You are evil.

My favorite Pope Francis quote is when he analogized trannys to nuclear explosives.

If you want kids, have kids and do everything you can to give them a good life.

Don't let the deepstate rob you of your desired life, and by extension, your potential kids of any life.

As far as history is concerned, things are exceptionally easy right now. People have had it much worse than we do. We only exist because they had kids anyway, suffered through hardships in the process, and if anything they were stronger because of it.

Indeed; it's quite unfortunate to see the same kind of tribalist shit that the left engages in happening here.

If Q is connected to someone channeling demons (it isn't), that isn't a good thing.

Not all patterns are relevant. Not all patterns matter. Not all patterns are real.

We can find patterns anywhere, but coincidences ARE real, and sometimes the patterns we draw are just figments of our imagination, or massive straw-grasps. It's simply the way the brain works.

All that matters is God and what He tells us, and God is quite clear on matters of channeling.

And as an aside, listening to all sides is an extremely bad practice, in my opinion. It's all good and fine to think that I could listen to Satan himself and not be deceived since I know who he is, but is that true? To so confidently say yes would suggest to me a god complex and that one views oneself as perfect in their judgement. I am not the arbiter of truth, God is (and in my view, so many who think they worship God really just worship their own intellect).

Really, demons should be ignored, as we know they will never tell us anything worth hearing. Anything they say will only serve evil. Listening to evil and incorporating it into our thinking will never lead to good. All it serves to do is warp and corrupt our minds.

Finally, I'd love to hear a cogent argument as to how my dichotomy is flawed. It's easy to dismiss people as "having their minds made up"; it's hard to actually present a case in favor of, or against, a concrete position. Maybe you have your mind "made up", but mine is fresh and ready for anything you can throw at it.

Individuals are always flawed.

As for the Church, I'd say two things (as a Catholic):

1. It's more likely for kids to be sexually abused in public schools by teachers

2. A handful of gay priests doesn't invalidate the entire Church, particularly when their heresy is in no way acknowledged by the Church

To be clear, I point out the first one since it establishes that the "pedo church" shit is basically just slander by people who hate the Church. No one who says this ever points out public schools/teachers, because it's not about the kids for them, but about being against the Church. And the multitude of pedos in all Christian denominations are also always ignored.

So I disagree; the doctrine of the Church is perfect. Imperfect men being in positions of power (where God placed them) does not change this.

Have fun crying foul (shill) at everyone with a different opinion.

Isn't going to stop people from objecting to a prayer which is by its nature Satanic. You can disagree because it "sounds fine", but that doesn't change the reality of the prayer.

The only argument that could be made is that Flynn didn't know the source, heard it from somewhere, and ultimately just liked how it sounded and thought the message was good. Fair enough if that's the defense, but calling anyone a shill who doesn't accept your (cult-like) evangelization of Flynn when it's based on defending the Satanic prayer isn't going to get you very far; certainly not among discerning Christians who keep an eye out for these things but who may otherwise be open to the idea that Flynn meant well.

She either lied about channeling the Archangel Michael, or she mistook the demon that she channeled for same.

There are no other options.

And personally, I don't like to just outright deny metaphysical claims, so I'd lean towards her channeling a demon over making it up. And at that point, to listen to her may as well be to listen to a demon.

but i know... lemme repeat, KNOW....

How? Intuition? Or something else? I'm open to whatever reasoning you use to arrive at this conclusion, I'm just curious.

Certainly. Our nature doesn't change, but our appearance does. We become "like" God.

Maybe water would be a good analogy. Water can be as stone (ice), or as air (steam), but it is not ultimately these things in its nature. It is distinct while still sharing in the characteristics of those things.

I think misunderstanding this distinction is where the people saying we truly are, or become, God go wrong. The Bible tells us we "partake in the divine nature", not that we become or possess the divine nature inherently.

Fair point, but the verse in Genesis 1 still demonstrates the original purpose of creation, which still validates my point. I merely intended to point out that it's unfair to suggest that it's some inherent evil to exert dominion over the world.

Bringing order to chaos (nature) is a good thing, and God wants us to do it. The world does not belong to nature, nature belongs, rightfully, to us (God made it to give to us, and God's will doesn't change).

I'd say it's also important to consider that the Bible was given to us for a purpose, and this happened after sin. It's not like that verse was written right when it happened. Everything in the Bible teaches us something about God, creation, ourselves, etc. So this tells us that it is an inherent moral good to exert our will over nature. It can't be bad, or God would never have told us to do it.

Most food isn't actually food, but instead poison for the masses.

The only hilarious copium is to pretend that all "food" today is created equal and that all of the places that make it are worth keeping around.

Evil cannot prevail no matter what we do.

This almost sounds like some "we are God" stuff where "God" only works if enough people do something.

Can't say I'm a fan of the idea, but at least it's quick... usually...

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

The world belongs to us, and we belong to God. We rule the Earth, and God rules us.

Firstly, I find it kind of silly you were downvoted. While blunt, your comment rings true.

Secondly, why is his post not based in reality?

The "enemies" I was thinking of when bringing up those verses are "the wicked". The ones that you seem to be suggesting can't be saved and who are good for nothing except to make examples of.

Judging DC and San Francisco in such a way right now, while just, would deprive all who reside there of any further chance to repent. And maybe they don't deserve that chance, but God is merciful and gives us all that chance anyway.

If society at large can't get gender right, none of that other shit matters, and society will collapse in the end regardless.

Now that you mention it, it is pretty incredible how pervasive the terminology of the movie is throughout society.

Without it, people would be clambering to put into words things that are perfectly encapsulated by the movie and hence by the terms it uses.

Matthew 5:43-48 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I suppose it's just the difference in perspective, then. The way I see it, if we are to obey the government, that makes government, or at the very least obeying it, an inherent good.

I guess I just felt like commenting since I know that a lot of people on here are Christian, though they then turn around and subscribe to what seems like a vehemently anti-government position. And fair enough, our government sucks so bad that it's not unreasonable to start to just hate the mere concept of anyone telling you what to do. It's an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, which is certainly valid.

And really, this isn't like some imperfect Christian led government trying to do their best. Why should we listen to people who literally worship Satan? So on the one hand, I agree with a lot of what people say, but on the other hand, I also want to adhere to God's will which seems pretty unwavering on the subject of authority.

(I made a somewhat separate, more religious, and what I believe to be better and more concise argument at the bottom (in contrast with my original argument which is intended as more of a logical and historical argument). If my admittedly overly dense reply is too off-putting, feel free to just read that. Or just read nothing and leave if you don't think it's worth the time anymore; you do you man.)

Government defines crime. If government is itself coercion, then coercion can't be a crime. Truly, there is only one law: God's law. And He tells us to obey the government. Any other concept of "natural law", at least when not rooted in God's law, is the subjective opinion of the person philosophizing on it.

Now, knowingly injecting yourself with poison would be defiling the body. This is a sin. The only government laws that can be justly ignored are ones which require the individual to personally sin. It couldn't be any other way, because if it were, we'd be ignoring superior commands of God to not sin. But in lieu of a certain law requiring us to sin, the commandment to obey the government applies.

The Gospels take great care to consistently blame the Jews for demanding the Romans to kill Christ. The Romans aren't really blamed all that much, and Jesus shows more respect for a Roman soldier than for the Pharisees. They didn't really want to kill Him, and simply didn't care, for the most part. In this case, ironically enough, the government was coerced into killing Christ since if they didn't, they'd have a Jewish revolt on their hands. It was wrong and corrupt, but it was easier to appease the people by killing who they thought was just some man than to risk unrest.

And this extreme anti-government view is not based in reality, from my perspective at least. There have absolutely been good governments that lead to good societies. We live in extremely immoral times, things were invariably better through most of human history. The only problem is just that these good governments don't last. The thing is, they will never last. It's not about finding a good system that lasts forever, it's about finding the system that has the best trade off between how long it stays good and how bad the fallout is before recovery to a good system.

A system that produces a golden age for 1000 years but kills 3 billion people out of 8 billion when it falls is far worse than a system that produces a golden age for 300 years but only kills 12 people out of 8 billion when it collapses, for example. Still 12 people too many, but not nearly as heinous, and works much better in the long run.

Further, there's a reason you don't see societies with no or minimal government. They either don't last or don't work, though to be honest there isn't really a difference. It's the same reason we don't see any longstanding societies that tolerate homosexuality: it just doesn't work. They both inevitably lead to the same kind of moral degeneracy that collapsed the Roman Empire.

And where am I being unclear? The government can not compel us to sin. That is it. All other laws are to be followed. Get the hell out of here with this "murder children" shit.

Now, this doesn't mean we can't try to change laws, as in our system we have the ability to do so by voting in different people, but disobeying laws we don't like as an act of civil disobedience is not Christian. Disobeying laws that compel us to sin, and accepting the worldly punishment for doing so, certainly is Christian, however.

Ultimately, it's not hard. It's not subjective. It just requires the question of "would it be a sin for me to do this".

And please, since you glossed over my point on this, explain to me how a good society can run on the "peace and love" hippie crap when we have homeless people shitting in the streets and shooting up heroin in democrat run cities. These people aren't victims of government, everyone else are victims of a lack of competent government in these cities.

Again, these people aren't doing anything directly to anyone else, other than being disgusting in public. So unless you think that should be tolerated, we already have an example where government is necessary to impose decency through the legislation of morality.

-------------------Addendum-------------------

I'd also add that the extreme anti-government sentiment is wholly unchristian. Where is this in the Bible? Where does God tell us this is what He wants from us? He doesn't. It's just people imposing their will and their views onto God so that they can keep their beliefs compatible instead of choosing one.

Instead, we are told things like in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

And then there is 1 Peter 2:18-25

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if a man for conscience toward God endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when you be buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? but if, when you do well, and suffer for it, you take it patiently, this is commendable with God. For even to this were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judges righteously: Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

We are consistently called to suffer for God, just as He suffered for us. Christ was our perfect model to live by, and He didn't revolt against an unjust government, He ceded to their authority. He allowed Himself to be killed, though not until the appointed time, for a greater purpose.

And to be clear, this obviously has to be reconciled with the commands to not sin. The only real good way to view this is that we're being told primarily to not sin, and secondarily to obey government. The Bible does this frequently. Commands are made as absolute, but there's nuance that has to be deduced to know what is actually being said.

Ignoring what the passage says is akin to saying that when the bible calls homosexuality an abomination, it doesn't really mean it.

There's no two ways about what is being said, as is the case in many passages. The obvious solution here is that the Bible is right while you are wrong, and that when it says you will purchase damnation for disobeying the government, it means that government is an inherent good (when rightly ordered). Also, how can one disobey every worldly authority and then honestly claim that they'd "obey God and only God".

Further, it is patently obvious that permissiveness and "freedom to do whatever I want" doesn't lead to moral societies. Having the freedom to shoot up heroin on the streets while taking a shit has destroyed democrat-run cities, despite the fact that neither of those things "enslave, harm, steal from, or tyrannize those you love". In short, I've never seen an example of a morally permissive society that was successful long term.

Regulations are not sinful. It is not a sin for the government to require a license to fish, for example, and it is also not a sin to get such a license. Therefore, it is a sin to not obey such a law. The same goes for harmful business regulations. It's not great, and the laws should be changed, but until such a time they should be obeyed since it's not a sin to follow such regulations (generally).

Ultimately, the government compelling doctors to inject poison into people is one thing. The government doing shit we don't like is another. Whether we like it or not, and I'm sure this won't be popular around here, the Christian answer is to obey such laws, not disobey them "because freedom". Changing them is obviously preferable.

Edit to add: The Bible is perfect, unchanged, and scribes didn't mess it up. God made sure of this, since if He didn't the Bible would be useless.

Edit 2: I'd also point out that there are plenty of cases of seemingly conflicting verses in the Bible. They always can be reconciled, and in this case, the reconciliation of Romans 13 with verses like John 13:34-35 is that government is good and loving each other isn't actually the only thing to do. The point is just that without love, all the other laws are useless.

Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.

Naturally, we are not to obey any laws which would cause us to sin, but outside of this, we are called to obey the government.

Romans 13 tells us that the State is good and that we are to obey it.