Andrew Anglin's conversion to Christianity

the bible doesn't say anything about 70ad. you are putting your interpretation onto this.
You're aware that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD right? That is all the New Testament prophesies.

Luke 21:
7“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?” [Matthew 24 Parallel: "The temple destruction, the second coming, the end of the age"]

20“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

What more needs to be said? The apocalypse was in 70AD. Its not a contemporary event.
 

Czethertihor

Well-known member
the bible doesn't say anything about 70ad. you are putting your interpretation onto this.
WELL WELL WELL ISN'T THAT A FUCKING SHOCK,

I think I heard some of these pseudo agnostic/atheist/asatru/morons who refuse to take any position at all in this very thread, arguing what essentially was their own completely off base, heretical and false attempt at "interpretation" on scripture. It's uncannily like hearing shitlibs or leftists argue that the second amendment ACKSHUALLY only applies to the national guard or whatever the fuck.
 
Last edited:

fukuyama

Alpha Chad
Old World Underground
You're aware that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD right? That is all the New Testament prophesies.

Luke 21:
7“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?” [Matthew 24 Parallel: "The temple destruction, the second coming, the end of the age"]

20“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

What more needs to be said? The apocalypse was in 70AD. Its not a contemporary event.
the romans did sack jerusalem in 70ad, they also slaughtered the jew army at masada. you have also missed out a lot of that chapter which explains what Jesus is talking about, especially the latter verses where He says to stay vigilant as this could happen anytime. If you want to pick and choose parts out of the bible you can make it say anything. Read it as a whole and come to Jesus.
 

Czethertihor

Well-known member
You know, what's particularly interesting to me is the lengths the apparent anti-christianists go to evade and downplay any actual position. While I also believe it's true that the best defense is a good offense, it seems to me that in this case, it is pure deflection. Inherent in the soul of any non-Christian western man is going to be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance and spiritual denial which the soul is not going to be able to deal with in any healthy manner.

Every man has to come to terms with their inherent human need of spirituality in some form, and the western man who attempts to do this with "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE", attempting to emulate some kind of faggoty California-style Buddhism, or embracing the Dawkins style religion of atheism, will eventually crash into the fact that it just doesn't fucking work. Somehow or some way, they have to confront their own bitterness and denial of their birthright, and it usually leads to an existential crisis.

It's among the saddest things I've ever seen; look at Richard Spencer. He is a broken shell of a thing who was unable to come to terms with himself or his beliefs. Hell, look at any of his supporters, you will find broken people who have no real conviction and no real beliefs about..well...anything at all. To Spencer, Enoch and his ilk, religion is a tool and a superficial thing because they've been utterly and completely blinded by their own hubris. They simply don't understand the role of God in their lives. Frankly, as loathesome as they are, I pity them.
 
Last edited:
the romans did sack jerusalem in 70ad, they also slaughtered the jew army at masada. you have also missed out a lot of that chapter which explains what Jesus is talking about, especially the latter verses where He says to stay vigilant as this could happen anytime. If you want to pick and choose parts out of the bible you can make it say anything. Read it as a whole and come to Jesus.
What does Jesus say about this sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD?

Matthew 24:21
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.



So the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was "The Final Tribulation". There is no way you can claim future eschatological expectation in light of this. You're putting your emotion into it instead of reason. There is no way we can interpret 2000 year old dead languages emotionally, this is the work of real scholarship.
 

Zaldron

Well-known member
Old World Underground
I don't think anyone here is dying that race is more than "color of the skin." It is an entire genetic framework.
Good. (thumbs-up)

However, the obvious fact of reality is that if a white person was adopted by Japanese and raised in Japan by Japanese parents, his "white identity" would be very minimal. He would of course never actually fit in with the Japs, because his brain is wired differently, but the idea that he would share much of substance with a white American or white German is just kind of fantastical.
Imagine that you lived as a very young child (still trying to learn to speak, walk, and so on) you lived in different counties, a year here, six months there, and so on. So Dutch and Indonesian are both incomprehensible as languages and alien as cultures, but with English and American culture you have a starting point.

Race is HUGE. Excuse me, that was inadequate. Race is HUGE! It is far better to be a white boy surrounded by white Dutch boys babbling incomprehensibly than it is to be surrounded by black, brown, Javanese, or Semitic people speaking good English and living in fancy houses with all the goodies.

Let me suggest to you that it is better to be among your own people, white people, where you feel safe and the people and how they react basically feel "right." Let me suggest to you that it is worse to speak the same language and to have all the benefits of high culture but to be constantly off-balance among not-your-people, who are not like you, who don't laugh at the right times, who might be dangerous when you wouldn't know it, and who can hardly be unaware that you are not like them.

Let me suggest to you that it is better to be among poor and rough fellow whites whose words and games you do not understand but with whom you share temperament than it is to live in the house of the well-spoken big, black ogre with Mozart playing on the hi-fi in the music room.

The core concepts of sociology are not just made up, as anyone who has ever left their home country is well aware. You don't just go to another country and automatically trigger a shared "white identity." Although the race is fundamental to the construction of an identity, this is no different than saying the a foundation is fundamental to the construction of a building. A lot of different kinds of buildings can be build on a single foundation.
Race is like a wall, and culture is like a picture painted on the wall. The picture is to some extent independent of the wall, though not of what shape and size it is, what it is made of and what pigments it will accept, and so on. I think we broadly agree on this. (Unless you tell me otherwise.)

Where I think we disagree is, I think "first agree that we are building countries for white men, that is countries that will be good for the white race, and then we can talk about the details, like what languages we will speak, what tableware we will use and how we will use it, and so on." And I think you think that the "fundamentals" are language and so on. But it seems to me that these things only seem "fundamental" to us when we have grown up and lost our plasticity in learning new languages and cultures.

What these white communists or white globalists or whatever they call themselves are doing is dying all of the fundamental aspects of identity except for race, and "we're all white tho" is really much closer to the liberal position of "we're all human tho" than it is to a standard nationalist position.
I have a third position here. I don't like the white world empire nonsense, I love distinct nations, but I want white identity to come first and national identity to be built under that broad canopy. Like this:

White Australia policy | National Museum of Australia

White Nation.jpg

Whites used to share both race and religion. We also typically had a shared literary and art tradition that we all drew from. There is such a thing as "white identity," but it isn't "just race."
Yes.
 
Last edited:

MechaPregnantAnneFrank

I bully nerds in the name of Jesus Christ
Old World Underground
You know, what's particularly interesting to me is the lengths the apparent anti-christianists go to evade and downplay any actual position. While I also believe it's true that the best defense is a good offense, it seems to me that in this case, it is pure deflection. Inherent in the soul of any non-Christian western man is going to be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance and spiritual denial which the soul is not going to be able to deal with in any healthy manner. Every man has to come to terms with their inherent human need of spirituality in some form, and the western man who attempts to do this with "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE", attempting to emulate some kind of faggoty California-style Buddhism, or embracing the Dawkins style religion of atheism, will eventually crash into the fact that it just doesn't fucking work. Somehow or some way, they have to confront their own bitterness and denial of their birthright, and it usually leads to an existential crisis. It's among the saddest things I've ever seen; look at Richard Spencer. He is a broken shell of a thing who was unable to come to terms with himself or his beliefs. Hell, look at any of his supporters, you will find broken people who have no real conviction and no real beliefs about..well...anything at all. To Spencer, Enoch and his ilk, religion is a tool and a superficial thing because they've been utterly and completely blinded by their own hubris. They simply don't understand the role of God in their lives. Frankly, as loathesome as they are, I pity them.
It's really why the modern world is so bad.
People are just fumbling blindly, grabbing onto the next fad, clinging to the next hobby.

Ecclesiasties is one of my favorite books in the Bible for how succinct it makes the point that striving after material goods is vanity.

Yes, have a nice life, and yes you can own nice things, but if that's what you set your heart on, you'll be empty until the day you die.

Ecclesiastes 1:2‭-‬18 ESV

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.

I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted. I said in my heart, "I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
 

fukuyama

Alpha Chad
Old World Underground
What does Jesus say about this sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD?

Matthew 24:21
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.



So the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was "The Final Tribulation". There is no way you can claim future eschatological expectation in light of this. You're putting your emotion into it instead of reason. There is no way we can interpret 2000 year old dead languages emotionally, this is the work of real scholarship.
this passage has dual meaning. just as Jesus talked about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days in reference to Himself and also the coming destruction of the temple, this passage refers to the roman sack of jerusalem and also the later apocalypse. this is basic bible scholarship. in both these cases what He says doesn't make full sense in regard to 1st century events - rebuilding the temple in 3 days, the signs of the second coming, etc. don't apply to this literal reading. it is only by considering these lines as half metaphor that they are understandable. As Jesus said, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear", if you come at it refusing to hear and believe, you never will.
 

Czethertihor

Well-known member
Good. (thumbs-up)



Imagine that you lived as a very young child (still trying to learn to speak, walk, and so on) you lived in different counties, a year here, six months there, and so on. So Dutch and Indonesian are both incomprehensible as languages and alien as cultures, but with English and American culture you have a starting point.

Race is HUGE. Excuse me, that was inadequate. Race is HUGE! It is far, far, (etc.) better to be a white boy surrounded by white Dutch boys babbling incomprehensibly than it is to be surrounded by black, brown, Javanese, or Semitic people speaking good English and living in fancy houses with all the goodies.

Let me suggest to you that it's better by far to be among your own people, white people, where you feel safe and the people and how they react basically feel "right." Let me suggest to you that it is worse by far to speak the same language and to have all the benefits of high culture but to be constantly off-balance among not-your-people, who are not like you, who don't laugh at the right times, who might be dangerous when you wouldn't know it, and who can hardly be unaware that you are not like them.

Let me suggest to you that it is better to be among poor and rough fellow whites whose words and culture you do not understand but with whom you share temperament than it is to live in the house of the well-spoken big, black ogre with Mozart playing on the hi-fi in the music room.


Race is like a wall, and culture is like a picture painted on the wall. The picture is to some extent independent of the wall, though not of what shape and size it is, what it is made of and what pigments it will accept, and so on. I think we broadly agree on this. (Unless you tell me otherwise.)

Where I think we disagree is, I think "first agree that we are building countries for white men, that is countries that will be good for the white race, and then we can talk about the details, like what languages we will speak, what tableware we will use and how we will use it, and so on." And I think you think that the "fundamentals" are language and so on. But it seems to me that these things only seem "fundamental" to us when we have grown up and lost our plasticity in learning new languages and cultures.


I have a third position here. I don't like the white imperium nonsense, I love distinct nations, but I want white identity to come first and national identity to be built under that broad canopy. Like this:

White Australia policy | National Museum of Australia


Yes.
My man, I still don't think you're giving an adequate position of what the fuck "white identity" even is? Forgive me if I'm being dense and I promise I'm not trying to be a dick here, but what is cultural identity? Is it merely a shared set of practices, rituals, and customs? Or is it also a shared set of values, beliefs, actions and motivations?

I guess to put it simply, I'm 2nd generation German, with a touch of Scottish. Do I have more in common with an Italian man or a Russian man? How do you say?
 
this passage has dual meaning. just as Jesus talked about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days in reference to Himself and also the coming destruction of the temple, this passage refers to the roman sack of jerusalem and also the later apocalypse. this is basic bible scholarship. in both these cases what He says doesn't make full sense in regard to 1st century events - rebuilding the temple in 3 days, the signs of the second coming, etc. don't apply to this literal reading. it is only by considering these lines as half metaphor that they are understandable. As Jesus said, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear", if you come at it refusing to hear and believe, you never will.
What signs of the 2nd coming didn't occur in the 1st century? Josephus and Tacitus literally chronicle it.

Josephus (A.D. 75) - Jewish Historian
"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).



Tacitus (A.D. 115) - Roman historian
"13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).
 

Italo-Canadian

Jesus is King
Old World Underground
"has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven" here is past-tense.
Paul also says:
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
- Romans 1:19-20
 

Enwar

Active member
This can just be understood as being lost in translation. It does not mean there was no understanding of distinction, but that our understanding of distinction through language is never absolutely equatable among the distinction of languages themselves. The origins of the diversity of language is congruent with the genesis of ethnicity.

Interestingly, this was recognized as being a curse of Babylon. However it could just as easily be the curse of any Empire that attempts to reconcile language barriers. A paradox can be identified here. One that realigion seeks to solve, but one that it never actually does outside the solution existing for it to be perceived

View attachment 6167
Show me your truth
Tell me what do you see
Show me your truth
not the truth of what you believe
Show me your truth
not the truth you wish you could be
Show me your truth
not the truth that cannot be seen
Show me the truth
That exists within you and me
I'm not making a distinction based on English semantics; my distinction is based on how the phrase is used in the Bible itself. There is a distinct difference between "all nations" and "the world". One is often used to refer to the Roman Empire ("the world") while the other isn't ("all nations"). I should have emphasized this in my original post.

Sometimes the phrase "all the world" is used to describe the Roman Empire, but one cannot say that, based on this fact, whenever "all the world" is said, only the Roman Empire is being referred to. The reason that I gave was incomplete and vague, but still valid. It would be completely unreasonable to interpret the words "the world" or "all the world", or any similar phrase, as being only the Roman Empire, in almost all places where they appear. I will give two examples; but you can use a concordance (any Bible website) online to search up the phrase, "the world" in order to see all of the instances where it appears.

John 3:17
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

1 John 2:2
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. "
 
Paul also says:
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
- Romans 1:19-20
Does Romans 2:1 flow with the end of Romans 1? This is a rhetorical writing style of that period, the 2nd half of Romans 1 isn't Paul writing but strawman of the person he rebukes in Romans 2:1.
 

Italo-Canadian

Jesus is King
Old World Underground
So the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was "The Final Tribulation".
You're conflating the destruction of the temple with the Final/Great Tribulation; you or I both don't know the timing of this (nothing precludes it from being separated by thousands of years); even Jesus says he doesn't know the timing. Also, Jerusalem in 70 A.D. wasn't surrounded by armies (plural); rather, it was besieged by only one army - that of Imperial Rome.

As Jesus says speaking about the days of Noah:
They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be [also] at the coming of the Son of Man.
- Matthew 24:39
 

Harbingrr

Well-known member

Italo-Canadian

Jesus is King
Old World Underground
You're conflating the destruction of the temple with the Final/Great Tribulation
Also, only Jews would think that this is the end of days (because they're the centre of the universe); the Romans besieging a city was a fairly regular occurrence - not exactly out of the ordinary. The Babylonian captivity was perhaps more brutal than what the Romans did to them (the Romans could be quite magnanimous).
 
Last edited:
You're conflating the destruction of the temple with the Final/Great Tribulation; you or I both don't know the timing of this (nothing precludes it from being separated by thousands of years); even Jesus says he doesn't know the timing. Also, Jerusalem in 70 A.D. wasn't surrounded by armies (plural); rather, it was besieged by only one army - that of Imperial Rome.

As Jesus says speaking about the days of Noah:
They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be [also] at the coming of the Son of Man.
- Matthew 24:39
The Greek stratopedōn is not plural, it translate armies in english only by convention. In Matthew 24 the disciples ask Jesus when the temple would be destroyed, when his 2nd coming, and the end of the age would be. Luke 21:7's parallel question treats all 3 of these as the same event. "When will these things happen, what will be the sign they are about to occur?".

You cannot seperate the final tribulation from the 2nd temple destruction because the disciples themselves presented it as such.
 

Notsure

memeber of The Alliance and (assistant to) Pope
Old World Underground
end of days
I feel a distinction should be made here that is not often emphasized. Who fears the apocalypse? (What is required by your hold?)
A destruction of the planet or worldwide disaster just seems far too absurd to justify as the appropriate meaning. It seems to me the apocalypse already happened a long time ago but we did not hear the message.
536374834673499.jpg
Not Like The Others.jpg
 

Titus Flavius

I have made but one mistake.
Nick's and Andrews's fake Christianty is one of the most obnoxious things I've encountered in the white-positive sphere. Of course, we all know that Christianity itself is a judeo-derived gibberish, but to try to harness it at this late stage of secularism really shows that these guys have yet to learn a lot about the mechanics of human reality.
 
A destruction of the planet or worldwide disaster just seems far too absurd to justify as the appropriate meaning. It seems to me the apocalypse already happened a long time ago but we did not hear the message.
That's exactly what I've been saying here. The bible is extremely clear the apocalypse is the end of 2nd temple Jerusalem. The mental gymnastics employed to read yourself into fulfilled eschatology is jaw-dropping.
 

Zaldron

Well-known member
Old World Underground
My man, I still don't think you're giving an adequate position of what the fuck "white identity" even is?
I said: "White identity is that part of personal and group identity which white people generally share, including aspects of identity that white people are latently aware of but do not acknowledge because of the Jewish taboo on white people strongly identifying as white and defending white interests, and also including behavioral traits that white people may not be aware of but that give a common character to white civilizations and that assist harmony or at least mutual understanding."

If you think that's inadequate, propose something you think is more adequate, and we can discuss it. But when you just say that's "inadequate," there's nothing to discuss.

Forgive me if I'm being dense and I promise I'm not trying to be a dick here, but what is cultural identity? Is it merely a shared set of practices, rituals, and customs? Or is it also a shared set of values, beliefs, actions and motivations?
The way it was taught to me, "culture is everything people say, make, and do." That was one half of the coin. The other side of the coin was, "all people everywhere are basically the same, and 'race' does not exist." So as race was abolished, "culture" was a sort of magic that expanded to include everything. Nothing is heritable, everything is "cultural."

Within the dominant academic understanding of race and culture, all identity is "cultural identity," because there is nothing else it can be.

From my point of view, and I am following Kevin MacDonald in this, we are "experiments in living," with heritable and cultural components, and the Darwinian contest of the genes is currently being played out in the construction of cultures that select in favor of some genetic groupings and select against others.

In this context, "cultural identity" could be many things, including a scam that your genetic rivals foisted on you to get you to serve their genetic interests and harm yours.

If you say, "but how do you know you are being made to serve someone else's interests; how do you know these aren't your interests?" I point to genes. There you are. If someone wants you to serve some other race's genetic interests, and they say that these are really your interests, they're lying to you.

I guess to put it simply, I'm 2nd generation German, with a touch of Scottish. Do I have more in common with an Italian man or a Russian man? How do you say?
I don't know.

Which of these two men is more nearly living in the right way, at home among his own people? One is an old Greek man, who can make himself understood about one time in four in English, and that's with me, because I like him and make an effort to understand. The other case is a white Zimbabwean who is in the country he was born in and who lives surrounded by black people who know the language he speaks.
 
Top