The new scaremonger tactic? Christian Nationalism
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (67)
sorted by:
This may surprise non-Christian ignoramuses, but the Bible is in fact longer than the Sermon on the Mount.
The line about "apostolic Christianity" is particularly funny when the "foremost apostle" Paul* was by far the most ruthless on homosexuality out of any writer of the Bible. Read Romans 1. Usually they try to weasel out of this by pointing out that Paul is not Jesus, as if 62 out of the 66 books are just nice suggestions.
edit: I got this wrong, Paul does not claim to be chief among the apostles, but instead that he isn't inferior to other apostles. I was thinking of 2 Corinthians 11:5.
“Go forth and sin no more” was the punishment for being saved by Jesus from a stoning. The pseudo Christian arguments completely forget Jesus explicitly said lethal self defense and whipping heathens are morally allowed.
This is from a verse that is believed by many to be a forgery, since it only appears in earlier manuscripts, but not older ones. Many bibles have John 8 start at verse 12, for this reason, or otherwise have a very obvious note explaining this. You can research this by googling "Pericope adulterae".
Do you mean when Jesus told his followers to take swords, and then condemned Peter when he cut off the ear of the slave of the high priest? "Live by the sword, die by the sword".
Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. Does that mean that all Christians also have the authority to forgive sins? Just because Jesus did something, it doesn't mean that all Christians have that authority.
Imagine the stupidity it takes to even state that it was a “forgery” because it appeared first…
You mean the difference between self defense and causing harm for no reason?
That statement is a hilarious logical fallacy. Seriously, take a look in the mirror, it must be difficult for you.
By "earlier manuscripts", I am referring to the date the manuscript was found, not the age of the manuscript itself.
Like I said, you can research this yourself. Go do that.
One would think that trying to save Jesus from being turned over to his executioners would not be "causing harm for no reason", but Jesus apparently disagreed.
Name one Christian in the Bible who fought in self-defense. Go on.
How so? Do you have an argument or are you just chanting "logical fallacy" like it's a magic phrase that causes you to win the argument?
You're the one claiming that, because Jesus did something, all Christians have the authority to do that same thing. Do you stand by that or not?
Go and sin no more is repeated quite literally twice by Jesus in the book of John alone. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
There are plenty of references to violence in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Are you saying David was not justified? Did god punish him for killing Goliath? Jesus dies for a purpose, and tells his apostles so, so another false equivalency of stupidity. Jesus also beat people with a whip himself so yes Christians committed violence.
A false equivalency is a logical fallacy saying because only someone can do something does not mean anything one person does is only allotted to them.
I repeat. Look in a mirror.
I am not arguing that Jesus doesn't want people to sin. I am just saying, that the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" account is likely a forgery.
That's what I thought, you couldn't name a single Christian who acted in self-defense.
Why do you think that, just because Jesus did something, all Christians are authorized to do that thing? I've clearly shown that not all Christians are authorized for forgive sins, so there must be more to it than "Jesus did it!"
And you can't name a single Christian who acted in self-defense.
So what leads you to believe that Christians are authorized to use violence?
I’m sorry you’re now claiming a completely different line is a forgery. So you’re clearly retarded…
Your argument is that because Jesus said to act in self defense but it was not depicted specifically in the New Testament you are somehow correct? The cognitive dissonance is hilarious.
Now, I know you’re retarded and sperging, but that is very clearly Jesus telling his disciples to arm themselves isn’t it!?
Can't tell if faggot mad that faggots aren't welcome or
What is considered to be "the bible"? What counts as "Scripture"? Does it include the book of Enoch? Maccabees? Does it include verses that are only present in younger manuscripts, but not more recently found older manuscripts?
That's what I thought, you can't answer my questions, nor do you know the difference between "your" and "you're".
They will say Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did explicitly say marriage is between a man and a woman. Also he said he fulfilled the law. I’ll never understand with anyone justifying whatever sin they want to by they don’t just do their own thing instead of trying to twist themselves into knots trying to justify whatever they want
They want others to accept what they're doing, but they don't want to actually justify what they're doing, so they shame you.
Yes, there's also the Sermon on the Plain.
Paul wasn't an apostle.
I have no problem with the restoration of political Christendom, but Catholic lies are over the line.
You're right, I misremembered 2 Corinthians 11:5 when Paul declares himself in no way inferior to "super-apostles."
I don't give a damn about your Paulite books. So far as I'm concerned there are three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and John and that's it.
But Paul.... he wasn't at the supper, he doesn't get the title. He was a fanboy at best, a tool of the anti-christ at worst. From my perspective you might as well be talking about Joseph Smith.
You think god has the power to prevent men from being stupid or evil? That's... Calvinism. And I don't think anyone in THIS community is depressed enough to truly believe you're just god's sock puppet in an utterly deterministic universe.
God presents a path. Men choose to walk it. Or not. It wouldn't be the first or last time someone who was close enough to the source to know better took a message and ran with it for their own ends.
Paul did not aim to spread Christ's message. He aimed to create a Church of Christ. That's not the same thing.
You don't get from Christ's words to Quakers being executed for heresy without Paul.
Not where the decisions of men are concerned.
Man is too much like god. To god's consternation.
Wow OK... I would rethink the use of curses when discussing divine matters.
Except Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned as unpreferable outcomes by Christ himself as a direct rejection of his teachings, and they (Sodom and Gomorrah) are described in Isaiah 1 in fine detail - a picture of what the west is today.
What is wrong with not wanting to live in a simulacrum of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Sodom was much worse than the world westerners live in.
When you read the passage, it really isn't about homosexuality. You had a guy invite 2 men into his house whom were guests.
Then a lynch-mob-rape-gang formed and demanded that the two guests be brought out before them so that they could be raped as punishment for being outside. When the man offered his daughter, it was a demonstration of their intent. There was no sexual desire behind it, but a need to punish a random foreigner for daring to be an invited guest, and as such their brutal gang rape was going to be a symbol of dominance by the lynch mob.
Yeah, no, I get why the angels then proceeded to blind them and draw swords to hold the insane rape-lynch-mob at bay. Then they proceeded to evacuate, and bomb the city from orbit because there was not even one good person left who didn't support that insane mob.
God's wrath seems pretty reasonable in that case.
In terms of its visceral nature certainly, comparable to the rape mobbings in India no doubt - however, spiritually you can't escape this outcome if all of the pillars of Sodom are present. I look to all of the countries being flooded with turbanites and see nothing but the very same - almost all you hear about is rape, rape, rape. The germ of this is of course very present in our very naive ideas of multiculturalism and corrupt political system.
"Your land is desolate, Your cities are burned with fire; As for your fields, strangers are devouring them in front of you; It is desolation, as overthrown by strangers. 8 The daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, Like a watchman’s hut in a cucumber field, like a city under watch. 9 If the Lord of armies Had not left us a few survivors, We would be like Sodom, We would be like Gomorrah."
Sounds mighty familiar, being under corrupt occupation and being pillaged by the lapels of our own kindness towards others.
"10 Hear the word of the Lord, You rulers of Sodom; Listen to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah!"
I can think of a few people this should address.
"22 Your silver has become [i]waste matter, Your drink diluted with water. 23 Your rulers are rebels And companions of thieves; Everyone loves a bribe And chases after gifts. They do not obtain justice for the [j]orphan, Nor does the widow’s case come before them."
Lobbyists in a nutshell.
what was gomorrah's thing, anyway?
Presumably the same laundry list of sin. They are very rarely addressed seperately.
Pearls before swine. I don't give a fuck about what a bunch of fucking sissy Christians, faggy atheist, and jews think about Christianity.
Standard fare, 100% unsurprising, I remember this shit from the early 2000's internet.
It really is amazing how for some people 2006 never ended. I still see some of the same names I remember from my "New Atheist" days, and they're still saying the same things and trying to make the same "gotcha" points near 20 years on.
Except now they simultaneously believe/argue that if a man believes hard enough (and has enough surgery) he can become a woman.
They've been building towards it for at least a year now. https://www.foxnews.com/media/fbi-found-gateway-declare-christians-criminals-federal-whistleblower
Looks like the latest tactic. Thankfully that movie flopped and they don’t know the first thing about what Jesus taught. He did say the poor will always be with us and I’ve heard those on the left justify free stuff paid for by the government with Jesus commanding us to help those in need
It's all so tiresome
The same can be said for the cult of todayism.
It will need to be perpetually changed, sometimes hourly, based on the whims and feels of some, despite how very little normal people truly care about such things, let alone even think about them.
It's just pathetic to watch them claw and tear at everything, when they are the problem
Magically you cannot fix all the problems you claim to, and you're creating more with your very existence. You are wrong. Accept it and move on.
And what is "Christian nationalism" supposed to be? Sounds like a convenient label for Christians who are nationalists, so what's the rumpus?
If this means to insinuate that some sort of Christian theocracy is possible in the US, whoever wrote this is talking out his ass.
It's a proxy for White people.
I don't think there are "Christian Nationalists" in the US because it's an improper term.
There is not a Christian "Ummah", nor is anyone arguing for one, nor are anyone arguing for Christian Caliphates (or the equivalent thereof).
The most you can argue are Americans that want to use Christianity as a basis for law, which has existed previously, and is an underlying part of Liberalism itself.
The most extreme position would be to say that there are American Catholics and Mormons who think that Catholicism and Mormanism should be the base premise of law, which would actually be antithetical to Liberalism, due to the mechanisms of power within those religions.
You have to go back a ways, but the concept is called Christiandom. It's not a term you see much in the modern world, since western governments mostly claim to be secular while being run by satanic pedophiles, but it used to be a pretty big deal.
Christendom isn't an Ummah, it's just the realm of Christianity.
Jew games are getting people to associate one word with another through repetition. So they put a stink on one word, then pair it with things they want to stink up.
Brilliant
'New'
Nah. I wish. I've seen the cliche 'Christianity is more of a threat than Islam' from the left for... good lord, longer than I'd like to think about. They honestly, deeply, unironically believe that we're just one bad day from turning the nation into a Christian Theocracy, and it's been that way for a loooooooong time.
Now, getting more traction in mainstream media - yeah, that I can see. The question you have to answer is why they're freaking out all of a sudden and throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks...
There is an underlying swell among the normies called the Christpill.
A lot of people are seeing what the Anglosphere is turning into without a religious foundation that puts forward tenets to maintain social cohesion.
Obviously, the media is attempting to get in front of normies "noticing", and are trying to paint it as an evil thing, no different than what happened with Occupy Wallstreet or Gamergate.
at this point i will take the theocracy. it CANNOT be worse than the total tranny shitshow we currently endure.
Christian Nationalism was literally the way a variety of countries and empires operated since the fall of Rome and the rise of Byzantium. Yes, I endorse going back to that model.
Wait until these non-Christians get a load of the lady who was told He wasn't up for giving crumbs to dogs.