/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>836549

I wish Cardinal Vigano was the Pope. But then, that's not going to happen. Pope Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals with his fellow Modernist.

Truly based. We're not in the end times I think, but we're witnessing some monumental power struggles in our day. I can only hope and pray things end well.

>>836560

During the fall of Rome, I'm sure people thought times were ending as well. It didn't, a new era was simply born. I believe we're heading to that era, and hopefully with a new sense with it.

>>836549

EPIC

>the children of light

>Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches

This guy, though denouncing it, gives me serious Freemason/Illuminati vibes. For a long time now I've been skeptical of Trump's administration and worried about the forces that exoterically seem to be combating the deep state. Remember that the Devil disguises himself as an angel of light and that he would deceive the very elect if it were possible. What this means to me is that: 1) non-Christians will be captivated for secular reasons, and 2) "Christians" will be captivated because they will mistakenly believe that the bad guys are the good guys. How do you convince the "Christian" world that you are the good guys? By combating and overthrowing the system that is so comically evil and diabolical that no person with even the slightest familiarity with scripture would be taken in by it. You know, the power structure in place that operates on usury, fraud, war, secularism, occult practices, child trafficking, and cannibalism. All it would take to fool most of the world would be to expose that system and replace it with a different kind of evil: the evil that comes from contentment and material attachment and wealth – an abandonment of God and the belief in enlightenment and/or a self-manufactured utopia.

If you look into esoteric occult practices, you quickly find out that there are two "paths": The Left-hand Path, and the Right-hand Path. These are a few of their characteristics…

Left-hand:

>centrality of the self

>rejection of religious authority

>indulgence in societal taboos

>focuses on the strength and will of the practitioner

>downplays the need for intercession by any high power (though higher powers are still acknowledged)

>Satanism

>the embrace of Chaos (Chaotic Evil)

>Darkness as a symbol

>Malicious

Right-hand:

>concentrates on the symbols of goodness

>acceptance of submission to god(s) and religious authority

>encourages herd mentality

>fueled by dogma, ritual, and a belief in the community and formal structure

>Luciferianism and Freemasonry

>the embrace of Order (Lawful Evil)

>Light as a symbol

>Insidious

So, basically, the first beast is the Anti-Christ system which first ensnares the exoterically wicked and which is hated by both the good and the esoterically wicked. Then the second beast, or the False-Prophet system, "overthrows" the first beast and brings about an evil system that only appears good so as to ensnare the esoterically wicked. Basically wrath, envy, and greed are replaced with pride, gluttony, and sloth. The great deception will be the idea that God has blessed the world and that humans can create paradise on their own. Only the faithful will reject the new order and await the true Advent of Christ.

So while this guy titillates my sense of righteousness and justice, I cannot help but be weary of him.

<> And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them. Deuteronomy 28:14

<> Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. Joshua 1:7

<>Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil. Proverbs 4:27

>>836562

figures a southern baptist would come to a thread on a catholic subject and post a link to a virus (according to Norton)

>>836617

>Trump is the devil because he fights against the obvious devils.

Okay. stopped reading.

>>836664

Lol there is absolutely no getting right with you people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today?wprov=sfla1

No spiritually healthy Christian is this angry all the time. Genuinely go visit your priest.

>>836714

The hate you see in me, only exists in your head. It's "Cognitive dissonance".

Have a nice day.

>>836664

1. Show a little good faith. That "virus" is a link to a PDF of the letter that can be saved.

2. Perhaps you should read more instead of surrendering to ignorance when you get uncomfortable. I could be wrong, but you might find information in my post useful for forming your own beliefs.

>>836751

I'm not intending to continue an argument but I just want to clarify, do you understand that you were mistaken? I did nothing but share the article in another medium for the benefit of discussion. I didn't even comment.

>>836617

>2) "Christians" will be captivated because they will mistakenly believe that the bad guys are the good guys.

Christianity is compromised on a much deeper level. The church has adopted the morality of progressivism. Every church in America will teach you that racism is bad but nowhere in the bible is racism condemned. The idea that racism is bad and hateful is satanic. Racism is necessary and good. You should know your ancestry, be proud of your heritage and you should want to continue it. Those are just basic traits of human tribes that survive.

Jesus was racist. Some Canaanite woman asked him for a miracle and he refused, calling her a dog. Calling her a dog was meant to be offensive. A dog is an impure animal, according to the old testament. The Canaanites had historically been enemies of the Jews. Jesus was displaying completely garden variety racism. And the bible says Jesus was without sin. Racism is not sin.

Jesus didn't say "love everyone". He narrowed it down to "love thy neighbor". We are to exercise discrimination and show a preference to our group over others. That's a Truly Christian principle but the modern church, both catholic and protestant, have abandoned it in favor of progressive morality

>>836779

Jesus was not displaying racism in that moment. If I remember correctly, The woman wanted her daughter cured of demonic possession. Jesus knew people the moment he put eyes on them, He proved this many times. That woman was responsible for much of her daughters ailments. She was only helped by Jesus when she displayed faith in Him. The woman likened herself to a dog as well, talking about benefiting from the crumbs off the table. She took that insult willingly because she knew of her involvement in her daughters sins. If Jesus was racist at that moment he wouldn’t have helped her. Also what about the Samaritan woman at the well with several husbands. Jesus talked to her like a person, no insults whatsoever. Also, in acts there are many places that say God is not partial. The Greeks and other non Jews got the blessings from Christ before many Jews did because the Jews pushed it aside.

The racism today is not open to change, no matter what good deeds are shown by the other race. I’ll admit I’m also tribal at times. But not because I view my race as superior. But because I also believe in preserving ones culture. That being said I would not discourage someone from my own race marrying another race, just as long as the other person is a Christian. I would welcome it with open arms, as I have done so far.

Mixing is inevitable, and most importantly, in God’s hands. If one wants to preserve their own race, they’re better off helping their own race become cleaner in the eyes of God. God preserves all nations that He loves, and none of the nations out of His favor. You just worry about the cleanliness of your own race, the preservation will follow.

>>836779

Very true. Thank you for this.

>>836779

Yes, preference to our people isnt racism.

But in that passage He didnt use the generic word 'dog' which was used by the jews in a deprecating manner but he used 'puppy'.

>>836782

What an absolute load

>Jesus was not displaying racism in that moment

If "racism" (a nebulous concept that changes with however the elites want to use it) means acknowledging that the character and identity of the nations [races] of man are different, and/or that ones moral responsibility for his own people is greater than for another then he absolutely was. To try to pretend he wasn't is pure bible-lawyer crap that puts false words in Christ's mouth.

And letting foreigners drink from a well isn't 'anti-racist' it's charitable, as in not treating others unjustly for no reason beyond ethnic spite. The the anti-racist position would be that any foreigner who wanders in should actually have an equal, no wait, a controlling stake in the well and decide how the locals can use it.

>Standard willful misrepresentation of "no jew or greek" and being against "partiality"

No jew or greek means that every nation is subject to God, not that race isn't real, unless you also want to say that the concepts of male and female as well as slavery are equally nonexistent (i.e. the second half of that verse that's always mysteriously left out). And again, impartiality means that the law applies to those of a high station and of a low one, not the absolute moral idiocy of "NEVER show partiality to one person over another" which is directly contradictory to the virtue of loyalty (I'm rather more partial to ensure the good of my own flesh and blood than a stranger, but I guess that's 'wrong' to you).

>I wouldn't discourage interracial marriage

>Mixing is inevitable

Why is it inevitable, because you fear the social cost of opposing it (even anonymously)? Nietzsche wasn't a good man, but he was spot on about the pathetically low character of those who cloak their own cowardice in 'virtue'. I'm relally obeying 'the will of god' in sitting idly by as my nation collapses! Mass migration and race mixing are terrible in the long run for everyone, you're not being virtuous for refusing to oppose it, you're being an uncharitable moral coward who is ambivalent toward the immiseration of his brother.

>>836807

Nations rise and fall, only our soul matters for it is immortal in God. Better a coward than following your prosperity gospel.

>>836808

The soul is the nation isn't it? You have no other reason to say that.

>>836782

>Jesus knew people the moment he put eyes on them, He proved this many times. That woman was responsible for much of her daughters ailments.

You're grasping at straws trying to make your progressive morality fit into Christianity, but it doesn't. That's why your argument is so nonsensical and convoluted and why mine was simple and to the point.

> If Jesus was racist at that moment he wouldn’t have helped her.

Why not? Your problem is that you believe racism is hatred. It's not. Racism is the necessary and good defense of your own people. We live in a world of conflict, if you won't defend your people and treasure them above all others then you will go extinct along with your entire ethnicity. The goal of anti-racism is the extermination of Christianity, and you are aiding that extermination

just dump the progressivism. It isn't such a hard thing to do. let the scales fall from your eyes and see the gospel as it was supposed to be seen.

>>836808

oh, i get it. You're a jewish shill. throwing in the term "prosperity gospel" in order to discredit his argument though his argument has no relation to prosperity gospel is a stereo-typically jewish lie. Jews don't tell little lies, they tell whoppers that most people would be ashamed to tell.

you can eave now shlomo. go shill another thread.

>>836785

>But in that passage He didnt use the generic word 'dog' which was used by the jews in a deprecating manner but he used 'puppy'.

That's a poor argument by the progressive church that's desperate to inject progressive morality into the church. That argument changes nothing, it's just sophistry. It's like claiming that calling a woman a b– isn't offensive unless you call her a "winnie the pooh b–".

The term he used doesn't matter because it didn't change the underlying sentiment. He was telling that woman that her and her entire race were just dogs in comparison to the children of Israel. He was telling her that she was a subhuman, essentially.

>>836617

>So, basically, the first beast is the Anti-Christ system which first ensnares the exoterically wicked and which is hated by both the good and the esoterically wicked. Then the second beast, or the False-Prophet system,

if you're going to quote probably alexandra then you could at least credit her.

>>836549

Based

>>836834

I've been trying to find a way of contacting her because I actually had this stuff in mind before she even had a YouTube channel and have wanted to speak to her about it, but she's very hard to reach out to, apparently. First time I saw her videos, I had to say that I was shocked to hear my words coming out of her mouth. She did help me to bridge some gaps I had and help me know where to focus some of my own reading.

I believe that she's naive and wrong about a lot. She's fallen into the trap of rejecting the Catholic Church because of the poor Bishopric we have in this corrupt age.

>>836779

Racial consciousness is not sinful. Racial realism is not sinful. Admiration for one's tribe is not sinful. Racism prejudice (as opposed to discrimination) based solely on race is definitely sinful because it is not only vain, but uncharitable and presumptuous.

To say, "Those black people are doing evil by stealing, vandalizing, and committing acts of violence," is not sinful. Saying, "Those people are doing evil by stealing, vandalizing, and committing acts of violence because they are black," is not necessarily sinful in the case of these recent riots because they have chosen race as their own motivating agent. It would be sinful if they weren't committing these crimes under the banner of racial identity. Saying, "Black people are evil because they steal, vandalize, and commit acts of violence," is sinful and prejudiced, because that relegates their evil acts as individuals to an entire population of innocent people.

>>836779

Jesus was testing her and his disciples, it wasn't an insult, it was more a spiritual division between jews and non-jews.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html

>>836549

>N iggers can't be bas-

<Hey, did you hear GUINEAN Cardinal Sarah denounced mass migration as an existential threat to European peoples?

>Okay but that's only one exa-

<And that ITALIAN Archbishop Vigano penned a letter to the President calling the latest mass-media psyop part of a plan to reinforce the Luciferian new world order?

BIGOTS APOLOGIZE, RIGHT NOW

>>837834

It seems like it could only have been an unflattering thing to call her a (according to your own source) a "pet dog" even if not necessarily an "insult", but the phrase itself is irrelevant since the subtext of having greater responsibility to the people of Israel is clearly accepted, which requires acceptance of the concept of distinct peoples. If the concept of distinct people's weren't acceptable, then he would have just helped her immediately (given that the spiritual division wasn't there since she clearly accepted him as her Lord already).