/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Jesus never said a word about same sex relationship

>it's sinful to eat shell fish

b8

>>674359

No one ever said being mentally ill is a sin in and of itself. But if you act on that and commit grave sin … well that obviously is Sherlock.

>>674359

You don't. Jesus loves everyone.

And that chart is retarded and author doesn't understand neither concept of sin

(Who the winnie the pooh still mistakes moral and ceremonial laws?) nor marriage.

Take this trash b8 and go away.

>>674359

>"If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

That pretty much precludes all non-hetero non-marital sex from being OK with Him.

Bombard them with Summa until they yield.

>Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships

>Silence is consent

>What does /christian/ think of Liberation theology and the 'jesus loves all' types? How do you BTFO them on a theological level?

It stems from a simple lack of intellectual rigour. It's no more complex a matter than that. Those who espouse this nonsense are ignorant of theology and logic. The only way to debate them is if they are sincere in their search for truth, otherwise you end up arguing in circles – debating with a pigeon etc..

>Also what do you guys think of this flowchart I got sent?

The person who made it needs to be struck like how St. Nicholas struck Arius.

>>674373

To be honest, slavery back then wasn't that far off from employment.

The difference is that instead of having the illusion of choice by picking from 10^12 different nike shoes, you'd just be handed one by your lord.

But put that once removed by giving you shiny pebbles to exchange your work for things and suddenly, it's different.

>>674464

>and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This seems to me like it refers to AIDS even though it wasn't around back then.

>>674359

The Church has condemned it quite a while ago

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html

>10. But the "theologies of liberation", which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the 'poor' of the Scripture and the 'proletariat' of Marx.

>In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the 'Church of the poor' signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy.

>11. The class struggle as a road toward a classless society is a myth which slows reform and aggravates poverty and injustice. Those who allow themselves to be caught up in fascination with this myth should reflect on the bitter examples history has to offer about where it leads.

>They would then understand that we are not talking here about abandoning an effective means of struggle on behalf of the poor for an ideal which has no practical effects. On the contrary, we are talking about freeing oneself from a delusion in order to base oneself squarely on the Gospel and its power of realization.

>>674359

Liberation theology is a very different question than homosexuality. Our daily bread, so to speak, is a logical consequence of the Gospel.

>>674373

What's the particular good act alluded to in Philemon?

>What does /christian/ think of Liberation theology

Cancer. Subversive cancer filled with heresies. There's no place to Marxism in Christianity. They are barely Christians, they are degenerated materialists, and do their best to corrupt Catholicism from inside. They are at same level of corrupters as Jews and Masons. There are some of them around where I live that even defend abortion. They are a disgrace and, God forgive me, I bet they would be better dead than preaching their heresies and corrupting Christians and their souls, digging their own graves… to hell. I wish they didn't bring down so many fools along with them.

>>674359

Cancer in the butthole.

And remember 63% of all new HIV cases and a good number of child sexual abuse cases comes from guess who?

>>674359

I used to be one before, but now I'm a right wing Catholic. I call it infographic/pop-culture theology because those people derive a botched simplistic version of Christianity from those two sources. Some do follow it because they think that God is punishing them by making them lose friends for saying correct biblical theology.

What made me switch from that disaster was actually reading the source (An audio version of the bible) up to the Book of Matthew, trying to understand God's motives for implementing his guidelines and how the lack of enforcement affected the world around us.

They're right about Jesus loving everyone, but they're wrong about Jesus loving them for their sins as those vices lead them astray from his guidelines.

>>674359

This infograph is theologically brain dead, and doesn't even distinguish between the ceremonial, and moral law.

A nice collection of non-arguments.

>should we still live by OT laws?

<yes

>have fun living your sexist chauvinistic judgemental xenophobic lifestyle choice. The rest of culture will advance forward without you

A bit antisemitic don't you think? Might have to report this to the ADL.

>>675498

These people make no sense, Every commandment Jesus taught is from the Word, and the Word commanded the OT. If they got a problem with the Father, they got one with Jesus too. Also, a lot of Jesus says borrows from the OT obviously. He came not to change the word. He isn't going to be continuously teaching that homosexuality is a sin since its pretty much a given.

>>675511

Jesus is the Logos. There is no separation.

>>674359

>How do you BTFO them on a theological level?

You don't. That kinda misses the point.

No one derives any meaningful, Christian theology that would lead to the LGBT consciousness, so they use mental gymnastics as a means to their propaganda.

Heck, even the bible doesn't even support their definition of love.

>>675717

Jesus is the God of the OT. The Guy who whipped merchants ordered colonialist style imperialism. Who guessed?

>>675749

Yeah, because his cool

>>674359

Jesus is God. And God hated esau. so saying god hates someone isn't wrong, when literally the word of God, which even the great St. Paul quotes. So is it wrong to say that God hates some people? No it isn't.

Now we know that God wills the best for everyone, apage, but translating the word love which also means like to many people is an issue. Regardless Jesus had no issue saying you should hate your mother and your father etc. If I say I hate someone it doesn't necessarily mean I hate them even if they repent and follow God's Law etc.

If God is more than happy to use that phrase, without needing to clarify himself a million times in speech, it's totally fine to say that God hates some people. Doesn't it say God got angry too?

Don't we believe God is incapable of anger since he is impassable? But it's fine to use that depiction. So yes you can say God hates some people. God like only hated esau? Only one poor guy in the whole world god hated?

>>674359

Why is this hard to BTFO. Just do a bit of research on this topic and you'll have your answers. Very simple.

>>675776

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:"

If your hatred has a righteous cause its fine, its not good obviously hate someone when they're just minding their own business and doing nothing wrong.

>>675782

I tried telling my sister God approves of righteous anger and backed it with the interlinear Bible. She no longer believes Bibles are Christian.

>>674359

>What does /christian/ think of Liberation theology and the 'jesus loves all' types?

They all deserve a bullet

> How do you BTFO them on a theological level?

You don't bother. You kill heretics.

>>675784

Out of curiosity, where do you get this idea from?

>>674373

>>674459

>>674464

>>674751

>>675814

t. LARPers

>>675511

>He isn't going to be continuously teaching that homosexuality is a sin since its pretty much a given.

He condemned fornication and described marriage as being between a man and a woman so that's enough.