Now conservatives aren't leftists, because leftism and liberalsim are not the same thing.
But leftism is the icing that everyone sees on a cake, whereas liberalism is all the batter that makes up the cake. Most conservatives unknowingly accept the bread part of the cake without realizing it, but reject wokeism, not realizing they are natural extensions of each other.
To define what you must believe to not be a liberal
-
Women getting the right to vote was incredibly foolish, one of the most foolish things any society has ever done...the two sexes are very diffferent, they have different roles. Determining the fate of a nation is not one of them
-
The civil rights act of 1965 was a horrible thing
-
Thinking that white society as it behaves is better than black society as a general as they behave is not a racist thing, it's just a neutral observation
-
More things that I can't think of right now, but those are the majors.
I would say most conservatives would sort of get nervous and go "well I wouldn't go that far" or "I think women should be allowed to vote" or any number of things on those main issues.
I'd say 99% of Americans and Westerners in general are liberal.
You don't have to be a neo nazi or white nationalist to be not a liberal, but you have to at least reject white guilt completely.
Spot on
There was pressure to behave that way back then. Our civilizations became to successful and thus the pressure to "keep women in the kitchen" went away. The "in-group" vs "out-group" went away.
Holy retardation.
Did he though? I see similar behavior from Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin recently as well. I don't see it as a psychological episode. I see it as them realizing that their attack dog is off the leash, and they are rightfully terrified. Their commands to heel are falling on deaf ears, and their golems no longer draw our focus away from them.
They know what is coming their way soon, and they know they will have earned every bit of it. Their desperation to avoid their fate is a rational reaction by any cornered animal.
I'm not Jewish, you cuck.
And I'm the King of England.
Congratulations, Your Majesty. Are you going to join Andrew on Maxwell's yacht today?
Yes you are you fucking inbred rodent looking ass vermin Kíke
no. xir is a streetshitting paki that was too poor to get assigned a cousin for marriage, and too ugly to become a boy-wife.
stop destroying my head-cannon.
You misspelled "oy vey."
A man from 1840 would say I'm a devil worshipper for being against marriage and probably have me lynched for it (lynchings hit ideological opponents of Christianity and women as well as racial targets). The grass is not greener on the other side.
A man from 1840 would be confused by the fact that you don't want to own a kitchen appliance/baby factory.
Am I in 1840 or is he in 2025? Because I'd just show him that all those tasks can be automated extremely cheaply now.
It comes back to what I said to the religious proselytizer. The things that lured people into marriage are gone, what's left is the reality of women.
Project 2025's true goals can be summarized as - if we can't put the fear of God into them, we'll make them fear the state instead.
Their solution to the fear of "eternity in hell" waning is to make you fear the state's repercussions for not being married instead.
Dude, I'm 33 and never going to get married. I decided no way. Marriage as it is today, men have zero rights. It's not the Biblical marriage.
Even back in the day when I once entertained the idea that one day I might get married if the right woman came along, I was highly, highly uneasy about the idea because of all the MRA stuff I knew. How can you say that me as a Christian is trying to get you to subjegate yourself to the modern idea of marriage. Again, I've realized that my role in life is to stay single, something Jesus said, to the one who can handle it, they should be like a Eunech.
Paul also said "In my opinion it would be better to not be married, because the end is near and a husband is partially devoted to his wife, while an unmarried man can be fully devoted to God".
I've never encouraged anyone to get married. I've only ever said that marriage in the modern day is essentially slavery (when you have no rights regarding your offspring, your finances, what happens in divorce, no way to correct your wifes behavior without the government labelling you an abuser and threatening you with prison, then it's essentially being held at ransom) and that I wouldn't risk it unless you really felt God calling you to do it, and you're sure it's God and not just endorphins and emotions. And even then, though this would give you zero protection and actually be depriving you of financial government benefits, I personally would not be married by the state, but would be married by the church as a symbol that if the marriage works it's because God has blessed the union, not the state out of my utter contempt for the modern day twisted version of marriage.
Marriage in 1700s, not a problem. Today's bastardization of marriage is not at all marriage. I personally don't believe the state should have ever been involved in marriage in the first place.
When I see people like Matt Walsh, a Catholic, say "You're not a real man unless you're married" I go huh....I guess he thinks Paul isn't a real man, or Jesus.
Btw, what I did just now, because I promised not to proselytyze, was not proselytyzing. I was just pointing out how I have zero agenda to get anyone to marry and have consciously decided to not get married because of many factors; the state of modern women, the laws of today bastardizing the concept of marriage, my own personal disposition and inflexibiltty, financial reasons, and personal convictions, etc etc etc.
The point is, why do you think that everyone who is traditional minded is primarily about getting men into marriage when people like myself are never going to get married?
I've put it this way. I'd be inclined to marry a woman....if women existed.
They used to exist, back before modern inventions and feminism utterly poisoned them and turned them into something utterly unappealing to spend a life with.
I agree that a good chunk of Conservatives are doing that "You're Peter Pan, grow up" in order to get men to marry and many are unkowingingly doing this on behalf of women and feminist interests because women realize men see how terrible they've become in the modern age so they use guilt and shaming tactics to try to bully men into marriage despite the utter lack of reason to do so nowadays in the West in particular.
And I acknowledge that there's a lot of crossover here with the Church....well most of the Church is Conservative and they're not above parroting bad talking points from the general Conservative side/right.
But name one single time in my proselytation that I encouraged you to get married or to put women on a pedestal? I encouraged you to place your faith and trust in Jesus. Not one place in the Bible does it say getting married is necessary for salvation, and in fact in several places it says that if you can handle being single, there are real benefits to being that way.
I'm essentially the Biblical equivalent of MGTOW.
Silence Ungassed yet kike
when you pretend the lolocaust was real at least honor uncle mel and use the term oven-dodger.
I willl next time fren
Holy terminally onlineness
It's obvious that both major political parties are liberal.Your major civic nationalist are liberal. Outside of Ron Paul I can't name you one politician talking about shrinking the government. Look at the RNC conventions, ever since Bush Jr. we've had people speaking Spanish on the stage. Trannies and faggots have appeared on the RNC stage. And while both parties fight over their percentages of this minority and that minority, they both conveniently forgot the word white.
In Canada we have the Liberals who are for globohomo liberalism, the NDP who are for brown third world liberalism, the Green party which are for privileged communist liberalism, and the Conservatives which are for fantasy "equality" liberalism.
The only other option is the PPC which are a little more libertarian, but still lean towards the fantasy "equality" liberalism just with a better budget to prop up the corpse of Canada up for longer.
I remember as a kid that Republicans talked about shrinking government but they don’t even do that anymore. Ron Paul was the last candidate I really believed in
These two things don't go together.
Even by your metrics I'm not a liberal. So that's ONE person for ya.
Basically, anything before the 1900s is ideal in terms of values. Maybe even slightly before that. By today's standards, 99% of people that ever existed before modern times would be considered far, far right.
Two centuries ago no one would have thought women Should vote. For obvious reasons.
A comment of mine from years ago:
"Every person I know is a neoliberal. Obviously, my deep blue co-workers. But my republican parents: neolibs. My pastor with the marksmanship hobby: neolib. My homesteading friends: neolibs.
They all "know something is wrong" but can't even imagine considering that it could be the assumptions of equality, corporate-run government, non-violent society, and consumer lifestyle (let alone ethnic groups that are over-represented in pushing same)."
A depressing game is to figure out the point it all went wrong. MAGA in 2016 meant returning to the 80s, with its blacks and single mothers. Clearly not far enough. Post-war? No way. Pre-war was more sensible, but most of the world was miserable. You have to go back at least past Lincoln. Shit's been fucked for a long time.
Yes, most everyone today is a child of the 'enlightenment'
And look at how that went.
They are all in some way a revolutionary, they either sit on the left and push hard for more revolution, or those sat to the right want a gentler less violent revolution and support all the changes thus far, they just worry there's maybe a few too many beheadings planned next week, we should still have some of course, but maybe just cut the rate of growth in executions by a few %, or else they, the Girondins, might be next.
The supporters of the king and old regime aren't sat on the right any more, they're long dead.
You are correct with your topic title.
Meritocracy is liberalism and most conservatives are meritocratic.
Social programs are liberalism and most conservatives believe in social programs.
Democracy is liberalism, especially the universal suffrage kind. A universal suffrage republican is just as bad as a universal suffrage democracy.
To be right-wing, you must be racist, you must be classist, you must be sexist and you must be against social programs of any kind (low taxes, low government spending, low government involvement outside of maintaining order and enforcing the bare minimum).
You touched on correct policies that must be abolished. The Civil Rights Act is one of the most oppressive laws ever created and is wholly incompatible with non-liberalism. Taxes and government spending are about 80% higher than they ought to be. Minor violence to solve disputes should not be against the law and in fact should be encouraged, to suggest otherwise is oppressive to men who have a superior advantage in violence over women. Restricting men from violence as a dispute resolution is anti-male and not right-wing. Any ideology rooted in equality is liberalism and not right-wing. Classism+racism is the right-wing belief. Pure individualism is liberalism again because pure liberalism leads to colorblind meritocracy and genderless meritocracy both of which are liberal ideologies. Equity is great but not when it's viewed purely at an individual level. There must be collectivism based on genetics and recognition of the differences between men and women.
Simple right-wing views:
This is where we differ I believe. If I'm reading you correctly, I assume you ascribe to white nationalism, and a superiority caste of races and other groups based on some to be defined criteria, and only then are you not a liberal.
The goal of the 3 things I laid out is not to have a purity spiral. Not a liberal can be a big umbrella, it's not meant to only weed out everyone except the "most based of the most based"
As a Christian I fundamentally reject many of the beliefs I assume you hold, based on my understanding that we all come from Noah and his 3 sons, I do not believe meritocracy is liberal or bad. The Bible in Proverbs talks about what happens to the diligent wise worker vs the lazy foolish worker....that is meritocracy.
I don't believe in dividing by classes. In fact, the Bible says if a rich man enters your church, don't give him preferential treatment, treat him exactly the same as anyone else in the church. God is not a discriminator of persons. Someone's class is utterly meaningless.
You with your beliefs would fall into the not a liberal category, however, you'd turn just about everyone else into a liberal who doesn't ascribe to the specific beliefs you've laid out.
If you look at my 3 beliefs, they're very wide and encompassing.
That women voting was retarded should be obvious to anyone who studies the issue and thinks critically.
That the civil rights act was an unjust law should be evident to anyone who thinks about what humans should be allowed to do, studies history, and looks at the fruits of the civil rights act.
That there is a problem with the black community, most specifically for the purposes of this list, in America, is so obvious a blind man could see it.
These are all three things that are fairly evident truths that many many people could rationally fall under even though they may differ in many other ways. They're picked because the refusal to let these beliefs go is purely pavlovian, but keeping the beliefs still ties people to a liberal overton window for as long as they keep hold of them.
I as a Christian, and an atheist would differ on many other things, but we could agree on these core issues. In that case, neither of us would be liberals.
Liberal values are the values, generally speaken that were accepted practically as gospel starting in the 1960s or so.
The goal isn't to make a very narrow category of who is and isn't "not a liberal", it's to recogonize that this generally speaking, 1960s starting worldview is incorrect, and those who still ascribe to it, need to not ascribe to it or at the very least, search for themselves to at least justify why these accepted beliefs are correct beyond "society says it's this way and it feels bad to think differently" because if you are to move society continually in a disasterous direction, you better have a darn good reason for doing so.
If you want to posit a specific worldview you want people to ascribe to, that's your perogative, but I think your definition is far too narrow for the baseline of "not a liberal".
Your criteria is more like the foundation for a specific ideology or political party, rather than what I'm doing which is just establishihing what base level ideology that has seeped into most modern thought is incorrect.
I believe in maximizing the well-being for me and my people. My people are not a religion, they are the genetics that make them.
Let me ask you this: would you rather live among African Christians or White Atheists?
You can't truly answer this question without being dishonest or naive to reality.
Genetics are what drive behaviors not the religion anyone ascribes to. The race creates the religion. The religion doesn't create the race.
If you continue to mix with your inferiors you will degrade your progeny and this damage when done at a societal level is mostly permanent.
You cannot pretend to care about a nation and ascribe to genetic blind Christianity. Your Christianity is the death of all that is good and regardless of your take on right or left you will always be an enemy to me and my people in the end.
White atheists behave like white atheists because of Christianity. Atheists behaved civilized because America had a moral boundary established by God's word that benefitted atheists in ways they didn't even realize. The hypothetical alternate America of white atheists where Christianity never came there, it would look heinous.
Want to know what white atheists will look like when fully removed from any Christian influence?
Look at Pagan white places like Greek with pedophilia being common, Vikings where they burned, looted, and murdered, druids who would commit human sacrifices, etc.
Look at what white people are doing today as they become more and more godless. Increased pedophilia (drag queen story hour, gender nonsense taught to children), futile thinking (men can get pregnant), just look at the average white person on a college campus today. I'd rather live the rest of my life in the middle east, than have to spend my whole life surrounded by college wokies
The answer is a legitimate answer that is neither naive nor dishonest. I'd rather be around African Christians.
An African Christian, indweldt with the Holy Spirit has FAR more in common with me than an atheist white person.
To be clear, I think it's a heinous thing that the world celebrates white people who are already a mere 8% of the world, shrinking and becoming minorities in their own nations.
I don't think it's the least bit wrong to try to not have a people utterly get invaded and replaced. I don't think it would be right for Japan to get invaded and the Japanese to be the minority.
I can hold two views. Holy Spirit > skin color and culture
and
America shouldn't be invaded by people who don't share the culture, and applauding the slow genocide of a people is heinous.
Also you think African Christians are bad because you haven't been around them. You look at general African behavior, and associate that with Christian, but that's not correct. Christian culture is it's own culture. When you see African culture, you're not seeing Christian culture. Christian culture is something where cultural differences that would be deal breakers become completely insignificant when stacked up to the power of God. You don't understand what the Holy Spirit does in unifying people. It is a trait demolisher in terms of dis-unity. As the Bible says, there is neither Jew, nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ. We are all heirs of the promise.
Essentially every Christian is a brother, with more in common with a Christian they've never met than they're own family if their family doesn't believe in Christ.
White Atheists of which country?
You'd be killed for this and I'd cheer.
Also, taxing non-nationals higher just means they'll close all their business in your nation and leave. You wouldn't have multi-nationals, they'd all fuck off and leave you in your Nazi delusion state, hovering in a constant state of near bankruptcy like the NSDAP was.
How would genetics vs location work in the U.S.A.? Are you comparing me to an Irishman and saying we are the same?
Depends what you are. Irishmen, genetically are basically the same as English (and Scottish too). They're all Anglo-Saxons who are all Germans. The differences that are taught to these tribes are mostly irrelevant and taught to cause division among similar people's. When Anglo-Saxons are the only people in the world who matter, then ideological differences that are reflected in the different ethnicities (cultures) are relevant but when Germans are being genocided (as is the cases currently), I would recommend putting these differences aside to focus on the more relevant and dangerous enemy, non-Germans.
Whoops, you told the truth. Now you’re Tallest Skil and clearly psychotic and wrong because it hurt someone’s feelings.
Fuck off, incestuous weirdo.
Didn’t work. Your sockpuppet will be wiped.
And the archive will remain.
Puting 99% of America into one general category is extreme and inaccurate.
I mean, yes, of course.
The 99% isn't meant to be an accurate number.
No one has the accurate number nor could have any way of obtaining the accurate number.
The 99% is just a way of saying it's friggin ubiquitous. It's essentially 99% as I've observed it in my life, observing those around me, and observing public figures, including conservative public figures.
The 99% is because we know it's not 100%....Many on this forum are evidence of that
But darned if in the real world (offline) it doesn't feel like it.
I don't know exactly when, but since at least 2020 if not before I've been sprinting to the right like a track star. If you'd asked me in the past, I'd probably have said I disagree with most of these. At best now I can say I really am not familiar with the details of the civil rights act intricately, but if it's what I think and what's used to shove diversity down our face I'm in on that one too.
There's a huge amount that wouldn't even come close because they are so well trained that nothing is worse than being racist or sexist. God himself is racist and sexist though...
I'll convert you on the CRA.
It made it illegal to hire or fire based on race. It made it illegal to choose not to sell your home to a buyer base on their race. Realtors legally can't answer questions about race. Realtors legally (and I shit you not this is true, please look it up) CANT answer questions about CRIME. "I'd like for my family to move into a neighborhood with low crime rates". Nope. They cannot answer that thanks to the civil rights act. The CRA also made it incredibly difficult for whites to form white groups. So no.more freedom of association unless it is strictly a friend group. Social orders cannot be all white. Lastly it was co sponsored by a Jew.
The CRA was a death pill inflicted upon a white Christian nation by Jews with the purpose of subverting it and making whites outnumbered, powerless, impoverished, and defenseless.
This is what I mean when I say these people are mentally ill.
Not even remotely true. You just can't refuse based on race. If your group is naturally all white, nobody will care.
Contrast that to post Rotary Club of Duarte case law that sees the absence of women as a blatant act of discrimination.
That's a problem.
A business owner should be able to fire or hire whoever they want for any reason. Same for non profits, charities, sports organizations, etc. The only entity that shouldn't be allowed to is the government.
the only entity that should be forced to is the gocernment. as in white christian men.
I fully support total nigger and kike death while adding total jeet death because why not?
In a nutshell:
Prior - The discriminated person had to be discriminated and bring a suit against the offender.
Post - The Government could observe a situation where no-one felt discriminated against, and bring federal charges based on their observation of a situation. (Regardless if the person involved wanted those charges brought)
It essentially meant the government could drop federal charges on you for any reason at any time, so they only rational response was to be as anti racist as possible.
It would be akin to the government suddenly declaring that they were going to give you speeding tickets at any time anywhere but not tell you what the speed limits they were using were. You'd have to drive at 10 mph at all times just in case.
This sounds like a stone choir primer right here. I think you'd find more people are moving towards this than will admit it.
White guilt is a marxist poison, and it must be neutralized completely and the source bombarded from orbit.
As someone who is heavily involved in an evangelical church (can't choose your birth), I have come to realize that liberalism is the true religion of America, no matter which Americans we are discussing.
Everyone is caught up in right vs left, conservative vs liberal but that skews the debate. Liberalism uses the individuals thoughts/feelings as the reference point. Individual "liberty" is the true north on the liberal's moral compass.
As Christians, we are "supposed" to regard the Word of God (whether revealed through the written Bible or passed down though the traditions) as the foundation of our worldview. And while I acknowledge that we interpret everything to a certain extent, American Christians interpret the Bible's teaching though their liberal worldview first. If they read something they don't like, they merely ignore it in favor of their liberal view that they have been indoctrinated into.
Usury, women's "rights", freedom of religion, and (unfortunately more commonly) sodomy are more important to American Christians than the Bible
Have you ever seen videos of progressive pastors? It's eye opening how little thought they give to traditional Christian tenets and just tell people to "be kind."
I watched a debate between Andrew Wilson and a gay pastor and the quotes of the Bible he didn't like, he just said the speaker was incorrect. He denied the truth of Genesis and Exodus but claims to be a Christian
Keep being broke.
Hurry up and write it.
"Left wing" and "Right wing" were originally named because of where they sat in the parliament of france post revolution (IIRC) which created a liberal system. The "Right wing" is literally the meme, just progressives going the speed limit. They are a brake and nothing more.
In the unlikely event that you're not already aware of him, but Auron Macintyre is fantastic for this type of post liberal stuff.
I actually wasn't aware of Auron Macintrye, so thank you, I'll look into him!
As fars as getting the article out, I'm happy for the encouragement and the push, but it's just been crazy lately. I was halfway through a 80% done with a different article and things have just been too chaotic right now. In about 1-2 weeks things will be at a point where I can write again.
Also I've realized I need to make a document of just every idea I have to write because I come up with ideas faster than I can write the articles.
I have a few I need to publish first, one of which, a response to a guy who wrote against "Christian Nationalism" will touch on some of these ideas.
But with the blog I just have to go at my own pace, getting articles out as I get them out, rather than forcing it.
I'll put it here though when I publish the one on this topic though. But like I said too much going on right now + a few articles already started I need to finish before then.
I am infact not liberal lol
What am I if I believe that believing in "white genocide" is a sign of extreme mental illness and the only people who care about raising birth rates are pedophiles? (in before stupid insult)
Also, yes, being a Nazi is incompatible with point 1, because without the huge female demographic skew, the Nazis would have lost easily. Hitler would have been a forgotten feminist backed plant like Oswald Mosley, exposed decades later to the surprise of nobody.
I would say when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If this is Impossible1, I'm going to level with you.
I'm generally MRA, I followed all the MRM stuff. I completely see how jacked up feminism is.
There was a point where I couldn't see ANYTHING except feminism.
I have not grown one single bit more "pro feminism" today than I was in high school.
The difference between high school me and today me regarding feminism is two things.
I learned to control my anger, or rather God softened my heart and gave me the spiritual fruit of self control so I wouldn't fixate to the level of being frothing hateful about feminism. Don't get me wrong, I still despise feminism, but I can also just scoff at it and criticize it, and break it down without getting emotionally attached which I couldn't do in the past. Back then, everything was a nail because I was obsessed with that issue to an unhealthy degree. It's a serious issue and is in most ways case zero for the fall of the west. Without getting rid of feminism, nothing will ever truly be fixed....Hardly any conservatives will accept that truth unfortunately. So I agree with you that feminism is a larger problem than people talk about, but it's not all encompassing to the point of it being like a god, which is what you've elevated it to. You've given feminism more tendrils than even feminists gave the "patriarchy". Your shake falling on you at Mcdonalds is not the fault of feminism. Some times things happen for other reasons.
The other thing that changed, that allowed me to chill out about feminism just a bit, though I still despise it whenever it comes up, is that feminism is losing a bit of power. Not nearly enough. Conservatives want to ban the "trans in women's sports" which is something feminists created, so Conservatives always bail feminists out, from the Frankenstein monster they themselves create, but in general, feminism is not as en-vogue as it was when I was in highschool in the late 2000s to early 2010s. It brings me great joy that I rarely hear the word patriarchy any more. There's a sense that women are embarrassed to call themselves feminists. In fact, most feminists like to hide behind the acronym TERF, hoping most people forget the F stands for feminist. There's a stink to feminism and carrying that label that wasn't there 12 years ago.
I smile knowing I rarely see the word "patriarchy" and "mysoginy" that much. Back in the day, you couldn't go a day without seeing feminists screeching constantly about it.
Why not celebrate that little victory that being seen as a feminist is something women are distancing themselves from?
Modern women still suck, I'm not saying anything to the contrary, but at least I'm not banging my head against the wall about the fake "wage gap" (Women don't understand choices in jobs like black people don't understand per-capita), the patriarchy, etc constantly like I used to because it's not AS prevelant as it used to be.
The main, major point though is, without the Holy Spirit and His guidance, you'll be constantly having only your own thoughts to bounce back, and when people doom scroll in one particular topic, it can be all encompassing and demoralizing and can result in it recieving size and placement that is disproportional to reality.
Seek Christ, seek first the Kingdom of Heaven. You could convince the entire world to come around to this particular brand of anti-feminism, and the result would be for nothing. What does it profit a man to gain the world but forfeit his soul, as the Bible says.
You need forgiveness and salvation because of the coming judgement, where all people, men, women, feminists, and non-feminists alike will be judged according to whether they accepted Christ. That's the reason you need Christ and His forgiveness. All other reasons don't compare. But a bonus is that upon belief, you recieve The Helper, that is the Holy Spirit that transforms and renews your mind, particularly when you read God's word.
So you'll still be anti-feminist as anyone who understands the Bible understands that the Bible and feminism is not compatible, but you will gain wisdom for things to be in the proper places.
I can't help you sort out ideas, and I'm not saying you will come to all the conclusions I have.
There's no one I agree with everything on 100%. But you will be able to see the main things as the main things, and everything falls into place as secondary compared to the gospel, so it puts the correct order of importance for things. There are Christians who are feminists and it doesn't mean they're going to hell. They're forgiven, just like I'm forgiven, because they've accepted Christ, it just means that they believe a foolish thing.
If believing a foolish thing disqualified you from Christ's salvation, not a single person would ever go to heaven.
Very good point. I’ve had to realize that in my life and not spend time arguing every single point in the Bible with fellow Christians.
I understand your point on racial views and I definitely see all that is going on but I would still say I’m for voluntary associations. And that’s usually fine unless white people practice it which is wrong. Gotta be across the board. Although with my rose colored glasses I’d still ideally love to see everyone link arms and sing about peace and brotherhood. I suppose heaven would be like that.
Yeah, in heaven everyone will come from all nations, and it says we will all be one.
We will all be in unity, in Christ. I'm not sure there will even be race as we know it. When Paul talks about what we'll be like, he says to paraphrase, that what we'll be in this new state, he can't exactly say, but to think of it like a seed, where the tree is way more magnificent and different than the seed it came from.
We could all be golden in our bodies, or pure light, the glorified bodies. It might not even be "skin" as we know it, but could be like some sort of mixture of jewels composing a body.
No one knows, but the point is we know our eternal glorified body won't be like our eartlhy bodies. They'll be these perfect things that never age, have no flaws, etc.
Amen to that. I’ll be honest, I know there is more to someone than their skin color and I would still say that I’m colorblind in that sense but I’ve seen why people “notice patterns” and “see color”. I am guilty of wearing rose colored glasses.
As for the nature of our heavenly bodies we could speculate on that forever. Going to definitely expand our minds in infinite directions after having lived in a 3d world
Oh yeah, no, I'm race conscious, and I think there are biological aspects to race, including intelligence.
But I also know all people come from Noah and his 3 sons, so I reject any evolutionary bullcrap.
But it's undeniable that race plays a role in this world.
The thing I've argued is with the church being so race obsessed and not wanting to be seen as racist, is it's a stupid pursuit...we can't even figure race out....so just stop caring about it.
I give an example. If the Ninevites who were seriously jacked up....if they were more biologically disposed to being as jacked up as they were, or if it was purely "environmental factors", would it change the book of Jonah even 1%? No.
No biology precludes a people from repenting.
If the Ninevites were particularly messed up more than others partially because of biology, that doesn't change 1 single thing. They were formally one way, and then they repented.
So why doesn't the church stop pretending there is zero chance of biological factors and just say "let's preach to the black community the same message that Jonah preached, the message of repentance because the result of repentance is what we care about, not optics".
If black people have some biological reason for behaving so poorly, or if it's 100% environmental, neither case matters. The actions and attitude are sending them to hell either way, and repentance would transfer them to the kingdom of light.
The church wants to prove so hard they're not racist, that they're leaving segments of this country still in wrath because saying that behavior is bad would "be a bad look".
If biology impacted if someone could accept the gospel and repent, I could see why the church would be scared of the topic.
But one thing we know is that the gospel can be accepted by someone as simple as a child, or as brilliant as Einstein, that all people groups have among them believers of Jesus.
So why do they care if race has some stuff to do with biology? In heaven it won't matter, so likewise it doesn't matter to me, except for the fact that I'm not going to put myself or my nation in danger in order to not appear racist, because they think "not appearing racist" is synonymous with Christianity.
What makes someone superior and inferior is joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self control, love, vs the fruit of the flesh, so I have no pavlovian response to the idea that some races have higher IQ.
In a way, with the church being so obsessed to believe that race has no biological ties to IQ, sort of betrays them that they believe intelligence makes someone superior, which is an ungodly belief.
I'd rather take 1 million meek, loving, humble, but lower IQ people over any Eistein level genius full of malice and hatred any day of the week.
It seems odd that the church is so nervous about any implications about IQ or other behaviors regarding race, because when I read the Bible, the Bible is utterly unconcerned with someone's IQ, but whether they accept God's word or not, which every race and people can do.
I want to say to the church....you want a kumbaya race utopia....just wait, heaven will be exactly that...you don't need to screw up America to try and achieve it here. And even now at this moment when seperated, all Christians are united as the Capital C "Church".
I'm more united by the Holy Spirit with a man I've never met in Kenya who is indweldt with the holy spirit than a white next door neighbor who does not possess the Holy Spirit.
So churches need to not be so worried about what the skin color demographic make up of their individual church looks like.
There's one big church, and it's very muti-cultural and multi-racial.
I've had that discussion with my mother. She doesn't really listen and I really only bring it up when asked. The point being that her church spends all their time concerning themselves with the tiniest semantics to the point they forget the important things. The whole conflict of Jesus and the Pharisees was nothing more than you worry about the letter of the law and forget the spirit of the rule.
True. Now there are some things that would cause me to leave a church like if they embraced lgbt, abortion, acted like immigration enforcement was evil, put out a blm flag, etc., but there are a lot of minor points like contemporary vs traditional music that won’t bother me. My church has two services and I go to the traditional since it’s my preference just like I love old English so I read the King James but I’m not like my grandfather who thought anything but the king James was the devil
Yeah, those things absolutely. Those type things are named over and over as commandments that would be in violation of or as abominations.
You're spot on that's the stuff she gets hung up on music or the bible version, or one I was told whether or not the church capitalizes the letter "C" in their name. Maybe she's right on all of them, but is the world really so well sorted out that these are the things we focus on.
I wish that was all we had to debate.
I'll keep this short.
Religious proselytizing does not have any effect on someone who is comfortable with their position in life and the belief system they have. It works on broken people desperate to turn to something as a catalyst for shaking off a dark past or a recent huge failure.
Feminism blending with the right and becoming a more influential force is not a victory. On the left they were held back by leftist principles, like the idea that cutting support for people in bad situations is immoral. On the right...they just slap a big fuck you together and cut your access to healthcare for being childless after you lost your job in the shit economy that listening to their ideas has created.
Do you think they would have managed any of this Digital ID crap if not for the religious right's obsession with pornography? We're repeating the era of the Satanic Panic, when feminists, still deeply despised after the Warhol shooting and the resulting mass interest in the Solanas manifesto, attached themselves to the right to regain credibility. The Satanic Panic was just women's 2016 onwards MeToo cult framed under a right wing lens. It was the exact same strategy.
Being comfortable in your position in life means you either don't care, or choose not to think if there's an eternity and the implications.
The worst place you can be in life while you're currently under God's judgement is content. Fellowship with the world is enmity with God.
This life is like a vapor, like a puff of smoke, you see it for a moment and then eternity.
Jesus spoke on hell over and over and over. He mentioned hell far more than He mentioned heaven....and why? Because He knows many people are content in their life and He's trying to sober them up.
The reality that there is an eternal hell, is meant to sober a person up. Repenting and turning to Christ out of fear of hell is completely legitimate. Many saved people turn to Christ out of the fear of hell. He wouldn't have spoken so often about it if it wasn't a legitimate reason. He said, do everything you can to avoid that place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I won't proselytize at you any more. But you need to dwell on this for your own sake.
When eternal stakes are involved "content agnostocism" is like a man sitting on the beach happy, ignoring that others are trying to warn him that a tsunami is coming, but he's happy on the beach right now so he intentionally closes his ears to the warnings.
The fear of hell is how governments controlled people into doing what they wanted.
The obvious decline of marriage is a prime example of this that we can see with data available to us in our modern era. When the ability of religious people to drive fear of hell into people's minds declined, so did the practice of things they supported.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but there isn't some magical place where you get reunited with your dead family members. They're gone. For good. Treasure the memories, and they'll live in your heart, but you're never going to see them again. I had to handle this when I lost my father, and it made me understand why people believe in religion.
You want to believe you'll get to say those things you wish you said, to hug and smile, and share a drink again...to relive the good times you had with who you lost. But that's not reality. Once you're done, it's lights out. Accepting it doesn't help with the grief. I still can't see or do certain things without getting emotional over the loss. But living in a delusion won't help you either. It's nothing but a coping strategy, in the most literal sense.
I can't lie, even typing this comment hurt, which is why it doesn't have my usual pointed tone.
Dude, just go back to your real account. None of these will ever be approved.
It's JG5.
No, he has an account. Project your behavior onto someone else, yid.
This retard has yelled into the void for two days straight.