/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Before anyone asks, yes I opened the same on /christian/ but without the trip. I'm curious about our general population.

We will be 80% Catholic

The former board will be divided between 50% Catholic and 30% Orthodox

the other 20% will be smaller denomination, we will have more mormons than protestants and no orthodox though, while it will be mostly protestants at the former board.

t. demographics pro

http://strawpoll.me/4241359/

Here's /christian/'s if you want to see the results and/or vote as well. I assume many of us go to both boards.

>>1201

We shall see! Sounds about right, but who knows.

Also muslims,buddhists and hindus are generic heathens and don't deserve their own point seperated from pagan

>>1204

jews on the other hand would have been interesting, now that I think about it

also if rabbinical and messianic jews

>>1204

By Pagan I meant Neo-Pagan.

>>1205

Fuuuu… How could I forget this one?

We're two so far.

>>1208

you will have to wait about a week beofre it is kinda representative anyway

also most people just browse here in the evening since it is like dead at any other time

>>1204

If someone is a Buddhist and is curious about Christianity, I want to know. "Pagan" won't cut it. As stated, it's a list, it's not about which is valid, it's about which you belong to.

The vast majority of any faith were born in it.

>>1210

>The vast majority of any faith were born in it.

here maybe.

In eastern asia or many parts of africa / other far off regions it's a whole different story.

Especially Christianity got most of it's believers by non-mandatory conversion.

We are not jews or muslims.

Countries like China, Korea, or Japan still have great amounts of convertees.

Muslims on the other hand gain their "growth" only by rising population in the Arabic states.

>>1213

Maybe we have a silent buddhist majority?

>>1211

Also China, with 10 million converts a year.

>>1212

At least that's somewhat funny. I wonder if you trolled the other poll as well.

>>1217

Webm made me kek.

>>1221

>Also China, with 10 million converts a year.

>>1211

>Countries like China, Korea, or Japan

>>1221

>At least that's somewhat funny. I wonder if you trolled the other poll as well.

I think we are too small for something like that for now anyway

>>1222

It only takes one person. Just not sure there's enough ill will to spend time doing that.

The 12 Buddhists can become a running joke though. The Apostles of Buddha or some shit like that.

So we're 17 Christians here?

>>1282

17 sounds about right

>>1217

This is perhaps the greatest webm I've ever come across, save for one that is pornographic and I won't post unless I know it won't get deleted.

Its that Babushka one

>>1286

It's SFW here, so it probably will anywaybut BO also stated that he doesn't want pornography

>>1287

So I won't post it then. Thank you!

>>1289

By the Nine, all I had to see was the titled to start laughing.

Malacath's ass, what a time to be alive. Saved, my friend.

>>1289

By the Nine, all I had to see was the titled to start laughing.

Malacath's ass, what a time to be alive. Saved, my friend.

I really wish I could travel to the 1600's and show this to a puritan. "This is what is considered prime entertainment in the year Two-Thousand and Fifteen."

I actually doubt the average america even understands Buddhism.

>>1568

yes.

Desubong-kun can we range ban all burgers on mondays therefore?

:^)

(^;

>>1568

Care to enlighten us?

In my opinion the Buddhists are following the commandments of God, but not following God.

What I mean to say is they are living the lives we should all be living, but they do not believe in God.

I'd say the average Buddhist lives a much more godly life than most Christians.

The problem is not with Christianity, the problem is people claiming Christianity, and doing evil in God's name.

It's true many have killed in the name of Jesus, but I would say those people are clearly disobeying His teachings.

If people obeyed the commandments of God, there would be no evil in the world.

Buddhism, and Christianity hold many of the same values, it just seems to me the Buddhists are better at holding to those values.

The Golden Rule is a good example of a truth that is known in many religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

That reminds me.

How do you deal with sin?

Buddhists believe in karma right? So do you believe what you give out comes back to you?

If so what is a sinner to do?

Is there any hope for someone who has lived a life of sin, or are they doomed to suffer for their sins?

Would you be willing to consider that Buddhism may have some truth, but not all?

Especially given that the bible has been shown to be historically accurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2TfhaDks7U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3YLFvyuOQo

And has even predicted future events in prophecy.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

(embed also related)

In my opinion there is a lot of truth in Buddhism, truth about how to live, how to treat your fellow man.

But if you seek the truth, you should go to its source.

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

>>1582

>Buddhism, and Christianity hold many of the same values, it just seems to me the Buddhists are better at holding to those values.

Buddhism is one of the most evil religions that exist.

They are literal demon worshippers.

We do not hold the same values at all that's just silly.

No Buddhist would see it as a good thing to suffer for a sinner. According to him everyone deserves what he gets and the sinner is at fault.

Our god on the other hand even died for sinners.

>Would you be willing to consider that Buddhism may have some truth, but not all?

All demonic cults mix up the truth with the lie, that's just the way of the deceiver.

They are still vile and not to follow.

pls don't belief our media that wants to promote buddhism, reject these snakes

>>1585

>Buddhism is one of the most evil religions that exist.

Is that right?

When did they ever start a war?

When did they ever kill in the name of their religion?

When have they ever persecuted anyone for anything?

Are you aware that Muslims are currently killing Christians?

I'm optimistic about Buddhists.

People seeking truth may stumble, but they will learn, and if they are seeking truth, they will find Jesus.

Jesus said that He is the truth, He also said seek and yea shall find.

It's much easier to show someone the truth, when the truth is what they seek.

>>1590

>atm in myanmar for instance

Buddhists were involved?

I only ask because your pic says Muslim.

And as far as I know Muslims are not Buddhists.

>Some buddhist setcs even perform(ed) human sacrifices.

I'm not aware of that, but even if so that does not discredit all Buddhists.

The Westburro Baptist Church claims to be Christian.

Do you think that means all Christians believe as they?

Obviously not.

PS

1 John 4:8

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

>>1598

finally, I was trying to make that post for 15 minutes now

>>1598

>Buddhists try to genocide/at least expulse the Islamic population from their county.

And you think the Muslims are innocent?

I may be wrong but it seems to me that Buddhists teach peace, and Muslims are the ones who kill people who refuse to convert.

>http://www.lionsroar.com/the-dark-side-of-tibetan-buddhism/#

"As Dalton notes, it is tempting to describe the Dunhuang liberation rite as an example of Buddhist human sacrifice, but many Buddhists would regard the coupling of the terms “Buddhist” and “human sacrifice” as oxymoronic. The majority of ritual manuals demand the use of an effigy, and numerous Buddhist texts, including the Buddhacarita, an early Indian biography of the Buddha, describe the Buddha’s rejection of violent Vedic sacrifice."

Your point?

Yes it might have been a thing, but its not what the majority teach, or practice.

You are lumping in all Buddhists to this practice, when in fact the majority do not follow that teaching.

>It was a common practice

So is it still a thing?

You act like you have already deemed our Buddhist friend a devil worshiping heathen who sacrifices humans.

The reality, I'm guessing, is far from the picture you are trying to paint.

>>1608

So Buddhists who are refusing to convert to Islam are bad for fighting against oppression?

Have you never heard of self defense?

It's true that Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, but I find it hard to judge someone who is defending themselves from would be murderers.

>>1612

It is not only that they defended themselve with which I would be fine see just war

They are actively trying to expulse the muslims from their country.

>A westerner that's pro-buddhism talking about the situation of buddhist states in south east asia

That link is really good and explains the situation down there quite well from what I can tell.

>>1582

embed is very good

dude has a calming voice

>>1615

>They are actively trying to expulse the muslims from their country.

The Rohinga Muslims are descendants of conquerors, they have no right to be in Myanmar.

>>1629

The buddhist population came also as conqueror, why do they have right to be there?

Americans are conqueror, when will they leave?

Anglo-Saxons in England are, why don't they leave the isles for the celts?

They could move to Frisia for instance :^)

French do not belong to France in fact, Greater Brittany when?

Where does this start and where stop?

They live there and have there families there. Their existence is no justification for killing them.

>>1585

>We do not hold the same values at all that's just silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Buddhism

"In particular I express my highest regard for the followers of Buddhism, the majority religion in Sri Lanka, with its … four great values of … loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity; with its ten transcendental virtues and the joys of the Sangha expressed so beautifully in the Theragathas. I ardently hope that my visit will serve to strengthen the goodwill between us, and that it will reassure everyone of the Catholic Church's desire for interreligious dialogue and cooperation in building a more just and fraternal world."

>>1840

So much for that sage.

I wasn't angry or anything, just didn't think it was necessary to bump this back to the top.

>>1631

It is when they are violent.

>>1631

But really this argument is retarded anyway, it means that no country has the right to rebellion against invaders. Ireland should return to British rule by this logic.

>>1840

I think I have already told you what I think about John Paul II :^)

>>1842

They are a tolerable minority there.

>>1843

> Ireland should return to British rule by this logic.

Wrong analogy.

If Ireland got united now, would they have the right to expell the Protestants?

I don't think so.

Also rebellion is generally bad and can only be an exception

>>1846

>Wrong analogy.

Have a better one, do European countries have the right to expel the hostile Muslim populations in their countries?

Did the Catholic church have the right to expel the Muslims and Jews from places like Spain because they were hostile?

If you answer yes to either of these then you are simply a hypocrite on this matter.

>>1852

> do European countries have the right to expel the hostile Muslim populations in their countries?

imo no

>Did the Catholic church have the right to expel the Muslims and Jews from places like Spain because they were hostile?

Did she do that?

>>1853

>Did she do that?

Yes, you should read about King Ferdinand's order of expulsion. He was not going to order the Jews and Muslims to be expelled as they offered him money to buy him off. However a Jesuit priest accused him of being a Judas, contrasting the 30 silver pieces vs the 30,000 gold pieces they had offered, berated him until he wept and told him that he was betraying Christ. Ferdinand then signed the order of expulsion.

>imo no

Then you are probably the definition of a moral coward.

>>1855

>Yes, you should read about King Ferdinand's order of expulsion. He was not going to order the Jews and Muslims to be expelled as they offered him money to buy him off. However a Jesuit priest accused him of being a Judas, contrasting the 30 silver pieces vs the 30,000 gold pieces they had offered, berated him until he wept and told him that he was betraying Christ. Ferdinand then signed the order of expulsion.

So was it the church or was it a single Jesuit that carries responsibility here?

>Then you are probably the definition of a moral coward.

Please elaborate.

No really I want to believe you if you give a good reasoning. For instance I want to expell all the slavs from my country, even more than muslims. Is that ok too?

>>1857

>So was it the church or was it a single Jesuit that carries responsibility here?

The church since it was hardly one priest who thought this.

>For instance I want to expell all the slavs from my country, even more than muslims. Is that ok too?

Yes.

>No really I want to believe you if you give a good reasoning.

Because if you allow your nation to be overrun with foreigners you wille nd up like the Lebanese, slowly being killed off until you eventually become a minority. Then they will slowly drive you out and before you know it you are like the Assyrians, a tiny minority surrounded by a hostile majority who are likely to be gone by the end of this century.

It is a matter of justice to ensure the survival of your people against those who would wish to destroy it.

As for the Slavs, you would think Germans would learn the lesson after they had finished wiping out Germans east of the Oder.

>>1858

>The church since it was hardly one priest who thought this.

The Church as a whole can't carry responsibiity for things that are without her reach.

The personal political opinions of a priest are free btw and no matter of the church.

>Yes.

So who is allowed to stay in a country?

>Because if you allow your nation to be overrun with foreigners

I think there should be no more muslim immigration to Europe.

I think that the muslims here should be allowed to stay.

Problem solved.

>As for the Slavs, you would think Germans would learn the lesson after they had finished wiping out Germans east of the Oder.

Wowowow

The slavs did way more than that. The whole Sudetenland, Gotschee, Marburg, all of the former balkan setttlements of Germans…

>>1859

>So who is allowed to stay in a country?

Tourists etc, obviously it defers to the government and the populace, but ultimately allowing yourself to be wiped out is retarded.

>Problem solved.

Only if you have never looked at the percentage of children that are Muslim. They are majorities in many cities in both France and the UK. So enjoy having nuclear powers turn Islamic in the centre of Europe.

Do you think it was immigration that turned Lebanon from majority Christian to majority Muslim? It was not, it was Muslim behaviour, 1) higher birthrates 2) they kill Christians and because the government does nothing the population slowly declines. After a few decades they take over. If you want that future for Europe then fine, but at least be honest about what you are choosing. Lying to yourself is plain cowardice because you will not face the issue.

>The slavs did way more than that. The whole Sudetenland, Gotschee, Marburg, all of the former balkan setttlements of Germans…

And yet you still have not learned your lesson. At this point the only diagnosis should be insanity if you refuse to see the obvious.

>>1861

>Tourists etc, obviously it defers to the government and the populace, but ultimately allowing yourself to be wiped out is retarded.

No I mean which people is allowed to stay there.

The slavs were here before us btw. So where do we gain our legitimacy from?

Rule of the strongest?

> They are majorities in many cities in both France and the UK.

Yes, too bad for them ;^)

They will be an example for the degeneracy that is socialism

>Do you think it was immigration that turned Lebanon from majority Christian to majority Muslim? It was not, it was Muslim behaviour,

Is thi situation similar to the one in myanmar?

Have the muslims any chance there of becoming a majority?

>And yet you still have not learned your lesson

kek, I have. I had lots of contact with slavs and know that they are different from us.

I can't really help the other people here though.

They are way too busy falling for holocaust propaganda to think about crimes that were committed against their brothers

>>1862

>Rule of the strongest?

Yes, unless you want to hand back your territory to the Celtic tribes the Romans originally conquered.

>So where do we gain our legitimacy from?

Yourselves.

>Yes, too bad for them ;^)

I will note this for future conversations.

>They will be an example for the degeneracy that is socialism

This is a supremely retarded statement, do you think for instance that the French King being beheaded taught the European Monarchs anything? Nope. They carried on as they would and now none of them remain as Monarchs. People do not learn lessons from other nations sufferings.

>Is thi situation similar to the one in myanmar?

>Have the muslims any chance there of becoming a majority?

Regionally yes, and unlike in Britain and France they have weapons from the neighbouring Muslim states to do so.

>They are way too busy falling for holocaust propaganda to think about crimes that were committed against their brothers

Yes, too bad for them :^)

>Yes, unless you want to hand back your territory to the Celtic tribes the Romans originally conquered.

>Yourselves.

I would maybe hold this attitude too, but I don't think it's compatible with my religion

>I will note this for future conversations.

I don't think that muslims should suffer because of French and English mistakes.

This does not mean that France/UK should not start protecting themselves and their culture.

>This is a supremely retarded statement, do you think for instance that the French King being beheaded taught the European Monarchs anything? Nope. They carried on as they would and now none of them remain as Monarchs. People do not learn lessons from other nations sufferings.

In fact, yes the monarchs learned a lot.

Especially in 1848 it showed, when they were able to defend themselves against the common enemy =freemasonry without turning on each other.

The French king on the other hand had supported the dastardly American revolutionaries.

My best guess for europes future is that Sweden will collapse and that this will open everyone's eyes.

>Yes, too bad for them :^)

I have accepted the fate of my people, there is not much to come anymore

>>1865

>I would maybe hold this attitude too, but I don't think it's compatible with my religion

To be honest, I have been having increasing problems with catholicism.

>I don't think that muslims should suffer because of French and English mistakes.

And I do not think that English and French children should suffer the mistakes of their ancestors.

>This does not mean that France/UK should not start protecting themselves and their culture.

They cannot do this with enormous Muslim minorities. It is simply impossible.

>In fact, yes the monarchs learned a lot.

Not enough to avoid 1914.

>My best guess for europes future is that Sweden will collapse and that this will open everyone's eyes.

Then you are a fool because Sweden will not collapse, did Brazil, Lebanon or America collapse? No, they just slowly declined until it was too late to do anything. Sweden, the UK, France etc will all do the same and you are fool to think it would stop there or it will act differently.

>I have accepted the fate of my people, there is not much to come anymore

Once you accept the fate it is your fate. At which point my original point of cowardice is proven correct.

>>1866

>To be honest, I have been having increasing problems with catholicism.

Tell me

you are ot BO, are you?

>And I do not think that English and French children should suffer the mistakes of their ancestors.

Yes they should

>They cannot do this with enormous Muslim minorities. It is simply impossible.

How?

>Not enough to avoid 1914.

wtf? Relation?

You know that monarchies fought each other?

>Then you are a fool because Sweden will not collapse, did Brazil, Lebanon or America collapse?

Different cases. Sweden will be majority muslim soon and decline. It's a matter of time.

>Once you accept the fate it is your fate. At which point my original point of cowardice is proven correct.

I am no coward for facing reality.

The opposite is true.

>>1867

>Tell me

Things like this (quoted below) I find morally disgusting and the more I see Catholics express it the more I take issue. Then there is the a lot of theological issues.

>And I do not think that English and French children should suffer the mistakes of their ancestors.

>Yes they should

>How?

Because Muslim minorities are only growing increasingly powerful and more demographically dominant. Even if you ended immigration this second they would be taking over cities by the end of the next decade. When you account for immigration it is unstoppable unless force is used.

>You know that monarchies fought each other?

That was my point, they forgot the lesson and it destroyed them. Nations do not learn the mistakes of other nations, only their own.

>Sweden will be majority muslim soon and decline. It's a matter of time.

Sweden is only 3.5% Muslim, France is more likely to fall first as Paris, Marseilles, massive areas of the South and North, are approaching Muslim majorities.

>I am no coward for facing reality.

No, you are a coward for thinking the projections should be allowed to happen.

>>1868

>Things like this (quoted below) I find morally disgusting and the more I see Catholics express it the more I take issue.

Oh and the church itself I find issue with.

>>1868

>Things like this

I still stay true to my statement. This is how the world works.

>Sweden is only 3.5% Muslim

This will change rapidly

>France is more likely to fall first as Paris, Marseilles, massive areas of the South and North, are approaching Muslim majorities.

No, the FN will take counter action, Sweden won't ever do that.

>No, you are a coward for thinking the projections should be allowed to happen.

Which projections?

>>1869

tell me

>>1872

>tell me

For examples, over 50% of Irish priests supporting gay marriage. The corruption of the Vatican, especially its banking practices and relationship with the Italian mafia. Its insistence on trying to wipe out Europeans even as Muslims on boats to Europe kill the Christians as they come. There is too much I look at and I simply cannot reconcile these positions and I have been reading more onto the issue of the papacy and I find far too many inconsistencies with the Catholic version of what happened. The ideas surrounding Mary also seem to contradict historical fact, that is also not believed in by the other apostolic churches.

>I still stay true to my statement. This is how the world works.

No, your position is not that they will suffer, you did not say "they will", you said "they should". Ie. You approve of the suffering. It is a purely evil position.

>No, the FN will take counter action, Sweden won't ever do that.

The FN cannot defeat the Republican system, the SD can defeat the Swedish proportional system given time. Sweden has time because of the percentages, France does not.

>Which projections?

Demographic projections and the accompanying implications.

>>1873

>For examples, over 50% of Irish priests supporting gay marriage

Again, does the Vatican do that?

>The corruption of the Vatican, especially its banking practices and relationship with the Italian mafia.

The mafia is not worse than any other state-ish organisation

> Its insistence on trying to wipe out Europeans even as Muslims on boats to Europe kill the Christians as they come.

>implying this is what happens

> I have been reading more onto the issue of the papacy and I find far too many inconsistencies with the Catholic version of what happened

There is no issues regarding the question of papacy.

There is one, there has always been one, there needs to be one.

Success proves us right.

>No, your position is not that they will suffer, you did not say "they will", you said "they should". Ie. You approve of the suffering. It is a purely evil position.

"I put my hand into fire, it hurts so much!!!"

"So it should", said discipulus

>The FN cannot defeat the Republican system, the SD can defeat the Swedish proportional system given time. Sweden has time because of the percentages, France does not.

Only time will or will not prove one of us right.

>Demographic projections and the accompanying implications.

Our demography is fine. We will not be replaced, nor will we have to suffer in any form. We are not gonna be replaced by muslims or anyone else, and that's if things stay like they are now, when in real there is a right shift coming.

>>1875

>Again, does the Vatican do that?

Does it do anything about it? No, no excommunications, no nothing. It has no moral backbone.

>The mafia is not worse than any other state-ish organisation

Laundering their money is when you are supposed to be a force for good.

>There is no issues regarding the question of papacy.

Dismissing the issue does not make it so.

>There is one, there has always been one, there needs to be one.

I could argue about this.

>Success proves us right.

And where is the success exactly?

>"I put my hand into fire, it hurts so much!!!"

>"So it should", said discipulus

No, allow me to correct you.

"I am going to put my child's hand into a fire".

"Don't you think this is wrong?"

"No, it should happen".

That is the implication of your words.

>Our demography is fine. We will not be replaced, nor will we have to suffer in any form. We are not gonna be replaced by muslims or anyone else, and that's if things stay like they are now, when in real there is a right shift coming.

I am tempted to call this self-deception but we shall see.

>>1877

>>1877

>Iamges

*Images

Good night.

Sorry if I sound too harsh, I need to sleep really.

I do not want to say anything I will regret so I will reply to any counter point tomorrow. Sorry.

>>1877

>Iamges

Ahh, you were talking about Austria. That makes more sense. I was talking about the West in general.

>>1879

t.desubong

Good night :^)

>>1881

Yes, goodnight.

>>1211

>Muslims on the other hand gain their "growth" only by rising population in the Arabic states

>>1842

>It is when they are violent

Do you think christianity in europe and america spread peacefully?

>>1898

Yes, muslims grow through population growth not through conversion mainly.

>>1901

Yes.

>>1915

>yes

I don't think conquistadores were peaceful

>Yes, muslims grow through population growth not through conversion mainly

they get lots of converts in india,china(tungan chinese),russia(Caucasus, and old turkic regions)

>>1923

>>1923

>I don't think conquistadores were peaceful

No they were not. As Spain was not peaceful.

The missionaries were and are peaceful however.

Of course there were wars fought for Christianity, but it was never the main force behind it expansion.

The civil war against Maximus would be like the only good example for that that comes to my mind, and even that's debatable.

>>1924

>The missionaries were and are peaceful however

aren't those make spanish Inquisition?

>>1927

>>1927

>aren't those make spanish Inquisition?

here is the thread where you can find the truth about the Holy Inquisition

>>1674

>>1675

>>1939

no but I linked to a thread that even contains sources btw where a potential discussion about the Holy Inquisition could take place

>>9251

Do a new thread.

I really dont care about what % are we made up with, I just want to discuss our Faith without being banned.