Same people think that the first wave feminist the, Oldschool feminists, actually cared about women, and that the current feminists care about only for power, contrarily to Oldschool feminists. My answer: That's not true. When you deny the immobile immutable hard pillars of absolute Moral Law and the Absolute Truths of the bible, then, you enter in moral relativism, meaning that you enter in quicksands, meaning that you may start with a somewhat modest relativism, but you'll end up going deeper and deeper in the quicksand, going deeper and deeper in moral relativism, and thus you end up with the crazy ideologies we have now, where "men and women are social constructs". It's true for absolutely everything. If you don't conform yourself to the absolute immutable established pillar Moral Law and Absolute Truth by God, the ORDER of the universe, LOGOS, then you'll enter in those quicksands of relativism, trying to be your own God, and you'll sink deeper and deeper into CHAOS, ANTI-LOGOS. It's like everything really, if you deny that sexual intercourse should exclusively be done inside of the marriage and open to procreation like in good Catholic fashion, then, you'll enter in sexual relativism, beginning with sex for "recreation" with your wife, then followed with contraception with your wife, then with the sexual liberation, then with homosexual acceptance (logical consequence of the contraception for heterosexuals, since you use contraception to deny the purpose of sex which is procreation, and that you use it to have sex in a sterile (and transient way with the advent of sexual liberation and heterosexual hookup culture), then, homosexual acceptance is the only logical consequence of that, because homosexuality is just that, sterile and transient "sex" with sodomy, which can't create children, just like heterosexual sex with a preservative or the pill), then with gay marriage (logical consequence, when you have heterosexual sex inside of marriage in a sterile way…) and you sink deeper and deeper and deeper and you'll end-up with a situation of absolute moral relativism, where NOTHING is true, ALL is relative.
So no, oldschool feminists did not care about women, but about power, wanting to create their own rules, to be their own God. If they cared for women, they would encourage them to submit to the Absolute Catholic Moral Law and tell them to NEVER tempt to rebel against this Absolute Moral Law and Order (LOGOS), even though we have a natural tendency to want to rebel against the Logos of the universe, the Absolute Order of the universe, because of our fallen nature because of the original sin of Adam & Eve (and not Adam & Steve as could claim moral relativists).
PS: A little 8 min video that you could watch to go a little deeper, on why homosexuality is so important for the Jews. Dr. E.Michael Jones is partially responsible for bringing me back to the Catholic Church.
In the premise I made before about sexual relativism, I could have placed the sin of masturbation somewhere in the first steps, because it's as much as a deceit of the natural purpose of sex as contraceptive sex or worst, sodomy. That's why masturbation is anti-logos/anti-nature. So if you were to promote masturbation, in the name of some twisted principle, then you will promote this anti-natural sterile (and transient, some people masturbate daily, or even several times per day) behavior, and you'll force people to enter in the quicksands of moral (sexual) relativism and they'll go down, be enslaved by themselves and they'll sink so low that they'll end-up straight to hell on earth. Sometimes, this need several generations to pass from a moral society based on Logos, to what we have now, it's gradual, it's the "boiled frog" experiment. That's exactly why masturbation is promoted by the Jews, it's a mean to corrupt us and enslave us. Wilhem Reich was a freudian communist jew and he promoted sexual liberation, which began with the acceptance of masturbation. The "sex education" courses of today that are taught in school to young children/teenagers is a direct legacy of this Freudian communist jew corrupter.
Julian Bennett
Pick one. Catholic moral law says some gay child rapist in a funny hat is more important than Jesus and the bible. Catholicism is garbage.
Jaxon Roberts
Except that isn't Catholic. Catholics decreed that priests could not marry in 325 and denied their married priests access to their own wife's vagina in 385. Catholics have been anti-marriage since the beginning, because of course, they have always been judaizers from the beginning.
Hudson Flores
Anti-marriage? Because they don't let priests marry, which are an extreme minority? The reason they did it, it's because like that, the Clergy wouldn't recruit from itself, their own children and their own families, thus putting at risk of a higher conflict of interest of the Clergy, and also higher risks of moral corruption and stealth of Church Propriety for their own family. So since the clergy can't reproduce, it means that they always have to take new volunteers from the population, and it's a better solution. Of course, you take a vow to the Church not to marry or have sexual relations, and so it's a very serious sense of sacrifice you commit because you want to live closer to Jesus. But those people are an extreme minority in terms of demographics, and the Catholic Church is absolutely pro-marriage, pro-procreation and pro-furtility in stable families, for the rest of the 99,99% of the population. Even Hitler saw this as a good thing, he wrote it in Mein Kampf. (French version quote here)
And where does the bible say there should be a class of weird celibate people ruling over everyone else? Oh wait, it doesn't say that. That's a crock of shit. Bishops routinely exploited their position for the benefit of their brothers, nephews and illegitimate children. How is that closer to Jesus? Jesus didn't say anyone should do anything of the sort.
Thomas Fisher
Jesus isn't Mohammed. The bible isn't a political doctrine like the Coran. The bible lies the moral foundation, the rest is to be figured out by people with their free will and rationality.
What you are telling me is that people sin. Of course they sin. But they are a lot more likely to sin in favor of a wife or of their children. Today, a lot of priests sin and are from Satan,the Jesuit Order, once a very good christian force, is now a subversive force inside the Church, having 30% of homosexuals in that order and 70% forced to follow along. How is that possible? It's a complicated and long story. But the point I try to make here is that we all sin, we all have a natural tendency toward irrationality and toward sin, but it's exactly why the Moral Law is here, it's to give an objective Moral point of reference, so that they can rule their irrational passions toward sin with their rationality, which is free will. Humans can do this, humans can chose between the good and the bad, they can use their free will to control passions toward sin with the use of reason, which will tell you that you have to submit to the Moral Law fully if you want to be free from sin, or you can use free will to succumb to temptation, and consume the appetite for sin. It has to be a free choice, between the good and the bad, because if it's isn't a free choice, then you are not accountable for your actions, just like with children or animals who don't have the capacity for rationality, and thus are slaves to their passions without any chance of freedom by rationality.
Full retard has a containment board. >>>Zig Forums
Anthony Green
this is liable for excommunication, based cathocucks amirite
Austin Parker
>>>/oven/
Nolan Anderson
None of that answers the question at all Shlomo. Having a ruling class of celibate freaks is a question of morals. And the bible says its bad, but you and your kikey church say it is good. Why should I believe your child rapist friend over the bible? But I guess Jesus wouldn't know anything about that so we should ignore everything he said and do whatever some kike in a gay hat says right? By setting up a system that attracts faggots and child rapists. "Lets give power to people and tell them they can't have access to a vagina. I'm sure this will not attract people who aren't interested in vaginas!" WTF does this rambling horseshit have to do with anything you disingenuous heeb?
Down at the parish level they acknowledge the infallibility of the gay child rapist in chief. You can not have a pope and follow the teachings of the bible, they are mutually exclusive.
Luke Morris
Jesuits are the ones saving you from the fucking poz. Freemasons/Jews spread the disinformation.
Implying what? You can't just expect us to guess at the inner workings of your alien kike brain.
Brandon Flores
Christianity's ulterior motive was to give jewish monopolization over the idea of morality because saul of tarsus discovered that only whites care about what's moral, so the (((early christians))) sold whites something they already had, but in a corrupted jewish form. The bible does not have a moral law nor absolute truth, what it does have are jewish laws meant to control their fellow jews, repurposed for controlling whites. All christian belief stems from the circular reasoning trap that the bible is self-validating and thus it has the final say on "truth" and "morality." In reality, those beliefs come from (((biblical scholars))) and attempts to cement the subversive control of the bible on Europe.
The proof for this is simple. The torah, aka the old testament, which is included in the talmud, is used as a basis for the laws and rules in the talmud. Because of aforementiomed circular reasoning that christians rely on, they are programmed to interpret and read the bible with the intent of finding positive meaning - and ignore all context that goes against that. For instance, when they read a passage about why jews did something heinous, they rationalize it to perpetuate the belief that the bible jews are good.
All one has to do is have an objective mind and read the bible and see how disgusting the jews admit to being. You will often see christians visiting Zig Forums using the rationale; that they acknowledge how disgusting the bible jews were but that their god is a forgiving one - all while ignoring the obvious, how forgiving does a hypothetical omnipresent omnipowerful and omniscient being have to be to see it's wasting time on jews? They in essence demonstrate christian cuckoldry of having this pathological altruistic need to guide lesser forms of life by proxy. The new testament is the same, and jesus always comes off as a schizophrenic, which is fitting for jews. Similarly, the idea that the bible possesses any form of final say is inherently jewish and is consistent with how semites view their religious books.
Christians for the past few months have bastardized the ancient Greek concept of Logos because (((coincidentally))) the new testament was finalized in Greek because saul of tarsus was targeting the greek audience. Then someone read thomas aquinas and his cognitive dissonance of being a fan of the ancient greeks and the bible, and his headcanon determined to bridge the bible and the works of greeks. This is like when Zig Forums read stirner and for half a year went around forcing the spook meme.
So you have this Zig Forums-tier perfect storm of christians showing up on Zig Forums determined to use hundred years old headcanon and jewish translated word choice to interpret one instance of the new testament where it basically says, "In the beginning there was logos," while ignoring the hundreds of other instances where that word was used in casual passing. The christians are relying on compulsive interpretation and their ignorance of how language works to make their case. It only gets more pathetic when you dig deeper.
It's amazing how you can accept the jewish mindtrap of the guilt complex. Jews constantly rely on the idea that you owe them something and will find fault so you can feel guilty and bend toward their will.
The concept of original sin encapsulates this perfectly: Sound familiar? This is the prototype for white guilt and other forms of jewish manipulation. Then you go on to say that this is acceptable because it explains how people rebel, which shows how you internalized the condemnation that the jew god repeats even in the old testament. You are a quintessential christian npc and couldn't possibly represent it better.
Carson Garcia
completely wrong, a big part of the deluded christcucks believe that Aryans are the real kikes of the bible, therefore every bad thing they do was to "save the white race"
pretty dumb imo
Owen Morgan
It is, and the pope ought to excommuniite them. It had already happenend to them once in the past with another pope, and it has to happen once more. The problem is that the current pope is not good at his job, to say the least, and also because the Second Vatican Council stopped it's doctrine of "Sicut Judaeis Non" toward the Jews that was applied for 1500 years, and started a new theology, of the double covenant theology and the idea of Jew-Catholic """discussions""". It obviously has had tremendous consequences, the Jews already were a subversive force to be reckoned with, but now, with this Vatican II council, the Jews became truly emancipated and we all see the result now. And if Neo-Nazism rule were to raise today, instead of the Catholic Church, which has a non-violent peaceful solution to the Jewish Question, then the Church would have to be partly responsible to emancipate the Jews, which are known to have attacked and subverted the Moral Law, and the Church for 2000 years. The Church is the only instituion can protect the Jews from themselves, they are destroying their very salvation. If the Absolute immutable Moral Law is not followed anymore because of the destruction of the christian faith by the Jews, then people won't follow the "Thou Shall not kill" commandement and they will unleash and succumb to their violent passions toward the Jews and Hitler will look like a walk to the park compared what will happen in this scenario. If there isn't an objective morality, which tells you what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong, then, the world is just brute force, it's just pure Darwinism, the survival of the strongest, and the Jews will suffer tremendously in this scenario, and so will the goyim afterhand too, because after exterminating the Jews, people will start to exterminate each other, since it has become all power and no absolute Morality anymore. I pray for a peaceful christian solution to this. This is the kind of argumentation used by E.Michael Jones, in this video concerning the Synagogue Shooting. youtube.com/watch?v=eeFnlWgTwhE&bpctr=1550070846
So Jesus Christ, son of God, was a "incel freak" according to you ?
If it was the explanation, then the clergy wouldn't have lasted for close to 2000 years. There is another explanation, and it's pretty much outside corrupting influences.
Luke Brooks
I meant your blaspheming against the jesuit pope was liable for excommunication
Austin Allen
The "old testament" is the tanakh. The torah is only the first 5 chapters. No such reasoning is necessary, nor are "biblical scholars". You can simply read the bible. Duh? The bible is literally the story of how jews rejected the Lord in favor of the deceiver. The Lord is not wasting time on jews. Jews rejected their Savior:
And whoever did not accept you°, nor heard your° words, while you° are going forth from that house or that city, shake-off° the dust from your° feet. 10:15 Assuredly I am saying to you°, It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Catholics, not Christians.
Why are you putting quotes around something that isn't a quote? That's very hebrew of you. Why? You can't just make some random assertion with no evidence or even reasoning behind it.
Brody Scott
If the clergy managed to survive this long with this celibacy rule, that means that your initial assertion was wrong, because you can't survive with such corrupt people for a such a long time. That means that it did not attract the kind of people it said it attracts.
So it would be blasphemy to hold this order accountable for their misdeads and their sins, especially since they are supposed to be purest morally as they can ? And as I said, the other pope excommunicated them because of their subversion, so maybe this pope should excommunicate himself too.
Austin Lee
i actually would love a bible with trigger warnings for anti-semetism. it would make the passages easy to find.
like the one where jesus literally tells the jews that the devil is their father and their language is lies.
Easton Flores
No it doesn't. "If faggots were bad then faggots wouldn't exist" is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard. So, the church is overrun with child raping faggots and has been for hundreds of years, but that's not true because faggots can't priest?
Jaxson Evans
Gospel of Saint John. You are welcome.
Henry Bailey
Objective morality/the truth/natural law is independent of religion. All religion is evil. Money, government, the catholic church is by nature evil. I'm not saying belief is evil, but religion and culture actively limit the God given rights of people.
Gabriel Campbell
What I mean is that the Clergy is one of the highest authority (if not the most) that the general population comes to see and interact with on a regular basis. If the fact that they have to be celibate attracts all kind of degenerate and corrupting people who are homosexuals and pedophiles, then never Christianity would have survived 2000 years, because the Clergy is that institution that is in direct and regular contact with 99.99% of the population and the institution that serves as the intermediary between the whole population and the higher positions of theology of the Church. So it would be highly unlikely that your proposition to be true. Just look at our society now…It's even less than 100 years of immoral degeneracy and do you see how bad we are? Do you think we can survive another 2000 years in those conditions ? Of course not. Well, that's the same thing with the Clergy, if it attracted the degenerates sinners you claim it attracted, then, it wouldn't have survived that long, and thus the Church would have been permanently dead a very long time ago. Today, the Church is in a very serious crisis, we survived several crisis for 2000 years, and we are still here to perpetuate the word of God, but this is probably one of the worst crisis we have ever known. We have to have faith in God and lead the KultureKampf.
Jason Peterson
God gave us the Moral Law. In a way, it's already in our bodies, we were created with some sense of Order, meaning that we can study this world and find some structure and some laws to it, like some philosophers did, like Aristotle. This is your "rights of people", it's the rights given from God. If you want to rebel against that, then you'll try to become your own God, and you'll end up with concept like "fundamental rights","Human Rights" and so on and so forth, where those people think that their notion of what is good and what is bad is the truth, that their morality of man is superior than the morality of the Moral Law of God…And so you end up with the "enlightenment", and we suffer the consequences of it tremendously, up to this day.
Easton Jackson
Thanks for moving the debate further, I frankly don't "get" the hierarchy in most organized religions. It should be agreed upon that We need a highly detailed set of moral standards… That's about as far as I go with religion. Think about it… UK zookeepers BTFO because a lion killed it's potential mate this week. Lions are animals. Kill or be killed without a moral code.
Any mental gymnastics should go toward finding a way to make religion compatible with National Socialism.
Not ways to keep the clergy from fucking kids or nepotism in hiring. Hang them. Word will get around. I see no reason a leader can't be married/unmarried. I see no reason to dump money into religion to "build it out". It's an ethics system, not a factory where an actual product is manufactured.
A much more necessary discussion is how to incorporate NS into our political system. Wew! I think it's technically possible. We build a core of intelligent, influential people… unity among the volk; religious D&C should fade into the background.
What need now are people who believe in a better world. A better version of themselves. Dedicated, honest, hard workers. Not more anti/pro Drumpf threads, Christcucks vs. LARPagans, inter-denominational shill threads, etc. Meaningless diversions.
Wyatt Gray
The Logos is Chaos. Real Chaos isn't some gay uncontrollable nonsense. Chaos is natural law. Natural law is chaos. The Logos is simly the one thing that made all. Jesus. Logos. Ogdoad. Order-is-Chaos. Triple 888. It's all the same thing, really.
Jacob Perry
< you are born with it < your ancestors possessed it < you are paying for your ancestors' guilt
It's one half of the Marxist formula. The other half is the promise of impossible, Utopian equality which is realized by tricking the lessers into destroys their betters. Think about how this applies to:
- Christianity, the spiritual Marxism (the meek shall inherit the earth) - Communism, the economic Marxism (the proletariat will inherit a workers' paradise) - Civil Rights, the cultural Marxism (there will be social justice and all the races will live in harmony)
There's also ecological Marxism in the church of climate change. The original sin there is that you want to be warm, and the Utopia is the sustainable earth. Of course, there is value in building clean, renewable sources of energy, but the global warming scam is primarily being used as a scheme for wealth transfer of whites to browns.
Brandon Walker
Don't mind me
Anthony Lee
What kind of Moral Law, faggot? That if I don't suck of Jesus' dick on Sunday, I'll go to Hell? I don't have a problem with sex and I WANT to kill my enemies, not love them. Catholic = universalism. Our bane. Fuck off.
Couldn't care less about your stupid excuses. Priests can preach all shit all day yet they don't lead by being examples; instead of being sources of inspiration, they keep telling you to do things they don't practice themselves, these hypocrites; that you should make toddlers but they, these priests, can't because xyz reasons. Fuckers. A real white religion would start with priests doing their part in guaranteeing the survival of the kin.
Jason Davis
ftfy
Josiah Garcia
You forgot the one about spreading our wealth to the entire world so the meek and weak airbellies in Africa would live too.
Xavier Gomez
Yeah, that's Christian Identity for you. Hopeless. Mr. Klassen blasted that shite to smithereens a long time ago. I suppose it was an Aryan son who arse-fucked his drunken Noah dad too, rite?
Landon Garcia
But it has. How many years is it supposed to survive? If your claim that it doesn't attract faggot child rapists is true, then why is the church full of faggot child rapists? If "people would find out" is true, then why was it successfully covered up for over a century just that we know of for certain? No you are not. The catholic church doesn't give two shits about God, they openly reject Christ in favor of the pope.
The entire history of the catholic church has been one of ignoring the bible, contradicting jesus, and abusing the authority they shouldn't have in the first place to acquire tremendous wealth and power.
Luke Rivera
Christianity is misinterpreted horrendously and perverted by jews, faggots, and evil men seeking to entice the submissive and the degenerate in an effort to benefit financially from their filthy subversion.
An example would be someone responding to a Christian who calls out faggotry as degenerate, sinful, and wicked and saying that the Christian should not judge because Jesus said "Judge not that ye be not judged", but this is a jewish trick used to silence, castrate, and make impotent the agent of God.
That verse, Matthew 7:1 KJV, is not instruction to not judge others. It is instruction to not be a fucking hypocrite. Therefore, should one call out the evilness of the sodomite or the wickedness of the feminist agenda and be reminded by some haughty liberalist cuckold of this abused article of scripture. It is necessary to finish the verse:
Jesus spake:
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the mote that is in thine own eye?" Matt 7:3KJV
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matt 7:5
Basically if persons are guilty of the sin for which they are condemning the other, they should say nothing until they correct themselves and repent so that they are not making themselves into disgusting hypocrites. Judgement is condoned and stressed throughout the Bible. Evil and wickedness should be called out and condemned.
Myth 2: Hatred/sharp criticism is bad.
"Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of the saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked." Psalm 97:10
There is more, but I'm working right now. Those on the board dismissing Christianity most likely were, like myself, forced to swallow a corrupted and soft perversion of the word at an early age. The best bet is to read the book for yourself, and stay away from corrupt churches. It's hard to find a good one.
Cooper Perry
muh Christians are bad goy
Robert Harris
Now that you mention it, how are you going to explain the relationship between the jewish fake-history book aka the tanakh and its equivalent, the old testament?
Except christians constantly rely on the headcanons of others to make sense of the jewish nonsense they take as "absolute truth." When you explain your take of the bible, it's compounded with headcanon. It's baffling that so many can perceive "absolute truth," as something that requires incessant explanation instead of something that possesses brevity.
Except it's not. It's a story about how their god continues to reward them, and how to cheat god. The recurring promise of the jew god is that he will fight their battles and punish their enemies. No matter how many times the jews disobeyed him he still rewarded them.
They also don't favor, "the deceiver." It's christian headcanon that the jews worship satan or the like because christians don't understand that satan is a placeholder for non-jewish deities so jews don't have to acknowledge them by using their name.
You quoted Matthew 10:15 like bot spam makes a non-sequiter. That chapter is about (((jesus))) sending his disciples exclusively to jewish homes to heal them. Care to explain how that fits in your headcanon? Keep in mind he makes mention to exclude gentiles aka non-jews: Matthew 10:5 and 10:6
This applies to all christians. No amount of, "Are you christian or are you catholic," like you played on the playground will change that fact.
Let it be shown these are the only points you chose to address while ignoring all else. You have forfeited your chance to dispute them. Everyone can plainly see what damning flaws with christianity you selectively ignore.
Moreso, OP is ignoring posts directly refuting his thread's thesis. OP didn't come here to discuss but to preach aka proselytize.
The story being described is a perfect example of schizo-jesus in action. He wins over followers (John 8:31) and then proceeds to call them children of satan (John 8:44) pissing them off. Before that he accuses them of wanting to kill him (John 8:37).
Feel free to ignore this and pretend your jewish worship isn't being exposed.
Christards love to quote their manual. Quickly forget that it contains equally stupid statements and suicidal advice so, like Jews, will pretend it does not exist or will say it needs to be contextualized and then, next morning, they don't remember talking about the Bible with you.
Quite the cuck. Reminds me of hearing rabbis in a video saying that they accepted this god when all other people rejected it.
>You quoted Matthew 10:15 like bot spam makes a non-sequiter. That chapter is about (((jesus))) sending his disciples exclusively to jewish homes to heal them. Care to explain how that fits in your headcanon? Keep in mind he makes mention to exclude gentiles aka non-jews: How and what about the crumbs and the dogs? :) Illustrates so well what Yeshua thought of goyim:
Matthew 15; The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Delightful.
Cameron King
Why do you retarded faggots insist on this kikery? Oh, because you are a kike. That would explain it. It isn't an equivalent, it is it. What do you need explained? And that means they are shitty. That does not mean the bible is shitty. Yes it is, read it. That's not the bible, that's the tanakh. The bible is the thing jews have successfully convinced people to call the new testament. That is the only bible. The old testament is not the bible, it is not part of the bible, it is only for jews, and has no relevance to Christians. I don't care what you think, I told you what the bible says. WTF are you babbling about? >That chapter is about (((jesus))) sending his disciples exclusively to jewish homes to heal them. No, it is about him sending them exclusively to jewish homes to tell them of the fulfillment of the prophecy, the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new covenant. This required all jews alive at that time to become Christian. Any who did not were rejected their Lord. All the jews that exist today are descendants of those jews who rejected the Lord and are damned for it. You have to tell me what you think my "headcanon" is if you want me to explain it to you retard.
Ethan Martinez
Oops, forgot to click this dumb faggots post so he gets his (You).
Levi Jackson
Huh?
They look very "damned" don't they? What about focusing on what's going on little Earth instead of that made up fagspace you call Paradise?
Logan Baker
Which part is confusing you? The old testament is a jewish book, for jews. It is about God's covenant with the jews. Jesus was the end of that covenant. It is no longer valid, it does not apply. Any Christian who points to the old testament is an idiot. The new testament is God's current covenant, with all of mankind this time. Why are you emotionally distressed to find out someone has read a book?
Logan Rivera
The tanakh and old testament contain all of the same books word for word with a few exceptions: the tanakh lacks Tobit, Judith, Esther (full version), Maccabees 1&2, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch. But it doesn't end there.
Those missing books are contained in the Septuagint, a greek version of the tankakh around the time the new testament was being written. What a coincidence. To think christians use the fact that the original new testament was written in greek to dishonestly insist it was actually greek to begin with. Does that make the old testament greek too?
Jews were and still are free to read both. The jews that compiled the old testament included them altogether for simplicity.
I almost feel bad for you that this is the best you can come up with. This is especially so, because you rely on headcanon. By your own standards, you are "shitty." Grow up kid, (((jesus))). Have some self-respect.
I have, and am evidently displaying more knowledge over it than you are.
The funniest part about this is you will have no explanation for how that is true since the jews started christianity, decided what's canon among their other jew books, and that also calls into question the integrity of the new testament since it was written by jews.
You can't have it both ways. Since the new testament was written by jews, how does that make it any more trustworthy than the rest of the bible?
The bible offers no concise explanation for what satan is. The inconsistent depiction matches perfectly with jewish naming conventions of who is allowed to be named and who isn't.
You quoted a verse as if it meant anything relevant, hence non-sequiter. Like a bot, you quoted without context and direct relevance.
Nice headcanon. Your inner-jew must be proud. This is what was said: Matthew 10:7 Matthew 10:8 > Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
In Matthew 10:1 he lends them those superpowers. They in 10:8, he orders them to go and give free service to other jews.
You keep relying on it and getting btfo. The above example is just the most recent one.
You shouldn't be so upset. Doesn't the thought that you unambiguously worship jews comfort you?
Saging since this thread served another non-purpose. More Zig Forums damage control for jew worship.
Ayden Jenkins
No they don't. Why are you inventing stupid shit to argue with? You still don't get to put things in my head Shlomo. Surely you can provide a quote then to support your claim. I don't have it either ways you retard. Jews are the people who rejected the new testament. Christians are the ones who accepted it. I don't give a shit about either, I am simply not a worthless braindead nigger like yourself so I can differentiate between two different books. I didn't suggest it does, why are all your responses based on shit you keep inventing and pretend I think? I quoted it to directly show exactly what I said is correct. The fact that you can't follow a simple conversation does not make a direct reply a non-sequitur. So it is "headcannon", but then you quote a deliberately wrong translation of the bible saying exactly what I said. You really are jewish aren't you? You keep saying I am relying on it, but can't provide a single example. Hmmm. Why do you think I worship anything? You have some pretty serious emotional problems constantly trying to fight people that you've imagined out of thin air.
Mason Wright
I think you've got the wrong person, Chaim.
Benjamin White
They were all jewesses as they are still and so there is no morality absolute or otherwise, there can be no morals for this vagabond tribe of hucksters, scammers, spies, poisoners and child fuckers.
Liam Taylor
...
Eli Powell
Every Zig Forums thread on Zig Forums features a christian making a lazy desperate claim like that.
You did yourself in your previous post. The inner-jew in you is alive and well.
You didn't dispute me listing the books in the tanakh and old testament, so that's one major example. You're getting desperate now to want to pointlessly argue over minor things.
Two things. 1. The original and early christians were ethnically jewish who actively sought out non-jewish (gentile) converts. This directly contradicts your first statement, and I remind you again that jews wrote the new testament - something you won't dispute but will ignore. 2. Saying you can differentiate between two different books is probably one of the most hilarious things I have read today, especially because you sound so proud of that. But the funniest part is this an admission of Cognitive Dissonance and deserves a Counter Signaling meme e.g: < Jews rejected the new testament even though they wrote it! < I can just ignore the old testament even though the new testament references it constantly! Comedy Gold.
Because you're a typical christian and it's easy to predict what you say, think, and what mistakes you will make. Satan's inconsistent depiction is relevant to the fact of what role or lack thereof he serves in the bible and how that affected christian headcanon. If I have to point this out, this shows how desperate you are and have become.
You quoted it without context and I gave two major examples to show that your headcanon interpretation had nothing to do with its meaning. Your headcanon requires an explanation, but the actual meaning is as easy as reading the short verses before it.
You can stop pretending the chapter supports your claim. You're desperately trying to insist without citing it that, "The kingdom of heaven has come near," supports your overtly out of bounds headcanon when it doesn't support their actions. (((Jesus)))' disciples still gave free services to jews.
The previous post, continuing to your desperate dispute over trying to prove your headcanon was correct. Your desperation is consistent. This is yet again another example of christians arguing in bad faith.
Your entire post history in this thread is an unambiguous testament to your devotion to the jewish mind virus called christianity. The fact that you are now pretending otherwise shows that you're willing to downplay your servitude to the jews to save face.
My oh my, what would (((jesus))) think? You're gonna sell him out like (((judas))) did because you're getting btfo hard? Protip: this is the price you pay for worshiping jews. If you want to talk about emotional problems, all one has to do is read the overtly buttblasted tone in your posts - par for the course of a jew worshiper.
Lucas Phillips
So, because you imagine some other people saying something you don't like, that must mean I believe it because reasons? Then surely you could quote me instead of jewishly spouting "headcanon" non-stop without ever giving a single example. What? How is that an example of "It's a story about how their god continues to reward them, and how to cheat god. The recurring promise of the jew god is that he will fight their battles and punish their enemies. No matter how many times the jews disobeyed him he still rewarded them." Jesus tittyfucking Christ you heebs really do have serious mental problems. So, I make simple objectively factual statements, you sperg out about imaginary "headcannon", and then when I ask you to be clear and specific instead of kiking around, I am trying to "pointlessly argue over minor things"? No it does not. I don't dispute it. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why would I dispute that? Again, every post you make is you responding to shit you make up and then crying about me not defending things I didn't say against responses that I don't disagree with. Yes. You know "jews" is not one person right? The people who are jews today, are the descendants of the jews who rejected Christ and the new testament. The jews who wrote the new testament converted to Christianity. I don't know how this is confusing to you, are you one of those nigger jews or something? How are you able to say something that obviously stupid and not notice? If you write a book saying "this other book is obsolete now do not follow the rules in it", that doesn't invalidate the new book because it referenced the old one. I'm not a Christian at all. Again, you are responding to weird delusional shit in your head. Only by ignoring what I say and pretending I said what you wanted me to. That's neat, but I said nothing about it you braindead nigger. Satan is never mentioned in the bible. Since you made it up, and won't tell anyone else what it is, yeah obviously it requires an explanation. Right, it saying exactly what I said it does is totally not supporting my claim. >(((Jesus)))' disciples still gave free services to jews. Uh huh? Seriously, how many voices are you hearing? That isn't a quote. You keep referring to your magic headcanon, but you can't provide a single example of me ever saying anything that would suggest anything of the sort. Did the JIDF get a new pilpul professor or something? You should ask for your shekels back. And yet you still can't quote anything to support anything you say. Either you really need to learn what IDs are, or you really need to take some lead medicine to cure your schizophrenia. That's nice of you to come and warn us all, but why would you think anyone here had any intention of worshiping jews with you? The constant projection is how everyone always spots you even before your nose has entered the room.
The Church still does not approve gender ideology, not approve equality (that's an enlightenment idea, equality is anti-Christian), slavery was supported by the Church and Scripture in the South of the USA. For corporal punishment and judicial torture, I don't know what you are alluding to.
Nicholas Long
Church is just vane that helplessly shivers in the winds of society and approves everything. Not guiding but been guided.
Nathaniel Jackson
The Myth of the Twentieth Century, by Alfred Rosenberg
Here is neither Jew nor Greek, here is neither slave nor free, here is neither man nor woman, wrote Paul to the Galatians — that last remnant of a great Celtic migration down the Danube valley and into Asia Minor. On the basis of this nihilism, which is a denial of everything organic, he then calls for a belief in Christ. This constituted a total rejection of all the culture creating values of Greece and Rome — although to be sure, Christianity took over a degenerate form of such values — and effected their disintegration.
The Vatican has again made itself known as the bitterest enemy of the improved breeding of the biologically valuable, and as the protector of the preservation and propagation of the inferior. Even to serious catholic eugenicists, Pope Pius declared — at the beginning of 1931 in his encyclical Concerning Christian Marriage — that it was not lawful to restrict men who were capable of entering into a marriage, but could only give life to inferior offspring; to in any way prevent propagation because of the inviolability of the body. The individual man has the right to use his own limbs. He must use them corresponding to their natural purpose. This was revealed by reason and by the catholic Christian moral doctrine, and the worldly authority never has the right to go beyond this. To set up unrestricted propagation of idiots, the children of syphilitics, alcoholics and the insane as a Christian moral doctrine is undoubtedly the height of a thinking that is hostile to nature and folk. This has today been declared to be impossible by us. In reality, it represents nothing other than the necessary outflow of that racially chaotic system that Syrian African Roman dogma has forged. Therefore, every European who would like to see his people physically and spiritually healthy, and who takes the stand that idiots and the incurably sick infect his nation, will have to permit himself to be represented, according to Roman teaching, as anticatholic, as an enemy of the Christian moral doctrine. And he will have to choose if he is the anti Christ, or if the Founder of Christianity can really have himself conceived — as a dogma — the unrestricted breeding of all kinds of inferior types. This is what His representative boldly demands. Therefore, whoever wishes for a healthy and spiritually strong Germany must passionately reject this encyclical. Such is the work of a pope who aims at the breeding of subhumanity. We thus reject Roman thought as antinatural and hostile to life.
The church has given every murdered missionary the stamp of a martyrdom and named him a saint. Even when Emmeram, represented by Christian tradition as a Jew, violated the daughter of the Bavarian duke and was therefore killed, the infallible church declared this disgraceful end as dying for the faith. Today Emmeram is a saint to whom prayers are uttered in pious Regensburg. But it is the duty of a coming German generation to mention with great respect only the names of those who in storm and wrack fought for the greatness and honour of the German people. We will honour them for what they are: martyrs of the folkish faith. Here, in this corner of our soul, lives the hope that the peoples of Europe will one day recognise the nature of the present frightful catastrophe. We hope that they will recognise the folkish Leader who is coming soon. We hope they will recognise what is most precious; the human blood of their nation. We hope they will become everywhere conscious that an application of the latter principle can be the only final solution. It is not found in heeding the call of any kind of Christianity or of liberal pacifism.
Wait, don't you realize that the Church has never been weaker now than it was before? Do you really think that it's the Church who rules this world this day ? You got to be kidding me. You know very well that it's the anti-christian activist who rule this world today. "Rebel against the Christian King and his Christ Laws, and you'll end up being ruled by Jews". This was written in the 100th anniveracy of the French Revolution, because it was exactly that, it was a Jewish Operation to overthrow Christianity and the Jews never had that much power than after this Revolution, and they gained much and much power every since. Lay the blame at the feet of the responsible here, you are being intellectually dishonest, you know very well that it's the Jews, the forces of Anti-Christ who rule this world today, and you really have to be ignorant to think that the Church is responsible for those wicked Morals that have been imposed on us by satanic forces. If french people did not rebel against their King, then maybe they will still live in a Christian country and with Christian Laws being applied in 2019.
Wait a minute. Do you approve locking daughters, wife-beating, slavery and torture of people who disagree with kings been divine? Do you think this is what Church should enforce if Jesus comes to an Earth second time and grants Pope miraculous power to slay all enemies of the Church?
Or you pick commies approach of doublethink when this things are good and bad at same time ( past present relativism)?
Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written:
“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing the praises of your name.”
Again, it says,
“Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people.”
And again,
“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles; let all the peoples extol him.”
And again, Isaiah says,
“The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope.”
Władysław I the Elbow-high, who ascended the Polish throne in 1320, endeavored to establish a uniform legal code throughout the land. With the general laws he assured the Jews safety and freedom and placed them on equality with the Christians. They dressed like the Christians, wearing garments similar to those of the nobility, and, like the latter, also wore gold chains and carried swords. The king likewise framed laws for the lending of money to Christians.
1500 Some of the Jews expelled from Spain, Portugal and many German cities move to Poland. By the mid sixteenth century, some eighty percent of the world’s Jews lives in Poland,[2] a figure that held steady for centuries.
1525 The first Jew is promoted to knighthood by king Sigismund I of Poland, without being forced to leave Judaism.
1547 The first Hebrew Jewish printing house is founded in Lublin.
1567 The first yeshiva is founded in Poland.
1606 Poland first described as "Paradisus Iudaeorum".
1632 King Władysław IV Vasa forbids Anti-Semitic books and printings.
"Paradise for the Jews" (Latin: Paradisus Judaeorum) is a phrase pertaining to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland.
The phrase derives from a 1606 satirical Latin epigram about the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth that has been described as "critical of everything in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—foreigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers [townspeople], and servants, and also Jews."[2] The epigram—"Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" (Latin original: "Clarum regnum Polonorum est [The illustrious kingdom of the Poles is] coelum nobiliorum, paradisus Judaeorum, purgatorium plebeiorum et infernus rusticorum")—satirizes the sociopolitical system of "Golden Liberty", or Nobles' Commonwealth: a system viewed in the epigram as favoring the nobility (szlachta), less so the townspeople (mieszczaństwo or burghers), and much less so the enserfed peasants.[3]
The Jewish dress resembled that of their Polish neighbor. "Reports of romances, of drinking together in taverns, and of intellectual conversations are quite abundant." Wealthy Jews had Polish noblemen at their table, and served meals on silver plates.[52]
During the time from the rule of Sigismund I the Old until the Nazi Holocaust, Poland would be at the center of Jewish religious life. Many agreed with Rabbi David ben Shemu’el ha-Levi (Taz) that Poland was a place where "most of the time the gentiles do no harm; on the contrary they do right by Israel" (Divre David; 1689).[55]
By the time World War II began, Poland had the largest concentration of Jews in Europe
According to the 1931 National Census there were 3,130,581 Polish Jews measured by the declaration of their religion. Estimating the population increase and the emigration from Poland between 1931 and 1939, there were probably 3,474,000 Jews in Poland as of 1 September 1939 (approximately 10% of the total population) primarily centered in large and smaller cities: 77% lived in cities and 23% in the villages. They made up about 50%, and in some cases even 70% of the population of smaller towns, especially in Eastern Poland.[84] Prior to World War II, the Jewish population of Łódź numbered about 233,000, roughly one-third of the city’s population.[85] The city of Lwów (now in Ukraine) had the third largest Jewish population in Poland, numbering 110,000 in 1939 (42%). Wilno (now in Lithuania) had a Jewish community of nearly 100,000, about 45% of the city's total.[86] In 1938, Kraków's Jewish population numbered over 60,000, or about 25% of the city's total population.[87] In 1939 there were 375,000 Jews in Warsaw or one third of the city's population. Only New York City had more Jewish residents than Warsaw.
Protestants think that the Bible ought to be treated as a political doctrine, which controls every facet of the life of a person. As if the Bible was the Koran…They might want to convert to Islam…Oh, England is doing just that…
Ayden King
This ( ) was meant for you ( )
Robert Clark
No thanks schlomo Back to >>>Zig Forums with your last brain cell
Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, translit. lógos; from λέγω, légō, lit. 'I say') is a term in Western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse",[1][2] but it became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3]
Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse; Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"[5] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ethos and pathos.[6] Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.
No, protestants think that the only thing that should be claimed as god's word is the bible, not 1000 years of church kikery. Protestantism was literally a movement to remove political power from the catholic church. and end their control over everyone's lives. Control that was never based on biblical scripture, but simple on what some (((pope))) said.
Carter Fisher
So the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus-Christ, the son of God, the Logos Incarnate, doesn't represent the word of God ? Worst, you claim that it is "Church Kikery" ?
Christian Robinson
First: Wikipédia… Secondly: The New Testament was written in Greek. Aristotle and Greek philosophy at the time were blocked, because they thought that "At the beginning, there was Chaos, and then after, there was order (logos) "…It brought a lot of philosophical problem that they couldn't fix, they didn't know why God would care about humans at all, it made no sense, and so they thought that human lives were all inherently tragic. But then, when writing the New Testament in Greek, Saint John borrowed the term "logos" and started with: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God". It was just a straight "upgrade" from the (excellent) Greek philosophy, and it resolved so many problems that Aristotle couldn't solve, like that there already was Order (Logos) at the beginning, that there was no chaos at all in the beginning, there was already order. And also the motions of God are started with his love, thus solving his other issue. Pretty much everyone converted soon there after.
Jesus did not found the catholic church. And the catholic church openly and plainly contradicts the word of Jesus as written in the bible.
Jackson Foster
Vatican 2 is Catholicism. The RCC's abandonment of its own traditions has proved that it was never what it claimed to be. Hell shall not prevail against the Church. Hell has prevailed against Rome. Therefore, Rome is not and never was the Church. There are people who call themselves Catholic who are in fact part of the Church, but that is independent of their membership in the RCC.
Aiden Gray
You should prove affirmatively that your statements are true instead of asking me to prove that your statements are false.
Translation: What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.
Variants: What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Jaxon Reyes
If you knew philosophy, you would knew that the Greek thought that "In the beginning, there was chaos." and that the New Testament states that "In the beginning, there was order (logos) "
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Latin: Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae; commonly called the Catechism or the CCC) is a catechism promulgated for the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II in 1992.[2][3] It sums up, in book form, the beliefs of the Catholic faithful.
Yes, the society that was the 16th century version of glow-in-the-darks, populated almost entirely by "New Christians" in it's formation, and producing such leading figures of social rot and decadence as pope frank the commie, sure is based, newfriend.
Daniel Myers
that is why we should worship a dead jewish rabbi as a god, right?
because christians copy-pasted a term (logos) invented by pagan greeks.
pro-tip: christian plagiarism is not christian invention.
Zeno of Citium (/ˈziːnoʊ/; Greek: Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεύς, Zēnōn ho Kitieus; c. 334 – c. 262 BC) was a Hellenistic thinker, of Phoenician descent, [3][4] from Citium (Κίτιον, Kition), Cyprus. Zeno was the founder of the Stoic school of philosophy, which he taught in Athens from about 300 BC. Based on the moral ideas of the Cynics, Stoicism laid great emphasis on goodness and peace of mind gained from living a life of Virtue in accordance with Nature. It proved very popular, and flourished as one of the major schools of philosophy from the Hellenistic period through to the Roman era.
Following the ideas of the Academics, Zeno divided philosophy into three parts: Logic (a very wide subject including rhetoric, grammar, and the theories of perception and thought); Physics (not just science, but the divine nature of the universe as well); and Ethics, the end goal of which was to achieve happiness through the right way of living according to Nature.
Read more carefully. It does not say "whoever claims to believe in him". Catholics believe in the pope. The pope contradicts Jesus. If Catholics truly believed in Jesus and his word, they would reject the pope. Also stop quoting kikey translations you dumb faggot.
Hunter Reyes
credit for the following text goes to the other poster(s) that wrote it:
Some are obviously JIDF. Some. The rest are mentally deranged semitic worshipers. Each of them have their own headcanon that revolves around denying objective incriminating flaws with christianity. There's no consistency with any of them. They get proven wrong and called out, then they show up in a new thread to recycle the same old points.
Here's some off the top of my head: Bonus: look up testimony on how it used to be customary to kiss the pope's feet if you visited, but never for the rothchilds ^This is not an exaggeration. A semite worshiper has said this on Zig Forums, with no irony or sarcasm. For that matter, everything I'm listing has been said multiple times across tons of pointless threads > [placeholder for pathetic attempt to excuse the (((holy roman empire))) in pagan genocides and burning of libraries] ^ The reference to babylon is explicitly a callback to when jews were kvetching about babylon in the old testament - jews saw rome as the new babylon > [placeholder for pathetic attempt to disprove that (((jesus))) literally and only hated the pharisees and thus christianity is originally just jew infighting and saul of tarsus saw it as an attempt to make a cult to control whites aka gentiles] Note: All placeholders represent major flaws that no semite worshiper has ever answered, because they can't. Note 2: I am very sure I missed many pointless semitic worship recycled delusions, but if you think this list is long, an exhaustive list would be way longer.
For good measure, because of a definitive lack of actual historical evidence, it's far more likely that saul of tarsus invented the jesus story. Every non-biblical historian mentioning jesus only mentions him because they were noting their observations of christians, who were observed as odd characters. There are two exceptions. One was a gentile historian that worked with the early christians. Archeologists have learned over time that all of his work is fraudulent. Most damning is that his source was a jewish historian. I reiterate: there is an actual and verifiable case that (((jesus))) is not just a fictional invention, but his story was invented precisely when saul of tarsus was sending letters, and this easily explains why some of saul's references to (later) new testament details do not match up.
Why would they? Christcucks never argue in good faith. If you read his post, you read every christian thread on Zig Forums.
Juan Turner
What does any of that retarded shit have to do with what I said?
Anthony Peterson
...
Thomas Reyes
Ignoring my response and repeating yourself is not a rebuttal. Saying you believe and believing is not the same thing. This is not a difficult concept, even the dumbest of niggers can grasp it.
Adrian Anderson
firstly, you suggested that post had nothing to do with what you said: that is false. see
secondly, you suggested that catholics do not believe in jesus christ, despite many catholics and the catholic catechism insisting to the contrary. sure there is a difference between "saying you believe" and "actually believing" but many catholic fag-enablers genuinely do believe that jesus christ was/is the only son of god and that god will prevent them from dying and grant them eternal life to reward their faith in jesus christ.
therefore, despite your claims to the contrary, many catholics are indeed christian according to the christian bible. even the nastiest, homosexual interracial butt-fuckers that believe in jesus christ shall not perish but instead receive eternal life according to christian scripture.
your headcanon cannot deny christian errors.
the christian idea of salvation through jesus christ alone simultaneously denies the importance of race, sexual dichotomy, intelligence, physical health, aptitude, "virtue morality", and everything else that is not jesus christ/trinity.
europe largely did pretty well because europeans largely ignored those poisonous & evil christian ideas in favor of native european ideas, but advances in technology like the printing press resulted in the broader dissemination of these evil christian ideas, and that - combined with the disastrous results of World War II (reminder: Hitler persecuted Christianity) - led to present-day "late stage" christianity in society where racism is a sin and christian priests marry interracial couples in christian churches.
among other things, interracial cuckoldry is evil and the christian faith cannot change that.
No, I asked what it has to do with what I said. You have yet to provide an answer. Actions speak louder than words. If they did genuinely believe that, they would have read the bible at least once. Why do you mental defectives always spout "headcanon headcanon headcanon" at everyone as if it were an argument? The bible is not "headcanon" you retard. No they don't. Read it. You have to not simply believe Jesus existed, you have to believe his words, and that he is your savior. You can not believe in his word and be a child raping faggot. It is odd that you single out interracial cuckoldry, showing that you think both miscegenation and cuckoldry as fine as long as you practice them separately.
"cherry picking in order to support your propaganda". Yeah, Hungary and Poland, two very christian countries, truly are an inter-marriage hell on earth…
Władysław I the Elbow-high, who ascended the Polish throne in 1320, endeavored to establish a uniform legal code throughout the land. With the general laws he assured the Jews safety and freedom and placed them on equality with the Christians. They dressed like the Christians, wearing garments similar to those of the nobility, and, like the latter, also wore gold chains and carried swords. The king likewise framed laws for the lending of money to Christians.
1500 Some of the Jews expelled from Spain, Portugal and many German cities move to Poland. By the mid sixteenth century, some eighty percent of the world’s Jews lives in Poland,[2] a figure that held steady for centuries.
1525 The first Jew is promoted to knighthood by king Sigismund I of Poland, without being forced to leave Judaism.
1547 The first Hebrew Jewish printing house is founded in Lublin.
1567 The first yeshiva is founded in Poland.
1606 Poland first described as "Paradisus Iudaeorum".
1632 King Władysław IV Vasa forbids Anti-Semitic books and printings.
"Paradise for the Jews" (Latin: Paradisus Judaeorum) is a phrase pertaining to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland.
The phrase derives from a 1606 satirical Latin epigram about the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth that has been described as "critical of everything in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—foreigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers [townspeople], and servants, and also Jews."[2] The epigram—"Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" (Latin original: "Clarum regnum Polonorum est [The illustrious kingdom of the Poles is] coelum nobiliorum, paradisus Judaeorum, purgatorium plebeiorum et infernus rusticorum")—satirizes the sociopolitical system of "Golden Liberty", or Nobles' Commonwealth: a system viewed in the epigram as favoring the nobility (szlachta), less so the townspeople (mieszczaństwo or burghers), and much less so the enserfed peasants.[3]
The Jewish dress resembled that of their Polish neighbor. "Reports of romances, of drinking together in taverns, and of intellectual conversations are quite abundant." Wealthy Jews had Polish noblemen at their table, and served meals on silver plates.[52]
During the time from the rule of Sigismund I the Old until the Nazi Holocaust, Poland would be at the center of Jewish religious life. Many agreed with Rabbi David ben Shemu’el ha-Levi (Taz) that Poland was a place where "most of the time the gentiles do no harm; on the contrary they do right by Israel" (Divre David; 1689).[55]
By the time World War II began, Poland had the largest concentration of Jews in Europe
According to the 1931 National Census there were 3,130,581 Polish Jews measured by the declaration of their religion. Estimating the population increase and the emigration from Poland between 1931 and 1939, there were probably 3,474,000 Jews in Poland as of 1 September 1939 (approximately 10% of the total population) primarily centered in large and smaller cities: 77% lived in cities and 23% in the villages. They made up about 50%, and in some cases even 70% of the population of smaller towns, especially in Eastern Poland.[84] Prior to World War II, the Jewish population of Łódź numbered about 233,000, roughly one-third of the city’s population.[85] The city of Lwów (now in Ukraine) had the third largest Jewish population in Poland, numbering 110,000 in 1939 (42%). Wilno (now in Lithuania) had a Jewish community of nearly 100,000, about 45% of the city's total.[86] In 1938, Kraków's Jewish population numbered over 60,000, or about 25% of the city's total population.[87] In 1939 there were 375,000 Jews in Warsaw or one third of the city's population. Only New York City had more Jewish residents than Warsaw.
Connor Powell
Why do you keep repeating one line? Is there something wrong with the whole thing? Like the fact that is is clear and explicit in stating that you must be born anew of the spirit of the lord?
3:1 Now there was a man from the Pharisees, his name was Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 3:2 This one came to him by night and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for* no one is able to do these signs which you are doing, if God is not with him.
3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Assuredly, assuredly, I am saying to you, If someone has not been born anew, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus says to him, How is a man able to be born, being elderly? He is not able to enter into his mother’s womb a second-time and to be born again, is he?
3:5 Jesus answered, Assuredly, assuredly, I am saying to you, If someone has not been born out of water and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God! 3:6 What has been born out of the flesh is flesh, and what has been born out of the Spirit is spirit. 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, It is essential for you° to be born anew. 3:8 The Spirit is blowing where he wills and you hear his voice, but do not know from where he is coming and where he is going, so is everyone who has been born from the Spirit.
3:9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, How are these things able to happen?
3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things? 3:11 Assuredly, assuredly, I am saying to you, We speak what we know, and testify from what we have seen, and you° do not receive our testimony. 3:12 If I tell you° the earthly things and you° do not believe, how will you° believe if I tell you° the heavenly things? 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven, that is, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. 3:14 And just-as Moses who exalted the serpent in the wilderness, so it is essential for the Son of Man to also be exalted; 3:15 in order that everyone who believes in him might not perish but may have everlasting life.
3:16 For* thus God loved* the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, in order that everyone who believes in him might not perish, but may have everlasting life. 3:17 For* God did not send the Son into the world in order that he might judge the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 3:18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:19 Now this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world and men loved* the darkness rather than the light; for* their works were evil. 3:20 For* everyone who is practicing evil, hates the light, and is not coming to the light, in order that his works should not convict him. 3:21 But he who practices the truth comes to the light, in order that his works should be manifest, that they have been worked in God.
Colton Rogers
Agreed. Have a nice day.
Jacob Reyes
Fuck OFF
Thomas Brooks
you asserted here (>>12799664) that "You can not believe in his word and be a child raping faggot."
john 3:16 in the christian bible disagrees with your headcanon interpretation. it does not say "believe in jesus and do not be a child raping faggot"
it merely says "believe in jesus"
believing in jesus christ and being a child raping faggot are not mutually-exclusive, as numerous christians have demonstrated.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
In April 2009, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin publicly warned all Irish Catholics to brace themselves for the publication of the Ryan Report in May. This was a monumental investigation, named after Chairperson Judge Sean Ryan, begun in 1999 and concluded ten years later. Entitled ‘The Report of the Commission on Child Sexual Abuse’, it dealt in great detail within its 2,600 pages with clerical abuse reaching back to before the Second World War. The Commission’s brief was to investigate all forms of child abuse in Irish institutions for children. The majority of allegations it investigated focused upon the system operated in some sixty residential ‘Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ operated by Catholic Church Orders, more often than not run by the Christian Brothers.
The report should be made compulsory reading for the wide range of apologists not only for the current Pope, it is a truly shocking indictment. The report establishes that the system within these schools treated children ‘like prison inmates and slaves’ devoid of any legal rights. The report identified sub-human behaviour that repeatedly records beatings and rapes, subjection to naked beatings in public, being forced to perform oral sex, and even beatings after failed rape attempts by Christian Brothers.
Adjectives including ‘systemic’, ‘pervasive’, ‘chronic’, ‘excessive’, ‘arbitrary’ and ‘endemic’ are used by the Commission to describe the indescribable. Those apologists will search in vain for evidence that what occurred was perpetrated by a very small minority, although even one perverted degenerate would be one too many. It is clear from the details contained within this document that we are confronted with a widespread evil that went on year after year, decade after decade.
Not much comfort for the apologists is to be found in those conclusions. Indeed, as can be seen, although the area of investigations differed vastly from Justice Ryan’s epic investigation of industrial schools and orphanages, the evidence and the conclusions to be drawn from the respective reports have an overwhelming symmetry. As for the ‘learning curve’ pleading of ignorance, Archbishop McQuaid was dealing with such cases in the 1950s and 1960s. There have been bishops all over the world who have used this defence during the past thirty years. Any adult male – be he a bishop or a man in any other walk of life – who did not know long before this scandal became public knowledge that grown men having sex with children is wrong and insidiously harmful to children is either an idiot or a liar or both.
Non Angli, sed angeli – "They are not Angles, but angels". Aphorism, summarizing words reported to have been spoken by Gregory when he first encountered pale-skinned English boys at a slave market, sparking his dispatch of St. Augustine of Canterbury to England to convert the English, according to Bede.[76]
No it does not. Again, you quote just the tiny bit you want to take out of context, ignoring the context that proves you are full of shit. Which I just posted for you. No shit. And since the catholic church is not the bible, what does that have to do with anything? Quote the bible where jesus says a pope should exist. Or that this pope is infallable.
