touch fucking grass bro
seriously like damn who fucking cares

>>1569974
nigger, who cares that who cares? seriously, why did you bother to write a response to this?

>>1569975
I posted it in an attempt to make you snap out of it and realize how inconsequential, irrelevant, and time-wasting this is.
The fact you're literally refreshing the thread every minute shows the extent of the problem.
What epic feat do you think you're going to be able to accomplish with some ugly pictures of a multi-million dollar actress? Be able to win some epic /tv/ or twitter arguments? It doesn't fucking matter, bro, spend that time developing yourself as a person, or even just doing something you find fun. You don't want to look back at your life 50 years from now and say you spent your youth spamming ugly pictures of people you'll never meet as an own.
It's not too late for you bro, you can get better.

>>1569978
hey anon, no, I'm not refreshing the thread every minute. I happened to refresh it after you posted. I want to get the pic/s I've seen before, send them to my friend, and end the debate promptly. I don't care to watch this thread all day and argue with people like you. In fact, your argument is littered with assumptions about me. I'm just arguing with a girl about which celebrities are hot. It's relatively inconsequential. We could talk about the intentional decline of conscious beauty standards and the problems that is creating for the West as a whole, and what it signifies, but I actually don't care to. I just want to prove my point to someone in my personal life.

The way that Google clearly censors ugly pictures of this actress, in the same way they censor offensive (read: funny) memes should tell you something, but I'm not sure you realize the implications.

>>1569981
Of course you are, anon. You're discussing how (((hollywood))) is casting ugly people to sap the will of the huwhite man with a real life girl and that's why you need ugly pictures of Zendaya, so that she'll realize just how deep the conspiracy runs and fall in love with you.

Do you not even realize the irony that you're unironically posting "I need ugly pictures of this woman because the small hats behind goygle keep heebing my search results, she's hot in every image!" I mean, if you were doing a bit it couldn't be any funnier than this.

>>1569982
actually anon, she's already in love with me. moreover, showing her that this girl is actually kindof mid will, in a very small way, expose the broader conspiracy.

regardless, this is actually the situation that I'm in. I just want to find a picture I've seen a dozen times on this website, so that I can send it to a (special) friend and show something to her. it's not a waste of my time. I don't even mind the back and forth with you. do you realize how many assumptions you're making about me though?

I can appreciate that it's coming from a good place at least, but give it a rest.

File: zendugly.jpg (380 KB, 900x900)

380 KB JPG

>>1569983
Fine, anon, I've searched the tv archive for images of Zendaya that people usually say are ugly and this is the ugliest one I can find.

My point stands though, this is a complete waste of your time.
Ugly casting exists, like the female ghostbusters, but it's not some great conspiracy to depreciate beauty standards, if anything it reinforces them. It's done for rage-marketing. Everyone saying how bad/ugly something is are still generating engagement, and thus advertizing and ticket sales, regardless of whether or not the end product is good.
And by buying into the game like YOU are doing you're perpetuating it further.

>>1569984
>I've searched the tv archive for images of Zendaya
sorry, should've done so myself, and thank you.

>It's done for rage-marketing
interesting point, never thought of that.

>And by buying into the game like YOU are doing
I promise I'm not. It's just a little back and forth about Zendaya. promise I won't spiral this into a racial diatribe. I just think she's a little masculine looking and I'm annoyed that she was cast as Chani in dune, who's described in the books as blond and fair. again, the race thing isn't that important to me. she's just not beautiful to me, which kindof spoils the movies :/

Whatever, she's not my gf. speaking of which, I really thought I saw Tom Holland a few days ago in Irving, Texas (the nice part), but it was probably a really close doppleganger. kindof regretting not asking him, it was just me and him on the sidewalk, no one nearby.

I appreciate your concern and I'll get to work.

>>1569992
From my point of view almost the entire film and TV industry now is solely based around this culture war nonsense. It goes both ways. On one side you've got Sydney Sweeney and her great genes advert to drum up engagement (which it did), and on the other side you've got that trans bud light advert to drum up engagement, which it also did.
And inbetween you've got grifters of every persuasion posting slop about how THE WOKE MOB is ERADICATING the UNTHINKABLE with THE MESSAGE, it's all so hackneyed and cliched. True art and cinema is dead because of bottom feeders caring about this shit, and subsequently media executives selling to that demographic.

No matter how good you make a reboot of a TV series it will NEVER get as much attention and thus revenue as simply making the main character an ugly black woman. It's free advertizing to the hilt.

If you were to make something like breaking bad today, a good TV show with an interesting premise and story in it's own right, there'd just be a million grifter channels talking about the woke feminist woman stopping the chad alpha husband and their shoehorned disabled kid, and because that was driving engagement those elements of the story would be emphasized and the actual relevant story would be sidetracked.

I suppose I should take it as a blessing and either watch arthouse stuff OR spend my time on more productive hobbies like learning a language or scolding people on 4chan.

File: 1763950328736114.png (962 KB, 1242x1235)

962 KB PNG

>>1569995
Yeah I definitely agree. I've basically tuned out of Hollywood entirely for the past decade or so. I watched the Avengers trilogy / quadrilogy which for me was better than a guilty pleasure, and then I saw Demon Slayer twice last summer, alone, and then I just recently saw Disclosure Day, which was interesting for a while, but seemed meandering, pointless, and very mid towards the end. I guess the takeaway for me is that YouTube and anime have essentially replaced Hollywood. Most shows I've seen are either hunger games X (Squid Game was pretty decent I suppose) or crimeslop, which keeps your attention, but again, isn't really going anywhere. I like Landman, but again, it seems pointless and I don't really care to finish the show (I saw it with a friend who has since defriended me).

>No matter how good you make a reboot of a TV series it will NEVER get as much attention and thus revenue as simply making the main character an ugly black woman. It's free advertizing to the hilt.
I don't really know about this. Are you sure? Or is this speculation?

>If you were to make something like breaking bad today, a good TV show with an interesting premise and story in it's own right, there'd just be a million grifter channels talking about the woke feminist woman stopping the chad alpha husband and their shoehorned disabled kid, and because that was driving engagement those elements of the story would be emphasized and the actual relevant story would be sidetracked.

Landman isn't on that level, but no part of it seems particularly pandery to me. There was a non-binary character in season two who was presented as being particularly demanding and ridiculous, but still competent and helpful, so that was kindof a wash. It seemed like a realistic thing you might run into on a college campus.

>I suppose I should take it as a blessing etc [char cap]
Have you seen any good movies lately?

File: Brazil.jpg (3.37 MB, 2000x3000)

3.37 MB JPG

>>1570044
>landman
Only Taylor Sheridan show I've watched was Yellowstone, which I watched in its entirety.
All seemed phenomenally self-indulgent, and basically wish fulfilment. Got increasingly less watchable as time went on for that reason, went from a show with a solid premise (conflict over land rights between a rich self-serving casino owning native American ostensibly pushing for control of the land "for his people" when in actuality he just wanted his share of the pie vs settlers descendents with a conscience trying to navigate the reality they find themselves in) to cowboyslop, a fantasy for lead poisoned boomers. All nuance of the show was dead, practically the perfect example of the phenomenon I'm talking about where all shows with a self-contained narrative become flanderized to the culture war.

>Have you seen any good movies lately?
Last movies I watched that left an impression on me was when I binged practically everything Wong Kar-Wai ever made. They're a little incoherent, plot wise, they're more about the aesthetic than anything

My favorite film of all time though is Brazil, the whole thing is up in good quality on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JoXo-gYLYg
I am telling you, this shit is unrefined pure kino. It takes a few rewatches to really appreciate and enjoy it. I rarely rewatch films but I must have seen this at least half a dozen times.

It's about a guy that lives in an bureaucratic authoritarian dystopia, he starts having dreams about breaking free from it all due to the nature of his work as a cog in the machine, it has sort of dark comedic elements in it, a satire of contemporary Western society and state more than anything. Visually it's stunning as well. The film speaks to me a lot about yearning to be free yet having no viable way of achieving it and being unsure of what freedom would even look like. I try to find films like it but I can't, everything else feels too formulaic.

>>1570060
When something has heart and was made to share it, it is not the same as that which is shared to make it, right?

It's a rather known one, but if only on it being rather old, I would suggest Cinema Paradiso.

>>1570060
How are you doing beyond movies, friend?

>>1570164
>When something has heart and was made to share it, it is not the same as that which is shared to make it, right?
Apologies, I'm struggling to understand what you mean here.
>It's a rather known one, but if only on it being rather old, I would suggest Cinema Paradiso.
Thank you, looks interesting. I shall definitely try to watch it.
>>1570165
I'm grand. I'm realizing now how morose my posts sound, they're not a reflection upon my overall mental state. A lot of things about the state of the world depress me, but ultimately they're that far removed and overarching from our lives as individuals that we needn't think about them. I believe if everyone stopped and actually thought about these things they could allow themselves to become depressed.

>>1570169
> Thank you, looks interesting. I shall definitely try to watch it.

There are movies able to show how rotten and broken the world is, and others able to depict the beauty of it, and the beauty of life, beyond such cruelties. I think this is one of each. I think a story is an invitation into the mind and inner world of an author. I find this one to be very human and mundane, perhaps more than it humours me, yet beautiful as not too many achieve.
I really recommend it!


> Apologies, I'm struggling to understand what you mean here
Possibly with reason. Just that when a story really has something special to tell, when the narrative is really at the service of genuine and true meaning, it often shows.

> A lot of things about the state of the world depress me, but ultimately they're that far removed and overarching from our lives as individuals that we needn't think about them.
I agree in good part. Yet still we can take on only as much as lies in our hands to paint it in kind colors, and make of it the best possible.

I really wish you the best of happiness, dear friend

File: Jesus-and-Mary.png (1.58 MB, 793x768)

1.58 MB PNG

>>1570060
hey anon, it's the original OP here. that movie sounds incredible! I'll add it to the list. is it similar to Metropolis? I know that movie is a big favorite among the creep elites and I haven't seen it, but it seems like the aesthetics have some things in common. There might be a few versions, so make sure you see the right one, from the early or early-mid 1900s.

>I try to find films like it but I can't, everything else feels too formulaic.
A Scanner Darkly touches on some of this stuff, but not especially directly. It also trends more toward tragic than comic, in the classical sense of those terms.
Overall I've just been tuning out of fictional content for a while. Real history, politics, philosophy, and religion are incredible, and they ultimately deliver harder emotional / mental hits than fiction. They just don't have the audiovisual stimulation to carry the weight.

>I'm grand [etc.]
Great. I look at the pains the world is going through, and think, well, things could get worse, but part of these pains and the consequences of selfishness and bad will will encourage people to improve their lives and their hearts. Perhaps things need to get worse before they can get better. But the pains that the world and the people go through are part of the cure.

I know this might not be what you're looking for at this time, but please view this YouTube channel for critical information about how to save your soul: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD841087C099E5B90

File: perennialist thought.jpg (81 KB, 675x425)

81 KB JPG

>>1570493
I don't have anything against religious beliefs, but I can't bring myself to hold them unambiguously. I suppose I'd define myself as a perennialist agnostic in that while personally I have trouble believing in a single or several supranatural beings I nonetheless have always found it fascinating that every single civilization in human history has at least on some level had an analogous concept. Whether you're talking about Christians in Europe, other Abrahamic faiths, the Dao in China, or even isolated tribal communities like those on Polynesian islands or the Amazon, there are (to my knowledge) no naturally atheistic communities.

Now a secular "rationalist" interpretation of this phenomenon would be that it is merely something in our brain chemistry that yearns for an all-powerful protector figure, but if that were the case then surely ONE society would have, despite this, developed into an atheistic framework. The only way we came to atheism as a concept was through immense scientific advancement furthering our understanding of the universe, chemistry, biology, and because we figured out the material we discarded theology as how we used to explain things "before we knew better".

But again, I don't know a supranatural deity exists, so I'm not religious. And I don't know a supranatural deity doesn't exist, so I'm not atheist. But I don't subscribe to the belief that simply having an understanding of the universe at an atomic level somehow automatically disproves any divine providence. Just because we understand concepts such as evolution, cellular mechanics, etc, doesn't "prove" they couldn't have been created by a supranatural deity. A lot of scientists want to find a natural, physical, material cause of the big bang, to "prove" that the world is purely material, but as of yet they have been unable to do so.


The saddest thing for me is knowing however long I live I will still not have come to a proper conclusion to these thoughts by the time I die.

>>1570498
Hope you find root and answer

File: St-Joseph-Terror-of-Demons.jpg (76 KB, 526x640)

76 KB JPG

>>1570498
Hello anon, sorry for the delayed reply. I have written an extensive response and I hope that you have the time to read it. I'll respond back until the thread 404's.

>I can't bring myself to hold them unambiguously.
Anon, I don't expect any particular aspect of this message to convince you or prove anything to you, but I want to offer you a different perspective.

The True God is not the God of confusion or lies. Also, He wants to be known. Like a loving owner of a dog or a pet fish, He would like for us to know him clearly and dearly. But we are much greater than dogs. Still greater is the difference between us and God — it is infinitely greater than the difference between me and my dog. Anyway, it pains God that we live in spiritual (and physical) exile here in this fallen realm. This is by necessity, because God can't tolerate our evil deeds. Those who convert to the true faith, who are baptized in Christ's name in water, and who truly convert away from sin, will be allowed to meet God face to face and live forever in His kingdom (Heaven), if they die in a state of grace.

The key point of your image (that various religions and ideas of "God" all point to the real God, the creator and emperor of reality itself) is something I would like to resoundingly deny. God is not the author of confusion. Religions like Hindooism, Islam et cetera spread lies about God's existence and nature. Jesus is the Christ of God; God incarnate. Again, I don't expect you to simply believe that because I say it, I'm just saying it to expose you to holy faith and confidence in Jesus Christ.

>"Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin."
John VIII 24

1/X

File: 1781541963002458.jpg (73 KB, 1024x1024)

73 KB JPG

>>1570778
cont.

I know that this is hard for many agnostic people to accept; that one must believe a certain thing and have faith specifically in the "correct God" and the true Church in order to be saved. If one examines the issues, those of good will shall come to the truth.

To explain further, this life we're in is like a dangerous labyrinth. There are actually monsters (demons) everywhere, and they work tirelessly to capture and ruin you, leading to your damnation. Padre Pio, an incredibly holy man from the prior century, said that if all demons manifested at once, they would instantly block out the entire sky, and that might be in every city and town in the world. So, the point is, that in this maze, there are 100,000,000 ways to die (permanently, spiritually), and only one way to live permanently.

>"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them."
Matthew VII 13-16

True faith in Christ and obedience to Christ is the only way to salvation. Neutral people think to themselves, 'I can't believe in a God who would send most people to eternal torment'. The truth is that, sadly, most people deserve eternal damnation due to their bad will. Now, we could massively fix society and make it much easier for men to lead moral lives, and tamp out all of the false religions. But in this materialistic, secular society, very few are saved.

2/X

File: epic-lego-flower-wallpiece.jpg (3.6 MB, 3769x2826)

3.6 MB JPG

>>1570779
cont.

I want to provide a few links for you to start to look into these critical matters. My advice: don't delay. Nothing is more important than understanding God and what one must do in order to be saved. The channel I had sent has an incredible wealth of information, and you can poke around their playlists to find what might be of more direct interest, but here are my immediate recommendations:


If you are interested in prophecies, history, and conspiracies, this video will be of particular interest:

>The Third Secret of Fatima (3rd Edition)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB_hUdRKi4o
This is a long documentary. At times, it moves slowly. The information is of the utmost importance though.
>The Antichrist Identified!
and
>Apocalypse Now in the Vatican
are also excellent videos that show where we are in time/history and the state of the world, Rome's apostacy, and these, in turn, reflect on the identity of the True Church in our days.


If you are more interested in basic aspects of the true faith and holy spirituality, these is a good starting point

>Why So Many Can't Believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6dPIWGBq1Y

>How to Avoid Sin (Overcome Yourself)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwr-u55mKL0

>Canyon of Despair, Hope, and Meaning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF66cJDm9r8


Alternately, if you are more inclined to literature and art, which might be the case based on your posts, God is the greatest author by far, and this video examines how the references and lore in scripture are simply too deep to be human fabrication.

>The Real Reason that Jesus is the Light of the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ege-v7eheyo


Finally, here are their playlists, if you want to look for what might be of interest
https://www.youtube.com/@vaticancatholic-dimond/playlists

3/X

File: 1764001724806916.jpg (66 KB, 736x552)

66 KB JPG

>>1570780
cont.

Addendum: I just want to address some of your other points. I don't mean to turn this into a bitter back and forth, feel free to respond on anything that you're interested in, or that you'd like to push back on.

>I nonetheless have always found it fascinating that every single civilization in human history has at least on some level had an analogous concept.
Demons came to societies around the world and actually manifested themselves in front of sorcerers, providing power in exchange for evil deeds. They do this because, in their perversion, they want to be like God and they want to be worshipped. They also want to drag souls into Hell. Unlike God, who wants to free you and to feed you good things (graces) in Heaven, the demons want to imprison you in Hell and eat YOU. Jesus is a shephard who feeds, protects, and loves. Demons are wolves who devour, harm, and despise.

>For the Lord is great, and exceedingly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.
Psalms XCV 4-5 (that's Psalms 95:4-5, also chapter 96 in certain versions)

>But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.
1 Corinthians X 20

4/X

File: each-and-every-one-of-us-(...).png (4 KB, 630x92)

4 KB PNG

>>1570781
cont.

>The only way we came to atheism as a concept was through immense scientific advancement furthering our understanding of the universe, chemistry, biology
Information proves God. If you found a perfectly laid, level, exact square of polished, cube-prismic stones in a clearing in a forest that appeared to be the start of a foundation that was abandoned, or perhaps simply a domain for a ritual, you just intrinsically know that someone, a conscious creator, with a plan, found, cut, polished, and laid the stones, correct? Personally, I think that's absolute. Nature, like a vicious storm, a crushing iceberg, or a powerful root cracking down, destroy rocks. It's still beautiful, but the result is a form of chaos. Things rarely break in even lines, and they definitely don't fall in level and organized ways. Well, the laws and matter of the universe prove the same point. The molecular and genetic organization of things as simple as rocks and amoeba are dramatically more intensely complex and well-engineered than a beautiful square of stones laid on the forest clearing floor.

>Information Proves God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw


>Evolution
Evolution is a demonic lie. I know those are bold terms, but hear out my simple explanation. It describes natural selection, trait variety, and inheritance accurately. However, there is no real case of mutations turning into things like new organs. Certain creatures have sets of complimentary organs or organ / skeletal architecture that could never occur with gradualism.

5/6

File: Jesus-true-face-from-the-(...).jpg (91 KB, 1000x563)

91 KB JPG

>>1570782
cont.

More significantly though, evolution describes how genes and traits are passed on, and speculates that it could explain how single celled amoeba or such could eventually turn into men. I do find that ridiculous on its face, but notable, the microscopic architecture to actually read DNA, copy it, and build proteins with it (DNA itself, ribosomes, and such), bears intensely complicated mechanisms, precise engineering (literally), and total integral necessity that is impossible for evolution to explain. There is no theory for how these things came to be. Basically, even if an entire protein were to be randomly created in a pool of amino acids (this is a mathematical impossibility by the way, less than 1 in the number of atoms in the universe), there would be no DNA or RNA or cellular mechanisms to move it to where it belongs and use it for something else. If DNA somehow came along first, there would be no ribosomes to build proteins. The mechanisms for read (producing proteins), write, copy, and repair of DNA require an intense set of other organelles in the cell such that they could never randomly be created together in a bubbling pool of amino acids.

>DNA Refutes Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZcKEZh_6U


>The saddest thing for me is knowing however long I live I will still not have come to a proper conclusion to these thoughts by the time I die.
I promise you, this is not the case. More powerful than the other info I have shared, is my dear recommendation that you pray to God and ask for the true faith. Do this with a pure intention, and consistency, be kind to others, and make small sacrifices and God will convert your heart.

Love,
Anon

6/6, fin

>>1570781
I just want you to know I read all your posts, but when I tried to link them all it flagged my post for spam, so I chose only to link this one, as it had this line that I found most in need of addressing
>I don't mean to turn this into a bitter back and forth
I hope in no way that I come off as bitter or derogatory to you, far too often I have seen atheists AND agnostics be rude and antagonistic to those of faith, something I find appalling, having a religious conviction is a sign of strength of character and belief in my view, something I lack.

In regard to your other points, you seem to (fairly) make the point that God would not want us confused, but from this I gather your underlying belief is that agnosticism is inherently bound in confusion, and from this I believe you think of perennialism as simply smashing together many disparate concepts of "God" to make one frankenstein's monster amalgamation. That is not the way I view it.
To use a simple analogy, scientists call a substance h20, the romans call a substance aqua, and in common parlance we would call it water, what is the difference between these many different things? There is no difference.
The same is true of all the Abrahamic faiths, when they all refer to God they refer to the same thing. Now obviously this gets more tenuous when you refer to polytheistic faiths like Hinduism, but the underlying concept of a supranatural deity is universal among all peoples.

I mean you quote the old testament, which is of course the Jewish Hebrew bible, so you can't say Judaism has no merits or doesn't get things right. And a lot of Jewish religious texts and concepts come from Zoroastrianism. I am merely expanding this concept from just Judaism to all religions. I believe they all have fragments of an ancient wisdom in. I'd be most interested to hear your response to the basis of the Christian bible being the Hebrew holy texts, as this is the most indisputable cross-religious link in my opinion.

File: Tintoretto_Domenico--Tanc(...).jpg (517 KB, 1280x1875)

517 KB JPG

>>1570802
Yes, allow me to clarify. First, I'll address your first paragraph. No, I didn't think your posts came across as derogatory at all. Some people will just see a long sequence of posts and responses and think that I'm trying to harass them into submission or alternately pester them with a million things to respond to. I just wanted to assure you that I wanted to provide the information because I think it's critical, not to give you so many different points that it would take a day to respond to them all.

Now, let me next address the idea that Talmudic Judaism is the same as the faith of the Hebrews. This is an intentional historical misconception. First, properly speaking, "the Jews" are an ethnic group (now, presumably, mainly comingled with others, largely lost to history, as in existing in various places with different levels of knowledge of this fact) which are the Tribe of Judah. Judah was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, who was a son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham. Now, the Hebrew faith and her inheritors are widely viewed as beginning with Abraham, but I view the same chain passing up through Noah and back to Adam and Eve, through Seth.

There's more history than it makes sense to get into at this point, but I do want to state that I believe that the Talmudic "Jews" are largely the progeny of Cain, and Esau, who were wicked men whom God despises. They've intentionally and quite consistently of late pushed the idea that Judean (of which "Jewish" is an anglicized portmanteau) is a religion, and not a race. This is dishonest and also simply fallacious. If you read the Bible, for example the Book of Daniel (takes about an hour total - https://drbo.org/chapter/32001.htm ), the Judeans refer to themselves directly as such, and lament things like the decline in their numbers and their pitiful state in exile. So, considering them as a religion is erroneous.

1/X

>>1570803
cont.

We don't need to consider the Tribe of Judah as pure members, especially now, but even back then their members took wives from the other tribes, and presumably at the beginning and at various times, wives who weren't Israelites at all.

So, not all Israelites (a super-nation, or a league of tribes) were religious Hebrews (which, although it can be used to describe the ethnicity / culture, is also a generic term for Abraham etc.'s religion before Christ's incarnation; i.e. "the Hebrew Faith).
However, all religious Hebrews (prior to Christ) were Israelites.

Not all Israelites were Judeans, but all Judeans were Israelites.

Sorry, that was quite verbose, but hopefully it makes sense. I just wanted to clear up some technicalities.

Now, I do think that "Talmudic Judaism" has generally drifted away from the authentic Hebrew faith that existed before and shortly after Christ's time (it's made up of a lot of new material that was written after Christ, like the Talmud and the Kabbalah), and I also think that most people who consider themselves "Jewish" are generally not ethnic Judeans, but rather Edomites (descendants of Esau) and Canaanites (descendants of Cain). FYI, Babylon, which off and on conquered Israel, was an Edomite / Canaanite civilization. There's a lot more that could be said about this topic. But it's actually aside from the key point. The key point is this: even if "Talmudic Judaism" was following the authentic pre-Christ Hebrew faith, it's still operating in error, and Church authorities have confirmed that partaking in the rites of the Old Law is mortally sinful after the coming of Christ. This is because the feasts, rites, and ceremonies of the Old Law (as well as its laws, rules, and prescriptions) await and foretell the coming of God's Christ.

2/X

>>1570806
cont.

The True Church (the Catholic Church aka the Roman Catholic Church, although there are / were other national churches under papal authority, and note: this is not the heretical Whore of Babylon counterrchurch in Rome today) has rites, rules and prayers / traditions that look backwards on Christ's incarnation and await His second coming.

Now, this all might have been a little tedious, but it gets directly to the heart of the matter. I, and all true Catholics, proclaim Jesus as God. We proclaim that faith in Him, and a ritual consecration in His name, Holy Baptism in water, as well as following His law and dying in a state of grace, are necessary for salvation.

So, to tie it all together, religions like Judaism and Islam do not lead people to the true God. "The Jews" despise Christ as you probably know, and Islam demeans Him as a mere prophet. These religions deny an essential aspect about God's identity: Jesus Christ is God. In so doing, they lead people to Hell. It doesn't matter how many true things a religion says (for example, "Christians" who believe that faith alone is required for salvation; no, you have to follow God's law and be a just man, or other "Christians" who believe you need to be morally just, but that faith in Christ or baptism aren't required), if it contains falsehoods, God is not its author.

Now, I will quickly address what might be your next question. How can one religion be protected from error? God provided the papacy, an holy monarchy, to lead His faithful, and that, under certain conditions, the definitive, doctrinal proclamations of the popes would be permanently protected from errors. The current anti-popes do not have this protection, because they do not have the true faith, and thus can not be the king of the Church, because they are not members.

I lastly want to refer back to John VIII 24, posted above.

>>1570803
>>1570806
>>1570807
I appreciate the clarification. I was using the colloquial term "Jews" to refer to those of the Hebrew faith in existence in Israel prior to the birth of Jesus. I believe we're talking at cross purposes in this matter, you are talking about the "practical" and I am talking about the "theoretical", for lack of better terms.
For example, the Tanakh speaks of a coming of a "Messiah", who will gather all the Jews in the land of Israel.

Now my point is this, both the Hebrew faith AND Christianity believe the same thing, obviously with different interpretations. Christians believe Christ is the messiah, Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come, yet BOTH fully believe in "the Messiah". This is the crux of my argument, all religions seem to point towards a universal truth, how that is interpreted is different, but the idea, the message, the truth of it is the same. A simple explanation is that the Abrahamic faiths are closely related, but then you look at figures like Li Hong in Daoism, Kalki in Hinduism, the Maitreya Buddha, every single religious text routes back to this Messiah figure.

Like the water/aqua/h20 synonym analogy I used before, John VIII 24 says those not believing in "the messiah" will not receive salvation, but ALL religions believe in the Messiah, the idea, their interpretation of what that is differs but the fundamental core is the same. If a Chinese person in 100BC, fully believed in the messiah, died before the birth of Christ, does his belief in "the messiah" not ensure his salvation?

I'm not saying you are incorrect in your religious beliefs. On the contrary, I am saying you are right. You believe in the Messiah just as all the religions of all the world believe in the messiah.
Out of interest, what is your belief on the ability for those born before Christ to achieve salvation?

what the fuck did this thread turn into

File: 1783861072114938.gif (836 KB, 500x505)

836 KB GIF

lol

File: zendaya dune.webm (2.72 MB, 1920x1080)

2.72 MB WEBM

>this thread

>>1570820
Sorry for the delay. I have this thread open on a computer I'm only using during the weekdays.

>I was using the colloquial term to refer to those of the Hebrew faith prior to the birth of Jesus
My mistake, I jumped to conclusions and went on a 3 post screed to clarify something that wasn't a misunderstanding at all.

>both believe the same thing, with different interpretations
This, I don't believe, is accurate. The Hebrews referred to a Messiah who was yet to come. Christians say He came, saw, and conquered, and thus they look back on His first coming and await the second one. There's no real disagreement, the faith just changed one major aspect because a long-awaited event finally happened. They both pointed to the same man, one looked forward in anticipation, the other back in admiration, reverence, and imitation. The key difference is where they were in time relative to His incarnation.

I don't think this is remotely applicable to all of the other religions, and especially so of idolatrous ones, polytheistic ones, and ancestral worship ones.

Now, referring to how there are a variety of religions that referred to God incarnating, a virgin birth, and other aspects that were shared by Christ and His story / origins:
The demons were intricately aware of scripture and prophecy, so they seeded aspects that they were aware of ahead of time, like a virgin birth, incarnation, a man of suffering and death, into many of their different demon religions to muddy the waters for people forever after. The key difference is that they were imitations and lies. They don't point to the true Christ, they distract and detract from Him, and thus confuse people and lead to their damnation.

>>1570937
Referring again to John VIII 24, Jesus explicitly says, "If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin." The critical point is that correctly identifying God's Christ is required for salvation. Thus, religions like Talmudic Judaism and Islam, although they say some true things about God, misidentify God / Jesus and therefore deny him.

The following scripture confirms the same point:

>"He that is not with me, is against me."
Matthew XII 30

>If a Chinese person in 100BC, fully believed in the messiah, died before the birth of Christ, does his belief in "the messiah" not ensure his salvation?
Unknown.
>what is your belief on the ability for those born before Christ to achieve salvation?

Somewhat unknown, but probably that the promise of eternal life prior to Christ was exclusive to the Israelites and their Hebrew predecessors. We know there were holy men, like Noah, prior to Abraham, but they were few and far between. People find this hard to believe or accept, but if you start from the standpoint that God is exclusively good (he defines goodness and justice), you can rest assured that no good man ends up in Hell, and no wicked man ends up in Heaven. Finally, there isn't some soul lottery, like some people believe, where souls are just randomly assigned to a body and a time and a country. Not so, God chooses the race, the place, and the time for every individual, ever. There are no accidents in this regard.

>>1570938
I will just note that many scripture scholars look at Lot's escape from Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as Noah's escape from the flood, to show that very few are saved. Out of the entire cities of S+G, only Lot and his children escaped with their lives. Out of the entire pre-flood world, which might have had advanced technology and billions of people, only 8 people survived (Noah, his wife, three sons, and their wives). These scholars say that, in the same way, the true Church is like the ark. Only those who are rightfully aboard (baptized and in a state of grace) will be saved from damnation.

"Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell."

- Saint Vincent Ferrer

That's 5/33,000, an irreducible fraction, or 0.01515%. I do accept that this is true on pious faith. Perhaps it was a particularly bleak hour, or perhaps it was typical. I'll refer again to Matthew VII 13-16, posted above.