/christian/ - Christianity

Discussion of Christianity, the Church, and theology

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Board Owners: Hourly thread limits and Early 404 help protect your boards against erasure under slide attacks. Enable them today.

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

QTDDTOT Anonymous 03/28/2022 (Mon) 15:32:23 No.6836
Questions that don't deserve their own thread. You know the drill. Questions that deserve their own thread go in their own threads. Questions that don't go here.
Edited last time by christianjanny on 08/19/2023 (Sat) 00:29:13.
>>25541 Thank you for being so clear, brother. I never felt comfortable to talk to anyone at my church about it. Just as you read this you may think this is larp or anything. No matter, your words have already been very helpful. The issue is that I and my wife suffer with endless demonic attacks both awake and asleep, both home and at the church. These things taunt and laugh at us when we pray. When I pray even harder they tell me that they will come back, that they are patient, that they are eternal. May Jesus have mercy upon all of us, so that these attacks can, if anything, make us repent and avert sin. >The assault here is usually more external, like manipulating more heavily demonized people around the target to bully them, bringing material misfortunes, just making little things turn against the person to challenge their faith. I know our love for Jesus separates us from gentiles, or Hell's chattel, and shapes us into workers of the kingdom. This grace, most unfortunately, also makes us preferential targets for the Prowler. Watch and stay strong, brothers.
Anyone else listening to The Exorcist Files podcast?
If Jesus passed down healing powers to His apostles, why did healing miracles stop happening? Shouldn't it have been passed down through apostolic succession?
>>25566 They have been passed down. Why do you assume that they haven't been? The lives of the Saints show us that very clearly over the years. Granted there are denominations, predominantly reformed Protestants, that do not hold the continuation of miracles and take a cessationist stance.
>>25567 ...but why are there no regular healings then?
>>25568 There are still miraculous healings at shrines, from saints, from holy relics etc. Nothing stopped.
>>25573 Ever think you might be in your own little bubble within the greater Christian world? If miracles are unknown in your area try getting out a bit, or maybe reevaluate your denomination.
>>25541 >favour britbong detected How are you not blackpilled by where you live? God's given me the experience of a coomer tugging my rope and not the experience of a marriage to trad wife. I don't understand. The notion of demons too to me is ridiculous. They are an illustrative thought device to me. I'll take what you're saying for sure, but the only physically manifest goblins I expect to be running around are Bill Gates and company. There are other questions not answered too, for example if you've the power of a God you can declare leprosy gone, null and void, rather than just healing only the ten in front of you. Fathom the thought of having the ability, and then choosing not to do that. The only explanation I have is that those men required the experience of leprosy, all of them, until 20th century medicine required of them something else instead. It's not pleasant and so as far I know not answered. I wish it was. I wish it was because if it were you'd have more believers. The words of every prophet are easily dismissed out of hand without answers to these things.
>>25575 Same goes for you too and the miracles angle. Why is the miracle near always some benign shit like turning blood back into liquid in a vial? The Children's hospices look full up. Was the purpose of every miracle from wine turning to water strolling not to instigate genuine belief? And if that's your doctrine, consider that God's banging the anvil in terms of intervention in our world was a lot more obvious 2000 years ago than now. What's your explanation for that if you hold onto that doctrinally?
>>25577 oh I figure this could be Canadian/Australian but the point still survives
>>25579 Nothing you said invalidates that miracles continue to happen. All you said is basically summarized as "I reject miracles unless they happen on my own terms."
https://www.gotquestions.org/sexually-allowed.html >1. Sex is to be God-honoring — Our bodies are meant to glorify the Lord, not to be controlled by our passions and not to be used for sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:12–13). “Therefore honor God with your bodies” (1 Corinthians 6:20). >3. Sex is to be loving and other-oriented — First Corinthians 7:3–4 instructs, “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” Each spouse lovingly yields his or her body to the other. What is the point of marital sex if i can only have vanilla sex? If my wife consents could i hit her a little bit? I swear, you either get fucked with unclean spirits masturbating by yourself to disturbing porn or you get fucked by your cunt of a wife who will inevitably divorce you and you only get to have boring vanilla sex with her. Why does everything have to have some horrible catch to it making it pointless?
>>25585 Neither of those rule out non-vanilla sex. For Catholics anything beyond vanilla is forbidden, but protestants give more leeway to it. you could even argue that oral sex is described in the Song of Solomon as the two confess their love for each other. >or you get fucked by your cunt of a wife who will inevitably divorce you if that's how you view women/marriage maybe you should just join a monastery.
>>25586 >if that's how you view women/marriage maybe you should just join a monastery. I don't understand how you not be defeatist at the state of women and marriage? Either you're ignorant of how bad it is, or you think God will give you a good marriage (that is probably impossible without effecting the freewill of the wife). God also lets bad things happen. There are too many awful things about this world, and i thought discovering God would give me a more positive view of all that is bad.
Open file (338.43 KB 598x328 Satanist.png)
How do the Elite get away with such extreme sins (like black magic, sacrifice and debauchery) and not die from the wrath of God?
>>25588 >and not die from the wrath of God? But they will die from God's wrath, if they don't repent, Anon. > 19 Do not fret over evildoers, > and do not be envious of the wicked. > 20 For the evil man has no future; > the lamp of the wicked will be extinguished. https://biblehub.com/bsb/proverbs/24.htm
>>25587 >I don't understand how you not be defeatist at the state of women and marriage? Because I don't center my life around how successful I am with women, I center it around Christ or try to at least. Stop focusing on how much everything sucks, look around you and see what you're capable of fixing. Pray to God for guidance and support. I can pray for you as well if you'd like. >Either you're ignorant of how bad it is, or you think God will give you a good marriage (that is probably impossible without effecting the freewill of the wife). Ignorant, no. Understanding of what I can and can't fix, yes. I actually dated a Christian woman a while back, there are quite a few where I am. Maybe you just live in a bad area. Women in the countryside are more conservative than those in an urban setting. There's also no such thing as the perfect woman, nobody is perfect except Christ. You will have to make sacrifices, whether that be in how she looks, how she acts, or what sins she's committed in the past. And yes, that does mean what you think it does. How much you're willing to sacrifice is up to you. Essentially, do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? >God also lets bad things happen Free will. >There are too many awful things about this world, and i thought discovering God would give me a more positive view of all that is bad. Why did you think following Christ would suddenly make bad things better? Evil is evil, and good is good. Love what is good, hate what is evil. Find solace in Christ and His teachings. >>25588 >How do the Elite get away with such extreme sins (like black magic, sacrifice and debauchery) and not die from the wrath of God? They will get their punishment in the next life. Often their punishment does come from God (see Epstein choking and suffering in his cell before his "suicide").
>>25584 Is it not thee sole number one purpose for that of all miracles, to better affirm belief amongst those who witness them? Meaning that if your miracles do not cause the affirmation of belief, then a miracle it isn't. Which is why the scale of the miracle is of any importance, because if it can be interpreted as parlor trickery or happenstance rather than God's intervention then (even if the latter is genuinely the case) the miracle will have worked less effectively to affirm belief within those witness to it than that of a grander, more dry cut or less likely miracle. Your argument at that point is what exactly? Your father works in mysterious ways? Does not want the additional belief in him? Those seeing it as something else were ignorant/possessed? The reason why I expect answers and good ones at that are because the questions will be previously brought up before and brought up many times after this time as well. My doctrine is that of God signing a covenant with us, when souls of ours asked and indeed specifically requested to be kicked out of Eden so that we shall experience sin without his interference and without his loving hand over us, so that we should understand the nature of love by being allowed to experience free will and allowed to appreciate frame of reference. I'm not trying to dent or tarnish your faith in God. I'm not sure at all that I'm correct, scriptually. But I believe these certain things I believe because they are consistent to the degree that I can begin to make some sense of my reality. Sorry if it's long-winded and there's no TL;DR summary. It's what I do or don't believe along with why I believe it.
>>25585 Because too much of a good thing leads to worship of a created object and not toward gratitude for having made an object. Sex with your wife is a good thing, but to make it your whole life's purpose... What's normal to be done by a bull or a ram is strangeness when done by a man. >>25587 I know it anon, I'm a pessimist through and through. But look at it. The devil hasn't had such a grip over us for centuries yet look how ridiculous he looks. They have all the resources, all the bartering and the brute force and the money but every step they make you take, you're planting your feet and refusing a bunch of times. They tried the Budweiser thing. Everything blew up. Bill Gates bought 100 million in stock so you wouldn't see quite how much of their hand is hollow and empty. They're treating it as "Insert Credit & Continue" moment for their ESG but people have started noticing. They're in on trying to cancel Russell Brand. Bunch of sheep, even normie social tick-box members are beginning to go "Baaaahh. Nope..." You may hold the view that feminism will only die when something bigger and badder, like islamism, comes along and kills it, but what if anon you and your cock are the bigger and badder thing whose steering is relevant to where we're gonna be headed? I trust you more and believe in you more so long as you're a friend of Christ. >>25588 We weren't kicked out of Eden by righteously angry God. We asked to go. The story we needed to be told because the twelve tribes were originally brutes capable of surviving the desert whose only understanding was the whip. I don't know if any denomination agrees with me but that's my view. Now that we're here, we have an experience largely devoid of God's intervention. The reason we're here is still our stupidness and naivety. But I'm not particularly gonna stay mad at God for why I'm here or for why things are the way they are, if it's because I think part of me or my ancestry asked. So that when I leave I'll have juxtaposed reference for what life and love really are. I get sad a lot, sure, but am also grateful a lot as well. When I shake my fist at God I know exactly who's at fault in that dynamic. It's an experience of life I'm going to have had where I'll have a ton of questions but in the end can't do anything other than bow to how I was handed more than can be given back.
>>25592 >We weren't kicked out of Eden by righteously angry God. We asked to go. I can see where you're coming from, that we "chose" to defy God, but no. Adam and Eve were given a choice, they were warned of the consequences, and they chose to go against God anyways. They chose to defy God, but they didn't choose to leave paradise. They thought they could have both.
Is it a sin to look at women's cleavage and not want to have sex with it, just admire it?
>>25595 Admire it how? I don't really see how you can stare at it and not have lustful thoughts. One can appreciate the human body and its design, but staring at women's breasts while in line at the checkout is not a good place to do it. It's best to avoid looking at them at all, and to just blank your mind out if you have to for some odd reason.
>>25596 >Admire it how? Like maybe they're just pleasant to have. Or it would be cute if they could feed a any baby, i don't know. >One can appreciate the human body and its design, How so? give me an example?
Open file (21.15 KB 699x200 Untitled.png)
>>25593 The premise required for this is that God told man never to become self-aware knowing he would opt for self-awareness sooner or later possibly just to try it out, and then responding punitively for that, including toward his offspring who had not chose and begin in suffering below the age of culpability. Further if God needs to test man, rather than man test himself, why are souls too faulty to be mendable a) made and sent to Earth, and b) not visibly obvious from the get go to the all-knowing, functionally ending trial by experience?
>>25597 >Like maybe they're just pleasant to have. Most women find them annoying. And autogynephilia is a mental illness. >Or it would be cute if they could feed a any baby, i don't know. I think you should take a break from the internet, read the Bible more, and stop focusing on women so much. It's clearly messing with your head. >How so? give me an example? Any kind of artwork where the nude body is prominent but not in a sexual way, such as Michelangelo's David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. >>25598 AI is programmed primarily by agnostics and atheists and is thus insufficient for providing religious arguments beyond generic responses or reasoning.
>>25600 >Most women find them annoying. And autogynephilia is a mental illness. I mean they're pleasant to have around in art not on my own body, i'm not a tranny. >I think you should take a break from the internet, read the Bible more, and stop focusing on women so much. It's clearly messing with your head. I was just delivered from unclean spirits that compulsively caused me to masturbate to porn, and now i don't go to porn sites or play porn games. I just donwload sexless video games, go to this board for Christianity questions, and i study the Bible 6 times a week. I'm trying to figure out what will and won't bring in unclean spirits that will cause me to do evil. Porn is everywhere, even on non-porn sites, is it still a sin even if i don't look at it? What if it's just an attractive woman in an ad with nothing to do with sex, is it still a sin?
>>25602 >is it still a sin even if i don't look at it? What if it's just an attractive woman in an ad with nothing to do with sex, is it still a sin? Do you believe you are capable of doing so without falling into lust? Or is it the demons you're facing trying to find ways to wedge themselves back into your mind?
>>25603 I don't lust at all during it. The other day i was falling asleep and there was this pornographic image in my mind's eye when i was waking up. The Bible says "For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want." so does this mean i'm walking in the spirit? or am i still in the flesh or is the unclean spirit not part of the flesh? Because i've repented of lust and pornography and haven't watched it.
>>25577 >How are you not blackpilled by where you live? Hello. I'm not sure how to answer your posts without being glib, but I'll try. Simply I'm not blackpilled because I have faith. To be specific, I'm pretty content that we're in Revelations and have been allowed to hear the specifics of such from (legitimate--they're still around!) prophets. There isn't anything unfolding on the grand scheme that is really surprising me. I don't have a great impulse to try and stop and change anything because I know that's totally pointless; it's going to get worse and worse in specific ways until it gets beyond any level for a human to bear and then like a lightning flash it'll be stopped by Jesus. I genuinely believe this, so my chief concern is bolstering my faith and trying to help those (immediately) around me do the same, or at least be repented, or at least be comforted a little, or at least be braced, before the real mess hits. So presently I'm living in the spirit of Psalm 91: "A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.". That is the position I would be exceedingly happy to be in at these times, so that's what I'm praying for. >The notion of demons too to me is ridiculous. They are an illustrative thought device to me. You're in a bad spot. If you're doubting the existence of healing, demons, miracles, and other spiritual things (though I would logically follow you to ask, if you doubt these things, do you not also believe Jesus's literal resurrection and the miracles performed by biblical prophets etc?), despite getting testimony from people saying, "oh yeah, I've seen this stuff. I know it," then this here is topical scripture: >Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has this been with him?” >“From childhood,” he said. “It often throws him into the fire or into the water, trying to kill him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” >“If You can?” echoed Jesus. “All things are possible to him who believes!” >Immediately the boy’s father cried out, “I do believe; help my unbelief!” >When Jesus saw that a crowd had come running, He rebuked the unclean spirit. “You deaf and mute spirit,” He said, “I command you to come out and never enter him again.” God can do anything. The 'potential' of God, of itself, is literally limitless. What is modulating that 'potential', or power, when it comes to earthly actioning of it, firstly is God's will (His own interest in doing the thing) and the faith of the recipient. You are probably not seeing demons or miracles for what they are because you don't really want to see them, or have preconceived notions clashing against against their literal existence despite the Bible continuously asserting them and witnesses to them here on this board (faithlessness), and that faithlessness is being granted. If God wants to show you spiritual truths of the world, it's genuinely not going to happen if your greater interest is, 'this cannot happen,' 'this isn't good enough,' 'my way makes more sense', and if they are given to you they'll likely be given to gratify THAT. It's equally so with your example of leprosy. Scriptually, when Jesus heals lepers, blindness, and fevers, He often uses the same approach as when He dispels spirits; he tells the ailment to leave. There are some exceptions but this is usually the form. There are spirits with charge over certain ailments and depending on the human's behaviour or environment they can be summoned in (in physical terms you can consider exposure to bacteria); also, the process of sickness isn't really an additive but a subtractive thing, and to remove, say, leprosy as 'a concept' prrrrrobably involves demolishing a whole clade of spirits that belong to it, and God isn't going to do that because God still has affection for demons. To explain what I mean by this, obviously, God isn't stupid and knows that they're evil and hate him and want to hurt and destroy everything that He loves. This is why He restricts them and quarantines them in their own pockets of Hell. He still loves them though as part of His creation, knows what they are or 'could have been' had they not fell, and so at the bare minimum he lets them exist and participate to the absolute razor edge of what they can do because otherwise they would just be obliterated. (There is also a legal thing happening in the background to eventually remove any claim Satan can make to involve himself, while again, still letting him 'participate'). And will remove them from people who ask for God's help, listen to Him, accept Him, and don't go bumbling after them. He can also use evil things for the sanctification of the Good or just for his own purposes. But onto the basics of spiritual things like demons and miracles: you have to understand, life begins in the spirit, and is reflected in the physical. 'Real life' is in the spirit and originates in the spirit. The world we're in now is kind of like a big padded room to give God enjoyment and solidify through our words and actions whether our soul goes upward or down. Consider; in this physical world, of ourselves our soul is the only spiritual, and thus eternal, element; so it's fundamentally the only thing that 'matters', yet because we have a body and everyone around us has souls, everything we do or say even in the body has this eternal significance. Isn't that incredible? So outside of its impact upon yourself and others, whether it brings them nearer or further from God, nothing in this world 'really' matters because the eternal kingdoms of Heaven and false kingdom of Hell, where you wind up after, are everything good or evil in this world but of purer essence and greater fidelity without intermixing. If there's something good in this world to treasure there's INFINITELY more of it in Heaven. So you don't 'lose' anything by going to either, except Hell's case, which is when you desire things contrary to God more than God, are given them, and are then trapped in misery by your own affections for them because those things suck. (And you have demons actively screwing with you). In such an equation it's really important to understand who God is and what he's about. Fortunately He wrote a whole book about it. But to continue with your other posts: >Is it not thee sole number one purpose for that of all miracles, to better affirm belief amongst those who witness them? Meaning that if your miracles do not cause the affirmation of belief, then a miracle it isn't. You don't think they achieve that for the people they're meant for? Aren't you really asking in this question, 'why hasn't God done a miracle so spectacular that it convinces ME?' I warn you that you might get it and it might not be what you like. Hahah... Consider these passages: >When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate. Herod in this verse is doing the same thing I perceive you are; asking for signs as if they're a parlour trick, and mocking when they're not given. Or what does Jesus say about seeking for signs? >Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. >The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. Or in other terms, don't do it, because you won't get it and it will condemn you before the (repented) sinners who weren't given signs but believed. And how does God speak with Elijah, one of his most miraculously impressive prophets, and one of the only two people in history who didn't die? >And he said, “Go out and stand on the mount before the Lord.” And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” A whisper. God isn't Hollywood pyrotechnics. His miracles are Love, and they're holy, they're not cheap things to call down like you're training a dog with a clicker. You have to be working with Him. It's been studied scientifically that people who don't believe in supernatural phenomena are less likely to influence things through prayer, but the source I could give you on that is a book on magic (by a 'proper' scientist) which is its own nasty rabbit hole so I'm really inclined not to post it. I can if you really want it, but if that's what convicts you more than anything else, man... I'd appreciate it more if you had some faith in me. Speaking more on the 'mechanics' of miracles, let's look at some verses where Jesus heals and what He often says: >And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment. >He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. >And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” ... “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And immediately he rose up before them and picked up what he had been lying on and went home, glorifying God. >While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. >And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” >And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” And he looked around to see who had done it. >But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” >And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; 16and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.” Your faith has made you well. This is not a metaphor or an indistinct philosophical thing that has no practical relevance. It is Jesus literally describing how the miracle worked; through the faith of the receiving parties that Jesus had the power and inclination to do these things for them. And in contrast, look what happens when Jesus goes to Nazareth: >When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished. “Where did this man get these ideas?” they asked. “What is this wisdom He has been given? And how can He perform such miracles? Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t His sisters here with us as well?” And they took offense at Him. >Then Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household is a prophet without honor.” So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them. And He was amazed at their unbelief. Nazareth is where He was raised. The people here have preconceived notions about who He is, and thus are affronted to see Him teaching scripture because it conflicts with their image of him as a regular village-boy. And accordingly... >So He could not perform any miracles there >could not Could not. The Nazarites had zero faith to receive any blessings from Jesus. Which isn't to say that Jesus lacks power to do things; He does, but the Nazarites don't want to receive it, so they don't. Jesus is so astounded by their attachment to the images of him they have (lack of faith) that he leaves. Trying to service them would be like trying to fit an ocean into a thimble. The recipient's belief, or unbelief, is what dictates the size of the thimble. Miracles and prayer done through humankind are a collaborative process; the recipient must be in sync with God and step one of that is to believe he can do whatever you're praying for. Step two, or really step zero, is understanding God enough to figure 'what kind' of prayer or miracle He'd be willing to fulfil with you, and the basis of that is really how much you love God, because: >“Because he loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name. > He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him. > With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation.” So to continue... >My doctrine is that of There is no 'my doctrine'. There's only the rules God writ into creation a billion years ago, and accounts of things that were actually said or actually happened. That is to say, there is literally only objective truth, which is given to you through the Scriptures. Anything the scripture says takes primacy over anything you infer or assert in the cases where there is a conflict or contradiction. The scripture asserts a billion times that demons are real, miracles happen, and spirit is relevant. Rather, that spirit is central. Being able to read the scripture with this kind of credulous heart, is in itself a work of faith. Which leads me to wonder by some of the things you've said whether you've read the Bible. While taking notes, cover to cover. I get the impression you haven't; your philosophy conflicts and is reminiscent of things I've heard from freemasons and gnostics, that would only be claimed as a result of not realising there were contradictions or not taking those contradictions seriously. Remember that as a man seeking for the mysteries of God, your position is this: >It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings is to search out a matter. Even understanding the mysteries of scripture is something collaborative; you're given the hints to the logic puzzle, now it's for you to seek it out, ask for help, or simply accept 'I trust you but I don't get it' when you hit stumbling points. God loves his creation and likes to be involved with it. He genuinely will reveal these kinds of things to you, if you're willing to rethink and receive it, King.
>>25607 Sorry for the spoiler boxes I didn't realise they would format like that. But perhaps that makes the reveal more surprising.
>>25599 Also since I might as well follow up >The premise required for this is that God told man never to become self-aware Man was self aware. What man wasn't yet was evil. Consider that Adam in the garden has an actual, legitimate, as close as you could get relationship with God; they hang out together, do things together, they should know eachother. From that, one of the things that Adam should know is that God always tells the truth. Have you never had a friend who you told the truth to about something, but they were absolutely convinced you were lying and just wouldn't listen to you? Or just didn't believe you? Doesn't that hurt? It was like that. There is absolutely nothing Adam (or Eve in this case) has known or experienced that should lead her to believe the serpent's claim ('You won't die; you'll be like gods!') over God's claim ('You'll die'). That's the sin. So that was a willing choice by humanity to take Satan's authority over God's. On the conceit of desiring godhood for themselves. That was in man's heart. And that's how Satan got in. (As for; 'why the fruit of knowledge?'. It's because that opens up humanity to justify bad things for good ends, essentially. It opens humanity to start cavorting with sins and perform by lies and hypocrisy, when formerly they could ask/trust God with things and have assurance they would get it, or that if they didn't get it there would be a good reason for it.)
>>25607 >>25608 >>25609 Anon I can't match your longpost for quality. I don't know what to say in light of most of it. I can pour out the context or history for my arriving here, but your interest in my diagnosis is not necessarily agiven. The best I'm going to try for now is to list off a few specific points and try do it succinctly stemming from my initial read of it all. For one thing, these things you say are perceivably demons within a man, or are that of things contrary to scripture... I don't think I would have belief without them. You may have an explanation for such a thing, but I haven't got one. In the fruit of knowlege example, the result is both collective and inherited punishment. I could not have rationalised my way around that or around any literal interpretation of the old testament, without having an alternative view of what occurred. It was essential for me having arrived here. Especially when the explanations given do not address the problem I had with them directly. It leads to accusations I have made (sometimes, correctly) of Christianity having a high evade stat, since it's based on judaic principles. Another way of putting that, politely, is that I don't think you've addressed how collective and inherited punishment is not a problem for they who pursue belief initially. Weak teaching on this puts a lot off, and that's assuming CofE schools still even engage the attempt. The point about not reading the Bible or going through it is bang on I've not done any. The stage I believed I was at was seeing whether I could get any of the things that I *had* learned to affect material reality in any way first, and I was going to study Methodism or Moravianism to that end. I doubt faith's extent if I've not once even found a way to manifest it in my life. It's funny you should mention Gnosticism and freemasonry though. My entry point for the religion was, during a stage of oxytocin addiction and extreme grief, the arrival at a concept of God being blind kindness or the kindness in man. Effectively, God being manifest in anything for that matter with a fourth layer of the brain (don't eat the dolphins). This coincided by happenstance with my reading about Emmanuel Swedenborg whose main concepts bore close resemblances. His church history had at one time immense popularity with freemasonry NWO types who were latching onto anything that looked like it could revolutionarily reshape society at the time. They jumped off it soon after I've assumed because they realised a church demanding both faith in the old God and increasingly grandiose acts of charity wasn't going to be immensely profitable. It stuck around with the fishing ports until they closed - the men there abandoning them for the piety of their founder having long been lost. I now observe the Quaker school with "kindness" more broadly expanded to the essence of virtue as a whole. You can understand why angry vengeful God doesn't quite fit the dynamic of where I came from. The Quakers too are due their own reckoning and destruction but the plain Quaker variety survive hiding on a bleak windswept hill somewhere. I've never met them or gone to meetings. But I arrived at here from nothing so I can't complain.
>>25615 >your interest in my diagnosis is not necessarily agiven ?? Was I talking much about you in terms of a diagnosis? You asked me a question, I answered it, and then felt the need to respond to other things you were saying because in the terms of this faith, they were simply wrong. You're saying effectively, 'I need things to be how I want them to be/understand them to be, or else I can't believe them,' but this entire frame of mind is the wrong one to have. Rather, since you haven't read the Bible -- you don't even know how things are. You're making guesses from second-hand sources and then telling others who have read the foundational text of their religion, and moreover, can testify to the reality of phenomena within it that you find farfetched, that in essence God isn't performing well enough for you. But as I've said, it's a collaborative thing; you need to also do things that please God if you want to expect to Him to do much for you. You could probably begin by reading His book. Authors appreciate when you do that. But moreover, the frame of mind you need to have is, 'what is actually true?'. There isn't more to elaborate there; you genuinely need to shift to this. >Christianity having a high evade stat, since it's based on judaic principles. The Synagogue of Satan Judaic Babylonian Captivity Hell Religion practised by the descendants of those ones who said, "His blood be upon us and our children!" is not the one following the principles of the King who said, "The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet."". The Judaic Hell Religion came afterwards as a 'whoopsie' moment in realising they killed their Messiah and not repenting of it; the rest became Christians. >Swedenborg I'm familiar with Swedenborg and have read him too. For that, if you're someone who believes in what Swedenborg wrote, it's a little affronting to hear it put as 'concepts' as though he were coming up with it himself like some two-bit philosopher; which is never the claim he made as to how he wrote on the things he did. The claim he made is that he was divinely inspired by Jesus, who came to him and gave him charge to write about the spiritual world. There is no compromise in that statement. You either believe that claim, and accordingly what he wrote, or you don't. >They jumped off it I would posit the alternate possibility that they veered away from it because it was true. I went the opposite direction as you; I knew freemasonry first and then found Swedenborg and was disgusted to recognize how the freemasons had altered it. I'm curious what you read of Swedenborg also because to me stumbling on him was a jackpot of 'oh wait, THIS REALLY MAKES SENSE' and sent me rushing to the Bible.
>>25616 >the your interest in my diagnosis is not necessarily agiven point I think you are actually. I think it's because of where I sit in this half-way house, that you try to drag the stubborn mule to truth. If I were a Pharisee you'd leave the hypocricy to spell out it's own rebuttal and just say "nvm him he looks stupid". >Read the bloody book You know what's going to happen when I do. I'll insist on the classic KJB version for a start, and then I'll get bogged down by how Jonah begat Ishmael and so fourth, and then your point about how my specific questions were already answered by the prophets beforehand is not going to stand to inquiry. That's why Swedenborg stuck in my mind, becaue his compulsion was to answer questions that bothered him because, he, like I'm doing, took issue with the concepts not broaching things which seemed significant. You understand don't you, in the case of a leper for example, in saying that "you do not have faith so I'll leave the blight on you" it does not come across as all-loving even from the most hardheaded of 'paternal - do better' angles? Christianity never directly addresses the point, nor levels the big philosophical guns on the point directly. You just get told "well God works in crazy spooky ways". You lose potential believers on this. Every day. I'll give you another one, of the man blind from birth. When asked, Jesus says it is (paraphrasing here) "nobody's fault". Why was he blind then, Jesus? It's kind of important to my reality here. But he doesn't directly answer that. The closest his answer comes to being direct is "just as he was blind, so too were you had you not seen Christ". Yes Jesus we all believe in you but if his affliction was not for stunted faith, why's he always had it? If I can't have that then a grandiose performance or an act will do the trick, but I'd rather have these things spelled out that are significant to our lives. >Moreover the frame of mind you need to have is, 'what is actually true?'. There isn't more to elaborate there; you genuinely need to shift to this. Every conviction of mine has to withstand means testing. I'm at the point of blustering again but the point is I've made the concepts around me square up with my reality. If I adopted a literalist view of an angry and vengeful and spiteful God whose wrath is collectivist and inherited then it would break a bunch of points about reality (such as when evil thrives and the wraths of old don't visit), and in-build contradictions within it's own concept (that God is more loving, and therefore less hating, than that of man). That you complain I've warped it out of shape to make it fit is rich, when for the shape you have it in, millions of people refuse to even pick it up and for you to pass it down, you'll need your apprentices to have the 150 IQ you've got just to make sense of what it was you had. >On Swedenborg and his being a prophet If you hold the view that Swedenborg's mouth was effectively that of God's for all of the time he was hallucinating, then you must hold the view, amongst other things, that sub-Saharan Africans are the most humble and pious peoples on the planet. Or the literalist view that there are homes and libraries and grand structures in heaven, in an environment that has zero use for materialist anything. He's a good preacher. God could have spoken to him. But it raises the point further whether you would even need a prophet to come after Christ. >How we got here in the first place I've come from an absolute & assuredly Godlessness, hated my experience, no one who cares would subject me to that. To where I am because Swedenborg said yes, you could have the scientific method and you could have faith in something more than existence - you could have both. I'd be interested to know how you think the freemasons may have altered it, from what I understood they were pretty much there at the start of it all. I didn't go rushing to the Bible per say any more than I went rushing to the Swedenborg Institute or the Quaker Institute. Maybe it's because I'm still half-hearted about it and ashamed. But I could make myself more studious than a professor and still be lacking what a desert dwelling shepherd has. I got here with the minimal of books and mostly a smell on the wind and my faith bolstering is done by means test or trial by scrutiny. 12 paragraphs lad, thanks for the pending rebuttals
>>25617 Also I just noticed the idea that some demons of mine still somehow brought me to God without which I wouldn't have had it, and that your explanation for how that happens is pretty wanting since, being demons you would think it clumsy at best to do that... I'm just saying that never got explained or directly addressed either. Best you can seemingly pitch their fine work as is another "oops" moment.
Open file (213.75 KB 540x540 media_F6-WDyGbwAEuz9f.png)
>>25477 Probably for a good number of reasons: >taboo >easily merges with fetishism of uniforms >many people can't imagine giving up sex so they assume that celibate individuals must be repressed/libidinous >contempt for the faith In the case of Japanese hentai, I imagine that it's mostly a weird costume fetish rather than a specific desire to defame religious women, as it would be in the West.
>>25617 I don't know why you think I'm debating. I'm trying to tell you, 'elephants are big.' And I feel like you're responding to the effect of, 'oh yeah? How can you convince me that elephants are big? Did you know about skyscrapers? Where's your thesis on elephants? I'm a loony-toony, abroopy doopy doopy. Don't you realise if you just say, 'elephants are big', people won't believe you? If elephants are big why do they have wings? I'm so glad I became a zoologist so I could debate with you all here about those five-legged, four-winged, pink-polka dotted trunkless creatures, elephants!' And I'm telling you to look at the elephant. And then you go, 'I don't wanna look at an elephant!' I'm just going to keep telling you to look at the elephant. If you're going to worship a person. You should know who they are and what they've said. And if you're going to contribute to a discussion. You should have an idea of what those beliefs you're discussing even are. The headache is that I have the impression you're going to keep posting 'your doctrine' in contradiction to scripture and give advice contrary to scripture all over the board anyway, then do what you've done here and make it as though the person correcting you is culpable of guilt for separating you from your conception of God by telling you to read the scriptures of the religion you profess. It means your 'conception of God' is just false. Well, if you think God is just human 'kindness,' and especially 'kindness that needs to adhere to my understanding of what kindness is and serve my ideas of what'd be good more than God's' then yes, that conception is false. If you genuinely want answers to any question, you can not learn those answers if you think the axioms you hold that are leading you to have the questions are already right. It's rather that your axioms are wrong. and that you didn't read Swedenborg very well since you shouldn't have these questions if you read him. (And yes he's legitimately right about the points you're mocking him for). You can not have humility before the Word if you dismiss heavenly things as, 'they're just high,' or see someone recount interactions with an angel and go 'that guy was on drugs', or going 'if I was in that position, I'd hate Christ!' when referring to people actually in that position such as the blind man who love him and are grateful, or contrarily going 'Christ you're not being loving enough!' (though there isn't actually any specific case of Christ not healing a leper; you made that up) for not performing miracles before people who hate him, are mocking him, or don't want the miracle as much as they want to hold onto their existing notion of him and so are unwilling to receive it. (Because as well as always telling the truth, God also loves and respects free will). Even though He actually does! He performs the biggest miracle that ever happened, before everybody. And guess what? People still don't believe it! For even a hypothetical moment, consider reading the scripture with the mindset of, it's not being misleading or deceptive or allegorical and rather that IT WAS ACTUALLY ANGELS. And then YES, it does make sense. The world in general does really. Moreover it's the thing that you're treating this as a philosophy, not a religion. If Christ has done something good for you, why don't you believe what He says and want Him more? If you think what He says has value, why are you not going to the source of where He said it? Do you think Christ literally raised from the dead, or not?
I appreciate the attempt to illustrate what you're getting at with allegory because it's an attempt to reach out but my issue with the elephant is not that it looks preposterous, but that the stakes and the proof required for accepting it involve the very lens by which I view everything else that crops up in reality. It does not fit awkwardly or otherwise in any of those confines. That's why you get people not seeing an elephant at all, much less recognising how big one is. I understand, again, you telling me to look closer at this blurry thing vaguely at the edge of my field of view but I've only just grasped being able to get to this point. Looking at it or into it isn't obvious as you suggest either. I'm going to look in there at fractal patterns no one in the country (except people as rare as you) has grasped in nearly a century and I'm going to have questions which you won't answer because you can't, and which JC left on the shelf because he didn't consider them important to the audience he had with him at the time. And I argue with you, you stand-in of wise counsel, because your Dad's treating me as a mute or as not good enough.
>>25621 And before you say it yeah I know it's because it's true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtaHvdYlBE not a question but please pray for him
How do you protect yourself against curses online? I didn't care about it until i was delivered and God announced that i was getting delivered from curses of getting called stupid online.
>>25642 And by curses i mean simply getting called a retard over and over again.
>>25642 >>25643 Luke 6:28
>>25644 How does blessing people protect me from their curses?
>>25645 Spiritually and psychologically.
>>25646 Elaborate? Is there scripture or some authoritative voice that confirms this? I know you posted Luke 6:28 but that doesn't confirms the spiritual or psychological benefits, it could just be a good thing to do, without necessarily protecting you spiritually or psychologically.
Just to be sure, lust is when you have a sexual desire for something, right? But what if you just think "wow, she is beautiful" and you have zero sexual desire to do anything, is that still lustful or lust of the eyes?
Speaking of rude language, I was wondering how to determine what sort of language is sinful. Blasphemy is obviously wrong, that much is clear, but when it comes to using foul language what we would call swearing now days things become less clear. As I'm sure you're aware, what is and isn't a swear word changes depending on time and location. Is it a matter of intent rather than the specific words themselves, such that a sentence containing swear words may be less sinful than one without if the later were crueller or more foul? In Galatians 5:12, Paul says the following: >As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Is this kind of language fine, or was Paul sinning here? >>25649 >If you just think "wow, she is beautiful" and you have zero sexual desire to do anything, I would say that's not lust, IF you feel no sexual desire, however in such a situation you might have more sexual desire for said woman than you think. It may also be an opportunity for temperature to enter your mind, so you might start lusting for her. I'm not an expert on this matter though.
>>25648 >but that doesn't confirms the spiritual or psychological benefits If you read that passage to its conclusion, you will see that it bestows the greatest spiritual benefit you can obtain, being sons of the Most High, Luke 6:35. For psychological benefits, when you are bestowing blessings and treating people with kindness, it generally puts you in a positive and uplifted mood. Even more so when you are doing what Christ asks of us. >>25650 >Speaking of rude language, I was wondering how to determine what sort of language is sinful >Is it a matter of intent rather than the specific words themselves I would say it is more a matter of intent than the specific words. However, we often colloquially refer to this type of language as "curse" words or "swearing." You can imagine the origin of those words used to define what constitutes vulgar language. If something is vulgar it isn't uplifting and doesn't draw us closer to God. >Is this kind of language fine, or was Paul sinning here? That kind of language I would say is fine because St. Paul was attempting to make a strong point, and he made his point without using vulgar language.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?