[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4pol / arepa / bestemma / hisrol / leftpol / soyboys / vg / yga ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: e20ff65c82b9a9b⋯.png (481.86 KB, 1203x1447, 1203:1447, 2cr8tj4.png)

62859b No.632211

Is it bad that sometimes I want to burn down a Mormon Temple and light the Book of Mormon on fire and vandalize their churches? I don't hate Mormons, but their blasphemous doctrines just piss me off so fucking much. I want to smash and destroy nearly everything they hold to be "sacred."

3b8174 No.632242

>>632211

Why mormon? why not a Catholic church?


f7e5ce No.632267

>>632211

Wanting to destroy what is profane is natural. When I was inside Hagia Sophia I thought it would be great to torch the Islamic add-ons.

Yet our job is but bring people to Christ. Arson can come after they've all converted and want to do it themselves.


c9b628 No.632272

>>632211 (dub dubs)

I feel your pain. When the """satanists""" unveiled their disgusting statue to Baphomet, I wanted to grab my sledgehammer and unleash the wrath of God upon it..but I know that (((Caesar))) would get butthurt and try to arrest me if I did.

>>632242

You're mad because your a """Prot""", I get that. Think of it this way friendo: If it weren't for Luther and his butthurtness, there would be no (((liberal democracy))) destroying the west.

>inb4 "muh Vatican was corrupt and needed reforms"

You ain't wrong, it did need reforms, but what it didn't need was schismatics that shattered Christiandom into thousands of pieces, leading to the 30 Years War, the American and French (((Revolution))), the World Wars, and (((modernity)))

Check yourself, before you wreck yourself, friend.


5e40eb No.632281

>>632211

Yes. Yes, it is bad to have such wrathful desires and to want to bring pain and misery on your fellow man. Burning down someone's house is not the way to bring them to Christ.

How does it make you feel when Muslims destroy churches? Does it make you want to convert to Islam?


f60fbf No.632294

>>632211

I feel the same about masonic temples. But yeah, it is bad. Wrath is a terrible and sinful drug.


fb3c63 No.632346

File: 56fd2d5594b594b⋯.jpeg (189.36 KB, 1000x1333, 1000:1333, b4467f982e7af5619c955f1a9….jpeg)

>>632211

I know that feeling.


33a273 No.632369

>>632272

The catholic church isn't blameless in the schism either friend


aba9cf No.632370

>>632369

I never said they were, reread my post


b165ba No.632401

>>632242

SO BRAVE

O

B

R

A

V

E


2fb19f No.632419

>>632211

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. (Ephesians 6:12)


99f8be No.632439

There's a lot of great books and YouTube on biblical civil disobedience and non violent aggression. I suggest burning their church down metaphorically. I personally love street preaching right outside the local Unitarian Church. We aren't called to be death angels, we're life angels (metaphorically).


7fc94c No.632440

File: f5d49ebf6aa30b6⋯.png (74.68 KB, 645x729, 215:243, brainlet.png)

>>632272

>the Reformation caused the Enlightenment and the French Revolution


736b2f No.632460

File: e042882399e98f3⋯.jpg (40.52 KB, 800x450, 16:9, brainlettttt.jpg)

>>632440

>oh shit

>he has good points

> I guess I better just post a wojak may-may instead of an argument

>that'll show the stoopid christian

>hehehe


7fc94c No.632465

File: 63236a348a0a55e⋯.png (11.64 KB, 578x566, 289:283, turbobrainlet.png)

>>632460

>good points


6a07b1 No.632478

>>632465

>The Reformation - The Church that God instituted isn't important

>The Enlightenment - The Scriptures and the Faith that God inspired aren't important

>The French Revolution - The Divine Order that God instituted isn't important

But wait, there's more!

>The Industrial Revolution - The Earth that God founded isn't important

>The Information Revolution - The Natural Order that God founded isn't important

>The Sexual Revolution - The Family and the Sacrament of Marriage that God founded aren't important

<B-but muh cash4heaven scam!

<brainlet.jpg

Hope it was worth it.


7fc94c No.632541

>>632478

>>The Reformation - The Church that God instituted isn't important

We've got a problem here. The reformers didn't believe that, they just denied that Rome is the Church that God instituted, and they didn't say it isn't important, they said it's the Whore of Babylon. Really, the best you can do with this is that your fantasy of the Reformation is similar to these things, not that the actual Reformation found its logical conclusion in them.


6a07b1 No.632562

>>632541

>The reformers didn't believe that, they just denied that Rome is the Church that God instituted,

Except they did believe it. If they considered it important, they would have followed the footsteps of actual reformers like St Peter Damian, St Bernard of Clairvaux, Pope St Gregory VII, St John Chrysostom etc. and tried to work change from within. But they didn't consider it important, so they tried to overthrow it and replace eternal dogmas with new theology.

>and they didn't say it isn't important, they said it's the Whore of Babylon.

lel wow ok I stand corrected.

"By the prince of devils he casteth out devils" - Pharisees Martin Luther

>Really, the best you can do with this is that your fantasy of the Reformation is similar to these things, not that the actual Reformation found its logical conclusion in them.

But it most certainly did, because most of these modern abominations came from countries which rejected the Church. The Northern half of Europe which rejected Rome became Satan's playground. England, Germany, Scotland, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Switzerland (and subsequently the USA) were all countries of enterprising economies, technological and scientific developments and rapid social and cultural change. In fact thanks to these places we even got stuff like Masonry and Illuminism.

I'm not so foolish as to believe that when Luther published his theses that he actually knew eventually in his own homeland there would be married trans lesbian Evangelischer bishops calling the shots, but his efforts to undermine Divine Authority already allowed Satan to play his hand big-style in Christendom.

Face it, without the Reformation, none of ther other anti-Christian plagues would have followed suit.


36bd7d No.632564


7fc94c No.632573

>>632562

>Except they did believe it. If they considered it important, they would have followed the footsteps of actual reformers like St Peter Damian, St Bernard of Clairvaux, Pope St Gregory VII, St John Chrysostom etc. and tried to work change from within. But they didn't consider it important, so they tried to overthrow it and replace eternal dogmas with new theology.

Are you trying to prove my point? You haven't made an argument here, you've just misrepresented the reformers. Show me a single passage from any of the countless reformers saying that the Church isn't important and they were making up new theology. Your misrepresentation doesn't establish your argument because for the Reformation to lead to the Enlightenment it requires the epistemic principles to actually lead logically to atheism.

>I'm not so foolish as to believe that when Luther published his theses that he actually knew eventually in his own homeland there would be married trans lesbian Evangelischer bishops calling the shots, but his efforts to undermine Divine Authority

Apparently you are so foolish as to believe that Luther was sitting around and decided "Today I think I'll destroy Christendom".

>Face it, without the Reformation, none of ther other anti-Christian plagues would have followed suit.

Arguments: 0


48f6b4 No.632588

>>632211

Yep 1 Peter 2


6a07b1 No.632593

>>632573

>You haven't made an argument here, you've just misrepresented the reformers.

<To be fair, you have to have a high IQ to understand Calvin & Luther …

>Show me a single passage from any of the countless reformers saying that the Church isn't important and they were making up new theology.

Right, let's start with Luther himself, from his own theses:

New theology:

<It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

<To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

<That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

<Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

<Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

<In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

<Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

<In every good work the just man sins.

<Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

The Church is unimportant:

<Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

<Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

<The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

<It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

<If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

<Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

<A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

>Your misrepresentation doesn't establish your argument because for the Reformation to lead to the Enlightenment it requires the epistemic principles to actually lead logically to atheism.

So rejecting the authority of the Church which Christ Himself founded, as attested in Sacred Scripture, isn't the first tumble down that slippery slope? Because it's no coincidence that the subsequent revolutions together mimick the collapse of faith in individuals. If one can't trust the Church (and by extension Tradition and the Magisterium) how can it then trust Scripture? By the Holy Spirit? OK, but whose inspiration is more inspired? How then can it trust Divine Order founded on the Scripture? How can it respect the Natural Order, which is mentioned in Scripture? If Scripture is wrong, then what's wrong with homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, substance abuse, atheism, theft, pride and so many other things the Church warned us about? Following this, how can one trust man as anything other than a trifling liar who peddles fantasies? How can I love such a creature or treat him with anything other than contempt?

>Apparently you are so foolish as to believe that Luther was sitting around and decided "Today I think I'll destroy Christendom".

I'd say that for someone who confessed himself to be so afraid of Satan, that his actions are completely ironic since he ended up doing his will very effectively, whether he meant to or not.


7fc94c No.632599

>>632593

><To be fair, you have to have a high IQ to understand Calvin & Luther …

<I have no argument, better make a false equivalence

>Right, let's start with Luther himself, from his own theses:

These are not from the 95 theses. What is the actual source?

>New theology:

>The Church is unimportant:

Sorry, it seems you're confused. I didn't ask you where the reformers contradict Rome. I asked you where they said they were creating new theology and that the Church is unimportant.

>So rejecting the authority of the Church which Christ Himself founded, as attested in Sacred Scripture, isn't the first tumble down that slippery slope?

Well, considering that if we search for anything in common with the Roman pontiff in scripture all we will find is the Antichrist, I would say the authority arrogated to your church by themselves is not in the scriptures, and was not instituted by Christ.

But again, this is irrelevant, since rejecting the claim that X is divine authority is not the same thing as rejecting divine authority itself. The reformers told us to go to what God has said for divine authority. Would you say that epistemic principle is consistent with rationalism, atheism, or the Enlightenment as a whole?

Now, at this point I'm sure you'll respond again with the conspiracy theory that the reformers were attempting to undermine divine authority and destroy Christendom, but again, to repeat my point which seems so obvious , what matters is what the reformers themselves actually said. The fact you believe they rejected divine authority does not mean they deliberately rejected divine authority.

>If one can't trust the Church (and by extension Tradition and the Magisterium) how can it then trust Scripture?

I'm so glad you happened to ask that, since now I can expose how in reality it is Romanism which is consistent with atheism in its epistemic principles, both hanging ultimate authority upon man, not God. You see, when God told Moses "I AM THAT I AM", he didn't believe that because a man told him God said it, he believed it because God said it. The only thing which will serve as the foundation of a coherent worldview is God because only God is big enough to hold everything together. Since in Roman Catholicism you know things because of men, your knowledge is only as good as those men (you can't make any appeal to divine revelation because you have already made knowledge of that revelation dependent on these men, hence, if those men fall, so does the revelation). The difference is that in atheism the self is that man, whereas in Romanism the pope is, but the crisis is the same; you must be dependent ultimately on a fallible creature for all your knowledge.

Now, to actually answer your question we must begin by considering the state of the world. This is a fallen world, it is consumed in darkness. We are blind in this darkness, so blind we think a small shred of light to be brightness itself. Ergo, we are dependent totally on God for our knowledge, on that tiny bit of light which God has delivered to us, known most accurately as divine revelation. It is important to note just how reliant on God we must be to survive in this fallen dark world.

So the question remains, how do we know this light when we see it? It is threefold. First, we know from the Church, inasmuch as the Church brings to us the scriptures, as a messenger brings a royal decree to the subjects, second, from the marks impressed upon scripture, which marks all things that are known in themselves bear, such that we can tell we are looking at light simply by looking at it, or that good food is pleasant merely by tasting it, and finally, from the renovation of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are given eyes to see by which we may know scripture through its marks. This is the teaching of scripture itself, nay of Christ Himself, in John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."


f7cfba No.638760

Sounds a little like jealousy that Mormons are so good looking, happy and have such healthy families. I'm not a Mormon, but they've got their stuff together.


b8e013 No.638845

>>632242

I don't mean to make you feel unwelcome here, but there are much better places on the internet for Muslims to entertain themselves.


897de0 No.638846

File: f8718e3f734701b⋯.jpeg (80.34 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, serveimage (11).jpeg)


8320ac No.638855

>>632440

>dude jez'b'leev™

>sins? don't worry bout dem mane LMFAO

>ebil churchmen amirite??? XDD

>Exegesis what?? the answer was in you the whole time!


3e306c No.638932

>>632440

Papal corruption spearheaded by Italian bankers>>The Reformation>>Edict of Nantes>> LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ>>French Revolution>>Liberalism>>Communism>>Today




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4pol / arepa / bestemma / hisrol / leftpol / soyboys / vg / yga ]