pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @fourrules 7 Oct \ parent \ on: What is the Acts 17 Collective? Why is Peter THiel Speaking About the Antichrist spirituality
The word "church" means a collective that tends to be commons. That is how all of the classical literature outside biblical scholarship uses the Greek word. Bitcoin Core is a church. Your local fire brigade is a church. Any voluntary organisation of collective commons is a church. That's not an identitarian prescription. That doesn't mean that if you are not part of a designated church with a lineage back to Peter that you are not Christian.
Christianity inherited the centralised Roman institutions and effectively succumbed to regulatory capture, as centralised institutions always do. Early Christianity from Armenia to Ireland was far more decentralised and authentically Christian.
Then monarch's like the Carolingians started using Christianity as an economic weapon against competitors, engaging in economic embargoes against northern pagans that resulted in famine and caused the Vikings to cross the north sea to pillage salt production in northern France, and they sacked monasteries on the way because the embargo was employed in the name of identitarian Christianity, sanctioned by popes.
Countless other massacres like those against the Cathars in southern France were justified by identitarian Christianity to say that people who for whatever reason showed some kind of autonomy or idiosyncratic cultural tendencies needed to be burnt, literally burnt, in the name of the Pope.
And then there was the thirty years war... Jesus wept...
The idea of organised Christianity is anathema to Christianity because it is definitionally identitarian and Christianity exists to subdue identitarian tendencies. Instead of taking their proper role of tending the commons all major churches nurture identitarianism for the benefit of their own social status and position in their local or global hierarchies.
Your own post is exemplary: "I have been accepted, so I must be Christian, where as you have been rejected, so you must not" - much Christian, very universalist.
You sir, are full of shit, I think Christ would agree.
The atheists like Bertrand Russell get one thing right, it's their most cutting argument and modern identitarian Christians have no answer to it: Christians are not particularly Christian.
Learn about the Baal / False Prophet / Beast (Anti Christ) / Bablyon framework here: #1225360
reply
Notice my username, "fourrules".
Baal appeal — worship blended with survival fears. Babylon — power, economy, and religion fused into one system. Beast — political authority demanding ultimate allegiance. False Prophet — religious cover for political rule.
The direct inversion of the 4 pillars of the crucifixion, and of proof of work:
- sacrifice (Baal)
- verification - the highest hill (Beast)
- sovereignty - alone (Babylon)
- universality - as the lowest man (False prophet - identitarianism)
reply
So you aren't going to answer my questions? You are putting words in my mouth btw. I'm not sure what your point is. That's why I asked the very specific series of questions.
Here's another one.
voluntary organisation
Every single church is a voluntary organization. Is it not?
As far as Christian identity... if I remember correctly the label Christian was first use as a slander. The early church referred to their group as "the way".
So do you accept the Bible as inspired by God?
reply
I don't have to tell you what I believe to follow Christ. You don't get to decide you and the little cult are the bestest Christians because you say you believe one assertion over another. Words can be said by anyone, whether they know what they mean or not. If I say that I believe one set of words over another, in order to associate with an identitarian cult in opposition to another identitarian cult, well say what you want about it but it's not Christian. Best case it's just sounds from people's faces, verbal fixed action patterns, and worst case it's the friend-enemy distinction dressed in a Christian skin-suit.
reply
Ok, again. I never said any of this. I was simply asking questions to better understand where you are coming from. You made some very broad comments and I simply was curious where you were coming from with the conclusions you have stated.
It honestly feels like you are talking with someone in your own mind, not me.
reply
You're saying that people who follow Christ without a church are wrong. You literally said that. You're wrong. Modern churches are identitarian cults with little relation to any collective commons. They are primarily and exclusively concerned with social status, defined primarily in opposition to each other.
Your comment exemplified this fact.
reply
I feel like we are going in circles. Jesus founded the church. You say its a commons network. Ok, I assume you would say you are a follower of Christ. Therefore you must be a part of that Church. Not a "modern" church whatever you mean by that. I assume you are in fellowship with others that are of like mind, or you believe there are none around you that are true followers of the teaching of Christ. Its one or the other. So if I were to accept your definitions then you would be a part of the body of Christ, the Church.
I dunno man. What I see a LOT is people that go to local churches in all their forms and find fault. Its not hard to do. And they end up leaving and being alone. Lone rangers. This is not the way. No church is perfect. No church tradition is perfect. But you know what... neither are any of us.
I was trying to understand how you came to believe what you believe. I could be wrong. I don't think I am but you are right. Its just my opinion. But one that is not uncommon.
No need to reply man. I wish you well.
reply
Because modern Christian denominations (identitarian cults) have no solutions and like you don't want to hear them, even though Christ spelled them out clearly and plainly.
reply