>2017
>adhering to a religion started by a Jew
>believing that said Jew came out of a virgin Jewess
>peeling penises of infants for no reason
>continuing to believe in a religion that was enforced on your ancestors by sword and fire
Greek/Roman/Nordic/Baltic/Slavic Paganism, Atheism, Buddhism, are all better choices.
Go be Christcucks somewhere else
Lincoln Miller
Oliver Ross
It's clear what you're against, but what are you promoting?
Mason White
Your faith in the old gods are weak poo.
Joshua Howard
It's sad that people got memed into believing that Christianity has anything to do with white identity.
Noah Collins
If Christianity is "the enemy of Jewry", then Jews don't need any friends. "Based Christian" Charlemagne, the father of Europe according to Christians, for killing pagan saxons, gave Jews their economical power
> Charlemagne (800–814) readily made use of the Church for the purpose of infusing coherence into the loosely joined parts of his extensive empire, by any means a blind tool of the canonical law. He employed Jews for diplomatic purposes, sending, for instance, a Jew as interpreter and guide with his embassy to Harun al-Rashid. Yet, even then, a gradual change occurred in the lives of the Jews. The Church forbade Christians to be usurers, so the Jews secured the remunerative monopoly of money-lending. This decree caused a mixed reaction of people in general in the Frankish empire (including Germany) to the Jews: Jewish people were sought everywhere, as well as avoided. This ambivalence about Jews occurred because their capital was indispensable, while their business was viewed as disreputable. This curious combination of circumstances increased Jewish influence and Jews went about the country freely, settling also in the eastern portions. Aside from Cologne, the earliest communities were established in Mainz, Worms, Speyer, and Regensburg.[15]
en.wikipedia.org
Their christian "punishment" against the "evil jews" was to receive a lucrative financial monopoly of "sinful high financing that no christians shall ever benefit from" and to move to the next country to fleece when the peasants got too riled up.
Austin Morgan
> Around 400, St Augustine, one of the most influential and foundational figures of Catholic theology, preached that the Jews must be protected for their ability to explain the Old Testament.
> Jews must be protected for their ability
> Pope Gregory the Great (c 540–604) brought Augustine's teachings into Roman Law, by writing a Papal Bull which became the foundation of Catholic doctrine in relation to the Jews and specified that, although the Jews had not accepted salvation through Christ, and were therefore condemned by God until such time as they accept salvation, Christians were nevertheless duty-bound to protect the Jews as an important part of Christian civilization.[6
> While a "persecuting spirit" often existed among the general population through the Middle Ages, Jewish communities often had to turn to the Holy See for protection.[7] Papal Bulls reiterating the duty of protection were issued by various Popes,
en.wikipedia.org
Christians protecting Jews is not a "corruption of Christianity", all the way back to St Augustine Jews were seen as part of Christianity. That is why Jews never had to leave Europe even when they were constantly expelled numerous times from every kingdom by angry farmers. Papal edicts helped them move to the next kingdom and eventually get back to the first one.
> but muh synagogue of Satan
The only result of Christian "enemty" against Jews was giving them an absolute monopoly over high finances, and protecting them from angry farmers.
And how can it be otherwise? If Jews are the enemies of Christianity, the synagogue of Satan, then it is the duty of Christians to love them and protect them, "love your enemies and provide them with help" was clearly said by both Jesus and Paul, and the early christians like Saint Augustine openly agreed
Aaron Turner
> but... but it can't be!! Turning the other cheek does not mean pacifism. If you let someone else slap your face with the back of his hand, that means that you have declared yourself in open rebellion!!
that is bullshit. that shit was made up by radical black-nationalist liberal theologist Walter Wink to justify social rebellion in South Africa.
There are NO sources to it outside his books, nothing of what Josephus wrote about life in the ancient Middle East mentions anything close to offering the cheek or giving to your enemies your coat being an insult to them.
In the Greek-Roman world, love meant "common feeling of mutual interest born out of shared experiences"
Early Christians expanded it to a commandment of loving people that we don't know, that we don't care about, just so that we can fill ourselves with misguided pride about how we are friends of mankind itself
Agape never has conveyed any sort of violent or agressive implication, as some Sup Forumslacks imply
Among christian writers it has always meant means "a selfless love that is passionately committed to the well-being of others", no implication of tough love whatsoever
see: en.wikipedia.org
Christian semantics are enough of a mess as they are, and then Sup Forums christians wanna add an extra layer of absurdity and mental masturbation: That is where the schizophrenia of right-wing christians kicks in
Only a christian could claim something as absurd as love for his enemies
Isaiah Harris
Only a right-wing christian could take that absurdity to the next level by killing his enemies while declaring his love for them. So here they want us to believe that the Crusaders loved every single damn person that they slaughtered in Constantinople
Because, according to Sup Forums christians, Love is not about shared interest, it is about telling to yourself "how I love that guy" right before cutting his head off (mental masturbation, really)
dude, if you wanna hate your enemies, just do that, and stop mentally masturbating about how better and so much more heaven-deserving you are than your enemies because you somehow declared that you loved him while killing him
voanews.com
> Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians, is urging Europe to stop trying to divide what he calls economic migrants from asylum seekers.
> Bartholomew is scheduled to visit the Greek island of Lesbos on Saturday along with Pope Francis, and Athens Archbishop Ieronymos, the head of the Church of Greece, to raise awareness about the troubled state of refugees and migrants in Europe.
> The symbolic visit is intended to reiterate the Christian moral duty to show hospitality to strangers, Bartholomew said in an interview published Friday. He added that countries in Europe should find inspiration in the generosity shown by Lesbos residents.
> Illegal immigrants make 10 % of the population of Greece
daily reminder that the orthodox patriarchs are exactly the same shit of other christians, and they have repeatly condemned right wing movements like Golden Dawn
But why would it be otherwise?
Christianity rejects all wordly concerns altogether, and right wing concerns ARE wordly concerns
Ian Sullivan
Christian Morality attacks the foundations of the monarchy and capitalism, thus its spirituality is left-wing
Jesus saying that for the rich, powerful, strong (i.e. a monarch) it is almost impossible to go to Heaven, while the poor will inherit the Earth, you have a recipe for spiritual marxism that will become the real deal as soon as the Church losses its ability to prevent people from reading the Gospel directly
Under Christianity, a hobo is holier than the king, a beggar is holier than an entrepreneur, that contradiction can't last, and it didn't last
It is not an accident Europeans were the first people to violently remove their monarchs to replace them with utopian ideologies
it is not an accident either that every christian church outright rejects whatever version of "true Christianity" you may claim to be the truth.
The people devoted to the cult, working for it 24 / 7, spending their entire lives on it think that your interpretation makes no sense
They think that when Jesus and Paul said something they actually meant it, the people joining religious missions because the Gospel inspired them, the people that go to Africa and adopt babies, the people that actually wanna follow the lives of the early Christians like John Chrysostom (which you constantly claim is a "true Christian" because he didn't like jews, while ignoring everything else he ever said) and live a life of self-denial and poverty to feed others, people like Mother Teresa that lived surrounded by filth and excrement in India...
But you don't. You wanna pretend to be a christian while living a life of a roman
Jesus himself said that if you wanna be like a roman and love your friends and hate your enemies, then pretend to follow him, you are a hypocrite
What kind of argument can you even make to actual devoted christians that go on missions to Congo and India and even DIE for it, to tell them that their version of Christianity is corrupted and damaged by jews?
Chase Wood
Right Wing politics are concerned with the long-term survival of Civilization
But Christianity is only concerned with personal salvation to become part of a nebulous afterlife for which no evidence exists, and for which this world needs to be sacrificed, which is best expressed in the way early christians like Martin of Tours refused to fight enemies of their nations, insofar killing in this world could cost them heaven; this is also why more modern christians like Martin Luther said (I quote):
- "it is the duty of a Christian to suffer injustice, not to seize the sword and take to violence" - Martin Luther
When Jesus says "if they take your coat, let them have your shirt as well", "do not resist evil", "I have come to turn a man against his own household", "if you don't hate your self and your own family you can't follow me", "love your enemies, pray for your persecutors", "the meek will inherit the Earth", "those that wanna die will live", "blessed are those the persecuted, for they will be my Kingdom", "do not save treasures for tomorrow", "carry your cross so that you can receive eternal reward", "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you'll have treasure in heaven", "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for the rich to enter Heaven", "Woe to you who are well fed, Woe to you who laugh, for you will mourn and weep"...
... he isn't kidding, or meaning the opposite, but setting down a morality where the world is a lie and only the afterlife is the real deal, so destroying your life in this world, "carrying your cross" as he says, is completely logical
While christian churches seem to be very well of this (including orthodox leader Patriarch Bartholomew), Sup Forums "christians" seem to believe Jesus actually meant the OPPOSITE of all that, and that Jesus wants you to defend your family, that Jesus wants you to kill your enemies, to become prosperous, well-fed and rich in this world, and to avoid persecution and death!
Jace Johnson
Only a person that does not actually believe in the Heaven for the persecuted, the meek, and the martyred would actually re-interpret Christianity as a cult of earthly power which declares "the strong shall inherit the Earth", "my kingdom is of this world" and "you must destroy the enemies of your nation"
Only some one that just wanna use Christianity as an empty shell devoid of any true religious promises would claim that Paul and Peter misinterpreted Jesus when they submitted to their enemies and died to them while praying for them, instead of fighting the romans back and establishing a crusader kingdom, thing that one would expect them to do if Jesus meant "be a fighter and impose your will on your enemies" when he said "love your enemies and lend all they need to them without expecting anything in return"
But using Christianity as a shell devoid of any religious promises simply allows its poisonous morality to survive into the next generation.
You can tell your children that Jesus wanted them to be earthly warriors because "I didn't come to bring peace", but you can't stop them from reading the rest of the paragraph and realizing what Jesus wanted is for them to put christian morality above the good-being of their own families.
Caleb Nelson
You can tell your children that Jesus wanted them to be earthly warriors because "Buy a sword", but you can't stop them from reading the next chapter and realizing that Jesus stopped Peter from using the sword to fight and defeat the romans, and reprimanded him for misunderstanding, all while asking him to carry his own cross (Peter, fully realizing that Jesus meant all the stuff about embracing death and his kingdom was not of this world, that angelic chariots were not going to slay his enemies and bring him victory, realized he was doomed, and would then deny Jesus 3 times)
You can tell your children that Jesus wanted them to be earthly warriors because ""Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces", but you can't stop them from reading the rest of the paragraph and realizing that Jesus was asking them, not to destroy their enemies, but to not put in risk their own moral position by criticizing others. You may want them to believe that Jesus, in the middle of a speech about not judging other people and sharing, suddenly decided that speak against the muslims that didn't even exist back then!
That is not going to fly.
Sooner or later, your "strict catholic crusader" state will be reformed into liberalism, because the Gospel will still exist, because your children, like Peter, will realize that Jesus meant it when he said "you are to be persecuted and martyred for me", that Jesus didn't say "you will live in a stable and powerful civilization, free of oppresion and death, thanks to me".
Samuel Scott
>Here take this medicine, it will save your life!
>Was it made by a Jew?
>Yes
>*dies in agony*
You, my man, are a genius. Go forth and save the western world!
Cooper Cooper
If there is no truth, is that the truth?
If everything is a lie, is that a lie?
Matthew Hernandez
Literally all the followers of Jesus, and Jesus himself were kikes. Christianity didn't even have gentiles among its ranks until Saul (Paul) decided to spread it among gentiles 30 years later.
Among his followers there were many zealots, the most radical jews of them all, that wanted wars against Rome
Indeed, why would the pharisees be discussing mosaic law with a non-jew?
Never mind, what exactly did he denounce the pharisees for that makes him not a kike? Have you actually read the Gospel? Can you point to a single point Jesus made that would not be denounced as SJW, marxist and jewish by Sup Forums if it wasn't Jesus saying it?
There he denounces the pharisees for wanting to punish a slut!
There he denounces the rich pharisees and promises the earth to the meek and the poor!
There he denounces the pharisees for wanting to live, instead of embracing death like him!
There he denounces them over a disagreement on how Mosaic Law is applied!
You blindly may say "he disagreed with the kikes" as if that was something we needed to applaud!
The doctrine of the Jews worked well. Thousands of ethnic groups have disappeared yet Jews remain around.
Jesus' attacks against Judaism are the same of Chomsky attacks against Zionism: jews that hate other jews, but following their ideas would allow Jews to control us.
I have to ask you "christians" of Sup Forums, what are these supposed teachings of Jesus that supposedly got corrupted by kikes? "Hate your enemies"? "Save treasures for tomorrow"? "DO resist evil"?
The opposite of everything Jesus said?
I mean really, is "but kikes killed Jesus" your only argument?
Muslims are hated by Jews as well, but Jews are smart enough to use them as a tool. The same way they use the insane anti-morality of Christianity to corrupt the ancient world and give themselves a privileged financial spot!
But if Jews don't like the own poison they created, that means that we shall drink it, according to you!
wtf I guess I love ISIS now!
Thomas Cox
If not even jews trusted that "medicine", why would you take it?
Thomas Edwards
>2017
>polytheistic
>worshipping cow and females
lmao curryniggers out here worshipping females lmao no wonder you shit in the street.
Henry Young
Paul was anti-natalist, as things like wife and family would get in the way of getting people to worship his jewish god.
If unmarried men followed the words of Paul, there would no be any civilization to begin with, people would stop marrying as it would interfere witgh their mental masturbation being a "good person" by telling others that they will go to hell
See:
> 8 Now to the unmarried men and women, and for the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
> Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.
> 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
t. Paul the Pharisee
Paul makes it EXTREMELY CLEAR that the main concern for every christian is the spread of this virus-like cult at the expense of their own tribe, and his main worry is that Christians may not devote 100 % of their time to the spread of the cult
the organic self-sustaining self-interested self-preserving society that Sup Forums wants is fundamentally incompatible with the "do not save for tomorrow, leave your family and spread my cult" dogma that both Jesus and Paul saw as the main duty of a christian
Jesus made it even clearer:
> "if you don't hate your self and your own family you can't become my follower"- Jesus
That monks welcomed a celibate life is not some sort of ahistorical accident that has nothing to do with Paul
Bentley Jackson
If his Kingdom is of this World, as Sup Forums Christians claim... if Christianity is a religion of earthly power, why didn't it save the Western Roman Empire then? Why did Saint Augustine wrote that it was not a christian concern the existence or not of wordly kingdoms?
Why were Christians unable to save even their fucking holy land from the Muslims, if they are the religion of earthly power that you believe they are?
Why is the North Africa now muslim, if it was once christian and roman?
That they didn't manage to screw things completely over was an accident of history, not for lack of trying
and most importantly of all questions, why has Christianity become an enabler of the muslim invasion of Europe, if it is such religion of earthly power and "the strong will inherit the Earth" as you seem to believe?
why are all the christian mainstream churches pro-refugee, if christian doctrine says "hate your enemy, and do not lend to them all they want" instead of the opposite as you claim?
The strange thing is that "christians" like you are a minority within Christianity itself that they claim to represent, with everyone from the Pope to the Anglican Churches to the Protestant Churches actively cucking for the destruction of the West
The Pope literally points to the same verses that I do to justify his doctrine, yet you come here to tell me that he is wrong, and I am wrong, and even damn Jesus and paul were wrong tho, because some medieval crusader decided to recreate christianity as a earthly cult of power in order to sack Constantinople!
Jason Johnson
> "If only we had more Chrsitianity in these times of equality and brotherhood, sacrificing your own material wealth to help the poor and to forgive your transgressors." - Sup Forums christians
The West is not dying because people don't go to church, or because gays fuck their butts (heck, even muslims fuck each other all and goats the time, and they are the civilizations expanding the most right now, while the west collapses)
The West is not dying because gommunists xD
The West is dying because of pathological altruism derivate, and i quote Paul himself in his interpretation (insofar whenever Jesus said this you always say "Jesus means the opposite"):
> 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
> 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
> if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
> In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e] 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Your Old Testament morality has nothing to do with the Jesus and Paul that you claim to follow, and no church father ever pretended otherwise
You are a larper that does not give a fuck about what Paul actually said, and needs to pretend that Mosaic Law applies to him
Yet I am quite sure you work in Saturday and eat pork, lol
If you wanna be a jew, and then go on and convert to Judaism, and stop pretending that Christian Churches want anything to do with you
Kevin Howard
* derivative from "love your enemies"
James Butler
b2
Angel Jackson
b
Cameron Stewart
...
Anthony Davis
Go be a fedorafaggot somewhere else, this is a Christian board.