/christian/ - christian

>>24000
No, anon, sharing files is not a sin. The fact that it's even called piracy like it's the same as somalians taking over a cargo boat is quite telling. If there's something specific you want, don't hesitate to nab it.

As for mature themes I would avoid anything not up to good moral standards. So no stuff with swearing or excess gore like Berserk. Actually you should avoid stuff from heathen countries like Japan in general, and also anything made from a secular perspective. If not designed to subvert, it can still carry subversive messages secondhand.

>>24001
if youre solid in your faith you should be capable of handling "subversive" material. If anything it should be good for you because it causes you to think about things and ponder the world.

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" -Matthew 5:44 KJV

How can I gain the mentality of forgiving my enemies?

>>24011
Because God hates them far more than you ever will if you're in the right.

>>24011
By realizing that hate breeds hate and corrodes the container that holds it.

>>24011
I think it has to do with the crippling effects of spiritual sin being our enemy more than flesh and blood. For example i used to consider White nationalists to my enemies but i've learned a lot about them and why they believe what they believe, i'm not on their side, but i have a lot in common with them.

>>24011
Maybe consider it like this: 'they know not what they do'. People with a stick in their craw against Christianity, to the point they'd actively wish spite and hate on Christians or people who aren't doing anything wrong, are likely doing it without even having a clear idea of why they're doing it. Rather, they think the precepts of Christianity, where certain things are discouraged because they're simply inherently wrong, are obstacles to taking actions that to them are 'solutions' to something. To use politics and go both extremes of the spectrum, someone far-left may see 'homosexuality is a sin' as an obstacle or an attack because homosexuality is their solution to dealing with a certain kind of pain, even though it is a bad 'solution' that just compounds on itself and gets worse. The flipside far-right ethnic-centred genocide is equally a sin rooted in a pride of inherent superiority that has only been 'inherent' insofar as people were keeping out of sin and not worshipping human sacrifice gods, but is a 'solution' to those frantic that the good elements of humanity will die out with the white race. (Which also betrays a lack of faith that God would protect the white race, if it were so inherently good, from extinction in such a scenario). There is a personal pain in both cases where the chosen solution is explicitly rejected as wicked by Christianity, I think that is the root (alongside demonic influence) of why people get so heated against it. 
When I see people like this as people scrambling for solutions to personal problems and mistakenly choosing things that just hurt themselves and others, while perpetuating sin and the interests of demonic forces who want humanity dead or degraded, it does make it easier for me to forgive them in the sense of them simply not realising how or why what they're doing is wrong beyond the intrinsic warning of their conscience (which they are probably in denial about and from that probably suffering). That is, my wish for those types is that they become more able to see why this 'solution' is unfeasible, how it's just inviting more pain or strife, and that better alternatives exist by simply not fighting so hard against God; if they feel helpless, that they have more agency over themselves than they think, and if they feel they need to be supermen, that saving the world with grand gestures isn't their burden. That is a wish of their elevation or peace that ultimately also stops them.

Of course, I think there's other cases where the perpetrator knows full well what they're doing and takes joy in the act of their transgression itself, in which case repentance isn't realistic, though I still find myself wishing for it and praying for it against odds. But if there is no repentance, I am of full faith that God will cut them down at the precise moment to ensure they will be culpable of exactly what they deserve. I think about the 400-year period between God's promise to Abraham and the sacking of Canaan; I think about the hundreds of years it took for Sodom and Gomorrah to become so bold and established; I think about the erasure of Babylon and Phoenicia; I think about the collapse of Western Rome and the survival of the East. When it seems like a villain isn't getting repaid, I feel content with the knowledge that more than likely, they actually are, and if they are very heinous and seeing seemingly no penalty, that they are actually just on the receiving end of what their persistent lack of repentance has turned into a very, very, very long rope.
I do of course worry for the victims, a lot of the time I wonder 'why them?'. But I'm also confident that there always is a 'why' (though in the case of parents or close relatives mistreating a child, that 'why' is basically a side-effect of the parent's iniquity) in how terrible things happen seemingly randomly to decent people, that is, I don't think it's actually random. I don't want to get too callous with that sentiment but I do think it's true.

Finally, there's the element of your own spiritual well-being in this. It's kind of counter-intuitive to go, 'forgive people who hate you for your own good', and there's a line not to cross in being simply permissive, but forgiveness is an element attuned to Heaven and hatred is attuned to Hell, so in my understanding, training yourself to default towards forgiveness is spiritually 'positioning' yourself in/towards Heaven (and making you more accessible to receive Heaven's blessings). We are in dastardly times right now though so you will need fortitude like Noah, I would  pray asking for such a fortitude or softness of heart to be able to do this without crossing the 'simply permissive' line.

Is it sacreligious to perform/listen to masses with female voices?
The Church treats the church choir as a true liturgical office and therefore doesn't allow women to be included in the choir.
Are there even records of masses where sopranos and alts are performed by boys? I haven't seen any.

>>24011
C.S Lewis once said that you should start off by forgiving the everyday gripes and build up your capacity for forgiveness. At least that's what I recall him saying.

14137cdd520a3d40173d9029aff15d0a954796a929075568a8632ad9d329b161.jpg
[Hide] (222.6KB, 854x1280)

th.jpg
[Hide] (54.7KB, 474x711)

Obviously i don't take this seriously but here is what joyofsatan.org says about why the Jews hate Christianity. What does /christian/ think? They believe that the Christian God is fictitious. They're also wrong that Jews don't adopt Christianity form themselves because there are messianic Jews who follow Christ as well as ex-jews who have become Christian.
################################
Redpillers FAQ: Why Do Jews Appear to Hate "Christianity"?

HP Hooded Cobra 666
August 7, 2021
RedpilledSchizo wrote: “…Also, on a deeper level, it seems that Jewish mysticism of the Kabbalah does endorse the belief in multiple gods/deities. I think this why many people tend to think that Judaism is itself "satanic" for lack of a better term” The belief in multiple Gods and deities, is absolutely normal, Pagan, and integral to the systems of the past. There is no singular slave monotheistic system in the universe. This idea was created by jews to destroy the cultures of the ancient peoples’. Judaism has stolen and malformed everything from Gentile religions, so that is normal that they have allusions and other things. The exported lie of "Monotheism", let alone the garbage about jesus etc., was only for their enemies to consume.

Jews, before they managed to destroy and attack Gentile religions, they always infiltrated them first to steal and adopt as much as possible. No different than how today for example, they have hijacked all the Nations they later on want to destroy.

After this parasitism is done, they steal the adopted things, present them as their own, and malform the past about their enemies. Their religious tenets are the highest manifestation of this rule they followed. Then, people who hate them for doing this to them, are so confused by cultural loss, that they end up hating their OWN culture, simply because they hate the "jews" for what they did to them.

The jews however, ensuring that nothing is left behind of cultural knowledge, misdirect the "Goyim" to hating their own culture again, and going against all the tenets of their forefathers. And this brings us to the point of "Christianity". This is like having a lab that makes crack cocaine. The jew is not going to consume the known and deadly drug cocaine they have created themselves, it's to be given to their enemies. They will indeed say in their midst that it's totally evil to consume. This is why they deny fully and even "hate" the monotheistic approaches they created for the Goyim. This also helps the stupid to flock into the crack cocaine, thinking it's great, while this increases the jew's sales of it. Here fall for example many retards who simply are xians because "jews hate christianity!".

The crack cocaine of muhammed, jesus christ, and so on, is solely intended for Goyim slave consumption. The jews will of course, hate this historical hoax they have created. They could never adopt what they knew was a lie. Even to this day, jews that have adopted this hoax, are being reviled and hated by jews, and this hoax never could take ground in Israel. Of course jews hate for their midst and deny for themselves the garbage hoax they created. They aren't going to adopt it. They laugh at those who are as stupid as to adopt these low-level cattle hoaxes.

And they will squash the virus they created if it tries to enter their territory, while promoting all this in the territory of their enemies. This is why your favorite Conservacucks are so involved with the jewish program of "Christ", the jew spreads this disease in YOUR midst, and keeps it away from THEIR OWN midst. Marcus Eli Ravage, a most famous Jewish Zionist, has elaborated on the jewish creation of christianity, and why the Goyim keep reacting against the Jews, who put a yoke of slavery around them with christianity at the center. Plainly put, this hoax was put there to subvert people and rule over them culturally based on jewish lies. 

It takes a full-blown idiot to open the bible, which is a hebrew manuscript, and say that all of this in there somehow is against the jews. That level of retardation is just emotionally programed and not consistent with "reality". Xianity is nothing but a docile slave creating program, that jews created, to merely subvert and destroy humanity. They are of course, not going to adopt a slave system for themselves, and they drive it away and hate it, while they promote this on their enemies.  That's all about their hate in regards "Christianity".

>>24041
>the bible, which is a hebrew manuscript

>>24041
It's baffling how the core contention here is 'it's Jewish! It's Jewish!' while in the same breath promoting  Jewish Kabbalah. It's otherwise the typical kind of complaint of 'there can't be ONE God, who has standards of behaviour! There have to be a billion who'll help me and don't mind if I sin!'. Which is kind of correct except for the distinction that the 'billion' are just fallen angels/misc negative spirits who hate humanity, covet worship, and will enslave their worshippers, and the One God is in reference to the ruling figure that created all these other things, and this figure is genuinely Jesus/Yahweh. (These are all points someone who either hasn't thought it through very hard or has not read the Bible will stumble on, or would arise as a deceptive 'answer' for someone who can't grasp how a loving God would let the world be in the state it's currently in, while also not recognizing the reason it's in this state is because people have largely turned away from God's law, God allows you to have what you want, and that means free rein for demons, and the good place is where the demons aren't, ie, Heaven & earthly pockets that mirror it by listening to God, Earth itself is not the 'utopia'). 
I mean, 'Kabbalah endorses multiple deities -- they must have stolen it from the pagans!'. No they're just worshipping the same things as the pagans lol because they rejected Jehova.
Not to mention actual historical things like the observable ruins of OT places, Jesus' existence, the martyring of early Christians, that Kabbalah dates after Christianity, the times that Israel was monotheistic despite being smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of polytheistic kingdoms, the rifeness of war, degeneracy, and human sacrifice in these 'pagan systems of the past' they idolise (and yet barely know), the prosperity of ex-pagan nations through Europe after conversion, etc. Someone attributing way too much to the Jews and not enough to the powers behind the Jews (not speaking of ones who repented) while aligning themselves with those same powers they are railing against, and not realising it because they haven't read the Bible.

1_H8TK1BK5H12X65M8OL0nUQ.png
[Hide] (72.6KB, 224x224)

Here's a channel by a conservative reformed zoomer, what do you guys think?
https://youtube.com/@redeemedzoomer6053/videos

I wanted to share this with everyone here https://yewtu.be/watch?v=qlXV1tXFG8w 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlXV1tXFG8w

>>24072
Bible Illustrated is also worth watching.

Untitled2.png
[Hide] (12.5KB, 738x174)

>>24069
Doesn't the Kabbalah teach about one God?

>>24082
theyre conspiratorialists.

>>24082
Read the Bible:
>You believe that there is one God. Good! 'Even the demons believe that—and shudder.'
James 2:19

>>24084
That doesn't answer my question.
>>24086
I'm not saying that those who study the Kabbalah worship the Christian God (they probably reject Jesus so they don't have the father), i'm just saying that given what is written about the Kabbalah they might be monotheists.

>>24087
They are (for the most part at least) monothiests. The people saying otherwise believe in a conspiracy, as evidenced by the images they posted.

>>24087
Yes and the Bible says simply being monotheists isn't commendable because even demons recognize that there's one true God, with that knowledge you should worship the Lord in the manner that He has ordained and not adulterate His dispensation with occult fantasies like Kabbalists do.

>>24091
Just because talk about or study the Kabbalah doesn't mean i'm not a Christian or that i practice the occult.

Do angels have freewill? i hear both arguments that they do or that they don't and God made them to worship him, but if they don't then how did the 1/3 choose to rebel against God and join Satan?

>>24092
That's time you could be using to study and talk about the Bible and theology.

>>24094
I agree, you have a good point, however as the Bible says "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore 'wise as serpents', and harmless as doves." As Christians we should know our enemies, and in doing so it will make us better Christians and we'll know when magick or non-christian doctrines tries to enter the church.

Hanacpachap_cussicuinin-0qBSSJH-_nE.mp4
[Hide] (5.6MB, 400x360, 03:42)

Macantosh_plus.png
[Hide] (503.7KB, 767x600)

Could someone make the mp4 have the thumbnail of the image?

>>24099
Do you actually want that as an embedded thumbnail or as the still image in the video?

>>24100
a still image in the video as well as the thumbnail.

out4.webm
[Hide] (4.1MB, 767x600, 03:44)

>>24099
Sorry I couldn't make it an mp4. The video kept getting corrupted in any player except mpv for some reason.

Hanacpachap_Cussicuinin.mp4
[Hide] (5.3MB, 760x594, 03:42)

>>24099
>>24104

>>24104
>>24105
Supremely done, thank you.

maybe.png
[Hide] (107.9KB, 584x266)

I was thinking about making a YHWH sweater with fabric paint, what do you think, cringe?

>>24113
The name of YHWH would replace the bane letters on the sweater by the way. which form of hebrew should i use? Or should i not do it at all?

>>24114
I think it would look cooler in English but if you don't like that then go with the top one

chi-rho-simple.gif
[Hide] (10.2KB, 276x150)

Is this a catholic symbol or have Catholics just used it? I know that it's greek for Christos.

>>24134
it's a Christian symbol

>>24134
It's one of the oldest Christian symbols and my personal favorite. It is a royal monogram of Christos, and represents Christ as King. It was very popular during the pagan empire for that reason as it represented the fact that Jesus, and not Caesar, is Lord, and it fell off in popularity in favor of the cross after christianization for the same reason.

ytdt2.PNG
[Hide] (13.4KB, 637x423)

How did Protestantism get so many denominations?

>>24144
Watch this for a quick rundown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzLS4O7YaUg

>>24168
>I haven't watched the whole thing
He summarizes it at the end, it has to do with their differing approach to the importance of church unity.

Also the word protest meant to testify to the truth in the 1500s. The sense of "to express disapproval" only gained traction in the 1700s. The term protest march didn't emerge until the 1940s and the sense of protester that we use today not until the 1960s:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/protest
https://www.etymonline.com/word/protester

Martin Luther wasn't just a "protester," and everyone then understood what the word Protestant meant because it was literally in the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible ("Mittebatque eis prophetas ut reverterentur ad Dominum, quos 'protestantes' illi audire nolebant" - Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the Lord; and they 'testified' against them, but they would not listen. 2 Chronicles 24:19). This is why words have to be understood in their historical context, especially in our modern age which seeks to redefine the meanings of everything under the sun, rather than taking our vocabulary for granted.

Are messianic Jews Christian, or do they have some conflicting belief like not believing in the deity of Christ?

>>24082
It's a sleight of hand thing that concludes in a LHP 'actually YOU'RE god! You just have to think hard enough!' sting. It doesn't regard God as being who He is, just as the totality of the facets of everything else that you're supposed to 'out-will' or influence by affecting minds/souls collectively. It completely ignores any part in the Bible where God speaks, acts, or exercises clear will, as well as any explanation He gives on why things have happened or judgements have been made, and demotes Him to a nonsentient, amoral 'unknowable force' that responds predictably to other forces. It's actually pretty sick. It also promotes the doing of wicked deeds on the conceit that evil is an inherent part of God (it's not) that is required for God's existence (it's still not) and evokes positive synthesis (it doesn't). It's also heavily gnostic in that it purports divinity is an endogenous aspect to humans and the reason we're not gods/part of Heaven is basically a big cosmic oopsie where ?????? and little god-fragments got kicked into the material world, and now need destroy the world by removing all holiness from it (not joking this is the goal of Kabbalah) to be released from material existence (and reunified with gnostic blob-God by 'raising their divine spark' ('their' both being the individual and the holiness quotient of the world generally (so there's a 'take over the world and unify everyone's will' element baked in))). So no Kabbalah teaches you nothing about God as it doesn't even accept the premise that God has will as an individual, much less that He controls everything and has his own standards of sin and righteousness. (Kabbalah also denies the existence of Hell, naturally, so 'the worst' you could face for misdeeds is material existence). 
Once you realise this was given from the perspective of demons it makes sense lol. 
>>24093
I'm pretty sure they do, this is mostly conjecture though. I think the angels had a choice early on whether to stick with God or do their own thing and got 'locked in' on their sides at that point. Again though, just conjecture.

>>24092
>>24095
If you want to be "wise as serpents" then you are much better off understanding pilpul and wordplay. Or studying subliminals and subtext. That is just my opinion though.

Which.png
[Hide] (767.8KB, 727x1411)

Which one looks better the top or the bottom, or do either one look fine?

>>24210
Is there anything special about the different spacing between them? I think the top's arrangement of the letters is better except for the yodh. The bottom having each set of two letters bunched together makes them look like two separate terms.

Also someone might mistake you for some sort of Jewish history nerd.

>>21533
I think Thomas Aquinas probably wrote on this in Summa Contra Gentile

>>24173
In a nutshell, Messianic Jews are philosemitic Christians. While most of us here would argue that their philosemitism is excessive (i.e. they prefer to qualify their own brand of Judaism instead of properly calling themselves Christian), the phenomenon is interesting, and possibly an opportunity to convert the Jewish righteous and open their eyes to the Zionist vipers that have led them since the martyrdom of Christ.

>>24227
Aren't they Judaizers that expect everyone to convert to their brand of Judaism rather than arguing that it's just for the Jews?

>>24227
>since the martyrdom of Christ.
>martyrdom
>of Christ.
Kek. You may want to reconsider your thinking friend. Also, don't forget the phrase is properly always
>'"The death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ"'

You'll sound like some kind of libshit ((( theologian ))) if you leave off that last bit. We wouldn't want to you sound that way ofc.

1663464079358.gif
[Hide] (2.1MB, 275x155)

I think I want to convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, but I'm not really that religious.
What will my duties be? Will I be excommunicated if I don't go to church on Sundays?

How zealous will they require me to be? I think I would feel bad as I am not a 100% believer in everything.

>>24242
>What will my duties be? 
One of the biggest differences from Protestantism is you'll have to confess sins in number and in kind to a priest for forgiveness and perform the prescribed penance regularly in order to not go to hell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin#Actions_constituting_grave_matter

If it's done properly the process should be entirely anonymous but modernist churches are lax in this sort of discipline.

Untssitled.png
[Hide] (29.1KB, 680x330)

Is there another word for cults? The dictionary defines cult as any religion, with zero nefarious intent. Why is there this huge disconnect between what Christians define as cult (as a system of control) and what the dictionary defines as a cult?

1590276508543.png
[Hide] (775.6KB, 900x675)

>>24242
>Will I be excommunicated if I don't go to church on Sundays?
You'll excommunicate 'yourself' if you don't go to Church on Sundays. You're not going to be subject of an elaborate ceremony like in the Becket movie that you're going to need to appeal to have it lifted, but you will have willingly cut yourself off from the Body of Christ. When you miss Mass by your own choice (or as a result of negligent choices) what you are saying is "I am choosing to not take part in the Church's public worship, to not be present for the Eucharistic sacrifice, to not take part in the community of Christian believers" etc. In the West this is considered a mortal sin; I've heard that it's not considered a sin per se in the East but it's still considered as one excommunicating himself.

As for the rest of your questions, I think you should probably talk to a priest about them. As long as the priest at your nearby Church doesn't have a rainbow flag or celebrate some sort of rap-themed liturgy, he'll probably be able to give you some guidance.

>>24482
>Is there another word for cults?
IIRC the word "cult" only has a negative connotation in the English language, and even in the English language it can refer to the veneration surrounding individual saints without the implication that such devotion is extremist or authoritarian. In other languages I'm pretty sure the term (or, that is, words derived from the Latin word cultus) predominately refers to the second and third definitions the dictionary lists.

You could probably substitute "new age religion" or "UFO religion" for most groups and mean roughly the same thing. I don't particularly care for the term "cult" in the first place, as I feel it usually reduces to "religious group I don't like". If whatever group you wish to describe is actually that bad, simply describing their practices or beliefs will probably suffice.

ef44ac3ee5a1865294b826aa418015e9.png
[Hide] (937.7KB, 850x1240)

At what point are desires sinful? Obviously there is a difference between desiring to commit a sin and actually committing the sin, but can desires be sins per se?

>>24482
Within paganism, a cult is a religious group that is dedicated to a particular figure in the pantheon. In this context, it's easy to distinguish between cults and the wider religious activity. There were many cults across the Roman Empire. When you get into Christian times, the definition of cult becomes less meaningful because there is only one god (God). Over time, it acquired the negative meaning it has today because groups that seclude themselves away, practice different religion than the mainstream and follow a charismatic leader (even though he's human) are kind of like cults.

>>24483
>You'll excommunicate yourself if you don't go to Church on Sundays
>When you miss Mass by your own choice (or as a result of negligent choices) what you are saying is "I am choosing to not take part in the Church's public worship, to not be present for the Eucharistic sacrifice, to not take part in the community of Christian believers"
What a great way to put it. Whether it's considered a mortal sin is kind of besides the point. It's a big deal regardless.
>rap-themed liturgy
What? Dare I ask?

>>24489
Merely having a thought pop into your head is not yet at the stage of sin. It becomes sin when you choose to indulge those thoughts (that is, to continue thinking about them). The same is probably true for desires. They probably become sinful when you actively desire something wrong (or something good to an inordinate degree). Or to put it another way, do you consent to the desire? Do you consent to having the desire?

>>24482 
because the word cultus, meaning religion, comes from Latin which pre-dates the coming of Christ?

Does anyone have a flow chart about atheist arguments and Christian answers to them? It had something "if God is all powerful why could he make a work without suffering" -> "because blah blah". I remember it was posted here a long time ago.

Rapping_Priest.webm
[Hide] (2.3MB, 750x480, 00:45)

>>24490
>What? Dare I ask?
I probably wouldn't really want to ask this priest about converting to the faith, frankly. There are undoubtedly other examples.

facepalm.gif
[Hide] (5.1MB, 480x480)

>>24494

Liberalism_and_Feminism_Were_Born_From_the_Occult.webm
[Hide] (11MB, 640x480, 06:09)

I thought this was interesting and wanted to share it what do you think?

>>24496
I guess Satan really is an ally (of liberals)!

Satanists_suppost_faggots.png
[Hide] (254KB, 624x480)

>>24497
Well they're for abortion and homosexuality.

Imagine if we wrote bots to evangelize anons online.

265663.jpg
[Hide] (29.9KB, 440x316)

>>24499
Could work.

>>24499
That sounds like a bad idea. Apart from annoying everyone else through spam, this is not how evangelism works. It is not we who speak but the Spirit who speaks in us. Evangelism that isn't born out of love is worthless. A machine just does what it's told. It cannot be filled with the Spirit and moved to help those in need.
Why do you want to automate (ie not do yourself) something which God has commanded you to do? If you're viewing this as a numbers game, that's the wrong way to think about it. You are evangelising to people, each with their own problems and circumstances, not making numbers on a chart go up. You are not God's PR rep. Loving one another as God has loved us is key.

Some context about the Talmud.

Jews will not be punished for murdering Gentiles:
“But wherever there is liability for capital punishment, this tanna teaches it; as it is taught in the first clause: With regard to bloodshed, if a gentile murders another gentile, or a gentile murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a Gentile, he is exempt.” (Sanhedrin 57a:16)
https://archive.is/Pz2ZI

It is permissible for a Jew to rob a Gentile: 
“With regard to robbery, the term permitted is relevant, as it is permitted for a Jew to rob a Gentile” (Sanhedrin 57a:17) 
https://archive.is/Pz2ZI

Jews are not required to pay Gentiles for work:
"Rather, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says that there is a different explanation: It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted." (Sanhedrin 57a:22)
https://archive.is/Pz2ZI

It is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with a nine year old boy:
"The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively, and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively. Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable." (Sanhedrin 54b:21) 
https://archive.is/KFs0B

Children are betrothed via being raped:
"A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse." (Sanhedrin 55b:4)
https://archive.is/mYMH3

Gentiles who strike Jews are liable to receive the death penalty:
“A Gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: ‘And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand’” (Sanhedrin 58b:17)
https://archive.ph/VxhZw

Gentiles are not humans:
“The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man' (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called 'man,' but gentiles are not called 'man.'” (Bava Metzia 114b:2)
https://archive.is/1Nf3G

Women are foul, filthy creatures:
“A woman is essentially a flask full of feces, a reference to the digestive system, and her mouth is full of blood, a euphemistic reference to menstruation, yet men are not deterred and they all run after her with desire.” (Shabbat 152a:12)
https://archive.is/5XT6s

Gentiles are murderers:
“A Jewish woman should not deliver the child of a Gentile woman because in doing so she is delivering a child who will engage in idol worship. And one may not allow a Gentile woman to deliver the child of a Jewish woman because Gentiles are suspected of bloodshed” (Avodah Zarah 26a:5)
https://archive.is/XjSWy

It is forbidden to heal Gentiles, and Gentiles are murderers:
“A Jew may circumcise a Gentile for the sake of making him a convert. This is to the exclusion of circumcising a Gentile for the sake of removing a worm, which is not permitted, as it is forbidden to heal a Gentile. But one may not allow a Gentile to circumcise a Jew in any situation, because Gentiles are suspected of bloodshed” (Avodah Zarah 26b:8)
https://archive.is/XjSWy

It is permissible to rape a Gentile girl if they are three years and one day old:
“Since a nine year old boy is fit to engage in intercourse, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva. Therefore, with regard to a female Gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva" (Avodah Zarah 37a:1)
https://archive.is/TTaP7

Gentiles are animals:
“As he was leaving, that man said to Rabbi Sheila: Does God perform such miracles for liars? He replied: Scoundrel! Aren’t Gentiles called donkeys? As it is written: ‘Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys’ Rabbi Sheila saw that he was going to tell the Persian authories that he called them donkeys. He said: This man has the legal status is a pursuer. He seeks to have me killed. And the Torah said: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. He struck him with the staff and killed him” (Berakhot 58a:15)
https://archive.is/jUV6y

Now for my question, Were these creepy passages written before or after Jesus?

>>24501
I wasn't actually going to do it, i was just thinking about it, but it would be very hard to do right without annoying everyone.

>>24502
>Were these creepy passages written before or after Jesus?
The Talmud was assembled centuries after Christ

schizo.jpg
[Hide] (132.1KB, 1078x1092)

Do tulpas have separate sovls?
>inb4 IT'S MUH DEMONS!!!1!111

>>24502
Don't care
Didn't ask
Take your meds

>>24505
If they're authentic, then ofc they do: they're demons. Just like the 'un'-fallen angels, they have souls. 
>inb4 IT'S MUH DEMONS!!!1!111
But if you already know they're demonic, then why do you ask Anon?

>>24507
>>inb4 IT'S MUH DEMONS!!!1!111
>But if you already know they're demonic, then why do you ask Anon?
I wrote that because I know that a lot of you guys label everything you're too lazy to try to understand as "demons" and stuff, just like lefties label stuff as "racist" or "conspiracy theories" or whatever.

>>24510
Well, you're definitely engaging in strawmanning then Anon. I both understand waifuism, and I also am well-aware of anons who have pursued Tulpas.
>tl;dr

'Point 1'
There are only two kinds of spiritual beings here on Earth apart from God Himself:
-Humans
-Angels

'Point 2'
There are only two kinds of angels here on Earth
-Heavenly angels
-Fallen angels

So, if you're entertaining non-human spiritual beings in yourself, your are engaging directly with fallen (that is, demonic) angels. Heavenly angels are focused strictly on the guidance of the Heavenly Father's will, not with luring susceptable anons into destructive liasons.

This is the Christian, Biblical, view on the topic. It's certainly the correct one in my 12+ years on the Internet (that is, the Imageboard universe).
>tl;dr
Stay away from Tulpas, Anon. They are demons and not your frens. Cheers.

1444465339298.jpg
[Hide] (56.1KB, 475x475)

>>24510
Demon comes from daimon, and from my understanding a greek daimon is for all intents and purposes no different from a Tulpa.

Besides the Reformed interpretation of it, how is Romans 9 understood by other branches of Christianity - like Catholicism, for instance?

>>24516
Poorly

Untitled.png
[Hide] (131KB, 980x231)

>Seventeenth-century
Right when the Illuminati spread in 1776, i know, i know, "the gates of hell will not prevail against the church" but it's still a tragedy.

>>24533
Umm, 17th century is the 1600's.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pa6igKc1M9s
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=nHT-SjIM0tA

Christian Zionism is so depressing, the women with the brown curly hair in the documentary is so immune to reason or conflicting scripture.

1659836509248878.jpg
[Hide] (105.5KB, 900x900)

My 15-yo cousin is a victim of globohomo. She identifies as a man called Tim and is a troon supporter.
Some disgusting pieces of shit groomed her at a very young age, her brother being super retarded doesn't help, and basically is fucked in the head.
I wish i could help her since her father died when she was 4 and her mother is a lesbo, but it makes me think it might be pointless.

Forgot the question, should I attempt to do something for her? Is that the right thing? Can it backfire awfully?

>>24538
Don't cast pearls before swine, don't cause problems for yourself trying to help her, but if you can then do so. It's probably pointless because of the lesbian mom.

>>24538
>should I attempt to do something for her?
Yes
>Is that the right thing?
Yes
>Can it backfire awfully?
Yes
At the end of the day, there's probably not too much you can do if she's currently underage and living with her abusers. You can pray for her and I presume you can talk to her though. Don't treat her like a project though. Like your personal "victory" over this one sin you particularly dislike. Treat her like your dear cousin which you love. If you don't, learn to do so.

>>24540
>If you want to be a traditional Christian, you have to manipulate people into killing themselves.
I don't want to have to ask the obvious question but every other Christian here probably has the same question.

Here are your actual choices anon. You can watch it happen and do nothing or you can try to do something which will probably require of you suffering and sacrifice. You might even call it a cross.

1660153579108531.png
[Hide] (11.1KB, 329x310)

>>24542
>Don't treat her like a project though. Like your personal "victory" over this one sin you particularly dislike.
It's nothing like that, it just ticks me off that she treats this as something normal when it's the complete opposite of it. I refuse to believe that she understands what she got into, and that she doesn't believe people can be more insidious.
I am so pissed off, but I think the best she can do is spend less time on the internet. She won't find anything but mental fuckwads there, which are sadly the most vocal bunch.
I suggested her to go to martial arts classes, and she seems she may like it. Personally I think her going to a church would be the best, but my experience with churches here wasn't as positive as I thought it would be.
Either way this would be for her not for me.

>>24537
It's just a phase the ones that don't kill themselves will de-trans in a few years. It's only "popular" because of media nonsense.

>>24537
Try and spend more time with her. Hang out, mess around, have fun and try to teach her good values while youre at it.

 tl;dr mentor her.

Henry_Fuseli_-_The_Nightmare.jpg
[Hide] (34.2KB, 565x458)

How do i know if my obsessive thinking (that i can't seem to let go) is a result of demonic oppression? Long story short I was harassed at this job and the owner was a huge asshole (and i was an asshole back), and 4 years later i still thinking about it at least three times a day, and i feel a need for revenge and anger. Can demons put thoughts into someone's mind or bring up the past? Or is it just me not getting over something? It also happened when i was having the first symptoms of schizophrenia so maybe it's an actual mental illness?

photo1678079807.jpeg
[Hide] (93.9KB, 1024x1024)

>>24546
>Can demons put thoughts into someone's mind or bring up the past?
demons are spirits so they work on a mental and spiritual level so yes they could be the cause of it. Whether they are or they arent the solution is the same, pray for guidance and strength and exercise control over your own mind. If you the thoughts pop into your head then rebuke them and ignore them.

dissilussioned.png
[Hide] (962.3KB, 1280x720)

I have spent much time on the internet to realize it gives nothing but the worst of the worst to mankind.
I talk to a few friends and they aren't as fucked up as the people I talked to on the internet, nor the kind of people that spend way too much time on it.
My mother (god rest her soul) did the right thing when I was growing up, sending me to a music school and other kind of activities where I got to be with nice people, that had no ulterior motives for me.
So it dawned on me recently that if I wanted to find nice people IRL I'd have to get into something of my own interests. The issue is that I am quite busy lately and I don't got the time nor money to get into classes of a certain type.
So, how would you realistically find a community of fine people without putting that effort in the first place? Because I'm quite tired of the internet being able to provide just bullshit, the world can give much more than that.

>>24550
As contradictory as it sounds, you can use the internet to find meetups and like-minded people since that's what everyone it using now. Not everyone on the internet is a terrible person, it's just a reflection of the world today: some parts good, some parts evil. Check your city's website for local events. Use Facebook to find people and groups hosting events. Search for what you want and see if there's anyone doing it in your area.

let-him-renounce-himself.jpg
[Hide] (43.3KB, 700x700)

>>24550
The internet amplifies people's shortcomings because social media algorithms intentionally indulge their every desire to keep them online. So it's good that you want to reduce your usage of the internet because it requires you to rein in the impulses of the flesh. The internet is best if it's an accessory to your life and not its focus, and it can be useful as >>24551 lays out.

>>24542
Thank G*d post no. 24542 got deleted, encouraging the murder of LGBTQ+ is such a jewish/mohammadean thing to do.

https://archive.ph/xUvc0
>First, the available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 2 to 5% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%. Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy. Of course we expect better behavior from priests than from the average man on the street. While even one priest who abuses children is a major problem, we need to keep this issue in perspective and remember that the vast majority of priests do not abuse children.
The 2 to 5% of the priest pedophilies is consistent across other religions and it is worse rate among school for molestation.

I was out giving food to the homeless and this hilariously awful homeless woman comes behind me and says "you're not a solder, you're a bitch" (because i was wearing army shorts). She was very hostile, i felt like insulting her but i didn't and i come there to give out food and help them, and i don't want to instigate them. What would Jesus have done? offered her food?

There was another asshole who got really angry when i said he was a polytheists and it was not only true but i didn't say it in a disrespectful way, It was such a long time ago and i forget what happened but he kept insult me and i kept laughing at him, and then he chased me and my friend down the street with a staff and then one of his friends said to him "Why do you have to chase everyone". Apparently he had some trauma about Jesus and kept saying that Jesus killed his son.

This is the hardest part about being a Christian is not getting revenge or dealing with hostile assholes in a civil way. I prefer the company of Christians, they're so much more pleasant and kind, i don't like worldly people very much.

My question is what should i have done to those people, there is just no "winning" with someone so irrationally hostile that i doubt being nice would have done anything to to them.

>>24561
you did right, perhaps dont laugh next time and with the woman you should have offered her some food but other than that you were good.

>>24558
>Another pedo-apologist post from /christian/

*Sigh* Rather than justifying your pedo problem like your average desert cultist, maybe try to address it and solve it?

>>24565
I'm not defending pedophilia you baiting liar, i'm showing that the molestation of the church is not as bad as the media said it was.

>>24567
Children are still being raped by priests regardless. Saying, "Well, yeah it happens but it's actually not that bad because other religions' priests rape too and the school system does it more!" is not only meaningless, it's terrible optics. It makes Christians look like heartless monsters.

>>24568
I'm not saying it's okay that priests molested children, the Bible clearly is against any sexual immorality, God respecting freewill also plays into this, and it proves the bible right that humanity is addicted to doing evil. But people run wild with this meme brought by the popularized catholic priest molestation, there are some saying that Christianity creates abusers. We need an answer to this.

https://archive.ph/qK2CE
>"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

>>24561
a lot of the homeless have mental illnesses which contribute to their homelessness and general situtation. you should'nt hold what they're saying against them if they're just speaking nonsense.

>>24579
k

Judaism_is_younger_than_Christianity_(2).webm
[Hide] (2.4MB, 320x240, 02:03)

Does anyone know what the name of this documentary is called?

>>24581
the version i saw was called 'the goy guide to world history' which i think is a compilation of this interview with e michael jones and other stuff. https://odysee.com/@WhitestGoyUKnow:2/A-Goy-Guide-To-World-History:2

4ad.jpg
[Hide] (58.1KB, 540x960)

Why is suicide a sin?

“Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13) - King James Version (KJV)

>>24590
Because Jesus died to gave you eternal life.

>in heaven there is free will but no sin or evil
>deceased baptised infants go directly to heaven without a prior act of their will to accept or reject God
>the entire creation could have been just heaven with souls in a state similar to deceased baptised infants 
Why then is what I descriped inferior to our world where predestined few will get saved, and the rest go to an eternal damnation in hellfire?

>>24596
>deceased baptised infants go directly to heaven without a prior act of their will to accept or reject God
Not correct, that's something you've just assumed.

>>24598
it's true if you're catholic

Fuwx028WcAUgsYe.jpg
[Hide] (50.7KB, 563x675)

How many people are still regularly on this board? It feels like it gets slower all the time.

>>24602
I check the board everyday.

>>24605
Me too.

>>24602
what >>24605 said

>>24602
I check fairly often. Been thinking of making a thread dedicated to apologetics.

>>24602
I check what's going on every day but rarely post anymore.

Why do aspidoscelis uniparens, an all lesbian species of lizard, exist?

>>24611
>why did God X
You'd have to ask Him

>God knows everything
>God knows the fate of people
>God knows if in the end a person is going to Heaven or Hell
>God creates people/souls even though He knows they're going to Hell
>in other words, God purposefully creates consciousnesses to then eternally have them go through extreme torture
Something... doesn't add up, right? Unless I'm missing something, either Hell doesn't exist, or your god is pure evil/Satan.

>>24613
They go to hell because of sin, not because of God's foreknowledge. Everyone in hell deserves it

>>24614
What sin? Unless someone commits an infinitely evil sin, it's logically unjust and irrational to give them an infinite punishment. Can you tell me of any infinitely evil sin commitable by a mere human?

>>24615
>What sin?
How many sins did it take to ruin the world?
>Unless someone commits an infinitely evil sin
It is infinitely evil because it is committed against an infinite God who is infinitely holy.
>it's logically unjust
Says who? By what standard will you pretend to judge your creator?

>>24617
All leftist-tier mental gymnastics/buzzwords/clichés. If you can calmly believe that people will be tortured for eternity for doing some petty wrong acts, you either haven't thought twice about what you chose to believe in, or you're just plainly a sadist.

24.png
[Hide] (58.5KB, 800x500)

>>24615
Adam as the corporate head of all mankind disobeyed God's command in the Garden of Eden. His disobedience established in humanity an innate nature towards sin and the human race of itself without divine intervention proves its utter depravity (look at the world of the godless) that deserves indefinite punishment. For the Lord burns hot with wrath against each and every offence committed upon the Earth, so much so that in scripture it is shown how He judges entire cities and nations to be worthy of destruction to establish His sovereignty over the Earth. So it follows that in the last days, when the whole of creation will be purified in the Second Coming of Christ to institute God's Kingdom without end, that sin and evil, and its celebrants the demons and the faithless, will reap the rewards of what they have sown in their spite and disregard of God and be excluded from that which they so despised in their lifetime. They wanted nothing to do with God, so God fulfills their wish in leaving them to their own devices, to their weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13) as they burn in the fire of their unrepented vices loosed to devour them in the outer darkness. So is the warrant of the second death.

>>24613
>>24618
You don't know what the bible says, why should anyone waste their time when all you do is spam the same strawmen every day? You refuse to learn.

>>24618
That's a really pathetic way to admit you don't have an argument. What I'm wondering is what your disdain for your creator has to do with the fact He exists?

Chandler_gets_baptized.jpg
[Hide] (464.1KB, 1080x1512)

>>24621
Atheists are post-modernists in the end, to them there is no authority but the whim of man that dictates reality one way or another.

>>24621
>>24624
>if you don't believe in 100% of what I believe in, you're a racist homophobic heretical atheist satanist nazi
Ok
>What I'm wondering is what your disdain for your creator has to do with the fact He exists?
I have no disdain for God, I rather have disdain for psychopathic sadists and their disgusting beliefs (hell), and the mockery of God they believe in.

>>24619
So if one "disregards God" in a vague way, it necessarily means that they DESIRE being tortured for eternity? Just what... sort of insane black-and-white logic is that‽

9zrgVyHwP1k6dFXPhZBRXWBaoDiffqcXfLAjV0e4Tbo.jpg
[Hide] (154.9KB, 1280x854)

>>24628
You will get what you deserve, God sentences you with perfect knowledge of the entirety of the thoughts, words, and deeds of your whole life's time (Luke 12:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:4-5, Hebrews 4:13). There won't be anything vague about it: He will point out each and every occasion which decided your punishment. Every interaction you've ever had and their consequences will be on the evidence stand. Satan will testify to every temptation by which he induced you to sin. The unsaved stand as their own representative in the defendant's docket against the full prosecutorial resources of the Lord of the cosmos.
God however, seeing our condition, has given us an avenue of recourse. This recourse, the only recourse, is through the counsel of His son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By His atoning sacrifice He makes intercession for sins, to preserve His petitioners from the fury of the ultimate Wrath.
God's desire in the end times is not just to bring about the end of the world; in the Judgement He calls the last, perfect, and final court of justice for all ages, making manifest the legitimacy and the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven.

>>24627
>disdain for psychopathic sadists and their disgusting beliefs (hell), and the mockery of God they believe in.

Christ is very explicit that the purpose of his ministry is to stew division, not peace, in a social climate that had heavily fallen to sin:
>34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 

He is also explicit about the division between wheat and chaff, that some will be saved, and some will be destroyed:
>24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

>37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 

And He makes overt reference to a fiery place, and the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth as the destination of those rejected:
>37He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
>40As the weeds are collected and burned in the fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom every cause of sin and all who practice lawlessness. 42And they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

You can be disconsolate over Hell existing, inasmuch as you can be disconsolate about murder or deep canyons you might fall into existing, but to insinuate those who believe in Hell are somehow mocking God by that belief is very much false. The spiritual world, which has more 'reality' or 'consequence' than the material world, is constructed in a way that has a positive and a negative plane. Each like attracts like. Your soul is a spiritual element. Sin will literally 'drag' your soul down into the negative plane unless you beg for help from Jesus, and sin's presence in your soul is not compatible with existence in Heaven. It has to be cleaned or cauterized out of you, then replaced with something pure. Does this make sense?

He that is without sin among you,let him first cast a stone at her.   John 8:7 KJV

Is dying to save someone's life a free pass to heaven? I fantasize about it.

>>24667
The only free pass to heaven is the gospel of the Lord Jesus my fren

>>24685
>If Acts 8:37 isn't in your Bible you're basically an apostate heretic gnostic whoremongering Babylonian Catholic.
A pretty ridiculous comment. And even were there merit to it, the readers are hardly to blame for the translation commitee's choices. Regardless, there is solid evidence of it being added by an individual scribe after 4th century AD, and also what his reasons for doing so were. [1][2][3]

Nice le ebin trole, Anon. :^)

1. "The verse did not appear until about 500-600 A.D. in a manuscript now known as Codex Laudianus."
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/why-is-acts-837-not-in-the-most-modern-translations/
2. https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2018/09/11/why-is-acts-837-missing-from-modern-bibles/
3. https://www.logos.com/grow/why-some-translations-include-acts-837-and-others-dont/

How do I even know if I believe? I'm so unsure about everything, I feel no conviction. I want to say I'm scared that I can't believe in Jesus, but the thought inspires no FEELING, only that I SHOULD feel (therefore I read and pray in my mind, but I don't know if it's working)
I am reading the bible, I'm feeling a little better doing so, I know the wealth of wisdom it has for me, but how do I know I'm not treating it like a life manual instead of the living, breathing, eternal Word of God like it is?
I don't want to be damned because I'm some narcissist or psychopath, worst case scenario. What if I can't help that my brain is like that?
I can feel emotion, I do often feel sad, or inspired, I feel love and empathy so I'm probably autistic, but it's just hard for me to grasp the weight of Jesus.
How do I believe? I want to. Or I want, to want to.

7c3149cac70d4713625cb0eaa6572c653f3619ab586f8e3e406ab587de87388e.jpg
[Hide] (324.5KB, 966x1000)

>>24700
>Do you want to believe but are unsure if you do or not?
>How do you know if you believe anything?
>Maybe you've fooled yourself into thinking that you believe but you actually don't.
If this is you, I had this exact problem a few years ago. I suggest making the prayer of the father of the demon-possessed child in Mark 9 your prayer. "Lord I believe; help my unbelief." Mark 9:24. If you worry that you can't even believe properly, don't. God will even help you with that. If you have not faith, ask for it and you shall receive. Even for things that seem beyond basic you can ask God for help. Ask and ye shall receive.
I also recommend talking to your priest or someone similar at your church. Mine told me to do daily prayer and gave me a book for the daily office. Probably yours will say something similar. God is eager to answer the prayers of those asking for spiritual help (cf Psalm 51). At least, I've found that to be the case. I think it's because I was finally asking for the right things. I was as one wanting a new TV but my house was on fire. God isn't interested in giving me a new TV. He wants to put out the fire first and then maybe work on those crumbling foundations. God will answer your prayer for it is His will to see you saved.
You can also look up St Genesius of Rome. He wrote a play mocking Christianity but had a change of heart while performing it. His story may help as well as might St Sisoes who, on his death bed, was said to have said, "I have not even begun to repent."

As for not feeling anything for Jesus, do not worry. You should know that feelings are just feelings and it is a difficult thing for most Christians I think. We all go through periods of dryness where our faith is tested. We all go through periods where it feels like we're just going through the motions. This is the important time. It is very easy for God to produce feelings in you. That's not even remotely a challenge for Him. What is a challenge is raising saints that choose Him freely even if they don't feel like it at the time. My point is that you don't need to worry about it although spiritual dryness is certainly not pleasant. God is not as interested in your feelings as your choices. Nobody can just turn on feelings of love on a whim but you can choose to love (action).
And as for your particular temperament or autism, God knows. We humans judge by externals but God judges the heart and He is not indifferent to particular difficulties that one person might face over another. What may appear to us to be a good Christian (tm) might just be the result of good temperament (which was of course a gift from God the whole time). What appears to us as a total degenerate but be someone burdened with addictions and perversions. It's what you choose to make of the hand you're dealt that matters here. If the latter man chooses not to indulge in his perversions, who knows? He may have done greater than the former man ever will. That's for God to know. If you have autism or some other problem that seemingly impairs your ability to feel love and hope and joy and all the things other people feel, God isn't going to say at the end, "Well tough luck pal." He takes it into account.

I pray this helps.

>>24700
Faith isn't about having warm feelings about God it's about knowing that He is the truth and living in the light of that truth. This is a common mistake where people think devotion is something that is sensorial like worldly amusements. The contract between God and His saved continues standing even when the redeemed have moments of doubt in their lifetime, because the Holy Spirit prays for us when we are weak:
>And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness, for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the holy ones according to the will of God.
Romans 8:26-27

>>24701
>>24702
Both of you, thank you. Very helpful.

>>24703
It's a tough, uncertain position to be in, I know. I am praying for you.

024.Jacob_Wrestles_with_the_Angel.jpg
[Hide] (483.5KB, 832x1024)

>Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”
Genesis 32:24-40

What did He mean by this?

>>24718
>And then they look it up!!! Everyone has phones, know ye not!? So that will just get them to really read carefully and look deeper.
Until the phones come with satanic AIs to fool the world into idol worship in the imminent days of the Antichrist.

Is there a book on how the Jews are not the chosen?

If the Jews are not the chosen then what does Deuteronomy 7:6. mean?

>>24730
They were God's chosen up until Christ's death when they denied him as the Son of God, then the split became God's true chosen (those that follow Christ) and those that are not (those that deny Christ). Christ's coming, death, and resurrection were alluded to in the Old Testament from the very beginning, and yet they denied Him when He finally came because they expected a ruler that would free them from Roman oppression and restore Israel. Instead He told them to stay subjugated and to not focus on worldly matters. Jews are still waiting to this day for their savior, when He already came thousands of years ago.

>>24731
Thank you.

How do i say someone is a stupid asshole without profanity or saying "stupid asshole"? Is stupid a good word to say as a Christian? it sounds like i can use stupid describe something.

HISTORY+OF+CLOWNS+Ancient+Rome+had+4+well-known+styles+of+clowns_.jpg
[Hide] (84KB, 960x720)

>>24737
The word stupid described a type of Roman clown but you shouldn't go around throwing insults lightly:
>“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 5:21-22

>>24738
I have a huge problem with hating humanity, how do you not hate something that can ruin your life, attack or humiliate you?

>>24737
You've got this the wrong way around. The sin is the intention to offend not the words themselves so asking for a way to express your hatred for someone while using "polite" language is completely backwards. If I call someone a fag in the imageboard kind of way, that's quite different from calling someone a fag out of disdain for him. Christians who get uptight about swear words are missing the point.
>>24742
>how do you not hate something
With God's help.

When will God finally come? What is He waiting for?

>>24754
>When will God finally come?
When he comes. [1]
>What is He waiting for?
For the last believer to receive eternal salvation [2]

1. https://www.gotquestions.org/waiting-on-God.html
2. https://bible.faithlife.com/bible/nkjv/2-peter/3/8-9

>>24754
God never left. He is not far from any one of us.

>>24759
kinda thinking he means return as in 'The second coming of Jesus Christ back to planet Earth, clothed in power & majesty'. With the >implying implication that He will immediately tread His enemies under His feet like grapes in a winepress, so that their blood runs 6ft deep for 200+miles. 'Shake the wicked out of the Earth' type stuff. 

TBH, bretty sure that will spell the end of feminism, pride parades, and other ((( Current Year ))) shenanigans. So yeah, along with Anon we're all crying out 'Maranatha!'. :)

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (161.3KB, 220x364)

>Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:

>all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

How does one reconcile these?

torcels.jpg
[Hide] (76.4KB, 1080x1200)

Atheist here. How can anyone in the 21st century reconcile the overwhelming evidence against religious creation myths? 

- First of all there are dozens upon dozens of mutually exclusive religions. And whoever believes in whichever religion is 99% of the time decided simply on the basis of what the individuals parents believe rather than cold logic or spiritual experiences.
- Secondly the vastness of the universe in combination with the theory of evolution makes divine intervention seem like a childish cope.
- Thirdly if we take the christian God at face value, why would he ever only appear in one specific time and place rather than across the globe throughout history? If your God didn't want us to worship false idols then maybe he should have paid East Asia or America a visit or something because only appearing 2000 years ago in some desert shithole isn't exactly "godly" and more like the people over there at that point and time decided to make shit up for themselves.

>>24779
You put your worst argument literally first.
>"muh no one ever lies, so whycome, REEEE!?"
There can be a billion & one lies. There is logically (and objectively) only one Truth (captital 'T' added on my part). Even children know this one Anon, come on.

>'muh dust turns into life all on it's own, just trust me bro!'
The vastness is needed to create the temporary, sole, nice things spot of the universe: to wit, Earth. Your 'star ash => the most complex machinery conceivable, literally beyond imagination, all by it's little self' is the real copium here.

>'i get to second-guess God because i got rights!111'
Maybe God's ways are higher than yours? Besides, the Christian Bible's text addresses your 'complaints' directly.

>>24781
>There can be a billion & one lies. There is logically (and objectively) only one Truth
Your stance is that 5999/6000 religions are wrong, but maybe the only True religion will be invented a thousand years from now and actually you HAVE to agree this argument is valid insofar as it applies to everyone before the birth of Christianity. You just so happen to be born into the right timeframe for the "True" religion to even exist.
>'star ash => the most complex machinery conceivable, literally beyond imagination, all by it's little self'
Evolution by means of darwinian selection makes perfect to me. Everything that doesn't adapt dies and that which remains evolves into something higher. It's practically a tautology.
>'i get to second-guess God because i got rights!111'
>You must have a real high IQ to understand that God was playing 5192D chess when he didn't relay his commandments to 99.999% of all humanity who had no way of knowing any better.
Do you think all those people that worshiped the wrong God for no fault of their own went to hell?

>>24782
No, my stance is that there are no 'versions' of the truth. This is an objective & logically-rigorous statement about Truth itself.

>muh neoDarwinism
Where's the proof? Abiogenesis is a dead horse.

>Do you think all those people that worshiped the wrong God for no fault of their own went to hell?
'Don't strawman me bro!'
You made that statement, not me (or anyone else here AFAICT). They'll a) be judged by the light within them, and b) have the Gospel preached to them even in death. They'll have just as much opportunity to accept or reject Jesus Christ & eternal salvation as you or I do (and will be judged accordingly).

>>24783
>This is an objective & logically-rigorous statement about Truth itself.
My point is that with each "coincidence" that your faith requires it becomes less and less likely to be actually True. It may be true, but you have to jump through a dozen hoops to make it work and Occam's Razor suggests you're probably just making stuff up.
>Where's the proof?
The proof for the existance of darwinian selection or abiogenesis? I don't have any proof for the latter, but i don't think it matters either way. The fact that the Bible doesn't mention darwinism is a big indictment since that process is both real and important.
>They'll a) be judged by the light within them,
So if you're raised under a false religion that tells you committing sins is fine and then you sin, what's the appropriate response? God can't reasonably punish them because he never told them about his rules, and he can't reward them either since that would defeat the point of sinning. Inb4 "mysterious ways cope" that's just another hoop you have to invent to ignore the contradictions of your faith. 
>and b) have the Gospel preached to them even in death.
How exactly does it make sense to preach the Gospel after someones death? It would just be a power point presentation at that point. If i meet face to face with a higher being after my death and it tells me to believe XYZ i'm gonna believe XYZ. There is no logical reason to reject it which makes it a meaningless choice

>>24784
>My point is that with each "coincidence" that your faith requires it becomes less and less likely to be actually True.
Heh, I would argue exactly the same about your faith, friend. :)

>but i don't think it matters either way. 
Au contraire. There is an incredibly huge set of barriers in the natural realm for life to ever even appear by any mechanistic means, much less to even survive for, say, 90 days' time. Brushing all that aside with a trite 'doesn't matter bro!' is disengenous to say the least. Things have causes. Always. When we see a vast orchestration of machinery suddenly appearing out of nowhere (ie, the first bacteriums ~3.8Gya), there's a reason it did. And the window for it's appearance is <5My time.

>How exactly does it make sense to preach the Gospel after someones death?
I find the Christian Bible's teaching that it in fact happens rather cool, personally. :) And your previous question answers your latest one. Cheers.

>>24779 
>- First of all there are dozens upon dozens of mutually exclusive religions. And whoever believes in whichever religion is 99% of the time decided simply on the basis of what the individuals parents believe rather than cold logic or spiritual experiences. 
That isn't an argument against any one of them actually being true though. You can have many incorrect conjectures against one hypothesis which proves to be true. 

>- Secondly the vastness of the universe in combination with the theory of evolution makes divine intervention seem like a childish cope. 
What you deem a "childish cope" by your own secular standard is a demonstratively successful survival strategy, since religious societies have greater social cohesion and higher fertility rates than non-religious societies. It is because of this that on a material basis spirituality has been a natural and default dimension of human existence and will persist in being one. "Atheist" societies have never become beacons of pure rationalism because the denial of human religious affectation does not stop it from continuing to exist. The members of those societies invest those sentiments instead on utopian social projects or new age cults, which neither bring the degree of satisfaction nor possess the depth of discourse of the institutional faiths they displace. 

>- Thirdly if we take the christian God at face value, why would he ever only appear in one specific time and place rather than across the globe throughout history? 
Since He didn't need to. 

>If your God didn't want us to worship false idols then maybe he should have paid East Asia or America a visit or something because only appearing 2000 years ago in some desert shithole isn't exactly "godly" and more like the people over there at that point and time decided to make shit up for themselves. 
On what basis do you devise characteristics for divinity? Is your standard for God somehow superior to theirs? If it were simply made up, you would think that it would have died out just like all the other competing faiths in the area since they were all equally without substance. Yet that one faith survived and thrived and spread throughout the whole of human civilization. God knowing past, present, and future presented Himself before the Israelites for them to bear His faith to make manifest the strength of His hand. That this weak and quarrelsome people should become celebrated by all the world for centuries upon centuries is an outcome that by any human evaluation, would be a ludicrous impossibility. An elaborate cope of a faith should have achieved nothing in the context of their utter objective insignificance. That which is impossible with men however, is possible through God -- and His power working through His people accomplished His end in spite of the odds against them, because in His foreordained Will He gives provision for His faithful to reach heights of glory far in excess of what could ever be expected of their lowly condition alone. By Jesus Christ, He invites all of humanity to join Him in His ever victorious faith. I think that outlines a God worthy of worship.

>>24774
The scriptures are about the duties of the believer, and of Caesar. Notice that Caesar's power is not arbitrary. It has a proper jurisdiction, and a specific purpose. Obedience to Caesar is obedience to God because, and only because, "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to bad". Caesar has a duty to Christ (his King) as the administrator of His law, and does not have the authority to arbitrarily govern his people according to his whims, certainly he does not have a right to become a terror to good works, and not bad (as has happened in modernity). Paul's command of civil obedience was necessary because of the hostility towards rulers felt by many in the early church because of the persecution of them. But the same man who wrote these words was himself frequently the victim of official persecution because of his own unwillingness to obey wicked commands of the state. Romans 13 is more about the *purpose* of the state, than what is necessarily true regarding it. The entire early church up to the moment Caesar finally became obedient was quite insistent that Jesus, and not Caesar, is Lord.
>>24779
This pic is absurd by the way. I can just as easily say you are only an atheist because of where you are born, and point out that if I was born to some primitive tribe in Africa or something that I might believe the earth is flat. The causes of someone believing something has no implications whatsoever regarding the truth of that belief. There may be many Christians who have a simple faith into which they have placed no thought, but these Christians are likely neither to be here nor to be interested in talking to you.
>How can anyone in the 21st century reconcile the overwhelming evidence against religious creation myths? 
I know what you mean, there is overwhelming evidence against the atheistic creation myth of evolutionism but atheists are usually unwilling to question what their priests have told them to believe and consider the evidence. If you're interested we have a large thread here on the subject of scientific and other evidences of God's hand in creation.
>First of all there are dozens upon dozens of mutually exclusive religions.
Thus says the scripture. You're acting like every other religion being false is some kind of problem for Christianity, when in reality it is a prerequisite of it being true. Christianity cannot be true unless every other religion is false, just like atheism cannot be true unless every other religion is false. Atheists often have this prejudice where they treat atheism as having a privileged place where it is not subject to being questioned, as if it were fundamentally different from every other belief. But everyone's got a religion even if we don't call it that, everyone's got a worldview, everyone's got beliefs. You already rejected every other non-Christian religion except one, we just reject one more.
>Secondly the vastness of the universe in combination with the theory of evolution makes divine intervention seem like a childish cope.
Yeah, Christianity is just so stupid, we are just so dumb and childish. Now do you have an argument? How does the vastness of the universe suggest God doesn't do anything in the world? I think it tells us the opposite. I think every last inch of space is proof of God's hand in creating it, and every inch is another piece of indisputable evidence which you are forced to absurdly declare to be pure random chance.
>Thirdly if we take the christian God at face value, why would he ever only appear in one specific time and place rather than across the globe throughout history?
He does. There is nothing in the world which is natural, there is nothing in all of creation which happens or is true independent of the Christian God, for He is not far from any one of us. You see His hand at work every time the sun rises in the sky, for if He withdrew His hand in maintaining creation it not only would fail to maintain the orderly course in which He set it, but it would simply fall out of being entirely. 
>If your God didn't want us to worship false idols then maybe he should have paid East Asia or America a visit or something because only appearing 2000 years ago
It's clear you have little awareness of Christian claims and have not spent much time dialoging with knowledgeable religious people. God began speaking to man before he even fell. Centuries before the birth of Christ God spoke through the prophets, and millennia before He spoke to them all men knew Him face to face. The false religions did not simply "start up" out of thin air, but they are all developed from a common source. Hinduism is a deviation from the Christianity of their ancestors.
>>24782
>Your stance is that 5999/6000 religions are wrong
So is yours. If atheism is true, everything else is false. If Christianity is true, everything else (including atheism) is false. 
>Everything that doesn't adapt dies and that which remains evolves into something higher. It's practically a tautology.
It is true that "creatures which are unfit to their environment die out" is an analytic truth. It is not true that "creatures adapt and evolve to fit their environment" is an analytic truth. They could simply die out. Natural selection is not a mechanism of evolution because it causes things to die, not grow. It is an instrument of death, not life.
>Do you think all those people that worshiped the wrong God for no fault of their own went to hell?
What do you mean "no fault of their own"? They knew better, all men know God. All false religions have either twisted the natural revelation which God has bestowed on all of us so that, rather than worship the creator, they fell down before images of men and beasts and birds and creeping things, glorifying the creation rather than the creator. Or alternatively they have twisted the special revelation which God bestowed on the Church, inventing in their own minds a god which is superficially similar to the true God but fundamentally different in a way which is more pleasing to them for one reason or another. All men everywhere have been given sufficient light to know that God is their creator, and their duty is to give Him thanks and praise for every gift He gives them (so they are without excuse), but every man has always failed this duty. For this reason God sent His Son into the world to die for the sins of all men, regardless of their nation, so that a few would be reconciled to Him. All who repent and believe in Him will be saved, because He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him.
>>24784
>God can't reasonably punish them because he never told them about his rules
God can "reasonably do" whatever He pleases, but as stated previously they are without excuse. You don't need to read the bible to know murdering a child is unacceptable. Man was made in the image of God.

Why did God create this foreknew would be damned? "Free will" isn't an answer since he could've just not created those who wouldn't end up in heaven.
If you believe baptised deceased infants go to heaven: why didn't God create everyone already in heaven  in a state of soul similar to those deceased infants?
These two are, in my view, the same question about the allowing eternal suffering that could've been avoided but wasn't, which an all-good, perfect beyond our imagination being wouldn't allow for.  I've been struggling over them.

>>24817
>Why did God create this foreknew would be damned?
Form that into a complete sentence and you might get an answer
>These two are, in my view, the same question about the allowing eternal suffering that could've been avoided but wasn't
God didn't "allow" eternal suffering. There was no suffering at all in the world God made. Hell is not some phenomenon of the world that people happen to suffer from, like cancer or something, hell is well deserved wrath upon wickedness. People go to hell because they deserve to go to hell. I am glad that hell exists, because if there were no hell it would compromise God's goodness: a good God does not allow evil men to get away with it.

>>24822
>There was no suffering at all in the world God made.
Which world was that again?
>Current Heaven: Angels rebel, yuge war ensues
>This universe/Earth: plant/animal death before the fall + ginormous, demonic evils afterwards

I think you're trying to force-fit your idealizations onto what you perceive reality to be. Fair enough that in the New Heavens, New Earth (aka, the new, 2nd creation) there will no longer be any suffering. But that certainly isn't the case now.

>>24824
>Which world was that again?
The one which "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Gen 1:31)
>what you perceive reality to be
This world is not perfect. But it was once.

>>24826
So.. creating a world with a *possibility* of suffering and then creating beings he *knew* will actualise it makes the creator not responsible, and somehow not even a cause of it?

>>24817
God created a lot of things that are like automata. A rock can't choose to obey gravity or not. Animals have a little more choice but are ultimately like machines. God made one creation (as far as we know) with real free will: us. He created us not to be just another thing in the universe but to be adopted as children of God. And not forcibly either but to freely choose that adoption. It's easy for God to create galaxies. What's not easy is for Him to produce people who will do this. Because at the end of the day, that choice - if it is to be truly free - must be out of His hands. That is he voluntarily holds back from encroaching on our free will so that we may use it to choose Him. But to be able to freely choose God necessarily means we must be free to reject Him as well. Therefore, it is definitionally impossible to simply not create the ones the will reject Him as you say while still maintaining free will. That is an encroachment on their free will. To answer your question more explicitly: God wanted to create people who would freely choose Him but that necessarily requires the creation of people who won't. At the end of the day, it's your choice which side to stand on. You're not doomed to Hell.

>why didn't God create everyone ... in a state of soul similar to those deceased [baptised] infants
He did but we fucked it up. However, the state of man before the fall is not as high as the state of man sanctified in Heaven. God can use our sufferings on Earth towards our sanctification if we allow it.
>Why didn't God create us in this higher state of sanctification then?
He's doing it right now. But you have to let Him.

>>24827
>makes the creator not responsible
Responsible? To whom is God responsible, and by what standard would you presume to judge God?
>somehow not even a cause of it
God was the first cause of the first sin.

Adam-and-Eve.jpg
[Hide] (66.9KB, 520x390)

>>24817
>>24824
>>24827
The problem here is your worldview. You view life as almost exclusively suffering when in fact its not. Even the most miserable people living in the worst of conditions have some sense of happiness or please whether it be the feeling of sunlight on their skin, a cool breeze, the taste of food, the warmth of being tucked in bed, or a laugh. All these happy moments, as small as they might be, outweigh whatever suffering exists in the world, if it didn't then God wouldn't have created us. 

The first letter of the Hebrew Bible is Beht which means two or multiply. This could reasonably be interpreted as "In the beginning God wanted to multiply the world". But why? It wasnt "for His own glory" as some suggest because God is above such vanities. It wasnt for some selfish reason, because God is not selfish. So then why? Because He wished to see something else exist so that it may enjoy existence and be happy. Hence the First Love. So He created animals and humans (who create other animals and humans) to serve as the progenitors of an infinite cycle of happiness. As a side note, God is divine logic embodied , in the Beginning there was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God. So therefore Love is a logical invention, which sounds weird to us but makes sense if you consider the perspective of God. God existed when there was nothing, so He ponders  what to do and decides that if He is to exist (whether happy or not) then he should create others to exist as well so they can be happy.

Lastly because I know you're wondering and you've already asked it to some degree, what about hell and eternal punishment? To that I say that the common understanding of eternal punishment and the lake of fire (Gehenna) is wrong. Eternal punishment (the second death, eternal fire, etc) just means your punishment is final and therefore eternal and it doesnt necessarily mean its infinite torture in hell, in fact that makes little sense for reasons ill get into but before that I need to talk about the analogy of Gehenna and eternal fire. Gehenna is a wall of Jerusalem where it is believed the inhabitants dumped trash, ie a trash pit, its also the name given to what is commonly known as "the lake of fire" in the Bible, keep this in mind. The analogy of eternal fire is interesting because fire destroys, thats what its known for, if i throw a piece of paper into a fire it catches alight and burns becoming reduced to dust it doesnt sit there in the fire  it is destroyed. Considering both of these tidbits of information regarding Gehenna and eternal fire it starts to paint a picture of what hell is really like, a "trash pit" for the non-repentant to be burnt (pay for their sins) and be destroyed. Logically this makes sense as well as Justice (a logical characteristic of God) is by nature a re-balancing of the scales of right and wrong with the perpetrator of injustice being punished in accordance with the crime.  And since no-one has managed to infinitely sin as of yet it would only make sense that punishment not be infinite either. Not to mention the Bible says God weeps for the wicked. 
BUT, if that is still not enough to convince you then bear in mind that Revelation 21:8 litterally refers to the lake of fire as ' "the second death" '.

Anyways, sorry for word puking all over your conversation, i just thought this might help.

>>24835
>All these happy moments, as small as they might be, outweigh whatever suffering exists in the world, if it didn't then God wouldn't have created us.
You are right when you say that people living in deplorable conditions have a sense of what happiness is. But I don't think those outweigh suffering, have you seen people in extreme poverty? I'm not talking about those living in ghettos in western countries, I mean real poverty like the one seen on Latin America, the middle east and Africa. A life of almost nothing but harshness and deprivation turns them into husks devoid of any soul or whatever makes human capable of enjoying life.

>inb4 "you are a banal person who thinks life should just be please"
I don't, I'm just saying that stating that extreme suffering is outweighed by basic human experiences

>>24836
its the small things. Easy for us to overlook them and not appreciate them.

>>24817
Stop modeling God's goodness as autistic utility-maximization, start modeling it as the love of a father for his children which is necessarily particular.  God created us because He loves us.  God could have created people who would never fall.  Those people would not be us.

>>24774
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brqi3C-f2k

tl;dr: Even those who are against the government know it's in their best interest to follow the law.

1686410063443623.png
[Hide] (1MB, 1275x1047)

Is this the antichrist?

St_Michael_and_the_dragon.jpg
[Hide] (922.6KB, 1801x2430)

>>24888
There'd be a certain amount of poetic sense made if "the" antichrist turned out to be an AI.
>Reject Christ
>We'll make our own
It really is the same old story of humanity. Rather than worship the true God, we fashion our own gods. Not even content to worship another human but a thing made by humans. That said, it's doubtful that it's the case here. All that happened was people showed up to hear an AI speak. It also strikes me that the antichrist would probably want people to fear death so he could control them better but I don't know. This obsession with trying to identify the antichrist is not healthy nor what Christians should be doing though. We follow Christ and that is enough for us. It should be obvious when the time comes.

I do have to say that I'm a little disconcerted about people hearing the Word and preaching from an AI rather than a human. AI is or will become pretty good at most things but it cannot be more human than a human by definition. And it is humanity that God came to save not AI. It is humanity from whom God took on flesh. If you view going to church as nothing more than a gathering of Christians to sing some songs and listen to a lecture then you probably won't see anything wrong with replacing the pastor with an AI. They can deliver a speech, they can write the speech, they can even counsel parishioners. All this an AI will be able to do better than a human at some point. But if you view going to church as a place where God meets man and salvation is played out - if you view your pastor as someone who presides over something sacred - then it is obvious that he cannot be replaced by AI. Not with any amount of technological development. Because it's not about how good of a job your pastor does, it's about who he is and, more specifically, who he is in Christ. God deigned to lower Himself from Heaven and take on our flesh so that we might be filled with His Holy Spirit. How then can we be led by an AI who has neither humanity nor divinity?
I wouldn't go to a church that uses an AI for its services.

aPgP6KR_460s.jpg
[Hide] (31.8KB, 460x464)

>>24890
>It also strikes me that the antichrist would probably want people to fear death so he could control them better but I don't know. 
It might be saying that to convince them that they should die.

>>24891
Maybe. People don't kill themselves just because they're told to though. It takes a lot more than that to overcome basic animal instinct. Nevertheless, you're right that this kind of thing could be groundwork for later psyops.

The reason I suspect otherwise is because, when you look at what the modus operandi of evil is around us, it's all aimed at try to make us more afraid. That is the primary purpose of propaganda after all. The recent lockdowns are a prime example: make people fear illness so they accept whatever you want to do to them. They cause the problem and disguise their poison as the solution. Other examples are making people fear losing their jobs, fear of being ostracised, fear of being attacked on the streets or in your home. The list goes on. It's rather strange to me that they would want you to not fear something especially when that something is their ultimate chain. Furthermore, that you shouldn't fear death is something that could (and should) easily come from a real pastor. Remember that, for us, death is not something to be feared but embraced as Christ embraced His death on the cross. Our hope is in the resurrection that follows.

Of course, I only see a headline and haven't seen the sermon. It is entirely possible that there's a lot more to this story. If you have a recording or transcript, we could see if there's anything more sinister.

Is there any book that talks about the first civilization to practice ritual child sacrifice?

>>24826
>But it was once.
'Very good' deffo =/= 'Perfect'
New Heavens, New Earth == Perfect? Couldn't agree more. This creation will pass away in a fervent heat (as planned). It will be replaced thereafter by something much more vast, much more glorious, and here's the big one: literally free of sin and evil.

>>24829
Outstanding post Anon, thanks.

>>24902
not to my knowledge but theres video and what not about the first kingdoms of the fertile crescent pre-tower of babel fiasco.

Screenshot-2872.jpg
[Hide] (17.9KB, 828x465)

>>24892
A new false Christ has dropped
https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/ai-jesus-answers-important-questions-about-fortnite-neon-genesis-evangelion-more-2175651/
https://twitch.tv/ask_jesus

>>24907
>directly linking

>>24908
>archiving a stream

>>24910
One if your links is an article. https://archive.ph/OSdt7

Where can I find Meyer's commentary in the original German? I suspect something may have been lost in translation to English and wanted to look into it.

>>24902
Issac?

>>24903
Thanks but I thought this guy >>24857 summed it up better than I.

Is Jesus still banned on tvch.moe?

If you want some comedy here is Young Pharoh talking about Christianity, some parts are just stupid but it's mostly funny.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WmlnNp91664/

Untitled.jpg
[Hide] (56.5KB, 720x1560)

Who is that statue character with the lion hood? Is he some Christian guy i don't know about?

>>24965
Only guessing, since I can't find the original source, but I think that's Alexander the Great wearing the Nemean Lion as a helmet (by the hairstyle & roman edge of the helmet + that's a motif of Alexander's).

download.mp4
[Hide] (10.3MB, 576x1024, 06:20)

Does anyone know the source of this movie? I know it says "Source: Christianmovies On Youtube" And i found the youtube channel  but there are many movies to go through to find the true title of the movie.

1687980541502495.png
[Hide] (212.3KB, 524x498)

What god is this referring the Jewish person is worshipping? Moloch?

>>25005
Yes.

The most basic need, and the only thing that matters, is the light of god - but then why doesn't he shine it in my life?
If my mind breaks, then I won't be able to talk to god anymore, so why doesn't he urgently do something?

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (99.1KB, 474x266)

Why is using magic forbidden in the Bible even though it (magic) obviously doesn't exist.

>>25008
It's akin to asking demons to work their dark arts in the world. You're letting Satan in willingly. He can and will intervene if you ask him to.

>>25008
>magic obviously doesn't exist
Simon Magus begs to differ even if he used it badly and for his own ego

>>25007
Might be half-heartedness Anon?
>"You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." [1]

https://www.biblehub.com/jeremiah/29-13.htm

>>25008
Be more specific. The words that get translated to magic/sorcerer/magician/whatever, and the implications, vary considerably.

>Revelation
The Greek word implies it's not "Wizard cast fireball", but those who use drugs to give false visions during worship for false gods. If that commendation is limited to such or includes modern drug dealers and/or "doctors" who peddle trash like meth(ylphenidate), SSRIs, and hormones is a big question.

For prospective, here's a doctor of history summarizing drug use in ancient Greece, Rome and their neighbors. Use of hallucinogenics was pretty casual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS7RDoiXv_s

>>25016
Sorcery is clearly forbidden in the Old Testament, and it clearly isn't restricted to drug use (though it is likely a component as most wizards historically used drugs in their rituals). It certainly doesn't ever mean "wizard cast fireball" because that's an anachronism of modern fantasy which does not represent how people saw magic historically. Magic is more a tool of divination and trickery historically.

Untitled.png
[Hide] (23.4KB, 822x332)

Does effeminate include imagining that you are a girl?

>>25020
Yes.

>>25019
Even within OT, there's multiple words. Leviticus 19:31 for example is about those who (claim to) talk to the dead.

>>25020
The word μαλακοὶ (arsenokoitai) is male homosexual bottom (whereas ἀρσενοκοῖται is the male top). Effeminate is just late Middle English/'very' early Modern English being incomprehensible 400 years later.

>>25023
There's nothing incomprehensible about it. Effeminate means womanly, and the passive sodomite takes the woman's role.

Uniate churches are allowed to worship their heretical saints and accept different ecumenical councils than roman catholics. Doesn't this break the unity of faith and therefore deboonk catholicism?

>>25048
catholics accept the first seven ecumenical councils that orthodox do. also not all saints are 'canonised' which is a formal declaration by the Holy See,

This may be a stupid question, but touching yourself is a mortal sin primarily because it's unnatural, even if negative consequences for you are negligible.
By this logic, other unintended uses your body should also be mortally sinful, shouldn't they? A sedentary lifestyle because of an office job is one example.  Human body is not designed to sit for 40 hours a week, but you can mostly counteract its negative effects and it puts bread on the table.

monke!.webm
[Hide] (1.7MB, 480x854, 00:19)

QUESTION
I am not religious, I do not go to church, practise the bible, nor personally think talking with religious people because of their beliefs is a very important thing of me
That being said, I do not believe living without a sense of morals and a specific doctrine is the right way of men, I believe the best way for men to excel is to have some sort of compass that lets them know which actions they take are right, and which are wrong. And how some wrongs are exerted due to human nature, and how some are merely vice.
Could this belief be enough? I don't think of practising the teaches of the bible, but to say that I don't follow one or two things from it would be denial from myself. I want to have a good future in my life, and I believe that following these teachings that I took as the years go by is the best kind of stepping stones I could have. Are these beliefs that push someone to the best they can enough to reward them with a fulfilling life in the future? Will the wife of my dreams be glad of the person I am when I meet her or if destiny so wishes, meet her again ? Am I doing the right thing by not focusing on romance and instead focusing on myself, and holding onto the belief that this person that I desire in my life, will come one day?

>>25055
you cannot have an objective way of knowing what is right or wrong without an objective moderator or creator, that being God. otherwise everything is subjective and that's where today's nonsense of "my/your truth" takes hold. following some of the Bible's teachings without believing in all of them or why they're being done in the first place cannot be done. either you are with Christ or against Him. most other religions in the world don't like this exclusivity, but they are all false and their words are empty.
consider what is/is not right and wrong. why is it that way? how do you know? without believing in an objective, higher power to guide you to the answers, what's the point in any of it?

1683680448025945.png
[Hide] (267.7KB, 600x600)

>>25056
>you cannot have an objective way of knowing what is right or wrong without an objective moderator or creator, that being God.
I can know what works best for me
>otherwise everything is subjective and that's where today's nonsense of "my/your truth" takes hold. 
that implies that I wanna engage in meaningless discussions that either lead nowhere, or just don't reward on the same level as other activities
>following some of the Bible's teachings without believing in all of them or why they're being done in the first place cannot be done
That doesn't imply that following a personal dogma that takes from christianity can't be done.
>most other religions in the world don't like this exclusivity, but they are all false and their words are empty.
I'd rather say the religions that are existent in different parts of the world are merely the ways or justifications for the kind of society they harbor.
>consider what is/is not right and wrong. why is it that way? how do you know?
Because I experienced the mistakes of doing them or the opposite
>without believing in an objective, higher power to guide you to the answers, what's the point in any of it?
I believe in the experience that my life gave me
And the point to me is to live a fulfilling life, either with Jesus or not.

>>25055
you are missing faith. We follow God's laws not to be saved but because we are saved out of love, otherwise his laws become a burden on our conscience. 
>Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

>>25055
>Could this belief be enough?
Define enough.

For a 'good life, well-lived'? Maybe (and maybe not).

For the appointed judgement that's coming for every man? Not even remotely lol. Even for the most righteous humans who have ever lived (you choose them), their deeds are all 'filthy rags' [1] compared to the exceeding great sacrifice of God's Son, Jesus Christ to purchase this great salvation for any man who will accept it. I pray you yourself do so one day Anon.

1. https://www.gotquestions.org/filthy-rags.html

witnesses.jpg
[Hide] (94KB, 600x600)

What is exactly the purpose of groups of Jehovah's Witnesses?

>>25061
they believe in works salvation and that preaching is necessary to be saved. 
any group that isnt trinitarian isnt christian imo, mormons go in the other extreme of polytheism

Immaculate_Conception_Catholic_Church_(Port_Clinton,_Ohio)_-_stained_glass,_St._Patrick.jpeg
[Hide] (1.4MB, 2403x3005)

Does anyone have any good resources detailing how Ireland went from being a borderline Integralist state to a secularized globohomo country?

>>25065
(1) Feudalism arose on the basis of the disintegration of slave-owning society and the break-up of the village community of the tribes which conquered the slave-owning States. In those countries where there had been no slave-owning system, feudalism arose on the basis of the break-up of the primitive community system. The clan aristocracy and military leaders of the tribes took into their hands a great quantity of lands and distributed them among their followers. The gradual enserfing of the peasants took place.

(2) The feudal lord's ownership of land and incomplete ownership of the worker in production-the peasant serf-was the basis of the relations of production in feudal society. As well as feudal property there existed the individual property of the peasant and craftsman, which was based on personal labour. The labour of the peasant serfs was the source of the existence of feudal society. Serf exploitation was expressed in the fact that the peasants were compelled to perform week-work for the feudal lord, or to pay him quitrent in kind and in money. The burden that serfdom laid on the peasant was frequently little different from that of slavery. However, the serf system opened certain possibilities for the development of the productive forces since the peasant could work a certain part of the time on his own holding and had a certain interest in his labour.

(3) The basic economic law of feudalism consists in the production of surplus product to satisfy the demands of the feudal lords, by means of the exploitation of dependent peasants, on the basis of the ownership of the land by the feudal lords and their incomplete ownership of the workers in production-the serfs.

(4) Feudal society, particularly in the period of the early Middle Ages, was split into small princedoms and states. The nobility and clergy were the ruling estates of feudal society. The peasant estate had no political rights. A class struggle between peasants and feudal lords took place throughout the whole history of feudal society. The feudal State, reflecting the interests of nobility and clergy, was an active force helping them to consolidate their right of feudal ownership of the land and to intensify their exploitation of the dispossessed and oppressed peasants.

(5) In the feudal epoch agriculture played a predominant part, and the economy had a basically natural character. With the development of the social division of labour and exchange, the old towns which had survived the fall of the slave-owning system revived, and new towns arose. The towns were centres of handicraft and trade. The crafts were organised in guilds which strove to prevent competition. Traders united in merchant guilds.

(6) The development of commodity production, breaking down the natural economy, led to differentiation among the peasants and the craftsmen. Merchant capital hastened the decline of the crafts and promoted the birth of capitalist enterprise-the manufactories. Feudal limitations and territorial divisions acted as a brake on the growth of commodity production. In the process of further development the national market was formed. The centralised feudal State arose in the form of absolute monarchy.

(7) Primitive accumulation of capital prepared the conditions for the rise of capitalism. Huge numbers of small producers-peasants and craftsmen-were deprived of the means of production. Great monetary wealth concentrated in the hands of large landowners, merchants and usurers was created by means of the forcible expropriation of the peasantry, colonial trade, taxes and the slave trade. Thus the formation of the basic classes of capitalist society, of wage-workers and capitalists, was accelerated. More or less complete forms of the capitalist order of society grew and ripened in the womb of feudal society.

(8) The production relations of feudalism, the low productivity of the unfree labour of the peasant serfs, and guild restrictions, hindered the further development of productive forces. Peasant serf risings. shook the feudal system and led to the abolition of serfdom. The bourgeoisie took the lead in the struggle for the overthrow of feudalism. It made use of the revolutionary struggle of the peasants against the feudal lords in order to take power into its own hands. The bourgeois revolutions put an end to the feudal system and established the rule of capitalism, giving scope for the development of the forces of production.

Not a question but here in a summarized version of the case for Christ to someone who doesn't want to read the entire book. For some reason it would let me upload it so here is a file host.

https://bayfiles.com/zc83Od0az2/The_Case_for_Christ_Answer_Booklet_Zondervan_2017_Lee_Strobel_epub

>>25071
Do you have a TL;DR of the summarised version?

>>25072
You're funny.

I got an AI to write a Dr.Suss song about Jesus going against the NWO.

Verse 1:
In a land of darkness and gloom,
Where the shadows hide secrets unknown,
There lived a man with love in his heart,
Jesus Christ, who would never be forlorn.
Chorus:
He fought against the New World Order,
With faith as his weapon and hope as his guide,
For he knew that their lies were untrue,
And that truth will always shine through.
Verse 2:
The elite tried to silence him with fear,
But Jesus stood tall, never to yield,
He preached love and forgiveness, you see,
And showed us the way to be free.
Chorus:
He fought against the New World Order,
With faith as his weapon and hope as his guide,
For he knew that their lies were untrue,
And that truth will always shine through.
Verse 3:
The battle was long and hard, you see,
But Jesus never gave up on us,
He showed the way to a better life,
One where love and peace can thrive.
Chorus:
He fought against the New World Order,
With faith as his weapon and hope as his guide,
For he knew that their lies were untrue,
And that truth will always shine through.
Outro:
So let us all follow in Jesus' footsteps,
And fight for a world where love never stops,
For together we can overcome the darkness,
And make this world a place of happiness.

I (a Latino myself) went to a Christian retreat and this dark skinned Latino guy got really offended that i used the word nigger, i didn't even say it to him, this was in 2019, i also shared an apartment with him unfortunately and he lied about his ages saying he was 18 when he was 14. He got so angry about me saying nigger that he clipped his toenail and put it on my bed and it poked me, but i did not react because it was obvious that that was what he wanted. At the end of the retreat we got together for a photo and he got behind me, and punched me in the back, i yelled at him and he was passive through out the whole trip back.

Christianity holds violence as a last resort, I don't think i could have taken him, but i feel i should i have punched him either way, he attacked me, so wouldn't it have been self defense?

DesuYo-Kobayashi-sa.jpg
[Hide] (142.6KB, 1920x1080)

>>25074
That is impressive, specially verse 3. I never got my AI to write about Jesus because it wasn't programmed to write religion stuff. Which AI did you use?

>>25078
https://github.com/nomic-ai/gpt4all

Runs locally on YOUR CPU, on YOUR model you trained yourself (but there are some available for download), and it's Open Source. It can do lot of what GPT4 doesn't do, like talk about conspiracies or racialist information (sometimes) but it's not perfect and sometimes generates liberal views but it's better than regular GPT.

Nick_Fuentes,_Destiny,_Sneako_&_JonZherka_DEBATE_The_JQ🛎️!_[v2wpj0u].webm
[Hide] (8.8MB, 1920x1080, 02:39)

https://rumble.com/v2zay60-nick-fuentes-destiny-sneako-and-jonzherka-debate-.html

If you're bored and want to hear a debate there is a debate on the Jewish Question. Time stamps are in the description so you don't have to watch all of it.

>>25099
Also Nick Fuentes who debates Destiny is a Christian and explains Anti-Semitism from a Christian perspective.

>>25100
>from a Christian perspective
lmao Nick "likes the dick" Fuentes is no Christian.

>>25102
How do you know he's gay? As of that debate he praised Jesus.

>>25103
He went on a date with some "Catboy Kami" dude and was caught watching tranny porn.

>>25104
That is not good, but personally i'm a porn addict trying to repent yet that doesn't take way my Christian status. Nick is still a brave man for pissing off the Jews, and making his own platform for discussing the Jews. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

one could say its the jews but in the final analysis its capitalism which allows them and the elite to operate as they do as leeches on society.

>And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

this is the apostolic ideal not le LARP we WUZ KANGZZ

>>25106
What would be the solution to capitalism?

5Hk2v.png
[Hide] (126.3KB, 993x731)

Why were they all taken literally and treated as infallible until mid XIX century if they're so different?

'Son_Of_Perdition'_From_His_Album_'Not_Your_Grandpa's_Pharisee'.webm
[Hide] (6.5MB, 500x478, 02:19)

>>25127
Still is and everything is the same. People say the same things. Christians have discussed the same things from the beginning. Most christians just consider everything true as an excuse not to think. Just as they consider all translations to be equally fine.
Often arugments and things are forgotten and so things repeat.

God's name for example is Yahovah... It's always been that, the Jews have always said that and it's what every english translation used including the kjv but people forget history and assume everyone in the past is retarded and uninformed and so come up with new things like Yaweh and pretend this hasn't already been discussed and settled long ago. There is nothing new under the sun.
Yes a literal thousand year reign of Christ has been debated from the first century with Papias.
The rapture, apocyphya inclusions, female pastors, liturgical vs plain church debate. Tertullian is writing about not a single thing new in the 2nd century

Most people in all history have always calculated the Earth's age to be closer to the Septuagint, believing the six ages: Jesus coming at the 5000th year not the 4000th as the masoretic calculates.
The masoretic was likely edited by Jews to make Shem live longer so he could be melchisedec to debunk the priesthood of christ in Hebrews. Or it's just a mistake. Or it's correct.
The Septuagint has Methuselah die years before the flood but his name means his death shall bring so the Masoretic seems more right to say he died tge same year as the flood. That's the whole point why he lived so long to show how longsuffering God is.

Both the Septuagint and Masoretic have issues. And that's talking as if these things exist, obviously there's no such thing as a masoretic or septuagint manuscript. They are just manuscripts. Greek and Hebrew, and even among themselves they have difference, there are in fact Hebrew manuscripts that have "pierced" in Psalm 22, not that any Jew would know or tell you. And then the NT forget about it, endless differences.
Unfortuantley laymen must now know these issues and have a mid life crisis over the fact inevitably up to 10% of their Bible is an edit by a scribe and of that: a whole 2% have different meanings of importance.
I find it very annoying but ultimatley we know what's really important and it's not the exact numbers of life in Jared.

From what I've seen people still treat all scripture as infallible and so on or they are on the opposite side and say the Septuagint or Masoretic is evil. Most people just don't care and do indeed assume every bible is translated from some magic manuscript that all bibles come from.
Genuinly nearly every christian that I see has no idea about Septuagint differences or Textus Receptus or any of these things and don't care. In that sense they are the laymen and those of the internet loser type are the self-taught scribes.

Everyone read the Immitation of Christ. You can find it for free online but buy a book.

>>25107
there is only one Christian solution to capitalism and that is ethical capitalism, which is dictated by the Bible and the moral framework established by God.

>>25130
I would say Christian Anarchism could work well as well, considering the Israelites worked without an official king for a long time and every time they tried to have a human king it went wrong.

>>25132
Pre-monarchy Israel was a theocracy.

>>25133
I didn't know Israel still had a government, but weren't they without a government early on?

>>25141
iirc it was a weird kind of system where the priests and elders 'ruled' and everything was based off the commandments and laws of God.

>>25142
They were called Judges, weren't they?

>>25143
i dont recall, i think judges came later in the monarchist period though.

bible-archeology-exodus-route-date-chronology-of-judges-1350-1004bc.jpg
[Hide] (820.8KB, 3300x2550)

>>25141
Like >>25143 said they had judges and prophets. They didn't have an earthly king because God was supposed their king:
"And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding everything they have said to you, because it is not you whom they have rejected. I am the one they have rejected as king over them."
1 Samuel 8:7

1689973318745277.jfif
[Hide] (49.9KB, 720x994)

If this is true, how do we prove this? Is there a way to prove that east Asia is inferior to Christian cultures when they were most Christian? And it would have to be non-white culture.

>>25149
Across its history east Asia has variously oscillated between totalitarian oppression and hedonist degeneracy. But I think it's more effective to give more specified examples, especially comparing the west before, during, and after Christendom. You know you're a pagan when you murder your own children because they're an 'inconvenience' to you.

>>25149
>make an argument for Christianity without citing the cultures in which it was the most influential
That's just artificially setting someone up to fail like arguing if someone can't win a marathon on one leg they aren't a good athlete.

1689984289774330.jpg
[Hide] (697.1KB, 2464x2833)

>>25151
There is the argument that white people are better with Christianity but then it would only be whites that benefit from Christianity and therefor not all cultures would be superior with Christianity as the picture claims.

>>25152
Ethiopia was Christian since the Book of Acts and did pretty good for itself in the middle of a sea of  Muslims and pagans.

Isaiah 8:12 “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it.

What was the conspiracy talked about here? If God controls everything then did he permit the enemies/conspiracies of Christians as punishment for our sins?

Are there protestant churches that work with secret societies?

>>25157
Define secret society. Were the Revolutionary War's Sons of Liberty a "secret society"? What about underground faith organizations in countries where Christianity (either specifically, religion in general is banned, or non-imperial cult religion is banned) is illegal?

over-cat.jpg
[Hide] (396.4KB, 900x1119)

I think I'm giving up on Christianity.
When I was a kid I used to go to church and pray but I never felt any sort of bliss or connection to God nor my prayers were effective or anything like that. I just did it because my parents were religious and wanted me to do it.
As I grew I became more passive in terms of Christianity and eventually stopped praying and going to church. I didn't feel any negative spiritual change in me.
There were periods after that when I tried to go to church or pray or read the Bible, but again, I saw no change neither internal nor external, other than regret of having wasted my time.
I'm now wondering if I should even continue bothering or if I should just forget about Christianity.
There are all those extremely vague platitudes of how Jesus or the Bible or whatever else will improve your life, but I experienced their falseness as I described prior.
Maybe I'm just an emotionally numb person (maybe autistic, or a "robot", or whatever people like calling it these days), so trying to practice Christianity didn't make me feel anything. Maybe if I was more normal, especially if I was a woman, I could feel something.
Also, there are gorillions of different denominations, doctrines, and interpretations, which makes everything more confusing and demotivating.
There's also the aspect that some, if not many teachings feel somewhat left-wing, or politically correct, or whatever you'd like to call it. In fact, most Christians I met in real life or online are to some alarming degree politically correct/socialist/left-wing/etc. This includes Christian forums/imageboards -- every time I genuinely post something or try to ask a question that's somewhat politically incorrect, and it gets deleted by the moderators, I only get even more demotivated (of course, it includes this board). Also, there are all those "Christian organizations" that promote socialist goals, etc.
Really, the only thing that makes me question whether I should leave Christianity is the fear that I would go to hell. The idea of hell seems somewhat absurd and like just some horror story to make people hesitant about leaving the religion, but at the same time, it's so frightening that it does make me waver even if it sounds absurd.
Note that I am not some edgy fedora-tipper trying to prove Christianity wrong or anything of the sort. I still respect this religion, and I don't outright deny the existence of God, Jesus, etc, but I am still uncertain about practicing the religion.
Anyway, this is the QTDDTOT (I didn't know where else to post this), so I guess I will leave a question....
Do you have any advice? I don't want to be too picky, but I'd prefer it to be something else than the extremely generic "just go to church", "just read the Bible", "just pray" (which as I already mentioned, I tried doing several times with no effect before giving up).
Cheers, God bless, etc.

images.jpg
[Hide] (14KB, 194x259)

>>25162
>As I grew I became more passive in terms of Christianity and eventually stopped praying and going to church. I didn't feel any negative spiritual change in me.
You don't "feel" spiritual negativity from not praying or going to church, at least i don't, the only times i've felt spiritual negativity is when i practiced magic and start seeing pictures of dead people from what i believe to be a spiritual guide that is clearly not of God. I have friends who say that every evil thought is an attack of evil spirits, but it could also just be your own mind.
>There are all those extremely vague platitudes of how Jesus or the Bible or whatever else will improve your life, but I experienced their falseness as I described prior.
I'm going to a 12 step faith based center and there are many people who have used Christianity to overcome chemical, sex, food, codependent addictions. The improvement is living a stable life not dying from sin.
>so trying to practice Christianity didn't make me feel anything. Maybe if I was more normal, especially if I was a woman, I could feel something.
Become full of the holy spirit and i guarantee you will feel something, an easy way to do this is to go to a Christian retreat. or sing the psalms until you feel something.
>Also, there are gorillions of different denominations, doctrines, and interpretations, which makes everything more confusing and demotivating.
There are actually only about 300 denoms (bigjohnsteel had a video on this) i know it's still a lot but people exaggerate the number, it's very easy to see who is right but comparing what they believe to the Bible.
>There's also the aspect that some, if not many teachings feel somewhat left-wing, or politically correct, or whatever you'd like to call it. In fact, most Christians I met in real life or online are to some alarming degree politically correct/socialist/left-wing/etc. This includes Christian forums/imageboards -- every time I genuinely post something or try to ask a question that's somewhat politically incorrect, and it gets deleted by the moderators, I only get even more demotivated (of course, it includes this board). Also, there are all those "Christian organizations" that promote socialist goals, etc.
There are Christian socialists and left-wing and Right-wing Christians, i've meet many right-wing Christians on all the /pol/s, Christianity is very neutral on certain political topics like race mixing and can go either way. This board has some heavy moderation but i personally haven't seen politically incorrect topics being removed. I've talked about Jewish conspiracies often here and it hasn't been removed.
>Really, the only thing that makes me question whether I should leave Christianity is the fear that I would go to hell. The idea of hell seems somewhat absurd and like just some horror story to make people hesitant about leaving the religion, but at the same time, it's so frightening that it does make me waver even if it sounds absurd.
Hell is God giving people what they want, to the people who don't want to be with God, they get their wish. There are many theories on hell. Look up the Christian and Biblical Doctrine of hell by Paul Spurlock or go to this http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell6.html
>Note that I am not some edgy fedora-tipper trying to prove Christianity wrong or anything of the sort. I still respect this religion, and I don't outright deny the existence of God, Jesus, etc, but I am still uncertain about practicing the religion.
It sounds like you want God to "talk" to you, or reveal himself to you somehow, become full of the Holy Spirit. Hanging our or ministering with other Christians outside of Church is also another way to see God work in people. I saw a man with cancer irrationally lose his cancer after praying.
>but I'd prefer it to be something else than the extremely generic "just go to church", "just read the Bible", "just pray" (which as I already mentioned, I tried doing several times with no effect before giving up).
Going to church once a week isn't enough, Reading the Bible is suppose to give insight to areas of your life where you need to change as well as having God talks to you through scripture. Praying should eventually give you somethings but sometimes God says no or not yet, even if you pray endlessly.

Just in case you're not aware of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus here is an answer booklet for it https://archive.org/details/caseforchristans0000stro

>>25162
I'd say just this Anon:  get born-again. That is, get saved.

Once you're saved, then all this humanistic babble becomes obviously just what it is: meaningless.

God's not going to change His standards or His word for you, you have to adhere to Him.

I pray you accept salvation's great gift, then all your concerns of this type will vanish like the smokescreen that they are.

Joe_Giant.jpg
[Hide] (129.4KB, 504x680)

joe_giant_0.jpg
[Hide] (103.5KB, 504x783)

Can you be a Christian and Believe in Evolution?
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pwnerL8M1pE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwnerL8M1pE

Genesis 6a: The Nephilim (giants)
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=inRjZ6ldUS4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inRjZ6ldUS4

TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8AoLYeFi2ms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AoLYeFi2ms

>Videos in favor of traditionally Christian theories.

The Age of the Earth: What They Didn’t Tell You
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=LciwrobJKK4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LciwrobJKK4

The Story of the Man who was ROBBED of his NOBEL PRIZE (proof of the scientific community is a secular club)
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=a23jeafcXQ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a23jeafcXQ8

The Dinosaurs Died Recently (And they are hiding it)
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Wns3lwu757I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wns3lwu757I

InspiringPhilosophy Doesn't believe in the young earth, or giants but believes in macro evolution and has annoyed a lot of Christians online, but also brought in Theistic evolutionists who couldn't get into Christianity because it seemed to be at odds with Christianity. What do you think?

>>25166
>What do you think?
I think that there are no versions of the truth, just the Truth. Quite apart from theological or political aspirations or agendas of man -- stands the two handiworks of God that are objective; the book of Scripture, and the 'book' of nature.

Neither of them can have falsehood in them due the the character of their Author. Any seeming-dichotomy is strictly down to man's misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the truth.

>>25162
do you have a Telegram?
I wouldnt mind discussing religious matters with you in private or in a group.

Untitled.png
[Hide] (12.7KB, 523x335)

What the second post talking about? I know it's a stupid atheist gotcha but can someone explain it to me?

>>25176
He's referencing the Roman centurion whose faith Jesus remarks as being greater than all that he's come across in Israel, in Luke 7:2-9 and Matthew 8:5-13. Specifically he seems to be referencing this exchange:
>10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

The person responding to you is doing some linguistic sleight of hand (or just misunderstanding/doing crazy demon logic, whichever) around the meaning of 'Jew' in this context. You assert that Abraham isn't a Jew, and is rather a Gentile, because Judah and hence the term 'Jew' in reference to any group of people hasn't been established yet in the time of Abraham. 

The responder is saying that Abraham is a Jew regardless because he's genetically linked to what would later become the Judahites/Jews, which I'd figure is what the responder is more concerned about. He's then invoking the exchange with the centurion to showcase a divide between 'the sons of Abraham' (a loaded term absent in the actual dialogue that he's made up to mean 'genetic Jews') and gentiles (peoples not genetically linked to Jews), to imply a contradiction between the premise 'Abraham wasn't a Jew (which means he's a gentile, ie, not genetically Jewish)', and the premise 'gentiles can be appended onto Abraham's lineage (which shouldn't be possible if Abraham himself isn't distinct from the gentiles, ie, Jewish)' 

While it is true that Christians are 'sons of Abraham', this is in a spiritual sense, as said in Galatians 3:
>6So also, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”a 7Understand, then, that those who have faith are sons of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and foretold the gospel to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”b 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 

Thus, those who are 'sons of Abraham' in the Christian sense are those who learn from Abraham's faith, and Abraham's relationship with God, and exhibit the same kind of faith or trusting/righteous relationship towards God (whether or not they're technically aware of Abraham). I get the impression you're aware of this principle, but the person who responded to you either isn't, or is purposefully ignoring it so he can focus more on literal genealogies, even though Galatians and the centurion encounter both specify that there are those of Judah (ie, 'genetic Jews,' or literal sons of Abraham) who will wind up in Hell, so having a literal 'blood tie' to Abraham means nothing in terms of salvation. So secondary to insulting Jesus (because of course the first reflex he'd have is to insult Jesus), he's trying to inveigle you into a genealogical debate, or just so fixated on genetics as the 'primary issue' that he can't tear himself away from talking about it, as warned of in Titus 3:
>9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

>>25178
I should also probably specify that because the consummation of God's covenant to Abraham, "All nations will be blessed through you," is the Lord Jesus, that faith in Christ is equivalently an exhibition of faith of the kind of Abraham.

>>25178
>>25179
Thank you very much, i didn't reply back, because i didn't know enough about it. 

I've run into a lot of atheists or pagans who think Christians worship mosses or some other well known Jewish person in the Bible,  it's so bizarre and wrong.

>>25178
>inveigle
Neat. That's a new one on me.

I've observed 4 distinct groups that try to use this type of obfuscation and cajolery here regarding Abraham.
-Antichrist Jews (the Ashkenazi type, not the Biblical ones). This is the most common type of attack AFAICT, just the typical JIDF crap.
-Antichrist pagan LARPers. Typically of the fashy set, who refuse the accept the obvious & deep correlation between Christian, White, European culture & the Christian Bible.
-Not-necessarily-anti-but-still-quite-opposed-to-Christ Islamists. It's just a tactical thing for them (as in combat), not particularly a spiritual thing as with the first two groups.
-General neo-pagans who simply want to be free to serve their father Satan, without any pesky Lord God Almighty they will give account to.

Jesus Christ Himself actually dealt with the racial topics directly.
>"I am the vine and you are the branches" [1]
>"It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs" [2]
>"For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" [3]

As mentioned in scripture, he also dealt with the issue of the Roman being saved, and at His own death also proclaimed the repentant Hebrew's salvation.

>tl;dr
God is obviously able to save anyone He chooses to through the salvation offered freely to all, through Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son (and He will do so). Because of the great faith of Abraham, the genetic lineage will also receive additional benefits during this world's reign. 

>ttl;dr
Playing the 'muh Abrahamism' card is just a LARP by heathens. God will laugh that to derision in the end.

'---'

1. https://biblehub.com/john/15-5.htm
2. https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-26.htm
3. https://biblehub.com/matthew/3-9.htm

Codex_Manesse_149v_Wolfram_von_Eschenbach.jpg
[Hide] (1.2MB, 984x1494)

>>22746
>WCB wasn't part of the Catholic religion but was political and value based
They are sedevacantists and affiliated to the SSPV I think. (Don't take my word for it though, I just remembered that one of the priests there was from the SSPV)

>>6836 (OP) 
For my Catholic friends: What is the Catholic position related to digitally pirating books?

I recently saw a news post related that a organization (a Jewish one, yes) pushed Amazon to delete the "Complot against the Church" book. At this point I'm worried that they will try to do the same to other books that the tribe doesn't like, and while, fortunately most of the books I have are very old and thus copyright free, that doesn't mean I don't have copyrighted books.

Also, I have a Wii U (yes, I'm an idiot for buying that) console that I don't use, but meanwhile I wouldn't care less about the trash console, my family like it. Unfortunately I can't buy games digitally since the eShop is closed so I thought I could pirate them since you can't find new Wii U games anywhere.

Meanwhile I believe people should be rewarded for their work, even in the case of digital products, I don't know if it's moral for the consumer to pay for a DRM protected copy from Amazon that I technically not own, or not read a book because it's not in stock and the only way to get it is by pirating it, or those academic sites that force you to pay 30$ for a 10 page "study", or considering that originally intelectual property didn't last long, et cetera.

What is the Catholic position related to digital piracy and intellectual property? It is a sin if I proceed with the things I do?

Thank you guys and God bless.

Hi there, non-Christian popping in.

I am part of a group that tries to do advocacy and education about protecting the environment. I'm curious what Christians on this board think about climate change, global warming, etc. The negative stereotype of Christians is that they ignore all the science and just think "it's God's will." And a lot of them seem to think that environmentalism is kind of a backdoor for converting them to pagan nature worship.

At least from my perspective, there isn't really anything antithetical to the Christian worldview about human beings' carbon emissions raising the temperature of the planet. I want to try to appeal to them on the level of "Even if you don't think that we should worship nature, wouldn't it be better to at least have less of a negative effect on it?" I view it as just a scaled-up version of keeping our own backyard clean. You don't have to worship your backyard to want to keep it beautiful, so why shouldn't you feel the same about the world's environment?

Do you believe in trying to reduce carbon emissions? Why or why not? What would get you to support it if you don't?

Thanks for your input.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (510KB, 750x1060)

>>25183
>The negative stereotype of Christians is that they ignore all the science and just think "it's God's will."
This is a cartoonishly vague conception of Christian perspectives and smacks of propaganda besides. There are several broadly accepted and widely discussed Christian doctrines on environmentalism in general, but before that, you should consider something else: Have you no professing Christians in your organization you can ask about this? Not even any lapsed believers who attended Sunday school, where the foundations of those doctrines are conveyed, as children? If not, perhaps you should consider why you either have no Christians (statistically, an organization of any nontrivial size would have at least one or two) or they feel it necessary to hide themselves.

you_rubes_should_do_what_I_want_because_Jesus_probably_said_so.png
[Hide] (220.6KB, 900x534)

>>25183
Looking to fill in this template, huh?

>>25183
>The negative stereotype of Christians is that they ignore all the science and just think "it's God's will."
I have a negative stereotype of secularists that they are all media golems who worship a strange god which for some reason they  call "science" which speaks to them many revelations and bestows on them many commandments, and that they generally regard with contempt anyone who fails to worship this god as much as them.
>And a lot of them seem to think that environmentalism is kind of a backdoor for converting them to pagan nature worship.
Environmentalism is not a backdoor to that (nor have I ever heard even the most wild KJV-only preacher say something like that in any literal sense), but it is analogous to it since it exalts trees and grass above humanity. The appeal you make at the end of this to "cleaning your own backyard" would not be environmentalism but conservationism which is meaningfully distinct because the latter does not prioritize nature above human lives or society. 
>Do you believe in trying to reduce carbon emissions? Why or why not? What would get you to support it if you don't?
You would not need to compel emission reduction if it was even equally efficient. The greedy billionaire businessman burns fossil fuels left, right, and center because it is more profitable to do so, and it is more profitable to do so because it is more efficient. To simply cut them out arbitrarily like you desire would be to the detriment of society. If you want to cut out fossil fuels the entire focus should be on finding a suitable replacement rather than some subversive hippy "save the earth" bs.

651m3MEME060323.jpg
[Hide] (250.7KB, 1200x1092)

>>25183
Well data-miner-kun, where'd you get all that at? As this Anon said >>25184, your writing smacks of propaganda.

One of the greatest things you can do to reduce carbon emissions is to restore the yuge whales. Their feces provide nutrition for phytoplankton around the entire ocean. Phytoplankton are 'by far' the #1 mechanism God devised to inter carbon into the lithosphere (essentially permanantly) and should be your primary focus instead. But w/e, atheists -- and particularly liberals -- like to LARP that they care about science and practical outcomes, when instead they just want to virtue-signal each other in their little confirmation bias infobubbles.

What's next, you're going to join PETA?  :^)

>>25183
If you want to help fight "climate change" forbid indians, chinese people and africans to have children. Bang, climate change solved.

>>25187
>atheists -- and particularly liberals -- like to LARP that they care about science and practical outcomes, when instead they just want to virtue-signal each other in their little confirmation bias infobubbles.
Someone on 4chan a few months ago put it beautifully. Leftists (I would say secularists in general) do not love science, they love the perceived authority their beliefs receive from the endorsement of "the experts".

>>25189
Exactly. It's the understanding that the universe is in fact governed by rational laws that allows the scientific endeavor at all. This stems from the Enlightenment, which stemmed from the Reformation, which stemmed from thousands of years of scriptural studies. Einstein wondered that the universe was comprehensible at all, and that idea goes back Biblically for 10's of thousands of years (cf. Book of Job).

This is how the entire pursuits of Unis, Medicine, and the Scientific endeavor in the modern sense, even got their beginnings -- as Christian pursuits -- roughly around the time of the Renaissance. There certainly are non-theistic individuals today pursuing understand of the Truth, but few and far between AFAICT. For the most part it's motivated as you said, by their Commie-like pursuit of the levers of power by any means.

>>25183
Read the whole post.

What I personally think about groups like yours is that you are nothing more than the pawns of globalist elites who want to enact their programs (in this case siphoning wealth from Western countries). If you want to prove me wrong, take your advocacy to China and India and stop bothering people in the West. Anti climate change efforts are transparently political in nature and have nothing to do with actually stopping it. In the West, you can advocate against sending billions in bulk aid to third world countries (thus propping up their birth rates) and then turning around an importing millions of them (thus taking away any downward pressure on population growth). This is the main driver behind world population growth which you presumably believe is the problem. Of course you won't do this. You probably think yourself as an underdog fighting the system but you're not. You are the system.

HOWEVER, I will try to answer as neutrally as possible now that I have gotten that rant out of the way and to keep things to Christian arguments. The Christian view on these matters is that God made the world. Therefore, it is intrinsically valuable as a creation of God. He Himself pronounced it good. Furthermore, He gave us (humanity) governorship or custody over the world (the world includes the universe) do use as we saw fit. It is up to us to be responsible with the gifts God has given us because, ultimately, the world is His not ours.
Where we differ from most environmentalists is that the Christian model for our relationship to the world is that of the garden rather than the nature preserve. The world is for us to use not seal away and admire for being pretty. Therefore, mining, forestry, fishing, farming and all other uses of natural resources (including coal and oil and so forth) are good things. It is good for us to use them for good purposes just as it is evil to use them for evil purposes. What is wrong with environmentalism, as it is commonly practised, is its anti-human foundation. You fundamentally see humans as the problem because we consume (in your opinion) too much and we generally aren't content to live in commie blocks with rationed food, fuel, power etc. That is utterly incompatible with a religion that claims God, the creator and ruler of everything, chose to die for the sake of humans. Quite frankly, it is evil. Until you stop seeing humans in general as the problem, you are doing nothing more than what >>25185 said. It's stretching the context and meaning of the parable somewhat but Jesus spoke of a rich man who entrusted his wealth to three servants while he was away. The first servant invested his share and increased his master's wealth a great deal. The second increased his sum by a modest amount. The third, fearing that he would lose all the money he received, buried his in the ground for safekeeping. When the rich master returned, he praised the first two servants highly and gave them responsibility over greater amounts. He excoriated the third servant, gave his money to the others who would use it better, and threw him out. That is how I view it.

>I view it as just a scaled-up version of keeping our own backyard clean.
That's great, except that's not what you're doing. What you're doing is telling other people that they have to pay for your own sense of self righteousness.
>Do you believe in trying to reduce carbon emissions?
If by "believing in" you mean "think we should" then no.
>What would get you to support it if you don't?
At this point, nothing. Groups like yours have already burned any goodwill you had. Your immense hypocrisy doesn't help either. And look, we Christians aren't any better at that. We fuck up constantly and fail to live up to the standard set for us by God. But at least Christians agree on paper that you're supposed to be humble about your faults even if we suck at that too. From your side, there doesn't appear to be any kind of desire for humility. You are all tell tell tell. You must do this, you must not do that. Probably you feel the same way about us in which case I hope you can understand what I'm saying.

To summarise, I support environmental conservation and protection as a general principle when it's directed at concrete situations. Examples being reducing heavy metals in water and particulates in air. I oppose it when it's used as an authoritarian political bludgeon to control people.

>>25183
I forgot to mention. Reasons you might be having problems relating to Christians in your area include:
>Your organisation has additional beliefs besides environmentalism that are causing the problem.
>Your organisation just doesn't operate in a very religious/Christian town or online space and so there's no connection.
>Your organisation operates in an extremely religious/Christian area and you're perceived as encroaching on their space with ideas that nobody wants.
>PARTICULARLY if your ideas involve them giving up stuff.
>You've been antagonistic towards them and haven't truly listened to what they have to say. Even if you think their ideas are stupid, that's no way to behave towards people you're supposedly trying to convince. Props to you for at least asking a question here.
>You are not "in" their community. Do you know the people by name? Do you greet Greg the 6 day creationist at the store and invite Fred "the gubmints taking my guns and cars away" over for tea (with no ulterior motive)?
Some of these might not apply. I don't know what your situation is or how big your organisation is or where you operate but these are some ideas. Just some thoughts.

>>25163
> I saw a man with cancer irrationally lose his cancer after praying.
Based, praise God Amen

>>25166
>believes in macroevolution
He probably holds that on the basis of secular inquiry rather than anything that can be construed from the Bible, which is complete in the knowledge of God's salvation. Were ancient Christians not saved for their ignorance of some Englishman's natural theories 1800 years after their day?

>>25200
>>believes in macroevolution
>He probably holds that on the basis of secular inquiry rather X
Given how much clear evidence that macroevolution is not a thing (and there's a 'mountain' of evidence now), I'd suggest there are only two possibilities likely:
1. Ignorance.
2. Willful, intentional "ignorance".

The first case would be the typical victim of the lie, or simply literally in ignorance of the evidence in the matter.

The second case would be for the scientists today, serving the ((( enterprise ))) of science. It's typically much more likely to be mixed with a malevolent hatred of anyone who refuses to toe the party line regarding not just this philosophical doctrine (ie, so-called 'Macro-evolution'), but any of the affiliated doctrines we all know and hate during Current Year (too long to list, but typified by the term 'pozzed').

It's a cultural war we're all engaged in here, Christian or no, and it's certainly limited to 18th & 19th -century European gentlemen today lol.

>>25201
>certainly 'not' limited to*

>>25201
More like he, like the vast majority of secular or agnostic adjacent people, fail to weigh how evolutionism stems from a naturalistic, man-made philosophical viewpoint that explicitly excludes any possibility of divine intervention. Their ignorance is to the degree that they do not even known what they are ignorant of to be willfully in contravention of it because of how popular culture strawmans the Christian position and only gives air time to Christians that fit conform to their strawman so that they can be lampooned. They don't approach the question of cosmology from the direction of faith in the first cause of the universe but approach the question of it from what fallen man can discern by his warped senses and reason, in a process that Satan has every motive and means to disrupt so as to induce faithlessness by man's weakness when he denies the grace of God. Christian thinkers established the best of the modern world which secular thinkers now corrupt, as after the character of the snake in the Garden their patron. From the start the rich and the powerful saw in Darwin's theories an opportunity to destroy the faith that man is made in the image of God and therefore also destroy any basis for the essential rights of men as bestowed by their Creator, so that they could become the masters of the Earth. Indeed they have well advanced in their conspiracy, and are addicted to propogating the vices of the demons they serve throughout the world, until their evil reaches its culmination as did that of the Amorites and the Lord and His myriads will come in power and in glory from Heaven to destroy them and establish His Kingdom forever.

>>25201
>Given how much clear evidence that macroevolution is not a thing (and there's a 'mountain' of evidence now)
Can you post this?

>>25205
Lol, it would take a board with more capacity than just 70 threads. I'd suggest you start here, Anon:
https://reasons.org

>>25204
>More like he, like the vast majority of secular or agnostic adjacent people, fail to weigh how evolutionism stems from a naturalistic, man-made philosophical viewpoint that explicitly excludes any possibility of divine intervention.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the mind-virus of methedological naturalism. That's why the very first expansion I listed was:
>The first case would be the typical victim of the lie

To expand further, the Jewish control of the media, the government, the education system, (for the most part) the social networks, and of course, the scientific endeavor itself, give them remarkable power to enforce this fallacy on the unsuspecting public, et al. Add to that the world, the flesh, and the devil -- all of which revolt against the Truth -- and you have literally billions of people who are all, victims of the big lie. They are effectively innocents by and large, at least insofar as the clearly bogus philosophical doctrine of neoDarwinism (that is, macroevolution, and abiogenesis out of thin air). 

The blame clearly is laid at the feet of scientists and philosophers who clearly 'do' recognize this idea as complete scientific balderdash, but perpetuate it because of their other ((( agendas ))).

>>25207
>methodological*

For reference, I was raised Christian but was taken out of the church ecosystem due to shitty staff members.  I'm here because I have to ask this board about a specific phenomena that I have only seen on the internet, and I just don't fucking get it. 

Unsolicited Preachers.

Specifically, random people who will just fucking dump passages from the bible or other random-ass shit speaking about the word of the church on imageboards or forums, especially when it comes to /x/-circles. Like. What the fuck is there to gain from this? I thought this was a strictly-bot-problem because I remember posting an image of an angel on 8/fringe/ back in the day, and then a preacher-post followed the day after. Like there was -no way- it wasn't a bot-post because there was so little activity in the thread, and the random sermon was just so targeted and out-of-place with the rest of the thread.

And now? I've found there are real people on the webring who randomly post sermons, bible verses, and and other assorted preaching, and THEY AREN'T BOTS! They are actual, real, flesh and blood human anons who are spamming the church's message, instead of taking the time to actually contact and make audience with the Lord Almighty themselves. 

Why? 

Why do this? My faith has taken me throughout several different sources, and ultimately right back to the source I started with, yet I didn't need a church, I didn't need the bible, I didn't need the preachy spam and sermons. I found God without all the bullshit, and now that I'm seeing what feels like half-hearted spam, it has me so flabbergasted. Like, at this point, all it is, is just noise, screams thrown into an ether that does not understand, does not care and does not respond to you.

I mean, I see that church sermons have a purpose, at the end of the day, most of it is functionally, social ritual and patterns, it has a purpose. The spambots also have a purpose, being that either they're funded by some nutjob church officials who think they're spreading the word of the lord, or they're actually assholes looking to cause noise and drown out discussion by using God as their bludgeon. 

But why? Why preach randomly online? Why do people feel the need to do this?

Has Pastor Anderson gotten in trouble with powerful Jews? He did a whole sermon about the Jews and their lies. He must have pissed off some Jews? Is that why hes banned from certain countries?

>>25214
Be more specific. I see a lot more of people flipping their shit at the slightest hint of Christianity than I do of people obnoxiously posting Bible verses. I don't visit /x/ so maybe your board has a particular problem. How much do you consider "spam?" Is it someone posted a Christian take on some /x/ topic or is there someone posting completely unrelated stuff? I occasionally post about Christianity on other boards if it's relevant. Sometimes people react badly but I don't think I'm spamming. Can you post an example of what you're talking about?

>they're funded by some nutjob church officials
Extremely unlikely for a couple of reasons. Your average local church doesn't have the money. It's hard enough for them keeping the lights on. The rich churches (mostly megachurches) are obsessed with bigger and more. They're not going to bother with obscure sites. It's more likely whoever owns the bot wants to fuck with your board and this is apparently an effective way to do it.

I hope you see this and didn't think your thread was deleted and give up in frustration.

>>25220
I was wondering where my thread went. I ain't mad, just didn't expect this.
Given that you're willing to have discussion on other boards, I don't think you're part of the crowd that spams.

To be specific as to my confusion/frustration as to random online-preachers and that you don't really visit /x/, occult threads/boards related to magic with a K tend to attract schizos from all walks of life for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes one of those schizos happens to be a fundamentalist who thinks that magic with a K is christianity-exclusive despite making contact with both angels and God being notable elements of people who dabbled into the occult (The Enochian language, for example, and the books surrounding it).

The closest immediate example of the preaching I have a problem with is this : (pony warning) https://mlpol.net/vx/98688#166795
But to be real here, that anon actually seems to have gotten better about it later in the thread. Honestly, it's sufficient for his first few posts, but as an example, it burns out quick.

In regards to spam, what I've found is that it's typically both unwarranted and unsolicited in nature. I think most of my problems with it come more from sources that are one-and-dones on youtube, faster IBs, 8ch back in the day. I mean, I had randomly posted an angel picture on an 8/fringe/ thread that I grabbed from an image-search, and somehow a bible verse found it's way onto the thread despite being 1. a thread of very little activity, and 2. being a thread completely unrelated to Christianity, or having any discussion related it.

>It's more likely whoever owns the bot wants to fuck with your board and this is apparently an effective way to do it. 
You know what? You're right.

I'd believe that some unaffiliated troll would do something like this to cause a rise. I'd believe that someone on the SJW side of things would use bible verses to troll people to cause chaos too. 
Either way, thank you for dealing with my bullshit.

>>25228
Well... The most charitable explanation I can give is that they believe it and believe that all supernatural things can be explained from a Christian standpoint (something I believe too but perhaps in a different way, I'm not sure) and they are making the posts that make sense to them. As I said, I'm not really into /x/ so I can't tell if what he wrote is relevant to the topic and it was also confusing to me. I didn't understand what his point was. It just seemed like random, unconnected thoughts. I agree, it's not very helpful having a wall of text or just a video link that doesn't engage with what other people are talking about.

I've remembered now that we did have that one guy who spammed this place a bit with something about "God's holy lasers" a while back. And there have been some others so it definitely happens.

>someone on the SJW side of things would use bible verses to troll people
They absolutely do.
>thank you for dealing with my bullshit
No problem mate. Sorry your board is having this problem.

D1C4d8KWkAAM1wi.png
[Hide] (86.6KB, 633x762)

>>25207
I agree with what you posted, but it feels as if the word lie is insufficient to capture the gravity of the error, since it's an entire paradigm within which the human mind is robbed of any means by which to contest its validity. This is most insidious when secularists bait Christians into false debates on their terms and assuming their axioms for a opportunity to disgrace them, because the world has been fooled into assuming that atheistic naturalism is neutral ground, when it very, very much is not.

>scientists and philosophers who clearly do recognize this idea as complete scientific balderdash, but perpetuate it 
It's actually remarkable the degree to which some portion of them lack even the most basic level of insight into the nature of ideas even as they vehemently advocate for hatred of God.

>>25216
The Jews hate Jesus so it therefore follows that they hate Jesus's most faithful preachers AMEN

1687793139442661.png
[Hide] (88.7KB, 722x499)

Is there any verse in the Bible thats says that the enemies of Christians are permitted by God as punishment?

I know that God obviously controls everything but does that mean that the pagan anti-christian government structure is a punishment for sinning? I know that there is Isaiah 8:12 where God tells them not to fear the conspiracies, (what conspiracies is he talking about?) does this lend itself to that as well as the part where Jesus in John 19:11 says “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”.

>>25237
God killing all His enemies would contradict with our free will. If we exercise our free will and oppose God, only for Him to destroy us, then we don't truly have free will. God allows evil in the world because He allows free will, for us to choose to follow or deny Him.

>>25235
>because the world has been fooled into assuming that atheistic naturalism is neutral ground, when it very, very much is not.
This is an excellent point Anon, and one I'm not sure I had appreciated before either. As mentioned by Dr. Jeff Zwerink, the most rational, a priori assumption is that there is a divine being or set of beings. This has been (by far) the most common human philosophy regarding the existence of the creation. The modern has to struggle with the cognitive dissonance to the point that the child's question :
>"Why is there something, rather than nothing?"[1]
seems like some deep profound philosophical musing. The lunacy is so ingrained that individuals will say 'it can't have a cause, it just is'[2], as if that is a rational & reasonable explanation.

Men from all ages apart from this one all had a common answer to this question : 'Because god did it.'

>It's actually remarkable the degree to which some portion of them lack even the most basic level of insight into the nature of ideas even as they vehemently advocate for hatred of God.
It is remarkable, but that wasn't really what I meant there. To wit : there is an ever-growing cadre of secular, humanist, scientists who now readily acknowledge (at least in private) the insurmountable difficulties of the standard lie (neoDarwinism), yet knowing this full-well still refuse to recant their position b/c of other ((( reasons ))).

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all#cite_note-14

>>25240
>It is remarkable, but that wasn't really what I meant there
That comment was in supplement to yours, not in contention. I thought it was apt to point out that in some of these prominent cases it is abjectly the blind leading the blind into the pit.

>yet knowing this full-well still refuse to recant their position b/c of other ((( reasons )))
Their standard position seems to be nihilism, since they have a fixation with denying that something can exist without being directly empirically observable even as in the scientific process they use logical and mathematical concepts have no direct representation in the material world, yet that lack of a physical presence makes them no less identities around which the physical universe is ordered. They can't even be humanists anymore as their naive forbears in the Enlightenment took for granted, as modernity made it more and more obvious that humanity is manifestly flawed (which we already know by faith as a consequence of the Fall), so despite blowing on the trumpet of rationalism the premises on which their worldview was established have rotted out beneath them. Of course that nihilism is just leaving the door open for Satan and his co-conspirators to enter into their hearts and possess them, and these days more and more is coming out about the amoral if not depraved character of members of the scientific community and their abuse of power. The popular image of the scientist is still that of the fantasy of the radically independent deep thinker and ingenius researcher of a bygone day, when modern scientists are by and large procedural dullards with very narrow fields of expertise and brilliance, and subject to bias and politics as much as anyone else; if not moreso, because others worship them in their mediocrity as if they were magicians.

51eBS7K-o1L._UXNaN_FMjpg_QL85_.jpg
[Hide] (34.1KB, 500x500)

Is it okay to listen to this album from Celibidache? Even if it has that Chinese symbol and the weird gesture? Should I take my pills?

I read recently that he was into Zen Buddhism and I'm kinda worried.

>>25242
if you're afraid that listening to an album with buddhist themes is going to make you a buddhist, then you're already a buddhist

>>25242
Ironically it's what you don't spot with your conscious mind effects your subconscious mind. Knowing the author is buddhism won't effect you, but if he put subliminal messages about something in the music will.