/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/kjv3.htm>1611 KJV

>>618941

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/kjv3.htm

>1611 KJV

I thought Jim fed hotwheels to his pigs

>>619027

Christ must have delivered him from the sty

>>619027

>believing /pol/ memes

Not even once.

>>618895

>Illustrator to make a font

There's gotta be an easier way.

>>619138

Umm, 2,000 years of unbroken Tradition, sweetie.

>>619138

>Satanist hands

>LGBTQFAJEUNDJWHFYP

>Soymouth

Why hasn't any big wig Catholic priest denounce this man?

>Father James Martin is a special case because he pushes the line without going as far as to outright say that sodomy isn't a sin. The moment he does is when the moment he gets the axe, though. So yeah, he's wrong when he says the church doesn't care.

How many people will he be allowed to tempt into damnation before they do something?

>>619150

He isn't. What I'll say is that over the past 200 years or so Mary and Jesus have been appearing to various saints/faithful, seven off the top of my head, complaining about various aspects of the Church. Corrupt clergy and breaking the first three commandments were on the top of the list. Remember, Hotwheels went Baptist because the Church is the Philippines is apparently an absolute pit.

Also I just pray that whatever Church he goes to doesn't preach OSAS nonsense, there's barely a shred of hope for his salvation if he digests that poison but if he learns how to repent and stops tempting with those damned porn ads he should, I pray, make it.

>Also I just pray that whatever Church he goes to doesn't preach OSAS nonsense, there's barely a shred of hope for his salvation if he digests that poison

You do know that people who believe OSAS are totally against sinful behavior, right? And often preach harder against sin than other churches.

>and stops tempting with those damned porn ads

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he has any say in what 8chan does any more.

>>619162

Hotwheels has nothing to do with 8ch anymore. The porn ads are beyond his control.

>>619150

Umm, sweaty, HW has been Christian 5 minutes, and he's not even part of my denomination. He isn't qualified to identify freakish homo-appeasers. Does he even have a degree? :)

>>619167

Tru tru, I just worry when hardcore baptists go preaching that repentance is works as if literally every prophet, our Lord included, preaches it. Good to hear he's not at fault for the ads though.

>>619167

OSAS is nonsense no matter what its adherents do, it's counterscriptural and, quite frankly, if you know anybody who buys into that you should reprimand him or just steer clear

>>619177

*as if literally every prophet didn't preach repentance.

>>619143

What happened in 1054 says otherwise

>>618895

Isn't it just a gothic font?

>>619122

>literally defending having sodomite abortionist atheists in the church

>>619204

You have pretty bad reading comprehension if you think I was defending James Martin.

>>619147

>Father James Martin is a special case because he pushes the line without going as far as to outright say that sodomy isn't a sin.

He says we should love homosexuals, get to know them, befriend them, learn from them, etc., Yet not only does he conspicuously avoid saying we should tell them to change their lifestyle.. He outright says our love should not give them instructions or admonitions (fourth pic here:)

>>619150

He may not actively say sodomy is not a sin, but has he ever said that it is one? Saying so much positive stuff about them without including that point surely goes too far.

>>619203

>inb4 someone invents a 'goth baptist' meme

>>619208

>tfw no goth baptist gf

>>619276

>"Anon why aren't you using our matching Bible cover?"

>"Do you think my makeup will be alright when I get baptized?"

>"Do you wnat to help me shop for moarning clothes this weekend?"

>"I'm so glad you accept my hobbies!"

This is really bad

>>619205

You were dude, this >>619122 is only valid criticism if hotwheels' objection is off, which would mean it's good for Martin to not be disciplined for his degenerate heresy

>>619323

HW is wrong in saying that the church does not discipline or care about bad clergy.That's the point I was addressing. Whether Fr. James Martin deserves disciplining is up to the Church, not me.

>>619338

>Whether Fr. James Martin deserves disciplining is up to the Church, not me.

So when Francis finally declares sodomy a-ok, you'll be all for it, good to know

>>619341

>So when Francis finally declares sodomy a-ok, you'll be all for it, good to know

Reading comprehension still not there, I see…

>>619338

>HW is wrong in saying that the church does not discipline or care about bad clergy.

So either Martin is not bad clergy or he's being disciplined, then? Which is it?

>>619138

>>619147

>>619150

Father James Martin is never technically wrong, but he seems to be an idiot and also a freaking weirdo. (Listen to some of his interviews, you can tell from his voice and mannerisms what kind of kid he would have been in your local high school.)

>>619128

I don't think that's illustrator, anon. Looks like fontforge. Though freetype fonts are vector graphics anyway, so it's not unreasonable to make them in illustrator/inkscape/whatever

>>619143

>unbroken

Pope Leo III disagrees

>>619447

what do you mean?

>>619468

>Rome is the whore of babylon

Why are you so careless with your words brother?

>>619468

Wish I was that bear…

>>619151

his bishop is his protector

other bishops can't do anything so

its basically the Coughlin situation all over again

except instead of a dodgy radio host the priest is basically a heretic

>>619673

Rome: 378 AD

Filioque: ADOPTED

Tradition: UNBROKEN

>>619685

>The filioque was in the creed in 378

no it fuckin wasn't

Even if it was, this only amplifies your problem. It creates two breakages in tradition, because Pope Leo dogmatically banned it from the creed, and signed an ecumenical council that banned it from the creed.

>>619673

I don't know, man, I feel like you're not telling everything. I checked wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

and it states:

"In 809–810, Charlemagne called a church council in Aachen, which confirmed the unanimous belief in the West that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque) and sanctioned inclusion in the Nicene Creed of the phrase Filioque (and the Son). For this Charlemagne sought the approval of Pope Leo III. The Pope, while affirming the doctrine and approving its use in teaching, opposed its inclusion in the text of the Creed as adopted in the 381 First Council of Constantinople. This spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, without adding phrases such as "and the Son", "through the Son", or "alone". Stressing his opposition, the Pope had the original text inscribed in Greek and Latin on two heavy shields that were displayed in Saint Peter's Basilica."

>>619697

>no it fuckin wasn't

"The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, ‘In anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15)’; and again it is written: ‘If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8:9).’ When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of Whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit ‘proceed from the Father (John 15:26),’ and that ‘He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you (John 16:14).’"(Acts of the Council of Rome, 382).

>Even if it was, this only amplifies your problem. It creates two breakages in tradition, because Pope Leo dogmatically banned it from the creed, and signed an ecumenical council that banned it from the creed.

First of all, he didn't.

Second of all:

In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.