Why Christianity?

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 10.06.32

The New Testament, like any book of practical wisdom, contains a healthy concern for teleology. That’s a fancy word, I suppose. Here’s the definition:

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 10.08.57

The authors encourage us to judge a process, at least partly, by its results. With this in mind, we can look at Christianity itself, and wonder what good it does the world, what purpose it serves, and thereby answer the question: Why Christianity?

Our first exhibit is the “fruits” of the exemplary Christians over at Warhorn Media. I went to their public twitter feed today, and was greeted by this…

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 10.04.26

Immediately my readers should note the contradiction: fragility is derided, even as these stalwart Christian soldiers whine and gripe about an anonymous critic on the internet. Setting this aside for a moment, we see the insane hatred of the Christians, directed explicitly against men.

Men: Christians hate you. They hate your families. Their hatred knows no bounds.

Of course, we can go back to sample the hatred of the supposed opponents of Warhorn Media, already documented here. For example:

Dalrock, Cane Caldo, and their asslickers try to ruin the reputation of a U.S. Army veteran, simply for disagreeing with them.

It’s interesting to note that Dalrock et. al. were making up fanciful stories about this man being a sex pervert, while ignoring the actual sex perverts that infest Christian churches.


I used to analogize Christians as a bundle of snakes, tied tightly around the middle, all hissing and striking each other. This latest interaction only bolsters that observation.

In theory, Dalrock and Warhorn disagree on much, and they spend weeks sniping at one another. In practice, Dalrock and Warhorn agree that men should be crushed. They both follow the Christian pattern of paying shallow lip service to real problems, while spreading hatred toward men.

Christians hate healthy masculinity. Christians hate fatherhood.

If you are a young man today, your very worst enemies are people like Dalrock and Warhorn media. They get paid (be it money or ego stroking) by tickling your ears, while stabbing you in the back.

Christians hate you. They hate everything about you. They want you dead. They want your kids raped and brainwashed, and they will laugh while it happens.

Edit: Dalrock, who earlier claimed he was done discussing this matter, has yet another long article about Warhorn Media.

I am beginning to think that this entire exchange may have been staged.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

9 thoughts on “Why Christianity?”

  1. I used to analogize Christians as a bundle of snakes, tied tightly around the middle, all hissing and striking each other.

    That’s actually fallen human nature, desires of the flesh, etc. St. Paul specifically points this out…

    If more Christians lived their life in the Holy Spirit this ‘striking of each other’ would be much less. Problem is not only are seculars engaging in desires of the flesh…most Christians are too (of which I can say I’m also guilty…and realize I need God’s grace to overcome). Desires of the flesh can generate funds, feelz, fame, attention…at the expense of your soul.

  2. I posted a comment at Dalrock’s pointing out it was weird he was writing so much on something he says doesn’t bother him. I think it does bother him, I think he wanted Bayly’s respect, but instead was shocked he was treated like he’s treated many other people. It looks like the pot calling the kettle black (and being very upset by it).

    Also pointed out that his blog has become a Caldo-Dalrockian echo chamber, which was unfortunate and disappointing. Caldo is a reviler, slanderer, and false accuser of fellow brethren, and yet he is held in highest regard by Dalrock. This makes no sense to me, and I’ve been a longtime reader.

  3. Dear Tim:

    Welcome, brother.

    I posted a comment at Dalrock’s

    I’m curious as to whether he let you out of moderation?

    pointing out it was weird he was writing so much on something he says doesn’t bother him. I think it does bother him, I think he wanted Bayly’s respect, but instead was shocked he was treated like he’s treated many other people. It looks like the pot calling the kettle black (and being very upset by it).

    I think that’s a fair assumption, given the amount of ink that’s been spilled.

    At this point I’m leaning toward a personal theory, that Dalrock and Warhorn set this whole thing up, merely to garner sympathy, attention, and further donations. Of course, my writing about them is furthering the theater; but, I find the dynamic interesting enough to examine.


  4. Us Christians are humans too, prone to make mistakes. The difference is that when we discover these mistakes we should correct our behavior according to scripture. I dont know much about Dalrock. Some of his posts have been very helpful to me in the past and some are weird, but these guys at Warhorn seem like backstabbers, backbiters and liars. I read over some of what Dalrock posted and I do think they gave him the shaft. Whether or not he deserved it is up to whomever, but an ass is an ass, and they way they are playing this out sure makes them look like asses.

    I’ll say that no true Christian should be acting in the manner you see modern Christians acting. One might say its a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, but you can’t use the fallacy when the supposed Scotsman was born in South Africa. There ARE certain requirements for certain status, and for a Christian it should be adhering to the word of God and exhibiting the charity we are called to exhibit, charity being the word used for a non-sexual, friendship love, in the manner Paul used it. I dont see many “Christians” now days adhering to the word or showing charity toward one another, so what does that make them? Not Christians in my book, or the bible. Indeed you will know them by their fruit, and these peoples fruit stink.

  5. Brother Boxer-
    Always liked your comments on Dalrock’s blog. I have appreciated your insights on the Warhorn debacle too. I have gone back and forth on what I think.
    I am a Christian father and do nothing but what I can do to help other fathers, particularly the men younger than me, in this endeavor. Basically, NACALT, but it’s too bad so many Christians give such a bad scent off.

  6. And he’s still whining about this.

    I don’t think it’s staged, but I’ve wondered in the past if Dalrock is a woman, and this latest meltdown lends credence to the idea. His earliest blog posts illustrate almost a caricature of a Protestant “manly-man” from Texas, before shifting to strawman characterizations of his “opponents'” arguments and poorly-approprated social science research methods and jargon.

    I use quotations around ‘opponents’ because despite his obvious desperation in trying to goad prominent ministers into public debate, no real heavy hitter or respected thinker is going to waste time on an anonymous blogger. We can debate the value of anonymity until we’re blue in the face, but what professional who signs his name to his work is going to give a nameless, faceless blogger the respect Dal clearly feels he’s owed unless said professional is going through a real rough career patch? This isn’t just true of religious leaders – scientists, artists, and business men rarely feel compelled to defend their work against amateurs hiding behind personas on the web, nor should they.

  7. “And he’s still whining about this.”

    Dalrock’s latest adds nothing to the discussion. I’ve already shown that Dalrock lied about the “back-and-forth” narrative, and now we have more ridiculousness. It’s worth analyzing for the absurdity.

    “In omitting whole segments of our mail thread defining the terms of the proposed exchange, Nathan is clearly counting on his readers not noticing the discrepancy between the questions he claims I was answering and the ones I actually answered.”

    Having now read the smoking gun missing content, I now realize that I didn’t miss them. Whatever Dalrock thinks is so amazing in “discrepancy” is clearly lost on me, as it likely was by Nathan. If Dalrock can’t post on his own site everything necessary to portray his side of the discussion, then why should Nathan? I don’t get it at all. It’s almost like Dalrock can have any editorial control over the conversation that he wants, but help us all of Nathan does the same. If someone can explain it to me, I’d appreciate it.

    “Nathan implies that I pulled a fast one by publishing the interviews before they published the podcast. I acknowledge that I did want to get them out first, partly on the outside chance that the men of Pastor Tim Bayly’s Clearnote Church turned out to be deceitful. As it turns out I was wise to do so. However, I only published the exchanges (his questions and my answers) after asking for and receiving Nathan’s permission to do so.”

    I’ll note that I pointed out prior to the podcast that Dalrock was trying to front-run the discussion. I posted this after Dalrock posted Nathan’s permission to do so. Dalrock’s statement is logically flawed. It is possible for Dalrock both to front-run the discussion and to simultaneously have permission to do so. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Dalrock wasn’t deceptive, and no one said he was, but he was trying to control the narrative.

    Notice how Dalrock congratulates himself for posting it in advance, proving once and for all that you have to try to control the narrative so that you can play the victim when your bad behavior causes the very thing you use to justify that bad behavior. Yes, it’s circular reasoning. And yes, it’s sealioning.

  8. For those who think that Dalrock was not front-running the conversation, consider the reaction once the podcast was published. Did Dalrock immediately listen to the podcast and formulate a reply? Nope. He didn’t listen to it for a couple days. So surely he waited to focus on the content of the podcast, focusing on the message and not the meta? Nope. How can this be (feigned surprise)? Isn’t the reason for anonymity because “it’s the message, not the person making the message?” Nope.

    This has such an appearance of being a planned reaction that Boxer stated the following:

    “I am beginning to think that this entire exchange may have been staged.”

    Not staged, but certainly planned. It’s a fitting example of “outrage culture.” For all Dalrock’s supposed desire for a “back and forth discussion”, we have yet to get Dalrock’s response to and refutation of the content of the podcast.

  9. Of course he didn’t listen to the podcast. Dalrock frequently congratulates himself on his ability to provide thoughtful, nuanced insight into movies he’s never seen and books he’s never read based of what he’s heard and read from others.

    So no, it really didn’t surprise me when Box here outed him as a plagiarizer

Comments are closed.