Vatican 2 is fake and gay!
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
'Thou shall not kill'
So if no interpretation is required what exactly does that mean? If I take it literally it means I'm not even allowed to kill an insect.
Yes. Which is why I don't judge Christianity based solely on the Bible or parts thereof but mainly on how Christianity has acted as an organized religion during its history.
For example I don't take any issue with the Amish. They simply want to live their lives as they believe is the correct way. They don't try to convert me. They don't have any political ambitions. They live peacefully with their neighbors.
On the other hand I do take issues with people like Nick Fuentes who scream 'Christ is king' and are ardent Christian supremacists. Same as I take issue with the Muslim or Jewish equivalent of him.
My family, my people, my blood will always be the top priority for me. You can switch religion. You can switch political ideologies. You cannot switch blood.
Christianity cares only about spreading Christianity. It does not care for blood. Except maybe for Jewish blood as Jews are the chosen people of God. Or were depending on how you interpret the Bible.
Deuteronomy and Leviticus literally outline what that means -- it's related to humans. In fact, there are multiple examples given, including Deuteronomy 19, which doesn't need interpretation since it's rightly outlined:
Jesus even reiterates that he came to reinforce the Old Law in Matthew chapter 5, verse 17, which states "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Which is a perfectly reasonable and valid reason to take issue with such individuals. God called on the anointed to spread the word, but did not call on them to distort the word -- that goes back to my previous comments about the prophets in the Old Testament (i.e., Isiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel) forewarning of people who would distort the word for their own gain (which we see happening frequently in the world of corporate organised religion, and funnily enough, ties into the OP's original post).
You're not wrong in predicating your perspective based on the failings of organised religion, which operates more as a corporate/financial/social control mechanisms rather than its intended purpose.
The whole point of it was originally about saving souls -- this is from Jesus' own mouth and actions: he came to deliver salvation for the lost, the chosen, and the gentiles. This is literally outlined in John chapter 3 and verses 15 and 16, which clearly defines the entire purpose of Christ's visit to Earth and the establishment of Christendom, stating....
"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
What you've described is what the Bible warns about in Revelations, regarding the false teachings and prophets used to deceive the masses to get people to feel about monotheism and more specifically Judaeo-Christian values exactly how a lot of people feel about it today:
https://pastorunlikely.com/33-chilling-bible-verses-on-false-teachers/
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/christ-centered-exposition/revelation/the-false-prophet.html
There shouldn't need to be any interpretations, since all of the core fundamentals are already outlined in the Old Testament and reiterated by Jesus himself in the New Testament.
Anything that needed further discernment is between the individual and the Holy Spirit.
People purposely misinterpreting scripture to control pliable minds is why organised religion is the way it is today, and how we have "prosperity" teachers like Joel Olsteen or grifters like Kenneth Copeland or whatever newage pop-cultural trend is currently invading the minds of those who seek but are too weak to exercise sound judgment and proper discernment.
But your umbrage with organised religion are not unfounded; and funnily enough, actually coincides with what the Bible warns us about.
What is 'innocent blood'? And to which three cities should I flee to if I accidentally kill someone?
The reason given doesn't matter. Christianity wants to dominate the minds and souls of humanity. It is a monotheistic religion that does not tolerate 'pagans' (i.e. anything non-Abrahamic) and cares not for the race/blood of its followers. In that regard it is identical to Islam.
Following Christianity inevitably means forsaking your own blood. Which is why we are in our current predicament. You can blame secularism all you want for it but Christianity dominated Europe and most of the world for a very long time. So either this happened by design (which I believe) or Christianity failed utterly and completely. Saying it wasn't true Christianity before is like saying true Communism has never been tried before.
Like I said I don't take any issues with believers who simply want to live their lives according to their religious scripture as long as they don't have (religious) political ambitions. Muslims pretending to be tolerant and peaceful as long as they are a tiny minority and going for complete dominance once they reach a certain population threshold is the best example for the dangers of politically ambitious religions.
Organized religions seek power. Power inevitably attracts corruption. That's the general reality of human existence. That's why the reality of politics isn't any different. Organized religions are inherently political.
And that's why organized monotheistic religions that claim to be the absolute authority of truth are so dangerous. That's also the reason why the 'Trust the science!' crowd is so incredibly dangerous. Because they are members of an organized monotheistic religion which claims to be the absolute authority of truth too. The only difference is their religion is without any spirituality.
Did you harm someone by mistake? Innocent blood. Simple as that.
You can flee, but the honourable thing to do would be to turn yourself in to face justice. The scenario given was for a man who did not mean to cause harm, but may face retribution at the hands of the blood avenger; hence seeking asylum.
We have a judicial system today, so as stated, if you commit a crime, report it to the authorities and face the consequences. Back in the day, the avenger of blood might seek vengeance, but today you face trial by jury in civilised nations.
It does matter, otherwise you're back to defending that a man can be a woman because he feels like it. You already said a man cannot be a woman if he feels like it because "man" and "woman" have clear definitions. You cannot CHANGE those definitions when it suits you, just like you cannot change the reason and definitions of Christianity to suit your anti-theism, elsewise you're back to engaging in the same hypocrisy I mentioned before.
Other way around. People sacrificed so YOU could enjoy your unearned freedoms and privileges based on the foundations of Orthodox Judaeo-Christianity. Their forfeiture of self is how you have the benefits of a first-world nation to indulge.
Our current predicament is spawned entirely from secular solipsism. Everyone only cares about self, about what they can do for their own hedonism or masochism. Christianity at its core is about sacrifice -- everyone indulging in promiscuity, abortions, anti-White prosecution, usury, and two-tier justice systems is the literal opposite of every tenet of the Old Law.
Hilariously enough, the very things you're complaining about causing the ruination of society are the result of people abandoning the First Principles of Christian Orthodoxy.
Yes, every aspect of the human condition based on ambition leads to authoritarianism as its end goal when spirituality is not at the core of their principles.
In the same way, hedonistic anarchy is the end goal of societies that abandon spirituality in favour of solipsistic secularism, which is what we're seeing play out in real time in London, Paris, Cologne, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and New York City.
If I kill someone in self defense I didn't harm him by mistake. Sometimes you even have to kill people even if they don't pose an immediate threat to you.
What is true Christianity or who is a true Christian has no clear definition. I assume you're a Protestant? Catholics think you aren't a true Christian. What about Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? Mormons? Jehovas Witnesses?
Gender isn't ambiguous. You are either born a man or a woman. Anything else is a genetic anomaly. It's natural law. Man-made ideologies are not.
Christianity has no right to take credit for the achievements of people. If Christianity would be responsible for these achievements there wouldn't be such significant differences between the different European peoples.
And like I believe I already said the rise of Europe as a world dominating power came after the influence of the Church was severely diminished. The Roman Empires peak also before Christianity took over.
The Church (who claim to represent God on Earth) only cared for itself. That is literally the reason why Martin Luther did what he did. It is the reason why the European nobility fought tooth and nail to curb the influence of the Church. It is the reason why ultimately the Church lost most of its authority.
I disagree. What caused it was Christian compassion for thy enemy. Jews are supposedly the arch enemy of Christianity. The synagogue of Satan. And yet Christianity never once tried to actually end their enemy. Christians have always been the most steadfast supporters of Judaism. They emancipated them again and again and again.
The only people who truly tried to solve this problem were pagans. And they were fanatically attacked by the Christian world.
Christian spirituality is literally about bowing down to the ultimate authority of God. That is if you actually want Christianity to be an organized religion. Organized religions are always about bowing down to authority.
But I'm going to call it quits here. I know how you think about this topic, you know how I think about this topic and now we're just running in circles because neither of us going is to change his opinion regarding this topic.
As long as we aren't able to prove or disprove Gods existence we'll have to agree to disagree.