/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Does Christianity truly support globalism/communism? Anonymous 02/26/2022 (Sat) 19:45:40 No.4633
This sentiment is shared throughout pagan and other anti-christian circles.
>>4771 They're called chans because he's referring to chans, it's a narrower subset and it's pretty obvious what he's talking about. If he was talking about bulletin boards in general he'd have said bulletin boards but that obviously isn't what he meant >imageboards There are plenty of textboards which are higher quality than the main chanosphere. There are plenty of imageboards that are higher quality than this site that aren't chans and have a radically different culture
>>4779 Chans is what normalfags call these sites.
>>4805 >>4779 >>4771 >being this autistic about what Mongolian throat-singing forums are called
Call imageboards whatever you want. Who cares!
Interesting how the ruler of an unabashedly Orthodox nation gets cut out of the globohomo cabal, isn't it?
>>4827 >russia is unabashedly orthodox That's some mighty wishful thinking
>>4691 >>4692 I want to elaborate a little more on this now since I don't explain things very well when I'm pissed off. >Abstract universal man >Single humanity God created all things and by His will they were made. Now you're complaining that He loves all the things He created? The fact of the matter is that we are all creations of God and we all need Him. The argument that humanity coming from one source means that all humans are the same only works if you deny any kind of evolution (which to be fair some Christians do). It's plainly obvious that Anglos are not Teutons and West Slavs are not East Slavs to say nothing of the far greater difference between Westerners and Chinese for instance. But your access to God - your adoption by Him - is not dependent on your nationality. This is the meaning of the verse "there is neither Greek nor Jew." If you look at the context of that verse (Galatians 3), it is not saying that Greeks and Jews don't exist. It is saying that neither grants you any advantage or disadvantage in following Christ. >God is absolutely distinct from Nature >All things that are not God are God's creation Yes. >Here stems the [Christian] hatred of Nature Here is revealed the writer's hatred of God. He cannot stand the idea of God being utterly distinct from himself that he seeks to compact God into the natural world. He wants to make a tame god for himself that has boundaries and can be controlled. He wants a god that he can pull out at his convenience when he's feeling a little spiritual on his outdoor walks but who won't follow him back home. This is the truth. This is the Neo-Pagan's grotesque inversion of the "natural" order. He wants God to serve man not man to serve God. The Romans say the relation between men and gods as like a contract. If men made all the right offerings then the gods were obligated to respond. This attitude is inherited by Neo-Pagans when they wish for a god that they can control and who will benefit them on their own terms. Quite contrary to how the Neo-Pagan view denigrates the divine, the Christian view elevates the natural. Yes, the Christian has a higher view of both God and Nature. Whereas they must believe in some Nature that exists by happenstance and without purpose, the Christian believes that Nature indeed has a purpose and a reason for existing. Therefore, unlike the Neo-Pagan, a Christian can truly believe that Nature is good because it is good for something. The Christian view of Nature is that she is called to be higher. God created her, yes, and she was good, yes, but she was then given over to man in order that man may fulfill her through cultivation and work. This is perfectly exemplified in the humble activity of gardening. The gardener takes what has been created by God (and which is indeed beautiful itself) and fashions it into something greater. In a sense he "re-creates" and so acts in the image of God (as he was created) while at the same time drawing Nature upwards towards himself. In doing so, he glorifies God because God created both. Contrast with the Romanticist - Neo-Pagan view (I'll get to this connection later) where Nature in her raw state is the ultimate and that any alteration to this must be seen as at best a stain on her beauty and at worst a direct affront to her. From here it is an easy step to the modern environmentalist hatred of humans. This hatred stems from the view of humans as a parasite on Nature and as something external to her. Christians do not see ourselves as outside of Nature but as her king. We are to rule over her, not to her exploitation and ruin, but to her benefit out of love. You can see that by trying to put Nature first and highest, you really end up denigrating everything else and then even Nature herself. This will happen with all things that you try to put before God. The tighter you try to hold onto them, the faster they will slip from your grasp.
>>4865 >In antiquity there was little to no distinction between religion and civic life In Christianity there is little to no distinction between religion and daily life. You are not to put God in a box and only take Him out on Sundays. We live and breathe our faith in even the smallest things we do (or at least we are supposed to). Whether we are in church, at work or with friends and family, we are practising Christianity when we love others. When we forgive our co-workers for messing up, we are practising Christianity. When we offer up a prayer before dealing with a difficult person, we are practising Christianity. When we help our friend move his stuff, we are practising Christianity. In all things there is the opportunity to practise Christianity. Notice how many of these involve other people. This shouldn't be surprising since we are commanded to love our neighbours as ourselves. IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A FULL PRACTICE OF CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT INVOLVING OTHER PEOPLE. In church too there is communal involvement. Going to church is an inherently communal activity and there's a reason why you can't "do church" at home. It's because you need other people. One of the things all Christians (in theory) believe is the communion of the saints. Meaning that all Christians both on Earth and in Heaven are in mystical communion through Christ. This occurs through the sacrament of the eucharist which is why it's also called communion. The entirety of the Church is saved together as one and we are to love and help each other on our life's journey. We are not plucked out and saved individually but rather drawn into the community of the Church and saved collectively. However, people are not doomed to one fate or the other because of the rest of their Earthly communities. In that sense an individual may choose to go against his family and become a Christian. Why shouldn't this be the case? Why should people be held prisoner in the darkness just because their communities won't follow them into the light? >I bring not peace but a sword How blind can you be? Are we not right now brothers at war? I am a white anglo by the way Is there not division between us? This is exactly what Jesus was talking about. Feel free to BEGOME CHRISTIAN and end this division right now but we can not stop speaking the truth just because it causes conflict between people. The truth always does that. Nevertheless, even in our opposition to both you and the secular world, we never fall to hating you. Even as you spit in our face, we must smile back because our goal is not to destroy you but to be united with you in Christ. What about yourselves? Do you not speak the truth (as you see it) even as the world cries "Nazi! Nazi!" Is there not enmity between you and your brothers - even within your own families - over your beliefs? You fucking hypocrites! And worse, what is your response? To cast off your own brothers as worthless impediments. How Volkisch indeed. >>4760 And now back to communism. What communes are you talking about? The utopic ones in the 18th century? Let's be clear. The Church is not an NGO. It is not the Church's job to bring about a utopia and that includes yours. This is a truth all non-Christians seem to struggle with. It is impossible not just for the Church but for humans in general to bring about a utpoia. All utopias are dystopias. It is not our job to enact any particular political, economic or social situation on Earth. The Jews killed Jesus specifically because he refused to do this. He refused to be a conquering saviour and smite the Romans and bring about Jewish political rule. This is what the Pharisees wanted. Therefore, any attempt towards a utopian society must be view at the very least with suspicion by the Christian. But it's not just because it's not the Church's job. The very core of Christianity is that we need God. Not only do we need Him generally because we were created to be in relation with Him but we need Him specifically because we have violated our relations with Him and with each other and we are not able by ourselves to remedy this. God is the one making us and all creation new. God is the one bringing Heaven down to Earth. We cannot do this ourselves. All utopian ideals are a rejection of the very core of Christianity by thinking that mankind can bring about its own salvation and paradise. As I said, the Church is not an NGO and I think it should be clear why it can never become one. As Jesus said: His kingdom is not of this world.
Open file (145.15 KB 717x965 Evola tradition.png)
Open file (95.34 KB 840x421 18-nidj7dx.png)
>>4866 And now Neo-Paganism. This was a topic I avoided originally for a couple of reasons. One, it wasn't so much the issue at hand. Two, Neo-Paganism is not itself the main problem. Nietzsche is. This is reflected in the kinds of people drawn to them. I put a sincere Neo-Pagan in the same category as an honest atheist. You can talk to these people. You can be friends with them. You can have an open discussion with them and come away feeling more positively towards them than before. I have never come across a Nietzschefag that was not bitter, vindictive and bent on making as many bad-faith arguments as possible. Every time Christianity is so much as mentioned in passing, they are there to bang out their latest meme accusation. Make no mistake; they don't disagree with Christianity, they hate it with every fibre of their being and beyond any rationality. I used to think this was all Neo-Pagans but realised later it was just this section of them. However, the time has come to make this argument against Neo-Pagans. Now you might be wondering why I have hereto insisted on calling it "Neo-Paganism" instead of the much easier to type "Paganism." That is because true Paganism is dead. It died centuries ago and there are no European Pagans left. Neo-Paganism is an artificial construction born out of the romanticism of the 19th century. It is derived from the popular imagination at that time of what they thought Pagans did and believed. The fact is that, outside of Greece and Rome, nobody knows what ancient European Pagans actually believed and thus any popular beliefs can be said to be Pagan. Consider how close romanticism and Neo-Paganism are in the worship of Nature. They are the same. The grandeur of Nature, all-encompassing, irresistible, life-giving. These are all straight out of the romantic period. Since there was a general absence of facts regarding Pagans, all sorts of strange myths about them popped up. Notable among these is the idea of pan-Celtism which I still see from time to time today. This idea that the ancient peoples of Europe formed some unified or agglomerated ethnic group There's your universal, abstract man! has been shown to be false by archaeology. Yet this idea is common among Neo-Pagans. They are commonly equivocal between the Greek and Germanic gods for instance. This is because they believe in no gods (in the common way of speaking) but rather worship Nature herself as if Zeus derived from lightning instead of the other way around. This is an inversion of at least what the Greeks believed (who can say for the case of Teutons). Zeus wields lightning bolts as his weapon. He is the master of lightning not its product. In their temples too they built statues of Zeus and not of lightning bolts. It is shocking to me that people who reject Christianity for not being White enough turn to animistic religion when that is only evident today from ethnography of non-White peoples. Evola said that the decline of our civilisation is characterised by a move from tradition to modernity. That man's personal experience no longer encompasses the invisible world and accordingly he no longer holds onto those truths passed down that were known experientially as knowledge and not just as ideas or theories. This is you. You have rejected tradition - the only tradition that you have - in favour of modern novelties and (what used to be) fashionable sentiments. You cannot just manufacture new tradition because the old tradition is no longer conducive to modern ideologies. This is the very opposite of what tradition is! If a white, European person is looking for tradition, he has a single option: Christianity. Unfortunately, that white European person is in a difficult position since his parents likely rejected tradition before him and have refused to pass that tradition down to him. Or perhaps they have passed down a mangled zombie infused with various modern ideas and popular sentiments. What can he do? Fortunately, we have the Church which has preserved the writings of great saints so that we are not held hostage by our parents. The chain of tradition can be passed down to you by recognising what has always and at all times been believes (that is to say the universal experience of the Church) and recognising that the most of the bastardised forms of Christianity passed around today are in direct contradiction to that experiential knowledge. The frayed end of tradition is being held out to you from centuries of Christian writers. Just grab onto it. BEGOME CHRISTIAN
Open file (274.35 KB 423x299 1611217705206.png)
Open file (209.47 KB 1080x1080 1621473601683.jpg)
Open file (110.29 KB 500x472 1624648831422.jpg)
>>4633 The very first thing, Christianity isn't Jewish. The first "Jew" isn't even mentioned until 2nd Kings chapter 16 and they're being driven out of Elath. And nowhere was Israel renamed to "Jew" by God as He renamed Abram and Jacob. And if you look at the translation process, "Jews" weren't even in Bibles until the 18th century. Nowhere is Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc called a "Jew" either. >>4827 It's all political theatre
>>4691 >>4867 >Julius Evola wasn't he some sort of neo-pagan who hated Christianity?
I don't want to create another thread, so I'll ask this here: does anyone have those big lists of all contributions that Christianity (and religious people in general) as a whole had on society, sciences and humankind in general?
There is also the Bible story of the Tower of Babel and how ancient Globalism tried to unite the earth against God, the Christian God Is against Globalism.
>>4899 Yes, i do. Here is the anti-leftist version and the regular version.
>>4902 much appreciated anon
>>4865 >>4866 >>4867 Remarkably good posts Anon. I'm grateful for your lucid and cogent writing on these topics. It pains me to see fellow Whites get caught in Satan's snare and literally reject truth & salvation over the 'muh kike on a stick!' meme. These men should be our fellows and our brothers. If writings like yours become more broadly available, maybe more scales would fall off these men's eyes and they would walk away from that evil. Cheers.
>>4917 The White race is the vast majority of the elite, they don't need to be protected. They're still the majority in europe and america, they're already in a good position despite all the degeneracy aimed at them (which the elites don't care about liberal politics anyways). https://www.nationalists.org/data/european-population-by-country.html
>>4918 >The White race is the vast majority of the elite Well for obvious reasons. But the elites are hardly my concern Anon. The millions of 'regular' Whites are a more pressing concern it seems to me. And for my case in particular, I was writing to Anon about the choices being made by thousands of deceived shitposters who are literally walking away from eternal salvation b/c this insidious lie that Christianity isn't a White man's religion. I understand how Pierce and others came to this conclusion, etc., but the simple fact is there is but a single door to salvation, and He is Jesus Christ. I don't want to see my fellow White brothers fall into the exact same trap and mistake the Jews made 2'000 years ago: >"10 then let this be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ 12 Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” https://biblehub.com/acts/4-11.htm (context) >they don't need to be protected. I beg to differ. Clearly slow genocide is being aimed squarely at us by TPTB, including the (treacherous) Whites in the globalist cabals.
>>4921 > including by the (treacherous) Whites*
>>4921 Even if you ignore the whites in the elite, they still contribute someway economically to non-elite whites. Whites in general are pretty economically well off. Why do the wealthy need protection? >I beg to differ. Clearly slow genocide is being aimed squarely at us by TPTB, including the (treacherous) Whites in the globalist cabals. How can there be a genocide of whites people if they are still the majority in their white countries?
>>4899 >>4902 I also recommend the series, The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization hosted by Thomas E Woods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5siHd1P5zk&list=PL57857981F3CC5D78 >>4633 In his lecture The Church and The Market, as well as in his book of the same name, Woods(Austrian Economist and Libertarian) says that the previous popes might say that capitalism has some flaws, but that communism is 100% incompatible with Catholic teachings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAJmlx2S50
>>4827 Russia occupies a house of the Lord (Saint Peter's) with it's craven corrupted government and its mafioso cronies. True Christians in Russia need to take back His house.
>>4900 >not realizing that Pentecost is the reversion of Babel and a uniting of diverse of people through God rather than through a Satanic pride
Someone want to make a screencap of the refutation to OP? Starts here: >>4646
>>4895 Capital T Traditionalists, a philosophical school of which Evola was a member, even if he eventually disagreed with the founder Rene Guenon and drifted away, are a weird bunch, but haters of Christ they're not.
>>6824 Evola wrote an entire book against Christianity
>>6830 >Evola wrote an entire book against Christianity Heh, wouldn't that be against 'organized religion'? I doubt you can reasonably claim him to be an enemy of Jesus Christ.
Open file (91.23 KB 850x400 1627501588406.jpg)
>>6824 >>6830 He also wrote this.
>>6842 Sounds like 4chan. sauce?
>>4633 No, the only Christians who support globalism and communism are """Christians""" and we dont talk about those
>>6842 that sounds fake
>>6842 all the old religions use to do that with the exception of maybe the Romans. For example in the Near East you had Ishtar and Tammuz who (in my opinion) were personified deifications of ritual beastiality preformed during that time. My theory is that this was satan's way of trying to manifest demons into reality by having them posses animals and then have sex with women. Obviously it didnt work.
>>6844 >>6858 it's from one of his private letters to Guenon.
>>6858 It is. I've also seen it attributed to Rene Guenon.
bump
>>4633 You can find parallels with any worldview to Christianity. Since Christianity is reality and heresies are deviations from reality. Satan is a revolutionary, he revoluted against God. Christians are meant to restore not revolute/rebel. So to me communism and other revolutionary idealogy like anarchism and even natsoc* are all satanic. Natsoc claims to be conservative, but it doesn't conserve anything, it only subverts all traditional culture into some symbolic thing while bringing a new system into place. And when that happens, all "conserved" ideas will be annihilated to prevent any opposition. Natsoc persecuted the Church and attempted at subverting it. Fr Seraphim Rose nicely covers that topic: https://www.docdroid.net/SlxAMji/nihilism-seraphim-rose-pdf
Open file (42.09 KB 977x518 Screenshot_4.png)
>>4633 >The world exist as a sort of parasite to God This is completely false, we don't see the world as bad or parasitic. God is not leeched from in any way. If anything, the world manifests Gods glory, not that it makes God more powerful, but it's a testament to his power. God is not only transcendent but also present. God is not external to everything ( like in ADS, catholicism, shia islam) but also within everything. God is far and near, external and internal. There is no dialectical tension between the two, God can be both.
>>4646 very nice
>>4646 >>4647 You're still a Third Positionist or what?
>>9198 I'm not sure I would identify with the term, because politics is largely a complete sham, but I think democracy is a puppet show and is a bad philosophy of governance in the first place, and that both communism and capitalism are destructive anti-human ideologies. I'm also quite suspicious of globalization, global elites, technocracy and Jewish power. So in a sense, I'm somewhat of a Third Positionist.
>>9205 If you're interested I recently saw this Christian twitter account talking about the things you mentioned. https://twitter.com/dexx731
>>9207 Thanks, anon. It looks like some good information is being spread on this account.
>>4692 >What finally soured me was the realisation that national socialists do not care about the truth. They do not consider Christianity with the object of truth in mind, they consider it for its value as a political weapon. They want a religion that is politically expedient for them not one that is true. In every attack against Christianity, they talk about everything but whether it is true or not. Reread your pic. Not once does he attack Christianity on the grounds that it's untrue. The truth or falsity of Christianity is literally the only thing that matters. If it's true, you have to believe it. If it's not true, no other arguments are necessary. National socialists here fall into the exact same trap that communists do. Only considering things in terms of their value to the cause. This. I find great irony when people say "Christianity is dead among white people" while also being National Socialists. Wonderful post.
Open file (728.87 KB 4096x2331 1652035544548.jpg)
I know this is an old thread but I think you might find this interesting. Pic 1 is a response to/refutation of Pic 2 that was typed up on 4channel (inb4 "go back"). It's on the topic of original sin and it's relation to SJW "white guilt".
>>4633 >Does Christianity truly support globalism/communism? No
>>11890 Response pic is alright but there's much more to say. When Leftists I call them that not because I think it's a good word (I don't), but for want of a better one talk about guilt, they are talking about something eternal and inherent to that person. You are guilty because you are White. When Christians (and other normal people) talk about guilt, it's guilt for something you've done. You're not guilty because you're human but because of your thoughts and actions. Christians do not repent of original sin, we repent of our own sins. Original sin is, as the response says, best thought of as a disease. It's a corrupting influence that is passed down through generations that mars us and prevents us from reaching the full nobility of humanity - the kind of humans we were created to be. "White guilt" on the other hand is not something that harms you (in fact it is supposed to benefit you) but something that harms others. This difference means that, while Christianity has the effect of lifting people up, Leftism is about pulling people down. In Christianity the feelings of guilt are meant to draw you to greater repentance. In Leftism they are meant to keep you cowering and silent. In Christianity we are eager to admit our faults so we may be free of them. Leftists are eager to hide their faults so no-one can use them against them. Now we are come to the absolutely central and core difference between Christianity and (this aspect of) Leftism. This is the reason why every right-thinking Christian ought to find this idea to be disgustingly abhorrent. There is no forgiveness in Leftism. You can never have your guilt removed or fixed. See for yourself if I speak the truth. All those who apologise to Leftists are never absolved of their sins but hounded all the more. Comments from decades ago are dug up and used against you. Contrast with the Christian who can find absolution for his sins such that those sins he repents of no longer have any power over him. Forgiveness means you can no longer use a person's sins against them. If I say, "I forgive you for denting my car," but then bring it up again in an argument, I haven't really forgiven you. Once you have sought forgiveness for a particular sinful act, that's it - it's gone. Your sin has been blotted out and no one can read what was written there. This is why we Christians must not be too harsh on others on account of their sins. We ought to desire others to be free of their sins and we know that the visible sinfulness of a person may not match an invisible transformation going on within. Furthermore, we know ourselves to struggle with sin and, like God forgives us, we ought to forgive each other. It is an internal thing in Christianity. It is a defect with yourself that you want to have fixed not a problem you have with someone else that you want them to change for your sake. The Leftist does not know forgiveness. To the Leftist, a wrongdoing is something you can never escape and a weapon to be used against that person. The whole idea of "White guilt" is explicitly a weapon to attack White people. If DiAngelo were in the position of God, the only reason she wouldn't instantly send everyone to Hell is because she would want to keep us around to cower and worship her in fear. Before she sends us to Hell of course. Thankfully, she is not and so who is she to say what I am guilty of when God Himself has washed me anew? More reasons why the comparison is bullshit: The whole point of Christianity - the whole reason God became man and died on the cross - was that so that we humans could be cured of our original sin. In fact this is exactly what baptism does. We Christians are no longer even under the power of original sin anymore (although we still suffer from its effects). The whole point of "White guilt" is that there is no salvation, and you're a bad person forever no matter how much you apologise, just for who you were born as. I will admit I haven't read DiAngelo's writings and I never plan to. I have a very low tolerance for injustice and can't stomach their drivel. My understanding of this concept and my response are based on what I have seen from screencaps and I have never seen anything mentioned about rewards. However, I feel very confident in saying that whatever rewards DiAngelo promises, they're not going to be as good as eternal life. In fact I doubt that they could be considered rewards at all and certainly not at all comparable to even the least of the rewards from Christianity. As one final note, the verses used in support of (4) are terrible. Whoever made this should have used John 3:18-21. >He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
>>4646 >>4647 >>4691 >>4692 >>4865 >>4867 >>11920 Man, it's crazy what wonderfully-written posts can come from this little imageboard. This stuff should be archived somewhere.
Open file (279.63 KB 500x627 ifonlyyouknew_lasch.png)
>>11890 Christianity is about humbling yourself before God, accepting that you are a sinful piece of flesh, and hiding your piety/righteousness from others. It originates from antiquity and highlights the resolution of man's conflict with the outside world. Wokism is about exalting yourself before others, praising yourself for being an "ally" (whatever that means), and showing off your righteousness in front of others. It originates from late stage capitalism and highlights the 'narcissistic collapse' into yourself. Wokism has more in common with phariseeism (proto-Judaism), that Christianity. The Pharisees exalted themselves and praised themselves for being so righteous (basically virtue signaling). The pharisees also wore extra fancy religious clothing (like putting pronouns and ukraine flag in your twitter bio).
>>4633 Old ass thread I made almost 4 months ago, but what about the Pentecost? Verses of mention would be Acts 4:32 and 2:44-45. Besides that, thanks to everyone who participated in the thread and refuted this silly assertion through well thought out and at length explanations, Christ is with us all
>>13017 What about Pentecost?

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?