A lot of people are coming to the inescapable conclusion that the state of the modern west is because people rejecting God in favor of their own desires. More and more people are coming back to traditional Christianity as a way of retaining good cultural values in a zeitgeist that attacks anything that disallows them from exercising their own disordered passions.
Is there a hope? A chance? Can Christianity overcome the depraved secular west?
Other urls found in this thread:
columbia.edu
oodegr.com
youtube.com
rusjournal.org
8ch.net
twitter.com
I life in an atheist or theist-indifferent environment. With one exception, all my ultra hardcore skeptical friends are afraid of ghosts. A pair of them are into orientalist bullshit. I see people all the time falling for "mindfulness" and other pseudo religion stuff. The western world is starved for religion, it craves it. Eventually, it'll come back to it, hopefully having rejected the superstition and embracing what's purely religious. When will it happen? I don't know, but I doubt we'll see it.
Okay, have you considered this? If you're against hedonism, then why are you holding onto the hedonistic notion of unquestionable believe?
If they are going to Christianity for cultural values and trad-life, the west will slide further into a different kind of hell. That the guy is calling it the God pill is concerning to me. Give it 2-4 years and we'll see.
What? This is "im 14 and this is deep" level stuff. Submission to the truth of God is anything but "hedonistic", it's not a path of pleasure. It's a path of self denial, picking up your cross and carrying it and running your race according to the commandments of God. Everything Jesus taught was about how you're supposed to act, and if everyone did then we'd already have heaven. Put others before yourself, develop humility, worship God alone, accept your place in the world and the purpose you were given with stoicism.
tl;dr?
1) hedonism isn't defined by seeking pleasure, it only means self serving over severing others.
2) I wasn't talking about what your believe entitles and what the possible outcomes thereof are. I was asking about the definition of unquestionable believe itself, which is against the same laws god allegedly created. And I'm not talking about the biblical laws, that you can twist every which way you seem fit, I'm talking about the natural laws the "creator" was allegedly also responsible for…according to believe that is. Nevertheless these laws are operating undisturbed as far as we can research them, and they tell that believe is suicidal.
Explain yourself, believers.
Yes it is, that's its literal definition. Hedonism is the philosophy that the purpose of life is to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
That's not it's meaning.
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Quibbling over laws is irrelevant. Either you accept the truth of Christ and his teachings or you accept falsehood.
He's from a Catholic family, but became an atheist lefty leaning edgelord at the age of 13. Eventually he became redpilled, then blackpilled. And then, after the death of his mother, he felt a dire need for meaning and became Christian when that night he prayed and said "lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil". He has come to realize that commies and globalists not only fight the conservatives, but try to undermine Christian tradition (his next step is to realize where communism and globalism comes from). He now knows we need logos and what evils the lack of it causes.
I'd say the video is worth watching, if only to see why someone else chooses to believe in God. That's always enlightening.
That is based on the human misconception that pleasure means happiness. Meanwhile millions of hedonists across the globe go through deliberate pain to serve themselves. Dig a little into the blood libel "conspiracy" to learn about how the participants violently throw up, or brake down when facing the reality of raping, murdering and consuming a child. And they do it anyway, because they want what is being offered to them…no matter the costs. That is the true nature of hedonism humanity won't print in their (revisionism) books. Gonna protect the optics of being civil. Same with the deliberate ignorance about billions of animals being incarcerated, tortured, and murdered behind anonymous walls to create poisonous food for us. It's hedonism that drives us to ignore sheer injustice…do you have pleasure in that thought, user? I know I don't.
Stop just believing everything to put in front of your eyes and start seeking knowledge yourself. When you reach the point where it hurts you from the inside, then you're on the right path, because life demands struggle.
The natural laws define, steer and direct the existence of everything inside this ecosystem. They are perfectly in sync with each other, they created the moral codes all life is following, the barriers existence is confined to, and the outcomes of all our actions. All of this provably for everyone to see, participate in, and most importantly learn from.
And here you are saying that this is all irrelevant and that one just needs to believe in something that contradicts these laws…I ain't Sherlock Holmes, but I detect a lie. Nature got the evidence for everything I just said, what do you have?
Truth is ultimate, provable fact. Everything that isn't that is automatically a lie until proven otherwise. Believe can never be truth on itself, it can only ever be the way to the truth.
A better way to put it…
Truth is absolute. It must be irrefutable. Everything that isn't absolute truth, is automatically a lie, because nature operates with opposites. Everything that is in between truth and a lie is hedonism, based on falling for the temptation of making up justifications for our actions. It's selfish, hedonistic, against natural law and thereby self destructive, because of the natural law "all actions have consequences".
Yes it will. People claim that Christianity is denying, but it'll actually grow. Because people will realize that it's more preferable to be under the control of Christians than anti-theist sodomites.
Anti-theist sodomites don't have any type of consistency whatsoever as Satan thrives in confusion. They deprive you of an income for "harassment", yet they openly harass and assault you without penalty. They're selfish people who don't practice what they demand others to follow.
God's law is good because it forces every human subjected to the standard and violations. It's inherently logical.
Yeah, no.
I've said it before, ill say it again.
Hating liberalism does not theology make.
You can go in a gazillion direction from that, from paganism, to cultural Christianity, to Islam, to secular dictatorships, to abandoning civilized society entirely, or whatever.
Yes, yes, it's a springboard from which some might end up studying traditional Christianity, but someone becoming a Christian isn't about thinking SJW's are cancer, but that God exists, Jesus is the Lord, Son of God, and He died for our sins, and was resurrected after 3 days(and you know, the rest of the Creed).
See:
Source on that text? It seems to be a nice read.
columbia.edu
Part of the works of Mircea Eliade.
It's up to God. To quote R.C. Sproul, "revivals are something that God does".
I'm not as optimistic–a lot of these internet converts wear their religion on their sleeves, it seems (to me, could be completely wrong) that being "traditional" is becoming more mainstream, because modernity is such poison. Religion is an attempt to gain a coherent identity in a world that is enforcing a mono-culture.
more people need to read mircea eliade his works on the sacred and the profane are of the best things I've read in a long time.
Christ will always win, I very highly doubt the west and the people who currently run it are just going wave the white flag after spending a few hundred years of infiltrating society
Why attack instead of help move them along that springboard? Part of traditional Christianity is Godly behavior and a rejection of degeneracy. For some people, this is the catapult, or springboard as you put it. If you are "advanced" in Christ, then you should work to get these people into the fold for real.
Besides, there's nothing in the video that was alarming. He's making a case for Christianity by explaining why it resonated with him to his viewers who likely understand where he's coming from. He very obviously believes in God and Christ. Let's work to give him assurance
And frankly, if we're being honest here, I'd say the majority of posters on Zig Forums converted for similar reasons originally. I don't think there's anything wrong with noticing the modern world is completely twisted and turning back to the message of Christ for some stability, everyone needs to start somewhere. Criticizing people who start their journey by saying "Ok yeah this society that rejects God is completely insane, I want to go back and practice the faith of my ancestors instead" because they're not benedictine Monks who are completely confident in God and pray the rosary 3 times every day is counterproductive.
God has always used the degeneracy of the world to force people to turn back to Him, read Judges, and that is exactly what is happening here.
In case you haven't noticed, there is no such thing as "unquestionable belief" in the manner you're insinuating here. If there was, there wouldn't be 50 gorillion different "Christian" denominations bickering over said "unquestionable" beliefs. Now, whether it's a good idea to question certain beliefs is a different story, but obviously God gave man the freedom to disagree and spiral out of control if he so chooses, and that's precisely what we're witnessing happen to our modern western civilization that's on the brink of collapse. This principle of "reaping what you sow" is perfectly in line with the concept of natural law. Same thing would happen if you naively tried to defy gravity; you're free to disbelieve it and jump off a building all you want, but don't expect that to turn out well for you.
Opting out of having a focal point beyond humanity, and shoving all discussion of metaphysics under the rug, is a recipe for disastrous nihilism. Even if becoming an ubermensch were possible (which it isn't), it would be highly unlikely because society is getting completely blindsided by nihilism rather than consciously embracing it. What's happened recently wasn't a questioning of "unquestionable religious beliefs" as secular mythology likes to suggest, but rather the sneaky wholesale replacement of revelation-based metaphisics, with a real unquestionable belief in naive materialism. A philosophical position that quickly leads to near-solipsist levels of absurdity as soon as anybody actually bothers to take it to its logical conclusion. If you think a society full of hardcore solipsists wouldn't be feasible/sustainable, you now understand how Christians view secularism.
Here, have some supplementary reading on the house:
oodegr.com
It's more than just degeneracy. The left in general are encouraging women to have careers instead of babies, and are inviting Muslims in, which outbreed us.
Yes there is, and I'm not talking about how the different doctrines are designed either, I'm talking about the starting point of it all, the foundation it all sprang from, and that is unquestionable believe. As far as I know all of humanities religions were designed around worshiping deities, and this system is based on unquestionable believe. The doctrines afterwards are designed to prevent the believers from snooping behind the curtains of the rulers, creators and law makers at the top.Yet the same believer live inside an ecosystem where acting foolishly like this is punished by death. Believe can logically never be knowledge, because it represents the spark that creates the natural path to knowledge.
That was never their decision to make. This is social engineering using the war tactic of "division" to split up unison. By putting a stooge with toxic opinions in charge of an institution you can literally split the followers in half and turn them against each other. This was done to humanity all throughout history and next to no one sees through this basic ploy.
No, it's not. Adaption is the key to survival. Constant seeking of knowledge to adapt to ever changing circumstances.
Disagree. It's not freedom, it's falling for temptations. If you follow natural laws you get rewarded for it, if you go against them you get punished. The rewarding side equals the struggle for life, and the punishing side is the easy path towards death, riddled with temptations trying to lure you in. Your job here is to keep the natural order (balance) in between those, with one side always approaching and the other always running out, therefore the only way to survive for as long as possible is to adapt by seeking knowledge.
This had little to do with freedom to chose, but instead with the treacherous deception that enslaved humanity to operate under self destructive laws. Control mechanisms propagandized by a few who wanted to control the many who established six steps to enslave humanity and create the perfect, hedonistic slave.
1. Ownership
2. Leadership
3. Laws
4. Law enforcement
5. Religions
6. Materialism
All of these lead to each other, while slowly minimizing the resistance against the ones who wanted to control them.
The natural law behind this is "all actions have consequences". Reaping what you sow implies knowingly doing something, which is seldom the the way it works. It's either coming from outside deception or more likely from self deception by making up justifications for your actions, while ignoring the consequences.
Discussions are never the problem, it's the establishment of dogmas based on nothing but believe that is self destructive. This is also not nihilism, because that would imply not to seek out the meaningful aspects of life. In reality metaphysics are trying to find those aspects in their own minds, instead of the real life. That's hedonism and thereby self destructive.
It absolutely is. By following the true meaning of our life, which is "creation in accordance to the natural laws for the benefit of all", we create the best possible breeding ground for our offspring, which is rewarded by them having more refined natural traits like strength, creativity and intelligence. These traits are then used to uplift their race by creating culture, which brings more productivity etc. As long as we work in accordance to the natural laws and for everything inside this ecosystem (not for us) then we get in return all the benefits this world has to offer.
Which they were steered into, and which they can't escape, because they are operating under false laws, the laws of men, laws that were given to us to control and exploit us, by hiding the laws of nature.
That's hedonism if it's based on nothing but what you make up in your head. Everything we can conjure up in our consciousness is based on the information we got from nature, using that information to create is in accordance to the natural laws. Ignoring the natural laws while doing so is self destructive and will be punished. What you do must be based on truth, otherwise it will have negative consequences.
That entire dogma is based on hedonism, on the misinterpretation of what our consciousness really is. It's not our identity/soul, it's a tool to comprehend the world around us. Blood carries our identity, which has nothing to do with the consciousness or any state of mind, because blood is the only thing we can pass on to "survive" in form of procreation. The brain without the blood is dead, the blood without the brain is still alive. Our consciousness gave us the means to justify what we do, and we fell for the temptation to justify our own worth, by putting ourselves above everything, thereby becoming pure hedonists,while exploiting and destroying the ecosystem which sustains our existence for short term benefits, while ignoring long term consequences. This made us parasites of our own host and we're facing the severe consequences of this ever since.
This makes the entire concept of that article pointless, because it ignores the existence of the laws of nature. Nothing cannot exist.
That shouldn't be your main concern. Slavery was never abolished, only rebranded and all the old routes are still in full operation. They transformed slavery into what is today known as "world wide poverty".
youtube.com
This is the worlds biggest criminal racket and it exploits billions of humans under the poverty line for slave labor, human trafficking, drug and organ smuggling, pharmaceutical tests, eugenic programs, tax fraud, money laundering, migration warfare, and to fleece the wealthy west out of endless donations. Inside this massive racket they have bred Africans into insane numbers, which are now used for migration warfare to spread poverty and violence wherever they are send. Their numbers are the ones you should be scared to death about, because they are like locusts and will devour anything. They will destroy more of this ecosystem than the capitalistic industrialization of China and India did combined. The Africans are used as proxy warriors to destroy all human races and create a world of slaves.
Catholic Monarchy is the only way forward. Establishment of dogmas isn't an issue, the issue is people who won't adhere to Catholic truth. Take your relativistic post modern garbage and stick it up your ass, there is one objective truth and the Catholic Church has a monopoly on it. Period.
Again, that's not how the apostles or the prophets brought people to God.
They first and foremost preached the Gospel and the Word of God, and THEN condemned the results of people straying from that, showing how one resulted in the other.
They didn't meekly spend years among groups that hated foreign rule and other malcontents, ocassionally giving hints that they should check out the local temple/church, and thinking thats gonna result in anything.
Even by desperately trying to discredit me you only show me just how much of a slave you are.
That is the opposite of what I'm saying, it's what you're trying to sell. The laws of nature are free, based on real evidence, judging everything the same way, totally easy to understand and prove yourself, not bound to any believe, and most importantly totally predictable, open, and truthful. No deception, no idolatry, no contradictions, no false idols, no deceptive symbolism, no temples of worshiping, no corruption, no double speak scriptures.
What are you so afraid of? To be proven wrong? To be standing side by side with billions of human beings that were deceived by suicidal slave doctrines? To find out that someone stole the human identity and send us astray from the path we were designed to follow?
Why can you not even here, in anonymity, play these ideas logically through? Just prove me wrong, user. Show everyone that one user hasn't figured out what billions haven't. Show me what I have to gain from telling you about the laws of nature, from freely sharing knowledge, from encouraging others to understand the world around them, from selfishly taking endless amounts of scorn, mockery and insults, while giving nothing but logical answers in return?
One a completely unrelated note…how would you ever spot a messiah if your mind is locked tightly to unquestionable believe? At this stage you would rather nail me onto a cross than listen to what I have to say. Am I right?
And they all show Catholicism is objectively true.
The laws of nature were created by God to lead people to His Church through the light of reason.
Take your meds schizoposter.
They doctrine may teach simple natural laws, but the foundation of the Church is against the natural laws, and so are the commandments. None of the doctrine has any value if the foundation is corrupt.
According to your unquestionable believe that is, meanwhile "the sum of all things" is showing us in nature how these laws are created on their own, by the actions of everything else. For example a drought will drive all remaining animals to the last water source, where all types of predators and prey will face each other. At this point and without any creator or anyone around to comprehend the idea of it, a new, temporary law will be created. The survival instinct will override all codes of morality already established and a new code of conduct will spread throughout these animals, who will peacefully cling to the source of life (water) to prolong their existence. There you have it…evidence for laws being created without a creator for everyone to witness,shown to us by nature, in accordance to the laws of nature. And what do you have to offer? "god did this, because I was told to believe he did, therefore you must also believe it, otherwise I have no other justifications for the total lack of any evidence on my side and have to resort to calling you names"
Case and point.
It certainly is not. In fact the more we discover about our universe the more it looks designed. Fine tunings are cropping up everywhere and the salvation of naturalists, super symmetry is all but dead because the LHC hasn't found a single particle that it predicts.
This is schizophrenic nonsense babble. There is only one law the law of God. Without God the concept of law simply does not exist.
What evidence? You've done nothing but ramble about nonsense that has no basis in reality, droughts and animals and predators and prey have literally nothing to do with the basis of reality. You don't seem like an atheist your nonsense babble seems more like new age garbage. Either way what you think are profound insights are merely the result of mental illness. You need help and an exorcism.
Cosmological argument
Ontological argument
Moral argument
Argument from reason
Argument from contingency
Fine tuning argument
Of course there are also negative arguments against naturalism.
As far as God is concerned His existence is as certain as 1 + 1 = 2. God existing is an absolute logical necessity. The evidence for God is absolutely irrefutable. On the other hand the arguments for naturalism are being weakened every day.
"…a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’ (Possible Worlds, p. 209 […] [Naturalism] offers what professes to be a full account of our mental behaviour; but this account, on inspection, leaves no room for the acts of knowing or insight on which the whole value of our thinking, as a means to truth, depends.[…] It is agreed on all hands that reason, and even sentience, and life itself are late comers in Nature. If there is nothing but Nature, therefore, reason must have come into existence by a historical process. And of course, for the Naturalist, this process was not designed to produce a mental behaviour that can find truth. There was no Designer; and indeed, until there were thinkers, there was no truth or falsehood. The type of mental behaviour we now call rational thinking or inference must therefore have been 'evolved' by natural selection, by the gradual weeding out of types less fitted to survive.[…]
Once, then, our thoughts were not rational. That is, all our thoughts once were, as many of our thoughts still are, merely subjective events, not apprehensions of objective truth. Those which had a cause external to ourselves at all were (like our pains) responses to stimuli. Now natural selection could operate only by eliminating responses that were biologically hurtful and multiplying those which tended to survival. But it is not conceivable that any improvement of responses could ever turn them into acts of insight, or even remotely tend to do so. The relation between response and stimulus is utterly different from that between knowledge and the truth known. Our physical vision is a far more useful response to light than that of the cruder organisms which have only a photo-sensitive spot. But neither this improvement nor any possible improvements we can suppose could bring it an inch nearer to being a knowledge of light. It is admittedly something without which we could not have had that knowledge. But the knowledge is achieved by experiments and inferences from them, not by refinement of the response. It is not men with specially good eyes who know about light, but men who have studied the relevant sciences. In the same way our psychological responses to our environment-our curiosities, aversions, delights, expectations-could be indefinitely improved (from the biological point of view) without becoming anything more than responses. Such perfection of the non-rational responses, far from amounting to their conversion into valid inferences, might be conceived as a different method of achieving survival—an alternative to reason. A conditioning which secured that we never felt delight except in the useful nor aversion save from the dangerous, and that the degrees of both were exquisitely proportional to the degree of real utility or danger in the object, might serve us as well as reason or in some circumstances better. […]
On these terms the Theist's position must be a chimera nearly as outrageous as the Naturalist's. (Nearly, not quite; it abstains from the crowning audacity of a huge negative). But the Theist need not, and does not, grant these terms. He is not committed to the view that reason is a comparatively recent development moulded by a process of selection which can select only the biologically useful. For him, reason–the reason of God–is older than Nature, and from it the orderliness of Nature, which alone enables us to know her, is derived. For him, the human mind in the act of knowing is illuminated by the Divine reason. It is set free, in the measure required, from the huge nexus of non-rational causation; free from this to be determined by the truth known. And the preliminary processes within Nature which led up to this liberation, if there were any, were designed to do so.
Give me a natural law that wasn't created by "the sum of all things" and I will prove you wrong.
We are all part of the same ecosystem, therefore we are all "natural". There is no such thing as unnatural in here.
I saw that one in "the big bang theory" and even those jews couldn't explain their own lies.
Make a screenshot of this and come back to me in a decade or so when it comes out that CERN is nothing more than another tax fraud like NASA, while also being exploited to accumulate and steal the earth's uranium deposits. It's part of the jewish energy mafia. Maybe all the satanic symbolism they mock you with should've given you a hint, but alas "believe" is just to convenient a drug to ditch for truth seeking. Anyway, save this and get your mind blown in a decade.
You can watch what I said yourself, meanwhile I can do nothing but put blind faith in your little story, which is backed by nothing but ignorance towards nature, towards humanity, and towards creating for a future on this earth.
So you cannot comprehend how animals in their habitats are operating under rules of conduct? You cannot comprehend the circle of life when shown in nature? You cannot comprehend how morality is governed by the participants of nature? Can you even comprehend what an ecosystem actually is? How every part in it has a different role to play to sustain the entire system? Do you have no comprehension of anything that wasn't written in books?
You do realize that this reflex to divide that which you can't understand was indoctrinated into you? Instead of challenging my statements you try to throw me together with anything else you didn't like. You know why your attempts can never reach me? Because one first needs to claim ownership of something, to then be attacked for it. That's the first step to gain control over humanity, and what I have to give is nothing but free knowledge attached to nothing. I don't claim any ownership of anything, therefore you're impotent to put me into any category.
Call me back when you know anyone who ever set foot outside this ecosystem. Until then this is nothing but visual interpretation.
Scratch the unproven connection to god in this and I've no problem using philosophy to argue about the state of being.
I just gave you a simple example how morality is created in nature and you can't even comprehend that animals have morality, without dragging your believe into this. By all means challenge me on morals and how god created them and I will tell you how nature did it.
Unquestionable believe against natural evidence…seems rather unreasonable to me.
"the sum of all things" that is the basis of creation itself. When male and female procreate, they are not the only things necessary for the creation. It's the sperm and the eggs, the food in their belies, the air that they breath, the house they live in, the land they stay on, the nation that protects it, everything inside this ecosystem that sustains it is necessary to make creation happening. That is "the sum of all things". Creation without a single creator.
Same with cosmological. The universe is unreachable to you. You can just look at it. That's not truth, that's assumptions.
Indulge me, because nothing can be unnatural, so arguments against nature are a meaningless, unless you're suicidal that is.
Kind of a dick move to use the laws of mathematics we learned from nature, and then attribute them to god. Btw while we are at math. Did you knew that E=MC(2) stands for "Einstein equals Married Cousin twice" You can see this the math way, or you can see it as the jewish incest/pedophile way…it's all relative.
Necessity for unquestionable believe, meanwhile the concept of god is provably against natural laws, where unquestionable believe only gives you death. But let's take the guy in the sky down by simple logic too…god created nature, then men, who then created the concept of religions, after which men claimed that all of this was created by the concept they just invented, despite the fact that nature is busy showing off all it's creations around them. Now tell me how logical is it to attribute what is to something which isn't? And try to argue this without "believe"…because this is about logic, isn't it?
"You have to believe" - That is all your evidence. You have nothing else.
I'm gonna answer to your last two paragraph later. Real life demands my attention.
Opinion completely and utterly discarded. I was about to reply more thoroughly, but that little quibble at the end showed the vast extent of your ignorance on this matter.
I wouldn't put much stock in those. Hitchens specifically said that if rumours like that cropped up after his death they're bunk.
I will never convert to christianity because christianity is unable to acknowledge the concept of race. For me it's something sacred to think all the people within a nation all look alike and share the same blood. I don't hate people of different races, but it's simply not right to ignore our natural differences. It's very true that christians are more anti-immigration than the non-religious, but the reasons are all wrong. I don't care if the immigrants are muslim, because if they converted to christianity, they wouldn't belong here either way.
I don't mind people being christian, nothing against it really, just expressing my thoughts.
I disagree; true Christianity would push people to stay in their Countries as much as possible and fix them rather than chicken out and run to other places. And the idea that racial purity is an absolute is kind of weak: I’m Italian, but I got Germanic and Slavic ancestors, which makes me not 100% Italian.
I’m well aware that a Caucasian is not the same as a Bantu, but we have the same dignity in front of God; our skills, intelligence and society may differ, yet the value of our lives is the same in God’s eyes.
I’m opposed to mass migration even from other Christian Countries, and that’s because the teachings of Christianity tell us that we are different Nations so we have inherited a land from our fathers and we must take care of it as part of our duties here on this Earth before we go to the final judgement.
That's cool, but why then there aren't any major christian churches saying that? Not even traditional circles talk about that. The most I heard was some trad priest saying that race mixed marriages might not be the best idea, but he would never say it's objectively wrong, because he can't say that.
And some Europeans have Moorish blood because of the Muslims, and that's completely okay, it can't be helped. I'm not advocating for total racial purity or anything. But this doesn't excuse relativism, we are not all the same all of sudden just because there are some mixing between Europeans.
That's fine. But I still think christians take their anti-"racism" way too far. For example, let's talk about the apartheid. Was it unfair in some ways? Probably. Colonization is something difficult to talk about. One thing is clear though: South Africa is much worse after the apartheid ended. And yet 99,9% of christians will be talking about how racist the apartheid was. They promote these anti-white ideas in an irrational manner, just to be against the "heresy of racism", it doesn't matter if they are quite literally anti-civilizational and that they cause black people to suffer, because they obviously weren't prepared to rule that country at that time.
Sorry, but you are not convincing me; 99.9% of Western people, many of whom happen to identify as Christians, would call that racist. As for the anti-white ideas, I have heard mostly left leaning persons, some of whom are Christians.
As for the whole “anti-white”…it is something I can’t believe: we Italians never identified as white, only as Italians and that saved us from assimilation from other nearby Countries (many of whom were European people); Europe was and is not a monolithic identity, and I never found a definition of whiteness and its attributes which satisfied my people or me. And most Italians do not see themselves as white, like I wrote for myself, but as Italians, and specifically:
Aostani
Lombardi
Piemontesi
Friulani
Trentini
Veneti
Emiliani
Romagnoli
Liguri
Toscani
etc…because that’s our core identity: part of Europe, part of Italy, belonging to a region and a city or village. Please, don’t misunderstand me… I’m afraid for the survival of all the people of Europe and I agree many of our religious leaders failed us. But there are also many silent ones who are on our side, and they are speaking to their little flocks and encouraging them to resist this decadent and corrupting fads.
I’m coming to you from a different background, so I have my biases on many topics; I just have done my thinking and I’m a firm believer true Christian faith, not the watered down version which is often shown but which is not the actual majority, is one of the core pillars, together with love of family and of Country, which shall save us.
I’m not here to say you haven’t understood, or that I’m smarter; I am earnestly trying to make you understand why I still hold hope in the Christ. And at least I shall die knowing I was siding with the Eternal Truth.
Because there's no canon against it(there is against religiously mixed marriages, though).
Keeping one's country demographically stable is a "side-effect' of them staying true to God, though.
Once you get out of away from those who think believe you can divorce the bible from it's historical context. Why do you think there are ethnic churches in Orthodoxy?
rusjournal.org
objectively speaking the whole vid was pretty cringe tbh, 'the left this! the left that! cultural marxism smh! life was better back in the day when i wasn't alive! the left smh again!' Not saying he's wrong in his judgements but for a 'rediscovering Christanity' vid he couldn't have made it any larpier. There was no confession of sin or acknowledging his own sinfulness and the resulting humility or inward contemplation, just finger pointing and blaming and pining for based trad times to ensure western civ's rescue as the priority. Said he didn't know if there was an afterlife, although later may imply belief/hope for universalism, refrained from calling God by personal pronoun and instead referred to him as a 'higher power,' seemed to imply he may understand salvation as being works based, but that may just be a cynical reading of his poorly chosen words. Idk if he's read the NT and knows about the eshcaton but vid sucked ass imo 4/10. also, God pill and not bread pill, come on I hope he comes around to clearer thinking on it all.
If it didn't in the past, then it probably never will.
8ch.net
Can you prove to me without a doubt that nature has laws and can you prove to me that they say what you claim they say?