Goodbye friends

Land*

If any of your concerns were met with "irrelevancy" on here, it's because they were part of a larger theme that can be easily dismissed, like the new age or gnosticism. This board (at the very least) always has an answer to every concern.
If you really cared, you would have stated your secret reason why you turned away, instead of going "i found this epic reason why i don't believe in God, but i won't tell you..".

You answered your own question there. People are easy to dismiss my questions as "gnostic nonsense" wihout every explaining why it is.

What bothers me the most is the relationship that Satan/Saturn/Jupiter/ect has with Jesus. The entire Black Cube fiasco, Christmas being related to the Holiday of Saturn, Satan and Jesus both being "the morning star", the hand symbols that Jesus uses along with Baphomet, the Eucharist being related to the Jewish blood libel, the similarity between the Holy Trinity and Polytheism in order to get Pagans on board.
Thank you for listening, I am very lost

Attached: 595ff755a8d4f4519e7dbf823b73ebebb7f36d21b789e0a74af10df122fd7473.jpg (1021x4446, 1.61M)

The first thing satan did was cast doubt.

Attached: shill.shills.infighting.d&c.png (1814x2058, 345.28K)

Just leave.

Is there an archive of that thread?

What relationship.

What black cube fiasco?

Christmas wasn't even celebrated in the early church. It's a much modern thing. Even if it did have some relations to Saturn, there is no reason to see it as anything more than a coincidence since the early Christians never really cares what Christ's birthday was. Would be a pointless thing to lie about since they would gain nothing from lying about the birthday of our Lord.

Oof, yeah, you're just looking too into things. Even Justin martyr refers to Christ as Lucifer. It doesn't mean anything bad. In fact it was a good title to have. Satan once had that title when he was an angel but due to is disobedience he lost that privilege.

The hand signals are to represent the trinity. But even that isn't biblical but something we use for illustration.

Just Google the jewish blood libel. It has nothing to do with Christianity but is some rumour about Jews killing Christians and eating their blood as a part of their ritual.

This is laughably wrong. Do you know why out of the religious mixing pot that was the first couple centuries after the death of Christ mostly, if not only, Christians were being persecuted? It was due to their sturboness. The Romans for the most part didn't care what you believed in as long as you showed your devotion to the ruler at the time. All the other pagans did this besides Christians. In fact, they were so exclusive that they didn't even eat meat that were sacrificed to other gods. This is most surprising because at that time most meat sold in the market were from the temple sacrifices. They even would not bow down to Caesar and were called atheists because they denied all other gods.

I really think you're seeing pattern where there are none. Christians were far from a compromising group of people. They would rather die than even so much as burn incense to the pagan deities. They were being tortured and killed for their beliefs for centuries. They stood out from the rest and because of this they were an easy target to use as a scapegoat. Why did you think Nero blamed the fire of rome on the Christians? Like, stop reading online articles from dubious sources where some neckbeard on the net tries to make connections between 9/11 and Christ body being the temple or whatever. These are all age old accusations made against Christianity and they have been refuted time and time again. Read a book and pray, I truly think this isn't as big a huddle as you'd think. Literally a bit of research will help you a lot.

Gayest thing I've seen in my life.

Yeah right.

Oh dear.

Pagans were henotheists not simply polytheists so exclusivist monotheism was very undesirable for them. There was never a time when the Church taught polytheism as in three separate Gods for pagans to worship, the oneness of God was strictly observed, at worst they were arguing over Christ's divinity within the Godhead, not that there were multiple Gods. The unity of the trinity was always foundational. So you don't need to worry about that. Plus the trinity is not an intuitive concept, if they wanted to pander to pagans it would be better to make something like Allah, purely transcendent almost impersonal God, like the platonic monad, the unmoved mover….and then attached some Roman trappings to it, to make it appealing to the Hellenists. That's what islam did but it used Arabic trappings to appeal to the natives.
Christianity was a foreign religion which inverted many Greek values and offered an unintuitive vision of God and it's incarnate was not a Hercules or a Plato but someone quite unique.
So no…don't worry about the pagans, islam is far more pagan friendly to it's native population that Christianity was to the Romans/Greeks.

Attached: Dh_xsoxXkAUWqWO.jpg (686x1200, 163.1K)

Who made that image? Almost everything it says about pagan mythology is wrong. Prometheus wasn't Zeus' son and he was never crucified. He was tied to a rock where an eagle would come and eat his liver everyday. It's true that later depictions of him showed tied to the rock in a crucified manner, but that didn't start until the 4th century AD, when Christianity was beginning to have a tremendous influence on Rome. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Aside from that, the term "morning star" is just phrase that was used to refer to something that outshines it's peers. It's like when someone today is called a "lone wolf." That term has no esoteric meaning tied to some ancient wolf cult, or anything like that. All it means is people who like to keep to themselves. Also, Jesus and Satan are also both compared to lions, but the two comparisons are meant in very different ways, just like the use of morning star. All of this is assuming that Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the devil at all, which is a subject of great debate. To quote John Calvin commentary on this verse:

Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.

are you freaking kidding me mate

the guy needs loving help, not gratuitous shunning

I just rolled my eyes so hard that I got a charlie horse in my superior rectus muscles.