Why is there so much conflict between Christians and troons? They actually have a lot in common.

[Balalaika Z Bree]

The replies from salty Christians are just proving my point...

You guys believe that a man came back from the dead, turned water into wine, and was born to a virgin mother. That's even MORE absurd than thinking a woman can have a penis.

Your unsupported claims being easily ripped apart his hardly that.

If you examine those claims you may find comparing any of God's miracles to the lies of fools is only highlighting the vast chasm between the two groups, not strengthening your claims that we are alike.
Lying about a man being a woman is mundane and sadly everyday. Miracles by their very nature are not mundane and the ones you are using in your comparison are completely unique.
Miracles, claimed to be unique and extraordinary, are not falsified by rarity or their strange, seemingly impossible, unusual nature. Thinking a woman can have a man's anatomy is absurd, outside of rare tragic cases like hermaphroditism it is always obvious from birth which sex we are. It is of course even more absurd to think the miracles in the Scriptures happened naturally, by chance or some other way excluding God, especially when those very Scriptures describe them explicitly as being done by God directly and indirectly.
TL: DR: You assume there is no Almighty God for your comparison, which will only convince those who already believe that lie of your comparison. In a reply to a Christian. Pathetic.

It's become apparent, everyone's coming around to the new world religion

View attachment 5126120
View attachment 5126119
View attachment 5126118View attachment 5126117
View attachment 5126136
View attachment 5126137View attachment 5126138

Anti-religion. Anti-human.

Christcucks continue to fall for the cheapest bait

Bait is what you find on a hook or a trap, this was just a laugh, besides it's good to practice defending truth. Misrepresenting the Gospel as the OP did warrants a response.
1 Peter 3:15 “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.”

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

Ehhh. Christians also defend child groomers as well. Pray the gay away has turned into pray for the gay meaning you must worship girl cock and other faggotries or you're going to burn in hell. If you utter blasphemy like men can't be women you shall be banished from ever entering a place of worship under the divine protection of our lord and savior Josefina Christ.

You need to learn to distinguish actual Christians from other denominations such as Catholicism. Catholicism has the largest number of reported pedophiles in their ranks (much more than reported Christian pedophile pastors). Christians kick out pedophiles. Catholicism hides them. Unless you have a corrupt Christian group, which in that case, they're no longer following Jesus (literally the entire point of Christianity) and need to be called out for their bullshit. Any Christian group harbouring pedophiles needs to have stones cast upon, for Jesus abhorred pedophiles and said they ought to drown. They will not be saved. They will never reach heaven. There is no forgiveness for a pedophile. Any Christian claiming there is needs to be scrutinized heavily and reminded that pedophiles are the few that are irredeemable in Jesus's eyes.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

From my agnostic perspective:
1. Christians (aside from fundies) are way less obnoxious.
2. Christian philosophy can be used to better oneself while troonery only leads to destruction and self-destruction.
3. Christianity produced some fine art. Troonery only produces fetish porn.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

I think you're referring more to the Gnostic idea of the flesh being evil, the spirit being good.

I was raised Southern Baptist and that was a very common belief. I'm referring to the idea that everyone will have a perfect body in Heaven. If that's Gnostic, then what is the point in caring about an afterlife when you'll just suffer from crippling pain for eternity no matter what?

 

[Antenna7]

I was raised Southern Baptist and that was a very common belief. I'm referring to the idea that everyone will have a perfect body in Heaven. If that's Gnostic, then what is the point in caring about an afterlife when you'll just suffer from crippling pain for eternity no matter what?

The problem I have with Christianity, is that the first "Pope" was in 33 AD. However the Bible used today is based on the collection of works organized and chosen by scholars commissioned by King James in 1604.

Who decides what goes into the Bible, and what doesn't? Elites in the end.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

That's even MORE absurd than thinking a woman can have a penis.

One if having belief and faith, the other is ignoring facts that exist in 99.999999999% of nature for time immemorial.

 

[Balalaika Z Bree]

You need to learn to distinguish actual Christians from other denominations such as Catholicism. Catholicism has the largest number of reported pedophiles in their ranks (much more than reported Christian pedophile pastors). Christians kick out pedophiles. Catholicism hides them. Unless you have a corrupt Christian group, which in that case, they're no longer following Jesus (literally the entire point of Christianity) and need to be called out for their bullshit. Any Christian group harbouring pedophiles needs to have stones cast upon, for Jesus abhorred pedophiles and said they ought to drown. They will not be saved. They will never reach heaven. There is no forgiveness for a pedophile. Any Christian claiming there is needs to be scrutinized heavily and reminded that pedophiles are the few that are irredeemable in Jesus's eyes.

Citations needed on those claims. Catholicism is the fullness of the faith. From the time of the original twelve Apostles, with the thieving traitor Judas Iscariot among them, we have always had unfaithful servants betraying their sworn duties. Mistakes and corruption of individuals within the organization does not mean the organization as a whole is invalid or entirely wicked. I share your disgust and hatred of the evil acts of child abusers, I am tempted to hate the offenders just as you do, but I do not take that step to condemn or consider them doomed. God is able to forgive any sin sincerely repented of, if you claim they cannot sincerely repent then you remove their blame and deny God his perfect justice when he sends the unrepentant sinners to eternal suffering.

I was raised Southern Baptist and that was a very common belief. I'm referring to the idea that everyone will have a perfect body in Heaven. If that's Gnostic, then what is the point in caring about an afterlife when you'll just suffer from crippling pain for eternity no matter what?

Bodily Resurrection is not Gnostic, so the healing and perfected physical body we will receive for heaven if we die in God's Kindness would be just another trap for them. In Christianity in contrast:
Revelation 21:3-4 and I heard a great voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.”

The problem I have with Christianity, is that the first "Pope" was in 33 AD. However the Bible used today is based on the collection of works organized and chosen by scholars commissioned by King James in 1604.

Who decides what goes into the Bible, and what doesn't? Elites in the end.

That's not it. As I understand it the Church was founded by Jesus, and He remains at it's head, the High Priest. The Apostles were commissioned to spread the Gospel, to build up the Church, it later wrote down those accounts and important letters and teachings, some of which were widely considered God's word from the first decades of the Church, some of which took a century or more to gain wide acceptance. Minority opinions questioning some of the texts, including about the book of Revelation I quoted above did persist much longer.

 

[RussianParasite]

Both OP and faggots:

- believe that not only could they not be wrong but that anyone who believes differently is dumb and narrow minded

- believe in shitting up the internet with their half-baked opinions and edgy takes on things

- oppose dissenting opinions and dismiss any criticism at all (blocking and reporting)

- want to indoctrinate children with what they believe— the younger they can “get” to them, the better

- complain they are being "oppressed" if anyone points out how ludicrous their views are

- think their personal beliefs should affect the laws of entire countries

- get fucked in the ass by other men

 

[Antenna7]

That's not it. As I understand it the Church was founded by Jesus, and He remains at it's head, the High Priest. The Apostles were commissioned to spread the Gospel, to build up the Church, it later wrote down those accounts and important letters and teachings, some of which were widely considered God's word from the first decades of the Church, some of which took a century or more to gain wide acceptance. Minority opinions questioning some of the texts, including about the book of Revelation I quoted above did persist much longer.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/translations-of-the-hebrew-bible-are-not-correct/

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

The problem I have with Christianity, is that the first "Pope" was in 33 AD. However the Bible used today is based on the collection of works organized and chosen by scholars commissioned by King James in 1604.

Who decides what goes into the Bible, and what doesn't? Elites in the end.

No it wasn't. The canon was formed by the church community over the first several centuries. The four canonical Gospels were completely undisputed, as were most of Paul's letters. There were only a few books the were on the cusp (Revelation, The Shepard of Hermas, the Didacae). If anything the church erred too much on the side of INclusion (1 Timothy, for example, is almost certainly not written by Paul).

Many of the rejected books, usually called the Apocrypha, survived and can still be read today. I encourage everyone to do so. They're not nearly as interesting as people imagine. They weren't rejected for political reasons, they were rejected because they're fake and gay and everybody knew it. (With a couple exceptions that were NOT fake and gay, but were rejected due to authorship issues.)

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/translations-of-the-hebrew-bible-are-not-correct/

All translations of everything ever are imperfect and incomplete. What's your point?

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Bodily Resurrection is not Gnostic, so the healing and perfected physical body we will receive for heaven if we die in God's Kindness would be just another trap for them. In Christianity in contrast:
Revelation 21:3-4 and I heard a great voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.”

Always interpreted the concept as meaning the flesh was evil. Grew up with a very disabled mom, so that could be why. She always talks about how she can't wait to get her perfect Heavenly body. Hard to not get that idea in such circumstances.

 

[Antenna7]

All translations of everything ever are imperfect and incomplete. What's your point?

I'd say basing a world religion on an incomplete and imperfect translation is fraught with pitfalls. As whoever is control of the Religion, decides how the translation goes, whats kept in, whats removed. Which is why I see the Bible as a guideline to Christianity. Who knows whats been done?

May as well go looking for independent researchers translations of the original gospel manuscripts. And compare them with each other.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Always interpreted the concept as meaning the flesh was evil. Grew up with a very disabled mom, so that could be why. She always talks about how she can't wait to get her perfect Heavenly body. Hard to not get that idea in such circumstances.

A lot of churches do teach that kind of thing, but it's mostly a result of Platonism seeping into early Christianity in a way that the church has never quite shaken off. I was raised the same way. Not necessarily thinking the flesh is evil, but at the very least, that it's false and temporary. The flesh AS WE HAVE IT NOW is corrupt and mortal, but God created Adam and Eve with physical bodies and said that it was good. Somebody, we'll be raised from the dead, but not as disembodied spirits. We'll be given incorruptible bodies like the one Jesus was raised with, but they'll be physical. More than physical. That's where the project of Eden was always going until it got derailed.

I'd say basing a world religion on an incomplete and imperfect translation is fraught with pitfalls. As whoever is control of the Religion, decides how the translation goes, whats kept in, whats removed. Which is why I see the Bible as a guideline to Christianity. Who knows whats been done?

May as well go looking for independent researchers translations of the original gospel manuscripts. And compare them with each other.

We know pretty damn well, actually. Do you think that someone doing a new translation starts with the KJV or NIV? They start with critically reconstructed Greek texts, such as the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (and I assume there's something similar for the Old Testament but I'm less familiar with it). We don't have the original manuscripts. They're crumbled to dust. The earliest manuscripts we have are second century. The entire field of textual criticism is dedicated to reconstructing the original text, and figuring out how and why changes were made.

We don't have an exact reconstruction of the original text (and could never prove that we did), but even the majority of skeptical scholars will admit that we are really, really, REALLY close. There are maybe two or three places in the entire New Testament were there's both a dispute on what the original text said, and the dispute is about something that actually matters. None of these affect core doctrines like the Resurrection.

And if you don't trust one translation, check another one. Read a lexicon. Learn Koine Greek. Learn about Roman and Jewish culture. There are some doctrinal disputes about translations, but again, very few of them touch on core beliefs. Instead it's mostly things like the role of women in the church.

 

[Antenna7]

And if you don't trust one translation, check another one. Read a lexicon. Learn Koine Greek. Learn about Roman and Jewish culture.

You really think the average Christian is like that? From your post, you've demonstrated you probably know more and thought about it more than 70% of practicing Christians.

And I am not Christian, I barely know shit about it. I just know everything is capable of being spun, whether it the news media, or religion.

 

[ITK]

However the Bible used today is based on the collection of works organized and chosen by scholars commissioned by King James in 1604.

Who decides what goes into the Bible, and what doesn't? Elites in the end.

Do you think there were no Bibles prior to 1604? No Bibles in other countries? How would scholars in England decide what goes into the Bible in other countries? Protestant Bibles lack books, it is true. After the Reformation certain books were declared apocryphal and often not included in new prints. The Protestant canon has 66 books, the Catholic 73, and the Orthodox 79. All of these are readily available to you. The Bible is one of the most heavily copied books in history--probably the most in fact. In English alone there are hundred of translations, and they are based on manuscripts that go back to the early church. The Bible hasn't arived to us from copy through copy throughout the ages, we still have the earliest manuscripts. We know what the earliest Bibles looked like. The Gospels in their more or less modern form can be traced back to a couple decades after the ascension of Jesus.

A lot of churches do teach that kind of thing, but it's mostly a result of Platonism seeping into early Christianity in a way that the church has never quite shaken off.

Plato is to the gentiles what John the Baptist is to the Jews: a morningstar that heralds and prepares the way for the the Sun that is the Christ. Though Plotinus famously declared "I am ashamed to exist in a body", it is false to think that Platonism is against the body or the physical, especially considering the term matter didn't even exist yet and the gods and spirits are clearly described as being corporeal, though of a finer and more subtle sort.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

You really think the average Christian is like that? From your post, you've demonstrated you probably know more and thought about it more than 70% of practicing Christians.

And I am not Christian, I barely know shit about it. I just know everything is capable of being spun, whether it the news media, or religion.

Again, what's your point? You're making claims about church history and Biblical literature. Some of them are incorrect and I've tried to show why. What the average person knows or doesn't know makes no difference here.

Plato is to the gentiles what John the Baptist is to the Jews: a morningstar that heralds and prepares the way for the the Sun that is the Christ. Though Plotinus famously declared "I am ashamed to exist in a body", it is false to think that Platonism is against the body or the physical, especially considering the term matter didn't even exist yet and the gods and spirits are clearly described as being corporeal, though of a finer and more subtle sort.

I don't think that Plato was malicious or stupid or anything, far from it. Just that his dualism was a wrong conception of the universe that, for reasons that had nothing to do with him directly, ended up being a major influence on early-ish Christianity. Judaism placed a strong emphasis on the realness and goodness of the physical world (with some exceptions like Philo). From what I know about Plato (and I'm not an expert), he does seem to have believed in some form of a "ghost in the machine" type of spirit, of which the body was the prison house. He seems to have believed in some form of reincarnation, which I'd say would require some sort of disembodied spirit to be the "real" person.

But if I'm wrong about this, explain further.

 

[ITK]

I don't think that Plato was malicious or stupid or anything, far from it. Just that his dualism was a wrong conception of the universe that, for reasons that had nothing to do with him directly, ended up being a major influence on early-ish Christianity. Judaism placed a strong emphasis on the realness and goodness of the physical world (with some exceptions like Philo). From what I know about Plato (and I'm not an expert), he does seem to have believed in some form of a "ghost in the machine" type of spirit, of which the body was the prison house. He seems to have believed in some form of reincarnation, which I'd say would require some sort of disembodied spirit to be the "real" person.

But if I'm wrong about this, explain further.

One of the things Plotinus brought up in the Enneads was how the Gnostics had corrupted Platonism by positing Creation, and the Demiurge, as evil things, but this is not the case for Plato. The Demiurge is a benevolent being and "matter" is inferior in a hierarchical sense, but still good. "Ghost in the machine" is more of a Cartesian concept which I don't think you can apply to the Ancients, but he did mention reincarnation, though how literally you want to take that is another matter.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

One of the things Plotinus brought up in the Enneads was how the Gnostics had corrupted Platonism by positing Creation, and the Demiurge, as evil things, but this is not the case for Plato. The Demiurge is a benevolent being and "matter" is inferior in a hierarchical sense, but still good. "Ghost in the machine" is more of a Cartesian concept which I don't think you can apply to the Ancients, but he did mention reincarnation, though how literally you want to take that is another matter.

Fair enough.

 

[Antenna7]

Again, what's your point?

When are the Christians gonna take out those practicing Judaism?

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? John 7:19

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44

 

[Soggy paper straw]

Because they don't worship the same God.

Why is there conflict between Muslims and Christians?