You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
11
TakenusernameA on scored.co
1 year ago11 points(+0/-0/+11Score on mirror)2 children
Whites need to remember that "Render under Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" is a license to disobey tyranny, not an mandate to follow it.
1 year ago10 points(+0/-0/+10Score on mirror)4 children
I’m beyond exhausted of “live and let live” bullshit. People who claim to be Christian immediately turn around and say*, “We have to respect differences” or “It’s just a matter of opinion” or “It is what it is.” ***You are fucking called to oppose objective, metaphysical evil.*** Whites got tricked into *tolerance.* That’s it. We weren’t brainwashed by *anything* else, when you think about it. You don’t need to waste time learning how the brain works to trick people into standing for something if you can simply trick them into refusing to stand for anything. Whatever it was that caused people to be tolerant needs to be banned under penalty of death.
*They also say “God’s chosen people” and I’m right on the cusp of burning every bridge left in my life over that alone. I had that happen to me fucking *today* with someone I’ve known for years and whom is otherwise respectable. It fucking *kills* me. It’s why I’m going to hell; I know it. When I stand for judgement, I’m going to be asked, *“And why, when I presented you with the opportunity to save people in my name, did you do nothing?”* Just my cowardice. That’s all.
And no, for fuck’s sake, they won’t listen anyway. I can “redpill” people, get them to understand and agree completely, get them to be emotional about it, and then the next day they’re parroting the same things all over again. That’s not the point. The discouragement is part of why I don’t bother anymore. The point is that I’m commanded to do it and I don’t do it. That’s what will damn me in the end.
>When I stand for judgement, I’m going to be asked, “And why, when I presented you with the opportunity to save people in my name, did you do nothing?” Just my cowardice. That’s all.
All that's necessary is to simply tell them the Truth, what they do with it is ultimately up to them. If it comes to a point where someone *will not* listen to reason, you are under no obligation to continue correcting him. Have no fear of men, God will provide in the end.
People who claim to be Christian are not Christian. Most are following a corrupted church. A Christian that praises jews is not a Christian, it is a pagan that worships false gods.
>Whatever it was that caused people to be tolerant
Consent given to suggestion offered.
>needs to be banned under penalty of death.
It can't be banned since consent is given by each living ones free will of choice only.
>chosen people...
...by people choosing.
>God's chosen
God gives choice. Choosing implies among alternatives. There's no alternative for God to choose from.
A jew suggests gentiles that God makes choices...gentiles believing this are giving consent to the suggestion of a jew, hence establishing a chosen one over ones choice...in the name of God.
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
I just realized I didn’t actually get to the point I wanted to make by replying. Great. It was *going* to connect, honest. Anyway, here:
Exactly. “Render to God” implies “always live in accordance with objective truth as outlined by God’s word,” and then *where God has made no explicit statement* then do what human authorities/your own opinions dictate. It’s like how the constitution is supposed to work. Where the constitution explicitly says what the government (or people) can and cannot do, it must be followed strictly and to the letter. Anything *not* listed is forbidden from government control and permitted for people to do.
>Render to God” implies “always live in accordance with...
a) Rendering (give back) towards implies matter (life) giving back to motion (inception towards death)...because it cannot be held onto.
b) Accordance implies versus denial...a conflict of reason; established by ones choice to HOLD ONTO a side, while ignoring to give back aka to let go aka to render to God.
c) Reason (accordance vs denial conflict) contradicts implication (if/then)....there's no conflict within implication until one chooses to hold onto a side, while reasoning against another.
>outlined by God’s word
What if God implies SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sound
What if being implies within (ones perception) the line (all perceivable) of sound...and what if a jew suggests words in the name of sound (God) to distract gentiles with suggested from perceivable?
>they’re told from every source
There can be only one source moving all perceivable through ones perception, yet what if each one within wields the free will of choice to ignore this for each others suggestions?
Nature doesn't narrate tales...it moves units apart from one another to inspire adaptation. Having the free will of choice to alternate in-between nature (need) and each other (want) implies a fundamental balance within nature, as the foundation for choice.
*They also say “God’s chosen people” and I’m right on the cusp of burning every bridge left in my life over that alone. I had that happen to me fucking *today* with someone I’ve known for years and whom is otherwise respectable. It fucking *kills* me. It’s why I’m going to hell; I know it. When I stand for judgement, I’m going to be asked, *“And why, when I presented you with the opportunity to save people in my name, did you do nothing?”* Just my cowardice. That’s all.
And no, for fuck’s sake, they won’t listen anyway. I can “redpill” people, get them to understand and agree completely, get them to be emotional about it, and then the next day they’re parroting the same things all over again. That’s not the point. The discouragement is part of why I don’t bother anymore. The point is that I’m commanded to do it and I don’t do it. That’s what will damn me in the end.
All that's necessary is to simply tell them the Truth, what they do with it is ultimately up to them. If it comes to a point where someone *will not* listen to reason, you are under no obligation to continue correcting him. Have no fear of men, God will provide in the end.
Consent given to suggestion offered.
>needs to be banned under penalty of death.
It can't be banned since consent is given by each living ones free will of choice only.
>chosen people...
...by people choosing.
>God's chosen
God gives choice. Choosing implies among alternatives. There's no alternative for God to choose from.
A jew suggests gentiles that God makes choices...gentiles believing this are giving consent to the suggestion of a jew, hence establishing a chosen one over ones choice...in the name of God.
Nobody gives a shit what you’re exhausted of.
Stop writing essays online as if you’re special and go do something about it. You whining little bitch.
Exactly. “Render to God” implies “always live in accordance with objective truth as outlined by God’s word,” and then *where God has made no explicit statement* then do what human authorities/your own opinions dictate. It’s like how the constitution is supposed to work. Where the constitution explicitly says what the government (or people) can and cannot do, it must be followed strictly and to the letter. Anything *not* listed is forbidden from government control and permitted for people to do.
You’ve taken zero action your entire life and it shows.
a) Rendering (give back) towards implies matter (life) giving back to motion (inception towards death)...because it cannot be held onto.
b) Accordance implies versus denial...a conflict of reason; established by ones choice to HOLD ONTO a side, while ignoring to give back aka to let go aka to render to God.
c) Reason (accordance vs denial conflict) contradicts implication (if/then)....there's no conflict within implication until one chooses to hold onto a side, while reasoning against another.
>outlined by God’s word
What if God implies SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sound
What if being implies within (ones perception) the line (all perceivable) of sound...and what if a jew suggests words in the name of sound (God) to distract gentiles with suggested from perceivable?
>they’re told from every source
There can be only one source moving all perceivable through ones perception, yet what if each one within wields the free will of choice to ignore this for each others suggestions?
Nature doesn't narrate tales...it moves units apart from one another to inspire adaptation. Having the free will of choice to alternate in-between nature (need) and each other (want) implies a fundamental balance within nature, as the foundation for choice.
One can only come into being within source.