I hate heresies. I hate them. I hate Mormonism. I hate Watchtowerism. I hate Adventism. I hate Unitarianism...

Q. What do you call three Jehovah Witnesses tied to a burning stake?
A. A good start

Attached: heretics.jpg (640x777, 39.14K)

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

Aye guys Imma paladion, uerrrghg I am gona show you tyhe light ugggrhrrhr I am so hollly urgh!!!! I am gonna deus vuluts the heretics burn int eh FIRE URGHH!

Of those, I really do hate Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. Their heresies have caused many children to suffer and die. After corrupting the souls of people taken into their heresy, they cause their children to suffer and die, then the news of that reflects onto all Christians and corrupts the souls of numerous non-Christians who might have been saved. It’s a sandwich made of corrupt souls with child death fillings. What miserable organizations.

this. heretics cause the little ones to sin and we know what needs to be done to those who scandalize the little ones.

Attached: 1479492727475.jpg (1024x1501, 645.11K)

But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Christ said to love your neighbors and enemies so…

One of the greatest mistakes Christendom ever made was calling EVERYBODY a "brother or sister" or a "neighbor".
This is where so many Christians fail logic. Jesus asked the question, among the men on the road, who was a neighbor? Logically then, there is a converse - who WEREN'T neighbors?

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

Attached: 1514439867642.jpg (399x400, 15.54K)

There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

so if someone was about to kill your child, you would let them because "who are you to judge"

Attached: love your enemy.jpg (502x414, 77.29K)

INCORRECTOMUNDO
Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
Good on him, for agreeing with God.

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

You're about to create a misunderstanding or get ousted out, rightfully

first off i never said anything about vengeance, i'm talking about stopping someone from committing evil against someone close to you. second, vengeance =/= justice. murderers should be put to death, that is just.

Attached: 1533435558595.png (915x1161, 369.97K)

see

I’m not talking about spiritual death or anything, I’m talking about literal actual death of children by denying them proper medical care
ajwrb.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-blood-tens-of-thousands-dead-in-hidden-tragedy
nytimes.com/1990/08/06/us/in-child-deaths-a-test-for-christian-science.html

Attached: DklaMoOUwAASCDf.jpg (600x600, 70.04K)

it is not implied, you're creating a false dichotomy
the intrusion of the state is not necessary for combating heresies, especially considering what a lousy job state religion has done throughout time

If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

For this child I prayed, and the Lord has granted me my petition that I made to him. Therefore I have lent him to the Lord. As long as he lives, he is lent to the Lord

What do you mean to say now?

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

lol

lol

For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fools; this also is vanity.

Lol man. Look at America/Europe now. You think secularism did anything but total chaos and destruction of Christianity?

Yes, in the narrow definition of secularism as "state uninvolvement in church affairs" it has been a productive practice

We mean to say we want church involvement in state affairs, not the other way around.
We're also getting trolled, apparently

there is no legal prohibition against churches telling the government and politicians what they think, the concept is exclusively intended to curtail the state

In other words, you hate what America did to Christianity?

Yeah, me too.

careful, m8. Ab8 that gr8 h8 or it may be too l8 and seal your f8.

He was careful to say he hated the things, not the people IN the things. One can imply, then, that he also views them as victims of deceit …

YET. The operative word is "YET".

I seriously don't even know where to begin

Attached: ok-everybody-listen.jpg (600x563, 41.19K)

Attached: missionaries sent.png (646x510, 50.83K)

Are you really trying to blindside me to the fact that with separation of church and state, politicians are actually encouraged to not listen to Priests? Before, we could point to God objective's words whenever someone asked us why something was in the law. Now we can't.

Actually, nevermind. Why am I arguing?
We've had 1000+ years with no separation. What happened in the past that made you think it was bad? Do you have any basis? Is it going to be something that could have happened even if the government was in fact divided like they are right now?

Attached: 1423180384093.png (300x300, 31.94K)

yes, all those rich white girls going around getting winnie the poohed by tigger dick in africa and building mudhuts for them is really great and worth all the abortions

I am going to tell you that
The concept is an American invention first found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of concerned Baptists who feared the new government might infringe on their religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

You're throwing me to someone making a argument for separation of church and state, like we're doing right now.
This is really not what I want right now because I'm trying to point out a problem with making arguments instead of deferring to reality. This doesn't help that situation again.

Arguments should refer to facts, not the other way around.

Key point. Whatever great evil, you seem to despise from, the church being united as one, and as equals. Will more than likely, and has occurred from a separated one. All this does is, undermine God's authority, fs you take the Biblical worldview to be True. Nice point you made. People seem to assume, Ah ha, now that i have separated church and state, Therefore, the state just Magically becomes immune to repeating said actions i hated. How, Foolish, talk about some pipe dream. You've just handed over the keys to the Kingdom. To people from the Revolutionary period of the Enlightenment. And it usually is coming out of people who are oh, against the death penalty, Against capital punishment, Against self defense, things with all the ancient Christians/Church Fathers.

you're not making any sense

Excuse me*Church and state being united, as one as equals* It's late. But again if you support this view. You're right in bed With the revolutionaries of the Enlightenment, Which they had an agenda, to Undermine the church, and her power/influence. Which is just basic history. You're for a trap guys. Coming from someone who once, wasn't sure on the death penalty and the bible, self defense, etc.

I need a example of something that wouldn't have happened if the state and the church weren't separated.
doesn't work because its a argument. I want something concrete. Something factual.

No, more posting when it's past midnight for me. But hopefully people get the point. As C.S Lewis once said.And i'm Paraphrasing here but. We ought to be to Old, to fall for the Stories, that came out of the Revolutionary period. Making cryful plees. All in the name of Humanity……

Attached: Humanityyyy......jpg (1400x704, 182.69K)

your question was "what happened in the past that made you think it was bad", so I gave just one example of tyrannical church/government persecution
I provided a concrete, factual historical event

In the absence of a state church, no such persecution happened in the US since our founding, and Biblical Christianity has flourished

Oh I see.
Let me check back.

I don't have a problem with baptists being jailed, given they lead people to hell.
We've had similar words said by heretics that not even baptists like, such as the montanists, so pardon me for not taking this declaration seriously.

In the US?
I think you live too much inside your gated community of Christians..

you are a lemming
Do you have any critical thinking skills? What happens when the government is heretical on YOUR standards?
I don't know if you noticed, but we're talking about Zurich and Zwingli. He was a reformer, so decidedly NON-catholic. Catholics got persecuted too.

yikes

I'm talking about cults and heresies. Freedom of religion does that. Especially the pioneer era, where many of these popped up. Individualism is a double edged sword.

As for missionaries, some of them are those very cults spreading their taint throughout the world. Mormons especially.

You see this is where the "no real life reference" problem you have starts to hit.

Governments that are under the "separation of church and state" rules can do that, they already are. There's a thread up about how someone got jailed for preaching about Jesus Christ up in this very board.
Everything you praise separation for never happened. It changed nothing.
They would have switched to more subtle methods, since they already had oppression of Christians in mind.

Wrong. Hating heresy means love of God. See St. Polycarp for example (disciple of St. John the Evangelist)

Attached: sad-christchan.png (459x499, 136.38K)

Every time

Separation of church and state relies on a false equality of religions that does not exist. Fact is, Christianity is the true religion, and it is the duty of the magistrates to support true religion within their realm. Why should the true religion be unequally yoked together with unbelievers? They are not actually equal, so we should they be treated as such? Is it not the duty of the state to punish sin, and is it not sin to blaspheme God? To give you an example of how the secular state is impossible, inasmuch as it is impossible to ignore religion, let's say a muslim goes on a killing spree for Allah. Now, he is brought before the court, and he protests that what he did was righteous according to his faith. How can the court then judge him? After all, it seeks to ignore religion, but he committed his crime because his Islamic faith compelled him to. How, then, can he be punished, unless the court recognizes Islam as a false religion? For his argument is unavoidably true, what he did was most righteous if Islam is true, so what he did can only be wrong if Islam is false.

It's very simple, you just arrest the non-Muslims who point out that Muslims are supposed to kill non-Muslims because otherwise those non-Muslims will radicalize the Muslims into acting like Muslims. We're already doing it that way in Europe, it works super well.

Hating others who believe the same and claiming you are in the light only means you are farther in the dark than you realize.

Attached: IMG_0105.PNG (560x704, 84.43K)

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Dogma about the deity of Christ have nothing to do with "quarrels of the law". It's absolutely central.

fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase "separation of church and state"
I'm tempted to think you're being deliberate

American lawmakers are equally able to conform the laws to scripture as in a medieval system
example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law

The relevant difference is that the state, a coercive organization with a monopoly on violence, is forbidden from interfering with churches so long as those church practices don't infringe on the rights of others

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

"Hell is the eternal platitude" - Fyodor Sologub

Again, it's impossible to judge religious actions without judging the religion. You are equating a godly state with a state that has zero tolerance for dissenting religions. You failed to deal with the example because you can't, the state cannot act against jihad without officially recognizing Islam as a false religion, which would not be indifference toward religion. There is no such thing as a religiously indifferent state, the state secularism you keep advocating is really nothing more than state atheism.

I hate heresies as well, but I'm hopeful for Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy (I'm Eastern Orthodox). They are separated from truth and salvation but they're still immensely closer to it than Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses and Muslims are. I genuinely think the Chalcedonian schism and the Great schism could end up being solved within the next 300 years, God willing, but Messianic Jews, Oneness Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. are way off the mark and I don't see a "peaceful" resolution for these.

Your feelings are just and shared by many. Good for you.

Yes, they are horrible scars in the mystical body of Christ with their doctrinal blasphemy.
However this hate will damage you more than it damages them, they will earn the wage of their actions, don't be mad because God is not fooled.

Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
Why didn't God reproof him there? Hating the Nicolaitan heresy will damage him.

Fill your heart with Christ instead.

He did, it seems, otherwise he would not hate heresy.
Jeez I did a counterpoint right in the post above you. Sage for near doublepost.

I hate mondays!

hating heresies =/= hating heretics

I'm guessing that's heretical to Atheist science? I'm glad annihilationism isn't on your list.

Sorry my bad I didn't research what "Christian Science" was. It is indeed heretical.

Attached: ewfegrhurijowhvbu.gif (267x260, 1.91M)