/lit/ - Literature

>>18537910
Yes

>>18537910
Hail Jesus!

>christcucks

>>18537910
Yes

>>18537910
Yes. God bless and have a great day.

>>18537910
All catholics will (justly) burn.

>>18537994
Im orthodox christian (eastern Europe).

>>18537999
God bless and have a great day then.

>>18537994
I'm gay btw

>>18538007
Bond, Gay Bond

>>18537910
I still can't tell if I believe in Jesus. I definitely believe in some divine essence and sense of God and out of all religions I'm aware the message of Christianity feels closest to the feeling that I have about these things, but I simply can't tell if jesus was actually God or just a very very profound mystic. I read the NT passages over and over and I just can't tell how I'm supposed to make out the difference. The fig tree and money lender episodes also concern me as regards his potential divinity.

>>18537910
It's not easy but I try, mostly by praying every night before going to bed. I still can't wrap my head around the Pentateuch though. Jacob is a very unpleasant figure and the Israelites deserved slavery.

>>18537994
>all catholics will burn
Do you have a single shred of evidence to back that up? How can you, a mere mortal, judge the souls of over 1 billion people, and determine they will all go to eternal punishment?

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt. 7:2)

>>18537910
Yes!

>>18537910
Based and blessed

>>18538048
Check out the Tree of Life video by Bible Project.

You really have to have a really weak mind if you find his message appealing.
>>18537976
/thread

>>18538427
Ty strong mind for showing the error of our ways with your strong thinking

>>18538427
Imagine being of this world and calling others weak minded.

>>18537910
I pretend to so I can parasitize you along side the Jews
T. atheist

>>18537994
Catholics believe in Jesus, therefore they are saved.

>>18538427
I wonder who you serve, anti-Christ-kun? Could it perhaps be your own carnal desires and material objects?

>>18538483
Cleanse him, anon. Please.

Yeah

Turn the other cheek is a bad philosophy, you should do anything that benefits you in the most realistic was and effecient way

>>18538483
* Satan enters the room *
Leave my servant alone.

>>18538483
I and you serve the same gods, but you're folowing a corrupted book.
praise be to the holy quran.

>>18538513
Ever been to New York?

>>18537910
>posts about bible on /lit
>clearly didn't read the whole book
I suggest starting with matthew 15:24.

>>18538528
>"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

>"And [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

>"Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. And [Jesus] told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, BEGINNING in Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:44-48)

>"He says: “It is not enough for You to be My Servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the protected ones of Israel. I will also make You a light for the nations, to bring My salvation to the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6)

>>18538522
Imagine fighting over 2000 year old schizo posts of some random shepherd tribe. I don't get religious people.

>>18538427
I'm sure it takes a very powerful will to accept and rationalize obvious things in front of your face.

>>18538525
Once

>>18538540
>God's chosen vessels
>random

>>18538540
I'm not fighting over it, as long as we subtim to Allah, whatver his name, and follow the rules he established in the coran of sharity and justice which are shared objective morality you'll go to heaven like the rest of us.
There is even a case to be made that you can only be good if you"re submited yourself to allah, so even if you think you're denying him if you're a good man without ulterior motive you're not.

>>18538522
>gods plural
>worshiping the qur'an instead of God
I don't believe you are a Muslim, but if you are:
"So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters." (S. 10:94)

"Gabriel" here relays the message that, if Muhammad is in doubt about what he is hearing, to ask the Jews and Christians to confirm it against their scriptures.

Question: What were the Jews, and the followers of Jesus, reading in the 7th century?

>>18538528
>accusing others of not reading the entire Bible
>clearly didn't even read to end of the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament.
You should have at least been able to read Matt 3:9 before you (I suspect) stopped at Matt 15:24.

>>18538574
My bad, i wanted to put god but the d is next to the s on my keyboard.

Jesus hates non-jews

Same.

>>18537926
Amen brother, fpbp

>>18538542
>cherry-picking faggots that are heavily influenced by the christian doctrine and call themselves humanists but just don't believe in a god
Kek. You christcucks have literally no arguments and always shoot yourself in the foot because humanism is the same thing as christianity

>>18537910
Yes

>>18538676
>humanism is the same thing as christianity
You really have no idea what you're talking about. The central doctrine of Christianity, the death and resurrection of Christ for the atonement of the sins of mankind, is nowhere to be found in humanism, obviously.

Honestly wish Hiro would make a /rel/ board so these schizos circle jerking and arguing over which version of their desert cult is best could fuck off already.

>>18538704
Humanism is just Christianity without Jesus, you absolute moron. It's the same weak-minded philosophy without any connection to reality.

>>18538719
It should simply be moved to /his/ alongside evola and guenon spam.

>>18538721
>christianity without the central tenet of Christianity
Likewise a pair of wheels and an axle is just a car without the engine and frame

>>18538721
>"humanism is the same thing as christianity"
>obviously isn't
>moves goalposts when retardation of original statement is pointed out
I guess you were just pretending to be retarded?

>>18538734
>>18538736
Christianity is Humanism is Socialism is Communism. You're literally blind of you can't see this and get lost in details.

>>18538745
You are just an exceedingly imprecise and illogical thinker and are conflating things which have only superficial resemblances

>>18538752
No, you just care about things that are irrelevant. The point is not if someone believes in a mythological creature or not, but what practical implications a philosophy has in the real world.

>>18538007
No, Catholics are gay. Do you not read the newspaper?

>>18538769
The point to you maybe because you're incapable of understanding the existence of anything but what you term the real world. You're not even right anyway Christians, Humanists, and Communists all act very differently in the 'real world'.

>>18537910
unironically, the gospels are the most underwhelming part of the bible.

>>18538769
>be a theocracy lasting thousands of years
>i-it's literally communism!

>>18538769
>Jesus of Nazareth
>mythological creature
So not only are you completely off-base in terms of conflating moral philosophy and religious ideals, but you are also completely ignorant of the vast majority of scholars agreeing that Jesus was a real preacher from Nazareth who was crucified?
>Christianity is Humanism is Socialism is Communism
You seem to have a tendency to try and simplify things with incredibly complex differences so that you can generalize them into categories. Dogmatically, you cannot be a communist and a Catholic, for example. Communism and Christianity are completely incompatible in that the earliest apostolic traditions attest to an ecclesial hierarchy whereby the bishop, for example, has power over the layperson to excommunicate, etc.

>>18538808
I personally agree that Communism and Christianity are incompatible, but the relationship between the two is extremely complex.

>the earliest apostolic traditions attest to an ecclesial hierarchy whereby the bishop
There's no such thing as "apostolic tradition", literally never existed. Early christianity had no bishops, there was no "Church" (Matthew 18:20)

>>18538637
>c*lvinist
>bookshelf obviously arranged by an OCD autist
it checks out.

>>18538513
Not when the practitioner is infinitely rich (i.e., blessed) and thus incapable of suffering real loss, ever. Does a billionaire cry over a parking ticket? It is the abundance mentality par excellence.

>>18538788
>you're incapable of understanding the existence of anything but what you term the real world
I understand everything, I just won't accept anything that has no proof whatsoever and on top of that is clearly made up and everyone knows that of they are honest to themselves.
>>18538808
>Jesus was a real preacher from Nazareth who was crucified
I'm talking about Jesus in the role as son of God
>Dogmatically, you cannot be a communist and a Catholic, for example. Communism and Christianity are completely incompatible
Bro you live in theories. I even literally know catholics who are marxists.

>>18538857
> I just won't accept anything that has no proof whatsoever
Then no you dont understand because you have an empirical mindset that precludes religious experience

>>18538857
>I understand everything
lol
>I'm talking about Jesus in the role as son of God
Then phrase your point in a manner that makes sense and articulates your position, or else people will rightly view your posts as nonsensical and irrational
>I even literally know catholics who are marxists.
There are also nominal "Catholics" who believe that abortion should be allowed - as the vast majority of bishops agree (and is the apostolic and ancient teaching), one who goes against the teachings of the church should rightly be denied communion and warned to either recant their position, on pain of excommunication. Just because there is a relatively weak leadership right now, doesn't mean this fundamental teaching changes. You cannot be a Catholic in good standing and a communist, or a pro-abortion activist.

>>18538857
>I even literally know catholics who are marxists.
>The Decree Against Communism was a 1949 Catholic Church document issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and approved by Pope Pius XII, which declared Catholics who professed Communist doctrine to be excommunicated as apostates from the Christian faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism

>>18538930
No one gives a fuck what bishops (professional liars) tell you. They just live in books. In reality it's the same fucking thing.
>praising the the poor and weak
>feeding them
>rich people bad

>>18538048
Hello anon. I really recommend reading pic related. The beginning of the book goes over various objections to the authenticity and structure of the gospels themselves. Pitre then begins to go into detail about how the synoptics do in fact reveal Christ's divinity in a typological way.

>The fig tree and money lender episodes also concern me as regards his potential divinity.
why?

>>18538887
Where do you draw the line if you don't have a sceptical mind at all? You will fall for everything when someone is charismatic enough.

>>18538968
>bishops
>>rich people bad
Are we living in the same reality?
In case you were wondering, yes, the yellow stuff is gold

>>18538833
>There's no such thing as "apostolic tradition"
Read Eusebius' Church History. Irenaeus makes sure to rebuke the Gnostics by appealing to the apostolic tradition that has been entrusted to him from John to Polycarp and finally to him.
This is pre Nicene .

>“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (Against Heresies) (ibid., 3:3:4) [A.D. 189].

>>18538989
That's why I called them professional liars. They're hypocrites.

God sent Jesus to israel for a very good reason: jews are the most corrupt, materialistic, degenerated living beings on Earth. He wanted to save them from this living hell and he had some success. But he is no longer relevant, all there is left from Jesus is some legends, even the church barely follows Jesus' teachings. Besides, we have too much shit goin on in this life to even worry about the supposed "afterlife". Finally, even if we became followers of Jesus - things would stay the same, regardless of religion: i dont steal/kill/rape, know god loves me, have to go to work etc. Religion nowadays is literally useless apart from sense if identity/community. I dont understand why so manny christshills on this board.

Reminder twitter tradcaths (with anime avatars too ofc) are raiding /lit/

>>18537994
>>18538004
the duality of a christlarper

>>18538989
The difference is that a bishop, or priest, in theory, is usually using the money to glorify God, either by making their churches beautiful, or giving it to charity.

>>18538968
>No one gives a fuck what bishops (professional liars) tell you
Just because you, as a non-religious person, do not believe in apostolic succession, does not mean that "No one gives a fuck". Again, you are over-simplifying issues and conflating ideas as congruent just because they may superficially share some minor trait.
>rich people bad
Not a doctrine of the apostolic churches.
>>18538833
>There's no such thing as "apostolic tradition"
It is literally impossible for it to not exist - there were apostles of Christ, and these apostles had disciples, and these disciples had disciples - they transmitted teachings and doctrine to one another. For an example of this, see these documents by St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist -

"Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching"
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.iv.html

"Against Heresies" wherein Irenaeus, while also refuting the gnostic heresies, also expounds related teachings of apostolic succession and authority.
https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

MEEEEEE CHRIST IS KING

>>18538997
What a very ignorant post

>>18538835
>>bookshelf obviously arranged by an OCD autist
How so?

I´d like to learn more about this topic. Does /lit/ recommend any books?

>>18539038
What do i gain from being a christian?
What does it take to be a good christian?

>>18539005
There are a lot of protestant anime trannies on twitter too you know.

>>18539063
You gain the fullness of the truth that the word made flesh proclaimed

>>18539059
Chesterton's Everlasting Man.

>>18538975
I will check it out ty. And because those two events seem to contradict his disposition elsewhere. I know this is very superficial but it still bothers me

>>18539063
>What do i gain from being a christian?
You gain eternal life in heaven, if you follow the teachings of Jesus on how to reach enlightenment through the path of love and self sacrifice.
>What does it take to be a good christian?
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:54)
"Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
"For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9)
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? " (Matthew 5:43-46)
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

and the whole of Matthew 25.

tl;dr believe Jesus is Lord, that He died and resurrected, be baptized into an apostolic church with trinitarian formula, partake in the Eucharist, and strive to be perfect as the Father is perfect by performing works of love and charity, thereby purifying your nature and reaching enlightenment

>>18539086
The distinction is superficial.

>>18538676
>humanism is the same thing as christianity
not a christfag but this is extremely reductive.

>>18539086
>Infralapsarian
Based
>Annihilationist
Heretic

>>18538993
>Irenaeus makes sure to rebuke the Gnostics by appealing to the apostolic tradition that has been entrusted to him from John to Polycarp and finally to him.
So this dude claimed (with no proof) something that happens to favour himself? How fortunate

>The Didache (/ˈdJdəkeJ, -ki/; Greek: Διδαχή, translit. Didakhé, lit. "Teaching"),[1] also known as The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations (Διδαχὴ Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise written in Koine Greek, dated by modern scholars to the first[2] or (less commonly) second century.
>The Didache is considered part of the group of second-generation Christian writings known as the Apostolic Fathers. The work was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the New Testament,[7][8][9] while being rejected by others as spurious or non-canonical


>Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof
Therefore, ***appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons*** worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

"Appoint for youselves" /= "Trust me bro, I'm the bishop because some dude was a bishop and he said I'm a bishop"

Let's see what the Canons of Hippolytus (336 - 340 A.D) have to say on the matter

>CANON 2 CONCERNIN G BISHOPS
Let the bishop be chosen by all the people, and let him be without reproach, as it is written concerning him in the Apostle. The week when he is ordained, all the
clergy and the people say, 'We choose him'. There shall be silence in all the flock after the approbation, and they are all to pray for him etc

Chosen by all the people, all the clergy and the people say "We choose him", there shall be silence after (=no opposition, only unanimity is acceptable)

cont

>>18539338
You just acknowledged a fucking Twitter fag with an Astolfo avatar as "Based", let that seep in, then lower your head in shame.

>>18538993
>>18539345
Let's check this story by Gregory of Nissa, oration 18

>33. A further story of the same period and the same courage. The city of Cæsarea was in an uproar about the election of a bishop; for one had just departed, and another must be found, amidst heated partisanship not easily to be soothed. For the city was naturally exposed to party spirit, owing to the fervour of its faith, and the rivalry was increased by the illustrious position of the see. Such was the state of affairs; several Bishops had arrived to consecrate the Bishop; the populace was divided into several parties, each with its own candidate, as is usual in such cases, owing to the influences of private friendship or devotion to God; but at last the whole people came to an agreement, and, ***with the aid of a band of soldiers at that time quartered there, seized one of their leading citizens, a man of excellent life, but not yet sealed with the divine baptism, brought him against his will to the sanctuary, and setting him before the Bishops, begged, with entreaties mingled with violence, that he might be consecrated and proclaimed, not in the best of order, but with all sincerity and ardour.***

Imagine violently forcing a non-Christian to become bishop and then claiming that this shit is magically linked to Jesus' Apostles.

"Apostolic Tradition" never existed, it was invented out of thin air.

>>18539350
Kids these days love the animes, who am I to judge? For me it was Pokemon.
This young person is on the right track at least.

>>18539029
>It is literally impossible for it to not exist
Then explain this
>>18539345
>>18539357

>>18539373
>uses twitter to establish an "identity"
>on the right track
Never mind, you're as delusional as he is.

>>18539345
>So this dude claimed (with no proof) something that happens to favour himself? How fortunate
This is attested to by other sources such as Clement of Rome (an apostolic father) and Eusebius of Caesarea (a church historian), Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine.

>no proof
This isn't about proof, it's about multiple eye witnesses testifying to the fact there there was such a thing as apostolic succession and tradition. Even if we were to doubt their word, we would still have to deduce how tradition and doctrine was passed down through the generations. That can only be found in the fulfillment of some type of tradition where the apostles appointed successors to continue their work. We see this in the bible as well as where Paul passes his authority to Timothy, and then to Titus.

1 Timothy 5:22
>22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.

The "imposing of hands" here is referencing ordination

>>18539378
Anon your argument hinges upon the fact that multiple people are lying and there is some sort of conspiracy. It's extremely weak.

>“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

>>18538533
>"Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. And [Jesus] told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, BEGINNING in Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:44-48)
>tfw you weren’t alive to see hear his words and witness his resurrection
why even live bros
oh wait I know why

>>18539381
>Never mind, you're as delusional as he is.
As she is. She has the picture of a girl.

>>18539378
Again, basic premise - because there were apostles and they passed on traditions (eg. 2 Thes 2:15), it is literally impossible for there to not be an apostolic tradition. We can disagree on what the nature of that tradition is, but most both agree it exists in some form.

>>18539345
>>18539357
>So this dude claimed (with no proof)
The proof is that he was appointed as a bishop of Lyons after the martyrdom, and it was well known that he was ordained and tutored by St. Polycarp. For you to deny this, you would have to deny a well-agreed upon portion of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, many other historians, and Irenaeus' own writings - which is fine, but you should provide evidence to support that view (not why it -could- be untruthful, but why one should believe that it is).

>Apostolic Fathers
First, if you decide to go further into this topic, you will find that many of the writings of the apostolic fathers speak about the presidence of the church of Rome, and giving respect to bishops (see: St. Ignatius' epistles) - so if you use writings of apostolic fathers for prooftexts, be sure you are aware what you are getting into.

>***appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons***
In the early church, in many cases, the bishops were appointed by the people - but the office thereof is that which holds the apostolic authority, and thus by extension he who holds that office. The point of apostolic succession is that there is an unbroken chain of ordination by laying on of the hands, a tradition beginning in ancient Hebrew priestly practice, but continued by the apostles (see: Acts 8:17). Any bishop must be first ordained as a priest, and every priest must be ordained by being laid hands on by a bishop.

>Imagine violently forcing a non-Christian to become bishop and then claiming that this shit is magically linked to Jesus' Apostles.
Your answer is right here: "and setting him before the Bishops, begged, with entreaties mingled with violence, that he might be consecrated". Although this was a raucous event, the implication is clear: the bishops present would have had to have baptized and ordained him through laying on of the hands for him to have been a valid bishop. This is the outward sign of apostolic succession.

In the end, you are trying to engage in two debates simultaneously - apostolic tradition and apostolic succession. We should discuss one at a time so that we can have a more fruitful discussion.

>>18539454
I know how you feel, brother. Take consolation that "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.".

>>18539486
>Todd
>female

>>18539408
>The "imposing of hands" here is referencing ordination
>not quoting a legitimate Bible
Firstly, it's actually "lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure", rather than what your terrible translation says. Nextly, it's referencing the laying on of hands for healing prayers, saying to ensure the person you are doing so for is in faith.

>>18539142
i do all that execept eating Jesus flesh (they only give holy bread) and drinking Jesus' blood because the priest takes it all for himself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>18539736
Both translations prove my point.
The laying of hands traditionally has meant the giving of authority to someone. The passage is essentially saying not to ordinate someone without proper consideration.

Here are other examples in the bible.
Numbers 27:15-23
>15 Moses said to the Lord, 16 “May the Lord, the God who gives breath to all living things, appoint someone over this community 17 to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the Lord’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.”
>18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and LAY YOUR HAND him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him.

Deuteronomy 34:9
>9 Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit[a] of wisdom because Moses had LAID HIS HANDS on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.

Acts 6:5-6
>5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and LAID THEIR HANDS on them.

1 Timothy 4:14
>14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

Just admit you're wrong and lets move on please

>>18539770
the Eucharist communicants receive are consecrated as well

>>18539823
Acts 28:8 - And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.

Acts 19:6 - And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Acts 9:17 - And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 4:40 - Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

Mark 6:5 - And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

2 Timothy 1:6 - Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

>>18539915
>Acts 19:6 - And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

>2 Timothy 1:6 - Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

Both of these passages are examples of ordination. The others can be interpreted as the authority of the apostles to heal.

>>18539985
and this one as well
>Acts 9:17 - And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I never denied that the laying of hands can mean healing but in some specific contexts there is an obvious distinction between ordination and healing services by the ordained person.

>>18539848
Bollocks. You see this is what i hate about bible scholars: they take a chapter from it that makes no sense and say: "brooo its symbolic, it actually means something else." What the fuck else can it mean, if Jesus said "drink my blood" and i got no Jesus blood in my fridge i can't drink Jesus blood ffs. Who the hell is this Jesus anyways, i don't know him.

>>18540015
Sorry I should've put this in one reply but if we look at the context of 1 Timothy 5 we clearly see that the laying of hands does in fact mean ordination or something to do with the passing of authority from one person of authority to another.

1 Timothy 5:17-22
>17 Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing,” and, “A worker deserves his pay.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. 20 Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid. 21 I charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to keep these rules without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. 22 Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.

>>18540016
I'm not sure if your denying the real presence or saying you have no ability to partake in the Eucharist

>>18540050
I don't feel anything special in church despite being raised as catholic, i've even been an altair boy for a decade. Today i left the church in the middle of the mass because it was boring af (and hot), went outside for a walk and immediately felt better. Mass doesnt do anything for me, there is just this old priest babbling the same stories over and over... and there are no young women there either, so goodbye tradwife fantasy. IDK maybe i am just too stupid for religion.

>>18540121
Well I can't really speak on your inability to "feel" anything but when I go to mass I don't go there to feel something nice, I go with the intention to glorify and worship God. Maybe at the core of your disposition is the fact that you have no belief in Jesus Christ.

Also I don't even know if you are telling the truth about being a Catholic since it looks like you are trying to paint a caricature of tradcaths looking for trad wives.

>>18540156
>I go with the intention to glorify and worship God
Why do you decide to worship god? To gain eternal life? Or do you enjoy worshippng by itself? Or do you feel like it's the right thing to do?
>I don't even know if you are telling the truth about being a Catholic
Baptized. Confirmation. Went to cathecesis for 9 years (didnt believe much in those stories) Altair boy since the age of 10. My mom is a sexton at local church and i help her out with stuff. Still go to church so i dont make my mom mad (she is a fanatic). Might even join church chroir just because i like singing.
>tradcaths looking for trad wives
I am just looking for a modest woman which is hard to find in these times.

I believe in Jesus, i just don't buy into the catholic crap. The whole religion is a mystic mumbo jumbo for me. I got too much shit going on IRL to care about abstract concepts like god or afterlife.

>>18540285
>Why do you decide to worship god? To gain eternal life? Or do you enjoy worshippng by itself? Or do you feel like it's the right thing to do?
Because I think that if God exists, He is our final end, meaning, He is our purpose for existing. The act of worship or (latria) is adoring God in his majesty, supremacy and totality of being so that we may one day be prepared to be united with him. I do this not because heaven is some magical place where I can feel good, I do it because that is ultimately what I am called to do, just as a flower is called to flourish, I am called to be with God.

>I believe in Jesus, i just don't buy into the catholic crap.
So are you simply fed up with liturgy then? Well if I could recommend a book you could look into the history of the liturgy in pic related. The mass has been practiced by the earliest Christians and has developed naturally for over 2000 years.

>I got too much shit going on IRL to care about abstract concepts like god or afterlife.
Well then I'm not sure if you actually believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God then. It isn't just pedantic abstract concepts, it's real, and that's life changing if you legitimately have faith.

>>18540121
>despite being raised as catholic
Peradventure *because* rather than "despite".

>>18540421
How do you know which God tho? Did you consciously choose Christianity? Or do you do it because your parents taught you too? Most people do the latter which shows that religion in most cases is just culture&tradition and not something purely divine.
>life changing if you legitimately have faith.
How did faith change your life?

I will probably look into history of christianity at some point, liturgy sux tho like you said.

>>18540446
Whats the alternative? I think i have pagan blood inside me, and not the neopagan hippy bullshit kind.

Jesus is king!

>>18537910
>Bible is amazing
ly filled with horrific actions commanded or condoned by the psychopathic murderer and rapist that jews, christians, and muslims call "god". What an absolute monster. If yahweh did exist, it would be our moral duty to kill him and bring an end to his reign of devious terror.

>>18540554
What about the Jews?

>>18540557
Edgy af. Come on, wouldn't you even try to reason with him?

>>18540574
No, there is no point in reasoning with someone more destructive than a thousand hitlers, stalins, and maos put together. He must be put to death.

I pretend to love Jesus just to piss off Jews. Am I going to heaven?

>>18537910
The Vedas and Upanishads are way better tho.

>>18540528
Perhaps try attending a more traditional parish, like one which does the Tridentine (Traditional Latin) Mass, or an Eastern Catholic church of the Byzantine rite? There are probably also more potential qt tradewives there too. It's reasonable to be bored of the Novus Ordo mass, but remember that all masses are beautiful because of what they contain: the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.

>>18540660
They are good but advaita is cryptobuddhism, look it up

>>18540619
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because its foundation was on the rock.
But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its collapse!”"

>>18540791
This. But he'll probably hate that too because it isn't in vernacular

>>18540528
There are plenty of people with all manner of innate sin, which is to be turned from, not edified.

>>18538528
Cringe.

>Matthew 21:43
Therefore say I unto you[chief priests and Pharisees], The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

>John 1:12-13
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

>>18537910
Jesus is The Messiah, The King of the Universe and The ONE TRUE GOD

>>18538294
Look into the division between the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Church (aka the true catholics before and after the split) and consider why one exists in its own state and why another has more empirically proven miracles.

nice spooks nerds
AHAHAHAHA

>>18537910
may the holy spirit bless you op

>>18541280
Having analyzed the claims for both (approaching all of the apostolic churches dispassionately in order to find the true church), I believe that the claims of the Catholic church are true, and the Eastern Orthodox churches (not one church, as the Greek and Russian wings are in schism) are in error in their rejection of the authority of the successor of Peter. The Catholic church also has far more empirically proven miracles, as documented by PhD hematologist and Canadian Medical Hall of Fame inductee Jacalyn Duffin in her book "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World"; so I'm not sure if your argument here proves what you would like it to. I do respect your opinion, but respectfully, your statement "aka the true catholics before and after the split" is very contentious, and the Catholic church claims the same - and, being as impartial as I could (and in fact, having had a prior bias against the Catholic church), I came to the conclusion that the Catholic church is, in fact, the one holy Catholic and apostolic church.

>>18541412
If someone is orthodox thinking about catholicism, this is a good article to read

https://clarifyingcatholicism.org/2019/08/30/why-i-converted-from-orthodoxy/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

>>18540514
>How do you know which God tho
Because I believe Christianity has the fullness of truth. Other religions might have ounces of truth in there, Neoplatonism has some, perhaps Islam has some, but I think the fullness of truth comes from God becoming flesh and meeting with his creation. I also think that the historicity of the gospels, the resurrection, the prophecies from the old and the new all point to the Christian truth.

>>18538835
I spent hours rearranging because of your uncharitable words. I hope you're happy.

>>18542486
you work for The Banner of Truth, don't you?

>>18542910
No. There are simply very few publishers making quality editions of Reformed books.

And if I worked for BoT I would have the complete works of Owen and Manton.

>>18540791
>the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
is this really true? How do you know?
>>18541141
We don't accurately know which things are sins and which not. All we have is an approximation in 2k year old book written by humans prone to error.

>>18538469
Simply believing in Jesus doesn't save someone, otherwise those LGBT pastors are just as saved.

>>18544155
So you recognize sola fide is wrong?

>>18537910
Most of Christianity came from the ancient Mesopotamian religion though. So it's obviously not true.

>>18544913
Christianity did not come ex-nihilo on the earth but instead found place with already religious people. It was a net improvement though, and God himself revealed his nature to everyone in Jesus Christ.

>>18544880
Sola fide was always retarded

Maybe you guys will be able to help: I am attracted to two different metaphysics that I find equally compelling and don't know how to choose between them (of course this is a thread on Christianity so I know I'm not asking an unbiased crowd but I would appreciate impartial answers to help me make a genuine choice).
The first is platonic realism, which was co-opted by the Christian neoplatonists, and the second is ontological emptiness as described in Buddhism.
The second feels compelling in the way it denies either the reality of things or their illusory nature, that everything except the pure mind is empty of self-existence, but at the same time it's pretty much nominalism and we all know what this leads to. I'm looking for a kind of compromise because the emphasis Buddhism puts on the illusory nature of phenomena makes complete sense to me, but at the same time I don't want to fall into absolute relativism and ontological nihilism. Some esoteric techniques such as "illusory form practice" are quite compelling and I struggle to find any equivalents in the western tradition.
I guess this goes back to the problem of universals in the end but could I get some advice?

>>18540016
>Jesus said "be like doves" and I can't even lay eggs ffs

>>18541280
>empirically proven miracles
care to enlighten us on that?

>>18537910
Christ is King. Keep reading and building your faith.

>>18537910
Jesus was a good guy. Not sure if I believe he resurrected though. Been reading N. T. Wright’s book on that though, so we’ll see. I have an open mind.

>>18545103
He never said that

>>18545098
I'm a brainlet but to me it seems that buddhist emptiness is just one step away form solipsism, which is a dead end. Think of your problem this way: throughout the human history the evolutionary pressure froced us to adapt a mindset that promotes reproduction & expansion moreso than any other mentality. This mindset might be wrong but it's essential. Whats true is not necessarily the best. Knowing "the truth" would probably do us more bad than good, othwerise God would come down from the sky and say - "This is the truth, do this & you are saved" - yet he never does that. Your problem might not be solvable with logic. Follow your intuition and whatever feels more real & alive, thats it.

>>18542472
>the Resurrection is true I have sources to back it up
>look the tomb was EMPTY
>but who was Jesus????
All the sources claiming to see him after death are christian. I'd bet X sesterces the body of Jesus is locked up deep in the Vatican Archives

>>18539350
>You just acknowledged a fucking Twitter fag with an Astolfo avatar as "Based", let that seep in, then lower your head in shame.
This, the man you just replied clearly has no shame or dignity

>>18544110
>is this really true? How do you know?
The unanimous consensus of the successors of the apostles, and ante-Nicene fathers. The thing is with Catholicism - it will make absolutely no sense, and in fact seem ridiculous, until you start going deeper into history and checking out what the earliest Christians had to say on various topics. Something like "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" or "The Fathers Know Best" would be great for you - but of course, based upon what you said before, you will probably have to do some serious exploration on the historicity of the resurrection, certain Catholic doctrines, etc. before you come to truly believe the Nicene creed when you say it.

Take it from a former unbelieving Catholic - it is an incredible blessing, unbeknownst to so many, to be born into the one true church.

>We don't accurately know which things are sins and which are not
Yes, we do. This is where etymological knowledge of some words can help. What is the meaning of "sin" in Hebrew and Greek?

>>18539350
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

>>18540557
>this nigger seriously believe he can harm a god, let alone God
The greeks would mock your hubris the same way I do

>>18538048
Check out Girard

>>18545710
Unironically what did the bible mean by this?

I have recently gained an interest in reading the Bible for literary reasons, as it has been a major influence on Western literature for a thousand+ years at this point. For reference on my background in Jewish/Christian thought, I have read parts of the Hebrew Bible before (Judges and Joshua). Is the King James Version the best for my interests?

>>18544110
>the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
1) Jesus is God
2) Jesus (God) gives authority to his apostles
3)Apostles practice the real presence of the Eucharist because Jesus said so ("this is my body/blood, do this in remembrance of me")
4)Therefore, the real presence is true

>>18545656
>unanimous consensus
Ahh, so it was never proven. They just decided to make it true. Religion, such as it is, is a man made cult. I'd believe it if the Jesus cured someones illness while in church (like he did IRL), bet he never does anything that. Or if he turned water into wine in the middle of the mass - yet we have to put actual wine into ithe chalice. Mass at this point is a repetition of rituals and mantras.

>What is the meaning of "sin" in Hebrew and Greek?
To go astray. Astry from what? God? I don't know any god. If I don't bother myself with God, i can do whatever i want, isn't freedom better?

>>18545770
blasphemy against the holy spirit is like denying the ability of other people to tell truth. like calling them "insane" (this is what the "Raca!" vs "You Fool!" passage in matthew 5:22 is about also)

>>18545773
the KJV might not be the best "scholarly" translation but its influence on art and the english language in general is unmatched and worth reading for this alone

>>18545443
It's not really solipsism. As for your statement on truth, I disagree. I think the pursuit of knowledge and truth is among the highest, most noble endeavors (alongside the pursuit of beauty)

>>18545795
>They just decided to make it true
(not anon) The fundamental question is whether or not Jesus is truly God. If God gives authority to humans to carry out his Church then whatever the Church proclaims is true. Do you disagree with this statement?

>>18545795
>so it was never proven
What kind of proof would you accept as evidence for the real presence, seeing as you disregard the teachings of the apostles (who knew Christ, and therefore we can assume interpreted His words correctly when He said "this is My body", and "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life")? If you are speaking about empirical evidence, you can look at the many documented cases of Eucharistic miracles that have been analyzed by scientists.

>They just decided to make it true
Yeah, they just randomly decided to believe in something that would have gotten them ostracized from their community, and tortured and killed for. Extremely rational motive there

>Religion, such as it is, is a man made cult
All religions are different. Blanket statements are imprecise and not useful. Your usage of the word "cult" here is also loaded with presuppositions that need to be explained and proven.

>I'd believe it if the Jesus cured someones illness while in church
Read the book by PhD hematologist and Canadian Medical Hall of Fame inductee Jacalyn Duffin in her book "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World".

>Or if he turned water into wine in the middle of the mass
Part of true belief and love is to not be compelled. If God spelled out with stars in the sky "I AM REAL. WORSHIP ME", His existence would no longer be in doubt, but people would not be choosing to worship Him out of genuine love and desire, but rather a feeling of compulsion, and fear. True love is freely given.

>Mass at this point is a repetition of rituals
Why is a ritual bad? Jesus explicitly commanded His disciples to perform three rituals in His ministry - forgiveness of sins (confession), baptism, and the Eucharist.

>To go astray. Astry from what? God? I don't know any god.
To go astray from the ultimate good, and to seek some lesser good which takes you further away from Him. If you don't want to know Him, then you will keep deifying yourself and your carnal desires, and end up embodying the doctrine of the Satanic churches - do what thou wilt. If you want to share ideological doctrine with literal Satanists over the free offer of love given by the creator of the universe, that is your free-willed choice - but you better hope there is no after-life.

"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.

Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will hunger.

Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep."

>>18545795
>isn't freedom better?
You are not free without God, our creator, and source of all things.

2 Corinthians 3:17
>17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

>>18545795
>isn't freedom better?
True freedom only exists with God

>>18545796
I dont quite understand, could you elaborate?

>>18545975
Not that anon, but I do not think he is correct on this. I believe, as is clear from the context, that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to see an undeniable miracle, a work of God (which is by necessity done by the Spirit of God), and attribute it to a demon, sorcery, or some other wicked thing.

"Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed the man so that he could speak and see. The crowds were astounded and asked, “Could this be the Son of David?”
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “Only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, does this man drive out demons.”"
And after this, Jesus says that the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees here, instead of repenting and realizing that Jesus truly was who He said He was after this undeniable miracle, doubled down and continue to reject the opportunities for repentance.

In Catholicism, we also have this passage in our Catechism:
“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss (CCC 1864).

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to refuse God’s mercy. It is a refusal to repent of sin. God does not bring anyone into his kingdom against his/her will. Human persons have the ability to reject God’s mercy and refuse forgiveness of sins which leads to eternal separation from God.

>>18546015
>see an undeniable miracle, a work of God (which is by necessity done by the Spirit of God), and attribute it to a demon, sorcery, or some other wicked thing.
How could we know? I mean there's no way to tell. Look at all the new agers getting misled by entities, isn't it good to exercise caution?

>>18545975
it's through the holy spirit that man can speak truth. To deny, in this example, that someone with an astolfo profile picture can speak truth is to deny the holy spirit in that person.

>>18546015
speaking truth through the spirit is an undeniable miracle

>>18546025
Things like exorcism are undeniable, because of what Jesus says in Matthew 12 about binding the strong man, a house divided, etc.
>isn't it good to exercise caution?
Absolutely - most importantly, to always attempt to discern what is happening before speaking rashly, if we are given the grace to witness a miracle, lest we impune a work of God.

>>18546028
I would say that a miracle is an extraordinary event which involves divine intervention, and therefore to attribute any spoken truths as attributed to the Holy Spirit might be extrapolating a bit far outside of the realm of what the ancient church fathers and saints would have analyzed that passage to mean. I would be very hesitant to attribute just anything I perceive of as "true" to be from the Holy Spirit, except for obvious things like 1 Cor 12:3.

>>18546084
>to always attempt to discern what is happening
But is it really possible to know for sure whether an abnormal phenomenon is caused by a demon or by divine power? Aside from exorcism. I mean, are there specific things to look out for or something?

>>18539350
The twinks shall inherit the earth

>>18546098
Heretics like you shall burn

>>18546025
The fact that Jahve requires you to enter into covenants with him in order for him to exercise his power and that historically his name was unspeakable to non-initiates strongly suggests demonic affinities rather than being the absolute creator of the universe.

>>18546122
All this stuff is so confusing. I just want to guarantee I don't get fucked over after I die but everyone has diverging opinions on the matter.

>>18546122
We talking exactly about this and you are already saying blasphemies

>>18546132
Only winning move is not to die

>>18546141
How

>>18546084
>I would be very hesitant to attribute just anything I perceive of as "true" to be from the Holy Spirit
how would you know truth? you cite the authority of the church fathers but was their authority from heaven or of man?

>>18546133
Exactly how can I blaspheme the ultimate power of the universe? If I have power over him by naming him and criticizing him, what does that make him? Do you understand why you aren't allowed to swear, curse, or take his name in vain? It's part of the contract to "borrow" his energy. (Actually you are being borrowed in a sense as well).

>>18546146
Start with the Timaeus.

Yes, the Bible is great. How to Read Your Way to Heaven was a big influence on how I read the Bible and live my life. I recommend reading this book. It includes a 5-year reading plan with a concurrent reading of the Bible, Catechism, and other books that help your understanding of the faith and Bible.

>>18546161
How does that help, Timaeus is about the demiurge (in the original sense, not gnostic) right?

>>18546158
You are seeing the situation from the wrong angle.
You don't have power, the power belongs to Him. The Father through the Son gave you the rules to follow, not because of Him, but because of you and your salvation.

>>18546097
It's an interesting question: perhaps a rule of thumb might be that if the work is objectively good (a blind person regaining sight, a crippled person being able to walk, etc), and the one performing the miracle is filled with the Holy Spirit (eg. use the test in 1 Cor 12:3), it can probably be safely assumed to be from God, but in all cases, if you are not comfortable making that judgment, always glorify God unceasingly. I don't believe a demon would perform a work that would lead people to glorify the true God.
Also see:
"1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesusa is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time."

>>18546122
>requires you to enter into covenants with him in order for him to exercise his power
You are extremely uneducated on this topic. Covenants are not required "in order for him to exercise his power", a covenant is an outward sign of a particular promise made by the creator of the universe to a person/group of people. It has nothing to do with being able to exercise His power - He needs no permission to do so.
>his name was unspeakable to non-initiates
It was unspeakable even by initiates, except the High Priest, except for one day of the year, because of the injunction to not take His name in vain.

You honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus said repeatedly that the God of the Old Testament is the true God. The fact that you think you were right and Jesus was wrong, because you've read a couple books, shows what kind of character you are.

>>18537910
Yeah :)

>>18546184
Then all entities should be asked, as a rule of thumb, their opinion on Christ, and this serves as an adequate way to judge whether or not they are heavenly or demonic?

>>18546175
The guy is literally a pseud trying to lead you away from Jesus Christ, doesn't that seem a bit suspicious? "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit" - "every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already".

>>18537994
Cope Heretic

>>18546206
Plato leads people away from Christ? As far as I know, [neo]platonic philosophy was liked by most Christian theologians.
>If you die before you die, then you won't die when you die
I like this quote, does it reference the way initiations or mystical revelations are like a "death and rebirth" for the soul? How is this done in Christianity?

>>18546208
love how catholics so quickly become wrathful pharisees at the drop of a hat

>>18546175
More about metempsychosis. But yes the demiurge is discussed, though not in a gnostic context but in the platonic context as the architectonic working of form
>>18546206
>everyone I don't like is satan
This is not a serious theology
>>18546184
You cannot take his name in vain because of the covenant, because he has made an agreement with you. The truly sovereign, or absolute has no need to haggle with you in the marketplace over the price of protection, such as not using his name to bind him against the agreed terms.

>>18546242
>metempsychosis
I've read Phaedo already, I thought it was the most exhaustive dialogue about death and the destiny of the soul.

>>18546180
But try to see this from the angle which has been lost to time—that the entire purpose of a pact is to borrow someone else's power in exchange for some mutual service. There can be pacts between unequals but if something were omnipotent you would have nothing to offer it that it could not already enjoy. So someone is lying or ignorant in the arrangement depicted.

>>18546250
Reminder that Christianity so intensely fears corporeal death that it teaches you can make a deal with God to keep your body.

>>18546268
It's not like platonism is annihilationist though, Phaedo mentions even memories are recalled between lives, and personhood is not obliterated like in eastern religions.

>>18546256
>There can be pacts between unequals but if something were omnipotent you would have nothing to offer it that it could not already enjoy. So someone is lying or ignorant in the arrangement depicted.
Once again, you don't see to understand. Part of the christian doctrine it's about God being All Mighty and in his infinite power He also has inifnite mercy. You are thinking the way a man would think, God is not a man (and don't even try to use Jesus for this, because you clearly know what I'm mean by saying God is not a man), He can and will do what is impossible for humans and even for unbelievers like you, He will complete the miracle and His promise, even if you as a human don't have anything to offer Him.
Salvation is through Him and He is the truth, there's no lie or trick, just the real Word.

>>18546203
Yes, and that is my scripture-based discernment plan, so to speak. If some entity comes to me or somebody I love (God forbid unless it be one of His angels), I plan to ask it to say "Jesus is Lord", and ask it whether He is the Word of God who came in the flesh. Oftentimes they won't even let you get that far - many times I have had weird lucid dreams where I am speaking to a (potential) entity who is attempting to have sex with me, and I simply say the Jesus Prayer and they disappear.

>>18546227
No, that guy is trying to spread Neoplatonic mystical philosophy while at the same time positing that the God of the Old and New Testaments is a demon. Plato is not bad per se, but His teachings need to be framed in a way that squares with the teachings of Jesus - St. Augustine in his Confessions gives a great summary of Plotinus' mystical method that he used to encounter the true God in mystical absorption. I highly recommend reading it.

>does it reference the way initiations or mystical revelations are like a "death and rebirth" for the soul? How is this done in Christianity?
Exactly. In Christianity, the initiation ceremony is literally a plunging into a pool of water (symbolic of chaos and death) and becoming reborn (born-again) after emerging.

>>18546242
>everyone who tries to lead people away from Jesus Christ is and anti-Christ
Seems pretty obvious and self-explanatory. It's your choice to be an anti-Christ, but you should own it.
>The truly sovereign, or absolute has no need to haggle with you in the marketplace over the price of protection, such as not using his name to bind him against the agreed terms.
source: dude trust me bro
Yeah, I'm sure you're right and Jesus was wrong, can't believe I didn't see it earlier, let's all reject Jesus and follow Plato. How utterly retarded.

>>18546290
>I simply say the Jesus Prayer and they disappear.
Why are experiences like lucid dreams or things that take place out of the body usually discouraged, if nefarious entities can be dealt with just by calling upon Jesus' name?

>>18546289
Again, if he is as mighty as he claims for sales purposes, why bother with me? Why is it necessary for me to keep to his laws? Why is he so obviously similar to a mortal chieftain in his demands of me? Someone is lying.
>>18546290
>dude trust me bro
The exact argument given in the OT iirc

>>18546326
>why bother with me? Why is it necessary for me to keep to his laws? Why is he so obviously similar to a mortal chieftain in his demands of me? Someone is lying.
Anon, we are going in circles here because you are stubborn in believing God is also not merciful and God can lie, which is completely false. I can keep explaining this to you, but you are going to keep surrounding the answer if you keep ignoring God is the Truth.

>>18546326
>Why is it necessary for me to keep to his laws?
“If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

>>18546290
>I highly recommend reading it.
What's your opinion on the other Christian neoplatonists and hermeticists (Ficino, Boehme etc)?
>the initiation ceremony is literally a plunging into a pool of water
I have always pictured initiatic experiences in my mind as being something that's difficult to go through, a challenge of sorts, like the purification steps in spiritual alchemy. Is it really as simple as baptism?

>>18546341
>>18546355
>just believe
You'd never sign a real contract like this unless you were in a totally lopsided arrangement with the other party and had no choice but to go along with them. It's a very interesting development in the history of religion.

>>18546397
Anon, the other side is God, not just a mere human. The fact you can't get this fact inside your head if why you are failing to understand this.

>>18538294
>How can you, a mere mortal, judge the souls of over 1 billion people, and determine they will all go to eternal punishment?

>>18546399
>Anon, the other side is God
That is exactly what is being disputed

>>18546418
It is not being disputed, the problem with your understanding is about God's nature and the way the promise of Him to us works. Just like another anon told you many posts above, you are not really educated on this subject and everytime someone tries to explain this to you, you go around the answer.
You are being deaf.

>>18546322
I think with regards to out of body experiences, it is probably related to the desire to have some sort of control over the spiritual realm, which apostolic theology would consider disordered. It may also be related to the fact that one would be anticipating some sort of contact with an entity, which could be framed as seeking out contact with potentially demonic beings (even if you intend to rebuke them). Finally, it may have to do with Christianity being (divinely) intended to be the most safe mystical system (especially as compared to something like Ashtanga/Raja Yoga, which Vivekananda warns should only ever be attempted under the constant guidance of a guru) - the practice of out-of-body experiences may be a dangerous one in that it may give negative entities a window to inhabit your body, even if you have a sense of security. Those are just what come to mind, perhaps it wasn't helpful, but that's why I no longer attempt to practice these things.

>>18546326
>The exact argument given in the OT iirc
t. has not read the Bible

>>18546364
>What's your opinion on the other Christian neoplatonists and hermeticists
Haven't read any Boehme, but I have read a bit of Ficino's commentaries, and I must say that I find this style of Neoplatonic commentary incredibly dense, and frequently skirting the edge of orthodoxy. Personally, I prefer more practical mystical writings than systematic expositions, like Augustine's Confessions, The Imitation of Christ, Practice of the Presence of God, etc. I also believe that the New Testament contains within it a step-by-step process for enlightenment which can easily be mapped and squared with the chakra-based system of spiritual development (not that I believe in chakras per se, but that before I came to Christianity, they were a useful heuristic to think of spiritual growth), and that therefore there is no texts needed besides the New Testament for one to truly reach the highest possible level of mystical practice.

>I have always pictured initiatic experiences in my mind as being something that's difficult to go through, a challenge of sorts, like the purification steps in spiritual alchemy. Is it really as simple as baptism?
First and foremost, keep in mind that the first step prior to baptism is believing that Jesus Christ is the Word of God who became incarnate, who died and was resurrected for the salvation of all mankind - no small point to come to terms with - and a complete repentance of all sins. As a sacrament, it is an outward sign of an invisible grace, and this grace is the forgiveness of all sins, dying with Jesus to be reborn with Him, etc. It is no small matter, which is why Confirmation for infant baptisms requires a re-affirmation of baptismal promises.
The purification in spiritual alchemy would have been mostly developed by people who had already been baptized - thus you can say it is a system for sanctification, rather than salvation.

>Is it really as simple as baptism?
Mark 16:16

>>18546413
If you are judged by the measure you judge others, I pray that you repent of your gross and incredibly prideful condemnation of over 1 billion people, because I can assure you that having judged that many people worthy to burn in Hell for all eternity will not bode well for you at your person judgment.

>>18542486
looks even gayer somehow

>>18546455
>the spiritual realm
Is there a text that describe which realms exist outside of this particular universe? Or is that only a kabbalistic thing and not really recognized in Christianity.
>the most safe mystical system
Are you speaking from a perennialist standpoint here? Were you previously interested in hinduism, if so what made you eventually become a Christian?

>>18546455
>skirting the edge of orthodoxy
A lot of mystics were believed to be heretics in their time, isn't there an allowable margin of variation when it comes to practices as long as they don't directly contradict canonical scripture?
You mention an interpretation of the NT which can be associated with chakras, that's quite the unorthodox interpretation as well — that I'd be interested in reading more about if you don't mind, since I've never heard of the NT providing a step-by-step guide for enlightenment, much less one that could syncretically be combined with eastern teachings.
Regarding baptism, I understand, thanks for clearing it up. I'm still unsure as to how genuine belief is acquired, however. I'm assuming prayer plays a part, but prayer without belief doesn't feel particularly authentic, so that's kind of a catch-22.

>>18546539
Well, St. Paul definitely held the belief that there was a "third heaven", which he called "Paradise" (2 Cor. 12:1-4) - it seems to suggest that he held to the traditional Hebrew cosmology of the seven heavens. You might desire to look into the Rabbinic writings on this, although personally I find it a bit outside of my field of interest - again, I am more interested in the practical side.

>Are you speaking from a perennialist standpoint here?
I am speaking from an orthodox Catholic perspective here, as somebody who used to tend towards perennialist syncretic views. We know that systems outside of Christianity can reliably produce mystical experiences, and we also know that experts in these systems frequently warn of the many dangers inherent to performing their practices without guidance. I believe that Christianity, as the summation and pinnacle of all religion, was intentionally structured so as to be the type of system that one can practice under any circumstances, even when no guidance is possible - such as when one is a slave, when one is in jail, etc.

>Were you previously interested in hinduism, if so what made you eventually become a Christian?
Yes, very interested (although of course, Hinduism is a collection of a huge number of different sects). What led to me believing the truth claims of Christianity over all forms of Hinduism are numerous, but primarily it is the events surrounding the death of Jesus ~2000 years ago. None of the syncretic theories - be it theosophy, Jesus as an enlightened human, Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu - could accurately explain all of the idiosyncrasies with Jesus' ministry - especially His claims of being The judge, The sole forgiver of sins, The eternal God, etc. Further, the arguments for the historicity of the resurrection seemed to me incredibly logically airtight, with all of the popular objections failing to explain all of the circumstances - and of course, if the resurrection is that divine stamp of approval on all of Jesus' teachings, the claims He made of being The eternal God and sole judge of mankind take on an irresistible weight. Of course, this then led to the thought that the Gospels, as the sole documents which posit this hypothesis, might be correct - and with that, a reading of the Gospels (combined with related "religious experiences"), showed that if Jesus had really promised to His disciples the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, these documents were not just reliable firsthand (John, Matthew) or secondhand (Mark [from Peter], Luke [a combination of eyewitness reports, as he states in Luke 1:1-3]) documents, but were actually inspired by this Holy Spirit which Jesus said He would send to guide the hand of these apostles.
I left a lot out, but that's a short summary. From there, I went to discover which church was the one Jesus created in Matthew 16:18 so I could partake in the Eucharist as He commanded, and it's all history from there.

>>18546663
>Rabbinic writings
Aren't there ten realms including the material one, according to kabbalah?
I guess you're right though it's kind of beside the point since such realms will only be experienced after death.
>systems outside of Christianity can reliably produce mystical experiences
The problem with perennialism is that religions make incompatible claims about the nature of reality. Conceptions of God and metaphysics vary a lot. For this reason I'm skeptical of the notion that all religions point to the same truth.
There's also anecdotes of people having specific experiences (usually out of body) being told by various entities that no religion is the full truth, but of course this could be chalked up to nefarious influences from malevolent beings. Still intriguing though.
>the arguments for the historicity of the resurrection
You mean >>18542472? Is there more data?
>Matthew 16:18
What do you make of the all controversial things surrounding the Vatican, though? Do you think the Orthodox churches are wrong and misguided?

>>18546556
>isn't there an allowable margin of variation when it comes to practices as long as they don't directly contradict canonical scripture?
Absolutely, and there is nothing wrong with Neoplatonic mystical practices, as long as they are done with the proper framing and keeping orthodoxy of the teachings of Christ in mind.
>that's quite the unorthodox interpretation as well
Yes, but as I am not affirming the existence of chakras, only using them as a useful heuristic map, I am well within the realm of strict orthodoxy.
> I'd be interested in reading more about if you don't mind
Sure, I can do a very brief summary, and can go more in depth for any point you'd like. This can be viewed as a progressive, step-by-step system of "balancing" different aspects of the self on the route to sanctity, ending in becoming a mystic. Obviously there are many different interpretations on what the chakra's "functions" are, but I believe from my studies this is a useful paraphrasing.

>Muladhara - Root Chakra - Relation of Self to Carnal Desires
Example: Matthew 6:25-34, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 10:21, Luke 5:35, Ephesians 5:5

>Svadhisthana - Sacral Chakra - Relation of Self to Other, Fears
Example: Matthew 7:12, Matthew 17:17-19, Matthew 19:11-12, Matthew 10:28-31

>Manipura - Solar Plexus Chakra - Relation of Self to Society
Example: Matthew 10:16-23, Mark 12:17, Romans 13:7, Matthew 6:24, Galations 1:10, Ephesians 6:10-13

>Anahata - Heart Chakra - Relation of Self to Love
Example: Mark 12:31, Matthew 5:38-48, John 13:3-17, John 13:34-35, John 15:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:8, 1 John 2:9, 1 John 3:16

>Vishuddha - Throat Chakra - Relation of Self to Expression
Example: Matthew 10:19-20, Mark 13:11, Luke 12:11-12, Matthew 5:34-37, Ephesians 4:15, Ephesians 4:25, Ephesians 6:14-20

>Ajna - Third Eye Chakra - Relation of Self to God and Divine Wisdom
Example: Mark 10:21, Matthew 13:44-46, Revelation 3:18, Luke 14:33, Philippians 3:7, Luke 14:26, Luke 5:11

>I'm still unsure as to how genuine belief is acquired, however.
I would say that while knowing a monotheistic, personal, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God exists can be reasoned to rationally, the arguments that Jesus Christ was resurrected can bring you right to the edge of belief, by being (in my opinion) the most reasonable explanation of the events, but that one must take a leap of faith to actually say "I might not understand how it could be possible, but I choose to take that risk and believe that Jesus resurrected despite my lack of understanding of how it works naturalistically". From there, everything should flow easily, as then it leads to the acceptance of the Gospel accounts, and therefore belief in the sending of the Holy Spirit to the apostles, who laid hands to pass Him on to their successors, who are all a part of some institution called the church which exists in some form today, and is still guided by the Holy Spirit.

>>18538427
>You really have to have a really weak mind if you find his message appealing.
Yeah. Isaac Newton had a really weak mind. John Locke was a literal retard. Fortunately we have great men like Russell and Hilbert whose works will stand the test of time and never be shown to be unprovable. Thank the spaghetti monster that we advanced to quantum physics where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time and we don't need faith because now we know everything. Damn imagine literally believing the person whose ideas are the foundation of civilization as we know it. Imagine even reading the bible to figure out what's in it. Us strong minded folks don't NEED that. Fortunately we are wise enough to know that morality isn't real and I can fuck all the children I want! Even burn them alive afterwards and if I'm at the top of the chain nobody can tell me no.

>>18546708
>Aren't there ten realms including the material one
I'm not talking about the general realms of existence, but rather the 7-heavens cosmological model found in Midrashic, Merkabah and Hekhalat literature - but there was also a 10-heavens cosmology in 2 Enoch, and St. Paul might have been influenced by that. Nobody knows for sure.
>The problem with perennialism is that religions make incompatible claims about the nature of reality.
Absolutely agree. I reject perennialism wholesale.
>For this reason I'm skeptical of the notion that all religions point to the same truth.
Rightly so. They definitely do not.
>no religion is the full truth, but of course this could be chalked up to nefarious influences from malevolent beings.
I would probably also attribute it to negative entities. One of the many dangers of OBEs.
>You mean >>18542472? Is there more data?
The three arguments presented there are valid, but the most convincing argument for me is the apostles' willingness to face horrific torture and death rather than recant their testimonies of having seen the physically risen Christ, like St. Peter. As that picture already explains, the vision hypothesis is very weak, even though it is the most popular explanation for liberal scholars - which lead me to believe that the disciples really did have an extended experience of spending time with the physically resurrected Jesus, which emboldened them to never recant, even when threatened with unimaginably brutal torture.
There are great debates on this topic on Youtube that make this case, as well. I can share some if you'd like.
>What do you make of the all controversial things surrounding the Vatican, though?
I say "Woe to the world because of the causes of sin. For the stumbling blocks are necessary to come, but woe to the man by whom the offense comes! (Matthew 18:7). Any institution which holds power is going to be a target for psychopaths and predators who want to exploit that power. This does not change the fact that if it is the church founded by Jesus Christ, it is my moral duty to join it, and help to purify it from within. As Jesus said of the church, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" - but He never says the demons will not try!
>Do you think the Orthodox churches are wrong and misguided?
Partially. I believe that while they have legitimate apostolic succession and sacraments, they do not contain the fullness of the truth, and potentially teach doctrine that can be dangerous for the soul (eg. multiple divorces and remarriage). At the end of the day, while it would be much easier for me to be an EO, I cannot in good conscience be a part of a schismatic church that is in schism even within itself. I wish with all my heart that we be reunited, and that they become part of the Eastern Catholics, but it is such a political issue now that I fear it may never occur without a miracle.

>>18546708
>What do you make of the all controversial things surrounding the Vatican, though? Do you think the Orthodox churches are wrong and misguided?
Not him but both Churches I believe are in crisis. Orthodox have major problems being united, being clear on certain beliefs (i.e contraception is allowed, baptism of Catholics/protestants is unclear), missionary work is terrible, and some of their ecumenicism should be criticized just as harshly as orthodox criticizes catholic ecumenicism. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4P5jfjiVk where the primate of the Greek orthodox of America gives a homily at an Anglican church)

The Catholic Church is also in crisis, particularly with the vast amount of liturgical abuses and incompetent clergy, many of whom are not following their vows (pedophilia etc). But what is at issue here is which church is fundamentally true. If Christ says the gates of hell shall not prevail, I will trust him.

>>18546983
>using them as a useful heuristic map
You're not using any meditation practices that involve chakras, like kundalini or whatever? I guess that would contradict orthodoxy as you say. And it's probably not that useful since syncretism is often unnecessary. I think the chakra system for meditation is extremely useful though since it's the simplest system I've seen so far, it's very intuitive (rising energy, unblocking main energy channels and so on) and I have seen no equivalent elsewhere.
>step-by-step system of "balancing" different aspects of the self on the route to sanctity
Yes, it's quite clear and straightforward, thanks for sharing it. How do you determine which level you are at in your personal practice? How do you know when it is time to move on from one step to the next, is it an inuitive process that doesn't need to be analyzed quantitatively?
>believe that Jesus resurrected
I don't know if this makes much sense, but the resurrection of Christ isn't what I have trouble believing in. Rather, it is the idea that Jesus was God, with all that implies: that the nexus of all of existence was incarnated two millennia ago and said the things he said and did the things he did. My doubt isn't in the resurrection per se, but in the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the "alpha and omega", since his life and the events surrounding it seem somewhat arbitrary when you take into account the fact that they are supposed to encompass the entirety of existence. I see the incredible variety in the world and it's hard for me to go from that to the acknowledgement of the New Testament as the exclusive truth. I don't know if this makes much sense to you.

quick note: this anon is literally going to send you to hell if you listen to him >>18546983

>>18547122
>Nobody knows for sure.
This is what it boils down to regarding definitive statements on heaven and the realms beyond, I suppose. Have you read Seraphim Rose's book on the afterlife?
>I would probably also attribute it to negative entities.
How come contact with such entities is often reported as so blissful, reassuring and benevolent? Shouldn't demons feel off?
>the apostles' willingness to face horrific torture and death
What do you make of the claim that sometimes comes up that the apocalyptic predictions of Jesus were intended for men of his era but failed to come true?
>I can share some
Please do.
>dangerous for the soul
Isn't the soul immortal and indestructible?
>>18547122
>>18547140
Regarding the Catholicism/Orthodoxy issue, is there really a definitive answer as to which is the most authentic as per Matthew 16:18? There are also the oriental Orthodox communities which are neither tied to Rome nor Constantinople yet claim authenticity.

>vgh the torture of the martyrs was so brutal and inhuman!! how horrible how could they!
>anyway I’m really looking forward to the day when everyone who isn’t my type of christian gets tortured forever lmao can’t wait
ah the famous Love™ and Compassion™ of Christianity

>>18547300
I'm pretty sure "hell" is just obliteration and nonexistence, not eternal torture. Not a Christian though but this is what transpires from what I've read so far.

>>18545826
>whatever the Church proclaims is true
I disagree. God's word stopped with Jesus' death. Whatever the later bishops were doing wasnt the true word of God, simply due to Human error.
>>18545893
Ill look into that stuff, thanks for your time.
>>18545957
>>18545937
>True freedom only exists with God
Elaborate please. God - for exaple - prohibits people from having sex outside marriage. How is that freedom? Some people are unfit for marriage (eg. extreme introverts), so god prohibits them from going to prostitues and have some fun, what are they supposed to do instead? Pray? Jerk off? People gotta live their lives man, not be stuck in some church on their knees.

>>18547216
>You're not using any meditation practices that involve chakras, like kundalini or whatever?
No, not at all. I don't even believe that they exist in reality, or that if they do exist in some form that we do not have access to, they are inconsequential, as Jesus did not speak regarding them.
>I think the chakra system for meditation is extremely useful though since it's the simplest system I've seen so far, it's very intuitive
I would highly recommend not doing those practices, because of the potential dangers inherent in going down that line of practice.
>thanks for sharing it
My pleasure.
>How do you determine which level you are at in your personal practice?
Well, seeing as it is a heuristic system, I wouldn't say that you wouldn't have to be at a specific level per se, but rather that it provides a map of things to be worked on which for ease of use is ordered in steps. Like, I may be attempting to be less afraid (second step) by, for example, handing out food and clothes in high-crime areas, but in my personal life I could still have a problem with gluttony from the first step that I'm trying to deal with through confession and prayer. In the ideal practice it might be strictly progressive (eg. first step is completed when I have successfully overcome my tendency for indulging in material desires), but it may not work that way in reality. In the end, it is just supposed to help in some way by pointing out the problems and solutions in a hierarchical order of importance.
A spiritual director can be very helpful if you are having issues assessing where you are at in your spiritual progression.

>since his life and the events surrounding it seem somewhat arbitrary when you take into account the fact that they are supposed to encompass the entirety of existence
Can you explain this further? Why do you think His actions were supposed to "encompass the entirety of existence" - and what did He not do that you think He should have, if He was who He said He is?

>>18547242
I am well within the realm of orthodoxy, am not promoting Eastern mystical practices, and have said all of these things directly. With what do you take issue - what is your ideology?

>>18547291
>Have you read Seraphim Rose's book on the afterlife?
I haven't read any Seraphim Rose, although I've heard many positive things. Do you recommend his work?
>How come contact with such entities is often reported as so blissful, reassuring and benevolent?
"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness." (2 Cor. 11:14)
>the claim that sometimes comes up that the apocalyptic predictions of Jesus were intended for men of his era but failed to come true?
I think it exemplifies a misunderstanding of typology and how prophecy works (eg. in Mat 24)
>Please do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6UNSvHVDM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ
>Isn't the soul...
I mean damnation

>>18537910
Yes.
Bump.

>>18547375
>God's word stopped with Jesus' death.
It never stopped, the apostles continued his labor and as Paul of Tarsus explained, the stone that built the church was non other than Jesus being the Son of God. The Word was before man existed and The Word will continue to exists even after man is gone.

>>18547375
>Some people are unfit for marriage (eg. extreme introverts), so god prohibits them from going to prostitues and have some fun
How is going with prostitutes, fun? To consider sin as fun is perverse and to defend this hedonistic aspect as "whatever people have to live their lives" is not only ridicule but also a pretty poor argument.
Through God we can find what is eternal, not just material and temporal pleasures, but true bliss and glory.

>>18547384
>they are inconsequential
You think testimonies of kundalini awakenings for example are placebo or some kind of possession?
>not doing those practices
Well I tried and nothing happened anyway so I stopped. I just had a much easier time visualizing with the chakra system, but the most I ever got out of any of the practices I undertook was a more relaxed state and vivid dreams.
>pointing out the problems and solutions in a hierarchical order of importance.
I understand. By spiritual director, do you mean a priest?
>Can you explain this further?
Jesus is the center of everything that ever was, is, and will be, right? I simply fail to see Christ specifically when I think of many things.
This hinges on my belief that what is inherently good is also beautiful and that therefore all genuine beauty in the world is an expression of divinity. But when I see beauty or goodness, I don't necessarily think of Christ. The immense variety of goodness and beauty in the world (not in the hedonistic pleasurable sense, but either in the aesthetic or ethical sense) is not necessarily reminiscient of Christ.
It's in that sense that I say Jesus should encompass the whole of existence. And I'm not saying he should've done some things he didn't do, but simply that his life and circumstances do not, in my mind, serve as the nexus of all that is beautiful and good. Sorry if this sounds like a schizo rant, it's difficult to articulate it properly since it doesn't come from pure reason as much as intuition.

>>18547384
>Do you recommend his work?
I couldn't recommend it in good faith since I've only read passages but since it's on the subject of what happens after death, I thought it was worth mentioning. His idea of aerial toll houses is pretty puzzling.
>Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light
It seems odd to me that there is no real way to distinguish forces of good from forces of evil based simply on appearance and feeling. Isn't it counter-intuitive that a demon would appear as good, holy and radiant?
Thank you for the links.
>>18547421
I'm not the guy you responded to but I think his question about marriage is legitimate, what are extreme introverts supposed to do?

>>18547375
>God's word stopped with Jesus' death
Jesus said "I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you". Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to the apostles - this was fulfilled at Pentecost. The apostles laid hands on others and gave the Holy Spirit to them: "Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:17). We know that this practice persisted throughout the early church. My question is, at what point did Jesus' promise regarding the Holy Spirit (that it would guide those who He lived within into all truth, given by God Himself) stop being fulfilled? St. Peter, for example, clearly thought that because St. Paul had been given the Holy Spirit, his writings were to be considered scripture:
"Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15)

So obviously, God's word did not stop with Jesus' death, as the apostles (who were being guided by the Holy Spirit) considered Paul's letters to be scripture (God's word). Further, we have precedent for people in the early church who were filled with the Holy Spirit being led into truth to guide the church into truth - this is why we infallibly know that Jesus has two natures in a hypostatic union, or hold to the Nicene Creed.

>thanks for your time.
My pleasure, brother.

>>18547442
>testimonies of kundalini awakenings for example are placebo or some kind of possession
I don't deny that it might be some extremely rapid and unsafe form of energetic development (as Vivekananda warns), but I believe that it is wholly unnecessary - we have many mystics like St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Augustine, ad nauseum who have "gone all the way" in the much more safe framework of Christian mysticism. I don't think it is worth the risks, and the teachings are in many cases incompatible with Christian theology and cosmology.
> but the most I ever got out of any of the practices I undertook was a more relaxed state
Count yourself lucky - many have gone insane.
>By spiritual director, do you mean a priest?
A spiritual director does not have to be a priest, but frequently is. Mine is a friar of the Capuchin-Franciscan order. It is a common practice in Catholicism.

>>18547442
>his life and circumstances do not, in my mind, serve as the nexus of all that is beautiful and good
I see what you're saying. In my opinion, you're missing the true beauty of the incarnation - that this source of all love, beauty, and truth - the creator of the universe - became a man just like you or I, and deigned to condescend into a human form through a human mother, not so that He could enact judgment on us, condemn us for our evils, or rule over us with an iron scepter - the creator of the universe became a man specifically so that He would undergo the most inhumane and horrific tortures, flogging and humiliations and crucifixion, for our sake - for "He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
Like one from whom men hide their faces,
He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
Surely He took on our infirmities
and carried our sorrows;
yet we considered Him stricken by God,
struck down and afflicted.
But He was pierced for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
and by His stripes we are healed.
We all like sheep have gone astray,
each one has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid upon Him
the iniquity of us all."

God saved us by taking the plight of humanity upon Himself, becoming like us in every way, and bearing the punishment that WE should have received. This is what it means when we say He died for OUR sins - He died for those who were flogging Him, for those spitting on Him, and for those who today laugh at Him. The most important moment in all of human history, the moment when the borders between heaven and earth touched in an intimate way never before seen, happened 2000 years ago, in a manger.

You might want to read "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius, and "On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ" by St. Maximus the Confessor, for a much better exposition on these topics.

>>18547412
Apostoles are long gone
>b-b-but the pope!!!
The pope is corrupt leader who turns a blind eye to all sexual scandals of the catholic church. You call "him" The Word? That old weak liberal socialdemocrat pussy??
>>18547421
Post hoc argument. We are alive, we know that. We don't know, however, whether heavens or sin exist as tanglible concept. Alright, lets say you are right. Fuck materialism, fuck chrematism, fuck hedonism. Lets all reject all pleasures and seek God. Should i stop eating good food because good taste is by definition hedonistic? Should i cut off my penis since i have no use for it anyways (remember, sex=BAD!), because i sometimes cum in my sleep due to wet dreams and it feels really good. So where is the line?
>>18547521
So the Holy Spirit works like some kind of intuition, an internal guidance? Or what.

>>18547484
>His idea of aerial toll houses is pretty puzzling.
Yeah, from my understanding it is basically the EO version of purgatory. Definitely an interesting theory.

>Isn't it counter-intuitive that a demon would appear as good, holy and radiant?
It might be counter-intuitive, but you have to keep in mind that these are hyper-intelligent spiritual beings that want nothing more than to deceive you and bring you down to their level - they would do anything in their power to trick us, and they are adept liars - as the sons of the devil, they are "refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies.".
>Thank you for the links.
My pleasure.
>I think his question about marriage is legitimate, what are extreme introverts supposed to do?
Discern God's will - that is a primary message of Jesus, to always do what God wants us to do. "Thy will be done". If one really wants to get married, they can pray to God and ask for His help, but in the end, to always say "Thy will be done". Maybe one is called to chastity? I had many degenerate experiences before all of this, and I know that it was not pleasurable at all beyond the moment, and only brought me further into the depths of depravity and shame. Now, I've chosen perpetual chastity. Chastity is a beautiful path, and who knows - maybe one will find their wife along the way. From my experience, there are many traditional girls at traditional Church communities who are looking for marriage. Be the type of chaste and holy man they want and deserve, and maybe the Lord will move you together? But in the end, may His will be done, not ours.

>>18547607
>Apostoles are long gone
But The Word isn't.
And calling God The Word is John 1:1, anon. You are not slipping you slipped.

>>18547521
>I don't think it is worth the risks
You're probably right about this.
Regarding the incompatibility with Christian teachings that's true, except for some very general meditative practices that are very broad in scope and not dogmatic in the slightest, such as samatha, taoist meditation or zazen. These probably have direct equivalents though.
>>18547566
>the true beauty of the incarnation
Are you saying that it's precisely this specificity, the apparent mundanity of the human condition God chose to acquire by incarnating, that constitutes beauty? That I shouldn't look at the life of Jesus as something that should be all-encompassing, but rather as singularly beautiful because of his sacrifice?
I can understand such a position, it's just that I would like to see the divine in all things, and while I can see God in all of existence, I cannot see Jesus himself, which is the root of the problem I'm describing.
I have "On the Incarnation" but forgot about it, thanks for reminding me I should read it.

>>18546028
>To deny, in this example, that someone with an astolfo profile picture can speak truth is to deny the holy spirit in that person.
Jesus, forgive this complete faggot, because I can't.

>>18547291
>Regarding the Catholicism/Orthodoxy issue, is there really a definitive answer as to which is the most authentic as per Matthew 16:18?
I think the question of whether or not Catholicism or Orthodoxy is true comes down to a historical argument. I don't think the oriental churches are legitimate since they reject the Council of Chalcedon, which makes no sense considering that they also accept the Council of Nicaea (why reject the following councils?). Orthodox claim that the papacy isn't divinely instituted and doesn't have universal jurisdiction, it is only first among equals. I am still looking into it at this moment but I find the catholic argument much more satisfactory considering Matthew 16:18 (although I am sure some orthodox will claim this to be a circular argument). Granted I am also partly biased towards the Catholic side since I was raised as a traditional Catholic, but right now I have been watching and reading some of Erick Ybarra's stuff on YouTube. Might be insightful to you if you're interested.

https://youtu.be/pkIfo15jV-8

As of now the arguments I have seen from the Orthodox side is the circumstantial argument, that is, the papacy is not divinely instituted but only rose to prominence because they were in Rome and that Vatican I was not seen in the early Church. They also argue that Canon 6 of of Council of Nicaea refutes universal jurisdiction.

Catholics will usually argue that the east recognizes the indefectibility of the pope in the third Council of Constantinople in response to Pope Agatho's letter to the emperor, and that Peter is recognized as the head of the Church by the fathers. There is also the argument that the Pope is given immediate jurisdiction in the Council of Serdica where the Pope is allowed to mediate between certain bishops in disputes (canons 3,4,7).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Serdica
>Canon 3c: if a bishop is convicted of an offence by a verdict in a case, and if the convicted bishop objects to the verdict and seeks recourse by asking for reconsideration, then the bishops who judged the case – the trial court – should "honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle" and write to the bishop of Rome about the case; if the bishop of Rome – the court of second instance – decides that the case should be retried, then "let that be done, and let him appoint judges;" if the bishop of Rome decides that the case should not be retried, then he shall confirm the verdict

Vatican I was for sure a development of doctrine, and it is true that many of the fathers probably did not believe in the universal jurisdiction of Rome, but so did many of the fathers not consider Monothelitism, Monophysitism, or Palamism which the orthodox hold. Development of doctrine is crucial to all of Christianity (John Henry Newman talks about this in "An essay on the development of Christian doctrine").

>>18547638
good thing jesus was the one who died for our sins and not you huh

yea
the gay jewish mafia is nice af

>>18547384
>what is your ideology?
I have no ideology: unlike you and your heretical and contradictory idolatry of "orthodoxy."

>>18547607
>Should i stop eating good food because good taste is by definition hedonistic? Should i cut off my penis since i have no use for it anyways (remember, sex=BAD!), because i sometimes cum in my sleep due to wet dreams and it feels really good. So where is the line?
You are taken extreme measures in your example, but let's work with them. Jesus was clear that no one was good but God, at the end of the day we are flawed as human beings, only through Christ sin can be clean.As flawed men our conduct is flawed but The Word of God and his actions are not, to recognize sin and avoiding it is the fist step, and to conduct your life through a meaning path is for the ascension of your soul, this is not about a material conception, but a metaphysic conception of good.
>>18547649
Jesus is The Messiah and the one that forgives and judges, that will always be clear.
With that said, if someone says something stupid like defending someone with an anime picture of a garbage interpretation of a famous paladin from a famous book, and consider that the Holy Spirit is speaking through that person, I will call him a faggot.
I don't deny that the Holy Spirit can and talks through us, but your implication The Holy Spirit is speaking through that person makes me want to gag and seems to me as a denigration to God.

>>18547688
*first step
*meaningful path

>>18547614
>the EO version of purgatory.
Well somewhat, though it's more of an intermediate state rather than purgatory which is supposed to be a more long-term thing as I understand it, but the underlying intent is the same.
It's interesting to me that this is one of the few cases for which perennialism holds true, if you look at other religious books detailing the fate of the individual after death.
>these are hyper-intelligent spiritual beings that want nothing more than to deceive you
This makes sense. I always tend to think that arguments against religion from people who've had such experiences with entities are very sound and appealing, but in the end there is something sinister about a superior being telling you to disregard all teachings and assume everything is false.
I think the reality may be that the true nature of existence eludes us for now, but that the statement that religion is false leads to a dead-end.
>Thy will be done
Yeah this is a satisfying answer. It seems obvious that we all have different callings, for whatever reason, and that some of us are meant to do things others are not, in all aspects of life.
>>18547639
Thanks for the detailed answer. Putting aside the historical arguments, there are also dogmatic divergences that are also worth mentioning, such as different views on the quality of the original sin or the filioque, do you think these are substantial or merely an inconsequential difference in interpretation? For what it's worth I find the orthodox view on sin more compelling but I don't have much of a background either way.

>>18547688
>if someone says something stupid like defending someone with an anime picture of a garbage interpretation of a famous paladin from a famous book, and consider that the Holy Spirit is speaking through that person, I will call him a faggot.
then you have blasphemed the holy spirit and it shall not be forgiven unto you

>>18547716
>then you have blasphemed the holy spirit and it shall not be forgiven unto you
I have not plasphemed, you are the one with the blasphemy. You consider Truth what that man can say and to support your claim you claim The Holy Spirit is behind him.
This is not a denial of The Holy Spirit speaking through us, which I adressed in my previous post just below, this is me calling heresy in your example. And I hope you see your mistake, because your are in the limit of a grave sin and even THE blasphemy.

>>18547733
I'm saying that when man speaks truth it is through the holy spirit. Your entire reason for discounting the twitter guy was because he had an Astolfo profile picture. You rejected the spirit of truth in him based off of that.

>>18547627
>>Apostoles are long gone
>But The Word isn't.
So why did you even mention apostoles in >>18547412 if The Word is not bound to apostoles?
>>18547688
So you don't know where the line is. You have to recognize sin and for that you have to rely on your own guidance, you simply avoid what feels sinful. Likewise, i rely on my feelings and they tell me that the church is full of shit, and i will have to rely on my intuition in my life instead of the cult. Who knows maybe some day i will be enlightened by The Spirit.

>>18547704
I think original sin should be believed by Orthodox because canon 110 of the Council of Carthage (419 AD) states that original sin is to be believed.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
>Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema

For the Filioque I'm not too read up on it enough to give you a satisfiable answer but I'm of the opinion that it's just a difference in interpretation of the fathers. Orthodox are not exactly united on the filioque question either.

>>18547746
>I'm saying that when man speaks truth it is through the holy spirit.
Completely true and I never denied this
Your example is not a defense of the Holy Spirit but a justification of that man's picture. That's why you are saying a heresy and that's what I'm accusing you, next time be clear with your words or use a proper example.

>>18547760
>You just acknowledged a fucking Twitter fag with an Astolfo avatar as "Based", let that seep in, then lower your head in shame.
Your whole reasoning was that BECAUSE he has the avatar he CANNOT be right. there was no refutation of his position.

>>18547752
>So why did you even mention apostoles in >>18547412(You) if The Word is not bound to apostoles?
I never implied that. You are the one that said. The Word is with those that follow Christ/God Acts 2:1–31

>>18547767
Your example was heretic and your example was a justification. You deny this and claim blame over me.
">You just acknowledged a fucking Twitter fag with an Astolfo avatar as "Based", let that seep in, then lower your head in shame."
This is not me by the way, but that anon is also right, for different reasons of course.

>>18547780
>Your example was heretic and your example was a justification.
I don't know how "him having an astolfo avi doesn't affect his ability to speak truth" turns into "having an astolfo avi is actually fucking cool and based and jesus would have loved it" in your mind but whatever man

>>18547752
>You have to recognize sin and for that you have to rely on your own guidance
Not, the guide of God, which was through The Word as Flesh, Jesus Christ.
>Likewise, i rely on my feelings and they tell me that the church is full of shit, and i will have to rely on my intuition in my life instead of the cult.
You are the one that acts, anon, not me. I can only tell you what I know and what I consider of this.
>Who knows maybe some day i will be enlightened by The Spirit.
Only through God everything is possible

>>18547627
the Word of God (sacred scripture) is different from the LOGOS referred to in John 1:1

I'm catholic too but it's taught that divine revelation stopped with the death of the apostles. After that, sacred tradition protects and transmits this revelation with the successors of the apostles.

II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture (Catholic Catechism)
>81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

>"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

>arguing for hours about the theological implications of using an anime trap as an online avatar
Is this what we have come to?

>>18547786
You are now putting words in my mouth and you are still failing to see the point of your heresy. May God have mercy for you, because you are blind and you can't see your mistake.

>>18547801
feel like you could really easily demonstrate my heresy if it was the case.

>>18547607
>You call "him" The Word?
"The Word" of God is Jesus Christ. See John chapter 1. The "word of God" is a phrase used to refer to the scriptures.
>Should i stop eating good food because good taste is by definition hedonistic?
No, but if good food is impeding your progress towards unity with God (eg. going to a restaurant when you are sad instead of meditating or praying), then you should reassess your relationship with that good (food) and re-order it in a proper manner.
>Should i cut off my penis since i have no use for it anyways
Obviously not, you need it to urinate and ejaculate (in wet dreams, in this case), and it is not good to harm yourself.
>(remember, sex=BAD!)
Sex is not bad, sex is a good which can be sought out in a disordered manner, just like all goods in this world.
>because i sometimes cum in my sleep due to wet dreams and it feels really good
That is not a sin, as it was involuntary.

Please see these videos, fren:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0DCNxtvWNw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ5P0k6Pwb4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opFDXRIiu_Q

>So the Holy Spirit works like some kind of intuition, an internal guidance? Or what.
It is basically a feeling like a burning fire within your soul that gives you courage and strength, and can also communicate to you the words of God directly. Read the Acts of the Apostles for more information. It is distinctly different from the intuition, which everybody has. The goal of the Christian life is acquisition of the Holy Spirit.

>>18547636
>it's precisely this specificity, the apparent mundanity of the human condition God chose to acquire by incarnating, that constitutes beauty
Exactly, brother. See Hebrews 2:5-18, Philippians 2 5:11, 1 Corinthians 1:18-31.

>>18547671
>I have no ideology:
Non-denominational Protestant, got it. Please repent so that you don't die without ever having partaken in a true Eucharist instituted by a successor of the apostles, brother.

>>18547421
Why does the almighty creator of all things care if I masturbate? Serious question

>>18547806
I already explained to you, yet you persist in your mistake. You are stubborn and the fact you have to make things like implying I said "having an astolfo avi is actually fucking cool and based and jesus would have loved it", is proof you are deaf and blind in your heresy, I don't know if for arrogance or just plain ignorance.

>>18547815
Because God has created your sexual organs for a purpose. It is a gift of creation which is abused and corrupted when you perform masturbatory acts. It diverges from the telos that God has set before us.

>>18547791
With all respect, i think you are deluded. Out of touch with reality. But i will look into those supposed miracles. Thanks for the chat, good night.

>>18547817
>having an astolfo avi is actually fucking cool and based and jesus would have loved it
I'm saying that you are implying that this is what I think. that by defending the holy spirit in him I am defending and justifying his behavior. if that isn't the case then explain what
>your example was a justification.
means because to me it seems like you're more interested in larping as a pharisee than actually having a discussion

>>18547831
And with all respect, I think you are arrogant and full of hubris. But I appreciate your questions and the fact you listened to my answers.

>>18547829
Is it corruption when I trim my hair or nails so they don't get too long and inconvenient? If not why is it corruption when I make myself cum so that the sexual desire doesn't get too intense and inconvenient?

>>18547836
>I'm saying that you are implying that this is what I think.
But I never said that, you are the first one to imply such thing and from my side at least, I never created a false scenary to justify my accusation against you.
>means because to me it seems like you're more interested in larping as a pharisee than actually having a discussion
See you are doing it again, you create this false or this case scenary that you control to justify your flawed reasons. I call it your heresy and the only thing you did was to either avoid it or shift blame.

>>18547852
answer the question

>>18547855
>>18547855
I already answered the question, ask the same question and the answer will always be the same

>>18547815
>Why does the almighty creator of all things care
Because He loves you infinitely, and desires the ultimate good for you
>if I masturbate?
Because this is not something which will lead you to the ultimate good, but is only abusing a gift from Him to achieve a momentary pleasure.
The name of the game is "frustrating teleological ends". Why is it good to give somebody opium after a surgery, but bad to do opium in your bed? Because the painkiller has a proper end to be used for - namely, when one is in physical pain - but used outside of that end, it becomes a disordered and harmful desire. Similarly, the ends of the reproductive act are reproduction (hence ejaculation on climax) and union/pair-bonding (hence the high levels of oxytocin and pleasure during sex). If one of these ends are frustrated, the act has become disordered - and in the case of masturbation, both of these ends are frustrated. This makes it an inherently disordered activity which is contrary to the purpose of your penis, and just like using opiates wrong, soon becomes a pathology. Masturbation soon becomes something which must be done chronically, on a regular basis, and like any dopaminergic desire, the satisfaction from each act becomes less satisfying the more it is repeated. Thus, for the same reason opiates are good in one way (used as medicine) but bad in another (abused for pleasure, leading to addiction), so too is sexual pleasure from the penis good in one way (used as a unitive act of love, open to reproduction [obviously within a marriage]), and bad in another (abused for pleasure, leading to addiction).

>>18547861
no you have only said that
>Your example was heretic and your example was a justification
>Your example is not a defense of the Holy Spirit but a justification of that man's picture.
>I have not blasphemed, you are the one with the blasphemy.
and you have done nothing to explain what this means all the while I have laid out my position to you.

>>18547873
>and you have done nothing to explain what this means all the while I have laid out my position to you.
You are now cherrypicking, when I was clear about my position and my reason to call your argument a heresy since the start. You don't laid out your position, you persist in your mistake and each time we reach this exact moment you are trying to control the discussion through a different meaning, ironic you said I was larping as a pharisee when you are doing exactly that.

what are the most important and least important books in the OT?

>>18547888
lay out your position

>>18547896
I already did, and believe me I am not going to be repeating myself for someone like you.

>>18547899
cool you have no position, bye then

>>18547900
Yeah run away and claim victory, that's expected from the likes of you

>>18547902
you don't want to engage in dialectic so why should I care

>>18547906
You are deaf to words and ignore what I previously said in favor of another discussion where you can start again.
It's useless to keep repeating myself for someone like you.

>>18547915
I actually want to talk as it turns out and I can't do that If I literally don't know what you're mad at me about. so far it's "you're a heretic and a blasphemer" and that's not much to go on.

>>18537910
I love Jesus too. But you know the best part of it? Jesus loves me back.

>>18547925
I don't need to be mad to claim you are a heretic and a blasphemer (which you are), you take The Word lightly and it's clear you care more about being right in your own terms than being right in accordance to God.

>>18547938
You need proof to call me a heretic and blasphemer. Whatever. Have fun damning people to hell, you seem to be more interested in that

>>18547948
You keep doing the same passive agressive "yeah whatever, have fun, bye", as if that gave your words any more value. You are full of hubris, so full of hubris that you once again put words in my mouth, when not even once I dammed you to Hell, because it is only in the hands of God to decide the fate of every man.
You are an arrogant fool, that simple.

If there is a multiverse, did Jesus die in every single universe except those that aren't fallen? How would that work

>>18547893
Bump before it hits bump limit

>>18547893
You'd think one of the tradzooms here would have interacted with their priest well enough to answer you but instead they are mostly using their theology fact sheets to call other people heretics.

>>18547893
Most: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, Daniel, Exodus, Genesis, Ezekiel

Least: Leviticus, Numbers, 1&2 Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon

in my opinion.

It’s tight that you can love God as a person in Jesus, I like that.

>>18547893
They're all important. It's the Bible you retard.

>>18548179
Jonah is the most underrated

>>18537910
Yes

>>18548117
>they are mostly using their theology fact sheets to call other people heretics.
This fucking guy

>>18547893
Most: Genesis, Exodus, 1 and 2 Kings, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah

kek

>>18548360
>Some dude in /lit/ unironically wasted hours defending this guy

>>18548360
>>18548375
Now I'm actually curious. Like if you look at gender reassignment as a particularly pious form of circumcision it seems like it should be encouraged, which means astolfo martel is on to something. Is there a biblical case against it or not? Surely some progressive pastor has written on this?

>>18548530
Deuteronomy 22:5
>5 A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God.

>>18548530
Jesus Christ, really help this guy

Why doesn't God speak out loud, openly, audibly to people?

He may have in biblical times, but he doesn't now.

>>18549010
the time of public revelation is over

>>18549031
The fuck does that even mean? He could simultaneously speak in a loud, clear voice to every man, woman and child all at the same time.

Why go about it so subtly?

>>18548543
Can I jack off with my girlfriend's panties though?

>>18549010
>>18549101
The last "voice of God" revelation until the apocalypse begins was the Lord speaking at the Transfiguration. Because true love requires freedom, the Lord does not want to publicly reveal Himself in an undeniable way, because it would make people worship Him out of fear and confusion, rather than out of freely given love and desire. He has also given us all the graces we need, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, to actually experience Him personally, and have Him dwell within us. Everybody is invited to the banquet - but we can freely choose to spurn our invitation, or enter. Your argument is called the "hiddenness of God", and you can find a good discussion about it here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/#AtteExplNonrNonbThei

>>18549111
>can I jack off
Obviously not. See >>18547866.

Reminder that if you have ever used the word "goddamn" then you are permanently FUCKED.

>>18549228
>permanently
"The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”"

Can anyone here explain me this picture, I'm too pleb and brainlet to get it

>>18549250
>Blasphemy literally recorded as an eternal sin

>>18549525
>in a Christian thread saying sins cannot be forgiven
>doesn't address the prerogative given to the apostles to forgive ANYONE their sins
You haven't studied enough. Are you a non-denominational Protestant?

Where is the line though? How does one REALLY know if they have been saved or not?

Does being forgiven for your sins once cover you for any/all future transgressions?

I understand repentance is a big part of it, but can one repent for a while and then sin again and still be covered?

Jesus' death covered your sins, but not completely apparently.

>>18546326
He does not actually demand stuff from you. He cares and loves you which is why he wants you to be the best person possible.
It's up to you of course.
>He who wants to, follow on my footsteps
Completely optional to follow God's example. If you want to side with the enemy it's up to you but if you never repent God cannot accept you.

>>18549906
you'll find out.