I know. Just that phrase 'agree to disagree' which seemingly just appeared out of nowhere and became all popular kind of recently just sounds so dumb! Kind of like "It is what it is"... no shit! What the fuck else would it be!
I am probably just grouchy. This coffee is doing nothing!
Says the guy whose username identifies him as a Semitic god.
In seriousness though, I see this specific hand waving move all of the time here. I've seen it tens of times in the past couple of days.
It's repeated ad nauseum but nobody ever establishes it with a good argument. Nobody.
"It's a Jewish control structure."
It's not enough to say this. How is it? And I don't mean purely arguments from the armchair. We can all sit and wax conspiratorially the whole day long. It doesn't mean it's true. "W-w-well, the Jews would have a motive to do this. Look at the way western evangelicals pander to Israel."
This is not an argument that Christianity, from its inception, was a Jewish control operation. Not even close. I wish people would quit saying this unless they have a strong case to make. Because if not, it is sufficient to defend Christianity with what it says about itself - which is as good or better than your offensive case against it - and it both implicitly and explicitly makes the claim (that Christianity is Jewish) absurd.
This is not an argument that Christianity, from its inception, was a Jewish control operation.
Not him, but I don't think it was.
I don't think jews planned it from the start, it's more that after christianity got big it presented them with infiltration opportunities that hadn't previously existed.
Yes, exactly. And afterwards, they refocused people's attention on various parts of the teachings in order to influence group behaviors, like feeling bad for africans and funding their mass importation as well as shipping resources out to them, aiding in population growth.
Right. My religion courses in school had very little to do with prayer and meditation and spiritual growth. It was all about material charity and turning the other cheek.
This weakens the whole case severely. The Jew is an infiltrator. Christianity, like Islam, was at first very strong against Jews, with universal bans on usury, for example. There were a series of leaders that slackened things as they advantaged themselves politically with Jewish financing. This is not an intrinsic weakness of Christianity, or Catholicism. I'd grant you that the Catholic church has been infiltrated, but this is not the same claim as Christianity being intrinsically controllable by the Jew. It isn't.
Christianity could be strong against the Jew, and it would have a basis for that strength greater than any other religious system in existence. Christ is the most anti-Jewish idea there is. That is inarguable. Unfortunately, an idea doesn't prevent fallible men from becoming victim to their own selfish desires and punching holes in the defenses of the church.
The dialectic between Catholicism and Judaism was highly complex.
But suppose there had been no Catholicism. Islam would have swept Europe. If pagans in northern Europe could not persist against Christianity, or a Christian Rome rather, I suppose you think they would have held their own, and we'd have some European heathen utopia today?
Human faltering does not make Christianity untrue. And I suppose if Viking groups were converted to Christianity for economic advantages, these Vikings would have resisted the workings of the Jews for two millennia?
The Jew is an infiltrator. Christianity did not make Europe more vulnerable to this; it was for a long time a bulwark against it. Had there been another system, or many, the Jew would have dispersed and continued to do what the Jew does. Disunity in the face of that is a greater weakness. Christendom was a European unifier. It should be again.
Christianity, like Islam, was at first very strong against Jews, with universal bans on usury, for example.
Your argument falls at the first hurdle. Where did all the jewish moneylenders come from? There was no widespread diaspora of jewish financiers in europe before christians made a special place for them and gave them a monopoly.
Christians solving some christian problems some of the time is not an argument in favour of christianity.
Christianity could be strong against the Jew, and it would have a basis for that strength greater than any other religious system in existence. Christ is the most anti-Jewish idea there is. That is inarguable. Unfortunately, an idea doesn't prevent fallible men from becoming victim to their own selfish desires and punching holes in the defenses of the church.
Like I said, why were those defences necessary in the first place? Before christianity there was no jewish question.
The dialectic between Catholicism and Judaism was highly complex.
Yes. Why have a confusing and easily manipulated dialectic with a racial enemy when you can simply have none?
But suppose there had been no Catholicism. Islam would have swept Europe.
That's a pretty extreme leap. Prechristian europeans were more than capable of allying against a common threat.
If pagans in northern Europe could not persist against Christianity, or a Christian Rome rather, I suppose you think they would have held their own, and we'd have some European heathen utopia today?
The roman empire was built prior to christianity. Christianity did not give it the power to expand, it was just a useful tool in suppressing dissent centuries after conquest.
Human faltering does not make Christianity untrue. And I suppose if Viking groups were converted to Christianity for economic advantages, these Vikings would have resisted the workings of the Jews for two millennia?
Political advantages. Christianity offered a useful mechanism for suppressing and controlling large numbers of people. It's iron-age marxism.
And yes, I think that without christianity the jews would have had a much more difficult time infiltrating europe. There's a reason why up until the 20th century the vast majority of their population was contained here: Christian countries make an ideal host.
The Jew is an infiltrator. Christianity did not make Europe more vulnerable to this
I'm sorry but it did. Before christianity this was not a problem.
it was for a long time a bulwark against it
Like how? Christian institutions have only ever turned anti-jewish after centuries of giving them free reign.
Had there been another system, or many, the Jew would have dispersed and continued to do what the Jew does.
And yet they didn't. Before christianity jews did not have much success infiltration europe, or any other society.
Disunity in the face of that is a greater weakness.
No. Jews are highly adapted to taking over centralised institutions. "Unity" is a weakness. We need decentralisation and a return to local governance.
Christendom was a European unifier. It should be again.
No. Christianity has never been a european unifier, it has been a globaliser. It doesn't give a shit about europe, it only cares about spreading the meme to as many cultures as possible, european or no. If the ottomans had proven open to christian conversion the priests would have been quick to press for peace in the name of christian unity. Who cares if they take over hungary, they're part of the club now.
Your argument falls at the first hurdle. Where did all the jewish moneylenders come from? There was no widespread diaspora of jewish financiers in europe before christians made a special place for them and gave them a monopoly.
^ Official Vatican magazine, 1890. The Jewish control of France began only following the anti-Catholic revolution, culmination in napoleon's emancipation of the Jews:
Some years ago, a French writer completed a savory work on the Jewish invasion of his country, using a rationale that, in substance, can be summarized as follows.
The French Christians have never forgotten that these Jews, by name and birth barbarians, most of whom are not pure, in less than a century have become our overlords. Their influence occurred in three phases: in 1791, when all of the national institutions collapsed; in 1815, when France fell prostrate; and in 1870, when the German armies mutilated France.
When in 1789 the era of revolution against the hegemony of the nobility and clergy began, what militated against these two ranks of our civilization? Their ownership of two-thirds of French soil. Taine recently justified the basis for this ownership. The nobility was formed in order to defend the nation against external enemies, and thus procure security and glory for the nation. The clergy have well merited credit for civilizing the nation, of having sweetened our customs, of enriching us through knowledge and churches, and through many thousands of expressions of charity.
Before the revolution, the clergy’s combined capital was estimated at about 4 billion francs. In 1789 there were at least 130,090 priests and religious. That was 30,000 francs for each. But after the revolution this was reduced to an income of 1,500 francs. To understand the magnitude of this, one need only look at the great number of people who cashed in on this reduction of capital to the clergy, and at the perquisites that were passed around everywhere. Who can deny a legitimate patrimony was subjected to an enormous abuse; and essentially confiscated?
A hundred years later there are no longer 130,000 priests and religious, but 60,000 foreign, non-French Jews, who head a social order that is not marked by distinguished service toward the nation. Rather, they are a voracious mob of worldly supernumeraries, who, one hundred years later, have snatched up in our house, not a sum of 4,000, but 90 billion francs.
And now, lords as they are over the public trust, they ardently inflame the common people, goading them against the clergy. The wicked popular passions they arouse form a screen for their monstrous wealth. At the time of the first revolution they reproved the clergy for their 4 billion francs. Yet, today isn’t it amazing to see the fortune of just one family of Jews (that of the Rothschilds), who have amassed it by bleeding from behind the scenes, in less than seventy years? And what’s more, this race was not content with bleeding us. They also made haste to kidnap the faith of Christ and the all that is most beautiful in our culture!
Thus did the passionate French writer end by exclaiming: "Christian Frenchmen, let us join together to thwart the wicked tricksters. Let us form a defense league against these enemies of the name, race, belief and fatherland of our traditions."
A similar cry is heard in other countries, and might also soon be heard in those where there is as yet no outcry, but where one shall soon be heard, when the boiling point is reached.
The difference between the strength and societal power the Jews have had in Europe post-1789 vs pre-1789 is greater than the difference between night and day. And yet "the Church did nothing to stand as a bulwark against the Jews," some would obstinately claim.
Like I said, why were those defences necessary in the first place? Before christianity there was no jewish question.
Because before Christianity there was no (historic) Christ, and it is precisely the revolution against Christ, in history that incarnated the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit within history. The Jews are not the force that they are because of their DNA. that is an embarrassing level of reductive thinking. The Jews are the force that they are because they were unified, in Spirit, against Christ, the Logos, Himself. Define the good, and those who choose to define themselves in opposition to it we will all the more united. Which is why Christ wisely and truly said, "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Mat 12:30). With the advent of the Incarnation within time, all of human history is now measured by Him - if He is Who He says He is, how could it be otherwise?
Political advantages. Christianity offered a useful mechanism for suppressing and controlling large numbers of people. It's iron-age marxism.
<defining the antecedent in terms of the consequent.
It would be more accurate to say, "Marxism is Christianity without Christ." But of course, if Christ is indeed the Logos, then subtracting Christ from the equation radically changes the nature of the system, now doesn't it?
And yes, I think that without christianity the jews would have had a much more difficult time infiltrating europe. There's a reason why up until the 20th century the vast majority of their population was contained here: Christian countries make an ideal host.
This may be so. Liberalism likely would not have as readily evolved without the Christian sense that every man is made in the image and likeness of God. Marxism likely would not have evolved if not for liberalism.But to judge a thing by the corruption of it is mere folly, I'm sorry to say.
No. Jews are highly adapted to taking over centralised institutions. "Unity" is a weakness. We need decentralisation and a return to local governance.
No. Christianity has never been a european unifier, it has been a globaliser.
If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man...
European unity need not entail European exclusivity. If Christianity unifies all people, then it unifies Europe. And this it clearly did, better than anything that has ever been, including the (Unholy) Roman Empire. Although God's Providence clearly (unsurprisingly) knew what it was doing in selecting the time of Rome to send the Son of God, for the connectedness of Rome made spreading the Gospel to all the world a possibility in a way it would not have been even a few centuries before.
We don't need Europe against the world, Broc. We need man united against sin.
Anyhow you're still an idiot. Events in 1890 have no relevance to a wave of jewish infiltration that happened centuries earlier. Christians allowed the jews into europe en masse. That is a fact.
The article was written in 1890, describing events around the time of the revolution. It was written then because 100 years had passed since the growth in Jewish power, which followed as a direct result of abandoning Christian law and the Church at large.
Which is completely fucking irrelevant because jews didn't just start becoming a problem in the 19th century. Christians started importing them in the first millenium and they've been a problem ever since.
It's like repeatedly introducing termites into a house then trying to act like the good guy because you're selling the owners termite repellent. "Oh the problem's only gotten worse because you switched brands, you should come back to buying from me." Lmao.
The article from 1890 was written then because the 100 years previous to it had brought the notion of the Jewish Question to every household.
If the Jews are a problem by virtue of their presence, rather than their behaviour, then the Jews were a problem prior to the Holy Roman Empire, for they were granted existence under Rome, and were not genocided as some here would wish they had been.
"But they had no power under Rome, because Rome kept them in check," you might answer.
Fine, then we are in agreement that it is Jewish behaviour, and not the Jewish presence, that is the problem (if there is a problem at all).
But if Jewish behaviour became in issue in France principally after the yoke of Catholicism was thrown off, then the problems that followed this can no more be blamed on the Christian people's tolerance of the Jewish presence prior to that time, than the Romans could be blamed for not genociding the Jews in AD 70.
So what I have said is not irrelevant, if there is a difference between Jewish behaviour pre-1789 in France, vs post-1789 in France, which there clearly is.
And a careful surveillance of history shows that it is similarly following disobedience to the Church, and not by following the Church's dictates, that the Jews gained more power or caused more harm among Christian peoples.
Which is true of any institutional structure, and bears not at all on the truth of the religion or the value of the institution. Especially when there are ways to prevent infiltration, of which sinful man does not avail himself in his love of iniquity.
No, it's not. This is not some kind of general problem where christianity is no worse than anything else, it has very specific structural weaknesses when it comes to jews.
Christian countries don't have a long history of agnoising over whether we should let the moroccans or the turks live in our countries. We traded with them and went to war with them as convenient but otherwise kept them at arms length. The jews were given a unique position in christian countries because of their status in the bible. No other group was given the special permissions they were, not even native europeans.
And you linked to CHIRO's profile instead of pinging him you idiot.
I am saying that large institutions are subject to risks of infiltration / corruption in general. And I know you recognize well that risk, since you advocate for decentralization. Even if Christian institutions are more vulnerable to one kind of organized group, other institutions are likewise vulnerable to other groups (like big politics being vulnerable to Big Money, whether that money is Jewish or not). Any structure has a nature, and depending on the nature, different weaknesses can be exploited. If the desire for unity and brotherhood is a weakness among those who identify in terms of rejecting Logos, so be it. That does not in itself undermine the goodness or truth of the Christian mission.
I am not here to call you names or insult you, Broc. Ask yourself why you feel the need to lower the level of our discourse with useless affronts.
I am saying that large institutions are subject to risks of infiltration / corruption in general.
Some more than others. Christianity has historically been on the "more than others" side when it comes to jews. We have not had major recurring historial problems with Turkish infiltration or Nigerian infiltration. It's always jews and always in christian countries.
If the desire for unity and brotherhood is a weakness among those who identify in terms of rejecting Logos, so be it. That does not in itself undermine the goodness or truth of the Christian mission.
Yes it absolutely does. There is nothing "good" or "true" about destroying your own nation. Doing so by accident without fully understanding the consequences is one thing, continuing to do it deliberately even after you've noticed the pattern is evil.
Ask yourself why you feel the need to lower the level of our discourse with useless affronts.
Because you pissed me off pinging CHIRO every time you wanted upvotes or an asspat.
I'm familiar with the argument, especially Joe Atwill's. It is not good. It's a salacious and intriguing story, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Atwill basically asks you to treat the next four centuries after Christ as one big and hopelessly interconnected conspiracy. It's just not good history.
The fact that he's the only source outside the bible and related apocrypha that claims to confirm the existence of anyone from the gospels is enough to call the very existence of Jesus into question.
I don't intend to rely merely on an appeal to authority, but the virtual consensus of scholarship on this matter is that Jesus existed. Not even Ehrman is skeptical about that fact.
There is also no reason to dismiss the NT gospels as ahistorical evidence; they represent some of the best historical transmissions we have from the period, albeit not in terms of every claim, given that these are mixed-genre works. What your claim implies is that since there are not many other extra-biblical attestations of Christ, then the gospels themselves are not sufficient. I do not agree, and neither do many others.
The people of ancient Palestine did not have smart phones. There was no journalistic profession with standards of practice. Those who would have followed Jesus in close proximity to have seen the events of his life leading to His crucifixion would have likely been his disciples and the earliest Christians. Therefore, the Bible represents a composite redaction of the testament and theology of the earliest sects of Christianity. It follows that the best and most compelling evidence from this earliest belief would have wound up where? The Bible.
Who else would we have expected to possibly have written extra-biblical attestation of Jesus? His Jewish enemies. Did they? Yes. The Talmud attests to the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion.
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian also provide early confirmations (second hand) of core Christian beliefs. This is not direct evidence for the existence of Jesus, but demonstrates clear belief in the figure of Jesus prevalent enough to catch the eye of the three names mentioned. I don't know how many other complete fabrications have caused hundreds of its earliest believers to be willingly martyred for its sake. You believe the Holocaust was a fake: would you willingly be boiled alive in oil rather than express doubt in your belief? I doubt it.
The Bible contains many attestations about Jesus, but your move is to simply say: well, I don't like that evidence because that well has been poisoned for me, so now you must give me extra-Biblical accounts. Why? If there is a murder with four eye-witnesses, do you get to just discredit those four because they were compiled into a single consistent testimony? Do you get to say, well those are 'canonical', and we need other non-partisan eye-witnesses! Someone who saw the events without any skin in the game!
Yeah, it would be wonderful if that's how the game of history worked, but it doesn't. If you go back that far in time, you'll find that there aren't robust multi-vantage testimonies describing everything that happened from multiple angles. You might find disparate accounts of celestial events or natural disasters, or other 'global' events that affected huge swaths of the inhabited world, but Jesus' ministry was isolated at first to Palestine, and you have attestations of Him from both Christians and The Talmud.
Within just years of the crucifixion, you have the Pauline letters that act as a further (and very early) testimony to the life of Jesus. But he doesn't count either, you say! Why? Because he's a Christian! Forget that he was a Pharisee who converted. Nope, apparently if you wound up believing in Christ's divinity, then your testimony doesn't count. How convenient. It's convenient because for someone who didn't believe in Jesus, then there'd be no reason to write about him, because he'd have been just another travelling exorcist/sorcerer.
Again, there weren't circulating newspapers that would have recorded these events from a 'disinterested' vantage. That's shipping our current worldview regarding information backward in history.
That's one hell of a wall of text for something completely irrelevant.
It isn't just Jesus who doesn't exist in any other accounts from the time he was alive. Pontious Pilate is not mentioned in Roman records despite supposedly being a Roman official. Mary and Joseph are not in the census records they supposedly went home to Bethlehem to be counted in. Most of the key figures in the Jesus myth are just that - myth - with no supporting evidence, even in cases where there legitimately should have been a record of their existence.
Tacitus, Pliny, and Lucian weren't even born until about 30-60 years after Jesus' death. Their passing mention of him in relation to the movement created by Josephus is not evidence he existed, no. The parts of the Talmud that mention him are also from much later, and were written by lying jews. Imagine citing the Talmud as a valid source when the Talmud is literally all about how it's okay for jews to lie to goyim and to create political, social, and religious movements to control.
The bible's attestations of his life also came about decades later. None of the gospels were written until decades after his death, around the time of Josephus. So no, the biblical attestations of his existence are not sufficient evidence, especially when the Roman records we have from that time do not mention him or other figures in his story who should have been in the records.
Saul the name changing shape shifting jew is most certainly not a valid source as he is a name changing shape shifting jew. That's like considering Joseph Sonovajew "Stalin" to be a valid source. Especially when Saul admits he never even met Jesus in person. It's possible that there was a real attempt to reform pharisaic judaism that Saul subverted through his creation of the Jesus myth, but it is likely that much more of the Jesus myth is made up than based on any actual facts.
The best sources of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ are Christian. Your move is to say that no Christian source is trustworthy. Surely the figure of Mohammed existed historically, and you'd not throw out the attestations of Mohammed's existence written by Muslims.
Your point about Paul is a non sequitur. That Paul converted to Christianity is supposed to discredit him on the one hand, but that he was a 'shapeshifting Jew' is also meant to discredit him. Thus, whether Paul was a Jew or a Christian means he is not trustworthy at all. Forget the fact that Paul was writing only a few years after the crucifixion, that he'd had direct contact with eyewitnesses of Jesus, and Paul was also writing to very real, very extant groups of Christians all around the Mediterranean.
Bart Ehrman points out that it is not even controversial in historical scholarship of this period that Paul personally knew both Peter (Jesus' direct disciple) and James (Jesus' brother). It would be odd for a Pharisaic Jew to convert to Christianity - after he'd persecuted Christians for several years - if he knew James, and Jesus had been an utter myth. Paul knew his brother. Think on it for a while.
Finally, and regarding what I take to be the best indicator of Jesus existence, was that if he had been a myth concocted by Jews, then we have centuries of messianic Jewish prophecy to demonstrate that no Jew would have imagined Jesus. This is called the criterion of embarrassment. Put simply, Jesus was a surprise. No Jew would have mythologized a messianic figure who would fail to militarily conquer all of the Jew's enemies and foment a period of world peace politically. Instead, Jesus was killed. The messiah was tortured and humiliated and crushed by Israel's oppressor.
The jews have fabricated a hell of a lot more, bigger, and weirder "facts" than that. We're talking about the people who faked the holocaust, who use child sex trafficking to blackmail our media and academia into lying about everything from Einstein to the moon landing to the causes of every major war for the past few centuries. The people who made up communism and most of libertarianism are known for starting entire movements to be their golems.
What if either Saul (if he existed, do you have a non-biblical source or evidence of his letters existing prior to Josephus?) or Josephus was the actual jewish messiah? Abraham's line was promised rulership by their god, but not promised rulership by force of arms. Joseph took control of Egypt through his silver tongue and Moses genocided the Egyptian people a couple generations later. They ruled Babylon by trickery after having been conquered by Babylon. They lost at least as many wars as they won, but they conquered empires from the shadows through usury and mercantilism.
Would the true jewish messiah be expected to be someone who conquers by force, or is it just as likely that the jewish messiah would be someone who conquers by trickery? If the jewish messiah is the inheritor of Abraham's blessing, there's no reason he wouldn't follow in the footsteps of his forebears and conquer by trickery.
Whether the jew god is real or not, it seems entirely plausible for the jews to create a movement to act as their golem. There are a lot of similarities between Jesus' message and Marxism - both encourage charity, claim poverty is better than wealth even if the wealth is justly earned, and preach tolerance and equality. Most of the parts of the bible that preach ethnocentrism are in the old testament and specifically relate to jewish supremacy, while the gospels lean solidly to the left.
I'm having some difficulty now pinning down exactly what you're saying is fabricated; it seems you've now suggested that the entire Bible was a fabrication. If the New Testament was a fabrication by Jews, that would at least nullify any significance religiously that the Old Testament had (messianism would have been relegated to a trickery tactic for political gain, rather than authentic theology).
We're getting into fairly radical alternative histories at this point, and I think a person needs to approach this with caution, i.e. all of the 'what if' scenarios you're describing based on inferences from psychology: "We know they're like this, so it's very possible they could have done that."
Forget the means by which the Jewish messiah achieves his end, the end is all that counts. Whether the expected messiah succeeds by force or trickery, we can say with certainty that in the end he brings Israel's enemies low, and creates a permanent state of peace surrounding a world order with Israel at its center.
But this is the crux of our issue: Jesus didn't do those things. Not only didn't he do that: he was crushed. Not only was he crushed, he also told the Jews that their idea about the messiah and the world to come was completely errant. So, your suggestion must be that the Jews invented a messiah that was literally nothing like what the entire Jewish messianic tradition said he would be. But further, that this false messiah and the entire Christian tradition surrounding the falsehood was something the Jews infiltrated Roman elite ranks to spread around the world and control nearly the entire global dynamic for the last 2,000 years.
To me this is painfully wrong. You perceive that Jews have established a position in the world, which only in the last century roughly has become so entrenched that calling it global is reasonable, and you want to project this level of success backward in time 2,000 years. What the story requires to make this true, however, is nothing short of absurd.
History is difficult, especially ancient history. But when you have to take four centuries of the Christian era and basically say that what huge swaths of historical scholarship agrees about is purely conspiracy, this is tenuous (even for me, who is a person inclined toward conspiracy-thinking).
Whether the jew god is real or not, it seems entirely plausible for the jews to create a movement to act as their golem.
Yes! Holy shit, yes.
You're overemphasizing the similarities between Jesus and Marxism, and failing to see the crucial points where they differ. Marxism will promote worship of state powers. Christ is clear that the world is bankrupt, and only worship of a transcendent principle is salvific.
I would highly encourage you to go read some of Marx's poetry. The man hated Christ, and was fascinated by Satan. The reason Marxism mimics Christianity is because Marx did this intentionally! He wanted a religion without a transcendent God.
This, if you chose to pursue this line of thinking, would wind up showing you something about Christianity - nobody could ignore it. Everyone responded to Christianity. It is arguable the extent to which Neoplatonists were influenced by Christianity. Many scholars today depict the situation for Platonists in the Christian epoch as a defensive one, i.e. they had a complete philosophy that neatly resisted Christian influence - I don't see this as the case whatsoever. In fact, I think it is absurd - especially since the most elaborate metaphysical system did not come until the fifth century, well into the Christian era, and featured many more methods of personalizing God. This personalization of God can be attributed primarily to Christianity, for in Stoicism and the peripatetic schools that influenced later Neoplatonism, God is not a personal principle, but merely a mover. In later Neoplatonism we have emanations of God which are much more personal (mind and vitality for instance).
The development of Jewish religion was influenced by Christ, whole cloth. Kabbalah can be seen roughly as a response to Christendom and Greek philosophy. The attempt to understand how God becomes immanent in human nature. Of course, their system outright rejected Jesus Christ and winds up leaning inadvertently toward a more eastern view of reincarnation and soul migration.
The primary difference is that God under such systems becomes personal in mankind, much like the Hindu view. Christianity, however, says that personhood, if it is Good, is perfected in the highest God, and therefore God must be a person. This proves to be a huge reason for the success of Christianity in the minds and hearts of men, for it makes the subject of salvation and eternal life one of love, of relationship.
In terms of the gospels indicating left-leaning politics, I think this is overemphasized and in some cases outright misunderstood. The only universal taught by Christ is that the disembodied soul - after death - is amenable to universal salvation through Christ. He does not say that this means there should be Leftist political egalitarianism in this world, but rather that on an individual basis, we are to treat our fellow men with charity: meaning only that we grasp the universal possibility for moral improvement for all men. 'The blackmoor can be washed white' through Christ. Christ expanded salvation to all humans, but this should not surprise us if it is ultimate truth.
Marxist ideologies are utopian. They want to create an individual's heaven concept on earth. This is anathema to the Christian message, which tells us that the world cannot be perfected.
It's as if you cannot discern between Jewishness as a matter of pedigree, and the metaphysical / moral rejection of it. Christ rebuked the Jews. His admonishing the Pharisees basically constitutes the entirety of His ministry before being killed at the behest of Jews. It's as if the entire significance of the Gospels is lost on you. Judaism as we understand it today is defined first and foremost as a rejection of Christ. That's what it is.
After the time of Christ and the destruction of the second temple, 'Judaism' is called Rabbinic. This is a distinction of immense importance. Judaism fundamentally shifted.
To be a Jew traditionally meant having patrilineal (father's side) from the tribe of Judah.
In Rabbinical Judaism, being a Jew means having matrilineal descent (mother's side). Only Karaite Jews today still practice according to the former law, and these are distinguished from Rabbinical Jews. The Karaites rejected the 'oral Torah' or 'oral Law' that characterizes Judaism under the Rabbis.
Jesus had no actual tribal lineage. Mary was half Judahite and half Levite, and Joseph was full-blooded Judahite. Jesus is adopted into the line of David.
The Jews did not call themselves Jews. They were Hebrews, and then Israelites, with one tribe of the kingdom Judah, the land which became called Yehud during the Babylonian exile, and Judea under Roman rule. The Latin language spoken in Europe eventually becomes Old French, at which point the Latin iūdaeus becomes shortened to judeu (10th century). By the time of Normans in England, it is juiu (from the French). The first appearance in English is 'Gyv', with distinctions in later centuries including 'iew' and 'iewe'.
In the 1600s, the letter 'j' appears in English, and we get 'jew'.
By that point, the diaspora Jews had spread and established themselves all across Europe. We are post-Renaissance at this point.
What does it mean when you say Jesus was a Jew?
Jesus was legally adopted into the line of David of the tribe Judah, meaning he is ethnically a Hebrew, but what does Jew mean when it is attached to Jesus today?!
It does not make sense to call Jesus a Jew. What you mean by Jew today is not even what the Arameans meant by Judahite at the time of Christ, since the tribe Judah was historical figment even for the people at Christ's time.
OK, which of these Jews is your Lord and Savior? https://youtu.be/EDg6BwKOkbU?t=24 Just because Jews argue with each other doesn't make them worthy of worship.
here's what kikes are doing right now...they try and larp to promote anti christian belief in White men because they know it is the "ivermectin" to their parasitism
Foo constantly does this...I've made the very argument you have to him before, he just keeps repeating the same pilpul tactics.
Here's a good tip for you in the future to spot larping kikes like Foo
1) they hate being called khazarian name stealers, because it directly ties their ethnicity to a group that "converted" to a religion, meaning by definition, any texts written that talk about "a people" prior to them converting can not by definition be talking about them. If you see someone trying to "refute" the "khazarian conspiracy theory" you've got a kike on your hands
2) if they constantly promote thinking or behavior that would, if taken and followed up upon in public, would lead to a negative outcome for the group identity of "White people"...for example, the proper mindset I believe to the "depopulation of Whites" in White majority countries is to revamp our immigration policy to something like what America had prior to 1965. Along with that you would need to give tax breaks to young White couples who have many children. What the "improper" mindset to engage in is to start a race war with our fellow countrymen instead of directing that energy at the kikes and their puppet corporations and politicians.
3) Does thing like constantly call Christ a "jew" not a kike but a "jew"...while constantly capitalizing the J in jew...it's a tick some kikes literally can't help, they have to constantly represent "jews" as a legitimate people, when there are no real "jews" there is a dead religion being used as a husk to cover up a talmudic/zohar based belief system practiced by an inbred group of ethno supremacist, hills have eyes looking motherfuckers. Another example of this tick is to do things like trying to pretend to be completely "kike aware" while pasting links to kiketube as his "proof"
4) they will take an argument and address it "line by line" trying multiple tactics of dismissal to "refute" you, while not really providing any valid information, cited longer form argument for consideration etc. They will claim you have to "prove" your argument while taking any proof you feel you've provided as some sort of "tainted" product for a variety of reasons, then expect their statements of rebukation to be sufficient, such as demanding you explain a point or expand on something and then insulting your attempt to expand as "showing intellectual weakness" in some form, or just outright trying to gaslight you.
5) they will try and use reverse psychology in some form...for example, some have taken to trying to "lean in" to the "White nationalist" identity to control what "other White nationalists" might believe or think. They will often try to promote the idea that "Jesus wasn't "White""
Funny thing, that term...it was normalized in the 1950's by kikes in hollywood to seperate Germanics and Anglo Saxons from their ethnic heritage, as time went on the definition for "White" expanded to a larger genetic profile...translation...the idea of "White people" is a term created by kikes to identify people they view as "the enemy".
No one is "White"...Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Nordic, Scandinavian, Celtic, Boer, a mix of two or more of those? yes, these are all genetically similar people's with a wide variety of phenotype expressions, highly valued at that...which drives coveting kikes insane. They hate that "White people" are the standard of beauty on the planet despite their best efforts to replace the face of "Whites" with kikes through hollywood by constantly portraying ethnic kikes as "Whites" there.
Funny thing about the french connection you made, have you heard of the pasteur's? (sp) apparently...it's rothchilds boss LMFAO
even at the top of their game the kikes are only ever middle men, never the peak of the pyramid...almost like they are somehow...cursed...or something...but i'm sure that isn't relevant to a discussion on Christianity :P
I'm starting to agree with you. I've had multiple exchanges with him in the past several months, and they all tend to proceed the same way Hitler described his attempts at debating Jews. He 'memory holes' the entire exchange, and by the following day he is acting as if you'd never said a word. You'll find him repeating the same tired things that he was incapable of defending the previous day as though they were unruffled.
lol yea that's what caught my attention at first too.
Plus, if you pay attention...people like him or paul_neri(openly admitted in chat one day he is an ethnic kike and subversive) always promote a "violent" response towards "non whites" by "Whites"
they are all gun hoe about "ethno nationalism" yet fundamentally refuse to acknowledge that the term "Whitepeople" was created in the 50's, by hollywood (kikes), to seperate Anglo Saxons and Germanics (currently referred to as Aryans) from their cultural and ethnic heritage, while simultaneously promoting a "mixing mentality" between "fellow Whites" so that later on, they could slowly introduce more "ethnic groups" to be considered for "intergration into the White identity"
plus he's also one of those "jesus was a jew" people...which once you understand how much of a subversive lie that is about jesus, you know it's either someone with 0 knowledge about it, yet FOO and others always seem to have quite the knowledge base about it. So the only logical explanation is that they "study" jesus to be better at subverting his message to the goy.
Plus they are all getting really fucking desperate because they are pretty much out of moves (the deep state kikes) and if they wish to "continue" playing the game (aka chess reference) they have to start sacrificing major pieces to protect the queen (Queen of england runs deep state flunkies) and king (certain bloodlines that rothschilds work for) from being taken off the board.
That's why it feels like "all assets deployed" lately, because they have been.
Foo used to be alot more subtle with his advocation, not so much anymore...when even low level foot soldiers like him are panicking, it's because people above them are pressuring them for results, which means the people above are panicking as well
I think we should prioritize the 14 words first. Once that's achieved we can discuss religion. It wouldn't be very fruitful to tackle multiple big issues at once. In the meantime we should keep the attacks on Christianity and paganism to a minimum (ideally 0). Let's leave the infighting to the kikes and their shabbos goy.
I think we should prioritize the 14 words first. Once that's achieved we can discuss religion.
Agreed.
In the meantime we should keep the attacks on Christianity and paganism to a minimum (ideally 0).
In order to have a journey we need to have a destination. I think it's worth being able to have those discussions even if we don't have to make a final decision immediately. I don't think I've ever regretted a good-faith debate.
This is going to be tough to achieve considering how much shit flinging on the topic of religion I've been seeing on Voat lately, which is why I'd like to defer this topic until the issue of race is resolved first. I think by doing this first you get rid of a lot of bad-faith debaters along the way as a side effect.
Maybe it's just me, but lately it seems like the attacks on Christianity in particular has gone up here. Possibly (((shills))) and/or LARPagans getting increasingly vocal.
I've noticed it as well. Treat it as a call to action. These attackers segregate into two camps, roughly. There are shills who will not debate you in good faith; they'll draw you into threads just to pretend later as if you'd never debated the subject. There are also intelligent atheists or agnostics here who are debating in good faith. It's a good way to train one's apologetics in either case. Expose the shills. Have an honest conversation with the good ones.
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:21:39 ago (+1/-0)
Not for backup. This was something we began doing at old Voat. When we know there are certain people interested in these conversations, and also that our conversation with this particular person (you in this case) is something the other person would want to see the updates to, we @mention them. It's like a way to keep a group of people tuned into the conversation they want to be having here.
For example, if I found a thread relevant to the stuff you and I had discussed today, I'd ping you. It just keeps things more engaging when there are others involving you, increases the sense of community. I consider it a good thing.
In seriousness, it has a lot less to do with joining in on that person's thread, or weighing on their side. Sometimes that happens, but most of the time it's for visibility. We're outnumbered here. Give us a break!
Yes that was Peace. I doubt if he will be back; it was a rarity for him to appear. I truly don't know, but at least in terms of the active users, it definitely seems like non-Christians are the dominant voice here.
I regret going so hard on him so, but he really did get my hackles up with all those pings. Then he started doing it multiple times in a post when I asked him not to.
We'll see I guess.
I do agree our primary problems right now are physical: securing a future for europeans. But if the topic does come up of religion and it's impact on that struggle then I will fight my corner.
This mentality supposes religion is a merely naturalistic phenomenon, that it is a human tool that only exists to serve human ends. But if true religion is a divinely revealed way of approaching the divine, and the divine is the true end for which man was made and without which man cannot be satisfied, then religion must be first and foremost. It is not a secondary issue. Supposing it is secondary is to mistake the nature of religion from the outset on the basis of demonstrably false naturalistic assumptions.
"Jew" just refers to Judea, a region of ancient Israel. Israel today is the people of God, comprised of anyone who is willing to say to the Lord "Thy will be done", instead of declaring, with Satan, "My will be done."
One does not need to trace one's ethnicity or genetics back to the group of people who first received Revelation from heaven in order to be a true member of God's family.
Do you understand the Biblical basis of so much of European culture?
Do you understand the Providential role of symbolism, shared by peoples who had never even communicated, in representing, poetically, human thoughts and natural truths?
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Testament, and Jesus was a Semite, A Galilean, a descendant of David, and of Abraham.
Jesus came among the people from which He took his flesh, and spoke to them first. Those who believed in Him then spread the word of Him to all the world. Those who denied Him became enemies of His Church. Both the believers and the deniers, initially, were Jews, Semites.
"There's an invisible magic man who exists everywhere and judges everything you do so when you die you can teleport to another dimension and live for eternity in joy"
Those are all objective, not subjective, claims which require proof. And since they're a big claim they need big proof.
That's what I agree to. If people don't wanna talk about religion I'm fine with that too.
I don't argue with people who can't use logic. Sorry man, you're on your own here
If you wanna claim there's some magical God and I have to disprove it just because you propose it - you're illogical as fuck and there's no point talking
- "There's an invisible magic man" (A supreme being exists)
- "Who exists everywhere" (logically follows from the previous one, so we get that one for free)
- "And judges everything you do" (God actively intervenes in human affairs and tries to promote certain ethical outcomes)
- "So that when you die" (Life after death exists)
- "You teleport into another dimension and live for eternity in joy" (An elevated state for the soul exists)
1 As for a supreme being existing, that is purely a matter of faith, but I'd argue it's no less reasonable than a supreme being not existing. Ultimately the universe has to have a cause. There are two possibilities:
- A supreme being whose very nature is existence set the universe and all of it's consequences in motion
or
- There's an infinitely recursive chain of purely physical cause and effect with no end.
The latter is very hard for us to imagine, but I'm not inclined to reject explanations just because they're too big for my head. Reality doesn't owe it to me to be simple enough for me to understand. However of the two explanations the existence of a supreme being makes more sense. We can't prove it but it's the best we've got.
2 As above, if we accept there's a supreme being whose nature is existence, then they're everywhere and know everything.
3 As for divine judgement... that's a trickier one. I'd like to suggest another possibility: God doesn't want you to follow a bunch of rules, he wants you to mature and live harmoniously. It's not so much that god will spank you for doing bad things so much as that you have the opportunity to grow closer to god or further away.
We can support this argument to some extent through the behaviour of holy people. By that I don't mean men and women high up in a church hierarchy, I mean persons generally recognised to have achieved a high level of spiritual achievement. Some of their behaviour is culturally specific but there are some common trends. These suggest a universal pathway of some kind.
4 There is some evidence for life after death in the form of ancestral memory, like the woman who had vivid memories of a former life as an egyptian priestess and who was able to make accurate descriptions of a temple thousands of miles away.
There's also logical arguments that souls, as an information process are immortal and recurrant (see dust theory).
5 See the second part of three. Numerous people from numerous cultures report a feeling of bliss and contentment after attaining a particular level of spiritual enlightenment. If such a state is possible in life and we accept 4, then why not in death?
Bro, if you think this is logic then I'm sorry to disappoint but you're a few notches off. But then again this is the kind of thinking that leads one to religion
If you're happy and not pushy, I wish you the best man. No hard feelings.
I'm not saying that you being unable to prove there's no god proves there is a god, I'm saying it can't be proven either way (by physics or any other model) but the existence of a god is the least complex explanation.
Let me rephrase your simplest explanation "everything couldnt have come from nothing so something infinitely more complex must have always existed which created everything"
God is the invention of something way more complicated to solve a less complicated problem
Well, the chain of causality either has an end or it doesn't. If it does have an end that's god, if not we have an infinite chain with no cause, which is way harder to picture.
It is not God that is in the image of man, but man who was made in the image of God. Heaven is to merge one's consciousness back into that of the universe. To do that requires repenting the parts of oneself which has no place there, and to find the parts that do. No one ascends who did not descend.
What is subjective is whether one believes the universe to be alive or dead, personal or impersonal, and if the former whether love, truth, and peace is ultimately more powerful than deception, fear, lust, and pain. Whether one should forego life to live in sin (the mainstream upload into the metaverse singularity trajectory) or to give up sin by following the law of Christ.
christians started the war on here by following anyone who criticised their beliefs and downvoting them constantly. old mate even just tried to make a list to expedite it. now they're crying cause they're losing.
Religion is not subjective at all. Either something is true or false. Either Jesus is God, or he isn't. The problem comes when people play god themselves and make up their own "faith". I do agree that we need to stop the infighting and focus our energy on the real enemy.
incorrect. this is the primary question everyone on earth should ask themselves. you are faced with either heaven or hell, and I for one do not want to visit the latter.
Take personal responsibility for what exactly? The Jews have convinced you into believing you are born guilty and the only way you can cure yourself is through their God.
Hmmm, this is dependent on the poposition that humans are capable of understanding truth on a level that god does though.
Think about how you teach children complex ideas, you have to start with simple metaphors and comparisons to ideas they already know. Our minds are necessarily much much smaller and simpler than a supreme being, therefore it follows we will never be able to understand actual truth on the same level as him.
As a consequence religions rely on parables, metaphors and other teaching devices that (in themselves) are not "true." They are subjective and culturally specific.
This isn't to say you can just invent any belief and it will be true, revealing a religion is hard work which takes many generations, but there is no such thing as a global truth for all humans either. Any more than there's a global language or a global set of laws.
there is no such thing as a global truth for all humans either
total bollocks. something is either true or not. doesn't matter what culture or color or whatever. either the Earth is round, or it is flat, doesn't matter what part of earth you are on (or even if you are on Mars). there is an absolute truth, and anything else is just moral relativism.
Something is either true or it's not, but just because something's true doesn't mean humans are able to understand it. That's where religions come in.
We can't create a global religion for all humans any more than we can create a global language or culture. Humans are different, we need to interact with the world and god in different ways.
if God created the whole world, and all that is in it, and all the people within it, then it only goes to reason that there can be one "correct" religion. sure, there are different cultures and languages, but God is immutable, and true belief in the true God transcends those differences. If there is one God, then there most certainly can be one religion. that faith can be expressed in different ways, but if we have faith in the same God, then it will still be one specific religion.
Survive the Jive on youtube is a great source for English, Norse and Germanic paganism. Lugh's Fortress is great for Irish and Celtic paganism. Both of them also cover other IE religious branches.
If you're looking for primary texts the LGE (Leabhar Gaibheála Éireann) and the poetic Edas are probably a good place to start. Although they can be a little dense if you're not already familiar with the cultural background.
I really need an introduction and just more information on what paganism is about. Thank you for that channel on YouTube I’ll check it out. Being Italian American, Catholicism was all I knew but was always an agnostic because it just seemed like bullshit. I would consider myself pantheist now.
If you're italian then you're in luck: Roman paganism is one of the better documented european religions out there. Everything from specific ceremonies to the design of temples is well known.
Here's a couple of videos from those channels I mentioned:
You use "cult" in derogation. But the root of "cult" is the Latin cultus, from which we take "cultivation", and refers to the upbringing and training of people as much as the harvesting of food. There are good cults and bad cults, but nothing wrong with the structured training of persons, simpliciter.
There are wicked generations and pious generations of men. Ours is clearly the former. Whether you think some decentralized philosophy nonetheless united by a special DNA is the "true way", or whether it is true religion, there is no doubt that the throngs of the iniquitous outnumber us all. Why then should a cult's "dying" be proof of its lack of worth? Has not the cultus that you affirm, namely a cognizance of one's people and traditions, or one's identity and responsibility, likewise been dying for generations?
So you have said two irrelevant things. Being raised in a cult is neither good nor bad, in itself, nor is one's cult waning any indication of its truth.
That you learned better is clearly an arguable matter. It is not clear whether you ever had a real depth of knowledge of the Catholic faith to begin with. I suspect that if you did, you would not speak of it with such disdain, even if you did not count yourself among its ranks.
I give zero shits. Roman catholicism is spiritually dead, the church hierarchy is about as rotten as an institution can be and has been for centuries. Even if catholicism were more than Roman brainwashing that particular branch of it has achieved very little other than accumulating wealth and empowering pedophiles.
Religion is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective truth is that Jesus died for your sins. Calling objective truth a religion is a masterful lie.
Eyes of the body do not see all spectra nor do eyes of the mind prove all truths. The mind sees things the body cannot and vise versa. So too can the spirit see.
I'm happy to work with christians, muslims, objectivists, and other jewish golems as long as they're ready to turn against their jewish masters. That doesn't change the fact that these golem religions and ideologies were created to allow jews to ateal your spiritual energy.
If you're worshiping a jewish god instead of the gods of your ancestors, you are handing them your spiritual power. But I worry there may be darker sides to some of their creations (or perhaps darker uses they've come up with since their creation).
You know that one ritual where the jews spin the chicken around over their head to transfer their sins into it, and then kill the chicken so it dies with their sins instead? The jews have been doing sin transferral magic for thousands of years. They've also been cannibals for thousands of years who drink blood from baby penises.
Why do you think jews would teach Christians to ritualistically eat flesh and drink blood in a religion that's all about sin transference?
This next part might sound a little shoe string on the wall, but you know that email where Hillary Clinton was joking about sacrificing chickens to Moloch when everyone knows Moloch prefers children over chickens? The jews love their little word games, and teach their pets to perform them too. Chicken - children - Christian. All are interchangeable vessels for the jews to transfer their own sins into. Christians act out the jewish sin of cannibalism to become part of the body of Jesus, who died to forgive the sins of others. Thus, through jewish religious ritual, they are tricked into dying and suffering for jewish sins.
Each religious and ideological/philosophical movement that takes your worship away from the gods of your ancestors is a trap of some kind.
Unless we deny our own self-will and subordinate it to the will of God, whatever that will may be, we will flee from one "flavour" to another, seeking whatever we think will satisfy ourselves.
No, our purpose is to create a White-Ethno-State. We don't just get to "Agree to disagree" on Foreign-Jew-Gods. The standard is exactly zero Foreign-Jew-Gods in the Ethno-State.
Christ-Cucks have no place in the Ethno-State because they have no loyalty to the White-Race.
One's loyalty should be to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, the Most High God. Love and dutiful service to one's neighbour follows necessarily from this. Without it, it is not given, but is at risk of becoming merely contractual.
[ - ] taoV 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 17:25:11 ago (+1/-0)
It's useful to the extent that it's a proxy for morality and ethics. Look at the Christcuck debate: a lot of people use that word because they see danger in a globalized and indiscriminately compassionate faith. It would be nice if we could cut out the proxy and debate that problem directly, but that conversation is impossible too. Largely, I think, becuase the ethics derive very clearly from the text, so instead of talking about the value of those ethics they just throw book quotes at you.
"...maybe if their spirituality fits better with you" is a "good" reason to become affiliated with a religion, but not because you think it is true. Believing in truth, according to the anti-Christian spirit, is "just weird."
Religion is the right-ordered worship of the divine. If truth exists, if the divine exists, if right order exists, then religion is the farthest thing from subjectivity possible, for it presupposes right-orderedness, truth, and the divine - all things that we must be subject to, and not which are determined by arbitrary whim or opinion.
As I said before, the Jewish Question arose because the "Jew" which posed a "problem" to the world, or Europe specifically, became a problem because they began to identify in terms of the rejection of Christ. "And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children." (Mt 27:25). And so, if this is indeed the origin of the problem, then conversion is indeed a valid solution. This metaphysical view is at odds with naturalistic determination, with which there are abundant flaws.
As I said before, the Jewish Question arose because the "Jew" which posed a "problem" to the world, or Europe specifically, became a problem because they began to identify in terms of the rejection of Christ.
No. BS. Jews were jewing long long before any messianic business. They just didn't have much of an opportunity to do it in europe. They had no ties there so their fuckery was restricted to the middle east.
"And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children." (Mt 27:25). And so, if this is indeed the origin of the problem, then conversion is indeed a valid solution. This metaphysical view is at odds with naturalistic determination, with which there are abundant flaws.
Thank you for finally showing your true colours. "We just need to convert the jews to christianity, then they'll stop fucking us over." How dense do you have to be to think this is going to start working now after thousands of years of failure?
As @CHIRO has already explained, I ping him for his own interest, not for his "help." Although I wonder at your irritation at my use of pings. I am the one being downvoted here, not you.
No. BS. Jews were jewing long long before any messianic business. They just didn't have much of an opportunity to do it in europe. They had no ties there so their fuckery was restricted to the middle east.
All peoples were sinning grievously prior to Christ, and all peoples continue to do so after His Ascension. You can point to any number of cases in the Old Testament, or other historic documents, to reveal the iniquitous ways of the Jews. But this is by no means unique to them. What is under discussion is the specifically organized way in which the Jewish people effect certain revolutionary changes in history, and this manifestation is uniquely post-Christian. You can argue that this behaviour manifested only because Christianity enabled the consolidation of Jewish power in a way that the pre-Christian world never enabled. But this argument depends on the assertion that the Jews, by nature, sought to act in such a way even prior to Christ.
But this is contrary to the evidence. All you have in support of this argument is evidence of Jewish iniquity prior to Christ. But as I've said, all peoples were (and are) iniquitous. What you require is evidence of attempted Jewish consolidation and subversion of all peoples, everywhere. Not warlike behaviour, not conquest, but parasitic subversion via tribal tactics. But the Old Testament reveals that the Jews took pains to isolate themselves from pagan influence, and wanted little to do with other peoples once they had secured the land they thought was theirs. This is not equivalent to what we see today.
Rather than saying that some unevidenced revolutionary nature manifested itself more potently as a result of Christian tolerance, I argue that the merely human, common iniquity of the Jews translated to a unifying religious spirit of revolution only post Crucifixion, and signs of this spirit could be seen whether the Jews had power or not, in ways that it was not seen prior to this moment in history.
There is even a naturalistic explanation for why this is the case. Prior to Christ, the Jews still staked their hope in the Messiah. After Him, there were a few claimants, who failed miserably to satisfy, and so eventually they projected the awaited Messiah-ship upon the Jewish people themselves. Thus we have tikkun olam, this notion that the Jews are called by God to "heal the world" (thus act as revolutioanries against a certain order), a notion which we only see emerge, not in the days of the Old Testament, but in the post-Christian Talmudic era.
It is Providential that the Jews finally abandoned their awaiting their Messiah only after Christ came, and they (those who did not accept Him) rejected Him.
I agree with you that faith ultimately has to be found, understood, or changed through subjective experience. I don't think the debating is counterproductive, though; all ideas should be tested and to strengthen faith in such a way makes one more sociable to competing views, not less.
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:04:22 ago (+1/-0)
That makes just as much sense.
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:06:26 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:10:20 ago (+0/-1)
I am probably just grouchy. This coffee is doing nothing!
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:28:18 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] s23erdctfvyg
[ - ] s23erdctfvyg 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:07:16 ago (+5/-2)
[ + ] Lordbananafist
[ - ] Lordbananafist 5 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:10:49 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] s23erdctfvyg
[ - ] s23erdctfvyg 7 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:11:40 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:26:36 ago (+0/-1)
@Lordbananafist
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 7 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:15:49 ago (+9/-2)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 21:33:23 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:23:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] MrBigglesworth
[ - ] MrBigglesworth 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 03:59:44 ago (+1/-0)
But they do lack a certain intellectual will, and I think that's a problem when we consider where we are
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 11:21:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:44:44 ago (+5/-6)
In seriousness though, I see this specific hand waving move all of the time here. I've seen it tens of times in the past couple of days.
It's repeated ad nauseum but nobody ever establishes it with a good argument. Nobody.
"It's a Jewish control structure."
It's not enough to say this. How is it? And I don't mean purely arguments from the armchair. We can all sit and wax conspiratorially the whole day long. It doesn't mean it's true. "W-w-well, the Jews would have a motive to do this. Look at the way western evangelicals pander to Israel."
This is not an argument that Christianity, from its inception, was a Jewish control operation. Not even close. I wish people would quit saying this unless they have a strong case to make. Because if not, it is sufficient to defend Christianity with what it says about itself - which is as good or better than your offensive case against it - and it both implicitly and explicitly makes the claim (that Christianity is Jewish) absurd.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:26:41 ago (+3/-0)
Not him, but I don't think it was.
I don't think jews planned it from the start, it's more that after christianity got big it presented them with infiltration opportunities that hadn't previously existed.
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 4 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:30:34 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:50:51 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:54:36 ago (+1/-1)
@CHIRO
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:11:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:19:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:42:10 ago (+0/-1)
But the mere presence of a person or people is no evil. For the will is free.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:00:17 ago (+0/-0)
Yes it fucking well is. Letting jews into europe (or any other functioning society) is evil.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:04:54 ago (+3/-0)
Christianity could be strong against the Jew, and it would have a basis for that strength greater than any other religious system in existence. Christ is the most anti-Jewish idea there is. That is inarguable. Unfortunately, an idea doesn't prevent fallible men from becoming victim to their own selfish desires and punching holes in the defenses of the church.
The dialectic between Catholicism and Judaism was highly complex.
But suppose there had been no Catholicism. Islam would have swept Europe. If pagans in northern Europe could not persist against Christianity, or a Christian Rome rather, I suppose you think they would have held their own, and we'd have some European heathen utopia today?
Human faltering does not make Christianity untrue. And I suppose if Viking groups were converted to Christianity for economic advantages, these Vikings would have resisted the workings of the Jews for two millennia?
The Jew is an infiltrator. Christianity did not make Europe more vulnerable to this; it was for a long time a bulwark against it. Had there been another system, or many, the Jew would have dispersed and continued to do what the Jew does. Disunity in the face of that is a greater weakness. Christendom was a European unifier. It should be again.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:20:35 ago (+3/-0)
Your argument falls at the first hurdle. Where did all the jewish moneylenders come from? There was no widespread diaspora of jewish financiers in europe before christians made a special place for them and gave them a monopoly.
Christians solving some christian problems some of the time is not an argument in favour of christianity.
Like I said, why were those defences necessary in the first place? Before christianity there was no jewish question.
Yes. Why have a confusing and easily manipulated dialectic with a racial enemy when you can simply have none?
That's a pretty extreme leap. Prechristian europeans were more than capable of allying against a common threat.
The roman empire was built prior to christianity. Christianity did not give it the power to expand, it was just a useful tool in suppressing dissent centuries after conquest.
Political advantages. Christianity offered a useful mechanism for suppressing and controlling large numbers of people. It's iron-age marxism.
And yes, I think that without christianity the jews would have had a much more difficult time infiltrating europe. There's a reason why up until the 20th century the vast majority of their population was contained here: Christian countries make an ideal host.
I'm sorry but it did. Before christianity this was not a problem.
Like how? Christian institutions have only ever turned anti-jewish after centuries of giving them free reign.
And yet they didn't. Before christianity jews did not have much success infiltration europe, or any other society.
No. Jews are highly adapted to taking over centralised institutions. "Unity" is a weakness. We need decentralisation and a return to local governance.
No. Christianity has never been a european unifier, it has been a globaliser. It doesn't give a shit about europe, it only cares about spreading the meme to as many cultures as possible, european or no. If the ottomans had proven open to christian conversion the priests would have been quick to press for peace in the name of christian unity. Who cares if they take over hungary, they're part of the club now.
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:18:09 ago (+1/-1)
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/jewrope.htm
^ Official Vatican magazine, 1890. The Jewish control of France began only following the anti-Catholic revolution, culmination in napoleon's emancipation of the Jews:
The difference between the strength and societal power the Jews have had in Europe post-1789 vs pre-1789 is greater than the difference between night and day. And yet "the Church did nothing to stand as a bulwark against the Jews," some would obstinately claim.
Because before Christianity there was no (historic) Christ, and it is precisely the revolution against Christ, in history that incarnated the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit within history. The Jews are not the force that they are because of their DNA. that is an embarrassing level of reductive thinking. The Jews are the force that they are because they were unified, in Spirit, against Christ, the Logos, Himself. Define the good, and those who choose to define themselves in opposition to it we will all the more united. Which is why Christ wisely and truly said, "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Mat 12:30). With the advent of the Incarnation within time, all of human history is now measured by Him - if He is Who He says He is, how could it be otherwise?
<defining the antecedent in terms of the consequent.
It would be more accurate to say, "Marxism is Christianity without Christ." But of course, if Christ is indeed the Logos, then subtracting Christ from the equation radically changes the nature of the system, now doesn't it?
This may be so. Liberalism likely would not have as readily evolved without the Christian sense that every man is made in the image and likeness of God. Marxism likely would not have evolved if not for liberalism.But to judge a thing by the corruption of it is mere folly, I'm sorry to say.
Why not both? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man...
European unity need not entail European exclusivity. If Christianity unifies all people, then it unifies Europe. And this it clearly did, better than anything that has ever been, including the (Unholy) Roman Empire. Although God's Providence clearly (unsurprisingly) knew what it was doing in selecting the time of Rome to send the Son of God, for the connectedness of Rome made spreading the Gospel to all the world a possibility in a way it would not have been even a few centuries before.
We don't need Europe against the world, Broc. We need man united against sin.
@CHIRO
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:21:37 ago (+0/-0)
Anyhow you're still an idiot. Events in 1890 have no relevance to a wave of jewish infiltration that happened centuries earlier. Christians allowed the jews into europe en masse. That is a fact.
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:43:19 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:50:29 ago (+0/-0)
It's like repeatedly introducing termites into a house then trying to act like the good guy because you're selling the owners termite repellent. "Oh the problem's only gotten worse because you switched brands, you should come back to buying from me." Lmao.
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:02:20 ago (+0/-1)
If the Jews are a problem by virtue of their presence, rather than their behaviour, then the Jews were a problem prior to the Holy Roman Empire, for they were granted existence under Rome, and were not genocided as some here would wish they had been.
"But they had no power under Rome, because Rome kept them in check," you might answer.
Fine, then we are in agreement that it is Jewish behaviour, and not the Jewish presence, that is the problem (if there is a problem at all).
But if Jewish behaviour became in issue in France principally after the yoke of Catholicism was thrown off, then the problems that followed this can no more be blamed on the Christian people's tolerance of the Jewish presence prior to that time, than the Romans could be blamed for not genociding the Jews in AD 70.
So what I have said is not irrelevant, if there is a difference between Jewish behaviour pre-1789 in France, vs post-1789 in France, which there clearly is.
And a careful surveillance of history shows that it is similarly following disobedience to the Church, and not by following the Church's dictates, that the Jews gained more power or caused more harm among Christian peoples.
@CHIRO
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:53:07 ago (+1/-1)
https://www.voat.xyz/profile?user=CHIRO
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:16:03 ago (+1/-0)*
No, it's not. This is not some kind of general problem where christianity is no worse than anything else, it has very specific structural weaknesses when it comes to jews.
Christian countries don't have a long history of agnoising over whether we should let the moroccans or the turks live in our countries. We traded with them and went to war with them as convenient but otherwise kept them at arms length. The jews were given a unique position in christian countries because of their status in the bible. No other group was given the special permissions they were, not even native europeans.
And you linked to CHIRO's profile instead of pinging him you idiot.
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:40:21 ago (+0/-1)
I am not here to call you names or insult you, Broc. Ask yourself why you feel the need to lower the level of our discourse with useless affronts.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:05:44 ago (+1/-0)
Some more than others. Christianity has historically been on the "more than others" side when it comes to jews. We have not had major recurring historial problems with Turkish infiltration or Nigerian infiltration. It's always jews and always in christian countries.
Yes it absolutely does. There is nothing "good" or "true" about destroying your own nation. Doing so by accident without fully understanding the consequences is one thing, continuing to do it deliberately even after you've noticed the pattern is evil.
Because you pissed me off pinging CHIRO every time you wanted upvotes or an asspat.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:38:45 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:57:09 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:06:52 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 19:35:46 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 21:34:29 ago (+0/-0)*
There is also no reason to dismiss the NT gospels as ahistorical evidence; they represent some of the best historical transmissions we have from the period, albeit not in terms of every claim, given that these are mixed-genre works. What your claim implies is that since there are not many other extra-biblical attestations of Christ, then the gospels themselves are not sufficient. I do not agree, and neither do many others.
The people of ancient Palestine did not have smart phones. There was no journalistic profession with standards of practice. Those who would have followed Jesus in close proximity to have seen the events of his life leading to His crucifixion would have likely been his disciples and the earliest Christians. Therefore, the Bible represents a composite redaction of the testament and theology of the earliest sects of Christianity. It follows that the best and most compelling evidence from this earliest belief would have wound up where? The Bible.
Who else would we have expected to possibly have written extra-biblical attestation of Jesus? His Jewish enemies. Did they? Yes. The Talmud attests to the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion.
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian also provide early confirmations (second hand) of core Christian beliefs. This is not direct evidence for the existence of Jesus, but demonstrates clear belief in the figure of Jesus prevalent enough to catch the eye of the three names mentioned. I don't know how many other complete fabrications have caused hundreds of its earliest believers to be willingly martyred for its sake. You believe the Holocaust was a fake: would you willingly be boiled alive in oil rather than express doubt in your belief? I doubt it.
The Bible contains many attestations about Jesus, but your move is to simply say: well, I don't like that evidence because that well has been poisoned for me, so now you must give me extra-Biblical accounts. Why? If there is a murder with four eye-witnesses, do you get to just discredit those four because they were compiled into a single consistent testimony? Do you get to say, well those are 'canonical', and we need other non-partisan eye-witnesses! Someone who saw the events without any skin in the game!
Yeah, it would be wonderful if that's how the game of history worked, but it doesn't. If you go back that far in time, you'll find that there aren't robust multi-vantage testimonies describing everything that happened from multiple angles. You might find disparate accounts of celestial events or natural disasters, or other 'global' events that affected huge swaths of the inhabited world, but Jesus' ministry was isolated at first to Palestine, and you have attestations of Him from both Christians and The Talmud.
Within just years of the crucifixion, you have the Pauline letters that act as a further (and very early) testimony to the life of Jesus. But he doesn't count either, you say! Why? Because he's a Christian! Forget that he was a Pharisee who converted. Nope, apparently if you wound up believing in Christ's divinity, then your testimony doesn't count. How convenient. It's convenient because for someone who didn't believe in Jesus, then there'd be no reason to write about him, because he'd have been just another travelling exorcist/sorcerer.
Again, there weren't circulating newspapers that would have recorded these events from a 'disinterested' vantage. That's shipping our current worldview regarding information backward in history.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:05:11 ago (+0/-0)
It isn't just Jesus who doesn't exist in any other accounts from the time he was alive. Pontious Pilate is not mentioned in Roman records despite supposedly being a Roman official. Mary and Joseph are not in the census records they supposedly went home to Bethlehem to be counted in. Most of the key figures in the Jesus myth are just that - myth - with no supporting evidence, even in cases where there legitimately should have been a record of their existence.
Tacitus, Pliny, and Lucian weren't even born until about 30-60 years after Jesus' death. Their passing mention of him in relation to the movement created by Josephus is not evidence he existed, no. The parts of the Talmud that mention him are also from much later, and were written by lying jews. Imagine citing the Talmud as a valid source when the Talmud is literally all about how it's okay for jews to lie to goyim and to create political, social, and religious movements to control.
The bible's attestations of his life also came about decades later. None of the gospels were written until decades after his death, around the time of Josephus. So no, the biblical attestations of his existence are not sufficient evidence, especially when the Roman records we have from that time do not mention him or other figures in his story who should have been in the records.
Saul the name changing shape shifting jew is most certainly not a valid source as he is a name changing shape shifting jew. That's like considering Joseph Sonovajew "Stalin" to be a valid source. Especially when Saul admits he never even met Jesus in person. It's possible that there was a real attempt to reform pharisaic judaism that Saul subverted through his creation of the Jesus myth, but it is likely that much more of the Jesus myth is made up than based on any actual facts.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:36:21 ago (+0/-0)*
Your point about Paul is a non sequitur. That Paul converted to Christianity is supposed to discredit him on the one hand, but that he was a 'shapeshifting Jew' is also meant to discredit him. Thus, whether Paul was a Jew or a Christian means he is not trustworthy at all. Forget the fact that Paul was writing only a few years after the crucifixion, that he'd had direct contact with eyewitnesses of Jesus, and Paul was also writing to very real, very extant groups of Christians all around the Mediterranean.
Bart Ehrman points out that it is not even controversial in historical scholarship of this period that Paul personally knew both Peter (Jesus' direct disciple) and James (Jesus' brother). It would be odd for a Pharisaic Jew to convert to Christianity - after he'd persecuted Christians for several years - if he knew James, and Jesus had been an utter myth. Paul knew his brother. Think on it for a while.
Finally, and regarding what I take to be the best indicator of Jesus existence, was that if he had been a myth concocted by Jews, then we have centuries of messianic Jewish prophecy to demonstrate that no Jew would have imagined Jesus. This is called the criterion of embarrassment. Put simply, Jesus was a surprise. No Jew would have mythologized a messianic figure who would fail to militarily conquer all of the Jew's enemies and foment a period of world peace politically. Instead, Jesus was killed. The messiah was tortured and humiliated and crushed by Israel's oppressor.
You simply would not have fabricated those facts.
@PS
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:18:20 ago (+0/-0)
What if either Saul (if he existed, do you have a non-biblical source or evidence of his letters existing prior to Josephus?) or Josephus was the actual jewish messiah? Abraham's line was promised rulership by their god, but not promised rulership by force of arms. Joseph took control of Egypt through his silver tongue and Moses genocided the Egyptian people a couple generations later. They ruled Babylon by trickery after having been conquered by Babylon. They lost at least as many wars as they won, but they conquered empires from the shadows through usury and mercantilism.
Would the true jewish messiah be expected to be someone who conquers by force, or is it just as likely that the jewish messiah would be someone who conquers by trickery? If the jewish messiah is the inheritor of Abraham's blessing, there's no reason he wouldn't follow in the footsteps of his forebears and conquer by trickery.
Whether the jew god is real or not, it seems entirely plausible for the jews to create a movement to act as their golem. There are a lot of similarities between Jesus' message and Marxism - both encourage charity, claim poverty is better than wealth even if the wealth is justly earned, and preach tolerance and equality. Most of the parts of the bible that preach ethnocentrism are in the old testament and specifically relate to jewish supremacy, while the gospels lean solidly to the left.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 10:39:49 ago (+0/-0)
We're getting into fairly radical alternative histories at this point, and I think a person needs to approach this with caution, i.e. all of the 'what if' scenarios you're describing based on inferences from psychology: "We know they're like this, so it's very possible they could have done that."
Forget the means by which the Jewish messiah achieves his end, the end is all that counts. Whether the expected messiah succeeds by force or trickery, we can say with certainty that in the end he brings Israel's enemies low, and creates a permanent state of peace surrounding a world order with Israel at its center.
But this is the crux of our issue: Jesus didn't do those things. Not only didn't he do that: he was crushed. Not only was he crushed, he also told the Jews that their idea about the messiah and the world to come was completely errant. So, your suggestion must be that the Jews invented a messiah that was literally nothing like what the entire Jewish messianic tradition said he would be. But further, that this false messiah and the entire Christian tradition surrounding the falsehood was something the Jews infiltrated Roman elite ranks to spread around the world and control nearly the entire global dynamic for the last 2,000 years.
To me this is painfully wrong. You perceive that Jews have established a position in the world, which only in the last century roughly has become so entrenched that calling it global is reasonable, and you want to project this level of success backward in time 2,000 years. What the story requires to make this true, however, is nothing short of absurd.
History is difficult, especially ancient history. But when you have to take four centuries of the Christian era and basically say that what huge swaths of historical scholarship agrees about is purely conspiracy, this is tenuous (even for me, who is a person inclined toward conspiracy-thinking).
Yes! Holy shit, yes.
You're overemphasizing the similarities between Jesus and Marxism, and failing to see the crucial points where they differ. Marxism will promote worship of state powers. Christ is clear that the world is bankrupt, and only worship of a transcendent principle is salvific.
I would highly encourage you to go read some of Marx's poetry. The man hated Christ, and was fascinated by Satan. The reason Marxism mimics Christianity is because Marx did this intentionally! He wanted a religion without a transcendent God.
This, if you chose to pursue this line of thinking, would wind up showing you something about Christianity - nobody could ignore it. Everyone responded to Christianity. It is arguable the extent to which Neoplatonists were influenced by Christianity. Many scholars today depict the situation for Platonists in the Christian epoch as a defensive one, i.e. they had a complete philosophy that neatly resisted Christian influence - I don't see this as the case whatsoever. In fact, I think it is absurd - especially since the most elaborate metaphysical system did not come until the fifth century, well into the Christian era, and featured many more methods of personalizing God. This personalization of God can be attributed primarily to Christianity, for in Stoicism and the peripatetic schools that influenced later Neoplatonism, God is not a personal principle, but merely a mover. In later Neoplatonism we have emanations of God which are much more personal (mind and vitality for instance).
The development of Jewish religion was influenced by Christ, whole cloth. Kabbalah can be seen roughly as a response to Christendom and Greek philosophy. The attempt to understand how God becomes immanent in human nature. Of course, their system outright rejected Jesus Christ and winds up leaning inadvertently toward a more eastern view of reincarnation and soul migration.
The primary difference is that God under such systems becomes personal in mankind, much like the Hindu view. Christianity, however, says that personhood, if it is Good, is perfected in the highest God, and therefore God must be a person. This proves to be a huge reason for the success of Christianity in the minds and hearts of men, for it makes the subject of salvation and eternal life one of love, of relationship.
In terms of the gospels indicating left-leaning politics, I think this is overemphasized and in some cases outright misunderstood. The only universal taught by Christ is that the disembodied soul - after death - is amenable to universal salvation through Christ. He does not say that this means there should be Leftist political egalitarianism in this world, but rather that on an individual basis, we are to treat our fellow men with charity: meaning only that we grasp the universal possibility for moral improvement for all men. 'The blackmoor can be washed white' through Christ. Christ expanded salvation to all humans, but this should not surprise us if it is ultimate truth.
Marxist ideologies are utopian. They want to create an individual's heaven concept on earth. This is anathema to the Christian message, which tells us that the world cannot be perfected.
@broc_liath
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:22:01 ago (+1/-1)
Read Clement's letters. Read Ignatius of Antioch. Read about Polycarp.
@CHIRO
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:33:12 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 17:08:40 ago (+1/-2)*
After the time of Christ and the destruction of the second temple, 'Judaism' is called Rabbinic. This is a distinction of immense importance. Judaism fundamentally shifted.
To be a Jew traditionally meant having patrilineal (father's side) from the tribe of Judah.
In Rabbinical Judaism, being a Jew means having matrilineal descent (mother's side). Only Karaite Jews today still practice according to the former law, and these are distinguished from Rabbinical Jews. The Karaites rejected the 'oral Torah' or 'oral Law' that characterizes Judaism under the Rabbis.
Jesus had no actual tribal lineage. Mary was half Judahite and half Levite, and Joseph was full-blooded Judahite. Jesus is adopted into the line of David.
The Jews did not call themselves Jews. They were Hebrews, and then Israelites, with one tribe of the kingdom Judah, the land which became called Yehud during the Babylonian exile, and Judea under Roman rule. The Latin language spoken in Europe eventually becomes Old French, at which point the Latin iūdaeus becomes shortened to judeu (10th century). By the time of Normans in England, it is juiu (from the French). The first appearance in English is 'Gyv', with distinctions in later centuries including 'iew' and 'iewe'.
In the 1600s, the letter 'j' appears in English, and we get 'jew'.
By that point, the diaspora Jews had spread and established themselves all across Europe. We are post-Renaissance at this point.
What does it mean when you say Jesus was a Jew?
Jesus was legally adopted into the line of David of the tribe Judah, meaning he is ethnically a Hebrew, but what does Jew mean when it is attached to Jesus today?!
It does not make sense to call Jesus a Jew. What you mean by Jew today is not even what the Arameans meant by Judahite at the time of Christ, since the tribe Judah was historical figment even for the people at Christ's time.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 17:43:06 ago (+4/-1)
https://youtu.be/EDg6BwKOkbU?t=24
Just because Jews argue with each other doesn't make them worthy of worship.
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:22:57 ago (+0/-2)
Being the Son of God does.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:23:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AryanPrime
[ - ] AryanPrime 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 19:35:03 ago (+3/-3)
here's what kikes are doing right now...they try and larp to promote anti christian belief in White men because they know it is the "ivermectin" to their parasitism
Foo constantly does this...I've made the very argument you have to him before, he just keeps repeating the same pilpul tactics.
Here's a good tip for you in the future to spot larping kikes like Foo
1) they hate being called khazarian name stealers, because it directly ties their ethnicity to a group that "converted" to a religion, meaning by definition, any texts written that talk about "a people" prior to them converting can not by definition be talking about them. If you see someone trying to "refute" the "khazarian conspiracy theory" you've got a kike on your hands
2) if they constantly promote thinking or behavior that would, if taken and followed up upon in public, would lead to a negative outcome for the group identity of "White people"...for example, the proper mindset I believe to the "depopulation of Whites" in White majority countries is to revamp our immigration policy to something like what America had prior to 1965. Along with that you would need to give tax breaks to young White couples who have many children. What the "improper" mindset to engage in is to start a race war with our fellow countrymen instead of directing that energy at the kikes and their puppet corporations and politicians.
3) Does thing like constantly call Christ a "jew" not a kike but a "jew"...while constantly capitalizing the J in jew...it's a tick some kikes literally can't help, they have to constantly represent "jews" as a legitimate people, when there are no real "jews" there is a dead religion being used as a husk to cover up a talmudic/zohar based belief system practiced by an inbred group of ethno supremacist, hills have eyes looking motherfuckers. Another example of this tick is to do things like trying to pretend to be completely "kike aware" while pasting links to kiketube as his "proof"
4) they will take an argument and address it "line by line" trying multiple tactics of dismissal to "refute" you, while not really providing any valid information, cited longer form argument for consideration etc. They will claim you have to "prove" your argument while taking any proof you feel you've provided as some sort of "tainted" product for a variety of reasons, then expect their statements of rebukation to be sufficient, such as demanding you explain a point or expand on something and then insulting your attempt to expand as "showing intellectual weakness" in some form, or just outright trying to gaslight you.
5) they will try and use reverse psychology in some form...for example, some have taken to trying to "lean in" to the "White nationalist" identity to control what "other White nationalists" might believe or think. They will often try to promote the idea that "Jesus wasn't "White""
Funny thing, that term...it was normalized in the 1950's by kikes in hollywood to seperate Germanics and Anglo Saxons from their ethnic heritage, as time went on the definition for "White" expanded to a larger genetic profile...translation...the idea of "White people" is a term created by kikes to identify people they view as "the enemy".
No one is "White"...Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Nordic, Scandinavian, Celtic, Boer, a mix of two or more of those? yes, these are all genetically similar people's with a wide variety of phenotype expressions, highly valued at that...which drives coveting kikes insane. They hate that "White people" are the standard of beauty on the planet despite their best efforts to replace the face of "Whites" with kikes through hollywood by constantly portraying ethnic kikes as "Whites" there.
Funny thing about the french connection you made, have you heard of the pasteur's? (sp) apparently...it's rothchilds boss LMFAO
even at the top of their game the kikes are only ever middle men, never the peak of the pyramid...almost like they are somehow...cursed...or something...but i'm sure that isn't relevant to a discussion on Christianity :P
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 21:44:30 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] AryanPrime
[ - ] AryanPrime 1 point 3 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:38:59 ago (+1/-0)
Plus, if you pay attention...people like him or paul_neri(openly admitted in chat one day he is an ethnic kike and subversive) always promote a "violent" response towards "non whites" by "Whites"
they are all gun hoe about "ethno nationalism" yet fundamentally refuse to acknowledge that the term "Whitepeople" was created in the 50's, by hollywood (kikes), to seperate Anglo Saxons and Germanics (currently referred to as Aryans) from their cultural and ethnic heritage, while simultaneously promoting a "mixing mentality" between "fellow Whites" so that later on, they could slowly introduce more "ethnic groups" to be considered for "intergration into the White identity"
plus he's also one of those "jesus was a jew" people...which once you understand how much of a subversive lie that is about jesus, you know it's either someone with 0 knowledge about it, yet FOO and others always seem to have quite the knowledge base about it. So the only logical explanation is that they "study" jesus to be better at subverting his message to the goy.
Plus they are all getting really fucking desperate because they are pretty much out of moves (the deep state kikes) and if they wish to "continue" playing the game (aka chess reference) they have to start sacrificing major pieces to protect the queen (Queen of england runs deep state flunkies) and king (certain bloodlines that rothschilds work for) from being taken off the board.
That's why it feels like "all assets deployed" lately, because they have been.
Foo used to be alot more subtle with his advocation, not so much anymore...when even low level foot soldiers like him are panicking, it's because people above them are pressuring them for results, which means the people above are panicking as well
Interesting times to live in fren.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 24, 2022 23:38:07 ago (+0/-0)
How right you are
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:51:33 ago (+0/-1)
The Christian Church is heavenly, ordered far beyond anything the Jews - or any people - could contrive.
Sin is the only control structure you need fear.
https://www.voat.xyz/profile?user=CHIRO
[ + ] oyy_veyy_goyy
[ - ] oyy_veyy_goyy 12 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:46:14 ago (+12/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 4 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:31:29 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:46:31 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:22:39 ago (+3/-0)
Agreed.
In order to have a journey we need to have a destination. I think it's worth being able to have those discussions even if we don't have to make a final decision immediately. I don't think I've ever regretted a good-faith debate.
[ + ] oyy_veyy_goyy
[ - ] oyy_veyy_goyy 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:00:10 ago (+0/-0)
This is going to be tough to achieve considering how much shit flinging on the topic of religion I've been seeing on Voat lately, which is why I'd like to defer this topic until the issue of race is resolved first. I think by doing this first you get rid of a lot of bad-faith debaters along the way as a side effect.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:02:43 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] oyy_veyy_goyy
[ - ] oyy_veyy_goyy 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:09:47 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:21:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 20:00:59 ago (+2/-0)
Thats why you're not allowed to question it
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:19:03 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FalseRealityCheck
[ - ] FalseRealityCheck 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:30:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:45:17 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 15:16:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 21:37:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:16:48 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:44:15 ago (+1/-2)
See above. This mentality reveals potentially fatal presuppositions about the nature of reality itself.
@CHIRO
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:16:56 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:21:39 ago (+1/-0)
For example, if I found a thread relevant to the stuff you and I had discussed today, I'd ping you. It just keeps things more engaging when there are others involving you, increases the sense of community. I consider it a good thing.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:59:12 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:33:46 ago (+0/-0)
In seriousness, it has a lot less to do with joining in on that person's thread, or weighing on their side. Sometimes that happens, but most of the time it's for visibility. We're outnumbered here. Give us a break!
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:57:19 ago (+0/-0)
Anyhow, I told PS (peace seeker?) that it was bothering me but he kept doing it. If he wants a proper discussion he can face me one on one.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 09:47:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 10:13:49 ago (+0/-0)
We'll see I guess.
I do agree our primary problems right now are physical: securing a future for europeans. But if the topic does come up of religion and it's impact on that struggle then I will fight my corner.
[ + ] TomMacdonald
[ - ] TomMacdonald 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 20:29:43 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:43:33 ago (+1/-1)
@CHIRO
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:51:44 ago (+1/-1)
@PostWallHelena
The band is back together. A wave of conversions is coming. It will spill over you if you don't get out of the way.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:49:27 ago (+1/-0)
Don't hold your breath.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:40:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:58:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user -2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 19:51:07 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:49:28 ago (+1/-1)
One does not need to trace one's ethnicity or genetics back to the group of people who first received Revelation from heaven in order to be a true member of God's family.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:52:58 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:34:53 ago (+0/-1)
Do you understand the Providential role of symbolism, shared by peoples who had never even communicated, in representing, poetically, human thoughts and natural truths?
Your angle will not stand up to scrutiny.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:42:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:56:03 ago (+0/-1)
Jesus came among the people from which He took his flesh, and spoke to them first. Those who believed in Him then spread the word of Him to all the world. Those who denied Him became enemies of His Church. Both the believers and the deniers, initially, were Jews, Semites.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:34:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:48:59 ago (+1/-0)
Those are all objective, not subjective, claims which require proof. And since they're a big claim they need big proof.
That's what I agree to. If people don't wanna talk about religion I'm fine with that too.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:04:45 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 04:04:39 ago (+1/-0)
No ones claiming that bro. You claim God exists so I say prove it.
Otherwise I have a magic teapot floating somewhere between here and Mars and you MUST disprove it in order to still believe in your God
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 08:54:55 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 0 points 3 yearsApr 25, 2022 01:51:04 ago (+0/-0)
If you wanna claim there's some magical God and I have to disprove it just because you propose it - you're illogical as fuck and there's no point talking
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:41:13 ago (+0/-0)
- "There's an invisible magic man" (A supreme being exists)
- "Who exists everywhere" (logically follows from the previous one, so we get that one for free)
- "And judges everything you do" (God actively intervenes in human affairs and tries to promote certain ethical outcomes)
- "So that when you die" (Life after death exists)
- "You teleport into another dimension and live for eternity in joy" (An elevated state for the soul exists)
1 As for a supreme being existing, that is purely a matter of faith, but I'd argue it's no less reasonable than a supreme being not existing. Ultimately the universe has to have a cause. There are two possibilities:
- A supreme being whose very nature is existence set the universe and all of it's consequences in motion
or
- There's an infinitely recursive chain of purely physical cause and effect with no end.
The latter is very hard for us to imagine, but I'm not inclined to reject explanations just because they're too big for my head. Reality doesn't owe it to me to be simple enough for me to understand. However of the two explanations the existence of a supreme being makes more sense. We can't prove it but it's the best we've got.
2 As above, if we accept there's a supreme being whose nature is existence, then they're everywhere and know everything.
3 As for divine judgement... that's a trickier one. I'd like to suggest another possibility: God doesn't want you to follow a bunch of rules, he wants you to mature and live harmoniously. It's not so much that god will spank you for doing bad things so much as that you have the opportunity to grow closer to god or further away.
We can support this argument to some extent through the behaviour of holy people. By that I don't mean men and women high up in a church hierarchy, I mean persons generally recognised to have achieved a high level of spiritual achievement. Some of their behaviour is culturally specific but there are some common trends. These suggest a universal pathway of some kind.
4 There is some evidence for life after death in the form of ancestral memory, like the woman who had vivid memories of a former life as an egyptian priestess and who was able to make accurate descriptions of a temple thousands of miles away.
There's also logical arguments that souls, as an information process are immortal and recurrant (see dust theory).
5 See the second part of three. Numerous people from numerous cultures report a feeling of bliss and contentment after attaining a particular level of spiritual enlightenment. If such a state is possible in life and we accept 4, then why not in death?
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 04:12:39 ago (+0/-0)
If you're happy and not pushy, I wish you the best man. No hard feelings.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 08:17:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 0 points 3 yearsApr 25, 2022 01:49:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 25, 2022 08:04:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 0 points 3 yearsApr 25, 2022 19:59:45 ago (+0/-0)
Let me rephrase your simplest explanation "everything couldnt have come from nothing so something infinitely more complex must have always existed which created everything"
God is the invention of something way more complicated to solve a less complicated problem
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 26, 2022 10:17:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Partofthepsyop
[ - ] Partofthepsyop 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:39:33 ago (+0/-0)
What is subjective is whether one believes the universe to be alive or dead, personal or impersonal, and if the former whether love, truth, and peace is ultimately more powerful than deception, fear, lust, and pain. Whether one should forego life to live in sin (the mainstream upload into the metaverse singularity trajectory) or to give up sin by following the law of Christ.
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 04:17:06 ago (+0/-0)
Your fanciful pontification means nothing
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 5 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 14:56:22 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:09:27 ago (+0/-0)
The problem comes when people play god themselves and make up their own "faith".
I do agree that we need to stop the infighting and focus our energy on the real enemy.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:42:04 ago (+4/-1)
The answer, obviously, is NO. So even if he is a God, we can not allow him in the Ethno-State.
A White Ethno-State must have White-Gods.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 -2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 18:47:17 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 19:25:34 ago (+4/-1)
"Yes Goyim! If you don't worship the Jew-God we created for you, bad stuff will happen!" - The Jews
Here's an idea. Stop listening to Jews and tell them to fuck off.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 09:09:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 14:39:37 ago (+0/-0)
You are a Christ-Cuck.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:47:30 ago (+0/-0)
Think about how you teach children complex ideas, you have to start with simple metaphors and comparisons to ideas they already know. Our minds are necessarily much much smaller and simpler than a supreme being, therefore it follows we will never be able to understand actual truth on the same level as him.
As a consequence religions rely on parables, metaphors and other teaching devices that (in themselves) are not "true." They are subjective and culturally specific.
This isn't to say you can just invent any belief and it will be true, revealing a religion is hard work which takes many generations, but there is no such thing as a global truth for all humans either. Any more than there's a global language or a global set of laws.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 18:44:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:10:59 ago (+1/-0)
We can't create a global religion for all humans any more than we can create a global language or culture. Humans are different, we need to interact with the world and god in different ways.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 09:13:33 ago (+0/-0)
If there is one God, then there most certainly can be one religion. that faith can be expressed in different ways, but if we have faith in the same God, then it will still be one specific religion.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 5 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:21:14 ago (+5/-0)
It's also untrue that minds can't be changed. Mine has been many times on many subjects. I'm always open to a better argument than mine.
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett [op] -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:23:27 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 4 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:42:35 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] AOUsYamaka
[ - ] AOUsYamaka 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:40:03 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:04:16 ago (+0/-0)
Survive the Jive on youtube is a great source for English, Norse and Germanic paganism. Lugh's Fortress is great for Irish and Celtic paganism. Both of them also cover other IE religious branches.
If you're looking for primary texts the LGE (Leabhar Gaibheála Éireann) and the poetic Edas are probably a good place to start. Although they can be a little dense if you're not already familiar with the cultural background.
[ + ] AOUsYamaka
[ - ] AOUsYamaka 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 06:39:18 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 07:50:38 ago (+1/-0)
Here's a couple of videos from those channels I mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5818NkeFd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UchgjnMY5lI
This is a channel run by some practitioners, they also seem to have a republican political element too:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq7Nd9XWi5_eOqKPxpPw_nQ/videos
[ + ] AOUsYamaka
[ - ] AOUsYamaka 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 08:47:38 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 09:05:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 08:47:07 ago (+1/-0)
https://www.youtube.com/c/HistoricalItalianCooking/videos
[ + ] NationalSocialism
[ - ] NationalSocialism 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:14:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:30:14 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:25:14 ago (+0/-1)
Though you may not have understood why.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:28:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:53:58 ago (+0/-1)
There are wicked generations and pious generations of men. Ours is clearly the former. Whether you think some decentralized philosophy nonetheless united by a special DNA is the "true way", or whether it is true religion, there is no doubt that the throngs of the iniquitous outnumber us all. Why then should a cult's "dying" be proof of its lack of worth? Has not the cultus that you affirm, namely a cognizance of one's people and traditions, or one's identity and responsibility, likewise been dying for generations?
So you have said two irrelevant things. Being raised in a cult is neither good nor bad, in itself, nor is one's cult waning any indication of its truth.
That you learned better is clearly an arguable matter. It is not clear whether you ever had a real depth of knowledge of the Catholic faith to begin with. I suspect that if you did, you would not speak of it with such disdain, even if you did not count yourself among its ranks.
@CHIRO
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:57:45 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:23:12 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:42:41 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:51:22 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:56:28 ago (+0/-0)
There is very little agreement when it comes to spiritual matters. They are mostly subjective.
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett [op] 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:24:00 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:33:31 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:34:42 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:34:24 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Partofthepsyop
[ - ] Partofthepsyop 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:42:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 01:06:20 ago (+0/-0)
You know that one ritual where the jews spin the chicken around over their head to transfer their sins into it, and then kill the chicken so it dies with their sins instead? The jews have been doing sin transferral magic for thousands of years. They've also been cannibals for thousands of years who drink blood from baby penises.
Why do you think jews would teach Christians to ritualistically eat flesh and drink blood in a religion that's all about sin transference?
This next part might sound a little shoe string on the wall, but you know that email where Hillary Clinton was joking about sacrificing chickens to Moloch when everyone knows Moloch prefers children over chickens? The jews love their little word games, and teach their pets to perform them too. Chicken - children - Christian. All are interchangeable vessels for the jews to transfer their own sins into. Christians act out the jewish sin of cannibalism to become part of the body of Jesus, who died to forgive the sins of others. Thus, through jewish religious ritual, they are tricked into dying and suffering for jewish sins.
Each religious and ideological/philosophical movement that takes your worship away from the gods of your ancestors is a trap of some kind.
[ + ] AngryWhiteKeyboardWarrior
[ - ] AngryWhiteKeyboardWarrior 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:37:15 ago (+3/-2)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 3 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 15:39:20 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:28:45 ago (+0/-1)
But nothing but God can fully satisfy the human heart, and God on God's terms, not our own.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8%3A31-32&version=DRA
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:30:45 ago (+3/-1)
Christ-Cucks have no place in the Ethno-State because they have no loyalty to the White-Race.
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:30:59 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:14:48 ago (+0/-0)
Unilateral "service" to humanity is only ever rewarded with abuse and destruction. Any religion preaching that kind of self anihilation is false.
[ + ] 9000timesempty
[ - ] 9000timesempty -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 16:32:16 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] taoV
[ - ] taoV 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 17:25:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 19:08:40 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -1 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:40:24 ago (+0/-1)
https://youtu.be/uMo2VVsDU7A?t=1791
"...maybe if their spirituality fits better with you" is a "good" reason to become affiliated with a religion, but not because you think it is true. Believing in truth, according to the anti-Christian spirit, is "just weird."
Religion is the right-ordered worship of the divine. If truth exists, if the divine exists, if right order exists, then religion is the farthest thing from subjectivity possible, for it presupposes right-orderedness, truth, and the divine - all things that we must be subject to, and not which are determined by arbitrary whim or opinion.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:25:55 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -2 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:46:20 ago (+0/-2)
@CHIRO
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 23:54:01 ago (+1/-0)
No. BS. Jews were jewing long long before any messianic business. They just didn't have much of an opportunity to do it in europe. They had no ties there so their fuckery was restricted to the middle east.
Thank you for finally showing your true colours. "We just need to convert the jews to christianity, then they'll stop fucking us over." How dense do you have to be to think this is going to start working now after thousands of years of failure?
[ + ] PS
[ - ] PS -2 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:13:50 ago (+0/-2)
All peoples were sinning grievously prior to Christ, and all peoples continue to do so after His Ascension. You can point to any number of cases in the Old Testament, or other historic documents, to reveal the iniquitous ways of the Jews. But this is by no means unique to them. What is under discussion is the specifically organized way in which the Jewish people effect certain revolutionary changes in history, and this manifestation is uniquely post-Christian. You can argue that this behaviour manifested only because Christianity enabled the consolidation of Jewish power in a way that the pre-Christian world never enabled. But this argument depends on the assertion that the Jews, by nature, sought to act in such a way even prior to Christ.
But this is contrary to the evidence. All you have in support of this argument is evidence of Jewish iniquity prior to Christ. But as I've said, all peoples were (and are) iniquitous. What you require is evidence of attempted Jewish consolidation and subversion of all peoples, everywhere. Not warlike behaviour, not conquest, but parasitic subversion via tribal tactics. But the Old Testament reveals that the Jews took pains to isolate themselves from pagan influence, and wanted little to do with other peoples once they had secured the land they thought was theirs. This is not equivalent to what we see today.
Rather than saying that some unevidenced revolutionary nature manifested itself more potently as a result of Christian tolerance, I argue that the merely human, common iniquity of the Jews translated to a unifying religious spirit of revolution only post Crucifixion, and signs of this spirit could be seen whether the Jews had power or not, in ways that it was not seen prior to this moment in history.
There is even a naturalistic explanation for why this is the case. Prior to Christ, the Jews still staked their hope in the Messiah. After Him, there were a few claimants, who failed miserably to satisfy, and so eventually they projected the awaited Messiah-ship upon the Jewish people themselves. Thus we have tikkun olam, this notion that the Jews are called by God to "heal the world" (thus act as revolutioanries against a certain order), a notion which we only see emerge, not in the days of the Old Testament, but in the post-Christian Talmudic era.
It is Providential that the Jews finally abandoned their awaiting their Messiah only after Christ came, and they (those who did not accept Him) rejected Him.
@CHIRO
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:16:31 ago (+1/-0)
1. Pinging for backup
2. Strawmanning.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:46:57 ago (+1/-0)
Make your choice now.
[ + ] Partofthepsyop
[ - ] Partofthepsyop 0 points 3 yearsApr 22, 2022 22:57:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 00:08:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3 yearsApr 23, 2022 02:49:37 ago (+0/-0)