/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15817083]

How do christcucks cope with the fact that their representatives have been doing the exact opposite of what they preached since the birth of cucktianity?
>b-but muh catholics
Go fuck yourselves, protties and orthocucks aren't any less degenerate than catholics ever were.

[Anonymous No.15817095]

Go look up the parable of the wheat and the weeds.

[Anonymous No.15817106]

>>15817095
No.

[Anonymous No.15817144]

>>15817083
>Church stops burning heretics and starts being modernist
>this happens
All according to Keikaku. The abuses are exactly what a Catholic expects would happen if the church turns in the wrong direction. Just gotta work on my own virtue, the church’ll straighten itself out when it stops conforming to satanic modernity. Why do people think Catholics are ashamed of the abuse crisis? This is exactly what our church teaches what would happen when heresy prevails. Romans 1

[Anonymous No.15817155]

>>15817083
They say "The Church lost it's power in the 19th century and was co-opted by secular movements." and then read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.15817182]

>>15817083
its very simple. humans are sinners. the whole old testament is basically about how humans are awful except for a select few mythological heroes like Job or Jesus himself. The first two humans God created defied him, and the stories that follow the Jews around, his chosen people he has blessed with his divine favor, are all about how the Jews constantly defy him and are awful people. what the Church as an institution does does not worry me that much. they don't have power anymore either so they aren't a threat to my livelihood. what should worry you is not that the Church is full of sinners, but that you are a sinner.

[Anonymous No.15817188]

>>15817144
The church has always been like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

[Anonymous No.15817211]

>>15817083
They'll invent a wild conspiracy theory to explain it. Or they'll attribute it to human's inability to properly understand god and apply his laws. If the majority of humans can't understand God or apply his laws then the whole enterprise of Christianity is pointless, but that thought never seems to occur to them.

[Anonymous No.15817216]

>>15817188
That's because their god is crooked. As above, so below.

[Anonymous No.15817273]

No one worships the leaders, they worship God.
They only respect the leaders insofar as they are vested with apostolic authority, and moral character is irrelevant to apostolic initiation.

Most modern men are completely unable to see initiatory religion without moralism along with it. All traditional religion, east or west, is abundantly clear that to administer sacramental rites has nothing to do with personal morality. It has to do with initiatory lineage.

Obviously moral failings are not good, but they are completely individual and have nothing pertinent to the truth of the doctrine as a whole. If a bad person says the truth, it is still the truth.

[Anonymous No.15817278]

>>15817188
>always been like that
>picks a particular age known as the “dark age”
Nice try. It wouldn’t have to be made distinct if that was the case. Bad popes are an unusual occurrence

[Anonymous No.15817323]

>>15817083
Which representatives? Everyone is a representative of Christianity if they are a Christian. Them being sinful doesn't mean Christianity is bad, it just means they are poor representatives of Christianity. If anything, it is they who need the church most of all.

>degenerate
All people, all religions, all faiths have degenerate followers. You'd think one would learn this after living in this world for a few years. It's just that Christianity is the most influential religion today, and has existed for many years. Of course there will be scandals, malefactors, lukewarm followers who are Christian only in name, and whatever it is your picture addresses.

>Four in five Vatican priests are gay, book claims
A book written by the homosexual Frederic Martel, based on the flawless rule that those who are against homosexuality are homosexuals. What a superb examination this is, based on anecdotes.

Besides, there is the Orthodox church, and the fact that "wherever two or more gather in My name, there I am." The Church is long from dead, it's just that the Vatican is a hotbed of corruption, although I find claims such as "four in five of Vatican priests are gay" as spurious. What makes them gay? Are they a part of some secret cult masquerading as Christians? Is it the repression of homosexuality? Should we all express our homosexual urges openly?

[Anonymous No.15817351]

>>15817083
Catholic tradition is no where found in the Bible. It’s like how Jews follow the Talmud and not the Torah. The only Christian thing about Catholics is their belief in Christ, but that gets so watered down, that it’s not surprising why so many Catholics become apostates later in life.

[Anonymous No.15817370]

>>15817216
That's absurd. Man's actions have no bearing on God's nature. Besides, you don't even believe in the Christian God, why call Him crooked, thus admitting He exists? How can a man judge God?

>>15817211
Not inability, but weakness. Those Vatican priests are either too weak to apply the laws or there really is a conspiracy.

>if the majority of humans can't understand God or apply his laws
Why do we need to understand God? We understand God when we are in communion with him, through the sacraments and by following his laws. It doesn't matter if you don't apply ever law, so long as you do as much as you can, and repent for what you couldn't do. Besides, God is merciful. You paint a 2-dimensional picture of Christianity.

>>15817278
Notice, also, how they do not make their beliefs known. Are we arguing with atheists? Agnostics? Pagans? Surely their lot has had its fair share of screwups and crooks. It's too scary for them to show their true nature, then they'd open themselves up to attack.

[jesus No.15817371]

>>15817083
guys! all you want to know about original sin and "christianity" is answered here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5kvo6M00Ed4
it goes much deeper than that.

[Anonymous No.15817374]

>>15817323
>Are they a part of some secret cult masquerading as Christians?
Yes. The Jesuit run enterprise known as the Catholic Church .inc has always been corrupt. It is literally the church of the antichrist. Just look at how it causes normies to even avoid reading the Bible for themselves, associating wholesome Christian tradition with their apostate bigotry.
Truth is stranger than fiction anon. Needless to say, the Bible predicted it.

[Anonymous No.15817400]

>>15817083
Still better than LARPaganism or atheism

[Anonymous No.15817404]

They must've not eaten enough holy white biscuits

[Anonymous No.15817416]

>>15817370
Christian god is based on jewish god, which is a formerly polytheistic deity, still borderline henotheistic, which is strongly implied in the OT.

[Anonymous No.15817426]

>>15817370
>Not inability, but weakness. Those Vatican priests are either too weak to apply the laws or there really is a conspiracy.

Is the distinction relevant? Weakness is a form of inability is it not?

>Why do we need to understand God?

If you're going to claim that our very souls depend on us doing as God wills, you'd better be absolutely certain that you know exactly what he wills. If not, then either you're wasting our time or, as Homer Simpson once said: "You're just making God madder and madder."

>We understand God when we are in communion with him, through the sacraments and by following his laws. Et al.

Here's an illustration of the problem, you're speculating on the nature of God, the manner by which mortals can know him and the nature of his divine plan. You've already conceded that men cannot be whether they're actually in communion with God or whether they're just flawed humans speculating idly. How do I know any of the things you've said about God are correct? How do I know you're not just another flawed human who's mistaken about all this?

[Anonymous No.15817429]

>>15817351
Sola scriptura is nowhere in the Bible. What's your point. You need tradition for a book like the Bible to be assembled in the first place.

Do you think it was just randomly put together? No, the Church decided up on it. "The Bible" is multiple texts that were put together by the Church. You realize you need an authority for such things, that comes from tradition

[Anonymous No.15817432]

>>15817416
What about it?

[Anonymous No.15817433]

>>15817083
How do atheists cope with the fact they'll be burning in hell for eternity once they take their last breath?

[Anonymous No.15817453]

>>15817433
how do you cope with going there too for idolatry?

[Anonymous No.15817482]

>>15817426
Yes, but inability implies that man is unable to ever understand God. Weakness is an inability, but not a cemented inability (man can become strong).

>you'd better be absolutely certain that you know exactly what he wills
His will is not as exact and blockheaded as you lot make it. "You have to follow my word down to the last letter, use the right calendars, etcetera." What you must do is written in the Bible; whatever you can't do or do out of weakness, you must repent for, and trust in God's mercy. You can know if you are in communion. Of course, you can be an endless skeptic, but everyone must make a leap of faith. Even science and pagan gods cannot answer everything. They could all be mistaken. Sense data could be lying to us, so on and so forth.

[Anonymous No.15817485]

>it's another "Anons don't know anything about Catholicism" thread

Do we have to have this thread multiple times a week? Isn't everyone tired of these threads by now?

[Anonymous No.15817562]

>>15817429
You’re misinterpreting what the church means. The church as it was in the first century was a loose conglomerate of separate churches around the Mediterranean, but they all had a core set of beliefs based on the few gospels everyone (or at least the vast majority) believed were authoritative. The whole point was to bring the various churches together under a single doctrine, and then follow that doctrine. In other words, decide which books are authoritative, and then follow what those books say.

The Catholics didn’t do this. They decided that tradition was at least as important as the text, despite the fact that the text is the foundation of the faith, and is unchanging.

Sola scriptura is based on some key verses, like 2 Timothy 3:16 which says the word comes from God and can be used for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. So if it’s not in the Bible, it’s not from God himself as His unique revelation to us.

[Anonymous No.15817583]

>>15817482
> His will is not as exact and blockheaded as you lot make it

Again. Here's the problem, you don't know that. That's speculation, lots of men have claimed to understand God, how do we separate the genuine prophets from the crackpots and the people who are just guessing?

>What you must do is written in the Bible.

Nobody can agree what the damn thing even says. That's why there's fifty-seven varieties of Christianity. Slavery and polyamory are condoned in the Bible, but that doesn't sit well with mainstream Christianity so most choose to ignore those parts. That get's us back to square one, how do we know which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken seriously? And which parts did God slip in there for a joke? Lots of people claim to be able to distinguish between the two, but how do we separate the liars from the divinely inspired?

>Even science and pagan gods cannot answer everything.

Neither can Christianity. In fact, I don't see how Christianity possesses anymore explanatory power then Paganism. It is just a weird variant strain of Canaanite Paganism, after all.

[Anonymous No.15817584]

>>15817562
What about the verse where Jesus literally founds a Church on Peter's head?

[Anonymous No.15817662]

>>15817584
The church based on faith. Peter was the most faithful apostle.

When catholics realize that Jesuits are the scum of the earth.

[Anonymous No.15817671]

>>15817662
That's not the right interpretation of the passage. The correct translation centers the founding on Peter himself, not just his faith.

[Anonymous No.15817688]

>>15817584
Yes, Matthew 16:18. The way the text reads, Jesus is saying that Peter’s faith in him is the rock that he will build his church upon, because his faith was as firm as a rock. Not Peter alone by himself, since there were other apostles than Peter, and indeed, Peter didn’t even write any of the gospels, the literal foundation of the Christian faith. Kind of hard to then exalt Peter above Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John then, right?

[Anonymous No.15817689]

>>15817671
Peter. Who was subsequently crucified by a Godless pagan supposed "church".

[Anonymous No.15817701]

>>15817583
An answer to that is impossible. Anything can be disputed, anything can be denied; the only way to separate the genuine prophets from the crackpots is whether or not their prophecies came true, and what others write about them. Of course, this won't impress you as you lot always think these prophecies to be overly broad and vague, and no historical account is sufficient.

>Nobody can agree what the damn thing even says
Wrong
>That's why there's fifty-seven varieties of Christianity
No, that's because the other varieties of Christianity are wrong.

>Slavery and polyamory are condoned in the Bible
For whom? And cite specific quotes.

>but that doesn't sit well with mainstream Christianity so most choose to ignore those parts.
Incorrect, they address these points. Besides, these practices being condoned does not mean we need to engage in them, or that they are even condoned for us (those things were most likely just covenants to specific people, but I don't know what you're referring to without specific quotes).

>How do we know which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken seriously?
You read the Bible and use your brain, as I hope you are doing now. There's no general rule, or formula, or theory, if that's what you want.

>And which parts did God slip in there for a joke?
Why would God do this? Perhaps, you could also say God made Himself not exist to test our faith, seeing as logic means nothing to Him. I could argue what seems to be a joke is actually something humans cannot understand (mysterious ways, yadda yadda).

>lots of people claim to be able to distinguish between the two, but how do we...
Them being saints, or church fathers, or what have you. There have been councils settling heresies and making the decisions you refer to.

>Neither can Christianity
So, which one is true, then? My point is that no belief can demonstrate to you that it's 100% genuinely correct. Luke 16:31

[Anonymous No.15817715]

>>15817083
Why are atheists so into cuckolding? It’s pretty weird

[Anonymous No.15817832]

>>15817701
>no historical account is sufficient.
Historical accounts are sufficient, but the accounts in the Bible are the worst and weakest kind. They conflict with known history and we can't find any physical evidence for most of it.
>Wrong, No, that's because the other varieties of Christianity are wrong.
I've heard the same line from a pair of Mormons, a fair few Anglicans, many Catholics, a gang of Puritans and several Doomsday prophets.
>For whom? And cite specific quotes.
Leviticus 25:44: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you." As for polyamory King Solomon had a harem and Abraham had an open relationship, sharing his time between Sarah and Hagar. Let's not play this game, anyway, I know where it goes: "When the Bible says 'yes' it means 'no'", "God was hammered when he wrote that bit", "There's a new covenant now, but there isn't a new convenant when something in the OT bolsters my beliefs".
>"You read the Bible and use your brain, as I hope you are doing now. There's no general rule, or formula, or theory, if that's what you want."
I can't even begin to guess what God is or what he wants. What if I don't like slavery? Is that God speaking through me? Or maybe I just don't want to live in a world where slavery is condoned. Perhaps I'm just a decadent 21st century heathen and God doesn't care one whit for my lowly, human ideas about morality.
>Why would God do this?
Don't know. Maybe he's a prankster. Maybe what seems silly to us is perfectly sensible from his divine perspective.
>Them being saints, or church fathers, or what have you. There have been councils settling heresies and making the decisions you refer to.
Does having a title (granted by mortal man) and dressing like an upper-class Roman confer divine authority? The church has disavowed people before, how do we know these men are the Real McCoy?
>So, which one is true, then?
Perhaps we'll find out one day. Until that day comes, I think people should stop claiming to know for sure.

[Anonymous No.15818035]

>>15817832
>Historical accounts are sufficient, but the accounts in the Bible are the worst and weakest kind. They conflict with known history and we can't find any physical evidence for most of it.
That's a different matter.

>I've heard the same line from a pair of Mormons, a fair few Anglicans, many Catholics, a gang of Puritans and several Doomsday prophets.
Yes, and they are wrong. I stand by my word.

>Leviticus 25:44: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you."
This was said to the Israelites in specific, not to Christians today.

>As for polyamory King Solomon had a harem and Abraham had an open relationship, sharing his time between Sarah and Hagar.
God allowed them to be polygamous. So what? It was a different time.

>"There's a new covenant now, but there isn't a new convenant when something in the OT bolsters my beliefs"
I haven't made or even planned to make these claims, so don't be so quick to make yourself look foolish.

>I can't even begin to guess what God is or what he wants.
It's not difficult to imagine why you think this way, considering you don't believe in God. What does He want? He wants all men to be saved, but allows all men to do as they may.

>What if I don't like slavery? Is that God speaking through me?
No

>Or maybe I just don't want to live in a world where slavery is condoned
That's alright, you don't have to live. However, slavery is condoned, not urged. And that being in the past, for a specific people.

>Don't know, maybe he's a prankster
I thought we couldn't understand God's motives, now suddenly we know?

>maybe what seems silly to us...
Now you're catching on. Go on and make a slippery slope.

>Does having a title...
It's not about the title, it's about living a saintly life, having the Holy Spirit. That's what being a saint is about. Obviously some mortal man is going to have to give this person the title, or else we wouldn't know anything about these saints (as nothing would be written about them).

>the church has disavowed people before, how do we know these men are...
Because they haven't been disavowed by the Church.

>Perhaps we'll find our one day. Until that day comes, I think people should stop claiming to know for sure
However, you state we shouldn't believe in something we don't know everything about, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, everything can be reduced to absurdity by endless, nattering skepticism. I prefer choosing a belief and living according to it to sitting on my hands and waiting for that "day." That day is death. As for you, you can choose what you will, or choose nothing at all. See if it fulfills you.

[Anonymous No.15818186]

>>15818035
>Yes, and they are wrong. I stand by my word.
I'd ask those people if they would say the same of you, but I think I already know the answer.
>This was said to the Israelites in specific, not to Christians today.
The "Schrodinger's Covenant Manoeuvre", it's a classic for a reason, the new covenant exists when necessary and fades away when it's an impediment.
>I haven't made or even planned to make these claims.
If the argument is that what applied to the Israelites, does not apply to Christians, the explicit or implicit premise is that the coming of Christ led to a new covenant between God and man. One which abrogates some of the Levitical laws.
>It's not difficult to imagine why you think this way, considering you don't believe in God.
I never claimed to be an atheist. God's actions in the Bible do not map to anything humans would call "rationality" or "logic". Hence, the Christian god (if he is real) is something so alien that our human ideas don't even apply to him. He's not good or evil, he's beyond both. Why, then, waste time trying to understand him? It's like an ant trying to understand human psychology, it will never happen.
>No
Some Christians will say "yes", that's the problem.
>That's alright, you don't have to live.
Charming.
>However, slavery is condoned, not urged. And that being in the past, for a specific people.
Why am I even trying to understand this alien being that doesn't even hesitate to rob millions of people of their freedom? We are like bacteria to this creature. There can be no commonality of thought between me and a creature that's impossibly beyond me.
>I thought we couldn't understand God's motives, now suddenly we know? Now you're catching on. Go on and make a slippery slope.
This is me guessing and as you can see, I'm not good at guessing the motivations of a Cosmic Super-being, which is why I would never try to sell my speculations as being fact.
>It's not about the title, it's about living a saintly life, having the Holy Spirit.
Again, speculation. Maybe Charles Manson had the Holy Spirit? He claimed he did. How do we prove him wrong or right.
>Because they haven't been disavowed by the Church.
The Church has held onto beliefs and theologians for centuries before disavowing them, they don't catch all their mistakes as soon as they're made. Remember when you could buy "Get Out of Hell Free" cards from the church? That lasted hundreds of years and now it's heresy.
>However, you state we shouldn't believe in something we don't know everything about, beyond a shadow of a doubt
There's a difference between "Educated Guess" and "Wild Leap of Faith". Christianity is built on hundreds of wild leaps of faith and very few educated guesses. That's the issue I have.

[Anonymous No.15818229]

>>15817083
I think it was Mishima's Temple of the Golden Pavilion, with its drunken whoremonger buddhist monks, that made me think of how we never hear about corruption in any church besides the Christian ones. We wouldn't even need to go abroad for juicy scandals, the guy who founded the first zen school in North America got charged like a year or two ago with abusing his power to fuck naive hippie girls.Could it be that it's verboten to say anything bad about the islamic clergy, the rabbis of the synagogues, or even the buddhist monks and the hare krishna types? I'm sure they're all innocent and pure.

[Anonymous No.15818301]

>>15817083
why would I cope with that? God gave em free will, they can sin if they don't know better. why does Christianity make you seethe

[Anonymous No.15818349]

Hello fellow Christcuck, let me hijack this thread. I have a question I've been struggling with since I read Augustine's Confessions: why would God, the perfect being, create something capable of imperfection (sin)? Augustine makes a good case about evil not being a separate matter and being the absence of good, but I can't understand why this would happen. I'm well aware about the original sin and such, but I would like to know what were the various theological answer to this.

[Anonymous No.15818549]

>>15817182
These personal interpretations are cute but aren't supported by any scripture or tradition. The jews at least are trying to carry out their plan of controlling the whole world. Their concept of righteousness, of course, just means fucking over the goyim and never outbreeding. So the most they ever do wrong is marrying outside the family. Christians on the other hand will never be able to achieve their own concept of righteousness, except for loners who just hack together what they think is a righteous way of life and pretend somehow nobody every thought of virtue until jesus did.

[Anonymous No.15818553]

>>15817278
A bad pope is not possible. The pope is literally perfect and guided by god.

[Anonymous No.15818570]

>>15817323
>they are poor representatives of Christianity
The theological version of "THAT WASN'T REAL COMMUNISM"

[Anonymous No.15818589]

>>15817278
Nice cope
Look at this shit, take your time to read it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
And that's just ONE type questionable of act from the papacy. The church has always been a mafia, rotten to the core.

[Anonymous No.15818592]

>mfw not having to do the mental gymnastics of pretending to be an antisemite while literally worshiping a jew as god

[Anonymous No.15818603]

>>15817370
>Besides, you don't even believe in the Christian God, why call Him crooked, thus admitting He exists? How can a man judge God?
Yhwh is real and he is a foreskin sucking demon. I judge your patron demon by his demand for the mutilation of infants and all the other reprehensible things he demands of his followers, such as iconoclasm and genocide.

[Anonymous No.15818615]

>>15817370
>Are we arguing with atheists? Agnostics? Pagans? Surely their lot has had its fair share of screwups and crooks.
Doesn't matter, because christians never hold themselves to their own standards. Christians are the ones claiming to have the single, whole, and exclusive truth. They have the highest possible moral standard to meet and consistently fail to meet their own standards of behavior as individuals and as a group.

[Anonymous No.15818621]

>>15817482
>His will is not as exact and blockheaded as you lot make it
I guess he's not an unchanging and permanent god lmao

[Anonymous No.15818622]

>>15818592
They have an answer for this: They say that everybody who claims to be non-Jewish is secretly Jewish and everybody who claims to be Jewish is secretly not Jewish. People who say these things with a straight face are exactly as crazy as you would imagine.

[Anonymous No.15818649]

>>15817485
that wasn't REAL catholicism!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15818751]

>>15818592
>>15818622
The jews rejected jesus christ as the messiah. They were an imperfect sinful people as is everyone else but their covenants were necessary to birth christ. Christ brought salvation to all of human kind and was the messiah. The "jews" rejected this. "The jews" of history are now christian, or if you prefer muslim. The modern "jews" are as is written in the bible "those who call themselves jews but are not and do lie" "the children of your father the devil who was a liar and a murderer" and "the synagogue of satan", to paraphrase.

You don't have to believe it, but that is the rationale supported by the text.

[Anonymous No.15818840]

>>15818751
>supported by the text.
Compiled, of course, by parties interested in creating this narrative, over the course of centuries. So obviously 100% reliable.

[Anonymous No.15818854]

>>15818840
yeah dude I don't care I gave you your answer. If you want to whine about how you don't like it that's fine, but in the future I hope you don't act like a jew and pretend 'you still literally cannot understand lol it's like so dumb and it makes no sense and I don't get it at all haha.'

[Anonymous No.15818871]

>>15818854
>I hope you don't act like a jew
You must have me confused with someone who admires and looks to centuries of jewish history and fairy tales for role models and moral guidance, who participates in the grand old jewish tradition of hair splitting sectarianism and pilpul, and worships a literal jew.

Of course, jews are smart enough to at least admit they just do whatever they think is best for jews at any given time. Christians have the emotional labor of trying to make everything they claim to believe fit together without contradiction.

[Anonymous No.15818888]

>>15818871
Post your nose you greasy inbred kike

[Anonymous No.15818898]

>>15818888
>those quads
NO, I AM DEFEATED!

[Anonymous No.15818924]

>>15817188
Proves aristocrats were like that, nothing inherent to celibacy.

[Anonymous No.15818930]

>>15818888
>just call them kikes
Christians are so incredibly cringe. I really fucking hate the fact that you plebians learned about the internet. The christian cyber incursion has absolutely demolished the culture of imageboards. I really miss infinity. We knew how to handle christcuckery.

[Anonymous No.15818960]

>>15818930
You know what's funny anon is I actually spent a notable amount of effort on this very board years ago trying to prove that jesus christ himself never even existed. Refuting Tacitus and Josephus, boy I knew it all. In the back of my mind I knew if was massive cope always though. I used to say "It's not an acid trip if I don't contemplate the divinity of jesus christ". Also got into the occult a little, /x/fag since 2008. Ultimately I found that not only am I convinced that the literal personification of evil also known as satan exists, and is in control of this world. The rest fell into place.

It actually makes me understand Calvinist predestination more clearly. Christian metaphysics in general is significantly more interesting than meets the eye. Also the coolest thing about christianity is The Holy Spirit actually exists and it just werx

[Anonymous No.15818970]

>>15818960
and yes I also realize blaspheming of that order could be unforgivable. It won't stop me from recognizing the truth.

[Scrotum the Clown No.15818986]

>>15818570
No, they are real Christians. They're just not good Christians, hence them being "poor representatives of Christianity." Jesus Christ would be the best representative.

>>15818589
The Vatican, you mean. Otherwise, all human institutions have been rotten to the core, be they pagan, scientific, or whatever is your holiest of holies. Next.

>>15818592
>the Jews of the past are the same as the Jews of today that white nationalists are fighting against

>>15818615
If you don't have a high moral standard, you won't achieve anything in life. Better to aim for the stars and fail.

>and consistently fail to meet their own standards
Yes, so they need God even more, because they are unable to follow His laws. It's simple, really. Are you able to consistently meet your own standards? In what belief or religion do you even partake? Do you even have a belief? It's easy to hold others to their own standards (and you are wrong, Christians DO hold themselves to their own standards) when you have no standards of your own, or when your standards are so easy to meet that you are the moral equivalent of a weakling.

>>15818621
LMAO
No, my point was that he misunderstood God's will. Besides, how can I know that He's unknown and permanent? Why does Him being so mean that He cannot change His will? You're falling into the same trap, just like that anon

>>15818622
Who are the people that say these things? The Christians in whose stead you are speaking? Brilliant.

>>15818840
Prove that they had interests. Excluding the Apocryphal texts has nothing to do with "creating a narrative" in the way you think.

>>15818871
>worship a Jew
God is not a human. Jesus Christ only incarnated Himself, but you keep fixating on the fact that He was some ancient Jew so you can equivocate Him with the Jews you hate of today, most of which are atheists and Ashkenazi.

>pilpul and hair splitting sectarianism
We don't have that tradition

>>15818930
Generalize, won't you?

[Anonymous No.15818993]

>>15818960
>Christian metaphysics in general is significantly more interesting than meets the eye.
Yeah it helps when they were able to rip off centuries of orphic, pythagorean, and platonist development.

[Anonymous No.15818996]

>>15818986
I think I'm on your side but mass replying and reddit spacing and namefagging and having a named meme image like this is just to much dude. This is why people say to lurk for two years, which is obviously an exaggerated joke. Mass repliers should be thrown into the ovens and clear your name field your fucking faggot

[Scrotum the Clown No.15819002]

>>15818993
Prove this. And prove that these developments didn't just rip off previous development.

[Anonymous No.15819006]

>>15818993
I'm sure it's not an entirely original concept but can you point to an earlier idea of the concept of the devil (or the force of evil/corruption/entropy if your prefer) tempting man yet being defeated of god (the concept of good/health/order) during each instance of time until the reckoning, echoing throughout being?

[Scrotum the Clown No.15819010]

>>15818996
Don't care a whole lot

[Anonymous No.15819030]

>>15819010
You will just end up getting your namefag name filtered by some people, others will ignore you out of principle and you will attract trolls who derail any thread you post in. dude you aren't on reddit just stop acting like a dumb faggot we're on the same team

[Anonymous No.15819036]

>>15817083
>Why the Vatican's failure to reckon with their sexuality has created a crisis for Catholicism

What does this even mean? What does it matter if priests are gay? They're supposed to be celibate just like the straight ones. profoundly idiotic and small-minded secular take.

[Anonymous No.15819055]

>>15818986
>Who are the people that say these things?

They were a dead movement for decades, but they're making a comeback on the more conspiracy-oriented parts of the Internet. The crackpot theory is that the 12 tribes of Israel fled to Europe when Israel was conquered and that modern Jews are not the descendants of the tribes, but the descendants of the conquerors. According to the tin-foil hats, British and European peoples are the true descendants of the 12 tribes. I could never invent something so crazy, here's a Wikipedia link if you want to begin your research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

[Anonymous No.15819101]

>>15819055
It's backed up by significant archaeological evidence though. The tribes ascended into Europe through the Caucus mountains and made their journey west. Christians are the real God's chosen, and Israel has spread all over the world, just as it was prophesied about. Why do you think pharisees seethe so much? Because the Bible is 100% true and they know that they are damned!

[Scrotum the Clown No.15819240]

>>15819030
I understand.

>>15819055
Ah, I've heard of these individuals. So, if a group of Christians support homosexuality, does this mean that the Church, or Scriptures, support homosexuality? The beliefs of these few don't represent the position the Church condones, as if you could even refute what they're saying without staying at a distance and batting at it with epithets like "crackpot" or "tin-foil hats." You should get a gig at the news, the talking heads love that kind of talk. "Conspiracy theory." "Tin-foil hats."

[Anonymous No.15819335]

>>15819240
I don't think that handful of conspiracy theorists define Christianity as a whole. I was specifically talking about this bizarre phenomenon of Christian Anti-Semites. I know it's a loaded term to use and I know that the word "Conspiracy Theorist" is a buzzword which is often used by Establishment figures to shut down legitimate investigations. But these people are something else, I've taken them seriously and debated them before. Their beliefs are truly strange, and to be honest, I'm not sure they really believe any of this, I'm not sure anybody could, there's too much hard evidence which refutes it. I honestly think they just dislike Jewish people and want to use Christianity as an excuse to badmouth them and don't care how paradoxical the whole thing is.

[Anonymous No.15819343]

>>15818986
>God is not a human
UH OH HERESY, ONE ETERNITY OF HELLFIRE COMING RIGHT UP

[Anonymous No.15819364]

>>15818986
So if christianity cannot even meet its own standards which is holds the entire human race too, why is it better than an alternative? Why should anyone be a christian if your god unknowable, lets people choose eternal suffering and torture, and cannot tolerate the existence of alternative ideas about the world and god? It all rests on your assumption that the Bible is true, which is just a preference you have because you were raised in an environment that favored it.

[Anonymous No.15819370]

>>15819343
If that even was heresy, there was no malicious intent. I wouldn't go to Hell because I argued out of ignorance, and I led no one into error because it was just my two cents, so there.

>God is not a human
Yes, we do not worship a Jew. At least say "God is Jewish in nature" or the Christian God "comes from the desert," stop embarrassing yourself with spurious remarks.

>>15819335
They could be trying to reconcile something in their theology by arguing that they are the real Jews. I don't imagine they're all arguing in bad faith, or in a spirit of hatred.

[Anonymous No.15819376]

>>15819002
>prove that these developments didn't just rip off previous development.
Pythagoras was initiated in Orphic mysteries as well as all the mysteries of Egypt (or probably most of them, no way to know that he went to all of them). Plato was taught by Pythagoreans. All of these mystical movements eagerly declare their line of succession. Christianity pretends that it didn't inherit any ideas from anywhere but the hebrews and Jesus.

[Anonymous No.15819383]

>>15819370
>Yes, we do not worship a Jew
You just worship Jesus, a man, who was a jew.

[Anonymous No.15819425]

>>15819383
Yes, but Jesus was also the son of God. Meanwhile, you just worship men, or yourself.

>>15819376
It doesn't, the influence of Greek philosophers is palpable, and the early church fathers drew on these Platos and Aristotles of yours. There's no shame in that, no impurity, no filth.

[Anonymous No.15819431]

>>15817083
Wouldn't it be smarter to worship the earth or the sun instead of a (presumably) made up divine being?

[Anonymous No.15819444]

>>15819425
>Yes, but Jesus was also the son of God.
We're all sons of god :^)
Still, at the bottom of the matter is the simple fact that christianity is just false. It's not any more complicated than that. The resurrection was a fabricated event just like hebrew slavery in egypt.