NT - Luke 6:35 - But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 14:14:04 ago (+1/-0)
I don't believe they are the same god, and neither did Marcion of Sinope. He considered the Hebrew god to be a demiurge and not the true God, whose son was Jesus Christ, sent to Earth to repudiate the jews and offer redemption to all nations.
Reading comprehension isn't your forté is it rabbi?
You leave out the rest which makes the point clear. You obfuscate by cherry picking and degrade the message.
If you are only good to those who are good in return then you are only half good. If you are good to those who are bad and to those who are good, then you are truly good.
I'm only half assed good, thus I do not receive the Lord's blessing, and neither do you faggot.
i didn't cherrypick anything. none of the surrounding verses change either of what i posted? nothing was obfuscated. lol at how hard ur trying to deny the truth. pathetic.
It not only matters what you say but who you say it to. All of the things Jesus said about loving your neighbor or enemy was to the white Adamic Israelites. Not to the Edomites or Zulus or Incas or all humans on earth. If I say to my own kids “I will give you my inheritance” does that mean I will give it to everyone in the world because I said those words or just to the family members I am saying it to?
What began as an ethno-religion for one group was probably altered through the centuries, making it more palatable to different ethnic groups, facilitating its exportation to different ethnic groups.
More precisely, the religion gradually changed (was cherry-picked) as it grew in popularity and expanded to regions inhabited by peoples very different than the ones from which it originated, where they added some to it and subtracted some from it; an 'evolution' of sorts.
What's indisputable however is that the 'old' and the 'new' faiths have a common ancestor in the ethno-religion of the group that conceived it in the first place.
I don't think that's correct. The New Testament is not the result of gradual change, it's a completely different philosophical concept. One is based on compliance, the other is based in faith. It's a full rejection of the previous system.
I agree that it's a different philosophical concept. But I disagree that it's a full rejection of the previous system.
The new faith must have come from somewhere, it must have utilized at least some concepts that already existed, traditions and beliefs that were already in place. Therefore it follows that the new faith is 'related' to what was before it. The degree of relation and shared traits (especially in contemporary times) is a debate in its own right, but how could it be a "completely" new phenomenon, devoid of any traits from the old faith, when there is so much ideological consistency between them?
Are 'faith' and 'compliance' that different from each other in the context of religion? Both terms ultimately entail the same thing: a certain rule must be followed otherwise a penalty is imposed. In this case, belief is the rule and damnation is the penalty.
I think faith and compliance are very different. One requires introspection while the other simply requires knowing and following the rules. For all actions there are consequences, good and/or bad, we choose based on our perception of the good and/or bad. Faith is a choice. People choose to believe that there is a God, or they choose to believe that there is not. Some choose to not consider the question.
As far as the concepts, some of those are fairly universal, that is, be honest, don't commit unnecessary violence, etc. The idea that you don't need priests to intercede between you and God was revolutionary. It was a complete break with the old system. That's why Jesus was so dangerous to the (((ruling class.))) That's why they persecuted his people so vigorously. The ruling class is always vulnerable and will always work overtime to stamp out any question about the legitimacy of their rule. We're seeing that today.
That said, I don't need to be unevenly yoked to peoples that are ill suited to my culture and lifestyle. It's a disservice to them and a disservice to me. Otherwise, we agree.
I can agree with that distinction between faith and compliance as concepts. But in the context of religion, they are intertwined. One must have faith to some degree in the source of the rules that they are compliant to, and one must be compliant of certain rules if they have faith in an idea. Every religion entails both faith and compliance, or they wouldn't be religions:
1. They require faith in "something" (be it God, a deity, an Earthly figure, a political group, or some other originator).
2. And they require compliance to the rules set forth by that "something."
I agree with that as well, the separation of Earthly clerical power from the faith as an ideology. But in practice, throughout history we saw the increase of church power and the corruption that occurred as a result. A new emerging political class took power, and swept away whatever it saw as undermining its rule. It swept away the old pagan systems of Europe and supplanted them.
I'm not trying to start a Pagan vs. Christianity debate, as that's not what we're arguing, but I'm stating it simply for the point I'm making, that the new faith did take some let's say "inspiration" from the old. Questioning the holocaust or support for israel will bring about some heavy pushback from some of the most "pious Christians," not unlike the old ruling class persecuting a nascent Christianity.
Now, you can say that these sorts of Christians are brainwashed, that they've been fed the lie about the jews being the "chosen people." And I'd agree with that, because I'm not attacking Christianity as a whole (anyone pro-White is my ally). But aren't those jew-allied Christians still Christians led astray? If they aren't true Christians, then they must be a new branch that emerged at some point from the same stem; both have a common ancestor in the 1st century Christian religion.
Questioning the holocaust or support for israel will bring about some heavy pushback from some of the most "pious Christians," not unlike the old ruling class persecuting a nascent Christianity.
This is a fairly recent (150 years plus or minus) belief system going back to dispensationalism. It's bad doctrine. I agree that jew loving Christians are a threat to White people. Not through maliciousness, but through their desire to be reasonable. They may truly be Christians, but we can not allow them near the levers of power in the White ethnostate. I would let them live with me, but I would never trust them to stand watch.
Oddly enough I both agree with you and disagree with you. The old testament in the new testament concealed and the new testament is old testament revealed. However, the implementation is completely different. I agree that the target audience for the New Testament was whites, and we were clearly warned about jews. The New Testament was mostly written in Greek. That tells you who was going to be using it.
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 14:14:04 ago (+1/-0)
https://theveryfirstbible.org/
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 05:30:38 ago (+1/-0)
You leave out the rest which makes the point clear. You obfuscate by cherry picking and degrade the message.
If you are only good to those who are good in return then you are only half good. If you are good to those who are bad and to those who are good, then you are truly good.
I'm only half assed good, thus I do not receive the Lord's blessing, and neither do you faggot.
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 05:37:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 05:43:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 05:45:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Hugh
[ - ] Hugh 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 13:14:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 02:35:14 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] 15MAR
[ - ] 15MAR -1 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 00:08:05 ago (+1/-2)
More precisely, the religion gradually changed (was cherry-picked) as it grew in popularity and expanded to regions inhabited by peoples very different than the ones from which it originated, where they added some to it and subtracted some from it; an 'evolution' of sorts.
What's indisputable however is that the 'old' and the 'new' faiths have a common ancestor in the ethno-religion of the group that conceived it in the first place.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 06:39:24 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] 15MAR
[ - ] 15MAR 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 11:46:15 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened -1 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 00:18:31 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] 15MAR
[ - ] 15MAR 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 01:14:30 ago (+1/-1)
The new faith must have come from somewhere, it must have utilized at least some concepts that already existed, traditions and beliefs that were already in place. Therefore it follows that the new faith is 'related' to what was before it. The degree of relation and shared traits (especially in contemporary times) is a debate in its own right, but how could it be a "completely" new phenomenon, devoid of any traits from the old faith, when there is so much ideological consistency between them?
Are 'faith' and 'compliance' that different from each other in the context of religion? Both terms ultimately entail the same thing: a certain rule must be followed otherwise a penalty is imposed. In this case, belief is the rule and damnation is the penalty.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 06:37:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 02:23:33 ago (+1/-1)
As far as the concepts, some of those are fairly universal, that is, be honest, don't commit unnecessary violence, etc. The idea that you don't need priests to intercede between you and God was revolutionary. It was a complete break with the old system. That's why Jesus was so dangerous to the (((ruling class.))) That's why they persecuted his people so vigorously. The ruling class is always vulnerable and will always work overtime to stamp out any question about the legitimacy of their rule. We're seeing that today.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 07:55:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 14:07:14 ago (+0/-0)
That said, I don't need to be unevenly yoked to peoples that are ill suited to my culture and lifestyle. It's a disservice to them and a disservice to me. Otherwise, we agree.
[ + ] 15MAR
[ - ] 15MAR 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 12:46:23 ago (+0/-0)
1. They require faith in "something" (be it God, a deity, an Earthly figure, a political group, or some other
originator).
2. And they require compliance to the rules set forth by that "something."
I agree with that as well, the separation of Earthly clerical power from the faith as an ideology. But in practice, throughout history we saw the increase of church power and the corruption that occurred as a result. A new emerging political class took power, and swept away whatever it saw as undermining its rule. It swept away the old pagan systems of Europe and supplanted them.
I'm not trying to start a Pagan vs. Christianity debate, as that's not what we're arguing, but I'm stating it simply for the point I'm making, that the new faith did take some let's say "inspiration" from the old. Questioning the holocaust or support for israel will bring about some heavy pushback from some of the most "pious Christians," not unlike the old ruling class persecuting a nascent Christianity.
Now, you can say that these sorts of Christians are brainwashed, that they've been fed the lie about the jews being the "chosen people." And I'd agree with that, because I'm not attacking Christianity as a whole (anyone pro-White is my ally). But aren't those jew-allied Christians still Christians led astray? If they aren't true Christians, then they must be a new branch that emerged at some point from the same stem; both have a common ancestor in the 1st century Christian religion.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 13:01:56 ago (+1/-0)
This is a fairly recent (150 years plus or minus) belief system going back to dispensationalism. It's bad doctrine. I agree that jew loving Christians are a threat to White people. Not through maliciousness, but through their desire to be reasonable. They may truly be Christians, but we can not allow them near the levers of power in the White ethnostate. I would let them live with me, but I would never trust them to stand watch.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 07:55:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 3, 2022 12:55:12 ago (+0/-0)