/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Here's how it works:

>Christians start persecuted

>lots of physical pain

>Christians become the boss

>nobody fucks with them anymore

>feel like they can't prove their faith anymore

>start hurting themselves

That's all this is. Once all the land is conquered and everyone converted, local Christians start going to the wilderness to fight whatever demons they imagine will attack them there, far from civilisation.

All this derives from idolatry, where religion is your God and its rules become more important than any connection between you and God.

In defense of Catholics, though, the self-harm they inflict upon themselves isn't much. It rarely goes beyond discomfort. It's still disturbing, wrong, and unchristian. Christ absolutely never suggested harming yourself in any way. There's a difference between suffering pain for a reason and inflicting that pain on yourself for nothing. Carry your cross, don't build yourself one just to suffer. Most of the time, people who do this do so so that they won't carry their actual cross. They focus on another pain to avoid something. They're doing the exact opposite of what they claim to be doing.

>>1278

>wearing a cillice is how you receive revelation and come closer unto God, so be it.

Revelation through pain? What's next, revelation through massage? There's no sense in this. Pain is a sensual experience and I doubt Catholics would really approve of that, though they do, and this won't be the first double-standard they pull on such issues.

It's self-indulgent behaviour and a perversion of Christ's message. It's arrogance and pride. It's something Christ never did.

>>1278

>f you're of sound mental health and wearing a cillice is how you receive revelation and come closer unto God, so be it.

Afaik you require supervision by a priest if you want to practice this officially

>>1280

>It's still disturbing, wrong, and unchristian.

Which is not true,wrong, and made up

>Christ absolutely never suggested harming yourself in any way.

Lent is a way of what you call "self-harm" and Christ didn't only propose it but practiced it himself.

>>1281

I guess? I don't know m8. They seem to really believe in it, and I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. Opus dei and the like are staunchly conservative and traditionalist, and they cause massive butthurt from the left.

Maybe flagellation is wrong, don't do it, I'd say, then; but those who do tend to have a level of devotion and faith in the Lord that is quite refreshing.

Much rather have a man who loves the word of God so much that he'll cut himself for it, rather than some crypto-jew faggot who blabs on about Le Original Greek and tries to excuse actual sin.

That's juts me though, and I've admittedly strayed a bit from the subject at hand.

>>1283

>Lent is a way of what you call "self-harm" and Christ didn't only propose it but practiced it himself.

Fasting has health benefits and most people today would really need to fast and stop being fatsos.

Nice try but not so nice. Beside fasting, Christ never does any self-harm, provided fasting counts as self-harm, which I deny, because humans can easily go a day or so without eating, and fasting doesn't mean "no food" at all for most Christians. It just means water and bread.

I don't call Lent self-harm, you did. That's why I said Christ never did any such things. Now you realise you're being dishonest by saying I said something I never said only to then artificially counter that made up thing.

I maintain that hurting your body on purpose is something Christ never did, never advised and it is generally done by the mentally disturbed rather than the truly religious.

It's a selfish thing to do.

>1285

>Opus dei and the like are staunchly conservative and traditionalist, and they cause massive butthurt from the left.

The left doesn't give a fuck about Catholics. How you can imagine the left is butthurt by religious people is beyond me. That said, Opus Dei is mostly known because of Dan Brown and his novel and the movie based on it and that's about all. Nobody gives a damn about the Opus Dei and I'm not quite sure what purpose they serve for God.

>but those who do tend to have a level of devotion and faith in the Lord that is quite refreshing.

You call it faith, I call it error and selfishness. To think God wants this of you is to grossly misunderstand Him. To think you can add to Christ's sacrifice is grossly pretentious. It's nothing but sin.

>Much rather have a man who loves the word of God so much that he'll cut himself for it, rather than some crypto-jew faggot who blabs on about Le Original Greek and tries to excuse actual sin.

Oh snap! Yeah, damn people who care what Christ actually said and what Paul actually said. How dare they? They'd better cut themselves for God. Read yourself, man, please read yourself.

You don't even want to start that argument because you would lose. I'll pretend I haven't read your comment and you can save face by shutting it.

>That's juts me though, and I've admittedly strayed a bit from the subject at hand.

Next time, talk like a man and be frontal. I have no respect for your sneaky ways. If you want to argue a case, go ahead and argue. If all you want to do is be a good /christian/ and talk shit, you know where to go.

It comes down to whether you care more about Christ's words or people who came later and made their own interpretations. Suit yourself, but stop being a faggot.

>>1297

Not him but I dispute this.

>How you can imagine the left is butthurt by religious people is beyond me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

Maybe where you are from but here they are trying to strangle religion to death.

>>1295

>>1295

>Fasting has health benefits and most people today would really need to fast and stop being fatsos.

It depends how you fast and what's your condition. Also not all people in the world are Americans.

It was also never the intention of fasting to be benficicial/healthy for your body but to commit a sacrifice to get closer to god.

>provided fasting counts as self-harm, which I deny, because humans can easily go a day or so without eating, and fasting doesn't mean "no food" at all for most Christians. It just means water and bread.

You are aware that he was 40(!!!) days in the dessert without eating at all? (Matthew 4,2)

Pls enlighten me about the "health benefits" that he had in mind here.

>It just means water and bread.

That's one way but not neccessarily

>I don't call Lent self-harm, you did.

>Now you realise you're being dishonest by saying I said something I never said only to then artificially counter that made up thing.

If you are refusing food to your body for a prolonged time that's self harm period.

Have you ever been hungry? I'll tell you it sucks. It hurts. You get dizzy and wishy-washy in your had.

It is suffering.

>I maintain that hurting your body on purpose is something Christ never did, never advised and it is generally done by the mentally disturbed rather than the truly religious.

>It's a selfish thing to do.

Yes choosing to be crucified was very selfish thing and not suffering at all

>The left doesn't give a fuck about Catholics. How you can imagine the left is butthurt by religious people is beyond me.

Stupid crap like this is why I can't take you seriously.

>You call it faith, I call it error and selfishness. To think God wants this of you is to grossly misunderstand Him. To think you can add to Christ's sacrifice is grossly pretentious. It's nothing but sin.

>implying

>You don't even want to start that argument because you would lose. I'll pretend I haven't read your comment and you can save face by shutting it.

>exposed

>It comes down to whether you care more about Christ's words or people who came later and made their own interpretations.

>implying you don't just make up your own feel good interpretation of things

>>1305

I just care about the things I discuss, or I wouldn't discuss them. Everything regarding religion matters a ton to me, even the seemingly trivial.

Laid back doesn't define me well although I generally make an effort. Not going to continue this argument with the other anon, maybe you, I won't check, because responding to strawmen and various nonsense isn't how I want to occupy my time.

I care because I think it's unchristian to commit self-harm with the sole purpose of suffering. Christ didn't suffer for nothing, He suffered for us, that makes it unselfish, contrary to what dishonest anon tried to make me say. When you whip your own ass, it does nothing except make you feel like a good Christian because you endure pain "for God", who loves you want would rather spare you unnecessary pain while strengthening you so you can endure the necessary ones.

I've done self-harm a shitload and I cannot imagine doing this crap "for God". it is pure evil. I've starved completely for 4 days and the idea of doing it "for God" is not something I understand. In ancient times, people did this because it made them hallucinate and they thought it was a spiritual revelation. That's all there is to it. Being hungry never made anyone closer to God, but closer to beasts.

Jesus also got circumcised with the belief that it brings people closer to God and I doubt many of you will argue for it, but you'll be fine with fasting even though it's similarly defined by culture and times.

When I starve myself, it brings me closer to McDonald's. There's nothing Godly about that. Do it for 40 days and you'll die so you'll definitely get closer to God that way. A bit less and you'll hallucinate, and if you're doing this "for God", you might just hallucinate something religious. If that's what you want, just do drugs already, it will harm you less than fasting this hard.

Old Testament says not to harm our bodies, don't forget. Enduring pain for Christ is one thing, but inflicting it on yourself for balls is a completely different thing.

Seal of disapproval.

>Why do Catholics allow X?

Because it's not Biblical in the least? They make up whatever they want, in a decade they'll officially allow Bishops or whatever to be queer transgender otherkin (after long prayers and casting out demons, so you know it's official).

>>3462

>being this butthurt

> in a decade they'll officially allow Bishops or whatever to be queer transgender otherkin

Ridiculous. The pope has recently compared the transagenda to equal to nunlear weapons.

>Because it's not Biblical in the least?

Let's make a list of unbiblical stuff. I'll start:

Sola scriptura.

uhhh OP but what is your problem with it