I'd say there is a bit of a difference with 4chan and this place.
If we were strictly talking 4chan, I'd agree with you.
Depends on who I hear it from. Trust but verify.
If I hear something from someone I trust, I'm not going to assume it is bullshit, especially if it sounds perfectly credible.
Simply living life requires believing so much shit without evidence that it would be absurdly hypocritical for me to selectively choose when I dub things bullshit based on lack of evidence.
One either rejects everything that has evidence, or one accepts that there are things that one can believe without 100%, undeniable, hard evidence.
As for this story, I find it unlikely that someone would make up this particular story with this level of detail. Whether the original poster or whoever he heard it from. It doesn't really seem to serve a purpose, unless Mel or someone who likes him made it up to make him sound like a good guy.
Based on that and based on what my intuition tells me in this instance, I lean towards tentatively believing that the story is true.
Rejecting everything you hear unless there is 100% undeniable evidence is no better than accepting everything you hear without evidence.
"Everyone is against child sex trafficking"
bashes the movie against child sex trafficking
Average Redditor.
The 1000s-year-old death cult did not become a 1000s-year-old death cult by getting cocky.
The amazing thing about this site over Reddit is that more than two posts can be stickied, so there is no real downside to stickying a shitpost here and there.
That is what I said. Maybe poorly, and I'll admit the phrasing of "putting faith in the cabal" may have been a miss in terms of my intended meaning.
I'll rephrase it:
You either have a greater faith in God's power to preserve His Word, or you have a greater faith in the cabal's ability to change it.
And the answer is you can't; you can't trust anything in the world, but you can trust in God, and by extension, His infallible revelation to Man.
The notion that the Bible has been changed is rooted solely in a lack of faith in God to preserve it, while also giving the cabal more credit than they deserve in comparison to Him.
To me, this is the most illogical position one could hold, hence why I believe it to be solely a lack of faith. The idea that the all-powerful creator of time, space, and matter, who exists outside of His creation, could fail to preserve His revelation to us if He willed it? This is absurdity. How could such a thing even be possible?
Here's a question. If you believe scripture to be twisted, this means you believe it was originally from God, correct? So is the part where it says God will preserve His word from God or from the cabal? Did the cabal put it in so we would believe their corrupted version and think it infallible? But why wouldn't God say the same thing? Surely if the all-knowing creator decided to give us revelation about Him, He wouldn't just allow these people to twist it? Especially since He knows full well that is their plan if He allows them to.
So why is it so hard to believe God preemptively told us He would preserve His Word, and to further believe that He actively does so?
You can put your faith in God's power, or you can put your faith in the cabal's power.
You can pick only one.
That our salvation is through faith in Christ, and not works, does not give us license to sin all we want and ignore anything the Bible calls us to do that we don't like.
Irrelevant. What Muslims do in their Satan-created religion does not matter to Christians. In fact, it further confirms that what you speak is of Satan, not God.
(Also, as an aside: Christian France? Don't make me laugh. The west has barely a glimmer of Christian thought among it. Most people are lukewarm or outright deny the divinity and truth of God)
The Bible says to hate sin. What is your point? Your point relies on inserting things that it doesn't say as an extension of what it does say. Seeing as all Man is sinful, this is bound to lead not away from sin but to it.
Further, I love that you brought up "buy a sword". I figured you would. It illustrates beautifully your lack of perspective on this issue. The reason being that when Peter used the sword, Jesus rebuked him and healed the man's ear. Clearly He did not intend them to take up swords to slay their enemies. Jesus explicitly states the reason for the swords, which is to fulfill the scripture as written.
Jesus brings a sword because He is God. As God says in the Bible, vengeance is His. You are not challenging my primary assertions such as this.
There is nothing to grapple with. Christ won 2000 years ago. Nothing they do will change that, and winning is not possible for the followers of Satan. You make these grand assertions that are simply not true. Namely, that God lied or failed when He said he would preserve His word, which is effectively a requirement for the assertion that Christianity has been "infiltrated" to be true. If the Word is preserved, no infiltration is possible or is very hard. We can simply read the Word of God and see what it says.
What you are talking about is simply not in the Bible, and you've made barely a reference to scripture to support your claim that it is. There is no weaponization here, I just don't see much support if any for violence in the Bible. There is certainly some stuff that alludes to self-defense being valid if it is the only way, but to extend that to your 'holy crusades are valid' narrative is arbitrary and unsupported by the Bible. There are cases where the death penalty is doled out, but that again is a far cry from the 'holy crusades' idea where doing what the Muslims do for their god Satan is somehow a good thing.
Even when it comes to the death penalty, while I still currently support it for the most heinous of crimes, I'm not aware of any support for it in the New Testament. Whereas the NT reasserts many things, the death penalty it does not reassert. It reasserts that homosexuality is bad, but does not reassert that the death penalty is to be doled out for it.
I generally look to this, at least initially, as a simple way to determine if something from the Old Testament still applies. Certain things were explicitly said to no longer matter; circumcision, dietary laws. Certain things were explicitly reiterated as bad; homosexuality, murder, lying, lust. Then there are some things that were neither. I find that to answer those questions you look to the rest of the Bible. And when you do this you don't find holy crusades, you find this: https://www.openbible.info/topics/revenge
Romans 12:20-21 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Another thing I'd add is that it is quite ironic you bring up infiltration. Earlier I said, infiltration is not possible without God having lied or failed regarding preserving His Word. While this is true, there was a time when the Catholic Church had a stranglehold on the Bible and the faith to the point they did away with anyone who disagreed with them. While God did not fail, and the Bible was preserved, it was hard for a time to easily access it for most people.
Point being, the way I currently see it is that the Catholic Church infiltrated Christianity, churned out a bunch of Pharisaic, false doctrines, and what you are espousing now is the last dying breath of those doctrines.
The evangelicals of today started when people realized that the Bible didn't say what the Church said it did. They didn't make up a bunch of new shit, they went back to the good old stuff from before the Catholic Church took over the whole thing. They realized that what the Church was teaching was not in the Bible. They read the Bible and did what it said.
*1 Peter 3:8-18
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9 not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11 let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.*
13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15 but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Our ultimate goal is to emulate Christ, as He was perfect, is it not? How then does anything other than pacifism, which I myself struggle with calling valid, as it seems to contradict our natural inclinations as humans, emulate Christ?
At the very least, they move NATO away from their capital and more key points of interest within the country
No, it isn't. That the Catholic Church had a stranglehold on the faith and the Bible for some 1000 years does not make any of this new. Nor does them "removing" anyone who disagreed with their interpretation mean those people didn't continue to exist throughout the ages.
Further, none of this is true unless you make scripture out of single verses. This is not how the Bible is to be read. Since the Bible can not contradict itself, it must be read as a whole. It doesn't matter if you can jumble together a few dozen verses that could be said to justify all that shit, if even one verse truly says you are wrong, you are shit out of luck on your supposedly valid reading.
When read as a whole, it is impossible to get any of this warmonger shit where we launch 'holy crusades' against evil people and act as Knights in shining armor fighting evil.
When God says not to get revenge and to leave vengeance to Him in the OT, and then reiterates in the NT to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies, and to leave vengeance to Him, it's quite clear what kind of message is being given on the whole.
Their obligation is to fuck off and let people do as they please with the information provided to them.
I was talking about the shit he made up regarding people claiming that God loves them more based on them not getting the clot shot.
That shit was hardly sarcasm, more like strawman fantasy.
I was very specifically responding to the strawman-esque shit about the idea of people claiming that God loves them more for making the right choice.
Nobody says that shit, and nobody probably even thinks it, either.
Also, calling pride a sin is overly simplistic.
I've always found the pureblood shit to be retarded as well, to be fair. And I generally find the people you talk about to sound pretty unreasonable.
And while I'll be the first one to call out people using God as some kind of bludgeon against others, when there isn't actually anyone doing what is being claimed (as in the above case) it ends up seeming more like an attack on God instead of a pushing back of hypocrites.
And none of the rest of the nonsense he wrote has. Clearly I was responding to the nonsense about people claiming that God loves them more than anyone else.
Which time is the first? The first time he said his original belief? Or the first time he said his changed belief?
You want it to be simple when it isn't.
Oh no! How terrible! The local bakery created a theocracy by deciding to only serve Christians!
…
Guess I’ll just open one that serves everyone, single-handedly save my town from the newly imposed theocracy, and make triple the money he does while I’m at it…
Nobody says or thinks this though. You just made it up.
I'm amazed at how many people seem to believe that some DNA fuckery by a bunch of satanist losers is more powerful than God and His desire for us to have a relationship with Him.
As if He would put in a single thing that Satan can turn off to prevent us from knowing Him.
God started the Jews young.
This shit is always nearly a decade old.
People who are not controlled can change their minds.
People who are controlled can be flipped.
God created Man in His image, not monkey.
In theory, sure. In practice, this is often a detrimental thing to do and depends strongly on the circumstances.