>>29398 >how do Christians of /pol/ feel about politics in the context of your faith? <Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. I think one of the wonderful things about Jesus Christ is that a person he's not easily contained within a political wing. You can call him anti-establishment (going against the Pharisees), you can call him conservative (promoting the law of God) his focus on social issues might label him a lefty, early Christians organized themselves almost commune like. He's a radical but also pragmatic, harsh but forgiving etc. In a sense he is fittingly above regular norms a political party might adopt. Though to follow Christ in the world of today you might have to adopt a "right wing like" set of principles, but many right wing parties support abortion, usury, to a certain extend pornography and state sponsored gambling. All things Jesus would advice against. >thus I come to my initial conclusion, that the only thing for a God fearing man to do is to have no part in any of it, to live in accordance with Christ's teaching, and be grateful for the effect that has on you and the community around you. most importantly, not to get sucked into the hatred and violence and sinful enabling that comes with politics of virtually any kind. I think that's also my conclusion more or less, the Kingdom of God is not of this world, and thus our politics aren't of this world either. As Christians we're supposed to see people as a our neighbor, becoming too biased politically one way or another is becoming part of the material world, not ascending it. That's not to say we're supposed to be peace loving hippies and put our head in the sand, I think we're actively encouraged to speak up just like Jesus did even if it makes people on both sides hate us. The point is that left or right wing thinking isn't the way to define ourselves. We're Christians who believe in Christ first and foremost. Of course this often makes us look "right wing" and to a certain extend we share many similarities but it's never as reductive as that and should never end up with garbage like "Christian Politics" or "Christian Nationalism". The worst example of "Christian Politics" which I'd argue isn't even a real thing, would be modern American evangelism, specifically the sort that uses the blasphemous term "Judeo-Christian values". Not only is it extremely retarded to think that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity can be reconciled in any theological sense it's outright heretical the shit they preach. Additionally stuff like tradcaths, orthobros and all those aesthetics people wear as costumes are laughable. Basically we're supposed to believe and stand by the Bible. Never whatever agenda there is in a political party, society or country. There should never be Christian-something values. What we have are the words of Christ and our understanding of them. Him dying for our sins how that is the greatest thing that has happened to the world. Anything else is the world trying to infiltrate the Kingdom of God and not vice versa.

>>29453 I dont get the stonetoss comic.

>>29464 He’s saying jews killed Jesus, and proudly declared that “his blood be upon us and our children”

>>29545 Is it a pun on jew and judeo because thats really fucking stupid if so.

>>29464 >>29545 >>29577 The main rivalry between Jesus and the Pharisees is a complex exchange involving many specific elements that often go over the head of the average western reader. One of the most important things you need to understand in relation to Christianity and modern day *Rabbinic* Judaism is that a big conflict point was the oral tradition. The Pharisees kept clashing with Jesus because Jesus continually "broke laws" that weren't codified in the Torah (old testament), the laws were instead allegedly according to Pharisees verbally passed down starting from Moses to the religious teachers to their students for thousands of years. Jesus rejects this premise, insisting that no Godly law exists that isn't written down. These "oral traditions of Moses" aka "dude trust me bro" laws that were made up ad-hoc are later codified in what would become the Talmud around *400~ years after Jesus died*. Basically the Pharisees are the forefathers to what would eventually become Rabbinic Judaism (often referred just as "Judaism"). In a nutshell, Pharisees proclaim a mystical oral tradition that later becomes the Talmud, Jesus objects that no such thing exists. These two things *are mutually exclusive* you cannot have a thing and not have that thing at the same time. How did they solve this issue? By killing Jesus. If you combine Judeo-Christianity it's like saying yes-no, it's nonsensical. Either the oral tradition exists as the Pharisees say or it's made up as Jesus says, can't be both. The comic isn't about "le Jews killing Jesus", it's about a specific group within Judaism opposing Jesus as the Messiah and killing him, and the idiocy of trying to create a value system containing these contrasting worlds.

>>29398 Nailed it. There's not much to do, if an opportunity presents itself to make a positive change in society then it's your responsibility to try and realize it. Apart from that like you said, just focus on making your own little world better in the meantime, if everyone did the world would be a better place - obviously. This is totally applicable to everyone too, not just Christian.

>>29398 It's more important than ever to understand why the Bible taught practices, set rules and guidelines on how people were to interact with each other. Thanks to almost 2 decades of tolerance, we're now at the point where the problems that were solved with traditions dictated by Christianity are now popping back up thanks to the decay of Christian values in society all while people still blame Christians for everything. My mom goes to church every week and she can't figure piece together why marriage is so important for a family and why there was a ban on gay marriage in the first place. Fucking tolerance. Though to be fair, this is a prevalent issue, history didn't continue explaining why X was banned or shamed so uninformed reasonable people not wanting to impede and impose their values on others (aka avoid being labeled a bigot) will tolerate anything and everything that doesn't affect them directly.

>>29398 Christ's teachings don't mention race and are therefore irrelevant in the political struggle

>>29398 I would ask you, and all men of religious conviction - why do you feel the need for a middleman? To those of us who have spent years cultivating a deep connection to the "Divine realms", whatever you want to call it, finding true peace and blissful harmony with the living pulse of the world, we tend to look at Christians with a sense of amusement, or pity. Did you know it's possible without these avatars you put so much energy into? A walk through a forest buzzing with wildlife is my church. Or a clean, running river, or lake. Or being in a powerful rainstorm, hearing the symphony of frogs and crickets, etc. You can "connect" with the Earth's motherly energy, or the Sun's fatherly energy. Both are perfectly benevolent.

>>37053 That's one of the biggest problems of Christianity. It encourages universal brotherhood, turn the other cheek, i.e. accept race mixing, and do nothing about it. Enforced weakness. This is how the fake Jews conquered the Royal houses of Europe.

>>29398 >how do Christians of /pol/ feel about politics in the context of your faith? That your politics should reflect your faith. >it seems to me like all a good christian man can do is keep his head down and work on himself After a while, that becomes a very unhealthy and self-centered attitude. >I really dont feel comfortable at all consenting to what either party does Then either vote for the lesser "evil" or become directly involved yourself (If not through becoming a politician, at least through helping uplift the people who you think deserve the position). >and no matter who I vote for, things will happen and I will feel ashamed for my vote That's your problem. You're being too-self conscious about your actions. The reality of the situation is that you're NOT going to agree with someone 100%, or 90%, or 75%, or even 50% of the time. But does that stop the person from being a friend or someone who you can trust when it matters? And politics is an extension of that. It's also an issue of prioritization. I don't agree with Cheetoh-Man on a Hell of a lot of things, but I don't regret voting for him because I see him as having a "net positive" impact on improving the situation. And everything that he doesn't fix I can focus on later. >Ideologies are shit and every ideologue will either kill you and your family, or use you as a foot soldier to commit atrocities If that's your honest opinion, then give up motherfucker as life's not going to improve no matter what with that kind of attitude. >the problems of society seem to be humans No, it's not. If you remove the "human" element, what you're left with is an animal. And would you honestly say that you would rather play by nature's rules as opposed to a higher set of standards? >to live in accordance with Christ's teaching What does that actually mean? Christ drove the pharisees out of the temple with a whip, told the people to support their government no matter how brutal ("Give unto Caesar..."), and directly states in Matthew 10:34: <Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. So what does it actually "mean" to "live in accordance with Christ's teaching"? >>30870 >In a nutshell, Pharisees proclaim a mystical oral tradition that later becomes the Talmud, Jesus objects that no such thing exists. These two things *are mutually exclusive* you cannot have a thing and not have that thing at the same time. How did they solve this issue? By killing Jesus. It's more than just that. Christ declaring himself to be God was unthinkable of a concept in Judaism and during the 1st century Roman Empire. And what made it even worse was Christ referring to God not as "father" but "papa". >>37165 >turn the other cheek, i.e. accept race mixing No, it doesn't. "Turn the other cheek" refers to not getting hung up on personal slights (Which niggers don't do) and to pick your battles. Slapping the "wrong" cheek in 1st century Rome was a direct signal that you wanted to challenge someone.

>>29398 I think it matters what choices you have available to you in your country. As an American I feel I have a clear moral obligation to never belong to a party that's pro abortion and to not vote for a politician that's pro abortion, in so far as a pro life candidate is on the ballot. I also think that you shouldn't get too hung up over what occurs at the national level, or even state level. Decisions made in your neighborhood, city and county are going to be more relevant to you on a day to day basis. If you live in a small town there's a good chance you might meet the mayor or a neighborhood alderman at a local event. I think it's always a good idea to vote if only so that you have a say at the local level.

>>37622 <Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Violence is directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The verse you quoted about Christ Himself specifically, not His followers. You do understand that a master and his servants have different behavioral standards, right? The apostle Peter used a sword once and Christ told him to put away his sword for "all who live by the sword die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Then Christ healed the guard that Peter had wounded, and allowed Himself to be arrested without protest (Luke 22:50-51) Violence is forbidden for the followers of Jesus Christ >"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. >You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor' and ‘Hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even gentiles do the same?" (Matthew 5:38-47)

>>40731 >Violence is directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ Kicking the money lenders out of the temple wasn't violence? >The apostle Peter used a sword once and Christ told him to put away his sword for "all who live by the sword die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Then Christ healed the guard that Peter had wounded, and allowed Himself to be arrested without protest (Luke 22:50-51) There's two things going on in that ENTIRE incident. FIRST, Christ didn't allow himself to be arrested because he was against violence. He allowed himself to be arrested because it was time for him to make the final sacrifice. His entire life had been leading up to him going on the cross, with him even asking God if there truly was "no other way" to save people than with his death. Peter intervening jeopardized ALL of that. >If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also Second, there's more going on with those passages. Slapping the "wrong" cheek in Roman times was a sign of a challenge. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" carries with it the implication you shouldn't be surprised if people do the same to you that you're doing to them. In fact, Christ says this explicitly: <Matthew 7:12: Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. <Luke 6:27 (A part you conveniently left out): And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. Nowhere does Christ actually say anything about violence being "Bad" in and of itself. The "reasons" for being violent, and when it's a "bad reason", are plentiful however, such as: <Matthew 5: 21-21: You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. Which itself is in line "Seasons" passage from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 in the Old Testament: <To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven: <A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck what is planted; <A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up; <A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance; <A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing; <A time to gain, And a time to lose; A time to keep, And a time to throw away; <A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; <A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace. And the Old Testament is very much important in context and foundation because that's the entire BASIS for every damn thing Christ says and does.

>>40933 1. Nowhere does it say that Christ actually touched anyone in the money lenders in the temple passage 2. That was Christ Himself acting, not you, not his followers Find me a single passage in the New Testament where Jesus tells his followers to engage in violence. You can't

>>41161 >Find me a single passage in the New Testament where Jesus tells his followers to engage in violence I will when you find me a passage that expressly states that violence is forbidden in any and all forms.

>>41184 You have zero passages where Jesus condones violence then. Concession accepted. Now for your question- >"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39) <Resist not evil <Resist not evil Christ Himself died as a personal testimony to His teaching of "resist not evil". He let Himself be tortured to death and murdered by His enemies rather than harm a single hair on their heads

>>41208 >You have zero passages where Jesus condones violence then. And I take it that you have zero passages where Jesus outright condemns violence. Do you really want to play this game? >but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also Asked and answered, we went over this two times already! >Christ Himself died as a personal testimony to His teaching of "resist not evil" So Christ was being a hypocrite for "resisting evil" and refusing to follow the Devil's suggestions when he was in the desert: >Luke 4:1-2: Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry. With that entire passage being about Satan quoting scripture to him: >Luke 4:3-8: And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” <But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ” <Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” <And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ” And ESPECIALLY this last bit about how he could have save himself at any time: <Luke:4:9-13: Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. <For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you, To keep you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ” <And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ ” <Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time. Christ did not "need" to harm anyone to save himself from the cross. He or even the angels could have saved himself at any time without harming the Romans, or anyone else for that matter, just like what happened in Nazareth: <Luke 4:28-30: So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way. His willingness to die had absolutely FUCKING NOTHING to do with some deluded sense of post-WWII "Pacifism".

>>41223 >but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also You left out the part where he said "resist not evil" >So Christ was being a hypocrite for "resisting evil" and refusing to follow the Devil's suggestions when he was in the desert If someone tells a baby not to use scissors and then they use scissors is that hypocrisy? If someone tells a dog not to sit on the couch and then they sit on the couch is that hypocrisy? God and men have different duties, behaviors and standards of conduct >And ESPECIALLY this last bit about how he could have save himself at any time Yes, He could have saved himself at any point in time. However He chose to let His enemies murder Him The fact is that Jesus Christ never tells His followers to commit violence and He speaks against violence many different times. You have no response to this other than seething Christians are ordered to be pacifists <resist not evil <turn the other cheek <love your enemies <if your enemy is hungry give them something to eat <if your enemy is thirsty give them something to drink <if your enemy demands the shirt from your back, give it to him, and give him your cloak as well <"put away your sword, for all who live by the sword die by the sword" These verses are all quite direct and unambiguous

>"Good" Christians >engaging in politics >using their faith as a measure of their politics Christian-Americans have become so politically consumed that they don't even see how debased they are from their own religion and from American history. Probably why this country has gone to the fucking dogs.

>>41251 >If someone tells a baby not to use scissors and then they use scissors is that hypocrisy? If someone tells a dog not to sit on the couch and then they sit on the couch is that hypocrisy? Yes, it is. >However He chose to let His enemies murder Him It's funny that you consider the Romans to be "his enemies" when he had previously referred to a Roman general as having more faith than all he had seen in Israel from his fellow Jews. And if you try to talk about the Kikes being his "enemies", why did he save himself when he was in Nazareth but not in Jerusalem? So much for "Resist not evil". >The fact is that Jesus Christ never tells His followers to commit violence And he never tells people to abstain from violence. Your only example is ONE incident taken out of context and used to represent his ENTIRE teachings when he never said nor commanded as such elsewhere. It's equivalent to all the retards who advocate for forced poverty because of that ONE rich man who Christ told to sell all his possessions all the while ignoring that he never made that same proclamation nor demand to any of the other wealth people he met, any of the tax collectors he hung around, nor any of the Romans including the one mentioned up above ask for his servant to be healed. In fact, going back to the incident at the Temple, he outright declared that the widow who gave her two measly shekels had made a "greater" contribution to God than all the silver and the gold all the other Jews were piling up as an offering. In addition to all of that, if Christ really was "anti-violence", then why did he leave out the sixth of the ten commandments as being "important": <Mark 12:29-31: Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” This is ALSO leaving out that just because people are violent with each other, that doesn't mean they're devoid of love. A father spanks his son because he loves his child and doesn't want the kid to grow up misbehaving and causing problems for others and those people coming back to punish the kid. "Civil Wars" like the American Civil War happened between family members, between siblings, that loved each other, but didn't see any or had already exhausted every other alternative in how to solve their issues. Even throughout the Old Testament, Gods slaughters Hebrews by the thousands despite being his "chosen people", and are you going to say that he was doing it without love? In fact, the full quote made by Christ himself in Matthew 10: 34-38 doesn't sound like a very "loving" quote: <“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. What's "loving" about dividing households and entire families? Trying to legislate Christ's teachings is EXACTLY what he was against because there's more to his teaching than just scribbles printed on a page that you can quote as "nice sounding phrases". There are reasons why he said what he said, when he said it, where he said it, and how it should be interpreted.

>>41264 >If someone tells a baby not to use scissors and then they use scissors is that hypocrisy? If someone tells a dog not to sit on the couch and then they sit on the couch is that hypocrisy? <Yes, it is. I didn't read your post past this point. I don't allow my dog in my house and if you think that's hypocrisy then you're incapable of genuine conversation. I will not listen to you smear the name of Christ any further

Jesus and his disciples lived in Judea. A Roman controlled province with Italian soldiers marching up and down every other street, if they were truly pacifists then obviously this would've been communicated in the new testament. In fact Jesus does interact with a Roman Officer, and he even commends the officer for his faith, what they advised against is corruption. What Jesus referred to is interpersonal violence. That's not to mention Jesus clearing the temple which has already been said. Yes Christians are to avoid violence, yes you are to be patient and forgive your enemies but to be a complete suicidal pacifistic pushover is not the way. Arguing based on one statement taken from the sermon on the mount is being pedantic at best and malicious at worst. This Christian pacifist nonsense is nonsense. The temple cleansing should be perfectly adequate in stopping this dumb debate.

>>41307 >I didn't read your post past this point. And you have never had to deal with children, or talked to anyone who HAS dealt with children. Where RULE FUCKING #1 of raising a child is that the kid will do what you do, he will NOT do what you say, especially when it's in obvious contradiction of what you do.

>>37159 Appreciating creation is a good thing, but it doesn't give you any context. You don't gain any understanding of spirituality beyond the superficial, and it isn't a foundation for moral principles that can guide people through the problems they face. That comes through the body of received wisdom ultimately rooted in knowledge about human nature, and from what can be known about the supernatural, i.e. through religion. To borrow a metaphor from C.S. Lewis, making direct religious experience your whole spiritual life is like thinking you can plot a course from Hull to New York if you spend enough time contemplating the majesty of the Atlantic Ocean. You can't do it. You need maps, very precise instruments, and the knowledge to use them. Priests then are people who have dedicated their lives to religion. They take responsibility for the spiritual health of their whole community, composed of people who don't have either the time, ability, or disposition to get the same education they did. As religious leaders they also naturally take the lead in religious activities. Further upstream from them are philosophers, theologians, and mystics who spend their time improving (at least in theory) the knowledge they teach. Provided they perform those roles well everyone is better off, and it doesn't even stop people from having the kind of direct religious experience you're talking about. That's how it works everywhere by the way, not just in the context of Christianity. You can change the names, the structure of the institutions, what is or isn't considered a religious matter, or even say it's not really a religion but an "ideology" or "theory of history" but it always comes back to that same basic structure. Including for you. Maybe since you're so smug about the fact you "don't have any" you don't even know who your priesthood are, let alone where and how they got their ideas.

>>41427 Didn't mean to attach that picture but can't figure out how to delete. Please excuse my newfaggotry.