/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

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

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
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (22.23 KB 399x319 themiddle.jpg)
Anonymous 05/24/2022 (Tue) 01:39:55 No.11599
There seems to be a multitude of users on imageboards stuck living generally broken lives. How can /christian/ minister to this?
Well I have been trying to tell people about Jesus and how loving this world will get you nowhere and how everything proves the Bible and how the truth of existence is a good thing... But no body listens, so. It's no different than street preaching. Probably worse actually. If you help one person that is great, but the pain of the thousand you can't reach is still there. Internet is only for transferring information so you can do that not much else. A coordinated effort by /christian/? I don't know. All 3 actual Christians might be busy with real life stuff.
Open file (66.96 KB 128x217 patche.png)
>Well I have been trying to tell people about Jesus and how loving this world will get you nowhere and how everything proves the Bible and how the truth of existence is a good thing... >But no body listens Multiple different heathens have made threads about free will or predestination asking for theodicy and without fail every 'christian' bails entirely once it becomes clear they're serious and not idly shitposting.
The Internet (and by that word, I mean Imageboards and their corollary & offshoot environments -- absolutely not any FANGS-based normalcattle golem hellholes) has a pretty-specific set of challenges and rewards. It's filled with thousands of actual autists for starters. >We're here expressly because we don't fit into/don't care for so-called 'polite society'. I personally see this as a benefit, not a detriment. OTOH, if you're just looking to bag some sort of quick """victory""" and 'reap where you haven't sown', then IBs may not be your thing Anon. And you can be sure your challenges will only grow even more difficult as the Globohomo Big-Tech/Gov manages to corral ever-more youth into ever-more cloistered hellholes such as Doxxcord, et al. You can at the least be grateful that IBs are at least free & public-facing. >>11603 >All 3 actual Christians might be busy with real life stuff. Implying the Internet isn't just as real as AFK. >>11609 >Multiple different heathens have made threads about free will or predestination asking for theodicy and without fail every 'christian' bails entirely once it becomes clear they're serious and not idly shitposting. Beg to differ.
>>11615 >Beg to differ. I encourage you to differ in fact rather than asking permission to differ in opinion. I would have linked you to open discussions in the theodicee thread but it's literally been slid off the catalog due to lack of discussion. The double predestination thread >>10667 still has no responses though (not that it's been put in a format conducive to civil discussion, but w/e - double predestination is a coherent conclusion for a god of acts). I'll once again repeat my plea: <Still waiting for someone to square disobedience towards god (free will) with the omnipotence of god.
>>11616 The problem of evil is fundamentally a bait problem. >double predestination I don't see much of a reason to argue metaphysics with calvinists.
Open file (230.95 KB 1000x1000 1637120873802.jpg)
>>11617 >The problem of evil is fundamentally a bait problem. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? The problem of evil is one of the first and most repeated issues heathens and heretics have with christian theory and one of the main driving forces of apostasy. If people can trivially phrase issues with your metaphysics that you're unable (unwillingness is a cause of inability) then you can't really sustain any of anon's claims about the coherency of what's supposedly being preached here.
>that you're unable (unwillingness is a cause of inability) then that you're unable (unwillingness is a cause of inability) to address then
>>11599 One thing I enjoy doing is casually mentioning something from the Bible in the middle or at the end of an otherwise normal post on boards you wouldn't expect to see it. Not forcing the topic or preaching really , just reminding people of God or of His judgements or something from the Bible. >>11603 1 Corinthians 3, God gives the increase and you won't see it most of the time, especially with anonymous internet sites. Even street preachers rarely see it.
>>11619 >What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It's an extremely well known and easily googleable problem that is mostly brought up by people baiting for (You)s. Discussion is always fun, but if you just want someone to convince you that Epicurus didn't disprove that God is either not omnipotent or not good there's no reason to make a thread.
>>11609 Weird to green text my post and then say something unrelated afterwards. You could have just said your random nonsense without including my post. It's the best one can do is give evidence for the obvious truth and then WHAM hit them in the head with the Bible. People need to be able to read Matthew while trusting it as fact rather than trying "O what philosophical intellectual things are I to ponder on?" It's not about philosophy. The Bible is very simple, a series of real events that convey an equally simple meaning. People stumble on this ironically enough by refusing to accept people wrote down what they knew and saw rather than wrote down some elaborate stories about how to philosophically plunder through meaningless life. Toga wearing Aristole wannabes is logically on the rise as we reenter the age of the Greeks and Romans paganism. The stories of old had become myth to be pondered over. Completely takes over every 2000 years from Noah to Jesus to now. Evidence and then get them to read the New Testament. If people don't want Jesus well that's up to them but if people are determined to go to Hell be sure only over your dead body. A guide to Bible thumping be sure no useless talk comes from the pagans mouth, if he asks about free will, *thump*. If he prattles on about God being a meanie head, *thump* *thump* see now that one's a double thump. Do not let them waste too much time veering off in pointless directions avoiding the facts. The most important thing any human can learn is he is not good enough for Heaven and never will be and it is his fault. Without this understanding they cannot come to God. This has been a staple since the ancient times of Israel. One must understand he needs to just say he is sorry and must change, drastically. This conveyed over internet text, nonsense. Foolishness, I am a fool for Jesus I love him, prideful people will not submit and it's easy to be a toga wearer online and hide your nakedness and your shame. Videos are great. A good thumping and information. "what about love?" yes as you can online, do.
>>11638 >It's an extremely well known and easily googleable problem There's literally no extant address to the question of 'why was man not made perfect' that irenaeus stumbles over in against heresies (more exactly phrased, the question should be "why is there anything apart from god"). Feel free to give me a link to whatever or drop a title you'd want me to read. The most recent and 'strongest' address I've seen is leibniz saying ~that infinity+1>infinity which directly responds to the later (but is incoherent) and indirectly to the former. >Epicurus didn't disprove that God is either not omnipotent or not good This has nothing to do with the fact that sin is incoherent as a concept. Nor is it a comment on an omniscient creator - epicurus rejects the concept of a god of acts. >Discussion is always fun Were you here in the last month when the theodicee thread was left for dead with no responses despite a heathen and an apostate both asking for an explanation?
>>11642 >why is there anything apart from god My personal opinion, and you might feel that this mars God's perfection, is that God was attempting to create meaning. Meaning in something like an existentialist sense. "The meaning of life." The "point" of it all beyond degenerating in His perfection. As a christian, talking about "the psychology of God" is extremely jarring, so I didn't really think much about this. >This has nothing to do with the fact that sin is incoherent as a concept. How so? >Were you here in the last month when the theodicee thread was left for dead with no responses despite a heathen and an apostate both asking for an explanation? Recalled this place a week ago. Used to post in 8chan's christian way back.
>>11643 >The "point" of it all beyond degenerating in His perfection. How could it be "degenerating" in His perfection? It's God. I certainly think that the claim that you can't find meaning (insofar as it's Good to do so, which it must be if a perfect god of acts is doing) in God is denying God's divinity. Even proto-iranians and offshoots like the hindis have limited divinities which ponder the divine (often by pondering themself). >How so? Taking the definition of Sin as rebellion against God (or, straying from God's path - to act in a way which is not Good in the eyes of the Lord). An omniscient creator doesn't have creations which perform actions that are not ordained by that creator - you can't have a creation with a will free from the omniscient creator. Y'know? To poorly paraphrase against heresies, Irenaeus says that the matured (having been immature i.e. sinful) man has a "greater glory" than which could be obtained without the process. I don't think it's hard for you to see why I have a problem with him talking about a "greater glory" than that of God. >Recalled this place a week ago. If'n you want I can get my shit together and make a thread but I think everyone interested in the discussion is already here.
Open file (493.78 KB 467x580 Despair.png)
>>11645 >degenerating Degenerating might have not been the best word. Wallowing maybe. >I certainly think that the claim that you can't find meaning (insofar as it's Good to do so, which it must be if a perfect god of acts is doing) in God is denying God's divinity. How so? Meaning is fundamentally subjective and a human can reject any possible source of meaning by saying "so what?". Why wouldn't the Lord be able to do the same? >An omniscient creator doesn't have creations which perform actions that are not ordained by that creator - you can't have a creation with a will free from the omniscient creator. Y'know? It really pains me to do this, but I'd like to raise a metaphysical counterpoint. Imagine you want to plan a date. You plan "I'll say this", "she'll probably say that", "I'll do this action", but all of your actions are approximate and all of your predictions fall apart. However, how can you distinguish God's plan from the real event? How can you distinguish reality from the reality known by God? Say, God wonders "Will Peter deny me?". So He determines what will happen at Gethsemane, the way the disciples fall asleep, the arrival of Judas and the three times Peter denies him. Determining whether or not Peter would deny Him consolidated Peter denying him, so to say. Assuming omniscience works in a "Laplace's demon" sort of way and not in a magic 8-ball sort of way. What I'm trying to posit with all of this is that, if God was merely omniscient and omnipotent, He could absolutely create beings that act against his will. The actual issue is perfection. Now, to answer your actual question, the whole problem you're explicitly bringing up is just the semantics of going against God's will. "Your teacher wants you to make mistakes so you can learn, but making a mistake is going against your teacher's will. The concept of a mistake is incoherent." >If'n you want I can get my shit together and make a thread but I think everyone interested in the discussion is already here. I'm good just embarrassing myself on this thread.
Open file (156.60 KB 1800x1600 398276.jpg)
>>11651 >Degenerating might have not been the best word. Wallowing maybe. I still don't really know what you're getting at. The Uncreated is unchanging and without context. He doesn't languish or ... stagnate? It'd be wrong to say that His nature is the same at every moment because while that's true it's because His nature has nothing to do with the passing of moments. In any case his nature is not changing. It is the highest Glory, always. >How so? Meaning is fundamentally subjective Aren't you denying transcendent divinity altogether here? The Good is that which God deems to be Good, surely. Or rather, that which is Good is that which is Godly. >Why wouldn't the Lord be able to do the same? Because the Lord is all-good, right? So it isn't in his nature to have a thing, to be a thing, to which he would say "so what?". There is, at most, The Almighty and His Creation, neither of which He would have any reason to doubt the goodness of. >However, how can you distinguish God's plan from the real event? How can you distinguish reality from the reality known by God? There is no distinction. It's God's plan that is the event - the reality of anything is given purely by God's awareness of it. But it's God's awareness and God's creation - it isn't lacking in value. God does not err, surely. >Say, God wonders Why is God lacking in awareness here? The uncreated and unchanging is, well, unchanging. There isn't a point at which God isn't omniscient. >"Will Peter deny me?". So He determines what will happen at Gethsemane, the way the disciples fall asleep, the arrival of Judas and the three times Peter denies him. Determining whether or not Peter would deny Him consolidated Peter denying him, There is no consolidation because while you're describing this as if there's any agency to the apostle but there is no action outside of that which derives from God, the prime mover. There isn't a 'before-thinking God' and an 'after-thinking God', y'know? >Assuming omniscience works in a "Laplace's demon" sort of way and not in a magic 8-ball sort of way. God isn't thinking in either case. There isn't a context to God or a temporal aspect to His awareness. He is eternal and unchanged; every point of his awareness (of everything) is present at all times, or rather is present without regards to time and does not have an order or causality. It is all there, always. >What I'm trying to posit with all of this is that, if God was merely omniscient and omnipotent, He could absolutely create beings that act against his will. The actual issue is perfection. No. He could create beings that are not Good because He would not be Good (or all-good, anyway). It's incoherent to call the creations independent from an omniscient creator. If you place the creations in temporal context, then at every point in that context (at all times) God knows their every action because it's the same God, unchanging. He is responsible for their every action, and has total awareness of the consequences of his creation "before" (properly, independent of) they were created. It only matters that He is omnipotent here insomuch as it guarantees that He isn't being compelled to act. This is purely a semantic point about what we call "good", anyway. There isn't an independence of the creation from the Creator in any case. >Now, to answer your actual question, the whole problem you're explicitly bringing up is just the semantics of going against God's will. "Your teacher wants you to make mistakes so you can learn, but making a mistake is going against your teacher's will. The concept of a mistake is incoherent." An instructed mistake is still a mistake in the sense of being wrong practice but it isn't a mistake in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. That is, it isn't wrong practice, it's a misperception of temporal beings which do not in any sense exist. What I'm getting at is that you're predestining everyone to be saved. There's certainly no hell because there's no languishing outside of God's light. There's no Sin because everything that you do is as ordained by God. We are all God's creature's every one and we do the things that God made us to do.
>>11654 Really inconvenient to talk about why would God do X if you're going to insist I can't say "God felt X" "God thought Y" "God said Z". I feel like I cannot possibly convince you that God would create the world, If I say He did it unintentionally that's basically gnostic heresy. If I say He did it intentionally there's your argument that God is perfect and complete in His perfection and wouldn't have reason to create anything beside himself. >There is no consolidation because while you're describing this as if there's any agency to the apostle but there is no action outside of that which derives from God, the prime mover. There isn't a 'before-thinking God' and an 'after-thinking God', y'know? I'm not saying Peter has agency like the Lord does. I'm saying Peter has agency like a brick that falls to the ground when you let it loose. You're talking as if reality is a bundle of instants stitched in order. >He is responsible for their every action, and has total awareness of the consequences of his creation "before" (properly, independent of) they were created. That makes no sense to me. If God knows all consequences, that's indistinguishable from it existing. That's the main point of the argument I was going for earlier. If we consider something like a hypothetical non-existing Universe X then you're saying God knew all consequences of it, decided not to create it, and hence never knew all consequences of it. >An instructed mistake is still a mistake in the sense of being wrong practice but it isn't a mistake in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. That is, it isn't wrong practice, it's a misperception of temporal beings which do not in any sense exist. >What I'm getting at is that you're predestining everyone to be saved. There's certainly no hell because there's no languishing outside of God's light. There's no Sin because everything that you do is as ordained by God. We are all God's creature's every one and we do the things that God made us to do. I think I see the confusion. In my head God "computes" every instant how the world progresses according to its past. People and things behave according to their natures, and they can be meaningfully responsibilized for their actions. To you the world history is a single thing fixed thing in God's head, so it's all pointless.
>>11648 Disagree
Open file (41.53 KB 246x296 Untitled.png)
>>11659 >Really inconvenient to talk about why would God do X if you're going to insist I can't say "God felt X" "God thought Y" Wouldn't really be God if He wasn't unchanging, y'know? We're not talking about indra. Omniscient actors (and omniscient non-actors, I guess) aren't really in the habit of thinking. >I feel like I cannot possibly convince you that God would create the world, If I say He did it unintentionally that's basically gnostic heresy. Every account of emanation that regards a transcendent God that I can recall implies that creation is illusionary and without meaning, anyway. That is, the solution become "it is as if He did not create it" or indeed simply just "it doesn't exist". >If I say He did it intentionally there's your argument that God is perfect and complete in His perfection and wouldn't have reason to create anything beside himself. Well yeah. Epicurus put forward the same argument about less holistic gods that were not creators. That argument is the problem of evil, or epicurus' solution thereto (and the gods in that solution do not act, which obviously isn't the case in jewish/christian theory). >beside himself Pretty sure common doctrine is that God wasn't created, though I guess as usual you can do whatever semantic trickery you want with the Son. >I'm not saying Peter has agency like the Lord does. >I'm saying Peter has agency like a brick that falls to the ground when you let it loose. But I didn't make the brick, or gravity, nor am I responsible for the synchronicity thereof and I certainly don't have meaningful let alone complete knowledge of the system. Peter has agency like a piece of red paper in my memory (N.B. that it is defined as such) has agency over my impression of it having been red. Well, obviously he has a lot less agency than that because I err and God does not, but I you understand what I'm getting at. He has no agency whatsoever outside of God. Inside of God, which necessarily we are, what we do is orchestrated by unerring goodness. >You're talking as if reality is a bundle of instants stitched in order. The stiching in order is a false perception but yes, of course? >If God knows all consequences, that's indistinguishable from it existing. God knows all consequences in all (theoretical) situations by definition. He is omniscient. Are you not then claiming that it follows that God has created every possible sequence and animates them all? In that case it's incoherent to then say that any sequence is a straying from God's will, surely? That is, this is an aside from the actual point; the exact semantics or consequences of phrases like "God contains all possibilities" don't really reflect one way or another on the fact that anything that He is responsible for anything that DOES exist. >If we consider something like a hypothetical non-existing Universe X then you're saying God knew all consequences of it, decided not to create it, and hence never knew all consequences of it. I'm certainly not putting decisions in God's mouth, so to speak. You've incidentally struck pretty close to my actual position (with respect to God all things that are temporal do not exist, so beyond the transient illusions there is Nothing that is ~abiding, unchanging and eternal) but obviously it's not a christian position. >In my head God "computes" every instant how the world progresses according to its past. People and things behave according to their natures, and they can be meaningfully responsibilized for their actions. God isn't fucking contextual in time. A God that is subject to the limitiations of time's arrow isn't really what you'd call omnipotent or even transcendent. Your god-in-the-machine is obviously not unchanging nor uncreated if it's being made anew by every degree of man-perceived time in fucking finite reality. >and they can be meaningfully responsibilized for their actions The semantics of whether or not a man is responsible for himself are irrelevant. If the man exists (in creation), God is responsible for the man (whether or not He is solely so) and for the man's actions, and God is all-good and all-knowing. The man's actions are a subset of God's actions (Creation). >To you the world history is a single thing fixed thing in God's head, so it's all pointless. World history is a single fixed thing in any case, but that isn't a comment on transcendent metaphysics. Regardless of your opinion on physical time, surely we can both agree that it's not something God is 'subject' to or constrained by?
>>11681 >Wouldn't really be God if He wasn't unchanging, y'know? We're not talking about indra. Omniscient actors (and omniscient non-actors, I guess) aren't really in the habit of thinking. Except the Bible talks about God being well pleased or acting or perceiving things fairly often. Beginning of Genesis is a good example. >as usual Rude. >God knows all consequences in all (theoretical) situations by definition. He is omniscient. No, omniscience is just knowledge of everything that exists. Knowledge of all possibilities in the sense you're using it is almost vacuous, except it includes perfect knowledge of mathematics/logic. >Are you not then claiming that it follows that God has created every possible sequence and animates them all? No, I'm claiming that a merely omnipotent/omniscient God can't predict reality as He builds it. God can, in fact, do it because of His perfection. >God isn't fucking contextual in time. A God that is subject to the limitiations of time's arrow isn't really what you'd call omnipotent or even transcendent. Your god-in-the-machine is obviously not unchanging nor uncreated if it's being made anew by every degree of man-perceived time in fucking finite reality. I'm not really claiming God is bound by time, tho. If anything I'm claiming time is bound to God. >If the man exists (in creation), God is responsible for the man (whether or not He is solely so) and for the man's actions, and God is all-good and all-knowing. My opinion regarding that is the following: I am intrinsically sinful. If I weren't capable of sin, I wouldn't be myself. God has done me a great favor by granting me the gift of existence and the possibility of salvation in spite of my sinful nature, hence I thank Him by fully responsibilizing myself for my sins and by fully responsibilizing God for my salvation. >World history is a single fixed thing in any case, but that isn't a comment on transcendent metaphysics. Regardless of your opinion on physical time, surely we can both agree that it's not something God is 'subject' to or constrained by? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's the thing right. If I take your metaphysics to its logical conclusions Jesus Christ was just a meat doll that God moved around (like He, as you also claim, moves literally everything around).
>>11609 >>11617 >>11619 >>11638 >>11642 >>11643 >>11645 >>11651 >>11654 >>11681 >>11685 I don't even read your posts because you upload tranime that has no relevance to the discussion.
Just /a/vatarfags and trannies, identifying with (often underage) anime girls.
>>11691 >>11692 wrecked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxH7rHkVSMk But it's actually hard to remove anime art from someone. It attaches itself to a victim and takes them over from the inside.
Homosexuality is a sin anon.
>>11691 >>11692 >>11699 I'd say you have to go back. Have you forgotten where you're at? >>11730 How is this relevant to the thread Anon?
>>11110 If we can get back on track and reply to OP, this would be a start.
>>11599 all you really can do is present God and try and help them through whatever theyre going through. Unfortunately its up to them to decide what they want to do.
>>11766 >present God What does that even mean?
>>11767 present the Bible
>>11767 >What does that even mean? Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. https://biblehub.com/sermons/matthew/10-8.htm
>>11685 It really seems to me like you're both denying the (transcendent) divinity of God and leibniz' solution to the mind-body problem. In particular, you seem to be putting consciousness somewhere outside of the scope of God. Is your post just going completely over my head? What am I not getting here? Is your conclusion something like the old god-as-the-world? Where the fuck are thoughts? >No, omniscience is just knowledge of everything that exists. >Knowledge of all possibilities in the sense you're using it is almost vacuous, except it includes perfect knowledge of mathematics/logic. How could the former definition not include the later components? Where is logic stored? I can attempt to actually address your points but I don't think I'm going to get very far as it stands. It reads to me that you've totally ignored the questions about sin in the presence of God and have decided instead to write about your personal position of on the definition of omniscience v. perfection that nobody has ever taken before (for good reason) and pretty much everything about the problem of evil from >>11681 remains unaddressed.
>>11734 >every image board is a safe space for weabtrannies I do not care where I am, you worship underage anime girls.
Open file (805.00 KB 1536x2048 042b7971f18217.jpg)
>>12500 >you worship underage anime girls that's supposed to be a bad thing?
Open file (144.49 KB 680x447 ClipboardImage.png)
>>12526 >Asuka no mother?
Open file (273.22 KB 1197x918 gem.png)
My life is pretty dysfunctional right now but I know it's darkest before the dawn and Jesus will lead me out. I love God and am grateful for His word and pray for all His children
All we can do is open the door, it's up to them to walk through it. No amount of evidence or based and redpilled aspects to Christianity will convince those stuck in their ways.
We should try to help others in a friendly manner. For example: if someone makes a comment on a video and is saying that they're feeling bad about their porn addiction, then we can reply to that comment and say that we understand and then we can give them a lesson, like how to be an alpha in control of your flesh and not the other way around, and then at the end of the message, in a separate paragraph, we could leave a short, useful phrase from the bible. No-one is kind or understanding/helpful anymore, so people will respond to those shining their light.
>>12589 Dr. Hugh Ross asked the 700+ audience at The Skeptic's Conference held at Cal Tech (his Post-Doc Alma mater) "If I could present to you irrefutable, overwhelming, evidence that the God of the Bible was in fact the Author of all creation, how many of you would be willing to reconsider your Atheistic philosophies?" Only 2/3rds of the audience raised their hands. To wit 1/3rd of unbelievers are adamantly committed to their adherence to the Atheistic world-view. They literally are convinced of their delusions.
Open file (200.73 KB 640x480 bubunobuu.webm)
>There seems to be a multitude of users on imageboards stuck living generally broken lives. You have to be to browse imageboards. Even if you seem normal there is something wrong with you if you use imageboards. >How can /christian/ minister to this? It's not our job to. At best we can be like the missionaries of old and willingly martyr ourselves trying to show anon the way, but if you yourself are not a Christian prepared to walk among pagans, you will find yourself overwhelmed soon enough.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?