I'm sure, but then you have Taylor Swift claiming to be Christian. I bet she's part of some Church too.
Eve got deceived by ((the snake)) once again and cucked Adam didn't assume responsibility for his fault in this. There's nothing new under the sun.
I agree with most of this.
If you come to faith (marry Christ), then lose your faith (cheat on your wife), then it is impossible to renew your faith to repentance, as Jesus can not be sacrificed on the cross a second time for you.
People can repent from all sin no matter how grave it is and still be saved, except the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Christ's incarnation and sacrifice is cosmic in scope and not limited in time and space (i.e. each individual's sin but man's sinful nature as a whole). It was the undoing of the fall of Adam and bringing man back to eternal life (through salvation within the Church) by defeating death. He assumed human nature and lifted it up. God became man so that man can become god.
Yes I know the Sola fide doctrine of protestantism. It is false. Faith is ultimately tied to good deeds, repenting from sin and striving to live a life in Christ. If I love my wife, I wouldn't cheat on her. Sola fide is like saying "I love my wife and that's the only thing that matters - cheating on her wouldn't change that". Believing in Christ is a prerequisite for being saved, it makes one "salvable". But it's not enough just like it wasn't enough for Christ to reveal Himself in flesh, to teach and perform miracles without ultimately sacrificing Himself and defeating death for us.
It's true Christ fulfilled the law and made a new covenant with the people of the eternal Israel which is not of this world (His Church). This is why we don't observe the same laws given to the hebrews but that doesn't mean Christ did away with all of His previous law (because He's the one speaking to Moses) and left people do whatever they please. Christ and the Apostles laid out the moral law Christians must follow which is a continuation of the law of the OT. Christ made sinners repent and "sin no more" in order to be saved.
Did Christ die on the cross so that man could live in sin according to his desires or did He die so that man could repent and live a life in God according to His law that would bring him eternal life?
Responsibilities to God, their families and their husbands.
Sure. What do they benefit from people believing in Christ and what is the alternative truthful worldview people should assume?
Because democracy has always been a shitty political system and government since the time of Plato.
Jackson was a true patriot who fought against the NWO and was nearly assasinated for it. Epstein was a CIA/Mossad entrapment agent a satanic pedophile and a jew who got assassinated by his own. I don't see any similarities there.
Exactly. I've received a lot of normie pushback and ridicule for using a dumbphone.
Communism/socialism/marxism/"anti-fascism" is jewish
The beams would be able to support 100.000 tons yes, but not 100.000 tons falling on top of them, that is the difference.
This is why I said in the beginning the only difference is the momentum from the couple of floors where the beams got severed. But as we know from the 3rd law of mechanics the force generated from that momentum would eventually be neutralized by the resistance from the floors below where the beams are intact.
An example would be if you hold a 100.000 ton anvil above one of the towers, with the same surface area as the towers, and dropped it upon the tower, the beams would not be built to handle this, and the whole tower would end up collapsing from the impact of the anvil dropping on top of it: one floor at the time, each floor collapses in about 1/10 of a second as the weight of the anvil above falls on top of it: in 1 second 10 floors would have collapsed.
No, that's a wrong analogy. Dropping an anvil assumes adding additional weight that isn't part of the structure. That's not the case because no additional weight was added as I stated before. The building wasn't designed to support a 100k ton anvil on top of it, but it was designed to support itself even in the case of structural damage (it could withstand a few planes crashing at it compromising sections of the beams). At this point I have to say you're deliberately skewing the facts and strawmaning.
Genius, the point is the buildings were designed so that the weight above the impact (100.000 tons) would be safely supported by the beams below it. If that weren't the case, the building would collapse under its own weight and wouldn't be viable for exploitation at all. This is basic engineering.
Some of the beams were compromised by the impact and by the jet fuel supposedly. But that's only at the site of the impact and not throughout the whole building. Which means the floors where the beams were intact wouldn't collapse (there was no added weight upon them - they already supported the upper floors with no problem).
That's not how physics work. The weight of the tower above the impact was supported by the structure below with no problem up until that point. The only force working is the momentum created by the collapse of the few floors where the plane struck - the weight above remains constant.
And even then, what would have happened if the collapse was caused by the crash, is the upper tower would tip to the side of the impact and fall asymmetrically to the side of the building - not fall in its footprint. Such a collapse is textbook controlled demolition with carefully placed detonations going off at just the right time. There is no way this could be reproduced three times in three different buildings having sustained various degrees of damage at random points just by mere accident.
Gtfo with this bs, you're not convincing anyone with your ridiculous lies, jewboy.
Are you sure the momentum generated from a few meters of falling down is enough to collapse the whole building? This violates the Newtonian laws of mechanics - the energy generated from the momentum would be neutralized after a while and would not lead to a domino effect collapse to the bottom floor.
Why did the buildings fall all the way to the ground though? If the beams were compromised at the impact floors what caused the lower beams to give off and collapse?
Oh really? What was it then and how do you go about deboonking it, fedboy? How does a skyscraper fall in its footprint and what caused WTC 7 to fall?
So them dancing is an anti-jewish lie by the arabs but a bunch of Mossad agents documenting and cheering the controlled demolition is ok? No. It doesn't change much.
It's well documented gay men have very high sex drive and are highly promiscuous.
Why is this distinction relevant? Are you a stickler for details?
Jesus's teaching is His tradition. That's why he constantly references the OT. That's why Luke and Matthew write down His genealogy. If anything this argument destroys Sola Scriptura since it demonstrates people were saved without having access to the written Scripture because they still were part of the tradition and professed the true faith (even when Christ was not among them as a man anymore).
You assume a reductionist approach by divorcing the teachings from the tradition, as if the teachings of Christ came out of nowhere and are not part of the revelation of God to man starting with Adam and ending at Pentecost. What the Church did was to teach the gospel of salvation to every nation the way it was revealed to the prophets and the apostles by God. The Church fathers, who received the Holy Spirit and were given authority by the Apostles through laying of hands (the same way Peter did to Timothy) fleshed out the theology of the revelation without adding new meaning or context to it (e.g. the Nicene creed). Idiot unitarians argue that God is not triune because the word Trinity is not in the Bible - that's where literalism and sperg/AI level of context understanding leads to. They will say the Church fathers added their own meaning to Scripture because they presuppose their wrongful literalist interpretation (to which "the Holy Spirit guided them", no doubt).
Adding new interpretation or meaning is considered a heresy and an attack on the true faith and that's what the Early Church fought against vehemently (the gnostics, the arians, the marcians, the valentinians, the neo-platonists, etc.). Unfortunately after Rome fell away, heretical movements started proliferating across Europe leading to the revolutionary Reformation as an antithesis to Rome's mistakes and Church tradition as a whole. And here we are today, where every protestant thinks they have the correct interpretation (being their own Pope) of the Scripture they got from the historic tradition they deny, because they have a personal relationship with God, so basically relativism. Is it any wonder society has turned out this way?
I love science!
Based on that view, scripture is of no value unless a Church papa who calls himself Orthodox tells you how to view it. That couldn't be more heretical. Why did Jesus even bother speaking to people at all when an Orthodox teacher wasn't there to interpret him? You see how ridiculous it is when this logic is taken to its conclusion?
That's not how Orthodoxy works. There is no single authority in the Church but rather the whole of the Church tradition is the authority. It sounds ridiculous to you because you don't understand the Orthodox Church is the eternal kingdom of Christ here on Earth and not a man-made institution. The Church is His living body and she is headed by no other than Christ. It's the Ark of salvation and the continuous tradition of God's revelation throughout both the Old and the New Testaments. Abraham and Moses were part of the Church and they worshipped the Triune God and spoke with Christ (OT teophanies). The Bible was written and compiled by apostles of the Church. The dogmas and doctrines were fleshed out by the ecumenical councils by the Church fathers. There would be no Christianity without the tradition you speak against. The tradition is the faith. It's Christ's tradition.
And despite their earnest pleas and surrender they are led astray by relying soley on their own minds and the Holy Spirit which are INCAPABLE of showing truth from the scripture that God gave us for guidance.
So everyone is correct in their interpretation of Scripture despite all the contradictory beliefs? You realize there's no way both you and someone else taking the opposite of your position can both be true, right? So who's the authority, who's the arbiter deciding what interpretation is correct and follows scripture?
It's hilarious you protestants speak of "man made traditions" as if your interpretation is not that of a man too. Basically Protestants go "it's me and muh Bible, aided by the Holy Spirit, deciding what the true faith is" vs Orthodox/Catholics "it's the Church established by Christ and entrusted to His apostles, aided by the Holy Spirit, deciding what the true faith is". The difference is the latter is rooted in history through apostolic succession and is generally what the early Christians practiced and believed and in the case of Orthodoxy it remained unchanged for almost 2000 years, while the former is contingent on every single dude who gets to read the Bible and feels divinely inspired to do their own interpretation of the text (provided by said tradition), claiming there was a period of 15 centuries when the Church was non-existent (contradicting Matthew 16:18). The whole Sola Scriptura argument is retarded because there was no Bible up until the 4c. So what, Christianity wasn't didn't exist/ was not practiced before that?
You don't need to call yourself a special name "Orthodox" and wear special uniforms to read clear instructions in scripture. God gave us basic reasoning ability, which when combined with a surrender to the Holy Spirit reveals Biblical truth.
Again, if it's so clear and easy, how come there are hundreds of official protestant denominations and countless more individual interpretations? How come they massacred each other during the Reformation because they reached different conclusions reading the same text? I'm sure every single one of them claims to have the Holy Spirit guide them. Furthermore, how can anyone be sure it's truly the Holy Spirit guiding them and it's not a form of spiritual delusion or demonic deception?
It only requires basic reasoning ability to know that if Jesus said "call no man father" you do NOT then make calling religious leaders father part of church tradition.
That's a great example of reading things out of context (quote mining) leading to wrong interpretation. Is everything in the gospels to be taken literally or does Jesus use metaphors, allegories, hyperboles and other rhetorical devices to make his point? Do you call your biological father, father and if so, do you consider that to be breaking Christ's commandment? Words only have the proper meaning in the context they are used in, this is how language works, it's a holistic system.
If you were correct explain why Paul said: “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15). The Bible is full of passages talking about spiritual fatherhood.
You also do NOT add to scripture and deify people who were not deified in scripture.
Saints are not worshipped, they are venerated. They are not divine. Scripture was compiled by some of those saints.
You also do NOT have any kind of holy "relics" or idols that you worship. The instructions in scripture are clear about that.
Did you know they had paintings on the Temple walls and in the synagogues Jesus worshipped in? How about the "idols" on the Arc of the Covenant (the cherubims)?
Look, I'm not going to regurgitate all this info because that's been done a million times over debates and books already. If you were interested to learn about the counters to your arguments you would have done so. But that knowledge would also probably make you leave Protestantism if you are honest with yourself and are seeking truth with an open heart. Check out Jay Dyer's channel on youtube and call in on one of his twitter livestreams if you think you can prove Protestantism is where it's at.
They were cheering.
A valid point though WEF is a publicity front for the real gathering of technocrat controllers. The people here are clowns and puppets. The people with real power are to be found in Bilderberg, CFR, Chatham House, Tavistock, CIA, MI6, DARPA and the banking elite.