₦airaland Forum

Ladyhippolyta88:
1.Christianity is a religion and perfectly fits the description of what religion is.I don't have time to argue illusion about it not being a religion

2.Science does not agree with christianity Science tells us that the earth is spherical the bible says the earth has 4 corners.Science tells us we evolved and are animals and Dinosaurs once existed the bible tells us something different and many more in the mind of a fanatic it is anti-christian in the USA religious fanatics have argued that evolution and science should not be taught because it is anti-christian.Same can be said about nothing being wrong with feminism or christianity but it depends on how you use it.

3.You just said you did not write the bible so what gave you the right or authority to choose what philosophy is christian.The bible over time has been written,rewritten and edited so how do you interpret the bible do you take the literal approach?The bible is subject to different human interpretations and religion is influenced by culture so what makes you think your own interpretation of the holy book is supreme you seem to forget that there are many denominations of christianity and as such results in different interpretations

4.Religious fanatism came into the discussion when you tried to claim superior authority on who a christian is and what philosophies christianity supports and does not who gave you such authority?It spans from fanatism

Ma'am,

Christianity is anti-modern feminism and red pill.

Each of these have fruits they produce which does not align with the Bible.

Where I would overstep my boundaries is if I insist everyone should be a Christian.

Luckily for you, you are no longer a Christian so no wahala, the OP is not for you.

bukatyne:
1. I sort of defined modern-feminism in the OP.

2. Christianity does not evolve. Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, today and forever. He doesn't change. His standards are same.

3. The Bible was also used to justify slavery. When did the Bible become popularly read? Mischievous people would use the Bible to justify their desires especially to people who don't have assess to it. It did not start today. Even the Pharisees twisted the Scriptures in the Bible. Today, the Bible is still twisted to fit personal agenda.

4. Even in my office, you cannot join any organization that brings disrepute by association to them. Please refer to point 2.

1.And I explained how feminism evolves and is subject to country and how homosexuality is not the same as feminism

2.It depends because the old testament is a part of the bible and christianity and there are verses in the bible both old and new testament we no longer adhere to or practice in today's world so yes things evolve and religion does or should too because it is not hidden knowledge that the bible has be reversed,re-written and even edited.

3.So why then are you being mischievious by trying to shitt on feminism using the bible?I am glad that you admit the bible can be twisted just as you are doing now I have no objection to your number 3

4.Like I said Nigeria by law is a secular society it should act like one and the society should be one because there are different beliefs of many people and I don't think it is healthy to mux religion with philosophy some will argue that religion is also philosophy

bukatyne:
Ma'am,

Christianity is anti-modern feminism and red pill.

Each of these have fruits they produce which does not align with the Bible.

Where I would overstep my boundaries is if I insist everyone should be a Christian.

Luckily for you, you are no longer a Christian so no wahala, the OP is not for you.

And like I said it is not in your place to argue that for everybody because there are people that will argue this with you and bring interpretations about their narrative.You are also overstepping by trying to use your own view on others and what they should term as christian or not?Is democracy,science christian?my point is simple life evolves and change is constant so there are certain things common sense tells us should not be mixed with religion so mixing human social philosophies with religion is not advisable in today's world because reality and circumstances of today is different from time past

This was not in religious section so I found my way here and decided to add my input

Ladyhippolyta88:
1.And I explained how feminism evolves and is subject to country and how homosexuality is not the same as feminism

2.It depends because the old testament is a part of the bible and christianity and there are verses in the bible both old and new testament we no longer adhere to or practice in today's world so yes things evolve and religion does or should too because it is not hidden knowledge that the bible has be reversed,re-written and even edited.

3.So why then are you being mischievious by trying to shitt on feminism using the bible?I am glad that you admit the bible can be twisted just as you are doing now I have no objection to your number 3

4.Like I said Nigeria by law is a secular society it should act like one and the society should be one because there are different beliefs of many people and I don't think it is healthy to mux religion with philosophy some will argue that religion is also philosophy

3. What is your issues with the OP? Mischievous how?

Your are not a Christian so the OP does not affect you. I am talking to my brothers and sisters doing one leg in, one leg out.

Ko le work.

I am telling Christians that the teachings of red pill and modern-feminism does not align with the Bible which is the standard of Christians.

Would you prefer I used the Quran as my standard instead?

bukatyne:
3. What is your issues with the OP? Mischievous how?

Your are not a Christian so the OP does not affect you. I am talking to my brothers and sisters doing one leg in, one leg out.

Ko le work.

I am telling Christians that the teachings of red pill and modern-feminism does not align with the Bible which is the standard of Christians.

Would you prefer I used the Quran as my standard instead?

3.I have no issue with you I saw a thread and decided to jump in.Mischievious in the sense that you misconstrued feminism and tried to bring your own interpretation to something that is practiced and you may not clearly understand but seem to be an Alpha and omega on the subject.


You should have taken this to religion section instead.I don't care what you use my only concern is that you are mixing philosophies with holybooks that have been written years ago when you clearly know that life evolves and our realities are different there is no need to put religious colouration on it especially on issues that happens outside of religion.People and scholars that invented secularity were not stupid it is because of things like this that made such invention necessary and practiced in a liberal democracy.

Ladyhippolyta88:
And like I said it is not in your place to argue that for everybody because there are people that will argue this with you and bring interpretations about their narrative.You are also overstepping by trying to use your own view on others and what they should term as christian or not?Is democracy,science christian?my point is simple life evolves and change is constant so there are certain things common sense tells us should not be mixed with religion

This was not in religious section so I found my way here and decided to add my input

You keep saying 'my view', 'I am overstepping' etc.

If a pastor tells his congregation that indecent dressing is a sin, is he overstepping his boundaries?

I have not mentioned my view here, I stated what is in the Bible which Christians know does not change.

This thread is not really a debate, it is a statement with explanations.

The target audience would read and ask themselves hard questions.

The Bible is against abortion, is against homosexuality, doesn't subscribe to 'your body is yours to do as you deem fit', is the textbook for patriarchy, teaches a woman is the housekeeper etc.

So what Concord can a Bible Believing Christian have with modern feminism?

Would I qualify as a modern feminist today if I am against abortion rights, support patriarchy, against homosexuality, tell women not to dress indecently? Tell them to be good housekeepers etc.

Am I not supporting 'oppression' of women?

Ladyhippolyta88:
3.I have no issue with you I saw a thread and decided to jump in.Mischievious in the sense that you misconstrued feminism and tried to bring your own interpretation to something that is practiced and you may not clearly understand but seem to be an Alpha and omega on the subject.


You should have taken this to religion section instead.I don't care what you use my only concern is that you are mixing philosophies with holybooks that have been written years ago when you clearly know that life evolves and our realities are different there is no need to put religious colouration on it especially on issues that happens outside of religion.People and scholars that invented secularity were not stupid it is because of things like this that made such invention necessary and practiced in a liberal democracy.

We have Christian men and women here

How did I mix modern-feminism and red pill with the Bible?

I weighed them against the BIBLE for a CHRISTIAN and it fell short.

Did I discourage people from joining either of these movements?

bukatyne:
You keep saying 'my view', 'I am overstepping' etc.

If a pastor tells his congregation that indecent dressing is a sin, is he overstepping his boundaries?

Because it is a public forum it is not in religion section to meet the targeted audience so don't be surprised if people like me step in here.Also the pastor is in his church this is a public forum and even some will still argue that God does not look at the dressing abd we were born naked even in times of old they were not fully clothed but God only looks at the heart and not physical outwardness.

I have not mentioned my view here, I stated what is in the Bible which Christians know does not change.

This thread is not really a debate, it is a statement with explanations.

The target audience would read and ask themselves hard questions

You did because your interpretation is a view of yours which can be agreed or disagreed upon using the same bible which has been reviewed and some will argue has been changed too.

The Bible is against abortion, is against homosexuality, doesn't subscribe to 'your body is yours to do as you deem fit', is the textbook for patriarchy, teaches a woman is the housekeeper etc.

So what Concord can a Bible Believing Christian have with modern feminism?[/s]I am still trying to understand how feminism relates to homosexuality as you earlier stated.Also there are christians who support the above from a logical point of view and who understand that biblical times and modern times are different because these people know how to separate religion from their work or daily lives when interacting with non believers or society as a whole.They agree with the separation of church and state.

[quote]Would I qualify as a modern feminist today if I am against abortion rights, support patriarchy, against homosexuality, tell women not to dress indecently? Tell them to be good housekeepers etc.

Am I not supporting 'oppression' of women?

It depends on your view of feminism and the society you find yourself.Feminism is a choice and is about trusting women to make decisions on their own in their own terms if your choice of the above is your own and independent then I don't see a problem as long as your respect the choice and view of another woman being capable of making her own decisions.

bukatyne:
We have Christian men and women here

How did I mix modern-feminism and red pill with the Bible?

I weighed them against the BIBLE for a CHRISTIAN and it fell short.

Did I discourage people from joining either of these movements?

My point exactly what brought the need to weigh them when you clearly know these movements did not come about in biblical times and human reality and life evolves and us different so to what end exactly?Is it to discredit the movement which some have benefitted from?you cannot speak for everybody and there are people who may have personally been positively impacted by such movement

Lol. Your article creates more questions than answers. It seems specially designed to provoke debate.

RisenPhoenix1:
Lol. Your article creates more questions than answers. It seems specially designed to provoke debate.

More questions ke?

With this two-paged epistle?

Ladyhippolyta88:
Because it is a public forum it is not in religion section to meet the targeted audience so don't be surprised if people like me step in here.Also the pastor is in his church this is a public forum and even some will still argue that God does not look at the dressing abd we were born naked even in times of old they were not fully clothed but God only looks at the heart and not physical outwardness.

You did because your interpretation is a view of yours which can be agreed or disagreed upon using the same bible which has been reviewed and some will argue has been changed too.

If a lady comes to me that she wants to abort, I would dissuade her from it. I would not leave her to do 'whatever' she likes:

I would speak against it. At that point, I am not 'respecting' her choice and freedom.

Dear, Christianity and modern-feminism cannot work.

True Christians know it, modern-feminists have realized and are dropping Christianity.

Ladyhippolyta88:
My point exactly what brought the need to weigh them when you clearly know these movements did not come about in biblical times and human reality and life evolves and us different so to what end exactly?Is it to discredit the movement which some have benefitted from?you cannot speak for everybody and there are people who may have personally been positively impacted by such movement

You are taking this topic too personal for someone who is not even a Christian.

How did I discredit modern-feminism kwanu?

I was very intentional which was why I separated it.

Did initial Feminism do us good? Yes.

Modern-feminism does not hold any benefit for me as a Christian. Christians do not need the right to abort; the right to fornicate, the right for homosexual marriage, we do not think our body is ours, we do not need patriarchy abolished, we judge everything through the lenses of Christianity through the help of the Holy Spirit and not popular opinion.

Anybody who benefits from modern-feminism cannot be a Christian; anyone who is a Christian cannot benefit from modern-feminism.

I don't know if it is delibrate or an omission from your end:

I differeniated modern-feminism and foundational feminism. I have further defined what I meant by modern-feminism.

I am curious though on your interest in the topic considering you are not a Christian.

bukatyne:
Good day Peeps

Disclaimer: THIS IS BUKATYNE's THREAD

Intro: It is a long read

It recently dropped in my heart/mind that the two reigning philosophies (feminism/women) and (red pill/men) are anti-Christianity i.e. you cannot be a Christian and be a modern-feminist or a red piller. In addition to the points below, modern-feminism and red pill fan the ambers of distrust between both sexes. And if both sexes distrust themselves, how can they fulfill God’s mandate on earth which includes dominion and multiplication? How can they live in harmony?

The Bible gives us ample guidelines on human relations in all spheres of life; marriage (most affected by the gender war), society, workplace, parent-children, domestic staff/workers etc.

MODERN FEMINISM: Why modern? The first wave seeking equal opportunities for men and women aligns with the tenets of Christianity. Modern/mainstream feminism here refers to (although not limited to) seeking equal outcomes, rejection of godly patriarchy, anti-marriage, anti-men/malehood, acceptance/support of homosexuality/transgender/intersex/abortion, systemic destruction of men, refusal to acknowledge differences in gender, rejection of a woman’s role in marriage (housekeeping/nurturing of children), support of immorality under the guise of ‘it is my body’, wanting to ‘copy men to do wrong’ instead of insisting on the right thing, rejection of God etc. etc. We get the idea.

RED PILL: In summary, this is a philosophy for men that ‘highlights who women are’ and how to ‘game’ them especially sexually.
> First off, red pill never ’highlights the fault of men’ and one wonders if they are perfect. The Bible tells us to remove the log in our eyes before removing the speck in our neighbor’s eyes. It is also a sign of pride and thinking highly of yourself to list only the ‘fault’ of another party and how you want to deal with them without taking stock of yourself and how you can be a better person. Psalm 36: 2 In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin.
> Secondly, the focus on sex (sadly outside marriage which is fornication {another sin} especially on Nairaland is ridiculous. A man who has arrived is one spinning plates aka joggling women without the intent to commit (marry) to anyone of them. Proverbs 31:3: Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.
> Thirdly, the subtle/explicit hatred for women is anti-love your neighbor as yourself or do unto others what you want others to do unto you. Ephesians 4:31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 1 John 3:15: 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. 1 John 4:20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. Compare the positive attitudes of men/fathers/husbands in the Bible viz a viz the red pill.

As Christians, we know that everyone has their role which does not make them inferior to others with ‘seemingly more important roles.’ As succinctly said by Dr. Myles Monroe, ‘there is nothing as tragic as excelling in a wrong role.’ I remember a story ‘attributed’ to Pastor Kumuyi: God showed him his mansion in Heaven and he saw a gigantic one beside it. Out of curiosity, he inquired and God told him it belonged to a lady sweeping/interceding in his Church. To people of the world, the girl is a nonentity doing something ‘irrelevant.’ To God, she was playing her role in Kumuyi’s mission and doing it well. For instance, Samuel served God by serving Eli (1 Sam 3:1); the first Deacons in the Bible (described as Spirit filled) were chosen to serve food to widows. The Deacons were appointed because the Apostles were distracted from teaching the gospel by serving. They did not think it was beneath them to serve. Peter was sent as an Apostle to the Jews while Paul was sent as an Apostle to the Gentiles. Some of the Apostles with Jesus did not write a page of the Bible while Apostle Paul wrote thirteen books etc. It neither diminished their importance nor denied them assess to heaven. Read Luke 22:24-27 for an idea of 'positions'

Christianity teaches the following amongst others:
Servant-leadership and upliftment: Jesus Christ washed the feet of His disciples, cooked for them etc. Jesus the Creator left His glory and became flesh like us. Imagine a King leaving his kingdom to resettle in another town where nobody knows him. Jesus prayed that we would do greater works than He did and empowered us for it.

Responsibility even when not convenient: Paul was shipwrecked and arrested yet he still took his assignment to preach the gospel around seriously. Going to the Cross was not easy for Jesus either. He wept at a point when His assignment overwhelmed Him yet He did not give up or think of Himself. Luke 22:44: He prayed more fervently, and he was in such agony of spirit that his sweat fell to the ground like great drops of blood.

Leaving vengeance for God/Forgiveness: At the Cross, Jesus still prayed for his enemies; Joseph son of Jacob forgave his brothers; we are enjoined to forgive 70 * 7 times daily etc.

Willingness to forgo your ‘rights’ for peace/greater good and humility: Jesus taught ‘if they slap your left cheek, turn the right one’, if someone offends you, forgive 70 * 7, endurance, patience etc. etc. Philippians 2: 1 – 11 is a fantastic read.

Mercy: Joseph the husband of Mary and Joseph (is it the name?) the son of Jacob win this award. Joseph (Mary’s husband) found out she was pregnant while engaged to him and supposedly a virgin. In the state of hurt and disappointment, he was still contemplating how to break the engagement without ‘disgracing’ Mary. We also know Joseph the son of Jacob who forgave his half brothers who sold him into slavery and Potiphar’s wife who set him up.

Love and Compassion: the Bible is a story of love. All the law and prophets has been compressed into two: 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Again, the Bible is filled with stories of Jesus’ compassion; to his disciples, to his opponents, to sick people around, to those who rejected Him etc.

Putting others before yourself: Ephesians 5:21 tells us to submit one to another. Same with other verses in Paul’s epistles which teaches us to treat one another with humility and mercy.

Harmony: Hebrews 14:12 Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Colossians 3:12-13: Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Contentment: Godliness with contentment is great gain. Just how we are different parts of the body of Christ hence different functions/gifts/roles, we have different roles in the church, families, workplace, society etc. We should embrace those roles and ask for the grace to do them well.

So my dears, you cannot be a modern feminist/red piller and be a Christian. You cannot serve two masters; you need to choose your master.

I leave us with this Bible passage:
Colossians 2:8, KJV: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Colossians 2:8, NLT: "Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ."

Regards,
Bukatyne

Hanty!!!


Your submissions on red pill is wrong....
Red pill talks about the fault of men and doesn't even encourage pre-marital sex as you think .....
And red pill does not hate women

Xavfra:
Hanty!!!


Your submissions on red pill is wrong....
Red pill talks about the fault of men and doesn't even encourage pre-marital sex as you think .....
And red pill does not hate women

Uncle,

What are the faults of men as listed in TRP?

Is game a subset of TPR or not?

Same as oneitis syndrome?

bukatyne:
Uncle,

What are the faults of men as listed in TRP?

if you read about it we'll you'll know

Is game a subset of TPR or not?
shey you know a guy can be a bad boy and still be a simp?
To be a gamer and take red pill are 2 different things


Same as oneitis syndrome?

oneitis syndrome is a true reality.... what's bad about it?

Hanty!

bukatyne:
More questions ke?

With this two-paged epistle?



If a lady comes to me that she wants to abort, I would dissuade her from it. I would not leave her to do 'whatever' she likes:

I would speak against it. At that point, I am not 'respecting' her choice and freedom.

Dear, Christianity and modern-feminism cannot work.

True Christians know it, modern-feminists have realized and are dropping Christianity.



You are taking this topic too personal for someone who is not even a Christian.

How did I discredit modern-feminism kwanu?

I was very intentional which was why I separated it.

Did initial Feminism do us good? Yes.

Modern-feminism does not hold any benefit for me as a Christian. Christians do not need the right to abort; the right to fornicate, the right for homosexual marriage, we do not think our body is ours, we do not need patriarchy abolished, we judge everything through the lenses of Christianity through the help of the Holy Spirit and not popular opinion.

Anybody who benefits from modern-feminism cannot be a Christian; anyone who is a Christian cannot benefit from modern-feminism.

I don't know if it is delibrate or an omission from your end:

I differeniated modern-feminism and foundational feminism. I have further defined what I meant by modern-feminism.

I am curious though on your interest in the topic considering you are not a Christian.

@bold,
The point is very simple separate religion from policies and secular societies.Learn to respect human choices and be tolerant you dissuade her from it it will still be her choice to make with or without you.Since we wanna be sincere feminism not just modern feminism did no benefit to you as a christian woman because feminism amd christianity as you pointed out is not supported by the bible.You need to stop linking feminism to christianity you cannot say modern feminism did not benefit christian women on which basis and context are you making this general assertion can you speak for all women?Do you even know the advocacy feminism is still advocating for today?if you wanna term it modern feminism I will still term it modern christianity since some christian practices of today is different from biblical times.Abortion has been a topic of advocacy since the 20th century and was legal in those countries at the time will you term the 20th century advocacy for abortion modern feminism even some non feminist have logical reasons for supporting abortion.How many religious places till today advice family planning?It is high time you learn to separate health care from these things.

My interest on the topic is simple I came across it in a non religious section and in a public forum.

Xavfra:
oneitis syndrome is a true reality.... what's bad about it?

Hanty!

I asked a question, you said I should read about it.

If I have come across a TRP post talking about the short coming of men as a gender, I would have stated it here.

Help me, I am listening.

I did not say they're are same, I said Game theory is a subset of TRP.

So you support the teaching that a man should not sleep with only one woman so he breaks the monopoly she has on his emotions? I.e. a husband should cheat sometimes to reset his emotions?

I'm only here to count the number of people who will pick one philosophy over the other - they are/will be the truly confused and insane people.

If TRP is bad, modern feminism is equally bad.
If modern feminism is bad, then TRP is equally bad.

Two sides of the same coin, is what they are... no more, no less.

It's either everyone on both sides stay mad together, or everyone becomes sane together.

I'm not interested in bringing Christianity into the discussion because not everyone identifies as a Christian, and even among those who do, it's only a minute few that adhere to it in the way it's meant to be adhered to.

Modern feminism and TRP are purely social issues the way I see it, not religious issues.
And again like I noted before, you simply can't hate one and love the other because that would definitely make you a misandrist/misogynist depending on which side you belong.

Ladyhippolyta88:
@bold,
The point is very simple separate religion from policies and secular societies.Learn to respect human choices and be tolerant you dissuade her from it it will still be her choice to make with or without you.Since we wanna be sincere feminism not just modern feminism did no benefit to you as a christian woman because feminism amd christianity as you pointed out is not supported by the bible.You need to stop linking feminism to christianity you cannot say modern feminism did not benefit christian women on which basis and context are you making this general assertion can you speak for all women?Do you even know the advocacy feminism is still advocating for today?if you wanna term it modern feminism I will still term it modern christianity since some christian practices of today is different from biblical times.Abortion has been a topic of advocacy since the 20th century and was legal in those countries at the time will you term the 20th century advocacy for abortion modern feminism even some non feminist have logical reasons for supporting abortion.How many religious places till today advice family planning?It is high time you learn to separate health care from these things.

My interest on the topic is simple I came across it in a non religious section and in a public forum.

You keep telling me and by extension Christians what to do with Christianity.

The Bible clearly states friendship with the world is enmity with God.

There is no 'modern' version of Christianity; any reference to modern Christianity is to condemn how Christianity has been watered to fit the world day.

I am not speaking for all women; I am speaking for Christian women who are true believers of Christ. Same way a Christian woman in Afghanistan can say Christian women do not dress indecently and I would nod; she is speaking for me.

The Bible is clear: by their fruits you shall know them.

Christianity has a clear standard; infact, the Apostles were named Christians after the people of Antioch who observed they behaved like Christ.

A simpler standard: Would Jesus support this? What would Jesus do?

@interest: What are you trying to prove? Let me explain: if you were a Christian, I would say you are trying to justify belief/membership of modern-feminism as a Christian.

Since you are not, what are you trying to tell me/prove?

That modern-feminism is aligned with Christianity or one can be a Christian and modern-feminist?

crackhaus:
I'm only here to count the number of people who will pick one philosophy over the other - they are/will be the truly confused and insane people.

If TRP is bad, modern feminism is equally bad.
If modern feminism is bad, then TRP is equally bad.

Two sides of the same coin, is what they are... no more, no less.

It's either everyone on both sides stay mad together, or everyone becomes sane together.

1. I'm not interested in bringing Christianity into the discussion because not everyone identifies as a Christian, and even among those who do, it's only a minute few that adhere to it in the way it's meant to be adhered to.

Modern feminism and TRP are purely social issues the way I see it, not religious issues.
And again like I noted before, you simply can't hate one and love the other because that would definitely make you a misandrist/misogynist depending on which side you belong.

@bold: funny, they are two sides of same coin o jare.

1. @ bold: a major problem. Jesus the Lamb/Shepherd is easier to 'picture' aka anything goes than Jesus the Lion/Lord who threw the traders out of the temple and cursed the fig tree.

bukatyne:
You keep telling me and by extension Christians what to do with Christianity.

The Bible clearly states friendship with the world is enmity with God.

There is no 'modern' version of Christianity; any reference to modern Christianity is to condemn how Christianity has been watered to fit the world day.

I am not speaking for all women; I am speaking for Christian women who are true believers of Christ. Same way a Christian woman in Afghanistan can say Christian women do not dress indecently and I would nod; she is speaking for me.

The Bible is clear: by their fruits you shall know them.

Christianity has a clear standard; infact, the Apostles were named Christians after the people of Antioch who observed they behaved like Christ.

A simpler standard: Would Jesus support this? What would Jesus do?

@interest: What are you trying to prove? Let me explain: if you were a Christian, I would say you are trying to justify belief/membership of modern-feminism as a Christian.

Since you are not, what are you trying to tell me/prove?

That modern-feminism is aligned with Christianity or one can be a Christian and modern-feminist?

You cannot speak for christian women you can only speak for yourself.And yes there is a modern version of christianity because not everything practiced in the bible is practiced today or fit with today's time
You are a fanatic and you should try to see life from a broad view and perspective that is all I have to say.I am done with this back and forth this kind of discuss I prefer it in person I am tired of typing.Suit yourself be tolerant and don't try to dictate for others.

Ladyhippolyta88:
You are a fanatic and you should try to see life from a broad view and perspective that is all I have to say.I am done with this back and forth this kind of discuss I prefer it in person I am tired of typing.Suit yourself be tolerant and don't try to dictate for others.

Sorry to your fingers

I don't dictate maami, I state what is in the Bible.

Expect you mean I should toss my Bible aside.

bukatyne:
Sorry to your fingers

I don't dictate maami, I state what is in the Bible.

Expect you mean I should toss my Bible aside.

I modified my post.

Feel free to practice your beliefs it is not in my place to tell you otherwise.

Thanks my fingers are tired

sweetmelanin:
Nice write-up Buka.

Although, I think the Nigerian version of the "red pill" is highly misconstrued.. [s]the movement is supposed to represent a mass awakening of men into the realisation that they've been handed a bad deal in modern relationships and marriage.

We live in a time where the very essence of masculinity is being branded as toxic/misogyny.. men are not allowed live in their true nature anymore, yet are still expected to remain traditionally chivalrous.. still providing and protecting women who are now supposedly "equal" to men and told to forgo their own nature to nurture the home and submit under her husband's authority.

..the many subgroups within the redpill movement all have a common goal .. and that is to reject the terrible aftermath of modern feminism as you have clearly explained in your write-up i.e.increased abortions (murder), rude, bitter and promiscous women, broken homes, displaced children, enmity between man and woman etc...

Too bad Nigerians have hijacked the term red pill as a excuse for throwing profanity and spreading sexual decadence.. Makes it hard for anti 'modern-feminism' women like myself to truly take a stance against the absolute depravity feminism has become.[/s]

[color=coral]Rest. Same way y'all accuse women of practicing a different feminism. Anything that is Nigerian is not always the true, but a misconstrued one. You're as fake as any feminist you call fake.

The op don share her view and she directed it to BOTH movements. No dey try to dey extricate yourself. We are all BAD! Goan nurse any wounds you got from the thread.[/color]

This Starrs is a case!

bukatyne:
More questions ke?

With this two-paged epistle?

Too many vague concepts are compared. For example; modern feminism has many postulations, as do the different arms of the red pill movement. And the most ambiguous term in your article is... Christian doctrine. What does that even mean?

Rollo Tomassi in his 4th book on Religion argued that modern pop Christianity especially, tends to empower the feminist movement. Any attempt to discredit the modern Christian doctrine that does so only results in a "no true Scotsman" fallacy; i.e. if it empowers the feminist movement, therefore it is not true Christian doctrine, and if it is Christian doctrine, it will not empower the feminist movement. Which brings us back to the question, what is true Christian doctrine? Also, there is a redpill blogger called Dalrock who dedicates his time to proving the congruence between the redpill movement and Christianity. Maybe you should look up some of his theories first. Search for dalrock on wordpress

bukatyne:
This Starrs is a case!

[color=coral]No lies. [/color]

Leshurr:
Are you oblivious to whose alternate "she" is?

[color=coral]You're sniffing for more treats, abi, Genq lowq(uotient)? [/color]

[color=coral]The thing that is sweeting me on this thread (e get tin wey no dey sweet me sef?) is the red pliers pillers coming to shalaye the red pill and dissociate it from the misconceptions they think people have about it.

If it's not ment. You want to thrash feminism and say it is nonsense, while reserving the right to setting things straight, as per say TRP na the only true movement. Don't sweat and fight it.

Whatever'll make feminism a demonic, anti-Christian and misandristic movement, will make the red pill same, but a misogynistic movement.

The Op, in her judgement, has declared none compatible with Christianity and that's that. Move on, or continue to practice whatever you want. [/color]

RisenPhoenix1:
1. Too many vague concepts are compared. For example; modern feminism has many postulations, as do the different arms of the red pill movement. And the most ambiguous term in your article is... Christian doctrine. What does that even mean?

2. Rollo Tomassi in his 4th book on Religion argued that modern pop Christianity especially, tends to empower the feminist movement. Any attempt to discredit the modern Christian doctrine that does so only results in a "no true Scotsman" fallacy; i.e. if it empowers the feminist movement, therefore it is not true Christian doctrine, and if it is Christian doctrine, it will not empower the feminist movement. Which brings us back to the question, what is true Christian doctrine?

3. Also, there is a redpill blogger called Dalrock who dedicates his time to proving the congruence between the redpill movement and Christianity. Maybe you should look up some of his theories first. Search for dalrock on wordpress

1. Christianity is as stated in the Bible. I listed some general teachings. I expect all Bible-believing Christians to agree to that. I know there are different strains of either philosophy hence the summary.

2. Modern Pop ....... Out of the window. Any Christian teaching classified as 'modern' is off the mark! The Bible has not been updated so where are they getting their modern from? There are basic tenets in Christianity about marriage, sex, male/female relationships, dressing etc.

3. Bible can be used to prove anything. I will look him up if I remember.

So in hence, modern-feminists and red pillers have used the Bible to 'prove' their stance yet come out with completely opposing counsel towards same thing. Red pill and modern-feminism are parallel lines that cannot meet. Hahahahahaha!

That is where they should have known there is something wrong somewhere.

bukatyne:
1. Christianity is as stated in the Bible. I listed some general teachings. I expect all Bible-believing Christians to agree to that. I know there are different strains of either philosophy hence the summary.

2. Modern Pop ....... Out of the window. Any Christian teaching classified as 'modern' is off the mark! The Bible has not been updated so where are they getting their modern from? There are basic tenets in Christianity about marriage, sex, male/female relationships, dressing etc.

3. Bible can be used to prove anything. I will look him up if I remember.

So in hence, modern-feminists and red pillers have used the Bible to 'prove' their stance yet come out with completely opposing counsel towards same thing. Red pill and modern-feminism are parallel lines that cannot meet. Hahahahahaha!

That is where they should have known there is something wrong somewhere.

Your points one and three contradict each other, and this is further emphasized by the bolded. It just goes to highlight what I said; using the Bible to prove/disprove anything is a vague concept depending on the personal interpretation of what one considers to be relevant scripture (yes, there is that clause too).

As for 'modern pop' Christianity, I believe he meant the charismatic evangelical flavour which currently makes up most of Nigerian Christianity today, and which you are statistically likely to be a follower of yourself.

Edit: I went back to reread the general teachings you listed. Most have little to no direct bearing on either feminism or redpill, and are very general in meaning. Ironically, the one that stood out was your praise for Joseph bringing up a baby knowing it's not his own. That is a strong feminist talking point through and through.

RisenPhoenix1:
1. Your points one and three contradict each other, and this is further emphasized by the bolded. It just goes to highlight what I said; using the Bible to prove/disprove anything is a vague concept depending on the personal interpretation of what one considers to be relevant scripture (yes, there is that clause too).

2. As for 'modern pop' Christianity, I believe he meant the charismatic evangelical flavour which currently makes up most of Nigerian Christianity today, and which you are statistically likely to be a follower of yourself.

1. The prove in point three was sarcasm. It is often passages lifted out of context and in isolation. For instance, God punished Adam for listening to his wife (Eve) and told Abraham to listen to his wife (Sarah) in certain situations. TRP would pick scenario 1 and say even The Bible knows men listening to their wives bring doom. Modern-feminism would pick scenario 2 and say even God told men to obey their wives.
A simple test is: what would Jesus do?

2. Hahahahahaha! I nor do any modern kankan.

Edit: That is lifting the Bible out of context. Joseph found out his virgin bethrode was pregnant and decided to end the engagement without shame to her (Mercy and compassion). God appeared to him and explained the situation.

That is parallel to paternity fraud and except the woman is a virgin trying to birth 2nd Jesus, they don't compare.

Funny, TRP can pick that same verse and advise men should marry only virgins because Jesus was born through one and a non-virgin single lady is impure.

Anyone who is a Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit knows the Biblical stance on these issues.

Not surprised that people mix and match for their desired end: Even Satan quoted the Bible to Jesus when he tempted Him in the wilderness.

bukatyne:
1. The prove in point three was sarcasm. It is often passages lifted out of context and in isolation. For instance, God punished Adam for listening to his wife (Eve) and told Abraham to listen to his wife (Sarah) in certain situations. TRP would pick scenario 1 and say even The Bible knows men listening to their wives bring doom. Modern-feminism would pick scenario 2 and say even God told men to obey their wives.
A simple test is: what would Jesus do?

2. Hahahahahaha! I nor do any modern kankan.

Edit: That is lifting the Bible out of context. Joseph found out his virgin bethrode was pregnant and decided to end the engagement without shame to her (Mercy and compassion). God appeared to him and explained the situation.

That is parallel to paternity fraud and except the woman is a virgin trying to birth 2nd Jesus, they don't compare.

Funny, TRP can pick that same verse and advise men should marry only virgins because Jesus was born through one and a non-virgin single lady is impure.

Anyone who is a Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit knows the Biblical stance on these issues.

Not surprised that people mix and match for their desired end: Even Satan quoted the Bible to Jesus when he tempted Him in the wilderness.

It's all a case of interpretation. If you had said that TRP and feminism clash with your personally favoured interpretation of the Bible, I would not have objected. But you stated 'christianity'. There is no proof that your interpretations are more correct or doctrinal than theirs. What "Jesus would do" is pure unadulterated speculation.

Pentecostal Christianity is the most modern of Kankans. It can easily be traced to its origins, even though pentecostals claim to be following the original form; just like all other Christians. Who's to say what is right?

All those verses you cited fit into the narrative. There is no contextual background that clearly contradicts the interpretation given to them. Listening to Eve did bring grief to Adam, and Joseph did eventually take care of a child not his own.

Did it occur to you that your last statement may be exactly what other Christians think of your own interpretation?