/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>654185

Nice, thanks for sharing this guy.

>I think /pol/ etc will like it too.

Just because the Turk was ousted from the modteam doesn't mean that /pol/ will suddenly find Jesus. They'll just use the stale memes about "muh k— on a stick" or "muh Jew-made (((Scripture)))" and ignore you.

>>654185

It's very good to see European, Anglo-Saxon faces (for a change) engaging in this type of discussion. The speaker is right, the medieval Christianity of England's is the pride of Anglo-Saxons.

>>654185

2:12 kekistani flag

>>654252

I doubt it.

Sure, there are some that will do that, but once in a while there is a good /christiangeneral/.

The video won't load for me. Other YouTube videos are however. Really makes me think.

Race-motivated neopaganism is the absolute worst. I honestly believe that we as Christians need to do everything in our power to combat that tendency and wipe it out. The right is on a course to power and we need to make sure that the future is pro-Christian rather than anti-Christian or else the pendulum swing will become an instrument of persecution. The subversion and corruption of Anglicanism by liberalists and leftists is one of the things that led the UK to where it is now, though, so you can understand why people in a crumbling society hold animosity toward Christianity, because they have indeed been betrayed by the Anglican church establishment, even if they don't understand that they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

>>654744

An understandable concern but will likely be a non-issue tbh. Right-wing pagans/anti-christians are incredibly weak politically, you're spending too much time on imageboards or reddit if you think they're a political presence on the level that someone like Trump or the Democrats are concerned or even aware of them. Their rate of growth is equally miniscule, I'd be surprised if they're even holding ground between members coming to their senses or breaking down and dropping out of society completely.

In any case worrying about the form that a dominant right-wing political structure will take is a little like Napoleon worrying about the decor of his room in the royal palace in St. Petersburg, we've a long way to get there yet.

>>654509

Sorry fam, I was on /pol/ two days ago, and all it was was "MUH K___ ON A STICK" and "YOU CUT DOWN MY SODOMY TREE".

>>654795

Now is the time to smother that baby in its crib, is all I'm saying.

>>654744

What's really annoying is the way they romanticize the Germanic pagans. It's just a racial version of Rousseau's retarded noble savage idea.

>>654795

Pagans on the right, yeh I agree, bunch of nerds that pose no threat.

However, the anti-Christian Right is huge, either by being outright anti-Christian/atheist or with ideologies like Libertarianism, anything pro-capitalistism, or fascism, all of which are idolatrous and inherently opposed to us.

>>654857

I agree. This cringe obsession with 'fashy' assthetics is perpetrated by a bunch of fat nerds

>>654861

How is libertarianism anti-christian or idolatrous? It means I put the Lord above my government and want no policing to interfere with that. Look what "centrist/socialism" has gotten us in the west. More freedom = more glorifying God. I don't even know what you're trying to say. Jesus sounded pretty clear on authoritarian regimes to me. I don't trust man (corruptable) to organize a nation with theological perfection. I rely on Christ's church and the Holy Spirit to do that. Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility, and so is salvation.

>>654252

What's the libertarian response to: abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, drug abuse, big corporations polluting your rivers/lakes with toxic waste, people dying on the streets due to lack of health care…

>>654744

When the degenerate liberal world order crashes due to muslim immigration and sinfulness people will flock to the best protection they can find.

If we build a strong uncompromising Church, who embraces his past, who reclaim his role as the essence of the western civilization (once simply called Christendom), all pagans will see us as the answer and convert. They are deluded larpers anyway, they turned to pagan delusion only because most western churches are weak and pathetic.

In short, during the periods of crisis, when history unfolds before your very eyes, people change radically in reaction to events. When society crumbles, if the Church stands strong all will convert.

In those moments you question everything and then just pick the strongest side.

>>655325

> abortion

Illegal like murder is. Libertarianism isn't anarchism.

> gay marriage

Can't exist. Marriage union is made by God, not the state

> prostitution, pollution, etc

All bad but punishable by God. They're suffering already. Teach your children the importance of modesty and why the world is worth protecting

> health care meme

Charity > welfare. Signing into law that if you don't pay for someone's health care, the state can fine you, imprison you, or kill you, is NOT CHARITY. You should be donating out of the goodness of your heart, not from the fear if tyranny.

>>655325

What a meme.

What's the government response to people demanding you to kill a baby because taking care of it would take too much tax payer money?

>>655287

Libertarianism is anti-Christian in that if one follows it to its logical conclusions, all vice is able to be made monetarily viable and 'moral'. It enables vice, and thus it necessarily allows for people to give idolatrous worship to their vices, which is what a debauched society always devolves into.

Libertarianism does not promote the freedom to do what one ought to do, it is the freedom to do whatever one likes, 'so long as it doesn't affect me', or based upon whatever arbitrary secular moral principle that is able to be immediately discarded by anyone willing to disagree with it and propose their similarly ad hoc moral principle. This is not compatible with Christian faith. The fact is that human beings need spiritual authority and guidance on earth. And the implications of this trigger libertarians because it involves an 'authoritarian' institution to do this, and for one person to tell another what he should do (the horror).

Why is this not preferable to the principles of democracy, individualism, and egalitarianism; the society which embraces these systems/principles always being dangerously vulnerable to subversion through media and academia.

>More freedom = glorifying God.

Look around you. Look at the rampant individualism, hedonism, and nihilism in the modern West. All derivative from a libertarian 'live and let live' morality and the abolition of a spiritual authority in our society - the separation of Church and State. Enabling the whims of the morally handicapped (most of society) is wrong. Error has no 'rights'.

>>655287

>It means I put the Lord above my government and want no policing to interfere with that

As you very well should, and that's commendable. But libertarianism isn't simply about ensuring your personal freedom to practice the true faith. It allows everyone to worship what they want to worship, to do what they want to do, and contrary to the theory, this always ends in dysfunction - you will necessarily come into contact with someone who disagrees with your views, irreconcilably. Meaning, it will come to a point where one must overtake the other. The gay couple must either have the Christian baker make his cake, or they will have their 'rights' infringed. One world view must prevail over the other. What do you rely on to protect you and others like you from being overtaken and made to conform? Though you would be fully justified in saying 'I practice the true faith', what is that to your atheist materialist? Likewise, what compels them to bend to your worldview? Libertarianism allows for this crisis in society, and such a society whose people all have contrary visions for what they want society to be NEVER ends well. No nation has ever been founded by a people who thought it was ok for anyone within its community to constantly break ranks ideologically and to practice any faith, any sexual preference, any of anything.

>I don't trust man (corruptable) to organize a nation with theological perfection.

I agree with you. But why do you trust the individual to exercise any greater moral restraint than the collective? Why do you trust the incurious and largely obedient masses to choose virtue over vice when given the choice, or the vote. As we've seen, they will often tend to choose the latter, and this is made all the more easier by the priests of modernity in universities, in television, in corporations, and in government, that have replaced the religious cleric as a decider over the culture.

>>656515

You're implying that just because someone has access to a vice, they'll take advantage of that. But would someone who believes in the Lord take it? There are plenty of vices freely available today such as drugs and casual sex yet the faithful don't partake. Not because they're afraid of incarceration, but because they know it goes against the will of God. How can you say you do what's right when the opportunity to do wrong is never presented? Calling it anti-Christian is an insult and I implore you to actually think about what Libertarianism means. It's not Anarchism, it's not nhilism. It's freedom to choose and do what's right out of the goodness of your soul, just like the core message of salvation through the Holy Spirit. In America they used to say "no taxation without representation." This isn't to say there are no taxes, that there is no government, but one that represents the rights of the people. If the only reason someone isn't having abortions and smoking crack is because the government said not to, what does that say about the individual?

> all the degeneracy in the west is caused by libertarian ideals

Wrong, it exists due to increased federal influence to make certain things "inclusive" to degeneracy, to promote propaganda through tax funded media, and to slowly make the state a "provider." Why teach about responsibility and consequence when it's now a "right" to get free money from rich people and free food if you vote the correct way?

Do I think the rich should give to the needy? Only if they want to. And they should want to because Jesus wants them to. You might say "well who cares if they want to or not, it's the right thing to do." And that's the biggest flaw in your ideology. You're skipping the most important step, and the idealistic federation you planned out in your head has all the answers, and can only ever be run by the most moral people possible, and would never become corrupt after gaining emense power over millions of people [sarcasm].

The actual answer you seek is to first fix your own life through Christ, then your family's, then your community's, and have everyone hear the word of the Lord and let Him guide the people. Not a dictator. A president/pm is for international relations and trade, not morals.

>>656524

> it allows everyone to worship what they want

Is it not said in Revelation 22:11

11 He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

You can't police people into becoming faithful. They discover the truth on their own and through the help of loved ones.

> the baker might have to bake the cake

I know what you're trying to say but this doesn't seem possible in a libertarian society. You're looking at a very authoritarian nation, with satan's synagogue writing many of her laws. Where there is power over human beings, they seek to root themselves in it. The bakers were not infringing on anyone's rights because there's no such thing as having a right to wedding cakes. Freedom of association is one of the most important rights a person can have.

> what do you rely on to to protect yourself from conformity

If I understand right, you're trying to say that the collective nature of the immoral will overpower the individualist nature of the faithful. But you're admitting the issue arises through a collective mob gaining authority over others. I'm saying that authority can't ever be granted in a libertarian nation.

> why do you trust the obedient masses to choose virtue over vice

I don't. Hence why state power, which is voted in by the misguided, needs to be dramatically reduced.

This isn't to say I don't believe in any collective power. I know it's strong and offers a lot of protection, which is why communities should have that autonomy, and communities often form around the church. This is our advantage over them. I want strong bonds between neighbours and for everyone to do good to each other, be charitable, etc. I just don't believe that can happen properly when it's backed by force.

I really like this discussion so please keep replying

>>655325

Any evil is allowed, since libertarianism consists in removing morality from the law, which is reduced to whatever keeps the well-being and pleasure of the people who make it.

As you can see, the modern world is just the consequence of libertarianism.

>>659020

>You're implying that just because someone has access to a vice, they'll take advantage of that

If you look at the modern world, and say that afterwards, I can say without a shred of doubt that you are incredibly retarded, naive and delusional. That is the perfect summary of libertarianism: a bunch of retarded, naive, delusional people thinking that, if they put a baby in a room full of poisoned scissors, nothing will happen.

Libertarianism is an anti christian cancer. It is based on nihilism, so whenever the group of retards create libertarianism, nihilism, vice and every single degeneracy will soon follow. That is the reality you can observe. Then, there are your fantasies and delusions, which are jnust that, the fantasies and delusions of the stupid people who have destroyed the world.

>>659094

Wow what a great string of non-arguments you've presented. Saying "look at this thing that isn't your thing" over and over again still doesn't prove your point. Maybe it'll work after you've shown that the "modern world" is libertarian. Let me remind you that today laws are written by the immoral and those who seek power over you. What I want is to remove that possibility. Your ad hominem isn't convincing anyone.