Thread 514021127

Its actually the other way around.

Back in the day there was no Judaism, just the faith of Abraham and later the Israelites. At the time Jesus came there were 3 main sects, The Essenes (The only ones native to Judeah), the Sadduccess and the Pharisee (both being not native to Judeah).

The Pharisee are the Edomites (descendent of Amalek which the Israelites were told to genocide and which descent from the Canaanites which worshipped Moloch and such) which previously were forced to convert. However they really liked their old customs which were unlawful and thus they created the Oral Law. You know how in Court a Jew will use semantics, grey areas, loopholes and other pilpul to argue they didnt break a law which they never followed completly ignoring the intent behind the law? The Oral Law of the Pharisee is a guideline on how to do that with the OT Law.

This is the group of people pretty much all quarrels Jesus had was with and they were constantly rebuked for this by him, God himself, for being hypocrites, a brood of Vipers, even the children of the devil. Even their name describes them seperating themselves from the original

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

>"Pharisee" is derived from Ancient Greek Pharisaios (Φαρισαῖος). [8] from Aramaic Pərīšā )Hebrew: פרישא(, plural Parisayya (Hebrew) meaning set apart, separated"

So by all means the Pharisee splitted themselves off from the original faith which became known and was continued through Christianity and thus by all practical means was Pre-Christ-Christianity.

This Oral Law of the Pharisee then after a few 100 years got written down in the (Babylonian) Talmud starting what is now known as Judaism. So its not that Christianity is based on Judaism, but that Judaism is a collection of blasphemies and herasies of Christianity

Proof the Bible is the word of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5ZEsXjNVI
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
Jesus Christ is God who came to earth from heaven in the flesh. He died as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of the whole world to save you from eternal hell, the punishment for your sin. He was buried, then resurrected and is now in heaven. Do you regret your sin? You're a sinner according to God, but the blood atonement of Jesus Christ is sufficient to wash your soul from all sin eternally. Do you want to be redeemed with the sinless blood of The Lord Jesus Christ? “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:9)

Jesus said: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:28)

God wants to forgive you, but you have a choice: Either choose this evil world and be punished along with it, or choose to submit to the will of God and be saved. Your own deeds, no matter how good you think they are, can NEVER justify you. You're corrupt and need to be saved. “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Romans 5:9). Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, in what HE did for you. Only He can wash away all of your sins with His blood. Salvation is a gift, it can't be earned. Do you choose your righteousness or the righteousness of God?

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbPchtYsXNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS78mFJcvhQ

>>514021127 (OP)
Christianity comes from Roman and Greek epics actually.

The story of the bible is the story of the 12 jesuses, and the false jesus who claimed to be the lord of the villa, that broke into a villa, stole the food and wine, and was crucified for being a liar that claimed that he was the Emperor of Rome itself and walked across the water to israel.

>>514021127 (OP)
>we wuz Jooz an sheeit
I'm so sick of all thse Jew brained people wanting to kill everyone who is Amelek or Edomites.

you're all fucked in the head Jew brained retards.

>>514021127 (OP)
stopped reading at the title.
Let me repeat the lesson for the 6th girillonth time:
*****"Christianity derives from Zoroastrianism*******, a 3k+ yo aryan cult.
Judaism was just the vector of it.
Not the theory of a random blogger, but the one of the greatest comparativists of religions of the XXth century, from Dumezil downwards.
Mandatory Lesquen article on the issue:
https://lesquen.fr/2021/07/04/zoroastre-et-nous-les-origines-zoroastriennes-de-loccident-chretien/
Will poltards finally learn ? No.

>>514021127 (OP)
seems like the correct way around to me
jesus was a filthy kike and looked like one too

>>514021127 (OP)
Christianity was created 500 years before Judaism. Learn to read. Hebraism does not equal Judaism. You kike memeflags will never escape this fact

Why do jews hate Jesus if he was born a jew?

>>514025611
He was a Hebrew from Galilee you retarded kike

>>514025611
There’s not a single historical account that describes him as a goblin Pharisee or Canaanite, of which modern Jews descend from. He drank milk, Jews genetically cannot. He’s actually a good person, Jews genetically are not. His bloodline is pure and directly from David, Jews get taysachs and schizophrenia if they don’t breed outside their gene pool every 3-4 generations. He had Sandy brown hair and blue eyes, Jews literally look like goblins. There’s nothing in the Bible that describes him as a modern Jew. The term “Jew” wasn’t even mentioned until the 1400s, by Jews that owned the English crown. Cope

>>514021127 (OP)
Messiah is a Jewish word and concept

goyim don't believe in messiah

hence Jews get to define what messiah is

/thread

>>514027709
Messiah is a Jewish word and concept

goyim don't believe in messiah

hence Jews get to define what messiah is

/thread

>>514027003
imagine if chinks get to define who pharaoh is/was

that's how far goys have fallen

>>514025559
Aryan woman: "Jesus, please help!! My daughter has a demon!! Please cast it out of her!!"

*The woman proceeds to worship Jesus.*

Jesus: "Oy vey, another goyim shiksa. Ok disciples, let me handle this."

*Jesus clears his throat*

Jesus: "Ok so my blessings are like bread, right?"

Aryan woman: "Yes Lord, that's right!"

Jesus: "Ok yeah, and you wouldn't give your kid's bread to a dog, right?"

Aryan woman: "Uhh, L-Lord, what are you trying to say?"

Jesus: "Hold on lemme finish! So basically you wouldn't give bread to a dog right?"

Aryan woman: "I...no Lord. I wouldn't."

Jesus: "Ok so there you go."

Aryan woman: "B-but....But Jesus....Even dogs...*sniff* Even dogs eat the children's crumbs from under the table when they lick the floor like dumb animals."

Jesus: "Woah...wtf...lol."

*Disciples start snickering and laughing.*

Jesus: "Ok ok because you said this, I'll heal your daughter. But first you gotta bark like a dog!!"

Aryan woman: *sob* "b-bark bark..."

Jesus: "lol fucking goyim. Ok now go away, your daughter is all better lol."

Mark 7:24-29

>>514021212
>Proof the Bible is the word of God:

>>514025559
That's incorrect. Judaism predates Christianity by centuries. Judaism's origins trace back to around 2000 BCE with the covenant of Abraham, while Christianity emerged in the 1st century CE, founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. This places Judaism roughly 2,000 years older than Christianity.

>>514028737
Christianity isnt about rabbi yeshua the goy dog hater

Christianity was created by Rabbi Paul

it is Paulism

>>514027709
The English term “Jew” derives from the Hebrew Yehudi (meaning “of Judah”), which passed through Greek (Ioudaios), Latin (Iudaeus), and Old French (giu or juieu) before entering English.

The term Yehudi appears in the Hebrew Bible, notably in the Book of Esther (around 4th–3rd century BCE), referring to people from the Kingdom of Judah or those who adhered to its religious practices. For example, Esther 2:5 describes Mordecai as a “Yehudi” (Jewish man), despite his Benjaminite descent, showing the term’s broader ethnic and religious use by this time.

The Septuagint (3rd century BCE) translates Yehudi as Ioudaios, and Latin texts use Iudaeus. These terms referred to both Judeans (residents of Judea) and those following the Jewish religion, regardless of tribal origin.

>>514028859
Also true

>>514028627
>circularity
every worldview is self-referential at the foundational level.
that doesn't mean they're irrational, it means they start from axioms or presuppositions that are taken as givens.

empiricism
>assumes that sensory experience is reliable, but that assumption is itself based on experience.
scientism
>the belief that science is the best or only way to know truth is not itself a scientific claim
naturalism/physicalism
>assumes only physical things exists, and uses empirical models (which only detect physical things to confirm that)

faith in God is no more circular than faith in reason, science, or the senses.
the question becomes which worldview makes the most sense of reality, morality, meaning and human experience?

>>514028982
>Esther 2:5 describes Mordecai as a “Yehudi” (Jewish man), despite his Benjaminite descent
Why would a distinction need to be made between Israelite tribes? Weren't they all jews?

>>514030131
>every worldview is self-referential at the foundational level.
>that doesn't mean they're irrational
They are when they depend jn themselves as proof and evidence without outside sources to corroborate the claims made

>>514030131
>faith in God is no more circular than faith in reason, science, or the senses.
Incorrect. See above
>the question becomes which worldview makes the most sense of reality, morality, meaning and human experience
For me, it isn't Christianity.

Remmeber yesterday when you got destroyed in /bant/? Wonder if th3 thread is stil up lol

>>514030357
The distinction between Mordecai being a “Yehudi” (Jewish man) and his Benjaminite descent in Esther 2:5 reflects the historical and cultural evolution of tribal and religious identity among the Israelites.

>>514021127 (OP)
Neither comes from the other. They are two aspects of the same Semitic religion. Judaism for the master, and Christianity for the slaves.

>>514028021
>didn’t include the 10 verses prior to the quotation to provide context
Very Yiddish of you demon. Every single time you kikes get on here to Christ bash, you expose yourselves. Actually a great passage that I had forgotten and it perfectly encompasses your entire point. Sweet self own

You failed the theology class. God is before All.

>>514030396
>They are when they depend on themselves as proof…
that critique applies equally to foundational beliefs in any worldview.
the reliability of reason, the trustworthiness of sensory data, or the assumption that the universe is intelligible, all taken as givens.
these aren't proven by external sources, they're the lens through which we interpret everything else.
the question isn't whether circularity exists, it's whether it's fruitful.

science is brilliant at describing mechanisms but it's silent on meaning morality and metaphysics. the claim "only science gives truth" isn't a scientific statement, it's a philosophical one, so even that belief rests on non-empirical foundations.
>incorrect
if reason and sensory experience are assumed reliable without external proof, then faith in God, understood as trust in a transcendent source is no more irrational.
the difference is not in method, but in what each worldview claims about reality.
>for me, it's not Christianity
then the challenge is which worldview does make the best sense of consciousness, morality, beauty, and our longing for meaning?
if Christianity doesn’t, what does, and how does it ground those things without borrowing from the very transcendence it denies?
>Remmeber yesterday when you got destroyed in /bant/?
you mean when your bad argument wasn't landing so you decided to threaten to kill me and my family? >>>/bant/23173888

>>514030719
Ten? It's the prior 23 verses, which are all part of one section. But those 23 verses have nothing to do with the following story about the Syrophoenician woman, or the story about faith healing a deaf/mute man that takes up the rest of the chapter.

Why make that complaint which doesn't even make sense instead of complaining about the numerous editorial additions the poster made? Have you read these books?

>>514028737
Incorrect. Modern Jews are not genetically derived from ancient Hebrews. As such with the fulfillment and promise of the NT to the OT, it is incorrect to call ancient hebraism, Judaism. Judaism had to be completely revamped and changed (with the Talmud) in order for modern Jews to pretend that they are descendants of the ancient Hebrews. You’re just not understanding the timeline correctly. The fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham was answered in Christ, and modern Jews are not allowed to accept this fact, thus removing and redirecting the entire ancient prophecy of the messiah in Christ. That is exactly why revelation was written prior to the Talmud and why Jews summon the antichrist today. Cope

>>514031174
> the previous context has nothing to do with the following story
Ermm my kike friend? Can you not read? Must you keep lying? Are you by chance, brown?

>>514030719
another thing is the greek word used for dog there is never used derogatively in scripture, it just means puppies.

>>514030957
>these aren't proven by external sources
Then how do you know your reason is reliable and your senses are trustworthy if you haven't used them and gotten results from outside sources? Your statement doesn't make sense kiddo
>>514030957
>the claim "only science gives truth" isn't a scientific statement
I never said this. You've taken too much Adderall and you're jumping around

>>514030957
>if reason and sensory experience are assumed reliable
How would you move past the assumption to know they're reliable? By using them and experiencing the consequences

>>514030957
>then the challenge is which worldview does make the best sense of consciousness, morality, beauty, and our longing for meaning?
Who's the challenge for? Sure isn't me. Lol

>>514030957
>if Christianity doesn’t, what does
I guess you'll have to leave the basement and experience life outside your 1 dimension. It's bot up to me to figure this out for you kiddo

>>514030957
>you mean when your bad argument wasn't landing so you decided to threaten to kill me and my family
What dies it matter? I used your buzzwords to justify it like you do with raping kids and killing babies

Also, how would you feel of you sister have breakfast?

>>514031276
>Incorrect
No it isn't

>>514031641
>Also, how would you feel of you sister have breakfast?
Kek. Phone posting in bed.

How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

>>514031678
>nuh uh
I’m not playing with you kikes. If you don’t want to offer counter arguments and instead obfuscate agreed upon historical timelines by both modern Jews and christians, and rewrite history to your own tunnel stories, then I have nothing further to offer you my kike friend

>>514031641
all these words yet nothing of substance in this post to respond to.

>>514032023
>If you don’t want to offer counter arguments
See
>>514028982
Fuck off cultist

Oh look it's the Synagogue of Satan again.

>>514032065
What this anon actually means is that he can't argue against them. So he does this instead. You do this a lot when faced with arguments you can't refute

>>514032206
instead of talking about breakfast or my sister, let's focus on one topic.

if not Christianity, which worldview makes the best sense of consciousness, morality, beauty, and our longing for meaning?

>>514031276
>As such with the fulfillment and promise of the NT to the OT, it is incorrect to call ancient hebraism, Judaism.
saul called his previous sect "judaism", retard. You can find this in Galatians 1:13 and Galatians 1:14.
Ἰουδαϊσμός (ioudaismos)
https://biblehub.com/greek/2454.htm
>1. "Judaism", i.e. the Jewish faith and usages
pic
>Most, importantly, this information adds to the knowledge that the jews have absolutely no racial or historical claim to the land of Palestine. In truth, it belongs to the Palestinian people
picrel are rat-faced palestinian sandniggers lmao

>>514021127 (OP)
ITT: Fandom geeks argue over canon.

>>514032314
>instead of talking about breakfast or my sister, let's focus on one topic
Anon can't into metaphor lol

>>514032314
>if not Christianity, which worldview makes the best sense of consciousness, morality, beauty, and our longing for meaning?
When did I tell you to stop being a Christian?

>>514030485
>the historical and cultural evolution of tribal and religious identity among the Israelites
Well what is that, chat?

>>514032502
you didn't tell me to stop being a Christian, and i'm not asking for permission.
i'm asking you if Christianity doesn't make sense of the deep features of human experience, then what worldview does?
if you're unwilling to offer an alternative, then you're more interested in critique than clarity, which is fine, but it's boring and uninteresting.

>>514032656
Internet, how does it work?

>>514032757
>you didn't tell me to stop being a Christian
Then your question is irrelevant.
>i'm asking you if Christianity doesn't make sense of the deep features of human experience, then what worldview does?
And I'm telling you it's an irrelevant question because I don't live my life constantly thinking if my actions are based on a "worldview" or not. That silly burden was lifted when I left Christianity.

I observe cause and effect of my actions and outcomes as well as others and depending on the context, I make choices and/or adjust actions.

>>514032757
>if you're unwilling to offer an alternative
That's the tbing, I don't need to offer you anything ad you're free to practice your preference

>>514033105
>I don't live my life constantly thinking if my actions are based on a "worldview" or not.
that doesn't mean you don't have one.
everyone interprets reality through some framework, even if it's unexamined.
observing cause and effect, making choices, adjusting behaviors
these are actions, not explanations. they don't answer the deeper questions.

why does consciousness exist?
why do moral intuitions matter?
why do humans seek meaning, beauty and transcendence?

your relativism is a bad thing.
when we're lax about worldviews, especially those held by our countrymen, we risk eroding the very foundations of shared meaning and moral coherence.
a society isn't just a collection of individuals making choices, it's a network of values, assumptions and narratives that shape how we live together.
it's better when people are on the same page facing the same direction.

if we treat all worldviews as equally valid or irrelevant, we lose the ability to distinguish between those that promote human dignity, justice and truth, and those that don't.
that kind of indifference isn't neutral, it's corrosive. it creates a vacuum where ideology, tribalism or raw power rush in to fill the void.
you don't have to be religious to recognize that worldview matters. but if you refuse to engage with it, yours or anyone else's, you're not just opting out of philosophy, you're opting out of responsibility.

>>514033723
>You can't just go around living your life!
Watch me.

>>514021127 (OP)
>Actually Christianity is EVEN more Jewish than you may have thought
Yes, technically true that Christianity has the more "direct" descent from Hebraism, but that's even more of an argument to completely ignore it

>>514031276
Shalom Rabbi

>>514021127 (OP)
>these lies again
Wow, great, sure love this spam. Nothing better than the same lies told every fucking day

>>514033723
>that doesn't mean you don't have one.
>everyone interprets reality through some framework, even if it's unexamined.
I guess I have as many "world views" as I do goals.

>>514033723
>observing cause and effect, making choices, adjusting behaviors
>these are actions, not explanations
Observing the consequences is the explanation and depending on the context of the situation will result in different explanations
>they don't answer the deeper questions.
What "deeper" question would that be?
>why does consciousness exist?
There’s no definitive answer, I don't live my life around this question
>why do moral intuitions matter?
Essentially you're asking why morals matter. I would say 1st would be survival with a tribe and the 2nd is cohesion in said tribe
>why do humans seek meaning, beauty and transcendence?
Simply put, because we can
>your relativism is a bad thing.
To you
>goes onto tell me his personal feelings
That's cool bro. Do what works for you.

>a society isn't just a collection of individuals making choices, it's a network of values, assumptions and narratives that shape how we live together.
Which I believe is achieved by
>>514033105
>I observe cause and effect of my actions and outcomes as well as others and depending on the context, I make choices and/or adjust actions.

>>514033723
>it's better when people are on the same page facing the same direction
Which with my "world view" it allows to bridge the gap between different worldvm views for better cohesion. Christianity does not.

>>514033723
>if we treat all worldviews as equally valid or irrelevant, we lose the ability to distinguish between those that promote human dignity, justice and truth, and those that don't.
Again, this is where
>>514033105
>I observe cause and effect of my actions and outcomes as well as others and depending on the context, I make choices and/or adjust actions.
Comes in handy

>>514032023
And there we go, what this bullshit always leads to. This same slander every day

>>514034735
you keep circling back to "i observe cause and effect, i adjust" as if that's a sufficient worldview.
but that's just a method of adaptation, it doesn't explain why anything matters, or what you're adapting toward.

saying "i have as many worldviews as i have goals" is just another way of saying you don't have a coherent framework.
goals presuppose values, and values presuppose a view of reality.
if you're unwilling to examine that, you're not bridging gaps, you're just floating between them.

your answer to "why do humans seek meaning beauty and transcendence" being "because we can" isn't an explanation, it's a shrug.
that kind of relativism might feel liberating, but it's also what muggeridge warned about in the pic i posted in my previous post.

when a worldview is treated as irrelevant, power and pleasure fill the vacuum.
that's not cohesion, that's entropy. and it's how civlizations lose their moral compass and collapse into anomie.

if you want to critique Christianity, you should at least offer something deeper than behavioral reflexes and personal preference, otherwise you're not engaging with ideas, just narrating your habits.

>>514021127 (OP)
why do you keep posting santa clause?

>>514035251
>you keep circling back to "i observe cause and effect, i adjust" as if that's a sufficient worldview.
For me it is.
>it doesn't explain why anything matters, or what you're adapting toward
The consequences of the actions speaks purer than words.

As for what matters? That too is context dependant

>>514035251
>saying "i have as many worldviews as i have goals" is just another way of saying you don't have a coherent framework
Coherent to who? You? I don't live myself wondering what you think though lol

>>514035251
>goals presuppose values, and values presuppose a view of reality.
And those are also observed and context dependant

>>514035251
>if you're unwilling to examine that, you're not bridging gaps, you're just floating between them.
It's examined everyday anon

>>514035251
>your answer to "why do humans seek meaning beauty and transcendence" being "because we can" isn't an explanation
For you it's not. For me it's the tip of the iceberg, what unfolds depends on context and how I observe and react to them

>>514035251
>that kind of relativism might feel liberating, but it's also what muggeridge warned about in the pic i posted in my previous post.
I don't agree. Simple as

>when a worldview is treated as irrelevant, power and pleasure fill the vacuum.
I never said world views are irrelevant. Yours is irrelevant to me though but yours isn't the only one either

>if you want to critique Christianity, you should at least offer something deeper
Living my life opposite of your perosnal feelings about religion is that something deeper

>otherwise you're not engaging with ideas, just narrating your habits.
What you mean is I don't engage in the ideas you think I should the way you think I should.

All of this is a you problem

>>514021127 (OP)

isnt this basically a feral animal? I doubt it ever looked up at the night sky and wondered what the stars were

>>514035724
you keep saying "for me" and "context dependent" as if that resolves everything.
but that's not philosophy, that's personal taste.
you're not offering a worldview, you're narrating reactions.

saying "the consequences speak louder than words" is poetic, but it doens't answer why those consequences matters, or what standard you're using to evaluate them.
if everything is context-dependent, then nothing is stable. morality, meaning, and even truth becomes fluid.
that's not depth, it's drift.

you say you examine your framework daily, but also have as many worldviews as goals. that's not examination, that's improvization. and it's precisely the kind of entropy i warned about.
you don't have to agree with muggeridge, but dismissing his warning with "i disagree" doesn't refute it. it just shows you're unwilling to wrestle with the implications of worldview collapse.

living "opposite of my personal feelings about religion" isn't a worldview, it's just rebellion dressed up as insight.
if your only standard is what works for you, then you have no right to enter the conversation. no one cares. stop posting.

this isn't a "me problem" it's a civilizational one. when people stop asking what's true and start asking only what's useful, we lose the ability to build anything lasting.

>>514036471
>you keep saying "for me" and "context dependent" as if that resolves everything
Again,
>>514035724
>All of this is a you problem
Simple as

>>514036471
>this isn't a "me problem" it's a civilizational one. when people stop asking what's true and start asking only what's useful, we lose the ability to build anything lasting.
Useful and true can be one in the same. Again, this is context dependant lol

>>514021127 (OP)
all abrahamism is sumerian deity worship. abraham was sumerian, ergo his "god" was of the sumerian pantheon. so abrahamic religions worship the anunnaki.
This is the Anunaki pantheon and its Abrahamic rebranding:

>An = Yhvh
>Enlil = Lucifer
>Enki = Jesus
>Nanna = Al Lat or Allah
>Utu = Satan
>Inanna = Mary

>>514021127 (OP)
1. "Based" gaytheism won't take off.
2. Nobody knows what paganism is.
3. Your seething gives you away

>>514036577
sure.
sometimes what's useful can be true.
but that's not the point. the danger is when usefulness becomes the standard for truth.

if truth is only what works for you in a given context, then it's no longer truth, it's convenience.
and when convenience becomes the highest value, civilizations stop asking what's right and start asking what's easy.
that's how cultures drift into moral relativism, lose their shared compass, and collapse into anomie.

you can keep saying "context dependent" like it's a philosophical trump card, but all it really does is avoid the hard work of asking what's actually true regardless of context.

let's roll with your "what works = truth" thing though.
Christianity has shaped civilizations, built institutions, inspired art, grounded moral systems and given people meaning across millennia.
your brand of liberal relativistic nu-atheist constructivism, by contrast, offers no coherent framework, no transcendental purpose, and no shared vision beyond personal preference.
it's not just philosophically weak, it's socially sterile.

if utility is your measure, then Christianity wins by a landslide. it's not just true, it's fruitful.
your worldview by comparison is a shrug wrapped in a smirk.

>>514036471
>you're not offering a worldview
To you.

To put it simply, my day to day is focusing on my health, my career, my family and my goals.
>saying "the consequences speak louder than words" is poetic, but it doens't answer why those consequences matters
Sure they do. Consequences range from good to bad and are also context dependant

>if everything is context-dependent, then nothing is stable
What is "stable" is also context dependant and at times subjective. What's "stable for you" may not be stable for me and vice versa

>you say you examine your framework daily, but also have as many worldviews as goals. that's not examination, that's improvization
You're again misrepresenting what I've said. You do this a lot. I posed it as question.

>morality, meaning, and even truth becomes fluid.
>that's not depth, it's drift.
The depth comes from how I observe and interpret the consequences and rewct based on them.

>it just shows you're unwilling to wrestle with the implications of worldview collapse.
which is a you problem. I learn to adapt. You do not

>>514036471
>living "opposite of my personal feelings about religion" isn't a worldview
Again. A misunderstanding of what I said. I never said this is a world view, I said your world view is irrelevant to me.

This is the 2nd time you purposely misunderstood ehat I've said to make a rebuttal to an argument I didn't make.

You are not an honest or genuine person. Ironic, coming from someone who gloat as morally superior >>514036471

>>514037122
Did you read the OP?

>>514021127 (OP)
No, it comes from jesus. next larp

>>514037130
>sometimes what's useful can be true.
>but that's not the point
But it is

>the danger is when usefulness becomes the standard for truth
Which is also context dependant

>if truth is only what works for you in a given context, then it's no longer truth, it's convenience.
You couldn't decipher actual truth without having the context of the situation in question

>you can keep saying "context dependent" like it's a philosophical trump card,
No I don't. I'm just telling you how I operate. Save the ridiculous sensationalism for your echo chamber bro

>let's roll with your "what works = truth"
Again, another purposeful misrepresentation so you can mount a strawman and argue that

You are not an honest or genuine person

>>514037143
you accuse me of misrepresenting you, but i've quoted you directly and responded to your words.
if your position shifts every time it’s challenged, that’s not dishonesty on my part. it’s incoherence on yours.
learn to articulate yourself better if you want to be taken seriously, try offering more than five word deflections to quoted sentence fragments of my actual arguments.

>>514037356
>deflection
>evasion
>semantic nitpicking
>personal attacks
we're done here.

>>514037499
>you accuse me of misrepresenting you
It's a common thing you do

>but i've quoted you directly and responded to your words.
Not all if them. Hence the posts where I call it out
>if your position shifts every time it’s challenged
It doesn't but there are times where I have to change my view based in context and consequences

>it’s incoherence on yours
Nothing incoherent about anything I've said

>learn to articulate yourself better if you want to be taken seriously
Says the clown who relies on strawman to make a point lol

>>514037641
Have a nice day. Clown shoe

>>514037742
You type like a Reddit faggot and your points are all gay and transhumanist while not addressing the fact that God hated kikes, loved whites, and called them by their real name. Your shilling does not work here. It only delays the inevitable by distracting the low IQs who venture on this board to scare themselves. The ones who have been here and see what you are doing are becoming a force to reckon with and you know it. Your day in the sun is at an end

>>514038289
>boohoo
Lol

christinaity is older than judaism and islam. Also judaism is a perversion of christianity. Also semites ≠ jews

>>514021127 (OP)
Show your flag

>>514021127 (OP)
Christians accept christ as lord and savior while Jews killed and hate christ

>>514038764
romans justifiably killed your foreskin sucking rabbi, not jews.

i'm gonna make an enemy of everyone here.

/pol/ needs to stop seeing da joooooos as this omnipotent omniscient bogeyman cabal that's out to get you.
this mindset says "i'm powerless, everything bad that happens to me is because of forces beyond my control"
this belief robs you of agency.

you're a fuckin' hwhite male.
you are powerful.
your Christian forebears crossed oceans, split atoms and walked on the moon.
you can do it.
believe in yourself.
the world is your oyster.

unhappy with society? get involved locally. go to church. run for a town council seat. organize a community group. create art or media that promotes your ideals.
feel culturally displaced? build something. start a business. write a book. get in peak physical shape. create a strong ffamily and community that can't be touched by outside influences.

take responsibility. you are not a victim.

>>514038613
Semantics... at the end of the day you are all praying to the same god fighting each other over who r da real jews putting jewish history at the forefront. Thats why it needs to go.

>>514039113
Stupid jew

>>514039555
yeah i agree, rabbi yeshua the king of the jews was a stupid jew.

>>514039407
>pol/ needs to stop seeing da joooooos as this omnipotent omniscient bogeyman cabal that's out to get you.
>this mindset says "i'm powerless
Wow, I agree

>take responsibility. you are not a victim.
Yes indeed.

Is this a bot thread? Why do the bots only read the title?

>>514027709
>There’s not a single historical account that describes him
Correct
>He’s actually a good person
Good people don't torture babies

>>514039847
a bot would read it all.
the kneejerk reactions to the title proves you're dealing with humans.

>>514021127 (OP)
>Christianity comes from Judaism
No. Judaism comes from Babylonia, and is not to be confused with what Christianity is from.

jews are antichrist. they did not invent Christianity you fucking retards. quit lying.

>>514039407
God will give you the strength.
Go forth and do good works.
Christ is Lord.

>>514039753
interesting that you agree with my post about personal responsibility and rejecting victimhood.

it's a bit inconsistent with your earlier stance, where everything is "context dependent" and truth was whatever worked for you, morality was fluid.
that kind of relativism is a form of victimhood.
it says you're shaped by external circumstances, not internal convictions.

you can't champion agency while denying the need for a coherent worldview.
if you really believe in building, leading, and taking responsibility, then you need a framework that transcends moment to moment reactions.

>>514042425
>interesting that you agree with my post about personal responsibility and rejecting victimhood.
Right?

>>514042425
>it's a bit inconsistent with your earlier stance, where everything is "context dependent"
Not really, fits right in
>and truth was whatever worked for you
ah there's the strawman you're so good at.
>morality was fluid
Demonstrate its not

>that kind of relativism is a form of victimhood.
when you strawman half of it lol. Although I don't live by the view that it's ok for another person to die for my mistakes.

That's peak victimhood

>you can't champion agency while denying the need for a coherent worldview.
It's coherent to me.

>>514042425
>if you really believe in building, leading, and taking responsibility,
That's where perosnal responsibility comes in.
>then you need a framework that transcends moment to moment reactions.
Who says I don't have that? You? The guy who can't go a reply without stramanning things I've said?

Kick rocks kiddo

>>514043464
you keep accusing me of strawmanning, yet every line here is lifted from your own words.
if your stance bends and buckles the moment it's challenged, that isn't my misrepresentation, it's your shapeshifting.

you celebrate "fluid morality" and "context-dependent truth," then turn around and extol agency and responsibility.
that's like praising a foundation built on quicksand, self-contradictory and destined to collapse.

claiming "it’s coherent to me" isn’t a defense, it's a dodge.
true coherence demands internal consistency and explanatory power, not personal convenience.
your "framework" fails those tests at every turn.

i've laid out a structured, philosophical case, you've responded with handwaves, evasion, personal attacks, and temper tantrums.
at least you haven't gotten upset enough to threaten my life again though.

>>514021127 (OP)
>native to Judeah
Abraham was born in Ur.
>Pharisee
meant the pretentious.
moloch is not a god outside of the bible.
moloch being a god is not supported by archeology or linguistics.
There are jewish sects that only follow the Torah.

>>514044520
>you keep accusing me of strawmanning
You keep doing it
>>514044520
>yet every line here is lifted from your own words.
>>514042425
>and truth was whatever worked for you,
I never said this. You're a liar to boot

>>514044520
>if your stance bends and buckles the moment it's challenged
It doesn't. That's why you need to consistently make a strawman lol

>>514044520
>you celebrate "fluid morality" and "context-dependent truth,"
Celebrate? I just live it bro. You use really emotionally charged language, as if your entire position is emotionally based.
>then turn around and extol agency and responsibility
No I don't. The "agency of responsibility" depends in a few factors. The consequences of my actions, holding myself accountable to my mistakes and my loved ones and colleagues doing the same
>that's like praising a foundation built on quicksand, self-contradictory and destined to collapse
Yup, it's an argument I never made. Hence another strawman

>claiming "it’s coherent to me" isn’t a defense
I've been defending my position the entire time. You are the one with the coherent issue. Not me lol

>i've laid out a structured, philosophical case
Not really, all you've done is say your way is the only way and you can't comprehend how anyone else can function outside it.

>>514044520
>at least you haven't gotten upset enough to threaten my life again though.
I never did. You can't into a metaphor

Ironic coming from the anon who calls others victim while desperately clinging to victimhood

You not only are dishonest but you clearly lack any introspection

>>514045139
you keep calling everything a strawman, but you've yet to demonstrate a single misquote or distortion.
i've responded directly to your words and hte ideas behind them.
if your position collapses under scrutiny, that's not dishonesty, it's fragility.

my paraphrase:
>and truth was whatever worked for you
your exact words:
>Useful and true can be one in the same. Again, this is context dependant lol
>You couldn't decipher actual truth without having the context of the situation in question
>I learn to adapt. You do not
>The depth comes from how I observe and interpret the consequences and react based on them
i'm not quoting you verbatim, i'm summarizing the implications of your own words.
if truth depends on context, consequences, and personal adaptation, then yes, you’re treating truth as whatever works for you.

you say you "just live" fluid morality and context-dependent truth.
that's not a rebuttal, it's a confession, and it confirms exactly what i've said, you're not guided by principles, you're shaped by circumstances.

your definition of agency "depends on a few factors" isn't agency, it's conditional compliance.
real responsibility requires a stable moral framework, not reactive adaptation.

you haven't defended your position, you've deflected, accused and projected.
calling me dishonest doesn't make your worldview coherent, it just makes your replies more annoying.

and if you think introspection means accepting incoherence as virtue, then you've mistaken confusion for depth.

If you are confused about Christianity this book helped me a little.
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/E4/E4AAFF6DAF6863F459A8B4E52DFB9FF4_Manly.P.Hall_The.Secret.Teachings.of.All.Ages.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjDkojpvqKE
It's essentially what the Templars encountered when they first arrived in Jerusalem, then passed down through the Masons.
tldr?
lotr is real life, Jesus is the one ring, and it has yet to be destroyed.

>>514045680
>you keep calling everything a strawman
No I don't. I specifically identify when you do it. If that's a problem for you then learn to do less of it
>but you've yet to demonstrate a single misquote or distortion.
Now I know ow you're lying. I literally pointed it out
>>514045139
>>and truth was whatever worked for you,
>I never said this. You're a liar to boot
Is just one example of many
>>514045139
>>that's like praising a foundation built on quicksand, self-contradictory and destined to collapse
>Yup, it's an argument I never made. Hence another strawman
Another one

>>514045680
>i've responded directly to your words
No you haven't as I never mentioned the above

>>514045680
>i'm not quoting you verbatim, i'm summarizing the implications of your own words.
This is called a strawman. Except you try to weasel around and make it not seem so.

You are a do-nothing dishonest person.

>>514045680
>if truth depends on context
Name a truth that doesn't have context

>>514025417
Hmm, uses a memeflag and an Israeli image to try and discredit Christianity. Who could be behind this post?

>>514046325
I AM

>>514046536
I've heard hobos scream this on street corners lol

>>514046268
>Now I know ow you're lying. I literally pointed it out
>and truth was whatever worked for you,
>I never said this. You're a liar to boot
i'm going to give you the opportunity to tell me whether or not you actually read the post you're replying to before you started typing your reply, and whether or not i already addressed this.
if you're man enough to admit you jumped the gun on this, i'll forgive you and we can continue our back and forth. stuff like this happens.

>>514046685
>i'm going to give you the opportunity to tell me whether or not you actually read the post you're replying to before you started typing your reply, and whether or not i already addressed this.
The irony here is that you should do this. Not me

>>514046685
>if you're man enough to admit you jumped the gun on this
Jumped the gun on what exactly?
>>514046685
>we can continue our back and forth
Bro. Just fast forward to the part where you rage quit. Happens everytime

>>514047064
This doesn't explain anything duder. Care to elaborate with your own words. Preferably absent any strawman, thanks

>>514046516
Set is the Egyptian donkey god.

>>514047159
i'd like a third party observer to weigh in here.
papist, atheist, pagan, chatbot, lutheran, rabid antichristian, whomstever.

>>514047312
Weigh in on what?

>>514047312
See when you say you're summarizing and fail to do so, that means you're attacking the strawman you made

I never said truth is whatever works for you, nor have I ever eluded to such. What I said is that truth is context dependant.

If you disagree then demonstrate a truth that doesn't have any context

>>514047312
shilling a second temple sect with extensive pilpul and reinterpretations about a failed moshiach (which they all are) is amusing and hilarious.

>>514047597
>I never said truth is whatever works for you
right, you said
>Useful and true can be one in the same. Again, this is context dependant lol
>You couldn't decipher actual truth without having the context of the situation in question
>I learn to adapt. You do not
>The depth comes from how I observe and interpret the consequences and react based on them
and if truth depends on context, consequences, and personal adaptation, then yes, you’re treating truth as whatever works for you.
explain how that doesn't follow.

>>514048159
>and if truth depends on context
Again, demonstrate a truth that doesn't have any context
>consequences, and personal adaptation, then yes, you’re treating truth as whatever works for you.
Incorrect. I'm clearly saying stating that to understand a situation you need to understand the context. When you understand the context then that helps you arrive at Truth.

That's not "what works for me". Rather it's deeper understanding, which you keep claiming I don't have
>explain how that doesn't follow.
Done

>>514048515
>>514048159
Truth does depend on context.
It's basic philosophy.
You can't define good and bad without form.
but also,
I AM

>>514048515
>>514047597
>If you disagree then demonstrate a truth that doesn't have any context
the challenge itself is misleading.
context can shape how we encounter truth, but it doesn't define whether something is true.

2+2=4 is true regardless of whether you're in a classroom, battlefield or a dream. the context doesn't change the truth, it just changes its relevance or application.
"human beings need oxygen to survive" is true whether you're underwater or on a mountain or in a hospital. context affect urgency, not validity.

so no, truth doesn't require context to exist, it simply exists.
your insistence on truth is always context-dependent is a way of avoiding the harder questions, like what truths are you willing to stand on even when the context shifts.
if you don't stand for something you'll be shaped by everything.

>>514048926
>the challenge itself is misleading
Not really. It's something that happens daily
>>514048926
>context can shape how we encounter truth
Just like I said
>>514048515
>I'm clearly saying stating that to understand a situation you need to understand the context. When you understand the context then that helps you arrive at Truth
Literally what I just said
>>514048926
>so no, truth doesn't require context to exist
Now you're contradicting yourself

>>514048926
>2+2=4 is true regardless of whether you're in a classroom
Amd the context that makes it true is adding 2+2 lol

You really aren't as smart as you pose yourself to be

>>514048898
Thanks fren

>>514049199
you're conflating how we encounter truth with how truth exists.

the context of performing an operation like adding 2 anda 2 isn't what makes the truth true, it's what makes it visible.
"2+2=4" isn't true because someone adds two numbers, it's true regardless of whether anyone does.
that's the difference between a truth that depends on context and a truth that transcends it.

same with "humans need oxygen to survive." the urgency of that truth changes depending on whether you're underwater or on land, but the truth itself doesn't.

you're mistaking epistemology for ontology, how we know something versus whether it's real. semantics matter, but they don't save incoherence.

>>514048926
>human beings need oxygen to survive" is true whether you're underwater or on a mountain or in a hospital
Amd the context is that if a human being doesn't get oxygen then they suffer brain damage and/or die

Lol

>>514049541
>you're conflating how we encounter truth with how truth exists.
No I'm not.

>>514049541
>the context of performing an operation like adding 2 anda 2 isn't what makes the truth true, it's what makes it visible
>the context
See? You agree there's context. Although I'd argue that the result of 2+2 is the truth. As in its demonstrable. It's why you have to teach it, instead of just saying it.

Why? Because context matters

I'm glad you agree with me now

>>514049730
acknowledging that context makes truth visible isn't the same as saying truth depends on context.
yes, we teach 2+2=4 through examples and operations, but the truth of the equation doesn't hinge on whether someone performs it.
it's true even if no one ever writes it down.
demonstrability isn't the same as contingency, just because we use context to reveal truth doesn't mean truth is created by context.
so no, i haven't agreed with you, i've clarified the distinction you keep blurring.

>>514049842
>>514049541
your context is reality.

Jewish time travelers aren't real.

>>514049842
>acknowledging that context makes truth visible isn't the same as saying truth depends on context.
It doesn't just make it "visible" it helps to demonstrate said truth. So yes, it really is the same in practice

>>514049842
>yes, we teach 2+2=4 through examples and operations, but the truth of the equation doesn't hinge on whether someone performs it
I never said it did. Again, misunderstanding my argument. I said
>>514049730
>Although I'd argue that the result of 2+2 is the truth. As in its demonstrable.
Damn dude. Why is it so hard for you to not leap to a strawman? Seriously why?

>>514049842
>we use context to reveal truth
Is in direct contraindication to you also saying
>>514049842
>acknowledging that context makes truth visible isn't the same as saying truth depends on context
If context reveals truth then truth depends on context text.

You are so lost in your own hubris that, yet again, you lack any introspection.

It's why you are now contradicting yourself

>>514050093
a lovely little aphorism, but it conflates two distinct things.
the conditions in which truth is perceived
and the nature of truth itself

reality includes context, sure, but it also includes truths that transcend it.
gravity doesn't stop working because your context changes.
2+2 doesn't equal 5 in a different emotional state.

if you reduce truth to context, you're not describing reality, you're describing perception.

>>514050376
you're still confusing how truth is demonstrated with what makes it true.

yes, we use context to teach, demonstrate, and perceive truth, but that doesn't mean truth depends on context to exist.
saying "context reveals truth" is not a contradiction on "truth doesn't depend on context," it's a clarification. context helps us access truth, not create it.
if you can't distinguish between epistemology and ontology of course you'll think everything's a contradiction, but that's not my hubris, its your confusion.

>>514050384
how do you describe reality without perception?

>>514050748
describing reality requires perception, sure.
but reality itself doesn't depend on being perceived to exist.
the moon doesn't vanish when no ones looking at it.
gravity doesn't pause when no one's measuring it.
truth isn't created by observation, it's revealed through it.
our perception is how we access reality, but it's not what constitutes reality.

>>514050384
>gravity doesn't stop working because your context change
Who's suggesting that there a contextual change in gravity? However, if you’re asking about how gravity is described or understood, that’s where context comes in.

>>514050572
How do you know it's true if it hasn't been demonstrated as such? You're confusing perception to reality my man.

>>514050572
>but that doesn't mean truth depends on context to exist.
Depends on the truth claim though doesn't it?

>>514050572
>saying "context reveals truth" is not a contradiction on "truth doesn't depend on context
If that were true then why would even day context reveals truth? >>514050572
>context helps us access truth, not create it.
I never said differently

>>514050572
>epistemology and ontology
Ah you're two favorite buzzwords. Except you haven't demonstrated how I can't distinguish them. Let's see if you can

>>514050898
as far as you can tell.
:)

>>514021127 (OP)
the pharisee/talmudists of the time and beyond are the modern day anons.

>>514050898
>but reality itself doesn't depend on being perceived to exist.
In the double-slit experiment, particles like electrons or photons behave differently depending on whether they’re observed

>>514021127 (OP)
>Christianity is a jewish sect
>Jesus Christ is jewish
Observable reality in the real world, on /pol/ an impossibility that only shills will constantly bring up.

>>514051070
We mostly obey God and reject the degeneracy which leads to the wrath of God (logic).
We don't pretend we know more than others(pharisee) and we don't think a book has all the answers(talmudic).
for the most part.

>>514051001
you keep saying context matters and i've never denied that.
what i've denied is that context creates truth.
gravity doesn't need to be demonstrated to be real, it operates whether or not anyone observe it. the fact that we perceive it through falling objects doesn't mean it's dependent on that perception.

epistemology is how we know something, through perception demonstration and context
ontology is whether something is. its existence, independent of our awareness.

you keep collapsing these 2 domains.
>Except you haven't demonstrated how I can't distinguish them. Let's see if you can
sure:
>Useful and true can be one in the same. Again, this is context dependant lol
this equates utility with truth, implying that truth is defined by usefulness in a given context. a classic epistemological collapse into relativism.
>you couldn't decipher actual truth without having the context of the situation in question
this suggests truth cannot be known without context, which is an epistemological claim, but you treat it as if it defines the nature of truth itself, an ontological leap.
>the depth comes from how i observe and interpret the consequences and react based on them
this frames truth as something shaped by personal reaction and interpretation, again, confusing perception with existence
>if context reveals truth then truth depends on context
this is the heart of the confusion. revealing truth (epistemology) is not the same as truth depending on context to exist (ontology) you treat the act of discovery as proof of dependency
>how do you know it's true if it hasn't been demonstrated as such? you're confusing perception to reality my man
this implies truth requires demonstration to be real, which is a direct conflation of epistemology and ontology

>>514051527
>what i've denied is that context creates truth
I never said this.

>>514051203
invoking the double-slit experiment to claim that reality depends on perception is a category error.
yes, quantum particles behave differently when measured, but that’s about measurement, not human perception.
the experiment shows that particles interact with measuring devices in ways that affect outcomes.
it doesn’t mean reality vanishes when no one’s looking.
quantum mechanics challenges classical intuitions, but it doesn’t erase objectivity.
the moon doesn’t flicker in and out of existence depending on whether someone’s watching it.
so no, reality doesn’t depend on perception. observation affects how we interact with certain phenomena, not whether they exist.

>>514051527
>>514051612
My entire argument is that truth requires context to understand why it's true. That's it. And you've already agreed to this. But now, you've mounted yet another strawman and focused on that

>>514051671
>it doesn’t mean reality vanishes when no one’s looking.
the color I perceive as blue could be the color you perceive as orange.
and there is no way for either of us to know.

>>514051671
>yes, quantum particles behave differently when measured, but that’s about measurement, not human perception.
Correct, so the context here is measurement and not human perception

>>514050898
and you can't prove that these things do not occur in reality.
like a teapot in orbit around the sun.

>>514051776
>>514051612
>useful and true can be one in the same. again, this is context dependant lol
>you couldn't decipher actual truth without having the context of the situation in question
>if context reveals truth then truth depends on context
>how do you know it's true if it hasn't been demonstrated as such?
those aren’t statements about understanding, they're statements that suggest truth is contingent on context.
so if you’re now walking that back, fine. but don’t pretend that was your position all along.
shifting the goalposts and crying "strawman! strawman!" doesn't change what you said, i've been responding to words as written.
do a better job of articulating yourself next time.
>>514052063
sure, our subjective experience of color might differ, but that doesn't mean the wavelength of light hitting our retinas isn't objectively measurable.
blue and orange are labels we attach to electromagnetic frequencies.
the perception might vary, but the underlying reality is consistent.
qualia are mysterious, but they don't erase the fact that reality exists independently of how we interpret it.
i'm kinda bored now and am leaving.

>>514021363
Christianity comes from Jason and the Argonauts. Oh Captain, MY Captain.

>>514052359
>truth is contingent on context
The understanding of truth is contingent on context
>>514052359
>so if you’re now walking that back
Incorrect yet again

>>514052359
>but don’t pretend that was your position all along.
That's your strawman of my position kiddo

>>514052359
>i've been responding to words as written.
Strange. If that were true then you wouldn't need to make up things I didn't say

>>514052359
>i'm kinda bored now and am leaving.
This kids ego is to big to let him leave. He'll be back, he does this a lot too

>45pbid
>writes like a faggot
>anti Christian
Post nose, it’s the only verification that we haven’t received yet

>>514053181
>how dare you be active in a thread
Why are /pol/ Christians such pussies?

>>514052487
matthew chapter 23 talks about jesus speaking out against the pharisaes


also

in the bible pharisee is not a anonish name
the only anons mentioned in the bible where judah

>>514053181
>everyone who disagrees with me is jewish.

>>514021127 (OP)
why would they write antisemitism into the new testament though? ever met an antisemitic jew? me neither.

This topic makes Jewish people angry, it's interesting. It's interesting because they're not Jewish, they're Edomite Khazars from the Pale of Settlement.

I don't think I've ever even met a God-honest Issac and Abraham-descended Jew. Just these awful kikey Red Jews.