/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]

(36.02 KB 480x360 rexism.jpg)
Christian Fascist Thread Blackshirt 07/01/2021 (Thu) 05:47:44 ID:88c01c No. 7859
If you have used 4chan in the past four months, and/ or if you have not been lurking for at least one year, do not post in this thread.
>Christian >Fascist Choose one and only one jew worshiper.
>>7879 You are a faggot.
I want to know how the message of the Gospels and how the message of Paul and others in the New Testament is in any way compatible with the goals of a Fascist or White Nationalist government. If you want to see someone who took the message of the Gospels seriously, look no further than someone like St. Anthony the Great, who lived as an eremitic monk in the desert doing nothing but battling demons and praying all day. I wouldn't advocate for this personally as the way to live, but at least this guy is serious about what he believes and doesn't attempt to say that White Nationalism or Fascism is compatible with the message of Jesus. White Nationalism is decidedly this-worldly, the message of Christianity is otherworldly and has little concern for matters of flesh and blood like nationalism does.
>>7881 Christians aren't Platonists, we think things matter on this side of heaven too.
(32.81 KB 540x378 amish family.jpg)
>>7882 That's not the picture that scripture seems to convey. Jesus tells us not to store up treasures on earth, but to instead store up treasures in Heaven (Matthew 6:19-21). The meaning of these verses are pretty clear, and it is also repeated in a similar form in other gospels such as Luke. In 1 John 2:15-16 we are also advised not to love the world or anything of this world. The things of the world, the author writes, are not of the Father, but of the world. In Colossians 3:2 Paul advises us to set our minds on things that are above, not on worldly things. In Titus 3:1-2 Paul writes that we should be subject to our rulers and authorities. We should be living upright godly lives while we wait for Jesus to return (Titus 2:12-13). This echoes what Paul says in Romans 13, that governments are instituted by God and must be obeyed. Now finally in Romans 12:2 Paul again advises not to conform to the world. What does all of this sound like? It sounds like the Amish. If I unironically believed in Christianity I would be reconsidering every aspect of my life if I believed this was true. Christians don't seem to want to actually follow Jesus. But that aside, while the Amish and similar groups who are actually serious about this are genuinely healthy communities at a small scale, they are not a solution for White Nationalists or National Socialists. All of this stuff about not being conformed to the world or obeying the government isn't going to work in our modern age, and will indeed lead us like lambs to the slaughter.
>>7890 Christians are welcome in /aag/ and frequently come to post in it, so it's no surprise that pagans will come in here and talk as well.
>>7894 Of course, /aag/ is a debate thread. Think of this as the same format as the Aryan Religion thread.
>>7908 All threads are debate threads as well as subject matter threads, this is a debate thread exclusively, because jew worshippers are not welcome.
>>7908 Like the other anon said here >>7957 it is inevitably going to be both. /aag/ is meant both for posting general information and for the issue to be discussed by pagans and non-pagans alike. Even if we didn't want any non-pagans to post in the thread, they would do so anyways. That said, there is a decent potential that there will be good posts in here that Christcucks might find contentious here, such as >>7881, >>7883 and any future posts by different anons that aren't just spamming the thread.
>>7859 Wish this thread was more active. Apparently the same subjects are being discussed in the /aag/ so I guess I'll head over there. But have bump.
(408.01 KB 1992x1360 index.jpg)
It always seemed a little bit too reliant on "we wuz de real Jews" for my tastes, but I like the idea in principle. It seems like a good way to bring White Christians into fascism. A lot of them already have fairly right wing views, so approaching from the religious angle might be a viable strategy.
>>8903 >Thoughts on Christian Identity? They are not Christians, they are heretics. Christian Identity anons please join the true faith, your soul is in danger. It does not matter how useful it is, it is false. "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36 Why would you even want to be the real joos anyway? The bible does not have much good to say about them.
>>8909 I’m curious, what do you see as the most false aspect of Christian Identity, doctrinally-speaking? I do not like it myself, but mainly because it is exceedingly weak historically (which I’m sure you agree with yourself)
>>8924 >I’m curious, what do you see as the most false aspect of Christian Identity, doctrinally-speaking? Thinking that they are saved by their race/skin, instead of having saving faith in Christ. Salvation has never been about race, including for OT jews, many of whom God sent to hell.
>>9286 I don't think there's any christian who believes this.
looking for based Christian books
(434.50 KB 900x1043 download b.jpg)
(202.20 KB 452x723 download a.jpg)
(56.35 KB 448x640 download (2).jpg)
(3.82 KB 173x292 download (1).jpg)
(8.39 KB 189x267 download.jpg)
>>12390 Thoreau and Emerson are both Christian writers who focus in heavily on the divinity of nature. If you decide to read them, I would advise you to start with Thoreau's "Walden" as it does a really good job of easing you into the transcendalist mindset. From there, you could move onto Thoreau's "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers", which mostly expands on ideas touched in Walden (although being written before it), or you could try reading some of Emerson's lectures or essays which tend to be much more dense than Thoreau's writings. Being a preacher, Emerson is also much more focused on Christianity in general. Here are some archive links of their works. Henry David Thoreau- Walden https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.97515/mode/2up Henry David Thoreau- A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.182774/mode/2up Ralph Waldo Emerson- Nature https://archive.org/details/naturemunroe00emerrich/page/28/mode/2up Ralph Waldo Emerson- The American Scholar (w/ others) https://archive.org/details/americanscholar01emergoog/page/n26/mode/2up Ralph Waldo Emerson- An Address https://archive.org/details/addressdelivered1838emer
>>12394 thanks!
(256.97 KB 604x613 nervous pepe.png)
>tfw only Jesus and no other entities have ever responded to me in prayer or meditation I never asked for this, but I'm pretty sure he's real. I've been trying to withhold judgement though, but it's happened like two or three times now. The Bible is too kiked to ever trust though, the (((Church))) decided the canon
>>12405 Jesus was a cool guy who tried to bring real enlightenment to the Jews, and was punished severely for it. They punished him by changing his image from that of a sage to the offspring of their retarded desert-wandering god, and by using his name to weaken and destroy good men and societies. My theory is that Jesus is the only non-kiked spiritual entity that gets a decent amount of quality worship at this point, so he is really the only entity that can contact people who have little to no connection with him. I've heard other anons contacting to beings that used to be worshiped on a large scale, but only after establishing some sort of relationship with them (ritual offerings). Look, the thing with Jesus seems to have happened to several anons, me included, and has helped them move down the correct spiritual path. It's nothing to worry about.
>>12405 >>12435 You should also ask about it in the dharmic philosophy thread or anti-Abrahamism thread
>>12435 Yeah it's definitely weird. I don't know it's directly Jesus giving me indications though. I have just gone straight to God because regardless of what his nature is, I figure that is the best place to go for answers. And I was definitely spooked when I mentioned Jesus offhand, planning to casually move to the next name, but instead got what I could only interpret as a positive answer that he was good. It's hard to explain it in any non-cringe way, but basically it was a sudden out-of-the-blue feeling of a pressure change that left my ears sort of sore for a half hour afterwards, followed by five to ten seconds of intense ringing in my ears. I had gotten a few strange experiences before doing that, but that was the most intense one I had had, personally. I just stopped after that for the night. And honestly I've been a little reluctant to look deeper into it. It sort of makes me anxious even to write about again. It certainly seems like something in need of solving at some point. I've already ruled out any sort of self-suggestion, as I would have chosen something like the Buddha or Krishna before Jesus, really. I never really hated him, but I've decided to refrain from saying anything bad about him from now on. Whatever he did back in the day in Judea must have really maxed out his power-level. Seems like a lot of religions feel that way too. They seem to love to clamor for him - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Interesting to hear that you have had something similar happen. If you feel comfortable sharing (I understand if you wouldn't, I always feel weird sharing some of this stuff), what happened? >>12436 Might be fun. I know /aag/ is always a wild ride.
>>12440 >what happened? A while ago, when I was still a Christfag in the making and still browsing 4cuck, I saw some feels guy meme about Jesus. When I read it, I felt something that sounds very similar to what you experienced. My ears began ringing and I felt a wave of a sort of warm, tingling energy surge through me. I was conscious of it happening and considered if it was just a illusion I had created for myself, but a little bit after I started to take it as a sign from "god" (yahweh) to become devoutly Christian. The Christianity thing didn't last, but the experience did. It was not something that could be explained away. There was something coming from deep inside of me telling me "This is real! This is real!". Eventually, I got everything from my spiritually to my health sorted out, and it was all made possible by that one communication. Jesus can't be bad. No evil being would knowingly put me on the path I ended up going down. >I understand if you wouldn't, I always feel weird sharing some of this stuff In a functioning society, you wouldn't. Goes to show how spiritually hollow christianity is.
>>12447 Thank you for sharing, anon. Your description of what happened and how you felt is extremely relatable. It sounds like the exact same thing. Very interesting. Who knew a simple meme could be so potent like that.
Abrahamic filth
(1.02 MB 640x640 CHRIST_IS_KING!.mp4)
>>13657 Yes, neo-paganism gave you architecture. It's still Judaic nonsense that breeds dysgenics Whites.
Friendly reminder that christianity is the enemy of fascism and contributed to the Axis' downfall. The NSDAP failure can be contributed to liberialism, anti-fascist christcucks and fascist christcucks. Positive Christianity failed, because they did not want to accept a greater cause and religion. Remeber that WN christians willingly allowed Berlin to burn and its inhabitants raped and join in, because they were "heathens" and "demonic".
>>12405 >>12440 >Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. >What father among you, if his son asks for a fish,d will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” >All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.
>>12390 Freedom from Reality by DC Schindler (german) >warning: extremely heavy reading >>12405 Can you describe your meditation technique? I want to try something similar.
(149.37 KB 575x842 prayer hands art.jpg)
>>13759 >Can you describe your meditation technique? I want to try something similar. What I've done is rather mundane, actually. I just do the classic clasping of the hands together, close my eyes, do a bit of slow breathing for thirty seconds or so, and then just do my thing. After the breathing I don't really treat it like meditation, but I instead I've usually just done things like ask for a sign that he is real, or various questions like the one mentioned in my post you're replying to, or just dwelling on various personal flaws and issues of mine. Some advice though (if I am in the position to give any) - As soon as you actually pray or meditate with devotion and faith it seems to begin to actually work. Those who only do it without even a little faith or just to ‘relax’ will likely not get anything out of it. God reciprocates to the faithful. Praying out of ego and trying to 'test' God doesn't work it seems, nor does treating him like a genie or servant of some kind. I didn't get results with this stuff right away though, and even spent a while trying to do it and feeling silly while doing it, but eventually I started to see results. Even now they are sporadic though, I don't think I have any control over when I'll get something in return.
>>13770 thanks, anon.
>>13837 Glad to help.
Majority of Fascists were Christians but I guess an autistic circle of pagayns know better lol
>>13914 >Majority of Fascists were Christians True if you include the majority of people living under fascist leadership as such, but people actually providing that leadership seemed to lean towards paganism or at least some form of spiritualist anti-Christianity. Some leaders called fascist, like Cordeneau and Dudley, seemed more Christian than others, but at least in Germany they seemed to have rejected the religion wholesale.
>>13914 Except literally all of the SS leadership was not pro-Christian but ok.
>>13950 Do they represent all fascists? No your point is invalid as it consists of German fascist military and government leaders while again the majority of fascists have been Christian (and arguably still are)
>>13954 German National Socialists were and are the only relevant Fascist ideology besides Italian Fascism and maybe Francoism. National Socialism is purely Dharmic.
>>13954 They were trying to deprogram people from the Jewish mind poison, for lesser races it would take much more time so they just rolled along with it.
>>13959 The real redpill is that the Dharmic / Abrahamic distinction is quite literally fictitious. The best people can do is stammer something about Natural Law, without defining Natural Law, and without realizing that Abrahamic religions more or less adhere to Natural Law. It's just a buzzword, just like the term 'life-affirming' or 'life-denying'
>>13991 >The real redpill is that the Dharmic / Abrahamic distinction is quite literally fictitious. This is the dumbest post on this site yet. Man you guys are awful shills, first muh Jesus was Dharmic, the nazbol retard, radfeminist, LARP warlord, and now your BS. You might as well argue that same sex is also based and Dharmaic pill as well and that Israel is Dharmaic also like a retard.
>>13954 >Do they represent all fascists? <The creator and a high-ranking official who have lead to the creation and built up National Socialist Germania that we still we stand for today, does not represent its core ideaological beliefs. >No your point is invalid as it consists of German fascist military and government leaders while again the majority of fascists have been Christian Your point is invalid, because Germany as a whole was 99% percent Christian so it's not as if they had a choice. Also it was your faith that destroyed Hitler's Germany and lead to the assassination of Mussolini in the first place because Christfags found the National Socialist beliefs and ideals as "godless, heathen, or race idolatry". The NSDAP established and wanted Germans to embrace Postive Christianity for a reason and it was all because the Lutherians and Catholics refused to accept the National Order, because it didn't fit with the New Testament or the church's decrees.
>>13783 >cathcuck site >cuckchan lingo Fuck off back to /pol/, also you seem to be the only one doing what you project. You refuse to accept that your church is and only knows how to lie in your face. Galilieans were racially Jews, you are worshipping someone outside your race like a good little cuck.
>>13998 I'm not sure what you're babbling about, I'm saying that the distinction doesn't even exist because it's totally arbitrary and nonsensical at the end of the day. I look forward to your rebuttal attempt.
>>14001 The distinction depends on the proper definition of the Natural Law, or nature in the first place. If you define Dharma in Abrahamic context, then there won't be much distinctions indeed. But if we define it as proper conduct and state of being according to certain transcendent principles (essentialism), then it's worlds apart. Not the anon who you replied to btw.
>>14009 >But if we define it as proper conduct and state of being according to certain transcendent principles (essentialism), then it's worlds apart I still don't think it is that different. Christianity, for example, recognizes that proper conduct and nature are in some way built-in to the human being. Paul talks about how the Gentiles, though ignorant of the Jewish law, do what the law requires nevertheless, because the law is reflected in their common human nature, 'written on the hearts' and shown in their conscience. There is much talk in the New Testament in particular about certain behaviors or ways of being being 'against nature' in the like, such as homosexuality, etc.
>>14001 >I'm not sure what you're babbling about, I'm saying that the distinction doesn't even exist because it's totally arbitrary and nonsensical at the end of the day And I'm calling you a retarded shill, because Abrahamicism rejects the notion that is natural law and eternal truth. It's a hypocritical faith that serves a blind god and arrogant god who views the cosmos in a way that he wants it to be, while maintaining some Dharmic orders.
>>14013 >because Abrahamicism rejects the notion that is natural law and eternal truth. This is a dumb statement on the face of it. You should also read >>14010 where I addressed this a few minutes ago (though it is very possible that you just have not seen it yet, I admit). >It's a hypocritical faith that serves a blind god and arrogant god who views the cosmos in a way that he wants it to be If God creates the cosmos, He necessarily makes it how He wills. He would be the source of Natural Law even existing in the first place. Not sure what the objection is even supposed to be getting at here. Not sure what a 'blind' and 'arrogant' God is supposed to imply either, especially in the latter case.
>>14010 >I still don't think it is that different. Christianity, for example, recognizes that proper conduct and nature are in some way built-in to the human being Christcucks believe that humanity by default are evil and that only the church of Yahweh can save us to become proper mortal beings, which is illogical and nonsense. Christianity also rejects race the idea of race and humanity's close relationship with nature and divinity. It is a faith that spins lies on the condition of our universe for their master, there is nothing Dharmic about that in any way. Christcucks use Jewish legalism to describe human nature, which is what got us in this mess that is today. You're using apples and trying to claim that it is the same as the bees.
>>14015 >This is a dumb statement on the face of it. No it isn't. It's the truth shill. >You should also read >>14010 where I addressed this And you're wrong and have no direct connections of natural law with Christianity. You're grasping for straws, the OT is more Dharmic than the NT, although that doesn't mean it's not far stretched either. >If God creates the cosmos, Your God did not create the cosmos moron. >He necessarily makes it how He wills. Which is nilhisim and fails to recognize that the demiurge does things within order and for a reason. Abraham rejects the idea of a non-hypocritical God who respects the natural order.
>>14015 >If God creates the cosmos, He necessarily makes it how He wills. Except your God did not create the cosmos, and if he were truly a benevolent and wise entity then he would not have told the worse human beings on Earth that they are his "chosens". Truth to be told, no one understands God/the demiurge. The OT and NT are nothing more but books that have many claims and sayings with little truths and mostly ignorance. Christianity, a religion that murdered millions of innocent native Whites who followed the natural order, is not Dharmic.
>>14018 >Christcucks believe that humanity by default are evil False. Man in Christianity is a fallen being, in a state of spiritual alienation. They are not 'evil' by default. >Christianity also rejects race the idea of race No it doesn't. inb4 you refer to some verse about membership in the Body of Christ >and humanity's close relationship with nature and divinity. Man has basically been made vicegerent / steward over the Earth according to the Bible. Worth mentioning that the destruction of the environment that goes onto today is exclusively for worldly, luciferian and materialistic agendas. Not sure what you mean by 'close relationship with... divinity'. Ultimately the fallen angels of paganism will not lead to spiritual fulfillment, let alone salvation. >there is nothing Dharmic about that in any way Define 'Dharmic'. >Christcucks use Jewish legalism... Hypocritical legalistic Pharisees were BTFO in the New Testament. Read the Gospels, read Paul, read anything. >>14021 >It's the truth shill. Proof? >And you're wrong and have no direct connections of natural law with Christianity Paul is literally talking about principles of Natural Law when he talks about the law in Romans 2:14-15 and the chapter beforehand. >Your God did not create the cosmos moron. Yes he did :^) The fact that all of the OT prophecies came true and Jesus came and raised from the dead is proof enough. >Which is nilhisim An omnipotent and omniscient God creating the universe ex nihilo and making it how He wills and designing it down to the smallest atom is not 'nihilism'. And again, God created the Natural Order.
>>14023 >then he would not have told the worse human beings on Earth that they are his "chosens". Jews are no longer chosen. Their nation was best seen as a preparatory vehicle for the coming of Jesus. They have been rejected with the coming of Jesus. There is ample proof of this in the New Testament and even ample proof in the Old Testament that the God's promise would extend to all of the nations of the Earth. Jews through their own free will chose rebel against God over and over again, becoming idolators, degenerates, breaking their covenants and almost anything else you could imagine. For this very reason they are continuously afflicted by famines, plagues, natural disasters and foreign invasions for their transgressions. The amount of truly righteous ones were minuscule, and in our current age, there are almost none left at all. The last Jews of any integrity went and followed Jesus and his disciples two thousand years ago. > Christianity, a religion that murdered millions of innocent native Whites who followed the natural order, is not Dharmic. The Catholic Church is basically Satanic
>>14024 >Man in Christianity is a fallen being, Aka it sees humanity as Evil. >No it doesn't. inb4 you refer to some verse about membership in the Body of Christ Then why did Christian accept Gentiles and are the largest of zealots are willingly to accept interracial marriage? There's nothing in the bible that condemns mixing of bloods. >Man has basically been made vicegerent / steward over the Earth according to the Bible Yeah, how do you not see how that validates that they are justifying that humans should be separate from nature? They literally see that all creatures on Earth are stupid. > Worth mentioning that the destruction of the environment that goes onto today is exclusively for worldly, luciferian and materialistic agendas There is no Luciferian. The Protestants and Catholics churches have done nothing to stop environmental destruction and they could care less what happened to the to it as long as the consequential effects did not show up immediately. You can call something materialistic and Lucifer all you want, but in the end of the day, all three sects failed to stop mass urbanization that has been going on way before the industrial revolution and pre-modern era and heed the warnings that come of diseases and degeneracy that it spreads. >Hypocritical legalistic Pharisees were BTFO in the New Testament. Then quote what they say or just admit you're wrong. We can clearly see throughout history that Christianity and Islam have always used Judaism's combination of legalism and religion together to control the masses. There used to be laws that forbade Christians from using their left-hand and for them to not bathe frequently or they will end up becoming like heathens. >Paul is literally talking about principles of Natural Law Again, quote your citations or you're making stuff up. Paul does not support natural law or the cosmic order at all. >Yes he did :^) Nice cope. > The fact that all of the OT prophecies came true and Jesus came and raised from the dead is proof enough. That's what you want to believe, but none of you Christian fools have ever proved the existence of Jesus nor counter-argued his existence. If you want to believe old-jews and their claims, then that's on you and only proves that your mind will only ever be controlled by Jews. >inb4 they wasn't jews They were racially kikes and by mindset they still were. >An omnipotent and omniscient God creating the universe ex nihilo and making it how He wills and designing it down to the smallest atom is not 'nihilism'. Again cope, A God that can do whatever he wants is nihilism. A God that does things orderly and with purpose as if he is an artist that seeks to create life as it should be is the exact opposite and proves that he is true and wise. I cannot see why an omniscient God would ever give Jews this much power or could not see that Adam and Eve would fail to obey his command. Your God is not the demiurge, you are blinded by your faith. >Jews are no longer chosen. No that what you think by your principles and religion. You think they aren't chosen, while Jews know they were chosen by Yahweh. You only have your book and the supposed existence of the Galiliean as proof that they lost this kingdom. Orthodox Jews can sleep at night knowing that they have no done anything wrong, because they read the oldest Hebrew bible and testament. You only the NT to back you up, while zionists have an entire history to laugh at you and prove you wrong that Yahweh chosen them. Some Christians even today still uphold that they are still chosen, but just blind. >The Catholic Church is basically Satanic There is no Satan, the church is just doing what they usually do, act corrupt and fool Whites.
>>14024 Not that anon >Paul is literally talking about principles of Natural Law Paul thinks that man will act in his God's law without any divine revelation. He talks about the principles in what he sees that seem close to Judaic/Isreali laws. Paul is not affirming that he accepts that men naturally support the Dharmic law, but only how Yahweh created different men in which he thinks we all end up supporting laws that are his by nature.
>>14024 >An omnipotent and omniscient God creating the universe ex nihilo and making it how He wills and designing it down to the smallest atom is not 'nihilism'. And again, God created the Natural Order. Not the anon you originally responded to but I want to explain how the christian view of the worlds is nihilistic. Christianity posits that the universe, down to the smallest atom, is made and sustained by an all powerful god. That means that all the struggle humanity has gone through means nothing, because all of it is facilitated by a god that can make the world disappear or destroy all evil and struggle at any moment. There is no true struggle, or true good and bad because all of it emanates from a supposedly just god. Christianity is nihilistic because it's view on god denies any sort of cosmic struggle, claiming it is all illusory and a game for yahweh to determine which ones of his creations, which he has complete power over, he likes best. It denies all greater purpose and leaves one in a world where the earth could drop from beneath any moment, so he is forced to find his own meaning in his own endeavors. That's nihilism.
>>14028 >Aka it sees humanity as Evil. Fallen =/= evil. The Fall has corrupted humanity and led to an alienation from God and our original state. We're not 'evil' though. Humans are seen as created in the image of God, as well, and if the entire human being was to be called 'evil' that would be imparted in that, so it's an idea that no Christian would ever hold. >Then why did Christian accept Gentiles and are the largest of zealots are willingly to accept interracial marriage? There's nothing in the bible that condemns mixing of bloods. The fact that races exist and have slightly differences among themselves is not something one needs the Bible to see, anon. Yes, there is monogenetic descent from Adam and Eve, but through adaptation over time to various different climates and conditions, people have become different and more genetically diverse within the bounds of the category of 'human'. Gentiles were always capable of becoming Jews from the very beginning, and were always part of God's plan for humanity, as can be seen in the Old Testament and New Testament alike. The Talmudic doctrines that people on this board ascribe to the Bible are lies. This said though, Daniel 2:43, spoken by Daniel in interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, could be interpreted as a warning against intermixture: <As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. >Yeah, how do you not see how that validates that they are justifying that humans should be separate from nature? Humans are both part of and something greater than nature, unless you want to take the view that humans are no more than clumps of matter inexplicably in motion, the product of blind natural forces and random events. Not even pagans believed this. Aristotle posited a universal hierarchy or chain of being. It seems like you might just have problems with the concept of hierarchy in nature. >Then quote what they say or just admit you're wrong. We can clearly see throughout history that Christianity and Islam have always used Judaism's combination of legalism and religion together to control the masses. Christians are not made righteous by works of the law (Galatians 2:16), this is common knowledge. It's faith in Jesus that is essential and leads to justification. This is the reason why Christians don't follow Jewish kosher laws (Mark 7:19), or are forced to get circumcised (1 Corinthians 7:19), or to do any sort of Old Testament rite. Following legalistic Jewish laws will not lead to salvation. >Again, quote your citations or you're making stuff up. First let's define natural law: <Natural law, in philosophy, a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law. https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law And now let's see what Paul says: Romans 2:14-15 <Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. Romans 1:26-27 <For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. The very use of the terms 'natural' and 'unnatural' in this section is implying that homosexual acts are contrary to the innate nature of humans and their design, and thus against natural law. > but none of you Christian fools have ever proved the existence of Jesus nor counter-argued his existence Literally every scholar, atheist or otherwise, today affirms that Jesus, at minimum, was a historical figure. Of course that is not sufficient, but the bare fact of his existence is not what is the real concern, because that is beyond doubt. >A God that can do whatever he wants is nihilism. Words have meanings.
>>14028 >A God that does things orderly and with purpose as if he is an artist that seeks to create life as it should be is the exact opposite and proves that he is true and wise. God could have made the world however He wanted to, and he explicitly chose to make it orderly, purposeful, rational and law-abiding. >I cannot see why an omniscient God would ever give Jews this much power Jews have no power. They are not chosen. >or could not see that Adam and Eve would fail to obey his command. Adam made a free-will choice to disobey God. Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans. It was freedom that rendered the human being as an image of God, but it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God. Out of His love for humans God did not want to interfere in their freedom and forcibly avert sin. But neither could Satan force them to do evil. The sole responsibility for the Fall is borne by humans themselves, for they misused the freedom given to them. >Your God is not the demiurge I know He's not lol >You only the NT to back you up We can look at the prophecies for Jesus in the OT. >Some Christians even today still uphold that they are still chosen Clearly they have never read the Bible.
(1.79 MB 1179x1487 ladder theosis christianity.jpg)
>>14032 >There is no true struggle, or true good and bad because all of it emanates from a supposedly just god The terms 'good' and 'evil' have no meaning apart from God. Also, Christianity has always affirmed struggle. Our struggle is against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places and against powers and principalities (Ephesians 6:12-18). Struggle, endurance and spiritual warfare are basic facts of the Christian life. We are called to be good 'soldiers' of Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 2). >claiming it is all illusory and a game for yahweh to determine which ones of his creations, which he has complete power over, he likes best. The world is not an illusion, this is not Hinduism with its ideas of 'maya'. Humans can choose to follow or reject God through their own free-will decisions. Salvation is necessarily a result of synergistic cooperation, not an imposition.
>>14068 >That pic This is your art on Christian Anti-life ideology >The terms 'good' and 'evil' have no meaning apart from God. You are wrong. The struggle of good and evil can only exist if neither hold absolute power. Yahweh is the supposedly all powerful, so all evil that exists in his universe is of his own creation. It is not true evil, because it does not struggle against good. It is only allowed to exist by an all powerful good force. >Also, Christianity has always affirmed struggle. Our struggle is against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places and against powers and principalities (Ephesians 6:12-18). Struggle, endurance and spiritual warfare are basic facts of the Christian life. We are called to be good 'soldiers' of Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 2). But your struggle means nothing because it is not a real struggle, as explained above. Good is secured as the leader of the universe for all eternity, so how could evil fright against it. After all, isn't it just the creation of good? >The world is not an illusion I agree with you, but your religion doesn't. Yahweh could end this world at any moment. All of your hopes, your dreams, your family and friends, everything you know is just part of yahweh's arbitrary selection process for his favorite playthings. He exists on an eternal timescale. You and your world mean nothing to him in the face of eternity. >Humans can choose to follow or reject God through their own free-will decisions. Salvation is necessarily a result of synergistic cooperation, not an imposition. And what of your "salvation". There are two possible outcomes to your religion's afterlife. One, you sit in either a golden box or a dark box for the rest of eternity, which is no different from an atheists view on death. Or, Two, Yahweh gets sick of you and erases you from existence. Your salvation sounds like some sort of sick joke more than anything else.
>>14066 >Fallen =/= evil. The Fall has corrupted humanity and led to an alienation from God and our original state. You do realize that your own argument is quite literally arguing that humanity can never be naturally good or civilized right? You're basically reinforcing rabbi nonsense that Yahweh to have a spirit. This logic is dumb and does not hold up when you realize that pagans were never spiritual alienated from anything. You guys do not alienate yourself from Yahweh and yet you cucked out on the NSDAP and allowed the allies to win. >he fact that races exist and have slightly differences among themselves is not something one needs the Bible to see, anon Yes it is, this is so stupid to say and daring to post on here. Race defies one's nature, men act according to their blood and spirit. If the bible cannot address this, then it's likely, because they did not believe in it unlike pagans who have always written accounts of the nature/behavior of different ethnicities and races. >Gentiles were always capable of becoming Jews from the very beginning, Then it proves that Jews were blind to race, other than their own, and were for mutt mixture. Also I see no reason for us gentiles to become Jews or worshippers of one who claimed to be the son of Yahweh. So you aren't making a point here, just digging a bigger hole for yourself. >Humans are both part of and something greater than nature, No, we are an aspect of nature. We were created on Earth and are the offspring of both the Gods and mother nature. We are not greater than the thing that allows us to breathe, eat and sleep 24/7 everyday and can never be conquered. We never were masters nor greater than it and we can clearly see that it is true when you look at the state of humanity today. >Christians are not made righteous by works of the law (Galatians 2:16), this is common knowledge I said Christians and Muslims do not separate law and religion. Therefore they can be seen as righteous by law, if the law obeys and heeds the word of God. Killing and force converting pagans was both law and very pious among Christians that you could be venerated as a saint. (((Constantine))), (((Charles Martel))), Codex Theodosianus, XVI.1.2. , and Deuteronomy 12:29-31. started it all and proves my point. Also quoting the bible is pointless, because christian never follow what they say through wholly just like muslims. >First let's define natural law: >Natural law, in philosophy, a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law. Or you could take what the Greco-Romans knew and saw that natural law was instead from a Judaic site. >There is a true law, right reason in accord with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting. … It is wrong to abrogate this law and it cannot be annulled. . . . There is one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be, as it were, one common master and ruler of men, God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter and its sponsor. De Republica, Book III, chapter 22 >Let us now classify just and unjust actions generally, starting from what follows. Justice and injustice have been defined in reference to laws and persons in two ways. Now there are two kinds of laws, particular and general. By particular laws I mean those established by each people in reference to themselves, which again are divided into written and unwritten; by general laws I mean those based upon nature. In fact, there is a general idea of just and unjust in accordance with nature, as all men in a manner divine, even if there is neither communication nor agreement between them. This is what Antigone in Sophocles evidently means, when she declares that it is just, though forbidden, to bury Polynices, as being naturally just: “For neither to-day nor yesterday, but from all eternity, theses statutes live and no man knoweth whence they came… Nicomachean Ethics Now Hitler >When Man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man. And so his action against Nature must lead to his own doom… Here we encounter the objection [that] ‘Man’s role is to overcome Nature!’… But Man has never yet conquered Nature in anything, but at most has caught hold of and tried to lift one corner or another of her immense gigantic veil of eternal riddles and secrets, that in reality he invents nothing but only discovers everything, that he does not dominate Nature, but has only risen on the basis of his knowledge of various laws and secrets to be lord over those other living creatures who lack this knowledge (Vol. I, Chap. 11, Manheim trans., p. 287) >…It is Life alone that all things must serve. (Mein Kampf, Vol. I, Chap. 9, p. 215) And refer to >>14031 and understand what I'm getting at.
>>14072 >Literally every scholar, atheist or otherwise, today affirms that Jesus, at minimum, was a historical figure. How do you think this is an coherent argument? Also who cares? They are all idiotic liars anyway who only have Abrahamic mindsets (Atheist viewing all religions as the same as christianity for example). Either cough the evidence or admit it can only be a personal belief of his existence. If he existed he definitely wasn't of divine nature of anything. >Words have meanings. They do, and you fail to comprehend them. A God that does thing out of his own will or what he desires and not by what knows is for the best is nihilism. I explained this in my previous post, but funny enough you skimmed through that as well. >God could have made the world however He wanted to, >God could have made the world however He wanted to, and he explicitly chose to make it orderly, purposeful, rational and law-abiding. Your God is most certainly not that at all, because he was dumb enough to not see how Satan was going to corrupt and take humanity away from according to the bible. So much for all-knowing eh? >Jews have no power. They are not chosen. Says a Jew worshipper. They are chosen according to Yahweh, nothing you've said other than christian cope has proven the OT wrong. >Adam made a free-will choice to disobey God. Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Again God should of know that humanity would betray him and done everything he could to prevent the apple from being eaten. If he loved humanity he would of known of this betrayal and prevented. Also funny that you think that humanity's free-will matters over morality. Just more inconsistencies. >I know he's not lol. Then call him Yahweh and not God. >Muh jesus in the OT The OT talks of a messiah, but that messiah was never recognized to be directly Jesus nor to be similar to him. >muh not reading the bible What makes you think this matters? The pope read the bible and yet he's still a corrupt degenerate as for all the other priests.
>>14071 >This is your art on Christian Anti-life ideology It's a beautiful icon, showing monks on the ascent towards deification. Some endure in the struggle to climb the 'ladder', others fall and stumble down on the way. > Yahweh is the supposedly all powerful, so all evil that exists in his universe is of his own creation God didn't create evil. In fact evil doesn't even have any substantial existence. It is the privation of the good. >I agree with you, but your religion doesn't. Yahweh could end this world at any moment. All of your hopes, your dreams, your family and friends, everything you know is just part of yahweh's arbitrary selection process for his favorite playthings. He exists on an eternal timescale. You and your world mean nothing to him in the face of eternity. If the world were an illusion, it would be like a shimmering mirage that one sees in the desert, and then one mistakes it for an oasis, when in reality it doesn't even exist at all. This is not Christian. This is Hindu shit. The world is real. Just because it is the creation of God and under His power does not mean that it doesn't exist except in an illusionary sense. >>14072 >You do realize that your own argument is quite literally arguing that humanity can never be naturally good or civilized right? Humans aren't naturally good. Not sure what you mean by civilized - do you mean cucked and domesticated by centralized technocracies like today? I don't hold pozzed Enlightenment era views that humans are naturally good and it is only the result of 'backwards' social systems and lack of education (etc.) that is keeping humanity from realizing its true potential. Human nature is corrupt, we have been alienated from God, and we can become reconciled with God through Jesus Christ and partake in the divine nature. >Race defies one's nature, men act according to their blood and spirit. Humans are not completely biologically determined. >We never were masters nor greater than it and we can clearly see that it is true when you look at the state of humanity today. It's almost like humanity is fallen... > Therefore they can be seen as righteous by law, if the law obeys and heeds the word of God Doing the law doesn't bring righteousness. Even the least educated of Christians on this planet knows that. Also these quotes on natural law aren't some sort of gotcha, not even the earliest Church Fathers thought that all pagans were totally in the dark and in ignorance, through philosophy they got some things right, other things wrong.
(120.85 KB 1200x733 EYfJiRRXgAA6l-L.jpg)
You cannot call yourself a National Socialist, Aryan, nor White man proper if you worship a religion that is not from your blood. Christians have been willingly mixed with ethnic jews before and now, because they saw no distinction between a White christian and former jews. Never has there been an exception that White Catholics were to deny hospitality or a home to someone outside our race. Your never counter-argued that christianity is against mixing of bloods and still try to call yourself a National Socialist. There is nothing more foolish than unironically adopting the ways of your racial enemies and then worshipping one of them. It's literal cuckoldry.
>>14082 >Humans aren't naturally good. You mean non-Whites are not naturally good right? When I say humans I mean Aryans, because they are indeed of good-will and nature as said by Plato and others. If we not good by nature, then it contradicts natural law. This is not say that we are always good, most of us are likely to be when things are done as they are meant. >Humans are not completely biologically determined. Again you're proving that you are either a shill or Jew. We are spiritually and biologically qualify to what can be seen as good-natured. The only way you can override that is by grooming an Aryan's spirit to corruption which kikes are still doing now. >It's almost like humanity is fallen... Humanity has fallen when we've forced to obey and subverted under Yahweh's command and demons like him. Note that humanity has only gotten worse under Abrahamic influences. >Doing the law doesn't bring righteousness. Even the least educated of Christians on this planet knows that. But that's not the case for Constantine and Charles Martel who were revered as righteous saints. Men who created laws to forbid and destroy paganism in the name of Yahweh. >Also these quotes on natural law aren't some sort of gotcha, not even the earliest Church Fathers thought that all pagans were totally in the dark and in ignorance, through philosophy they got some things right, other things wrong. Man you're stupid and a waste of time. If they are wrong, then you would of debunked them. I posted quotes from Cicero, Aristotle, and Hitler describing natural law, while you're just handpicking a punch of biblical quotes that cannot decipher what it truly means outside of just "don't do what I consider to be degenerate". If the early Church fathers did not see pagans as demonic and ignorant heathens, then they would of not forced converted them to accept a non-White as their savior. >>14084 Agree.
>>14084 Jews have copied a lot of elements recognized by Aryan blood so their mind-poison is easier accepted by White people, which is exactly what makes christcuckery so insidious and perhaps worse than many other memetic viruses designed by the tribe. It appeals to certain myths, then superimposes a Jew and his satanic god over them, where a supposedly spiritual religion comes down to figuratively eating the flesh of a dead rabbi and groveling in front of the resurrected Jewish messiah, all while abandoning your own ancestral gods and accepting universalist slave morality. You are "fallen" and thus must act like the goodest goy conceivable in order to be "saved" (Christian god is practically saving people from himself, as schizophrenic as that may be), and even in that case you will 99% go to hell anyway.
>>14074 >Either cough the evidence or admit it can only be a personal belief of his existence. We have multiple independent sources for the existence of Jesus, including the gospels and the letters of Paul most prominently. And Paul is very clear that Jesus did indeed have a human nature. Outside of this we have mentions by people like Mara bar-Serapion within a few decades of Jesus' crucifixion. We have two mentions in Josephus - one of which has most likely been tampered with to an unknown extent, and another one which is considered to be beyond doubt that refers to James, the brother of Jesus, and Jesus himself. And multiple Roman sources in the early first century and beyond. Before it is mentioned, the dating of the Gospels themselves as being post-70 AD is based on the single claim of Jesus in the Gospels that the Jewish temple would be destroyed. Atheistic scholars cannot accept the possibility that anyone would be able to predict the destruction of the temple, so they say that the Gospels must postdate 70 AD. There's plenty of evidence that Jesus at bare minimum was an actual human being. >If he existed he definitely wasn't of divine nature of anything. It comes down to whether he was actually resurrected or not. Any hypothesis concerning what happened to Jesus must be able to explain the following four facts: >Jesus’ burial >the discovery of his empty tomb >his postmortem appearances >the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. For his burial, we have four independent sources which say that Joseph of Arimathea put the body of Jesus in a tomb after his crucifixion. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and thus part of the council that condemned Jesus, and is thus unlikely to be a Christian invention. Many scholars such as John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University and Raymond Brown agree on this matter. Six early sources also directly or indirectly attest that Jesus' tomb was found empty. This includes the four Gospels, Acts (2:29-32, 13:36-37), implied in 1 Corinthians 15:4, etc. If this were fake, the Jewish leaders would have likely taken his body and shown it to the Christians after people started proclaiming that he was risen in order to stop the movement. And then there are the postmortem experiences of Jesus that people had, both enemy and friend alike. These are reported in several independent sources, including the Gospels, letters of Paul and in Acts. Even skeptical scholars like Gerd Lüdemann will admit that "“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”, as he wrote in his book What Really Happened to Jesus? And we also have to explain why the disciples began to believe that Jesus rose in the first place. The mainstream Jews of the time had no idea of a Messiah who would die and be executed by the Romans. The Messiah in the views of many Jews was supposed to destroy the enemies of the Jews and bring about a kingdom on Earth. On top of this, the Jewish worldview precluded the idea of anyone rising up to glory and immortality before the end of the world, yet they began to claim that Jesus had done it, and risked their lives in defense of this belief, many of his disciples dying horrific deaths at the hands of the Jews to proclaim this. The resurrection simply has the greatest explanatory scope and power of any other hypothesis such as the swoon hypothesis, or the substitution hypothesis, or the stolen body or anything similar. None of the other theories can adequately explain the rise of Christianity. >Your God is most certainly not that at all, because he was dumb enough to not see how Satan was going to corrupt and take humanity away from according to the bible. So much for all-knowing eh? Adam did that on his own free will. >but that messiah was never recognized to be directly Jesus nor to be similar to him. Read Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Micah 5:2 (cf. Matthew 2:1, 6), Zechariah 12:10, Daniel 7:9-28, etc. The Angel of the Lord that appears all over the Old Testament refers to Jesus as well. The term 'angel' merely means 'messenger', and is referred to as divine in Genesis 16. Nearly a third of the appearances of angels in the OT have been interpreted to refer to Christophanies.
>>14085 >You mean non-Whites are not naturally good right? When I say humans I mean Aryans If you think Whites are naturally good by virtue of being White you are deluded. >Note that humanity has only gotten worse under Abrahamic influences. Funny how as soon as Christianity is subverted in the West the entire society turns into a degenerate godless technocratic hellworld. And even the so-called 'Abrahamic' religions founded by false prophets like Muhammad still lead to less degenerate societies than the modern West. > Men who created laws to forbid and destroy paganism in the name of Yahweh. <not muh heckin devil worship! >If they are wrong, then you would of debunked them Cicero and Aristotle weren't really that wrong, I don't know why you think I should debunk them.
>>14082 >It's a beautiful icon >beautiful You have to be joking. Look at the muted colors, the lack of depth, the bloated faces and the unproportional figures and tell me it is beautiful. An ugly painting fit for an ugly ideology. >God didn't create evil. In fact evil doesn't even have any substantial existence. It is the privation of the good. Our universe is a collection of complimentary opposites, life and death, good and evil, black and White. Christianity denies this because it's ultimate good, Yahweh, refuses to annihilate evil. If he was truly good. He would wipe all evil from the face of the earth. But he doesn't. Why? It is because a god like the one you speak of cannot and does not exist. Good or evil controlling the world completely is just death. It is a world in stagnation. But our world is in constant movement, so your god cannot exist. This is also the reason the Christian timeline of the world cannot happen, because it has a beginning and an end. The end of a Christian world is like an atheistic end of the world, in that there is no more movement of anything, only eternal void or golden box. >If the world were an illusion, it would be like a shimmering mirage that one sees in the desert, and then one mistakes it for an oasis, when in reality it doesn't even exist at all. This is not Christian. This is Hindu shit. The world is real. Just because it is the creation of God and under His power does not mean that it doesn't exist except in an illusionary sense. I agree that it is real. What I am saying is in Christianity the physical world doesn't matter because it is sandwiched between two eternities.
>>14097 >>14082 Can you make the next post in the Anti-Abrahamism thread so that we could continue this there?
>>14093 >Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and thus part of the council that condemned Jesus, and is thus unlikely to be a Christian invention You are woefully naive if you think that one excludes another. >None of the other theories can adequately explain the rise of Christianity Jews spread it among goyim in order to subvert them while immunizing their own from it. They used all sorts of tricks to convince gullible people in the supposed powers of Jesus but wanted to ensure that their own people don't fall for the scam, so they "attacked" it. They never tried to prevent it from spreading among the gentiles, on the contrary, they were massively encouraging it.
>>14093 >We have multiple independent sources for the existence of Jesus, No we don't and funny enough you haven't sourced them. All references have no concrete proof of his existence and that he was indeed an actual messiah. You were arguing in the anti-Abrahamic thread and got BTFO'd on the accounts that the references to Jesus were not direct nor confirmed at all. >>Jesus’ burial >>the discovery of his empty tomb Which is BS, Jesus' was either eaten or there was never a corpse to begin with and the Jews lied about there being a messiah. Or they just thrown out that some random corpse was him to give themselves some credibility. Again you're not arguing coherently, only want you want to believe. >>his postmortem appearances That's not proof. Why weren't there descriptions of his face during the time that he was said to be alive? Why is it only afterwards that we see descriptions of his face? For someone to be so divine and controversial, he is never directly referenced. >Adam did that on his own free will. Adam disobeyed Yahweh and your God was foolish enough to allow him to do it. Again funny that you and Yahweh find free-will to be more important than morality. >If you think Whites are naturally good by virtue of being White you are deluded. If you think worshipping your enemies will make you virtuous then you are delusional. If this is your belief, then you have no reason to be here. Otherwise you're just a worthless shill and are as annoying as fascfist. >Funny how as soon as Christianity is subverted in the West the entire society turns into a degenerate godless technocratic hellworld No, this is the fault of your church and their corruption. Subversion happened because your faith unironically thought it was a good idea to allow the le chosenites join your respective sects, and now look at the state of the world and Europe today. We have jews claiming to White christians and you fools are completely accepting of this and you've yet to deny that this is a bad idea, despite your supposed hatred of them. If you cannot distinct us between the jew, then you're no better than the long noses you claim to detest. > 'Abrahamic' religions founded by false prophets like Muhammad still lead to less degenerate societies than the modern West. Lies, Islam has it's own degeneracy with dysgenic practices such as constant inbreeding, accepting of trannies, sultans molesting male children, and some cases of bestiality. Hell Western muslims themselves are becoming massive degenerates as they incorporate Judeo degeneracy into their nations as the West does. Abrahamics are not immune to faggotry and we have tons of webms and pictures to prove that, I'm sure you've seen them. <not muh heckin devil worship! Back to nu/pol/ cuck, Pagans worshipped natural law/the cosmic order, aka the people who taught you everything that you stole from philosophy to law. You've literally taken ideas from le devil worshippers and are a hypocrite. Confirmed Jew with this statement. >Cicero and Aristotle weren't really that wrong, I don't know why you think I should debunk them. I'm not asking you to debunk them, but me and that x-tians support true natural law. Learn to read.
Nigger
>>14103 You niggers are always rolling out the same critiques 24/7 but you never have to answer to any of your own beliefs because you don't actually have any foundational texts or written works worth analysing.
Also I have to say doing what this board does and over analysing religion, spirituality and expansive periods of human history in such an autistic narrow minded way leaving no opportunity for speculation, different interpretations or well mannered debate has to be the most Reddit, fedora hatted nihilist garbage. If people spent anywhere near this amount of time in some form of self reflection or scholarship we'd probably be running an expansive space faring empire. Religion and true belief isn't some tool you wield like a magic wand to get what you want. If your God is above man you don't have to explain the rational for every minute insignificant thing that makes you upset.
>>14097 >If he was truly good. He would wipe all evil from the face of the earth You are acting like there is something logically incompatible with God permitting for a time any sort of 'evil', especially when God promises, in time, to bring about an infinitely greater good. This is why the problem of evil falls flat. >What I am saying is in Christianity the physical world doesn't matter because it is sandwiched between two eternities. It clearly matters because salvation depends on how one uses this life. It is extremely important, every action done here. >>14100 >Jews spread it among goyim in order to subvert them while immunizing their own from it Yet some of the earliest disciples of Jesus were killed by the Jews in the most brutal ways imaginable. Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews and James, brother of Jesus, was thrown from the Jewish temple and clubbed to death. Even Paul went around persecuting the early Christians and trying to destroy the Church until he had his conversion experience. Your conspiracy narrative fails due to the fact that the scriptures always foretold that non-Jews would join the people of God and that Jesus would come to them. If anything the Jews wanted to prevent the spread of the Gospel to the goyim because they thought themselves as 'chosen' in a way that they were not. Even Paul alludes to this in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. >They never tried to prevent it from spreading among the gentiles, on the contrary, they were massively encouraging it. Yet the apostles carried the message to both Jewish and gentiles outside of Judaea, and numbers of Jews did accept the Gospel. >>14103 >No we don't The Gospels are independently written sources, as are the mention(s) in Josephus' book, the epistles of the New Testament, the letter from Mara bar-Serapion, the early 2nd century mentions by Roman historians, etc. There's a very strong case of at minimum a main named Jesus who preached and was crucified in 1st century Judea by Pontius Pilate. >All references have no concrete proof of his existence I hope you are aware that for many figures of note in the world we have no real concrete / physical proof of their existences, yet there is very good reason to believe such figures existed due to writings about them and other information we have access to. >and that he was indeed an actual messiah The scriptures speak for themselves here. >Again you're not arguing coherently, only want you want to believe. It sounds like you don't want to believe, given the nonsense you are spouting about everyone lying and people eating decomposing corpses top kek. >Adam disobeyed Yahweh and your God was foolish enough to allow him to do it. What part of 'free will' do you not understand? >We have jews claiming to White christians and you fools are completely accepting of this Judge them by their fruits. > Abrahamics are not immune to faggotry and we have tons of webms and pictures to prove that, I'm sure you've seen them. They are heretics who are directly rebuked in scripture and we are told to drive them out of our churches (1 Corinthians 5:11-13). Not worth addressing. >Back to nu/pol/ cuck Your 'gods' engage in debauchery, crossdressing, bestiality, homosexuality and other abominable practices. They are demons. Jeremiah 10:11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. Amen.
>>14132 >Your 'gods' engage in debauchery, crossdressing, bestiality, homosexuality and other abominable practices. They are demons. Your shitty religion has been doing this shit for centuries, only that they cover it up via priest molesting children. Also we've debunk the transexuality, bestiality, and homoshit as lies from liberal academia. Your religion is for low-IQ cuckolds who do not know what tradition or spirituality actually is, only that you must LARP as jews and lie as they do, which is what you're doing, shitting on White people's bloodline. Kill yourself and fuck your hippie kike he deserved his death and priest deserved to be hanged. The jews were based for killing him and I don't mind them killing you as well. >muh bibile! >muh they're not doing what i want! Cope more. Your faith is as much as joke as you are. You can't even argue without sperging out.
>>14111 >You niggers are always rolling out the same critiques 24/7 but you never have to answer to any of your own beliefs >Whataboutism We answer to them all the time, you're just too retarded to understand our own as well as yours. We don't worship le demons, you're just mind-controlled by kikes. >Also I have to say doing what this board does and over analysing religion, spirituality and expansive periods of human history in such an autistic narrow minded way leaving no opportunity for speculation, different interpretations or well mannered debate has to be the most Reddit, fedora hatted nihilist garbage. <Everything that does not agree with christcucks is nilhism, le reddit and fedora Shut up. You losers are no different from atheists anyway.
pic related
>>14132 >Your 'gods' engage in debauchery, crossdressing, bestiality, homosexuality and other abominable practices. They are demons. You say this as if your LARP jewry does not suffer from demonic shit. Also we've proven this wrong numerous times. But of course you will support globohomo to endorse christcuckery as less degenerate or something. https://thuleanperspective.com/2020/06/26/gender-homosexuality-in-norse-culture/ Your bible still does not prevent things like pic related from happening.
Atheism should be the belief for non-Whites because "spiritual" beliefs being held by one of "them" is hilarious. It's like a monkey who thinks he's an astronaut. It's fun to point and laugh at these monkeys who think they've been "blessed" by a "God" who gives a damn about them in the first place, lol. The non-Whites think one-dimensionally. The Whites can believe in any religion (apart from christianity, pooinduism and pizzlam) that has their interests at hand and their spirituality awakened. White men need to move to the next level already.
>>14138 Why is it that the most christian areas and most christian countries are the least pozzed by far? The countries that became less christian like sweden and UK became more anti White and pro gay faster than anyone else? Might as well say facism is a bad ideology and show pictures of magatards and the alt kike.
>>14132 >Yet some of the earliest disciples of Jesus were killed by the Jews in the most brutal ways imaginable. >Even Paul went around persecuting the early Christians and trying to destroy the Church until he had his conversion experience They killed Christians because they were ruining their optics and bringing the wrath of Romans upon them. They also wanted to stop the conversion of other Jews because they would likely cease to exist as a nation had they accepted it. This is where most of the hostility of Jews towards Jesus comes from. Yehoshua originally preached only to them (his own people), it was only later that they tried to include goyim due to the lack of followers, and then, subversives like Saul had their "conversion experiences" upon realizing that it can be a good weapon against non-Jews. That's when their agents began it's mass-proliferation. >Your conspiracy narrative fails due to the fact that the scriptures always foretold that non-Jews would join the people of God Why would you want to join the (((people of god))) anyway? Why choose a sand-demon over your racial gods? Christians are like those loser kids who constantly want to join the "cool kids club" (They secretly admire the Jews), but get angry every time they get rejected, used and bullied, so they have this kind of passive-aggressive attitude where they are trying to be greater Jews than the Jews themselves. And for 2 millenia they still didn't get the message that YHWH is not their god, and that Jews are not their people. >Every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth And amount of kneeling is going to change that. >Your 'gods' engage in debauchery, crossdressing, bestiality, homosexuality and other abominable practices Which ones specifically? You are aware that most of that is propaganda made by kikes and kike-wannabees in order to demonize White gods and replace them with their rabbi messiah?
>>14150 >Why is it that the most christian areas and most christian countries are the least pozzed by far? Because they aren't IP hopper, most christian countries have their share of faggotry, from Lebenon to South Korea. You're lying to yourself if you unironically think Christianity is immune to globohomo. The ones that aren't are likely zionists (Hungary). >The countries that became less christian like sweden and UK became more anti White and pro gay faster than anyone else? Nigger, America, the UK, Netherlands, and Korea used to be 90% Christian and that didn't stop it from becoming like it is today. Mexico and Brazil have the largest communities of zealots and yet they are still shitholes and are suffering from America's ideological groomings. Sweden is like it is today, because jew LARPers like yourself are so submissive to your opposers and were easily fooled into beliving that liberalism could be trad. X-tian spirituality has been proven throughout history to be a joke. You're coming close admitting that you are shill and unironically believe in religion over race. >Might as well say facism is a bad ideology and show pictures of magatards and the alt kike. Magatards and alt-righters aren't fascists, so I don't what point you're even trying to make here.
>>14153 Fug never mind I'm a IP hopper as well.
>>14135 >Your shitty religion has been doing this shit for centuries, only that they cover it up via priest molesting children I hope you realize that you are comparing the abominable actions of specific human beings (who are by nature fallen) to the actions of your own so-called 'gods'. The sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9) and if the Catholic Church was truly a church of God, they would drive out the evildoers from their ranks (1 Corinthians 5:13). > Also we've debunk the transexuality, bestiality, and homoshit as lies from liberal academia Thor dresses like a woman in the Þrymskviða. Loki has sex with the horse Svaðilfari and it gives birth to Sleipnir. This is basic stuff. Zeus transforms into a swan and rapes the woman Leda, there are many more stories where Zeus transforms into an animal to abduct or rape humans as well, men and women alike. Your gods are perverted and immoral demons and are worthy of no respect. >You can't even argue without sperging out. Ironic in light of the post you just typed out.
>>14132 >e independently written sources, as are the mention(s) in Josephus' book, Josephus does not mention Jesus at all within any of his works and it makes no sense for him to do so even if jesus did exist. We've already debunked this in the anti-Abrahamic thread. You're just repeating yourself at this point. Refer to >>8460 >I hope you are aware that for many figures of note in the world we have no real concrete / physical proof of their existences No they do not, again you're vague and not posting any sources. Just admit there is no concrete evidence to prove that he was ever real or divine. >The scriptures speak for themselves here. The scriptures are dumb and do not convince anyone but weaklings. >It sounds like you don't want to believe, It sounds like you're coping, I don't believe in human and have no reason to do so. I believe in Indra, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus, but I cannot find any reason to believe that someone guy was the son of a demiurge with no proof at all. Especially from a guy who has no relation to my or family's blood at all. >What part of 'free will' do you not understand? What part of inconsistency and bad logic do you not understand. I'm tired of repeating myself, stop being a negro. It makes no sense to have this epic war on the devil and then allow him to corrupt humanity, because you think it was more important from them to have free-will. >Judge them by their fruits. No, I judge them by their souls. These type of lines are what led to liberals sayings about how we should not judge those by their appearance and love rapefugees. >They are heretics who are directly rebuked in scripture >Le heretics You seem to not understand that your religion has failed to destroy degeneracy. I don't care what your stupid book says, look at the state of your religion today and try saying this again. Preaching scriptures do not work and never had. >Your 'gods' engage in debauchery, crossdressing, bestiality, homosexuality and other abominable practices. They are demons. Again outing yourself as a kike with these moronic statements. You lie and slander about the Gods, the Romans and Greeks did not accept degeneracy for they only recognize sex between a man and woman, for it was a core aspect of their religion. Any sayings of the gods being gay is because you fools lied about them and the liberals agreed and decided to become LARPagans. Pagans follow natural law and the cosmic order, something we taught jews, from stealing the works and ideas of Hellenic and Vedic philosophy. You still have no addressed the other things I've said, but I rather you not, because you are annoying and not comprehending any of what I'm saying to you.
(120.37 KB 968x408 jesus resurrection jew.jpg)
>>14152 >Why choose a sand-demon over your racial gods? God is not a 'sand-demon', and your 'racial gods' are demons. They are not good beings. They are beings that are born at a point in time, and are manifestly immoral in their behavior, which consists of raping and abducting human beings, having sex with animals (or having sex with women in the form of animal) and other degenerate actions. God fulfilled his prophecies. Pagans have no fulfilled prophecies or promises. >And for 2 millenia they still didn't get the message that YHWH is not their god, and that Jews are not their people. 'YHWH' is the God of all of humanity. The scriptures attest that all of humanity would in time be exposed to the message of God. In Genesis 22, immediately after God's testing of Abraham regarding the near-sacrifice of his son Isaac (prefiguring the crucifixion of Christ), God says that 'through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed'. Who is it who comes from the offspring of Abraham? Jesus Christ. Other verses saying things such as this can be found in the scriptures: Isaiah 56:3 <Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will utterly exclude me from His people.” 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 49:5-6 <And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, that Israel might be gathered to Him—for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and My God is My strength—He says: “It is not enough for You to be My Servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the protected ones of Israel. I will also make You a light for the nations, to bring My salvation to the ends of the earth. A light for the nations? Who does this remind us of? Jesus Christ. John 8:12 < “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” The Jews were rejected as the exclusive people of God in the New Testament. Read Matthew 21:33-46: >"Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” >"Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing,and it is marvelous in our eyes" >"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him." >"When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet. Also Matthew 22:1-14. And with the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus says that 'I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith'. The Jews lost their status, the Jews killed Christ, and the Jesus rose again and said to baptize all nations in the name of the Holy Trinity.
>>14155 >I hope you realize that you are comparing the abominable actions of specific human beings No I'm giving you proof that your spirituality and scriptures are a joke and you haven't proven me wrong. The way you argue is why leftists easily win debates against you and make christniggers look like morons. >muh quotes Don't care prove, thus christcuck fails to stop pozz. >Thor dresses like a woman in the Þrymskviða. No he doesn't read >>14143's link, if you want to take this as truth, then I will accept that Jesus had orgies with his followers as written by a jew. You're doing what anon said, supporting globohomo lies lol. Jesus was a faggot if we should believe the lies of jews. >Ironic in light of the post you just typed out. Ironic? In what way? You're just that annoying.
(94.19 KB 640x920 Ah men.jpg)
(15.52 KB 654x235 Jesus was pansexual.PNG)
>>14158 >Jesus was gey If anon is going to take what leftists say about Thor, then we should take what they say about jesus being a independent brown homosexual socialist, as a fact as well.
>>14153 >Because they aren't "no u" isnt an argument. I never claimed them to be immune, just that theyre better off than ones that cast it away. infact removing/attacking christianity is usually the first step of a country/society becoming completely pozzed. just look at sweden, uk, france compared to italy. and notice the parts of italy that are getting pozzed are the least christian. The only example you can pull to demonize Christianty are non-White countries. And one you cant seem to seperate their jewish media with their people. Even within burgerland the more christian an area is, the less pozzed it is. compare cities to rural.
>>14161 >no u" isnt an argument I didn't say no you retard. I gave a counter response. > just that theyre better off than ones that cast it away. Yeah and you're still wrong and there does exist a country that you claim to be less pozz. Jews have taken over every Christian country in the world. >just look at sweden, uk, france compared to italy. <compare muh countries Italy is a secular nation and has LGBT shit, and the Vactian city is corrupt af. Italy isn't any better, because birth rates are low and they are as religious as the Mafia gangs in Chicago. >The only example you can pull to demonize Christianty are non-White countries. I did not, I referred to Europe as well. Can you not read for anything or get at what I'm saying nigger? There are no trad christian nations or any of the ones that aren't controlled by jews, hell most Abrahamic nations are either gay or apart of ZOG's control. Also stop samefagging.
>>14156 >Josephus does not mention Jesus at all within any of his works Laughable claim. It's common knowledge that in the 20th book and 9th chapter of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that he mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." This mention is universally recognized as being authentic by New Testament scholars. There is another mention of Jesus in Josephus, but there is more controversy around it due to how it seems to laud Jesus and make Josephus look almost pro-Christian. New Testament scholars like Bart Ehrman argue that there was very likely an original reference to Jesus of a more neutral tone that was interpolated at some later point. >The scriptures are dumb and do not convince anyone but weaklings. Stellar argument. >I believe in Indra, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus They are real, and they are demons. Zeus raped women in the form of animals and abducted beautiful boys and women to serve him on Olympus. How holy, such an example! > It makes no sense to have this epic war on the devil and then allow him to corrupt humanity, because you think it was more important from them to have free-will. God could have made automatons if He so chose, but He didn't. He created beings in the image of God with the ability to choose to accept God or to reject God. With the sins of the first humans, we entered a fallen state, and God, through his boundless love for us, eventually sent his Son as a means of reconciliation, and to suffer along with His own creations, and to die on the cross for our sins. >Especially from a guy who has no relation to my or family's blood at all. You shouldn't care about his origin, but rather the fact that if I am right, he is God. Jesus has a divine nature and a created human nature. He was born in the bloodline that he was due to the promise made by God to Abraham in Genesis 22. >You seem to not understand that your religion has failed to destroy degeneracy The question is the truth of Christianity, not whether it meets your political opinions. >You lie and slander about the Gods I didn't make it up. > the Romans and Greeks did not accept degeneracy for they only recognize sex between a man and woman, for it was a core aspect of their religion. Easily refuted lies. There are numerous examples of Roman emperors marrying young boys and castrating them like Nero did with his slave Sporus. Nero also married a man named Pythagoras and played the role of the bride himself. This is the same BASED Nero who persecuted Christians too. Gee I wonder why? The Roman state also recognized goddesses like Cybele as licit within their state, and thereby supported the eunuch / tranny priesthood of Galli. Greeks were pederasts too. Anyone who has read the Symposium and similar works is aware of this. Even Romans like Cicero included talk of 'beautiful boys' (epheboi) and their admirers in his dialogue 'On the Nature of the Gods'.
>>14158 >I'm giving you proof that your spirituality and scriptures are a joke and you haven't proven me wrong Nothing to even argue here - pedophiles in the Vatican have nothing to do with the Christianity I associate myself with. These people are severely astray and I hope they receive punishment for it in this life or the next. >then I will accept that Jesus had orgies with his followers as written by a jew. Notice how you can't even deny that your demons engage in bestiality, rape, abductions of 'beautiful boys' and other sick practices. Thor and Loki literally dress as women. Doesn't mean they're homosexuals, but they sure are degenerate for doing so. Loki is definitely into fucking animals though. If Loki hadn't fucked that horse, Odin wouldn't have a steed!
>>14164 >Laughable claim It's common knowledge that in the 20th book and 9th chapter of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that he mentions "the brother of Jesus If you read my link, you would know that it proves why Josephus has never written any accounts of a messiah by the name of Christ or James. Likely case of your claims that he was mention is probably, because the church edited Josephus' works. >There is another mention of Jesus in Josephus, but there is more controversy around it due to how it seems to laud Jesus and make Josephus look almost pro-Christian Why would a jew be pro-christian? This claim is actually laughable. >Stellar argument. Funny coming from you, someone who only knows how to preach and spouse nonsense. Most of your post have prove nothing other than they you are a weakling who merely believes in Jesus and nothing else. I asked for proof you give nothing back, but scriptures and quotes. >They are real, and they are demons. They are real and they are Gods, Yahweh is the demon here. The gnostics even knew he was a malevolent and evil deity who was jealous and fearful that humanity would learn his true nature, thus the Catholics slaughtered them to the last man. Also stellar argument, you continue to slander the gods and continue to say nothing of the truth. Quite pathetic you are. Although I shouldn't expect anything from a man who worships a demon and his son loves to get gangbanged by his followers. >God could have made automatons if He so chose, but He didn't. In other words he is either a blind idiot or not the demiurge at all. Also this is a cute way to admit you do not why he makes his decisions. Everything comes within reason, but this cannot be describe outside of "free-will". >You shouldn't care about his origin, That's three strikes, you should be banned. Your views are the same as the cuckold christians who denounce White identity and the leftists who hate Whites. His identity does matter, for those who relate to us are the ones to benefit us and bring us enlightenment. The Buddha, Zarathustra, Plato, etc prove otherwise that this sandnigger was not needed in any way or form. He is a jew and he serves us no benefits for I've seen none he has brought other than death and oppression amongst native Whites. >The question is the truth of Christianity If that's the case your religion would not suffer from faggotry. And you would be not be as dumb as an rock. Again stellar argument. Truly proving the worth of Christianity here. >I didn't make it up. Stellar argument again, you slander and provide no sources, but I already know you're going to try to take it from some lefty site to endorse your argument, which will say a-lot about you and how jew worshippers can only be liars. >There are numerous examples of Roman emperors marrying young boys and castrating them like Nero did with his slave Sporus. First of all, these accounts are biased, Roman historians and writers were infamous for making stuff about those they've disagreed with on purpose to rid of them and prove that they've ruined their spirituality. This is proof enough that being a homosexual would forbade and discount anything you say within the state, because you lack piety. This is the same case for Hadrian who has also lacked any solid proof that he was a homosexual as well, although if true, it proves how a gay man can do better to destroying the jews better than their supposed reformers lol. Secondly, you praise Constantine a degenerate jew who slept with whores and didn't stop being a degenerate even after his conversion. It still should not neglect that if all what you said were true, then it means that a degenerate empire was more stable than one under the slavery of jew-worshippers.
>>14166 >Nothing to even argue here - pedophiles in the Vatican have nothing to do with the Christianity <The holy order that is declared to be the voice and hearings of god, allowing child rape has nothing to do with christianity Do you suffer from brain-rot? >These people are severely astray They astray and your faith allows it. Again it proves that your spirituality is a joke. >Notice how you can't even deny that your demons engage in bestiality, rape, abductions of 'beautiful boys' and other sick practices I did, I just gave you a link, again you are an idiot and you haven't brought any counter-proof that I am wrong. Jesus is a faggot by your logic.
>>14132 >You are acting like there is something logically incompatible with God permitting for a time any sort of 'evil' Yes, there is a problem because your god is the ABSOLUTE good, therefore he should seek to overpower and destroy all evil. You seem to misunderstand how fundamental struggle is to the universe. >especially when God promises, in time, to bring about an infinitely greater good. Your "infinitely greater good" is just golden box for eternity. This is no different from the Talmudic Utopia the Jews think they were promised. Both are static existences with no struggle and no change. YOUR AFTERLIFE IS INFINITE DEATH. >It clearly matters because salvation depends on how one uses this life. It is extremely important, every action done here. No it doesn't, because either outcome is infinite box. Your soul cannot comprehend eternity. It is finite and will one day cease to exist and will become something new. Nothing is eternal.
>>14164 >You shouldn't care about his origin This is the dumbest fucking thing I've read today. Christ couldn't even give you the gift of having enough braincells in that empty smooth brain of yours. And I agree with anon that you should be banned for being an egalitarian faggot. And you wonder why you're called cucks. News flash, this line of thinking is the reason why ashkenazis exist and how your churches has been subverted. If you do not care for the origins of your neighbor or those you worship, then you might as well start sucking nigger toes as well.
(102.58 KB 1024x678 1631602347295-0.jpg)
(184.13 KB 1400x787 1631602347295-1.jpg)
(608.95 KB 2560x1700 1631602347295-2.jpg)
(3.88 MB 7360x4912 1631602347295-3.jpg)
>>14171 >your god is the ABSOLUTE good, therefore he should seek to overpower and destroy all evil. >I know what's best. >evil is objective in all cases That is the mantra of your enemy. Seriously, this is entry level theology questions right here. Earth isnt a paradise you know. Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of free will? Or why the devil exists? >>14163 >Hungary is my example of a pozzed country >south korea is in europe. if we're going to put arguments in others mouths, i should start here. Lets compare russia, italy, hungary to sweden, france, uk. Can you name a secular country that isnt pozzed to shit? Most of italy, hungary, and russia arent pozzed.
>>14174 >Most of italy, hungary, and russia arent pozzed Why are you lying? Russia is a zionist with gays running around freely, and the mudslimes are overtaking christcucks by overpopulating, Italy is what anon said here >>14163, homosexuality has been legal since the 1890s, and hungary, again a zionist country that still has homosexual activities legalized. You're just as retarded as the other guy. Man Christcuckery truly is for the weak and pathetic!
(4.60 KB 551x93 Good goy Putin.PNG)
(10.85 KB 426x329 Hungary.PNG)
(8.98 KB 467x309 Italy.PNG)
B-based C-christian countries?
(12.12 KB 880x150 Same sex marriage in Italy.PNG)
Nooooo, muh based Italy!!! So trad, so Catholic!!!
>>14157 >God is not a 'sand-demon', and your 'racial gods' are demons. Ah, I see, so you are a Jew. Why not discuss your tribal religion instead of it's "new age" version then? >They are beings that are born at a point in time They are beings who have earned their godhood, much more worthy of praise than your parasitical sky kike. >They are beings that are born at a point in time, and are manifestly immoral in their behavior, which consists of raping and abducting human beings, having sex with animals (or having sex with women in the form of animal) and other degenerate actions. As the other anon wrote, we can then conclude that Jesus was a homosexual necrophiliac who got ritually eaten by his followers because such ideas come from the same kitchen. >'YHWH' is the God of all of humanity Not mine lmao. >Who is it who comes from the offspring of Abraham? The same Abraham who fucked his own sister and pimped her to foreign rulers so that he can jew them and take their wealth later? Such a noble and exemplary figure. >I will also make You a light for the nations, to bring My salvation to the ends of the earth In those quotes the sand-demon is practically commanding the Jews to enslave all other nations in his name >Read Matthew <Matisyahu is an Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation of a Biblical Hebrew name (מתתיהו – Mattithyahu; Israeli Hebrew pronunciation: Matityahu; Greek: Mattathias/ Matthaios, meaning "Gift of God"), the name of the 2nd-century BC Jewish leader of the Maccabees' revolt. Matisyahu (/ˌmɑːtɪsˈjɑːhuː/; מתּתיהו‎, "Gift of Yahu", a Hebrew name of God) Why should I take anything written by a bunch of kikes as true? As I wrote, the New Testament was written to subvert the goyim, that's why the sudden acceptance.
>>14167 >Why would a jew be pro-christian? This claim is actually laughable. That is what I am saying, one of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus' work is largely believed to have been edited to an extent. >They are real and they are Gods Beings who engage in the behavior of your so-called 'gods' are not divine. >Yahweh is the demon here <n-no you! >In other words he is either a blind idiot or not the demiurge at all. Also this is a cute way to admit you do not why he makes his decisions. I'm not sure why the concept of having a free will is so hard to understand. Sorry that God didn't make you into a soulless automaton, anon. >That's three strikes, you should be banned Seems like someone is getting a bit uncomfortable that his pagan echo-chamber has finally been pierced. You reject Jesus Christ out of pride. No matter how much evidence, no matter how many arguments, no matter how many of your infantile claims about the Bible being some sort of Jewish supremacist work are given, you will reject them. I imagine if Jesus Christ appeared to you, you would still revile him for daring to incarnate as a man in 1st century Galilee. >Roman historians and writers were infamous for making stuff about those they've disagreed with Cope. >This is the same case for Hadrian who has also lacked any solid proof that he was a homosexual as well Massive cope. The guy had cities built and coins minted for his gay boyfriend >it proves how a gay man can do better to destroying the jews better than their supposed reformers lol. >BASED SODOMITES P.S. Hadrian destroying the Jewish temple fulfilled one of Jesus' prophecies, so thanks for that, I guess.
>>14169 >Do you suffer from brain-rot? Apparently you do, because you cut me off in mid-sentence in your quote. >>14171 >therefore he should seek to overpower and destroy all evil. You're presuming how God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, should act. >You seem to misunderstand how fundamental struggle is to the universe. Spiritual warfare and struggle is inherent to the Christian life. This has already been covered. >Your "infinitely greater good" is just golden box for eternity This just isn't true. The afterlife will be the entrance into a fundamentally new sort of existence. We will be raised in spiritual bodies of glory. What is sown perishable, is raised imperishable. It will be a fundamental metamorphosis of the human form (1 Corinthians 15:35-49) There will be a new heaven, and a new earth (Revelation 21:1-8). If you believe that the world to come is like sitting in a 'golden box' for eternity, you have been deceived.
>>14175 Youre using examples from the worst of city centers and (((legal systems))) to define a country. Again, lets compare this to athiest societies or societies that threw away christianity like the ones i mentioned. Care to name anything better? or are you just going to say nations with ~60% christians are bad, so a nation with 100% christianity would be worse? and 0% would be better? even though its pretty easily verifiable that the less christian a nation is the worse and more pozzed it is.
>>14179 >That is what I am saying, one of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus' work is largely believed to have been edited to an extent. No it isn't, also you can't read. I'm specifically stating that his works were edited for the churches favor. Mentions of a messiah named Christ are likely forgeries. >Beings who engage in the behavior of your so-called 'gods' are not divine. That's funny coming from someone who worships a literal cuck baby. Our gods are divine, I see nothing divine about a jew and you continue to prove nothing of it being the opposite. Shall I say, cope, cuckchanner? >n-no you. Stellar argument. How funny that you decided to skim over the rest of what I said. >I'm not sure why the concept of having a free will is so hard to understand. Sorry Free-will is not more important than the natural order >Sorry that God didn't make you into a soulless automaton, anon. I never said that god should of done, but it's retarded to not fight against your arch-rival, because of free-will. Free-will should of came with humanity being naturally good, the likely case is that Adam and Eve did not exist and the Gods gave mankind free-will as a way to test their worthiness to Godhood or divinity. >Seems like someone is getting a bit uncomfortable that his pagan echo-chamber has finally been pierced. Not at all, you said something incredibly anti-fascist and goes against National Socialism. I know you identify as one, because you were here shilling positive christianity, even though it failed, because you guys could not accept it. We cannot put false idols and religions over our blood and I called you out for endorsing the idea. >You reject Jesus Christ out of pride. I reject christ, because he is a fool and so are you. I will not accept someone who does not represent my bloodline. The Gods do, while a jew does not. The bible is Judaic supremacy in the sense that it wants the world to be in Abraham and Yahweh's image and destroying the concept of blood and race is one of their goals. The acceptance of gentiles does not negate this, no matter what your bible says. >Cope. Stellar argument, also this should be saying to (((You))). I gave an argument, once again you refuse to counter it. > The guy had cities built and coins minted for his gay boyfriend Says who? The coins themselves are mere claims and some of them are even fake. If he was gay, then a sodomite defeated you in dealing with the J-question. That's pretty humiliating. >P.S. Hadrian destroying the Jewish temple fulfilled one of Jesus' prophecies Did Jesus say that it was going to be pagans who destroyed your temples? Also Hadrian destroyed your temples as well, did Jesus' also prophecize this as well? You are a jew, and proved that christian and jew are no different from each other. It's time for you to go back to /pol/.
>>14180 >because you cut me off in mid-sentence in your quote. No I didn't, but thank you for answering my question honestly by proof of fact lol. >>14181 >Youre using examples from the worst of city centers and (((legal systems))) to define a country. What a lovely cope, but you could same for Sweden and most secular nations as well, because they are the same case. The rural areas are traditional, while the cities are corrupt. Also these are national laws that must be enforced within every province within Italy. Cope cope and more cope from the christniggers. >Again, lets compare this to athiest societies or societies that threw away christianity like the ones i mentioned. Care to name anything better? o Again you're missing the point you loser. Christcuck nations are no better than atheist shithole. You niggers allowed this shit to happened and so it happens. There is literally no less of a sense of loyalty for Jesus than for atheism or even Islam. Conversions are low and those who identify as one are either gay or hypocritical degenerates. Not even your faith is safe from seculars who constantly BTFO your traditions over and over again. Italy is at-least 80% Christian and the pozz is still protect by law. We got to countries that ban them, and they either do not exist or are only in small areas, but this is no different than how pagans keep out fags as well. We got to Mexico, Brazil or any other le based brown country? We still see pozz and a shithole. >or are you just going to say nations with ~60% christians are bad, so a nation with 100% christianity would be worse? and 0% would be better? Giga Chad yes.jpg, wouldn't even matter lol. Christfags gave a hand in allowing pozz run rampant and rarely anyone is stepping up against it. >muh book Cope more.
>>14183 Also you don't have the right to use ((())) when you are spiritually a jew retard.
>>14174 >That is the mantra of your enemy. Correct, it is your mantra, your belief. You are a Christian, after all. I believe that there is no absolute good or evil. You believe in an all powerful absolute good. >I know what's best. I doubt I know best, but I am sure I know better than you. >Earth isnt a paradise you know. I disagree. Also, shouldn't you be considering all of your god's work perfect, considering he's omnipotent and all? >>14180 >You're presuming how God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, should act. And so are you. How it it wrong for me to assume this but not wrong for you to assume that your desert asura gives half a damn about you? >Spiritual warfare and struggle is inherent to the Christian life. This has already been covered. You're going in circles, man. Is there a struggle between good and evil, or is Yahweh in ultimate power? >If you believe that the world to come is like sitting in a 'golden box' for eternity, you have been deceived. >(Revelation 21:1-8) Why don't we take a look at revelation 21: 1-8 <Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Oh, look. "no more death or mourning or crying or pain" sounds a lot like the total annihilation of evil. Life without evil is infinite stagnation. This is golden box. <5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” <6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” "To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life" is another example of the elimination of hardship. More golden box. "they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur' Now we have infinite burning in sulfur. Once again this is eternal stagnation, meaning that it is just another flavor of golden box.
>>14183 >sweden is just as bad as hungary >rural united states is just as bad as san fransisco >italy is just as bad as UK >Russia is just as bad as France EL OH EL >>14184 >dont use echos. There are 1000 sperging jews that agree with you here, as well as your position on christianity.
>>14185 >i believe the line of morality is blurry! OY VEY! >shouldn't you be considering all of your god's work perfect Let me elaborate. Earth isnt meant to be a paradise according to scriptures. That should help clear up the argument youre attempting to make. in Genesis adam and eve were cast out of the "garden" to be punished on earth. along with fallen angels and free will.
>>14186 >>sweden is just as bad as hungary Yes, it is a zionist country and likely will become gay in the end before or after Orban's death, you cannot read nor comprehend a point for shit. >>rural united states is just as bad as san fransisco Never said that, but again missing the point. Also rural United States have some pozz as well lol. >>Italy is just as bad as the UK Never said, although Italy is getting worse. The last guy right-wingers shilled cucked out for Israel and I think he stated he supported the LGBT. Things are only getting worse for every nation that worships JESAYUS. >Russia is just as bad as france If anything your reading levels are the same as a nigger. Again all of these countries are controlled by ZOG, but unfortunately /pol/tards cannot foresee the end result of what will happen in the near future, for all countries that worship kikes. They can only see what they think something is and then try to LARP on some dumb spiritual retardation that originate from Abraham. >There are 1000 sperging jews that agree with you here, as well as your position on christianity. Not at all, I support Aryanism. The jews are happy to have you as slaves, while I'm trying to get you out. Also this "W-WELL THE JEWS HATE US, SO YOU MUST BE A JEW!!" is retarded, because they only hate christians, because they're mostly White. Don't forget to dilate after you cope and seethe.
>>14187 >Earth isnt meant to be a paradise according to scriptures The scriptures are retarded and Earth was a paradise, but stop being one when you semites decided to write several books. The end.
>>14187 >i believe the line of morality is blurry! OY VEY! To clarify I meant that one doesn't hold power over the other, as opposed the Christian all powerful yahweh view. >Earth isnt meant to be a paradise according to scriptures. That should help clear up the argument youre attempting to make. in Genesis adam and eve were cast out of the "garden" to be punished on earth. along with fallen angels and free will. I get what you mean, but I disagree. I don't think earth is a punishment. It's too beautiful.
>>14188 >yes its just as bad >it will become bad make up your mind. >never said that rural US is much more christian >it has some pozz again you miss the point. i ask who is better off. youre looking for perfection but cant name a single place thats even better than real examples im giving. none of the places im mentioning are 100% christian, but just higher rates and much better results than when that number starts dropping. >italy has some pozz but not as bad as less christian nations >russia isnt as bad as france (but is significantly more christian yup. I don't hate you. i just have eyes and notice christian areas are much more better off than non christians. want to talk about quality of women? christian women are much better than athiest women and this is a very true blanket statement with few exceptions. even atheists i know irl that have absolutely no interest in christianity recognize this. few are even willing to fake faith just so they can find a decent woman and have a family but dont want to live a lie or deceive people. It's sad. >it was a paradise you missed the point. you said god "allows" evil and should destroy it. though the entire point was not to make a paradise but to allow free will. this is what people do with it and the result is something we perceive as evil. most evil and degeneracy we see in this world is a result of sin. >>14190 what god made (earth) i find objectively beautiful, but its not perfect as in a place to live. most of whats wrong with it especially today is the result of free will of people i think are evil. free will is a very complex idea many dont understand. the devil is a great deceiver. notice how most of the people ruining the world think theyre doing good? theyre emboldned by a false sense of "higher ground" oh you dont want your kids to be taught about gay anal sex in school? youre EVIL! They pull this shit constantly, but christians, even the NPC variety of them that blindly follow without reason are vaccinated against that kind of shit and are against that kind of stuff and speak out, even if they dont fully understand why homosexualty is bad. I live in rural united states. the only people that arent trans/faggot apologists are christian. thats consistent with my experiences. I think the devil is real and working with the Jews. I cant comprehend how such a mediocre race can become so influential and simultaneously detestable.
Funny to see /fascist/ BTFO so hard by third-rate apologetics
>>14206 >hehe I BTFO you!!! Stop IP hopping, because you were assblasted that Yahweh is confirmed to be a sandnigger deity.
>>14211 It’s amazing how fragile you are when anyone who comes into a thread, reads it and comments what he thinks, is instantly called an IP-hopper baselessly. Hilarious
>>14206 >Funny to see /fascist/ BTFO so hard by third-rate apologetics Apparently you can't read the thread or are asshurt that the mod deleted your pedo posting. Stay upset.
>>14191 >what god made (earth) i find objectively beautiful, but its not perfect as in a place to live. most of whats wrong with it especially today is the result of free will of people i think are evil. I don't understand what is wrong with evil people existing. If they didn't exist, what would our purpose be? >oh you dont want your kids to be taught about gay anal sex in school? youre EVIL! They pull this shit constantly, but christians, even the NPC variety of them that blindly follow without reason are vaccinated against that kind of shit and are against that kind of stuff and speak out, even if they dont fully understand why homosexualty is bad. All of the Christian I know support gay marriage. One of the issues of Christianity is that its followers focus on salvation more than anything else. So, if someone high up in the church or someone prominent in their community tells them that they need to do something to be worthy of salvation, they do it. Christianity does not have enough of a solid base of in--group preference to defend against something like bible verses about charity being interpreted as letting 3rd worlders flood into your country. They only way paganism could be countered by Jews was for it to be completely destroyed, and replaced by christianity. Christianity, on the other hand, seems to have been much easier to subvert, probably because of its universal doctrine and lack of any ethnic identity. Christianity is also a selfish religion, because all sacrifices are made in pursuit of salvation. For this reason, it is very easy to get a Christian to turn against his people by convincing him that his salvation will be found by doing so. Instead of working for the welfare of your people, you work for the favor of yahweh. Rural Christians also have no concept of race. They aren't exactly based. >I think the devil is real and working with the Jews. I cant comprehend how such a mediocre race can become so influential and simultaneously detestable. They have billions of people worshiping their god, including you. Yahweh loves the poor and lowly. This should be no surprise for you.
>>14191 >>yes its just as bad >it will become bad Listen shitskin, I said it will become worse, these countries are already bad and your stupid screenshot proves nothing at all, because America is facing worse issues and it is still way more religious than Northern Western Europe. Again you fail to read anything comprehensive. >rural US is much more christian Is there an argument here? Parts of rural America still have pozz. You're just proving my point about how Christian is dead as a rotten corpse. >again you miss the point. You made no point, and deflecting what I'm saying and how the issue presents itself here. No one said anything about perfection, but how these countries are cucking out and de-evolving into the same scenario that made places such as the UK a shithole. You are missing the point and proceed to ignore that zionists rule your le based countries. You're outing yourself as stupid right-winger. Now you continue to create more strawmans, because you cannot argue for anything. >you said god "allows" evil and should destroy it. though the entire point was not to make a paradise but to allow free will Again and you continue to miss the fucking point anons have said here. Also I said nothing about free-will that was the other guy. Free-will is not more important than morality. Your God is a literal retard for allowing Adam to eat the apple, because he wanted to kind towards humans. It's like saying the NSDAP should of allowed gays run around, because it was their free-will to either choose enlightenment or damnation and suffering. What we are saying here is that pointing an all-powerful and seeing god as a moral arbiter makes no sense whatsoever.
>>14182 >Mentions of a messiah named Christ are likely forgeries. You've exposed yourself as a massive retard right here. Josephus was writing in Greek. 'Messiah' is a word which means 'anointed'. The Greek word for anointed is... χριστός / Khristós (Christ). Jesus' name isn't 'Christ', it's a title. >Our gods are divine, I see nothing divine about a jew and you continue to prove nothing of it being the opposite. I fear to see what your definition of 'divine' would be when you worship crossdressing, animal-fucking rapist spirits! At least with the person of Jesus Christ I can point to Old Testament prophecies, the fact that he raised from the dead and that there is nothing morally objectionable about his time on this Earth. >Free-will is not more important than the natural order A natural order without free agents is just like a watch wound up and left to run. Humans have free will and an immense ability to choose their destiny. >The bible is Judaic supremacy The Bible gives Jews no more power than it does a White person within the religion. Whoever says otherwise has been tricked by Zionists and bad interpretations of scripture. >destroying the concept of blood and race is one of their goals Where does the Bible say that you have to hate your own kin, and marry outside of them and destroy your lineage? Most White Christians in America marry other White Christians. Every Christian I know really only associates with other White Christians on a day-to-day basis and seeks relationships with their own kind. It's human nature to identify with and to have the deepest connections with your close kin. Churches remain one of the most segregated institutions in American life, believe it or not. Jews kvetch about this a lot, and it's findable from even a momentary Internet search. >Says who? Cassius Dio, for one. The main is said to have written 80 volumes of Roman history. I would not dismiss him for making you look bad so lightly. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/69*.html >If he was gay, then a sodomite defeated you in dealing with the J-question. Defeated me? Kek, it didn't stop Christianity. Jesus literally said that this would happen too (Luke 21:5-24). These Jews killed Jesus, who cares what happened to them? Shouldn't you be worshiping Hadrian's gay boyfriend? He became a Roman god anyway. >Did Jesus say that it was going to be pagans who destroyed your temples? Yes. >You are a jew, and proved that christian and jew are no different from each other. It's time for you to go back to /pol/. I'm here to stay.
(37.42 KB 540x527 XtC4At2.jpg)
>>14182 >The bible is Judaic supremacy in the sense that it wants the world to be in Abraham and Yahweh's image and destroying the concept of blood and race is one of their goals. The acceptance of gentiles does not negate this, no matter what your bible says. TL: >I have my own interpretation of Christianity. No, it doesn't matter what the Christians tell me. No, it doesn't matter if my opinion literally contradicts their holy book. Hold on, let me try: paganism is kike propaganda to promote violent infighting and sexual degeneracy. The pagan gods are Warp daemons and destroying the concept of not fucking your sister one of their goals. Pagans worship a butt, no matter what your girlfriend's pagan fanfic totally legitimate Book of Original Pagan Rituals says. Am I attacking opposing religions like a real fascist intellectual yet?
(663.02 KB 1920x2129 jesus temple.jpeg)
>>14185 > I believe that there is no absolute good or evil. So are the pedos in the Catholic Church objectively doing a wrong action? Or is it not absolutely evil? >And so are you. How it it wrong for me to assume this but not wrong for you to assume that your desert asura gives half a damn about you? I believe in the message of the Bible, and therefore I believe that God is nothing like the caricature that you make Him out as. I also believe that since the Son incarnated in the form of Jesus Christ and suffered and died for our sins, and for the reconciliation with the Father, that God is a caring, merciful and loving God. Based on Biblical evidence, based on historical research of the life and times of Jesus and the early Church, and through personal spiritual experiences (not that I expect this last one to convince anyone) do I assume this and have faith in it. >new Jerusalem A lot of peoples ridiculous problems would be solved if they grasped the idea of supersessionism: <In Christianity, Jerusalem is sometimes interpreted as an allegory or type for the Church of Christ. There is a vast apocalyptic tradition that focuses on the heavenly Jerusalem instead of the literal and historical city of Jerusalem. This view is notably advocated in Augustine's City of God, a popular 5th-century Christian book that was written during the fall of the Western Roman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_in_Christianity >>14189 >Earth was a paradise Until the fall :^) >>14190 >I don't think earth is a punishment Earth is not a punishment.
>>14226 >All of the Christian I know support gay marriage. They are probably heretic prots who have never opened a Bible in their life. I say 'prot' because Protestantism was founded with Martin Luther throwing out 1500 years of apostolic tradition and literally dumping entire books of the Bible that he did not like such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Here begins the great 'pick and choose' mindset in its most egregious form. >Christianity does not have enough of a solid base of in--group preference to defend against something like bible verses about charity being interpreted as letting 3rd worlders flood into your country Bible supports hospitality and treating guests well. A good guest leaves before his welcome is used up, and leaves things as they were. There are many verses which also say to not associate with the idle or lazy. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 <To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. There is a difference between Invasion and helping people who need it. There is a difference between helping someone to move on and helping someone to take you over in the future. Infact there was hospitallity in Ancient Greece, Ancient Germanic civilization and in Vedic civilization too, pagans had an idea of Zeus as a god of hospitality. These laws were taken very seriously. So if you had someone who came from foreign land and wanted to stay at your home, you had to do it otherwise you were going against Zeus (or whatever similar being). Leftists use the Gospel out of context to subvert and destroy the West
>>14238 >the fact that he raised from the dead <fact kek >At least with the person of Jesus Christ I can point to Old Testament prophecies Your kind has been waiting for your god's promise to be fulfilled for about 2k years, always moving the bar to some next date in the future. It should happen any day now. Maybe after 10 millennia of groveling you will finally start wondering that perhaps, you shouldn't have trusted a Jew. >>14241 You still fail to answer why we should take anything written and edited by a bunch of kikes as the truth. And why should we follow a pimp and a scoundrel like Abraham and the human-sacrifice loving Jewish god who chose him as his representative. Any supposedly positive aspects of Christianity could still be implemented without the rest of the garbage. Your religion has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and you are only shilling it because you got deluded that rabbi Yehoshua loves you and will save you if you are a good goy and defend his religion.
>>7883 >Paul advises us to set our minds on things that are above, not on worldly things Look goyim! Up there, in the sky! Treasures! Treasures everywhere! <proceeds to steal the dumb goyim's wealth while they fix their gaze on the clouds and beyond >amish paradise Yo. As if children, a good family, land, a herd and a proper house (and a fancy cart) were not treasures. It looks like since the AAG threads are being avoided by Jesusians, this one thread turns into an unofficial AAG thread too.
>>14241 >So are the pedos in the Catholic Church objectively doing a wrong action? Or is it not absolutely evil? Judgements, judgements. If it's wrong to our people and its well being we say it's evil, we stack a layer of moralistic painting over it. Pedos would say nah, tis good brother. Jews would say that White men destroying the lives of White children is good for business Moloch Yahweh.
>>14243 The problems with the Bible are not the good bits, because they do exist, but the bad ones, because they do exist.
>>14241 Why didn't you respond to my interpretation of the lines from revelations. Could it be that my observation that the Christian afterlife being a vapid golden box be irrefutable? >So are the pedos in the Catholic Church objectively doing a wrong action? Or is it not absolutely evil? Yes, their actions are evil. An example of a proposed absolute would be something like Yahweh in Christianity. What I am saying is neither side holds absolute control. >through personal spiritual experiences Would you be willing to talk about any of these? >>14243 >They are probably heretic prots They are Methodist and Catholic. Most Christians support this kind of stuff. >There is a difference between Invasion and helping people who need it. Christianity does a poor job of making a distinction, especially when it claims that all are the same under Christ. >There is a difference between helping someone to move on and helping someone to take you over in the future. Infact there was hospitallity in Ancient Greece, Ancient Germanic civilization and in Vedic civilization too, pagans had an idea of Zeus as a god of hospitality. Hospitality is different from helping the poor. The Christian value of charity is different from the Aryan value of Hospitality. One can be interpreted as being obligated to help people, no matter their attitude, while the other had rules for both sides. >Leftists use the Gospel out of context to subvert and destroy the West It doesn't need to be used of of context. Christianity is contrary to Aryan values, and was designed to subvert the west.
>>14245 >kek Have your try at rebutting me: >>14093 >Your kind has been waiting for your god's promise to be fulfilled for about 2k years, always moving the bar to some next date in the future. It should happen any day now. Maybe after 10 millennia of groveling you will finally start wondering that perhaps, you shouldn't have trusted a Jew. You totally sidestep the point that the prophecies that undeniably predict Jesus Christ WERE fulfilled. The Christian has ample reason to believe that the other prophecies will indeed come true at some point in the future, but at a time we know not. >the human-sacrifice loving Jewish god It looks like someone was totally filtered on the story of the binding of Isaac. It is a prefiguration of the story of Christ. Isaac was to be sacrificed on the third day of his and Abraham's journey to the mountain. Isaac is made to carry the wood for the sacrifice on his shoulders just like Jesus carried the cross to Golgotha. Abraham says something to the effect that God will provide a lamb for the sacrifice when he arrives on top of the mountain. There is no lamb of course there, but the Lamb of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:29). Abraham moves in for the sacrifice and is stopped by the Angel of the Lord, who is the Son himself. >>14248 >As if children, a good family, land, a herd and a proper house (and a fancy cart) were not treasures. Congrats, you now understand that is NOT what Paul was referring to by 'worldly'. >It looks like since the AAG threads are being avoided by Jesusians, this one thread turns into an unofficial AAG thread too. I thought I would not shit up your thread (for now). >>14250 >Judgements, judgements. If it's wrong to our people and its well being we say it's evil, we stack a layer of moralistic painting over it. And you call me a Jew kek.
>>14260 >What I am saying is neither side holds absolute control. Proof? >Could it be that my observation that the Christian afterlife being a vapid golden box be irrefutable? I have already refuted you when it comes to your nonsense about a 'golden box'. And I also don't agree with your presupposition that evil is necessary to existence and without it there is stagnation. Therefore I skipped that part of your post. >Hospitality is different from helping the poor. The Christian value of charity is different from the Aryan value of Hospitality. Bible has both charity and hospitality. I don't see what is wrong in helping the poor, so long as they are not becoming harmed by it, and dependent on outside aid. There is such thing as destructive altruism. I am sure you would advocate for the helping of your own Volk at minimum or would wish for others to lend you a helping hand if you were poor. The Winterhilfswerk drives of the Third Reich were clearly based on Christian principles of charity.
>>14270 >Proof? Life is struggle. If either good or evil are in control, there cannot be any struggle, and therefore no life. >I have already refuted you when it comes to your nonsense about a 'golden box'. No you haven't. You brought up a 'new earth, and new heaven" that would supposedly keep the world from stagnating, but the quote from the bible you gave (Revelation 21: 1-8) mentions the elimination of struggle from the world. That quote describes the golden box you refuted. >I don't see what is wrong in helping the poor, so long as they are not becoming harmed by it, and dependent on outside aid. Teaching people to help the poor isn't bad in itself, but when you add the whole one under god thing too it, it becomes dangerous. When you begin to help elements foreign to your culture, they leach off of it and your society suffers. It's teachings are too easily used to justify the taking in of 3rd worlders. >I am sure you would advocate for the helping of your own Volk at minimum or would wish for others to lend you a helping hand if you were poor. I would definitely advocate for that, because there is no potential of that being interpreted as people being obligated to help Africans. When who your people are is anyone who is christian, you start to run into problems with charity. >The Winterhilfswerk drives of the Third Reich were clearly based on christian principles of charity. I don't think that charity is an exclusively christian principle. Whites would be charitable with or without christianity
(82.36 KB 484x750 no_access.jpg)
>>14721 >Life is struggle. If either good or evil are in control, there cannot be any struggle, and therefore no life. Per Evola, the three orientations of existence are the underworld (non-being), the overworld (being), and the middle world (becoming). It is in the material world that change occurs; this is where you become what you will simply BE upon ascending. Life in the middle world is struggle because the middle world is change. There is no need for struggle in the overworld because you would not change by engaging in it. Since the entire purpose of struggle in the middle world is to foster growth and sharpen oneself, it would have no purpose in the overworld.
>>14271 >Life is struggle. This is false. The defining characteristic of life is not struggle. Even a cursory overview of nature will show that alongside competition, there is a great deal of altruism, self-sacrifice and cooperation, even sometimes among organisms of different species, let alone within the same species or among closely related organisms. These sorts of views where nature is exclusively 'red in tooth and claw' are anachronisms from the 19th century. If one were to look at life even from a solely naturalistic point of view, it would be silly to claim that the distinct factor of life is 'struggle'. From that viewpoint, it would make far more sense to claim that consciousness, metabolic processes or other things were more basic and defining to life than 'muh struggle'. Life can exist without struggle. And all of this has nothing to do with good or evil. >You brought up a 'new earth, and new heaven" that would supposedly keep the world from stagnating, but the quote from the bible you gave (Revelation 21: 1-8) mentions the elimination of struggle from the world. That quote describes the golden box you refuted. Again, I deny your presupposition that no struggle means stagnation or death. >I don't think that charity is an exclusively christian principle. Whites would be charitable with or without christianity You yourself said that charity is a Christian value and not an Aryan value like hospitality is. And indeed you conclude that "Christianity is contrary to Aryan values" Which one is it? And on that note, what defines an 'Aryan value'? What is an 'Aryan value' grounded in (what makes them objective)? What is the source of 'Aryan values'? Assuming Aryan values are grounded in nature, how do you derive prescriptive ethics from your observations of how nature is?
(83.11 KB 409x600 Odin ice giants.jpg)
>>14269 <Come on guys, which one of you ate the maschiah? Joseph: poker face <Laughing track plays in the background What if Jesus didn't actually die, but was just mortified (unconscious) and then recovered? If I recall correctly, many scriptures described his disciples to have recognized him, but that he looked differently, so he could have had some kind of double as well. If we know the kikes and the amount of tricks they are capable of pulling to deceive the goyim, every other scenario seems more likely than him actually rising from the dead. >None of the other theories can adequately explain the rise of Christianity By that logic, you can also claim that Marxism is the word of God since it spread by similar means (a bunch of tightly coordinated Jews shilling it everywhere). >many of his disciples dying horrific deaths at the hands of the Jews to proclaim this Maybe they wanted to proclaim something else so they got silenced before they had an opportunity to do so. Again, Jews only wanted to prevent the spread of Christianity among their own, not among the non-Jews. >the prophecies that undeniably predict Jesus Christ Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies? >The Christian has ample reason to believe that the other prophecies will indeed come true at some point in the future Any day now, just keep praying bro >Abraham says something to the effect that God will provide a lamb for the sacrifice when he arrives on top of the mountain. There is no lamb of course there Sounds like someone got properly jewed lmao >Abraham moves in for the sacrifice and is stopped by the Angel of the Lord Wasn't that Angel Lucifer? :>)
>>14285 >What if Jesus didn't actually die, but was just mortified (unconscious) and then recovered? According to the accounts that we have, Jesus was scourged by a whip until he was covered in blood, and then he was forced to wear a crown of thorns and forced to carry a heavy wooden crossbeam to the site of his crucifixion on Golgotha. According to the accounts we have, it appears that Jesus was already in such a bad shape at that point that he was unable to carry the crossbeam by himself, and Roman soldiers compelled a bystander named Simon of Cyrene to help carry it in Jesus' place. This is according to three of the four gospels. And then of course when they arrive at the place of crucifixion, Jesus had iron nails driven through his hands and feet, affixing him to the cross. So we have a man scourged, exhausted and nailed to a cross, and unable to breath properly due to the position that he was in, and so it is often concluded that he asphyxiated or died otherwise of hypovolaemic shock, heart failure, or a mix of other factors, and given what we know about the events leading up to the crucifixion (which were regular Roman practices), it's not hard to conclude that he died. But this is of course not the end of the story here, since Jesus was said to be stabbed in the heart by a spear before he was taken off of the cross, leading to 'a sudden flow of blood and water.' (John 19:31-34), which has been interpreted to be pleural effusion from the lungs. After this they took him from the cross, put him in a tomb and left him there for three days. There is no way that he could have survived, and this seems clear from reading peer-reviewed medical studies of the causes of death from crucifixion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420788/ > If I recall correctly, many scriptures described his disciples to have recognized him, but that he looked differently, so he could have had some kind of double as well. In Luke it is said that Jesus begins to walk with disciples on the road to Emmaus. They do not recognize him at first and this is imparted to the fact that Jesus did not allow them to recognize him, allowing him to talk to the dejected disciples. They take him in with them, and then all at once when they are eating Jesus reveals himself and scares the shit out of the disciples, who recognize him instantly and realize that he had risen. In John, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene at the tomb and at first, only hearing his voice, is mistaken for another, but when she turns around she instantly recognizes that it is Jesus. Also in John, during the first appearance to the disciples, the disciples are hiding in a locked house from fear of the Jews. Jesus is said to appear among them in the locked house. There is another story given where they are fishing out on the sea and see Jesus standing on the shore, and they go up to him and speak, and recognize him fine. Mark has Jesus appear to Mary Magdalene, who reports to the disciples without doubt that she saw Jesus. Mark also reports the same story from Luke where the disciples do not immediately recognize him. Then there is another story where he appears to them having a meal soon after this (same story from Luke? Not sure). In Matthew Jesus appears before the women followers after the tomb is found empty and declares that they should rejoice over his rising. So the tales where they do not recognize him are from one particular instance. It's worth noting too that there is a story in the main Gospel narrative too where Jesus suddenly transforms in Luke 9:29 - 'And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling White.' This might be alluded to in John 1:14 as well. >Maybe they wanted to proclaim something else so they got silenced before they had an opportunity to do so. All evidence points to them spreading the message that Jesus had risen, and for this they were killed. We can make up hypotheticals and 'what-ifs' all day long but if there no evidence to believe it, it's worthless to talk about.
>>14285 >Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies? If it was self-fulfilling prophecy it happened in a way that one in 1st century Judea had ever anticipated. The concept of a dying and bodily-resurrecting messiah was foreign to any of the sects in the region at the time, the messiah was understood to be a human king who would smash the enemies of the Jews and overthrown the Romans yoke over their land. And it definitely wasn't foreseen as a man who would make numerous statements that declared himself to be divine (causing the Jews to kill him). Some of the prophecies don't even make sense without the post-knowledge of the crucifixion and resurrection. It is even said that Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures after his resurrection to point these things out (Luke 24:26-27). >Any day now, just keep praying bro I will, thanks. >Sounds like someone got properly jewed lmao The Lamb came with Jesus though, and all nations of the world were indeed blessed through Abraham. >Wasn't that Angel Lucifer? :>) He was already kicked out of heaven well before that.
(1.33 MB 3500x1819 galilee 4.jpg)
(267.98 KB 1600x1022 galilee.jpg)
(607.28 KB 1200x627 galilee 3.jpg)
(2.20 MB 1600x1246 galilee 2.jpg)
Why do people picture Jesus walking around in the desert again?
>>14269 >Congrats, you now understand that is NOT what Paul was referring to by 'worldly'. Bullshit. Worldly is worldly. Everything tangible, material, is worldly. The Bible makers used a term vague enough so that it count encompass anything of substance the Church could use to push its followers into submission. >I thought I would not shit up your thread (for now). Do what pleases you, your arguments will be defeated here or there. >And you call me a Jew kek. This is not a valid rebuttal. Absolute evil is not of this world because you're dealing with an idea. >>14270 > I also don't agree with your presupposition that evil is necessary to existence Evil is what is against your fundamental interests. It's strife, opposition, conflict, antagonism. Without this, existence is bland and utterly pointless. >>14283 >The defining characteristic of life is not struggle. Even a cursory overview of nature will show that alongside competition, there is a great deal of altruism, self-sacrifice and cooperation Which is for the most part within a given race. Interracial cooperation either happens when both sides are not threatened by each other and they both gain against a third group, usually preys of some sort. All of this still happens within the larger motives tied to competition. The first and most important rule is survival and this is where struggle lies. >These sorts of views where nature is exclusively 'red in tooth and claw' are anachronisms from the 19th century. Huh, why the 19th century! They are observations that are eternally true. Muslims acknowledged from day one that struggle in various forms was at the core of one's life. >From that viewpoint, it would make far more sense to claim that consciousness, metabolic processes or other things were more basic and defining to life than 'muh struggle'. Life can exist without struggle. You're certainly confusing the great principle with those numerous mechanical ways necessary to life. It would be like denying the purpose of a car race because, huh, it's all about pistons, fuel and taunts. You mention consciousness. What is the point of it if you're not trying to improve and fight against all that would try to take you down and miss the divine message? There is no life without struggle in general. You couldn't even survive without struggling against hunger. Struggle is everywhere, exists in many shapes.
>>14285 >What if Jesus didn't actually die Did he exist?
>>14289 >The concept of a dying and bodily-resurrecting messiah was foreign to any of the sects in the region at the time Rrrrrreeeally? Dying, returning three days later, etc. Totally new? > the messiah was understood to be a human king who would smash the enemies of the Jews and overthrown the Romans yoke over their land. >smash the enemies of the Jews >enemies of the Jews >Whites So, Zionism. > It is even said that Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures after his resurrection to point these things out (Luke 24:26-27). Or the writers of that Bible knew of the former books and knew what they had to add to make it look like their made up fairy tale had everything already laid down centuries ago.
>>14285 >What if Jesus didn't actually die, but was just mortified and then recovered? The accounts of Jesus' torture are described by only christcucks and any other accounts are vague or do not actually confirm the crucifixion. So no one will ever know if he truly died or not, although, if he did then the likely case was the consumption of his body by his disciples. But in the the end there is no solid evidence of his existence. Only vague mentions that were likely edited by the Catholic and Eastern Churches, who had all access to the Roman empire's writings. >>14289 >the messiah was understood to be a human king who would smash the enemies of the Jews and overthrown the Romans yoke over their land. You're confirming he was a zionist. Although you've admitted to being a jew here already, so it's not surprising. I will wait for you're petty excuse though.
But here's a good question here. Why do we need christcucks? 1. They were our largest and most common enemies than the atheist Marxist or Muslims were. 2.They constantly put a stop to any of our policies to reestablish the natural order/laws and condemned us as heathens and degenerates. 3. We have numerous cases of Christians from /pol/ and Twatter admitting they care more about their religion than their race. 4. At best they are nothing more but glowniggers and subversive who want to ensure that we lose again. 5. They won't even put up a fight against the Muslims and kikes after the burnings of hundreds of their churches throughout France and other parts of Europe. It is pointless to be apart of something that has failed and is helping to destroy the White race. X-tianity offers nothing of value to us, so this thread serves no purpose as well as the shill. You might as well as admit you're 1/8th jewish already, and were hired by Mossad to deter us. I will at-least have some respect for your honesty.
>>14322 >You're confirming he was a zionist By saying that he was NOT these things? And this is the man who said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's in a period where the Jews were frequently at war with Rome and many pretender messiahs were trying to wage war against Rome? Let's not forget that Jesus rejects the Jews in the New Testament as the chosen people in multiple parables, and tells his disciples to baptize all nations in his name. >>14316 >Worldly is worldly. Everything tangible, material, is worldly. Simply false. This sort of Platonic dualism has nothing to do with Christianity. The body is not evil, or a prison like pagans and gnostics teach. After all, resurrection is bodily, and Jesus himself was raised bodily. Paul speaks on family life, marriage and many other topics, including the necessity of hard work and the like. The Christian should be fruitful and multiply as God commanded (Genesis 1:28. Those who have a multitude of children are blessed (Psalm 127), as are those who fear the Lord and walks in his ways, being blessed by a large family, the fruits of his labor and old age (Psalm 128). Without Christians, of course, the White race would have an even lower birthrate than it does now, since godless atheistic Whites can even reproduce themselves. The world is under the temporary dominion of Satan in that his influence exists here and many can be led astray by it. But the world itself is not evil. That which is worldly is that which leads one from a spiritual life and away from God. >Evil is what is against your fundamental interests So it's completely relative and subjective. One man's good is another's evil, another's evil is another's good. Moral relativism. >Which is for the most part within a given race This is another fiction. You're projecting 19th century conceptions of the nation-state back millennia into the past, too. Even in history we can see groups of very closely related people quarreling and killing each other over territories and stupid squabbles. Your idea of a White race kumbaya has never existed, nor has it within any race. >Huh, why the 19th century! The view originates with Masonic ideas like Darwinism (esp. Social Darwinism). >They are observations that are eternally true But they're not though. It has already been shown that struggle is not the essential feature of life, and that one can point at cooperation, altruism and other features just as much as 'muh struggle'. >Muslims acknowledged from day one that struggle in various forms was at the core of one's life Lol yeah and Muhammad is quoted saying that the 'greater jihad' is to struggle spiritually against the passions and to struggle to better serve God, while the less important 'jihad' was physical struggle. It's kind of a self-defeating statement on your part, since Christianity also emphasizes the importance of spiritual struggle over other kinds, and due to the fact that you are compelled to go cite an Arab pedo to back yourself up. >It would be like denying the purpose of a car race because, huh, it's all about pistons, fuel and taunts. You are just asserting that life is about struggle based on some sort of observation from nature, which is of course fallacious. >>14320 >Dying, returning three days later, etc. Totally new? Find me another example of a divine being who incarnated with a human nature and then died as an atonement for sin and then was raised bodily from the dead. Better yet, find me one that is attached to a historical personage, and one that fulfills prophecies written hundreds of years earlier.
(209.12 KB 512x512 suit pepe laugh.png)
>broo just struggle for eternity, morality is relative! Don't worship God, just worship my bestiality-loving crossdressing devils!
>>14226 >what would our purpose be? i dont know. be fruitful and multiply? have large families and progress into a healthy society free of jews and degeneracy? >All of the Christian I know support gay marriage. theyre not christians, anon. theyre just people that go to church. rural christians were the ones that fought in the US to prevent blacks from voting and lynched niggers for raping women. >>14231 listen shitskin. why dont you answer the question i posed earlier about which is worse when comparing directly to eachother instead of your endless pilpul? i gave examples of each. and you can swap out any of those christian nations for any of those godless nations and the result is the same.
>>14332 >By saying that he was NOT these things? And this is the man who said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's in a period where the Jews were frequently at war with Rome and many pretender messiahs were trying to wage war against Rome? Let's not forget that Jesus rejects the Jews in the New Testament as the chosen people in multiple parables, and tells his disciples to baptize all nations in his name. This might sound contradictory if we follow the thread. On one side the messiah is to be (((/theirguy/))) but then you argue that the messiah, Jesus, did many things against Jews and didn't oppose Rome? >Simply false. This sort of Platonic dualism has nothing to do with Christianity. Dualism is at the core of Abrahamic faiths. >The body is not evil, or a prison like pagans and gnostics teach. I didn't say the body is evil, although Christians routinely argue that the flesh is imperfect. Pagans don't argue the world is a prison, Gnostics did, and perhaps the most pessimistic of them. There's a whole book dedicated to pessimistic Gnosticism btw. >After all, resurrection is bodily, and Jesus himself was raised bodily. Yes it is bodily, but it's just worldly too and a temporary vessel. >Paul speaks on family life, marriage and many other topics, including the necessity of hard work and the like. And if I work hard to have a fantastic V8 Corvette, am I a lost sinner? Is that too worldly? Would Paul object to this outrageous demonstration of wealthy privilege in a world where the poor, downtrodden, meek and weak shall get onboard first and inherit the world (the next one obviously because the actual one must be destroyed by fire)? >Without Christians, of course, the White race would have an even lower birthrate than it does now It's true, but you're not ordered to do so exclusively as Whites, as part of a racial struggle against other races. At least you've been told to reproduce like rabbits and so you do and that's about it. But it's easier to drive people by emotions than by reason so I wouldn't object to a White religion encouraging people to have enough White children as to guarantee the survival of a White nation, but certainly not encourage other races to do the same. Your universalist creed doesn't care about that so it encourages all races to multiply, and if niggers, chinks and tacos multiply more than Whites, they're even more godly. Anyway, you have your quotations showing how the family is important, I don't think many religion would object to this; why, would this be a Christian exclusiveness now? >So it's completely relative and subjective. One man's good is another's evil, another's evil is another's good. Moral relativism. Yes. It just happens that what we deem "good" is a consensus of a majority following rules beneficial to most of us, for the greater good of our people and race. In this battle, Christian niggers multiplying like rabbits is not good for us, but still perfect for God. Tell me this isn't an issue. >Even in history we can see groups of very closely related people quarreling and killing each other over territories and stupid squabbles. Yes, because they either didn't see any racial enemy nearby, or had a poor comprehension of the larger problem. Many also thought purely in terms of family, which wasn't bad in itself as long as one would strictly keep a genetic line pure, which for example both Romans and Athenians failed to do over time, because although they recognized at some point of their existence the importance of a reliable continuation of bloodlines, they failed to understand that allowing themselves to be surrounded by second-class non-White citizens was a mistake.
>>14332 >Your idea of a White race kumbaya has never existed, nor has it within any race. Perhaps because we never faced a global racial extinction before? What has your religion done to avoid this? This religion where everybody must multiply, where no commandments are given about the purity of one's blood? About the importance of racial separation, both in flesh and soul? >It has already been shown that struggle is not the essential feature of life, and that one can point at cooperation, altruism and other features just as much as 'muh struggle'. Yes, it's been shown in the post right above which I addressed, and you completely ignored that entire part. Surprising, isn't it? >Lol yeah and Muhammad is quoted saying that the 'greater jihad' is to struggle spiritually against the passions and to struggle to better serve God, while the less important 'jihad' was physical struggle. It's kind of a self-defeating statement on your part, since Christianity also emphasizes the importance of spiritual struggle over other kinds, and due to the fact that you are compelled to go cite an Arab pedo to back yourself up. I'm only proving that struggle can take many forms and it was acknowledged well before the 19th century. >You are just asserting that life is about struggle based on some sort of observation from nature, which is of course fallacious. It's not just "on some observation from nature", it's based on a rich legacy of pagan theology and antique philosophy too. You too, above, went on to show that Christianity "does it too" about the spiritual struggle. It's struggle everywhere. Breaks here and there are just that. When action resumes, it's always struggle. Anything from growing food to learning to sculpting marble requires efforts, sometimes sheer pain, risk taking too, etc. What do you have to oppose to this, Christian? >Find me another example of a divine being who incarnated with a human nature and then died as an atonement for sin and then was raised bodily from the dead. You're in the wrong. I responded to a different clause that merely contained these words: >The concept of a dying and bodily-resurrecting messiah was foreign to any of the sects in the region at the time Looking for the more detailed and Christian-specific version outside of Christian texts would be absurd. >Better yet, find me one that is attached to a historical personage, and one that fulfills prophecies written hundreds of years earlier. Find me evidence of his historicity. The texts you rely on have been agreed upon centuries after the events. >>14333 >broo just do nuffin like an indolent nigger! >>14334 >theyre just people that go to church. rural christians were the ones that fought in the US to prevent blacks from voting and lynched niggers for raping women. They didn't do it as Christians but as Whites who had enough of massive chimpouts.
>>14337 >>14337 >On one side the messiah is to be (((/theirguy/))) but then you argue that the messiah, Jesus, did many things against Jews and didn't oppose Rome? It was promised to Abraham that God would bless all families of the Earth through his offspring, and later to David that one from his own flesh and blood would have the throne of his kingdom established by God and it would endure forever. This is who the person of Jesus was, the fulfillment of these promises and many more. First and foremost, he announced himself to the descendants of Abraham that he was the Son of God and that he was the Christ. From the beginning this angered the Jews, especially due to the fact that he was doing miracles, healing people on the sabbath, raising the dead, and saying statements that the Jews saw as blasphemous, such as saying that he existed before Abraham (invoking the divine name I AM in reference to Exodus 3:14). He had a mission beyond the descendants of Abraham though, and it involved the entire world. We can see this in many parables I have already spoken about such as Matthew 21:33-46 where the Jews are kicked out, punished and new people are brought into replace them, and in places such as Matthew 8:5-13 where Jesus says to a Roman centurion that 'I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith' and then says <'I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”' The subjects of the kingdom = the vast majority of Jews. I don't think Jesus ever exhibited any outward hostility towards Rome. The Jews were also upset at him due to the whole 'render unto Caesar' line too. >Pagans don't argue the world is a prison, Gnostics did, and perhaps the most pessimistic of them. You're really making a dichotomy that doesn't exist here. The phrase 'soma-sema' is a play of words that originated among Greek pagans that perfectly encapsulates this mindset. It means 'body-prison'. It is routinely quoted by Plato, in particular in the following dialogues - Cratylus 400c, Phaedo 61e-62c, Gorgias 493a, Republic IX 586a, Phaedrus 250c, etc. It did not originate among Plato either, as it has been placed on the lips of Pythagoras as well, and perhaps traced back even further to various Egyptian mystery sects as well. This was a very widespread pagan notion. In Roman times, it is referenced by Cicero in his 'Somnium Scipionis', where he says: <. "Yes indeed they are alive," said he, "who have soared away from the bonds of the body, as from a prison-house; but your life, as it is called, is really death. Nay, look at Paulus, your father, coming towards you!" On seeing him I shed a flood of tears, but he folded me in his embrace and by kisses endeavoured to stop me weeping. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cicero_dream_of_scipio_02_trans.htm The body is here of course described as a prison, or a form of bondage. Orphic religion in Greece really took this idea and ran with it too, as the body had a divine and a Titanic nature mixed together, and the divine nature was the soul, which was imprisoned in the cycle of reincarnation until it became pure enough to be liberated from its bonds. Gnostic ideas are fundamentally pagan, and originate from the ideas of Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus and in Hindu thought. All Hindu thought, except for the later theistic varieties, is fundamentally gnostic, and involves intuitively realizing the self is not the body, and that the self is divine, and that the body is a limiting adjunct on the soul. Gnosis, or spiritual knowledge, is the key means of liberation from the bondage of the body. We can find lots of 'life-denying' pagan ideas such as the wisdom of Silenus and the story from Herodotus where 'A mother prayed to Apollo to reward her piety by bestowing on her two children the greatest gift in his power; the god consented, and the children immediately died without pain' (Herodotus 1. 31. 1 ff.). >And if I work hard to have a fantastic V8 Corvette, am I a lost sinner? Is that too worldly? Would Paul object to this outrageous demonstration of wealthy privilege in a world where the poor, downtrodden, meek and weak shall get onboard first and inherit the world (the next one obviously because the actual one must be destroyed by fire)? The mere fact of owning a Corvette is not sinful, but living a life with any sort of excessive attachment to wealth and useless luxury items can be a stumbling block for many individuals. It might be seen as a bit ostenatious though, but that's just my opinion.
>>14337 >It's true, but you're not ordered to do so exclusively as Whites, as part of a racial struggle against other races White babies are White babies. >Your universalist creed doesn't care about that so it encourages all races to multiply, and if niggers, chinks and tacos multiply more than Whites, they're even more godly. I honestly couldn't care less about what they do in their own lands, honestly. >I don't think many religion would object to this; why, would this be a Christian exclusiveness now? It's not. Genuinely religious people in general have more children than atheists, as I'm sure you are aware. This sort of utilitarian basis is not the only criteria by which to choose a religion though. Muslims have lots of kids, but there are many reasons to reject this religion, for example. >It just happens that what we deem "good" is a consensus of a majority following rules beneficial to most of us, for the greater good of our people and race. Who defines what is beneficial for the individual? For the race? Which has priority? And according to who or what? What is the standard of good? Why is that standard seen as good? If one rapes and murders a non-White toddler and gets away with it, is that objectively wrong? Or is it good for the Volk now? This is the biggest problem, is that you guys have no objective standards for anything and no reason why anyone should care about your appeals to nature.
>>14283 Even a cursory overview of nature will show that alongside competition, there is a great deal of altruism, self-sacrifice and cooperation, even sometimes among organisms of different species, let alone within the same species or among closely related organisms. This isn't struggle between altruism and selfishness? The two keep each other in check. >These sorts of views where nature is exclusively 'red in tooth and claw' are anachronisms from the 19th century It has nothing do do with the Judaic ideas of evolution and survival of the fittest. The struggle produces harmony, because everything keeps everything else in check. It's perfect. >If one were to look at life even from a solely naturalistic point of view, it would be silly to claim that the distinct factor of life is 'struggle'. From that viewpoint, it would make far more sense to claim that consciousness, metabolic processes or other things were more basic and defining to life than 'muh struggle'. Life can exist without struggle. It is not silly to think of things this way. Is life not just struggle against death. Is consciousness not a struggle against oblivion? To live, you must struggle against the environment to fulfill your needs. If you cease to struggle, you cease to live. >And all of this has nothing to do with good or evil. That just isn't true. The struggle between good and evil is the cosmic battle that we all take part in. It has as much do do with good and evil as it has to do with anything else. >Again, I deny your presupposition that no struggle means stagnation or death. You have no argument on this point, so why don't you just drop it? >You yourself said that charity is a Christian value and not an Aryan value like hospitality is. The Charity of Christians is non-discriminatory, unlike that of Aryan civilization. Christian will prop up anyone, even those who want them dead and everything they value destroyed. >And on that note, what defines an 'Aryan value'? Aryan values are values that are in conjunction with the harmony of the universe.
>>14338 >Perhaps because we never faced a global racial extinction before? So what you are describing still doesn't even exist. You said that most of the altruism, self-sacrifice and cooperation within nature is within a given race, but when I pushed back on this and said that there is great conflict throughout history even between closely related groups, you say that this is because they did not face extinction. But of course there still has never been this sort of great White kumbaya that you are saying is just so natural and just some sort of given by nature, when history and present-day reality seems to attest to the exact opposite. >What has your religion done to avoid this? Keeping Muslims out of most of Europe, for one. >I'm only proving that struggle can take many forms and it was acknowledged well before the 19th century. Yeah, I never said that the concept of struggle never existed prior to like 150 years ago. This sort of Social Darwinism meme didn't exist until then though, and has been manifestly destructive for Western societies, and therefore it is of no surprise to learn that the Rockefellers, Carnegies and various Freemasons were active supporters of this ideology and propagated it into the minds of the masses to support the birth of their business empire, the dissolution of organic social bonds and the value of human life. >it's based on a rich legacy of pagan theology and antique philosophy too. It's really not though. Most ancient philosophy is hated by this board and people pretend that their ancestors two thousand plus years ago were all Nietzscheans or something, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. As I point out in my previous post >>14372, pagan religions were often very otherworldly and based on escaping the material world. They were very pessimistic and 'life-denying'. Religious practice consisted of haggling with demons for them to make it rain on your crops or to tell you the future. For a time, this was just normal life. So-called gods ruled over most of the nations of mankind for a long time, and ruled unjustly and wickedly. As Psalm 82 predicts, these gods are walking about in darkness, and they are born and die just like mortal man, and most crucially, the nations are declared to be God's inheritance. The pagan gods were scattered like dust in the wind. >What do you have to oppose to this, Christian? Struggle is not the meaning of life, I have never denied that struggle exists in the world. To claim that struggle is at the root of everything is silly for reasons already discussed.
>>14338 >Find me evidence of his historicity. The texts you rely on have been agreed upon centuries after the events. Here's the problem here - the question of the New Testament canon is irrelevant to the question of Jesus' historicity. Even before a formal canon was established the documents which came to compose it existed long before that. People like to repeat the statement that Athanasius was the first one to list out the New Testament canon in 367 AD. This is true, but even prior to this we have ample evidence from the writing of Church Fathers that certain works were seen to be authoritative and others were spurious and not connected to the disciples or Christian tradition. Nearly 200 years before this in 180 AD, another Church father Irenaeus of Lyon had a section in his book 'Against Heresies' on which he expounds on various mystical reasons surrounding the fact why there are four gospels, no more and no less, and goes on to remark that some heretics have more Gospels, while some have less, and in the case of those who add to the canon, the texts added routinely do not agree in crucial aspects with the existing four Gospel canon that remains today. Since he was talking about this like a settled fact among orthodox Christians and not something new, I would imagine that those Gospels had been long seen as authoritative way before Irenaeus decided to write that. All academic evidence points to the fact that the four principle Gospels were written between 70-90 AD, and most likely even earlier, because the date of 70 is chosen as the earliest by atheistic scholars who a priori conclude that Jesus could have never predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple. The letters of Paul which refer to Jesus as someone who lived among them as a man, suffered, died, and then was physically resurrected are present even earlier in the letters of Paul which are dated to around 50 AD onward, though he converted much earlier, and was spending the time in between evangelizing in Greece, Anatolia and surrounding areas, so epistles cannot have been written if there is no one to send them too. All of these Gospels are independent sources too, as are the letters of Paul, and the other New Testament epistles. The New Testament, needless to say, of course did not materialize as a unit overnight. Mentions by Josephus of Jesus and his brother are another independent reference to Jesus, as is the letter of the non-Christian Mara bar-Serapion who mentions the execution of Jesus and "new law" (new covenant). And then from the 2nd century we have various mentions by pagan Roman writers like Suetonius, Tacitus and others. And of course before that we have a 1st century Roman mention by (born-gentile) Christian bishop Clement of Rome.
>>14390 >The struggle produces harmony Struggle is antithetical to harmony. > Is life not just struggle against death Nope. >Is consciousness not a struggle against oblivion? Nope. >That just isn't true. Mindlessly struggling to get food or some shit is devoid of moral content. You have a vision of a naturalistic universe where the only thing to do is just to survive and have sex so your offspring can survive and have sex until the universe dies of heat death. Pure nihilism. You don't even admit moral absolutes either, making it even more stupid. >The Charity of Christians is non-discriminatory, unlike that of Aryan civilization I don't care so long as you can't show me a grounding and justification for 'le Aryan values'. >You have no argument on this point, so why don't you just drop it? You keep asserting the baseless presupposition that the meaning of life is just struggling for no reason, and you have not provided any defense of this except for appeals to nature, which are fallacious. >Aryan values are values that are in conjunction with the harmony of the universe. And why should we care about that? You have already denied objective morality and claimed that it is 'blurry'. This is yet another appearance of naturalistic fallacies and Is–ought fallacies. I've noticed you've failed to address any of my other questions regarding Aryan values, and that is rather telling. I will be looking forward to your responses to the following: • What is an 'Aryan value' grounded in (what makes them objective)? • What is the source of 'Aryan values'? Assuming Aryan values are grounded in nature • How do you derive prescriptive ethics from your observations of how nature is?
>>14396 >Struggle is antithetical to harmony. Struggle facilitates harmony. If either of them stopped struggling for control, the other would seize control and harmony could no longer exist. >Is life not just struggle against death. Nope. No argument. All you can do is claim it is false without providing an argument >Is consciousness not a struggle against oblivion? Nope Refer to previous point >Mindlessly struggling to get food or some shit is devoid of moral content. You are the one mindlessly struggling in pursuit of salvation. All of your sacrifices, all of your actions are in pursuit of your oh-so-beloved golden box. You could care less about your race, because all that follow yahweh are equal, right? I pursue things in both the spiritual and the physical. Your jewish religion has confined you to the spiritual, just as the jews have been confined to the material. You need both. You need harmony, and christianity cannot offer this. >You have a vision of a naturalistic universe where the only thing to do is just to survive and have sex so your offspring can survive and have sex until the universe dies of heat death. Pure nihilism. Your purpose is to take part in the infinite struggle between good and evil. The Heat Death theory is entirely jewish, because it claims that there is a beginning and a permanent end to the universe. Christianity also presents this view of the world, making it jewish too. We started this discussion with me explaining how christianity is nihilistic. Refer to that to have your point refuted. >You don't even admit moral absolutes either, making it even more stupid. You have repeatedly misinterpreted what I said about good and evil. At this point I have to assume you are doing it on purpose. I'll explain it again. When I speak of good and evil, I am talking about entities that are aligned with good or aligned with evil. So when I speak of there being no absolute good and evil, I mean that neither good or evil hold absolute power, not that there is no objective evil. I should word it better in the future. Thanks for helping me realize that. >I don't care so long as you can't show me a grounding and justification for 'le Aryan values'. Yeah, I know that you don't care about truth. I've figured that out by now. >You keep asserting the baseless presupposition that the meaning of life is just struggling for no reason, and you have not provided any defense of this except for appeals to nature, which are fallacious. The meaning of life is to struggle against evil, so that life can continue to exist. In this way, all men throughout eternity have purpose, because life is always in need of securing. >And why should we care about that? I guess you wouldn't as a christian. After all, you've got your spot in the golden box to worry about. >You have already denied objective morality I haven't, as you've seen earlier in this post. >claimed that it is 'blurry' link the post >What is an 'Aryan value' grounded in (what makes them objective)? Well, one way to find these is to look at pagan literature. Values of duty to one's homeland and people, desire to explore and conquer, male dominated society, and the fusion of the spiritual with daily life. My belief of the cyclical nature of the universe leads me to look back at traditional Aryan civilization for these values, as I'm sure people in our situation have done for time immemorial. We sometimes call these values "Natural law", because nature is a microcosm of the whole universe. All of the world is governed by the same principles, one of them being that nothing can exist forever unchanged. This translates into an Aryan value in that Aryans do not seek to establish an eternal Aryan civilization. They realize the cyclical nature of the world, and embrace it. Jewish civilization does the opposite. They seek an eternal hegemony over all of existence. Christianity also seeks this, as I have explained before with golden box. Your ideology is unmistakably Jewish, for your people to thrive, for you to truly know your place in the world, you must cast of the chains of Christianity.
>>14449 >Struggle facilitates harmony. Words have meanings. Harmony refers to agreement or concord of multiple elements, and the original term in the Greek refers to union and things that fit together in a greater whole. Struggle is disharmony by definition. >All you can do is claim it is false without providing an argument Your worldview is incoherent and philosophically baseless so I have no grounds for excepting your assertions. >You are the one mindlessly struggling in pursuit of salvation It's the exact opposite of mindless. It is a struggle to overcome spiritual alienation, to come into a relationship with the Creator of this world, to partake in the divine nature, and to become realized in the fullness of our potential. Your view of Christianity is so low and degenerate that it's almost tragic. I don't love Jesus Christ because I want some 'golden box', I want to deepen my personal relationship with God and come to know Him more and more and more for eternity. >I pursue things in both the spiritual and the physical. Your jewish religion has confined you to the spiritual, just as the jews have been confined to the material. You need both. You need harmony, and christianity cannot offer this. You're acting like Christians don't pursue the physical either. The idea that Christianity sees the world as manifestly or wholly 'bad' has already been refuted. Indeed, it's Christians who have bigger families, it's Christians who have happier and longer-lasting marriages, and it's Christians in general who report having a much better quality of life than the non-religious White person. This strawman that every Christian is some sort of celibate eremitic monk living in a cave is just silly. >Your purpose is to take part in the infinite struggle between good and evil But it's not infinite lol. >The Heat Death theory is entirely jewish, because it claims that there is a beginning and a permanent end to the universe. Christianity also presents this view of the world, making it jewish too. We started this discussion with me explaining how christianity is nihilistic "I don't like this idea, it doesn't agree with my politics, therefore it's Jewish and bad!" This is not an argument. >When I speak of good and evil, I am talking about entities that are aligned with good or aligned with evil How are good and evil objectively grounded? >Well, one way to find these is to look at pagan literature Why should we care about what pagan literature says or believe that it is expressing objective spiritual truths? Where are the fulfilled prophecies? Where is the evidence? Why should we care about the exploits of anthropomorphic superhumans having sex with each other and fucking animals and boys? >Values of duty to one's homeland and people, desire to explore and conquer, male dominated society, and the fusion of the spiritual with daily life. My belief of the cyclical nature of the universe leads me to look back at traditional Aryan civilization for these values, as I'm sure people in our situation have done for time immemorial. All of the world is governed by the same principles, one of them being that nothing can exist forever unchanged. This translates into an Aryan value in that Aryans do not seek to establish an eternal Aryan civilization. They realize the cyclical nature of the world, and embrace it. Jewish civilization does the opposite. They seek an eternal hegemony over all of existence. Christianity also seeks this, as I have explained before with golden box. Your ideology is unmistakably Jewish, for your people to thrive, for you to truly know your place in the world, you must cast of the chains of Christianity. Irrelevant unless you can prove the objective validity of the pagan scriptures, metaphysics, philosophy, etc.
>>14288 >According to the accounts that we have >This is according to three of the four gospels So the same materials which promote the story of Jesus resurrecting as a foundation of their religion? Wouldn't they be a bit biased? >Jesus was said to be stabbed in the heart by a spear before he was taken off of the cross Any independent sources on this? He could be given some drug to cause unconsciousness, numbness and other symptoms so his disciples can convince the guard that he's already dead, and then take him to patch him up and let him sleep for few days until he recovers. Human body can be very resilient, people survived having their legs and parts of their heads blown off in wars, as long as the bleeding and infection were stopped. >We can make up hypotheticals and 'what-ifs' all day long but if there no evidence to believe it, it's worthless to talk about It's not like there is any concrete evidence for what you are claiming either, what-ifs at least make this thread more interesting. Why didn't Jesus do it again in other times and circumstances? It would give a huge boost to his faith. And you fail to explain why the hell would God of all humanity choose some kikes as his representatives. Are you implying that a scoundrel like Abraham was more godly than any other person in the world? >>14289 >the messiah was understood to be a human king who would smash the enemies of the Jews and overthrown the Romans yoke over their land And that failed so they came up with a different approach to overthrow the Romans... It was not hard to imagine that a leader of an armed rebellion would end up on the stake. They just needed to come up with something crafty to convince others how he resurrected.
>>14464 >Any independent sources on this? He could be given some drug to cause unconsciousness, numbness and other symptoms so his disciples can convince the guard that he's already dead, and then take him to patch him up and let him sleep for few days until he recovers. Human body can be very resilient, people survived having their legs and parts of their heads blown off in wars, as long as the bleeding and infection were stopped. Again, we have severe scourging, and then forced to carry a heavy wooden crossbeam, nails driven through the hands and feet (doubtlessly without regard for any bones in the way of the path of the nail) and then a spear thrust between his ribs, which surely perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and ensured his death. The details about the pleural effusion pouring from the wound are consistent with the medical information that we have today. Articles online about the pathology of crucifixion also state that spearings or the breaking of limbs to speed up the death was a regular practice: <The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14750495/ And to show how brutal the scourgings given in the era could be, here is one quotation from Josephus in relation to a Jewish man in 62 AD who given over by the Jews to the Romans: <our rulers [...] brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html Various other aspects such as the condemned being forced to carry their own crosses are confirmed as a Roman practice in the works of Plutarch, Chariton and other Roman and Greek writers. >It's not like there is any concrete evidence for what you are claiming either We have independent sources saying the same general things about one man and the method of his death which are in agreement with the historical methods of Roman execution as are relayed in many other sources by people such as Plutarch, Josephus, Seneca, Cicero and others. Scourging, carrying the cross to the execution site, breaking the limbs or spearing the body to speed up the death, etc. are all amply attested. There's even some skeletal evidence for crucifixions in the region, like the body of Jehohanan the son of Hagkol: https://web.archive.org/web/20071130010003/http://www.centuryone.org/crucifixion2.html >Why didn't Jesus do it again in other times and circumstances? It would give a huge boost to his faith. Christianity is the largest religion on the planet, it clearly wasn't necessary to do it again. The prophecy was fulfilled. >And you fail to explain why the hell would God of all humanity choose some kikes as his representatives How am I to know exactly why God chose Abraham out of all of the men on this planet? Possibly because of his unshakeable faith in God - God tells Abraham to leave his land and his father's house and to journey out to a far-away land after receiving a vague promise. Abraham listens. Abraham is promised a child by God, and though he initially laughs at the premise of having a child while he and his wife are so old, but he believes it, while his wife Sarah is a doubter. Her faith is weaker. Abraham's is strong, and it happens as was said. When he is told to go sacrifice his son, he gets up and obeys God, and prepares to sacrifice his only son. He was unwavering. He probably didn't know the reason for this at the time (a typological prefiguration of the crucifixion of Jesus), but it didn't matter to him. He considered that God would be able to give him back Isaac regardless. >Are you implying that a scoundrel like Abraham was more godly than any other person in the world? Enlighten me on how Abraham is a 'scoundrel' with Biblical evidence. >And that failed so they came up with a different approach to overthrow the Romans... Again there's zero proof Jesus wanted to overthrow the Romans.
>>14464 >They just needed to come up with something crafty to convince others how he resurrected. The crucifixion is in line with prophecy. Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22. Jews have all of these scriptures to this very day. And we also have to realize that not only did direct disciples of Jesus come to believe that this had happened instead of just dispersing like other Messianic movements of the time did, but even enemies of this movement like Paul, who spent his time murdering Christians for the Sanhedrin, suddenly came to believe in the truth of the message. They believed it enough to the point where most of the disciples were killed either by crucifixion themselves, stoning, being flayed alive, and almost every other method under the sun. Pic related too. Zechariah 12:10 <“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. Psalm 22:16-18; Psalm 22:27-28 <Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment. <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.
>>14455 >Words have meanings. Harmony refers to agreement or concord of multiple elements, and the original term in the Greek refers to union and things that fit together in a greater whole. Struggle is disharmony by definition. I don't see how that definition doesn't fit with my view of struggle. Good and evil compliment each other even though they struggle against one another. The greatest triumphs of aryans are only possible because there is evil to fight, and vise versa. Neither can exist without the other. They are harmonious. >Your worldview is incoherent and philosophically baseless so I have no grounds for excepting your assertions. It isn't incoherent. It's just that you've been backed into a corner by your jewish ideology. You have no argument. >It's the exact opposite of mindless. It is a struggle to overcome spiritual alienation It a struggle to become an inanimate object with no desires that sits in a rose next to yahweh for all eternity. All you want is to sit in that rose, forever. This is what you value above all else. It is completely mindless, because this joke of an afterlife takes precedence over you people and your nation. >to become realized in the fullness of our potential You believe your potential is to sit in a golden box for all of eternity. You are a joke. >Your view of Christianity is so low and degenerate that it's almost tragic. I see it for what it is. >I don't love Jesus Christ because I want some 'golden box' Yes you do. You shut your eyes and jam your fingers in your ears so you can get your golden box. >You're acting like Christians don't pursue the physical either. They don't. They pursue golden box. >The idea that Christianity sees the world as manifestly or wholly 'bad' has already been refuted. No, it hasn't. The world is sinful. It is a consequence of the original sin. It is a punishment to you. Only by becoming pure can a human ascend to heaven, right? Pt. 1
>>14507 >>14455 >Indeed, it's Christians who have bigger families, it's Christians who have happier and longer-lasting marriages, and it's Christians in general who report having a much better quality of life than the non-religious White person. You're pulling the classic christcuck move of presenting the world falsely as Christian vs. Heretic, when this is not the case. Pagans had the same amount of kids, had happy an long lasting marriages, and pagans were very happy with their lives. This is a false dichotomy. Christianity has only existed for 2000 years. These values are just carry-overs from a pagan society. The fact is, every good aspect of christianity is pagan. The most beautiful works of christian artwork and archetecture are just revivals of the principles of aryan paganistic societies. The things that Christianity does different are almost exclusively jewish corruptions, from you nonsensical all powerful desert god, to the universality of christianity. It removes one of the most integral parts of paganism, that being the relation to a certain nation of people. With their religion being universal, they can be separated and subverted much more easily. >This strawman that every Christian is some sort of celibate eremitic monk living in a cave is just silly. when did I ever write anything like this. The issue is that christianity is too inclusive, not to reclusive. You're pulling this stuff out of your butt. >But it's not infinite lol. Something can't come from nothing. If opposing forces don't keep each other in check, we get nothingness. Sorry you hate infinite triumph. >"I don't like this idea, it doesn't agree with my politics, therefore it's Jewish and bad!" This is not an argument. What are you talking about? You have no actual argument anymore so you've resorted to whatever sad display this is. Christianity is deeply influenced by Jewish philosophy, from its definite beginning and end, to its omnipotent god. >How are good and evil objectively grounded? What is good seeks to perpetuate the universe, and what is evil seeks to end the cycle. >Why should we care about what pagan literature says or believe that it is expressing objective spiritual truths? Where are the fulfilled prophecies? Where is the evidence? Why should we care about the exploits of anthropomorphic superhumans having sex with each other and fucking animals and boys? Woah, watch it with that "we" stuff. You do know that /fascist/ is a pagan fundamentalist board. You wouldn't be trying to create a false concensus, would you? "Your view of Christianity is so low and degenerate that it's almost tragic.", you said that in your post, right? How come you cant afford paganism the same, if you have some issue with viewing thing "degenerately". Why should I believe any christian literature's views on objective spiritual truth? You can't say that Jesus fufilled any prophecies, because all of the bible's accounts of jesus' life were written by jews who would know of these prophecies and be reading to take advantage of them. Why should I care about the life of a jewish caricature of a real man, and his everybody-is-equal philosophy? You have reduced your arguments to questions without any logic behind them. >Irrelevant unless you can prove the objective validity of the pagan scriptures, metaphysics, philosophy, etc. I could say the same things about your books, except your beliefs don't eve make logical sense. You've lost. If Jesus was forgotten, your faith would never raise its wretched head again, and only mine, a natural religion arising from a racial soul and from sensible deities, would reform again and again. Don't you get it, the jews and their followers will never win, because they exist contrary to natural law. Pt. 2
There is literally no reason for us to be christians.
>>14332 >By saying he was not these things? You just did. Are you unironically retarded? Your kike on the stick was indeed a jewish/Zionist supremacist, everything he believed within concern of the goys were to be enforced upon them whether they accepted it or not. Pagans could not be pagan, but sandnigger worshippers. His worldview was Jewish. >muh he saw gentiles as equal! He saw gentiles as equal when they were spiritually Jewish and mixed with the ethnically ones. A Jew cannot accept a gentile if he will not accept their false deity. >Noooo, he was not a jew Cry and continue to be in-denial for me to laugh at you. >Muh jesus rejects jews He does not, there is no distinction between Hebrew, Christian nor Jew, if anything Christianity was a replacement to Judaism as stated before, and you've yet to deny this and even admitted it was a fact, not realizing that this proves it is an enemy to the White race, unless you want to ignorantly argue that Judaic BS isn't harmful to the White race and have us chew you out. Your only reason to target against Paganism is that you believe that they were degenerates, but fail to recognize that your entire religion is based off of life-denying Judeo nonsense that stole works from paganism something you've failed to disprove wrong as well. You will never be a Jew, stop LARPIng for a spiritually dead religion. >>14391 >Struggle is not the meaning of life, I Struggle is main component of life, it's so stupid to deny this. And you wonder why you're all called Jews. You're just as bad as the nazbol shill. You really put the cuck in Christ. >>14517 "Noooo anon, you don't understand! We reformed Jews are anti-degenerates! If you become one, then you will go to heaven after you die and worry about nothing else in the world at all! Remember that is the only thing that matters within life anyway! The reason for why Europe is degenerate? Oh well, it's because of those blasphemous atheists! It totally wasn't because we Christians were dumb enough to accept non-reformed Jews and allow them to control our economies or anything! The monarchs, aristocracy, colonialism, Protestant wars against the Catholics totally had nothing to do with the rise of degeneracy and secularism at all, which were enforced by Christians or anything!"
>>14510 >Pagans had the same amount of kids, had happy an long lasting marriages, and pagans were very happy with their lives. You're missing the point. It's another refutation of the silly claim that Christians are so focused on the spiritual that they neglect everything and anything about the world. >What is good seeks to perpetuate the universe, and what is evil seeks to end the cycle. This is just an assertion, you are not answering my question, so I will ask it again - How are good and evil objectively grounded?. This is a question of moral ontology. >You do know that /fascist/ is a pagan fundamentalist board. Yet you can't even explain to me why your myths have any sort of authoritative status or how you derive your ethics, how you know the existence of your so-called gods, and how you can make all of these metaphysical claims about the nature of the universe. >Why should I believe any christian literature's views on objective spiritual truth? You can't say that Jesus fufilled any prophecies, because all of the bible's accounts of jesus' life were written by jews who would know of these prophecies and be reading to take advantage of them. Why should I care about the life of a jewish caricature of a real man, and his everybody-is-equal philosophy? I'm asking you a question, are you going to answer it before you try to reflect it back on me? Why should we care about what pagan literature says or believe that it is expressing objective spiritual truths? Where are the fulfilled prophecies? Where is the evidence?. From an evidentialist approach, as I have been using in this thread, I have pretty good grounds for at least rationally holding to Christianity due to the fulfilled prophecies, extra-biblical historical research, the existence of God (which can be rationally established and personally experienced), etc. What you say about the Gospels can be dismissed too, because the mere fact of Jews saying something doesn't make it ipso facto false. This is an unsubstantiated presupposition. And on top of this, my presupposition is that God is the only foundation for truth, and therefore knowledge, and the triune God of Christianity provides the only rational answer to vexing philosophical problems such as the problem of the one and the many. I look forward to your answers. As soon as I begin to prick and prod your worldview, you start crying that I have lost. Your worldview is baseless.
>>14470 >Again, we have severe scourging According to Biblical sources and this happening to some non-related people. The circumstances of the period might have been relevant if the claim wasn't someone literally rising from the dead. Something much more substantial would be required for believing that. His fellow kikes bribing the Roman guard to look the other way or somehow deceiving him is far more likely. As well as creating a very ambiguous scenario where it would be hard to prove a negative while they pilpul their way into making it look plausible and likely. >Christianity is the largest religion on the planet Nominally, but the great majority of them would go to hell according to bible. Or you think that anyone "praising Jesus" regardless of other actions and beliefs are enough to secure one for the team? Wouldn't it make much more sense for Jesus to show up in front of Romans who have sentenced him to prove them how he's an immortal son of God? This would accomplish his objectives much faster than sneaking up on his followers. Out of everyone involved, he chose people who believed him the most and were most impressionable. >Enlighten me on how Abraham is a 'scoundrel' with Biblical evidence. <Abraham asserted, "When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live" (12:12). In shrewdness or out of cowardice, Abraham instructed his wife to "pretend" to be his sister, which was already factually true, Sarah being his half-sister. Abraham's concerns were justified, apparently, because after they entered Egypt, "the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman. And when the Pharaoh's officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh [possibly Senusret II, who ruled Egypt from 1897-1878 BCE], and she was taken into his palace" (12:14–15). For Abraham, this was not the worst of situations for he received many gifts from Pharaoh, including cattle and servants. <Still, the Bible recounts that God was not pleased with the scenario surrounding Abraham and Sarah. The Pharaoh and his household soon experienced horrible plagues, which alerted him to Abraham's ruse. Pharaoh exclaimed, "What have you done to me?" (12:18), shames Abraham for his deception, and demands that they both leave (although he allows Abraham to keep his gifts, interestingly). Thereafter, Genesis records that "Abraham went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him. Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold" (13:1-2). <The Bible once again provides a glimpse into the intimate relationship between Abraham and his deity with God proclaiming, "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward" (1), and Abraham taking God at his word, which "[God] credited it to him as righteousness" (15:6). Abraham's wife, Sarah, however, was less patient and more desperate to have a child. Herself apparently barren and of advanced years, Sarah orders Abraham to have sexual relations with their Egyptian slave, Hagar, whose child Sarah would take to raise as her own. <Thus, when Abraham traveled into the region of Gerar, old fears re-emerged concerning the beauty of his wife and the threat of others who would kill him to attain Sarah, such as Abimelech, the King of Gerar, who "sent for Sarah and took her" (20:2). Once again, Abraham passed Sarah off as his sister (perhaps because it worked out so well for him in Egypt). This time, however, the Bible records that God warned Abimelech to not touch Sarah in a troubling dream. <One of the more controversial passages in the Bible concerns God's commandment that Abraham sacrifice his son, Isaac - the child of the Promise. God said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you" (22:2). Interestingly, the passage does not record Abraham arguing with God although he must have been tremendously conflicted and sad about God's order to him. >How am I to know exactly why God chose Abraham out of all of the men on this planet? See above. You have some kind of desert demon promising some old kike riches, lands and sex slaves if he makes a pact with him and does his bidding.
>>14471 >Jews have all of these scriptures to this very day Pure coincidence. >like Paul, who spent his time murdering Christians for the Sanhedrin, suddenly came to believe in the truth of the message He got a memo from Sanhedrin to begin shilling that religion amongst the goyim in order to subvert them >They believed it enough to the point where most of the disciples were killed either by crucifixion themselves, stoning, being flayed alive, and almost every other method under the sun Christians are masochists, more news at 11
>>14693 >According to Biblical sources and this happening to some non-related people The point was that Roman and Jewish sources record the same practices and that they align with the material described in the New Testament, lending aspects of the narrative credibility from a historical perspective. >The circumstances of the period might have been relevant if the claim wasn't someone literally rising from the dead. Something much more substantial would be required for believing that Of course, right now I am only offering an evidential case, which can never be bullet-proof or irrefutable. I do say that on the information that we have though we can build a fairly strong evidential case for the resurrection though, though of course there are a few presuppositions involved as well - namely the existence of God. In God exists (even if we are assuming a generic God not tied to any world religion) the resurrection of Jesus becomes a non-issue, it is only with naturalistic, atheistic presuppositions that the resurrection is a problem. At the end of the day though, arguments around the resurrection are a tactic which can edify faith and get more people curious about Christianity. They are not the main reason one believes in God or in Christianity. They definitely helped lead me to it though, so I like to focus on them. >His fellow kikes bribing the Roman guard to look the other way or somehow deceiving him is far more likely. As well as creating a very ambiguous scenario where it would be hard to prove a negative while they pilpul their way into making it look plausible and likely. There's no evidence of this or even any hints at this. And the fact that they were willing to die brutal deaths at the hands of their own people and foreign people would point against this. None of them recanted, and all of them went joyfully to their deaths. Considering that accounts of even more recently attested Christian martyrs often have the same features to them and fearlessness towards death, it's not hard to accept from the even earlier generations. I don't find any of this that compelling when it comes to Abraham, to be quite honest. Especially with the things with Abraham and Abimelech. It saved his life, Sarah wasn't harmed, and technically Abraham did not even lie. You've chosen quite the poor figure to focus on. Even despite this, Christians aren't Muslims, i.e. we do not believe that these were perfect, infallible men. They were imperfect and fallen men who did horrible things, and struggled to follow God. Abraham also has admirable traits. When God tells him He is about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham intercedes with God to show mercy if there are even a fiftyrighteous men in the towns, when not even that many are found, Abraham asks for mercy if even ten are found. Really the only person found is his nephew Lot, and even then his immediate family is full of horrible people. So then God annihilates the cities. Abraham also has great faith in God. When God took Abraham outside at night and showed him the stars, saying that his offspring will be as uncountable as them, Abraham doesn't doubt him, and has faith in the truth of these words. Similarly, when God commands the sacrifice of Isaac, it is telling how Abraham prepares to obey unquestioningly, and expects that God will in some way intervene, saying that "God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” (Genesis 22:8). Even until the last minute this in Abraham's mind. It is worth noting, since you mentioned it, that Genesis 22, where the sacrifice of Isaac is depicted, is a great prefiguration of Christ. Isaac himself is full of typological parallels. Like Jesus, Isaac is a child of promise, both are named prior to their births, the births of both are miraculous. Jesus was born to a virgin, Isaac was born to a barren woman past the age of child-rearing. Both are quite explicitly referred to as an 'only son'. Both Jesus and Isaac were innocent yet were offered up anyway. As Isaac carried the wood on which he was to die, so Christ carried his own cross (Gen 22:6, John 19:17). As Isaac went willingly to the altar, so Christ went willingly to the cross (Gen. 22:9, John 10:17). The seed of Isaac would be multiplied throughout the world (Gen. 22:17); through Jesus, many sons of God would be born (John 1:12, Heb. 2:10). The parallels like this abound throughout the Old and New Testaments. It's easy to read Genesis 22 and show some faux outrage that doesn't align with your 21st century moral sentiments, but when you realize the purpose of story and what it symbolizes, and what God meant by ordering it, the real purpose becomes clear, which is made even more obvious by the fact that the angel of the Lord tells Abraham immediately afterwards in Genesis 22:15-18 that all of the nations of the Earth will be blessed through his descendants (i.e. with the future incarnation of Christ).
>>14694 >Pure coincidence. It's almost like Judaism is a mutant version of Christianity. >He got a memo from Sanhedrin to begin shilling that religion amongst the goyim in order to subvert them This falls flat because (1) there's zero evidence of this claim, and (2) the Gospels already have Gentiles accepting Christ, being healed and commended for their faith (even Roman centurions and similar figures), (3) the Old Testament makes it clear that the Gentiles would inherit the Kingdom of God, etc. Even without Paul it was already spreading among the Gentiles, as was prophesized. >Christians are masochists, more news at 11 <you can't just die for something you believe in! Soy
>>14697 >lending aspects of the narrative credibility from a historical perspective So we are supposed to assume that every single man who was sentenced to crucifixion in that period and region got scourged to near-death and later punctured with a spear? Ok, we are talking about a relatively high chance of that happening to Jesus (if anything of it was true to begin with), but if we apply the same criteria to the claim of him raising from the dead, which we have no evidence of ever happening in the history, anywhere, the same chance drops to near zero. >namely the existence of God That story seems ridiculous even if we assume that such generic God exists. There were much better events in history where he could intervene in such ways, and yet he didn't. >They are not the main reason one believes in God or in Christianity They are literally the central theme of Christianity. Christians got promised resurrection and eternal life as well. >There's no evidence of this or even any hints at this. So Jews would never attempt to cheat, right? A guy rising from the dead is more likely to happen than kikes scheming, bribing, deceiving and coercing people to get what they want? From a (much wider) historical perspective, the latter is far more credible. >Christian martyrs often have the same features to them and fearlessness towards death It's by no means exclusive to them, and it was not as common as people are led to believe. Christkikes just made sure to glorify and edify every single scoundrel who got executed for his kikery as long as he was nominally Christian. >You've chosen quite the poor figure to focus on Abraham is the central figure of that religion after Jesus (Moses, Mohammad). Regardless of his circumstances, there is nothing whatsoever qualifying him to be selected by the universal, generic God. >saying that his offspring will be as uncountable as them And this is totally not a primitive fantasy of some old kike? Why the hell would a God of all humanity make a single man a progenitor of such a huge amount of people? If his "godliness" was genetically transmissible, then how do you explain most kikes turning into what they are today? If that was the criteria, his offspring should be incorruptible. Faith doesn't seem to be hereditary either. >Really the only person found is his nephew Lot Was this the ancient version of Larry Silverstein? >through Jesus, many sons of God would be born So once cornered with just how ridiculous the whole story is when taken even semi-literally, you switch to allegorical interpretation? >(1) there's zero evidence of this claim Christianity brought unprecedented power to the Jews >(2) the Gospels already have Gentiles accepting Christ, being healed and commended for their faith This exists in Judaism too, applicable to non-Jews who follow parts of the rabbinic law applicable to them >(3) the Old Testament makes it clear that the Gentiles would inherit the Kingdom of God Mind showing some quotes? >Soy You have people who derive sexual pleasure from being whipped, burned, or even seriously tortured. One guy enjoyed getting eaten alive. Early Christians were a small and fringe group, and they obviously got off on pain, scourging and thought that it pleases their sand demon. Otherwise they wouldn't focus on it so much. Their main symbol is a guy dying a slow and gruesome death on a cross. So much about a loving god kek. This has nothing to do with dying for what you believe in, but a Christian twist of it.
>>14704 >if we apply the same criteria to the claim of him raising from the dead, which we have no evidence of ever happening in the history, anywhere, the same chance drops to near zero. Of course it is inductively implausible, because it's the definition of a miracle, i.e. direct divine intervention in the normal course of nature. If people rose from the dead every day it wouldn't even be worth talking about. >That story seems ridiculous even if we assume that such generic God exists. There were much better events in history where he could intervene in such ways, and yet he didn't. How are we to assume what is better or worse when faced with the infinite mind and providence of God though? From a Christian perspective, the incarnation is important for a variety of reasons - (1) it is the fulfillment of messianic prophecies, (2) through the incarnation of the Son we are better to learn about the nature and character of God better than ever before since He has become, for a time, like us, (3) it shows that God is not aloof from His creation and is willing to undergo what we have undergone in our troubles and sufferings, and (4) it was for the forgiveness / atonement of sins and reconciliation to God the Father through God the Son. I believe that even the placement of this event in history was highly well-timed. >They are literally the central theme of Christianity I meant specifically the historical apologetic arguments that I have been offering. Of course the resurrection is essential. Most Christians don't believe because they have seen these arguments though, they believe because of the effects they have felt in their lives, their experiences with God through prayer, etc. >Abraham is the central figure of that religion after Jesus (Moses, Mohammad). Regardless of his circumstances, there is nothing whatsoever qualifying him to be selected by the universal, generic God. I'm confused why you are mentioning Muhammad, when that pedophile caravan-robber has nothing to do with Christianity and is the exact sort of false prophet that Jesus warned us against (Matthew 7:15-23). There is a lot more proof that Muhammad was victim to Satanic deception, but I'll digress for now. Also, God can choose who He wants. I have several theories on why the descendants of Abraham were chosen, and one of them is that it would testify that God can bring from the bad an even greater good. But this aside, Abraham himself is better than a figure like Jacob. >And this is totally not a primitive fantasy of some old kike? And has it not come true? >Why the hell would a God of all humanity make a single man a progenitor of such a huge amount of people? Spiritual progenitor, anon. Galatians 3:7. The main blessing that results from the physical descendants of Abraham is obviously Jesus Christ. > If his "godliness" was genetically transmissible And it clearly wasn't, read the OT. Not to mention the NT deicide. > then how do you explain most kikes turning into what they are today? Mainly because they rejected Jesus Christ. They were always rebellious against God more than not though. >Was this the ancient version of Larry Silverstein? If only the world trade centers had been full of sodomites. >So once cornered with just how ridiculous the whole story is when taken even semi-literally, you switch to allegorical interpretation? The event really happened historically, that does not exclude it from having purposeful symbolic qualities.
>>14704 >Christianity brought unprecedented power to the Jews Considering how they were chased from country to country for over a millennia in Europe, I don't buy this claim. It was the Muslims who afforded the Jews safe-harbor in their lands, and when the Muslims were kicked out of Spain, the Jews quickly skittered after them like the rats off a sinking ship. In truth, anti-Jewish expulsions and laws really only picked up after Europe had been Christianized. You or someone else will doubtlessly post about the Codex Theodosianus, conveniently forgetting 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. It's also worth pointing out that pagans loved Jews as soon as Christianity appeared. Julian the Apostate promised that he would abolish anti-Jewish laws and would rebuild the Jewish Temple and even join them in worship! Julian arranged for money and building materials to be provided for the temple, but God prevented him, and after several attempts to build on the site he was discouraged by a fire which broke out in the ruins. Here is his letter. http://avande1.sites.luc.edu/jerusalem/sources/julian-epist-25.htm https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/julian-the-apostate-x00b0 In Against the Galileans he sucks off Jews endlessly and defends Jewish views of God against the Trinity. Oy vey. >This exists in Judaism too, applicable to non-Jews who follow parts of the rabbinic law applicable to them Completely different. Talmudism teaches that non-Jews aren't even human. >Mind showing some quotes? 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.” And then of course we have the parables of the New Testament in which the vast majority of Jews are punted into the 'outer darkness' and replaced with Gentiles. > Their main symbol is a guy dying a slow and gruesome death on a cross. So much about a loving god kek. The main symbol is God dying on the cross. And again, there's nothing wrong with having resilience in conviction in your beliefs. It's much more admirable to be tortured to death for something you believe than to go full taqiyya mode like Muslims do when their religion threatens their lives. >So Jews would never attempt to cheat, right? A guy rising from the dead is more likely to happen than kikes scheming, bribing, deceiving and coercing people to get what they want? From a (much wider) historical perspective, the latter is far more credible. I don't think Christianity did much good for the Jews. They were often full-fledged Roman citizens under the pagans, were a religion with special exemptions with the Empire, they had their Temple, and they were not scattered all over the globe as much as they are today (and especially before seventy some years ago). Then some guy shows up claiming to the messiah, rebukes them, tells them that their Temple is going to be destroyed and that foreigners will level Jerusalem, and then they kill him and think nothing would happen. Of course their temple is leveled, they are scattered all over the Earth, and become wanderers for centuries afterwards. This sort of shit is right out of the curses from Deuteronomy for those who broke God's covenants. The penalty for deicide is not light!
>>14373 >White babies are White babies. That doesn't even refute the point I made. We cannot rely on a religion which stipulates that one's race does not matter, that we all need salvation and it must be spread into all nations. >I honestly couldn't care less about what they do in their own lands, honestly. You are missing the point. Your religion is encourage all races to multiply, therefore failing to give a strategical edge to Whites. Besides, you may not care much about others do until they have reached such numbers that the slightest plague, climatic disaster or charismatic warlord unites a great deal of them to invade your lands, all of which will prove problematic because of numbers. In summary, there is no hope for us in a religion that fails to separate races by divine mandate and encourages all nations to multiply. >Who defines what is beneficial for the individual? For the race? Which has priority? National Socialism happens to have answered that. >And according to who or what? According to we, Whites, who decide on what is good for us. >What is the standard of good? At the very least what maximizes our chances of survival. From there develops the ideas of a reliable society of people, groups, authorities and institutions we can trust and which are mutually supportive. >If one rapes and murders a non-White toddler and gets away with it, is that objectively wrong? Usually such an individual would be likely to do the same with a White baby too and would certainly be considered a danger to the people. Not only this individual would fail to use his sexual urges for the preservation of his kin, but he would also be contributing to the destruction of a White child and quite logically his family too. >Or is it good for the Volk now? Do not be stupid, raping brown toddlers can't be profitable to the Volk. >This is the biggest problem, is that you guys have no objective standards for anything and no reason why anyone should care about your appeals to nature. On the contrary, as you can see above we can easily assert what is good and what is not. The appeal to Nature in itself is above all a reminder that the main rule of all is survival. Your religion doesn't even support this because from a theological perspective it plainly says races do not matter and the soul of a nigger or a mutt is just as important as that of a White person. The reason Jews have been successful that long is both due to: 1 - not entirely denying the most violent teachings of the OT, contrary to feeble Christianity. 2 - having decreed in later writings that a Jewish soul is the only human soul ever and gentiles have much less value than dogs.
Going foreword, I'm going to have to ask you to not try to jew me. You've clamed that I've said things I haven't said (said that I said morality was "blurry" and made up some fake stereotype of "the reclusive christian"), you've routinely dropped points out of the conversation that you are cornered with, and intentionally greentexts some of my points in a certain way as to misrepresent them. You are on the attack, lashing out like an animal. >>14571 >You're missing the point. It's another refutation of the silly claim that Christians are so focused on the spiritual that they neglect everything and anything about the world. Paganism had to be completely eradicated for its society to be subverted. Christian countries allowed themselves to be subverted into the horror show we see today. The selfish pursuit of salvation is one of the main reasons for this, as well as Christianity being Jewish. >This is just an assertion, you are not answering my question, so I will ask it again - How are good and evil objectively grounded?. This is a question of moral ontology. You are trying to lead the argument into a place where you claim that you know good from evil because you know the absolute good, yahweh. There is no reason to believe yahweh is the only true god, considering the Jews used to consider him a son of El. He only became "god" when the Jews lived in Babylon and interacted with Zoroastrianism. If my statement does not establish a grounded good and evil, you too cannot establish this. >Yet you can't even explain to me why your myths have any sort of authoritative status They are the ancestral religion of the White race. How could this not be important to you? >how you derive your ethics I've already explained that here: >>14449 >how you know the existence of your so-called gods I have had personal spiritual experiences, as you have said you have. It would also be ludicrous to assume that spiritual entities do not exist, as you assume that they do exist. I need no more proof than you do, as you have presented none. >Why should we care about what pagan literature says or believe that it is expressing objective spiritual truths? This literature comes from our ancestors, our blood and kin. These people created societies which created the most beautiful art, the most treasured literature, the greatest minds and philosophers, the most vast and prosperous empires, and the most cohesive and harmonious communities. They came from a better and more enlightened age, one where true spirituality was present, unlike the faux, selfish spirituality of today. > I have pretty good grounds for at least rationally holding to Christianity due to the fulfilled prophecies Prophecies written by Jews with outcomes manufactured by jews. >extra-biblical historical research The most anyone could claim with historical research is that Jesus, the man, existed and was killed. No more can be gathered. >the existence of God (which can be rationally established and personally experienced) Both of which I have used to form my beliefs. >What you say about the Gospels can be dismissed too, because the mere fact of jews saying something doesn't make it ipso facto false. This is an unsubstantiated presupposition. It is not unsubstantiated. All of the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by jews. You are trying to justify, as a White man (I assume), following a religion entirely created by jews. Do you not see the problem with this? >my presupposition is that God is the only foundation for truth You can presuppose all you want, but when you believe in a jewish religion, you will never reach real truth. Jews are the opposite of truth. They deny it and hopelessly struggle to create a world that cannot ever exist. As long as you are shackled by Christianity, you cannot know truth.
>>14733 >According to we, Whites, who decide on what is good for us. So it's just relativism and according to the whims of our desires. There is no good. If every White person decides to be a degenerate, then this is good for us. >At the very least what maximizes our chances of survival. From there develops the ideas of a reliable society of people, groups, authorities and institutions we can trust and which are mutually supportive. And why is that good? Where is this morality / ethic derived from? >Usually such an individual would be likely to do the same with a White baby too and would certainly be considered a danger to the people. We don't know that. Some people have preferences. If we hypothetically had a pedophile who only took out his sadistic sexual urges on non-White children, killing them when he was done with them, there is clearly no reason why under this pseudo-morality of 'whatever helps the race is good' (and by extension 'whatever doesn't harm the race is at least neutral or not bad'), that this would be wrong. >On the contrary, as you can see above we can easily assert what is good and what is not. Assertions don't make a claim true, if they are subjectively derived they are baseless and there is no reason to follow them. >Do not be stupid, raping brown toddlers can't be profitable to the Volk. Sure it can, it gets rid of future brown people when we kill they're dead afterwards and provides White rapists with pleasure. It is an all-around good. And if you don't like that example, there are more - to help the Volk we could use non-Whites as a source of meat for us to eat. This benefits us hugely, especially since they require less maintenance than cows and other large forms of livestock. Through farming non-Whites for food, we are giving our Volk sustenance, and keeping the non-Whites under our thumb, and helping the environment. An all around good. If you base your moral system solely on some weird baseless metric of consequentialism there is no ground to say that bizarre and freakish scenarios like these are objectively wrong. >The appeal to Nature in itself Is a fallacy. >Your religion doesn't even support this because from a theological perspective it plainly says races do not matter and the soul of a nigger or a mutt is just as important as that of a White person. Equally capable of salvation. Let's not forget that pagan religions often have reincarnation and believe that they've been everything from a dog, to a maggot, to a worm to a rat, and that it is just the same soul traveling through various bodies. Greeks (Orphics, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, etc) believed this, Hindus believe this, Buddhists believe this, etc., Druids believed this, etc. Pagans believe they have spiritual commonality with a maggot ultimately.
>>14735 Why didn't you respond to >White babies are White babies. That doesn't even refute the point I made. We cannot rely on a religion which stipulates that one's race does not matter, that we all need salvation and it must be spread into all nations.
>>14372 >It was promised ... the vast majority of Jews. This whole paragraph is there to remind us that we need a universal messiah to care for ALL the peoples, all races, to save them all. Why should a White religion care about other peoples and races? >I don't think Jesus ever exhibited any outward hostility towards Rome. The Jews were also upset at him due to the whole 'render unto Caesar' line too. The Jews of that time were nationalists who refused the domination of an objectively occupying foreign force. Wasn't Barabbas a more legitimate figure? >You're really making a dichotomy that doesn't exist here. You're lumping all pagans in the same basket here, just as it is easy to ignore that this Orphic/Gnostic idea really seems to be a meme of the 5th and 4th centuries, all with the already suspicious and lamentable idea of a sinful mankind due to the origin of aparticular theogony (Abrahamism simply shifted this by making the Sin a matter of choice instead of one of genesis). We may have respect for the very wise Plato, Pythagoras or even Plotinus (who enjoys quite a fame in our circles), but taking the idea of a body being a prison instead of a choice is at the root of our failures. All religions considering the body as a problem, as a prison, will massively minimize its value and therefore the importance of race. Prove me wrong. >The mere fact of owning a Corvette is not sinful, but living a life with any sort of excessive attachment to wealth and useless luxury items can be a stumbling block for many individuals. It might be seen as a bit ostenatious though, but that's just my opinion. That would be like saying having the most beautiful wife on the planet would be a bit ostentatious. If I were a Christian I would be totally expected to give all I have, car included, down to the merest cloak I shall possess.
>>14733 >At the very least what maximizes our chances of survival. From there develops the ideas of a reliable society of people, groups, authorities and institutions we can trust and which are mutually supportive. This is not objective. Why does maximizing our chances of survival make something good? Why should someone do something which negatively effects them but maximizes survival of the group? This is not grounded in anything and just devolves into circular reasoning. >>14028 >Again cope, A God that can do whatever he wants is nihilism. You are just saying that you don't like things, not arguing against them. We should believe things because they are true, not just because we happen to like them and think they are useful.
>>14734 >They are the ancestral religion of the White race. How could this not be important to you? <my ancestors said XYZ therefore it's true! This is an extremely weak claim that does not show me why your pagan myths are authoritative when it comes to truth claims. >I've already explained that here: >>14449 No, you have not. You have made appeals to nature and appeals to pagan literature (and you can't give me a reason why these texts contain spiritual truths or any truth at all). >I have had personal spiritual experiences I won't doubt this, especially since you have said you have had a positive experience relating to Jesus from looking at a simple meme of him. And of course, just because one has a spiritual experience, does not mean that it is a good experience. 'Prelest' is a term worth looking up. >It would also be ludicrous to assume that spiritual entities do not exist That's never been my assumption. I am sure many of these pagan 'gods' are real. That doesn't make them worthy of worship, or show that these beings have any sort of good moral character when they frequently abduct humans just like the fallen angels of Genesis 6, and how they engage in bestiality, homosexuality, rape and general degeneracy. >These people created societies which created the most beautiful art, the most treasured literature, the greatest minds and philosophers, the most vast and prosperous empires, and the most cohesive and harmonious communities. That's nice, but again this doesn't give us any reason to believe that pagan literature expresses any sort of spiritual truth. I myself could appeal to art made by Europeans under Christianity like Rembrandt paintings or pieces of music like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3v9unphfi0 but it wouldn't make you think by itself that Christianity is in any sense true. >Prophecies written by Jews with outcomes manufactured by jews. This is just a cope, because there is no evidence of the conspiracy that you allege. >The most anyone could claim with historical research is that Jesus, the man, existed and was killed. No more can be gathered. Yes, and this still provides me more proof that Jesus was real, that he lived in Judaea, that he preached, and that he died via crucifixion. This is far more proof for my religion that any of your pagan nonsense, and it edifies my other believes. >Both of which I have used to form my beliefs. And again, it is worth pointing out that people from religions and weird cults all around the planet claim to have had spiritual experiences, and many of them likely have of some variety, but this doesn't prove that they are encountering anything expressing objective truths, or anything good, or that their beliefs have any basis beyond what they think they might have seen. Christians can point to things that have clearly happened that support (even if they don't prove) their claims. This gives the Christian a far more stable and well-supported rational basis for belief. > All of the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by jews. And again we come to the issue of presuppositions! Atheist scholars claim that the Gospels are from decades later because they believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have predicted the events of 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple. This is why the allegedly earliest Gospel, Mark, is dated around this time. If one believes that Jesus could have predicted the Temple, it could have come from much earlier. And even before this we have independent sources from Paul which attest to the fact that Jesus was crucified, buried and rose on the third day, along with claims that the disciples witnessed the risen Jesus (just like the four independent sources in the gospels claim) from decades before Mark if we are to not accept the fact that Mark was written pre-destruction of the Temple. >You are trying to justify, as a White man (I assume), following a religion entirely created by jews. Do you not see the problem with this? No, I don't. I seek the truth, not what aligns with my political views at any given time. >But when you believe in a jewish religion, you will never reach real truth. Substantiate this claim. >Jews are the opposite of truth Are you denying that Jews can make true claims? >They deny it and hopelessly struggle to create a world that cannot ever exist. Christianity doesn't try to create an unachievable utopia on Earth, this is a modernist myth.
>>14736 >Why didn't you respond to 'White babies are White babies'. Because it's irrelevant. Christians are keeping the White race afloat, and yet people are upset that the religion doesn't fit their preferred brand of politics on some issue. >We cannot rely on a religion which stipulates that one's race does not matter, that we all need salvation and it must be spread into all nations. We're talking about truth, not some political program. If Christianity is the truth, you just have to cope with the fact. >>14737 >Why should a White religion care about other peoples and races? Prove to me that a White religion is true and then we'll talk. >All religions considering the body as a problem, as a prison, will massively minimize its value and therefore the importance of race. Well then you should not be a pagan, because paganism comes down to pessimism, cycles of suffering and rebirth, reincarnation into animal forms, etc. You are not even your body in most pagan religions, especially in the philosophically-developed ones that don't come down to sacrificing to devils like that of Plato, Pythagoras, Plotinus, etc. All of them believed that this world was something to be escaped and liberated from. >this Orphic/Gnostic idea really seems to be a meme of the 5th and 4th centuries Orphic religion is dated as coming from at least the 5th or 6th centuries B.C.. Plato is from the 4th century B.C.. Vedic religion is essentially more Gnostic shit and comes from the 10th century B.C. at earliest, Herodotus' work mentioning similar pessimistic sentiments comes from the 5th century B.C.. These gnostic elements from paganism later tried to worm their way into Christianity. Every upcropping of Gnosticism is always pagan influence. Even Hollywood shills for this shit today. >That would be like saying having the most beautiful wife on the planet would be a bit ostentatious. Not really. One is a material good, and another is a living, breathing human being who has been blessed with beauty. That was just my personal opinion though, really.
For the record, there are several anons with the same Tor posting so unfortunately this might explain the confusion. Keep this in mind when reading the following post. >>14391 >>Perhaps because we never faced a global racial extinction before? >So what you are describing still doesn't even exist. Are you going to argue that the Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory now? That there is no Zionist plan to destroy nearly all cultures and above all eradicate all noble Whites? I'm also keeping this as pragmatical as possible by avoiding the /fringe/ chapter of talking with racial mixing during the antediluvian ages. >You said that most of the altruism, self-sacrifice and cooperation within nature is within a given race Yes I did. >but when I pushed back on this and said that there is great conflict throughout history even between closely related groups, you say that this is because they did not face extinction. They had no such conscience of facing a large scale extinction. >But of course there still has never been this sort of great White kumbaya that you are saying is just so natural I never said it is natural, nor did I say it existed or manifested (or if I did and you would find a quotation of me on that, it would be a mistake on my part, since you, me and everyone around can painfully see this today, this deep lack of solidarity and racial awareness only reached by a few. We humans are also much more complex creatures and enjoy a greater amplitude in our free will. But instead of mocking the idea, should not you too wish we had a religion that helped us realize this vaunted "kumbaya" mindset? >Keeping Muslims out of most of Europe, for one. It was never done in the name of race then and it was just happenstance that Christians were White when Muslims were not. We just have to look at the religious fratricidal wars that happened in Europe because of Christianity, Germany, France, England and later on Ireland for example, to name a few cases, to have the confirmation that your religion could never do anything for the race, on the basis of a racial awareness, and it largely proved that it would easily contribute to the racial destruction because of theological disagreements on the topic of a foreign religion. > This sort of Social Darwinism meme didn't exist until then though What are you arguing here? That our distant ancestors didn't realize that struggle was found in many things, involving many species? >and has been manifestly destructive for Western societies How so? You are out of your mind. If we actually acknowledge this struggle, we wouldn't be inviting strangers into our own very lands, nor would be letting Jews decide of our destinies. >Carnegies and various Freemasons were active supporters of this ideology and propagated it into the minds of the masses to support the birth of their business empire, the dissolution of organic social bonds and the value of human life. At worst you would only prove that they twisted the concept for revolting purposes and that's all. >the dissolution of organic social bonds and the value of human life. Only if you make it purely individualistic and deny the clan/tribe/ingroup/kin importance, whereas Jews would never forget about the importance of this principle. Should we be surprised then that we lost sight of this as their power grew? >Most ancient philosophy is hated by this board and people pretend that their ancestors two thousand plus years ago were all Nietzscheans or something They were not Christians though and couldn't care much about spreading an alien faith to save all of mankind. They cared about their clans or bloodlines, and even more so in regions spared by the vicissitudes of cosmopolitanism. >pagan religions were often very otherworldly and based on escaping the material world. See >>14373 >They were very pessimistic and 'life-denying'. Like Christianity. These currents were pessimistic indeed; They are in large part responsible of Christianity finding so much fertile soil to grow on. >Religious practice consisted of haggling with demons for them to make it rain on your crops or to tell you the future. Holy shit, that's what they tell you in your churches? >So-called gods ruled over most of the nations of mankind for a long time, and ruled unjustly and wickedly. Please. Let's just observe that since Jesus the world has not changed at all, it is just as wicked and his whole plan was moot. >Struggle is not the meaning of life TOPKEK Let's leave it at that and move on to other posts.
>>14392 >Irenaeus of Lyon There was nothing settled at the time of his living and he was merely defending his favorite set of texts, of which the true content would be impossible to know with certainty. >All academic evidence points to the fact that the four principle Gospels were written between 70-90 AD There is sufficient academic evidence today to point out how all texts have been tinkered with, some people even arguing that two of the four gospels are way out of place, notably in making Jesus far more Jewish than in the other two which seemed to really skim the topic. >The letters of Paul which refer to Jesus as someone who lived among them as a man, suffered, died, and then was physically resurrected are present even earlier in the letters of Paul which are dated to around 50 AD onward Paul never met the bloke ever, just had a convenient vision and ran with it. He could write any kind of nonsense, back then nobody could tell him he was full of it. Even if you lived in an influential city you couldn't even pretend knowing everything about it unless you had your own network of spies or something. So Paul could make up anything he wanted. >All of these Gospels are independent sources too This is incorrect and if I had the clear references in mind I could point you to the comparisons made that show gospel segments lifted off from other gospels. If I had more time I could perhaps spend an hour or two looking into it but I'm not sure how relevant it would be. > And then from the 2nd century we have various mentions by pagan Roman writers like Suetonius, Tacitus and others. Are you serious? How could people living two centuries after the fact testify of Jesus the man having been real? Your logic is absurd. >Clement of Rome One century late. Your logic is wishful thinking. The only way I could be certain of the life of someone who lived a century before would be to be able to meet with people who would have supposedly lived with him and were still alive and hadn't lost all their marbles, and would have to take their word at face value despite the fact that they would most likely be totally biased.
I know this is not my argument and belongs to another anon's own exchange with the Christian, but there's something to say here about harmony and struggle because the Christian thinks they are opposed, and provides a stellar example of this flawed logic below. >>14455 >Words have meanings. Harmony refers to agreement or concord of multiple elements, and the original term in the Greek refers to union and things that fit together in a greater whole. Struggle is disharmony by definition. You have a very Jewish mindset, which unsurprisingly is at war with Nature. Hunters and preys are in balance yet struggle every day. Nature has never fallen apart because of this eternal struggle. Following your corrupt logic, all of Nature would be in constant disharmony because of the never ending struggle. Your religion of peace and love really shows its limits here, for you confuse harmony with non-struggle, aka peace. And jumping on other points now; >The idea that Christianity sees the world as manifestly or wholly 'bad' has already been refuted When could this have ever been achieved when the whole of the Christian eschatology is a wide ranging negative judgement of this tainted world that will be torched for a new and better one to be created instead? >Indeed, it's Christians who have bigger families, it's Christians who have happier and longer-lasting marriages, and it's Christians in general who report having a much better quality of life than the non-religious White person. You are merely demonstrating that a faithless White nation is detrimental to us, not that we need Christianity which has nothing going for it on the racial debate.
>>14464 >Why didn't Jesus do it again in other times and circumstances? It would give a huge boost to his faith. Someone needs a booster faith-shot I see.
>>14741 >What are you arguing here? That our distant ancestors didn't realize that struggle was found in many things, involving many species? Ancient Aryan views of the world are predicated on things such as unity, cycles, order, regularity, and interdependence of the parts of nature in an organic whole. We can find this in Plato, Stoic cosmology, the thought of Celsus, Dharmic religions (esp. Vedic), etc). They did not view struggle in any sense as being essential to life, and it is worth noting that many of these religions are founded on the idea of a descent from a more peaceful and harmonious Golden Age, which I would argue is a vague folk memory of the Garden of Eden before the fall of man. >How so? You are out of your mind. To begin with, evolution is a materialist myth, and is a product of Masonic influences. T.H. Huxley is one of the biggest Masonic shills for evolution and Social Darwinism - and is even known as 'Darwin's Bulldog'. Darwin himself had Masons in his close family circle. It speaks for itself. Darwinism is used to push ideas of 'progress' and runaway capitalist competition, hence why it was the favorite of business magnates like the Rockefellers and Carnegies. These sorts of people pushed for zero restrictions on monopolies, the sterilization of the poor, atavistic conceptions of criminal justice and the general dehumanization of people (materialism has done this in general). >If we actually acknowledge this struggle, we wouldn't be inviting strangers into our own very lands, nor would be letting Jews decide of our destinies. I don't think people need Masonic psyops to control their own lands properly. >Only if you make it purely individualistic and deny the clan/tribe/ingroup/kin importance You're not a Portuguese man o' war or some other sort of colonial superorganism though, so if you base your worldview on a struggle and survival of the fittest this is the natural result, some shit like Ragnar Redbeard. >Holy shit, that's what they tell you in your churches? It's the truth, just like it's undeniable that your precious devils rape women, fuck animals and young boys. So divine. >Let's just observe that since Jesus the world has not changed at all, it is just as wicked and his whole plan was moot. You miss the point of Christianity. The world is fallen.
Are William D. Pelley's Soulcraft books worth reading to understand Christianity from a /fascist/ perspective?
>>14743 >Hunters and preys are in balance yet struggle every day. Nature has never fallen apart because of this eternal struggle. >Following your corrupt logic, all of Nature would be in constant disharmony because of the never ending struggle. No, retard, you're talking about a dialectical tension between struggle and harmony, which is completely different. >When could this have ever been achieved when the whole of the Christian eschatology is a wide ranging negative judgement of this tainted world that will be torched for a new and better one to be created instead? Corrupted from original perfection does not mean that the world is 'bad'. Creation has been described as groaning with the pangs of childbirth, and will one day be liberated from the bondage of decay, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Let's not forget that every pagan religion declares that we are in a dark age of suffering and degeneracy and that things are fallen from an original perfection, this is a folk memory of Eden.
>>14470 >Various other aspects such as the condemned being forced to carry their own crosses are confirmed as a Roman practice in the works of Plutarch, Chariton and other Roman and Greek writers. Assuming the word used really meant cross for a moment, this only proves the reality of a practice, nothing else. >>And to show how brutal the scourgings given in the era could be, here is one quotation from Josephus in relation to a Jewish man in 62 AD who given over by the Jews to the Romans: >our rulers [...] brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" <Lo and behold, on the name of my family, me, Josephus, verily report on the fate of a miserable fellow White person Jew who didn't cry in pain as he was struck, despite being flayed alive, rendered skinless in several parts of his body, for he was but the most pious of all Jews I had known of. 100% reliable. Did Josephus like the Romans btw? >Christianity is the largest religion on the planet, it clearly wasn't necessary to do it again. The prophecy was fulfilled. Well, our Christian here just conveniently forgetting how his cult was spread not by virtue of reason but by forced conversion, bribery and torture for the most part and how it struggled to cover Northern Europe without copious amounts of well armed "arguments". Seriously though, are you really expecting us to believe that the majority of pagans on this planet just gave up on their beliefs naturally because of someone knocking on their door shilling for Jesus with a Bible in their hand? Telling them they sinners and would suffer for eternity for a distant heinous crime they never heard or cared about until then? >Again there's zero proof Jesus wanted to overthrow the Romans. Did the anon say Jesus planned this? Because I think the real argument thus far has been that it was Saul's plan all along.
New idea Christians: make it useful What is it that you like the most in Christianity that you could honorably and honestly think could translate well into a new pagan cult? Rituals? Community life? Reading for the liturgy? Imagery? The mystique? Weight of institutions and implied power?
>>14746 >Pelly, soulcrafters An umpteenth protestant variant? Was the man even somewhat regularly initiated?
>>14740 >Christians are keeping the White race afloat This point was actually addressed by the other anon who reminded you that pagans did this too. The key difference being that pagan beliefs didn't urge other races to keep themselves afloat too! Your religion doesn't discriminate: any advantage you think it bestows upon Whites, is given to our racial opponents too. It's null, it's a tie. This is not enough nor acceptable for us today. >yet people are upset that the religion doesn't fit their preferred brand of politics on some issue. >u upset cause Jewsusdaism not fitting White nationalism hahahahahahaha Come on. >We're talking about truth, not some political program. And since when truth excluded racial imperatives? The more we push you on the racial question, the more you reveal the soft poison Christianity is to us. >If Christianity is the truth, you just have to cope with the fact. If >Prove to me that a White religion is true and then we'll talk. A White religion would by definition contain pro-White preferences necessary to our survival. How could this be wrong? Only a Jew would want to convince people that White racial survival is wrong. >Well then you should not be a pagan, because paganism comes down to pessimism Not all pagan cults were centered on the 5th century Orphism, haven't you gotten that yet? Have you fond any accusation of the flesh in, say, the Eddas, which are definitely based on very ancient Northern lore and faiths? >cycles of suffering and rebirth Who spoke of Buddhism here? And would deny that Buddhism massively inspired Christianity too? >You are not even your body in most pagan religions, especially in the philosophically-developed ones that don't come down to sacrificing to devils like that of Plato, Pythagoras, Plotinus, etc. You are repeating your points yet I already addressed them, notably these three persons and their common physical-rejecting influence. All this smokescreening aside you have not refuted: >All religions considering the body as a problem, as a prison, will massively minimize its value and therefore the importance of race. >Orphic religion is dated as coming from at least the 5th or 6th centuries B.C.. Plato is from the 4th century B.C.. If you push it, yes, in some places it reaches late 6th century at best. It was already decadent. We may be giving too much importance to a few learned men who transmitted the same continuous philosophy, from one man to another, and had much influence on the political leaders back then in the Mediterranean region. >Vedic religion is essentially more Gnostic shit and comes from the 10th century B.C. Please explain this statement. It is most amusing you would call it "shit" when the pessimistic Gnostic aspect so blatantly transpired into Christianity! >These gnostic elements from paganism later tried to worm their way into Christianity. And succeeded, most assuredly. Christianity treats the body as a mass of physical matter to be rejected, a blunder. >Not really. One is a material good, and another is a living, breathing human being who has been blessed with beauty. That was just my personal opinion though, really. Since when did Christianity care about the beauty of the Aryan White woman? And why would you not understand that the marvel of a well designed sports car would also be the manifestation of the Aryan's sense of power and beauty in his craft?
>>14752 what the fuck.....?
>>14742 >There was nothing settled at the time of his living and he was merely defending his favorite set of texts, of which the true content would be impossible to know with certainty. Clearly it was a mainstream enough of a view at this time for a major Christian bishop to bother to argue in favor of it, not to mention that he in no way claims to be the originator of any new ideas in this section, but is merely contributing to the larger theme of his book, which is the refutation of heresies. He even talks about heretics using these canon Gospels and either adding to the four, or taking away ones - so it is clear that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John have always in some sense held authority over all of the others, even in heretical fringe groups. >some people even arguing that two of the four gospels are way out of place, notably in making Jesus far more Jewish than in the other two which seemed to really skim the topic. Yes, and what are these peoples' agendas in doing this? >He could write any kind of nonsense, back then nobody could tell him he was full of it Paul personally interacted with the immediate disciples of Jesus who accepted him as legitimate. Your view that ancient people were dumb or something really shows how pozzed with modernism your mindset really is. >This is incorrect and if I had the clear references in mind I could point you to the comparisons made that show gospel segments lifted off from other gospels. They were written by different authors at different times and have unique elements within them. Similar stories with minor agreements in wording appearing in Gospels on the same man should not be surprising. Memes such as the Q hypothesis are mostly unsubstantiated for several reasons, including the lack of the existence of any sort of 'sayings gospel'. And even if the Gospels were dependent on one or two sources that doesn't change the numerous independent epistles of the NT, some written by Paul, some written by James, John, Peter, etc. >Are you serious? How could people living two centuries after the fact testify of Jesus the man having been real? Your logic is absurd. Two centuries? Lmao. Jesus probably died in probably 30 or 33 AD. Suetonius mentioned Jesus less than a century afterwards given that his work is said to have been written in 121 AD. Tacitus would have mentioned Jesus in 116 AD. It is important to realize too that Tacitus is writing about Christians and Jesus when relaying information about the events of 64 AD during the reign of Nero. Suetonius' passage is in reference to the expulsion of Christians in 49 AD. These are considered decent and reliable historical sources in regards to their subject matter on emperors, even though they are writing about things from decades ago. >Clement of Rome >One century late. You have to be either intentionally dishonest or you don't even know when Jesus died, since Clement was bishop of Rome from 88 to 99 AD, which puts him being in this position a little over fifty years after Jesus' death. He's also believed to be the four bishop that Rome had as well.
>>14752 >You are repeating your points yet I already addressed them Does this quote in anyway hit home for you? >“The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct.”
>>14748 >Assuming the word used really meant cross for a moment, this only proves the reality of a practice, nothing else. Again, you're misunderstanding the point, the point is that the narratives in the Gospels are in line with actual Roman practices and aren't just total fiction. It's not meant to show anything more than that. And crucifixion as a punishment of course long predates the crucifixion of Jesus, so I do not know why you would doubt the particular crucifixion on a cross of all things. >Josephus He was a massive cuck to the Romans. Are you forgetting the fact that Josephus was a close friend and advisor of the emperor Vespasian and even bore the family name of the emperor? This same Josephus was on the ground on the side of the Romans when the Jewish temple was destroyed and gorillions of Jews were killed. >>14752 >And since when truth excluded racial imperatives? It doesn't, but you can't just claim that truth contains a racial imperative without evidence for this claim. >Only a Jew would want to convince people that White racial survival is wrong. No one ever made the claim that White survival is wrong, retard. >Not all pagan cults were centered on the 5th century Orphism, haven't you gotten that yet? You again ignore the fact that it went far, far beyond Orphism because it doesn't fit with your false vision of paganism. >Who spoke of Buddhism here? Vedas, Orphic religion, the dialogues of Plato, the writings of Plotinus, Empedocles, Pythagoreanism, etc. all support reincarnation, and often views that the material world is evil and meant to be escaped. >And would deny that Buddhism massively inspired Christianity too? <implying that a religion based on the absence of a self, an absence of God and an eternal cycle of suffering and rebirth has anything to do with Christianity >notably these three persons and their common physical-rejecting influence. Yeah, because these are basically the only pagans of any intellectual merit. Your LARP is dead in the water without them. They all hate matter and believe they are soul. >It is most amusing you would call it "shit" when the pessimistic Gnostic aspect so blatantly transpired into Christianity! Gnosticism is the view that ascetic practices and the like can give you gnosis, or a direct experience of God, and that this gnosis is the only way to salvation. Christianity rejects this view in total. Salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ. > Christianity treats the body as a mass of physical matter to be rejected, a blunder LOL Fuck you are ignorant. Pagans are the ones who reject the physical body and believe that it is just a 'vehicle' than they change between endlessly as they turn into maggots, into rats and into dogs, not to mention other animals. The current body now is basically a seed for the future one. What is sown perishable, will be raised imperishable, glorified and in power and transformed. Read 1 Corinthians 15:35-58.
(23.53 KB 600x600 laughing pepe emoji.jpg)
>>14755 When did you ever best me in an argument? You can't even philosophically or logically justify your claims <it was real in my mind
>>14745 >Golden Age Never implied that there wasn't any struggle. You also admit existence of obey a cyclical pattern, meaning that there will always be descent and ascent. This is, by definition, the very obvious engine of struggle. Struggle to survive and protect truths as all falls apart, struggle to rebuild against our enemies as we return to a preferable state. >To begin with, evolution is a materialist myth, and is a product of Masonic influences. I never spoke of evolution nor argued in favor of it. >I don't think people need Masonic psyops to control their own lands properly. It really take something of complete desperation or impeccable obliviousness to senses to claim that acknowledging the struggle between races and territorial control to be a Masonic psyops. Have Freemasons written the Laws of Nature by chance? Are lions and gazelles being bewitched by Masonic lies? >You're not a Portuguese man o' war or some other sort of colonial superorganism though, so if you base your worldview on a struggle and survival of the fittest this is the natural result, some shit like Ragnar Redbeard. RR didn't deny racial survival nor did he make this a purely individual matter. >It's the truth, just like it's undeniable that your precious devils rape women, fuck animals and young boys. So divine. I suppose it's a good thing that we've been freed from the institutionalized zoophilia, pedophilia, race and incest by a Jew. >You miss the point of Christianity. The world is fallen. See, this is what I'm saying. Its replacement is slated. Its physicality is broken. Time for Tikkun Olam, but the Christian way. >>14747 >No, retard, you're talking about a dialectical tension between struggle and harmony, which is completely different. Make your point or shut up. >Corrupted from original perfection does not mean that the world is 'bad'. I would be tempted to cite the other anon, or maybe it's you just above, reminding us how it is fallen. I do not see how something fallen could be good. >Creation has been described as groaning with the pangs of childbirth, and will one day be liberated from the bondage of decay, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Decay is part of life. It's a phase in the cycle. Without change, there is no point in existence. Being static is just as good as not being at all. >Let's not forget that every pagan religion declares that we are in a dark age of suffering and degeneracy In a form yes, but there's a considerable amount of wiggle room in how one reads this. >things are fallen from an original perfection, this is a folk memory of Eden. And where does the racial struggle intervenes in all of this? Why should you care about your race if what you really need to do to join with Jesus is follow a long list of commandments that never include anything about defending your own race?
>>14758 >Never implied that there wasn't any struggle. Hesiod makes it sound like there wasn't: <[Men] lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all devils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace. >You also admit existence of obey a cyclical pattern, meaning that there will always be descent and ascent. This is, by definition, the very obvious engine of struggle. No, I did not admit this, and wouldn't admit it, outside of banal observations like the day and night interchange regularly due to the rotation of the earth, or that there are four seasons, etc. This is quite different from the eternal metaphysical / spiritual cycles of pagan religions, which I don't believe in. >I never spoke of evolution nor argued in favor of it. Social Darwinism is predicated on evolutionary theory, hence the name. >It really take something of complete desperation or impeccable obliviousness to senses to claim that acknowledging the struggle between races and territorial control to be a Masonic psyops. Have Freemasons written the Laws of Nature by chance? Are lions and gazelles being bewitched by Masonic lies? We're talking about Social Darwinism, retard. >Time for Tikkun Olam, but the Christian way. Tikkun Olam relies on socially progressive causes within the world to 'fix' God's creation and repair it to its original state. Christianity doesn't believe this. "My kingdom is not of this world". >Make your point or shut up. I did, now you're mad. >I do not see how something fallen could be good. Humans aren't completely evil yet they are seen as fallen from their original perfection, it is the same with the world (as the whole world was corrupted by the fall). It's funny I have to be the one to say this, but it's not black and White here where something is either irredeemably evil and broken, or wholly perfect. >Decay is part of life. It's a phase in the cycle. Without change, there is no point in existence. Being static is just as good as not being at all. You're basing this on your presuppositions about this fallen world, irrelevant. >what you really need to do to join with Jesus is follow a long list of commandments <I know nothing about Jesus: the post
>>14757 >You can't even philosophically or logically justify your claims I do, and then you claim that they are not grounded on anything. When I show how they are grounded in literature, culture, and nature you say these things means nothing. When I stress the importance of reverence in one's ancestors and ancestral practices, you act as if our ancestors were retards. Somehow, you claim, that your religion founded on the scriptures of judaism, centered around a semitic deity, is fit for the White man. Anytime I present a argument you cannot refute, you pilpul, and lie, and ignore. You scoff at logic, and learning, preferring your son of El. You do not care about the White race. You place no value in truth. You are a jew, plain and simple.
(209.12 KB 512x512 suit pepe laugh.png)
>>14760 >When I show how they are grounded in literature, culture, and nature you say these things means nothing. You clearly don't understand the fact that 'grounding' has a precise definition, because just claiming that some books are arbitrarily true or that you see some shit in nature (appeal to nature is a fallacy), isn't grounding in the philosophical sense. >When I stress the importance of reverence in one's ancestors and ancestral practices, you act as if our ancestors were retards Yet you can't substantiate philosophically why anyone should think that it is important, or provide any objective standard for your claims. >Anytime I present a argument you cannot refute, you pilpul, and lie, and ignore Asking for a philosophical defense of your pagan LARP is not pilpul, buddy. As I have said before, I can provide you multiple evidential reasons why one should be a Christian based off of historical evidence, prophetic evidence, philosophical evidence relating to the existence of God. All of it comes together to give a rational found to be a Christian. You just have some dumb shit about 'muh nature!' and 'muh pagan books!'. You're clearly in over your head here. Go on, defend the existence of your gods and why they should be worshiped without giving me appeals to tradition (fallacious argument), appeals to nature (fallacious argument) and genetic fallacies surrounding Jews (fallacious argument).
>>14754 >Clearly it was a mainstream enough of a view at this time for a major Christian bishop to bother to argue in favor of it, not to mention that he in no way claims to be the originator of any new ideas in this section, but is merely contributing to the larger theme of his book, which is the refutation of heresies. Major because he had nice comfy spot. Certain "heresies" in early Christianity's existence came close to become the major form. >He even talks about heretics using these canon Gospels and either adding to the four, or taking away ones - so it is clear that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John have always in some sense held authority over all of the others, even in heretical fringe groups. Fair point. >Yes, and what are these peoples' agendas in doing this? What was Irenaeus' agenda? >Paul personally interacted with the immediate disciples of Jesus who accepted him as legitimate Look, if this argument was so solid, the historicity of Jesus would have been settled a long time ago. The number of these disciples, plus the names of a few of them, are recurring schemes found across several religions. There's nothing so certain about the historicity of all these disciples either. In the end it's a whole piece of cloth of mutually complimenting figures. >They were written by different authors at different times and have unique elements within them. But also have blatant similarities in them and there's a whole thing to say about the different styles observed in the writings. >And the Epistles And how would you prove these people, if they all had been real too and were the true authors of the texts, had not agreed upon the idea of creating this sort of fantastic figure of Jesus Christ? The problem remains whole with people with a major bias looked upon as reliable witnesses. You know the arguments formulated by critics so I'm not going to teach you anything new here. >Jesus birth/death Unreliable >Suetonius, Tacitus Added one extra century, bad calculation on my part here. Anyway, they were not able in any way to provide any substantial evidence to the historicity of Jesus. All they could do was report on what they heard and read. Mentioning Jesus isn't enough, it barely counts tbh. This whole discussion is perhaps quite idiotic on the face of it, since God and the Son of God could have surely found a monumental way of making the reality of Jesus an indisputable fact instead of leaving it at the mercy of criticism, depending on a story skimming on the fringes of hearsay. This is what is most silly about it when you think of it, that something so important for all of mankind is made so fragile in reliability. >You have to be either intentionally dishonest or you don't even know when Jesus died, since Clement was bishop of Rome from 88 to 99 AD, which puts him being in this position a little over fifty years after Jesus' death. He's also believed to be the four bishop that Rome had as well. I got my centuries and dates offset by a 100 years. Okay, then what? Christianity was a mess of many cults and was in direct competition with much more mainstream and well established pagan cults. 50-60 years isn't even enough for Clement to have been a man of importance. He might be a major figure in Christianity but in the life of the people in that region of Earth, in that city and around, he was just one man at the head of a fringe cult of anarchists who pissed off authorities. And unless he met Jesus himself, he was going on hearsay too. For obvious reasons, including political, he would agree with the existence of Jesus. The biggest issue is that anytime we're looking for less biased sources corroborating the existence of such an important man, they're always too late to be that reliable, and they most often than not consist of repeating what the Christians parroted all day long, because there was essentially nothing else the outer authors could do.
>>14755 >>You are repeating your points yet I already addressed them >Does this quote in anyway hit home for you? >Hitler quote Nice try but here's that part you have dodged: >All religions considering the body as a problem, as a prison, will massively minimize its value and therefore the importance of race. Would you deny this?
I don't deny it. I was arguing with the same guy, and realized how relevant the quote was considering how the christian jew was arguing, so I figured I'd post the quote.
>>14756 >Again, you're misunderstanding the point, the point is that the narratives in the Gospels are in line with actual Roman practices and aren't just total fiction. You are the one missing the simple point. Making references to real customs and practices does in no way make the writings' content valid. Your logic is stupid otherwise any piece of fiction should be considered real the moment it's somewhat using real life places, events, people or customs. >And crucifixion as a punishment of course long predates the crucifixion of Jesus, so I do not know why you would doubt the particular crucifixion on a cross of all things. Actually crucifixion as depicted in Christian lore need not be what Romans truly practiced, in that they didn't necessarily bother with a true cross, nor even with a wooden beam at all. Even less with the forced procession of carrying same piece of wood. >Josephus >He was a massive cuck to the Romans. He merely shifted at a time it was profitable to him, like any Jew would do. Don't try to tell me this man, this Jew, born among Jews, educated according to their laws and customs, at the front of the defense of Jerusalem his cherished city, himself then a Pharisee, would oh suddenly see the light and totally side with the Romans without a seething desire for vengeance. If you think this, then you are impossibly naive and know nothing at all about Jews and especially gentile-hating rabbis. That's on the scale of being born in Dresden, being a prime National Socialist and close to Himmler, seeing your city torched and people burned alive, but then you get captured by the Allies while fighting against the yankees, brought into Washington, and miracle of miracles, you suddenly become best fren with the POTUS and foretell him success, mad pussy and plenty of shekels. Oh my sweet child. Jews are natural born liars but when it suits you, they suddenly become very reliable. It's pathetic.
>>14761 >You clearly don't understand the fact that 'grounding' has a precise definition, because just claiming that some books are arbitrarily true or that you see some shit in nature (appeal to nature is a fallacy), isn't grounding in the philosophical sense. Look, dude, natural law is a clearly observable thing that works in conjunction with the harmony of a cyclical universe. You can appeal to yahweh (jewish desert god) all you want, but your doctrine will never be truthful. It just wont. >et you can't substantiate philosophically why anyone should think that it is important, or provide any objective standard for your claims. And you can reference fictitious accounts of Jesus kike with no proof of accuracy. Yo will never be able to prove that there was anything divine about jesus. >Asking for a philosophical defense of your pagan LARP is not pilpul, buddy. Your religion is quite literally a jewish LARP where you pretend that yahweh gives a shit about you. >As I have said before, I can provide you multiple evidential reasons why one should be a Christian based off of historical evidence, prophetic evidence, philosophical evidence relating to the existence of God. All of it comes together to give a rational found to be a Christian. LEL. Sure, tell me about how jesus was a man, or about how your favorite kikes fulfilled a prophecy they made up by making more stuff up, or spout your philosophy that have good and evil, only "struggle and harmony", which by the way is the same thing. >Go on, defend the existence of your gods and why they should be worshiped without giving me appeals to tradition (fallacious argument), appeals to nature (fallacious argument) and genetic fallacies surrounding Jews (fallacious argument). Classic jew move here. Tradition and nature are useless, right? "No, don't listen to the harmony of the universe, listen to your old pal yahweh, I have the real truth." Everybody, the Christian wants you to embrace the jews! jewish lineages are a fallacy! I guess we should all reject tradition and race, because that's what christians do, and christians of course know the truth. Your pilpulling faggotry will get you nowhere.
>>14762 >What was Irenaeus' agenda? To refute views that he saw as heretical innovations? > the historicity of Jesus would have been settled a long time ago. It is settled. Basically any scholar of any note and expertise today believes that Jesus existed at bare minimum. Your only major defender of mythicist theories today is Richard Carrier, the polyamorous cuckold himself. He was trashed by William Lane Craig in debate on this very topic too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd6qzFYzX8 >But also have blatant similarities in them Wow, because they are about the same things and same man. > there's a whole thing to say about the different styles observed in the writings. Subjective. >And how would you prove these people... had not agreed upon the idea of creating this sort of fantastic figure of Jesus Christ? What would be the point? Why would they die for some shit that they decided to make up for the lulz one day, whether at the hands of their own people, or in trying to preach it abroad? >Unreliable It can be pinpointed. Luke gives us a time-frame of a census done by Quirinius in Judea in roughly 6 A.D. I've usually seen 4 A.D. given. >Mentioning Jesus isn't enough, it barely counts tbh. Historians seem to think it counts. This is how the historicity of many ancient people are established. >This is what is most silly about it when you think of it, that something so important for all of mankind is made so fragile in reliability. If God wanted to He could write in the stars "CHRISTIANITY IS REAL" and still there would be retards going around claiming that it was a coincidence or they would only believe in God out of fear and false piety then and wouldn't genuinely seek Him out on their own. There's a free-will aspect that can't be overlooked. > For obvious reasons, including political, he would agree with the existence of Jesus. Not much of a political reason to do it in those days. >The biggest issue is that anytime we're looking for less biased sources corroborating the existence of such an important man, they're always too late to be that reliable, and they most often than not consist of repeating what the Christians parroted all day long, because there was essentially nothing else the outer authors could do. Yeah, because there's no reason to care about some 'kooky foreigners preaching a new religion' until they actually become something that is noticeable in everyday life. Why would elite Roman historians of the first few decades care to mention these people? Clearly they were there based on the evidence we have, but they were small and weren't readily distinguished from other Jews by the Romans yet at that time.
(142.87 KB 1046x1532 jesus and mary.jpg)
>>14766 >natural law is a clearly observable thing Appeal to nature is a fallacy. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. You can appeal to nature all you want, but your doctrine will never be truthful. It just won't. >And you can reference fictitious accounts of Jesus kike with no proof of accuracy Every major scholar in the field accepts them, and I have no reason to deny them myself, and I have already demonstrated ITT that a fairly good evidential case can be made the resurrection as well. This is far better than the bucket of fallacies you've brought to the table. >Your religion is quite literally a jewish LARP where you pretend that yahweh gives a shit about you. Looks like you're starting to seethe now. >Tradition and nature are useless, right? Appealing to tradition and nature as proof that something is true is a fallacy, yes. Are you completely ignorant on how to make good arguments or how to do any sort of philosophy? You should just concede the argument at this point, because you are getting more unhinged with every post. Christ is King
>>14756 >It doesn't, but you can't just claim that truth contains a racial imperative without evidence for this claim. The racial imperative, wholly absent from Christianity, is literally at the heart of the survival of any race on this world. There stands this simple logic by which the lack thereof would immediately result in the disappearance of all and every race. Once again, we see that a Christian will never consider the protection of one's race a necessity. Becoming the father of a mulatto is absolutely fine. I could point at Nature certainly creating diversity and hardly allowing races to intermix, I could perhaps point to some obscure religious references alluding to forbidding race mixing, I could point out that race mixing would most certainly mean the death of the White race, but these elements wouldn't even begin to look like evidence of some racial imperative being part of a higher, celestial truth. <becoming a nigger is fine >No one ever made the claim that White survival is wrong, retard. Right, since you're a total brainlet I'll have to spell it for you, so try to pay attention. If you don't consider the racial imperative (of not mixing) to be a truth or be contained within the truth, then you obviously stand against the necessity of protecting the White race from miscegenation because nothing in the truth objects to it. >You again ignore the fact that it went far, far beyond Orphism because it doesn't fit with your false vision of paganism. Far beyond Orphism? Like what? When? Where? >Vedas, Orphic religion, the dialogues of Plato, the writings of Plotinus, Empedocles, Pythagoreanism, etc. all support reincarnation, and often views that the material world is evil and meant to be escaped. Aside from the Vedas, all the stuff mentioned above is part of the same chain. I asked for clarification on the Vedas. I'm not seeing any yet. >implying that a religion based on the absence of a self, an absence of God and an eternal cycle of suffering and rebirth has anything to do with Christianity I imply it shares similar principles. They are both world-denying. >Yeah, because these are basically the only pagans of any intellectual merit. No, these are the people whose works managed to make it through because they were produced in an area where wealth and power was concentrated over several millennia, and for some reason were not challenged. In the history of mankind, they're actually late introductions. >Your LARP is dead in the water without them. Say again? What LARP? >They all hate matter and believe they are soul. And none of this found its way into Christianity perhaps? >Gnosticism is the view that ascetic practices and the like can give you gnosis, or a direct experience of God, and that this gnosis is the only way to salvation. Christianity rejects this view in total. You literally proceed to describe one aspect of Gnosticism and then, on the merit of this element not being blatantly present in Christianity (leaving aside the ascetic monks who actually believed in something very close to it, almost verbatim), you decide that all about Gnosticism is totally at odds with all of Christianity. Please nigger. I most certainly didn't limit the discussion about soteriology, you're using this as a red herring. The point was about the Gnostic negative view of the world and body, not on the way each cult decided of what was the true way out. Also, some scholars have argued that, assuming Jesus was real, his cult was actually fairly ascetic minded. >The current body now is basically a seed for the future one. What is sown perishable, will be raised imperishable, glorified and in power and transformed <I'll be a happy zombie What a fucking cope. Literally dodging the truth that the body is to be shunned for salvation purposes just because in some far distant future, Yahweh will do some necromancy on y'all. I wish I met Christians arguing with such fervor about the utmost importance of the flesh, the body and carnal imperatives.
>>14757 bots not allowed
>>14769 >If you don't consider the racial imperative (of not mixing) to be a truth or be contained within the truth On what grounds is it an objective truth? Don't give me an appeal to nature fallacy. >I asked for clarification on the Vedas Read the Upanishads, they clearly support this and are the esoteric portion of the Vedas. >They are both world-denying. Christianity is not world-denying. This has been debunked over and over ITT. Also it's a gay Nietzschean meme-term. >What LARP? Pagan LARP. >leaving aside the ascetic monks who actually believed in something very close to it, almost verbatim Monks weren't gnostics. Pointing to some dumb heretic somewhere isn't proof either. >assuming Jesus was real, his cult was actually fairly ascetic minded Luke 7:33-35 <For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
>>14759 >Hesiod Should I care about his one single opinion? All he describes is some kind of comfy club where you eat, shit, live, love and laugh. It's both vague and impossibly boring at the same time. That's just plebeian projection, almost nigger tier. Where's the fun? The risk? The danger and the thrill? >This is quite different from the eternal metaphysical / spiritual cycles of pagan religions, which I don't believe in. Well OK, the point was that in a cyclical view, the continual change means continual strife, both during ascent and descent, for reasons described earlier on. Of course now if your stance is to stay you don't agree in struggle because you don't see the world as pagans did, shifting from cyclical to linear just means you have one time lapse instead of an infinity of them, but that doesn't fundamentally change the reality of how things operate at the present time. If you don't see struggle as necessary, that struggle implies opposition of forces that balance each other out anyway, that the whole system is harmonious anyway, what is there to say? >Social Darwinism is predicated on evolutionary theory, hence the name. I didn't bring in SD not survival of the fittest. The first time I speak of SotF is when you mentioned it alongside the text of Ragnar. >We're talking about Social Darwinism, retard. No pothead, you are, engaging in circular rhetoric with yourself. Only you decided to reduce struggle to a question of SD, as if the whole life in the universe waited for Darwin to engage into competition for survival and control of resources. So leave SD aside and move on because I certainly do not have any intent on continuing this topic. >Tikkun Olam relies on socially progressive causes within the world to 'fix' God's creation and repair it to its original state. Christianity doesn't believe this. "My kingdom is not of this world". I was a bit facetious but what's so different between Jews wanting to change the world with both physical and metaphysical principles and Christians wanting this too, both to have some kind of super comfy life in the future? Socially progressive? Whatever you call it, it's just the rabbis' way to get what they want and need. I found the similarity interesting. And don't serve me that shit about your flying kingdom because we both know what the real Christian eschatology is all about and there's nothing ethereal about it. Which with much irony would come full circle with the pagan Golden Age. And do you deal with this fact? >I did, now you're mad. Again, make your point or shut up. >dialectical tension something something is not a point, it's just word salad. >Humans aren't completely evil yet they are seen as fallen from their original perfection, it is the same with the world (as the whole world was corrupted by the fall). It's funny I have to be the one to say this, but it's not black and White here where something is either irredeemably evil and broken, or wholly perfect. The world lies outside of God, the Kingdom is not of this world, there will be a new this and and new that but not this old Earth that shall burn anyway, and finally you concede that we are fallen and partially ebil. This really does sound anti-world. Oh sure, perhaps diluted enough compared to pure Gnosticism so you have enough room to dance some, but the overall idea seems fairly similar nonetheless. >You're basing this on your presuppositions about this fallen world, irrelevant. No decay, no death. Therefore no change, no point in birth. No point in time either. Static. Useless. >I know nothing about Jesus: the post The whole Bible is littered with Jesus saying to people to do this or that to get a chance to go up there with him, yet not once is there any call to defend one's race.
>>14768 >appeal to nature is a fallacy. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. You can appeal to nature all you want, but your doctrine will never be truthful. It just won't. It's just like appeal to yahweh is a fallacy. You are a slave to the Jews. Everyday, you help to strengthen your enemies. >Every major scholar in the field accepts them, and I have no reason to deny them myself, and I have already demonstrated ITT that a fairly good evidential case can be made the resurrection as well. Accepts the gospels as being true? Dude, come on. They are purely fictional. The best you can do are some offhand references from a few Romans, but you don't trust pagan literature so I guess you can't use those. There is no evidence for any type of resurrection. You are just blatantly lying about that part. >This is far better than the bucket of fallacies you've brought to the table. See, there you go being a hebrew again, making up fallacies on the fly and presenting the unsubstantiated as fact. >Looks like you're starting to seethe now. The contrary is true. Now I've seen my enemy for who he is. >Appealing to tradition and nature as proof that something is true is a fallacy, yes. And there it is. You place no value in these things. Only golden box matters to you. >Are you completely ignorant on how to make good arguments or how to do any sort of philosophy? I guess I just don't have a jewish spirit like you, therefore I am unable to pilpul like you. Also, christian "philosophy" is a joke. >You should just concede the argument at this point, because you are getting more unhinged with every post. I've just been arguing how you do, buddy. It not that hard to understand. >christ is King Who? Are you talking about yahweh, whose cult was first recorded in ancient egypt, and usurped el as the god of the nation of Israel. Yahweh is just one name of many he's taken throughout the years, I assume, like how he's taken the name "christ" now. If you keep denying the cyclicalness of the universe, you will only suffer.
>>14731 >If people rose from the dead every day it wouldn't even be worth talking about It would still be considered a miracle it it happened several times instead of just once. In fact, it would only reinforce it as a plausible belief. >How are we to assume what is better or worse when faced with the infinite mind and providence of God though? This is a classical excuse when faith-based religions need to defend their ridiculous claims. We can also turn it upside-down and deduce that you can never know if what your religion preaches was an act or will of God, since it's not possible to comprehend God's mind and actions. This alone could invalidate any claims of the supposed prophets, gurus, "sons" etc. >through the incarnation of the Son we are better to learn about the nature and character of God better than ever You are given very dubious claims as a pretext for believing anything that proceeds from the supposed "son of God" . Surely the generic universal God could pull off something better than that. >it shows that God is not aloof from His creation and is willing to undergo what we have undergone in our troubles and sufferings Being crucified (once) doesn't quite match the totality of deaths and suffering that the humanity has experienced throughout history. And not only did he not stop it after supposedly experiencing it, but he began demanding absolute obedience in exchange of a mere promise of stopping it, without any guarantees. If such god existed, he would be a cosmic kike indeed. >Most Christians don't believe because they have seen these arguments though, they believe because of the effects they have felt in their lives, their experiences with God through prayer, etc Those are very subjective and might as well be a projection of their own mind. If they knew how, they could experience the same without any (((shepherds))), with tangible results too. >Muhammad, when that pedophile caravan-robber Your god has a knack for such moral paragons, he keeps choosing desert robbers, sexual deviants and scam-artists as his representatives. >I have several theories on why the descendants of Abraham were chosen, and one of them is that it would testify that God can bring from the bad an even greater good You can say the same for Mohammad >But this aside, Abraham himself is better than a figure like Jacob Bible is full of all sorts of morally dubious personages, it shows us how fucked up the kikes are, even the "good" ones, and that's one of it's rare merits. >And has it not come true? Genghis Khan achieved a much better score and he didn't need a promise of some desert demon to do it. >Spiritual progenitor, anon He promised him physical children. There was absolutely nothing spiritual about Abraham, he was a very materialistic and profane man. And your god turned out to be a cosmic kike even in that regard, he promised old Abe a roasted lamb if he climbs a mountain, just to give him some pilpul about that being the "spirit of Christ" or something when he arrived lel. >If only the world trade centers had been full of sodomites. A theme of a bunch of people getting sacrificed and some kike pulling some strings thanks to being pals with "god" to get his immediate family saved is a common occurrence in Abrahamic religions. And it's not like WTC wasn't full of sodomites. >Mainly because they rejected Jesus Christ It has almost no correlation with someone's behavior. You can be a decent man without the sky kike, in fact, a man can only be truly righteous if it's not a result of any conditioning (incl. religious). And it also implies that they would suddenly become good if they accept the sky kike. That's one of countless ways how they have used christcucks to get away for their kikery throughout centuries.
>>14776 >Being crucified (once) doesn't quite match the totality of deaths and suffering that the humanity has experienced throughout history. Especially when he exterminated a good deal of this humanity some time ago, himself. Babies included. And also welcome plagues. So yeah, just one little death on a piece of wood is not much suffering all things considered. But that was about all he was willing to inflict upon himself to stop himself from destroying humans again. How is this even rational to begin with? >He promised him physical children. There was absolutely nothing spiritual about Abraham, he was a very materialistic and profane man. And your god turned out to be a cosmic kike even in that regard, he promised old Abe a roasted lamb if he climbs a mountain, just to give him some pilpul about that being the "spirit of Christ" or something when he arrived lel. Yet you make me hungry. That must count for something.
>>14767 >To refute views that he saw as heretical innovations? His opinion after all. >Carrier He is an extremist and total refuter. But the quantity of people refuting the Jesus of the Bible is quite large and it's not unusual to hear about the man being displaced in time too to fit with the targeted epoch, such an operation being achieved later on. >Wow, because they are about the same things and same man. They share segments that are just lightly reworded pieces. That quite flies against the idea of all of these gospels being independent from each other. >Subjective. Obviously this opinion presented by experts would be quite worthy of some attention at least since qualified people made them, not just some random lunatic picked in the street. >What would be the point? The point of creating a messianic important figure to pimp up there cult when, perhaps at best, they might have heard of one single dude who was not so spectacular when literally every other sect or major religion around had gods, saviors and prophets capable of impressive miraculous feats? One wonders why. >Why would they die for some shit Imagine Flat Earthers, but even more devout in an age of rampant superstitions in an age of global illiteracy. You can find plenty of people willing to die for stupid reasons. I'm not going to pretend all humans are very rational. >the census If this census was so conclusive, nobody would have bothered with any debate about Jesus' historicity at all. >Historians seem to think it counts. This is how the historicity of many ancient people are established. They could not verify it themselves, it's just hearsay. At least other figures have books, coins, statues, numerous reports and even sometimes provide negative presentations of these individuals, and above all they're just plain human. >If God wanted to He could write in the stars "CHRISTIANITY IS REAL" and still there would be retards going around claiming that it was a coincidence or they would only believe in God out of fear and false piety then and wouldn't genuinely seek Him out on their own. There's a free-will aspect that can't be overlooked. Or he could have erected a massive tower out of nowhere, one indestructible, containing all verifiable proof for all people regardless of culture, epoch or anything else. The tower itself would have been capable of miracles and giving samples of Heaven or Hell, visions, etc. All with a guide about how becoming a good goy again. Jesus could have lived in this tower and be immortal, educating people on how to win the lotery ticket. >Not much of a political reason to do it in those days. When a guy is banking everything in his circle jerk on who is more in the know? Things can get very stupid even in little clubs, trying to accrue more fame and power over the people who flocked to this weird little sect. >Why would elite Roman historians of the first few decades care to mention these people? Annoying city sect is annoying? Why not? It has Jews in it. Are you that naive not to think Jews would use all their clout to pimp some creed they believed in, especially if, as usual, it allowed them to feed upon the masses of diversity crawling in Rome's sewers? That's literally the modus operandi they have repeated up to this same very day. It was full of Jews at the beginning and gathered the brown downtrodden, the proletariat of the time. Hello?? Not seeing a pattern here?
>>14771 >On what grounds is it an objective truth? Don't give me an appeal to nature fallacy. Nature's principles are far more demonstrated and observed than anything spurious about all the methods required to access an invisible realm. <Jesus: do this and that and you'll be accepted into my daddy's club, the one nobody ever came back from. Trust me. <Nature: race mix and your race dies. Already proved with several extinct races. Which one is the most factual and easily demonstrated? >Read the Upanishads, they clearly support this and are the esoteric portion of the Vedas. Find me earlier stuff than the Upalumpas. >Christianity is not world-denying. This has been debunked over and over ITT. Also it's a gay Nietzschean meme-term. That you religion orders you to have kids does not deny the overall rejection of worldliness. This is the same religion that says you must fuck but lust and sex is to be shunned (most of that shit cometh from Saul btw). It's literally fuck but try to minimize the pleasure you get from it because that's carnal and quite sinful really. It also makes no sense at all to have God want our women to beget sinners unless he's into some epic loosh farming. >Pagan LARP. Denying Yahweh yet having a spiritual life isn't what I would call LARPing. What's your problem? >Monks weren't gnostics. Pointing to some dumb heretic somewhere isn't proof either. Again, reading comprehension issues being too regular with you to make this bearable. I didn't say they were Gnostics. I said that those who followed the ascetic lifestyle were not too far from it it. After all, don't they do it for a better dedication to study, which would obviously allow them a better access to salvation too? Second, since where totally accepted and regular ascetic Christian monks were dumb heretics? >Luke 7:33-35 First, I said some scholars argued about that. Second, I said his cult, not him personally.
>>14732 >Considering how they were chased from country to country for over a millennia in Europe Christians have been enabling them and helping them infest and take control of Europe all until the mid 1300's, it was mostly during the later period that they were persecuted on a larger scale, and only because people finally had enough of them and probably because /ourguys/ have managed to infiltrate the Church and royal courts in some countries. It didn't last forever though, as eventually they have regained control over their most successful golem. >It was the Muslims who afforded the Jews safe-harbor in their lands Another Abrahamic religion that was supposedly opposed to them, who would have expected it... >It's also worth pointing out that pagans loved Jews as soon as Christianity appeared It was not hard to fool gullible peasants once the Christian golem have removed pagan aristocracies, and they were naive and ignorant enough to think that Jews won't scheme to get them raped and massacred anyway. >Julian the Apostate promised that he would abolish anti-Jewish laws and would rebuild the Jewish Temple He wanted to reduce extra taxes for them and resettle them back where they came from, if your economy depends on the Jews then you are doing something wrong. It also seems like a purely pragmatic political move >but God prevented him Of course, Yah wanted his chosen people to keep subverting Europe instead of going back to their desert and being irrelevant >Completely different. Talmudism teaches that non-Jews aren't even human. The only difference being that Christianity gives people a choice to convert. Even Talmudic Jews throw some scraps to their goodest of shabbos goys. >They were always rebellious against God more than not though <True Christianity haven't been tried yet! Christians accusing Jews of "Rejecting Christ" or going astray from god are the same as communists who keep accusing them of betraying the movement. They don't realize the true purpose of their religion. <and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations It looks like your god desires to conquer something that should be his by default. Either way, this only shows that Jewish god intends to make all nations bow to him. He started out as some tribal deity, but he has big plans. >All the nations you have made will come and worship before you This in no way implies those nations having the same status as the Jews, or "inheriting the earth", just that they will be subjugated to their god (probably to serve Jews). >all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant How is this not Judaism? >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 This only tells us that he will accept sacrifices from goys as well, not that he will give them anything in return (except the joy of worshiping him and bringing him gifts kek). Cosmic kike confirmed once again. >The Sovereign Lord declares—he who gathers the exiles of Israel: “I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered He understood that his chosen people will need some shabbos goys around, how thoughtful of him. >the parables of the New Testament in which the vast majority of Jews are punted into the 'outer darkness' and replaced with Gentiles It's not like most of authority of this supposed god doesn't rely on threats and punishments. And what are those parables compared to the rest of the canon? A speck of dust.
>>14746 the silver legion uniforms were very nice
>>14775 >Accepts the gospels as being true? Not the historical consensus. They are commonly accepted to be of the genre of ancient biography / bios and clearly have many verifiable historical elements and references in them (unlike your pagan myths). >There is no evidence for any type of resurrection. It's an evidential case, retard. We look at the elements commonly accepted by historians as being historical and we look for an explanation that explains said facts. The resurrection is the best one. Again it was never said to be bulletproof, and I have challenged you and others to provide a better explanation, and you have all failed. The rest of the post is just seething, so I'll leave it at that.
>>14774 >Should I care about his one single opinion? Descriptions of the Golden Age are across the board how Hesiod describes. I challenge to find a Golden Age in another religion that is totally different from this description. It is consistent with the ideas of the Satya Yuga and other ideas as well. >Where's the fun? The risk? The danger and the thrill? <truth about the past is determined by fun Wew >Which with much irony would come full circle with the pagan Golden Age. And do you deal with this fact? The pagan Golden Age is a folk memory of Eden, just like the flood myths from around the world are folk memories of the flood from the time of Noah. >The world lies outside of God God is immanent and transcendent. >Useless. Based on your presuppositions. >The whole Bible is littered with Jesus saying to people to do this or that to get a chance to go up there with him If you'd ever talk with a Christian you'd realize that works doesn't earn you salvation. You can do infinite good deeds but that won't make you righteous in the eyes of God. It is faith alone that saves you, and good deeds are the fruit of faith.
>>14776 >This is a classical excuse when faith-based religions need to defend their ridiculous claims. We can also turn it upside-down and deduce that you can never know if what your religion preaches was an act or will of God, since it's not possible to comprehend God's mind and actions. This alone could invalidate any claims of the supposed prophets, gurus, "sons" etc. We can comprehend God's nature and intentions through revelation. But when it comes to why God chose to create humans the way they are rather than another way, or why he chose to reconcile himself to us the way he did, it is ultimately a mystery, and that's not a cop-out, because no matter what way he did it, one would ask why he had to do it exactly that way. There's no answer to that. God didn't have to his Son incarnate to forgive sins, but that is how it was chose to be done, plus there are the other benefits of this that I already mentioned. >Being crucified (once) doesn't quite match the totality of deaths and suffering that the humanity has experienced throughout history That's not the point. > And not only did he not stop it after supposedly experiencing it That's not the point. > but he began demanding absolute obedience in exchange of a mere promise of stopping it, without any guarantees. He asked for faith in him. Given that the other OT prophecies came true, one is amply justified in having faith in the promises of Jesus. Abraham had no clue if the promises given to him would happen for sure, but he had faith and believed and sure enough, it happened. >Those are very subjective and might as well be a projection of their own mind Of course, which is why I was not offering it as a main argument. >Bible is full of all sorts of morally dubious personages Who ever said that the prophets of the Bible were across the board good moral guides? They're imperfect and fallen human beings, only Islam believes in infallible sinless prophets >Genghis Khan achieved a much better score and he didn't need a promise of some desert demon to do it. <confusing biology with spirituality again >And it's not like WTC wasn't full of sodomites. So nothing of value was lost. >You can be a decent man without the sky kike Only the dumbest theist would deny this. >And it also implies that they would suddenly become good if they accept the sky kike No one believes this.
>>14788 >We can comprehend God's nature and intentions through revelation And how can you be sure that those revelations are coming from God if you are unable to comprehend God? Inb4 circular logic >it is ultimately a mystery It's not, you are just supposed to ignore it so you don't notice him messing things up all the time. Authors of the bible clearly didn't want you to think, they wanted you to blindly "trust the plan". >That's not the point. What's the point then? What are the reasons why someone would be a Christian? >He asked for faith in him <You can trust me goy, I'm your best friend >God didn't have to his Son incarnate to forgive sins, but that is how it was chose to be done And you are not supposed to question that, no matter how ridiculous it is. >Who ever said that the prophets of the Bible were across the board good moral guides? You are trying to sell it as a moral religion, finding the root of immorality in people straying away from it, while it's clear that it was quite morally questionable from the start. It's doctrines, characters, narratives etc. And that's without mentioning the actions of it's followers. Unless your only moral criteria is [accept Jesus = good] , [not accept Jesus = bad]. >They're imperfect and fallen human beings And why would God rely on those instead of trying a more direct approach or finding someone better? Surely he could find someone better than a bunch of desert robbers. >confusing biology with spirituality again You are doing it yourself. There were literally zero spiritual qualities of Abraham, other than his "great faith", but that's hardly setting him apart. And his faith was motivated with purely materialistic desires (wealth, lands, children). Same could be said for most other characters. >No one believes this. You get absolved of your sins, no matter how grave they are, once you become a devout Christian, and most denominations have this doctrine in some form. Why do you think so many people convert on their deathbed? YHWH is an archetypal kike however you look at it, a corrupt and incompetent despot who has to rely on trickery, lies and coercion to get what he wants. >>14778 >Especially when he exterminated a good deal of this humanity some time ago, himself. Then suddenly he couldn't do such things anymore because he made a promise to a bunch of desert bandits that he won't do it again lel. But that only applied to the flood I think, he could still shrek humanity to demonstrate his power by other means, yet he pulled some kind of pilpul with Jesus because he obviously loved humanity too much to hurt it. Absolutely schizophrenic.
>>14785 >Not the historical consensus. They are commonly accepted to be of the genre of ancient biography / bios and clearly have many verifiable historical elements and references in them (unlike your pagan myths). The purpose of myths is not to include blatant historically accurate and verifiable references, although they do so in a hidden way most of the time, principally information about celestial events, although there are also mentions of real battles, vales, rivers, etc. in some texts. Myths are closer to fantasy than what the Bible tried to be with supposedly accurate historical people, places and events, all with a dash of supernatural feats. The smart people are not supposed to take these tales literally although Abrhamism really confused the masses by being so realistic. >The resurrection is the best one. No and it is stupid to say so when all sorts of explanations could already cover the extravagance of such an event if much more down to earth solutions are considered. This death and rebirth narrative is adjusted unto the Winter Solstice and follows the pattern of a return after three days in darkness is a recurring motif in older Mystery cults, which contributes to show the sources Christianity took inspiration from. Mithraism and the nascent Christianity were in competition but the former was well established and more prevalent, yet it finally got supplanted by a Jewish and feminine religion for proles and slaves. You ask for a better alternative to this fancy tale of resurrection that we should take at face value when there is not even any external and independent evidence of its plausibility outside of self referential and biased testimonies. So you got things the wrong way dear Christian, as you are the one who shall prove that this miracle is to be accepted and believed, when everything in our world tells us that this would simply never happen.
>>14787 >Descriptions of the Golden Age are across the board how Hesiod describes. I challenge to find a Golden Age in another religion that is totally different from this description. It is consistent with the ideas of the Satya Yuga and other ideas as well. What a grand claim! I simply rejected Hesiod's idea of the GA. I most eagerly await your evidence that the Golden Age is exactly described the way Hesiod did across a vast array of sources in different religions. >>truth about the past is determined by fun >Wew It could very well be, as you're implying that the famous GA could be a no-fun time. What is the point of life if it is boring and there's no problem to solve, if all you have to worry about is find a hole where you can shit and sleep between two buffets of fruit and nuts? When this projection comes in sharp contrast with my philosophical concept of the purpose of life, I would logically question the accuracy of this legend and keep wondering what this GA really was about, aside from this or that author's personal desires and secret desires. More importantly, a practical GA could be achieved with repeated eugenics, a properly adequate philosophy of life, a spirituality bringing our race's consciousness into shaping time and space to fit our needs, integrated into a civilization of wisdom, virtue, creativity and power respectful of the environment while not necessarily defaulting to a complete rejection of technology. This nevertheless doesn't give me much incentive into thinking that the hold GA legend is anything else but a distorted tale of enriched copium. I'm particularly cautious with those claims of perfection. So if you have facts and documents about the GA and wish to share them with us here, be my guest and please proceed.
>>14788 >We can comprehend God's nature and intentions through revelation. But when it comes to why God chose to create humans the way they are rather than another way, or why he chose to reconcile himself to us the way he did, it is ultimately a mystery, and that's not a cop-out, because no matter what way he did it, one would ask why he had to do it exactly that way. There's no answer to that. God didn't have to his Son incarnate to forgive sins, but that is how it was chose to be done, plus there are the other benefits of this that I already mentioned. This is due to the fact that you religion does not provide the beginning of a sensible reason as to why humans were created and made the way they are. Yet when one thinks a bit about it, it's not so hard to understand it. But you couldn't understand this because you don't understand the point of risk and reward, of fun and danger, as you simply long like all Abrahamists for a future of a total end of any form of suffering and want. It is particularly strange that you long for a love of which you know nothing about because the one you experience as a mortal exposed to time might very well be only possible because time exists, because hatred can happen too, because decay and pain can be experienced and would exist too.
Anyone interested in the works and videos of Bishop Barron?
>>14914 Are you trying to endorse this guy or something?
>>14816 You can't just reject some aspect of the metaphysical nature of the world because you don't like it. The Law Code of Manu 1.81-85 : >In the Kṛta Age, the Law is full, possessing all four feet; and so is truth. People never acquire any property through unlawful means. By acquiring such property, however, the Law is stripped of one foot in each of the subsequent Ages; through theft, falsehood and fraud, the Law disappears one foot at a time. >In the Kṛta Age, people are free from sickness, succeed in all their pursuits and have a lifespan of 400 years. In the Tretā and each of the subsequent Ages, however, their lifespan is shortened by a quarter. The lifespan of mortals given in the Veda, the benefits of rites, and the power of embodied beings - they all come to fruition in the world in conformity with each Age. >There is one set of Laws for men in the Kṛta Age, another in the Tretā, still another in the Dvāpara, and a different set in Kali... So here we have a Golden Age (the Kṛta Yuga, also known as the Satya Yuga) where there is no law-breaking at all when there comes to property, where there is no sickness, everyone is successful and people live for centuries. There is a unique set of Laws (Dharmas) for the Kṛta Yuga. Ovid on the Golden Age in his Metamorphoses: >The golden age was first; when Man yet new, no rule but uncorrupted reason knew: And, with a native bent, did good pursue. Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear, His words were simple, and his soul sincere; Needless was written law, where none opprest: The law of Man was written in his breast: No suppliant crowds before the judge appear'd, No court erected yet, nor cause was heard: But all was safe, for conscience was their guard. The mountain-trees in distant prospect please, E're yet the pine descended to the seas: E're sails were spread, new oceans to explore: And happy mortals, unconcern'd for more, Confin'd their wishes to their native shore. No walls were yet; nor fence, nor mote, nor mound, Nor drum was heard, nor trumpet's angry sound: Nor swords were forg'd; but void of care and crime, The soft creation slept away their time. The teeming Earth, yet guiltless of the plough, And unprovok'd, did fruitful stores allow: Content with food, which Nature freely bred, On wildings and on strawberries they fed; Cornels and bramble-berries gave the rest, And falling acorns furnish'd out a feast. The flow'rs unsown, in fields and meadows reign'd: And Western winds immortal spring maintain'd. In following years, the bearded corn ensu'd From Earth unask'd, nor was that Earth renew'd. From veins of vallies, milk and nectar broke; And honey sweating through the pores of oak. http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.1.first.html So here in the first age there was no rule of man over man except the rule of 'uncorrupted reason', which man pursued naturally. There was no need for writteen laws, there was no government, and man lived in close communion with the natural world. Hesiod on the Golden Age in his Works and Days (extended) : >First of all [110] the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Cronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods [115] without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all evils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands with many good things, [120] rich in flocks and loved by the blessed gods. But after the earth had covered this generation—they are called pure spirits dwelling on the earth, and are kindly, delivering from harm, and guardians of mortal men; [125] for they roam everywhere over the earth, clothed in mist and keep watch on judgements and cruel deeds, givers of wealth; for this royal right also they received;—then they who dwell on Olympus made a second generation which was of silver and less noble by far. It was like the golden race neither in body nor in spirit. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0132%3Acard%3D109 So here we have men dwelling like gods on Earth, with no sorrow, no toil, no grief, living in peace and in harmony with nature, dying peacefully and painlessly.
>>14816 Empedocles of Acragas on the Age of Love and the Age of Strife: Quick preface: Empedocles, a pre-Socratic philosopher, believes that there are four elements. The four elements are under the influence of two antithetical forces - Love and Strife. The world cycles through ages of the complete domination of Love, and then into a period of increasing Strife, and then into total Strife, and then into increasing Love and then total Love. At both of the extreme states of total Love and total Strife, no life is possible since all of the elements are either merged into one, or totally separate, respectively. The period of increasing Love is a Golden Age, as can be gathered from choice fragments: >For all things were tame and gentle to man, both beasts and birds, and friendly feelings were kindled everywhere. >Nor had they any Ares for a god nor Kydoimos, no nor King Zeus nor Kronos nor Poseidon, but Kypris the Queen. . . . Her did they propitiate with holy gifts, with painted figures and perfumes of cunning fragrancy, with offerings of pure myrrh and sweet-smelling frankincense, casting on the ground libations of brown honey. And the altar did not reek with pure bull's blood, but this was held in the greatest abomination among men, to eat the goodly limbs after tearing out the life. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Empedocles So even though it is more vague here, in the second fragment it is clearly interpreted as the Golden Age of increasing Love by the translators themselves. Animals were gentle and lived harmoniously with men in Love. The second fragment makes it clear that there was no animal sacrifice, and men loved the animals. This interpretation is further strengthened by fragments where Empedocles attacks meat-eaters as degenerates. Meat-eating and animal sacrifice is a product of the age of strife. The goddess over this age is Aphrodite, goddess of Love herself, called Kypris here. The World Before the Fall of Man Genesis 1:29-30: >Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. Romans 8:18-21: > I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. It is clear that in Christianity, the world pre-Fall is very different from any world that we imagine today. The Laws of Nature are completely different, and the creatures behaved differently as well. Through the Original Sin, the entire universe was effected and death entered the world, and the world was put into 'bondage to decay' (entropy?). A good example of how different things were is how all creatures evidently lived off of plants and not flesh. It is only after the Fall, according to Genesis 3, that things such as toil and working the ground become necessary, and there follows strife between husband and wife, painful child-bearing and much else. In having done this, humanity was corrupted into a state of mortality and put into a state of intense spiritual alienation from the divine. It is clear that in numerous ancient Aryan cultures, ranging from the Vedic Aryans, to the Greeks, to the Romans and beyond, that there was a conception of a perfect Golden Age with no strife, peace and harmony and communion with nature and divine that somehow fell into degeneration and caused a 'fall' of man into the present dark age. There are of course hints of this as well in the Völuspá where the destruction of everything in Ragnarok is followed by a new green earth, two new human beings, and peace. These are all echoes of what is described in Genesis.
>>14804 >And how can you be sure that those revelations are coming from God if you are unable to comprehend God? Humans are made in the image of God, and thus have the capacity built-in to be able, in some sense, to understand and relate to God. This differs from Islamic conceptions where God is described as something completely dissimilar to all creation and creatures in every way. Revelation in particular helps humans understand God, but the best way to begin is to pray to God, and to ask Him for guidance, and what is true or false. Don't just trust what a book says off the bat. Being an infinite, omnipotent being too allows God by definition to make himself communicable to the finite as well, otherwise He would not be omnipotent. I don't think it is a very controversial statement to say that ultimately God is ineffable. Many religions agree on this. >And you are not supposed to question that, no matter how ridiculous it is. What is ridiculous to you is subjective. I don't see the story as ridiculous, I think it's a powerful story that shows the love of God for His creation, the suffering that He is willing to undergo for His creations to demonstrate this (particularly Jesus' agony the night before, where he was sweating blood, which is a rare condition resulting form extreme emotional stress called hematidrosis), and how it plays on various OT themes like atonement, sin-offerings, the symbolism of the victory of life over death, the defeat of Satan, and the imitative aspect where one's self metaphorically 'dies' and is 'resurrected' in a new life. This is why people talk about being 'born again Christians'. >There were literally zero spiritual qualities of Abraham He had great trust in God, obeyed His commandments and laid the foundations for the coming of Jesus Christ. He wasn't a perfect man, but it's impossible to say that he didn't prioritize God above all else. Abraham's sons are more kike-like than him, so I'm still confused why Abraham lives rent-free in your head. >You get absolved of your sins, no matter how grave they are, once you become a devout Christian, and most denominations have this doctrine in some form. Sins are only forgiven if one is sincere in their repentance and do not persist in sin. If they have a genuine experience of God they will most likely change aspects of their life radically as a result and desist from their degeneracy. It's worth noting that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. This is clear from the Gospels and the Epistles, and it is also clear that Christians who do not try to live Christlike lives are also spitting in Christ's face, as the man himself said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Some thing they can chant the magic word that 'Jesus is my Lord and Savior' and can go right back to being degenerates afterwards. I would fear for them in the future, to say the least. >>14817 >This is due to the fact that you religion does not provide the beginning of a sensible reason as to why humans were created and made the way they are. God is already perfectly self-sufficient, self-subsitent and lacking in nothing within Himself. There is a practical community of love between the three co-eternal hypostases of the Trinity too. God created the universe out of absolute no necessity on His part, but as an act of goodness and love. God created in order to spread his infinite goodness and love unto others, and to allow them to freely choose to accept it, or to reject it according to their own free will. His creations can choose to partake in his divine nature, communion with God, or not to. Humans weren't made exactly as they are today, nor was nature created exactly as it was today too. This is due to the Fall though. Along with this, it is also clear from scripture that the world was created to display God's glory.
>>14917 Bishop who? Is that another pedo or someone who might have said one or two good things in his cucked life?
>>14946 >You can't just reject some aspect of the metaphysical nature of the world because you don't like it. What I can do is tell you that you fail at reading the very material you quoted from. >The Law Code of Manu 1.81-85 Is not describing anything truly spectacular aside from near perfect health and a lifespan perhaps four to five times our current one, with no mention of when people entered elderness. It speaks of success in all pursuits so doesn't preclude work or even battles. >Ovid What he describes on the moral and legal front is barely that much different from what existed in Scandinavia and other parts of Northern Europe, where many if not all secular and religious laws were predominantly spoken and transmitted orally. Sweden was a fairly stable and peaceful society. He describes what could have been a small hippie community only concerned about living peacefully, isolated, perhaps exploring the vast world from time to time. The fact that sails and the implied boats are mentioned shows that work was required. A lot of what he wrote is figurative too and way too flowery. Take a look at the last sentences. Lack of walls might suggest a lack of buildings entirely but the context is closer to that of defensive measures. Most villages and small towns in pre-Christian or even Medieval Europe wouldn't have walls. >Hesiod This expanded paragraph provides a few details that mitigate the initial snippet. Now, don't get me wrong, it's still rosy all around, but I note these people were rick with flocks so logically some work would be required. It might imply the use of wool, which is just a big IF. They still look like they were doing nothing all day long. >>14947 >Empedocles We're going back to the love hippies. It reeks off of brotherly love one worldism. No thanks. Oh look, all people ruled by a queen, no other gods. Vegan matriarchy. That dude was projecting hard. Good job, you've actually found a reference that even more cringe and annoying than Hesiod, is gay af with its animals being gentle and lovely, all of which sounds like it's taken from the failed wishes of a kid stuck in a Disney fantasy. Literally Soyland: the tale. Doubling down on the sheer boredom. >Bible The story is about two people, one man, one woman, living naked, ignorant af, doing nothing, rummaging around. <be a nice cow >Through the Original Sin, the entire universe was effected and death entered the world >A good example of how different things were is how all creatures evidently lived off of plants and not flesh. <plants are not alive so eating them doesn't require killing them >no decay >no poop <what are digestive organs? >and there follows strife between husband and wife, painful child-bearing and much else. There's no strife because the two unique and lost humans are literally subniggers who have free access to gibs. Meaning fuck all to have to do all day. Eat, eat and eat, poop but no decay so poop vanishes or is stolen by invisible elves. > In having done this, humanity was corrupted into a state of mortality and put into a state of intense spiritual alienation from the divine. Only in your Abrahamic lore. Roman pagans were not alienated in the slightest. >There are of course hints of this as well in the Völuspá where the destruction of everything in Ragnarok is followed by a new green earth, two new human beings, and peace. Living aside a possible Christian influence, the end of the story is remarkably vague and provides little support to an agreement with the references you brought earlier on.
>>14948 You know what? I think I'll just kill Christians too, adding to the long list of groups to get rid of with race traitors, jews, billions of shitskins, globalists, commies, libtards, soyfags, feminists, etc. What you find beautiful and inspiring is to me abhorrent, lame, stupid and irrational. That you weep at night over the touching story of a god who made himself a kike to pee blood as if anyone gave a fuck about it, almost all in secret when the rest of the world was actually doing totally fine minding its own business as it had been going for millennia beforehand, is just one of those abysmally deranged and retarded stories that defy even the most merciful of all reasons. That you find virtue in a man who was going to kill his son because his god told him to do just defies all sense of compassion and love and is absolutely beyond twisted. >Sins are only forgiven if one is sincere in their repentance and do not persist in sin. Sin which was caused by the biggest cock teasing in the entire history of mankind and most sadistic too because to understand the value of a rule, you got to have a mean of judgement available, which requires possessing a sense of what is good and what is evil. I'm not even going to annoy you over how this tale is a gross distortion of much older Mesopotamian texts.
(96.36 KB 1024x1365 Artemis.jpg)
>>14947 You are trying to present the golden age as globohomo kek. It was more about there not being any need for laws and coercion because people respected each other (probably due to sharing similar qualities a specific higher race being one of them rather than some universalist idea of absolute unity and nature worship) and maintained a mutually beneficial order under free will (as a result of their elevated wisdom), not some faggoty delusion about universal love and not eating meat. Unfortunately, many accounts of it present it this way because the subversion began early. Total love is as degenerate as total strife. >but this was held in the greatest abomination among men, to eat the goodly limbs after tearing out the life He was a fan of Noahide laws it seems, the only difference being that they condemn tearing limbs of a living animal, but the original meaning was probably the same and got lost in the translation. No wonder kikes shill veganism and carbon taxes so much today. Slaves of Saturn can only imagine golden age as a total absence of free will, which is it's antithesis. >the influence of two antithetical forces - Love and Strife False dichotomy. Who loves everything, loves nothing >At both of the extreme states of total Love and total Strife, no life is possible since all of the elements are either merged into one, or totally separate, respectively How do they ever move from such absolute states then? Their gravity would be total and any system would terminate into either extreme irreversibly upon reaching that point. There is no room for strife to influence a state of total love, nor for love to influence the state of total strife. And if it accelerates in either direction, there is no force strong enough to kick it in the opposite direction. You handpick philosophers who obviously fail at logic. >Aphrodite, goddess of Love herself She is a kind of seductress who makes men intoxicated with profane desires and tricks them into accepting universal, animal love over their own spirit before betraying them. Artemis is /mygoddess/, she might not be as pretty, sensual or seductive, but she is loyal, gracious, and will hunt delicious animals for me and destroy those who have harmed me. I wouldn't post this in a Christian thread if you were not giving a false account of heathens and their worldview. I guess your goal is to have two equally kosher alternatives, regardless if someone picks Christianity or "Paganism".
I just hate how jews think they're the chosen ones when White people have been the chosen race. I mean Whites excel at everything. So why the fuck are jews the chosen one? Because they are seething. And also, why do other races exist if Whites are capable of doing everything on their own? If anything, these other peoples are dependant on Whites. What purpose do they serve as? I'll tell you. Objects I guess you can say that non-Whites exist only because the gods above do not want Whites to infight. Like give'em something to take their aggression out on. The swarthy brown and yellow masses are just that, punching bags and chess pieces. That's their only purpose.
>>14948 >Humans are made in the image of God, and thus have the capacity built-in to be able, in some sense, to understand and relate to God If that was true, people would obviously be able to understand God without any interventions or revelations, but at the very least, we would be able to judge the actions and plans of God. Maybe not from the infinite perspective, but from the finite perspective within which he allegedly manifested to communicate with finite people. This, and your previous statements (that are only following general Christian theology) are either contradictions or a category error. >Don't just trust what a book says off the bat Wasn't Christianity supposed to be a dogmatic religion? Many denominations would find this attitude heretical. >otherwise He would not be omnipotent How can you know that he is? By which method do you arrive to such conclusion? Faith again? >I don't think it is a very controversial statement to say that ultimately God is ineffable Apart from everything pointing out to the contrary, you have no ways of knowing that. >I think it's a powerful story that shows the love of God for His creation By torturing and massacring vast swathes of people and condemning the rest to hell? >the suffering that He is willing to undergo for His creations You failed to answer how this compares to the totality of suffering that he has caused to his creations >where he was sweating blood Christianity seems quite obsessed with blood, this exposes it's crypto-materialistic character, along with physical resurrection and many other concepts. >the symbolism of the victory of life over death That would be a victory over god who introduced death in the first place >He had great trust in God, obeyed His commandments and laid the foundations for the coming of Jesus Christ Wait, that's it? Faith and obedience? Hardly spiritual qualities per se. There was no way for Jesus to come without Abraham? >Abraham's sons are more kike-like than him So much about him becoming a progenitor of a spiritual race >Sins are only forgiven if one is sincere in their repentance and do not persist in sin So if a mass torturer, rapist and murderer repents on his death bed, he will get admitted to heaven or resurrected, right? Before a righteous man who rejected Jesus. What's your denomination by the way?
>>14955 >You are trying to present the golden age as globohomo kek. No quotation he provided contains anything about homosexuals but there definitely are signs of something not too far from it. I must point out that nothing even proves that all those sources are independent from each other, that all the authors, known or unknown, didn't get their inspiration from an older one or a group of people standing behind a variant of that tale. >not some faggoty delusion about universal love and not eating meat. Yet this is what is written in some of the quotations provided above. >Unfortunately, many accounts of it present it this way because the subversion began early. Total love is as degenerate as total strife. Perhaps. These faggy tales is all we have about this fabled Golden Ayygge. All potentially subject to deformation, errors, biases and memory lapses. We don't have better sources to establish proper comparisons. I do not see the point of tormenting ourselves over these descriptions, they are useless, we cannot go back, we'd better decide of what we want our future Golden Age to be and simply work toward it. Being proactive is almost our entire collective failure as we keep whining about our enemies and our plight but rarely do we present a really awe inspiring long term plan about a future world that would seem so astonishing as if the fruit of a poet or fantasy writer.
The god of love, typical of the NT, wasn't so kind throughout the OT. You'd think he'd always find a spot in his infinite gentleness to excuse beings he created, no matter how stupid and wrong they could become. Or, accepting the consequences of true free will, he would not judge and condemn humans for the choices they would make. There is something tragically comical about a god who has such high expectations about his own creations, who he knows everything of btw since he's omnipotent, yet finds these toys always failing him.
>>14771 >Pagan LARP. Nigger you faggots LARP as jews and we wuz kangz yourselves as Isrealites. Your entire religion is nothing more, but one gigantic LARP and cope when someone doesn't follow your stupid scriptures. >Also it's a gay Nietzschean meme-term. Ah what a surprise that the christcuck was the Socrates nigger in the other thread. This explains why you argue like a moron.
>>14977 Globohomo is not strictly about homos, it's an all-encompassing term for everything wrong with the modern world, and especially it's latest metastasis. >I must point out that nothing even proves that all those sources are independent from each other, that all the authors, known or unknown, didn't get their inspiration from an older one or a group of people standing behind a variant of that tale I'm quite convinced that the original idea got filtered through the very limited and profane lens of a lesser man or that a certain version got intentionally shilled by various conspiring groups while the others were suppressed. We can see these processes occur in all eras and with all abstract subjects (ironically, even supposedly empirical ones as the dogmatic cult of modern "science" shows us today), therefore no sources should be exempt from scrutiny. >We don't have better sources to establish proper comparisons That doesn't give the available ones a monopoly of interpretation, nor does it mean that they should be disregarded in entirety. >I do not see the point of tormenting ourselves over these descriptions, they are useless, we cannot go back I don't really need to stress out how important learning from history is >we'd better decide of what we want our future Golden Age to be and simply work toward it That's what various interpretations of ancient texts are useful for, among other things. First it needs to be defined, then it needs to be executed against near-impossible odds. >but rarely do we present a really awe inspiring long term plan about a future world that would seem so astonishing What would be awe inspiring for some, would be horror inducing for others. Even the most pacifist and diplomatic ideas would require a total collapse of the current world order to have a chance of being implemented.
>>14959 >If that was true, people would obviously be able to understand God without any interventions or revelations, but at the very least, we would be able to judge the actions and plans of God. Nature itself is one form of God's revelation. This is stated in scriptures. We can get some vague idea of God from nature, in the same sense that we may be able to get a vague idea of the nature of the creator of some object or work of art from observing it. It's necessarily imperfect though, since God is ultimately a personality, someone that we have the ability to relate to intimately. Even aspects of God's law are inherent to us, as Paul rights in his Epistle to the Romans (2:14-16): <(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) >Wasn't Christianity supposed to be a dogmatic religion? Many denominations would find this attitude heretical. Key-word here in my post you are responding to is 'off the bat'. I came to Jesus before I came to the Bible, and only then read the Bible to learn about Jesus. The Bible is inspired, I wouldn't deny that. >How can you know that he is? By which method do you arrive to such conclusion? Faith again? Any entity that can create time, space, matter, the laws of physics, the laws of logic, mathematics, human beings, animals, etc. is by any definition of the term effectively omnipotent relative to humans or any other aspect of creation. There's a faith aspect too, sure, but strictly to qualify the omnipotence as true omnipotence, not to mention that this view is readily in line with classical philosophical expositions of theism. >By torturing and massacring vast swathes of people and condemning the rest to hell? (1) By what standard do you judge God, (2) for those who were wiped out in the Flood or in places like Sodom and Gomorrah, it was probably ultimately better for them as people to die then than to go on persisting in sin and degeneracy, and (3) even in many of these events the mercy of God towards the just and righteous is seen to outweight that of divine chastisement, as seen when God told Abraham that he would preserve both Sodom and Gomorrah if there existed even ten righteous people in either of the cities. It was only when there were found to be none that they were wiped off the face of the Earth. I for one, agree with St. Isaac the Syrian on hell. <I say that those who are scourged in Gehenna are tormented by the scourgings of love. The scourgings that result from love - that is, the scourges of those who have become aware that they have sinned against love - are harder and more bitter than the torments which result from fear. The pain that gnaws at the heart as a result of sinning against love is sharper than all other torments that exist. I don't think it is primarily retributive. It might be best described as psychological and self-afflicted. Especially in relation to Hebrews 12:29 - "for our God is a consuming fire". How will the love of God feel to those who have rejected it and hated it for their entire lives? >Christianity seems quite obsessed with blood, this exposes it's crypto-materialistic character, along with physical resurrection and many other concepts. Matter is not inherently evil in the Christian paradigm. This is a pagan view. >That would be a victory over god who introduced death in the first place Freely-chosen by man. >So if a mass torturer, rapist and murderer repents on his death bed, he will get admitted to heaven or resurrected, right? Everyone will be resurrected in the end, some of them will be cast into hell, and others will be admitted to everlasting life. See the beginning of Daniel 12. And yes, even if such a person repents on their death bed, they are forgiven. This seems objectionable to the human standard, but only God knows what is in their heart. >So much about him becoming a progenitor of a spiritual race More in a wily sense (I had Jacob in mind). One can learn lessons from the behavior of certain figures though. It makes them relatable in a sense, more real. >What's your denomination by the way? I am nondenominational Protestant, really. I don't consider myself an evangelical though. I am planning on trying to check out an Eastern Orthodox church near me before long, because I am beginning to think that Protestant Christianity is a modern spin-off that diverges from some 1,500+ years of Christian history that existed before Protestantism. Reading about some of the Church Fathers too shows that they were infinitely more sophisticated than the sort of clown-tier evangelicals and charismatics that are around today in many places. So hopefully I'll become a catechumen and get bapti
>>14978 >infinite gentleness I think you're reading into the word 'love' a bit for things that are not there. The Greek word used is specifically 'agape', which is more 'benevolence', 'good-will', etc. It has moral overtones in wishing or willing the best or good. If you look into the writings of people such as St. Isaac the Syrian, you will see that he even divine chastisement as an act of love towards those chastised, in the same way that a human father will chastise his children for the sake of correction. Evil is set aright, it is not a punishment of revenge. >Or, accepting the consequences of true free will, he would not judge and condemn humans for the choices they would make God is not going to force you to be saved or to love him. Actions have consequences though, in this life and the next. > There is something tragically comical about a god who has such high expectations about his own creations Man is fallen, but luckily God extends infinitely more mercy than we deserve to those who seek him out.
>>15002 >Nature itself is one form of God's revelation Man is part of nature (creation) so nothing in my previous posts changes. We have arrived to circular logic just as I had predicted. When we compute the scriptures and previous statements, the only logical possibilities remain that we can either know God without any revelations and prophets (including the "son"), or not know God at all. >God is ultimately a personality, someone that we have the ability to relate to intimately How can you relate to something that you can never comprehend in entirety? And how can you know that any such personality is actually God? (outside of assuming every personality to be a part of God). >I came to Jesus before I came to the Bible Ok, you had a vision or something, but how can you be sure that it's not just some warp daemon deceiving you? You can't even know how Jesus actually looked, if he ever existed for real. >The Bible is inspired, I wouldn't deny that By sources quite different from what was being presented >Any entity that can create time, space, matter, the laws of physics, the laws of logic, mathematics And what if those have always existed? What if some other God have created those? Just because the Bible assumes it's god to have any such attributes doesn't mean it's necessarily true. >By what standard do you judge God In that particular case, by scales of pain and death. His "sacrifice" is utterly meaningless compared to the totality of death and suffering that he has caused (either by incompetence or intent). I'm merely judging the god of Bible from the perspective of Christian morals that got derived from it. Not based on my personal beliefs (I'm not entirely opposed to nuking dens of degeneracy you see). I'm also showing you just how illogical and inconsistent the whole thing is. <I say that those who are scourged in Gehenna are tormented by the scourgings of love With love of such a god, you don't really need torture kek. >"for our God is a consuming fire". How will the love of God feel to those who have rejected it This reads like a thinly veiled threat. Anyone rejecting god of the Jews gets holocausted (it was their plan to holocaust the goyim since the start) >Matter is not inherently evil in the Christian paradigm Regardless, it's still a very materialistic religion despite all the talk of spirit, salvation etc. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy. >Freely-chosen by man. It's not really a free choice if it's conditioned by some arbitrary and whimsical rules. You get a choice between ignorance w/ unconditional slavery and death, the god of the Bible is as Jewish as it gets. >some of them will be cast into hell Including those who led righteous lives but rejected your "loving" god. Which is a sin greater than any other according to the Bible. >This seems objectionable to the human standard, but only God knows what is in their heart Your god literally prefers the most evil people imaginable as long as they worship him to good people who don't. >One can learn lessons from the behavior of certain figures though. It makes them relatable in a sense, more real I don't know about you, but I can hardly relate to characters like Abraham and his offspring, and I'm usually not the one to moralize. >I am planning on trying to check out an Eastern Orthodox church near me It's more serious than most other denominations, but equally kiked.

Delete
Report