>Christianity is true. >but there's no true church that isn't corrupted in some way


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

>Christianity is true
>but there's no true church that isn't corrupted in some way

Wtf am I supposed to do?! I am asking God in prayer.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Think of it this way: how hard would it be for one man (this "Jesus" guy) to come up with the right idea about morals in a world full of sin? Pretty hard?
    It should be of similar difficulty to put yourself on the right path in 2023. Not the EXACT same, but it shouldn't be a fucking walk in the park either.
    You wanna know what churches are good? Judge a tree by its fruit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Judge a tree by its fruit
      This, read the gospels and judge for yourself. There's no perfect church, but there's always a church that's good enough for (you)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also keep praying about it, the tree will yield its fruit in its season.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This, read the gospels and judge for yourself. There's no perfect church

        Especially according to Revelation 2. They were imperfect in some way, shape, or form.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    make your own church, get followers.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Peter's the rock then it basically has to be either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If Peter's the rock
      There isn't a consensus that that is the meaning of the verse.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Without salvation from Jesus Christ there is no church. The church is made up of those who are saved. Your local Protestant denomination should be sufficient as that which is made up of Christ's saints is the church. We're one in spirit brother.

    If you're looking for a perfect church then you're not going to find it, we're all sinners who fall short. Giving the grace you have received to others is necessary when you're in fellowship with the saints.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no god. Jesus didn't exist. Your religious beliefs are an accident of birth.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Materialistic dogma has you determining the truth based on that which has physical properties without a justification for doing so. Assuming that truth can be determined from that which has physical properties requires more faith than that which gives justification to logic & reason as within Naturalism & Materialism (how you determine truth without God) it's impossible to make reason or logic itself authoritative. Your entire worldview relies on Christian presuppositions.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How does the israelite god of israeli mythology determine truth?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He doesn't determine truth, He is the source of all truth. The very idea of causality without an immovable mover is insane. Reality doesn't make sense without a self existent creator, you're left with a jumble of infinite regressions. So to answer your question, the impossibility to the contrary.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >using these axioms that I have created, my god is real

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >reasoning without axioms, logic and reason is true
              All worldviews are circular anon, they just require Christian presuppositions in order to function

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              To extrapolate on

              >reasoning without axioms, logic and reason is true
              All worldviews are circular anon, they just require Christian presuppositions in order to function

              All worldviews are circular as they either a) rely on reason to comprehend God or b) rely on reason for the truth of reason. The presupposition of God allows you to justify your use of reason or failing that, at the very least allows your use of reason & logic to be authoritative. Whereas a secular worldview posits that reason is true is because reason is true, it's unable to provide any reason for reason and therefore solely assumes itself as true in a perpetual circle unable to say why reason is or logic is authoritative apart from "it's all we have".

              We argue based on an authoritative reason, a reason that has a reason for reason & logic, Naturalism & Materialism don't.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Secular worldview posits reason is true because of it's effect on reality. Not because it's just true, the method of figuring out if it's true is based on observing reality, this is in no way circular. Believing in an entity for no rhyme or reason whose own words and intent does not match up to it's standard of common sense is always illogical, presupposition of God is just a fancy way of saying "I'll claim this is true without giving any reason because I don't have a single one, and this is the metric everything should be judged by".

                TLDR you're a fucking midwit, you twisting logic into pretzels or will never be an intellectual feat, questioning the very basis of reality which you use to communicate with people does not do anything but make people absolutely sure your bullshit doesn't exist because you fearmonger against not knowing something rather than being honest about your ignorance.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In order to draw conclusions about it's effect on reality you need to assume the truth of reason lol. That's the definition of circular

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No you don't, you just need to observe reality. If you don't know what color the sky is during day, wait for it to go up, and see that it's blue, you're being reasonable and employing reason. If you start saying we have no way of knowing the color of the sky, mention how light has many spectrums so we just see blue, but we don't know the color, you're just making a different argument, and indirectly conceding the one that implicitly asks "to human eyes, what color is the sky when the sun is up?"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not to mention the fact that your conclusions about reality rely upon inductive reasoning which has no basis within Naturalism or Materialism.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Conclusions about reality rely on physical phenomenon, and material conditions being met. The problem of induction has nothing to do with this, and is a completely different argument. Once again, having to deconstruct all of reality, including the senses you use to argue this, just makes you a coward incapable of admitting a lack of knowledge. By the way, God does not fix any of those problems either.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In order to say physical phenomenon are able to be relied upon you need to have a reason as to why that is the case, which is done through the use of reason & logic. You can't just state that's how it's done, to do so would be to assume the truth of reason/logic. The very basis on which you determine things to be the case is done through reasoning. The problem of induction also has absolutely everything to do with this, the future being unobservable you have no reason to think it will be the same way in the future, you need a reason as to why it will be so and in order to do so you need to posit some thing that allows it to be so.

                God doesn't fix the circular paradigm problem no, if you read above I never claimed that. What Christian Theism does is allow for the necessary presuppositions for the justification of these beliefs. Brother in order to make these arguments you have you have presupposed that there are laws of logic and that reason is true, without them your arguments become a wet noodle. You just lack a reason, or rather are unable to provide a reason as to their justification or authoritativeness.

                >He is the source of all truth.
                Then truth is arbitrary which undermines your premise.

                It is arbitrary according to His will, He determine what IS, is what makes it objective to us. The creator determines the creation based on His desire.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In order to say they're reliable, you test it as many times as you can, and make the claim that as far as you know until proven otherwise this is the case. That's what the scientific method is, not some ex nihilo claim of truth supremacy. There is no reason to believe the phenomenon and the criteria they fit(being repeatable and testable) is unreliable unless you want to deconstruct the very concept of reality itself like a child throwing the board away. Once again, this is not what the Problem of inductive reasoning is, and you misunderstand it. The future has nothing to do with what you can observe and test, which is what decides reason. What you're talking about is speculation and prediction, which has never been anything but strong guesses based off trends and prior knowledge that fully admits it has multiple reasons to be incorrect.

                If God doesn't fix the problem, then all you're doing is coping. A presupposition is not some magic word, it's just making shit up and claiming it's true when you use it the way you do. It is a completely inferior worldview in every respect because of it's completely arbitrary nature. There's a difference between making a presupposition based on consistent, testable, and observable information and data, it's completely different to claim something is so just because it fixes a problem you don't like. That's called being a retard coping with his own ignorance. Their justification is not an authority outside of its own field of study when used as a base of evidence and is formed around the very idea that there is no final authority, and that we are merely chipping away at what we don't know, and what we can say for semi-sure. Gravity is still a theory for this reason, and you continue to prove you have no understanding of a secular worldview, logic, reason, or common fucking sense. You just keep repeating Christian memes like your completely retarded use of presupposition to mean a bandaid for anything you don't like.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That's what the scientific method is
                Science is nothing more than a formalized system of inductive reasoning, which was never designed to be nor is capable of being the ultimate standard of truth; atheists have turned it into an idol which they glorify in place of their creator. Since this conversation concerns ultimate beliefs (which is of a character much more philosophical than scientific) we must ask whether it is being argued that science is the ultimate standard of truth? If not, it cannot be relevant to the discussion. If so, we must ask whether the belief that science is the ultimate standard of truth has been scientifically verified? Furthermore, since what my brother asked about which began this conversation concerned the justification of reasoning, we must point out the vicious circularity of justifying reasoning on a posteriori grounds. It might be that you see a blue sky, but why should you draw the conclusion that reasoning is vindicated? Why should you not instead draw the conclusion that a jellied hamburger flies into green? In order to form a coherent conclusion from anything and determine that reasoning has "worked out", you need to reason. There are no facts which are uninterpreted.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet it has nothing to do with predictions of the future rather than attempting to explain phenomena in the past, and "present". You've completely lost the fucking plot here, no one is talking about the ultimate standard of proof except you as a response to your retarded "well actually logic doesn't make sense" cope. I'm telling you that it's a superior worldview, not that it is supremely true, something I have repeated at least twice in one way or another. The justification of reasoning is in asking a question, and then observing the answer. You are trying so hard to make this seem nonsensical by speaking about a paradox in terms of making predictions of the future when science and secularism fully acknowledges the futility of such an act. Primarily because of the admission of being open about not even fully knowing anything about the variables involved. You claim to know these variables, are completely fucking wrong, ask me to assume something is true, and admit it doesn't even fix the problem. What a colossal fucking fool you are spamming walls of text doesn't work if you don't address anything said and just meander repeating your original retard point.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And yet it has nothing to do with predictions of the future rather than attempting to explain phenomena in the past, and "present"
                Once again the problem has to do with induction and not future-prediction, it is just as applicable to an unexperienced past as it is to the unexperienced future. Firstly, if science is mere history, it is worthless for determining anything about reality. Secondly, you are still missing the point and misunderstanding the problem, if there is no solution to the problem, the conclusion section of every science paper should be blank. Without a solution to the problem the observation of the sun rising could never tell us anything more than that we observed the sun rising. Inductive reasoning assumes that the world behaves in a deterministic, law-like, cause and effect way. But why should you conclude there is a cause and an effect, rather than one random event followed by another random event? If there's no solution to the problem then there's nothing irrational about jumping into a blazing fire to have a party in there, just because every fire you've ever encountered has been hot doesn't mean this one will be. The real severity of the problem is why Bertrand Russel said "if there is no solution to the problem, there is no intellectual distinction between sanity and insanity".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm telling you that it's a superior worldview
                Yeah but you aren't arguing for it, and we're seeing the opposite.
                >The justification of reasoning is in asking a question, and then observing the answer
                The question is why we should believe reasoning is a valid tool for discovering truth, I haven't observed an answer from you yet
                >You are trying so hard to make this seem nonsensical by speaking about a paradox in terms of making predictions of the future when science and secularism fully acknowledges the futility of such an act.
                This little rant you went on isn't very coherent and doesn't interact with the argument

                And that is not being argued. What we claim to know involves the past and "present", which has nothing to do with predicting the completely unknowable (which once again under your worldview is stilll impossible). The guesses are stronger than their negation because their "negation" does not use any realistic, physical, or repeatable metric other than supreme butthurt that fantasy is not reality. There is clearly a continuation of experience that people can check and verify, if this wasn't the case you wouldn't be typing on a fucking computer once more, refuting the very basis that you use to converse is the retards argument, please stop repeating yourself.

                >There is clearly a continuation of experience
                This is begging the question. The question is what basis you have for believing there is such a "continuation of experience"? A chicken lives its whole life with the farmer feeding it every day, and therefore concludes that on this day when it is removed from its coop it is being fed as it has always experienced being fed after being removed from its coop on every other day, but on this day rather than being fed it is laid on a table and its head is severed from its body. Perhaps the chicken might have benefited from a more nuanced view of the uniformity of nature.

                >God solves the problem of induction because He imposes natural laws upon His creation which causes it to behave the way it does
                Why did he chose these laws and not others?

                Ask Him

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The future has nothing to do with what you can observe and test
                The question of how you can know the future will be like the past is a common but imperfect formulation of the problem of induction. The actual problem is the question of how you can reason from that which you have experienced to that which you have not experienced? If there is no solution then science and all inductive reasoning is reduced to mere history. Its conclusions would not even be probable, they would be meritless, since these probabilities are determined on the presupposition that we can reason from experience to non-experience. But if we have no basis for believing that, then it does not matter how many times we observe the sun rising in the morning, we would have absolutely no reason to believe it would do so tomorrow. What is your basis for believing the future will be like the past?
                >never been anything but strong guesses
                As has just been demonstrated, the guesses can be no stronger than their negation unless there is a solution to the problem.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And that is not being argued. What we claim to know involves the past and "present", which has nothing to do with predicting the completely unknowable (which once again under your worldview is stilll impossible). The guesses are stronger than their negation because their "negation" does not use any realistic, physical, or repeatable metric other than supreme butthurt that fantasy is not reality. There is clearly a continuation of experience that people can check and verify, if this wasn't the case you wouldn't be typing on a fucking computer once more, refuting the very basis that you use to converse is the retards argument, please stop repeating yourself.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If God doesn't fix the problem
                God solves the problem of induction because He imposes natural laws upon His creation which causes it to behave the way it does, so when we see the sun rise a billion times we can conclude that it will very probably do so tomorrow because its rising represents this divine order. What my Christian brother was saying was that God does not remove the circularity of ultimate commitments. There are no external proofs of Christian theism, not because the faith is lacking in proofs, but because reality is lacking in facts which are external to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
                >There's a difference between making a presupposition based on consistent, testable, and observable information and data
                We aren't saying you should be a Christian because it's uncomfortable not to, we are saying that our worldview is internally coherent and yours is not.
                >there is no final authority
                If there is no final authority then all our beliefs are suspended in thin air as we would be able to follow all our reasoning for any given subject back to a point where it is based on a belief without reason. It is also manifestly false, as having no final authority would really mean having multiple final authorities, one for over here and one for over there, and that is a contradiction in terms.
                >Gravity is still a theory
                The tendency of objects to fall toward the ground is a fact. The explanation for it is a theory. In modern physics this is explained through general relativity, which is the best corroborated theory in all of science.
                >use of presupposition to mean a bandaid for anything you don't like.
                You seem to be the one who does not understand the term, given that you used it synonymously with the word 'conclusion' earlier in this post.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >God solves the problem of induction because He imposes natural laws upon His creation which causes it to behave the way it does
                Why did he chose these laws and not others?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It is arbitrary according to His will, He determine what IS, is what makes it objective to us. The creator determines the creation based on His desire.
                Waffle.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            B-theory of time (the one that gets more validation from physicists nowadays) AKA a self contained eternal block of reality doesn't need an immovable mover

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He is the source of all truth.
            Then truth is arbitrary which undermines your premise.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Magic is real. I'm a wizard (wr in an arabian themed pinball), It was fucking Magic

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ok if christianity is true cool. Why are you making a christianity shill thread? You're supposed to be a christian then be one. If you're so holy why are your intentions so fucked?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shepherd's Chapel on youtube

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read Gnostic texts. Jesus was a rabbi who married Mary Magdalene. No human has ever been holy.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're supposed to suffer, keep suffering in the hope of some relief, and then suffer more when you never get it. If God wanted you saved you would know the path with startling clarity. There is no point to a test that does not involve intelligence, decision making, or perception. If it's all based on luck then roll the dice and pray you stop suffering, otherwise stop believing in fucking fiction.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Give meaning to your suffering

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gnosticism

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do what Joseph Smith did and just found your own

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't worry about it too much. If you join a church and change your mind later, you can leave. Don't undertake it lightly either. Just don't let yourself get stuck in a position where you're spending most of your life trying to figure it out to the point where you never join anywhere and end up falling away.

    Some basic things to avoid, to put you in the basic direction of orthodox beliefs:

    >Female pastors
    >Support for LGBT
    >Churches that make a big deal about using the King James Bible
    >Some heretical groups: Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >open random christian thread
    >presuppcuck is still stunlocked in the act of parroting bad philosophy that he doesn't really understand
    lol

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're supposed to convert to islam.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Islam is the worst abrahamic religion

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your loss.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Christ is made up.
    Churches only serve themselves, not you, or some higher being.
    Christianity is a polytheist ideology.
    Those who follow Christianity are retards who, for some reason, still support Roman Empire propaganda 2000 years after the fact.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.militarynewbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TM-21-210-Improvised-Munitions-Handbook-1969-Department-of-the-Army.pdf

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Islam

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *