[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / hkon9 / hkpol / hypno / leftpol / vg / vichan ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 467a36290168f97⋯.png (1.71 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Cheerleader_Chickaletta.png)

12fef1 No.664481

Since the nation as a whole should take in Refugees because it's the Christian thing to do, then should public schools be required to have Christian classes because our nation was founded on Christian principles?

1bb2e1 No.664483

>Christian principles

Do you mean Masonic?


d49bf3 No.664487

>>664481

>Christian principles

Since when has freedom of speech, religion, protest, and the press been "Christian principles"?


2bb8b0 No.664491

File: a3a6b65bf0b2641⋯.jpg (12.18 KB, 274x184, 137:92, images.jpg)

>>664481

No, because mass demographic displacement isn't very Christian. Most Refugees are just economic migrants wanting to get some of those delicious gibs. Besides, what kind a secular government can be called Christian while abortion is still legal? none

I can't tell if you are concern trolling or genuinely don't know about this topic. Either way, have a SAGE


42c68a No.664494

>>664487

Freedom of speech seems Christian, in that doing violence against another for mere words alone seems patently unChristian.

We need not listen to evil, but violently attacking someone who is only speaking evil… I think that goes against our faith.

Likewise, freedom of religion is a Christian virtue only because it would be unChristian to force conversion at sword-point (gunpoint). Again, does mean we have to trade/like/eat with infidels, but we should allow them to coexist until they make the mistake of starting the violence - the Just War crusade them back to the stone age.

So, I mean, in that vein I kinda understand what's being said.


aafc1f No.664502

>>664481

The West has abandon it's Christian ideals long ago.


c7b03c No.664509

>>664494

Freedom of Speech and freedom of religion are decidedly unChristian. They are probably as unChristian as you can get.

The former allows anyone to deny or blaspheme the Lord and be unable to reproach him because "muh opinions" and the latter prevents you from converting him because "muh freedom of conscience".

Just because we aren't supposed to march people to rivers and baptise them en masse doesn't mean we should tolerate active heresy or anti-Christianity in our midst.


e5333d No.664513

am i supposed to just magically know what nation we're talking about


fd9d73 No.664515

File: 224858daf0ab7db⋯.jpg (1.7 MB, 2569x3209, 2569:3209, ad8242d08bc7284d20b620a2f0….jpg)

>>664481

Reposting infographic

Diversity destroys more than it helps


5ddc42 No.664608

>>664509

You seem to be thinking of the post-1960's version of those freedoms. In the past we did an excellent job of suppressing lies from Catholics and others. Nowadays they sit on the supreme court and anchor news networks, with their Jewish buddies.


c7b03c No.664619

>>664608

>You seem to be thinking of the post-1960's version of those freedoms.

No, it's only since the 60s that such ideas have been consistently applied which is why they seem so suddenly to have become so devastating. Anyone who believed sincerely in FoS and FoR pretty much believes it in the manner I mentioned and that only (((dialogue))) and (((reasonable debate))) are the ways forward.

>In the past we did an excellent job of suppressing lies from Catholics and others. Nowadays they sit on the supreme court and anchor news networks, with their Jewish buddies.

My sides.

Assuming you are American, does your country even look vaguely Catholic in morality or character? I wish Catholics had the kind of power you think they do.


5ddc42 No.664632

>>664619

>No, it's only since the 60s that such ideas have been consistently applied

Oh really, so a business has freedom of speech and freedom to hire who it wants? A school has freedom of religion so that prayer can openly be allowed? No, it turns out the official state religion of judeo-secularism is the only allowed religion now. The one that believes in climate change, etc.

>which is why they seem so suddenly to have become so devastating.

No it's because they were blocked up by the "civil rights" which are actually unconstitutional in the US. There is no "protected groups," under the law; that's nonsense and absurd. It's just many jewish judges deciding among themselves who gets "protected" status.

>Anyone who believed sincerely in FoS and FoR pretty much believes it in the manner I mentioned and that only (((dialogue))) and (((reasonable debate))) are the ways forward.

No because it used to be you could just create a party and exclude the people you disagree with, but now, as "protected groups" they must be included by law. Otherwise it will inevitably be described as "disparate impact" and the court then forcefully disbands or strikes down whatever you were trying to do. Considering what outsiders run the courts, they shouldn't have that power. And they didn't, until the "civil rights" came into existence in the 1960s with progressive, biased judges getting into the courts. And guess what, they didn't have the same beliefs as the vast majority of the people they ruled for, giving this result.

And as I explained earlier, FoR has been violated because right now only the state religion of judeo-secularism is openly allowed. Anything contrary to it is discriminated against by the courts, and subsequently, anyone else in bondage to them. Before that a person was at least allowed to hold their religion in the public sphere, regardless of the consequences. The only part separation of church and state originally played was that no religious test was required for state office; the 1960's changed that into creeping, state enforced judeo-secularism.

>Assuming you are American, does your country even look vaguely Catholic in morality or character?

Considering that Catholicism teaches dual covenant in regards to the so-called jews, yes it is in effect pretty close with the other zionists, Especially these days.


5ddc42 No.664638

>>664632

Oh yeah and I forgot to add that now all kinds of speech codes and political correctness is taking root because of the same types of people worming their way into the same kinds of positions of political influence, so a very efficient network exists by which any politically incorrect action is punished economically and in other respects. So there goes what was formerly freedom of speech also, because the "protected" organizations are given free range to hunt down wrong-speak by a number of illicit means, and a blind eye is turned by the law and courts when it comes to these progressive organizations.


42c68a No.664642

>>664509

>Just because we aren't supposed to march people to rivers and baptise them en masse doesn't mean we should tolerate active heresy or anti-Christianity in our midst.

We should tolerate it - in the meaning of not stringing them up from the lampposts.

If you mean we shouldn't give the time of day to such people, we should openly snub them and, truly, we should have the right not to trade with them I wholeheartedly agree.

Tolerance in that I don't do violence to them for what they believe or say, I agree with as a Christian - thus I support free speech (although I have no problem with time/place limitations).

But I hate that stuff as much as you. I think stamping down on it with jack boots, though, actually makes it proliferate.


c7b03c No.665048

>>664632

>>664638

None of this is novel or suprising, though, it's the logical consequence of enlightened (i.e. Masonic) "pre-1960s" FoS and FoR. Is that teally what you want? Because that too is another, senior branch of that dreaded "judaeo-secularism" that you hate so much.

I seriously don't understand why even modern Christians of a more devout streak are so fascinated with these Satanic lies. The Truth is non negotiable.

>Considering that Catholicism teaches dual covenant in regards to the so-called jews, yes it is in effect pretty close with the other zionists, Especially these days.

This is a blatant lie and you know it. Dual covenancy is and always has been a ridiculous heresy, and the Vatican openly denounces Israel and calls for a two-state solution. Some Zionists, eh?

>>664642

I get that, and I don't believe we should be violent towards them (unless they try it with us first), but they must be actively converted.


4b5023 No.665343

>>664481

>refugees

Ezekiel 28:6-10

>classes

Shouldn't exist for people under legal age, it wasn't a problem until women (((worked)))




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / hkon9 / hkpol / hypno / leftpol / vg / vichan ]