>>16229 Based

>>16229 Those would be some sick song lyrics.

Protestants get the rope.

>>17646 D&C shills get the firing squad.

I guess I flipped this idea around. Rather than looking for the religion that suits my beliefs, I looked for what God told me is true.

Wacky

>>18815 I would say this is decently accurate :3 but unfortunately the questions are worded terribly. For example if I don't believe there was ever a covenant between "God" and the Jews can I respond to "God's covenant with the Jews is still in affect." The test was clearly made by a fundamentalist Christian and intended for fundamentalist Christians. Some of the questions about Satanism also were kind of head scratchers and probably miss the point of actual Satanist theology entirely. A more minor gripe is how the creator of the test frequently switches between positive statements and negative statements as things to respond to so one question strongly agree might mean approving of the popes of Catholicism and then the next strongly agree might mean disapproving the patriarchs of eastern orthodoxy. Also interesting that a presumably fundamentalist Christian author would create a test that so conspicuously excludes gnostics or other new religion type Christianity where the beliefs don't align with either of the 3 major groups. They're not even considered pagans or protestants here.

>>18817 Gnosticism has been a dead religion for a thousand years, why would it be on it?

>>18820 There is a large base of contemporary gnostics out there, cutie. People enticed by mystical Christianity beginning to despise the rigid uncreativeness and perceived nonsense of the mainline beliefs. I'm shocked you don't know about it since most zealous e-Christians are infatuated with it and other "heresies" that present themselves outwardly as Christian but in truth aren't.

>>18828 3 shitposters on imageboards is not a "large base"

>>18829 I don't know what you're referencing, doll, but I don't get it. Perhaps you should try not making shit up; you'd be a lot prettier that way.

It fits well

>>18845 Wow, those are very secular results indeed.

>>17646 >Threats of murder. Divisive bait?

I'm liking it.

>>18866 It's just standard course for the heathens, they really hate Christ and all who follow him instead of the world or silly men in silly robes like the boylover pope.

https://prismquiz.github.io/ Now try this quiz and see what politics you get.

>>21181 On today's episode of wacky fringe ideologies, Theocratic Collectivism & Egoism

>>21196 That feel when no modern era of Amish-like Christian society with no government.

wassup

As expected mostly, but why's it add "phobic" just for believing other religions are untrue. And I have much less respect for Jews than Muslims. And don't know where 11% satanic came from.

>>14460 >>21181 Where's my Christian Anarchist utopia, dang it?

>>22011 It's really quite simple, anon. >War is murder >Taxation is theft >Police are a gang of thugs >Politicians are agents of the devil >Anyone with the red flag gets the boot >Don't take people's stuff and don't hurt them >Blessed are the peacemakers

>>22017 >Anti-Anarchy Boomer-tier understanding of philosophy. >Goods and services don't drop out of the sky And the 30% cut for the big guy doesn't magically make it happen. >ACAB BLM shit Go look at Philly and tell me who's protecting the people. Public police taking a cut off the top, or private armed guards and private citizens with an interest in protecting their communities? Try calling the police and see what happens. >Only Trusting a politician is like thinking the stripper actually likes you. >literally the opposite of anarchy B.O.O.M.E.R. please, your dusty moods don't jive with me. >peace is not possible without good authorities Authority doesn't come from the state. Keep living in fantasy-land instead of being whitepilled about the state of the world and God's plan. No masters except God and the natural hierarchy of man are the path to salvation. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.

>>22028 I said red flags get the boot. Do you really want to go the muttposting route, anon? What would our lord and saviour Jesus Christ (an anti-authoritarian, arguably an anarchist) think about you engaging in such petty behavior? How can you have the authoritarian boot on your neck happily and slovenly while being part of a religion that promotes the natural authority of man in servitude to THE LORD over that of the state? Be the better man. Our conversation is done here if this is what Satan has reduced you to and I hope you can find Christ. I have no interest in Christian LARPers.

Facebook quiz-taker mentality thread. Why do people love filling out data mining surveys? Is it vanity or naivety?

>>22017 >TLDR Larp harder closet pedo Oh, look, a fed.

>>22037 It's likely boredom and anons wanting someone to talk to. These give anons something to discuss.

>>22010 >>22013 >>22019 Christian Anarchism sounds cool but you always have to compromise either the Anarchist side or the Christian side. Even if you decide to be a law abiding anarchist other anarchist will never accept social conservatism and will defend the sin of homosexuality, abortion and "worldly" transgenderism. You're always going to be "the man" to them.

>>22074 >Anarchist Christian How can you be an anarchist in a religion with a little law code built into it?

>>22080 *Literal

>>22074 >And it cannot be proved, as the champions of the state maintain, that the destruction of government involves a social chaos, mutual spoliation and murder, the destruction of all social institutions, and the return of mankind to barbarism. Nor can it be proved as the opponents of government maintain that men have already become so wise and good that they will not spoil or murder one another, but will prefer peaceful associations to hostilities; that of their own accord, unaided by the state, they will make all the arrangements that they need, and that therefore government, far from being any aid, under show of guarding men exerts a pernicious and brutalizing influence over them. It is impossible to prove either of these contentions by abstract reasoning. Still less possible is it to prove them by experiment, since the whole matter turns on the question, ought we to try the experiment? The question whether or not the time has come to make an end of government would be unanswerable, except that there exists another living means of settling it beyond dispute. [. . .] >"It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it," says the man who has mastered the Christian theory of life. "I only know that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures that are necessary to the existence of a government. Settle for yourselves what you need for your life. I cannot prove the need or the harm of governments in general. I know only what I need and do not need, what I can do and what I cannot. I know that I do not need to divide myself off from other nations, and therefore I cannot admit that I belong exclusively to any state or nation, or that I owe allegiance to any government. I know that I do not need all the government institutions organized within the state, and therefore I cannot deprive people who need my labor to give it in the form of taxes to institutions which I do not need, which for all I know may be pernicious. I know that I have no need of the administration or of courts of justice founded upon force, and therefore I can take no part in either. I know that I do not need to attack and slaughter other nations or to defend myself from them with arms, and therefore I can take no part in wars or preparations for wars. It may well be that there are people who cannot help regarding all this as necessary and indispensable. I cannot dispute the question with them, I can only speak for myself; but I can say with absolute certainty that I do not need it, and that I cannot do it. And I do not need this and I cannot do it, not because such is my own, my personal will, but because such is the will of him who sent me into life, and gave me an indubitable law for my conduct through life." >Whatever arguments may be advanced in support of the contention that the suppression of government authority would be injurious and would lead to great calamities, men who have once outgrown the governmental form of society cannot go back to it again. And all the reasoning in the world cannot make the man who has outgrown the governmental form of society take part in actions disallowed by his conscience, any more than the full-grown bird can be made to return into the egg-shell. [. . .] >"If the power of government is suppressed the more wicked will oppress the less wicked," say the champions of state authority. But when the Egyptians conquered the Jews, the Romans conquered the Greeks, and the Barbarians conquered the Romans, is it possible that all the conquerors were always better than those they conquered? And the same with the transitions of power within a state from one personage to another: has the power always passed from a worse person to a better one? When Louis XVI. was removed and Robespierre came to power, and afterward Napoleon -- who ruled then, a better man or a worse? And when were better men in power, when the Versaillist party or when the Commune was in power? When Charles I. was ruler, or when Cromwell? And when Peter III. was Tzar, or when he was killed and Catherine was Tzaritsa in one-half of Russia and Pougachef ruled the other? Which was bad then, and which was good? All men who happen to be in authority assert that their authority is necessary to keep the bad from oppressing the good, assuming that they themselves are the good PAR EXCELLENCE, who protect other good people from the bad. >But ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him to whom force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses the force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing to others what we would we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing wrong. >To submit means to prefer suffering to using force. And to prefer suffering to using force means to be good, or at least less wicked than those who do unto others what they would not like themselves. >And therefore, in all probability, not the better but the worse have always ruled and are ruling now. There may be bad men among those who are ruled, but it cannot be that those who are better have generally ruled those who are worse. >It might be possible to suppose this with the inexact heathen definition of good; but with the clear Christian definition of good and evil, it is impossible to imagine it. >If the more or less good, and the more or less bad cannot be distinguished in the heathen world, the Christian conception of good and evil has so clearly defined the characteristics of the good and the wicked, that it is impossible to confound them. According to Christ's teaching the good are those who are meek and long-suffering, do not resist evil by force, forgive injuries, and love their enemies; those are wicked who exalt themselves, oppress, strive, and use force. Therefore by Christ's teaching there can be no doubt whether the good are to be found among rulers or ruled, and whether the wicked are among the ruled or the rulers. Indeed it is absurd even to speak of Christians ruling. >Non-Christians, that is those who find the aim of their lives in earthly happiness, must always rule Christians, the aim of whose lives is the renunciation of such earthly happiness. >This difference has always existed and has become more and more defined as the Christian religion has been more widely diffused and more correctly understood. >The more widely true Christianity was diffused and the more it penetrated men's conscience, the more impossible it was for Christians to be rulers, and the easier it became for non- Christians to rule them. >"To get rid of governmental violence in a society in which all are not true Christians, will only result in the wicked dominating the good and oppressing them with impunity," say the champions of the existing order of things. But it has never been, and cannot be otherwise. So it has always been from the beginning of the world, and so it is still. THE WICKED WILL ALWAYS DOMINATE THE GOOD, AND WILL ALWAYS OPPRESS THEM. [. . .] >So that whether governmental violence is suppressed or not, the position of good men, in being oppressed by the wicked, will be unchanged. >To terrify men with the prospect of the wicked dominating the good is impossible, for that is just what has always been, and is now, and cannot but be. >The whole history of pagan times is nothing but a recital of the incidents and means by which the more wicked gained possession of power over the less wicked, and retained it by cruelties and deceptions, ruling over the good under the pretense of guarding the right and protecting the good from the wicked. All the revolutions in history are only examples of the more wicked seizing power and oppressing the good. In declaring that if their authority did not exist the more wicked would oppress the good, the ruling authorities only show their disinclination to let other oppressors come to power who would like to snatch it from them. >But in asserting this they only accuse themselves, say that their power, i. e., violence, is needed to defend men from other possible oppressors in the present or the future >The weakness of the use of violence lies in the fact that all the arguments brought forward by oppressors in their own defense can with even better reason be advanced against them. They plead the danger of violence -- most often imagined in the future -- but they are all the while continuing to practice actual violence themselves. "You say that men used to pillage and murder in the past, and that you are afraid that they will pillage and murder one another if your power were no more. That may happen -- or it may not happen. But the fact that you ruin thousands of men in prisons, fortresses, galleys, and exile, break up millions of families and ruin millions of men, physically as well as morally, in the army, that fact is not an imaginary but a real act of violence, which, according to your own argument, one ought to oppose by violence. And so you are yourselves these wicked men against whom, according to your own argument, it is absolutely necessary to use violence," the oppressed are sure to say to their oppressors. And non-Christian men always do say, and think and act on this reasoning. If the oppressed are more wicked than their oppressors, they attack them and try to overthrow them; and in favorable circumstances they succeed in overthrowing them, or what is more common, they rise into the ranks of the oppressors and assist in their acts of violence. >So that the very violence which the champions of government hold up as a terror -- pretending that except for its oppressive power the wicked would oppress the good -- has really always existed and will exist in human society. And therefore the suppression of state violence cannot in any case be the cause of increased oppression of the good by the wicked. >If state violence ceased, there would be acts of violence perhaps on the part of different people, other than those who had done deeds of violence before. But the total amount of violence could not in any case be increased by the mere fact of power passing from one set of men to another. -Leo Tolstoy >>22080 The Christian structure is a voluntary one and always has been. You simply misunderstand the machinations of men who lust for power in nominally Christian nations as being the heads of Christianity rather than one fornicating in his own power. If you believe that Christianity must be brought about at gunpoint and with cages then you believe in the opposite of Christ's teachings. If you believe only because you are at the tip of the sword or believe you brought Christianity at the tip of a sword, you were never a Christian in the first place and you have converted nobody; you've only made a mockery of the faith. Jesus preached Christianity in spite of being at odds with the law as did his flock.

>>22080 There is a whole youtube channel dedicated to understanding Christain Anarchist https://www.youtube.com/@RadicalReformationChristianity/videos >>22087 >Tolstoy >'''"The dogma that all the governments of the world are approvingly ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will, is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of our existence unequal and tyrannical'''. It cannot be affirmed that the powers that be in any nation are actuated by the spirit or guided by the example of Christ in the treatment of enemies; therefore they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and therefore their overthrow by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects is inevitable. I started reading The Kingdom of God is Within You and he proudly goes against scripture, he completely compromises the Christian part of a Christian Anarchist. I stopped reading after that.

>>22074 Nice greentext screencap you PWNED him!!

>>22092 You mean justifying something that is unjustifiable?

>>22092 >Posts a red flag left-anarchist channel >"Tolstoy isn't a Christian" You know I'm still working through his works but somehow I don't believe you. >>22098 Sometimes it's better to quote an expert on a subject than to try and explain it in simple words that will be dismissed or taken out-of-context.

>>22107 >redflag He's not a communist if that's what you mean. If Tolstoy is a Christian then why does he go against Scripture?

I'm not le based tradcath, I just had bad experiences with people of other denominations.

>>24877 Same, i've dealt with and learned about a lot of awful misinformation that Muslims do against Christianity, if i had the same dealing with pagans, Hindu and others i'd be more extreme in my views, despite knowing that they're all of Satan.

I think my values were skewed by opposition to state religion in general and persuasion/mockery over legal persecution. The one about Jews deserving everything bad that happened to them over the past X years would get a much stronger answer if it was limited to ~1990 years. >the cow is a sacred animal How should this be answered to reflect a view of "All life, including animals, created by God is sacred, but man has dominion over animals and the cow is only more special than other mammals in the sense that it provides useful goods."?

>>24950 Considering the question is clearly being asked in a pagan idolatrous sense, the answer depends on your view of the worship of animals.

heres mine friends

>>25546 Didn't know there were fellow Orthos here. If you got all those 100% on the first go I am jealous. Picrel my vanilla version.