/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>668737

you know i was kinda like you in my younger years, dipping in and out of agnosticsm/athiesm and back to Christianity again and again. this was mainly due to not understanding or misunderstanding christianity (at the fault of certain denominations). you say you were not devout or faithful to Christ? Yep that sounds like your average Roman Popery slave. i cannot continue right now but i will say this: once you have understood the basic fundamentals of christianity every other religion/non religious ideas would seem absurd and unthinkable to you. You would immediately return to Christ, and when you did the Orthodox church would be waiting for you.

I feel that you might have psychological problems anon and believe me you will change The Outlook of "There is as much Good things as there are bad things in The world" many Times. Bo see a specjalist.

>>668742

Perhaps time will tell

>>668746

How wouldyou infer that?

>>668737

>I've come to understand that this world is cruel, and it simply doesn't make sense to me why that would be the case with a loving, caring God at the helm. It simply doesn't make sense for everyone to suffer due to the sins of our ancestors. It's cruelty and wrath.

About the world: Thats because of us. God made His creation good, and it was subjected to us. So when we choose to rebel, creation in general also suffered the consequences. As for the second part, I'm Ortho, so I dont really believe in Original sin in the sense that west does (at least by my understanding). We inherited nature inclined towards the sin, that we inherited from first man. But we dont suffer for them.

>2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

>3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

How is it convenient to conform to God's law? The alternative is doing whatever you want, which is being your own God.

Which seems to be more convenient?

>>668737

>Just as this world is cruel, it is also good, and seeing that not just all of the bad in this world was brought upon by men, but the good of it too is a lightening thought.

And by what standard are you judging these things you're thinking to be good, cruel, etc.?

>>668765

Mine

>>668785

People will always be cruel, and even when God himself came down to show them the way they responded with cruelty. It's one thing if you don't like the storm people have stirred up, but why would you jump off the Ark?

>>668785

Do you understand that this is a self defeating position?

>I've come to understand that this world is cruel, and it simply doesn't make sense to me why that would be the case with a loving, caring God at the helm

God gave us the World and we gave the World to Satan.

>>668737

It's a good question why we should be punished for Adam's sin. But the reason is relatively simple, that knowledge is irrevocable. So we condemned ourselves to know, and sorting out the mess has been a particular thorny issue for God and humans alike.

Really I agree with >>668742 Christianity is taught poorly by Protestants and Catholics, but the root of this is really in the theories of atonement they offer. Also the mindless mantra that "God is Love" which is the most substandard simplification.

I remember when I was even such a brainlet I thought Buddhism had lots of overlap with Christianity. What I didn't realize then was that in the 19th century Methodist preachers just BTFOed Shintoism and Buddhism so hard that they modernized their theologies in fear, because instead of just renouncing existence and spitting on disabled people (like the Buddhists actually do), Christians actually follow the law of Charity. Even today Buddhists are basically all pretending to be more Christian just to stay relevant, they are the world's fastest shrinking religion in fact.

>>668785

Kek, you know secular people have had to abandon the notion of evil. They will use the word "evil" but they admit that morality is in their opinion subjective. This is only logical they claim, because they have no external standard (a God) in order to measure their actions against.

Basically by saying that you have knowledge of what is good, cruel etc. means that you have claimed that you know better than mother nature what humans should be doing. To quote the scriptures, God "sends rain upon the just and the unjust alike." A purely Darwinian perspective means that you accept the only morality as being the pirate code viz. Jack Sparrow "take what you can, give nothing back." You may say that Darwin might make altruism an adaptive feature, but you're still free to reject altruism in the moment if you think the rewards for yourself outweigh the risk. We Christians like to call this presupposition hell on earth.

>>668833

Checked

But honestly, think about why that idea, while in fact quite brilliant and unlike God in other religions, might not be the best place to start. Love must be defined as in Christianity it is more than an emotion, and it is best defined in this emotion-free context in scripture.

>>668833

Basically when you say "God is Love" out of context you risk a secular kind of feeling, essentially Tom Lehrer "National Brotherhood Week" levels of hypocrisy.

>>668840

>>668843

nah yeah, I assumed what you were getting at in the first place and that it was likely you were aware of that passage and description and totally see where you're coming from, just wanted to make sure and also signal to any anons that there is a scriptual basis for the phrase, and you're right it is indeed something that separates Christianity from other faiths, as misconstrued as it might be at times..

Your post boils down to an inability to confront the problem of evil, basically, which is understandable, but it's no good to abandon it for that.

>To me, it all seems far too convenient to be logical, and all too comforting to be truth.

With respect, I have never heard of someone abandoning a belief or an idea because it seemed too correct.

>I've come to understand that this world is cruel, and it simply doesn't make sense to me why that would be the case with a loving, caring God at the helm.

That same loving, caring God promises us nothing but a hard fight in this life, which is, as Holy Job says, "warfare". That same, loving, caring God told us to take up our crosses and follow Him. He didn't promise that we would be happy in this life, only in the next.

Suffering is our crucible. It is purgative and absolutely necessary for us, and is a ready means for us to use to atone for our sins by offering up that suffering to join it to the Cross of the Lord as St Paul encourages us to do.

This isn't aimed at you, but as other posters ITT have stated, the level of catechism in the West is utterly abysmal, and seems to have fostered some belief that God's love means that suffering should be over and done with, and that love is good and painless rather than a cleansing fire, as it is described in Scripture.

>It simply doesn't make sense for everyone to suffer due to the sins of our ancestors.

Honest question - what are you doing about that?

It's all very well to sit back and sigh about all the trouble in the world, but what are you doing about it?

The other point about this is that we are crabs in a bucket, all suffering for the sins of one another. In a world that just does not love (and often actually hates) God, why do we deserve His help? We don't want it and claim we don't need it, so this "Why would God allow this to happen?" smacks of hypocrisy.

We are all the prodigal son, and the decision to go back to Him is up to us.

>>668828

Sauce on the buddhist claims?

>>668833

>1 John 4:8

That tells us what real love is. The world's idea of "love" is far from God.

If someone says they can't see a loving God do something found in the Bible you can turn here to disprove it.