I suspect Ben does not think he is White. Because the Jews are Chosen and set apart, and also are the Sons of Chem/Shem, not the Sons of Japheth like "Whites".
Yes, I made that point in another thread. Shem's descendants aren't white but I'm very suspicious of Ben being one of those. He seems like an ashkenazi so he's more likely khazarian with easter and central European ancestry.
Little rat has a point though. Depending on context jews can be considered both white and non-white. This gets even more complex when the definition of "jew" is not very specific too. There's a lot of intermixing going on historically. But it's safe to say this dude is white so Shaniqua pinned him.
According to the Torah, jews aren't white. White people are descendent from Japheth and jews are descendent from Shem.
Musk is an autistic moron and an actor. It's so obvious. He never invented anything in his life.
I bet Trump would say it's a "Judeo-Christian" symbol.
World Wide Web was invented at CERN. It came from Switzerland.
Yeah right, the guy who was instrumental in the creation of the EU was just writing fiction. Next you're going to say the same about Aldous Huxley I bet. They totally weren't part of elite circles that influenced policy. Isn't it curious how those guys predictions of 100+ years have been fulfilled? Such a coincidence.
Population growth stops because kids live long enough to not need replacements in case of childhood death.
Did that make sense to you when you wrote it?
Consent is a modern concept.
Any truth to that? I wonder what the common age of the males were that were marrying 12 year olds?
Yes, this is according to Roman legislation.
In Christian times, women married after puberty - so 14 above. Thus, a woman spent her best fertile years in marriage and not being a thot.
Men married 18-30, mostly in their 20's. This was because men were expected to be well established and to be able to support the household.
The idea about mutual consent has a Christian origin that became more prevalent after 4th c. Nobody before that cared what women thought and marriages were arranged between the men of the families. Child marriages became less common too and the age of marriage of women was raised a bit, especially compared to pagan societies.
Have you noticed how every time "democracy" is exported to a third world country, it inevitably leads to a drop in population growth? Same thing will eventually happen to muslims imported to first world countries. UK won't become an Islamic state and the muslims there won't become englishmen. It's a dialectic that will bring about a synthesis - the new world citizen, who in Count Coudenhove-Kalergi's words will be neither white, nor black but a mongrel race.
I know about castratos. I'm a music composition major. What does people doing something stupid in history has to do with today? Have you heard of eunuchs? This was done way before the castrati and it has nothing to do with trans. Nobody was confused about the sex of these people and they didn't claim to become women. This is retarded.
It's simple - islamisation takes precedence. Their anti-natalist agenda is already doing great given that all civilized countries are below replacment.
Yes I would rather people have personal freedom like the freedom of religion and speech, and people be able to do what they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others.
Oh, you're libertarian, cool. Why should people care about NAP? What's wrong with violating the rights of others, given that rights themselves don't exist ontologically but are made up social constructs that are subject to change? Is this like your personal preference or is it objectively true that rights should be respected?
You still haven't answered the elephant in the room. Would you kill me in the name of your God if you could legally get away with it?
Wtf does that mean? I wont kill you without good reason of course.
Dude, I've had this argument hundreds of times including on this forum. I'm not in the mood for writing apologetic arguments that will be rejected on principle. It's not worth the investment. Information is out there, I'm not going to say something new. Believe what you want.
Did I address any point of your OP? I'm addressing your comments on meta stuff.
Things are going great in the manner that your Church can't play tyrant over people anymore. Better to have issues and strife and personal religious freedom than live in luxury and be slaves of your cult.
Translation: I'd rather have illuminists talmudic child fuckers who push marxism, feminism and skittles and want to depop, poison and enslave everyone under an one world technocratic government than a Christian monarchy built around Christian values where usury and debt slavery is forbidden, 30% of women are not social media prostitutes and people who believe there are more than two sexes or that pee-pees going into poo-poos is love go to the madhouse (or rather to a monastery to get healed).
Yes. I know that.
Sure thing. If you were good faith, you'd look up an Orthodox source on the matter and not someone who seeks to strawman and undermine the position like you do. You presuppose the Church is corrupt and they made shit up as part of a huge conspiracy. Everything you read will be interpreted through that lens and you twist everything you read to fit your narrative. There's no point in arguing with you.
They're encouraging Islam and arab immigration as fabian socialist have always done. The government itself is malthusian so it's antinatalist. This is basic stuff but you're not interested in reality.
Yes, he's definitely going against Christians, especially those who claim to be the rightful Church.
I'm not bothered at all. I'm just exposing your suspicious activity.
I posted it because you're Orthodox and I thought it would annoy you if I put up how the Orthodox church operates.
You mean I'd be annoyed at idiot Protestant strawmen of what the Church teaches? Not in the slightest. I won't even engage with this stuff.
The conspiracy is that your beloved Church conspired together to gain control over people through spiritual and political means by proclaiming themselves as some kind of divine authority bearing the word of God. That's a pretty big conspiracy. People should hear about how your group operates and learn the tactics to avoid being brainwashed by them or other groups doing similar stuff.
Well, now that the Church is not in control and governments are secular things must be going great in the NWO, right?
Since you're making the story up he might be an alien from Sirius. Your imagination is the limit.
There was no Vatican at his time and neither was there Roman Catholicism. Rulers at that time may have burned and banned books but they also didn't have pride parades, they didn't transitioned their children and weren't getting cucked by invading muslims. I don't think people living today are in a position to criticize those living in the Middle Ages about any of this stuff.
Idk you tell me - is there a BTC national debt that's owed to the exchanges and the miners of BTC?
Shii.....
You're not very bright if you think the current economy of ANY modern country can function on barter. Do you know the complex production process that goes behind making every single item you use in your day to day? And that's just the production side. There's a reason why money was invented thousands of years ago, you absolute tool.
What's with the attacks against Orthodoxy all of a sudden? All this came shortly after the neocons like Rep. Joe Wilson went against it publicly for being tied to Russian espionage: https://www.christianpost.com/news/gop-lawmaker-faces-backlash-over-comment-about-orthodox-churches.html
How come you joined a year ago, sat on it with zero activity, and started spamming this forum 2 days ago, shill?
Let's cut to the chase here, because it's not a theology forum but a conspiracy one.
In that first paragraph you're stating that your Church was the Roman government, and that it was right to force convert people and persecute them. You don't have any issue with forced conversions or persecution of those you view as heretics do you? Laws of logic based on what standard? What you determine to be God's standards?... As determined by the books your Church wrote and edited? As determined by the standards your Church's traditions? Your basis of logic is subjective and doesn't come from God, but man. Whatever happened to loving one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) and living in peace with all people (Romans 12:18)? Where does it say in the Bible to persecute those you view as heretics?
Where? I never said the Church was the Roman government. The government and the Church were two institutions with different roles in Byzantium. The Church never deals with state matters, law and enforcement. What I said was that those who opposed the teachings of the Church which is the ultimate authority on Christian theology, i.e. heretics, were outside of it by definition and not because of some arbitrary law.
Whatever happened to loving one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) and living in peace with all people (Romans 12:18)?
Taking quotes out of context and applying them arbitrarily. Loving one's enemies has nothing to do with fighting heretics. Romans 12:18 says live in peace if it's possible which you conveniently omitted to fit your narrative. Peace can never come at the cost of truth and this is why Christianity is not a pacifist religion and will never compromise when it comes to matters of faith. There's a time for war and a time for peace. Christians don't make peace with sin and lies - we have a duty to destroy them and set people free.
Where does it say in the Bible to persecute those you view as heretics?
The Church doesn't persecute heretics. It condemns them and distances themselves from them. It is the government which is influenced by the Church that may decide to enact laws against them, banish or imprison them.
Look at the following differences in how a passage in 1 Peter reads, quoted from https://ebionite.com/BibleCorruption.htm. Notice how the shorter version naturally flows in its train of logic, whereas the version found in Bibles today doesn't logically flow well and advocates for being a complete allegiance to the king.
Ridiculous argument appealing to perception of "flow"? Come on. Again, realize that the NT and Scripture as a whole is holistic - what's said in 1 Peter here is inline with the overall teachings and philosophy of Scripture and tradition. What these ridiculous heretics have to do is to purge every reference to submitting to authority both in the Old and the New Testament which would mean rewriting the whole Bible. It's not just the epistles. Jesus Himself comes not as a rebel king, waging war against the Romans, but as a subject to the Roman law who ultimately urges His disciples to follow to submit to the authority and not interfere with the unjust death sentence He was given. The idiot Ebonites would have to rewrite the whole narrative of the Bible and not just throw away passages which explicitly refer to submitting to authority. This points to a very poor understanding of Scripture not as a whole interdependent system but as a piecemeal collection of texts. This is why forgeries and gnostic fanfic is obvious even without asking the questions like "Where did that text come from and why should we accept it as authoritative".
The claim that the Scriptures were corrupted by the Church that created and transmitted them for nefarious purposes, but a small sectarian group outside of that tradition somehow has the original uncorrupted texts and holds them is stands on no ground. It just fits neatly to the preconceived belief people have that the Church was obviously corrupted because power corrupts.
The problem is that even if I grant you that the Church corrupted the texts, then the Ebonites may also have a corrupted version or they may have still corrupted it themselves, or maybe what we have today from the Ebonite texts, has been corrupted and we don't even know what the original is. Do you see how you apply an ad hoc double standard taking their version at face value while rejecting the Church version? If you were honest, you'd at least stay fully skeptical and say "I can't know which one is true - maybe it's none." The whole reason you latch on to the Ebonites is because you want to undermine the Church, that's my point.
Wtf are you doing calling a man-made institution a divine organization and calling it the body of your God? What kind of logic is that? That kind of talk is a two-way street.
The logic of Scripture itself and the teachings of the Church?
“Now you are the body of Christ, and individually members of it.” 1 Corinthians 12:27 There are other places too like Romans 12:4, Ephesians 1:22, Colossians 1:18, etc.
You said your Church was the body of Christ, and that you don't consider Rome to be a part of the Church after 1054 CE. So all those people constituting what you view as Roman Catholics constituted what you call your Church in 1053 CE. Then, 1054 CE comes around and poof, they are no longer a part of your Church? If this Church is the body of your God, your God basically got cut in half. If all those people constituting Rome were not a part of your packaged deal in the tensions leading up to 1054, then you know what they say about a house divided against itself.
The schism with Rome wasn't the first time there was a split in the Church. God wasn't cut in half and there weren't two Churches, that's the point. One side became sectarian and the other remained the Church. There may be an argument which side continues to be the Church (the EO or the RC), but it surely is that way because the Church is always one and universal.
So what's your standards for determining what you call the true Church?
Looking back at history - what the early Church was like and what it taught. The Church which continues to be unchanged is the true Church.
You've failed to prove or establish that there even is a true Church so far. It's been claims without evidence at this point. That may be logical to you, but I don't find it convincing.
You not being convinced is not an argument. There's only one true Church according to the Nicene creed which defines what Christianity is. That's the evidence.
So you're saying that God's laws change over time? That he isn't consistent? Read the OT. It obviously endorses slavery.
God's prescriptions to men change over time. His moral law is unchanged. If you are a father, you know that you set different rules to your children when they're 5 and when they're 15. That doesn't mean your morality changed, but that what was appropriate at the time when they were little was no longer appropriate later in life and vice versa. In fact much of the Mosaic law applied to the time and place and the jewish people specifically and was not universal. What's described in the OT was appropriate for the time (it's not chattel slavery btw so there's confusion with the idea of slavery in your head and what is being described). The ancient world was brutal by today's standards and warfare ended with enslavement. Deuteronomy regulates ancient warfare but just like with polygamy, it's not an endorsement - that's your (incorrect) interpretation of the text that you're looking at through a modernist lens (so out of context). In reality, the OT is the most progressive piece of legislation for the time but the irony is people today criticize it for being cruel and savage - it's literally the opposite.
Point to where slavery and polygamy were outlawed in the Bible.
They were not "outlawed" but were deemed inconsistent with the Church's teachings. Here's a close one about slavery:
“…for the sexually immoral, for slave traders (Greek: andrapodistai), and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…”
1 Timothy 1:10
And here monogamy is affirmed:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female… and the two shall become one flesh.”
Matthew 19:4–6
“Because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
1 Corinthians 7:2
In Ephesians 5:25–32 polygamy is implicitly rejected by the imagery of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. The Christian marriage is and always has been monogamous so tradition itself proves it.
It will show his ancestors came from Eastern Europe.