/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

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

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

Open file (1.83 MB 1280x960 Trashland.jpg)
QTDDTOT Anonymous 06/20/2020 (Sat) 19:53:11 No.85
Obviously people will have questions, so we should have answers for them. Can someone quickly summarize the main points of le Trashman's book on why God isn't real?
>>137 NKJV if you're not a brainlet > For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. NIV or ESV if you find olde english hard to read >For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. >For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. I have NLT and it's ok, but the language gets too dumbed down for me, but I like it since it's broken up into sections that get you through it in a year. >For this is how God loved the world: He gave[a] his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. But under no circumstances should you ever read The Message, it's borderline heresy in how it simplifies everything. >This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person’s failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him. I think I threw up a little reading that
>>141 Why NKJV? Why not the original KJV?
>>142 I think from what I remember it had a lot of translation issues, not sure though
Open file (756.78 KB 1200x600 untergangdesabendlandes.png)
Open file (121.03 KB 617x960 stages_of_red_pill.jpg)
>>106 Nietzsche loved the Jews, and you are repeating Jewish myths (son of a whore) about Jesus. >>91 Read Spengler. While annoyingly pseudo-metaphysical and often questionable in his claims, his basic structure of history should help you, though perhaps not if you're simply too ignorant; see the second image, though please do ignore the usage of the left-right dichotomy and "red pill" (the "real" "red pill" is thinking for yourself for once instead of following a group).
>>91 >>148 *That is, you read like stage 1.
>>148 >Nietzsche loved the Jews Confirmed for never reading Nietzsche. Imagine letting (((Kaufmann))) subvert your interpretation
>>150 Don't know who that is but Nietzsche criticized early Jews as slaves but loved the Jews' later success; he saw anti-Semitism as an attack from envious slave-moralists e.g. Christians.
I wish the BO would actually do his job.
>>148 I see what you mean by your comment on the second image, e.g. "radical right".
>>106 Why do you jerk off Hitler if you love Nietzsche? The guy fucking lost. He was weak to the "ZOG", to the "mutt" Americans and "subhuman" slavs. In a millennium educated people will look at your "saint" like they look at Hannibal Barca—a fucking footnote. Meanwhile I see more Christian iconography on European culture than Wotan. European art for the past millennium has been focused on a single Father and His Son, not a Pantheon of idols. But I guess Christianity isn't "European", in which case I would have to ask—what is? We see Aryans in Asia, and their cultures are so different, so surely there is more to Europe than simply blood?
Open file (13.67 KB 480x360 Orson.jpg)
Couple questions that have bothered me lately >Regarding ancient civilizations that were not in the ANE such as native Americans, Africans, Mongolians, etc., how could they have known about God? And if they didn't/couldn't know about Him, are they in heaven or hell? >Did Israelites before Jesus really have free will? Whenever they worshiped foreign gods, God would be quick to kick them in the dick by allowing them to be conquered by other peoples. Or is the idea of free will only present after Christ's sacrifice?
>>159 >And if they didn't/couldn't know about Him, are they in heaven or hell? Hellfire.
>>160 >this is the Christian idea of justice Don't Christians also believe that babies who die go to hell because they don't know about Jesus? Whack.
>>161 Not exactly, unbaptised babies go to limbo as they never committed sins. Limbo being part of hell was something Dante depicted, but to my knowledge they're separate. It is a sad lot but hardly hellfire. Also to earlier first post, there's a lot of conflicting beliefs as to what happens to the other peoples and nations. Christ died for our sins that we may eventually be redeemed, and its not as if those who call themselves Christian are free of sin. If you're looking for more info on it I'd advise reading C. S. Lewis. His essays are well-regarded and it'd be better than me butchering his explanations
>>162 where is limbo/purgatory mentioned in the bible? why should we hold the deuterocanonical books to the same level as the canonical ones?
>>85 Righteous anger versus "righteous anger". Both are responses to sin, but the difference is that one can cause the man to commit murder impulsively from anger, and this is also felt by unrighteous men. The former is anger but it is felt by righteous men. The difference seems to be pathos influencing logos versus logos influencing pathos, the latter of which being the good anger. Are there any writings in the Bible or pre-Enlightenment Christian fathers on these differences? I've felt both.
Open file (26.71 KB 460x422 1591368222-0.jpg)
>>94 >>99 >>106 >>111 >>114 >>117 >>119 >>150 go back to /fascist/ larpagan, you have no power here. plus your board literally has 2 confirmed trannies and one confirmed homo. Kek
>>173 lmao
Open file (12.56 KB 270x306 Snapshots.jpg)
I've been reading through the Bible since the start of the year, right now I'm at Ezekiel and the majority of the old testament comes off more to me as "crazy stories written by old jewish scribe about how they're the best people ever created" rather than the kind and merciful God I was brought up with. He seems to be anything but that in the OT >killing Aaron's son for using the wrong incense >forcibly circumcising the enemies of Israel (even though in those days it would've been just the tip, this is still oddly specific and difficult to believe not because God is all-powerful, but because of how outlandish it is >Samson slaying thousands with a jawbone >God instructing Ezekiel to lay on his side for half a year and cooking his food over human shit (which God then changes to cow shit after Ezekiel complains?) these events at the very least seem altered by scribes to make God seem even more powerful, but in the process it just makes him sound ridiculous >Israelites not having free will (worship me or I'll destroy your nation) the only plausible way I can see this is that they were going into turbo overdrive telling God to fuck off, and he did give them decades of warnings beforehand that they would be destroyed, but why can't their punishment wait until after their death, when they are facing judgement before God himself?
Open file (141.95 KB 300x368 32328989128932.png)
>>183 This is the sort of information that makes me doubt about a lawful good christian god. Doesn't help that the more I study about judaism and abrahamic religions the more I'm inclined to believe that their god (specially judaism and islam) is actually satan himself. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start shit. Just wondering how christfags cope with that fact. I know little, yet I'm not willing to follow a religion unless I know everything about it. Doubt its the only thing keeping me away from jesus christ and the church. Serious question, how likely is it that kikes actually worship satan while christians worship a true, just and lawful god?
Open file (497.28 KB 956x630 Emotional Crit.png)
>>184 that doesn't help with my questions
Open file (2.40 MB 320x240 New Judaism.webm)
>>185 >Serious question, how likely is it that kikes actually worship satan while christians worship a true, just and lawful god? first of all watch vid related, judaism today is nothing like judaism pre-Christ. after Jerusalem fell to Rome the talmud came into play and the new jewish leaders started all these rules that make up nu-judaism today (circumcision of the entire foreskin so jews can't fake it anymore, distinction between goyim and God's chosen people, etc.) as for Christians, it is the same God, except that God rejects the jews since they don't believe Christ is the savior (primarily because all the OT pointed at a strong and ruthless leader that would have God's chosen people rule the world, and instead they got a humble pacifist that said everyone can become part of God's kingdom if they only believe. this explains why the pharisees were so asshurt over him). Most Christians I've met rarely quote from the OT except for when it points to Christ, and I would bet most of them haven't even read the Bible in its entirety. it's all so tiresome
>>184 >Unironically posting (((rationalwiki))) Wow
>>185 >how likely is it that kikes actually worship satan while christians worship a true, just and lawful god? Jesus, after all, introduced Himself and His concept as "you have been fucking up the texts for long enough and worshiping wicked entities, let me show you the way" One original way i've heard from christians to cope (or maybe actually trying to be decent) after reading all these OT stories is that Jesus wasn't actually following the majority of them, hence why jews got mad, he only taught the benign ones and when asked about how to counter romans and other bad guys he spoke with stories or thinly-veiled tactics like using their own context, customs, so on and so on against them, which are taken very explicitly and not understood right ("turn the other cheek") The problem comes that when they saw such things, when confronted that they worship Jesus and not God they say either they are the same (even when the book mentions Them talking to each other, aka Trinitarian vs Unitarian) or spaz. It's a contrived way of thinking some of them have, but in reality i can understand, the texts have been butchered to hell and back and every time some old texts appear the jews/Smithsonian/"bad archeological accidents" happen. And the oldest christian ways of doing things practically mention either le demiurge or something that needs translation and we cannot actually comprehend without a God figure in human form.
>>189 it's been explained several times and others can do it better than I can, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one essence and three unified yet distinct beings which compromise God. the best example I can think of is that you have a sphere that is simultaneously colored red, blue, and green. not "three parts of it are separate colors", I mean that they're all three colors at the same time, yet they are not fighting or in conflict with each other.
Is there an online resource that will teach me the fundamentals of Eastern Orthodoxy?
>>194 sucking cock
>>186 abrahamic filth
>>173 >mass posting >Writes others as larpers >posts that pic Cringe
>>212 >atheists rebranding as pagans because they can’t justify a lack of religion while trying to bring back vague “beliefs” that were more about tradition than actual faith If you put in as much effort into “saving the white race” as you put into shitting up this board maybe your ideology wouldn’t be so impotent.
>>183 The problem with every translation of the Bible is that you have to come at it with a *huge* amount of background for a lot of the things in it, specifically in the Old Testament. I'm not familiar with the bit about Aaron's son. Forcibly circumcising is probably because circumcision was a symbol of the Covenant God made between Himself and Abraham. It's more of a symbolic thing and a way to set apart those who followed him; and a way to do the same to those who were absorbed or joined the Israelites. Samson and the Judges were generally operating in a lawless time. The enemies of Israel did very terrible things, and waged war on them, and the Judges like Samson essentially served as guides to the people, and frontline generals or empowered warriors to break the back of their oppressors. Same as with Gideon (except Samson's fall is more obvious to see). Ezekiel's trials and that of the other prophets were intended to be a visual sign to Israel; by the time they had come around the nation was well into its later years, they'd adopted kings and were progressively abandoning the Covenant that had first set them apart. All the crazy things they did were to try to prove a point to the rest of the Israelites; "Stop and turn back, do not continue down this path". A lot of stuff in the OT (like "destroy them utterly") were apocryphal/statements the Jewish people culturally used. "Destroy utterly and give over to God" typically meant to wipe out the culture and gods of the other nations who were attacking Israel, so the Israelites wouldn't become pagans.
>>183 Cont'd. One thing to remember is that while God meets people where they are, and meeting the Jews is a lot different than how He meets people today (for the most part). The part about the Israelites not having free will is complicated; their entire nation existed because He had led them out of slavery, and established them as a nation as part of his promise to Abraham. The Israel nation was supposed to be a kingdom of priests, special among the nations because they were (for their time) a much better example and far less heinous than the paganist nations around them. When the Israelites first asked for a king, it was against the covenant because God was supposed to take that role. But He allowed a king, with strict regulations (such as them not having a standing army or hoarding wealth, or abusing the populace). Every king, even the better ones of Israel, broke these rules. When the Israelites embraced their earthly kings and abandoned God, He didn't destroy them, He simply stopped shielding them as He had before. The nation of Israel under God was a holy kingdom of priests who would spread His word and be unique among the nations. But without the covenant....they were just an average Ancient East empire. One that was prone to being conquered like any of their neighbors. A lot of the OT stuff about "Sending Assyria or X nation to nuke Israel" both; A. Came as a warning if they turned away and embraced the worldly and cruel nature of their neighbor kingdoms. B. Was given well in advance of any such events occurring, by numerous prophets, to provide the maximum time for the people to turn back. C. Was less of a "God moves Assyria to B2 to checkmate Israel" than God lifting the sovereign protection He'd given them, as they voluntarily stopped being His people. D. Came on the backs of the Israelites doing some pretty bad things themselves, abandoning and exploiting the poor, providing child sacrifices, letting injustice and perversity reign, etc.
>>183 Leviticus 10:1–2 shares this sobering account, stating, “Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.” You mentioned Aaron's son before. One thing specifically to note about the OT is the way God interacts with the people of Israel. In the OT, God's interaction with the Israelites , or one of the ways He interacted, was through the Ark and the Temple. We don't have a modern day equivalent to that (praying and being in the presence of God isn't quite the same deal as the Ark). When people in the OT, whether it be Aaron's son, Uzziah, or the Caananites, disrespect the Altar of God, they not only interact with the presence of God on earth, they do so in a way that spits in His face in a way that doesn't really correlate to a 21st century mindset. They're not just dishonoring him, they were doing so in a way they ought to know not to. It would be like an astronaut studying the sun from a ship, flying too close because he's scornful of the idea that it might hurt him. R/atheism or any amount of pagans nowadays who might mock or disrespect God or the idea of God, have absolutely nothing on this. It's simply a matter of interacting wrongly with a manifestation of the presence of God that had fatal consequences. We can't interact with the pure Presence as mortal humans; because of Jesus we're saved but until we're transfigured at the end we still would need His direct protection not to burn up, if we got to stand in a direct manifestation of the same magnitude as the Ark.
>>183 Aside from the text walls, know it's ok to doubt, and that the Bible is actually a really hard text to parse fully. As far as resources for it go, try looking into the Bible Project on youtube (they're a good preliminary source), and that might help. They recommend other sources themselves. Most of all, pray. The God who parted the seas and healed countless people still lives today. And I believe He can answer your questions as well as any human can. Or better. It's probably better. Comes with the "omniscient" territory.
>>219 >>218 >>217 >>216 >>183 Stop worshiping Ialdabaoth
currently learning to draw, a lot of which involves drawing the human form nude. I understand that looking at the female form not with lust but as an appreciation for its design is not sinful, yet it's a very fine line. a lot of the reference images I'm using I'm also finding come from porn sites. is it wrong to take images that were created for erotic intent and use them instead as studies of human anatomy, even if the image is blatantly meant to be sensual?
>>227 The cosmic Jew's not gonna like that, buddy
>>228 are you seriously watching this dead board 24/7 just to insult everyone who posts on it
>>229 I'm the real God, posting here to tell you that the demiurge is not gonna do shit for you
>>137 I would also like more inputs on what bible version to read. Some people have shilled me the KJV so I am about to start but if anyone has more opinions to offer please do.
>>240 If you're going to read a strongly formal translation like the KJV then try keeping a strongly dynamic translation like The Message to hand to grab when you don't quite understand something or feel like there are shades of meaning you haven't picked up on. Use Bible Gateway or something if you want to read them side-by-side. The Message translation really went over long-settled pieces of bible for me and pulled up things I hadn't dwelled on before, especially things that the formal translators hide behind milquetoast euphamism and word choice.
>>241 >The Message how can you stand that abhorrent translation? it's borderline blasphemy how it dumbs everything down
>>92 The reboot would be a necessity and part of the chastisement, not even being allowed to know why you're suffering. It would be true pain without a cause, feeling immensely gratuitous, making you all the more hateful and sealing yourself even more in this realm. All this because there would be no question of being allowed out of it on your own merits outside of God's decision, since, as you know, some will be pardoned, whereas others will remain in Hell forever. At this point it will not be up to you. You had an entire life to define your path.
>>97 Listen monkanon. /christian/ is meant to be an online monastery. It WILL be quiet.
>>107 >hair splitting tho It's Constantine's kikes who rewrote Christ as Yeshua the hippie wandering rabbi.
>>173 >plus your board literally has 2 confirmed trannies and one confirmed homo. Care to provide data, usurer?
>>246 I'm an MTF Christian who loves big cock. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Amen..
>>121 >Yet paganism was so weak spiritually that the wide majority of people embraced it voluntarily. A most refreshing version of history you have here. I guess we'll just forget about the burning of pagan temples and massacres, just to name a few. >>128 >The basic error you're making is conflating killing with murder. Death =/= murder. Killing a human with a weapon, with fire or organized famine is a homicide, it is murder. It's a weird thing to say "you shall not kill" but then claim that triggering death in some indirect way that is validated by the same God who seems to forget about his commandment is quite fine. >the context It does matter, but what kind of law is that it's all about a majority of exceptions? If God says do it, you do it, it's fine. Then, by looking at what circumstances seem to have brought God to ignore the rule for a moment, you project this model onto another case that concerns you more directly and decide that killing is fine too? When does this stop exactly?
>>241 >The Message Fucking embarrassing

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?