Is he not a bodily incarnation of god? father, son, and holy ghost, in one? or does what he is change depending upon what is convenient for you at the time?

Do christians not prefer the laws of the old testament to the words of jesus in the new testament which conflict with them? most of the time when I hear a christian cite laws and commandments and history, it's coming from the old testament, I said they prefer to reference the OT, not that they never reference the NT, there are certainly some NT passages that are favorites for christians to cite, but most of the references with regard to their political advocacy come from the old book, not the new one..

There's something to say for the progress made by christians, in that it correlates less to their religion and more to their race, that these christians didn't make progress because they were christian, if they weren't, they would likely have made similar achievements if not better ones, etc.

also of note is that I never said that christians were incapable of achieving anything that a non-christian could.

But my favorite response is that the depending upon the time period and category of reference, that the achievements of christians were lagely made by christians who were of a very different flavor to those you refer to.

I've already referenced that a lot of the progress that christians had made through history came precisely because of their biblical ignorance, or they disregard for what the bible says on a particular subject, for most of history, christians had no clue what was in the bible, they never read it, indeed, they never read at all, they got their teachings from church officials and those officials were quoting only the parts that served a particular political purpose, due to the entanglement of them and the ruling class back then.

But, even in the ages where christians could read the bible, most of them didn't and remained content with preachers, those who read it didn't read it like a book, starting from the beginning and going through to the last page, they instead used guides and other things to find specific passages, and even then they will take a passage that at first glance looks sort of like it might support the ideas they had to begin with, and then form an opinion that is 99% personal conviction and 1% biblically justified.

Then we get the credit given to those famous people who aren't very religiously informed, and they can be easily converted to believing in "god" by encountering something mysterious, only for that mystery to be better understood, and finding that god wasn't there after all, christians often will credit these people as becoming converts, but in most cases, they weren't converted to christianity, but to the belief in some deistic or pantheistic or vaguely spiritual idea of "god" that has little to no basis in the bible or christian church. Some, like CS Lewis are genuinely converted to christianity, but he isn't the sort you'd want to claim, since he was rabidly anti-nazi and in favor of going to war to wipe them out.

The churchgoing christian is the next category, having experience with them, they tend to view the church more for it's community than for it being a source of truth, often their engagement with their religion is very passive at best, churches are very good for getting white people together into a community, but for a lot of them, their religion ends at attending church, praying over meals, before bed, and in times of emotional impact, and wearing a cross or other christian paraphenalia, talk to a bunch of them about the bible, and you get very different responses, even from those who attend the same church.

Last, we get to the common christians of today, who are very secularized, and their conception of "god" lies in what appeals to their sensibilities, the links to the bible or the christian church aren't very strong, their religion tends to be a very personalized christian themed ideology, these types are the 90's youth group christians and a lot of the typical christians who identify with a religion that doesnt actually have too much of an impact on their thinking.

A christian who actually follows christ would be a lot more similar to the atheists on the left than to the believers on the right politically, though religiously and culturally, they would be more similar to those on the right.

They would be in favor of poverty and encouraging the wealthy to give their wealth to the poor, they would be in favor of open borders and against law and order, they would be opposed to the family and encouraging people to leave theirs, they would be in favor of jewish supremacy and gentiles being subservient to jews (regardless of who the "jews" were, some gentiles would be shafted, most definitely those of roman descent), they would be believers in creationism and jewish victimization, meaning some form of leftist judeophilic "egalitarianism" at the very least, it may be for a different reasoning than what a shitlib would use, but in practice they would be in favor of a lot of things you'd expect from some utopian shithead duped into being a misinformed antifa supporter.

the only difference is that the christian would be a believer in christ as their lord and savior, explicitly religious, which is enough to put them on the right in today's anti-christian world. thank god that we don;t have a world full of bible reading and bible believing christians out there representing us.

I'm looking to tell the truth as I see it, not to convince anyone, the standard christian practice here is to ignore the bulk of what christ had commanded, and put their own practical concerns over his teachings, we've had a lot of christian nations, and all of them had fallen to jewish subversion, both when they were christian and after they rejected christianity, my take is that if a system fails, it wasn't the best system we could have had.

Maybe the religion should die, the response I get is "oh, that's what the jews want", yeah, but the jews want to replace it with marxism, I don't, marxism is another failed system, and so is the idea of some unmitigated internationalist corporate capitalism.

I'm reminded of the meme in which some guy is talking about the policies he supports, it sounds like he's a shitlib, but at the end there is a picture of a national socialist ss officer, the message being that a lot of the things the left likes are in common with the literal "nazis" they keep on railing against.

White right politics itself is adopting some of the same attitudes that other races adopt for their tribes, but for white people, at the furthest extrme we got reverse judaism, where whites adopt the attitudes towards the white race and it's relationship to other races, that jews do for their race and it's relationship to other races, also of mention is racism 2, which is the idea of unironically being the wignats who think being the "nazis" in hollywood is the way to go, the holywood nazi being the jews taking the most unflattering depiction of their loxism and zionism, and then projecting it on whites, who ditrect it towards jews (the evil always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of).

If adopting some part of the ideas of the enemy, and admitting that they are correct about something is enough to make you exactly like them, then the whole nationalist community is equivalent to the jewish ones they oppose.

the thing that makes you into the enemy is agreeing with them the while way, or at least on a significant enough amount of ground to make you ally with them on everything.

I'm not interested in banning christianity, nor am I interested in closing churches or public displays of christian faith, but I do crave a clear cut from the conservatives, and see the religion as being some aspect that has not made us stronger, but weaker, I know from personal experience as an atheist arguing for tradition and family and gender roles, against abortion and euthenasia, and against homosexuality and transgenderism, that the impact of religion on each of these topics has made it harder for me to convince others that there are good arguments to be made for each of these, but every time people assumed I was some closeted christian fundamentalist who was trying to pretend that there was a secular case to be made for them, because the religious advocacy on these subjects had colored the whole debate as a religious one.

I can also see that we get a lot of people who want to drag us towards the center, and use christianity as a vehicle for doing that, other threats include adding religious requirements for acceptance when we already are a minority by politics alone, the lauding of public figures like mike pence who are loved for their religiousity, only for them to betray us, hurting our credibility as scientifically minded exposers/propagators of the truth, and the rise of people who try to substitute christian nationalism for white nationalism.

the biggest thing for me, is that a collection of right wing atheists has a good selling point, since it makes a very clear cut between us and the conservatives who made christianity a major part of their branding identity.

Jesus claimed to be God, to do things only God can do. He received worship due only to God.

What exactly is your argument here? You will DIE IN YOUR SINS unless you believe that Jesus is the I AM. See John 8. He always existed.

All you have to say whenever I make posts like these is that I am a jew, a cliche used so often that it's lost meaning for most of us, you don't have to respond to anything I say, just call me a jew and that's it.

Look, I don't comment on much else, but I do read quite a bit, and I agree with most of it, you can generally assume that if I don't comment on something, It's because I don't think I have anything to add to it.

That's like 99% of the posts on this site.

But when I encounter something I think I have something to say in response to, I do respond to it.

The dissident "White right "has it's blind spots as does every other part of the political spectrum, when it comes to it's specialties - in topics like sex, race, and other matters of demographics (jewish problem and muslim problem and gypsy problem included), it's spot on, but it has issues with subjects not typically within the range of it's focus.

On matters like religion, they tend to towards the old ties a lot of them them with conservatism, from which we get a lot of our converts, they seem to focus on the social aspects of the religion, which they refuse to look for alternatives outside of religion that could serve the same purposes, without compromising scientific standards. There is a lack of curiosity regarding religion, they are just as curious about the issues associated with religion as the liberals are with the issues associated with race, they simply find things that confirm their conclusions, and end the investigations there.

On matters such as economics and laws, they also have some issues, a lot of them like the idea of using the law to force things to be a certain way, and a lack of trust in people to figure out how to make things work without needing the government to direct them.

Yes, we should take measures against things like the banks, corporations, and unions, and we should make a distinction to what is within our borders and outside of it, to avoid foreign labor and compromising of our economic independence, but we should keep things as decentralized as we can.

My concern here is with programs like welfare and healthcare, and the dysgenic effect these policies have, charity should be given voluntarily and to those who have been deemed worthy to receive it. Money should just be taken from everyone and given to those who need it to survive, simply because a lot of the genes in those who require such a policy for their survival only serve to parasitize the nation as a whole.

When it comes to laws, I prefer we have only the absolute minimum that we need, a lot of it comes down to eugenic concerns, by legislating against degeneracy, we don't get rid of it, rather we force it into hiding, I would rather remove the protections and supports our government provides to degenerate behavior, that way these freaks take themselves out of the gene pool, rather than building their genetic material up in the population and then forming political lobbies that bite us in the ass later once we let out guard down, obviously, there is some things we can do to limit the damage degeneracy can do to the rest of society, but a nation is built by genes, it is the failure to acknowledge the role political policies play on the genetic health of their populations that has led to ruin time and again.

There's more, to be sure, but basically, I want to take the parts of each political ideology that these ideologies specialize in and combine them.

When it comes to international policies and demographics, the national socialists hit it out of the park, these are what they obssess over the most, and thus it is what we can trust them to get right 100%.

When it comes to national policies (among the citizens within the borders), the anarcho-capitalists, who care most about these issues, are the correct ones.

When it comes to matters of fact, the atheists (among the dissidents) get it all correct.

When it comes to matters of social engineering, the Christians (among the dissidents) are correct.

All of these are simply me taking the ideas regarding specific topics from those who best know these particular topics, and we can find a way to combine all of these together into an ideology that has no weak points.