/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Forgot to mention

>half of priest couldn't read the bible because it wasn't written in the common language, so blaming the meddle ages for the bible is foolishness.

>Happiness is only a person's physical reward system for success.

False, there's also a higher form of happiness, that we will experience fully in heaven. True for earthly pleasures such as eating, drinking, having sex or socialising.

>Government is a social construct that only exist if people agree it should exist

Form of government is chosen by humans ffs. The government itself is not a concept of humans, but of God

>We are to and meant to conform to God's will, even if our petty feelings dislike the concept.

True

>Everyone, including person x, is biased

True

>Muslims aren't a race.

True, though islam has been made a race issue by the left

>Everyone has 50% of their dna from their father, thus all sexual activities are homosexually motivated, which means we're discourage everyone from partaking it as Christians

Wut

>half of priest couldn't read the bible because it wasn't written in the common language, so blaming the meddle ages for the bible is foolishness

Priests were educated and latin was lingua franca of the time, so they could read it.

you sound like a mad incel tbh, become a chad vcel

>>558335

>>558335

i masturbated today not because i needed to release myself but because i am an awful sinner, lord have mercy

>>558274

Unironically, no normies I know (and even most lukewarms I know) can't understand the concept of hating the sin, but loving the sinner

If I rebuke somebody for their sins I'm labelled a hateful bigot, whilst all the lukewarms are running around saying 'we must be loving and accepting of people, for we are Christians' but because they can't separate the sin and the sinner they resort to tolerating the sin without correcting the sinner.

>>558289

>Priests were educated and latin was lingua franca of the time, so they could read it.

Nah, before the counterreformation, literacy among priests was like 20%. Most just reproduced what they had been taught by their seniors.

>Everyone has 50% of their dna from their father, thus all sexual activities are homosexually motivated, which means we're discourage everyone from partaking it as Christians

haha what?

>>558804

maybe he means girls are 50% male because they get 50% of their genes from their fathers?? So all sex is semi-gay? I dunno, OP was probably drunk when he wrote that nonsense

>>558274

>the Christian definition of 'love'

>forgiveness

>do to others as you would do to yourself

When Christ meant love, He meant to strive for what is best for the other party involved e.g. protecting them from wickedness, stopping them from doing wickedness and turning them from God's wrath, helping them to improve themselves, praying for their spiritual wellbeing and salvation, etc. Normalfags always, always equate it with being obligated to like someone and wanting to be their friend.

Similarly, there's forgiveness and the Golden Rule. Normalfags might understand it and loosely adhere to it in their daily lives where it would keep them out of unwanted confrontations, but there's always that one person that they don't like that's always somehow exempt.

It's like dealing with a bunch of damn teenagers.

>>558274

>>Everyone has 50% of their dna from their father, thus all sexual activities are homosexually motivated, which means we're discourage everyone from partaking it as Christians

That's not how gender works

>>558823

>A robot can perform "what is good" towards another, and give him food. A robot can even "sacrifice" himself for some other being, but simply having agape is not enough imo. That's why Paul said even if he gives his body to be burned but does not have love it's in vain. So we should learn to actually love the other like how we love a sibling or real close friend, not simply a cold, robotic "agape" where one performs "good duties" towards others because its "good".

That is very confused thinking:

>A robot can even "sacrifice" himself for some other being, but simply having agape is not enough imo

>That's why Paul said even if he gives his body to be burned but does not have love it's in vain.

Paul said if it did not have "agape" here. The same agape you said isn't enough is what Paul is saying in Corinthians makes all things worthwhile.

>So we should learn to actually love the other like how we love a sibling or real close friend

So, you mean we should have "storge" (familial love) for everyone when the bible clearly sets out "agape" as the ideal.

"The heart is deceitful above all things" - to do good you want a dispassionate love, a love that works the best for everyone without getting biased for those close to you do to affection.

>not simply a cold, robotic "agape" where one performs "good duties" towards others because its "good".

Agape isn't robotic. Good luck explaining agape to AI. Dispassionate doesn't mean robotic. And we still feel the deep thankfulness to God for our existence. It is our gratefulness to God that motivates our agape - not close familial ties or fleeting passions, but our very thankfulness for the existence God has granted us.

>>558826

agape would include all forms of love, if it is the highest form.

the root of all virtues is humility anyway.

>>558831

>agape would include all forms of love, if it is the highest form.

This is a misunderstanding of "highest" or "perfect." Agape includes the -good- parts of the other forms of love and leaves the bad parts out. That's what it means to be perfect.

Hence, agape desires the good of the other, without creating the bias that, say, storge would and causing us to take the side of blood relations even when they're wrong.

>the root of all virtues is humility anyway.

Vitures versus love? What's your point here?