Ah yes. Applying current year to what God says. I didn’t know people thought Ruth and Naomi were gay until recently. This has really infiltrated the church. I haven’t been in the Christianity page in Reddit in years. Did this post get pushback at least?
Its not just applying current year. Its starting with current year and then forcing the Bible to fit into your own moral worldview from that. Its the literal opposite of how religion is supposed to work.
The Bible makes it clear not to be if this world and they are eager to latch onto worldly trends. They also twist the “love your neighbor” command to justify anything. I hope my brothers or sisters in Christ love me enough to call me out if I’m sinning
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? (Hebrews 12: 6-7)
Hebrews 13:8-9 and James 1:12-18 apply here, too. God is eternal and unchanging; His dictates are the same "yesterday, today and forever", and in him "is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
Given that my pastor literally preached on Galatians 5: 5-12 this morning, and focused on "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump", and segued into "Even a little false doctrine can destroy a church"...
These people are their own worst enemies; shit like this (and this is an incredibly mild example) are some of the best arguments against gay marriage.
Not only is their logic flawed, and it's a bad argument...but if we ban gay marriage, we can make goblins like this cry? Sign me the fuck up.
Also, Reddit is a fucking cesspit of self-induced neuroses and misery. It's amazing, they can link anything back to politics, and then get all upset about how bad the world is, and how they're the Special and Good ones who are In the Know. They still think being a liberal or progressive is somehow subversive and underground. Hell, I saw a post recently acting like believing in manmade climate change was somehow underground and unpopular, and normies don't believe. It's a mainstream narrative, pushed really hard by the legacy media, and they still act like they're special for eating the slop narrative.
I've seen multiple redditors claim that Trump won because the media has been constantly "sanewashing" him. They actually believe the media is on his side and that they are the brave resistance. Sad, sad people.
This guy does such a perfect job of illustrating how Leftist indoctrination and NPC regurgitation works.
Its in those little phrases he keeps peppering in over and over.
'and natural' 'and good and beneficial' 'simply cruel' 'which is certain' 'and from life itself'
These are designed specifically to emotionally manipulate you as you read. They thought kill you into not arguing specific points by preemptively addressing them, and by arousing certain emotions in you to not even want to acknowledge them. Every sentence he writes is designed to set up those little barbs. Which is given the most power with:
I could get into these if you want
Which is a challenge, a taunt. Its him flexing that he thinks himself an expert and is ready to school you if you question him. He already knows every response he will give and will puke it back in a nearly practiced response.
Its also built upon a singular stance that has no biblical basis. Which is "harm is bad." The Bible is filled with stories of harming for good, including out of love. Its a complete Modern Day Leftist position to think "harm prevention" is the end all be all of all thoughts, which is the cornerstone of all pro-gay and other pro-X activism.
Yeah - it's all circular reasoning with these guys. I've argued ad-nauseum about this for years when they were trying to legalize gay marriage.
"Marriage is about procreation and raising a family."
"Nu-huh, whaddabout people that can't have children?! Should we deny them marriage. is that FAIR?!"
"That's based out of traditional cultures and from a time when women couldn't get a job and couldn't survive on their own without a man's income and that's all changed now. it's a marriage of convenience"
"Nu-huh, without marriage you can't get in to see your husband/wife in the hospital or make life decisions for them, nor can you pass on your estate when you die!"
"Again, that's just a matter of tradition and all you need to do is change the laws or setup a contract."
"That's what marriage is, bigot, a CONTRACT."
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
"So you would just deny love to two people from the same sex!"
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
"Why not redefine it to allow marriage to your favorite pet then?"
"No, marriage is between two people of any sex, bigot. I'm not redefining anything, you are! Love is love and we won, bigot!"
I'm always in love with when they pull the "homosexual is NATURAL" card.
Because then I remind them that most homosexual acts in nature are stronger men beating weaker men and fucking them to show dominance. Which usually makes them, who are always smaller than my gargantuan self, realize the implications of and ends the conversation.
Or with women, the prevelance of rape in nature in general. So much so that ducks evolved special vaginas for it and dolphins doing it is a sign of their intelligence.
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
It would be so easy to say, "but we're talking about legalization. That only applies to civil marriage. Men do not get to define what real marriage is in the eyes of God anyway."
But taking that point in their favor is unthinkable because anything less than forcing complete equivalence on your is seen as a loss. To take that point, it'd have to be someone actually arguing towards similar legal treatment and just using it as a preface to defile the religious union.
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
I look forward to the polyarmoury weirdos sincerely arguing this position soon.
But Ruth was married. And Naomi was married. And Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. And they were both widowed. And the whole point of the story is Ruth getting married again to a righteous man.
Why tell a story to anyone if they're just going to decide for themselves what it's actually about?
God's whole deal is explaining things to us through metaphors. All you have to do is look at Jesus' ministry to see how inherent explaining complex concepts through simple parables is to Him.
So fictional or no, it takes some real special "headcanon" to reinterpret a story God thought was important for us to remember as "They were actually gay, tho."
Take something that is good/represents good, and do a complete 180 flipping it on its head to turn it evil. "Do unto others" (The Golden Rule) becomes "Do as thou wilt" (a Satanist oath), men sleeping with men being an abomination in the eyes of God (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27) is now something to be proud of and strive for (California, and recently schools all over), and prohibitions on ordaining females as religious leaders (1 Timothy 2:12, 3:1-9; Titus 1:5-9) being tossed to the side played a large part in all the other nonsense gaining as much ground as it did.
Although the Capital C Church has been under an attack in one form or another since Roman times, ground didn't begin to be taken until the 1950s and 60s. The UMC (Methodists), PCUSA (Presbyterians), UCC (modern descendants of the Puritans), the Episcopal Church (ie American Anglicans), ECLA (Lutherans), the Roman Catholic Church, and to a lesser extent Baptists, have all fallen to what should be considered a successful infiltration by the enemy, and I leave it up to you whether that is a physical enemy or a heavenly one (see Ephesians 6:12).
Funnily enough, every single Homo I had ever known in my life (over 30 at this point), got that way due to molestation as a kid (but they backwards rationalize it by saying they were in love with the man that raped them. N***a you were 11, what the fuck do you know about love?). How is that loving and natural?
The only thing "good" or "natural" about deviant faggots is that natural selection is being applied by ending their defective line, which is good for the species.
Ah yes. Applying current year to what God says. I didn’t know people thought Ruth and Naomi were gay until recently. This has really infiltrated the church. I haven’t been in the Christianity page in Reddit in years. Did this post get pushback at least?
Its not just applying current year. Its starting with current year and then forcing the Bible to fit into your own moral worldview from that. Its the literal opposite of how religion is supposed to work.
The Bible makes it clear not to be if this world and they are eager to latch onto worldly trends. They also twist the “love your neighbor” command to justify anything. I hope my brothers or sisters in Christ love me enough to call me out if I’m sinning
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? (Hebrews 12: 6-7)
Hebrews 13:8-9 and James 1:12-18 apply here, too. God is eternal and unchanging; His dictates are the same "yesterday, today and forever", and in him "is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
Amen to that
Given that my pastor literally preached on Galatians 5: 5-12 this morning, and focused on "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump", and segued into "Even a little false doctrine can destroy a church"...
Very fitting comment.
These people are their own worst enemies; shit like this (and this is an incredibly mild example) are some of the best arguments against gay marriage.
Not only is their logic flawed, and it's a bad argument...but if we ban gay marriage, we can make goblins like this cry? Sign me the fuck up.
Also, Reddit is a fucking cesspit of self-induced neuroses and misery. It's amazing, they can link anything back to politics, and then get all upset about how bad the world is, and how they're the Special and Good ones who are In the Know. They still think being a liberal or progressive is somehow subversive and underground. Hell, I saw a post recently acting like believing in manmade climate change was somehow underground and unpopular, and normies don't believe. It's a mainstream narrative, pushed really hard by the legacy media, and they still act like they're special for eating the slop narrative.
I've seen multiple redditors claim that Trump won because the media has been constantly "sanewashing" him. They actually believe the media is on his side and that they are the brave resistance. Sad, sad people.
Multiple is an understatement, it's the NPC phrase du jour.
Now that's some next-level of ''detatched from reality''.
As I've said before I don't trust any sub that Spez hasn't nuked. The sub wouldn't exist had it gatekept pedophiles like that.
Akin to "I wouldn't want to belong to any (club/sub) that would have me as a member."
This guy does such a perfect job of illustrating how Leftist indoctrination and NPC regurgitation works.
Its in those little phrases he keeps peppering in over and over.
These are designed specifically to emotionally manipulate you as you read. They thought kill you into not arguing specific points by preemptively addressing them, and by arousing certain emotions in you to not even want to acknowledge them. Every sentence he writes is designed to set up those little barbs. Which is given the most power with:
Which is a challenge, a taunt. Its him flexing that he thinks himself an expert and is ready to school you if you question him. He already knows every response he will give and will puke it back in a nearly practiced response.
Its also built upon a singular stance that has no biblical basis. Which is "harm is bad." The Bible is filled with stories of harming for good, including out of love. Its a complete Modern Day Leftist position to think "harm prevention" is the end all be all of all thoughts, which is the cornerstone of all pro-gay and other pro-X activism.
Yeah - it's all circular reasoning with these guys. I've argued ad-nauseum about this for years when they were trying to legalize gay marriage.
"Marriage is about procreation and raising a family."
"Nu-huh, whaddabout people that can't have children?! Should we deny them marriage. is that FAIR?!"
"That's based out of traditional cultures and from a time when women couldn't get a job and couldn't survive on their own without a man's income and that's all changed now. it's a marriage of convenience"
"Nu-huh, without marriage you can't get in to see your husband/wife in the hospital or make life decisions for them, nor can you pass on your estate when you die!"
"Again, that's just a matter of tradition and all you need to do is change the laws or setup a contract."
"That's what marriage is, bigot, a CONTRACT."
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
"So you would just deny love to two people from the same sex!"
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
"Why not redefine it to allow marriage to your favorite pet then?"
"No, marriage is between two people of any sex, bigot. I'm not redefining anything, you are! Love is love and we won, bigot!"
And, well... here we are...
I'm always in love with when they pull the "homosexual is NATURAL" card.
Because then I remind them that most homosexual acts in nature are stronger men beating weaker men and fucking them to show dominance. Which usually makes them, who are always smaller than my gargantuan self, realize the implications of and ends the conversation.
Or with women, the prevelance of rape in nature in general. So much so that ducks evolved special vaginas for it and dolphins doing it is a sign of their intelligence.
It would be so easy to say, "but we're talking about legalization. That only applies to civil marriage. Men do not get to define what real marriage is in the eyes of God anyway."
But taking that point in their favor is unthinkable because anything less than forcing complete equivalence on your is seen as a loss. To take that point, it'd have to be someone actually arguing towards similar legal treatment and just using it as a preface to defile the religious union.
I look forward to the polyarmoury weirdos sincerely arguing this position soon.
But Ruth was married. And Naomi was married. And Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. And they were both widowed. And the whole point of the story is Ruth getting married again to a righteous man.
Why tell a story to anyone if they're just going to decide for themselves what it's actually about?
God's whole deal is explaining things to us through metaphors. All you have to do is look at Jesus' ministry to see how inherent explaining complex concepts through simple parables is to Him.
So fictional or no, it takes some real special "headcanon" to reinterpret a story God thought was important for us to remember as "They were actually gay, tho."
Why even pretend to be a Christian? Just make your religion liberal humanism because that's what it already de facto is anyway.
Because it is a form of Satanic Inversion.
Take something that is good/represents good, and do a complete 180 flipping it on its head to turn it evil. "Do unto others" (The Golden Rule) becomes "Do as thou wilt" (a Satanist oath), men sleeping with men being an abomination in the eyes of God (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27) is now something to be proud of and strive for (California, and recently schools all over), and prohibitions on ordaining females as religious leaders (1 Timothy 2:12, 3:1-9; Titus 1:5-9) being tossed to the side played a large part in all the other nonsense gaining as much ground as it did.
Although the Capital C Church has been under an attack in one form or another since Roman times, ground didn't begin to be taken until the 1950s and 60s. The UMC (Methodists), PCUSA (Presbyterians), UCC (modern descendants of the Puritans), the Episcopal Church (ie American Anglicans), ECLA (Lutherans), the Roman Catholic Church, and to a lesser extent Baptists, have all fallen to what should be considered a successful infiltration by the enemy, and I leave it up to you whether that is a physical enemy or a heavenly one (see Ephesians 6:12).
It's basically what they've done. The liberals/communists went in and co-opted the church and wear it as a skin suit.
[Citation needed]
Funnily enough, every single Homo I had ever known in my life (over 30 at this point), got that way due to molestation as a kid (but they backwards rationalize it by saying they were in love with the man that raped them. N***a you were 11, what the fuck do you know about love?). How is that loving and natural?
How to out yourself as a churchian servant of Baphomet clown world without outing yourself as a servant of clown world.
Any church that evil motherfucker goes to is living in sin by not rebuking them and casting them out.
The only thing "good" or "natural" about deviant faggots is that natural selection is being applied by ending their defective line, which is good for the species.
This faggot isn't a christian at all.
This is painfully-retarded to read.
Marriage in Christianity is the sacred union of a man and a woman as mates for life to raise a family of their own children.
"Woke Christianity" should be classified as a cult.
This is some pretty egregious heresy.