/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Ask a priest.

It's not a sin, but I don't think it's very wise.

Also, take it to /christian/pol

>>669620

didn't even know there was such thing as christian pol lol

>>669622

It's a sticky my dude

>>508486

>>669613

You will only find the same answers as every single other time that we've had this thread.

>>669613

This coming from an Asian mongrel, biblically sinful? No. But half-breed tends to have health problems (I cannot eat beef for example), and more often than not have identity problems. Which heritage do I belong to? My father? Or my mother? Or my country of birth/residence of childhood if my parents are not of that land. Who am I in this world? Etc.

I would say keep it around your neighbouring lands. People mingle all the time, but across continents problems will begin to appear. And in this volatile political climate, let us just put everything in the hands of our Lord.

>>669635

You are of the Kingdom of God, and a child of God. All else is meaningless.

>>669644

>>669648

Stop.

>>669644

You don't know what you're talking about. Source: my own family.

>>669635

Wanna hear my most honest advice? Go to Kazakhstan and adopt the language and culture there, or some other place between Europe and Asia. The first condition to fitting in somewhere is fitting in racially. Long-term you will be much happier if you fit in close to 100% somewhere, instead of only 70%.

Everything can be learned, apart from race and blood.

>>669635

>Which heritage do I belong to? My father? Or my mother?

Why not both???

>>669654

This is why you're alone.

>>669648

>light skinned women of my race are whores

This kind of resentment is sad. Eliot Rodger tier thinking.

>>669658

It's just some verses. I don't see why you're offended, are you perchance from /leftypol/?

>>669690

>Taking bible verses out of context in order to support an agenda

The first convert was african.

The messiah was jewish.

My friend, there is no "mixing", all are children of god and we are all humans.

Christianity is the radical notion that we're all the same in the eyes of the holy father. There is one race - God's children.

>>669656

So?

>Thanks to the church

Yes! Thank them! They've taken a step towards a world with one less part of bile within it. A world in which no man be judged by his skin but instead will see a world where EVERY knee shall bow not just HWHITE people but EVERY KNEE

PRAISE BE THE LORD ALL MIGHTY WHO REIGNS FOREVER AND EVER MORE FOR ALL MEN TO HE ARE HIS CHILDREN AND HIS CHILDREN SHALL LOVE HIM

Grow up /pol/, WE ARE ONE

>>669661

That is why I have been picking up languages and cultures left and right.

>>669662

Both of my parents heritages are under attack from radical secularism and American Imperialism. Traditional Chinese arts and cultures exists only in HK and Taiwan and it is dying out by generation. The dialect of my mother will probably die with her generation.

Meanwhile, I have no clear idea of who my father really is. He is an enigma, comes by now and then. Does not really reveal anything about himself except that he have ties to Japan.

Also, Japanese traditional arts and culture are not being picked up anymore. It will go by this generations of their elders who is doing their darnest to preserve their nations, thanks to Americunts. This is the land which I want to lay my body in. I speak Japanese, and wish to learn more of their culture and live like one. Be that as it may, I am not and probably will not ever be.

I only have one life, and it does not even belong to me. It belongs to the Lord, I cannot save both heritages with it. Let alone the beautiful European cultures which is under direct fire from the enemy which I also love.

>>669692

>The first convert was african.

Why do people say this? Wasn't the Roman Centurion technically the first convert? Or the thief on the cross? or is my chronology wrong?

>>669702

Your chronology is wrong.

>>669703

Why is the eunuch prior to cornelius?

>>669707

Wasn't true conversion

>>669694

This is a kike.

>>669713

>Kike

I'll pray for you that you come to see that we are all children of god.

Your use of that word is evidence you have a lot of growing up to do.

>>669716

Where does it say that? Does not the Bible also have atrocity easily misinterpreted? Don't forget

>>669710

Cornelius was definitely a convert, he just wasn't "proselytized"

>>669613

Your soul can still be saved but your family tree is screwed. Miscegenation is the most selfish thing a woman can do.

>>669613

ahhh, the /pol/ and /leftypol/ invasion thread where they bait each other and all the regular posters just move to productive threads… except me, what a tool I am…

>>669716

Talmudists hate and mock Christ but that doesn't mean we have to hate and mock them. Even the noble pagan sages understood that you shouldn't repay evil for evil.

—————-

Socrates: isn't wrongdoing inevitably an evil and a disgrace to the wrongdoer? Do we believe this or not?

Crito: We do.

Socrates: Then we ought not to do wrong at all.

Crito: Indeed.

Socrates: And we ought not even to return wrong with wrong, as the world thinks.

Crito: Apparently not.

Socrates: Well, Crito, ought one to do evil or not?

Crito: Certainly not, Socrates.

Socrates: Then, is it right to requite evil with evil, as the world says it is, or not right?

Crito: Not right, certainly.

———————-

>>669730

Quote. Where. It. Says. In. The. Talmud.

You all claim this but don't seem to say it.

>>669735

The talmud is very convoluted and sneaky. Wikipedia has an article on it, some rabbis interpret it as Jesus boiling in hell, other rabbis try to do damage control and deny it. It's up for "interpretation"

>>669746

So you have none?

Amazing. /pol/ logic at it's finest!

allowed

>>669656

>South America is the biggest mess on earth because it is the most racemixed, thanks to the Catholic church.

No that's because of corruption and Marxist socialism.

>>669735

>>669754

0:37

Treason is the biggest sin in medieval Catholic society. Read Dante's Inferno. The 12 plane on hell is reserved for traitors.

>>669777

12th

>>669694

>What level of Judaism are you on?

>666

>You're like a little child, watch this:

>"Racemix until your grandchildren look nothing like you goy, it's great for the world"

>>669792

>If your grandchildren don't look like you, they don't count

>>669795

Some people are just so hateful

>>669620

basically this

>>669795

Said no one ever.

>>669613

Numbers 12

Moses marries an Ethiopian and Aaron and Miriam get upset about, so God smites Miriam with Leprousy.

Having said that, I don't think it's healthy for a society to practice large scale mixing, but it's clear that we shouldn't judge others based on that alone.

>>669777

>Marry fellow Christian

>Commit treason

???

I don't understand what's wrong with trying to preserve your ethnicity through your children. The Bible says nothing about marrying people from your race, nor does it condemn (that is debatable though) marrying individuals from other races. I however believe it is not healthy for the child to do so. The child will grow up without an identity set in stone, he will be prone to diseases, and he won't be accustomed to specific climates. In my opinion, just let people marry from their own race, and don't push them to marry from other races. Diversity is beautiful when separate. Otherwise we'll just have a colorless pool of paint with no meaning to it. Why is this looked down upon?

>>669833

Then what does it matter what your grandchildren look like?

>>669847

Pretty much my opinion. The media shouldn't push for it, and I prefer my own race, but if my fellow man marries a woman of different ancestry, so be it. I work with a large family that has mixed children, and they are honestly a joy to be around. They put the Word into practice more than most people I know.

>>669834

Ok the problem people keep running into is they assume Ethiopia in the Bible is equivalent to the borders of the modern country. That's actually not true, the queen of Sheba (Saba), the Ethiopian eunuch of Candace, and the Sabaeans all come from modern-day Yemen in Arabia, which in ancient times was in the region of Ethiopia. South Arabia and Yemen was not populated by black Africans. Also the ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was specifically a Jew because the first conversion of gentiles wasn't until Acts 10:45. It makes sense because he was from Arabia and according to Acts 2:5 there were Jews from every nation present in Jerusalem.

>>669847

>Why is this looked down upon?

Only because some people are trying to destroy this nation. Remember that according to the word of God, your identity and nation will continue with you into eternity even after you die.

>>669613

If you know about the degenerate effects and still do it knowing it will permanently harm your child, then I would say it's a sin.

>>669718

>I'll pray for you that you come to see that we are all children of god.

And I don't disagree with it. Yet I only want to live with my family under one roof, and with my nation in one state.

>>669948

This.

Go ahead if you dont care about your offspring

Can someone explain these "horrible effects" of mixed offspring?

>>670870

>tfw dont look white enough to fit in with X

Dude, what kind of shitty place do you live in where people will reject you because of your physical appearance? You shouldn’t even care to fit in with such shallow-minded people. And will you please stop grouping all races like they are hive minds? Surely there are whites and Asians who will like you despite your appearance.

On top of that, you need to gain confidence in yourself. If you don’t even esteem yourself, no one else will. Maybe that’s like you don’t fit in with “whites” and “Asians.”

>only Christians like me

So what? That’s the case with many “pure blooded” Christians. You should build social groups based on shared beliefs and idealogies, not something as shallow as race. I grew up around my race, and it really isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. My mother was much different than most blacks, so I was raised with a different mindset than the rest of the blacks in Southern Louisiana. As a result, I didn’t have any friends until I started acting like them.

>>669613

Let's say it's discouraged.

If practiced on a mass level it kills nations, and is often the result of a divine punishment.

>>671836

>If we understand this, and as Christians we understand that we are to good by our neighbor, than we should generally be opposed race-mixing out of charity.

This. The Biblical doesn't ban committing a vehicular hit and run either, but if we understand the spirit of the Gospel certain things are obvious.

>>670884

There is none. People who have a personal gripe against interracial relations will cherry pick scientific studies to prove their case. Usually, people will harp on and on and on and on about muh bone marrow transplant. What they don’t know or won’t tell you is that leukemia isn’t even treated like that in most cases.

Many mixed raced people will have mental health problems, but it’s because people are ostracizing them and making a big fu¢king deal about race in the first place. If you isolate someone for reasons outside of their control, then of course they will develop problems. That’s like bullying someone, and then wondering why they are depressed or withdrawn. People can take their “nationalistic sentiments” and shove it up their ass.

Do it. I did. No regrets.

>>670871

Ugly kids who don't look like you for one. There are many more, but you really need to hear something beyond that?

>>672236

>They only feel social isolation because they're socially isolated

>Let's just overturn society and human nature, so there's no problem

Just winnie the pooh naive and dumb. People form social bonds and a cultural framework the same way everywhere, and race is part of that. To do what you want and overturn the current social framework in order to better promote miscegenation is at best useless because there is NO benefit to racemixing (since you seem to be determined to overlook the obvious drawbacks), while in reality it would be (or rather is being) the cause of social ruin and despair. It's an idiotic and utopian idea that is centered around a totally trivial concern, that being that tragic mulattoes and mudsharks don't have to be sad about being misfits, and it won't accomplish even that. It will however mortgage the welfare of society at large in order to try to get reality to align with your liberal sensibilities.

Literally picking up pennies in front of steamrollers, only dumber (you actually might get the penny!)

>>673617

Go give shitty advice somewhere else retard

>>669613

The whole point of the different languages and races was to deatroy the tower of Babel and divide human kind so that they don't pride themselves.

Race mixing is ok but it's better to keep things divided.

>>669718

>we are all children of god.

Factually wrong.

Only those who convert are.

And even so, by mixing races together you are undoing God's work and will.

God scattered the people at the tower of Babel, and all the nations and cultures with all the languages are a result of his will.

Who are you to undo that or to question it's validity?

>b-but we are not building anopther tower of babel

Yes, yes you are, and it's unquestionable. God's will was that people spread out and populate the earth, and be distinct. You attempt to undo that. You want everyone to speak english and have the same colour of skin.

>>669761

>corruption and marxism

>both of which have a genetic component

Look up the studies instead of protesting.

>>669948

This.

Children are not your accessories, they are not your toys or pets. They are sould entrusted to you by God, so you should do everything to make them succeed. Having them deal with totally unneccessary identity issues because you wanted to make a fashion statement falls into the sin of vanity and you must repent!

>>670897

>what kind of shitty place do you live in where people will reject you because of your physical appearance?

The whole world is like this, not to mention that inner acceptance is even harder if you don't have a stable and solid group to identify as a part of. Being christian could be one, but that is mostly once a week in a church, and even there you'll get looks, well-intentioned or not.

>You shouldn’t even care to fit in with such shallow-minded people.

Indeed, he shouldn't care about fitting in with the likes of you. You'll just use and abuse him for your political agenda and cast him aside.

>as shallow as race

To a shallow person, everything seems shallow.

> I grew up around my race, and it really isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

No wonder, given your ancestry.

>>672236

>harder to find organ transplants

>greater likelihood of allergies

>well-documented mental health problems

>blood transfusion is an issue

And these are just the health issues.

>>673666

Satanic lies, as always.

>The whole point of the different languages and races was to deatroy the tower of Babel and divide human kind

This was the original will of God, so it is a good thing because God always does what is right, and you're nothing, so your opinion on the matter is useless and shouldn't be lsitened to. God's will and wisdom is absolute and so if he created a world with separate races and languages it is because those are good things and should be respected, cherished and preserved.

It's one of those standards that are not in the bible but can be practiced be Christians as long as they're love their neighbor. There should be nothing wrong with having standards. Some minorities avoid race mixing, the bible does say not to marry a non-believer.

>>673690

>There is orange between red and yellow, therefore yellow and red don't exist and everything is just orange.

>this is how retarded you are

You're welcome.

>>673690

No no, the point is that we are homogeneous within our nations.

>>669620

This

>>669641

Absolutely true; but still unwise to cross the streams…

>>673696

Wait…are you implying the races are even more separated from one another than different species of human?

>>673697

But the issue here is race first and foremost, let's not sugar-coat it.

>>673706

>different species of human?

>human

You do realize that word originally referred only to the white man, right?

Your liberal demonkind had to redefine that word over and over again to include all races of bipedal monkeys, so no wonder that peoplse see through your bullshit.

Also, it's time for you to admit that you want to paint everything with the same brush for the sake of simplicity because you don't want to deal with problems of complexity.

>>673708

>You do realize that word originally referred only to the white man, right?

<originally

How "originally" are you talking here? Seems like it's been used to classify man as a whole for most if not all of that time.

>Your liberal demonkind

About as conservative as any of my family, hell we even have our biases when it comes to race, so that kinda renders that point moot.

>all races of bipedal monkeys

What the hell falls under that category? Everything that isn't sapiens?

>paint everything with the same brush

If you mean not splitting hairs in the same way as you have then yes.

>>673719

>man as a whole

Man was also specifically used to describe white people.

>About as conservative as any of my family

>implying that conservatives are in any way opposed to liberals

>What the hell falls under that category?

Non-whites

>splitting hairs

No, that's when your kind tries to make gay-marriage okay.

There are distinctions and they exist for good reasons. To undo them is foolish and quite frankly, vain and evil.

>>673722

>Man was also specifically used to describe white people

By who, exactly?

>Non-whites

I'm curious, what brought you to this conclusion?

>No, that's when your kind tries to make gay-marriage okay

<your kind

>There are distinctions and they exist for good reasons

Provide evidence that these distinctions exist first. From what I've observed of the fossil record, even the average aboriginal clusters with the other races of man more than them.

>>673724

>Provide evidence

<open your eyes and look

>By who, exactly?

By the entire white world.

>I'm curious, what brought you to this conclusion?

<The entire white world being compared to the non-white one.

I kinda like how you acknowledged being a liberal with your silence tho.

>>673725

>open your eyes and look

I see variety, and since we are able to reproduce we aren't speciated.

>By the entire white world

Meaning you I'm guessing?

>The entire white world being compared to the non-white one.

That apply to developed countries, or just your cherry-picked shitholes?

>I kinda like how you acknowledged being a liberal with your silence tho

<feeding the tribalistic wolf

>>673727

>I see variety, and since we are able to reproduce we aren't speciated.

So can horses and donkeys, yet they are a different species.

So can different species of frogs, and yet the frogs are still of a different species.

Also this >>673696

You are just pretending the whites have no legitimacy because it exists on a spectrum.

>Meaning you I'm guessing?

There is a reason why there were debates back in the day whether native americans should be called humans. Stop playing dumb.

>That apply to developed countries, or just your cherry-picked shitholes?

Let me guess, all the non-white developed countries are asian?

It's funny how white shitholes are still attractive enopugh for non-whites to migrate into tho.

Surely it has nothing to do with whiteness and the civilizations that they build.

>feeding the tribalistic wolf

>Implying that christianity isn't a tribe with constant infighting

>>673728

>So can horses and donkeys, yet they are a different species

And most are sterile. Mixed children have no issue breeding.

>You are just pretending the whites have no legitimacy because it exists on a spectrum

What do you even mean by this? Preservation? Creatures tend to group with others that resemble them, regardless of whatever shadow government organization you think is trying to destroy them.

>There is a reason why there were debates back in the day whether native americans should be called humans

That's because they didn't know of land bridges, and assumed they were of some other distinctly created race, separate from Adam's lineage. Stop acting as though other races and tribes were considered animals at one point.

>Surely it has nothing to do with whiteness and the civilizations that they build.

And yet most have managed to crumble, white and non alike. Also I find it interesting that you mentioned Asians specifically, do they count as human on some arbitrary technicality?

>>Implying that christianity isn't a tribe with constant infighting

<wishing for division

Get thee behind me, Satan.

>>673730

>And most are sterile. Mixed children have no issue breeding.

I love how you conveniently ignored the frog part because different species of frogs produce fertile (viable) offspring, but that doesn't mean that those different species of frogs are now one.

You are not getting out of this.

There are different species, and interbreeding doesn't destroy the validity of their existence.

>What do you even mean by this?

I mean that you are pretending that the legitimacy of human races is null and void because interbreeding exists.

>Stop acting as though other races and tribes were considered animals at one point.

They literally were considered animals. Just look at how the Irish were treated. Look at the slave trades. The arabs castrated (and to this very day they still do) every single one of their black slaves. How can you buy and sell a thing, mutilate it and still consider it human and/or equal?

>And yet most have managed to crumble

Only because of people like you.

You are the disease.

>I find it interesting that you mentioned Asians specifically

I mentioned them pre-emptively because they are literally the only other race that built a civilization that is in any way comparable to white ones in terms of advancement. Not that it would disprove the OBVIOUSLY GLARING differences between the different races, given that their societies were radically different from ours.

>wishing for division

>Pretending that division isn't the natural state of things

I would call you Satan, but I'll just call you a marxist.

>Get thee behind me, Satan.

>No, u

This is the level of liberalism you're on.

>>673734

>different species of frogs

<comparing creatures separated by over 350 million years of evolution

Even mammals have different amounts of what can be considered relatedness and must be studied on their own merit. To compare members of Anura to Primates in terms of interbreeding is like comparing apples to oranges. It's not a "one size fits all" scenario.

>I mean that you are pretending that the legitimacy of human races is null and void because interbreeding exists

Never implied that I did. I acknowledge difference, but I highly doubt they can be placed as a subspecies as they haven't remained truly isolated for a long enough period of time for any significant mutations to be selected for in any given population.

>How can you buy and sell a thing, mutilate it and still consider it human and/or equal?

<what is rationalizing one's sin

<what is cognitive dissonance

The human mind is a wonderfully morbid thing sometimes.

>iterally the only other race that built a civilization that is in any way comparable to white ones

So are they human? Do they get special treatment because you say so?

>Pretending that division isn't the natural state of things

<For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. - 1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV)

<disease

<marxist

<liberal

You can call me any name you wish, doesn't make it an accurate statement.

>>673728

>>673734

>I love how you conveniently ignored the frog part because different species of frogs produce fertile (viable) offspring, but that doesn't mean that those different species of frogs are now one.

>You are not getting out of this.

>There are different species, and interbreeding doesn't destroy the validity of their existence.

Stormfags trying to give taxonomy arguments is the cringiest shit i always see.

The words you are looking for to describe human variability are ecotype and cline.

>>673738

>but your animals are not like my animals

Moving the goalpost, like a good liberal. Luckily for me, my point still stands, because this is not a question of relatedness, but classification.

You said that since we can interbreed we are the same race( >>673727 ), but we have counter-examples of different species producing viable and non-viable offspring, meaning that the abiliyt to interbreed doesn't disprove race.

A race is not an invalid category just because it can interbreed and produce viable offspring with another one.

>Never implied that I did.

That is exactly what you did.

You said that we are all the same species, meaning there are no different human races.

At best, you act like we should act as if all people were the same race. I deny that.

>wonderfully morbid

There is nothing wonderful about morbidity.

>So are they human? Do they get special treatment because you say so?

Moving the goalpost, moving on

>You can call me any name you wish, doesn't make it an accurate statement.

Because you are transcendentally evil?

>>673740

>So differences exist after all…

>>673740

>Stormfags trying to give taxonomy arguments is the cringiest shit i always see.

What's funny is even by taxonomic standards he's wrong. Anything within the genus Homo is considered human, and every race upon this earth is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

>>673741

You've already demonstrated that you're working on absolutes, and don't wish to go into the complexity of phylogenetic relationships between organisms, so I'll merely leave you with something to chew on: what was your and a black man's ancestor? A human, or something else?

>>673744

>don't wish to go into the complexity of phylogenetic relationships between organisms

Yep, because the question is not whether there are phylogenetic relationships, but whether it's okay to race-mix or not.

Science isn't the authority on this question. God and Tradition is.

>>673747

>God and Tradition is

You've made the white race into your god, considering the other races to be mere animals by comparison. I pity you

>>673750

>I make the white race into my god because I care about my people which is my God-given duty.

I pity you. You have no understanding of God, or his will. For you he is nothing more than empty platitudes of freedom and equality, instead of love and kinship.

You've made equality your god, and it is a false god.

>>673750

>youve made the white race your God

So what, only larp pagans do this. Humanist scumbag pice of shit go live in a 3rd world asshole.

>>673751

What are you? Orthodox?

Racism is anti christian.

Anti semitism is anti christian.

Bigotry as it's known is anti christian.

>>673774

>Being this salty over the fall of his false idol of equality.

>>673747

>God and Tradition is.

And there is no canon law against interracial marriage and mixing in of itself(though there are a lot of sinful factors that make it so, in a lot of cases), just against interfaith marriage.

>>673774

Having a preference in the race you want to date isn't prejudice.

>>673930

I think he's just a disgruntled Vargfag acting like he's a Christian.

>>673889

>And there is no canon law against interracial marriage

Yeah, but there are lots of references in the Bible that would imply that it's not okay.

Not to mention that there are lots of things that don't have canon law against them, but are still wrong.

Look, you want to mix? Go ahead. But don't pretend it's a good thing when there are obvious disadvantages to it. Also, stop trying to push people into doing it.

>>673930

>Races are good and so are languages.

>racemix if you want. Who cares? It`s not a sin.

So undoing a good thing is not a sin, anon?

Also, how do you justify being uncaring about a good thing? Don't you think your attitude towards this is entirely careless?

>>673932

>Says the liberal who is acting like a christian.

>>673935

What do you consider yourself first and foremost? A Christian or a white man?

>>673777

The Christian Tradition as handed down by the Apostles has been maintained in the Catholic Church, the failings of Christians do not change the precepts of the faith.

>>670870

lmao hey symp

>>673941

>be more specific i haven`t understood what you are asking

I don't believe you. I think you feign ignorance in order to avoid an answer.

You said that different races are a good thing. Is it not a sin to undo a good thing?

If yes, your pic related is false.

>>673754

Please don't lump him in with us.

>>673979

>I don't believe you.

you savage af, eat some snickers will u?

>You said that different races are a good thing.

yes

>Is it not a sin to undo a good thing?

I get now what you mean. U mean that because i said white race/ black race good=> mixed race bad.

Follow this logic:

-white race good

-black race good

-(insert human skin color) race good

-MIXED race also good

Nowhere did i mention mixed babies are a sin.

Here`s another example:

Toyota cars are good. This does not mean that BMW`s are bad or pimping up a Toyota (therefore changing it`s original form) is bad. It`s just that toyota cars are good.

Back to our example, just to make it clear:

every race good

mixed race good

individual person good AS LONG as he/she believes in Jesus Christ

(next time you try posting something try being chill ok? i know how to swear as well)

>>673935

I love how stormfags act as if they're the REAL Christians

>>669613

Yes race-mixing is bad specially when you see the data about iq and live expectancy but is not a sin.

>>673730

>Mixed children have no issue breeding.

Although Black-White mixes are not sterile and males are not absent, males (the heterogametic sex) are more rare than females.

https://archive.is/4KJg8

Black Americans are a hybrid race of around 22% White ancestry. This is the cause of multiple negative health effects due to genetic incompatibility. Indeed, consistent with Haldane's rule, unmixed Blacks from Africa and White Americans do not have the same rate of birth problems that hybrid American Blacks have: "In 2005, the mortality rate for black infants was 4.4 times higher than that of white infants. African women who come to the United States and have babies experience the same low rate of infant deaths as white American mothers."

https://archive.is/oYZm9

LTA4H, or “leukotriene A4 hydrolase” is found on chromosome 17. An allele of this gene increases the risk of heart attack (the #1 cause of death in America) in Blacks by more than 250%, but only 16% in Whites. The 30% of Whites with this allele have counteracting genes, while the 6% of Black Americans who obtained it through race mixing do not.

https://archive.is/RtzDl

The FDA have approved a heart failure drug called Bidil, but only for blacks, as blacks do not benefit from conventional heart failure drugs.

https://archive.is/44SgJ

There are several genetic mechanisms which may cause outbreeding depression:

–Two identical alleles at the same locus can in some cases be the alternative with the highest fitness ("homozygote advantage"/"underdominance"). This is the opposite of the effect which for other loci causes inbreeding depression.

–Disruption of beneficial, synergistic interactions between loci ("coadapted gene complexes"). This is a more important cause of outbreeding depression than homozygote advantage. This effect is partly insidious since it will likely increase in strength over future generations as new genetic recombinations in each new generation break increasing numbers of such beneficial interactions.

https://archive.is/iZ5nS

Sickle cell anaemia is a condition found almost exclusively in blacks, about 1 in 4 west Africans carry the gene for it, almost no whites do. As a result of population growth in African-Caribbean regions of overseas France and immigration from North and sub-Saharan Africa to mainland France, sickle cell disease has become a major health problem in France. SCD has become the most common genetic disease in this country.

"Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Since all the immune system's cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body."

https://archive.is/l1Qpe

A White mother of mixed-race child would have more genetically in common with a random White person on the street than with her own child. If such a dramatic and fundamental alienation from your own parents if not horrific enough, In the case of a mixed-race child diagnosed with leukaemia, every member of the child's own family becomes an incompatible donor for a bone-marrow transplant, and finding a compatible donor is unlikely:

https://archive.is/WJBHy

96-97% of whites have no African ancestry.

https://archive.is/NPIyg

>>674021

>Yes race-mixing is bad specially when you see the data about iq and live expectancy but is not a sin.

You could say the same thing about drug abuse.

>>673987

It's usually you guys who say this sort of thing online, so…

>>674001

Your answer made him look good especially because he didn' swear and you don't seem to understand that if all whites and blacks were to mix together we would lose 2 races and end up with one. That would be the destruction of a good thing for literal vanity.

Sage goes in the email field, friendly reminder

>>674181

Not him but how is it vanity if you happen to meet someone who is X race and genuinely dig them enough/fall in love and want to take it to marriage, assuming theyre a proper Christian which is difficult enough to find? Im not in either camp and understand there are good reasons to not racemix, just wondering how you'd elaborate on that.

>>674181

>I think you feign ignorance

So asking someone to make it more clear is now ignorance.

Are u brothers or something?

Also calling someone ignorant is insulting.

>>674209

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that these people feign ignorance given how you pretty much have to explain the obvious to them.

>insulting

It doesn't matter. Only truth matters.

>>674185

>implying that you should marry for love instead of duty

>implying that the well being of your future children and your people shouldn't be the goal of your marriage

Love is all well and good but at the end of the day it's just a passion and often leads people down the wrong path.

>>674185

That is what a lot of white women do and right after that they end up single with a half-breed kid, that they wanted as an accessory to show off as a winnie the pooh you to "tha white partiarchy" and wonder where have all the good men gone 10 years later? If that is not vanity, I don't know what is.

You can try to shame "racists" all you want, they will not budge for you on this.

Being with someone so that you can tell that you do something "out of the norm" is the very definition of vanity, and to say that it's literally never the motivation of race mixers is dishonest at best.

If the attraction is genuine, it's still an issue for all the reasons listed in this thread.

>>669620

This 1000x. The major issues with racemixing are the existential ones it can create for the child – their sense of belonging, culture, tradition, etc.. If the mixing is, for example, between a Dane and an Italian, the commonalities will likely ease any angst the child may feel (in this case Christianity, European civilisation, etc.). If, on the other hand, the mixing is between a Nigerian and a Japanese, the child will likely feel existentially adrift, homeless and outside of history. Having a religiously active family may help mitigate the angst the child may feel, but may not completely; we are in the world, we are not angels – any talk of belonging not to the world but to the kingdom of God is nice and idealistic, but it does not ease the burdens of worldly life. The fact is, racemixing can lead to a lot of internal struggles for the child which, if possible, should be avoided.

>>673934

>Yeah

Then dont invoke Tradition, with a capital T.

>but there are lots of references in the Bible that would imply that it's not okay.

Those references are because Israel's neighbours were pagans, not because they were another shade of semitic tribes.

Thats abundantly clear.

Your fringe exegisis is just that.

>Not to mention that there are lots of things that don't have canon law against them, but are still wrong.

Such as?

>Look, you want to mix? Go ahead.

Man, 94,4% of my ancestors come from half a county(not country, COUNTY) in Europe.

You must be delusional to think anyone who calls you out on your shit is some #openborders uber-liberal that wants to blanda out with somalis and abbos, or whatever.

>But don't pretend it's a good thing

In of itself, its just a thing.

Other factors make it bad or good.

>when there are obvious disadvantages to it.

Well, duh.

>Also, stop trying to push people into doing it.

Man, how much of a complex do you have, to think disagreement with you means the other guy is some massive sjw that wants to see mulattos and happas everywhere?

>>674487

>admits that there are obvious disadvantages to race-mixing that your child will suffer and not you, but it's not wrong

>race-mixing is okay and it's not a sin because it's not explicitly stated that it's wrong

>taking the letter of the law autistically in order to reject the spirit of it

>you must have psycho-problems beause you tell me the truth about racemixing and how it's wrong

>"oh I'm not a liberal"

Liberals these days…

It's discouraged, it can be tolerated on an individual occasional level.

If racemixing is promoted it means the death of nations and is a sick perversion.

If a guy I know find love outside of his race it's no big deal, if the media tries to promote mixed couples at every moment then it's wrong.

>>675926

>If a guy I know find love

Why and when did we make marriage and procreation about love?

Also what do you mean by love?

>inb4 "baby don't hurt me"

>>675926

Does media preaching on the adoption of black children from Africa make it wrong?

No. Neither is race-mixing, in and of itself. I'm not exactly how it is the "death of nations" when there are many nations of mixed-race out there throughout history.

>>675931

Refer to this >>673696

>adoption of black children from Africa

This is wrong because God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, he didn't say "pick up the unwanted slack of other people"

>Neither is race-mixing wrong or a sin

See this >>675862

and this >>669635

and this >>669700

and this >>670870

and this >>673657

and this >>673678

and this >>673697

>>675935

A strange teaching, not found in God or in the Church.

Not even a scriptural quote in any of these posts too.

>>675937

>"WE HAVE TO FIND THE QUOTE IN ORDER TO MAKE A CONNECTION"

Where does the Bible say that having an orgy with inanimate sextoys is wrong? I want an explicit quote, or it's not wrong.

Also refer to this >>673755

>>675937

>A strange teaching, not found in God or in the Church.

Except it totally is.

>>669777

>Read Dante's Inferno.

>implying Dante's Inferno is actual Catholic canon

>>669847

>The child will grow up without an identity set in stone

Not if they grow up a Christian. Who gives a winnie the pooh about identities connected to worldly nations and cultures? They're fine, but ultimately our allegiance is to God.

>>675862

>admits that there are obvious disadvantages to race-mixing that your child will suffer and not you, but it's not wrong

There might be.

But being in a freaky relationship with your new-age/pagan pure aryan waifu also has massive problems for the child, and is much more spiritually damaging than having some faithful brown wife.

>"oh I'm not a liberal"

I'm from a country where the western liberal-conservative divide doesn't even apply, you imbecile.

Yes. The seventh commandment says so.

Adultery comes from the word to adulterate, to change something by adding another.

The word used in the seventh commandment is not the one used for fornication, why?

>>676378

Just to make myself clear. It is a sin to mix ethnicities, which are holy and were set by God, since race is a modern masonic concept which doesn't exist in the medieval and classical sense.

Language, religion and genetics have always been part of the same entity before then.

The church does not marry a non-baptised to a Christian for this very reason.

>>676298

>my idea of mixing is supposedly less harmful than another hypothetical idea of mixing, so it's okay

No it's not okay. You avoid harmful things no matter what, and you do it on principle, not based on moral relativism.

Being christian is supposed to be about higher standards, not permissibility and enablement.

>Who gives a winnie the pooh about identities connected to worldly nations and cultures?Who gives a winnie the pooh about identities connected to worldly nations and cultures?

God does. He doesn't want us all to be the exact same thing.

>Not if they grow up a Christian.

Yes, because the dozens if not hundreds of denominations that can be changed over your lifetime are "solid".

You can't change your race. But you can change your religion/denomination.

You can't change God either, and he wanted there to be different races and he separated mankind into different cultures and ethnicities on purpose, the same way he separated the light from the dark. Who are you to question his design and his will?

>>675945

Totally where?

Still no quotes…

>>675942

Whenever Scripture preaches against sexual immorality or sexual impurities?

If you want to make a coherent argument, instead of a poorly (actually, zero) sourced tantrum, you could say race-mixing is sexually immoral, however, a race-mixed marriage between two baptized christians is never forbidden in scripture.

>>676496

>dermands quotes

>doesn't provide them himself

I want the bible quote that explicitly forbids sexual satisfaction via using dildos.

It must have the word "dildo" in it or I won't believe you.

Also, refer to this >>675935

>>676500

The sexually immoral and the sexually impure will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

What else must I provide you with? You're quite clearly a son of perdition.

>>676505

>demands explicit quotes against-race-mixing

>doesn't provide explicit quotes against dildos

I was just demonstrating that you demand a much higher threshold of evidence than what you provide.

You are basicaly a "muh feels" liberal when it comes to race-mixing, but a "nono, dildosex is wrong because… errr… it's obvious from the bible based on a few quotes that don't explicitly forbid the usage of dildos, but I'm going to apply it to that as well." You have double standards on this, and you have demonstrated it throughout this converstaion.

Also you don't find quotes against race-mixing because you don't read the Bible. Do that instead of spreading your vile poison, semetic snake.

>>676520

>Dildo's are for masturbation, and masturbation isn't sex, it's sexual deviancy.

Where does the bible state this explicitly?

>As for interracial marriage being immoral, what are you basing this on?

>>675935

>Your position is a total minority and not even Christian.

Says who?

>You realize Christ and his mother and the prophets are "semetic"

Show me the genetical tests conducted on both of them to prove it.

>Why are you using semite as an insult?

Because it is an insult.

>This isn't /pol/.

Neither is it /leftypol

>If you aren't Christian stop telling us how to practice God's religion.

If you are a jewish/liberal person stop telling me what is right and wrong, because you have no moral basis to do so.

>>676521

>Prove Jesus and Mary were semitic

>>676289

Bump

>>669763

This needs more attention, but I doubt it. This board went to SH.IT and the moderators are cucks.

Yes racemixing is wrong. The Bible is littered with purity laws. God had a very clear opinion on the matter. Given the problems mixes face and the detrimental effects of diversity, I can’t blame Him.

>>677690

>If your model future for a Christian society takes more from Mexico and Brazil than the Western world

You've dug yourself into a corner there. Brazil and Mexico(and some places north of the border) were places where mixing happened, and the churches, both cath and prottie(also look at Siberia, and the genesis of the Ghassanids, if you want an eastern christian example), didnt see anything uncanonical, or immoral with it(in fact, for catholics, Mary appeared there as a mestiza princess).

Because at the end of the day, we can do our fringe OT exegisis, we can shoehorn Tradition(despite the fact that it has no connection with Holy Tradition, but some vague Evolian traditionalism and personal deductions), and scream that everyone who disagrees is some liberal that "encourages" mixing, or whatever delusions one has, but the historical fact is that in Christendom, interethnic and IR stuff happened, and no one lost their shit over it, or banned it.

>>676527

Modern day yids are unrelated to the kingdom of judah in the Bible.

The thought of foolishness is sin. Racemixing is foolish like drinking and smoking while pregnant is foolish so its a sin.

>ctrl f: tobit

>no matches

Time to fix that:

>"Be on your guard, son, against every kind of fornication, and above all, marry a woman of your own ancestral family. Do not marry a foreign woman, one who is not of your father’s tribe, because we are descendants of the prophets, who were the first to speak the truth. Noah prophesied first, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our ancestors from the beginning of time. Son, remember that all of them took wives from among their own kindred and were blessed in their children, and that their posterity would inherit the land."

>"Therefore, son, love your kindred. Do not act arrogantly toward any of them, the sons and daughters of your people, by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in arrogance there is ruin and great instability. In idleness there is loss and dire poverty, for idleness is the mother of famine."

- Tobit 4:12-13 (NABRE)

>>678023

Based

Strictly forbidden by the bible.

It's allowed by all (((translation))) of picked through texts of the "bible".

>>678114

The passages I posted are from a Catholic Bible (New American Bible Revised Edition) that includes an updated/complete version of the book of Tobit.

People itt might be using outdated/shorter copies of the book or protestant versions of the Bible.

>>678048

That is on the religious and cultural basis of the old testament. It is not forbade for Christians of any race to marry each other but rather for Christians to marry non-Christians.

>>670870

>tfw dont look white enough to fit in with whites

>tfw dont look asian enough to fit in with the asians

iktf. I look Middle Eastern, and was raised by Blacks (though culturally assimilated, don't identify with "African Americans") but I have a Chinese surname and that's the culture I appreciate the most. I've only ever lived in the west and don't know any other language or feel any sense of belonging with people of other cultures. Even if you learned the language I don't think you can just slip right back into a culture your family left decades or a century ago when you've never been there yourself. I don't even want to leave my hometown let alone go to a foreign country. In Canada, people seem to love me, but I think its mostly because I embody their "melting pot" ideal, which I don't care for. People are so interested in my heritage but when I ask about theirs they say its just a bunch of "boring white people".

Anyway not sure what the long term plan is for me but I don't feel like "going back" is a realistic option, especially when most of the places my family came from are still at war or have some of the highest crime in the world and I'm not chad enough to survive there.

YES

IF WE MIX AND MIX WE WILL NOT HAVE RACISM AND FINALLY BE ABLE TO UNITE UNDER GOD THE TRUE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW, THE ONE WHO IS THE TRUE FAITH

>>678128

> Except you didn't say it's a bad idea, but spiritually illegal.

My argument was explicitly that it WAS NOT spiritually illegal. It was the reason I said I would not consider myself Christian! Please point to where I said otherwise so we can clear this misunderstanding of yours.

> Except if the Church has been ok with stuff like this since forever, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Again, you did not understand the argument being made. The fact the Church has not been explicitly against it does not change the matters of fact relating to the traditions of European people.

> You don't HAVE an argument, only buzzwords you throw around to legitimize yourself.

I made a very clear argument as it relates to tradition. The fact you can't see it and call it buzzwords is just further evidence illustrating your inability to understand what was written. Next time ask for clarification instead of making wrong assertions based on confused assumptions.

> And the Church has been stunningly neutral on the subject in of itself, if one looks at historical precedents.

Which was the issue I had with it. Without tradition the Church becomes nothing but a tool that serves the whims of whatever fad is popular, like DignityUSA shows.

> Any of these fags would get laughed at, and banned once they got into dialogue with a traditional church(as has happened with the orthodox ceasing ecumenical dialogue with the anglicans once they started female ordination and gay marriage). Or if they started reading patristic sources, and saw just how much homosexuals are utterly reviled in Ancient Christendom.

Except that modern Christianity is dominated by pro-gay propaganda. Your minority groups exist as conclaves, isolated from society at large. Why should I back the umbrella of Christianity when it is used to shield such people?

But what relevance does ancient Christendom have? Are you talking of the faith in the abstract or tradition that was not explicit enough to be kept alive? Seems like you are arguing my point. Unless you want to clarify further.

> You however, aren't doing this.You can't show any dogmatic statement, sermon, commentary, etc. to prove it's actually, you know, tradition. You claim the entire Christian World of the past 2k years as backing, and then say that it's unreasonable we demand a couple of witnesses to back up your claim.

Where do I claim what is unreasonable? What witness? What are you talking about? The fact that it was tradition is the illustrated in the painfully obvious fact that Europe is white and not racemixed.

This is painful. You don't understand what is being said or talked about.

>>678159

begone Kike

Does anyone else find it extremely sad that this is one of the most popular threads on /christian/ when it should have started and ended like this:

>Is race mixing allowed?

>Yes

/thread

How has this thread lasted so long?

>>678023

That's talking about Israelites mingling with pagan unbelievers you sperg.

>>678378

>>Is race mixing allowed?

>>Yes

>/thread

<Beware of all whoredom, my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife,

<Tobit 4:12

Racemixing is very unwise and borderline sinful. It's like squandering your wealth on purpose, it's not a sin but still very unwise.

NEVER EVER mix the races.

>>678388

Galatians 3:28

Colossians 3:11

>>678391

It says neither male nor female in that scripture. So does that make you a radical feminist as well?

>>678459

Why can't you differentiate between "allowed" and "required"? As am American, I am "allowed" to own a gun; but I am not "required" to do so. As a Christian, you are "allowed" to race mix, but nobody is "required" to do so.

>>678539

Just answer the basic question, if it also says "neither male nor female" then doesn't that mean you're arguing for gender equality and social equality by posting that verse as well?

And as for your next post, people are "allowed" to do all kinds of destructive things, more things than we could list, it doesn't mean they should do them or that it was ever encouraged to be done, or that it wasn't actually in fact depicted negatively as something that self-destructing nations do. Take Hosea 7:8-9 for instance.

>>678549

>Why should I avoid marrying her?

Because your children will belong nowhere. If you think this is loving you are an idiot.

>>678119

see >>669656

>>678590

The image you use illustrates your view perfectly. You don't consider tradition, duty or what comes after you and the impact your actions may have. It's just lust. Racemix because it makes your weewee feel better. No care for the offspring, no care for the person of your own kin left to be alone. Pathetic and disgusting.

> Neither implicit.

Makes my original reason for not wanting to call myself Christian even stronger.

> And yet apostolic dogma is still the same. As is fundamentalist dogma.

I made it very clear that the faith in the abstract can remain the same whilst everything around it crumbles. You are not engaging with that argument. Christianity, when it engages with anything outside of closed off communities, loses following and gets weaker. There are solutions to this but you would rather stick your head in the sand.

>Lmao.

Rofl

> Seems your thesis is a red herring

Seems like you made a nice strawman instead of engaging with the argument. The argument was that without holding to tradition you rely on ever evolving methods of interpreting text to make it mean whatever the reader wants it to mean. This is especially explicit with all of the stunts being pulled by Pope Francis and the long term effect of those stunts. All you can do is lock yourself away from mainstream society and hope that they don't get your children. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/29/jesus-was-drag-king-with-queer-desires-claims-theology-professor.html You can LMAO all you want, but the pillars of our current society fell due to a slow never ending creep of subversion. Each generation more lenient than the next. That is exactly what is happening. With every single person that dies, a new and softer person replaces him.

> Mate, can you stop this cringy ass "disagreeing with means you are too stupid understand my point, or you secretly agree with me"?

>You sound like Sam Harris.

> I understand your point.

>But it's trying to shoehorn a lot of crap into it, to make it seem more authoritative than it is.

Words fail me. After your entire spiel you actually go ahead and REPEAT the request that I substantiate a claim I NEVER MADE:

> Give a statement in the history of Europe forbidding christians of different ethnicities and/or races from marrying.

WHY WOULD I DO THAT WHEN I EXPLICITLY MADE THE POINT THAT THE CHURCH DID NOT FORBID IT? You absolute plonk. Here is what I wrote in the very first sentence of the post you replied to: "My argument was explicitly that it WAS NOT spiritually illegal. It was the reason I said I would not consider myself Christian! Please point to where I said otherwise so we can clear this misunderstanding of yours."

Is everyone who has issues with your illiteracy a "Sam Harris"? Or are you borrowing "arguments" from comatose atheists cultists who call everyone that disagrees with them a "creationist"?

> The reason that happened is because Europe was cut off from interactions with christians from other races.

The reason is not important. All that is asked is, was it tradition to racemix? The answer is NO. The opposite was observably the case. Observable how? By looking at modern day Europeans.

This tradition of not racemixing has real world effects. Moving away from this tradition will have real world effects. It should worry a Christian given how hand in hand nationalism and Christianity have been. What happens when you kill off any nationalism you had, any historical ties to the people of the past, because you racemixed and your kid is some mongrel that finds no history to identify with? Why should he listen to people that look nothing like him that lick the feet of some brown person instead of some Nation of Islam proponent that DOES look like him and is getting his feet licked?

> When that did happen(latin america, arab foederati, Siberia, eastern euro christian Turkics, Zaida of Seville, Abram Petrovich Gannibal) euros were ok with mixing. Not exactly crazy about it, but accepted it.

No, "euros" were not OK with mixing. If they were we would not have the Europeans we have today. Even within modern nation states you had phenotypic traits maintain themselves that are region specific. You illustrate this with your argument. Where racemixing was OK we had racemixing. Where it was not it did not occur. This brings us back to my original argument. Is your ideal view of Christian society inspired by Brazil or Western Europe? Oh, golly, looks like almost all of our based Christian inspirations come from the expressions of non-mixing men of Western European stock. Must be a coincidence. If we lose them all, surely everything will be fine…

>>679268

day 1

>>678590

>that sombrero on the baby

I miss that sort of endearing parental comedy where the bible has some item or something from the parents as if it's part of genetics.

>>679268

> If you only care about Christianity only in as much as it meshes with your politics,

If you only care about Christianity as much as it meshes with what your weewee likes, you are bound to support racemixing at some point. Regardless of the consequences. Regardless of tradition.

> It is precisely when they become more important.

I am claiming what is and has been survival in any society that survived.

> Doesn't have to be religious. A law or treaty or something can work.

What makes tradition is not what religion says or what law says. We have the proof of tradition right in front of us. This backpedaling by you is painful.

> Gee, why do we have the Great Commission, then? We've been christianizing and interacting with foreign cultures since day 0. It didn't end with Ulfilas.

Why you have the Great Commission would just be a further illustration of my point. Whilst the most powerful nations and institutions on earth move further and further away you put more and more hope on a powerless class of savages. http://www.reformation.org/voodoo-and-the-vatican.html What you like will be removed once they outnumber you. Including your weewee.

> Has is occurred to you that the most christian societies in Europe are the less swayed by sjw bullshit, and not /pol/tards memeing about shitskins?

European nations were all bastions of Christian values once. Losers like you had your heads stuck in the sand and ignored your traditions being attacked and ruined because up in the Vatican they were still chugging along moderately fine. You failed western societies which is why Christianity is dead there.

Has it occurred to you that nationalism is on the rise and Christianity is not? Does it not make my point, again, that these Christian nations that resist the dogma of modernity are all hyper nationalistic? That the very same dogma they resist is being enabled by your egalitarianism? You look at one side of the coin whilst the other is rusting away, and you pretend it wont affect your side in due time. It's just sad.

> Revivals can always happen, and have happened, though. Even in way darker circumstances than ours.

You are not engaging with the point being made. Nowhere did I say revivals could not come about. This is becoming pointless when you just respond to snippets construed into strawmen you can actually engage with, instead of arguments that were actually made. I argue however that there is nothing to revive once you eliminate all the westerners. Why should Africans maintain western renditions of Christianity when we can already see them making their own from what missionaries left them with?

> Again, as retarded as he can be, the Catholic Church's dogma will remain the same, today, tomorrow, and forever.

This is incredible. Good. Go be Catholic in your compound locked away from society whilst, in the real world, suicidal egalitarians make sure every Church is either torn down or turned into a pornographic theater in a mighty attempt to abolish "whiteness". The faith in the abstract remains pure. You win whilst children get taught how to 'consent' to perverts molesting them.

> Again, faithful nations are less likely to have that. And most nations are a cultural and genetic merge of populations, that didn't make them atheist.

Faith has nothing to do with it outside of being exactly what I talked of before: A link with nationalism. None of these nations stand against these movements on faith alone. Your particular brand of egalitarian communist Christianity is exactly why all of these nations that have survived are xenophobic as well. They resist your nation destroying worldview.

Also, most nations in Europe are genetically and culturally distinct. Take your egalitarian lies and propaganda elsewhere.

> You are talking as if Ivan that married that Nağaybäks chick was somehow psychologically different from his dad, that married Natasha.

No, I am not talking as if that you ramble about is in any way substantiated. Make your point clear.

> Most people are endogamous, and that was increased by lower travel in the past.

Well it is nice you managed to finally figure this out. Maybe it will hit you sometime how gloriously dumb your objections to tradition have been in your previous post. I'm not holding my breath.

> Given i'm part of neither, ill pass.

So you are just arguing for your own interest and trying to subvert the church to serve it. That's good to know.

> Take a list at all of our famous theologians and saints, our bravest defenders of the faith, and most imposing rites, and come back to me afterwards.

If we expand our scope towards white men, and not just western Europe, you don't have a leg to stand on.

In any case, you've abandoned responding to what I actually wrote. Making this a very pointless exercise in you trying to justify your egalitarian genocide cult views.

>>679871

You started with a tu quoque. Lovely.

>I am claiming what is and has been survival in any society that survived.

That's called God, mate.

>What makes tradition is not what religion says or what law says.

If it was such a crucial tradition within the european psyche, it would have been codified SOMEWHERE, and it would have been a massive taboo for their colonialists.

>Whilst the most powerful nations and institutions on earth move further and further away you put more and more hope on a powerless class of savages.

>Putting your trust in powerful nations;

>European nations were all bastions of Christian values once.

And they fell from grace way before immigrants or interracial shit happened.

>Has it occurred to you that nationalism is on the rise and Christianity is not?

Ah yes, it's the 1930's again. Nothing new under the sun.

>I argue however that there is nothing to revive once you eliminate all the westerners. Why should Africans maintain western renditions of Christianity when we can already see them making their own from what missionaries left them with?

>I argue however that there is nothing to revive once you eliminate all the meds. Why should Germans maintain western renditions of Christianity when we can already see them making their own from what missionaries left them with?

>Faith has nothing to do with it outside of being exactly what I talked of before: A link with nationalism.

And now you show your true face.

> Does it not make my point, again, that these Christian nations that resist the dogma of modernity are all hyper nationalistic?

>Your particular brand of egalitarian communist Christianity is exactly why all of these nations that have survived are xenophobic as well.

If you know german, read Martin Tamcke's:

"Christen in der islamischen Welt: Von Mohammed bis zur Gegenwart Taschenbuch"

You'll understand why they are xenophobic and nationalistic.

>They resist your nation destroying worldview.

I've had contact with nation destroying worldviews way more than you, sperg.

>No, I am not talking as if that you ramble about is in any way substantiated. Make your point clear.

People were intermarrying with christian tatars, arab princesses, and american natives centuries ago, so they didn't have insurmountable taboos against it.

>So you are just arguing for your own interest and trying to subvert the church to serve it. That's good to know.

Your head is so far stuck up your ass you can't carry an honest discussion without imagining your opponent as some caricature.

Honest question:

What do you think i am, asl wise?

>If we expand our scope towards white men, and not just western Europe, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Expand from what, you imbecile?

I took 2000 years of Church history as a whole.

Among countless saints and theologians, we have westerners, some of whom are giants, but saying this was restricted to western european males, or even that they are the majority, shows you for the historically illiterate, retarded baboon that you are, that understands christianity as much as Varg understands indo-european paganism.

>>680242

> That's called God, mate.

No it's not. Demonstrated by the multiple instances of people surviving whilst being heretical towards the Christian doctrine. Tradition exists outside of the Christian one.

> If it was such a crucial tradition within the european psyche, it would have been codified SOMEWHERE, and it would have been a massive taboo for their colonialists.

It's codified in the fact you have borders. It's codified in segregation and anti-racemixing laws. It's codified in a history of ethnic based conflict. But also, the answer to your assertion is simply no. It being tradition does not necessitate it being written down anywhere. Your second assertion is just contrived ahistoric nonsense. Colonials that did survive for a long time in Africa did not racemix. Illustrated by South Africa.

> Putting your trust in powerful nations

This is so dumb. . Nowhere did I put my "trust" in large powerful nations. It's simply a matter of fact that what large powerful nations, institutions and people think can matter a lot given that they have power. Absolutely pathetic that you willfully try to misconstrue what is being said since you can't argue with what is actually said. Like I said, when society turns upside down and they preach satanism under open sky as the state mandates you can go dry your tears safe in the knowledge that the faith in the abstract is safe and sound.

> And they fell from grace way before immigrants or interracial shit happened.

Because their pillars of tradition were destroyed by anti-traditional thinkers and philosophers. Christianity did nothing to save it. It was completely powerless. Guys like Boas and Freud should have been burned at the stake by priests if your Church was worth even one tenth of the trust you put in it.

> Ah yes, it's the 1930's again. Nothing new under the sun.

Your reply has no relation to what was written in its context.

>I argue however that there is nothing to revive once you eliminate all the meds. Why should Germans maintain western renditions of Christianity when we can already see them making their own from what missionaries left them with?

You are not engaging with the point being made, again. But funnily enough, when we eliminated meds from religious institutions in Europe you had reformations and deviations from what the meds had been preaching, making my point.

> And now you show your true face.

What exactly was the face I was hiding behind?

> You'll understand why they are xenophobic and nationalistic.

Modern Germans are being dominated by xenophilia and globalism. ???

Nationalism is a healthy impulse you are taught to suppress. It is linked with Christianity for a very simple reason. They share a reverence for what came before. I.e. Tradition.

> I've had contact with nation destroying worldviews way more than you, sperg.

Wow, big boy posturing. Go pound sand with this lame rhetoric.

> People were intermarrying with christian tatars, arab princesses, and american natives centuries ago, so they didn't have insurmountable taboos against it.

Power politics of kings and queens have nothing to do with the traditions of the peasant. Conflating this is straw grasping.

> Your head is so far stuck up your ass you can't carry an honest discussion without imagining your opponent as some caricature.

What I said was based on what you wrote. I don't know what you are and I don't care. If I had to hazard a guess I would say Russian of some sort.

> Expand from what, you imbecile?

Expand from western Europeans to white people as a whole you illiterate plonk. Now rephrase your strawman and try and make your assertion again.