"But muh imaginary numbers on a screen". That's called reductionism. I already told you your cash is printed pieces of paper with ink and imaginary numbers on it. It's monopoly money. Yet you talk about "working hard" (being a wage slave and a cuck to the system) for it. Does that make sense to you?
You don't understand how money works.
20mil of BTC have already been mined and only 1mil is left. Makes sense that not many people are into the mining business as mining gets progressively less rewarding.
This is why BTC is better than precious metals as money, which can always inflate if new sources are discovered and tapped.
Work for your Fed shekels, goy! Go in debt like a good slave now.
I'm blocking you for being a troll. If you disagreed while making an argument I'd have zero problems with you.
Making a law that every non-Catholic Christian is a heretic and them persecuting them.
Doesn't it make sense to you that anyone who deviates from the faith and away from the Church's teaching is practically setting himself outside the Church and becoming a heretic? That law is called the law of identity and it's one of the laws of logic. What, you expect everyone who splits from the Church to be equally the Church as if there's no standard for determining what the true Church is? If I go to some island and declare a new nation and call it USA would that make sense?
By seeking to preserve Christianity, you mean they were scared their divine institution wouldn't cut it in the market of free ideas.
"Market of free ideas"? Wtf are you using Adam Smith and John Lock's liberal ideas as if any of this makes sense before their time? That's an anachronism. For thousands of years, nobody gave a shit about the free market of ideas before the freemasons took over in the 18c.
So your divine institution can't even keep itself together?
"So you need to fight your enemies who seek to destroy you in order to keep yourself together? How weak are you?" You're so bad faith it's not even funny.
Don't you believe Abraham and the Patriarchs were polygamists? Doesn't seem like God cared squat about polygamy in your sacred texts.
Polygamy was never the ideal. The ideal was monogamy in marriage and that's why God created a man and a woman to become one flesh and not a man and 5 women. The law of the OT was appropriate for the time and it regulated the existing practices of the time including polygamy and slavery. As humanity matured and with God assuming human nature, such practices were abandoned.
Longest lasting empire, but still gone like the rest. Christians had all the power they could desire and still things didn't last.
Every kingdom on Earth has a beginning and an end. The only eternal Kingdom is the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem which is the Church. There's no utopia and no heaven on Earth - this is an antichristian illuminist and talmudic concept.
Look at the statistics of the religious composition of Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executive branch. Christians have been in political power for 250 some years and they go on about how persecuted they are. They make up the majority of the population, yet they act like they're the underdogs. Even with Christian rule, Christians aren't happy with the leadership, Congress has horrible ratings, and Christians play like they're under attack.
Sorry to break it to you, but what you have in the US is not Christian rule. It never was. It's a freemasonic liberal democratic rule under republican secularism. This form of government came straight from the Enlightenment and the French revolution (mostly the right side of Parliament there - the girondins). The founding Fathers were revolutionary antimonarchists. In what clown world does the US which is worse than Rome under Nero, Babylon and Sodom and Gomorrah together pass for a Christian country? That's absolutely ridiculous.
The US is not even pagan like Ancient Greece - they were way more virtuous. Today it's outright antichristian in the most blatant way. Do you really think that just because someone stamps a marketing label on something, it becomes that thing? Is this why MAGAtards believe Trump is a Christian?
Would you prefer America be a religious monarchy?
I would, but that's not happening with today's society. Also I'm not an American and my country was a monarchy less than 100 years ago. In the future if more people turn to God it would make sense for them to organize themselves in a Christian monarchy but it's not something that can be forced from the top. This is the model of the OT too - the jewish people asked God for a king and a king, Saul, was given to them.
Why do I even bother with your retarded ass? Fuck off, I'm blocking you. I tried reasoning but you're an idiot troll.
Everyone burned and banned books historically. Do you know what books were burned and why they were burned? Burning dangerous and degenerate books is a good thing. That's one of the few things I applaud the nazis for doing, even though it's blown out of proportion and was a one time thing done by student movements and not sanctioned by the party.
Imagine a world were Das Kapital or some other degenerate influential book was burned and never got to the public? "But muh freedom of speech!" Stfu.
You think Musk, the transhumanist guy who dressed as Satan's champion and the son of May Musk who is a known witch, is Christian? LOL
Dude doesn't know the difference between mining rigs and server nodes but is here to argue about BTC and cryptocurrency.
What this actually shows is the enormous amount of investment behind BTC both in electricity and technology and that both public and private institutions take it seriously enough to invest in it.
Read the BTC Standard - you have nothing to loose. It's the same as atheists reading the Bible. If you're so convinced in your position, read what the opposite side has to say.
Do some actual research into history. The Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE made Nicene Christianity the official religion of Rome, and the only legal one, upon threat of punishment. Check out https://youtu.be/WkCFJC_cCWg?si=MlGe4Wrj4B7fymSa.
Outlawing and prosecuting heretics is not the same as force converting people to Christianity. The purpose of the edict was to preserve Christianity and go after sectarians, not to baptize pagans by coercion. Theodosius ramped up anti-pagan legislation too and went after their practices and temples but didn't force them to convert.
See, while you say that "Compulsory conversion is generally not a Christian practice...", the truth is that it has been the Christian practice at times whether you like that or not. Check out about the Albigensian Crusade (https://www.cathar.info/cathar_wars.htm#crusade), they killed the Cathars because they wouldn't convert.
Crusades are Rome's thing and we don't consider Rome to be part of the Church after 1054. But there were similar heretical sects which were politicized and rebelled (they were proto-commies denying private property and monogamy) in the East like the Bogomils and they had to be dealt with by force because they terrorized the locals. In general, in a Christian societies heretics were seen as dangerous - much like terrorists are seen by the regime of today.
In today's society, many people are rejecting Christianity because of the fruits of Christians.
What are the fruits of Christians? The creation of civilized society built around long-lasting tradition, community, social cohesion and shared values?
The phrase there's no hate like Christian love is a testament to glaring issues with Christianity. Rabbis and Freemason goons? What are you talking about? Christianity has completely failed to produce some kind of super awesome society to live in and it has had nation after nation to succeed in.
It literally produced the longest lasting empire in history - the Byzantine empire. I'm not sure how you'd define "super awesome" society but it definitely doesn't sound like you apply some objective standard to this and it's all based on your subjective ideas of what such society looks like.
Even with the vast majority of national leadership being Christians for the history of the nation, Christians aren't happy with Christian rule.
How did you determine that? Such a bizarre sweeping claim. How much do you know about the history of Christian monarchies?
I find it ironic that Christians bash Gnostics about how only they have some special knowledge by which they're saved when Christians are the ones professing to have special knowledge of a dying and resurrecting Jesus-God by which they're saved. Doesn't your Church claim to be the only ones in the world with the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things?
There's a difference between esoteric and exoteric knowledge. Christianity is the latter - everyone can come and see what it's all about and is welcome in the Church. There are no secret initiations and secret knowledge. Epistemically Christians profess knowledge about their faith through divine revelation that is deposited in the Church and not by personal enlightenment achieved through mystical experience leading to gnosis, which is the be all end all of gnosticism (hence the name). It's glorified folder chasing and special pleading shrouded in secrecy. But it all boils down to self-worship and rejection of outside authority and that's where its appeal lies (screw the Church, tradition, mainline history - I'll make my own system instead).
Based from here to eternity.
You think forced conversions is a good thing? You think killing off your religious opposition is a good thing?
I'll take things that never happened for 500 hundred, Alex.
Compulsory conversion is generally not a Christian practice because the teachings of the Church hold that people have free will and come to God willingly. Historically this happened mostly under Justinian in parts of Asia Minor and Africa but it was the exception. You're mistaking Christianity for Islam.
The reality of how Rome (and other nations) was converted follows the model Outlined in the OT - the head of the family (patriarch) converts and so does his entire household - wife, children, relatives and subordinates (see Abraham). Likewise, no one forced Christianity on the masses. It was a process that starts with the conversion of the elites and aristocracy and trickles down to the population at large because society was strictly hierarchical back then and people were dependent and infuenced by those above them socially. Thus Constantine's mother Helen converted him, and the aristocracy was influenced by his conversion and followed suite.
But as you said you can tell a tree by its fruits and many people converted to Christianity because they saw its fruits. Even Julian the Apostate who hated Christ with a passion wrote that Christians were outdoing pagans in charity (it's the same today of cours - Christians are the most charitable group in every society).
I bet it was rabbis and their freemasonic goons who spread that disinformation.
You can tell a tree by the fruits it produces, and the Church you hold in high esteem was producing some really crappy fruit force converting people and killing off the opposition. Obviously not a sacred divine institution.
Where do you get the standard for judging that from? As I already told you, Rome killed its opposition too, yet you brushed it aside.
I'm sorry dude, I can't deal with this gnostic idiocy. I just addressed the Ebonite heresy in the other thread and here you come with the same shit again... I don't see a point in arguing. I made my case.
Yes, go through this TAG argument. You brought it up as a flex, so lets see what you have. I'm familiar with philosophy, apologetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Are you?
Like hell you are. I can tell how well versed you are in epistemology based on the arguments you make. You literally believe a 4th c. sect that completely distorts the teachings of the early Church to hold authority over what Jesus was about even though they basically do fanfic of Scripture and reject the tradition itself. Why don't you read what St. Irenaeus wrote about them? Or was he part of the conspiracy to push Christianity on everyone (even though at his time the Church was insignificant and prosecuted by both romans and jews)?
You're mad that Roman emperors became Christian and changed the official religion of the Empire from pagan cults to Christianity. "But they forced them!" Cry me a river. Go read what Nero, Diocletian and Julian did to the Christians who rejected the cults. Oh, but I bet that particular history is made up by the Church and pagan Romans loved their Christian neighbors and brought them blankies and hot cocoa.
You're going to have to elaborate on how this entity is both divine and human.
By virtue of God assuming human nature in the person of Christ. This is crucial for Christianity. Christ is equally divine and equally human.
How do you know someone named Jesus actually established it? Were you there? Did God tell you that or show you that? Are the people that are telling you this Church thing is special the ones controlling the books that they derive that from? That's rather convenient.
It's well attested to historically. The Church itself is a testament. There are many records and circumstantial evidences to the historicity of the Jesus Christ and the early Church. As for the radical skepticism of anything outside your empirical observation - Were you there when you were born? Maybe you weren't actually born of your parents and you were lab grown as a clone by a secret DARPA program? Are your parents and the government the ones controlling the records and feeding you their story? That's rather convenient.
Do you have the receipts to prove an uninterrupted apostolic succession?
As if that would mean something to you? If the Church held such a record (and it does actually) you'd instantly say it's made up. The veracity of the system is not proven a single way - it's a holistic system that justifies its claims by internal consistency, historicity, explanatory power and justification for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. It's a package deal.
How do you know that those events actually occurred in around 33 AD when the texts you use to derive that from were written decades later? Besides, Luke 24 presents the ascension happening on the same days as the resurrection, while Acts 1 says it happened 40 days later. They both can't be historically accurate. Looks like allegory with deeper meaning and not historical accounts.
By historical analysis and writings describing historical figures and events at the time. The epistles were written around 20 years after the Resurrection - people generally tend to know what happened 20 years ago, especially within a very tightly-knit movement and community. Luke's account of the Resurrection in 24 is summarized. Acts 1 is the correct timeframe. How do I know that? That's what the early Church Fathers taught.
You hold a guy to be an apostle of Jesus that just claimed himself to be an apostle and never actually met Jesus. In Galatians, Paul said he got all his stuff from visions of Jesus. How does anyone verify that? It's a trust me bro situation. In other words, could've easily made it up. There's obvious tension in a literal face value reading of the NT between Paul's group and those who actually were around Jesus.
That's a common one. Paul was received by Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother). Considering they trusted him there's no reason to doubt Paul, if one believes the Gospels. There's no tension between Paul and other parts of NT unless one misinterprets his letters.
Historically, those who lived with Jesus rejected Paul. In the Clementine Homilies, the Simon Magus guy is obviously Paul.
So we're supposed to believe the Clementine Homilies produced by judaizing sect in the 4th c. now? I thought you were skeptical?
What do you make of the Ebionites? They were the ones that actually would've lived with Jesus. You think they'd be stupid and wanting to practice some type of Pharisee or Sadducee form of Judaism, just changing everything Jesus would've instituted? Jesus was an Essene. The Ebionites weren't Judaizers. They were a mystical sect. Look at Eusebius quoting Philo in Ecclesiastical History. He considered the Essenes in Egypt to be Christians before Jesus was around, and said they interpreted their sacred texts allegorically.
They were an early Jewish-Christian sect and not part of Jesus' disciples. They didn't even exist during His time and weren't witness to the events, nor were they in any way connected to the apostles. Their theology is influenced by 2-3c debates. Their Christology is less primitive than Paul's (who wrote around 50AD). They rely on edited gospels and not on early oral tradition and the lexicons (how the Early Church operated). And the stupidest part is their criticism of Paul presupposes his already established authority. Why would you distrust Paul but trust them, when they came after him and didn't even knew the apostles?
Here, I gave you plenty of reasons. I could just do what you did and be unreasonably incredulous: But how do you know what they were? Were you there? Maybe the Church made them up along with making up their own history?
This of course exposes your double standard when looking back at history - you willingly accept the narrative you like and are extremely skeptical of the opposite. This is something all gnostics do because all authority of the past is under suspicion and only they (and their preferred obscure sect) have the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things. It's always about rebelliousness and going against authority.
I think that's enough deboonking for today.
Nice try but I'm Orthodox. RC is fake and gay and Vatican II proves it beyond doubt.
The Roman empire became Christian through forced conversion. Did you see my post on the Edict of Thessalonica?
So what? Does that change it becoming Christian? Christians were prosecuted and massacred for not participating in pagan rituals. Or do you think the Roman pagan cults weren't forced on people and everyone loved it so much?
Here's a thought. The Gentiles were too pagan to understand who and what Jesus was, so they fashioned him in the image of their Godmen.
Anything to support this claim with?
From that text from Paul, sure looks like a promotion of blind faith.
That's called quote mining. You can cherry pick quotes that affirm your assumptions this way. The correct approach to Scripture is holistic and informed by the tradition of the Church that has produced it.
Prove your Triune God with logical arguments if you want.
I use TAG which poses that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge (or any universal abstract concepts) to exist. It's argumentation on the paradigm level, comparing the Christian worldview with other possible worldviews and proving only the Christian one can provide justification and grounding for the laws of logic, truth, meaning, purpose, etc.
We can go through it if you're into philosophy, otherwise I don't see much point because it requires good knowledge of logic, metaphysics and epistemology.
It's not though. Even Trump's "based right" admin has open skittles men on the roster. Again, this would be unheard of even for the most liberal democrats like Bill Clinton back in the day.
We're at the point where culture has been absolutely dominated by the gay marxist agenda. It's mind-boggling to conceive that at one point Hollywood censored on-screen kisses for more than 5sec, while today it's hard to find a film or series that doesn't have hardcore gay sex scenes in it. Even the Catholic Church - the most conservative institution in the West that has always condemned homosexuality as a grave sin - is blessing gay couples and setting the field for further development.
We're so far gone in normalizing this shit that even people who know this is degenerate are taking it for granted and shrugging it off at this point.
Could you be less obvious of a troll?
Sure. The one universal, holy and apostolic Church is both a divine and a human, a mystical and a physical historical institution (not an abstraction), established by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second person of the Godhead, here on Earth, following the messianic prophecies of the OT. Christ appointed His apostles as the leaders of His Church and sent the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost (around 33AD). The Church is the living Body of Christ in which all believers are joined and participate in the uncreated divine grace through the sacraments (like baptism, chrismation, eucharist, matrimony).
Thus Church's authority comes from the apostles who pass the Holy Spirit through laying of hands to their successors - the bishops (as seen in Acts). This apostolic succession continues uninterrupted to this day and forms a living tradition from Christ to the bishops and clergy of today. The Church structure is decentralized and synodal and it's headed by Christ and not any particular bishop (as papalists believe).
The Holy Scripture itself is a part of that tradition as is its correct interpretation (because no text interprets itself, but is understood through a paradigm). The totality of the tradition is the deposit of God's revelation to His people - the Christians. The Church tradition is also a continuation of the OT hebrew covenantal tradition of Abraham.
That's demonstrably false. The opinions of people have changed dramatically in the past decades. As late as the 90's the majority saw homosexuality as sexual deviancy and as unacceptable. People have been reeducated - not everyone but normies were and many millenials and zoomers have been indoctrinated into being leftist activists via education and culture.
You mean homosexuality and degeneracy isn't promoted in society as part of an agenda and the acceptance of it was totally organic outburst of love and tolerance in society? Are you pro-skittles because they can't have babies?
Strawmen galore. I can tell you come from a Protestant background and hold the Protestant presuppositions. Makes sense that you became gnostic new ager.
That's still nothing compared to the thousands of martyrs of the early Church when the Roman emperors prosecuted Christians. All the apostles were martyred except John.
But yes, libs and commies parrot enlightenment propaganda drummed up by degenerate freemasons like Rabelais, Voltaire and Jean-Jaque Roseau. The whole "dark ages" narrative and how much more enlightened the greek and roman pagans were. The Renaissance was fake and gay too (as if the name itself doesn't sound gay enough).
You have public debt. $38trils and counting. That's $112K per capita. It's called a debt slave system for a reason.