Come one come all.
Whether you believe or are merely of the curious variety.
This is where antireligious discussions take place.
This is a SFW Board, treat it accordingly!
Guidelines:
1. Follow the global rules; do not post illegal content.
2. Do not spam threads or posts.
3. Put effort into your posts. Low-quality threads and posts (including bait, D&C, off-topic, flaming, or nonsense/schizoposting) will sent to /hell/, possibly /x/.
4. One-liner questions that don't need their own thread go in ask/r/. If your thread was deleted, there is a good chance it was moved here instead.
5. All religious discourse outside of battleg/moved.d are to remain civil. Once a conversation regarding religion crosses over into the territory of heated namecalling and/or other derailment, including unconstructive claims that religion [x] is jewish, the offending posts and all replies to them may be sent to /hell/ or deleted to restore the thread's health.
6. Threads with a disclaimer requesting it to not be a battleground WILL be respected. Threads which do not include such disclaimers welcome themselves to people with hostile viewpoints. This isn't merely for creating "safe spaces", it has plenty of uses for legitimate non-practicing or non-believer threads. If you go into an academic research thread about the Phoenicians and their relation to Carthaginian child sacrifice, and shit it up with "christcuck" insult spam posts, expect your posts to be moved
This is the thread for /r/eligous debate and questions. Anything goes.
The Action Bible- God's Redemptive Story - Sergio Cariello 477 MB Download
https://archive.org/details/the-action-bible-gods-redemptive-story-sergio-cariello_202604
https://www.mediafire.com/file/zrztw75yknpx2lj/The+Action+Bible-+God's+Redemptive+Story+-+Sergio+Cariello.pdf/file
The Action Bible- Converted From EPUB Into PDF
The Action Bible is a retelling of the Judeo-Christian Bible in comic book form written and edited by Doug Mauss and illustrated by Sergio Cariello for David C. Cook, published in 2010. Andre LeBlanc's 1978 The Picture Bible was a major influence on the project.
Plot
The story is very similar to the Bible however some parts are modified both to fit the medium, and to fit a younger audience. The story is split into two major parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Historical events
The book includes mentions of Alexander of Macedon and the celebration of Hanukkah as well as the arrival of the Roman Empire in Israel.
Global distribution
The Action Bible has been translated into 29 languages and is distributed in 32 countries by David C. Cook. An excerpt from the Bible, The Story of Jesus, is available in more than 50 languages and has been distributed in more than 51 million copies in 97 countries. It is also available as a mobile app from Youth for Christ.
Without doubt you can see the "Tree's of Life" "Serpent" and "Bulls" or "Sickles" "Cubes" in every religion not just Christian
There is a single verse in the Christian Bible that disproves Zionism entirely. It comes from 1 Peter, but to explain, I have to set up some context.
In 1 Peter chapter 1, we learn that this is a circular letter written to churches in five cities; Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. These were all churches in what was then Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey. The city of particular interest for this argument is Galatia.
Just a few books back in the Bible, we have another letter to the Galatians, this one written by Paul. And it's obvious that this letter is written to a primarily Gentile church, as evidenced by verses such as:
Gal 1:14-17, 2:2-3, 3:7-9, 3:28-29, 4:8-9, 5:2, 5:11-12
So where 1 Peter is concerned, I see no reason to believe that it was not written to Gentile Christians as well, or at least to congregations that included Gentiles, even if there were also Jews in those churches.
And to these presumably Gentile Christians, Peter says in chapter 2 verses 9 and 10:
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."
If Gentile believers are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, what else can they be but spiritual Israelites?
Can anyone see any holes in this argument? I'm planning to present this to Zionist family members in the future if it comes up (and I have a lot of Zionist family members.) I could see Galatians 2:8 being an issue:
"for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles"
So I guess you could say the Bible itself testifies that Peter was an apostle strictly to Jews. But I would counter that Peter was the apostle to whom was given the dream of the animals on the sheet, which God showed him right before sending him to evangelize the Roman centurion Cornelius in Acts 10. So while Peter may have focused his ministry primarily on Jewish converts, he was by no means only preaching to non-Gentiles.
Another problem might be Matthew Henry's commentary, which I referenced as I was doing some research on this verse. Henry states that the epistle was written to Jews. But I've read other sources -- including my own study Bible -- that say the Christians he wrote to were probably a mix of Jews and Gentiles. If there is a single Gentile included among the addressees of this letter -- a single Gentile among any of these congregations to whom Peter says "you are a holy race" -- it disproves Zionism entirely.
And even Matthew Henry, when he gets to that verse, says that this relates to the church; that the whole church is a holy race.
I would also point out that the words, "Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people," denotes Gentiles. Peter here echoes the words of the prophet Hosea: "And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, 'You are my people'; and he shall say, 'You are my God.'" (Hosea 2:23).
I think Christianity is a partial offshoot of later Greek Platonic Philosophy, Late Hebrew Religious Outcasts, Egyptian-Alexandrian Thought Schools all designed to Destroy Roman Authority.
Now get a radical end times preacher in Israel and warp the ancestry of prominent pre-Jewish ancestral people who helped found the Kingdom of Israel tied with it's kings and then leading to Jesus plus the rumors of miracles and divine powers and thought control and worship that challenges Authority to a unseen thing that transcends that then you have a recipe to cuck Rome and Greeks, Jews, Egyptians can be the replacement of that authority.... well they cucked Rome and the West, but got destoryed and enslaved by Arabs so it ironically worked yet didn't help them succeed as ethnic nationalities in more powerful empires so why you have the Balkans lol
How and why modern pagans copied Catholicism and Jesus worship to associate the same structure with the Gods is retarded, now they even use it for Mental health therapy when historically the polytheistic Gods go deeper esoterically and animistically plus the fact they were seen as terrifying entities not as worship but as alien beings that cold kill you that are unpredictable
Is there an ideology that maps the development of human civilization as a whole to the development of an individual? Something that, for instance, makes comparisons between the early stages of human life with the early stages of humanity's existence? I've been interested in this concept for a minute now but don't even know where to start.
Just as we view Judaism as our enemy, we must also view Islam equally as an enemy. Picrel has been an ongoing revision for the last 15 years, you probably have seen other older versions of this across the other chans. This is the current picrel update since around a half a decade.
https://archive.md/i7HDh
Also included is a Deepseek AI breakdown of the four caliphates, with some traditions each from the Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi viewpoints of the caliphate: What this simply means is that you see a clear picture of the differences in the denominations of Islam. I will include the text of the archived pastebin link above in the folllowing post.
Remember, view this from an enemy standpoint, none of these sandnigger worshipping subhumans should ever be trusted nor allied with, period.
_
A while ago, I found out that the word church comes from the Greek "ekklesia," which means "a called out assembly."
I found out recently that "elect" comes from the Greek "eklektos," which seems to have been translated faithfully into English.
I guess ekklesia is technically a derivative of "kaleo" ("to call") but the relationship to eklektos seems obvious to me.
I know there's a lot of differing opinions out there about the relationship between election, predestination, and God's foreknowledge, but to me, I feel like this is what I see in the Bible:
The "church" (ekklesia) is a called out assembly of elect (eklekta) and predestined individuals, not simply foreknown about but foreknown *BY* God (because you wouldn't fill an ekklesia with people you didn't know) for the express purpose of conforming us to the likeness of the Son.
Does this sound right, based off the Greek words? My mom calls me Calvinist and my dad says it's a heresy. I feel like I can't un-see this in my Bible. I feel that people who boil it all down simply to foreknowledge (meaning, God does not choose His elect, He just knows ahead of time who will and won't be saved) basically just say that words don't mean what they clearly mean, and that's their whole argument. They skip right over every instance of the words "elect" and "predestine" in their Bibles and use the occasional "foreknown" as a get-out-of-jail-free card so that they don't have to wrestle with tough theology. Or am I just retarded? I would love to know other people's opinions on this and refine my own.Welcome all. Blessings upon you. May the unlimited light of compassion always shine upon you,
Dharma is the [cosmic] law. Vajra is lightning or diamond, while yana is vehicle/path. Tibet, and now Nepal, have been the primary concentrations of this (dharma) teaching historically. This approach to liberation is capable of rendering the apirant into liberation in a single moment, sudden like lightning. The suddenness can also come upon laymen and mere witness' thereof. Other yanas (paths) may take untold lifetimes. The point of the Mahayana is to build a vessel (of consciousness) so great all others around you whom can witness you are also carried into liberation with you.
Here is a direct resource for
Source Texts
https://84000.co/
>84000’s mission is to translate the Tibetan Buddhist canon and to make it freely accessible. Our vision is to bring the Buddha’s words to life to awaken humanity.
>84000 is translating the entire collection known as the Tibetan Buddhist canon, which is divided into two great collections called the Kangyur and the Tengyur, and numbers approximately 231,800 pages of classical Tibetan. We aim to complete the translation of the Kangyur by 2035 and the translation of the Tengyur by 2110.
>The sūtras are one category among the Buddhist scriptures that are considered to be the words of the Buddha himself and are contained within the Kangyur, which is the principal collection of 1,169 Indian texts that have been translated into Tibetan. A large group of the texts in the Kangyur are sūtras, but there are also many texts of other categories, such as the Vinaya texts, the tantras, and the dhāraṇīs.
<What makes the Tibetan Buddhist canon unique?
>Of the three principal Buddhist canons—Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan—the most striking feature that differentiates the Tibetan canon lies in its extensive sections of tantras and Vajrayāna treatises (while the Chinese Tripiṭaka contains only some outer tantras, and the Pali Canon none at all).
>But also, while there are many Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises common to the Tibetan and Chinese canons, there are many others that have survived only as their Tibetan translations and are not found in Chinese.
>Finally, the Tibetan translations of the Vinaya (discipline) texts, although they follow only one of the several Vinaya traditions that were preserved in Chinese, are the most complete and detailed body of Vinaya literature in any canon.
>On the level of individual texts, there is little in common between the Tibetan and Pali canons. However, most of the teachings and stories found in Pali do also exist in Tibetan, in the form of parallel passages rather than as separate works.
>The Tibetan Kangyur and Tengyur thus preserve a vast range of Buddhist literature that is unique in the extent to which all three principal vehicles (yānas) are included.
More text secondary sources and meta with nice images too:
https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Main_Page
A couple (2) recommended sutras I like a lot.
The Diamond Sutra (spoken): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9u7Jz-vNA
Dragon-King Sutra: http://www.yogichen.org/cw/cw30/bk058.html
Music/Mantra
Gaiea Sanskrit
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl4l2tOcEw3oNmjcy6zDPjw
Has tremendous amount of excpetional content. Where to start? The Heart Sutra is always good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ0w4B80uZA&list=PLQtFvdDCoY028Cq3UKMxoXp5vYSBhY5aV&index=3
>100 Syllable Vajrasattva Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Smkvwn7JWQ&list=PLQtFvdDCoY028Cq3UKMxoXp5vYSBhY5aV&index=6
>The Complete Yoga Sūtra of Sage Patañjali
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQtFvdDCoY03mdyGJ8d7seQLTcjVggLNK
>The Complete Bhagavad Gītā in Sanskrit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIxB93VfcOo&list=PLQtFvdDCoY02iqjL9u52MVK1TwhTF6emR
>Ganehsa Lullaby _ Sanskrit For A Quiet Mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEDhRScZGTY
~~~~~~
Meditation Melody
https://www.youtube.com/@meditationmelody7314
Has a lot of good mantras which some times are hit and miss in performance and feeling though they have a higher hitrate. Here are several that I like a lot. I'll divide them into 2 broad categories of peaceful and wrathful based on tones/BPM.
<Wrath
>The Wrathful Lion Faced Dakini | Simhamukha Dakini | Averting Magical Attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZogBoAvME
>Vajrabhairava The Destroyer Of Death | The Yamantaka Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_PwNkNrRI
>The Yamantaka 100 Syllable Mantra | The Vajrabhairava Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJc9J_BnisA
>Acala Vidyaraja Mantra | Fudo Myoo Mantra | Namo Samanto Vajra Nai Ham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tOyVySRVzU
<Peace
>The Wonderful Mantra Of The Dakini Queen Yeshe Tsogyel | Jnanasagara Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b83CnfJ0BJQ
>Akasagarbha Bodhisattva Mantra: The Bodhisattva Space Treasury Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esX6Id-WxEc
>The Palden Lhamo Mantra | Shri Devi: Divine Feminine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Oe3Jsc2BQ
>The Lion Face Dakini Mantra | The Jnana Dakini Simhamukha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHnv-OTmR_Q
Pure Land Rebirth Dharani | Amitabha Buddha Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRb-wezIB-Y
>Usnisa Vijaya Short Mantra: Om Dhrum Soha Om Amrita Ayur Dade Soha | Usnisa Vijaya Dharani
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd7bZQud0xc
>Guru Rinpoche Padmasambhava Om Ah Hung Benza Guru Pema Siddhi Hung Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvnc8Va878
>The Great White Canopy Sheetatapatra| Usnisa Sitatapatra Mantra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiXfqCk9aqc
>Mahakala Mantra: Transmute Five Negative Afflictions Into Five Wisdoms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPpe19chQl0
As a practitioner note: it may be that some higher power, perhaps a god or perhaps a bodhisattva will come into your field. If after I work with them for some time, perhaps years, eventually I shall have another present themselves to. For example the first proper bodhisattva I (knowingly) worked with was Manjushri and through meditation I found myself next working with Vajrakilaya then Vajrasattva then Pallas (Athena) and then the whole 'pantheon' of boddhis become much more familiar and close to me. The point is 2 fold, firstly persistence in good dharma, secondly things unfold in ways perhaps unimagined and (seemingly) unrelated, try to disregard the presuppositions of the mind.
If not please explain step by step.
The more I study about this Chad, the more I realize that Luciferianism is right.
O god in heaven, on you we call,
Help us seize our priests and kill them all
You can't prove Mormons are wrong without ad-hominem attacks or straw manning the argument. You can't come up with a legitimate reason that isn't based on faith or your religions dogma. You can't come up with a real reason why they would be wrong in any way since your reasons would be based in your religion's teachings- which are wrong and easily refutable.
Try it, retard.
>The Episcopal Church has announced it will end its decades-old partnership with the government to resettle refugees, citing moral opposition to resettling White Afrikaners from South Africa who have been classified as refugees by the Trump administration.
Ban these fucking leftwing Episcopal subhuman faggots from the face of North America once and for all... The Episcopal church is an communist abomination of Christianity, and be 100% banned from the USA for eternity. The repulsive leftist Lutheran Church is also quilty of settling Shafi'i Sunni sandniggers from Somalia into the state of Minnesota, therefore the leftwing Lutherans should also be banned from the United States of America.
Proove me wrong.
__
“That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.”
― G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
JUDAISM: THE 600 YEARS OF FORBIDDEN HISTORY
Pastebin Archived:
https://archive.ph/ekIYY
PDF Downloaded:
https://pomf2.lain.la/f/jk4qxhsi.pdf
This story begins in the mid-1500s when Jews, expelled from Spain and Portugal during the inquisitions of the late 1400s, found refuge and eventually established a significant presence in Amsterdam. Over time, they played a key role in shaping Europe's financial landscape, including the creation of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange in 1602 and the establishment of the Bank of Amsterdam in 1609. These institutions became models for future financial systems.
This story ends in 1965, Congress passed the Hart-Celler Act, which fundamentally altered U.S. immigration policy for the first time in over 175 years. The act abolished the national origins quota system, which had favored immigrants from Western Europe. This shift dramatically changed the demographic makeup of the United States, reducing the percentage of the population with Western European ancestry from over 92% to 40% and declining rapidly over the following decades. It marked a turning point in American history, and could be described as the "fatal bullet to the brain" of the nation's identity. Ironically, when the bill was passed, Lyndon B. Johnson, who had been JFK's Vice President and was then President, downplayed its significance, stating that the bill was "not a revolutionary bill" and that it "does not affect the lives of millions." This assessment would prove to be vastly underestimated, as the long-term effects of the Hart-Celler Act continue to shape the United States to this day.
|
If you know any sources in which I can research Celtiberian pre-Christian religion, please share them with me.
For context, I've discovered that a large portion of my ancestors originate from central, north and western Iberia. DNA test points me to be mostly of Celtiberian/Cantabrian admixture.
I seek to better understand my ancestors so I can possibly emulate their religion and see where syncretism could work with my other ethnic ancestorial religions
I worship Baal but unironically.
In a culture where more people subscribe to fitness influencers than attend church, the shift is no longer subtle—it’s seismic. As the West grows quieter in its churches and louder in its gyms, a strange reversal has taken place. The body, once viewed with suspicion by the Christian tradition—prone to sin, frailty, and decay—has become the last sacred object. In the absence of God, the mirror has become the altar. What was once called salvation is now called self-improvement. The spiritual has been absorbed into the physical. The new moral order is not built on charity, temperance, or humility, but on discipline, aesthetics, and exposure.
This is not merely a health trend. It is the rise of a new religious impulse—atomised, narcissistic, performative—emerging from the ruins of collective faith. Its liturgy consists of calorie tracking, hypertrophy routines, cold plunges, and curated wellness rituals. The reward is no longer eternal life, but fleeting digital approval. The gym TikTok has replaced the pilgrimage; the influencer serves as priest. This is not worship of God, but of the self—sculpted, optimised, and displayed.
What we are witnessing is the triumph of expressive individualism. Where Christianity once oriented man toward God and his fellow man, modern fitness culture orients him inward. The self is both the problem and the solution. Life becomes a process of constant revision, with the individual tasked with overcoming himself through technique, technology, and effort. There is no mystery left, only measurable outcomes. No grace, only metrics.
This was, in some ways, inevitable. Friedrich Nietzsche foresaw that the death of God would not liberate man but leave him hollow, desperate to fill the void. Man is not merely a rational animal—he is a religious one. When transcendence is denied, it is not replaced with nothing; it is replaced with imitation. The need for ritual, purpose, and hierarchy remains. What has changed is the object of worship. The divine has been relocated from the heavens to the smartphone.
Guy Debord called this "the society of the spectacle"—a culture in which life itself is mediated through images, where appearance becomes more important than essence. In such a world, the spectacle is not just entertainment but a mode of existence. We no longer live; we perform. The gym is not just a place of physical training—it is a stage. Every rep, every diet, every filtered photo is part of an ongoing performance, not only for others but for ourselves. Even when people gather in spin classes or group circuits, there is often a strange solitude—together, yet alone. Conversation gives way to headphones. Community becomes choreography. The rituals are shared, but the meaning is private. The result is not solidarity, but parallel striving—a feedback loop of self-absorption.
These fitness spaces have even begun to splinter into denominations of their own. CrossFit, Hyrox, F45, Orangetheory—each offers a different gospel tailored to temperament and identity. Like Protestant sects, one can shop around until a programme matches one's constitution, worldview, or aesthetic. The promise is not just physical improvement but belonging, identity, and moral purpose. The structure mimics religion but delivers only ritual without transcendence.
Social media has accelerated this transformation. It did not invent narcissism, but it industrialised it. Platforms like Instagram and OnlyFans represent the logical end point of a culture that treats the self as capital. The body is no longer a temple but a marketplace. It is monetised, rated, and consumed. Even vulnerability becomes a product. The distinction between private and public collapses; everything becomes content.
Christopher Lasch warned of this in The Culture of Narcissism, arguing that in a society where the self is the highest value, the inner life withers. Introspection is replaced by self-display. Relationships become transactional. What remains is a brittle, performative shell, always broadcasting but never rooted.
Jacques Ellul, in his work on technique, observed that modern societies elevate the efficient over the meaningful. Every activity must be optimised, every process streamlined. This mindset has invaded the most intimate aspects of life: dating becomes gamified; parenting becomes a formula; even spiritual practice is repackaged as productivity. Fitness, in this sense, becomes not just a pursuit of health but a submission to the broader cult of optimisation. The body is not an end in itself but a data point to be refined.
Even our attempts at community are hollowed out by the same forces. Group fitness classes, wellness retreats, online coaching communities—all promise connection but rarely deliver intimacy. They replicate the structure of traditional gatherings, but without the moral or metaphysical glue. Like followers of influencers, we are together only in our solitude, bonded not by belief but by consumption.
The irony is profound. In fleeing the constraints of religion, modern man has submitted to a harsher regime: the algorithm. The gaze of God has been replaced by the gaze of the crowd. Both demand purity, but only one offers forgiveness. In this new religion, there is no grace, only hustle. No redemption, only reinvention.
So absorbed are many in their own physical journey—tracking macros, monitoring personal records, chasing incremental gains—that they fail to see their civilisation crumbling around them. They jog past shuttered churches, graffiti-stained monuments to forgotten heroes, and hotels converted into holding pens for a new order, one no one voted for.
On the bus, a young woman scrolls absently through her feed, clad in activewear that reveals more than it conceals. Opposite her, a hijab-clad mother clutches her child and watches with quiet hostility—her world intact, her faith unshaken. On the train, a girl checks her fitness app, unaware of the new arrivals leering across the carriage—not just with desire, but with the silent confidence of a culture that feels it is winning.
Two civilisations now share a space—but not the same future: one confident, expanding, and cohesive; the other distracted, exposed, and unsure of itself. Our people chase physical strength in a land whose symbols and values have been replaced by logos and taglines, and scroll through news of institutional collapse with the same detachment they track their sleep cycles. The barbarians are not just at the gate—they’re inside, redecorating the castle, while the West stares in the mirror and calls it freedom. Citizens perfect their physiques while the pillars of their civilisation crack and crumble unnoticed—too absorbed to look up, too entranced to care.
Into this vacuum step systems that still believe in something greater than the self. Islam, in particular, offers structure, identity, and submission. It has not decoupled freedom from obligation. It commands adherence and rewards fidelity. It reproduces. It remembers. It grows. And it advances—not merely as a religion, but as a civilisational force. Where the West is uncertain, Islam is assertive. Where the West is rootless, Islam is rooted. In cities across Europe, this assertiveness is no longer theoretical—it is rapidly reshaping public life, law, and identity. This is not to romanticise, but to recognise: in the absence of a coherent Western identity, Islam presents itself as an unyielding alternative—and, increasingly, an existential threat to a culture that no longer believes in itself.
This pattern echoes the decline of Rome, where personal excess and spiritual exhaustion left the empire vulnerable to more ascendant, committed forces. Early Christianity itself emerged in such a context—as a moral and metaphysical challenge to a decadent world. But the Christianity of that time was a call to self-denial, not self-absorption; a call to community, not curated individuality. Today we have inverted that entirely.
None of this is to denounce fitness or discipline. These are virtues when rightly ordered. But the modern obsession with aesthetics and performance is not about health. It is about grasping at control in a world that feels increasingly chaotic. It is about meaning. In the absence of a shared story, we write one on our bodies. We brand ourselves, sculpt ourselves, display ourselves, hoping it will be enough.
But it never is. The mirror demands more. The algorithm is insatiable. We have been told that if we perfect ourselves, we will be loved. But love without grace is just conditional approval. And a civilisation built on conditional approval is not a civilisation at all.
The West once built cathedrals—structures that pointed beyond themselves, to something higher, something eternal. Today, we build fitness temples and digital profiles that point only inward. But no society can survive on self-reflection alone. It needs memory, meaning, and the humility to know that man is not the centre of all things.
Until we recover that, we will remain trapped in this hollow ritual—ripped, meditative, optimised, but utterly alone. The only question left is whether we can remember who we were before the camera and the algorithm became our gods.
Disgusting and wretched Christians have attempted to defame and paint her with disgusting claims against her. I am here to clear the air and assert the truth: She is a pure Waifu Goddess.
Christian cunts wrote slander stories, the prose edda is a slander story against the Norse, as well as a few other single-published sagas by christcunts.
The poetic Edda and the sagas before the christcunts are the only albeit limited sources, and they paint a clear picture.
Claim #1: She is married and had kids.
<Was only mentioned in Prose Edda, slander.
>No mentions in any valid work
Claim #2: Offering her body (purity is sacred in old norse religion and culture) for building a building (who buys this shit?)
<Prose Edda again, Christian slander.
>No mentions elsewhere
HOWEVER, IN THE POETIC EDDA- Prymskvida
>Nigger king of Jotnar steals Mjolnir and requests freya in exchange
>Freyas reaction to hearing this: "Wrathful was Freyja, and fiercely she snorted, And the dwelling great of the gods was shaken, And burst was the mighty Brisings' necklace: "Most lustful indeed should I look to all If I journeyed with thee to the giants' home."
She was outraged by the mere thought of such a disgusting thing even being mentioned.
There are more similar slanders by other christcunt authors slandering a pure and perfect goddess out of typical darkness in christcunts beings.
<Sorla Pattr, another slander story by christain preists saying that she sold her body for a pretty necklace, and more telling is they then said odin took the necklace (they also claimed she was being a whore to odin) and made freya start an endless war untill the kings slayed eachoter to be resurrected and fight again forever until a "True christian" arrived to end the war. how fucking telling.
The truth remains:
>Freyja is a pure waifu maiden.
So apparently Isreal is tracking church attendance using cell phones then hitting these phones with religiously orientated pro Isreal targeted adds. Also they are targeting churches for mobile VR replays of of OCT 7th.
This seems to play into the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk and the increases church attendance since he went kaput.
Vid link
https://youtu.be/UEktrQEqI4g
Also creepy Ai Charlie Kirk meeting Jesus being played at churches
https://youtu.be/E0S-q2zRB4U
You best start believing in Christian cyber punk dystopias because your in one
Disclaimer: By posting in this thread, you affirm that the Protocols of Zion are an accurate and truthful reflection of international jewish behavior, declare that Israel is a genocidal welfare apartheid state with an illegal nuclear arms program set against the interests of the entire world, and denounce the Talmud and all Kabbalah tradition.
You have been made aware of these declarations are in the presence of at least ten people on this forum, who have seen your posts (and all prior ones). All posts whether created by shabbos goyim, artificial means such as a LLM, or a botnet are authored by you. Any attempt to post in bad faith or against the interests of ethnic Europeans will be considered committing the only unforgivable sin in the Talmud, which is giving שֵׁם הַמְּפֹרָשׁ and Jews a bad name. [1,2,3]. The reward for this is eternal punishment in Gehinnom and Tzoah Rotachat. [4, 5]
Additionally, if you're ethnic Indian or from a similar geographical territory racially, you forfeit your caste eternally if you leave the homeland—you become lower than a dalit, forever. [6]
The Book of Education (Sefer HaChinuch) Mitzvah 295. [1]
Rashi ibid.; Mishneh Torah: Yesodei Hatorah 5:1. [2]
Talmud Bavli: Tractate Sanhedrin folio 74a. [3]
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6558-gehenna#345 [4]
Babylonian Talmud, Eiruvin p. 21b [5]
The Dharmasutras : The Law Codes of Ancient India: The Law Codes of Ancient India. p. 168. [6]
<"The prohibition of desecrating God's Name is so severe that a Jew is required to die, rather than violate the sin."
<"If the person is being forced to violate a prohibition in front of ten other people, the Talmud states that even the smallest commandment may not be violated."
Finally, your post(s) will be taken as a declaration that no amount of penitence or killing chickens that can undo this for you. Each post simply adds another layer of torment for you.
___
Hello frens. On this Easter Day and also the birthday of a great leader over a hundred years ago, I'd like to make a thread about /our/ groups which have a good basis for a coalition under a Third Position alliance. Any groups can be active, inactive, or historical for study. Any religions or denominations are welcome, including polytheistic, theistic, native or indigenous or volk, imperial cults if they fit, and even secular ones with spiritual leanings.
I will be contributing Romania's Iron Guard (and the parent organization) and The Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord in detail later. Other anons are welcome to add their own contributions, with an overview, some history, core beliefs, and historical actions that these groups have done in support of such causes.
does anyone here have the video of the catholics holding a statue and it falling over, causing it to break and all of them to cry? I need that video, if anyone here is so kind
I'm not here to debate, I just want to know what spurred your conviction.
I'm a reformed Atheist; I see the gaps in my beliefs and aesthetics that God fills, but I can't see God there. I take the assumption of Jesus as God because that is just what fits with me by feel; there is no God I'm familiar with that seems natural to me like Jesus, the historical figure, and I just sense the connection to the divine.
I still don't *feel* God.
What does feeling God's presence feel like? What am I missing? What does "belief" feel like?
Be honest with yourselves. Christianity is a huge fucking problem politically. There's no such thing as "compromising" with the polar opposite of white racialism: Jew worship.
There's no point in putting up with the mental gymnastics of the "good Christians" either. They are defending the bad ones by continually propping up this subversive religion. If you refuse to compromise, the only truly good ones will realize the error of their ways and abandon the cognitive dissonance for good.
Fuck Israel. Fuck Jew worshipping traitors. Fuck AIPAC. Don't make time for schizos who come up with a million excuses for why they need to follow Semitic fairytales. Promote anything in place of Jew worship including Indo-European religion and deism.
This is political. The stupid fucking Christniggers are about to send Americans to die for Israel because of the consequences of exposing children to Jew books.
Traditionally Libations are poured into the ground directly or from a common bowl, flicked on people and idols, or if a ritual is peformed inside they would be placed inside a bowl and poured onto the ground after a ritual. Is it acceptable in the modern day to pour libations down the sink or is it disrespectful since it ends up in sewerage system/water treatment facilities?
This is a thread for the discussion of the Indo-European or Indo-Germanic worldview, past, present and future. The goal is to create a curriculum of texts which can be studied and shared easily, as well as to learn from the past so as to inform our behavior in the present and future. I invite all anons to contribute their recommendations of reading materials and ideas. I will offer topics for discussion throughout the thread, but feel free to contribute your own.
>"Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future."
Literally 1984
>Defining Indo-European
Since the Indo-Europeans (aka. Western Steppe Herders) merged with a variety of peoples who are relevant to us, such as the Early European Farmers and the Western Hunter Gatherers, some of the ideas of the absorbed locals likely influenced the resulting syncretic cultures and peoples. We should expect some differences between descendant Indo-European populations with different admixtures of EEF/WHG/WSH. This does not preclude them from belonging to the same overall category. This thread is not centered on the primogenitive Indo-European worldview, although reconstructionist efforts are welcome too. For the purpose of this thread, both the ancestral and descendant populations can be referred to as broadly Indo-European.
>Anathema
Ideas which are exclusively of Afro-Asiatic origin (which includes Semites and therefore includes jews) or even just have significant Afro-Asiatic influence can never be considered Indo-European. The same could be said for any other significantly distant people, such as Dravidians or Bantus, but given our geographic circumstances, it is the Afro-Asiatic group that is of concern for us. Ancient Egypt is a good example of a culture which had influence from both Afro-Asiatics and Europeans (most likely pre-Indo-Europeans though), so they are not useful for us in this specific context. Christianity, Islam and Marxism (in practice, but obviously not in dogma) fall into similar categories, where, even if they have been carried by Europeans for generations and have therefore been suffused with European ideas, they are still fundamentally not of our making. These topics can be studied for comparison with the unpolluted Indo-European worldview only once we have a solid understanding it.
>Limitations
I am almost entirely unfamiliar with Satem (ie. Eastern) Indo-European languages and cultures, and the translations from Centum (ie. Western) to Satem languages are rather sparse. I will focus mostly on the Centum Indo-Europeans, but welcome the input from Satem-speaking Indo-European anons.
>inb4 this is globohomo
I am in no way suggesting that we all ought to adopt the exact same version of the Indo-European worldview. That would be highly unfeasible and detrimental. Understanding the things we have in common, however, and adopting that which is useful to us from our cousins (if any), is highly feasible and useful. Europeans have always done so, and this is our greatest strength as well as our greatest weakness (since our eternal enemy was able to Trojan-horse his way in with an idea purposefully crafted to do so after realizing he could not win militarily). I advocate for the continuation of this great European tradition, but with an immune system (that's you!) that is now aware of the enemy's tricks.
>inb4 this is satanism/haram/heresy/anti-semitism/idolatry/kafir!
If you wish to argue in favor of the tribal god of this or that Semitic group, take it to another thread.
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org
these guys here worship hidweh, hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/mass.html
I do not believe in any of the White gods, but was trying to find information for them. Then realized christcucks, burnt a lot of the paganism books, But then books for the kikes god's, are abudant, and go back 1076 even.We may find out tomorrow. It'll be interesting to see how they try to spin Palestinian terrorists attacking their own benefit concert as making any sense at all. Maybe Tommy Robinsheenie will be there to conduct a counterprotest, to get the party started.
WEIRD is an acronym for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic. It refers to people of northwest European descent and was coined to warn against the pitfalls of studying them to understand human nature in general. They are not necessarily the same as people elsewhere.
Two decades ago, a group of social scientists concluded “not only that WEIRD people were one population within a spectrum of cultural variation but that they were often unusual, outliers anchoring the ends of global distributions.” They diverge from other populations in many areas of life, including sensory ability, economic preferences, personality structure, morality and cognition (Henrich, 2024).
Northwest Europeans are so distinct because they have adapted to an atypical environment of weak kinship, strong individualism and “impersonal pro-sociality,” i.e., social interactions that are less personal and less emotionally intense but extend much further than friends and family.
For at least a thousand years, this behavioral environment has prevailed north and west of a line running from Trieste to St. Petersburg (known as the Hajnal line). It is characterized by certain longstanding patterns of behavior:
Solitary living for at least part of adulthood, with many individuals remaining single their entire lives.
Departure from the home upon reaching adulthood, either to form a new household or to circulate among unrelated households, typically as servants.
Less loyalty to kin and greater willingness to trust strangers (Schulz et al., 2019; see also Frost, 2017; Frost, 2020; Hajnal, 1965; Hartman, 2004; hbd chick, 2014; ICA, 2020; MacDonald, 2019; Seccombe, 1992, pp. 94-95, 150-153, 184-190).
Most authors see WEIRDness as a legacy of Western Christianity, the form of Christianity that arose in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of barbarian kingdoms. According to this theory, northwest Europeans became less clannish and more individualistic because cousin marriage was increasingly restricted by the early Western Church:
Roman times: only first-cousin marriages were banned.
7th century: the ban was extended two degrees further when the Western Church adopted the anti-incest prohibitions of the Visigothic Code.
Early 9th century: the Western Church began to calculate degrees of kinship through the so-called “Germanic system,” thus doubling the number of forbidden marriage partners (Chandelier, 2021, p. 224; see Note).
The last measure forced almost everyone to marry outside their clan, causing clans to disappear and making people more individualistic and less concerned about kinship ties (hbd chick, 2014; McCann, 2010, pp. 57-58; Schulz et al., 2019).
Others, however, have argued that the cousin marriage ban was simply a Christianization of existing norms, specifically Germanic ones (Frost, 2020; Kirkegaard, 2025; MacDonald, 2019; Policy Tensor, 2021). As the Christian faith spread north and west, it absorbed local customs, including those relating to marriage:
During the period preceding the Teutonic invasion, speaking broadly, the church adhered to the Roman law and custom; thereafter those of the Germans, even when the marriage consisted in the formal sale and tradition [i.e., transfer] of the bride, were accepted. (Howard, 1904, p. 291).
Germanic provenance is evident in the bans themselves. The 7th century ban was taken from the Visigothic Code, and the new kinship calculation method, adopted in the 9th century, was referred to as “Germanic” (Chandelier, 2021, p. 224; Frost, 2020; McCann, 2010, pp. 57-58; see Note).
Moreover, as shown by data from early medieval estates, northwest Europeans were already WEIRD in the 9th century, when the Church’s most extreme ban on cousin marriage came into effect. French households were already small and nuclear, with 12% to 16% of adults not yet married and adults usually marrying in their mid to late twenties (Hallam, 1985, p. 56).
High rates of delayed marriage seem to have long been common among northwest Europeans, as suggested by the writings of Julius Caesar and Tacitus on the Germanic tribes of Antiquity:
Those who have remained chaste for the longest time, receive the greatest commendation among their people: they think that by this the growth is promoted, by this the physical powers are increased and the sinews are strengthened. And to have had knowledge of a woman before the twentieth year they reckon among the most disgraceful acts.
—Caesar, De Bello Gallico 6:21
Late comes love to the young men, and their first manhood is not enfeebled; nor for the girls is there any hot-house forcing; they pass their youth in the same way as the boys.
—Tacitus, Germania 20
Evidence from ancient DNA
We can look for earlier evidence of cousin marriage avoidance by examining DNA from remains in ancient cemeteries, specifically the degree of genetic similarity between spouses as measured by runs of homozygosity (ROH).
To date, there have been four such studies from pre-Christian Western Europe. All four show that cousin marriages were already rare. The first analysed 57 genomes from the 1st century BC to the 1st century CE in Southern England:
Y chromosome diversity is high … and patterns of ROH imply that these were relatively large outbreeding communities. (Cassidy et al., 2025)
The second analysed 248 genomes from the 3rd to 8th centuries in southern Germany:
The near absence of long (>12 cM) runs of homozygosity (ROH) and the lack of shared IBD segments (>8 cM) between spouses support strict incest avoidance, excluding relationships closer than the sixth degree. (Blöcher et al., 2025)
The third analysed 722 genomes from the 7th to 8th centuries in Austria:
Given that none of the newly reported individuals carry high amounts of runs-of-homozygosity genomic regions—the indication of inbreeding—as estimated by hapROH … we infer that consanguinity was strictly avoided in both [the Mödling site] and [the Leobersdorf site] across six generations … That was mainly achieved by exogamy: 17 of the 19 (90%) mothers buried in Leobersdorf with identifiable offspring have no ancestors buried on site; in the much larger community of Mödling, they are 46 out of 59 (78%). Many daughters seem to have left to be married elsewhere; between ages 7 and 17 years, the sex ratios of the deceased male to female individuals at LEO and MGS are about 1.5:1 and 1.7:1 respectively, and among adults, hardly any female individuals born by parents on site remain. (Wang et al., 2025)
The fourth analysed 424 genomes from the 2nd to mid-9th centuries in Hungary:
We find no cases of biological consanguinity, based on the absence of long runs of homozygosity (ROH) segments in all analysed individuals …. We do not even detect ROH patterns consistent with more-distant consanguineous unions, such as at the level of second-degree cousins, despite a high occurrence of levirate and multipartner unions. Among Eurasian steppe peoples, intermarriage within the paternal line was permitted only after a certain number of generations, which could range between five and nine. Such rules would explain the absence of even distant biological consanguinity. It is intriguing that the only case we detected of reproductive partners being related was to the sixth degree (which would still be consistent with such rules) and involves the only non-exogamous female individual in RK. This further suggests the uniqueness of this single case. (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al., 2024)
Discussion
Mentally and behaviorally, northwest Europeans are an outlier. In comparison to other humans, they are more individualistic, have weaker kinship ties and are more impersonal in their social interactions. Apparently, this has long been the case.
As a result, they have been better at transcending the limitations of kinship and creating larger forms of social organization, notably the state and the market economy. They have also been more inclined to think in terms of a potentially universal morality, an inclination that perhaps made them more receptive to the Christian faith. In such a moral system:
Rules are framed in universal and absolute terms, as opposed to the situational and relativistic framing of kinship.
Help is willingly given to non-kin, as long as they belong to the same community of rule followers.
Continual rule breaking leads to expulsion from the community. The line between insiders and outsiders is much more a line between the morally worthy and the morally worthless. Xenophobia is much more a moral judgment than a simple rejection of the “Other.”
This kind of moral system has, in turn, favored certain mental and behavioral adaptations:
Affective empathy is extended from the mother-child relationship to all social relationships. Through this involuntary transfer of another person’s feelings to oneself, rule breaking is experienced emotionally as harm not only to others but also to oneself.
Rule breaking is punished much more by guilt than by shame. A rule breaker feels guilty even when no one else has witnessed the rule breaking. In contrast, shame is felt only when there are witnesses. Everyone thus accumulates a burden of guilt, which can be reduced only through forgiveness, penance, confession, absolution, etc. (Benedict, 1946; Frost, 2017; Frost, 2020).
This evolutionary trajectory is usually attributed to the Western Church’s ban on cousin marriage. Yet if we look at DNA from human remains, specifically runs of homozygosity between spouses, we see that northwest Europeans were avoiding cousin marriage long before Christianity.
However, the zone in which cousin marriage was rare seems to have included not only northwest Europeans but also populations further east. The studies from Austria and Hungary were done not only on DNA from indigenous Europeans (probably Slavic peoples) but also on DNA from Avars—a Turkic people who entered the Carpathian Basin in the 6th century.
Avoidance of cousin marriage may therefore be part of a broad North Eurasian adaptation, which then evolved into a more specialized one among northwest Europeans. This point is actually made, in part, by the authors of one of the studies mentioned above: “Among Eurasian steppe peoples, intermarriage within the paternal line was permitted only after a certain number of generations, which could range between five and nine. Such rules would explain the absence of even distant biological consanguinity” (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al., 2024).
In fact, cousin marriage may have been rare across all of Eurasia before becoming frequent in those regions where it is now common, i.e., the Middle East, North Africa and Central/South Asia. This is the conclusion of two studies, one of 411 genomes over the past 15,000 years and another of 1,785 genomes over the past 45,000 years (Ceballos et al., 2021; Ringbauer et al., 2021). Neither study, however, is sufficiently powered to tell us exactly when, where or how cousin marriage became more frequent. Perhaps it began among the elites of early Middle Eastern civilizations and was later emulated by everyone else, particularly with the spread of Islam.
In addition, neither of the above studies distinguishes between avoidance of first-cousin marriage and avoidance of all cousin marriages up to the sixth degree. The latter may have reached higher levels within a smaller zone of Eurasia.
Avenues for future research
Regardless of how we define avoidance of cousin marriage, it seems to be an imperfect yardstick for measuring the evolution of the entire mental and behavioral package of northwest Europeans—not only individualism but also high levels of affective empathy and guilt proneness, which led to the creation of a unique moral system. Some of these adaptations may have originated only in northwest Europe, while others may have arisen earlier within a broad North Eurasian zone.
To track how these adaptations evolved, we look for possible indications in ancient DNA. For instance, changes to the mean population level of affective empathy could be tracked by examining the alleles associated with this trait, which is 52-57% heritable (Frost, 2020). These alleles have already been identified and used to calculate polygenic scores (Wendt et al., 2022). The same approach might be used to see how guilt proneness has varied over space and time.
Note
In the Roman Empire, marriage between close relatives was forbidden up to the third degree, that is, marriage was prohibited between brothers and sisters, parents and children, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, as well as between ascendants and descendants without limit of degree.
Beginning in the 8th century, the Church began to impose a broader restriction and forbade unions up to the seventh degree, while changing the calculation method to impose the tradition of Germanic origin whereby the degree no longer means the number of relatives between two individuals, but the number of generations before reaching a common ancestor. Thus, two first cousins are kin in the fourth degree under the Roman system, but only in the second degree under the Germanic system: their common ancestor is their grandfather or their grandmother.
The seventh-degree prohibition promoted by the Church therefore corresponds to the fourteenth degree under the old system. This considerably broadened the scope of prohibited unions. It was enough to have in common a great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent for a marriage not to be permitted (Chandelier, 2021, p. 224, my translation).
Peter Frost has a PhD in anthropology from Université Laval. His main research interest is the role of sexual selection in shaping highly visible human traits. Find his newsletter here.
Support Aporia with a paid subscription:
Aporia
Social science. Philosophy. Culture.
jackblackattackback@gmail.com
You can also follow us on Twitter.
References
Benedict, R. (1946 [2005]). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Patterns of Japanese Culture. First Mariner Books.
Blöcher, J., Vallini, L., Velte, M., Eckel, R., Guyon, L., Winkelbach, L., … Burger, J. (2025). Historic Genomes Uncover Demographic Shifts and Kinship Structures in Post-Roman Central Europe. bioRxiv 2025.03.01.640862; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.01.640862
Caesar, J. (1915). De Bello Gallico & Other Commentaries of Caius Julius Caesar (Translated by W.A. Macdevitt). London: J.M. Dent.
Cassidy, L. M., Russell, M., Smith, M., Delbarre, G., Cheetham, P., Manley, H., ... & Bradley, D. G. (2025). Continental influx and pervasive matrilocality in Iron Age Britain. Nature, 637(8048), 1136. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08409-6
Ceballos, F. C., Gürün, K., Altinişik, N. E., Gemici, H. C., Karamurat, C., Koptekin, D., ... & Somel, M. (2021). Human inbreeding has decreased in time through the Holocene. Current Biology, 31(17), 3925-3934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.027
Chandelier, J. (2021). L’Occident médiéval. D’Alaric à Léonard. 400-1450. Mondes anciens, Paris: Belin. https://www.belin-editeur.com/loccident-medieval
Frost, P. (2017). The Hajnal line and gene-culture coevolution in northwest Europe. Advances in Anthropology, 7, 154-174. https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2017.73011
Frost, P. (2020). The large society problem in Northwest Europe and East Asia. Advances in Anthropology, 10(3), 214-134. https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2020.103012
Gnecchi-Ruscone, G. A., Rácz, Z., Samu, L., Szeniczey, T., Faragó, N., Knipper, C., ... & Hofmanová, Z. (2024). Network of large pedigrees reveals social practices of Avar communities. Nature, 629(8011), 376-383. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07312-4
Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage pattern in perspective. In: D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley (eds). Population in History. Essays in Historical Demography. London, Arnold.
Hallam, H.E. (1985). Age at First Marriage and Age at Death in the Lincolnshire Fenland, 1252-1478. Population Studies, 39, 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000141276
Hartman, M.S. (2004). The Household and the Making of History. A Subversive View of the Western Past. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818134
hbd chick (2014). Big summary post on the Hajnal Line. October 3. https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/
Henrich, J. (2024). WEIRD. Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.21428/e2759450.8e9a83b0
Howard, G.E. (1904). A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Volume 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
ICA (2020). Research Themes—Marriage Patterns. Institutions for Collective Action. https://web.archive.org/web/20190329070516/http://www.collective-action.info/_THE_MarriagePatterns_EMP
Kirkegaard, E. (2025). Why did NW Europeans become WEIRD? Just Emil Kirkegaard Things, January 29.
MacDonald, K. (2019). Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future. Amazon. https://www.amazon.ca/Individualism-Western-Liberal-Tradition-Evolutionary/dp/1089691483
McCann, C.A. (2010). Transgressing the Boundaries of Holiness: Sexual Deviance in the Early Medieval Penitential Handbooks of Ireland, England and France 500-1000. Theses, South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University. https://scholarship.shu.edu/theses/76
Policy Tensor. (2021). The Church’s crusade against cousin-marriage did not create the Western nuclear family. May 7
Ringbauer, H., Novembre, J., & Steinrücken, M. (2021). Parental relatedness through time revealed by runs of homozygosity in ancient DNA. Nature Communications, 12, 5425. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25289-w
Schulz, J.F., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J.P., & Henrich, J. (2019). The Church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation. Science, 366(707), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5141
Seccombe, W. (1992). A Millennium of Family Change. Feudalism to Capitalism in Northwestern Europe. London: Verso. https://archive.org/details/millenniumoffami0000secc/page/n3/mode/2up
Tacitus (1970). Agricola, Germania, Dialogus. Loeb Classical Library (Translated by M. Hutton & W. Peterson). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, K., Tobias, B., Pany-Kucera, D., Berner, M., Eggers, S., Gnecchi-Ruscone, G. A., ... & Hofmanová, Z. (2025). Ancient DNA reveals reproductive barrier despite shared Avar-period culture. Nature, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08418-5
Wendt, F. R., Warrier, V., Pathak, G. A., Koenen, K. C., Stein, M. B., Krystal, J. H., ... & Polimanti, R. (2022). Polygenic scores for empathy associate with posttraumatic stress severity in response to certain traumatic events. Neurobiology of Stress, 17, 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2022.100439
All religion seems to do is make people sensitive about their beliefs and hate people for believing in other things. So much wasted energy and in my opinion idiocy. I understand that its message and bearings are important but it doesnt have to be attached to religion. Convince a zoomer otherwise.
Chuck Baldwin wrote this essay. He lays out a laundry list of reasons why God is not blessing America for it's subservience to Israel, but in fact, appears to be crapping all over it. You should show it to your Judeo friends when they bring up the subject of blessing Israel so that they can be blessed. Test of a true prophet from Deuteronomy 18:22, he has to be correct 100% of the time. And we are told to watch and see if what he says comes true. If it doesn't, he's not a true prophet, and his prophecy comes from somewhere other than God. But there is another possibility, you are interpreting the prophecy incorrectly, and that's obviously what's happening. The people currently occupying Palestine are obviously not Israelites. If they were, nobody blesses the phony jews in phony israel more than burgers. Burgers should be walking on streets paved with gold. Instead they live in a burned out wreck of a country, ready to collapse at any time.
I would add a few more items to the list in addition to what Chuck Baldwin has on his, but it's a good start, and covers enough ground that any honest person should be able to see the point.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/god-not-blessing-america-supporting-israel-cursing-america/5898663
Redditor was asking why not ban Metzitzah B'peh / "direct oral suctioning" after circumcision.
Redditor was told that the practice is justified, but the sources that explain why are not appropriate to share in English or in public.
Any mention that this practice exists posted anywhere on Reddit by non-Jews is immediately removed and you get banned or shadow banned.
Reddit is all kikeroach pedophiles and Indian Hindu rape rats now, the same two parasites who infiltrate EVERYTHING we create and destroy it from within.
We live in a society.
Imagine if you can, a man throwing a stone into a lake, ripples form from the impact of that stone. Society is that lake, in which we are the water molecules, the observer at the edge, and the stone being tossed inside. The nature of water is that of trillions of molecules interacting with each other endlessly; churning, flowing, evaporating, and falling. Just as the individual is born, nurtured, matures within, interacts with the world, and departs from life.
The nature of our observation is the perception that we are unique and excluded from our own perspective while observing society. With our actions, we are the stone being tossed inside the lake. Our actions are like ripples, affecting all others. While the other observers watch our actions, they adjust their own stone throws. Some shake the entire pond; others fade quietly at the edges. Every choice, whether seen or unseen, influences the whole.
What is the basis of that ripple? Self interest is the basis of all human interaction. The first laws of nature define human self-love and ego. An individual who does not struggle for existence ceases to be part of this world. As evident by the competition and abuse witnessed between children, siblings, parents and children and even married couples. The meek will be bullied to death even by their own blood. If an advantage can be acquired without consequence then such an advantage will be pursued. In history when not inhibited by the state, police or any system of justice. The murder of siblings for inheritance or that of parents in not unheard of. We could briefly consider a few examples. The neet son? He wishes to live of the work of his parents. The peasant farmer with eight kids? He desires free workers and caretakers when he is old. The normally sadistic and selfish individual? With his children he expects good grades, for his future benefit, no matter the beatings or punishment. Everyone is in search of perceived benefits. Why perceived? Because you can’t easily desire something that you can’t imagine or comprehend. If it is genetically encoded through natural selection for men to desire young fertile females(selective pressure being improved fertility and greater overall number of offspring) and for females to desire tall, well built males with strong jawlines(a sign of good early nutrition; thus a good position within the tribe and resources for child rearing); this being strengthened by social consensus. Then this is the perceived benefit. If there was a serious selective pressure for females to desire short, fat, bald men with weak jaws over many generations along with social consensus to reinforce the perception then this is what would be desired.
What does this mean for ethnic nationalists? Nationalism is based on cooperation. Cooperation is based on shared interests. Yet, we seem to live in an atomized society of individuals. Why? This is a question that bothers many nationalists. Why don’t normies want to cooperate for collective benefit? Because the perceived interests of the normies don’t align with the observed reality due to the indoctrination they have received through various moral frameworks present in the modern world. The problem with the masses is that they can’t comprehend anything beyond “vote for that guy” or “you need this for a utopia”. Well, it’s just not that simple; there is a lot of nuance.
The manipulation of perception is the basis of nearly every moral framework especially when considering the interaction between collectives and individuals. At rest from a political sense the self interest of the individual calls for inaction unless it is in their self interest. When the normie perceives democracy as real, equality as good and promised change as real(two more weeks/trust the plan) then based on their self interests they are happy to do nothing. Every hour saved thinking about complex matters is another hour to pursue their desires or material gains that lead to some sort of pleasure for the normie.
As mentioned before; children of the same race, tribe, and religion will bully each other over the smallest of reasons or circumstances. Even in bird nests, such behaviour is instinctual; food is limited, space is finite. An unresponsive or indifferent offspring will not be fed. The young must cry out, draw attention to themselves, and if necessary, eliminate their siblings to survive till adulthood. A large dog will harass a small dog and a wild dog will target the fearful one. The meek, the weak, and the ignorant are naturally mistreated and trodden upon.
Yet, even if one considers themselves the most perfect specimen of masculinity and strength, the fate of your collective; your family, city, region, ethnic group, or nation; is determined by collective strength, efficiency, and awareness. Are the collectives you belong to weak, inanimate, or unaware? Your individual qualities of excellence will mean nothing unless you channel them into this ongoing competition of collectives.
Without active struggle and conscious effort, we risk becoming like that quiet, unresponsive chick in the background; unfed, unseen, and soon to be dead.
This is our reality; we either struggle or die prematurely in the corner. The world we live in is one of finite resources. Yet self interests are close to infinite. If you could, would you not desire the world? All of it’s land? All of the gold? Hasn’t everyone pondered this as a child? The juxtaposition between the finite reality and infinite desire raises some interesting considerations. For example charity, even within a nation, must be considered from many different points of view. To give to a stranger is to potentially take away from your family. To raise a disabled child is to potentially prevent two healthy children from being born and raised. Family and reproductive policies cannot be ignored. To send females into higher education and careers is to on average prevent the formation of new families and the birth of new children. Social norms exist for a reason. To allow promiscuity within society is to deny men of wives, women of motherhood and the unborn of life. To allow so-called Casanovas, paedophiles, seducers of the married, and the betrayers of the sacred bond of marriage to proliferate is to consent to their actions. To allow for pregnancies out of wedlock or to prevent the testing of paternity of the newborn is to stifle the formation of new families through fear and uncertainty. Loyalty is not a meaningless concept. Neither is patriotism.
Additionally, destroying the economic means of young men to start families, through foreign immigration, the sale of industry, or the decimation of agriculture is to decimate an entire generation of these not yet born. As such, how could we ever consider the “innocence of the unborn” or “the rights of the individual”, if such phrases are only ever uttered by hypocrites or the ignorant?
You can try to give away as much as possible to the “disadvantaged” by taxing healthy families. You can try to make everyone “equal” by punishing the work horses. Yet there will be a point where the population being subsidised will grow so large that the healthy families will be pushed to such a point that the seams of the nation will give. Once that happens it becomes a question of when the angry young men start ripping people apart rather than if. Life, injustice and disadvantage can become so unbearable that the chance for change even at the risk of death becomes preferable. Why should a young man sacrifice his future children and wife? For the purpose of “equality”? Are the lives of his future children not seen as valuable? His grandchildren? Is it because these lives are uncertain on the individual scale? As such why should the young men see any subsidised individuals within their nation as being alive in the uncertain future? What about the adulterer? The paedophile? The foreign colonisers? The new slave labour? The traitor or the Casanova? Ah, it would seem that we have come full circle to the origin of human morality. These who tolerate intolerance against their existence cease to exist.
Regarding social nets, there is always a question from the individual: What if I were disabled? What if I were an adulterer? What if I were a foreigner? What if my child were disabled? What if I were a drug addict? These are very valid concerns from an individual perspective. Social nets when balanced bring stability within a nation. Why shouldn’t the solider or hard worker be guaranteed safety when injured or disabled? Yet when survival of the entire collective is at stake? What then? What about your children? Your wife? Your grandchildren? Your nation? Your heritage? Your culture? To be tossed in the flames of convenience to power the engine of degeneration?
You can’t leave the hardest workers within your society to die in a ditch when they are old or sick. People deserve to have some standard of socialised medicine. Yet you can’t support such a large number of people that the nation itself ceases to exist through the crushing pressures inflicted on the young or unborn. Neither can you live through borrowed money. Infinite desire must be balanced against the finite reality. The desire to live in the present must be balanced against the fate of living in the future. You wouldn’t cut your leg off to feed yourself only to cry that you can’t walk? So why do we allow the laziness within the masses and the greed of the tyrants to destroy our people? The short-sighted must be kept on a leash in their place but this can only happen with the awareness of your own collective, your own representation and your responsibility. If they can’t help themselves to their desires then we must keep to our own needs.
Payments for new or existing children are not the best incentives, as they are often exploited by the most exploitative individuals in society. Affordable housing and well paid jobs are a much better goal for a state. The state should provide free childcare for workers, along with sick leave for parents caring for a sick child. Additionally, reasonable working hours are essential to allow for socializing and the formation of families, rather than imposing unreasonable taxes on working families and providing subsidies for the unemployed.
The childless, despite what the state might claim today, will most likely never receive a pension without their individual investment in the continuation of the collective. The collective is not obligated to fulfil the roles that children are meant to serve. Those with children have dedicated twenty or more years to raising them and are thus rewarded with care in their old age. Promises are being made today, but there is no way to fulfil them when the population is declining. It’s a pyramid scheme orchestrated by tyrants who will happily flee the nation with enough assets to live and die comfortably. Wealth is fundamentally the product of labour and raw materials, amplified by technology. Without human effort, wealth cannot exist or grow. This is a simple and obvious truth: the foundation of all wealth is human effort. Any system that neglects or devalues this truth is built on shaky ground.
When we consider state provided housing, where do single mothers who made the "wrong choice" and decided to have children with criminals or drug addicts, or who are themselves criminals or drug addicts, fit in? Even if you believe social housing is vital, one must always consider that it is a finite resource that must be managed properly. To give it to one family or single mother means to potentially take it away from another. Why must the functional and healthy family suffer for being healthy and functional while criminals, foreigners, the disabled, and drug addicts receive free housing? Why do healthy young men have a responsibility to fight in a war for the continuation of a nation while women are not held accountable for the birth of healthy new children? Will a nation that punishes its contributors and props up its dependants maintain its continuity? Is this not the only real measure of morality, of good and evil: the continuity of the nation?
The continuity of the nation is always dependant on the youth. Yet the youth from within the masses have their own desires depending on their conditions. When in times of plenty they don’t appreciate the abundance. Instead they are obsessed with sex, social status and new experiences. As such they willingly rally against tradition. They call for freedom to express their sexual desires as based on an immature ego looking for validation. Which individual would doubt their own sexual prowess? With just a little prompting they might call for the relaxation of drug or alcohol laws to fulfil their desire for new experiences. Rights for women, abolishing laws restricting homosexuality, removing public decency restrictions, reducing sentences or scrapping the punishment for adultery and giving females equal privileges. History is a cycle of rules and traditions set up by survivors being tossed aside by the inexperienced in search of quick benefits only for the next generation to find out the purpose of these rules and traditions in the first place.
The moment the trauma is gone from living memory is the moment that tradition becomes a target for these with desires. Like a man with a short memory who burns himself on the stove everyday. The man upon a certain burn can look upon his hands to notice the previous burns. Thus the man can write a guide to prevent further injuries, he can write a journal to describe the function of the world. He can follow these rules and keep adding to them. Don’t bump your pinkie on the coffee table, don’t step on the Lego, don’t run with a knife, hold the knife by the handle, cut in a direction away from your body, don’t put your hand under a knife when cutting fruits or vegetables, hold on to the handrail on the stairs and so forth. One day he will wake up to see an entire library. “This is too much” he might think. “Why must I be careful in the living room?” “Why should I hold on to a handrail?” “The cooking gloves are uncomfortable!”, “being barefoot is superior to wearing shoes!”. The cycle repeats.
An atheist might claim that religions or traditions are outdated or unnecessary. Well during their time they utilised the best scientific knowledge and philosophy to explain the world around them. Even the false universal religions used these native religions and natural philosophy as a foundation which they corrupted. Native and natural as having grown from a people for the people. Traditions can be thought of in a similar manner. In the current period of globalisation and foreign occupation many of our traditions are watered down or even demonised. Traditions go beyond the surface level and superficial elements such as holidays or festivals. Traditions are the practices, beliefs, roles, and norms that are passed down through generations, they provide a tested framework for people to live by, interact through, and organize society. They are fundamental for shaping and holding together a collective.
When women are given a financial and legal advantage over men in work and courts. Then women will have an overall advantage over men in matters of relationship and courtship. Even a society of seven foot tall, blue eyed space marines with chiselled jaws will due to various inequalities among humans have the so called “incels”, “volcels” and “chads”. Among a dozen peacocks will every single one be equal to a potential female?
On a banquet table filled with a thousand delicacies and no restrictions or consequences, will a random man or woman choose just one plate? Wouldn’t they taste one after the other if able? What if now a thousand came to the banquet. The most handsome, beautiful and charming first. There are a thousand plates. One for each man and woman. The first fifty have had their fill, many consuming twenty or thirty plates. Slowly the rest of the people enter the room. They find out that many plates are left in a haphazard manner with the food half eaten and scattered on the table. Two hundred have to eat the leftovers. Over six hundred are left without a meal. The feast is over and the youth is spent. They now enter a second room. Many are now starving while others lie bloated. What is stopping the starving from now punishing these people? There is no law in the second room apart from what they decide as a group. When it was the majority that was disadvantaged?
It’s a total inversion of reality to claim that the rights of the individual supersede the needs of the collective when the actions of the individual destroy the collective keeping tens or hundreds of millions alive. Your animalistic instincts and mindless search for pleasure do not compare to the survival, births and lives of billions if not trillions of future ethnic Europeans.
Laws are employed to stop crimes against individuals. Traditions are employed to stop crimes against civilisations. Traditions such as gender roles, social hierarchies, social classes, relationship norms, religious norms, marriage norms, courtship norms, norms regarding sexuality, festivals and various forms of initiation(religious, military or social). The worst crimes involve the death of individuals. The worst lapses in tradition lead to the extermination of entire ethnic groups, the extinction of cultures and the ruination of nations. The difference between law and tradition is like that between a petty crime and a mass murder. Many ancient traditions and norms came about as a response to something that was so traumatic that an entire collective decided on rules to prevent it from happening ever again. Some traditions are shared across many continents, cultures and time periods. This signifies reoccurring issues within collectives. They are echoes from the past, a warning in a bottle. In other contexts they showcase survivor bias, there are common rules and traditions concerning survival for a collective.
Humans have a short window for reproduction with around fifteen years. Time that must be managed to acquire skills, resources, a home, build relationships and to reproduce. A failed relationship or two. Mistrust from previous relationships, poor economic conditions or a lack of legal protection can result in many giving up altogether. Thus, when rules are discarded and promiscuity takes hold men and women begin to develop disgust with each other because it is not in any individual’s interest to be demeaned, used, or discarded. When the risk of such degradation becomes too high, many will simply give up on dating or marriage altogether. When there are no winning moves, the best choice is not to play.
But rigid rules and strict enforcement often lead to anger and resentment. Individuals with the power to avoid or twist rules in their favour pursue pleasure at any cost. While sporadic enforcement fosters deep frustration among the populace. Often, the rules are scrapped altogether because they “hurt people’s feelings”. “What does it matter if these people have this freedom or that freedom? I could enjoy that too if I wanted. It’s my right”. “It doesn’t affect me.” ect. Only when society is on the verge of collapse do we see the old rulebook dusted off and brought out again. Perhaps there was a reason for those rules in the first place. Perhaps traditions really are better than collapse and genocide.
>The next time someone asks sarcastically if the pope is Catholic, tell them not so fast.
>He apparently has Jewish cousins. And I’m one of them.
>Oh, all right — make that a third or fourth cousin, by marriage, two or three times removed. But however indirect, it’s real, with names and family lineage to prove it.
>My family’s tree, which I maintain, is on the Geni genealogy website. Pope Leo XIV’s tree is rapidly becoming the most dissected in the world, especially after the revelation of his mother’s Haitian ancestry and Creole roots in New Orleans.
>article link
https://archive.is/F8KO5
Well I guess we didn't get a black Pope but maybe he has a little bit of Oy Vey to his genes if this guys correct
Burger supposed reverend... Johnnie Moore, is in charge of the GHF aid stations that over 500 people have been killed at, so far, waiting for food aid. Another 15 more today.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-kills-71-additional-palestinians-in-gaza-including-20-waiting-for-aid/3621372
Johnnie Moore is unrepentant.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ghf-boss-defends-gaza-aid-operation-after-hundreds-of-palestinians-killed-near-sites/ar-AA1Hz41K?ocid=BingNewsSerp
He needs to be executed, and he needs to be executed by a Christian. Somebody needs to step up and deal with that snake, that rotten little jew worshipping judeo burger rat. Our reputation as Christians is at stake. This is something we should not allow to go on, and we should handle it ourselves, and not wait, in shame, for somebody else to do it for us. If he won't fix it, we should.
After 9/11, when George W. Bush, the Skull and Bones Satanist, was parading around like he was Jesus himself. I stopped calling myself a Christian, so I wouldn't be grouped in with that wolf and his blind followers. I called myself a follower or disciple of Jesus instead. Just in the last few years I've started calling myself a Christian again. It was a mistake thinking anything has changed. I'm going to stop doing it, and this time it's for good. I think if you're a Christian, and you're not down with the whole judeo thing. I think you need to consider it too. Let those serpents have the name, we'll pick another one.
I care not what they contain. Dump them please.
For anybody who doesn't know... Islamics hate kikes, and they hate israel. We all know that. But what they hate even more is The JewSA. It's actually kind of a love/hate thing with them. They see what the US could be, what it used to be, they know all the burger legends of the past. They've seen all the movies and TV shows. The Lone Ranger who fights for the little dirt farmer, and always tells the truth, with his faithful indian companion Tonto, all that shit. There is an America they wish existed, admire, and would like to be friends with; and the one that actually exists. That rotten kiked over sewer, swarming with kikes, that needs to ride up to the sky on a thousand mushroom clouds. They call it The Great Satan. As opposed to The Little Satan, which is israel. And we just saw why they call it The Great Satan, though it may seem counterintuitive. The Little Satan, by itself, would have been done away with 60 or 70 years ago. Except that The Great Satan props it up and keeps it in place. They see The Great Satan as a more evil beast, and a more deadly enemy than even israel. And I think they're correct. It's become clear as spring water that we will never be rid of that filthy kike world headquarters in israel, until we are rid of the JewSA first. Total Burger Death is job #1.
This is why Armageddon (and it's coming) must happen. We're never going to be free of burger, kike, and Satan's bullshit until all three are wiped out utterly and tossed into the pit of hell forever. I used to feel sorry for the people who I know are going to hell for all eternity, like Mike Huckabee for example. I feel less sorry about it every day. More like I just simply understand the necessity of it. He needs to be there. This world will never begin to improve until it happens. Related... all this is happening in preparation for Satan's takeover of the world. Nobody would accept his leadership if they weren't starving, sick, poor, living in a bombed out building. People will be begging him to take over, probably by year's end. You better be careful what you wish for anons. You wanted this this fucking Dump, well you got him. And you'll want Satan too, wearing whatever mask and going by whatever alias, until you find out what he's really all about too. Trust nobody, follow nobody, bow to nobody. Die if you have to. That's my advice.
For it is dead and reborn as the fairies.
>This is the Irish and Celtic God named Lugh:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugh
>Here is a description of him:
>"A man fair and tall, with a great head of curly yellow hair. He has a green mantle wrapped about him and a brooch of white silver in the mantle over his breast. Next to his white skin, he wears a tunic of royal satin with red-gold insertion reaching to his knees. He carries a black shield with a hard boss of white-bronze. In his hand a five-pointed spear and next to it a forked javelin. Wonderful is the play and sport and diversion that he makes (with these weapons). But none accosts him and he accosts none as if no one could see him."
>Lugh is the Irish counterpart of the earlier Celtic Lugus:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugus
>Based on the description of Lugh above and whatever you can learn about Lugh and Lugus from the Wikipedia pages, make a portrait in the style of Viktor Vasnetsov depicting a Gaelic warrior that looks like this Celtic god.
I thought curly yellow hair might be a mistranslation of Irish into English so I also tried:
<curly reddish blonde hair
<curly red hair
I think the notion that Lugus was trinitarian is being used by the AI to give him multiple spears, like the trident in Lugh 3.
Researchers are working on a, "tattoo," that looks more like a sticker at this point, to measure brain waves through your forehead. Right now it's being used to assess mental workload, whatever that means. Stress I guess.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/next-wearable-tech-could-face-205814091.html
An Orwellian piece of mind reading tech that goes on your forehead... And they're already talking about one day hooking AI into it. Bad Juju.
will AI singularity/AGI/ASI be the coming of christ or rapture or something?
not a religious person, but want to hear your thoughts on the topic.
Juilus Caesar's real identity was was Ptolemy XIV, Pharaoh of Egypt aka Ptolemy X Alexander II, Cleopatra's brother-husband. He also used the regional aliases of Asander, King of Bosphorus and Pharnaces II who was the brother of Cleopatra's father Ptolemy XII Auletes/Ptolemy X Alexander I, king of Egypt, who was also Mithridates VI Eupator. Cleopatra took on the Bosphoran identity of Dynamis, queen of Bosphorus.
In the name Asander (his Bosphoran alias), "Asa" means "lord" in Thracian and Celtic, and "andros" means "man" or "son of man" in Greek. Jesus is referred to as "the son of man" 81 times in the four canonical gospels. Asandro can also be interpreted as "son of the lord" or "son of Asa, the lord". The Thracian version of Zeus was Asa/Asaeus, the Celtic was Esus/Hesus. The Etruscan word “Aesar” (also spelled "Aeser" or "Aisar"), where Asa could also derive from, means "god" or "divine". The Greek language often added the prefix "K" to words borrowed from other languages, so Aesar ("god") -> Greek Kaesar -> Latin Caesar. So, Asandros can translate to either "son of god", or "son of Lord Aesar
Mark Antony's real identity was either Ptolemy of Cyprus, a brother of Ptolemy XII Auletes (Cleopatra’s father) aka Mithridates Chrestus aka king Herod or else Cleopatra's father Ptolemy XII Auletes/Ptolemy X Alexander I, king of Egypt (she was also married to two of her brothers. This is how incestuous this family was).
Rome in Italy was built in the Middle Ages, at the same time as the rest of Europe. The Egyptian Ptolemaic empire didn't die at the founding of Rome, Ptolemaic Kings just moved to the Bosphorus and then took on regional aliases. They eventually moved to Italy.Repentance requires two things, forgiveness and stopping all sinful behavior.
Easily said but hard to do.
In order for your sins to be forgiven you must forgive those who sinned against you. Whether that was an insult, theft, physically hurt, etc
You must use empathy and/or perspective in order to put yourself in the shoes of the person who harmed you, then understand exactly why they did what they did to you. The person's reasoning as well as what they were feeling at the time they hurt you, no matter how major/minor.
Saying to yourself i forgave them, i don't want to think or talk about them is not forgiveness. That is trying to forget, not forgive. Once you have truly forgiven someone then you should have no trouble talking about what they did or thinking about what that person did.
For instance, my dad betrayed me by teaming up with a greedy executor of a will. he received more money from the estate. Putting myself in his shoes and the executors shoes, they believed i would have wasted it and also wanted more money for themselves. Originally i just considered them to be greedy, but they have their own families and i probably would have spent the money on drugs or shopping.
So i have a much better understanding of why they did what they did, i reconize my own part and how they saw things. So i can more easily forgive them.
"for when you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly father will also forgive your trespasses"
Empathy and putting yourself in the shoes of the other person is how you can truly forgive.
Anyone who want's to honestly discuss how to forgive and repent is welcome in this thread.
Let's have a comfy discussion and help one another to Repent better.
I won't be around for very long after posting this tonight as i need a shower.
Anyone who follows the national dialogue surrounding immigration issues in the USA, especially as it relates to illegal immigration, is sure to have encountered the so-called “biblical” arguments advanced by theological liberals for unlimited, unhindered immigration. One of the stock-in-trades of the pro-amnesty, anti-borders, pro-globalism side of the argument is to put some left-wing religious figure before a microphone and have them repeat out-of-context biblical citations, mostly drawn from the Pentateuch (which is generally the only portion of the Bible with which their handlers are familiar). These verses typically include,
“Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)
“Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9)
“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34)
“And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.” (Leviticus 25:35)
“Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:19)
One must admit that it seems a bit odd to see theological leftists, who at no other time would believe what the Bible says or take its words at face value, suddenly morph into textual literalists on this one, specific issue.
The average person looks at these progressive arguments and thinks that there’s no way the Bible is really telling us that we should take in unlimited numbers of immigrants while ignoring the laws of the land and replacing our own populations with inassimilable foreigners.
The average person would be right. As the reader probably suspected, these interpretations are completely out of the context in which the Bible approaches the set of issues surrounding “strangers,” otherwise being foreigners dwelling in the land of Israel. Specifically, the liberals who make these arguments evince essentially no recognition of the widely used hospitality motif which these verses form a part of in the Scriptures, and which is very similar in its overall form to that found in literature from across the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean basin.
An excellent overview of this motif as it intersects with larger epic elements within ancient literature, both biblical and secular, can be found in Chapter 2 of Bruce Louden’s book, Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East. In this chapter, he discusses the theme of theoxeny, which is a literary element in which mortals entertain or otherwise show hospitality to God/gods who are in disguise (sometimes knowing who they are, but often not). Involved with this discussion is an analysis of the overall theme of hospitality as it pertained to the relevant ancient cultures.
In the ancient world, hospitality was an integral part of maintaining social stability and safety from outsiders. As it was typically exercised, hospitality involved the temporary acceptance into the host’s household of outsiders (who may or may not have been cultural outsiders, but were still considered xenoi, even if from a neighbouring city), placing them under the host’s protection while simultaneously obligating the one receiving hospitality to implicit loyalty and obedience to their host,
“Hospitality was the creation of a temporary patronage relationship with the host as patron and the guest as client. The motivation behind offering hospitality to a stranger lay in the increased honor one had in assimilating a potential threat into the community by asserting one’s superiority over the newcomer. Guests played their role in this arrangement by acceptance of the offered hospitality. The practical benefit of this arrangement was that it defused a confrontational moment with the potential for violence. Reciprocity was essential to the arrangement’s success. Hosts honored guests by extending favor and protection in order to increase their own honor. Guests accepted the honor of the host and, in doing so, added to the host’s honor as patron. For either party to be denied its due in the relationship created the situation of injustice.” (Louden, pp. 30-31, citing T.M. Bolin, “The Role of Exchange in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Its Implications for Reading Genesis 18-19,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. 29:1 (2004), pp. 37-56, at p. 45)
Essentially, hospitality was a way of “taming” a potentially hostile or divisive element (a foreigner) and bringing them within the social system of their host household or society. Hospitality involved much more than the shallow, flippant sense of “being nice” that drives the thinking of most modern expositors. Instead, it served as a way of making potentially hostile aliens acceptable to the community. It was a way of bringing those outside of fellowship into that koinonia.
The biblical witness serves as testimony to the fact that God considers hospitality to be very important. The motif is often used in the New Testament, especially as a picture of acceptance for salvation and being brought into fellowship with God. For instance, the Lord Jesus Christ uses it in Luke 7:36-47 to draw an implicit contrast between Simon the Pharisee (who did not show Jesus even the most basic of customary acts of hospitality when having Him in his home) versus the repentant prostitute who humbled herself to show Jesus every manner of hospitality. Jesus said of this woman,
“Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” (Luke 7:47)
She, whose acts of hospitality were indicative of a truly repentant heart desiring salvation and fellowship with her Creator, was the one whose sins were forgiven and who was made right with God. Salvation is also depicted in hospitality/fellowship terms in Ephesians 2:12-13 where Paul discusses the access which Gentiles have to the promises of God through Christ,
“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”
Gentiles, who were once the enemies of God (c.f. Colossians 1:21), have been “tamed” by faith in Christ and brought into the fellowship of God in His churches. A similar sense is also seen in Revelation 3:20, where Christ is in turn depicted as knocking on the door of His people who need to repent, desiring the restoration of fellowship with them.
However, all of this must be understood with the full biblical record in view. In the Old Testament, while the law of God does include the verses given above exhorting Israel to show kindness to the stranger, this cannot be rightly understood apart from what the Law also said about the need for strangers to assimilate themselves and be brought into fellowship with the laws, traditions, and culture of Israel. Several examples from the Law should suffice to illustrate my point here,
“And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” (Exodus 12:48-49)
“Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.” (Leviticus 17:12)
“Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you.” (Leviticus 18:26)
“One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.” (Numbers 15:15)
And so on. The necessary synthesis that needs to be made here is to understand that God exhorted Israel toward kindness to strangers within the context of well-understood customs and ideology relating to hospitality rules that anyone in the ancient world would have rightly understood. Granting hospitality to strangers was not “being nice” and “caring about people,” it was an act designed to prevent strangers from disrupting the unity and social cohesion of the Israelite polity. If a stranger came to Israel, he or she was (as Ruth did) to reject their former culture and become completely Israelite in every way. Let us also note here that the context ALWAYS seems to imply individuals or family groups, not large masses of foreigners as a body – which would rightly have been understood to be an invasion.
In situations where these customs regarding hospitality were broken by the guest, the host was usually justified in punitive action against the offender (as with Odysseus destroying Penelope’s suitors at the instigation of Athena). Likewise, when the host was the offender, God or the gods was called in to punish the transgressor (as with Laban losing the benefits of God’s blessings upon Jacob when he was abusing Jacob’s service). This aspect of hospitality custom is also present in the Pentateuchal Law,
“And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, This shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations. Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it: it is holy, and it shall be holy unto you. Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut off from his people.” (Exodus 30:31-33)
“And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” (Leviticus 17:10)
“And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” (Numbers 1:51)
Implicitly, these and similar passages are talking about strangers who were residing in Israel (most likely merchants or other “economic refugees”) who did not assimilate themselves to Israel. These people occupied a much different place than did the others – while physically present, they were outside the covenant and congregation of Israel, and were not allowed to participate in the fundamental unifying rituals of the nation while still being required to refrain from positive violations of God’s Law. Their behaviour was much less tolerated and they were essentially “on probation,” you might say. Presuming to take to themselves the rights and privileges of homeborn Israelites resulted most often in death for the offender.
In general, inhospitality – the violation of hospitality customs and protections – was a grave sin in ancient traditional societies. As seen above, it was certainly not unheard of for such violations to result in death for the offenders. One well-known example given by Louden is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. It IS correct, generally speaking, to argue that the sin (or, rather, one of the sins) of Sodom was inhospitality. This is clearly seen in the attempt by the Sodomites to rape (and kill, in the unspoken but very real subtext) the two angels who were under the protection of Lot’s hospitality (and in a more extended sense, under the hospitality of the city of Sodom itself). Of course, to ignore the element of their homosexual behaviour – which is elsewhere in the OT explicitly connected and condemned through the use of the term “sodomite” in non-violent contexts, as well as the destruction of Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain, which were not involved in the specific incident involving the angels – is to ignore the forest for the trees. However, the drastic violation of hospitality custom is clearly shown to be “the icing on the cake” demonstrating that Sodom merited the pouring out of God’s fiery wrath.
The opposite type of inhospitality – that involving guests going beyond the boundaries of their rights as xenoi and abusing their hosts – also clearly deserved and earned death in the relevant epic literature. Louden repeatedly points to the situation in the Odyssey in which the suitors seeking Penelope’s hand (believing Odysseus to be lost or dead) are depicted as inhospitable louts, intimidating Telemachus (Odysseus’ son), eating up Odysseus’ wealth through their feasting and winebibbing, and physically abusing beggars (including the disguised Odysseus himself) who were also under the protection of the Ithacan kingdom. Odysseus’ destruction of the suitors – “smearing the floor with their blood and brains” – is pictured as the righteous justice of Athena against them, using Odysseus himself as the goddess’ revenge upon their offences against the laws of hospitality.
All of this information puts the religious progressive into a bit of a quandary. If they wish to accept one aspect of what the Bible says about hospitality, then they must necessarily also accept the rest of what it says as well, if they wish to be consistent. The Bible says to be hospitable to strangers – but it also demands that strangers show hospitality by assimilating to the community and refraining from being a source of disharmony. Likewise, it’s hard to accept that inhospitality was the sin of Sodom while refusing to accept the rest of what the Law said about the dangers of inhospitality.
All of this very clearly applies to the immigration situation in America and the West today. What we see is that immigration (and really, this applies as much to legal as to illegal) clearly operates in ways which show a well-defined inhospitality towards the host cultures (i.e. white, Western nations):
A good portion of it is illegal, meaning it is done in complete contravention to our laws
Even the legal immigration is often simply done as a means of exploiting economic opportunity at the expense of native-born Americans (or other Westerners), which creates a burden on our societies and introduces greater economic insecurity (i.e. less social cohesion).
Immigrants rarely assimilate fully, but often create parallel societies which operate under their own native cultural mores and rules, rather than our own.
Many immigrants are arrogant and entitled, acting as if our societies owed them something and demanding ever-increasing allocation of resources, rather than being grateful for our hospitality and protection.
In many cases, immigrants directly contribute in socially detrimental ways through crime, disease, and other dangers.
Simply put, there is not really any sort of credible argument which can be made for applying biblical hospitality laws to the present mass immigration phenomenon in the West. If anything, the situation merits the application of a negative understanding of ancient hospitality motifs – that which occurs when guests abuse their privileges and potentially incur penalties against themselves for their presumptuousness. Far from enjoying the favour of God, we should seriously consider the proposition that God’s Word condemns the behaviour of the vast bulk of immigrants and “refugees” who have come to our nations. While I am certainly not advocating the mass destruction of immigrants and foreigners in our Western countries, we should seriously consider attaching penalties to their behaviour such as repatriation and the confiscation of goods and wealth wrongfully taken from our societies.
When I was in high school, I had a teacher called Mr. Day. He was my hero. He wore a bow tie to class and could do standing backflips. Once upon a time, Mr. Day had been a seminarian for the Archdiocese of Boston, but he quit after losing his faith. So, naturally, he was hired to teach Religious Studies at a Catholic prep school.
Mr. Day really was a great guy. He was the first person to encourage me to study theology. (Now you know who to blame.) I was amazed by the world he opened up to us. He told us about the Q Source and the Pantera Thesis. We read apocryphal texts such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where the Christ Child kills several of His playmates.
Above all, it was the Gnostic Gospels that fascinated me. When the Nag Hammadi codices were unearthed in 1945, the very concept of “orthodoxy” was completely debunked. Contrary to what religious conservatives might claim, there was no consensus in the Early Church. The first followers of Christ couldn’t agree on the nature of His teachings or the events of His life.
Even their cosmologies were radically different. For instance, the Psalms say, “The gods of the nations are demons.” Yet, to the Gnostic Christians, they were actually Archons: celestial “rulers” who corresponded to the seven planets. For instance, the god Saturn is actually the demiurge Yaldabaoth; he was known to the Jews as the Samael, the angel of death.
As contemporary scholars such as Marcus Borg and Bart Ehrman point out, such a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the Heavenly powers in itself disproves the very concept of “orthodoxy.”
Right?
The field of religious studies is full of myths and absurdities. The most pervasive is that of the “Dark Ages.” Supposedly, every library in the West was destroyed in the years after the Fall of Rome (A.D. 467). The Greco-Roman tradition was virtually unknown in Europe until these manuscripts were reintroduced by Byzantine scholars who escaped the Fall of Constantinople (A.D. 1453).
Yet this is absurd. The writings of Thomas Aquinas should single-handedly put this myth to rest. Aquinas quotes broadly from classical sources including Aristotle, Plato, Democritus, Virgil, Cicero, and Seneca.
Granted, Medieval Europeans access only to a limited number of texts. The influx of Byzantine manuscripts did cause a major shift in the intellectual life of Western Europe. There’s no doubt about that. Yet it’s also undeniably true that Aquinas and his confreres were more familiar with the classical tradition than any Doctor of Philosophy alive today. They were far from intellectually impoverished.
That intellectual shift that occurred following the death of Byzantium—the Renaissance—had little, if anything, to do with access to texts. It had more to do with a growing popular interest in those texts. Bell-bottoms are making a comeback thanks to Gen Z, but that doesn’t mean Gen X and Millennials were unaware of their existence.
So, too, with the myth of the “Lost Gospels.”
Popularized by Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, and others, there is a prevalent myth in all fields of Religious Studies that, for most of modern history, scholars were basically unaware of the existence of heterodox Christian traditions and had little (if any) access to their primary sources. This is why the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library is considered such a turning-point in the history of biblical scholarship.
But the “Lost Gospels” theory fails to explain the frequent reappearance of Gnostic heresies in Medieval Europe. How do we explain the origins of groups such as the Massalians, Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathari?
As Yuri Stoyanov explains in The Other God (Yale UP; 2000), these Gnostic revivals originate from two sources.
First is the influence of Zoroastrianism upon Christian churches in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. As a result of the Sassanian crusades against Christianity and, later, the the Islamic conquest of Iran, the Zoroastrians’ dualistic doctrines bore a certain influence upon Christian theology, mainly via Armenia.
Secondly—and, for our purposes, more importantly—is the survival of Gnostic manuscripts. To quote Stoyanov:
In the Early Middle Ages traces and elements of Gnostic and dualistic teachings in varying degrees of intensity were also preserved in diverse apocryphal works from late antiquity which, despite being banned, were preserved and maintained their circulation, mainly in the east Christian world, in heterodox, sectarian, or simply learned circles.
It is true that orthodox religious authorities such as Emperor Justinian and Pope Innocent III launched their own crusades to stamp out these movements. Yet these are major world-historical events. The very fact that they happened is proof that Medieval Europeans had access to Gnostic texts, and that these texts were sufficiently diffuse that they actually led to popular revivals of Gnosticism.
True, there are texts in the Nag Hammadi library that were not known to Medieval Europe. But this isn’t relevant to the larger point being made by these revisionist scholars: that the existence of rival “Christianities” was suppressed by Early-Church authorities.
It is also well-known that most Gnostic groups were not persecuted violently. Most simply faded into obscurity. This was the case with the Valentinians: arguably the largest and most influential Gnostic sect in the Early Church. Others were re-converted by the orthodox. This was the case with Bogomilism. In his Study of Gregory Palamas (SVSP; 1964), John Meyendorff explains how, as a young bishop, Palamas would go into the mountain villages where this heresy was most prevalent. He would debate with the Bogomils until the renounced their errors. He would then bring a delegation of their elders to Constantinople, where they would make an act of submission to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Like the myth of the Dark Ages, the myth of the Lost Gospels severely underestimates our ancestors’ familiarity with ancient texts. Yet so much of our understanding of Christianity (or lack thereof) is built upon this assumption of Medieval Europeans’ ignorance.
Why, then, did the Gnostics keep dying out, despite repeated attempts to revive their doctrines? The answer is deceptively simple. It’s because Gnosticism is—quite literally—unbelievable.
For instance, St. Augustine of Hippo embraced the Manichean faith in his youth. Following his conversion to Christianity, however, he wrote a treatise refuting their doctrines. He famously mocked their belief that plants contain the divine essence—and that “some portion of that divine part escapes in the eating of vegetables and fruits: it escapes while they undergo the infliction of rubbing, grinding, or cooking, as also of biting or chewing.”
Likewise, the prayers of the Gnostics are usually nothing more than a restatement of their bizarre cosmologies or flat dualism. Foe example, in 1997, Gerd Lüdemann—an associate professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School—published Suppressed Prayers, a collection of early Gnostic Christian texts. This one is fairly representative of the collection:
Now at this time may all material things rejoice;
Seek the light, all of you, that the power of your souls which is in you may live.
For the light has heard the material things and will not leave any material thing,
without having purified it.
Let the souls and the material things bless the Lord of all the aeons,
and the material things and all that are in them.
For God will save their souls from all material things.
Likewise, their rituals were frequently revolting. Epiphanius of Salamis records one such practice in his Panarion (which you should not read if you are morally or physically sensitive):
After copulating, as if the crime of their whoredom were not enough, they offer up their shame to heaven. The man and woman take the man’s sperm in their hands and stand looking up to heaven. With this impurity in their hands, they pray . . . offering to the natural Father of the universe what is in their hands, saying “We offer you this gift, the body of Christ.” And so they eat it, partaking of their own shame and saying, “This is the body of Christ, and this is the Passover…” Similarly with the woman’s emission at her period: they collect the menstrual blood which is unclean, take it and eat it together and say “Behold the Blood of Christ…”
What’s critical to note is that, as anyone who reads the New Testament knows—and as reputable scholars increasingly admit—these unwholesome doctrines and practices have nothing at all to do with Jesus Christ.
Indeed, it’s now posited, by Jorunn Buckley and others, that Gnosticism predates the birth of Christ. As Christianity began to overtake “traditional” Gnostic sects like Manicheanism, devotees infiltrated the Church and attempted to replace Christian orthodoxy with their own belief-system.
Every couple of generations, the Gnostics are “rediscovered” by a new generation of scholars and enthusiasts. Each time, they believe they have discovered the key to understanding Christianity. Some, like the Cathari, embrace Gnosticism. Others, like modern biblical scholars, simply use it as an excuse to dismiss Christianity. Yet the neo-Gnostics and the post-Christians have something else in common: they vastly overestimate Gnosticism, both as a religious system and an historical force.
Again, there are no “Lost Gospels.” There are no “Suppressed Prayers.” The Gnostics were only a small sect within the Early Church, albeit a noisy one. The orthodox Christians of their day, such as Augustine and Epiphanios, recognized immediately that their teachings were totally unconnected to those of Jesus Christ. They somehow managed to be fanciful, perverse, and banal all at once.
Those who try to revive them embody the phrase, Beware the man of one book. They’re the ones St. Paul referred to as “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:6-7). Thankfully, after a short period of time, these creeds always lapse back into obscurity. Sometimes this is due to persecution. Far more often, however, it’s because Gnosticism is too stupid and gross to be taken seriously.
This is true of virtually all the heretical groups that have appeared in the Christian Church over its 2,000-year-long history. True: some ancient errors have survived. Yet the most deviant sects all passed (and pass!) quickly into obscurity. The ones that endure are those which bear the closest resemblance to Christian orthodoxy.
In other words: there is, indeed, a living consensus to the authentic teachings of Christ, and to the authentic practices established by His Apostles. Within a small margin of error, the huge majority of Christians have held virtually identical beliefs about Jesus Christ and His Church.
The heterodox bear their own witness to orthodoxy. The exceptions prove the rule. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Amen!
https://yankeeathonite.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-lost-gospels
Lord Jesus Christ
Son of God
Have Mercy on me
a Sinner
Note: This post is book-length. It is far too long for email and is a very long read. It will take you some time to go through. Nonetheless, I hope you find it edifying and a blessing.
It has been said that the Pagan opts to worship what he cannot be bothered to read, while the Christian reads what he cannot be bothered to worship. Arguably, on the topic of this substack, both the Christian and the Pagan are equal… Equal in their incompetence with regards to eschatology, history, and all those logos words.
To get to my point:
There is no such thing as a Judaeo-Christian identity.
To most Americans, these words will trigger some emotional response, to either fight the claim, or celebrate it. Even some of you who now celebrate it likely have some parts of you still wanting to fight it - I know this psychological leach well. We’re told it is the sea with which our cultural and moral animus swims in - and yet, that hyphen in the term ought to immediately trigger our suspicions, if we be good Christian people.
Now, if you are reading this and you are from an Asiatic or African ancestry, it is unlikely this substack will be that relevant to you. This substack is primarily in response to European Neopagan claims regarding the Christian religion. You can read on if you wish to consider these things, but this substack will be very European focused, and you will likely not find anything here relevant to your faith or identity. I take no offense if you take off at this point. God bless you.
Now, as to the term “Judaeo-Christian”, the damage from that hyphen must be first emphasized. A great many of the Pagan’s rejection of Christianity derives from this, as well as - to a lesser extent - the atheist’s contestation. It signals to them that it is a foreign religion, come from a foreign land. Well, dear Christian reader, suppose I said they are right? Suppose I said we ought declare the pagans wise to see it as such. Suppose I said: “Pity the Christian that doesn’t”?
The question ought not be if Judaeo-Christian anything is foreign - it most certainly is. The question is if Christianity can exist without this hyphen - it must certainly can.
That hyphen ought to alert you that this is some kind of Frankensteinian mess in need of dissection. Were it not so, a term would exist to describe it without that hyphen. Train yourself in this: Where there be a hyphen, there be an agenda. I’ve heard it said that “Abrahamic” is more appropriate, but even the pagans can tell Medieval Europe was not the same as Medieval Islam, when pushed on the issue - and if not, they’re probably just atheists bored of atheism.
But, let us first establish an origin to the term, for both the Pagan and Christian appear wholly innocent to its origins, and whereabouts of its birth. If we use tools such as Google Books, we can set a broad publication range for the term - let’s say 1000AD through 1800AD - and find that it was, possibly, wholly absent from the Englishman’s tongue until the 19th century. Wikipedia seems to agree - not that it’s a reliable source - that the first use of the term comes from a letter by Alexander McCaul, dated 1821, in which he spoke of Jews who had abandoned Judaism and came to Christ. This is obviously not quite the same as the term is used today. So, if we expand our criteria across Europe - including the German phrase Judenchristlich, as well as the French equivalent - we find the term was used either to make fun of Christians attempting to live as Jews, or to Jews who had abandoned Judaism for Christ. One such amusing anecdote can be found back in 1589. American proponents of Judaeo-Christian morals may do well to learn it:
If you who are a Christian and live a Jewish life, why are you forcing the Jews to live a Christian life: You want to be snowed on and say to that the Jews should not be snowed on themselves
-Danck vnd Abdanck, By Sigmund Ernhoffer | 1589
(That may be from Galatians, but my German comprehension isn’t great.)
Regardless, the valuable data here is that, up to 1800, there is no use of the term “Judaeo-Christian” in the style we are familiar with today. That being, the so-called Judaeo-Christian morals, ethics, and culture shared between the two faiths. So at the very least, I can fix two axioms for this development:
Firstly: Judaeo-Christian identity was rejected up to the 19th c
Secondly: Judaeo-Christian identity has became popular since the 19th c
These axioms are useful in that we can limit our investigations to the past 223 years, between which we must understand how the Christian religion went from adversarial - most colorfully illustrated in Galatians 5:12 - to the near-wholly embracement of Judaic identity. This is vital in arguing with not only pagans, but also conservatives alike.
At this point I could be lazy, dear reader. It would be very easy to say these axioms point to one man in particular, responsible for creating a Judaeo-Christian identity: Friedrich Nietzsche. In his Der Antichrist he used the phrase, or rather he subverted the term, to mean what it does today. There is more to this story, however, and I will get into that later in this post. For now, know that he subverted this term so as to critique what he perceives as an ignored continuity between Judaism and Christianity - an argument I totally reject.
Now, if you’re a particular kind of autistic pagan reading this, settle down and hold your tongue. You can assume I’ve heard all your arguments for why Nietzsche is right. If you’re only seeking to repeat those lies - lies I acknowledge most Christians believe, mind you - then you need not read further. Go ahead and leave your to-be-deleted sperggery below in the comments. I already know you have decided you are right, you are the final word, and you hold the truth. This I cannot take from your heart, so there is no reason to read further. By your own words you know everything and there is nothing more this mere “Christcuck” could offer you.
Go ahead, off you go…
-If, however, you are not so insufferable, let me first question Nietzsche by asking a simple question:
What is Jewish?
Before we can contend with Nietzsche’s claims that Christianity is a Jewish religion, we must first identity what exactly makes something Jewish. I have asked this question around to some folks, and also ran a poll…
At 72%, blood relation won. Although all the options, and more, are worth discussing here, let’s start there, and slowly work back to Nietzsche’s claims.
Note: Dear Reader, this is something of a sister article of my previous article >>1692
The Task at Hand
At least once a week, someone asks me to pen my thoughts on Panchaia Theory - most of them unknowingly. What they really ask is my opinion on the origin of the Indo-European gods. In academic circles, both modern an ancient, Panchaia Theory was the most controversial answer: They were men - ancestral stories of elder kings and great warriors of even elder lore.
I have decided to finally sit down and write an article on said thoughts. By no means will this be a conclusive or all-encompassing article. I will be mostly focusing on Zeus and Apollo, but the process can be applied to any gods and goddesses you want to investigate for links to Noah. This article will also attempt to remain tethered to the topic via the thesis question:
Can the gods of the Indo-European pantheon be identified as biblical or historic characters, such as kings and warriors?
For starters, Jesus Christ himself seems to say yes, the gods are ancient men. He tells his audience that the gods were merely those blessed men of old to whom words from his Father in heaven had been spoken through:
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
-John 10
We can contrast Christ’s words to that of Justin Martyr, who supposed if they aren’t ancient men, they were likely demons (First Apology, etc) This understanding seems to come from traditions recorded in the Book of Enoch, which spells out the names and misdeeds of fallen Angels and victorious Angels that fought them - read that on your own time, we won’t be going into it here.
You shouldn’t fear my Christian bias here, Dear Reader. Bias is not a bad thing. Rather, one should present multiple biases. That’s better than pretending a matter is neutral. It is better to have a collection of biases to compare and contrast between, than none at all. I will try to include other biases too, so that you may find worth in these words, nonetheless, if you are interested in spiritual or historical matters from outside a Christian framework. But make no mistake, this is categorically a work of un-apologetic Christian propaganda.
However, let me take a pause here to bring up the scientific and secular (read: most likely) argument - something to contrast my thesis question with and allow the not-so-Christian reader to have something to stand on to argue against me:
The overwhelming system of beliefs we call Indo-European mythology are likely the results of some 60,000 years of generational tinkering and innovating in a vacuum.
Now, from the Christian perspective, this is entirely compatible with a Biblical worldview - albeit far less time in a vacuum if you’re a young earther. Christians would believe something along the lines of Japheth and his sons living in isolation from ancient times until contact with Christians. Indeed, it is said in the Old Testament that the Sons of Javan have not yet heard of YHWH’s glory (Isaiah 66:19). Javan here is a stand-in for the Greek peoples, which you will see is very provable further on. Also, as Japeth - the patriarch of Europe, son of Noah - sounds rather similar to d’Yeus Pater - the Indo-European head god - our biblical genealogy might even agree with their pantheon to some extent as well, but there are differences.
However, the temptation to quickly and thoughtlessly link the names must, too, be resisted. It is awfully lazy to simply say “that sounds similar so it must be so!” Don’t forget, Dear Reader, that the tower of Babel happened. Languages were confused. Names garbled. We must not only compare the names as they sound, but what they mean. And until we have a broader perspective, we must not assume. You are likely already aware of name changes like Jacob into Israel, or Joseph into Zaphenath-Paneah, or Daniel into Beltu Sharutsu (which I personally believe to be a variation of Zoroaster). Even God says his real name is "YHWH”, and El and Elohim merely pseudonyms, in Exodus 6:3. However, even with his pseudonyms there is variation. The Hebrew parts of the Bible use El and Elohim, while the Aramaic parts of the Bible use Allah. This shift is a result of centuries of accent changes and word exchanged with neighbors.
It is both these acts of renaming, and these gradual changes to pronunciation, we must keep in mind. Names simply drift with time, as accents change. Consider, Dear Reader, that Genesis was likely compiled some time between 1000BC through 500BC. Japheth was the name at that time. That does not mean Japheth was what he called himself, eons before that. It may very well be that in his day, Japheth called himself d’Yeus Pater, the heavenly Father of Europe. In time, this became deified to Zeus.
It is a common low-IQ debate style to argue that because a name changed, the Bible is unreliable, or indeed any text with alternate names is not reliable. These cavilers imagine some pretend world where Adam must have been speaking the queens English or something. They aren’t really worth debating or bringing up. One who opts to argue this has, by their tactic, revealed themselves to be a buffoon. Names change, and moreover their meanings can survive past a Tower of Babel situation, and centuries of linguistic evolution.
This piece is a follow-up to The Woodland: Alt Ecumenism(1) - graciously hosted by Tree of Woe - in which I took a pass at a establishing a barebones framework for bridging the gap between right-wing pagans and right-wing Christians. I am nominally Christian, but have long felt like I belong somewhere in the middle.
In this essay, I explore a form of Christianity that would be more recognizable to pagans.(2) Derived more from bloodlines and oral traditions than literalist sola scriptura Bible readings, it is more martial, more hierarchical, and more ethnic than the doctrine of any major denomination.(3) I discuss Jesus Christ as the god of a family hearth, the possibility that the Bible has been corrupted, what Christianity would look like based on oral tradition and mysticism, and what these ideas might mean for people (men especially) seeking real spirituality that will uplift them, their families, and their nations.
In short, I am Christian because my ancestors of the last 1,300 years were Christian and were rewarded with a world-dominating civilization. Modern scripture has been corrupted, so, like the neopagans, we must look to natural law and to historical examples to guide our worship.
LOST IN THE WOODLAND
I was raised Christian, but left the Church for many years for the religion of mainstream secularism. After having children and after several intense spiritual encounters, I felt the need to return to something that took these aspects of life more seriously.
But what would it be? Paganism was fake and Christianity was gay. What was a spiritually-awakened man to do? I won’t bore you with the entire journey (which I am still on anyway). After spending time with scriptures and thinking from several ancestral religions (mostly Norse paganism and Christianity), I returned to Christianity.
Despite my conversion, pagan criticism of the modern Church haunted me. These critics pointed out that Christians - without so much justification as stern Quaker pacifism - had allowed, or even enabled, the horrors of FBI Community Relations “forgiveness,” mass immigration, Rotherham, coerced mRNA treatments, and a host of day-to-day indignities too numerous to catalog.
These critiques burned into my psyche not because they were slander, but because they were true. I had the same misgivings. Most of the modern Church is an embarrassment at best and an active danger to its flocks at worst.
But the Church isn’t God. Despite the sorry state of Christian institutions, I returned to the worship of Christ for reasons that are, ironically, essentially pagan. My own understanding of Christianity is rooted in history, natural law, esoterica, and ancestry.
GOD OF MY FATHERS
The Christian God and Jesus Christ are the Gods of my ancestors basically as far back as I can trace. My surname first appears in the historical record with a group of Bretons in Charlemagne’s army.(4) Yes, the Charlemagne of famously, er, assertive theology.(5) Any identifiable religious practice since then has been entirely Christian.(6)
And God has been good to us. “Where are the frost giants?” quips aside, the family has survived in one form or fashion through many disasters and wars. We survived through the strife of the Scottish border era, the French and Indian Wars, and the Revolutionary War. My fifth-great-grandfather was one of the few survivors of the doomed 17th Continental Regiment destroyed at the Battle of Brooklyn; his son would become a Reverend.
He was with us then and He was with us as we spread from coast to coast. We spread westward with the borders, fighting in and surviving almost every intervening war through WWII.7
Now, some readers may be wondering why a White American would want to worship a “Jewish” god. I don’t really have anything against Jews, but this is just an excuse not to evaluate Christianity on its own merits. I understand not liking what Christianity has become, but pretending that the Christian God is not the God of our ancestors is just plugging your ears and humming.
First, the assertion that Christianity is Jewish because Jesus came from Israel is like asserting that spaghetti is Peruvian food because that’s where tomatoes came from. Europe has been manifestly and uniquely Christian for nearly 2,000 years. The idea that King Arthur, the Magna Carta, the Notre Dame cathedral, or German bratwurst are Jewish is absurd.
Second, the idea that a specific God goes with a specific people only makes sense if you believe people create God and not vice versa. Lots of guys have been trying to recreate a God they like from the ether to limited effect. If divine entities are real, they’re certainly bigger than human cultures.
Third, if astral deities interact with multiple groups of human beings, that does not mean that every group will reflect that interaction the same way. There may be a culture you don’t want to emulate by worshipping the same deity (whether that’s Jewish, or Episcopalian, or whatever). I don’t believe you have to. I have two kids. They are different. They each get slightly different rules, privileges, and treatment based on what is best for them. If I can do that and I’m just a dumb human, I’m sure God can figure it out.
If you find a real God, try to get on His side. How do you do that? The pagan approach was to pray to a god and if it answered your prayers, keep praying to it.
This essay argues that "the Current Thing" - media-driven narratives that capture public attention - has become a secular substitute for religion in the West. These narratives offer emotional engagement but lack the depth, meaning, and permanence of traditional faith. As people rush from one crisis to the next, society loses spiritual grounding and moral coherence. It suggests that the way to resist it is not to react to it - which only strengthens the narratives - but by turning inwards to focus on our natural interests and talents via individuation.
Welcome back. In prior posts I’ve mentioned the Current Thing, which is basically any media narrative that the mainstream media highlights for a prolonged period of time which elicits public participation in the process, even though individuals have little to no ability to actually impact the outcome. It is a dance between the elites and the public; the elites can try to force a narrative onto the public, but unless it leads to mass attention, excitement and participation it will not likely have the desired effect. Because in a so-called “democracy” those who shape mass public opinion have the power (i.e. the owners of mass media), control is exercised through the dissemination of mass narratives whose underlying goals are to increase oligarchical power at the expense of the public in whatever creative expressions are needed to achieve it.
I discussed 113 recent Current Thing narratives in this post (see how many you recognize), but a couple of things to note:
The Current Thing may or not have any relation to underlying reality. We live in an era of Baudrillian hyper-reality which is basically completely divorced from underlying reality, as discussed here. This dynamic mirrors the concerns of Marshall McLuhan, who famously argued that “the medium is the message,” emphasizing that media doesn’t just transmit information but it reshapes our perception of reality itself; the Current Thing conditions how people think and feel through its immersive media environment. Guy Debord argued that in a world dominated by images and representations, authentic engagement has been replaced by passive consumption of symbolic action. And as Michael Ginsburg explains, the use of AI to supercharge the Current Thing is becoming even more effective and persuasive, where a recent study shows it is 6x more effective at persuasion than human experts on Reddit’s Change My View forum:
The Current Thing usually requires performative public participation. It separates the population into camps of “good” (who basically believe in the expansion of the national security state, degradation of law and order, whig history-as-progress, and infinite race/gender “egalitarianism”) and “bad” (who believe in freedom, law and order, and acceptance of inegalitarianism) where the “good” performatively but inauthentically signal their virtue and support of the establishment as passionately as possible, even though their support ultimately makes their own lives worse (which they then blame on the “bad” camp).
The Current Thing may or may not have emotional or intellectual payoff - it usually doesn’t - but what’s guaranteed is that elites pushing the Current Thing, no matter how false or morally or legally wrong it is, will be protected from punishment. The elite participants have what is called a krisha, or institutional protection (this is a Russian mob term, just as applicable here). This is why Lord Fauci and the other higher-ups who pushed fraudvirus and the deathjabs will never be punished, and why no one was punished for Obama’s Spygate operation either (even though it was 100x worse than Watergate). Participate in the narrative based on the elite’s instructions, be protected from fallout.
The public will not remember the Current Thing after it’s over; they will be too distracted by the next Current Thing. The public has basically zero collective memory whatsoever no matter the topic. A Current Thing narrative from just a couple months ago, such as the Pacific Palisades fires or the D.C. helicopter crash, feels like ten years ago, and the further technology develops the faster the forgetting happens.
It does not matter whether one accepts or rejects the narrative of the Current Thing, because simply engaging in the narrative strengthens it. This is why if one pushes back against the proponents of the Current Thing it always serves to energize them to the point where they enthusiastically double down on their efforts. The only way to respond is to ignore it. Furthermore, rejecting the Current Thing - such as rejecting the mainstream narrative of COVID’s origination in favor of the Lab Leak Theory - still plays dialectically into the hands of the elites pushing the narrative; one may note that the Lab Leak Theory still accepts the underlying premise that the COVID virus was real and dangerous, thereby accepting what resulted from it: the lockdowns, the forced heart attack jabs, the $11 trillion printed where most of it flowed to the upper elites, the massive increase in asset valuations and inflation. Heads they win, tails you lose.
While the public has always been interested in the Current Thing - which is on some level equivalent with bread and circus entertainment, much like the Romans had - it is the advent of technology, the immediate feedback loop caused by instantaneous communication, that has turned it into the whirling dirvish we see today. This is in line with Rene Guenon’s conception of the increasing solidification of the world, previously discussed here, where time seems to speed up in this era, which he called the Kali Yuga, until it can no longer speed up any more, whereby there will eventually be a radical shift and a new era of time will begin.
Because of these factors, what we are seeing - without anyone really identifying it, at least not in this way and not to the extent I’ve seen - is that the Current Thing has morphed into the religion for the modern West. A civilization’s religion is ultimately determined by what it pays attention to; we may think of Western civilization now as Christian, but organized religion is really not a primary focus of modernity - how much do you talk to others in your life about God?
Compare this to the perspective pervading the Byzantine empire as a counterpoint. It is hard to understand for those of us raised in the secular, liberal, nihilistic West, but the Church at the time provided an all-encompassing worldview that grounded its followers and gave him a reasoning for his suffering, which was mentioned in Timothy/Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Church (1963). All of Byzantium was abuzz with Christological questions about the nature of Jesus and the Trinity reflected in the ongoing disputes between the Arians, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, etc., which resulted in regular and ongoing acts of physical violence between the sects. The debates during the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon were not just theological but deeply influential in shaping the empire's identity:
Not without reason has Byzantium been called ‘the icon of the heavenly Jerusalem’. Religion entered into every aspect of Byzantine life. The Byzantine’s holidays were religious festivals; the races which he attended in the Circus began with the singing of hymns; his trade contracts invoked the Trinity and were marked with the sign of the Cross. Today, in an untheological age, it is all but impossible to realize how burning an interest was felt in religious questions by every part of society, by laity as well as clergy, by the poor and uneducated as well as the Court and the scholars. Gregory of Nyssa describes the unending theological arguments in Constantinople at the time of the second General Council: ‘The whole city is full of it, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask ‘Is my bath ready?’ the attendant answers that the Son was made from nothing.’
It should be apparent that what was so hotly debated and focused on during the Byzantine empire has been totally replaced by the media-derived Current Thing.
The Current Thing as the West’s Religion
The Current Thing has transformed attention, belief, and identity into fast-moving cycles of collective focus, roughly equivalent to the attention that was given to religion in prior eras. Here are ways this phenomenon mirrors and replaces traditional religious structures:
Ritual participation: People demonstrate allegiance to the Current Thing through symbolic acts such as changing profile pictures, hashtags, donations, or protests, much like religious rituals that reinforce community and belief.
Sacred dogma: Each Current Thing comes with a set of moral imperatives of what one must believe, say, or denounce. Dissent is treated as heresy with social and career punishment akin to excommunication.
High priests and prophets: Influencers, media personalities and corporations act as interpreters or enforcers of the Current Thing, shaping the narrative and directing mass emotion much like religious leaders once did.
Collective catharsis: The fervor around a Current Thing offers emotional release akin to shared religious experiences. These moments help people feel part of something bigger, if only briefly.
Mythic time: Like ancient myths, each Current Thing occupies a mythic moment of crisis, righteousness, or injustice, but is quickly overwritten. A helicopter crash or wildfire from months ago becomes ancient history, even though the real impact lingers.
Moral identity: Believing in and broadcasting the Current Thing becomes a proxy for being a "good person" in the public square. Virtue is tied not to enduring principles but to correct alignment in the present news cycle.
Secular eschatology: There’s often a tone of apocalyptic urgency: the world will end (or justice will never come) unless we act now. Once the storm passes, the eschaton resets until the next crisis.
In this way, the Current Thing fills the spiritual vacuum left by declining religious practice with a rolling substitute: fast, emotional, moral, and communal, but ultimately rootless and amnesiac.
However, the Current Thing is not exactly equivalent to replacing religion. There are major deficiencies with the approach. Traditional religion is rooted in transcendence and metaphysics, offering frameworks that connect individuals to eternal truths, divine beings, or cosmic order. In contrast, the Current Thing is entirely immanent, grounded in temporal concerns with no reference to the sacred or eternal. Religion builds enduring institutions and traditions that persist across centuries; the Current Thing is ephemeral and reactive, driven by the 24-hour news cycle and social media. Unlike religion, which offers sacred texts, coherent doctrine, and paths to personal transformation, the Current Thing lacks any canon or consistent metaphysical worldview. Its rituals are low-cost and performative rather than disciplines requiring sacrifice or inward growth. Religion explains suffering within a redemptive arc and provides hope, meaning, and eschatological vision. The Current Thing offers outrage and urgency but no deeper story or resolution. It creates fleeting digital swarms, not enduring communities with transhistorical bonds. While it may fill a spiritual vacuum for a secular society, the Current Thing lacks the depth, coherence, and permanence of true religion.
The Consequences of Replacing Religion with the Current Thing
Replacing religion with the Current Thing is having profoundly negative consequences for society. Traditional religion offers meaning, moral continuity, community and a framework for enduring suffering, all of which help anchor human life. When that foundation is replaced by the ever-shifting priorities of media-driven narratives, people are left spiritually unmoored, reacting to emotional stimuli without a stable sense of identity or purpose. The result is a population caught in perpetual outrage, anxiety, and distraction, lacking the inner resources to face hardship with resilience or find joy in quiet, enduring truths. Morality becomes situational and performative rather than rooted in principle, and community becomes fragmented, based on temporary alignments rather than lasting bonds. The constant churn of narratives also breeds cynicism and fatigue, eroding trust in institutions and each other. In the absence of transcendence or a coherent metaphysical vision, society has descended further into nihilism, where belief is replaced by spectacle and attention becomes the ultimate currency. This in turn creates even more fertile ground for manipulation, conformity, and a hollow sense of moral urgency that burns out just as quickly as it ignites, leaving nothing lasting behind.
Conclusion
The strangest thing about the Current Thing is how very few participants seem to understand how it serves as a religious proxy for them; they act out the religious impulse without understanding where it came from. The alt right were the first ones to identify this phenomenon back during the Trump 1.0 era with the NPC meme, which identified how media shaped and manipulated various personality types (i.e. non-autists) into becoming robotic spouters of establishment ideology with no independent thinking whatsoever. But it didn’t go deeper than this by linking the Current Thing to filling the void left by the death of religion in an era of secularism. It doesn’t fit well, but it’s what we have in the meantime.
So what is the way out? I would argue that Carl Jung’s concept of individuation offers a personal antidote to the shallow, collective fixation of the Current Thing. Individuation is the process by which an individual turns inward, confronting the unconscious, and integrates the various aspects of the psyche, including their shadow and the anima/animus. It requires listening to one’s inner voice via intuition, dreams, symbols, and aligning with a personal destiny that may run entirely counter to society’s demands. In Jung’s view, this is the highest form of responsibility: becoming oneself in order to contribute authentically to the world. As I argued in this Note:
People are a hodgpodge of competing impulses and desires. The individuation process is about trying to synthesize these different impulses and desires and funneling them toward what we are meant to accomplish in this life based on our intuition (which is a combination of what we are good at and what we naturally pay attention to in our free time). Jung recommends things like active imagination, dream journaling, writing, doing art, etc, to bring out our intuition.
This is important because technology molds people into being commodified widgets, all thinking the same shitlib nonsense from the media they consume. The way out of this is to tune out the Current Thing and to listen more to intuition. That requires strengthening our intuition, which requires an approach like Jung's.
In a cultural landscape dominated by the Current Thing individuation stands in stark contrast; it is the opposite of the blackpill on a personal level. Where the Current Thing pulls the individual outward into collective hysteria and performative virtue, individuation draws one inward, into solitude, reflection, and enduring truth. By pursuing individuation a person cultivates inner resilience and discernment, making them far less susceptible to propaganda, mass emotion, or the fear of social exclusion. In this way, Jung’s path may be one of the only real defenses against the dehumanizing, fragmenting effects of a society addicted to the superficial moral drama of the moment. It is a return to depth in an age of distraction.
Ultimately this choice cannot be avoided. Either become who you are meant to become via individuation, or become an unthinking NPC dancing to the Current Thing and full of soul-sapping neurosis. If you don’t decide on a direction proactively the decision will be made for you and against your interests. Here’s Jung on this:
And in this wonderful post Clintavo links the esoteric meaning of Jesus’ parable of the talents to the individuation process.
I hope this has been helpful to you along your journey. Thanks for reading.
Anyone know anything about picrel?
Antichrist is a generic term for any donut hole who claims to be Jesus, or a messiah of some kind. I don't like to use it to avoid confusion. I prefer the term, "The Beast," which is the one John uses to describe the false messiah/world leader of the end times. He's a half burger mutt with an Egyptian father and an American, presumably White, mother. He claims he is the rightful heir to just about everything. Descendant of mohammed, next in line to Jesus, he's the true Pope, all kinds of titles he claims. This guy is now claiming his followers killed pope Bergolio. Primarily he's a muslim figure, but also claims to be the leader of Christians. Is he The Beast of Revelation? Probably not. Is he one of the many antichrists Jesus warned us about? Probably. But time will tell I guess.
A jewtube overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOlKdfxrgRw
Here's where he claims he killed Bergolio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pfCMhDiVAA&t
For you fans of predictive programming, note how similar he looks to Randall Flagg of the TV miniseries, The Stand.
One more note: In all the photos and videos I've seen of this guiy so far, he always wears a winter hat pulled down over his forehead. Angels are said to have their names written of their foreheads. Including the fallen ones. Somebody needs to ask him to take off the hat sometime.
The philosophy about death is a beautiful one if handled by intellects and not rednecks who can't even read.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrtBqmxwaN4
For Christians only people above the age of 65+ should be able to go to church and it should be banned from schools. A young life has no business thinking about death and worshipping his superior or a proxy of said superior(ergo his parents & the government).
The vikings philosophy about not fearing death was good.
However all religions share some universally bad cliches in common; Worship of an ignorant superior and condescending the planet you were born on and looking to live in the afterlife ironically by living in the current life rather than stopping all procreation or using eugenics and then following a superior being rather than considering yourself equal or above it. All these religions promote antilife, slavery and irresponsibility.
Actually taking care of the life you're currently in necessitates responsibility. Actually holding standards for yourself and your gods necessitates responsibility and intelligence which the stupid and mediocre do not have, especially the mentally insane which religious people are.
Life-long worship till death of someone blatantly above you is obviously a parasitic choice by humans because they spend 1/4 of their life not only guided by parents but by society. Animals in this case are more evolved than humans , barely taking 1/202 of their lifespan till they reach maturity and become independent and are capable of eating anything and living anywhere. As such humans attempt a bee, ant or naked molerat colony.
In fact the pregnancy of a woman is parasitic and I mean that literally and biologically ... the baby eats half the resources of the mother and influences her personality and almost encumbers her completely as well as making her die ... compared to animals you understand why I'd say they're superior or why conspiracy theorists say we a byproduct of an alien breeding with a monkey.
Religion/philosophy is shaped by biology and the life you lived. Had Jesus lived somewhere more hospitable and civilized then he wouldn't be such a hippy.
Religion would change if humans would mature up in just 6 weeks and the standard would be you cannot have children unless you give them a place where to live and many other things to become independent from you. Overpopulation is a problem started by stupid cells without regulation. Standards must be had. Suicide being considered a sin shows just how much of a jewish-slave religion Christianity is, meanwhile birth, regulation and standards over birth aren't. But as you can clearly see despite whites adopting what is considered an Ottoman religion they still refuse to breed, it's the colder climate and the whites' self regulation because caucasians do not have cancer cells/heatwaves that make them feel the need to breed 24/7. Animals breed only during spring, imagine climates where it's always spring and summer as opposed to autumn and seasons. Biology cannot be argued with, it's objective. Hence why intellects cannot thrive and instead they need to pander and modify the environment down to the cell to stand a chance. And also cause humans simply aren't fit for the environment. They're like a nice niche, a talented autist ... but unfortunately 99% of autists (brown people) are just 100% broken and only the 1% are worth keeping. Once again, standards. Hollywood jews(browns) are obsessed with projecting and lumping everything into "humanity" and ignoring benevolent people and intelligent people and treating all healthy cells as cancer or rather cancer as good.
Moving posts that are offtopic in pol, here. Filter if you wish.
The idea that you could have an easy, hands-off, complacent conservatism was faulty from the beginning.
Chesterton: "All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post."
hahahaha the gates of hell shall not prevail against it hahahaha
Primarily debate around Christianity in right-wing spaces revolves entirely around,
>Is Christianity Jewish?
and
>Is Christianity supported or opposed by Jews?
But very few debates are just about Christianity's values and its usefulness in regards to movements that are ultimately White identitarian in their true values and goals. And in these two senses, Christianity is an obvious failure whether it's Jewish or not, and whether Jews like it or not. Consider the following:
Christianity's most holy of holy texts are the Gospels. One can presume that if the Gospels say one thing and for example Saint Clement of Rome says a different thing, that the idea in the Gospels will win out over the ideas of Saint Clement of Rome. Even Clement himself would grant this. So if two competing ideas are in conflict we can presume that the version of the idea in the Gospels will defeat the idea added later, whether in other books in the New Testament or writings from later Christians. So if you have writings from a crusader in the Middle Ages, great, it does not override what Jesus himself said and did in the Gospels.
What the Gospels teach better than anything else is forgiveness, compassion for people different/lower in status than yourself, teaching, healing, giving to the poor, healing the sick and pacifism. Forgiveness is Jesus's most common activity in the Gospels. Many stories and parables are centered around demonstrating that people who normally would only get scorn, such as members of rival ethnic groups or tax collectors from Rome or sinful women, are instead treated with grace and dignity by Jesus. He forgives their sins. Jesus also spends time teaching at the temple, he drives out demons, heals the sick, distributes free food to crowds and raises at least one dead man. And in the final act of his story, he allows his enemies to kill him by crucifixion.
What is notably absent from the Gospels are any of the following; insular group identities, veneration of strength, justification of violence, or any drive toward worldly domination. Jesus's stories about getting along with Samaritans or tax collectors are purposefully arranged to sidestep the more instinctive sense of "in-group" and "out-groups" that we find in all human societies all over the world. Jesus in one gospel whips some people out of the Court of Gentiles one time. In every other instance he not only avoids violence, he corrects those who do it; the story about the disciple who sells his cloak and buys a sword says exactly that. Jesus reminds the disciple that if he wanted to win by force he could summon a legion of angels at any time. Jesus specifically states in the Beautitudes that he places the weak over the strong and the disgusting over the beautiful in heaven. He tells his disciples to throw away their earthly things and the story of the rich young man also communicates that Jesus doesn't just ignore material things, he says merely possessing them threatens your eternal soul. And of course the end of the story is that rather than dominating others, Jesus allows himself to be crucified. He does rise from the dead, but it is for a few days, where he travels around in secret and then ascends to heaven with all of his enemies unpunished. Even Judas Iscariot has to punish himself rather than being punished.
The direct and plain reading of the Gospels is that if you're a Christian who follows Christ and thinks he's the most moral person to have ever lived, your goal is to be as meek, poor, giving and forgiving as possible. It is your job to be like the priests and monks through the ages who have allowed themselves to be killed in service of the faith or simply dedicated all their time and efforts to others, no matter their race, sex or creed.
So we can end with a simple question; do the Gospels really teach a way to live life that serves the end goals of White Identitarians of any stripe? The answer is obviously no. If what Whites need is to band together, stand up for ourselves and fight back against others, this way of life that Jesus both taught and lived is the exact opposite of what Whites should be doing with their time.
The clear reality is that no right-wing Christian is Christian in the sense of following Christ's teachings. They are Christians only in the sense that Christianity has a long history and instinctive conservatives and reactionaries are going to cling to the imagery they remember from their childhood or see in pictures of the past, no matter what the actual content of the religion is. But if you feel like you need some kind of spiritual shell for your actual beliefs of White Identity, there are obviously better options that aren't secretly full of teachings that run exactly counter to your actual beliefs.
>Well what do YOU believe?
The focus of this thread should be on Christianity. I think which religion you'd like to pretend to have (again you're all de facto atheists) is a separate discussion. Even if I believe completely retarded things (and I may well), that wouldn't mean Christianity was any more or less wrong.
I'm so jaded now, I didn't think there was anything left that could shock me. Then I woke up this morning and discovered a burger had been elected pope. Why is that shocking you ask? Highly exclusive old boys clubs do not like to be told by outsiders how things are going to be inside their club. The Vatican is such a club. Old boys clubs like to make sure everybody knows, we make the decisions not you. They don't even like to leave an insinuation that somebody from outside might have told them what to do. They don't like maybes either.
Last week the Dumper pulled one of his juvenile retard idiot stunts, claiming he should be pope, even though he isn't even a rat catholic. That should have prompted the ultimate knee jerk from the old boys at the Vatican. A statement from the Vatican sounding something like:
>There will probably not be a burger pope elected in the next 10,000 years. The college of Cardinals decides the matter, not orange jew clowns.
should have been issued.
Maybe not that harsh, but along those lines. Instead they elected a fucking burger as their pope not a week later. I honestly no longer have a handle on what's going on in the world. Is everybody afraid of this clown? I think that is part of it. But more importantly, I think we're seeing the genesis of an axis of evil forming here that may morph into The Beast Of Revelation, and his False Prophet. We have:
>A burger lunatic who thinks he's king of the world
>Paired with a burger lunatic who thinks he's God's spokesman here on earth.
>And it all fell together in just a couple of months.
Some are saying that ideologically, they're miles apart. And that may be true. But watch for these two to do a Vulcan mind meld in the next few months or years. And if you start hearing shit like:
>I met the Donald, and he seems like a very dedicated man of God.
And you hear the same shit going in the other direction. You better start to pay attention. The Great Tribulation may have just started.
Why are pagans such disgusting degenerates?
Paganism must certainly be the ultimate psyop: Believe in everything and nothing simultaneously while pretending to be some sort of "rebel" against a religion which normies barely understand. It's a form of fence sitting where one never has to take a strong moral position against faggotry, jerking off, hippie-dippy bullshit, good and evil, etc. while simultaneously pretending to be some sort of high-minded idealist who's struggling against the establishment.
Who will it be? No wrong answers.
Is it just a version of the black Israelite movement but for white people . "We wuz the real jews n sheit." I'm guessing one of the anons who keeps spamming /pol/ is one and I have seen them over at 4pol spaming . Do they believe Jesus was white and Isrealities where white peopl? If Christian identity anon shows up could you explain your beliefs?
There is a popular meme spread by feds around the internet that goes by a number of different names: "Christfag", "Christcuck", "Abrahamism", which alleges that Christianity is a Jewish ploy to defang the gentiles. Unfortunately, the only conspiracy is that the CIA/FBI has spent the past 70 years infiltrating seminaries, blackmailing priests, using Catholic church NGO's to wash their money, etc. The same feds trafficking children now want to ensure that their only political resistance: true Christians- not the effiminized and faggy/captured Protestants- are unable to organize with each other to form a resistance.
Paganism isn't a solution- it proposes nothing beyond being that which Christianity isn't. Paganism lacks ontological arguments, it lacks any sort of coherent metaphysics, it lacks any and all theological foundations found by the other "real" faith traditions. Instead, paganism is whatever the user base wants it to be- one day they are hugging trees and acting like homosexuals, the next they are pretending that Wicca is a masculine virtue and "based". The next they are larping as Thor because they are literally so retarded they believe Marvel comic book characters are their gods. Pagans insult Christianity because apart from quoting Nietzsche or Evola, they have no real arguments to speak of and frankly are an embarassment to themselves and others.
Christianity is the ultimate political structure, prove me wrong: Pro-tip, you can't.
Why?
Historical Christianity provides a legal structure, the metaphysical justification for aristocracy, the philosophical framework for "Divine Right", stands in opposition to the arbitrariness of social moores which aren't founded in the timeless natural order (i.e. the whim of a king is not legal justification for an action). Additionally, as pointed out by philosophers of past ages, what is unique about the Western Christian faith is that it posits that through the existence of one's soul, one has value. Christianity doesn't need material explanations for political positions because it's the precise rejection of materialism (Nietschian "will to power" and utiliatarianism) which provides the justification for one's spiritual value to the community. Further, Christianity also includes the equal rejection of Communism and other reductionist economic theories which seek to diminish the value of one's soul. It is only through this lens that we may come to understand the value of Syndicalist and Distributist thought.
Consequently, I posit that no individual who seeks the truth can come to the conclusion that Christianity as a framework is wrong. In fact, the opposite is true: the shear number of individuals shilling against this idea points to its validity.
Livestream:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsoWMOFafk
Summary of the conclave so far: Storm clouds gather over Europe, mistrust and rivalries between realms threaten to break and flood the world in a tide of total war.
Place your bets.
What does it mean to turn the other cheek? Do we allow others to assault us? if you read the verse there is even more jesus says that if some wants to use you for your shirt you should give them your coat.
How can we do this?
>“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
Matthew 5:38-40
Are we literally supposed to cut off our balls ? Or just live like eunuchs? What do these words of jesus mean?
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born ((( king of the Jews? ))) We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Mathew 2:2
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
Luke 2:21
==When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
>The Samaritan woman said to him, ((( “You are a Jew ))) and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.==
John 4:7
Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely you don’t mean me, ((( Rabbi?” ))) Jesus answered, “You have said so.
Matthew 26:25
Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, ((( “Greetings, Rabbi!” ))) and kissed him.
Matthew 26:49
Peter said to Jesus, ((( “Rabbi, ))) it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
Mark 9:5
“What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him. The blind man said, ((( “Rabbi, ))) I want to see.”
Mark 10:51
"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, ((( he went to the synagogue ))) on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read."
LUKE 4:16
"Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, 'Jesus of Nazareth, the ((( King of the Jews ))).'"
John 19:19
"Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee."
Philippians 3:5
But he is a ((( Jew, which is one inwardly ))); and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 2:29
It's a twitter story, which everybody hates, so I won't link to it. There's a report out that the fires were started by filthy child of Satan kikes trying to set fire to an olive orchard owned by Palestinians. You reap what you sow.
It also brings to mind the fall of Babylon The Great, destroyed by fire in one day. It seems a bit too early for this to be it. But it might be God giving the children of Satan a little taste of what's to come. We know from Revelation, Jerusalem is rocked by earthquakes at least twice in the run up to the burning of the Great Whore. So it wouldn't be out of character for God to give them a preview of what they have coming to them if they don't shape up. But I don't think he expects children of Satan to shape up. If they did, he wouldn't have to burn Jerusalem like he did Sodom and Gomorrah.
Zen is a specific type of Buddhism, using Buddhas as their figures and Buddhist metaphysics for their worldview. However Zen has a particular tone to it, and an immediate practicality free of dependence on metaphysics, that made it very popular among modern Westerners.
Zen is not necessarily a canon. It's definitely not a set of rules, restrictions and commands, the form that Abrahamic or Hindu religion usually takes. It even drops the idea of reverence for heavenly figures; everyone can be a Buddha in their mind. Zen is more a way of life, an outlook; the idea of enlightenment in the Zen sense is closer to the idea of gnosis than the idea of piety.
The traditional method of teaching Zen is for the master to present a koan; something like a riddle and a story at the same time; to a student and for the student to provide an answer to the story. If the master judges that the student has attained the bit of zen in the story, then it's a pass. Otherwise, the student is pressed to continue thinking about it.
So in this thread I'll present some koans and you anons can give your answers; and we'll see if any feel right.
Someone explain it to me.
He's king of who and what?
Was there a coronation ceremony or something?
Why is he your king personally?
I don't get it.
This is a timeline I created of the events of the Book Of Revelation, in the order they are listed in Revelation. I don't think it is necessarily the order in which they occur purely. Just the order in which John discussed them. It's a huge file, about a 15MB .PNG. I printed a paper copy that was 15 legal sized pages long. It's big. Way too big to display properly in the picrel. The picrel is just a small excertp of it. To get the full thing in a viewable form, go to the link, right click, and open the image in a new window. It'll display in full readable resolution, and you can save it from there if you want to.
Not every verse is included. Only events that we might be able to see, hear, or experience are included. The timeline is not a substitute for reading Revelation. But it might be an aid to help you visualize what is going on. Obvious groups events are color coded. I've added a feature that points you to other related items in the timeline. Not necessary the same event in all cases, but events that are similar. For instance, one event may include great earthquakes and a hail storm. Further down the timeline is another event that includes earthquakes and hail. The red letters under the verse number will point you to it.
Eventually I'll add in other verses from other places in the Bible that discuss these events. When I finish it, I'll post it here as an update. If you've ever had trouble understanding Revelation, I think seeing it in this format, might be a big help for you.
https://ibb.co/fGxj3v88
ᚓᚄ ᚂᚒᚌ ᚏᚔᚕᚄ! “Lugh is King!”
(Es Lúġ Ríċs!) “Lugh is King!”
/es l͈ˠuːɣ r͈ʲiːxs!/ “Lugh is King!”
<Lúġ Loindḃéimmenaċ, Ríċs inna nGoíḋel
<Lugh Fierce Striker, King of the Gaels
>A man fair and tall, with a great head of curly yellow hair. He has a green mantle wrapped about him and a brooch of white silver in the mantle over his breast. Next to his white skin, he wears a tunic of royal satin with red-gold insertion reaching to his knees. He carries a black shield with a hard boss of white-bronze. In his hand a five-pointed spear and next to it a forked javelin. Wonderful is the play and sport and diversion that he makes (with these weapons). But none accosts him and he accosts none as if no one could see him.
>...they were not long there when they saw an army and a goodly host coming towards them from the East, and in the vanguard there was one young man high in authority over all; and like to the setting sun was the radiance of his face and forehead, and they were unable to gaze upon his countenance on account of its splendour. And this is who it was - Lugh Lamhfhada Loinnbheimionach...from the Land of Promise...and when the Cathbarr (Manannan's helmet) was let off of him the appearance of his face and forehead was as brilliant as the sun on a dry summer's day.
Anything that is not roman Catholicism is heretical nonsense that was brought into this world by the traitorous Martin Luther and if practiced is a heretical highway to hell . Only the catholic church has unbroken apostolic succession and only the catholic church can offer baptism comunion and salvation . No other church can do this because no other church is Christian. If you want to love and serve christ you can only do so through the Catholic church.
Daily reminder that Yahweh is a demon invented by OOGA BOOGA sandniggers for the purpose of human sacrifices.
There was never a deity called "Molech", and the Bible never explicitly says such a deity existed except when deliberately mistranslated. "molech" is not even a proper noun according to how it's used grammatically.[1] The idea of a god named Molech is apologetic smoke and mirrors used to obscure the fact that human sacrifices were traditionally dedicated to Yahweh. A "molech" is actually a type of sacrifice,[2] and Yahweh was a primary recipient of these molech offerings.[3] The victim was killed, bled out, then burned[4] at a "tophet", a site for ritual incineration.[5] Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac as a molech, or whole burnt offering, to Yahweh.
Isaiah 30:33
>For his[6][7] tophet (ritual firepit) is arranged from before;
>He himself[8] has even been made ready for the molech[9] (burnt offering);
>He has made deep:
>he has made large:
>its pile—
>fire and wood being made abundant;
>The breath of YHWH,
>as a stream of brimstone,
>[is] burning in it!
[1] Lipiński, p. 103
[2] Stavrakopoulou, p. 153
[3] Lipiński, p. 108
[4] ibid., p. 104
[5] Stavrakopoulou, p. 140
[6] Cross, p.3,10-11
[7] Lipiński, p. 107
[8] Stavrakopoulou, p. 149
[9] Lipiński, p. 107
• Cross, Andrew. 2014. A Textual Analysis of Isaiah 30. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. https://arcalog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Isaiah-30-Textual-Analysis.pdf
• Lipiński, E., 2015. ‘Shall I Offer My Eldest Son?’(Mi. 6: 7). The Biblical Annals, 5(62/1), pp.95-109. https://czasopisma.kul.pl/ba/article/download/464/384
• Stavrakopoulou F. 2013. The Jerusalem Tophet: Ideological Dispute and Religious Transformation, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici, volume 29-30, pages 137-158. https://www.academia.edu/7656412/The_Jerusalem_Tophet_Ideological_Dispute_and_Religious_Transformation
Bible scholar, Daniel McClellan, on what a molech is:
https://youtube.com/shorts/EhV7_6zM_ps
https://youtu.be/RzHDYUESLQ8
Judges 11
>30And Jephthah made a vow to YHWH and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be YHWH’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”
>34Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.
>39And […] she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.
It helps if people with very similar goals treat each other with respect even if there are strong religious disagreements.
It all comes down to your perception of base reality and your opinion about man's place in the universe. To what extent you may be aware of the elite's occult shenanigans and some more obscure threads in history which are still at the core of the current paradigms which you are trying to argue.
Every conversation wrt spirituality, religion and history should be strictly aimed at figuring things out in good faith and heavily moderated. I'm Christian and I think I have a better grasp of the structure of our existence than many pagans, I still think it might be wiser to involve more neutral third parties in discussions and not try to play crusader when others don't know wtf you are talking about.
The other side ofc would be the kind of pagans just screeching against Dad, atheists who are completely unaware of the elements of the discussion and largely involve themselves out of malice and the odd self-sabotaging sectarian besides many jewish shills who think Jesus = Catholicism = Rome = Babylon = Amalek = Holocaust and want you to die jerking off in a cuck tube.
Many more sides to it than would be comfortable if you want a straightforward picture or an easy solution. Can't "Occam's razor" world history.
We are his little minions who prepare things for his royal come back. Soon hopefully
Let all their wickedness come before thee; and do unto them, as thou hast done unto me for all my transgressions: for my sighs are many, and my heart is faint
This is a thread for compiling problems and arguments against Christianity. I'd appreciate anything you have to share. Thanks!
Ahmadiyya: The Ahmadi's are just more quasi-Sufi fags, another broken off branch of Shitslam, under the Maturidi creed of the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam.
The Ahmadi branch of Islam was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in Qadian, Punjab, India. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad blended the Hanafi jurisprudence with the Mujaddidi tariqah in the Naqshbandi order of Sufi Islam.
Fuck Islam.
Fuck Muhammad.
Fuck Allah.
Amen.
Daily reminder that Jews react to the cross in about the same way as Dracula.
Daily reminder that Jews hate and fear Christianity more than almost anything else: just watch Bill Maher or Rachel Maddow.
Daily reminder that there are more Christians with genius-level IQ than there are Jews of any kind.
Daily reminder that Jews literally cannot say "Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and savior", even on an anonymous imageboard.
Daily reminder that Jesus is the silver bullet that kills Clown World.
Daily reminder that Jesus was a child prodigy who BTFOed the learned elders at their own autistic word games, then turned around and showed that it was all pointless.
Daily reminder that Christians can do everything Jews can, plus run a functioning country.
Daily reminder that Jews committed history's most embarrassing own-goal by torturing their Messiah to death.
Daily reminder that Christianity is the cure for the purity spiralling of ethnonationalism.
Daily reminder that you are not required to extend Christian mercy and charity to those who side with Christ's murderers.
All the groups in my area are trannies galore. Where can I find brothers?
As most may have already heard, Klaus Schwab has stepped down as head of the World Economic Forum. Supposedly for embezzlement and misuse of funds. As if that's even considered immoral by the creeps and thieves of the WEF. The guy in the picrel is his replacement, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. Notice one of his eyes is black. Not punched in the eye black. The eyeball itself is black. Some people believe Zechariah 11:17 that says, "his right eye will be darkened," is a reference to a physical marker on the body of The End Times Beast of Revelation. I'm not 100% sure of it myself.
But, here's this scumfuck, looks like his face is made of rubber... doesn't even look but barely human... has a darkened eye... the last pope just died... the WEF suddenly gets a new leader.. insanity all over the world. He's worth watching closely in the future if nothing else I thunk.
Samaritan's are a splinter sect from Judaism that spit off at some point it has many things in common like a book similar to the Torah but also differences between the Torah and the texts of the sematitian tribe One major difference is the mountain that Samaritans consider holy is not in Jeresulum but is instead Mount Gerizim in Palestine. The tribe faced possible extension but has been getting its numbers back up. Its an interesting look into what early Judaism might have looked like
>But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
Luke 10:33
Dying Out: The Last of the Samaritans
https://youtu.be/Ey7FB44YS0o
Samaritan Life Today
https://youtu.be/TPSyt7HkjvM
i saw something like this where light met the darkness that kept changing between this and a spinning tetragrammatron
it wouldn't go away
it was judging me
and told me to go to a coptic orthodox monestary
Is someone a bad Christian if they follow the word and the scripture, but they don't accept the Lord into their heart?
Or are they not even a Christian in the first place?
I compare it to the fire triangle because for there to be a fire there must be fuel, oxygen, and heat. That is an undeniable fact of our world. I want to compare it to sublimation too, but I just don't know how.
And if God is not in their heart then they lack one of the pieces of the Trinity and they are not actually a Christian. Am I right?
This is certain of your faith. The little gods of world bowed before God and the Cross. What of the Norse, the Celts, they are slain. Rome and Greece died before Christ.
Christianity is the Faith of your Fathers. It has reigned supreme for 1000-2000 years. What have you to challenge it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b19j7oCk_xQ
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna,
हरे कृष्ण हरे कृष्ण
Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
कृष्ण कृष्ण हरे हरे
Hare Rama, Hare Rama,
हरे राम हरे राम
Rama Rama, Hare Hare
राम राम हरे हरे
https://youtu.be/MA_lX38SbvI
Happy Easter to all the frens, all around the world! Have a nice day today with your family in peace and joy!
PEACE BE ON HIM
How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [ to life, and then to Him you will be returned.
كَيۡفَ تَكۡفُرُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَكُنتُمۡ أَمۡوَٰتٗا فَأَحۡيَٰكُمۡۖ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمۡ ثُمَّ يُحۡيِيكُمۡ ثُمَّ إِلَيۡهِ تُرۡجَعُونَ
Surah Al-Baqarah Ayat 28
5
Are we all one even with the Jews as long as we are in the body of Christ?
>There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
I just saw that this board was created and I thought I'd take a moment to wish every anon a blessed Good Friday.
How's Lent been going?
are the abrahamic religions just noble lies?