/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Here are my two cents

>To what extent should one take self sacrifice and forgiveness?

To its full. As God unconditionally loves its children, mankind, so should you. Everything else comes with that

>Can the altruism that is mentioned above coexist with the warrior? How should I interpret Mathew 10:34?

Sword here isnt a literal material weapon but faith that is given to us. We fight against demons, not fellow men.

>Can I interpret Genesis and most of the old testament as metaphoric for our evolution? Can I believe in evolution and be true Christian?

In Orthodoxy, yes. In Catholicism, also yes. I dont know about the rest.

>Is idolatry simply to be interpreted as not worshiping the image of the Lord or is it making any image of the Lord in any of his form?

Idolatry is basically elevating something not worthy of being worshiped as God on defacto status of God. Its not even about simple carvings, fetishes or so on. On wider scale, being extremely obsessed by anything, (especially with money and prosperity in most times) is idolatry.

>As for the morality and its rules, I do not buy condemning an action, but rather its motive. For instance murder, in war and when fighting for a just cause it would be acceptable, but when done with revenge and hatred in one's heart in a normal circumstance unacceptable. Would it not be purer to apply Christian beliefs to motive and see that as a guide for action rather than any action within it self? Or is this not compatible? I find some of the laws of the old testament obsolete and strange and see loose ideas that I like but I see many of them too specific. I do understand that most actions condemned, however, typically do not have a place in day-to-day life.

First of all, murder, by its definition, is an unlawfull killing. Killing enemies in war is not murder, though its a bad thing and one shouldnt enjoy that.

For the second part, you know tree by its fruits. If end result of something is sin, then its bad.

As for the third part, there is a concept of Economia. Google it. Asides this, those laws were set for israelites and dont apply for us because they were fulfilled. However, their basic moral, such as 'faggotry is bad" and so on, still remains.

>Also, -and this is likely a misinterpretation- but as I understand, the world is corrupt, but it is also God's creation, can I admire the beauty of the world even with its corruption? Can I admire even the decay to a degree and that it helps make things what they are to a degree? Or is it unchristian to take interest in any such things and studying them is simply the temptation of the Devil. Essentially is it unchristian to try and understand the Devil and his ways? I am not saying act on these things, I am primarily saying this in reference to art and literature which could, promote anti-christian themes. I would try and understand them and adopt which parts of them are not sinful. Essentially not avoiding the Devil in entirety.

Your first part is a bit weird. I mean, I like undead motif and especially skeletons, but thats because I think that it radiates human beauty even at its bare. But I think liking process of decay and decadence itself is awful. To say it simply, Humans are created for purpose of Theosis (aka eternal process of becoming more and more godlike) and to rule the creation. Decadence is opposite of it. What kind of ruler would enjoy his dominion to be ruined. Also, yes it is somewhat demonic. Lossky wrote about this and I somewhat agree that as demons abhor general existence, they strive more and more to nothingness, which they will never reach. This is also how damned are described with "undying worms", a metaphore for eternal and neverending decay.

As for the second part, its a bit complex and somewhat needs elaboration. Koran also promotes anti-Christian themes, but I study it and Ahadith to know exactly why it is garbage. But in general, Christian should avoid sin, you must always keep this in mind.

>>701761

I see, I did not mean enjoy in causing decay more enjoyment in its study and the fact that it is part of what defines them.

For the second part I was referencing philosophy like say Nietzsche and the music of say someone like Schoenberg (whose music promotes the uncertainty and oddities of Being). Thank you for your response, it has been helpful.m

>>701796

It's nice that I may've been useful for you.

As for this, I'll be honest and say that I cannot answer first part with full confidence, though I think that process of decay, be it study or so forth, shouldn't bring joy. But I don't know.

As for the second, you make two very distinct examples. Studying certain antichristian religions is good but only if it is for debunking it. As for the music, well…we, being made in the image of Greatest creator, create stuff and foremost, artwork, for our spiritual needs and so we should be cautious for nourishment we take. Would you bath in piss, shit and pus? No, because it will be horrid for your body. How much then, must you take care of for your immortal soul? Listening to such music can be degrading and have awful spiritual results.

>>701864

>Antichristian religions and philosophies

Forgot this part.

>Can I interpret Genesis and most of the old testament as metaphoric for our evolution?

Can you expand upon this? I'm not sure how evolution could be understood apart from Genesis

>>701940

I apologize, that was a mistyping.

>>701754

>To what extent should one take self sacrifice and forgiveness?

Sacrifice everything. Forgive all.

>More specifically, how should I interpret Luke 6:21-38

Ver. 24. Jesus Christ having declared how meritorious poverty of spirit was to eternal life, proceeds to denounce heavy chastisements upon the rich and proud.

Although in great riches there are great inducements to sin, yet there are not wanting even in that state great incitements to virtue; neither is this wo aimed against those who abound in affluence; but against "those who abuse that affluence which Providence has bestowed upon them.

Ver. 25. As before he promised blessings to those that hunger, that weep, that are outcasts for Christ's sake; so here, and in the next verse, he denounces curses to such as are filled, that laugh, and are praised; i.e. to such, as so far seek their beatitude in present enjoyment, as to become indifferent with regard to the good things of the next world.

Ver. 26. Wo to you, when men shall bless you. The ministers of the gospel must not value themselves, when they are applauded by men; for so did the fore-fathers of the Jews, formerly commend the false prophets, when they flattered the people, and spoke things that were pleasing to them.

Ver. 30. Jesus Christ does not order us never to refuse a petition: but the meaning of his words is, that we are to give what is just and reasonable, what will be neither injurious to yourself nor your family; for what is unjustly asked, may be justly denied.

But in this, the sin we commit is often far from trivial; particularly, when to the refusal of a just request, we add also reprehensions and complaints. For why, say we, does he not labour? why has he reduced himself to penury, through his own indolence?—But, tell me, do you live upon the fruits of your own industry? On the supposition that you do, is it not that you may have some plea to reprehend another for the morsel of bread he begs at your hands? You give him no charitable relief, give him then no contumelious words: if you have no compassion for him yourself, do not prevent others from shewing him commiseration. Abraham, in the number of guests he received, had the honour of receiving under his roof even angels. Let us not, therefore, be strict and unfavourable judges in regard of our suffering and distressed neighbours, lest perhaps we ourselves come to be more severely judged.

Ver. 35. Hoping for nothing, but merely impelled by a desire of doing good. They who only give when sure of having a greater return, do not give, but traffic with their generosity; in which there is no charity.

Ver. 37. What can be imagined more kind, what more merciful, than this conduct of our Sovereign Lord, that the sentence of the judge should be left in the hands of the person to be judged?

Ver. 38. Here all solicitude of diffidence, all delay of avarice, is cut off; for what truth promises to repay, humility may safe expend.

>How can I apply this to my daily life?

Use world, do not be in world. Be humble and virtuous.

>Can the altruism that is mentioned above coexist with the warrior?

Our struggle is against, first and foremost, the devil and his angels. And then world in flesh. Life is a warfare as Job says.

> How should I interpret Mathew 10:34?

Ver. 34. I came not to send, &c. That is, dissension and war, in order that the false peace of sinners may be destroyed, and that those who follow me, may differ in morals and affections from the followers of this world. The sword, therefore, is the gospel, which separates those parents who remain in infidelity, &c.

It must be observed, that the gospel does not necessarily of itself produce dissensions amongst men, but that Christ foresaw, from the depravity of man's heart, that dissensions would follow the propagation of the gospel. The blame of this, however, does not attach to the gospel itself, since those who embrace it, after their conversion sought more than ever to keep peace with all men, even with their most bitter persecutors; whilst those who rejected the gospel, forgetting even the ties of kindred, persecuted even to death the followers of Christ.

Send peace, &c. Indeed before Christ became man, there was no sword upon the earth; that is, the spirit had not to fight with so much violence against the flesh; but when he became man, he shewed us what things were of the flesh, and what of the spirit, and taught us to set these two at variance, by renouncing always those of the flesh, which constantly endeavour to get master over us, and follow the dictates of the spirit.

>>702102

>Can I interpret Genesis and most of the old testament as metaphoric for our evolution? Can I believe in evolution and be true Christian?

I'll won't sugarcoat, no. That there are Christians, especially Catholics, who believe in evolution ignore Lateran IV.

Also, Evolution is masonic plot.

>Is idolatry simply to be interpreted as not worshiping the image of the Lord or is it making any image of the Lord in any of his form?

Idolatry is giving divine worship to creature or nothingness, i.e. not God.

>As for the morality and its rules, I do not buy condemning an action, but rather its motive. For instance murder, in war and when fighting for a just cause it would be acceptable, but when done with revenge and hatred in one's heart in a normal circumstance unacceptable. Would it not be purer to apply Christian beliefs to motive and see that as a guide for action rather than any action within it self? Or is this not compatible? I find some of the laws of the old testament obsolete and strange and see loose ideas that I like but I see many of them too specific. I do understand that most actions condemned, however, typically do not have a place in day-to-day life.

Acts have matter, motive and circumstancess. There are inherently evil acts, murder is one of them. But culpability of act is not the same as it's sinfulness. There are cases in which circumsantcess nullify culpabiity of act. And of course, there is no sin without free will.

>What is the purpose of worship and baptism? I like it, but why is it so essential?

Baptism was chosen by God as way for justification of man. No one can enter Heaven except by baptism. Everyone who deny that is children of father of lies.

As for worship it is matter of justice. God deserves worship and it is unjust not to worship him. But since God is above us, only by revelation can we now how to worship God.

>Also, -and this is likely a misinterpretation- but as I understand, the world is corrupt, but it is also God's creation, can I admire the beauty of the world even with its corruption? Can I admire even the decay to a degree and that it helps make things what they are to a degree? Or is it unchristian to take interest in any such things and studying them is simply the temptation of the Devil.

Psalm 8 and Sirach 42:15–43:33

>Essentially is it unchristian to try and understand the Devil and his ways? I am not saying act on these things, I am primarily saying this in reference to art and literature which could, promote anti-christian themes. I would try and understand them and adopt which parts of them are not sinful. Essentially not avoiding the Devil in entirety.

Curiosity, wanting to know things that you ought not to know, is a sin. Do not run after devil. for you will find him alredy inside you. Know how to fight him, for it is good. But do not know him.

>>702248

On the matter of forgiveness, I highly recommend a read through these two pages, to put into serious relief what is so often distorted now in our degenerate society, the distinction between goodness and mere tolerance, only one of which is Christian in its essence:

>The man with a “good-heart” has a special type of sensibility that makes him emotional in face of any suffering. He defends any individual who suffers as if he were the victim of an unjust aggression. According to this conception of life, “to love one’s neighbor” is to desire he does not suffer. To make the neighbor suffer is to have hatred for him.

>This develops a particular psychology in the “good-hearted” man. All those who have zeal for preserving order, hierarchy, integrity of principles and defending the good against the onslaught of evil – these are heartless persons, since their energetic application of principles makes all those “poor people” who “had the weakness” of falling into some error suffer.

>To show how profound this evil is, I will offer some common examples of how many Catholics speak and feel… For the Church, the greatest evil in this world is not suffering but sin. The greatest good is not to have good health, a well-furnished table and tranquil sleep or to enjoy honors and free time, but rather it is to accomplish the will of God.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/D030_Goodheart_1.htm

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/D031_Goodheart_2.htm

>>701754

>Can I believe in evolution and be true Christian?

Yes, but one must first define what is meant by evolution. Obviously, the religion of Darwinism that has as its basis the philosophy of naturalism is out of the question, not because the Bible says so, but for valid reasons having to do with the nature of plant, animal and human life. I will post some links for you to read in order to understand what I mean. This will entail some significant reading on your part since this subject cannot be condensed into sound bites:

>Moreover, modern Aristotelians (such as the Neo-Scholastic writers of the early twentieth century) are not necessarily opposed to evolutionary explanations as such. They do agree, though, that such explanations have limits, and would by no means give a blank check to Darwinian naturalism. And those limits are limits in principle (not mere matters of “probability”) because they have to do with metaphysical divisions in nature (not mere differences in the degree of “complexity” of the arrangement of mechanical parts or the like). I have discussed the Aristotelian-Thomistic approach to the origins of life here, and the question of human origins here and here.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/02/noe-on-origin-of-life-etc.html

>Now, human beings are rational animals, and for Thomists both the “rationality” and the “animality” are crucial to understanding our nature. Just as being an animal includes the activities of vegetative forms of life, so too does being human include the activities of animal (and thus of vegetative) forms of life. Thus, human beings carry out the activities of nutrition, growth, reproduction, sensation and imagination, appetite, and locomotion. But on top of this, human beings, unlike plants and animals, are capable of intellectual and volitional activity.

>For the Thomist, intellect, understanding, or rationality differs radically from the sensation and imagination of other animals. The easiest way to see how is to note the differences between a concept on the one hand, and a mere sense image on the other. First, a true concept is abstract and universal, whereas a sense image is concrete and particular. Consider the example of a triangle. Any image of a triangle that you can bring before your mind’s eye is always going to be of a black triangle, a red triangle, or a triangle of some other color; it is always going to be of a right triangle, an obtuse triangle, or an acute triangle; and it is always going to be of an equilateral, isosceles, or scalene triangle. That is to say, it will always of its nature resemble some triangles but not others. By contrast, your concept of a triangle fits all triangles without exception—whether black, red, or no color at all, whether right, obtuse, or acute, and whether equilateral, isosceles, or scalene. Hence, the concept is distinct from the mental image…

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14777/

>While much of the preceding discussion pertinent to man’s uniqueness as a species has focused upon signs of his spiritual nature and, to an even greater degree, upon the failure of lower animals to demonstrate any intellectual ability, philosopher and theologian Austin M. Woodbury, S.M., approaches the question with a fresh and more decisive perspective.67 He points out that the effort to explain all animal behavior in terms of sensation alone could never be completed and might produce no more than a probable conclusion because of the complexity of the task. One need only consider the endless anecdotal data to be examined.68 To avoid the logical weakness of this negative approach, Woodbury proposes an appropriate remedy by seeking direct and positive proof that brutes are lacking in the necessary effects or signs of intelligence.69

>For, he argues, the necessary effects of intellect are four: speech, progress, knowledge of relations, and knowledge of immaterial objects. Since each of these is a necessary effect, “if it be shown that even one of these signs of intellect is lacking to ‘brutes’, then it is positively proved that ‘brutes’ are devoid of intellect.”70 In fact, Woodbury argues that brute animals are in default in all four areas.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ape-language.html

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution_contradict_genesis.html

>>701754

>>As for the morality and its rules, I do not buy condemning an action, but rather its motive.

This is mistaken. I quote:

>Aquinas says there are three moral determinants, which he calls the object, the circumstances, and the end. He means by the object the act that is willed, he means by the circumstances the situation, and he means by the end the motive. All three of these, he says, need to be good in order for the act to be morally good. You could say they’re like the different dimensions of a work of art, say a play: it has to have a good plot, good characters, good style, and a good theme; if any of these is bad, that makes it a bad play. So the three dimensions of moral acting: what you do, when and where and how you do it, and why you do it. Like just about everything in Aquinas, this agrees with common sense. Common sense says everything counts. So if you say that only the act itself counts, you’re saying “just do the right thing,” and you have a list of moral laws that include good and evil acts, but situations and motives don’t count—well, then you’re a legalist. And if you say everything is relative to the situation, and there is no list of right and wrong acts in themselves—well, then you’re a relativist. And if you say the only thing that matters is your heart, your subjective motive, not the objective thing you do or the objective situation—well, then you’re a subjectivist. Aquinas is not a legalist or a relativist or a subjectivist in morality. To be morally good, you have to do the right thing, in the right way, and for the right reason.

Hence the virtues and our duty to cultivate them.

>Also, -and this is likely a misinterpretation- but as I understand, the world is corrupt, but it is also God's creation, can I admire the beauty of the world even with its corruption?

The sentiment that we are somehow required to regard being itself as evil is a component of an old heresy called gnosticism, and the idea is to be reviled:

>One of the basic distinctions between the two views of the world is that the Catholic worldview is grounded firmly in the reality and ramifications of the Incarnation. God's universe, created perfect, is now broken – but it is marbled with sanctification, especially since God Himself took on flesh. Many brands of Protestantism, on the other hand, tend to see (or at least behave as though they see) matter as evil and man only as "utterly depraved," leading to a Puritanism that strips Christianity of its rich lushness and very humane-ness. The soul is seen as totally distinct from the body, the latter being a prison to the former and a hindrance in every way to the desire to become holy. For Catholics, this dualism does not exist.

https://www.fisheaters.com/differences.html

>>701754

>I am not saying act on these things, I am primarily saying this in reference to art and literature which could, promote anti-christian themes.

I fail to see why a Christian should take an interest in these things, and I see the desire to understand such phenomena as justification for taking pleasure in them, at least on the face of it. If these things take you farther away from God, then you should avoid them, especially as a new Christian. Please read that St. Francis de Sales book I mentioned above.

>>701754

>Can I interpret Genesis and most of the old testament as metaphoric for our evolution? Can I believe in evolution and be true Christian?

OP, I think this may answer your question. In short, as Christians, we have two different ways of looking at the same evidence that is revealed to us. God bless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwKtr79sVsM&t=44m