/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>229123
i've always hated christians but i think the best out of all of the people that believe in christendom are the catholics i know it's not good to believe in a god but they are the best because a lot of the italian fascists were catholic and the irish (not the loyalist ulster fags) who have always been fighting for freedom of their homeland and their people for many centuries a lot of them are catholic
i'm not a catholic nor do i believe in any religion

>>229125
source: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/religious-trump-voters

>>229128
>The positive relationship between religious service attendance and tolerance examined in this report is simply a correlation. We don’t know for sure if attending religious services causes people to become more tolerant and accepting of others with different backgrounds.
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/religious-trump-voters#is-it-really-church-attendance

>What about other faith traditions? As there were few Trump voters who identified with religious traditions other than Protestant and Catholic, we expanded the analysis to encompass all respondents in order to examine the relationship between participation in other religious faiths and tolerance. Weekly participation in these religious traditions also significantly predict more tolerant attitudes. For instance, Muslims who attend religious services regularly are significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes toward Christians, white people, black people, Hispanics, and Asians.(12) Churchgoing Mormons are also significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes toward black people, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, and immigrants.
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/religious-trump-voters#are-there-denominational-differences

So it's not Christians. QED.
Try actually reading your sources before deciding to publish your shitty bait threads, please and thanks.

>>229129
>>The positive relationship between religious service attendance and tolerance examined in this report is simply a correlation. We don’t know for sure if attending religious services causes people to become more tolerant and accepting of others with different backgrounds.

And? What is the difference? Either cucks are attracted to religion or religion turns people into cucks. Either way, not a good picture.

>Muslims who attend religious services regularly are significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes toward Christians, white people, black people, Hispanics, and Asians.(12) Churchgoing Mormons are also significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes toward black people, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, and immigrants.

Mormons are also Christians and I do not advocate for Muslim beliefs.

>>229130
>What is the difference?
Correlation ≠ causation. I'm not sure why I have to state this, but there it is.
>Either cucks are attracted to religion or religion turns people into cucks.
He says without a single source, nor a definition for the term 'cuck'. I do hope you're not just trying to leverage whatever assumptions I may have on this term for the sake of a cheap 'gotcha'.
>Mormons are also Christians
Mormons consider themselves Christians and other Christian denominations do not consider them Christians. Please provide a non-Mormon source for why they would be classed as Christians.
>I do not advocate for Muslim beliefs.
I don't really care what you do or do not advocate for.

>>229131
>He says without a single source, nor a definition for the term 'cuck'.
You're stupid? Look at the picture, it says it all:
>>229123

>>229132
Only thing I'm seeing is a stubborn refusal to admit you were wrong.
I guess pride is your sin for today.

Color me surprised, the faithless germanoid hates God. Are you a pagan who buys into all the "we wuz romans" meme or are you an East German who had God beat out of you by Ivan?

>>229134
Better to be a godless sinner than a nigger loving christcuck.

>>229137
I like how you decided to reply to >>229136 in 3 minutes, instead of replying to me after 30 minutes.
I'll leave the implications of that particular move as an exercise for everybody's imagination.

Since it's obvious that the obvious non-kraut here isn't really interested in meaningful discussion as much as he is trying to reinflate his ego, I'll just make like Sovereign and assume direct control of this thread.

See pic related.
Post 'em, bois.

>>229139
I did not reply to you any further because what you say makes no sense. You are a stupid person.

>>229141
I'm sure if you keep repeating it enough times, it'll eventually come true.

>>229140
Not today CIA.

>>229123
You Faggots are a Cancer on mlpol

>>229140
>>229143
I did however roll two random numbers within the respective ranges. 5 and 22.

Pinkie pie is pregnant with my child, and vinyl scratch is disgusted upon hearing the news.

Can you imagine Pinkie Pie's child? That's gonna be a headache to raise. Given that pinkie is only bound by the laws of reality when she feels like it, pinkie's child will likely be a bigger handful than Flurry Heart.

Considering the presentation and responses, This thread is bordering a slide thread. While i dont think the OP is making a good argument for his position I will say that i dont think he is wrong in his opinion. Or any other posters who don't subscribe to this religion.

Christianity is probably the weakest of all abrahamic religions at this point in time but i would ultimately turn my back towards it as well if i was presented with a better alternative. Be that Paganism, Atheism or an esotheric belief.

Never been much of a fan of the dialectic of Christianity advocates on MLPOL but i guess thats hardwired into the believe system.

Praise Epona.

>>229149
>at this point in time but i would ultimately turn my back towards it as well if i was presented with a better alternative. Be that Paganism, Atheism or an esotheric belief.

Yes, what could be a better alternative...

>>229123
do you hate all of christendom or just christians?

>>229154
all of it

M: [12d1 = 12]
D: [31d1 = 31]

>>229148
>I did however roll two random numbers within the respective ranges.
Good play, kinda kicking myself for not thinking about that sooner.
Man, I have enough troubles meeting my CSIS quotas as it is, goy. Hope you're happy.

>>229140
Tactical correction action
M: [1d12 = 5]

D: [1d31 = 11]

By the way c3d87, I don't appreciate how you're derailing a thread about fun dice games. It's very rude.
Thank you for helping keep /mlpol/ a clean and on-topic board of peace! Let's shake on it by discussing how Bubba will anally rehabilitate me for impregnating a young filly.

>>229123
just look at the catechism of the Catholic Church concerning immigration.
it may be the obligation of Catholics to individually help the subhumans but that does not mean bringing them home. the principle purpose of any nation is security and safety of the people of that nation.

it doesn't mean importing the 3rd world, which invariably leads to degradation of both security and safety. I don't give a fuck if an African or goblino is Christian, if being a Christian was a determining factor in their ability to live in civilized areas their countries would be such shitholes.

>>229164
You're a pretty triggered christcuck. Has your christian nigger friend fucked your gf really hard?

>>229161
i've been looking for the past hour about how to make a dice on here but i can't find anything or figure out anything because there's nothing about dice's in the FAQ and the posting system is slightly different to 8chan so you can't make a dice like you can do on 8chan
so can you spill the beans for me please because i'm retarded

>>229174
Pretty sure there are directions in a thread on the qa board. I don't use it often so I always double check how to do it when I do so I don't fuck it up.

>>229174
Always happy to help a fellow fren!
See, there's two ways to roll dice here on /mlpol/; one is putting the roll in your email field, and the second is inline like I've done!
You just have to do [XdY] in brackets, where X is the number of dice to roll, and Y is the dice's number.
[1d6 = 4]

[3d420 = 500]

[4d32768 = 59771]

[4d32768 = 87809]
[3d420 = 686]
[1d6 = 1]
>>229176
Whoop, got to put 'dice' in front of your rolls in the email field, my bad.
And it turns out that deleting your post won't remove your dice rolls: >>229158 I didn't know that, so we're both learning something today!

>>229140
>A bj from Scootaloo
Damn it. I been avoiding foalcon yet always comes to my path. Why does this fandom wants me so hard to bone little fillies?
Also, some pointers on how to roll for a newfag please?

>>229175
thanks i'll remember that
>>229176
ok let me try now
[1d12 = 11]

[1d31 = 30]

>>229179
No, wait, I'm retarded. I didn't saw >>229176

Whatever. Test.

>>229181
Fuck! Second attempt.

[1d6 = 6]

[1d1000000 = 854840]
Well, I've done my good deed for the day, I think I'll head to bed now.
c3d87, I expect a written apology for being such a doody head on our board of peace and friendship when I get back. Dice digits decide if you apologize or not.
And I expect you lovely Anons to participate in the thread's original purpose of playing the game in >>229140 ! Pleasant dreams, all!

>>229183
>Natural 6
Yes!

>>229140
>sapphire shores
i haven't heard that name in years
>missionary for the sole purpose of procreation with the lights off
i'm not doing that shit!
that would be like fucking a god damn 3DPD because you can't see if it's a pony or not
>>229184
also thanks for the help leaf, sleep tight

>>229187
>3DPD because you can't see if it's a pony or not
You'd feel the crotch-tits.

>>229140
rollin
[1d12 = 1]

[1d31 = 21]

>>229179
Raising a baby Applebloom, with Scootaloo...

Reminder that those who post "X religion is the enemy" ought to be treated as shills as it's a known tactic to divide and distract us.

>>229140
[1d12 = 3]

[1d31 = 5]

>>229129
>So it's not Christians. QED.
Incorrect, learn to read.

>Key Findings:
>Donald Trump voters who attend church regularly are more likely than nonreligious Trump voters to have warm feelings toward racial and religious minorities, be more supportive of immigration and trade, and be more concerned about poverty.
>Statistical tests indicate that Trump voters who attend church regularly are significantly more likely than nonreligious Trump voters to have favorable attitudes toward black people, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, and immigrants, even while holding other demographic factors, such as education, constant.
>Statistical tests find no significant difference in effects between Protestant and Catholic church attendance among Trump voters.

>>229131
>Correlation ≠ causation
Pointing out that correlation doesn't imply causation doesn't really change anything. Christianity is still evidently a magnet for these biologically traitorous attitudes.

>>229149
>better alternative
I personally subscribe to an evolution based philosophical outlook on life and genetic afterlife.

>>229208
>Pointing out that some christians put their imaginary god and his jewish son over their own biological identity and everything else is D&C.
LMAO

[1d6 = 5]

Did it work?

>>229176
Thanks for being a fren.

So, Christians of the board, how will you go about changing the attitudes among your fellow church-goers?
Advocating for foreign aid instead of immigration? (More bang for your buck, and helping as many as possible is the compassionate thing to do.)
Building up institutions like courts, schools, etc in underdeveloped countries?

>>229223
you have to type it like this
[ 1d6 ]

>>229233
but without the spaces

>>229123
These might as well be made up graphs without the actual source for the data. OP inhaling as many dicks and as much cum as he possibly can, as usual.

It's not a good idea to attack each other at this critical juncture, as we must be united to survive the coming storm. It is reasonable to point out the flaws in Christianity and Christian thought, but I will not attack Christians over these. Rather, I will trust them to find solutions to these problems. Then, when the Collapse comes (and it will come, with our aid), we can discuss further the progress Christianity has made, and its compatibility with the new world.

As for me, I am of this particular mind: faith can be lost, but Blood and Soil are forever.

>>229140
Rolling for month:
[1d12 = 4]

Rolling for day (will reroll the day if it's over the limit for the rolled month):
[1d31 = 4]

>>229246
Foursome with Shining Armor, Zecora, and Applebloom.
>Zigger
Have a gif of dash raining on the CMC instead.

>>229247
And here's a lossless webm and the frames zipped in case anyone wants something less crappy than the gif, since I have no idea how to encode things well.

>>229248
Might have gotten an apng working. Testing.

>>229249
Well, it's animating fine in firefox for me. Hopefully it works for others. Animated png support is apparently not very widespread.

Anyway, have a pic of best pony for putting up with my gif attempt.

>>229251
it's working for me on opera

>>229220
Before I start, you should be aware that smugfagging before you've actually proven your point to be correct isn't very smart. When you are wrong, which I intend to demonstrate here, it just makes you look like a colossal tool.

Before instructing me to learn to read, you may want to invest in some reading comprehension.
First, let's start with the exact phrasing the study uses: religious attendance. As in, those who go to a church, et. al. Not the actual belief in the religion itself. Sneaky hobbitses.
Second, pay attention to Figure 20 of the study, Pic #2. Notice how instead of grouping every religious individual together and performing their analysis there, they're also including agnostics and athiests in their 'never attended church' category. Remember, the title of the study is "Religious Trump Voters". Very sneaky hobbitses.
So right away, we can disprove the study's claims towards religious Trump voters and actual religion on the grounds of academic dishonesty alone. Then again, I can't say I expected much better from an organization called the "Democracy Fund Voter Study Group". Getting flashbacks to 2016 here, goys!

But why stop there? Let's dig a little deeper, really nail the coffin shut for good!
On https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/religious-trump-voters#a-profile-of-trump-voters-religious-participation or Page 16 of the PDF version, please notice what Note #10 says:
>It should be noted that research shows survey respondents often overreport their level of church
attendance. See Daniel Cox, Robert P. Jones, and Juhem Navarro-Rivera, “I Know What You Did Last
Sunday: Measuring Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Behavior, Belief, and Identity,”
Oho, now we're getting somewhere! Since this happens to coincide with what I know about human social dynamics, it would appear that the actual reason for these "biologically traitorous attitudes" is, in fact, caused by the simple desire to fit in.
If you subscribe to the belief that "leftists", however you may define them, are easily manipulated and/or allow others to think for them, you get some bonus corroboration at https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/religious-trump-voters#how-do-religious-trump-voters-compare-to-clinton-voters or Page 21:
>Even still, Trump voters, regardless of religious participation, take more conservative positions than Clinton voters on most issues. Thus, attending church regularly does not turn conservatives into liberals. However, religious attendance may pull conservatives in a liberal direction on key cultural issues polarizing the nation.
It's not very good corroboration, granted, since the section fails to define what level of "churchgoing Trump voters" they're comparing Clinton voters to, nor do they provide any data on the "churchgoing" nature of their sampling of Clinton voters. More sneaky hobbitses, though some salt grains will be necessary.

So there we have it. My point of Christians not being the cause of your prescribed social malaises still stands.
Learn to read.

[1d12 = 7]

[1d31 = 28]

>>229268
>Zecora sets you up on a date with Celestia and it goes really badly
That's the thanks I get for half an hour of autism and Ctrl-F'ing? Well, at least it's not underage horse fucking.

>>229268
i mean i think what i said about the christians might not be 100% >>229124
but i think not all christians are bad it's mainly just the western american/english christian sheep that think all races are the same (most christians) and i think that the main reason christianity is bad is because there is a lot of niggers and spics that believe in christianity
it's just not a lot of polacks want to be in a religion where all races are accepted because it'll lead to complications with the overall consensus on other races where people (christians) will be accepting them into their countries and hitler was anti christian
or that's what i think is the main reason people have beef with christians but like i said before they are some based christians like the kkk is overwhelmingly christian but the bible says they are terrorists so most of the christian bible is kiked but also the serbs are christian too and they are mainly christian and hate islam but i don't know what their opinion on christian niggers and spics is

>>229268
>they're also including agnostics and athiests in their 'never attended church' category
So the title of the study is misleading. So what? It still shows that the group that includes agnostics and atheists are less open towards diversity than frequent church attendees, who can reasonably be assumed to be "more religious", however poorly defined that might be.

>So right away, we can disprove the study's claims towards religious Trump voters and actual religion on the grounds of academic dishonesty alone.
No. The only thing we can assert with confidence is that there is a lot of butthurt caused by pointing out that some people's spiritual worldview might not be entirely perfect. Well, that, and that OP sucks at laying out the issue.

>Since this happens to coincide with what I know about human social dynamics, it would appear that the actual reason for these "biologically traitorous attitudes" is, in fact, caused by the simple desire to fit in.
Wanting to fit in isn't something that applies to only a minority, most people fit that description and you don't get to pretend that they don't exist. But we are at least getting somewhere. So what do we do about those people, Christians who go along with a progressive agenda motivated by a desire to fit in?

>>229275
>It still shows that the group that includes agnostics and atheists are less open towards diversity than frequent church attendees, who can reasonably be assumed to be "more religious", however poorly defined that might be.
Sorry, but I'm unwilling to play a confirmation bias themed fill-in-the-blanks game because of the study's poor methodology and definitions.
If the study fails to define things adequately, or fudges data for misleading purposes, I can and will discard it wholesale. My personal opinions and feelings on the matter do not enter into it.
>No.
Yes.
>The only thing we can assert with confidence is that there is a lot of butthurt caused by pointing out that some people's spiritual worldview might not be entirely perfect.
Yeah, and? That isn't proof, that's just having a giggle with a healthy dose of confirmation bias.
>Wanting to fit in isn't something that applies to only a minority
Which minority are you talking about? Because I'd hardly call Christian church attendees in the USA a 'minority'.
>most people fit that description and you don't get to pretend that they don't exist.
Since I'm working within the confines of the study as much as possible, as long as the study neither defines nor makes mention of this very nebulous 'most people', I think you'll find I can and will.
Unless of course you have a source to present that can define and prove this claim of yours?

>>229277
I should probably state upfront that I'm treating this as a discussion among people with a shared goal but differences in opinion, not a formal debate.

>Which minority are you talking about?
A minority of people. In other words, I'm saying that a majority of people are motivated by a desire to fit in.

>Since I'm working within the confines of the study as much as possible
When you say things like "Since this happens to coincide with what I know about human social dynamics" you're clearly not "working with in the confines of the study", you are pulling from your own experience and opinions. So lets drop the pretense here, and allow some common knowledge and reasonable hypotheses in. We can argue about the specifics of those too, of course.

I'd also appreciate if you'd put some thought towards the question of what we can do, address the big picture instead of just sniping on definitions of terms or looking for excuses to reject things that are said you don't like.

>>229284
>I should probably state upfront that I'm treating this as a discussion among people with a shared goal but differences in opinion, not a formal debate.
Well, I'll have to disappoint you on that front. I only care about the central claim of 'Christians bad' in this thread, backed by this study. Nor do I really know what you're presupposing when you say 'shared goal'.
>A minority of people. In other words, I'm saying that a majority of people are motivated by a desire to fit in.
Yes, and I happen to agree. My (unsourced) opinion aside, I don't see why this is some kind of refutation of something that I said. Granted, I may have missed something in what you said.
>you're clearly not "working with in the confines of the study"
Yeah, realized that soon after the post was made. You're right to point that out, and thank you for doing so.
I'll clarify my 'knowledge on human social dynamics' to specifically be that of conformity, and cite that knowledge with http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/Psyc591Readings/CialdiniGoldstein2004.pdf
>So lets drop the pretense here, and allow some common knowledge and reasonable hypotheses in.
I realize I may come off as rather obtuse when I say this, but I can't do that. You rightly pointed out the lapse in my own declared standard, and I owe it to myself to do better.
Even forgetting that, 'common knowledge' is itself a nebulous term. The problem with 'common knowledge' is that everyone defines it differently, and using it in an argument is just begging for massive mistakes to be made thanks to lots of unspoken, often mistaken assumptions. Best to nip that potential rat's nest in the bud.
>I'd also appreciate if you'd put some thought towards the question of what we can do, address the big picture
I'm not really sure what you want me to say here. I don't really know who 'we' is, nor do I know what this 'big picture' of yours is. Like I said at the start of this post, I only care about the single central claim made in this thread.
>instead of just sniping on definitions of terms
Forgive me, but why exactly shouldn't we snipe at the baseline definitions? If you build your ideals around shaky, unclear definitions that haven't been fully tested, isn't that begging for all you've built upon those definitions to come crashing down around you?

We got to ask ourselves, how and when did the racial component of human universalism became an integral part of chistianity?

>>229306
Among the protestants I know its new age Jesus loves everyone mega churches with rock bands. I don't want to listen to a fucking Christian rock band. I want to learn from scripture in my church service.

Of course Christian Trump voters are more liberal than the non-religious, because the great majority of non-religious people would never even consider voting for Trump in the first place. The non-religious are overwhelmingly Democrat, and only the more frequent church attendees are more likely to vote for Trump in the first place. Who else is going to vote for Trump because of abortion, or because of anti-Christian attitudes from the left, or because of the Supreme Court, than White Christians? Of course more religious people who are liberal on racial issues are going to vote for Trump, because they actually have non-racial reasons to vote for him. The small minority of non-religious people who do vote for Trump, naturally, are going to do so because of immigration or to combat leftist anti-white racism. Very few non-religious Trump voters are going to vote for Trump because of abortion.

The non-religious are more chucked overall, and the Left is overwhelming dominated by the irreligious. The great majority of SJWs are irreligious.

Here’s an article from Vox

>The American Values Atlas by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute reveals marked discrepancies in how members of different faith traditions perceive prejudice against African Americans, immigrants, and members of the LGBTQ community.
>The AVA is based on 40,000 telephone interviews conducted across all 50 states. On average, the study found that 63 percent of Americans acknowledged “a lot” of discrimination against immigrants, 57 percent against black people, and 58 percent against gay and lesbian people. Overall, about two-thirds of Americans see discrimination against at least one minority group as an issue, with 42 percent identifying discrimination as an issue among all three groups.
>But among white Christians, those figures dropped significantly: Only 36 percent of white evangelicals, 50 percent of white mainline Protestants, and 47 percent of white Catholics reported perceiving discrimination against black people (the survey did not ask about other races). For contrast, 86 percent of black Protestants reported perceiving “a lot” of discrimination against black people in America, as did 67 percent of the religiously unaffiliated. Even higher proportions of Buddhists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians reported discrimination.
>Similar trends characterized attitudes toward discrimination against immigrants and LGBTQ individuals. It’s striking, said Jones, “how race and religion influence what people see — and what they don’t see — in the country.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2017/6/23/15855272/prri-study-white-christians-discrimination-blind-spot

>>229308
Leftists are anti-white, Conservatives are the true egalitarians, and only the alt-right, traditionalists, etc, are actually pro-white.
As simple as that.

>>229306
Vatican 2 happend in 1965

>>229309
This.

>>229306
As early as the 1930's: http://www.fathercoughlin.org/ (seriously, this guy was based)

Actually, even earlier with the Scofield Bible. As Jews gained prominence and supporters in society they attempted to subvert their long-running enemy, Christian churches, and use influence to shut down protests.

>>229123
>The data is clear, christians are the enemy!
Not quiet.
Basically normies are not redpilled and believe the jewish subversion dished to them by their heretic preachers/priests.
They can be turned around if the problem is attacked at the leadership level.

>>229335
>http://www.fathercoughlin.org/
Yup.
I saw a video of him preaching and by far he was a true believer condemning the kikes non stop.

>>229123
Catholic here going through this I can knock most of this crap to the side through other causal variables or outright say that many parts are not as important. That said the only thing that I can really see is a strong argument is the secular voters being more likely to support stricter immigration. This is something I need to try and get better within my own community. That said just because older boomers don't like tight immigration doesn't mean that Christianity is to fault for the worse offenders of this attitude. We all know that other demographics are in fact much more likely to be problematic, such as left wingers in general be they christian or not. And I'd even go as far to say that the more secular a left winger goes the more likely they will be to support immigration. I can go source digging if you want, but I'll need to verify its even worth looking for first (given you haven't responded to the thread in a day.) So with this at least assumed (not proven) we can assume that Christianity is a moderating agent keeping the two sides of the political sphere from being radical. Like this or dislike this, but with this in mind Christianity is not a form of cultural decay.

Can Christians do better? Yes, but does that mean that I as a Catholic shouldn't be accepted on the far right? Guess it depends on who you ask. If you'd rather have more LARPagans around your circles I'm sure I'll leave and make my own movements anyways. Or even fedoras I want to have little to do with given the stupidity of the view.

>>229306
Universalism is something always within Christianity, but it was radicalized due to WWII and the idea of a universal state and people that the National Socialists pursued. The west has always been about reaction for the edges of space which make the West a people who strive for universality in general.

>>229226
As long as churches are held by the balls by the tax exemption law, they have to play the cuck or else have to pay taxes, I understand.

This is the reason that made American churches stop speaking the truth about certain ethno-religions and turn into feelsy-weelsy hand-holding pansies. I haven't looked at how much said taxes would be, but it must be significant enough that it would crush most churches that step out of line.

>>229166
>just look at the catechism of the Catholic Church concerning immigration.
Irrelevant, look what the pope advocates in practice.

>>231882
You won't find a RC in our circles who won't label Francis a heretic. And this treatment extends outward from our circles to considerable depth. "Francis says..."
Yes, this is true, and your point is? The leadership is fallen and twisted, but the whole is not.

t. orthobro

>>231882
>Irrelevant, look what the pope advocates in practice.
Facts are: The Pope is a heretic and is subverting the Church.
The path from now on is: To watch the demons lurk freely around and be patient, the time for Christ's soldiers will come, as well as their right to excise divine retribution.

>>229123
>The data is clear, christians are the enemy!
>Will the west soon get rid of the Christian plague?
Well, this sounds to me as judaism shilling for the destruction of its adversary.
"Institutional" Christianity might be cucked and heretical now, but its foundation and orthodoxy is not.
Wouldn't be more honest to focus in the real enemy? Which is clearly Judaism.

>>229140
>December 4th
Shining please, I can't do trapfagging when there are mares 'n women that need to have my seed sown in their huweat fields!

>>229140
>November 5th
Jackpot.
>>232092
This.
The pope has been jewed into a tool of destruction by the jews, for the jews. Every time he visits another country he's obviously anti-European, except Romania, for (((some reason))). Not trying to offend Romanians here.

Yeshua is the king of the Jews. He is the light, life, and truth!
We should follow Yeshua instead of listening to the naysayers.

Everyone who comes to Yeshua becomes a true Jew! The Jews you know are false Jews because they reject Yeshua!

>25 For circumcision indeed profits, if you are a doer of the law, but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? 27 Won’t the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.

Many ethnically Jewish people like theologian S. Michael Houdmann support Yeshua!