Christian /adv/ice thread

File: image.jpg (61KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x640px

>>16956986

File: 6012fb05a995ec4734f2efb210d043b7.jpg (9KB, 180x189px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 180x189px

For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

File: eb5eef7e67b7ffce28f3444551e1346c.jpg (46KB, 724x446px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 724x446px

“Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavily burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me. For I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.”

Matthew 11:28-30

File: 1458563761334.png (160KB, 500x424px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x424px

How do I get a christian gf as an atheist?

File: 968525c89ce7e035191aa8ee0d9b52c9.jpg (10KB, 236x344px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x344px

>>16957514

Having Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour is more important than having a "christian" girlfriend


“The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure, hidden in a field, that a person found and hid. Then because of joy he went and sold all that he had and bought that field.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he found a pearl of great value, he went out and sold everything he had and bought it.

Matthew 13:44-46

>>16957514
Why don't you want an atheist gf?

File: 1458789397688.jpg (14KB, 243x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 243x300px

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

- John 14:6

>>16957514
You don't.

Or you lie and reinforce the stereotype of atheists as untrustworthy.

File: leone.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>16957742
>atheists are untrustworthy
>implying theists who literally lie to themselves about imaginary beings are trustworthy

File: isaiah.jpg (354KB, 682x890px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 682x890px

>>16957749

He brought him outside and said, “Look up toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So will your descendants be.”

Abram believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness.

He also said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess it.”

Genesis 15:5-7

>>16957742
What?

I mean, it's an odd preference and I'm not sure what I think about it, but it's not like atheism's a deal-breaker for every Christian girl out there. Maybe the most devout ones, but something like 70% of Americans are at least nominally Christian. Ask somebody out and voila, you've got your Christian girlfriend.

File: bac42058ef399a7ffa8974e5636a9e48.jpg (49KB, 736x865px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 736x865px

>>16957793
>but something like 70% of Americans are at least nominally Christian

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonderful works in Your name?’ But then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice evil.’"

Matthew 7:21-23

Hello friends, how do you interpret our religion when it contradicts science? I struggle with things such as the 6000 year old Earth and other fallacies against science.

File: vallotton-eccles.jpg (114KB, 1136x1324px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1136x1324px

>>16957955

There are many things God has not reveal to us and there are still many mysteries in the Bible that have yet to be uncovered. A great part of it relies part on humbleness on our own part and faith to believe in Jesus and His Word (Blessed are those that do not see, yet believe). I personally believe every Word of God and fully believe in Jesus Christ and His blood

To answer your question about how old the Earth is and other related questions, you can watch about the gap theory (10m) to give you some food for thought https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD6cM08CGUU

Ultimately, I urge you to pray about it. God will answer your questions and doubts you may have, if you are sincere about it and are truly seeking His face. In fact, even the Pslamist King David cried out to God why He did not appear before him during times of trouble (But unto You have I cried, O Lord, and in the morning my prayer comes before You. O Lord, why do You cast away my soul? Why do You hide Your face from me? Ps88:13-14). Even Jesus as He was dying on the cross cried out to Father Jehovah (And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Mt27:46)


For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have yet believed.” (John 20:29)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

File: 500.gif (2MB, 500x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x264px

>>16958021
How about you show us your cock and boyhole instead of chanting your worthless scripture.

File: hqdefault.jpg (47KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x360px

>>16958043

https://youtu.be/TXExg6Xj3aA?t=1m42s

>>16958072
You're such a fucking tease, my cock is getting so fucking hard right now. Hurry up and send me those pics.

>>16958086
hahaha wtf

How do you distinguish between a true religion and a false one?

File: vallotton-luke-23-crux.jpg (72KB, 1404x1123px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1404x1123px

>>16958148

Jesus Christ. He is the only way. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Call upon His name and you will be saved. Pray and seek His face.

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. - John 10:27

>>16958200
>Jesus Christ.
But how do you know that? The whole point of faith is that you don't know. You're just guessing and trying to hope for the best.

File: vallotton-ezek-20-lawgiver1.jpg (122KB, 1480x2103px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1480x2103px

>>16958234

I don't know, I believe

Judas Iscariot was even one of Jesus' disciples, yet he rejected Jesus Christ and even betrayed Him

Even if some were to see Jesus eye-to-eye, face-to-face, they will still reject Him and the Truth. As a result, they will be eternally separated and be cast into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth


He replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)

>>16958200
Im sorry but that doesnt answer the question more than saying Allah, or Hubbards teachings are the only way.

>>16958261
Could you not just be being decieved by djinns, deamons or engrams?

>>16958261
>He replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)

Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment. (2:6-7)

Open your eyes and hope you are not one who has this veil OP for there might still be some hope for you

>>16958521
As to why Christ and his teachings are superior is a question which can only be answered by the soul of a person. When OP answers you, his words to you appear as tautology because his soul is not your own. Of course, as souls become connected through the divine, a person other than OP who believed as OP did would see beyond the tautology of his words and see into them, see their significance, as you can't.

If you would like to find out which religion is significant to you, you can only do that by immersing yourself in the religion itself. It's not a spectator activity. It is a spiritual one to which you must give the whole of your being. In order to understand who is your master. A man without a master is scarcely a man.

>>16958521
>Im sorry but that doesnt answer the question more than saying Allah, or Hubbards teachings are the only way.

Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is Truth?" Many are still asking the same question 2000 years later

>Could you not just be being decieved by djinns, deamons or engrams?

Not if you truly believe upon the name of Jesus, there is power in His name

>>16958550

>Open your eyes and hope you are not one who has this veil OP for there might still be some hope for you

Lovers deserve to be with each other. If you love Satan, you deserve to be with him for eternity. If you love the one true God (Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit), then you will be with Him for eternity

>>16958561
So by your understanding all religions are equally valid as long a person believes that they allow them to connect with the divine?

File: 71805f5bb9640659295f8b29a67399e1.jpg (16KB, 236x225px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x225px

>>16958569
>So by your understanding all religions are equally valid as long a person believes that they allow them to connect with the divine?

“You shall have no other gods before me."

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, and showing covenant faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Exodus 20:3-6

>>16958567
>Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is Truth?" Many are still asking the same question 2000 years later

That doesnt answer the question in any way, can you just give me your view on the matter or just tell me that you will not.

>Not if you truly believe upon the name of Jesus, there is power in His name

Is the same true of other faiths then but with their respective figures/concepts?

>>16958567
>Lovers deserve to be with each other. If you love Satan, you deserve to be with him for eternity. If you love the one true God (Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit), then you will be with Him for eternity

If you loved Allah you would listen and obey his final prophet and abide by his instructions.

>>16958575
I think your comment would be more apporpriatley addressed to the anon who I was responding to than myself.

Im just an agnostic trying to find his way in this world

File: 14799.jpg (6KB, 240x174px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x174px

>>16958577

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Matthew 7:7-8

>>16958580

In Islam, Allah expects you to die for him

In Christianity, God died for you by sending His only begotten Son

>>16958587
Please Ive had everyone from Muslims, Cathlolics, Scientologist and Evangelicals give me the exact same treatment, can you not just answer my questions or at least tell me to search elsewhere?

>>16958595
>In Islam, Allah expects you to die for him
Not true he just requires you to live by his law.

>In Christianity, God died for you by sending His only begotten Son

He didn't, that was a corruption of teachings that were corrected through the final revelation. Jesus (PBUH) only appeared to die but was instead ascended to heaven

>And they said we have killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise.

>>16958585

That comment was directed to you, because there is only one way to Heaven and that is through the blood of Jesus Christ

>>16958569
Not at all, no. No religion compares to Christianity.

File: banner-04.jpg.jpg (48KB, 2060x341px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 2060x341px

>>16958606

I would look into UFO abduction cases and the Nephilim. Look up LA Marzulli, hope that will answer your questions.

https://www.youtube.com/user/MiamiUFO

>>16958614
>pbuh
Get out of here. Seriously leave.

>>16958623
Does seeing someone treat a prophets name with the proper respect upset you?

File: Christus_statue_temple_square_salt_lake_city.jpg (1MB, 1067x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1067x800px

>>16958614

Mormonism is basically white man's Islam. They teach Jesus was a good person and did good works, but that's about the extent they both talk about Him. In both religions, you need to earn your way into Heaven, Jesus already died for your sins so you need to simply believe upon His name and pick up the cross and follow Him.

Again, lovers need to be with each other. If you really love Allah/Satan, then unfortunately (I say this out of sorrow) you deserve to be with the devil for eternity.

Look, I don't doubt you're a good person but your works won't get you into heaven. If you insist on being a Muslim, you should give Mormonism a shot. Just saying.

>>16958625
You are not treating Christ's name with the proper respect when you relegate him to the authority of simply a prophet. He was the Son of God. Mind you, the only.

>>16958618
My comment was specifically towards his view on religious truth though which is different to yours so I dont understand how your response was relavant as you do not share his views.

>>16958619
>Not at all, no. No religion compares to Christianity.

Valid does not mean exactly the same, your post held that religious truth is determined though its ability to make a person feel connected to the divine, many religious do this hence by your method they are equally correct.

>>16958633
>My comment was specifically towards his view on religious truth

Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is Truth?" and I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is the truth

Don't get deceived into pan-theism where they teach there are multiple ways to Heaven. No one goes to the Father except through Jesus

>...many religious do this hence by your method they are equally correct

Lovers deserve to be with each other. Judas Iscariot and the Pharisees rejected Jesus Christ, same thing is playing out today 2000 years later. In fact, this has been the case since the fall of Man and will continue to be until Armageddon

The book of Revelation says after Jesus comes back to establish his Millennial kingdom, mankind will rise again to rebel against God until the very last battle. Even if you saw Jesus with your very own eyes, your attitude still won't change

>>16958627
>Mormonism is basically white man's Islam
Not at all, Mormonism is polytheistic and has a revelation that is rife with anachronisms.

>Again, lovers need to be with each other. If you really love Allah/Satan, then unfortunately (I say this out of sorrow) you deserve to be with the devil for eternity.
Ill pray that one day you might reconcile yourself with Allah and that you will before the day of Judgement where you will meet a Jesus (PBUH) who will not be happy at the perversion you have come to believe. Allah is all merciful after all.

>Look, I don't doubt you're a good person but your works won't get you into heaven. If you insist on being a Muslim, you should give Mormonism a shot. Just saying.

Islamic faith is not based on salvation through works. But on faith and submission to Allah. Doing good works alone will not save you in the day of Judgement.

If you insist on being a Christian, you should give Islam a shot. Just saying.

Seriously you seem to have a very misinformed view on Islam.

>>16958633
The validity of any given religion wasn't my point so I really don't know why you're bringing that up when it's not at all related to the point which I made.

That being, you see only tautology in the answer 'because Christ is the Way' to the question 'why Christ?'. My point was that this answer appears tautological and meaningless or devoid of reference even because you are not fully immersing your being into the language. That is to say, you are not experiencing the religion. Just looking at it.

To further my point (and drive you away from continuing on with your red herring of bringing up the validity of religions in general), one could liken it to an instance in which one asks of a piece of fruit, 'why is it good?', to which one receives the apparently tautological response of 'because it is fruity'. To anyone who has ever dined on fruit before, they understand this, from a sort of bird's eye perspective, and indeed it is actually a rather profound statement, in that it can philosophically convey through words that which can usually only be understood through direct experience. If only post hoc. The idea of a piece of fruit being 'fruity'. From an uninvolved standpoint it appears worthless, though, because everybody has in fact eaten fruit, the more you think about it, the more its profundity makes itself apparent.

Of course it is not actually profound, as fruit is an item of the mundane, and it takes the analogue of Christ, something which is not mundane, or worldly, to mirror back its internal profundity, profundity which is actually that of Christ.

>>16958628
>You are not treating Christ's name with the proper respect when you relegate him to the authority of simply a prophet. He was the Son of God. Mind you, the only.

That would be akin to saying you are not treating Mary with respect by not praying to her. Jesus (PBUH) would be horrifyed at those who perverted his message and made a God out of him

>>16958642
Why are you trying to contest that other anons view as If I made it myself?

>>16958657
How is referring to him as the Son of God making a God out of him? Is it not relatively the opposite?

Christ would be horrified at Islam above all things.

>>16958653
>The validity of any given religion wasn't my point so I really don't know why you're bringing that up when it's not at all related to the point which I made.

Because its a question that naturally flows from that point you made.

>>16958667
A complete non sequitur but I wouldn't expect less from a muslim.

>>16958665
>How is referring to him as the Son of God making a God out of him? Is it not relatively the opposite?

Not that anon but you he is literally as a person in the Trinity.

>>16958665
>How is referring to him as the Son of God making a God out of him? Is it not relatively the opposite?

We are all children of God, the issue is praying to him and creating a partner for Allah and becoming an polytheist.

>Christ would be horrified at Islam above all things.

As a man who lived his whole life in submission to Allah and who will be by his side on the day of Judgement he would not.

>>16958672
Are you a Jehovas wittness?

>>16957955
Isn't it just American creationists who argue the Earth was created 6000 years ago? Most protestants don't view the advancements of science and traditional religion to be unable to coexist.

File: kneel-before-the-cross.jpg (660KB, 2133x1420px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 2133x1420px

>>16958652
>>16958678

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

- John 14:6

>>16958668
Im agnostic not a muslim and it does flow as by the logic of your post as all this talk on truth is based on reference having something other than Christ as your reference point for the divine would lead you to that religion being true and jesus have no profoundity at all.

Using jesus as a your point of refence is just a valid as any other.

>>16958234
No way to actually know. However Christians usually say they just "know" it in their hearts. When something feels right, it just plain feels right, I'm guessing.

Whetever searching for this feeling would be worthwhile it for you, I can't answer.

>>16958679
Why did you delete your post about not being a Catholic as if they were the only trinitarian branch?

>>16958686
>They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. 5:72

Turning Jesus(PBUH) into a God and a figure of worship is not the way to Allah.

>>16958678
How is it polytheistic if Christ was the Son of God?It would only be polytheistic if Christ was more than the Son. But I am here telling you he was the Son of God. So it is not polytheistic.

>>16958687
See here
>>16958653
My point tacitly being once you study religions, only after you have completed your studies, will it be apparent that Christ and his teachings are superior to all of these other religions.

It's like there's a monolith in front of you, but your eyes are closed. Because you have no perception, you suppose the monolith could be located arbitrarily, but it is in fact not, it has a specific coordination. But it takes opening one's eyes (completing research) to see that exact coordination which locates this monolith.

So the reason why you feel as though there is a 'free' point of reference is because you lack perception.

>>16957514
>How do I get a christian gf as an atheist?

Prison Guard here. If you want christian girls, look no further than death-row. Christian girls line up for conjugal visits with death row inmates, so desperate to save the souls of these unfortunate men who would otherwise burn in hell for eternity. On average a death row inmate fathers 8 children before his execution. Charles Manson had more than 20 after he was locked up.

>>16958710
That doesn't sound very Christian at all.

>>16958708
>My point tacitly being once you study religions, only after you have completed your studies, will it be apparent that Christ and his teachings are superior to all of these other religions.

Can you give me these points or some sources to go on? Tell me of your research and practice of other faiths and how you came to be a christian?


>It's like there's a monolith in front of you, but your eyes are closed. Because you have no perception, you suppose the monolith could be located arbitrarily, but it is in fact not, it has a specific coordination. But it takes opening one's eyes (completing research) to see that exact coordination which locates this monolith.

Thats exactly what that muslim said to the OP.

>So the reason why you feel as though there is a 'free' point of reference is because you lack perception.

An athiest could say the same of disbelief. I could say that becuase you havent read the Pali Cannon of the Koran in Arabic you too lack perception.

The whole teleology based argument you make for goodness is likewise one which extremely subjective. Fruit being good has nothing to do with it being fruity.

File: praying.jpg (85KB, 1698x1131px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1698x1131px

Okay guys. Serious need of some Christian advice, but I don't know if 4chan is the right place. I see this thread often but I don't know if it's a troll thing or if someone's legit going to give me some Christ-focused, prayer-conscious advice.

So before I ask my question, please be honest with me: is this a troll thread? I honestly can't tell.

>>16958733
Hard to tell whetever OP is serious or not, but all he is spouting is verses from the bible with no personal advice.

You can ask your question anyway though. Maybe someone is capable of helping.

>>16958733
As long as you are a muslim or a christian they should be able to give you advice.

>>16958716
What part of their souls would burn in hell for eternity did you not understand? These prisoners don't have long to find Jesus before their appeals run out. Christian girls do whatever it takes to help them accept Christ as their savior, so their souls can go and be with the father in heaven. amen

File: chooselife.jpg (6KB, 189x266px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 189x266px

>>16958733

This is not a troll thread, feel free to ask!

>>16958742

This is a Christian /adv/ice thread, if you're a Muslim go start your own thread

>>16958724
To begin with, there is no possession there. It cannot be 'my' research. It is, rather, 'the' research. It is the same body of knowledge for each individual. Once you attempt to factor in possession and genitivity into that equation you make that body less than it is, which implies its incompletion.

Here is my point. Read everything you can on anything at all (of course philosophy is more significant than botany, and so on). Christianity is its logical conclusion.

>Thats exactly what that muslim said to the OP.
Is that what you believe? Do me a favour and cite the specific passage of his posts in which he makes that identical point.

>An atheist could say the same of disbelief.
That's false. The analogy of blindness to sight is not a symmetrical one. Atheism is the claim that literal blindness is just another type of sight. This is why we call it blasphemy. It is an absurd absurdity.

>The whole teleology based argument you make for goodness is likewise one which extremely subjective.
First of all, can you explain how that argument is teleological? I don't quite follow. I'm not saying it's false, but if anything it's quite a loose description and perhaps in need of some clarification.

As to it being subjective. I would say no. Fruit has a chemical structure. There's nothing subjective about that.

>Fruit being good has nothing to do with it being fruity.
It absolutely does. The fruitiness, by virtue of the chemical structure, contains the goodness. Specifically, the fruitiness, the chemical structure, comprises, in this instance, a sweetness, or the glucose, the 'glucosity' of that peculiar chemical structure.

File: cross.jpg (101KB, 1100x810px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1100x810px

>>16958707

Jesus is the Son of God and Man, I love Jesus and His blood covers me and atones for my sins


“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before God’s angels. But the one who denies me before men will be denied before God’s angels.

Luke 12:8-9

File: dr1.jpg (43KB, 395x212px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 395x212px

>>16958739
>>16958742
>>16958761
Okay. Here goes.

I have an incredible opportunity, given through my church that I love (and actually work for) to go to the Dominican Republic on a mission trip. It is for a week in the Summer and I feel the Lord calling me to do this. In fact, when I first heard about this, it was almost as if the Holy Spirit told me, in my heart, "You're going to be a part of this. "

However, a few things.

Cost of going is $2k. The church said they'd help however they could, and they encourage fundraising - nothing out of pocket. It'll be tough.

I'm a brittle Type One Diabetic. I get sick more often than most, and one thing that I go into, since being diagnosed at age 9 (23 now) is Diabetic Ketoacidosis, which is a super serious, life-threatening illness that comes on due to dehydration and high blood sugar. If something like that happened in the DR I don't know how I could handle it. I know a little about the DR and that it can have some severely impoverished places, but I don't know about medical care should I need it. The team that is facilitating the trip assures me that if worst comes to worst, then I will be taken care of, but it's still scary.

Three, my mother doesn't approve. Not because she's against the mission, but she's terrified of me getting sick and even dying down there.

Still... something about this trip has got me fired up. I truly feel that the Lord is calling me to do this. And right now it's not an issue of "should I or shouldn't I?" it's like "God is telling you to do this - are you going to reject him, or say yes?"

I don't know, any advice would be lovely. Blessings.

File: Jesus-blesses-children-Matthew-19.14-240x240.jpg (15KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x240px

>>16958781

I don't know your personal walk with Jesus, so please don't take any offense at my post

God primarily speaks to us through His Word, I suggest you read the Bible and be in daily communion with Him. If you really knew this was God's Will, then you would know and wouldn't be asking this question in the first place

If you're not as strong in walk with Jesus Christ, then I wouldn't go as far as to the DR. I would start small, perhaps volunteer at the local homeless shelter and focus on your personal walk with Jesus Christ (by reading His Word, prayer, daily repentance) and really seeking what His will is in your life

Jesus says in the Bible, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavily burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me. For I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30). At the same time, for what one can do, God will apportion. It seems you are perfectly capable of reading His Word, prayer, etc. so I would start there if you aren't doing that already

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you really are truly in fellowship with Jesus intimately, you've read the Bible cover-to-cover hundreds of times, He speaks to you in dreams, and you've done thousands of hours of volunteer at the local homeless shelter and you feel a strong need to branch out and serve His Kingdom's cause in a much greater capacity. However, if that were the case, then I'm sure you would have greater assurance from the Holy Spirit regarding your mission

Lastly, as always regarding these things, I would talk to friends and family members face-to-face. Obviously, I would always take their advice over some anonymous strangers over the internet. Hope this helps and I will pray the LORD will give you guidance in all things

>>16958763
>To begin with, there is no possession there. It cannot be 'my' research. It is, rather, 'the' research. It is the same body of knowledge for each individual. Once you attempt to factor in possession and genitivity into that equation you make that body less than it is, which implies its incompletion.

I just wish to know the experiance you have had, is that such a huge thing to ask? Im not trying to make you a model or anything im just curious as to what you read and practiced on your journey to uncovering christianity.

>Is that what you believe? Do me a favour and cite the specific passage of his posts in which he makes that identical point.

Not identical but very similar in >>16958550 whereby their story is the truth and that others are simply blind to it.

>That's false. The analogy of blindness to sight is not a symmetrical one. Atheism is the claim that literal blindness is just another type of sight. This is why we call it blasphemy. It is an absurd absurdity.

Not at all, for the athiest their materialism or worship of science forms their monolith of truth.

>First of all, can you explain how that argument is teleological? I don't quite follow. I'm not saying it's false, but if anything it's quite a loose description and perhaps in need of some clarification.

No worries look at >>16958653

'why is it good?', to which one receives the apparently tautological response of 'because it is fruity'.

In this instance something being good is linked to it living up to or fulling an inherint requirement or end. It can only be good so long as it is fruity no other traits matter when it comes to assessing its worth. Anything that doesnt meet the requirment or end we assign to it becomes bad.

>As to it being subjective. I would say no. Fruit has a chemical structure. There's nothing subjective about that.

Fruit isnt but a *good* fruit or a *bad* fruit is. These are additions that are subjective.

>>16958820
>It absolutely does. The fruitiness, by virtue of the chemical structure, contains the goodness. Specifically, the fruitiness, the chemical structure, comprises, in this instance, a sweetness, or the glucose, the 'glucosity' of that peculiar chemical structure.

Notice how you cant find this goodness with your emperical analysis? I can find the poision in hemlock but I cannot find the bad.

In this case you find glucose (although I think you might be thinking of Fructose) and then state based on your personal experiance and views as to what purpose a fruit should then label it.

>>16958781
I'll bet you could find something more productive and less expensive closer to home. The dominican republic is doing fine. Are their sick and homeless people in your community that you could tend to?

File: Annie-Vallotton-priere.jpg (176KB, 924x1386px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 924x1386px

>>16958820

I will admit I haven't been following your train of thought. You seem to be a very smart and contemplative person

The Word of God is simple, straight, and to the point. The Bible is all you really need to draw closer to God

Read the Bible, it's great for the soul

https://lumina.bible.org/

>>16958820
>Fruit isnt but a *good* fruit or a *bad* fruit is. These are additions that are subjective.

There is no 'bad' fruit in the basic language game. The point is that goodness is actually just sweetness. Albeit a more general type of it. But if a fruit is sweet, then that's where it is good. Fruit is naturally sweet, because glucose is an inextricable aspect of fruit, so fruit is naturally good. Nothing subjective about it.

To claim it's subjective is essentially to say that goodness is something wholly beyond sweetness, that sweetness isn't the basic foundation of goodness (in terms of the taste of fruit specifically). And while that may be an appetising philosophical declaration due to the blatant simplicity of this reduction, it simply is not true. Goodness of a fruit refers essentially and simply to its sweetness, sweetness is an inextricable aspect of fruit. Therefore the goodness of fruit is not subjective at all.

File: last-february-apple.jpg (165KB, 1129x1122px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1129x1122px

>>16958843
>There is no 'bad' fruit
said the serpent

>>16958827
>I can find the poision in hemlock but I cannot find the bad.
The bad is the poison.

What you just said:
>I can find the 4 in the equation but I don't know what 2+2 equals.

>(although I think you might be thinking of Fructose)
You are correct. My mistake. I had assumed glucose was simply a more generalised, metabolised carbohydrate, but they are in fact different entirely.

>>16958843
>There is no 'bad' fruit in the basic language game. The point is that goodness is actually just sweetness. Albeit a more general type of it. But if a fruit is sweet, then that's where it is good. Fruit is naturally sweet, because glucose is an inextricable aspect of fruit, so fruit is naturally good. Nothing subjective about it.

So were I to produce a bland tasting fruit that managed to spread more effectively and produce more trees you would hold it to be inferior to the sweeter but less able to spread fruit?

>Nothing subjective about it.
This statement is the literal embodiment of subjectivity "the point is that goodness is actually just sweetness" You have simply linked these two separate points together.

>To claim it's subjective is essentially to say that goodness is something wholly beyond sweetness, that sweetness isn't the basic foundation of goodness (in terms of the taste of fruit specifically).

Not in the slightest, to claim it is subjective is to say that goodness can be *distinct* from sweetness rather than beyond or inherit.

>Goodness of a fruit refers essentially and simply to its sweetness, sweetness is an inextricable aspect of fruit. Therefore the goodness of fruit is not subjective at all.

When you create a subjective parameters of Good being sweet and bad being not sweet then of course you can say its an objective fact, the issue though is that these parameters you have created are subjective.

I could just as well use the parameters of reproductive success to say that the sweet fruit is inferior.

>>16958855
>The bad is the poison.

That same poision not only keeps the plant from being destroyed but is also used in a variety of medicines so from these subjective perspectives the poision is actually good and a plant that lacked it would be bad.

Apple seeds contain cyanide. A poison.
Does this mean apples are bad, no.
Just don't eat the seeds.

Women contain evil in their hearts.
Does this mean women are bad, no.
Just don't eat their hearts.

>>16958857
>So were I to produce a bland tasting fruit that managed to spread more effectively and produce more trees...
It would not manage to spread more effectively because the sugar in fruit is basically exactly what catalyses its decomposition which is how it disseminates.

>This statement is the literal embodiment of subjectivity
Sweetness isn't subjective. It's chemical. Purely objective. What's ambiguous is whether or not goodness is subjective, but we already know that goodness is just sweetness in this case, and that sweetness is chemical and therefore objective, therefore goodness is also, in this case, objective.

>to claim it is subjective is to say that goodness can be *distinct* from sweetness rather than beyond or inherit.
Going to have to explain that a little more. I don't follow.

>the issue though is that these parameters you have created are subjective.
No they are actually not subjective. You're confusing subjectivity with relativity. That is to say, a fruit can be relatively sweet (like a fig, for instance), though it still is 'sweet', just relativity so, but that essential sweetness is sufficient for its fruitiness to equate to goodness. In other words, the categorical 'goodness' of fruit doesn't have to refer to all fruit equally. It just refers to fruit in general. So maybe that's where you're getting confused where you think of a date and a fig and see an obvious disparity of sweetness which leads you to question the fidelity of the goodness. The fig needn't be as sweet as the date in order to be sweet enough to be 'fruity', precisely for this reason that the sweetness is relative. It still has that recognisable aspect of fruit to it. For example, if you subsisted on a diet of say dark coffee and vitamins for a week and in one universe you ate a fig and in another you ate a date, though the date is naturally sweeter, you would in both experience that 'sweet relief' which is granted by the fruitiness of both.

>>16958859
>That same poision not only keeps the plant from being destroyed but is also used in a variety of medicines so from these subjective perspectives the poision is actually good and a plant that lacked it would be bad.
I'm glad you made this point because you see that's not subjectivity, that's relativity.

>>16958907
>It would not manage to spread more effectively because the sugar in fruit is basically exactly what catalyses its decomposition which is how it disseminates.

Not necessarily by producing more numerous yet less sweet fruits or fruits that had chemicals that made them appealing to certain animals but less sweet it could still out produce its sweeter partner.

>Sweetness isn't subjective. It's chemical. Purely objective.
I didnt say it wasnt.

>What's ambiguous is whether or not goodness is subjective, but we already know that goodness is just sweetness in this case, and that sweetness is chemical and therefore objective, therefore goodness is also, in this case, objective.

Ah here we go the crux of your argument and where it falls apart.

> but we already know that goodness is just sweetness in this case,

This is a point that you haven't demonstrated. The closet youve come to doing this is through and appeal to nature.

When it comes to your long paragraph Im *not* saying or implying that you think sweetness is some equal an monolithic concept. What I am saying is that you have not demonstrated the above and why goodness = sweetness.

>I'm glad you made this point because you see that's not subjectivity, that's relativity.

When goodness is only relative to an idea or perception of a person we call that subjective.

>>16958907
Also I would still like to hear your story regarding what you read and practiced and how you came to christinaity

>>16958939
Also I wast overly harsh when I said where it falls apart I mean to say its the source of disagreement

>>16958939
>When goodness is only relative to an idea or perception of a person we call that subjective.

Police are relatively evil, or subjectively evil?
When an officer is called upon to write speeding tickets to fill the king's coffers has he not allowed himself to be corrupted by blindly following orders, and doing what he knows is wrong?

File: gnt_art.jpg (165KB, 640x606px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 640x606px

>>16958707

Muslim friend, I take back my attacks against you

I have had a couple Muslim friends and visited Muslim countries, very nice and considerate people. Certainly nicer than many "christians" I meet in my home country

Even though I appreciate your PBUH upon Jesus, I cannot do the same likewise because I care for your soul and pray that you will come to personally know Jesus Christ and His free gift of salvation. However, I feel this may be futile and you seem very adamant in your faith, which I must respect

I guess all I can say is I apologize for attacking you, I hope this exchange has taught both of us something

Peace

>>16958979
>Police are relatively evil, or subjectively evil?

It depends on the terms of reference. Ill try and explain this in your example.

>When an officer is called upon to write speeding tickets to fill the king's coffers has he not allowed himself to be corrupted by blindly following orders, and doing what he knows is wrong?

When it comes to subjectivity the question will be whether the institution or the idea in this case is enforcing the law of speeding tickets that raise money for the King.

If you hold that the King is legitimate or moral as an institution as is the law and its enforcement, then a police officer who does not enforce this law is bad whilst one who enforces the law reluctantly or lazily is only *relatively* bad by comparison. The opposite also applies.

So if you want to answer the question of are police evil you can only do so subject to other moral judgements you have made. Once you have these parameters you can start making judgements based on relativity.

Now even in your question I didnt even scratch the surfaces of these parameters, but it illustrates the problem of trying to ascribe moral value without parameters.

>>16958939
>The closet youve come to doing this is through and appeal to nature.
I wouldn't say it was quite an appeal to nature. In fact if anything I would think one would rebuke it by labelling it a naturalistic fallacy, as it presupposes essences.

> Im *not* saying or implying that you think sweetness is some equal an monolithic concept
Right, but I do believe, regardless of the fact that you don't consciously say or imply that, this is what you believe, and it is the reason for our disagreement in some respects.

>why goodness = sweetness.
Goodness in this case is sweetness. Goodness does not in general equate to sweetness, at least not in a prescriptive sense (I'm sure you could make some sort of poetic point about how sweetness is sufficient as a description of goodness). The point is that sweetness = goodness.

>>16959028
>I wouldn't say it was quite an appeal to nature. In fact if anything I would think one would rebuke it by labelling it a naturalistic fallacy, as it presupposes essences.

Can you expand on that last point because I think my view is that you are presupposing moral essences

>Right, but I do believe, regardless of the fact that you don't consciously say or imply that, this is what you believe, and it is the reason for our disagreement in some respects.

Then let me say that that is not my concious intention or view.

>Goodness in this case is sweetness. Goodness does not in general equate to sweetness, at least not in a prescriptive sense (I'm sure you could make some sort of poetic point about how sweetness is sufficient as a description of goodness). The point is that sweetness = goodness.

But why is or should goodness be treated as sweetness in this case?

>>16959020
>If you hold that the King is legitimate or moral as an institution

All evidence shows that he is neither legitimate, nor moral. He crowned himself after killing many of his brothers, who had entrusted him with authority. He would deny others the right to protect themselves, when he himself demands an army of secret service.

>>16959044
sweetness causes tooth decay, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, depression, cancer, and more.

>>16959075
>
All evidence shows that he is neither legitimate, nor moral. He crowned himself after killing many of his brothers, who had entrusted him with authority. He would deny others the right to protect themselves, when he himself demands an army of secret service.

Well in that instance and under your subjective values the police could be labeled as evil/bad/not good.

Bear in mind that it could just as well be applied to someone such as Queen Victoria or Louix XVI by someone who views any monarch as being immoral and legitimate. Which in turn is the product of their own moral views on matters such as human autonomy and the like

This is why objective truths in ethical and political matters are so much more bothersome than in matters of measurement or chemical interaction. I see the trouble as being people assuming that some of thier foundational views (like the human autonomy one in this example) which gives them an illusory objectivity when it comes to making judgements that are linked to it.

>>16959092
>sweetness causes tooth decay, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, depression, cancer, and more.

That anon and I were discussing it within the context of fruit hence the whole "in this case"

>>16959110
There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

Good, bad, right, wrong, holy, evil. these are not subjective, or relative, they are born of ignorance. It is not or place to decide, or to judge, or you too will be judged.

>>16959174
I know of Chinese farmer parable but I didnt want to bring it up as the religious posters would attack it on religious grounds.

>>16959186
When writing the bible, Judaeo-Christians, didn't let their fears stand in the way of a little plagiarism from older philosophies.

The whole point of being a disciple is to bring others around.
Do not invite friends to your party, the lord sayeth.

>>16959044
>But why is or should goodness be treated as sweetness in this case?
The point isn't that goodness is treated as sweetness, but that sweetness is treated as goodness. And as to why that is, well, if (you are a normal person and find that) fruit tastes good, then you understand.

>>16959216
>And as to why that is, well, if (you are a normal person and find that) fruit tastes good, then you understand.

No it simply tastes sweet. If one likes sweet food then Ill say that it tastes good if not then one will not.

Are you the same anon Ive been discussing this with because it seems absurd for you to come this whole way after rejecting the appeal to nature only to use this as the lynch pin of your entire argument.

>>16959216
Many the world over do not share your sentiment.
Given your fondness for sugar, one can assume you're American, yes?
Do not be ashamed, this was not your own doing. Greedy bakers found that putting sugar in bread made people buy more. Today they put sugars or artificial sweeteners in almost everything.

Proverbs 20:1, 25:27

>>16959229
Sweetness is goodness. Of course food can be salty or savoury and be good but in terms of fruit, sweetness is what equates to goodness. My initial point was to say that while it is easy to dismiss this equation because of how completely simple and obvious it is, it is not in fact dismissible. Sweetness really is exactly the primary qualification under which fruit is 'good'. Attempting to deny that is really only just thick-headedness. You're trying to relativise direct experience and claim that the sweetness of fruit is somehow extricable from its goodness. The goodness may be extricable from the sweetness, but the sweetness of fruit is inextricable from its goodness.


Yes I am that anon. This is the point I've been making since I made the analogy.

>>16959241
I think you misunderstand. It is not such a simple point as 'sugar tastes good'. Or I suppose it is essentially but that reduction is itself crude. In that it implies this image of the consumption of pure, unadulterated sugar.

What I'm saying is a little more tasteful than that. It's the natural sweetness of fruit. Not its 'sugariness'. And that natural sweetness is not a matter of personal opinion. If somebody claims they do not like that natural sort of sweetness which comes with the taste of fruit, then they are simply confused, or liars. This is because humans developed a taste for sweetness for a very specific reason. It is not arbitrary that sugar tastes good, in other words, to make use of the cruder representation of the analogy. If somebody says they find (the sweetness of) fruit distasteful, then they simply have a skewed sense of taste.

So, you see, it has nothing to do with this image of consumption, as in the verses you post.

File: tumblr_m05sjo2fFJ1r1j2oyo1_500.gif (957KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 480x360px

>>16959288
Your mother gave you sugary drinks and sweets
"Happy" meals with soda, messed with your emotions. you think that happiness comes from sugar.
It's hard to accept that you were victimized
but you don't have to keep being a victim
you can fight the addiction
don't give children sugar to feel better about yourself, to make you feel "normal" because others are doing it.

File: index.jpg (8KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 284x177px

>>16959288
>people who don't think sweets are awesome, are liars. there's no way I could be wrong on this, my mom told me she likes sweets too. so neener neener neener. i'm not listening to you, go away

I led a horse to water, now it up to him.

>>16959331
>>16959350
Both of you read my post again.

Natural sweetness isn't the same as sugar. I mean physically the are basically the same but not conceptually. If you refuse to entertain that then I can see you had no intentions of entertaining any sort of actual two way discussion with me in the first place.

>>16959288
>Sweetness really is exactly the primary qualification under which fruit is 'good'. Attempting to deny that is really only just thick-headedness.

All you have done is assert this with no reason or evidence to support that conclusion. how are you not just presupposing essences?
>You're trying to relativise direct experience and claim that the sweetness of fruit is somehow extricable from its goodness.

Its more a case of you trying to objectivise your subjective experiences. For you, a fruit must be sweet for it to be good. Proof of goodness in furit being seperate from sweetnees is the example of the fruit that is easier to spread despite being less sweet - evolutionary perspective for another it goodness might lay in how healthy a certain fruit is or how much flesh it has. For a farmer it might be how much she can sell it for and so on.

On what grounds outside of everyone else being "thickheaded" can you say that your definition of what makes a good fruit is better or worse than those others.

Think of the avocado or the pumpkin both fruits, but would you feel right saying they are evil or bad?

>Yes I am that anon. This is the point I've been making since I made the analogy.

So to be %100 you base your views on goodness at least when it comes to fruit based on an appeal to nature?

>>16959378
>People who do not think that sunny weather is the best are just thick headed fools who are blind to the truth and cling to thier cool weather lies.

>Everyone I know in Florida likes warm weather, indeed were it cooler the ecosystem would collaspe.

>>16959386
Funny you make this point because I actually favour what most people think of as bad weather but I also can see where I am mistaken in preferring it.

Liking bad weather is something wrong with me.

>>16959395
>but I also can see where I am mistaken in preferring it.

Why are you mistaken?

>>16959396
There's nothing important about why. Don't try to shift the goal posts. Just accept when you're wrong.

>>16959396
Its exactly the same logic as with the fruit problem. Infact the answer to this question will probably be what makes me admit I was wrong or that I was wrong to engage with you

Acidic foods taste nasty to a normal person. If you were raised eating sweet foods your pH is skewed. American bread tastes like battery acid.
Apple pie isn't just apples baked in their own juices, americans add 4 cups of sugar.

As for weather.
Anyone with a brain values rain. We can't survive without food growing. If you think sun is great go live in the desert for a while, it will fix your perspective.

>>16959380
>All you have done is assert this with no reason or evidence to support that conclusion. how are you not just presupposing essences?
I am axiomatising essences and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't do that, language never makes the connection to reality. You're asking me, 'why do you work such a boring job making roads?'. Well, roads are a vital infrastructure. If we didn't have roads, we probably wouldn't have computers, and therefore we probably wouldn't be having the conversation we're having right now, so it cancels itself out.

I have given you reason and evidence. It's just that every time I present it, you ignore it. The sweet taste you experience when you eat a piece of fruit is direct evidence of its goodness. When you attempt to question how the sweetness equates to goodness from a broader level, you step outside of reality, so the interrogation becomes worthless and your argument naturally fails. Asking how sweetness is goodness is identical to question why red is 'red'.

You can bring up the point, you can question why red is red, but you're only going to make yourself look like a fool, because, while nobody can answer you, everybody still knows.

This is because knowledge and understanding are different. I don't need to understand something in order to know it. I don't need to understand how sweetness is goodness to know that it is true. It's just true a priori, albeit synthetically. And you know it's true as well, you're just driving your argument into the ground because nobody ever taught you how to concede being wrong about a particular thing. That's petty and I recommend you learn something at this moment and stop it.

>For you, a fruit must be sweet for it to be good.
Is a papaya not more sweet the riper it is? Is the perfect combination of crispness and juiciness of a strawberry not exactly that ratio which progressively elevates its degree of sweetness? This is because that's exactly all that sweetness is.

>>16959421
>I am axiomatising essences and there's nothing wrong with that.

It is when you claim that your axioms are objective ones! Which is what you are doing.

Just say that my axioms are my own and that they aren't necessarily any better or worse than other persons and all disagreement will be over

>>16959380
>On what grounds outside of everyone else being "thickheaded" can you say that your definition of what makes a good fruit is better or worse than those others.
Everyone else happens to agree with me. It's only the vocal minority of contrarians who would ever attempt to make this sort of ridiculous claim that sweetness is not good.

>Think of the avocado or the pumpkin both fruits, but would you feel right saying they are evil or bad?
I already answered this a while ago when I made the point about relative sweetness. I already used the analogy of the fig and the date to illustrate my point here. Go reread that post.


>So to be %100 you base your views on goodness at least when it comes to fruit based on an appeal to nature?
I don't see how you could consider it an appeal to nature. Have I made the point that what is to be found in the abode of wilderness which is nature is necessarily good? No, I have not said that, I have only said that sweetness is goodness, and that is not an appeal to nature.

>>16959416
Anyone with a brain can see you're baiting.

A normal human being would prefer more sunny days to rainy days. That is the point. I never said every day must be sunny. That goes without saying.

Do you understand that concept? Of something going without saying? It seems like there is a hole in your head where it should be.

>>16959428
I'm axiomatising essences in general, not in particular. I'm axiomatising the bare existence of essence, not any experience of an essence specifically. There is no room for the axioms to simply be my own. If they exist at all then they necessarily exist the same for everyone. This is why they're called essences.

>>16959421
How do you feel about coffee?
As THE most bitter substance, Caffeine is the measure of bitterness with which we gauge.

More than one culture on earth, chew kola nuts, all day long.
Perhaps bitter is their idea of goodnessness.

btw Im not >>16959416


>Everyone else happens to agree with me. It's only the vocal minority of contrarians who would ever attempt to make this sort of ridiculous claim that sweetness is not good.

>have only said that sweetness is goodness, and that is not an appeal to nature.

Its even worse its an appeal to popular opinion

I will say it I was wrong to have a discussion with you. You should have just said from the outset that Sweetness being Goodness in fruit was an axiom of yours and that the only way you consider otherise would be if the whole world to think otherwise.

>>16959439
Coffee is the same thing as alcohol. I know this because I'm an avid dark coffee drinker. I drink at least 2 cups daily and have been doing so for well over a decade and have had time to think about what's actually occurring. It's a form of masochism. A habitual practise of self-loathing. It's culturally imposed. Same reason slavic or east asian men (or anybody, but slavic/east asian men is a particularly visible example) smoke a lot of cigarettes.

>>16959443
>Its even worse its an appeal to popular opinion
Uhm, no? It's really not? Not at all. Most people agree that an orange tastes good because it's sweet, albeit in its particular orange-y way. Me mentioning that is completely unrelated to my argument. So my argument has nothing to do with popular opinion.


>I will say it I was wrong to have a discussion with you.
Mate don't become angry at me that you tried to uphold a completely ridiculous notion out of some sort of unchecked contrarian reflex/compulsion of yours.

>>16959452
Obviously there is a functional aspect of drinking coffee, but I could easily add cream and sugar and completely absolve the bitterness without losing any of the effect of the caffeine, but I don't do that, and it's simply masochistic.

Not necessarily a sexual, or prescriptive masochism, but it still makes a sufficient amount of sense for our purposes here.

>>16959452
buddy don't become angry at me that you tried to avoid having to justify a completely ridiculous notion out of some sort of unchecked narrow minded defensive reflex/compulsion of yours.

>Me mentioning that is completely unrelated to my argument. So my argument has nothing to do with popular opinion.
>On what grounds outside of everyone else being "thickheaded" can you say that your definition of what makes a good fruit is better or worse than those others.
>Everyone else happens to agree with me. It's only the vocal minority of contrarians who would ever attempt to make this sort of ridiculous claim that sweetness is not good.

Sweetness is sweetness mate,

>>16959459
>Everyone else happens to agree with me.
>happens to agree
>happens
Is English not your first language?

>>16959461
Literally a quote from >>16959429

>>16959443
>Its even worse its an appeal to popular opinion

WE hold these TRUTHS to be SELF evident.
(our opinions, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you)
That ALL men are created EQUAL
(someone's compensating)
ENDOWED by their CREATOR
(I got a trust fund, what did your parents give you?)
with INALIENABLE RIGHTS; Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(bro, your allowance isn't gonna cover that. you'll need two jobs)
AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
(who can afford it)

>>16959464
I never denied that. Do you understand what the word 'happens' means in that context?

Look, I know English isn't your first language, I assumed that from the get because of your spelling mistakes. So I'll actually explain this to you.

The word 'happens' in this context means it's completely unrelated from the point, but can be used as a sort of backing, just as excess evidence, like hey here's my sound line of reasoning but what's more, call now and you'll also receive the fact that no normal person actually disagrees with me which just furthers the complete inanity of the truth of my reasoning to the point where you're sort of actually dumb for continuing trying to argue it.

Honestly how completely senseless does a person have to be to not make the connection between sweetness and goodness. Pure contrarianism. Pure 'I am totally oppositionally defiant and got myself into yet another argument I can't win trying to argue something I probably don't even agree with'.

File: Forrest_Gump_running_alabama_jenny.jpg (73KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x800px

>>16959459
>Sweetness is as Sweetness does

run forrest run

>can't confirm God's intervention*
>can't confirm God's goodwill**
>literally believe just the Christ-cross-death-sins business so I don't go to hell

Who here single string of faith here

* e.g. confirmation bias, coincidence, luck, etc.
** e.g. God wants my suffering for a plan in which does not entail my joy, i.e. can't rely on the master plan for personal happiness

>>16959486
>
The word 'happens' in this context means it's completely unrelated from the point, but can be used as a sort of backing, just as excess evidence, like hey here's my sound line of reasoning but what's more, call now and you'll also receive the fact that no normal person actually disagrees with me which just furthers the complete inanity of the truth of my reasoning to the point where you're sort of actually dumb for continuing trying to argue it.

But there wasnt more, you simply left it at that. I said why should your definition be better than those other groups and you just said only contrarians would disagree with you

>Honestly how completely senseless does a person have to be to not make the connection between sweetness and goodness. Pure contrarianism. Pure 'I am totally oppositionally defiant and got myself into yet another argument I can't win trying to argue something I probably don't even agree with'.

Did you ignore the part about the weather? I fruit was just an example, we are arguing on the nature of the good. You hold it to be an innate feature of things (which in the example of fruit is expressed in sweetnees) I hold the good to be a trait that is subjectively applied by humans. How is that pure contrarianism?

File: eGranny_Smith_Apples-MAIN460.jpg (64KB, 460x344px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 460x344px

let's apply this retard's logic IRL

granny smith apples are the opposite of sweet
therefor fruits are not the epitome of all that is buttery goodness and holy.

bacon for president

>>16958567
>Could you not just be being decieved
>Not if you truly believe upon the name of Jesus
>Not if you truly believe

So basically, if you believe (in an uncertainty), you won't be deceived?

Or does the key lie in having to "truly believe"? "True" belief which many common Christians do hold, although they nonetheless undergo occasional deception due to errors of their own senses, thoughts, or beliefs?

It's this sort of filth that ends up dividing the church.
>oh I'm struggling with X, Y
>that shouldn't be happening if you're a true Christian/if you truly believe

Even as a believer of Christ, I can see how an institution of religion is the scum of the earth

>>16959514
>I said why should your definition be better than those other groups and you just said only contrarians would disagree with you
No, I never responded to that point, because it's a dumb question.

The reason why I mentioned that 'everyone else happens to agree with me' is because you said, and I quote, 'on what grounds outside of everyone else being "thickheaded" ' and I was just correcting that. So funnily enough, YOU were the one who made the appeal to opinion initially.

> I hold the good to be a trait that is subjectively applied by humans. How is that pure contrarianism?
Because goodness can't exist subjectively. The only way one ever comes to that conclusion is through contrarianism. You've only ever reached the conclusion that goodness is a subjective thing by denying that it's an objective thing. That's the reality.

>>16959518
Read my point about relative sweetness.

As a completely unrelated aside though, granny smiths are objectively shite. Anybody who prefers one to a fiji or macintosh, as a general rule, has issues.

Savouriness has nothing to do with fruit. We already established that. Stop being a newfag and read the thread carefully and in its entirety before you fling your worthless opinion.

>>16959529
>No, I never responded to that point, because it's a dumb question.

How is it a dumb question? What makes one opinion more valid than another is pretty signifigant.

>The reason why I mentioned that 'everyone else happens to agree with me' is because you said, and I quote, 'on what grounds outside of everyone else being "thickheaded" ' and I was just correcting that. So funnily enough, YOU were the one who made the appeal to opinion initially.

I didnt though, I merely stated there were number of different views and that your argument didnt provide the grounds for rejecting or accepting one in particular hence why I sought clarification.

>Because goodness can't exist subjectively.

Only by linking it to traits that you subjectively select as being meritorious.

The only way one ever comes to that conclusion is through contrarianism.

Or just consistent application of reason. Goodness not being an inherent trait is a view that has been upheld from Plato and Aristotle all the way up to thinkers like Foucault and Bertrand Russel and all the thinker inbetween. Its not some nitpicky "u cant kno nuffin" argument which you make it out to be.

>You've only ever reached the conclusion that goodness is a subjective thing by denying that it's an objective thing.

The issue I have and have explained earlier on is that it being objective can only be done within parameters that we subjectively create for ourselves.


>Read my point about relative sweetness.
Thats another poster who hasnt been following the conversation


You've only ever reached the conclusion that goodness is a subjective thing by denying that it's an objective thing. That's the reality.

>>16956986
What are you giving up for lent this easter?

>>16957514
Why do you want a Christian gf?

File: irish-sunglasses.jpg (42KB, 640x553px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x553px

>>16959679
obviously because she's gullible.
and turns the other cheek

Here's a tip, stop believing in the invisible man. If you want to live a fuller life, cut him out of it.

This dude can create universes and shit, but he's bad with money. Never seems to have enough.

That's fucking retarded.

/thread

>>16958652
Well I for one don't want to go around commiting terrorist attacks on innocent people so I'm gonna stay roman catholic, thank you very much.

>>16959693
don't confuse god with churches
churches want money
god doesn't want a thing
just for you to be good,
and obey 10 simple rules

1. have no other gods.
should be easy for you if you didn't believe in multiple gods to begin with. Just believe in one.

2. don't try to imagine heaven, or what god looks like.
how simple is that if you think there's nothing, just keep it up.

3. Don't speak for God, or talk smack in his name.
This is why the churches are going to hell. They pretend to speak for God all the time.

4. Rest on Sundays
How hard is that?

5. Make your parents proud.
Crayon drawings work best, mom's go nuts for those.

6. Don't Kill people.
I know what you're thinking. Still no.

7. No sex with Married people.
ewww gross amiright? Most people don't even get married anymore, but some do. Act like a ring on their finger means they're HIV positive.

8. Don't steal.
there is no reason to steal, so that one's easy.

9. Don't lie about your neighbor.
Even if it's true, just zip it. You might be tempted to embellish. I don't want to hear it.
If he didn't cut his grass, don't call the police, go talk to him. Maybe he hurt his leg at work. Cut his grass for him, and he'll do the same for you.

10. Don't keep up with the Jonses.
Coveting your neighbors stuff is stupid.
You should be friends with your neighbor.
Let him borrow your tools, and he'll bring beer to your barbecue. you don't both need tools and barbecues.

File: 0029_16.gif (20KB, 432x225px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 432x225px

>>16958742
Well, I wish them all the best.

File: 0042_08.gif (36KB, 468x240px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 468x240px

>>16959801

File: 0042_09.gif (37KB, 468x240px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 468x240px

>>16959810

File: 0042_10.gif (33KB, 468x240px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 468x240px

>>16959811

>>16959810
>>16959811
>>16959812
Didn't Jesus do that first, I mean everyone was a happy Jew until he showed up with his new religion?

>>16959829
Jesus didn't create a religion. Christianity was started by some enterprising Jews 500 years after Jesus died.

Everything Jesus said was against religion. He said don't go to church, pray in your closet.

>>16957522
have jesus as your girlfriend?

Is there a good way to ask a girl in my church group if she'd want to see a movie sometime or is that one of those things you shouldn't do in church proper?

>>16960048
slip the dj $20
This song is dedicated to the lady in the pink skirt, from Bob who wants to go to the movies with her.
"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see."

File: 794ccb900a840ec24e06c604a4058feb.jpg (38KB, 736x289px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 736x289px

>>16959520

>that shouldn't be happening if you're a true Christian/if you truly believe

Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. (Romans 12:15)

I apologize on behalf of Christians that have an holier than thou attitude. I have been one of them. Many Christians have an anger and ego problem, without even realizing it. Pride is what brought Lucifer down, and it's that same sin that ends up costing many Christians their salvation which lands them in Hell.

Jesus said, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled." God sees everything, He sees every wrong done under the sun, and everybody -- EVERYBODY -- will be held accountable for what they have said and what they have done under the sun. (Ecclesiastes)

It is important on your part to release forgive unto them so God will release forgiveness unto you. Just as God required Job to forgive his friends (miserable comforters) before God could fully heal Job and restore blessings, God requires us to forgive even our enemies and to pray for them.

>Or does the key lie in having to "truly believe"? "True" belief which many common Christians do hold, although they nonetheless undergo occasional deception due to errors of their own senses, thoughts, or beliefs?

God's Word is simple, straight, and to the point. Believe upon Jesus' name you will be saved. However, you need to work at your faith (So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Ja2:17). If you can read the Bible, then read the Bible. If you can pray, then pray. You can most certainly forgive others that have trespassed against you. You are perfectly capable of seeking out God's face, since you bothered to come on /adv/ to seek other men's advice.

For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)

File: ezekiel.jpg (329KB, 2888x1576px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 2888x1576px

>>16960038

For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:36-37)

File: star.jpg (35KB, 536x464px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 536x464px

>>16960048

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be given to you. (Matthew 6:33)

File: teaching.jpg (58KB, 700x350px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 700x350px

>>16959787

The Great Commandment (Matthew 22:34-40)

When the Pharisees heard that He silenced the Sadducees, they came together. One of them, who was a lawyer, tested Him by asking Him, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?”

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

>>16956986
Keep at it OP. I'm glad you're doing this.

>>16957955
I'm an agnostic who went to church once, they talked about the miracle of the big bang. Shit was werird

This should be a simple question, how do I become a Christian? I've lived godless so far for all of my life but I want to change my ways and become a better person.

File: galatians.jpg (52KB, 492x453px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 492x453px

>>16961102

He then led them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you and your household will be saved.”

Acts 16:30-31 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16%3A16-40)


Read the Bible cover-to-cover: http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/reading-plans/
Listen to the Bible cover-to-cover: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLURWfUEJXnMHlFqYqDAtRzLMJ4RumvvOo
Watch the Bible cover-to-cover: http://fullbiblemovies.blogspot.ca/

The Passion of the Christ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx0886C6eAg
Christian Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTlN3uFVznY
24/7 Prayer and Worship: https://www.youtube.com/user/IHOPkc/live

Current Events: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBpSlvedUI6VmwBjQLpFb0g
End Times Prophecy: http://z3news.com/
Juniper Tree and Beyond: https://www.youtube.com/user/junipertreeandbeyond

File: magick.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>16961095
>I'm an agnostic who went to church once, they talked about the miracle of the big bang. Shit was werird

Check this out, this will weird you out even more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2UuIs8rdHc&index=8&list=PLDECA889975B1C648

>>16961082
Just posting bible verses rather than giving any advice on how to apply them?

If thats constitutes good christian advice then this site will help you a lot

http://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/bible-study/inspirational-bible-verses/

>>16961102
Why do you wish to become a Christian over any other faith? They too can help you change your ways and become a better person.

>>16961102
Be wary of people who preach a faith alone type of doctrine. Protestants are a modern deviation of the Church who have no foundation in history and whilst well meaning get lead astray by trying to create a religion based on the bible alone hence why they are constantly fragmenting and dividing.

>>16961857

The real purpose of the Bible is to point you to Jesus. Those who wrote the Bible, Prophets and Apostles, they were in a relationship with the Living God and the reason why they testified was so that you and I may believe their testimony that JESUS is the living God. So if you have read the Bible and you have believed that Jesus is God, then you need to take action. You need to go and pray and repent of your sin, which means, tell the Lord Jesus you want NOTHING to do with sin, ask Him to clean you, and then be obedient to do what the Lord Jesus tells you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8edQTUDNH0Q

>>16961868

Who do you serve? Church or Jesus? You cannot have two masters

>>16961951
>Who do you serve? Church or Jesus? You cannot have two masters

The Church is the body of Christ. It is the height of selfishness to reject 1500 years of unbroken tradition and practice just because it does not conform to modern views of individualism. Do not forget that it was the Church and the early Christans who created the bible which many protestants make a master of.

For that poster, take a look at the early church and the early Christian writings and you will find practices and writings that align with protestant thinkers.

I encourage you to take a look at the Orthodox FAQ

http://pastebin.com/FjeXZhXj

http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

You will find that Protestantism is a wholly new creation that is separate from the Church established by Jesus.

>>16961992

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. (John 10:27)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonderful works in Your name?’ But then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice evil.’" (Matthew 7:21-23)

>>16962033
Let me know if there are any points or refutations you have to points in the faq.

>>16962043

Let me know once you answer my original question: Are you serving an earthly church or Jesus?

>>16962033
Oh as for that last point James would disagree with you. Faith without works is dead. Good works are an expression of faith.

>>16962046
Jesus Christ of course

>>16962047
Do you personally know Jesus? Does Jesus know you?

It's one thing to know about Jesus, but do you know Him?

>>16962052
>Do you personally know Jesus? Does Jesus know you?

I do and he does.

>>16962050
>Jesus Christ of course

He Who Is Not Against Us Is for Us (Mark 9:38-41)

John answered Him, “Teacher, we saw one who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he was not following us.”

But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who does a miracle in My name can quickly speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. Truly I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, will not lose his reward.

>>16962052
Also do you actually intention of reading any of the faq?

>>16962061

No, I only read the Bible

>>16962057

Very good, I will pray for you brother

Let us not lift our souls to one another as the Bible says

>>16962063
Well should you ever change your mind many of the questions you ask and debate here are discussed within it.

>>16962068

All the answers are in the Bible my friend

There are many Christians in Hell because they never let go of their pride and ego

Satan targets your ego and pride, God looks at your heart

>>16962070
>All the answers are in the Bible my friend

It is not that simple unfortunately given the problem of interpretation and translation. Where it otherwise heresy and schism would be unknown among protestants.

>There are many Christians in Hell because they never let go of their pride and ego

Yes, which is why so many have trouble accepting the authority of the Church. Like the prodigal son they take scripture cast off their family and go into the world with it.

>>16962079

Do you believe is Jesus is alive and real?

>>16962097
Of course, how could anyone who is a Christian deny that?

Do you believe that Mary is the Mother of God?

>>16962120

Ask Jesus to help you read His Word with the force and power of the Holy Spirit, let the Holy Spirit guide you

File: oceans.png (397KB, 845x476px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 845x476px

>>16962130

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy9nwe9_xzw

>>16962130
Come now I answered your questions is there something wrong with answering mine?

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

>>16957749
Triggered to quickly m8y

But yeah atheists are the philosophical equivalent to vegans.

File: 1073_5.jpg (123KB, 728x409px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 728x409px

>>16962144

I'm not smart enough to answer your questions, I only know I need to rely and trust in Jesus Christ

I hope all the best to you fellow Christ-anon

>>16962307
>I'm not smart enough to answer your questions,

Oh but you are, Im only asking your view on the matter not whether it is true totally or not. I like yourself have the knowledge to give our views on nuclear power even though we might not be able to explain how a nuclear reactor works.

File: oceans2.png (357KB, 852x473px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 852x473px

>>16962132

>>16962303
vegans may be onto something

studies show you live longer and healthier when you don't consume dead things.

>>16962350

Haha true

However, the Bible says to store up your treasures in Heaven, not on Earth where it gets decayed by moth and rust


In those days men will seek death but will not find it. They will desire to die, but death will elude them. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 9)

>>16956986
So I have a question though I feel this thread is more trolling than anything and since I am about to admit to being an autistic christian I can't wait to see the lol thats about to unfold. Anyway so I have Autism and a detail bugs me about the bible. That is if you remember your life here on Earth in Heaven and despite the verse that says the troubles of this world will be forgotten, most scripture supports maintaining some identity in heaven. Most Christians say that only your troubles will be forgotten. Well here is the problem with that. I am autistic, not high functioning but not quite low functioning either. So my fear is that I won't remember anything because people with Autism have sensory issues. So literally every part of me represents a trouble from this world. How can I remember anything if the memories themselves are flawed? Can God alter my memories and if so does this remove my character from me?

I mean shit this kinda begs the question, whats left of us after said salvation? Are we the same creatures when God gets done with us? Is there even anything worth saving?

when an animal dies it decomposes into it's elements which fertilize the soil

then plants grow in that fertile soil and are consumed by animals

when plants die, they too compost into fertile soil

plants eaten by animals are decomposed into fertilizer as well.

File: seeds.jpg (7KB, 400x182px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 400x182px

>>16962403

First off, God created you the way you were. Read about how Moses pleaded with God that he was a stutterer and God said He intended it to be that way

To answer your question, according to several NDE testimonies, you carry over your memories over into the afterlife. So what you do on this Earth does very much matter, including your actions (what's tied on Earth is tied in Heaven, what's loosed on Earth is loosed is Heaven). Look up Howard Storm's NDEs on YouTube to get an idea

According to Jesus, he said that we are like spirits in the afterlife, "and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection" Luke 20:36 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+20%3A27-40

In addition, the Bible says after you die you will be judged for what you did on Earth (And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment Heb9:27). Additionally, the Bible says, "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (1 Corinthians 6:3)

I don't think I've fully answered your question, but I think I got the general point. I hope this answers your question somewhat

>>16962357

Storing up treasures on earth? By eating fresh picked fruits and vegetables? That is anything but storing.

Animal flesh is unclean. Even cooking it leaves a risk of disease.

Leviticus 11:7-8
And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

>>16962465
Memories are not carried to the afterlife, they are stored in the cloud.

File: Super_Mecha_Death_Christ_2000_BC_Version_4.0_Beta.jpg (109KB, 1199x849px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1199x849px

My dad needs to go to church to refill his "batteries". i don't feel anything though am i supposed to be feeling recharged in a spiritual sense after going to protestant christian church i feel the same pretty much nothing special or moving. only thing i know is my dad don't let me wear my hair the way i want and wear the clothes i want. can't get with any friends i had either my dad keeps tabs on where i go. how does an emo like myself get paired up with conservatives wtf.

>>16962591
Raising a child can be quite draining. The seventh is a day of rest to recharge. When you become a man, or perhaps I should say if, you will come to understand.

Ecclesiastes 3

>>16962591
Unless you think your question can be answered by a bible quotation I would look else where.

>>16963227
ye of little faith. the good book has all the answers

>>16962591
That pretty typical, anon. Our families generally want the best for us, but they choose things that aid them. I don't particularly like my parents' church, so when I'm in town, I go out of respect for them and pleasure that they get what they need at that particular church.

In the meantime, the only thing you can change is yourself. Consider ways to make it bearable or interesting for yourself. Who knows how many of these other people are wearing clothes and hairstyles that are expected of them rather than what they personally want? Volunteer. Ask questions. Who knows who you will meet or who you'll find to be friends with. GL.

>>16962591
I know how you feel, actually; I was an atheist from age 9 or so onward and only became a real jesus freak the year I turned seventeen.

To be honest, the whole emo thing is probably just a phase, and in twenty years you're going to think that shit is silly. I'm not saying your dad is right to decide how you dress for you (I think it's silly), just that all this emo shit isn't serious business.

>>16958781
That's a hard one, anon. Your mom's fear is valid. Does the team truly understand your medical condition? I know good, smart people who do missions and I know complete morons who do missions. I wouldn't want to encourage you to go if they are morons.

There are two ways this goes:
1. God is part of it and you will grow in your walk with Christ and in faith with this trip. You will help others.

2. You get sick, bad shit happens, it's a miserable experience, possibly deadly.

So pray. Seek confirmation through scripture and valued others who share your faith. Consider asking someone you trust to commit to praying with you about this and set a time frame for an answer. Ask God for a sign. Blessings.

Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Wise words, OP. It's the passage that gives strength to those who think they lack. But I do it not out of reward but to be remembered as someone who was good. None of us are perfect. I'm a Catholic who's not super religious but I believe with a strong heart and a good soul, that alone is enough to find peace.

I always think of Jesus as an example, not as another manifestation of God who demands our worship. To "become" Jesus should be the ultimate goal for every believer...or if you look at it this way...to become the most "you" you can be. The highest form of yourself. Think of your strengths, how that could be a service to others, and do as much of that as you can.

Then maybe...you're not following previously made steps to follow and become like Jesus...but to follow a life where you can be more like God.

>>16963621
Jesus told us we are all God's children, children of men. Not to become Jesus, we are all his siblings. To Honor your Father and Mother, not worship Mary. Follow him, not a church.

File: weeping.jpg (20KB, 342x225px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 342x225px

>>16963621
While it is great you are receptive to Jesus, He stressed the importance of discipleship and bearing good fruit (Faith without works is dead). Unless you are lame or in a coma, you are more than perfectly capable of just being "a good person." God gave you the gift of life, literacy, and generally good health. Maybe this would be a good time for you to reflect on your relationship with Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday. Reading the Bible cover-to-cover with the force and power of the Holy Spirit would be a good start


The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:24-30)

Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

File: oceans1.png (602KB, 1917x1079px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 1917x1079px

>>16962338