/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>1802

>I think it is fine as it is, but maybe desubong differs.

>I don't believe in a complete lack of rules.

>I like that we are SFW, DBk does a good job, I like the anons here. There is no reason to give up what we have so far, an alliance would be wise, however.

>>1807

The only thing that really stopped me from actively using /boardnametoolong/ was the board name.

>>1815

to be fair, it takes longer to type /boardnametoolong/ than /goodchristian/

I am just saying that we're never going to conquer /christian/ unless we're together. /goodchristian/ offers everything you have and more and so has more room to grow. As I said, i am willing to change some assets but not the rules.

>>1807

I don't want to tell you how to run your board and I think our current setup works for us. I do like your CSS though and was considering a similar colour scheme for this one, and you are welcome to post here and presumably we are welcome on your board.

If you like I will add a link to your board at the top of the page.

>>1818

Unfortunately I cannot reciprocate the offer. /goodchristian/s goal, as well as being a place that offers a home for those banned on /christian/, is to be better than /christian/, larger and more inclusive. I am ok with not merging but I would merely suggest that that is the way the wind is turning. As such, I cannot make a link to your board

I bear no animosity towards you though

>>1821

That is fine. God bless you.

>/goodchristian/

Why do you call yourselves good, when Jesus said there is none good but God?

Mark 10:18

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

>>1838

Because it's irony

/christian/ likes to think of itself as god's gift to mankind, whereas /goodchristian/ knows it's shit. We are well aware of how retarded we are.

You'll find that much of the humour is self-depreciating and ironic. But we try to do genuine things. But we're not too laid back. We have a sticky for giving, because i believe that that's what jesus wants us to do

>>1849

>>1849

remove 'but' to 'back'. My comprehension isn't very good

>>1849

>Because it's irony

Fair enough.

I might check it out sometime.

>>1890

I look forward to it. We're currently celebrating /intl/'s victory over /int/. Come join us!

>>1817

>I am just saying that we're never going to conquer /christian/ unless we're together.

None of us want to conquer or replace /christian/. As far as I am concerned, /christian/ is clearly under Catholic dominion, and I mean the sort of Catholics who are more Roman than Catholic in their thinking.

When people had enough of /christian/, they look for alternatives, and that's where we are. There is enough room for everyone.

My suggestion: increase multiboard activity and see what happens. People will naturally stick to their preferred place. Things will happen naturally. I know I'm not leaving this board for another, but I might try yours out of curiosity and solidarity.

Come to think of it, your board has 12 active users or so, while we're at 35.

I am now of the mind that you should definitely join us.

You'll appreciate the company.

>>2140

Why would you even want to post these?

>>2141

Why wouldn't he?

>>2142

Because they are just plain disgusting and he is supposed to be Christian?

>>2143

On what basis have you morally evaluated an aesthetic?

>>2140

Psalm 101:3

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

>Again, we allow more things than you

Why do you consider that a good thing?

>>2149

If scenes of gore count as "setting wicked thing before your eyes" then medics are fucked.

>>2150

Because obviously there is no difference between trying to save someone, and passing around photos of gore.

>>2151

The act of viewing itself is exactly the same.

>>2153

>The act of viewing itself is exactly the same.

The bible also promotes sex within marriage, but abhors it outside of marriage.

The act is the same.

Only the context has changed.

>>2154

The context does not matter by it's own virtue but by how it can alter the consequences.

How are consequences of looking at gore different in case of a medic?

>>2155

The context is extremely important. A medic looks at these things tin order to save lives. Most of the people who look at gore just do it for their own satisfaction.

>>2156

Ends do not justify the means. If looking at gore is sin (which it is not in my estimation) then whether it is to safe lives or for entertainment makes no difference.

There's one consequence of looking at gore I know of and that is desensitization to gore. That consequence remains the same in both cases.

>all these posts

What have I done? Woe is me…

No, it's all about freedom. You should allow people to do whatever, just as God allows us to do whatever. I always say, if all the laws were repealed tomorrow, how just would society be? How good would people be if they had a choice?

But if you hate freedom…then I guess I will leave you be. You are always welcome to post on /goodchristian/

>>2163

Just change the name to /gc/ or /ch/ or something boardname like and I'll go. I'd rather deal with gore, brownpills and heretics than tripfags and normies.

>>2163

>>2163

>You should allow people to do whatever, just as God allows us to do whatever.

Is not the case.

Anarchy is not freedom.

>>2162

Apply that logic to my example of sex.

If sex is a sin, then whether it is in a marriage makes no difference.

Clearly that logic leads to false conclusions.

>>2167

>Anarchy is not freedom.

Agreed.

See also related embed.

>>2194

>If sex is a sin, then whether it is in a marriage makes no difference.

>Clearly that logic leads to false conclusions.

It has actually lead you to a correct one. As Lie cannot result from truth and we know context in case of sex changes things, that means statement "sex is a sin" is a lie.

Anyway you cannot put simply "sex" in place of "looking at gore". The situation isn't analogous because looking at gore in a context you deem justified has exactly the same consequences as in a context that you deem unjustified. This is why criterion of context is not enough. Context does not serve a purpose here because it changes none of the consequences.

Watch 7. Do Not Commit Adultery for some examples of the consequences of sex outside marriage. It should also make apparent why consequences of sex inside marriage are different

>>2195

>The situation isn't analogous because looking at gore in a context you deem justified has exactly the same consequences as in a context that you deem unjustified.

No its not.

In the case of a paramedic, the goal is to save someone.

How is looking at gore benefiting anyone much less the person whom you are looking at?

My point was that just because something is justified in some specific situation, does not mean that same thing is also justified in another situation.

>Context does not serve a purpose here because it changes none of the consequences.

So if you were shot in the face, would you rather have a doctor take a look at it, or have someone post pics online?

Clearly the results are not the same.

Also.

A husband is allowed to see his wife naked, but that does not mean he is allowed to take pictures of her, and post them online for the world to see.

>>2198

>>2199

Am I writing in some unclear way or is it your preconceptions clouding your understanding so much that you don't even see what I'm trying to convey?

You're attacking some imaginary points that were not made whilst ignoring the points that were actually stated.

>How is looking at gore benefiting anyone much less the person whom you are looking at?

So what are the consequences of someone looking at gore?

>My point was that just because something is justified in some specific situation, does not mean that same thing is also justified in another situation.

I get what you're trying to say but looking at gore isn't something that needs to be justified in the first place.

Other than that reread my posts until you get what I wrote, it's pointless for me to respond to reasoning that have nothing to do with position I've presented.

>>2200

>Am I writing in some unclear way or is it your preconceptions clouding your understanding so much that you don't even see what I'm trying to convey?

You are trying to say that context does not mater when clearly it does.

>So what are the consequences of someone looking at gore?

I would say that depends on the context.

A doctor, preparing for surgery, could probably gain some insight.

As for someone posting pics online, I'm not really sure.

Perhaps you could explain the purpose of doing so?

Is it because you enjoy seeing mutilated bodies?

If so, I'd be inclined to believe you are not a Christian.

Proverbs 8:36

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

>>2194

Impressively good video.

>>2200

>So what are the consequences of someone looking at gore?

Gore is a cruel and evil thing, exposing yourself to it is not wise.

Doctors do that for the greater good, but they don't enjoy it.

I am also sure it has enough negative consequences for them.

A soldier and a murderer both kill, but only one is necessaryly wrong.

>>2206

>What are some negative consequences of looking at gore?

It makes you rough and losing your perception of suffering. You lose so much and gain nothing.

>>2206

>Now tell me why context matters.

That's what I've been trying to tell you.

.

Suppose someone shoots someone else.

Should the shooter go to jail?

I would say that depends.

Was the person defending themselves, or were they just out on a rampage.

Clearly the context of the shooting maters.

Hence context maters.

Or as discipulus said>>2212

>A soldier and a murderer both kill, but only one is necessaryly wrong.

The act is the same (killing), but the context is different.

>What are some negative consequences of looking at gore?

I agree with >>2212

I would add that it diminishes the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

The average person looks at that, and sees how much He suffered for us.

Whereas someone who is familiar with gore might say "I've seen worse".

Besides that, not knowing consequences does not mean there aren't any.

>>2212

>Impressively good video.

I like that entire channel, I think they do great work.

>>2255

>You desensitize to other people's suffering

And therefore have less sympathy.

>Context matters because it changes consequences.

Not necessarily.

Suppose my wife is a hateful bi+ch.

I kill her, and get away with it.

As a result, I not only don't have a hateful person to put up with, I also gain some insurance money.

Even though the potential for me to go to jail was there, that does not mean it is the consequence of my actions.

Furthermore that act will still have been sinful, even though I might never pay for it in this life.

Suppose a similar scenario in which I was attacked by my wife, and killed her in self defense, but was convicted of murder.

Clearly this act is more justified that the first, but the consequence was much worse.

It should be obvious that the consequence is not always an accurate representation of whether or not an act was wrong.

>Because there is worse…

I never said that there wasn't, only that it serves to diminish His work on the cross.

> Compared to the suffering I've read about the one Jesus underwent doesn't even seem that bad unless I don't know about something.

Thanks for proving my point.

>So far nothing morally prevents me from looking at gore.

Why do you enjoy viewing mutilated bodies?

>>2257

>It should be obvious that the consequence is not always an accurate representation of whether or not an act was wrong.

More on this point.

Suppose three people are mountain climbing.

One of them pushes another of them off the side, and he falls to his death.

A while later that guy slips, and falls, but the third guy tries to save him.

He fails and they both fall to their deaths as the first guy.

In this example the consequence was the same for all men, but the context of their actions are different, and therefore, not all of them were justified.

The first guy was completely innocent.(as far as we know)

It could be said that the second guy deserved to trip, because he pushed the first guy.

And the third guy gave his life in an attempt to save someone else.

Do you think that God should Judge them according to the consequence of their actions, or the context of the situation?

>>2257

>>You desensitize to other people's suffering

>

>And therefore have less sympathy.

What?

Read whole sentences or best whole passages before replying.

>bi+ch

Either use the word or don't. That being said there's nothing wrong about vulgar words. They are just vulgar which means they have lower register of formality.

>Furthermore that act will still have been sinful, even though I might never pay for it in this life.

Consequence as a direct and independent reaction to an action, not as an issue of receiving punishment or not.

>I never said that there wasn't, only that it serves to diminish His work on the cross.

All God had to do was make sure that noone suffers more than him, easy peasy when you're allmighty I presume.

>Thanks for proving my point.

Everything will be known at one point, nothing shall remain hidden. Whether I learn of it now or later hardly makes difference for me. The fact of the matter remains the same.

>Why do you enjoy viewing mutilated bodies?

Do I?

>>2258

>More on this point.

Not interested. Already explained what do I mean by consequence.

>>2255

>You're trying to assert some moral standard without providing reasons nor valid scriptures for it

I did, and you rejected it >>2149

Psalm 101:3

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

As to why I think gore qualifies as "wicked"

1 Corinthians 6:19

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

>your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost

Also

1 Corinthians 3:17

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

No I don't equate viewing gore with actually mutilating bodies.

But I would say that if the body is to be the temple of the Holy Spirit, then a mutilated body would be a corruption of that temple.

Furthermore we are created in the image of God.

A mutilated body is a corruption of that image.

I would consider it similar to porn, and sex.

In that it's sinful because it is lusting after sin.

No you did not mutilate the bodies, but you do enjoy looking at them.

Just like someone who views porn.

No they did not have sex with all those women (or whatever), but they did enjoy watching it.

>>2259

>What?

So you think that it gives us more sympathy?

Or that sympathy is unaffected?

>That being said there's nothing wrong about vulgar words

1-corinthians 6:10

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit * the kingdom of God.

>revilers

http://www.yourdictionary.com/reviler

>to use abusive or contemptuous language in speaking to or about

>All God had to do was make sure that noone suffers more than him

Perhaps He allows it as a way of inspiring compassion.

I do not claim to know the full will of God.

>Do I?

Don't you?

>Not interested.

In what?

Being wrong?

>Already explained what do I mean by consequence.

How do you define it?

I say we should stick to the dictionary definition.

I thought you were referring to the fist definition.

con·se·quence

1. a result or effect of an action or condition.

"many have been laid off from work as a consequence of the administration's policies"

As the second does not seem to match the conversation we are having.

2.importance or relevance.

"the past is of no consequence"

Source = Google the word consequence.

>>2260

>I did, and you rejected it

I've said valid.

Read the context. Author rejects wickedness to the point he cannot stand to look at it nor be in it's company. Compare with following passages from same psalm:

"I will not know a wicked person."

"him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer."

" He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house"

>If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Matthew 15:11

"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

Cutting off mans arm doesn't defile him as a temple of God, him committing evil does.

>So you think that it gives us more sympathy?

>Or that sympathy is unaffected?

Again, read whole sentences or best whole passages before replying. I don't know what are you talking about.

>>to use abusive or contemptuous language in speaking to or about

Ok. After comparison with Matthew 5:22 calling people "good for nothing", "idiots" or "godless" and so on does seem to be against the rules. This is not about the vulgarity itself though. Nothing prohibits me from using vulgar language when it's not for with intention "to assail with contemptuous or opprobrious language; address or speak of abusively". At the same time verbal abuse done with perfectly formal language is out of question. That being said λοιδορος (loidoros) deserves more study on my part before I can be sure what does it mean.

>Don't you?

Have I said I do somewhere in this thread?

>How do you define it?

If you actually read my post you'd know.

>I say we should stick to the dictionary definition.

Ever read a scientific paper? Frequently at the introduction authors explain what they mean to convey by terms they use, I've done the same. If you disagree with me on that you can propose a different term for what I've described as what I mean by consequence then I'll oblige and use the term you find more fitting.

>>2261

>Read the context.

>Author rejects wickedness to the point he cannot stand to look at it nor be in it's company.

This seems to support my point.

>Compare with following passages from same psalm:

Seems to be more of the same to me.

What point are you trying to make?

>Matthew 15:11

Keep reading.

Matthew 15:18-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

>come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Furthermore it seems to be condemning evil thoughts.

>For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts

>murders

Just as viewing porn is viewing the sinful act of fornication, so also is the viewing gore is viewing the sinful act of murder.

I realize this is not always the case, but it often is.

It also symbolizes death, whereas God is a God of life.

>I don't know what are you talking about

You originally said >>2255

>No, it only makes you desensitized to gore.

>You desensitize to other people's suffering by hearing or reading accounts of it or looking at people suffering directly over long periods of time - basically you simply need to live long enough.

I replied >>2257

>And therefore have less sympathy.

You then told me to read the passage >>2259

>What?

>Read whole sentences or best whole passages before replying.

Note: I stand by that statement, even in the full context of what you said.

I replied to your question >>2260

With some questions regarding my statement, in hopes it would remind you what it was we are talking about.

They were

>So you think that it gives us more sympathy?

>Or that sympathy is unaffected?

And now you don't know what I'm talking about.

Well I don't expect you to remember every single detail of what it was you said, I do expect you to follow the conversation, as you can easily go back and re read it.

It seems the only reason you give is that I failed to read the entirety of your statement, I can assure you that I have, and that statement is still valid.

The point that I failed to respond to I assume is the fact that you said

"basically you simply need to live long enough"

But that point only confirms what I am trying to say.

Yeah normally you would have to live a long time, and be exposed to horrific events to become desensitized to gore.

But that is not the case for people who look at gore online.

They can become desensitized in a short time, by viewing vast amounts of it.

I still say that makes you less sympathetic to suffering.

In fact you yourself said, in the same post I was replying to >>2255

>Compared to the suffering I've read about the one Jesus underwent doesn't even seem that bad unless I don't know about something.

See there. Proof. see also >>2162

As a result of viewing gore online, you now have a diminished view of the sacrifice that Jesus made.

>doesn't even seem that bad

Well I for one hope to never reach such a level of desensitization, and therefore Cast my vote in the disallowing of such things on this board.

/christ/ is no place for death porn.

We love life, not death.

>>2268

>>Consequence as a direct and independent reaction to an action, not as an issue of receiving punishment or not.

Well It looks like I was wrong about that.

Sorry man, I honestly don't know how I missed it.

Anyways.

I don't think I understand what you mean by that.

A direct and independent reaction to an action.

So consequence is a reaction?

I thought a reaction was a reaction.

Could you explain to me the specific difference between your definition and that of the dictionary?

>a result or effect of an action or condition.

Also reactions can vary depending on who sees or is affected by the action.

Different people have different reactions.

This is not a good basis for determining which actions are correct.

It almost seems like you mean it as possible outcome.

i.e adultery is bad, because it CAN lead to divorce.

>>2279

>Sorry man, I honestly don't know how I missed it.

Shit happens.

>Could you explain to me the specific difference between your definition and that of the dictionary?

It lacks the factor of "independence". It's impossible to measure a consequence of an action with events that might or might not happen and are solely dependent on quality of police force, judical system and basically chance.

>Different people have different reactions.

Well yea, masochist won't mind if you bully him. Morality is extremely case by case thing. Sound moral judgement of an action requires knowledge that, in most cases, is held by God only which is why, I presume, there's so much said against pronouncing judgements on other people in the Bible.

Still, while that's not to say that it excludes those meanings entirely, whether with consequences or reactions you hang on the understanding in what seems to be purely human factor. Like reaction as emotional reaction rather than chemical reaction.

>i.e adultery is bad, because it CAN lead to divorce.

Later in that video you have one more crucial statement: it undermines the institution of marriage. This is sure to happen, even if it's delayed by keeping affairs secret. Marriage ceases to be 1 on 1 family building block for those who actually want to do it that way. Whether that was the main reason why the commandment was given I'm not wise enough to know.

>>2305

>It's impossible to measure a consequence of an action with events that might or might not happen

I kind of agree.

The specific consequence will be known once it happens.

But that was my point, you can't say something is moral or immoral based on the consequences, because they vary.

Even for the same action.

I still say the context of the action maters, and not what comes of it, or what people think of it.

In the case of gore, my reaction is disgust.

Would you say that makes it immoral for me?

>>2309

In case of niggers, my reaction is disgust.

Would you say that makes it immoral for me?

>>2315

My question was intended to point out that his logic is illogical.

Hence why I said.

>I still say the context of the action maters, and not what comes of it, or what people think of it.

I do not believe that a reaction is an appropriate means to determine morality.

triggered

>>2140

We're safe for work, so yeah, but you can still post this here, as you did, behind spoilers.

We've never felt the need to post gore though (because there's no point in it for our purpose).

>>2143

That's not the reason. But there is no point in posting gore here, quite simply. We're not very image-based here is all.