>>3087 we'd be interested >>3201 what do you mean? it looks the same to me

God and Jesus were European. Jesus traveled from the lands of current Ireland, all the way to the west side of what's now known as the middle-east, even though that land was stolen by sandniggers, who steal and squat everywhere like the no-iq niggers they are.

>>3096 What does this have to with anything? Anyway, I wonder how many of these mental gymnasts get most of their beliefs from critics of Christianity, not the actual source materials. It could be as Chesterton says, that the vast majority are yet doing it in Christianith's shadow instead of from outside. A hindoo would be a much more honest critic.

Wasnt he techincally jewish, as in, a descendant of king David, who was in turn member of the tribe of Judah? this is very confusing.

>>1808 >monolithic jewish hivemind uh huh

>>3411 It is a shitshow internally, dubsman, at least from some rather tired talmudists willing to speak on the matter.

>>3314 Well, newcomer, it's your lucky day, because I know a man who can hold forth on the "Philosopher" argument. https://youtu.be/sxYTxfiHGuk?t=15061 >I have called the fourth and final division of the spiritual elements into which I should divide heathen humanity by the name of The Philosophers. I confess that it covers in my mind much that would generally be classified otherwise; and that what are here called philosophies are very often called religions. I believe however that my own description will be found to be much the more realistic and not the less respectful. But we must first take philosophy in its purest and clearest form that we may trace its normal outline; and that is to be found in the world of the purest and clearest outlines, that culture of the Mediterranean of which we have been considering the mythologies and idolatries in the last two chapters.

>>3401 >fideism Why talk or attempt to reason about God at all if you're going to promote fideism? Just admit you're a dogmatist and that reason is of secondary value when 'thinking' about God. Silence is the appropriate fideistic response to rational discourse about dogmatic theological matters.

>>3402 Excuse me, are you the anon I was speaking to?

>>3402 As per GK Chesterton's definitions, >reason: the authority of man to think. >religion: something that commits a man to some doctrine about the universe; the sense of ultimate reality, of whatever meaning a man finds in his own existence or the existence of anything else; that which puts first things first; the power which makes us joyful about the things that matter; the responsible reinforcement of courage and common sense; a maid-of-all-work: a cosmic theory, a code of conduct, a system of artistic symbols, a fountain of fascinating tales; the telescope through which we can see the star upon which we dwell. >theology: the element of reason in religion; the reason that prevents it from being a mere emotion; simply that part of religion that requires brains. My question, then, is this: why does this man seem unreasonable to you? Why does he appear to you to bring reason out of her place as handmaiden of theology? As I see it, he does not. So I will ask you to explain yourself, and not rudely and crudely attempt to shut me up.

>>3392 >but if His acts are contingent then His acts are sufficiently explained by something other than Him and His will Why can't He be a completely arbitrary actor?

>>3396 Are you just a redditor?

>>3397 Nice argument, tard. You forgot to greentext my post with a soyjak.

>>3398 >tard Ah, and I see your vocabulary has already begun to degenerate. Ho hum. Anyway... >>3353 >"Evolution in biology," says Julian Huxley look him up, by the way, and behold the Cain to Aldous's Able, "is a loose and comprehensive term applied to cover any and every change occurring in the constitution of systematic units of animals and plants..." That there has been change in the constitution of species of animals and plants in the past is amply attested by the fossils found in the earth's crust; with the help of radioactive dating, they have been put into historical sequence with a very high degree of scientific certainty. Evolution, as a generalization within the descriptive science of biological change, can for this as well as for other reasons be taken as established beyond any doubt whatever. >The Evolutionist Doctrine, however, is a very different matter. Not content to confine itself to a systematic description of biological change, it purports to prove and explain it in much the same manner as proof and explanation are offered in the instructional sciences. This is a philosophical error with the most disastrous consequences. >"Darwin," we are told, "did two things: he showed that evolution was in fact contradicting scriptural legends ofcreation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design." It should be obvious to anyone capable of philosophical thought that scientific observation as such can never do these "two things." "Creation," "divine guidance," and "divine design" are completely outside the possibility of scientific observation. Every animal or plant breeder knows beyond doubts that selection, including "natural selection," produces change; it is therefore scientifically correct to say that "natural selection has been proved to be an agent of evolutionary change." We can, in fact, prove it by doing. But it is totally illegitimate to claim that the discovery of this mechanism--natural selection--proves that evolution "was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design." It can be proved that people get money by finding it in the street, but no one would consider this sufficient reason for the assumption that all incomes are earned in this way. >The Doctrine of Evolutionism is generally presented in a manner which betrays and offends against all principles of scientific probity. It starts with the explanation of changes in living beings; then, without warning, it suddenly purports to explain not only the development of consciousness, self-awareness, language, and social institutions but also the origin of life itself. "Evolution," we are told, "is accepted by all biologists and natural selection is recognised as its cause." Since the origin of life is described as a "major step in evolution," we are asked to believe that inanimate matter is a masterful practitioner of natural selection. For the Doctrine of Evolutionism any possibility, no matter how remote, appears to be acceptable as if it were scientific proof that the thing actually happened: <When a sample atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia, and methane was subjected to electric discharges and ultraviolet light, large numbers of organic compounds...were obtained by automatic synthesis. This proved that a prebiological synthesis of complex compounds was possible. >On this basis we are expected to believe that licing beings suddenly made their appearance by pure chance and, having done so, were able to maintain themselves in the general chaos: <It is not unreasonable to suppose that life orginiated in a watery "soup" of prebiological organic compounds and that lcing organisms arose later by surrounding quantities of these compounds by membranes that made them into "cells." This is usually considered the starting point of organic ("Darwinian") evolution. >One can just see it, can't one: organic compounds getting together and surrounding themselves by membranes--nothing could be simpler for these clever compounds--and lo! there is the cell, and once the cell has been born there is nothin to stop the emergence of Shakespeare, although it will obviously take a bit of time. There is therefore no need to speak of miracles or to admit any lack of knowledge. Iti is one of the great paradoxes of our age that people claiming the proud title of "scientist" dare to offer such undisciplined and reckless speculations as contributions to scientific knowledge, and that they get away with it.

>>3403 >>3353 >Karl Stern, a psychiatrist with great insight, has commented thus: <If we present, for the sake of argument, the theory of evolution in a most scientific formulation, we have to say something like this: "At a certain moment of time the temperature of the Earth was such that it became most favourable for the aggregation of carbon atoms and ocygen with the nitrogent-hydrogen combination, and that from random occurrences of large clusters molecules occurred which were most favourably structured for the coming about of life, and from that point it went on through vast stretches of time, until through processes of natural selection a being finally occurred which is capable of choosing love over hate and justice over injusticie, of writing poetry like Dante, composing music like that of Mozart, and making drawings like thoses of Leonardo." Of course, such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such aview has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking. >The fact remains, however, that this kind of thinking continues to be offered as objective science not only to biologists but to everybody eager to find out the truth about the origin, meaning, and purpose of human existence on Earth, and that, in particular, all over the world virtually all children are subjected to indoctrination along these lines. >It is the task of science to observe and to report on its observations. It is not useful for it to postulate the existence of causative agents, like a Creator, intelligences, or designers, who are outside all possibilities of outside observation. "Let us see how far we can explain phenomena by observable causes" is an eminently sensible and, in fact, very fruitful methodological principle. Evolutionism, however, turns methodology into a faith which excludes, ex hypothesi, the possibility of all higher grades of significance. The whole of nature, which obviously includes mankind, is taken as the product of chance and necessity and nothing else; there is neither meaning nor purpose, nor intelligence in it--"a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing." This is The Faith, and all contradicting observations have to be either ignored or interpreted in such a way that the Faith is upheld. >Evolutionism as currently presented has no basis in science. It can be described as a peculiarly degraded religion, many of whose high priests do not even believe in what they proclaim. Despite widespread disbelief, the doctrinaire propagand which insists that the scientific knowledge of evolution leaves no room for any higher faith continues unabated. Counterarguments are simply ignored. The article on "evolution" in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1975) concludes with a section entitled "The Acceptance of Evolution," which claims that "objections to evolution have come from theological and, for a time, from political standpoints." Who would suspect, reading this, that the most serious objections have been raised by numerous biologists and other scientist of unimpeachable credentials? It is evidently thought unwise to mention them, and books like Douglas Dewar's The Transformist Illusion, which offers an overwhelming refutation of Evolutionism on purely scientific grounds, are not considered fit for inclusion in the bibliography of the subject.

>>3405 >>3353 >Evolutionism is not science; it is science fiction, even a kind of hoax. It is a hoax that has succeeded too well and has imprisoned modern man in what looks like an irreconcilable conflict between "science" and "religion." It has destroyed all faiths that pull mankind up and has substituted a faith that pulls mankind down. "Nil admirari." Chance and necessity and the utilitarian mechanism of natural selection may produce curiosities, improbabilities, atrocities, but nothin to be admired as an achievement--just as winning a prize in a lottery cannot elicit admiration. Nothing is "higher" or "lower"; everything is much of a muchness, even though some things are more complex than others--just by chance. Evolutionism, purporting to explain all and everything solely and exclusively by natural selection for adaptation and survival, is the most extreme product of the materialistic utilitarianism of the nineteenth century. The inability of twentieth century thought to rid itself of this imposture is a failure which may well cause the collapse of Western civilisation. For it is impossible for any civlisation to survive without a faith in meanings and values transcending the ultilitarianism of comfort and survival, in other words without a religious faith. >"There can be little doubt," observes Martin Lings, <that in the modrn world more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution as their immediate cause than to anything else. It is true, surprising as it may seem, that many people still contrive to live out their lives in a tepid and precarious combination of religion and evolutionism. But for the more logically minded, there is no option but to choose between the two, that is, between the doctrine of the fall of man and the "doctrine" of the rise of man, and to reject altogether the one not chosen... <Millions of our contemporaries have chosen evolutionism on the grounds that evolution is a "scientifically-proven truth," as many of them were taught it at school; the gulf of understanding between them and religion is widened still further by the fact that the religious man, unless he happens to be a scientist, is unable to make a bridge between himself and them by producing the right initial argument, which must be on the scientific plane. >If it is not on the "scientific plane," he will be shouted down, "and reduced to silence by all sorts of scientific jargon." The truth of the matter, however, is that the initial argument must not be on the scientific plane; it must be philosophical. It amounts simply to this: that descriptive science becomes unscientific and illegitimate when it indulges in comprehensive explanatory theories which can be neither verified nor disproved by experiment. Such theories are not "science" but "faith."

Here are some scriptures to lead you: >>3124 >Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looks upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. Numbers 21:8-9 >And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:14-15 >>3125 >But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.  1 Corinthians 13:10-11 >>3126 >So the prophet Elijah departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him. And he left the oxen, and ran after Elijah, and said, Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee. And he said to him, Go back again: for what have I done to thee? And he returned back from him, and took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, and cooked their flesh with the equipment of the oxen, and gave it to the folk, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered to him. 1 Kings 19:19-21

I'm in a somewhat similar situation. I couldn't handle people anymore, so I quit my job. I'm 31 years old and haven't gone outside in about 8+ years. My "mother" is extremely evil and always abuses me. What I've done is I've completely stopped sharing any emotions with my "family". They don't deserve my smile. Like God said, the only father you should have is Him, and the only other family you have are your brothers, the Sons of God, those few that have a soul. I NEVER smile when my "family" is around, and I always have a slightly angry face when they're around. What you've have to understand is that 99% of those that have ever existed are just flesh-golems. They have no souls, they only have evil programming. And you've got to learn how to work against their programming and change some of it. Like for example, I stopped smiling when there's anyone around. golems see smiling as a sign that they can attack that person. golems also don't treat anyone properly unless they can gain something from them, and if these golems know that someone has no power or anything to give them, then these golems inflict pain on them for their own pleasure and for stress-relief. I've gotten very aggressive too in my mannerism. It's a sin for a Son of God to be effeminate, and that's why I've gotten really tough. golems are incredibly afraid of me now. And I'm not just acting. I'm far more masculine than these golems could ever even pretend to be. These demons will fear you if you are with God. ALL the Sons of God go to Heaven. Just like God was destined to exist, so were the 144 000 souls that He created. We are on Earth to grow from a seed into a tree. We are here to exercise our free-will. Which means that we grow our soul so that we can fight against temptations. That is learning/growth. Once a Son of God dies, he goes directly to Heaven. There is no hell. Once you've fought against temptations, then you'll look back at them and smile at just how silly those things were, and you'll be glad to be out of the darkness and in God's light/teachings. We are all born as a seed soul. We are born in darkness and it's up to us to fight through the evils of the world. Of course we'll take part in some of them, but that's only because we're still growing and are being pulled into these sins by the golems. We are not these sins. These sins are opportunities to learn from and discard and be free. I hope that God helps you and that He steps in and takes control of the golems that are causing this much suffering to you.

>>3139 >golems Aha, so you are the one behind those bizarre posts. How did you acquire this reasoning?

Just be less fearful. Duh.

💕Love you.💕 Every day is Valentine's day for a Christian. I don't know if you really left home. You should have someway to communicate with the internet. I mean I don't know the whole situation but someday it'll be over. And don't get discouraged because you're just a new born baby born in the spirit.

Be specific. Don't be lazy.

>>3287 Broskis did you know the ducks at the park are free? You can just take them home, smh.

>>842 Indeed. Every day.

>>841 At the risk of causing another Great Schism, OP is on the Julian calendar.

The slaughtered sacrificial infant angel has awoken from death a ghost with holes as the grim reaper.

>>1880 Pay not mind to the Jew, for he seetheth and copeth.

Hmmm. Shall this board do anything for the Lent this year?

>>3042 Like a thief in the night, anon. And "can't" is a very different thing from "don't wanna."

>>3044 I've always wondered about what that could mean. At night, at least in Rome, Italy, everyone NEEDED to get home BADLY by night time, or be run over by slaves trucking goods on their back all over, so it stands to reason that a home invasion in the night would be impossible to miss. It was probably different in Jerusalem (better urban planning? Lower population density? Neither? I don't know how theives opperated back then in either Jerusalem or Rome. Anyone know how people went about stealing shit in 1st Century Jerusalem? Was Jesus referring to a home invasion or a mugging for his parable? I know, ultimatley, the time and hour remains unknown anyhow, but I'm curious.

Would it be worth having a thread on anti-Christian secret societies of note, such as the Freemasons and the Illuminati?

>>3291 It wouldn’t hurt. Might be worth getting some info together to get the thread on a strong footing like our Jew thread here

>>3355 Quite, dubsman. The Illuminati might be easier to get into in some ways than the Freemasons as they are not only defunct and dismantled, but the sum total of their schemes got written down and taken. With the Masons, it might be much easier to get into what their organization does outside the secrecy of their Lodges (unless I'm much mistaken).

>>2095 What a joke, Satanists are so far up their own asses that it's not even funny anymore. Hope someone smashes this thing. Bless you, OP. And have a good day.

>>3308 put a can of thermite on its head and deface it

cuteee, it's like a baby weregoat Anyway, satanists are operating within the Christine doctrine, and indirectly promoting Christianity by embodying the antithesis of Christian ideals.