/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>best

Reformed baptist or non-denominational

>worst

High church Anglicanism….like, just join the roman church already if being a slave is your thing.

>>12891

Have you been living under a rock? They have been carrying on in open contradiction with the written doctrine for years, and now the church is finally splitting. Homos are retaining the "united methodist" name, and traditionalists are forming a new denomination

>>12716

Look for a free KJV Reformed church (baptist or pedobaptist doesn't matter as long as it preaches the Word), not for pseudo-conservative denominations like the OPC or the Missouri Synod

>>12894

Officially, the UMC still opposes homosexuality. It's a violation of church law and incompatible with the Christian teaching. Yes, there are a few individual churches and districts that defy the General Conference, and depending, they're liable for disciplinary action. They're the exception however, not the rule.

There has been no split in the denomination. One has been proposed, but it has not been voted on and won't be voted on until the 2020 General Conference; though that has been postponed to 2021. And, it may not even pass; though it is likely. However, it'll likely be the case that it won't pass unless the conservatives get more concessions such as retaining the UMC name and securing more funds for the traditionalist churches. Conservatives are the majority in this, and as always, it's just a loud, belligerent minority screeching until they get their way. Thankfully, the conservatives have not caved into any demands by the pro-LGBT crowd yet

>>1534

Amen

>>12666

The mother of Our God, Jesus Christ. You can ask Mother Mary to pray for you, just like any other saint, but when you pray to God, your prayers don't pass through her first, they go directly to Christ and then to God The Father. Mary is a very important figure in Orthodoxy, but we don't worship her or put her on the same level as God.

Exorcising those demonic digits btw

>>12199

>he's a former calvinist professor himself and is extremely meticulous about definitions.

I'm aware of what he claims to be, but honest to God, if he's being sincere, he could not have ever understood proper Calvinism and he won't accept correction. It's infuriating. His definitions may be precise, but that doesn't make them accurate.

>which is a total grasp at straws.

If he's insincere, then his consistent inability to correctly define Calvinist doctrines can only be interpreted as deceitful. I have an extremely difficult time believing that someone as intelligent as him can't accurately represent an opposing position. Would he have this same problem representing Mormon doctrines or sacralism or something? If he did, then I'd be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

>Even still, you have not brought an argument.

My argument is that the only way the soteriological position in OP's image seems different from Pelagianism to me is that he's trying to shoehorn in OSAS while calling it Eternal Security for some reason. (Those are not the same thing.) Otherwise his position is pretty much a point-by-point reversal of at least 4 of Calvinism's 5 points. All he did was repackage the same old nonsense under a new name to try to make it look more legitimate because he's so hung up on the idea of God not interfering with man's will.

R - He specifically says man is able to respond. This is poorly defined and doesn't make clear what his view of man's will is. Why is man able to respond? Is there some kind of enabling grace or is man's will not corrupted to begin with? He has literally said before that an exercise of man's free will is an act of "creatio ex nihilo", which gives me the impression that he has a very high view of man's condition. Maybe he just didn't understand the implications of that, but I'm not sure.

O and I - Denial of Irresistable grace and particular redemption. Is the extent of the Holy Spirit's role in salvatioPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>12208

You're not meaning pelagian lightly, sure, you're just using liberally throwing it around despite the weight it carries as an accusation. That's a dumb tactic so stop using it. It doesn't help your case, traditionalism is obviously not pelagian.

What does he not understand about Calvinism that you do? You're just waving your hand alluding to these mistakes as if I'm supposed to just blindly affirm your anonymous judgment of his doctrine

The acronym is just a tool like TULIP. Criticizing how the tool is constructed is not arguing against the position.

Posting my exegetical reply over on >>>/christian/ since this board is now closed…

https://8kun.top/christian/res/827800.html

you are all anathema

>>10334

This is why it's important to learn how to defend yourself. If that happened to me I would've suplexed that cunt and used some boxing on the other two queers.

>>10334

Accept the Hindu pill M8

>>12660

<“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39

>>10406

>I feel like a sucker, like I take stuff more seriously than it needs to

No that's just a decent reaction fueled by piety.

>>10394

t. seething

>>10423

Word on Fire I second that one, it's good. But if you want woke and conspiracy yet christ focused truther info, then I highly recommend:

Discovering the Truth with Dan Duval

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/discovering-truth-with-dan-duval/id583758126

>Daniel Duval shares current events, teachings, and information from relevant guests on a Christ centered talk radio program.

good thread

The Godcast on the TRS network. I know that many here will be offput by the pro-white nature of the site (y tho), and that's up to you, but I heartily recommend giving them a listen, as well as the rest of the shows on the site.

>>10223

Anything worthwhile in German?

Ever read Acts 15? The reason animals with hooves are clean is because the hooves suspend them over the ground God cursed in Genesis 3, and they're split hoofed because the Israelites are supposed to walk straight, not to the left/right. (The significance of that is what Christ says, broad is the way to destruction, narrow is the way to life.)

I disagree that pork shouldn't be eaten, but I definitely cut it down.

>>10257

have to agree with others here that this represents lost wisdom of the bible

>>11858

The resurrection of Christ.

>>11858

>Brain wash, give me a reason to believe

If the care and intentionality of the universe around you isn't sufficient reason for you to realize that this place and everything in it was designed with compassion and purpose, then I'm afraid nothing that anyone says is going to change your mind.

Ephesians 2:8

>For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Persisting faith is a supernatural gift. If you want it, ask the gift giver for it. He's the only one that can give it to you. It's his choice.

The testimony of others.

Last year, my local church gave us specific reasoning for believing in the Resurrection, citing how Jesus's death on the cross can be proved by science: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/403315

Also, there are historical accounts of Jesus's resurrection outside of the Bible; here's an account by Phlegon of Tralles from the 2nd century AD: “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen162.html ).

Also, there's nothing to lose from accepting Jesus, and everything to gain. By believing, you give yourself the opportunity for a peaceful life after death. Is there anything specific from stopping you from believing?

>>12782

I don't know what you're talking about, but I guess you might be referring to a trip?

>>12722

Christians do observe the Torah

It's the Jews who practice so-called Judaism who don't.

Jews call it Torah. Christians call it Pentateuch, or Old Testament. We share the same body of scripture if you weren't aware and both religions have differences based on how they interpret this body of sacred text.

Regarding your question, you make the mistake a lot of people do by interpreting the Pentateuch 1)In by itself 2) by yourself. This is a wrong method of interpretation. The Gospels are first and foremost works of theologic commentary expounding on the Pentateuch aswell as the larger body of Old Israelite scripture. As such, the Pentateuch must be read and understood strictly through the definitions and understandings already present in the Gospels. Just as >>12769 pointed out, customs prescribed such as circumcision, temple sacrifice, levitical orders, passover, festival of first fruits, etc, have been replaced in Christ Jesus with Baptism, universal royal priesthood, sunday breaking of His body, Easter Ressurection, pentecost and so on and so forth . Also the verses in Matthew 5: 21, 27-30 only prove of the supersession of the laws of old. They are not forgotten or abolished, but are given a new meaning with the existence of Christ in our lives

Unless you cannot find verses in the Gospel that touch upon dietary laws of old, there really is no reason for you to lapse into Judaism.

>>6580

Are you honestly trying to insinuate that they werent capitalists at that time period? Do ypu even know, rightly, what capitalism is?

>>6591

I thought you Nazis believe Jews are both capitalists and communists.

>>6619

The ndsap rose to power as a reaction to the jewish communist revolt in Germany in the interwar period.

Today, Jews hold undue influence in the crony capitalist scheme of western governments like the US. It isn't philosophically consistent (free market) capitalism because it involves so much state intervention in the favor of certain groups. This is communism lite, socialism.

Jews are to communism as sicilians are to the mafia. This is a basic fact of history.

I'm not even a nazi sympathizer.

>>6580

>If I recall correctly Martin Luther was accused of facilitating a type of Christianity that will allow everyone to be as greedy as possible and completely disregard their fellow human being in their quest to gain as much wealth as possible.

Not at all, quite the opposite.

>Did Luther call out capitalism for the evil that it is?

Yes. He wrote extensively on this.

http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Martin%20Luther%20-%20On%20trading%20and%20usury%201524/ON%20TRADING%20AND%20USURY%20-%20backup%20020306.htm

And here is another quote by Luther about usury:

The heathen were able, by the light of reason, to conclude that a usurer is a double-dyed thief and murderer. We Christians, however, hold them in such honour, that we fairly worship them for the sake of their money….

Whoever eats up, robs, and steals the nourishment of another, that man commits as great a murder (so far as in him lies) as he who starves a man or utterly undoes him. Such does a usurer, and sits the while safe on his stool, when he ought rather to be hanging on the gallows, and be eaten by as many ravens as he has stolen guilders, if only there were so much flesh on him, that so many ravens could stick their beaks in and share it.

Meanwhile, we hang the small thieves…. Little thieves are put in the stocks, great thieves go flaunting in gold and silk…. Therefore is there, on this earth, no greater enemy of man (after the devil) than a gripe-money, and usurer, for he wants to be God over all men.

Turks, soldiers, and tyrants are also bad men, yet must they let the people live, and Confess that they are bad, and enemies, and do, nay, must, now and then show pity to some.

But a usurer and money-gluttoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>12766

That statue is of St. Jude (Judas Thaddeus), not Jesus.

Also, age of consent is puberty, but we are still subject to the laws of the governments under which we reside.

>But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. (1 Cor 7:36)

>Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (Romans 13:1-2)

The legal age set by your country is the proper age of consent unless it is below the age of a girl's pubescence. And if you happen to reside in a country where the age of consent is low, consider that sexual immorality is still immoral. Regardless of age, fornication, adultery, sodomy, lust, etc. is still condemn-able. You ought to be a guardian and provider for your bride, willing to sacrifice your livelihood and well-being for her.

we should better ask why 8chan acts like they belong to the pedo community

>>12802

Nothing in that article contradicts what I just said. You can't be a subject and a peacemaker by violating the laws of the governing authority on a whim.

And, yes, age of consent is a Biblical concept as I showed above. The Biblical "age of consent" (read: marriageable age) was puberty.

At The Same Time, theoretically, it should be possible to become so innocent, by the Spirit, that you can behold nudity and not lust. However, if you were to ever reach this point, it's /incredibly/ doubtful that you'd find yourself sitting around observing nude pictures for entertainment.

So, this brings us back to the question, is it okay to look at images of fake nudity? Here I believe I'd find the difference between "looking at" and "seeing." If you're walking down the street and someone flashes hentai in your face, I don't think you've suddenly been forced to sin. Rather, you've "seen" fake nudity, and have chosen to move on from it. This is different from "looking at," where you do not move on, but rather, with intention, take in the image. I'm quite confident it's that "taking in" that is inappropriate before God.

Now, going back to Matthew 5, and taking /that/ all the way back to Exodus 20, seeing as my friend above pointed out its origins in the 7th commandment, you can't just take /part/ of the Law, you gotta take it as a whole. The Mosaic Law, given by God, dictates that either you're committing adultery /or/ you marry the person that you have sex with (or, technically, you get stoned, but let's avoid that one for the sake of this discussion). So, if you want to read the Law into what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5, rather than understand that Jesus is drawing from it to ordain a greater commandment, then we should learn from Matthew 5 that married people cannot lust after people, and unmarried people should get married to the first person that they inwardly lust after. Personally, I find it agrees with the totality of Scripture far better to understand that Jesus was explaining a greater commandment, rather than attempt to read Jesus' words through the lens of Mt. Sinai.

Where does this leave us? Can you marry the image of fake nudity? No. Therein, it does quite seem that you are flat out in sin for desiring after it in a sexual manner.

For your brain, there's no difference between the fake image and a real image, even barely a difference between an image and a person, so neurologically you actually have bigger problems (it's flat out the same thing), but I've been trying to stayPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Yes.

>>11614

>Already we have condemned virtually all the erotic material made by the Japanese.

Monogamy is pretty common in hentai, but rare in Jewish porn. There's more story development in hentai and more emotional development. Most hentai is probably vanilla, but Westerners generally aren't interested in vanilla and always look for the most offensive things they can find. And then blame anyone other than themselves.

>It doesn't denigrate or muddy what should be glorious. You are searching for an extremely rare jewel in a sea of waste that includes futanari and s—ing d–k ni–les.

No, what's actually happening is that you're going out of your way to look for futanari and scat.

>Even if it shames sexually immorality, it doesn't subtly revel in it or use admonishment or shame to display it. Emergence (don't look it up) about the abused and whorish Japanese school girl who kills herself with drugs is an example.

Emergence is a normalfag meme. It's not even made by a Japanese artist, and it shows.

>All this out of the thousands upon thousands of sewage particles spewed from a regrettably lost humanist nation.

If Japan is lost then what does that say about the West (which, need I remind you, is comprised of Christian nations)? Move out of your glass house before you start hurling rocks at others.

>>12784

Source for music from first one?

>>12834

Lissy Trullie - Madeleine (Jewellers Remix)

>>12839

Thank you!

>>12784

Also, does original poster or anyone else here know where this video came from, the context of the nurses or artist/editor behind it? Song and image strangely mesh well, but also makes me curious more than ever of the origin of this.

The Apostolic Pentecostal movement is completely seperate from the charasmatic movement.

See attached.

This too.

Arguably, neither Popoff nor Jones are fit to represent Pentecostalism, but both of their ministries originated within it.

Pentecostals are people who can't interpret prophecy very well, and thus don't realize that tongues, prophecy, and healings through ministers ceased to occur early on… Definitely by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Why? Because the gifts were a prophetic sign to the Jews that God's favor had left their nation and moved on to the gentiles, and the gifts were supposed to provoke a remnant of Jews to jealousy so that they would follow after the Messiah. I'm not sure what clearer message God could have sent than the Romans. The miraculous gifts would have served their purpose by that time.

>>12478

He probably wouldn't listen to the prays of an imaginary earth atheist

>>12478

>superhero

What is it with anti-Christians and only being able to understand things through pop culture references? >>12478

>>12786

You theists will just never understand. You Christians are just like Kylo Ren while we atheists are like Rey.

>>12788

Atheists are Mary Sues?

>>12799

We're all going back to >>>/christian/ now

>>12771

it was to reduce eye strain.

photons make a good metaphor for good, but they do not literally have morality

>>12800

>The monkey sodomite can't understand metaphorical language

Your retardation transcends boards