10A
That perspective in the third frame is perfectly executed.
I have not encountered that news source before, but it appears to be a leftist anti-Christian news source. I find the article difficult to take seriously when they cite the SLPC in the first paragraph as if they’re even slightly credible. The one dude was excommunicated by the Orthodox, and now needs to travel all the way to Romania just for communion. This article is a farce meant to discredit the Orhodox, and to discredit Christians in general.
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Actual conservative here. To me it mostly means a defense of the essential culture and values of Christendom, AKA Western civilization.
I have had no interaction with anyone from Hexbear. Personally do not support Russia or the CCP, But I also stand against defederation, regardless of their stances on any topic. It doesn’t make someone a “inflammatory troll” just because they hold different opinions than you. Even if there really are inflammatory trolls coming from that server, it should be enough to block them if you personally dislike them. In general, it’s healthy to expose ourselves to a wide diversity of opinions, and to respectfully discuss topics with people who disagree with us.
No matter what I answer here, it will just feed into this no true scottsman fallacy you have with the definition of “christian”.
I don’t have that fallacy in my definition of “Christian” at all. A Christian is a genuine follower of Christ, of which there are many, and many more every day. The fact that some people claim to be Christian without actually following Christ does not mean there’s no true Christian. It’s entirely possible for you to choose to become Christian.
I don’t get any value out of bible verses. It’s just junk to me even if I understand it.
The only value we can have in life comes from God. When someone gives you a Bible verse, that is likely the most valuable thing you receive all day, if not all year.
And on that point, we have reached an impasse. I must abide by 2 Timothy 3:2-5, and turn away:
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Thank you for all of this thought-provoking conversation. I wish you all of the best, and I pray you may yet find God.
Nice presentation, but the time capsule looks like a bad disappointment.
It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren’t responsible, and then concluding that we aren’t responsible.
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that’s just a circular argument.
It’s not an argument of any type. It’s a humble acknowledgment of He who is in control.
That’s not what I said [that “all prophets are heretics”].
What you said, specifically, was, “That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical.” A prophet is someone who knows God’s plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics. Now I’m no prophet, but like any Christian, I maintain a relationship with God and I read Scripture, so I know God’s plan to the limited extent He reveals it to me. That’s not heresy.
somebody doesn’t need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments
You’re either with God or you’re against God. Anyone who sides with Satan cannot be trusted. They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
Second, it’s an argument from authority.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Third, it’s a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you’ll call them a false christian because you’ve already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
I don’t deny there’s a non-zero chance of the discussion playing out that way, but in practice I think there are just about zero climate scientists who call themselves Christians yet also think human beings could have caused climate change. If you find any examples, I’ll be rather curious what denominations they affiliate with. There are certainly a few crazy leftist denominations out there that seem to have fully rejected God, so it’s possible a few such climate scientists exist. If they do, and you were to find them, of course you’re right that I’d have to question their church’s Statement of Faith. But that’s no fallacy; it’s just recognizing that Christianity is incompatible with the premise that humans could possibly cause climate change.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
My only goal post is your acceptance of Christ.
Then I have misunderstood the term, I apologize.
Apology accepted. In case you’re curious to learn about it, you might click here. It’s a good topic for online classes, in case you ever find yourself with spare time.
I absolutely was raised as a christian, having been tought Jesus’ word.
Did they skip all the parts about mammon, or did you just ignore them? They’re fairly central to Jesus’s ministry.
That doesn’t mean it is true though [that it’s Gospel].
It does, in fact.
Yeah, it’s all kind of just meaningless to me. It would be like if I told you to read a passage with a vague moral from a Star Trek book. It’s all just fiction, made by men.
Even if it was written in Klingon, I’d do my best to read it and wrap my head around the point you were trying to make.
All of the Bible verses I’ve quoted to you and linked to you have been (by far) the wisest and truest words I’m able to speak. In most if not all cases, they’ve provided the point I was trying to make. So I find it discouraging and disheartening to know you haven’t been reading them, and seriously considering them.
Whenever you encounter a quote from the Bible, begin by thinking to yourself that you’re about to read something true and holy — even if you don’t believe that yet, start out by telling yourself that. Then ask God — and I know you deny Him, but at least try your best to ask God — that you may receive His holy words with a sober mind, and that you may unquestioningly accept their eternal truth. Then read, and reread, and read once more, the passage until you know it well. Read the context of the passage, as much context as needed, and read it in various other translations, to help you deeply understand its truth.
And with that, yet again, I strongly advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34. That’s certainly not the only thing you ought to read, but it’d be a solid start.
