Reformed Christian Bronies 84 members · 0 stories

A group for Christians of all stripes, without the risk of infiltration by liberals and anti-Christians. As it stands, the current Christian Brony group has been subverted and coopted by atheist and anti-Christians. The group provides a viable alternative to Christians who believe in scriptural moral standards. This group is solely for Christians, and thus has a no tolerance policy for, sodomites, transgenderists, anti-Christians, or religions of any variety save Christian.

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

-Romans 16:17

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

-Proverbs 25:26

Theological discourse is encouraged, but attacks on the core tenets of Christianity will not be allowed.

For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

-Colossians 1:16-17

Comments ( 70 )
  • Viewing 51 - 70 of 70

Good Morning every pony. I just joined and I'm looking forward to some happy blending of faith and ponies. Nice hymn in your video, I've always liked Mr. Fords voice.

414253 Really? I did not know that. Honestly, I thought I would be the one banned between the two of us... of course, I also had the idea in my head that he was a founder or at least mod.

What was he banned for, out of curiosity?

414161
you do realize he was banned right?

413499

Except, the fact that Christ kept it is explicitly stated in scripture.

Saying it explicitly and showing it are two different things.

And what the Pharisees considered to be work was probably quite different from what God considers to be work.

The Pharisees and many generations of Christians, notably the Puritans. What we consider to be work is different from what they considered to be work.

You do realize that saying Christ didn't keep the law has literally infinite implications right? Like that our sins aren't redeemed and that we're basically all condemned to hell?

If you want to believe that, then I suppose. The Jews of the time certainly didn't believe in hell, not as we view it. Besides, aren't we all condemned to hell anyway unless we have faith?

Also, how are the implications literally infinite?

Christ is the driving force behind our faith, of course, and everyone falls victim to hypocrisy, but there's no point in whining about the fact that we have clearly laid out moral standards. Standards that none of us should treat relativistically.

Given that there are different Christian groups with different moral standards who feel their standards are clearly laid out, that's not particularly convincing.

MUH INTERPRETATIONS

That's usually what I see, yes.

The Bible interprets itself.

Now if only it would share those interpretations with everyone instead of giving some interpretations to some people and others to different people...

I dunno, the implication I got from Jesus was that you shouldn't be so uptight about "the law" (as the Pharisees were), and actually focus on being a worthwhile person. Following the laws won't get you into heaven, after all, and a human can't even live a sinless life anyway. This is why I don't care for people who cite this or that Biblical law, because there's no real point. Well, that and the people who pick and choose which laws to "follow" (if they even practice what they preach) and which to ignore, with whatever justification they can get away with. They also tend to be the people who are more interested in Christianity as a social clique than Christianity as a relationship with God, at least from what I've seen.

413496
Except, the fact that Christ kept it is explicitly stated in scripture. And what the Pharisees considered to be work was probably quite different from what God considers to be work. You do realize that saying Christ didn't keep the law has literally infinite implications right? Like that our sins aren't redeemed and that we're basically all condemned to hell?

Have fun getting set on fire, I guess.

The basic theological argument is simply that the moral law states what is moral and what isn't. The penalties are no longer required, on the basis of Christ's death, but aren't necessarily wrong. The purpose of the law is to bring about repentance. And in the context of the Church, crimes punishable by death are punishable by excommunication, which is described as a type of death. Christ is the driving force behind our faith, of course, and everyone falls victim to hypocrisy, but there's no point in whining about the fact that we have clearly laid out moral standards. Standards that none of us should treat relativistically.

No, you can cite verses and I will simply tell you that those are your interpretation, and I will probably cite other interpretations of them and ask why yours is inherently better.

MUH INTERPRETATIONS

The Bible interprets itself.

413495

He did not break that commandment, he kept it.

"Keeping" seems to be one of those weasel words some people use to justify anything they like regarding the law, especially when they use it in a meaning only they seem to understand. "Fufill" is the same way. But:

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD.
-Leviticus 23:3

But no matter how you slice it, from healing people to gathering food, Jesus did what the ancient Hebrews of the time (and several Christian sects since then) considered "work," - especially the gathering food part.

The ceremonial laws pertained to sacrifice, the temple, the eating of pork and other un-kosher things, stuff like that. The moral law specifically applies to specific actions in society that were considered directly to be criminal, such as homosexuality, murder, rape, etc.

What, breaking the Ten Commandments wasn't "directly criminal?" I think "specific actions in society that were considered directly to be criminal" is a fairly broad category.

You know, I've yet to have anyone try and justify why the "moral laws" are still to be kept (or rather, pretended to be kept) while others are to be ignored. The most I've seen is some bit about the ceremonial laws supposedly only applying to the ancient Hebrews, never mind that the rest of the laws were also given during a time when the Hebrews were God's only followers and Gentiles were distrusted. Really seems like an excuse to me - an understandable one given some of the laws, but it doesn't help that they claim to follow other laws. I say "claim" because they don't actually follow the guidelines laid out in the bible for dealing with murder, rape (though I can hardly blame them in that case), etc. They just sort of generically oppose them, sometimes. Kinda brings up the question of whether you're following the law if you don't actually follow it.

And that's when they're not ignoring laws outright, such as ignoring a law to kill anyone who curses their parent despite that command being four verses prior to one of the Leviticus quotes about homosexuality that evangelicals love so much.

So, my problem is twofold. One is that too many Christians claim to value and follow God's laws, but in practice they just follow the ones they want to, and oftentimes barely at that. This wouldn't be a problem if they weren't such sticklers about the laws they supposedly follow, which is my second problem - that they're so caught up in "following the laws" - and trying to force others to follow them - that they've lost sight of what's actually moral. Just like the Pharisees:

And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
-Luke 14:3-5

Jesus makes a good case for not following the laws - or following what other people think of the laws. I interpret him as more or less teaching that, since following the entire body of laws is futile, it's best not to dwell on them and focus on what's moral.

I can prove everything I have said to you here out of the Bible.

No, you can cite verses and I will simply tell you that those are your interpretation, and I will probably cite other interpretations of them and ask why yours is inherently better.

413494
He did not break that commandment, he kept it. The commandment he broke was an artificial one imposed by the Pharisees, which was completely unscriptural. I explained to you what the ceremonial and moral laws were. The ceremonial laws pertained to sacrifice, the temple, the eating of pork and other un-kosher things, stuff like that. The moral law specifically applies to specific actions in society that were considered directly to be criminal, such as homosexuality, murder, rape, etc.

This is basic theology, my man.

Hmm... funny you mention that, that sounds very familiar...

I can prove everything I have said to you here out of the Bible.

413466

Christ was not flexible with the law.

You are apparently unaware of the laws he flouted - even breaking one of the commandments (keep holy the sabbath day) if I recall correctly. My interpretation is that he believed that "the law "shouldn't get in the way of being moral.

Also, what's the difference between the "moral laws" and the non-"moral laws?" They're not exactly marked...

it was that they added onto the law, placed un-Biblical obligations onto people, and then promptly broke all of the laws themselves while taking to themselves an air of righteousness.

Hmm... funny you mention that, that sounds very familiar...

413465
The difference is that homosexuality is unnatural, as the Bible clearly says, and marriage between men and women is the natural order, as Christ himself said. The moral law stands, even if the laws surrounding the temple and ceremony no longer do, as Christ has died for us as the final sacrifice. Christ dying does not mean he suspended morality. The moral law still applies. Freedom from the law does not give licence to sin. Homosexuality is sin. Now, by no means can I say that anyone save Christ is able to keep the law. However, it is still right that those who do break the moral law repent of it.

Christ was not flexible with the law. Christ fulfilled the law to the letter, which is why he could die for our sake in the first place (than, and the fact that he's God). His issue with the Pharisees was not that they followed the law too closely, it was that they added onto the law, placed un-Biblical obligations onto people, and then promptly broke all of the laws themselves while taking to themselves an air of righteousness.

413464

The homosexuals actively engage in indoctrinating children to be homosexual as well.

You mean like heterosexuals actively engage in indoctrinating children to be heterosexual, and fail? Also, given that the homosexual community knows the best that it isn't something you can just raise someone to be, I can't imagine this being any more true than heterosexual indoctrination - or any more successful.

Nevertheless, the Bible describes it as being abominable enough to be punishable by death, which should at least tell us that God takes it seriously.

In a book which most Christians try to weasel their way out of following, no less. I would personally take a much more flexible view of God's laws, much as Jesus seemed to.

413463
The homosexuals actively engage in indoctrinating children to be homosexual as well. I see where you come from on the bravery point, but I would argue that defiance of God isn't bravery, but rather, foolhardiness. Yes, I am certain that there are many crimes that are at least as bad as homosexuality and perhaps even worse. Nevertheless, the Bible describes it as being abominable enough to be punishable by death, which should at least tell us that God takes it seriously.

413371

But a loud proportion that continually demands that children be taught to be more like them, and that people serve them hand and foot and praise them for their "bravery" in defying God.

I really don't know what the former is supposed to mean, and I'm not sure why the latter is in quotes (even if I believed it). If it really is defying God, it's the bravest act of all, is it not? Regardless of whether that bravery is a good thing? Of course I'm still of the opinion there are far worse things one can do than feel attraction for the same sex, and far better things one can do than try and suppress those who feel that way.

413368
But a loud proportion that continually demands that children be taught to be more like them, and that people serve them hand and foot and praise them for their "bravery" in defying God.

413367

God very obviously hates homosexuality, as he killed the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah for the practice.

This is exactly what I mean. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for a variety of forms of wickedness, but homosexuality is never singled out, because it wasn't their major crime. The biggest crime of theirs that can be gathered from the OT is cruelty to guests - a HUGE deal in ancient times and in that region - and given that they're a city in the desert, they're expected to be a haven for travelers. But no, nowadays people act like that's the only thing they did wrong.

As I mentioned, it is hardly the biggest concern in either OT or NT, yet it has a level of attention from the far right it neither needs nor deserves. Society only "focuses on it" because the far right obsesses over it, and those that said "moral" folk would crush in their "morality" naturally fight back.

I would not care about homosexuality if there weren't so many homosexuals.

...How many homosexuals do you think there are? Last I checked, those that count themselves as homosexual (which excludes those who are at least partially bisexual but don't want to admit it) are around 2% of the population. Not exactly an obtrusive proportion.

413350
We focus on it because society at large focuses on it.
God very obviously hates homosexuality, as he killed the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah for the practice. The moral law states that homosexuality is worthy of execution, and Romans continues by deriding it as totally degenerate.
A crime of that nature should not be prevalent in our society in any way, nevermind openly. It's not that it's worse than other sins. It's more that it's one that the left is currently trying to naturalize. I would not care about homosexuality if there weren't so many homosexuals.

412804 And personally, I think the far religious right obsess too much over the wrong things. Seriously, how many times is homosexuality actually mentioned in the bible? How many of those references are amongst the OT laws that they otherwise try and weasel out of? And yet some people act like "there shall be no homosexuality" is the first commandment or something. I really question people who prioritize that above so many other sins.

"On Saturday night I would see men lusting after half -naked girls dancing at the carnival, and
on Sunday morning when I was playing the organ for tent- show evangelists at the other end of the
carnival lot, I would see these same men sitting in the pews with their wives and children, asking
God to forgive them and purge them of carnal desires. And the next Saturday night they'd be back
at the carnival or some other place of indulgence.

*Sees advertisement on SSPB*
*Reads rulebook*
*Joins*
*Pulls up chair*
*Gets Popcorn*

Alright, let's see how long this 'peace' lasts before everyone from every side makes an ass out of themselves... again.
media.tenor.co/images/293cf685b27c67f85afcefb0db5af1c9/raw

412828
I get where you're coming from, except this individual is an apostate, has abandoned the Church, has openly declared that he would be morally superior to God if God existed. I think this is a clear demonstration of where his heart is. He's explained his position, I've explained mine. As an apostate who has declared his hatred for God, he has no place here, as far as I'm concerned. Like I said to him, if God works in his heart and brings him back (and I pray God does so), he's welcome anytime, but not before then.

As for the actual anti-theists, why should we care about what they think of us? They already despise this group anyways for not coddling their attempts to mock the faith.

This is a group for Christians and those with a desire to learn about Christianity, not for people who will come in only to undermine and argue. They are not productive for theological dialogue, and I honestly see no reason why we should allow them to do to this group what they did to others.

As for my statements, I wasn't being unkind. I was firmly clarifying my position and why they're not welcome here. If I were being unkind, I would be far harsher.

412787 Sounds like a disgust or anger issue rather than a true disbelief in His existence.


412791

Then you have no place here.

You're a clear anti-theist, but you're welcome if God saves you and you come back to the faith, may He have mercy on your soul.

But, of course, because your soul is dead, you are incapable of recognizing his willingness to forgive you for all of your failings as he has forgiven the brethren. I mourn for you.

You're welcome back if the Holy Spirit works in your heart and you see the error of your way, but in the meantime, never return.

I hope that those who do consider themselves Christian who are homosexual or transgender may give up their foul degeneracy and thus avoid eternal judgment of their souls.

This isn't /fimpol/. I politely ask you not to come back unless you change your mind on the faith

Sigh.

While I agree that sinners need help (and who are we to point fingers; we still sin every day!?), I think these unkind dismissals are hurting and not helping. Being unkind to people on the fence (i.e, could swing our way if we follow Christ) is going to cause them to make the wrong decision, and hurt rather than advance the gospel.

I am not trying to compromise what I believe. What I'm trying to do is bring out a peace that will also uplift others. While the other side has made some rude remarks, it's no reason to retaliate in the same manner. Now I know why the original group had a free-speech policy, even though it's abused almost beyond recognition by those determined to oppose us. We have to try to spread the faith in His love, not anger. It's a fine line between disgust toward sin and hatred for enemies, but it is a line that, through God and His love, that we must act. If they refuse, well, then it's best to part on the best terms possible, and leave the matter in God's hands; perhaps someone better equipped may make more of an impression, If people who you consider "weak" regarding their faith have joined the group and are seeking God, it would be better to encourage their belief and make it stronger, not rip them apart. Ultimately, God alone will judge us. Unforgiving harshness is not part of what we are here to do.

Meanwhile, real anti-theists from the original group have followed us and will attack, or else spy and use what they get and turn it on us.

I mean no disrespect, as usual. Good night, and may God go with and favor us and our cause.

  • Viewing 51 - 70 of 70