/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>1348

>Are weebs and pones welcome to post in this board?

As long as they do not break the rules they are fine.

Rules are here:

>>68

We need all the posters we can get. The only rules are basically no porn and don't spam

>>1348

>Are weebs and pones welcome to post in this board?

What's a weeb? A weabo? Everyone's welcome here, but the threads have to be relevant. You can also make a thread about anime and Christianity if it makes sense, but I haven't seen that much, if at all.

Just chill, man, and if there's something you don't like, say so. We actually care what you say here, because we're only 17.

Welcome home, brother.

OP here. I should have made myself clearer. Yes a weeb is basically a dude obsessed with anime. There is a technically correct defnition over at UD also you can look it up if you like

I don't mean that spamming the board with anime or mlp stuff or porn based on the same should be allowed. What I meant was would the occasional reaction image based on anime and mlp stuff allowed. I basically wanted to know if this was going to be a /pol/ style board where people scream 'degeneracy' upon seeing those things and mods start responding and starting banning users who post them. I think I've got the answer and from the answer it seems the management here is going to be lenient which is cool.

>>1366

>>1366

>I basically wanted to know if this was going to be a /pol/ style board where people scream 'degeneracy' upon seeing those things and mods start responding and starting banning users who post them.

I am most certain that BO wouldn't ban/delete posts because they contain this stuff, but how other people react is up to them.

I personally, however, want to welcome you to open threads or post reaction pics as you want and see fit as long as everything is done in good will.

I assume that most here will agree with that.

>>1368

You are right when you say that definition of weeb is wrong but that is unfortunately the working definition of weeb now.

Dude who posts too much anime = weeb - This definition is wrong but widely used

Dude who made a connection to Japanese culture (usually through anime) became obsessed with it to the point where he thinks he is now Japanese when he is anything but = more closer to accurate definition of weeb but nobody uses that anymore.

So I just roll with the times

>>1428

Not sure why protestants still use that board considering the amount of bans it gives out.

>>1429

I didn't know it was like that.

I had some heated disagreements in the past, and never got B&.

>>1428

>dat mod comment on the ban

gotta love him

<3

:^)

>>1431

I know right. Like that was my intentions.

I'm just thankful that I did not live during the Inquisitions .(embed related)

I just don't understand why we can't have a discussion/debate about disagreements.

Why not allow all views, and let people decide the truth for themselves?

I have the feeling that this sort of thing is allowed here.

>>68

>This board is for Christians of all denominations

>people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists, are very welcome to post, ask questions, and debate with us if they so desire

>>1432

>I'm just thankful that I did not live during the Inquisitions .(embed related)

We should make a thread about that since people claim that the Holy Inquisition was bad.

your video *sigh*

>I just don't understand why we can't have a discussion/debate about disagreements.

Why not allow all views, and let people decide the truth for themselves?

I have the feeling that this sort of thing is allowed here.

Yes that's what we are about. We also already had satanists for instance and managed to let them talk without turning into satanists ourselve :^)

>>296

To stay on topic: The problem we have is beside Oolf being lost that people do not even know that we exist.

But I actually think we are doing fine. At least I like it here :^)

>>1434

>since people claim that the Holy Inquisition was bad.

You don't think that it was?

>We also already had satanists for instance and managed to let them talk

I'll have to read that thread another time, but I agree even with allowing that.

It would be an excellent opportunity to share the truth with them, and expose the lies they believe.

Hold on a sec.

You have no problem with the Inquisition, but you are pro freedom of religion?

Why didn't the people living back then deserve that very same freedom?

If it is ok for people to believe what ever they like, how could it possibly be ok to kill someone because of their beliefs?

>>1428

That is some next level of rulefaggotry

>>1436

>The problem we have is beside Oolf being lost that people do not even know that we exist.

Just keep the board alive. We are already 3-4 people in this thread alone. Just check back every day, post a thread or two, reply to a thread or two. Meanwhile keep our advert thread bumped on /boards/. Activity will pick up gradually.

We have to get used to being a small user count board for some time. Every time the rulefaggots at christian ban people for stupid reasons, they are going to look for alternatives. Some of those people will come here.

>>1437

>You don't think that it was?

no. Holy things tend to be like a good thing :^)

>You have no problem with the Inquisition, but you are pro freedom of religion?

I accept the fact that there is freedom of thought.

"rights" like freedom of religion are a made up construct. So no, I do not believe in freedom of religion in a sense of promoting that they were equal

>Why didn't the people living back then deserve that very same freedom?

What freedom? Catharians were dangerous lunatics and while there sure happened a lot of crimes against them the world is better off now that they ceased to exist.

Also that was not all the Holy Inquisition was about.

>If it is ok for people to believe what ever they like

It's not, but force is not necessarily the way to go

> how could it possibly be ok to kill someone because of their beliefs?

Which is not what happened. Most heretics were persecuted and trialed for the whole time after the Roman empire by the state btw not the church

The HI institutionalised this process and took care that it was fair and that everyone got a proper process and was not just lynched by a mob or assasinated by a rival.

>>1438

> Meanwhile keep our advert thread bumped on /boards/

never really checked that. Will leave a bump there.

>Just keep the board alive. We are already 3-4 people in this thread alone. Just check back every day, post a thread or two, reply to a thread or two.

this

> Every time the rulefaggots at christian ban people for stupid reasons, they are going to look for alternatives. Some of those people will come here.

this. A second Exodus is a matter of time and next time there will already be an established board where people can go.

but to be honest I do not like the new userbase of /chrsitian/ too much with some exceptions of course

>>1439

>Holy things tend to be like a good thing :^)

If it was Holy, and ordained by God, why did Pope John Paul II apologize for it?

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

"Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

I still don't understand how you can think its a good thing to allow people to express their views on this board, but still say it was also a good thing to persecute people for expressing their views in real life.

Jesus told us to love our enemies, not persecute them.

Matthew 5:44

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

How can anyone who believes in Jesus ever justify persecuting their enemies?

>>1441

>If it was Holy, and ordained by God, why did Pope John Paul II apologize for it?

Because he was a really bad pope

>I still don't understand how you can think its a good thing to allow people to express their views on this board

To be able to argue them

>but still say it was also a good thing to persecute people for expressing their views in real life.

people committing crimes were persecuted yes

I would go and will most certainly go more into detail and open a thread but I have to go to work now :^)

>>1443

>Because he was a really bad pope

And here I was thinking that Catholics considered the pope infallible.

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

>Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

>>1444

This is not how papal infallibility works.

The pope is only infallible when invoked ex cathedra and only in matters of faith. This doctrine is evolved from the fact that the body of christ =the whole church cannot err since it's guided by the Holy Spirit.

.

It was also only used like half a dozen times in 2000years iirc

>>1456

>This is not how papal infallibility works.

Of course its not.

How else could you cherry pic your beliefs.

It seems to me you only follow Catholic doctrine when it suits you.

>>1348

I like the dancing sweeden bear gif

>>1460

It seems to me that you should reread my former post

>>1456

>The pope is only infallible when invoked ex cathedra and only in matters of faith.

Which is a fact.

This makes your argument here

>>1441

invalid, since there can be bad popes and popes are able to make mistakes.

>It seems to me you only follow Catholic doctrine when it suits you.

name a single doctrine I don't follow

>>1467

It just seems very convenient for you to believe that the pope is infallible, except when he's not.

I suppose that does not go against doctrine, but it still seems silly.

The pope is infallible.*

*sometimes

That sort of belief lets you cherry pick ideas that suit your own beliefs.

You can cite what some Pope has done, as support for some belief, while ignoring what others have said, claiming that they are just wrong.

Or "a really bad Pope"

I got a question.

If " the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office".

If God would prevent the Pope from error sometimes, why not all the time?

That would make more sense. That way there would be no confusion or disagreements.

Why would God allow a "really bad Pope"?

If God can, and as you say does prevent the Pope from making errors concerning doctrine, it seems absurd to think He would allow a really bad person to ever become Pope.

But never-mind all that.

Please explain to me why you believe the Inquisition was a good thing.

When did Jesus ever tell us to persecute, torture, and kill people who do not believe?

>>1534

Not him but the thing about the inquisition would be really good for a thread of its own.

>>1535

Yeah.

He said something about doing that.

>>1443

>I would go and will most certainly go more into detail and open a thread but I have to go to work now :^)

I look forward to that thread. It should be interesting.

>>1428

They're fucking cunts. They act like scaredy cats that need special protection from anything that might challenge their beliefs. They'd rather be wrong but in the same way than learn something new that was there all along.

They're the exact sort of people who rejected Christ when He was on earth.

I got banned for a week because I opened a thread there to go and raid the pedo thread on /b/.

I intended to bombard them with great Christian art and quotes.

I got banned and the mod acted as if I was doing Jesus a great dishonor (as if becoming humand getting treated the way He did wasn't far worse and proved He loved us more than we can understand).

These fucks don't make sense.

>>1537

I feel you man.

Instead of debating me, or pointing out how I was wrong, they just banned me.

>Can't win a debate?

>Ban the poster, and delete all his posts.

>Problem solved.

>>1537

>You'd rather ban me than fight pedophiles? Why am I even surprised?

I assume the mod was a Catholic (of that sort).

>>1541

They're welcome here if they want, but these people are no Christians to me. The point where you revere your own rules more than Christ's own message is where you done goofed.

Board owner here, just wanted to ask if you have a problem with anything on this board.

>>1544

Do you mean OP? Give him some time.

As to me, all is fine with regards to you. We just need more people and more life, and we shouldn't expect too much of it to come from /christian/.

But good on you for asking. That's how you make a difference as a board owner. You are the stone on which we build this board.

>>1543

>The point where you revere your own rules more than Christ's own message is where you done goofed.

I completely agree.

Matthew 15:9

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

>>1544

I'm fairly new, and have not read every thread on the board, but I have not seen anything that I have a problem with.

I appreciate the fact that not everyone agrees all the time.

It gives us an opportunity to learn.

I think you should allow all views.

People can decide for themselves what they want to believe.

I think the truth will prevail.

>>1547

You're exactly the sort of Christian we want here. I love you no matter what your theological opinion is because you sound like you can discuss different views without sperging all over the place with calls of heresy.

Thanks for existing.

(I'm the abominable tripfag, btw.)

>>1548

>You're exactly the sort of Christian we want here

Thanks I really appreciate you saying that.

> I love you no matter what your theological opinion is because you sound like you can discuss different views without sperging all over the place with calls of heresy.

Well to be perfectly honest I have been known to lose my cool, but I have been getting better about that.

I'm very optimistic about this board, I think it will do very well.

It should eventually surpass /christian/, even if we don't actively promote the board.

Just the attitude is enough.

They are turning people away, while this board accepts people.

>>1551

>Well to be perfectly honest I have been known to lose my cool, but I have been getting better about that.

If you knew what I've been doing without my trip, you'd feel perfectly fine about losing your cool. I can rage hard and my level of faith sometimes reaches near zero and then there is only anger. What matters is you recognise your flaws. That's better than anything. Knowing you're not perfect is important to grow, something those /christians/ don't get, since they're so obsessed with acting perfect and shitting on anyone who isn't. Being Christian means you know you're not perfect and you don't fool yourself by ever getting there. Accepting of others' mistakes is the way.

>They are turning people away, while this board accepts people.

Yes. And as usual, I won't point out which approach is more like Christ.

/christian/ did my faith more harm than good by making it sound plausible that God was a moron like they were. I still resent them for that and still haven't fully recovered. I'm more easily influenced than most think.

But yeah, this board has a bright future. We're few, but that's a strength. Quality is way through the roof and so far, nobody's hating.

I shat all over the place recently but not here. Here is precious. Worst I'll do is abstain from posting for some time.

>>1546

I don't want to be aloof like Alex is so thought I should ask, we have a good community right now at least. My only use of mod powers has been with board features so everything seems fine.

>>1547

>I think the truth will prevail.

I might change the board heading to that to show the spirit we are going for here.

>>1554

Perfect.

I think Alex just left. The "Catholics" over there burned him at the stake for being a Protestant. I don't think Alex ever banned me for anything. Every time the comments were obviously signed "Catholic".

I put that in quotes because I refuse to think of Catholics as like those dickbags.

>>1553

>I can rage hard and my level of faith sometimes reaches near zero and then there is only anger.

Yeah I've been known to get like that.

Especially when I'm driving.

>Being Christian means you know you're not perfect and you don't fool yourself by ever getting there.

Exactly.

That's why I enjoy hearing all views.

I know I can be wrong, I used to be an atheist.

>/christian/ did my faith more harm than good…

I agree that they are not treating people the way a Christian should.

Furthermore it is extremely dangerous what they are doing.

It's to the verge of carrying the Lord's name in vain, which the bible describes as an unforgivable sin.(video related)

>>1554

>I might change the board heading to that to show the spirit we are going for here.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

>>1556

Also an ex atheist here.

/christian/ drives people away from God for the sake of some retarded /pol/ agenda. These guys just want to go totalitarian on the world. No distance to anything. It's crazy but made me understand better why people hate Christianity. If that's what they think of, I understand.

>>1556

Really good video series by the way.

>>1557

>It's crazy but made me understand better why people hate Christianity

Nothing crazy about seeing the truth.

It's sad to think that people think they are doing good, and are actually doing harm.

Sometimes it's so obvious it makes you wonder how they don't see it.

I guess some people are blinded to the truth.

>>1558

Yes it is.

I learned so much about something I thought I knew.

It was both humbling, and enlightening.

I recommend that entire series to everyone.

Most of their other stuff is pretty good as well.

>>1534

>It just seems very convenient for you to believe that the pope is infallible, except when he's not.

The pope is infallible when he invokes this infallibility speaking ex cathedra and only in matters of faith.

This is what papal infallibility means.

It does not mean that a pope is perfect, or even good. It does not mean he can himself never err.

>>1561

———————————

>The pope is infallible.*

>*sometimes

>That sort of belief lets you cherry pick ideas >that suit your own beliefs.

no it means that I follow the doctrine of papal infallibility that says exactly that. The pope does not claim to be perfect, otherwise every pope would have to be made a saint.

>You can cite what some Pope has done, as support for some belief, while ignoring what others have said, claiming that they are just wrong.

Yes when I think that someone is worth citing I maydo that regardless of his popeness and if I don't think he gets the point I will not cite him. Nothing wrong with that

>If " the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office".

If God would prevent the Pope from error sometimes, why not all the time?

I do not know the intentions of God but I also do not really think that it's necessary.

Jesus was perfect and free of any sin for instance and he was murdered.

>That would make more sense. That way there would be no confusion or disagreements.

Maybe there are supposed to be confusion and disagreements? If God wanted to force everyone into believing he could do that too.

Why does he not?

>Why would God allow a "really bad Pope"?

Allow? It is the choice of a pope if he acts well or not. Beside that he is fallible when not speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith so he will just make mistakes.

>He would allow a really bad person to ever become Pope.

The Cardinals make the pope not God.

>Please explain to me why you believe the Inquisition was a good thing.

Later. I will also open a thread.

>When did Jesus ever tell us to persecute, torture, and kill people who do not believe?

>implying this is what happened

>>1541

> delete all his posts.

I never understood that practice. If I did something that's banworthy, does this make all my former posts invalid?

>>1542

kek

>>1554

good idea, I like the line

>>1556

>the god of Judaism and Christianity

*sigh*

>>1563

>>1562

>Maybe there are supposed to be confusion and disagreements?

Are you saying that God wants us to be confused?

Because I got to tell you brother, the bible says different.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

>If God wanted to force everyone into believing he could do that too.

>Why does he not?

Ever hear about free will?

You can have people be free, and simultaneously control them.

PS

Video related

>>1564

Are you suggesting that all Jews are of the devil?

I know that Jesus warned us about some people who claim to be Jews, but are not.

Revelation 3:9

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

>which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie

>and are not

Jesus clearly said that it is not the Jews who were the synagog of Satan, but rather people who are claiming to be Jews.

Furthermore Jesus constantly cited the old testament, and fulfilled the Law.

According to Jesus, His father God was the God of the old testament.

Aka the God of Judaism.

>>1569

>You can have people be free, and simultaneously control them.

Should read.

You can't have people be free, and simultaneously control them.

>>1569

>Are you saying that God wants us to be confused?

>

>Because I got to tell you brother, the bible says different.

>

>1 Corinthians 14:33

>

>For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

>

If it was that simple he could simply proof his existance or even force to believe.

So there is at least that confusion that he allows to prevail.

There has to be a certain amount of doubt in order for faith to exist.

>Ever hear about free will?

>You can have people be free, and >simultaneously control them.

>PS

>Video related

yes but free will also implies confusion. I also do not agree with the part of your video where it says that we would know about God we would certainly go to hell. Rest is ok.

>Are you suggesting that all Jews are of the devil?

Not necessarily the individual jew but jewry as a whole, yes.

I will also continue this in the jew thread in order to not clutter this thread too much.

>>1592

>proof

*prove

>>1546

>But good on you for asking. That's how you make a difference as a board owner.

Oh, to be fair, Alex also recently asked on /christian/ … before a shitstorm of complaints began building and a mod super-saged the thread

>>1555

>I don't think Alex ever banned me for anything

He's pretty ban-happy. Sure, not for stupid things like the volunteers, but look at the bans list and you'll see he's pretty quick to ban some fairly tolerable trolling

>>1557

>These guys just want to go totalitarian on the world

You soooooooooo read my mind on this!!

It's that whole "Deus Vult" crew. "Skin the heretic". "Death to infidels".

But, you take them on and they melt away denying they mean actual murder.

I am convinced, fwiw, that most of /christian/ is "traditional Christians" who get their ass handed to them on /pol/ and want somewhere to come back to to winge about "those evil /pol/ heretics", because the "Here's the latest heresy on /pol/"-threads is pretty consistent.

I've taken those threads on regularly saying "Who cares" but it never stops them from raging.

But, that said, to be fair, /christ/ is that for me from /christian/.

*kek*

No, seriously, all I wanted from 8chan was a place to BE Christian. That's all. I am starting to think /christian/ is not, nor can be, it.

You guys even have a Gnostic flag.

Ten points to /christ/!

Sage for double post.

>>2783

Considering the amount of people that post here regularly, I don't know if I could give you a "general opinion" of anything.

I personally do find gnosticism interesting because I know so little about it, though from what I do know its a pretty "diverse" religion; you could take three Gnostics and put them in a room and you'd get three different views of what Gnosticism is.

That said, welcome.

>>2785

There is a general baseline of what it takes to be Gnostic, though.

Granted, there are various flavors of Gnosticism, but they all seek the same thing: Gnosis (knowledge).

>welcome

This place has a comfier atmosphere, too.

Why didn't I come sooner?

>>2789

Made a general >>2793

>>2783

>What's your general consensus on Gnostics?

We are like a dozen people m8

So my personal opinion:

Gnosticism is a dangerous heresy that excludes you from the Church and therefore from salvation.

>>2787

Welcome anyway. I hope you will eventually return to mother Church and distance yourself from this vile idea.

>>2797

>Gnosticism is a dangerous heresy that excludes you from the Church and therefore from salvation.

>I hope you will eventually return to mother Church and distance yourself from this vile idea.

Well, ya can't please everybody.

Agree to disagree for the time being?

>>2800

>Agree to disagree for the time being?

It is not like there was another option for civilized people to handle differences :^)

>>2808

kek,

ignore this post pls delete

>>2804

Of course. Banning because we disagreed would be a most savage way of handling this. :^)

>>2808

>that pic

Is that some Seventh-Day Adventist stuff?

>>2814

> Seventh-Day Adventist stuff

its used by them, and every other denomination that keeps the saturday.

>>2820

What other denoms keep it on Saturday besides the 7thDays?

>>2821

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-day-adventist/TOPK2SH460MI7S2A7

you know when people say that theres thousands of denoms, theyre right.

>>2996

because theres no centrality, so any new church building are registered as a new denom.

One of the things that I like about Adventists, its thats is centralized.

I really enjoyed /christian/ for a while, but more and more it just seems to be a Catholic circlejerk funclub. Like nearly every thread gets derailed at one point or another because of Catholic shitposting.

Of course, they just immediately say they're "discussing church history :^) " .

My grandmother was Catholic and I find a lot of beauty in the RCC, but the assburgers of the usual -chan user combined with the stature of the Catholic Church is a true shitposting machine.

/christian/ is kil, /christ/ has risen (no blasphemy intended, nice pun intended)

>>3040

I think it's the other way round. Protestants get triggered all the time and orthodox join one time with them, next time with us.

Often I just associate the protties with annyoing and screaming children anymore, sorry.

>>3049

The issue comes with Catholic posters hopping into a thread only to call something heresy as if the other sect cares when they obviously already disagree. It's like pointing out an obvious difference of doctrinal opinion only to point it out.