I said I'm not Russian. My country is half a century older than Russia and people here don't love jews very much and there aren't that many. Why u mad?
I see now I've exposed myself in the image. We gave the Cyrillic alphabet and the slavonic language to the Russians.
No, I'm from Eastern Europe though.
Btw, the Quran is based on the Talmud and it's full of arbitrary legalism. Everyone who tells you Islam is closer to Christianity than to Judaism is lying to you. They reject the divine nature of Christ and as Paul says, everyone who does that is of the spirit of the antichrist.
Absolutely. We should always remember Psalm 14 and that this is spiritual affliction that leads to intellectual deficiency and not vice versa.
Yes, I know all about how the RCC was subverted by the CIA and the gay jesuit jews.
Islam is used as a geopolitical tool to push immigration and destroy western civilization and Christianity. They don't care about making it gay soon. The British Empire and Islamism go way back just as much as they do with zionism. But yes, in the future Islam will be integrated in the fake and gay one world religion which will be state sanctioned.
The ship and crew was sacrificed in order to justify US war against Egypt and taking the Middle East. Democracy!
"If you do not agree with me no matter how insane I look, you will straight-up die and we will make sure you get something worse than death" is a Jewish idea. Or at least the Jews turned it into an industry that will last for the rest of human history.
That's the most retarded strawman of Christianity I've ever heard. Do you even care what Christianity actually teaches or do you want to run with what's in your head?
A Gentile king can run such an idea for at most 20 years because they have no ability to effectively convince others that they are righteous. A Canaanite/Jewish religion, on the other hand will coat it as righteousness and enforce it as a truth that lasts forever.
20 years my ass. The secular freemasonic (freemasonry is talmudism for gentiles btw) NWO is running for over a century now.
You equivocate between the Bible and the Talmud - talk about strawmen. You have no knowledge of the origins of modern day ideas.
the push for Communism and DEI is a reverse psyop to vilify non-believers (not even atheists, just non-believers)
Do you think lefties are Christian? The people pushing DEI and communism are openly antichristian and mostly secular liberals (I say mostly because some of them larp as pagans, satanists and deists). What planet do you come from?
Secularism is also not a jewish inevention, it was in Greece and China.
The Greek worshiped their gods. They had temple cults and made sacrifices. The Olympic games were a religious festival which is why it was resurrected by the masonic neo-pagans in the 20th c.
China was religious too. They also had rituals, sacrifices and oracles but unlike the Greek their gods were impersonal. The Emperor was god personified and he was treated accordingly.
The definition of Secularism is that you can choose not to believe in the Agenda of the day (usually an uncriticizable God) and not get Cancelled or end up dead.
That definition exists only in your head. What if secularism itself is the agenda of the day? If I go to work and denounce secularism I'll most likely get cancelled, be called a bigot and a flerfer.
You try so hard to paint yourself and other atheists as victims in todays society as if you don't represent the mainstream ideology. You're like a black lesbian DEI queen complaining about how bad the patriarchy is treating her.
Btw, zionism is a secular socialist movement so you should be cool with it.
This doesn't make sense. The Vatican predates the CIA; how would the CIA run it?
It coopted it after WWII. It doesn't matter which came first.
Read the books or watch some videos on the subject and it will become clear. Jay Dyer has good analysis on this. There are mounts of evidence and it's not just a crazy theory.
Yep, it's a pdf skittles cult. And it's very obviously ran by the CIA and the technocratic global government, especially since the 60's and Vatican 2. There is a two volume research on the topic by D. Wemhoff who is a trad Cath himself. P. Williams's book Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia is good too.
There is no excuse to be Catholic in the 21c. when all this information is out there and your Pope openly promotes the NWO agenda.
Dude, are you aware 'the Medieval era' which spanned Europe, Asia and Africa over a period of 1000 years is not a single cohesive thing you can point to?
Do you even know that during most of the so called Dark ages (talmudic propaganda name) jews were banished from many kingdoms unlike your masonic 'secular' modern times you love so much where jews basically run the whole world through usury and blackmail? Don't you wonder why jews sought to destroy all Christian monarchies starting with the French Revolution and ending with the Bolshevik one as outlined in their Protocols?
What took and still takes place after the talmudic revolutions of the past 250 years is 100 times worse than anything during the Christian period before that. Christianity kept jews at bay and 'secularism' and republicanism is a jewish invention - you got it all mixed up. Go read Fire in the Minds of Men by J. Bilington which is an academic level text about the origin of the revolutionary ideas and of secular government.
Where in the video are jews mentioned?
I’m not the one appealing to my own understanding here. I’m appealing to the final and controlling authority Christ and the apostles themselves appealed to.
Oh, did Christ tell you you hold the correct interpretation? Or did He establish His apostolic Church and sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to guide it? Are you sure that same Church didn't have a synodal structure with sacraments and ordination of bishops? All this is evident in Acts and the Epistles. But I guess your infallible interpretation of Scripture missed that part.
Jesus didn’t say “you have heard from the fathers,” He said “it is written.” And when Satan quoted Scripture correctly but applied it wrongly, Jesus didn’t defer to tradition. He corrected the interpretation with more Scripture.
You just lost the debate. Oral and liturgical tradition was how the Church operated in the first centuries before the canon of Scripture was decided by the Church fathers you reject. I swear, Protestantism hinges on being ignorant of early Church history.
Yes, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. John 1, Colossians 1, and 1 Corinthians 10 are explicit about that. No argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean every covenantal command given to Israel applies unchanged to Christians after the cross. The apostles explicitly say otherwise. Hebrews exists for this exact reason, and it wasn’t written by modern Protestants.
Sure, Christ changed the moral prescriptions. The question was if OT morality was still normative or if it was replaced by new evolved morality. Do you believe that capital punishment or war suddenly became unchristian because hippy-Jesus came to sing Imagine to the people? Of course nothing in Scripture was written by Protestants because the early Church didn't run on Protestant presuppositions, which destroys your entire position. The ideas of Protestantism are post-scholastic modern developments, reactionary to the degeneracy and errors of the RCC.
If you had any idea about history and philosophy of ideas, you'd know that Protestantism is based around nominalism, which is a late Medieval position on metaphysics. No one in the first centuries of the Church thought like Luther and Calvin. It's like applying Critical race theory to something that happened in the middle ages - you don't understand how ridiculously anachronistic and retarded all this is. Protestantism is ahistorical.
Psalm 110 is messianic. Jesus Himself says so in Matthew 22. David is speaking prophetically about Christ’s exaltation and God subduing His enemies. But notice something important: Christ Himself tells us how that psalm is fulfilled, and it’s not by His followers taking vengeance. He reigns until His enemies are made a footstool.. by the Father. That’s divine judgment, not Christian retaliation. The same distinction applies to Revelation, the Psalms of judgment, and prophetic language throughout Scripture.
As for Psalm 58 and Psalm 139, those are imprecatory psalms. They describe righteous longing for God’s justice, not a license for believers to cultivate hatred or take vengeance themselves. Paul, who knew those Psalms far better than either of us, still says plainly: “Bless those who persecute you… never avenge yourselves… leave room for the wrath of God.” If David’s emotional expressions override apostolic command, then Paul is contradicting Scripture.
So does Paul contradict himself when in Roman 13 where he says that the ruler has the sword and can exact justice? Or maybe Christ's teaching is not to avenge YOUR injuries YOURSELF and to be forgiving instead but when it comes to justice He never taught wrongdoing, crime and sin should go unpunished.
For the final time - your have a broken mind and you read Scripture as a set of either/or's when it's both/and's depending on context. If Jesus saved the woman from being stoned and made people realize they too have sins and should show mercy, it doesn't follow that therefore no one should ever be punished ever again or that now the death penalty is rendered immoral.
On interpretation: Scripture interprets Scripture And those same apostles warn repeatedly that tradition can nullify God’s word.
Scripture interprets Scripture? Do you know what a circle is? No, dude. Interpretation requires a person - an interpreter. What you basically said is the same as 'Scripture reads Scripture'. Does that seem rational to you?
because Christ authorized the apostles, not an amorphous later tradition, to bind and loose doctrine.
The irony of not realizing Sola Scriptura itself which you appeal to, is exactly such a later tradition and no one believed this for 15 centuries before Luther came.
Christ gave the apostles the keys to the Church and reassured them that the Church won't cease to exist even before the gates of hell. Yet you claim the apostolic tradition was lost and the Church capitulated shortly after they died. So what happened, was Christ wrong? Btw, that same 'amorphous later tradition' later compiled the Bible you appeal to as I already stated.
So “the fathers said so” is not an argument unless it agrees with apostolic teaching.
Lol, that's the point - it agrees with the apostolic teaching because it's part of the same uninterrupted tradition and the apostles laid hands on them so they can pass that tradition down the line. You have no way of knowing what the apostolic teaching is outside of that tradition because you lack the correct interpretation that goes along the text and is also part of the tradition.
You're reading your own wrong interpretation into the text because you hold the wrong presuppositions about what the teaching is. The Church fathers hold the correct interpretation of Scripture, not you. But you presuppose it's the other way around.
It's so funny and tragic at the same time looking at protestant being incapable of even entertaining the idea that their own personal interpretation of Scripture 20c later, may not be how the early Church of the apostles understood it. You're so full of pride that you can't even begin to repent.
That's cool. Civility is good and I'm all for it.
It would have been nice not to blow through my arguments though because it seems you just don't care for the truth of the matter. Just answer this one:
Who is your greatest enemy? Is it perhaps Satan? Do you love him?
I think I made my point. Nobody can force you to come to the truth. I'd rather be rude and disrespectful but give you the truth than be all tolerant and nice and make compromises on it. I hate falsehood and lies, not people. If you truly love your neighbor you direct them towards the truth even if it's not dressed in niceties and false unity.
I think people should grow a back bone and not be all feminine in their exchanges because Christianity is not about being nice but about the Truth - otherwise we get Nice-ianity). I'd go even further - If you're afraid you could hurt someone's feelings by telling the truth, you can't be a Christian. If I call you a fool and you're acting like one, that's not unchristian in the slightest. Scripture and the Church fathers used very harsh language when dealing with heresies and false teachings (and not just language but physical aggression too).
Is this why they mock Him everywhere and media and culture is blatantly satanic? Makes total sense.
It is clear you do not understand the difference in the old covenant and new covenant. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Before He sacrificed His life for us, He preached and preached about loving one another, praying for our enemies, and leaving judgement to Him. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the New Testament supports your narrative that's based all on the old covenant.
He did, but that doesn't negate the moral teachings of the OT because it was Him who gave those. Unless you believe God's morality evolves with time which is a retarded heresy.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the New Testament supports your narrative that's based all on the old covenant.
Are you sure about that? What if I were to tell you that lex talionis (eye for an eye) still applies in the NT and as Jesus said "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Revelation 13:10
Why is that? Because morality didn't somehow evolved between the OT and the NT and justice remained the same. What Jesus teaches us is not to retaliate for personal injuries (a literal or metaphoric slap on YOUR cheek) and to be forgiving. Idiot protestants like yourself take this out of context and turn it into a maxim that leads them to origenist pacifism and pussfied liberal interpretation of Scripture. You probably believe the death penalty is not applicable to the NT too (never mind Romans 13:4). This is not how the Church understood the text historically, this is your modernized heterodox take on it because you follow a subverted talmudic interpretation of Scripture.
I reject both your appeal to authority and bad theology. I hope you'll spend more time trying to understand the messages and parables Jesus Christ left on your own instead of letting someone from hundreds of years ago think for you.
"I won't listen to the apostles who Jesus Himself appointed to be His Church and their successors - the early Church Fathers, but to my own interpretation because I know better than those idiots hundreds of years ago". Do you realize how retarded and prideful you are? What makes your interpretation authoritative and why should we go along with yours and not the Church fathers? Are you holier and wiser than they are just because time has passed? Protestantism is literal brain damage.
Who is your greatest enemy? Is it perhaps Satan? Do you love him?
I rest my case. You've been cooked. Come to the true apostolic Church.
PS: Btw, if we are supposed to leave all judgement to Christ, then why should we have a justice system put in place? Who are we to judge and administer punishments, right? Are you supposed to love the muslim immigrants who come to your home and rape your wife and daughter before brutally murdering them? Would you turn the other cheek and let them rape you too? Yeah, that's why the west is cucked and people believe Christianity is weak and feminized. Little do they know this is not the actual tradition of the Church but a gay ass liberal theology propped up by jesuits, freemasons and jews to destroy western civilization and enslave mankind.
Exactly. There's a point where you're basically dealing with the sons of Belial. I'm sorry to burst some hippy-Jesus prots bubble here (not you) but you can't love demonically obsessed people. This is not what Jesus meant when He said love thy enemy. Satan is your ultimate enemy - are you supposed to love him too? Again, this is why context is key.
There's no meaningful difference. Satan, Lucifer, Belial, Father of Lies and the devil are all names pointing to the same entity.
Are you a lawyer irl? I can smell one from any distance.
"Honor" does not mean "obey to the point of dishonor". See Acts 4-5, we must obey God rather than men. You honor an unjust command by straitly telling the commander you cannot obey and will take the punishment, Daniel 1. (Also Luther, here I stand ....) Your quest to see contradiction and exception in the moral law is, well, doomed.
I never said anything about obeying so don't present strawmen. Let's stick to the wording of the commandment and my hypothetical:
For example do you think you ought to honor your parents if they are complete degenerates who treat you and your family like trash for no good reason?
You'll notice that in this case you don't disobey or dishonor God in any way. On the contrary - following your logic, your refusal to follow the commandment is disobedience to God. If you're supposed to follow the commandment indiscriminately as a rock does, then you'd have to agree you should still honor your parents even if they abuse you and your family. I can push the hypothetical even further if you need me to.
Uh, yes, you honor them by obeying them up to the point of conscience and by telling them when your conscience forbids your obedience (because they have given an immoral order, which abrogates their authority).
But wait, that means you will break the commandment and you won't honor them? I thought commandments don't contradict each other? Uh oh.
If they are God's commands I see no alternative but to obey them in exactly the same way that rocks obey his commands.
You're in a contradiction, bro. You just said you honor your parents up to a point which is not what the commandment asks. You're making clauses up stuff and adding to God's law.
It seems you got yourself in a tight place here.
I don't think so. Those are pretty straightforward. There are no examples in Scripture and Church tradition that provide exceptions.
Yeah that's unfortunate. But the majority of people here are against it. We're still getting euro cucked and are about to get on the euro shekels.
I disagree. It's like saying Russia had nothing to be proud of during the Bolshevik regime. It still had its history and tradition and most of all - Holy Orthodoxy.