Christianity is basically one giant cope for the spiritually feminine. It’s the ultimate fantasy of being loved no matter how pathetic you are—just believe, cry a little, and wait for your cosmic husband to bleed out for you. You're not expected to become powerful or clear-minded; you're expected to kneel, confess, and beg Daddy Jesus to fix your mess. It flatters weakness, exalts victimhood, and glorifies obedience. You’re the bride, the sheep, the child—never the warrior. The whole system is designed to keep you emotionally dependent, spiritually infantilized, and endlessly grateful to a savior who does all the heavy lifting. You’re not here to awaken. You’re here to weep and worship.

Christ isn’t your king—he’s your wartime husband in a soap opera. He gets nailed to a plank so you can feel special and cry about how much he loves you. The believer is the weepy wife archetype, waiting at home while strong man-Jesus goes off to battle the big bad demons. It’s spiritual Stockholm Syndrome. You’re told you’re worthless without him, dirty without his blood, doomed without his grace. Meanwhile, you're fed this romantic delusion that suffering is holy and that loyalty is strength. But there’s no real transformation—just emotional masturbation dressed up as faith. Christianity isn't a path to power; it's a spiritual love story for people too broken to stand up on their own.

>>24503316 (OP)
you mother shouldn't have wasted her time giving you birth maggot

if you say something is good certainly it becomes real too

>>24503316 (OP)
The only way one can take Christianity like this is if you're a brainlet, which admittedly most people are. But honestly, most people aren't ready to face the truths of what Christ actually said, even devout Christians.

Telling His followers to carry their cross isn't feminine, it's the opposite. You still have to do the carrying (it's the reason why in general women Christians fall into the "OMG you gotta love me for who I am my past doesnt define me!!1!"). Jesus does the spiritual heavy lifting, sure, but even then you still have to put yourself through fire and you'll suffer. That's life and that is something that Jesus does not shy away from at all and He made Himself the best example of that. You carry the cross with the promise that there is a purpose to all this and with the blind faith that God is goodness. Suffering in itself isn't good but what comes after is. Suffering is literally inevitable. So do you choose to rise or whine about it?

It's not that your worthless without Him (humans have value in and of themselves or else God wouldn't have come to Earth to save them in the first place) but that without Him you cannot save yourself spiritually nor will you reach your highest potential.

It's funny you paint it in this light because Christianity is one of the most brutal religions in terms of the terms one has to accept about reality which has been the nonstop postmodern (and before that) critique of Christianity. It's too "le mean". Which is what you also sound like when you say things like "you're told you're worthless without him". How anyone gets that from basic Christian theology is beyond me.

>>24503546
You’re trying to sound deep, but you’re just repeating Christian cope with extra steps. “Carry your cross” doesn’t make the religion masculine—it just romanticizes suffering as obedience. You’re still surrendering to a higher will, still clinging to the idea that your pain means something because someone else told you it does. That’s not strength, that’s spiritual dependency with a noble label slapped on it. Saying “Jesus does the heavy lifting but you suffer too” just proves the point—it’s feminine at the core. You play the loyal, hurting spouse while the divine man goes to war on your behalf. That’s the exact myth structure I pointed out, and you're just confirming it.

And your whole “you’re not worthless because God died for you” logic is peak emotional validation. You matter because someone chose to love you? That’s not self-worth, that’s cosmic daddy issues. It’s still built on external approval—just dressed up in scripture and sacrifice. Christianity doesn't ask you to rise—it asks you to kneel and trust that someone else will lift you up. It’s a religion of longing, submission, and emotional dependency. You can call it “brutal” all you want, but painting suffering with divine meaning is exactly what makes it soft at the core. Brutality is staring into the void without flinching, not holding your cross and whispering “there’s a purpose.” You don’t even realize you’re proving every point I made.

>>24503316 (OP)
I'm sure OP is a badass. Genghis Khan reborn.
Just avoid horse stables in case you see one getting whipped.

>>24503558
>it just romanticizes suffering as obedience
Pointing out an inevitable step of existence is not romanticizing anything. Many people suffer and don't obey, etc.

>You’re still surrendering to a higher will
As opposed to what? Being an ubermensch? So surrendering to your ego or subjective morals? One is always submitting to something no matter how you cope about it.

>Saying “Jesus does the heavy lifting but you suffer too” just proves the point—it’s feminine at the core.
If you can explain how in principle one can suffer completely spiritually without the aid of a higher ideal, I'm all ears.

>And your whole “you’re not worthless because God died for you” logic is peak emotional validation. You matter because someone chose to love you?
What other metric is there? Why are you valuable as a human absent God or absent some objective moral standard? That "someone" choosing to love you is that Goodness itself chose to save us. I know you probably don't believe in Christ per say but that's the idea.

If you wanna whittle it all down to feminine because you submit to a higher power, then I guess sure. But how is a man that controls his vices, has a family and actually does good for the world, builds, creates, feminine? Whether atheist or not, they are more than likely submitting to an ideal, either way.

>Brutality is staring into the void without flinchin
You're presupposing void is the default, though, and most people don't even actually believe this. But let me be generous and say by "void" you mean the possibility of it all being for nothing. Yeah, well so what? You can still grapple with that as a Christian. You'll grapple with that no matter what religion you are.

>>24503316 (OP)
i dont mean to attack christianity but this is clearly true (and not even really fundamentally a bad thing so i dont know why all the other anons are leaping on OP to "prove" him wrong). its also why kings and knights and such always have to have a slightly different warrior focused version of christianity

similar to samurai who also had their own versions or interpretations of the main religion too like with japanese zen

>>24503316 (OP)
That's a whole lot of words for someone who raised by a single mom

>>24503600
>Pointing out an inevitable step of existence is not romanticizing anything.

Sure, suffering is inevitable—but Christianity doesn’t just point that out. It imbues it with cosmic meaning and asks you to submit to it with the belief that it’s all part of a divine plan. That’s the romanticism. You’re not just saying “pain exists”—you’re saying “my pain has meaning because I’m carrying it for God.” That’s not facing suffering head-on, that’s coping by narrative.

>So surrendering to your ego or subjective morals? One is always submitting to something no matter how you cope about it.

Classic false equivalence. Choosing how to respond to life’s chaos isn’t the same as submitting your identity to a divine will. One is active confrontation, the other is willful dependence. Submitting to your own values, forged through experience and critical thought, is not the same as handing yourself over to an invisible caretaker and calling it strength. If you think all submission is equal, you’re just flattening nuance to protect your worldview.

>Explain how one can suffer spiritually without the aid of a higher ideal.

Easily: by recognizing suffering as raw, unfiltered reality and meeting it without the need for a cosmic safety net. You suffer, you endure, and you rebuild because that's what a conscious being does—not because a divine being tells you there’s gold at the end. It’s harder. It requires more clarity. There's no reward but the strength you forge through it. That’s actual spiritual maturity—not leaning on mythic scaffolding for comfort.

>>24503600
>What other metric is there for value besides being loved by God?

You just admitted you’re measuring human worth by external validation. “I matter because Goodness™ loves me.” That’s not value—that’s codependency spiritualized. Real worth doesn’t need to be confirmed by a being outside yourself. It’s intrinsic, or it’s nothing. If your only claim to dignity is that your celestial dad said so, you’ve proved my entire point.

> ou submit to an ideal either way.

Yes, but submission isn’t the issue—it’s what kind of submission. Submitting to an impersonal truth or an earned principle is radically different than submitting to an anthropomorphized, emotionally entangled god-figure. One is adult engagement with life. The other is regressively romantic. Christianity frames the believer as a child, a bride, a sinner in need. That’s the feminine structure I pointed out—not that submission per se is bad, but that the entire dynamic is rooted in dependency and emotional pleading.

>You presuppose the void is default.

It’s not a presupposition. It’s facing the very real possibility that there is no ultimate meaning—just what we create. If your answer is “well, we all struggle with that anyway,” then great—you’ve acknowledged that Christianity just adds sugar to the pill. That’s not a refutation. That’s just confirmation that it’s one more story to soften the blow, not something fundamentally braver or deeper.

So yes, Christianity is emotionally structured like a romance. It flatters weakness, exalts surrender, and teaches that love from above is what gives you value. And your reply, despite all its rhetorical polish, just reinforces that frame. You just dress it up in grit to feel tough about kneeling.

>>24503624
And yet here you are, emotionally spiraling over a critique of your sky dad—might want to check who really got raised without a spine. Mommy issues don’t hit as hard when your whole religion is built around needing a cosmic parent to tell you you're special.

>>24503636
ChatGPT is working fine with you piggy

>>24503636
Im pretty poker faced right now but sure thing, Tristan

>>24503316 (OP)
Evola speaks of this.

>>24503438
FPBP

>>24503632
>You just admitted you’re measuring human worth by external validation
I never said otherwise but you're also doing a false equivalency here. The human soul is intrinsic (i.e. the thing that makes a human valuable) but only through God can that soul be saved. You also didn't answer my question. What other metric is there? Because it just should be? Because it's survival instinct? Because it's le mean to not give humans dignity? My claim is that it's intrinsic (because the divine is in us or we have access to it) but the divine can also be outside us.

>One is adult engagement with life. The other is regressively romantic.
You still haven't explained how this is so, though. Submitting is submitting. If what you wanna do is say "my disembodied principle is better than your sky daddy", that's hardly an argument over why one is superior to the other. I could just say your disembodied principle is your "wittle feewings" and dismiss it all the same.

But if you want to say that the type of submission it does is more NARRATIVELY focused on dependency (aka feminine), then fair enough. But again, you'd have to delineate what makes a submission to a disembodied ideal any different than dependency to a Creator other than the narrative aspect of it.

>It’s not a presupposition. It’s facing the very real possibility that there is no ultimate meaning—just what we create. If your answer is “well, we all struggle with that anyway,” then great—you’ve acknowledged that Christianity just adds sugar to the pill.
That's what I said. But I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Are you talking here to "prove" that it's a sugar pill (literally any philosophy could be disregarded as that so it's not really an argument) or to understand/critique the idea of WHY Christianity believes in objective meaning and that suffering is not for nothing? Because if it's the latter, we're just talking past each other as you ultimately just said that meaning is what we create.

>It flatters weakness, exalts surrender, and teaches that love from above is what gives you value.
You're making these claims, not me. I've asked you repeatedly why these things are not so but you're not telling me anything.

1. How does accepting the suffering you're going through and using it as a way to become better flattering weakness?

2. Is the fault for you in surrender merely the narrative behind it? If so, how is this narrative different than any narrative you come up with?

3. Let's start easy then. What gives you value intrinsically in your world view?

>>24503632
>You just admitted you’re measuring human worth by external validation. “I matter because Goodness™ loves me
You are retard he didn't say that

>>24503625
>You’re not just saying “pain exists”—you’re saying “my pain has meaning because I’m carrying it for God.”
>That’s not facing suffering head-on, that’s coping by narrative.

>You’re not just saying “pain exists”—you’re saying “my pain has no meaning because there is no God.”
>That’s not facing suffering head-on, that’s coping by saying it's all for nothing so why bother?

>Choosing how to respond to life’s chaos isn’t the same as submitting your identity to a divine will.
Submitting your identity to a divine will IS choosing how to respond to life's chaos. Even when I was a theist who followed Stoicism back in college I understood I was submitting to a higher power absent Christianity.

>Easily: by recognizing suffering as raw, unfiltered reality and meeting it without the need for a cosmic safety net
You still have to do all of this, religious or not. The only difference is one ascribes meaning to it all (the cosmic "safety net") and the other does not.

So what is your overall argument here? That the cosmic safety net is weaker than not believing in any cosmic meaning? Why?

>>24503625
>Classic false equivalence. Choosing how to respond to life’s chaos isn’t the same as submitting your identity to a divine will. One is active confrontation, the other is willful dependence. Submitting to your own values, forged through experience and critical thought, is not the same as handing yourself over to an invisible caretaker and calling it strength. If you think all submission is equal, you’re just flattening nuance to protect your worldview.

Many faiths emphasize that "submitting to divine will" is not a passive or weak act, but rather a profound and active choice. It often involves ongoing discernment, prayer, study, and a conscious effort to align one's actions with perceived divine principles. It's a journey, not a one-time surrender.

>>24503316 (OP)
what's the opposite of Christianity? what's the masculine religion/ideology?

>>24503741
There is no opposite of Christianity

>>24503744

>>24503316 (OP)
>>24503558
>>24503625
>>24503632
brvtal trvthnvke

>>24503741
master morality of the aryans. read nietzsche. read evola

>>24503316 (OP)
Include all Abrahamic faith or you’re a faggot. Muslim and Jew retards get no pass or preferential treatment.

>>24503316 (OP)
>Christianity is basically one giant cope for the spiritually feminine. It’s the ultimate fantasy of being loved no matter how pathetic you are—just believe, cry a little, and wait for your cosmic husband to bleed out for you. You're not expected to become powerful or clear-minded; you're expected to kneel, confess, and beg Daddy Jesus to fix your mess. It flatters weakness, exalts victimhood, and glorifies obedience. You’re the bride, the sheep, the child—never the warrior. The whole system is designed to keep you emotionally dependent, spiritually infantilized, and endlessly grateful to a savior who does all the heavy lifting. You’re not here to awaken. You’re here to weep and worship.
>Christ isn’t your king—he’s your wartime husband in a soap opera. He gets nailed to a plank so you can feel special and cry about how much he loves you. The believer is the weepy wife archetype, waiting at home while strong man-Jesus goes off to battle the big bad demons. It’s spiritual Stockholm Syndrome. You’re told you’re worthless without him, dirty without his blood, doomed without his grace. Meanwhile, you're fed this romantic delusion that suffering is holy and that loyalty is strength. But there’s no real transformation—just emotional masturbation dressed up as faith. Christianity isn't a path to power; it's a spiritual love story for people too broken to stand up on their own.

>>24503316 (OP)
I've gotta ask, how much do they pay you to post anti-Christian shit daily. Because I see it on almost every board with some variation of this shit. And if you're gonna larp as anti-Christian, at least understand wtf you're actually posting, because it's embarrassing quite frankly. Like a Boomer who doesn't understand what a meme is.

>>24503763
Everybody knows they're retarded however. You never see anybody presenting Islam or Judaism as the only hope for Western civilization.

>>24503772
Yeah nice non-argument. Keep seething and coping about how everyone that makes you upset is being paid to do so.

>>24503797
you are getting paid by the dajjal

>>24503316 (OP)
how do you feel about self-sacrifice for the ones you love?

>>24503871
Good, unfortuantely Christianity argues you should sacrifice yourself for the global goals of jewish ritual cannibalism and that you should forgive and love those who steal from, rape, and kill your loved ones.

>>24503885
>jewish ritual cannibalism and that you should forgive and love those who steal from, rape, and kill your loved ones.

That's totally untrue and christianity is not even jewish by the way

>>24503316 (OP)
This is ridiculously at odds with Christianity. Christians praying the Horologian pray to be clear minded and given onto wisdom multiple times a day. The Patristics are filled with calls to take up ascetic labors that one might be prepared for the contest with the world, even onto excruciation and martyrdom. When Dostoevsky wants to attack Christianity through Ivan as a sort of foil for his own Christian understanding he rightfully has Ivan's Grand Inquisitor tell Christ that he expects too much of men and expects them to be too heroic, that the price of diefication and theosis is too high, the goal too arduous.

>>24503923
nta but christianity is literally premised on the idea that "we are da real jooz!", this is literal doctrine and was the mainstream belief for thousands of years. kinda weird how so many people don't seem to know this.

i love how people like OP tell on themselves
whenever you hear the word "feminine" you know you're about to get the most closeted shit in the world

>>24503967
They know it, they just don't want it to be true. The Christian zealot is literally a schizophrenic mindfucked lunatic.

>"the Christian church, put beside the “people of God,” shows a complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism."

>"little super-Jews, ripe for some sort of madhouse, turned values upside down in order to meet their notions, just as if the Christian were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even the last judgment of all the rest.... The whole disaster was only made possible by the fact that there already existed in the world a similar megalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the Jewish: once a chasm began to yawn between Jews and Judaeo-Christians, the latter had no choice but to employ the self-preservative measures that the Jewish instinct had devised, even against the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews had employed them only against non-Jews. The Christian is simply a Jew of the “reformed” confession.—"

>>24503741
>what's the opposite of Christianity? what's the masculine religion/ideology?

embrace your aryan hyperborean olympian solar principle

It's not really about the religion itself but it's about an already held interior view of life / weltanschaung which the person the projects outward onto the religion or belief system. For example you have a victim mentality, you see Christ on a cross, you think "suffering victim". The early vikings, when they came into contact with christianity, saw him as a warrior king. They projected their own view of what a supreme being (God) was, onto the religion, and in their eyes it became about that. It's clear to anyone that the vast majority of modern people have a "suffering victim" mentality or "slave mentality", where a good person is suffering under a burden and is basically a victim suffering unjustly, because they view themselves that way. It's very interesting to find out that there used to be a lot of traditional motifs or scenes in which Christ was portrayed, especially in the early middle ages, but most of those became lost and now we mostly have Christ suffering on a cross.

Christianity just happened to be the "vessel" or mode through which the victim mentality of the modern age manifested and was carried to its ultimate growth, in my opnion

>>24504235
how do you feel about self-sacrifice for your loved ones?
and insofar as suffering emboldens a victim mentality, that's only if you don't channel suffering towards generation and creativity. I'd say suffering is inevitable if you're alive, but you have to make do with it and create something with it.

>>24504235
>The early vikings, when they came into contact with christianity, saw him as a warrior king.
That's the image they were intentionally presented with by missionaries.

>>24503987
Yes, you raise a good point. It's usually people like OP who use "feminine" in a morally negative sense. As if femininity is inherently morally wrong somehow. It's easy for anyone with a somewhat analytic mindset to see masculine and feminine traits in most major religious movements, and even in oneself. It is also interesting to analyze things from a standpoint which is beyond the good / evil paradigm and just be somewhat objective. Most people (the masses) have a very moralist point of view where things need to be either good or bad.

>>24504243
>self-sacrifice for your loved ones
That's alright I guess but I think if it stems from you believing that you are a morally good person because you sacrifice yourself then that's sort of a lower perspective. I think from a higher perspective whether you die or "survive" isn't relevant. That's what I think forms the basis of a true "warrior" culture.

>>24504245
That may be true but why do you think the missionaries would present such a picture. Obviously because the vikings would be villing to accept a God that is a strong warrior. "God" in this sense taken to mean supreme being, someone to whom you would willingly subject yourself. Spiritual authority is beyond earthly things like muscle, guns or material power. So when the missionaries came to the vikings and wanted to subdue them (spiritually) they would need to present their God as a being that the vikings would see as superior, they would not see a suffering victim as superior but they would probably see a supernaturally strong warrior as superior so that's how they pitched Christ to them. And I guess it caught on because the vikings were the fforerunners of the Normands who then became the warrior nobility of Europe and launched the Crusades into the holy land.

>>24503680
He speaks about most things pertaining to the modern world which is why he is required reading of every poster on /lit/.

>>24503885
Nigga, what Christianity are you reading?

>>24504251
>That may be true but why do you think the missionaries would present such a picture.
because it's a classic case of "skillful means" aka deceiving people "for their own good" except unlike mahayana buddhists who do this in order to awaken people to their superiority to every element in the universe the christian missionaries did this in order to get people to worship their totem and give money to the church.

>>24503316 (OP)
>—
>—
>—
Been seeing a lot of these lately. Is the evil AI prowling /lit/ now booksisters?

>>24503761
Samefag

>>24503775
Umm, I've have seen people presenting judaism as the only hope for Western civilization.

>>24506077
When have jews ever outwardly promoted judaism for goyim?

>>24504235
This is an excellent anonymous article; I learned something today. I'm reading Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture, and there is indeed a profound shift between the conquering, unemotional Christ, which shows that Christianity at the time was still an operational spirituality, and a purely emotional depiction, mainly aimed towards the "weak".

>>24503600
>Many people suffer and don't obey
Yes, because free men don't kneel, court eunuch.

>>24506080
Christianity uite literally was judaism for the goyim.
It's why Jewish christianity as a sect existed, St Peter and Jesus brother James for instance were against spreading christianity outside of jewish circles

Not reading all of that. I'm happy for you though, or sorry that happened.

>>24503316 (OP)
>Never the warrior

>ctrl f "—"
>