The Scriptures & The Sexes

Hi.  

...Just found this site, via the MGTOW Forums, where I couldn't register, unfortunately (perhaps just as well, since I'm not sure how welcome I'd be there).  

I'm a Bible-believing Christian (as in what most would probably call a fundamentalist), and despair of the statism, worldiness, leftist ideology and (perhaps most insidiously of all) feminism in the evangelical churches.  (For years I was a theologial liberal, was sort-of embarrassed by the Bible --- especially the Old Testament --- and believed in evolution etc. until I got saved and God changed me.)  

...And now when I read the Scriptures, I find an entirely different view of the sexes from that of the church.  

From the Pentateuch through the wisdom literature and the prophets, on through to the Gospels, Epistles and Revelation, one sees the diametric opposite of feminism.  Yet in the church, one sees near-total capitulation to it (even in the more 'conservative' churches, like the one I attend).  Right throughout Scripture the pattern is that man was created for God, and woman was created for man, to provide him with love and companionship and to assist him in life.  We are expressly told that woman is not the glory of God, but man is --- woman is instead the glory of man; she is his helpmeet (although Western women have become effectively the opposite).  

Everywhere in the Bible one sees that 'equality' is absent: by that I don't mean that a female life is worth less than a male life, but rather that contemporary egalitarianism --- as regards authority, roles, duties and even sins and punishment --- is simply unbiblical.  Indeed, it is frequently antibiblical.  

And the more I see of life, and the more I see of the grim and rapidly deteriorating relations between the sexes, the more I see that the Bible is absolutely right.  (It's why sluts, players and feminists hate it: feminists have rightly identified the Scripture as patriarchal, yet the church seeks always to downplay this and placate them!)  I have a particular love for the Torah: it lays out just how God feels about sex, marriage, and the roles and rights and responsibilities of men and women.  

God's Word is the antidote to the ills of modern society.  Particularly when the churches are preaching what is becoming a message of "easy believism" and cheap grace, and totally screwing up the Biblical worldview.  Don't get me wrong: I'm not attempting to put Christians under the Law.  However, when society has followed the ways of Jezebel and Gomorrah, it's crucial to go back and measure our morals, standards and attitudes against the plumbline of God's Law.  

If anyone on this forum is a Bible believer like me and feels this way too, I'd be interested to hear from you!  (My need for good Christian fellowship is gnawing at me: I just don't get that in church anymore.)  

Thanks...  

Hi Adam,

I started this site a long time ago.  Since then, I read the Bible and I came to the conclusion that the problems that I discussed here cannot be solved without religion.  Based on this, I started another website, Biblic Judaism.  I would love to get your feedback on it.  Based on your post, I recommend these articles: Alexis de Tocqueville on Religion, The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture, The Enlightenment Is Over, Ecclesiastes and MGTOW, and Human Evolution.

I apologise for hijacking. I don't mean any disrespect. Um, has my application been reviewed yet?

Hi Franklin.  

Thanks for your reply: I haven't had time to go through all of the posts --- I had a glance at Biblic Judaism, and see that you are interested in Karaite beliefs.  I first heard of Karaism about five years ago, and began listening to the teachings of an American-Israeli called Nehemiah Gordon (I believe his organisation was called something like "Karaite Corner" --- I don't know whether it's still going, though).  However, since he believed Jesus to be merely a great rabbi instead of Messiah or God, there was an inevitable parting of the ways!  

Anyway, I've had a look at your evolution article, so let me comment on that.

First, let me be clear that evolution is not incompatible with the idea that there is a deity --- even with a creator (who could have created the cosmos using evolution).  Richard Dawkins would dearly love this not to be the case and always attempts to tie atheism inextricably to evolution, but, hey, that's his problem.  (And for years I believed both in a deity and in evolution without too much difficulty: put simply, I held that God made the Big Bang.)

And as you say, the Bible is not "just another" religious text.  Its creation account is wildly different from the standard fare in the religions of the ancient near-east: see, for instance the Egyptian, Assyrian or Babylonian creation stories --- Genesis stands head and shoulders above them, and is (as you rightly point out) much more reasonable.  However, it nevertheless contradicts the current scientific ideas (Big Bang, stellar evolution, planet formation, abiogenesis and finally biological macroevolution): as Dawkins points out, the Bible really leaves no room for compromise --- if Darwin was right, then Genesis 1 is fiction.  ...And vice versa.

Before I was saved, I was happy enough to throw out the Genesis account, since I believed (as do most over here in Europe) that only cretins and hucksters (i.e. the intellectually dishonest types who were pushing some book or other) would ever think of endorsing a fairy-tale like that, since the scientific establishment rejects Genesis outright.  I shuddered at the thought of even being regarded as gullible or stupid enough to entertain such simplistic myth --- as an evolutionist who believed in a deity, I would make a point of distancing myself from creationists, and thought these people did more harm than good since they were erecting barriers to faith in God.

But then I got saved.  

God showed me that my heart was rotten to the core and irredeemably bad; I was made to realise that the afterlife for me was going to be anything but good.  At that point the words of Scripture --- that Jesus gave His life as a ransom --- began to mean everything to me, and finally, I abandoned all attempts at establishing my own righteousness and put all my trust in His righteousness and His sacrifice for my sins.  It finally hit home that my primary need was not simply for a spiritual teacher or for a set of laws or commandments, but for salvation --- for a scapegoat.  As the Bible explained, I needed a blood sacrifice, since without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins: I saw my direst need was that my iniquities be not imputed to me.  ...And so finally I understood why the Crucifixion was necessary.  

I began after this to take Scripture very seriously: it was patently obvious that Jesus spoke of the events in Scripture (and particularly those in Genesis) with a clear understanding that He was speaking of historic fact.  I didn't much like this, but I began actually looking at what the text says and at the evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.  What I found shocked me: despite being adept at constructing evolutionary explanations for things, I had been unaware just how flimsy the evidence for macroevolution actually was.

The result was that I rejected the latter, and believed the Bible.  I do not believe for a minute that I would ever have done this without intervention from God: only after He crushed me flat over my sin was I even willing to contemplate entertaining the possibility that Genesis could be actual history.  Perhaps in times past, in the absence of evolutionary indoctrination  via the state schooling apparatus, people may have been more open to thinking about Genesis, but nowadays (certainly in Europe) doing so constitutes intellectual suicide and so people simply reject it out of hand.  

I thank God that He opened my eyes about this, because it is one of Satan's most pernicious lies and is fundamental to other deceptions (since it undermines the very foundation of the Bible).  The Bible is pretty clear that the world is blinded and deceived by Satan, the god of this world, and only God's Truth can set us free from this deception and its attendant bondage.  

However, it is important to note that only those whom God calls will come to Christ and understand His truth.  Before God called me I could read the Bible and come up with all sorts of clever theories to reconcile it with Buddhism, near-death experiences, the teachings of psychics and evolution --- but I had no real understanding of Scripture.  After being saved, it at last truly began making sense to me.  When one is saved (and countless people report the same thing here) Scripture really becomes the Word of God --- I know I had never had the same zeal to immerse myself in it before my salvation.

People have throughout history used religion to try to push a point of view, or to further an ideology or an agenda.  It is common for men and women to pick and choose their religion to suit their personal biases or agenda (or pet sins), rather than to examine the evidence and see what is actually true, then follow it wherever it leads (regardless of how unpopular it might make them or how foolish they may seem for doing so).  Sadly, anti-feminists (just like feminists themselves) often see the Bible as merely a tool to use, rather than as something to be bound by and followed.  For my part, I pray that I will follow God's Truth wherever it leads --- even if that means I end up being a Left-wing male feminist (which to me would be a fate worse than death) --- because God's Word is truth and without it sinful humans are doomed.  I don't wish to be part of a crowd that simply uses Scripture with ulterior motive: I associated online with some conservative "red pill" types who called themselves Christians, but they were almost certainly not born again and were just pursuing their own agenda.  So although I am an anti-feminist who loathes Leftism, I would (I hope) sacrifice even this to follow God's truth where it leads.  (Although, the more I study Scripture, the more I see that the Word of God swiftly destroys Leftism and feminism: it's not an exaggeration to say that feminism is totally antibiblical.)  

So let me just reiterate, lest there be any confusion: I am interested in God's Word first and foremost and the plight of men (though serious) is to me a secondary issue.  However, I do believe that the former holds the answer for the latter.  ...But I do not think that men will heed it (at least not en masse), but will instead continue to believe modish lies and wonder why society and the relations between the sexes just continues to get ever more broken.  God will put up with that for so long, and then He will (as He warns repeatedly) put an end to it with a divine Judgement.  

Anyway, I've written far too much and I've got to go out now.  I hope this was of some use to you!  

Thanks for your reply, Adam.  I spent quite some time researching religion before I settled on my current beliefs, and I visited many churches, synagogues, and a mosque, so I am quite familiar with Christianity.  Christianity isn't my religion, but I respect it.  I know that you won't agree with my beliefs, but I think it would be good if you understood them.

You say "anti-feminists often see the Bible as merely a tool to use, rather than as something to be bound by and followed".  Is this really so bad if this leads them to actually study the Bible?  My first impression of the Bible was that it supported my beliefs, but after studying it, the end result was that it fundamentally changed my beliefs.  Before reading the Bible, I thought feminism was the core problem.  After reading it, I realized that the core problem was the loss of morality itself, and that there can be no morality without religion.  I see the Bible as a tool, God's tool for people for their salvation.  And of course the Bible is only a useful tool if it is actually followed.

I believe in evolution, but I acknowledge that it isn't a scientific theory because it cannot be experimentally falsified.  Evolution just makes sense to me, but arguing about evolution versus creationism is pointless since neither can be proved.  My main point in my Human Evolution article is that evolution is incompatible with modern morality but is fully compatible with the Bible.  In other words, believing in evolution should cause an intelligent person to reject modern culture and follow the Bible.

Christian beliefs are different from mine, but Christian moral values are similar to mine.  The difference in beliefs is too large a gap for there to be a common community of Christians and non-Christians.  Christians can only really be happy in a Christian community.  But Christians and non-Christians can be allies as long as we share values.  I have a lot of respect for what earlier Christians accomplished, particularly the Puritans.  But modern Christianity is a real mess.  I hope that you can have some impact on Christianity to get it back on track.  One Christian website that I like is The Orthosphere.  But even there, it is all talk and no action.  I would be very interested to hear if you have any ideas about getting Christianity back on track to actually follow the teachings of the Bible.

Hi Franklin.  

Thanks for your reply: I'll try and answer the points you raise briefly.  (I'm often not too good at brief, though!)  

fschmidt wrote

Thanks for your reply, Adam.  I spent quite some time researching religion before I settled on my current beliefs, and I visited many churches, synagogues, and a mosque, so I am quite familiar with Christianity.  Christianity isn't my religion, but I respect it.  I know that you won't agree with my beliefs, but I think it would be good if you understood them.

 

A semantic quibble here, but an important one (to me, anyway!): when I speak of "Christianity", I mean the stuff that's found in the Bible, not the stuff that's found in the churches.  As I mentioned in my original post, this is precisely the problem --- the churches don't seem to take a whole lot of notice of the Bible, but rather tend to pick out a few choice cuts and bin most of the rest.  And many churches are either founded upon a twisting of Biblical teaching into something unrecognisable (by far the most notable offender here is the Church of Rome) or they have ditched belief in the Bible in favour of acquiescing to the culture (as is the case with most of the mainstream Protestant churches).  So I'd implore you not to base your ideas about Christianity upon church practice (since the visible church sets such an unbiblical example), but rather upon what is found within the pages of the New Testament.  

You say "anti-feminists often see the Bible as merely a tool to use, rather than as something to be bound by and followed".  Is this really so bad if this leads them to actually study the Bible?  My first impression of the Bible was that it supported my beliefs, but after studying it, the end result was that it fundamentally changed my beliefs.  Before reading the Bible, I thought feminism was the core problem.  After reading it, I realized that the core problem was the loss of morality itself, and that there can be no morality without religion.  I see the Bible as a tool, God's tool for people for their salvation.  And of course the Bible is only a useful tool if it is actually followed.

 

I understand.  ...And agree --- to a point!  However, my experience is that those who see the Bible merely as a tool for addressing some social injustice (real or imagined) overlook the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: we are not charged with fixing the world, but preaching the Gospel, which changes people; the people then change the society.  God's Word works a change by God's Spirit in a person, and that has an effect on those around them and upon society.  (As you say, I think that this is going to be a position on which we must --- owing to our divergent beliefs --- agree to disagree.)  It also strikes me that you and I are apt to be speaking of different things when we speak of salvation (Christians generally use the term 'salvation' to mean God's delivering us from sin and the eternal punishment it carries).  

I also experienced something similiar to you, as you "dug down through the layers" (I refer to your initially thinking that feminism was the problem, and then realising that immorality was what made the way for feminism, and then realising that irreligion was the cause of immorality): in my case, however, the conclusion to which I came was the Christian conclusion --- that in order to be able to obey God, one must be born again by the Spirit of God.  

I believe in evolution, but I acknowledge that it isn't a scientific theory because it cannot be experimentally falsified.  Evolution just makes sense to me, but arguing about evolution versus creationism is pointless since neither can be proved.  My main point in my Human Evolution article is that evolution is incompatible with modern morality but is fully compatible with the Bible.  In other words, believing in evolution should cause an intelligent person to reject modern culture and follow the Bible.

 

My own observations rather indicate the opposite: those who espouse evolution tend to embrace the culture and reject the Bible.  ...And if one's views on origins parallel those of say, Richard Dawkins (I use him simply because he is perhaps the clearest expositor of neo-Darwinism), then one's views on life, death and eternity are apt to be fairly similar to his as well.  Perhaps it is different in the US, but over here evolution is the norm and there are more people who believe in extraterrestrials than in God.  

Christian beliefs are different from mine, but Christian moral values are similar to mine.  The difference in beliefs is too large a gap for there to be a common community of Christians and non-Christians.  Christians can only really be happy in a Christian community.  But Christians and non-Christians can be allies as long as we share values.  I have a lot of respect for what earlier Christians accomplished, particularly the Puritans.  But modern Christianity is a real mess.  

We certainly agree there!  

I hope that you can have some impact on Christianity to get it back on track.  One Christian website that I like is The Orthosphere.  But even there, it is all talk and no action.  

Absolutely.  The site to which you link is just the sort of thing I can't stand (and I'd seen it before, when I used to drive myself mad trying to reason with professing 'Christians' on some of the "red pill" sites): the focus of a Christian's life should be Christ and the Gospel, not the culture.  The picture painted in the Bible is that most of humanity will end up reaping destruction in God's eternally burning garbage-dump, and that few will find everlasting life with their Creator (Jesus tells us this fairly bluntly, even if the churches shrink from so doing).  Worrying about the culture, marriage, etc. in the way these TradCat/Orthodox/DeadChurch groups do is majoring on minors and forgetting the main business of preaching the Kingdom so that men may flee to God and thus escape the wrath that is to come.  (And I remember trying to speak to such types: they don't believe the Bible, as a rule --- they argue for their dead and unbiblical traditions instead.  And TradCat women are terrible: they --- along with a few other traditionalist Protestant women --- pretty much destroyed all constructive debate on the "Christian red pill" sites I used to read.  I began to see that there's a reason why Paul didn't permit women to speak in church!)  

The main problem is that the men in the church are so feminised that they can no longer preach a strong message: so many of them worry about appearing a jerk or not appealing to touchy-feely women.  When I read Scripture, what I see is God teaching men, men, men --- if the men obeyed and stopped worrying about the women and what they might think or feel, and just did as God said, then men would either win men to the Lord or be hated by them (which is the Biblical model), and women would see this boldness and like as not respect it, or even admire it (rather than pretending they respect men for being wets and then going off with the bad boys).  It's the marching order which the Angel of the Lord (whom Christians hold to be the preincarnate Christ) gives to Joshua before he begins the conquest of Canaan: "Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest." (Joshua 1:9)  And that's what God says to the men who would follow Him, right the way through Scripture: it's what He seeks --- men who put their faith in Him and step out boldly to fight the good fight.  

I would be very interested to hear if you have any ideas about getting Christianity back on track to actually follow the teachings of the Bible.

My main idea is for Christians to go back to the Law.  ...To go and read the Laws which God gave to Moses.  I don't mean to try to implement them politically: that would be dominionism, which is not what Christ called us to.  But Christians have lost sight of God's character, and they often preach a "Jesus loves you" message to an increasingly perverted God-hating society which has ever more in common with the Cities of the Plain: the Old Testament (and particularly the Pentateuch) tells us exactly how God feels about lawlessness, and gives us indispensible insights into His character.  Certainly some churches do preach strongly against homosexuality and abortion (and sometimes pornography): but the normalisation of fornication and the irreproachability of women who engage in sexual sin (which does far more lasting damage), is left unaddressed for fear of appearing 'sexist'.  Yet the Law shows us that God sees these sins as being every bit as serious (and like homosexuality and abortion, so grave as to merit a swift, violent death in many cases).  Again, I'm not arguing for putting us under the Law: merely for  studying it to recalibrate our sexual morals and to know what God is likely most upset and angry about.  

The best Gospel preachers all knew how to use the Law correctly (Wesley --- the most amazingly successful preacher --- advised a friend to preach 90% Law and 10% Grace).  Unfortunately in evangelical Christian circles, if one seeks to emphasise the goodness of the moral Law God gave to Moses, one is apt to be accused of being a legalist (particularly in Reformed circles) --- i.e. all but a heretic, and an enemy of the Gospel.  Yet I don't believe that one can understand the character of YHWH without chewing regularly on the Torah.  And part of that means renewing our understanding of what God expects of the sexes and their right relationship --- with one another and with Him.  

Well, I'd better go.  I've written too much again...  

Adam wrote

A semantic quibble here, but an important one (to me, anyway!): when I speak of "Christianity", I mean the stuff that's found in the Bible, not the stuff that's found in the churches.

 
And I ask the same of you regarding Judaism.  Both religions are guilty of badly deviating from what is written in the Bible.

 
I understand.  ...And agree --- to a point!  However, my experience is that those who see the Bible merely as a tool for addressing some social injustice (real or imagined) overlook the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: we are not charged with fixing the world, but preaching the Gospel, which changes people; the people then change the society.  God's Word works a change by God's Spirit in a person, and that has an effect on those around them and upon society.  (As you say, I think that this is going to be a position on which we must --- owing to our divergent beliefs --- agree to disagree.)  It also strikes me that you and I are apt to be speaking of different things when we speak of salvation (Christians generally use the term 'salvation' to mean God's delivering us from sin and the eternal punishment it carries).  

 
Here we have to agree to disagree.  My view is reflected in Deuteronomy 30:11-20.

My own observations rather indicate the opposite: those who espouse evolution tend to embrace the culture and reject the Bible.  ...And if one's views on origins parallel those of say, Richard Dawkins (I use him simply because he is perhaps the clearest expositor of neo-Darwinism), then one's views on life, death and eternity are apt to be fairly similar to his as well.  Perhaps it is different in the US, but over here evolution is the norm and there are more people who believe in extraterrestrials than in God.  

I think you are missing my point which I would really like you to understand.  So let me try to explain this in another way.  Christianity is based on faith.  But this faith isn't unreasonable because nothing about Christian beliefs is contradictory and contrary to facts.  Most religions are like this, they make internal sense.  But modern secular beliefs are not consistent.  In fact modern secular beliefs are the most absurd beliefs in the world, far worse than any other religion.  Modern secular beliefs are full of internal contradictions and contradict facts.  My point is that the theory of evolution is totally inconsistent with other modern secular beliefs, while evolution is consistent with the Bible.  The fact that those who espouse evolution tend to embrace modern culture and reject the Bible just shows how stupid and inconsistent these people are.  So my point is that even if you don't believe in evolution, you should recognize that evolution in no way supports modern secular beliefs, and in fact evolution supports the Bible.

The main problem is that the men in the church are so feminised that they can no longer preach a strong message: so many of them worry about appearing a jerk or not appealing to touchy-feely women.  When I read Scripture, what I see is God teaching men, men, men --- if the men obeyed and stopped worrying about the women and what they might think or feel, and just did as God said, then men would either win men to the Lord or be hated by them (which is the Biblical model), and women would see this boldness and like as not respect it, or even admire it (rather than pretending they respect men for being wets and then going off with the bad boys).  It's the marching order which the Angel of the Lord (whom Christians hold to be the preincarnate Christ) gives to Joshua before he begins the conquest of Canaan: "Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest." (Joshua 1:9)  And that's what God says to the men who would follow Him, right the way through Scripture: it's what He seeks --- men who put their faith in Him and step out boldly to fight the good fight.  

I agree.  I would add that anti-feminists are just as bad, wasting their time bashing women.  Men should forget about women and just move forward and do what is right.

My main idea is for Christians to go back to the Law.

That would be great.  How do you plan to make this happen?

I have spent a lot of time thinking about practical solutions.  I believe that the best thing to do is to find one single church or synagogue that is closest to being on the right path, and then make that the center of an effort to gather the best men into one community.  For Judaism, I think the Karaites are best and they have just one synagogue in America, so this makes the choice easy for me and my focus now is to move near to this synagogue and then to encourage other (non-Christian) men to do the same.  I think the same approach would make sense for Christianity, to find one church that is close to being on track and then to encourage the best Christian men to move there and join that church.  I am curious to know what you think of this approach.

fschmidt wrote

I think you are missing my point which I would really like you to understand.  So let me try to explain this in another way.  Christianity is based on faith.  But this faith isn't unreasonable because nothing about Christian beliefs is contradictory and contrary to facts.  Most religions are like this, they make internal sense.  But modern secular beliefs are not consistent.  In fact modern secular beliefs are the most absurd beliefs in the world, far worse than any other religion.  Modern secular beliefs are full of internal contradictions and contradict facts.  My point is that the theory of evolution is totally inconsistent with other modern secular beliefs, while evolution is consistent with the Bible.  The fact that those who espouse evolution tend to embrace modern culture and reject the Bible just shows how stupid and inconsistent these people are.  So my point is that even if you don't believe in evolution, you should recognize that evolution in no way supports modern secular beliefs, and in fact evolution supports the Bible.

 

Hmmm.  As I say, I used to believe as you do, but I don't anymore.  And I think that Dawkins' worldview (though I fundamentally disagree with it) is apt to be highly consistent with his evolutionism.  (I'd be interested, though, to hear what you think the internal contradictions between his evolutionism and atheism are.)  

If taken as a plain account of how God created the heavens and the earth and filled them (which is how I believe God intends us to read it), Genesis is simply not compatible at all with the theory of origins and evolution as held by the vast majority of the scientific establishment.  And molecules-to-man evolution is bunk anyway, so why would I want it to support the Bible?  There is no merit in trying to support truth with a massive lie.  

I guess this is another point of disagreement between us.  :(

My main idea is for Christians to go back to the Law.

That would be great.  How do you plan to make this happen?

I don't!  The state of people's hearts is their own affair: if they harden them against God's Law (as seems to be happening), then there's not much I can do.  ...But I do believe that a return to the Law is what Christians need.  Not legalism, but consideration of how God ordered the society of His covenant people Israel, and how that can be used to teach the church about what God wants and what God hates.  The church seems all too often to think that Jesus came to create a new religion called "Christianity", floating totally free of anything that had gone before.  He was a Jew and His teachings were given to a Jewish audience: when He taught, he could (and did) presuppose a great deal of knowledge of the Torah.  ...Knowledge which Gentiles do not have, but which can  be acquired through Torah study.  

And it's a serious problem.  For instance, I've lost count of the times I've heard the Pericope of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 twisted to say that Jesus was some sort of feminist or proto-feminist, or (even worse) that He did away with the Law.  (Some people --- even misguided conservatives --- even want to say it shouldn't be in the Scriptures, because it is omitted in some manuscripts and appears in different places in others.)  But this is all to miss the point completely.  When one studies that passage in the light of the Torah, one sees that what Jesus did in handling the mob and the woman --- and ALL that Jesus did --- was to follow Torah perfectly.  I despair of the idea that Jesus was some sort of wishy-washy modern liberal.  He wasn't.  He was the One who created us and gave us the Torah in the first place.  There was no way He was going to break it --- not one jot or tittle, as He said...  

I have spent a lot of time thinking about practical solutions.  I believe that the best thing to do is to find one single church or synagogue that is closest to being on the right path, and then make that the center of an effort to gather the best men into one community.  

Yes, I thought the same way.  But I can't find one.  Not one...  

...Maybe things are better in the US, though.  

For Judaism, I think the Karaites are best and they have just one synagogue in America, so this makes the choice easy for me and my focus now is to move near to this synagogue and then to encourage other (non-Christian) men to do the same.  

If I didn't know Christ, then yes, Karaism would probably be the way I'd go --- free from all the unbiblical traditions and the dubious accretions of the "Oral Law".  

I think the same approach would make sense for Christianity, to find one church that is close to being on track and then to encourage the best Christian men to move there and join that church.  I am curious to know what you think of this approach.

In theory, I agree.  In practice, alas...  

Adam wrote

(I'd be interested, though, to hear what you think the internal contradictions between his evolutionism and atheism are.)  

That is what my Human Evolution article is all about.  Just think about this: Which makes more evolutionary sense, feminism and other aspects of modern culture or God's law?

My main idea is for Christians to go back to the Law.

That would be great.  How do you plan to make this happen?

I don't!  The state of people's hearts is their own affair: if they harden them against God's Law (as seems to be happening), then there's not much I can do.

I don't understand this.  Look at all the effort than Jesus and Paul put into changing people.  It wasn't easy.  Jesus walked all over Israel and Paul traveled over a fair part of Rome.  The only hope is for good people to put in real effort to make things better.  You don't have to change everyone.  Members of mainstream culture are hopeless.  But people who are less hardened, like in some Christian churches, would be worth trying to change.  Of course these won't be perfect, which is the point.  A church that doesn't entirely discount God' Law, for example Eastern Orthodox Christianity, may be a place where one can influence people.

fschmidt wrote

Adam wrote

(I'd be interested, though, to hear what you think the internal contradictions between his evolutionism and atheism are.)  

That is what my Human Evolution article is all about.  Just think about this: Which makes more evolutionary sense, feminism and other aspects of modern culture or God's law?

Even if God's Law did make more "evolutionary sense" (and to this end, I refer you again to my previous comment --- in particular the paragraph following the quoted line above), macroevolution itself is junk science.  I reject it.  

My main idea is for Christians to go back to the Law.

That would be great.  How do you plan to make this happen?

I don't!  The state of people's hearts is their own affair: if they harden them against God's Law (as seems to be happening), then there's not much I can do.

I don't understand this.  Look at all the effort than Jesus and Paul put into changing people.  

Look instead at the nature of that effort: it consisted of going out to the people and preaching a message.  Where the message was received, disciples were added.  Where the message was rejected, the "rejecters" were themselves rejected by Jesus, by the disciples, and later by Paul.  The problem is that the church sort-of rejects the Law.  They are embarrassed about it.  (Even those who aren't embarrassed to accept God's account of Creation in Genesis are often embarrassed to say that the Laws God gave to Moses are good and just laws --- e.g. simply to say that a woman who had cheated on the man to whom she was betrothed deserved to be stoned to death would probably get you booted out of church, even though God Himself said it.)  

It wasn't easy.  Jesus walked all over Israel and Paul traveled over a fair part of Rome.  The only hope is for good people to put in real effort to make things better.  You don't have to change everyone.  Members of mainstream culture are hopeless.  But people who are less hardened, like in some Christian churches, would be worth trying to change.

 

I agree with all of this, by the way.  

 Of course these won't be perfect, which is the point.  A church that doesn't entirely discount God' Law, for example Eastern Orthodox Christianity, may be a place where one can influence people.

Oy vey.  They have their own dead traditions.  I've had discussions with Eastern Orthodox.  ...They're almost as bad as the Romanists.  Getting saved would lead one out of Orthodox churches, just as it would lead one out of the Church of Rome.  

No, I think that rather than searching for open-minded needles in church haystacks or (worse) trying to reform big long-dead ancient churches, the answer is to do as Jesus and Paul did and go out to make disciples from the heathen.  The churches have so much tradition and baggage and are so shot through with Western decadence that it's flogging a dead horse.  Thankfully, there are some para-church movements (the shoreshim-type ministries and so forth) which are gathering a following (although of course some of these have their problems, too).  

...And I don't just sit on my backside and whinge: I try to spread the message whenever I can.  But in church, it's hopeless --- despite saying they follow the Bible, all too often evangelicals instead follow some church doctrinal tradition or popular preachers/ministers, in the same way (although without the heresies) that the Romanists follow the magesterium and the priests/popes and Jews follow the Talmud and the rabbis.  (That's one thing I like about Karaism: Karaites do at least try to stick to the book, and throw away the dross.  ...Although rejecting the New Testament is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. :))  

I just suggested working through a church because I didn't know other alternatives exist.  If you have other methods, para-church movements whatever that is, then go for it.  The only advice I would add, based on experience with Judaism, is to encourage people to follow the Law one step at a time.  I like to start with the Sabbath as a first step that I encourage both Jews and Christians to keep.

Other than that, if any Christians read this thread, I hope they will post their thoughts.

Hi Adam,

We may not meet in real life, but we can have good Christian fellowship through the Internet.
I'm not a Fundamentalist, but I'm definitely a fellow believer.

I've authored the book Wowed by Truth on www.wowedbytruth.com
Maybe you can give me good feedback as to how to improve my writings.