The Side B LARPers of Digital Christendom
I’ll admit it. I’ve long suspected that there was a young, growing cohort of Christian LARPers on social media who love the trappings of Christian historical identity, Western culture, and Euro-centricity over and above the Savior who is our religion’s namesake. It’s like they’ve decided that they’ve got the whole gospel thing figured out – at least for them – and they can now turn their attention to building Christendom, one Jesus-y paint job at a time. While the Holy Spirit is busy building God’s spiritual kingdom by transforming the hearts of former sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, and every other type of sinner shunned by the properly religious, these guys have the natural kingdom building covered – one tweet at a time.
I wish I had been wrong.
The start of this was this X post from our illustrious staff writer:
I saw it, liked it, and thought to myself, This is a good way to demonstrate Gospel 101. I mean, nobody prefers dealing with the consequences of this kind of sin, but surely believers understand the priority of regeneration over works in matters like marriage.
The post was clearly a spiritual comparison between the regenerate and the unregenerate. But in the hours and days that followed, many self-professed Christians online revealed just how little they understand the Gospel they claim to believe.
We got responses advocating “marriage evangelism”:
Responses absolving porn consumption as not as bad:
Responses comparing redeemed daughters of God to cars:
And ones subjecting the transformative power of salvation to the pseudoscience of “pair bonding”:
Perhaps the most idiotic/depraved take was that there was an (unspecified) line of pre-salvation sin that placed redeemed women off-limits for marriage, labeling men as “virtuous” and encouraging them to remain celibate rather than obey God’s dominion mandate to be fruitful and multiply:
For proponents of Side B LGBTQ Christianity, the identifying “homosexual” may have to remain celibate because God cannot mortify his same-sex desires enough to lead him to a godly woman.
For proponents of Side B Incel Christianity, the identifying “virtuous” young man may have to remain celibate because God refuses to present him with a Christian wife sufficiently cleansed from her former sin.
In both cases, being fruitful and multiplying is not their concern. Rather, celibacy may be their cross to bear. You know, like the apostle Paul or something.
Grace Offends the Proud
Some responses claimed we were endorsing or favoring certain kinds of sexual sin. Others twisted the tweet into a bizarre call for Christian men to go seek out former prostitutes to marry. Behind much of it was the presupposition that they and their sons were much more holy and deserving of blessing than the young women saved from sexual sin. For “side B” homosexuals, obeying God means remaining celibate
Considering we were taking strong issue with the sin of pride, the irony was staggering.
We compared a saved woman with a sinful past—one who had come to know the depths of her sin and the mercy of God—to an unregenerate virgin with a proud heart. Scripture could not be clearer: God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Pride, not promiscuity, was the sin of the Pharisees.
No one said there aren’t real consequences to sin. We’ve consistently taught that sexual sin—especially public and enduring forms like pornography or prostitution—can carry lasting temporal consequences. But temporal consequences are not the same as spiritual disqualification. One of these women is a sister in Christ, made righteous by faith. The other is an enemy of God. If you’re more scandalized by the former’s past than the latter’s lostness, you’re not thinking like a Christian.
No one is obligated to marry anyone. Christians are free to exercise wisdom and prudence in whom they pursue for marriage. You may, as I do, prefer your son’s future spouse not to have a past like that. But what we posted wasn’t about preferences. It was a salvific comparison. The kind that forces the reader to reckon with spiritual priorities: do you believe that Christ really makes all things new, or not?
If you would rather your son marry a virgin who is lost, proud, and self-righteous—an enemy of God—than a woman who has repented, been forgiven, and now walks in newness of life, your priorities are upside down.
Worse, you may not understand the Gospel at all.
The Gospel Isn’t Culture War Plus Forgiveness
A disturbing number of responses to our post came from those who seem to have confused cultural conservatism with Christianity. They’ve fought so long in the trenches of the culture war that they no longer recognize a Gospel plea when they see one.
They rail against the sin of OnlyFans but stumble at the scandal of grace. They affirm forgiveness in theory, but when confronted with a real example—a redeemed digital prostitute—they revert to pharisaical gatekeeping. “She’s damaged goods.” “She can be saved, but she can’t be a wife.”
Sound familiar? That’s the older brother in the Prodigal Son story. The one who stayed clean, but never knew the Father.
Some of this error, I believe, stems from a distorted eschatology—particularly certain flavors of postmillennialism or Christian Nationalism that overemphasize temporal kingdom building. These views often conflate Christian culture with the Christian Gospel, as if the goal is to produce a wholesome society rather than to proclaim salvation to sinners.
But we’re not building a kingdom of well-behaved people. We’re calling dead men to life.
Digital Pharisees and Their Real Concern
The vast majority of the outrage wasn’t really about theology. It was about shame. Embarrassment. Reputation.
Many of these critics aren’t concerned about their sons marrying unregenerate women; they’re afraid of marrying someone whose past might show up on the internet. This is a uniquely digital pharisaism—moral panic rooted not in Scripture, but in social consequences. Personal embarrassment. The presupposition that the internet is reality, and for many of these young men, it is the reality that matters most to them – safe and sound as Lords over the AI-generated castle pictures on their feeds.
But the gospel is not ashamed of grace. Christ is not ashamed to call redeemed prostitutes His bride. Are you?
If your deepest fear is that someone might find an old photo online, you might want to ask yourself: what gospel do you believe in? The one that says, “Come to me, all who are weary,” or the one that says, “Not in my house”?
Hypocrisy and the Unequally Yoked
One man online told me it was okay to marry an unbeliever, so long as she was still a virgin.
Let that sink in.
That’s not just bad advice. That’s sin. Scripture forbids being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14). Marriage is the most spiritually weighty commitment most Christians will ever make. Choosing a spouse based on her body count while ignoring the state of her soul is not Christian discernment—it’s carnal idolatry.
You say she’s pure? God says she’s under wrath.
You say the other is damaged goods? God says she’s clean.
Who are you going to believe?
The Bride of Christ Was a Whore
Let me remind you of something: the bride of Christ—the church—was a prostitute. Spiritually speaking, she was unfaithful, idolatrous, and defiled.
And He married her.
He washed her.
He gave His life for her.
What then gives you the right to sneer at someone whom Christ has redeemed? What makes you think your sanitized testimony makes you more lovable than someone who’s known the depths of sin and been pulled out?
The point of our post was not to elevate sexual sin or diminish chastity. It was to magnify grace. To say that Jesus saves. To say that His blood is more powerful than your past. And to say that pride, not promiscuity, is the greater spiritual danger.
This is Christianity 101. And if you missed it, you might want to ask yourself whether you’re playing church or actually belong to it.
Note: The spiral of admittedly damaged young women and “incel” young men growing to hate women online is a looming disaster for Christian civilization that those who claim to want to restore it should be seriously concerned about. Read JD Hall explain it in more detail here.
You are a Jew. Jewish scum want to make everyone whores and to marry whores. Jew Dee Hall.
The White Race made Christianity the gross Jewish religion of feminism great by taking it over and making it patriarichal and getting rid of the Pericope Adulterae. But then evil Jews put that in the Bible when it was printed on the printing press.
Yet the racial morality prevailed against the corrupt text for a century or 3 before the wicked jewness set in.
Whatever religion the White race creates or adopts next will be superior so long as we ban jews and browns from any involvement in it.
Our racial morality whoch is superior enobled the gross jewish trash that we inherited. We don’t need a dead jew on a stick if his name will be used to spread feminism and gay as Jew Dee Hall intends to do with it.
Its also already clear that boomer allegiance to Israel cannot be defeated even by a return of replacement theology. We must create a wholly new religion that outright states jews were always the people of a sand demon and never were the people of any god.
Down with the sand demon yahweh and his religion of Epsteining our women and then expecting us to marry whores he passed around between Epstein, Trumpstein, and Bill Gatestein, and then after 50 rich jews ran them through you wife her up.
I don’t get why anyone ever invented the terms Side A and Side B. That’s not easy to comprehend. And only Gen-X and Gen-Y would even get the reference. Do the Millenials and Zoomers even know what a Cassette Tape is? Or why there was a Side A and Side B on a Cassette Tape?
So I won’t spent one single solitary second trying to figure out whether in this terminology Side A is gay or Side B is gay. Which is the straight side and which the gay side is irrelevant, as is anyone who would use this terminology to describe this issue!
Now, why would you call it Side A and Side B? As if anti-gay and pro-gay are two sides of the same Cassette Tape? As if it takes both to have your Musical Album? That right there shows anyone using this terminology is of Satan and is trying to slide us into gay acceptance.
As to the fact that young Zoomers see no value in Christianity except in imagery of the crusades, of all White armies massacring the hoardes of brown savages. What do you expect when your generation imported brown savages? Including (but not limiting to) the very same ones that the crusades were about fighting? That is, the Muslims. What do you expect?
You expect young men to want to be crucified by Muslims to be like the meek and mild feminine Jesus that you peddle? And to let their future wife be used by the Muslims and then wife her up after she has a gaggle of brown Arab low-IQ babies for him to support?
The religion Zoomers want is Warhammer 40k. They want a God Emperor of Mankind who will lead them in battle against the Xenos. But since that religion does not exist, they latch on to the idea that Catholicism used to be based, and used to kind of be that during the crusades, and maybe we can make it that again. This is why Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have appeal.
Now the appeal of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is a delusion, because both are MORE liberal than Evangelicalism is TODAY. “But bro, the Romans fought the crusades!” The Zoomers want crusades, literal crusades, to wipe the Muslims out from Europe and America. Will the church give them what they want, or just k’vetch that they should be content to work a low paying job and marry a slut?
Anon, and Dave, CALM DOWN GUYS. And anon, stop blaspheming.
Now, JD. You said “Pride, not promiscuity, was the sin of the Pharisees.”
JD, you don’t know what “pride” means in scripture. Promiscuity WAS the sin of the Pharisees, because “pride” means “promiscuity” actually. I will show it. The very passage you quote, that “God gives grace to the humble but resists the proud” shows this. Now you may only know it from James 4:6, but James is quoting from Proverbs.
James is quoting Proverbs 3:34 “Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly.”
In context, the “scorner” or “proud” is the “arrogant” who refuse to obey the moral law at all, which is what Jesus accuses the Pharisees of, that they tithe mint, anise, and cumin, but ignore the moral law.
See also verse 32 “For the Lord detests the perverse but takes the upright into his confidence.” That is parallel to verse 34, so the scorners/proud are the perverse, and the lowly/humble are the upright.
Therefore, indeed, the sin of the Pharisees was promiscuity.
On second thought, that “pride” means “promiscuity” is also pretty plain by the modern usage, i.e. the pride parades that celebrate promiscuity in particular. But the biblical argument above is sufficient. Just ironic that anyone would try to decouple the two like the article did.
“If you would rather your son marry a virgin who is lost, proud, and self-righteous—an enemy of God—than a woman who has repented, been forgiven, and now walks in newness of life, your priorities are upside down.”
How could there even be such a thing? This is simply a lie.
If a woman is a virgin and is legal age to marry, then she is a good Christian woman. There is no way she is an enemy of God. If she were an enemy of God, she would not be a virgin at legal age! Literally the author of this article is retarded. I just noticed its not JD but David Morrill. Sorry, Morrill but your brain clearly does not work.
“They rail against the sin of OnlyFans but stumble at the scandal of grace. They affirm forgiveness in theory, but when confronted with a real example—a redeemed digital prostitute—they revert to pharisaical gatekeeping. ‘She’s damaged goods.’ ‘She can be saved, but she can’t be a wife.'”
There need to be two churches. The church for those raised in the church. And the church for the ex-gangbangers and ex-prostitutes etc.
Because this is the problem, young men who grew up in the church need wives who grew up in the church and are good women, i.e. virgins. But the church fails to produce this because the church doesn’t understand there must be two tiers.
Good men who grew up Christian cannot and should not marry the redeemed whores. And if there were good women who grew up in the church and actually stayed pure they should not marry redeemed manwhores.
Those who grew up in the church and stayed pure should marry each other. But the church today fails to produce any on the female side. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
“You are wrong, a hypocrite, a wicked pridful man! There should not be a two-tier church!”
Sorry, but there has to be. There are people who are basically forgiven only of original sin. And there are people who blew themselves out in promiscuity, both male and female. They need separate churches. Its just a fact.
The only reason Paul didn’t teach this two-tier system is the church was too new for it to exist yet. But logically it must come to exist. The person who is forgiven of essentially just original sin and a few venial sins is not the same as the wordly person who comes in after a life of very bad sin. The two people cannot understand each other at all. They need separate churches. But in the beginning, everyone was coming in from being a non-Christian. Now there are people born into it. They need a church of the pure who were born into it and never strayed into sexual promiscuity. Anything less and it only shows Christianity is a weak religion that never evolved past its beginning in Judaism.
The person who is forgiven of essentially just original sin and a few venial sins is not the same as the wordly person who comes in after a life of very bad sin, not only can the two not understand each other and thus need separate churches, but how could they make a marriage work? Its an absurdity to even think that churchy boy can wife up a whore. Its not even possible. Her blowing herself out with sin has effected her brain and thinking to such an extent she could not even find a good man attractive. As she never found a good man attractive before and perused bad boys on motorcycles with tattoos who bragged to her about how many women they bedded before her, so she will STILL be attracted to that. The very idea that the church boy can marry a whore show that the person suggesting it has blown his braincells out with too many drugs or alchohol to even think things through!
Part of the problem, and the reason “pastors” are now even suggesting that church boy should wife up a whore, is these “pastors” are tatooed freaks. Just like at these modern “Reformed” “pastors” like Jeff Durbin and James White. Tatooed manwhores advirtising their promiscuity with their whore-marker tatooes, because tatoos are nothing less than a sign saying “I am a whore.” And so its no wonder these manwhores yell at the young Zoomer men “Wife up that whore!” because if the Zoomer won’t, and proves he is better than them, he is judging their manwhoring. He is proving that these “pastors” are unregenerate by being better than them.
How can a tatted up manwhore be eligible to be a pastor? Therefore all his advice, or commands, or whatever he thinks it is, is invalidated. And multiply the invalidation by every tattoo he has.
Especially if like James White he got the tattoos after being a pastor for decades. He is disqualified. He should resign, or be deposed. Any pastor who gets a tattoo should be deposed, and then excommunicated, as unregenerate.
To allow a pastor with a tattoo is to signal to women that (1) its ok to be a whore, since they know this means the pastor is a manwhore, and (2) that its ok for them to support LGBTQP+, because its quite likely that any man with a tattoo is not merely a manwhore with women but also with men. This is one of the things wrong with the modern so-called “church.” Because I can’t acknowledge a church with a pastor who has tattoos to even be a valid church!
Young men, my suggestion is for each one of you to get a 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and get up a group of friends, and go start your own church. Reject these pastors. You have a much more reverential church service there than what these manwhore pastors are putting on in their rock concert theaters. Get a 1662 BCP and a KJV and go found a church that won’t tolerate whoredom nor tattoos. And send the redeemed whores and tatted up freaks to the rock concert megachurches where the tatted pastors that match them preach their LGTQP+ “gospel.”
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do “churches” put on rock concerts anyway?
Because its what 30s something whore slut filth like!
Find a REAL church that worships in accordance with the Regulative Principle, OR START ONE!
What this aricle is saying is that Christianity is a religion for whores only. Its no wonder young men like anon in the first comment conclude that Christ is not god when they hear such gay teaching.