ALL WILL BE FORGIVEN, AND I ALONE WILL BE CONDEMNED
-Jesus "Can't Piss Off the Christos" Christ
Reading List
-Philokalia
-Sayings of the Desert Fathers
-Summa Theologica (The 4000 page version)
Question: What was the alternative to young earth Creationism among early Christians?
Also, another question: How was Heaven and Hell imagined before Dante?
>>468766
The year is 2015. Man has peered into the darkest corners of the cosmos, and observed the universe on its smallest scale. You walk around with more computing power in your pocket than was available to all of NASA in the 1970s. You live twice as long as your ancestors ever could have dreamed of, you have food in abundance and the future is brighter than ever. Humanity has achieved more in the last century than it ever has in its entire history. People are happier, freer, crime is lower, you're safer, more secure, and the entire wealth of human knowledge is available to you at your finger tips. You live in the dawn of humanity, you were born after the long dark night and you will never know the suffering that every other generation did.
And you still think the words of dehydrated desert madmen in the middle east are literal truth, you unironically believe in God and think Homosexuality is a bad thing.
You're literally a walking insult to everything humanity has ever achieved, lmao.
>>468780
Crime is at one of the worst in history senpai, and the only reason science is where its at today is because of the efforts of the church to keep it going during the middle ages
>>468772
>What was the alternative to young earth Creationism among early Christians?
YEG wasn't really a big dispute among early Christians. The dispute existed, but it wasn't considered deeply important. The major school of metaphor was the Theological School of Alexandria, whereas the "literal" Bible School was the Theological School of Antioch. But the thing is, what we understand as "literal" today didn't even mean the same thing back then, it meant rather the idea of studying the actions and morals of the characters as opposed to the metaphorical idea of the characters representing ideas.
>Also, another question: How was Heaven and Hell imagined before Dante?
There is no way to imagine heaven and hell because we can't fathom it. In Orthodox Christianity, heaven and hell are the same, it's just the fire and light of God's love is bliss to one person, whereas it's painful, shameful or hateful to another. This idea of heaven and hell is supported by writings by the Desert Fathers.
>>468919
So rather than walking around and seeing all the dead people and meeting with angels and shit, its just a light? And if Its supported by the Desert fathers, wouldn't it apply to all sects, as that was before the Schism?
>>468932
>So rather than walking around and seeing all the dead people and meeting with angels and shit, its just a light?
Heaven is not a place, it is a state of being, or a "dimension". So is hell. It is not meant to be separate from the physical, Christianity is very pro physical. The dimensions were sundered by the fall, but sometimes you can feel their intersection, that is what Divine Liturgy is about. You worship with all five senses, and there are icons everywhere of the saints and angels with you in worship, the physical-spiritual dichotomy is healed. It can't accurately be described or represented--that is why icons are two dimensional, even in style, to prevent people from being mislead into taking them as the thing itself as opposed to a mere representation. A holy representation is an icon, when you take it for the thing itself, it is an idol (for instance, the Orthodox see the Bible as an icon of the Word, the Truth, and we kiss it an venerate it like other icons but we don't see it as these things itself, which Protestants do, so they are guilty of making an idol out of the Bible, which is actually an icon).
> And if Its supported by the Desert fathers, wouldn't it apply to all sects, as that was before the Schism?
Yes, absolutely. However, there was inaccurate theology before the schism. Tertullian, for instance, said people in heaven have their joy increased by watching people in hell suffer--Tertullian's theology is considered quite faulty by the Orthodox Church, but in the West he is considered "the Father of Latin Christianity". The problem is that back then, communication took a lot longer, information didn't proliferate and disperse, so nonsense couldn't be easily addressed. Views like his, and many other things, started to take more and more hold on the West, and that's what eventually lead to the schism.
cont
>>468971
he filioque is really a prime example of what I'm talking about here, it started to proliferate in the West in isolated pockets, and so it couldn't be quickly addressed and stamped out by the whole Church. And it began to spread, like cancer. The Pope tried to stop it by having the Nicene Creed engraved without it on gold tablets as authoritative, but Charlemagne, I think, became so influential that it was eventually changed just to cater to him.
Another example of the theology memetics is the Catholic idea of original sin, as transmitted by conception,. This started with Augustine, and couldn't be promptly addressed, and so it became a meme. It's completely wrong: if you clone someone, for instance, they still suffer from original sin, because original sis is the sundering of the physical and the spiritual, it is even why animals must die. It's not something transmitted by conception, it's corruption infecting the whole universe. Cancer, bombings, natural disasters, all a product of original sin.
>>468984
Is Augustine(and Aquinas actually) still considered a Saint in orthodoxy? I see a lot of things about him with Orthodox say are wrong.
>Summa Theologica
I'm gonna quote some of the better portions of it here.
>It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. And "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed Job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children---these were the work of Satan, not phantoms"; as Augustine says
>Some spells are so perpetual that they can have no human remedy, although God might afford a remedy by coercing the demon, or the demon by desisting. For, as wizards themselves admit, it does not always follow that what was done by one kind of witchcraft can be destroyed by another kind, and even though it were possible to use witchcraft as a remedy, it would nevertheless be reckoned to be perpetual, since nowise ought one to invoke the demon's help by witchcraft. Again, if the devil has been given power over a person on account of sin, it does not follow that his power ceases with the sin, because the punishment sometimes continues after the fault has been removed. And again, the exorcisms of the Church do not always avail to repress the demons in all their molestations of the body, if God will it so, but they always avail against those assaults of the demons against which they are chiefly instituted.
Apparently he also thought fortune-tellers and astrologers predicting droughts were the same as physicians predicting health and death.
>Divination denotes a foretelling of the future. The future may be foreknown in two ways: first in its causes, secondly in itself. Now the causes of the future are threefold: for some produce their effects, of necessity and always; and such like future effects can be foreknown and foretold with certainty, from considering their causes, even as astrologers foretell a coming eclipse. Other causes produce their effects, not of necessity and always, but for the most part, yet they rarely fail: and from such like causes their future effects can be foreknown, not indeed with certainty, but by a kind of conjecture, even as astrologers by considering the STARS can foreknow and foretell things concerning RAINS and DROUGHTS, and physicians, concerning health and death.
And magic is VERY real!
>Some have asserted that witchcraft is nothing in the world but an imagining of men who ascribed to spells those natural effects the causes of which are hidden. But this is contrary to the authority of holy men who state that the demons have power over men's bodies and imaginations, when God allows them: wherefore by their means wizards can work certain signs. Now this opinion grows from the root of unbelief or incredulity, because they do not believe that demons exist save only in the imagination of the common people, who ascribe to the demon the terrors which a man conjures from his thoughts, and because, owing to a vivid imagination, certain shapes such as he has in his thoughts become apparent to the senses, and then he believes that he sees the demons. But such assertions are rejected by the true faith whereby we believe that angels fell from heaven, and that the demons exist, and that by reason of their subtle nature they are able to do many things which we cannot; and those who induce them to do such things are called wizards.
Having a bad marriage? It's probably a wizard's spell. But don't worry, there are solutions and procedures for dealing with it
> Wherefore others have maintained that witchcraft can set up an impediment to carnal copulation, but that no such impediment is perpetual: hence it does not void the marriage contract, and they say that the laws asserting this have been revoked. But this is contrary to actual facts and to the new legislation which agrees with the old.
>We must therefore draw a distinction: for the inability to copulate caused by witchcraft is either perpetual and then it voids marriage, or it is not perpetual and then it does not void marriage. And in order to put this to practical proof the Church has fixed the space of three years in the same way as we have stated with regard to frigidity. There is, however this difference between a spell and frigidity, that a person who is impotent through frigidity is equally impotent in relation to one as to another, and consequently when the marriage is dissolved, he is not permitted to marry another woman. whereas through witchcraft a man may be rendered impotent in relation to one woman and not to another, and consequently when the Church adjudges the marriage to be dissolved, each party is permitted to seek another partner in marriage
>It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. That the words of certain people are variously reported in the Gospel and other sacred writings does not constitute a lie. Hence Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. ii): "He that has the wit to understand that in order to know the truth it is necessary to get at the sense, will conclude that he must not be the least troubled, no matter by what words that sense is expressed." Hence it is evident, as he adds (De Consens. Evang. ii), that "we must not judge that someone is lying, if several persons fail to describe in the same way and in the same words a thing which they remember to have seen or heard."
I hope you find this stuff convincing, otherwise you might be a heretic.
>Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.
What Aquinas think of heretics?
>With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.
Just bonus fun stuff about his understanding of Genesis.
>Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin.
>The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it.
>In other animals, and in plants, mention is made of genus and species, to denote the generation of like from like. But it was unnecessary to do so in the case of man, as what had already been said of other creatures might be understood of him. Again, animals and plants may be said to be produced according to their kinds, to signify their remoteness from the Divine image and likeness, whereas man is said to be made "to the image and likeness of God."
reminder.
>>469050
Aquinas isn't (because he came after the schism), but Augustine is. Just because Augustine was wrong on several things, doesn't mean he isn't a saint...saints weren't perfect people by any stretch.
Even aside from that, a lot of his theology is quite Orthodox. Stuff like just war theory isn't, but he's still pretty cool for the most part and referenced in the Orthodox Church.
>>468780
To be fair, I did nazi that coming. I came here to say this but boy, that escalated quickly so to the top with you! Lost it at 'This is why we can't have nice things' and then my faith in humanity was restored, my mind blown, and manly tears were shed. Well said. As a 'murican, I can confirm this gem has just won the internet and is doing it right. Just sayin', I know that feel, bro, and while that was a risk click, this post was a 9/10, would read again. I see what you did there and it feels good man. You're doing God's work, son. I laughed way harder than I should have at your list that seems legit and totally nailed it. You - I like you. You magnificent bastard; you, sir, are so brave, a gentleman and a scholar, and seeing how you are a redditor for 4 years, this checks out, so I'll allow it. I regret that I only have one upvote to give for this cool story, bro.
TL;DR: Upvotes to the left.
EDIT: Thanks for the gold.
>>468766
What are the comfiest branches of Christianity?
>Lutheran?
>Presbyterian?
>Episcopalian?
>>469140
Madonna and Child is an extremely old archetype, what's your point?
>>469146
So there are no post-Schism Orthodox saints?
>>469146
What do the Orthodox think about Aquinas overall? I've read some things about him being disliked since he was so influential on the Catholic scholastic tradition that the orthodox don't seem to be a fan of.
>>469212
Are are plenty. It's just canonization requires someone to be Orthodox. That doesn't mean Aquinas isn't a saint, just that he's not going to be canonized as one anymore than Catholics canonize people outside their Church.
>>469161
You know my point, don't act like you can't see what the image is implying.
You jesus cucks love to talk Christianity, but to discuss it's polytheistic origins takes you baseless idiots off your high horse.
>>469220
There's some antipathy toward his teachings because of how much Catholic thought is rooted in them, but in reality that's mostly flagwaving bullshit. Aquinas isn't perfect because he's coming from a Latin perspective, but in reality his theology is mostly sound even if the Orthodox don't reference his works, he just puts things in Western terms.
Aquinas is a great read for any Christian. For the Orthodox, he should be read with a grain of salt and in the framework of Orthodox theology. Aquinas worships with his reason very well.
What is "blasphemy of the holy spirit" exactly and why can't it be forgiven?
>>469317
It's actively opposing God within you. It cannot be forgiven because it is something that left to you. For instance, after the Apocatastasis, those in hell might be reconciled with God, but if you are kicking and screaming about it, you won't be. The Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who does all good through you, when you pray, for instance, the Holy Spirit is praying through you. God's love is a circuit, and he can love you, but you can keep the circuit closed.
What exactly is the Holy Spirit, in lamance terms? I know the Father is the usual guy we think of, the big guy in the sky, and the Son is Jesus, but where does the Holy Spirit fit in?
>>469359
>in lamance terms
It's "laymans terms" mate. A layman is somebody who has not invested much time or energy into the study or development of a skill.
>>469359
The Holy Spirit is the Person of God who acts through humans. "He has spoken through the prophets." When we pray or do something Godlike, that is the Holy Spirit working through us. The Holy Spirit works through us to make us divine.
>>469359
god has willed creation into being through love.
christ is his beloved son.
there is the union of the lover and the beloved and the holy spirit is the immanence of the love they share.
>>469370
The term actually just comes from laity. The laypeople are those in the Church who are not clergy.
>>469377
Ah, wasn't aware. Thanks mate.
>>469389
np
>>469418
Do you have any other Christian recommend works for Orthodox?
>>469426
The best primers are the Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware, and the Orthodox Way, by Kallistos Ware (when he became a monk, he got a new name, as all monks do).
There are mountains of Orthodox works, but it's really more important to read at least a few than try to collect a massive list. Orthodox theology, unlike Catholic theology, is not about trying to add or innovate, it's just about trying to preserve what was always there. It can be phrased in many terms, some are better for some people than others, and many insightful things can be said drawing directly from that (a dog is better than I, because a dog loves without judging, etc.), and many books can be written about the implications and practical application of these ideas, but once you grasp the basis, most of your learning has to come from ineffable experience of the divine. Orthodox theology is not a science like Catholic theology is, it's a tradition and a lifestyle.
>>469452
I will, however, also against stress the Philokalia. Orthodox theology is not about "discovery", but, as The Way of the Pilgrim puts it, the Bible is like the sun, and you need the tinted lenses of the Philokalia to properly view it.
>>469458
*again stress
>almost 2016
>beleiving in bronze age mythology
what's wrong with jerking off. seems like a dumb rule.
>>469471
It's really amazing, I think. Almost no other ancient thought has been preserved properly, it's all distorted by a modernist lens, and that is almost impossible to help. Except Orthodox Christianity.
About to start reading the Bible, is it recommended reading it from beginning to end?
>>469563
I'd read the NT first, if you want to understand the OT.
>>468780
Only animals don't believe in the metaphysical.
An advanced society should have a religion with high morality, high cultural tolerance and an integration of scientific and social discoveries.
If more than 60% of the western world is christian, then why are they so successfull? well bro, you see; Christians are highly tolerant, progressive in most cases, nice and kind people. There are only some groups of radical nutters who screw shit up, but they are idiots.
on the other hand all atheists are meme warriors that have force fed an anti-christian agenda into the culture of the world; getting offended by any demonstration of the identity of the people's religion and forcing the majority to abode to the will of your culture of anti-theism.
This fucking "happy holidays" shit is ridiculous. It's Christmas. CHRISTmas.
Even in movies we now see weird "god" Charachters hand waved and given weird names that take away most of the fun of the movie.
Old movies used to even mention outright god. The final scene of pinnochio is sometimes edited out because it shows a charachter thanking god.
People have to explain why they go to church like if ot was a bad thing.
If anything; Atheism is bringing civilization back.
>>468766
oh man the atheist ass pain in every single one of these threads is amazing
>>468766
I'm about to read pic related, what should I expect? Has anyone here read pic related? Did you like it?
>>469705
I don't see how Christ could be consider a zealot by any stretch. Zealots hated Christians, and killed them by the score. They were like the Jewish IRA.
>>469738
I don't know, I'm going to read it and then I should have an idea of the authors thesis. From what I gather, it's a cut and dry book into the historical Jesus. Doesn't add anything from the secular outlook, doesn't take away.
>>469781
It's hardly cut-and-dry if it's contesting that Jesus was a Zealot, that is a very fringe theory...like, Jesus-was-black level of fringe.
>>469810
I don't think it is. I think it's just some catchy title.
>>469810
>Let me judge this book by the cover
>I have no agenda at all, despite me being Christian tripfag
>>469705
It's presents one of theories about historical Jesus, namely him being political activists. It's not entirely convincing, but it's quite plausible and good introduction to the question of historical Jesus. Check out Bart D. Ehrman's books next.
>>469827
No, the book actually argues that. It's written by a Muslim (whose works on Islam are pretty good, not withstanding), and his agenda is to make Christianity look like it was founded by the same sort of person that people who hate Islam think of Mohammed as.
>>469810
Constantine do you run a blog? I find your posts very insightful but there's no archive for this board yet, and I get the feeling we're in different time zones
>>469832
Zealots were not just political activists, they slaughtered Jews who refused to support them politically, including Pharisees and Christians (although their leader down the road, eventually had the support of a Pharisee Rabbi, who called him the Messiah--this Rabbi, by the way, is considered "the Sage of All Sages" by the Jews of today).
>>469840
I don't, sorry.
>>469842
No worries. Keep up the good work
Are there any Orthodox miracles? Only one I'm aware of is Zeitoun
>>469841
> were not just political activists, they slaughtered Jews who refused to support them politically
Yeah, but the most important thing is they were political activists who wanted Romanes to eunt domus. Surely they became famous for their terrorism later, but it's quite plausible for Jesus movement to be some kind of anti-Roman anti-establishment nationalist resistance movement with religion in its core.
I haven't read the book and I myself don't think Jesus was a political activist, but the idea has its place and supporters in the mainstream historical discourse.
>>469845
Thanks.
>>469857
Miracles aren't really something that get signed off by the Church, because unlike with the Catholic Church, they aren't required for someone to be canonized a saint.
>>469859
The book paints Christ as gathering a following of soldier to overthrow the government, preaching bloodshed and revolution as he went, contending that the Romans put him to death for that. It even says Matthew 10:34 is about inciting Jews to rise up and put Romans to the sword.
>>469877
> The book paints Christ as gathering a following of soldier to overthrow the government, preaching bloodshed and revolution as he went, contending that the Romans put him to death for that. It even says Matthew 10:34 is about inciting Jews to rise up and put Romans to the sword.
So basically that thing Jews did 30 years after him, and then again 60 years later. Unlikely but not unbelievable.
>>469877
I once read in some sociological theories on religion that most religious sects or new religions are born out of counter-cultural tendencies brought on by different forms of political, social, or economic marginalization, is this true? If so, was Jesus just a revolutionary for his time responding to hellenization/Roman authority?
>>469884
Considering Christians were heavily persecuted by Zealots because of their pacifism, it's pretty unbelievable.
>>469890
I think his thought rebelled more against the Jewish establishment than against the Roman establishment. He clearly loves that one Roman soldier, and he gets reprimanded for hanging out with tax collectors. If Christ were a Zealot, his inner circle of disciples would have had to completely reverse his ideology for no reason, at a time when everyone would have remember what Jesus actually stood for.
>>469225
>Muh Prophet Mr Icke
How would christianity react,if we as humanity found out we were the creations of extraterrestrials?
How would world religions react in general?
>>470137
Same way they always do. Find some excuse why they somehow weren't totally wrong
How do we keep Jews out of Christianity threads? They're always disruptive and shit-flinging, and insisting the Church Fathers were frauds, idiots, or both.
>>470137
Why would that matter?
>>470155
I find Orthodox Jews to be extremely irritating at times, but the truth is that they are much more worthwhile engaging than atheists, because they are very knowledgeable about the OT (even if their school of exegesis comes from the Pharisees), and don't drop meme misconceptions that make you cringe.
How would Christians react if CERN found out that the Big Bang wasn't the actual beginning of the universe, and that there have been an infinite number of Big Bangs stretching back into the past (cyclical universe)?
I get the feeling that Catholics and Orthodox would be ok with it, as to imply otherwise would mean that God was confined to time and space. I think there's something in the Summa about this too.
How could I rationalize God? I want to deepen my understanding of him so I want to read stuff that defies him in a "non-fedora" kind of way. Do any of you guys know of good atheism books?
PS: I don't even know if atheism is the right source
>>469668
are you 15
>>470363
You could always look into the watchmaker analogy I guess.
>>469877
How do you canonize a saint then? Especially if there is no ruling body?
>>470283
>How would Christians react if CERN found out that the Big Bang wasn't the actual beginning of the universe, and that there have been an infinite number of Big Bangs stretching back into the past (cyclical universe)?
Cyclical universe model is not sustainable.
Most cosmology is too speculative to see as absolute.
>I get the feeling that Catholics and Orthodox would be ok with it, as to imply otherwise would mean that God was confined to time and space. I think there's something in the Summa about this too.
Yes, you could work around it just like you can for most scientific theories.
>>470363
Well Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes might be good places to start.
>>470363
I doubt trying to rationalize something that defies logic and reason will get you far. If you want something to fall back on, you can always claim that the sun is god as an invariable part of life on Earth. However you can easily believe in a pure, higher being, so you don't need to dwell in the lower realms of scientific confusion. Just pursue wisdom.
>>470363
First read Aquinas, then Hume
What does your church look like, /chris/?
>>469642
>Christian prosecution
My sides senpai, if people saying the errors of your religon on the Internet is a problem, you really have none.
How do I stop masturbating, Christbros?
>>470803
Have you tried not masturbating?
>>470803
When you want to stalk some girls on Facebook, remember that it will make you horny and fap on them. Say that out loud and stop.
Has been working for me for 2 weeks which is a record.
>>470614
>>470803
Find me one single part of the Bible that says "dont masterbate" and I might answer
>>469485
According to Aquinas, jerking off is actually a worse sin than rape
>>471047
Rape is OK
>If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
>But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
>If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
>And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:15-18
>>470363
>Do any of you guys know of good atheism books?
Arguably the best
>>470283
>the Big Bang wasn't the actual beginning of the universe
The big bang IS NOT the beginning of the universe in any sense except that we currently can't predict what happened any farther back. It says NOTHING about the creation of matter or a anything else.
>>468780
Why do you bother my man?
They will either throw lists of orthodox music at you or give you bible quotes.. there is no argument and the whole church is built on brain-washing, don't study anything, if you do ignore all the content and use it against the creator. God works in mysterious ways don't question a single word from the bible.. you just have to believe be ignorant, ignore the other religions.
>>469840
>there's no archive for this board yet
wut, desustorage has been archiving /his/ literally since its first post
http://desustorage.org/his/
>>471093
Well we use matter devices that function on material principles to study and understand material universe. It's impossible to comprehend the absence of matter and study the absence of universe.
>>468766
>-Sayings of the Desert Fathers
Seconding this one, it's fuckin' great. Ain't even a Christian, but that thing's a valuable resource of wisdom.
>>471272
Memes: the post
>>471313
Yeah, he was in the occult thread spamming the same sentiments.
I like the social, cultural and moral aspects of Christianity, but I'm having trouble believing in it. These are some of the big hurdles as I see them:
>God created the Universe.
Since the nature of things "prior" to the big bang are unknown I suppose this could be true. A divine Creator could have been the catalyst of this universe. Deism at this point basically.
>God made humans in his image and cares about us.
We evolved on Earth as descendants of a continuous chain of other life forms. No apparent signs of divine involvement guiding this process. We're also a hugely small and seemingly insignificant part of the Universe. It isn't very obvious that we're the main part of all of Creation.
>The Son of God died for our sins on the cross.
An amazing story, but it's hard for me to imagine that it could actually have happened in real life.
>Religions aren't simply man-made.
This is a big one. The notion that people simply invent these ideas over time would be a very simple explanation, especially since religious texts don't contain concrete information which the people of that time and area didn't already know.
>>471320
Wat?
>>471401
>>471272
>They will either throw lists of orthodox music at you or give you bible quotes.. there is no argument and the whole church is built on brain-washing, don't study anything, if you do ignore all the content and use it against the creator. God works in mysterious ways don't question a single word from the bible.. you just have to believe be ignorant, ignore the other religions.
>>471217
>The Christian threads get deleted pretty quick - they are very retarded, every time I postulated a question there they responded with orthodox music.
>>471415
I don't know.. have you ever visited an orthodox thread they're full of orthodox music and lack arguments it's a well known fact around here.
>>470614
That's a really small church
>>471068
>says rape is OK
>continues to cite verses that explain the punishments for rapists
>>472316
Rape isn't what is being punished. Read more carefully. Rape is okay as long as the woman isn't married. What is being punished is theft of property
>>472316
>ignores the verses about 50 shekels and genocide
>>470532
Saint recognition starts when enough laypeople venerate one. The canonization is just an official recognition by clergy for that area. A parish or dioceses can have its own saints that aren't canonized anywhere else. There are many universally canonized saints, and there are many that you'd probably never hear of unless you're from some very small town in Greece.
>>470803
Pray to the Theotokos
Don't look at porn
Fast
Confess
>>472349
What national Orthodox church do you belong to?
Cradle or convert?
Going to my first Divine Liturgy tomorrow. Wish me luck senpai
So why do you guys believe in Christianity? I'm fully convinced there's an all powerful God and I really like Christianity, but I'm not sure if Christianity is the correct religion, or if any religion is correct.
>>472374
>being forced to marry your rapist
>>473997
Women were not financially independent then, they needed children and a husband to support them into old age. And if a woman isn't a virgin, she pretty much has no choice but to be a prostitute, which stops paying down the road. If you'd take your modernist goggles off for a moment, you'd see this about protection of the woman, not punishment.
>>474020
>And if a woman isn't a virgin, she pretty much has no choice but to be a prostitute
Sounds like a social society designed and lead by the perfect creator of space and time
>>474024
It was a terrible society, humans in general were terrible back then. That's why God's expectations of them were much lower, and the old covenant was carnal (represent by circumcision, carnal ethics and unleavened bread). Once they had the spirit, one they could commune with God's Body, then they were held to much higher standards.
can anyone tell me anything about Catholicism?
>>471013
Matthew 5:27-30
>>474020
>Women were not financially independent then
Its hard to be financially independent when laws literally disherit you of property and bar you from political power.
>>474623
The one true Church outside of which there is no salvation which has managed to carry on the tradition and church established by Christ all whilst maintaining the universality that is so crucial to Christianity.
Not only that but it was the only force preventing utter fragmentation and degredation of europe following the collapse of rome
>>475175
Masturbating =/= fantasizing about fucking someone else than the person you're married or at least in couple with
>>475207
>women did nothing in the old covenant
Judges chapter 4 and 5 buddy
>>474034
What? Humans were the same. They just lived in shitty conditions and were all uneducated. Things yahweh could have helped with if he were real and not one of the many caananite gods
>>472816
Will someone please answer this?
>>475836
The teachings of Jesus are extremely attractive.
The religion itself is pretty damn grounded compared to some others (it doesn't prevent it from having fanatical idiots though).
With how Christianity has shaped our current society and left many major cultural marks, I suppose it's easier to identify with it as a westerner.
There's also the fact it is very highly inclusive (people who don't know about God or even worship other deities aren't automatically going to Hell, people who believe in God but don't apply his moral rules aren't any more saved than any other asshole, etc).
>>475918
>>475836
To sum it up, it puts spiritual health and morality before ritualistic praise of God whithout going into crazy hippie zone, it is very universal and inclusive, and you see Christian references and symbolism all over the place if you live in Europe or the US so it's easier to access than other religions.
However I can barely stand institutional religion (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism...), and people are either part of them because they were raised into it and can't question things, or because they are new believers and feel the need to belong to a community.
>>472816
The values of Christianity are very very very spiritually advanced.
You gain only benefits from it and there's no harm for you if you believe.
And because believing in Jesus and his Gospels is a requirement for salvation just as He said that's why people believe in the dogma of The Logos in human flesh.
>>468780
>freer
>safer, more secure
>its 2015 guys so approve of homosex
Am I being trolled? Is this some next level shit?
>>476149
>Am I being trolled?
Yes. https://desustorage.org/his/search/text/Man%20has%20peered%20into%20the%20darkest%20corners%20of%20the%20cosmos/
It's a fedora copy pasta that some christfag keeps posting
>>471007
Is that really your church? That place is absolutely magnificent.
>>476247
>However, is there a reason to actually believe in it instead of just living by its morals?
Of course not. You don't need Santa to stop you from being nice, but you're not a child
>>476247
>It seems morally right about everything.
So you're going to turn the other cheek when someone attacks you with a tank?
>>476247
Because the morals only make sense if it's actually true.
Are you familiar with the mad, bad or God trillema?
>>476338
>Depends on the situation.
So how is Christianity supposed to provide an absolute moral framework then? This makes your moral framework just as relativistic as any modern one
>>476351
>The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
>Romans 13:9
It comes down to loving your neighbor as yourself. I just have to do everything out of love. If the man in the tank is going to go on to kill innocent people if I don't kill him, then I will have to stop the tank if I truly love everyone. If I have important things to do for others out of love, then I have to defend myself so I can go on to do those things.
>>468780
ITS 2015 COME ON
>>476380
>then I will have to stop the tank if I truly love everyone.
And 'everyone' would include the guy in the tank, so this wouldn't work
>>476410
Well if I love everyone equally then I'll have to put the lives of the majority over the minority.
>>476338
If you look it up, you'll probably get a more coherent explanation, because I'm half asleep and e-banging someone.
Basically, if you look at the behavior of Jesus of Nazareth, you must conclude he was either a madman, a bad moral teacher or God.
Remember, Jesus went around forgiving the sins of people. It's what he spends most of his time doing. We tend to forget, because this is such an obvious fact of Jesus's life, how bizzare and counterintuitive it was.
Remember, Jesus is not forgiving sins against him (unless he's God), he's forgiving sins and crimes against OTHER PEOPLE.
Imagine if I went around telling battered wives that their husbands are forgiven. If I went on TV and said that ISIS's acts are forgiven. Anyone I say is forgiven is forgiven.
I would be regarded as, at the very least, an asshole, and a usurper of other people's grievances.
This is a small, but critical example of how Christian ethics is dependent on the notion that Christ is God. Otherwise all of this is pretty much indefensible.
>>476423
So wait, now the ultimate guideline to morality is the majority? I thought Christianity was the ultimate guideline.
Does that mean that if 51% of the population thinks that cannibalism is okay, you begin eating people?
>>476444
Holy shit. It's like you're trying not to understand. It's not that complicated.
I want bad things to happen to as few people as possible. Therefore it's better for just the man in the tank to be killed than for many more people to be killed.
>>476247
Its morals can be very difficult to live up to (fighting in a purely spiritual and verbal way, turning the other cheek, loving your enemies while they persecute you, etc), and their justification is God-given (the small ones will become the great ones in the kingdom of God and vice-versa, Jesus is to be followed because he's at the very least the direct word of God to the people (and is at most God Himself), etc).
It is pretty much impossible to live in a purely passive and loving way without having any higher religious justification (see buddhism too, although it's not necessarily a deity-based religion).
>>476380
Jesus did not fight back. One of his disciples was about to defend him with a sword but Jesus told him to put it down, and even healed the guy he was attacking.
Being a Christian would mean trying to find a way to save the morality of the guy in the tank, and the lives of the people he wants to kill, at the same time and regardless of your own life.
Killing is very difficult to avoid because of such dilemmas (the guy won't listen to you at all and really wants to kill more people, and letting yourself die without managing to help anyone else, including the guy trying to kill you, would be very counter-productive and useless). Killing might become necessary, but it is never spiritually justified. Effectively, there is no "just war" by Jesus' teachings. It's not like you're given a direct train to Hell if you kill one life to save a thousand, but if you feel proud of having to resort to killing to preserve the life of others, you're on the wrong path.
>>476656
Catholicism also claims the Genesis really did happen, word for word.
Believe it or not, Catholicism is only one interpretation of Christianity. You don't need to be a Catholic to be a Christian, and you don't need to agree with every part of the Catholic doctrine to be a Catholic either.
>>476752
They don't claim it is literal, though, don't misrepresent their position.
Also, I think you should agree with every Catholic dogma if you are going to be Catholic (even though they've waffled back and forth on dogma). People who pick-and-choose are causing the Catholic Church to try to "get with the times", which is very, very hazardous to Christianity.
>>472816
Read up on Christian miracles like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun
>The apparitions were also witnessed by President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and captured by newspaper photographers and Egyptian television. Investigations performed by the police could find no explanation for the phenomenon. No device was found within a radius of fifteen miles capable of projecting the image, while the sheer number of photographs from independent sources suggests that no photographic manipulation was involved. Having been unable to produce an alternative explanation for the luminous sightings, the Egyptian government accepted the apparitions as true.[4]
Other hard to explain miracles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_apparitions
>The 12th appearance (1 March)
>There were almost 1,500 people present. Local housewife Catherine Latapie, nine months pregnant, who had a paralysis of the ulnar nerve in one arm following an accident, reported regaining full movement after bathing her arm in the spring. Simultaneously, she went into labor and had to leave almost immediately to give birth. She gave an account of these events to local physician Dr. Pierre Romaine Dozous, who began to collect information on healings at the spring. This was the first of the scientifically unattributable events to take place at Lourdes.[15]
I find myself enamoured with the idea of christ the man and christ of the trinity being seperate ideas. Theologically is their any reason behind this seperation or should i abandon this althogether as unnessecary to the nature of christ?
>>468766
>Sayings of the Desert Fathers
my man
>>476886
Your position is called Nestorianism.
>>476886
>He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh. He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God. He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person. As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ...
>>476811
We had a thread on Fatima yesterday (I think you know this because I suspect you're the poster who keeps bringing it up in every fucking thread). Lourdes has been the subject of lots of skeptical analysis which is hard to discuss in depth in a few posts.
Zeitoun is quite eerie though. I remember reading something about a miracle in Greece that happened about 80 years ago too but can't remember the details
>>473997
>not knowing that rape back then meant seducing a virgin and ruining her in society's eyes
>>477169
Different anon here, but no, nestorianism is definately not compatible with Catholicism, nor with the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox. Nestorianism was condemned as heretical at the council of Ephesus.
Basically the orthodox position is that Jesus is a single person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine.
How much do differences matter? Will I go to hell if I say and the Son?
Are there any Saints in your sect whom you don't think deserve their title? For an Orthodox, I don't see why Justinian and Theodora should be Saints, apparently Theodora was one of the biggest whores in the history of the empire, routinely holding orgy's
>>469225
>virgin birth must mean polytheistic origins
lol yeah and legends spoke of Plato, Alexander, and Augustus being born of virgin birth after their mothers were impregnated by Apollo, Zeus, and Jupiter. They must be myths too.
>>469160
All have segments of them that have lost the Gospel historically, and the Episcopal church is still losing it worldwide, except in non-white countries.
>God bless the Anglican bishops in Africa.
Speaking of evangelical Christianity, Presbyterians are pretty comfy.
Ecclesiastes 7:28
>while I was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.
What did King Solomon mean by this?
Is the argument that the idea of Jesus was basically lifted from older pre-Christianity religions valid?
What are some good commentaries on the Bible?
I'm about to read Judges, is there any suggested commentaries on that?
What about any other books? Because I'm going to read them all eventually.
What's /christian/'s favorite apocryphal text?
Favorite heretical group?
>>478820
The answer depends on what you mean by "the idea of Jesus". To begin with, there is no reasonable doubt that Jesus at least historically existed. That leaves the idea of biographical facts about him being speculated or taken from other mythologies. There might be something in that, but at least some of those mythologies were deliberately misrepresented by people with an agenda to push this idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA
but some other anons will know more about this than me, I am a layman in this area.
>>478820
Paul converts to Christianity in around 33 to 35 AD, and Nero persecuted Christians in 64 AD so the cult of people who followed the teachings of Jesus are called Christians, because they believe He is the Messiah, existed during this time.
Though history does parallel
How can you refute other religions?
How do you respond to Jews?
>>478951
>favorite heretical group
Least favorite would've been good. I guess the false church and the people opposed to Christianity
But then again you have two kinds of Christians, the ignorant and the one's who are just a whole lot different than any common stereotype...
Gospels of Thomas and Mary are good, especially for someone who is a Gnostic Christian, as is Hypostasis of the Archons. Book of Enoch, Bhagavad Gita. I think this stuff should all be canonical.
>>479002
I think the Satan Jews Jesus mentions in the Bible are actually worshipping Archons through Yahweh as the Demiurge.
Even Judaism and Christianity don't actually line up all the way, yet Judeo-Christian doctrines and Roman Catholicism are holding many back from stepping foward.
The way to refute the other "religions" is with the truth, even refuting Christianity. Some Christians could benefit from Buddha and other apocryphal texts.
>>469140
>there have been religious images of mother and child in the past
>therefore christianity is derived from these past images
I don't understand
>>470283
Aquinus is pretty adamant that our only grounds for believing in a beginning to the universe is revelation though Genesis. As far are human reason and experience can tell, he thinks, it could really go wither way.
However, some thinkers take it that there are a priori reasons for thinking that there was a beginning to the universe. So, if there wasn't a beggning, then it seems like an infinite amount of time has *actually* elapsed. Think how odd it would be if I suddenly ran up to you and went "... 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, finished!", and then told you I'd just counted down from infinity. Whether or not this sort of argument holds up is another story, but it means that thinkers need not rely on data for a rational justification in there being some absolute beginning to the universe (whether or not this is the Big Bang doesn't really matter for christianity), since we might be able to come to the conclusion based on reason alone.
>>476752
>Catholicism also claims the Genesis really did happen, word for word.
Except that this is categorically wrong. Look it up, divinely guided evolution is official church doctrine nowadays.
It's honestly only American-based churches and some super-fringe sects that interpret genesis literally. People have been taking that shit alegorically since 4th century AD at least.
>>471325
>We evolved on Earth as descendants of a continuous chain of other life forms. No apparent signs of divine involvement guiding this process.
God's will is more subtle than than that. It's not like He intervenes physically in the world in order to influence what occurs like a 'ghost-hand' that that moves genes around to rig the evolution of man, (God's being immiterial might even make this metaphysically impossible), His will determines the laws of the world and the initial state of that world. He can know from creation the laws of the world that will produce man, and will for the creation of such a universe, in which case we wouldn't expect to find any physical evidence for divine intervention in the first place. God knows what's going to happen, it's not as if he has to keep pushing the universe in differant directions to correct Himself all the time, as if He were in conflict with His own creation.
>We're also a hugely small and seemingly insignificant part of the Universe.
I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but this 'insignificance' is only so from our perspective. God is omnipresent, remember, so nowhere is inherantly any less significant for Him than anywhere else. On top of this, God being perfectly good implies that He would have intrest in moral agents, which human beings are.
>An amazing story, but it's hard for me to imagine that it could actually have happened in real life.
I think you might be missing the point. The entire reason the crucifixion is so important is BECAUSE it's so hard to imagine. It's simply increadible that anything like the redemption of man through the death of Christ could have happened, but Chistians believe it did. This is of course where faith comes in, and where it must come in. Reason alone can only get you so far, perhaps to Deism but not full Christianity, the latter requires faith in Christ Himself. There must always be a leap of faith, but this is not necesserily a detriment to Christianity.
(1/2)
>>469222
But Orthodox Christians are worshippers of Satan who will burn forever in fire. I don't see how it is possible for them to have proper saints.
>>471325
>>479202
>The notion that people simply invent these ideas over time would be a very simple explanation.
An explanation for what? Its not as if Christians believe in God because His existence explains the existence of religion. If that were so then we might believe the truth of any old religion by the same reasoning. The existence of God need not be arrived at via reason, via some kind of abduction from the existence of monotheism. Rather, belief in the existence of God is one that must be arrived at ultimately through faith, and belief in the Christian God (i.e. the trinitarian God who was incarnate in Christ and who died for our sins, etc) must be arrived at through faith in Christ.
I'm sorry that I can't give you a data set that prove the truth of Christianity, but even if I could it would be missing the point to rely on such a set. We must turn to God by choice, and that capacity of free choice is paramount.
>>476282
>Implying there can't be virtuous pagans
There's a diffence between saying that people need religion to be good at all and saying that religion tends to make them act more good. I think almost all Christians would deny the former, though it would take more than a Santa analogy to attack the latter.
>>476309
>Conflating 'is' with 'ought'
Christian ethics isn't sociology, it doesn't predict what people are going to do, but perscribes what they ought to do.
Yes, if someone attacks me with a tank, I probably will not turn the other cheek.
But, I still know that I *ought* to turn the other cheek.
If not already explained could someone explain why God didn't alter the properties of physics/neuroscience/quantum physics to make humans not capable of extreme violence upon one another.
If Gensis is canon/literal, then why didn't he immidentiely go back to the drawing board when Cain killed Abel?
>>479250
>why God didn't alter the properties of physics/neuroscience/quantum physics to make humans not capable of extreme violence upon one another.
Because then human beings would be good, but not by choice, meaning no free-will, which is bad, and I mean worse than all the suffering that is thus avoided.
>If Gensis is canon/literal
Genesis is not literal. But even if it were, Cain would have had free-will and used it to murder Abel, to turn away from God in other words. God wants human beings to able to make that choice, the value in our abiltiy to chose good or evil is increadibly important.
>>479145
You're basically right, but
>It's honestly only American-based churches
but trust me, it's far from only American-based churches that have this issue. You're right that it's only some protestants here and there and super-fringe sects that have this problem, and it's a shame they get so much attention as they do.
>>479202
>God's will is more subtle than than that. etc
There's a better way of putting it than you did, which comes from Aquinas I think (found pic related but I'm no expert on Aquinas). Creation is not an act that happened in the past, it is an active process that is happening right now, in the present. We, right now, are active participants in creation. The eventual arising of human beings is part of the contingent chain of all creation that was authoredby, and is being authored by God.
>I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but this 'insignificance' is only so from our perspective. God is omnipresent, remember, so nowhere is inherantly any less significant for Him than anywhere else. On top of this, God being perfectly good implies that He would have intrest in moral agents, which human beings are.
I would add or elaborate, that there is one thing that separates us from almost all other inanimate matter in the universe: that we have a mind, a self; we are a piece of it that is able to reason abstractly about and understand that universe. And that is a beautiful thing, as I see it. To put it in religious language, we are made in the image and likeness of God. Size is not the only way to measure importance: a sun is huge, but does it have a mind?
>>479250
>all this asking around the subject of "do you take the Bible literally?"
Do you take the library literally?
>canon/literal
They are not the same thing, don't slash them together.
>>479277
>Do you take the library literally?
Is there a website where Christians get these ludicrously poor analogies from?
>>479266
>would be good, but not by choice
So God therefore allows bad things to happen and is able to stop it but doesn't?
Do you think the first rape surprised him?
>God wants human beings to able to make that choice
But if literally the first generation out of Paradise involved a someone murdering his brother wouldn't that rise the question that something isn't quite right?
I guess since it isn't literal there must be a deeper meaning to that story.
>>479277
>all this asking around the subject of "do you take the Bible literally?"
So if free will is the ability to do horrible things, then God knew that horrible deeds would happen (and to who) or didn't he not know they would?
>>479286
Not that guy, but honestly its not a bad analogy.
Library=a collection of books
The Bible is a collection of books
But anyway, the website you're looking for is called twitter.
>>479277
>Do you take the library literally?
The library has neat little signs saying "fiction" and "non-fiction". Let me know where IN the bible it says something like that.
>>479301
A library is a well catalogued collection of books. It has lots of subcategories but the two main categories are fiction i.e. books that are intended to be fictional even if they do, in some cases, try and convey some kind of deeper meaning and non-fiction i.e. books that are indeed intended to be taken literally.
>>479299
>So God therefore allows bad things to happen and is able to stop it but doesn't?
He has given people free will. For God to force someone to not rape when they will to rape would be to contradict their free will, which would in turn be for God to contradict His own will. I know it sounds horrible, but free will is simply *valuable*.
It's not as if the wicked aren't punished though. In fact, its precicely because free will is so sacred that people can be held accountable for their actions in the eyes of God.
In short, it is wicked to force someone to act in a certain way against their will, and to limit their freedom. Since God must be perfectly good, He therefore cannot curtail free-will, though He can judge those who have done wrong.
>>479320
Anon you just need to ask the librarian (A PROPER librarian otherwise you're going to enter a World of pain).
ps. All the Libraries say their librarian's are correct.
>>479328
>and to limit their freedom.
Even by limiting it through the act of punishment?
>>479346
All I can say is, slapping your wrist after you put your hand in the cookie jar isn't the same as making it impossible for you to go into the cookie jar.
>>479302
Genres back then weren't necessarily neatly labelled, but we can generally figure out a genre today simply from its writing style. There are many examples of this in Gensis which show us that it's not documentary genre, but one of the most explicit is Genesis 1:27, which is written very consciously in the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, something reserved for works of literature that are a poetic and often metaphorical homage to God (Pslams being the most abundant example of this).
>>479320
Ancient libraries probably didn't have these categories, even though everyone knew the difference between Thucyidides and the Aeneid
I'm a Christian struggling with attempting no fap
pls help
>>479381
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6e9T1FpG8
She didn't give birth at 14 in excruciating pain and danger of being stoned, without so much as her parents to go back to, so you could fap.
>>479388
wew lad
That'll really help him in his struggle with lust.
>>479302
Well it is certainly true that different books of the Bible have different genres. This is clear from even a light reading of it. There are books that are mythology (Genesis), books that are meant to be straightforward history (Kings, Chronicles), poetry (Job), prophecy (the major and minor prophets), there are even "books" consisting of a bunch of songs (Psalms) and a load of little proverbs and adages (Proverbs); when we go in to the New Testament the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles which are in a mainly journalistic narrative style which was meant to be taken as documenting events, then there are the letters, which are literally that, Greek-style letters written from one person to another, or to a group of people, written as argument rather than narrative. All of these books are obviously diferent genres, and it would be wrong to approach one in the same mindset as another. And that is obvoiusly not to say that this means one is bull and the other is not.
The word Bible comes from the Greek which means "the books". It is not *a book*, it is a collection of books, this is clear. In a certain sense, it IS a library. In a crude sense maybe, and I apologize for anaolgizing it like that, especially after how the thread got diverted by it.
>>479396
I find praying to the Theotokos, listening to the hymns in honor of her, venerating her icons, and contemplating all she did for me, to be very helpful.
This is the oldest extant Christian hymn, and it's about her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZMMGKJsXsM
>>479381
"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
Get rid of your computer, and anything else that you use to look up porn.
Just kidding, I know that won't be practical (unless it is practicable for your life, I don't know; sometimes I have experimented with keeping my laptop in the office and only using computers for work at the office/library, for a general digital detox, I only have it home with me for the holidays). But there is something to be said for deliberately hurting the means or opportunity. But I feel for your struggle friend, I don't know of any magic formula to help, I wish I did.
>>479415
>>479397
>>479388
Is... is it extra sinful to fap to the holy mother?
>>479429
why would you even ask that
>>479442
>Help I can't stop fapping!
>Consider the holy virgin..
>U srs m8?
>I find venerating her image, listening hymns in her praise and just thinking about her really hard helps me alot.
It was the logical thing to ask.
>>479429
She's Our Mother, you derp
>>479461
So, as sinful as idolatry?
>>479465
As sinful as failing to honor your mother.
>>479475
Was she Panthera's mother?
Was it a sin when he fathered Jesus?
>>479457
from a certain mindset, maybe. It didn't occur to me. And even at that, logical, but not inevitable. Not every single flight of fancy has to be asked and typed into that reply box and posted. It takes a certain kind of person to go ahead and say something like that as a response to that.
>>479487
>Not every single flight of fancy has to be asked and typed into that reply box and posted. It takes a certain kind of person to go ahead and say something like that
Are you aware of what website you are on right now?
However I never intended to offend you, it was a legitimate albeit retarded question that I did desire a proper answer to. Thankyou.
>>479511
This is 4chan, but it's not /b/
How do Christians resolve the problems with the bible, for example, Moses not being an author (or real person), the Exodus never happening, the early Jews being pantheistic and Yahweh being only one god of many (a war god too). How about the fact that Jesus as God is something only really developed in later books, to the extent that some scholars consider the deity of Christ a later addition?
And for the Catholics, how do they resolve pronouncements that the bible is free from error in all areas (yes, scientific, historical, morally etc everything - see this article https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=498) when that is clearly not the case?
>"God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true" -- Pope Leo XIII - Providentissimus Deus
Many of the findings of the historical criticism method I find to be incredibly problematic to any orthodox Christian view of scripture and tradition. How are they reconciled? So far the only way I can see a Christian reconciling their beliefs would be to become a radically different kind of Christian, pretty much an atheist with a penchant for Jesus, or else you are orthodox yet say "well, if there is error it can not be from the bible or the Church, even if everything at the moment proves this illogical I have faith it is right".
>>479805
I seem to have stumbled upon a sort of answer myself...
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true
Essentially, yes, Catholicism is held to the belief that everything in the bible is true, historically, scientifically, morally, etc etc BUT only if that is what the author was trying to affirm. For instance, let's say in one of the books of the bible Moses had written some directions on how to reach the promised land, and after the second left turn he writes about a landmark with a red roof, but we later discover that that landmark historically had a blue roof. Well, that doesn't mean shit apparently because the point was not the colour of the roof, the point was how to get to the promised land, so everything else is up for grabs.
I'm not exactly convinced, personally.
It was also interesting to learn about the meme that 'the bible is only inerrant in matters of faith and morals' is a misreading of Vatican 2, considering everyone - traditionalists included - often parrot that line.
>>479805
it was all le mataphor :^)))
Seriously though
>events around 1000BC and earlier are pretty difficult to get information or details about so events from Adam to Solomon are supposed accurate, although clearly romanticized and shouldn't be all taken literally or historically
>Things like the conquest of Canaan, which are pretty damn dubious, are a big "?" and interpretations differ, from "but it was true!" to "they did conquests but not as aggressively as the Bible claims" to "it did not happen at all but it doesn't matter for us, and characters like Moses or Joshua probably didn't exist but Jesus wasn't going to go and say that to the Jewish people".
>things like the flood that have a huge chance of simply not having happened are a big "???". Some will try hard to find any "proof" it happened, some will say it is metaphorical for a similar disaster or simply taken from Mesopotamian literature and is only there for its theological and moral teaching. Some will simply not ponder the question because Genesis is the first book and raises many more questions than just the flood.
What matters is the actual sources of each book of the Bible and what we can make out of it from a religious point of view. The moment we find something that simply crushes the core beliefs of Christianity (like finding the bones of Jesus for instance), it's fucked and will have to either adapt greatly to become an agnostical or atheist philosophical school of thoughts, or remain conservative and just disregard any evidence thrown its way.
>>479999
We don't have any of Jesus' DNA and we don't know where he was buried.
There is no way we could ever identify some human remains as belonging to Jesus.
>>480038
I know, it was just an example.
Disproving elements of the Pentateuch isn't going to destroy Christianity because its core parts essentially reside in the New Testament, which itself needs the prophetic books of the OT to work and does not necessarily need the stories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, etc. to be literally accurate.
>>479999
>What matters is the actual sources of each book of the Bible and what we can make out of it from a religious point of view.
But we don't know any of them
>>480053
We have a pretty solid general idea that goes completely against the traditionalist view, that's good enough. Obviously it would be better if we could find even more details.
>get 30 quid from uncle and aunt for Christmas
>Go waterstones
>See Cambridge Companion to Philo
>Interested and buy
>Go to bookos, it's there for free
>tfw I should've just gotten the 30quid Oxford Handbook to Kierkegaard instead
>>480057
are you talking about how much of the authorship is debated? textual interpolations through the ages?
>>481259
Traditional view is that each book was either written by hand or dictated from God by the person the book is titled after. Recent discoveries confirm this is very very unlikely (see: pentateuch really being 4 different texts mixed together, for example).
>>468780
shoo shoo slimey limey
