/christian/ - christian

>>23703
There is never going to be a christian 4chan board. I's write a big textwall about why but who cares: nobody. Because the born agains are going to come here sometimes and like Christiana they'll let the dirt sink to the bottom and drink, they're used to that at church anyways, actually I wouldn't even describe this as a puddle, it's more the born agains just come to put water on parched ground because there's a christian sign on the ground and they're confused. Being a leader of falsehood will not make the judgement easy, you know the requirements for bishop and elder. He say, "Oh it's not that serious" Oh I know this is not that serious, that's the problem. But I say this all for no reason (Matthew 21:45).

If you try to make friends on here you won't be allowed, but that would be much more helpful than anonymous whatever, to have someone. For example my grandfather has helped someone get off crack cocaine. He did it by being there for him whenever the man was tempted he would call him and God has been with both of them very wonderful. The netizen is a loser and when he gets saved he's still like that, I hope no one comes here for serious stuff but for the happiness when you see another pilgrim. But netizens don't really exist anymore either, which is good. But it takes a netizen to give his life to internet stuff that others just come by for sometimes. But nothing will change, but with enough compl

>>25373
>There is never going to be a christian 4chan board
There "is" it's called /his/

>>25374
Actual 4chan is definitely not going to have one, hopefully not. Because there's no independent boards there, so if Hiro or whoever owns that website now made such a board you have to understand the person in charge of such a thing is also in charge of the rest of 4chan. And if you want a church run by mcdonald's CEO people will go, sadly. Blind men, and as blind men they lead the blind and they both go to hell. Or maybe they took "theology and religious studies" in college and got a big fat head and a shrunken skull.

But I do mean 4chan as in all the futaba imageboards.

>>25375 
I understand that, I was remarking on how everyone on the history board over there seems to be roleplaying as either internet Christians, Muslims, or atheists. I never went on that board until recently and found it an awful place where nobody actually seems to know much or is interested in sharing their knowledge, yet are keen make arguments among themselves with each poster being convinced of his own genius.

>>25374
/his/ used to have a strong Christian community but recently it's been flooded with atheist blasphemers

Why is romantic love (certainly in a woman) based on immodest degradation OP? Specifically from a divine context, not evolutionary theory?

Asking for a friend. Also, mainly for myself. I want to know because it fucks with my head how horrible the dynamic is despite being the one necessary to give new life. I feel that God didn't have to include that dynamic at all.

Also while on the subject, explain to me how I'm supposed to love all of God's creation? I struggle to give all the roundworms and flatworms and tapeworms pet names... Really I just don't know why most things exist, and I don't wanna be told through a bunch of Jewish obfuscation terms, I just want an answer for how potato blight bacteria was made for man's custodianship the same way as, say, a zebra.

Oh and here's another one... If marriage is so important according to Christ, then why doesn't the Bible detail the mechanisms for saving a marriage that's on the ropes and close to sin/infidelity? I've given relationship counselling before and it works okay, but it's all based on fallen world stuff. None of it has been really biblically based. I think the specifics of frame holding/losing/regaining in a relationship ought to be spelled out more given man's/woman's propensity to cheat.

I'm a Christian, but it's really notional only once you dig below the "Christ is manifest virtue" rhetoric. The rest I've not been able to make sense of.

>>25322
You can do it to any book, interview or article in any context, though. Print the snippet you want and leave the part out where you have to be capable of repentance to not be judged.

Out of every problem I've got with Christianity, that it operates as a bit of a free love cult except (until recently) for sexuality doesn't really bother me. I do not think that aliens will ever come visit us until we're capable of expressing Agape as a matter of default. I think Christianity is right to try to reach for it aspirationally.

>>25325
>Why is romantic love based on immodest degradation
Can you explain what you mean by this? What is immodest degradation?

>>25328
Vanity or immodesty are a prerequisite to romantic love. From a male point of view, men care about your fertility and not your feelings, as the norm rather than the exception. Visual appearance is a clue to that fertility. If you're ugly, whether it is anybody's fault or not, your list of potential suitors goes down. So women focus on vanity naturally, and it's kind of our fault.

Meanwhile women have a more obvious or direct degradation mechanic to me. They will sit at a bar imagining or mentally cucking you. I barely understand the dynamic, but by point of comparison I ought to try looking like a better protector and a better provider, in the way of physical or social muscle or throw some cash around. On the quiet I only care about these things to be more useful to others, but when dating it helps that you can flex immodestly.

If you confuse Eros for Philio, or Agape and you're not careful to cross the beams then you'll be deemed to "catch feelings" and dropped for being a man with desperate vibes, or for being emotionally needy. You basically have to love conditionally, or at the very least form an omission of the truth if it isn't.

Further still, if you consider being kicked out of the garden of Eden as being given exactly the kind of environment you need or maybe even asked for as a species because you all wanted to understand truth by having some frame of reference (I realise may not be canon

>>25330
I don't think I have a good answer for you but here are my thoughts.
You're talking about two different things. First is the situation of people finding certain things attractive and some people being more attractive than others. The second is people's responses to that situation. Is the first thing a bad thing? Is it a sin? It's hard to say that it is. Beauty exists and it is good. Beauty of body, of behaviour, of character, and so forth. You can't blame people for being attracted to attractive people and some people are just more attractive than others. Regarding the second part, vanity is a part of our fallen world. I don't know if all attempts to make yourself more attractive are vanity or sin in some way. Maybe it depends on motive or circumstance. Maybe it depends on how you do it. If any women are sitting there mentally cheating on men then that's a sin and part of our fallen world as well.

The problem you have is that people realise what the game is and then go to desperate lengths to make themselves appear more attractive. The problem is when they are consumed by it right? That obsession is what drives them towards vanity. They have set up a false god in their hearts. It compels them into the mentality of both "I'm never good enough" and "my girl/boyfriend isn't good enough." They act on that and it compounds their sin and degrades them by their subjection to the false god. It's easy to say

8a615e56d629825da5c45b44b11fce107b752f107a2b0fa3197aa1a624598609.png
[Hide] (250.3KB, 431x322)

>>24957 (OP) 
who would win? 
Thousands of years of documented and verified history, evidence, and supporting rationale.

OR

some random guy on /pol/

>>24972
The guy on /pol/ is also referencing history as well.

dont think it matters, seems like a cope for antisemitic christians to avoid the cognitive dissonance of their religion having association with JEws. 

Might be a useful trope to use to evangelise to 'alt-right' types.

>>24981
i think youd cause more harm in the long term using that to evangelize to WN because then youd have to go through the works of abolishing the lie you created.

Italians uses "hebe" to call all the jews because for them they're all the same.
Antisemitism isn't just against jews, semites so all hebes.
Happened like that in history, it's the english that turned it into "all hebes are jews and jews are hebes"

>>25192
I understand and sympathise with this attitude. It's humbling, sobering. Still, a more sensible bet would be for us to cultivate our own intellectual class. If we did so, and the Lord allowed it, we could experience something like at least a spark of the Patristic Age again. It was just as rife with heresy, but also with no shortage of men of knowledge that were full of the Spirit.

>>25192
This is a good point. Anyone considering seminary should be certain of its theological orthodoxy ahead of time, since many have drunk the coolaid of secularism. At many if not most seminaries today your teachers will, instead of teaching you how to lead God's people and defend the faith, attempt to do everything in their power to destroy your faith and convert you to damnable heresy. It is unlikely in 2023 they will even tolerate a believer, should they fail to shipwreck your faith.

>>25195
In the early 16th century when scholars and men of that sort still seriously believed and were not Marxists.

>>25210
17th*

>>25210
Erasmus was Catholic yet the reformers didn't see an issue with using the Textus Receptus he published as long as the work was good, not that much good comes out of today's liberal seminaries.

Modern academia wants to be loved by the god-denying secular world so that even if there are Bible believing Christians within their institutions they force them to shut up or face demotion unless they toe their lines that the Bible is a manmade creation, that God doesn't exist, that what scholars produce is always right like their denial of (what they call) the long ending of Mark or John 7:53 to 8:11, and that everyone else has to bow down before their credentials because they're indisputable geniuses. Yet none of that is worth anything because the castrated Bible translation that they produce, the New Revised Standard Version, is literally one of the worst-selling in existence with the only thing saving it being that they lobby liberal denominations to buy it in bulk to fill empty pews. The sad part is that historically orthodox Christian colleges like Harvard and Yale were hijacked by their perversion and conservatives need to assert their right to the institutions of their forerunners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RBSOGG7amM

Also, some paywalled or partially-walled whitepapers like https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09018329908585155?needAccess=true&journalCode=sold20 may need to be accessed through sci-hub but that's beyond the scope of what I can automate atm.

>>25026
Nice hacking Anon. BTW, the '[Embed]' string thing can be dealt with by a) you using codeblocks, and b) BO making a minor tweak to his custom.css to accomodate that. Good work.

seed.png
[Hide] (316.7KB, 848x1219)

>>25026
If anyone who's already done this wants to make a torrent I'll seed it.

>>25043
Hey Thanks.
>BO making a minor tweak to his custom.css to accomodate that
Any ideas how to do that? I've no experience with CSS.

>>25060
>Any ideas how to do that? I've no experience with CSS.
You might try experimenting with your custom.css file, and trying out the code settings sections in this CSS example:
>>>/agdg/522

>>23315 (OP) 
>How do you convince people that homosexuality is wrong? 
There's no need to "convince" anyone. The scripture is plain, they just don't care about God or His laws (first five books called the law, specifically) or Christ and His message (e.g. Mt 5:17) and therefore they're not worth your time. Period. /thread

>>23538
>it posts this image on a website that hosts porn
the irony

>>23561
gay
>>23562
very original

>>23470

King

>>23470
>They used the idea of a gay gene to get acceptance even though the science behind it was bunk.
I read into that one time and all I found was some mentions of genes that were more prevalent in gays, and maybe increased the likelihood of gayness, but nothing that could be called an actual CAUSE of that.
The "born that way" argument doesn't even work in their own framework because they still accept/talk about the existence of bisexuals, even though the entire premise behind it is 100% choice.

>>24881
i dont find the idea that christians were suffering from mass delusions or psychosis very plausible.
i also personally believe that the field of psychology is a very suspect science in general and that mental illness is mostly a recent phenomenon(its certainly been on a dramatic rise in the past century compared to before(one may note the corollary that atheism is also on the rise this past century))
i think psychoanalysing people from 2 millennia ago is unreliable anyway
>Paul as a Gnostic, or someone who entirely misinterpreted the Gospel/Christianity.
the other apostles didnt think so

if someone has gone through robbers and shipwrecks to get a message to me, im naturally going to take his message much more seriously and as being more sincere, its not "persecutory mania"
most of that post takes for granted that Pauls writings were either written by someone else, written later, dishonest or delusional which i dont accept
it seems like suppositions based on very little to me

>>24881
I have no idea why you are so troubled by this brother, after glancing at it it's clearly the same kind of circular, anti-evidential, speculative, anti-Christian drivel you expect of secularists. In fact, this combined with a single post from your idea has me a little suspicious that this is concern trolling. 

Maybe Paul and Jesus were lunatics. Maybe they were raving madmen and everything they were saying and believing was the product of a deranged mind. *Or*, maybe Christianity is true. I suppose to determine which it is we'll be needing the other side to present their evidence and make their case to establish their historical claims. Unfortunately this is always where the wheels fall off for them because they have no evidence and they have no case, consistently the only response I have ever encountered to this incredibly basic challenge to the secular history of early Christianity is "how dare you question us". That's it. Appeal to authority is all they have. Their fiction is derived from a method that starts by prejudicially assuming what Christians have always believed is false, coming up with excuses for why all the evidence which exists doesn't count, and finally deriving history on the basis of nothing but divination of their own farts. Learning to deal with appeals to academic authority are something which anyone getting into apologetics needs to do because it now stands as the foundation o

>>24884
>a single post from your idea
Your ID*

>>24802 (OP) 
>How do I know whether or not I should practice Judaic law or not? Christ said he is here to fulfill the law, but he also said he would not abolish it.

the only aspects of the Old Law youre meant to follow as a Christian are the Moral Law and, if you want, the feasts and Saturday Sabbath.

>>24802 (OP) 
>How do I know everything written is scripture or not?
I presume you meant 'everything written in scripture is [legitimately Spirit-breathed, inspired] scripture'?

You might start by investigating the ICBI statements on that very topic Anon. [1]

>1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

>2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

>3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

>4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

>5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church

>>24828 (OP) 
dont look right or left, look up.

Fm5QgBTWYAAf4zg.jpeg
[Hide] (732.1KB, 813x994)

>>24828 (OP) 
The people who are still throwing around terms like "SJW" and calling themselves "anti-SJWs" in the Year of Our Lord 2023 largely haven't moved on from 2014-era Gamergate paradigms. They occasionally dress it up with rhetoric, but most of them oppose feminism or "woke ideology" because they want to play video games with big boobs and lolis. The more noble of their ilk either went down the pipeline from sex pest libertarianism to the so-called "alt-right" and then beyond or they simply grew up. Those that remain spend their time defending their porn access.

My 2 cents.
D&D/Rock/Games/Anime/whatever are fine and "Christians" who "fight" those things are in fact silly. However, they're not a good representation of Christianity as a whole, and people who hate Christianity just because of them are even sillier.

gamer1.jpg
[Hide] (995.9KB, 2048x1536)

>>24828 (OP) 
>Just some guy
Well yeah, that guy is kind of known for it.  A fair amount of gamergate-adjacent ecelebs suck for various reasons. Some are anti-Christian this guy specifically is because he's pro faggot, maybe even a faggot himself, some because they're just grifters. Usually the former is also the latter. The skeptic community didn't start Gamergate, it's members simply jumped on board. That's not to say they weren't real Gamergaters, only that they didn't make it. 
I think this is a bit of an oversimplification though. Some "anti-sjws" anti-Christian, others are not. The fact of the matter is that the majority of sjws ideology is anti-Christian, and consequently every Christian is "anti-sjw" by default. 
>>24839
If there's one thing wrong about Gamergate it was certainly their desire for "fanservice", however the feminists who pushed for censorship of said fanservice did so for the wrong reasons not to mention they also demonized "conventional attractiveness", made female characters masculine and vice versa, and pushed for fat positivity. There's also the question of to what extent censorship should be enforced.

1e6d4483502d70bf2db82c229a05d1761d3d5ac1edf109c2018fbcbe1c31326f.jpg
[Hide] (167.5KB, 664x900)

>>24850
>If there's one thing wrong about Gamergate it was certainly their desire for "fanservice", however the feminists who pushed for censorship of said fanservice did so for the wrong reasons
I agree that the push for censorship was not done out of honest or noble intentions and that Gamergaters were absolutely right to call them out for it, but their counter was fundamentally the same as the "just let people enjoy things" crowd. You see this a lot with people who defend their posting of lolicon hentai. I suppose they were right about what was wrong but wrong about what was right, to use a cliche.

>>22473
No Catholic doctrine states statues will save you, they are there to elevate people's minds to God and the lofty realities.
As to buddism i dont know much about it but i never heard about them attributing saving powers to statues, could be wrong.

>>21803 (OP) 
Schopenhauer is basically Western Buddhist.

Yes, it is not a very cheerful religion. They do crusade against Muslims though, so can't be all that bad.

>>22438
No, Buddha is only a teacher ("rabbi", if you wish). A true Buddhist would tell you that Jesus, of course, was a Buddha, too, as it is a state of being above mere humanity, but below true divinity. Pagan gods they (Buddhists) usually deemed inferior and not worthy of worship.>>22438

>>24592
>No Catholic doctrine states statues will save you
Idols are carried around and relics heavily guarded, you are wrong.
The buddhism i know preaches of life being pretty bad so the best move is not to play, in that non-playing they retire from life aka go to a monastery, try to do the least bad things they can and help people when they have to go out for some reason, that being crops, needs or getting money for those things.
In the meantime doing nothing at all the entire day and trying not to do anything bad they managed to invent tons of stuff or develop things other mystics left them in their visits, like paradoxically martial arts used by the military later on. Some monks often got into this and tried to pretend killing bullies was better than letting them go around bothering people so their morality heavily varied over time. At the end of the day they pretended to do nothing so they couldn't sin and thus get a chance at going up or reincarnating as something better next time, all the while practicing their spirituality.


One thing they did better despite being trained killers at times was not going around converting by force entire tribes like some misguided christians did. He who has ears to hear let him hear, no need to shove it in their face by force or repeat all day the same verses.

main-qimg-cd4c3e05c590b717eabfc6d178b660a7-lq.jpeg.jpg
[Hide] (64.8KB, 602x602)

>>24630
>one thing they did better despite being trained killers at times was not going around converting by force entire tribes like some misguided christians did. 
>he doesn't know
Meanwhile Christianity converted the whole of the Roman Empire and beyond while under official persecution for three centuries and without bearing the sword. Somehow that utter historical miracle is overlooked as something unremarkable.

Jesus left a Church, and gave her the Holy Spirit to guide her. If you are separated as a lone sheep you are easy pickings for the prowler. 
Treat your dislike of other people as a cross, and Jesus said to carry the cross, not evade them.
As to the real church, you may read the Church fathers and see they have the sacraments. St.Ignatious of Antioch which was a direct disciple of the apostle John says: “those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ … refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up”
So, you should become Catholic and get the sacraments. If there is no Catholicism in your country, be whatever sacramental Christianity is there, Copt, Orthodox, etc. 
And remember this by Paul: '...conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.'
The Church dictates what is truth, the Church dictates what is the correct way to interpret the bible. If you read it by yourself, disregarding how the saints and theologians read it throughout the ages, you'll gain some erroneous views. Some go so far as denying the divinity of Christ due to their own faulty and blind interpretations.

>>24118
>The Church dictates what is truth, the Church dictates what is the correct way to interpret the bible
This should be all you need to hear to know to stay away from Rome

>>24079 (OP) 
You should go out and talk with priests, elders, other followers, etc. Christianity in society is way different and it will give you perspective on all sorts of topics which you might not even have stood still with. Seek and you shall find.

DC51D1F3-62AE-4728-8E36-0881C086566C.png
[Hide] (138.7KB, 500x500)

>>24079 (OP) 
>I've come to understand the secrets of the heavens and the earth
Prelest. Pray for humility.

>This world is a corrupt world and I do not have it in me to trust other people with a topic I view so delicately.
Say what you will about the world, but you cannot curl up in a shoebox until you die then try to declare that a life. Even those called to the monastic life share it with their brothers or sisters. If you are called to be a hermit then by all means do so, but do not claim the privileges of the hermit without paying a hermit’s dues. 

>I fear that I am pursuing the wrong path, there are countless years of history behind the churches, and they all fight one another over what is and isn't true.
You have Christ the Redeemer on your side. Your final judgement will be a compassionate one that takes your circumstances and heart into account. Therefore, go out into the world and do your best. Even churches within the same denomination will differ. Don’t be a little bitch about it: Find your church by shopping around.

>Jesus left a Church, and gave her the Holy Spirit to guide her. If you are separated as a lone sheep you are easy pickings for the prowler. 

This. Even if you have trouble getting along with people, there is growth in making an effort. In addition, once you have kids, you absolutely need to have them grow up among the people of God lest they are lost to globohomo well before puberty.