I noticed on here that for a long time Christians have been saying that being an atheist is an automatic deal breaker for them, it doesn't matter what else the atheist beleives in or disbelieve in, doesn't matter what political positions they hold, the only thing that the Christian cares about is that they are atheistic, and on that basis alone, regardless of anything else they may agree or disagree on, the atheist does not belong in the same community as the Christian's.
A lot of these tend to get the same results as the types who reject the idea of a unified front of White advocacy, not because they are anti White, but because they reject the existence of a White race, and instead want to focus on individual countries or on the ethnicities within them, yet they would at the same time reject my idea of forming nationalism along the lines of recessive phenotypic traits, often bringing up that some thoroughly diluted jews posses those same traits (those the actual proportions are never mentioned, not of the number of jews with these traits, and not of how jewish these individuals truly are).
This post is just me rambling about some internal divisions, posting for a the sake of keeping my account active. I've not thought about it too deeply yet.
That's an ugly assumption that the niggers are staying. Jefferson the great emancipator didn't intend on them staying. They're miserable living in White countries. They never stop saying so, so why the fuck would Whites have abortions to keep niggers aborting instead of making every nigger happy and relocating them?
It's such a jewy kind of narcissistic extortion. If you don't admire what we say we're leaving.
It sounds a lot like "Some imaginary people are going to die if they can't have no fault divorce, Sunday shopping, credit cards, abortions, marijuana, needle clinics legalized heroin/oxycontin, and all our non profits have to be funded or people are going to die.
I think people do need to die, or at least to stop reproducing.
The idea that every human life is equally precious is repulsive to me.
I don't believe in divorce, I think that women and nonwhites should be considered property, not people, not even living things, but property to be owned.
Nothing wrong with shopping on Sunday.
Credit cards need to go, along with a lot of other things, like charging interest, fractional reserve lending, fiat currency, and private central banking.
The abortion of a white male child is murder, the abortion of a white female child is destruction of property if the father wants her, which is just as bad. Same applies to a human of any other race that a white male owns.
The same attitude apllies to the killing of humans after at any stage after their birth as well, except in a white woman's case it could be her father brother son husband or whatever white male owns her at the time.
Don't care about drugs, don't use any of them, let the junkies remove themselves from the gene pool.
I don't believe in divorce, I think that women and nonwhites should be considered property, not people, not even living things, but property to be owned.
Why do you think women should be considered property? This is an utterly retarded position and Im disappointed in you.
Right now we are living in a world where we are losing a numbers game, and that's because the mating practices we are using right now, where men and women meet up with each other and select them as their partners, is not working.
Women are going for a scant 1 percent of men, and when they get with those guys, they demand d exclusivity, on top of that they aren't having children, yada yada, I'm sure you heard it all before enouth times to know about all this already.
We are in the midst of a problem with regard to producing future generations, I fear the loss of recessive phenotypes among humanity, for example those with red hair and blue eyes are less than 2 percent of the global population.
So I propose a solution of returning to an earlier model, where fathers own their daughters as property, and transfer that ownership to their daughters arranged husband upon marriage, where they become the property of the man as his wife.
The marriage having been arranged between the father of the wife and the father of her husband, typically when both spouses were still children.
Even if we reject this idea of arranged marriage and the enslavement of the female sex, we have to accept that things cannot continue as they are now, and we need a change. The way things are now are not sustainable, and we need more than sustenance, we need growth, as we are in decline.
Understand that there are problems I'm trying to solve, and I'm willing to entertain any ideas on how we could optimize things with new changes, whether a returns to old ways or a progression into something new.
Right now we are living in a world where we are losing a numbers game, and that's because the mating practices we are using right now, where men and women meet up with each other and select them as their partners, is not working.
I agree.
Women are going for a scant 1 percent of men,
Exageration but yes there is something like this going on and it always happens when you don’t have enforced monogamy. We can have an argument about who destroyed monogamy — faggots here will argue it was wahmen— but ultimately monogamy is an agreement between men in which they agree to one lady per customer and are obligated to care for her until she is dead. Monogamy only works when all men follow it. It doesn’t work if 90% of men follow it.
Your other choices are “nigger polygamy” — brave single moms on public assistance who sleep around but don’t “rely on a man”, or “muzzo polygamy” (polygyny) where wealthy old men hoard all the young women and women are commoditized. Donald Trump fits this pattern. Mel Gibson fits this pattern.
You think DT and Mel are heroes who will repopulate the white race but they are actually our destruction because you don’t understand what traits are favored in the polygynous selection process.
Mel and DT are stealing young women from poorer younger men. In polygyny, status seeking males with high libidos and high greed succeed reproductively over the average males and soon males with these traits flood the population. Intrasexual (male) competition drives selection which is BAD. Males do not select each other for being a smart guy or a nice guy or an honest guy. Traits like predisposition for corruption and violence and promiscuity are favored. Hi IQ is not. Whenever males have too much power they will choose polygamy and polygamy will always degenerate the population to a less cooperative, less productive state. You don’t want to see that muslims are stupid and violent and dishonest because of a selection process in which males had too much control. You think white men can’t change. Naive.
We are in the midst of a problem with regard to producing future generations, I fear the loss of recessive phenotypes among humanity, for example those with red hair and blue eyes are less than 2 percent of the global population.
You need to focus more on behavioral traits. Who cares about blond hair if we behave like degenerates? Some jews have blond hair, red hair, blue eyes.
The marriage having been arranged between the father of the wife and the father of her husband, typically when both spouses were still children.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Did not happen. Thats what aristocrats did. They are a questionable largely endogamous subpopulation prone to polygamy and corruption.
What you’re talking about happened in asia. Bugs arranged marriages, not whites. Consequently bugs have less compassion and are more mercenary, and more prone to slavishness.
What was the selection process in europe? Ladies’ choice. Why are white men nicer than chinks, more compassionate, more just? Because that’s how women liked them.
Face it. Your earlier model, the one that gave whites all the traits you admire like honesty, rationality, productivity, egalitarianism, comes from a selection process in which monogamy was enforced and women chose their own husbands.
Men will sell their daughters to the highest bidder.
Let me anticipate your response.
oh no white men wouldn’t
Yes they would. After a few generations men would change. The most reproductively successful men would be the ones that would get ahead by selling their daughters off as chattel.
Understand that there are problems I'm trying to solve
So am I. You have not thought through the the evolutionary mechanisms and their effect on the behvioral traits of whites. We need growth but we need smart growth. There has already been too much entropy of the white signal for success. You need to understand what truly made whites unique and replicate or improve on that process.
Its more complicated than just “lets have more blonds” or lets make smarter whites. You don’t want to end up with a bunch of blond jews or bugs or muzzies.
By the way none of this is what I objected to. I object to being explained to that my murder is a destruction of property fuck right off on that one buddy. Im a white woman with a high IQ. Theres not one in a hundred women as smart as me and you need women like me to rebuild the white race. Muslims have bred women as tame livestock for 1400 years, how’s that working out? Is the world being overrun by muslim geniuses?
There are trade-offs. Always trade offs. You think because right now women have an economic advantage and are behaving opportunistically that men dont do the same when they can. Wrong. History is replete with examples. There must be a balance of power between white men and women— its a deal, wealth for reproduction. Sorry you can’t have it all your way and have all the benefits for dudes who are the “real humans” . GTFO. You’ll just end up fucking each other over anyway. Its men who fuck over other men in muslim countries.
You want to see hypergamy? Check out that post with the French girls with their tits out. The comments are all “these chicks are ugly, these chicks have weird tits.” Men are going for the scant one percent. There are available women but men are rejecting them because they are not hot enough compared to their fantasy coom girl from the jewish porno.
I have a problem with the new testament in that i understand it to be way too universalist, full of deontological rules that apply equally to everyone rather than allowing for people to act on their preferences for some over others as having greater perceived moral value relative to themselves.
Like he'll I'm going to treat a stranger as if they were just as important to me as my own child.
That said, most Christians don't really act in the way I understand the new testament as telling them to, and I get along well with Christians bevause while we disagree on religious matters, our political positions are often very compatible, I have a lot of agreement with Christians, and a lot of disagreement with atheists, especially the majority of the ones you find represented in the mainstream political narrative (the typical liberal democrat types, I absolutely hate, who i disagree with on every matter save religious ones, and even there I'm not entirely on fleek with their consensus).
I know there are far right atheists like me out there, the types who look at the science and statistics, or at the track record of different moral or political philosophies when out into practice, or the complete unabridged historical record as revealed by archeology and other forms of study compared to the politically correct pro jew anti white narrative we heard in school, or we actually started paying attention to current events and the recent state of things, and came to conclusions that put our political views on things like law and government or morality and practicality somewhere on the right wall of the political axis.
Many of us have looked to evolution as the source of morals, and some have internalized the basis on which morality had been positively selected, and taken it to heart, it's all about our genes and copies of them, we want as many of our those genes to be present in organisms living as far into the future as possible.
With preference for those which are expressed as traits, rather than suppressed and merely carried, and with preference for those which code for traits which are recessive, rather than those which are dominant.
We were never meant to treat everyone the same, we were meant to play favorites, and provided with a basis for doing so, we were intended to have a hierarchy that includes all living things of this planet, one regarding whose good is percrovee by us to be of greater or lesser value to us compared to others.
A better way of explaining it is looking at evolutionary game theory, especially the two teir version of the game played by within and between teams, and Hamilton's laws of kinship selection, which shows where morals come from, and what they were intended for, aka why the development of morality and altruism had produced an evolutionary advantage for humans over pure selfishness.
We got things like Dunbar that tell us it's impossible for us to give any amount of a fuck for more than 100-200 people, on average, we can only have the most minimal of cares for about 150 people, that the limit of relationships of any kind we could have with others, simply due to the limitations on the cognitive power of our brains where it relates to our capacity to develop and maintain relationships with other living things. We could try to push ourselves, but the more closely we come to Dunbar's limit, the more abd more shallow our relationships become, and going past the limit leads to a decline in social capital. Too many people has the effect of diversity on trust and social cohesion.
Not every human life is precious, and too many people leads to problems even under ideal situations, the Maslow's hierarchy of needs is at odds with the Malthusean limit, the closer our numbers reach to the limit, the more of Maslow's hierarchy must be sacrificed by each of us, until we are just surviving on the barest essentials. Even if the environment and populace were unreasonably ideal, the sane patterns emerge, simply from the psychological stress of high populations.
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 18:53:22 ago (+1/-0)
I haven't kept track of athiest vs Christian discussions, nor do I have a mind to, but I haven't noticed any disagreements based on those criteria in general discussions.
Atheists are better than Christ-Cucks. An Atheist can still be loyal to the White-Race. A Christ-Cuck will always place his (((Foreign-Jew-God))) above his own people.
This post is just me rambling about some internal divisions
You are the division. You are the one worshiping a Jew. Stand up straight and be White.
I didn't create the division. I'm just pointing out who crossed the line to worship a Jew. Stop blaming me. If you have a problem with division, you need to point a finger at the race-traitors.
that "Israelite" doesn't necessarily refer to modern jews
No matter how you translate "Israelite" you don't get anything other than (((Sand-Nigger))). At that point, it's clear the Bible is not meant for any White man.
The only reason for atheists, pagans and socialists to keep hammering away about their own petty version of what's should be is to keep the goal of GETTING RID OF THE JEWS down.
All White countries are built on Christian laws and only Christian laws. It's incumbent upon non Christians to mind their manners and focus on the goal along with Christians. They really don't have to play in the same sandbox because none of us are actually getting rid of the jews yet.
Im an atheist and I really don’t strut that much. Also I have cut way back on my crowing recently.
I think a lot of atheists start off religious conversations with abusive behavior or arrogance. There’s really no need for that arrogance because atheists do not have the universe figured out and seem to be just as suggestible and vulnerable to false beliefs and superstitions as everybody else is.
Some of the louder ones on here make a lot of posts to christcucks, which is just mean and divisive. And Im usually telling them that in the comments. Some of us are very reasonable as pigeons go.
Do pigeons crow? I thought they made some sort of cooing noise.
Thank you for that. The major irony in all of this is that I listen a lot to Stephan Molineux... He has a better grasp on Christianity than a lot of Christians.
His major gripe about atheism on the whole is that they pulled down the cathedral of morality that Christianity had built and offered nothing to replace it with. So instead of dogmatic moral rules society wound up with rampant hedonism.
Rampant hedonism, according to the serious philosophers, is a bad thing.
Good catch though, pigeons coo.
IMHO The thing that atheists have to contend with isn't the existence of God. Not directly anyway. There is one stumbling block that they always avoid.
There have been billions of Christians through out history and it has captured the imagination and devotion of some of the best minds in history. Typically the rebuttal to that is 'Christianity is for <insert derogatory comment here> people.'
So what ever your insult or argument is, there have been billions of people and it may hold true for most of them. Illiterate, power-hungry, stupid, those are the common ones - they apply to a lot of the people, but not all.
So what did they see that you don't. Many people were willing to be put to death, lots of people leaving the government enforced religions that they were in fleeing to Christianity at great risk to themselves.
They saw something that you can't see.
I get that poses problems for me as well, there are plenty of devout Muslims out there. Those that truly believe beyond just trying to avoid being put to death. I would talk with them as well - so far I've only really met one of them
but I found his belief inspiring. Are there devout pagans? I don't know. It is difficult to be devout to a religion where you have made up your own rules.
Anyway, that is the real question that you have to answer - if you are intelecually honest. What did they see that you don't. Look at the life of Thomas Aquinas. I'm not talking about his arguments - I am not qualified to defend them
and (no offense) you're not qualified to attack them. Look at his life, what he turned down and who he was.
His major gripe about atheism on the whole is that they pulled down the cathedral of morality that Christianity had built and offered nothing to replace it with.
I agree. Where many atheists go wrong is this : they assume that religion with all its taboos and sins and notions of good and evil is largely “irrational” and has no function in an “advanced” human society. They don’t understand that the human brain evolved with religion to form a system to regulate behavior within our groups. What we understand as morals are usually good for our group and what we understand as sins are usually bad.
Leftard atheists will usually acknowlege that stealing is wrong and murder is wrong and molesting kids is wrong but they think pretty much every other behavior must be neutral to the well being of our society. That is because the don’t appreciate the speed with which genetic drift can annihilate a society and theyve never really thought about why promiscuity and homosexuality and drug use and other pleasure seeking behaviors are so detrimental to a tribe or nation.
These are people that theoretically believe in evolution but they dont perceive how it really functions through human groups and that religion is cultural manifestation of it.
Almost every uptight christian proscription against “harmless” activities makes sense from an evolutionary POV once you realize they improve economic efficiency of the whole society.
This understanding of morality from an evolutionary perspective always seems cold and clinical to religionists. But that’s why religion has a much greater appeal.
Dying for your people because you know they will ultimately benefit from your sacrifice might lack incentive. Dying for your people because you will live with God in heaven or gain access to 72 virgins is more motivational. Religion works.
What did they see that you don't.
I believe our brains did not evolve to perceive reality accurately. Our brains evolved to promote our survival and the survival of our tribe. Accidentally we glimpse reality and its not necessarily to our benefit. Most atheists think theyve gained an ability to think rationally because they reject Jesus or whatever. Its pure vanity. Same old brain— you’ve just put some new religion in its place like “blacks suffer from systemic racism” or “girls have penises.” I guess “government is magic” is the driving ethos of most progressive atheists right now. Their faith in government as the source of divine justice is unshakeable and completely irrational, not to mention anti-evolution.
Are there devout pagans?
Hindus. Some of the pagans here are actually larpers who are atheists who are trying to reclaim the glory of the viking age I guess. It feels forced.
They feel that jews gain control of other people’s societies through religions or ideology and that christianity is one of these jewish captures. Even if this is true its an overly simplistic assertion to say that christianity is jewish becuase you have gentiles like Aquinas interpreting the religion for almost 2000 years. You could hardly say that christian Europe was a failure and that everything good about the white race happened pre-christianization, or even that whites succeeded in spite of Christianity, which is what I hear them say alot here.
Anyway that’s my dry evolutionary take on religion— it seems to have worked for billions of people, even very smart ones. You could say evolution is my religion.
Can atheists form a godless ideology that works as well as Christianity? ...because society seems to be falling apart and I don’t think its a coincidence. In the past, arrogant leaders at least had the fear of eternal damnation to dissuade them from really fucking over the peasants. But not now. Now they are engineering new coronaviruses and growing them in pieces of dead babies from abortions. If there was a country ruled by devout christians, I would move there.
I haven’t looked at the vid. But maybe I will in a bit.
I'm Christian and I don't want to drive away the atheists or the psuedo-pagans. I simply think Christianity is the strongest banner to unite White people under. It's easier for atheists to live in a Christian culture than it is for Christians to live in an atheist culture, e.g. under jews.
Not necessarily. You think atheists aren’t forming godless religions full of magical beliefs? Girls have penises? I could name a crapton of beliefs just like that that are held near and dear by many an atheist.
Those beleifs are rejected by a lot of atheists and accepted by a lot of Christians. Much of the insanity we are dealing with today goes beyond the barriers of faith.
You are not terribly coherent on this post. I had to re-read the second paragraph like 4 times and I still don’t know what you mean.
I don’t find there is too much grief from christians toward atheists. I think there is more grief from atheists toward christians.
A lot of these
Who? Christians on this forum?
tend to get the same results as the types who reject the idea of a unified front of White advocacy,
What results?
not because they are anti White, but because they reject the existence of a White race, and instead want to focus on individual countries or on the ethnicities within them,
Your utter denial of the truth (women aren't very good at lying, especially not to themselves) and repeated "im not mad" novella length replies indicate otherwise
I love to express myself. Far more than anyone enjoys listening to me. Its the way I am. I talk to whoever will listen to me and if there’s nobody interested I talk to the dog. I just enjoy it.
If level of effort indicates a burning inner turmoil and frustration on the part of the user then how come you make 30 comments a day about how stupid christians are?
Which atheist societies have succeeded? What if people do require “imaginary friends” when they grow up? Why is belief in god so ubiquitous? Tell us the secret of life, faggot. We all want to be as well adjusted as you are.
Okay Mr Cool. If you’re so non-chalant why are you here every minute of the day squawking about christ cucks. You are deeply invested as your ten million comments under every post attest to.
I’ll shed massive oceans of diarrhea if I can push you in to one.
tells everyone exactly how "well adjusted" you are
Lol are you literally a jew? WTF do I care about adjusted?
Why are Christian haters so ignorant of Christianity? Jesus never said to cut the foreskin off. He told his people it was a circumcision of the heart and to leave the little guy's dicks alone.
Fucking jews always gotta be trying to slander Christian's with their own religious freakery, and dummies just repeat it.
I'm not talking about jesus. I'm talking about god. Why are Christians so quick to forget the vile things god commanded?
How does jesus saying circumcision is bad, make up for god commanding it? The time from god commanding it, to jesus retracting it was a blink of an eye for god...how can he change his mind so quickly?
Was god wrong when he commanded it then? Because why would jesus have to correct it? How does god make such a huge mistake?
You people deliberately dumb up what you're doing. You pretend the jewish old testament god isn't reborn in the new testament. It pisses off you jews no end that you have a genocidal God, and the Christians do not.
You can't admit that jesus is co eternal with God, and you're lying when you say I don't mean Jesus, I mean God.
Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself by running your mouth on stupidity and ignorance and go learn something.
You think god was reborn? Do you not understand how stupid that is? That is admitting that he was not perfect before. You're fucking retarded and will do whatever mental gymnastics you have to, to deny the truth.
The book you worship explicitly commands the mutilation of newborns, you sick fuck. Every church I've been to included those texts right along with the new testament.
So you deny Genesis 21:4 is the word of god? Is only the new testament the word of god? Then why do I only see bibles with both the old and new testament in every church I've been to? You can't be this dumb...its literally written down in the book you are defending. Defending very poorly at that.
The entire point of the religion is Christ says that's old testament stuff wrong. You've got to be pretending to be as stupid as you are, because it's not possible to be as fucking clueless as you are.
A lot of atheists are really just anti-christian. It's also boring to argue with atheists. Their arguments are usually juvenile, kind of a fuck-you-dad thing.
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri -2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:11:24 ago (+1/-3)
[ + ] AngryWhiteKeyboardWarrior
[ - ] AngryWhiteKeyboardWarrior -2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:12:15 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 07:55:45 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:30:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:20:27 ago (+1/-1)
Nigger lovers are enemies of america
No exceptions
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:24:26 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:26:35 ago (+0/-1)
Lurk moar
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:58:47 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:26:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FalseRealityCheck
[ - ] FalseRealityCheck 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:54:06 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:28:25 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:47:42 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:48:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:10:39 ago (+0/-0)
It sounds a lot like "Some imaginary people are going to die if they can't have no fault divorce, Sunday shopping, credit cards, abortions, marijuana, needle clinics legalized heroin/oxycontin, and all our non profits have to be funded or people are going to die.
Die already.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 02:09:56 ago (+0/-0)
The idea that every human life is equally precious is repulsive to me.
I don't believe in divorce, I think that women and nonwhites should be considered property, not people, not even living things, but property to be owned.
Nothing wrong with shopping on Sunday.
Credit cards need to go, along with a lot of other things, like charging interest, fractional reserve lending, fiat currency, and private central banking.
The abortion of a white male child is murder, the abortion of a white female child is destruction of property if the father wants her, which is just as bad. Same applies to a human of any other race that a white male owns.
The same attitude apllies to the killing of humans after at any stage after their birth as well, except in a white woman's case it could be her father brother son husband or whatever white male owns her at the time.
Don't care about drugs, don't use any of them, let the junkies remove themselves from the gene pool.
I hate all NGOs.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 21:47:01 ago (+0/-0)
Why do you think women should be considered property? This is an utterly retarded position and Im disappointed in you.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 06:34:53 ago (+0/-0)
Women are going for a scant 1 percent of men, and when they get with those guys, they demand d exclusivity, on top of that they aren't having children, yada yada, I'm sure you heard it all before enouth times to know about all this already.
We are in the midst of a problem with regard to producing future generations, I fear the loss of recessive phenotypes among humanity, for example those with red hair and blue eyes are less than 2 percent of the global population.
So I propose a solution of returning to an earlier model, where fathers own their daughters as property, and transfer that ownership to their daughters arranged husband upon marriage, where they become the property of the man as his wife.
The marriage having been arranged between the father of the wife and the father of her husband, typically when both spouses were still children.
Even if we reject this idea of arranged marriage and the enslavement of the female sex, we have to accept that things cannot continue as they are now, and we need a change. The way things are now are not sustainable, and we need more than sustenance, we need growth, as we are in decline.
Understand that there are problems I'm trying to solve, and I'm willing to entertain any ideas on how we could optimize things with new changes, whether a returns to old ways or a progression into something new.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 08:36:24 ago (+1/-0)
I agree.
Exageration but yes there is something like this going on and it always happens when you don’t have enforced monogamy. We can have an argument about who destroyed monogamy — faggots here will argue it was wahmen— but ultimately monogamy is an agreement between men in which they agree to one lady per customer and are obligated to care for her until she is dead. Monogamy only works when all men follow it. It doesn’t work if 90% of men follow it.
Your other choices are “nigger polygamy” — brave single moms on public assistance who sleep around but don’t “rely on a man”, or “muzzo polygamy” (polygyny) where wealthy old men hoard all the young women and women are commoditized. Donald Trump fits this pattern. Mel Gibson fits this pattern.
You think DT and Mel are heroes who will repopulate the white race but they are actually our destruction because you don’t understand what traits are favored in the polygynous selection process.
Mel and DT are stealing young women from poorer younger men. In polygyny, status seeking males with high libidos and high greed succeed reproductively over the average males and soon males with these traits flood the population. Intrasexual (male) competition drives selection which is BAD. Males do not select each other for being a smart guy or a nice guy or an honest guy. Traits like predisposition for corruption and violence and promiscuity are favored. Hi IQ is not. Whenever males have too much power they will choose polygamy and polygamy will always degenerate the population to a less cooperative, less productive state. You don’t want to see that muslims are stupid and violent and dishonest because of a selection process in which males had too much control. You think white men can’t change. Naive.
You need to focus more on behavioral traits. Who cares about blond hair if we behave like degenerates? Some jews have blond hair, red hair, blue eyes.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Did not happen. Thats what aristocrats did. They are a questionable largely endogamous subpopulation prone to polygamy and corruption.
What you’re talking about happened in asia. Bugs arranged marriages, not whites. Consequently bugs have less compassion and are more mercenary, and more prone to slavishness.
What was the selection process in europe? Ladies’ choice. Why are white men nicer than chinks, more compassionate, more just? Because that’s how women liked them.
Face it. Your earlier model, the one that gave whites all the traits you admire like honesty, rationality, productivity, egalitarianism, comes from a selection process in which monogamy was enforced and women chose their own husbands.
Men will sell their daughters to the highest bidder.
Let me anticipate your response.
Yes they would. After a few generations men would change. The most reproductively successful men would be the ones that would get ahead by selling their daughters off as chattel.
So am I. You have not thought through the the evolutionary mechanisms and their effect on the behvioral traits of whites. We need growth but we need smart growth. There has already been too much entropy of the white signal for success. You need to understand what truly made whites unique and replicate or improve on that process.
Its more complicated than just “lets have more blonds” or lets make smarter whites. You don’t want to end up with a bunch of blond jews or bugs or muzzies.
By the way none of this is what I objected to. I object to being explained to that my murder is a destruction of property fuck right off on that one buddy. Im a white woman with a high IQ. Theres not one in a hundred women as smart as me and you need women like me to rebuild the white race. Muslims have bred women as tame livestock for 1400 years, how’s that working out? Is the world being overrun by muslim geniuses?
There are trade-offs. Always trade offs. You think because right now women have an economic advantage and are behaving opportunistically that men dont do the same when they can. Wrong. History is replete with examples. There must be a balance of power between white men and women— its a deal, wealth for reproduction. Sorry you can’t have it all your way and have all the benefits for dudes who are the “real humans” . GTFO. You’ll just end up fucking each other over anyway. Its men who fuck over other men in muslim countries.
You want to see hypergamy? Check out that post with the French girls with their tits out. The comments are all “these chicks are ugly, these chicks have weird tits.” Men are going for the scant one percent. There are available women but men are rejecting them because they are not hot enough compared to their fantasy coom girl from the jewish porno.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 10:44:43 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 10:43:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 15:33:11 ago (+0/-0)
Even when I disagree you make a good case for interesting points.
You do a decent job of analysis especially compared to the others on here.
And I think you are a likable person in general.
You are eloquent and respectful, and I appreciate that about you.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 16:23:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:47:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 01:56:58 ago (+0/-0)
I have a problem with the new testament in that i understand it to be way too universalist, full of deontological rules that apply equally to everyone rather than allowing for people to act on their preferences for some over others as having greater perceived moral value relative to themselves.
Like he'll I'm going to treat a stranger as if they were just as important to me as my own child.
That said, most Christians don't really act in the way I understand the new testament as telling them to, and I get along well with Christians bevause while we disagree on religious matters, our political positions are often very compatible, I have a lot of agreement with Christians, and a lot of disagreement with atheists, especially the majority of the ones you find represented in the mainstream political narrative (the typical liberal democrat types, I absolutely hate, who i disagree with on every matter save religious ones, and even there I'm not entirely on fleek with their consensus).
I know there are far right atheists like me out there, the types who look at the science and statistics, or at the track record of different moral or political philosophies when out into practice, or the complete unabridged historical record as revealed by archeology and other forms of study compared to the politically correct pro jew anti white narrative we heard in school, or we actually started paying attention to current events and the recent state of things, and came to conclusions that put our political views on things like law and government or morality and practicality somewhere on the right wall of the political axis.
Many of us have looked to evolution as the source of morals, and some have internalized the basis on which morality had been positively selected, and taken it to heart, it's all about our genes and copies of them, we want as many of our those genes to be present in organisms living as far into the future as possible.
With preference for those which are expressed as traits, rather than suppressed and merely carried, and with preference for those which code for traits which are recessive, rather than those which are dominant.
We were never meant to treat everyone the same, we were meant to play favorites, and provided with a basis for doing so, we were intended to have a hierarchy that includes all living things of this planet, one regarding whose good is percrovee by us to be of greater or lesser value to us compared to others.
A better way of explaining it is looking at evolutionary game theory, especially the two teir version of the game played by within and between teams, and Hamilton's laws of kinship selection, which shows where morals come from, and what they were intended for, aka why the development of morality and altruism had produced an evolutionary advantage for humans over pure selfishness.
We got things like Dunbar that tell us it's impossible for us to give any amount of a fuck for more than 100-200 people, on average, we can only have the most minimal of cares for about 150 people, that the limit of relationships of any kind we could have with others, simply due to the limitations on the cognitive power of our brains where it relates to our capacity to develop and maintain relationships with other living things. We could try to push ourselves, but the more closely we come to Dunbar's limit, the more abd more shallow our relationships become, and going past the limit leads to a decline in social capital. Too many people has the effect of diversity on trust and social cohesion.
Not every human life is precious, and too many people leads to problems even under ideal situations, the Maslow's hierarchy of needs is at odds with the Malthusean limit, the closer our numbers reach to the limit, the more of Maslow's hierarchy must be sacrificed by each of us, until we are just surviving on the barest essentials. Even if the environment and populace were unreasonably ideal, the sane patterns emerge, simply from the psychological stress of high populations.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 20:47:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 11:03:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 18:53:22 ago (+1/-0)
In religious discussions, it could be different.
[ + ] gaybeeye
[ - ] gaybeeye 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 18:59:55 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:40:17 ago (+5/-4)
An Atheist can still be loyal to the White-Race.
A Christ-Cuck will always place his (((Foreign-Jew-God))) above his own people.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:23:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:40:28 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:47:24 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:00:09 ago (+1/-1)
Stop blaming me. If you have a problem with division, you need to point a finger at the race-traitors.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:13:45 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:23:45 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 18:19:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PussyShart
[ - ] PussyShart 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 18:44:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 21:43:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] gaybeeye
[ - ] gaybeeye 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 20:13:54 ago (+0/-0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTfcW-QvSBk
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/094/011/039/original/e1c5b20bb0276c29.jpg
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 20:18:00 ago (+2/-2)
Also, your (((Satan))) is a cringy (((Jew-God))) too. Stop worshiping Jews.
[ + ] gaybeeye
[ - ] gaybeeye 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 20:40:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:06:59 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:48:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] gaybeeye
[ - ] gaybeeye 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:43:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:40:51 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 3 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:45:13 ago (+5/-2)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:49:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:52:55 ago (+2/-0)*
The goal is to get rid of the jews.
The only reason for atheists, pagans and socialists to keep hammering away about their own petty version of what's should be is to keep the goal of GETTING RID OF THE JEWS down.
All White countries are built on Christian laws and only Christian laws. It's incumbent upon non Christians to mind their manners and focus on the goal along with Christians. They really don't have to play in the same sandbox because none of us are actually getting rid of the jews yet.
[ + ] Empire_of_the_Mind
[ - ] Empire_of_the_Mind 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 20:18:50 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Scruffy_Nerfherder
[ - ] Scruffy_Nerfherder 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 20:49:48 ago (+1/-0)
If you could get into honest conversation with one that would be refreshing.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:22:53 ago (+1/-0)
I think a lot of atheists start off religious conversations with abusive behavior or arrogance. There’s really no need for that arrogance because atheists do not have the universe figured out and seem to be just as suggestible and vulnerable to false beliefs and superstitions as everybody else is.
Some of the louder ones on here make a lot of posts to christcucks, which is just mean and divisive. And Im usually telling them that in the comments. Some of us are very reasonable as pigeons go.
Do pigeons crow? I thought they made some sort of cooing noise.
[ + ] Scruffy_Nerfherder
[ - ] Scruffy_Nerfherder 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 10:12:44 ago (+0/-0)
His major gripe about atheism on the whole is that they pulled down the cathedral of morality that Christianity had built and offered nothing to replace it with. So instead of dogmatic moral rules society wound up with rampant hedonism.
Rampant hedonism, according to the serious philosophers, is a bad thing.
Good catch though, pigeons coo.
IMHO The thing that atheists have to contend with isn't the existence of God. Not directly anyway. There is one stumbling block that they always avoid.
There have been billions of Christians through out history and it has captured the imagination and devotion of some of the best minds in history. Typically the rebuttal to that is 'Christianity is for <insert derogatory comment here> people.'
So what ever your insult or argument is, there have been billions of people and it may hold true for most of them. Illiterate, power-hungry, stupid, those are the common ones - they apply to a lot of the people, but not all.
So what did they see that you don't. Many people were willing to be put to death, lots of people leaving the government enforced religions that they were in fleeing to Christianity at great risk to themselves.
They saw something that you can't see.
I get that poses problems for me as well, there are plenty of devout Muslims out there. Those that truly believe beyond just trying to avoid being put to death. I would talk with them as well - so far I've only really met one of them
but I found his belief inspiring. Are there devout pagans? I don't know. It is difficult to be devout to a religion where you have made up your own rules.
Anyway, that is the real question that you have to answer - if you are intelecually honest. What did they see that you don't. Look at the life of Thomas Aquinas. I'm not talking about his arguments - I am not qualified to defend them
and (no offense) you're not qualified to attack them. Look at his life, what he turned down and who he was.
Animation aside, this is a good start. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZwf5jY42E
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 19:45:07 ago (+0/-0)
I agree. Where many atheists go wrong is this : they assume that religion with all its taboos and sins and notions of good and evil is largely “irrational” and has no function in an “advanced” human society. They don’t understand that the human brain evolved with religion to form a system to regulate behavior within our groups. What we understand as morals are usually good for our group and what we understand as sins are usually bad.
Leftard atheists will usually acknowlege that stealing is wrong and murder is wrong and molesting kids is wrong but they think pretty much every other behavior must be neutral to the well being of our society. That is because the don’t appreciate the speed with which genetic drift can annihilate a society and theyve never really thought about why promiscuity and homosexuality and drug use and other pleasure seeking behaviors are so detrimental to a tribe or nation.
These are people that theoretically believe in evolution but they dont perceive how it really functions through human groups and that religion is cultural manifestation of it.
Almost every uptight christian proscription against “harmless” activities makes sense from an evolutionary POV once you realize they improve economic efficiency of the whole society.
This understanding of morality from an evolutionary perspective always seems cold and clinical to religionists. But that’s why religion has a much greater appeal.
Dying for your people because you know they will ultimately benefit from your sacrifice might lack incentive. Dying for your people because you will live with God in heaven or gain access to 72 virgins is more motivational. Religion works.
I believe our brains did not evolve to perceive reality accurately. Our brains evolved to promote our survival and the survival of our tribe. Accidentally we glimpse reality and its not necessarily to our benefit. Most atheists think theyve gained an ability to think rationally because they reject Jesus or whatever. Its pure vanity. Same old brain— you’ve just put some new religion in its place like “blacks suffer from systemic racism” or “girls have penises.” I guess “government is magic” is the driving ethos of most progressive atheists right now. Their faith in government as the source of divine justice is unshakeable and completely irrational, not to mention anti-evolution.
Hindus. Some of the pagans here are actually larpers who are atheists who are trying to reclaim the glory of the viking age I guess. It feels forced.
They feel that jews gain control of other people’s societies through religions or ideology and that christianity is one of these jewish captures. Even if this is true its an overly simplistic assertion to say that christianity is jewish becuase you have gentiles like Aquinas interpreting the religion for almost 2000 years. You could hardly say that christian Europe was a failure and that everything good about the white race happened pre-christianization, or even that whites succeeded in spite of Christianity, which is what I hear them say alot here.
Anyway that’s my dry evolutionary take on religion— it seems to have worked for billions of people, even very smart ones. You could say evolution is my religion.
Can atheists form a godless ideology that works as well as Christianity? ...because society seems to be falling apart and I don’t think its a coincidence. In the past, arrogant leaders at least had the fear of eternal damnation to dissuade them from really fucking over the peasants. But not now. Now they are engineering new coronaviruses and growing them in pieces of dead babies from abortions. If there was a country ruled by devout christians, I would move there.
I haven’t looked at the vid. But maybe I will in a bit.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:44:31 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 18:46:20 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 20:11:55 ago (+4/-2)
Kikes created atheism so otherwise smart people could be trapped into communist ideals.
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:23:59 ago (+1/-1)
Just because an asshole said it doesn't make it untrue
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:48:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:27:39 ago (+0/-1)
But no
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:03:06 ago (+1/-1)
Opiates are the opiates of the masses, and so is drug use. The commies scream murder when drug users find God. Cunt.
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:25:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 19:49:00 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 02:13:09 ago (+0/-0)
Its always existed, even back in classical Greece.
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 07:08:27 ago (+0/-1)*
Funny how you all never argue the fact that Atheism is literally cited by Marx and the Protocols as a tool for subversion.
Useful idiots.
Go ahead and give Protocol 4 a quick read. Its not long a single page.
The part about how it is absolutely crucial that they remove any belief in the God-head and spirit and replace it with Mathematics and Materialism.
[ + ] PussyShart
[ - ] PussyShart 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 04:56:41 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 07:06:40 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] PussyShart
[ - ] PussyShart 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 08:39:36 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 14:42:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PussyShart
[ - ] PussyShart 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 18:37:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 21:40:17 ago (+0/-0)
Atheism is the absence of God.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 06:18:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 10:38:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:08:27 ago (+2/-0)
I don’t find there is too much grief from christians toward atheists. I think there is more grief from atheists toward christians.
Who? Christians on this forum?
What results?
They do?
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 10:33:12 ago (+0/-0)
Your utter denial of the truth (women aren't very good at lying, especially not to themselves) and repeated "im not mad" novella length replies indicate otherwise
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 10:58:18 ago (+0/-0)
If level of effort indicates a burning inner turmoil and frustration on the part of the user then how come you make 30 comments a day about how stupid christians are?
You = Mad
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 11:00:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 11:08:06 ago (+0/-0)
You = in love
Sorry not interested!
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 11:11:33 ago (+0/-0)
Almost all females possess it
You and AOC would get along swimmingly im 100 % sure!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10361641/AOC-roasted-saying-Republicans-criticize-just-wants-date-caught-maskless.html
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 4 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:11:09 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 6 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:40:52 ago (+8/-2)
[ + ] Flabbygasted
[ - ] Flabbygasted 4 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:18:57 ago (+6/-2)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 13:45:13 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:22:40 ago (+2/-1)
Oh wait. The "mark" is cutting off the foreskin of the penis? And God tells us that viewing nakedness is a sin and have to keep the penis covered?
If God can't see into the hearts to know who is who, how can he see a penis that is covered?
[ + ] Flabbygasted
[ - ] Flabbygasted 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 10:08:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:25:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Flabbygasted
[ - ] Flabbygasted 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:28:57 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:22:41 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:39:21 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:33:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 20:03:20 ago (+0/-0)
I’ll shed massive oceans of diarrhea if I can push you in to one.
Lol are you literally a jew? WTF do I care about adjusted?
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 8, 2022 09:22:16 ago (+0/-0)
You=fail
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:41:54 ago (+0/-1)
Fucking jews always gotta be trying to slander Christian's with their own religious freakery, and dummies just repeat it.
[ + ] Flabbygasted
[ - ] Flabbygasted 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 09:59:01 ago (+1/-1)
How does jesus saying circumcision is bad, make up for god commanding it? The time from god commanding it, to jesus retracting it was a blink of an eye for god...how can he change his mind so quickly?
Was god wrong when he commanded it then? Because why would jesus have to correct it? How does god make such a huge mistake?
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 17:59:41 ago (+0/-1)
You can't admit that jesus is co eternal with God, and you're lying when you say I don't mean Jesus, I mean God.
Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself by running your mouth on stupidity and ignorance and go learn something.
[ + ] Flabbygasted
[ - ] Flabbygasted 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 18:23:46 ago (+0/-0)
The book you worship explicitly commands the mutilation of newborns, you sick fuck. Every church I've been to included those texts right along with the new testament.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 00:37:46 ago (+0/-0)
repeating a false thing 6 million times won't make it true you rotting pile of pus.
[ + ] Flabbygasted
[ - ] Flabbygasted 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 10:09:21 ago (+0/-0)
So you deny Genesis 21:4 is the word of god? Is only the new testament the word of god? Then why do I only see bibles with both the old and new testament in every church I've been to? You can't be this dumb...its literally written down in the book you are defending. Defending very poorly at that.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 18:17:07 ago (+0/-0)
Fuck off and eat shit.
[ + ] Flabbygasted
[ - ] Flabbygasted 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 7, 2022 19:40:08 ago (+0/-0)
So are you saying every aspect of the old testament is incorrect? Adam and Eve was fake...yada yada?
Or was jesus cherry picking which texts is right and and which ones are wrong?
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:21:38 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 21:51:50 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 23:30:55 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 19:33:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] noonefromnowhere
[ - ] noonefromnowhere 4 points 3.3 yearsMar 5, 2022 22:58:02 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne -1 points 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 07:11:12 ago (+0/-1)
Anyone blind to the facts of truth, Marx, Communism and the Protocols literally wish everyone on earth was an atheist.
They see no problems with agreeing with them on this fact.
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 6, 2022 14:00:22 ago (+1/-0)
They both believe in things that dont exist