Christianity

Anyone else here a Christian? Let's have a comfy thread about it. Post your >denomination >favorite sermons/scripture verses >recent experiences with the Spirit Remember to be polite!

So I hear people don't like tulips?

Trough the lens of this guy, sure!

>>4714 >Church of the Nazarene >John 1:1 >none super recent Now how about you, chummer?

>denomination Converting to Catholicism, I'm in RCIA now. >favorite sermons/scripture verses I don't have any favorites, but the Pentecost in Acts is something I just studied, and it's pretty cool. "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." -Acts 2:1-4 >recent experiences with the Spirit I've never had an experience where I felt as though I was in the presence of the Spirit, unfortunately.

>>4905 To expand on this a bit, I'm pretty exited about this thread. Another verse I like a lot, and would definitely say is one of my favorites upon further thought is Mathew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shale not prevail against it." As for experiences with the Spirit, I think the fact that I can post in this thread now may be attributable to the Spirit. I am very lucky in the way I have been accidentally surrounded by those of faith, many of those close to me are christian, and I even met a fellow christian off of here just about a year ago who started RCIA around the time I did who has converted. Having great people around me like this, some friends who helped lead me to faith, and my family who lead me not only to faith, but also to the church has been amazing. I actually opened up Lainchan today just to go start or find a Christian thread on /hum/ only to find this, maybe this is an act of the spirit, and I'm very happy to be here in the presence of fellow Christians.

>>4903 *tips fedora in your direction* "Jordan Peterson is catnip for fedora lords" - Mister Metokur Archives https://youtu.be/m1yO58UIGo0

Can't say that I believe anymore (raised RC) but still find the lore fascinating, still reach for the New Testament on my shelf on occasion. It even informs my appreciation of media, especially science fiction. I often catch references in movies and the like and find myself hitting pause to look something up.

Raised non denominational. I'm a Universalist now. I hate the idea of Hell, and i've read a lot of really convicing arguments on why the modern interpretation of eternal damnation doesn't line up with early thoughts. Its so much more freeing, allowing me to stay comfortable in my faith and existential awareness, with out it i think i would have quit Christianity. My Lutheran girlfriend might break up with me over it, so thats cool.

>(((christianity)))

>>4915 >I don't like that if I deny my self of God's love I will spend an eternity with out it Have fun

>>4918 i don't like thinking of God as a soykafty child that throws a tantrum when you don't give it everything it wants.

I'm too much of a determinist to think that everyone truly has the same opportunity to come to Christ. I refuse to believe that someone suffers for ever just over bad rng

>>4920 God doesn't throw a tantrum, that is blasphemous. God welcomes you with open arms, God is infinite love, but it's up to you to wash away your stain, look to him, and accept the love. Hell is not about torture, it is not about fire, it's about spending an eternity with out God's love. In this life even when we look away we are experiencing it, but that won't be for ever. This complete separation from God is fire, torture, an eternity of burning.

>>4922 > Hell is not about torture, it is not about fire >This complete separation from God is fire, torture, an eternity of burning.

>>4923 You missed my point, it is not God condemning you to torture, but you choosing to live with out his love. The torture is born from this.

>>4924 If God can save you from eternal torture but cannot, then he is not all powerful, but he is so this isn't true. If he will not then his love is not unconditional as we are expected to be, why are we held to a higher standard than God?

>>4925 God is capable of "saving" you, but it was your choice to accept salvation. Sure, he didn't have to create evil, but from his wisdom he knew to do so. It is your choice to love him or not, you are not a slave. "However, we can reason that God has decided to endow us with free will, a tremendous gift that gives humans the freedom to choose between love of God and hatred of him. We can choose between good and evil. So why did he decide to give us the freedom to choose evil? It is enough to say that God created us as human beings and not as preprogrammed robots. In his infinite goodness he desired the free love of humanity over forced obedience to his will. For love cannot be forced, it must be given by desire and choice." -http://www.saintaquinas.com/belief_in_God.html Read some Saint Thomas Aquinas 'It is written (Matthew 25:46): "These," namely the wicked, "shall go into everlasting punishment." ' -http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5099.htm

>>4926 Are all choices made within the same contexts? the same circumstance? No, not all decisions to come to Christ or not are equal. Some are born in places where they have little access to God's word, to let them fall through the cracks is not what i would call love. Also, your working with translations of translations. http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html Hell isn't even a word in the original languages of the Bible, its been shoehorned in after the fact. It replaces words like sheol (meaning grave, also giving rise to the idea that our souls are destroyed if they don't go to heaven), gehenna (referring to a place of great shame), Hades (which beyond the god of death and the location of the afterlife in Greek mythology also can be translated as hidden), and tartarus used once (referring to place in Greek mythology that actually resembles the modern idea of Hell but the passage only referred to fallen angels going there. Other references such as the place outside with the weeping and gnashing of teeth is only referred to in parables. which aren't supposed to be taken literally. Also, no where in the old testament does it talk about a horrible place you go to when you die and don't serve God. you think people would want to know that. Theres a lake of fire too, but its said that death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. and hades is usually translated as hell so is hell thrown into hell? Ecclesiastes seems to posit that there is no afterlife. http://brazenchurch.com/hell-2-lake-of-fire-lazarus-gnashing-eternal-torment/ Also, i'm not sure i believe in free will. at least not in the form that allows Christianity to function as you believe it to.

Mormon here, we cool guys?

>>4976 Howdy, friend, tell us about your faith

>>4714 >Pentecostal >Ecclesiastes 3:1 >Praying for baptism.

>>4714 > RC from birth lapsed, recently rediscovering parts of my faith. Realized recently how important Christianity is to Western thought and ethics. > Corintheans 13:12 because muh ghost in the shell and also love. > Went to confession before a trip and confessed everything I could remember, afterwards I had this feeling like so much had been lifted from my shoulders.

>>4979 It's great, even for ronery guys. The idea that I am a spiritual child of God really helps to keep me motivated and dedicated to the Gospel. It's a very family-oriented church - even my brother, a literal autist, 5'4", met and married a nice girl within a couple years of his mission. We're also really focused on self-sufficiency and members are encouraged to have emergency supplies in their house as well as skills to fix broken things or help out in one's community if needed. The Plan of Salvation is a little complicated at first but it's a really beautiful doctrine to me and it helps to lay some of my doubts to rest. Check out a Book of Mormon sometime. Even if you're of another denomination and believe it was written by Joseph Smith to scam people, it contains some beautiful and heartfelt passages on faith, finding hope, family, and the purpose of existence. How about you anon? How's your faith?

>>4990 Those community aspects sound pretty nice. That's something positive I've heard a lot about Mormons, they make great communities. Right now I am having a bit of a hard time, but through God I hope it will soon pass. I am definitely feeling closer to God now than ever before.

>>4907 >my favorite internet personality said your favorite internet personality is bad good for you bucko, do you have any original thoughts to share? >>4915 there's a universalist church in my area. it looks like it may have been a house at one point, and seems a little on the run-down side, so I've been curious about you lot for a while. is universalism anything like gnosticism?

>>4927 I don't know what you think of stuff outside of canon, but this lines up with something that happened to me. I asked God one day if it was possible for souls currently in hell to be saved, expressed that I would take rain as a "yes" and clear weather as a "no," (on a day when it was unlikely to rain and I did not check the forecasts) and went about my day. After a while, the sky changed completely, rain came down in buckets and there was even lightning. Everyone I talked to for the rest of the day was surprised, so I assume it wasn't in the local weather report, and to this day I personally take it as an emphatic YES. Obviously I could be seeing a sign where there is none, and I have no way to prove I'm not making things up, but assuming I'm a reliable witness, what do you make of something like that?

>>5007 >checkmate Christians, it rained, there is no hell Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>4990 weird how mormonism exploits lonely people and other rejects. it's almost like a pretend to believe community for the community. fucк all christians. it has repercussions, like investing time into a lie, conservative morality, and a denial of accepting reality.

>>5015 I'm sorry but what? People at my church are genuinely happy to be there dude, whether single guys or families with 7 children, and we actually do believe in the Gospel. I don't know where you get this image of an exploitative, abusive Church. >conservative morality In what world is it bad to have strong morals, family-focused communities, and a desire to serve and help others? Why is it BAD to be conservative? Why is it that divorce rates are far below the national average in my church? Why do you think we're some evil cult? It seems to me you've had a bad personal experience with Christianity or were forced to attend as a kid.

>>5018 Their issue is likely more about "traditionalism" of American Christians than "conservatism". Since they tend to vote for larger police presence and more authoritarian laws and government control while claiming to be conservative just because they want to cut welfare programs that exist because they don't pay their workers enough to live on (that old lie about welfare leeches when most are working full time but don't get paid enough to live even though they produce enough for the company that they could easily be paid enough). also *imprisons you for victim-less "crime" deemed an affront to the dominant religion* But then glitterboys and other rabble aren't human tbqh

>>5018 >>5019 Sorry, Paleoconservatism, that's the word to describe it.

>>5007 I work as a cashier. Noone ever reads weather reports, everyone is suprised when it rains. I doubt your experience was supernatual.

I'm am not a Christian, not edgy, not a teenager, and am posting in this thread. I like the buildings tho.

>>5026 *christian apologist christians are privileged enough to call people they don't like edgy, despite the repetitive harm they cause. did that ever cross your mind?

>>5019 What? I literally have never met the people you just described, not in Wyoming, Idaho, or Utah. Most Mormons I've met have been libertarians or 1776-type government people. >also *imprisons you for victim-less "crime" deemed an affront to the dominant religion* But then glitterboys and other rabble aren't human tbqh what does this even mean

>>5018 >In what world is it bad to have strong morals A jewish world. You can't control the nation as easily if they're all united under some sort of cause/reason.

Why do all these atheists and non-christians have an urge to post in christian thread?

>>5027 And you are muslim apologist

>>5067 Many non-Christians and athiests may feel that Christians interfere in their affairs. I'm not saying it's right, but that may be part of why.

We must dissent.

>>5075 >"interfere in their affair" >having our own thread, not bugging anyone Sad and pathetic souls with nothing better to do with their lives I hope they find God in their lives

>>5035 In many countries such as the majority of non-muslim commonwealth homosexuality only became an issue when the Christian west started imposing their values on them. Homosexual acts remain a criminal offense carrying long prison sentences in many of these places as a result. In many southern states it was still illegal until a 2003 supreme court ruling in favor of civil liberties over "state rights" in these states where only people who believe in god were allowed to be politicians biasing in favor of people who follow a religious text when proposing legislation. * Reference to that last claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#Atheists_ineligible_to_hold_office So much for Christians being predominantly libertarian. Just because where you live may be filled with progressive Christians doesn't mean this isn't a problem in the USA. >I literally have never met the people you just described Many of the things I described are literally policies the Republicans of recent years campaign on. If you haven't met people that support these things it's because you haven't met someone that thought about why they vote republican. Or do you want to argue that Trump and crew aren't trying to cut any welfare or medicare funding.

>>5088 Most people here live in a society dominated by Christianity and the aggressively authoritarian punitive interpretations of the bible making their thoughts into thought crimes. Of course they are going to speak up on a cyberpunk inspired board that subverts the authority that controls them. Why should they leave your thread alone on a board like this when your community shuts them down IRL.

>>5096 I don't know where you live, but in much of the USA, secular ideologies have supplanted Christianity. People do not attend church. People do not keep the sabbath. People do not pray. People fornicate. People blaspheme. Those who do call themselves Christians often only follow the parts of the religion that are convenient for them. Diligent worship has ironically become a form of protest against the state and popular values.

>>5097 >Those who do call themselves Christians often only follow the parts of the religion that are convenient for them. The bible is just a mythological culture dump from 1900 years ago. Most people are intelligent enough to discard aspects that are not relevant to modern society but still want the delusion of eternal life and sense of belonging to a wider community. Which is fair enough. Life can be depressingly soykaf if we try to be too honest about it. There is no use complaining that people are not being "real" Christians. Religion is what humans make it. If you truly believe that all will be rewarded or punished when you die then it's nothing but a blind guessing game. There is no feedback while you are alive, you have no way to know if you are on the right path or not until it's too late. That gives you zero leeway to get uppity at people for not doing things the "right" way. So chill out.

>>5096 Actually we live in muslim dominated authoritarian system, christians of 21st century just want to be left alone and don't really meddle with others IRL I think you just have repressed anger issues that are pointed towards your heavily christian family that pushed you to go to church every now and then. No christian in their right mind would go up to you in the street and say you're a sinner, but a muslim might.

>>5102 >Religion is what humans make it. This is the ultimate heresy. Only the most arrogant Christians would attempt to censor God to fit into contemporary (temporary) values. Even an atheist is more humble. >So chill out. It's amazing how well you fit that picture I posted.

>>5112 >cherrypicking checked >strawmanning checked >unstoppable hatred for his own christian family checked seriously man, just leave us have our own thread

>>5112 >This is the ultimate heresy. Only the most arrogant Christians would attempt to censor God to fit into contemporary (temporary) values. Even an atheist is more humble. The thing you're quoting doesn't sound like something a non-atheist would say. Not sure if you're trying to stir soykaf or merely confused. Maybe it is not arrogance but I can't think of a nice way to describe a person who thinks that humans should all live exactly as described in a 1900 year old book with no calibration for advances in technology and human knowledge. If you do want to talk about arrogance, think about what >>5102 said about having zero divine feedback. The only thing you have to go on is an old book. Sinner are not punished and the virtuous are not rewarded until after death. When two people read it and understand different things, how can you be so sure that *your* interpretation is correct? I think that actually can be described as arrogance.

>>5117 >unstoppable hatred for his own christian family I think there's a psychological phenomena where people with radical ideals despise those who are on the same path but not as extreme. Like vegans who despise vegetarians more than meat eaters. >you posers are not as hardcore as us That sort of sentiment. I wonder if there is a proper name for it.

>>5117 >>5119 >>5120 If you need divine feedback, go find a priest, attend mass, study scripture, and pray. You assume your behavior is proper and pretend there's no way to verify it, but there is. >>5119 >Sinner are not punished and the virtuous are not rewarded until after death. In life, virtue is its own reward and sin is its own punishment.

>>5120 >you must hate your family because you said I hate mine avoiding the accusation by accusing back? that's like 5 year old tactics man

>>5027 I don't understand this meme, sorry

>>5122 Is "feedback" not the correct word to use here? >go find a priest, attend mass, study scripture, and pray. A priest is a human just like me, mass is a group of humans just like me, scripture was written by a group of humans just like me and payer is just me talking to myself. God does not appear anywhere in this list. When I ask a question I will get a different answer depending on which priest I talk to, which mass I attend and which holy book I read. So how do I know if my actions are "correct" or not in relation to God and eternal life/suffering?

>>5138 shut up you non believer

I was holding back my usual contempt for organised religions since this is lainchan and I'd like to keep this place as conflict-free as possible, but you're fighting amongst yourself instead about which headcanon is better. Have people make decisions where they risk their supposed eternal life based on wild guesses and zero facts, what else can you expect. Religion wars are a feature, not a bug.

So, this is what facebook is like.

>>5148 Except with your mom and your aunt and you have to sit with them for thanksgiving.

>>5148 HAHA, it's funny because you are lonely person with no friends in real life

>>5150 Where are you facebook users even coming from?

>>5138 The assumption is that if you're Christian, you believe prayer allows you to communicate with God, scripture is relevant enough that it can help guide you, and priests are useful guides. Someone who doesn't believe any of that wouldn't be much of a Christian. >When I ask a question I will get a different answer depending on which priest I talk to, which mass I attend and which holy book I read. Discretion, but it's discretion aided by the things Christians claim to believe in. Also, it's unlikely priests or masses will vary widely unless its related to some kind of schism, like if Jesus was really a man or transubstantiation is real. And finding even these kinds of things is unlikely unless you look at different denominations. This "can't know nothing" attitude isn't very productive.

>>5147 Eh, life is experienced inside our heads as ideas and life is pointless if reduced to just arbitrary patterns of atoms. I don't see how a belief in God is anymore arbitrary than a belief in free will or any secular moral values.

>>5150 Where do you think you are?

>>5153 >This "can't know nothing" attitude isn't very productive. I think it's productive for debunking your Nazi friend (>>5097) but it looks like he doesn't want to play. >The assumption is that if you're Christian, you believe prayer allows you to communicate with God, OK I accept your premise that prayer allows humans to communicate with God. How come there are so many different religions and sub religious? Is it because God only talks to selective people? Or is it that all (often times contradicting) religious are equally valid? Ostensibly God tells Muslims to kill Christians and tells Christians to kill Muslims. Which side is actually hearing the word of God and which side are deluded sinners? I am at a crossroads here. Why should I pick up a Bible instead of a Quran?

>>5157 >I am at a crossroads here. Why should I pick up a Bible instead of a Quran? I don't care which religion you believe in, but if you're going to claim you follow one you should actually know what it is. Nobody should pretend inconvenient parts of his or her religion no longer apply while avoiding dissenting information from their own holy men and sacred texts. I don't care if you do what you're supposed to, as long as you know what you're supposed to be doing. I can't speak for Islam, but in Christianity, the expectation is you'll sin.

>>5157 In my faith at least we believe that most churches have at least some of the truth. >Is it because God only talks to selective people? No, it's because people interpret the Word of God differently. Anyone can feel the Spirit but anyone can also write off what they felt as something else or proclaim themselves a prophet. God has given us the freedom to choose rather than force us to do His will because he loves us. >Which side is actually hearing the word of God and which side are deluded sinners? Don't think of it that way. Try to see all who believe in God as your brothers, who differ in their interpretation of God's will. >I am at a crossroads here. Why should I pick up a Bible instead of a Quran? Anon, I urge you to pray about this. Take a few minutes in a quiet room and sincerely ask the Lord to help you find your path. You should not base your decision on the words of any man but instead on the Spirit. I hope you find what you're looking for soon.

>>5105 > Actually we live in muslim dominated authoritarian system I think most lains live in liberal democracies where most people care little about how their neighbors worship, sorry to hear that you don't.

>>5164 >where most people care little about how their neighbors worship Oh, so that's why they keep posting in our thread, "because they care so little" Right

>>5165 Your mistaking imageboard culture with the population at large? Not to mention overlooking the obvious facet of imageboard culture known as samef@gging? Maybe this thread is being flooded because you happen to be easy prey.

>>5165 Arguing on an image board isn't the same as trying to bar people from employment, imprison, shun, or kill them. Also, imageboard culture isn't representative of the population at large.

>>5161 >Nobody should pretend inconvenient parts of his or her religion no longer Fine, here's an easy one to start with. >I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. Timothy 2:12 So are you a misogynist or a sinner?

>>4922 >God is omnipotent >God made you the way you are >Or if he didn't he could change your life experiences in order to make you believe in him >You go to hell >YOU ARE A SINNER AND YOU DECIDE TO GO TO HELL Oh please that's not even plausible

>>5167 >>5166 Wow, look at all those excuses So you do care about what God we pray to? Is that it?

>>5170 I don't know. Go ask a priest what he thinks.

>>5176 >>5181

>>5176 I am telling you not to confuse idiots on an imageboard with the majority of people in the real world. Period. If this was a thread about any other topic besides religion and you were acting this retarded, I would have said pretty much the same thing. No one is oppressing you, get over it.

>>5181 >I don't know. Go ask a priest what he thinks. To me that's just an anarchism of an ancient civilization and is not relevant to modern society. But according to >>5161 it's in the bible so you should follow it no matter what. Otherwise you're a sinner and not a "real" Christian.

>>5189 I think what you're not understanding is that being oppressed is a core part of their worldview. Any slight, real or imagined, feeds into a delusion of oppression. You can't meaningfully make assertions like: >No one is oppressing you, get over it. To these types of people, it's simply too different from how they interact with the world for it to register.

>>5198 >priest >an anarchism Lol you mean an archaism. Fun mistake.

>>5201 Yes archaism but I meant treating women like soykaf (Timothy 2:12) is an archaism, not priests. On the other hand Timothy 2:14 does suggest that treating women like soykaf is an integral part of Christianity so maybe not.

>>5189 Are you implying that all these people ITT confront religious people in real life? No, I would say the opposite, that the anonimity of chan culture gives them the freedom to be "morally outraged" about us posting here. You guys are hypocrites, and not only that but also autistic hypocrites that want EVERYONE on the world to think the way you think. Face the reality, it will never happen and you don't hold the monopoly on truth. You know why people don't confront others IRL but love to talk about everything on internet? Not because they fear repricussions of others but because they know they are WRONG. If you were honestly 100% honestly convinced that you are talking the truth, then you would have no reason to impede others journey to find the truth you found. You wouldn't yell it in their faces or try to convince them to think otherwise. You wouldn't bug them out in their own threads trying to make them change their minds. They will make it on their own, right?

>>5198 I'm tired of being argued in circles. If you're Christian, then you can learn about Christianity from a mixture of holy men, mass, and scripture. If you disagree with Christian values or don't see those sources as authoritative, then you're not much of a Christian. Bringing up scripture without context and refusing to seek out existing church interpretations or dogma doesn't change this. The pre-translation wording, who's saying it, and why they're saying it could all change the meaning. Even if it does mean what you think it does, you're confusing sexism with misogyny. Some religions do believe in fixed gender roles. This isn't novel. and has only recently become distasteful in certain parts of the world. But if you really want to know, go ask a priest.

>>5205 >refusing to seek out existing church interpretations >>5161 >Nobody should pretend inconvenient parts of his or her religion no longer apply while avoiding dissenting information from their own holy men and sacred texts I am not allowed to choose which parts of scripture I believe but the church can? Is that your point?

>>5206 Yes, that's Christianity. If you want your own interpretation, you can start a schism or become an ascetic. Note that these are vastly different than rationalizing what you were going to do anyway.

>>5204 But I confront people irl bro

>>4907 At least attempt making a real argument instead of out-sourcing your thinking to alt-light opinionists.

>>5207 >If you want your own interpretation, you can start a schism or become an ascetic. What is stopping me from starting my own church? What makes the existing churches' interpretation of scripture superior to my own?

>>5204 > No, I would say the opposite Actually you said exactly what I was trying to say in the first place but you're so busy going out of your way to be pointlessly combative, you missed the point. That's the first part of your post anyway. The rest of your post was "you you you" about ten times, referring to stuff I never said in the first place. HE may have been persecuted but you don't follow His example by going through life pretending you are when you are not.

>>5210 If you want your own interpretation, you can start a schism or become an ascetic. Note that these are vastly different than rationalizing what you were going to do anyway.

>>5014 >people in hell >in hell >kek he thinks there's no hell local christ user can't fuarrrking read

>>5210 >What is stopping me from starting my own church? Absolutely nothing. All you need is a couple of members and a place to meet (i.e. someone's apartment or house). Most church plants start off as book clubs or bible studies for a year or two, and eventually gain enough members to purchase/rent their own building. >What makes the existing churches' interpretation of scripture superior to my own? People. Large groups have done stupid things before, but they don't do stupid things nearly as often as lone individuals do. (This is a practical answer, from an antichristian. The theological answer for why you should follow Christianity depends on the Christian you ask, but usually involves miraculous faith, which is a cop-out in a discussion like this.)

>>4922 This right here. Thank you anon!

>>5224 >People. Large groups have done stupid things before, but they don't do stupid things nearly as often as lone individuals do. The wisdom of crowds only applies to specific problems involving knowledge, logic or intuition. Religion is nothing but blind faith so actually what you are describing is a popularity contest. If all churches are started by humans and their only legitimacy is based on head count then... >>5102 >Religion is what humans make it.

>>5224 >Religion is what humans make it. If you aren't a Christian, then you would see it as arbitrary, but if you are then you'd probably have some reason that makes sense within the faith. "I have to start a new Church, because God told me to." or something. It's not so simple as "I want, so there is.". There has to be some amount of internal consistency.

>>5246 I don't doubt that they are all deluded. The point is that Christianity is defined by humans. I'm a human. So I can define what Christianity is to me. I accept your point that to call oneself Catholic one needs to follow the teachings of the Catholic church. But a person who picks and chooses which parts of the bible to believe in is still a Christian. Contrary to >>5215 >>5207 >>5205 >>5161 etc (assume you are the same person or following the same line of reasoning).

>>5249 >But a person who picks and chooses which parts of the bible to believe in is still a Christian. Are all Jews Christians? Words have meaning. If Jews can be called Christians because they follow part of the Bible, then the word 'Christian' has little meaning. Easy test: If you are Christian and then weren't or if you are not Christian and then were, how would your behavior change?

>>5253 > Jews can be called Christians because they follow part of the Bible ...the parts that existed before Christianity? That were an assortment of books before there was a thing called "the bible"? Which predicted that someone like Jesus would appear, only they don't accept him as the messiah? wtf are you on about?

>>5253 I apologize, that was dumb. What I meant was >But a person who picks and chooses which parts of the bible to believe in [can still call himself] a Christian. I understand what you mean but I think Jews and Christians have different bibles. Or Christians have an extended bible. Or something. So it doesn't really work. >Easy test: If you are Christian and then weren't ... how would your behavior change? One would stop "believing" I guess. There are rituals like church sunday and eating bread and wine and stuff but everyone does it differently so I don't think they are that relevant.

>>5253 > If you are Christian and then weren't or if you are not Christian and then were, how would your behavior change? I started masturbating, enjoying impure thoughts and looking at porn guilt free. When I got a little older I started having pre-marital sex. I say things now that would be considered blasphemy. I pirate all sorts of mefia (thou shalt not steal). Hell, I think the only Commandment I haven't broken is the one about killing.

Can't even just have a nice christian thread here. So full of libertarians, homosexuals, secularhomosbtw modernists, and every other sort of self worshiping nerd you can think of, to the point where tradition is thrown out and there is nothing left. This is a good reminder for why I don't waist my time here anymore.

>>5415 You're doing a great job of following Jesus's precepts by being unable to tolerate others.

>>5416 When was Jesus ever tolerant? Forgiving, yes, but never tolerant.

>>5416 Saint Nicholas slapped the heretics, and Jesus rewarded him. Jesus whips the merchants in the temple. Jesus came bearing a sword. Most of what is being spread here is heretical. In the book of Samuel Eli's sons both die in battle as all glory leaves Israel, and as an old man he falls right on his back and dies, condemned to this fate for allowing his sons to blaspheme. You're doing a great job following the modern Jew's precepts, the Jews who's holy book is written on how Jesus was a liar. The Jews who have disconnected them selves with spirituality. The Jews who have no covenant with God. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 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; and a man's foes will be those of his own house-hold." Mathew 10:34-36

>>5415 >to the point where tradition is thrown out and there is nothing left. What is left when tradition is gone is called progress.

>>5419 Oh, I take it all back, I can see that now.

>>5419 Implying you can't keep traditions and still have progress.

>>5420 >>5421 Would it be possible to summarize your point with a few lines of text? Posting vacuous propaganda videos is doesn't help us have a meaningful discussion.

>>5422 >vacuous propaganda And saying "muh progress" isn't vacuous and propaganda? fuarrrk off, you don't deserve a well thought well written response when you try to imply that tradition has no inherent value and that everything else is "progress". You are progressing, just backwards. Hedonism and normalization of sexual deviancy isn't good for humanity and you know that darn well.

>>5209 >make a real argument >just whines how I "out sorced" my opinion to some ad hominem attack I guess you can't read or make an argument yourself

>>5421 I feel like this second video makes some poor points. For one, I think it's natural for children to want to be more adult like, as they are meant to look up to those older than them. The point that they should not look up to adults was poorly made, but at the same time adults are pushing this degeneracy and giving them a bad idea of what it means to be a man or a woman. This truly is disgusting. Adults should not seek to be Sex, flirtatious, cool or what ever else. Adults should seek to bring them selves, their families, and others around them to God, and uphold family values.

>>5423 >fuarrrk off, you don't deserve a well thought well written response when you try to imply that tradition has no inherent value You started with a baseless assumption and you got a flippant response. Explain why you think tradition is objectively a good thing then. >Hedonism and normalization of sexual deviancy isn't good for humanity and you know that darn well. You seem to be caught in some circular reasoning; (tradition = good) because (deviating from tradition = bad) because (tradition = good)....

>>5423 >And saying "muh progress" isn't vacuous and propaganda? It's propaganda because it misrepresents reality and exploits emotion and cognitive biases to bend the watcher's thinking a certain way with logic and facts being completely removed from the process. Just because it worked on you doesn't mean it will work on others. Especially if you take them away from the insider trade echochamber you got them from and dump them here.

>>5427 Ignoring the question and just turning it back to me? How typical. And to think there was something behind that one liner of "progress" that started this whole conversation. You didn't really elaborate and so didn't I. You say I am using assumptions but your assumptions aren't that better either. But thing that urks me the most is that you actually can get away with your one liners and snappy comebacks as if they win you the darn debate. You aren't progressing anywhere, and your vacuous empty propaganda of "progress" isn't getting you anywhere. First you have to prove your hypothesis that tradition has no value and that it is wrong, and that "progress" is better. After you actually describe this empty blanket word "progress" then there will be more than the right wing conservatives being your enemy because you leftwing can't even decide a concensuss what that word means without tearing each other to pieces. And I really hope you stop using meaningless empty propaganda words like "progress". They really show how you just like meaningless debates with no goal of discerning truth.

>>5428 >Ignoring the question and just turning it back to me? The question was answered. >>5427 explained to you exactly why those videos are propaganda and what >>5419 said isn't. >You didn't really elaborate and so didn't I. This is backwards. You started it with >>5415. >But thing that urks me the most is that you actually can get away with your one liners and snappy comebacks as if they win you the darn debate. You are mistaken. The purpose of >>5419 was to call out your baseless assumption and invite you into elaborating and engaging into a deeper discussion. Instead you go off into this metadiscussion and post some nazi propaganda videos. >First you have to prove your hypothesis that tradition has no value and that it is wrong, and that "progress" is better. Fine. Are you dying from an infection? Did lighting a candle and praying to gaia god of nature help? No. Did penicillin help? Yes. Progress is better than tradition. Your turn.

>>5429 >crying nazi >using pagan soykaf as an argument in a christian thread >progress >believing any one said anything about stagnating medicine You're replying to posts from multiple people, by the way

>>5429 >Yes. Progress is better than tradition. Except for the failed eugenics programs in America and Europe of the 20th century, numerous bloody revolutions that changed nothing but the name of the leader, the centralization of the internet, and dehumanization through machine learning. I'd also argue China's progress as a despotic hell hole is a step back. It's really hard to believe anyone would be dumb enough to say all progress is good. http://www.gwern.net/The-Narrowing-Circle

>>5429 >The question was answered. >>5427 explained to you exactly why those videos are propaganda Your reading comprehension is pure soykaf I said that word "progress" is vacuous propaganda with no meaning of its own but a blanket meaning which left thinks it has monopoly over but is divided unto itself and thats why it is vacuous.

>>5429 "Progress" is a blanket term by left wing that has no inherent meaning. It is vacuous propaganda. Now you are contriving that science == "progress". That is why I said "elaborate". And no, science isn't anti tradition, not explicitly or directly at least. I had a sense you were talking about "cultural progress". This is why you need to elaborate and explain yourself beyond one liners of "muhhhh progresss". And no, no one is for getting back to stone ages. You got yourself mixed up with someone else but no one in this thread said anything against science.

>>5417 >Forgiving, yes, but never tolerant. It's likely worth meditating on this sentence. Do you see the contradiction?

>>5431 >It's really hard to believe anyone would be dumb enough to say all progress is good. I think we're just working from different lines of the dictionary. I meant progress in terms of "we used to do A to achieve X but now we do B to achieve X because B is more efficient by some objective metric". Which is in contrast to tradition "we do A to achieve X and never considered B because that's how we always did things". You seem to be using progress as merely the advancement of time which is kind of a strawman and arguing in poor faith to be honest. >>5432 >I said that word "progress" is vacuous propaganda And I explained to you what propaganda actually means. It's not just a negative word you can turn back on everything I say. >>5433 >And no, science isn't anti tradition, not explicitly or directly at least. Disrupting the status quo and finding better ways to explain the world is literally the point of science. >I had a sense you were talking about "cultural progress". >This is why you need to elaborate and explain yourself beyond one liners of "muhhhh progresss". Fine, I accept that responding to a vague, inarticulate post means whichever way you decided to interpret the parent post is also how you interpret my response. What metric are we measuring "cultural progress" then? Happiness? Freedom? Personal wealth? Looks like it's working to me. Example: we used to persecute homosexuals because tradition. Now we don't. They are freer, happier and contribute more to society now that they don't need to worry about their safety. Progress.

>>5431 >It's really hard to believe anyone would be dumb enough to say all progress is good. Actually I realize the first use of "progress" was that troll post which implies progression of time definition. You're not wrong, you're just as asshole.

>>5435 You talk about efficiency, more objective understandings, and scientific advancements, then say we have progressed because we allow users to be users. glitterboys should be forced to either give up their degenerate ways or they should removed from society. Allowing some one destroying their mind, body, their culture, their communities, their children's minds, and accepting demons into their live's is anti-progress. I know I'm getting into harsh territory here, but wickedness like this needs to be dealt with swiftly. I don't necessarily think we need to burn them, but definitely remove them from society. Send them to live in their own society some where. It is a social disease. Fight disease or watch your body die. I'm not exactly apposed to burnings, though

>>5435 Also, you don't seem to understand tradition in the context of Christianity. The bible is the written tradition of the Catholic faith. The apostolic succession is the tradition passed down from the apostles, from Jesus. We have the seat of Saint Peter, which is filled by Pope Francis. We praise God through tradition, we pray to God through tradition. Intersession is a tradition, Eucharist is a tradition, confession is a tradition. Family values are traditional, they serve a purpose in bringing people to God, a family with out traditional values defies human nature. No one ever said we should continue to practice old medicine the same way we did 100 years ago because that's how we did it then.

>>5438 >I know I'm getting into harsh territory here, but wickedness like this needs to be dealt with swiftly. I don't necessarily think we need to burn them, but definitely remove them from society. Send them to live in their own society some where. It is a social disease. Fight disease or watch your body die. >I'm not exactly apposed to burnings, though In these sentences, you explicitly reject the teachings of Jesus. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you absolutely must love those sinners all the more. We know Jesus when we love. When we cast other people out, so too do we cast out Jesus.

>>5435 >It's not just a negative word you can turn back on everything I say Empty placeholder words like "progress" are propaganda, whether you want to deny that or not is up to you. >Disrupting the status quo and finding better ways to explain the world >point of science No, truth is point of science. Disrupting the status quo was never point of science. Science doesn't care about status quo nor does it care about ways of explaining the world. There only needs one way to explain the world, and that is the truth. Science only cares about truth. >What metric are we measuring "cultural progress" then? Happiness? Freedom? Personal wealth? Looks like it's working to me. You still didn't define it. You keep talking about it and putting soykaf in rhetorical questions forms as if that makes you smart. It doesn't. And you don't need "progress" to achieve those three things, seperately or together. Face it, "progress" is a placeholder word that is used as a blanket to cover all the hopes and expectations of left wing. It has no inherent meaning, and it is clearly intended to be designed that way. You inject your beliefs in that word but never explain it further than most widely held beliefs because you know darn well that if you step out of those that it will explode in your face. Happiness? General populace happiness metrics has been on fall for a very long time, including with personal wealth. And freedom? Can you sincerely say that freedom today is better than 20 years ago? Working for you? Don't talk like that, you might get SJW dogs sicked on you. They hate RICH, HAPPY, FREE white people. >Example: we used to persecute homosexuals because tradition. Now we don't That has nothing to do with "happiness, freedom, personal wealth". >They are freer, happier and contribute more to society now that they don't need to worry about their safety. Progress. You are stretching it HAAARD. "Cultural progress" doesn't care about individuals or protected or marginalized groups. We are talking about CULTURE as entirety. You might have benefited homosexuals for a small little bit but at what cost? Did the entirety of happiness and freedom and personal wealth increase for everybody all of sudden when gay marriage was legalized? When I looked over to every graph looking at happiness and personal wealth indexes nothing significant changed. NOW HOLD ON. You might ask. "but my theory holds up", "they make money, contribute more, yada yada yada". Look at reality and not your imagination. You helped what, few percent of population for what? No real benefit, and in fact it contributed more to unrest and destruction of cultural hegemony from both the muslims and christians. If anything you could say that most of population didn't care either way, so AT LEAST NEUTRAL? I would call it "regress" rather than "progress" because overall culture "progressed" (by your made up metric) while everything else, including things you mentioned, fell down on their scales. But lets talk about negative side of cultural "progress" for a second. Is this picture "progress"? Do you think you have the right to make someone bake a cake? Is that what you call a "progress"? And what if they deny to give you service based on your sexuality and your order? Is that "progress"? Do you think muslims would make a cake for gay wedding but christians wouldn't? Do you think you aren't just a tad bit hypocritical and selective in your "progress"?

>>5441 Attaching a Patriarchie comic as a piece of evidence is... an odd argument choice. Only a very small set of people are going to take that as anything approaching reality.

>>5442 >a piece of evidence It's an example of hypocrisy of the left. A metaphor. Not real evidence. >Only a very small set of people are going to take that as anything approaching reality I haven't really seen homosexuals pressuring muslims to make their gay wedding cakes or making a whole lot of fuss abou muslims not making gay wedding cakes.... OH WAIT I found someone that make a "homosexual goes around muslim bakeries asking for gay wedding cakes" and nobody from the left said anything when he was denied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4 I would assume this happened a lot of times, and a lot of gay got denied by muslim bakers but yet the "progress" people are silent on this issue? HMMmmmm

>>5444 >It's an example of hypocrisy of the left. A metaphor. Not real evidence. If it's not real evidence, don't post it. You won't be convincing anyone with fake evidence.

>>5445 You are a retard that can't see his own hypocrisy or even a video I posted afterwards.

>>5446 I saw the video you posted. It does not support the following assertion: >I found someone that make a "homosexual goes around muslim bakeries asking for gay wedding cakes" and nobody from the left said anything when he was denied. 1. Stephan Crowder makes videos specifically for right-wing audiences. 2. The left is, by definition, not right-wing. 3. Thus, the left did not say anything because Stephan Crowder was not speaking to the left. This is why I felt it necessary to emphasize understanding the evidence you are presenting. > I would assume this happened a lot of times How many times was it shown happening?

>>5425 Well yea I do agree that we should be teaching children responsibility, duty and virtue at a young age. >>5422 >Would it be possible to summarize your point with a few lines of text? What I'm trying to say is. that you can still keep cultural values and traditions while still "progressing" technology, etc

>>5447 https://youtu.be/O1wzw12NZEg Where is the outrage from the left? Where are the gay parades on muslim streets? Where is the "progress"?

>>5451 Your "progress" goes only in opposition what white chriatian male demographic goes for. It has nothing to do with science or bettering of situation of gays.

>>5440 Nowhere did I say I hate them. That is why I say we need to first offer them a chance to give up their life of sin, but if they choose a life like that, cast them away, they may find God in their new society, and if they do, they can return. But to let a society fall to degeneracy in this way is a mistake. As for burning, Saint Olga Saint btw burned people alive, and buried them alive. The point in burning is that it is not sudden, the hope is that they recognize they are facing hell and reconcile this. Now show me some epic out of context passages about love or something to "prove" your point. Remember Jesus casting the merchants out of the temple and whipping them.

>>5440 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm This is the Summa Theologica. I'm assuming you're either protestant or atheist so you've never touched serious theology, but in article three Saint Thomas Aquinas explains why heretics should be put to death.

>>5438 I think we do need to have a "purification" of some sort in society. I'm fine with having a deadline till where everyone is required to stop acting degenerate, wearing degenerate and immodest clothing etc in public. and after that date, a bullet for all who didn't comply. Also if they're under a certain age around 10, and they were wearing/acting degenerate immodest clothing then their care takes will get the bullet for enabling it. (I see 7 year olds with makeup and short shorts/microskirts) They can be given a chance to change.

>>5453 > Nowhere did I say I hate them. You propose and continue to propose to kill them! It is hatred that resides in your heart for these people! Why do you find it so difficult to love them? I want you to love humanity as I do, and share in the good word, but I don't know how to reach you!

>>5456 >>5438 Can't tell if this person is trolling or not but this is just as bad as extremist Muslim views. I'm not gay, nor do I think it is in any way a healthy lifestyle, but holy soykaf you people are absolutely deluded as hell. We are all one, just different parts of the godhead. These are the types of people that need to be given large doses of LSD or Mushrooms so they can reflect on their beliefs. But, you would probably call these gifts from god 'degenerate' as well.

>>5458 >>5457 kek, if you're not brewing soykaf it's pretty retardedandguybtw. Can't even present you with anything with out it being about >like, hey man, just love everybody, chill out, take some epic drugs man

>>5459 Loving others is the central message of Jesus's teachings.

>>5461 I never said I hated these people. I am a sinner too, and I recognize that, but that doesn't mean we should just openly sin and let everyone sin. Do it with love for the people, and the prosperity of those people.

>>5462 If you propose to kill a person, you have hate in your heart for that person. You do not need to lay idle if you believe they sin, but you must love that person all the same.

>>5464 Listen, I'm not proposing that I personally start just walking around and burning them, but you assemble a tribunal to decide each individual case, and then you have them burned if that is what is decided. It is for a love of the people that is done, and I believe that is very important. I don't like the idea of executions for hate, I don't want to live in a society ruled by some one executing people out of hate for them, or even indifference to them, it must be out of love that is done.

>>5466 > It is for a love of the people that is done, At this point my only conclusion is that you are not arguing in good faith and I duly withdraw. Suggesting that you execute people out of love is too high an absurdity.

>>4714 >denomination Baptist, but currently questioning which denomination is most accurate in creed >favorite scripture verses The whole book of Ecclesiastes >recent experiences with the Spirit Got hit with both conviction and comfort pretty hard at a Bible study. I was pretty late so I almost skipped, but upon arrival discovered they were starting late so I was right on time. Proceeded to study Mark 9:14-29. Emphasis on faith (vs 22-24). The father in this passage believes on an intellectual level but has trouble taking it beyond that; hence "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" Kinda just what I needed to hear right now, as I have the same issue often enough. >Let's have a comfy thread about it. It's sad that our brothers must feed the trolls. You'd think we'd know the difference between an honest question and b8 by now, given how we suffer more trolling than most any other faction in board culture.

>>5467 "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death." -Saint Thomas Aquinas I know we were talking about homosexuals earlier, but I want to demonstrate something with heretics. ". . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth" -Timothy 2:24. Heretics spread lies, they listen to demons, they bring people away from God with their falsehoods. The first step to dealing with one is to admonish them, to face them with their crimes. The hope at this point is that they realize their fault. If they do not, then face them again, with threat of excommunication this time. The church is apostolic in nature, it has Jesus at the head, to change the word of God does not make sense, as there will be no third covenant. If they are here to pull people away, and spread lies that contrast with God then they need to be removed. They poison the well. After excommunication the third step is trial held by a tribunal to decide whether they need to be executed, as they will continue to poison the well outside the church, and lead people farther astray. Now with users. Homosexuality is obviously a sin. Sexual deviancy is a tool of Satan. It is so powerfully corrupting, it leads to mind down a deep pit, once you give into it, it gets worse and worse, corrupting further and further. Making not only chemical, but also physical changes in the brain. It is not the fault of every homosexual that they got this way, and they may feel tempted. I'm not saying we should execute those who do their best to turn to God. Those who do their best to resist Satan. We all fail in our sins from time to time, we all get pulled into a bad state of mind and fall to sin, we all turn from God in moments of weakness. But a virtuous man sees his evil, he does not commit to it. He sees his moment of weakness for what it is, he feels shame, and he gets on his knees and prays. We should not execute the virtuous men who answer to admonition and repent. We should not execute those who lapse, who turn away in a moment of weakness. We should pray for them, and hope they overcome their sins through God. There are those who refuse this, how ever. There are those who commit to a life of sin, those who go beyond a momentary lapse. These people spend 100% of their time looking away from God. Never do they look to God, for if they did they would fall to the ground in tears and understand everything they have done. This is why we admonish, this is why we face them. This is why we pray for them. Because they are our brothers, and they are our people, and we love our brothers and we love our people, and we hope we can face them, show them the error in their way, and we hope they can see what they have done and turn to God. This is why we admonish them a second time, hopefully if they do not immediately understand they come to understand, but if they can not accept again, they are committed to sin. They are committed to their sin, and they are committed to Satan. No righteous man looks forward to putting another man to death, but these people bring Satan to those around them, and they surround them selves with Satan. They are sick, and they are poisoning the well. If you let an infection fester it spreads, and soon your body will fail. Do not let the body fail, do not let those you love, and the righteous die for the unrighteous who you have done everything you can for. It is with a heavy heart that you must put an end to their wicked life. You say to me I do not argue in good faith, and that what I say is absurd, I say to you you have not understood, and not truly considered my side.

>>5464 Nah, You cannot have love without hate. I want my people to be saved, and for that to happen, there should be less distractions and problems that can take them off the path of light. The Only solution I see is a bullet. I feel like it's a service to my people to remove the problems. There's a time for everything, and that time will come when nations shall be cleansed from the people that lead others into temptation and to fall to sin. >>5458 >These are the types of people that need to be given large doses of LSD or Mushrooms >the only way to change someones beliefs is to drug them. yea that seems like a good idea.

>>5470 The Catholic church executed heretics as a method of sustaining their immense temporal power. Any theological argument for the execution of heretics is not based on spirituality, it is not a thoughtful examination of the Good Word, it is politics at its most heinous.

>>5474 >looks at theological argument >says there is no theological argument >provides no theological argument At this point my only conclusion is that you are not arguing in good faith and I duly call you a glitterboy. Suggesting that the Catholic church is some evil superpower that wants only to hold worldly powers is blasphemous, and is too high an absurdity. You are speaking about the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. It is the only church that fulfills the seat of Saint Peter. You are talking about the body of Christ.

I still don't know if this is all just some elaborate bait or not but I'll bite. >>5471 >These people challenge my world view, therefore they must be killed. What you propose is extremist ideology. You are absolutely no different from extremist Muslims or Zionist Jews. You are no different than the Manson family, even. >>5475 You are arguing for one of the longest running corrupted institutions this planet has ever seen. The Catholic church has had one of the longest track records of cover-ups for its degenerate upper echelons, anti-science rhetoric, and murder of truth-seekers and scientists. If the Catholics had truly their way, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation even. Electricity would have been outlawed as blasphemous, and some priest would be trying to fuarrrk my kid and I would have been disemboweled or thrown in the stockades or some soykaf.

You have not read what I have said an are now just attacking The body of Christ. If any one is bating it's you, and it's anything but elaborate. It's down right Satanic, in fact.

>>5485 Oh I'm batin' alright.

>>5486 You never addressed what I said, You just posted the obvious opposite of the truth, and now you're posting Varg? What are you trying to do, are you just an epic atheist or something?

>>5488 Address what? The inane ramblings you spouted out about murdering homosexuals and 'sinners'? Let me reiterate. Killing people because you don't agree with them or their world view is in my opinion, extremist. Killing people for their crimes such as murder / rape I can possibly get on board with, mainly dependent on the circumstances revolving around the crime committed. The soykaf I have been reading in this thread about killing people wearing immodest clothing or if they are gay is ridiculous. I agree with the Christian view in that I believe homosexual relationships are not ultimately healthy, or conducive to a stable life. These people will dig their own graves and pay for their own 'sins' in this life time. They will have unstable relationships, STDs and the sort to deal with. We don't need a christian death squad going around wiping these people out, they will wipe themselves out in time. Now let me reiterate my other point, if you are killing folks because you don't like the way they dress or that they do not believe that Jesus is the son of god, you are no different than extremist Muslims, Zionist Jews, or any other cult dominated by group-think. It becomes a slippery slope, as then you can just start executing those that might pose some sort of political or external threat to the central authority that is the church. Case in point, the Trial of Galileo.

>>5489 >Address what? The inane ramblings you spouted out about murdering homosexuals and 'sinners'? Address this post >>5470 What I'm gathering is that you're not even christian. You compare defending Jesus Christ to what a Muslim does, or a Talmudic Jew. Muslims carve Christians heads off with Bowie knives to defend their demons. Instead of actually having a back and forth argument where you address points you call what I say "inane ramblings", ignore it all, then just restate you're not OK with killing in this way. Then you go on to just say the Muslims shouldn't put people to death, so we shouldn't? What Muslims do is not my concern, and it's not any Christian's living outside their rule. It is no point of reference for living our lives, because they do not worship God. They do not follow the laws set forth by God, or carry out their execution in accordance to the law. To say we are no different than them when we worship God, and they worship fallen angles is blasphemy, and if you are a Christian you need to rethink your secular world views. If not then why are you even in a Christian thread trying to have a theological argument?

>>5490 >What I'm gathering is that you're not even christian. You compare defending Jesus Christ to what a Muslim does, or a Talmudic Jew. You are correct I am not Christian. I do believe there is a God, but most likely not one centered around some violent ideology. I am simply drawing a comparison between a group of people killing in the name of their god to another group of people killing in the name of their god. >Muslims carve Christians heads off with Bowie knives to defend their demons. I agree that this is fuarrrked up. Just as fuarrrked up as Christian nations bombing the soykaf out of Muslim nations. I am not going to say that it isn't warranted either way, but I do hope that one day we can not wage wars based on religious ideology, and maybe find similarities between our people rather than focusing on what we find different. >If not then why are you even in a Christian thread trying to have a theological argument? Because just about all religions have some form of interest to me in one shape or another but when I see violent extremist bullsoykaf like what is being spouted in this thread, I can't help but call it out. Why are you on a cyberpunk image board predominately populated by anarchists, atheists, and hackers trying to share extremist religious views based in violence and hatred?

>>5475 > Suggesting that the Catholic church is some evil superpower that wants only to hold worldly powers is blasphemous That was not my suggestion in the slightest. Let me reiterate my claim: the label of heretic was historically (as in, during the time Aquinas was writing) applied not as a matter of spirituality but as a method of erasing dissent and any threats to the church's temporal power (which, again, immense in the 13th century). This does not make everyone who stands on the rock of Peter evil, it means the temporal power offered to men was too great for them to resist, lacking as they were the conviction of Christ. Notably, reflexively labeling anything that even hints at a criticism of the church as blasphemy is exactly the strategy employed then.

>>4924 I choose to accept God's love by saying that he doesn't exist and is just a fairy tale made by Richard Dawkins to become famous on the internet, back in 1982. The only way I'll ever feel loved or in any way nice is that if I do this.

>>5434 You can be forgiving without being tolerant and you can be tolerant without being forgiving. It isn't that subtle.

>>5440 >If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you absolutely must love those sinners all the more. Loving a sinner isn't the same as encouraging or supporting their sin.

>>5491 >I do hope that one day we can not wage wars based on religious ideology There's something deep here. If religion isn't worth killing over, then what is? Where does the justification come from?

>>5497 I can't think of any reason to kill another human unless they killed / raped an immediate family member or something, even then I think it would be difficult for me to do. At the same time, statistically a lot of murders are "crimes of passion" or something done in the moment. Humans are imperfect so problems will always arise in one form or another. I don't believe in killing folks on the other side of the planet because they believe in a different god than I, and I certainly don't believe in killing folks in my community for making poor life decisions that will ultimately catch up with them one way or another.

>>5416 Yea just like how Jesus tolerated money changers in the temple. Oh wait.

>>5416 Never tolerate, never.

>>5507 God I love these falsely attributed quotes.

>>5509 >I would believe the quote if it was from person of authority, because I am a sheep Quote falsefiers exist because people like you, because dumb cunts like you aren't willing to face reality and take arguments for what they are but need someone ebin smart to tell them those same arguments.

>>5511 All I did was point out that there is no place in any of Aristotle's works that this quote can be traced back to. At no point did I argue for or against the validity of the actual message of the quote. Keep making assumptions.

>>5512 And all I said is that why Quote falsifiers exist.

At no point does the post you are replying to reveal that the person you insult believes quotes because a revered figure authored them. In truth, folk believe quotes because they reflect reality. Even if Sartre were nameless, faceless, anonymous, his work would persist and perpetuate itself, inspiring generations. I find it odd you post here without knowing this in the marrow. I find it lulzy that you use Aristotle to forward sophistry.

>>5511 >>5514 This thread is two weeks of autistic spam and should have been bump-locked. Even my own posts are better quality than this, and all of my posts are funposts. Sage is God's divine will. Embrace sage.

>>5515 We must exorcise this thread by burning sage

>>4714 Is it possible for a Christian who has committed suicide to go to heaven?

>>5517 only one way to find out buddy

soykaf I forgot that slow chans don't have many image posts.

>>5499 You're missing my point. You're only killing rapists and murderers because they don't agree with your values, and at the same time you're saying that the religious can't kill because of their values. It's a double standard. What you're implying is your values are better, but you've done nothing to demonstrate why. If you think killing homosexuals is wrong, then you need to explain why it's wrong. You can't just say "be tolerant", because you're clearly not; you kill rapists! You can't say "killing for beliefs is wrong", because you kill based on your beliefs! Arguing "be tolerant" is a dead end.

>>5521 >You can't just say "be tolerant", because you're clearly not; you kill rapists! You can't say "killing for beliefs is wrong", because you kill based on your beliefs! Arguing "be tolerant" is a dead end. I never said any of those things, I don't know what you are quoting. If I did say those things, please point me towards that post. In my opinion, there is a very distinct difference between putting someone to death who has provably murdered or raped another human and putting to death someone who is openly (maybe even closeted) homosexual or believes in a different god than you. If you kill people based on what you perceive their beliefs are and not by an actual physical action or crime they have committed, it becomes a slippery slope, soon we will be killing people based on minor infractions because we perceive their actions to be 'heretical' or 'criminal' when they are ultimately benign. Are we going to start killing any single male over the age of 30 because he is potentially a latent homosexual? This is the sort of road that this line of thinking will eventually develop into. To put it simply: I don't think you should kill others based off of preconceived ideals of how a human should think, I do think that you should be able to kill someone if they have wronged you or your family in a directly physical manner. What I'm trying to get at is that one of these 'crimes' exists purely in thought, the other is actually tangible. We can argue values all day, it won't get us anywhere. The only thing I am trying to figure out is why do you want to kill someone based on a thought or belief that they keep inside of their head?

>>5522 But the argument wasn't that homosexuals should be killed. The argument was that people who have gay sex should be killed. That's clearly an action and not a belief. >I do think that you should be able to kill someone if they have wronged you or your family in a directly physical manner. Saying we should only execute people who wrong others directly and physically makes a decent baseline. Can we execute people for assault? >The only thing I am trying to figure out is why do you want to kill someone based on a thought or belief that they keep inside of their head? I don't. I'm not the same guy.

>>5521 > If you think killing homosexuals is wrong, then you need to explain why it's wrong. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that anyone needs this explained to them given, you know, the entirety of Western ethical thought.

>>5535 >I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that anyone needs this explained to them given, you know, the entirety of Western ethical thought. If someone who thinks something is bad can't even explain why, why would they expect people who disagree to understand?

>>5507 read every surviving work of Aristotle (even the really boring ones) back in 2013 and I would highly doubt that he'd ever say anything like that. Totally not his style plus I can't find a good way of it "making sense" in Greek (people wrote with regard to a set of literary and oral conventions, somewhat like rhyme in poetry, which obviously doesn't make it *impossible* for him to have uttered this but makes it even more unlikely). I'd be curious if anyone who knows ancient Greek can set this to ἀκηδία / εὐχέρεια (any conj. acceptable)

>>5536 To believe that killing homosexuals is in any way justified requires an explicit rejection of Western ethical thought. As such, the expectation would be on the person rejecting the common mode of thought to explain why modern ethics is wrong. Anyone attempting to explain why killing homosexuals is bad is going to do so using modern Western ethics that has already be rejected, making any explanation fruitless.

>>5546 He already gave several reasons. You aren't obligated to respond, but if you're going to, you should give a good reason. Saying it's "an explicit rejection of Western ethical thought" is just a pretentious way of saying "it's unpopular".

>>5507 This is a false quote. It is in none of his writings. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52183738

I'm in the process of converting from evangelicalism (non-denom or worse) to Orthodox Christianity. Vladimir Lossky's Orthodox Theology is a dense read, but has been eye-opening for me. Psalm 141

>>5559 > Saying it's "an explicit rejection of Western ethical thought" is just a pretentious way of saying "it's unpopular". Hardly. It's a way of saying that the ethical axioms we are working with are so mismatched that discussion about anything but the axioms is a waste of time. The only reasons I see given following the quote chain is that homosexuals are heretics and thus deserve death, a position not held by the modern Church, let alone Western people.

>>5574 >Hardly. It's a way of saying that the ethical axioms we are working with are so mismatched that discussion about anything but the axioms is a waste of time. Eugenics was openly practiced in several industrialized western countries within the last hundred years, but I'm sure if you were in one of those societies you'd be arguing for eugenics since anything else would be an explicit rejection of modern science or modern ethics. There's no point in arguing with you because you refuse to argue. All you do is guffaw at anything you've already decided not to believe. Based on how you argue, I am sure that if you were born into a society where homosexuals were considered mentally ill, you'd be one of many to encourage locking them up.

>>5575 Why are you creating hypotheticals instead of engaging with what I'm saying? At no point have I said the current state of ethical thought is the global maxima, nor do I believe we are in even a local maxima. I am talking about how to engage in the exchange of ideas: if the things we take as axiomatic are so far apart from one another it is pointless to debate the conclusions of our thought. Instead, we must debate more basic premises. "We don't kill people for their choice of sexuality" is a modern Western ethical axiom informed by our previous experiences killing people for their choice of sexuality. "We don't castrate people because they are mentally retarded" is a modern Western ethical axiom informed by our previous experiences castrating people who are mentally retarded. If you want to debate this: fine! In order to do so, you need to understand why we came to these conclusions. Accusing homosexuals of heresy is meaningless today.

>>5584 You are not saying anything. You were encouraged to debate more basic premises a week ago, but did not. It is the twelfth of February, but you haven't moved past the fifth. >>5470

>>5585 None of >>5470 addresses the lessons we've learned as a people in the modern era. It speaks of heresy first and foremost. Do we execute heretics today?

>>5586 >Do we execute heretics today? Who cares? That's irrelevant. There's no evidence that morality only improves over time and it's very unlikely we've reached any kind of peak today. He provides reasons why heretics should be killed, but you don't counter them. He says, "Heretics spread lies, they listen to demons, they bring people away from God with their falsehoods." You could argue most people commit heresies in some way so killing them isn't realistic, you could argue we don't have a good way of determining who is and isn't a heretic, you could argue that people always have the chance to stray from God with or without heretics so they can't lead people astray, you could argue the consequences of killing heretics are greater than the cost of leaving them around, you could argue God isn't real, you could argue demons aren't real. You could have made all these arguments, but you didn't, because you didn't take the time to understand what he wrote, because you don't care, but insist on opining. If heretics actually are consorting with devils, then protecting them would obviously be evil. >Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”

>>5467 Never get a dog

>denomination Non-Denominational, raised Baptist. Kind of a black sheep in this way, but I think that too many denominations add things to their belief system that aren't strictly speaking Biblical whatsoever. But, I understand why many people who are Christian believe different things: we are imperfect, and thus, our perception of God's perfection can never be clear. Of course, I include myself in this as well, and concede that I may be wrong in my belief in some aspects. >favorite sermons/scripture verses Revelation as a whole, specifically the last few chapters. I reread those passages every few days to remind myself that there's reason to hold onto hope for the future. >recent experiences with the Spirit Had a really sad dream the other night, a lot of stuff happened but the gist of it was that I was getting married to someone but she revealed that she was actually not a believer and never would be, so I had to cancel the marriage, which led to almost everyone in my personal life hating me. I felt it was significant because I have in the past been tempted to compromise my faith by engaging in a romantic relationship with a nonbeliever, so I felt this dream was in some way a reminder from Christ to hold onto my faith above all else.

dont identify as christian, but if i did, it would be gnostic

>denomination Mormon >favorite sermons/scripture verses John 3:16 James 1:5 >recent experiences with the Spirit I spent most of my life mechanically going to church, going through the motions. In the last 4-12 months I've changed my outlook on life, I guess. I started feeling the Spirit and actually thinking about the Gospel. I'm a lot happier and more motivated now. The other night my friend and I were cruising around in his car and we ended up discussing religion at length. He's an agnostic. I ended up bearing my testimony to him and I felt a strong spirit within me urging me to speak to him. I don't know if it got through to him but I did what I felt was right.

>>5424 I can read arguments enough the spot the lack of one. >"my opinion" You copy pasted "your opinion" from the comment section of an archived video from an obscure alt-right e-celeb calling Peterson "a fuarrrking leaf" in the first five seconds of the video. That was the whole corpus of your criticism. I'm not going to bother being fair if you aren't. The burden of proof is on you to prove to me why "Jordan Peterson is catnip for fedora lords". So drop the abstraction, make a real argument and you will get one back.

>Denomination Orthodox Catechumen >Favourite sermons/scripture verses "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." I get a lot out of reflecting on this, from seeing adversaries as opportunities to grow, learn, and know that if I orient myself towards God, victory of some kind is assured. >Recent experiences with the Spirit Reading Jung's book on synchronicity recently hit me with far more conviction that there is life after death. Since synchronous events are archetypal and acausal, therefore outside of the causality of time and space, and archetypes are eternal realities, it suddenly clicked that the eternity of heaven after death is the same vanishing point of psyche that synchronicity points to.

>>6214 Firstly, I never claimed I was original creator of that quote. And after all, if you thought someones elses words encapsulated your opinions nicely, wouldn't you use them? So what if I copypasted what I saw was a cute description of what I already thought? Jordan is a fuarrrkwad that tries to act as a replacement daddy figure for overgrown neckbeards that need to clean their rooms. The only reason why he became popular in first place is because he said to some tranny "No". He and whoever listens to him are pathetic wimps.

>>6228 >Firstly, I never claimed I was original creator of that quote. Well, clearly. >And after all, if you thought someones elses words encapsulated your opinions nicely, wouldn't you use them? Maybe, I would not let a quote speak on it's own on my behalf though. Reasons below. >So what if I copypasted what I saw was a cute description of what I already thought? You're distancing yourself from the argument by proxy, thus making whoever you're having the argument with having to refute whom you copy-pasted from, instead of you. I think it's lazy and bad form. >The only reason why he became popular in first place is because he said to some tranny "No". What's the issue here? That he became popular or the way he became popular? Being antagonizing to some uppity sodomite at the time that he did is enough to put him on the map but it's not enough keep him there. That needs substance of some sort. >He and whoever listens to him are pathetic wimps. "Pathetic" only applies to Peterson if you use that term under it's melancholic/sad defintion. As of he being a wimp, I would say there are more examples of the contrary. And yes, with any fanbase large enough there will be those individuals that need fatherly advice on washing their cocks but this is such a wide claim on too big a fanbase of a person with multiple qualifications. You're even lumping his students into this group. This is obvious cherry picking. >Jordan is a fuarrrkwad that tries to act as a replacement daddy figure for overgrown neckbeards that need to clean their rooms. Different people like him for different things, as I implied in my first post for me it's his biblical series. Please elaborate why liking someones interpretation of the Bible somehow translates to "barely functional with daddy issues", because picking apart your more detailed critique it seems irrelevant to his Bible videos.

>>5120 ingroups and outgroups. really interesting to look at and learn about, it explains a lot of social behaviors of groups like this

whoa this thread is a trashfire. Why are so many lains so determined to share spew their highschool tier ideologies ? What is this? Is it daddy issues? "i hated my christian parents" kind of thing? I just don't get it. I guess everyone needs a villain in their life

>>7040 In a way, I guess I can understand their anger and hatred. If they have been hurt by overbearing parents/raped by priests/etc etc, then they'll lash out with anger. The truest Christian thing to do is to forgive them, bear them no ill will and turn the other cheek. Not to talk down to them and trivialize their issues, no matter how pathetic it may seem to you.

>>7040 to be honest the christianity seems equally childish, such as what your saying. The idea that you've moved passed that and are now more "mature" for being a christian and not realizing its your personal belief and nothing to do with age or maturity strikes me as far more like a highschooler mindset, just one a bit ahead on the bell curve. it goes like this in my opinion, no need to argue with it if it isnt true for you. 1. Overvalue of ideas you think are new/deep/interesting 2. Complete rejection of these ideas out of embarassment, making fun of other people you perceive to be at that first step out of insecurity 3. Balance, reclaiming of ideas that werent bad but you threw out out of embarassment/trying to distance yourself. Synthesis of then and now rather then transformation. your assuming these people to be you however many years ago when they probably just still value these ideas that you wrongly think wre immature or childish. they just are ideas, they appeal to different people.

>>7040 agreed. at the risk of becoming an echo chamber i'd like for this thread to get back on track without the edgy 'flying spaghetti monster amirite' folks. but starting a thread this topic in this chan was asking for trouble honestly

>>7154 >at the risk of becoming an echo chamber i'd like for this thread to get back on track There are 2 core components at the heart of any religion: 1. there exists some static body of "knowledge" which must be wholly taken on faith and cannot be questioned (e.g. Bible, Quran, Dianetics) 2. all other sources of knowledge past, present and future must be treated with absolute skepticism (e.g. science and other religions) or, in case it conflicts with scripture, completely rejected with no further questions (e.g. evolution, psychology, logic) There is no room for learning or improvement in such a belief system so echo chambers and violent conflict are the only possible outcomes. >but starting a thread this topic in this chan was asking for trouble honestly I don't think Lainchan is particularly unfriendly. If you look around, /hum/ is filled with people trying to help each other. Maybe it isn't the best place to have an irrational circlejrk of ignorance and expect people to stand back and not interfere but I don't think that's a bad thing.

>>7171 pic related so we have to debate whether or not to keep threads on topic now? seriously get a clue guy

>>7174 The topic is Christianity. Instructing people *how* to respond to the topic kills the purpose of having a discussion board. This bullsoykaf immunity to criticism privilege the wider society grants you is the only reason people still get scammed by religion.

>>7180 If you scroll way up there to the top you'll see some meaningless drivel about the intended content of the thread in the literal first post in the thread feel free to ignore it i have no opposition to debate or criticism. start a 'debate your religion' or even just 'bash christian retards' thread on this very same board. nobody is censoring you

>>7103 As the person who posted this i still have to say something Why post anti christian stuff in a thread about christianity? I know most people do stuff like this but I think everyone here is smart enough to know if your trying to convince someone, theres a time and a place and a person. Do you really think anyone posting here would be changed by your words as an anonymous atheist? I think you guys just arent thinking it through. Like what are you trying to do here, it cant be convince people that christianity is bunk. The only motive I can see thats thought out is "piss off christ users XD" which lainchan isnt really that kind of board imo. I still disagree that there is any superiority or maturity in being religious, in fact that idea runs contradictory to christian values. But also guys trying to start soykaf just why, let him have his comfy christian thread. t. non christian.

>>7185 >The only motive I can see thats thought out is "piss off christ users XD" Don't project your own lack of intelligence and virtue onto other people. >But also guys trying to start soykaf just why, let him have his comfy christian thread My first post was >>7171, to point out why religious topics don't make productive discussions. Either everyone sits around in an echochamber reinforcing each other's cognitive biases and ignorance or people fight black against white to protect their irrational beliefs from logic and reality. Both scenarios are harmful for the participants and the community. The only reason you think it's ok to leave them alone is because the topic is religion, and for some reason religion has this mythical immunity to criticism status.

>>7191 ah, yes, the ol' 'it's for their own good' ploy ironically be me go on lainchan find thread about discussion of what apple products you prefer not in **my** internet >"hey guys you should use android, apple is the worst product you could choose, it's not smart" they tell me to fuarrrk off i tell them the thread was about apple, i'm just iscussing apple in the context of not using it another victory for intellectualism you see the problem now?

>>7196 ironically be me go on lainchan find thread about discussion of what X you prefer >omg why is this thread such a dumpsterfire? give meta response on why topic X does not mix with open discussion white knight non-X affiliate gets angry and makes incoherent strawman about fruit and robots

>>7199 it's not a strawman; it's an analogy. also: fruit and robots? now you're just being dense. the thread wouldn't be a dumpsterfire if you didn't come in preaching [lel] your trash to people who obviously don't appreciate the message and don't even start with the 'but i need to enlighten the masses, intellectual's burden, yadda yadda.' if you don't like the topic, go elsewhere. i already suggested start your own discussion for whatever topic you prefer but apparently you'd rather come over to piss in everyone else's cheerios because you can't stand encountering a worldview you disagree with.

>>7191 Your the idiot. I just said they don't want your help, and as follows the only THOUGHT THROUGH motive I see is that. This is a highly christian attitude for somebody not christian, that you are just an intelligent godsend here to liberate these stupid people from their stupid ways.

>>7206 Furthermore before you say something like "so I shouldnt say anything?", yes. This is an anonymous inageboard, you have no credibility or persuasian power to people who arent reconsidering/on the fence, if even to those people. The idea you think you are doing anything is just reflective of narcissism, end of story. You can try and complixify it or explain your unique reasoning but it comes down to you trying to convince people you cant convince, so its a waste of time.

>>7203 >the thread wouldn't be a dumpsterfire if you didn't come in preaching [lel] your trash to people who obviously don't appreciate the message Again, my first post was >>7191. I don't care to read everything that made this thread a "dumpsterfire" and actually it doesn't matter because if your belief system is so fragile you can't tolerate any level of discussion, the answer is not to declare that anyone who disagrees with you is "offtopic" and shouldn't be posting. >and don't even start with the 'but i need to enlighten the masses, intellectual's burden, yadda yadda.' Nobody said that. Toxic mental feedback loops are bad for the participants and the communities that host them. The exact contents doesn't matter. The antidote is debate. But you can't have rational debate with an ideology that rejects foreign ideas a priori. Hence, dumpsterfire. >you'd rather come over to piss in everyone else's cheerios because you can't stand encountering a worldview you disagree with. This was more of less the point of my post >>7191. The reason you encounter conflict is not because *everyone else* is closed minded. >>7206 >I just said they don't want your help, and as follows the only THOUGHT THROUGH motive I see is that. What you're saying is that the only possible explanations are the ones you yourself can conceive of. That means you are projecting your own level of intelligence onto everyone else in the thread. So your conclusion is only correct if everyone is dumber than you are which is a doubtful assumption.

>>7231 s/>>7191/>>7171/

>>7231 >if your belief system is so fragile you can't tolerate any level of discussion, the answer is not to declare that anyone who disagrees with you is "offtopic" and shouldn't be posting. I'll say it again, i have no problem with discussion. in fact i love it, it helps me improve myself. i've encouraged you to start a debate thread, i'd be glad to go get my backwards savage ass handed to me in a debate in another thread. but i came to this thread expecting a discussion between members of a similar faith to mine and you can surely understand how disappointed i was to find the whole premise of the thread being undermined i'm kind of getting tired of pointing up to the top; what exactly gives you the right, duty, or authority to derail threads you think are bad? even if you have the most solid conviction that the thread is 'bad for the whole community' it's still your own opinions you're using as a basis to come take this thread off topic 'for the good of the community please don't take this as rejecting rational debate or some such. you can see plenty of rational debate between the intended guests of this thread, up in the rest of the thread before it went down this rabbit trail i don't reject rational debate, i just want it somewhere separate from where was literally purpose built to not have this kind of distraction from the topic

>>7231 Thats not what im saying but feel free to think that. I'm saying it doesnt natter what you conceive of, i'm not saying some "They've already heard all the arguments". Apparently you can't conceive what i'm saying.

>>7206 >your

>>7467 right whats this IQ test bullsoykaf. we might as well define intelligence based on who chooses to use your and you're correctly on online image boards it would be so much easier.

hey folks, i've been going through a bad period in my life and came here for advice/motivation or what have you >denomination i had been going to a reformed baptist church before this very Scripture-based and excellent preaching. but i moved away from that area and i've recently (last 8-10 months) been neglecting going to any church or reading and praying as i should. >favorite sermons/scripture verses none recently >recent experiences with the Spirit i feel like i've been given a second chance with this, realizing (thanks to God) how far back i've fallen and being reminded by God what kind of life i should be living any of you have any similar experience, i know what i need to do, the spirit is willing but my weak flesh keeps dragging me back.

>>7469 The Christian thing to do would be to thank the stranger for bumping your irrational circlejrk of ignorance back onto page 1.

>>7485 im not a christian so I don't have to do that.

>>7472 I've been there, anon. It can be hard to change yourself and turn your life back towards God if you're comfortable with your life right now. Pretty much you have to approach it like a high dive at a pool - either you stand awkwardly at the top, looking around at everyone, or you just jump in. For a period of my life I was in a sort of fog, going to church and going through the motions, but never really thinking about it, never reading the Scriptures, never praying outside of meals. It took a major reboot of my life for me to see what I had been missing and where I needed to go, and I'm still working on improving my relationship with God. Essentially, I had to turn 180 degrees with a lot of things I was doing and a lot of the attitudes I had at the time. You should make an effort to go to church in your new area. Not only will it bring the spiritual sustenance you need, but doing it once will break you out of your routine and make it easier to go in the future. Always remember that you are a child of God, anon. He knows and loves you, and He wants you to be happy. Pray and follow the commandments to the best of your ability, but do not forget that if you stray from the path, you are not lost. Too many fall to the wayside and, convinced that they are unworthy, do not seek the repentance they deserve. I hope you find the direction and guidance you need, anon.

>>7495 thanks. i've been travelling last couple of weeks but when i get back i'll be sure to find a church. i definitely feel that pull back to my comfortable routine though. i'll be trying to read and pray a whole lot more though and i can make it with God's help.

Ex Mormon