"Christianity" is more a product of Paul than Christ himself
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/VitruvianSpeed/status/1749479476600180875
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
The fruit of Christ's little cult is Paul.
Either Christ agreed with Paul, or he was unable to prevent Paul from arising. Higher power, lol.
Apparently 'Paul' is a fellow-whites pseudonym, and he was actually called Saul. For example, Yeshua called him Saul. Couldn't even be honest about his name. Saulianity. Maybe Constantine Saulianity.
The Christian races are prey species. Weakened on purpose that you might hunt them instead of cooperate with them.
4 comments:
Having spent some time around some Orthobros over the last few months, I can see that in fact the generalised public opinion of Christianity eg, turn the other cheek! Allow me to strike you an infinite number of times! is nothing to do with the actual teachings of Christ.
But this observation is quite good. I think you are correct. I'll float it with them and see what they think.
The basic deal with Christianity is it's fine if and only if the believers can't read the Bible.
In 1085 suddenly a bunch of scholars developed a reason to learn Latin. Naturally they would read the Bible. And fuck themselves up.
~1600 the Bible was released in English, meaning regular Englishmen could read the Bible. Ever since then, there's been a smoke-and-fire rumours about pedophilia in Westminster castle. Plus everything else. They fucked themselves up.
E.g. the Full Soviet Communism Jamestown settlement was ~1600, probably working from the Tyndale bible, 1535. They read Galatians.
Orthos try to retain pre-literate readings of Christianity through an extra-biblical institution. Ultimately they will fall due to not banning literacy. Even if they did ban literacy, they would forget why it was banned, someone will read the Bible, and fuck themselves up.
You don't out-lie Satan. That's not how it works.
Yeah it makes a lot of sense.
The correct answer to "what do you think the bible says about this" is "I don't know, come to church and ask the Priest".
Let a peasant read the plane instruction manual "yeah I can tooooooootally land this bird"
What the Bible means only matters if it's correct. If it was correct, e.g. it was written by a sacred divinity, then they would know to put a disclaimer in it precisely to discourage lay readings. Pilot's manuals often explicitly say they're for professional pilots, implicitly excluding random yobbos.
The bible was written by an incompetent (or a liar). It's bad for you because the instructions are bad, not because you don't understand them.
Check: if the instructions were good but hard to read, sometimes someone would get it right. Even a dipshit can stumble across a good reading by accident.
They don't. Everyone who reads the bible and does what it says fucks themselves up. They substantially all agree on what it says, and what it says gets them killed.
Pilot's manuals don't dumb themselves down. They keep the technical difficulties, inherently warding off idle curiosity. Biblical verses are simple. A plain, easy reading exists.
Post a Comment