Complimentarianism is a broader term for generally male headshep and women support in family and/or church. Patriarchy is the most sensible, consistent, and effective form

And definitely @SMV, unfortunately even our conservative denominations have been cucked into egalitarianism

My Bible college being a perfect example

Egalitarianism is cancer, and such a hard one to train out. It took some serious butting of heads with my girlfriend to get her to understand how genuinely important headship is, it's so engrained into our culture people just don't question it. It's almost akin to suggesting the return of slavery in a lot of respects to the average joe.

Good on you for working on that one.

Big oath. Im in Pentecostal circles so the air of hostility towards complimentarianism is VERY thick, even in the very conservative sections. I'm almost totally alone in my views but hope to get them out as I trek through academia (studying theology). Hope to do some talks and release books on the subject.

@SUPER MALE VITALITY™ As a matter of useful information for the rest of us, how did you do It?

Mostly just a matter of being comfortable speaking my mind, and confronting the emotional fallout it can cause. It used to upset her a lot how anti-egalitarian I am, but over the years I've held firm and let her challenge me on things that haven't sat right with her, and I've sat her down and worked out the reasoning for everything in terms she can understand. Ultimately she's still not as on board as I'd wish, but she now affirms the same views on gender roles and male headship in general terms the same mind. A lot of it is just deprogramming so basic concepts stop sounding radical, once you can divest the emotional gut feeling from the actual ideas it's a lot easier to show how much better things are the right way.

Perfect way lad, thats exactly how tou change a mind

@Based Chav I redpilled my GF from weak complementarianism patriarchy. We went through scripture on the subject and discussed views in the church fathers. I think the biggest thing though was just showing how horrible egalitarianism was for society and the church. It came naturally with other redpills. I recently started redpilling her on the exaggeration and misrepresentation of the holohoax. These days she sees through most of the propaganda put out pretty easily.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c00a4jJNcpbbKWdnDHZARJ_BiC3Sw3P_QtsvPYlWhGE/edit
Here's my book list, if anyone of you is interested (or not)

I requested access to see your book list, my email starts with duded, you should see a notification

@The Other Paul you should be able to see it now

Siq got the invite

But OOOO BB my big order just arrived

If you wanna learn about the Dominionist theological movement with some Reformed material therein, or you just wanna bash antinomianists, get these 800+ page tome

*get this

I've got more tomes in my backlog and it keeps on growing and growing

Problem is that I can only get like 50 or so per year and actually have to read and finish it

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FOc9j4Y__TAj8THt0z_YYSGffrPcJTimYDlWyg4aIJ0/edit?usp=drivesdk

Idk who requested view of my doc, but I just made a public one

When was it?

6 PM today

That one there is the new one for public access

I see

I recommend to all of you Monsignor's Alfred Gilbey's *We Believe*. He was the longest serving Catholic chaplain in Cambridge University (1932 - 1965), until he left during the Second Vatican Council after refusing to admit females to the chaplaincy. He celebrated exclusively the Traditional Latin Mass until his death in 1998, and continued to oppose allowing female entry into university throughout his entire life.

Monsignor Gilbey boasted a 100% conversion rate for any Protestant student at Cambridge who read his book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/We-Believe-N-Gilbey/dp/0852447701

Oh shit. This actually sounds really good. Thanks man

I still have to read Peter Gillquist's *Becoming Orthodox* after it was recommended to me

Okay, another book from another extraordinary Victorian priest in London.

https://www.amazon.com/Creator-Creature-Wonders-Divine-Love/dp/0895550768

A brief excerpt from the chapter I'm reading now:

"God was a fine thought in the Middle Ages, and religion and organised priestcraft, which was not evil, but which has now outlived any practical utilities it may have had. God is subjective: He is an idea: He is the creature of man's mind. If there be any real truth in religion, it must be looked for in the direction of pantheism. But the world is too busy to think much even of that. This is practically their view, or would be, if they took the trouble to have a view at all.

What it comes to is this. Men are masters. They begin and end with themselves. Humanity marches onwards with great strides to the magnificent goal of social perfectibility. Each generation is a glorious section of the procession of progress. Liberty, independence, speed, association, and self-praise, these compose the spirit of the modern world. The word creature is a name, an affair of classification, like the title of a genus or a species in natural history. But it has no religious consequences: it entangled us in no supernatural relations. It simply means that we are not eternal, the remembrance of which is salutary, in that it quickens our diligence in the pursuit of material prosperity."

That first sentence has bogglingly poor grammar

Dubious. He was, after all, an Oxford literary scholar (an elected fellow at Balliol, too).

Seems fine to me

The first sentence is littered with error

Idek where to begin to dissect it

God (as a concept) was a fine thought in the Middle Ages