>>583 >Past sharing scriptures, this is meant a comfy thread Arrrgh, meant to BE a comfy thread. I swear I'll proofread a couple times and I'll always slip up. Oh well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h5YBrcbEHY Orthobro here. Good to remember Who really rules us after these past two mad years of earthly dragons flaunting their false authority. GLORIFY HIM

Thanks for stopping by for festivities, /christian/! Please enjoy yourselves this evening. We've got music and games going on, check out the events thread for more details.

HELLO GOD THANKS FOR EVERYTHING

>>583 What is the origin of this christ chan meme?

SOL INVICTUS

https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v "Calculating Christmas" Explains why it's December 25th, and why the "Saturnalia" meme is so much empty dust.

Thank you /christian/ for reminding me to do my reading for today. Matthew 1:18-24

>>1347 Well, anon, it all started in here! I have no idea.

>>1347 >Origin of Christ Chan 8/pol/ made her as a meme. 8/christian/ liked her and had a holy war over whether she should be greek orthodox or catholic. Shitposting about her being protestant ensued. Now she's just a general Christian-tan. t. /liberty/ Orthobro, different from cafe /christian/ Orthobro.

>>583 Posting in based thread

>>754 Good words Anon. Thanks for the reminders. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever!

I think Christ-chan would make a great waifu tbh.

>>583 Leaving my marks here, as a cath >>754 BASED AND DAILY-BREAD PILLED THANKS FOR THE WORDS ANON

>>2088 Well she is modeled off the ideal Christian housewife, dubsman. >>2112 You're welcome, dear Roman. I tried to send you a gift, but it was too large. Tell me, have you ever heard of The History of the Papal States by Reverend John Miley? Highly recommend it, comes in three large parts and goes until roughly the middle of the 19th Century.

>>2088 Christ-chan is cute, but I'm partial to Catholic-chan

What's the best denomination to join so that my donation money doesn't go to poor starving niggers in Africa and instead goes to hu-wite families here in the U.S.?

>>2171 Orfodogz. Though we're Pre-Denominational.

>>2171 Anon part of being Christian is martyrdom. I use the term in its traditional sense of sacrificing in the face of your enemies, not in the highest form of martyrdom which is dying for a cause. Yes Jesus took out a bullwhip and drove out the merchants, but he still told people to turn the other cheek when not in the face of such heresy. There are issues with the African donations system that I wish the church would address. Many of them are indirectly laid out in this 9 minute video by Magatte Wade, a businesswoman from Senegal in Africa. Jump to 3 minutes since the first 3 minutes are her getting anti-work dumbasses to listen. I won't trouble this thread with any more on that topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpjxElfNpks As for your original question, can't tell yah. I'm an "Orthodox Christian," but my beliefs are intertwined with some very un-Christian Shinto and Iberian/British Isle folklore belief-sets set in the "Old Christian" dominion god above all, but minor "deities" are actually spirits on earth which can be good or bad and deserve reverence even if they are not actually gods that are frowned upon by the major sects (including my own). I think there is a branch-off in North America that is well-liked by anons with your mindset so you might want to look into them. I don't remember what their denomination is called, only that their church is either based out of either Kansas or Kentucky. My interactions with the Mormons have also been pleasant and I think that their community goals are admirable (they basically try to have a separate government from the recognized government), but in terms of spiritual beliefs I think they are crackpots. I hope that helps.

Hello, adepts of faith. Recently I've been reflecting heavily about the nature of the world and existence itself, and found out that many of my conclusions align with Christian teachings and ideas. I'm an agnostic (most specifically a deist) and am planning on studying the Bible in the near future. I think there's a good chance of conversion if I understand the Bible in a perfect logical sense, but first I gotta sort some things out, like understanding the different denominations and which is the best version of the holy book. I frequently hear that KJV is the best one, why is that? I shall lurk in your board in the near future, too. Hope we have some great discussions. May God bless us all.

>>2179 My interactions with the Chruch of Latter Day Saints.* I should use their proper name.

>>2180 >I think there's a good chance of conversion if I understand the Bible in a perfect logical sense I've been a science-nerd since I was literally a small boy. There's one ministry pretty much unique AFAICT tbh that focuses on the concordance between the book of the Bible, and the 'book' of nature (aka science). https://reasons.org That ministry's teaching have really solidified my faith (insofar as the intellectual part of it goes) like few other things in life have. Hope that helps Anon. Cheers!

>>2180 >I frequently hear that KJV is the best one, why is that? King James Version was the first "English" bible to translate the German translation of the Latin translation of the Greek translation into something legible for the average laymen in English. I think for what it was at the time it was a good start, but at that point if you intend to read a translation of a translation of a translation, you would be best off reading the New King James Version (NKJV) as it is something of a localization for more modern (post-20th century) readers. >but first I gotta sort some things out, like understanding the different denominations I actually recommend reading pdf related first before reading any bible if it is your first time reading, and to consider a study session bible since annotations will help you understand some of the jargon from a very old book. The Orthodox church isn't quite the original denomination (there were pre-Christian Christian denominations), but they were certainly the "foundation" for Catholicism and all the protestant branch-offs that spread Christian belief systems to the Pagan parts of the world. Timothy Ware does an excellent job explaining some of these denominational differences in a way that anons not well-versed in Christianity can understand, from the perspective of this "original denomination." He doesn't say the Orthodox church is right in explaining differences, he just lays out what the Orthodox think and what other branch-off churches think.

>>2184 Oh gosh darn it, I knew I should have checked that pdf before uploading it. Sorry, I meant this one.

>>2184 Not him, but that's a helpful post Anon, thanks.

>>2186 Ah, I almost forgot but please don't be discouraged by the 507 pages! In actuality the book is only about 150 pages of history followed by another 150 pages of doctrinal differences. The last 200 pages are just further reading recommendations and indexes to claims the author made since he is a scholarly Englishman versed in Greek Orthodoxy!

>>2184 >Orthobro unironically promoting the NKJV instead of the Orthodox Study Bible when it's missing the apocryphal / deuterocanonical / anagignoskomena books of the Septuagint, and is based on the NKJV anyway https://archive.org/details/the-orthodox-study-bible-2021-medium-quality-scan

>>2210 well this is the "christmas" board. >>2179 I'd like to research them but I find religion pretty cringe so digging deep into local stuff is a real chore for me. I would actually prefer a secular-humanist style movement that was pro-white but most secular shit is pozzed. There's also the Fermi paradox fear of "if I call out into the darkness for a white refuge, the only ones to answer will be those who glow in the dark" so anything I say has to be in coded language so as not to put me on more watch lists than I'm already on. In the mean time just pretend to be a normie as much as I can.

>>2213 You are literally celebrating Jésus birth. I guess the non-theists pray on the goodwill of the Christens because they happen to be the most pious around Christmas and Easter. Disclaimer: I am not a christan, but I do believe in a certain goddess. I do wish to celbrate Jesus in addition to my own rituals.

>>2152 >Tell me, have you ever heard of The History of the Papal States by Reverend John Miley? Highly recommend it, comes in three large parts and goes until roughly the middle of the 19th Century. No. Would like to see someone post the PDF here.

>>2213 >I would actually prefer a secular-humanist style movement that was pro-white >There's also the Fermi paradox fear of "if I call out into the darkness for a white refuge, the only ones to answer will be those who glow in the dark" Thinking that a movement has to obviously be pro-white for you to approve is pretty /pol/-tier cringe and schizo-pilled within itself. Movements that aren't even related to whatever your softcore sturmheart desires have every right to not be concerned with whatever you believe, especially when it isn't relevant to it. To put it simply, politics aren't a good solution and have rarely been a good solution for anything. Those kinds of movements you speak of are the same reason why churches are woke, because they simply go with the flow of whatever is dominant at the time in current year. They're easily corruptible. You almost sound like that 'how can I find a racist church' guy at /christian/ LOL. You'd be much happier (and probably taken off this "list" you speak of) by focusing on your local community rather than a color of another person's skin. t. Christian who worships and invites God at home.

>>2220 >and probably taken off this "list" you speak of Anyone posting on image boards without a VPN are probably on some list or another. I'm being a bit facetious of course, but with that FBI watchlist that was leaked recently, perhaps it's not as much of a joke as I once thought... >your local community rather than a color of another person's skin. I live in a mostly white region so if I were to focus on my community it'd probably benefit mostly white people. My issue is churches sending missionaries and money to Africa and assorted shitholes across the globe when there's all kinds of people in need (white or otherwise) within their own country. This could also be extrapolated to the governmental level of the U.S. giving out aid to many countries, particularly (((ones))) that go out of their way to start shit in the middle east and cry about defense costs but I don't want to delve into that in this thread. My local issue is there's lots of gay shit, druggies and various degenerates that are empathetic and altruistic in a way I would find incompatible with my worldview. >churches are woke, because they simply go with the flow of whatever is dominant at the time in current year. They're easily corruptible maybe we need a current year Martin Luther to nail some shit on church doors. I'm not one for manifestos but canning the globohomo shit would be a nice start. >You almost sound like that 'how can I find a racist church' guy at /christian/ LOL How about church that's simply not anti-white?

>>2222 >2222 Witnessed. >I live in a mostly white region so if I were to focus on my community it'd probably benefit mostly white people. Good for you, but that doesn't mean that you should ignore their problems. For one... >My local issue is there's lots of gay shit, druggies and various degenerates that are empathetic and altruistic in a way I would find incompatible with my worldview. I bet there's solutions that can be done. I bet you can think of a solution if you take the time to do so. Obviously, I'm not going to tell you to talk to your mayor (they rarely do anything anyway) or tell you to take action (takes a lot of time and effort, especially if you have a job). Maybe a good starting point is to keep in touch with your IRL friends from that community and just check up on them to help them out. Sure, it's not much, but you are only one person after all, and influence spreads in more ways than you think! >My issue is churches sending missionaries and money to Africa and assorted shitholes across the globe I agree that's a problem that shouldn't even exist. But you can make the kind of change you want by donating to actual reputable charities that are apolitical instead. Sure, it may not be pro-white or obviously based, but it's better than being demoralized by seeing a church fuck over everyone by ignoring domestic problems. I've made independent donations to numerous parks in my town and it's super satisfying seeing the parks finally get the upkeep they deserve. >How about church that's simply not anti-white? Kek, but unfortunately, I'm not the right person to ask. But my gut feeling is that finding an apolitical church might be the way to go, a church that puts more effort in the local area sounds good. (sidenote: samefag of >>2220 here, no offense intended to those who go to church. Obviously #NotAllChurches. More power to you if you go to church, friend! I do miss being part of a bigger community.)

>>2222 >My issue is churches sending missionaries and money to Africa and assorted shitholes across the globe when there's all kinds of people in need (white or otherwise) within their own country. The mainline Western churches have left their congregations to be preyed upon by wolves in sheep's clothing. They turn a blind eye to the desecration of all things holy and operate as if the West were still majority Christian, devout, and homogenous. They can't face the truth because it would convict them of ministerial failure.

>>2183 >>2184 >>2186 Many thanks.

Non-whites don't have Souls. They are flesh golems. When something is empty, it can be filled. Satan rules underneath this Earth and sends his evil influence to the surface. Satan puts his "seed"in these flesh golems. It's kind of like programming and satan has filled all the non-whites and women with evil programming. That's why you should never engage with a golem. They are LITERAL demons. Stay pure. Don't have sex and don't associate with demons. Their sole purpose is to temp you and lead astray. Talk to God as if He were sitting next to you. And always talk to him. Never neglect/forget Him. Follow God's path and you'll have an eternity in Heaven, where there is no-one that can harm you and where there are no temptations. God only created a few Souls and scattered them throughout time. Only the Sons of God go to Heaven. God only places Souls in the bodies of pure European men(blonde hair, blue eyes).

>>2222 Checked

>>2216 https://mega.nz/folder/omQzmSJQ#o4a5aJJsLbcDWfllRJjHFA/folder/wr4wxSIJ You'll need to do some sifting. Look under "Northern Italy." >>2234 Mmmhm. That's why absolutely no miracles or saints occurred among the men of Greece, Syria, or Ethiopia for the entirety of their Christian civilizations. Oh wait.

>>2249 *Southern Italy, sorry.

>>2234 >Non-whites don't have Souls. They are flesh golems. >Satan puts his "seed"in these flesh golems. It's kind of like programming and satan has filled all the non-whites and women with evil programming. Anon, you do know it's a sin to lie right?

>>2256 It's probably a shitpost anon

Nice thread you have here, /christian/. It's awful cold out here, why not let me in?

>>2271 Varg is a murderous goober who can't help running his mouth even into his dotage. Pray for him, that he might wake up one morning to realize it was all pointless. By the by, speaking of bearded holy men in wintry conditions, anyone read the story of Father Arseny?

>>2271 Oh hey! It's that guy! What's his name... Christian? Or is it with a k?

>>2271 Hey /tv/

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/12/11/the-problem-of-interpretation-and-christian-epistemology/ https://russian-faith.com/history/prayers-saints-originated-jews-not-pagans-n2419 A pair of interesting articles for any theological heavyweights about here. >>2249 By the way, this "library" has a good-sized section on the Crusades too.

>>2286 Why is he holding the next xbox logo?

>>2293 Because you're living a lie. Revelations‎ 22:‎2 >through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Merry Christmas to all Christbros. Let us celebrate the Lord's birth. > t. Anglibro >>754 Thanks for the words of encouragement. It's become especially tough here the last few months. I have to say I greatly miss QTDDTOT from 8chan. It was the only place on the entire internet that was actually for Christian discussion and not just a debate atheists forum. I still clearly remember the advice and help I received there. I try to spare a thought in my prayers for all the bros who were scattered. Webm related for some music we sing in our church that had a much deeper feel this year. It made me realise that hope comes suddenly in the darkness just as Christ came suddenly into the world. Elizabeth didn't receive warning. The mother of God simply showed up on her doorstep one day. >>2171 You pick a religion because it's true. This is literally the only factor that matters. If it's true, you have to believe it. If it's not true, you're wasting your time. If you decide that Christianity is true in general then ask the following questions. >What did the earliest church look like? >Which modern church(es) most resemble that? >How does the authenticity of the church get passed down from generation to generation? >Which church(es) is then authentic? >Does the bishop of Rome have all the authority he claims for himself? These will tell you which denomination to join. It sounds like you want a religion that serves your existing beliefs and is politically convenient for you which is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Might I suggest that you have already found your god and your religion? Might I also suggest simply giving to the poor directly? Instead of giving that homeless man a dollar (or nothing), give him $20. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. If one doesn't exist, start one. Be the change you want to see Anon.

Say brothers, will you meet us? Say brothers, will you meet us? Say brothers, will you meet us? On Canaan’s happy shore? Glory, glory hallelujah! Glory, glory hallelujah! Glory, glory hallelujah! For ever, evermore! By the grace of God we’ll meet you By the grace of God we’ll meet you By the grace of God we’ll meet you Where parting is no more. Glory, glory, hallelujah Glory, glory, hallelujah Glory, glory, hallelujah For ever, evermore! Jesus lives and reigns forever Jesus lives and reigns forever Jesus lives and reigns forever On Canaan’s happy shore. Glory, glory, hallelujah Glory, glory, hallelujah Glory, glory, hallelujah For ever, evermore!

>>2294 Take your meds schizo

>>2299 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71NCzuDNUcg Just so happened to be on the radio. God-given digits, my good Englishman. Your church has not a few stains on its honour, but you speak the truth. High Church? Yes, a religion should be adhered to only if it is true, for it is the view of how reality itself works. It's not a social club. It's not a sweater you put on every Sunday, cannot be so. You accept that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the emanating Holy Spirit made and have guided Creation since the beginning, that the Devil lost his power over with the Resurrection, and that the biggest reason evil yet happens in this world is because Man has Fallen. There is no running from that truth, considerations of race and class as you understand them are nothing but the puerile drivel of thinkers from the "Enlightenment" and onward. These may exist, but the state of Creation and that of your immortal soul matters far more. So instead of getting frustrated, find your Church, and work to make fast its walls against the storm, to keep its community standing and doing good for the poor and needy.

>>2308 Takes your meds neurotic

>>2299 Ah, and I have just acquired something which should be brought back out on Easter too. Your Christmas gift from the old /Christian/. GLORIFY HIM, AND GLORIFY HIS RESURRECTION

Short hair Roman IESVS>long hair barbarian jesus.

>>2323 Why do you guys worship Obi wan kenobi? Isn't that what you call a "false idol"? Like Vtubers.

>>2323 Where did you find that one?

>>2319 Is there a church that has not suffered greatly from the heralds of the current year? Perhaps some eastern church of such-and-such small country but they will not remain unnoticed for long. Anything that even vaguely resembles the Church is a target. Do not pridefully say, "It cannot happen to us." Your church is in real danger. The Roman Catholics would sometimes say that the heresies in our church are proof that we are not the real Church and now they have a pagan idol in theirs. Remember that at one point most of the clergy were Arians but the Church did not stop being the Church for that. We live in extremely dark times: probably the darkest so far. I am puzzled by those who in one breath say that the West has been subverted and we need to fight tooth and nail for it while in the next saying that Christianity is subverted so we should abandon it. These views are not compatible. They were right in the first case. We shouldn't just hand over ground. I've been told the battle was already lost in the 70s with women's ordination. Well I wasn't born for that but I'm not prepared to give up in the present. We need to remember that the gates of Hades will not prevail and that God has his hand ready to end the current trials the second their purposes (whatever they may be) have been accomplished. You are correct in your guess but I hope you don't have too high an opinion of us. We are not some bastion of western Christianity. In some ways we are in even greater difficulties than other Christians. I got quite off track here but I wanted to make sure to say that I have heard the truth said many a time from the low church Anglicans as well. They are the ones largely holding out against modern degeneracy for instance. I'll be preaching to the choir here but the Church is also not an NGO. Our mission is not to solve poverty or world hunger or whatnot. Equally our mission is not to secure a homeland. >considerations of race... I don't know if I'd go this far. Nationality (in the true sense) is important and a good thing. We ought to love our nations (in the true sense) in a similar way to loving our families. We don't let our neighbours come into our houses as they please but that doesn't mean we don't like them. It just means we love our families and want to have a space for that. The real problem is as you say. There is outright war going on right now over your soul. You don't have time to be overly concerned with other matters. This is why we are told to turn the other cheek. You don't have time to make sure every wrong against you is paid for. The enemy is waiting for your slip up. He wants to whisper into your ear about how so-and-so wronged you in the past. He wants to get you to be concerned primarily with worldly things. Preferably base things like money, sex and power but nobler things like concern with the poor, concern for your race and justice are acceptable too as long as you focus on anything except God and the fact that you are standing on the precipice of death. Make no mistake. You are on the battlefield and there are no non-combatants in this war. The devils want you to lay down your arms and surrender quietly. This is a trick. They won't take prisoners. Instead resist them. The saints and angels are ready to close ranks about you at the first signs of your feeble struggles against evil and, by the grace of God, you may manage to do some small good. But in order to do this, you need to put God first. This means you will be required to give up many things. You may even be required to give up things that are objectively good in order to pursue a greater good. None of this means that we are not concerned at all with these lesser goods or that we don't fight for them but rather that we are most concerned with our salvation and that we do not forget that fact. >>2321 I'm not particularly invested in whether the shroud of Turin is the real thing or not but I do find Christians who refuse to admit the existence of miracles to be a bit odd. I'm not talking about disbelieving a specific miracle but people who automatically disbelieve anything miraculous in the present day. Presumably they believe a bare minimum of two miracles: the incarnation and the resurrection. On what grounds then do they say that miracles can't happen? No doubt there have been many instances of fraudulent miracles but I see no reason why real ones shouldn't happen. I meant to post a webm from one of your fathers about what we can do in these dark times. I have an inkling it was Father Spyridon but I couldn't find it. Anyway he said that, in former times, men would do great fasts and live in the desert and live great ascetic lives in order to draw closer to God. In these present days, this is so far beyond what we are capable of anymore. Live good Christian lives and pray, he said. "This will be enough for us." To do even this will be as hard for us as asceticism was for the desert fathers. Since I couldn't find that, here's my favourite hymn in the English hymnal instead.

>>2333 >>2333 >>2333 Excellent post, Brother Digits. Merry Christmas!

>>2211 >nobody checked them digits

>>2333 >the Church is also not an NGO This is probably one of the biggest misunderstanding that Christians have and a significant factor as to why denominations bring their faith into conformity with the standards of the world rather than bringing the world into conformity with the standards of God. What began in the Protestant churches during the Methodist revolution as a movement to evangelize to the world broke into two wings with the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy; the former adopted a strict literalism while the latter abandoned faith as a source of truth and subjected it in favor of their secular functions.

>>2211 >>2337 C-checked.

Hello. Agnostic here. I don't know how to turn my life to Christ, I really would like to believe but I just can't get over the mental obstacles of disbelief and incredulity. How do I do it?

>>2355 I would also like to know this

>>2355 >>2356 Well I can't give you a simple, pat answer to that question Anons. But I can tell you about how I personally got saved, and what my life's been like as a Christian since. What specifically would you like to know Anons?

>>2355 Read the New Testament for starters. If not for religious reasons, at least for historical and literary ones.

>>2355 Ask God for signs. If you truly wish to have a connection with the Holy Spirit, I believe that you will receive them. I used to be where you are now, and I lived a miracle after I called out to God for help and I've considered myself Christian ever since.

>>2355 The New Testament is required reading at some point, and it should be one of the first things you read. But it's written primarily for Christians; I find it doesn't do such a good job convincing people why they should believe. Look into apologetic works. Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis is always a good beginner's book, and I think there might be some radio recordings of some of the material on YouTube. Though, I shouldn't be one to direct others; I'm not the most faithful Christian out there and I'm struggling with my own beliefs. captcha: deaf3e

>>2355 My advice is to read the works of GK Chesterton. The man had (has, as I have little doubt that he made it to our native land) a strong grasp of the woes we moderns face even now, and an entertaining style of writing to get across the Christian answers to them. Start with The Everlasting Man and work from there, as that was the book which saved no less a man than CS Lewis from atheism. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65688 Take it. Merry Christmas.

It's supposed to be Christmas, but where is Christ in any of it? I don't see anything but an abominable vortex of consumerism. I wish I could help bring someone peace, but I can't even help myself. No one else would ever dare help me, "I got myself into this mess". No one understands.

>>2355 >hello redditor here Begone faggot

>>2355 >>2356 You've received some good advice already. C. S. Lewis is a great author and well worth reading. You also can't go wrong with the Bible. I wish I could give you a clever answer that would make you go, "Ah! Of course!" Some magic words that would make all the doubt and uncertainty go away. I don't think these words exist. The best I can say is to find someone who has gone through this process before. Someone like me who was born into the faith is wholly unsuited to explaining how to get from having never believed to believing. I could talk about doubts about existing faith and not falling away and things of that nature but not so well on this. The reason for my reply though is to say that all kinds of spiritual growth take time. Some people have "Aha!" moments but not everybody. You may never read a sentence in a book and instantly believe. It may be that after a long time thinking about Christianity that you discover you have believed for some time and you're not even sure how that happened. I have found that daily prayer helps me but, since your problem is that you don't believe in the first place but would like to, perhaps you could try going to a church one Sunday if you haven't already. Seeing Christianity in practice might be quite informative and you don't actually have to participate. Just sit in the back row. Do you know any Christians? >>2397 Did you go to church today Anon? I'm fully with you on the tiresomeness of consumerism. Everyone wants you to buy something right? Then they start complaining if people don't buy enough things. It's pretty grotesque to turn the day Heaven invaded Earth into a day of materialism. I'm sure this is no accident. >>2338 >bring their faith into conformity with the standards of the world rather than bringing the world into conformity with the standards of God What a delightful way of saying this. If only we could do the second one.

It's Agnostic Anon again. I'd like to thank all the good faithful anons for their advice. I'll look into this reading material. >>2358 Well I don't really know how to phrase what I want to ask. I was born into a Catholic family and went to Catholic school for most of my life but now I'm in my 30s and I'm just kind of wandering through life scared and lonely. I don't have a wife or a girlfriend and I live with my mother. Right now I'm struggling with crippling existential dread, anxiety and hypochondriasis, and I just have an ever-present feeling of doom hanging over my head. I think I might have PTSD from a traumatic event that happened to me 7 years ago to the day. It's not that I'm depressed, I don't think I'm depressed, but I have severe anxiety that makes me feel depressed. I feel terrified of just being alive sometimes, and I don't know why. I don't want to kill myself or anything like that, but my PTSD terror has completely trashed my life into the dirt. I'm trying things to see if I can alleviate this fear, but lately I'm basically jumping at my own shadow. I've been living in isolation far longer than anyone I know, reverting to it ever since the traumatic incident that happened to me, and I'm lost and afraid. The isolation I've experienced predates the COVID lockdowns and I think it's made me loopy in the head and given me something beyond cave syndrome. Every day I'm plagued with fears that I know are completely irrational coupled with physical pain from the anxiety. I guess by reaching out to you guys I'm looking for a way to save myself from this doom because I'm getting kind of desperate with my mental afflictions. I can't even go outside anymore due to my fear that something terrible will happen. I don't go to sleep easy and sometimes I wake up too early and can't get back to sleep. I know these all seem like problems for a psychiatrist but I'm wondering if any of you have gone through anything similar and if finding Jesus made things better for you. Part of the reason I ask is because I've seen what faithless people are like - they use their fears and worries as an excuse to be miserable, wretched curmudgeons that seem to get a rise out of hurting other people online and have hideous methods of coping with anxiety. They don't have any solutions for anything and live lives full of problems. I don't wanna be like them, those sadsacks that only live to dress-down other people and think that life is completely meaningless. I don't think life is meaningless. I'm willing to look into more solutions than they are.

>>2406 Well I guess in answer I'll attempt to just cut to the chase and discuss salvation itself, and why we all so desperately need it Anon. The Bible is both historical and accurate. It claims so itself, and everywhere we as man have been able to put it to the test, it has proven to be so. The Bible is both a factual account of the things it discusses in the direct sense, and also a deep guide to the unknown things for us blind beggars stumbling awkwardly forward in this present dark age. God created just two single human beings, a single pair of homo-sapiens-sapiens, as the crowning achievement to the creation of this entire universe. Indeed the chief and foremost reason for it's existence at all. He (God) intentionally invited the creature, the (now-fallen) angel, referred to as Satan, into the Garden of Eden to test the two humans Adam and Eve. Despite God's clear warnings against it, they both fell into that serpent's trap, and so they both died spiritually on that day they ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus began the actually-epic saga that led to our way out of the trap that had been laid for us, if we're willing to actually come out of this death. --- God looked for a man to work with Him in a way that would allow Him (God) to 'legally' re-enter the Earth in authority once more (He had turned that authority over Adam, who promptly gave it over to Satan you see). He found Abram, called him from his people to a strange land, renamed him Abraham in preparation for this salvation covenant, and there required that he sacrifice his (miraculously-born) only son to Him, God. Abraham obeyed, and so the way was opened for us to receive God back to the Earth. Many, many years later the moment came and God had an immaculate conception and incarnation and reappeared among man. Unsurprisingly, the serpent drove his sons to kill the God-Man, Jesus Christ brutally. This was all according to God's plan actually, and He was just using Satan as the tool he is. After 3 days Jesus promptly rose from the dead, came out of the grave, and ascended back to Heaven (carrying His precious blood along with Him). Now He has simply required of us that we just believe He actually did for us what He promised He would to Adam all the way back at the very beginning of mankind there in the Garden of Eden. For everyone who believes the facts I've just described and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord, will also receive Him as Savior and enter into eternal life in Heaven. That's enough for a beginning Anon. So I'll stop there for the moment and take any specific questions regarding what I've just told you.

>>2412 That's a lotta words to say mary cucked Joseph and used an excuse to not be stoned to death as an adultress. Knowing the current state of things, it would not surprise me if that turned out to be true but the rest of Jesus' story is plausible.

An excuse that would not fly even back then. Don't be so ridiculous off the cuff.

Doubtful. If things could get sodam and gamorrah bad again like they are now, she was likely one of MANY that did the same exact thing.

>>2413 That's a école lotte words to say you are wrong Immaculate creation you see two words They are there Immaculate Look up word

>>2415 Why must our Lord and God be a literal bastard? Why must his blessed mother be what the worst sort of Rabbinical says she is? Explain yourself.

>>2412 I have nothing to add, but are you the Anglican anon from earlier? Are you typically about in /christian/? You seem an interesting fellow, and I would happy to speak to you again about theology.

>>2417 >b-b-b-uh Seethe. Jesus was sent to be our savior and the redeemer whom carries all our sin. They also never explain much about Mary besides "she's just holy... and pure... cuz woman." just like the simps of today.

They explain plenty if you bother to look into the traditional explanation of the Theotokos. But even if you disregard sacred tradition, the Gospels themselves state what she did to make herself worthy of being the vessel to bear our Lord and Master. If you disregard the Gospels, then what is there to believe? Even one passage dismissed invalidates the whole. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God, and so will be shown due veneration, not worship. If you wish to try and anger us, you had best try another tack.

>>2433 >im seething but not seething >the Gospels themselves state what she did to make herself worthy No they explicitly say she was born to be the mother of the messiah and she had no original sin to begin with silly billy.

>>2438 Now I'm just confused. What are you going on about now?

>>2403 >Everyone wants you to buy something right? Close family an I have been going through shit for the past few years. Extended family knows full well about what we're going through but they don't want to help us, we aren't worth it and they might have some grudges against us for some things. So they insist on buying us stuff we don't want and never asked for to help them feel better about themselves. They ignore us the rest of the year, then suddenly on this one day we have to admit to them that we're all family. We just ended up ignoring them this year, not talking to anyone or celebrating anything. Then I have to bear people talking about everything that they received for Christmas, on imageboards and elsewhere, about watches and video games and shoes and shit, and it all just got really tiring. >Did you go to church today Anon? I don't go to church. I don't like the kind of people that go to church, they're all insincere and cliquish. I don't like people in general. And if I'm not there for communion and fellowship, then what am I going there for? I don't like these sectarian conflicts, either; This idea that you can only be saved if you label yourself , this idea of "whoops, you went to the wrong building for Sunday service, looks like you aren't a real Christian". I have a lot of shit going through my head that I need to sort out and some of it is probablydefinitely heresy. I have to find a community I can trust and one I feel like I belong in. But these modern-day organizations we call "churches" have failed us. I don't really know where to go, but I feel like I'll be hard pressed to find what I need in a church.

>>2444 >insincere and cliquish What sort of churches have you seen to believe this, anon?

>>2429 That one isn't me but I am interested by his comment about "legally re-entering the Earth" since I've not heard that one before. Is this idea from somewhere? I wrote 2299, 2333 and 2403 but disregard that last one. I completely misunderstood our poor friend's situation and assumed he didn't have any experience with Christianity. I don't post much in general on any board since I usually don't have much worth saying. I don't know where all the old /Christian/s went. Is the cafe it? Look at the threads. >How can I find a racist church? Come on >Yeshua was a Mediterranean jew Obvious bait >Having children More bait and also rubbing people's lack of gf in their faces >Should we denounced the old testament I refuse to even open this one The only other Christian board I know of is the one on 8kun and that site is slow and laggy (at least last time I checked). I don't frequent meta threads so I keep getting left behind in all these exoduses. I just want a comfy place for Christian fellowship. I don't want to listen to Nietzschefags going on about "b-b-but muh will to power!" or Evangelicals calling my church a den of latent popery, or Neopagans and their plagiarism memes, or Catholics butchering the history of the Church of England. I'm tired and I don't care anymore. These people can believe what they like. I have no interest left in arguing with bad-faith actors. So please, if you know a place where we can talk about our faith and share ideas on how to understand it, tell me. Doesn't matter how small it is.

>>2445 I was raised Catholic, left and encountered a number of other Protestant groups I'm a burger, so that's probably the source of my problems.. No matter where I went, I always got this impression that no one ever showed up on Sunday for Christ's sake, they were there because that's just what tradition told them to do. Or, they otherwise had a very "public" perception of faith; Matthew 6:5 is the kind of thing I'm thinking of. I didn't feel right in these places. A church is supposed to be a community; I invariably would ask myself "Do I want to be part of this community?", and the answer would always be "No, these people suck".

>>2446 Ah, good, you're still about. My mistake was believing that only you had the capacity to be verbose. >tired I can certainly understand that. I outright ignored /christian/ for awhile thanks to all the anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox theology being thrown around. Now I look at it, and my fa/tg/uy sensibilities see a place I can make something of. Whether it is bringing theology to bear or calmly picking apart a shitpost, I believe it a place which can be made pleasant with some effort. Lemons to lemonade and all that.Frankly, I'm an ogre with a club, so arguments with someone who does not hide their intentions with blather is fun. At any rate, I would have to think over where such a place would be otherwise. Aside from a couple small Discord servers I know, and I doubt you'd be keen on that. >re-entering It sounds familiar, but the Christian life should be best understood as preparing to return home to Heaven. Chesterton even called it "our native land." Incidentally, you ever read the Screwtape Letters? Our anti-social friend in here reminded me of a certain entry from that. A warrior of God with squeaky boots is quite unassuming to the eye, isn't he? >>2447 Ah, and speaking of you... one, read a least a little of the above book, it might be a jolt to the system. Two, have you tried any traditionalist Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox parishes? From experience, the last of those might not spoon-feed you, but if you put on the effort, they will respect and help you. I say traditionalists for the first two and broadly recommend the third because they are far more interested in fulfilling the commandments given them than obeying the whims of the world. Thus, even when they seem harsh about something, it is from a place of care that they are. Does that make sense?

Trying to find a Church to get into. Long time atheist, but reading Church history really turned me onto the theology. I really can't decide between Catholic and Orthodox. What do? Christianity is so split up, I can't really make up my mind. There are both kinds of churches in town, but to make matters worse, then there's Greek Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox churches, and I don't understand the difference. Google says it's just, like, culture? I don't understand. Could I just go and check them all out, does it matter? I don't want to go to some crackpot cult church, or somehow "get it wrong" just because I walked through the wrong door.

>>2449 I might be a touch biased, belonging to an Antiochian church, and while there is fundamentally no difference in theology between the two branches of Orthodoxy, but I would recommend you at least check out the Antiochian for them having a less turbulent Patriarchal than the Greeks at the moment. Hell, if you can find it, the Ethiopians might give you a great time with their Orthodox Tewahedo Church. They're always welcoming to the curious, since they're even more hidden than the other Oethodox.

>>2450 What's wrong with the Greek Patriarchal?

>>2452 Patriarchate, sorry. At the moment, Patriarch Bartholomew rejoices in supporting American/globalist interests (because he's stuck relying on American money), allowing secularist-friendly theologians to have the pulpit, and antagonizing the Patriarchate of Moscow by championing a Ukrainian schismatic church which embraces the first two things. It's really not pretty.

>>2448 >Does that make sense? Yeah. I've actually done a little research (only a little) on Orthodox theology, but what little I've seen just makes more sense, I guess? Something like it just sits with me better. But we still run into the community issue where I don't feel comfortable approaching an Orthodox church. They feel like "cultural clubs", and I don't have a single drop of Eastern European blood in me and have no connection with their culture. I'll still just end up feeling like a foreigner uninvited.

>>2453 >Look him up >Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew diagnosed with COVID-19 >Yesterday 7:50 AM Well, then. How time-appropriate.

>>2249 Thanks a lot!

>>2444 Checked. That sounds pretty tough. I can't say I understand what it's like to have fair weather family although I do have some relatives who get you stuff you don't want. One offhand comment in July and now I have to use this thing and they will check up on it. I think if your close family is struggling with something, it's not unreasonable to want some time to deal with everything. I'm going to go out on a limb now. >if I'm not there for communion and fellowship, then what am I going there for? To worship God. I'm going to assume by "communion" you are referring to the Lord's Supper / the Eucharist and not as a synonym for "fellowship." Otherwise you also go to receive that. Focus less on other people at church and more on yourself and God. That said, you're right. And let me tell you as an Anglican about the horrors of morning tea which is practically a part of the service. You have 2.6753 nanoseconds to leave after the notices before you get surrounded by dear old ladies and dragged along to biscuits and tea and gossip. And I thought nothing could be as awkward as everyone shaking hands during the peace until it got replaced by bowing. It sounds like you need a church that is more focused on the spiritual needs of its congregation. Where the people really take it seriously. Where there is discipline and an actual desire to struggle against the sins you're struggling with. >>2447 I'll tell you a secret. Everyone sucks. I suck. If you met me, you'd probably hate me. However, you should be very careful about saying that. A church is always going to be full of awful people because it's a hospital for the sick. Have you ever read the Brothers Karamazov? We all wish church meant being in the company of people who understand us and have golden words of wisdom that soothe our souls like with Alexei and his Elder Zossima. Sometimes it is like that but sometimes it means being among people we don't like in order to teach us to love the unlovable.

>>2454 I'll not lie to you, anon, that is a pitfall some Orthodox churches can fall into. However, it is largely a stance of the past, not the present. To become Orthodox will cause some changes in your mental landscape (it certainly did mine), and these will likely happen in such a way that if you feel foreign at first, you will feel it steadily less over time. Their priest will be no stranger to whatever questions you might have, in any case. Besides, if something in the back of your head is saying "this feels right for me," it might just be God giving you a gentle push. I am the same anon who suggested that the Ethiopian Church was a valid option to approach. If I believe that of the strange but earnest church from East Africa, I will certainly say the same for the taciturn but passionate Russians. >>2455 Huh. Timely indeed. Pray for him nonetheless.

>>2448 >verbose I don't know. Am I being praised or criticised? It's just how I naturally write depending on which mood I'm in. I'll give it another chance. Perhaps it's like a garden overgrown with weeds. I'll give d*scord (extremely aptly named by the way) a pass. I've never had anything but terrible experiences with it tearing communities apart and also >botnet. I tried reading the Screwtape Letters as a child and I found it so terrifying I had to stop. It felt like a demon was going to somehow get me just for reading it. I have read it since as an adult and it's still the most terrifying book I've ever read. Not a pleasant read but maybe an important one. My favourite of his books are The Great Divorce and The Abolition of Man. Mere Christianity gets all the spotlight but I think it's a bit overrated although still full of goodness. Especially understanding your actions as turning you towards or away from God. >reminded That's funny, his post reminded me of a different bit of C. S. Lewis from the Four Loves which I was going to post but decided against. Picrel because I'm not typing it all out. I had originally decided against it because I wasn't sure if it was really relevant to his situation. >>2449 It is an intolerable situation and a grave sin that Christians are divided and that it is not manifestly obvious to non-Christians where the true Church is. However, I will never pass up the opportunity to repeat something I read on 8ch about this. Someone had asked how long until the Church is reunited and he received the following reply. >Until God has decided we have been disciplined enough. Jesus gave us one Church and we broke it. As punishment, we got exactly what we wanted. We won't be able to fix it through any human effort of ecumenism. Only God knows how to make a Church. I think the difference between Eastern Orthodox churches is mainly the language it's in but I'm probably showing off my ignorance here. >>2455 Good Lord. >>2458 Whatever happened to that Western Orthodox idea that was floating around. I heard they had a few churches at least in the US.

>>2457 >peace Wait, what's this? Where in the service is that? >a swarm of curious old dears I fail to see the problem, as nosy but welcoming old ladies were part of how I got into my church. :^]

>>2460 In the middle of the service after the prayers for the world and for the church and before the offertory sentence. The priest turns to face the people and lifts up his hands saying >We are the Body of Christ And we all say >His Spirit is with us Then he says >The peace of the Lord be always with you >And also with you At that point everyone turns to their neighbours saying "Peace be with you" and shaking hands. Or at least that's what used to happen before the archbishop decided that our earthly lives were more valuable than celebrating the mass correctly. Now we do this sort of awkward bow to each other. I prefer the grouchy old men. Used to know a good one. We could sit down and eat all the biscuits while complaining about things.

>>583 Im sure Jesus is rolling in his grave right now at how christians believe christmas has anything to do with the birth of Christ and isn't some kind of pagan tree worship. Sept = 6, Oct = 8, Nov = 9 and December should logically follow as the 10th month in a year so the current calender date people assume is christs birthday isn't even accurate.

>>2462 >random guy comes in with an absolutely abhorrent hot take, when the Julian calendar, still used in the church, was fixed by the greatest astronomers of the ancient world decades before the birth of Christ

>>2459 >Whatever happened to that Western Orthodox idea that was floating around. I heard they had a few churches at least in the US. They're still around: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=G--S_mN_Ga4

>>2458 For me, I look at Orthodox things and go, yeah this looks great. Then I look at Catholic things and go, yeah, this looks great. They both seem comfortable and right when I look at one of the other. How does one even choose? I can't go get baptized and sign up to join both, can I? It's a problem, see, so I'm just stuck here on the side looking in going, wow sure is nice to be part of a church. Wish I could be Christian, but I can't because you fucking autists went and excommunicated each other over how to prepare magic bread among other things.

>>2412 Alright, I have some questions. >The Bible is both historical and accurate. It claims so itself, and everywhere we as man have been able to put it to the test, it has proven to be so. I don't understand this. The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true? That logic is really circular. I don't see how that constitutes a proof of anything. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. Also, does a belief in God necessarily imply a belief in Satan? Can you believe in God without believing Satan is real? Or is Satan a more intangible thing, like an abstract representation of the evil that rests in the hearts of man?

>>2464 I enjoyed that. There were some differences to what I'm used to but I think I'd feel right at home. I recognised the English Gradual and the Missa de Angelis although it was sung in English for some reason. I guess Latin is too much? I appreciated the hymns. I didn't think they would be present in an Orthodox service. Hymns are underrated as instructional tools I think. >>2468 Not him and I hate to answer for him but I don't think that's quite what he's saying. I could be wrong and I'd like to hear from him but I think he's saying the the Bible has actual historical events recorded in it and that it makes it clear that these are meant to be understood as history. What he's trying to rule out is the idea that this is an obviously fictional story that we're all pretending is factual. He is not addressing the possibility that this historical account might simply be false. It would indeed be silly to say, "I am telling the truth because I am a truth-teller." You seem like you'd appreciate an epistemological explanation. How do we actually know these things? I'm happy to throw in my two cents but first I have to ask something myself. Putting aside Christianity, what do you think of the notion that there is more to existence than just the stuff we can detect with our senses? Do you think there is any kind of divine thing? It doesn't have to a "person" type of god. Maybe there are many such entities? What I'm asking is whether you are a strict materialist.

>>2469 >I'm happy to throw in my two cents but first I have to ask something myself. Putting aside Christianity, what do you think of the notion that there is more to existence than just the stuff we can detect with our senses? Do you think there is any kind of divine thing? It doesn't have to a "person" type of god. Maybe there are many such entities? What I'm asking is whether you are a strict materialist. While I do believe most things that we concern ourselves with in our day-to-day lives are provable with empirical evidence, I believe that the universe is ultimately not a rational place. There is ultimately no rational explanation for the miracle of existence itself, how something exists in place of nothing, so that gives me a sense that existential nihilism is not the correct way to view the world. I've asked myself these questions as I was growing up, I've always leaned agnostic as I could never confirm nor deny the existence of the divine. A while back I sort of began looking into transhumanism and Frank Tipler's omega point cosmology, which posits that the existence of intelligent life is not an accident and ultimately may decide the fate of the universe. The idea is that if we stay on course as a species and keep advancing technologically then eventually we may literally 'create' God, via AI or augmenting our own biology or what have you, and this future man-made God is actually influencing events in the past to cause its own existence. Looking at it, I found some comfort in this idea, and sought shelter in it from my existential worries. But lately I have to come to realize that this transhumanist position is basically no different from faith in the Christian God, it is swapping one God for another (God, Zeus, Allah, The Omega Point, etc. are all variations on the same idea of a divine being). I think that we're used to there being rational explanations for things in our mundane day to day lives. But questions as big as the meaning of life and why there exists a universe at all are more all-encompassing in scope and are of a far greater context than anything we know. Which is why I say there could very well be a God, although we don't know its exact nature. We don't know if it's a sentient, emotional thing that loves us, or just a passive force like gravity that permeates the cosmos. tl;dr I sort of believe there is a God, because the existence of all things is something we don't have a rational answer for. But I'm just not sure if it's the Christian God and if it's sapient and loves us.

>>2470 OK. I had to ask because it's an entirely different challenge to answer if you're starting from a point of believing that material existence is the only existence. I did specify something beyond the material so no AI, no matter how advanced, would qualify nor would anything else created by humans. Some kind of immaterial pervasive "thing" is quite a sufficient starting point. Let us also assume that it "acts" somehow on our material universe despite being beyond it. >we don't know its exact nature. We don't know if it's a sentient, emotional thing that loves us, or just a passive force like gravity that permeates the cosmos. This is quite an astute thing to say and I would be inclined to agree with you. We have no way of understanding a god. No amount of human reason could ever help us understand the nature of this kind of being because we can only reason by reference to the familiar material world. But we're talking about an immaterial being and there's no guarantee that it would be anything like what we're familiar with. In fact we couldn't even say if it's likely or unlikely to be similar. I would say that even though we can experience something beyond the material in our lives (something we crudely call "god"), the exists an impassable gap between us and it and we cannot approach an understanding of it. Now we come to the epistemology. How do we know anything? As far as I'm aware, there are four ways. 1. We observe it with our senses 2. We reason it with our minds 3. We experience it 4. We are told so by someone who knows Obviously, by definition, (1) is out of the question. We have just both agreed that (2) can never work. (3) is possible but how then to explain the great variety of conflicting religions? It can't be sufficient to gain the kind of understanding that Christianity claims. Finally, (4) must be out because, in order for someone else to know, they must have known via one of the first three methods. Now we're really stuck aren't we? And stuck we are. There is literally no way for man to understand God except in a vague sense via experience. And right here is the trick: Although man cannot reach up to heaven to understand God, we claim that God reached down to Earth and told us about himself. He revealed certain aspects of himself - by no means even close to everything, God is still very much a mystery. God essentially said, "That feeling of something beyond you feel? That's me." He also performed many impossible things (miracles) to demonstrate this. Now there's a starting point. Some people know and they can hand that knowledge down to other people. This is what Tradition is. The Bible is a written compilation of this. Nothing in Christianity is invented by man. Whether you believe Christianity or not depends not on your own intelligence but on whether you find the messenger credible. Do you believe me? If you had lived 2000 years ago, that would be that. You would judge for yourself whether St Paul or whoever was an honest, credible man. Whether you could believe him when he said Jesus rose from the dead or is he lying? Since you don't, there is an added difficulty. Maybe I'm not lying as such but I'm just mistaken. Maybe it's a case of Chinese whispers or maybe honest men were duped originally and it was their honesty that spread Christianity. You're going to have to make a gut decision about that. Read the New Testament. Read other early Christian writings (the Orthodox guy in here will dump a whole library on you). Decide, are these people credible? This is at least how I think of it and I actually can't think of another way we could know about God. Assuming we accept the definition of "god" I laid out. You'll notice there's no circular argument here. You don't believe someone because they say, "Believe me." It's a matter of whether you find him trustworthy. As for your question about Satan. Is this a sticking point? Satan is real. He was originally an angel that rebelled against God. However, he's not even remotely comparable in power or anything else to God. Christianity is not dualist. I would say that you can be a Christian without thinking about him very much. In fact I wouldn't recommend dwelling on that topic. I'm a little unsure of what the problem is here and I don't want to write an answer to a question you didn't have.

You’d be surprised the amount of mongoloids out there that don’t know demons and angels are the same thing but different ideologies. What I find odd is how god did not give them to gift of free will. So how did they rebel in the first place? Its is by design and orchestrated by god himself. God even created sin because he gets awfully bored in the void and created it as a means to create entertainment for him.

>>2471 >>2474 >God even created sin because he gets awfully bored in the void and created it as a means to create entertainment for him. Okay, see, THIS I don't buy. When we try to think of a reason why God created everything, our monkey brains typically turn to what we consider a reason for living, which is enjoying/amusing ourselves. But this is kind of a narrow purview, God is supposedly from an infinitely broader, different context. When we think he created everything just because he got bored, we're projecting our own raison d'eitre onto him because we can't conceive of a different reason He'd do anything. I don't believe God would be capable of being bored in the sense that we perceive it. I think whatever 'reason' He has is something beyond our comprehension, much like He is. Reason itself is a construct of man, and the existence of the universe itself is something beyond reason. Therefore God would also be beyond reason. >>2471 >I did specify something beyond the material so no AI, no matter how advanced, would qualify nor would anything else created by humans. Some kind of immaterial pervasive "thing" is quite a sufficient starting point. Let us also assume that it "acts" somehow on our material universe despite being beyond it. Do you mean to say that a very powerful AI, with abilities that we would consider 'Godlike' from our current perspective (I.E. manipulating all forms of matter and energy, travelling through time, resurrecting the dead) would still not be anywhere near to a true God? Why do you believe this is? Is it because a manmade powerful entity would still be material and therefore finite? I can understand this reasoning insofar that there may be a limit to how much we can manipulate the world around us, but what if there is no limit? What if reality can be manipulated like code in a computer? We don't know if that's possible yet, and we can't confirm or deny if it is, so the jury's still out on that. There is a saying by Arthur C. Clarke that says "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and I do believe that to be true, so it's all a matter of how advanced technology can get. But for now, you could be right that there is a limit and that something like that would never attain the status of the divine or immaterial. That's not something you can just 'earn'. >Whether you believe Christianity or not depends not on your own intelligence but on whether you find the messenger credible. Do you believe me? If you had lived 2000 years ago, that would be that. You would judge for yourself whether St Paul or whoever was an honest, credible man. Whether you could believe him when he said Jesus rose from the dead or is he lying? Since you don't, there is an added difficulty. Maybe I'm not lying as such but I'm just mistaken. Maybe it's a case of Chinese whispers or maybe honest men were duped originally and it was their honesty that spread Christianity. You're going to have to make a gut decision about that. You seem like a swell guy and I believe that you believe what you believe, but like you said, man is susceptible to delusion, deception and exaggeration, and this is even stated endlessly in the Bible. So it's hard to make a judgment call on it. Offhand, I can't say I fully believe it, even if it was written by good people throughout the generations, it is something difficult to take seriously. People who've claimed they've talked to God or seen angels could've just been hallucinating or delusional - Terry Davis claimed to hear God and he was de-facto schizophrenic. But it could just be that I don't have enough information. If I could meet and get to know the people who wrote the bible, you're right, I would be able to make a better judgment call. But ultimately, EVERYONE is capable of lying, so I think no one is credible by default. It's the reason why simple hearsay isn't admissible evidence in a court of law, even if it is under oath. Correlating testimony could be, but it's still susceptible to false interpretation and embellishment. I am sad to say that without material proof I find these things very hard to believe, even though I want to. If Jesus himself showed up at my doorstep and performed miracles in front of my eyes, that'd be good enough, that'd be all I need to believe in him. But that's probably not going to happen, so it appears to me that religion is a leap of faith. It pains me that I crave material evidence. I wish I could just cast that aside and believe like the rest of you that God and Jesus and the Bible are real. But alas, I am but a simple scared monkey, and I need to see, touch, smell and taste the banana for me to believe there is a banana. I don't wish to be cast out. I want to enter Jesus's kingdom but I am blocked by this desire for proof. I think atheists and agnostics envy you. It must be comforting and beautiful to be so certain. We are uncertain people.

>>2483 >First bit I couldn't agree more. I don't agree with that other guy. Somebody much wiser than I might know the answer. Apparently though there was something "good" about our creation. I don't mean good in the human sense. When we say something is good, we mean it is good for something. But there must be something objectively good about our creation. Something that means that we ought to exist. I've wondered what a creature that is objectively not good would be like if such a thing could exist. I suppose it would be quite unlike anything in our universe. >Reason itself is a construct of man, and the existence of the universe itself is something beyond reason. Therefore God would also be beyond reason. I only agree if you really mean "beyond reason" and not "sub reason." I think reason is a gift from God though. It's nothing to do with how powerful the AI is. The AI has to exist in a place. In a computer or a futuristic bio-network or even encoded into the strings of string theory. The point is it would have to have a physical presence. One of the premises I started with was that we assumed the existence of something non-physical and non-material (that we call god). That's the only reason. It's important because we believe that God created us (and the whole world), not the other way around. If you want to talk about things that man makes and whether we should worship them and whether we should dare construct an AI god, that's an interesting question in its own right but it's a different one. I'm just saying that given these premises, this is the means by which it is possible to know about God. >I am sad to say that without material proof I find these things very hard to believe, even though I want to. If Jesus himself showed up at my doorstep and performed miracles in front of my eyes, that'd be good enough, that'd be all I need to believe in him. You're in very good company. No less than St Thomas (one of the twelve apostles who witnessed many great things) was absent when Jesus first appeared to the rest after his resurrection. When he was told by the other apostles, he said >Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and place my finger in the mark of the nails, I will not believe. How blessed must you be, who have not seen what Thomas saw, to reach this point? I don't say this in a condescending manner. I am not implying "... and therefore you will believe like he did." What I am saying is that it is OK to doubt. In fact you have to be a bit suspicious of anyone who has never doubted any of their beliefs. How do they know if they really believe if it has never been put to a real test? I think atheists and agnostics like yourself are far closer to true faith than you realise. Closer than many who profess to be Christian. Again I don't mean to say, "Haha you're all Christians in denial!" It's more like a winding road through the mountains. At some point along the road you may come very near your destination such that you could even shout to the people there. But there's no direct way to just get there. You have to continue along the road and it may seem that you're getting farther away for a time. This probably seems like some dreadful platitude to you but it really is like this. I've been there (for a somewhat different problem I was having). So don't worry about it too much. Relax and enjoy the holidays. I think I'm going to have to leave it here for tonight though. Merry Christmas Anon.

>>2483 >Okay, see, THIS I don't buy. >all seeing, all knowing That includes EVERY possibility there is out there. He created it. redditcopers can't comprehend that God doesn't get bored. Hence the trials and tribulations because without struggle there would be no way to measure worthiness and if everyone just got into heaven then it would be as meaningless as going to the local grocery store.

>>2483 >It pains me that I crave material evidence. I wish I could just cast that aside and believe like the rest of you that God and Jesus and the Bible are real. But alas, I am but a simple scared monkey, and I need to see, touch, smell and taste the banana for me to believe there is a banana God comes through practice, not through testing. Western theology went heavy on attempting to exposit the properties of God after rediscovering Aristotle's philosophical works during the Crusades, even though his empiricism is ultimately inadequate to describe Him. This led to the atheism in the modern sciences because He, being something that can't be qualified fully by the faculties of man, was therefore dismissed by the philosophers of science as something that was not useful since God can't be deduced observationally. The modern crisis of faith is heavily tied into the misunderstanding that God is seen to be some entity object rather than an intuitive truth that is appreciated by faith.

>>2489 >crusades >"western" >After WW2 the world was split into two. East and West. This marked the beginning of the era called the Cold War. Fuck off nigger. East and west weren't even used in that cold war geographical ideologue context until the 1960's.

>>2491 ...? De facto difference between Eastern and Western Europe can easily be seen in how Constantinople and Rome related to each other. What are you on about?

Well, while I wait for Agnostic Anon to return, I suppose there are a couple of other question replies I could respond to? >>2429 >I have nothing to add, but are you the Anglican anon from earlier? No, I'm just a typical Bible-believing Protestant. >Are you typically about in /christian/? Not generally. I think the last time I was there was before the Soyjack spammer attack. >>2468 >The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true? No. It's truth because of it's Author's character, Who cannot lie. We, as feeble mortals, have tested it and it's proven true in the things it claims as true. The historical beginning of the universe itself, and it's progression up to the present day. Much of this is spelled out in the Bible thousands of years before the modern era of Astrophysics & Astronomy. This is but one area we can put the Bible to a rigorous test and it passes with flying colors. However, I think this Anon (>>2469) puts it far better than me: >but I think he's saying the the Bible has actual historical events recorded in it and that it makes it clear that these are meant to be understood as history. >Also, does a belief in God necessarily imply a belief in Satan? Can you believe in God without believing Satan is real? Well I suppose you can, Anon. But the truth of the matter is what's actually important, and there are no versions of the truth. >Or is Satan a more intangible thing, like an abstract representation of the evil that rests in the hearts of man? Definitely not. Satan is very real. As much as you or I. He was created as Lucifer, the guarding Cherub above the very throne of God, and the leader of Heavenly worship. He is a very potent enemy, but of course only to us humans in our current state. To be more clear; there is no such thing as a 'arm-wrestling' match going on between Satan and God. Satan is but a (very, very) fallen creature.

>>2493 >No. It's truth because of it's Author's character, Who cannot lie. We, as feeble mortals, have tested it and it's proven true in the things it claims as true. God, right? You're saying God wrote the Bible? Or was it written by man? I thought the apostles put it to pen. >This is but one area we can put the Bible to a rigorous test and it passes with flying colors. Any examples? >Definitely not. Satan is very real. As much as you or I. He was created as Lucifer, the guarding Cherub above the very throne of God, and the leader of Heavenly worship. He is a very potent enemy, but of course only to us humans in our current state Alright, so Satan is a real entity that guides us to do bad things? Are all evil acts the work of Satan, or are men culpable for it? I'm trying to ascertain the true nature of this entity. How does he manifest? How can we avoid him? What should we be looking for? Let me give a specific example: Transhumanists believe that they can attain biological immortality through science, life extension, augmentation, mind uploading, etc. Are they being misguided by Satan? Because I've heard some devout people say that Satan is tricking them.

>>2495 >God, right? You're saying God wrote the Bible? Or was it written by man? I thought the apostles put it to pen. Man's fallible nature is perfected by the gifts of divine grace bestowed through the Holy Spirit. That is how the apostles were able produced the writings of the New Testament with authority from above.

>>2496 By the way, would you say St. Paul of Tarsus among those guided?

>>2496 >with authority from above. How did this work? They never explain what that meant beyond insinuating normfag tier cronyism. How does the book of Enoch fit into all of this?

>>2495 >God, right? You're saying God wrote the Bible? Indeed I am. The Bible itself claims so as well, regarding the Holy Spirit-breathed character of it. >Or was it written by man? I thought the apostles put it to pen. Many more men than just Apostles were used to scribe the entire thing front to back. 40 of them, IIRC. I have a personal anecdote regarding this phenomenon. My own mother helped my grandfather publish the books he had dreamed of doing all his life. He recorded all the text of the books verbally, and mom transcribed them as she was led to. But my mom wasn't the author of the book, grandpa was. Make sense? >Any examples? I personally consider the unfolding for mere mortals the very character and evolution of the entire universe rather a profound example. There are literally hundreds of archaeological and historical others. I'll leave that as an exercise for yourself if you care to dig. For some skeptics, the Biblical fact of the origin of all mankind from just a single woman and man are problematic. But so-called Y-Chromosomal Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve are highly provocative scientific discoveries in support of the Biblical view. The separation of their origin by 10's of thousands of years is also right in line with the Biblical account of Noah, his sons, the females of their household, and the Flood. >Are all evil acts the work of Satan, or are men culpable for it? Each man will be judged according to the works he has done while in the body. >I'm trying to ascertain the true nature of this entity. How does he manifest? How can we avoid him? What should we be looking for? I don't think you can avoid him. Like the rest of us, you were born into sin by the fall of your father Adam, and Satan was (as the god of this world), perhaps still is--your spiritual father. Only through salvation can you have even the most basic hope of escape from this hideously evil being. >Let me give a specific example: Transhumanists believe that they can attain biological immortality through science, life extension, augmentation, mind uploading, etc. This a topic near-and-dear to my heart actually. If you'd care to understand a thorough treatment of the topic generally, then I recommend you pick up book related. > https://support.reasons.org/category/featured-products/humans-20-scientific-philosophical-and-theological-perspectives-on-transhumanism >Are they being misguided by Satan? Because I've heard some devout people say that Satan is tricking them. Satan is the Father of Lies, so yes. If he's involved in giving 'advice' to these people, you can be certain he's doing it deceptively, and with sinister intent.

>>2498 >How did this work? They never explain what that meant beyond insinuating normfag tier cronyism. That the content of what was written was sufficient to communicate the redemption and sanctification of man's nature and soul. >How does the book of Enoch fit into all of this? It wasn't part of the majority canon, not even of the expanded canon of the Septuagint used by the Greek Orthodox. The only church that has a version of it in their canon is the Ethiopian. Like most disputed texts, we only have fragments of an original manuscript and the rest is extant only in translation, so we cannot confirm what was authentic and what may have been editorial insertion. It was known to scholars and theologians throughout the early church but it was not seen as authoritative, either by Jews or Christians, to be counted with the remainder of the Old Testament or for any reason with the New. The qualities of what is doctrinal in the Christian religion were summarily expressed by the French monk Vincent of Lerins in 443: >Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. By these were the critical elements of Christian belief made canonical in the ecumenical councils, where the whole of the church met to determine what was their singleness of faith. Even heretics like Arius were invited to advocate for themselves. All orthodox Christians at the least accept the results of the first two ecumenical councils, which produced the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a summary of the Christian religion. Depending on the denomination, they may dispute the third, fourth, or those beyond the seventh. After being made the state religion of the Roman Empire, religion was increasingly entangled in disputes of political power. In my personal judgement, this was at its own expense.

>>2499 >Satan is the Father of Lies, so yes. If he's involved in giving 'advice' to these people, you can be certain he's doing it deceptively, and with sinister intent. I don't believe Satan is advising these people. I don't want to assume anything about your stance, but let me ask something that's been on my mind. Transhumanism posits that someday soon we will be able to 'cure' the problems caused by aging, the pathologies that eventually cause us to die, and because of that we would be able to extend our lives indefinitely. If this becomes possible in the future, should we or should we not do it? Why or why not? If God allows us to take control of our biology in such a way then shouldn't we do it? After all Jesus himself healed the sick and curing aging would be the ultimate medical breakthrough in history. Should we not strive for indefinite longevity if God allows us?

>>2503 Different anon, btw. >I don't believe Satan is advising these people They don't necessarily have to be being advised personally by Satan. These people do however, think according a paradigm that can only be described as 'Satanic' in character, in that it is worldly and anti-God. And no, we shouldn't try to abolish death or anything. If anything, Christ coming in the flesh and recapitulating every state of life before Himself undergoing death has in a sense sanctified every stage of human life, and we too must undergo death at some point. There is nothing to fear about death if one has faith in Jesus Christ, because He has defeated its power over us, and will raise us and grant us true eternal life in incorruptible bodies. This will not happen through developments in this world. The idea of 'progress' is foreign to Christianity. In fact, we see degeneration if anything. The first men and women could live centuries at a time, and since then our lives have only been shortening, and humanity has been growing ever more stunted and alienated from the divine through our technological achievements and scientific advancements. Ultimately this drive is founded on a Satanic drive to 'become God', not realizing that the only way to become a 'god' is through the grace of God and union with Him, and sharing in His love in theosis. Humanity has been created in the image of God, and this is not merely referring to soul or consciousness. Transhumanist elites want to distort and destroy the image of God in mankind, and turn us into subhumans in both body and soul. Aging is not a sickness per se, it is a natural part of this life that we must all undergo. This world is a mere interlude.

>>2504 I see. Then, this is a set of beliefs that I can respect, but ultimately cannot cosign. Medicine is a practice that assuredly exists. If we continue advancing forward, which is as inevitable as the march of time, then that means we can extrapolate that the logical endpoint of medicine is to abolish all possible ailments of the body up to and including death itself. It is currently the status quo that all human beings age, and suffer more pain and sickness as they get older, eventually resulting in their deaths. From a simply humanitarian perspective this is a hideous and monstrous imposition on the human race and if we can cure it the same way we can cure any disease I believe that we simply must. Therefore I cannot cosign any set of beliefs that admonishes this most noble and humanitarian goal. However I respect your beliefs and I think the world is ultimately better for having you in it. But if this is truly how all of you feel about it, then I don't think I can walk the path with you. I still don't disbelieve there is a God though.

>>2505 This sort of modern idea of perpetual progress is without foundation, though. I think this sort of 19th and 20th century optimism has already been refuted in practice and has no legs to stand on, and it is solely kept afloat from propaganda from the government, scientists, sci-fi movies and entertainment in general. It's something people want to believe in, but there's no reason to believe it. The idea that this is even possible in the first place is questionable, let alone if it is desirable, because we all know that such technology would only end up in the hands of the elites, who would use it to rule over the 'cattle' for centuries at a time. When we keep in mind the fact that science is wracked with a crisis of replicability, especially in the fields of medicine and similar fields, it is even more humorous to read these sorts of optimistic predictions that it is 'inevitable' that we will become 'gods' eventually with complete control over ourselves, over nature, and over life and death. This is the end-goal, and this is why I called it Satanic. In science today over 60%+ of studies in some fields are completely irreplicable, and has become increasingly clear in the last year or so, the field is able to be bent to the whims of politics and various agendas. On top of this, the entire modern project has brought more net-misery to humanity than it has alleviated, and a look at how it is developed countries who have the highest rates of depression, anxiety, obesity, neurosis, suicides and other problems just underlines this, along with statistics showing that young people are more pessimistic about the future than ever, and that women are actually less happy than they were before 'women's liberation', not to mention the similar situation with men. People are more alienated than ever, feeling alone even within massive cities of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Along with all of this, the same elites promising you a future without aging and disease are the same ones actively destroying the planet, killing off plants and animals, polluting and trying to turn this entire planet into a disgusting filthy parking-lot and strip-mall. They want to control you more and more in every way imaginable, even gaining control over your own mind and body, turning you into a manufactured product. The future on this trajectory is not a deathless perfect utopia, but rather hell on earth, as has been the result of every ideology that has attempted to build heaven on earth, such as the communists, or the nazis, or now the modern capitalistic / liberal ideology. The world is just as fallen as ever.

>>2505 Nice wishful thinking schizo. You didn't even explain how your big brain is gonna abolish death itself lmao. Do you believe in santa clause too? Its a grave humanitarian crisis that kids don't get presents for christmas! This status quo must be stopped!

>the entire modern project has brought more net-misery to humanity than it has alleviated Or people could just not outlaw the very concept of retaliation and things would go back to normal overnight.... God does call one to defend thyself.

>>2509 I doubt it. The system relies on soft-power and controlling minds more than physically restraining people via laws.

>>2511 It's only a mater of time till that changes.

>>2507 All of this strikes me as an indication that we should only be picking up the pace in the march towards the post-singular future. One could argue that this is actually accelerating progress due to our desire to overcome the current state. If God wishes us not to pursue these technological solutions in earnest let him give us a clear sign.

>>2514 >All of this strikes me as an indication that we should only be picking up the pace in the march towards the post-singular future This is a cope brought about by ignoring God's Word and wishing to stay in a state of Satanic rebellion against Him. When you're doing things that are actively making the planet sick and polluted and humanity miserable, the thing to do is to stop doing those things, not to do it more and think that the problem with fix the problem.

>>2515 >When you're doing things that are actively making the planet sick and polluted and humanity miserable, the thing to do is to stop doing those things, not to do it more and think that the problem with fix the problem. I'm not doing any such thing. If you want to do something about pollution tell your societal overlords to stop outsourcing jobs to China and India and switch to nuclear power instead of getting up people's asses for not wanting to use paper straws.

>>2514 Technology has no end in itself.

>>2516 This doesn't fix the problems

>>2517 That is exactly the point. Truthfully I see no reason why Christianity and Transhumanist philosophy about an Omega Point cosmology can't both be true simultaneously, they both require an equal amount of faith and can both end up resulting in the same God being real.

>>2519 The end result of transhumanism is the destruction of man, whereas a core ethos in Christianity is that man, though fallen, is capable of redemption on its own accord (through the atonement of Christ). That is why for instance, though asceticism is praised in the church, the idea of pursuing it by an extreme measure like self-castration (as Origen, one of the great early theologians did) is censured. The Omega Point may be a nice conjecture, but it ultimately posits a wholly material God, a natural phenomenon with natural limitations. Why should humanity obey such a creature's sovereign will or ethos? If you want a more detailed opinikn on religion versus transhumanism, here's Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. Be aware however, he has rather eccentric views on many other subjects: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vNfEaZpE2mI

>>2519 >Truthfully I see no reason why Christianity and Transhumanist philosophy about an Omega Point cosmology can't both be true simultaneously Transhumanism cannot be reconciled with Christianity. Omega Point is based off evolution and modern progressive thought, which, as already said, are anti-Christian and have nothing to do with the revelation that God has given us. The world to come in Christianity is enacted via a sudden and decisive transformation from without by the power of God, it does not arise via development within the world. Evolution, transhumanism, etc. are all Satanic doctrines pushed by Jews, Masons, Jesuits and other evil individuals who want to distort and destroy the image of God within man. >they both require an equal amount of faith Any real Christian will know that God can be experienced right here and now through prayer and spiritual practices. And He has given us revelation through Scripture which contradicts everything about Transhumanism. Simple as that.

I've been thinking about what everybody has been saying about transhumanism. It's an interesting topic because it highlights an extremely important part of Christianity that is crucial to understand for anyone considering becoming a Christian. I'll admit I have not read books on the subject so I was reluctant to join the fray but there are a few things I cannot get out of my mind. I will probably need some help from you all towards a better understanding of transhumanism. >>2503 >>2505 You have in your mind an image of helping people. Of relieving their suffering and overcoming disabilities. Yes, certainly. Christ healed the sick and lame. He made the blind to see and even raised people from the dead. Partly this was to demonstrate that he was the real deal but it was also because Christ saw people in distress and had compassion on them. Many Christians have emulated this and non-Christians have done so no less. It appears to be a part of humanity to do this. In no way is this wrong. We ought to care for the sick. We ought to promote good health. We ought to apply our knowledge to help the disabled. I wear glasses. Without this augmentation I would not get far in the world. Are glasses wrong? Was Satan whispering into the ear of Snell? No, of course not. Medicine is a wonderful benefit to humans and has allowed millions of people to live out lives dedicated to loving others. I will not disparage it or even make a "too far" argument. Now we come to the crossroads. The seems to me to be the most important part of this topic but it hasn't been adequately explored in this thread. There is a question we must ask ourselves. It's a highly relevant question to the world today. What is the highest thing to pursue? For what can we sacrifice everything else? What would you die for? The answer of the world seems clear. Everything can be sacrificed for the sake of human lives and there is nothing we would exchange our lives for. This appears to be the answer of transhumanism also. The single, overriding goal is to prevent death. Or, put another way, human life is the fixation. If you want to see a world where this is the prevailing ethos, look out your window. We are not even allowed to get sick anymore. Our demonic elites, of course, don't believe this (they care about power) but the common man does. And since tyranny is enforced from the bottom up rather than the top down, this is now the law of the land. Saving lives is more important than God. More important than virtue. More important than loving your neighbour. More important than your family. Saving your life is more important than living your life. You may say that these are the growing pains: that once we have rid ourselves of aging things will be better. I do not think this is the case but you are the expert on transhumanism so you tell me. Are those who push and encourage this kind of thinking the same as those who inspire us with their endless toil to improve lives and make people well? When you read their writings, do you get the sense they are written by someone who loves humans and humanity or do you get the sense of someone who hates humanity and wants to be rid of it? Do they write with compassion for individual humans or do they write with grandeur for an abstract humanity? Again, I am not familiar with their works so I don't know. I do have my suspicions though. Christianity is not about healing the sick. We do not hold so tightly to our lives that we would sacrifice all else to save them. Our greatest concern is our sins which you can understand as things that harm our relationship with God and with other people. We are sinful people and our faults, if left unchecked, only grow stronger over time. Our pride turns from disdain of others to contempt. Our greed turns to consuming lust for money. Our virtues require constant upkeep whereas our vices pull us down with no effort on our part. We are fighting a losing battle. This is why, contrary to your statement that it is "a hideous and monstrous imposition," death is actually a mercy. It prevents us from ever reaching a point where we literally become demons and are unsaveable. Imagine if George Soros were immortal. If you think he's Satanic now, try again in a thousand years after he's been stewing on centuries of hatred.

>>2523 Our relationship with God is the one thing we will sacrifice all else for. Including our lives. In fact we have to. As Christians we must die to the world (meaning we reject all of the false Gods such as our selves) in order to live in Christ. Christianity is a religion of self-denial. You may have to deny yourself fulfillment of your passions. You may have to deny yourself the things you want. You may even be called to martyrdom (an increasingly likely prospect). I won't mince words here. I won't say that it's not as bad as it sounds or that I don't quite mean it that way. No, I do mean it that way and it's harder than it sounds. Everything I'm saying is nothing but clever words in the face of actually having to do it. THIS is the stumbling block. THIS is the narrow gate. There are actually no surprises in Christianity after this. If you can accept it, you will become a Christian. I say this not so that you will be scared off (although with full knowledge this is likely) but so that you aren't deceived into thinking Christianity is easier or less total than it is. Or you could join one of those fake Christianity megachurches that preach health and wealth. >>2503 >If God allows us to eat the fruit of knowledge then shouldn't we do it? I'm surprised no one has crucified you for this one. God gave us free will so that we may freely choose him. This means we can also choose evil. God doesn't step in when we make the wrong choice because that would work against the whole point of giving us free will in the first place. Being able to do something doesn't mean you should do it. >>2504 >Humanity has been created in the image of God, and this is not merely referring to soul or consciousness. Transhumanist elites want to distort and destroy the image of God in mankind, and turn us into subhumans in both body and soul. This is a good point and deserves more elaboration. Ideas of creating supermen always seem to result in submen. They always seem to involve removing something that makes us human.

Shall /christian/ do something for New Year's Eve?

>>583 Thanks, /christian/. Appreciate your kindness.

Merry Christmas, gents. Any good or useful books you wish to volunteer?

>>3260 Not exactly a book per se, but how about this one by C.S. Lewis (et al) as well, Anon? Merry Christmas! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM&list=PL9boiLqIabFhrqabptq3ThGdwNanr65xU --- >this section is for professionals only: :^) 1. Install this: https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/wiki/Installation 2. Issue this command: yt-dlp -i https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9boiLqIabFhrqabptq3ThGdwNanr65xU

>>3261 Splendid art, and quite useful. Thank you. Having an amusing account of Southern funeral tradition and church life in return. And why not the other Georgia too?

christ-chan is p cute ngl too bad i cant find decent r34 of her

CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM

>>3454 Merry Christmas, /christmas/.