/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>615114

Absolutely, we can never lie, neither should we encourage or condone another who does in their lies.

>/christian/ thinks the pharisees got the better of jesus in luke 5:30-39

great board you've got here.

>>615121

Im just asking is it ok support a scammer, a liar and an adulterer(and thats just one person)

>>615121

They did not. But He didn't support the sin, He supported the person. You must mind that Jesus was God and cared for their souls, He didn't put a burden on them. But He didn't say that they were doing right things either, or supporting them in their habits, which is what I believe (OP correct me if I am wrong) what OP is asking.

>>615130

Supporting a liar is supporting them in their habits

>>615121

Board has been raided by literal kikes this past week, far more than usual. Ignore.

>>615135

>>/pol/

>>615136

It's three >'s schlomo.

>>615132

And I agree (probably worded it wrong), so you shouldn't support that at all.

Nice try, liberals, but /christian/ is a ChristCom board and as such we support accelerationism.

Okay but seriously, yes it's a sin.

>>615333

Republicans, Democrats, third-party, no-party, all of 'em, forget 'em and follow the Lord.

>>615334

exactly. as a christian, you should never vote because it would damage your immortal soul

>>615114

Everyone is a sinner, and most people lie. If you can't support "sinners" then you can't "support" anyone.

Unless you hold to the view that you shouldn't vote–because voting accomplishes nothing except adding legitimacy to a corrupt system–then you're going to need to vote for a sinner.

You're going to need to evaluate whether their sins are really serious enough to exclude them from a position of political power, and of course you'll need to consider how far you're willing to go for the "lesser" of two evils.

>>615318

>accelerationism

How're things working out for the Christians in South Africa and Rhodesia?

>>615318

Literally no god fearing believer would support that small mindedness.

>>615114

>>615127

Leftypol, go and stay go

Is supporting his competitor, a satanist, globalist, marxist, thief who should be hanged for treason, a sin?

>>615491

>Hillary a marxist

Hahahahahahahahahaha the absolute state of 8ch

>>615499

oops he meant she's a commie

>>615491

How about support neither nor others? They all lie, all profane God and don't care about His holy precepts, all of 'em take bribes and all of 'em inevitably prop up sinners in some place or another.

>>615363

If the Christians there don't do something about it they deserve their fate.

>>615506

That's not a Christian position at all to have.

Not if they have other policies that are righteous, and you support them for these.

Supporting somebody for their evil policies is of course a sin though.

I posted this in th employment thread and bumped severa times because I thought it an interesting question, but as yet received no answer, so I am asking again here as vaguely related:

Is it a sin to work for an employer that subscribes to promoting acceptance of LGBT?

>Is supporting liars and sinners a sin?

Does this mean being a cuck or cuckquean, because your partner cheated on you and took over 9000 nigger dicks?

>>615648

I'd say it is not. But if your employer wants you to actively participate in promoting acceptance of LGBT, you must not cooperate, even if it costs you your job. And if your corporation does something to openly promote LGBT nonsense, I think it is your duty to leave your job, if you are unable to prevent it yourself.

>>615657

This. Though you should aim to not work for anyone that promotes this nonsense. If enough did this, these people would be out of business.

>>615657

>But if your employer wants you to actively participate in promoting acceptance of LGBT,

No, that wouldn't happen with me and my job or department. Maybe in another dept. because it's local government in a big city which means they will always be willing to host/faclilitate LGBT during pride celebrations for example.

>And if your corporation does something to openly promote LGBT nonsense, I think it is your duty to leave your job, if you are unable to prevent it yourself.

By the sounds of it because of the above I need to leave my job?

>>615114

is that supposed to be a bald spot?

>>615318

Of course, and not only that, but why would we support someone who works hand in hand with the race of serpents?

>>615673

Why don't you ask a priest? He'll be more prepared to guide you with this.

I mean something like Sony having a special campaign to support LGBT causes.

>>615805

I don't have a preist to ask atm, but its a fair question. I've just thought of another issue related to this also that I'd thought I'd share.

Say one did take your advice and leave an employer because they were promoting LGBT lifestyles as acceptable. When applying for new jobs, on the application form you will be required to fill out the section which asks: "why did you leave your last job?" or similar. As Christians we'd be required to answer this honestly, and so obliged to put "irecconcilable differences between employer's values and personal values" or similar. Then should you get shortlisted for a job, they will surely query this further. And as a Christian you will be required to speak the truth and proclaim that your previous employer "was promoting LGBT lifestyles as acceptable which I disagree with." Stating this will surely reduce your chance of securing a job.

O well. [Insert verse about the blessedness of those who suffer persecution in Jesus name here.]

I've just thought to take this opportunity to ask another one of my questions I asked in the employment thread which again despite several bumps over the past few weeks never got an answer. Its v related to topic ITT.

What do you think about working for employers who publish something that does not reflect the reality behind the scenes which makes the published artifact false? What if you're required as a Christian employed there to write the content for the published material which is false? Presumably this counts as lying and is sin?

I'm not thinking of anything with a particularly moral nature regarding the content or falsehoods being published (corruption or cover up of illegal or immoral activity or simply saying something sinful isn't sinful for e.g) but just rather the moral aspect of publishing falsehoods in itself:

Say for example the employer publishes something along the lines of 'we support this route and this route for a new transit system' while behind the scenes only one is realistically an option and the other non-viable route is just being included for whatever reason (there could be a few motivations) in the knowledge the transit system will never go there?

>>615114

You know how I know you're a kike shill?

Because you didn't put a picture of Hillary, or Obunghole, or Bill Clinton, or any other major politician on your OP, that's how.

>>615114

If they're starving and you feed them, no

If you enable them to lie and sin, yes.

Pretty simple answer really.

>>615890

>you're a kike shill because you call out my political daddy on being a total sack of sh*t

>>615733

It's more of a head with hair patches at this point! maybe all the stress from lying and fornicating got to him?

better than supporting hillary

americans have to play the hand they're dealt

in a few years it wont even matter though so don't dwell on it

>>616085

Support neither, we aren't given a hand, and we don't have to play.

you can act blackpill all you like, but Trump in the white-house in the time when all the supreme court justices are leaving is mighty fine

>>616541

They will shill for big corporations and bullshit you its the trad thing to do

>>616529

It will do nothing, and the world will continue to go to hell in a hand-basket.

>>616541

Useless political tools.

>>615114

Trump never lied, liar.

>>616676

Hi /pol/

>>616676

He lied each time he said "I do"

>>615666

>This. Though you should aim to not work for anyone that promotes this nonsense. If enough did this, these people would be out of business.

Are you sure? I thought they were government-funded. Or at the very least, I thought that businesses that didn't do this were government-defunded i.e. taxed more heavily. Basically, I thought the way it worked was that these pro-LGBT laws are there to protect the monopoly of the companies that are already at the top of the foodchain. Any up and coming business gets weighed down with useless undesirables and sinks meanwhile, the companies that are already big are big enough to tank the hit.

>>617202

I suspect it wasn't supposed to be about politics, but OP posted a pic of Trump and the Trump Internet Defense Force caught it on their trackers and /pol/ went into damage control mode.

>>617223

There's been a collective effort by kikes and communists to change consensus. With regards to the OP question, I agree, but only for the two demographics that I've mentioned in my last sentence.

>>617223

This. It's really quite sad but at this point it's best to just ban. We don't need /pol/'s cancer clogging the catalog.

>>615499

>you need to want to immediately set up gulags for your political opponents to be a true communist

>>617295

>>>/leftypol/

You're not fooling anyone here.

>>617295

>>>/leftypol/

>>615114

Yes.

>>617703

>>617705

Actually I'm banned for supporting the ChristCom Gang, try >>>/leftpol/

>>615114

> haha guess us likely republican/conservative voters just shouldn't vote at all because a candidate is flawed right guys?

away from this place, leftist scum