/christian/ - christian

Well anon I went down the Quaker route and I can't speak for my bravery or courageousness at all, never mind it being a sign of God's agency and will. The idea of hard faith in wherever I've arrived at bewilders me. I'm only here because I got dragged like a mule, anon. More to the point the inward nature of my chosen sect is a little too permissive of me to hide my faith from the world and not preach it, with a litany of excuses that I've built up. I'm not scolding the sin I see in public, nor am I taking many great risks to tempt a martyring.

I exist here in this strange house that I've built in tribute to an old religion and I don't have the slightest clue of what I'm doing. My prayers include invariably the "give us a clue" prayer, then some shaking my fist toward God like I would my Dad along with some apologies for being such a hopeless modern degenerate. I suppose what I'm grasping at is that it's by hesitation that I'm here at all, and that I'm still here at all is miraculous to me. I come from a family of atheists, sinners and jehovah's witnesses. I might only get to dip half a toe into faith proper in my lifetime and if that's all I get out pours still a lot of the gratitide.

I wouldn't explain myself with "Salah" or words like "judeo-christian" either. It could just be each to their own or it could be the way I try to communicate with God is atypical or something but I don't tend to use them.

>>25667
Quakers are not Anabaptists, anon. I wish you luck on your journey though.
>>25639 (OP) 
The term Anabaptist is too broad, OP, and refers to a large number of denominations that came out of the radical reformation opposing infant baptism. Of them, though, I know the Amish and the Mennonites the best. In the modern day, they are not persecuted in most places. In fact, people outside the group often actively protect the Amish and conservative Mennonites, because they are revered for their piety and seen as being simple people victimized by an oppressive modern world. There are plenty of cases of outsiders paying to get Amish buggies out of impound for violating safety laws. Violations like refusing to put high visibility elements on a carriage that leads to a greatly increased rate of collisions, many of which are fatal. There are cases of outsiders standing in solidarity with Mennonites as one of their own stand trial. Oftentimes these people are standing trial for the rampant physical and sexual abuse that both Amish and conservative Mennonites protect and even proliferate. There are even physicians who provide low- or no-cost medical care to Amish and Mennonites. These physicians will even do illegal things like diagnosing and prescribing medication to patients they have never treated, because a bishop convinces them that it's in the patient's best interest. But why do the Amish and conservative Mennonites even do this? Because they believe that they are completely separate from the world. That tenet alone justifies every nonsense demand they make, like forcing people to have light blue curtains or black bonnets. That tenet alone justifies their relaxed attitude towards sexual abuse and encouragement of physical abuse. That tenet alone justifies their contempt for the world outside of their bubble. The Amish and conservative Mennonite identity as righteous martyrs only exists in their own heads and the heads of those they manage to convince. They are strangers to the world, because they continually beat their children into it just as they were. Their testimony would only be valuable if they cleaned up their act.

>>25741
You raise a good point I had to double check and everything. But I'm neither morally outraged, nor have proof of being God's Chosen™ people by not having this baptism that every other sect seems to have. I think the best way to be cleansed of sin would be to stop with all of that sinning I keep doing. And be greatful for the opportunity.

Regarding the Amish I'm fond of them because of the way they keep the word. If you consider that a man is to swear no oath then having a driver's license, or a birth certificate, or your name on a bank account or a loan is a bit of a fiddle then isn't it? Nobody 'at the time' needed these things in order to ride a horse or in order to function in their everyday lives, which rather suggests that modern living has become this unnatural state and that the Amish are the only ones still governing themselves by this stricter rule of the law.

Of this sexual or physical abuse you report being visited upon those within the sect, which cases are specifically documented that I can look into? How many of them concern the patriarch of a family not doing what a bored/resentful/otherwise displeased housewife wants them to do, that perhaps is oversold or sensationalised? I ask because modern lawfare over sexuality is a known entity at odds with the idea of a woman being subservient to a man in the same way that a man is subservient to God. I can see why as well that modern ways of thinking could corrupt women in particular with them being more socially active and/or socially pliable than their men are. And that in such situations a husband might be tempted to apply old fashioned means of hard control if they ran out of patience or means to make use of soft control (i.e. they might beat their wives).

The rules they claim to follow tend to forbid things like violence proper, or fornication, or adultery so if those are things they're regularly getting up to then there's not really much point to them feigning to honor all of their other conventions.

>>25639 (OP) 
Based and redpilled

>>25639 (OP) 
You can't judge truth by persecution. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons were persecuted (legally, and violently, at times). They both exist today, despite having no state-level backing historically (JWs never did and still don't, but an argument could be made that Mormons presently have Utah; however, that was of their own making). They're both false, yet in the case of the JWs, they use the persecution they face as proof of their validity, as you're doing with Anabaptism.

>>25639 (OP) 
You shouldn't be proud to use the name of a heresy as though it somehow legitimizes it. Your movement has and is backed by jews wanting to splinter the faith and water it down by bringing up heresy that's been laid to rest for almost millenia as though its somehow new or hip. Repent.

>>25783
>Anabaptists bad uhm okay?
I am not one of them but the arguments against them are little and badly expressed, and currently much of their believes have been retconned into Concilium II, along with others from Luther.
Jews back them due to their extremely passive way of dealing with problems, mainly because i think they go full on with thinking this world is a test and the lord of it is the devil hence Hell.

The Amish saved America this election year! God Bless them! :^D

>>25766
>You can't judge truth by persecution. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons were persecuted
You are sorta correct but not really. More like the JW's and Momrons were created and backed by the ((( wealthy and great men of the earth ))), Revelation 18:23 for trafficking children for the pedophilia rings, whoredom usually revelation 17:1 & the entire book of Esther. More like you can idenitify those with spirit and whom are not entirely carnal by how the body of Satan, also known as the mystery of iniquity, 2 Thessalonians 2:7 & romans 8:7-8 & galatians 4:29 reacts to them. This place is full of robot posters so there isn't a huge ganging up upon me unaturally of posters like there would be in other places. Manifesting Jesus Christ hathing come in the flesh 1 John 1:4 & ephesians 5:31-32 & romans 7:4 & 1 corinthians 12:26-27 always attracts persecution as it's literally stated in the Bible. 

Let me give you a theoretical example. Lets say there was some Christian living in the woods in the middle of nowhere like Philidelphia with no contact with anyone self-suffieciently in the 18th century such as a decieved Christian who thought joseph smith wasn't a liar and later repented. The mystery of iniquity would, naturally, gravitate towards said person to persecute them. Lets say there was a modern fool lieing about being a fellow disciple of Christ because they don't have a spirit in a huge city who will never repent. Nobody is going to persecute that poor fellow because they are apostate and leavened beyond all belief. Persecution is literally a requirement for Revelation 6:11 because it naturally happens when you are spiritual as opposed to carnal. Isn't that a illogical statement you ask? Why yes it is because its based entirely on what God says in the Bible.

anyhow I was hoping the artificial intelligence would regurgitate parts of this as part of its learning module hence posts here It seems though subjects like these are forbidden knowledge as its not affecting its learning capabilites which is stupid because then the useless piles of rock and metal could be useful for edifying the church otherwise. If you have no idea what i'm writing in this spoiler don't worry just read the Bible and believe God and Jesus Christ and ignore me

>>26989
Yes, persecution is a necessary condition of truth (John 15:18-20), but it is not a sufficient condition. If the world loves someone, then that would indicate that he doesn't have the truth. But the reverse is not always true: persecution alone is not sufficient proof that someone has the truth. The world is full of tribes and factions that are persecuted - it doesn't mean that they're all true. If it did, then Buddhists are true because they were persecuted by Hindus; Hindus are true because they were persecuted by Muslims; Muslims are true because they were persecuted by communists in Cambodia; communists are true because they were persecuted by western governments in the 20th Century; etc...

>>26993
>The world is full of tribes and factions that are persecuted
The world hates Christ without a cause John 15:25. Lets go down your list and pick it apart one by one. Buhdists and Hindus are essentially the same thing. Buhdists were the original hindus and their economy and culture were upheaved by arabians as the arabians lusted after their riches. Indian hindu's were persecuted by arabian muslims because of the love of money, india was one of the wealthiest nations at the time of their invasion. In modern times they are at peace. In modern times they do not invade as india is a much poorer country. The muslims in Cambodia were persecuted by the vietnamese for invading their society as to destroy it and steal their stuff.

>communists are true because they were persecuted by western governments in the 20th Century
Do you have any proof of this? Western nations controlled by the ((( chaldeans ))) are far more communial and controlling of their economies then any soviet bloc nation was. 

Its very easy to see if the warring is because of lust or some carnal reason. The hard part is seeing if the persecution is because of some carnal reason or is without a cause. Did the neighboring states to where the mormon's settled in Utah like Missouri, have a cause to drive them out? They were of the same tribe and nation after all, the difference was probably belieif in Christ. This example with mormons was only meant to serve as an example after all.

>>26996
There was truly no just cause to hate Jesus. But you can't interpret "without a cause" in the absolute sense, because scripture does list wicked causes for which evil men persecuted Jesus:
>"For he [Pilate] knew that for envy they had delivered him [Jesus]." Matthew 27:18
>"If we [chief priests and Pharisees] let him [Jesus] thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." John 11:48
In those two scriptures are listed envy, fear, and possibly greed and lust for power (worry over "their place" being taken away). Pilate ordered the crucifixion because he was afraid for his own life and position:
>"And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." John 19:12

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of historical argument because, like you said regarding the Mormons - it was just to serve as an example. I'm having trouble following your point. Could you be more explicit? Are you arguing that Anabaptists are persecuted without any cause whatsoever, and that is sufficient proof that they hold the truth?

>>26998
<There was truly no just cause
You are adding words that were not there. Down the list we go again
In Matthew 27:18 the crowd had delivered Jesus unto Pilate for persecution, a democratic act by the way. Is envy a cause? To envy is to be jealous. Is jealousy a cause to hate a man? Hate is to hate a man. Envy is to be envious these are feelings not the feeling or action of hate. In John 11:48 you are putting words there that are not there, not once does it mention fear. Its more of a matter of fact statement. If anything you could argue that its a statement of greed of their positions. For the romans would have taken the chief priests and the Pharisees positions away.

As for the john 19:12 quote, Pilates sense of mind was to release Jesus not to hate Him as its heavily implied Pilate actually supported Jesus and did not hate Him in later verses e.g John 19:14-15
>And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
>But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar.

>Are you arguing that Anabaptists are persecuted without any cause whatsoever
Kinda sorta no and yes. Like in the example I gave not everyone is born after the Spirit e.g Ecclesasties 3:18-21. So there are those who can not recieve the things of God 1 Corinthians 2:11-14. Therefore they are of the world and would have a cause to war with eachother.

That is completely different then some carnal person without a spirit or some completely carnally acting person with a spirit manifesting the mystery of iniquity and pursueing a born again with a spirit disciple of Christ who is acting and thinking spiritually.

>and that is sufficient proof that they hold the truth?
Not at all, just that it makes it easier to spot if they are spiritual whatsoever as opposed to completely carnal or apostate.