Would Jesus approve of racism?
>>68901944
He'd approve of it if it meant defending your faith
>>68901944
Jesus was a Jew.
>Following a kike's religion
>Not being a based Buddhist
>Burger
>>68901944
depends on the Jesus u ask
mormon,orthodox,muslim,etc...
>>68902171
Pulu! We meet again!
>Reeking, unwashed, pretentious faggots
>>68901944
No. Obviously not.
>>68902216
nice proxy
>>68901944
No
>>68902171
>defending your faith
He never did it, why would he appraove of others doing it?
>>68901944
Yes. Jesus came to reunite the lost sheep of Israel. Remember he calls the Canaanite woman a bitch licking crumbs off of the Hebrew's floor.
Absolutely not, Jesus preached love, selflessness and tolerance. There is no promotion of racism in the New Testament.
>>68901944
Phyletism is not the same thing as patriotism. Patriotism, loving one’s country, one’s homeland, one’s people, is perfectly good and fine and accepted by the Church. In fact, there are many saints who are quite patriotic and quite lovers of their homeland—even defending their homeland against invaders, against nonbelievers. And so certainly, phyletism is not loving one’s people, one’s country, one’s homeland. There’s nothing wrong with that. So when people express great love for their homeland or their country, one should not misunderstand them and confuse their love for something which it is not, that is phyletism.
Now phyletism is also not a strong, healthy self-identity—that is as a Greek or Russian or Serbian or American. It’s perfectly good and healthy to have a proper self-identity. I am a part of this people, which call themselves Hellenists or Russians or Serbians or what it might be, and I’m very happy to be a part of this group, a part of this nation. And certainly we have an example of the Jewish people, the people of God in the Old Testament. They certainly were not shy about their identity and about expressing their identity as the people of God.
Phyletism is not having reservations about multinational unions, globalization, European Unions, North American Unions, international groups which seemingly subvert local governments. Phyletism is not even the desire to get out of these groups; it is not to be seen as something negative. In fact, the Church has always held a somewhat reserved and even a negative stance toward such developments seeing in them, precursors to the “man of iniquity,” the Antichrist.
/pol/ believes in Jesus?
>>68901944
No.
But obstinate people are hopeless. You can show them God's love all you want, but at some point you have to knock the dirt off your sandals and say, "Hope you enjoy hell you hopeless faggot."
>>68902633
So phyletism is not a zeal for one’s autonomy, the country’s autonomy from these multinational, international, organizations. There’s nothing all that virtuous in uniting the nations under one government. That’s not something the Church should see automatically as something good. But actually, one can and should be reserved toward these developments, which we’re seeing in our day, ever increasing amounts of effort to bring about unions of nations and states and economies. One need not be all that excited, could even be reserved in their approach to these issues. It’s certainly not a question of phyletism or of bad ethnic identity.
Now phyletism is also not wanting to maintain one’s own traditions, one’s customs, one’s ethnic traditions. The Church has always supported that and encouraged that—even if that means for those who’ve gone abroad and no longer live in their homeland. There certainly is nothing bad or negative or reason to fear, keeping and maintaining one’s own traditions and customs.
Now what is phyletism then? If it is not all that, what is it? Well, it is placing all of that, which we’ve said—the love of one’s country, the strong healthy identity, wanting to maintain ethnic traditions—above and beyond and first before the Church, above the Church, as a criteria for how the Church is viewed, as the overarching identity of one to the detriment of his identity as an Orthodox Christian—such that his decisions and his desires and policies, let’s say if one’s government policies first by their ethnic identity and their ethnic needs and desires to the detriment or complete indifference to the Church and the Church’s teaching. This is phyletism.
>>68902366
How are you doing, Nepal bro?
>>68901944
If he did Christianity would be only for jews
>>68901944
Of course he would. He didn't even consider gentiles human and called them dogs.
I don't even know why you guys are into Christianity, because the whole thing is a scam. At least Jesus was honest about it, then he died and Paul decided to make it big and said everyone is accepted.
By that he accomplished 2 things: many shekels for himself and more importantly more power for the Jews. The gentiles pray and believe, they fuel the Jewish egregore and don't get anything in return (because they are his slaves) and Jews get to use all the power the goyim give them (because they are his chosen contractors).
The gentiles don't even go to heaven, so I don't understand the whole thing at all.
>>68901944
Galatians 3
(27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (29) And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Christians are brothers regardless of race.
>>68903449
What about Matthew 22's parable of the Marriage of the King's Son, or God being a light to the Gentiles?
It's the spiritual gentiles that don't go to heaven, it's not based on outward appearances. The real Jew is the one that serves Christ Jesus and has no confidence in the flesh.
>>68904209
Matthew's 22nd parable doesn't speak about the gentiles, but about the Jewish castes.
God is a light to gentiles, like he is a light to every other animal.
>>68903664
>Christians are brothers regardless of race.
So what's the main difference between Christianity and Islam? Both seem universalist.
