/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>5423

All you could potentially do to "remedy" this would be to rebuke your brethren when you see the act happening.

Either they'll see the error of their ways, if they are in error, or they won't and its in the Lord's hands. Potentially, you may also have your own views challenged.

>>5430

even worse than /pol/ at least /pol allows /leftypol/ shit to post and have discussions.

this board needs to be advertised more

>>5423

>Why do we allow this to continue.

Because I don't like policing opinions.

>>5442

>but the demonetization

Reads as: Demonisation.

>>5442

>I think that not only are you trying to exaggerate the presence of a minority in /christian/, but I would also reject the idea of /pol/ as nothing but hate and ignorance.

You forgot hugbox and chaos mentality

>I doubt you've ever been to /christian/ for more than a second if you seriously believe this.

lurked both /christian/ and /christ/ for months, and still continue to lurk, I believe my claim is true,I even seen some guys claimed 'son of ham created to serve to son of Japheth'.Also using religion to justify their racism is common.

>>5461

>You forgot hugbox and chaos mentality

Its not a hugbox, the moderation there is pretty cool. Just because most people have generally the same beliefs doesn't make it a hugbox.

>I believe my claim is true,I even seen some guys claimed 'son of ham created to serve to son of Japheth'

Its not true because there are plenty of well informed, well versed anons there who are familiar with theology, Church history, Scriptures and canon law.

>Also using religion to justify their racism is common.

I suppose then its up to you to prove them wrong with your own knowledge of the Scriptures. Complaining about it here doesn't do anyone much good. You're welcome to start a thread on it here so we can address the specific arguments you find incorrect.

>>5461

>Its not a hugbox, the moderation there is pretty cool. Just because most people have generally the same beliefs doesn't make it a hugbox

If they can't take the banter, if they shitpost when you question them yes it makes it hugbox.

>Its not true because there are plenty of well informed, well versed anons there who are familiar with theology, Church history, Scriptures and canon law

As far as I see well informed ratio is way too low compare to here.

>I suppose then its up to you to prove them wrong with your own knowledge of the Scriptures. Complaining about it here doesn't do anyone much good. You're welcome to start a thread on it here so we can address the specific arguments you find incorrect

They can keep claiming as they like, but they shouldn't expect respect. Also yes I can complain, since this thread is for self-criticism and criticism of /christian/

>>5463

>If they can't take the banter, if they shitpost when you question them yes it makes it hugbox.

>As far as I see well informed ratio is way too low compare to here.

A hugbox requires that they have the moderation on their side to remove anything that falls outside the "proper narrative". This doesn't happen at /pol/, its simply that they already have an established culture, therefore many individuals feel that it is pointless to keep defending their premises over and over and over if the feel that the matter has been settled. This is a different phenomenon.

>As far as I see well informed ratio is way too low compare to here.

Lurk more then. We simply don't have an established culture, and we have a "tripfag" culture, which connects each individual to the quality of his posts. Once a board grows, especially if its very anon-centered, it become easy to shitpost and be dismissive while leaning on the culture, and saving the quality posting for one's choice topics. This is what happens over at /christian/, where people don't feel like indulging every new person who asks "why is homosexuality wrong" or "why is protestanism/catholicism/ orthodoxy so X".

>They can keep claiming as they like, but they shouldn't expect respect

Respect? This is an image board. You make a post, people comment on it, either the information in it is accurate and correct or its not and you'll be rebuked. Or people shitpost. Respect doesn't enter into it at all. You mean to say "I don't like them".

> Also yes I can complain,

I didn't say you were not allowed to complain, I'm just stating, again, that it doesn't do any good. Broad accusations just make people scoff, you have to simply comment on the specific thing you dislike when it happens or else nothing will happen.

> criticism of /christian/

I think its silly to complain about them. Just do what you would like to do here, make the threads you'd like to seem made and cannot.

>>5464

> you'd like to seem made and cannot.

Read as: you'd like to see made and cannot (or would not like to) make over at /christian/, or wherever.

>>5437

>Arrogance? Catholics are sure that they have it right and that non.catholics will have to face a bad fate because of this, always remember.

Exactly, thats religious arrogance. Fanatical traditionalism breeds it.

>I perceice them as not very Christian. They are bigoted and cowardly.

Ironic thats how I perceive you and your ilk: hypocrites who are not very Christ-like.

>>5423

Check out >>>/goodchristian/

its the most light-hearted and uplifting (as well as broad-minded and tolerant) Christian board

Here's a solution: don't rely on a damned imageboard for your Christian and spiritual community needs.

>>5481

this.

>>5474

>Exactly, thats religious arrogance.

No, it is just the truth. It is not arrogant of water to go down a river nor for the rain to fall, same with Catholicism.

>Fanatical traditionalism breeds it.

Breeds, what? The truth. 10/10 would do again.

We see what "tolerance" and modernism leads to, so we can safely assume that it is as evil as we've always thought.

>Ironic thats how I perceive you and your ilk:

No, you just dislike us.

> hypocrites who are not very Christ-like.

No, you make up a Christ that never existed. The real Jesus has nothing to do with the made up person you believe to follow, video recommended.

>>5474

What is hypocritical about saying that all men are sinners? It includes you and me. Is the problem here, that I included you?

Lol, I am trying to get in touch with Alex, the owner of /christian/. A few hours ago the mod (the catholic mod) in an IRC channel spent the better part of an hour calling me names and telling me to eat his cum.

Why? Because he started preaching to me, and he doesn't speak english, so I asked him to explain what he meant by "divine". As that different theologians have explained it differently.

This kicked off a rampage of him. I saved the chat in a txt file. It's pretty sad stuff.

>>5510

Post it.

>>5510

Post on >>>/onlychristian/ and wait.

Sometimes Alex checks in there, because the whole board about making fun of his moderation and the /christian/ mentality.

>>5512

>>5513

http://pastebin.com/dqL164pN

It will be obvious who the mod is

>>5516

Also there is no real history to it. It starts abruptly because it did. Those were the first things he said, and we've never really talked before. Hence why I seemed confused at what he was saying to me.

>>5517

It's funny how the other members of the chat remained silent through that garbled speech. They must be used to it.

>>5522

>[13:09] <~sinner> I could argue that you lack the theological education to even eat my cum, under these circumstances

Yes because people use "ratio" to mean reason so often.

Give me a break.

>>5524

Nobody told him to go and whine about it somewhere else.

>>5524

No conversation. The guy is a blow hard. I'm just trying to get a hold of alex because this is who he thinks is worth being a mod apparently.

>>5527

And thats just how much of a bitch you are.

What do you think is going to happen if you post a conversation in which you are clearly overstepping boundaries and use ad hominems because a non-native speaker used a false friend in their own IRC channel?

Do you think this is a firm and you are owed fake sucking up? Grow up, fuccboi. And read the bible so you get a gist of Christian behaviour, in the case of you behaving the same IRL. Those who make themselves great will be humbled

>>5528

Very Christian behavior right there.

>>5464

>A hugbox requires that they have the moderation on their side to remove anything that falls outside the "proper narrative". This doesn't happen at /pol/, its simply that they already have an established culture, therefore many individuals feel that it is pointless to keep defending their premises over and over and over if the feel that the matter has been settled. This is a different phenomenon

Thank you for describing the hugbox

>Lurk more then

I lurk as I please, I don't need anyone to say me 'lurk moar' whenever he disagrees with me.

>You make a post, people comment on it, either the information in it is accurate and correct or its not and you'll be rebuked

No you make a post, if people disagrees they'll insult you, meme you like 14 years old boys. This is an image board, but this board is /christ/ian board, it needs more maturity.

>you have to simply comment on the specific thing you dislike when it happens or else nothing will happen

oh believe me I've done that.

>I think its silly to complain about them. Just do what you would like to do here, make the threads you'd like to seem made and cannot

complaining and criticism is not same. whenever I cricitised /christian/ on a thread gone 404, why do you think people built this board?

>>5525

>my internet cred is too important

like ive said before: narcissist

>>5525

>my internet cred i too important

like ive said before: narcissist

>>5539

>argument

What argument? He was being asked to define the terms he was using.

Also you agree with someone who you said was not being Christian? Wha

Also I am not sure why so many posters seem confused about the cum statement, it was linked in another post…

>>5542

>What argument? He was being asked to define the terms he was using.

Semantics, there was no reason to demand a clarification of them, also he replied that he would if you named the ones you need defined.

You answered "all", which would have been the point where I'd have ended the conversation.

>Also you agree with someone who you said was not being Christian? Wha

When and where did I do that?

>Also I am not sure why so many posters seem confused about the cum statement, it was linked in another post…

You are both pricks, happy?

>>5543

>semantics

Considering the meaning of a word is extremely important to understanding a sentence, and when using theologically heavy terms, it seems worthwhile to define them. Particularly since even in modern times different groups of the same religion will use a word they consider basic in radically different ways.

If someone can't or aren't willing to do so, that is rather telling. Pearls before swine indeed.

>>5533

Ok friend. Best of luck.

>>5523

Taken out of context, no idea what I meant by

that, anyway you are a fuccboi for dramatising something on IRC where the only 'misconduct' was me telling you that you arent smart if you only understand your professor. If you study philosophy anyway. Beware those who call themselves philosopher.

>>5544

Doesnt need much semantics if I say that divine means 'coming from God'. In fact, these are not mere Attributes of God, but God IS faith, hope and love.

>>5546

thank you

What's the general consensus /christ/ has regarding racism and hatred?

>>5566

>What's the general consensus /christ/ has regarding racism and hatred?

We are a dozen people m8.

Stop meta - just start your threads and posts and you will see the "general consensus" no idea why we should have one on anything though, it's not like disagreement gets you banned

>>5566

There is no consensus on anything. We are all individuals with our own views.