>>19787242

the information about who and why is simple:

when a person is a spammer and a known troll who posts badgering and hate, and serially doing it, the BV now delete that person's posts.

it's known.

it's been like this for months.

get over it.

did you ever actually see any of those 'green number' posts that ever was anything more than someone being a jerk to someone else?

(I don't support censorship but I understand what is happening).

you mkae it worse by doing the 'no wonder Q . . .' blah blah blah.

>>19787294

is this an AI?

would a real person, who is able to post, actually be this uneducated?

>>19787301

explaining what?

what did you (?) need explained?

you made phrases and said stuff that makes you seem (if you are real) like a child who shyouldn't even be on the board?

is there something you need explained?

you don't understand what Islam is?

you don't know who Muslims are?

why don't you study that first and maybe then get back to us.

>>19787298

you don't understand a mindset of devotion and of sacrafice of effort and goods?

you don't understand what for The Lord means?

and why is that? walk into a church or a Mosque and ask someone there for guidance. you are in a toxic slime pit and you have bring something to the table inorder to get anything out of this place.

if you are an AI you have no legs so you can't walk up to someone.

Devotions are given as offerings.

does that mean anything to you?

>>19787346

>>19787333

the stuff he gets done usually is shit, so ya,maybe technically you are correct.

>>19787352

if you have ever observed 'channelling' you see soemthing.

you see something that seems strange.

and if you 'buy into' the idea that it is spirits talking through someone you have to ask 'well, why does this person need to channel this spirit? why cna't the spirit talk to each person individually?

and so there is that.

and usually the 'channeler' pretends to be an authority.

and they accept no descent.

most Christians see 'channelling' as what is called 'occultism' and they reason it is rejected is becuase many spirits are demons: they have no physical form and take possession of people.

so just because it's channelled doesn't mean that the spirit (assuming you agree that it's really is a spirit) is not a demon.

much of the time challeners are fakers. They are just making stuff up in their heads.

they aren't really letting a spirit speak through them.

someone who can listen to spirits and hear what they say might also not be a very nice person.

there are so many, so very many, different issues with channeling that basically it's considered sinful for Christians to be involved with it outside of a religious environment.

if you can't trust a person you meet randomly on the street, why would you trust a spirit that talks to you in their head?

and if it were a pius spirit, a saint or an angel, speaking to you , why would they demand that you demand that others believe them?

occulist and spiritualist practices are considered sinful. Oracles, OJigi boards, Tarot card reading, etc.

that is why someone says 'Satanic bullshit' when faced with it here.

>>19787370

words have many meanings.

God . . . can't be defined the way you have.

If you don't believe in God, that's you.

Others know that God is real and see you as someone who is not yet aware of that.

thus they feel that it is important to clue you in: God is real.

yes, 'god' is a word, true.

but that word means something in one of it's meanings. and that which it means is Someone Very Important who you seem to be trying to pretend is not real, when He is.

>>19787409

Takes the form of what? of a channeled message?

So like what the little children heard from Mary at Fatima?

Or when St. Michael spoken to a pope from a spire at Castle San Angelo and told the pope that the pluage was over?

but those weren't God, his messengers were who they were.

Ah, God spoke to Abram and renamed him Abraham?

all of that is considered true.

As far as spiritualists who do channelling as almost a parlor game . . . I'd say that it's considered occultism and rejected by Christians.

and asking them to take it as face value and accept it as 'God speaking' is asking them to commit mortal sin.

>>19787439

ah, you're doing the 'pity' card?

'my Bible'?

I don't own the Bible. It's your Bible too.

and look at you trying to make me seem to be a sinner for daring to call you out for spreading bunk and misinformation.

you are thus being the 'accuser' and I know what that means.

The term 'satanic' might be applied in the case.

anyone who would try to rationally explain to you what devotions are would be met with the same response from you: grasping at the straws of what you do not understand and being an accuser.

yes, I'm here.

and your Bible is waiting for you to read through it and spend time in devotion, and yet, in stead you play the role of accuser in a toxic slime pit.

>>19787468

many will say 'God is a verb'

anyway, you're just playing semantics.

why don't you crack open a bible and read it for a while and see if it inspires you?

or do you not have hands to hold it with and eyes to see it with?

>>19787482

https://biblehub.com/

if you can't afford to pay for a Bible, you can read it for free at the link provided, in very many different translations, and also with commentary that is linked to it.

>>19787494

what is your point?

you pretend to some pious interpretation now, capitalizing 'He'.

if you are an AI you have no eyes and no ears, no legs, and no hands to hold a physical copy of the bible and that is what I am hinting at.

It's not accusing, it's descerning.

but you can still go to biblehub.com, which I provided as a link.

I suggest it.

and yes, of course many ancient books were lost in antiquity.

your point?

>>19787505

saying you want to kill me off kills me to the idea of continuing with you.

obviously you're a conflict troll, and possibly an AI.

you have no right to make threats like that.

and it's monsterous of you to suggest that you would have that as part of your plan.

I can't continue with you so be gone and do not answer this post.

>>19787519

even the books included often have differing narratives.

OK so you don't want to bother with it because you ? ? ? ?

do as thou will, anon. You're obviously not one who wants to study the word of God, but just to argue about why you should not.

>>19787513

prove it. maybe you IP hopped?

why do you need to be the same person?

maybe you are channelling the same demon.

chew on that.