Sign into an existing account

Progressives: "There's no such thing as race".
@Freefall: "There's no such thing as race".

Define “every tiny detail” of every one of those groups and how they differ.

Scofield rewrote the bible to conflate modern jews with Isralites. And most christ cucks bought the lie.

It's actually Passover.

that's not a point. you're just stating what the op said but trying to make out like you're arguing otherwise. what a typical jewish tactic. 'regardless of their origin' the whole point is the origin you dumb fuck. they're obviously pagan holidays which were converted by the church into christian celebrations, WE LITERALLY HAVE DOCUMENTED PROOF OF THEM DOING THIS TO NATIVE FESTIVALS IN MESOAMERICA.

Thou shalt not steal

Was it PS (PeaceSeeker) who made the point?

Well said.

.... yes.

The Bible had been changed many times since it was first written. King James is one of the most respected versions of the Bible and also the most heavily embellished.

We have find the origins of many biblical passages due to archeology, and the Bible we see is a frankensteinian stichjob where many kings and other influential figures just added, removed, or changed parts of the book to suit the political climate of their day. It's the exact opposite of what you describe it as.

The Bible had ceased to be modified now but Christian practice today has certainly not abandoned this quality to itself.

Christians are constantly changing what it means to be Christian or to practice Christianity, again the biggest factor is whatever the most powerful or influential figures within Christian circles thinks wouod best suit them politically.

You have no holy book, you have no religion, and the influence of Christianity had been catastrophic in that it gave us both the right and the left.

Communism is people practicing Christianity as the Bible commands, but with the exemption of God. The morals of the typical libcuck atheist are based on enlightenment period moral philosophy where they wanted to create a way for people to follow the moral teachings of christ without worshipping him.

I'd say that the moral teaching of Jesus was a lethal poison to begin with, the momment we accepted the ideas we were doomed.

That weakness was a strength to be lauded and strength was a weakness to be ashamed of or guilty for. "The meek with inherit the earth, the rich shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" vs "You white folk better apologize for colonizing us".

But worse was that we should care about the happiness and suffering of all people. That's a Christian stance that the philosophers transformed into ideas like utilitarianism and deontology, they were just recreating christian morality without reference to christ.

There was good reason that Neitzsche saw that the Communists and the Christians were the same when it came to what their moral paradigms were.

The pre-Christian moral paradigm begins not with some higher moral law, or the good of mankind, but with the good of oneself, and from that we derive the good of certain others whom we care about such that their happiness is our own, or whose benefit pays dividends to our own benefit, or to that of the aforementioned loved ones.

The dirty secret of Christians within the nationalist sphere is that their religion is inherently incompatible with nationalism, they are commanded to care for all of mankind, and so they cannot put one subset of men before another while still being faithful to Jesus.

Nationalism requires a basis in egoism, that sees the good of oneself as the highest good, if not the only one, as stated before, following the path that seeks to optimize one's own happiness and pleasure while minimizing one's own suffering and misery naturally leads to nationalism as an extension of this philosophy.

Either it's a result of "I care for my family and friends, and so their happiness is my own", or "I am a white man, so anything that privileges whites over non-whites or men over women is to my own benefit", or "I love my own people, but I don't feel quite the same about that other group of people who are unlike me".

Christianity prevents one from being a nationalist by virtue of its very nature, only ignorance or deliberate rejection of its teachings can allow one to be a nationalist of the ethnic variety.

We can see this in the rhetoric of Christians within nationalist circles, they judge of character rather than on skin color, being more concerned with the actions of members of groups rather than their DNA.

For me it's all about the 14 words, I care only about the existence of White people, their children's futures, and also for the utilitarian ratio with regards to those of the White race - by maximizing their happiness & pleasure, while minimizing their suffering & misery.

If observed biblically Christianity is communism with the addition of God, and communism is the attempt to follow the moral and political ideas of Christianity without the presence of God.

In Christian vs atheist debated it often comes down to two guys that agree om what is good and evil, to the point that there's no question of whether something like racism is morally wrong or something like women's rights are morally right. Instead they accuse each other of not sufficiently adhering to the moral standards they both agree upon.

The places where they have their differences are insignificant trivialities.

Now, an egoist moral paradigms accepts that there is not one universal standard by which good and evil could be judged, everyone has their own ideas about what is good or evil since it is based upon how it makes them feel personally. Good and evil become synonymous with good and bad, as in, they are matters of individual preference, subjective valuation.

Egoism is in this way a school of moral relativism. But that's not to say that it advocates that you refrain from making your judgements and acting upon them.

To the contrary, the central view of morality from an egoist perspective is that the evolution of morality is all about conflict between competing moral viewpoints, and the elimination of the ethical preferences of the weak by those which are held by the strong. Its a world of warring viewpoints.

Everyone has their own set of things which make them feel happy or sad, they desire to cultivate the conditions that make then happy, and to prevent the conditions that make them sad, desire and fear.

It's all about the neurochemicals that reward our brains with pleasurable feelings when we are in circumstances that are good for increasing the number of organisms with genetic similarity to ourselves.

Our brains also punish us with neurochemicals that make us feel painfully under circumstances where it is more likely that the number of genetically similar organisms would decrease.

FYI it's not just the matter of our survival and procreation, but that of our closely-related kin or phenotypically-similar folk as well.

We are monkeys on juice, all motivated by the pursuit of the same chemical highs, and avoidance of the same chemical lows, we just all want these things for ourselves, and have chosen different proxies for getting them.

Each perspective is different, and so this naturally leas them into conflict, egoism advocates that each individual fight to impose their view and get their way, the best man wins and trains his life moral victory with an actual victory of outlasting the guy with the competing view.

Proponents of the concept of an "objective" morality like to conflate moral subjectivity with permissiveness and a refraining from casting judgemnt or acting to enforce one's own ideas of ethical conduct upon others. Something egoism is actually all about.

They do this despite Christian doctrine commanding them to withhold judgment of others and punishment of their crimes.
Or probably becaue of it, in my history I've seen that every accusation made against another is potentially a confession of being guilty of the same kind of charge they've laid against another.

Its a coping mechanism as well as a way of distracting others from the failures on ther own end, by identifying them in another. Too bad it's become predictable.

The Christian types love to huht down pedophiles on the left, and accuse their secularism of facilitating the sexual crimes perpetrated with minors, however they have a dirty secret in that the Bible does not condemn sexual relations with children, and that wouldn't be an issue except that the Bible does lay out some pretty extensive prohibitions with regard to sex laws, the lack of an issue with child-fucking was a very prominent absence.

Christians may try to say that the Bible has a rule forbidding child marriage, but I couldn't find it anywhere.

Pagans love to talk about the degeneracy of the modern west, but ignore that pagan myths are all pretty much d-teir degenerate shut.

I'm talking incest, pedophilia, vore, bestiality, transgenderism, necrophilia, and more, all with a heavy dosage of rape throughout.
/d/ could make an animated porno that is filled with the most fucked up fetishes where there a multiple scenes of animals raping women, where it is not even the most deviant sexual elements in there - and it is just literally the mythology of pre-Christian civilizations within Mesopotamia, the Nile Valley, The Middle East, Greek-Roman, Norse-Germanic, Celt-Briton, and Slavic lands.
They'd just let the many sexual scenes play out as they likely had.

And the Bible was written by peole who took so many of the stories of pagans, then changed them a bit to make their owm stories.

As stated before, the Bible had been changed many, many times, the original versions were probably just as deviant as the pagan myths were, but over time those elements were played down, likely one of the reasons being the need for the precursors of Christianity wanting to distinguish their religion from those of the pagans whose stories they'd used as a basis for their own mythology.

Another cause might be an increased fear of disease and new measures put in place to lessen the likelihood of people being ill or otherwise disabled.

I mean, they would have noticed the consistencies among those who had frequently gotten sick or conceived babies with infirmities, and those who hadnt. They didn't need to two the cause or mechanisms specifically to observe that peopw who ate pork tended to get the shits more often than those who hadn't.

It's not very unchanging and fixed if one day God makes bacon forbidden, but, for some reason now, it's OK to eat it.

Which god did that? There are 1000 different translations of the bible. None of the books of the bible is 4000 years old, many are less than half that.