Why don't White people believe in this anymore?

it all sounds incredibly silly in the light of a scientific understanding or reality.

>>17873066 (OP)
Book kinda jumps the shark a few times, overall an entertaining read, but I wouldn't really want to form a religion around it

>>17873066 (OP)
Satan's agents work

>>17873066 (OP)
God is rendering judgement on them.

>>17873066 (OP)
Fewer people are indoctrinated into the belief as children, there are fewer social reinforcing mechanisms, it became more acceptable to question and criticize religion.

Especially people with Protestant background tend to be either total true believers who think all in the Bible is real or total atheist who blanket reject all spirituality, with nothing in between the two. The ex-protties also tend to reject it all instantly when the smallest doubt arises instead of trying consider it as symbolism or non-literal. For a lot of white people bible either is 100% true or 100% false, they are either believing or unbelieving fundamentalists.
In Catholic and Orthodox cultural spheres it is more common that even people who participate in sin and mostly live like they weren't religious at least keep some sort of cultural Christianity about themselves.

Because it doesnt benefit us anymore and people moved on.

>>17873093
It just depends on whether you come from a nation of liars or a nation of truth seekers. Take a look at a map of Europe based on whether the countries are historically Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant and you will find undoubtedly that the best countries in terms of both justice and prosperity are in fact the Protestant ones.

>>17873066 (OP)
>Why don't White people believe in this anymore?

Much like how Moses' staff turned into a serpent and ate the other serpents the Pharoah's Magi had conjured up; the power and authority of the God of the Bible has been largely trivialized by the last 300 to 200 years of scientific progress. The shoe has completely changed foot. Job is now the one making the appeal to his wisdom and authority over the cosmos, displaying his works in medicine, engineering, and ecology, and telling the priests and prophets to shut the fuck up and stop questioning his judgement.

From a spiritual and cultural perspective: the world is simply bigger than a 32 year old Jewish man nailed to a board of wood and it's bigger than the pageantry and drama of like 12 ethnically semitic tribes wandering around an area of land smaller than California. There's a shit post that's something like, "the Bible never mentioned kangaroos" and that entirely encapsulates every faucet of this issue.

The third reason is probably the Protestant tradition of believing in whatever fucking bullshit you want, interpretating the Bible personally, all irregardless of any kind of authority or historicity. I have a tremendous amount of respect for actual Biblical scholars, historians, archeologists, etc.. who actually do the academic legwork to preserve the history and tradition of Christianity - even if it has to live in a museum - but academics will never be able to compete with schizophrenic evangelicals.

>>17873066 (OP)
As our knowledge of the world becomes more sophisticated it will become incrementally harder to convince people that there used to be talking snakes and flying jews.

Atheism is inevitable.

>>17873066 (OP)
Why don't white people believe in a flying Rabbi who says if they aren't actually a Jew they're still a worthless piece of shit lower than a dog (this is actually in the Bible btw).

>>17873066 (OP)
Waking up to Jewish lies.

>>17873066 (OP)
Christianity is growing up again.
Said so, Germanics made up the most retarded interpretations of the Scriptures.

>>17873152
It has always been growing, just in non-white countries.

>>17873152
Growing amongst who anon?

>>17873158
Are you dumb?
It is growing everywhere, I have seen many commies and atheists from my gen turning to God.

The average person isn't a trashy racist supremacist, the average person wants to feel connected with the God of their fathers, mothers and grandparents.

>>17873167
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2025/05/13/why-are-young-people-flocking-to-religion

Gen Z and Millennials.

>>17873175
>my gen
Ah, the mostly black, Mexican and Arab zoomers. Praise Beanerchrist!

>>17873180
It's funny that online supremacists like to boast about their race and their ancestry. But all their arguments are based on contempt for the ancient Christian tradition in Europe, dating back to the times of Constantine and Theodosius. They talk a lot about living in community, but they don't leave their homes and don't have their own community. They talk about ancestors but dishonor their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents. They like to talk about women, but they don't marry or give in marriage.

Go ahead. I will go with people of my own generation and culture to the Church of the God of my ancestors. You can stay at the internet talking about community and family.

I kinda want to see how life will go for each one.

>>17873177
meaning the generations that are increasingly non white.

>>17873066 (OP)
Because it is total bullshit

>>17873066 (OP)
They do. Just not literally. Literalism was a weird blip in post-medieval history.

>>17873072
It is silly to compare it to science to begin with.

>>17873094
What changed? Everyone got enlightened? We need it now more than ever because existential and spiritual topics are not only unresolved, an average materialist barely even understands the questions posed.

>>17873192
Enjoy your spics and niggers.

>>17873072
>it all sounds incredibly heretical in the light of a scientism dogmas or my view of reality.
Fixed you

>>17873288
>It is silly to compare it to science to begin with.
A ridiculous cope to be sure.

>>17873295
>dude the reason suffering exists is because a talking snake made a guy eat an apple a couple thousand years ago.
>please take this seriously!

>>17873192
>parents,
So millenials don't really deserve respect
>grandparents
Boomers are literally molochian generation
>great-grandparents
Were obnoxious infantile idealists that died for someone interests in stupid war
>and great-great-grandparents.
Were obnoxious infantile idealists that died for someone interests in stupid war

>>17873296
How so? Even a brief look at the text itself and the theology surrounding it will reveal that it's written in a completely different paradigm than scientific empiricism for the most part. Literalism is a brief western cope to begin with and thankfully it's on retreat.

>>17873299
>>please take this seriously!
Your mainstream narrative was written by corrupt pedophiles and their lackeys.
So if you belive such lies i don't see the problem in believing in talking snakes

>>17873299
Also the talking snake is the devil but also maybe not and maybe god himself, it's not terribly clear.

>>17873299
It was figurative, metaphorical, literal retard.

>>17873304
>corrupt pedophiles and their lackeys
But enough about the church. Every church. Including yours.

>>17873306
It's relatively clear from the Traditional interpretation. Which is the context in which the Bible exists.

>>17873301
The neat thing about science is that it doesn't depend on your "paradigms". To anyone who isn't brainwashed, it's obvious that these religious books were written by ignorant peasants who didn't have a clue about how the universe works, just like everyone else back then.

>>17873316
I don't know how to phrase this non-condescendingly, but this is the kind of blissful ignorance that we mock in bible-thumpers. Every single worldview depends on premises and those premises form what we would call a paradigm. Religions went through the effort to articulate some of their paradigm in dogmata. Contemporary materialists and naturalists believe they are beyond paradigms despite having perhaps the most restrictive one of them all.

Science as a practice absolutely depends on paradigms and in individual fields there are many efforts to upgrade or change the paradigm in one way or another, usually coming from philosophy, since philosophers are at least generally aware of there being one.

>>17873325
You are posting your anti-science relativist screed on a device invented by science. That's actually the neat part about the results of science - your beliefs and the numerous metaphysical nonsense spouted by moronic philosophers are totally irrelevant to the functioning of the device invented by science.

>>17873066 (OP)
well, you see, I tried really hard but.. this.. this is just ridiculouahahahahahahahahaha

>>17873333
What about my post was anti-science? You think having a paradigm is an insult?
>relativist
Funnily enough local relativism is the norm in most scientific domains.

>>17873337
>What about my post was anti-science?
Your claim that science is based on "paradigms" and so on, trying to make it look like just a fad or opinion or religious belief.
>Funnily enough local relativism is the norm in most scientific domains.
What are you talking about?

>>17873312
If it's so clear, post what the snake is? Protip: it's not even clear if its an actual snake.

>>17873192
I don't know who your ancestors were but people here continued disobeying the church, killing tax collectors and practicing folk traditions well into the 1800s, long after official conversion. Its almost as if other beliefs existed or something.

>>17873342
>>What about my post was anti-science?
>Your claim that science is based on "paradigms"
Right, again, having premises means having a paradigm. Do you think science has some premises? For example causation? Correlation? Various statistical premises? Intelligibility of the world? Its nature? It does - that is a paradigm. There is no shame in having a worldview.
>>Funnily enough local relativism is the norm in most scientific domains.
>What are you talking about?
Relativism says things ought to be interpreted in context and that there is no "absolute" meaning. It sounds scary when summarized into a sentence, but in practice it just means that you have to carefully define your terms when asserting a conclusion.

>>17873343
Whether the character could be uncontroversially placed under the Serpentes taxonomy isn't really an insightful information in any regard. What do you think you will learn if you find out the answer?
>post what the snake is?
>Rev 12:9 “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.”
Besides this, Justin the Martyr (2nd century), Irenaeus of Lyon (2nd century), Tertullian (3rd century), Augustine (4-5th century) and others consistently identify it with Satan's agency.

>>17873381
>the snake is also a dragon
>but some versions of the perfect word of God don't have the book that says its a dragon

>>17873381
>Do you think science has some premises?
No, science is not based on "premises" or axioms since it's not a formal logical system. There is no list of commandments you need to affirm or pledge alliance to first in order to do science. Science uses logical systems, just like it uses telescopes and microscopes. It's not based on them.

>>17873394
>>the snake is also a dragon
Correct.
>>but some versions of the perfect word of God don't have the book that says its a dragon
Jesus Christ is the perfect Word of God. How humans compiled inspired material is fairly tangential here.

>>17873396
>No, science is not based on "premises" or axioms since it's not a formal logical system.
Right, so for example science doesn't presume that the world is intelligible and that causation is part of it. It discovers causation through... through what?

>>17873403
>the snake being a dragon is fairly tangential
>but also if you doubt this you burn alive forever while a worm eats you

>>17873404
The snake being a dragon isn't tangential.

>>17873403
"Causation" is not a discovery. It's an invented metaphysical concept.

>>17873405
You just said it was >>17873403
Are you bearing false witness against me?

>>17873406
Right so causation was not "discovered" in science. It is presumed and this presumption is worked with.

>>17873408
>How humans compiled inspired material is fairly tangential here.

>>17873409
It's neither presumed nor very useful in science.

>>17873411
I'm sorry it almost looks like you're saying causation is not very useful in science. Which would be crazy seeing that there doesn't exist a single scientific fact that didn't come about without the use of causality.

>>17873409
>it's the perfect word of God
>but only some of it is in some of the versions
>not all of them say a snake is a dragon
>you burn for all eternity while a worm eats you if you don't believe the snake was a dragon
>tangential
Ok. You've answered OPs question.

>>17873417
>>Jesus Christ is the perfect Word of God.

>>17873419
>Jesus Christ is the perfect Word of God
>according to the 12 person sect in Shitsberg, Nebraska
>the perfect Word of God doesn't appear to people in person
>instead relies on books
>half the books are missing content
>content that is vitally important about the nature of the snake dragon snake
>you burn forever while a worm eats you if you don't understand the importance of the snake dragon
See OP.

>>17873421
>the perfect Word of God doesn't appear to people in person
Says who?

All your replies fall apart the instant you write them.

>>17873423
Tell me the last time Jesus Christ appeared to you in person. Remember what happens to you if you bear false witness against me.

>>17873413
Yes, I'm saying it's not very useful.
>there doesn't exist a single scientific fact that didn't come about without the use of causality.
No, read Hume or Russell on causation.

>>17873428
What happens, tell me? You can barely understand one sentence replies so I'm really looking forward to your narration of how sin works.

>>17873430
>No, read Hume or Russell on causation.
I did. They don't assess usefulness, they assess reliability of induction.
>not very useful
Can you name me a single scientific fact or discovery that was made without causation?

>>17873437
>avoids the question
When was the last time Jesus Christ appeared to you in person?

>>17873445
>avoids the question
Shame.

Anyway, to me? I don't remember any apparition in my personal life. Luckily I was not the goalpost.

>>17873437
You obviously haven't read them.
"Bertrand Russell famously argued that the concept of causation, as commonly understood, is not a fundamental aspect of reality and is not necessary in scientific explanations."
>Can you name me a single scientific fact or discovery that was made without causation?
All about them, since "causation" is just a philosophical concept of not much use.

>>17873449
So you've had to rely on books, half of which don't mention the dragon snake? Enjoy burning :)

>>17873454
*all of

>>17873454
That's a gross oversimplification of both Russel and science. He argued for functional dependence, which is just a more precise description of what we call causation.
Ironically, this would constitute a ... you guessed it. Paradigm shift. QED

>>17873455
I don't think I've ever held a bible that omits Revelation, no.
Again. The moment you write them.

>>17873460
>he admits it
Oh you're gonna scream...

>>17873066 (OP)
Because it contradicts the King James Version.

>>17873463
See >>17873403. You went full circle.
I'm screaming alright.

>>17873336
Enjoy Hell.

>>17873460
What oversimplification? That's almost a direct quote of what Russell said. Here's an actual direct quote.
"All philosophers, of every school, imagine that
is one of the fundamental axioms or postulates of science, yet, oddly enough, in advanced sciences such as gravitational astronomy, the word " cause " never occurs. To me it seems that philosophy ought not to assume such legislative functions, and that the reason why physics has ceased to look for causes is that, in fact, there are no such things. The law of
causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, survivinig, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no, harm"
You should try to understand what's being said here instead of attempting to make weak gotcha arguments.

>>17873483
>"The whole notion of cause is one we derive from our own actions. In the motions of physical bodies, as determined by physical laws, we have not cause and effect, but a formula which states a functional dependence of one set of variables on another."
I think we're talking past each other because you obviously understand that Russel isn't saying things don't cause other things. He's saying the paradigm must be updated from 1:1 causality to n:n functional dependance. If you think it's untrue that pressing the key N produces N on the screen, then I don't know what to tell you - you have let philosophy be an obstacle to understanding instead of a mediator of it.
In any case, you demonstrated very thoroughly that science has a paradigm and that efforts are being made to update the paradigm. I don't think I could make it any clearer than this, so if you're still not convinced, I am fine with you walking away thinking that "paradigm" is some kind of an insult and "relativism" is scary.

>>17873066 (OP)
Lots do, but most don't grasp the point of it anymore because the point of it isn't properly explained any longer. That and the correct definition of Israel started to get phased out around the time of the enlightenment mostly completely died out in the last couple hundred years.

There is truth in it, but that requires having the correct reading.

>>17873494
Russell is a philosopher who is talking about what sorts of terms to use philosophically. He is arguing against the usefulness of "causality" as a philosophical term because it's not really an assumption in science as many people who are scientifically illiterate believe. This is not a "paradigm update" or anything like that. It's just a simple observation that if you look at the actual work done in science, you won't find metaphysical assumptions like "causality" to play a role. This is not really very hard to understand.

>>17873343
According to Genesis 3, it was a beast of the field that deceived Eve, and was afterward cursed to move on the ground on its belly. This lines up pretty well with the usage of the same word, in the original language, to mean serpent or snake in the other parts of the Bible.

>>17873394
>the snake is also a dragon
The term "dragon" doesn't have to refer to the mythical beast, it can also be a synonym for serpent and snake. In the King James Bible, they used serpent and dragon interchangeably.

>>17873336
Metaphor or even Cypher or Code expressions must be very new to you..

Or like usual, they can apply to everywhere in life except the Bible, it's always weird seeing Atheists using special pleading/exceptions on the Bible.

>>17874001
Dragons live in fields?
>>17874006
>version
Why are there version and why can they not agree on something as basic as if it was a dragon or a snake?

>>17873066 (OP)
We're still as primitive as 4000 years ago, let alone 300 years ago.

Simply there is the belief that Science will "save us".

Sure it can pump out interesting gadgets (even health related) and study laws of physics but that's it.
Then there's covert expectation that it will suddenly deliver a much shocking revelation.

You can see this hope/emotional impulse in things like "transhumanism", "eternal life via science", etc.

>>17873066 (OP)
Because it's not their religion. It's for Near Eastern nations only

>>17874668
Then you do realize that White people religion doesn't exist, but rather several ones? Germanic paganism isn't the same as Celtic Paganism or even Britton paganism or Nordic Paganism.

We'd need at least 4 new religions. Good luck finding that amount of epic prophets, the only thing going for you is that we're in Clown World programming.

Because after the enlightenment the definition of israel was changed to include non whites, first in catholocism and later in protestantism as well. That is why, it has become an instrument for the destruction of whites for them to accept any definition of israel that is not only themselves.

this is painfully obvious to anyone and everyone, and if you find this truth intolerable then that is the gnashing of teeth and the cursing of your birth which was foretold in prophesy regarding the tribulations

Because traditional sexual and gender norms are fading.

>>17874656
>Dragons live in fields?
Pic rel.
>Why are there version
?