/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

[Post a Reply]
[Hide]
Posting Mode: Reply
Säge:
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 5000

Files
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.

08/28/20 Come and join our Matrix/IRC servers, the info can be found here.
[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

(5.26 KB 226x223 varg stop watching porn.jpg)
/aag/ Anti-Abrahamism General 2 Blackshirt 09/12/2021 (Sun) 19:56:12 No. 13995
This thread is for combating and deprogramming individuals from jewish ideologies, particularly Christianity. Christianity is irreconcilable with White racial politics and National Socialism. It is necessarily universal in all respects, downplays the value of life, makes one worship a jew as their lord and savior, and worst of all preaches ethics fit for weaklings. The strong, beautiful, superior, etc are all denigrated before the jewish imposter god. It must be said that Christianity is among one the greatest enemies of racial regeneration, and cannot be viewed seperately from the problem of the JQ. I urge Christians to realize that they been deceived. Previous thread: >>1395 https://archive.fo/FyjjL
Christianity sucks its like paralysis
>>14006 I agree, people generally raised as Christians have a hard time shaking it off. I should know. I was always raised to be fearful of everything, or that "the next man you come across could be Jesus, treat everyone like a king", or other crazy bullshit drilled in my head for years. Sage for blogposting.
>>14007 >I was always raised to be fearful of everything, or that "the next man you come across could be Jesus, treat everyone like a king" Definitely don't read up on xenia among ancient pagans. They were always concerned that a god could be visiting them, and so highly valued hospitality. Odin often disguised himself and paid a visit to people in their homes as well. When Odysseus visits the Phaeacians in the Odyssey, him whether he might be a god who is visiting them, since typically for their land (unusual compared to all other lands, it is said) the gods do not come in disguises among them.
>>14007 >be peaceful >dont engage in any direct action >thats unholy and satanic >just pray every day and hope that things magically change Christfucks were the first glowniggers
>>14017 I mean yeah, hospitality is fine and all -- but the way my family (and hell, even a part of my many communities growing up) basically phrased it was always in a "turn the other cheek" sort of way. For example, in one rural community I was in growing up, there was a literal demon spawn kid who used to torture farm cats (granted I have no clue what he does now, hopefully he's dead and rotting). Throwing them around, throwing them into the lake, making them climb all the way up on tree branches. For the longest reason, I wondered why no adult did anything, aside from actually fucking back up the kid saying that "they were his" (when they were literally just stray street cats). Hell, when my mom was driving me out of the drive way, one time the little fuck was actively jumping right in front of the van like a spazz, and it took forever to get him out of the way. Either way, the whole point of that story is that my entire family and that community all went to church regularly, with a pastor who basically peddled the shit >>14034 described. Those adults (and even whatever kids were there) always turned the other cheek, a blind eye to what that kid was doing, 'cuz hey! He just might be fucking Jesus in disguise! I later on stole his "favorite", the tiniest cat of all, right as we were moving out. She's the most loving cat you could ever ask for.
Do you think smashing statues of Jesus and his whore mother would be a good way to demoralize christcucks and Mary-worshiping shitskins? In Mind craft of course.
(634.69 KB 750x499 statuevandalism.png.png)
(34.06 KB 590x350 beheadedidol.jpg)
(158.30 KB 1200x630 before vs after.jpg)
>>14038 fuck outta here, glownigger and/or phoneposter, no destroying property
>>14038 >Mary-worshiping shitskins To be fair (except niggers and spics), the other peoples have been more civilized because of such religion.
just finished the book of esther. what other parts of the OT are essential reading for understanding jewish subversion? only read genesis before and a related question, are the general epistles worth reading if I'm already familiar with paul and the gospels? or should I just jump into gnosticism at this point
>>14053 Ben Klassen elaborates on many subversive texts in "The Nature's eternal religion"
>>14044 >To be fair (except niggers and spics), the other peoples have been more civilized because of such religion. No they haven't. Niggers in America are at-least 90% Christian and yet they still loot and destroy everyone's property. This is true when it comes to African countries and communities that are mostly protestant, catholic, sunni as well.
>>14038 Plenty of shitskin muslims do this on regular basis in places like France, Greece and Italy. Christcucks shut up and swallow down without a whimper. Their pope sold them to the kikes and his clergy minions fully embrace globohomo. Christianity is a dead end and a dying horse. if you just wanted to accelerate and fan the flames of conflict, you would return the favor by doing this stuff to mosques and synagogues in Minecraft instead.
>>14053 Daily reminder that Esther BTFOs the idea that ancient Judaism was an ethnic religion
What are your guys' religious backgrounds? My parents met in a Pentecostal cult but I was raised fairly liberal protestant. /pol/ made me an edgy new atheist for years, then /lit/ made me muslim until recently. These days I don't know what I believe other than polytheism is better than monotheism and the Abrahamic god in particular is evil. I still spend too much time reading the Bible and stuff about the JQ
>>14076 <It's okay to be jewish, because we goys can be jews as well You're retarded. >>14116 >What are your guys' religious backgrounds? I grew up from a zealous Scottish-descent catholic family, went agnostic for a while, realized that it was dumb and life-denying and got further redpilled into the Abrahamics and became an OG buddhist on pre-nu/pol/, /lit/ and /fascist/. I tried getting my parents to become buddhist as well, but they kindly turned it down, while stilling willing to listen to what I say. >/pol/ made me an edgy new atheist for years, /pol/ were filled with a bunch of feds and cringey atheists who were shilling nilihism on purpose. I almost got caught up in it as well, until I actually researched a-lot about it and what it truly was about. >then /lit/ made me muslim until recently. Did you fall for the meme?
>>14116 My parents were atheists who came from different Christian denominations. I read a lot of Catholic literature growing up, the whole imagery of smashing idols really stuck with me. I was intrigued by the idea that I could "kill" someone's god by destroying a statue, and that all such gods would be completely dependent upon humans to defend them. In fact I almost became a Muslim at one point because I was attracted to Islam's rejection of religious imagery. >>14062 That would be pointless because Jews and Muslims don't worship statues. I was thinking of Catholic mestizos who worship Mary, not so much White Catholics who are by and large just as cucked as everyone else. Their religion seems to have inherited a lot from Mexican paganism, including idol worship. In fact, the virgin Mary seems to have been conflated with a certain goddess worshiped in prehispanic times. Thus, by any damage to the virgin Mary is in fact damage to this goddess. Who is dependent on spics to defend her.
>>14140 I fell for the traditionalism meme in particular, yes. I had to actually make friends with some Muslim traditionalists irl to realise they didn't understand Hinduism and were basically still shilling Abrahamic monotheism. I lasted 3 years which is longer than most White converts. I've always liked the five percenters, though >>14144 What's wrong with idol worship?
>>14116 My Dad was Methodist and mom was a JW. They're getting back into it and it has become quite grating.
>>14116 my parents are protestant. Don't want to dox myself on the domination as it is a mega church I am not sure if there other churches but it mix of Pentecostal and Presbyterian beliefs. I would have been a Christian but the pro-Israel/pro-jew talk just disgusted me even before I went /pol/ /polk/ or whatever I don't know how political boards I lurked on 8chan on endchan. It's was I like hopping from one board to another. I still believe in higher beings but I can't be Christian anymore. I want to help and be in touch with my own community not cuck out to Isrealis half way around the world whom I never even met personally.
>>14144 Literally no one cares about vandalized churches, in France several whorshippers and priests were beheaded and no one did anything at all. Memoryholed just like that. Christcuckery is finished, their own pope is advocating the genocide of Whites via mandate vax and forced immigration. He's in Hungary, he literally said the place need more diversity. If you wanted to do something useful against christcucks, you should just kill pedo and globohomo clergy in minecraft.
varg is a kike
>>14370 whos varg
>>14400 >Who's Varg? Literally lurk more
>>14401 why are the users so mean to me?
>>14402 Because you're a newfag But to answer your question, assuming you're being genuine, varg is a top-tier black metal musician who went to jail in norway for awhile after burning some churches and stabbing his aids-infested bandmate to death
>>14400 >OP pic related https://www.bitchute.com/channel/thuleanperspective/ Varg Vikernes thuleanperspective.com >jewpedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes >>14401 Because you could have just typed "varg" in to any search engine, and the first page would have gave you an answer
>>14403 thank you brother for helping me understand what vrag is
>>14442 fuck, i meant varg
(49.10 KB 604x364 after pol luther.jpg)
To get the thread back on track, why do y'all think some White nationalists cling to the idea that "jesus was a White aryan israelite not a jew" and similar such nonsense? It can't be that they haven't read the bible, since these people are usually well-versed in it. Is it the result of some sort of personal weakness that prevents them from from acknowledging how deep the jewing of western spirituality really goes? Or is White nationalism for them just an excuse to advance the reactionary (yet still degenerate) worldview present in the old testament? Even if jesus was an aryan the mosaic law is so obviously barbaric, the jewish god so obviously psychopathic, I would have trouble trusting that a "White nationalist" christian had the best interests of White people as a whole at heart, rather than simply seeking a new form of tyranny
>>14476 That's usually the final cope when exposed to all the contradictions and degeneracy of Christianity. The reason why it's so potent is because real Kristos was a White Aryan, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the story of Jesus, that region, or the time period. On a side note, once people get conditioned since early childhood to believe in some things, it becomes very difficult for them to ever fully give up those ideas.
>>14476 they're fully convinced that paganism/buddhism is a larp (without thinking that there's the same idiots in their religion going DEUS VULT), and they sure as hell don't want to go with the other two abraham relgions that, and, the fear of being cast into hell when you die's a deep root. that kind of shit is drilled in your head, early and often.
>>14582 Why would anyone pro White care about Buddhism? Isn't it all just leftist hippy cucks and pajeets?
>>14587 >Why would anyone pro White care about Buddhism? Isn't it all just leftist hippy cucks and pajeets? Ignorant posts like this convinces me that there are too many non-Whites on here.
>>14587 <hurr everyone pro-White should just be a vulgar materialist otherwise you are a cuck
>>14587 plenty of religions have their leftist hippy cucks and/or pajeets who never actually read the texts, delve into it past that and you'll find that buddhism is definitely a good alternative, especially when compared to cuckstianity and the totally-not-forced rising of people wanting to be mudslimes
>>14594 Buddhism is far dumber than Christianity, let's be real.
>>14596 With what we know we're never ever going to worship your jewish proto-marxist petty vengeful and sadistic desert fiend Yaweh you fucking fag.
>>14596 No it isn't, Buddha's teachings are superior in every singleway to christcuckery. The Greeks and Japanese got into for good reasons. You will never be a Jew.
>>14592 >not liking a degenerate universalist spinoff of Hinduism makes you nonWhite >>14594 "Better than christianity and islam" is not a high bar to clear tbf
>>14603 >not liking a degenerate universalist spinoff of Hinduism makes you nonWhite Except it isn't that at all as per debunked for the hundreth time. If you want to be a retard who doesn't understand things, then do it on /pol/.
>>14601 >>14602 Buddhism denies the existence of the self and claims that living beings are just like other objects in the world in that they are no more than the some of their constituent parts. Just as a chariot is made up of various types of matter arranged in a certain way and so therefore doesn't really exist (there is no svabhava / essence of the chariot), it is the exact same with human beings, they are bundles of aggregates fluxing around, with no svabhava or essence. Even the aggregate of vijñāna is said to be not-self in the Milinda Panha. It shouldn't take much thought to see why the existence of the self being illusory is stupid, and its for the same reason it's stupid in atheistic materialist views of the world. It's even more stupid that still Buddhism posits dogmas like reincarnation while simultaneously holding this view. It's really no wonder why Buddhism is so readily reconcilable with soulless materialistic modern worldviews in the West. Because Buddhists believe they are quite literally soulless bundles of aggregates. On top of that, Buddhism denies moral realism and posits a fully instrumental / consequentialist view of morality. They are departing from ancient Aryan conceptions of cosmic order which affirm moral realism. >Buddha's teachings are superior in every singleway to christcuckery Literally not even the point. Buddhism is an incoherent system of thought. Christianity is at least coherent even if you don't like it (and I never claimed to be a Christian, so chill the fuck out)
>>14605 >Even the aggregate of vijñāna is said to be not-self Forgot to say that this term means consciousness
>>14605 >Buddhism denies the existence of the self and claims that living beings Stopped right here, confirmed to never had read Evola. Also links may be scuffed but debunks your stupidity. /fascist/ really knows nothing about the religion they cry about as being "life-denying" or reject the self. https://dhamma.neocities.org
>>14607 >The core message of presecular Buddhism found within the Nikayas, the oldest texts of original Buddhism Nikayas, huh? Let's go to the Majjhima Nikaya then: <Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?” <“What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?” https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/bodhi This is the exact same doctrine used in the Milinda Panha, in which the existence of every composite object including human-beings is denied for some sort of mereological nihilism. It's too long to quote here: https://sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3504.htm According to Buddhism you are literally just a bunch of insentient things fluxing around. >/fascist/ really knows nothing about the religion they cry about as being "life-denying" I don't use that term. It's a gay holdover from Nietzsche, who himself is cringe.
I'm surprised there isn't more interest in Zoroastrianism and the Avestas among our circles. The doctrines of the religion are very intriguing, and they represent a direct continuation of ancient Aryan religious traditions. The influences on Christianity and Islam are apparent even under casual scrutiny, and I'd think their sense of symbolism would appeal to White westerners already familiar with these religions. Instead all I see are attempts to "correct" existing traditions(Christian Identity), or charismatic cult leaders making shit up as they go along and calling it "traditional"(Creativity). If you're going to "reconstruct" dead religions, why not go off something still practiced today, albeit in altered form? >>14594 In my experience it's the opposite. All the most right wing Whites I know IRL practice some form of Christianity, while all the White Buddhists I know are "spiritual' types looking for novelty or using the religion as an excuse for their anti patriarchal views, vegetarianism or pacifism. All my older relatives practice Catholicism, and the most redpilled also tend to be the most religious, which I doubt is a coincidence. The only thing that keeps my from being a Catholic myself is seeing just how pozzed and corrupt the church actually is, especially the current pope. I just can't take neopaganism seriously, it seems like the whole thing was made up in the last hundred years or so. Even Islam is more attractive to me, they at least have a well established spiritual heritage, not to mention that Muhammed himself was lily White. >>14596 I agree.
>>14609 I'm glad that you're stupid enough to pick-up rando sites that teach new age nonsense and grab lies from heretical sects that corrupt Buddha's original teachings so you can lie, bitch and moan about Nietschze and a religion you continue to not understand at the same time, because you can only be as irrational as a woman. I'm convinced that you are spiritually Christian or a subversive Jew. <"The Soul (Attan) is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341]-Gotama Buddha "The Tathagata is without the mark of all things, he dwells upwards within the signless self-directed mind/will (citta). There within, Ananda, dwell with the Soul (attan) as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge." - [SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163]-Gotama Buddha <The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)” [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270] < "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like unto the breath-of-life, this Animator.”[KN J-1441 Akkhakandam] "Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96]-Gotama Buddha GTFO
>>14610 The only good form of Christianity is the Orthodox Church. I can't take Protestants or Catholics seriously. Catholicism sold out a long time ago, started taking Rothschild loans, declared that that pope was infallible, and decided to enter into dialogue with the modern world with Vatican II. The infestation of the Church with pedophiles and homosexuals is the cherry on top.
>>14611 >I'm glad that you're stupid enough to pick-up rando sites that teach new age nonsense How the fuck is Sutta Central new-age retard? It's literally a site dedicated to early Buddhist texts and translations. You're committing a genetic fallacy here too, unless you can prove that this translation is fake, or that this is not a real Buddhist text, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the Buddha here is declaring the doctrine of a self as 'foolish'. In other texts, the Buddha won't even answer the question whether there is a self or not. When asked if there is a self, he doesn't answer. When he's asked whether there's not a self, he doesn't answer. It's the same shit he does constantly when asked about any substantial questions on his doctrine. The Buddha has no consistent philosophy. He does not provide us with an adequate framework for understanding the nature of the world. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html Atta can be a permanent essence or in a different context it can be used as a unmetaphysical pronoun "oneself". Buddhism denies the former.
>>14610 >Zoroastrianism It was already too late >>14612 >Orthodox Church Which is run by communists and only exists to fleece the gullible goyim so that it's bishops can live in golden mansions. It's also deranged since according to some of it's doctrines, the more you suffer, the more D-G loves you. All monotheistic religions belong in the trash. Monotheism of any kind is the root of modernism and egalitarianism, the only difference is how far on that path did they go. To look at Zoroastrianism, Orthodox Church, and Protestant churches with transexual priests is like looking at the same person as a child, adult, and an old man. >>14614 Buddhism in general has a lot of whoa, so profound, 2deep4u moments. It never developed a complete worldview or religious philosophy.
>>14617 >All monotheistic religions belong in the trash. Monotheism of any kind is the root of modernism and egalitarianism, the only difference is how far on that path did they go The real question should be if it is true or false.
>>14609 >Majjhima Nikaya You picked up a text that was for Theravada, you're attacking the heretical sects, not the OG. Theravada and their the Nikayas didn't exist until after the 2nd CE and many of their written text are their thoughts of what Gautama may have said and not his direct words. Again with this stupid myth and even this board believes in it. https://zenstudiespodcast.com/emptiness-of-self/ But I'm going to use the neocities link as well to summarize Buddhasasana, also to say that Christianity is more coherent, goes to show that you do not understand either religions and what Christianity actually teaches. <is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] <"To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692] <"The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha’vagga-Att. 3.270] <"The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129] <"Nirvana means the subjugation of becoming" [AN 5.9] <"Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asuñña)" [Uparipanna’sa-Att. 4.151] <"Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4] <What is emptiness-liberation? Gnosis and contemplation into what is not the Soul liberates one from misconceptions about the Soul, this is emptiness-liberation. [Pati 2.67] <What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare of such things ‘this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? Indeed not Gotama! [MN 1.232] <"Having insight he knows, having vision he does so see, the Lord is the holy-eye become, he is gnosis become, the Dhamma become, verily Brahman become, is turned to the Soul, elucidator of the goal, giver of Immortality, he is the Tathagata, the Lord of Dhamma." [MN 1.111] <When this exists, that comes to be, with the arising of this, that also arises; when that is not present, that does not come to be; with the subjugation of this, that too is subjugated. This is meant that which nescience (ignorance) as (original) cause there are then experiences; and with experiences as cause, there then is found consciousness.” [SN 2.65] <"What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did with them as they wished or burned them up, would it occur to you: These people are carrying us off, are doing as they please with us, and are burning us? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord, none of that is our Soul, nor what our Soul subsists upon! Just so followers, what is not who you are, do away with it, when you have made done with that, it will lead to your bliss and welfare for as long as time lasts. What is that you are not? Form, followers, is not who you are, neither are sensations, perceptions, experiences, consciousness." [MN 1.141] <"Wide open is the portal to Immortality. Let them hear the Dhamma of the stainless one, the Buddha." [MN 1.168] < "What of this short-lived body which is clung to by means of craving? There is nothing in it to say ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘me’." [MN 1.185] <"Whether he walks, stands, sits, or lays on his side; so long as his mind (citta) is sovereign upon his very Soul, he is thoroughly quelled." [Itivuttaka 82] <"Parinirvana is to be steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti)" [Theragatha-Att. 1.51] “Suffering comes to (one) with mind/will (citta) which is inchoate (incoherrent).”[SN 4.78]
>>14610 I was always interested in the Mazdayasna.
>>14609 >I don't use that term. It's a gay holdover from Nietzsche, who himself is cringe. Let me guess you're that platonic LARPer who thinks that Socrates was justified and wasn't a subversive at all? The same guy who never read any of the books he spouse so much about.
>>14620 Why yes fellow anons, I too always wanted to follow the Noahide Laws and be a righteous gentile, however I was disillusioned with Christianity because of how corrupt it has become. But one day a ray of light emerged from a nearby synagogue, and I was blessed to learn of the Mazdayasna. Maybe one day I will become such a good goy like Cyrus the Great so Israel makes a commemorative shekel with my name, that would indeed be the highest honor of a true Aryan like me, making my ancestors proud. Once there are no more idolaters, God's chosen people can finally lead humanity towards the Universal Good (TM), just as the Avesta had predicted! Then we can join hands together with our brown and black brothers and experience compassion for all eternity.
>>14621 Daily reminder that you never offered any proof that Socrates was a non-Greek. >>14619 Weird how when you google the verse that it gives, it comes to the exact site you're linking and nothing else, have you tried to actually look up and dig up any of these verses? No matter how many verses you throw at me, that does not change the fact that there are authentic texts that say the exact opposite. Buddhism is just incoherent, and I could easily claim that this shit is all just upaya and doesn't even matter, because that is what Buddhism ultimately comes down to. It's a glorified form of self-help.
>>14605 >Christianity is at least coherent >gentiles worshipping a jew that btfo other jews for not following the mosaic law hard enough is coherent No The mosaic law never applied to gentiles and never will. A perfect god would never change his mind because he would already know the outcome of trusting the yids in advance. The whole idea of the new covenant is just cope. We don't need the jews to tell us how to think, Aryan morality is already superior >>14617 >To look at Zoroastrianism, Orthodox Church, and Protestant churches with transexual priests is like looking at the same person as a child, adult, and an old man. Exactly. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic corruption of polytheistic traditions just like Judaism and Christianity. It doesn't really bother me that they're almost extinct >>14623 Kek
>>14632 >The whole idea of the new covenant is just cope. How is it a cope when it is from the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:31-34)?
>>14370 Lol, no
I'm not going to be a JOS shill, but this vid explains the word etymology of Wotan = Satan, Satan is older than Abrahamic trash and equals all "Paganism". The vid doesn't explain it but Varg has years ago saying all pagans are the same at the end of the day, there's cultural nuances but it equals to the same outcome, the outcome being Blood and Soil. https://odysee.com/@Commander.Cobra.666:5/Heinrich-Himmler---'The-Aryan-Knight'--His-Life-and-Struggle---WW2---DOCUMENTARY-:2
>>14636 Still only applies to "Israelites and judeans." You aren't a fucking Jew, you're an Aryan. Start acting and worshipping like one
>>14636 The old testament and the new testament are both jewish toilet paper.
>>14643 Christians are the true spiritual Israel, retard. Galatians 3:7-9 >Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Galatians 6:16 >And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. Isaiah 56:8 >Thus declares the Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel: “I will gather to them still others besides those already gathered.” Isaiah 56:3 >Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will utterly exclude me from His people.”
>>14669 More cope. You're intepreting the OT outside of the context in which it was originally written. For a goi to worship the god of Abraham they were still supposed to convert which used to be more of a thing before christianity. The Jewish messiah is supposed to make willing slaves of the goim at best, the jews were always the center of attention
>>14669 The christians redefined Israel post-hoc to justify their heresy. I'm not siding with the jews here, I don't like any abrahamists, but Yahweh is their god for all time and you're just being a useful idiot
>>14677 >>14678 You're just showing that you've never read the Bible again. Through Abraham all the families of the world would be blessed in time, Genesis 22 is very clear about this. It is clear what this means is that Jesus will be a descendant of Abraham. God did choose, for a time, the physical nation of Israel as His people for the fulfillment of his promise to Abraham and again for the coming of Jesus. But he was always the one God of the entire Earth, as it is said over and over again in the Bible. After Babel, the nations were divided, God took His people as his own share, and appointed the 'gods' over the other nations of the Earth (Deuteronomy 32:8-9). These are the pagan gods, who rebelled against God and became degenerate, wicked and unjust, abducting women, introducing shit like human sacrifice, pedophilia, etc. It is prophesied that all the nations of the Earth are God's inheritance in Psalm 82, which deals with the gods of the nations. And just like was written, the pagan gods were scattered and overthrown over most of the world. More proofs that the whole world will / would turn to the living God - Psalm 22:27-28 <All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. Psalm 86:8-10 <Among the gods there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours. All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord; they will bring glory to your name. For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God. Isaiah 56:6-8 <And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The Sovereign Lord declares—he who gathers the exiles of Israel: “I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered.” Esther 8:17 <And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them. All of your nonsense about 'muh goy slaves' is Talmudic, and thus postdates Christianity by centuries.
>>14681 Abraham was a baby raping kike and not my ancestor. The mosaic law and it's christian abrogations are plenty degenerate. Go shill your spiritual cuckholdry somewhere else christfag
>>14683 >Abraham was a baby raping kike <it was real in my mind
>>14644 the Bible has good qualities, but much of this is distilled from older mythology from the Ancient Near East. as I've mentioned earlier, there's a serious declination of the Jews between the Old and New Testaments. there are admirable qualities in the OT, but by the NT, the shekel-hoarding and hand-rubbing is all too familiar.
When it comes to Biblical characters, Nimrod was much more based than Jesus. He was such a gigachad that he gathered his elite troops and opened a portal to the immaterium to battle Yah and his daemons. He also dissed Abraham.
>>14795 >He was such a gigachad that he gathered his elite troops and opened a portal to the immaterium to battle Yah and his daemons. He also dissed Abraham. Is this some sort of Talmudic fanfiction? I read through Genesis a few days ago and didn't see that.
>>14681 Why would anyone take a book that is both inconsisent and fails everytime to do what it pleads its retarded followers to do, because it cannot understand human nature nor the universe itself? All you do is bitch about your stupid kike God and it is clear that you are Jewish, because you hate pagans (goys).
>>14628 You still haven't disproven that Socrates was not a subversive faggot. >Weird how when you google the verse that it gives, it comes to the exact site you're linking and nothing else, It's retarded for you to take Thervadan lies as a case that Buddhism is against indiviuality. You are a true retard and those bad posts you've made on the Dharmic thread is definitive proof that you would turn an entire generation of children to be as dumb as niggers if you ever become a priest.
>>14807 The whole point of the Epic of Gilgamesh is that immortality for a man cannot exist, but his people and his works can endure forever. No wonder the jews hated Gilgamesh. Actually, Christianity is the antithesis of the moral of the Epic of Gilgamesh, because it calls on people to pursue personal immortality.
>>13995 Good anti-Christian books I should read? Most atheist/antichristian literature these days (and probably since the 1900s tbfh) is made by leftists or just general faggots. I was going to start on Nietzche. What are some good things by him
>>14795 indeed
>>14811 This one sums it up pretty well in a WN context.
>>14811 This one is quite good too.
>>14632 >Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic No? Zoroastrianism was never monotheistic.
>>14808 >The whole point of the Epic of Gilgamesh is that immortality for a man cannot exist This is not necessarily the proper reading. At its fundamental level, it shows that a lack of wisdom and awareness at any time will bar you from actually obtaining The Prize.
>>14711 The Aryan inspiration of entire swathes of the OT is most obvious but one cannot deny that it's been severely tainted. Many anti-Christians are revolted at the so called paragons of virtue that some of the central and most important figures are, but essentially they use extreme left-hand-path cunning to preserve their blood and wealth. Their ways look despicable and unhonorable. Perhaps the lesson would be that if you do not want to have to resort to this kind of low scooping tactics, then fight ahead of your own people's enslavement and destruction.
>>14681 >shilling Yahweh >all nations under one desert god At least if all nations were actually subdivisions of one big White nation, and the God be also an avatar come unto us as a big genocidal mutafucka with a flaming sword, perhaps then I wouldn't mind, but that's just not the case and leaving aside any feeble Christian Identity argument (Dan leagcy, ruby skin), it is most certain that this Bible is severely lacking in even trying to look like it's favorable to Whites. It's pointless and pure shite.
>>14845 Zoroastrianism has always been monotheistic. Ahura Mazda isn't diametrically opposed by an equal Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda begot both Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu (the two 'twins' of Yasna 30 and 45) and these two are the diametrically opposed opposites. The Gathas make this very clear. Druj is ultimately subordinate to the sovereignty of Ahura Mazda. Ahura Mazda literally can't lose, after all he is described as omnipotent in Zoroastrianism scriptures, and two omnipotent beings is impossible philosophically-speaking since either one could override the will of the other, or they would cancel each other out, rendering either both impotent or one superior to the other. You should read this paper and the book on Iranian religion in the pagan thread. >>14799 >You still haven't disproven that Socrates was not a subversive faggot. Prove that he is a Phoenician. I'm waiting. You can't just spout lies and not substantiate the claims. Declaring someone 'subversive' across the board is also brainlet-tier, since I don't even know where I would start to defend him. It just seems to me that you would be like one of the people described in Plato's Apology who would get assblasted after Socrates asks you a few philosophical questions about your worldview and would completely demolish it, just like I am doing with Buddhism and exposing how dumb it is.
>>14862 This entire statement is so fucking stupid, please kill yourself and stop shitting up this thread with your philosophical faggotry. You're a massive faggot and I know you come from cuckchan's autistic board known as /lit/ where no one reads anything at all and have stupid slap-fights between Nietschzians and Socratians. >declaring someone 'subversive' across the board is also brainlet-tier, since I don't even know where I would start to defend him. Socrates was a subversive greekoid. He got BTFO'd by Callicles for a reason and him getting killed was purely justified, despite my hatred democracy as well, but even a broken clock can be correct about some things. You are shilling the guy who literally sperged out against the entirely of Athens, because someone went to an oracle and asked if there was anyone wiser than him. The prophet answered no and this what lead to him becoming an intellectual nigger who began to act like a leftoid Hegelian. All he was good at was making people look stupid, because he argued in bad faith, just like modern leftists. Apolloian Germ explains why you and he is retarded. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SWPGr0_cPZM
>>14897 cont. Read the Apology Of Socrates, or shut-up along with the nigger you keep responding to (You).
>>14897 >He got BTFO'd by Callicles for a reason No he didn't. You should go and read Gorgias again (implying you've even read it). Callicles is defending some sort of coomer-tier hedonism where any form of self-restraint is viewed as shameful and something for the weak. The powerful should be able to enjoy as much pleasure and luxury as they want with zero limitations. Socrates refutes this with ease, and it should be obvious enough why this is a dumb position to hold, so I won't even rehash the debate here. And then his second position of course is that the just according to nature are those who can plunder and rule over others. Socrates BTFOs this position by pointing out that if the masses can band together and can together become stronger, making laws over the 'le superior individuals', and are thus according to nature 'just' and 'superior'. >You are shilling the guy who literally sperged out against the entirely of Athens, because someone went to an oracle and asked if there was anyone wiser than him Yeah, and since he didn't believe the oracle, he sought after wisdom and asked some basic questions to people like (you) about their worldviews, and they were exposed for not being as wise as they played themselves off to be, since they held inconsistent, baseless and retarded views. They got so mad at this they arranged his judicial murder. For a Buddhist you should really be exhibiting some more equanimity and lovingkindness though, you seem kinda mad :^)
>>14808 It seems to me that it describes different natures of Man, Enkindu is basically a wild animal-man who gets enticed by a woman to become civilized (Archetypal mortal man), while Gilgamesh represents the divine, higher Self. He needs Enkindu to descend into hell of matter (conquest), and his pre-civilized consciousness (before it was obscured with culture) to track the lord of material beings in order to battle him. After the battle the mortal consciousness dies, while the higher Self survives. Mortal consciousness cannot provide an answer to what comes after death, because there is no after death for it. Higher Self on the other hand, achieves apotheosis. >>14852 What is The Prize? >>14853 >but essentially they use extreme left-hand-path cunning to preserve their blood and wealth To obtain it by deceiving goyim. Even the most extreme left hand path behavior among Aryans is still required to abide by the principle of honor, and not even the most extreme right hand path has to abide by the principle of slave morality. OT is basically a bunch of kikes getting hold of some ancient material and interpreting it from a purely Jewish perspective.
>>14862 Just because Ahura Mazda is the most supreme deity, doesn't mean other divine beings/Gods don't exist in it. Vohu Manu and Airyaman are explicitly said by name as seperrate beings.
>>14944 >No he didn't. You should go and read Gorgias again (implying you've even read it). Callicles is defending some sort of coomer-tier hedonism where any form of self-restraint is viewed as shameful and something for the weak. I don't care what Callicles said that doesn't negate the fact he was right about Socrates sperging out like you are doing. This is proof that everyone who unironically like him are retarded. He criticized Socrates for denying life itself and constantly rambling on shit that are too unrealistic to be accomplished within a society. Gorgias does nothing to counter my point, but funny enough you have never read a book in your life, so of course you're not going to directly quote it as a counter-argument. Everything else you say is nothing more, but a cope and excuses for a guy who tried to corrupt the Athenian by grooming them and became to deep into fiction over reality. >Socrates BTFOs this position by pointing out that if the masses can band together and can together become stronger, making laws over the 'le superior individuals', and are thus according to nature 'just' and 'superior'. Socrates didn't BTFO shit, he merely made shitty arguments of things that he couldn't prove to work in theory himself. We're talking about a guy who has no real experiences other than being a teacher of religion and philosophy. >Yeah, and since he didn't believe the oracle, he sought after wisdom and asked some basic questions to people like (you) about their worldviews, See, pure autism, no he didin't you cuckchan loser, he went around asking pointless questions to the Athenians look ignorant compared to him. He done nothing different than any Hegelian would do as a way to create an illusion of how smart they actually are. They weren't exposed as inconsistent, it was what Socrates considered to be inconsistent, because he disagreed with their views. >For a Buddhist you should really be exhibiting some more equanimity and lovingkindness though, you seem kinda mad :^) <thinking i'm the same guy Witness how stupid Socrates niggers are everyone. I'm not a le buddhist, but this is hypocrisy, because you're favorite philosophers warn you of doing similar actions to my posts. I'm tired of you coming on here spouting dumbass bullshit and being a total cucksucker. Read a book and shut the fuck up.
>>14964 You need to realize that polytheism and monotheism are a false dichotomy. God (capital G) is in a totally different category than a 'god'. Both can exist at once, and the acknowledgement of one does not entail the demonization of the other. To confuse the two is to commit a category error. Just because Ahura Mazda is clearly the supreme being and source of all existence in Zoroastrianism, does not mean that Vohu Manah, Spenta Mainyu, etc. don't exist. They are derivative from Ahura Mazda. >>14981 I don't see any arguments being made here. It doesn't even matter if one agrees with Socrates philosophically or not, but it sure is funny how he exposed the false wisdom of those who thought themselves wise. If one's beliefs cannot even stand up to the smallest amount of probing, they are worthless beliefs. Your shitty Nietzschean philosophy (which is relativistic, perspectivistic, immoralistic, etc). His entire philosophical project is based on things that he likes, but he goes on to deny objective morality, (and any morality at all as anything more than an '(mis)interpretation of phenomena') truth, the gods, etc. Nietzsche is basically a leftist at heart, and this is why postmodernists / deconstructionists like Michel Foucault (pedo), Gilles Deleuze, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida all suck his cock. Nietzsche is part of the problem, just like (you)
>>14988 >I don't see any arguments being made here. Of course, not because you can't read at all or maybe you're so ignorant that you do not even know the meaning of the word argument at all. > It doesn't even matter if one agrees with Socrates philosophically or not But that's not the point. The topic was whether if this guy is worthy enough to be considered a philosopher or justified in what he done. You haven't brought any evidence contrary to my arguments other than that he was totally a good guy because he wanted to fight democracy which isn't enough of a reason for me to consider him to not be a faggot. >Your shitty Nietzschean philosophy (which is relativistic, perspectivistic, immoralistic, etc). Look! More asshurt and non-arguments about the topic! What a surprise! Nietschze is a better a philosopher than a greek faggot who was probably into molesting male children. At-least Nietschze didn't lead to the worst intellectuals of all times, Hegelians that Socrates created. >Nietzsche is basically a leftist at heart No he isn't, Nietschze acknowledge race, he supported hierachy, he never downplayed religion as worthless or shit he just hated religions like christcuckery or anything modern. >muh post-modernist This is because they take the things they like about Nietschze, but fail to recognize what he truly supported. It's like when leftoids claim that he loved Jews, despite him his critiques and clear disdain for Zionists or that he was an anarchist when he clearly established that he wanted a nation with a hierarchy and showed his distaste for them as well. Post-modernist love him for his ideas of will to power, but fail to understand what he meant on them like you do apparently.
>>14988 >You need to realize that polytheism and monotheism are a false dichotomy They are not, they are radically different worldviews and theologies, any intermediary stages are a result of progressivist/modernist corruption and gradual shift to monotheism. Your constant attempts to conflate both into your universalist kosher pilpul do not change that. >God (capital G) is in a totally different category than a 'god' Yes, it belongs to a category of false and subversive ideas >They are derivative from Ahura Mazda So different aspects of a single god, ergo, pantheistic or pluralistic monotheism. >Nietzsche is part of the problem Written by someone promoting the ideas of (((Spinoza)))
>>14996 >Nietschze acknowledge race, he supported hierachy, he never downplayed religion as worthless or shit he just hated religions like christcuckery or anything modern. Who gives a shit? According to his own dog-shit philosophy there is no such thing as morals, truth, etc. and everything is just a perspective-bound interpretation of phenomena. All of these things written by Nietzsche on hierarchy and stuff are no more than an expression of aesthetic taste by him, and every leftist who has taken his actual core teachings has realized this. His philosophy is worthless. >>14998 >Written by someone promoting the ideas of (((Spinoza))) Spinoza has nothing to do with the view of Ahura Mazda supported by the Gathas. Spinoza believed that nature WAS God in the sense that God / Nature was the only existing substance and everything that existed was a mode of this substance. Ahura Mazda is a sovereign creator who has designed the world according to his will. I don't know about his relationship to the world, but it is clear that Ahura Mazda is nothing like the 'God' (to the sense that it can be called that) of Spinoza. Also, you are demonstrating that you don't have a philosophical mind when you reject the existence of something on the grounds of 'muh subversion' alone, without demonstrating how the existence of God leads to subversion, and believing that you (or anyone) is free to reject things because they don't like them.
(208.34 KB 2445x722 The post that started it all.PNG)
>>14999 >Spinoza has nothing to do with the view of Ahura Mazda supported by the Gathas You were conflating polytheism and monotheism in general, which then you proceeded to use as an "argument" in favor of Zoroastrianism in particular. My reply regarding Spinoza applied to the former. <You need to realize that polytheism and monotheism are a false dichotomy. God (capital G) is in a totally different category than a 'god'. Both can exist at once, and the acknowledgement of one does not entail the demonization of the other This is matching Spinoza's philosophy to a very high degree >Ahura Mazda is a sovereign creator It was a spiritual predecessor of Abrahamism >Also, you are demonstrating that you don't have a philosophical mind when you reject the existence of something on the grounds of 'muh subversion' alone You are free to debate me in https://16chan.xyz/fascist/res/447.html and other threads where I have debunked monotheist and monist/pantheist ideas as both ultimately false and subversive.
(90.63 KB 488x760 spinoza jew and atheist.jpg)
>>15001 >You were conflating polytheism and monotheism in general I argued that the terms were a false dichotomy born out of Abrahamic analyses of religion, which distinguished between religions that worshiped a single being, and those which admitted multiple beings to be worshiped. The former is of course monotheism, the latter polytheism. And as I said, the type of being denoted by 'God' is in a wholly different category than a 'god'. They can co-exist side by side, as we see in orthodox Vaishnavism today, and in the writings of Emperor Julian and similar pagan figures. >This is matching Spinoza's philosophy to a very high degree Clearly based on my description of Spinoza's philosophy in my previous post, this is not true. Anyone is free to look up a summary of Spinoza's view of God and to confirm this view. It appears that Spinoza denied any sort of transcendence, creation or personality in God. It's basically materialism as far as I understand it, but with the name 'God' stamped on it. This was the understanding of many of his contemporaries as well. Just see this pic, which puts the words 'Iudeus et atheista' under him, i.e. 'Jew and atheist'. >It was a spiritual predecessor of Abrahamism Again, asserting this (regardless of truth value), does not prove it false.
>>15006 >born out of Abrahamic analyses of religion The inherent flaws of Abrahamic worldview eventually lead to philosophies of those such as Spinoza and Maimonides. Even if seemingly contradictory, they are just stages of natural development of the same foundation. Only those contradictions which remain once every idea is taken to it's logical conclusion count. Otherwise you are doomed to bounce from one facet of the same false god to another in total confusion (and be a mental slave of the Jews), forever. But I digress. >And as I said, the type of being denoted by 'God' is in a wholly different category than a 'god' So we can have multiple 'Gods' (with the capital G) then? That would match the definition of polytheism as well. Introducing additional categories does not change the core concept. If it does, it's no longer polytheism but something else (either creationist monotheism or some kind of pantheism or panentheism). The only true polytheism (paganism) is absolute polytheism where there are no higher categories to gods (pantheon). They can have different natures, levels of power and a hierarchy, but this hierarchy is not absolute and permanent nor is there any higher category above it. From this perspective, Abrahamism (including it's prototypes like Zoroastrianism) and philosophy of Spinoza and the likes are a false dichotomy. If you put a single God as an alpha and omega of existence, it's definition and sub-categories are of a lesser importance. >They can co-exist side by side Entirely independently? <They are derivative from Ahura Mazda So then, should we define a religion according to a lesser (derivative) or greater (core) category? What defines Zoroastrianism more, Vohu Manah, Spenta Mainyu, etc. or Ahura Mazda? They obviously don't hold equal value, therefore cannot be a false dichotomy. Unless you find or come up with a third term for it, it's closer to monotheism than polytheism and can thus be defined as such.
>>15008 >So we can have multiple 'Gods' (with the capital G) then? No, I don't think so. The attributes traditionally ascribed to God (particularly omnipotence) do not allow for more than one. >What defines Zoroastrianism more, Vohu Manah, Spenta Mainyu, etc. or Ahura Mazda? Depends which texts we're reading here. If we turn to the inscriptions of Darius I, we will see that AM has a very central role. He is lauded as the greatest of the gods, and that one who worships him will be blessed in this life and the next. Along with that, Darius ascribes everything from his kingship to his victories over his enemies to the will of AM. It seems like Darius views himself as the representative of AM on Earth, dispensing justice and attributing those who rebel against him to falling under the influence of the Lie / Druj. Darius also acknowledges the other gods briefly though, saying things like "May Ahuramazda bear me aid together with the gods of (the royal) house!" Along with being described as "the greatest of the gods", Darius says "A great god is Ahuramazda who created this earth, who created yonder heaven, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king". The inscriptions of Xerxes are similar. In the Ohrmazd Yasht, it is clear that AM is '[c]reator of the material world', the 'All Conquering', the "All Fashioner", the "Most Beneficent", the "All Perceiving", the "Invincible", "Truth" and the "Highest Ruler". In this Yasht the Amesha Spentas are not forgotten though. Wohu Manah, Asha Wahishta, Xshathra, Spenta Armaiti, Haurwatat, Ameretat, Werethraghna and others are said to be "in my house" (i.e. in AM's house). In Yasna 44 it is clear that the father of Asha, Good Mind, etc. is AM, and that it is AM who holds the earth and heavens in being, who creates the day and the night, establishes the path of the sun and stars, who makes the son by nature respectful to his father, and everything else than one can think of. Clearly AM is an essential fact about existence from the Zoroastrian mindset. This said, many of the Yashts are devoted to various gods like Mithra, Rashnu, Werethraghna, etc. and are given great honor and praises. The fact that AM is supreme though is clear. >Unless you find or come up with a third term for it, it's closer to monotheism than polytheism and can thus be defined as such. I've seen the term 'qualified monotheism' used before.
>>15038 >>15008 Forgot to say - my citations come from here >>3353
>>15006 >Spinoza fag hates Nietschse, but likee a Christcuck monotheist philosophy No surprise here that you are mentally challenged.
>>15578 I never said I liked Spinoza. Nietzsche is much better than Spinoza for a host of reasons, especially for the cultural issues that Nietzsche was keenly aware of with nihilism, the death of God, and other existentialist-type questions. Even if Nietzsche is ultimately wrong in his solutions and in many of his views, he is still valuable for some of his thought.
>>15580 >I never said No but you clearly do apperiate his ignorant works. At worst you also constantly cope when someone proves that Socrates was a retard and then try to kick Nietschze out of fascism's greatest influences, even though he was one of the founding philosophers who inspired it. Also existentialism isn't Nilihism, once again you prove you understand Nietschze and are one of those gay philosophers he talks about. The left taking inspiration from him is because they agree only agee with the line that "God is dead".
>>15583 >No but you clearly do apperiate his ignorant works Showing that what someone was saying about a given philosopher was incorrect and proving this does not necessarily mean that one appreciates a given figure. Accuracy is important. Spinoza does not really influence me in any way whatsoever. >At worst you also constantly cope when someone proves that Socrates was a retard Rent-free. Let us remember that you falsely claimed that Socrates was a Phoenician and then rapidly backed off when pressed for any proof of this. >then try to kick Nietschze out of fascism's greatest influences, even though he was one of the founding philosophers who inspired it. Irrelevant. Nietzsche isn't the solution for anything. I stand by this point, because no one has been able to critique it. Nietzsche made a noble effort, but his solution is not one that would ever work. As I have said, there are very good reasons why Nietzsche is considered a seminal figure in the idea of postmodernism and similar ideologies. It's because he rejects any and all metanarratives, absolutes and things of this nature. >Also existentialism isn't Nilihism What are you even talking about? Nietzsche was very worried about the issue of a certain type of nihilism and the effect that it would have on Europe. I never once equated existentialism and nihilism. Read, nigger. >The left taking inspiration from him is because they agree only agee with the line that "God is dead". Yeah, and the fact that he rejects morality of any kind and replaces it with some weird ideas about 'interpretations' and 'perspectives' and 'symptomatology'. Nietzsche's influence on (((Freud))) is well-established in this regard. Saying that 'God is dead' is a multi-layered statement. It's the destruction of all absolute values, meanings and purpose. Nietzsche thinks that everything before him is just one giant error, and in fact there is an entire section on this in Twilight of the Idols.
>>15584 > Let us remember that you falsely claimed that Socrates was a Phoenician and then rapidly backed off when pressed for any proof of this. Socrates being called Phoenician was an insult by fellow Greeks. Also you still haven't debunked anything on the case that he was an idiot. >Irrelevant <The creation of fascism is Irrelevant >Nietzsche isn't the solution for anything. Who said he was a solution? Everyone here knows that he was a great inspiration in detecting shitty philosophy. I mean what you argue can also be said about Plato and Socrates. >there are very good reasons why Nietzsche is considered a seminal figure in the idea of postmodernism and similar ideologies You keep bring this point and it continues to prove that you are indeed an idiot. Who cares if Nietzsche inspired post-modernism? Hegel, Kant, Giovanni, etc were also big influencers of both fascism and post-modern philosophy. Degenerates like Foucault and such were inspired by him, because they agreed that "God is dead" line and that there should be new values sent upon Western civilization to rid of Christianity, although he never said anything about pozz should run rampant amongst world and that being queer is totally acceptable and cried about muh rich White men, as matter of fact he had and would call these things "slave morality" or just faggotry. Men like Foucault developed his creepy attraction towards boys himself not through one guy who wrote on how philosophy and modern moralities are dumb. Leftists do not need Nietzsche in deconstructing definitions. >Yeah, and the fact that he rejects morality of any kind and replaces it with some weird ideas about 'interpretations' and 'perspectives' and 'symptomatology'. He rejects Christian morality and perspectives which is why he came to the conclusion. I would argue that he was only specifically talking about the modern world, but wouldn't say this if he understood the old age/ancient world. He is right, they do not matter at all. >Saying that 'God is dead' is a multi-layered statement. Nah it's was a reference to how Christian values have died and no longer have any purposes, because everyone during his time were doing things by their own interpretations of God. >It's the destruction of all absolute values, meanings and purpose. Except that no one in the world truly knows what absolute values are and most meanings and purposes have deluded and their context have all been misunderstood or lied about for many years. To think that Nietzsche lead to the destruction of values is so retarded.
>>15587 >Socrates being called Phoenician was an insult by fellow Greeks Assuming that you can even prove that Greeks used this insult against Socrates, it is still irrelevant, in the same way that posters throwing the term 'kike' around here doesn't really mean that the other poster is a kike. Still waiting for proof though. You seemed so confident before! >Who cares if Nietzsche inspired post-modernism? Because it's a movement of degeneracy that is destroying the West. Nietzsche has even been called the first postmodernist by some. And since postmodernism is founded on the idea that values and many other aspects of society are mere products of social constructionism and nothing else, and that there are no teleological metanarratives to life (also ridiculed by Nietzsche in the very first section of The Gay Science), it stands that Nietzsche is basically another PoMo freak. >He rejects Christian morality and perspectives which is why he came to the conclusion. So he immediately jumps into being a psychoanalyzing kike? And no, he rejects all morality as just a result of psychological states. From Twilight of the Idols: <[T]here are no moral facts at all. Moral judgments have this in common with religious ones: they believe in realities that are unreal.Morality is just an interpretation of certain phenomena, or speaking more precisely, a misinterpretation. Moral judgments, like religious ones, belong to a level of ignorance at which the very concept of the real, the distinction between real and imaginary, is still absent, so that “truth” at this level refers to all sorts of things which today we call “fantasies.” Thus, moral judgments can never be taken literally: literally, they always contain nothing but nonsense. But they are semiotically invaluable all the same: they reveal, at least to those who are in the know, the most valuable realities of cultures and inner states that did not know enough to “understand” themselves. Morality is just a sign language, just a symptomatology: you already have to know what it’s all about in order to get any use out of it." This is pure Freudian bullshit (and no surprise since Freud, as I said, took much from Nietzsche). And it is almost identically with what PoMos and other leftist freaks believe. >Nah it's was a reference to how Christian values have died and no longer have any purposes, because everyone during his time were doing things by their own interpretations of God. Christian values most assuredly had not 'died' when Nietzsche came around, and you are just proving that you have not even read the man. For example in the fifth section of 'Raids of an Untimely Man' in the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche castigates G. Eliot for having gotten rid of the Christian God but still trying to act like morality of Christianity is some sort of self-evident truth. Or how in the Gay Science (section 108) Nietzsche rights how the shadows of God will be displayed in caves for millennia afterwards, lingering on. It's also said in the famous section 125 of the same work where the madman goes around crying out 'God is dead' that the atheists he is addressing have not even realized the fact yet. He of course blames Christianity for much of this skepticism in Western cultural development, which has eventually undermined any firm foundation for our lives and transcendent bases for our values and beliefs. He's very clear that if God is 'dead', we ought to give up all ideas of ultimate groundings for our beliefs about morality, purpose, metanarratives, values, truth, order and disorder, etc. It's clear to anyone who has actually read Nietzsche, unlike you, that this goes far beyond Christianity too, as he makes fun of people who would attempt to 'deify' nature or anything similar. They're all copes to him. >To think that Nietzsche lead to the destruction of values is so retarded. He says that values are all the results of psychological states and interpretations of phenomena. It's not hard to see how this destroys existing values and relativizes them. This is the natural result of a ‘There are no facts, only interpretations’ philosophy. >Except that no one in the world truly knows what absolute values are and most meanings and purposes have deluded and their context have all been misunderstood or lied about for many years. Doesn't mean they don't exist and shouldn't be sought. Nietzsche just cries out 'LE GOD IS DEAD' with rhetorical flourish and acts like there is no longer any reason to care about objective truths, anything beyond the immediately visible, morality, values, meaning in life or anything of that nature. Nietzsche is ultimately not even a philosopher. He is a rhetorician.
>>15587 >Socrates being called Phoenician was an insult by fellow Greeks It would be hilarious if they used that term just as we use the term kike today. Being a Phoenician could have easily been a synonym for subversion, scheming, degeneracy, mammonism and vileness. >>15588 Nietzsche was good in deconstructing Abrahamic slave morality, but he didn't offer a complete philosophy or worldview, we have already discussed this in the Nietzsche thread. He had some good ideas that are applicable within the NS/Fascist context, such as the Superman (in contrast to the last man), will to power, eternal return, etc. but he also had some bad (or rather, incomplete and misinterpreted) ideas that are not applicable to it. >Nietzsche castigates G. Eliot for having gotten rid of the Christian God but still trying to act like morality of Christianity is some sort of self-evident truth Secular humanists and Communists still adhere to the same values despite being formally opposed to Christianity. Those values didn't die in the sense that no one adhered to them anymore, but in the sense that they have lost any purpose. >which has eventually undermined any firm foundation for our lives and transcendent bases for our values and beliefs There is nothing transcendent about Christianity, and it's foundations were faulty to begin with. Nietzsche didn't undermine it, he merely pronounced it's death. It was crumbling under it's own weight and falsehoods, he might just have given it a final push. Ironically, he would do the same to the postmodern narrative if he was alive today. It doesn't make much sense for either side to claim him. >He's very clear that if God is 'dead', we ought to give up all ideas of ultimate groundings for our beliefs about morality, purpose, metanarratives, values, truth, order and disorder, etc Being against one value system does not necessarily mean being against all of them. He clearly had some ideas about what should be 'deified' , even if he didn't fully develop them. >Nietzsche is ultimately not even a philosopher. He is a rhetorician He was closer to being a rhetorician indeed.
>>15592 >Secular humanists and Communists still adhere to the same values despite being formally opposed to Christianity. Those values didn't die in the sense that no one adhered to them anymore, but in the sense that they have lost any purpose. I don't know if I would agree that he thought that they had 'lost any purpose' - he seems to reject it for slightly different, less utilitarian reasons, but in general I totally get what he is saying here against that person. Without assuming the truth of Christianity, there's no grounds for any of the bullshit that comes along with it. >There is nothing transcendent about Christianity Some of the Christians in the more distant past had a more mystical and transcendent aspect to it but it appears that the religion has become a soulless corpse. I mean even Nietzsche saw it in his day, as you point out. >Being against one value system does not necessarily mean being against all of them Of course I agree with this, but I don't think Nietzsche did. >He clearly had some ideas about what should be 'deified', even if he didn't fully develop them. I don't think he wanted any concept or idea 'deified'. Maybe except for the idea of the Ubermensch, which, at least, seems to be the case in one of the sections talking about the 'death of God' in The Gay Science where the madman says: <Do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it? I don't think this would ultimately fix the problems that the West faces, personally, but that's beside the point I guess. The general ethos of the will to power is just common sense as far as I'm concerned. He pointed it out best when he compared it to Spinoza's idea of mere 'self-preservation'. Living things to do merely strive to preserve themselves and do nothing beyond that, they strive to become more.
>>15603 I think that what he truly attacked was the concept of blind faith and the structures that proceeded from it, he wanted people to revalue all values but without being against any values per se. He was just looking for something more substantial and less self-deceptive, got a vague idea about it, but never got to develop it due to going insane. >I don't think he wanted any concept or idea 'deified' Not in the sense of becoming a God of some religion, but rather of assuming the same position based on it's own merits and not beliefs. >I don't think this would ultimately fix the problems that the West faces "West" is a Spenglerian concept which I find a bit misleading and inadequate. While Nietzsche based his Superman mostly on character traits, it had to be expanded a lot to include or develop all the other aspects (racial/physical, intellectual, spiritual etc), that the NSDAP, and particularly the SS tried to do. This is also partially based on Spengler's idea (and common sense) that superior men create superior societies, and can thus enjoy a superior existence. While Marxist "New man" or homo sovieticus was supposed to be forged through nurture (and supposedly superior political system) alone, in practice it took a shape of a vilest last man imaginable. On the other hand, Fascist/NS systems focused on the quality of people (nature) as the basis of a superior society, and it showed impressive results. Likewise, Marxists focused on (economic) materialism as something more substantial than the dead God of Christianity, while Fascists/Nat-soc's found it in transcendent principles. That ended up with similar results. The quality of people (overall traits) is far more important than any political ideology or nurture. An inherently superior man can overcome bad nurture, bad political systems and bad circumstances, while no political system can help the inferior man. And there is a saying, like people - like government, meaning that superior people would naturally strive towards superior political ideologies, ideas and worldviews, while subhumans will seek inferior ones. Jews know this, that's why they seek to degenerate and racemix everyone so they can rely on pure quantity to brute-force their idiotic social systems and Talmudic hegemony. I'd rather pick to live in a country with the worst political system imaginable populated with overmen that the SS planned to create, then in the country with the best political system imaginable populated with genetically inferior last men. >Living things to do merely strive to preserve themselves and do nothing beyond that, they strive to become more Not all living things. In fact, almost all of them are perfectly content with preservation alone. Only Man, and to the most extent the White Man, has this impulse to overcome himself and become something greater even if he is not evolutionary pressured to do so. Seeing Fascism/NS as mere tools of White survival is very narrow-minded, it was supposed to reach much further than that. Obviously, there are very powerful forces in the world which want to prevent Man from reaching his full potential.
>>15615 I'm not sure, the will to power seems to be just a general fact of life for many organisms, human or otherwise. There is not just a will to survive, but a will to flourish, to thrive, to realize ever greater possibilities and powers. A tree does just spread its foliage and sink its roots to the minimum degree needed to survive. No, it keeps on growing and growing, and digging its roots deeper and deeper into the soil. This tree is exhibiting its will to power. Nietzsche makes it clear in section 259 of Beyond Good and Evil that the very essence of life itself is overpowering, appropriating, injuring, exploitation, etc. because these things are " alive, and because life simply is the will to power". You are right though that the Aryan man demonstrates this to the greatest extent, at least in past ages.
>>15636 >There is not just a will to survive, but a will to flourish, to thrive, to realize ever greater possibilities and powers There are organisms that didn't evolve or significantly change for millions of years due to lack of pressure to do so. >A tree does just spread its foliage and sink its roots to the minimum degree needed to survive. No, it keeps on growing and growing, and digging its roots deeper and deeper into the soil It's a mere extension principle that doesn't give it any greater possibilities and powers, on the contrary, it only increases the chance for it's survival. It only does more of what it can already do. Just as humans and many animals store food when they have a surplus because it might be eaten in times of scarcity, increasing their long-term survival prospects. >This tree is exhibiting its will to power In a blind and unconscious way yes. And the will does not belong to the tree, the tree belongs to the will. It's not possible for a tree to will to become something qualitatively better, for example something self-conscious. No matter how many forms and shapes it can take, it can't change it's nature. Additionally, it has no power over itself. Only Man, and by that I mean the White man, had the will to become (or return to being) something qualitatively better than himself. I doubt Nietzsche would focus on something as obvious as life seeking to expand at expense of other life so much, without hinting at something else. Otherwise this portion of his philosophy would be redundant. <Man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman — a rope over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end <What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal He obviously sought something qualitatively higher, not just expansion at expense of other life. <You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes He wanted Man to overcome his bestial nature by facing it (rather than escaping it)
(374.99 KB 536x696 ClipboardImage.png)
>>15639 >There are organisms that didn't evolve or significantly change for millions of years due to lack of pressure to do so. Evolution is not real. It's a Masonic myth used to justify progressive ideologies and rampant capitalism. >In a blind and unconscious way yes. And the will does not belong to the tree, the tree belongs to the will Trees are much more conscious than most people would be willing to admit. Even smaller plants such as pea plants can respond to the sound of water and grow towards them, or can anticipate the direct from which light will come from if conditioned artificially or naturally. >it can't change it's nature Neither can a human being. Anyone who thinks this is possible is already a leftist at heart. This is the foundation of Marxist thought - the mutability of human nature. In his Theses On Feuerbach Marx outright declares that "...the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations." Jean-Paul Sartre operates off the same foundation, saying that man is no more than what he wills himself. There is no human nature. Man is radically free to endlessly reshape himself. Existence precedes essence. This is a radical denial of any nature, in the same vein as Marx, in the same view as Masonic evolutionary theory. The end result of this is, conveniently enough, other ideologies that are going to be used to control humans in the near future, such as transhumanism, which is heavily, heavily supported by Jews such as Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky (who received over 100K from Epstein) and others. It's part of the plot to turn human beings into designed, bar-coded products and abominations. And needless to say, the denial of an essence or inherent nature is patently false. No matter how much a man pretends to be a woman, he is at his essence nothing but a man, and everyone knows it deep down. The same is true with any and all initiatives which attempt to turn niggers into upstanding citizens. The majority of them are incapable of doing so. No matter how hard you wash a nigger, they won't turn White. It's because they are a nigger in their essence. A man is a man. A tree is a tree. When you are saying this stuff about only man having the ability to become something qualitatively better than himself, you are actually directly echoing pic related and his atheistic existentialism: <Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that being is man, or as Heidigger says, human reality [...] there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also what he wills himself to be after this thrust towards existence. > doubt Nietzsche would focus on something as obvious as life seeking to expand at expense of other life so much, without hinting at something else Even the tree practices this sort of will to power. It destroys and overshadows all of the other trees that grow around it, emerging victorious in the struggle for life over the others. It's pure will to life.
>>15639 >>15643 Check out the Aryan science Thread for info on evolution
>>15645 Definitely. Also good is: >>11825 >>11826 >>11827
>>15643 >Evolution is not real Organisms do adapt to environmental factors whether the prevailing theory of evolution is true or not. That's besides the point anyway, the fact remains that the great majority of living beings never change their function, which is mere self-preservation. (Reproduction being it's extension). >Even smaller plants such as pea plants can respond to the sound of water By that logic computers are conscious too. Environmental awareness is not the same as sapience >Neither can a human being As Nietzsche stated, and it was one of his truer realizations, a man is a bridge between a beast and a god. Essentially it's about the inherent potential, not about the manifestation. A tree doesn't have a potential to be anything other than a tree, while a man has a potential to become either a beast or a god. This duality of human nature has nothing to do with Marxism, Sartre or Transhumanism, because it's a noumenological position while all Talmudic philosophies are strictly phenomenological. Neither is it contrary to essentialism, since some essences/natures allow for a much wider range of phenomenological manifestation than others. You have adopted an egalitarian position by asserting that the will to power is essentially the same for a tree and a man (all life). >It's part of the plot to turn human beings into designed, bar-coded products and abominations That's like having a plan to turn a tree into a fence or firewood, not to change it's nature or qualitatively improve it. Completely unrelated. >No matter how hard you wash a nigger, they won't turn White That's because a term "human" is a misnomer >Even the tree practices this sort of will to power. It destroys and overshadows all of the other trees that grow around it, emerging victorious in the struggle for life over the others That's pure survival instinct, the more it overshadows other trees, the more sunlight it gets, and is thus increasing it's survival chances. It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of will from our perspective. >When you are saying this stuff about only man having the ability to become something qualitatively better than himself To clarify, something qualitatively better than his current condition, that he (White man) already had an inherent potential for. It seems that you are trying to turn Nietzsche's philosophy against itself in order to support some kind of creationist narrative, which is not noumenological or essentialist but phenomenological. Atheistic existentialism and Abrahamistic creationism are actually a false dichotomy, since they are just different spins of the same core perspective. Proper essentialism doesn't need God at all. And again, only some aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy are useful.
>>15647 >Organisms do adapt to environmental factors Sure, but it's not an innovative force, it's just the reshuffling of existing genes. Past that point natural selection is a conservative rather than innovative force. I'd argue that any sort of adaptation to the environment is pretty much a passive process anyway. >By that logic computers are conscious too. Environmental awareness is not the same as sapience I'm not claiming that a plant is a rational being or anything of that nature, but even then they are far more complex and aware then commonly understood to be. One can just look into Mycorrhizal networks in old growth forests, and see how trees have been seen to exhibit resource sharing, transferring of chemicals alerting nearby trees of dangers (even of different species), and kin selection, etc. via the networks of mychorrhiza and tree roots. There are many more similar examples of this that can be found, such as plants seemingly anticipating drought due to inter-plant communication, etc. Another road to look into is the topic of primary perception. At the very least, it seems clear that plants of various kinds exhibit qualia in a way computers clearly don't. Computers just compute stuff and run algorithms. They are like primitive p-zombies, if anything. There's no qualia. >A tree doesn't have a potential to be anything other than a tree, while a man has a potential to become either a beast or a god. A man is a man, just like a tree is a tree. Humans could certainly reach more higher potentials than we have now, but we will never not be humans. >You have adopted an egalitarian position by asserting that the will to power is essentially the same for a tree and a man (all life). I am merely quoting what Nietzsche himself wrote in Beyond Good and Evil. To again point to section 259, he writes "life simply is the will to power. This is what the common European consciousness resists learning [...] 'Exploitation' is not part of a decadent or imperfect, primitive society: it is part of the fundamental nature of living things, as its fundamental organic function; it is a consequence of the true will to power, which is simply the will to live". So the life is fundamentally the will to power, and the will to power is the will to life, the will to life of all life. And to go to section 349 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche writes "The struggle for existence is only an exception, a temporary restriction of the will to live; everywhere the struggle, both great and small, revolves around supremacy, around growth and expansion, around power, in accordance with the will to power, which is precisely the will of life." Here it is clear that Nietzsche is speaking in generalities as well. It is not just the will to life, it is the will of life. This is doubtlessly related to the will to life in Schopenhauer's philosophy as well, which characterizes, in his view, everything in nature. It is not egalitarian to say that things operate on the same principles. Am I an egalitarian for saying that all organisms need sustenance? Am I an egalitarian for saying that all organisms are bound by the laws of physics? According to Nietzsche, a tree certainly exhibits will to power.
>>15647 >That's because a term "human" is a misnomer That's just another evolutionist meme. There's clearly a generic human nature which has many expressions, some of them qualitatively superior to others. But watch, you will claim that this is somehow an egalitarian statement, even though the generic is the least exceptional aspect of man, the one that should regarded the least. >That's pure survival instinct, the more it overshadows other trees, the more sunlight it gets, and is thus increasing it's survival chances. Nietzsche disagrees. The tree exhibits pure will to power in its capacity as a tree. It doesn't just preserve itself. It doesn't just put its roots in the bare minimum, it keeps digging them deeper, and deeper, spreading its leaves out more and more, overshadowing all other trees that would attempt to supplant it, and dominating over them. The tree flourishes, not seeking a static equilibrium. As Nietzsche writes in section 688 of The Will to Power "Spinoza's law of "self-preservation" really ought to put a stop to change: but this law is false, the opposite is true. It can shown most clearly that every living thing does everything it can not preserve itself, but to become more—" Notice again that Nietzsche here is claiming that this is a principle governing all life. >Abrahamistic creationism No one is talking about Abrahamism. >Proper essentialism doesn't need God at all. So why would there be universals like 'human' or 'dog' that is instantiated in numerous particular human beings, or particular dogs, all with unchanging essences (not to say there cannot be variation within a given category)? For these to just exist would make little sense, and of course, with any sort of evolutionary theory there can be no such thing as an essence. Evolution relies on nominalism. There is no universals of this kind, every variety is a potential incipient species.
>>15650 >Sure, but it's not an innovative force, it's just the reshuffling of existing genes My point still stands, there is nothing more to sub-human (and I don't use this as a derogatory term in this case) life than mere survival and expansion instinct. I don't know are there any species that auto-regulate this, but it seems that most of them just keep going until environmental factors stop them. That's when an ecosystem reaches a kind of equilibrium and any further growth gives diminishing returns. This is no more of an expression of will than a computer script is. >Another road to look into is the topic of primary perception. At the very least, it seems clear that plants of various kinds exhibit qualia in a way computers clearly don't They exhibit certain variables which are unique to life compared to artificial constructs, but they still lack the requirements to have any sort of higher consciousness, sapience or self-awareness. They are not the possessors of will, but it's manifestation. >They are like primitive p-zombies, if anything. There's no qualia So are most living things, including most people. >A man is a man, just like a tree is a tree Yes, there is clearly a great variety of phenomena based on noumenal Forms (as elaborated by Plato, among others) >but we will never not be humans That depends on how do you define "humans". I think that we are unique in the sense that our noumenal potential is much greater than that of other living things on earth. The margin is wide enough that we could theoretically become something that would be considered "non-human" by today's standards. And that goes both ways, from degenerating to a state lower than an animal to ascending to godlike attributes. Nietzsche recognized this, but he didn't develop the idea properly. Races likely play a role in this process and represent various stages of "human". Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to develop a race of Ubermensch from Whites because of kikes, so the upper limit is yet to be discovered. Key word being develop, not create. I don't see how niggers could be developed into Whites however, so the process probably only works in reverse past certain point. As in, there being a threshold of bestial nature after which there is no going back, at least from a biological perspective. >I am merely quoting what Nietzsche himself wrote in Beyond Good and Evil I can see that, but what kind of point are you trying to make? I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems that you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Nietzsche just recognized some sort of animating force compelling living creatures to behave in a certain way and he was right in asserting that people are not exempt from it regardless of how much they deny it, but he did not address the concept of will properly. What purpose he tried to make of it, was strictly reserved for humans however. He did not envision a higher tree or a higher ant, but a higher man. Therefore, he obviously assigned some unique properties to men, when it comes to this principle manifesting itself. >It is not egalitarian to say that things operate on the same principles It is to assume that they are essentially defined by the principle acting as the lowest common denominator however. >Am I an egalitarian for saying that all organisms are bound by the laws of physics? It was only Man who managed to overcome laws of physics to a certain degree. Not to change them yet, but to utilize them.
>>15651 >There's clearly a generic human nature which has many expressions There seems to be a loosely defined archetypal container (pertaining to both shared physical and mental attributes) so it's correctly defined as a set, but given the differences it's not the most accurate category to use, since there are other, more unique sets and principles that are not necessarily shared among all. Otherwise you might as well use the term mammals, since they too have many shared genetic and even behavioral characteristics. Given how essentially 'non-human' some races are, and how different individual people can be, I'm convinced that "humans" are not a root archetype but an artificial hybrid of some sort. A fusion of two or more different essences. >It doesn't just put its roots in the bare minimum, it keeps digging them deeper, and deeper, spreading its leaves out more and more, overshadowing all other trees that would attempt to supplant it, and dominating over them The sole function of this being to ensure more minerals and sunlight for it's survival and extension/reproduction. >that every living thing does everything it can not preserve itself, but to become more You have previously claimed how living things cannot become more, explain. >So why would there be universals like 'human' or 'dog' that is instantiated in numerous particular human beings, or particular dogs, all with unchanging essences (not to say there cannot be variation within a given category)? To avoid touching on some very complex subjects, let's just say that Forms can exist into themselves. Their phenomenal manifestation depends on the right configuration and circumstances however >For these to just exist would make little sense In a sense, everything that can exist, exists. Since nothing can exist without differentiation, essences are inherently differentiated. Nothing can exist without convergence of some kind either, leading to pre-existent Forms and archetypes. > with any sort of evolutionary theory there can be no such thing as an essence Noumenal essences can exert influence on phenomenal life, this theory is seldom considered.
>>15659 >My point still stands, there is nothing more to sub-human [...] life than mere survival and expansion instinct. And it is characterized by the will to power. >So are most living things, including most people. I mean p-zombies in the sense they're actually meant, not as a derogatory. >I don't see how niggers could be developed into Whites however They probably can't, unless we have an extremely long time to artificially select among their populations. >It is to assume that they are essentially defined by the principle acting as the lowest common denominator however. That's on Nietzsche, not me. >It was only Man who managed to overcome laws of physics to a certain degree. Not to change them, but to utilize them. Man has never overcome the laws of physics. This isn't even an impressive statement. A beaver abides by ('utilizes') laws of physics in building his dam. As does a bird when it flies or builds its nest. Also, I doubt that humans will ever be able to change unchanging and universal variables that govern everything in the Universe. That would be extremely foolish too if one has looked into to what scientists have written about fine-tuning. >>15661 >Otherwise you might as well use the term mammals, It's a nested hierarchy. If you can recognize that mammals all belong to the class, it's not hard to see that a nigger and a White man belong to the same category as 'human'. It's the same archetype, in the same way that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane belong to same archetype ultimately. In fact human groups are far more similar than these two dog breeds in morphology alone. >You have previously claimed how living things cannot become more, explain. I am quoting Nietzsche's Will to Power here, like I said. I see it as no more than a driving towards reaching higher innate potentials and to flourish, personally. >let's just say that Forms can exist into themselves Why would there be an eternal self-existent Form of 'dog'? >everything that can exist, exists There are many things which could exist that don't.
>>13995 >Being THIS retarded Modern secularism is far, far more kiked than any denomination of Christianity. Granted, nearly every single prot denomination is kiked to hell, and modern catholic church has many semetic influences, but this doesn't make Christianity Jewish. inb4 >JeSUS was a jew lolol >le worshiping kike on a stick in 2011 + 10 Jesus was not Jewish, he was divine, Jesus could've been a shit flinging nigger, but he still would've been divine, and not limited by human attributes. Also, Christ doesn't preach values of submissiveness and just letting people stomp on you, that's a modern Jewish liberal interpretation of the bible taught in faggot state schools across the west. A good video on it is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULPH9yKj9DE Frankly if you'd actually stopped LARPing as a faggot pagan and actually picked up the New Testament and read it, most of your misconceptions would go away. The bible teaches of patience, virtue, nationalism, family and anti-degeneracy. The real translation is not 'Thou shalt not kill' It's 'Thou shalt not murder' Murder implies biblically justified places to kill, such as faggots, sluts, and more. Paganism teaches jack shit and is a religion so stupid it's on par with Shintoism. Your post is incredibly condescending for someone who has zero knowledge of what they're talking about.
>>15679 niggers can't be holy because they don't have souls
>>15679 Go check out the Christianity thread, pagans are being exposed as relativists who can't even account for their moral frameworks, any of their presuppositions about the world, or anything else for that matter. The movement is dead in the water.
>>15679 >Paganism teaches jack shit and is a religion so stupid it's on par with Shintoism. Do you have any idea where you are?
(153.91 KB 1024x667 jesus christ walking on water.jpg)
>>15694 It's the twilight of the gods, anon. They can't stand up to even the smallest amount of probing from Christian posters. Your position doesn't even exist outside of seething against Christians with high birthrates and more stable families than the rest of the population. You've gotten so used to your ebin pagan hugbox that you've forgotten how to even argue.
>>15693 >>15695 You talking about how you failed to defend your bullshit kike religion on its own merits so you tried to resort to deflection and obfuscation and none of us bought it? If so, then yeah, okay.
>>15695 What is Christianity's plan to defeat the jews, stop race-mixing, and expel all non-Europeans from our lands? I would be interested but I've only seen a few Christians like John Earnest who took action. Whereas the churches around me are all actively promoting homosexuality, and providing food, shelter, and other programs for immigrants from Asia, Africa, and South America. They are also promoting race mixed marriages. So I'm getting mixed messages here.
(63.48 KB 700x445 sodom.jpg)
(36.82 MB 1280x720 Paganism vs Orthodoxy.mp4)
>>15697 I think you're terrified of having your LARP exposed for what it is - baseless. >>15698 Churches are one of the most racially-segregated institutions in the United States even today. Something like 80 percent or more of churches remain monoracially dominant in one way or another. To no one's surprise, people group with their own, even if they share the same religion nominally. Race-mixing and stuff can easily be fixed by removing the Jews from power, banning usury, etc. People don't have an insatiable desire to race-mix. It's a product of social engineering. Ban the Jews from pushing their agendas onto the population and get rid of them, and the problem will be gradually solved. Ban interracial marriage again for good measure. I don't even see it is as a religious issue. It is an issue of public health. Bring back freedom of association. Don't let the government force people to cater to blacks or other minorities in their businesses. Stop accepting immigrants and realize that there is such a thing as too much altruism that can even be harmful to the people themselves, not to mention to the people who are helping them in the first place. End birthright citizenship. >Whereas the churches around me are all actively promoting homosexuality These are Satanic churches. God wiped out entire cities in the Old Testament for this behavior. In the Mosaic Law, sodomy was punishable by death. Even St. Paul said that such actions were 'deserving of death' in Romans 1:26-32. Over and over in the New Testament, sodomy is condemned. Those who practice sodomy and do not repent and cease will NOT inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Echoing Deuteronomy, Paul is clear that we must "“Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:13). Homosexuality creeping into our culture is a result of a re-paganization of society. >And providing food, shelter, and other programs for immigrants from Asia, Africa, and South America. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if they were temporary guests to be sent back to their lands, but they are part of a program of replacement migration against White Western countries, manipulated by the Jews and elites. It's also extremely profitable from the capitalsit standpoint of things. It's another product of Mammon. >They are also promoting race mixed marriages Actively promoting such behavior is part of the Jewish agenda. They want to turn everyone into racial mush so they can rule over mankind.
>>15695 I see a discussion on the contemporary fruits of Christianity which is obviously important but why do you believe Christianity to be true? Why should anyone be Christian in the first place aside from the benefits it may or may not bring?
>>15680 Yeap. Non-Whites Christians are slaves. Non-Whites themselves are slaves. There are either two masters, the kikes or Whites. The hooked noses and the Aryans are in a chess match and their pawns are the different "peoples".
>>15702 >why do you believe Christianity to be true? The Bible is unique for the prophetic dimension of the text itself. One good example of this is in the Old Testament book of Daniel, specifically chapter 9.24-27. If one interprets the period of seventy 'sevens' or seventy weeks (depending on the translation) as referring to seventy periods of seventy years, i.e. 490 years (in accordance with the idea of 'weeks of years' in Leviticus 25:8). Several things are predicted in this prophecy. But first, we know that it starts "From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem". This is widely believed to be in the 7th year of King Artaxerxes of the Achaemenid Empire in accordance with the dates given in the Old Testament book of Ezra (Ezra 7). He is believed by secular historians to have begun to his reign in 465 B.C. The seventh year of his reign would be ~458 B.C. The prophecy says that there will be 62 'weeks' (434 years) from the finishing of the restoration of Jerusalem (which would take '7' weeks or 49 years) until the coming of the Anointed One / Christ. So if Jerusalem takes 49 years to restore from the order of Artaxerxes, that brings us to 409 B.C. 434 years from 409 B.C. is 25 A.D., the beginning of the 69th week of the prophecy, corresponding, it seems, with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist at the start of Christ's ministry. Sometime after the beginning of the 69th week, the Anointed One / Christ will be put to death. There are several possible interpretations of the Hebrew here. Either the Anointed One "will be put to death and will have nothing", or possibly, (and more Christologically) he will "will be put to death, but not for himself". In the middle of the 70th 'week' a covenant will be affirmed with many, and sacrifice will become obsolete in the temple. This would occur around 28 / 29 A.D. according to the math, and would likely be the date when Jesus was crucified. And of course, it says that "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed". This seems to correspond with the coming of the Romans into Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which would of course end sacrifice in the Temple forever. There are a few obscure parts of the prophecy, but I find it rather compelling, personally, especially for a few reasons.
>>15702 >>15707 For one, rabbis recognize the importance of this passage, and have declared curses on anyone who attempts to calculate the coming of the Messiah (Sanhedrin 97b, in particular). On top of this, there are Talmudic accounts that the scapegoats at the Jewish temple stopped having their sins forgiven in the forty years prior to the destruction of the temple (which comes out to literally 30 A.D., give or take). Jews would take a goat, tie a cloth around its horns or neck, and send it out into the wilderness for the forgiveness of sins: Rosh Hashanah 31b: <The ordinance was with regard to the strip of crimson wool used on Yom Kippur. As it is taught in a baraita: At first they would tie a strip of crimson wool to the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Temple on the outside. If, after the sacrificing of the offerings and the sending of the scapegoat, the strip turned White, the people would rejoice, as this indicated that their sins had been atoned for. If it did not turn White they would be sad. <During the forty years before the Second Temple was destroyed the strip of crimson wool would not turn White; rather, it would turn a deeper shade of red https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah.31b Yoma 39b <The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn White, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually. https://www.sefaria.org/Yoma.39b.5 There are other reasons as well, some of them coming down to some personal experiences and answers and pray that I have gotten from God. These I find more compelling than anything I have written here, but I do not expect these to mean anything to others, of course. I also think that the Bible is unique for how self-confident it is in its claims. It says over and over again that the days will come when the entire planet will begin turn to the God of the Bible, and that the gods governing the nations of the rest of mankind will be driven aside and the nations will be the inheritance of God (Psalm 82), and many new people will come to worship God (Psalm 86:8-10, Psalm 22:28). The nature of the gods of the nations is, I think, properly described in Genesis 6, showing how they came and mated with human women and produced offspring just like we see in pagan myths. Also, I believe that the resurrection has a lot of explanatory power as a historical event in explaining the foundation of Christianity, why the disciples were willing to die for these beliefs, how they even came up with them in the first place (the idea of messiah sentenced to death like a common criminal between two thieves was basically unthinkable from how the Jews interpreted it at the time, and even the disciples were initially despondent until they saw him risen and had their minds opened to the scriptures by Jesus). And then there is the fact that opponents of this movement gradually were even convinced, despite having every reason to the contrary to believe so (Second Temple Judaism did not believe in any sort of resurrection until the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world). Paul for example.
>>15669 >I mean p-zombies in the sense they're actually meant, not as a derogatory. Yes, as they are actually meant. Most people are just autonomous biological machines, especially non-Whites. Jews are literal golems, the majority of them not only lack the Self entirely, but also the animic singular soul inherent to beastmen and other flora and fauna of this world. And it's nothing derogatory, just as calling a computer a machine is not. There are some exceptions of course, but it's a generic state for most. >That's on Nietzsche, not me. Why do you keep quoting him then? Are you trying to use those quotes out of context so his philosophy is rejected entirely? As I have already stated, some of his ideas are good, some are not, and many didn't get developed properly. It's not black and White so I don't really see what are you trying to do here. Other authors have picked up where Nietzsche has left, all over the political and philosophical spectrum. And his critiques can be used selectively, if one understands the overall context of his works. He would likely criticize postmodernists, modern existentialists and especially Marxists even more than he did Christians, because it took them less time to spawn the last man and mediocrity, crab mentality etc. as a way of life than it did for Christianity to accomplish the same. Although Christianity was just a stage leading to Marxism, modernism and similar views, just as chrysalis turns into a butterfly. They are part of the same Talmudic dialectics, regardless of their superficial differences. >A beaver abides by ('utilizes') laws of physics in building his dam No animal utilizes laws of physics to do something that it was not naturally endowed to do, except for 'humans'. Man was never meant to fly, dive deep underwater for a long time, move hundreds of times faster than walking, survive extreme conditions or go to space. Even if you somehow argue that it's just another degree of magnitude, the margin is wide enough to separate Man from all other living things on earth. >Also, I doubt that humans will ever be able to change unchanging and universal variables that govern everything in the Universe Those variables are upheld by the very inertia that keeps this universe together so yes, it seems extremely unlikely, at least without relying on external sources. But there might be other variables that might achieve the similar effect... >It's a nested hierarchy. If you can recognize that mammals all belong to the class, it's not hard to see that a nigger and a White man belong to the same category as 'human' Yes, as I have explained in that post. Using an overly broad class defined by the significantly lower common denominator can neuro-linguistically imprint an egalitarian context even if it was not strictly meant as such. That's why such terms, despite not being strictly incorrect, should be avoided. Part of the reason why it's so hard to deprogram people from Jewish mind-toxins today is their manipulation of language to create certain neuro-linguistic imprints since early age. Their control is far more advanced and insidious than mere control of media and blackmail/bribery of politicians. >In fact human groups are far more similar than these two dog breeds in morphology alone Given the level of mental development and other traits, morphology alone does not suffice. A dog behaves like most other dogs regardless of how different they look, some human groups are not like that. Differences among 'human' races are of essential nature, because the wide margin of 'human' quantitative container/class allows for it. For most other living things on earth it's too narrow to permit manifestation of different archetypal or individual essences, meaning that the quantitative Form (with smaller varieties) will correspond to the qualitative essence. This essence being based on the highest common factor(s), that defines the concentrated racial soul and fine tunes the physical form. >Why would there be an eternal self-existent Form of 'dog'? Your monitor is likely made with a panel containing a certain number of pixel dots. Those dots create the picture which you see. Out of all possible configurations, some of them are pictures of dogs. Extrapolate that to the dynamic, 3-dimensional world and you get the idea. >There are many things which could exist that don't. In this particular phenomenal configuration. If you don't see a picture of a dog on your monitor, does it mean that pictures of dogs don't exist?
>>15708 I appreciate the well thought out post. Anyways though, assuming that all the information you gave is correct it would show that the God of the Bible does have power in this world but that in no way shows that the God of the Bible is the sole God we should all worship or will lead us into truth. To use the example of the resurrection, it'd be quite spectacular if it happened but on it's own it proves nothing since one would first have to demonstrate other things to make it fully convincing e.g. the truthfulness of a Christian system of Metaphysics. Of course the claims of prophecy would back such a thing up but we must keep in mind that traditions such as Neoplatonism, Vedanta, Buddhism, and so on don't take empirical reality at face value and thus don't place as much emphasis on history as Abrahamic faiths do. So I don't understand why Jesus in the New Testament goes around trying to convince people through the use of miracles since as I demonstrated, the miraculous on it's own proves nothing as I don't know what's truly happening behind it all aside from some guy who claimed to be the Son of God was raised from the dead. Unless we're supposed to embrace some sort of Fideism, my mind is corrupted by sin, or the Bible wants us to search after some sort of apophatic knowledge (as Paul might've been pointing towards in 1 Corinthians) it would've been simply much easier for Jesus to create an infallible Metaphysical treatise since at the end of the day we're just using our reason to figure these things out it seems.
>>15712 >Yes, as they are actually meant. Most people are just autonomous biological machines, especially non-Whites. Jews are literal golems, the majority of them not only lack the Self entirely, but also the animic singular soul inherent to beastmen and other flora and fauna of this world I don't see any compelling reason to believe this. P-zombies are just a thought experiment about consciousness. >Why do you keep quoting him then? Because whatever conversation that was being had ITT had to do with Nietzsche originally. I was criticizing Nietzsche earlier in the thread and figured that whatever is going on now was an extension of that. You or someone else made a claim that the will to power was something human-exclusive, and I said that that is not what Nietzsche said (since we were talking about Nietzsche). >Those variables are upheld by the very inertia that keeps this universe together so ye I see little reason to believe that the laws of nature that hold throughout the entire universe are merely a product of 'inertia'. There's zero evidence of change. >A dog behaves like most other dogs regardless of how different they look, t. never owned numerous breeds of dogs Dogs differ markedly in intelligence, personality and similar traits between breeds. >Differences among 'human' races are of essential nature They're clearly not. They're of the same species / kind, thus they have the same essence. I know it's embarrassing to be of the same species as a nigger, but you are. >Your monitor is likely made with a panel containing a certain number of pixel dots. Those dots create the picture which you see. Out of all possible configurations, some of them are pictures of dogs. Extrapolate that to the dynamic, 3-dimensional world and you get the idea. I don't see any point of comparison here. There is a massive difference between a computer, designed by intelligent entities such as humans, being able to show a picture of a dog on a screen (a being which already exists in the natural world) and there for some reason there existing a Form of the dog that exists inexplicably in the natural world, apparently just popping into existence without any cause.
>>15700 >These are Satanic churches. OK but that is the vast majority of churches I see, every time I try to engage with Christianity... the only one I ran into that wasn't like this was a tiny Greek orthodox church with nothing but old people and a couple families. Obviously I agree with your first paragraph about plans to fix the problem, but that is orthoginal to Christianity or the churches since they are not putting those plans into motion, and the general trend of the religion and its practioners seems to be agitating for our destruction with these gibs programs for ethnic replacers. I actively sought out Christianity for its positive values but was repulsed every time by what I ran into in real life. So I think you'll have to be more practical with what it can offer us because there doesn't seem to be much pro-European vitality other than higher birth rates which won't be enough to save us especially when those same values are being promoted for the latinos, blacks, and asians in our own countries as well.
(81.29 KB 979x617 1581771750018.jpg)
(61.31 KB 720x540 1581208977836.jpg)
(15.37 KB 229x220 orthofrog.jpeg)
>>15719 my priest won't let me get away with being a racist, but he will let me get away with only wanting to be with certain women and valuing the idea of Whiteness.
>>15715 I feel like the historical focus of the Abrahamic religions is a strength of these religions. For example, at one time I was very interested in aspects of Hinduism. I attempted to practice various bhakti practices for some time, however, I could never bring myself to believe that Krishna or Rama or any other the other avatars really existed. I had nothing really to go on except for what these ancient Vedic scriptures said. When it comes to Christianity, I feel like we have a major intersection of religion and history at one point in human history, around 30-33 A.D. It seems to break right into human history and out of the mythical. I think even secular scholars have to really wrangle with this, and this really shows in how many competing explanations there are out there for what 'really' happened with Jesus death, and how many of the accounts are picked apart by their colleagues. It's one event where there is so much speculation and nothing seemingly settled. I can be amply assured that Jesus certainly existed and walked this earth at bare minimum, which is more than I can say than about Krishna or any similar figure from a competing tradition. I would think though that the resurrection would essentially vindicate his radical claims about his nature though, such as when he tells the Jews "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" in the Gospel of John, which is in the Biblical context, of course, an affirmation of his divinity and a nod back to Exodus 3:14 where God appears to Moses in the burning bush and says: <God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” The Septuagint uses more interesting language here, saying ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν - lit. "I am the Being" or "I am the Real / the Actual". This is certainly a radical claim, as are claims that “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). >Unless we're supposed to embrace some sort of Fideism, my mind is corrupted by sin, or the Bible wants us to search after some sort of apophatic knowledge Our mind is limited, but reason is an extremely powerful faculty even in the fallen state. This is amply demonstrated in the last few centuries. What is disputed by the Christian, however, as by the Vedantist, is the fact that reason cannot grasp what is beyond the purview of reason, i.e. God and other transcendental questions. Vedanta of course has the shabda, while Christians throughout the centuries, such as Augustine, have spoken of 'divine illumination' or experiences of the 'uncreated light' of God. Barring this sort of mystical experience, we have scripture , and there are tons of Church Fathers which have philosophized on this topic better than I can, as I'm sure you're aware. I'm not going to lie, I'm not super educated on the topic of Christian metaphysics or anything like that, but the book 'The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church' by Vladimir Lossky is a good read drawing on what a lot of Eastern Orthodox philosophers of the past wrote on theology and mysticism - as well as their apophatic and cataphatic approaches to God, mystical union. There is somewhat of an suspicion towards philosophy in some areas of the New Testament though, you're not wrong. Colossians 2:8, for example. There is a grain of wisdom in this statement, but on the opposite side of the coin (1 Peter 3:15), it says to always be able to mount a defense and justification for belief, so engaging in philosophy is important.
(106.73 KB 693x1003 olaftryggvason.jpg)
oops sorry didn't see that this was the pagan thread. didn't mean to tread on your guys' turf. that being said, your guys' gods are weak and our God who is Christ easily destroyed them. jews are the enemy of all (1 Thessalonians 2:15); Europe was at its strongest under an anti-semitic Christianity. I was actually just talking to an Orthodox Bishop a few weeks ago about the jews, and he agreed with me when I said that most current attacks against Christianity are jewish. another Bishop I know rejected challa because he "did not want to eat that jew-bread." anti-semitism and heresy are directly correlated. the formerly Aryan nations you see now are crumbling because they have rejected the Truth.
>>15729 antisemitism and heresy are inversely correlated*
>>15729 >>15730 >>15726 How does one get involved in an Orthodox Church? Do I just show up? I know you can't do some stuff if you're not baptized. I just want to peak around and look into becoming a catachumen.
(1.18 MB 693x946 ClipboardImage.png)
(106.53 KB 750x732 liberal christians.jpg)
>>15719 >OK but that is the vast majority of churches I see, every time I try to engage with Christianity... Oh, certainly. We live in an age where serious Christianity has been under attack for centuries now. It's rough, but it's the truth, of course, so there is no abandoning ship. Jesus said that this would happen. I'm nominally a Protestant at the moment, but as I do more research, it is becoming more and more clear to me that Protestantism is in fact a modern deviation from the Christian tradition of the 1500 years that preceded it. Protestantism started with Martin Luther throwing out numerous books of the Bible because the Talmudists didn't have these books in their version (which was dubiously canonized only after Jesus was crucified, perhaps around 100 A.D., which Christians finalized their canon slightly later and included more books in the OT). Regardless, this is never a good look. Luther also attempted to throw out the epistle of James, the brother of Jesus, because it didn't fit his personal interpretation of theology. He was prevented here, though. The point here is, that Protestantism threw out tradition, it seems to have devolved into some sort of crude bibliolatry while simultaneously not respecting the Bible enough to keep all of the books that it had for over a millennia in a (failed) attempt to convert Christ-hating Jews. Protestantism is based on personal interpretation of scripture without reference to tradition, which has led to a fracturing of their traditions into over 30,000 types of Protestantism. Now we see everything from Mormons, to Charismatics babbling in tongues, to 'Pastor Jim' in his tiny strip-mall church, to Christian Identity. It is an absolute mess. I am planning on attending an Orthodox Church soon. >the only one I ran into that wasn't like this was a tiny Greek orthodox church with nothing but old people and a couple families. Not surprised that it was one of the only ones that weren't pozzed, for reasons mentioned above. That probably would have been a nice comfy church from the sound of it. > but that is orthoginal to Christianity or the churches since they are not putting those plans into motion, It's worth pointing out that the obvious here too that the Church isn't a state, of course. That is why I am sidelining some of these issues to secular political questions. If anyone wants Christianity just because it is BASED and just gives them theological support for their political beliefs, they are probably just wasting their time. Now if they have an interest in God, starting a family, and stuff like that, then they should definitely look into it. Churches outside of the globohomo sphere don't fall into this shit. Pics related - Armenia, the oldest Christian country on the planet, versus burgermutt USA
>>15718 >I don't see any compelling reason to believe this. t. NPC >Dogs differ markedly in intelligence, personality and similar traits between breeds Not nearly as much as 'humans'. There is also no essential variety, only phenomenal. <Differences among 'human' races are of essential nature, because the wide margin of 'human' quantitative container/class allows for it. For most other living things on earth it's too narrow to permit manifestation of different archetypal or individual essences, meaning that the quantitative Form (with smaller varieties) will correspond to the qualitative essence. [For some human races] this essence being based on the highest common factor(s), that defines the concentrated racial soul and fine tunes the physical form. This principle still applies >They're clearly not. They're of the same species / kind, thus they have the same essence. You are using the evolutionary category and the egalitarian/progressive interpretation of it. As well as a purely phenomenal interpretation of the essence. Weren't you supposed to be against those? Or you think that merely using the term "essence" somehow changes this? You are using the broadly defined quantitative container/form based on the significantly lower common denominator as the definition of essence. >I don't see any point of comparison here Real dog is made of a configuration of atoms, light reflects from dog into your eyes and you "see" a dog. There is no difference in principle compared to seeing a picture of dog on your monitor, because your monitor is equally real. I just tried to illustrate it in a simple way. The world is not what you think it is. Any configuration of atoms (subatomic particles, points etc.) that's mathematically possible, already exists in the domain of potential. When those configurations have certain general traits (varying in degrees of complexity, function and differentiation from other configurations), they are called Forms. A Form of a dog would be more of a template that can manifest in a limited (but large) number of varieties depending on various external configurations (environment, climate etc.) >apparently just popping into existence without any cause Your consciousness is so trapped in time that you can't realize that time is only a part of the phenomenal equation. Let's imagine that you have a glass of water on your desk. If you remove the glass, that doesn't make the superconfiguration where the glass is still on the table stop existing in the noumenal domain. You have merely switched from one superconfiguration to another in the phenomenal domain because it can't have two mutually exclusive superstates, or their portions at least, exist simultaneously. Causality is a phenomenal illusion. The dog didn't pop into existence, it was always there. The only question is will you encounter it or not, in which variety and circumstances. No God or creator is needed at all.
>>15736 >>15736 >t. NPC Not an argument. >Not nearly as much as 'humans'. I don't know if we know enough about dog intelligence to really make a comparison. >You are using the evolutionary category and the egalitarian/progressive interpretation of it. I don't believe in evolution. I believe that within a certain species of kind there are varieties, of different qualitative natures. It's all about what genes are given expression. Change can only happen within limits of a given archetype. Anything too far out of that is a literal monstrosity and botched version of what it was meant to be. There's zero egalitarianism here, no matter how many times you try to ham-fisted interpretation onto what I am saying >lower common denominator as the definition of essence. Literally what an essence is. It's the universal nature, which is then instantiated in particular individuals. Of course it's a shared aspect. As I've already said though, >>15651 "But watch, you will claim that this is somehow an egalitarian statement, even though the generic is the least exceptional aspect of man, the one that should regarded the least." >Real dog is made of a configuration of atoms, light reflects from dog into your eyes and you "see" a dog. There is no difference in principle compared to seeing a picture of dog on your monitor, because your monitor is equally real. Now show that a dog can assemble itself into that form with no cause. This monitor stuff is completely beside the point. >The dog didn't pop into existence, it was always there. The only question is will you encounter it or not, in which variety and circumstances. No God or creator is needed at all. Retarded.
>>15731 Why would you, as a fascist posting on a fascist board, want to worship a foreign deity?
>>15731 Just show up brah. The only thing you can't do is receive the Eucharist. I would recommend going to a Saturday night vespers service, that way you can talk with the priest afterwards as he'll probably be swamped with people after the liturgy on Sunday. I also just uploaded a couple books for you that I don't think you can find on most warez sites. >Wounded by Love by St Porphyrios >https://anonfiles.com/13R5q9Mcu2/Wounded_by_Love_pdf I spent some time on Athos and this was by far the most recommended book. The first half is the biography of St Porphyrios and the second half is his spiritual teachings. >The Life in Christ by St Nicolas Cabasilas >https://anonfiles.com/xdRbq8Mbuc/The_Life_in_Christ_pdf A wonderful work by a layman in Byzantine times, this is a description of the sacramental life of the church. I have never heard the sacraments described in such a beautiful way. >>15741 What is fascism but the ultimate unity of the people, and what greater unity can there be between God the Son and the Father? Jesus Christ prayed (on the cross, mind you) that we might be one as he and his father are one.
>>15743 A european people cannot achieve unity with a semitic god.
>>15748 what about the last 1800 years don't you understand dude? literally every united European people group was Christian. we need to 1) repent from our sins and try to lead a righteous life 2) handle our women and 3) defeat the jew. if we do those two things (in that order) then we'll achieve success.
>>15740 >I don't know if we know enough about dog intelligence to really make a comparison. Dogs are actually geniuses, they are just pretending otherwise >There's zero egalitarianism here <Using an overly broad class defined by the significantly lower common denominator can neuro-linguistically imprint an egalitarian context even if it was not strictly meant as such. >Literally what an essence is. Maybe I should have used the term nature or quintessence, bur even with essence, I could say that the essence of the White race is in the divine, qualitative form and not in the overall 'human' container that's also utilized by beastmen, whose noumenal essence is elemental and based on purely quantitative forms. Also that only this divine essence can lead to the expression of certain genes within the 'human' category, as well as it being exclusive to those who can utilize it to it's fullest potential. Semantics doesn't really change anything. >It's the universal nature, which is then instantiated in particular individuals. Of course it's a shared aspect. Why stop at 'human' with your definition? We have a lot of similarities with apes as well, in fact, a nigger has more similarities with a gorilla than with a White man, so we should call ourselves Hominidae because it's more generic. <The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as great apes or hominids (/ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo (the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan); Gorilla (the eastern and western gorilla); Pan (the chimpanzee and the bonobo); and Homo, of which only modern humans remain. >I believe that within a certain species of kind there are varieties, of different qualitative natures You are referring to quantitative natures, variety of shapes and functions, not qualia. Different assemblies of matter don't achieve qualitative differentiation before the appearance of self-awareness or sapience. >even though the generic is the least exceptional aspect of man, the one that should regarded the least But regarded as one of "us" nonetheless >Now show that a dog can assemble itself into that form with no cause The noumenal, eternally pre-existent, quantitative Form is the cause. It didn't assemble itself, it got born by another dog. And if you somehow tried to trace this all the way to origin, you would only go in circles. There is no prima causa, no true (((creator))), everything is cyclical and pre-existent. Including the universe itself. >Retarded Projecting much? You are clearly incapable for understanding abstract subjects and the true nature of reality.
>>15750 >what about the last 1800 years don't you understand dude? I understand that Christianity is part of the decline that has been going on for millennia. >1) repent from our sins and try to lead a righteous life 2) handle our women and 3) defeat the jew. if we do those two things (in that order) then we'll achieve success. Yeah, except separate from yahweh.
>>15752 ok, I see where you're coming from if you're talking about a decline from an Atlantea or Hyperborea. but still, in Orthodox countries (and even in America), you can find people who now, in real life, resemble the mythologized figures of a Hyperborean golden age.
>>15731 >How does one get involved in an Orthodox Church? Just keep having sodomy with other men and you will learn the ways of Jesus soon enough.
>>15750 >what about the last 1800 years don't you understand dude? What about before that, when christianity wasn't practice amongst Europeans and was just a religion for jews? > literally every united European people group was Christian. Yes that is after you murdered and subverted them. >we need to 1) repent from our sins and try to lead a righteous life Repent from what sins? I can live a religious life without being spiritually retarded. > 2) handle our women Lol, christians fail at this all the time. >3) defeat the jew Impossible when with Jesus worshippers since they worship a jew and are spiritual kiked. Your solutions are dumb dum dum.
>>15748 Unity with their god is literal self-annihilation. I don't mind them doing it since they were non-entities to begin with, but trying to draw PC's and the rest of the White race into their spiritual suicide and absolute and unconditional slavery to the Jewish god is unacceptable. And that's without mentioning the negative effects that those religions bring in the practical domain. Also, the pattern when one poster starts promoting some kosher, righteous gentile religion that's compatible with Noahide laws and Talmud, and then another poster appears like he is interested in learning more about it is quite curious to say the least. It seems that Orthodox Christianity is on the menu tonight. Not that it matters too much, but when will it finally be a turn for Judaism? Talmudic, Kabbalistic, doesn't matter. Don't tell me that someone is afraid that his entire worldview will get ... shattered :>) Or would discussing it with someone whose very existence is the ultimate blasphemy to their god be too much to handle? >anti-semitic Christianity It was either people getting sick and tired of their kikery as usual, /ourguys/ infiltrating the church or creating alternatives at certain points of history. It was never about any particular religion or political system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_IV_of_France
Hey basically I'm just not going to worship Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef (a Jew!!) I know...UGH I know...I'm sorry!!!!! It's just that I'm not gonna worship a Jew is all hahahahaha
>>15768 based
>>15741 >>15748 >muh foreign deity It’s pretty clear that the root of modern pagan LARPing is pride and hatred towards God for daring to have the Son incarnate in a people different from themselves, a people that God knew were ‘stiff-necked’ (Exodus 32:9), and that he knew would rebel against his commandments (Deuteronomy 31:27, 29). And yet God brought the highest good out of the bad in the person of Jesus Christ, and fulfilled the prophecies, the prophecies which anyone can go and see for themselves, and which predict the coming of Jesus with pinpoint accuracy. If one rejects Christ at this point, there’s just no excuse for them. Mumbling ‘b-but muh semites...’ won’t cut it.
>>15780 >It’s pretty clear that the root of modern pagan LARPing is pride and hatred towards God Yes we hate (((Yahweh))), a false deity, there is nothing LARPy about that, mossad. Still no argument on why he is the true God, just more actual LARPing.
>>15751 >Why stop at 'human' with your definition? We have a lot of similarities with apes as well This is an evolutionist meme. I bet you think think that we are like 99.7% percent identical with chimps too. But then one goes and looks at the morphological level and sees massive differences. There is a much larger gap between a nigger and a gorilla than there is a nigger and a White man, and to claim otherwise is to be in some serious denial about reality. The rest of this is just jibber jabber.
(28.95 KB 550x250 christians.jpg)
It's pretty obvious that the wholesale failure of Christianity to stop our ethnic replacement, and them presiding over it happening, is going to have people abandoning that faith and looking elsewhere. Why not spend your energy fixing the problem causing people to abandon your religion in the first place instead of bashing marginally held pagan beliefs? It's a real bad look for Christians. Gives similar vibes to some British people complaining about Polish immigrants while Pakis and niggers are raping their women and replacing them every day. It's like getting lectured on how to build muscle from a weak person. Can't be respected. Let's be real if Christianity was respectable you wouldn't have to come here and pick fights with fringe pagans to begin with. People would flock to you from your innate qualities. But that's not what's happening. I'm sure you are in the silent minority of based race-aware Christians, but all we see is the subversive minority. So fix them, not us. And then we'll come to you when you are strong, instead of weak. And shitting on paganism isn't going to bring people to Christianity, either. So not only is it counter-productive, but a huge waste of time as well. Focus on fixing your own failing religion first that seems to be embracing growth among shitskins and the mixed race population. Meanwhile we will try to build something, any, alternative at all in a desperate attempt to fill the void you have left. If you can't understand why we would do that, and resent us for it, maybe you care more about your religion than your own racial brethren. After all there was the famous litmus test would you pick a White pagan Europe or a brown Christian Europe that many Christians seem to have failed so embarassingly.
>>15800 >>15800 >Focus on fixing your own failing religion first that seems to be embracing growth among shitskins and the mixed race population What is there to fix? Christianity is a failure of a religion. Whether they have read the bible and go to church their inaction make them less than what they make themselves out to be. They have reduced themselves to only giving their corrupt priests money and power, and see that believing in Jesus is the only thing that matters in order to go to a promised paradise. They look towards converting shitskins, because they are the only ones dumb enough to worship the hippie kike, instead of reconnecting Christianity with European identity again. It's quite sad that instead of holding their ground they only know how to abandon and treat what they once lost.
(371.06 KB 1347x1017 not all christians.jpg)
>>15804 That's nice but it doesn't really solve any of these issues. A lot of the dispcrepancy can even be explained by foreigner arabs, indians, east asians, and jews not being Christain and thefefore not associating national identity with ancestry. If this is your gotcha it's just a big miss sorry to say. >>15807 >What is there to fix? Yeah that's for them to figure out as far as I'm concerned. I genuinely wish them the best but if I'm a betting man they I have to put it all on them completely letting us down based on their attitudes and track record.
>>14039 >idol this is just calvinism
>>15825 Pope Francis is a pagan. He has been caught on camera literally blessing pagan idols from South America, and lords over a 'church' that puts exorbitant amounts of time into shielding homosexuals and pedophiles. On top of that, the Catholic Church has officially been in dialogue with the modern world since Vatican II, and also dropped much of its opposition to Jewry since the same period. To go either further back than that, the Rothschilds have long been partners of the Vatican: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_loans_to_the_Holy_See And even more recently, Pope Francis entered into yet another project with the Rothschilds with the formation this year of the The Council for Inclusive Capitalism, which is a globalist project adjacent to the Great Reset. The entire church is Satanic. Then the study that is also included in your image says 'among pastors', aka among figures in Protestant churches, which are a modern deviation created by an autistic German who threw out multiple books of the Bible because the Jews didn't have them in their canon. Protestants historically are the biggest Jewish cocksuckers on this planet.
(127.76 KB 1280x720 kike in a box.jpg)
>"you worship a tree" >goes back to worshipping a box
>>15856 False equivalence. The Ark carried the stone tablets given to Moses and God manifested between the cherubim on top of the Ark, i.e. on the Mercy Seat. Meanwhile worshiping a tree is worshiping a created living being. Honor the Creator, not the created.
>>15851 >Pope Francis is a pagan What a lovely cope, but Pope Francis is a Jew who's job is to humiliate and prove that anyone can join the Vatican and be retarded. Your pagan argument is BS, because he knows and shows that he knows bible and was able to become pope because he fitted the requirements to become a priest in the first place. Instead of finding bad excuses you could try doing something about Christians turning into degenerates and cucks. But hey you would rather be a loser who cries about pagans than doing anything and wonder why you fail. >the Rothschilds have long been partners of the Vatican Further proving that Christcucks will willingly work with kikes. >Protestants historically are the biggest Jewish cocksuckers on this planet. No that just the entire history of Christianity and Islam in general. >>15857 >False equivalence <makes up a bunch of excuses >b-but muh box is h-holy!!! lmao
(1.40 MB 959x686 ClipboardImage.png)
(656.93 KB 689x430 ClipboardImage.png)
(873.28 KB 801x493 ClipboardImage.png)
>>15859 >What a lovely cope >Your pagan argument is BS He literally brought a pagan fertility idol into their churches and blessed it. That is idolatry and paganism. Injuns were present at this event bowing down to this statue. This caused at least enough controversy within the Catholic Church that these idols were thrown into the Tiber. Francis is a pagan. The Catholic Church is literally Satanic. People have known this for centuries >b-but muh box is h-holy!!! Not even a good faith response. Very big difference between being COMMANDED BY GOD to put the tablets within a box built to certain specifications and then a form of God would manifest on the seat, and going out into the woods and worshiping some random-ass tree.
>>15860 >He literally brought a pagan fertility idol into their churches and blessed it. That is idolatry and paganism. He literally did something that Jews wanted him to do to humiliate you losers. He isn't a pagan, but a pluralist. He stated before that he believes in the co-existence, the thing you see kikes go on and advocate. Blessing a pagan idol is no different than him going to Israel and touching the western wall or licking niggers and other Islamist feet. >Not even a good faith response. No, I'm just mocking your retarded assertion that has no evidence nor any accountability for why we should believe that a stupid box is holy. Claims do not prove anything, it's just shows that you're schizo. >m-muh magical box was summoned by GOD!!! IT'S MAGICAL N SHIET!!! This is you anon.
>>15862 >to humiliate you losers I'm not a Catholic though. This stuff is par for the course for the Catholic Church. It's Satanic, just as the entire church has been for five hundred plus years at minimum. >He isn't a pagan, but a pluralist. If you participate in pagan rites, you are a pagan. You're certainly not a Christian if you do those acts. When he went and prayed with Muslims and Yazidis in his trip to Iraq, he further confirms that he is not a Christian. >I'm just mocking your retarded assertion that has no evidence nor any accountability for why we should believe that a stupid box is holy It was important because God commanded that it be built, that it contain the tablets that Moses was given, and because God manifested himself on the seat of the Ark. Not that he didn't manifest in other ways in the OT, though. >m-muh magical box was summoned by GOD!!! IT'S MAGICAL N SHIET!!! Read the Bible, there are entire chapters specifying the materials and specifications for the Ark. It's not 'magical', it was built out of normal wood, normal materials, etc.
(417.42 KB 786x1033 orthodox-mlk.jpg)
>>15860 >catholicism is satanic paganism >protestantism is jewish cocksucking Damn looks like this semitic religion is really on the way out. I hope that post wasn't supposed to make us want to convert. Maybe the Orthodoxy can turn it all around for you but it's not looking good for the tithe box.
>>15857 >God manifested between the cherubim on top of the Ark So your saying your god is the box? The box created by israelite jews out of gold and wood? Got it. I'll make sure to worship the true God, and not the god of jizzrael and yeshua.
>>15870 >>15871 No, anon. God manifests in the Old Testament multiple times. He walks in the Garden with Adam, he manifests to Hagar in the desert, he appears before Abraham, he wrestles with Jacob, he appears in the Burning Bush, he leads the Israelites within a pillar of cloud, and he also manifested himself in the Tabernacle and particular on the Ark. A lot of these are believed to be the pre-incarnate Christ in some form. >>15869 I'm pretty sure Orthodox is the true church.
>>15866 >I'm not a Catholic though. This stuff is par for the course for the Catholic Church. This stuff humiliates all christians, because it proves that no one, not even your church masters care about the bible nor see it of value anymore. It doesn't matter what you believe in, the point still stands that christian is the biggest joke today. Don't think Orthodox and Protestants aren't doing anything to stop homosexuality either. >If you participate in pagan rites, you are a pagan. Really? So has the entirety of catholicism and orthodox christianity been paganism for believing in reincarnation before it was declared a heresy? Or how about the fact that each and every single sect had pagan rituals that originally came from the Hellenics and Germanics, such as sun-day, Christmas, Easter, and tongue originating from Greco-Roman channelings? You're just making excuses, the pope isn't a pagan for he knows nothing of it at all. It's in-denial and absolute arrogance to call someone they clearly aren't. Funny enough you have yet to accuse him of being a kike, which is quite telling. Attitudes like this is why Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics have suffered from corruption for the past 5 centuries and it's because they refuse to stop acting like spergs. >It was important because God commanded that it be built, that it contain the tablets that Moses was given, and because God manifested himself on the seat of the Ark. >Read the Bible The bible is not proof, and Noah's ark is nothing, but a re-telling of what ancient pagans have told concerning the global flooding of the world back then for the Hebrews. >>15873 >I'm pretty sure Orthodox is the true church. If a church is true, then it should establish itself that way and not be so out of touch with the younger generations and face a largest number of scandals. There is no true church just old-men making fools out of themselves.
>>15862 >He literally did something that Jews wanted him to do to humiliate you losers. this. turning the Pope into a cuck is a way of humiliating not only Catholics, but the West as a whole, given the historical significance of the Papacy. I was raised under Catholicism myself, and even though I realize that Christianity is ultimately a semitic religion not of my people, I still feel a sense of loyalty to the Church, and respect the emphasis on tradition. more and more, I relate to the Sedevacantist position. >>15866 >This stuff is par for the course for the Catholic Church no it's not. the Catholic Church was nothing like this before Vatican II. that was the beginning of poz, and the viral load has only increased since then.
>>15875 >Noah's ark is nothing, but a re-telling of what ancient pagans have told concerning the global flooding of the world back then for the Hebrews. It's all the the same story, anon. Noah wasn't a Hebrew, they didn't even exist yet. All of humanity descends from Noah and his family, it makes sense that all of humanity remembers the flood. Manu, Utnapishtim, etc. are all folk memories of Noah. In Hawaii people remember Nu'u as the man who built an ark and landed it on the top of Mauna Kea. Even the rainbow is set in the sky by Kāne in this story, just like with Noah and the covenant God made with Noah afterwards. But then the real question is how do we know which tradition is the purest one? It comes down to the prophecies. The prophecies in other religions have not came true, but for the Old Testament, the prophecies have come true relating to Jesus, therefore we are amply justified in saying that Christianity is true. Daniel 9, etc. >>15879 > the Catholic Church was nothing like this before Vatican II. that was the beginning of poz, and the viral load has only increased since then. They were already accepting Rothschild money by that point, but Vatican II was definitely a new step in the wrong direction.
>>15881 >It's all the the same story, anon. Noah wasn't a Hebrew, they didn't even exist yet. "Noah" didn't exist either and the story of the Ark exist in all cultures and have different interpretations, so the claim that he was saved and sent by Yahweh is nothing, but stolen ans retold accounts of what the Mesopotamian story wad concerning global floods in a Hebrew perspective. Earth's global flooding concerns all of mankind and each respective's culture take on it, not your sand-demon. If anything this post does confirm you are mentally retarded and brain-washed. And you wonder why anons want you banned. >>15881 >They were already accepting Rothschild money by that point, but Vatican II was definitely a new step in the wrong direction. So is the Ortohodox Church. They are working with (((Putin))) after all to promote his Judaic form of nationalism. Orthocucks have a long history of protecting and working with jews, so your slap fights between the other two Jesuits has no purpose.
>>15888 Again, the prophecies which came true validate the rest of the text. You completely ignored that, and I can understand why, because it BTFOs your entire interpretation. >So is the Ortohodox Church. They are working with (((Putin))) <being so dumb that he doesn't know that the Orthodox Church exists outside of Russia
>>15890 >the prophecies which came true validate the rest of the text. The prophecies written by jews that were then verified by jews. This isn't proof. You keep presenting it as if it is fact when it isn't.
>>15891 Jews curse anyone who tries to calculate the date of the messiah according to the Talmud. They don't want you to find the proof, and it's literally right there for you to read and discover. It's the ultimate proof staring you right in the face.
>>15890 >Again, the prophecies which came true validate the rest of the text. You completely ignored that, and I can understand why, because it BTFOs your entire interpretation. None of the prophecies your ancient kikes claimed to have come true have ever shown to come be fulfiled at all, so once again you're making claims without any confirmation. You Hebrews call themselves the "purest", a people and culture known for deceptions, lies, and thievery is delsuional and laughable. You can easily recognize that it isn't true when you note that came Abrahamicism's spread amongst the Earth came the downfall mankind and many lushes green environments becoming lifeless deserts in places like the Middle East. Calling your traditions pure is nothing more, but delusional zealousy. >being so dumb that he doesn't know that the Orthodox Church exists outside of Russia When you're so ignorant that you do not realize that I was using Russia's churches as an example. Do you think the Balkans are any better?
>>15892 >They don't want you to find the proof, and it's literally right there for you to read and discover. It's the ultimate proof staring you right in the face. Then where is the proof? Do I have to hit my head with a hammer to able to comprehend the schizo nonsense that you're spouting. Does it literally require the retardation of my own mind to see the truth that you constantly are vague about?
>>15890 >Again, the prophecies which came true validate the rest of the text. No it didn't. As a matter of fact for the courses of years it has shown to be the exact opposite. Hebrew traditions are nothing, but lies and stolen works from other cultures (Greek, Egyptian, Persian, etc). Indo-Europeans shown to be the purest and greatest culture out of all the rest. The Greeks even knew long before that they were full of shit. You really enjoy sucking your own dick by calling some a BTFO even when it isn't. >>15894 >Then where is the proof? There is no proof, anon suffers from Schizophrenia and jewry. He simply cannot prove what has never existed.
>>15894 Daniel 9.24-27. This has already been mentioned earlier ITT: >>15707 >>15893 >You Hebrews call themselves the "purest" You're just being dishonest again. 'Purest' was used in the sense of the 'least distorted'. When it comes to the Jews themselves and their nature, even God knew the Jews were a stubborn, stiff-necked (Exodus 32:9) and rebellious people (Deuteronomy 31:27, 29), Aaron, brother of Moses, said that they were inclined towards evil (Exodus 32:22), so what are you talking about? God also said that the Israelites were not being given their land because they were righteous, but because the people who occupied Canaan were wicked, sacrificing their children to Moloch and other atrocities (Deuteronomy 9:5) > You can easily recognize that it isn't true when you note that came Abrahamicism's spread amongst the Earth came the downfall mankind and many lushes green environments becoming lifeless deserts in places like the Middle East. False correlation. There's zero connection here.
>>15896 >muh bible That's not proof, that's delusion and bias. You just confirmed 8ad6cb's point lol. >You're just being dishonest again. 'Purest' was used in the sense of the 'least distorted'. Do you think that changes what he has said or any meanings? Do you think the kikes were the least-corrupted out of all the cultures? They were all corrupt and they always were since their beginnings, which is why every religion universally hated them and called them out for their thievery and trickery. The bible is not an argument, we're asking for proof and you bring nothing to the table. >False correlation. There's zero connection here. <the destruction of many environments that have existed for thousands of years unchanged or unaffected does not have anything to do with a religion that seeks to have total dominion over nature and change everything it sees into what they desire.
>>15896 >Daniel 9.24-27. This has already been mentioned earlier ITT: You keep citing the bible as proof even tough it has been previously established that all of the books of the bible were written by ethnic jews. It cannot be used as proof. All you can do is go in circles.
>>15896 >Daniel 9.24-27. That's not proof, we're asking for something concrete. Nothing the bible says speaks of whole and eternal truths. >You're just being dishonest again. 'Purest' was used in the sense of the 'least distorted'. It's same fucking thing. Jews were not the least distorted and were by far and no the ancient Isralites weren't any better either. >Bibical nonsense Like anon said, that's not proof that's, excuse my cuckchan lingo, unsaturated cope. After aby victory the jews also paint their defeated enemies as the wickest. Think I'm lying? Than you can look at how they make up stories about the holocaust and christianity's history of exiling the jews as the best examples.
>>15897 >That's not proof, that's delusion and bias. The Bible is a collection of numerous books, not a solid unit. Daniel was written hundreds and hundreds of years before Jesus came, and just happens to get the exact date and predict the future. Just a coincidence, look no further! This isn't even the only proof, as evidential accounts and others could be built, as has been done in other threads already. Daniel proves Christ, and you would know it deep down if you looked into it. >Do you think the kikes were the least-corrupted out of all the cultures? "Kikes" didn't exist until after 30/33 A.D., so you're speaking anachronistically. "Kikes" is a term used that was used to label Jewish immigrants to the United States that were afraid to make a 'X' on immigration papers because they thought it resembled the Christian cross, so they drew circles. The culture of the ancient Israelites, at least on paper, was definitely closer to the truth in that they acknowledged a single God, and refrained from idolatry. Of course though, the narrative of the Old Testament is them rebelling against God continually, and whoring after false gods like Baal, Moloch, etc. >which is why every religion universally hated them Clearly not, since as soon as Christianity came along, people like Emperor Julian the Apostate desperately tried to help the Jews rebuild their Temple and even wrote entire tracts against Christians showing how the Jewish Christ-rejecting traditions were true and the Christian ones false. Celsus did the same thing. Of course, God didn't permit them to rebuild the Temple. And today it stands destroyed, as Jesus predicted. And as was predicted in Daniel 9. >the destruction of many environments that have existed for thousands of years unchanged or unaffected does not have anything to do with a religion that seeks to have total dominion over nature and change everything it sees into what they desire. We are commanded to exercise stewardship over the Earth. Caretaking, not abusing. The Old Testament gives the Israelites many laws were they are made to let the land lie fallow after six years of use, allowing it to replenish the quality of the soil. Similar stuff in Lev. 25:4. >>15898 >all of the books of the bible were written by ethnic jews. It cannot be used as proof This is a presupposition that you hold that I reject. You are trying to find any way that you can to dismiss this clear proof that predicted things which actually came to pass. >>15899 >That's not proof Did the events in it happen or not? Yes they did. >Jews were not the least distorted and were by far and no the ancient Isralites weren't any better either. Where are your prophecies that have come true which would validate this claim? >Like anon said, that's not proof that's, excuse my cuckchan lingo, unsaturated cope. After aby victory the jews also paint their defeated enemies as the wickest. Think I'm lying? Than you can look at how they make up stories This sort of stuff was an established Phoenician practice which appears throughout the histories of multiple people talking about them and their traditions. Mass child sacrifice was practiced in Carthage as well, and this is why the Romans destroyed them. The Israelites did the same thing in Canaan.
(93.64 KB 643x1024 1633230559699m.jpg)
>>15875 I mean the pope is a jesuit so basically a kike. And the biggest issue with pagan rituals being appropriated by christians is that the christians act like they're better than us. Even though all of their ideas come from us. They just inserted jews to the center of them >>15890 The stories were written so that it would seem like Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. We know almost nothing about his actual life, assuming he even existed. He didn't fulfill all of them either, which is why the vast majority of jews reject him as moshiach >>15896 >zero correlation between civ and Abrahamism The abrahamic idea of dominion has been the single most toxic influence on humanity's relationship with nature. Agriculture is exploitative. The idea that animals don't have souls is another issue Everyone in this thread is saying basically the same things and yet this nigga still doesn't get it. Autism
>>15901 >The stories were written so that it would seem like Jesus fulfilled the prophecies We have copies of these works that were written pre-Jesus. The same book is used by non-Christians today that hate Jesus and nailed him to a cross. >We know almost nothing about his actual life We have four independent accounts of his life written by followers of Jesus, and we have mentions of him in numerous non-Christian sources both within the century of his death, and in the century afterwards. The letters of Paul, of course, give us some basic details as well that are corroborated in other texts, Christian and non-Christian alike namely the name of his brother, the way that he died, etc.
>>15901 >>15902 Also, the fact that the Temple was just conveniently destroyed right after this Messiah-claimant died just like Daniel 9 says goes against your claim that it is just written like that.
>>15900 >This is a presupposition that you hold that I reject. You are trying to find any way that you can to dismiss this clear proof that predicted things which actually came to pass. You presuppose that the bible is truthful. Denying it doesn't change that fact that the bible is a jewish book entirely written by jews. Jewish religion, jewish mind.
>>15900 >The Bible is a collection of numerous books, not a solid unit. Daniel was written hundreds and hundreds of years before Jesus came, Again written by ethnic jews, I can write a book can claim it's nothing more, but a collection and say it's all true as well and you can bet that I can get at-least a hundred morons to follow behind me. You keep repeating yourself, I think we can confirm that this means you do not have proof and that your bible is indeed a Judaic lie. >"Kikes" didn't exist until after 30/33 A.D. so you're speaking anachronistically. Fun fact! The jews have been kikes even before the term's creation, so trying to correct me on its chronology does not make the term less true nor invalidate my points in any way or form. Again I'm not seeing an argument I just see nitpicks. >Clearly not, since as soon as Christianity came along, people like Emperor Julian the Apostate desperately tried to help the Jews rebuild their Temple and even wrote entire tracts against Christians showing how the Jewish Christ-rejecting traditions were true and the Christian ones false. Emperor Julian helped the jews to prevent any further uprisings, due to the current mess the Roman empire was in at the time, and to also stop the christian take over of Rome and the destruction of all her foundations. You aren't making a point, because the Roman-Jewish wars debunk what your stupid points when they've learned the jews' true nature. Helping the kikes was merely to appeal to the inhabitants of wherever Rome conquered. They did the same for local pagans as well. >We are commanded to exercise stewardship over the Earth And look where that has gotten us. Environmental destruction is happening all across Earth, muh caretaking isn't happening today nor did it happen during the medieval periods, except for that time in England, but that was only merely convenient. Actions speak louder than words anon.
>>15900 >The Bible is a collection of numerous books, not a solid unit. Daniel was written hundreds and hundreds of years before Jesus came, and just happens to get the exact date and predict the future. Just a coincidence, look no further! This isn't even the only proof, as evidential accounts and others could be built, as has been done in other threads already. Daniel proves Christ, and you would know it deep down if you looked into it. Here you are assuming that the bible portrays and accurate history, which it most certainly doesn't considering its jewish nature. They wrote the story! Just because they wrote a story saying that jesus was born on a certain day, does not mean it is true. >"Kikes" didn't exist until after 30/33 A.D., so you're speaking anachronistically. "Kikes" is a term used that was used to label Jewish immigrants to the United States that were afraid to make a 'X' on immigration papers because they thought it resembled the Christian cross, so they drew circles. This is actual pilpul. You are picking through definitions and purposely misunderstanding questions.
>>15898 >Did the events in it happen or not? Yes they did. The claims of what happened according to thr Hebrews did not happen and you still haven't proven anything. You're arguing in circles. >Where are your prophecies that have come true which would validate this claim? >Whataboutism More fallacies and non-arguments. The prophecies that corruption, lies, and new religions will spread globably has certainly come true and Abrahamicism is its fuel. >This sort of stuff was an established Phoenician practice which appears throughout the histories of multiple people talking about them and their No has ever confirmed that the Phoenicans had child sacrifices, there are just mere claims of them doing so. But let's say its an established fact after all, what makes you think the Isralites, a people who stole almost every ritual and tradition from the Canaanites had not done the same thing? >inb4 muh bible I want concrete proof, the bible can easily be re-written and has been before. Especially to dispell it's corruption. >>15903 >Also, the fact that the Temple was just conveniently destroyed right after this Messiah-claimant died just like Daniel 9 says goes against your claim that it is just written like that. Or maybe historians are jewish liars as well? Historian in itself is literally based on accounts of Roman, Greek, and Hebrew histography aftet all, although they will accept what the jews say first over the Greeks. Do you think anything would of changed if all of Israel became christians, because the Romans didn't like you guys either.
>>15902 No I meant the gospels were written to align with the OT prophesies. You're assuming the new testament is a reliable source, which is cope and clearly retarded >>15903 The temple was destroyed before the gospels were written, and there were plenty of messianic claims at that time. Of course the nascent christians would attribute its significance to their guy
>>15901 >. And the biggest issue with pagan rituals being appropriated by christians is that the christians act like they're better than us. Even though all of their ideas come from us. They just inserted jews to the center of them It's still hypocritical to claim someone or something is pagan, when like 60% of your culture and faith originate from pagan customs and norms. We might as well call the entirety of chrisianity pagan, because they hold so many traditions and rituals that don't even originate from the Hebrews. We know the pope is a kike, but he's so ass-hurt about us that he needs to latch his degeneracy as a fault of something that has nothing to do with the holy see at all.
>>15904 Actually, I am not presupposing that the Bible is truthful, because that would defeat the entire purpose of even posting ITT. We have a prophecy in Daniel 9, and it appears to be confirmed in the life of Jesus. This isn't even just an event that happened and we can't get an insight into either, because we know the Temple was destroyed, we know that sacrifices aren't done anymore, we know that it was destroyed by a foreign army, we know that the Messiah was killed, etc. All of this is said in Daniel 9. And it all came to pass. On top of that, there are remarks in the Talmud that seem to indicate that the Jews' sins stopped being forgiven in the forty years before the Temple was destroyed >>15708, indicating further that Jesus was who he said he was. >>15905 >I can write a book can claim it's nothing more, but a collection and say it's all true as well and you can bet that I can get at-least a hundred morons to follow behind me Will any of the prophecies that you would write come true almost to the letter and the year? Doubt. >The jews have been kikes even before the term's creation Jews have been anti-Christian since before the term was ever created, we know >Emperor Julian helped the jews to prevent any further uprisings, due to the current mess the Roman empire was in at the time, and to also stop the christian take over of Rome and the destruction of all her foundations. [...] Helping the kikes was merely to appeal to the inhabitants of wherever Rome conquered. So basically he helped the Jews, got it. <Julian's attitude toward the Jews was generally defined by the needs of his polemic against the Christians. Just before Julian embarked on his Persian campaign he promised to abolish the anti-Jewish laws and to rebuild the Temple where he would join the Jews in worship (Letter to the Community of the Jews, no. 51, 396–8). Shortly after this he wrote that "even now the temple is being raised again" (Letter to a Priest, 295c). <Julian discussed Jewish monotheism from two viewpoints: first, he refuted the Christian claim that Jesus, the Logos, is God, since the Bible recognizes only one God (Againstthe Galileans, 253Aff.); second, he attempted to fit Judaism into the pagan pantheon and isolate Christianity. He therefore argued that the Jews are the chosen people of their god, who is their particular national and local deity (or daemon) and watches over them, just as do other city gods and national deities "who are a kind of regent for the king" (ibid. 99E, 115D, 141C–D, 176A–B). https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/julian-the-apostate-x00b0 A seething anti-Christian becomes a massive philosemite, a tale as old as time. >And look where that has gotten us. Environmental destruction is happening all across Earth, muh caretaking isn't happening today nor did it happen during the medieval periods, except for that time in England, but that was only merely convenient. Actions speak louder than words anon. This is a product of capitalism, greed and Jews, ironically enough. It's not Biblical stewardship.
>>15906 >Here you are assuming that the bible portrays and accurate history, which it most certainly doesn't considering its jewish nature Yet another unfounded presupposition. But again, we have a prophecy and we can calculate when it was supposed to come to fruition, and it came to fruition exactly as written. Where is the Jewish temple? Destroyed! Where the sacrifices? Nowhere to be seen! Who destroyed the temple? A foreign people! What happened to the Messiah? He died!
>>15910 >Will any of the prophecies that you would write come true almost to the letter and the year? lol is this a dick-scaling challenge or something. Make an argument and stop being a faggot. Your prophocies cannot be properly recorded. >Jews have been anti-Christian since before the term was ever created, we know Jews hate Whites period. Also christians have been pro-Judaic since their creation. Jews and christian are not different from each other. Your bible scriptures do not speak louder than history. >So basically he helped the Jews, got it. Yes, he helped jews, because christian niggers LITERALLY TRIED TO TAKE OVER ROME AND DESTROY HER CULTURE. The Jews at the time only wanted their stolen homeland and to be free of goys who conquered them, while christniggers wanted to take over the entire empire and destroy it, hell I bet even some jews converted to christianity just so they could takeover the empire. His response to christianity made sense, because you were public enemy number one at the time, although Julian should of just killed all the Abrahamics in general. You're not a making a point again. >seething Go back to cuckchan >This is a product of capitalism, greed and Jews, ironically enough. It's not Biblical stewardship. Capitalism originates from judaism, and christianity. You have to be the biggest idiot on here.
>>15907 >The claims of what happened according to thr Hebrews did not happen and you still haven't proven anything. I don't even think you read the passage we are discussing, so I think you should go read it and realize how foolish you look. Where is the Jewish temple? What time-frame did the prophecy give? >More fallacies and non-arguments So you can present no evidence that other traditions have prophecies that show that they would be a better standard for what actually happened than the Bible, got it. >No has ever confirmed that the Phoenicans had child sacrifices, there are just mere claims of them doing so When multiple groups at multiple points of time say that Phoenician / Canaanite people are doing the exact same thing that should begin to raise your eyebrows. Also, tens of thousands of sacrificed children have been excavated in Carthage mixed with animal bones. >what makes you think the Isralites, a people who stole almost every ritual and tradition from the Canaanites had not done the same thing? It wasn't entirely unknown, anyone who has read the Old Testament knows that the Israelites were prone to lapse into idolatry and paganism of various kinds. This is why God legislates against it: Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:2-5, Deuteronomy 12:31, Deuteronomy 18:10. The Israelites were not as bad as what was going on around Canaan though. Sodom and Gomorrah are good examples of this. >Or maybe historians are jewish liars as well? Jews and Romans got together to lie about the same thing? Did the Romans just pretend to destroy the Temple right on time? It happened, and you just need to accept it.
>>15911 Mark 24: 1-2 <Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” What is the western wall?
>>15913 >I don't even think you read the passage we are discussing, so I think you should go read it and realize how foolish you look I'm not going to take something seriously that you jews lie about. Your passages are fake stories and you lie to validate yourself. Either prove you are true or go sperg on a christian board. >So you can present no evidence that other traditions have prophecies that show that they would be a better standard for what actually happened than the Bible, got it. No retard, you are the one making claims that your prophecies are true and happened. We are demanding concrete evidence to a certain that they did happen. All you have been doing here is making fallacies and repeats of old arguments. Most of the claims that the temples of Jerusalem fail after Jesus' death are NT BS which are only recorded and written years afterwards. There is no credibility whatsoever in the bible at all. Anything can be re-written to validate a lie. >When multiple groups at multiple points of time say that Phoenician / Canaanite Bad argument, multiple groups can all simuantelously lie. No one else have the claims of child sacrifices other than jews and psuedo-archeologist who are servants of ZOG. Either prove it or shut-up. >muh bible Another non-argument, you're very predictable. >Jews and Romans got together to lie about the same thing? No just jews, because I can't trust any modern or recently made books that are all re-written to valdiate christianity. We do have proof as well that works from Roman histograpghy such as Tacitus and Josephus have been edited. Repost, because I accidently hit replied.
(1.31 MB 2000x1000 john Chrysostom jews.png)
>>15908 >No I meant the gospels were written to align with the OT prophesies This is based on a presupposition that he could not have really came and fulfilled them. >The temple was destroyed before the gospels were written Proof? You're operating on the naturalistic presuppositions of atheistic historians who believe that it was quite literally impossible for Jesus to have predicted the Temple's destruction forty some years before it happened, so atheistic historians are practically forced to date Mark post-70 A.D. And let's remember that again you are refuted here by Daniel 9, which written hundreds of years before the events of 70 A.D. predicted that the Temple would be destroyed around the time of the Messiah by foreign armies, putting an end to sacrifices, and that the Messiah would indeed be killed. >>15912 > Also christians have been pro-Judaic since their creation HAHAHAHAHA You have to be completely ignorant to say such a thing, just spend an afternoon reading St. John Chrysostom and what he said against the Jews, particularly in Adverus Judaeos. Pic related. St. Jerome also said: <Judas is cursed, that in Judas the Jews may be accursed... their prayers turn into sins" St. John Chrysostom: <But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God? Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: <For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last >Yes, he helped jews All I need to know. Imagine helping proto-Talmudic kikes who want to enslave you 'own le Christcucks'. God brought his attempts to naught and ended his life pathetic life. >Capitalism originates from judaism, and christianity. Even if one were to grant this, it's a genetic fallacy. Christianity is founded on opposition to Mammon. One cannot serve wealth and God. The individualistic, greed-oriented and anti-God ethos of capitalism could not be more anti-Christian. It is purely Judaic.
>>15920 > Imagine helping proto-Talmudic kikes who want to enslave you 'own le Christcucks'. God brought his attempts to naught and ended his life pathetic life. Yeah, imaging making tough choices in an effort to preserve your native traditions and empire. Totally retarded, right? Why not just let your people be plagued by a malignant semitic religion for thousands of years that causes us to fight religious wars with each other for nothing. Appreciation of the human and natural forms, stupid. Unbroken ancestro worship, gay. Having a positive outlook on humanity, retarded! We don't need any of that. We have yahweh, and he'll give us our little place as beasts of burden for the jews in the next world!
>>15920 >One cannot serve wealth and God. I guess one cannot serve his race and god, too, then. The christcuck reveals his true purpose once again.
>>15916 >What is the western wall? This is just pilpul. What he said came true, in that the temple and all of Jerusalem was laid to waste. One can easily say that Jesus was speaking hyperbolically. Anyone who has read the New Testament knows that Jesus taught using hyperbole and similar rhetorical tools. Matthew 18:9 is a good example of Jesus' use of hyperbole. He's saying the temple would be utterly destroyed, which is what happened, to the extent that the Jews have nothing but a wall to bang their head against in prayer today. Some have said that that wall is a remnant of a Roman temple too. >>15919 >I'm not going to take something seriously that you jews lie about. So you won't even read the passage. You're afraid to do the math for yourself and figure out that it actually happened. The rest of your post is not even worth my time, since you admit that you haven't even read the thing in question.
>>15921 I'm glad that you admit that pagans literally are willing to cooperate with Jews that think the goyim are animals made to serve the 'Chosen People'. You are the ultimate shabbos goy. 'I must rebuild the Temple for my Jewish masters, oy vey the prophecies are coming true!"
>>15924 >I'm glad that you admit that pagans literally are willing to cooperate with Jews that think the goyim are animals made to serve the 'Chosen People'. You are the ultimate shabbos goy. 'I must rebuild the Temple for my Jewish masters, oy vey the prophecies are coming true!" First of all, you literally want the third temple to be rebuild so that you can worship at it in the "new world". You literally follow jewish scriptures, and carry out the teachings of these jews whether from the old or new testament. Second of all, I do not agree with the actions of Julian in helping to rebuild the temple. I only appreciate the mettle he showed in defending his people and culture, something I'm sure you would not understand. >Anyone who has read the New Testament knows that Jesus taught using hyperbole and similar rhetorical tools. But I though it came true exactly s Jesus said, or are you lying to us? Can scripture just mean exactly what you want it to mean at any time? Doesn't seem like you respect the word of the son of yahweh very much.
>>15920 True unsaturated autism. >You have to be completely ignorant to say such a thing, just spend an afternoon reading St. John Chrysostom and what he said against the Jews, particularly in Adverus Judaeos. Pic related. St. Jerome also said: Empty words for a empty religion that never does what lie about being so proudly of. For example Constantine and the Theodosian Code >>Theodosian Code was translated into English, with annotations, in 1952 by Clyde Pharr and others <Books 1-5 lack the level of manuscript support available for books 6-16. The first five books of the surviving Codex draw largely from two other manuscripts. The Turin manuscript, also known as "T," consists of 43, largely discontinuous folios.[4] The second manuscript is the Breviary of Alaric, and a good part of the Breviarium that is included in book 1 actually contains the original text of the respective part of the original codex.[4] <The first laws granting tax exemption to the church appear in the Codex and are credited to Constantine and his son Constantius II. These laws specify that all clergy, their family members, and church-owned land was exempt from all compulsory service and tax payments, with the exception that land owned by the clerics themselves was still taxed.[23][24] Now Charlemagne: <‘Jewish merchants prospered under Charlemagne and even more under Louis the Pious, by supplying the court with wine, spices, and textiles, and they enjoyed wide-ranging privileges. These included the right to be tried only in accordance with their own law, to have Christian employees, and to practice their religion even within the Imperial palace.’ -Barbero, Op. Cit., p. 290 <‘The protection of subjects involved in international trade was one of the sovereign specific duties. In negotiations with King Offa of Mercia, Charlemagne requested favourable conditions for “our merchants” when operating in England. Later Louis the Pious granted the merchants who supplied the palace exemption from all taxes collected within the empire, with the exception of customs duties in Quentovic and other parts of the border.’ -Barbero, Op. Cit., p. 291 Two saints, two very powerful and notable christian being very Israeli-pilled here. Your saints claim that jews are dogs, but never do you christianiggers treat them as demons they are. Let's not forget the numerous times that you chose to slaughter native Europeans for being "goys", but many times gave the kikes free passes and only wanted to force convert them from the Torah to the NT. If your spirit is not Judaic, then you should prove and should that being the case by acknowledging that the jews are entirely separate in both spirit and race, but the christnigger did neither. Gentiles are only ever accepted if they are willingly to destroy their foundation for something Israeli. Again you're an idiot and the red-text and as said before, actions speak louder than words. >All I need to know. Imagine helping proto-Talmudic kikes who want to enslave you 'own le Christcucks'. But they weren't a thread to Rome, which is the part that you miss lmao. Also imagine if Christianity did not grow throughtout the empire, the kikes never would of been as powerful as they are today and had control over European civilization and the jews would be contained. Julian did this, because you wanted to destroy Rome. What's even funnier is that you are perfectly find christianity's Talmudic-like actions in taking over the empire and also are perfectly fine with the jews converting over to christiantiy to control over White Europeans. Siding the jews to own the pagans is literally your motto. >Even if one were to grant this, it's a genetic fallacy. One, you don't know what a fallacy is and two, christianity literally inspired capitalism way before the Protestants became a thing. >https://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-3/how-christianity-created-capitalism >It's purely Judaic Remember when you admitted that christianity was Judaic as well in the christian thread? Stop pretending you're any different. You are spiritually a jew and haven't proven otherwise. Nothing you spout will convince us to switch over to christianity, you aren't a saint and never were any of your "saints".
>>15925 >First of all, you literally want the third temple to be rebuild so that you can worship at it in the "new world". The idea that there will be a third temple at all is not a universal view. It is mostly held among certain types of Protestants. Plus, both Jesus and Paul transfer the imagery of the Temple onto both the body of believers (the body of Christ) and onto Jesus himself, as can be seen when Paul refers to the church, and indeed to individual Christians, as 'the temples of the Holy Spirit' (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19). The example of Jesus referring to himself as a temple is in John 2:18-19: "Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” He's clearly referring to his death and resurrection here. So many believe that the need for the Temple has been completely superseded by the Church. However some believe because of some select prophecies that the Antichrist will sit in the Temple and declare himself God that there will indeed be a Third Temple in the future that will probably be occupied by a Jewish antichrist. >I only appreciate the mettle he showed in defending his people and culture Giving assistance to Talmudic Jews isn't defending your people and culture. >But I though it came true exactly s Jesus said The Temple was destroyed by foreign armies and sacrifices stopped. This is what Jesus predicted. Jesus referred to it there in a hyperbolic fashion. Hyperbole does not mean 'false'. >Can scripture just mean exactly what you want it to mean at any time? I think you just don't like that I have answers.
>>15927 >Giving assistance to Talmudic Jews isn't defending your people and culture. They were assisting them to stop (((you))). Again muh talmudic jews weren't trying to take over Rome, it was the reformed jews, you're scapegoating them in a scenario where they weren't even the villains of history just yet. If christians truly hated jews, then they would of sided with the Romans and accepted Rome for what she was, not take over the entire empire by appealing to those who hated the Romans and wanted to destroy it internally, and then allow the kikes to usurper power which is exactly what Constantine did by the way.
>>15923 >So you won't even read the passage. You're afraid to do the math for yourself and figure out There is no math, only lies and claims. Again no arguments just stupidity. Being a sperg does not mean you've won the argument it proves we are correct. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
>>15927 >The example of Jesus referring to himself as a temple >Jesus and Paul transfer the imagery of the Temple onto both the body of believers This is the same thing as the talmudic third temple. A body of gentile "believers" is needed to wait hand and foot on their new jewish lords. You still seek the third temple, only in a different form. This is not any different. >Giving assistance to Talmudic Jews isn't defending your people and culture. No, he could have been like any of your jew loving saints instead, that facilitated the growth of jewish trade networks and jewish power. That would be better? Christianity facilitates the spread of jewish power because of its kinship with judaism . >Hyperbole does not mean 'false'. It does. If he had predicted it perfectly, it would have been completely annihilated, and yet it is not. So much for your prophecies. >I think you just don't like that I have answers. It's telling that you cannot answer this question. All that seems to matter to you is your jewish god, and not honor nor people.
>>15926 >the Theodosian Code Isn't pro-Jewish at all. I'm getting tired of this meme. Everyone who refers to this conveniently forgets that Jews hate that law code, took away the equal rights Jews had formerly, turning them into second-class citizens, barring them from military and civil service, prohibiting them from owning slaves, banning the construction of synagogues and many other things. Similarly Jews were forbidden from carrying out judicial sentences, and not permitted to be wardens of jails. This is readily available information to anyone who takes the time to read the code. Pagans had given Jews equal citizenship with Romans before this under Caracalla. >Charlemagne Not as black-and-White as you think it is. You're clearly unaware of Charlemagne's Capitulary for the Jews. Clearly giving the Jews the ability to lend money of any kind was a mistake. But one learns from the mistakes of a past. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/814capitul-jews.asp >Two saints Charlemagne is not a Saint. And Theodosius II isn't recognized as a Saint except by Eastern Orthodox, but even then, that doesn't matter, because he did nothing wrong. The pro-Jewish narrative about the Codex Theodosianus is ludicrous. >But they weren't a thread to Rome You are implying that it is ever a good idea to ally with Talmudic Jews. You are a shabbos goy. >Julian did this, because you wanted to destroy Rome. The empire lasted until 1453 though. It was Christian longer than not.
>>15928 Stop defending literal Talmudists, retard. "you're scapegoating them" - you're literally sounding like an ADL kike right now. There's nothing to defend here
>>15929 You won't even read it because you're pre-presumed it to be false. Wallow in your ignorance. >>15930 >This is the same thing as the talmudic third temple. A body of gentile "believers" is needed to wait hand and foot on their new jewish lords. You still seek the third temple, only in a different form. This is not any different. You're literally just spouting bullshit. The Talmud has nothing to do with what is being spoken about here, as it wasn't a thing for centuries after Jesus and never had anything to do with Christianity, and there is nothing about serving 'jewish lords' in any of these texts. I wish you could at least argue in good faith, but none of you ever do. >It does. No, it doesn't. It means overstatement to make a rhetorical point. This is what Jesus did, and you were already provided evidence of this. The Temple was annihilated, right like the prophecy in Daniel 9 said, and just like Jesus said it would.
>>15933 >You won't read my bullshit! You're right. Either prove your passages are true or maximum cope.
>>15932 >samefagging How pathetic. But i'm right actually, there's no reason to hate talmuds when they weren't our enemies just yet. The war on the talmuds were a christian war not European. Retorting to samefagging is proof that you lost the argument to prove that christianity was not worse than Jews. >>15931 >Isn't pro-jewish at all Except for the fact that they allowed Jews to hold jobs concerning accounting, banking and as merchants? Jews were still give the right to have major influences on the Byzantine economy, which is why it fail. Also despite the codes barring Jews from civil services and the military you still have Andronikos II Palaiologos who tolerated them in the end. >Pagans had given Jews equal citizenship with Romans before this under Caracalla. You're making no point here, because Caracalla gave every freeman citizenship. Pagans were also very skeptical about giving just allowing anyone to become a citizen, especially Jews. >Charlemagne is not a Saint. Yes he is, he's not acknowledge by the Holy see, but he was in the Holy Roman Empire. But this means nothing, because he's still one of the most praised christians in the world and is viewed as the "savior" of Europe. >And Theodosius II isn't recognized as a Saint except by Eastern Orthodox Constantine is though and he was very pro-Jewish. Anyway what I said should of brought up was the codes that inspired Theodosius' codex. Despite their supposedly anti-Jewish laws, it did not stop them from having major influences within Christian European politics. You don't seem to realize that being anti-Jewish does not mean you're not Jewish, Marx debunks this mindset. >You are implying that it is ever a good idea to ally with Talmudic Jews. You are implying that Rome should of surrendered itself to early Christian Jews, which by the way lead to what Europe is today. Julian getting rid of the christians would of contained the jews either way. Prove to me that the "talmuds" were a threat to Rome. >The empire lasted until 1453 You're chronology and pilpuling is awful. No one should ever recognize the Christian empires as Roman successors, especially when they've acted nothing like it. Only you retards recognize those christian shit-holes as Roman, but pretend that Rome never fell, because of Christianity and died due to their inaction to rid of the jews. Byzantium wasn't Roman, just a bunch of christcuck Greeks LARPing.
>>15931 I don't see why any of you said matters, because a good sum of Christian Roman emperors have protected synagogues. I don't why the Theodosian Codex keeps being brought up as pro-Jewish rather than the fact that it was a failure, because in the end they were protected many times by other Byzantine emperors and the court for economic and political purposes. The Christian view on Jews is rather mixed, not of hatred nor one where they see themselves as an entirely different entity from them, despite what any priest or saint Christian says. It definitely shows when during the reinassiance and later that many Jews were viewed to be European or White by Christians, despite having Talmudic practices. On case of Julian the Apsotate, he was in the right, the Galileans sought to usurper the empire out of the native Latins. This was ulimately achieved through associating, socializing, and then converting slaves, women, and freeborns, who all worked and sought to destroy Rome or at-least take over her cultural norms (slaves being freed, women destroying the patriarchy, freeborns gaining more rights). This is quite literally worst than reviving the temples of a people who were only threatening to the Romans in the sense that their nationalism would lead to another mass revolt for their independence. No one is defending Talmuds for what they are, we are stating that it made sense to side with the enemy of my greater enemy to stop the horrendous social change the Roman Empire forever.
>>15933 >annihilated Lol. How could it be annihilated when there is a entire portion of it intact. Prophecy not fulfilled.
>>15936 >How pathetic Take your meds. Why defend the actions of Julian? He was clearly in the wrong. Never side with Jews of any variety.
>>15943 >Take your meds More cuckchan lingo. You are the same person. >Why defend the actions of Julian? He was clearly in the wrong. Ah yes, the guy who wanted to defend his heritage from christian jews was in the wrong. You're totally not the same guy who just used the same argument from earlier. >Never side with Jews of any variety. Ironic for a christian to say this, But he did that with purpose. His goal was to eliminate christianity and get former pagans back into his reformed version of Hellenicism and to do this was a temporary alliance to rid of the Galileans and send them back to where they came from. This was a strategic attack, to rid of jews and curtail christian influence. Julian shouldn't have revived their temples, but it wasn't like he had a choice anyway especially, when the empire was rumbling apart and society was collapsing. You're retorting to samefagging as your way of making me look bad, because I'm right?
>>15910 >we know that it [the second temple] was destroyed by a foreign army A foreign army led by a jew named (((Tiberius Alexander))). If it indeed happened at all, the sacking of the second temple is just another example of jewish self-fulfilled prophecy. Aside from that, he was related to noteworthy jews; his uncle was Philo of Alexandria, the jew who created the logos as son of God and as (((moshiach))) myth. Interestingly, Philo makes no mention of Jesus in any of his writings, despite supposedly living during the time of Jesus and having his theories confirmed. Pure coincidence, I'm sure. >muh prophecies Oh boy, I can't wait for the prophecies of Isaiah to come true! I'm so excited to be ruled over by jews through the supreme court of mankind! I'm getting fit just so I can better serve my jewish masters! Those fields won't till themselves!
>>15960 The first screencap about Philo is not the grand 'BTFO' that the writer thinks it is. Yes, the idea of the Logos was understood even pre-Jesus, and quite often identified with the Angel of the Lord that appears throughout the Old Testament. Philo believed that the Angel of the Lord was the Logos of God, and Christians believe the same thing. This Angel of the Lord is identified as divine in the Old Testament already (Genesis 16, Exodus 3, etc), so what we are really seeing here is the notion of the Holy Trinity even in the Old Testament. Instead of having an austere monotheism like modern Talmudic Jews had, some Hellenized Jewish thinks had ideas closer to the Christian conception of God. >the jew who created the logos as son of God and as (((moshiach))) myth. Philo didn't think that the Logos was the Messiah lol. >Isaiah chapter 60 and 61. This is referring to the Church, who is the new Israel. Isaiah 56:6-8 refers to foreigners joining themselves to God, that his house shall be a house of prayer for all nations, and that even more will be gathered to God. It's noteworthy to point out that the nations in Isaiah 60:3 are said to come to the light, which is referenced by Jesus in Matthew 5:14-16. The Psalms, of course, foretell an age when all of the world will come to God. Psalm 22:27-28. Psalm 86:8-10. Micah 4. And again, this never had anything to do with race. Esther 8:17 has Persians becoming Jews. Ruth was also a Moabite who joined Israel. The prohibitions against marriage with other groups were to keep the Israelites away from idolatry and paganism. Right after the reference of Deuteronomy 7:3 is a warning that if you intermarry with them they will bring you to worship their gods: "for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire". Moses' wife wasn't even an Israelite either, and these warnings against intermarriage come from the books of Moses. Israelites were never biological. Once again you're projecting Talmudism onto the Old Testament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism All of those who did not become Christians will perish, this is what is meant when it says that all nations who do not submit will perish, just as all of humanity perished when God sent the Flood and Noah and his closest kin only survived because of the Ark.
>>15935 I can't prove them if you don't bother to read them, retard. >>15936 >Except for the fact that they allowed Jews to hold jobs concerning accounting, banking and as merchants? And no one ever said that this was a perfect law-code. It wasn't awful either. I know you will be mad at anything short of genocide, though, anyway. Jews were reduced in status under the law, kept them out of the military, kept them from buying slaves, kept from building synagogues, and kept out of the government except for one position that of tax collector - now you are going to say aha! but even this isn't too great for the Jew, since by Byzantine law, the decurio was required to make up any shortfall in tax revenues out of his own pocket. <From the 3rd century ad, when prosperity declined and the demands of the central government increased, responsibility for tax collection and liability for deficits gradually made their position difficult. https://www.britannica.com/topic/decurio Theodosius II was based. >You're making no point here, because Caracalla gave every freeman citizenship. Pagans were also very skeptical about giving just allowing anyone to become a citizen, especially Jews. Yet they gave Jews equal citizenship anyway, which they never should have been given. Given out any sort of equal citizenship under the law to everyone is pozzed. >but he was in the Holy Roman Empire. Who cares. >But this means nothing, because he's still one of the most praised christians in the world I never hear his name mentioned except from people online crying about him. They must be upset about the prohibitions he levied against the Jews involved in commerce and money-lending in his capitulary on the matter! >Constantine is though and he was very pro-Jewish Living in a fantasy land. <Constantine, newly converted to Christianity, was unsympathetic to Jews and during his reign passed several anti-Semitic laws. Jews were severely punished when they tried to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. https://ehistory.osu.edu/biographies/flavius-valerius-constantinus-constantine-great <After his victory over Licinius, Constantine inaugurated a more and more hostile policy toward the Jews. It is true that as early as 321 a law was promulgated which made it obligatory for Jews to fill onerous, expensive municipal offices; while on the other hand such Jews as had devoted themselves to the service of their own religion were exempted in 330 from all public services, and those who were already "curiales" were freed from the levying of taxes. In 329, however, the Jews were forbidden to perform the rite of circumcision on slaves or to own Christian slaves; the death penalty was ordained for those who embraced the Jewish faith, as well as for Jews versed in the Law who aided them. On the other hand, Jewish converts to Christianity were protected against the fanaticism of their former coreligionists. Simultaneously with this an edict was issued forbidding marriages between Jews and Christians, and imposing the death penalty upon any Jew who should transgress this law. Some of these enactments were affirmed in 335. Noteworthy is the hostile language of several of these laws, in which Judaism is spoken of as an ignominious or as a bestial sect ("secta nefaria" or "feralis"). https://archive.fo/5GkkP (and before you attack the source blindly and commit another genetic fallacy, you better check the sources for the entry!) >rove to me that the "talmuds" were a threat to Rome. Prove they weren't, They're a pack of evil pedophiles who think that (you) are literally an animal made to serve them. Good goy. >You're chronology and pilpuling is awful. The Eastern Empire is still the Roman empire, as much as you want to deny it.
(21.60 KB 1058x232 On Grant 1.PNG)
(23.03 KB 1065x286 Grant 2.PNG)
>>15970 >And no one ever said that this was a perfect law-code. It wasn't awful either. No it was total garbage and it failed. You're still not getting it. If you are against Judaism you do not allow them to establish communities and have influence within your politics and economy. Christianity's view on jews are literally blue-pilled and is no different than how Marx claimed to hate his own people, but then has solutions and teaches his followers a kikery mindset. This sets an example that christians are too retarded to exterminate the people they claim to have a hatred for even after all they've done. Only destroying synagogues only for them to be revived by other christian rulers, exiles only for the jews to come back, and forced conversions as if that will stop them from being crypto-christians. >Yet they gave Jews equal citizenship anyway, which they never should have been given. They also gave it to loyal christians and other semitics, so your point is meaningless here. If anything by bringing up Caracalla's edict it only serves to prove my point that you don't give Abrahamics citizenship, you kill them and burn the bodies. The Romans learned the hard way, although their elites were corrupt anything so it should be expected. >Given out any sort of equal citizenship under the law to everyone is pozzed. I agree, but apparently you don't see that christcucks have been doing this type of shit for years, especially right after Constantine took over Rome and the only requirement was to be a loyal convert. I'm glad we can agree that something you guys have been doing for hundred of years and are still advocating today admit that you're a bunch of faggots and retards. >I never hear his name mentioned except from people online crying about him. Thou shalt not lie? He's literally beloved by cathtrads, he's one of the most commonly talked about figures within christian circles, especially when ever there is a debate between christians and muslims. >Constantine, newly converted to Christianity, was unsympathetic to Jews and during his reign passed several anti-Semitic laws. Jews were severely punished when they tried to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. <Christian bishops and some other priests were granted exemptions from undertaking magistracies and other expensive services for their local community. The same privilege was later extended to Jewish rabbis and synagogue leaders. -How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower Goldsworthy, Adrian p 198 <A few of Constantine’s pronouncements are overtly hostile to the Jews as the killers of Jesus, but his actions were not markedly more anti-Semitic than those of many earlier pagan emperors. The Jews were again forbidden to seek converts or to attack those of their own number who converted to Christianity. -ibid I looked at your first quote and there's nothing that leads back to definitive proof, but I went further in my research to see if that quote was legitimate and it seems that you have taken a random site as your source of information without even fact-checking it. Especially if you actually read back at Grant's account of Constantine, he's called out for being biased as pic describes. The only harsh thing Constantine did was forbade jews barring them from owning christian slaves, converting christians, and forced circumcisions. Also Your archive also doesn't give any sources at all, but it's funny that you used (((jewishencyclopedia))) as your argument that he was totally anti-semitic. There's a lack of evidence that the Edict Of Milian lead to jews losing rights, which are only claimed from jews themselves. They love to make themselves out to be the victims of everything after all and Constantine affects and changes from Rome has only ended up being good for the jew than it was under Hellenic Rome. >genetic fallacy It's not a genetic fallacy when I can prove that anything that comes from jews are inherently bad and you seem to kind of agree with me, although you don't agree and are in-denial when we tell you that jews have always been eternally evil since their birth. I'm the one that should be calling you out for it, because your previous post is just "muh bible!" and "well it felt real to me!' >Prove they weren't, <Y-you have to prove something I c-claimed! You're asking me to prove something that I have asked you to prove as per your claim that Julian was in the wrong. >They're a pack of evil pedophiles who think that (you) are literally an animal made to serve them This has nothing to do with the argument, but you wanna cry fallacy. Lol cuckchanners aren't sending their best. Them being pedophiles has nothing to do with Julian's decisions. >The Eastern Empire is still the Roman empire You wish, the Byzantines were about as Roman as the Ottomans. They only practiced and followed Roman law, but with Judaic assets attached to them.
>>15797 >This is an evolutionist meme It's not, I was mirroring the same logic that you are using to pilpul your one race, the human race category error, and there is no reason whatsoever to stop with niggers, when the similarities extend into the other ape species. Are you racist towards bonobos or something? Just because they are >I bet you think think that we are like 99.7% percent identical with chimps too You share most of your DNA with a banana, the point is that small differences enabling the expression of the highest common factor lead to most biological differences. The more differentiated a species, the more 0.001% of genetic difference matters. In that sense, a White man is MUCH further from a nigger than a nigger is from a chimp or a gorilla. >But then one goes and looks at the morphological level Even a quick glance at a White man and a nigger is enough to determine that they are not the same species, which was also confirmed by pretty much every morphological theory before it was banned. Also, people never considered niggers and many other non-White races human for most of the history, before kikes starting enforcing egalitarianism. Differences between Whites and niggers go much further than mere looks as well, so your strawman doesn't really make any difference overall. Gorilla is still closer to a nigger than nigger is to a White man. Nigger is the ubermonkey though, they would feel much better about themselves if they stopped trying to pretend to be human and just accepted their master race status among their own (monkey) kind. And yes, they also have entirely different generative/spiritual natures. Cope more >The rest of this is just jibber jabber. <I'm too stupid to understand abstract concepts You are free to worship whatever generic mechanism has spawned "you", but don't try to put us in the same basket. I don't entirely agree with Teleology but it's still a superior concept to creationism. As far as creationist worldview is concerned, gnostics were right about pretty much everything. But your god is not the actual creator of all that exists, he is just the cosmic kike.
>>15988 >there is no reason whatsoever to stop with niggers, when the similarities extend into the other ape species. Are you racist towards bonobos or something? Show me bonobos and gorillas interbreeding with humans and having offspring. Show me the bonobos and gorillas learning to speak a human language and being able to at least minimally function in human society. Blacks are absolutely the same species as humans because they are able to interbreed with other races, they are able to learn and speak any human language, they can function in human societies to a minimal degree and they have similar morphology to every other type of human. It is just obvious to even try to deny. You are just an evolutionist shill
>>15859 >he knows bible and was able to become pope because he fitted the requirements to become a priest in the first place. He practiced under V2. The Vatican is no longer catholic, and Francis blesses pagan idols, so he (and everyone following the post-Vatican 2 church) is pagan.
>>16182 It's amazing to read the 1864 Syllabus of Errors which condemns liberalism, communism, socialism, rationalism, naturalism, Protestantism, freedom of religion, securalism and everything else under the sun, only to see a complete inversion of this a century later. It's no wonder the Catholic Church is declining so hard in the West, along with all of the scandals of various kinds. I'm not even sure a more traditionalist pope would salvage it at this point.
>>16187 >securalism secularism
(136.17 KB 934x955 1634108815872.jpg)
>>15988 >a White man is MUCH further from a nigger than a nigger is from a chimp or a gorilla. Just like a jew is much further from a goy than a goy is from a beast of the field? In my experience a lot of blacks are annoying and entitled but I can't help but notice the resemblance between certain strains of wignat ideology and Judaism. I'm a cultural supremacist; I have yet to be convinced that IQ is the end-all be-all, especially since jews always score the highest on that shit. Judging by Jared Taylor's affinity for Jewish power I've always assumed "race realism" was a distraction if not outright controlled opposition. You don't need to appeal to IQ to convince people that importing a bunch of shitskins will make society worse. No one wants to live in Africa except for me, but only so I could shoot negroes trying to kill White farmers kek >>16020 Exactly. Blacks may be stupid but they aren't subhuman. And mixed people are generally pretty chill in my experience I don't like asians either and they're supposedly higher IQ than Whites. Their culture just turns them into soulless burden as the meme goes >>16182 Wtf based I love Catholicism now
>>16193 bugmen, not burden, but either works tbh
(355.58 KB 1125x1456 jesus 2.jpg)
>>16193 Regardless of one's view of Christianity, I have always seen those CGI images that the Jews always pump out of Jesus being some ugly mulatto to be pure anti-White propaganda against Christians but it's funny to see even Arabs(?) saying that this shit is disgusting garbage.
>>16020 And here comes the final strawman >b-but they are able to breed with other races and create disgusting mutants that will lose all recessive traits of the higher races, but at least this creature can survive and function in an entirely Judaized society that was fine-tuned to enable them, therefore all races are the same category. You keep denying evolution while using the exact same biological framework as mainstream evolutionists do. You not only equate 'humans' with animals and apply the same criteria for grouping, but also deny that quality is an exponential function where tiers are not distributed in a linear fashion. Speaking of physiognomy, dogs that look very differently can have fertile offspring, so you are sort of contradicting yourself by using both arguments. >they are able to learn and speak any human language They are not, that's why every European language turns into ebonics for them. >they can function in human societies to a minimal degree So can many animals. And there is no such thing as human society, the Judeo-Masonic abominations that we live in today are just a specific type. >>16193 >Just like a jew is much further from a goy than a goy is from a beast of the field? They are different, but not in a way that they think. Their essence is more like that of insects or viruses than beasts, so they are partially correct. To deny these essential differences and think how we are all the same group is foolish and only serves their agenda. >the resemblance between certain strains of wignat ideology and Judaism On the surface maybe, but the basis for the seemingly similar elements is entirely different. >I've always assumed "race realism" was a distraction if not outright controlled opposition Probably, but it doesn't need to be so supremacist, counter-productive and Jew-enabling. >I have yet to be convinced that IQ is the end-all be-all, especially since jews always score the highest on that shit IQ is just the processing power, a cockroach with a high IQ will still be a cockroach, just much better in what it does. Higher IQ doesn't change one's nature, only enables it to express more of what it already is. There are different types of intelligence anyway. >No one wants to live in Africa No one wants to live around niggers, not even niggers themselves. Africa is not that bad otherwise. You don't seem to get it, we don't need to hate non-Whites or even look down upon them, we can cooperate with them, but we will never be the same. Most racial conflicts are rooted in the lie that we are all 'human', when such category is not applicable to how various races express themselves. I can tolerate a lot of non-Whites but I can't tolerate identifying with them in any way. >MEMRI You realize it's literally run by Mossad, right?
>>16204 >You not only equate 'humans' with animals Humans are animals. > Speaking of physiognomy, dogs that look very differently can have fertile offspring Wow, it's almost like they're the same species! >They are not, that's why every European language turns into ebonics for them. Refuted by the fact that there are niggers who are very well capable of switching between standard English and their niggerspeak. It's called code-switching. >So can many animals. Where are the dogs that drive cars and work wagecuck jobs? I'm waiting.
(111.05 KB 960x1200 anus finger.jpg)
>>16204 >You don't seem to get it, we don't need to hate non-Whites or even look down upon them, we can cooperate with them, but we will never be the same. no I agree with you >MEMRI = mossad sure, it's still fucking hilarious though lol
>>16196 Go away thuletide.
>>16232 If there are people like the Druze and Levantines that look nothing like the Jewish CGI images of Jesus today, it's not hard to conclude that Jesus must have looked more like them than the images made today, this is a reasonable conclusion to make as well due to the fact that this board has discovered that most of the ancient world was White, from China, to Mongolia, to India, and to even figures in the Arabian peninsula some 1,400 years ago such as Muhammad (a White-skinned red-head). The Bible as far back as Genesis reports that there were people in the line of Abraham who had the genes for red hair, namely Esau. Interestingly as well, in sources such as Josephus we can read thing such as the following: >And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals; that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly they left off all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations. This implies that the only way that they would be able to discerned as Jews by the Greeks would be if they were shown to be circumcised when naked (e.g. such as in the Greek gymnasium) https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-12.html This is further supported by mosaics that have been found in Huqoq, depicting what has been interpreted as Alexander the Great meeting with Jewish priests. Alexander is the red-head, while the priests are the Jews. Jesus wasn't some disgusting mutt, and there is loads of evidence to show this, regardless of how much one may dislike the religion.
>>16235 No one gives a fuck what Jesus looks likw you retard. He's isn't real and him being Levantine is even more of a reason to not like him. Fuck Jesus, let the kikes mock him, because Christianity is what lead to Jews taking over the West. Ever since you started taking StJ's cock in your mouth, you've become more retarded.
>>16240 Also mossaics and claims of muh red heads are Abrahmaic nonsense. Red head doesn't mean they're White and there still exists no evidence that Muhammad was a White guy or was even real for that matter. This is just more we wuzz Israelite nonsense.
>>16241 The evidence is literally everywhere, dude, and everyone knows it. Muhammad has living ancestors who look like redheaded Europeans. Pic related is from Syria and is the 34th-generation grandson of Muhammad. There are dozens of ahadith describing Muhammad as explicitly “White” as well. If you’re prepared to deny both textual and archeological evidence there is no helping you. Just as redhead genes have left Greece, they left Mesopotamia and the Levant as well.
>>16241 >This is just more we wuzz Israelite nonsense. We wuz everybody, actually. This used to be a predominantly White planet, especially before the Kali Yuga began. China was almost entirely White, and all of the cultural inventions of ancient China (paper, etc) were made by Whites. Confucius and Lao Zi were White too. The Chinese government actively covers this information up today, especially in the area of the Tarim Basin. The ancient Vedic civilization was White too, as we all know. Ancient Greece was White, predominantly inhabited by redheads and blonds of a Nordic phenotype. Same with Iran, same with modern Pakistan, same with modern Afghanistan, and beyond. There are reports of ‘White gods’ founding every major civilization in the Americas well. Islam was founded by a White man as well, as the evidence from the hadith and living biological descendents of Muhammad clearly supports. The ancient Israelites were certainly White as well, given the evidence on hand.
>>16246 >We wuz everybody, actually. Then where the hell do shitskins come from?
>>16284 They gradually have appeared as a result of the degenerative processes of the Kali Yuga. They likely always existed to some extent, but the elite in these societies I described were almost invariably White.
>>16245 >The evidence is there <presents nothing as evidence only things that are claimed and interpretated into your perpsective <literally no living evidece that a White guy is Muhammad's descendant <trying hard to shill muh original Isrealite nonsense Kill yourself and be a kike somewhere else. >>16246 >WE WUZ VERBODY!! No we weren't. You're LARPing and going into nigger-tier we wuzzing. We don't know what China was like nor do we know anything about ancient history and what happened.
(84.90 KB 679x320 EJbFaXHU0AAvj6C.jpg)
(416.34 KB 998x1024 2199836329_a4b700c68d_b.jpg)
(116.46 KB 1200x675 EmgssFwU4AA_1r0.jpg)
(32.08 KB 480x479 d76.jpg)
>>16326 WE WERE KANGS Some of the oldest chinese mummies were literally White.
>>16339 6f4cea is a christfag shitting in basicaly ALL threads about aryan religion, archeology and history, the way he type is very characteristic by the excessive use of pink quotes and blind hate for anything aryan.
(194.12 KB 500x673 love being white.jpg)
>>16326 Anon, the evidence has literally been compiled in the other thread >>2541, there's no excuse for this level of ignorance. Every major civilization got off the ground because of Whites. It's just a fact. We wuz because we literally were
(135.83 KB 665x874 1607827750353.jpg)
>>16355 Checked 5 Hyperborea >there's no excuse for this level of ignorance. There is if he's a bad faith actor shilling judaic philosophy for damage control.
Even if Jesus was secretly an Aryan Godhead Deva, wouldn't believing in a religion that teaches tolerance amongst racially foreign peoples be kinda cucked?
>>16381 I don't see how Jesus is any different than from any of the figures in Dharmic teachings told here, except that Jesus has more of a messianic dimension to him. The perfect example of this is the Dhammapada, for example we have very Christian teachings like: <Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal" This is little different from turning the other cheek and loving your enemies from a Christian standpoint. <Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one’s own acts, done and undone. This is actually worse than Christianity here, because while Jesus taught not to judge others lest one becomes a hypocrite, saying that they should first fix their own faults before focusing on the faults of others. I could undoubtedly find more points of comparisons in the Dhammapada, but I know people will point out that this is a Buddhist text. I do not think it matters that much though, because the entirety of Buddhism's basic system is drawn directly from Vedic teachings, ethics, etc.

Delete
Report