I mostly meant what order to read it in

>>7917045
>How should I approach the bible?
As a skeptic.

>>7917059
because you might accidentally believe some of it? Do you read Homer the same way

Well, you picked up the annotated Bible, that's a good start.

I suppose you ought to begin at the beginning, with Genesis and Exodus. Genesis is particularly important because it contains both The Fall and God's covenant with Abraham, both of which will be very important later. Exodus is good because it's the foundational story of the Hebrew people, and also contains the Passover.

After that, I might suggest reading the book of Kings, as it tells the story of King David. Then, personally, I'd read the Book of Job. It's one of my favorites and is really a pretty powerful meditation on the mysterious nature of God.

After that maybe read both books of Isaiah and the Book of Elijah.

And after THAT, you're ready for the Gospels. Read those in the order they're in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You can read Acts after that but you don't have to. Instead, begin to read Paul's epistles.

Revelation is optional. You may be ready for that later.

Google "Yale OCW Old Testament" and "Yale OCW New Testament"

Slog through the Pentateuch / early Old Testament because the wisdom literature and prophets are a lot easier and involve a lot less memory/effort, then the New Testament is easy as FUCK. It's really just the early part that is hard as shit.

If you are interested in Christian philosophy, google "Wheaton college philosophy playlist" to see a history mostly of Western metaphysics and epistemology, from a Christian-sensitive perspective

Christina esotericism is also huge so keep an eye open. Most truly devout and meaningful Christians I've known were esoteric Catholics who were obsessed with Blake, Eckhart, and deism far more than doctrinal literature

>>7917045
Genesis, Exodus. Tobit, Job, Ecclesiastics. Then the New Testament.

Then read the rest of the OT/Apocrypha.

>>7917065
You should indeed read Homer the same way. The problem is humans tend to have an inclination to assign a higher value to things which they are biased towards. For a self-declared atheist/agnostic they would read the Greeks with a lot less skepticism than say the Bible or Quran but the inverse is also true.

Almost the whole mental battle is trying to keep an open mind to everything

>>7917065
Homer's Odyssey is about a habitual liar. You always have to take it with a cautious eye.

Take it from me. I am Artemis.

>>7917045
Hey listen man you have to find a church. If you find a Catholic Church with a study group or small group that's fantastic. Good luck though. Those places generally don't actually grow the faith of their congregation

4chans butthappy obsession with shitting on Protestantism is sheer contrarianism. Even the most notable people, historically, of either Orthodox or Catholic faith actually are notable because of how they defied it. Aquinas for Catholicism and Tolstoy for orthodoxy, for example.

What I'm telling you mostly is that you need to find a church that isn't lazy or dead. You need to find a church that isn't crazy or heretical or self absorbed either. A conservative Baptist Church or similar non denominational should be fine. But like I said, if you find an intellectual and spiritually healthy and growing Catholic Church by all means go for it.

Don't rely on 4chan for Christian growth.

But to answer about the Bible itself I suggest Matthew, John, acts, Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians to learn who Jesus is and what it means to follow him

You should understand the power of God. God is so powerful that if you flip open the book, he'll put you on the page he wants you to read. That's the faith you need to truly understand the Bible. When you open it and read where God wanted you to read, try and find out what he's saying to you through the book, right now.

You will find as many consistent moral guidelines as you will practical scienctific concepts

>>7917354
>>7917358
Simply ebin

>>7917114
Butterfly do us all a favor and fuck off from these threads.
>>7917045
For the Bible use a Jerusalem Bible or an Ignatius Press annotated version.
For philosophy read The Republic, Categories, Ethics, De Anima and with that you'll have the core ideas which are integral to just about everything.
For more introductory material Peter Kreeft has his Introduction to Aquinas, The Platonic Tradition and Ethics, a History of Moral Thought.
At that point you should be able to tackle Augustine's City of God and Aquinas for real.
Also Edward Feser is a great author, highly recommend him.
An Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman and Europe and Faith by Belloc are also amazing.

>>7918218
What works and Authors would you recommend to contrast and test it with so that I wouldn't get a one sided/biased picture

>>7918244
You mean in which way exactly? You want protestant versus Catholic or Catholic versus atheist or? Because there will be plenty of disagreement with the said authors.

>from a literary standpoint

King James version.

>>7918265
Atheist/Agnostic as well as philosophers who whilst theists or otherwise contradict Aristotelianism

>>7917334
>Even the most notable people, historically, of either Orthodox or Catholic faith actually are notable because of how they defied it
>Tolstoy for orthodoxy
Stop posting.

>>7917065
They teach historical critical method at seminary too nigga.

Use Bart Ehrman's New Testament primer and the Yale open course on the New testament by that bald faggot, you will come away with a good appraisal of the work.

Old testament stuff is a lot harder to deal with, I wouldnt know where to start.

>>7917334
>Tolstoy for orthodoxy
If there ever was a heresiarch for modern Orthodoxy, Tolstoy was it.

I suggest you look to David Koresh for typical structures of evangelical churches in America.

>>7917334
>tolstoy
>orthodoxy
This post crashed hard.
He is right though, reading the Bible will be a whirlwind of information and potentially emotion. If you really are interested in Christianity and not just academics, then exploring churches around you is a necessary part of giving it a complete effort. Corporate worship is one of the core activities that can open your heart to the word and many a friend of mine that tried the purely academic route failed to meet the Spirit in anyway. Also, 4chan's skepticism and overall attitude is dangerous for the new believer, so as you go on this road, be careful. An experienced atheist "apologist" can absolutely tear your faith to shreds if you haven't read enough to understand where a lot of their fallacies and misunderstandings come from. Alas I know that part is difficult, so if you come across theological problems or an anti-theist poses a question that seems to poke a giant hole in something, I recommend Ravi Zacharias as an apologist, literally BTFOs everyone he speaks to. Also, most of the advice of what to read/how to read here isn't bad. A lot of the Old Testament cannot be appreciated unless you have a firm foundation in it, or until you have read the New Testament, at least the gospels. When/if you do go back after the NT, try to see how the entire OT points to the coming of Christ. Many of the gospels recount Jesus simply referencing the prophets foretelling his arrival. Soon you will see this in all the old testament, including Genesis with the snake and the heel of the offspring. I'd say for a "storyline": Genesis>Exodus>1 Kings>Isaiah>Yes all four gospels>Acts>Romans>Galatians>Hebrews

Much of the Bible isn't storytelling, but poetry, history, law, and if you get caught up reading saaaay: Leviticus without any lens of Christ to read it through, it's quite insufferable. Also, theology can be a dangerous road, but one that is generally worth it if you can separate the wheat/chaff. Bad theology taken into the heart can set you back years of "proper growth" in Christ if it sets the wrong foundation.

Just remember OP, God is seeing his creation open his word, searching for Him. Take your time, and if you have any questions, I can be reached at [email protected].

>>7920410
Part 2 because why not. This will be more directed at how the Bible is broken down and its content. Not sure how much you know, but others reading may have very little to start.

Basically there are 2 "halves", but that word should be used loosely. In volume, about 75% of the bible is the Old Testament, containing 39 total books. The New Testament has 27, and is much smaller. The "dividing line" between the two is that Jesus is born, lives, dies, and is resurrected all in the NT, specifically the Gospels, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John. Outside of those four books and like half a chapter of Acts, Jesus does not appear outside of visions/prophecy.

(I'm gonna abbreviate a lot of the books)
The Old Testament starts with the Pentateuch, the five books that Moses wrote. Genesis tells the story of creation and the line of Abraham, the line that the Jewish people, and Jesus himself were born through. The other four follow this people group. Now, Joshua ALL THE WAY through Psalms is a mix of history and storytelling, setting the background and history of the Jewish People and what promises God made to them, and how crappy the Jews were at worshiping God. IN GENERAL, this is important, but not a lot of it is directly referenced in the New Testament.

Next up is Psalms, a book strictly filled with songs/praises, an old school hymn book. Proverbs/Ecclesiastes(Ecc is probably the highest regarded book on /lit/ as it has some pretty good depth and its philosophy is an important one) are both wise stuff from Solomon, who wrote the next book, a book of poetry to his bride.

Isaiah through Malachi (the rest of the OT)are all prophetic works: visions or tellings from God to the prophets of different things: the future, what the Jews have done wrong, what they need to do, etc. Pretty thick stuff TBQHWF.


NOW FOR THE NT. It gets much more mention in modern christianity because Jesus is actually put on earth and teaches.

Matthew-John are the gospels, they tell the story of Jesus and his followers, including His life, death, and resurrection. Pretty crucial stuff.

Acts is a part 2 to Luke, basically tells the story of what happened after Jesus ascended into heaven, how the early church got started, how christianity spread, etc. Also very important.

Romans - Philemon are Paul's Epistles(Letters) to all the churches and people he heard there were problems with or wanted to encourage or what not. These are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR ANY THEOLOGICAL STUDY, as they form the basis for a good percentage of scriptural ground to understand what Jesus said.

Hebrews was a book written to the Jews to explain how Jesus was the answer to Judaism, all the prophecy and waiting gets wrapped up nicely. Also important for theology.

James-Jude are assorted letters from different apostles concerning different lessons, advice, etc.

Lastly is the Revelation. It's only scary cuz
>muh apocalypse
>muh Left Behind Series
Just read it, its beautiful. Then study.

Part 3 cuz I forgot to talk about Catholicism/orthodoxy.

Personally, I am Protestant (Specifically Reformed Baptist) but I know and am friends with several catholics/orthodox, and have studied them a good bit.

Basically, there are several differences between them. Catholics have the Apocrypha included in their Bible, and the Orthodoxy have the Deuterocanonicals. These works are very interesting and can shed light in places some of what the Bible can't. But as a protestant, I believe they are not part of God-breathed scripture, and when they were weeded out in the council of trent, I think that they are only good for academic christianity. But that's only so important. If a catholic or orthodox believes that Christ came to save them and his blood is their sacrifice and means into heaven, having faith in him alone, personally I think they will see the kingdom. However, once you start studying and delving into deep doctrine/theology , the harder I think it is to remain catholic/orthodox and be a true believer, as there is just some stuff I have a hard time seeing as it fitting in with the rest. But that's for another time.

This site has a good breakdown of all the differences. christianityinview.com/comparison.html

Some common political things that get asked about they all agree on is no gay marriage, no woman pastors(except liberal protestants), no abortion, no adultery, etc.

IDK, I think that's enough thread necroing for the night. Thanks those that read, and may God be with you OP. Soli Deo Gloria

>>7920633
meant Protestant Reformation not Council of Trent

>>7920633
Why dont you find their works and arguments convincing espeically when it comes to thier apostolic authority and connection to the early church?

>>7920825
Getting into specific defenses and doctrine is kinda hard over 4chan, but I'll keep the thread rolling if people are interested. To your question, which I think concerns apostolic succession instead of authority, since the authority of the apostles to relay what they had seen in Christ is almost uniformly agreed upon in the 3 arch-christian denominations
1 Cor. 5:4 - Paul gives message to discipline those who need it
1 Cor. 15:8 - A qualification of what an apostle is, having to have seen christ
2 Cor. 12:12 - Another qualification, performing miracles

and, in his many advices concerning church structure in 1/2 Timothy and Titus, he only mentions two specific church offices(deacon and minister)

So in my eyes, there was never any allusion to the passing of "authority", the apostles were a set of people with requirements in scripture, and once they were gone, nowhere does it say that line should continue. Though there is advice on how to lead in the church in named positions, so I go with that. Hope that answers the question

>>7917045
ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI

>>7920886
Does the euchrist count as a miracle?
What are your thoughts on the Church Fathers who affirm the Catholic/Orthodox view?

>>7921001
Sorry, getting kinda late, lol might have to email me past this one.
Basically, communion(what we protestants usually call it) is a group remembrance of Christ's sacrifice in our lives. (Paul goes over what Christ did, describing the act in the gospels again in 1 cor: 11 He said literally "this do in remembrance of me". There was no understanding that the actual act was the cleansing of sins, since that would mean each time you repeated it, you cleaned up the sins again. Christ's blood covers you once, he is the whole and complete sacrifice, perfect and unblemished before God. It covers this in Hebrews, but basically, the old law of having to have blood cover you again and again is no longer required. Once you accept him, he forgives all your sins, now and forever. We know this because in James 2:10 we see that if we screw up once, we are accountable for all of it forever. It would only be logical then for Christ's sacrifice, in order to be an eternal one like in (2 Cor 15) where we receive a new body in Christ, that that body cannot keep being remade each time. So I do think that the act of Christ being remembered and honored symbolically is absolutely crucial to healthy faith and growth, but the sacrament is not a miracle, it doesn't forgive your sins each time.

What's interesting about early church history is a lot of it gets clouded very quickly by the catholic doctrines. If you go through and read Paul's letters and teachings, there is a lot of warnings about divisions of the church based on idealogical assumptions. An interesting amount of early doctrines during the original catholic church days were large leaps. I do think the early catholic church did a lot of manipulating for political reasons, much different than today.

The Catholic church today has an interesting phenomenon where they use a few passages I can't remember to try to warrant using their own traditions as part of necessary practice. I'd have to look, but the verses didn't seem to me to support any sort of tradition that is currently upheld. If I started preaching heresies for 10 years, and then called it tradition, that doesn't mean I get to call that the command of God.

Catholic theology isn't very tenable when examined with as fine a comb as we use today.
You said you have Confessions. Read it when you've done the first few scriptural books we all recommended to start with. Augustine's "theology" isn't very in line with the church of his time. Remember, before dancing with theology, simply read and pray. That's a big one I forgot to tell you about.

You may not have accepted Christ into your heart yet. But that doesn't mean you can't ask him. It may not be tonight, or weeks from now, some people even longer before they realize it, but if you call his name, and believe that he existed and died for your sins, and actually mean it. Admit to him that you have been a sinner, believe he came to save you, and ask him to show his will in your life.

>>7921103
Then that is all it takes.
A lot of the questions you have are ones that have been asked centuries ago, and people still wrestle with them today. My advice is to read first, see what does make sense, then look at the existing arguments for the ones that people have tried to answer. Grudem's Systematic theology is a tome of undefiled logic, damn that man is brilliant and concise.

I'm not mature enough in my own faith to hammer out all the points over a single thread, and I have my own blindspots. I was raised presbyterian, but when I started evaluating the different points, they didn't completely get it in a fashion that was as connected as I felt safe with. Doctrine never saved anyone, only the blood of Christ can do that. That is the burden of the theologian, DO NOT LET THE INSTRUCTION OF THE WORD REPLACE THE LOVE OF CHRIST HIMSELF. It is easy to let knowledge overpower what you show to others.

If you have further questions, my email is listed above. Goodnight yall, Soli Deo Gloria.

File: christchan-rec-reading.png (3 MB, 2560x2739) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 2560x2739

>possible convert
C.S. Lewis is pretty great for beginner stuff, I loved him in high school.
you'll tire yourself very quickly if you try to tackle the bible head on first thing. to read it cover to cover you'd need the patience of a stone and the will of the stars (and that's coming from someone who'd consider themselves a strict christian)
the simplest works to approach easily should be probably the gospels (matthew, mark, luke, and john)
as it goes your interest in christianity will definitely wane if your friends/family are non-religious, so compensate by participating in online christian communities (eight chan's /christian/ is pretty top tier but rather slow, youtube actually has a great religious community, I'd advise RebornPure Catholic, April Cassidy, sanderson1611 (a controversial figure), Wretched, Rob Bell (only a few videos of his own, but track down his Nooma series and find some of his lectures) )
you'll have an intense dislike for anyone who quotes scripture directly too much or proclaims faith constantly but you'll come round eventually. Wouldn't be surprised if Augustine's confessions put you off at first, he proclaims himself unworthy to God on practically every page

>>7921171
>Rob Bell
are you serious?
>Love Wins
>Heretical
pick both.

>>7921180
>look up Love Wins
wow what the fuck what happened to Rob

>>7921171

holy shit i'm christsperging out that flannery o'connor isn't included in the fiction section

Fuck logic man, Christianity works on aesthetics or nothing else. The KJV is the most beautiful thing ever written in or translated to any language. Read Genesis, Exodus, Ecclesiastes, Job, Luke and John and if you're not on board with unimaginable verbal beauty then fuck off forever.

>>7921171
>based bishop barron not mentioned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDJcLjJEviY

>>7918218
It's true though, the Odyssey is a story within a story told by a very wily man.

>>7920198
Christian philosophy doesn't really work outside an Aristotelian framework as far as I know. >>7921001
All church fathers affirm the Catholic views basically, especially on the Eucharist. It's impossible to read the scripture itself in good faith and deny that bread and wine become flesh and blood. It's constantly stressed throughout it, without any question of it being literal.
Protesta like to think themselves biblical, but really it's just establishment of their own completely new traditions unknown to the early church. It's impossible to understand Christianity historically and stay a protestant. There are just so many holes in connecting their doctrines with historical development of ideas.
I stress John Henry Newman here as the crucial author with his Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine. It's supremely well researched. He had absolute knowledge of scripture and church fathers as well as protestant heresies being an evangelical, anglican and after decades of being a leading figure of protestant theology a Catholic.

>>7921284
>Christian philosophy doesn't really work outside an Aristotelian framework as far as I know

What? That's just not true.

>>7921284
>Christian philosophy doesn't really work outside an Aristotelian framework as far as I know.

Does that include the Orthodox? What are your thoughts on the Orthodox Catholic divide?

>>7921331
The Orthodox church doesn't have much philosophy really, or theology. Due to the nature of the division (which was tragic and unnecessary) they can't have a church teacher and develop the doctrine further. They still recognize the pope as the first bishop and essentially need him for a new council. Their doctrine isn't alive like Catholic doctrine, it's the same as it was 1000 years ago. So they focused on mysticism and monastic life which you really observe in Dostoevsky. They don't have the type of philosophy you see with the Catholics.
>>7921316
I wasn't aware of that honestly, I'd be happy to listen.

>>7921349
>their doctrine isn't alive like Catholic doctrine, it's the same as it was 1000 years ago

Inst that a good thing and proof of their connection to the Apostles? Why would theological stances need to change and bend to the demands of modernism?

>>7921359
>Inst that a good thing and proof of their connection to the Apostles?
Church is alive and doctrine needs to develop because it always has been developing. They participated in the development until then. They didn't continue due to their inability to do so, not because they think it eternally set in stone after 1054.
>Why would theological stances need to change and bend to the demands of modernism?
Well doctrine is what people think it to be really, so after a while if their society became progressive they would change it, but thankfully that hasn't happened yet.

>>7921373
>Church is alive and doctrine needs to develop because it always has been developing.

How so, I can understand doctrine will need to change with things like stem cell research and the like but why would issues like the nature of Mary need to develop?

>They didn't continue due to their inability to do so, not because they think it eternally set in stone after 1054.

I thought they could do so through their councils, do you have any good articles on this issue. Ive seen Constantine talk about it a fair bit but no one knew enough about the issue to contradict her.

>Well doctrine is what people think it to be really, so after a while if their society became progressive they would change it, but thankfully that hasn't happened yet.

Isnt that a bit subjectivist for a church?

>>7921390
>How so, I can understand doctrine will need to change with things like stem cell research and the like but why would issues like the nature of Mary need to develop?
Mary was revered, but we can't stay on reverence without understanding where doctrine developed. And so did ideas such as Trinity, it was there, but it wasn't understood or even commonly accepted by most Christians before the Nicea council.
>I thought they could do so through their councils, do you have any good articles on this issue. Ive seen Constantine talk about it a fair bit but no one knew enough about the issue to contradict her.
The councils aren't dogmatic as far as I know and don't carry strength of the ones that are.
>Isnt that a bit subjectivist for a church?
It is, and it isn't how it should be, but Trinity wasn't doctrine until people proclaimed it as such and started acting accordingly.

>>7921390
>Constantine
>her
Please God OP, tell me that you do not think Constantine, the first christian emperor of Rome is a woman

>>7921261
>tarot
>literal witchcraft
I want heretics to leave this thread

>>7921769
The tripfag Constantine bro, she posted a lot in the orthodox threads, got btfoed and stopped posting after a while.
>>7921781
I don't know who made the chart, it's a pretty retarded addition to it

>>7921785
She didnt get BTFOd she just got stalked by a couple of Jewish and Christian namefags who waifud her

>>7921827
How do you get stalked on 4chan if you don't post any info? And her arguments were pretty mediocre desu

>>7921848
>>7921827
>>7921785
>>7921769
>woman speaking out on doctrine
>is orthodox
Oh the irony

>>7921848
>How do you get stalked on 4chan if you don't post any info?

Any thread she made or was in they would just constantly make posts towards her.

> And her arguments were pretty mediocre desu

Her understanding of history and existentialism was pretty decent however she was occassionaly a tad tricky but otherwise fairly strong

>>7921890
That sounds extremely annoying.

The Scriptures are divinely inspired and nobody has the right to teach or interpret the Scriptures unless that authority is given to them by God. Nobody has the right to speak on God's behalf unless God endows them with such authority.

Protestants have no authority from God. Ask them to produce a sign that God has sent them to preach and interpret the Scriptures, and they will not be able to produce one.

There are two kinds of signs God manifests Himself in: miraculous and sacramental.
The Old Testament prophets showed their authority by miraculous signs.
The Old Testament priesthood showed their authority by sacramental signs (enrollment in the priesthood, beginning with Aaron who was anointed with oil).
The New Testament priesthood is also perpetuated by a sacramental sign. It begins here:

>He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
John 20:21-22

This is the start of the sacrament of holy orders or priesthood. The apostles then passed down this gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, which is this same sacrament instituted by Christ.

>Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:17

Right after the passage in the Gospel of John I have quoted, Christ instituted the sacrament of confession:

>Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
John 20:23

This is why the Catholic priest has the right to forgive sins in the Name of God.
The sacrament of holy orders is why the Catholic priest has the right to preach in the Name of God: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." Catholic priests are SENT by Christ. Protestants are literal false prophets who send themselves out into the world to preach, with no divine authority / sign, who rely upon their own testimony, and who therefore divide themselves into countless sects, proving that they are of the devil, the word devil coming from the Greek word to divide.

So-called "Bible-believing Christians" do not believe in the Bible, but in themselves interpreting the Bible, because the Bible cannot speak for itself. Christ did not send the Bible into the world to convert the nations, he sent men. Protestants stupidly say that their religion is of the Word of God, whereas the Catholic religion is of the traditions of men. Except that Christ did not send a book into the world, he sent men with divine authority to declare the gospel. The Bible itself is a product of these divinely empowered men.

I could go on and on. I struggle to believe how an honest man can be a Protestant. I don't understand how Protestants don't tremble in fear every time they open their mouths to speak about Christ as though they had the authority to speak on God's behalf, without any sign or proof of authority.

>>7921958
> I don't understand how Protestants don't tremble in fear every time they open their mouths to speak about Christ as though they had the authority to speak on God's behalf, without any sign or proof of authority.

It's like if a man in England walked around calling himself the King of England. What right does he have to call himself the King of England, what proof is there of his authority and lineage? Why should we ever rely on a man's word? We would laugh at such a man.
Similarly, what right does a Protestant have to call himself priest or preacher or minister of God? What right does a Protestant have to even call himself a believer, seeing as he believes whatever he wants to believe, whatever interpretation of Scripture pleases him or seems most reasonable to his mind? That's not divine faith, that is human opinion. Protestants have no connection to the apostles, and so no real connection to Christ.

>>7921958
>So-called "Bible-believing Christians" do not believe in the Bible, but in themselves interpreting the Bible

Look at the American Constitution. In order to have an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, there is the Supreme Court. Without the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, there would be no authoritative interpretation and the country would fall into lawless chaos.
Similarly, Christ gave us a Supreme Court, that is the college of bishops with Peter as head, in order to interpret the Scriptures so that the Church wouldn't be divided into countless sects based on individual interpretation of Scripture.

The Church was never meant to be a Bible debating society. It is a divine institution meant to save our souls, the Ark of Salvation.
For the Catholic, an act of faith is a submission to God who reveals His truth through the Church.
For the Protestant, an act of faith is his own strongly held opinion about what the Bible says.
Catholics have divine faith because they are submitting their minds to God; Protestants do not have divine faith because they do not submit their minds to God, but rely on their own minds to decide what is revealed truth and what isn't.

>>7921987
>>7921973
>>7921958
Based John Henry Newman.
Seriously, the guy needs more love here.

>>7917045

>he's a christian

JUST

>>7921987
Soo, it boils down to state vs federalism? The south will rise again.

>>7922183
It's not the state versus federalism, it's constitution with an official interpreter or constitution without meaning.

>>7921958
>>7921973
>>7921987
Am on mobile, will discuss later, basically a misapplication of the "gifting" of spirit. The power to forgive sins was an apostolic one, limited to guess what, the apostles. Either way, like I said OP, read the Bible first, there are literal oceans of ink that have been spent discussing the Bible, and before you dive into them, you first should read what they discuss. >>7921987
>>7921958
This kind of arrogance is one of the reasons that I was very wary of catholicism. To take someone else's word on what the Bible says and means, and the absolute dismissal, not even really allowing for discussion is quite dangerous in my opinion. Using America as an example to explain how the church should work, when it is outlined readily in Timothy/Titus/Corinthians is funny to me. Also, the defining of a Protestant act of "not submitting his mind to god" = simply not listening to what the catholic historical definition of what/who God tells his word is borderline laughable. I refuse to enter this pissing contest while you are searching for simple guidance, not even really being a Christian yet. Best advice to you OP is just read, and be careful when too much instruction is given to you on HOW to read.

>>7922204
>It's a misinterpretation
Based on whose word? There is no reason to take anyone's word on anything if there isn't a final say. I mean unless we just split ways and found another church that is.
Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine man, truly enlightening.
Everything that is held now by the Catholic church was held by the fathers and the earliest sources are clear in describing this. Take any church father and their implications are obvious. They for example all agreed that the pope is the one who settles the disputes in the end and it was absolutely necessary, considering how many heresies were active at the time. Half the church was arian at the time of the council of nicea and without dogmatic councils and a final say there would be no reason to keep the church together, everyone would just split and found his own.
Another thing is that you accuse Catholicism of arrogance while at the same time submitting yourself to your own interpretation which you hold comes from I assume the holy spirit personally, or not at all.

>>7922232
>misapplication suddenly becomes misinterpretation
>on this, a literature board
K, glossing over that, I'll explain a little, but my battery is dying, so I'd like to finish discussing later. OP, I personally am sorry you weren't able to escape divisiveness, I'd suggest abandoning thread.

I'll start with this post:>>7921958.
It's a mix of half right/wrong. You are correct, the scriptures are divinely inspired, nor do they have the authority to teach without being called by God.

Protestants have no authority from God? U wot m8? Your argument is that we cannot produce signs, which was a definition used to define an apostle, which are no longer around, see
>>7920886
. We do have sacraments, the baptism and communion, of which the Spirit does become present, we just don't believe it (communion) is the literal rebirth of blood and body, because
>see >>7920633 >>7921103
And the entire catholic argument forms itself that they have apostolic succession. To me, a distinction that the apostle's power was given to another was never made. You quote Act 8, but all it says is that they received the holy spirit. They, the Syrians. So unless that act of laying on of hands gives something else, every person converted should have apostolic authority, and converts beneath them, and so on.

Then there's the issue of the primacy of Peter, which we also reject. Yes, Christ said he would build his Church on Peter, and so he did, the Church in Peter's day was headed off by Peter, but in my argument, even if Peter had been given something outside of a leadership position (which from what any scripture says was a minister, nowhere do we see him with extra power outside his original apostleship, of which there were others) he would still not be able to pass that down since apostolic succession is rejected from my other arguments.

John 20:23 is for apostles, of which ceased.

>Protestants are literal false prophets who send themselves into the world to preach with no divine authority
K like I mentioned, no one was given apostolic authority. Our "authority" or calling by God to preach his word can be found where any other denominations is: that is the Great commission(matthew 28:16, and any supporting command to teach to the ends of the earth, spreading his word. Doctrinal teaching is a gift, which not all should pick up (James 3:1) but the commission is clarified in 2 Timothy3:16, all of scripture is useful for teaching. So unless God wants us to spread his word, but not use it to explain anything, then you're right, but I hope you can see that.

>Protestants stupidly say
>Protestants are literal false prophets
This is the arrogance I was talking about, not that all catholics are arrogant. I find it interesting that you absolutely condemn so readily, when Jesus had such an attitude of love (albeit he's coming back with a sword) and when he saw those that struggled in their understanding helped them see.

>>7922396
I'll just say that there are plenty of signs of in the Catholic church, you have apparitions, miracles and signs all over. So when he says that signs are necessary, it's still here.

>>7922428
Fair enough, and I think miracles today can be performed, but those would be in the gifts paul discusses. I certainly respect the catholic traditions and love how much they are able to minister worldwide, I just think the theological areas are a bit grey for my taste. And that's the issue, is when guys like above decide that you can't be a true believer unless you hardcore accept catholic doctrine, as if you have to be saved by accepting Christ AND you have to agree with everything we say about him and the Bible, or you go to Hell. That's what gets me, it can get taken too far in the other direction though, protestant liberalism is IN FACT SOME FREAKING HERESY. PCUSA allowing "gay marriages"? innumberable other denominations allowing other abominations is unnacceptable, the grounds they lay require so much wiggling of what the Bible says it's another book when they get done with it. Either way, catholic guy should know I don't think he's a heretic, and I hope he can understand my perspective. OP if you are still here, just guard your heart, because false teaching can in fact wreck your faith.

>>7920886
Thank you based anon

>>7921202
Yeah he became retarded. Nooma is GOAT though, so going to second that recommendation

>>7921349
>The Orthodox church doesn't have much philosophy really, or theology

Holy fuck dude. Have you never heard of Palamas?

>They still recognize the pope as the first bishop and essentially need him for a new council.

They recognise the pope as first among equals. They also view certain Roman Catholic beliefs as false and in need of renouncement if the schism is to be ended.

>they can't have a church teacher and develop the doctrine further.

>implying that doctrine needs to "develop" in the first place

The idea of doctrinal "development" isn't even accepted among all Catholics


Eastern theology has just as much depth as anything in the Latin church, you're buying into stereotypes and showing a huge Latin bias m8.

>>7922513
>implying that doctrine needs to "develop" in the first place
not the guy you responded too, but wew lad, if you think all questions can be answered with just scripture, you have a long way to go.

>>7922528
>with just scripture

Nowhere did I say that, sola scriptura itself is an innovation

>>7922542
sola scripture simply says that the Bible is the only place we can get doctrine, not that doctrine can't be made from the bible

>>7922542

sorry, m8 didn't read

>>7922555
I know that. Scripture is part of a wider tradition. You said:

>if you think all questions can be answered with just scripture, you have a long way to go.

But those aren't my beliefs.

>>7922513
>Holy fuck dude. Have you never heard of Palamas?
Actually no. Orthodox posters always mentioned Desert Fathers and Philokalia but nothing else, like ever. Timothy Weare sometimes as analogues to Robert Barron, but none that I've met were philosophically well versed or made a strong case for their intellectual tradition, with all due respect. It was always more focused on mysticism, which is completely fine, but a different thing from Augustine, Aquinas, Ratzinger and so on.
>They recognise the pope as first among equals. They also view certain Roman Catholic beliefs as false and in need of renouncement if the schism is to be ended.
I'm aware of that, I never said it isn't so.
>The idea of doctrinal "development" isn't even accepted among all Catholics
Doctrine has developed, Trinity being the best example. It wasn't always God given as in absolutely clear and undisputed. It took 300 years of development to reach the consensus needed for a dogmatic council.
>Eastern theology has just as much depth as anything in the Latin church, you're buying into stereotypes and showing a huge Latin bias m8.
It's different from western and focused on different things. I didn't deny the value, just stated that it's not the intellectual type of theology Catholicism is known for. Sorry for wrongly phrased sentences.


Again, stressing John Henry Newman as the key intellectual discussing doctrine with necessary historical and theological knowledge.

>>7922631
The Latin Church has just as great a tradition of mystics as the Eastern churches. People like Palamas are perfectly capable of standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Aquinas. Just because scholasticism didn't take off in the East doesn't mean that eastern philosophy and theology isn't just as developed as western. Sorry for being snide it's just that I hate when the East gets ignored or labeled as "just mysticism" or whatever, it's a disservice to the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics as well.

>>7922701
Sorry, it's just that the orthodox don't ever talk about those. For Catholic authors it's really easy to find tons of reading, on all subjects. Well I know a bit more because I'm Catholic and obviously try to learn more about my faith, but Orthodox never talk about their stuff. I wouldn't have anything against checking their best writers out, but again, it's Russian literature, which I absolutely adore, Philokalia and Desert Fathers.

>>7922455
>protestant liberalism is IN FACT SOME FREAKING HERESY
Do you think so? I'm only a Christ-curious agnostic, but after reading Bart Ehrman et al I feel like some amount of historical skepticism is necessary to follow Christianity in modernity. It doesn't seem unfair to reassess moral issues like LGBT rights when facing the challenges posed by secular ethics. It is possible for the inspired authors of the Bible to have let cultural biases slip in.

>>7923849
Absolutely some historiCal skepticism is necessary. And you're right actually, LGBT rights are important. Unfortunately when this argument comes up, so does the church vs state argument. Christianity, while considering homosexuality a sin, doesn't give us the right to say 2 people can't be together. Nowhere does it say we should take over the gubmint cuz muh gays. It simply says it's a sin. To have to gay people LEGALLY (as in tax break, federal status, etc) I have no problem with) but in that case, marriage shouldn't be a legal process, we should extend civil union rights. Weddings performed by a minster before God are supposed to reflect Christmas marrying his church and bride, man and woman. So what's ironic is gays can never be "married" in that sense, because God never recognises it. But the fact that some ministers preach acceptance of God on this matter is the heresy, that somehow we are misreading every stance the bible takes on gays, which protip, every single scholar worth anything agrees on. The issue is that we did reassess it, and it still fell short, but gays that proclaim Christ can be blinded. I'd say some of them will still make it to heaven, it's not like you can't make a mistake in your theology and not go to heaven if you truly beleive, it's just that odds are you haven't read the bible in any capacity nor do you care at all about what it says cuz screw the bigots, you're gettin' hitched.

>>7922701
>People like Palamas are perfectly capable of standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Aquinas.

Are you sure about that? Aquinas and those who followed him including figures like Scotus who arguably surpassed him created a far more encompasing theology and understanding than the works of Palmas which do seem to be primarily towards the mystic end of the spectrurm.

>Just because scholasticism didn't take off in the East doesn't mean that eastern philosophy and theology isn't just as developed as western.

The issue is that is was rejected on mystic grounds.

>Sorry for being snide it's just that I hate when the East gets ignored or labeled as "just mysticism" or whatever, it's a disservice to the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics as well.

This will always be the case given how small a part and how little value is attached to rationalism in Orthodox Theology.

>>7923913
Giving sacramental marriage to gay couples certainly might be a theological stretch, but I think that just accepting gay relationships as unsinful in Christianity is the real issue to be discussed. I am in a gay relationship and my experience of it is so healthy, loving, and fulfilling that I cannot reconcile it with the picture given by traditional Christian sexual morality. From my experience, the only way to argue for the sinfulness of a healthy gay relationship is by abstract metaphysical reasoning (e.g. Aquinas), or by absolute faith in God's moral law even when it doesn't line up with experiential reasoning.

I guess it is hubristic to believe that your own moral reason is better than God's. But to me, the choice seems to be between (a) accepting every moral instruction in scripture on faith, even if it seems deeply wrong, or (b) assuming that not every word written in the Bible is from God's mouth, and choosing not to apply the bits that seem like historical/cultural artifacts. There is a safe option versus a more "humane," possibly heretical option. Neither seems really satisfactory.

>>7924156
>the only way to argue for the sinfulness of a healthy gay relationship is by abstract metaphysical reasoning (e.g. Aquinas)

Why is that not sufficent?

>>7924406
>>7924019
So, let's talk about the gay relationship.
The problem is this, at what point does loving another man become a sin? I love my father, my brother, my best friend, all in different ways, but I would die for any of them, I have kissed my father non-romantically, and have been in the same bed as my friend, does that make me gay? >inb4 sealgayyyy.jpeg
No it doesn't. My friend and I have a very deep connection, he literally knows every one of my deepest sins, because we share that intimately. The disconnect you feel between the picture of intimacy and that person of the same sex with Christian sexual morality is because you love them... which isn't a problem. The issue is when that intimacy starts to manifest itself in ways that transcend normal male-male interactions. You want to hug/be close to/kiss them not because they would appreciate knowing you care for them, but the desire of them carnally because of how much you care for them outside of your sexuality. To quote Vodie Baucham, it's impossible to keep hot water in one part of the bath tub and cold in the other. Knowing and interacting on that level with a same sex relationship can be fulfilling, but dangerous if you have the inclination. It's not a sin because God doesn't want you to be happy, it's a sin because God designed it in a way, (and your right it boils down to hubris) and you think that because it feels so good, it can't be against any sort of natural understanding.

Also, I'd like to know what
>or by absolute faith in God's moral law even when it doesn't line up with experimental reasoning
means, as God's moral law is pretty tenable, I can't recollect any standing arguments of where it doesn't match up, barring the clay arguing against the maker argument, which is quite honestly just hopeless scrambling at an attempt to reject your own sinfulness on the grounds of required inherent goodness, a concept of man to describe the actions of that which is not man.

But I don't think that's where you were going with it, I'm just curious. Option A you listed is pretty much it, but I'm curious which of them seem deeply wrong. That's one of my blindspots, having been so accepting of what scripture teaches without being attacked for so long has rendered me kind of dismissive of what people consider "wrong."

Thanks for not being most of the gay-christians I've met so far. I live in Mississippi, and the divisiveness here mixed with outright ignorance of scripture has lead to an almost blasphemic teaching of "all gays go to heaven" with an almost belligerent acceptance crowd.

>>7924632
>The problem is this, at what point does loving another man become a sin?

When you have sex with and preform sexual acts on him.

How do you view homosexuality as a sin any different from things like desiring to worship other Gods or having premarital sex?

>>7924807
I don't. Nothing about having sex with a man is different than extramarital sex or premarital sex. The issues I raised about loving another man is because you can't just say that the physical act of sex is sin, because it isn't.

>Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Another thing. If a man is married to woman A, and is constantly talking/sharing/etc. to woman B, that is not explicitly a sin. The fact is, it is possible to share deeply with someone is your wife and it not be a sin. However, what you must ask yourself is should you be? The emotional intimacy over prolonged period has historically been the route through which most true Christians break fidelity in their marriage.

The same kind of sharing emotionally should be guarded against with men. Some people do not have the inclination to ever be attracted to men, regardless of how close they become to their friends or others, and those people can be less guarded. But those who struggle with it have to be just as careful as a married man talking to woman, lest they fall prey to sins of the flesh.

No, it's not a sin to share deeply with other men, but if that's all you do, it's not homosexuality at all. But if you do have the inclination to sin either in your heart or in the physical flesh, it is just as dangerous as with women. The problem lies in our fallibility, everyone thinks they're strong enough, but knowing there is a possibility you could fail, why even open the door?
>>7924156
This post discusses accepting gay relationships as unsinful. Either there are sexual acts going on, in which case it is sin, or there are simply two men spending a lot of time together, which isn't sin, but should proceed with care. The public widespread acceptance of the latter will be difficult because people are obstinate, but that's a different issue.

>>7917066
>Well, you picked up the annotated Bible, that's a good start.
>I suppose you ought to begin at the beginning, with Genesis and Exodus. Genesis is particularly important because it contains both The Fall and God's covenant with Abraham, both of which will be very important later. Exodus is good because it's the foundational story of the Hebrew people, and also contains the Passover.
>After that, I might suggest reading the book of Kings, as it tells the story of King David. Then, personally, I'd read the Book of Job. It's one of my favorites and is really a pretty powerful meditation on the mysterious nature of God.
>After that maybe read both books of Isaiah and the Book of Elijah.
>And after THAT, you're ready for the Gospels. Read those in the order they're in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You can read Acts after that but you don't have to. Instead, begin to read Paul's epistles.
>Revelation is optional. You may be ready for that later.
One of best posts in thread. Although I would definitely recommend reading Acts ASAP when in New Testament. Genesis and Exodus can get boring so you can read them with NT if needed.

>>7924870
Actually, homosexual sex is on a higher level of sin than premarital sex because the scripture specifically condems it so that no practicing sodomite will go to the kingdom of God, which is an extremely severe statement.
And for extra biblical reasoning, it breaks the natural law harder than premarital sex does (it can produce children, the use of organs goes with their intended use and so on.)

>>7924893
>higher level of sin
God views the breaking of any of his laws as abhorrent, and the judgement given for unrepentance is the same, hell. So I'm not sure how you see it as a higher level, any laws broken all receive the same judgement. I think the verse you are quoting is

1 Cor 6:9
>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

But like I said, idolaters, adulterers, etc. are all on the same level. Any sexual deviation spoils the image between Christ and His bride, there isn't a worse spoiling than another.

But I do think it is more strange personally, but that's because I don't have the inclination to be attracted to men, I'm sure people that do think my inclination to talk to many women is just as strange.

IDK about natural law either, homosexuality is has been observed in something like 150+ species if IIRC.

>>7924904
>God views the breaking of any of his laws as abhorrent, and the judgement given for unrepentance is the same, hell. So I'm not sure how you see it as a higher level, any laws broken all receive the same judgement.
No, there are venial and deadly sins. We are always going to be full of venial, but not deadly sins. With venial you can go to purgatory, but with deadly you suffer eternal death, hence the name. Of course if God had an arbitrary legal system you describe he couldn't be the highest good or highest justice, because even our laws know that every crime is not the same. Murder isn't the same as theft, which isn't the same as adultery and so on.
I think the verse you are quoting is
>1 Cor 6:9
>But like I said, idolaters, adulterers, etc. are all on the same level. Any sexual deviation spoils the image between Christ and His bride, there isn't a worse spoiling than another.
Adultery isn't exactly the same as premarital sex.
>IDK about natural law either, homosexuality is has been observed in something like 150+ species if IIRC.
You completely misunderstood the concept of the natural law. It's unrelated to what we observe in the animal kingdom since by that excuse you could argue that just about every sin is permissible.
Natural law is about teleology. Your heart is meant to pump blood. Your sexual organs are meant to be used for having children. Your brain is meant for thinking and so on.

>>7924917
>purgatory
Ah, well as I am protestant, we differ on much more than views of what sins do what, and such our discussion of results is rooted much deeper, moreso than I'm willing to do over the internet.
>if God had an arbitrary legal system you describe he couldn't be the highest good
umm, yes he could, he writes the laws, and he is the ultimate keeper of the law. If the laws are broken without repentence, then hell is the punishment
>even our laws know that crime is not the same
i hope you don't think God's laws have to match our laws because that's what makes sense to us

>misunderstood the concept of natural law
lol apparently, yeah I'm not as well versed in what that is then, as it's not really a concept brought up much in protestant circles.

>>7924904
>all sin is the same meme
yeah all sins make us unworthy of God, but there's definitely levels to this shit.

for example, attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil is gonna get you v&.

>>7924924
>Ah, well as I am protestant, we differ on much more than views of what sins do what, and such our discussion of results is rooted much deeper, moreso than I'm willing to do over the internet.
Ok
>umm, yes he could, he writes the laws, and he is the ultimate keeper of the law. If the laws are broken without repentence, then hell is the punishment
Then everyone will go to hell? We all will have unrepentant sins.
>i hope you don't think God's laws have to match our laws because that's what makes sense to us
God is the platonic form of justice basically, our laws should always try to mimic the true origin. God is the perfect judge, not a bad one.
>lol apparently, yeah I'm not as well versed in what that is then, as it's not really a concept brought up much in protestant circles.
It's basic Aristotle/Aquinas virtue ethics. What the heck do you base your ethics on then?

>>7924934
Repentance is the attitude of salvation, Christian made the subsitute for all of our sins if we accept the gift of his blood. An unrepentant sinner generally can be argued is not a Christian, as renouncing there sins against God is a core tenant.

To be honest, a majority of our points aren't going to line up, we will go in circles each time a new point is considered, and I have exams to study for.

I have enjoyed it though, my email is [email protected] if you'd ever like to dig into protestant/catholic doctrine analysis. OPand others following this thread, God be with you, Soli Deo Gloria.