/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>12318

> Can't actually respond to the meat of the argument and instead attacks semantics.

Come back when you have an actual argument.

>>12189

Why?

It's not as if there's any reason why I ought not believe in Him. After all, right and wrong are nothing but abstract constructs, meaning that nothing can truely be wrong.

Watch this video OP.

>heh let me post this picture detailing two competing worldviews with deep historical sources as exactly the same despite not knowing anything about them

>I'm gonna go ahead and ignore the entire body of philosophy of the last four thousand years and say there's no proof for G*d lmao

You played yourself, fedora

You wouldn't be able to stop there rather you'd then have to extend it to the names of the days and months of the year and to all the moons, constellations and asteroids as well.

>I don’t see why as a Christian dominated society that we couldn’t do the same

The names are a part of the West's pre-Christian heritage.

Pretty much what the other two said.

Since whatever deity it's named after hasn't been worshiped in over 2000 years there's there's no real harm in it as now it's just a nod to the West's heritage and culture. At the absolute worst it will make you look up the mythology and history behind the name.

>>12595

It would be impossible to get everyone on board, we don't live in a Christian age anymore, besides just because someone names their kid Jesus or calls their parent Father doesn't mean you pray to them.

>>12487

These jokes are always dead on arrival. The punchline is destroyed by the entire premise, i.e. virgin birth

Is Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God)?

No. Being the mother of God necessitates the she is prior to God, which is blasphemous.

Was Mary immaculately conceived? Is she sinless?

No and no.

Is Mary the Queen of Heaven?

No (Jer. 44)

Was Mary's body taken into heaven?

No.

Is Mary the greatest creature of God?

No.

Is Mary a perpetual virgin?

No. (Matt. 1:25)

Did Mary not feel pain at the birth of Jesus Christ?

No.

Is Mary the mother of Christians?

No.

Is Mary the Mediatrix? Is she the Co-Redemptirx?

No and no.

>>11578

You argue that Jesus was never commanded to sin by Mary.. But wouldn't that then also require MARY'S PARENTS to be sinless and never commanded for her to sin?

If not, then why does Mary need to be sinless to never command Jesus to sin?

Also: Matthew 10:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

You are obligated to RESIST SIN even if your parents command you to do so. "Honor your parents" does not mean "Always obey your parents".

Christ is the cornerstone. The foundational belief of Christianity is the gospel.

You have to know that you're a sinner needing a savior, and that the God-man Jesus is that savior.

Scripture is how we arrive at our knowledge of God, but you can be preached the gospel and believe without ever encountering a Bible.

Sola scriptura is our belief that scripture alone is the final authority in doctrine, as opposed to our feelings or additional revelation or the decree of the pope.

>WATCH ME DO A SICK GRIND ON THE FACE OF SAINT MICHAEL

No.

Careful OP, that's a dangerous slippery slope you're about to go down.

>>12475

Damn if that isn't the most humiliatingly honest thing which I'm sure Jesus would actually say.

Don't listen to these naysayers, OP. You should make every part of your life as Christian as possible, and if you enjoy skateboarding, then bring a little bit of Christianity into it. Can't think of a single biblical or Christian-traditional reason not to skateboard as long as you using it as a vehicle towards immorality. And while others may see it as desecration of icons, God knows your heart, and as long as you aren't doing it because you enjoy destroying Christian artwork, rather are instead just enjoying representing Christianity while you engage in your hobby, I'm thinking the Lord will know that.

Watched the free preview and about 7 hours of lectures from them on Sensus Fidelium. Had me, and engineer who has studied some on similar topics, convinced.

I'll be buying the series at some point. If it is good I'll be trying to get it shown to the church.

Could you provide a source and more information

sauce: https://luna.manchester.ac.uk/luna/servlet/s/h19fi5

originally found it on some alchemist website while searching for non-duality pictures/tattoos.

also see wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buch_der_heiligen_Dreifaltigkeit

Only God can punish crimes that haven't happened yet. We aren't omniscient. Preemptive justice is not justice.

>>12442

Only God could be argued as morally right in punishing sin that hasn't happened but he is never Biblically depicted as doing so.

Follow the rabbit hole on this topic and you arrive at the hard to swallow redpill of open theism.

There is ample evidence to convict the suspect of both resisting arrest and threatening an officer; neither entail capital punishment, nor does hurting a person or threatening to hurt more. The cop, on the other hand, had agreed to let the suspect go quietly, so he both killed the unarmed suspect and broke his oath.

Thus the cop is clearly in the wrong. Why would a Christian take on this scenario differ from any other?

>>12439

>The cop can't use his words in court unless he made that statement under Miranda and in the presence of his lawyer during a legal interrogation.

Miranda is irrelevant here. The suspect was armed and was not under arrest, and the cop was not interrogating the suspect.

>>12397

The only thing dumber than OP's phrasing are the replies itt.

Let's distill what he really means: someone knows with basic certainty that a serial murderer will escape justice and almost definitely kill again if this person doesn't take this chance to kill them now. Is he justified, even though this would technically be illegal?

I'm gonna say yes, he's clearly justified. The laws of the nations of men exist to protect the good, not only would obeying them in this instance unambiguously accomplish the opposite, but would contradict the law of Christian charity, which supersedes it. (And yes, killing a would be murderer before he can further condemn himself is charity both to him and his would-be victims)

To dispute this is like saying you wouldn't shoot someone attacking your family if you couldn't prove in court you were justified, or worse, that you wouldn't if the law were disgustingly pacifistic and ONLY police could legally engage in violence in any circumstance (this is the pathetic trajectory the western world is on, so don't think this is so implausible). That's just cowardice.

And to all the "you can't know for sure" fags

1) The scenario is that you know he's guilty and planning further violence with maximal certainty. If you want to be totally intransigent about the supposed "unknowable" nature of human behaviour (which is nonsense), then everything else in the world is just as unknowable, better stay in bed all day, your whole life might just be an illusion.

2) He surrendered the benefit of the doubt in committing his previous murders, and execution is a perfectly proportional and just punishment for (mass) murder even if he WEREN'T going to kill again, so the risk is basically non-existent.

>>12541

>Killing a man who is not engaged in violence because you feel certain he will murder in the future

This wasn't part of the scenario but I say absolutely not. You are not omniscient to have the necessary certainty to enact capital punishment. Murder and attempted murder are crimes in levitical law, general attitude predisposed toward murder or even statement of intent to murder are not. Punishments follow crimes.

>Perform an execution for a witnessed murder when you have certainty the courts will fail

Permissible maybe, not an obligation.

I agree that the state isn't given some mystical monopoly force on violence, even though Romans 13 describes a system where the responsibility to execute is given to the state and there isn't a Christian objection.

The need execute murderers as given in the noahic covenant is a blanket rule.

>He surrendered the benefit of the doubt in committing his previous murders

False confessions are common and should still be investigated because of the gravity of the punishment

>>12525

Not a Catholic myself, but as far as I am aware, that sort of thing only refers to ex cathedra dogmatic definitions. Since the First Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, there have only been three of these:

>Papal infallibility

>Immaculate Conception

>Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

Also, an ex cathedra dogmatic definition can only be made regarding a belief already held by the majority of the faithful.

So, to reply more directly to your example, not unless most Catholics believe Jesus was as your example states. Which would be blasphemy.

> explicitly states Jesus to not be homosexual(I think)

It implicitly states that he was not, since homosexuality is named a sin and Jesus was sinless

>>12526

I've never heard that it has anything to do with majority opinion

>>12527

>It implicitly states that he was not, since homosexuality is named a sin and Jesus was sinless

That makes sense. So how about we change the assertion to, say, Peter being homosexual. He was not without sin, and I don't think that his sexuality was ever mentioned.

>>12529

The onus is on the one asserting.

We have Romans 1 which seems to say that fags will never be saved, so Peter as a saved Christian (even leader) could not have at any time been a fag.

>>12530

You're missing the point mate, he's just using those as an example of something ludicrous that the pope could declare and become accepted as fact by the church

I'd say this isn't any more sent by God than any other illness.. just a result of the fall

>>12436

Just another nothing burger as far as I can tell. The virus hasn't killed anyone who wasn't critically unhealthy in the first place. Which is bad, or course, but it's not going to extinguish the human race.

Seems weak for a God sent plague

>Is God about to send a plague on the world?

I hope so.

They received apostolic succession from 'monophysite' churches, the British Orthodox Church rejoined the with the Copts sometime ago then seperated recently not due to any doctrinal reasons as far as i know, just decided to go their own way it seems.

>>12499

cringe

>>9596

Exactly, this is strange and divers doctrines, and could be works-based salvation since it's an additional requirement for a sacrament which are claimed to not be works-based salvation because they're ex opere operato. Both works salvation and strange doctrines are expressly forbidden by the primary sources, especially St. Paul.

Stoicism is great, and arguably fulfils Christ's command, if you love Me, keep My commandments, in light of Christ as Logos. But, salvation and sacraments are by faith alone and by the work done respectively, lest any man should boast.

>>9649

You know under Ephesians 5 we shouldn't even be talking about this, but the man and the woman have not power over their own bodies in marriage. The doctrine of consent was invented to pretend that some fornication is okay and other fornication isn't, but consent does matter to culpability for an act of fornication.

>>10098

straight sex isn’t unclean.

>>10118

Pleeeaze.

ALL sex is unclean, and you're a naïve, repressed virgin to think otherwise.

>>12486

Not if it's done for procreation, that removes the sin from sex..

Great video!

Here's a better one:

https://youtu.be/Ohd5uqzlwsU

If you're neglecting the basics, then reprioritize. It sounds like he just doesn't share your interests (even though he should as a leader) and thinks it's weird.

You should not at all stop studying all topics of theology and I recommend especially indulging in the topics that fascinate you

>>11609

Yeah, he’s a year younger, but he’s been in the church a lot longer and so he knows the walk a lot better than me. Maybe it’s too challenging of a topic for people in their early 20s, even if they have read the Bible. Whenever I’d talk to evangelists they about this stuff it clicked immediately. I mean, secret societies and the occult were the norm since king nimrod up until the crusades. No doubt it still goes on behind closed doors (Looking at you Hollywood). But I guess since it’s too uncanny for churches to say stuff like that in public, he thinks it’s too weird for me to say it too-even though those are two very different scenarios.

I felt like God was laying on my heart that it was important for Christians to be aware of the supernatural. And that the occult isn’t some weird neck beard basement dweller congregation, or a bunch of dirty white people with dreads-they’re affluent, educated, wealthy CEOs, engineers, politicians etc. but what my leader just told me is contradicting that, so was it really God or just the devil distracting me? In the few times the lord has directly communicated with me, he seemed very pleased with the work I’m doing, and told me not to despair. But at the same time, I don’t want judgement to come and have him say he never knew me because I was too busy learning and not going to church. I’m trying my best to humble myself but something about it just isn’t sitting right with me.

>>11606

Any organization that discourages you from thinking and asking questions is trying to sweep inconvenient problems under the rug. This should be self-evident, and I can tell it's self-evident to you. Don't let people make you second-guess yourself, that's classic cult behavior, and you deserve the same intellectual honesty that you are bringing to the table. I won't tell you what to conclude religiously, but I will _strongly_ encourage you to be real with yourself. Truth has nothing to hide.

I was in the same place as you. Actually, I told my discipler that I thought I wouldn't be a good discipler because I focus more on those things than anything else. In time you will change, to care about things to the right proportion. Whether that means less of knowledge or more of walking, I don't know.

>>11824

>>11824

This is by far the most intelligent post on this board.