of it. The thing that was bad perhaps was the political inclination towards censorship, politicizing other people having a fun time and being repressive for kids in the closet who had to put up with stupid parents or bullying. The censorship didn't work really like it does today in most aspects. It's not like you couldn't go out and buy heavy metal or D&D or whatever stupid cliche in any decent sized city. Those people made money off of the publicity. Today, you have publishers just changing the words of dead authors before anyone even fucking complains. It's by far worse.

I like the Bible Belt, at least the corn belt part of it, because it's safe as fuck, laid back and people are mostly friendly and good natured. A lot of the liberals that hate it the most did not live in it, they're from the coasts where they were brought up on propaganda that lead them to believe these people are monsters and every church is the Westboro Baptist Church when they are not. It's ridiculous and it's part of the reason why I hate New York and California so much, who think they are the center of the universe and every other state is a foreign country, and would openly say they like Europe more than your home state.

I'll always take the sleepy town with 10 churches over the urban crime and rat infested shithole that was run by godless Democrats for 50 years. It's not even a contest imo. You can be gay there and no one gives a shit as long as you don't act like a public nuisance like some of these zoomer asshats. The thing is some of these zoomers don't want to fit in. They get off on being attention whores and victims, which was never supposed to be the point.

Overall, while the government should be libertarian and absolutely not theocratic, I really have a bone to pick with people's whose criticism of the religious is they believe in their religion too much. That's part of the TradCath critique it seems, which is insane. The idea that religion is just this secular thing you don't believe in 100 percent beyond performing functionary rituals is part of coastal culture perhaps best represented by Catholic politicians. It's fake and I don't buy it. People like Nancy Pelosi are not real Christians imo, and this is mirroed in newer grifters like Nick Fuentes who is about as Christian as supposedly Catholic Hitler who wanted to replace the Bible with his shitty book. But to use that as a critique from the stand point you are correct about Chrsitianity and these other Christians that like Jesus just too much for you are bad is ridiculous. Maybe the fact your faith is weaker than the "evangelicals" who actually read the Bible is a criticsm against you, not the other way around.

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

I don't know why but there has been an increase of people identifying as a "TradCaths" online in the past few years. After 2018, I have seen a lot of Zoomers on Twitter and Tiktok identifying with Catholicism.

its literally a counter to atheism, as Scott Greer loves to mention, most people in the english speaking world if they're religious are protestant, but if you hate both protestantism and atheism where do you go? Catholicism is the third way, sotospeak.

plus there is apparently something neat about the rituals and religious mythology and the temples that the bland protestant churches don't have.

i'm sure confession and rosaries and religous smoke and transmogrification and confirmation and baptisms are probably really cool to learn about and/or do if you don't know about that stuff. but it gets pretty old if you grew up with it.

 

[Mothra1988]

its literally a counter to atheism, as Scott Greer loves to mention, most people in the english speaking world if they're religious are protestant, but if you hate both protestantism and atheism where do you go? Catholicism is the third way, sotospeak.

plus there is apparently something neat about the rituals and religious mythology and the temples that the bland protestant churches don't have.

i'm sure confession and rosaries and religous smoke and transmogrification and confirmation and baptisms are probably really cool to learn about and/or do if you don't know about that stuff. but it gets pretty old if you grew up with it.

You describe Catholic religious faith in the most shallow way possible. This is 4chan Catholicism to me. "Dude, aesthetics! Cool rituals! Statues! Shrines!" That's not what faith is, and I'm pretty sure that's not what Christianity was before the Romans put their stamp on it maybe apart from baptism (which Catholics do wrong anyways). It's ridiculous and these MemeTradCAths make normal Catholics, who are generally normies and not ridiculous internet zealot attention whores getting in online arguments, look stupid, but the movement is ridiculous on its face to me anyways. I guess there are dumber people out there like Mormons who can't be assed to do five minutes of research into their cult. lol

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

You describe Catholic religious faith in the most shallow way possible. This is 4chan Catholicism to me. "Dude, aesthetics! Cool rituals! Statues! Shrines!"

yeah, i was literally explaining why those 4chan types love Catholicism. obviously there is more to religion than the dress up part, but thats whats got the arthoes and fags hyping it up like its new yorks hottest club https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/opinion/nyc-catholicism-dimes-square-religion.html

Opinion | New York’s Hottest Club Is the Catholic Church - The New Yo…

archived 9 Aug 2022 10:44:01 UTC

archive.is

people need to get over the idea of anything meaning anything to these people, their politics and religion mean as much to them as what clique they were in in high school. its like how retarded you look trying to pull that daily show gotcha bullshit on libs, like yeah of course they can hate on police one day and beg for more police funding the next, because its not about the issue but how it makes them feel about the issue they really care about.

its why jews can be socialists or capitalists at the drop of a hat, its about what will make them better than about the actual dogma. these tradcaths like funetes or dimes square chicks treat the religion like its a new character class in an MMO. i'm sorry you think they care about their professed faith any more than they care about the horde or alliance in wow.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I like the Bible Belt, at least the corn belt part of it, because it's safe as fuck, laid back and people are mostly friendly and good natured.

See there's the thing, you're talking about the Midwestern part of the Bible Belt, which isn't that bad.

It's Appalachia and (to a slightly lesser extent) the upper South that's the part of the Bible Belt that has all of the drug-ridden near-Third World shitholes and quasi-theocratic decrepit towns straight out of MovieBob's worst nightmares.

The coalfields of Appalachia are among the most outright socially conservative parts of America yet also some of the most pro-gibs and pro-union folks to the point that Appalachia leaned Democrat prior to the late 2000's when Obama threw both the coal industry and the labor unions under the bus.

The Appalachian coalfields are also on par with the black Rust Belt in terms of drug addiction, generational poverty, domestic abuse, and teenage pregnancy.

Violence is lower than the cities in terms of raw numbers solely because the populations are low, people are more spread out but at the same time, everyone knows everyone due to the clannish Celtic culture of the region, so most people know they'll get caught if they chimp out too hard and leave themselves open to reprisals from both the law and the families of whoever wronged them.

The Midwestern Bible Belt/Corn Belt is alright and has a good core population stock while the Appalachian Bible Belt is a decrepit and impoverished hellhole.

 

[The Last Stand]

Why would we cope with creating the West?

Okay, first of all, the West wasn't created by one denomination, deity or culture. As society progressed, many ideas, technologies and ideologues were exchanged and fought to create the Western dynamic we know today.

Second of all, if religion influenced Western culture, explain the many countercultures that has transpired since Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

@

Geddy Lee's Fee and See​

What about them? All parts of Europe have contributions to modern civilization. Some have a hell of a lot more, and a lot more recently, than others. Did France and Austria create the Industrial Revolution? Did Austria have a meaningful contribution to political philosophy? The only one on that list that I'd describe as a real quality society was Belgium. So you're batting one against, again, Britain and Colonies, Scandinavia, MOSTLY PROTESTANT Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Against what? Fucking Italy, Spain, Croatia? LOL.


I'll even go a step further. Among Protestant countries, Calvinist ones were more advanced than Lutheran ones. Popery is basically Brain AIDS.

 

[Syaoran Li]

@

Geddy Lee's Fee and See​

What about them? All parts of Europe have contributions to modern civilization. Some have a hell of a lot more, and a lot more recently, than others. Did France and Austria create the Industrial Revolution? Did Austria have a meaningful contribution to political philosophy? The only one on that list that I'd describe as a real quality society was Belgium. So you're batting one again, again, Britain and Colonies, Scandinavia, MOSTLY PROTESTANT Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Against what? Fucking Italy, Spain, Croatia? LOL.


I'll even go a step further. Among Protestant countries, Calvinist ones were more advanced than Lutheran ones. Popery is basically Brain AIDS.

>unironically defending Calvinism and Puritanism

Top kek

We get it, you think that dinosaurs are a Satanic trick and that your mother's your sister. Thanks for giving fodder to all those euphoric fedora-tipper douchebags, Mr. Clampett.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

>unironically defending Calvinism and Puritanism

Top kek

We get it, you think that dinosaurs are a Satanic trick and that your mother's your sister. Thanks for giving fodder to all those euphoric fedora-tipper douchebags, Mr. Clampett.

Calvinism was the religion of New England, Scotland (poor but very productive at making philosophers/scientists), the Netherlands, and Switzerland, all top-tier cultures.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Calvinism was the religion of New England, Scotland (poor but very productive at making philosophers/scientists), the Netherlands, and Switzerland, all top-tier cultures.

Sir, this is an Arby's.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Sir, this is an Arby's.

That would be a very clever <cough> and original <cough cough> comeback if my post wasn't completely on-topic and neutral in tone.

He would probably say that the Enemy knows the Scriptures better than anyone, and if he bends and twists even the Word, which he cannot break, he is certain to corrupt any philosophy or theology, which he can break. And also that as no earthly kingdom is eternal, so no earthly institution is eternal, such as a denomination, which is mostly just a group of people dedicated to the same theology. Calvin would probably say he wasn't building Calvin's church, but rather the L-rd's. As for the secular society that Protestantism built, it's an earthly kingdom, subject to rot and deterioration like any other.

Just wanted to mention Orthodox Christianity never seems to arise in these discussions. Orthodoxy divorces Catholicism, and all Catholics ever mention is how Protestantism left them and wouldn't come back. Then trad-Caths praise Russian Orthodoxy for ridiculing and resisting globohomo.

For some reason Orthodox countries are bigger shitholes than Catholic countries, but I simply cannot see any justification at all for Catholicism when Orthodoxy exists. Same shit (awe-based key-jangling for people who need elaborate temples/shows) but without the disgusting moral failures of the Papacy.

 

[Mothra1988]

For some reason Orthodox countries are bigger shitholes than Catholic countries, but I simply cannot see any justification at all for Catholicism when Orthodoxy exists. Same shit (awe-based key-jangling for people who need elaborate temples/shows) but without the disgusting moral failures of the Papacy.

The main church in antiquity was probably the one in Jerusalem before it was destroyed. I'm still not convinced the Roman church's "primacy" wasn't later retcon.

 

[Terrorist]

I can't think of anything less useful in this day and age than e-trad denominational slapfights. "Trannies are because George Washington didn't become a Catholic Habsburg monarch"...very cool, what Polandball comic did you get that one from?

 

[Strix454]

The main church in antiquity was probably the one in Jerusalem before it was destroyed. I'm still not convinced the Roman church's "primacy" wasn't later retcon.

The primacy argument was gradually expressed over time first to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over Italy, then over the western half of the Roman Empire, Then there was a long struggle within the church councils about which bishop came first in the order of ceremonial precidence. It was decided that Rome came first because it was the original capital of the empire. But no special powers over the church as a whole were recognized.
Around 354, a new innovation was added that retroactively made Peter the first pope and bishop of rome rather than just an apostle that preached in rome.

Then in 440, Pople Leo fully articulated the doctrine. He said that the popes spoke with the voice of Peter and had all of the authority that christ gave peter in scripture. But was still somewhat vague on what the authority was.
Then maybe 40 years after that, Pope Gelasius I declared that he had through peter's authority the power to judge the whole church and that there was no appeal from his judgements made over the church.

 

[Syaoran Li]

That would be a very clever <cough> and original <cough cough> comeback if my post wasn't completely on-topic and neutral in tone.

Lol, calm down.

 

[Mothra1988]

The primacy argument was gradually expressed over time first to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over Italy, then over the western half of the Roman Empire, Then there was a long struggle within the church councils about which bishop came first in the order of ceremonial precidence. It was decided that Rome came first because it was the original capital of the empire. But no special powers over the church as a whole were recognized.
Around 354, a new innovation was added that retroactively made Peter the first pope and bishop of rome rather than just an apostle that preached in rome.

Then in 440, Pople Leo fully articulated the doctrine. He said that the popes spoke with the voice of Peter and had all of the authority that christ gave peter in scripture. But was still somewhat vague on what the authority was.
Then maybe 40 years after that, Pope Gelasius I declared that he had through peter's authority the power to judge the whole church and that there was no appeal from his judgements made over the church.

Yeah, it's fucking bullshit with no historical basis with a few Bible verses that don't even suggest such being used as out of context propaganda by Catholics. The idea that the church in Rome should be the only church has always been an absurd anachronism, and no wonder they tried to retcon Jesus's siblings since they ran the church in Jerusalem.