>>24515 Christian overtones don't really make a difference, it's full of pretty course language and it's misleading at best. Same thing with NGE. Lots of Christian overtones but not necessarily for a good purpose. ICP seems to either be mocking or having good intentions+bad execution

>>24770 >>24794 Hey, bud, are you ok? You seem to really enjoy hating people and torturing animals, so I just want to make sure you're feeling alright. Both of those things are definitely very bad, but it's ok that you feel that way right now because you can get better. Jesus still loves you, anon, and you have a huge capacity for loving both people and animals! Just keep your chin up and you'll weather this storm.

>>24794 >I don't think there's anything in scripture about animal cruelty. Certainly in the PETA-tier wokism crap of today. But it's clear we have a mandate as Christians to care for the planet generally, which seems by necessity to include managing the flora & fauna upon it. Also there's the regulations & teaching about livestock [1][2][3], but those are first and foremost about being a good neighbor + national identity in the first case, and simple good management in the second. I'm sure there are several other passages directly regarding animals as well throughout Scripture. >tl;dr Of course care for animals in the practical sense, but the Current Year sentimentality is definitely non-Biblical. 1. https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-1.htm 2. https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-4.htm 3. https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/12-11.htm >>24808 >just ignore evil lol >sodomites are perfectly fine raping kids & sexually mutilating their bodies lol >its just not an issue bro!! You may in fact be part of the (((problem))) friend. Might want to check up on that tbh.

>>24769 >>24808 Oh look, a sodomite rapist acting like a victim, what a shock.

>>24810 Proverbs 12:10 A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked [are] cruel. Proverbs 29:7 The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: [but] the wicked regardeth not to know [it.] On another note, do trolls just never get banned from this board? explains why it's so dead compared to how it used to be. Nobody wants to deal with the same jewish fed sodomite child rapists who post the same inane crap every day.

>>24812 Thanks! Yep that's a good one. >On another note, do trolls just never get banned from this board? Honestly, I haven't checked the logs here in a long time. The Usual Suspects list you mentioned for this board is also grown by - actual Islamist CP spammers - /b/tards - run-of-the-mill (ie, non-Glownigger) troons - feminist lolbergs - leftists of every stripe who hate God & His Son (but perhaps I repeat myself :^) I'm sure there are more as well. So, all in all, can't be an easy running the place. Why not volunteer to help Anon? I'm sure the BO could use the help tbh. Regardless, Satan and his minions have only a brief time left; God will laugh them all to derision in the end. https://www.biblehub.com/psalms/2-4.htm https://www.biblehub.com/psalms/37-13.htm

>>24780 Metal working, shooting, nerf (I'm too cheap for paintball). Once I stop being a depressed potato and regain some motivation I'll try and get back into working out and activism and now that it's summer hopefully some camping too.

>>24780 Well, if you have enough spare time, make some signs and piss off reprobates and unrepentant sinners and Christ-killer fag jews.

>>24745 Ok, allow me to say it again then, monsieur tiny brain. Most Jews don't hold the Talmud in particularly high regard. (1, 2, 3) The Talmud revering Jews do not see it as inerrant or infallible and do not think that it is a code of law. (4, 5) Everything else he said has nothing to do with what I said and exists only as unfounded schizophrenic ramblings about me being a dog killing ATF agent or whatever. 1. https://www.jta.org/2012/08/08/culture/what-reform-jewry-thinks-of-the-talmud 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/ 3. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/13/jews-in-u-s-are-far-less-religious-than-christians-and-americans-overall-at-least-by-traditional-measures/ 4. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/how-to-read-the-talmud/ 5. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/talmud-is-not-a-code-of-law/

>>24788 Why don't they throw it out altogether instead of citing it as a pillar of authority for their orthodoxy then?

>>24790 Just because something isn't strictly believed in with utmost fervor doesn't mean that it can't have some place in understanding. I can imagine that Christians have texts other than the Bible which they use to better understand the Bible itself or understand the Bible in a more modern context. For Jews, the Talmud is a part of the important Rabbinical tradition of scholarly interpretation and debate. Most Jews, unlike most Christians, do not believe that the Tanakh has all the answers needed for every question and that they are self evident. Most Jews, like many Muslims, believe in a need for interpretation of the scripture and an interpretation exists as simply that. Having access to other's interpretations is important as it can inform your decision making. As for the Jewish Orthodox, they are strange creatures with very bizarre habits more in line with subjugation by Roman senators than subjugation by American ones.

>>24795 Yes

>>24795 The talmud is what God and Christ hate, stop pretending like anything about it is scholarly or intellectual. They're dishonest evil scum of the earth. They were rebuked by Christ and it's why they still hate Christ and Christians. FFS, this board is 50% fag kike feds. I can see RIGHT THROUGH YOU FAGGOT

Brother, calm down. Do not doubt the fundamentals of the faith. >How do I know Paul wasn't some crazy weirdo who decided to throw in his own interpretation of Christianity? Because Christianity is true, and that means the Holy Spirit would not have tolerated uninspired writings being universally received as scripture by the Church. He is the cause by which we come to recognize the books as the word of God, and I think they had the Spirit too. >Even then, the authenticity of some of Paul's letters are heavily disputed and some even universally agreed as not consistent with his own writing. The reason why some of his epistles is because their content directly disproves some anti-Christian theories about the history of the Church, and secular scholarship decided that must mean the evidence is forged, rather than they be wrong. Some epistles may not have the very same writing style but that is easily explained by their historical context. 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians have wildly different audiences, and that tends to produce different writing styles from a single author. >How do I know whether or not I should practice Judaic law or not? Christ said he is here to fulfill the law, but he also said he would not abolish it. Nor did He abolish it. What makes you think Jewish rituals ever had anything to do with you? Even the rabbis will tell you a gentile is not expected to follow that part of the law, the nations were never bound to them. In order for us to be forbidden to eat pork or required to practice circumcision, we would need a clear command saying as much, because this would be a major change from the old covenant. >Should I practice the law to renew my faith? After all, it's what the early Jewish Christians still did anyway. You should practice the law to obey God but circumcision is not the law. The law is the moral code of scripture, those things which are considered absolutely sacrosanct to which all men are bound, such as the Ten Commandments. >How do I know the Roman church is the true church? The Roman church is not a true church. >where as Protestant churches don't take anything seriously and are a breeding ground for cafeteria Christians and people who simply don't care to take Christianity home or let the Bible dictate anything about their lives. Would these Protestants have been accepted by Martin Luther or John Calvin? They aren't Protestants, they're apostate liberals and lukewarm modernists. There are many bible believing churches which have maintained the faith and their zeal for the Lord.

>>24804 >Do not doubt the fundamentals of the faith. The truth should have nothing to fear from skepticism.

>>24804 >The Holy Spirit would not have tolerated uninspired writings being received as scripture Not only mentioning the Catholic and Orthodox churches have entirely different canons, the strict canon we know today was a subject of debate for hundreds of years after the death of Christ, and "canon" wildly differed with every century, even less. The church fathers, some under direct tutelage of some of the Apostles themselves (seriously, I can't emphasize this enough, this is our link between the events of the Bible and our theology. Early church fathers knew the guys who knew THE GUY. They were chosen and taught by THE savior of mankind), had various accounts of what comprised "scripture" to them. I can't get over that. I don't know what to do or think about it.

>>24805 The truth has nothing to fear from anything. Doesn't change the fact that doubt is a serious error which begets more errors. >>24806 This is false. They do not have "entirely different canons", the canon was not simply a "subject of debate" (the likes of Genesis or Matthew for example were doubted by none), and it absolutely did not "wildly differ with every century". You're also implying an anachronism when you mention the earliest fathers having different canons. Justin Martyr (to my knowledge) never quoted from Paul, does that mean he rejected Paul? No. They were not using the internet. The New Testament spread slowly. The books when they were originally written were sent to a specific individual church, Mark to Rome for example. They would remain there, but Christians coming and going would encounter these other books with which they were not personally familiar, and would recognizing it as the word of God would make a copy to take back to their own church. This took decades. It was a long time before every church possessed a complete canon. Spurious books were sometimes received in a region but never spread like the true books. The most commonly received spurious books, the apocrypha, were received largely because of the false assumption they had been part of the old Hebrew canon. However even these never achieved full acceptance because of their lack of inspiration and the greater knowledge of bible scholars that they had not been accepted by the Jews. In any discussion of the canon it is important to remember we are talking about the word of God. It is self-evident that God reveals Himself to man for a purpose, a purpose which would be destroyed if human books were placed alongside His words, and if men were ignorant that He had spoken. God has kept His word. Have faith.

>>24773 same, think im done.

>>24773 >>24778 Whoah, there's no need to constantly beat yourself up about it. You clearly recognize this as sin, but remember what Christ did for you. No matter what sin you commit, he took it away on the cross forever. That is why we are going to heaven. Our personal piety journeys mean nothing for our salvation. We just believe and it is done. We are forgiven. Read Romans 3. See how clearly Paul tells us how freely we receive justification and forgiveness, even when we fall into temptation. Please remember this fact. This is what Christianity is about.

>>24797 Amen brother, God bless you.

How do I reconcile the fact that I continue to do this, when even Paul says to kick out anyone from the church who does this kind of stuff? Do we all understand how heinous this is? I feel like (and am) a huge hypocrite because I tried to get better again and then lost all motivation. >1 Cor 5:4: 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. In fact, if I weren't such a degenerate, I wouldn't even be able to associate with any of you, and this means I shouldn't let any Christian associate with me. >1 Cor 5:9: 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

>>24800 The sinner of whom Paul was writing was unrepentant. You are not unrepentant, or else you would not have written this post.

>>24782 No, my stance is that there are no 'versions' of the truth. This is an objective & logically-rigorous statement about Truth itself. >muh neoDarwinism Where's the proof? Abiogenesis is a dead horse. >Do you think all those people that worshiped the wrong God for no fault of their own went to hell? Don't strawman me bro! You made that statement, not me (or anyone else here AFAICT). They'll a) be judged by the light within them, and b) have the Gospel preached to them even in death. They'll have just as much opportunity to accept or reject Jesus Christ & eternal salvation as you or I do (and will be judged accordingly).

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

>>24784 >My point is that with each "coincidence" that your faith requires it becomes less and less likely to be actually True. Heh, I would argue exactly the same about your faith, friend. :) >but i don't think it matters either way. Au contraire. There is an incredibly huge set of barriers in the natural realm for life to ever even appear by any mechanistic means, much less to even survive for, say, 90 days' time. Brushing all that aside with a trite 'doesn't matter bro!' is disengenous to say the least. Things have causes. Always. When we see a vast orchestration of machinery suddenly appearing out of nowhere (ie, the first bacteriums ~3.8Gya), there's a reason it did. And the window for it's appearance is <5My time. >How exactly does it make sense to preach the Gospel after someones death? I find the Christian Bible's teaching that it in fact happens rather cool, personally. :) And your previous question answers your latest one. Cheers.

>>24779 >- First of all there are dozens upon dozens of mutually exclusive religions. And whoever believes in whichever religion is 99% of the time decided simply on the basis of what the individuals parents believe rather than cold logic or spiritual experiences. That isn't an argument against any one of them actually being true though. You can have many incorrect conjectures against one hypothesis which proves to be true. >- Secondly the vastness of the universe in combination with the theory of evolution makes divine intervention seem like a childish cope. What you deem a "childish cope" by your own secular standard is a demonstratively successful survival strategy, since religious societies have greater social cohesion and higher fertility rates than non-religious societies. It is because of this that on a material basis spirituality has been a natural and default dimension of human existence and will persist in being one. "Atheist" societies have never become beacons of pure rationalism because the denial of human religious affectation does not stop it from continuing to exist. The members of those societies invest those sentiments instead on utopian social projects or new age cults, which neither bring the degree of satisfaction nor possess the depth of discourse of the institutional faiths they displace. >- Thirdly if we take the christian God at face value, why would he ever only appear in one specific time and place rather than across the globe throughout history? Since He didn't need to. >If your God didn't want us to worship false idols then maybe he should have paid East Asia or America a visit or something because only appearing 2000 years ago in some desert shithole isn't exactly "godly" and more like the people over there at that point and time decided to make shit up for themselves. On what basis do you devise characteristics for divinity? Is your standard for God somehow superior to theirs? If it were simply made up, you would think that it would have died out just like all the other competing faiths in the area since they were all equally without substance. Yet that one faith survived and thrived and spread throughout the whole of human civilization. God knowing past, present, and future presented Himself before the Israelites for them to bear His faith to make manifest the strength of His hand. That this weak and quarrelsome people should become celebrated by all the world for centuries upon centuries is an outcome that by any human evaluation, would be a ludicrous impossibility. An elaborate cope of a faith should have achieved nothing in the context of their utter objective insignificance. That which is impossible with men however, is possible through God -- and His power working through His people accomplished His end in spite of the odds against them, because in His foreordained Will He gives provision for His faithful to reach heights of glory far in excess of what could ever be expected of their lowly condition alone. By Jesus Christ, He invites all of humanity to join Him in His ever victorious faith. I think that outlines a God worthy of worship.

>>24774 The scriptures are about the duties of the believer, and of Caesar. Notice that Caesar's power is not arbitrary. It has a proper jurisdiction, and a specific purpose. Obedience to Caesar is obedience to God because, and only because, "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to bad". Caesar has a duty to Christ (his King) as the administrator of His law, and does not have the authority to arbitrarily govern his people according to his whims, certainly he does not have a right to become a terror to good works, and not bad (as has happened in modernity). Paul's command of civil obedience was necessary because of the hostility towards rulers felt by many in the early church because of the persecution of them. But the same man who wrote these words was himself frequently the victim of official persecution because of his own unwillingness to obey wicked commands of the state. Romans 13 is more about the *purpose* of the state, than what is necessarily true regarding it. The entire early church up to the moment Caesar finally became obedient was quite insistent that Jesus, and not Caesar, is Lord. >>24779 This pic is absurd by the way. I can just as easily say you are only an atheist because of where you are born, and point out that if I was born to some primitive tribe in Africa or something that I might believe the earth is flat. The causes of someone believing something has no implications whatsoever regarding the truth of that belief. There may be many Christians who have a simple faith into which they have placed no thought, but these Christians are likely neither to be here nor to be interested in talking to you. >How can anyone in the 21st century reconcile the overwhelming evidence against religious creation myths? I know what you mean, there is overwhelming evidence against the atheistic creation myth of evolutionism but atheists are usually unwilling to question what their priests have told them to believe and consider the evidence. If you're interested we have a large thread here on the subject of scientific and other evidences of God's hand in creation. >First of all there are dozens upon dozens of mutually exclusive religions. Thus says the scripture. You're acting like every other religion being false is some kind of problem for Christianity, when in reality it is a prerequisite of it being true. Christianity cannot be true unless every other religion is false, just like atheism cannot be true unless every other religion is false. Atheists often have this prejudice where they treat atheism as having a privileged place where it is not subject to being questioned, as if it were fundamentally different from every other belief. But everyone's got a religion even if we don't call it that, everyone's got a worldview, everyone's got beliefs. You already rejected every other non-Christian religion except one, we just reject one more. >Secondly the vastness of the universe in combination with the theory of evolution makes divine intervention seem like a childish cope. Yeah, Christianity is just so stupid, we are just so dumb and childish. Now do you have an argument? How does the vastness of the universe suggest God doesn't do anything in the world? I think it tells us the opposite. I think every last inch of space is proof of God's hand in creating it, and every inch is another piece of indisputable evidence which you are forced to absurdly declare to be pure random chance. >Thirdly if we take the christian God at face value, why would he ever only appear in one specific time and place rather than across the globe throughout history? He does. There is nothing in the world which is natural, there is nothing in all of creation which happens or is true independent of the Christian God, for He is not far from any one of us. You see His hand at work every time the sun rises in the sky, for if He withdrew His hand in maintaining creation it not only would fail to maintain the orderly course in which He set it, but it would simply fall out of being entirely. >If your God didn't want us to worship false idols then maybe he should have paid East Asia or America a visit or something because only appearing 2000 years ago It's clear you have little awareness of Christian claims and have not spent much time dialoging with knowledgeable religious people. God began speaking to man before he even fell. Centuries before the birth of Christ God spoke through the prophets, and millennia before He spoke to them all men knew Him face to face. The false religions did not simply "start up" out of thin air, but they are all developed from a common source. Hinduism is a deviation from the Christianity of their ancestors. >>24782 >Your stance is that 5999/6000 religions are wrong So is yours. If atheism is true, everything else is false. If Christianity is true, everything else (including atheism) is false.

There is a particular person who I really care about, but because of the stars i had to stop interacting as much as I used to. I'm sending prayers every single night so that this person is ok. I want her to be the very best of herself possible. If you anons may join, I would be glad if you could do this as well. I just really hope she does the right things in life. Sometimes I wonder if she knows how much I care

I talk to God all throughout the day, but He doesn't seem to talk back or give me any hope.

I'm trying to not be angry/aggressive/wrathful on the internet, but I'm not sure how to do that. God doesn't shine any of His light in my life. Guess I should jus avoid the internet, but then I'll never face the challenges and truly learn and grow.

>>24755 >>24762 Perhaps you are being tested, do not lose hope.

Please pray for Nick, John, and Jessie to get clean and be free from substance abuse for good.