Is there one true Christian church?

Kid Twist

Hummingbird
scorpion said:
Kid Twist said:
And by the way, what gives you the authority to speak about the "membership in the heavenly club"? Just wondering.

I have no authority, I'm simply relaying the message of the New Testament

And so am I. And the Nicene Creed. And what is clear about history and just pure logic or simple understanding.

This is the fundamental error of this "one church" ideology: you think it's about you. You think it's about your church, as if your church has somehow pleased God and gained his favor. But it's not about you. It's not about how great your church is. It's not about us. Any of us. The world was not created for us. It was created for the glory of God. Your salvation was a gift of God, because in granting salvation to sinful creatures God puts his love and mercy on display. The entire point of everything - why does anything exist? - is to demonstrate the glory of God. We are simply the witnesses and the beneficiaries of his glory, now and in eternity to come. It's why we exist. We didn't do anything special to deserve this, nor can we ever.

No, you think we think it's about us. I agree with everything else you are saying here, because it is the teaching of the church, and is true. But something I've noticed with protestants, apart from anti-scriptural teachings regarding what the (ethereal) church is (due to hangups with the RC church), is that they constantly are also hung up with what others say about salvation --- everything is simplified to the super complex point that we have no say over, ultimately. Every single theological inquiry or statement about truth or dogma necessarily goes to salvation statements for them. It's this way too with people who are nonbelievers, those who also don't have as good of an understanding or can't be disciplined enough to listen to what we are saying. They are obsessed with it, this salvation stuff; it's literally an emotional reaction. Let me tell you once again, we are to be faithful, HE makes the final judgment. Can you finally confirm that you understand what we are saying here? Thank you.

I keep noticing that you continue to talk about "what it takes" to be saved, which is fine on one level, but as Aboulia states, what you believe about God and the world is profoundly important to how you behave. If you simplify the "what it takes" approach too much, you end up creating a check box or rules based approach that keeps asking (this is what humans are prone to do), "Oh, I need to do that? Oh ok. Am I good now?"

Not having the proper focus about life and God will lead to asking the wrong questions and approaching with a mindset that does not lead to healthy outcomes.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
I'm going to preface this all, saying yes, Scorpion, you're correct on some accounts, humility is lacking on some posts, mine included; but I do completely agree with the basic content of Kid Twist's latest post, not the tone. I do understand the frustration in having always to go back to the foundations of the faith. Like when you posted this,
scorpion said:
Ultimately, I think there is far too much interdenominational squabbling and fights over specific interpretation of doctrine, as if God somehow expects every layman to have a profound knowledge of spiritual matters. In reality, all he asks is faith in Christ. That's the only ticket that ultimately matters. Is your faith in Christ genuine? If it is, everything else will fall into place. Doctrinal differences and differing interpretations of Scripture pale in comparison to the importance of uniting in the proclamation of Christ as Lord.

The main problem is one of mindset, and language. Would you not agree that you define "faith in Christ", and how you manifest that in the world matters? To highlight other distinctions, when you said the "kingdom of God is not of this world (John 18:36)". How do you define this world? Could it possibly be that "this world" was referring to the fallen state of man, of worldly power over the spirit, of mammon over god, the material over the spiritual? Can you reconcile that view with the prayer that Christ taught men "Our Father, who art in heaven.......thy kingdom come, thy will be done..."? Are we to tell him, "no, Your kingdom hasn't come yet, heaven isn't of this world." or are we to answer "Thy kingdom isn't here because of my own failure to manifest your will."?

scorpion said:
I have no authority, I'm simply relaying the message of the New Testament, which speaks with the full authority of God himself, and which is very clear: that the kingdom of God is not of this world (John 18:36), and that all who believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah will be the adopted sons of God and joint heirs of Christ in that kingdom (Romans 8:28-30), and that God predestined Christians to be called into the kingdom and adopted in this manner before he created the world itself (Eph. 1:4-5).

What constitutes the New Testament? Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas as a valid Gospel? On what grounds? How about the book of Enoch, I know one of the prophets referenced it (Jeremiah, I think), but it was still excluded by those who compiled the "bible", Why? Is the interpretation of the scriptures of "LBGT Christians" correct? If not, why do you reject them?

Those books and many others you're referring to were collected, and evaluated and they interpreted them in a specific way by many men. Those that fit properly with the conception of God were included, those that were not, were discarded , and when contentions came up that were threatening to break the unity of the church, the king called an ecumenical synod to resolve the main issues. To reject this, is in essence, taking centuries of collected knowledge about the nature of the world, which people fought and died to maintain, and throwing it to the wayside, because people feel they can interpret a book how they see fit.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not doing this to be a jackass, I'm not saying I can answer all your questions. I'm trying to get you to question the foundations of your knowledge. Unanswerable questions is part of how I grew out of Protestantism.

scorpion said:
Therefore the idea that a particular collection of men in robes has special claim to the eternal truth and glory of the most high God who created the universe from nothing is foolishness and utter hubris. It reveals a conception of God that is far too limited, as well as a lack of familiarity with the fundamental teachings of the Scriptures.

I hope you're not making the claim that people cannot make universal claims(Which is what eternal truth is) I don't think you mean to, I think you do have a desire to do good, seeing how you're concerned with the unity of the forum, otherwise I wouldn't have written a post this long

The garments people wear do not make them worthy to declare what is and what is not true, they have no jurisdiction over it, they can only point to where it lies. The narrow path doesn't become easy by becoming Orthodox, it's just choosing to have the lights on with some guideposts to make the path a little less treacherous along the way.

This podcast I'm linking, goes deeper into the right to claims of truth, the author is an Orthodox priest, and a former professor who was fired multiple times (he was kicked out for not falling in line). Also the person who was speaking in that video I linked last.
https://www.radioaryan.com/2017/05/the-orthodox-nationalist-jurisdiction.html

From the link

My father was a very good man and he wanted the best for me. Not once did he come into my room and say “the handbook says I have to beat you now since you've misbehaved. Sorry, my hands are tied.” No. He was a free man who realized that we all misbehave. God is not subject to the bishops in Talmudic fashion. The Apostles cut and ran at the first sign of trouble. Women (and St. John) alone were at the cross. This is in Scripture precisely to give us a lesson about bishops (it also proves the Scriptures true, since they would never say this about themselves). They are no different from us and they have no special “powers” like the Severus Snapes that they would love us to believe they are.

The greatest of saints said that they were the worst of sinners. Were they lying? No. What they were saying is that our life in a corrupt world is inherently sinful. All action is self-regarding and hence a sin. Sin was built into the world, and is now defended and enforced by our modern one. If we are judged by our actions, then no one will be saved. Rather, we are judged by who we are: how we have organized our mind and life to best reflect the doctrines of Truth. Here, we do have the chance to be perfect. Thus, a saint can be the worst of sinners and he can also be perfect.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
I like the Westminster Confession of Faith's distinction between the visible and invisible church, which is reflected in Scripture. The invisible church is Christ's sheep, the true believers, those who believe the Gospel. There is much overlap with the visible church, which is the place you go each week, but as we see throughout the New and Old Testament, intermingled there are sheep and goats, wheat and tares, false teachers and faithful pastors. And there are varying degrees of corruption in these churches, not surprising given the corruption of our own hearts.

Most protestants I know don't consider their church the "one true church." Rather, Baptists, Presbyterians, non-denoms, charismatics, Lutherans, etc. all recognize and rejoice in those who believe the Gospel in the US and all the world, even if for a time we unite denominationally with the entity that we believe more closely aligns to Scriptural teachings. And no in-the-know person in these denoms considers mainline churches to be Christian, although even in those you can still surprisingly find individual believers even though most of the faithful ones left or split into more conservative entities long ago. The war against corruption will continue to the end.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
scorpion said:
Roosh said:
I can't speak for the Catholics, but the Orthodox church does not come close to proclaiming this. They go out of their way to say that not only Orthodox will be saved, and the church does wish that ALL will be saved, meaning to also pray for non-Orthodox. When you go to an Orthodox monastery, there is a form you can fill out to list names of "non-Orthodox" for them to pray for. I could list your name and they would pray for your salvation.

The "one true church" meme often comes from excited converts to Orthodoxy.

Ultimately, I think there is far too much interdenominational squabbling and fights over specific interpretation of doctrine, as if God somehow expects every layman to have a profound knowledge of spiritual matters. In reality, all he asks is faith in Christ. That's the only ticket that ultimately matters. Is your faith in Christ genuine? If it is, everything else will fall into place. Doctrinal differences and differing interpretations of Scripture pale in comparison to the importance of uniting in the proclamation of Christ as Lord. God is working actively and effectively through all of the various denominations, from the globohomo converged Catholics to the humble Orthodox to the Zionist-shill Protestants. There are true Christians in ALL of these churches to a greater or lesser extent, Christians God is working through and whom God will raise up on the last day. To deny this is to deny the power of God to accomplish his sovereign plan of delivering salvation by faith to all who believe, a plan which is so important and all-encompassing that it pre-dates creation itself.

In Eric Metaxas book on Luther he touches on this a bit. Metaxas points out there's people in the Scriptures like the thief on the cross that received salvation without having any idea what the Trinity is or having an inkling about any sort of doctrinal issue. Theology is important but at the same time I can't imagine the Day of Judgement being a sort of theological classroom final where salvation is contingent on passing an exam. Jesus talking about the sheep and goats at the judgement didn't involve him separating them based on their level of doctrinal understanding.
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
Wutang said:
Theology is important but at the same time I can't imagine the Day of Judgement being a sort of theological classroom final where salvation is contingent on passing an exam. Jesus talking about the sheep and goats at the judgement didn't involve him separating them based on their level of doctrinal understanding.

This anonymous Desert Father had the right idea (The Desert Fathers were the anchorites who lived in the Egyptian desert in the early centuries after Christ's birth. Their sayings were passed down by word of mouth, and the first text was written in the 4th century):

The Anonymous Sayings of the Desert Fathers

N.307/15.84 One day some people of the Thebaid came to an elder bringing with them a person in the grips of a demon so he might heal him. Seriously entreated, the elder said to the demon: "Come out of that which God has made," and the demon said to the elder" "I am coming out, but I ask you one question. Tell me: who are the goats and who are the sheep?" [cf Mt 25:32-3] Said the elder: "The goats, it is I; God knows who the sheep are." On hearing this, the demon cried out with a loud voice: "Look, through your humility, I am coming out!" and out he came at that very hour.

You do not reach this level of spiritual attainment through theology. It is hard won over many years of prayer, practice, and experience.

(Found a copy of their sayings free for download on archive.org. https://archive.org/details/TheAnonymousSayingsOfTheDWortleyJohn5090)
 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
Aboulia said:
What constitutes the New Testament? Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas as a valid Gospel? On what grounds? How about the book of Enoch, I know one of the prophets referenced it (Jeremiah, I think), but it was still excluded by those who compiled the "bible", Why? Is the interpretation of the scriptures of "LBGT Christians" correct? If not, why do you reject them?

Those books and many others you're referring to were collected, and evaluated and they interpreted them in a specific way by many men. Those that fit properly with the conception of God were included, those that were not, were discarded , and when contentions came up that were threatening to break the unity of the church, the king called an ecumenical synod to resolve the main issues. To reject this, is in essence, taking centuries of collected knowledge about the nature of the world, which people fought and died to maintain, and throwing it to the wayside, because people feel they can interpret a book how they see fit.

I think this is a good example of the Orthodox tendency to elevate the church itself and especially the great saints and patriarchs to a higher level than they deserve. Because what you're asserting here is that it was MEN who decided what would be in the Bible. This is completely antithetical to my understanding and belief not only in God himself, but particularly in the method in which he chose to reveal himself to the great majority of those who would believe in him (the written scriptures).

This speaks to a fundamental difference between the conception of God between the Reformed Protestant and the Catholic/Orthodox Christian. The C/O Christians essentially see God as being active through the church. The church functions as something between a tool and partner for God to accomplish his work in the world. Thus it is that Aboulia can say something about how it was that "men compiled and selected the books of the Bible". The Reformed Protestant view, on the other hand, sees God as completely sovereign over and independent from the church (which is the body of believers in the world). In this view, God is not just the creator of the universe but the author of history, and his will is invariably done in all things. In other words, everything that has happened in the history of the world has happened because God either made it happen directly, or he allowed it to happen because it would serve his plan in some way.

With this understanding you can see how the question of the compilation of the Bible being done by men becomes ludicrous. As if the men were exercising their free will undirected by the Holy Spirit!? In other words, the Bible could not have ended up any other way than it did. God's will was done. So when you ask, "What is the New Testament?" I answer flatly: it is the New Testament. The New Testament that God wanted us to have and which we have today. He directed the authorship of the original epistles/gospels through inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he directed their early distribution and preservation, and he directed their ultimate selection and compilation into the New Testament we have today. This was done by the power and the will of God and is just one example of how God directs history toward his desired purposes. This is the concept of Divine Providence.

I don't really understand what you are trying to get at in the rest of your post so I won't respond to any of it. I will just say though that I think with many of these theological disagreements we often start talking past each other, even though we are actually in agreement on the vast majority of issues, which is unfortunate. I think a lot of the disagreements stem more from cultural differences in the Eastern vs. Western traditions (such as heavy emphasis on the interpretation of the Patriarchs) and in the specific theological terminology employed (i.e. the concept of theosis). But speaking as a Reformed Protestant, I can say that I find little to criticize from the Orthodox position and don't feel the need to attack it. I simply request the same courtesy in return.
 

Kid Twist

Hummingbird
It is clear that scorpion is a determinist. So be it.

I'll leave it at this: The denial of a real, tangible and historical church, that is one, denies the sacramental realities of the church. Protestants, again and again, make this clear. It's curious how this is also a denial of the very scriptures they constantly reference in arguments.
 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
Kid Twist said:
It is clear that scorpion is a determinist. So be it.

I'll leave it at this: The denial of a real, tangible and historical church, that is one, denies the sacramental realities of the church. Protestants, again and again, make this clear. It's curious how this is also a denial of the very scriptures they constantly reference in arguments.

What exactly do you mean by this?

And yes I am largely a determinist - although I leave some room for free will (at least from the human perspective). I think that the seemingly unbridgeable gap between free will and determinism, especially in regards to salvation, is largely a product of the human mind's inability to comprehend a god who exists outside of time and space. Our perception of causality will be much different than God's as a result. That's all I'll say about that for now, although a Free Will vs. Determinism thread could be a good one.
 

bucky

Ostrich
debeguiled said:
It seems like you guys have taken the standard "tradition vs. bible alone' debate and turned it into a 'God vs. men' debate.

A thread on sola scriptura would also be good, although I imagine it would get pretty contentious.
 

wwtl

Kingfisher
scorpion said:
In this view, God is not just the creator of the universe but the author of history, and his will is invariably done in all things. In other words, everything that has happened in the history of the world has happened because God either made it happen directly, or he allowed it to happen because it would serve his plan in some way.

With this understanding you can see how the question of the compilation of the Bible being done by men becomes ludicrous. As if the men were exercising their free will undirected by the Holy Spirit!? In other words, the Bible could not have ended up any other way than it did. God's will was done. So when you ask, "What is the New Testament?" I answer flatly: it is the New Testament. The New Testament that God wanted us to have and which we have today. He directed the authorship of the original epistles/gospels through inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he directed their early distribution and preservation, and he directed their ultimate selection and compilation into the New Testament we have today. This was done by the power and the will of God and is just one example of how God directs history toward his desired purposes. This is the concept of Divine Providence.

For my conversion God provided me with a literal translation of the Textus Receptus. One thing I was very concerned about especially before conversion was that I actually have a non-corrupted and complete version of God's word. I didn't want to read some happy daisy advertising flyer depicting Christianity in the best light possible while leaving out or euphemizing the parts I might not like, one which tries to convince me to join and pay for some happy megachurch (you see I didn't really intend to convert at first...)

After a discussion in church yesterday I brought this issue up with the Lord again and He reminded me of my own research two years ago and asked me: Do you think God makes mistakes? Do you seriously believe He is unable to provide you with the exact Bible translation you need(ed)?
 

bucky

Ostrich
wwtl said:
scorpion said:
In this view, God is not just the creator of the universe but the author of history, and his will is invariably done in all things. In other words, everything that has happened in the history of the world has happened because God either made it happen directly, or he allowed it to happen because it would serve his plan in some way.

With this understanding you can see how the question of the compilation of the Bible being done by men becomes ludicrous. As if the men were exercising their free will undirected by the Holy Spirit!? In other words, the Bible could not have ended up any other way than it did. God's will was done. So when you ask, "What is the New Testament?" I answer flatly: it is the New Testament. The New Testament that God wanted us to have and which we have today. He directed the authorship of the original epistles/gospels through inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he directed their early distribution and preservation, and he directed their ultimate selection and compilation into the New Testament we have today. This was done by the power and the will of God and is just one example of how God directs history toward his desired purposes. This is the concept of Divine Providence.

For my conversion God provided me with a literal translation of the Textus Receptus. One thing I was very concerned about especially before conversion was that I actually have a non-corrupted and complete version of God's word. I didn't want to read some happy daisy advertising flyer depicting Christianity in the best light possible while leaving out or euphemizing the parts I might not like, one which tries to convince me to join and pay for some happy megachurch (you see I didn't really intend to convert at first...)

After a discussion in church yesterday I brought this issue up with the Lord again and He reminded me of my own research two years ago and asked me: Do you think God makes mistakes? Do you seriously believe He is unable to provide you with the exact Bible translation you need(ed)?

Great points, although I suspect that for most members of this forum a literal, correct translation of the Bible would be much less a problem than it would be for the typical "Churchian" as mainstream American churchgoers are sometimes called. I think most guys on this forum would be less likely to squirm uncomfortably at Jesus coming not to bring peace but a sword, women not being permitted to speak in church, men lusting after other men being sinful, and so on.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
scorpion said:
Aboulia said:
Those books and many others you're referring to were collected, and evaluated and they interpreted them in a specific way by many men. Those that fit properly with the conception of God were included, those that were not, were discarded , and when contentions came up that were threatening to break the unity of the church, the king called an ecumenical synod to resolve the main issues. To reject this, is in essence, taking centuries of collected knowledge about the nature of the world, which people fought and died to maintain, and throwing it to the wayside, because people feel they can interpret a book how they see fit.

I think this is a good example of the Orthodox tendency to elevate the church itself and especially the great saints and patriarchs to a higher level than they deserve. Because what you're asserting here is that it was MEN who decided what would be in the Bible. This is completely antithetical to my understanding and belief not only in God himself, but particularly in the method in which he chose to reveal himself to the great majority of those who would believe in him (the written scriptures).

There is no need for the bad faith understanding of my statement. It's implicit that these men were guided by the Holy Spirit in the quest for truth, for men can do nothing good apart from God. Just as in the scriptures, whenever someone does something right, it generally doesn't include that they were guided by the Holy Spirit at every statement.

Since I need to emphasize this, men didn't decide what qualified as Holy Scripture in the manner of a person that decides what to have for dinner. They decided in a manner according to the truth which exists outside man and, like it or not, they all agreed upon (with the same Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth) the interpretation of the words contained. As I stated in that exact same post you replied to but chose to ignore, a man has no power over what is truth or not, he can only point to what is true, the men compiling the scriptures had no personal self serving influence in the matter.
Aboulia said:
The garments people wear do not make them worthy to declare what is and what is not true, they have no jurisdiction over it, they can only point to where it lies.
 

wwtl

Kingfisher
bucky said:
wwtl said:
scorpion said:
In this view, God is not just the creator of the universe but the author of history, and his will is invariably done in all things. In other words, everything that has happened in the history of the world has happened because God either made it happen directly, or he allowed it to happen because it would serve his plan in some way.

With this understanding you can see how the question of the compilation of the Bible being done by men becomes ludicrous. As if the men were exercising their free will undirected by the Holy Spirit!? In other words, the Bible could not have ended up any other way than it did. God's will was done. So when you ask, "What is the New Testament?" I answer flatly: it is the New Testament. The New Testament that God wanted us to have and which we have today. He directed the authorship of the original epistles/gospels through inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he directed their early distribution and preservation, and he directed their ultimate selection and compilation into the New Testament we have today. This was done by the power and the will of God and is just one example of how God directs history toward his desired purposes. This is the concept of Divine Providence.

For my conversion God provided me with a literal translation of the Textus Receptus. One thing I was very concerned about especially before conversion was that I actually have a non-corrupted and complete version of God's word. I didn't want to read some happy daisy advertising flyer depicting Christianity in the best light possible while leaving out or euphemizing the parts I might not like, one which tries to convince me to join and pay for some happy megachurch (you see I didn't really intend to convert at first...)

After a discussion in church yesterday I brought this issue up with the Lord again and He reminded me of my own research two years ago and asked me: Do you think God makes mistakes? Do you seriously believe He is unable to provide you with the exact Bible translation you need(ed)?

Great points, although I suspect that for most members of this forum a literal, correct translation of the Bible would be much less a problem than it would be for the typical "Churchian" as mainstream American churchgoers are sometimes called. I think most guys on this forum would be less likely to squirm uncomfortably at Jesus coming not to bring peace but a sword, women not being permitted to speak in church, men lusting after other men being sinful, and so on.

Indeed, that's exactly where some of my fellow Christians get uncomfortable, when I state that I accept the Bible as truth in the whole and have absolutely no issues with the content of God's word.

In the end it's about not having a "feel good" gospel and instead accepting the fact, that God demands things you might not like, because they are still good.
 

An0dyne

Robin
Augustus_Principe said:
Catholic & Orthodox since they were both were in communion with one another up until the Schism.

By that logic, you could say Catholic and Protestant, too, since they were in Communion up until the Reformation....

bucky said:
Can those of you who are more knowledgeable about the scriptures tell me what the scriptural basis is for the belief that there is only one true church? ....

Also, if you believe your church is the only true church, what are the consequences for those who believe in Christ but never eventually convert to it? What about non-Christians who do good works without believing in Christ? Will they burn in hell for all eternity, or something else?

In response to the first question, about one true Church...the Scriptures are clear regarding "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." The Church is the new Israel, and the Lord has only One Bride, not many. There are many false Churches (see: Whore of Babylon) who pride themselves in being the Queen, but they are not. That being said, the Church is made up of every tribe, language, people, and nation, and even your institutional churches like Rome and the East acknowledge the incorporation of other religious traditions into the One True Church.

As for the second question about unbelievers, the Lord Himself is quite to the point when He says: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." What of the ignorant remote tribes? They are without excuse, as the Apostle says: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

Those who have not heard the Gospel can understand God's existence from nature, and further have the Law written in their hearts, as the Apostle goes on to say:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

It is my firm belief that, if an unbeliever strives to know God, He will reveal Himself to him, as we have seen take place on this forum. We have glimpses of this in the Scriptures, such as the Egyptians who followed the Israelites out of Egypt after the plagues, the prostitute Rehab who was saved from Jericho, the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon, the people of Nineveh who were saved from destruction through Jonah's preaching, the Magi who came to worship the newborn Christ, and the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptized by St. Philip. God works in ways to bring the truth to unlikely people who earnestly seek Him (as well as those who do not), and His Word will always "accomplish the purpose" for which He sends it.
 
I did not read this thread nor do I intend to. I always try to reduce even the most complex down to its essence. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." You look at the current state of Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular and then remain honest with yourself and you are going to have an internal crisis of the highest order. The current reality is just so far separated from the words.
 

rotekz

Ostrich
Gold Member
I think we can remove the Evangelical Lutheran Church from the list of candidates. :laugh:
oTsVa6y.jpg
 

loremipsum

Kingfisher
It's that cuck face again.

Someone need to remake Ridley Scott's Alien but instead of a xenomorph bursting out of the chest, it's a brain virus causing low T men to do the soy grin.
 
loremipsum said:
It's that cuck face again.

Someone need to remake Ridley Scott's Alien but instead of a xenomorph bursting out of the chest, it's a brain virus causing low T men to do the soy grin.

I'm not even sure which one is the "pastor" in that photo
 
Top