/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

To start: Is there anything about the MEV Bible translation that is worth checking out on its own merits, or is it just NKJV 2: Electric Boogaloo?

>>6177

I plan on checking out the NASB sometime. What I'm really interested in is how the MEV compares to the NKJV in terms of being a modern update to the Majority Text/Textus Receptus.

What do you all think about the idea of God being the one that wrote the Bible? I (a Baptist) believe the Bible is God's word as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us, but one of my catholic friends doesn't believe that God wrote the Bible.

I just read something on 4/x/ that made me worried a demon is trying to possess me. I’m just a nobody and a pretty good Catholic. Why would they target me?

>>6221

If you were saved, it couldn't

>>6222

Maybe I’m just overreacting.

>>6225

Maybe. Are you saved?

>>6389

It depends. What kind of emotional and psychological effect does such fiction have on you? Keep Philippians 4:8-9 in mind. There can be that rare horror that is at once classy and has Christian undertones, like the Universal monster movies of the 30's. But most horror, especially nowadays is of a different sort.

The main thing that concerns me is that, though I am no expert on Lovecraft or Poe, I'm familiar enough with them to know that Poe's works often have themes of despair, despondency and the macabre. That Lovecraft's works tend to have themes of nihilism, madness and the occult, within the framework of a universe populated by "gods" and supernatural and alien beings that are, at best, impersonal forces of nature and chaos, and at worst malevolent cosmic horrors who view men as glorified cattle.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: are these men's works just something that you can enjoy as entertainment and/or appreciate as good literature? Or might their themes affect your subconscious in a negative fashion? Questionable materials tend to not turn most people into psycho ax murderers overnight, but rather tend towards a subtle and corrosive effect on the mind. A lot of the degenerate behavior you witness around you in the modern world is facilitated primarily by appeals to emotion through fiction:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/04/28/why-fiction-good-for-you-how-fiction-changes-your-world/nubDy1P3viDj2PuwGwb3KO/story.html

>This research consistently shows that fiction does mold us. The more deeply we are cast under a story’s spell, the more potent its influence. In fact, fiction seems to be more effective at changing beliefs than nonfiction, which is designed to persuade through argument and evidence.

>Studies show that when we read nonfiction, we read with our shields up. We are critical and skeptical. But when we are absorbed in a story, we drop our intellectual guard. We are moved emotionally, and this seems to make us rubbery and easy to shape.

Even fiction as stupid and trite as soap operas can shape people:

https://www.iadb.org/en/news/brazilian-soap-operas-shown-impact-social-behaviors

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-islamic-worlds-culture-war-played-out-on-tv-soap-operas/254247/

I know for myself, that I no longer have the tolerance for gore that I once did. One of my favorite horror films of all time was the 1970s remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatches." Mainly because unlike a lot of Horror films that make use of gore or jump scares, this movie conveyed horror through it's atmosphere and vibe: one of imminent doom, hopelessness, and futility. I doubt I could stomach such a film again.

>>6395

He is to Jesus what suicide bombers are to Mohammad.

>>6408

So Catholics were kikepuppets even before Vatican II, huh.

>>6397

Killing for Islam gets you into heaven according to Mohammad

Quran (3:169-170) - "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve."

Abu Dawud (14:2515) - I asked the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): Who are in Paradise? He replied: "Prophets are in Paradise, martyrs are in Paradise."

>>6477

That's not the original Arabic of the Qur'an that is just some barbaric moonspeak spoken by Germanic-Celtic hybrids on an island.

>>6488

I'm a fluent arabic speaker and that is what is taught in the original text. You're just gonna have to blindly trust my testimony on that because English translations aren't allowed for admission as evidence.

>>6503

wait shaper is a mistranslation

creator would be a better world, because shaper would imply god only shapes the world and hasn't created it

One of my Aunts had cancer and was undergoing dialysis for awhile. Eventually, she got tired of it, stopped dialysis, and passed away. My best friend's grandmother, for reasons that are speculative at this point, is also currently refusing to go through with dialysis, and will probably pass away in about 6 months, give or take.

My question is this: if someone decides to stop fighting for their life with all their might in such a manner, are they merely entrusting their spirit to the Lord via natural causes, or is it a passive-aggressive form of suicide?

>>6536

That is a classic and hard question. Albert Mohler has written on it, maybe you could find his view.

"Passive euthanasia" is the concept.

How do evangelicals (or anyone who believes baptism is not necessary for salvation) justify Acts 2:38?

>Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I'd consider myself an evangelical (somewhere in the Baptist branch), but I just stumbled upon this verse and it makes it seem like baptism is more than just a symbol.

>>6575

Nevermind, I found a good answer online at gotquestions.org

>>6576

Did you find it persuasive?

>>6579

Yes, it used some very sound reasoning to explain it and approached it from a couple different views to show multiple reasons for their argument.

I heard Pastor Anderson say that "honor your parents" has a financial connotation to it, is that correct? And if so, do that mean to help your parents financially all the time, even when you're not able to actually help?

>>6733

What was his basis for teaching that there's a financial connotation?

>>6736

It was that the word used for "honoring" someone had a financial connotation.

>>6737

That sounds pretty tenuous, I would say no. It would be honorable to help your parents if you were able and they were needy, but I would not make an "all the time" statement. Consider a drug addicted father, are you doing him an honor if your financial help enabled his addiction?

>>6739

Theft in the bible always implies physical confiscation. I have looked and never found variance from this.

As far as I can tell a Christian has no moral obligation to give money to a digital content producer if nothing is removed from the owner, but I would say it is a generous form of charity to give them money anyway.

>>6743

> It would be honorable to help your parents if you were able and they were needy

Okay.

>are you doing him an honor if your financial help enabled his addiction?

No

>Theft in the bible always implies physical confiscation. I have looked and never found variance from this.

Thank you.

How bad is it to have wicca and occultist friends, or have them read the tarot cards?

>>6749

Love them and pray for them, but keep them at arm's length. Also, no to tarot cards.

>>6739

>>6743

>>6747

Even disregarding the "theft vs copying" issue, and even if you want to disregard the fact that causing digitally exclusive content creators to not make a livelihood is not exactly "loving your neighbor as yourself," there's still the simple fact that passages like Romans 13: 1-7 and Mark 12:17 outright state that unless civil authorities are forcing you to burn your Bible or curse Jesus' name, you should follow their laws. Copyright infringement laws are not compelling you to worship Satan against your will, last time I checked. Thus, you should respect them for our Lord's sake.

>>6770

How did you draw the line on obeying state government there and not elsewhere? Aren't you being arbitrary?

bumpe

>>6770

There was a psx emulator (called Bleem) in the 90s on mac, that was taken to court because it was "taking" money from Sony. When it was taken to court they found that what they were doing was completely legal. Here is a longish video on said emulator.

What does the bible mean when it refers to someone as "double minded"?

Does anyone have archives of the old Christian vs Religion threads on old /christian/?

>>6975

What you want is a concordance. There are good free ones online at sites like biblehub and blueletterbible

https://biblehub.com/greek/1374.htm

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1374&t=KJV

I'm intrigued by classical theism and Aquinas' proofs for God, but was wondering how that necessarily leads to Christianity and the incarnation specifically. From what I've seen, the historical evidence for the existence of most of the Apostles seems weak. Basically I'm a very open-minded fella just looking for any way to believe the New Testament beyond just simple faith if anyone can help me out.

>>7048

What is weak about the historical evidence for the apostles?

>>7050

I should have worded it differently. A better way to say it is that I'm bad at doing historical research and there's so much contention on the internet and I don't know who's a reddit atheist trying their hardest to shit on Christianity, who's a delusional fundamentalist fitting every tiny shred of possible historical evidence to what they believe, and actual credible historical scholars. I recall reading that the Gospels were written anonymously and then later ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John later and I'm curious what justification they had for that, or if it's even an important detail. I'm genuinely not trying to be antagonistic so apologies if I come off as ignorant, only trying to learn and hoping somebody can steer me in the right direction.

>>7070

>delusional fundamentalist fitting every tiny shred of possible historical evidence to what they believe

euphoric

>>7071

I don't mean to say every Christian scholar is that way, but that I could see somebody like that making huge logical leaps and I merely want the strongest historical case for the Gospels that I can get. Please don't lump me in with reddit atheists, that isn't my intention at all. I've gained a huge respect for Christianity from studying the Bible and other significant Christian writings this last year and I'm considering joining the Church myself

>>7072

Here is an excelent resource for you friend: www.christianthinktank.com

>>7070

I didn't perceive that you were being antagonistic, it's a valid question.

Let me put it very simply:

The Bible claims to be the special revelation of God, as in God wrote it through human hands (2 Tim 3:16). It also claims to be inerrant (Psalm 12:6). So if the Bible is trustworthy at all, it's all or nothing.

Some works are anonymous but we have guesses on the human author, like Hebrews. In the case of the four gospels, the authors left their name in each.

You're talking about the synoptic problem. Here's an article: https://www.gotquestions.org/synoptic-problem.html

Basically, those who reject the supernatural origin of the books have to find a natural explanation, so they contrive an issue that leaves the Bible errant.

This isn't a polemic for believing the Christian gospel though, that would be circular reasoning. It's only a refutation of an alleged inconsistency in Christianity.

What you really want is cause to believe the Christian Bible is authoritative. What have you read on that?

>>7022

Thank you.

>>7079

I can tell this is a good site because of the 1990s HTML, thank you friend

>>7081

I think I can accept the classical theist idea of God, and if the incarnation happened as described I don't have a problem believing the Holy Spirit would leave behind a divinely inspired book to help guide people to salvation. You pretty much recognized my problem being that I need to fill in the gap. Obviously I can't use scripture as proof of that, as I believe the scripture itself admits, but I don't think it would take much; I can clearly see that /something/ special happened with this explosive force that spread throughout the surrounding region pretty quickly and so many people martyred themselves for, and I think the 'cult leader' point that atheists parrot is playing it down

>What have you read on that?

Admittedly, not much. My interest in the Bible started primarily as a literary thing, so all the Christian books I've read so far have more or less been in that vein (Most of the Bible + some commentaries, Confessions, some Aquinas and his apologists, some CS Lewis and Kierkegaard, my boys Dante and William Blake). I'm probably going to look for a history book next as that seems like a logical next step.

What made me ask the question was skimming through some National Geographic article that said something like 'we know James existed, Peter, John, and Thomas probably existed, and the rest we have no hard evidence of', which doesn't sound right even to me, but if true would make it pretty hard for me to accept incarnation as historical. I imagine you guys are knowledgeable, and being a chan board I'd bet a lot of you are former atheists and have been in my position before so you'd be well equipped to steer me.

>So if the Bible is trustworthy at all, it's all or nothing.

I know writers as early as Augustine were treating the Genesis account of creation and the fall as allegorical, is that not the consensus or is it an exception? Sorry for the essay :)

Why is my heart so timid now? I used to be super edgy but now the littlest insults and creaking noises scare me. Why did God want me to end up like this?

>>7110

You're engaging in the right line of thinking, and you're right to see the prevalence of Christianity as a evidene that it's at least investigating it's truth claims.

What did you read of CS Lewis? Mere Christianity is his famous apologetic work.

You should peruse this page https://www.monergism.com/topics/apologetics

>Natl geographic

They're engaging in the typical secularist double standard when it comes to Christianity, the Bible is disregarded as a historical document and outside proof of Thomas is deemed necessary, rather than accepting the Bible as a historical source then addressing any potential causes to disbelieve Thomas existed. They don't do this for Greek philosophical works, for example.

>I know writers as early as Augustine were treating the Genesis account of creation and the fall as allegorical, is that not the consensus or is it an exception?

An allegorical view of the creation narrative is still compatible with recognizing the Bible as authoritative. Everyone affirms that there is allegory in the Bible.

I don't think Augustine's view is consistent because I use a hermeneutic called the historical-grammatical method, and I have to recognize that Genesis 1&2 are written as historical prose. Augustine was fallible. You should see his commentaries on the Psalms, they're pretty off the wall.

It sounds like you see the consistency of theism, and thus the plausibility of the Christian gospel given theism.

I think you should admit the certainty of theism as the only consistent position. The cosmological argument is absolutely irrefutable without breaking the law of non-contradiction, and therefore denying logic. I think the moral argument is more compelling though.

As a cradle Christian, I had the benefit of trust in my parents that what they told me was true, Jesus died and rose again so I could be saved from sin. From there I prayed to receive Christ and I became indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and can now tell you without a doubt that the gospel is true because it has been confirmed to me. This of course is non-verifiable to you as outside of me, but that's my testimony.

>>7127

I read a good bit of Lewis; I went through Mere Christianity, Abolition of Man, Miracles, A Grief Observed, Screwtape Letters, and some of his Reflections on the Psalms. Very comfy and his talent to make such strong arguments with such brevity and crystal clarity was really incredible. This site looks amazing, it's been so hard for me to find good Christian apologetics through Google (they probably made it that way on purpose tbh) so thanks a bunch

>I have to recognize that Genesis 1&2 are written as historical prose.

I hate to be that guy, but how do you reconcile Genesis with modern scientific knowledge? I don't like the 'God put dinosaur bones there to trick us' nor the 'scientists are all liars' responses (I do hate scientists more than your average heretic though), but I'm sure there's a much better answer I haven't heard

I definitely do like the consistency of theism over 'the universe came from nothing on its own because science'. I hate and reject the idea of subjective morality even as an atheist, but of course there's really no way to reconcile objective morality with atheism.

I think my only hangup on the cosmological argument is the limitation of human rationality. A friend of mine brought up the stupid stone paradox the other day and I refuted him with the law of non-contradiction (the stone would have to be infinitely heavy thus can't exist by definition), to which he cited mathematical fictionalism (logic is a human invention, there could be options beyond true and false that we can't even comprehend). I don't accept just on intuition but can't form a satisfactory rebuttal and it is technically true (though leads to throwing everything else we know out the window with it and questioning existence itself), if there are any philosophy warriors out there who know how to dig me out of this hole I'd much appreciate a hand.

That's awesome man, it's rare to see lifelong Christians on sites like….this. I was baptized Anglican but my parents dragged me to Church probably less than 10 times in my whole life so of course I inevitably lost interest in it all as kids do. The modern world makes me so sad and I don't see where else to turn to but the Church so maybe I'll start going again.

>>7423

That's a classic matter of discernment. Prayerfully consult God on this issue, and be radically honest with yourself about whether such things inspire Lust in you or not.

Another good rule of thumb is the "Would I feel comfortable watching this with Jesus sitting right beside me?" test.

Either way, if it causes you to sin, think of it as an offending eyeball or hand, and cut it out of your life. It's not worth going to Hell over a movie.

Is there such a thing as a dynamic equivalence/thought-for-thought/paraphrase Bible that isn't pozzed like the NIV, or a goofy blasphemous meme farm like The Message, that I can utilize to compliment a formal/word-for-word Bible translation, so that I can have my accuracy and smooth readability too, or is this dreaming the impossible dream?

>>7446

Are you looking for a translation to read alongside a strictly formal equivalence translation, or a compromise more readable translation that will be your only one?

If you're triple digit IQ and a native English speaker you should be able to read ESV, Holman, KJV and NKJV with ease, and NASB with occasional difficulty in spots. There's no need to go further into dynamic equivalence than these.

>>7494

>Are you looking for a translation to read alongside a strictly formal equivalence translation, or a compromise more readable translation that will be your only one?

I'm looking for something to read alongside a strictly formal equivalent translation. I'm a native English speaker. I don't know what my IQ is. If it helps: I was the archetypal "bullied nerd" throughout most of grade school, got straight A's in High school, the vast majority of semesters, and have two college degrees.

I primarily read the KJV, NKJV, HCSB, and have recently got an MEV. I can read the KJV mostly fine, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't grateful for getting a study version that has translation footnotes for some of the more archaic parts.

The NKJV and MEV are much smoother, in terms of readability, for obvious reasons. But some of the difficulties I encounter in the KJV are not just due to Shakespearean-esque English, but what seems to be syntax that is either archaic, the natural product of a more literal translation, or perhaps a combination of both. While I've had an easier time in the NKJV and MEV, due in part to said translations trying to stick so closely to the KJV, I occasionally run into the same syntax issues, and find myself frustrated with such passages.

When such issues arise, I've found that often the parts of the HCSB that are more dynamically translated have provided clarity, and/or made certain passages "click" better in my mind, or outright provide "aha!" moments. At the same time, the more I've read it, the HCSB, in trying to be a happy medium between formal and dynamic equivalency, can be a bit of a hot mess. Some verses being so woodenly literal as to be make more sense and be easier to comprehend in the King James version; some verses going a bit off the rails in terms of dynamism. Then you get some translation choices that are just…. mindbogglingly cringey:

>KJV, and most formal equivalence translations, render Proverbs 11:30 in this manner: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."

>HCSB: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but violence takes lives."

To be fair though, I know from comparing on Bible Gateway, that the CSB is somewhat…. less cringey…. but still a bit overmuch dynamic in it's rendering (though somewhat more in line with the ESV execution of this verse):

>CSB: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and a wise person captivates people."

>ESV: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and whoever captures souls is wise."

Bottom line, I'm just curious if there's a dynamic/paraphrase translation that has no, or minimal cringe, that I can use alongside a literal translation to help out with some of the rougher parts. For example, the KJV/NKJV versions of this verse make sense from an Old English perspective, but are a bit rough on one used to contemporary English:

>KJV: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

>NKJV: "who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,"

Without footnotes, I found these verses odd and difficult to grasp.

Taken within the context of the surrounding verses, the MEV gets it a little better:

>MEV: "who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

But the HCSB/CSB renditions really made this verse "click" for me, even void of context and footnotes:

>HCSB: who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.

>CSB: who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited.

Maybe it's a simple matter of the HCSB or CSB being what I'm looking for, but I was just curious if there was a smoother dynamic/paraphrase translation providing what I'm looking for. Thank you for your time, regardless.

>>7511

What's your chosen formal equivalence translation?

>>7512

I prefer the KJV, but am not KJVO. I also like the NKJV and am starting to like the MEV for the most part (still have to dig into it more before I can give a truly accurate analysis.)

>>7516

You should look at the NASB instead. The KJV was written with beauty in mind for the sake of memorization, they wanted the average English speaker of the 17th-18th centuries to be able to go about their day with the words of God on their minds. (I don't remember a source for this claim)

It is (at least a little) less effective in terms of being a formal equivalence translation, and a lot of the difficulty in reading comes from needing to know random facts about early modern English. Example: "We would see Jesus" means "We wish to see Jesus", because the use of the term "would" has changed.

Anyway that's my advice. Maybe the holman is what you're looking for. I personally use the NASB only and just train myself to look carefully at the phrasing. When I said "above 100 IQ" earlier that was just a meme way to say at least average white intelligence.

>>7511

Finally someone that reads the CSB!! I love it, I've read the NAS, KJV, and NIV (all of which in minor amounts; they all are good, but have many confusing passages). I know it's not perfect, but they not only word it in the most fitting manner, but also include original meanings, translations, or alternate translations in the footnotes. Being too literal like in the NAS or KJV leave too much interpretation for the user. the CSB was put together by a "team of 100 scholars, editors, stylists, and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to biblical inerrancy. Outside consultants and reviewers contributed valuable suggestions from their areas of expertise." - From the preface of the CSB

"The textual base for the new testament is the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 5th corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th Edition" - From the Preface of the CSB, for reference.

>>7122

Insults about what? your faith? Do you fear God or do you fear the devil more? What is there to fear but God alone!

>>7517

>>7522

Looks like I'm going to be giving the NASB and CSB a shot. I know there's a general CSB Study Bible. Is there a particular NASB Study Bible that is recommended? There seem to be several, and not a definitive "NASB Study Bible" in the same way that there's an "ESV Study Bible." I've heard of the "NASB New Inductive Study Bible" in particular being recommended.

>>6220

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/why-does-matthew-1721-exist-only-as-a-footnote-in-the-king-james-bible/

>>7541

Okay, I stand corrected. Apparently, from further research, the 'Zondervan NASB Study Bible', seems to be largely considered the standard NASB Study Bible in the same manner as Holman's CSB Study Bible or Crossway's ESV Study Bible. I'm not gonna lie though, I feel leary about this, due to Zondervan's reputation. Though Zondervan and Thomas Nielson and most major Bible publishers are owned by the same company, IIRC.

>>7632

>>7541

I don't think the lockman foundation has any publishing house associated with them, and those are the ones who tend to do study Bibles. I could be wrong on either of those thoughts.

Zondervan is suspect to me also but not to the point that I would abstain from their study Bible. The strength of a study Bible is really in the authors who contribute, and whatever it says is based on the view of that particular author.

>>7841

And no, i'm not saying Jesus is horus or a sun god, that picture is only showing the pattern that adds goddess worship, Mary is not actually a godess.

>>7841

>>7842

A lot of this is Zeitgeist tier pseudo scholarship that has been debunked. Just Google "Zeitgeist debunked" for images and articles. Even that chart is sloppy: Adonis isn't even the son of Zeus and Artemis, and his categorization in the "dying-rising" god archetype, is at best a stretch, based on the myth surrounding his flower, and at worst has been debunked by scholars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonis

Thor never was even resurrected after he died; Horus is not the the son of Ra, but was born of the dismembered body parts of Osiris, and is considered a separate god in his own right, rather than a resurrected Osiris; and what does Diana have to do with Lucifer and the Antichrist?

In other words, this "pattern" is very forced.

>>7848

Okay, so it's pretty bad, but would you agree that paganism and pantheism is satanic somehow?

>>7849

Absolutely.

>>7841

It's weird how much people make up really bad lies to disprove Jesus

>>7870

It's because that doctrine is older than the Zeitgeist movie, and taught in freemasory. Similar to how luciferians replace Jesus with lucfier in the bible.

I'm considering converting to Islam; but i'm still a disciple of Christ and I will follow his teachings, Jesus was a great prophet and taught us many important things. I hope I will finally be able to read Arabic so I can study the Qur'an to see if it is the word of God.

How many of you think i'm going to hell?

>>7849

>>7867 here. I apologize for not being more specific. I was tired and going through some drama.

More specifically, yes, I agree that paganism/pantheism is satanic, in that it tends to be the product of of these two things:

a) Mankind tries to utilize their God-given instinct toward sensing the supernaturalness and Godliness inherent in creation, and fumble the ball into worshiping the creation instead of the creator due to their fallen nature, and…

b) The fact that more than likely, pagan "gods" are basically just demons/fallen angels trolling mankind. I think I remember Augustine making an observation along the lines of pagan "gods"/demons enjoy commanding men to do stupid, pointless, degrading, and abhorrent things for their amusement, which reminds me of a Youtube vid of Indian Hindu practitioners literally "blessing" their babies by rolling them around in cow manure.

The concepts of a) and b) are further supported by the fact that while the "Jesus is just a remix of pagan gods" pattern is contrived, there are other patterns throughout paganism that indicate some kind of loose unity among the beliefs. Such things as common myths (i.e. myth of "god" of thunder/strength fighting giant multi-headed and/or sea serpent with special weapon to make up for past wrongs is present in some form not only in Greece (Hercules and the Hydra) and Northern Europe (Thor, Donar, etc. and Jormungandr) but also as far out as Japan (Susanoo and Orochi); common morals ("honor", child/human sacrifice, looser sexual mores etc.).

Then you have Mystery religions like what you display here: >>7892 that see such patterns, mix in a bit of philosophy, and stuff probably inspired by actual demonic dealings, and take such things to their logical conclusion.

>>7902

>How many of you think i'm going to hell?

Insufficient evidence. Do you believe the gospel?

>>7910

I don't think the Gospel is perfect; I never did even when I considered myself a Christian.

>>7915

Really? Allah is called the great deceiver? I find that hard to believe as "Satan" in Hebrew means the deceiver; I highly doubt Allah is going to essentially call himself Satan. I could be wrong; I don't know Arabic so I can't read the Qur'an.

>>7920

>I don't think the Gospel is perfect; I never did even when I considered myself a Christian.

What do you mean.. do you believe an imperfect gospel?

Gospel means good news. The Christian gospel is the message about Jesus related to your salvation. Do you believe it?

>>7922

I don't believe Jesus is The son of God and I certainly don't believe he is God himself, does that answer the question?

>>7924

I'll have to learn Arabic and read the Qur'an for myself.

>>7926

It's always good to investigate these things.

>matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

>>7926

>I don't believe Jesus is The son of God and I certainly don't believe he is God himself, does that answer the question?

You're going to hell according to the Bible

>>8004

Obvious answer: lack of interest to form a userbase.

More speculative:

Evangelistic atheism is very associated with the left, and most of the left doesn't come to this site because they have no need to flee from the controlled platforms. They have Reddit, including the Christian subreddits.

For those devoted to atheism but are global posters here, they can start up a thread on their home board to discuss with those who share their political metanarrative. Probably leftypol.

>>8004

Normal atheists don't have a need to discuss being atheist, it isn't part of their identity or something that matters to them. Only leftist fedora atheists care about atheism as a thing, and they aren't here because they require a censorship heavy hugbox.

I have a few general questions:

#1: What is the consistent Protestant response about the issue of the canon when confronted with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?

#2: What's the consensus here about the Church Fathers? Were they apostates? Were they saved, but had odd ideas? How much can one rely on them?

#3: How far can different churches disagree about certain doctrines before being heretical (e.g., doctrines concerning the Lord's supper, free will, grace, etc.)?

#4: What is this board's thoughts on Freemasonry? Historically, many Protestants have been Freemasons, so has anything changed? If so, why?

>>8008

1

The Roman Catholic talking point about canonizing on it's own authority, and the Protestant removal of books, is false as a matter of history. The 66 book Canon predates the counter reformation canonization of the apocrypha.

Each book is canon or not at the point of writing, and we are able to verify its authority through internal biblical comparison.

2

Entirely depends on which father. As a general statement, the fathers are heroes of the faith but each one potentially deviates from biblical orthodoxy on any given issue.

3

As far as they can justify exegetically

4

Freemasonry is evil and always was

>>8008

Let me explain further on point 3

In the literal sense, anything that is not orthodox is heterodox, and our source of authority on orthodoxy is holy scripture. We generally reserve the terms "heretic" and "heresy" for a strong sense of discord though, on a fundamental topic.

There are doctrines around the Lord's supper, free will, and grace that I will declare as heresy without reservation; communion as a necessary work for salvation for example is entirely inconsistent with Ephesians 2.

I will not call someone a heretic if they allow open communion in their church even though I think the biblical answer is closed communion, I would only present a case for my view.

>>7494

>>7512

>>7517

>>7522

>>7541

>>7632

>>7634

Update:

Found a Zondervan NASB Study Bible, an ESV Study Bible, a CSB Study Bible and a Criswell NKJV Baptist Study Bible all on Ebay for ridiculously dirt cheap, and bought them.

In the meantime, I've also been reading more of the MEV, and comparing it alongside other translations via biblegateway.com . Overall, at this point I've think that it is a superior to the NKJV in terms of being a more readable version of the KJV in contemporary English. Why?

Well, as y'all probably know, there have been several attempts to do subtle updates to the KJV (i.e. 21st Century KJV, KJV 2000, Modern KJV, American KJV, KJV Easy Reader, etc.) But that's the problem with these translations: they're too subtle, to the point of being pointless. They all essentially follow this model of translation: update some of the more archaic words, and sometimes remove the thees, thous, ye's, etc. But they do a half-hearted job of updating the language (i.e. some shockingly archaic terms are still present), and the archaic syntax is left untouched, thus leaving a lot of the difficult passages still difficult to decipher, and/or they update words that don't really need updating in the first place (anyone can figure out that sayest = say, etc.). In other words, the "updates" are so minimal in terms of making the KJV more readable, that you're honestly better off just getting a KJV Study Bible with footnotes and commentary to navigate the archaic and difficult parts, and just completely disregarding the various minimal update versions.

The NKJV is follow an overall better, but still similar path. It tries to balance maintaining the poetic qualities of the KJV, while at the same time updating it to more contemporary English. Because of this, you get an experience in which you will read smooth modern passages for a long time, and then run into these archaic language/syntax speed-bumps that are just as frustrating as they were in the KJV, as outlined here: >>7511 .

The ultimate reason why I think the MEV is superior to the NKJV, is that for the most part it avoids this dance of contemporary English with archaic poetic quality altogether. Instead of trying to maintain such a difficult, if not impossible, balancing act, the MEV sets out to be the KJV in modern English in a formal equivalence fashion. The result is a fairly consistently smoother read than the NKJV. I also suspect that this greater readability is also due in part to the MEV translators adopting a translation philosophy similar to that of the ESV and NASB. In fact, comparing some passages on bible gateway, I find that some of the MEV reads exactly like the ESV or NASB or very close.

In short, if you want a version of the KJV that you can read without pulling your hair out, or looking at footnotes and commentaries every 5 seconds, or just want a modern rendering to accompany, compliment and aid in your understanding of the KJV, I heartily recommend the MEV, as a much improved NKJV.

>>8018

You really did your homework

>>8009

>>8010

>>8011

Thanks for your replies, guys. I have a few more questions upon reflection:

#1: What's the answer to the Catholic/Orthodox charge of disunity among Protestants that "proves" them wrong?

#2: What is the status of the Jews?

#3: Is there a concise list of denominations that shows which one should avoid (e.g., avoid the PCUSA, favor the OPC and PCA)?

Would you rather be in a shitty orphanage or have 2 gay or lesbian parents?

>>8093

Orphanage easy

>>8035

Thank you again, brother.

>>8093

Orphanage, hands down.

Miserable conditions are far more preferable to being under the influence of sodomites.

>>8031

>#1: What's the answer to the Catholic/Orthodox charge of disunity among Protestants that "proves" them wrong?

Protestants generally don't hate other protestant denominations, and the meme that they're all at each others' throats is just a meme. My gf's family is protestant, and her parents, sister, herself, and her grandparents all go to different denominational churches. Whenever they get together (which is frequently, her family is really close-knit) they all realize that they love and worship the same God, the minor details that make their denominations different don't matter that much. Another example: I was watching a YouTube video from Apologia church in Arizona, and the pastor was out talking to Mormons about why they're wrong (I hope you can agree that Mormons are not truly Christians). He had a friend with him who was a different denomination, and they were totally on the same page in regards to the gospel message. He even referred to the man as his brother in Christ and pointed out how they got over their minor differences.

>#2: What is the status of the Jews?

Unsaved unless they repent and trust Jesus.

>>8110

That apologia guy is insufferable. I don't know how you can stand anything he does other than debating mormons.

>>8116

I mostly just watch the Mormon debates since I don't have much experience with debating Mormons, but I've seen a couple of his other videos. What makes him so insufferable to you?

>>8031

>What is the status of the Jews?

Still the synagogue of Satan.

I find the idea of woman liking other woman to be repulsive; I don't find male gays to be repulsive because men actually like sex so it makes sense they would slip into sexual deviancy. Am I homophobic or am I just an involuntary virgin who thinks lesbians pose the greatest threat to my love quest and gay men are good because they don't get in the way.

>>8351

You've been made tolerant of male gays by your surrounding society since that's what they're pushing

>>8354

But why am I not tolerant of female gays?

>>8355

My guess is that you aren't inundated with pro dyke propaganda like you are for pro fag

If a supernatural entity appeared to you and demanded you bow down and worship him would you do it?

>>8408

Unless it's Christ Himself, no

>>8408

The story of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego would seem to say you shouldn't, but I wonder if the principles of Abraham lying about his wife and Rahab's lie would allow you to just perform the motions of worshipping an evil spirit.

And what about Paul's teaching that eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible, because there is no such thing as an idol.

>>8412

I thought the early Christians avoided eating meat that was sacrificed to Idols. It was apparently one of the ways they socially ostracized themselves causing anger and persecution.

>>8415

1 Corinthians 8

>>8435

Why would you not learn koine Greek if that's what the text was written in?

>>8474

Soulless modern architecture?

does anyone have the pic of that "church" where the ceiling forms the head of a serpent with the stained glass windows making snake eyes? I think it was Joel Olsteen's church but I might be mistaken.

Damn, Owen Wilson has really hit the slids

>>8435

A little, but with 2,000 of the language changing it is defiantly not as easy as reading English from 400 years ago. Do as >>8437 suggests unless you have another reason to learn NT Greek.

>>8486

Maybe the only reason why they act like that is because they have to deal with the religious?

>>8486

>>8488

meant for

>>8487

>>8488

Why would they act like that because they have to deal with religious people? They worship the self and throw away any sense of absolute morality so their entire worldview boils down to "it feels good so its okay".

>>8474

A world without religion is a logical impossibility. Humans would not be recognizable in such a hypothetical world.

A belief that the supernatural does not exist is religion. A belief in the God of the Bible is religion. A belief in plethora of Hindu gods is religion.

Greedy pursuit of wealth (or sex, or drugs, or status) is religion.

<Matthew 6:24 NASB — “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

So what's the appeal of this board? It seems just like the opposite of /christian/ as a non-catholic/orthodox safespace. I see the same amount of denominational shit-flinging and disunity.

>>8574

It's a Christian imageboard with no censorship, as opposed to /christian/ which has clear censorship with a Roman Catholic bias. It is not a safe space for anyone.

The appeal is a fair ground for discussion.

>>8574

>a non-catholic/orthodox safespace.

It's that way because most non-Catholics/Orthodox have been effectively "excommunicated" from /christian/, and for obvious reasons, most Catholics/Orthodox are loathe to leave their own hugbox at /christian/ (though to be fair, there have been a few Orthodox here that have expressed displeasure at /christian/ as well.)

>>8574

>same amount of denominational shit-flinging

This place would have to up its game to come near the shit-flinging of the papist hug-box

>>8864

It's a command of God since Noah

>>8864

You can't

>>8969

Present your argument

What is the general consensus on attending a church that is outright heretical, or at least is in disagreement with your doctrine, in certain circumstances?

For example: When I was younger, me and my family attended a family member's wedding at a Mormon church. About a couple years ago, I went to a Mormon church for a friend's wedding reception. I've also attended a Catholic church for special events for my niece and nephew (first communion, putting on a play, graduation from Catholic Middle school etc.) During these times, I didn't feel too bad due to attending such events for friends and family, and not for religious reasons.

Nevertheless, a friend recently invited me to attend a church service at his church which has a female as the head pastor. Part of me was tempted to attend one time out of politeness, but mostly, I felt horribly uncomfortable and compromised about attending such a service, especially since it's explicitly for religious purposes. My daily devotional today including the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife sealed the deal, as God basically telling me loud and clear that I'd be committing spiritual adultery. So I plan on politely telling him that I can't go for the aforementioned reasons.

Still, it got me thinking: are the other times in which I attended churches for family/friend event reasons spiritually adulterous as well?

>>9195

Visiting a church is not the same as becoming a member of that church. You can go to a wedding in a catholic church without implying that you subscribe to catholic doctrine, same with mormon or even islam imo.

You can attend a sunday service of a disagreeable group too, but to sing during worship is wrong.

>invited me to attend a church service at his church which has a female as the head pastor

I agree, don't go. The expectation is that you put yourself under the teaching of the woman, and that you worship alongside that disobedient body.

>My daily devotional today including the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife sealed the deal, as God basically telling me loud and clear that I'd be committing spiritual adultery

Are you a prophet? If not, that's a faulty conclusion.

How often do you guys exercise? I train for bodyweight strength 6 days a week.

>>11294

I just go for walks and jog every other day.

Adam.

Umbilicus or anti-umbilicus?

>>11315

Are you asking if he had a belly button? I think he didn't, and neither would God the Father in physical form

>>11315

Didn't come from a womb so nah

>>11298

That's really good, walking is calming and jogging makes you feel a nice sense of freedom.

>>11324

Thanks, bodyweight training is harder than weights imo so kudos to you

Where's a good place to look to purchase a Bible?

>>11569

Amazon

Local Bible stores like lifeway

>>11569

Amazon or Ebay. You can get really good deals on those sites. Multiple times I've gotten 50 or even 80 to 100 dollar Bibles for 1/3rd of that price or less, and in very good to like new or outright new condition to boot.

Steer clear of Christianbook.com for the most part. They'll have "sales" and "discounts" that seem like the deal of a lifetime, then they hit you with so much shipping and tax at checkout, that the "great deal" you thought you were getting virtually amounts to nothing.

I don't understand how Pope Francis wasn't automatically excommunicated when he presided over that Andean idol-worshiping ceremony. How can Catholics still obey him as the Pope?

>>12036

You have to remember that the church in Rome is not a monolith, Francis and most stringpullers are Jesuits, and many/most catholics do not pay that much attention because their catholicism is a matter of culture or nationalism. It's a very tricky political situation. Also, most people would call your view of it an exaggeration.

Your average catholic on the street takes the authority of the pope for granted and does not even consider the possibility of him being removed, to them God divinely placed him there.

How is killing yourself to please yourself saves the rest of mankind from your own judgement?

>>12036

1. Deposing a Pope is not easy, you need to call a Council with Cardinals, Bishops, make a formal accusation (since material heresy and formal heresy are different), and all kind of things for the process. A lawyer expert on Canon Law could answer this well.

2. In the past most pious normal catholics would never get recent news of Rome but much later. Now we have instant news… but most are not pious anymore, but lukewarm, secular, non-practicing. This happens in other religions, the modern world affects us all.

>>12042

By being God.

Your sacrifice or my sacrifice would mean nothing regarding the salvation of other souls since you and me are creatures, since we as creatures are "worthless" while His Worth is infinite, a single drop of His Blood was enough for salvation. We're nothing, He's everything.

Also

>killing yourself

Incorrect, sacrifice and suicide are different. In fact, they are opposites regarding intention (Love and selfishness).

Should I stop watching South Park?

>>12285

>Should I stop watching South Park?

You'd probably benefit from nothing watching anything that a TV spews out. Go watch a sunrise instead.

>>11569

>>12025

>Amazon

>A good place to get a bible

Why would you buy a bible from a Jew with a lazy eye? Especially the one that happens to own the Washington Post?

https://www.ligonier.org/store/type/bible/?sort=featured

>>12296

Because Amazon is a marketplace not a seller

>>12302

>Because Amazon is a marketplace not a seller

1. They get a cut.

2. They are a seller as well, though obviously there are third party sellers too.

There's a video game that I have that I have a love/hate relationship with. A group of friends and I can play together and typically have a good time, but other times the game becomes infuriating with a toxic community and tempts me to sin in more ways than one. Should I uninstall the game or only play it selectively?

>>12311

>and tempts me to sin in more ways than one.

In what ways?

>>12319

Well, anger is the obvious first one, and to cope with it and get the excess energy out, I often fall into Odinism to get to sleep.

Where did all the orthobros go? There isn't even an Orthodoxy General here atm.

>Inb4 I should make one

I can't; I'm still just at the phase where I'm interested, but have yet to attend a service. I'm anxious as heck about actually attending, as pathetic as that sounds.

>>12548

If you earnestly asked for salvation, you received it. John 3:16.

You cannot lose this salvation. John 10:28.

I'm no fan of Steven Anderson as a theologian. He's mistaken on a number of things, potentially right in that video. He is a great soul winner still.

Whether Steven Anderson has doctrinal flaws has nothing to do with the truth of the gospel.

We've talked about the "Protestantism's big justification lie" video around here before. He cherry picks apparent contradictions made by calvinists and makes a Biblical case against them on the topic of forensic justification.

He then acts as if this calvinist articulation of justification is the only one, and so concludes that protestantism is an untenable position.

Obviously, this is not the case. There are calvinists and noncalvinists who do not argue for this concept. It's guilt by association.

This is not a satisfactory refutation of protestantism with an affirmative argument for an alternative system. I'm surprised you found it compelling as an Anderson convert because he hates calvinism more than Catholics do.

I don't know anything about the sede videos. The whole catholic world starts from the assumption that there is an institutional church founded by Christ with exclusive apostolic authority, so that's just a debate about who the rightful inheritors of that authority are. We protestants reject the presumption. The catholic church is the invisible church, the rock upon which the church was built was the confession that Christ is Lord.

Remember your spiritual milk, the basics. What is the gospel? How is man saved? You can't deal with the more technical issues of theology before you have a firm footing on these.

When you watched these, what in particular gave you cause to doubt sola fide?

>>12554

glad to hear it

>>12556

Nope. Kinism is the Biblical view of race.

Hi. I am a bit dull and need help with a few things. I am Catholic if that matters.

1. If God is infinitely merciful why did he flat out kill Lot's wife for glancing over her shoulder that one time? I mean she couldn't have even had the chance to repent and seek mercy. She was just flat out killed for a moment of weakness, which is completely understandable given the circumstances. I will tell you what I commit worse sins than looking behind myself on a weekly basis. How is that justified as God being merciful?

2. I have a priest who has told me in confession that saying "Oh My God" does not constitute as taking the Lord's name in vain. He said something about it only counting if you use the "Yahweh" spelling/pronunciation. He also claims porn is sometimes not a mortal sin because it can become a habit. Is there validity to these statements?

3. To what extent do we have to go out trying to convert people as Christians? Almost all of my IRL friends at this point are Atheists and Pagans. How actively do I have to address this problem? When does it become a sin to passively sit by and let them keep doing their thing? I have little faith I can really do anything for them. Given I am a total scumbag. So franklyyyy what is to be done?

>>12564

Glad to hear it. Thanks, anon.

>>12565

>If God is infinitely merciful…

If you look at it another way God was already displaying mercy to Lot's family by sending for their evacuation, but yes Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt was not a display of mercy. There's an even more clear example in Uzzah touching the ark

>But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen nearly upset it. 7And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God. 8David became angry because of the LORD’S outburst against Uzzah, and that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day.

2 Sam 6

I'm not familiar with the use of the phrase "infinitely merciful". "Ever merciful" is a similar one.

God's merciful nature doesn't mean he never judges or condemns, but remember ultimately anyone at any time can be saved by faith. Lot's wife and Uzzah I would say are likely in heaven, which is more important than their earthly life.

>"Oh My God" does not constitute as taking the Lord's name in vain. He said something about it only counting if you use the "Yahweh" spelling/pronunciation

The commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain is about irreverence. I would say whatever name you're using needs to be done in a reverent way, and not only "Yahweh". YHWH is called the tetragrammaton, and there's a number of different opinions on how to render it in English or other languages. If you say Jehovah or Yahweh, or if you just say God, everyone knows who you're talking about.

Saying "Oh my God" is wrong if you're being irreverent, like saying "Goddamn" or "Jesus" as an expletive. There are fine times to say these things still.

>To what extent do we have to go out trying to convert people as Christians

The great commission commands it

>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

>Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

>How actively do I have to address this problem?

Honestly, as actively as possible without being offputting. Anyone who dies without a saving faith goes to hell. It's very urgent.

At the same time, your obligation is to share the gospel. You aren't a failure if your friends don't convert and you can't get stuck on that.

>>12564

>>12567

That said, this brings up another question of mine. Are there any churches which have a greater likelihood than others of meeting fellow Kinists? It seems like the most-pozzed parishioners in every denomination are the most vocal, at least on normalfag websites, making it very hard to gauge the actual situation.

t. Leaf stranded in Canuckistan

>>12565

>He also claims porn is sometimes not a mortal sin because it can become a habit.

There is some truth to this in the catechism.

<On masturbation (2152): Conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors can lesson, if even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

One could conclude the same with pornography, since research shows it functions very much like any other kind of addiction. I would nevertheless be very cautious about regarding it as just venial, since at least for me it often lies in a grey area, and I would leave it up to my priest to determine if it was mortal or venial in that particular circumstance. To be on the safe side I usually just confess it as a mortal sin; if it's venial, it never hurts to confess them either.

>>6200

Your Catholic friend has the right Church, but the wrong understanding of the Bible. Every single word of the Bible was inspired by the Holy Ghost. It is infallible.

The post Luther Bibles, including KJV, have whole books cut out.

Get a copy of the Douay–Rheims Bible. It is a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate, without anything removed.

>>12584

For the millionth time

The reformers did not remove any books. The RCC did not formally canonize the books in question until the counter reformation.

A more accurate statement would be that the two traditions split and then reached different conclusions about which books to recognize.

The KJV included the apocrypha, it just called it apocryphal.

Translating from a translation is by definition inferior than direct translation from the source language.

Today I learned from a friend that marriage is not considered a sacrament by the protestant church. According to him, since the marriage is not a sacrament, it does not include a blessing from God and the holy spirit, but merely the blessing by man (the priest). That's also one of the reasons many of them allow homosexual weddings since apparently God isn't even involved in this ritual.

So what's the point of marrying in the protestant church then? Frankly, if this is true I'm quite disappointed since I always considered marriage blessed by God a beautiful and important rite. I was already quite annoyed by the fact they have female priests, but being wed by a woman AND getting the blessing from her and not from God seems too much.

I don't want to become a catholic but idk, being protestant doesn't seem that great either.

>>12631

Well in the first place the point of marrying in either church is to get married and because that's your church.

The word sacrament either means something that confers grace, or it's synonymous with ordinance. Most Protestants don't call marriage a sacrament because there's not a biblical reason to. Mark 10:9 still exists, God created marriage and affirms the wedding, and any attempt at divorce is sin before God.

I have never heard of a wedding where God wasn't invoked to bless the marriage.

>I was already quite annoyed by the fact they have female priests

Don't go anywhere there's female clergy.

Don't go anywhere that affirms gay marriage.

Liberal Christianity is not a branch of Christianity, it's a new religion altogether.

Here's a book about it https://archive.org/details/christianitylibe00mach_0/mode/2up

>>12637

>Don't go anywhere there's female clergy.

Good luck finding a protestant church without female clergy in Germany. And yes, they do allow homosexual weddings and they dont't even have a choice since the upper church leaders came up with this s—.

The only choice is either to submit to this female homo nu-church, or become a catholic or some JW cultist.

>>12640

Haven't heard of them, I'll check them out. Although I think you should always be cautious with smaller christian denominations because there is a risk of it being some weird cult.

>>12654

Orthodoxy would be my denomination of choice. It's pretty based, traditional, aesthetic. Sadly, not as present where I live. Germany doesn't have its own orthodox church, it's has mainly branches of russian, serbian, greek churches mainly consisting of ethnic worshippers.

>>12791

Will pray for you. I know masters programs can be grueling but there is light at the end of tunnel

Is there any truth to what he is saying about paganism/pantheism having a pattern structure of Father god, mother god and the son of god?

How do I pray?

Are there certain steps I have to follow?

>>12823

The bible says to go to your room and close the door, als read the cermon on the Mountie by Jesus for more detailed instructions.

I’m Methodist. My church has the sodomy vote coming up in May. The pastor has made little mention of it until last week, when in conversation after the service, he came out unequivocally against the prohibition of fags in the pulpit. He’s a liberal, but the church is pretty conservative. At this point, I might ask for prayer for my church that we vote the right way.

Most pertinently now in my mind is the issue of communion. Is it okay to take communion from such a guy under full knowledge of what he stands for?

>>12863

How is that split going, by the way? I heard news that hopefully you won't be forced to leave and form a new denomination, but instead it might be the fags that will be forced to leave, like what happened with the LCMS Seminex crap in the 70's.

>>12864

Anon. Sadly I know that feel. Life is really hard, because we're not in Heaven yet. The questions you must ask yourself is why would you like to be satisfied? Is it some kind of consumerist drive? A Netflix religion search, searching for the next fix? I'm not Catholic myself, but Catholics have a giant advantage that most Protestants overlook. The Saints. You are not alone, people have lived before you and had the same struggles as you do. Or as Ecclisiastes says it "nothing is new under the Sun". I would suggest you read Confessions by (St.) Augustine, it is an eye-opener and I think the book takes up some of the themes that worry you. I will pray for you to find peace with Lord. God bless you Anon.

>>12631

Well, your friend should learn dogmatics. I can tell why Lutheran's don't consider marriage a sacrament. A sacrament is something that is created by God (marriage is, but wait), gives grace (marriage doesn't) and has something material connected to it (marriage doesn't). Word of God gives grace, but it's not a sacrament as it has nothing material - it is God's work in the heart of the believer. The only two sacraments (legit churches) recognize are baptism and eucharist. Also, I don't see why some Protestans claim that bread doesn't remain Jesus' body after the words of institution - that's just some weird Protestant pragmatics which I don't agree with. Hope it was a good answer.

Also:

Don't listen to heretics, but remember that even though the priest is a woman her sacraments and her preaching are still legit as it is God's a not her work, if she's a bad preacher find a normal priest. If someone marries gay-homos in the Church, ignore their propaganda and pray for them. Maybe they're lost, and need a sign from God.

>>12864

Sounds like you need to examine your reasoning for wanting to be a "tradcath".

Personally, I was in your shoes a little less than a year ago, except I was an Orthodox catechumen and ended up leaving after a lot of soul searching.

I've been reading things from catholic.com, is the website legit?

>>7071

Amen!

>>12631

look up a "covenant wedding"

Plus- if the vow is made Sincely to God by each party- its official.

>>7134

we are the church.

God tells us what to do- not to do.

We are to obey the law ( even Jesus said as long as we dwelled here at all amoung luciferians) to the extent that we can (finacially- ethicall [no God contradiction]) we should.

Divine revelation and direction- transcends the law and makes clear the identity of the Saints.

We can however reveal our markings: symbols/tatoos/ to show evidence of who owns us.

" Therefore let no man doubt my faith- ad I bear on my body the brandmarks of the Lord Jesus Christ" (paraphrased) - bible/ God

>>12878

i like the symbolism of the rings- especially in a spiritual context.

plus, since we are but human- it serves as a reminder- unlike a stone- more like wings :)

>>12803

What's " Vespers"?

>>7444

"Going to hell over a movie"

I say we stay in close relationship with the trinity- so close that we know even whe we cant feel/see/hear Him we still know He is here in our mist. As that becmes solid- because of all aspects of God and his manfestations- we might be refined- not offended or codemned.

know this: even in our wanderings- He seeks an audience with us, if we love Him.

He does not know how NOT to.

>>8973

Just like God is using the race card for His glory- ie: satan can push an agenda and God can turn it into a prism of Unity and His Glorious creation. (truth from lies).

So will the alien invasion reveal the spiritual gifts of the Saints. This part of the plan will shine a light on the word "alien". ( define it).

>>12568

This is good!

How do I find my patron saint as a Catholic, returning to God and I wish to have a saint look upon me and pray to God for me, I know Mother Mary is the obvious choice but I've been looking at Nikolas Tavelic who was a martyr I think I can look at his him someone who had unending zeal and strength in his principles.

>>12927

Never mind, I've chosen Mother Mary or Our Lady of Guadalupe.

>>6221

>>6222

>>6227

>>6225

Do not speak so casually of these things, if you have a problem ask of the Lord and do not trouble your brothers with foolishness, and inspire sin in their hearts as well as yours.

>>6477

Martyrs and Prophets of Christ are in Heaven.

>>6536

There is no single answer. The world is not information to comprehend, but ask of the Lord and have the Holy Spirit be a witness to you.

>>8008

Never ask a Catholic about Freemasons, they never get exposed to good info. The Freemasons were an esoteric order built out of the Masons (builder guilds) of the Medieval period. They developed a system of initiation that was meant to bring the individual into spiritual ascendancy through the attainment of gnosis via ritual and the deepening of how Masons engage with their various religious traditions as informed by perennial wisdom.

Sabbatean Frankist Jews infiltrated Masonry and most western Churches and use their influence to essentially make things as debased as possible. They invert biblical morality and eventually caused the Masons to be gutted of effective membership, which is why they are in a bit of a spiritually weak place at the moment with loads of profane normies involved. Catholics hate Masons because Masons infiltrated them after themselves being infiltrated by Sabbateans. Sabbateans also formed the Donmeh Muslims in Turkey. They still exist.

>>8631

yeah honestly am Ortho and came for that reason

>>12037

this is a very fair telling of the mindset of most everyday Catholics, who are theologically and scripturally Orthodox unless they buy extra into the "Roman" part of Catholicism, which is not every Catholic

>>12293

it is indeed all three brother. Cling to the Church when she is sick, minister to her and your own heart with your prayers, and have faith even unto the end of the world. There is much diversity even under a single mother Church, therefore have the Spirit be a witness to you

>>12533

My brother, come and witness the Holy Spirit! Be empowered to know that the man who reprimands you as you thirst for God condemns himself

>>12572

…Just go to a white Church bro.

do you like wild life th way I do,

I'm scared of spiders but that is changingw my respect for them, I love snakes thoughhuh,

just my intuition, salt & urine for attractsnakes, sugar & urine for spiders-bugs,

salt & urine for scorpions,

animals maybe salt sugar & urine,

I love animals huh, you guys

prolly respect animallife more than humans,

possible grow th wild lifearound you,

-Venom