LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

Eh, cancel culture is basically blasphemy laws without the religion.

Precisely. There simply will be a religion, this is who and what men are, beings who worship. When you tear down the White Christ, you do not enjoy nothing, a new God will take his place.

you might want to think about free speech, and how it protects your ability to say anti-American things

Hahaha, that's cute. As if I am not self censoring my speech everyday to avoid blaspheming against the myths of late modernity 'murica so as not to lose my means of supporting a family.
 
Precisely. There simply will be a religion, this is who and what men are, beings who worship. When you tear down the White Christ, you do not enjoy nothing, a new God will take his place.
So first, Jesus was a Jew, and probably looked arabic, not white.
Hahaha, that's cute. As if I am not self censoring my speech everyday to avoid blaspheming against the myths of late modernity 'murica so as not to lose my means of supporting a family.
So, what you are saying is that you don't like censorship, unless you do it.
 
China isn't specifically suppressing Nazis though. When the UK did it, it caused a lot of support for Count Dankula, and now he makes good money off of youtube instead of being a nobody. And in the US, the censorship of social media has redpilled many a person. So yeah, wrong on all counts.
Wrong on all counts? China is suppressing everyone who opposes the regime and has for 80 years. Opposition to the regime is strongest in the area that has seen the absolute least suppression, Hong Kong. Dankulas support base is heaviest in the US, not UK. The UK has strong suppression and vastly less care for free speech than the US with less. The censorship of social media redpilled some, and then emboldens others, builds an industry out of it. And those who do get censored do not often become stronger out of it. They typically lose a large portion of their audience barring a few exceptions, and that does far less to redpill than open and free sharing of the content itself would. If you aren’t already onboard with the whole “social media is screwing us” thing from when it first started, there isn’t going to be a significant gain as it continues.
So first, Jesus was a Jew, and probably looked arabic, not white.
Levantine/Mediterranean and also a Christian. Judaism doesn’t really become Judaism till the Talmud, before that it was more so the name of a Roman province and earlier one specific state/tribe of the Hebrews/Israelites that was known as Judea. Judaism and Christianity are both religions that are offshoots of the Hebrews/Israelites that are both centered around Christ, either acceptance or rejection of him. The picture of “this is what Jesus really looked like” with him as a dark Arab doesn’t really capture the features of the people of that region much, and seeing how it was pre Arab invasion too that admixture wouldn’t be remotely as strong as it is in the region today. It’s the same weird racial propaganda as blonde haired blue eyed Nordic Jesus and black Jesus, in a thin veneer of science. There’s a misconception that the Old Testament is all about the Jews and that they are the chosen people of God that runs through evangelical Christianity which has zero basis in anything biblical.
 
Last edited:
Precisely. There simply will be a religion, this is who and what men are, beings who worship. When you tear down the White Christ, you do not enjoy nothing, a new God will take his place.



Hahaha, that's cute. As if I am not self censoring my speech everyday to avoid blaspheming against the myths of late modernity 'murica so as not to lose my means of supporting a family.

So, you're making a utilitarian argument for censorship.

Can you make a Biblical one? And by Biblical I don't mean 'Nation of Israel,' I mean 'Christian.'
 
So, you're making a utilitarian argument for censorship.

Can you make a Biblical one? And by Biblical I don't mean 'Nation of Israel,' I mean 'Christian.'

The Church herself employs censors and censorship, under the basic principle that ‘error has no rights.’
 
The Church herself employs censors and censorship, under the basic principle that ‘error has no rights.’

'The Church.'

That's abstract to the level of useless, and doesn't at all answer my question.

It's also wrong. Christianity has a long history of aggressive theological debate, especially with those not part of the church, starting from the very beginning of the church, with apostles (and Stephen) before the San Hedrin, and Paul debating with Greeks during his missionary journeys.
 
'The Church.'

That's abstract to the level of useless, and doesn't at all answer my question.

It's also wrong. Christianity has a long history of aggressive theological debate, especially with those not part of the church, starting from the very beginning of the church, with apostles (and Stephen) before the San Hedrin, and Paul debating with Greeks during his missionary journeys.

It should answer your question, as there is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
 
And we all know that Catholics always get along with each other and there's never any bickering about what is the right true way of being Catholic. I'm absolutely sure, for example, that a guy like you is a big fan of the current Pope.
 
It should answer your question, as there is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
No, there isn't, because the Catholic/Orthodox split occurred entirely over communication issues and they diverged from there. All the theological differences came after the split.

As compared to the Antipope bullshit the Catholics have put up with, the Orthodox Church has a goddamn spotless record with maintaining procedure.
 
It should answer your question, as there is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Again, this is an answer so low on detail and high on abstraction as to be useless.

There is one church in the sense that it is the fellowship of all believers, referred to as 'the body of Christ' in scripture. Within this body there are many different takes on censorship.

There's the Catholic Church, which makes a variety of interesting theological claims about its own authority and role in the relationship between God and man, such as claiming to be the only 'real' church. It has and has not practiced censorship to different degrees over the centuries, and certainly contradicts its own teachings and doctrines at different points throughout history.

There's a variety of other sects which claim to be the only 'real' church, or the 'realest' church.

What do you actually mean?
 
Again, this is an answer so low on detail and high on abstraction as to be useless.

No, it’s actually highly specific and only people who refuse submission to the magisterium to the one Church are confused about what it means.

No, there isn't, because the Catholic/Orthodox split occurred entirely over communication issues and they diverged from there. All the theological differences came after the split.

Yes there is, because the Council of Florence resolved the schism and I for one refuse to recognize a schism brought about by Ottoman Turk orders.
 
No, it’s actually highly specific and only people who refuse submission to the magisterium to the one Church are confused about what it means.

So, Catholicism then.

You see, a have a problem with the Cathlic church. Specifically, that it openly defies scripture in a number of ways, especially in how it claims to be a sole intermediary between God and man, when that explicitly is a role that only Christ serves.
 
same thing can be said about tools like racial genocide that doesin't mean I'm going to praise it or god forbid encourage it.
*Use government to make society a little more like how you want it, roll back things that directly go against you like section 230 or the current education system*

“that’s just like racial genocide, we can’t do that and we must do nothing as the government is used to destroy everything we like about the nation”

The right are the most beautiful losers possible, they’ll take these stances on principles and give up ground and territory because it would be wrong to do anything and as they’ve lost everything they pushed for or wanted, they can say “at least I never fought back, at least I stood by what I believed in”
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top