In recent years, the Alt-Right—along with the Alt-West, Alt-Lite, and the Hard Right—has come to the forefront of the political scene. This has been due in large part because right-leaning individuals have come to realize just how ineffective standard “conservatives” are at battling the Left. And given the left-leaning socio-cultural changes that have swept the West under the guardianship of standard conservatives, it is quite understandable that many young traditionalists have gravitated to a political alternative like the Alt-Right.
But just as with modern conservativism, the same sorts of problems exist for modern Christianity. Indeed, under the “watchful” eye of standard conservative Christians, Christianity in the West has become more liberal, more feminized, more Churchian, and entirely less Christian! As such, is it any wonder that many Christian men are leaving Christian churches and are searching for an alternative to the weak-kneed Churchianity that they see around them. Of course not. But is there any Christian alternative to be had? Indeed there is, and it is called Alt-Christianity.
What is Alt-Christianity? In one sense, Alt-Christianity is a new way of looking at Christianity; it is a new Christian mindset, if you will. And as we know from fitness and game, changing one’s mindset is often the key change that needs to be made for exponential personal development and growth. At the same time, Alt-Christianity also aims to be a means by which orthodox Christianity could be revived amongst men in the West. And since traditional Christianity is a pillar of Western Civilization, the importance of this goal can be overstated.
Now, in terms of its general tenets, Alt-Christianity can be summarized by the following 21 points (and note that these points were largely inspired by Vox Day’s 16 Points concerning the Alt-Right):
1. Both theologically and morally, Alt-Christianity is traditionalist and right-leaning. It is also more focused on shared morality and mere-Christianity than on denominational differences. However, Progressive-Christianity, Liberal-Christianity, and Feminist-Christianity are not Alt-Christianity.
2. Alt-Christianity is an alternative to the mainstream Christian conservative movement in the West which has, whether wittingly or not, been largely infected with strains of progressivism, materialism, feminism, SJWism, over-ecumenism, and Churchianism. Alt-Christianity has seen the socio-cultural results of these infections on the Christian faith and thus pro-actively and overtly fights against them, rather than ignoring, accommodating, or even indulging them, which many modern Christian movements do. And the fight against these problems is done first within the church, and then against them outside of the church.
3. Alt-Christianity is not defensive in nature and, just like Christ, it rejects the elevation of niceness, tolerance, and likeability over Christian truth. It holds an “initiative-maintaining” mindset and believes in victory through persistence, sacrifice, materialistic minimalism, and remaining in harmony with objective reality, historical truths, and psychological/biological facts about human nature.
4. Alt-Christianity firmly believes in the use of reason; however, since Alt-Christianity knows that men are not usually moved by dry arguments, it is also willing to use truth-focused polemics, biting rhetoric, humorous memes, and imaginative narratives to make it points.
5. Concerning faith and morals, Alt-Christianity is skeptical of any attempts to redefine the clear sayings, implications, and example of Christ and the rest of the New Testament, or Christian tradition, in order to accommodate modern sensibilities.
6. Alt-Christianity recognizes that all men are made in the image of God and that all men will be judged, but beyond this, Alt-Christianity rejects the idea of earthly equality for all practical purposes given the observable lack of anything like natural equality existing or possibly existing amongst men. For the same reason, Alt-Christianity denies human perfectibility and earthly utopianism.
7. Alt-Christianity believes traditional Western Civilization is the best civilization that Man has ever created. It also holds that traditional Christianity is a key pillar of that civilization. As such, Alt-Christianity supports the roots of traditionalist Christianity: namely, the traditional family, patriarchy, “red-pill” knowledge, Christian education, and apologetics in the full and broadest sense.
8. Given the above, Alt-Christianity wishes to see traditional Western Civilization maintained, and is thus open to whatever political system shows itself best suited to the maintenance of that civilization. At the same time, Alt-Christianity realizes that civilizations and nations are maintained by people, and that not all people are created equal. As such, Alt-Christianity supports the implementation of whatever specific political and cultural practices are best suited to allow a particular people to maintain traditional Western Civilization. Simultaneously, Alt-Christianity supports restricting whatever specific political and cultural practices undermine a particular people’s ability to maintain traditional Western Civilization.
9. Alt-Christianity is nationalistic. It supports the right of all distinct ethno-ideological/religious groups to exist as distinct groups, and to defend their existence. Alt-Christianity is also anti-globalist in the political sense, but believes in unity amongst nations through a shared Christian faith. Ultimately, Alt-Christianity remembers the lesson of the Tower of Babel and realizes that ethno-states are a lesser threat to Christianity than a global political entity is.
10. Alt-Christianity see no conflict between science and Christianity, but it is not naïve enough to ignore the fact that there is a difference between certain scientific claims and the interpretation of scientists—many of them actively anti-Christian—concerning those claims. Thus, Alt-Christianity takes an attitude of tentative acceptance, coupled with skepticism, concerning the findings of modern science, especially those of a historical rather than an experimental nature.
11. Alt-Christianity believes that identity—both in the ethnic and the religious sense—is the catalyst for culture, which is itself more important than politics. As such, the Alt-Christian is both verbally and non-verbally overt in his Christian identity.
12. Alt-Christianity is opposed to the unrequested rule, domination, or excessive influence (by any means) of any ethnic and/or religious group or Christian denomination over another; as such, Alt-Christianity supports the right of de facto or de jure self-determination / segregation for ethnic and/or religious reasons.
13. Alt-Christianity is more interested in the approval of God than of men; it knows that the Prince of this World is its enemy and that, as Jesus warned, the world will hate it. Thus, the Alt-Christian is not interested in being “respectable” in the eyes of non-Christians, nor does the Alt-Christian care about the negative labels that non-Christians will inevitability place on him.
14. Alt-Christianity is opposed to the separation of church and state in an absolute sense, for Alt-Christianity understands that the absolute separation of church and state always leads to the state, and/or the enemies of the church, using the resources and laws of the state to undermine the church.
15. Alt-Christianity is more interested in the Faith than in earthly charity, although it strongly encourages the latter because it is mandated by, and supports, the former. However, the Alt-Christian knows that charity begins first at home, and only then extends outward. Furthermore, virtue-signaling charity is a vice, and so whoever allows his own family, his nation, and the Faith itself to be undermined for the sake of virtue-signaling charity is worse than an unbeliever.
16. Alt-Christianity is pro-“capitalism” in terms of policy, but pro-socialist in terms of personal charity; it holds that a man who freely does not work, but can, shall not eat, but a man who wishes to work but cannot, shall not be hungry.
17. Alt-Christianity believes that we must secure the existence of Christians in general, but that we must also specifically secure the existence of Christians in countries of European heritage and ancestry, for as Belloc said: “Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe”.
18. Alt-Christianity believes that Christianity is true, but it also sees truth and value in other religions. As such, while holding Christianity as the best and most complete faith, and boldly proclaiming it as such, Alt-Christianity does not, in principle, ignore or reject the insights of non-Christian religious or cultural traditions.
19. Alt-Christianity believes in evangelism. However, the Alt-Christian remembers to wipe the dust off his feet from those who, in full knowledge and Godly-freedom, reject Christianity. Thus, Alt-Christianity rejects the non-evangelism of liberal-Christianity as well as any imperialist attempts at the imposition of Christianity by force or coercion.
20. Alt-Christianity values personal strength, intellectual boldness, masculinity, and the Christ who overturned tables. Indeed, Alt-Christianity realizes that Christ was not followed because He allowed Himself to die, but rather because He was the ultimate alpha male who conquered Man’s greatest enemy: namely, death.
21. Finally, just as the man Jesus Christ and his male Apostles led the first Christians, so too is Alt-Christianity meant to be led by men. After all, the failures of the West ultimately fall on the heads of its men, and so it is men that must lead the West back to its traditional roots.
Now, will embracing these 21 tenets of Alt-Christianity reverse the slide of orthodox Christianity in the West? Frankly, I do not know. But I do know that making the mindset change to Alt-Christianity is surely better than continuing the ineffective tactics of the past few generations.
Read More: Why You Should Avoid The Cucked Interpretations Of Modern Christianity
An easier solution would be to just dump all the religious baggage & blue pill theism and just go with secular humanism.
Herr (((Marx))) couldn’t have said it better himself.
Secular humanism appears, to me, to be part of the problem. Its rise has brought about the rise in the various dangerous “-isms” (feminism, communism, etc). It relies on false premises like that all people are rational (they are absolutely not), there is a progression to history (there is, at best, a loop of creation and destruction), and reason suggests there is no god (this is not the case).
Christianity birthed mighty civilizations. Secular humanism is killing them. I will choose the former.
Christianity relies on the false premises that we are all just naturally shitty people who deserve eternal torture from the time we’re born – for something we didn’t even do – unless we worship this deity with no sufficient evidence.
If people are just going to contort Christianity and only take the good parts, why not just dump the lies and blue pill theism?
Agreed.
as opposed to contorting it and only seeing the bad parts.
No one is taking the bad parts and using those as their world view.
An easier solution to what exactly ?
Some of you guys should at least try to think before posting meaningless babble around here.
You’re no better than the feministo-sluts who troll around here from time to time, justifying their whorish ways.
Jesus Christ !
An easier solution would be to take all the good parts of Christianity, and dump all the theistic lies of it.
I said exactly what think I didn’t.
“I said exactly what think I didn’t.”
Classic…..worthy of your epitaph!
Edit: What *you* think I didn’t.
damnit. that’s no fun…..
That’s not how Christianity works.
http://imgur.com/qeTPWU2
How does it work then?
You’re supposed to take Christianity as a whole or not at all. It was not designed to be pared down to it’s moral precepts or ideals.
Christianity is evil, absurd, and self-contradictory.
Life is evil, absurd, and self-contradictory. Perhaps the problem is not with Christianity but with humans.
People killed IN THE NAME OF Christianity: millions
People killed IN THE NAME OF secular humanism: zero.
The real question is, how many were killed by people who shared an ideology with secular humanism?
If you look at the ideology of many killers, including the Communists, you’ll find the numbers change quite a bit. This is made all the more impressive by the relatively brief time secular humanism has existed on the earth compared to Christianity.
Obviously a history major.
How about those killed in the name of communist atheism ?
100 million – documented – and not even 70 years have passed since then.
Where do you fucking morons get your information from !?!??!!
The TV ?
Oh communist dictators, you mean the ones that just kill people for no reason.
There were not killed in the name of atheism.
Congrats, you just presented the one apologetic that I was trying to get you to avoid.
your written effort to try to separate communism from it’s purveyors demonstrates that you are evil.
Your effort to think that atheism is the cause of communism or vice versa proves you’re just a retard.
did I say that ?
Go back to sewers, dude. You’re leaving a mess ’round here.
No one was killed in the name of atheism.
atheism is an auxiliary side-effect of forcing a nation to renounce God.
Back to library !
No it’s not.
I have a unicorn at my house. Do you believe me?
Only if it’s male…that has metal wheels instead of hooves and a machine gun instead of a horn…
Then yeah…I believe you.
You’re a troll.
& you’re a weirdo.
…nice to meet you.
you do know the average feminazi is an atheist
As are most echo Jews, anti-Western ideologues, etc.
EDIT: I refer to “echo Jews” as the kind of Jews people are inclined to point out with ((())) markers. Lots of Jews keep to themselves and practice their religion as they can, and no one ever seems to have reason to call them out.
“social jews”
“jews of convenience”
What does that have to do with anything?
Secular humanism is not atheism.
Easier? According to whom?
A & B both say the same thing
A carries baggage.
B doesn’t carry baggage.
Which one is the easier/better solution?
Do you not have common sense?
B doesn’t carry baggage? According to whom?
God says B is allowed to make slaves carry his baggage. An nothing else apparently.
Secular humanism is what Christians want Christianity to be.
Christianity carries theistic, religious baggage.
Secular humanism doesn’t.
Anyone with common sense can see this.
Enough to know they don’t say the same thing at all.
Christianity goes deep, it’s demanding to the point where there’s a good list of things where you’re supposed to die rather than give in.
I’m going to be honest, and truly I don’t want to offend you but I don’t think you understand what Christianity is and what it’s claims are. It goes much much further than just don’t be a jerk to people. Not violating basic social morality isn’t even the main point.
Additionally it provides leverages for these behaviors that don’t exist in secular humanism. I know I know “you can be just as moral” and in theory that’s sort of accurate for a given value of morality. But nobody ever went to St Atheismos Hospital or received aid from the Our Lady of Materialism Mission.
I assume you acknowledge yourself to be nothing more than a fancy calculator made of meat.
Well, Mr. Fancy Meat Calculator, what is it “you” (that is, the illusion of consciousness that thinks it is “you”) were programmed to calculate?
I am a meat body.
I was made to calculate the world around me.
What are you getting at?
Interesting output. What programmed you to say that? What makes you think this output corresponds to logic or reason?
Maybe you’re like a calculator programmed to always output “2”.
You’re trading an theistic assumptions about the mind. Atheism says you are an illusion of your brain, mere output. A mere calculator made of meat. Calculators only output what they were programmed to output.
You were programmed to fight and fuck (impossible to deny that’s part of our programming, even if as a Christian I believe we transcend that). What makes you think you were programmed for logic? How would you know either way?
A calculator that’s programmed to output “2” doesn’t know it’s “wrong”. It’s just output. How are you different? And if you are different, how would you know?
“Atheism says you are an illusion of your brain, mere output”
– No, no ,no, no, no, no, no, no. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. It has no world-view, claim, or dogma.
Atheism has certain obvious implications, such as that life is undesigned. (Or, if you prefer, that there is a finite chain of designers, the first of which is undesigned.)
How do you think I knew you would accept being described as a fancy meat calculator? All atheists necessarily believe that.
I notice your output didn’t respond to any of my questions. I guess you weren’t programmed to do that. Many atheists aren’t. I wonder if that is a sign of bad programming? Well, no, it can’t be, because “good” or “bad” programming implies a programmer. I guess you were programmed to “reject theistic claims”, but not programmed to understand the implications of such.
What do you think you were programmed to understand? How can you be sure?
I’m not programmed to do anything.
You already admitted you were a meat calculator. That means you’re programmed, period. It’s curious that you weren’t programmed to understand this.
Who was I programmed by?
Upvote for “Mr. Fancy Meat Calculator”, a string of words that, according to Google, had not previously been typed on the internet.
I do try.
Alt Christianity…Alt News…Fake News…Fake Gurus…they must all be silenced…we must bring about the Silence of the Hams…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bfbcda7040a5b5f488b841ad9ee8a41c5d254f5ed20707ce288fc1a43e1c47e3.jpg
I understand what you are doing, but it is stupid. If Christianity is the true religion then you conform your philosophy to Christian theology, you do not try to conform Christian theology to your philosophy. There is no Alt-Christianity, conservative Christianity, liberal Christianity, or new wave Christianity. There is only Christianity, the heretics and cultists that portrait themselves as Christians fall outside of the Church established by Christ.
Actually, you are incorrect and correct from certain points of view. If there was in fact a Christ, whom was the son of God, and God himself, then there is only one true Christianity. But if not, then all forms of it are a “version.” What you are saying is just like when some muslims claim that extremists, “Aren’t real muslims.” The extremists believe they are the only real muslims and the fact is that there are a lot of muslim’s out there whom want to hurt the west. So from a practical standpoint, they’re are many types of “muslims.”
From the same practical standpoint, there are many types of Christians and there could be an “Alt-Christianity.” It’s about time for a revolution in this religion again anyway, as there hasn’t been a huge one since the protestant reformation.
Thinking practically is the only way to change and save the West, if that is even possible. Jesus can then judge if we had it right at the end. I will remind you that Jesus said everyone whom confesses him is saved. From that point of view, even if the people get many of the specifics wrong, as long as they truly believe Jesus is the Son of God and their Lord and Savior whom died on the cross to free them from Sin and Death, then they are all Christian. Even if they get everything else wrong.
But, if they get everything else wrong, that doesn’t save their civilization from collapse. That is what Al-Christianity is about in my eyes.
This is well said. From my understanding, there is one truth – one version of things that is true, with all others being false – but there’s never any guarantee that any mortal man has a grasp on that truth. As the earth revolved around the sun long before we reasoned that to be true, spiritual truths and other physical truths may not yet be fully known.
For one to be saved, it is enough to confess with the mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in the heart that God raised him from the dead. To go beyond that, though, you must know Christ from His Word and obey.
Alt-Christianity, as described, is much more in line with my current understanding of the Word than any denomination I’ve been exposed to thus far.
I understand your point, however there are an exponentially greater number of ways to be wrong than there are ways to be right. Like all false religions you can be wrong many times over and still be correct in that religion.
There is only one Christianity, believing there are different Christianity’s means conflicting doctrines. This is to say that God established errors in his religion which is patently absurd.
The No True Scotsman fallacy. Interesting.
Does the “only one Christianity” still allow us to own slaves?
Ephesians 6:5, Matthew 5:17-18
Except it’s not a fallacy. God is perfect ergo what he does he does perfectly.
Many things historically have tolerated by God. That does not mean he approves of them. You should be glad God does tolerate evil in this world, how would you fare if today He comes with the sword and judgement?
He tolerates slavery.
God is not perfect if this is his supposed book.
So He’s not perfect because he doesn’t solve all of our problems for us?
He’s not perfect because he also doesn’t exist. He hasn’t been proven to.
So he has to prove he exists to you in order to exist?
No. I just don’t have to believe he exists unless he shows me.
He has shown that He exists by creating the universe, by creating life, by giving us His Word, by speaking to us in other ways, by coming here as a man and living among us, and by sending His Holy Spirit. But no, you still do not have to believe He exists if that is what you choose.
Prove anything that you just said.
God is the source of evil. That’s why christianity doesn’t make sense.
No. That is not Christian teaching.
Isaiah 45:7 – “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”
God created evil. You’re wrong.
What does the word “prove” mean in this context? Is anything ever “proved” aside from mathematical concepts?
So you can’t. Good to know.
That’s a pretty solipsistic interpretation don’t you think.
1. God punishes us to satisfy justice. We deserve whatever punishment we receive from him
2. God punishes us so that he may draw out a greater good.
Even when God does bring forth disaster it is an inherently good act.
Furthermore God did not create evil, nowhere in Sacred Scripture or Tradition is this mentioned, rather the opposite that God placed before us a test so that we would merit eternal bliss. Even when we failed this test this allowed God to bring out a greater good by being able to manifest his Glory with the passion, resurrection, and Justification of man.
I have this vauge vision in my head of God sitting on his throne in heaven looking down to earth and seeing you with your back turned saying “you need to prove it to me”
We are given life which lasts most of us about 75 years, it is evident you have the internet and therefore access to virtually all the knowledge that ever has been. I don’t think its too much that God asks us to have a desire for the truth rather than indulge childlike petulance with miracles.
Evil is the lack of a good. Therefor it is impossible for anyone to create it.
Creating the universe does not prove god exists.
There are other perfectly valid theories on how the universe got here.
Just because you believe the bible is true does not make it so, it just another unproven opinion.
Well according to the Bible, God did. Learn to read.
“I don’t think its too much that God asks us to have a desire for the
truth rather than indulge childlike petulance with miracles.”
Then why doesn’t he just show up in person, now, in the age where we have near-global literacy, the internet, camera technology, social media, and just about everyone has a smart phone???????????
Your premise is what can God do for me. But you have it backwards it should be what can I do for God. You speak as if we all deserve a God who does everything for us, but in reality we are all terrible people who don’t deserve anything from God at all. It is a great gift to be rewarded with a miracle, a gift we do not merit.
So long story short if we don’t seek after him then we don’t deserve him.
You’ve just shown the indoctrination behind religion:
You’re terrible from birth, only God can save you, listen to us because we talk to God, do what we tell you.
It’s indoctrination and mind control.
God punishes us for something we didn’t even do in the first place. The whole point of Jesus/God to sacrifice himself to himself was to absolved humans for the sins of Adam.
Would you ever lock somebody up in a cave and torture them forever for something they didn’t even do? Or for being gay?
You also didn’t answer my question.
In all honesty the problem could be your reading into the bible.
The problem is you not reading the Bible.
Actually what you believe is indoctrination and mind control. Any basic reflection of the self will leave one realizing that he is not a perfect creature. The whole “believe in yourself,” “you’re perfect just the way you are,” “nobody can judge you” none sense that is peddled around as gospel is what is indoctrination. It is indoctrination to keep you in your wretched state, submissive, servile, slothful, contemptuous, etc…..
Believing and conforming to natural and revealed truths is a humbling thing, but will make you more of a man than any other philosophy. After all what is the alt-right, but the supplanting of the truth in place of the falsities that pervade our world.
“Actually what you believe is indoctrination and mind control”
– Right, telling people to think for themselves and treat other the way they want to be treated, being fair and just is mind control. How stupid are you?
“The whole “believe in yourself,” “you’re perfect just the way you are,” “nobody can judge you” none sense that is peddled around as gospel is what is indoctrination. It is indoctrination to keep you in your wretched state, submissive, servile, slothful, contemptuous, etc…..”
– I never said any of that. Besides, Christianity says the exact opposite for the same effect, control.
“Believing and conforming to natural and revealed truths is a humbling thing, but will make you more of a man than any other philosophy.”
– No god has ever revealed themselves, otherwise there would be a one-world religion.
And now back to my question you didn’t answer:
If God wants us to believe in him, then why doesn’t he just show up in person, now, in the age where we
have near-global literacy, the internet, camera technology, social
media, and just about everyone has a smart phone???????????
It is possible to discuss these matters rationally but it appears you have no intention of doing so.
Bill Parsons, I don’t think that there are any naturalistic theories for how the universe was created. I think you are just saying that without really knowing whether it is true. But forget cosmogony for a moment and consider abiogenesis. My understanding is that there is no theory regarding how living organisms were first formed from non-living matter via purely naturalistic processes. That is remarkable. Do you believe life began purely as a result of chemistry and physics? If so, why do you believe this? There is no evidence this is true. Why believe things without evidence?
Still waiting for you to prove anything you said.
That’s like the leftist argument that the Constitution as written is useless because it set blacks at 3/5 of a person, and had no votes for women at all. The unchanging principles are set out and then applied in the cultural context of their time. As culture and political life advance, the principles hold true. Indeed, the documents themselves are what have brought the positive changes over the centuries.
You’re using the same method as the idiot prosperity gospel ‘preachers’. The only way to fully understand a Biblical topic is to study (not just read) everything the Bible says about it, and THEN you must still take the weight, the big picture of that mosaic of texts. One verse in isolation is not a sound platform to build a theology on.
How about the entire Old Testament filled with rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, sacrifice, some of which is endorsed by God or carried out by God himself?
Except the Constitution can me amended and changed, whereas the Bible cannot. It was written to be followed as it is forever.
Just because people don’t do what the Bible says, it doesn’t change what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS.
You have the reasoning level of a third grader. You are filled with resentment and bitterness. The sacrifice isn’t only ‘for the sins of Adam’- it was for you and your sins. And mine. And I’ll take that any day.
You might want to take some logic studies… wow.
Adam never existed.
You’re the one who sound like a pissed off teenager.
You might want to read the posts again… wow.
Do you actually have an argument or just an implicit ad hominem attack?
Look at the actions of those that reject Christianity. I think you’ve been spoonfed modern SJW, Hands Up Don’t Shoot 101 bullshit.
Christians believe everyone inherits Adam’s sin at the moment of conception. Adam’s sin resulted in what’s called Total Depravity. Which, according to Christians, does not define how depraved a person CAN be, rather, it refers to the totality of all of creation being corrupted by sin…hence the word “total” = “all”.
Matthew 16: 19-31 (Not preaching here…just sharing an example of Jesus’ answer to a man, basically, asking the same thing as you have…for God to “prove” Himself)
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side.f The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Why should I care what a book has to say?
Anecdotes are not evidence.
We still get punished for something Adam did, and that God made him that way.
And neither are your mere words…
Okay?? Do you have a point?
Amen.
Adding any descriptors to Christianity makes it not Christianity
….there is too much ‘not Christianity’ around theses days.
I agree kind of with that sentiment, but what he describes is more or less accurate to the true meaning of those churches. Even most of the Catholic church still believes something more akin to what he’s talking about. Note that Pope Francis, despite his pinko leanings, doesn’t dare to directly criticize any standing doctrine.
Funny how you reference the institution of Catholicism, when it is in fact one of the original and most prevalent deviations of Christianity.
Not “funny”. Fully intentional for the benefit of those with the erudition to notice.
Nope.
Christianity can be practiced by in a wide variety of national, political and social contexts. Imperialists can be Christian. Non-interventionists can be Christianity. Nationalists, civic-nationalists, and anti-nationalists can be Christian. Kenyans, Chinese, Yankees, and Italians can all be Christian. People can absorb many SJW ideologies and be Christian (although I don’t think you can be a Christian and a true SJW). Even cucks and traitors can be Christian.
Naturally, there are observable differences between these groups, particularly in the way they practice Christianity and in the way it informs their public life.
Now, we understand that many political and social philosophies are unsustainable rubbish, and that people (like cucks, traitors, and lite SJWs) who internalize them are enemies of civilization. But that is not the same as saying they are actually outside of Christ and His Church.
Moreover, the fact that Africans and Asians have their own non-Western societies and are generally incompatible with us does not imply there is anything wrong with their specific versions Christianity. That is to say: the Chinese do not need to draw up Western Christian traditions to be Christian. Africans do not need to learn Latin (although they should learn Greek).
Alt-Christianity is an important concept because it acknowledges that different political/social philosophies (to say nothing of different nations) are going to practice Christianity in different ways.
We are nationalists, and though we may worship the same LORD and hope in the same Resurrection as cuckservatives and feminists, our Christianity is NOT interchangeable with theirs. Why? Well, the simple fact that they use the Bible to justify beta male browbeating, unlimited immigration, conscious steriliry & international adoption should be evidence enough.
Christianity does not mean you aren’t ignorant, cowardly and an idiot. For women, Christianity doesn’t mean you aren’t catty, hypergamous, and consumed with your career.
We need to be able to criticize people for being bad citizens, beta males, and bad mothers without necessarily making it theological…while simultaneously understanding that being those things is likely to have implications for your theology.
Another interpretation of the same evidence might be that anyone can claim any label.
I can call myself a black lesbian Jew, but I am neither black nor female (to be lesbian) nor Jewish (by blood or religion). If I claim these things and commit murder, is it a Black committing murder or a man claiming to be Black? If I rape, is it a lesbian woman raping or a man claiming to be a lesbian woman? If I run a cult, is it a Jewish cult or just any run-of-the-mill cult?
By their fruits shall you know them.
If a beta male claims himself a Christian, is he necessarily lying?
If an imperialist claims himself a Christian, is he necessarily lying?
Herein lies the importance of theology. One who understands the Scripture might be beta by nature, but will not espouse the foolishness of many betas currently claiming the name Christian.
What makes you say that?
Betas, leftists, and other cucks understand Scripture through the lens of the blue pill and the other lies the world told them.
It’s just like how it’s more challenging for a desk jockey to identify with all of Jesus’ examples than for an actual farmer or whatever.
I don’t think the Bible ever red-pilled anyone. Although the Bible makes a lot more sense through the eyes of the red pill, naturally.
I am unconvinced of that, but agree to disagree I suppose.
Actually, I’ve been using the Bible to red-pill my dad. He’s bought a bit too much of the nonsense, but he’s a rational thinker at heart. I’ll say something RP and then back it with Scripture, and he takes it in.
Certainly! I do the same, but don’t you think that illustrates my point?
If your dad already accepts the Bible…why isn’t he already red-pilled?
For example, pretty much any normie Christian you are going to come across is going to recite the usual passages in defense of unlimited immigration.
In my experience, I find that blue-pill Christians have a lot of cogdis. And they deal with it the way everyone deals with cogdis. Helping them understand that Christianity doesn’t inherently support progressivism is part of the task.
Obviously this all represents compromised Christianity, just like a beta is a compromised man. But that’s not the same thing as refusing to accept that Christ died on the cross to save you from Hell.
Well, something that you are able to ignore is something that doens’t have much chance at affecting you.
Open confrontation with the bible however will make any believer inevitably red-pill.
Theism is blue pill.
Bad troll.
How is it not?
You use a book full of magical unproven claims to red pill your dad who’s apparently a rational thinker?
You’re dad’s an idiot.
Hey, now, I know you’re a bit of an uncouth turd with an inexplicable need to impotently grind your axe, but let me clue you into something here. You can insult the crap out of me, but family’s off-limits.
Why?
Harry Potter red pill my dad. Is he stupid?
The difference here is you came to insult my father. As a Southern man, you can come and talk shit to me, but you don’t come and talk shit about my family. We don’t take kindly to that sort of thing.
I call my own dad stupid to his face all the time, when he’s being stupid. Why should I care about calling your dad stupid?
Christianity can be materially different, but it cannot be substantially different. That means it must have the same beliefs, form of worship, and doctrine. So yes there can be different rites, and practices that vary from nation to nation, but it Is still the same Christianity. Where this article trips up its that it argues for yet another sect of Protestantism, just one that is for “alpha males” whatever that means.
Well, fair enough. I think red-pilled people should invade whatever church they happen to belong to. Like SJWs in reverse.
Actually, this is a politicizing of Christianity. It is developing a (new?) political incarnation of the religious concept of Christianity, much like Islam has a political incarnation.
Very little in this article characterizes Alt-Christianity as a new religion or even a new way of thinking about an old religion. Instead, the article is translating certain aspects of Christianity into a political framework with an alt-right bent.
If that’s how you read it then God bless you. Lord know there is too much love and not enough condemnation in today’s Christianity. 98% of Christians would rather have a lesbian SJW watch over their kids for 8 hours everyday, or have the local Better Business Bureau build a mosque on their block than Deus Vult. I myself am extremely wary of anything that passes itself off as a hyphen-Christianity. Christianity is inherently masculine, ordered, and patriotic it does not need a new hip version to stay relevant. This is actually bastardized modernism which is the synthesis of all heresies and one of the main reasons which the Church finds hereself in such a deleterious state.
The same forces have undermined and perverted true (Biblical) Christianity relentlessly. Just as they have academia, media, finance, politics. They have one agenda. The method- confuse/divide/conquer. And usually control from within, wolves disguised as sheep.
Any Christian that upholds extra martial sex like many on this site do should be burned at the stake for their hypocrisy and heresy, those evildoers. There also cannot be separation of Church and State, as is inherently contradictory to one who upholds the Church.
I FOUND A WITCH
MAY WE BURN HER
???
Only if you use the large scales
Provideth evidence if ye be among the truthful
Dunk her first! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35f3f7d0bf07603b335994e322ab08c4104a253ef9f1b9f8655c51203321643d.jpg
State is earthly, and church is transcendent and never the twain shall meet.
The soul, as transcendent as it may be, resides in the flesh, and so bound to earthly matters
I’d still argue that the soul is not bound at all to these things. Like most governmental authority eventually states: “give your soul to God, because your ASS belongs to me!”
Let us say Scripture (Church) prescribes a particular punishment for a broken law, while State prescribes something different. If State has the final say, then one is obedient to man, not God. So State has more power, and reduces the Church to a figurehead, with words of Scripture as decoration. Both cannot be had.
I see what you mean. Obedience to the State’s law is a condition of membership to the State. So, under secular leadership you might find the laws in conflict. However, One is (ideally) free to leave that state and live by church law alone.
You mean leave the state geographically and live outside the bounds of the state’s law? I have an image in my mind of someone living in the wilderness.
pretty much. Like the pilgrims leaving England to come to America and persecute themselves…
Well that’s a little harsh, but certainly a sane society should not tolerate gross impurity. Or else you know soon we get people running around thinking a second Protestant revolt will save us, as if the first wasn’t bad enough. We devolve into fools starting our own alt-religions.
“Splitter!”
And yes an atheist government is not a legitimate government.
Why not?
Render unto caesar.
NO – the question is what is Caesar obligated to render unto God?
Sorry, Christianity has failed. It is done, finished, except for fringe people and old women. Better to organize around white identity, anyway.
Glad that your post has received zero support.
BBWWAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA
I’m not hostile to Christianity. I used to be very religious, but grew disgusted when EVERY sect became SJW. I don’t see how it leads to better morals or a better society.
…a slight improvement…..;)
Sad to hear about these almost anti-Christian SJW sects.
Not my experience, though.
True beyond belief.
White identity, which has never existed, has failed. It is done, finished, except for fringe people and old men.
Probably true. It’s the downfall of whites, that we don’t stick together like all other races. You may not be ethno-centric, but your conquerors will be.
No race sticks together. Show me a race and I will show you conflict.
Christianity began to fail when it became a state religion.
When you have to use the government to force it onto people, that is pretty good evidence of it’s falsehood.
If you really want to prove it false, just look at how it’s followers act.
Christianity is dying because it hasn’t proven itself to be true yet. And people are catching on to this.
Christianity didn’t fail- it was wildly successful. What is failing is the perversion and dilution of it that everyone is discussing here. False Christianity if you will.
As much as real liberty does not require everybody to personally approve or agree with, real Christianity should also be free as well. Meaning, there is no such a thing as waiting for it to be popular or accepted.
It’s the failure of every movement that I have seen fail: waiting for the dumb self-absorbed masses to “accept” it and approve.
Might as well wait for birds to discover Euclidean geometry.
Deus Vult
Deus Vult, brother !
based
So really this is just actual Christianity, and not this new world, lets all feel fuzzy, name-it-and-claim-it Christianity that has taken root in the West. I mean, lets face it, the majority of what is being taught in your local non-denominational church is a far cry from the actual Christ following Christianity of the bible, as it has been deeply compromised by the culture of the day. I understand what you are doing, but I find it saddening that we have to label biblical Christianity ‘alt’. It would be better to label the pap from the pulpits as simply ‘not-christianity’, as they do very little to actually understand and follow Christ, having reduced him to a simpering, whimpering ‘servant-leader’ rather than the teacher and leader he actually was. Endless sermons about washing feet and nary a sermon about flipping tables, arming his disciples or calling out a whore.
It probably has to be relabeled again to be sold to the public again. That’s how marketing always works. Even religions have to market themselves. But new marketing doesn’t have to mean anything about the core of the product is different, or how the product is used.
New marketing will be devised for feminized Christianity after it starts to take a bigger hit, just like this marketing is currently being devised for people whom want to see a return to a much more traditional Christianity.
If you have to ‘relabel’ your religion to ‘sell it to the people’ then you may as well start bottling snake oil while your at it. Christianity doesn’t need to be relabeled, it needs to be taught correctly, as in ‘God doesn’t change, what pleased Him then pleases Him now, regardless of time or culture. What was sin then is sin now, regardless of time or culture.’ Western Christians love to believe what they believe the bible says, not what the bible actually says, and pastors reinforce this by throwing their own spin on every verse, rather than reading the verse for what it is. I mean, certainly some poetic license can be taken with some scripture, as it is meant to be poetic or symbolic, but much if it is simply read and obey, which is not taught.
Rebranding God makes him not God.
To me, it’s more like being all things to all people (as Paul said). As there are common truths taught by just about all religions (what C.S. Lewis called the ‘Dao’) in their own ways, there are many ways one might teach about Christ.
Nothing we do will change whether the elect are brought to faith (for that is God’s work, not ours), but we should aspire to be able to speak to anyone about our faith. This means not only being able to parcel out the milk of Scripture in addition to the meat, but also being able to start from what a person or group already understands and building out from there.
Take note the different ways the Scriptures teach the Gospel to the Jew and the Gentile. The Jewish teachings build from Jewish principles, while the Gentile teachings build from the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato.
In a world of market-driven consumers, marketing may be what we have to build upon. It’s a sad thing, but it may be reality.
I would agree with this, but that is hardly relabeling Christianity. Paul did not relabel the gospel, but found a delivery method that better suited the understanding of the Greeks. We can’t relabel the gospel as ‘Now with 10% more gay acceptance!” or “One free woman pastor in each box!”. It must remain the gospel at its core, though how we deliver it may differ, and likely does differ, from person to person.
The truth is the truth is the truth. How we explain that truth may be different, but the truth never changes.
This is the core of things.
Paul’s teachings were directly at odds with jesus’s. The apostles couldn’t stand paul, they considered him a charlatan who was perverting the gospels. He in turn ignored the apostles, though he himself never met jesus and pulled the idea of grace and redemption through jesus’s death out of his ass.
Dao is said to be Tao, romanticized; I don’t know about all that, but I can easily understand the Tao emphasis on spiritual harmony within myself; and that, coupled with Confucian ideas concerning social duty are kind philosophical ideas, that are easy for me to express in my daily life.
“Tao can be told but any definition given is not perpetual; the name can be named but whatever name given is not perpetual.” — Chapter One, Tao Te Ching
“Moses said to God, ‘Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you,” and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM” — Exodus 3:13-14
Who do you think he met on the road to Damascus??
Men who ‘game’ whores probably don’t have the moral high-ground to ‘call out whores’; (though, Self-Righteous Judgement isn’t a valued characteristic in any leader).
Whatever happened to living a principled life?
Integrity, Acceptance, Patience, Tolerance, Kindness, Humility:
Jesus says: ‘For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.’-Luke 14:11
Amen brother, let’s make christianity great again.
Deus Vult!
Agree.. But I would go further, make it a Marcion Christianity ?? For the sake of the white European race !
So alt-Christianity is Islam. Gotcha.
Can you explain ?
+++Islam+++
(((Islam)))
You’ll have a hard time applying this kind of agenda in this part of the world.
Fuck the west, it really doesn’t want to be saved anyway and you’ll have spent a lifetime on an unsuccessful crusade.
Move East and convert to a Christian Orthodox. They still uphold your points (somewhat).
Fuck the west ?
Russia is a 70% Christian Orthodox Nation…
But the state starves people to death.
If anyone dares even fart around the Kremlin, the state imprisons them…
The West is what holds world peace together.
Do your homework better, friend.
You’re yapping nonsense.
“The West is what holds world peace together”
“The Russian starve their people”
Lol and i’m the one yapping nonsense.
We just sold billions worth of weaponry to a bunch of indred terrorist supporting bedouins a day after 22 english people were killed by terrorists.
Russia kills terrorists period, something our country stopped doing a long time ago.
So please man….
Either you’re brainwashed or either you’re a vector.
Terrorism is a russian-bolshevik concept used throughout the world today to influence countries.
Islamic terrorism falls in the exact same category = created in Russia.
Do your fucking homework, homeboy.
Exactly. why fuk with the original?
I’ll just stick with being a traditional Roman Catholic.
When your pope becomes a traitor…
how ’bout dat’ ?
Popes come and go
Yup. We’ve had some bad ones. He will die eventually. Read about the life of Pope Gregory VII. Great saint. Was pope in a time very Similar to ours.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/032f6a72b84146246fe6413a4e7d0cb1856e9f431ce7db1c57c7eae03508611d.png
“He will die eventually.”
That’s the spirit.
Orthodox Christianity – Romania – teaches us not to look for God into the world because what is of the world can be corrupted [ and co-opted ] but to manifest God’s Word and Teachings here amongst ourselves.
Jesus and His Apostles are / IS the perfect examples.
Or the three prophesies from Our Lady of Fatima.
Leaves a big possibility for “Uh-Oh!”
There are only 2 ways to be a decent catholic nowadays:
1. Sedevacantism.
2. Society of Saint Pius X.
I honor the Old Gods. My God kills Ice Giants with a fucking hammer, and yours got nailed to a cross to prove a point – ‘save’ everyone from sin. I’ll go ahead and stick with my choice. Plus, Jehovah has no sense of humor and no friends.
Go ahead, friend, believe what you like.
Crom laughs at the four winds. Laughs on his mountain!!
Admittedly, Jesus never fought the Incredible Hulk
Probably has no beef with him, right? Might advise him to work on his temper and all though…
He could stop the winds and the waves with His words, I don’t see why He couldn’t calm the Hulk into Bruce Banner with a few well-chosen words.
No sense of humor?? Have you looked outside today?
I like mythology invented by sea vagrants living in the woods as much as the next guy but…(just jokes, see? We’ve got a sense of humor)
You know you don’t really believe in Thor and Odin. As in thinking that they are actual factual beings. If you do and I’ve got it wrong, based on what do you believe in them?
That’s not an argument for any other religion granted, but c’mon.
You also know you’re misrepresenting the Cross. You know it wasn’t about proving a point but paying a necessary price to satisfy natural justice.
None of the points you mention matter if our God is real, either. But, nevertheless, our God laughs and is a Friend to all. He is also tougher than anyone I know, no one volunteers for scourging and crucifixion.
Check this:
https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/asatru-as-a-living-tradition/#more-58430
I’d agree with these since I’d see them as essentially a return to authentic, biblical, 1st century Christianity anywise, with obvious adaptations to our present circumstances.
I can see how some TradCaths and OrthoBros might have problems with #12 and #19, however.
The problem with Christian nations is that they’ve lost touch with the Lord by sin.
If you love your brothers & sisters you are Christian.
If your guts turn inside out when you see injustice done to others, you are Christian.
When you care when you see your fellowmen & women turned into materialistic, sexual puppet-slaves, you are Christian.
If you care about your parents, you are Christian.
If you love liberty, freedom and want others to experience it, you are Christian.
If you do all of the above, you already have a start-up point-connection with the Big Guy in the Sky and you can build upon that – from experience.
If you start to see the unseen evils around you, then be aware, you are a Christian.
Let us all become connaiseurs of true Practical Christianity and let us become apostles, otherwise we’re just jerking around the problem.
The reason they have lost touch by sin is that no one knows what sin is except for the big 10.
Paul said the law tells us what sin is, and where there is no law there is no sin.
Jesus said he didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law, and that those who taught others to disobey it would be called the least in heaven.
How can a pastor tell people what sin is if at the same time he tells everyone they are ‘no longer under the law’? We are not under the law for salvation, as no one but Jesus could fully keep the law, but the law still tells us what God considers sin, and, just as importantly, what he DOES NOT consider sin! It is, of course, a little more nuanced than that, but even that basic truth is not taught in Western churches. As a result we have tons of Christians calling what is not sin a sin, while committing sin and calling it okay.
Jesus said those who know him keep his commandments. How can we do that if pastors don’t teach them? I recently argued with my ex-pastor about women teaching in the church. He told me that was cultural stuff for the day and didn’t apply to now. Oh really? Where did Paul or Jesus say that? Its as relevant today as it was two thousand years ago, but when you ignore that fact because it feels ‘culturally insensitive’ to enforce it in the church, you are no longer obeying Gods commandments, but taking matters into your own hands, and then teaching YOUR doctrine to the people of your church.
Jesus said He did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. We are still supposed to live holy, separate lives (in the world not of it). These liberals masquerading as Christians say that “God is love” which is true but He said that who He loves He disciplines and that faith without works is dead.
Women are NOT to assert authority over a man so a woman will never be qualified to be a preacher.
“Jesus said He did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it”
– Which means we can still own slaves.
Why do people follow this religion?
Can does not mean must.
And we still have slavery. It’s called government assistance
Still can.
And if you do, there are rules about how to treat them well.
I still fail to see the problem. Christians ended slavery in their countries (interpretations of modern forms of slavery aside) because of ideals they found in the Scriptures, but slavery has been with mankind since at least the days of the flood.
The rules that you can beat them and pass them on to your children, which contradict with the New Testament in Ephesians.
slavery has been with mankind since at least the days of the flood.”
The flood never happened.
There’s a small tribe in China that disagrees with you, believe it or not. Only discovered by the West recently, yet teaching a story virtually identical to that of Genesis.
I’ve been thinking about this from various religions. It may be that slavery should be legalized once again, obviously with rules. Slavery switches taxpayer welfare schemes to privately owned slaves (who actually work!), thus reducing tax costs. Slaves get their free food, healthcare, and housing from individuals who wish to pay for such services. Going further, the reintroduction of corporal punishments to replace the prison system would be another great way to massively cut costs. People don’t realize that these old christian/shariah/abrahamic systems are in reality the best system. Secularism could never hope to compete
I hate to say it, but I have come to the same basic conclusion.
How come this small tribe hasn’t gone mainstream if they can prove it?
Can you prove the flood never happened?
No wifi.
They tell the same story without coaching. That in itself is remarkable evidence.
However, relatively recent sediment studies have revealed that in rushing water conditions, sediment layers are laid vertically very quickly. This would mean that “rock ages” from layers are bologna, and would explain why so many dinosaur fossils exist and take the shape of a creature in the pain of asphyxiation.
That doesn’t prove in anyway that the Flood happened.
One also cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln existed as we understand. All we have of history is evidence, and from evidence we extrapolate.
This is but some of the evidence to suggest the flood happened as described.
You can’t prove that the earth is round either.
EDIT: I know, I know. I’m just being a dick.
Never hate to say the truth. It is just that we have been so conditioned to never overstep certain bounds, even in the so called red pill community. When these things are ignored, one can gain great insights and truths. For example, the old religions never had an age of consent law. When one was ready, they got married, even if they were 12, or even 9 (you know where I’m coming from xD) but even the posters here think all will be well if an 18 year old gets married off. Guess what? 18 years these days is still used goods. Roosh’s sister had ‘only’ 5 boyfriends (that was years ago, don’t know the current situation) and he was boasting that was actually really good these days and how well he taught her.
I’mma think she’s-a oblong!
…Obscure Peabody and Sherman joke. Ask your grandparents.
Actually no.
We have multiple pieces of evidence from varying sources that all say the same thing. We have a list of presidents, with their signatures, like on the amendments. We have many pieces of evidence that Abe Lincoln existed that prove he existed.
One tribe in China does not prove that the Flood happened.
We have strong evidence that Lincoln existed, but we have no proof. It was past, and the past is not something we can observe to prove it.
Admittedly, I would be a fool to say he did not exist, but I would be equally foolish to say what I know of Lincoln is 100% of the truth.
Lincoln has been proven to be true by all historic evidence.
The Bible even says that water came from the ground as well. Which could explain the continents being split like they are.
Why do you constantly bring that up knowing nobody here is going to give you the answer you want to hear?
To show people that they’re religion is evil.
Based on your opinion?
Based on society’s current opinion. And just general empathy.
So if the majority were for it then it would be acceptable right?
No.
Being that you’re an atheist I’m assuming how do you go about deciding how to dictate other people’s lives?
Uh, there is a part where Paul says all things are allowed but not all are a good idea (my paraphrase). Just because you can do anything (except sin) doesn’t mean you should.
But we ARE STILL ABLE TO.
What the fuck is so hard to understand about that. Oh right, you believe that Bible, so you don’t think rationally.
I judge their actions and how they affect a person’s health & well-being. It’s that simple.
But that’s just your opinion, and what right do you have to say another atheist is wrong for doing what he deems right?
It’s wrong with respect to a person’s health and well being.
The same thing that you determine what’s right and wrong is the same thing I do. It’s called empathy, fairness, and justice.
But that’s still your opinion, go to the local prison and you’ll meet a lot of people who don’t share your view. My point was is that if I was an atheist and believed in slavery or murder because might is right and I only have this short life to enjoy I might as well get the most out of it, how would you go about enforcing your opinions on me and people like me because you believe they’re right?
You’re a sociopath.
Do you not understand that people don’t want bad things to happen to them?
I’m not actually for that I’m just asking a question. How do you as an atheist get to say your way is the right way? You say people don’t want bad things to happen to them and I would agree and yet we have prisons full of people who seem to disagree. So what makes your way the right way? As an atheist you only have your personal opinions and then you have to force them on other people right? Isn’t that wrong in a sense?
“But we ARE STILL ABLE TO.”
So? There are plenty of things you are “ABLE TO DO” when you turn 18 and 21. If you have any braincells you probably won’t do some of those things. If you talk to someone older and more experienced he will tell you not to do those things. But, YOU ARE STILL ABLE TO.
Christians, like adults, are expected to make good choices and not be assholes, even if they could get away with certain actions or lifestyles.
Do you have an argument?
Christianity has dogma and rules it wants us to live by. One of those is being able to own slaves.
Come back with an argument.
Atheism =/= secular humanism.
My way is the right way because it is the most just, the more fair, and the most specific.
So you’re something like a communist vegan?
Fuck off troll.
No im serious, I want to know how some guy online has it all figured out. How is your plan for humanity more just than the Christian God and how do you go about convincing or controlling people to believe in your plan? You’re an atheist and so you don’t have any morals in the same sense as a religious person, you just have your opinions and yet you believe that your way is the one true way, how so? How do you go about convincing atheist who don’t give a damn about others feelings to listen to you since there isn’t a judgement at the end? Do you force them to? As an atheist you probably believe that you’re here by cosmic chance and so who are you to actually tell someone else how to live since we’re all here by chance and not everybody has the same “feelings” you have.
1) People don’t like bad things to happen to them
2) It’s called empathy
3) Actions that we designated as “bad” deserve punishment.
IT’S THAT. FUCKING. SIMPLE.
And yet look at the world we live in, constant wars, death, famine, etc. so if your belief is so simple an atheist can do it, why isn’t the world this grand place where everyone is happy? Your perfect plan doesn’t seem to go well with human behavior. Who is “we” by the way? Are you suggesting society deem what is right and wrong? Then one day they might deem slavery is fine again and what would you do then? Our society today already believes killing babies to avoid responsibility is perfectly normal. Where do you stand on abortion? What happens when society says it’s ok to drop bombs on lesser people because they deem them “evil”?
Because not everyone shares this view.
Now you’re just trolling.
“One of those is being able to own slaves.”
No, it is not. If you can’t tell the difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do then we’re done here.
Christianity endorses slavery. It allows you to own other human beings as property for life.
If you guys keep making excuses then we’re done here.
I’m not trolling I just don’t understand atheist who bash religion then borrow from their worldview to make the case for theirs.
Christianity’s worldview: You’re all evil pieces of shit who deserve eternal torture just for being born, unless you follow these rules and accept Jesus blindly. This can’t change.
Secular humanism’s worldview: We should treat each other with actions that benefit our health and well-being. Any actions that don’t will be punished. This can change.
How are these two even remotely similar?
Have you read the Bible?
What’s the difference? If I don’t do what you and your people say I’ll be punished because you know what’s best for me right? Also what happens when people greater in strength and number believe they’ll be better off killing you and your people and taking your stuff for their own? why do you even bother coming on here bringing up things you don’t like about the Bible? Do you really believe people are going to drop their faith to have faith in you and atheism?
“What’s the difference?”
Yep, you’re a troll. Goodbye
If you believe in the Big Bang and you’re here by chance then there is no good or evil, it’s simply your opinion and you go on pages telling people with different opinions they’re dumb for not wanting to follow your opinion and I’m the troll? You completely throw out the teachings of Jesus and how he lived because you believe you have something better? So tell me what you do with your day to day life that’s so great people should drop their beliefs and follow. Bottom line is athesim has no leg to stand on when claiming to know what’s right or wrong since there can be a standard other than someone’s opinion unless you let society choose and we’ve seen what that has caused.
Ah, so anything the Bible does not explicitly condemn must be endorsed by Christianity. Gotcha.
“It’s called empathy, fairness, and justice.”
Hey fag , nobody buys into your social justice BS around here. So take your shitlib feeeelz and fuck off. The Men are talking.
Did I say anything about social justice?
Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21, Ephesians 6:5, Matthew 5:17-18
All of these endorse slavery.
Atheism doesn’t claim to know what’s right or wrong.
Atheism is NOT secular humanism.
How much of a retard are you?
What’s this fairness and justice crap supposed to mean ?
Actually yes. Because water never leaves the atmosphere. And there would be nowhere for the water to go. There’s also no record outside the Bible – except for fictional stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh – that there was a global flood.
“The Bible even says that water came from the ground as well. Which could explain the continents being split like they are.”
– No.
And you still come on here to any religion related post to cry about how slavery was wrong and God can’t be perfect because you don’t agree with him.
Is slavery – owning another human being as property and taking away their rights and freedoms – morally right based on your opinion?
If the first word(s) of your response isn’t/aren’t “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know”, then you’re just stupid.
Depends
Ok, you’re stupid. Goodbye.
Stop trying to justify slavery.
I was never trying to justify it, I would never want slaves. I just don’t understand how atheist claim their way is the right way when all they have is their feelings to go off of. Sure it’s awful to you but to the slave master it’s great and you only have your feelings to argue it and he has his plus the benefits of having slaves. Christianity has everyone being judged to the same standard when it’s all said and done wether you agree or not. It’s clear we’ll never agree entirely so best wishes and maybe you’ll give Jesus a chance one day.
I wish more people focused on that and the OT. The law was never abolished and that’s what we will be judged against. The problem is western churches teach prosperity and hyper grace so they don’t believe in sin anymore.
That’s exactly the problem. The Western churches teach the love of God as though it were his only attribute! God is a loving God, but also a just God, a God of order and a jealous God who wants our obedience. If you start preaching that, however, you would have to start preaching that women are under authority to their husbands as slaves to their masters, and that men have the responsibility to love their wives by also administrating control and discipline. That means weak beta men would be held to task while pushy, bitchy women would be made to feel out of place and wrangled into exactly what the modern church tells them not to be! It means men could take on multiple wives and women would be having lots of babies instead of pursuing careers and degrees. Boys would be treated differently than girls! Dogs and cats, living together – mass hysteria!
Now look what you’ve made me do. I’m quoting Ghostbusters again. The good one…..
Also when I bring it up the Law or even celebrating biblical feast most people reply “well that’s for the Jews” or “that’s Jewish” when the Bible clearly states the feast are God’s feast and the law is righteous living according to God, the Jews just happened to receive it first but it’s not theirs.
Well I had been reading a page in particular that pointed out that Jewish law was actually split into three parts: The laws of the priesthood, the laws of God and the laws of the state. The priesthood was done away with, as per Jesus indicating that as there was a new priesthood (Him) the old one was gone; the laws of the state are laws that were specifically directed toward the Jews and their state – the promised land; the final laws are Gods moral laws whereby he indicated things that were sinful and not (ie: killing another man is murder/accidental death is not murder, though could be punishable). Unfortunately these things are never taught and so you have Christians blurting out that if we want to rely on the law then we need to be wearing tassels on our capes and all that rot, but they don’t take time to understand what the law is or how it is applied. No Christian would argue that murder is offensive to God and a sin, but what about sex during a woman’s menstruation? God forbid it because it was unclean, did he revoke it? He revoked the eating of pigs and shellfish, and we can easily find where that was done! Did he revoke a mans authority to wipe clean any promise or obligation his wife or daughter make on the day he hears of it? Nowhere I can see, so now what? If I try bringing that up in church I would be lynched, yet its right there in the word! This is serious stuff, and as far as I can tell at no point in the bible did Jesus or any follower of his give some grand speech on equality or women’s liberation. Though Jesus did say that in the kingdom of heaven there would be neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, he was not speaking about this present earthly realm, where those things are!
I had better stop, my keyboard is starting to heat up……
Wait a second, if I remember correctly this topic came up in regards to the Gentiles when they began entering the Church, and the only rules Paul and the Apostles laid out were no fornication and no idols. What did I miss?
Others had been telling the Gentiles that to be saved they needed to accept Christ AND be circumcised AND this AND that – Paul had to come down on them and tell them that this was not acceptable because it was wrong! Salvation is gained through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as ones lord and savior, not through works, yet works are proof of our faith. They are a natural result of sanctification through the holy spirit, as we become more Christ like. Where the law comes in is that Paul said the law is a mirror to reflect to us our sinful nature, and the law is good because it tells us what sin is! Where there is no law no sin is imparted! How then can Christians do the things that please God and avoid sin if they don’t know what sin is? Sure, everyone knows the 10 commandments, but what about incest? What about divorce? What about a man having more than one wife? These are things that are spoken about in the law, yet rather than understand and go along with what the bible says many modern day Western Christians have formed their own opinions about these things or heard different doctrine from the pulpit, and thus aren’t obedient to Gods word, nor do they seek out reading it themselves to verify what they are being told is truthful. The result? Feminism in the church that is being supported and glorified by pastors and congregation. A culture of divorce in the church where women (who were never given the authority to divorce in scripture) can divorce for any reason as long as they mask it with abuse or being unhappy. Homosexuals being accepted as clergy and told that they are not in sin because their sin is ‘genetic’. How does one live a holy life if one doesn’t know what is holy or sinful?
“How does one live a holy life if one doesn’t know what is holy or sinful?”
Yeah, fair enough. I would add, though, that holiness is ultimately something only God can teach you, and not a trait one can codify and propagate.
You talk like a protestant. There already is a Christian church with its own rule book, instructions and everything.
The last thing the church needs is further repackaging and mass marketing.
Give Protestants a break.
Non-protestants of all stripes hate the protestants. I just turn the other cheek on this sort of thing.
I do my best to do the same.
No offense intended.
Whatever ideology or banner comes along and effectively rallies Westerners against losing their nations, I will support it.
I suspect something like this would give the people a common cause to rally behind and defend. The multicult has really done a great job making sure there is no American people or American essence, dividing and conquering the people.
Your statement brings confusion, friend.
Call a spade a spade.
Marxism a.k.a. Neo-communism and it’s purveyors are your enemy, not the fools who mindlessly follow it.
The true believers and the charlatans alike have undermined everything that made Western peoples into distinct peoples. Without the unity that Christianity, blood, and such things produce, we are not nations but geopolitical regions occupied by various peoples with no strong ties to one another.
It is an ill wind that blows no one good.
You haven’t read the Bible and are oblivious to Christ’s teachings, otherwise you would have known that you are a Christian yourself.
🙂
I was raised Roman Catholic.
I know the stories of the Bible but never read it in full, which is something I will do. I recently picked up a King James Bible and Quran, which I hope to compare by fall.
And thanks I appreciate the compliment.
Which translation of the Quran? I know that there are many, but I’ve only heard from one so far as I know…
I haven’t started reading it actually because I was worried it would be watered down to sound less hardcore than it really is. If you find an authentic true-to-the-original translation please message me.
I don’t have it on me to give you the answer atm, thought of it after I got it.
No problem. Actually, if you’re interested in a comparison, see if you can find a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades by Robert Spencer. It has this side-bar called “Mohammed vs. Jesus” that you might find entertaining.
heh ok sounds good… I have way too much shit I need to read fuck…
There are worse problems 🙂
Once, a number of years ago, I was having a bout of insomnia and I stumbled across this female preacher on TV in the middle of the night, rambling on and on about the various translations and retranslations of various words in the Bible, and how the translations of the original Aramaic and Hebrew words into Greek, and/or then into Latin and/or then into English and other languages, could and/or did change the underlining meaning of the verses to a significant degree.
It was utterly fascinating. Words are fluid things, and the same word in the same language can mean different things to different people at different times. In the program I watched, she was dissecting a verse, and based on a perfectly acceptable change of the connotation of one word to another, it had a significant effect of changing the underlying meaning of the entire passage.
It really blew my sleep-deprived mind, and made me wonder just how many differences in transactions there could be, and how much the original intent could have changed through the different translations and retranslations. Also made me realize how much a particular group, like a church, could alter the words of the Bible by choosing different interpretations versus others.
It really kind of shook my faith a little.
Then I did some research and found out this chick pastor was a former porn-star who only got to be the pastor of this mega-church because she fucked and married the 80yo pastor who built it, and then took it over after he died of all the STDs she gave him, and there was no way she was smart enough or educated enough to know Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, etc., and she was probably just sitting up there making all that bullshit up.
So, faith crisis averted.
This said, there are some “translations” to avoid as a rule. Any paraphrase will contain the author’s biases (I think of The Message in particular), and many modern translations lean on a set of documents of dubious authenticity and veracity (codices on papyrus that originate from the seat of gnosticism).
I usually use my interlinear translations (word-for-word Greek and English aligned) alongside the KJV. It’s not steered me wrong thus far, and it seems to validate the translation decisions of the 1611 KJV team.
ha! Always seems to be the case.
Oh man, don’t get me started on the Mess.. I mean, the Message.. seriously that is the most ridiculously retarded thing I have read.. ever..
Besides the unreal amount of unfitting millenial jargons the translator uses to refer to stuff that happened centuries ago, he just removed clear theachings condemning homossexuality into a more PC version of it.. really, people just forget this Mess…
If you got the time, take a look at this site. It explains the mess this version is when compared to other serious translations of the Bible:
https://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html
I’m glad I’m not the only one to have read that site. I stumbled on them while formulating a paper on the errors of The Message for a pastor that insisted on using it.
Gave it to two pastors. One rejected it and got fired (due to his manifold problems – I was not a parishoner and did nothing to get him fired), the other switched translations.
Nice. Some good scholarship there.
I just think this is too important to get wrong. Happily, the KJV has so far agreed with every comparison, so I am comfortable using it on the regular, but where anything sounds potentially errant I have to compare.
Also have a copy of the Majority Text on my shelf. Neat little book.
Strong’s Concordance is a good reference as well. Has Hebrew translations for every word in the OT, Greek for the NT
It’s a must for serious scholarship, and you can peruse it online these days.
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/strongs-exhaustive-concordance/
I’m glad. I’ve always been a little wary of my KJV, but I cannot and will not ever learn greek!
It’s more intuitive than you’d likely guess, which makes sense as so many English words have Greek origins.
But an interlinear Bible does most of the work for you.
We have Greek manuscripts from the second and third century, which means only one level of translation is required: Greek to English. The monks who were busy copying those manuscripts weren’t also simultaneously translating.
Also, my #1 Rule of Theology: If your point depends on punctuation, sit down and shut up. There is no punctuation in Greek.
Most of us will never learn Greek. That just means we have to know our limits.
On an unrelated note, at my church we recently did a Bible study in the Gospel of John. Pretty much EVERY place where Jesus says anything remotely close to “I am”, the greek is “Ego eimi”, i.e., I AM. Jehovah’s Witnesses can suck it.
Only way you know that is if your pastor/priest is literate in Greek.
There’s a reason when they asked Who He was when they came to arrest Him and He said “I AM” that they fell back. They recognized what He was saying.
Precisely. There’s about a dozen other places in John, too.
I’d recommend “The Message of the Quran” as a translation, mainly because it explains the reasoning of the author’s (a former Jew turned Muslim) word choice (as well as footnotes), but also because Saudi Arabia banned it.
What do you think of the NKJV? I’ve tended to like that one to get away from all the Shakespearean sounding stuff, and it seems to take less flak than some of the other versions.
You know what’s interesting, I was listening to a radio pastor today talking about all the names of God, and he made a huge point of that exact one in reference to Jesus referring to himself as I AM, and how the nearby folks were going to stone him for that…went on for five minutes on that very point. It is the first day in my life I have ever seen that Greek word, or heard that point made, and now it’s happened twice.
Forget the King James- get an ESV. Or at least an NIV translation.
I’ve read both of those having scripture missing.
Remarkable! As I said, John quotes Jesus saying “I AM” many times. The instance you reference is one of the most obvious ones.
ESV is word for word. NIV is not literal, so there are some minor gaps/interpolations.
I know it’s missing I John 5:7, as modern translations omit this due to its absence from the gnostic codices considered “most reliable” by “scholars” (of the Frankfurt School).
I am not aware of any major textual translation issues in the NKJV as yet, but I’ve never really looked at it.
overall an interesting discussion on the phrase “I AM”. I will be try and remember to look into that later.
that said….I echo the concerns about getting the right version of the bible. the NIV is particularly bad. in general the KJV I’ve found is probably the best english version. though what i’ve seen of the NKJV that one isnt too bad.
philippians 3.2 beware evil dogs who butcher little boys’ genitals
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Galatians 5.2
Galatians 5.2 , 5.11, 5.12, 5.3, 6.13 Philippians 3.2 Deuteronomy 23.1 Corinthians 7.17, 12.18, 3.16-17 Leviticus 19.28 Titus 1.10-11 Acts 15.1-2, 7, 10
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c789aa71b8c36bced006968c86152c2902cd82a8b151dc76305d358d6d85fa14.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88f3e1bd148fbc28b03d393b1e7e01ec71929f6cbb62130b370e7f22dfb7948f.jpg
my first one didn’t post https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c42125c441ae46c2b30a11dcf080477228dc77903adf442a00e8a69e21b1933e.png
ah no worries….interesting comparisons there.
Deus Vult!
A restoration of the Church could hardly be started on better foundations.
Point #15 brings to mind the widow’s mite. A rich man came into the temple to some fanfare, laid his mighty offering in the coffers, and was praised for it. Then a poor widow came and offered two mites (two pennies – nothing). Jesus praised the woman to his disciples, for she gave all she had to live on out of faith.
In the same way, Jesus rebuked prayers and deeds done so others might see. He said to pray in secret and give quietly, so that your reward be not on earth.
Interpretations and re-interpretations have happened all over history, both at the macro, meso and micro levels. As such a pure Christian discourse or “true church” has never existed outside the imaginary state of mind. Of course main tenets exist but the differences are not trivial.
I think that Christianity, Scientism, and even New Age (fitness, health, meditation and so on) can live side by side as long as those who live according to these sacred and/or secular beliefs have truths about human nature, demography, culture, biology, law and so on as their basis. I think it is easier to find common denominators in language, ethnicity (although multi-racial overlaps exist), ethics and values rather than religion these day. If a person wants individual salvation he can have it without having to impose his interpration on everyone else. Authoritarian Christianity is not much better than, or different from, Nietzsche’s will to power.
If we should live using secular means – which by the way is the most fair and just – why not just dump all the unproven religious baggage?
That would suggest that the universe begins and ends with man.
That idea alone should be enough to scare the crap out of anyone.
yet that is the very goal of the liberal left.
It seems worth noting that the majority of these tenets are focused on orthopraxy (that is, correct action). There are few religious tenets here or interpretations of the Scripture, but instead we have instruction on how we should live and act upon our faith in this world.
This is awesome. Especially #6. It is pieces like this that make me believe the alt right is destined for success.
Si deus vult, ita erit
What is “shared morality”?
Found this, http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/a-shared-morality/267881.
Is it this? “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” Rom 1:19
The 21 points largely sound like fundamental Christianity. Why the need for a new label, Alt-Christianity?
Because “fundamental” is currently the label owned by many preaching a Christ other than that preached by the Apostles, I say.
I don’t mind putting a label on such things, but I will not choose those labels myself. I am a Christian, called to repentance by God and redeemed by Christ, and I wish to serve my Lord in spirit and truth. Call that what you will, but I will simply do as I am bid.
Traditional Catholic here who takes the simple position that all non-Catholic religions are all wrong to one degree or another.
You’re starting from the wrong first position, and your entire concept will fall a part because of it.
“Both theologically and morally, Alt-Christianity is traditionalist and right-leaning. It is also more focused on shared morality and mere-Christianity than on denominational differences.”
Who gets to decide on “shared morality”? A group of Fire and Brimstone Baptists who say, “Abortion is wrong in all cases! No Exceptions!” and a group of Anglicans who say, “Abortion… Long answer yes with an if… Short answer no with a but…” Who’s right? And why?
“first within the church, and then against them outside of the church.”
Your concept of “the church” is flawed, incomplete, and will only lead to more disunity in the Body of Christ.
“Alt-Christianity is skeptical of any attempts to redefine the clear sayings, implications, and example of Christ and the rest of the New Testament, or Christian tradition, in order to accommodate modern sensibilities.”
Considering how many different denominations are on the Earth today, I’d say that the sayings and examples of Christ are very unclear, and no one has any idea how to correctly interpret them.
That’s just a few problems with this article…
Other than the picture of the feces-throwing Martin Luther, it says a lot that all the pictures for this article are of devout Catholics. The Catholic St. Francis of Assisi, a painting from the Catholic Reconquista of Spain from dar al-islam, a Catholic Crusader kneeling before his sword, which is a Cross, Winged Hussars from Catholic Poland who saved the day at the Siege of Vienna, another Crusader holding his sword, and ANOTHER picture of St. Francis, a Catholic who preached to the Muslims during the Crusades, and when he caught a priest in bed with prostitutes, he fell to his knees and kissed the hands of that priest, and when asked why he said because those hands are what Consecrate the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
In the same spirit, I will point out that the Bishop of Rome caused the Great Schism. If any earthly authority exists, it should necessarily be among the Orthodoxies and not the Church of Rome for this reason.
I say this not as an Orthodox, myself. I am of no denomination, because my conscience is captive to the Word of God.
Centralization of any movement leads away from God. My church was a member of an organization for many years but then the organization began to cave to social pressure and allow sinful practices that had always been taught against and which there are clear Scripture prohibiting.
Our local assembly, and many across the world, split from this organization. Two other organizations formed from this split but we joined neither. Now our pastor has a board of elders who he is accountable to. They in turn have men they answer to, but this system allows the Spirit to lead the local assembly instead of a central headquarters staffed by people with the spirituality of a thumbtack.
“Centralization of any movement leads away from God.”
this.
The root of the schism lies in that the Orthodox eschew the desire for earthly authority in general.
Your well written and thought provoking articles are a pleasure for this atheist. Why you feel it necessary to invoke religion as a catalyst for intelligent discussion is a mystery to me. Logic and science are the backbones of human enlightenment. Religion has its place for those who are unable to live without mysticism. Keep up the good work. Leave religion out of rational conversation.
What if I tell you that in order to achieve any meaningful progress you first would need security through unity, unity can only be achieved through faith.
Faith requires a set of laws to correctly live under.
It so happens that the 10 laws of the Old Testament shows you the stairway to the Way a.k.a. Holy Spirit.
You yourself are a product of Christ’s supreme sacrifice and example and teachings.
You live by achievements and inside a society that at a very basic level has been built under Christian laws.
Saying you’re an atheist while living in a Christian society is like a kid talking back to his father when his father discipline’s the children.
Basically, at a very fundamental level, an atheist is either blind or basically chooses to refuse to see the obvious.
Religion only has meaning to the feeble minded. I am neither blind nor oblivious.
Religion only lacks meaning to the feeble minded. I was blind and oblivious, but now I see.
To borrow from your scholars, “Statements made without evidence can be reasonably dismissed without evidence.”
Obviously blind and oblivious to the truth.
You live in a fucking bubble and point fingers to those around you.
What a hypocrite…
evidence was provided you troll.
riddle me this:
“Ever wonder while 90%+ of all scientific and technological advancement happens in historically Christian countries? And why officially atheist countries produce guys like Lysenko?
You’re also just as mystic as anyone else I guarantee it. Space and time can’t be seen or touched but you believe in them.”
religion isn’t the problem; it’s the one preaching it.
blame the driver, not the car.
doctor: to falsify; etymology ‘church father’.
witch doctors torture babies to death, and have butchered 1.14 billion children’s genitals.
a sadistic pedophile Doctored that line, replacing ’18 years’ with ‘8 days’.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/138630fc4526015f483a43587cdfe63e26bd4c578d7f78cea3c117f4723f243d.png
Logic, preserved by the church, and science, also preserved by the church.
Ever wonder while 90%+ of all scientific and technological advancement happens in historically Christian countries? And why officially atheist countries produce guys like Lysenko?
You’re also just as mystic as anyone else I guarantee it. Space and time can’t be seen or touched but you believe in them.
You also,presumably, claim that any direct experience of the supernatural has any one of hundreds of mysterious explanations, just that it must be based in the material world, even if you don’t “see” the connection.
Even among physicists, who study physical phenomena, there are mystical beliefs. Just about everything in the realm of quantum phenomena is an imperfect model that should be known to be flawed (like superposition of states – this was critiqued in Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox), but are taken as gospel.
And Einstein himself said that if anything about quantum phenomena were true, his relativity theorem was false. Yet, relativity is taken as gospel.
Now would be a good time to start showing more respect for Christianity.
For starters, it is a historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead. What implications does this have?
Can you prove that it is a “historical fact” that Jesus rose from the dead?
Easily. The New Testament is credible history:
1. The documents we possess are extremely reliable in terms of authenticity, compared to other comparable ancient documents. (I.e., the originals were written close to the time of the events, and there was little change between the originals and the docs we currently possess.)
2. The NT paints the apostles unfavorably, which lends credibility to the idea that the writers were reporting actual events.
3. The claim that the resurrection was a giant hoax is seriously problematic for several reasons:
3.1. Contemporary Jewish hostility to the Church and its message was powerful, but they failed to produce any convincing counter-arguments.
3.2. The apostles and many members of the early church suffered physical persecution and death for refusing to recant.
3.3. Some of the apostles and many members of the early Church were educated and, most were respectable members of society (i.e., not kooks).
Also, proving it is a historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead ≠ proving that Jesus rose from the dead. It is simply powerful evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
We are what the Communists used to call as the Clerical Reaction.
Just posted a brief analysis of these theses, as it correlates to the online church I’ve been trying to develop. Please feel free to look at it at your leisure, and if anything about it appeals to you consider looking at the bible study I’ve been working on for Romans.
http://firstonlinechurchofamerica.org/index.php/2017/05/26/on-21-theses-of-alt-christianity/
In accordance with the theist-atheist conflicts that invariably arise here, a word from Joshua:
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord,
choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your
fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of
the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we
will serve the Lord.”
(Joshua 24:15)
A word from Captain Kirk:
“What does God need with a star ship?”
Picking a random Bible verse does nothing. Congrats.
Does it not fit the theme? It is a reminder that even the prophets who spoke with God acknowledged that many would not believe, even among the “chosen people.”
Hardly random, I would think.
It’s a very good cover.
I have a unicorn, but you won’t believe me.
See how easy that is?
It would be better to say I have a friend you do not know. You can believe or disbelieve in my friend until you meet him, but I know I have this friend.
I could also say I have a turn-of-the-century Browning at my granddad’s place. I know this to be true, but you can believe or disbelieve.
The fact that you have not seen the evidence or recognized it when you saw it does not mean it does not exist.
Ok well then what’s your evidence for God?
I see evidence in the still-being-discovered complexity of DNA and microbiological elements. I see evidence in the resilience of the planet. I see evidence in the beauty of nature.
And I know the guy.
You see these evidences and interpret them differently, because you do not know the one who created them. If you didn’t know of the creator of the computer, though, you would still naturally assume someone created it because of the design of the system.
I do not fault you for not knowing the design, but I do find it sad you do not appreciate the design.
Why & how do you see evidence in “DNA and microbiological elements”?
“I do not fault you for not knowing the design, but I do find it sad you do not appreciate the design.”
– So we have the Argument from Design. This arguments holds that there must be designer, well, do you have proof of this designer?
Do you have a mechanism by which complex design arises naturally, a mechanism which is validated?
When we see a watch on the road, we do not assume the watch is a natural phenomenon. We know it to be designed, even if we do not know the designer. I see the same in the complexities of nature.
So your entire belief is a giant argument from ignorance.
“I don’t know how this complex thing could have gotten here, so God.”
“We know it to be designed, even if we do not know the designer. I see the same in the complexities of nature.”
Watch this.
You have yet to provide a counter-argument to design. I say it is designed because it bears the hallmarks of design, you assert without evidence that it is not.
To borrow from your scholars, an argument presented without evidence can be safely dismissed without evidence.
Your argument follows that it must have a designer. WHERE IS THE DESIGNER???
My counter-argument is I DON’T KNOW.
The teleological argument leads to an infinite number of designers creating an intelligence that created each other to eventually created the watch. It’s a fallacy.
By the same logic, because I do not know how my vehicle’s fuel-pump works it must not work.
right – “you cant explain that with science!”
I cannot, true. I could potentially, given that it’s a physical phenomenon, but at the moment I cannot explain it because I lack critical information.
As as a creature, humans ‘lack the critical information’ to scientifically prove God exists.
So we have faith.
And logic. Aristotle’s God has never been philosophically rejected, only wished away. I also have read a lot of critiques of Aquinas’ proofs, only to have none of them address the argument in a way that refutes one.
Not so.
In the first place, infinite regress is aborted by the material universe, which is finite. This means the designer must be supermaterial.
Besides that, infinite regress is aborted at step 2 because you have no basis for claiming the designer is, himself, designed.
We claim life is designed by observing it, by investigating it. The designer we infer has never been investigated or observed.
The argument goes that something that is complex is designed. It also goes that something more complex designed it.
So what created the complex things – intelligence – that created the complex thing – the watch?
This is the infinite regress that occurs.
The god that this argument is trying to prove is by its definition supernatural and supermaterial. But everything still applies.
Which is a logical fallacy.
Where is the designer?
No. A snowflake is complex. A beach is very complex. Neither are designed. Complexity is necessary but insufficient condition to infer design.
No. Considering the set of observable designers has 1 member (humans), there is no basis for that claim.
Well then you obviously don’t the (logical steps of) the teleological argument.
More likely, you weren’t programmed to understand it.
Did your unicorn rise from the dead? Did it’s followers turn the Roman empire upside down, with zero resources or political support?
Yes. But you have to have faith.
Who was my programmer?
You didn’t have a programmer, which is consistent with your output.
Then how can I be programmed?
It continually amazes me how popular Dawkins’ atheist apologetics is given its poor quality. Dawkins say one must explain where the designer came from but this is false. The designer is eternal and immaterial. It need not have a creator and in fact God does not have a creator.
“The designer is eternal and immaterial. It need not have a creator and in fact God does not have a creator.”
– Prove it. You’re making a special pleading fallacy. “Everything is designed and created by a higher being EXCEPT my God because that would show the flaw in my logic.”
Your argument is a fallacy.
Prove that this eternal and immaterial designer exists.
So then there is no higher being that programmed me. So my “programming” is just natural. Great, this gets rid of God.
These views are all necessary consequences of your belief in atheism. This leads us back to my original question.
What, Mr. Fancy Meat Calculator, were you programmed to calculate? You certainly weren’t programmed to understand the implications of the fact that you don’t have a Programmer.
This is a loaded question, and a circular argument. You assume we are programmed.
“You were programmed, therefore you have a programmer, which is God”
How do you know we were programmed?
“Because God exists.”
How do you know God exists?
“Because we’re programmed by him.”
How do you know?
“Because he exists.”
– repeat ad infinitum.
Come back with a real argument.
You’re not even trying to make sense. I never said everything was caused by something else. Our observation tells us that without exception physical things are all caused by something else.
Well then prove that something caused existence.
Not even close.
You understand the fact that you are a fancy calculator made of meat. Your meat is running calculations based on input and then creating output.
The entire purpose of this thought experiment is to assume that atheism is true. So I ask again. What were you (are you) programmed to calculate?
It’s not a trick question. You’re clearly doing calculations. What are you calculating, and why? Perhaps you are like a calculator that always outputs “2”. What makes you think your output is right or wrong? It’s just output.
Atheism IS NOT A CLAIM!!!!!! It doesn’t need to be true.
How the fuck can “I don’t believe you” been true???
Assume atheism is true, moron. What implications does it have?
It’s impossible to even assume that atheism is true, because “I don’t know”, or “I don’t believe you” isn’t a claim that can be proven true.
You’re thinking of anti-theism.
Anti-theism is literally what “atheism” means. “Against theism”.
Atheist = ‘a’ theism = Without theism.
You’re wrong, again.
No, it means “against theism”. Look it up. If you aren’t against theism, you’re not an atheist.
Well then you must be “against intelligence”, because you’re still wrong.
Here’s a Google search of “atheism”:
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
So does being asexual mean you are against sexuality?
Here’s a Google search of “anti- definition”:
an·ti
ˈan(t)ē,ˈanˌtī/
preposition
preposition: anti
1. opposed to; against.”I’m anti the abuse of drink and the hassle that it causes”
You are still thinking of ANTI-THEISM.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/a-
/school
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t
/school
Atheism = lack of belief of belief in a god(s)
Anti-theism = belief in no gods.
You’re still wrong.
If someone is asexual are they against sexuality?
atheism = not believing in god
anti-theism = believing there are no gods.
Dictionary proves you wrong, sorry.
Wikipedia proves you wrong, sorry.
“Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities”
You’ve been wrong on every single thing you’ve said.
Anti-theism = Believe no god
Atheism = not believe god.
You’re still wrong.
Wikipedia is an SJW encyclopedia. Are you an SJW?
And dictionary.com is a liar. Are you a liar?
We still haven’t finished this whole ‘meat calculator, programmed’ thing.
“humans ‘lack the critical information’ to scientifically prove God exists.”
Which means that for all intents and purposes, it’s bullshit.
Dictionary.com is lying. Are you a liar?
O is that what it means? Whenever I’ve tried to explain anything to you your answer is always a most juvenile “so…so…that means
its bullshit”
I swear you have the laziest mind I’ve ever
encountered.
The laziest mind ever is the one that accepts a claim – theism in this case – without any evidence, rationality, or scientific investigates.
What’s to finish? You had a pointless freakout over definitions when you know perfectly well that “atheist” is frequently used in exactly the way I described. Dictionary.com is not lying.
“What’s to finish?”
– Well you’re right on that because your argument was completely circular, so it will never be finished.
Atheism = the lack of belief in (a) god(s).
Watch the video I sent you. If you’re just going to be as stupid as John, then we’re getting nowhere.
We weren’t programmed.
You clearly weren’t programmed to understand what it means to “assume there is no God”, so I can’t help you.
That is literally the entire point of this thought experiment. You contain “programming”, yet you weren’t Programmed. You produce output based on input. Yet you assume your output has meaning.
It has no more meaning than a calculator that always outputs “2”.
You still don’t even understand that your argument is loaded.
You are either disingenuous or an ignoramus. He came into the world- lived, taught, did amazing works. There is plenty of material to examine. Yet you have never mentioned Him or His name once. Deliberate blindness of a reprobate mind.
Who is the “He” and what proof do you have that he came into the world-live, taught, did amazing works?
Deliberate foolishness and willful ignorance.
And yet you continue to dwell on the passages regarding slavery thousands of years ago…
I encourage the writer and those who agree with this to check out http://www.cmri.org, http://www.sgg.org, http://www.sspv.org, http://www.stdominicchapel.com, http://www.dailycatholic.org, to some extent, http://www.sspx.org, and those who think similiarly
Real Catholics are still around; we’re just not exactly in the Yellow Pages.
A coup d’état occurred during and in the Conclave of 1958 after Pius XII died, and the Great Apostasy began…
Great article. Very funny. Keep it up.
A few suggestions:
1. Luther nailing feces to the door. Not a good thumbnail pic.
2. Lose the “alt”. That reminds people of “alt.right” and that’s a huge turnoff.
3. Human nature? Soft-sell that. A lot of us are blank-slaters.
4. Lose the “red-pill” stuff. This isn’t “The Matrix” and you’re not Laurence Fishburne. And never use “red-pill” as a verb. That’s another turnoff.
5. The second part of 17 is a tough job.
6. Christ as “alpha male”? Good grief!
But most of it is OK.
7. Get rid of the religious baggage and keep the values. Except owning slaves.
The ?th Commandment: All slavery is mandatory all the time because God.
Yes I remember that from seminary…
Wasn’t there another tablet of Commandments that we never got cause Moses threw them down and broke them when he was pissed that all his homies were busy gangbanging a golden calf or something?
There is more to the Law than just the 10 Commandments.
You do know that right?
Yeah! But wasn’t that Mel Brooks?
Are you implying that Moses is *not* Mel Brooks?
Ah, the “Fifteen Commandments” gag from History of the World!
But, no, he broke the original ten and had to go back and get them again.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/27f8a07f2b836dc3dcd477c4c95be205b3d077671e29a1134020f018116d76e5.jpg
Moses is Chuck Heston. Everyone knows this.
How sure are we that he got them all, and got them all 100% correctly? Moses seemed a bit flighty sometimes to me.
Too shay, me a me go. Too shay.
in that tent alone, smoke pouring out….
Plus, he’d already etched them all out in stone once before, and his peeps didn’t even care. I bet he skipped a few words here and there.
God always liked to do things in dozens back then, too. I bet we’re missing a couple Commandments.
“Thou shalt not forbear thy bitches to get mouthy.”
Jesus said there were two:
1)Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself
On these hinge all the Law and the prophets. If you follow these two you will obey the Top 10 and any other
So simple even a Fallen Human can (choose) to do it!
I so just pictured Carlin saying that with the expression he’s got in your avatar.
hah! i think that’s supposed to be Nicholas Cage.
And somehow ALL of YOUR comments sound like James Earl Jones for some reason…..
Ha, I can live with that. “What is steel, boy, compared to the hand that wields it?”
Blank slatism is a secular dogma that can be disproved and has been so. Whereas the contentions of various deserted (hehe) prophets from the archaic past cannot be either verified or refuted by scientific inquiry, these ideas can.
This is a great example of why males should find common ground in ideas that are based on pure facts and logic, not interpretations and perspectives.
Blank slate has not been disproved though many have tried.
Twin studies.
If your utopia came true, europe would not become a shariah law muslim shithole, but instead a church invested, middle-age like shithole – say bye bye to individual freedom and freedom of speech. “The earth is flat damn it, or you go to the stake heretic!”
One is just as bad as the other, as both are in its core tools to restrict the freedom of men. We need no priest to get in touch with god and we need no church to nail its rules on any doors.
Bishops are shepherds – remember. Be no sheep is the solution.
Reading these 21 points makes satanism seem like a good alternative.
Worth noting, Galileo was rejected by the scientific community of his day for discovering something new. Thus always the scientific community, I say.
And he was imprisoned not for saying the Earth moves, but for being a jackass. The final straw was putting the Pope’s words, verbatim, in the mouth of a fool in one of his works. Not a bright move in Catholic Italy…
Isaiah 40:22 states that God “sits above the circle of the earth.”
This remains true, now that we understand this circle to be an orbit and not a flat planet.
Exactly. Before “science” proclaimed this the One Who formed it declared it
Christianity and Red Pill philosophy have nothing to do with one another. You can’t bend one to be like the other. Well the author gave it a good try but fell flat. Just listing twenty-one theses doesn’t make them true and doesn’t make a movement.
I can’t tell if you don’t understand the Bible or Red Pill or both.
If you want to be serious, I would make your very first pillar, the 3 Creed’s of the Christian faith.
Apart from these there is no Christianity.
Christianity is built on Christ and the forgiveness of sins.
Christ died –buy my take is how hard is it to die if you know your going to heaven? Put me on tree anytime you want. There is no downside. The simple fact is without “knowing” your god; that choice isn’t that easy.
Also, the original sin was eve eating the apple and adam choosing not to be alone instead of choosing god. What god “wants” is subject to interpretation; just ask any lady who has fleeced her ex husband after divorce or getting as fat as a steer while they are married. Love honor cherrish? I don’t see it. That wedding vow was in front of god but you will be dammed if any religion will point that out.
Nope, Alt-Christianity flat-out REJECTS Frankfurter Darwinism and embarrasses its followers. And I would say keep the list to 5-7. But there are some good points.
Is Frankfurter Darwinism the doctrine where the fittest hot dog wins?
please help me meme this. frankfurt school and darwinism, i can’t word tie em
Actually, it’s the most kosher hot dog that wins.
so…by “Orthodox Christianity” do you mean “traditional Protestantism” “traditional Catholicism” or actual “Orthodox Christianity”-aka “Orthodoxy”? i feel like you are using the phrase “Orthodox Christianity” against its actual meaning,as its true meaning is referring to the Canonical Orthodox Chrurch…
i would like to add,i disagree with point 18… false religions have absolutely nothing to offer Christs Church.
Jesus convinced Peter to leave his wife and follow him. I wonder how many current priests or even the pope to preach the doctrine to put Christ over wife. Nowadays, the church is too scared of any female as they know that is who fills up their pews and their $ sacks.
The biggest problem I also see with current Christianity besides gynocentrism; is lack of moral fiber. Who am I to judge about gays? Illegals given sanctuary? Pedophilia paid off by insurance?
….If everything is right- than what is wrong? As I supposed to let a gay illegal rob me and stick his penis up my ass after marrying my son? This delusional thinking by Catholic Bishops and the pope is why I left the church and will never come back.
Though I agree with many of the points in this article, it puzzles me how labeling anything “alternative” helps its cause. The label weakens the product because it sounds off-brand. If I marketed alt-turkey it sounds fake, like it’s made out of tofu. Alt-condoms probably involve quick reflexes and are also made of tofu. Alt-shoes are those nasty vibram five finger things popular several years ago.
Alt-Christianity sounds like, well, it’s not really correct, it’s a trendy yet wrong alternative version of Christianity. Christianity as a term has sufficed for a while.
Waiting on alt-feminism… it’ll be horrible, I reckon.
The alternative label works due to the moral and cultural relativism of the West.
There’s a very dangerous and provably flawed idea in there- that the Church and State should be united. That’s what old Europe was, and to a lesser extent England. It worked out extremely poorly, for the people and for the Church as well. The pinnacle of western civilization was (was) America. The most freedom and prosperity came from deliberately separating the two, for both of their sakes. America is in serious decline because of the extent to which we’ve abandoned or bent the founding principles. They were sound- the best in the history of the planet.
How about a little fun?? Things that are NOT in the Bible:
The earth was created 5,000 years ago
Eve gave Adam an apple to eat
Jonah was swallowed by a whale
When you die, you go straight to Heaven or Hell
If your good deeds outweigh your bad, God will let you into Heaven
When good people die, they become Angels
All believers will be Raptured out of the earth before the great tribulation of the end times
You should go to church on Sunday
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute
Jesus and the Disciples were communists (I’m sure you’ve heard that one…)
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Most people don’t study, they don’t think deeply, they have no idea what they believe and why most of the time.
Maybe this will pique someone’s curiosity to do a little digging for themselves….
Who wants to bother with all that, when it’s much easier to just go off a surface level understanding of religion, dismiss all of it as “a load of nonsense that’s been disproven by science” and believe yourself more clever and enlightened than billions of people you’ve never bothered to engage with?
Did someone knock on your door one Saturday morning?
? Just pointing out common ‘beliefs’ that are not rooted in factual truth or scriptural basis.
Saturday is the shabat. And Bible believer must keep that day of rest.
Most of these are common knowledge. Except the Jonah and the whale, and eve giving the apple to Adam. I need to look into those
And there is only one true Christianity: Catholicism. That’s what the above article, perhaps unintentionally, said. It encompasses everything in the article.
You’re gonna have to explain that comment a bit more, I’m afraid…
I find your lack of faith…. disturbing.
😀
What? Had to be done. 🙂
Christianity means salvation by Grace through the vicarious atonement of the crucifiction, right? It doesn’t mean checking your brain at the door. If someone argues that prioritizing your own culture, nation, family or race somehow displeases God, your best response is that everyone will invariably sin in this fallen world, but you can not lose your salvation. Nor can you injure God. All a Christian can do via his sin is diminish his fruits of the spirit. So, killing an enemy on the battlefield may or may not be a sin, but you’re still straight with God when you get home and confess your sins. So, I also don’t see the need for any specific “Alt-Christianity,” per se.
What does Alt-Christianity think about Israel? I’m dying to know. Do they keep cucking themselves by sending their young men and women to fight and die for these khazarian fiends who’ve robbed a patch of desert and turned it into a bandit state?
If I read the above correctly, they would have no position on whether one likes Israel – but a ban on armed support of it. The right of each nation and ethnic group to autonomy means respecting that others will get into fights, and they have the right to do so. One must leave them to it.
I’m all opposed to modernism, but in many ways, this “alt-Christianity” IS merely another kind of modernism.
It’s right-wing ecumenism and right-wing modernism, more concerned about politics than about objective truth, more about things being use- or harmful for this or that political goal, than about things being true and being in accordance with the infallible word of God. It will therefore mostly be attractive for the OrthoLARPers and Deus-Vult-Gamers that are legion on ROK.
Let us simply agree on fighting our common enemies such as feminists, neoconservatives, Jewry, etc. without pretending that we’re all “bros”, without trying to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, and without sticking that faggoty “alt” label to the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
https://smultronstalletoutsidethecamp.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/sanctified-through-thy-truth/
Deus Vult!
Χρισος Ανεστη!
I would add to this that the Alt-Christian recognises that Christianity is not about social reform (Whether leftward or rightward), nor is it a tool for cultural improvement (whether red or blue-pilled).
It is for the salvation of our souls.
Beyond that, behind this 100%
Deus Vult
Deus Vult
Understand your enemies
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Bible, Tradition, Reason, Experience.
This can be applied to the factions of a church respectively: Bible/Orthodox, Tradition/Conservative, Reason/Liberal(Libertarian), Experience(Emotion)/Radical
Many think as there is an alliance between Orthodox and Conservative VS Liberals and Radicals, but its inverse. When you look at the recent mainline schisms of the Presbyterians & Episcopal church, it is actually an unholy alliance against the Bible:
Conservatives & Radicals(closet Atheists) VS Liberal Orthodox.
Have you noticed how even Bill Maher can catch on that Muslims form a greater threat than anything Christian ever did. The Radicals in a church don’t believe in God, his punishment: Hell; or anything higher than themselves, they crave power and public validation to fill the empty hole in their soul, thats why they go for the priesthood.
The one way to force them out, they feel its hateful, PREACH THE BIBLE. Talk about the Bible constantly when in church, have friendly debates with other believers. If a Radical slips in things about the Bible being not true, immediately attack that position viciously with basically, “if you don’t believe in the Bible, Jesus, and God, why are you here?” Eventually the radicals retreat, they can’t stand the Bible.
*other tactic, if the minister is preaching a heresy or logical fallacy, call them out on it right then and there, in the sanctuary, that way you have witnesses. Yeah, I have done it.
Superb! Will be distributed and posted in my archive.
Well done Mr. Michael. You captured my beliefs and whats wrong with much of so-called Christianity today. The fight is on.
You lost my support when you refused to separate church and state.
Theocracy is the worst possible form of government, look at places like Iran, and Kentucky.
This theocrat mentality is what is wrong with conservatism in general, and specifically the republican party.
If we insist on using the government to shove religion at people and hypocritically deny constitutional rights to those who have different opinion than the christian taliban, it is only a matter of time before the democrats/communists return to power and we are all doomed.
The constitutional separation of church and state was put there for a reason, to protect the church from the government, and also to protect the government and the minority from the church.
We must not forget the lessons of history, lest we have to repeat them, when the church has political power, we get the dark ages and the inquisition, when the church is kept under strict control, we get enlightenment and progress.
There is nothing wrong with religion for those who want it, but no one should ever forced into it.
It is an obscenity that the church is arrogant, hypocritical, and hateful that it thinks certain people should second class citizens because they do not to conform to someone else’s religion.
This is a Christianity I can get behind, offer my support, devoid of petty squabbling, bickering and infighting. A masculine take on it. I’ve been oscillating between Christianity and Norse/Pagan views of late. Still no idea where I stand on it all. I’ve had my heart broken at every turn by the church, whenever I’ve explored returning to faith in any serious way. Christ is evidently extremely masculine and a leader, why are Christian men, alive today, such a shadow of this?
This inherent weakness and effeminate ways, leads me time and time again to study Paganism. A Christian version of ‘The Golden One’ would be a welcome counterpoint.
gynocracy and misandry. america has been at war from the inside-out for 2 centuries. it has always been men’s role to protect, while women have been brainwashed to attack their own society. women have an advantage over men; they control what man passes on his genes.. they have wielded natural selection, and bred generations of men genetically programmed to do whatever they want… get down on your knees like a dog and beg one to marry you https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5cc71c8b960ef535ebb601dd367a208ec0947cf407971df6f6bcbf33a355e2f2.jpg
If you want to study the Bible as it was meant to be studied go to http://www.remnant.site
Amen!
was an ancient egyptian deity.
Alt Christianity is basically pure Roman Catholicism- which is the only true religion.
By Orthodox, you mean, sure.
indeed. thank you!
Instead of us here claiming infallibility in Scriptural interpretation we should go to the Church that Jesus founded and said would be the pillar and ground of truth. We could start by looking into those that were on earth 2000 years ago as the gates of hell can not prevail against it.
Honestly, I do my best to keep my mouth shut when visiting these articles, but matters of Faith are just too serious.
I have to observe that there’s a very serious missing component here: sacraments, i.e., the direct conduits of grace established by Christ Himself. This is why there’s not much sense to the ostensibly sola scriptura ‘Mere Christianity’ which claims to highly revere the Bible which Tradition wrote via Chuch Hierarchy. The Lord said in the very Scriptures that we need grace and appointed a stable patriarchy to channel it, regardless of that order’s personal worth or holiness.
As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, every true Christian begins as an honest Agnostic. He’s confronted with what exists, applies his reason, and accepts mystery where reason runs out of fuel and waits for further phenomenon to clarify things. The first Pope didn’t apply personal bias or modern rationalism to the initial scandal of the Eucharist: ‘…Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.’ He didn’t say: ‘Meh, I’m sure it’s just a symbol we can repeat once in a blue moon. Can’t we skip to the Five Ways already?’
Rationally asserting orthodoxy is indeed vital, but orthopraxis is every bit as urgent. You’ll find that every image of the viri posted above lived not merely austere lives of right reason; that orders man, but does not feed him. They also frequently accessed the immemorial gifts of Holy Mother Church for personal consolation. Take it from a man somewhat disappointed in marriage:
‘Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you
the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament…There you
will find romance, glory, honor, fidelity, and the true way of all your
loves upon earth, and more than that: death: by the divine paradox, that
which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste
(or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly
relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that
complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, that every man’s heart
desires.’ – J.R.R. Tolkien
You might like SDA’s. Check out sermons on youtube like Rekindling the Reformation by Walter Veith or the youtube channel ProphesyAgainTV. While they are less political due to expecting the soon coming of Christ, they exhibit many of the points described in this article.
This article contradicts itself. On point 13 it states that God’s view and way is more important than the way of man, yet point 7, 8, 12, 17 and 18 are not supported by the foundation of the Christian faith, the Bible.
The biggest problem with Christianity today is not liberalism, it is taking the religion and fitting it around your own lifestyle and beliefs. Rather than changing to fit with what is read in the Bible.
For instance, God is disgusted by western civilisation, at any point of its existence. God is dead set against democracy, it is evil. Any form of equality is evil, because any form of equality seeks to be equal with Him, just like Lucifer tries to do. Equality is the devil’s work. In God’s world, the head (ruler) controls the body (country/family) for its life time. The body has no say, and can not choose another head. Just like our physical bodies. Supporting democracy is supporting your wife voting you out as the head of the family. She is your body as a nation is the body of a ruler. Don’t be a hypocrite.
God even supports bad rulers.
Here are my answers to certain points:
Point 7, 8: Western society is evil, God hates democracy
Point 12: God does not support religious freedom, He is the one and only God.
Point 15: Charity is better than faith as stated in the Bible, however Faith comes first.
Point 17: God is not racist, He cares about humans who have a spirit, no matter what race their flesh is.
Point 18: There is no truth or value in other religions, only God is good.
The true alt-Christianity is this, to take the Bible literally. Not to get your own ideas and interpretations about what it says. The Bible can only be interpreted one way if you take it literally, word for word. To truly read the Bible properly you must read it without any pre formed beliefs, otherwise it is looking at it through shaded glass. You will impose your own ideas on the words that are said.
Most people are just looking for places the Bible supports their own preconceived views and ideas, don’t be one of those guys. This is why the church is so liberal now, because they ignore certain parts of the Bible to support their ideas. Don’t be the same, being consecutive and doing the same thing is just as bad.
Take the Bible literally, seek God, obey all authoritys because they all come from God and have faith, because God at no point goes back on His promises.
Excellent. One of the best posts I’ve read on ROK.
This quote stands out: ” Christ was not followed because He allowed Himself to die, but rather because He was the ultimate alpha male who conquered Man’s greatest enemy: namely, death.”
I didn’t see in the list how the Christian state would go about enforcing its dictates. What the A-C would call evangelism or protecting the flock would be claimed to be censorship and heavy-handedness. Would like to see this expanded upon.
Naturally, no mention of the Incarnation or the Resurrection of Christ. No mention of the Trinity. No mention of the Virgin Birth Of Christ and the Perpetual Virginity of His Mother.
Of course not. Because Alt Christianity is not Christianity. It’s just heresy and blasphemy.
Good article. My mind has been where you’re at for some time. After all the study and experience, particularly reading After Virtue and Suicide of the West, in convinced that “14. Alt-Christianity is opposed to the separation of church and state in an absolute sense, for Alt-Christianity understands that the absolute separation of church and state always leads to the state, and/or the enemies of the church, using the resources and laws of the state to undermine the church.” Is absolutely true. I agree with all of it actually. I agree with some of the other commenters though. Maybe you could pick a different name for it. God bless you.
No matter what peoples’ arguments are against this, the prudent truth of the situation is that if Christianity were not to reform into this more traditional and masculine paradigm, it would quickly be wiped out and replaced by ideologies which already hold those ideas as its pillars.
I’ve responded to each one of these 21 Theses in an article here: http://michaelwitcoff.com/2017/07/analysis-of-damian-michaels-21-theses-of-alt-christianity/
#StopWhiteGenocideInSA
“As such, Alt-Christianity supports the implementation of whatever specific political and cultural practices are best suited to allow a particular people to maintain traditional Western Civilization.”
So a monarchy. A most christian sovereign is needed to help guide the people towards the proper christian faith. Also, the issue with capitalism is greed is corrosive and insidious, and while capitalism can improve the lives of the people, morality must be guarded against this venomous influence.