watch, learn and shut up.
watch, learn and shut up.
Modern medicine is from Catholic framework of hospitals, universities and research.
66,000 terrorist attacks/mass murders by Muslims since 1979.
Most victims were Muslims.
I agree with you on America's Christianity overall. I am a pro theocracy guy and my issue with Islam is actually pretty much solely that it truly is the wrong religion in all ways and never fit non Arab cultures properly... Ever. Actually I noticed this and told someone the other day. For Arabs specifically, as an ethnoreligion, Islam did somehow work for them. They somehow ethnically suited polygamy, suited that type of patriarchy, suited the guerilla warfare stuff and suited genuinely undemocratic rule.
This is proven by the fact that today the only fully Islamic nations you'd want to live in are either the secularised ones or the Arab ones (UAE, Qatar, Saudi etc). In contrast, you maybe will say you'd want to live in Pakistan as it's a lot easier to naturalise to and maybe is truer to the Qur'an than the Arab nations are but look at its state economically, technologically and in basically all departments that matter. The reason Islam only has worked fantastically well for Arabs is that I genuinely believe that Arabs suit Islam on some ethnic level that isn't translated into other ethnos, not even a tiny bit. It consistently works terribly for others but decently for Arabs. Arab Christianity whether Maronite Catholic or Assyrian COE etc, is very Islam-like in how it presents (they have far less focus on statues and instrumental music, far more on oral singing, verses, the cross rather than the Jesus statue etc.
It is also obvious that Islam suited staying as an Arab ethnoreligion because it only apparently can be fully understood in fluent old Arabic and all translations apparently 'corrupt its meaning' (if they do, why didn't their Allah think of that?)
Polygamy in particular seems to somehow work healthily for Arabs. I am not saying I support it for them, that would be excommunicable. I am saying I can see for them it is more ethnically natural. The women feel less envy within it, the men heavily crave it and the left over incels don't seem to care about the disparity.
In contrast, almost all non-Arab Islamified ethnicities have ended up needing to use brutality and other means to force the polygamy acceptance onto the women and also they tend to even resort to underage marriages way way more. This is in stark contrast to the Arab cultures that shifted to a strict 18 age of marriage. Arabs understood that Islam was meant to be adjusted over time because it was to them an ethnoreligion, not the immovable construct that other ethnicities are perceiving it as.
Yes, I am heavily generalising ethnicities here and yes technically Hamas and Hezbollah are Arab. I didn't say it's at all peaceful for them at all times. I am saying I strongly believe it's an innate ethnoreligion to them that fit them in a way it has never fitted others.
What is your opinion of America's approach to religion?
You can't lecture me about "valid clergy" when you are in a church that thinks muslims can be saved.
You're already mortally sinning by saying all Muslims can't be saved.
First of all, to qualify as rejecting Jesus is complex if you're Muslim and were abused/coerced into Islam your entire life with even straight up blackmail of beating and/or death on the table if you apostated. There is no possible way that God is going to judge that identical to a Muslim from a more liberal Islamic family in a Christian Western cultured nation.
This is a first and very important thing to get into your brain. The Catholic Church actually taught that but what's ended up being interpreted is that the Muslims you know best and closest to you that you actually could have converted to Christianity, can be easily saved anyway. That may be problematic, not sure how to take it. The biggest selling point of this is that they're monotheistic, they claim that the deity they worship is the same of the Jews (which means they're at least trying hard to worship the Father) and they are holding tothat Yeshua/Jesus was a completely valid prophet of that deity.
The problem is that of course this doesn't mean the same thing as worshipping Jesus as Lord and Saviour. It also actively has scripture saying bad things and 'shirk' in Islam means that Christian Trinity is a huge Hell/Jahannam-guaranteeing Sin to them...
This however doesn't change the fact that invincible ignorance exists and can exist even for those that came across Christianity. We do not know how God is running the judgement system of what qualifies as invincible ignorance and what counts as actively knowing Yeshua and then rejecting him.
This leads us to realise that it was a correct adjustement to make that the old claim that they knew for sure there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church (let alone outside the Christian religion) had to be adjusted. There's no way an all loving God is going to literally reject all non believers in the specific Jesus in and of itself. He has to weigh in how active and knowing that rejection of Jesus was. This is a 100% correct adaptation of text.
I will also let you know that there's no possible way you're telling me that Lutheran cultures you admire most,the Nordic, hold that Muslims all go to Hell. That is false. That's a hyper protestant idea in fact to say they all go there.
ultimately you either go properly ND/Baptist or you go Catholic.
Orthodox is valid only when your nation basically rigs it that if you went Cath you can't marry an Ortho and your nearest Cath church is 4 towns away and just not worth it.
In such scenario God will forgive you not having a true seal-guaranteed confessional process. You can use the seal-not-guaranteed confessional for most sins and any too risky/taboo God will forgive because in that nation you prioritised assimilation to their Christianity and tried your best.
At least they try their best to be true Christians (and Russia's actually is the single worst out of the EO at this so idk why you chose them, furthermore if you're anti-Islam to that degree, you shoul dbe aware that Russia is the only EO nation that has literally harsh enforced blasphemy laws that it applies to thos ethat speak against Islam just as harshly as to those that speak against Christianity (yes, the religions, not the people alone it actually probably goes less harsh on racism than anti theism).
You are Lutheran, big deal. You think Nordic model can be anything by heavily secularised and agnostic/atheistic to the hilt, big deal. The actual Lutheran OG cultures have proven exactly what Lutheranism leads to, you're trying to compensate by making it as Catholic-Mass as possible without being Catholic and you're only focused on the Mass, ignoring the works and actual serving of God that matter far more than some damn bread on your tongue. Even Catholics who are very serious, know that works matter a lot. That is actually why you must not take Eucharist if your works were too terrible and you haven't yet been absolved as per Catholic doctrine.
I don't dislike Confessional Lutheranism, it's better than the stuff the generic Lutheranism does. What you will realise in the debate is that Luther would not at all give a damn about them and that modern Baptists are actually a lot closer to Luther's approach, you just have it wrong. Modern Baptists who are not heavy on the added solas (PotS etc) push the angle Luther did more strong than even confessional Lutherans do. They actually live out the Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura approach significantly more because to them that bread is just another physical works-like or pagan-like concept they deny outright as they're very literalist about that stuff. They're also wither happy clappy liberal types (I don't dislike their love and joy for God and music unlike a hard trad cath but I do think they are barely trying to submit to God) or they're the ultra abstinence (even from alcohol etc) types that believe in some rigid sort of application of rules that Paul actually preached against.
The reality is that the only reason Confessional Lutherans are good Christians potentially, is that they can end up mimicking Catholic approach enough that they probably do end up being decent Christians. That's the cold hard truth.
Pope Leo is starting now to go the Pope Francis route a little too much. He's said Anglicans and Catholics are "are already one". This double speak politically correct stuff is not my style but my style likely would cause major upheaval. The reality is that you can keep pushing what you want.
You either are an ND and your denomination basically is just a means to an end to have a community and take the bread/wine if that means a lot to you or you're one of the OG churches that have apostolic succession and proper eucharistic approach (orthodox do have proper eucharistic approach and do have an arguably valid apostolic succession).
You already conceded bit by bit every single thing I opposed you on earlier. The main disagreement you and I have is about the Catholic Church and its approach. That will be the hugest clash in the debate.
You believe a Catholic that's quietly slightly heretical is immediately to be excommed and thus should opt for Lutheranism (I predict). Whereas I believe that a Lutheran who wants confession to a Priest and the other stuff should be Catholic (your Priests are basically just Pastors btw, cosplaying as valid clergy I am not saying this to be cruel but you need to realise the actual way the Catholic Church sees your Clergy to realise the issue with confessing to that 'Priest'). You have every right to be a Lutheran and a Christian. You can be one that stamps your foot down, screams to the wind about how great Lutheranism is and all of this. You will find over time that you only can justify Lutheranism when it more and more mimics Catholicism. So the reality is, what I was saying this paragraph's start is that you see a Catholic who slightly heresies and leans Lutheran on some things (like you know Caths these days often are to some degree in Europe at least), or you can decide it's that huge of an issue and stay Lutheran.
Just remember, your Lutheran priest's 'seal of confession' is about as secure as a chat with anyone else at basically any time. It's not even close to doctor nor lawyer level confidentiality. A Catholic Priest's is. That's a huge difference already with the level of trust you can have. Also realise that because it's entirely optional to Lutherans as opposed to 'maybe optional in a technical way but you definitely are supposed to do it' as modern Catholicism sees it, that your Lutheran Priest is going to be annoyed if you go too often (which probably means going more than twice in 4 months). In contrast, a Catholic Priest would begin to get annoyed if you consistently went let's say every week or 2 weeks again and again especially for the same sins. The Priest wouldn't be annoyed at your neediness to have it alone, just at maybe needing to make time for it or in that scenario that you seem unrepentant and are treating it like a 'soothing session' and taking advantage of pastoral care duties vs truly submitting and serving the Lord.
You can do what you want. You can keep believing what you want. I also am pretty sure it's a lot easier to become a Lutheran Priest than a Catholic Priest. LGBTQ (maybe not T but LGB openly) and female Lutheran Priests already operate in Scandinavia and some parts of Germany. It's a matter of time before you will see that happen to your American Lutheranism, confessional or not.
I will save my comments for the debate.
I know some of what you LDS do to people that leave the cult to coerce them back in.
Don't try to fool me with your 'no threat' mantra. At least be honest.
Then you are a selfish individualistic hedonist or nihilist.
Obviously you are not a Nihilist. This leans you Hedonistic.
It is fundamentally impossible to be anti collectivism and also a practising Christian (even LDS who I deny are doctrinally valid Christians). You need to strongly reread the Bible, especially Luke.
Did you decide to drop all topics where you defend Trump and his cold blood killing ICE Agents?
I am not American resident btw.
I am in Europe.
Are you saying you believe I am from America or what?
The Right Wing has been far more dedicated go corporate shilling than the Left.
Consumerism was entirely engineered by the Right as it evovled, not the Left.
This is the irony in what you say.
If it is true, and I am open to it being true, Feminism in the West was hurled forward by the Right.
Mainly Islam.
I think Sidewalker basically said we should not at all run things how the religions tells us to.
This reminds me of what many who agree with me about Islam end up backfiring on Christianity by saying.
They dislike Islam for pushing Sharia Law. However, the bigger problem with Islam is how evil and wrong it is. A Christian wanting a Christian Theocracy makes a lot more sense than a Christian who'd genuinely side completely with those trying to destroy Christianity and its values, just to flex 'I care for some vulnerable when it suits me.'
If you want bullets, why not just use the bullet button
That way
you get
bullets
instead of
your statements
being
numbered.
do you see the problem?
If you make bullet points they forcibly convert into a numbers list.
I support trans people getting therapy to treat their delusion and disorder.
Unfortunately, such therapy is outlawed where I live as far as I know. Your best bet is specifically sending them to a Christian-based counselling service that will at least avoid directly affirming the trans identity as fast.
Thanks I had no idea.
😂
It couldnt be hidden from Satan. An ex archangel still exremely powerful has ths celestial know-how to tell. Satan can feel God's presence, all celestials can.
Celestials can all sense each other.
Early on in his presidency this 2nd Term he literally said hed colonise/take Greenland later into his term.
This is now the official 2026 narrative from UK Government perspective:
In January 2026, United States President Donald Trump has intensified pressure on Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, to become part of the United States. He has argued Greenland is vital to US security.
While he has often spoken of purchasing Greenland, he has also said the US would obtain it “one way or the other” and up till 21 January refused to rule out using military force. President Trump had said the US would impose tariffs on several European countries including the UK, who had been part of a military preparation exercise in Greenland, until an agreement to cede the island had been made. Following discussion with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as the World Economic Forum at Davos, he changed his mind and said tariffs would not be imposed.
Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty states that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. Were the US to use force against another NATO member, Denmark, to secure Greenland, then the mutual defence foundation on which NATO rests would be jeopardised.
Leaders in Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale. The UK Government has echoed these remarks, and criticised President Trump’s threat of tariffs while emphasising that it wishes to maintain good relations with the United States.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10472/
The only possible reason to say things like he will take it 'one way or another' are to imply much like he grabbed women by the pussy one way or another that he was open to nonconsensually abuse Greenland and violate the sanctity of its sovereign land.
Your turn.
Tell me why it was not reasonable for Europe to be ready for an invasion. Recall that prior to Putin forcefully and brutally trying to take Ukraine, he claimed he was not going to and just was interested. So, you hopefully realise that invasion is rarely done consensually and pre warned overtly.
I am not a boomer. Im somewhere aged 26-33. Age is within that with either end included as a possibility.
Depending which end Im on Im either a severely young Millennial or a very old Zoomer (Gen Z).
I am very sure that the idea of feminism already existed when my actual grandparents were alive.
And this idea in fact existed for centuries before in non-Islamic (Hindu and Buddhist) South Asia. The Hindus were the first ever civilisation to push on the concept that a woman should study and work. However, they had the caveat that women tend to suit part time esp if mothers, not full-time. They also tended to have patriarchal ownership of businesses.
When colonisation happened the 2nd or 3rd time (Portuguese had come way before and Dutch had showed up, plus St. Thomas long before had led to catholicism in Kerala especially far longer ago), the British were shocked that feminism was present there. The level to which the Hindu communities held women genuinely equal to men was something unseen in most ogher native tribes. Some actually were matriarchal especially in the Americas.
Hindus and also Buddhists had a concept of gender egalitarianism even in spite of Caste system ethnic inequalities.
It is extremely plausible that the reason the British were the first to actually make Feminism work (the Frebch had the concept from way back, they had actual female warriors fighting off the Nazis fully saxrificing and shooting guns, even female lieutenants, idk for sure about generals, these were seen as terrorists by the Nazi occupiers so they lacked official ranks of any kind. You did have 2 prominent females leading specific batallions but with males as their equals or even superiors in strategy.
The British likely had seen that feminism in education worked out for the Indians and Sri Lankans quite well. It did not lead to any infertility issues that we have in the west today.
This is because Hindu and Buddhist Feminism was 2nd wave only. It never ever got the 3rd wave vibe to it.
Giving a series of images against your cause does not help your case.
Those are all 1900s btw, suporting my claim that the society you want was 1500s and Catholic but I actually oppose certain elements of that socirty esp the sexist approach to education.
Neither. Inheriting large swaths of blood money from his Dad's side (inherited emerald mine money from his Grandpa) is what led to his success.
Trump is actually ethnically German via his Father's. His family name was Drumpf.
I don't know why he feels more American than European to the extent he does when on top of that his mother was a 1st generation Scottish immigrant to US.
The 2 strongest angles to explain this:
If theory 2 is true, it creates a separate issue as it would mean Satan is serving God as the Jews suggest, as a key adversary, accuser and prosecutor (testing us, not fully rooting for us to fail the test).
Theory 1 is thus more appropriate for strict Christians to uphold.
That society existed before the first pilgrim ever showed up to the americas.
The difference was that women were banned from education.
if you support that at least be more obvious a sexist.
I support female education access. However, I believe a lot of modern education syllabuses is uselsss junk and even indoctrinates kids and teens into lies at times.
The subjects of geograpgy and histiry are taught so biased and blinkered and small blip time moments as well.
Even to be specific to the Americas, youd need to explore a lot of both sides. Both what the horrors were, the torture in the iraq war deon by the US soldiers etc AND the good things US did for the world and its people.
You cannot just educate people some bulkshit propaganda biaaed either for or against the nation and its agenda and expect them to really have good knowledge.
How would those mothers be better off having a baby at a crucial moment early on in their career or late into their education?
Having a baby has massive health drawbacks. Pregnancy affects a lot in a woman's body and brain and also means she can have barely any drugs, even caffeine. This means she cannot even caffeine her way through tough work moments where she is fatigued, nor cannshe take drugs to handles anxiety etc without likely harming the baby.
The solution is a fully Catholic society. This is genuinely the most feasible and historically proven best solution. All other solutions neglect the women, children etc.
The problem is that a fully Catholic society is not free market. It is either Feudalist or akin thereof.
Can you be peasant class, stay peasant class and feel 0 resentment to the upper class? If not, pitchforks will get grabbed and rage and envy induced riots will lead to what eventually happened in Europe.
You are raised in the West to think liberally. This has led to a delusional outlook that is having MANY effects. It is why the birth rates are so low despite the sex rates being so high. It is why despite sex rates being so high, inceldom is extremely high too (1 man can hookup with many women after all).
The entire Catholic cultures of the West have degenerated so much over the past 4-5 centuries that people unironically believe that the main issue with Islam is how anti sex and anti liberty they are... No. The issues are far beyond that and they actually get family value somewhat right.