i had forgotten about that tweet
poohing satanists, all of them
That woman's testimony cuts to the heart.
May God have mercy on her and her first child, and may He bless them.
It's funny too, because I didn't know as a man how much doing this seems to feel in most cases like murder. Unless the case is of a rape or whatever.
When I was secular it seemed obvious that abortion was a non issue, but this young woman's experience really hits home, because I gave up a woman I loved very dearly and a friendship like non other because she was Catholic, and my parents were of the opinion that due to her views on abortion I could not be "successful" and have her. I chose Mammon, and maybe in the fullness of time I will regret it, but I hope I'll be forgiven by God.
Success is all secular people care about, just money, money, money. Nothing else, no Satan, just Mammon.
> no Satan, just Mammon.
Mammon is but a subordinate of Satan, one of his generals.
>Within a few months of living under the same roof, I became pregnant. This is where the fairy tale between Dave and I took a turn. He made it clear that he had no interest in “settling down” or making that type of commitment. In fact, he let me know he was experienced with knowing about “places” that would take care of the “problem.”
> I remember conversations as a little girl where professing my desire to grow up to be a mother repeatedly met this type of response: “Honey, you can be anything in the world. Why would you want to be JUST a mother. You can be a mother AFTER you become successful.”
>Dave had friends over and played video games in the room adjacent to mine, seeming to party in relief as I tried to silence my louder cries in a pillow. My mind swirled with thoughts of wanting to rewind my decision. I kept reminding myself that just two days before, I had been pregnant. I felt hollow inside.
They don't even end where that issue begins friend
I wasn't surprised that the man staved off his abominable partaking in this sin with video games.
He never cared about that woman to begin with, he just wanted material satisfaction.
May God be praised that she found a good man.
We must always strive to ask God for mercy, and especially to pray for our enemies.
>I am healed now and proudly the mother of seven kids (two by birth, five by international adoption).
Absolute cancer. Enjoy 5 white-raised niglets America, lmao.
>When you don't listen to God and have sex before marriage (or marry an atheist), bad things happen to you
wew, who could've thought
Racism is still a sin, no matter how cool the alt-right becomes, or how low IQ, subhuman and criminal they say or even prove black people are.
>Racism is still a sin
I am not a racist. I just wouldn't want to raise another people in stead of my own.
And I'm certainly not a Pagan, I'm Orthodox.
Yeah, I understand, but that's only your preference, I'm sure her adopted children are her preference too.
Also pardon the shitposting, but you kinda stereotyped yourself.
>I'm sure her adopted children are her preference too
No, I think it's far more likely that she's brainwashed and has a guilt complex. Either way, once ethnic tensions start ramping up in the Jewmerican empire, which I hope will be sooner rather than later, she will regret her decision.
>tfw want a loving wife and family so badly it hurts sometimes
>tfw otherwise decrent woman laments the murder of her own child at her hand because she was all over someone that never cared for her or a family in the first place
My condolences to the mother.
What if they are little Russian kids?
Point is I don't care, it's not material to the point of my post.
>What if they are little Russian kids?
I certainly hope Russia doesn't allow Westerners to adopt its children.
>Orphans should remain fatherless and motherless because of where/when they were born
>Unless the case is of a rape or whatever.
Why should being raped give you the right to murder a child?
It doesn't. He's that fake Christian who keeps posting for some reason.
>He's that fake Christian who keeps posting for some reason.
Most of us think abortion in case of rape is justified.
Well it's not what Christians believe.
>most of us hurrrr
What is wrong with you?
>dad why am I a negro with aids?
>your afro_dad raped mom and gave both of you HIV
God is the only one to judge who lives and who dies. Downies have perfectly fine lives in the right environment. Obviously you cannot hold them to the same standards speaking as per education and work etc., but who cares ? Have you known one ? They are tremendously loving people. They are slow, dumb and whatever, but it is NOT US to decide if they can live or not.
Your post is, frankly speaking, an utterly disgusting display of secular ideology that permeates our societies - the same crap everywhere, no matter if you're capitalist, marxist or anything else. "It can't live up to what we defined as efficient and functioning human being so it goes into the trash". DISGUSTING
>what if the baby is retarded
>Baby comes down retarded because a variety of factors, including but not limited to borderline poisoned food, giving birth only at 40+, or whatever else you can name
>Excellent chance to have someone to care for, if only because the only people that others delicately care about are the mentally challenged
>Wait no, we could also kill him and
spend the saved money on new clothes I mean, another healthy baby
>All of those resources would be better spent on another baby that is healthy.
NEO-Charity in a nutshell.
>The fundamentalist views spouted autistically on this board
Get a grip
So you want sociopaths getting their genes into the next generation?
Where'd your Charity go?
>Where'd your Charity go?
I'm not the one justifying killing an infant for crimes it didn't commit.
"How to Spot Compromised Morals, by Anon"
>Killing an infant for crimes it didn't commit
Ok, but here's my problem; all you've done is cause another issue, namely that this child will have to be parented, and really, you can't blame the mother for not wanting to.
If you can redpill me, shoot, I'd like to know more & I don't really like the idea of absolute moral rules with Talmudic holes in them, so I'm more than happy to change my mind.
>Most of us
Abortion is murder no matter what the cause. Once a child is conceived, it's a new human being and should be treated as such.
The thing is, you can say the rules are x, but there are several competing interests in child-rearing and this is the thorniest problem in the world in my opinion, war is easier to deal with.
Let's imagine the following, 2 mountaineers, attached to one rope, which is fraying under their weight. Is the 1 mountaineer entitled to save himself morally by cutting the rope and killing the other? Or put another way, if an abortion scenario could reach such a high bar, is it blameworthy?
Ok, let me think about it, I can't discount the possibility that you are right.
I didn't understand this, are you declaring Papal inerrancy my protestant friend?
He's referring to Biblical inerrancy
>14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Now see, these children, whatever their background of the reason for them being given up for adoption, will now be raised in a Christian home. There's a good chance that had they not been adopted by this couple, the boys may have been raised without a father to look up to. In the case of American black children, this is the underlying cause for the never-ending cycle of fatherless boys who never grow up; here the cycle is broken. In the case of the girls, they now have a mother to show them how to be pious women, something the West is running low on. Seeing as this couple has already produced two children of their own, I see no problem with them being a family to these other children.
>The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Furthermore, in the Moral Law of Deuteronomy, God repeatedly commands us to care for the fatherless, the widow, and the sojourner. Do you think that every one of the Church fathers didn't know what they were talking about when they declared one of the chief duties of the Church to be ensuring the well-being of orphans and widows?
>17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge:
>18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.
>19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.
>20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
>21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
>22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.
you have been (I hope) delivered out of bondage by Christ, now do not seek to obstruct Christ's deliverance of the fatherless. This family is only doing as Christ commanded.
As for this comment >>660926 specifically, if the mother can't love her own child, someone else will. There will always be someone else willing to love them.
And what the winnie the pooh is wrong with that? It's not like she cucked him, and gave birth to a baby of another man, they took a bunch of rejected kids and gave them home. What is it better for those black kids to live without a family and become criminals? Do you want them to add to the crime statistics in the USA?
Being a race realist is fine and completely justified, hell I think that even not wanting to procreate with races with lower IQ scores is completely reasonable, treating other races as worse because of our inherent differences is not fine. Before you say that what I just said is hypocrisy, I'm not speaking of not procreating with another race because of them being worse, but because of the fact that your own race needs more children.
Abortion is only understandable in the case of the baby threatening the life of a mother It's cruel, but better one person dead than two people dead and maybe some genetical diseases in which it would simply cause more suffering for the child to live than to die.
I can understand women wanting to have abortions in case of rape, but it is still an immoral thing to do and should not be allowed. The baby should not suffer for the sins of it's father.
This tbh. Its isn't the baby's fault it was born into this world in such aweful circumstances. In cases like this in my perfect world the mother wouldn't be able to abort it but she shouldn't be held liable for the costs to deliver the baby. The rapist is held liable. Than aftert the baby is born it is taken to a good orphanage where the fear of God is put in it so the mistakes it's parents made aren't repeated again. unless the mother wants to keep it, but personally I don't think that would be a good idea
I keep thinking of this whenever that comes up.
I'm not racist and definitely not anti-adoption from wherever, but having only 1 or 2 offspring of your own and adopting a whole bunch of children that are not your race is just asking for trouble in my opinion.
Sure, if you got 4 kids of your own you can go ahead and adopt a negro or Asian or whatever but making your own kids the minority in its own house is extremely unsettling.
Heck, there are enough Caucasian kids waiting for adoption too.
>personally I don't think that would be a good idea
May I ask why not?
>I'm not racist but…
lmao winnie the pooh off racist
Admit it you have no good reason for it being "unsettling" other than your own damn prejudice.
>lmao winnie the pooh off racist
Stop spouting communist propaganda.
>separating the races is a preference
Acts 17:26 and Deuteronomy 32:8 say otherwise.
Single motherhood is never good for a baby or a mother as babies need both a father and a mother to take care of it in order for it to be healthy. I would rather have that mother be a productive member of society than having her bogged down from a baby she never wanted. Her chances of finding a husband will go up if she doesn't keep the baby as well.(USER WAS WARNED FOR RULE 2: AVOCATION OF SIN)
>Racism is communist propaganda
top wew how f'd in the head must you be to actually believe that?
>Acts 17:26 and Deuteronomy 32:8
Merely refer to God's sovereignty over nations. He appoints them and sets their boundaries, yes. This is not an excuse or a handing over of authority for you to start a full out race war or segregation like you seem to be implying. Good example of how God treats racists like you is found in Numbers 12.
Calling race realism racism is communist propaganda though.
Read "The History of the Russian Revolution" by Leon Trotsky:
>This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”
Read the whole text to understand the context and see the exact same subversive term you use with the word "racist".
And unlike you and Trotsky, the Church recognizes "racism" as "the exaltation of one race over another".
>Merely refer to God's sovereignty over nations
Throughout the OT, God recognizes the Nations as a great group of people inhabiting a specific territory with common descent, history, culture, religion, and language.
>top wew how f'd in the head must you be to actually believe that?
Please don't post here again, for your own sake.
>hurrr I'm from /pol/ and too stupid to do my own research
>The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.
But please go on make yourself look like an idiot because you believe without question everything that /pol/ literally lies about.
>Inventor of the word "racist"
He came up with the term, not the word.
You can find literature from the 19th century with the word "racist" used to reference other terms. Similar to "racialism".
>Read this text by trotsky
Did YOU? Because I'm fairly certain that you didn't, since you go on to say this:
>And unlike you and Trotsky, the Church recognizes "racism" as "the exaltation of one race over another".
What Trotsky said:
>Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”
Do you even know what slavophilism is you brainlet? Hint: it's not talking about race or anything to do with racial politics. It was basically a movement to cut off all Western European influences from Russia. Trotsky is attacking this notion as backwards.
>He came up with the term, not the word.
Again, no proof of this. Just baseless assertions from people fresh from /pol/ who want to meme magic a lie into becoming a truth.
>He came up with the term, not the word.
You know exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm getting sick of these word games we're playing. The term RACIST was invented no earlier than 1927/1930 by the marxist author Lev Bronstein (renamed himself Leon Trotsky), a Jewish tailor from Brooklyn. If you want to get more into the dishonest talmudic mindset from which this idea came, you will have to go deeper than the English terminology he used and arguing over semantics.
> The term RACIST was invented no earlier than 1927/1930 by the marxist author Lev Bronstein
<Gets proven wrong.
<Continues to assert the lie
You literally have no proof because this never happened. All you have are a bunch of image macros of Trotsky with the words "inventor of the word "racist"" typed out next to him in big bold letters, even though the word originated from way earlier than when he was writing. You are sinning against God by lying, it's time to stop.
>Throughout the OT, God recognizes the Nations as a great group of people inhabiting a specific territory with common descent, history, culture, religion, and language.
Wrong. Look at the history of Israel for example. Moses married a Cushite woman, another of his wives (Zipporah) was descended from a Kenite shepard - God still considered them to be a part of Israel. Sure they can share the same religion and culture but common descent? No, unless you stretch back to Adam and Eve but that's a universalist claim that renders your autistic prejudice against others defunct.
>anon makes a sound, logical argument
>banned because "muh sin"
christcuck logic is /\/igger-tier. your whole argument is "muh read the bible" and then when somebody reads the bible and isn't convinced then, then it's "muh you're too stupid, grow a brain and read the bible again"(USER WAS BANNED FOR AGREEING WITH AND SUPPORTING SIN)
>"It's hard for me to take care of my baby, this means I should kill it."
That's not logical at all. Why should the baby be punished for the actions of the father? If your mentality is what WN pagans and Europeans have, then it's no wonder you're being replaced by non-whites.
I think that anon was actually referring to giving the child up for adoption, not of killing it.
I'm just mentioning it as to avoid dishonest fags like >>661017 to strawman their way out of the argument.
Too late now.
>Do you even know what slavophilism is you brainlet? Hint: it's not talking about race or anything to do with racial politics. It was basically a movement to cut off all Western European influences from Russia. Trotsky is attacking this notion as backwards.
And so, he uses "racist" to shame those who want to preserve their ethnic heritage and prioritize those who are more close bound by heredity instead of foreigners and foreign culture.
That's basically what the communist/subversive term behind the word "racist" is all about.
>Look at the history of Israel for example. Moses married a Cushite woman
And, similarly, King Solomon's uncontrolled lust led him to marry many foreigners.
The fact that someone favored by God like Moses committed a sin doesn't suddenly change the fact that it is a sin and that God is displeased.
>Moses committed a sin
THAT WASN'T HIS SIN YOU MOTHERFUGGING MORON. You didn't even read the passage of the Bible I cited (Numbers 12) where God explicitly punishes the others for daring to question Moses' interracial marriage.
>I'm just mentioning it as to avoid dishonest fags like >>661017 to strawman their way out of the argument.
"Dishonest fags" "strawman"
LOL you were the one so convinced that Trotsky came up with the term "racist" and you still can't bring yourself to admit that it has a long history prior to Trotsky himself.
>And so, he uses "racist" to shame those who want to preserve their ethnic heritage and prioritize those who are more close bound by heredity instead of foreigners and foreign culture.
Holy shit you people are illiterate. This quote
>This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”
"BUT ALSO" - do you notice that? "BUT ALSO". He's referencing two different groups here, he's not accusing the slavophiles of being racists, he is talking about some other group. Which other group is unclear and would require us to be transported back to the time when Trotsky was still alive but jesus you people…
>God explicitly punishes the others for daring to question Moses' interracial marriage
That punishment was for trying to remove Moses from power, not for challenging Moses’s marriage.
>"BUT ALSO" - do you notice that? "BUT ALSO"
Good luck with that cognitive dissonance.
>That punishment was for trying to remove Moses from power, not for challenging Moses’s marriage.
Oh really? Then why was Miriam's punishment having her skin TURN AS WHITE AS SNOW?
You're so filled with hatred towards other races that your brain literally cannot process the fact that God made a mockery of those who think light/whiter skin is better.
>Good luck with that cognitive dissonance.
I'm sorry that your grasp of the English language is so poor that instead of honestly engaging you shut your eyes and try to justify racism by lazily stating that it's all a marxist conspiracy by Trotsky, even though I've already proved he didn't even come up with the word.
>Oh really? Then why was Miriam's punishment having her skin TURN AS WHITE AS SNOW?
Shallow speculation won't get you very far.
>instead of honestly engaging
First you argue about how the slavophiles had nothing to do with race or racial politics. Then you change the focus to how the "racists" Trotsky is talking about is another, unknown, group completely foreign to his book.
You are desperate to use any mental gymnastic you can come up with to avoid the fact that he is talking about the old and the new philosophy of the Slavophiles.
>even though I've already proved he didn't even come up with the word
Are you still relying on no one noticing your strawman attempt when you shifted the focus to the origin of the word instead of the term attached to it?
If you are so confident, feel free to post literature from before 1930 where the word "racist" or "racism" has the same subversive connotation.
Now I know why you spout ad-hominems in every post.
This is where I'm at, additionally I would not advocate killing a kid for Mammon, but some secular people will do this, and the ugly truth is that they are so deep in the world, that they will turn to a man with a coat-hanger if pushed. So I guess in closing I, like Pilate before me, wash my hands of the whole damned thing. Personally though, I have made up my mind that I won't put myself in a situation where I might kill a kid for no other reason than Mammon, not through me will that sin come into the world I dearly hope. Nor am I having trouble staying celibate, which is actually a relief these days, nobody thinks of it that way in this secular world which preaches sex, more sex and food, but it is a relief not to be embroiled in that as much as it is a relief to go hungry or fast from time to time.
>Shallow speculation won't get you very far.
Oh don't worry it's not like I've talked to my pastor about this ages ago already and he agreed it was to punish Aaron and Miriam for being racists in addition to challenging Moses, no surely you, mr. hasn't even read Numbers 12 and google'd it only after I pointed it out, has the better, more Christian interpretation…not.
>First you argue about how the slavophiles had nothing to do with race or racial politics. Then you change the focus to how the "racists" Trotsky is talking about is another, unknown, group completely foreign to his book.
Neither of these two points are in contradiction. Maybe try using that thing called a brain?
>Are you still relying on no one noticing your strawman attempt when you shifted the focus to the origin of the word instead of the term attached to it?
What the ever loving fugg is the difference between the "word" and "the term attached to it"? There is NO difference between "racism" "racist"/whatever the fugg else you want to say.
>If you are so confident, feel free to post literature from before 1930 where the word "racist" or "racism" has the same subversive connotation.
I already did.
<Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.
t. Henry Pratt 1902
Don't fugging tell me that in the 28 years after that that Trotsky's translator would never have come across that word and decided it fit.
>Now I know why you spout ad-hominems in every post.
Oh yeah because actively denying the word of God to suit your racial prejudice, saying I have cognitive dissonance, stating that my argument is a strawman, calling me a dishonest fag, etc. reflects so well upon you…I'm just returning the favor.
>My pastor agreed so it's okay
>Neither of these two points are in contradiction. Maybe try using that thing called a brain?
It's not about contradictions, it's about being intellectually dishonest.
The word "Slavophiles" and "racists", in that text, are referencing the same group of people. Yet, you try your hardest to make your way around it in order to defend a lie.
>What the ever loving fugg is the difference between the "word" and "the term attached to it"? There is NO difference between "racism" "racist"/whatever the fugg else you want to say.
So you don't even know the difference between word and term?
That explains a lot.
>I already did
><Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.
>t. Henry Pratt 1902
You are further proving my point on the definition of the word previous to 1930.
You can replace "racism" with "racialism" and you end up alluding the same term in that text.
>Oh yeah because actively denying the word of God to suit your racial prejudice, saying I have cognitive dissonance, stating that my argument is a strawman, calling me a dishonest fag, etc. reflects so well upon you…I'm just returning the favor.
>anyone calling on my bullshit is a meanie ;_;
Those lurking the thread can see who is being uncharitable and dishonest with their posts.
>My pastor agreed so it's okay
<People who went through seminary school to teach others about the Bible don't generally have a better idea of what it says
wew that arrogance tho well done lad I was going to you to ask your pastor or priest of the significance of Numbers 12 in regards to racial prejudice but I'm sure you're like pic related and don't actually go to church
>The word "Slavophiles" and "racists", in that text, are referencing the same group of people. Yet, you try your hardest to make your way around it in order to defend a lie.
No, it's not. Again, and I quote from Trotsky:
>This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”
He calls the Slavophiles an "old philosophy". If he was intent on pinning them as racists why the winnie the pooh wouldn't he say "the racist philosophy of the Slavophiles?" instead? It's easy to discern that there's a secondary group here that he's referring to, which can be assumed to be those Russians who genuinely believe they are innately superior to everyone else. Which is a fine use of the term "racist". The key context here is the quote from Mark
>" Mark remarked upon this theme:
>“In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them.”"
Trotsky is saying that the Slavophiles are advocating against the civilization that the Western Europeans have brought Russia. Why the winnie the pooh would he call them racist when he knows that Slavophilies' philosophy has nothing to do with racial prejudice?
>You are further proving my point on the definition of the word previous to 1930.
THERE WAS NO OTHER DEFINITION. HOLY FUGG.
>anyone calling on my bullshit is a meanie ;_;
>Those lurking the thread can see who is being uncharitable and dishonest with their posts.
I find it hilarious that you literally put these two sentences right next to each other. What the fugg was running through your head at that moment?
"Oh yeah, I'll greentext and make a strawman, and then I'll claim that he's the one being dishonest and uncharitable. That'll show everyone!"
>No, it's not. Again, and I quote from Trotsky
I already told you in >>661115, he first talks about the old philosophies and then the latest one as revealed by the same group. The only difference is that he calls them racists instead of Slavophiles the second time.
>It's easy to discern that there's a secondary group here that he's referring to, which can be assumed to be
>can be assumed to be
Referencing an unknown group without giving clues inside the book and expecting the reader to take a guess makes no sense whatsoever.
>Why the winnie the pooh would he call them racist when he knows that Slavophilies' philosophy has nothing to do with racial prejudice?
That's the point. There was no need to do that.
He was just looking to frame them as an opposing ideology.
To create a political tool that allows you to quickly silence your opposition is the whole point of this mess. And you tried to make use of it itt.
>THERE WAS NO OTHER DEFINITION. HOLY FUGG.
That premise depends on rejecting the obvious statement made in Trotsky's book: Slavophiles is synonym with "racists".
This paves the way to shaming anyone who dares putting their own ethnic group and culture before foreigners and foreign culture. And that's exactly the way you used that word in >>660984
Every other meaning given to the word "racist" or "racism" previous to 1930 lacks that negative connotation and is used pretty much as a synonym to "racialism".
If it wasn't true, I wouldn't be posting it.
Sorry for attacking your hero, but at least give credit where credit is due.
Now getting past this point, re-hammering old communist propaganda is not welcome in this thread.
Like St. Joseph did?
See, that's the type of hippy shit that's allowed for Vatican II to happen. Let the Lord handle the others, I have enough issues with my own flock.
Cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt though see clearly to cast out the mote of thy borther's eye. Matthew 7:5
They already have friendo.
Orphans are a problem of the society from which they are generated. To pawn them off onto some other socitety/economy is to use the second civiliazation as an escape valve from the issues in the first. It only creates resentment and issues between the two. The same as mass economic migration.
See, that's the difference - it's here in the chans where we whet our swords and can go out and reach the discontented masses and get them to come back to the Churches instead of engorging themselves on mass media/shenanigans.
While I agree with this sentiment on face value, it seems as though the answer to a non-Western culture's problem is to foist it onto the West as though we don't have our own emotional-, economic-, and mental-problems within our own populations.
And what is wrong with looking to your own community's-, people's problems first? Seriously?
Explain your Matthew 7:5 quote further.
I use the Matthew quote to say that we should look to our own flocks first and foremost. That this couple chose to adopt and to save these kids from a potential life of crime/issues is noble, but, are there not issues in their own community to be solved as well?
I don't doubt that their intentions are and were noble, but, I do question their priorities.
This makes me anger. Why would you adopt african children when they could've adopted children from Eastern Europe or in America??? WHY DO CHRISTIANS DO THIS???? IT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHORE WOMEN WHO HAD BLACK TRIPLETS. I feel no empathy towards her now.
They're not from the US they were from some vodoo African warthorn tribe, they will most likely be future killers or robbers brought by a low self esteem soccer mom to America endangering our society.
There was a Reddit story about a couple and had children of 3 (2 boys 1 girl) who adopted a 9 year old African child and…
TL;DR: He molested the couple's daughter and broke their Dad's foot thumb nail.
>WHY DO CHRISTIANS DO THIS????
Why do people smoke or do drugs? It's just one of those things people do because they think it's cool.
>Single motherhood is never good for a baby
>If it wasn't true, I wouldn't be posting it.
<IT'S REAL IN MY MIND SO IT'S REAL
>Sorry for attacking your hero, but at least give credit where credit is due.
Trotsky was a Bolshevik who killed Christians. I have no sympathy for him. On the OTHER hand, I ALSO have NO sympathy for those who seek to blame all the very real and pressing problems of this world on a fake marxist conspiracy to SHUT UP others who might be pointing out their sins. It's telling that so much effort is spent on trying to claim that the term racism/racist/whatever is subversive communist influence when ON THIS BOARD ALONE we have people like
sprouting racist shit like
>"This makes me anger. Why would you adopt african children when they could've adopted children from Eastern Europe or in America??? >IT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHORE WOMEN WHO HAD BLACK TRIPLETS"
and NOT getting banned for it because the mods have an obvious /pol/ sympathy.
Now back to you:
>I already told you in >>661115, he first talks about the old philosophies and then the latest one as revealed by the same group.
IF THAT WAS HIS INTENTION HE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT LIKE THIS: "This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also THEIR latest racist revelations.
Why is the R in racists capitalized? Why is it in quotes? Because it's referring to a specific group. This is basic fugging english.
>To create a political tool that allows you to quickly silence your opposition is the whole point of this mess.
Think about this logically. Trotsky WON the civil war. The slavophiles WERE NOT EVEN A MILITARY GROUPING OR A MILITARY THREAT THAT OPPOSED HIM. This is written after he has already WON. The words race/racist/racism is only mentioned ONCE in an offhanded comment in a fugging TWENTY THREE CHAPTER thousands of words upon words upon words history book. Not to mention, it was translated into English by someone who later became an ANTI COMMUNIST. You think that an anticommunist would be stupid enough to not sound the alarm if Trotsky was doing something really """subversive""" in a book that 99% of the world has not read?
>dares putting their own ethnic group and culture before foreigners and foreign culture.
From the catechism of the Catholic Church:
The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
“Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.
Even the catholic church agrees with me when I say you're racist by stating that shit. Putting your own ethnic group ahead of others IS discrimination. As a minority, FUGG you for wanting to deport me to create your white ethnostate. Doesn't matter if I share the same faith, all that matters to you is the color of skin.
I'm a Christian and I believe it, so deal with it.
>Abortion is murder no matter what the cause.
No it's not. Letting rape-children or children with genetic defects live is just utter cruelty. Admit it, you're a Catholic who would like to see the family unit and nation state destroyed, and replaced by a Catholic global theocracy. The retard and race-mixed mutt are your most loyal followers.
>thou shalt not murder
I'm pretty sure killing an unborn baby just because he is a result of rape is murder, my dude.
>I can understand women wanting to have abortions in case of rape, but it is still an immoral thing to do and should not be allowed.
Rape-children completely break the social fabric, because if people can cheat the reproductive game with rape then things like having a good job and living an exemplary life in order to find a woman are disincentivised. On top of that, the value of a woman absolutely plummets through the ground if she is mother of a rape-child because not only is a illegitimate and illegally conceived, but its father is almost guarenteed a social and genetic reject.
Never ever will I stand against abortion in case of rape. All the woman raped by invading armies who aborted or killed their rape-children throughout history can not be held accountable for only wanting the chance to have a proper family. Unlike fornication women do not chose to be raped, so they also can't be responsible for the product of rape.
>I'm pretty sure killing an unborn baby just because he is a result of rape is murder, my dude.
Find a Bible verse then.
Do we even need a bible-verse?
Jesus Christ Himself is enough, when the Virgin Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ was not instantaneously born, but went through a normal impregnation period.
Ergo, in the situation of a pregnancy there is a third person, and killing this person is unjust per the commandment against murder.
Oh nevermind, you're a nut-case.
Are you kidding me?
You should be the one to find a verse that justifies murder in case someone has a genetic disorder or was born because of rape.
> and killing this person is unjust per the commandment against murder.
And killing the Canaanites was not?
"Thou shalt not kill" is a very specific commandment, and refers only to full members of society, from your own tribe, and who have not broken God's commandments.
I have plenty of verses where God commands killing for all sorts of reasons, including the children of the Canaanites, and rapists and adulterers in general. Abortion of rape-children is a very obvious topic, even in ancient times, yet God is completely silent about it. So no, it cannot be sin.
>And killing the Canaanites was not?
What in the world do the Canaanites have to do with anything? Do you acknowledge the unborn as a person or not? If so, there is no justification for murder.
>"Thou shalt not kill" is a very specific commandment, and refers only to full members of society, from your own tribe, and who have not broken God's commandments.
>Oh nevermind, you're a nut-case.
It was the Catholic Church who pushed for race-mixing of Europeans and Amerindians in Catholic America. Only the Catholic Church has insisted that abortion in case of rape should be illegal - the Orthodox Church allows it.
Was does the Catholic Church care so much about producing people without roots, without family even?
Btw, this is not a new idea, this "Catholic theocracy of the mixed massed"; many people have put it forward throughout the ages, including the German chancellor Bismarck.
>What in the world do the Canaanites have to do with anything?
I know Catholics don't read the Bible, but maybe you should be the exception. God commands the killing of the Canaanites, women and children included. So "thou shalt not kill" cannot be a general commandment.
Only because I read the Bible it does not make me a Jew.
>So "thou shalt not kill" cannot be a general commandment
You're one of those blinded ones Scripture speaks of, repent.
The Orthodox Church also allows divorce, just like on this, they're dead-wrong.
So you're absolutely going to ignore my arguments in favor of name-calling? Very boring.
Did you ever consider or think that a lot of illicit acts were "justified" in the act because people thought they could just get an abortion later? Also your system of values is un-Christian, because to devalue an unborn child or a woman in your own race is to devalue your own life. Every truly human life has intrinsic value. Outside of the good it does for you. And this should be obvious.
>May God have mercy on her and her first child
People who don't potentially know God have no value, including babies. Is it antibiblical of me to believe everyone, including babies, who don't believe in Jesus, simply aren't alive? We are only saved through Christ. That baby will have gone to hell, but to me, sending anyone to hell is no different than throwing out the trash. The kid is no different than a burning tree stump.
By your logic, would it be acceptable to (((post-birth abort))) rape babbies?
They're already handing out post-birth abortion bricks at the clinics.
>still thinking Trotsky is referencing an unknown group of people that is impossible to find by the reader.
Writing in all caps won't make your unintuitive and illogical interpretation any less ridiculous.
>Trotsky WON the civil war
The communist ideology and it's goals were/are not limited to winning a civil war or destroying a single political movement.
If you are unfamiliar with Lukacs and Gramsci's works and unaware of the communists shift in strategy before and during the time Trotsky published that book, then you have a very limited understanding of Trotsky's intentions and the ramifications of his subversion of the word "racists" (and the following propagation of the term).
>Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design
None of the posts you quoted itt considers people from other ethnic groups to be inferior or less than any other. Only that there is a separate place for every race/nation as stated in Acts 17:26 and Deuteronomy 32:8.
>Even the catholic church agrees with me when I say you're racist by stating that shit.
No it doesn't. Read point 8 of Mit brennender Sorge.
The Catholic Church's understanding of racism is not the same as Trotsky's and it definitely isn't the same definition you used in your original post.
Again, by interpreting a Nation's right to self-determination (and resistance against foreign interference) as race idolatry and contempt towards other Nations, you're attacking a strawman and shaming people with communist propaganda for trying to defend themselves, their own, and for prioritizing their own Nations best interests, sovereignty, and right to self-preservation.
>I have plenty of verses
Give me one that justifies the murder of a baby for the reasons of genetic disorder and rape.
You want to play sola scriptura? Let's go
>Give me one that justifies the murder of a baby for the reasons of genetic disorder and rape
Give me a verse that justifies eating avocado while on a cruise ship.
>Did you ever consider or think that a lot of illicit acts were "justified" in the act because people thought they could just get an abortion later?
I do not advocate abortion. I am against any kind of abortion, unless it is rape or genetic defect, in which case I even support infanticide. I know it's ugly, but it must be done.
>Every truly human life has intrinsic value.
Of course, but it does not protect it from being killed! The strength of the Christian nation must be upheld at all cost. Loving your neighbor means loving your nation. What kind of love is that if you allow retards and rape-children to destroy your nation from within?
Tigger, give him a Bible verse that justifies abortion…unless you don't have one.
Lucky for you, I have verses that say the opposite:
2 Kings 17:17-18
Also pic related, the aftermath of an abortion [NSFL] seriously not safe for life at all…unless you are a Moloch worshiper
>The absolute mental gymnastics present in this thread
>Give me a verse that justifies eating avocado while on a cruise ship.
So you wanted to play sola scriptura but you couldn't find a verse that justifies your bullshit…
>I even support infanticide
What about adults? Should we just execute everyone who has a genetic defect or was born because of rape? Is a baby less valuable than an adult?
Go back to /pol/ you pathetic LARPer
> but you couldn't find a verse that justifies your bullshit
All the verses where God commands genocide.
All the verses where God commands killing adulterers.
I can't even believe I have to stoop so low to point something so obvious out.
>Should we just execute everyone who has a genetic defect or was born because of rape?
If someone born of rape is an adult, then his mother is already past the child-bearing age, so my argument doesn't apply here. Had you paid attention you would've known. Personally I'd say the cut-off point for rape-children is right after birth, if the mother and her husband (!) want to keep it, then it should be legitimized as their child. Otherwise it has to die, single mothers cannot keep their rape-children no matter what. As for retards, I couldn't care less.
You bore me with your platitude verses, and your gore does not scare me either. You are a hippie, admit it to yourself, you wouldn't have the stomach to do what God demands of the Israelites in the OT. A useless "Christian" is what you are.
>God commands death of Canaanites
ok, go find some canannites to kill. since, you cannot, why do you lie and say you can kill?
>God commands death of adulterers
…uh, are you even Christian? Seriously? If not, leave.
>…uh, are you even Christian?
>And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
You are a disingenuous person and a liar, you should leave this board forever.
You call me a coward yet you still can't produce a single verse to prove your point. You resort to ad hominems and purposefully avoiding the requests for proof for the claims you made.
You know, if death and superiority are you style, you are more than welcome to go to >>>/christ/ or >>/whitechristian/
>O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
The very fact that I even need to quote this very obvious verse only proves that you haven't even read the Bible.
There is a verse that does justify abortion. The priest is permitted to make the women drink a magic juice and make her miscarriage.
>levitical ceremonial law
I bet you also rave about Christians wearing cotton and eating shellfish. This is your brain on demonic exegesis. Repent.
>a lamnation of Israel as they are still in captivity
>During the time when God gave them up unto Babylon
>author full of rage wants to kill the infants of Babylon
>ergo all abortion is okay and not crypto-Moloch worship
WTF I LOVE ABORTION NOW!
ESPICALLY POST-BIRTH ABORTION!
>unless it is rape or genetic defect, in which case I even support infanticide.
Why do you make this exception?
>Of course, but it does not protect it from being killed!
It protects it from being killed for no reason, and you have yet to give one for your exception.
>What kind of love is that if you allow retards and rape-children to destroy your nation from within?
Don't you realize we would all be destroyed were it not for the grace of God?