>If you don't believe in this nonsensical fairy tale you will burn in a pit forever even if you're an otherwise moral person>If you just believe in jesus but are otherwise a piece of shit you're goldenDo I have this right?
>>10510212Yes, and you can cope and seethe about it all you want. It is what the Bible tells us.
I think it's implied that genuine belief in God turns you into a good person
>>10510250Seething. I don't do sin because I believeth on my Lord and Saviour unlike heathens like you.
>>10510254They were plent of non-christians who were universally recognized as very virtuous and good persons by christians. Dante put a lot of memorable pre-christians figures in the Elysian Field, a very comfy place whose only imperfection is an incomplete beautitude, as God is not there
>>10510212Martin Luther was a faggot. I blame him for moral relativism.
>>10510242The Bible also tells us that faith without works is dead. You go to hell for committing sins.
>>10510261>treating bible as ultimate arbiter of God's will
>>10510254So what's the difference between sola fide and catholic teachings?
>>10510212all interpretations of Christianity are oversimplified horseshit
>>10510304the more you read about what both sides actually said and their arguments, the more you realise it's mostly semantics
>>10510212He gets history mogged by Martin Luther King Jr.
luther committed suicide
>>10510304Sola fide is for more high IQ people like Germanic while Cath*lic teachings are for the less intelligent humans who need everything explained to them.
>>10510304Catholics believe you have to actually be a good person. Protacucks think you can be as shitty as you want and still get to heaven.>>10510333>Not even answering the question
>>10510348Catholics are hateful anti-semites while protestants help and support the people of the books, Jews.
>>10510348>Protacucks think you can be as shitty as you want and still get to heaven.This, prots are embarrassing
>>10510375I can see your nose from all the way over here.
>>10510348>Catholics believe you have to actually be a good person. Protacucks think you can be as shitty as you want and still get to heaven.would somebody who actually had faith continue to act like a shitty person?maybe someone who took Pascal's Wager might, but if you willingly continue to act like a shitty person after becoming "faithful" chances are you're not taking your "faith" seriously
>>10510212We are all pieces of shit, the goal is to stop judging, thus removing all jealosy, anger and hate in your heart. Turn your hardened stony heart into a living fleshy one. Once you believe on Jesus, it is enough.
>>10510324once america collapses noone will remember this guy
>>10510980Humility is one thing, saying good works are pointless and not pleasing to God (they are) is another.
>>10510778Why is it necessary for one of the faithful to not act like a shitty person? After all he is faithful and faith is enough, eh prottie?
>>10510212No, and you should be embarrassed that you can't distinguish between faith alone and antinomianism
>>10512756He came up with sola fide on the toilet
>>10510242then what's the point
>>10512769You should also be embarrassed that you're perpetuating such a ridiculous mythhttps://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/10/luther-tower-bathroom-and-faith-alone.html?m=1
>>10513603If a man has no works that faith cannot save him
>>10513742But you said only faith can save ("sola fide")
>>10513779Yes, and these two things do not contradict
>>10513875Yes they do, since if you need works to save you it's not "faith alone" anymoreJust face it prot your doctrine is retarded, unscriptural, unpatristic, and you're just going through mental gymnastics to defend it
>>10513992You don't understand the basic definition of sola fide
>>10514106https://www.theopedia.com/faith-aloneIt does not follow from James 2 that works contribute to our justification. James informs us that a faith without works is an unsaving faith.
>>10514156You're contradicting yourself.>It does not follow from James 2 that works contribute to our justification. James informs us that a faith without works is an unsaving faith.So faith with works is a saving faith. So works do contribute to our justification. QED. Are prots just really bad at logic?
>>10514156>It does not follow from James 2 that works contribute to our justification.“And when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then will He sit upon His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on His left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, neither did you do it to Me.’ And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Mat 25:31-46
>>10514233cont.So basically, good works (I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’) -> ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world". Works justifies. I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ -> ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angelsChristianity is not just a "belief" of nice thoughts and words, it's a lifestyle that you put into action. One has to do good works, otherwise all of the teachings and commandments would be pointless if you can just ignore them.
>>10510270>muh Dante He’s one man, and hardly a true theologianBesides they’re in purgatory not the earthly paradise
>>10514253Fuck I meant limbo but you get the idea
>>10514214Yes, faith that results in works is saving faith. Also, we are saved by grace, through faith, not of works. The works do not contribute to the justification.>>10514233>>10514246No, it does not follow from these that works justify. Ephesians 2.Both of you are criticizing antinomianism, not sola fide.
>>10514316>No, it does not follow from these that works justify.Yes it does dude, holy fuck. He spells it out for you clearly, good works->enter heaven, absence of good works->go to hell.
>>10514341And it's not even the only time. For example he says Zacchaeus has been saved only after he says he donates half his wealth to the poor and gives back whatever he swindled. If Zacchaeus hadn't made some gesture of repentance I doubt he would have claimed he was saved.
>>10514341We are saved by grace, through faith, not of works.Are you even reading what I'm saying?
>>10514367You need all three: grace (delivered through the sacraments and participation in Church), faith, AND works, in order to obtain salvation. Ephesians 2:10 "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works". Created for good works. What's so hard to understand? This isn't something I just decided on my own btw, it's literally out of my catechism. And James 2 elaborates extensively on why faith without works is dead and insufficient, but you stick your head in the sand and ignore that.
>>10514391I understand you perfectly and I disagree. You're fundamentally misunderstanding me.What you said is incompatible with verses 8 and 9 "NOT of works".
>>10510212Men go to hell because of their sin against a self evident God, but God chooses to save some people through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and gives those people the gift of faith. Jesus paid for the sins of those “shitty” people who deserve hell just as much as everyone else
>>10514391James also mentions the demons believing in God so this is an intellectual faith not a trusting faith James is talking about, works are a sign of someone who truly believes, but those works don’t save or condemn a true believer Aquinas talked about people unconditionally elected and given perseverance, reformed folk take John at his word in his epistle that if you believe in Jesus Christ, you are one of those people.
>>10514402Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of My Father in heaven.
>>10514434if you believe and do not act you're no different than the demons, you missed the point of James
>>10514402You can disagree all you want but Luther himself disagrees with you:"Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life."Works are necessary to salvationWorks are necessary to salvationWorks are necessary to salvationWorks are necessary to salvation“The Disputation Concerning Justification,” LW, 165.
>>10514443Amen>>10514467That's exactly what I'm saying
>>10514472Ok. So then the "just believe in Jesus and you go to heaven even if you're still a pedophile serial killer" people are wrong?
>>10514489Yes obviouslyI said that from the outset >>10512756
>>10514447Paul said if a man works not but believes, that faith is accredited as righteousness Quotes Abraham’s faith James quotes Abraham offering his son as a work of faith Conclusion if you truly believe Your going to do good works If a man says he has faith, but has no works, he doesn’t have a saving faith but an intellectual one Rome wants to make this into a process that is my gripe with them
>>10514493You said no I'm wrong, so you disagree with me
>>10514505What did you say?
>>10514498>Quotes Abraham’s faithThe point wasn't Abraham's faith it's that he also went and showed his faith with works (he was willing to sacrifice his son)>Conclusion if you truly believe>Your going to do good works Not necessarily, see >>10514443 >>10514233. The goats that didn't do works still call Jesus Lord, implying they believe, yet did nothing about it
>>10514520If you read the lord lord passage you will see that the people who are told to depart are trying to justify themselves by their works instead of trusting in Christ As for the logic you have given of the parable that would mean anyone who did those good works would get to go to heaven, there is a deeper meaning to that one, which I will have to look into myself
>>10514520We've been over this several times itt. The faith that does not result in works is of a quality that doesn't save. It's false faith.
>>10514541Those people weren't doing good works, they were doing "dynameis"/δυνάμεις, that is, miracles or wondrous works. The point is doing amazing things but still being lawless or evil does not get you into heaven. You get in by being good, not by being a baller.>>10514544Exactly what I'm saying.
>>10514541No, the verse specifically says you have to DO the will of God (the Father)
>>10514586No, you're saying that works contribute towards salvation. Putting the cart before the horse.
>>10514607They do, cope.
>>10514611By grace, through faith, not of works
>>10514654Jesus also demanded good works to go along with faith. A man came up to Him with a question about eternal salvation. “Teacher,” he asked, “what good deed (ti agathon) must I do, to have eternal life?” Jesus did not send him away or correct him. He didn’t say: “You are asking the wrong question; you need only to believe in me and you will be saved.” Rather Jesus said to him: “Keep the commandments . . . You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Mat 19:16-19). Rather than separate faith and works, Jesus closely united the two as being definitive to Christian life.
>>10514728Yes, and this is what protestants teach
>>10514743not from what I saw in Chick tracts
>>10514752Chick tracts are not representative of Protestantism but I'm curious which chick tracts you're referring to
>>10514654"works" in this context refers to observing the Law, not good works. Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; James, that faith without works is dead>>10514756don't remember which one but they're all the same anyway. Guy lives a sinful life, sees something bad happen, becomes instantly "saved" and immediately "accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and savior" and gets on his knees and prays, just like that salvation is guaranteed, nothing else for the guy to do, no process of him becoming a better man or turning his life around. The last panel is either the guy on his knees praying or a judging God.
>>10514798Works immediately referred to the law but also means any good works like those of the new testament.>don't remember..This doesn't have anything to do with works and doesn't prove your point
>>10514848>Works immediately referred to the law yes>but also means any good works like those of the new testament.nodid you forget everything Jesus said about ethical works? also Paul's letters are in the new testament...
>>10514876No I didn't forget. What is your point?
>>10514895What does that have to do with the relationship of faith to works?
>>10514910works lead to it
>>10514654You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. James 2:24
>>10514950>What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? Why does he say, if someone "SAYS" he has faith, and "can THAT faith save him?" Papists deliberately misunderstand the solas.
>>10514950So you think ephesians 2 contradicts James 2?
>>10514950James was specifically trying to counter antinomianism. Paul was countering those who were preaching works righteousness. Faith without works is dead faith, Protestants have never been in denial of this. The antinomian position and the opposite position of works-righteousness have always been condemned by Protestant theologians. We are justified by faith alone, but that faith is not alone. Good works are the basis of our sanctification, not a basis of our justification.
>>10510212>If you don't believe in Jesus you burn in a pit forever because humans are default evil>If you really believe in Jesus you will try to correct your nature and your good spirited failings will be forgivenContext is everything,It was more about saying you don't have to pay the catholic priest a months wages not to burn in hell because you are a good christian but you forgot to say your prayers one night before bed.>>10510313Luther saw the coming protestant reformation and tried to fix the Catholics church's insane pay your way to heaven bullshit but they just ex-communicated him. On the surface it's semantics, underneath it was about indulgences. The church thought it could go on selling tickets to heaven forever, Luther and many others saw the system collapsing on the local level and tried to remedy the situation and Luther created this safe out for the church but they didn't take it and ran the indulgence thing into the ground.
>>10514966So explain the sola then.
>>10515007>Paul was countering those who were preaching works righteousness.No, Paul was countering those who were preaching Law righteousness (cirumcision, dietary laws, festivals).
"Some say that if Paul is right in asserting that no one is justified by the works of the law but from faith in Christ, the patriarchs and prophets and saints who lived before Christ were imperfect. We should tell such people that those who are said not to have obtained righteousness are those who believe that they can be justified by works alone. The saints who lived long ago, however, were justified from faith in Christ, seeing that Abraham saw in advance Christ's day." - St. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2:16, Migne PL 26:343C-D,
thank you participants in this thread for demonstrating quite convincingly that this entire conflict is over semantics
>>10517581Are you trying to be snide? Obviously a religion based on interpreting a holy book is going to base it's theology on the application of the text.
>>10517614This is a common error made by prots. Christianity is not the religion of the Bible, it's the religion of Christ. The Bible is just an instrument of the Church, as are the various liturgical texts, patriotic commentaries, and other writings.
>>10510212He was a germoid and a protestant. Why would you expect him to ever say anything accurate, interesting, or even just generally non-horrific?
>>10517646This is a common error made by ecaths. Catholic theology isn't a based, trad, unchanging religion where the clergy hold divine power and can even hold power over scripture.In the real world, the catholic view is that the Bible is uniquely special revelation while the pope can on extremely rare occasions make statements as authoritative equal with scripture. Everything else is tradition or based on exposition of scripture, like the liturgy being a formation of scripture.Everything in the catholic catechism appeals to scripture for it's argument. Patristic or modern commentaries are expositions of scripture.
>>10517614I wasn't trying to be snide, but as a non christian reading these arguments it seemed to me the essence of your two sides were exactly the same and you were just obstinately insisting on disagreeing about the choice of semantics.>>10517646another perfect example. maybe as vapid as insisting the harry potter fandom is not a fandom of the book series, but of the characters therein.
>>10517724Ok, then you're just mistaken. There is substantive difference between the debate that salvation is by faith alone or by faith and works.
>>10517741I don't think so, because the prot in this thread (maybe you,but probably not) insists repeatedly,confusingly that he believes works are necessary but also that faith/grace is what saves. it's just an extra semantic layer to disagree about.
>>10517759Those are non contradicting statements
>>10510212This is why Protestantism is so damaging. Their ridiculous doctrines make Christianity look awful. Sola Fide is contradicted many times over in scripture, the best example is Matthew 25:31-46> When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
>>10517772This does not contradict sola fide, it contradicts antinomianism
>>10517767yes, hence my point that you two only disagree on semantics my guy.
>>10517828NoThe catholic believes salvation is dependent (in part) on your works. You "merit for yourself" grace needed for salvation. The protestant believes salvation is wholly dependent on your faith, not contingent on works. Additionally, those who are truly regenerate will show works AFTER regeneration that evidence their faith.
>>10517867I'm not sure how you two managed to pull me into this but consider this my exit :) thanks for the ride
The only redeeming feature about Luther is that he hated Jews. Otherwise, he was one crazy SOB. Like many Protestants.
>>10510212>>If you don't believe in this nonsensical fairy tale you will burn in a pit forever even if you're an otherwise moral personWhere did you even get the impression that Sola Fide was specifically targetting non-christians? It automatically discards them to be sure, but still a brainlet take.
>>10518036>Why do you think that this thing that clearly targets X was meant to target X?>I mean it clearly fucks X over, and there is no other way to interpret it that doesn't fuck X in every way possible, but that doesn't mean it targets X!You're in no position to call anyone a brainlet.
>>10512756Modern Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, mainly Baptists and Nondenominationalists, all endorse Free Grace theology, AKA Easy Believism, which is literally antinomianism. They take Arminianism and add Calvinistic eternal security and create a monstrous soteriology where everyone chooses to be saved and can even know they are saved as soon as they believe, and can't lose their salvation no matter what happens. Then they go around bullying Arminians and Calvinists and everyone else as being too "works oriented." Imagine that. Protestantism literally gets worse and worse with time and now it's hit rock bottom. FUCK Anne Hutchinson and FUCK John Nelson Darby, those two assholes are responsible for this crap and now everyone else has to deal with the bullshit fallout.
>>10518566>imagine having to deal with anglo protestant theologyEuropean protestants invented the enlightenment. What did american protestants do?
>>10518566Easy believism is unpopular among evangelicals. Type in "free grace" on any search engine and all the detracting articles are from evangelicals.https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html
>>10518765It's not really unpopular just because all the people writing about it dislike it (for good reason). It's extremely popular among the rank and file, and that's where the numbers really lie. They used to be extremely visible in the 2010s. All the YouTube comments and videos, and associated websites on the internet (like the famous jesus-is-savior.com and others) were Easy Believism. The people I'd meet on the streets in New York giving out pamphlets tended to be Easy Believists. I doubt there's been drastic differences in the past ten years.
>>10518795>2010sSorry I meant the 2000s. Was still true in the early 2010s though (2011, 2012, etc). Internet's changed a lot since 2013 though.
>>10518795Can you substantiate this generalization?
>>10510212It's just a very blatant and brazen play to incentivize people to join and submit. That's the purpose, to incentivize people to submit.God, being all-powerful, obviously do not need to wield incentives to influence men. No. Here are the messy grubby left fingerprints of men who once wanted to influence other men and bend them to their will.Anyone who understands the truly divine so poorly to be misled into thinking it would need to coax men along with a whip and a carrot, is unlikely to do well at pleasing Him. They're more likely to end up pleasing the one below.
>>10518816As opposed to your generalization?
>>10519001It is my claim that the voices of evangelicalism are clearly opposed to free grace/easy believism. You can see this yourself on the usual places like ligonier, grace to you, carm, gotquestions and even forums like puritan board or baptist board. If you only have personal experience that's fine I was just wondering if there is more to see on this issue
>>10519043I just highly suspect that these people represent the mass populace is all. I know they exist. However, they are smarter and more sophisticated than the usual. Besides--and I should have said this from the start--a LOT of critics of Easy Believism are Easy Believists who just want to deny they are soteriologically antinomians. Bear that in mind. If you affirm the following two tenets, you endorse Free Grace theology: 1) If you believe we freely accept salvation, through belief and no other works, but 2) you also believe that once received, nothing, no works, can make you lose salvation. Often people defend this by creating strawman opponents who they accuse of the pernicious Easy Believism they want to contrast themselves against. If you accept the two tenets I listed you're an Easy Believist, no ifs, ands, or buts.
>>10519093That's just false. OSAS and libertarian free will are not the same as nor do they lead to antinomianism or easy believism.
>>10517724>another perfect example. maybe as vapid as insisting the harry potter fandom is not a fandom of the book series, but of the characters therein.Not a good comparison at all, since the Harry Potter character and universe started with the books, but Sacred Tradition precedes the Scriptures about Jesus. You make the same mistake as the prots of completely ignoring Tradition, which the Bible is a part of, and is needed to understand the Bible.
>>10517693>Patristic or modern commentaries are expositions of scripture.Not exclusively. For example John Chrysostom, in a homily in defence of tradition, exhorts several things that are not in scripture (like triple immersion baptism), and yet he acknowledges them as indispensable. "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. cont...
>>10519443cont.Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice [i.e., by triple immersion]? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight" (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, 66).
>>10519255That's because you think antinomianism means libertinism. It doesn't. It literally just means your sins don't void your salvation. Anyone who opposes these people rightly sees it for what it is: antinomianism.
>>10510212>nonsensical fairy taleReddit misses you, go back>>10510242Based
>>10517772By your logic an atheist who helps the homeless is among the sheep
>>10517772The best example is James 2:24, who explicitly condemns sola fide.
>>10520718Antinomianism*Not sola fide
>>10520718If a man says he has faith and has no works That’s the key, a true faith leads to good works
>>10510348>be Catholic >do bad thing >confess to child rapist in a funny box once a week>say some magic spell to dead prostitute ghost Mary >sins absolved :)
Everything about Christianity is an embarrassment to the history of Europe. Any group but whites would have been doomed to an inbred middle-east like hellscape forever if they followed such a retarded religion. Even today, Christianity attracts mainly two groups: retards and narcissists. People too stupid to understand why it's stupid and people who want to use it to lord themselves over others because it provides an easy framework for subjective moral superiority. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone who is educated on theology and religion would believe that Christianity is the correct path to follow.>inb4 LARPagan>inb4 fedora>inb4 kikeI'm not any of those and you're all still retarded.
>>10512107I'll put him on my flag when my black ass makes a run for warlord of the East Coast.
The OP has Jesus Christ's side down correctly , but doesn't understand Satan's side correctly.Might want to go study Satan, who he is, what he does to people who aren't under God's protection.This way, it makes it sound from an antagonist point of view, which the OP is using also, that Satan is the bad cop. But no, Satan is actually not the cop, he's more of a nightmare creature. Which God calls a Dragon, and once an angel that turned into a demon.People think that the Bible already happened and nothing new is ever going to happen. Or they think the only events that are going to happen that are left is Jesus comes back. That's the good news part. Not the bad news part. What's the bad news, then?The bad news part is Satan shows up and offers the forbidden fruit yet again. And guess what God says will happen? They all eat it again. Those who weren't saved but were too clever to be tricked will be killed. If they still weren't saved, they go to hell also. Satan wins their souls by killing them off, which is why it only makes sense to do it. There is no salvation for those allowed to be killed by the antichrist version of Satan.The devil is VERY invested in this version of the world. He's egotistical, greedy, prideful, and wants EVERYTHING like Woody's head turning a complete spin "We know everything."So if you love satan, and not God, then Great For You. Just stay there where you are!Christians are bombarded enough as it is for even being alive in Satan's world. Did people know that Satan uses his world to accuse us as loving his version of it? Did you know that christians have to actually tell God what we hate about it, and what we love about it, or this happens? People don't even know. They are called sleepers of the matrix. The bible calls them the deceived. They usually claim to become "woke" and become only the deceivers who are deceived yet again. :)
>>10510242unironically the most cringe thing i've read here
>>10522155Reminder: Satan was made by God, who is omniscient and omnipotent.Everything this man said is no different than saying that God himself did all of it, because he effectively did. Assuming you believe it, of course.
>>10522194True, God did create all the evil as well as their free choice to choose to join with Satan in hell. So God also created all the good.How this cancels out is the sinful evil is finite, but the holyness, goodness, and righteousness will be eternal, justifying God for eternity.The people who live after Satan's limited kingdom on earth will continue to have children, "Abraham's descendants will number the stars of heaven," in New Heaven and in New Earth for eternity.There is no evidence, unless people just count their belief and trusting in God, and God's answers to their prayers as the evidence, which is evidence from faith.
>>10522233The eternal kingdom and untold number of people living in it are coupled with the 144,000 of Christ's Generation, which are the servants of Jesus Christ, +1, which is Jesus.