Thanks! Yeah the guy is totally right. It's just not Fischer. Fischer knew about the jews too even though he was jewish himself but denied it. It's pretty obvious this was Fischer's father. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nemenyi
I am aware of the irony. If I remember, it’s not clear if he was 50 or 100% jewish. Anyway, he was a brilliant guy who was demonized unfairly for his excellent pattern recognition.
I dont agree wit EMJ on many things, but I think its worth boosting him because he j-pills alot of catholics. If everybody can agree its the same problem its a cake walk after that.
Are you really a woman? If so, white unity movements/groups need to figure out a way to give "space" to women (as much as i hate that word) and have them want to be part of this. It's never going to go anywhere with only angry men that sit around belittling women all the time. Hitler didn't do that and it wasn't what national socialism is about. I think many here that just shit all over women and aren't welcoming are just kikes. I'm not white knighting here. I just know I have family members that are female that tried to see what this was about and just never came back because of it. Not the place to discuss it but I'm glad you stick around despite the shit. That's not easy.
The problem is that Arianism is theologically correct. The bible gives plenty of literal examples of the three members of the Godhead being separate entities. It even shows that they have capacity for will independent of each other but voluntarily align each of their wills with the Father. Jesus literally saying he doesn't do his will but the Father's. But why would the distinction be necessary if they didn't have a capacity to be different, and in fact were different, but Jesus chose to act not according to that different will.
The only biblical case we have for them being one is literal analogy. And what is their oneness analogous to? You and I being one. That is not literally. And some will say yeah, but it just shows how much we should be one that we should be like this one group that is literally one being. Ok, I see the attractiveness in trying to read the most extreme conclusion possible from a text for how much we should be one, but just because you like how poetic that would be if that is what it was saying doesn't mean that that text establishes it.
Basically if you don't believe in Arianism you are either illiterate, or taken up in extra-biblical dogma that has nothing to do with the teachings of the gospels, all because some murderous general who declared himself pope decided he didn't want strife so he made people give him an answer to a question he demanded. That is not how God communicates doctrine ever. The Nicene creed is also complete bullshit that says that God is unknowable in every way possible even though the bible says that the purpose of life is to come to know God. When will the non-Catholic religions drop all Catholic dogmas?
Basically the Arians were the first protestants, but got militarily defeated, but by the time the second round of protestants came around they had different more politically oriented complaints and while they were willing to admit that the Catholic church didn't teach sound doctrine where it conflicted with their political interests they weren't willing to touch anything else. So Arianism despite its significant scriptural basis wasn't worth touching if that would alienate people who wanted to hold onto catholic dogmas when they needed as many people to side with their political movement as possible.
Then who is right? The early church and the Arians. Everyone else turned Christianity into a political game.
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 4 points 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 19:44:53 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 21:40:30 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 0 points 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 21:55:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 22:18:27 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 0 points 2 yearsApr 27, 2023 05:24:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Monica
[ - ] Monica 0 points 2 yearsApr 27, 2023 04:32:20 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Scyber
[ - ] Scyber 0 points 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 22:19:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 21:45:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 0 points 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 23:08:29 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 0 points 2 yearsApr 26, 2023 20:57:26 ago (+0/-0)*
The only biblical case we have for them being one is literal analogy. And what is their oneness analogous to? You and I being one. That is not literally. And some will say yeah, but it just shows how much we should be one that we should be like this one group that is literally one being. Ok, I see the attractiveness in trying to read the most extreme conclusion possible from a text for how much we should be one, but just because you like how poetic that would be if that is what it was saying doesn't mean that that text establishes it.
Basically if you don't believe in Arianism you are either illiterate, or taken up in extra-biblical dogma that has nothing to do with the teachings of the gospels, all because some murderous general who declared himself pope decided he didn't want strife so he made people give him an answer to a question he demanded. That is not how God communicates doctrine ever. The Nicene creed is also complete bullshit that says that God is unknowable in every way possible even though the bible says that the purpose of life is to come to know God. When will the non-Catholic religions drop all Catholic dogmas?
Basically the Arians were the first protestants, but got militarily defeated, but by the time the second round of protestants came around they had different more politically oriented complaints and while they were willing to admit that the Catholic church didn't teach sound doctrine where it conflicted with their political interests they weren't willing to touch anything else. So Arianism despite its significant scriptural basis wasn't worth touching if that would alienate people who wanted to hold onto catholic dogmas when they needed as many people to side with their political movement as possible.
Then who is right? The early church and the Arians. Everyone else turned Christianity into a political game.