Orthodox Christianity vs Christian Zionism
vs Muslim refugees
vs Pop Culture
vs moral and social issues
Holy fuck op, this is some real hard red pills I'm swallowing. I always thought Christianity was a bit off since many advocated for war, now I understand there is more than one kind of Christianity, Zionist Christianity. Holy fucking fuck everything is making sense.
I'm catholic but I have decided to convert to orthodox Christianity.
This deception is unspeakable.
>Will he save us all
No. He will try to save Russia, and the countries within the territory of the former Russian Empire/Soviet Union.
He will not save the west, nor should he give a shit about trying. He's a Russian, and he is right to worry about his own people.
Sergey Shoygu (center) is often listed as a possible competent successor, which will be to the chagrin of many white nationalists (he's half-Tuvan). Ultimately it will be up to the United Russia Party with heavy influence from the inevitable (probably effectively lifetime indefinite) Prime Minister Putin.
Russia is currently steeped in a healthy amount of anti-western paranoia and conspiracy caution. The entire United Russia political platform relies of resisting western exploitation comparable to the 1990's Yeltsin era, and reconstituting Eurasian bloc alliances and economic security. I doubt that wiould change even if Putin disappeared tomorrow.
Orthodoxy isn't a branch, or a denomination. It's just the persistent Church of the last two millenia. And speaking plainly about heresy, lies, and obfuscation of the Way is not "stirring up hostility". It's being honest, and calling out dangerous folly. Obviously, this "brother branches" have been poor stewards of western souls and institutions, and don't even seem capable or interested in solving the problems they're been complicit in creating.
No we're not. Protestants can call themselves Christians and we won't say they're going to hell(like some Protestant churches do) and we shouldn't judge them, but they are not in Communion with us, ecumenism is heresy. It's better to serve the truth than worry about schismatics hurt feelings
Orthodoxy adheres the closest to the original teachings of Christ, so in that respect its THE Christianity, but its still part of the Abrahamic jew.
Never forget that these crypto-kikes spread their desert cult across Europa by killing our pagan ancestors and nearly extinguishing the old ways which we have been trying to piece together for centuries through occult study.
They did back then what the mudslimes are doing today, and reactionary dupes like you are falling into the trap of swapping one kike cult for another instead of keeping the traditions of your ancestors.
Himmler had it right, the Abrahamic cults are enemies of Europa and probably the ones keeping his archives locked up in vault somewhere in >le based Orthodox Russia, or if the burgers got to them they're probably in the Vatican, either way the most extensive research ever done into our occult origins was seized and is being hidden from us by Christfag scum.
Know your kikes /pol/, the eternal Jew has many heads.
The whole point is that no one can agree on the meaning of primacy, except of course all the patriarchs who at least agree it has nothing to do with the mess that Rome and the Papacy has turned into.
The concept of "first among equals" has no basis in the bible or early Christianity.
Let's not even get into Orthodoxy hardly qualifying as "one" church or your semi regular iconoclasm
>The concept of "first among equals" has no basis in the bible or early Christianity.
First, almost nothing about the Church ecclesiastics is in the Bible, which would make sense considering the Church first existed without a formal text for hundreds of years. So of course we look to the example of the Apostles and their disciples as the basis for the Holy Tradition given their physical and temporal proximity to Christ in the flesh.
So, when we look to the early Church period, and the manner in which the things worked, you have nothing resembling a universal bishop, in Rome or anywhere else. Then, when it came time to make unified declarations of the faith, you had the great councils, which again had nothing resembling a universal bishop, and statement was made universally in a collegiate way by all attending bishops.
Lastly, few would be spiteful enough to claim that Rome is not authentically and historically part of the Church. It is apostolic, and thus part of the Church as we understand it in history. But whatever you think about ecclesiastics, the CURRENT teachings and example set by Rome, and even worse by the bulk of its diocese and laymen in the west as wildly beyond anything that any honest Christian could can orthodox with a lower case o, let alone an upper case O. So even if one was the grant the Primacy of the Pope in all of the implications that Rome claims, it would change the fact that he is poorly preserving the faith and a gigantic portion of his flock has deviated from the Way.
There's no way a Christian can support a war against Islam based on a false sense of biblical duty to protect the modern state of Israel. Killing is a sin, but that doesn't mean being a soldier or going to war is forbidden by the Church. I think the main difference between Orthodox and Catholic Crusaders and pacifist Quakers is we don't believe there's a such thing as a just war, it is not up for us to judge. But if we have to fight back and defend ourselves, we will, praying Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me. More than anything we don't submit to Islam or Communism even if means persecution, and in that sense Christianity is the strongest force against Islam because God is more powerful than the devil.
It's too late here to go into an argument that's running for ~960 years.
But I'll just say that my biggest problem with the orthodox church is their rejection/disdain for scholastics especially Aquinas and branding St. Augustine heterodox
I have mixed feelings on that. Paganism today has turned into Stormfag role play and has little to do with the original religion.
The truth is if you are only role playing a religion because you feel you need something to fit in with your political ideology of National Socialism I feel it is kind of pointless and in a way disrespectful.
Closest denomination to Orthodoxy?
No churches in my city
I like reading both of their works and value them but I tend to agree with the Eastern view that the west tries to comprehend what is incomprehensible and it's really not about solving the mystery as much as it is drawing a fence around the mystery.
"If you are a theologian you truly pray. If you truly pray you are a theologian." St Evagrius. I'd rather read Dostoevsky.
Fair enough. I've never known of a single person who was converted because of a scholastic argument though--it's just not how most (maybe not all, but most) people experience God. I know of many people who have converted because of the simple experience of the Divine Liturgy, or witnessing Christian piety.
Tridentine Mass Traditionalist Catholicism, but that's only close in an apostolic and historical sense. There really isn't anything that comes close besides Oriental Orthodox like the Armenian Apostolic Church, or Coptics, which I doubt are in your region either.
Drive 100 miles if you have to. Find a priest to talk to even if you can't attend liturgy more than a few time a year.
A prayer corner is probably the closest thing
There are many way to gaze upon God besides polemics, and formal logic. There is much to learn about God in the works of someone like Dostoevsky, and in the lives of Men generally. Again, like >>53902223 said, say what is an is not comparable or revelatory is how barriers are built around mystery.
I'd say that a scholastics basis is extremely important in making conversion "stick".
I don't know how to better express it.
Conversion itself obviously has to be done differently in most cases
But when I was Catholic, I never met a single person who read Aquinas or St. Augustine beyond maybe a college course.
The average person is not a theologian, nor does God require anyone to be. You don't even have to be literate to experience God in a profound and permanent way. Scholastics is a more intelligent and sophisticated version of the mistake the protestants make about literacy and book-learning as the basis for a strong Christian faith.
it helped me a lot
Good, which would explain why you are defending it. I still say scholasticism was influenced by medieval Muslim scholars like Averroes, and come from highly rationalistic Islamic approaches to God, which are foreign to the Church. Scholastics helped establish the modern empirical demands for the kinds of arguments it makes in the first place, so that now the average westerner thinks like a medieval Muslim and demands an ontology for his beliefs. Scholastics created their own demand.
The problem with defensive war is that it's weak. Slaves react and retaliate. The best strategy is to strike first. In high combat there are no rules, only winners: lie, cheat, and steal. Look at how the Jews and Islamic wage war?
The Jews however lose war because of their numbers. The Islamic because they consist of inferior Arabs. The Western World has the arsenal to destroy or pacify Islam in a month if we take the gloves off. But we don't. Have you thought that we can just point our Nukes at Mecca and issue an edict? Or that we can simply kill the refugees when they show up? It's not that we are incapable of stopping Islam it is that we are unwilling. Moral-based religions are just asking to be exploited.
Paganism is stupid, but if it can encourage aggressive thinking than it's useful stupidity.
You are based anon
>That video of the soviets destroying the church
Well I suppose it's hard to argue with you from a realistic perspective, but simply put striking first is not the Christian way. God made us with morals, the further we turn from Him the more we lose sight of them, the more our sins are justified in our minds but it is ultimately not the Truth, and we live in a fallen world full of evil no matter how vain we are in our actions. There is strength in humility and it is hard to know true love when feeling hatred and war towards others.
I'm concerned with the earth and the people on it, the present. In that regard I don't see any utility in Christianity, because what is needed now (and in every conflict every) is the exact opposite of humility. Humility stifles actions, pride enhances and empowers.
In regards to feeling hatred towards others I really don't. It's possible to want to kill or destroy something without really hating it. It's just a matter of recognizing there are things that should be removed, it can be done with very few deaths. All it would take to end immigration is to simply say there is no pity for "poor immigrants", to not give a shit when some baby drowns on the beach. The same is true for the US's illegal problem, whether deporting the Mexicans hurts their feelings or makes lifer harder for them doesn't matter. There's no hatred in that. That's what true is love: true love for country, race, and community.
You sound like the Grand Inquisitor. In that story, Christ doesn't argue with him, he just gives him a kiss. Because there's no arguing with him as a realist. You aren't really wrong, you're just missing the forest for the trees in my humble opinion. And I would argue that Christianity has served humanity more than anything else possibly could both in theory and in practice. Christ built his Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Christianity may be doomed in the West as a guiding social force. I won't let my own faith give me false optimism with respect to that. I certainly don't think the current twin trends of nihilism and ascendant western Islam are going to be responded to by a western Christian revival. It's more likely to be a violent ethnically-minded political response devoid of pretty much any metaphysic besides race and identity--which means it will essentially be pagan, which is what many people are hoping for anyway. Either that or it will completely embrace globalism and autocratically destroy any internal decent.
My hope is that Orthodoxy continues to rebound in the former-communist space because many of those countries, especially Russia, have a fundamentally different civilizational character to western Europe. Christianity can still address the spiritual and existential needs of the people there even if the west has exhausted itself of Christianity.
No matter what happens, I hope that the newly racialized, or terminally-globalist western Europe doesn't chose to again antagonize the east and create a war that destroys what will probably be the only Christian bastion left on the planet by that time.
European ethnic nationalists would absolutely require Russian support in event of civil war or uprising. Say there was a civil war in France, I'm certain that the US and Britain would intervene AGAINST the native French, not to mention Algeria and other Islamic countries intervening as well.
I think there's hope. Trump's base is red pilled on Russia and I think him and Putin would be bros, we could make America great again by looking to the East, the West knows little of the Orthodox Church as it is.
In regards to following doctrine in the name of a "clean soul" or "the last judgment. I really don't care. If what I have been told is true, that Orthodoxy struggles with the concept of war. Than it's not a practical religion. A restriction on war is a restriction on everything else. Although Orthodoxy is kind of irrelevent in America.
If you can keep your Christianity a purely ethnic religion than it can serve you. The moment you start looking at "fellow Christians" in other parts of the world as your equal it's on the path to self-destructing. Identity is defined by what you are not just as much as what you are: your identity becomes destroyed when you fail to differentiate between yourself and other.
Europe is in crisis mode. Christianity has proven itself a poisonous doctrine there with the Pope, Lutherians, and Angelicans all welcoming the enemy. If there is any courage left in the community they will come up with something, it could be Paganism, ethnic Orthodox, or more likely a secular movement with radical idealism. If it doesn't do something it will die and deserve it.
Christianity in America is kept alive by stupidity, have you seen how insane our Evangelicals are? They are the ones leading the pack. A lot of the problems that Christianity is usually suspectable to do not apply to our Christians. It will fade away too because Evangelicalism is not logical, and as OP points out it violates Christianity. There's already a movement that's going to replace Christianity, it's in it's infancy. Atheism allows for some truly frightening doctrines thanks to the beauty of moral relativism: you don't need to prove something empirically, you just need something practical. Justifying radical action is fairly easy.
I think the European nationalists are likely to jump the gun before the middling masses are on board. If the US hasn't descended into open civil war as the white population approaches 60%, why would Europe? It won't be until whites are a minority, and probably barely a plurality before the white middle class start to feel real social and economic consequences that don't even have the illusion of an escape.
If identitarians try to get violent before that, then the status quo governments will crush them with ease. If they wait until native Europeans are in a crisis, then there's not guarantee that the resulting western nations won't already be Brazilified mongrel nations in which the vast majority of people are happy with their weekly carnival festivals, boom boom music, and slaving away for the rich elites. Any white uprising at that point won't even compute--it will be a minority of a minority trying to reconquer half a continent from 400 million people of color and interlopers that now inhabit it.
Globalism has to be destroyed before it destroys the west beyond salvage but I'm not sure if/how that can happen.
Orthodoxy doesn't restrict war. It just didn't construct philosophical arguments to attempt to absolve people of the spiritually consequences of killing other people. It's not a rule that Orthodox can't fight in a war or some pacifist thing like that.
You can fight and kill, but you can't avoid the toll it will take on your soul. That's not a rule, that's just reality. Orthodox would traditionally abstain from communion for something like three years after killing someone, and devote themselves to prayer and reflection.
Pagans can revel in the lives they take. Fair enough. Christians are no less capable of taking lives, they just have other things to deal with after they do it.
Sup, Orthodoxers? Somewhat new Christian here (pas year after 15 years as a fedora).
Tell me, why should I join the "we hate everyone who isn't Russian" church over an FSSP Catholic Church?
Are you retarded? There are a shitload of Greek and shitskin orthodox as well. Orthodox people literally have separate Greek, Russian, and Antiochian churches because they refuse to unify into one (capitalist cuckoldry as per usual)
>because they refuse to unify into one
I thought they were all on good terms with one-another and essentially acknowledged themselves as a unified church with different ethnic branches?
Agreed, but I'm starting to think Catholicism/Orthodoxy is the only way to go. Otherwise, you're just relying on some dipshits interpretation of the bible.
>All that matters is Christ. His message isn't that tough, anon.
Sure, but is that it? I'm not convinced. I think it makes sense to embrace 2k years of brilliant theologians studying the word and understanding Christ's message in its entirety.
I do hope so. We must mend all the division that obamao has created, and that means with our Russian bros foremost! Trump can be the catalyst towards us becoming great allies!
I'm from Corona, CA. Used to go to St Andrews there.
>because they refuse to unify into one
No, they are unified as one. That's like saying Catholic diocese have separate geographic territories because they refuse to unify as one Church.
Orthodox national churches are simply historical areas of responsibility for the presiding bishop of the region. Many territories include more than one country, with many ethnic and language groups. See the Serbian Orthodox Church for instance. Alexandria is technically responsible for all of Africa, and Antioch is most of the Middle East. But it's one Church. There is not such thing as a divided Church or two Churches. It's One.
What do you mean "unify"? All speak the same language? Streamline the liturgy? That seems like it could open up the same problems that the Catholic church has - reckless modernization, disrespect towards holy tradition, etc...
Good lord. You don't have to be to Christian, but you should really stop with this meme. It's literally retarded, on multiple levels.
Who were ass-fucked by Christians
Are you aware to the degree which kikes hate Christians? I would have to assume not.
>FUCK JEWS, I'M GOING ATHEIST!
Wow, I'm sure so many jews will be upset, as they've literally be persecuted by atheists for 2k years.
Pic related: there's nothing Jews despise more than Christianity. If you hate Jews, your best bet is Christianity, not some tard-tier Pagan religion lost in the 2nd century.
that guy is obviously a simpleton. the problem is protestantism and how the powers that be can easily highjack it for their own ends because centralized authority on christian dogma is discounted through sola scriptura.
nationalism and racial concerns can easily become empty idols but it's not stupid to consider them because the common good can still be kept in mind. however, not sure what the common good exactly is in our anti-christian, pluralist culture, so there's that too.
>Agreed, but I'm starting to think Catholicism/Orthodoxy is the only way to go.
Former Southern Baptist here. I've been thinking the same thing as I've been considering going back to church, and had narrowed denominations down to Anglican/Episcopalian, Catholic, and Orthodox. But the disgusting liberalism and Marxism causing rot inside the Anglican and Catholic churches has eliminated them.
Interestingly enough I never realized that Orthodoxy came from the original unified Church.
I understand your feelings, but the whole of our heritage is this: prior to Roman conquest, Europeans were divine, or nearly so. I don't mean divine in the pubescent Roman sense that they were omnipotent beings that hurled lightning bolts. Instead they were creatures totally in tune with themselves, their families, their culture, and their environment. They fought amongst themselves, but they did not unduly exploit or destroy their own environment. They were what we would consider elves or the old races of men in Tolkien (the books, not the Jew movies).
Me. Former Fedora. We're more prevalent than you'd think. The degree to which Christ's biblical story is accepted by secular scholars coupled with the improbability of the spread of Christianity, considering Christ was not divine -- was pretty overwhelming. You should look into it, if you haven't. I imagine it would strengthen your faith. Of course, there were a number of other things that went into me becoming a Christian.
I only have a series from an Orthodox perspective, so obviously it won't be neutral. Though, it would be hard to find a completely unbiased one anyway. These are a comparative study of Orthodoxy and the major Christian and non-Christian groups through the ancient world, through the reformation, and into the modern era:
and proceed chronologically by date of post.
One other thing I will recommend with caution is Frank Schaeffer's old resentations. He has had a long an complicated relationship with Christianity, but he is a gifted speaker.
(continued from )
Whiteness is something that exists to be venerated at the very least. Who will remember the dead and lost, whose ancestor's tombs were pillaged by Romans and whose women and children were enslaved and raped by the same?
I don't think Tolkien used Numenoreans or their 1st Age ancestors as a positive example, especially since they ended up destroying themselves and the gifts bestowed upon them for the sake of vanity and the quest for immorality.
And then of course there's the cautionary examples of Arnor, which fell apart due to infighting and fracturing. It turned into poor city states and Orc infested countryside--sounds a lot like the future of the west.
Ah, but remember that the Numenoreans and their relatives were led astray by an outsider who whispered evil thoughts into their minds and led them to worship a false idol...
> burn the forest
> exhaust the soil
> move to a new place
hmm...kinda bizarre coming from an American. I mean, I'm a pretty reactionary, so maybe we're on different ends, but I see Christianity as our only hope.
>For Traditional gender roles
>Nationalistic (in the US, at least)
>Make up 96% of the military
Idk. As a conservative, I'm not sure how anyone on the right could see Christians as the problem.
Eh, you'd be surprised. There's hope.
>Atheism is down 3% since 1970
>Atheism down 1% in last 5 years
Even weirder, right?
Atheism/Nihilism always grows during periods of decadence. Currently, we're dealing with a period of extreme decadence. Interestingly enough, man tends to kill himself and not have children when he doesn't have a creator.
OK, sorry for being a smartass. And, I did know that. Anyway, do you maybe have an answer?
>Good:Like that it's old and more traditional than Catholic. I also really like their teaching on original sin
>Bad: Seems to ethnic. What's more, I'm trying to get more in touch with my roots, and I'm 2nd generation Italian. I feel Catholicism needs me.
Arnor wasn't though.
I think you'll really enjoy this either way though:
Tolkien's cosmology is the only thing in his works that was explicit allegorical, which is corroborated by his various correspondence with C.S. Lewis. I think there's a lot to learn about his views of Christianity in the cosmology he created.
G.K. Chesterton said about Christianity that familiarity breeds contempt. One of my favorite things about Tolkien is that he presents Christian metaphysics in a completely original cosmology so that they can be viewed from an outside and unfamiliar perspective.
In the article:
> The Greek explorer and merchant Pytheas of Marseilles made a voyage to Northern Europe ca. 330 BC. Part of his itinerary was recorded Polybios, Pliny and Strabo. Pytheas had visited Thule, which lay a six-day voyage north of Britain.
> There "the barbarians showed us the place where the sun does not go to sleep. It happened because there the night was very short—in some places two, in others three hours—so that the sun shortly after its fall soon went up again." He says that Thule was a fertile land, "rich in fruits that were ripe only until late in the year, and the people there used to prepare a drink of honey. And they threshed the grain in large houses, because of the cloudy weather and frequent rain. In the spring they drove the cattle up into the mountain pastures and stayed there all summer." This description may fit well with western Norwegian conditions. Here is an instance of both dairy farming and indoor drying/threshing.
> In Italy, shifting cultivation had become a thing of the past by the birth of Christ. Tacitus describes it as the strange cultivation methods he had experienced among the Germans, whom he knew well from his stay with them. Rome was entirely dependent on the shifting cultivation undertaken by the barbarians both to survive and to maintain "Pax Romana", but when the supply from the "trans alpina" colonies failed, the Roman Empire collapsed.
Literally, the Germans and Scandanavians had saner agricultural practices than the Romans. Slash and Burn isn't an issue as much as sane policies on replanting, crop rotation, and fertilizer - all of which pre-Roman Europeans performed.
> Tacitus writes in 98 AD about the Germans that their fields are proportionate to the participating growers, but they share their crops with each other by reputation. Distribution is easy because there is great access to land. They change soil every year, and mark some off to spare, for they seek not a strenuous job in cramming this fertile and vast land even greater ydelser, by planting apple orchards, cultivated special beds or watering gardens; grain is the only thing they insist that the ground will provide. The original text reads, "agri pro numero cultorum ad universis vicinis occupantur, quos mox inter se secundum dignationem partientur, facilitate partiendi camporum spatial praestant, arva per annos mutant, et superest ager, nec enim cum ubertate et amplitudine soli labore contendunt, ut pomaria conserant et prata separent et hortos rigent, sola terrae seges imperatur." Tacitus also discusses shifting cultivation.
More on the subject.
>that guy is obviously a simpleton. the problem is protestantism and how the powers that be can easily highjack it for their own ends because centralized authority on christian dogma is discounted through sola scriptura.
Yea, it's really bad. My family is protestant (Evangelical), and as a new Christian, i figured I'd start going to Church with them. The people are awesome, and it's actually been a great experience, but some of the teaching is REALLY stupid. Example: today I wen to a breakfast thing with the Church alongside my pops. it was an awesome experience, but the speaker was just some dude from the chruch. Not clergy, just a guy. He tried to tell the story of David (typical) and took a really whacky approach.
Overall, and with the exception of the Jew loving (which is pretty horrid), they're good people and I don't have a problem with them. On the contrary, I really like them. However, I just don't think it's right for me.
Also, have you considered FSSP or SSPX? They're pretty hardcore.
His arguments against Protestantism can be applied 100% to the orthodox church. At the end of the day you're just accepting what other people hand down that they themselves interpreted, which is fundamentally no different than being part of the interpretation process yourself.
>based Francis Collins
Another former Fedora. Cool guy. Highly recommend his book: The language of God.
The view of romans being superior in every aspect is nothing more than ignorance, they were great in state building, construction and military organization with emphasis on quantity, but the barbarians weren't just savages with clubs, they surpassed romans in many fields.
The anciestors living in complete harmony with nature is just a romanticism fiction, but take all you can attitude isn't new either, there's a king midas myth describing it.
Dude, you're taking the reactionary thing a little too far. If you're serous, just go innawoods. Christianity is our heritage -- it is our culture. Hell, look at 2/3 of the flags ITT.
What's more, I'm not trying to be mean, but your idea of Pagan religion/life is based on Roman writing. Very similar to what Americans did with the natives, i.e., the noble savage. The Romans didn't know dick about Pagan religions. The things they wrote were what they observed, but most importantly, were about rejuvenating the spirit of the Roman people.
The Romans could only sustain their state and later their empire with slaves and shit looted from their neighbors. They displayed the ultimate TNB, except that they were competent at it.
As for the nature part, it isn't fiction if there's plenty of evidence for it. The definition of "in tune with nature" doesn't mean being a hippy, it means not shitting where you eat. Hunters are in-tune with nature to a degree, they support conservation more than most vegans.
There's room for a little paganism within Christianity. Anything that is good can be appropriated by Christians. The Gospel of St. John is full of Greek philosophy. Athens was converted through philosophy.
If you think gays, trannies, and abortion fucking matter you really arn't seeing the big picture. Those are fucking insignificant. At the very most they are product of much bigger problems, it's complaining about a few leaves and ignoring the roots.
Also bro, if Christianity is our only hope you should probably just blow your brains out now. America is what 80% christian, we used to be 90% not too long ago. It held power for decades and didn't do shit.
I think I've said this before but Karl Marx is stronger than Jesus. Even if the second coming happened tomorrow it wouldn't fix anything. Christ himself would become indoctrinated. Marxism evolved from Christianity and so it is naturally stronger and the replacement for it.
There are 3 types of people. Leaders, indepence and sheep. Sheep are the majority, independent are a significant minority, leaders are very rare. The sheep will do whatever the fuck the leaders say. They can be marxists, christians, nazis, or whatever the fuck you want.
The win condition for the game is create leaders: Christian values are the very last thing you want a leader to have. You want them to be a Caeser, Alexander, or Hitler. The players are the independent. The sheep are NPCs.
>only sustain their state and later their empire with slaves and shit looted from their neighbors
they weren't any different from their neighbors, just more successful
the average roman did get as much benefits from that loot, as average american does from all the wars your government starts
Most of their neighbors were random barbarian tribes pre-empire. And everyone did the "bride kidnapping" thing those days, but the Romans would literally seek to annihilate your culture and your distinct genetic lineage to make you more like them.
And speaking as an American, the wars actually cost me money. Something like 2/5 of the taxes I pay goes to fund kickbacks to Lockheed Martin and Halliburton. I'm just a slavebot for my masters, same as my ancestors were. But hey, I'm white so I'm part of duh Patriarchy therefore I am evil.
they were barbarians themselves tbh
barbarian is greek for foreigner
tribes were only in the spain, gallia and daccia which was a smaller part of empire population wise, majority of their conquests was against older civilizations like greece and egypt
>Something like 2/5 of the taxes I pay goes to fund kickbacks
the attitude of the average roman in the years of decline was something like yours lol
patricians bringing in snowniggers and kikes to take our jobs or leech of welfare, taxes going on to finance stupid wars with britbongs and so on
I agree with some of your points, but not that marxism evolved from Christianity. Personally, I think we're watching the collapse of Marxism and its outgrowths.
Anyway, I believe the US is still 90% Christian (I could definitely be wrong). But, my point is that you have to work with what you have. The people who might be willing to support something like this, are not the atheists/others. They're nationalistic Christians. I think you have a distorted view of Christianity because of how it's existed in recent history. However, it's also been at the forefront of some of the most violent regimes that've ever existed.
I used this quote earlier, but
> “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.”
A monk during the Crusades. Anyway, I personally wouldn't advocate something like this, but it's very plausible under Christianity. What's more, Christianity's best period (sort of) was under divine right monarchy. IMO, Christianity is most compatible with monarchy -- as it tends to be ultimately be apolitical, and would prefer protection from the state and guidance on spiritual issues, as opposed to having an actual say in political affairs.
>some Christian guy walks up to me on the street, hands me a bible
>skip to Matthew 10:34
>"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, I came to bring trouble."
Fuck this whitewashed shit smh
>one verse sounds a little hostile
>the whole book must be terrible and evil
Sure it does, but first among equals is a title of respect more than power, and always has been. Look it up. It means you're equal with all the rest, with the foremost respect--the Pope is hardly an equal with other bishops in the Catholic Church
You are correct that Marxism is losing, in some countries more than others. For instance in America it is decaying. Marxism is self-destructive, even if it 'wins' in a few Europian countries the countries will just become too broke to be relevant.
The days of Christianity doing things like the crusades and monarchies are over. Do you know how Monarchies were justified in Protestantism? Divine right. Enlightenment destroyed divine right. We are in an age of individualism and that's a good thing, a side affect is that we cannot have the conformist mind-set needed for a monarchy.
The evolution of monarchy was fascism. It didn't need a God to justify itself and it didn't have stupid problems with blood-lines heirs (King is godly, son is dumb-ass)
Look we want a monarch/fascist/alpha male? What traits should such a person posession? Definitely not Christian ones, Alexander the great represented all 7 sins, Hitler was a fucking Nietzschian (even if he did have a corrupt text, he still understood some of it). Christianity is a religion to keep sheep in order and harmony. I guess if you could pull it off it would be best to have two religions. A hyper individualistic, amoral religion for the leaders and Christianity for the masses. Caste systems are fucking awesome.
Basically we aiming in the dark. We throw out values and ideas and they hit random targets. Eventually one will hit someone with the capabilities of being a leader and you better hope you didn't give him the values of a sheep. Through-out history leaders have primary come into the appropriate value system through pure dumb luck.
My point is good luck gathering support. The people who potentially support you -- the far right, NRA freaks who all surved in the military, hold one thing above their nation, God. If you think you can start a far-right movement by alienating 98% of the right, and the militant right in particular, you might want to check which country you're in, fam.
What's more, America needs Christianity. It's our religion. It's who we are.
>Fascism doesn't need God
Sure coulda used one to reign in the retardation and mass murder. You can celebrate your heroes without being an amoral fucktard.
Why can't we just accept it as imperfect. If you look into the historicity of Christ, the case is quite strong. IMO, the fact that there are small imperfections betters the case. If it read like Harry Potter or Tolkien (which some religious books do), I would be much more inclined to think it's bullshit. Look into multiple witness testimonies. If the accounts are flawless, it's an immediate sign of bullshit. What you want are key facts that are corroborated, and expected human error. That's when it's most likely someone is telling the truth.
I swear to god it feels like I am in some bizzaro Russia mixed with Mexico where I live. My neighborhood is nothing but Mexicans and Russians with Catholic and Orthodox churches all over the place throughout the neighborhood
All the early Christians were fiercely persecuted, and God destroyed the temple at Jerusalem (through the Romans, after the Pharisees rebelled and had numerous Christians killed and tortured for not joining in the rebellion), ending the Jewish priesthood, with the Pharisees and the Christians the only Jews left controlling anything. The Pharisees established Rabbinical Judaism, and Christians established the Only, Holy, Catholic, and Apologetic Church, which remains unchanged as the commonly called Orthodox Church
Even though we were following a book, it was incredibly long and it felt like we were just copying the singing from people around us. I'm not trying to say that comfort is what's important, but it was distinctly different from western church and it seemed endless as an outsider. Had I been alone I would have felt less awkward, but I was considering my friend who went with me, and knew he started getting uncomfortable with the whole thing an hour in. It was a little far from home, so the whole thing just felt awkward.
The Orthodox use the Septuagint for their OT, any translation of that is approved pretty much. NT, any translation is fine so long as it's not biased and liberal translation, the the NSRV. The King James Version is actually the one I see most often quoted with the Orthodox Church, as far as the New Testament goes.
Yeah, it's going to feel extremely awkward to new people, generally. It's more in the vein of how the early Christians worshiped, so you have to keep in mind it's from a culture and perspective of super religious Jews (but not Pharisees, and all Rabbinical Judaism comes from the Pharisees) from 2000 years ago.
>In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants.
Orthodox considers work on Sunday and Holy Days to be a sin unless it's a function necessary to things like safety, so that's something you should try fix even if you can work around the problem of weekly service.
The Orthodox Church doesn't have a problem with the translation, apart from the Old Testament using the Masoretic text as its base rather than the Septuagint--passages where they match in translation are fine. The Orthodox Church doesn't care who translated the Bible so long as it is accurate enough, they aren't autistic. Besides that, the Orthodox Church was getting very close to the Anglican Church all the way up until the Anglicans started ordaining women. At one point, the Anglicans even dropped the filioque in their talks with the Orthodox Church, but they restored it after relations soured.
I found an FSSP parish and went to High Mass last Sunday. I have to say it was quite something. I'm planning on attending tomorrow, and hopefully more services during the week when they have potlucks and seminars and whatnot.
I like the idea of Orthodox, it's just kind of a PITA to find a parish locally that's a fit.
I've been invited to tour a local SSPX offshoot private church this week. Looking forward to checking it out, as there aren't many that understand current issues with the post V2 Church.
man, you asked the right guy! I'm in SoCal.
There were people in suits, but mostly men wore button down long sleeve shirts and slacks. Most women wore conservative dresses. The best is the ones wearing whore-wear but with their hair covered for piety! kek
The funny thing is, I was all worried about not sitting and whatnot correctly.....well....most of the people there didn't know how to do it any better than me! I actually ended up ordering some red book from Angelus press? that tells what to do during the Tridentine Mass. I don't have a link handy but if you gooogle it you'll find it.
The SSPX church locally seems to be a strict suit and tie place, but that's just what I can tell from photos.
Good luck, m80, if I can do FSSP anyone can!
OK, nice. i was thinking about wearing button down with a blazer and slacks.
idk m8. I haven't been to a Catholic Mass in 16 years. I was baptized and made my communion, but not confirmed. I'm not going to take communion though. I really need to first speak with a Priest.
Did you take communion? If so, how was the tongue thing?
Based Lebanon. Lots of good Christians there (or used to be). Same with Syria.
Fact: in 2011, Syria was 12% Christian! That was too high for Obama.
Also, look up The Miracle of Damascus and watch this https://youtu.be/uOx_xBSn1Rk
Smart to talk to a Priest. I have to say , the sermon was probably the best I've ever heard. The moral to the story was: don't fucking wait to get last rites. You gotta be coherent to give confession before you kick
The tongue thing was not nearly as bad as expected. It was just new doing the whole kneeling on the rail thing and whatnot.
Here, confession is held 30 mins prior to the service, FWIW. The weekly bulletin really gave a bunch of info, I was very impressed by the whole thing.
I sat in back but not the last row, so I could watch what people were doing , but didn't have to be one of the first people to go up to take communion. Alwasy weird lining up.
I just completed RCIA this April. I'd actually like to take the class again.
>OK, nice. i was thinking about wearing button down with a blazer and slacks.
You'd be in the top 10% of well dressed at my FSSP Parish. There were even guys there wearing Polo shirts but they seemed a bit under dressed, IMO.
The row in front of me, some family had a 3 ring binder with instructions on when to kneel and etc. I couldn't follow along with anything that was going on for the most part.
also being called wholesome
I'm going to church in one hour. Sunday service begins at 10am. I just need a shower and some breakfast. It's high church and very traditional. We are very close to the Orthodox faith. The pic you posted is from this:
>High Church Anglicanism tends to be closer to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian teachings.
Pic is my church. I hope you like it. We tend to follow the Orthodox tradition.
Except of course we have this thing called Patriology and history that shows us how many of the beliefs and practices of Orthodox christianity can be traced back to the Earliest stages of Christianity's history.
Protestantism cannot do this. One does not find Sola Scriptura or even Sola Fide in the Church Fathers. None at all. Grab any scholarly publication on this topic such as "Early Christian Doctrines" or even the Reformed Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" and you can see just how far off the mark Protestantism is.
I kinda agree with you there Miloš
The abrahamic cults were all based on jewish mythology. The Bible is just the volume 2 of the jewish fantasy saga, the quran is a fanfic of that.
They basically focus only on the jewish lands, spreading stories about how a jew did something or about how god helped a jew. For his entire existence, god only seemingly focused on helping the jews. It is an insult for every white person to believe this shit. How can a pride white person even believe that a hebrew girl was chosen to bear the "son or god"?
Anything good in christianity does not come from Christ but from the European culture.
>watch the first few minutes of the against protestantism video
>''all are saved, it doesn't even really matter if you're orthodox''
I can't agree with that. You can't deny true presence and still call yourself a Christian.
Good thread fam.
I'm a staunch Catholic but I still have love for my Eastern and Oriental brothers. I really like Orthodox theology and spirit. I hope us westerners can rise up again against this new culture of idolatry.
Yeah, the only churches with valid sacraments are us two. I mean, maybe you can count in the Nestorians despite their fudged up Christology.
I mean, it's dangerous to say that all who seek God can be saved. The man in the video gives the examples of the thief on a cross and the Roman centurion whom Christ promised salvation even though they did not belong to any church or whatever.
But what then of muslims and hinds who seek God with their heart, but reject Christianity. What of Marcion and other heretics who outright said ''you're wrong'' to the Apostles themselves. The thief on the cross and the centurion are an example of extraordinary mercy given by God and we can't say that God will grant it to all who earnestly seek God.
Here are the methods the “self-chosen” and their slaves, like you, employ when confronted by facts which they cannot handle and facts which they cannot afford to be unleashed on the public:
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’.
If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.
Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.
Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
That's another matter. Sure, that person would've received the baptism of desire but he still died without going to confession and took his earthly sins with him.
The Church also says that it is possible that God grant extraordinary mercy to a protestant, but generally speaking his salvation is severely hindered by the fact that he is a protestant. Basically, unless God grants extraordinary mercy, no one outside the Church can be saved.
Alice in Wonderland Logic
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
Demand complete solutions
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
***That is just a taste to show you and all the readers that I am far from just blowing smoke. I, we, know all this and much, much, more.
Your baptism remits your earthly sins. That's why some Christians, like Constantine, put it off as late as possible. Because for sins after baptism, you have to do confession and penance for forgiveness, and penance in the early Church was some heavy shit.