/All Christian related general/

I was going to make this thread exclusively about Orthodox Christianity but I thought that it would be better to make a general thread for people to just talk about and share stuff around religious literature in general. So, yeah, even if I'd like this thread to be focued only around Orthodox Christianity if you wanna post something that is about Catholicism, Satanism, Islam, Lutheranism, Paganism, Buddhism, etc; Feel free to do so.

I want to repent of my sins and die so that I might live in God.

I was a Christian for many years but recently gave up the last bit of my faith that I was clinging to. It was weighing me down to be one. I had built my belief in Christ during a really troubling time in my life and it had become a huge part of who I was. As time went on, though, I suffered repeated mistreatment by leadership in several congregations until I eventually found one that felt different. And then in my process of being made deacon, I was sexually assaulted by another member of leadership there. It crushed me. I was scared because of the power she had in the congregation to convince everyone of anything against me. I thought I'd finally found a group that was good for me only for this to happen. I was defeated by it. I had simply quit going to church and abandoned the hopes of a future I had with any church. I continued to pray from home but it was painful. I kept trying to affirm I was Christian over and over hoping I could remove my faith from what happened, but I couldn't. I suffered calling myself a Christian in private for several months until a family member convinced me to go back one more time. The woman who hurt me ran up to me saying how much she missed me and hugged me in front of everyone. That was normal behavior for her, but it was so morbid this time. I never went back and I even blocked everyone from there's number and eventually got a new number for unrelated reasons. I tried to pretend it didn't happen but that didn't help. I kept calling myself a Christian but that hurt me and it wore me down. Eventually it culminated with, 1 year after it all happened, my confiding in my girlfriend what had happened. She was incredibly supportive. All I could've hoped for. And so, even though she never tried, she'd finally gotten me to move on from the label that was killing me so. I'm a pagan now, but I don't think too much of it. I just try to be happy and I have been a lot happier because of the change. That being said, I don't hate Christianity. While I really dislike the denominations which spurn LGBT, I have no inherent problems with the religion. It just wasn't for me in the end. I know of all places this probably isn't the place for it, but it does say any discussion centered around Christianity so I went for it. I just really felt the need to say it. It's hard keeping it in.

>>8227 i notice how what "drove you away from christianity" has nothing to do with the bible itself but the hypocrisy within many churches. what you were a part of and what you rejected isnt christianity itself, its groups of people who call themselves christian.

>>8228 That's a pretty good observation, and you're right that what ultimately drove me away were actions of Christians and not an actual matter of theology. That being said, I did develop a lot of issues with theology. Scripture is clear on the stance against LGB and there's a strong case by Christians against the T too. I admire the efforts by some Christians to change the way they look at that stuff (like seeing homosexuaity in the Bible only being pederasty or whatever) but I think ultimately in most English translations the message is clear and harmful. Towards the ended I'd begun to only see the Bible as 100% fallible human creation anyways, which most Christians disagree with, and my belief more so just became admiration of Jesus than anything. Now I've swapped Jesus out for a Goddess. Most people would have seen me as an apostate before that anyways.

>>8183 One of the most interesting thoughts I have about God is this lesson that he exists outside of time. I recall reading Padre Pio state that he was happy to learn about God's existence being outside of time, because it meant that he could pray today, for his long-dead grandfather to have a happy death. There was all of this "my free will vs. God's omniscience" thing going on regarding this idea of praying to a god outside of time, but I know that this issue has already been sorted, theologically, even if I don't understand it, so I feel comfortable just leaving it be. When I was a regular secular porn-consumer, one of my favourite actresses had strange comments regarding her on a forum. She was being called "a goddess" and "an inspiration to [women with her condition]". I was a bit frustrated to learn that she made changes that I didn't agree with, even if I acknowledged that they were for the best. Now, I've converted to Catholicism, and, taking advantage of God's existence outside of time, I started praying for all such people across all time, and I can't help but wonder if maybe, my future prayers for such people, were already affecting my life in the past. Like, it seems like I was always going to convert and make those prayers. With my willingness to pray across all time, it's as though I'm already living in the world I was always going to pray for, which is a strange thought. It's like, by praying for conversions across time, I kind of set in motion the events that would lead to the very conversions that would lead to me making that prayer to begin with, or something. If you're familiar with the plot-reveals in Attack on Titan's third season, perhaps all of this makes sense (somewhat). So yeah. That's cool.

>>8215 Then spend your life trying to find a noble death. Those who have faith do not fear death, and they will be welcomed into the arms of god by their good words and deeds when they die. Death then is positive, but only if you free yourself from excessive love and fear of the earthly. Learn to appreciate all gods work in creation and help protect the weak.

If this is going to be a general thread about Christianity, I've been reading about John Dee who is a Renaissance guy best remembered by history for major advances in navigation for seafarers but he was also controversially an astrologer, astronomer and someone who claimed to speak with the angels. This book is kind of an overview of all his areas of research, by a variety of experts: >John Dee. Interdisciplinary Studies In English Renaissance Thought By Stephen Clucas ( Editor) https://archive.org/details/johndee.interdisciplinarystudiesinenglishrenaissancethoughtbystephenclucaseditor The engraving is from one of his books. That's the archangel Michael leading Elizabeth I westward towards the americas.

>>8227 >go to an LGBT friendly church >get sexually assaulted >I really dislike the denominations which spurn LGBT

>>8227 I am sorry, Anon. >>8229 >Scripture is clear on the stance against LGB and there's a strong case by Christians against the T too. What I quite don't get is that there is such an animosity towards LGBT because of bible, but there is a lot of laws and ordinances in Bible that we abandoned over the time. From the outside, however, it often looks like hating glitterboys and glittergirls and other glittery people is main point of Christianity, which I am quite certain is not true. I think Christians should ease back on this and focus more on the positive message.

>>8294 >From the outside, however, it often looks like hating glitterboys and glittergirls and other glittery people is main point of Christianity, which I am quite certain is not true. It is the main point of many modern churches. "christianity" has been used for political control for thousands of years now. >I think Christians should ease back on this and focus more on the positive message. There are a lot of people who would consider that heresy.

>>8295 >There are a lot of people who would consider that heresy. I am not a christian, so it's no surprise my opinions would be heretical. I am well aware that this is controversial take, because it might seem like I am basically suggesting to drop few lines out of Bible. But it seems like many current "christians" poorly prioritize between condemning this particular sin and loving their neighbor. I think they should balance those things better. Then again, what do i know.

>>8296 >But it seems like many current "christians" poorly prioritize between condemning this particular sin and loving their neighbor. Yes, you are correct.

>>8293 It was a very anti LGBT church. Good job making stuff up to fit your narrative. The ACNA was founded because they didn't like that the Episcopalians were ordaining gays. >>8294 Nothing to be sorry for, I'm finding peace in myself. You make a pretty good case for your faith, if only more people thought like you. Unfortunately too many people need the book of man to guide them, regardless of whether they follow it or not. >there is a lot of laws and ordinances in Bible that we abandoned over the time I'm curious what these might be. Also I'm particularly focused on LGBT myself for reasons I'm sure you could guess. I reckon that the reason why so many people treat it as a big issue involving the church is because of stuff like that meeting reaction from the religious. >>8295 >There are a lot of people who would consider that heresy Only to anybody who believes in the load of bologna that is divine inspiration, or to people who just hate others and believe their god just happens to agree with them.

>>8302 You're the one who is derailing it right now. The discussion was still Christianity oriented before your useless comment. Let's get things back on track: In the gospels Jesus says that one can not be saved by deeds alone. The meaning I've always seen attributed to this is that no matter how good of a person you are you'll never see heaven. Is this true? And if so, beyond it being the word of Jesus, how can it be justified?

>>8306 Correction: you'll never see heaven if you aren't a Christian

>>8310 >you'll never see heaven if you aren't a Christian That's what the Bible and Christian doctrine says. But there has been discussion over the centuries whether this also applies to people who haven't heard about the Bible, gospels or Christianity in general.

>>8228 It's interesting how disillusionment with churches leads to people disassociating themselves from Christianity outright, whereas during the Reformation those disillusioned by the Catholic church simply created their own Christianities.

>>8298 To not eat the sciatic nerve (christians do not usually follow this rule) (Genesis 32:22) The law which states that, during a fight between two men, if a woman tries to get his man out of the fight specifically by grabbing and pulling him from his balls, then he must cut her hand without mercy (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). two examples of laws found in the bible which are no longer followed by christians, as with a great number of old testament laws, and probably also new testament ones, which often times the church itself had to break due to secular and worldly circumstances.

>>8306 https://www.gty.org/library/Articles/A194

>>8298 FUN FACT: Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality pro or con. The only person who does in the NT is Paul in his epistles but I honestly find those epistles contrary to Jesus' general message of love in a few ways and question their inclusion in Christian canon at all (like my opinion matters).

>>8331 What about Leviticus 18:22? Hell, Leviticus 20:13 states we need to put them to death. Then you have Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Jude 1:7 -- which are explicit. Mark and a few others are implicit, but you could use pilpul to say "It doesn't mention it so it doesnt count". A lot of people do not like Deuteronomy, so I'll leave that one entirely alone. Those are pretty clear and cut. I guess you could say "There is nothing wrong with being a homosexual, it's really acting on it that is the problem" but that would be a little dishonest, homosexuality is pretty much just a fetish in the first place.

>>8332 Leviticus is mostly a book of Jewish law. Jesus explicitly said that those who believe in him do not necessarily need to be Jewish or follow Jewish law. > Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Jude 1:7 All of which are epistles of Paul, which >>8331 was dubious about. Everything in the bible except the gospels and the acts of the apostles is either historical context or the opinions of some theologian or other. It is not necessary to consider the entire bible to a holy text to be a christian. You can disagree with Paul and still be a Christian.

>>8333 Apologies: Jude was not an epistle of Paul. Nonetheless, it constitutes some guy's opinion and cannot claim to be a message from the divine.

>>8332 You did not read my post and went straight to google. You should have googled "NT" first which I assumed most people already know means New Testament, plus I actually did mention the epistles. This is why I hate posting on this site. FLOOD DETECTED nonsense yet again, the other reason

>>8331 Matthew 19:4–6 — New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (NASB95) 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

>>8336 Stop, you're torturing those poor words!

>>8183 How may I become better at defending the faith? Recently had a conversation with an atheist, and he steamrolled over me in this conversation, I had no way to defend myself that didn't make me sound silly. He said things I found extremely objectionable, such as absurd claims akin to Christ not even be a real figure. I knew these to be false, and wished to contest, but I simply couldn't. Any advice or book recommendations on this topic? I don't wish to be a debate type or anything, I just wish to be able to stand up for the faith without sounding like a fool.

>>8340 depends on the arguments made. Templar literature strives to stay true to the faith and christian mysticism is heavily rooted in philosophy and psychology. Defense of the faith does not mean you should beat everyone with fancy words. Kierkegaard may be a good place to begin reading. Or you could read the bible. take this encounter as a test of faith. You just need to understand god better. It is good to question your faith, because it develops you as a person. Persevering despite adversity is part of growth in what some would call the dark night of the soul. >"What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act. What matters is to find a purpose, to see what it really is that God wills that I shall do; the crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die."

>>8306 >In the gospels Jesus says that one can not be saved by deeds alone. The meaning I've always seen attributed to this is that no matter how good of a person you are you'll never see heaven. >Is this true? >And if so, beyond it being the word of Jesus, how can it be justified? I don't really have theological answer, but I have antropological theory: The problem, why you need God's grace is because of original sin - even if you live your life perfecly (which you will not, because you are fallible human), you still carry the guilt of Adam. While that seem quite unfair to our modern sensibilities (You did nothing wrong after all), it made sense to ancient Jews, who were very patriarchal society - father of the family and that family are often treated as single unit. Other examples of this view would be: *Lot offering his daughters to protect his guests from sodomites *Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son. *God sacrificing his son for us

>>8294 Because the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law) is rendered irrelevant for Christians living under the New Covenant. It's why Paul rejects circumcision for Christians, as well as any other Jewish rule. This comes up several times: the only rules from the Old Testament that still apply are the ones that are repeated in the New Testament. The Old Testament source which justifies this would be Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is quoted in Hebrews. If you want to see how the Jewish and Christian faiths are connected, and yet how the latter detaches from the former, read Acts 15 and Hebrews.

>>8183 I don't know if this truly belongs here but risalat alghufran (the message of forgiveness) by Abu alaa almaari is one of my latest and most interesting reads that is somewhat closely related to Islam So apparently this "message" is the true precursor to The divine comedy by Dante and possibly Dante got inspired to write his comedy by this, here Abu alaa responds to a message by another scholar about the nature of his opinion on other scholar's beliefs so Abu alaa embarks through a journey in heaven, hell and Islam's purgatory, while talking about current abbasid era politics and also describing those places through poetry and the Quran itself. Sadly I don't think it has any English translation but I probably have not searched enough even then if you can read Arabic you should definitely look into it, also Abu alaa himself is a really interesting individual including the fact that he was a vegetarian for moral reasons not for health benefits.

I'm not a Christian but am reading the bible currently and have a couple questions about how Christians square the belief in one single actual God with the fact that God acts like a pagan god in the old testament a lot and some of his actions mirror a variety of characters in Greek,Babylonian,Egyptian etc. mythology. Like for example God separating heaven and earth then brooding on the water's surface of a desolate creation before creating light and dark etc. is very similar to the Pelasgian creation myth of Eurynome coming forth out of chaos, separating the sky from the seas and dancing across the water until either being impregnated by the Northern wind that was blown into existence by her movement on the sea or creating her partner out of the Northern wind depending on how you interpret it. She then goes onto lay the universal egg out of which comes the rest of creation. There are similar things in Genesis with God acting more like a Zeus character that's near omnipotent and extremely intelligent but not omniscient, Adam and Eve are able to hide from him so he doesn't know where they are. A lot of his extreme over the top reactions to things in the old testament, such as sending bears to kill children or tormenting Job for essentially no reason or the whole thing with accepting Able's sacrifice but not Cain's feel like they're right out of classical myth, and are wildly tonally inconsistent with his depiction in the later parts of the bible and the new testament. The flood story is another obvious example where there are extant pre biblical sources for the flood, and the Bible itself says that Israelite were originally polytheist and only became Monotheist after the return from Babylon, there are also other non YWHW Gods mentioned in the bible and God himself calls them other gods (You shall have no other Gods before me) people now seem to make this out to mean God and Christianity should come first before material concerns but in Exodus it is clearly framed as not worshipping any other power, not making false idols

>>8562 Similarity to other stories is not saying much. If you take Adam and Eve as the first people, we are all descended from people with a direct knowledge of God, and this was passed on with varying levels of accuracy among different peoples. Something coming first does not necessarily make it more correct, either. Is the idea of the earth being flat more accurate than the earth being round? >Adam and Eve are able to hide from him so he doesn't know where they are The OT especially has to be understood in context of the society it was passed down in. Old Temple Judaism had a vastly different communication style than modern people. That's why Catholics have Church Tradition through which scripture is interpreted. If you're interested, there's the Navarre Bible that contains extensive commentary alongside the text to help with this. Quite expensive to buy due to its sheer 12 Volume size, but plenty of libraries should have copies. >The Flood Is generally seen as a description of a literal event. And, again, like Adam and Eve, shows a common source of these stories: The handful of people that survived. The rest branches from there. >God himself calls them other gods Is seen not as God acknowledging the existence of other gods, but the fact that his people came in contact with worship of false idols, and that this was deeply rooted in their psyche. The whole story of the Jews is one of preparation for Jesus. Thus, they are slowly led to truth so they can accept it. God, an eternal being, does not plan in terms of years as we do. His plans stretch eons. >Israelite were originally polytheist Conjecture by archeologists based on a few finds. Now, keep in mind people lived in Israel before the Jews, and the Jews themselves fell from faith with a distressing regularity. Finds of idols and such aren't difficult to explain even within scriptural bounds.

I just want to share a couple of recent observations concerning the state of Christianity in the western/european part of the world, both of which I find quite (sort of) concerning, although I am not a practicing Christian, but still maintain my faith in God. The first thing I have been observing is the apparently rising popularity of Orthodox Christianity, which in a theological sense I welcome. From what I have read I know that it is in fact the eastern Christians (mostly in Byzantium and other formerly Greek-speaking places of the Mediterranean) that have formed the basis of Christian theology, while the westerners were quite weak in this aspect for a while at least. And overall the Orthodox way of looking at things is more appealing to me. But the worrying thing is that the main branch I can see rising in popularity is Russian Orthodox Christianity, because it is actually a quite clever cover for various Russian intelligence agencies, mainly the FSB. Even the current patriarch was (and probably still is) an agent of the FSB, formerly KGB. After the complete annihilation of the once great Orthodox church after the bolshevik coup, they seemingly reanimated the remains of the Church to further their interests. Undoubtedly there will be individuals who do not care about this, because they completely reject this modern Western worldview and its corresponding lack of spirituality, and have no objections to this Russian influence. I found myself between two sides on this matter, and am still trying to reconcile my inner disagreements. The second thing I want to note is the decline of Catholicism in Europe. It seems that with every passing day the authority and respect the Catholic chruch once commanded is waning, perhaps since Vatican II. Perhaps this process is self-inflicted. I am not exactly sure. It would be interesting to read other lainons thoughts about this.

>So, yeah, even if I'd like this thread to be focued only around Orthodox Christianity if you wanna post something that is about Catholicism, Satanism, Islam, Lutheranism, Paganism, Buddhism, etc; Feel free to do so. Why not just make a religion general and evangelize in there? OP, imma be real wit u. This thread is mad cringe fam nocap this soykaf is mid af. But seriously why Orthodoxy? Christianity is bad enough as it is why do you have to pick up the Kremlin variant? Why post pagan or eastern imagery in a thread about Christianity? I feel guilty for not realizing this sooner with the million conspiracy theorist threads being posted in >>>/r/. (I am >>>/r/34060 btw) Why haven't you been derezzed already? At least watch SEL. >>>/r/34062 Sorry I let my ego get in the way. I hope mods take action. I also hope you two fix your problems. You should marathon SEL with him.

>>8340 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics This book is really good for making an argument for Christianity. It uses scientific discoveries over the last ~100 years to back up the idea of God (beginning of the universe, second law of thermodynamics, etc.) and then covers why the historical evidence backs up Jesus being the son of God. The two most important questions to ask when arguing with an atheist is "Why do you think that?" and "How did you come to that conclusion?" Aswell as this it would be good to jump off from the question "If you were to die tonight and God asked you why you deserve to go to heaven, what would you say?"

>>8584 Not that anon, but I'd like to give my take. For the record, I am a Christian. While I agree with the presuppositions of the whole "first mover" thing, as well as the historical truth of Christ, I would also like to state that I don't think there will ever be concrete evidence in support or against the existence of God, and that's by design. Think about it; if God the Father really could be viewed in any form, measured by any instrument, it would immediately eliminate the human ability of choice through faith. All people who witness that "data", from devout Christians to militant athiests could do naught else but bend the knee in full submission to Him. Obviously the path He set for Earth is not like that. God has always offered us the ability to choose, ever since the very beginning. >>8340 First of all, one of the greatest historical accounts for the existence of Christ that we have comes from a non-Christian Roman named Tacitus, aka one of the greatest historians of his time. His accounts are considered accurate by both Christian and non-Christian scholars.

The other day I was reviewing the scriptures and it dawned on me that it seems a bit strange that when Jesus Christ is Transfigured on the Mount of Olives that the two Prophets who appear to Him are Moses and Elijah. It would make a lot more sense if it was Enoch and Elijah (because they are the Two Witnesses and are the only two people who were taken up in Heaven alive). It also would theoretically make sense if this was the case that people would potentially edit the scriptures and change the name from Enoch to Moses, since Enoch has been being pushed out of the main stay of what is commonly known as Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. The Books of Enoch are not considered canonical by all but one Christian denomination (the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church) and im relatively sure that they only consider 1 Enoch to be canonical not the other 2. Im not definite on whether Moses was put in place of Enoch by the writers or possibly later editors, but it seems quite strange that its not Enoch being that Moses was not in Heaven when the Transfiguration on the Mount of Olives had occurred, and the fact that Elijah is always paired with Enoch in scripture.

>>8296 >>8297 >But it seems like many current "christians" poorly prioritize between condemning this particular sin and loving their neighbor. 1. Your neighbor is doing X. 2. Your faith tells you that doing X will separate a person permanently from their creator who wants nothing but the best for them and set them up for an eternity of suffering. 3. Your faith tells you to love and care for your neighbor. The only reasonable conclusion is to do your best to get your neighbor to stop doing X. Another way to look at it: "God loves you" does not mean "God loves you for being fat, a child-molester, gay, an alcoholic, a wife-beater, etc. etc.". It means "God loves you in spite of all those faults, and hopes that through him you can surpass them." Could christians do a better PR job? Yes, agreed. Should they sacrifice their principles to do it? No. Doesn't help that modern LGBT*** seems to try its hardest to appear pro-hedonist/materialist/athiest lifestyle in a manner firmly antithetical to the church.

>>8788 > the fact that Elijah is always paired with Enoch in scripture. Can you share some examples? Not controverting, just was not aware of the prevalence of the books of Enoch in scripture.

>>8790 Enoch and Elijah are The Two Witnesses mentioned throughout the Old and New Testaments and also the Scripture 1 Enoch is quoted in the Epistle of Jude.

Hope y'all have a blessed Easter!

>>8800 You too, Lain. [buffer, because post too short.]

Golden week coming, just borrowed the last two volumes of Narnia.

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner May God bless all Lains

>>8183 what do Christian lainanons think of digital piracy? Defrauding a worker of their wages is one of the "Sins that cry to heaven for vengeance" so I do have a slight tinge in my conscience when I download media without paying its creator. I recently torrented all of "Serial Experiments Lain" but I justify it to myself because I have no actual way of buying the series in the USA (it isn't on any Ami streaming services IIRC) so technically I'm not defrauding any worker of their wages (I wouldn't have been able to buy it in any way). I have also downloaded several videos off youtube with yt-dlp but justify it morally because if the artist didn't want me to download the video, they wouldn't have put it on YouTube in the first place. I also downloaded several PDFs from this website in particular, with the justification that even if they were technically "stolen", the lainanon is just sharing it with me, and receiving a stolen object isn't theft in itself.

>>8944 >what do Christian lainanons think of digital piracy? Nobody is losing the original, so I view it similar to how monks and scribes used to copy books all the time (whether it's a game, movie, music album or anything). That being said, I think everyone should buy it if they like it and they are realistically able to.

>>8946 Well said, also isn't the point of the internet sharing info anyway?

>>8948 >>8946 >>8944 to piggyback on this question, is phone phreaking using a beige box (e.g. a buttset) a sin? If I were to connect a lineman's test set to a telephone cable use it to make a quick call, and then immediately patch up the cable with electrical tape, would this be a sin? Technically it would violate theft-of-service laws, but if nobody else was on the phone line when I made the call and I immediately repaired the cable after phreaking, no individvual person would be harmed. However, I feel nervous and have a slightly off-put conscience about this.

>>8979 Romans 13:1 Luke 10:7 Do not rebel against the corpos. Pay them their monopoly profits. Be a good slave.

>>8979 Purely context dependent. I'd argue the majority of actions lack intrinsic moral value, and can only be morally assessed within their context. e.g: Punching a stranger is "on the face of things" a sin. But punching a stranger who is trying to stab a 3 year old for no apparent reason is not a sin. Phreaking phone lines to make an important call for a good reason seems acceptable to me. for loose scriptural support: See parable(s) of Jesus healing cripples/blind/maimed on the Sabbath. I can pull verses later if desired.

i feel that my faith is all but gone at this point, the only thing i am certain of is the holiness of Jesus Christ, that he is the son of God, but i have had doubts festering in my mind for a while now, i couldn't coherently explain why i've ended up where i am, life has lead me here, my thoughts really just concern why things are the way they are, God is omnipotent so he knew that Adam and Eve would be deceived into eating the forbidden fruit unless that story is just to be taken allegorically, so he allowed that, Noah's arc seems improbable to me as well unless it is again taken allegorically, although I don't doubt the potential for a cataclysm, God ordering the slaughter of the Amaleks including their young ones, I guess God would be certain they were all pure evil, including their children, i've had doubts about the eternality of hell, reading the gospel of judas has also created more doubt for lack of a better word in my mind when thinking of the god of the Old Testament, all i am certain of is God exists somewhere, and I am certain some form of hell exists because I've seen such a place, I just don't want to fuarrrk up and be tortured for eternity for being retarded

>>8980 Luke 10:7 is out of context, also sage doesn't work here. Modern corps aren't necessarily the superior authorities, they haven't reached that level of mega-corp. For digital piracy, the definition of theft now varies. Is sharing a digital file the same as stealing a DVD from a store? I am against shoplifting, but my conscience is still unsure on piracy. 1 Corinthians 10:31-32 gives a clue though. You don't want to go around saying you're a pirate. People have negative opinions on piracy (due to corps) and it would bring reproach on God's name

Brother Robert (apocryphile1970) teaches on Teaching on the Agrapha, 2nd Peter & Jude at King of Saint Tabernacle >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S63pVquwL4

Truly we are in an era of Great Tribulations brothers. >"The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" >"Pride (a deadly sin) Month" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RLsY42ifII Think about it...

>>8230 If God is outside of time, then how could he be the creator of the universe or intervene in human affairs ? Both of these things imply some kind of temporality.

>>9047 God oversees and controls Time, but Time does not have an effect on God.

>>8227 It's pretty clear what the new faith is. One doesn't necessarily need to be anti-homosexual to point out that this is simple idolatry. Dabbling in other spiritual ideas is fine as long as it doesn't offend or precede the one TRUE god (progressive victimology hierarchy + theraputic/trauma-based sense of self and the world). It is useful to understand not only what Nietzsche means by "the death of God" but also why he brings up that concept. Religious structures of conception always sneak back in, of course. Modernity got rid of the ability to believe in Christ (or any of the other old religions) in any way that truly matters, thus we've all been LARPing since before our parents were born. You are simply finding another way to believe that isn't precluded by modernity. I think the new faiths will become less stupid/grating/incredibly aesthetically offensive as time goes on.

From a Christian (to be more specific, Catholic) perspective, is digital piracy a sin, what does the church says about Intellectual property?

>>9191 Well, I don't think it's a sin to clone non-living things. I have seen a few people say it's a sin, but I think they were corpo-zogbots trying to use anything they could to get less people to pirate. Interestingly, Jesus cloned bread and fish. I wonder if that would mean Jesus sinned...

>>9191 Cute digits. I would make an uneducated guess and say yes, because it is equated to stealing, which is explicitly prohibited. >but piracy is not stealing! It isn't strictly stealing, but it is regarded as so, because the "intellectual property" makes something not legally your if you haven't paid for it, if you get a copy without paying for it, you are witholding that money from the one who would be receiving it in exchange of your right to enjoy the product, thus, in a way, stealing. Put another way, you would e disrupting the harmonious functioning of society. I'm not a christian so idgaf. I'm just trying to gloss christian logic as best as I can.

>>9191 Jesus pirated fish, loaves of bread and wine

>>9310 But if I don't pirate, I am stealing from my own happiness, which is a crime against the self, the Lord's temple.

>>8336 That section of the chapter has nothing to do with what constitutes a right marriage, but rather Jesus is preaching what constitutes a right divorce. The whole section is about him overturning the laws of moses and saying if you can't cope you just shouldn't play the game.

>>9313 Look at it this way. There's no evidence in the Bible that Jesus ever supported gay marriage whatsoever. It was and still remains a relevant issue. If Jesus believed in gay marriage he would've made such beliefs clear, people were literally stoned to death for it, alongside other things, did he not interfere when a woman was to be stoned to death for adultery? He did, as he who is sinless should cast the first stone and nobody on earth was aside him. He still believed adultery to be a sin, but that the punishment of death was unwarranted.

>>9314 You're entirely right. I want to just elucidate on your point: >he who is sinless should cast the first stone >the punishment of death was unwarranted. I'm an agnostic that went to church a bit as a kid, what I recall is that the interpretation here is generally taken as a comment about not punishing people for sinning because that's God's job. It's very interesting because you see a lot of people get this odd complex, when they think you're a sinner, they start acting like they're better than you. This is exactly the opposite of Jesus' teachings, but they still do it. This is one of the many points where the accusation of "only Christian in name" or "not a real Christian" tends to be a little more understandable.

>>9314 I never said that he supported gay marriage, though, though I wouldn't outright assume that he didn't just because it wasn't mentioned. The list of things not mentioned by Jesus is far longer than the list of things he did mention, and we can see that a lot of them are controversial (ex. vegetarianism) and others are fairly well agreed upon (ex. original sin). While Jesus was never supportive of homosexuality in the gospels that made it into canon, I think it's wrong to try to paint his words in them as anti-gay and that was my point.

>>9316 > wouldn't outright assume that he didn't just because it wasn't mentioned. I wouldnt assume that God didn't create a race of six fingered and three headed talking dogs the size of mountains on the fifteenth day of genesis, afterall, it was never mentioned.....never explicitly stated that He didn't create this unseen and bizzare creature. Surely they would have explicitly mentioned that it wasn't created, otherwise there's always room for doubt!

>>9317 What an intelligent response. I am absolutely dumb founded that I couldn't see it your way before. Now that you have obliterated my point so effortlessly and rationally, I can see the world through a whole new lens. You sir have just won the entire internets. Thank you.

>>8298 I'll admit that my answer to the whole LGBT debate is admitting I'm not sure, and just abstaining from fornication totally, but a bit of interpretive hopium: The portion of the OT (Books of Moses) explicitly forbidding male homosexuality contain a lot of laws that Christians no longer follow, but make a lot of pragmatic sense given a nomadic tribe with no soap (particularly focused on cleanliness and uncleanliness). For example: >If your clothing or house has "a leprosy" in it, lock it up and see if it spreads, leave for the day, take a bath and make a sacrifice. >If you touch jizz or menstrual blood, see above. >Don't eat carrion. If you do, see above. Anal sex is dirty business, and it's *possible* (although again, who knows, maybe we should all be following OT laws to a T when we can) that it should be considered inn the same light.

>>8183 Here's something I've wondered for a long time and want to ask about. Are there any sects of Christianity that don't believe in obeying God? Like there's this Jesus quote: >Jesus answered him, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. Which, ok, seems cool. But how do you show love for someone? Specifically how do you show love for someone who is insecure and domineering the way Yaweh is? Dude is literally described as going around loyalty testing people by ordering them to kill their kids and expecting them to try to actually do it. When someone just goes along with the soykaf such a person is demanding, that's not love, that's fear and enabling. The ones who actually love that person will show it by standing up to them, even when it's not the expedient or safe thing to do. Obedience is often incompatible with love. So if Christians are supposed to love God above all else, shouldn't some of them realize that and not be so focused on rules-lawyering their way into heaven? Are there any such Christians?

>>9319 Not to mention don't eat swine, omnivores which can carry more parasites than other livestock and need to be cooked more carefully. Wouldn't want to get a Trichinella infection, that was a lifelong infection before modern medicine.

>>9319 >If your clothing or house has "a leprosy" in it, lock it up and see if it spreads, leave for the day, take a bath and make a sacrifice. >If you touch jizz or menstrual blood, see above. >Don't eat carrion. If you do, see above. but I do obey these rules. Isn't that practically the default in modern life? Are you eating carrion (thats different from carryout!), rolling in menstrual blood and leperous flesh? Whats gone wrong with you lain?!

>>9324 My fault for paraphrasing. > 15 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean. 3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness. 4 Every bed, whereon he lieth that hath the issue, is unclean: and every thing, whereon he sitteth, shall be unclean. 5 And whosoever toucheth his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 6 And he that sitteth on any thing whereon he sat that hath the issue shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 9 And what saddle soever he rideth upon that hath the issue shall be unclean. 10 And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean until the even: and he that beareth any of those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 11 And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 12 And the vessel of earth, that he toucheth which hath the issue, shall be broken: and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. 13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean. 14 And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before the Lord unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them unto the priest: 15 And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord for his issue. 16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. 17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. 18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. 19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. 24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. 25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. 26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. 27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness. 31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them. 32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith; 33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean. >5 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. You don't skip town for a day and sacrifice a pigeon everytime you sit in a chair someone on their period sat on, do you? These laws literally concern cleanliness (again, these things DO spread disease), given to a specific people under specific constraints. We now have better ways to keep things clean, so these laws are ignored by the majority of Bible readers (IDK whether that's genuinely right or wrong). I'm just saying other Mosaic laws could be interpreted similarly.

>>9325 Just want to apologize for the horrible copy-past formatting, holy soykaf.

>>8944 A relevant issue for me as well I think it is only certainly wrong insofar as it violates just law, but it is unclear as to whether the law is just. It would seem to be safer to follow the law in case you are wrong and to avoid scandal, but it would seem not to be grave matter. >>9047 It is like we are in a book: God can open to any part of the book at any time, even though it still progresses from any given point, and from our perspective we can see only the present

>>9310 >>9312 Taken from CathInfo (SSPX Resistance forum): [reddit spacing] https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/intellectual-property/msg848765/#msg848765 [reddit spacing] >All teach, indeed, that it is pure and putrid theft if one secretly steals other manuscripts, artifacts, or artifacts not yet published, because the legitimate owner is reasonably unwilling on account of the serious damage and serious injury inflicted on him. But when the manuscript is already printed, or if the invention (commonly known as a Patent) has already been divulged, theologians debate whether a new printed book without the author's permission or an imitation of the invention is contrary to natural law and there be an obligation for restitution. Some deny it, because once the work has been divulged, it has become the common good, which can be lawfully occupied by all [cf. esp. Bucceroni, Theol. mor. I, n. 878; somewhat Morres, De iust. I, n. 24; Vermeersch, De iust. n. 246 sqq.]; but the more general and truer opinion affirms it, with the restrictions indicated by the positive law. >Prümmer, O.P., Manuale Theologiæ Moralis, PDF pp. 529-30 (§§8-9) on © (ius actoris) [reddit spacing] I guess it depends more on what your priest says and on your own consciousness says too, there are more sins to be worried about instead of "stealing" a book that's not for sale anymore from the Internet.

extreme Christian mysticism and asceticism is the only way forward in the modern day. we must all strive to behave like mad men, and shun everything commonly regarded as "good sense" also, what do you guys think of ecumenicism? i think it's imperative that we reunite a single universal church and permanently do away with denominationalism

>>9555 >you should become a christian he says then why are you posting a picture of some jewish lady >lets do away with denominations and make one new denomination pic related

>>9556 weil literally could not prevent herself from being born jewish. the Apostle Paul was also jewish. Saint Peter was jewish. why do you resent this particular Christian for being jewish? and yeah eliminating denominationalism presents problems but i think the effort is better than what we're doing rn

>>9557 Not the lainon you were replying to, though I think the problem in eliminating denominations is getting everyone to agree on it- I don't think any one belief sect has all the answers, or even can, for that matter. If it was to be made to fit everyone, it would have to be so highly generalized so as to lose meaning, I'd think- IE: If it's for everyone, it's really for no one. But, granted, I'm not even Christian, so maybe I shouldn't speak on this, though those are my two cents

>>9557 Well its not clear from the picture she's a convert! How was I supposed to know? The Denomination problem is what we in the Cool Startup World like to call a 'Yat Problem'; you can trivially deal with it once you've conquered the world and are lounging in the black sea on your yat. For now you should focus on being Right and conquering the world.

>>9558 my personal belief is that we shouldn't let theological differences prevent us from being in full communion with one another. i think the Catholic Church established a dangerous and harmful precedent by excommunicating everyone who didn't tow the line back in the day, particularly Luther. can belief in sacerdotal and non-sacerdotal priesthood not coexist in the same Church? is it impossible for someone who believes in transubstantiation to effectively take Communion with someone who believes in divine presence? i think Christian unity is much more important than these things

>>9560 Id rather be right in a heavily broken up christianity than wrong in a united one.

It's really interesting to me how most Protestant denominations sided with the Catholic church when usury was redefined to mean "when non-Christians do it" and "interest" became the replacement word for acceptable debt peonage imposed by Christians. Especially interesting considering the chief antagonist who did the redefining was none other than Pope Leo X, Martin Luther's nemesis.

>>8294 >there is a lot of laws and ordinances in Bible that we abandoned over the time. Which seems wrong, imo. >>8298 >I'm curious what these might be. Women are supposed to wear a head covering in church is one. On that note, you should check out the clown stuff / pagan rituals / etc that was happening between the 1960's and early 2000's.

>>9567 Protestants had not originally wanted to leave the Catholic Church, they were excommunicated. Martin Luther agreed with almost all of the theological positions of the Church, and was subjected to excessive punitive measures for what were really not particularly heterodox ideas. modern Prots are radically different from the original movement

>>8340 Even though you're very passionate, which is great, take a look at your question - you want to familiarize yourself with the modern arguments for existence of the Christian God so that you can quarrel with people who differ in opinion. Please ease off a bit and contemplate your faith a bit more. If you're searching for literature I strongly encourage you to read something a bit out of your comfort zone. I see one person already suggested reading Kierkegaard and it's a great recommendation but if you can I would suggest you read some other mature literature that touches the topic of dogma or knowledge or God first. If you're not a "book person" then Kierkegaard will be great but just really try to contemplate it. So I obviously have a long way to go too but other authors who helped me are Camus (Stranger, or Fall but don't read too much about them on the Internet, just try to be open to the new experience), Sartre (those books are quite nice when starting to touch the subject since they're very contained - just like Camus's), some classics (The Art Of Happiness was a surprisingly cool collection for this topic but I think anything helps as long as you're open - but I don't recommend Meditations, it's really fetishized nowadays and there's much better literature), Hume (yes, it's another jump but dialogues concerning natural religion are very approachable and I think you'd enjoy that), Cioran and after Kierkegaard I think you'd find Simone Weil interesting. And obligatory - literature is not the only way to gain knowledge about those things. Being open to the experience and trying out different things or trying to think for yourself will most likely do you much better than studying literature - albeit it's a skill that you learn. At least I don't find it easy.

Just discovered this, looks really good and interesting. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicles_of_Jerahmeel >https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofjera00eleaiala

>>9320 While we might see the acts of God in the Old Testament as demanding, you should remember that the Bible was born out of a religious tradition in which gods could be both forceful and loving to their devotees.

I myself grew up in a catholic turned non-denomination christian family. Where my grandfather and one son kept to the former, while my own father and others turned to a new understanding. An I hated every bit of it, though that is more so the people rather than the scripture itself. The hypocracy and doublestandards, the cherry picking of versus that supports x while neglecting the vast majority on scripture that opposed x in the first place. That aside, ironically I found myself looking into scripture like a lainon would look into code, wrote down some things, asked questions to various teachers and preachers, and unwittingly became staff to a cult on vrc. A virtual church, something which has been done previous in places like sl, yet not to the same success here. In roughly a years time it grew from a handful to a staggering 1500 odd strong; and does not show signs of letting up anytime soon.

>>9606 Similar to my story also grew up RC and converted to nondenominational when I grew up. I hear you on the cherry picking loud and clear.

>>8340 >Any advice or book recommendations on this topic The lack of self-awareness in your post is amazing. The fact that you're asking this should already tell you everything you need to know. Why would you need books and resources if you already have faith? Where did your faith come from if you don't already know the answer to the questions you posed? Delusion in this whole thread is off the charts.

>>9644 i think you misunderstood what he was asking. he's asking how to refute arguments posited by non-Christians, not how to preserve his own faith. how to be an effective apologist, basically.

>>9646 >he's asking how to refute arguments posited by non-Christians The fact that he has to ask this shows that what he believes in is not true and he's deluding himself much like most religious people.

>>9647 The fact there are people asking to refute arguments posited by flat earthers must mean that what they believe is not true and they are deluding themselves like most fools who believe the earth is round

>>9648 NTL, I don't care if the earth is flat or not, because it has absolutely no weight on how I live my life or operate in the world. But shouldn't someone be capable of defending their position?

>>9648 if you hold a belief and strongly yet cannot defend it to your own satisfaction, then why do you hold it ? If you actually think confidently that the Earth is mostly round surely you must have some argument to that effect, or are you literally just parroting your schoolmarms' ungrounded assertions ?

9649 Isn't me >>9648 Earth's shape is grounded in reality and you can prove/disprove it empirically. If you're religious your faith is not based on reality which is fine if that's what you're into. But if you're actually asking for facts in order to prove yourself right that's not going to work in this case. And the fact that you're even asking would mean that you have doubts, if you start rationalizing your religious faith you will either end up subconsciously deciding to delude yourself further in order to avoid the truth or you'll lose your faith completely because you won't be able to find any answers, unlike Earth's shape.

>>9652 most people who profess the belief in the earths roundness have not empirically proven it nor even seen it proven very well, and are just more or less following quasi religious dogma because its easy and like >>9649 says it doesn't matter if you're not like a pilot or a ballistician or something. Anything which is true is provable with enough effort.

>>9653 I understand your point, let me rephrase 9647: The fact that he's asking this shows that he has no rational reason to believe in whatever he believes. So the belief (which may or may mot be true) came first blindly and now he's trying to rationalize it. This should be the other way around. Same with earth's shape, I know some people blindly believe it and what I said apllies to them too.

>>9647 do you think you could defend every belief you hold against every conceivable argument, even ones that you're not yet familiar with, all at a moment's notice?

>>9657 If an argument arises that I have no response to then I'm going to think about the argument and try to make sense of my belief considering the new point of view. If I can't find counter-arguments I'll change my mind, but I'm not going to act like I need to look for counter-arguments to justify my belief which is what >>8340 sounds like. He sounds like he has already decided what is true and is looking for justification for his belief. I can't defend every belief I have, but those are minor beliefs and not something I would bother arguing for anyway and I don't have many major beliefs. The ones that I do have I try to understand why I believe in them before starting arguing with people.

>>9658 >I can't defend every belief I have, but those are minor beliefs Lain, consider hard skepticism. Can you prove to yourself that anything outside your consciousness exists? Give it a try. Good luck. Can you prove that raping babies is wrong from true fundamentals? Check out the is-ought problem before you answer. For a less snarky take, I strongly, strongly recommend you read Hume's treatise on human nature (it's FOSS-free). If you want to hear the idealist counterargument(s), read plato/kant. If you are an idealist, religion appears factually correct *(depending on how you use the world religion)*. If you are a skeptic, nothing is factually correct except your existence as an entity capable of self-observation. Pick whichever you like and move on, but it is good to be aware of the limits of rationality before staking your soul* on it. *(or lack thereof) >>9647 >neurosuggesting that managing sophists == acquiring true knowledge To be clear, most public christian apologists are also sophists; media anything is just one big sophist slapfest. But still, just because there is soykaf in OUR water doesn't mean ALL water has soykaf in it.

>>9665 >Give it a try. You just listed random beliefs and assumed that those are my major beliefs for some reason. Why would I try proving what you think is my major belief? My whole point was that >>8340 has beliefs that came from nowhere without actually thinking about them and he's not even trying to understand why. If he was, he would provide actual arguments that the atheist used and would ask about counter-arguments from Christian point of view. But instead he asked a general "how do i own atheists" question.

>>9665 >To be clear, most public christian apologists are also sophists; media anything is just one big sophist slapfest. But still, just because there is soykaf in OUR water doesn't mean ALL water has soykaf in it. Why is sophism bad?

>>9666 >You just listed random beliefs and assumed that those are my >major beliefs for some reason. Why would I try proving what >you think is my major belief? I'll admit I spilled some soykaf, but I think the premise was straightforward. You claimed that the only beliefs you have that you cannot defend are minor. I tried to point out that beliefs that 99% of people consider fundamental (e.g: other things exist besides my conciousness) are either indefensible or cumbersome to defend- and that almost nobody bothers to think about them critically. I assumed you were also >>9647. The next step was to point out that nearly everyone is deluding themself in critical areas, not just random religious people. This doesn't mean everyone is wrong or that nothing actually exists, just that loads of people hold critical beliefs on what existence is without a shadow of thought or justification. >My whole point was that >>8340 has beliefs that came from >nowhere This part I object to, we have no clue where his beliefs came from. Maybe he has good arguments for his faith along some lines, but not others. e.g: Universe had to come from somewhere, so why not a God to kick things off? is a passable intro argument to faith, but has no effect against an athiest argument like: "Why would a good god allow suffering?" >without actually thinking about them and he's not >even trying to understand why. I'm 50/50 on this. >If he was, he would provide >actual arguments that the atheist used and would ask about >counter-arguments from Christian point of view. Yeah, this would've been nice. >But instead he asked a general "how do i own atheists" >question. >>9667 If you are a materialist, it isn't, because there is no objective good or bad- just your personal judgements. If you are an idealist, it is bad because it directly interferes with searching for truth, which is good. Note that practicing sophism recreationally / in private can be very useful for trying to learn to think things through, but this is very different from publicly spilling the soykaf. Broad categorizations but hopefully this helps short-circuit a not very on-topic discussion. This whole thing is kinda off-topic so let's end each post with a fun verse from the bible. Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

>>8985 Hey there is a really helpful show that helped me get over some of these questions. Look up the Lord of Spirits podcast and just start from the beginning. There’s a lot of really helpful stuff explaining the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Fr. Stephen DeYoung has a book on the subject of violence in the Bible too called “God is a Man of War” which I found helpful.

>>9555 Some unifications like the eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox, I could kinda see happening, but I could never imagine a baptist and a Nestorian see eye to eye and be like "yeah we found a compromise" and as >>9556 pointed out, making a fully compromised denom (if that's even possible) would make the problem even worse and most people won't adept to it

>>8215 Accept Jesus Christ. Believe in your heart that he is the only begotten Son of God and that he was raised from the dead. Come to him as you are, right now. Then repent. And read the Bible. And pray to God the Father in the name of his Son, your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Matthew 11:28-30 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Thinking about going to RCIA, anyone been through it?

>>9057 atheists are overwhelmingly pro trans and immigrant kek

>>10427 Im in london studying about to start it. Ill post in here about how it goes