/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

They do not dedicate their lives to God, therefore their lives are automatically cringe-worthy,and birds of a feather flock together.

>>637747

>the guy on the left wears different things in each panel

>the only time the guy on the right changes clothes is a Guy Fawkes mask

As an ex-atheist slob, I can confirm the accuracy of this.

How long until the anti-anime fags show up to peddle their bullshit?

>>637767

I should look for a gf…but I first need to connect with God on a proper level.

>>637794

I am afraid in Europe, we Christians will become an endangered species, maybe something closer to myth than reality in like a century or so. Sad, but alas that's what we get for betraying God: sow…reap…

>>637831

There is not a single place on earth where missionaries converted people to Christianity proper.

t. Santa Muerte worshiper.

Get winnie the poohed, Cortez. Xipe Totec is still alive.

>>637856

>me and my girlfriend (male)

>>637866

This has to be a troll.

>>637842

So by that argument, every man can succumb to sin, but the Church herself (the Catholic Church) can not because she is the mystical bride of Christ. Your clergy are just as susceptible to sin as ours, yet your churches were started by men and not God, so you do not even have the pure, immaculate bride of Christ that is incorruptible in her teaching and doctrine, you also have corruptible men *on top* of corrupted teaching and dogma because they have split away and rebelled against our Lord and do not keep themselves under His authority which would otherwise prevent them from teaching error. Why be protestant then, using that line of argumentation?

>>637869

Yet, this poster has a point: at time we indeed act like bullies and retaliate in a vindictive manner.

>>637856

>>637866

The only thing that you're only capable of raising a fist to is your boyfriend's ass.

I'm baiting too.

>>637842

Is that image saying Pope Paul VI is telling the truth or misleading people? I don't quite understand.

>>637747

Its because people are inherently religious. Those who do not follow a formalized religion will be drawn to pseudo-religious activities. Most shows/stories which form "fandoms" have an underlying moral framework which, to some extent, typically draws from religious archetypal forms.

A "fandom" is nothing more than a group of people who have largely deprived themselves of organized religion, coming together to form a pseudo-religious community.

tldr: they're replacing God with a pantheon of ponies

>>637747

>>637921

As an extra note, these "fandoms" are considered cringy because they are in denial about the religious nature of their activities. They further try to hide this fact by distorting their practices in unnatural ways, or feigning an "ironic attitude" to through of suspicion. Those of us on the outside can plainly see this dissonance, and the "cringe" that inevitably comes is in response to the unauthentic religious practices.

>>637926

You've got to be retarded. By your logic gay people will die out by next generation

>>637930

That's not the point. The idea of "le inevitable atheist victory" has been punctured by atheists' own utter lack of desire to survive, preferring to spend their time with video games, vastectomies and cummies, which contrasts with their idea of evolution and the desire to pass on one's genes. This is pretty much the postivistic, materialistic equivalent of a "cultural Christian".

I'm not arguing atheist will die out entirely, I'm pointing out that they will go back to being an obscure and mildly irritating fringe like they have been ever since the year dot.

Homosex is also a legitimate disorder, so I'm not sure it's entirely comparable with the "FUG U GAWD" crowd.

>>637767

>christians are less smart than seculars

>b-but not my blacks they're as intelligent as white upper middle class private schooled atheists, no difference there goy!

>>637940

You have a point, but there won't be any less atheists, at least I don't see any reason for that. Gay people rarely reproduce, yet there are more of them by the minute; that's what I meant

>>637945

Sure, the militant ones will always be around, but most of the hedonistics or apatheists will be swept up into religion (if only for convenience).

>Gay people rarely reproduce, yet there are more of them by the minute; that's what I meant

Only because western man is now a tabula rasa which can be turned to anything TPTB want it to be. I don't think gays are that numerous, you're just falling for the media's Delphi Method propaganda, shoehorning them into everything and making them seem more numerous than they are. As it goes Homosexuals are still not that common, and I will be that most of them are hopping on the bandwaggon, being "turned" either by desire or deception. I really believe that there are few congenital homosexuals.

>>637767

>Due to their lack of belief in contraception, religious believers are having more children than atheists

>Due to their lack of belief in contraception, religious believers

>Due to their lack of belief in contraception

>… their lack of belief in contraception

Are they conflating Catholics with EVERY religion on the planet?

Is the journalist REALLY that stupid, do you think?

The REASON we're having more children is because we're not self-absorbed a-holes that hate life and willingly kill babies and children for our convenience. NOT just because SOME of us hate constraception.

Idiots. We're surrounded by idiots.

>further studies have shown that religion does in fact appear to be heritable.

Another reason the UK gubment is trying to remove parents from the raising of children

I wear the same shirt every day too. It's just that I have 5 identical shirts because I'm lazy and this is easier to maintain. Am I still a slob? I can assure you that I only rewear the same shirt for two days at most! My underwear gets changed almost every 12 hours with each bath! (The "almost" here is an approximation of the time-duration, not the likelihood of the underwear being changed).