R: 0 / I: 0 /
Welcome to /christian/!
GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST!
Welcome to /christian/, the webring's hub for discussion of Christianity, faith, the hard questions, and the Gospel Truth!
1. Follow the global rules; do not post illegal content.
2. Do not post pornography, lewd, or semi-lewd imagery of any form. If it's intention is to arouse, it will be deleted.
3. Do not spam threads or posts.
4. Do not advertise other imageboards.
5. Do not post anything that attacks/insults Christianity. Good-faith debate and discussion is allowed; make sure your posts are high quality, well-written, and well-researched.
6. Put effort into your posts. Low-quality threads and posts (including bait, off-topic, flaming, or nonsense/schizoposting) will be deleted.
7. One-liner questions that don't need their own thread go in QTDDTOT >>6836
. If your thread was deleted, there is a good chance it was moved here instead.
R: 922 / I: 156 /
/christian/ Meta thread
Hello and welcome all to /christian/, the new church of the cafe.
I'll be taking over from the old owner, so if there's anything you want to tell me about the board, go ahead and do it here.
If you have any questions, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
R: 2 / I: 0 /
I need some bread pills about Buddhism, like inforgraphs or webms showing why Buddhism is satanic.
R: 500 / I: 132 /
Questions that do deserve their own thread.
You know the drill. Questions that don't deserve their own thread go in their own threads. Questions that do go here.
R: 348 / I: 94 /
Genesis + Biblical Creation
This thread is for discussion and the sharing information critical of evolution, old earth, attempts to allegorize the early chapters of Genesis, etc.
I will be posting some basic info critical of (Neo-)Darwinism shortly.
R: 220 / I: 34 /
Catholic/Protestant Slapfight Thread
Due to several threads being dragged wildly off-topic by some anons' inability to hold themselves back whenever someone says the Pope is the antichrist or that Martin Luther destroyed Christianity, this thread will serve as a pseudo-containment thread for dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. Rules still apply in here, keep the thread on topic, do not make one-liner insults or ad hominems, keep it civil and respectful. Posts that try to start fights between Churches and drag the OP off-topic in other threads will be deleted, no matter how many there are.
R: 87 / I: 25 /
Are you participating my brother in Christ? Or have you already failed?
R: 95 / I: 16 /
The Biblical Canon and Protestantism
I have been an Orthodox catechumen since April, but I still have doubts sometimes that spring up based on my experiences. For example, for prayers, Orthodox Christians seem to fall back heavily on prayer rules, which as far as I see it constitutes little more than reading a script vainly to God rather than raising up the heart and the mind and forming a interpersonal relationship with Christ. And I have also wondered whether the Divine Liturgy, given the fact that it remains essentially the same apart from troparia, kontakia and epistle and Gospel readings, is a vain repetition in itself. Even the practices of fasting seem like they are done wrongly, given that they mainly advocate for switching out foods with vegan / vegetarian equivalents, which seems vain.
I have considered jumping ship, but it really comes down to the Biblical canon. It doesn't seem like Protestantism can really justify the Biblical canon apart from an institutional, visible Church, and that is even with admitting that Scripture is indeed God-breathed. How is it done? Can it be done? Eager to hear anons' thoughts.
R: 191 / I: 311 /
Post your Christ-chans
R: 20 / I: 4 /
Loving your enemy
I like a lot of parts of Christianity, but the part about being civil and loving your enemy is difficult.
People are assholes and will sometimes only listen if their met with negative consequence. Image boards are perfect example of this. I've offended people in the past for saying racial insults (not even to them) and they make it their life's mission to offend me, and after we had days of pissing contests i humble myself and it works as well as you'd think. I don't hate people either but they're assholes who will do terrible things to you if let them get that far. An enemy is defined as someone who wants to do us harm, I know that once some gets physical it's okay to defend yourself, but what do you do when someone is obviously mad at you and won't stop being an asshole, being kind doesn't work. This goes for online discussion, and i am guilty of it as well but it looks awful when Christians bad mouth pagans, but what are we suppose to do when they're assholes to us as well.
R: 65 / I: 27 /
'Christianity is Based' Compilation thread
In this thread post why Christianity is based and is the Truth, or post pictures or links related to that.
The goal of this thread is to be a bag full of Jesus seeds you can quickly get and plant in non-believers' hearts. (eg. you can visit this thread for good links to send to a LARPagan to prove them wrong)
R: 148 / I: 16 /
Deliverance after death?
It's generally understood that there can be no deliverance after death. Yet traditional Christianity has long upheld the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell, that Jesus descended into Hell during His death to deliver the Old Testament righteous as they could not save themselves being under the weight of original sin. So it seems that there was a special case in which this applied. There is also the ancient tradition of prayers for the death. Now, without consideration of Roman Catholic dogmas of purgatory, was this a one-time event? That is, that Christ no longer harrows Hell, and those that die in ignorance of the gospel, for example, following His death and resurrection are condemned to eternal damnation? Or, being that Heaven and Hell are timeless, did in the Harrowing Jesus bring up all the men and women throughout history worthy of deliverance as per His judgement, and not just the spirits of those that died prior to His crucifixion?
R: 5 / I: 0 /
I've had this theory in mind for like a year now
>normal rainbow = 7 colors = 777 = God; lgbtp "rainbow" = 6 colors = 666 = s*tan
and I finally made an infographic of it. What do you think?
If you like it, please share it as much as you can. Heh, it's funny thinking that you could eventually find this picture in some random boomer Facebook group.
But I know the picture isn't very graphically impressive, so if you like the theory you could make a better picture. Or if you could improve this theory that'd be good too.
This thread can also serve for other similar pictures, preferably OC (Original Content, ie. you made it)
R: 17 / I: 2 /
I want to get this of my chest as a confession and because other than the Lord I don't want anyone else to know this. I give up on finding romantic love.
I am going to focus on my self and on taking care of my mother. Focus on my goal of buying a good house. Maybe this is what God wants me to do for the rest of my life. This doesn't mean I hate or have Ill-will against women, I think and feel that God doesn't want me to be with anyone.
R: 10 / I: 0 /
R: 3 / I: 0 /
Is it just me, or do the Amish have the most Gospel-esque mode of living and life? The fruits speak for themselves, as I see it.
R: 44 / I: 5 /
Romans 9 teaches double predestination
There is doctrine which is poison to fallen man's ears (and even some regenerate men's ears) because it utterly banishes them from having any control whatsoever over God's will, which is a notion that is patently offensive to a sinner, who covets God's throne. So it was that many false brothers over the millennia invented their own doctrines which would exalt themselves rather than God, claiming to be saved by their own good works and chosen for their own righteousness. But scripture knows nothing of such nonsense, God always seeking to humble man and put him in his place so that His name may be glorified above all and by all. So it is we find in Romans 9 a scripture which absolutely cuts down all men and reminds them of their place as creatures, whom their creator is free to do with as He pleases.
The start of the passage must not be neglected as it defines everything that follows; we see Paul, who loves his nation, lamenting the apostasy of his nation going so far as to say "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers". But as to them should have belonged the adoption, the glory, the covenants and the promises, it raises the question of why it is that they have been cut off? How is it that they are not all Israel who are of Israel? Paul does not leave the question hanging but without a break in the conversation flows straight in to the simple answer: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". But, Paul says, it was not as though He was suddenly turning His back on the Jews for no reason, but this had always been His way as He said to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" and to pharaoh "For this reason I raised you up, so that in you my power might be revealed and my name glorified in all the earth". So then the Jews were set up for destruction not because of any failure on their part and the gentiles set for righteousness not because of any success but because of the purposes of God.
But Paul anticipates an objection as he knows how such divine teaching stings in the minds of weak and fallen men, which we hear often from atheists and other heathens: "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" that is, "If my will is not supremely free I cannot be blamed for my sins". But who is a man to answer back to God, a rebel sinner to accuse the holy one against whom he rages of evil? May a pot say to the one who formed it "why have you made me like this?" So Paul answers and brings us to our conclusion: "God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory". So the elect were created to be saved, and the reprobates were created to be damned, all to the praise of His glorious grace. Not that the content of God's decree shall be held against the reprobate on the last day, but only their sins, which they truly chose and enjoyed to commit by their very real mind and will. So no blame for their evil may be placed on God's head, since it was truly their evil and they truly deserved to be destroyed as did we all, even those whom He has saved for He has done so solely because of His good pleasure.
R: 97 / I: 24 /
Meeting Christian Women
How does even meet good Christian women as someone in their twenties? At the church I go to, all of the girls are either too young (ten years younger than me) or are already married or dating someone. Most of the people I am friends with there have girlfriends and it is really making me want to have a female companion, especially since they keep saying that I need to find one. How did you guys find your girlfriends or wives? Up until now I've been basically just trying to find the Kingdom and hoping that all else will be added to me in time, which I still believe, of course. I've made a lot of like-minded male friends in the last year, but no women other than other guys' girlfriends.
R: 35 / I: 5 /
About whether the Devil/Satan exists or not
R: 32 / I: 14 /
Interesting Theology Thread
These anime posting threads have been the bane of this board's existence for the past month now.
Post interesting theological takes or positions, things that don't necessarily fall in line with Christian orthodoxy, or are taught by major denominations.
>inb4 Ortholarpers come to the rescue.
R: 27 / I: 1 /
/christian/ is being claimed
A claim has been requested for /christian/ at >>>/meta/15940
and since this board's owner is inactive, it is being considered.
An email has been sent to the current board owner. If you are the board owner, please post in this sticky with your capcode confirming as to whether you would like to retain ownership or allow the board to be transferred to the new owner.
If there is no response for one week, the board will be transferred to the new owner.
update: The previous BO saysh
has now willingly passed the BO role over to christianjanny
, who is now the new BO of /christian/ (>>21282
-add 'update' notification
R: 367 / I: 84 /
Defeating sexual desires
Hello anons. My heart is somewhat heavy as I write this, I do not have anyone that I feel comfortable sharing this with so I am coming here under the cover of anonymity to exchange my thoughts and seek yours on this subject.
Masturbation is a sin
Sex outside of marriage is a sin
Engaging in prostitution is a sin
As a man I have a natural sex drive
I would like help and advice on defeating my sexual desires without committing sin. If I abstain from masturbation, I can refrain from engaging in sexuality for around a period of a week with little difficulty. After that initial 1 week period, it starts to encompass my whole life. I have an erection when I wake up every morning, and I get more throughout the day, at least one an hour and more if I have to interact with any girl under 30. I pray for help in keeping the sexual thoughts away, but it feels like I'm fighting a losing battle and I will relapse at some point no matter what. The longest I've been able to abstain from anything sexual was when I was an atheist and I lasted around a year. After a period of a few months, paradoxically my whole life was concerned with sex, I was not having orgasms however the only thing I had on my mind every day was "I need to find a girl to have sex with" (which never worked), everything was secondary to that. It culminated with me getting cock-teased by a girl I was exchanging with for around a week, getting fed up when I realized I was just getting taken along for a ride then seeking the services of a prostitute, which broke my abstinence and made me lose my virginity, if that concept even exists for a man. I regret the choices I made.
After this chapter in my life, I concluded that the healthiest thing to do was to masturbate once a month to get it out of my system and to be able to live my life without being entranced by sex all the time. Eventually I relapsed and was engaging with porn at least 10 times a week, until I found the faith which helped knock it back down to something more reasonable like 2-4 times a month. However, sin is sin and I would like to be fully rid of it.
I know that the simplest answer is to marry a girl, whoever that does not appear to be possible for me (it appears that my fate is to be an incel which I've come to terms with), so it seems like I've come to an impasse. I can't masturbate without committing sin, and I don't have a way to relieve myself of those sexual desires legitimately. However, if I don't relieve myself of it, it quickly starts to take over my life (I had begun to call the action of masturbation "satiating the beast" in my head). I don't know what to do.
I remember seeing this anon who castrated himself on old 8chan years ago and thought he had lost his mind then, though now every day I start to understand more and more why he wanted to be rid of his sexual desires.
Additional question: Why did God give me (and other men) such a strong sex drive and at the same time put me and a lot of other men (40% of men under 30 reported no sex in the past year in a study around 2018 I believe and that was before the corona lockdowns which must have made that number shoot up even more) in an era where it is extremely difficult to rid yourself of this desire without committing sin?
R: 91 / I: 36 /
R: 36 / I: 8 /
What does Christianity (Catholicism and Baptist especially) say about viewing fictional erotic imagery? Like, fictional pin-up girls, sexualized characters (whether viewed alone in or media like videogames or whatever), maybe even hentai (no masturbating, though).
Not including examples in OP post cuz I don't want people who don't want to see that stuff to have to see it.
(btw I'm going to bed soon, so I probably won't really be replying until tomorrow evening... if I still remember to check this thread by then.)
R: 3 / I: 1 /
Hi all, I have called into sexual sin and substance abuse the last couple of weeks. Haven't read my Bible like I normally do every day. I justify it I myself as I am tired, I'll read when I am not. I have kids and want to do better but here I am failing and falling AGAIN. What do you do if there are sins you just keep going back to? I feel so disassociated
R: 4 / I: 2 /
Was he wrong?
Was Saint John Chrysostom wrong about the Jews?
Second picture is from a college lecture on the different translations of the Talmud. Seemed... revealing.
R: 29 / I: 4 /
SUPER WHOLESOME Christian anime thread
Talk about WHOLESOME shows and WHOLESOME cute waifus.
This thread is NOT allowed to become a borderline /a/ exclave.
Posts advocating for yuri/shota (aka homosex) and other degenerate animes are NOT allowed.
R: 168 / I: 21 /
I am a Catholic that is considering Protestantism. Since I have been trying to be Catholic my conscience is always burdened by sin in an effort to maintain a 'state of grace' and I have increasingly inclined to consider that a sisyphean task as my conscience is seemingly too feeble for that. Catholic apologetics always criticised Protestantism as 'easy believism', but ironically enough that view has become more attractive to me, but now I realise that view is a fringe belief among mainline protestants. So what is even the point of being Protestant if you still have to have works to maintain your salvation?
R: 87 / I: 38 /
Adam Green / Know More News
There's this guy named Adam Green who makes a lot of anti-Christian content on Odysee and Bitchute. He's only really a big deal in the dissident right with around 27,000 followers. Recently he had a debate with an orthobro on The Crucible.
His content is just your typical "Christianity = Da Jooz" stuff, but he brags a lot about how (supposedly) Christians can't answer him. He also talks a lot about Kabbalah and Talmud stuff where he tries to connect it to Christianity.
Do you guys know about any major Christian response to him? I know he had debates with E. Michael Jones and with Myles Poland, but is there any other notable attempt at responding to him?
R: 107 / I: 25 /
For discussions/debate/dialogue related to Islam.
R: 16 / I: 0 /
What is your favourite verse or part of the Old Testament?
I like the history of Moses.
R: 241 / I: 181 /
Please don't let this one die.
R: 3 / I: 1 /
I need to go away from here for awhile.
I need to go away from here for awhile. I just lost the most loving dog I've ever had, and I am having a lot of grief. Our relationship between human and dog taught me about the relationship between God and man. Dogs don't understand what we want of them sometimes or why we want it, when what we want is to make the dog we love happy, the dog doesn't understand that barking at the cat can only lead them to harm, and the home does not need to be protected from that poor stray cat.
People are like that with God. God Put these laws and teachings in place to keep us from harming each other because God loves us. God gave us a church to train us not because God is demanding, but because God loves us.
And when we don't listen to God, we come to harm ourselves, just as harm came to my dog. I was a very bad dog trainer, and I see the wisdom in accepting God's teachings, even if, like a dog, I don't understand why.
I believe in God, the father almighty, and in Jesus Christ, his only son and our Lord. I try and do what the Lord wants, but it's hard to know what God wants when you don't know where his Church is, where is the trainer.
I need to be left alone. As a dog owner I'm a failure. As a dog at the table, I still don't know how to please God.
Sadly, no one here knows either.
R: 59 / I: 13 /
/christian/ ICUP thread
lets discuss the upcoming icup and our team
we'll be playing on Saturday at approx 19:30 against /otter/
i know its too late to make any indepth changes but if we want we can still change our music or things like that
when the cup is over i think we should discuss changes we want to make for future cups
i think we should update the roster and maybe make a 3rd kit for the team or something
R: 8 / I: 0 /
After sunday/saturday general
i want to use this thread to talk about our day in the church, even in between week services
>how was the services?
>how was the worship?
>what did you learned?
>did you feel real communion with your brothers in christ?
>there was something that you didnt like?
that kind of stuff
R: 180 / I: 51 /
Christian anime thread
Talk about wholesome shows and cute waifus.
R: 35 / I: 0 /
Clean & Unclean Foods & Dietary Laws
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Bible means when it speaks of clean and unclean foods.Clean and unclean food Put very simply, these are the Bible's dietary laws that if followed can lead to a long and healthy life. The question is: Can we trust the ancient words of the Bible? And what about modern science. Does it support or discredit God's dietary laws?
I have found that there are many Christians today who are unaware that the Bible states that our bodies are not our own and that they were bought with a price which was the death of Christ. Scripture also informs us that it is our responsibility to look after these bodies that are on loan to us. But sadly, these are facts that many would rather not acknowledge. Most would rather the well known sea food diet, that is, everything and anything we see that appeals to our eyes and nose. Unfortunately, these are foods that are often very damaging to our bodies and result in us dying from cancer and heart attacks because of our love for food! Most people live to eat rather than eat to live as God intended. Note the following relevant scriptures.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 “What? Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? 20 For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.”
And 1 Corinthians 10:31 “Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
Do we defile our bodies if we knowingly eat foods laced with chemicals that can make the body sick and die? Sadly, most of us do and without any fear of the following warning.
1 Corinthians 3:17 “If any man defiles the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.”
It is easy to mock God's Word and say it has no relevance to our physical lives today. But it is amazing though, how very interested someone can become in what God has to say when lying on a deathbed because of a decadent lifestyle. Sadly, it is usually too late to effect changes in their lifestyle by that time.
It is better to stay in denial, right? When we find ourselves lying in a hospital bed and dying, then we say, “I don't want to die! I better change to a healthy diet so I might live. Please someone, tell me what should I do and eat so that I can beat this illness and live?”Good Bible food
God already told us what to eat when he gave us His dietary laws with clean foods and unclean foods, but most do not care to listen and mock God's instructions until they suddenly find themselves on their deathbed wondering how they got that way! If only we had listened in the first place.
Here are some interesting points which show us what God's health plan for us is:
R: 28 / I: 7 /
Evangelizing the Jews
ITT: post resources and advice for refuting the Jewish religion and demonstrating that the Christian religion is the religion of the Tanakh.
Real Messiah youtube channel (Rev. Dr. Michael Brown answers Jewish objections to Jesus): https://youtube.com/c/RealMessiah/videos
Particularly good vid from the above, "Psalm 22 does not speak of death by crucifixion" https://youtu.be/5QdbLUKhVcE
One For Israel youtube channel (Israeli Christians make arguments and counter-arguments against Judaism, also many testimonies from Jewish converts to Christianity) https://youtube.com/c/ONEFORISRAEL
Some personal tips for evangelizing Jews from my own experience: firstly recognize that the Jews come in a few categories. Jewish atheists are not relevant to this thread, they should be dealt with as any other atheist. Some Jews will view Jesus as a wise rabbi, most who oppose you will view Him as a sorcerer (this should not surprise you as we see much the same division between the unbelieving Jews in the gospels). Some Jews will be more or less informed about their religion and ours, but the ones to watch out for are those (typically orthodox but probably at least conservative) who are highly educated on this topic and make it their mission to oppose you, the counter-missionaries. You ought to be well read yourself in theology and the Old Testament before you argue with them. Isaiah 53 is generally not the best place to start, not because it is a weak point for us or that it does not actually point to Jesus but because the counter-missionaries can reply to it in their sleep, you won't get anywhere by getting the opposition to rehearse. Your best bet is to 1. demonstrate the inconsistencies of the Jewish religion with the Old Testament scriptures and 2. hit on lesser known Messianic prophecies which are clearly fulfilled in Jesus. For example of point 1 the fact the Jews have no priests and offer no sacrifice, yet this is the foundation of biblical religion. They will respond to this in two ways, they will attack this biblical truth by attempting to set certain scriptures which denigrate sacrifices and which especially exalt repentance against the scriptures which require sacrifice. Answer by pointing out how men always offered sacrifice to God even before Abraham, as Cain and Abel did. Explain the failure of their interpretation of the other scriptures, for example how the blood of goats and calves was indeed worth little, the only fit offering was that of the Son of God Himself. The other attack they make is to boldly dismiss the necessity of sacrifice out of hand by boldly asserting that sin offerings were only for unintentional sins, this particular response can be cut down with the mere citation of Leviticus 16, but if they persist you should exegete that scripture to keep them from twisting it.
An example of point 2 is how scripture repeatedly prophesied that He would convert the gentiles e.g. Micah 4. This is a particularly good argument for us gentiles, because we can cite the example of our ancestors who once worshipped false gods whom we have long since forgotten. There have been many false messiahs and the Jews will agree with this, they never did anything like fulfill this prophecy, so how can Jesus be a false Messiah when through Him I now worship the Lord and not Wodanaz, whom my ancestors have forgotten for a thousand and a half years?
The Jews will assume, assert and act like their religion is that of the Old Testament, and Christianity is something else. You must not let them do this. They splintered off from the truth and apostatized into a false religion, they have no right to any of the scriptures which are properly inherited by ourselves, God's covenant people. You must reprove and correct their presumption that they stand in the tradition of Moses even though it will bring insults and mockery at the least. Do not be ashamed or afraid to assert the authority and legitimacy of the New Testament revelation, or its consistency with Old Testament revelation, or the sharp inconsistency of the Talmud with the Old Testament. But you also should not unnecessarily offend them; be willing to write G-d instead of God, call the Old Testament the Tanakh, and absolutely do not use the divine name unless you truly have no alternative. Do not go out of your way to offend them, the gospel is offensive enough.
R: 16 / I: 4 /
Why didn't anyone tell me it was this easy to spot lousy bible translations?
Christ's resurrection is central to the faith, he literally resurrected, not just "in spirit".
And if Christ declared all foods clean (unclean animals weren't even considered food to the apostles or judeans who followed Christ), then why did Peter not understand the vision in Acts initially until it was revealed to him that he should not call any man unclean or common (Acts 10:28) rather than God abolishing dietary laws, as clearly understood when read in context.
R: 27 / I: 3 /
"How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?"
R: 80 / I: 21 /
When did the Original Christian Church fall?
I would like to know, from a Protestant perspective, when did the original Church fall, if there was one?
Was it before the Bible or after? Was it with the East West Schism? Is there a date?
R: 159 / I: 55 /
Does Christianity truly support globalism/communism?
This sentiment is shared throughout pagan and other anti-christian circles.
R: 242 / I: 61 /
Christianity and racism are incompatible. Amen.
R: 69 / I: 12 /
I'm pagan leaning towards christianity
So, I'm a pagan that has recently become pretty pro christian out of my own "epiphany" or "revelation" of sorts. I pretty much support all the fundamentals of christianity and I'll tell you why I support these fundamentals.
>it's anti-cheating (for a lack of a better term)
It brings real emotional and psychological harm to faithful partners in a relationship. Marriage and having sex only inside marriage makes it extremely easy to "weed out" unfaithful partners.
>it's anti-porn and anti-masturbation
It's as harmful to your brain as heroine, it lowers your testosterone levels, and keeps people from finding a mate. I think I'm fucking done masturbating. I haven't done so for the last 2 weeks. Nothing good can come from it and it's not going to hurt me to not do it.
The only good things gays produce is the molestation of little boys and the spreading of disease, which is in fact nothing good at all. The only thing I can come up with is that gays need to be killed. If we just kick them out, we'd just be handing the problem to someone else. And if we imprisoned them we'd either be condoning that kind of depravity with them fucking each other when the guards aren't looking, or solitary confinement which is no life to live at all.
>It's selfless and anti materialistic
Being selfless is what makes any healthy society. You could have all the wealth in the world and that's not going to make you happy. What does however make people happy is reproducing with a loving partner and being selfless.
>it's anti usury
Usury is the process of making money off interest on loans. Gaining money from nothing is exactly what the jews are doing to us now through the banks.
To tell you the truth, for the last couple years I used to hate christianity with an absolute passion, railing against it on imageboards in fact. If I continue to think that christianity is jewish and rejecting christians version of events, I mise well be saying that there is no hope for people at all. I also find it fishy that jews are promoting islam over christianity if christianity was indeed jewish. And the fact that christianity and it's doctrines are fundamentally healthy for society. Don't get me wrong though, I still think christians were way too harsh on christians and 'pagans' than christians were against the jews.
R: 17 / I: 5 /
When exactly is a man and woman married in God's eyes?
We see nothing about rings being exchanged in scripture, or requiring someone to recite some phrase then requiring "I do" or "yes" to be said, or for a kiss to be exchanged, or for documents to be signed. The first marriage was Adam and Eve, but they had no ceremony or ring or ritual or anything as far as scripture is concerned.
R: 6 / I: 0 /
There is a law that they want to pass in Virginia that makes it child abuse not to affirm the transitional gender of the child, Please pray that that doesn't happen.
R: 85 / I: 36 /
Liberalism and satanism.
R: 50 / I: 2 /
Why do young adults protects Gays so much?
This Catholic found some research about what non-Christians think of Christianity and the five words that come up is Judgmental, Bigoted, Homophobic, Elitist, and Hypocritical. Do they not even look at it from the Christian perspective? Gays are not even a racial minority, it's a manufactured identity of a sin that they choose to indulge into (it's only recently that they became an type of personal identity). They also impose this identity into Christian churches despite going against Christianity itself.
R: 68 / I: 6 /
Can it work with any old wine and bread?
R: 89 / I: 38 /
There seems to be a multitude of users on imageboards stuck living generally broken lives. How can /christian/ minister to this?
R: 10 / I: 0 /
Does anyone else hate these soythodox youtube nu-monks? It seems to be primarily a Western phenomenon. Eastern European monks and clergy seem to be much higher quality. Is everything the West touches doomed to be gay and retarded?
R: 64 / I: 10 /
We have these anti natalists saying people should stop having kids. They appeal to reason. Well I appeal to God and he said he fruitful and multiply. Can I get an amen.
R: 35 / I: 3 /
Would you forgive Satan?
R: 22 / I: 0 /
Lately I've been deeply disappointed with all the low quality posts I see on imageboards in general. Not really here actually (I like cafe/christian/), but especially on 9chan.tw. You would expect some more quality, in comparison to 4chan, but no! You see the same things: shilling, slur spamming, attention whoring, avatarfagging and so much more unfunniness. It's like 4chan, but slower. And it's sad, because it's one of the few imageboards that holds christian discussion.
Some would argue to just apply moderation, but I'm pretty anti-censorship, so that doesn't satisfy me either (thanks again AnriChristHater). I mean yeah, you could delete posts that are straight up just spam, but this sort of attitude can be found in other regular posts.
Surely I can't be the only one who feels this way?
R: 132 / I: 37 /
What is the best Orthodox Bible in English or Spanish for a curious Catholic? I really have no idea where to start. Bonus points for epub.
R: 28 / I: 1 /
The Christian significance of Lord of the Rings?
I've noticed that J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' is sometimes recommended amongst Christian book lists. I know that Tolkien was Catholic, and the work itself does have subtle Christian themes running through it. Nevertheless, I find myself puzzled as to why it is sometimes considered a significant Christian work of literature. I wonder this because the primary fruit of this work that I've seen has not been great Revivals nor have I heard of testimonies of it bringing people to Christ.
In fact, the primary fruit I've seen come from 'The Lord of the Rings' has been the proliferation of the High Fantasy subculture (i.e. Dungeons and Dragons, video game RPGs, LARPing, etc.) and the fanning of the flames of Neo-Paganism (many Neo-Pagans love and have taken inspiration from this work, much to Tolkien's chagrin.)
Can someone please explain to me the Christian signifiance of this work?
R: 3 / I: 0 /
Phago vs Trogo
What is the significance of Jesus switching verbs in John 6:54?
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat(phago) the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Those who eat(trogo) my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.
Is it truly a distinction without a difference or are there truly different meanings? If there is no difference, why would Jesus use a different verb? If there is a difference, why isn't that accounted for in translation? Does it affect the meaning of the passage either way?
R: 28 / I: 6 /
I believe revelations will happen in our lifetimes. Get ready to die for Christ.
R: 17 / I: 0 /
Establishment of infant baptism in the holy scriptures
Those of you not in the Reformed world and even some of those who are may not be aware that we are currently in the Great Baptist Butthurt of 2022 following the statement on Crosspolitic (mainly from their guest) that Baptist theology is the cause of trannyism. I would generally tend to agree with them; while the statement may seem silly on its own merits understood in its actual context I feel it is vindicated. But since this controversy has reignited the baptism debate I feel motivated to finally put in the effort as I have been meaning to to demonstrate the biblical practice of infant baptism.
Many evangelicals are swayed heavily by the Baptist error, and many even who are members of churches which baptize babies take for granted that there is no scriptural license for the baptism of infants, and believe that it is done from human practice rather than divine command. This is a tradition of men, which proceeds from the human tendency to polarize, in this case against medieval tradition, for which cause the reformers called them radicals. This human tradition taken to its most extreme form leads inevitably to damnable heresy and separation from Christ, as it historically produced the heresies of the Socinians and the neo-Arians. This unfortunate Anabaptist influence is most concerning in its wider impact on Christian thought which has led many Christians in this dark age to develop grossly unbiblical ideas of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, soteriology and even theology proper, among other things.
Of the Baptists the least consistent and yet the heftiest of all are the Reformed Baptists, who maintain biblical doctrine and appropriate thought processes generally speaking but inconsistently with that are influenced to reject the baptism of the children of believers. Some of them allege that the reformers maintained infant baptism not because they were convicted by the testimony of scripture but because of the command of the state, which used baptismal records as a kind of census. This explanation seems silly to me, since it can take us only a few seconds to solve the apparent problem (simply go through the entire process, but without sprinkling the baby) it seems to do little but insult those great men of God to suppose that they could not, and it was never their tendency to allow Caesar's whim to dictate their theology even when it brought them into conflict. Also as often they for some reason single out John Calvin and say that his doctrine of baptism was a theological novum of the 16th century; this irrelevance I feel is plainly contradicted by the support we have from many in the early church, most obviously Augustine. It is absurd to suppose that because John Calvin's argument for infant baptism was not the emphasis of ancient sacramentology that therefore it was inconsistent. But while we are on the note of Calvin I would like to segue by noting my agreement with him, that "Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of His sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author."
I would begin by questioning the Baptists: whether baptism may properly be called a seal of the righteousness which the saint already has by faith? I think none but the most wily Baptists will deny it, for it is little more than an accurate description of the basic fact of baptism, but I think they are right to deny it for they know that such terminology when used in the bible is used not of baptism, but of circumcision (Romans 4:11). If this fact was no impediment to the children of believers receiving the sacrament of faith under the old law (Genesis 17:12), why should it be under the new? Seeing as God indeed ordered this sacrament be applied to children we must know when it was He was pleased to abrogate that command?
But this brings us to a fundamental error of which all Baptists are guilty. They say that "baptism is an ordinance of the new covenant"; this I deny and instead affirm that baptism is a sacrament of the covenant of grace according to the administration thereof which is called new. While the accidents of the old and new covenants are very different indeed, the former consisting in shadows and the latter in the light of Jesus Christ, according to substance they are one and the same covenant of grace (Galatians 3:15-18), founded on the blood of Jesus Christ. For the old fathers always walked by faith in the heavenly promises of He who was to come, as when God first showed mercy to fallen man He did so saying "I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; and He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" and thereafter He sealed this promise to them by clothing them in slain creatures to save them from the consequences of their sin.
Consistent with their hard distinction between the covenants the Baptists argue that the difference between the covenants consists largely in that while the old covenant included many unbelievers, the new covenant is now exclusive to the elect. Continuing they say that only those who actually do believe are to receive the sign of the covenant. Sometimes the wiser among them will clarify that it is they who profess to believe that are to be baptized, but since this is not actually consistent with their argument from the covenant they will still essentially say that we are to baptize those who do believe. At this point their ecclesiology has broken down entirely, and they pretend the ability to see into men's hearts. For if only those who do believe are to be baptized then they are guilty of injustice when they baptize one who falsely claims to believe, and out of sheer consistency with this absurdity a shockingly large number of them are guilty of a more outlandish absurdity in repeatedly baptizing the same men over and over following apostasy and recovery of faith or even of a believer merely when he backslides and lapses. I ask of the two views is this not the one that is more consistent with an ex opere operato sacerdotalism? In divorcing the efficacy of baptism from the objective giving of the promise regardless of its significance to the recipient at that moment, they seem to conjoin the grace to the external sign and make it depend more on a kind of subjective magic, so that if one falls away after having received it the incantation must have failed and needs to be applied again.
Contrary to the previous view we maintain that they are to be baptized who are externally members of the covenant of grace, which is the same thing as saying those who are to be baptized are the members of the visible Church of Jesus Christ. This 'visible' and 'external' membership is the only sort which mere men are capable of perceiving, I sincerely hope I do not need to cite proofs for that. The question now becomes whether the children of believers are members of their covenant, and the testimony of scripture compels us to answer in the affirmative, for our Lord says "Suffer the little ones to come to me, truly I say to you the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" and with Him Paul agrees when he says that a believer's child is holy on their account (1 Corinthians 7:14). If it is objected that he also says the unbelieving spouse is holy, I answer that they are disqualified by any sort of true membership in the covenant on account of their active rejection of the truth which a baby is incapable of, but they are indeed counted as holy in a sense, as for the sake of their Christian family they are treated as if they were members of the covenant in this life insofar as they are made partakers of the same temporal and worldly blessings in the hopes that by them they might be led to repentance, just as old Israel was given the blessing of land to bring it to faith that would lead them to the country of heaven. And indeed we see from the consistency of the covenants that the children are members, for what God had promised to Abraham was "I will be a God to you, and to your seed after you"; likewise Peter after having preached "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins" invoked that same Abrahamic promise, which would not have been lost on any of his Jewish listeners, saying "For the promise is for you and your children". If it is objected that the sentence continues "and for all who are far off, all whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" I answer that the citation has ceased at this point because the relevance of the verse to this topic has ceased.
All three groups are defined as being 1. those whom the promise is for and 2. those whom the Lord our God calls to Himself. Consequently we must conclude that "you" here refers to those Jews which were hearing his words that did believe, and "all who are far off" refers to those Jews and gentiles not present who would believe. Since "you" and "your" are identical, "your children" means "the children of you who are believing". If it is further objected that the promise being for these children is contingent on the same grounds as those who are far off, namely, that at some point in the future they must actually believe, I answer that indeed if they do not believe but reject the truth they will be cut off from the promise, but in this moment it is truly "for" them; Peter has not said "For you and for children" but "For you and your children", meaning specifically at this moment it is (ἐστιν) for them specifically on account of their parents, and I trust nobody thinks there is something more special about these Jews than other Christians to receive such grace. It is not to be protested that the promise also is presently 'ἐστιν' for those who are far off as well, because they may be included in the present on account of their having been predestined before the foundation of the world. Furthermore as this is the repetition of the Abrahamic promise I note that foremost the promise that is being made is here primarily for the parents rather than their children, namely that He shall not abandon them, but will be a God to them and to their seed after them.
I do not wish to speculate regarding the regeneration of infants, but since our Lord said "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" and we are told that John the Baptist in the womb jumped for joy at the nearness of his Lord (Luke 1:44) I feel I must conclude that babies can be born again even before their 'first' birth, and even have a kind of faith. Given the whole testimony of the scripture which I have presented we must conclude that being by God's providence born in a Christian household (has God not made more Christians from this than conversion through history?) grants membership to Christ's Church as much as a credible profession of faith. Consequently they are to be baptized as the Christians they are, as the members of the covenant they are, as our Lord commanded us (Matthew 28:18-20), and not regarded as unbelievers. If they were to be presumed to be children of wrath as the Baptists do, they must be guilty of sin in bringing them into the church which is called holy and to be filled with saints, and corrupting the worship of God by bringing them to Him whom (in their opinion) they hate. I am aware scripture tells us to raise up our children in the faith, I feel that says more about scripture than it does about Baptists. If they grow up and reject the faith this is apostasy, having started in it and then left it, demonstrating they were not truly of us; same as any other.
R: 34 / I: 3 /
Personally i am a Christian but this image stumps me, If God already knows our future why would he need to test us? Along with other common arguments for the existence of God and the problem of evil. It's not perfect but there is some good arguments there. Do any of you have any counter arguments, specifically to "If God already knows our future why would he need to test us"?
I heard from an apologist about a book about freewill called "Chosen but free" on predestination vs Freewill, has any one here read it?
R: 30 / I: 2 /
Are people inherently good or bad?
Does God's good creation exist within us or does original sin override that?
R: 14 / I: 1 /
So what's the deal with Romans 11?
Is the olive branch God's grace or is it Israel's blessings?
R: 32 / I: 0 /
The canon of scripture and sola scriptura
My brothers, as the Antichrists of atheism come closer and closer to outright persecution of Christ's sheep, it is manifest that we are being forced closer and closer to those of false religions, who have always opposed our faith. I speak especially of the Romanists, whose hostility to the truth in general has not diminished, nor has their need to hear the only true gospel by which men may be saved. In order that you might have certainty, and to empower your proclamation of the gospel I have written up what I hope is a thorough refutation of their favorite attack on the truth which is also a refutation of most of the same objection when it is made by the atheists.
The papists constantly for 500 years have pressed against us that we have no basis for believing in the authority of the bible, since this they say is contingent on the authority of the church. That is, they claim we have no legitimate reason to believe the books of scripture are scripture, so that we can have no more confidence in the canonicity of Matthew than of "Thomas". This they do because they recognize the reality of contradiction between their religion and the word of God, and see no alternative but to undermine and suppress the authority of the word of God so that it may be silent and condemn their pope and his underlings no longer. Consequently the papists are so assured of this attack that it is their preferred defense when their religion is shown to be in contrast with the divine religion beyond all doubt, it is the impenetrable fortress to which they retreat in order to justify their rejection of the teachings brought against them which they do not believe, but it is little more than a disheveled hamlet which takes away all doubt that their religion is from another spirit.
The papists do not all present their attack in the same way. Some of the less intelligent and more shameless papists especially at the time of the Reformation have more consistent in their blasphemy accused sacred scripture of having no more authority than that of the koran apart from the nod of the pope. A few of them utterly without sense say that the books were not inspired until the church defined them as such. Most of them only deny that we may have knowledge of the books apart from the authority of their magisterium. But in all cases their purpose is to deny the authority of bible so the authority of the magisterium may take its place.
We however say that the sole basis of the authority of scripture is its divine nature as the very words of God. The bible has absolute authority over all other sources because it is God speaking to man. To disobey it, is to disobey God.
Now, there are but two styles of religion: human and divine. Human religion is conceived of from human wisdom and demonic lies, and because it is simply made up among sinful men, without any truth, and in rebellion to the true God, it is automatically false religion. Divine religion however is derived from divine revelation, it is a creation of the true God who condescends to man to deliver him the truth; it is automatically true religion. And while the true believers have not always had scripture, we have never been without His word, since He first condescended to our human weakness to guide His people through their sojourn in this fallen world, saying "Where are you, Adam?"
Now the holy scriptures are in this age the sum and total of the words of God. Rome does not deny this, she cannot, lest the mask be thrown off and Satan revealed from behind the guise of an angel of light. And since the scriptures are the only God-breathed word which we possess, they absolutely must be the rule of faith and practice for the Church, the norm which norms all other norms, the standard to which alone the Church conforms. To introduce any other thing in addition to (and in place of) the holy scriptures as a source of religion is to make the religion human and not divine.
The present papist attack which is made under the name of the canon is really an attack on the authenticity of scripture, for their attack is not different from questioning why Matthew is authentic and Thomas is not. We answer that first a distinction must be made between subjective knowledge and objective authority. For as we have established the sole cause of scriptural authority is the inspiration of God, this is not the cause of our knowing it, yet since that is the sole cause of its authority the causes of our knowledge will not impugn its authority in any way. Thus at the outset the attempt to prostitute their pope to us is cut down since they concede the inspiration of the scriptures, which makes the charge an irrelevance because it does not make the condemnation of scripture against them silent nor alleviate the tribunal of scripture upon them.
There are numerous causes by which we come to know the bible, one of which is properly called tradition, not the pretended irreformable body of errors of Rome, but the mere passing down of Christian truth, as we come to possess the bible firstly only because it was previously possessed by Christians before us. Another is self-authenticating mark of inspiration impressed into the words of the text, which the regenerate man recognizes merely in the reading of it as he recognizes light by sight. Yet no matter what leads us to the knowledge of scripture nothing will convince us of its divine inspiration apart from the immediate grace of the Holy Spirit in raising us to spiritual life and granting us to believe, for "My sheep hear my voice and the voice of another they will not follow". Indeed mere ascension by human wisdom could never let us ascend to these heights of heaven, but only the condescension of God will bring it down to us. The papists will object and call this "subjective", but a subjective experience is not the basis of our believing, merely that which grants us to believe. Again, the reason I believe is the inspiration of the bible, and what allows me to believe is the grace of the Holy Spirit. First I believe, and then the bible tells me why I believe.
We ask the papists whether it is even possible for sola scriptura to be true or whether it must be rejected a priori? Is there any possible world in which sola scriptura is true, and if so what does it look like? We think their answer will be that there must be an inspired table of contents, yet we must question whether this would actually have any impact whatsoever. For the atheist who rejects God's word already would the addition of a 67th book that defines the previous 66 and itself as being the authoritative word of God increase his confidence of that claim? Obviously not. And for the Christian who already accepts the authority of those 66, what difference would it make to him that such a book was added confirming to him what he already believed? Nothing whatsoever. Since such an inspired table of contents would make the canon of divine revelation itself divinely revealed acceptance of that canonical definition would require accepting the divine revelation of which it is part, making its addition entirely redundant. In other words, it would be a waste of God's breath.
Indeed, what has Rome's tradition and dogmatic definition done to increase the faith of heathens in the bible as God's authoritative word? Do you think if you pressed an atheist that he should believe the bible is God's word and therefore obey it because the pope said so he would find that argument compelling? Would he not instead laugh in your face and rightly so? Indeed, this argument only has meaning in this specific context, which is why the papists are observably inconsistent with its presuppositions and implications in all other apologetic contexts, because it does not actually make a case for their god-king's pretensions at all, those are merely snuck through, it actually is little more than an unmitigated attack on the authority of the word of God, for which reason it is almost as popular among atheists as among papists.
The ultimate necessity for Rome to deny sola scriptura is because if she were to humbly submit herself to the authority of God she would have no basis to uphold any of her numerous doctrines of demons which she maintains to this day, namely justification by works and their merit, human satisfactions and indulgences, transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass, the ecumenical pontiff and primacy of the pope, Mary as queen of heaven and co-redemptrix, which are sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained. Make no mistake, Romanism is a demonic religion, much like its predecessors Arianism and Gnosticism it is a counterfeit Christianity designed to be a convincing fake to lead many astray. It is essential that we continue to evangelize Romanists not only because of the general call of the gospel to all unbelievers but also a specific calling to the elect caught under her tyranny to "Come out of her, my people", and we are guilty of the blood of all men when we say that Rome is Christian and her slaves are our brothers. She is no Christian church but is apostate and heretical, having failed from the faith once delivered to the saints, teaching various deadly heresies and thrusting them forward to be believed under pain of a curse.
R: 15 / I: 1 /
Pagan myths and Christian myths
Hope you're having a great time, anon.
Let's talk about something silly: myths. Myths have existed for as long as mankind, or, at least, as long we'd been aware of ourselves. Plato complains about unserious poets writing amoral myths, and that I think something you should keep in mind - that ancient Greeks, at least the educated Athenian elite (and, presumably, their non-Ionian counterparts as well) did not believe in all the stories about Gods and Heroes literally (which means they're substantially smarter than modern Protestants).
Well, have a look at this picture. I present you the modern myth - something every American and most 'kids' where the global Americanized culture reaches is familiar with. Of course, unless you're completely psychotic you know superheroes are fiction. But 'mythic reality' is in some sense more 'real' than sensual reality, and so you can see capeshit, Harry Potter etc employed in propaganda over and over again.
I haven't watched a TV in the last two decades, but it's painfully obvious that TV 'series', in addition to many other adverse effects, also plays the role of a myth in a sense that it conveys role models for the watchers to follow.
And that brings me to the final point: those myths are obviously pagan in nature. Sometimes, the more things change more they stay the same! What is the truly Christian myth? Resurrection, of course! (Calm your tits, cowboys - when I say resurrection is a myth, I do not imply it did not happen, but that it should be viewed from a mythic point of view, as a foundation of a whole belief and not as a mere historical factoid devoid of meaning).
But has there been an attempt to create a retelling of this sole Christian myth in an attempt to counteract pagan influence, or are mainstream churches too comped to stand up for what they profess to believe in? And if not - what kind of story would you, anon, tell, if you had a chance to inject a new myth into the broader internet Culture? I think Kek might had been the closest we've come to it (despite pagan appearance, the themes of resurrection and vengeance on the evil-doers through making all their deeds vain is quite Christian, even if doom-and-gloom associated with that 'cult' is not), but the "kewl" kids have long since moved on and it's dead in the water.
R: 3 / I: 0 /
How do I know if God is answering my prayers? Or that I am currently going down the correct path in my life that the Lord desires for me?
R: 45 / I: 11 /
Hating the LGBT Community but not gay individuals
So I am sort of Bi although a devout Christian (Yes call me a fag IDK) and I am fucking annoyed with the LGBT community to no ends. I have a friend who is a Lesbian Atheist that agrees with a lot of morality that Christian ideology brings and even she notices that the LGBT community is self sabatoging. They like to present themselves as a community that wants to love their partners but in practice they are just constantly hooking up with one another. The LGBT community should have gatekept more in my opinion or needs to be shamed when they behave in a sort of manner.
Like I personally don't give a shit if 2 guys wanna slam the ass and you are free to disagree with me but I do think that the fucking pride parade types are fucking atrocious. Its like they revolve their entire lifestyle arround being gay as if it was their own religion.
I even have a theory that men who become women are the main vectors of disease because they believe that the more men wanna have sex with them then the more they pass and are validated.
IDK where the fuck this rant is going but I just wanted to talk about that shit.
Personally I have a lot of gay friends but they are almost always very much against the gay community and are Christian themselves, asside from that one girl.
R: 10 / I: 0 /
Bishop Robert Barron
I'm new here. I occasionally watch the Lex Fridman podcast and stumbled on this episode:
This guy is making a whole lot of sense. Is anyone here familiar with him?
R: 1 / I: 1 /
Paranoia about God granting bad "wishes"
Hi. I have some sort of paranoia about God granting bad "wishes". By that I mean, if I say that I want something bad to me to happen (or think that), no matter the context, God will make that happen. It all started when I was a kid. My mother used to tell me stories like how when my grandmother (her mother) was young, one day she was talking with a friend about whether "it's better to be mute or deaf", and my grandmother chose "deaf", and after a few days she started having some sort of pain in the ears. And stories like that. On the outside, I didn't believe stuff like that and always said that it's all just coincidences, but on the inside I started getting a fear that that is actually true, even if I consciously tried to deny that. Now every time I'm about to say something that out of context could be interpreted as me wishing for something bad to happen to me, I immediately get that "I shouldn't say this!" feeling. This went as far as for example, today I was browsing an imageboard and I read posts related to having a female friend or girlfriend with disabilities like deafness or blindness and there were pictures attached of some sort of "-chan"-like Internet-made anime-like girl whose main gimmick is being blind (I'd say she's called "blind-chan", but I looked that up and the results were unrelated), and then I thought "hmm maybe a girlfriend/wife with [insert disability like deafness/blindness/muteness] would be cute" but after that I thought "NO NOO, GOD PLEASE DON'T SEND ME A BLIND GIRLFRIEND, THINKING AGAIN THAT WOULDN'T BE THAT GOOD NO NOOO FUCK". But the worst of all is something that happened when I was 12 and I try to forget but every time I think of it it makes me TERRIFIED and DESPAIRED. When I was like 12 I was playing one of those board games with dices that go from 1 to 6 with friends (eg. something like "snakes and ladders"), and I was in a position that if I got a certain number on the dice I would get in a really really bad situation in the game, and I said something like "getting a [insert number] would be going to hell", and guess what, I GOT THAT FUCKING NUMBER, and every time I think about this I think there's a chance God will absolutely 100% send me to hell because I said something stupid when I was a kid.
Is my paranoia justified or is it completely unbiblical? Will I absolutely go to hell because I said something stupid when I was 12? Does anyone else have this paranoia?
R: 10 / I: 3 /
Evil is warring against us, we have to develop our understanding about God's creation and our skills, so that we have a fighting chance, and invest hard work into freeing ourselves from the degenerate leash of society and become capable soldiers of Christ.
What did you learn from your personal struggles that you would like to share with Christanons to make their life easier?
R: 51 / I: 11 /
What are your thoughts on street preaching? Do you think it's effective? Does it do more harm than good? What are some of the biggest issues you see with confronting strangers about the Gospel?
R: 53 / I: 56 /
Christian Music Thread
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
the music thread is gone so I'm posting these by themselves instead. At my assembly today it was reminded that ALL the law is fulfilled and HANGS on the commandment of love. How much do we make sure we're right with the law and doing the right thing and we ignore the actual focus of God and his will from the beginning his commandment. Death experiences have told us of the great love when in the light of God. Many of us have known moments when we have been put in front of God's love and how much we want to live in it forever and how much we will live in it forever.
R: 54 / I: 7 /
/christian/ under attack
For those who are unaware /christian/ is under heavy attack by an alliance of malicious forces dedicated to destroying our board.
Raiders who have been spamming our boards for a long time are :
Shilling anti-anime stances, islam, terrorism, iconoclasm and violence against rl people.
Trolling, baiting and general shitposting.
Shilling white-nationalism, racial supremacy, nazism and fascism.
Shilling Homosexuality, Bisexuality, twinkposting and femboyposting.
Doxing a Vol, general trolling and baiting.
R: 5 / I: 1 /
Is a valid interpretation of scripture as guided by the Holy Spirit reasonable, or is it contingent on faith alone and cannot be deciphered through reason? If it is a synergy of the two, where does the one end and the other begin and how is this interaction conditioned (in distinction from invalid interpetation)?
R: 19 / I: 1 /
is christianity against seeking personal growth?
I want to try re-start/return to being a christian but I feel the attitude of "this world is vanity",etc.is against excercise,pursuing the sciences and even financial develpment,which if properly used,benefits all humans.
am I just falling for memes? can I be a succesful, harmonious and well-studying person and pious at the same time?