I have been in a reflective mood lately, and during this time of self-examination I have acknowledged a number of truths. I say acknowledge because I already knew them; it isn’t like they were a sudden revelation to me. Certain truths are always there, somewhere in the back of our mind, but we don’t give them the opportunity to penetrate and permeate our consciousness. Sometimes this is because we are intellectually lazy. But other times it is because they are ugly truths, and we put off a confrontation with them as long as possible to try and spare ourselves from their implications.
One such truth I contended with when I first took the Red Pill was this: There are very few sincere and devout Christians who choose to live that way starting from an early age. Furthermore, this has always been the case, going all the way back to the first very Christians. Many, perhaps most, of those who truly believe were not believers their whole lives. Either they lapsed during some part of their lives, or they were non-believers who later converted. And of course, many of those who do claim to be Christians, and have so claimed throughout history, are and were no such thing.
This doesn’t seem like an earth-shattering truth. And it isn’t. But is is a truth that I never wanted to really face up to for a long time, because the implications called to question my plans (more like dreams really) for the future. Part of me wonders what would have happened if I had acknowledged this simple truth years ago. Would I have found the Red Pill sooner? Would I have been able to turn my life around without that crucial discovery? I will never know. The full extent of what I have missed out on because of my failure to acknowledge what I knew to be true is something that will forever be out of my grasp, but never out of my thoughts.
Here is the lesson to be learned: There are certain kinds of truths were it isn’t enough to know them; you have to consciously accept them as well.
Donal Graeme 
Something I’ve found to be a constant is that one-sided things really don’t work (homilies, listening in Sunday school classes, etc) in effecting spiritual change. Personally I’ve noticed almost little to no prompting to change from simple listening to sermons or sitting in classes. Then, various people have noted that the homilies were never that effective from the beginning. It shouldn’t work, because it’s not in the Scriptural pattern.
The only real solid effect comes from directly engaging with the truth of God’s word yourself (either in the Bible or what you hear/read elsewhere evaluated well) under the guidance of the Spirit. This is the Scriptural pattern. If you look at what’s going on (and the Greek fits this too, since it uses the word we get “dialogue” from), the figures are always involved in two-way communication where the evangelized party (for whatever reason) is engaged directly and has to be exposed to it and own it, if their hearts are right. This means meditating on it for meaning, fitting yourself into it. It really takes personally engaging something and owning it yourself. Scripture isn’t for the other guy, it’s for your measurement as examples to either follow or avoid and relating to the concepts through what you read.
For example, one of the methods/approaches of meditation is substitution (using 1 Cor 13): is patient. is kind., etc…is this me?
As told Joshua:
It takes continual engagement, not occasional listenership to find increasing fruit that comes with ownership of God’s words.
And to continue, sometimes I hear the Jews interpret this (when reading text written about Joshua) to be “all day and all night”. It speaks to a continuous focus of mind on the person of God. This can happen at any time, while you’re working or whatever. This is even illustrated in the New Testament by directives with the word “continually” or “without ceasing” vis-a-vis prayer (1 Thess 5:16-18; Psalm 72:15; Acts 6:4). The Scripture is being quite literal: Remove the ritual and it can be done. What do you hold in mind? Concepts of God’s word, dwelling on them for understanding, being open to where ever the thoughts might go (testing them against Scripture of course). It’s been compared to be like animals who chew the cud – it literally takes this to really let God’s truth come into you and be digested and brought into your soul.
Ballista, note also that Jesus taught in parables much of the time. The thing about a parable is that it requires you to think over it before you can understand the lesson. Jesus was teaching us a lesson… through the medium He used to teach us lessons.
It should be noted that the messages the parables communicated was meant to be clear with hearts inclined to hear and understand. Speaking of sermons, I can’t say I’ve heard a single preacher/teacher in a long while who got it right on why Jesus spoke in parables:
A bit off-topic to the discussion at hand, but still interesting to the topic, relating to Jesus’ stated reason as to why He did not speak plainly but used parables instead.
True, although I would think the kind of open heart and mind necessary to understand a parable would be the same to contemplate matters of faith as they were meant to be. But perhaps I am confusing two unlike things unnecessarily.
I’m a bit scatter-brained right now, if that wasn’t obvious enough.
What you describe is simply human nature; people aren’t naturally all that great. No matter how much we learn about historical atrocities, hypergamy, or whatever else, there’s a part of us that just doesn’t want to believe it.
But our faith belongs in one place and nowhere else. Everything but Him can eventually let us down. We can wish it were different, and yes, it will always hurt when we learn that somebody who we thought really believed this stuff doesn’t. Nevertheless, we can’t say we weren’t warned.
I’ve found that accepting human nature for what it is has helped me to appreciate it even more when we transcend it as well of the Source of strength that enables us to pull it off every once in a while.
Donal – The thing about a parable is that it requires you to think over it before you can understand the lesson
Sounds like what Heartiste said to a commenter who called the legendary GBFM as “retarded….
“GBFM knows that the genius discovered with hard work is more illuminating than the genius given freely”
That’s how it’s usually worked for me.
The same here NSR. When we work it out on our own, with perhaps a little guidance, it sticks far more than it would if it was simply given to us.
There are very few sincere and devout Christians who choose to live that way starting from an early age…. Many, perhaps most, of those who truly believe were not believers their whole lives. Either they lapsed during some part of their lives, or they were non-believers who later converted
Which is why, sad to say, men who are holding out for virgins are being “statistically foolish”. Yes, it’s better to marry a virgin if you can, for a lot of reasons thoroughly explained elsewhere in Manosphere. And yes, you have a right to hold out for a virgin if you wish — especially if you, yourself are also a virgin (as I was). But there just aren’t enough to go around; the few studies on the subject indicate that there are more male virgins than females.
Marriage, for most Christian men, is a NEED, not just a strong desire. If there aren’t enough virgins for the men who need wives, they’re just going to have to face the fact that — in the words of the shameless heretic Joy — who is taken down here and here — “you’re probably not going to marry a virgin.”
That being the case…. go in with a very good Red Pill understanding of female nature, and look for the lowest possible N and the strongest evidence of REAL repentance**. And a clean STD test.
And for what it’s worth, I have more respect for the honest, outright “nonbelievers who later converted”, rather than those who grew up in church and knew better, but “lapsed during some part of their lives” — usually the lost decade from ~18 to ~28 — and came crawling back. Even some of the latter are be truly repentant but unless the Manosphere is completely delusional, a lot of them are just going back to snag a husband and have no deep commitment to the faith. It’s as if they are salmon who prefer being in the world ocean, but feel compelled to come home to their natal stream (the church) to reproduce.
** For example: besides sex, money is the hardest area of obedience for a lot of people. So, if the girl actually tithes (a full 10%) — that’s usually a good measure of repentance and spiritual seriousness… except in the case of well-known tither Kim Kardashian (although in Kim’s case, her tithe is actually a sin, see Deut. 23:18).
Donal, it sounds like I have a lot of the same issues as you. I suspect said feelings are common among Millennials that were raised as Christians.
To elaborate on my own issues: Before I got married, I became disillusioned with modern Christianity. I realized the majority of professed Christians, including devout Christians, are total phonies. They don’t know scripture, they make up their own doctrines – heck, they punish the few Christians who still adhere to scripture! They are rude, unkind, and usually behave significantly worse than non-Christians. Salvation is just an excuse to act like a jerk, a “Get out of Hell Free” card. If you question them about their sinful behavior, they’ll say “we’re not perfect, just forgiven!” and continue to behave unChristian-ly as possible. (Note: I’m not dissing all Christians. I don’t hate Christians; I am a Christian. I just dislike hypocrites who use salvation as an excuse to be a jerk).
The worst is, i began to think Jesus had low standards; I lost respect for him as a God. I still struggle with this feeling. Fortunately my husband helps me with my faith. He tells me when Christians are professing false doctrines.
Sort-of on topic: I read a CNN article last week about Millennials’ low church attendance. No, duh! We’re constantly being told church and scripture are unimportant, since we’re already “saved”. So why bother waking up early on Sundays?
Its not just that. Its the hypocrisy of the previous two generations, as you pointed out. When millenials see the older generations acting like Christian teaching is no big thing, we shouldn’t be shocked that they would come to that kind of conclusion.
There are probably none. I used to think more like you do–that this is an ugly truth–but it’s not. This is extraordinarily good news for someone like me, and I suspect everyone who might ever read this.
As long as we don’t forget that preaching is a clearly named spiritual gift (unlike, say: the oft-claimed muscle strength) and the gifts do not go forth or return empty.
I don’t mean to pick on you, Ballista, but you’ve not squared your corners. The disciples themselves did not understand Jesus’ parables without his explanation, and they of all of us ever must have had hearts inclined to do so. There must be not only hearers but proclaimers (preachers and prophets); and not only proclaimers but interpreters (teachers and straight-up interpreters).
There are many who came before us who did not have to be spiritually whipped with the rod of the Bible who simply heard and believed. Though I am thankful to have had the opportunity for the stripes.
Its not just that. Its the hypocrisy of the previous two generations, as you pointed out. When millenials see the older generations acting like Christian teaching is no big thing, we shouldn’t be shocked that they would come to that kind of conclusion.
Sometimes I wonder if older Christians are intentionally trying to sabotage young Christians faith in Christ. I mean, that’s the only explanation I can think of for why they teach such outrageous heresies to young Christians.
To use an example from my childhood religious education: my textbook claimed sex for pleasure within marriage is a sin.
(No it’s not. The Bible is pretty straightforward when it comes to blessing martial bed pleasure)
Was that a Catholic textbook BF? I think I recall that you went to Catholic schools while growing up. I know that some extreme forms of Augustinian teaching were prevalent for a long while in the Church, and one aspect of that teaching was basically anti-sex to the point of heresy.
@ Cane
I should have introduced a “try” into that sentence to make it better. None of us can actually live exactly how a Christian should, we are imperfect beings who will sin. But there are some few who at least always tried to live as Christians should, even though they failed to always live up to their efforts.
I not only failed, but failed to try. I sometimes still fail to try. I don’t think inserting that word changes it.
The next step in your parade (hopefully) will be realizing how this actually applies to you; what the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice means about your efforts. Then you can move onto being grateful. Not that you’re not now, but…food for thought.
@ Donalgraeme: Yes, I went to a Catholic school. (I didn’t want to mention it, though, because whenever I do a certain Catholic on the blogosphere accuses me of being anti-Catholic)
I had to take a marriage preparation class in High School (the Catholic curriculum equivalent of sex-ed). I certainly hope the material in the textbook didn’t reflect actual Catholic teachings. Because if so, than, well, no wonder the church is on a decline. Some highlights of the textbook: Pleasurable sex is a sin, rough sex is a sin…
*Sorry I meant to reply sooner but I was recovering from a miscarriage.
PS: I don’t mean to impose but I was wondering if you’d email me/contact me? I wanted to ask you a few questions if it isn’t too much to ask (I’m working on re-opening my blog and I want your opinion on a possible post).