Ask question, give answers, be kind to one another, and above all assist one another in living the virtuous life.
>OVERBIN, which is still in progress
>Remember that you can donate money to help the Assyrian Christians picking up arms to defend themselves and fight off ISIS.
>I would recommend to you all the CATHOLICISM documentary series by Fr. Robert Barron for a solid discussion of the faith itself. The series comes with a study program as well and is not being used as an essential resource on the faith.
>As a teaser, one of their episodes are here:
>Fr. Robert Barron is now filming a new Catholic documentary series on some pivotal players in Catholic history. He has a trailer and videos he's made while on the set where he discusses the faith.
Guys do remember that in the Overbin there are two community sections:
>Tales of Love
>The Beauty of Creation
Check them out and recommend things I can add to it so we can build it up for other posters to eventually come see
It's an ease of use thing. It aids the people, much like the screens that make seeing faces impossible to do. And, much like the screens, it's not always the case.
I'm catholic, but I can't accept the part about the pope being right with out question anymore.
I believe Mary was a holy figure and the communion of saints, but the infallible right is just too much for me. He supports Sanders and just spouting meme's. I can't back him.
I'm getting pretty weary about the Synod. It's pushing the limits of my faith and I'm one of the Catholics who sticks with what the Church says no matter what and despises conservatives who break away.
I am a conservative, but I just believe that the Church is right no matter what.
But I just don't fucking know anymore with this Synod document coming out.
I lost my Christ-chan folder. Can you guys help me out?
I don't think you grasp infallibility. The papacy has a power it can exercise, the infallibility is not an innate trait of the pope. Papal Infallibility has been invoked about 2-3 times in history.
It is not doctrine to agree with the pope but the pope is usually making claims and arguments that are weighted in scripture and actual doctrine so it's worth listening to.
That's a rash assumption.
I see there's a lot of hearsay taken too far about the synod rather than real content worth worrying about, honestly.
I gots you
To explain, in full, why one religion is false and not another would take a very lengthy amount of time and a wide range of topics need to be discussed but to make it easy:
>Hellenistic gods control parts of the natural world. We already know what controls those parts and its not them.
>Even if Hellenism is true in the most pronounced way, the Christian God would be ontologically superior to all of them simply by understanding what God is in Catholicism. The value of the Hellenistic pantheon would come much later in value over the Christian God.
>usual scholastic plugging of Aquinas' Five Ways to assert the existence of God as known by Christians
I'm not so sure about that. The Church has been settling down into conservatism again. The young priests are really orthodox. It's just a few old progressive faggots left. That said, now there's this happening, so who knows.
Maybe the Wolf poster guy is right and it's just hearsay that will amount to nothing.
I live in the west side of Houston, but went to lived in Galveston when I went to school
The jeep thing, and every year a Fuck ton of motorcyclists give and run red lights all damn day
Oh that it explains it, you're some idiot type. What branch of "Make your own Christianity" are you? What fake version of Jesus do you follow?
>I lost my Christ-chan folder. Can you guys help me out?
>God gave you free will
>Will torture you for all eternity if you don't use it how he wants
Why did he bother?
The Christ who died for all sin, rose from the dead, and went to heaven with the promise that I and anyone else would be saved should we accept and understand His sacrifice and infinite mercy.
Just dropped in to wish y'all a blessed evening.
What a progressive post, anon. I wish I could give you more than one upgoat
Why are you so retarded you can't even understand what hell is?
You mean the Christ who left us a church? One church? You realize the New Testament is a series of church authorities exercising that authority as a teaching body, right? You've thought this through, like, at all, right?
Do you think the Catholic Church had a part in putting the Bible together yes or no?
This comes from a poor understanding of "God's plan" in which free will is completely denied. It's only batshit insane if you frame it in this incorrect way.
People will make all manner of claims (without evidence or reason) as to why things were "all part of the plan" and the situation some - especially American Protestants - imply is one where EVERYTHING that occurs must occur deterministically as per God's plan. This is completely ignoring the doctrine of Free Will.
Holy crap why is this so funny
The concept of people torturing you in Hell is an extrabiblical one and had no bearing on doctrine. And you muddle up the reality of the situation when talking about "using it how he wants".
Thank you, man, same to you.
How do I know you though?
FSSP pastors sermon was about Cali assisted suicide. He finished with "if someone commits suicide, don't call me for last rites or a Christian burial. ". Repeated it twice, the end. No V2 good feels.
He also plucked the hat off a homeless guy who was sleeping in a pew. Homeless left. Gave me a chuckle.
>You mean the Christ who left us a church? One church?
All Christians are of one church in Christ anon, so of course I agree with that.
>You realize the New Testament is a series of church authorities exercising that authority as a teaching body
You realize the New Testament is a series of Christians with evangelical responsibilities carrying out those responsibilities as a teaching body, right?
Except that Christians can't disagree with each other and there's only one truth. Paul and Peter had to fight it out and come to an agreement. They didn't just teach different things about circumcision.
One church. Only one. How does it feel to be completely wrong and to know that the way you've lived your life is a lie and a disappointment to God?
Guys I don't like the direction this new pope is going.
Waay too marxist chic, not enough deus vult and crusade calls.
We should be echoing the Orthodoxy's call for holy war
I'm thinking of going episcopalian
Then don't use that word for it. You know what's being described.
Ever seen a chain email that's like, send this to five of your friends in the next hour and your crush will confess tomorrow, but if you don't a headless ghost girl will visit you tonight? And there's testimonials from people it supposedly worked for?
Same shit, just much more crude and obvious
The argument is not that modern Christianity is a cult, but rather, that it is descended from one. An end of the world cult specifically
There is only one true faith, how does it feel knowing the gods find you puny and insignificant as any other heathen unbeliever?
What is it like knowing you will be eternally lost in darkness as you await Surtr's immolation during Ragnårok?
My point is Atheism's hero's biggest accomplishment is giving a name to something that already existed because he was too autistic to think of concept in any other way then through his field of study.
I just explained an instance from Acts where this exact situation happened and played out, you raging fucking retard? Are you deliberately dense or are you just a troll?
How does it feel knowing a random person repackaged an already legitimate and divine revelation (hebrew bible) just to craft his own religion that, while has SOME great moral principles, is FAR from actually believable on a physical level.
Why do you think I'm an atheist?
Because the god they mistakenly worship, which formed man and the Earth, is really Yaldabaoth, an accidental and impure emanation from one of the aeons which dwell in heaven. Yaldabaoth is malevolent and jealous, and by recognizing and forsaking him, and contemplating the divine totality you can actually be saved.
>mfw we're all still stuck here because of Irenaeus' faggot ass
So two Christians disagreed, then came to some agreement. And from that I'm to infer that Christians can't disagree with one another... even though they virtually always have, just as virtually all humans *period* have...
How do I reconcile the fact that God says I need to love everybody with the fact that most people are just fucking awful and I loathe them?
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that people are allowed to be cunts and we still have to put up with them regardless. Not only put up with them, but love them. I simply can't do it.
Would any of you honestly give a shit about a greater being if it wasn't for the implied threat of hell and heaven?
Actually, early Christian history is rife with dealing with and weeding out heretics. And are you seriously going to argue that there's more than one "truth" anyway? There was only one church and it was unified during apostolic times and up until your faggot Protty bunch decided to change things
I can't believe what a dumb faggot you are.
COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE COMMIE POPE
Catholicucks confirmed for Cucks. Thanks for sowing the seeds of the death of the white race, assfuckers!
Jesus didn't get money for what he did, plus he sacrificed a lot of himself even before being killed. Cults tend to be for profit. Yes cults argue that everything else is structured that way, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact. The point of giving away your stuff is it makes you a better person who isn't controlled by money.
Helping the needy and preying on the needing are not the same thing. Is the red cross secretly a cult? How about doctors without borders. >>53972221
I wasn't really talking directly to you, just Dawkin fanboys.
>How do I reconcile the fact that God says I need to love everybody with the fact that most people are just fucking awful and I loathe them?
Think about how you were as a baby. Excited to learn and explore, the world just this big beautiful boundless expanse. Realize everybody was like that too once.
That is the real them, the real core of their being, same as you. It's life that made them shitty. Cold, difficult experiences. You can often overcome that programming by showing them an unexpected gesture of humanity.
Yes, because heaven and hell only indicate union with or separation from God. So really your question is tautology, unless you're a dumb retard like the trip fag Praceteom who is a retarded Protestant giving real Christians a bad name.
What? Judaism was born nationally, not individually, through divine revelation thus making it the most believable and legitimate religion ever made. Not to mention it is the basis for the 3 most popular religions in the world.
The Bible is not to be taken at exact face value, no book or retalling of events is.
Not even the Gylfaginning is 100% without a doubt, it makes no sense to have a 3000 year old manuscript, translated 7 times be absolutely true to the first edition written by the king of Sweden.
>And are you seriously going to argue that there's more than one "truth" anyway?
Who is doing this? I think there's one Truth and it's from God. I just don't arrogantly claim to know it perfectly like many Catholics seem prone to doing as a measure of completely illogical, irrational, intellectually bereft *DOGMA*.
What's the deal with Paul? This guy never meet Jesus IRL. He ends up getting a vision from him on some roadside with no wittnesses. Than he gets "messages" from directly into his head, something no one can verify but himself. This sounds a lot like Muhammad and his secret cave and secret messages from Allah Why does a guy who verify any of his teachings the oldest and primary bible author?
Is this a case of "it's true because the bible say's it's true" or rather "it's true because Paul said it's true"?
>DELUSIONAL ANACHRONISM GENERAL
Your religion is the result of Abraham's schizophrenia in an era when no concept of mental illness existed apart from the influence of good or evil spirits
That's a smart goal. Being crucified really seems like a pretty small deal knowing that people will worship you. Worship is totally worth extreme pain especially if you never get to see it.
Paul recognized the contents of this image to be true >>53972084
it's why he persecuted Christians until, on the road to Damascus, he realized the potential of their religion to propagate his own social attitudes about homosexuality, the role of women and so on
Paul was also an effete insufferable autist
So in spite of the fact that the Bible, which was made by the Catholic Church as a holy document to be used within the context of Church tradition, demonstrates that the Church was unified at the outset and was required to have uniform teachings and practices, you feel that this isn't good enough to prove to you that the Church should be unified? I can't believe this faggot. Of course dogma would exist when there's one truth! Jesus left us a Church, not a book, to sort this very thing out.
He didn't expect to die. It's his followers who fought, after that, to ensure he would never be forgotten. This is the typical grief driven explosion in evangelism that always follows disconfirmation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails#Sequence_of_events
It was just written after the fact as if Jesus was always supposed to die
Hoo boy citations needed. I love when atheists throw about accusation like this knowing that they don't have the proof to back it up. You're basically just writing historical fan fiction in posts like this.
And like others who write fan fiction, you're a raging autist piece of shit.
>demonstrates that the Church was unified at the outset and was required to have uniform teachings and practices
They had essentially worked as volunteer in-home preachers, and you're going to tell me they serve as an example of perfect doctrinal unity and adherence to blatant dogma...
Christians have unity in Christ. They don't have unity in your illogical dogma, or if they do it's foolish.
Christians aren't supposed to disagree with Jesus and the scriptures foremost don't you think?
If so how come the Roman Catholic Church doesn't follow this part of scripture about having bishops have wives and children?
1 Timothy 3: 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Early Christians worshiped both in the temple and in some homes, but that has nothing to do with anything. The Bible and history shows us that yes, doctrinal unity was an extremely big deal. Have you read the NT, and how the epistles are largely about correcting doctrinal issues? Do you know about the major heresies?
You're pretending there's a difference between dogma and Christian unity, but that's a false distinction you've created in your head to justify your own heresy. Protestantism has no reason to exist. No one denied that there should be one Church until Protestantism. No one denied the true presence in the Eucharist until Protestantism. No one denied the veneration of Mary until Protestantism. And this included those times in Church history when people who knew Jesus in the flesh were still alive.
Fucking heresy and self-delusion on your part. And you're proud of it. Hell's waiting...
Has anyone here experienced what they would consider a genuinely miraculous event?
>He ends up getting a vision from him on some roadside with no wittnesses.
According to the Bible at least there were witnesses.
>The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
But I don't think Paul really introduces any breathtaking new ideas. If Paul started writing about how it's okay to rape nine year old girls and slaughter those who don't believe in Jesus and Paul, then you might have a case for him not being on the up-and-up. But Paul even says he's only there to say what has already been said and spread the news.
Of course, if you think the ENTIRE Bible is just a hoax by Paul then this means nothing to you, but then why ask the question?
Some type of tiny anime baby, I believe. I saw an image that said it's name is "hammers"
Quote me one part of the Bible where Jesus said to follow the Bible. He left us a Church, not a book. The book is only relevant in the context of the Church. Priestly celibacy isn't a matter of dogma either, so your premise is bullshit.
That's not what I'm saying, you're jumping to the other end of the spectrum here. We went from "God made everything happen deterministically" to "God doesn't do anything because we have free will". We know from scripture and doctrine that reality lies in the middle.
>We have free will
>God will act to aid us in different ways
>We are free to accept it
>We have no immediate way to grasp God's plan in small details besides what we know from scripture
A good example of this being referenced is Thomas Merton (a famous Christian monk) and his famous prayer:
Please do read it
No need to lie, anon.
Glad he's well off, man.
We can never forget that God speaks to all of us, despite where we come from and our upbringing.
good talking with you
Feels irrelevant, man.
>How do I reconcile the fact that God says I need to love everybody with the fact that most people are just fucking awful and I loathe them?
Quote of the fucking day.
I seriously laughing, no offense.
You need to grasp three things:
>separate their sins from them as a person, thus realizing they are not the same things
>That they, whom are of creation, share the same source as you for their being (God) and through helping people or are also part of God's continued expression we give back to both God and ourselves
>Through expressing our life in love and charity we grow as individuals
Pic related. No one expects you to handle all situations but through trying we get far.
I give no fucks currently about the whole Heaven/Hell stuff and I don't parade it around to people either. There is so much more to focus on.
>Have you read the NT, and how the epistles are largely about correcting doctrinal issues?
The earliest Christians weren't perfectly sure what they were doing, so they were trying to work out how they'd do things. That's common human practice - organizing thoughts and striving for clarity/efficiency/truth.
But you and other Catholics are telling me and yourselves that we're to take what they worked out (and then later all the stuff that was added/removed/revised) and pretend it's incontrovertible truth when it comes from completely fallible, prone-to-sin, unworthy creatures known as men, of which I am among, without question.
That would be an utterly foolish and illogical thing to do.
Praceteom got BTFO so hard in this thread. Oh man, I feel so confident in my Catholic faith and strengthened by the inherent intellectual weakness in his sad Protestant outlook. Thanks you pathetic tripfriend! You've shown how weak and sad Protestants are once again!
>messages from directly into his head
This doesn't come to mind immediately. Source?
From my recollection he did much work after his conversion and his validity was confirmed by the apostles. I believe the apostles using their apostolic authority is where Paul gets his authority from.
The next level of cute anime chibi.
If something is completely true and can't be coerupted then it should be followed, right?
Phillipans 4 8Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 9Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
Jesus had confidence in the scriptures, why don't you?
John 10 35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"
How would you go about converting people who are having issues in their life? Mind you this is entirely hypothetical, but the dude I am looking at watched his parents die, got exiled form his homeland, returned only to watch his wife die and get exiled once more, then his girlfriend went into a coma.
My question is, if at all, do I help him see the light by channeling his anger into questioning why it happened and where it left him, or would I be better off just sitting him down and giving him a hug, even if I get stabbed a few times for it? Advice is welcome.
Why are you so retarded that you can't even respond to the post I made? You've already gone full retard quoting out of context verses at me. I was thinking about replying to this, but actually I won't, because you didn't do me the same honor.
Want to try your last post again? Like, this time actually engage with the points I made? You stupid fucking retard. I wonder if you'll go to hell just for being fucking dumb.
Wolf guy what do you think of my apologetics
Lol wow bro do you need exorcism? I think you just got owned in debate because you find more comfort in follow man made rules from the pope instead of the truth that is Jesus.
Are you debating that you think Jesus didn't consider the scriptures to be the pure and uncorrupted Word of God?
How did I not cover your point and how was the scripture I quoted out of context if it plainly backs up what I was saying? Doesn't anyone else think those verses chapters and books need a different type of extropolation?
What happened to the bloodline of the Nephelim? Was that the reason God made a covenant with the Israelites in the first place; since they had pure blood thus were the only capable ones of loving and following Him?
It's the only good one unfortunatly. There's some on that r34 website but they are very ugly.
What we really need is Christ-chan and fedora-chan holding hands.
That's generally Nietzsche's theory, trouble is it's very hard to find historical evidence. Paul does have the oldest gospels, the most gospels, and seems to have the most control over the religion.
For instance most of the other Christians thought it should be exclusive to Jews, the more liberal ones wanted it open to Goys that practice all the Jewish customs
Paul had the most radical plan of universal brotherhood and his version won out. He is definitively the one who had the most influence on the bible.
Also if it is true as some historians suggest that Jesus did not consider himself to be God than Paul would most likely be the one to change this. Saying he got special messages from Jesus matter more if Jesus is God.
Because I'm curious how the religion was really made. To what existent was Jesus's ideas altered to fit other goals? Who's goals? As I said in the above post Paul did introduce radical new ideas.
Also from a purely arguementive perspective it's a good question. Christians love to say that a lot of their ideas have multiple source documents. 4 gospels all talking about the same thing. But what source documents are for there the fact that Paul got his messages from God? If no such arguements exist it's literally "it's true because paul says it's true". It would mean that multiple books in the bible are way harder to trust. And if a false prophet could become the most importaint bible writer than it's really not an inspired word of God is it?
Does** dang auto text.
What is the bible to you? Is it just some stories written by man that only bishops have wisdom to interpret properly through some God given gift passed on only through the Roman Catholic Church?
You sound but hurt. I bet if your priests could follow scripture your poor young church members wouldn't be so but hurt either
1 cor 7 2 1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
>Jesus left us a Church not a book
>When Jesus refers to Scripture, he refers to the Septuagint, because the NT wasn't made yet
>Jesus obviously thinks that the Scriptures needed to be explicated because if he didn't HE WOULD NOT HAVE COME DOWN TO EARTH IN THE FIRST PLACE TO HAVE A MINISTRY and he would not have left a Church
>Protestants don't even use the Septuagint; they took out the books they didn't like
>You are literally quoting yourself into a corner and you don't know it
>The fact that there are a million different Protestant sects indicate that there needs to be a teaching authority
>The NT itself illustrates Christianity functioning in this way, and being unified
>You are so stupid man
You are the worst tripfaggot on this board get the fuck out of this thread I hate you shitting up every place with your dumb ideas and lame humor. Go go go.
kek back for more faggot? i don't think so you had your turn. go talk to outerlimit, the other complete shit tripfaggot in this thread.
it's getting so cancerous i might have to leave soon. also, fuck you dude
When I was a believer, I didn't get a sense that Peter was high on the totem pole but that Paul was the headmaster. It seemed like Paul was the most "inspired" of the bunch because I thought this would be fitting since he was a huge sinner and God used him to make an example.
It really is kind of suspicious... the whole thing with Paul, he makes a large portion. He has a lot of say and might really be responsible for Christianity.
A good follower of Jesus is known by his actions, not how well he knows and follows his church rules. Lol at openly discussing someone going to hell for being stupid because you don't like there non aggressive comment.
Matthew 715“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Watch this movie if y'all want to know something about Jesus and being Christian, op is Way off target and Catholic church is just obvious lol
I'm not too strong here, I must say, but there is much to know about a person to get into this situation seriously with them. To dismiss the obvious claim first off:
>How could God have done this to me?
We cannot say directly that this is to have occurred as per God's plan or not as we also have free will so asking why it happened or whom caused it is ultimately useless. Not only because of our lack of ability to grasp the full situation but because directing the anger only leads to revenge and hatred. These consume a person, hurting them. While you wish to defend in your own way something lost doing so does no good and offers little justice.
I would say that what is worth pursuing is a personal peace. This is where Catholicism steps in. Through a life dedicated towards love and overcoming of sins we both grow as a person and find that inner joy which we all desire. To live in sin only squanders it. But of course talking of sin is very forthcoming, it's best to express your beliefs in less "religious language" until discussion gets more intimate and familiar.
As for trying to grasp a positive message from his terrible tragedies, I find this useful. I could sum up the basics of the message but I think it's best you understand it in your own way:
It's a bit of a read but I'd say it'll be worth it.
I hope that help.
I can answer further questions if you want.
I hadn't read a word of it. I'll look over it now.
It's just something I heard. To be honest I haven't read any of Paul's books as they are not as interesting.
What I am saying is that you can build a historical case for a lot of bible events. For instance a lot Jesus's life. Even some of the more bizzare stuff like Jesus appearing to people after he died (hallucination, miracle, or a very well concealed lie, whatever you want to say).
Paul seems to be the odd ball though. Not even the other gospel writers seem to be able to back up his claims. To my knowledge the only written account of what happened on the road to Damascus is himself.
A coca cola guzzling, video game addicted, anime binging, FIEND. The princess of sloth.
No but seriously at least berate OuterLimits until he leaves. We're clearly not going to agree on Catholicism vs Protestantism, but OL is a pretty obnoxious faggot who spams walls of text and is definitely from reddit
Paul's ministry was the most well recorded. Historically it seems to have been the case that his work was also the 'most' influential amongst the very earliest Christians.
I hesitate to use the word 'inspired', because depending on how you're utilizing it I think it's inappropriate terminology.
>the only written account of what happened on the road to Damascus is himself.
Luke wrote Acts.
You have no argument. You believe the wrong thing because you haven't thought anything through. You are continuing to quote verses out of context and now you're throwing out Youtube videos, you're so fucking pathetic.
How stupid are you? The account of what happened on the road to Damascus is in the Book of Acts and his own testimony. And fuck you for talking bad about Umaru-chan I hate you so much get out of this board damnit
He's not an intellectually stimulating conversationalist; I think I'll pass. If you don't want to read him you could always filter him. You could also filter me - a boon of having a trip.
I don't want to filter you. It's not like OuterLimits. With him it's like, when he shows up in a thread you know it's basically ruined. I'm not the only one who thinks this either. Plenty of people bitch about him.
"Not intellectually stimulating" doesn't quite cut it. He's not only top tier fedora; the way he posts it makes me think he's actually looking for upvotes.
Gah maybe I will just block him. How will I know he's in a thread so I can hate him though?
Berating me will just turn the thread into a shit-fest. Have you noticed that my questions have actually been intelligent? Meanwhile there are true fedoras that just post >le 6,000 year old earth.
Catholic threads have been filled with atheists since they fucking started. At very minimum you should make comments to atheists intelligent.
If you want we can totally turn this into thread into mud-slinging! If it gets shitty enough so that there is nothing worth reading I will leave.
Wasn't Luke his buddy?
I literally can't stop laughing
Do you think it matters? Honestly I think if your denomination believes in Jesus Christ being God then it's good enough in his eyes. It's Jesus that saves you, not the church.
You've come a long way from talking about Dark Souls and Armored Core.
So far your comments on Paul have been garbage that is like Richard Carrier-tier. Also being a tripfaggot carries with it the responsibility of owning up to all your previously shit posts. So why don't you say something interesting about Paul then?
I'm particularly well-versed in everything Pauline so I will judge the quality of your comment harshly.
I think the truth matters. I think salvation in Christ and the glorification of God are the most important things, and I'm very glad Catholics have that salvation, but I don't think God ever encouraged men to blindly follow other men. Quite the contrary - we're told not to follow men and the ways of the world, but only God.
Question from someone considering RCIA along with my wife. We'd raise our kids Catholic (we have one 18-month-old right now).
What makes Catholicism different from current Protestantism politically? I can't stand how all the Christians I know and meet use their "faith" to advance the political beliefs they'd have regardless. I don't like that the pope comes to the US and lectures Americans about what we owe people rather than going to Catholic countries and chastising their governments for being thoroughly corrupt. That's bullshit.
If I raise my kids Catholic, is that just going to mean they end up being bleeding heart papist drones?
I apologize if this post seems disrespectful. I'm just struggling over this.
You sound like you're belligerently anti Catholic, so I wonder how you're going to RCIA. I mean good on you for being open to it, but I don't see a question in here. It sounds like frustrated complaints to me.
It's almost skillful how that image not only provided the community atheist-chan porn but also managed to capture the trend of poor theological claims spouted by atheists.
Well good to know you're on a good path, man.
You're doing a good job in the arguing department and do definitely know your material pretty well. However, I can't be supporting your tone behind speaking with people. Not to say I don't like you speaking your mind nor want you to hide your feelings but I'm very against berating the people you speak with as it shows zero compassion. There is an 'us v. them' mentality almost. I could only remind you to love even your enemy and point you to my advice here >>53973365
Note the second to last response in the post. The three things that need be grasped.
But, as I said, you know your stuff fairly well.
Read Scripture and pray on the matter. If you can't come to conclusions about things yourself, bring up your questions with others and try to ascertain what the best answers are.
Sometimes you're going to end up with things that affirm your preconceptions about how things are or should be, and sometimes you'll reach radically different conclusions. I would not be who I am if not for Scripture, that's for sure.
To me Protestantism has always been more clear on the idea that no one is greater than Jesus Christ. And honestly the whole thing about praying to other things in Catholicism confuses me.
>The account of what happened on the road to Damascus is in the Book of Acts and his own testimony
Paul exercises enormous control over the formation of the bible, more so than the first Pope. Peter's Gospel is rejected (to be fair it does contain some weird stuff like the cross talking directly to God). He does so because he has a special relationship with Jesus. And the only wittness to this is himself and his doctor friend. Isn't that a little suspicious?
The best Catholic generals ones were where you had a few users that really understood the theology going back and forth. Seriously 200 word posts about the details of the euchrist!
The obvious answer is because it creates 4,000 splintering sects that all change around doctrine and teachings. It opened the door for groups like the Universilists which deny core doctrine like the trinity. The newer liberal Protestant sects openly play n choose with the bible and even encourage it! It just makes sense to have trained specialists interpret the bible like the Catholics or Orthodox do.
>Death of le white race
Literally, only Church that opposes abortion and contraception, m8.
Oh, shit. That's right. I forgot that whites are dying out for reasons other than they're all nihilistic retards who kill themselves and don't have children.
>Wasn't Luke his buddy?
More than buddy, he was his brother. They were both Christians after all.
So when you said
>Not even the other gospel writers seem to be able to back up his claims.
You are demonstrably wrong because the author of Luke and Acts is the same person.
May God have mercy on you.
I think Catholics certainly hold none above Christ, though I think I understand what you're meaning by that. But I do think saint-ship is a misguided practice. I think the justification for it is very weak, and what is wagered on that justification is a commitment to sin in the form of idol worship at the worst.
I don't know Paul. That's why I am asking questions. Although you are right, I should have removed trip-fag for that.
>poor theological concepts
That's the point. Christ chan is a fucking creationistand Fedora-chan thinks New Atheism is a revolutionary philosophical movement!
When we were conceptualizing Fedora chan we imagined her as cringe-worthy edgy: she'd pick Akuma in street fighter, play a demon deck in MtG. In contrast Christ-chan is usually portrayed something like puritan.
In regards to praying to other things. Ever seen a Protestant pray to a tomb stone? The origin of "idolism" in Catholicism is very much based on respecting the dead. There's a shrine to Saint Peter, the first Pope under Vatacin city.
Although I do believe they over do it with Mary.
>If I raise my kids Catholic, is that just going to mean they end up being bleeding heart papist drones?
If Jesus was alive today American Christians would be calling him a bleeding-heart commie. Because for some reason Americans think treating people as human beings is equivalent to rising up and seizing the means of production and starting purges.
So maybe Christianity isn't really for you? You can try praying to an Ayn Rand novel if that suits you better.
Sure, but what does...
>Ask question, give answers, be kind to one another, and above all assist one another in living the virtuous life
Have to do with how religion has any implications as far as politics go? You can basically pick any pronoun and convolute it to make it about politics, your argument is a cop out.
Listen kiddo you've already shown yourself to be uniformed:
Do a little bit more studying and maybe one day you'll actually know who Jesus is.
However until that day comes, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
My understanding of the rejection of Peter's Gospel is that it most likely wasn't written by Peter. I think in terms of Paul's influence, that has a lot to do with the fact that he was simply educated and culturally knowledgeable in a way that the other apostles were not. But even so, he still submits to their authority. I also think it's important to note how Paul, in his epistles, will mention when he is speaking in the name of Christ/the apostles, and when he is offering his own opinion.
I will concede that the historicity of Paul's vision is impossible to verify, but isn't that true with all visions? I mean, as described in Acts, the bulk of the communication happened in his head anyway.
I think that Paul lost a lot in his conversion, and eventually died for it. He didn't have anything to gain if the vision wasn't genuine or if he didn't believe it was genuine.
M8, have you read the bible all the way through? Like, spent a lot of time studying? If not, I think you should rethink that post.
>be me, t.fedora spouting dawkins memes
>realize atheism is gay and start studying philo
>become Deist but still hate Christians
>Study Christ's life from a historical perspective
>wow, not all bullshit
>study more, and come to accept Christ
However, for a year aftetwards, I didn't really know what to do. I mean, I hadn't read much of the bible. I really didn't understand theology. Do you really think it makes sense to dismiss people who dedicate their lives to studying the word?
I guess that's a good point. When you make a thread with the specific intent of it being a theological debate then it becomes something other than political. It's more in the realms of a Christian forum post.
Yes this is good advice. Tbh I'm just in a bad mood tonight, but in general I have a ton of trouble not getting combative. I'll have to work on that.
>I have a ton of trouble not getting combative.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
- Jude 1:3
>earnestly contend for the faith
That's not a bad story, I followed a similar path. It really is amazing how quickly one can be brought to the door of faith if you give it a chance. To take the leap of faith you still need God to give you that gift, but it's like dang yo
Well, as other posters have shown, Paul is not quite the oddball you thought he was.
We get big, interesting questions from time to time. Every /catg/ has their posters who know want to get into interesting and complex topics.
Still hoping Dark Souls 3 will allow me to backtrack into those talks again.
Those faults aren't doctrinal. Heresy is faults in doctrine.
>What makes Catholicism different from current Protestantism politically?
That's a big question but immediately I'd say the dense work done in Catholic Social Teaching. There is much work towards promoting the practical application of Christ's teaching in all parts of life. Further, it is all consistently backed by age-old doctrine and teaching rather than trying to apply doctrine and teaching to whatever views.
I would say the biggest issue would be people trying to teach some political beliefs to be a logically conclusion of Catholic Social Teaching and others not when it's not exactly the case. An example from my experience in RCIA was going into human dignity in relation to workers and the vast majority of people in my class made the jump that raising the minimum wage was the Catholic answer but the real assumption being made here was that raising it is what does the people good and people against raising it ALSO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING GOOD TO THE PEOPLE. Whichever situation is legitimate is irrelevant. What they forgot was the focus on the good of the common man, not what they personally thought was the best solution for the common man. It's just something to look out for. I'm sure much depends on the people in your parish.
>pope doing whatever
I don't look into what the pope is doing overseas usually so I can't say.
I was raised and confirmed evangelical, started singing in a catholic choir after a friend who didn't know my religious affiliation begged me 3 years ago.
Still doing it. No desire to convert. I hit the high mass and then go to the evangelical church right after, even though I don't really go for that either since I generally only hit the old church because my father is an elder there and even my 40 year old atheist brother still goes just to keep Dad in good graces, despite said brother being a soul-less lawyer.
At Catholic Mass I don't do the Eucharist, but people are under the impression I just do it at another Mass that day since I have a booked schedule and no one in the choir has ever explicitly asked me if I'm catholic or not. In 3 years.
Guess they really need tenors. Agnostic, btw. I guess I just like singing, being needed, and my siblings and I have bizarre issues with our father.
/my cool story!
It's cool, man. Something to work on. Just know I want you to be able to improve without you hiding who you really are. Just putting a mask over yourself does you no good.
Now what you think? Is there anything you think I could be working on, man?
They're religion threads. Religion is explicitly connected to politics by virtue of what it is.
This thread specifically covers a wide range of topics both inside and outside of people's daily lives and thoughts.
Well my bad, I've been out of the know, hahaha.
>The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is an international organisation, founded in 1970 by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, of traditionalist Catholic priests. The official Latin name of the society is Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X (English: "Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X"). The head Superior General of the society is Bishop Bernard Fellay.
>The society is known as a strong defender and proponent of the Tridentine Mass, along with pious practices, beliefs, customs and religious discipline often associated with the period before the Second Vatican Council, which the society believes promoted erroneous and heretical teachings, on matters such as the liturgical revision, ecumenism, freedom of religion, the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church over other religions and relations with Jews. Accordingly, the society holds that their unrelenting effort to preserve the Tridentine Mass along with its traditionalist pious practices rescued the value of tradition against modernism and the ongoing laxity of Catholic doctrine detrimentally caused by the Second Vatican Council.
You're an absolute retard. This is the fucking problem with New Age Christians (you're like x-protestant mainliners).
>Jesus said love all. Why you talk shit about homosexuality
If you claim to love someone and condone their sins against themselves, you're wither a coward or a fool. You're certainly not righteous or Christian. This is a pathetic distortion of a Christ's words from someone, I'm guessing, has never read them.
Look into Catholic teaching. Look into the people who are promoting sodomy, death of the family, abortion and whoredom. If you think Christians are part of the problem for embracing compassion, then maybe it's really not right for you.
My bad, my answer is here:
I hope it helps
>leap of faith
Yes, absolutrly. I got to a point where I thought logically I was a Christiab, but not spiritually. It came down to just accepting I'll never have every answer, and taking the leap.
So what did you end up doing?
For full effect look at this picture and then this one >>53976603
I like your Mary and some parts of your church history. I'm not compatible with Jesus, I was born too skeptical and eventually decided if God cannot prove he exists he has no right to say he exists. Apart from that Christianity was a really shitty experience, no part of it really made it happier or more spirtual. When I tried to get really into it it had the reverse effect, being spirtually dead and depressed all the time. The more I removed from it the better life became. Overall I think the idea of a religion that can work for everyone is fantasy, one person's God is another person's Satan.
What Paul would have had to gained is a platform to promote his ideas. Tons of people listened to him.
He had citizenship to Rome which allowed him to become the face of the religion pretty easily, to my knowledge no one else did.
You are correct that Peter's gospel is not written by him, it is dated 150-200 although the people at the time would not even known that. It would be easy to claim there was an oral tradition.
I suspect they rejected it because it was way too radical. Jesus's dead body is carried out of the tomb by his cross like it's a living thing. God asks the cross if Jesus fufilled his duty and the Cross speaks "yes" Cross rises into the sky and he revives.
Other than that it's just a repeat of many things that would have been in older gospels.
That is pretty fucked up, mate, I'm sorry.
What's with the obsession with homosexuality out of nowhere?
I'm talking about American "Christians" who somehow manage to reconcile their stated religious affiliation with a ridiculous "poor people should die alone in the streets and if anyone in America has a problem it's their own fault" life outlook, and then whine about the Church calling them out on it.
We are helping an anon out with his Christ-Chan collection that went missing. I think it's pretty nice that the thread is coming together in its image posting to help an anon out in slight things like this >>53970765
>Guys I don't like the direction this new pope is going.
>Waay too marxist chic
He recently BTFO the leftists in Chile.
Catholicism. It's unquestionably to most intellectual, and their teaching on salvation makes the most sense. It was a tough decision because my parents are evangelical.
>le man made all tradition meme
I think this is kind of stupid when you break it down. Is some stuff just tradition? I assume so, but I'm not going to throw away 2k years of brilliant theology because I think some formalities are a little unecessary.
>“The Osorno community is suffering because it’s dumb,” Pope Francis told a group of tourists on St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City...
Ignoring the full context, this was funny as shit to hear come from him.
>and that cross has been given to the Catholic Church
Assertions are super rad.
The other thing that I realized eventually was that once you take that leap, it's not something that's really in your hands anymore either. What I mean is that faith truly is a gift: Humans can't acquire it themselves, they can only receive it as a grace from God. So it's not something you have to actively worry about or concern yourself with. You just have to renew your consent with Christ. That's true with a lot of the Christian life: just saying yes to letting Jesus work through you.
Nah no criticisms, and not particularly to this thread. I would like to see you evangelizing in a more direct way, but I also think that these threads are important in doing that in their own respect. However, I have gotten into at this point almost 40 conversations with people on 4chan where I actively brought someone to the Catholic faith. Maybe you have too, I just haven't noticed many other people really pushing the boundary of religious conversations into evangelization. And I think that's important for Catholics to get more comfortable doing.
Have you read Edward Feser's works? He's been extremely important for helping my apologetics on the God of reason side of things.
Is gassing every non-white on the planet acceptable under Catholicism?
>can't have a normal Catholic general without this garbage posted
I know, it's a japanese board now.
Do you even know where you are m8?
Cute anime girls shouldn't put you off of subject matter anyway. That'd be pretty trivial thing to mope over.
How? I am a Catholic but I need more information for a debate with an atheist. Call me stupid for not rebutting him myself, but after I told him about how people can kill people because we are granted free will, he gave the normal argument of "Why do people starve?" Etc. Please elaborate, I only seek knowledge
I don't have an obsession with homosexuality. The secular left does. Or, maybe you forgot when they lit the white house the colors of S&G. Anyway, yes, I think people often forget that Christianity is a spiritual religion. It's generally apolitical. However, like based Cardinal Burke said, calling yourself a Christian and voting for enemies of Christianity (abortionists and fags) is a sin.
>yfw he said priests should deny John Kerry mass
How come the Protestants don't have funny hats?
"Natural" evil isn't evil at all for a Christian. Things we don't like =/= evil. The only evil a Christian recognizes is sin, which entails forsaking the commandments of God. I wrote a brief paper on this recently if you'd like me to turn it into an image file or something.
Answer the question faggots.
Question: how does everyone feel about the based African Bishops destroying the degenerate bishops in the synod? I have to say, I've never been more delighted with our work down there. They are truly people of God. Shows what the removal of decadence does to the soul.
>not preferring they live peacefully in their nations and communities
Maybe you're unaware, but mass immigration is destroying these nations as well. It's literally bad for everyone involved.
also, despite not supporting genocide, we've done pretty well. Unlike, meme-boy hitler.
The problem with homosexuals is that you are hypocrites about it. I'm kind of neutral to the issue. Your Jesus says that remarrying is adultry. Churchs must be filled with women on the second husband or men on their second wife. Why do they seemingly get a pass but gays don't? A priest will marry someone who has had a second husband but not lesbians. The whole situation is insane, I met guy who was kicked out his parents house at 15 because he's gay. No wonder people treat Christians like shit over the gay issue.
From a practical point of view the problem with gays is that they do not reproduce (adoption or womb renting excluded). The whole religious angle doesn't address the problem. Forcing them to marry someone of the opposite gender, forcing them to rent a womb. These are the two answers.
On the same date Catholics in the world numbered 1.253.926,000 units with an overall increase of 25.305.000 more than the previous year. The increase affects all continents especially America (+ 15.051.000) and Africa (+7.637.000) followed by Asia (+ 2.161.000); Europe (+ 285.000) and Oceania (+ 171.000).
The world percentage of Catholics increased by 0.09 %, settling at 17.68%. By continent: increases were registered in Africa (+ 0.29), America (+ 0.38), Asia (+ 0.03), Europe (+ 0.03). A slight decrease was shown in Oceania (- 0.01).
Hope it helps. It's just a brief critique of a commonly encountered argument that it sounds like that guy might possibly be using.
Yes, I was just reading this. Really do believe the future will be good for us if we stay strong.
>conservative protestants converting to Catholicism in Europe
>young priests are extremely conservative
Upon the collapse of modernity, we might be the last ones standing.
>These are the two answers.
No the real answer is for them to remain celibate. All Christians are called to chastity, and the only ones who should be having sex are people in a marriage under specific circumstances. Saying gays should be chaste is only holding them to the same standard as literally every person who is not married.
> you are hypocrites about it.
In the RCC? Not really, the Synod right now is about how we don't let people who are divorced and remarried go to communion. They don't get a pass. And priests will definitely not allow someone to remarry without an annulment.
>I met guy who was kicked out his parents house at 15
But that's an anecdote, and the Catechism specifically states treating people with same sex attraction with compassion. Being kicked out of the house is not compassionate. You can't hold Christianity responsible for people who don't follow the teachings
Despite growing enough food in the world to feed everyone, we lack the proper logistics to distribute it.
Even the non-Catholic pastors know what's up, especially when they complained to Obama about pushing his gay agenda in Kenya. If only the blacks here were more like their continental counterparts in this regard.
Continuing from my other reply above yours, African bishops are wary about the economic migrants trying to get into Europe. Not just with the safety concern of smuggling operations by criminal organizations, but the fact that they are the key to raising up their homelands. Africa doesn't need anymore brain drain from occurring.
1: Is anybody really condemned to hell, or does everyone have the chance to repent in the afterlife? Can people who have never seen the light or turned to God have the possibility of heaven?
2: What does the Church say on Transgenderism? I have not found an answer anywhere in the bible.
Yeah, I can feel you there. It's been hard on me as well - my closest cousins being father to a Baptist preacher and my mother being vehemently anti-Catholic. It's sad and I'm really worried how to bring up the situation seriously.
More power to you, man. I hope you're having better luck than me. I will pray for you.
>traditions of man
Honestly this ends up being them not being able to grasp the tradition between Sacred Tradition and cultural traditions.
This is very good criticism, thanks man.
In RCIA my sponsor gave me the advice "evangelize by demonstration" (this is me paraphrasing to be precise). Basically don't push the faith on people, just live and hold the faith as true in the most Christian way possible and by the good that comes from you you will have persuaded people towards the faith in some way. I took this advice to heart in how I began the generals too. I don't press people to believe me but stand by to answer questions and carry on and see if it helps people. I'd have to say it's been pretty successful so far but I agree that at this point I should be more forward with the faith and not beat around the bush. I'd say it would take a bit more research on my end but overall it would be worth it. Right now I may be just entertainment to some and that would be pretty useless overall.
I could be evangelizing better. Thank you man, I'll work on it.
I had and I have recommended his works sometimes, man. He has his faults but largely has been a quality source to direct people towards.
For aid: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm#article1
-Various objections to the Christian point of view
-Scholastic view of the matter
-Responses to each objection.
Mennonites have semi-funny hats.
A better question is why Orthodoxy has all the fucking Jesus Wizards.
Pretty much agree.
What's a good bible version? I want to seriously reread it and cut the bullshit for myself black and white. I went Catholic school all the way through high school but lost my faith.
Also how is what Vatican Council II did okay? Ive been reading into sedevacantism and Im struggling with the fact if Im a heretic or not.
It may get infinitely less boring should the movie end up being the reality though.
You should probably understand that all sin is equal to Christians though, as sin is all equal to God. Sodomy is no different than maliciously deceiving people or being arrogant. People often don't get this.
Do you have any thoughts on Kant / the argument in pic related?
Is scholasticism being correct a necessary part of you being a catholic in the sense that if demonstrated to be irrational / not correct you would no longer be one?
Must faith be consistent with rationality?
Exactly! This is what I was trying to say to the giu who was claiming Catholics must be for open borders. In what world? Tower of Babel ring a bell? We should respect nationality because not doing so hurts every one involved.
Now, must you only turn to Christ, or only the Catholic Church? Will Protestants go to heaven, having devoted their livesite to Christ, just in an unknowingly (to them) flawed manner?
I get it. Although, Catholics would say otherwise.
I just don't believe in the existence of sin. Only disorders. Example: Psychopathy, Narcissism, sociopaths are mental disorders and the people aren't "sinners" they are ill and science will oneday correct it.
God structured the world in such a way that it seems to be governed by logical principles, and every reference to wisdom in the Bible bespeaks that we ought to seek rational understanding of our place as God's creation.
I'd answer that last question as yes.
The Archbishop, while allowing for it's possibility did not think Sedevacantism was an acceptable form of resistance, not something the laity should be especially concerned with.
Time, patience, conversation, science.
It's not dystopian. When someone has depression, we treat them. When someone has heart issues, we treat them. When someone cannot empathaize, we treat them.
That's dystopian no matter how I look at it. I don't trust people to not decide brilliant people who promote ideas they don't like aren't in need of a little 'rewiring'. I'd hope you wouldn't either.
Modernity is the boogie man for Catholics
Well this is correct. There are only consequences and causes. What is the consiquence of homsexuality? Most likely they will not have children.
What is the consequence of a straight couple choosing not to have children? Same thing.
The causes may be different but the consequences are the same. In a sane world you judge things only for their consequences. Thus the religious view of homosexuality is insanity. Excommunicating from the church does nothing, it won't make them have children. The way to address the consequences would be to encourage them to have children or to become straight.
Given that all our research points to homosexuality being genetic it, asking them to become straight is silly. So the only choice left is to tell them to have children. The church should be telling both gays and straight couples to have children.
Negative consequence is removed, so the problem is solved.
I honestly don't fully know the answer to this question yet. I think the answer is a definite maybe? I know you can be baptized in other churches, as long as there isn't an explicit animosity toward Catholicism.
Like I think I'm clear on that: No matter what, if you're bitching about Catholics hell awaits. But even if it's "ok" to be in other churches, I don't know how you don't die in a state of mortal sin without confession. A perfect act of contrition on your death bed is the only way.
Heh, I didn't realize that he was literally being a free-rider.
>traditions of man
>Honestly this ends up being them not being able to grasp the tradition between Sacred Tradition and cultural traditions.
As well as forgetting that some of our them were explicitly mentioned as being from Christ Himself, who was a man.
NABRE is the version used in the U.S. for the Lectionary.
I'll link you to an article I bookmarked that brings up some good points. There are legitimate reasons to be cautious about the open immigration people are proposing.
I should head downstairs to my dorm. Hopefully my roommate is done fucking his girlfriend and that she's scrambled out of there. Well-mannered guy, but premarital sex is still degenerate.
Also, I found it that today's Gospel referenced pic related although it quotes from Matthew.
Sorry forgot my picture
There's not much in Scripture to really say much about it. At worst it's caring about something that's ultimately not all that important in the grand scheme of God's commandments and our Christian obligations.
In other words it'd be a misplacement of value in the world and in appearances/the material.
>actual growth in the west
Well shit. Cool. Seems like it was Protestantism that was seriously fucked in the west, bar Evangelicals.
The Archbishop of Banterbury
Heaven and Hell are eternal. Purgatory is the only real kind of change concerning the afterlife. Why they are eternal I've heard some things about but never a completely solid answer. I haven't looked into it much, though, to be fair.
As for trangenderism, the church is fairly distant as the situation is not well understood. The church is pretty strongly opposed to the new gender theory proposed out of discourse on trans issues (the whole "I identify as ___ so I'm ___" thing) and is expressly against sex changes for those not struggling with any serious physical issues like actual trans people do.
However beyond that and dealing with the actually trans people struggling the church is a bit mixed just as modern scientists as the situation is not well understood.
>Now, must you only turn to Christ, or only the Catholic Church? Will Protestants go to heaven, having devoted their livesite to Christ, just in an unknowingly (to them) flawed manner?
First I must comment on >>53978196
>Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
"outside the Church there is no salvation"
However, those with elements of the church are in a kind of communion with it, albeit a limited one. The church institution's job is to turn people into saints and by that I mean turn people towards Christ. Through Christ we have salvation and to go towards Christ is to join the church (whether in an explicit or implicit way).
We cannot guarantee salvation of those who are dedicated to groups outside of Catholicism but as God speaks and acts in all of us we can reasonably hope the best for them.
You screw up to think of this as a "join my group or you're screwed" situation. It isn't that at all.
Wittgenstein is arguably worse for empiricists than Hume. I don't know all that much about him outside the fact that he has that linguistic non-sensibility thing that I can throw at people. Lemme read that then.
OK now I remembered why I hate you. Fuck off
>all our research points to homosexuality being genetic
This is a blatant fucking lie holy shit.
>Excommunicating from the church
Except that's not what's done. Lie 2
>The church should be telling both gays and straight couples to have children.
This is so fucking stupid
By the way you didn't respond to: >>53977683
You're being deliberately ignorant of the church's teaching on marriage anyway. The church doesn't want everyone to have children; only those called to do so by God. If someone is so gay that they cannot have sex with a woman ever, then they are not called to marriage and no one wants them to do so.
And there's more to one's relationship with God than the plainly visible consequences, although even in this case homosexuality is still a problem: it is ridiculously dangerous and comorbid disorder.
Oh and conversion therapy isn't the boogie man people like you make it out to be. Especially given that there is no extant research on conversions done on people during a period of actual sexual elasticity rather than adults.
And it should be done. Same sex attraction goes along so well with suicidality it's practically a death sentence.
They are working on making it possible for same sex couples to have children that shares the DNA of both parents. It's just a matter of telling the stem cells to turn into eggs or sperm but we are probably long ways off from this.
The way Catholics get around this is that marriage should be about starting a family and reproducing and that "sick men" are exempt because of their inability or extreme lack of ability to reproduce.
The other issue with your suggestion is that they will say that God's laws are final and certain things are simply just sins. A pre-defined understanding of what is "natural".
To them, the negative consequence is the act of living a "gay lifestyle". It's kind of circular. Problem with this sort of thinking is that it cannot budge and refuses to budge no matter what is discussed or offered.
But yea, personally, I think for Christianity to survive, they would have to appeal to same sex couples eventually and claim that marriage kind of "bandaids" the "sin of homosexuality".
I've talked too much about the homosexuality thing though, I am afraid it might turn over to this now but I really just wanted to make a reply to you specifically.
Over to the mental illness thing. I am sure that if we discovered in the womb that children have serial killer, narcissistic, sociopathic brains, and we altered it to be healthier, then I doubt this would be a "dystopian" future that percocet is saying it would be. Seems like I would appreciate it if a genetic illness was wiped out before I was born so that I didn't have to live a life against the world.
Honestly, you are the one conflating here. You are combining two different things and making it seem mutually inclusive instead of actually discussing why it would be wrong to heal people that end up in jail, killed, murders, and has everyone their enemy their entire life.
That is reassuring. My Grandfather who had died recently was a very strong Lutheran, but he was peaceful and even encouraging as I converted to Catholicism. He was truly a good man who lived in service of others and God rather than his earthly desires. I am not one to judge, but I hope he is in Heaven, once again reunited with Christ and the Lord.
This is the most fucking retarded post ever. For Christianity to survive we need to embrace gays? Why? They represent 1-2% of the population at best.
Natural law theory is an actual thing, and it's far more complex than the strawman you've created in this post.
Fuck off with your concern trolling. Christianity will do just fine teaching the truth about homosexuality.
>personally, I think for Christianity to survive, they would have to appeal to same sex couples eventually and claim that marriage kind of "bandaids" the "sin of homosexuality".
But ii it were to do that it would cease to be Christianity.
Ok, well it's not about the 5% of the population but what the majority think about those 5%. I am done about this discussion. I was really just focusing my reply to Outer Limits.
I'm saying I wouldn't want humans to have the capability to rewire other humans. That's creepy as shit. Could good come out of it? Sure. Is it worth it? Completely and utterly questionable.
The thread was about Wittgenstien but my post and the image was primarily about Kant and the criticism he made on the cosmology and as a result Scholasticism.
If the reasoning in the image is correct your view in >>53978160 would no longer be rational
It's not really about rewiring, though.
If we find out that an embryo is going to be an adult with manic depression and we can prevent that from happening, then why is that so wrong?
Wanted to share something with you guys from revelation. Really resonated with me wrt whats currently going on in the church.
>These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked
>If the reasoning in the image is correct your view in >>53978160 (You) would no longer be rational
I don't see in what way. My reasoning is that wisdom, -sophia-, as it is talked about in the Bible, is utilized in such a way as to indicate we ought to conform our beliefs to logic and reason.
If you're objecting to "God structured the world..." then simply read it as "*If* God structured the world... then the way wisdom is utilized would seem to indicate..." like so.
Wow. Shocking people still think this. You realize protestant churches tried to appeal to progressivism and it destroyed them, right? You piss off the believers while appeasing those who don't give a fuck. People need a grounded church more than ever.
Because sometimes unhappiness breeds great things, and humans altering other humans to fit their own conceptions of what is good and what is bad is a crazy notion. If I had the power to 'correct' people and for some reason utilized that power on everyone, you would never drink another lick of alcohol, take a single mind-affecting drug, or hear any other music than what conformed to my liking ever. And you wouldn't mind that at all.
>Heaven and Hell are eternal. Purgatory is the only real kind of change concerning the afterlife. Why they are eternal I've heard some things about but never a completely solid answer. I haven't looked into it much, though, to be fair.
One word: time, or rather the lack of it. It muddies up my mind at least when comprehending a dimension which lacks it.
But surely we can have public discussions about what is and isn't an illness? Scientific debates and discussions?
And I go back to my example of finding manic depression in embryo, why would it be wrong to prevent that one from growing up to struggle with their manic depression?
It can apply to depression and schizophrenia. Why are these good things to keep?
>But surely we can have public discussions about what is and isn't an illness? Scientific debates and discussions?
Those don't mean anything. You can reach a consensus that some brilliant microbiologist is actually completely mentally ill, but that doesn't mean he *is*.
51% of a population can vote for the other 49% to be brutally murdered - consensus literally means nothing.
>Why are these good things to keep?
Certainly helped quite a number of artists and writers. I'm depressed myself quite often, but I wouldn't really want it any other way if it meant a change in my character - and it *WOULD* mean a change in my character.
That's why I said simply take it as an "if" he did. A hypothetical. If I'm not claiming it as a truth, but merely asking you to consider what would be if it were the case, there's nothing irrational or illogical about that in the slightest.
I get very depressed myself and I would have rather I didn't have this disorder. I get that the depressed can grow attached to their depression in a way. I've felt this too but it's partly because we have cannot see ourselves as not being depressed. In a way it can become part of your identity.
but if you choose this cure, you should be cured and those that are in the embryo will grow up knowing themselves as they are without depression.
That's fine. But you should understand you're drawing lines in the sand everywhere about who or who can't give consent to be mentally altered.
And that's messed up.
>It's really just facts but lol at old boys club
It's literally just scientism. I kind of figured you for this type given what you'd said so far though.
Didn't see that last thing, that's why I didn't respond. It's not really relevant as I am talking about Protestant Christianity, that's the face of Christianity in America. When people say "Christians have trouble with gays" they are referring to Protestants.
In regards to homosexuality, I know there have been some twin studies which show a correlation. It's definitely at least partially biological. Maybe it's partially a choice also. To imply it is 100% a choice just doesn't seem to work with science.
From the rest of your post you just seem like a typical hick when it comes to fags. You ignore science, focus on meaningless statistics (it would be very hard to say why gays off themself, is it innate or is because they are treated worst, for example they are more likely to be disowned?). In general Christians make the problem of homosexuality worst.
They can't even figure out what the problem is, there are less children. In case you didn't know the immigration invader's strategy is to out-breed us. I'd have more respect for a gay couple that raised a proper child than a Catholic couple that had no children.
You are correct, that Christianity has to work with gays rather than just be pissy at them.
As for the idea of fixing things genetically, we will get there eventually but it is extremely dangerous. Serial killer and sociopath genes are not accidents, they have a place. They are for our soldiers, and spys. In other word if we completely remove aggressive genes we may find that we no longer have an army.
I hate to tell you this but the medical sciences beat theology. We can look into a womb and say whether a child is more or less likely to be gay based on the hormones of the woman at the time. This means it is partially biological.
Also in arguments remember, I'm not Catholic. I do not give 2 shits what your God wants. I care about what happens on this planet whether or not it fits into cannon.
You can say Aquinas (or, better, those who buffered on his arguments) weren't asserting existence as a predicate at all. That's the most common response if I remember right. It's usually Paley's refinement this is used in defense of.
I don't really have a ball in that particular game so I only got into this briefly a few years ago.
I would think adults with what was discussed earlier must give consent. Sometimes they can have moments and clarity and know something is wrong.
I am mostly talking in vitro. Mothers want healthy children. I wouldn't want my child to grow up depressed or have mental retardation, or have palsy, or schizophrenia.
just how I see it, it's not really sin if it's just some sort of brain dysfunction, at least not an intentional one.
"the body is weak but the spirit is willing"
bleh, lol kinda figured you would use this word.
>I would think adults with what was discussed earlier must give consent
And for people who other people think are psychopaths, who want nothing to do with it? They must give their consent?
Sociopaths? Schizophrenics? Extremely violent and angry people? Recluses? You're drawing so many arbitrary lines about what constitutes what it's unreal.
Thank you for the reply. Tradition and the Church's history of caring for the poor/marginalized are what attract my wife and me, but like you say--we come to different conclusions than some others.
Compassion we like a lot, and we like that tradition is a protective factor against sudden change. Thank you for your reply.
Thanks for telling me about this, I appreciate it
>you would need a doctor to diagnose AND get consent
So you wouldn't be in favor of mentally "curing" a person who'd murdered a number of people in premeditated cold blood if he or she didn't consent?