/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I'm here from the halfchan /b/read, but for some reason halfchan keeps saying my captcha is wrong. I look forward to christposting here with you guys!

>>4364

Welcome!

Tell us about yourself and ask anything you want.

I hope the Sin Anon finds his way here too. That guy sounds interesting.

>>4366

Thanks! It is I, the Sin Anon. :) (kinda an apt nickname, I guess, since we're all sin anons of one kind or another, hehe)

PS: I LOVE this "one captcha every 24 hours" thing. After the struggle I had on /b/, it's very appripo.

>>4367

Welcome! Yeah, there are plenty of things you'll like better here.

I recommend dark mode for a comfy experience. It may not be called "dark" but I always forget what it is. It's the night mode, basically, easier on the eye.

If you want a trip, press ## and add your password after that (in the namefield, just after your name).

Click on "show post options" in the quickreply window to see your flag options. We use flags to simplify identification of faiths. I wear a simple crucifix lately because unlike most here, I don't belong to a particular denomination apart from the Catholic, by baptism, so the crucifix sorta fits.

>>4370

>I'm 15 years old (don't ban me).

We won't, but don't say it again, there are global mods here and they can do things against board owner's will.

Delete that part of your post and repost it without that bit.

Do it!

>>4370

I name you Youngun for reasons we won't repeat! But you can of course choose a name of your own, if you want a name at all. No pressure. Many of us have names but it's not mandatory at all.

I'm glad you're here. You'll find plenty of helpful brothers here.

>>4370

Any particular denomination?

>>4369

Eh, I'll probably just stay anon for the most part, I'm not one to do much tripping. I'll usually tell you it's me though. ;)

Thanks for the invite. I haven't explored the boards at large yet, but it's nice to have another place to turn to looking for companionship whilst on the interwebz. Especially a Christian community, since I've been feeling a need for fellowship lately.

>>4370

I would hope a Christian board wouldn't be 18+. I don't believe in ageism (and on behalf of the world, I'd like to formally apologize for all the times people act like your opinion isn't as good as theirs just because you haven't been breathing air on this planet as long as they have), and in particular, God's pretty clear that He doesn't much believe in ageism either.

Stay strong and true to yourself and you'll be fine. Remember Paul says that "all have sinned, and all fall short of the Glory of God". Pay attention also to Romans 12, because you'll see someone like me basically say "hey, masturbation's no big deal" and that may be true for me, but that doesn't mean it's true for you. Anything that separates us from God is potentially a big deal, and if your conscience tells you that masturbation's doing that, then it's a problem for you to tackle.

I know you'll be okay, though. Jesus is there for you whether you succeed or not, it's the attempt at righteousness that pleases Him moreso than the results.

>>4372

>>4374

>>4371

crap, i copied the whole thing but in the meantime i copied something else

Whatever, you've read the thing anyway.

I'm Catholic, I guess. It's the only kind of Christianity that ever happens in my country and I think it makes the most sense.

As for the nickname.. I don't think I want one. Can I use an avatar instead?

>>4375

> Especially a Christian community,

You'll find that here. We're not very many for now, we're like a little family and we keep a critical mind, as most of us are from different denomination. We're not a cult!

>I would hope a Christian board wouldn't be 18+

It's "safe for work", but that rule doesn't depend on us. As long as you don't say it, nobody will mind. I don't expect anything to happen to you, but just so you know.

I agree 100% with what you're saying, just think of it this way, if anyone here reports your post (including trolls or anyone from not here), a global mod (not related to our board) might still make you taste his power. It doesn't depend on us. I'm not even a mod here.

There will be other regulars soon, there's more than just me here. Just you wait!

>>4376

>Can I use an avatar instead?

Entirely up to you. You can remain anonymous, have a name, anything you want.

As to Catholics, we have a few here and they'll be delighted to have a new friend, especially someone who recently converted and wish to get more out of Christianity.

We have flags for Catholics, don't hesitate to use one if you want to!

No trolls have followed you to us, neato.

The star beside the board name, up there, is the way to add it to your favs. Just click it and the link to our board will appear in the top bar.

>>4381

Stay real, my youthful friend. God bless.

>>4377

Yeah, I know, jerks everywhere. Still, the right thing to do is stand up for your beliefs, so I'm not going to censor myself.

>>4377

>>4377

>>4377

>>4383

I thought you were the same anon… This happens to me a lot lately.

>Still, the right thing to do is stand up for your beliefs, so I'm not going to censor myself.

You'll be fine here. We made this place precisely so we wouldn't have to censor ourselves. We want to hear what everyone has to say, freely. Our board owner and only mod is the best sort of mod. You won't even know he's around, although he is. If you call him out, he'll respond, but other than that, as invisible and necessary as the air we breathe.

>>4385

I like the metaphors between the board mod and God. ;)

>>4386

I stole that simile from Margaret Atwood, the air thing. It's good stuff.

Wow. There are 6251 boards on here. That's crazy.

A guy could explore this place for weeks and barely skim the surface.

>>4390

Yeah, but most of these boards have no activity.

Bump.

>>4440

Good morning, Christian brother. Hope you're having a blessed day.

>>4442

Hello to you too! Don't hesitate to ask any questions and open threads of your own.

Hey boss, could you – if you so wish – pin this thread so that it shows up before the rules? We need a thread for newcomers, and it's nicer to have that thread there as the very first than Mustachio dude giving orders.

Newcomers might be shy to post at all in the beginning, let's make it easy for them!

Bump.

What's the difference between this board and /christian/?

>>4549

Less moderation, wider range of subjects allowed for discussion, different user base. Feel free to use both then compare and contrast to your leisure.

>>4549

None this board is good for finding out why certain topics are unwanted on /christian/ though.

In general, there is just more forced content and circlejerking on here. The only sane person posting here is discipulus.

>>4554

"Forced content and circlejerking"?

Elaborate, please, inquiring newbies want to know.

>>4549

The Catholic mod from /christian/ hasn't been banned here, while many of those that post here have been perma-banned on "his board."

>>4554

Have to disagree. /christian/ seems to me to be another /pol/ type of board. The focus there is not on discussion but more on feigned outrage towards degeneacy and pretending to be a crusader. Dissenting views are often dogpiled, memed at, or just ignored.

That said I understand its primary purpose as a place for christians to discuss christianity amongst themselves. Not every board has to be an open forum for debate. I just don't like the direction its taken.

>>4563

>>4567

Well, this is certainly a lot more politics than is appropriate for a "Welcome" thread. :P If OoLF hadn't made such a strong impression on me a couple of days ago, I'd be on my way out the door already.

Perhaps you guys would like to now mention some good things about this board and why you still come here?

>>4568

You may find that out yourself. Browse the threads, see the comments, see the subjects discussed; even better you yourself make a thread proposing a subject for discussion, and gauge the result.

If that's not to your liking, God bless you in your life and may you fare well.

>>4567

>The focus there is not on discussion

And the problem is you if you run away from the RPers. Only a matter of time if they find this board and the play begins anew. Only a matter of time until Desubong needs to ban people because they cannot be integrated by the original user base.

There are already two or three people on /christ/ who were banned for crusadeposting and calling heresy or idolatry on everything.

>>4563

>have been perma-banned on "his board."

Lies. Neither person here is banned for life. I am here to personally asked people back.

>>4554

>None this board is good for finding out why certain topics are unwanted on /christian/ though.

Which ones do you have in mind here, beside LDS?

>forced content and circlejerking on here.

Not really much can be done about that on a small board like this, I think.

>>4563

>while many of those that post here have been perma-banned on "his board."

No, not that I know of. Permabans are rare there, not sure if they even happen?

>>4568

>Perhaps you guys would like to now mention some good things about this board and why you still come here?

We have very nice and likable people here and I like to interact with them.

We also have good content.

>>4569

This

>>4578

>There are already two or three people on /christ/ who were banned for crusadeposting and calling heresy or idolatry on everything.

You mean who were banned on /christian/ and are here now? Fine.

I think brown pill bot is the only one ever banned here.

> Only a matter of time until Desubong needs to ban people because they cannot be integrated by the original user base.

I do not think so, I think he would rather let this board change than submitting on his principles.

also I do not think he cares this much

>>4587

>See, a problem is the mentality of us and them. the schism is in your heart.

Sure. It should be obvious, since it's also physical.

> duration field

kek

>>4554

>this board is good for finding out why certain topics are unwanted on /christian/ though.

Translation: freedom of speech is very limited on /christian/. Posts that the mods dislike get deleted.

> there is just more forced content

Forced by who? Anyone posts whatever they want. Maybe you force content on /christian/ but I wouldn't even know how to do that since I'm not a mod.

>circlejerking on here.

Translation: people actually care to be friendly to each other here, since that's the goal of /christ/: having an online brotherhood. He calls it "circlejerking" because /christian/ can no longer achieve that goal. The next best thing is to "look tough".

>The only sane person posting here is discipulus.

Not being Catholic means you're insane? This is exactly why I left /christian/. Too much self-righteousness makes it so that one wonders why you even try. I come here to learn and discuss, you seem to come online solely to tell others what to do and how to do it.

>>4556

Don't bother, he's a mod from /christian/ and he wants us back, and he'd rather you go there than stay with us. It's as simple as that.

>>4568

>If OoLF hadn't made such a strong impression on me a couple of days ago, I'd be on my way out the door already.

Thanks, but be aware that I am not appreciated by all on 8chan, far from that. The present mod thinks I'm both insane and heretical, and God knows what else.

Keep in mind that since we don't ban people, anyone can come here and those who post aren't necessarily from /christ/.

I wouldn't want you to get a wrong impression from the /christian/ mole trying to shit in the soup.

>>4601

what a narcissist

>>4578

>And the problem is you if you run away from the RPers.

Most ran away from you.

> Only a matter of time if they find this board and the play begins anew.

You've already found us and you're already trying to make our new members come to your board instead. If you're not pleased with your members, question your ways and consider that maybe your behaviour attracts just that sort of person and make the rest leave. You reap what you sow.

>Only a matter of time until Desubong needs to ban people because they cannot be integrated by the original user base.

Not everyone is you. Stop projection, stop assuming you know better than everybody. If you did, your board wouldn't be the sorry mess you desperately try to flee by coming to us now.

>There are already two or three people on /christ/ who were banned for crusadeposting and calling heresy or idolatry on everything.

What the hell is "crusadeposting" now? I think you're squarely lying now. I've seen plenty call both idolatry and heresy and no ban ensued.

You're stooping quite low.

>Lies. Neither person here is banned for life. I am here to personally asked people back.

This guy will ban you for saying something he doesn't like, but he will unban you shortly after to make you feel the might of his mercy, because he's not only almighty, he's also "kind". In his mind at least.

Stop asking us back. None of the other members want to go back. I indulge in some visits to your board but there is no way for me to be myself anymore on your board, and this isn't something I can do halfway. Faith is intimate to me and I have no desire to discuss it with people who think I'm insane because of it. You are noxious to faith; it even happens to your members, many of which realise they're turning into deus vult poltards, loving their fellow humans less and less, judging more and more, and being concerned with the sins of others more than with their own. That is not the sort of Christian I want to be.

>>4581

But should you be? I take more honor from him when he calls me a satanic lunatic heretic.

>>4587

>See, a problem is the mentality of us and them.

You have to be kidding… Projection levels going through the roof.

>If you happen to forget to fill in the duration field, for example :^)

Bans cannot be edited, unfortunatel

I have no idea what you're talking about.

>So be it. I will see you then.

Feel free to spare yourself.

>>4615

>At least I like you being here Cathmod ;^)

>The others are… not in a very neutral position to be honest after all

I'm not. I can't stand bullshit. I don't care if someone is from my own denomination or not, it makes no difference in whether that person is abusing projections and hypocrisy and a sense of self that goes beyond any expectations.

I just don't like being around this person. I can't be neutral on that.

>>4621

>I just don't like being around this person.

That's also a way of having a welcome thread :^)

>>4630

>That's also a way of having a welcome thread :^)

That's what he wanted. Maybe it was a trap, but I don't care. I bust traps by running into them.

You don't mind telling the Mormons they're not Christians and should only consider themselves "guests" here, so you shouldn't mind me simply telling my actual status about so and so. It's not a judgement, it's the truth.

>>4656

> if you don’t want to stick to the topic.

Reminder that you're responding to me saying that people here can post what they want. Who gives a fuck if I "stick to the topic" or not? How's that relevant to anything?

>but it is known that you don’t actually stick to the topic, maybe not deliberately.

"It is known", no it's not. You're saying that based on absolutely nothing and you know. You can lie as much as you want, it doesn't make anything become a reality.

Besides, "not sticking to the topic" probably means you don't see the connection between one thing and the other. That's your reading problem, not mine. You care more for respecting your board rules than having a conversation. Not surprised.

>I didn’t say that but Chesterton would agree with this. Heresy is a malfunction of ratio.

Have some respect for Chesterton; I'm pretty sure he said it in a much more intelligent way and probably quite a different way too. You know who else considered that divergent opinions were mental illnesses? Communists. Enjoy that ideological company.

>I meant to say that discipulus isn’t overall engaging in pseudo-intellectual christobabble and obscurantism.

By which you mean he is only concerned with Catholicism. I love how everything you say sweats hate and scorn and arrogance. It's amazing. But that's how we all know what's in your heart.

>Christianity is brotherhood not out of your own choosing but out of Christs choosing. If you are saying this excludes me, however…

It's a mutual choosing. I like being around people who also like being around me. Surely you haven't missed the part where you don't like being around me and you make sure to say so in indirect ways, lest anyone try to do what you've just tried on me. Crap like this is exactly why I don't like being around you. You speak like a snake and your heart is nothing but hatred of others, which you try to enact by domination, ideological, or, if you can, bans. You do the work of Satan in my opinion, and I have no reason to stand for it or pretend I like it.

>>4656

>That’s pretty much your essence of being; not wanting to be around people who disagree with you.

Really? My essence of being? How can you even say this without laughing? You're the one who banned dozens, if not hundreds by now, for not agreeing with you. But let's see: absolutely nobody on this here board agrees with me, and guess what, I'm still around them, and I like it. So much for that being my "essence". Again, projection is strong with you.

>Also, do you like how laissez-faire moderation affects your posting experience in a negative way?

Loaded questions are for satan-worshipping homos. I'm 100% happy with our moderation. It's perfect. It hasn't affected my posting experience in a negative way. Again, stop taking your wishes for reality.

>That which you cannot talk about, you should be quiet about.

Since when does admitting ignorance of a subject equals to "talking about that subject"?

You just missed an opportunity to be nice and not show how disagreeable a person you are. I got another saying for you: "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing."

>There won’t be permabans on /christian/ and if there are

Who gives a fuck? You aren't God with divine punishments, you know. Dynamic IP's are a thing, proxies too. Anyone can go back to your board whenever they want using either of these. Some of us can just restart their routers and they're back with another IP. You're too arrogant to realise that the reason why they don't come back is because they don't want to be around you, not because they respect the ban.

>>4688

I agree with everyone on some things, thankfully, but I don't expect anybody to follow me ideologically. The reason is, I assume, that most with my current opinion on the whole thing would sooner dump Christianity altogether than keep trying to make sense of it.

I'm just stubborn and thorough. What made me reject Christianity to begin with is the same stuff that makes me not drop it now.

If anyone new is here, don't hesitate to manifest yourself, that we may welcome you as you deserve.

>>4695

>What made me reject Christianity to begin with is the same stuff that makes me not drop it now.

Its called "having a testimony of Jesus Christ"; when your spirit knows the truth to the point when you could never deny it and its your emotions and logical mind that have to struggle to catch up.

>>4703

>Its called "having a testimony of Jesus Christ"; when your spirit knows the truth to the point when you could never deny it and its your emotions and logical mind that have to struggle to catch up.

It's what the Catholics try to convince me is the voice of the devil. I hope you're right.

>>4682 >>4683

>all these projections

You talk too much nonsense, I cannot address any of that, sorry. I can see why me calling you out on your ways makes you angry but there is too much libel, assuming and ad hominem in your post. Some things I will address out of kindness.

> where you don't like being around me and you make sure to say so in indirect ways

Look, it’s not my fault that you think that everyone who gets annoyed by you at times wants to be rid of you. Now let’s not forget that there is a thread here where you say that you deliberately provoke on /christian/ to get banned because you feel unwanted there.

>Who gives a fuck?

Well, apparently the overbearing claptrap who says that they are ignorant about the issue he doesn’t give a fuck about only to flip about the explanation.

>the reason why they don't come back

You always promise that. I cannot say I hope for your return in your current state of mind but I do hope that you will soon find clarity. I know you will come back out of spite nevertheless, fully thinking you are not hypocritical.

>>4714

We’d call that sensus fidei. The question is if you actually have it or not.

>>4718

youre so narcissist that you need to come to this board because you cant stand the thought that people disagrees with you.

>>4718

>You talk too much nonsense, I cannot address any of that, sorry.

Call it nonsense, but you know exactly what I said and you know it's true.

> I can see why me calling you out on your ways makes you angry but there is too much libel, assuming and ad hominem in your post.

That's the projection I was talking about.

> Some things I will address out of kindness.

More lies. There is no kindness in you.

>Look, it’s not my fault that you think that everyone who gets annoyed by you at times wants to be rid of you.

I don't even think that. More lies.

> Now let’s not forget that there is a thread here where you say that you deliberately provoke on /christian/ to get banned because you feel unwanted there.

That doesn't even make sense. More lies.

>Well, apparently the overbearing claptrap who says that they are ignorant about the issue he doesn’t give a fuck about only to flip about the explanation.

I feel the kindness now! It's made of arrogance and hatred.

>You always promise that.

More lies. I even said I still came back sometimes and posted occasionally. You're not paying attention, which you don't need to because you prefer to lie. It's easier.

> I cannot say I hope for your return in your current state of mind

More lies, you never wanted me back to begin with, and my "state of mind" was much the same back on /christian/, meaning my not being Catholic like you are.

>clarity

Oh, I found that about you. I'm very clear on what kind of person you are.

> I know you will come back out of spite nevertheless

Another prediction made from nothing. Remember when you predicted we'd all come back once our board dies? Yeah, it never happened. Instead, you're here! So yeah, slow down on the predictions, cowboy, you're none too good at them.

>fully thinking you are not hypocritical.

So you make up something you think I'll do in the future and you pass judgement on that. Convenient!

>We’d call that sensus fidei. The question is if you actually have it or not.

The question is why are you here at all? Really? You think our board is shit and you don't like the trips, and you most definitely dislike me, so why be here at all? And don't dodge by answering sideways or making yet another comment on me as a person, nobody cares what you think of me and me least of all, mostly because it's such delusional projection that you even fail to make me question myself, which is, in normal times, not very hard to do at all.

Cathmod, pls post here more often. All of this tension and discussion, lovely.

>>4743

To no end.

>>4748

>people keep complaining about you

>and about the other board

>bragbragbrag

>they go there

>I never complained about you nor did I ever want you removed

>I do not talk about the other board here usually

>I do not go there anymore

Any explanation on this? I'd say they have a crush on you, some tsundere thing or the like… but this is just an internet board after all.

but never say never

>>4740

Everything I said in that picture is something I still stand by.

Guerilla posting is something I still do, and much the same way, though much less too.

I do believe people deserve better, especially new comers who aren't familiar with Christianity, so I let them know of /christ/, so they get a chance.

I'll keep my trip every single time if you prefer, but I don't see how that's a cowardly thing I'm well aware that mods can see IP's, all you need to do is compare where I posted with the trip and shazam; don't think I didn't know that.

>Again, too much libel.

Calling you out on your lies now libel. Convienent!

>Since there are many people who aren’t banned for that, you probably weren’t banned for that either, huh?

You really aren't trying, I never said I was banned for this… read the very picture you posted!

Seriously, I could rewrite the exact same thing right now.

I'm amazed and somewhat creeped out that you save stills, though.

>'Care for a common home.

Bullshit. You just want to shit up the place here like you shat up /christian/.

You have a common home, it's /christian/, so go there and enjoy your board. There's enough of an audience and membership to spend 5 hours a day posting and responding to everyone. Why don't you do that? Don't you like it? It's molded to your specific wishes.

>In fact, you were not once banned for heterodoxy

I never said I was. Even back then I said I didn't have a problem myself with the bans but did find others' bans unfair.

> but instead for trolling, provocation and advertising

I've never disputed all my recent bans and you're a liar to suggest I did. Apparently, it wasn't even you who banned me most of the times, since you allegedly didn't see my messages (none of which was about asking to be unbanned, you monomaniac). See, that's what I hate about you: you shape reality to your liking and roll with it! Who gives a fuck about facts, right? I do.

You're only here because you want to get some of us back to /christian/, and you want our new members too. Notice you don't get banned for that, while anyone doing so on /christian/ will get banned. I do that and I accept it. I just don't understand why you don't give me a longer ban. I'll always drop a line about there being an alternative to your board, out of religious conscience. I cannot possibly leave anybody under your sole care if it is in my power to offer an alternative.

>>4740

Just to be sure, which part of my post in your picture is a lie?

>>4748

but we cant do this on the other board ::^^))

hypocrite.

15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

>>4743

>Glad you enjoy it. I don't and I don't guarantee that I'll always respond to his bullshit.

>>4749

Maybe they could be trolling? Maybe it is fun to fight me? :^)

>I never complained about you nor did I ever want you removed

I know. You wanted a change of policies. I promised to bring that, but it never happened because Alex is busy, I guess. Sorry about that.

>>4753

>taking chans too seriously

One could say that about me, too. However, I am just doing my duty, think of this what you may.

>here's enough of an audience and membership to spend 5 hours a day posting and responding to everyone

Are you projecting again? I don’t even post in threads that don’t interest me here. And I only read the threads I have nothing constructive to say to. Lurking is a virtue.

>>4754

>Calling you out on your lies now libel. Convienent!

Libel is libel when you give false testimony, even if not deliberate.

>I'm well aware that mods can see IP

No, we can’t. You were reported. Besides, it is not you me who are fooling it is ~ them ~

>I'm amazed and somewhat creeped out that you save stills

I dug that up from the threads /christ/ archived about me, ironic. :)

>Now let’s not forget that there is a thread here where you say that you deliberately provoke on /christian/ to get banned because you feel unwanted there.

>That doesn't even make sense. More lies.

>Guerilla posting is something I still do, and much the same way, though much less too.

>>4761

>but we cant do this on the other board

The freedom of speech is a curious thing. A loose, unreflected tongue is like masturbation, something we gain more from when not letting our desires have free reign over it. A time to keep silence and a time to speak…

>4768

You are so overbearing that you even respond to the bullshit I personally didn’t write if it’s about me.

>>4768

Accidental quote. I'm having trouble posting.

>>4749

>Any explanation on this? I'd say they have a crush on you

That's probably it. Or maybe I respond to lies and bullshit.

>>4770

>Maybe they could be trolling? Maybe it is fun to fight me? :^)

No and no.

>I promised to bring that, but it never happened because Alex is busy, I guess. Sorry about that.

Top kek. You're the policy people wanted a change about. As to Alex, I wouldn't be surprised he left months ago.

>One could say that about me, too.

That's what he meant.

>I am just doing my duty, think of this what you may.

You're not. You're willingly choosing to spend time on the Internet. Stop trying to make it sound like you're some sort of mission, hero.

>Are you projecting again?

How the fuck would that be projection? That's my assessment of the activity on /christian/; yes, I am pretty sure one can spend 5 hours a day on it, easily. Maybe I'm wrong but in either case it doesn't make it "projection". Projection is when you see in others what you actually do yourself.

>Lurking is a virtue.

Please do more of it.

>Libel is libel when you give false testimony, even if not deliberate.

I won't embarrass you by asking you what false testimony I committed. "You called me a Modernist!" Yes, you are from my point of view because you adopt dogmas that came after the original ones, not that you ever wondered what I could have meant. You're all image and no substance. You're all about looking like a good guy, but you aren't.

>, it is not you me who are fooling it is ~ them ~

Wut. I'm fooling nobody, if that's what you mean. I'm dropping posts saying /christ/ exists as an alternative to /christian/. It's 100% true.

>I dug that up from the threads /christ/ archived about me, ironic. :)

I don't even know where the archives are. I still wouldn't put it past you to save stills of that sort.

>Guerilla posting is something I still do, and much the same way, though much less too.

The explicit purpose of this is not to get banned. It is to let others know there's an alternative to /christian/.

> A loose, unreflected tongue is like masturbation,

OK…

>something we gain more from when not letting our desires have free reign over it.

So masturbation is more beneficial when you don't let your desires have free reign over it? I thought you were T totaler of the D, colour me surprised.

>A time to keep silence and a time to speak…

Nah, it's more about what you say than when you say it.

>>4770

> A time to keep silence and a time to speak…

were you decide…

narcissists level : 1000

>>4772

I meant over there.

>>4775

> You're the policy people wanted a change about.

Sure, all the people who cared about this at all are posting here now. The other 270-350 people who didn’t give any fuck live in peace.

I banned a troll and I will go on banning trolls, if I detect them. Kasey tires.

>I won't embarrass you by asking you what false testimony I committed

Everything I didn’t answer.

And you go on:

>You're all image and no substance. You're all about looking like a good guy, but you aren't.

>You're not. You're willingly choosing to spend time on the Internet

No, I am doing my duty, i.e. properly ricing the board.

>I'll always drop a line […], out of religious conscience

What exactly are you criticising in me?

>You adopt dogmas that came after the original ones

I don’t think you understand how dogma works at all. Dogma is a clarification of something that IS to be believed so that people have clarity. Because otherwise, feasts for the immaculate conception would have been technical heresy. What isn’t prayed isn’t to be believed. It’s not necessarily something that was an actual heresy, though. Just like Jeanne d’Arque was in heaven before the church canonised her a saint, probably. A canonisation also infallible, btw. I dislike the political canonisations, btw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#History

Modernism however means that the church needs to develop according to the 'times'. One could also use 'progressism'

>The explicit purpose of this is not to get banned

Indeed, just like any other shitposting.

>I thought you were T totaler of the D

No idea what you mean by that but I never shared your views on masturbation. Yes, I think masturbation should not be undertaken out of worldly reasons, too. And it should never be acquired as a habit.

>>4778

No, it’s a Christian board, not a meta board. Just like this discussion technically doesn’t belong on this board here. And I only discuss it here because I know it is allowed. I want you to self-police.

>>4786

>such as monogamous marriage

Heretic! Disgusting. I even overread it at first and thought you meant celebacy. Marriage is between one man and one woman, sacramental and undivorcable. Deal with it.

>but don't accuse me of false testimony

Then stop saying giving false testimony altogether, not just partially. I am just in this thread because of false testimony that is being given.

>Then don't say a little bit of masturbation is all right, which is what I was pointing out in my reply to you.

I didn’t. But yes, it seemed so. Sorry.

>based on the glorious presention we've just made here

No, I just addressed falsehoods. Not my fault that you hate me.

>you're nobody here

Maybe I should have a tripcode then, then I am allowed to voice my opinion.

>>4788

>Heretic! Disgusting. I even overread it at first and thought you meant celebacy. Marriage is between one man and one woman, sacramental and undivorcable. Deal with it.

And it was pagans who brought it into Christianity. Deal with it.

>Then stop saying giving false testimony altogether, not just partially. I am just in this thread because of false testimony that is being given.

I'll just call you a cunt from now on, to be sure I don't bear false testimony.

>No, I just addressed falsehoods. Not my fault that you hate me.

Of course it's your fault, don't act like a cunt and I won't dislike you for being one.

>Maybe I should have a tripcode then, then I am allowed to voice my opinion.

Boohoo, poor baby. You don't need a tripcode, everybody knows who you are already, you could use "Cathmod" and it'd make no difference.

You're obviously allowed to voice your opinion. Nobody has banned you, nobody has stopped you. And nobody will, that's the difference between your board and ours.

I know you're upset you can't ban me for anything I say here. Deal with it.

>>4790

>pagans who brought it into Christianity

Pagans like God, who gave Adam ONE woman, right?

>>4788

>undivorcable

Won't be the first time you go against Christ's words.

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9

You have to be quite dense not to understand this, or unwilling.

>except for

As usual, I'll side with Christ. You side with whoever says what you want to hear.

>>4791

>Pagans like God, who gave Adam ONE woman, right?

If you read Genesis literally, you're out of line with the Catholic Church, just so you know. Secondly, God gave way more than one wife to Solomon.

(And God gave two women to Adam, Lilith was also given to him, just saying.)

But hey, let's not pretend we're going to argue about a point. Just go away.

>>4794

You don't follow His word, you follow what you like. You can't explain why you're against divorce when Christ clearly says it's OK for sexual immorality. Try telling me you're not ignoring that one.

You believe in yourself, not the word of Christ on that one.

Mark and Luke are also gospels, but it makes no difference here. You can't select just the bits you like. Read the picture you just posted.

>>4796

First of it all, you failed to prove how manage isn’t monogamous.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-jesus-leave-a-loophole-for-divorce-in-matthew-199

>You don't follow His word, you follow what you like

t. denom-swapping little bitch

>>4797

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19#48019009-1

In the NAB with clarification. Probably he means that it’s not adultery if you send away your concubine. This is missing in Mark and Luke either way.

>>4797

>First of it all, you failed to prove how manage isn’t monogamous.

Read the Old Testament, there are plenty of examples, all of which are fine with God.

>t. denom-swapping little bitch

Cute. I still have no idea what you're doing with your "t." thing, or what denom is, a mix of denim and venom?

I'm not little, by the way.

The irony here is that ever since you talked to me, you've always told me just that, "You do what you want, not what Christ said," and yet you can't stand being told the same, even when it's plain to see that you believe something Christ did not.

Maybe you should spend more time trying to hear Him rather than spending so much time looking for sins in others and banning them for it on your online board. Just an idea.

>>4814

Now that OoLF is gone, Cuckvol no longer visits /christ/. Sad.

I've seen OoLF on /christian/, though, maybe he went back?

Anybody new around here? I've seen quite a few new people. Very glad to see a influx of newcomers.

If you haven't been welcomed yet, post here!

I've seen a Greek Orthodox and an Anglican. Never seen those guys before. Welcome to you and anyone else who just joined.

Let us know how you find us! We're curious (at least I am).

>>5290

>Sad.

For you maybe!

>I've seen OoLF on /christian/, though, maybe he went back?

He always posted on both, its not like you have to pick /christian/ or /christ/.

I think he's just taking a break. You may find him on /b/ or somewhere else where he can preach to degenerates and unrepentant sinners, find his testimony in the bearing of it an all that.

>>5290

>I've seen OoLF on /christian/, though

He’s not a man who will keep to his word, what do you expect.

I just blend in :)

Don’t call me that anyway

>>5293

>where he can preach to degenerates and unrepentant sinners

This is what makes OOLF such an unbearable person.

>>5303

>He’s not a man who will keep to his word, what do you expect.

He never said he would not go back, though. Don't call him a liar based on a lie of your own. My guess is that what he wanted to avoid on /christian/ he found on /christ/ so it makes no difference to him where he posts anymore. I saw him post once on /christian/ recently, it's not like it's his new permanent abode.

>>where he can preach to degenerates and unrepentant sinners

>This is what makes OOLF such an unbearable person.

That's exactly what Christ did, though. He specifically said He wasn't there to preach to perfect people. Preaching to the choir is proverbially useless.

>>5293

>You may find him on /b/ or somewhere else where he can preach to degenerates and unrepentant sinners,

That's how I came here, actually. I found a Christian thread on oldchan /b/ and we talked. He rekindled my interest in faith, something that hadn't happened since my childhood. He advised me on a few books he thought I should read (CS Lewis, the Catholic Catechism, some specific parts of the New Testament, etc) and answered all the questions I had in a way that made it both interesting and satisfying. I credit the man with my return to God.

I know I'm not the only chantard to feel this way about OOLF, so I'm always surprised to hear such comments about him here.

>This is what makes OOLF such an unbearable person.

Way to misunderstand what you read. I don't even think Mormon anon meant it as a negative thing, and it isn't a negative thing. You ought to pray to the degenerates and unrepentent sinners, oughtn't you? I'm glad he did it for me and saved me from furry pr0n.

>>5303

>He’s not a man who will keep to his word, what do you expect.

He never promised not to go back, he even said it was fine to go on both. I know so because when he was preaching on /b/ he mentioned both boards and how they differred (one had way more people and limited freedom of speech, the other was not limited but had much fewer users).

Correct me if I am in error, but I think oolf said he got banned until Christmas on your board, so my guess is that the few times he posted there was just to show you that you're not his boss. That's my take. You're well aware of this, since it's your ban, so don't act like it can't possibly part of the equation and don't jump on the occasion to call him a liar once again. OOLF has never lied on anything since I've known him. He doesn't follow Catholicism (he and I argued over this quite a bit) but he was always honest.

I don't usually post, I'm more of a lurker, but I had to speak out for the man who brought me here too. (And this is why I don't post, I don't like conflicts and would rather not be involved in one.)

>>5310

>limited freedom of speech

He was never banned for having an opinion I dislike and I have said so oftentimes.

What I meant is that he often announces to leave for good only to come back a day later. Really appalling behaviour.

>was just to show you that you're not his boss

Actually, banning for Christmas was wrong because it should have been the feast of Christ the King, if anything. But abusing the system 8chan provides solely for having the last word is idiocy at its finest, just like using the onion just to make a point proves people correct who would want to shut out these systems. Besides, I don’t even ban people for ban evading as long as they behave (and OOLF clearly provokes).

Can’t have the cake and eat it. He was banned for this behaviour to begin with—actually everyone else, too.

>>5308

>>5309

>>5310

I am glad he helped you but I dislike him for misrepresenting the faith. I don’t even dislike him, personally. He could do with better manners.

>That's exactly what Christ did

Christ gave proper answers.

>>5309

> I don't even think Mormon anon meant it as a negative thing,

I did not, cathmod misinterpreted me, or that is simply his own opinion, which he's entitled to.

I believe a great part of his testimony is based on service, that's how he "lives" his faith, and so he really needs to feel like he's changing people's lives and making a difference. Going to places where people don't really know a thing about Jesus, or where they are steeped in sin and degeneracy, and talking them out out it, that he likes.

I do think he likes this place too, but he probably felt most of the time that we just argue over minutia and bash eachother over our own specific ways to follow Christ. We'll see, I do think he'll come back in the near future.

>>5311

>What I meant is that he often announces to leave for good

Never seen him say that.

>He was never banned for having an opinion I dislike and I have said so oftentimes.

He's never said otherwise either. You can't post porn and antichristian material on /christian/, that's all "limited freedom of speech" meant.

>Besides, I don’t even ban people for ban evading as long as they behave (and OOLF clearly provokes).

You can't ban that, that's why you don't. I don't see how oolf "provokes". He called you names here but I don't see how that's a reason to extend his ban there.

>I am glad he helped you but I dislike him for misrepresenting the faith.

How so? When we talked, and I asked about this board, he explained that there were many denominations and that his views weren't shared by most. Once that was clear, he always made a point of what was his belief and what was Catholic belief (which I think is what he is most familiar with). For all I know, he never misrepresented anything. It just so happens that I preferred Catholicism and its institution to his own personal views, which he didn't have a problem with. It would be unfair to say he misrepresented anything, though.

>He could do with better manners.

He was extremely patient on the thread where I saw him for the first time. Insanely patient, even. He stayed for hours and never lost his cool despite the atheist and antichristian attacks he received by the minute. Manners are one thing, honesty another.

>Christ gave proper answers.

Doesn't change that Christ spoke to the degenerate and unrepenting sinners, which was the point. Oolf gave me proper answers when I asked. He simply clarified which interpretation was what and whose: his or Catholicism's, or even other denominations that he knew about.

>>5312

>Going to places where people don't really know a thing about Jesus, or where they are steeped in sin and degeneracy, and talking them out out it, that he likes.

He told me he felt better arguing with atheists and others because it was more constructive both to him and them. I can see why from this thread. I'm still amazed he is so disliked here. He also told me he had been doing this for years, long before there was any Christian board to gather in.

>>5311

>Christ gave proper answers.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:28-32

If you would be so kind as to explain this parable to me. The parable of the two sons. I literally have no idea what Christ means to say here.

There are plenty of parables in Matthew where the audience is just left confused as to what Christ just said, and He doesn't explain those. Most of the time, I understand, but this one, I have right no idea.

>>5312

I am not sure who he is providing a service with this obscurantism of his. If it is any sort of mission, it is one he chose himself.

>>5320

>He called you names here

Why do you think it was because of that? He was banned for consecutive shilling of this board. Like thrice in a row. As I don’t think he’d stop on his own accord (which he clearly said) the ban will remain as a symbol. Same would go for the brownpill spam, if it was just the same guy all the time.

And this patience is the modus operandi. If he was wise, he wouldn’t talk about something he barely even believes in. And this is the whole problem I have with him, on a personal level.

And I don’t think it is good to send people here at all. I am just here to correct some of the misconceptions that are rampant here and try to keep put.

>>5321

See, that’s the problem. He enjoys this too much and he is too prideful because of it. As I said oftentimes: I don’t think him Christian, he talks about it to talk about it, as if it were some kind of philosophy. That’s why he dislikes these boards, people have a sense of the faith he despises and lacks.

>>5322

Basically, faith that doesn’t involve acting on it is not Christianity Christianity= doing the will of the father. Futhermore, accepting Christ after being God forsaken is probably the best way to go. However, note how he told the audience that even those who are born into it need to repent.

I think I said this to OOLF once: Christ, when he was crucified, true God and true human, had to feel God-forsaken, too, before his death to realise the full extent of human suffering—which is 'perfected' in the 'dark night of the soul'. This is also why hell is a state of knowingly being apart of God. God, who gives all the joy and good things in the world.

Conversion requires an understanding of incompleteness before the all-powerful creator. Something which the pharisees lacked. Blessed are the poor in spirit; i.e. those who will always feel naked before God.

>>5321

> I'm still amazed he is so disliked here.

Is he? Cathmod dislikes him and most dislike Cathmod, but Oolf seems popular.

He will also most likely return, I guess he has to think about some things.

>>5325

>And I don’t think it is good to send people here at all.

Not even those that are not wanted on the other board?

>>5321

>He told me he felt better arguing with atheists and others because it was more constructive both to him and them.

They also never doubt that he's Christian, I think that's the most important.

>>5346

>Cathmod dislikes him

That’s only half of the truth and I like him enough to spend time on rebuking him. I don’t like his way of giving a relativist testimony.

>he has to think about some things

Unfortunately, I doubt it is going to involve changing his behaviour.

>Not even those that are not wanted on the other board?

How are you going to convert them? They’re mostly trolls or RPers. I know, there is a lot of presupposition involved—but from what I’ve seen when looking at their other posts did not exactly exude “serious discussion”. For example today I banned someone who said that niggers are animals and cannot be saved and somewhere else he wrote that Jesus is a cuck and satanic. I don’t believe in laissez-faire on the internet. The people who actively post have a right to safely being able to assume that the other anons are legit. There is too much false-flagging and shilling going on.

I mean, I am just here to provide an orthodox catholic understanding of the faith. It may sound arrogant to the world but at least I am honest and my posts don’t deviate from my behaviour.

>>4583

>also I do not think he cares this much

This is the case. I do not have the time necessary to ever police opinions or content on here. As long as it does not break the rules I am fine with the post.

>>5375

>This is the case. I do not have the time

;_;

>>5478

if you repent yes

>>5478

No. She was innocent so you're most likely going to Hell.

>>5489

>>5478

IIRC murder is a mortal sin.

Confess and be absolved by a priest, and it will not damn you.

The only eternal sin is blasphemy against the holy spirit.

Why has this board split from the more popular /christian/? Are there differences in governing philosophy, or belief?

>>5640

Moderation mostly. /christian/ prefers a more strict moderation of content and discussion.

>>5641

can you elaborate? The mods here believe /christian censors certain beliefs?

>>5643

Its not just that the Mod (really its just dessubong) believes it, that's how it is.

The mods at /christian/ prefer the board a certain way, which means certain topics are considered shit-posting, certain views are unacceptable (usually anything Non-nicede is off limits) or subjects that appear too frequently and thus the base is tired of discussing them (Is homosexuality a sin? Can I masturbate a certain way and be cool with Christ? Help! I want to be a Christian but I hate niggers and love Hitler too much!). Stuff like that.

I'm sure there's a few more reasons other users could point out, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

>>5640

See here

>>944

>>945

>>946

>>948

/christ/ does not restrict discussion, regardless of the person it starts it or of his beliefs.

If you have an honest question or contribution you can share here.

On /christian/ there are topics that are not wished for, persons that are not wanted there, reasonings that are not allowed and so on.

It is also more pleasent staying here and though we have a more lenient approach in moderation our posting quality is several times higher than over at /christian/.

>The mods here believe /christian censors certain beliefs?

It is not a belief it is a normal policy over there.

Restricted beliefs are for instance:

Gnosticism, Sedevacantism, Mormonism, anything non-nicene creed, Atheism/ Agnosticism, defense of things the moderation there considers sin, pro-masturbation and LGBT and the likes;

If you defend any of these or use certain ways of argumentation you are a "shitposter"

This leads to us having a greater variety of different users. Mormons, atheists, we've had asatrus, then there were muslims here for a while, even satanists among others.

This leads to us being able to expose others to the gospel that are personae non gratae at /christian/

>>5640

>>5643

yes. mods are awful there, to the point that there cannot be anymore meaninful discussion because "you cannot talk important theological topics because it can confuse people so they only listen to us"

making the whole thing one sided. and a hugbox

>>5646

>persons that are not wanted there

Jesus would be proud

>>5644

This is correct.

>>5646

This is spiked with lies. There are no personae non gratae in /christian/. If you mean that there are people who wont change their behaviour, yes. t. person with house right

>>5655

Insomuch bonfires made the church employing the drastic punishment for heretics

>>5655

Tfw mobile client and accidentally clicking on submit.

The bonfires didnt make the church look like a hugbox either. The truth is too precious.

>>5660

>This is spiked with lies. There are no personae non gratae in /christian/. If you mean that there are people who wont change their behaviour, yes. t. person with house right

If I demand that someone changes his nature in order to be accepted at /christian/, then this person is not wanted there.

In fact a different person is wanted there that should replace the former.

>>5661

This is a whole different topic.

>>5662

>that someone changes his nature

Sorry, I don’t believe in predeterminism. If someone is a troll or a formal heretic, they can’t post on /christian/, that has nothing to do with their 'nature'. Nobody gets banned for being cocky.

>>5646

>we have a more lenient approach

>implying you didn’t admit you just didn’t have the time

After all, I saw you bumplock a thread. So there is quality moderation here.

>>5664

>Nobody gets banned for being cocky.

:^)

(^:

>After all, I saw you bumplock a thread. So there is quality moderation here.

There was a reasoning given. this reasoning was that we have the very same thread not only once, but like 5 times in the Catalogue.

Next it was meta and not related to Christianity or religion, or at least morals or something.

> So there is quality moderation here.

This is not /boardnametoolong/, of course we have standards. But I have never seen them applied by DB so far.

>>5664

>After all, I saw you bumplock a thread. So there is quality moderation here.

The moderation is objectively more lenient. The thread was bumplocked because it was a duplicate essentially. I was surprised to see it bumplocked even then, we haven't had Mod intervention since the Brownpill guy.

>>5668

>The moderation is objectively more lenient

There isn’t much to do, given the low amount of users.

>>5664

I bumplocked the thread due to it being a duplicate of threads we had at least 3 times already in the catalog.

I've been feeling lost and alone in the world lately.

People have suggested that I maybe join a church, for a sense of community and belonging.

I don't really believe in any sort of higher power, though.

Also, I have a non-human waifu.

Would God accept me?

>>5706

God has already accepted you; He's given you life, a body and Salvation. All that's left for you is to embrace Him, and His arms are already open before you.

I think if you are to join a church, do so with the explicit purpose of finding God. You may like the people and the service and all, but finding God is the most important thing. That is, this has to be a conscious life overhaul on your part, as opposed to just attending Church the way one would a social club.

Should you do this, your life will improve considerably.

>>5706

>I've been feeling lost and alone in the world lately.

>

>People have suggested that I maybe join a church, for a sense of community and belonging.

Sure.

>I don't really believe in any sort of higher power, though.

Given time this will come. Attend the rituals and make the sacrifices, pray, think about God in your daily life and it is a matter of time.

if you honestly open your heart to the Holy Spirit that is

>Also, I have a non-human waifu.

Sick.

>Would God accept me?

Better than that:

He loves you. That's why he wants to save you. You may not realise it, but you are dead in your sinful ways. God wants to change that, he wants you to become what you were always meant to be, already before birth.

This is why he wants the Holy Spirit to work on you and correct you.

Why do you feel lost? Explain yourself a bit.

>>5346

>They also never doubt that he's Christian, I think that's the most important.

You've clearly not argued with atheists very often.

>>5325

>I am not sure who he is providing a service with this obscurantism of his.

I am presenting the faith to the unbelievers. There is no obscurantism in my presentation as I clearly explain what various denominations believe and what I believe or think personally. I even make a clear distinction between the two when presenting the faith. I frequently quote the CCC to present the Catholic side of things. Having read the CCC is enough to debunk most of the unbelievers' attacks on Catholicism; you don't need to be a seminarian to go against the claim that venerating Mary is idolatry or polytheism. I can do a fine job on issues like this one and I have no problem admitting my limits.

There is a difference between being an obscurantist and being someone who hasn't figured out everything. I am the latter, and this keeps me searching. You consider yourself the former, and thus perceive anyone else's doubts as willfully malicious towards your own personal faith. It never seems to occur to you that my doubts and questions might just be genuine.

>>5325

>Why do you think it was because of that? He was banned for consecutive shilling of this board. Like thrice in a row.

I won't even bother going into this anymore: you know what happened and that's all that matters to me.

> If he was wise, he wouldn’t talk about something he barely even believes in.

No faith is required to present a system of belief. An ex-Catholic can easily address many of the questions the unbelievers have, even convincingly. Explaining the Holy Trinity, what a rosary is for, what praying means, etc, can all be done by anyone who knows about it.

But even so, I don't think having a little faith and talking about Christ to others is worse than having a little faith and not doing so. Faith requires action, and I certainly believe I'm doing more for God by presenting the Christian faith and defending it than I would be making it all about myself, my sins, my behaviour, my thoughts, me, me, me. Statements don't work with the unbelievers, and statements are about all most of the Catholics here have to offer, by doctrinal belief or by personal limitation. There is literally nothing most of you have to say that I can't read for myself in the CCC or from other Church officials, whose views tend to be far more varied and rich than yours.

>this is the whole problem I have with him, on a personal level.

The root of the problem is that you think you know me, but don't. You call me a denomination swapping little bitch, for instance, and that demonstrates your ignorance of my situation as well as your willingness to take things for granted. I was baptised as a baby and officially "made" a Protestant when my mother married a Protestant, though he himself was only Protestant because his father once punched a priest, in an area where nobody was Protestant. In my country, because of religious wars, everyone used to have their denomination in their ID and every "state" is officially Catholic of Protestant as well. In terms of reality, I was not raised in either faith and one cannot say I "swapped" from one to the other, having never known one or the other from any practical or theological standpoint at that age.

I know my limits: I cannot testify of the Holy Spirit's presence in me as you can, because I don't know for sure how It feels or even if I have it in me or not, but these are the things I won't speak of in my own name for the obvious reason that it is a personal experience and I have no assurance in that, that is also the reason for my name: it clearly lets people know how I stand in this matter. However, this does not prevent me from explaining theological system, stating historical facts, correcting logical fallacies, and the likes. The level required to defend Christianity on a 4chan /b/ thread is not what you seem to assume. If anything, the unbelievers are more likely to listen to me because of my self-evident little faith and they ask more freely because of it. Once I manage to make religious matters seem less murky and nonsensical, they change their attitude towards God and begin to think differently, and God knows where this can lead. Surely, this can't be bad. Perhaps you have never been outside of your religion and don't understand the unbelievers and how they think. You seem concerned that I would somehow distill lies in their minds as if they were quiet fields in which I sow bad seeds. You don't realise that they are anything but that. They will take nothing for granted, like me, and whatever I say they will question to death. The point is to present something more tangible than they imagine is Christianity. This isn't about establishing dogma for the faithful, this is about giving a better presentation of God so that the unbelievers may feel legitimately interested. You don't talk of the filioque at this point, as this would not interest any unbeliever and would not seem legit to them unless the heavier topics are given a semblance of plausibility, which they don't have for the atheist.

>>5325

>And I don’t think it is good to send people here at all. I am just here to correct some of the misconceptions that are rampant here and try to keep put.

If everyone did this with the same attitude, the board would be nothing but self-righteous Christians telling other Christians what to believe and do. The fact that you believe to be the only correct Christians makes no difference. The others, at least, understand that stating your righteousness all the time will do nothing to convince them of it, even if you are right.

>>5325

>See, that’s the problem. He enjoys this too much and he is too prideful because of it.

That's your assumption. The only thing I enjoy is the feeling that I do something for God. Spending 5 to 7 hours arguing with trolls and atheists who do not respect you is not "fun" in my book. I am unsure of whether you have ever tried yourself, but I am not given the impression that you have. It is not fun. It requires a lot of patience and self-control, and time. And a lot of humility, as I never try to bluff and act like I know something I don't. That doesn't make me prideful, it just makes me humble, since I never know every answer to every question the unbelievers have.

>As I said oftentimes: I don’t think him Christian

You and countless others. It is more contagious than I thought it would be as I am now questioning it myself, and I wasn't before.

>he talks about it to talk about it, as if it were some kind of philosophy.

No. I talk about it to present the faith to the unbelievers, on 4chan and other such places, and here, I talk about it to think about it. I ask questions and offer remarks. I do so from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know and wishes to understand and know. You and others often seem to think I pontificate the way you do, forgetting that I don't have a whole Church behind me and only speak in my own name based on what I understand. There is a huge difference there and the approach should be different too. However, nothing I say can make a difference to you if you prefer to believe your own idea of what I mean rather than what I actually mean.

> That’s why he dislikes these boards, people have a sense of the faith he despises and lacks.

If I disliked these boards, I wouldn't have spent months on them, first of all. No one can deny I have been very active on both boards (long before I used a name).

I don't deny anyone with a sense of faith, nor do I understand why you would think such a thing. It is largely why I came to /christian/ in the first place: to learn to have better faith than I had from being around other believers. I am sad to say the result, as of now, was the opposite of what I had hoped for and I now found myself less of a Christian than I was when I came to 8chan.

That I lack this sense of faith is obvious in my name and I have never suggested otherwise. It surprises me somewhat that this should be a reason to belittle and attack me rather than help me.

>>5325

>Basically, faith that doesn’t involve acting on it is not Christianity Christianity= doing the will of the father.

That is what I believe and I can't think of any better "acting on it" than preaching the word in a way that resonates with people in 2015: discussing with them, arguing for God, explaining, presenting, and doing all of this in a loving and humble manner, which is the only way the unbelievers will even care what one says. The more educated ones will not be content to hear mere statements of truths, and the more educated ones will be the more influential ones as well. Expecting them to believe what you say simply because you say it with self-assumed authority will only restrict faith to the less intelligent and less educated, and that is a great shame. Not everyone can believe from the heart only; many have a brain in the way and this can be worked out. It just takes time and patience.

>I think I said this to OOLF once: Christ, when he was crucified, true God and true human, had to feel God-forsaken, too, before his death to realise the full extent of human suffering

Perhaps, I don't recall, but this is nothing new to me. I was interested in this part of Christ over 15 years ago. Some of the Catholics here prefer to think Christ was "just quoting" a psalm rather than actually feeling absolute human despair. I believe as you do on this one; it was one of the things that strongly tilted the balance towards Christianity when I was looking for truth. I know of no other religion that has anything remotely similar to Christ, and His human experience, and humanity, the idea of God becoming us, to save us, I have never found anywhere else.

>Blessed are the poor in spirit; i.e. those who will always feel naked before God.

You tend to speak as if you feel clothed by the CCC. I feel naked before God and everyone here because I don't have the dogmatic foundation you speak from.

>>5346

>Is he? Cathmod dislikes him and most dislike Cathmod, but Oolf seems popular.

Where do you see that? Maybe in your mind I'm some sort of rebellious rockstar but in reality, nobody appreciates my presence. I'm not whining, it's just a fact. The people I speak with the most don't like any of my original ideas or beliefs. That'd be you, the Mormons, or the atheists. I don't know a single regular user who actually enjoys conversing with me about any given issue. There can be no speculative conversation with the Catholics of here because, sooner or later, you will just tell me the CCC says otherwise and that'll be the end of that, although, thankfully, I have realised that the actual Church is not like that and intellectual research exists and a variety of opinions exist too. You just like to think that your brand of opinion is the only real one, and that is, in truth, solely because you like yours better.

>>5346

>He will also most likely return, I guess he has to think about some things.

I am not so sure about either. My thinking was done the moment I decided to take a break. Basically, there is not much point in me being here. You guys have nothing to gain from my presence and a consequent portion of you even think I'm of the devil without knowing it. For both of our sakes, my time is better spent reading theology from more authoritative authors than chanwriters. I came here to understand how people lived their faith and be part of a brotherhood, not to be lectured on books I could read myself. Since there is no brotherhood for me to have here, I don't see the point in staying and making efforts. That's why I started being active on boards like /atheism/ and 4chan.

>Not even those that are not wanted on the other board?

Cathmod forgets that I also sent people to /christian/. I present both boards when I "preach" outside.

>They also never doubt that he's Christian, I think that's the most important.

First, that's wrong. About 80% of the time, when I explain away some bullshit they believed about Christians, they will conclude that I am not really a Christian. Example: "You think dinosaurs existed? Then you're not Christian." Or any version of this. Not reading the Bible literally can make you a non-Christian to them. Not having read the whole thing can also make you a non-Christian. This is a last resort tool they have to maintain what they believe about Christians and I am surprised you've never come across it before. Probably you didn't spend much time with the atheists.

> I think that's the most important.

It could have been important, but since it doesn't even happen, it isn't true. Christians and atheists alike tell me I am not Christian for various reasons. I get no validation as a Christian from doing this. I get the same as I get here: "Your faith isn't true, you don't really believe in Christ or God, you have no right to talk about these things." Christ told us to give faith to the unbelievers, not to take away the little faith of those who only had that much to begin with.

I did get tired of having such things assumed about me. Here you think I "like" preaching because it is nice to my ego and that is the main reason why I do it. Isn't this nice? Have you ever seen any of these threads? Try it for yourself and see what it does to your ego.

>>5349

>That’s only half of the truth and I like him enough to spend time on rebuking him.

That's fully untrue, though. You don't like me at all and the reason why you rebuke me is not related to me, but to others whom you are concerned about.

>I don’t like his way of giving a relativist testimony.

I don't give a relativist testimony. I don't accept every dogma of the Catholic Church and in this we differ, but that doesn't make me a relativist.

Besides, when it comes to testimony, the unbelievers will remember your behaviour and attitude towards them more than your actual arguments.

>>5349

>Unfortunately, I doubt it is going to involve changing his behaviour.

Stop talking like you're in any position to patronise me.

>How are you going to convert them? They’re mostly trolls or RPers.

Ye of little faith. Most trolls have some stock in what they troll for. More than once have I encountered a troll who had genuine questions and remarks. If you pull through the trollage, you get to the person behind the troll.

If you take the trollage literally, while claiming to know it's just trolling, then you don't make much sense, for one, but also, and more importantly, you waste an opportunity to converse with an unbeliever. The very idea that you'd rather have a board's rules be respected over seizing the opportunity to save a soul should tell you something about yourself. I don't even hope that God does send people to Hell for such things, but you do, and yet you don't care.

Given your level of self-projection, I would be very cautious with what you assume of people you don't know.

The "false-flagging" and "shilling" going on is probably very marginal. It's just a convient excuse to ban people whose words you dislike.

>I mean, I am just here to provide an orthodox catholic understanding of the faith.

And that's the problem. A mod should moderate according to the rules of the Founder. I know you like to imagine yourself someone important in the Church because of your online responsibilities (and I use that word with humor) but it really is nothing, it's just you enjoying yourself. Anyone can come back any time using any amount of proxies. All of your bans are for nothing. It's nothing but pure authoritarian fun for you, because you like feeling that you have powers over others, even when it is largely virtual.

>>5796

>Statements don't work with the unbelievers, and statements are about all most of the Catholics here have to offer, by doctrinal belief or by personal limitation. There is literally nothing most of you have to say that I can't read for myself in the CCC or from other Church officials, whose views tend to be far more varied and rich than yours.

Snarky.

>>5800

> nobody appreciates my presence.

This is untrue, most here like you.

> The people I speak with the most don't like any of my original ideas or beliefs

Indeed, but they like you.

> you will just tell me the CCC says otherwise and that'll be the end of that, although, thankfully, I have realised that the actual Church is not like that and intellectual research exists and a variety of opinions exist too.

You do not seem to understand hierarchy, but it exists.

>I did get tired of having such things assumed about me. Here you think I "like" preaching because it is nice to my ego and that is the main reason why I do it. Isn't this nice? Have you ever seen any of these threads? Try it for yourself and see what it does to your ego.

mhm

>>5808

>Snarky.

How is this not true? How many times have I tried to get personal responses from Catholics only to get doctrine and dogma rather than actual personal feedback? For most question I asked you, in 90% of the cases you will just tell me what the Church says about it and then say that your opinion is always that of the Church.

>This is untrue, most here like you.

Who is "most"? None of the Catholics here do, one of the Mormons does, another clearly does not. Many of the anons do not. You say "most", I can only think of one person.

>Indeed, but they like you.

I don't know how (or where) you see this. You're most likely the person I conversed with the most, and you don't like me.

>You do not seem to understand hierarchy, but it exists.

I understand hierarchy perfectly well, and I understand what you think of it too. Understanding isn't condoning, however, and one Catholic belief I do not share is the idea that if your superior is in error but commands you to commit this error, you are free of responsibility through obedience. I understand the Catholic approach, the Holy Spirit-led authorities and all of that, but I do not believe that's what actually happens, so I don't rely on hierarchy the way you do, but don't say I don't understand it as if I were lacking in intellect (which you know isn't the case, or you'd have explained the part you think I didn't understand).

>mhm

If that's all you have to say about the fact that you erroneously assumed I was a fevered ego, speaking for the Lord solely to feel awesome about myself, whereas, in reality, I do so for the exact motives I stated and did not, in fact, get any ego satisfaction. 90% of the anons I speak with consider me a hopeless idiot for buying into Christianity, the rest think I'm not a real Christian. Like I said, try it for yourself and see what it's like.

Should you want to apologise for your accusations, I'm all ears. Not holding my breath.

>>5809

>I can say that I do like you personally,

You're probably the only one here, to my knowledge.

>and even if I don't agree with all your opinions (which is natural. If you aren't Mormon, I'm always going to disagree with *something* you have to say, or even if you were) I do enjoy arguing, debating and conversing with you.

As it should be: I thought this was why /christ/ was created. Since I'm non-denominational, and I'm constantly doing research, my own opinions change as I learn, a fact that the Catholics don't accept. If I ever said I now believed masturbation to be a sin, they'd call me a liar.

I'm glad my presence here is perceived positively by at least one person. As to being back, I don't know if I am. I doubt I'll be as active as I have been a few weeks ago. I'm training myself in apologetics and will spend more time defending the faith to the unbelievers. It is difficult for me to come with humble noob questions to a group of people who have now taken the habit of looking down on me (with assumptions of me being malicious, to boot).

>>5810

>>5811

Your perception of reality is really disturbing.

>>5819

Reality is always disturbing if you're perceptive enough.

>>5811

Well, I'm sorry you feel so accosted by most people here. I can't really say that I see that though, apart from cuckvol but he's just an unpleasant human being to pretty much everyone here.

Is it the sense of accomplishment that drives you to the dark corners of the internet? Preaching to people that know next to nothing about the Gospel, rather than debating on more esoteric matters with people who already have informed opinions (or at least, established opinions)?

>>5834

>Is it the sense of accomplishment that drives you to the dark corners of the internet? Preaching to people that know next to nothing about the Gospel, rather than debating on more esoteric matters with people who already have informed opinions (or at least, established opinions)?

In the case of Discipulus or the other Catholics here, they feel as though they have nothing to learn, especially not from non-Catholics, so that's a wasteland for seeds; nothing will grow there, and if you can make them think twice about a given dogma, that's already a lot. 99% of conversations will end up in them simply reciting the CCC or stating what the Church believes and assuring you that the Church is right and that they agree with it. In other words, conversation is largely pointless and you're better off reading the CCC for yourself. They don't like more personal questions and some of them will claim that they stay away from personal matters out of "humility", as if you could be famous on a Internet chan, as if that mattered to any degree. I lost interest in arguing this way and will refrain from it in future.

As to a sense of accomplishment, I don't get much of it most of the time when I talk with the unbelievers, simply because the harvest is never very good. The best I hope for is to change a few people's minds about faith and make them more likely to consider it seriously. Sometimes, someone is genuinely interested. Sometimes, an ex-Christian rekindles his faith because I gave him a more sophisticated response than he had ever come across. But I don't accomplish much beyond that. You can't realistically expect to accomplish much more, though. I get more frustration and a sense of wasting my time than anything else. The only guaranteed positive thing for me in this endeavour is the sense that I am actively doing something for God. That makes it worthwhile to me, and nevermind if more ill-minded people think it's an ego thing.

You can't teach the unwilling, especially when they have some knowledge on an issue and feel defensive of the time they spent gathering that knowledge. New ideas come at a high cost for those who have spent years believing the same thing, and that makes them unlikely to even entertain new ideas. The unbelievers generally think they know a lot about Christianity and react in various ways when shown that they don't. Some become interested, others refuse to update their perception of the faith.

/christ/, to me, was supposed to be what /christian/ was in the beginning: a place for Christians to enjoy being together. Regardless of who's to blame, I don't enjoy brotherhood on either board now and have resolved to try and enjoy conversations and debates instead.

I also want to hone my apologetics skills, and you can't do that efficiently with theists, so I expose myself to atheists and try my hand at arguments for God and see where I am lacking.

>>5827

>Reality is always disturbing if you're perceptive enough.

This is not the case here. I will just say it frankly, the reality that you perceive and the reality that actually exists are different, they are almost opposites.

>>5796

Sometimes I want to hug you. The tragedy of all you are doing is that you are confused and unable to find Christ in the proper way.

>Perhaps you have never been outside of your religion and don't understand the unbelievers and how they think.

Just 15 years. Even three weeks of mass attendence I was still agnostic, pretty much.

> I cannot testify of the Holy Spirit's presence in me

Then it would be best if you stopped trying to evangelise. A fake testimony is without authority. The gospel spreads through each of us heralding the death of Christ and His glorious defeat of it through the resurrection. Who has ears to hear: listen. Instead of babbling about a Christ you don’t know.

>>5797

> your righteousness

I don’t think you know what that means. If I pretended to not know the truth in a sense of false humility, that would mean I’d reject Christ to appear more humble. You are steeping too much in the Zeitgeist, it appears. This notion of being able to appropriate humility by humble behaviour ruined the Vatican 2 church. It was always the people who said: 'You are the Christ' who were called out. If you are proud of your humility, I have bad news for you.

>>5798

>The only thing I enjoy is the feeling that I do something for God

Prelest, is what orthodoxy would call it. Just putting an 'ad maiorem Dei gloria' behind all your self-motivated quests doesn’t make them saintly.

>as I am now questioning it myself

That is a good thing, to be honest. And I don’t mean it in the way that you should lose your faith. I am certain that if you ever lose it because of this, you will finally be reborn. Whatever you would have lost, it wasn’t Christ.

>That I lack this sense of faith is obvious in my name

Maybe that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish to see the day that you are OoSF, one of strong faith.

>>5799

>preaching the word in a way that resonates with people in 2015

Filling old wine in new casks

>in a loving and humble manner,

You cannot fake love and humility, it is best you learn it already.

>will only restrict faith to the less intelligent and less educated

No, I personally employ many ways if I evangelise but I also say that I have the truth.

>Some of the Catholics here prefer to think Christ was "just quoting" a psalm

Christ was never “just” doing one thing. This is not in line with the magisterium anyway. If I quoted this psalm in despair, I wouldn’t just be quoting the psalm either. If I pray the Our Father, I am not just quoting the bible.

>the idea of God becoming us

One of the favourite parts of the bible of me is when John the Baptist feels joy from His presence so much that he leaps in the womb of Elisabeth.

>feel clothed by the CCC

Why do you think the Church is not acting on behalf of God? Who in the Catholic Church claims the truth as their self-begotten wisdom? Nobody. And most of the time, I am not even quoting the catechism.

>and everyone here

Then let me split my cloak in half and clothe you with it, so that we both shall not freeze.

>>5800

>see what it does to your ego

People call me narcissistic, too and it is probably partially true, even when I certainly don’t suffer actual narcissism. Hate is a form of attention, too.

>>5801

>I came here to understand how people lived their faith and be part of a brotherhood

Then come on IRC, #8church on Rizon. It is way more personal albeit sometimes a bit more shitposty, due to the ejaculatory effect IRC clients have

>>5802

>That's fully untrue, though

Why do you keep doing that? I know best what I am doing and I don’t give false testimony.

>the unbelievers will remember your behaviour and attitude towards them more than your actual arguments

This is true. Too bad humanity is defective and we tend to be assholes. I wish that I could be less of hothead and employ a more charitous apostolate than I do.

> A mod should moderate according to the rules of the Founder.

I didn’t know that I am not entitled to my opinions anymore just because I am a volunteer. I am not a mod here either, so what is your argument there? Full non sequitur, your answer doesn’t fit with what you quoted. And stop assuming so many things.

>>5852

>>5811

>Since I'm non-denominational

No, you are catholic.

>If I ever said I now believed masturbation to be a sin, they'd call me a liar.

No, I don’t believe in 'reprobates' Neither does St. Paul

>I'm training myself in apologetics

Why don’t you do something for your spiritual life instead? It seems as though God doesn’t will what you are doing. There is a reason why being a catechist normally requires a higher education.

>>5834

>apart from cuckvol but he's just an unpleasant human being to pretty much everyone here

a) speak for yourself, b) look in the mirror and take out the speck, inserting this sentence is a sign that you are the unpleasant human being here. Even using 'cuckvol' instead of 'cathmod' is a sign of that. My criticism regarding this board stands as it is and I am not shitposting here.

>>5843

>In the case of Discipulus or the other Catholics here, they feel as though they have nothing to learn

As I am mostly here for the catholics on this board, I don’t agree with you. I have had fruitful discussions with discipulus and others.

>As to a sense of accomplishment, I don't get much of it most of the time when I talk with the unbelievers, simply because the harvest is never very good

Makes me wonder who you are really harvesting for.

>I also want to hone my apologetics skills

Maybe you should realise that true testimony is given by living a christian life, not by attempts of conversion.

It seems you seek a sense of accomplishment most, this is why you find debates with actual believers not fruitful. This is very dangerous.

>>5853

>No, you are catholic.

Being Catholic, just like being Christian, is by choice. It's not a nature you're born with. All first Protestants have also been baptised as Catholics and ceased to be Catholics. I understand that you believe that "once baptised, always Catholic", but that's beside the point here. The point is what I consider myself.

>No, I don’t believe in 'reprobates'

Called it.

>Why don’t you do something for your spiritual life instead?

The idea that apologetics isn't part of someone's spiritual life is interesting. I see no better activity for my spiritual life.

>It seems as though God doesn’t will what you are doing.

Actually, it does, since that's how I got to the faith to begin with and anything that strengthens my faith, instead of weakening it, can only be willed by God.

>There is a reason why being a catechist normally requires a higher education.

In your mind I am an uneducated person of little intelligence, but in reality I obtained several degrees at MA levels and can tackle any academic literature related to history, theology, philosophy, etc. Sorry.

>a) speak for yourself, b) look in the mirror and take out the speck, inserting this sentence is a sign that you are the unpleasant human being here.

Mormon friend has always been very nice to everybody, even when facing users who consider his faith pure heresy.

>As I am mostly here for the catholics on this board, I don’t agree with you. I have had fruitful discussions with discipulus and others.

By fruitful, you mean they agreed with you. Confirming the status quo is not what I consider fruitful. It's just self-affirming and nobody learns anything new. I've never seen such conversations, so I'll assume they happened while I was gone.

>As I am mostly here for the catholics on this board

Why don't you create /catholic/? Honest question. /christ/ was made so every sort of Christian could enjoy other Christians' presence. If you're here mostly for Catholics, consider making your own board, where you could rule absolutely, over Catholics who only want to be around other Catholics. I don't see anything in this idea that you wouldn't like.

>>5853

>Makes me wonder who you are really harvesting for.

What are the options? There's God and only God, so far as I know.

>Maybe you should realise that true testimony is given by living a christian life, not by attempts of conversion.

Telling others about Christ is part of a Christian life. Christ certainly emphasised this enough, both in deeds and words. Moreover, doing apologetics and defending the faith in front of the unbelievers is hardly mutually exclusive with a Christian life. It is no true testimony, though, since a private life tells nothing to anyone about God. What I do in my privacy is not a testimony. How I treat people, however, is. Reminder that you don't know me nor my personal life and can therefore say strictly nothing about it. As I stated before, I work directly for the Church as part of my full time job.

>It seems you seek a sense of accomplishment most

The same idea as Discipulus, based on nothing more than your general scorn of my little person. It seems that the idea that me defending the faith in front of the unbelievers for God's sake is something you cannot conceive. I wonder why. Perhaps you think no good can come of me, perhaps you think you are better equipped to do this job. If so, why don't you actually do it? Christ called us to do it, so I really don't see what right you have to tell me not to do it like you don't do it yourselves.

>this is why you find debates with actual believers not fruitful.

There's no debate with you. If I argue something, you will quote the CCC and that's where it'll stop.

>This is very dangerous.

Fear is the weakest argument and one you use regularly.

>>5855

I will address the rest after mass but I need to correct something:

>'reprobates'

I don’t believe that this exists. Also, before you write a lot of shit, stop feeling offended or persecuted.

>>5859

>I don’t believe that this exists.

I'm going to assume you're talking about Calvinism and Predeterminism and mean to say that I am not doomed to damnation or something of the sort.

It still doesn't connect with the idea that you don't trust me.

>Also, before you write a lot of shit, stop feeling offended or persecuted.

I don't feel offended or persecuted. But don't exonerate yourself from your aggressive tone and countless accusations either. You can try to pass both as just me being "sensitive" because you'd much rather things be that way than admit that your behaviour is what it is. This is what I don't like about you: you consistently attack others on things you do yourself, without seeming to notice the discrepancy there, without ever seeming to consider your own flaws before you attack others on their perceived flaws, which, more often than not, end up mere projections.

The point isn't whether I feel offended (or am offended), it isn't whether I feel persecuted or not, it's about how you behave towards others, and not just me. But that is your problem, and it is a spiritual one, one that you shouldn't downplay as always being everyone else's problem.

Here, you can't foretell the quality of my future posts as "a lot of shit" and somehow not consider that this is aggressive behaviour, regardless of how I might react to it.

If you could, in general, stop misportraying me in your posts, so that I'd not have to correct your statements each time, that would be great. You'd also come across as less arrogant and potentially more kind.

>>5860

Look, I when I meant shit, I maent this constant projecting of yours.

>If you could, in general, stop misportraying me in your posts

This is what you do, not what I do.

>>5868

>I maent this constant projecting of yours.

So in response to my pointing out how you constantly assume things that aren't true about me, most likely through projection, you accuse me of projecting?

Bravo. From now on, you should focus on topics that relate to Catholicism and not my person. That way you'll make less false assumptions and I won't have to point out any of them. It's easy: you just stop talking about me. There's no need for that, actually, so stop. Thanks.

>>5848

>This is not the case here. I will just say it frankly, the reality that you perceive and the reality that actually exists are different, they are almost opposites.

Adding to that, by now I even believe that Cathvol likes you in his own weird way. You are projecting yourself into a position where you are not, you'd like to be shunned and "persecuted" but you are not.

You'd like that people would hate you, but they are not.

I do not understand any of this, and I've already told you that I don't know how to help you.

>How is this not true? How many times have I tried to get personal responses from Catholics only to get doctrine and dogma rather than actual personal feedback? For most question I asked you, in 90% of the cases you will just tell me what the Church says about it and then say that your opinion is always that of the Church.

If you ask me something personal you'll get a personal response, has always been like that.

If you ask about doctrine, I have to submitt.

>discipulus does not like me ;_;

Untrue, no idea how you can even think that.

>>5240

> I wish I could hug you

>no personal answers ;_;

I even responded to your "know your tripfag" thread, and never denied to give any personal answer so far.

You really need to reevaluate your perception of reality, you are assuming so many things that are just not the case.

>>5908

>Adding to that, by now I even believe that Cathvol likes you in his own weird way.

It's called dislike and contempt. Nothing weird about it. He simply can't accept the idea that he dislikes me and much less can he accept the reasons why.

>You are projecting yourself into a position where you are not, you'd like to be shunned and "persecuted" but you are not.

That's crazy. I left the former because of the mood there. I never imagined I was "shunned" or "persecuted", to use your words. I've never suggested I was either.

>You'd like that people would hate you, but they are not.

Why would I want anyone to hate me? You are deluded.

>I do not understand any of this, and I've already told you that I don't know how to help you.

I don't need help, there's nothing you can do.

>Untrue, no idea how you can even think that.

You're most likely the person who likes me second best, after the Mormon, but even so, I annoy you quite a bit. After you two, there's no appreciation. I don't feel "persecuted", though, we aren't very many. It'd be wrong to say, as you did, that I'm "popular" or even generally liked. That's all I corrected. It doesn't matter that much, either. I speak of this stuff solely so that you understand where I speak from.

>>5888

Anyway, I invited you to the IRC channel of both boards, I won’t waste any more time trying to address false accusations.