Christianity

Also, I know most people like Orthodox Christianity here, but I go to a standard non-denominational church with Baptist leanings.

I do a lot of volunteer work, construction on the church and maintenance. Yesterday I painted the bathrooms. I had a helper, she was about 49, but looked 35.

We started talking about society and degeneracy and she kinda let it slip, in a roundabout way, that she doesn't like niggers too much.

Our conversation drifted toward Zionism and I redpilled her on the Jews using the books of Matthew and Revelation.

Whatever you choose, do not choose Evangelical Christianity. I kinda found my niche with non-Zionist Baptist church. They're against degeneracy and faggotry, they don't like shitskin Muslims and most of them don't like niggers. In Baptist churches in the south, niggers have their own churches and whites have their own churches. It's not intentionally segregated, but everyone knows white people aren't going to listen to an incoherent nigger babbling his sermon for two hours and turning the whole fucking thing into Soul Train; and niggers aren't going to listen to a white man with a choir that sings traditional non-negro spiritual hymns.

Before you decide you're absolutely orthodox, check out Baptist churches, non-Zionist. If you don't want to be a Jew cuck, call up a prospective church and ask them how they feel about Zionism and Israel first. Usually, there will be someone happy to answer your questions. If they bow down to the kikes, get another church. Those fuckers are braindead and high on the Schofield Bible.
You want KJV or mayyyybe an NIV church, depending on a few factors.

The only way you're going to know if it suits you is by going and meeting some people there.

There are also what I call "stepping stone churches." Some of them are open to everyone and there's no dress code and everything is really informal. That may be a good starting point and then later, you can become a member of a more traditional Baptist church, one that doesn't really allow niggers (of course they ALLOW them, but they are made to feel uncomfortable and tend to find a nigger church instead) with a respectable dress code and a stronger sense of community in the church.

I really enjoy the aestheics and LARPing ability of Orthodox and Catholocism (espcially Deus Vult), but I feel they aren't overall too interested in the messages of the bible.
I feel a stern redpilled baptist church would fulfil what you want. Something like a Pastor Steven Anderson type. Man, if he just knew the truth about racemixing, he'd be pretty much perfect.

A bunch of evangelicals got wowed by the "original Christianity" sales pitch and joined the Orthodox – fast forward a few years and a corrupt bishop flies in anathematizes them for petty reasons and steals the building they bought and paid for. The Orthodox are a bunch of hypocritical phonies but they sure love expensive goo-gaws.

I know that feel, fam. Some Baptists do.

Unfortunately, I think in his most private innermost thoughts, he knows. But since he's become a highly publicized pastor that has been known for his dislike of the Jews, he has to act like he likes niggers. I think it's his scapegoat against racism allegations.

"Pastor Anderson is a NAZI and a RACIST!!!!"

"Well that's not true, I have had interracial marriages and the black people in my church disagree with that notion…"

As public as he is, he can't just go full 1488 WN. Or maybe it's wishful thinking and he really is ignorant to the negro problem.

I'm only wondering what they think accept about things like evolution or you know basic sciences at this point and their explanation in how it ties together with god

I know some baptists where I live just reject evolution as a whole and take the whole bible face value as all literal with nothing to interpret

That's why I ask user, no need to sperg out and go full autism

sanderson1611.blogspot.com/2014/08/im-north-african.html

I another Orthodox horror story where a devout contractor busts his hump building an entire monastery in the middle of nowhere at a steep discount for the church – then they stiff him. Don't pay him a dime and use religious guilt to shame him for asking. The bigger the outward show, the bigger the phoney inside. Orthodox are corrupt.

THE ORIGINAL, UNADULTERATED NEW TESTAMENT WAS A WARNING AGAINST JEWS

This is why the bible and only the bible is demanded of so much by leftists. Like 2 decades ago there was a whole big deal about the Shroud of Torah.

TEST THE TALMUD.

It's why you always here;

Yes. He was of Jerusalem, he was NOT a kike.

If you've seen Marching To Zion, you already know he's 1/4 Ashkenazi on his grandmother's side.

If we're being honest here, I don't care too much if someone has a percentage of Jew or even a low low percentage of nigger DNA. Pastor Anderson looks as white as me and he doesn't study the bullshit Talmud or Kabbalah, so in my eyes, he's not really Jewish.

Jews who do not affiliate themselves with Israel, other kikes or the bullshit Jewish fairy tales of the Talmud or Kabbalah aren't the problem. The problem with Jews isn't the Torah. The problem with the Jews is the ((((tribal mentality)))) the attitude of being the chosen and the fact that they are anti-white in general and practice usury and encourage degeneracy.

If you can find a Jew that believes in the Torah fully and not the other bullshit Jewish texts, doesn't subscribe to the Jewish propaganda and doesn't push degeneracy and multiculturalism on the white race, he's not the problem. He still needs to go back to the middle east, but he's not the type of Jew that keeps me up at night, polishing my rifles.

Coptic or becoming a desert father

Also, North African =/= Sub Saharan African

Incredibly huge difference there. Egyptians are North Africans. Sub-Saharans are the Africans you're trying to tie Anderson to. Take some geography classes. Tel Aviv is closer to Africa than I am. You should take a look at a map, Shlomo.

There are bad people in all denominations but these stories are likely about mcchruch orthodox larper spinoffs. Just make sure you go with a mainstream canonical jurisdiction. Also every single orthodox service has Bible readings

I'd be fine with Anderson too, I don't think we need to DNA test people who are obviously white. But there is the fact that he's got a personal interest in pushing race-mixing because of his own situation. He claims Genesis 10 is basically in the bible for no reason because eveybody race mixed with everybody and there are no races. He's triggered on the race issue when he should be objective.

Don't reply to them, they get bonus points for each reply. Just press filter.

I can't disagree with you.

The positive is that in all the material I've seen on Anderson, he has never encouraged race-mixing. He certainly hasn't discouraged it, but he's not up there telling white women they need to marry niggers. I just don't want the shit forced down my throat. He leaves race out of it, but he can't stop Stacy from marrying De'Andre.

Maybe that's due to his personal situation and that's not good. I'll concede that, but at the same time, the man has potential to redpill millions of Christian whites on the JQ. He openly states his opinion of 9/11 being an inside job or having some fuckery with it and he makes no apologies for denying the holocaust.

He's not perfect… But neither is Trump. Both he and Trump have positives that outweigh their negatives, in my opinion. We don't like how Trump is constantly telling us how much he loves Israel, but we kinda have to look the other way on that for now in favor of keeping shitskins and spics out. I don't like how Anderson is fine with intermarriage and race-mixing, but he does such good work with the Jew and the way our government works that I have to ignore the nigger shit until someone better comes along.

SAGE + HIDE + REPORT ALL SLIDE THREADS

Lets face it lads, Orthodoxy is the denomination that is most aware of zionism, jewish subversion, freemasonry and communism. The Church is against all those things and some of its best teachers of recent times such as Fr Seraphim Rose and St Paisios were super-aware of the revolution against the old order.

this dumb nigger here doesn't realize the importance of the aesthetics used to deliver a message.

lol common among people who hate on Eastern Orthodoxy. They wouldn't tress like a begger to go on a date with a girl and take her to McDonalds but they think it is okay to go to meet God without careing how they present themselves. Not saying that the internal state of the soul is not important of course

Daily reminder that christcuckery is based on kike mythology and thus of Semitic origin and not European.

Its actually a mix of neo-platonic thought with middle eastern theology. Reminder that the Greek Sybils also prophecied the coming of Christ and Lao Tzue intuited the existence of the Way.

You need to learn to accept a Scripture entirely for what it is. Read it from A to Z and do not form your opinion on it while reading it. Your opinion on it means shit while you are reading it. After you are done with it, as with any other book, you can then and only then with a sane mind analyze its context and concepts.

Christianity is not what the Jews and Shabbos Goy have made out of it. The religion itself as you want it to be does not exist in the Bible at all.

In Orthodoxy, there are scriptures and even texts from Saints themselves which suggest that Jesus wasn't even born of a Virgin.

renegadetribune.com/all-christians-are-cucks/

Cuckstianity is a Jewish virus designed to destroy the White race. If we had only remained pagan, we would have wiped the inferior races off the face of the Earth when we conquered the world, and we could today be living in an galactic civilization and purging entire star systems of inferior races.

It still started in the desert and is based on kike mythology, nothing to do with Europe in its origin. How can you call believing in a foreign religion redpilled?

I'm protestand because:

Just my personal reasons for "choosing" Protestantism.

Religion is not just random cultural and ethnic traditions. This is what you faggots cannot (or refuse) to get through your fucking heads.

As far as a Christian is concerned, the faith is the truth about life. Where it originates is wholly irrelevant.

If you don't like Christianity for its semitic origins, then stop using arabic numbers as well. Go back to using Roman Numerals like a TRVE EVROPA MAN would you fucking hyprocrite.

Bullshit, Orthodox Christians venerate the Theotokos. We don't say Jesus wasn't born of a virgin.

So many lies about Orthodoxy in this thread, just read from the sources OP:

orthodoxinfo.com/

Europe didn't even exist back then in the sense you are talking about so what point are you trying to make? Jesus should have come to pagans who hadn't been preparing for a messiah for thousands of years and knew nothing of monotheism?

You're right, it's not like its completely and utterly dominated European history and been woven directly into the fabric of what being European is…

Instead, it's totally a Jew thing… I mean, nevermind that it calls Jews false Jews and members of the synagogue of Satan… and nevermind that Jews actually formulated a lot of shit on atheism and are pushing it INCREDIBLY hard. It's totally Christianity that's redpilled and not atheist bluepilled faggots!

Holy shit, I can't imagine how much mental gymnastics you autists you lads are pulling to justify sucking the blatantly Jewish dick so hard.

Christianity in general reduces degeneracy, *especially* if it's Orthodoxy. Atheists are second in degeneracy only to the Jews themselves, and what do you know, it's Jewish media that pushes it. I can't believe you people actually consider yourself redpilled when you're being spoonfed the bluepill directly by the kike.

Orthodox worship includes a lot of singing of the psalms

vid related (english from USA)

Here is an example of an Orthodox hymn in english

Religion is interpretation of the invisible force/intelligence behind nature we call God. It is made by humans and thus subject to the laws of nature which are the absolute truth, if religion does not do that, it will work against the people.

Religion in order to be beneficial to the people must reflect their racial characteristics and be compatible with the laws of nature.

Christianity being universalist religion of foreign, semitic origin goes against laws of nature, because it can be foreign to its followers and they cannot be convinced of their racial/ethnic uniqueness.

And "Arab" numerals come from India, don't get what does this got to do with following a foreign religion though.

Lol what? This has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
The rest of your post is just based on Semitic religion that is foreign to Europe.

Communism also dominated half of Europe and so does cultural marxism the whole western world, spain was dominated by islam for hundreds of years. What's your point? It's still a foreign Semitic religion based on kike mythology, no matter what you say.

A single belief that united all of Europe is what kept them from being a bunch of useless niggers

Paganism was a detriment to Europe until Rome came along and conformed all our tribal asses into 1 culture and eventually 1 belief

The future of Europe lies on 1 belief and 1 culture as well similar to what Rome wanted

Christianity is a weak religion. Human nature is denounced as sinful and expected to be repressed. You are taught to be meek and fail. Your desires are sin and all your motivation should be focused on worshiping god.

It focuses too much on forgiveness which leads to acceptance. Christianity is responsible for the attitudes present in modern degenerates. It was the people raised as Christians, raised to be forgiving, who accepted blacks, faggots, and drugs. And it is the same people who accept Muslims into their homes. Western society only grew stronger when it ignored Christian teachings. Is war Christian? Is wealth Christian? Art isn't even Christian as it is idolatry at its heart.

Christianity was the downfall of Rome and it is the downfall of our own society.

lol materialism and truth are opposed:

No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

2.If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

3.Therefore, if materialism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.

4.If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, then it should be rejected and its denial accepted.

5.Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.

The rest of your text I don't know about though.

You should worship Kek

Top kek, learn some history you dumb faggot, you clearly know very little besides what your jew book says.

Yes, and is it part of European culture? Nope.
Is that part of European culture? Nope.
Is that part of European culture? Nope.

Your examples are pretty terrible, mate. Christianity has not only been part of Europe's development, but blatantly responsible for a huge chunk of it throughout history.

What I find interesting is how you didn't refute the fact that for something based on "kike mythology" (nevermind the fact that the kikes don't ACTUALLY believe the Torah and think its nothing more than a book of fables, and that Jesus specifically called them false Jews BECAUSE they didn't believe in God, and that Christians were originally ACTUALLY Jews that became Christian because Gold told them to… and that current kikes are just a bunch of dickheads with a desire to control that use pre-Jesus Judaism as a front for their disgusting activities), the Jews sure as fuck hate it and rather like atheism instead for the goys. Not a single shred of what I said did you counter, because even you know that you're just another bluepilled Jewish tool to be used. Until you get yourself some Jesus in your life, you're nothing more than an unintentional D&C faggot that will spread stupid ideals and degeneracy through the ideal alone.

I don't have the time to keep wasting on some bluepilled useful idiot. Like I said, you're just a D&C retard. Filtered, mate.

You have no idea mate. Ascetic self-denial is manly as it basically means everybody is trying not to be degenerate.

Only sincere repentance is accepted not this stupid petty view of love espoused by Protestants, Evangelicals etc. Heretics have always been btfo

Western society has gotten weaker as it has strayed further from True Christianity. Russia is one of the best examples of the two extremes of ideal Christian Empire and cucked jew infested atheist, communist materialistic shithole

I live in England and I am an Anglican.
Orthodox christianities are crafted to fit the country they are in . Why would you want to be latvian orthodox?

Watched an entire 1.5 hour sermon of his.
All he said was "WE ARE A PROPER CHURCH. ALL THE OTHER ONES ARE FALSE"
Nothing about grace
Nothing about salvation
Nothing about beauty or love

The american invention of "needing only the bible" and preaching without any seminary training produces some moronic preachers who miss the point tbqh

Not really accurate. The Orthodox faith and doctrine stays the same but different cultural practices grow up around it. Don't even pretend that Anglicans are Orthodox. They are closer than other denominations but they still have been influenced too much by Roman Catholicism andProtestantism

Anglicans are by no means Orthodox and I didn't mean to imply that.

Wishful thinking, his loyalty is to the bible and God, not his race.

Sorry m80, you didn't understand my post, I wasn't talking about materialism.

No, they're not part of European culture and never will be, because they are of Semitic, foreign origin just like Christianity.
I don't deny the influences of Christianity on Europe and the rest of the world, just like I don't deny the influences of Communism. It's still not of European origin.

Kek, whatever faggot, it's still Semitic and not European :^)

Read 1 Corinthians chapter 1 and 2 in the KJV bible for answers to this question.

And don't try to infiltrate some christian community without actually believing because of "muh culture"

What?

fuck off new fag

Once again, D&C faggot.

Read Origen's homily on Genesis to get one of the better allegorical interpretations

You said that the laws of nature are the only "truth". What is that if not Naturalism/Materialism

The Catholic Church is not canonical.

Also
Screen capped for later use so everyone can see through what kind of mental gymnastics you need to go to justify following a desert religion.

This sort of ignorance is what happens when Jews control the education system. This poor person doesn't understand allegory and can't comprehend why the Church is called the New Jerusalem and the Ark of Salvation.

Why would he preach about salvation? The church is for the saints, people who have already been saved. There is no reason for them to hear about salvation again.

There is more to the bible than just love and grace, Anderson preaches the whole bible, not just the parts about love and happiness that he leftists love so much.

You don't even understand the biblical role of the church.

You're retarded. Replacement theology has been the belief of pretty much all churches no matter what denomination until the 19th century when the scofield bible was produced.

You are fucking clueless, no surprise there.

Hebrews 3:12

James 5:19-20

2 Peter 2:20-22

Not everyone in the Churh is already saved. This is only believed in nigger tier "christian" churches such as evangelical, baptist etc.

What on earth are you dribbling on about - didn't you hear about the New Covenant? I don't know your Western heretical theological language.

Never implied any of that, it's you who's making them relevant by following religion based on their mythology.

And yet presenting facts is often seen as excuses by bluepilled fags.
It'a still of Semitic origin and not European, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Laws of nature ordain how everything works. Stating that is not materialism.

I don't care about jewish mythology and their fairytales, its your semitic religion that forces you to make it relevant.
All of this still fails to refute my claim that Christianity is based on kike mythology and thus not of European origin.
Many posts later and all of you couldn't refute that one simple statement. Maybe because it's a fact and cannot be refuted? :^)

Germanic tribes migrated into Europe they need to be cleansed. The only original Europeans are Welsh descendents of the Britons. Anglo-Saxons are invaders! Help! Help! Siaradwch Gymraeg â fi,, os gwelwch yn dda

The mind is spiritual, your thoughts aren't determined by chemicals.

I agree, only celtic people are European. Franks, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons all need to fuck off

Only people with red hair and green eyes can be preserved and only cultural products that came from those people are European

I see your Universalist religion of Semitic origin causes you to have distorted views on Race, ethnicity and their territorial demands. Nothing surprising really. If Germans would live in China would they be Chinese? Not to mention that European subraces were already present in Europe way before your semitic religion even existed.

You resorted to arguments that are usually made by liberals with intent to convince you that racial origins do not matter and that we're all equal. Not surprises about that either, since in your religion, we're all equal under your God.

Are you sure you're redpilled? Oh and you still haven't refuted my initial argument.

Doesn't matter if some stragglers come along, the purpose of the church is the sanctification of the SAINTS, not saving people. The church is supposed to go soulwinning in the world, not in the chuch. Your perverted doctrine only leads to liberalisation of church theology in a misguided attempt to placate to the unsaved people who visit church.

Are you retarded? Catholics used to believe in replacement theology too.

I'm parodying your retardation. If we can't accept anything outside of Europe as a part of European culture why should we accept the descendents of barbarian Gothic tribes who migrated to Europe from the East. The descendents of Franks, Anglo-Saxons etc.

Clearly your "white race" is really Northen Indian

You're accusing me of retardation while not understanding Race and its relation to territory. If jews in Europe started a religion, would it be European? No. I'm obviously reffering to Caucasoid, Aryan or White or whatever you wish to call our race of people when talking about European people. The cultural and racial centre of our race has been Europe for thousands of years now.

You still haven't refuted my initial argument. Do you accept that Christianity is of Semitic origin and thus a foreign influence to European people then?

Follow what helps you, when it comes to doctrine and dogma. So you have many different Christianity, I personally is stuck with either Jehovah's witnesses and just protestant or pastor Anderson. I follow all 3, but I don't like how cucked the protestant church is.

Jehovah's witnesses has the general family value system, but it also says one should not rebel against the government, while most of us rebel because of the degeneracy is getting out of hand.

m8 Christianities dogma and theology is more or less made for Europe. A self sacrifice for the betterment of his community, he was the "perfect human" in doctrine but still human, so he could sacrifice himself so that those who takes him and the father in will go to paradise after death.

No I deny this. Christianity is not of semitic origin it is from God, Truth, Logos, Tao, Wakan Tanka, Shang-Ti or whatever name of God is in the memory of each people. God is the creator of all people including white people therefore it is not foreign to us.

I seriously hope you're joking because this makes no sense. "Back then", there was the Hellenic and Latin peoples. Their culture is the basis of western civilisation in most of languages, arts, literrature, laws, ect…
Their mythology is still well known.
The "barbarians" as the roman propaganda said, (Propaganda used on their citizens and soldiers to motivate roman expension) weren't that inferior as we thought. They had culture, medecine, they were good smiths (romans even copied their method).

At least i agree with this.

This is actually the biggest bullshit i've read on Holla Forums. Germanic people always been european. Franks were from what is today eastern France and Germany. Anglo-Saxons were from the Netherlands and Goths came from southern Sweden and Danemark. The far-east invaders were the Huns (they mostly withdrawed after their Empire's collapse) that pushed all these peoples into modern-day France, Italy, Spain and also England.

"Gothic tribes who migrated to western Europe from middle europe, because of the fear of the far-eastern mongols"

Fixed.

Also,

They came to north India and Persia from Europe, not the reverse.

Exactly, European culture is more complicated than just saying, "these people existed here for a long time therefore we will only accept things that came from [insert subset of European culture]"

Religious threads are a mess on Holla Forums nowadays. Cultural Marxism is a fight against Christianity and the white race. Globalism is a fight against Christianity and the white race.

Christianity teaches men to be in charge, women to be subservient to their man. Patriarchy, the staple of all civilization, is also taught in Christianity. It teaches to have children and stay faithful to one person. Noble ideas and virtues. Christianity does not ask you to lay down and die at your enemies feet, but to die for your fellow man in defense. Community, brotherhood, nationalism.

You've bought a bill of goods if you believe that. the Orthodox church actively discourages people from understanding their religion in a systematic or logically rigorous manner, they see it as a form of legalism aswell as a distraction away from the divine mysteries of God.

Classical Protestantism is the most logically self-consistent, the founding fathers of the major protestant groups were highly academic, highly trained lawyers, priests, monks and professors who set out with the goal of reforming the church and both excising it of manmade inventions and setting out a detailed systematic theolgocial framework with which to understand scripture.

Orthodoxy is the original Christianity. When these so-called "scholars" and "theologians" got their source material they either got it from Orthodoxy or made up whatever they felt like

that is why Europeans took it with some sales mechanisms. Like the Roman empurer who fought that war and said he saw a cross on the sun or something like that, if he was not praying first to god and then won the war when he saw the cross in the sun, but that made the empire christian.

Later because of so many different sects and allot of doctrine, the bible was made to establish what was Christianity that created the first split of Orthodox and Roman Catholic, like one went to the west the other to the east, fuck orthodox christians went all the way into China, no joke. but Chinese never took the doctrines and the religion.

Yes, but it's absolutely clear that the israelites were semitic and had nothing in common with europeans.

Judaism (let's call it by it's real name) fight against the white race and also Christianity because Jews hate Jesus Christ.

Its also clear that Christianity is from God not semites

This is the height of anachronism. None of the early church would have understood themselves or their faith to be a part of the same categories and historical constituency that defines the modern Orthodox church.

No, they had a very high esteem for the early church and worked diligently to demonstrate that their convictions were consistent with the convictions of the ancient Christians.

It's telling that both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox has to force the early church to try and be a part of their group where as Protestants are fine and happy to allow the Early church to be themselves, with their own successes and failures and their own identity and historical context. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic cannot allow this because their claim to legitimacy is not built upon their possession of the Gospel of Christ but in a claim to pedigree.

I didn't know exegesis of the scriptures was making up whatever you felt like, but then again when you willingly deny the sufficiency of scripture then the bible might as well be a collection of filthy rags in the face of the enlightenment of learned men.

The Church fathers understood the Church as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and they understood that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The Church clearly has a continuous unbroken history and you are the shill claiming that there is no links when there is tons of historical evidence that it is the same Church (and no, I'm not collecting it all together for you).

Those terms were not used anciently the way they are used today and it's dishonest to act as if they were. the catholicity of the church was in no way shape or form in reference to a Roman, Greek, African or any other apostolic see, it spoke to the unity of the gospel and the common confession of the church across national and social borders over against sectarian heresies that were plaguing the early church. To rip that phraseology from it's context is self serving and dishonoring to the early Christians.

The apostolicity of the church was in reference to the possession of the teachings of the apostles not to some arcane and invented line of succession, teachings which are passed
to us not by word of mouth or undocumented oral tradition but by the writings of the apostles to the church which we posses in the scriptures.

As Tertullian wrote, speaking of how to detect false teachers by way of comparing them to the teachings of the apostles for inconsistency.

What does he say about Chruches which are not founded by apostles or apostlic men?

Apostolicity is dependent on consistency with the apostles, not on line of succession.

and what marks a man as non-apostolic?

Incongruity with the teachings of the apostles.

Because you can't, unlike you I can go back to the early church, show you what they believed, represent it honestly and evidence the consistency of my position with theirs, as I just demonstrated.

There are no "types" of Christianity. It's just that many, many people fell for D&C tactics, even after being warned not to.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."
1 Corinthians 1:10-15

Don't trust any self-styled "priest" who insists on using the title "Father", "Rabbi", or "Master"; Jesus explicitly forbade their use. (Matthew 23)

Yes and Orthodoxy doesn't bow before any apostolic see so what is your point?

So you describe Orthodox teaching to refute Orthodoxy?

Did you only read the first paragraph of my post?

The adventist church is bretty good.
check it out

join us at >>>/christ/

yes none of what you wrote conflicts so…

?

Old testament is not Judaism
Talmud is Judaism

What was your point in bringing up the catholicity or apostolicity of the church in the first place? How was it relevant to anything I said if you weren't using it to counter-point what I said.

Apstolicity and Catholicity in the mind of the early church believer was dependent upon a congruence with the teachings of the apostles and gospel of Christ. If you don't disagree with that then why respond like you were?

You said

There is no concept of the eastern orthodox tradition in the early church, there is no concept of the roman catholic tradition, there is no concept of the protestant tradition, the early church were a body unto themselves and congruence with it is dependent upon, not an administrative succession of church bodies but rather consistency of faith. This was my point and you responded that I was a shill for claiming as such.

If you agree with my statements how am I a shill?

the fact that Christianity is so split and generally weak makes the religion useless.

The Early Church was one body which eventuall split into two in the great schism of 1054. The way you are writing seems to imply that some dramatic event severed the Church of the Apostles from the Church in the Roman empire but maybe you aren't suggesting this?

The Orthodox Tradition IS that accepted apostolic and scriptural Tradition of the early church so how is Orthodoxy wrong? In fact oral Tradition came before the New Testament. Protestants (especially Calvin) fucked up because they went too far with Augustines theology which already went too far (Grace, Original Sin) in a few places which fucked up the Roman Catholics.

...

That's the problem. Why following secular institutions? I'm tired of those Christians calling each other heretic. They worship the same unique god, they follow the same holy book and they can't even unite. Spirituality and values should be the most important.

Do you have any idea how old the word "Atheist" is? It's older than Christianity you fucking retard.

What I'm saying is it isn't appropriate to apply the later standards and conventions of the medieval church or the modern church to those of the early church. Athanasius would have no concept of Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism as they modernly or even medievally exist(ed), he would not recognize their rites or practices as they later developed and evolved. all I'm saying is we have to allow the men of the early church to be who they were and not force them into camps or categories that did not exist when they were alive.

No it isn't, by definition a tradition can only develop over time after certain standards, practices and customs have developed and entrenched. The church of the 200's had a different character than the church of the 400's than the church of the 600's by virtue of the historical contexts of the various periods, the geographic and cultural contexts and by the body of history they were able to draw from. The church did evolve over time, old ideas became more refined, standardized and accepted, new ideas enter into certain churches and again varying degrees of acceptance, these interactions cause controversies that shape the way the church understands itself.

I'm not making an outright statement that Orthodoxy is wrong (though I do believe that, it's for different reasons than I'm arguing right now) I'm stating that it is a different animal than the early church.

I am a protestant and I recognize that Protestant churches are different from the early church in many ways, as an example, there is a strong tradition of systematic theology in classical Protestantism that doesn't exist in the early church because the early church was too busy being persecuted and surviving oppression as well as defining fundamental dogmas such as the relationship between the divinity and humanity of Christ to develop robust and deeply engaged theological frameworks like you see in Calvin's Institues or Luthers Bondage of the Will. These differences don't make one group wrong or right, just different because their historical and cultural contexts require these differences to exist. What makes a church wrong or right is it's consistency with the teaching of the apostles and it's posession of the gospel of Christ.

What the church needs and does in 3rd century Greece, 12th Italy and 17th century Scotland are going to be different and the church changes in order to meet these needs and accomplish these goals. Strife and division occur when the traditions of one century and geographic location demand dominance over others as you see in the healthy honoring of Mary as the most blessed of women in the early church over time mutating into outright idolatry and deification in much of south american Roman Catholocism.

And herein lies one of my fundamental disagreements with the orthodox and roman catholics, the denial of the sufficiency of scripture. Nothing the Apostles taught or said contradicts or contains anything different from what is preserved by God in the scriptures. There are no doctrines or traditions which are not clearly and adequately given, the New Testament is God's means of passing to us the tradition of the Apostles, anything that does not conform to them are man made contrivances.

This is not to say every tradition outside of the scriptures is wrong or bad. If a church wants to worship in a particular way, wants to confirm particular rites and hymns and use a particular language for its service so long as these excesses do not obstruct the Gospel of Christ then Christians are free to honor God in whatever way that suits them best.

The danger comes from when you elevate traditions above the preserved account of the Apostles and subvert the gospel of Christ with adherence to your traditions.

Yes it is. Even if most jews prefer their unholy talmud, which is more a set of laws (Jews aren't really into spirituality, they're obsessed about themselves.), they still read the "torah" which they consider their "history book".

Atheism doesn't even exist. It's a mind trick. Atheists are just slaves to who are enough powerful to control them. It's more recent than you think. Jews want to unroot the peoples, to take away their unity, their independance (divide and conquer), their spirituality to make them slaves when the "Apocalypse" arrives. They said that each jew will have 2800 goyim slaves when their messiah comes.

Your own post is my argument against you, you illiterate nigger.

Could some kind user tell me which translation/version of the Bible is the least pozzed?

Yeah, the Old Norse version. It's got the All-Father on the cover.

The honest kind.

That's just the Old Testament, though. According to Wikipedia.

The King James if you're reading in English.

What's important when you're picking a bible is to get one that is translated from Textus Receptus or at least the Majority Text.

During the 19th century some atheists dug up some new transcripts, that differ from the ones that have been used for thousands of years, and almost all new bibles use these new kike transcripts, that differ in many many places.

Also avoid catholic bibles, they have a history of adding and removing from God's word, and their catechism is a total anti-christian clusterfuck.

If you want to know more about this subject watch this movie. Starts a bit slow but picks up the pace

youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

You faggots literally can't comprehend that Christianity was cultural marxism when it came to Europe, killed Europeans massively Communism style, replaced European culture, faith and heritage with its own and attempted to equalize the entire population by putting it on the same level. It even threw out of power all European people and replaced it with Jews or Priests, who are Abrahamic religious idiots.

It is the foundation of all our problems. It was the first Diversity and Multiculturalism layer applied unto us. Saying it was positive, is like saying Communism was a positive addition to China or Russia just because people still aren't entirely dead there.

Except cultural marxists demand all and everything from others, never from themselves. Christianity - beyond the shell of today - has demanded purity, perfection, honesty, integrity.. To the point of dying for the message of Logos.
I haven't heard of work camps, nightly raids… Christian conquest was mainly to get a man on top who was Christian, who then converted the natives. Serfs and feodalism are quite different from USSR or any other soviet (jewish) construct.

The Textus Receptus is a Catholic bible and includes portions from the Vulgate translated into Greek where Erasmus lacked a Greek manuscript for them.

All manuscripts differ from one another, even the Greek manuscripts Erasmus used in making the Textus Receptus differed from one another and the different editions of the TR differ from one another (the first two editions do not contain 1 John 5:7 for example)

Dude, Steven Andersen doesn't know squat when it comes Textual Critical studies or about the history or discipline of the field, he doesn't do original research or study of the manuscripts and is dependent upon literature that was written a century ago, entirely in the absence of modern discoveries and insight into what the true extant body of the New Testament text corpus actually looks like.

The fact that so many knockoffs last for as long as they do is a testament to the power of Christianity undivided.

I guess that's why the kikes consistently make them their targets

From least pozzed to most pozzed:

Orthodox
.
.
Old Lutheranism
.
.
.
.
Redpilled Baptist
New Lutheranism
Bluepilled Baptist
Catholic
Evangelical/Born-again
Fake Christian commie fronts (United Church of Christ)

That is just from a misunderstanding. Kikes believe that antisemitism comes from Christian prejudice. They believe they were only hated in Europe because Europe was Christian. So they believed that if they destroyed Christianity then it would end antisemitism.

But really, people just hate Jews because Jews are assholes and disgusting creatures. Has nothing really to do with Christianity.

Yes, and this is the correct viewpoint.

You are retarded. The talmud says that Jesus Christ was born of a whore and is now burning in hell, boiling in excrement.

Talmudic jews have always hated Jesus, they hated him even when he was here, that's why they killed him. Have you even read the book?

It's not what the bible says. Your religion is extra-biblical, and you do not follow God's word.

The Bible says nothing about creating logical systems. Doing that kills the religion. When your religion is logical, then it can be refuted logically, which is easy to accomplish with a religion as filled with contradiction as Christianity (but can be done with any logical construct by attacking the premises).

But truth is, logic is far below God and there are even several degrees of human thought that exist above logic. Lowering your religion to a logical system is not advisable.

Most Jews today are not Orthodox or even theists at all. They are mostly atheists, yet they still hate Christianity. This is not explained by some religious dispute. It is because they see Christianity as a source of antisemitism against them.

The Semitic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are bastardizations of Zoroastrianism.

There was an ad a few days ago on here that linked to some redpills about it.

sunwheel.politicallyincorrect.work/the-myth.html

'Real' Protestantism, closest you will find Chuch-wise is non-denominational or independent (that's what they call themselves).

There are a lot of people who call themselves Protestants whilst going against Scripture. The main belief of Protestantism is that there is no earthly authority above God, and that we follow God. One of the main messages of Christianity is that we must build a relationship with God; and as such we do not need any one else to lead us, we have the Holy Spirit.

That said God can and does appoint leaders among men. That said their earthly status does not give them the right to re-write Scripture, as many Popes and even supposedly 'Protestant' priests and ministers have done.

I would like to say all Christians are one, but with the advent of these truly heretical churches (like Rome, England, etc) I cannot. Certain accepted Catholic ideals go directly against the word of God (praying to the dead as the most obvious). This is why I prefer 'Protesantism', because you are directly cutting yourself off from those Christians who advocate for us to not follow what Christ taught.

To be a Christian is to follow the ways of Christ (and to accept Him as your Lord and Saviour). If those things are not done, you are not a Christian. I have many Christian brothers among the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, yet I cannot call those Churches 'Christian'. There are good Christians among them, but the fact that they have un-Christian beliefs built into them means that we MUST have schism.

Schism is terrible, but it is more terrible to follow a 'faith' that purposefully disobeys God.

…

At the end of the day Christianity is all about a relationship with God, and doing what He commanded us (casting out demons, healing the sick and spreading the word of God; yes evangelising must be done by all Christians). You will find inspirations among all the 'main' dominations of Christianity and you should not be against listening to them and being willing to learn; just be aware that all people have some heretical ideas and that you must analyze everything that you hear. The devil is known before all else for deception, and he can does and deceive the elect to many things. Be ever vigilant.

I'm sorry, I misread your post.

No you fucking retard. It doesn't matter if they're orthodox or reformed, they are all talmudists, and the talmud talks shit about Christianity, and the new testament talks shit about the talmudic jews.

...

None of them, christianity was based off judaism and anyone who isn't a good goy should not want to be associated with that semetic cult

Then why do atheist Jews hate it? And why do a lot of Orthodox kikes support it (Ben Shapiro being a good example)?

The common denominator is antisemitism. If they see it as a source of antisemitism, as most do, then they hate it. If they see it as a source of support for the Jewish tribe, like Shapiro does, then they like it.

You need to remember that the foundation of Jewish morality is "is it good for the Jews" and they are very pragmatic in that. They support Christianity when they believe it is good for them, they will support Islam when they believe it is good for them, etc. The Jew has no real hatred for Christianity per se, just so far as they see it as a threat to them.

Just came here to say that if you're looking for a major religion to tell you what to believe you are doing it wrong.

If God created us in his image, God would not want us to be all be the same dogmatic automatons doing the same thing. He would want us to be unique and have something resembling a soul.

I'm out. Good luck to you.

We were talking about religion, not ethnicity. And how exactly do you define an atheist jew? Seems like most of them are more or less atheist. They think the torah is like a storytale, and they instead follow written down traditions in the talmud. They don't believe in heaven or hell,

Of course. But Christianity is inherently anti-semitic (concerning the religion of judaism, not racial).

Mainstream Christianity has been anti-semitic from the beginning just until the 19th century when zionism and the scoffield bible were pushed into the mainstream, the bible in inherently anti-semitic (again cocernin the faith, not racial)

*is

...

it's a slave religion, it's bad no matter what sect you join

...

cruxnow.com/all-things-catholic/2016/06/12/gut-check-time-june-orthodox-catholics/

Here's how divided the Orthodox are

One of those 14 independent (the technical term is “autocephalous”) churches, in Bulgaria, has announced it’s not coming.

.

Which is a huge problem and the reason Christianity is so cucked. The Jewish problem is a racial problem. Any Jew can claim to be a Christian, it means nothing really.

Daily reminder:
the people hating on Christianity are all faggots and shills.

No.

It's not, this is anti-intellectual retard reasoning. There is not even really one jewish race, most everyone is mixed, and the majority are not even semites but khazars.

Except they don't. And Christians are told to test everything they hear against scripture, a devout Christian would never fall for jewish lies.

That is one of the things that keeps it from being completely cucked. But still, Orthodox is not perfect and has a lot of shills in it, including some of the patriarchs.

Name a pro-white branch of Christianity.

Name a true pro-white branch of ANY religion which has a following and is known by common people.

God doesn't care about your race, He cares whether you're a Christian or not.

Islam is basically Arab Nationalism. Shinto is tied into the Japanese nation. The many Chinese traditions are 100% Chinese.

The point is is that Christianity is unique in that it's against the European races.

If you don't, deep down believe that you can sit with Jesus in heaven when you die, then don't shill for it.

Atheism is the truth. We don't get a second chance.

Typical Christian. Doesn't matter if your daughter gets fucked by a Nigerian, at least he's a Christian then it's okay. Doesn't matter if you get killed by a Mexican, because you'll go to Heaven anyway.

Fuck off back to /christian/.

No it isn't. Race is real and it is the primary factor deciding human behavior. Kikes behave the way they do because of their subhuman inbred biology.

There are primarily two strains of Jewish people. Ashkenazi/Sephardic (so closely related as to constitute the same race) and the middle Eastern Jews. There are a few weird ones like black Jews or whatever, but these are not really representative. The ones who are the biggest problem are the Ashkenazi/Sephardic Jews, with middle Eastern ones following closely behind that. All of this is, of course, completely racial (all groups being subhuman to the core). The religion itself is simply a selective breeding program to choose for Jewish traits. The rabbis controlled the Jewish reproduction for thousands of years, and even when there was outside admixture (not very common), it would come from a type compatible with the Jewish psychology. This selective breeding along with the shallow gene pool of the inbred Jewish people has created the ethnic type we know as the Jew, complete with all the known Jewish mental characteristics.

The khazar hypothesis is false and has been proven so by genetics. The only people who push this are retards (i.e. you) and Jews (the hypothesis was created by a Jew and all major writers on it have been Jews, in fact).

Christianity is pro-white. This isn’t about heresies.

Reported for intl.

Denial of materialism doesn't imply God though.

Following a religion, pretending you believe in God, just because you think it's beneficial to your race is retarded. Why not worship your race directly?

Typical "le hitler dindu nuthin" retard. Interracial marriage is not inherently evil.

Nice strawman you fucking retard, you know nothing about Christianity you low-information retard.

Fuck off back to stormfront

There is nothing in Christianity that is against the European races.

Hinduism is pro-white.

Let's not defend Christianity by stooping to the level of the filthy ignoramuses who attack it. We're better than that.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37

Sensible and awake Christians are completely against race mixing, and we need to inform those others who have been deluded and deceived by the false concept that "racism" is a sin, which is actually a Marxist idea that has nothing to do with Christianity. Re-capture Christianity don't discard it.

...

...

sometimes it seems like Holla Forums is alt-right, or like Holla Forumsacks are right-wing intellectuals or just history geeks… or natsocs who know what national socialism means…
thank god, its still a good christian little neocon community.
praise the lord

Hello >>>/christian/

Please go back to your containment board.

Praise Yahweh and Rabbi Yeshua, approved by the ADL.

i believe religion trolls are intensifying

i am a fundamentalist baptist

Hi, intl. Bump.

Anons., you should remember that Hell is forever.

My only complaint with Christianity is their apparent obsession with 'love' and 'forgiveness' which seems awfully convenient for the sheep mentality the kikes want to enforce.

Also, the Christian goal of 'peace for all mankind' is inherently harmful because humanity is driven by conflict.

Kike lie.

There is no shortage of heresies these days.
If you want to adopt some blasphemous, perverted, fun house mirror reflection of Christianity, you will find a veritable buffet of options. You can sift through all the variants and build your own little pet version of the Faith. It’s Ice Cream Social Christianity: make your own sundae! (Or Sunday, as it were)
And of all the heretical choices, probably the most common–and possibly the most damaging–is what I’ve come to call the Nice Doctrine.
The propagators of the Nice Doctrine can be seen and heard from anytime any Christian takes any “bold” stance on any cultural issue, uses “harsh” language of any kind, condemns any sinful act, or fights against evil with any force or conviction at all. As soon as you stand and say, “This is wrong. and I will not compromise,” the heretics swoop in with their trusty mantras.
They insist that Jesus was a nice man and that He never would have done anything to upset people. They say that He came down from Heaven to preach tolerance and acceptance and He wouldn’t have used words that might lead to hurt feelings. They confidently sermonize about a meek and mild Messiah who was born into this Earthly realm on a mission to spark a constructive dialogue. The believers in Nice Jesus are usually ignorant of Scripture, but they do know that He was ‘friends with prostitutes’ and once said something about how, like, we shouldn’t get too ticked off about stuff, or whatever. In their minds. He’s essentially a supernatural Cheech Marin.
Replies to my earlier statements about gay rights militants illustrate this heresy. That post prompted an especially noteworthy email from someone concerned that I’m not being “Christlike” because I “call people names.” He said, in part, “You aren’t spreading Christianity when you talk like that. The whole message of Jesus was that we should be nice to people because we want them to be nice to us. That’s how we can all be happy. Period. It’s that simple.”
Be nice to me, I’ll be nice to you, and we’ll all be happy. This is the ‘whole message’ of Christianity? Really?
Jesus Christ preached a Truth no deeper or more complex than a slogan on a poster in a kindergarten classroom? Really? A provocative claim, to say the least. I decided to investigate the matter, and sure enough, I found this excerpt from the Sermon on the Mount: “We’re best friends like friends should be. With a great big hug, and a kiss from me to you, won’t you say you love me too?”
Actually, wait, sorry, that’s from the original Barney theme song. God help us. We’ve turned the Son of God into a purple dinosaur puppet. There’s no way to be certain, but most theologians believe that despite popular perception, Christ looked nothing like this. I don’t recognize this Jesus. This moderate. This pacifist. This nice guy. He’s not the Jesus I read about in the Bible.

I read of a strong, manly, stern, and bold Savior. Compassionate, yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But not particularly nice. He condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order. On one occasion–or at least one recorded occasion–He used violence. This Jesus saw the money changers in the temple and how did He respond? He wasn’t polite about it. I’d even say He was downright intolerant. He fashioned a whip (this is what the lawyers would call ‘premeditation’) and physically drove the merchants away. He turned over tables and shouted. He caused a scene. (John 2:15)
Assault with a deadly weapon. Vandalism. Disturbing the peace. Worse still, intolerance. In two words: not nice. Not nice at all.
Can you imagine how some moderate, pious, nice “Christians” of today would react to that spectacle in the Temple? Can you envision the proponents of the Nice Doctrine, with their wagging fingers and their passive aggressive sighs? I'm sure they’d send Jesus a patronizing e-mail, perhaps leave a disapproving comment under the news article about the incident reminding Jesus that Jesus would never do what Jesus just did.
Personally. I’ve studied the New Testament and found not a single instance of Christ calling for a ‘dialogue’ with evil or seeking the middle ground on an issue. I see an absolutist, unafraid of confrontation. I see a man who did not waver or give credence to the other side. I see someone who never once avoided a dispute by saying that He’ll just ‘agree to disagree.’ I see a Christ who calls the Scribes and Pharisees snakes and vipers. He labels them murderers and blind guides and ridicules them publicly (Matthew 23:33). He undermines their authority. He insults them. He castigates them. He’s not very nice to them. Jesus rebukes and condemns.
In Matthew 18, He utilizes morbid and violent imagery, saying that it would be better to drown in the sea with a stone around your neck than to harm a child. Had our modern politicians been around two thousand years ago, I’m sure they’d go on the cable news shows and shake their heads and insist that there’s ‘no place for that kind of language.’ No place for the language of God.
Jesus deliberately did and said things that He knew would upset people. He stirred up division and controversy. He provoked. He didn’t have to break from established customs, but He did. He didn’t have to heal that man’s hand on the Sabbath, knowing how it would disturb others and cause them immense irritation, but He did, and He did so with ‘anger’ (Mark 3:5). He could have gone with the flow a little bit. He could have chilled out and let bygones be bygones, but He didn’t. He could have been diplomatic, but He wasn’t.
He could have told everyone to relax, but instead He made them uncomfortable. He could have put them at ease, but He chose to put them on edge.
He convinced the mob not to stone the adulterer (John 8). and you’ll notice that He then turned to her and told her to stop sinning. Indeed, never once did He encounter sin and corruption and say, “Hey, do your thang, homies. Just have fun. YOLO!” The followers of Nice Jesus love to quote the ‘throw the first stone’ verse–and for good reason, as it’s a beautiful and compelling story–but you rarely hear mention of the exchange that occurs just a few sentences later in that very same chapter. In John 8:44, Jesus rebukes unbelieving Jews and calls them ‘sons of the Devil.’

Wow. That wasn’t nice, Jesus. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that you can catch more flies with honey, Jesus? Of course, you’d catch even more flies with a mound of garbage, so maybe ‘catching flies’ isn’t the point. While we’re often reminded that Jesus said, “Live by the sword, die by the sword,” we seem to ignore his other sword references. Like when he told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword (Luke 22), or when He said that He “didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10)
Now, it’s true that He is God and we are not. Jesus can say whatever He wants to say. But we are called to be like Christ, which begs the question: what is Christ like? Well, He is, among other things, uncompromising. He is intolerant of evil. He is disruptive. He is sometimes harsh. He is sometimes impolite. He is sometimes angry. He is always loving. Christ was not and is not a cosmic guidance counselor, and He is not mankind’s best friend, nor did He call us to be. He made dogs for that role–our destiny is more substantial, and our path to it is far more challenging and dangerous. And nice? Where does nice factor into this? Nice: affable, peachy, swell.
Nice has nothing to do with Christianity. I have nothing against nice–nice is nice–but even serial killers can be nice to people. They generally are exceptionally affable, except when they’re murdering. That means they’re nice to, like, 97 or 98% of everyone they meet. I guess they’re following Christ almost all of the time, right?
And tolerance? Tolerance is easy. Any coward can learn to tolerate something. Tolerance is inaction: intolerance is action. We are called to refuse to tolerate evil. We are called to get angry at it and actively work to destroy it. Who’d have guessed it–anger is far more godly than tolerance ever could be.
Obviously I’m not suggesting that anger is automatically, or even usually, justified. Christ exhibited righteous anger: righteous anger is the sort of anger that naturally fills our soul when we confront the depths of depravity and sin. It is wrong to seethe with rage because someone cut us off in traffic or gossips about us behind our back, but it is also wrong to feel no anger when babies are murdered and the institution of the family is undermined and attacked.
Anger is good when it is directed at things that offend not us, but God. Just as Christ’s intolerance, like the intolerance we’re commanded to have, stems from a desire to save souls and defend Truth.
Even when we have righteous anger, we do not have carte blanche to act on it in any way we please. But according to the Bible, there are times to use strong language, there are times to cause a scene, there are times to hurt people’s feelings, and there are times when we might need to use physical force. Jesus told us to turn the other cheek when we are personally attacked. He never told us to turn our backs entirely and let lies spread and evil grow. So enough with the niceties. Christians in this country sound too similar to the Golden Girls song and not enough like the Battle Hymn of the Republic. There’s too much ‘thank you for being a friend.’ and not enough ‘lightening from His terrible swift sword.’ We’re all hugging and singing Kumbaya when we should be marching and shouting Hallelujah. We’re nice “Christians” with our nice Jesus, and we are trampled on without protest.
Enough, already.
I think it’s time that Christianity regain its fighting spirit–the spirit of Christ. I think it’s time we ask that question, “What would Jesus do?” And I think it’s time we answer it truthfully. Jesus would flip tables and yell. Maybe we ought to follow suit.

I'm really interested in what you have to say, user. But holy shit that's long.

How far we’ve fallen that three image board posts is “long”. How far we’ve fallen that people can’t even pick up a book anymore.

My father is slogging through Defensive Racism right now, but he says that he gets too sleepy after a few pages. Not because of the book itself, but because of any book.

What has HAPPENED to humanity? What has happened to our civilization? I myself find it difficult to maintain attention at a book sometimes; I wonder if it isn’t something they’ve added to our water or elsewhere. That sounds nuts (not because they can’t do it–they already have–but because the ability to target specific aspects of psychology with additives is nigh impossible), but who fucking reads anymore? It could also just be lethargy brought on by sheer hopelessness. I feel like worthless shit 99.9% of the time.

Might as well believe Lord of the Rings as literally true.

Burger here. You are absolutely incorrect. Atheism in the US is correlated with being white, earning more than 100k a year, and having a high IQ, and high levels of academic achievement. The divorce rate is about 10% lower.

Christianity (at least in the US, and more specifically protestant christianity) is correlated with higher divorce rates, higher teen pregnancy, (much) higher crime rates, drug abuse, child abuse, poverty, and lack of education.

Even Christian polling groups have admitted this.

Reported for intl.

...

Kikes aren’t white
Kikes.
lol, no
Which is why all the quantum physicists are Christians.
Are you even trying?

I'd dig up some more, but that's already three strikes for you.

You’ve proven nothing. It doesn’t break out kikes. Sorry.

Then why is Sweden dying from the influx? Why don't they rise up and stop the agenda being carried out by their leaders?

College indoctrination.

You go to college and kike professors tell you that atheism is the answer.

College is also a means to improve your income bracket and the indication of your family being white, at least in the past.

Teen pregnancies? Well, Christians don't put their 15 year olds on hormone birth control and they don't want their kids learning about kike sex ed at 10 years old. So, imagine that… Kids rebel with sex and sometimes they get pregnant because Christian parents don't buy their kids condoms and encourage premarital sex. It's a double edged sword.

But by all means, continue your d&c.

I read it and liked it user, thanks for posting.

I can respect your position and I think what you are writing is fairly reasonable. It is true that the Church has always changed to fit the circumstances it finds itself in (while maintaining purity of dogma) and the persecuted Church was a different animal in many respects to the Church of the Byzantine Empire.

However I think you are being unfair to say that Orthodox liturgics are not true to the Early Church's practice. True they developed in terms of things like vestments, iconostases, bell ringing and other such external aesthetical factors which were developed when the Church had more backing from the state but the actual rites contain many practices that would be familiar to the Early Church such as veneration of saints, prayers for the dead, the Eucharist and the division between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Faithful.

The Church for the most part only evolved because it was forced to respond to various heresies which were springing up and this was the reason that the Ecumenical Councils were held - to answer serious heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism etc.

The Church holds that Scripture does contain everything that is needed to teach someone how to attain salvation but it is not true that without scripture the Church would be doomed. If every single Bible in the world was destroyed (just a thought experiment) the Church would be able to recreate Scripture from Tradition just as the Early Christians created the New Testament out of Tradition.

i would like to read some good studies on OSAS

i tend to think you have to believe to be saved, you cant believe then not believe and hope to be saved when you die.

but of course there are verses against that also, like cant be plucked from my hand etc

There are often verses that seem to contradict each other. They are all explained in the light of the Tradition of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit.