>look at front page
>no /christian/ thread
Therefore, /christian/ thread.
>ITT: We discuss why Protestantism is a shit - tier heresy
Posted on /christian/ but not much response yet:
Is Christianity compatible with many worlds theory?
According to my understanding of the many worlds theory, if I take any action in this universe, then there are universes which exist where I did not take that action or took some opposing action.
So if I repent and accept grace in this universe and am justified on account of that choice, then shouldn't all humans be justified, because there exists a universe for each of them wherein they repented?
As far as I can tell, predestination is the only doctrine which escapes this because it recognizes God's just judgment no matter the circumstances or choices which a person has made.
Your post is flawed because it assumes the existence of many worlds. If that theory were correct, there would also have to be infinite versions of God, scenarios where Satan conquered, etc.
>there would also have to be infinite versions of God
Why? It only applies to contingent things.
Also, of course I assumed it exists, since the question is whether Christianity is compatible with it if it was the reality.
I was acquainted with an Episcopalian recently. He was the assistant of a Priest, and has ambitions to reach Bishop status.
He often translates ancient religious texts for fun, and came upon an interesting fact about ancient Christianity.
To quote him, "From what I can tell, the ancient undivided church seemed to be actually a mixture, in practise and doctrine, between the modern Anglicans, the Christian Universalists, the Catholics, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. No one group had doctrinal dominance, except in certain regions. They all held to the same core tenets, but either they were explained different ways, or the non-core tenets were more open to interpretation, and even the ancient Fathers held completely different stances on some things without getting heresy accusations thrown at them.
"For example, St. Augustine, St. Gregory and St. Clement held three completely different stances on salvation and original sin, but none of them called each other heretics or apostates, as they all held to the same core tenets. They acknowledged that whatever they taught on non-core matters was entirely theory, and not the sole official teaching of the church- as the church at that time only held to the Creeds as the benchmark of orthodoxy.
"It was more or less- believe as you will, but don't step outside the boundaries set by the Creeds and the first 4 Councils. (Or 3, in the case of the Oriental Orthodox.)"
>TL,DR: Christians were a lot more open-ended back in the day.
Because we're just in schism with the Orthobros - they like to cling onto a few differences and act as if they are justified in continuing schism - but otherwise we both have Apostolic authority, celebrate the seven sacraments, and proclaim the same faith.
Proddies, on the other hand... where to begin. They all believe they are more intelligent and capable at interpreting Scripture than the thousands of years of theologians who went before them - and then when they disagree they just go found a new 'church'. They are completely historically illiterate. We could go on forever.
So long story even if the Orthobros shittalk the Catholics all the time (although I'm pretty sure most of these guys are proddy converts to Orthodoxy) - we Catholics love our eastern brothers and constantly pray for full communion.
Well, for one thing Orthodox isnt very far off from Catholic, thats why they generally accept each other.
Prods on the other hand are fucking everywhere theologically, cause of their inherent sectarian disease (i dont agree with you ill go make my own church) they go and split up with minor disagreements and thats why instituted monstrosities like megachurches and mormonism exist.
The start of it all was the whole leaving the church thing. Many people who saw issues with the church before faught to reform it and did. What Luther did was just leave, making eay for the biggest catastrophe for ecumenicalism that has ever existed. It was bound to happen but that doesnt absolve it from its stupidity.
And im not even catholic or orthodox.
>my theology is older and must be best!
>my medicine is older and must be best!
>my technology is older and must be best!
I really look forward to catholics actually attacking the theology of Marty instead of just sidestepping it like that. Some real discussion would be neato
Continuity of teaching is a strong argument. Especially since it has stayed almost the same in two churches that have a lot of bad blood between each other.
It serves to prove that the faith in the form that was in early Christianity is still here.
As for arguing really there is an insane amount of reading of Catholic scholarship, I can recommend you some for further reading.
If Scripture is the only valid source of Biblical Truth, how do we know which Books are we too know as True? Why do we worship on Sunday, when the Bible says worship is to be on Saturday?
>They all believe they are more intelligent and capable at interpreting Scripture than the thousands of years of theologians who went before them
>implying the Catholic Church actually followed what some of the early Church fathers said and instead didn't just cherry pick whatever worked politically
>Thinks a Pagan 400 years after Jesus had the best ideas about international conflict.
If you learned your history you'd know there was massive opposition within the Church long before.
You know, Dante was just one of them.
Yes since most of us don't devote our lives to exegesis we aren't fit to have an interpretation of authority.
How many church fathers have you read? All were also neoplatonists and are mostly in line with Catholic/Orthodox teachings.
Catholic here. Can we of the apostolic churches put our differences aside and deal with the threat of this modern and decadent world?
There should be peace between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. Nestorians can come to despite their fucked up Christology.
I think it's more related to /pol/ Catholics who are often really stupid.
I'm a Catholic myself, but those guys can't seem to refrain from calling everything heresy. Even if it is it's not productive.
Really? Sure np - refuting Marty is easy mode
Justification by faith alone (whoops alone isn't in the Bible - silly Marty added it in - that guy :^)
A solid reading of James in contrast to Romans 9-13 should do the job
Sola Scriptura? Where's that in the Bible? Oh right, nowhere. In fact who does the Bible say is the arbiter of truth?
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
The other Sola's? I'm still confused how you can have five 'alone's' - maybe you can help me with that
On the Bondage of the Will - mysides.jpg, God creates evil, wohoo, kill all the peasants!
"Hey guys, don't worry about authority of interpretation, naturally everyone with sincere faith is going to interpret scripture the same way"
I'll just cap it off with some awesome Luther quotes:
"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day."
"Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes."
“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: Whatever has He been doing with her? Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
>rather having tradition over theology that are contrary to scripture
>as for arguing
I'm sure there are many books about it, that's not what I'm referring to here.
We can have extra-biblical and traditions, as long as scripture has authority over it.
>Why do we worship on Sunday
Don't you worship every day? I will need a passage on the saturday-claim, I'm pretty sure you're referring to sabbath which is not the same as Lord's day.
I'm Roman Catholic and my [spoiler]gf[/spoiler] is Ortodox. We decided to marry after finishing university, but the problem is - we never spoke about in which rite we will marry. Is there anyone that knows what 'should' I do?
Yeah, I disagree with loads of Marty's opinions outside of the book of Concord. Let's stick to the 'canon' of what defines Luther's protestantism
>sola fide is not in the bible!
Common misconception, sola scriptura is about how it is the only source of authority - not that anything extra-biblical is not allowed. Everything else, tradition, whatever you can think of is subordinate to the Bible, that is if they contrast with the word of God, then it should be discarded. Do you deny that the bible is true?
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
>If I am delayed..
Yeah, the universal, christian church contains the truth, I agree wholeheartedly with that passage.
Catholicism has the papal infallibility doctrine, which makes me laugh every time one Pope condemns a previous one. Also, transubstantiation is so hilarious. Don't know that much of Orthodox, though.
Popsci mumbo jumbo claims yet another clueless victim. Many worlds interpeetation is a way to do away with quantum decoherence and collapse of the probability wavefunction upon observation. Shit like macroscopic events where any quantum effects is so localised that it wouldn't be observable even in principle would not be in anyway affected by the existence of other worlds. It literally doesn't imply that every possible scenario in history is realized.
call no man father - Jesus Christ
call no man rabbi - Jesus Christ
and what does everyone do?
How was church today? What was the sermon about?
To all my catholic and protestant friends, how did your church handle all saints day?
> sola scriptura is about how it is the only source of authority
Which, interestingly, is not in the Bible! Pull 2 Timothy 3:16 - I dare you
>Everything else, tradition, whatever you can think of is subordinate to the Bible
Got a biblical justification for that?
>that is if they contrast with the word of God, then it should be discarded
Yes, things in conflict with Jesus should be discarded, or baptized or what have you.
>Do you deny that the bible is true?
I deny that the Bible interprets itself... Also, true in what sense? Literally true everywhere? Ahhh no - I don't think the world was created less than ten thousand years ago..
> For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead"
Oh, my, who shall arbitrate this dispute for us?
>Yeah, the universal, christian church contains the truth, I agree wholeheartedly with that passage
I have yet to visit the invisible church - I know it was invented in the sixteenth century and that it had never been taught in Christianity - but I keep on hearing about this invisible church. Sounds cool. Is there a building anywhere nearby? So glad Jesus was pure spirit and didn't come in the flesh amirite :^)
But if you really, actually, agree with that passage then you should go confess to a priest and formally renounce your heresy and be a good Christian.
his only power is Yehova's perfect justice and sinlessness which prevents him from doing anything to Satan which is not justified according to the covenants he has made with mankind. WE, as Adam, gave Satan his authority.
And Jesus is the only one who ever lived with the authority to strip the seals off the book and to look thereon. Behold! The Lamb! And with a flaming fire he will come, taking vengeance on those who know not God. That's why he will rule as King for ever and ever.
Serious question, is there any legit historical evidence that supports the Papacy tradition?
I've been reading pic related, no evidence of a pope to be found.
Saturday isn't a worship day, its a day to rest. Sunday became the day of worship because its the day Jesus rose from the dead.
The NT canon came about because the early Christian leaders had a strong tradition on which texts were reliable, and also based on the doctrine in said texts. FF Bruce is a good author on the subject
The papacy has more pros than cons. At least it forces the catholic authorities to gather and talk about a common stance. Thanks to it Christianity managed to evolve theologically not stagnate and call it tradition when there are whole legions of priests devoted to research philosophy to further the understanding of the universe in relation to the bible.
>Which, interestingly, is not in the bible!
Did you even read my post? The Bible is the only confirmed, true teachings which we accept as divinely inspired. Re-read my post and see how sola scriptura isn't just 'everything must be in the bible'
>Got a biblical justification for that?
Psalms 12:6: the words of the LORD are flawless
Psalms 119:89: Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm
Proverbs 30:5-6: Every word of God is flawless
The bible is the only confirmed source of authority that we got. Everything else might just aswell be false. So we should see the Bible as an authority over everything else, and anything which contrasts it is wrong.
>Literally true everywhere?
No, that has nothing to do with what I said.
>Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead
Yes, this means that works accompany true faith. Faith without works are dead, and works are a natural display of faith. That's what that passage means.
>Is there a building anywhere nearby?
Any christian church is part of God's universal church.
The role of the Bishop of Rome has evolved organically over two millennia, but the germ of the papacy is right from the beginning. "You are Peter"
The Patriarchates (the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West) all began to get formally established once the persecutions finally end. Undoubtedly there were Patriarchs during the persecutions but the Church was underground.
The name itself 'Pope' means Father, and any Patriarch, or even a bishop, could use the title if they wished. I know the Alexandria Patriarchate uses Pope as his title. Was Pope Shenouda III, but I'm pretty sure he died.
Anyway there is tonnes written on the subject. Finding unbiased literature can be a real challenge.
>The Bible is the only confirmed, true teachings which we accept as divinely inspired
Your forgetting the fact that the finer aspects of the bible have no sense if you don't analyze them from the perspective of philosophy/theology.
and how is that incompatible with what I said?
Sola scriptura is not that we can only accept the Bible alone as our source of learning and traditions, but that everything else is subordinate to the Bible.
I've already gone over this, what, 3 times now?
Protestantism is bad, but I feel like all the heresies that we put down are coming back to take revenge.
Predestination came back, Arianism came back, pelagianism came back and has even infected our church. I'm just waiting for gnostic heresies to come back as well.
Many of my fellow Catholics themselves are turning to heresy and saying it's okay. It worries me.
>Christianity in the middle east will be extinct in your lifetime
How do we stop the Jews from toppling secular dictators?
I don't mind going in circles really.
>The Bible is the only confirmed, true teachings which we accept as divinely inspired
On what authority?
>Psalms 12:6: the words of the LORD are flawless
Psalms 119:89: Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm
Proverbs 30:5-6: Every word of God is flawless
... yea none of those say anything about tradition or Apostolic authority being subordinate to the bible (also you're also throwing poetry and wisdom literature [which is talking about the Logos] at me - not a great foundation for doctrine - better off citing that we must dash the heads of infants against rocks)
> So we should see the Bible as an authority over everything else, and anything which contrasts it is wrong.
OK - are some parts more authoritative than others - because there are some serious contradictions in the texts - if yes does the bible provide the instructions for how to determine which is more authoritative?
I'll give you a tiny example: proddy heretic 'church' #1 says that gay is ok, and that scripture, properly understood, agrees with it
proddy heretic 'church' #2 believes that the bible is explicit in forbidding homosexual acts
who is right? both make arguments from scripture that they believe are clear and obvious
>No, that has nothing to do with what I said.
Well you phrased it in the vaguest possible way imaginable "is the Bible true - yes or no"
>Yes, this means that works accompany true faith. Faith without works are dead, and works are a natural display of faith.
That formula probably works for the Catholic Church - nihil obstat
>Any christian church is part of God's universal church
Woah, careful there heretic, remember it's: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - there are no 'churches' - Christ didn't pray for 30,000 denominations
>Yes, but is Anglicanism Protestant or Catholic?
They fancy themselves "the best of both worlds" so to speak, but they're closer to Catholicism, going as far as inviting Catholic priests to give their sermons.
It was, it just didn't form instantly. By that time you had something clearly formed, I didn't say it originated then.
If it was clearly formed then it means it was there a long time ago, something like the dogma of purgatory or immaculate conception.
Friendly reminder that every negative stereotype about Christianity comes from protestant swine.
>intolerant of others
>deny scientific fact
>think Jesus and God are their personal superhero team who intervene in everything from football bets to curing cancer
>keep money from poor
Many contemporary elements of Christianity that were missing from it's early period are due to them evolving along with the deeper understanding of the bible. Not to mention Christianity had a long and shaky start so they couldn't really focus solely on the theological aspect then. You can't just claim that it doesn't count because it wasn't there from day one especially if it has a sound theological explanation backed by the bible.
That's exactly how it was established in scripture and tradition. The tomb of St. Peter is under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
But to your point about the papacy as an institution not coming around until the 3rd or 4th centuries - I already answered this. The Church was under constant persecution from the first century until 313 with the Edict of Milan. So because the Church was illegal it obviously couldn't exercise any public ministry. There was, however, still a line of bishops in Rome going back to Peter and holding pre-eminence.
Can anyone give me a TL;DR of Christianity's stance on homosexuals and how they have been treating historically, preferably with some excerpts from holy texts or historical documents regarding homosexuals being stoned.
I was arguing with someone and I made a distinction between homosexuals and sodomites - he felt that it was largely semantic, but I didn't. They way I see it is that homosexuality itself was somewhat tolerated (don't ask, don't tell) as long as you didn't act out on your urges and commited sodomy, just like today we tolerate pedophiles as long as they don't commit child abuse. The act itself is the sin, not the sexuality of the person.
Am I wrong here?
Those are fictional events (not the cities themselves, but it being sacked by angels and whatnot) so I care little for it. I'm more interested in how homosexuals have been treated historically - and again, let's make a distinction between people who are homosexuals and those who practice homosexuality through sodomy.
What I want to know is: did people look the other way as long as gays showed self-restraint and refused to commit sodomy? I don't doubt that people that were caught in the act were stoned to death or publically shamed, but what of those who were born homosexual but didn't commit sin?
They treated it like the extremist Muslims do today:
>If you're pitching, you're still straight, but catching is gay as fuck
>if you're one of the upper classes, don't get caught
>if you're lower class, don't get suspected
In the last 100 or so years it's been more "love the sinner hate the sin" and then in the last 30 or so years culture wars have created a gay panic.
>The act itself is the sin, not the sexuality of the person.
>Am I wrong here?
Nope. That's the teaching.
I'm not googling the texts but there is the prohibition in Leviticus (right up there with eating shellfish), but usually Christians cite St. Paul where he scathingly attacks homosexuality. Of course St. Paul was always pretty scathing when he was attacking something.
In terms of Church history sins of the flesh were always considered less important than sins of the spirit. Homosexuality was usually more strictly condemned, but still widely practiced, but like all illicit sexual activity, was kept under wraps. You wouldn't get into trouble unless you were public about it or attempted to say that the act is not a sin.
Yes the crowd wanted to have anal sex with the angels, but that's not why Sodom was destroyed, it was destroyed because the people were fully corrupt. Sodomy being used as an illustration of how corrupt they were.
Nobody likes Anglo converts to Orthodoxy. Most of them are edgy milennial neets who are looking for an identity and like it because it's metal. Meanwhile the cradle Orthodox don't want them shitting up their ethnic club and going full aspergers by actually believing it all.
No, my response is
>God is God, He can exist anyway He wants. Deal with it.
"It's a mystery. I don't know" is just how you shittily choose to perceive it
God is an essence that our intellect simply can not fully understand.
If God can break basic laws about logic like the transitive property there is no point in discussing him.
Even if I gave you 100%, irrefutable proof that he has never, doesn't and will never exist. It wouldn't matter. Since he can break the transitive property just because he doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn't exist. You could never prove or disprove anything about him since he has full license to be a paradox in any manner.
Of course God can break the laws of logic that HE created. If He couldn't, then He wouldn't be God.
And it is impossible to discover the existence of God, or know His nature, unless of course He chooses to reveal it to us Himself.
a) I am expected to believe the Church Fathers thought like this? They did not have the convenience of such argumentations
b) The comparison is faulty. The six sides of a cube are not each the whole cube. They add up to the cube, and each is a "face" of the cube, but each 'face" is not equal to another "face', as Christianity claims with its "Jesus IS God and God IS the holy spirit, but Jesus IS NOT the holy spirit". It claims that the faces themselves not only each equal the whole, but that they are also not separate from each other. That is not logical. You can believe it, but don't act like it makes any sense according to human logic.
>Implying non-protestants aren't sinful.
No one can live a life free of sin; only Christ did that.
and this whole thread is a contradiction of James 4:12
Just leaving this here for you guys :) The dates and info of the texts are a bit liberal so should be taken with a grain of salt, but the texts themselves are on point
>Without the Catholic Church there would be absolutely no knowledge of ancient Roman history.
>absolutely no knowledge
There are other sources than the Catholics, not to mention that if there were no Catholics, there still would have been people (who in our timeline who did become Catholics) that weren't Catholic and did some recording.