/christian/ - christian

>>25994
>Brendan Eich
Another reason is that he was explicitly singled-out and targeted for attack, roughly during the 2008 election era IIRC (maybe it was 2012 instead?), by the Leftists and all the usual suspects involved with Marxism in the US. Turns out he made a US$1'000 donation to an organization that was staunchly pro-family (IIRC this was about the time the DOMA was under attack and eventually overturned by the sodomites, et al). Some journalist in the Jewish-controlled media got wind of it, and they proceeded to all dogpile onto Brendan because of his Christian, pro-family stance; beginning with a pro-sodomite dating site that banned Firefox browswers, and made a big show of doing so.

So, after 25+ years as a founder, CEO, and lead programmer, he stepped down from his own organization once several loud-mouthed zealots from within attacked him. These Communists & Jews all cheered about it at the time, but jokes on them.

He quickly began building a quite operation behind the scenes that eventually became the Brave browser & ecosystem for privacy. While everyone else has rushed to grovel at the invasive G*ogle, Brave has slowly built a resistance faction to that police-state-like evil. The Internet has been better because of this outcome ever since, though it clearly cost him at the time.

>tl;dr
'Bre

>>25996
Wow.
I've never heard about this guy but seems like he's quite important. FF went pozzed about right after he left, it seems. I used to be a long-time FF user but nowadays I always use Brave unless I for some reason need a very specific extension. On my tablet and phone, where FF is a nerfed down version anyway, I use Brave 100% of the time.

>>26139
Nice. I actually pay for their (somewhat more expensive) VPN service as well, US$9.99 . I figure it's well worth it to support something that doing real good on the Internet (for the time-being at least), for a service I'd want anyway. They're also far less -likely to be in bed with the 5 Eyes as well. Cheers.

1.) A minute spent on the internet is a minute spent away from God.

2.) Aside from divine grace; read point 1.

I think I've got it down correctly already anon.

The internet is too good at providing nerd media with sex appeal.

>>26005 (OP) 
Please don't doxx yourself on this forum, OP. At least find & use a throwaway email address if you honestly intend to communicate away-from-keyboard with ppl here. (Just use the email field in the reply systems.) Please remember, not everyone here may be kindly anons happy to help. Some may be more like Jews, and have nothing but ill-intent towards you. 

Good luck with your search OP. That's some beautiful land there in the Appalachians! Cheers.  :)

>>26006
You really think I would do that, just go on the internet and break opsec? If I get a bite, I will be dropping a public key that that they can encrypt their email with, preserving security. In any case, thanks for the concern, its just that with horror I realize that there really isn't a universal directory for Orthodox parishes.

>>26005 (OP) 
I am Orthodox but not in that neck of the woods. If you will be near the Hermitage of the Holy Cross, I would strongly recommend visiting. The monastery is near the western end of the state. Here is the monastery website:
https://www.holycross.org/

>Are the ROCOR and Antiochians old calendarists or something?
The vast majority of ROCOR parishes are on the Julian calendar unless they are Western Rite is my experience. I am not sure about the Antiochian parishes.

>>26008
I actually am already aware of them and subscribe to their channel on jewtube, but sadly they will be a good almost 2 hours from where I will be staying. Thanks for the information, thoughever!

☦️

000_339C3AQ-1024x640.jpg
[Hide] (94.5KB, 1024x640)

Codex Sassoon Heads to Auction
>Sotheby’s has announced the upcoming auction of Codex Sassoon aka The Damascus Pentateuch. They are dubbing it “The Earliest, Most Complete Hebrew Bible” and anticipating that, at $30–50m, it could be “the highest valued manuscript or historical document ever offered at auction.” From their description:

>The earliest, most complete copy of the Hebrew Bible is actually a book known as Codex Sassoon, named for its most prominent modern owner: David Solomon Sassoon (1880–1942), a passionate collector of Judaica and Hebraic manuscripts. Dating to the late 9th or early 10th century, Codex Sassoon contains all 24 books of the Hebrew Bible – missing only 12 leaves – and precedes the earliest entirely complete Hebrew Bible, the Leningrad Codex, by nearly a century.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/sassoon-codex-oldest-most-complete-hebrew-bible

>>23737
Why is it called a Pentateuch if it's a complete Old Testament?

>>23737
finna whip this bad boy out and start quoting from it any time i get in an argument about religion.

>>23738
The original article I found about it seemed to be confused between two manuscripts, Sassoon 507 is the Damascus Pentateuch but the one being auctioned is actually Sassoon 1053. It also seems that someone took photos of it before it was privately bought:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tanakh-MS-Sassoon-1053
https://archive.org/details/Sassoon_1053_Tanakh

Wasn't sure where to post this. This is a 6-hour Greek Bible study but actually covers a lot of deep material. It has an interdenominational group, with a Jewish guy, a Catholic priest, an Orthodox priest (Fr. Stephen De Young), a Calvinist, a Coptic Christian, and a few other Orthodox Christians. This 6-hour video is just the first meeting, and I am only 4 hours in, but I think it will address for sure some of the questions that OP asks as well bringing to light many questions during the 2nd Temple and elsewhere. It was from this video that I learned about Islamic mythicism and that Islam may really just be a heretical Christian with Muhammed being just a made-up character. They have continued on with a few more meetings. Not sure if they are completely done. But this is really good stuff. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSjatPfFKlI

>It is in God's hands because it's a part of His plan.
God is a slightly above averagely heighted white bearded man *who is outside of temporal laws*. Where everything happens all at once. Your birth, the life and death of your kin, your death, the next people living in your house, their lives and deaths, for as many millennia of our lives there are freeze frame snapshots of it all, all at once, happened all as simultaneously as each other. In a blink. The whole Mongolian Empire of Ghengis Khan does not even constitute one eighth of the blink. The level of awareness or acuity on these happenings bear in mind is accounting not only for normal reality, but the reality where one hair is out of alignment, and the one with a different hair, times as many variations as all opportunity allows.

To say that you don't get what God's plan is but are willing to follow it is fine anon. God has accounted for the reality in which you offer up complete and utter passivity. But God will not obstruct the results of that reality from you. This is how God's love is paternal instead of maternal. A maternal God would make man a God in kind and snatch the lesson of life away - lest your hands be vulnerable to the heat of a stove and you burn either of them.

If you don't understand these things then I'll try to help you have some more understanding because it's important. But I can't give you more piety because I haven't got any. Ask another anon for that.

>Whatever happens, happens.
It is what it is. Like I say. At the end of the day. Nothing changes. When all is said and done. Let the abortions happen. Let the gain of function research happen. Let it all be foregone, because God foresaw it to happen.

God also, equally, forsaw you doing some other thing. I'm just saying. What you wojak posters want typically is an excuse that is obfuscated somehow. I'm guilty of sloth and lust too m8, it is my fault. It is MY fault. God accounted for it sure. He did not make me do this. This kind of understanding, you ought to have it.

>There's nothing I could possibly do
Oh Ok.

>>21315
Though you raise up good points, there's no need to be so aggressive, anon

Personally I don't think OP giving up on romantic life is necessarily bad, as long as he remains open to it. Not everyone is called to be married. And not everyone is called to be married *right now*.

>>25800
> I don't really know what to do
We've all been there. The way she acted... that's unfortunately common. If you're not careful you'll end up feeling like if your love is something uncomfortable for the other person. You'll think (maybe not rationally, but you'll act it up) that loving someone is doing them a disservice. Please, anon, never believe that lie.

By distancing yourself right now you're doing the right thing. Yes, you love her: that's a good thing. Love is freely given, and that means she's not forced to love you back, she may well choose not to. You have to come to terms with that. It's painful, but it's through accepting suffering without becoming resentful that we grow.

And don't forget to pray about it all. God can teach more about love that any of us could ever do. We'll be praying for you too.

>>25821
You misunderstand me, I'm not throwing my hands up, I'm just saying let God guide me down the road I'm meant to walk instead of wasting time fighting the wind.

>>25824
Thanks, your words are helpful, what you said about not becoming resentful is true and it's something I still struggle with not just with this. There's much I still need to pray about.

>>25824
>there's no need to be so aggressive anon
Oh you're probably right, OP seems healthier than me I just thrive on highs all day. This one's supplied via a cross between wrath and excitement. Topic worthy of another thread.

But bear in mind I've seen people who say: "after all it is what it is. Just water under the bridge. Who knows except the wheel of time." They're usually the sort put in charge of a decision regarding the medical emergency you or a friend of yours is going through in the moment. Their passive platonic nature has others pay and then their explanation for it later is typically a similarly styled platitude. As I said I hope OP looks to be in the clear, but these people you cannot tell softly. They have got to be told hard.

>everyone having a calling
I'm still sore about that. If everyone has these callings, what of free will? Further, I hate my calling. I execute animals regularly. They've done no wrong but strive to live, but they've done it inside a house or a roof where they're a pest. My desire to help OP is in part to make my hands work constructively instead of having thrown things away. If I didn't believe I could change this I'd not lift my own weight up to do things.

As far as diagnosing or improving OP anon's prospects, I think most things have been conveyed already but he should make sure as well you've no

>>25831
>If everyone has these callings, what of free will?
your actions are your own, you can even resist the Holy Spirit (ive done so myself) but God knew beforehand everything you'd ever do and ever possibility, hence why He made things the way He did and guided the course of history the way He did. You can ultimately do whatever you want, but eveythings already been accounted for, your days have already been numbered,  your choices predicted and analyzed before time itself even existed, you wouldn't exist if your existence didn't serve some purpose, maybe that purpose is to live the archetypical happy righteous life, maybe its something else, maybe your life has just been leading up to this moment right now and you'll drop dead or die in some tragic car crash or robbery soon after. 

All we really know is that God loves humanity as a whole and wants the best for us and that all things work together for good. Freewill is, similar to like what you said earlier, a means to an ends of getting us there, through trial and error, happiness, pain, or whatever else it might be.

Point is, if you hate your life change it. Maybe you'll succeed, maybe you'll fail, that part is for God to decide.

Bg1_6ss.jpg
[Hide] (61.9KB, 468x718)

Hololive_Sings_-_24_Talents_sing_Renai_Circulation_[恋愛サーキュレーション]_[hO3IdpUbcJk]_1.webm
[Hide] (15.8MB, 640x480, 04:11)

I've had some terrible experiences with women/girlfriends in the past, i'm not ugly but i attract terrible people or offend the people i like. I just wanted to escape to an internet fantasy land utopia, but my hidden dystopia is catching up to me, and i'm becoming more and more incapable of exchanging with people in real life, I have nothing to talk about other than offensive conspiracy theories and it clearly offends people i meet. No woman is as good as a comforting lie of a wiafu, but it's a dead end. I hope God can pull me out of this whole i've dug myself into.

>>25636
>i'm becoming more and more incapable of exchanging with people in real life, I have nothing to talk about other than offensive conspiracy theories
Do you read the Bible? If not, pick it and start reading it. Then find a Church to go to in order that you meet people that enjoy reading the Bible as well. Connect with people over healthy topics, even if the conspiracy theories are real, God is more important.

>>25640
I do study the Bible a lot but there is a lot i don't know so i don't talk about it, i mostly hang out with Christians.

>>25636
I understand these feelings all too well. I've been working my way out of a pornography addiction, and it's tempting to stay in cycles with this kind of thing.
Here are a few things that have helped me:

> Allow others to talk about themselves.
When I can't think of something to talk to people about, I let them do all the talking. It can be as simple as where they're from, what they do for work or their general hobbies. People right now are really eager to engage if you give them the slightest indication of interest, and it allows you to bounce topics off them.

> Reframe interests to sound more normie.
I have some conspiracy theories too. I'm a bit of a prepper, so I'm doing some food preservation, stockpiling and some other curious things. However, here's what I say:
> Oh yeah, I like cooking a lot! Canning is really fun too. I've been making a few jams and practicing my pickling; I'll bring you over a jar sometime! 

> Find events with active activities.
Going out to a location to do a thing with others gives you more things to talk about and focus the conversation on. Writing classes or a physical class or gardening club or anything. Make sure you are interested in it though. It sucks when you don't care to do something and are stuck for an hour.

>>25647
Just incase you're wondering what happened to the anon you replied to, i was baptized and reborn and became dead to sin, my porn addiction died in the lake i was baptized in. I was living in habitual sin, stay away from porn and media sex appeal of any kind. I was unable to be loving to people especially women, and i had a deep hatred of myself that i would not acknowledge. Therapy doesn't help, pray to God to delivery you from it.

>>21147
i hit puberty, i was more innocent,more motivated, now im not, but i have christ

Love this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTFG_nvreoI

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaa__yqCsP8
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU0OF8s4Qbc

>>20860 (OP) 
I like Martin Luther's hymns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZnbOj_r8LQ

Vidi_Aquam.opus
[Hide] (2MB, 04:10)

It's a little out-of-season right now, but I've always been fond of the Vidi Aquam. I'm not sure what my least favorite hymn would be without going for the very low-hanging fruit of contemporary music, such as that of Hillsong.

>>25466 (OP) 
I'll say it makes sense logically, how people who fall short of the glory of God can be in his presence. But scripture is mostly silent on it and the scripture used to support it apart from being apocrypha is contentious at best.

>>25476
In the Garden of Eden, Adam tried to cover his own sin, but God rejected Adam’s attempt, and provided him instead with a covering that required the death of an animal:
“[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
“[21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Genesis 3:7, 21 KJV

>I'll say it makes sense logically, how people who fall short of the glory of God can be in his presence.
“[6] But we are all as an unclean thing, and 'all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags'; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” Isaiah 64:6 KJV

“[21] But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
[22] Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans 3:21-23 KJV

“[6] Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God 'imputeth righteousness without works,'” Romans 4:6 KJV

“[30] What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

Purgatory as defined by the Vatican is the fairest thing.

The concept of Purgatory, a place of temporal punishment, comes from 1 Cor 3:13, 15 and dates back to the Council of Lyons in 1245.

"10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames."

>>25571
That there, that's proof that you will feel morose when the house you tried to build for good retained some sin and was burned. What that is not proof of is a whole other universe on top of the canon/doctrine you have already established.

I get that fighting an Italiano-German emperor is scary but that doesn't explain why you would make a really big extrapolation doctrinally. You would think that I could find arguments both for and against, spoken succinctly and decisively in the meeting at Lyon with either evidence for their case, given the thing's significance. But all I can find reference for are those things decreed, and basically nothing for their evidence or rationale.

What was said after the fact? Did it become 'this must be right because the previous council said so'?

The devil needs to draw people away from Christ, and the most effective way he can think of is to hide his wolves in sheep's clothing.

r128chip.jpg
[Hide] (24.6KB, 250x250)

>>23681
Go and look at the modern Quakers on youtube. Go and look at anything said by an Anglican/CofE bishop in the last 20 years. Take a look at what modern methodists are up to.

The only reason I don't go around calling these people evil is because it's not effective as a strategy to go around calling these people evil. If you managed to make one final push to try to save even one of the CofE schools, the teachers' union would try to obstruct or sooner close down or sue you. Churchill fought most of Europe over lesser grievances than this. His grandson invites in all the mohammedians and believes in worse things than nothing.

These people sometimes, sometimes only rarely, openly state that they want to see you hurt or that they want to see you killed - mainly that they want to see you shut-up forcibly. You can't commune with them. You can't convert them. Their way is the law and your way is an illegal anachronism. If Protestantism isn't dead and doesn't deserve to be called as much and to their faces no less, then how should we go about arranging for 10 as likeminded as us to be present in the same room in one place together?

We're scattered on the wind and lost like diaspora. So I don't believe the quakers when they say that we need meetings. Seclusion is what I ask for and am occassionally given, and I'm glad whenever it is to have had any.

The simple truth is, at the end of the day:

Christ is everywhere, as is his father, as is his spirit. You can be Christian when you are rich and when you are homeless, with an untouched stone as an altar or a church. It does not matter the circumstance or the denomination. 

God makes the call, Jesus saves, you have your life to live according to what is sensible. You grow and as you grow you grow your faith.

>>23143
Thanks, Pete/Pietr/Pierre holy man I thought I was going to hell, but then I don't see or intend the rejection of Catholicism as a sin. I know they're there for sure, but then it looks like a ritual larp and their confessional looks like an excuse to steal some more of my paving slabs. I'd never want into there, and I'd be without God if that's all there had been presented before me.

My entry point was Svedenborgsen, who was absolutely not a prophet by the way just a laymen preacher huffing some more burning bush, followed by the quakers and their long time ago insistence on doctrinal correctitude. Modern quakers are trash mind you it's the plain variety similar to the Amish you're going to want. You'd take the Amish over a Catholic anyday - you know you would, and it doesn't help to get jealous or pout or to declare you won because you're the only one who gets to interpret the rules. Let the Pope think that perhaps, but he's lost whole fleets of ships to "God said I'm right" before.

You do understand that even if America is a republic and not a monarchy that their bloodlines and origins go backwards into monarchist family trees and to kinglier times, right? They are about as damned as the Sultanate of Belize is holy. I'd go further while I'm blustering actually; I'd say that for anything you can not render 100% proveable, "swearing no oath" applies.

I'll argue with the quakers as well if what I h

>>22934 (OP) 
  The conflict between different christian branches and denominations is mostly pointless, and result from political divides more than ideology. Each individual has their own relationship with God, and any 2 christians from not just the same denomination, but the same church community will probably disagree on major points. All religions are like this, not just Christianity.
  For new converts, don't obsess about what "the Best" book or practice is, just follow the general guidelines. You can always read and compare different versions if you want. Anyone who says having Bibles from other denominations is a sin is an idiot. Christianity is about knowledge, not ignorance. The same for prayer and church services.
  The real conflict christians face is atheism in all it's forms. The rejection of God leads to narcissism and hubris, which is the orginal concept of evil (it was Lucifer's sin after all).  Without God there is no real belief in morality, and all evils can be justified. Look at the over 1 billion people who have died the last century as a result of socialism and communism.
  Other religions at least believe in something. Even Muslims can be allies against atheists. The problem with pagans was that they believed in superstitions and used human sacrifice and cannibalism to solve simple problems.  This is why pagans converted to Christianity, they realized burying their child

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (226.8KB, 800x1420)

I think my values were skewed by opposition to state religion in general and persuasion/mockery over legal persecution. The one about Jews deserving everything bad that happened to them over the past X years would get a 'much' stronger answer if it was limited to ~1990 years. 

>the cow is a sacred animal

How should this be answered to reflect a view of "All life, including animals, created by God is sacred, but man has dominion over animals and the cow is only more special than other mammals in the sense that it provides useful goods."?

>>24950
Considering the question is clearly being asked in a pagan idolatrous sense, the answer depends on your view of the worship of animals.

test.PNG
[Hide] (243.1KB, 800x1420)

heres mine friends

Screenshots_2023-09-23-10-57-09.png
[Hide] (293.4KB, 638x1511)

>>25546
Didn't know there were fellow Orthos here. If you got all those 100% on the first go I am jealous. Picrel my vanilla version.

>>25517
>but it doesn't change the religion
No, there's a very clear delineation between Judaism & Christianity in the New Testament. Christ Himself is the 'scandalon' (rock of offense in the Greek), and was anathema to the Jews. They literally killed Him over His claim to be equal to God the Father. 

With all due respect, I believe you're allowing your modern sensibilities to cloud your judgment on this matter. Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today, regardless of the deeper truths of God that extend back past before the time of Abraham. I'm also skeptical of the claim that believing Christians are somehow 'Israel' today. Jesus & the rest of the NT are quite clear that we are distinct groups, and that we have been "grafted in" as additions, not replacements.

>tl;dr
Just ask an orthodox Jew what he thinks about Jesus Christ, Anon.  :^)

>>25518
>'Judeo-Christion' is a political term not a theological one.
Fair enough. But I know of a lot of nominal Christians in the evangelical Protestant branch who claim that that phrase is both completely-real, and applies to themselves directly. There are plenty of Jews themselves who are promoting this idea as well.

Please understand I'm not disagreeing with you you Anon, 

>>25519
>With all due respect, I believe you're allowing your modern sensibilities to cloud your judgment on this matter. Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today
I get what your trying to say. But I feel that you are mistaking what is identified as Judaism today, Rabbinic Judaism, with what was practiced during the time of Christ and the Apostles, ie 2nd Temple Judaism. The consensus is actually beginning to shift and show that during that time there were multiple sects of Judaism being practiced. The most well known sects being the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Christians. The Christians being the only ones that accepted Christ as the messiah of course. However, as the others fell away after the destruction of the Temple, Christianity survived and continued the 2nd Temple liturgical practices with some modification to place emphasis on Christ. Nowhere at this time was anything resembling what we know today as Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism came about much later primarily as reactionary movement against the growing influence of Christianity among the remaining Jewish population. There was no complied Talmud or Masoretic text at the time of the Apostles. And these texts would not appear for another 500+ years. The Judaism today is not the Israelite religion. The Israelite religion is Christianity. Another good video that debunks the claims of Rabbinic Judaism is Marching on Zion. 
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8cVL0ViBB7E

>They literally killed Him over His claim to be equal to God the Father. 
That does not invalidate the fact that the religion was the same. It simply reiterates what we already know, that some Jews refused to see Christ as the messiah and the Son of God. 

>Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today
I agree with this, because Rabbinic Judaism is much younger and lacks direct continuity with the 2nd Temple. I just want to emphasis again that for the Apostles, while there was a change in some practices and views within the religion with the coming of Christ, the religion stayed the same. Our worldview is the same, and our worship is directed toward the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We don't say that Abraham and Moses have a different religion from each other just because the pre-incarnate Christ revealed different things to each of them, or that their worship patterns were different, one with an altar outside and one with a tabernacle. So in that respect Christ revealing Himself to the Apostles doesn't change the religion to a distinct separate religion, it simply deepens the fullness of our religion. Everything that the prophets foretold, the apostles believed and witnessed through Christ. This was the acceptance of the faith of their fathers, that the prophets were correct and God is now among them.

>Just ask an orthodox Jew what he thinks about Jesus Christ, Anon.
An orthodox Jew practices Rabbinic Judaism. Again this is a much later reactionary innovation.   

>I'm also skeptical of the claim that believing Christians are somehow 'Israel' today.

>>25523
Hey you seem to be quite well informed on these things and my interest is in the early Quakers, basically do you know if they have any biblical authority on refusing to call their worshipful meeting houses "churches"?

I know they have expedient reasons for doing so, but I don't really know if they have biblical proofs for doing so. I miss decorations and embellishments and big pipe organs. Also if you're going to have a structure that is not primarily used/owned for humble ploughwork then in what way is it any different from the other buildings whose main function is worship?

Semantic autisimo is not sufficient for me to hold an idea as a divine necessity.

>>25524
To be honest I am not very familiar with the Quakers. You may have to fill me in a bit on this, but I guess I would want to know how they are defining "Church" that they would refuse to use that to define their place of worship? Is it a reaction to the idea of a controlling hand of "Big Church?"

>>25525
Basically this. But they said people who were humble shepherds made better adherents and were used to prophetise more as the result so we should get back to that somehow. Funny thing is I don't know any Quaker groups who even in fine weather would take their meetings outside any more. I assume they view dedicated church buildings as just another ritualist extravagance like all the other Catholic stuff.

It's not an outrage or anything to come to this conclusion it's just that the idea of permanence of a meeting house where it's sole job is a meeting house makes it sound a lot like a church house doesn't it. A lot of them were just accomodating homes that a Quaker lived in, but I think if you're going to have a permanent structure it should be used for humble work foremost and praying in it should be it's secondary purpose. It's that or you're not respecting what the decree was trying to put across.

Modern Quakers are a co-opted white guilt activism worse than Anglican/CofE (maybe "no leadership lol" lets it all get in idk) so the plain conservative variety have retreated to the hills to form tiny pockets that barely hold onto continuity. I should see what happened to the Moravians and see if their outcome has been any better.

If I'm to keep on the topic of the thread and on the original followers from Judea, what other yard sticks besides faith and obedience can be used to measure belief in the fir