№3512427[Quote]
>>3512415well the reality is the bible is an inconsistent document written only from the perspective of its time (this also means that the term countrymen ect. is not referring to race).
in the modern time to uphold this would be to contradict christian ethics, so if I where I christian I would simply ignore it.
№3512428[Quote]
>>3512426Stenographs won nuswa
№3512429[Quote]
>>3512423doesn't change the fact that hes a tiny south american
literal homo.
№3512431[Quote]
>>3512428I knew i shouldve never trusted you
№3512432[Quote]
>>3512424people are raped in prison all of the time, and yes force is necessary to arrest someone or prevent them from entering any form of property (including a nation)
№3512434[Quote]
>if I where I christian I would simply ignore it.
do atheists not understand religion? do they think religion is like an ideology where you can pick and choose the commands you like?
№3512436[Quote]
>>3512431You can trust me
№3512439[Quote]
>>3512432Yeah, make laws stopping replacement, use force if someone resists, deport.
№3512440[Quote]
>>3512403>if you are claiming whites are the most "inherently christian" group you believe the behaviors of whites are caused primarily by christianity and not by inherent racial characteristicsnon sequitur
>The most intelligent and virtuous whites today are not christianI disagree, but that is a very broad statement to make so I don't see me changing your mind
>As I have said it does not make sense to be a christian and racist because to uphold a racial ethnostate requires ethnic violence which is anti-christianBeing a racist does not necisarily mean being for a racial ethnostate. Even so, the so-called "racial violence" of defending your land from invaders is not racial violence at all.
>Claiming whites are more christian than other races due to their racial characteristics is anti-christian.I wouldn't say it's anti-Christian, I would just say it's wrong.
>>3512434That's the exact problem.
№3512441[Quote]
>>3512427>(this also means that the term countrymen ect. is not referring to race).shut your mouth when you don't know about what you are talking about.
<'ah (kinsmen, brother's, brethren)<alike (1), another (16), brethren (17), brother (218), brother with his brothers (1), brother's (21), brotherhood (1), brothers (195), brothers' (1), companions (1), countryman (10), countryman's (2), countrymen (10), fellow (2), fellow countryman (3), fellow countrymen (2), fellows (1), kinsman (3), kinsmen (27), nephew* (2), other (7), relative (7), relatives (80). №3512442[Quote]
>>3512434well what if the religion is contradicting itself like in this case? We can understand that this particular sentence is a product of the political system of the period, in my opinion that is the most reasonable response.
№3512444[Quote]
>>3512442I apologize, I was up too late and misread it
№3512471[Quote]
>>3512440>non sequituris not a non sequitur because it is leading into my point and away from the irrelevant true christian nonsense
>I disagree, but that is a very broad statement to make so I don't see me changing your mindwell what makes whites exactly so virtuous then? you cannot simply say you disagree.
>Being a racist does not necisarily mean being for a racial ethnostate. Even so, the so-called "racial violence" of defending your land from invaders is not racial violence at all.I do not understand this at all. We live in an era where non-whites are poor and obvious incentivised by their conditions to move to white nations. Whites can therefore only remain segreated from non-whites through the law (the state, and therefore state violence based on race) or through material inequality (private communities like some libertarians suggest) although this would still cause mixing between most poor whites and non-whites, and the wealth gap between whites and non-whites is growing smaller. There is no such thing as an insular community in the modern age where a person can travel across the whole world in one day that is not protected politically.
also, how do you classify these people as invaders? its a racial classification as I understand as "invader" implies one people attacking another.
>I wouldn't say it's anti-Christian, I would just say it's wrong.so then you are anti-white and anti-ethnostate.
№3512477[Quote]
>>3512471>you cannot simply say you disagree.Yes I can.
>We live in an era where non-whites are poor and obvious incentivised by their conditions to move to white nationsNow you've moved the conversation from racial violence to violence according to wealth. If you're talking about material conditions, I'd say that the more well-off have a moral obligation to give to the needy. However, this does not necessitate that a White country allow non-Whites into their borders or grant them citizenship, even if they are poorer. To summarize, thinking White and Christian civilization should assist non-Whites and not be violent to them does not conflict with the idea of wanting a purely White society.
№3512485[Quote]
>>3512477racial violence is a part of violence according to wealth because racial violence today is caused by wealth inequality between races and nations. Most social racism today, as in pure discrimination and not not race science, is not wholly separate from economic discrimination. If you disagree consider for example racism between western european people historically or against asians for example for living in planned housing and working in factories.
My only point is that enforcing borders means racial violence and racial violence is anti-christian. There cannot be a purely white society without racial violence.
№3512494[Quote]
>>3512485>My only point is that enforcing borders means racial violence and racial violence is anti-christian. There cannot be a purely white society without racial violence.Your argument just totally falls apart here. Enforcing borders does not mean racial violence, or at least a kind of violence that is non-Christian. You have to prove to me otherwise.
Furthermore, peacefully letting someone into your country for the sake of charity does not mean granting them citizenship.
№3512501[Quote]
>>3512494How does it fall apart, nonwhites will continue to come to our nations because their countries are poor. If we want to maintain a white nation, these immigrants must be arrested and therefore they will become the victims of racial violence. How is racial violence not non-christian if we are all made in the image of god?
>Furthermore, peacefully letting someone into your country for the sake of charity does not mean granting them citizenship.so, a nonwhite person may come to our countries to essentially be a slave. You do realise this would not go both ways right? no white person would go to africa to be a slave. This is basically violence based on race but pretending not to be by using only national language.
№3512524[Quote]
>>3512501>How is racial violence not non-christian if we are all made in the image of god?If someone tries to stab a Christian man, he may shoot him. It will be unfortunate because the perpretator is made in the image of God, but he is within his right to defend himself. Not all violence is disqualified on the basis of Man's nature being one with God.
>so, a nonwhite person may come to our countries to essentially be a slave. That's not what I said.
>You do realise this would not go both ways right? no white person would go to africa to be a slave. This is basically violence based on race but pretending not to be by using only national language.>This is basically violence based on race>basicallyNice rhetoric there. But no, you still have not explained how this "violence" of enforcing a border is non-Christian.
№3512529[Quote]
>>3512520>>3512521probably bait, but can you prove non-whites are less likely to commit rapes, murders, thefts and assault if they stay in their home country?
№3512535[Quote]
>>3512520>>3512521This is kind of true but rings somewhat civic-nationalist to me.
№3512554[Quote]
>>3512524>If someone tries to stab a Christian man, he may shoot him. It will be unfortunate because the perpretator is made in the image of God, but he is within his right to defend himself. Not all violence is disqualified on the basis of Man's nature being one with God.so your position is now racial violence is ok? immigrants come to western nations for economic opportunities not to kill people, so I dont understand.
>Nice rhetoric there.its not that serious bro
>But no, you still have not explained how this "violence" of enforcing a border is non-Christian.would it be ok for me to shoot my neighbor for being asian, even though he is a christian that has only ever been kind to me? Racial violence is anti-christian, why would you not accept immigrants.
№3512570[Quote]
>>3512535>I will develop a future seeing device like the one from minority report to check if any person is planning on committing sin, and then I will arrest them and throw them in prison.If the goal of christianity is only to prevent sin by any means, even unethical means, this must be the most christian thing ever, right?
inb4 giga
№3512597[Quote]
>>3512554>so your position is now racial violence is ok? immigrants come to western nations for economic opportunities not to kill people, so I dont understand.No, I will repeat my point. Not all violence is disqualified on the basis of Man's nature being one with God.
>would it be ok for me to shoot my neighbor for being asian, even though he is a christian that has only ever been kind to me?No offense but this is probably the stupidest argument you've presented.
If you put up a sign that said "If you enter my front door without permission, I will violently remove you from my house", and then your Asian neighbor did just that, and you violently removed him, that would be perfectly justified. That is what enforcing a border is. It is not shooting because someone is of a certain race. Your scenario is the equivalent of invading a country because it is Asian, which is not moral.
№3512619[Quote]
>>3512597>No, I will repeat my point. Not all violence is disqualified on the basis of Man's nature being one with God.Ok so if racial violence is unjustified what justifies the violence that would be required to create and sustain an ethnostate. Thats really all I need you to explain. I never said any violence is unjustified because man is made in gods image, I said racial violence specifically is unjustified because ALL men are made in gods image.
>If you put up a sign that said "If you enter my front door without permission, I will violently remove you from my house", and then your Asian neighbor did just that, and you violently removed him, that would be perfectly justified. That is what enforcing a border is. It is not shooting because someone is of a certain race. Your scenario is the equivalent of invading a country because it is Asian, which is not moral.but you have said you want an ethnostate, a state justified on racial grounds and therefore borders justified on racial grounds. The borders of private property are not the same as the borders of the state regardless, as the state is the organisation that enforces private property law.
№3512665[Quote]
>>3512619>The borders of private property are not the same as the borders of the state regardless, as the state is the organisation that enforces private property law.The purpose of a state/government is to represent and align with the will of the people. I think both of us can agree on this at least. It's purpose is also to, simultaneously, align with and enforce the Will of God.
>Ok so if racial violence is unjustified what justifies the violence that would be required to create and sustain an ethnostate.The land of a country is, in a way, collectively the land of the people, and when you invade that land as someone who is not of that people, you are violating the property of the people (I am not referring to a literal collective property as in Communism). The government is morally obligated to remove that person. Not JUST because he is of a foreign ethnicity, but because he has violated the "property" of the country, i.e. its borders. This makes it NOT violence purely on the basis of race.
№3512669[Quote]
>>3512665I guess this is kind of getting into the weeds of what my worldview is when it comes to government, I apologize for that.
№3512680[Quote]
>>3511745 (OP)Second best option so I respect it
№3512686[Quote]
>>3512665>The land of a country is, in a way, collectively the land of the people, and when you invade that land as someone who is not of that people, you are violating the property of the people (I am not referring to a literal collective property as in Communism). The government is morally obligated to remove that person. Not JUST because he is of a foreign ethnicity, but because he has violated the "property" of the country, i.e. its borders. This makes it NOT violence purely on the basis of race.I think you could believe this but I also think it is anti christian. What makes that land the collective property of the people? it could only be the fact they are descended historically from others who have lived there, so it is an ethnic distinction. I just dont see how it is not violence purely on the basis of race.
Also, as an american you are living on native land, so how can you justify creating an ethnostate in your country?
№3512702[Quote]
>>3512686>What makes that land the collective property of the people? it could only be the fact they are descended historically from others who have lived there, so it is an ethnic distinction.I agree, and I am purposefully making an ethnic distinction.
>I just dont see how it is not violence purely on the basis of race.<Not JUST because he is of a foreign ethnicity, but because he has violated the "property" of the country, i.e. its borders №3512713[Quote]
>>3512702Ok but the borders of the country are justified by race so his expulsion is also justified by race. You believe in ethnostates and so you also believe that race and nation are the same thing, or should be. I should not have to explain to you that if someone is punished for violating the property of the ethnostate they are being punished for violating the property of the race too.
the boarders are not necessarily the "property of the people" the nation is the property of the people and the borders are created to protect that nation. If there was only one race and one nation in the world there would be no borders.
№3512721[Quote]
>>3512713>I should not have to explain to you that if someone is punished for violating the property of the ethnostate they are being punished for violating the property of the race too.Exactly, so it's not non-Christian. This is my line of thinking: Protecting your property is not non-Christian > A government representing it's people is not non-Christian > the land of a nation is the effective property of its people > the government protecting that property via borders is not non-Christian. The term "racial violence" has proved to be too broad to be rhetorically effective, so I've narrowed down exactly what I'm talking about.
№3512741[Quote]
>>3512721I want to clarify what I mean because I feel my previous post was not clear and I had not properly considered by argument. You have compared this national property concept to both private property and collectively owned property in this discussion to justify you position. A national or ethnic property is not like either collective or private property because the citizen of a state does not own all of the land which exits inside of the states borders and does not have the right to do with this land what whatever he wants. This property is therefore just an idealistic concept because it is not justified by right to exploitation by any person or persons,or actually the existence of biological race because a biological race is not bound materially to the land is has historically inhabited. It is for this reason I think this property is only an element of racism, it is just based on the desire to preserve the purity of a race (which is not necessarily a negative thing). If the boarders are justified only by the desire to preserve the purity of a race and nothing else, than it is far to say deporting someone is an act of racial violence.
№3512758[Quote]
>>3512741your*
whatever It was too long for me to bother to spellcheck after writing
№3512760[Quote]
>>3512741I'm sorry, I don't understand. It sounds like you agree with me. Have I convinced you that borders are perfectly fine under a Christian worldview? If not, I really don't think I can.
№3512802[Quote]
>>3512760you are claiming deporting a person from a nation is like removing a person from a property, however "national property" is nothing like collective property or private property in any way. National property gives no right of to exploitation to its owners (the people I assume) and its existence is not justified by the labour of the citizens or any transaction, historical or ethical reason. These national borders exist for no other purpose than to preserve the purity of the race, they are just a conceptual idea that arises out of conflict between people. If borders exist only to preserve the purity of the race and require racial violence to continue to exist, a christian should oppose them.
№3512890[Quote]
>>3512802>These national borders exist for no other purpose than to preserve the purity of the raceThere is nothing wrong with this, but I also disagree with your phrasing. It's not just "purity", but also safety and well-being.
>If borders exist only to preserve the purity of the race and require racial violence to continue to exist, a christian should oppose them.You still have not addressed the fundamental problem which is that the force that is used to enforce a border is not purely based on race. Arresting a foreigner and arresting a foreigner for entering your country illegally are two very different actions. Even if those borders are based on the will of your people i.e. race-based, it is enforced as a way to protect their wellbeing. Protecting the well-being of your people is a perfectly Christian thing to do.
Okay is is 1:45 where I am so I really really need to go to sleep. Can we continue this another time? Don't forget to screenshot this time. Goodnight.
№3512909[Quote]
Apparently there are only 2 Orthodox churches in all of Costa Rica