/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>5478

No. She was innocent so you're most likely going to Hell.

>>5489

>>5478

IIRC murder is a mortal sin.

Confess and be absolved by a priest, and it will not damn you.

The only eternal sin is blasphemy against the holy spirit.

Why has this board split from the more popular /christian/? Are there differences in governing philosophy, or belief?

>>5640

Moderation mostly. /christian/ prefers a more strict moderation of content and discussion.

>>5641

can you elaborate? The mods here believe /christian censors certain beliefs?

>>5643

Its not just that the Mod (really its just dessubong) believes it, that's how it is.

The mods at /christian/ prefer the board a certain way, which means certain topics are considered shit-posting, certain views are unacceptable (usually anything Non-nicede is off limits) or subjects that appear too frequently and thus the base is tired of discussing them (Is homosexuality a sin? Can I masturbate a certain way and be cool with Christ? Help! I want to be a Christian but I hate niggers and love Hitler too much!). Stuff like that.

I'm sure there's a few more reasons other users could point out, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

>>5640

See here

>>944

>>945

>>946

>>948

/christ/ does not restrict discussion, regardless of the person it starts it or of his beliefs.

If you have an honest question or contribution you can share here.

On /christian/ there are topics that are not wished for, persons that are not wanted there, reasonings that are not allowed and so on.

It is also more pleasent staying here and though we have a more lenient approach in moderation our posting quality is several times higher than over at /christian/.

>The mods here believe /christian censors certain beliefs?

It is not a belief it is a normal policy over there.

Restricted beliefs are for instance:

Gnosticism, Sedevacantism, Mormonism, anything non-nicene creed, Atheism/ Agnosticism, defense of things the moderation there considers sin, pro-masturbation and LGBT and the likes;

If you defend any of these or use certain ways of argumentation you are a "shitposter"

This leads to us having a greater variety of different users. Mormons, atheists, we've had asatrus, then there were muslims here for a while, even satanists among others.

This leads to us being able to expose others to the gospel that are personae non gratae at /christian/

>>5640

>>5643

yes. mods are awful there, to the point that there cannot be anymore meaninful discussion because "you cannot talk important theological topics because it can confuse people so they only listen to us"

making the whole thing one sided. and a hugbox

>>5646

>persons that are not wanted there

Jesus would be proud

>>5644

This is correct.

>>5646

This is spiked with lies. There are no personae non gratae in /christian/. If you mean that there are people who wont change their behaviour, yes. t. person with house right

>>5655

Insomuch bonfires made the church employing the drastic punishment for heretics

>>5655

Tfw mobile client and accidentally clicking on submit.

The bonfires didnt make the church look like a hugbox either. The truth is too precious.

>>5660

>This is spiked with lies. There are no personae non gratae in /christian/. If you mean that there are people who wont change their behaviour, yes. t. person with house right

If I demand that someone changes his nature in order to be accepted at /christian/, then this person is not wanted there.

In fact a different person is wanted there that should replace the former.

>>5661

This is a whole different topic.

>>5662

>that someone changes his nature

Sorry, I don’t believe in predeterminism. If someone is a troll or a formal heretic, they can’t post on /christian/, that has nothing to do with their 'nature'. Nobody gets banned for being cocky.

>>5646

>we have a more lenient approach

>implying you didn’t admit you just didn’t have the time

After all, I saw you bumplock a thread. So there is quality moderation here.

>>5664

>Nobody gets banned for being cocky.

:^)

(^:

>After all, I saw you bumplock a thread. So there is quality moderation here.

There was a reasoning given. this reasoning was that we have the very same thread not only once, but like 5 times in the Catalogue.

Next it was meta and not related to Christianity or religion, or at least morals or something.

> So there is quality moderation here.

This is not /boardnametoolong/, of course we have standards. But I have never seen them applied by DB so far.

>>5664

>After all, I saw you bumplock a thread. So there is quality moderation here.

The moderation is objectively more lenient. The thread was bumplocked because it was a duplicate essentially. I was surprised to see it bumplocked even then, we haven't had Mod intervention since the Brownpill guy.

>>5668

>The moderation is objectively more lenient

There isn’t much to do, given the low amount of users.

>>5664

I bumplocked the thread due to it being a duplicate of threads we had at least 3 times already in the catalog.

I've been feeling lost and alone in the world lately.

People have suggested that I maybe join a church, for a sense of community and belonging.

I don't really believe in any sort of higher power, though.

Also, I have a non-human waifu.

Would God accept me?

>>5706

God has already accepted you; He's given you life, a body and Salvation. All that's left for you is to embrace Him, and His arms are already open before you.

I think if you are to join a church, do so with the explicit purpose of finding God. You may like the people and the service and all, but finding God is the most important thing. That is, this has to be a conscious life overhaul on your part, as opposed to just attending Church the way one would a social club.

Should you do this, your life will improve considerably.

>>5706

>I've been feeling lost and alone in the world lately.

>

>People have suggested that I maybe join a church, for a sense of community and belonging.

Sure.

>I don't really believe in any sort of higher power, though.

Given time this will come. Attend the rituals and make the sacrifices, pray, think about God in your daily life and it is a matter of time.

if you honestly open your heart to the Holy Spirit that is

>Also, I have a non-human waifu.

Sick.

>Would God accept me?

Better than that:

He loves you. That's why he wants to save you. You may not realise it, but you are dead in your sinful ways. God wants to change that, he wants you to become what you were always meant to be, already before birth.

This is why he wants the Holy Spirit to work on you and correct you.

Why do you feel lost? Explain yourself a bit.

>>5346

>They also never doubt that he's Christian, I think that's the most important.

You've clearly not argued with atheists very often.

>>5325

>I am not sure who he is providing a service with this obscurantism of his.

I am presenting the faith to the unbelievers. There is no obscurantism in my presentation as I clearly explain what various denominations believe and what I believe or think personally. I even make a clear distinction between the two when presenting the faith. I frequently quote the CCC to present the Catholic side of things. Having read the CCC is enough to debunk most of the unbelievers' attacks on Catholicism; you don't need to be a seminarian to go against the claim that venerating Mary is idolatry or polytheism. I can do a fine job on issues like this one and I have no problem admitting my limits.

There is a difference between being an obscurantist and being someone who hasn't figured out everything. I am the latter, and this keeps me searching. You consider yourself the former, and thus perceive anyone else's doubts as willfully malicious towards your own personal faith. It never seems to occur to you that my doubts and questions might just be genuine.

>>5325

>Why do you think it was because of that? He was banned for consecutive shilling of this board. Like thrice in a row.

I won't even bother going into this anymore: you know what happened and that's all that matters to me.

> If he was wise, he wouldn’t talk about something he barely even believes in.

No faith is required to present a system of belief. An ex-Catholic can easily address many of the questions the unbelievers have, even convincingly. Explaining the Holy Trinity, what a rosary is for, what praying means, etc, can all be done by anyone who knows about it.

But even so, I don't think having a little faith and talking about Christ to others is worse than having a little faith and not doing so. Faith requires action, and I certainly believe I'm doing more for God by presenting the Christian faith and defending it than I would be making it all about myself, my sins, my behaviour, my thoughts, me, me, me. Statements don't work with the unbelievers, and statements are about all most of the Catholics here have to offer, by doctrinal belief or by personal limitation. There is literally nothing most of you have to say that I can't read for myself in the CCC or from other Church officials, whose views tend to be far more varied and rich than yours.

>this is the whole problem I have with him, on a personal level.

The root of the problem is that you think you know me, but don't. You call me a denomination swapping little bitch, for instance, and that demonstrates your ignorance of my situation as well as your willingness to take things for granted. I was baptised as a baby and officially "made" a Protestant when my mother married a Protestant, though he himself was only Protestant because his father once punched a priest, in an area where nobody was Protestant. In my country, because of religious wars, everyone used to have their denomination in their ID and every "state" is officially Catholic of Protestant as well. In terms of reality, I was not raised in either faith and one cannot say I "swapped" from one to the other, having never known one or the other from any practical or theological standpoint at that age.

I know my limits: I cannot testify of the Holy Spirit's presence in me as you can, because I don't know for sure how It feels or even if I have it in me or not, but these are the things I won't speak of in my own name for the obvious reason that it is a personal experience and I have no assurance in that, that is also the reason for my name: it clearly lets people know how I stand in this matter. However, this does not prevent me from explaining theological system, stating historical facts, correcting logical fallacies, and the likes. The level required to defend Christianity on a 4chan /b/ thread is not what you seem to assume. If anything, the unbelievers are more likely to listen to me because of my self-evident little faith and they ask more freely because of it. Once I manage to make religious matters seem less murky and nonsensical, they change their attitude towards God and begin to think differently, and God knows where this can lead. Surely, this can't be bad. Perhaps you have never been outside of your religion and don't understand the unbelievers and how they think. You seem concerned that I would somehow distill lies in their minds as if they were quiet fields in which I sow bad seeds. You don't realise that they are anything but that. They will take nothing for granted, like me, and whatever I say they will question to death. The point is to present something more tangible than they imagine is Christianity. This isn't about establishing dogma for the faithful, this is about giving a better presentation of God so that the unbelievers may feel legitimately interested. You don't talk of the filioque at this point, as this would not interest any unbeliever and would not seem legit to them unless the heavier topics are given a semblance of plausibility, which they don't have for the atheist.

>>5325

>And I don’t think it is good to send people here at all. I am just here to correct some of the misconceptions that are rampant here and try to keep put.

If everyone did this with the same attitude, the board would be nothing but self-righteous Christians telling other Christians what to believe and do. The fact that you believe to be the only correct Christians makes no difference. The others, at least, understand that stating your righteousness all the time will do nothing to convince them of it, even if you are right.

>>5325

>See, that’s the problem. He enjoys this too much and he is too prideful because of it.

That's your assumption. The only thing I enjoy is the feeling that I do something for God. Spending 5 to 7 hours arguing with trolls and atheists who do not respect you is not "fun" in my book. I am unsure of whether you have ever tried yourself, but I am not given the impression that you have. It is not fun. It requires a lot of patience and self-control, and time. And a lot of humility, as I never try to bluff and act like I know something I don't. That doesn't make me prideful, it just makes me humble, since I never know every answer to every question the unbelievers have.

>As I said oftentimes: I don’t think him Christian

You and countless others. It is more contagious than I thought it would be as I am now questioning it myself, and I wasn't before.

>he talks about it to talk about it, as if it were some kind of philosophy.

No. I talk about it to present the faith to the unbelievers, on 4chan and other such places, and here, I talk about it to think about it. I ask questions and offer remarks. I do so from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know and wishes to understand and know. You and others often seem to think I pontificate the way you do, forgetting that I don't have a whole Church behind me and only speak in my own name based on what I understand. There is a huge difference there and the approach should be different too. However, nothing I say can make a difference to you if you prefer to believe your own idea of what I mean rather than what I actually mean.

> That’s why he dislikes these boards, people have a sense of the faith he despises and lacks.

If I disliked these boards, I wouldn't have spent months on them, first of all. No one can deny I have been very active on both boards (long before I used a name).

I don't deny anyone with a sense of faith, nor do I understand why you would think such a thing. It is largely why I came to /christian/ in the first place: to learn to have better faith than I had from being around other believers. I am sad to say the result, as of now, was the opposite of what I had hoped for and I now found myself less of a Christian than I was when I came to 8chan.

That I lack this sense of faith is obvious in my name and I have never suggested otherwise. It surprises me somewhat that this should be a reason to belittle and attack me rather than help me.

>>5325

>Basically, faith that doesn’t involve acting on it is not Christianity Christianity= doing the will of the father.

That is what I believe and I can't think of any better "acting on it" than preaching the word in a way that resonates with people in 2015: discussing with them, arguing for God, explaining, presenting, and doing all of this in a loving and humble manner, which is the only way the unbelievers will even care what one says. The more educated ones will not be content to hear mere statements of truths, and the more educated ones will be the more influential ones as well. Expecting them to believe what you say simply because you say it with self-assumed authority will only restrict faith to the less intelligent and less educated, and that is a great shame. Not everyone can believe from the heart only; many have a brain in the way and this can be worked out. It just takes time and patience.

>I think I said this to OOLF once: Christ, when he was crucified, true God and true human, had to feel God-forsaken, too, before his death to realise the full extent of human suffering

Perhaps, I don't recall, but this is nothing new to me. I was interested in this part of Christ over 15 years ago. Some of the Catholics here prefer to think Christ was "just quoting" a psalm rather than actually feeling absolute human despair. I believe as you do on this one; it was one of the things that strongly tilted the balance towards Christianity when I was looking for truth. I know of no other religion that has anything remotely similar to Christ, and His human experience, and humanity, the idea of God becoming us, to save us, I have never found anywhere else.

>Blessed are the poor in spirit; i.e. those who will always feel naked before God.

You tend to speak as if you feel clothed by the CCC. I feel naked before God and everyone here because I don't have the dogmatic foundation you speak from.

>>5346

>Is he? Cathmod dislikes him and most dislike Cathmod, but Oolf seems popular.

Where do you see that? Maybe in your mind I'm some sort of rebellious rockstar but in reality, nobody appreciates my presence. I'm not whining, it's just a fact. The people I speak with the most don't like any of my original ideas or beliefs. That'd be you, the Mormons, or the atheists. I don't know a single regular user who actually enjoys conversing with me about any given issue. There can be no speculative conversation with the Catholics of here because, sooner or later, you will just tell me the CCC says otherwise and that'll be the end of that, although, thankfully, I have realised that the actual Church is not like that and intellectual research exists and a variety of opinions exist too. You just like to think that your brand of opinion is the only real one, and that is, in truth, solely because you like yours better.

>>5346

>He will also most likely return, I guess he has to think about some things.

I am not so sure about either. My thinking was done the moment I decided to take a break. Basically, there is not much point in me being here. You guys have nothing to gain from my presence and a consequent portion of you even think I'm of the devil without knowing it. For both of our sakes, my time is better spent reading theology from more authoritative authors than chanwriters. I came here to understand how people lived their faith and be part of a brotherhood, not to be lectured on books I could read myself. Since there is no brotherhood for me to have here, I don't see the point in staying and making efforts. That's why I started being active on boards like /atheism/ and 4chan.

>Not even those that are not wanted on the other board?

Cathmod forgets that I also sent people to /christian/. I present both boards when I "preach" outside.

>They also never doubt that he's Christian, I think that's the most important.

First, that's wrong. About 80% of the time, when I explain away some bullshit they believed about Christians, they will conclude that I am not really a Christian. Example: "You think dinosaurs existed? Then you're not Christian." Or any version of this. Not reading the Bible literally can make you a non-Christian to them. Not having read the whole thing can also make you a non-Christian. This is a last resort tool they have to maintain what they believe about Christians and I am surprised you've never come across it before. Probably you didn't spend much time with the atheists.

> I think that's the most important.

It could have been important, but since it doesn't even happen, it isn't true. Christians and atheists alike tell me I am not Christian for various reasons. I get no validation as a Christian from doing this. I get the same as I get here: "Your faith isn't true, you don't really believe in Christ or God, you have no right to talk about these things." Christ told us to give faith to the unbelievers, not to take away the little faith of those who only had that much to begin with.

I did get tired of having such things assumed about me. Here you think I "like" preaching because it is nice to my ego and that is the main reason why I do it. Isn't this nice? Have you ever seen any of these threads? Try it for yourself and see what it does to your ego.

>>5349

>That’s only half of the truth and I like him enough to spend time on rebuking him.

That's fully untrue, though. You don't like me at all and the reason why you rebuke me is not related to me, but to others whom you are concerned about.

>I don’t like his way of giving a relativist testimony.

I don't give a relativist testimony. I don't accept every dogma of the Catholic Church and in this we differ, but that doesn't make me a relativist.

Besides, when it comes to testimony, the unbelievers will remember your behaviour and attitude towards them more than your actual arguments.

>>5349

>Unfortunately, I doubt it is going to involve changing his behaviour.

Stop talking like you're in any position to patronise me.

>How are you going to convert them? They’re mostly trolls or RPers.

Ye of little faith. Most trolls have some stock in what they troll for. More than once have I encountered a troll who had genuine questions and remarks. If you pull through the trollage, you get to the person behind the troll.

If you take the trollage literally, while claiming to know it's just trolling, then you don't make much sense, for one, but also, and more importantly, you waste an opportunity to converse with an unbeliever. The very idea that you'd rather have a board's rules be respected over seizing the opportunity to save a soul should tell you something about yourself. I don't even hope that God does send people to Hell for such things, but you do, and yet you don't care.

Given your level of self-projection, I would be very cautious with what you assume of people you don't know.

The "false-flagging" and "shilling" going on is probably very marginal. It's just a convient excuse to ban people whose words you dislike.

>I mean, I am just here to provide an orthodox catholic understanding of the faith.

And that's the problem. A mod should moderate according to the rules of the Founder. I know you like to imagine yourself someone important in the Church because of your online responsibilities (and I use that word with humor) but it really is nothing, it's just you enjoying yourself. Anyone can come back any time using any amount of proxies. All of your bans are for nothing. It's nothing but pure authoritarian fun for you, because you like feeling that you have powers over others, even when it is largely virtual.

>>5796

>Statements don't work with the unbelievers, and statements are about all most of the Catholics here have to offer, by doctrinal belief or by personal limitation. There is literally nothing most of you have to say that I can't read for myself in the CCC or from other Church officials, whose views tend to be far more varied and rich than yours.

Snarky.

>>5800

> nobody appreciates my presence.

This is untrue, most here like you.

> The people I speak with the most don't like any of my original ideas or beliefs

Indeed, but they like you.

> you will just tell me the CCC says otherwise and that'll be the end of that, although, thankfully, I have realised that the actual Church is not like that and intellectual research exists and a variety of opinions exist too.

You do not seem to understand hierarchy, but it exists.

>I did get tired of having such things assumed about me. Here you think I "like" preaching because it is nice to my ego and that is the main reason why I do it. Isn't this nice? Have you ever seen any of these threads? Try it for yourself and see what it does to your ego.

mhm

>>5808

>Snarky.

How is this not true? How many times have I tried to get personal responses from Catholics only to get doctrine and dogma rather than actual personal feedback? For most question I asked you, in 90% of the cases you will just tell me what the Church says about it and then say that your opinion is always that of the Church.

>This is untrue, most here like you.

Who is "most"? None of the Catholics here do, one of the Mormons does, another clearly does not. Many of the anons do not. You say "most", I can only think of one person.

>Indeed, but they like you.

I don't know how (or where) you see this. You're most likely the person I conversed with the most, and you don't like me.

>You do not seem to understand hierarchy, but it exists.

I understand hierarchy perfectly well, and I understand what you think of it too. Understanding isn't condoning, however, and one Catholic belief I do not share is the idea that if your superior is in error but commands you to commit this error, you are free of responsibility through obedience. I understand the Catholic approach, the Holy Spirit-led authorities and all of that, but I do not believe that's what actually happens, so I don't rely on hierarchy the way you do, but don't say I don't understand it as if I were lacking in intellect (which you know isn't the case, or you'd have explained the part you think I didn't understand).

>mhm

If that's all you have to say about the fact that you erroneously assumed I was a fevered ego, speaking for the Lord solely to feel awesome about myself, whereas, in reality, I do so for the exact motives I stated and did not, in fact, get any ego satisfaction. 90% of the anons I speak with consider me a hopeless idiot for buying into Christianity, the rest think I'm not a real Christian. Like I said, try it for yourself and see what it's like.

Should you want to apologise for your accusations, I'm all ears. Not holding my breath.

>>5809

>I can say that I do like you personally,

You're probably the only one here, to my knowledge.

>and even if I don't agree with all your opinions (which is natural. If you aren't Mormon, I'm always going to disagree with *something* you have to say, or even if you were) I do enjoy arguing, debating and conversing with you.

As it should be: I thought this was why /christ/ was created. Since I'm non-denominational, and I'm constantly doing research, my own opinions change as I learn, a fact that the Catholics don't accept. If I ever said I now believed masturbation to be a sin, they'd call me a liar.

I'm glad my presence here is perceived positively by at least one person. As to being back, I don't know if I am. I doubt I'll be as active as I have been a few weeks ago. I'm training myself in apologetics and will spend more time defending the faith to the unbelievers. It is difficult for me to come with humble noob questions to a group of people who have now taken the habit of looking down on me (with assumptions of me being malicious, to boot).

>>5810

>>5811

Your perception of reality is really disturbing.

>>5819

Reality is always disturbing if you're perceptive enough.

>>5811

Well, I'm sorry you feel so accosted by most people here. I can't really say that I see that though, apart from cuckvol but he's just an unpleasant human being to pretty much everyone here.

Is it the sense of accomplishment that drives you to the dark corners of the internet? Preaching to people that know next to nothing about the Gospel, rather than debating on more esoteric matters with people who already have informed opinions (or at least, established opinions)?

>>5834

>Is it the sense of accomplishment that drives you to the dark corners of the internet? Preaching to people that know next to nothing about the Gospel, rather than debating on more esoteric matters with people who already have informed opinions (or at least, established opinions)?

In the case of Discipulus or the other Catholics here, they feel as though they have nothing to learn, especially not from non-Catholics, so that's a wasteland for seeds; nothing will grow there, and if you can make them think twice about a given dogma, that's already a lot. 99% of conversations will end up in them simply reciting the CCC or stating what the Church believes and assuring you that the Church is right and that they agree with it. In other words, conversation is largely pointless and you're better off reading the CCC for yourself. They don't like more personal questions and some of them will claim that they stay away from personal matters out of "humility", as if you could be famous on a Internet chan, as if that mattered to any degree. I lost interest in arguing this way and will refrain from it in future.

As to a sense of accomplishment, I don't get much of it most of the time when I talk with the unbelievers, simply because the harvest is never very good. The best I hope for is to change a few people's minds about faith and make them more likely to consider it seriously. Sometimes, someone is genuinely interested. Sometimes, an ex-Christian rekindles his faith because I gave him a more sophisticated response than he had ever come across. But I don't accomplish much beyond that. You can't realistically expect to accomplish much more, though. I get more frustration and a sense of wasting my time than anything else. The only guaranteed positive thing for me in this endeavour is the sense that I am actively doing something for God. That makes it worthwhile to me, and nevermind if more ill-minded people think it's an ego thing.

You can't teach the unwilling, especially when they have some knowledge on an issue and feel defensive of the time they spent gathering that knowledge. New ideas come at a high cost for those who have spent years believing the same thing, and that makes them unlikely to even entertain new ideas. The unbelievers generally think they know a lot about Christianity and react in various ways when shown that they don't. Some become interested, others refuse to update their perception of the faith.

/christ/, to me, was supposed to be what /christian/ was in the beginning: a place for Christians to enjoy being together. Regardless of who's to blame, I don't enjoy brotherhood on either board now and have resolved to try and enjoy conversations and debates instead.

I also want to hone my apologetics skills, and you can't do that efficiently with theists, so I expose myself to atheists and try my hand at arguments for God and see where I am lacking.

>>5827

>Reality is always disturbing if you're perceptive enough.

This is not the case here. I will just say it frankly, the reality that you perceive and the reality that actually exists are different, they are almost opposites.

>>5796

Sometimes I want to hug you. The tragedy of all you are doing is that you are confused and unable to find Christ in the proper way.

>Perhaps you have never been outside of your religion and don't understand the unbelievers and how they think.

Just 15 years. Even three weeks of mass attendence I was still agnostic, pretty much.

> I cannot testify of the Holy Spirit's presence in me

Then it would be best if you stopped trying to evangelise. A fake testimony is without authority. The gospel spreads through each of us heralding the death of Christ and His glorious defeat of it through the resurrection. Who has ears to hear: listen. Instead of babbling about a Christ you don’t know.

>>5797

> your righteousness

I don’t think you know what that means. If I pretended to not know the truth in a sense of false humility, that would mean I’d reject Christ to appear more humble. You are steeping too much in the Zeitgeist, it appears. This notion of being able to appropriate humility by humble behaviour ruined the Vatican 2 church. It was always the people who said: 'You are the Christ' who were called out. If you are proud of your humility, I have bad news for you.

>>5798

>The only thing I enjoy is the feeling that I do something for God

Prelest, is what orthodoxy would call it. Just putting an 'ad maiorem Dei gloria' behind all your self-motivated quests doesn’t make them saintly.

>as I am now questioning it myself

That is a good thing, to be honest. And I don’t mean it in the way that you should lose your faith. I am certain that if you ever lose it because of this, you will finally be reborn. Whatever you would have lost, it wasn’t Christ.

>That I lack this sense of faith is obvious in my name

Maybe that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish to see the day that you are OoSF, one of strong faith.

>>5799

>preaching the word in a way that resonates with people in 2015

Filling old wine in new casks

>in a loving and humble manner,

You cannot fake love and humility, it is best you learn it already.

>will only restrict faith to the less intelligent and less educated

No, I personally employ many ways if I evangelise but I also say that I have the truth.

>Some of the Catholics here prefer to think Christ was "just quoting" a psalm

Christ was never “just” doing one thing. This is not in line with the magisterium anyway. If I quoted this psalm in despair, I wouldn’t just be quoting the psalm either. If I pray the Our Father, I am not just quoting the bible.

>the idea of God becoming us

One of the favourite parts of the bible of me is when John the Baptist feels joy from His presence so much that he leaps in the womb of Elisabeth.

>feel clothed by the CCC

Why do you think the Church is not acting on behalf of God? Who in the Catholic Church claims the truth as their self-begotten wisdom? Nobody. And most of the time, I am not even quoting the catechism.

>and everyone here

Then let me split my cloak in half and clothe you with it, so that we both shall not freeze.

>>5800

>see what it does to your ego

People call me narcissistic, too and it is probably partially true, even when I certainly don’t suffer actual narcissism. Hate is a form of attention, too.

>>5801

>I came here to understand how people lived their faith and be part of a brotherhood

Then come on IRC, #8church on Rizon. It is way more personal albeit sometimes a bit more shitposty, due to the ejaculatory effect IRC clients have

>>5802

>That's fully untrue, though

Why do you keep doing that? I know best what I am doing and I don’t give false testimony.

>the unbelievers will remember your behaviour and attitude towards them more than your actual arguments

This is true. Too bad humanity is defective and we tend to be assholes. I wish that I could be less of hothead and employ a more charitous apostolate than I do.

> A mod should moderate according to the rules of the Founder.

I didn’t know that I am not entitled to my opinions anymore just because I am a volunteer. I am not a mod here either, so what is your argument there? Full non sequitur, your answer doesn’t fit with what you quoted. And stop assuming so many things.

>>5852

>>5811

>Since I'm non-denominational

No, you are catholic.

>If I ever said I now believed masturbation to be a sin, they'd call me a liar.

No, I don’t believe in 'reprobates' Neither does St. Paul

>I'm training myself in apologetics

Why don’t you do something for your spiritual life instead? It seems as though God doesn’t will what you are doing. There is a reason why being a catechist normally requires a higher education.

>>5834

>apart from cuckvol but he's just an unpleasant human being to pretty much everyone here

a) speak for yourself, b) look in the mirror and take out the speck, inserting this sentence is a sign that you are the unpleasant human being here. Even using 'cuckvol' instead of 'cathmod' is a sign of that. My criticism regarding this board stands as it is and I am not shitposting here.

>>5843

>In the case of Discipulus or the other Catholics here, they feel as though they have nothing to learn

As I am mostly here for the catholics on this board, I don’t agree with you. I have had fruitful discussions with discipulus and others.

>As to a sense of accomplishment, I don't get much of it most of the time when I talk with the unbelievers, simply because the harvest is never very good

Makes me wonder who you are really harvesting for.

>I also want to hone my apologetics skills

Maybe you should realise that true testimony is given by living a christian life, not by attempts of conversion.

It seems you seek a sense of accomplishment most, this is why you find debates with actual believers not fruitful. This is very dangerous.

>>5853

>No, you are catholic.

Being Catholic, just like being Christian, is by choice. It's not a nature you're born with. All first Protestants have also been baptised as Catholics and ceased to be Catholics. I understand that you believe that "once baptised, always Catholic", but that's beside the point here. The point is what I consider myself.

>No, I don’t believe in 'reprobates'

Called it.

>Why don’t you do something for your spiritual life instead?

The idea that apologetics isn't part of someone's spiritual life is interesting. I see no better activity for my spiritual life.

>It seems as though God doesn’t will what you are doing.

Actually, it does, since that's how I got to the faith to begin with and anything that strengthens my faith, instead of weakening it, can only be willed by God.

>There is a reason why being a catechist normally requires a higher education.

In your mind I am an uneducated person of little intelligence, but in reality I obtained several degrees at MA levels and can tackle any academic literature related to history, theology, philosophy, etc. Sorry.

>a) speak for yourself, b) look in the mirror and take out the speck, inserting this sentence is a sign that you are the unpleasant human being here.

Mormon friend has always been very nice to everybody, even when facing users who consider his faith pure heresy.

>As I am mostly here for the catholics on this board, I don’t agree with you. I have had fruitful discussions with discipulus and others.

By fruitful, you mean they agreed with you. Confirming the status quo is not what I consider fruitful. It's just self-affirming and nobody learns anything new. I've never seen such conversations, so I'll assume they happened while I was gone.

>As I am mostly here for the catholics on this board

Why don't you create /catholic/? Honest question. /christ/ was made so every sort of Christian could enjoy other Christians' presence. If you're here mostly for Catholics, consider making your own board, where you could rule absolutely, over Catholics who only want to be around other Catholics. I don't see anything in this idea that you wouldn't like.

>>5853

>Makes me wonder who you are really harvesting for.

What are the options? There's God and only God, so far as I know.

>Maybe you should realise that true testimony is given by living a christian life, not by attempts of conversion.

Telling others about Christ is part of a Christian life. Christ certainly emphasised this enough, both in deeds and words. Moreover, doing apologetics and defending the faith in front of the unbelievers is hardly mutually exclusive with a Christian life. It is no true testimony, though, since a private life tells nothing to anyone about God. What I do in my privacy is not a testimony. How I treat people, however, is. Reminder that you don't know me nor my personal life and can therefore say strictly nothing about it. As I stated before, I work directly for the Church as part of my full time job.

>It seems you seek a sense of accomplishment most

The same idea as Discipulus, based on nothing more than your general scorn of my little person. It seems that the idea that me defending the faith in front of the unbelievers for God's sake is something you cannot conceive. I wonder why. Perhaps you think no good can come of me, perhaps you think you are better equipped to do this job. If so, why don't you actually do it? Christ called us to do it, so I really don't see what right you have to tell me not to do it like you don't do it yourselves.

>this is why you find debates with actual believers not fruitful.

There's no debate with you. If I argue something, you will quote the CCC and that's where it'll stop.

>This is very dangerous.

Fear is the weakest argument and one you use regularly.

>>5855

I will address the rest after mass but I need to correct something:

>'reprobates'

I don’t believe that this exists. Also, before you write a lot of shit, stop feeling offended or persecuted.

>>5859

>I don’t believe that this exists.

I'm going to assume you're talking about Calvinism and Predeterminism and mean to say that I am not doomed to damnation or something of the sort.

It still doesn't connect with the idea that you don't trust me.

>Also, before you write a lot of shit, stop feeling offended or persecuted.

I don't feel offended or persecuted. But don't exonerate yourself from your aggressive tone and countless accusations either. You can try to pass both as just me being "sensitive" because you'd much rather things be that way than admit that your behaviour is what it is. This is what I don't like about you: you consistently attack others on things you do yourself, without seeming to notice the discrepancy there, without ever seeming to consider your own flaws before you attack others on their perceived flaws, which, more often than not, end up mere projections.

The point isn't whether I feel offended (or am offended), it isn't whether I feel persecuted or not, it's about how you behave towards others, and not just me. But that is your problem, and it is a spiritual one, one that you shouldn't downplay as always being everyone else's problem.

Here, you can't foretell the quality of my future posts as "a lot of shit" and somehow not consider that this is aggressive behaviour, regardless of how I might react to it.

If you could, in general, stop misportraying me in your posts, so that I'd not have to correct your statements each time, that would be great. You'd also come across as less arrogant and potentially more kind.

>>5860

Look, I when I meant shit, I maent this constant projecting of yours.

>If you could, in general, stop misportraying me in your posts

This is what you do, not what I do.

>>5868

>I maent this constant projecting of yours.

So in response to my pointing out how you constantly assume things that aren't true about me, most likely through projection, you accuse me of projecting?

Bravo. From now on, you should focus on topics that relate to Catholicism and not my person. That way you'll make less false assumptions and I won't have to point out any of them. It's easy: you just stop talking about me. There's no need for that, actually, so stop. Thanks.

>>5848

>This is not the case here. I will just say it frankly, the reality that you perceive and the reality that actually exists are different, they are almost opposites.

Adding to that, by now I even believe that Cathvol likes you in his own weird way. You are projecting yourself into a position where you are not, you'd like to be shunned and "persecuted" but you are not.

You'd like that people would hate you, but they are not.

I do not understand any of this, and I've already told you that I don't know how to help you.

>How is this not true? How many times have I tried to get personal responses from Catholics only to get doctrine and dogma rather than actual personal feedback? For most question I asked you, in 90% of the cases you will just tell me what the Church says about it and then say that your opinion is always that of the Church.

If you ask me something personal you'll get a personal response, has always been like that.

If you ask about doctrine, I have to submitt.

>discipulus does not like me ;_;

Untrue, no idea how you can even think that.

>>5240

> I wish I could hug you

>no personal answers ;_;

I even responded to your "know your tripfag" thread, and never denied to give any personal answer so far.

You really need to reevaluate your perception of reality, you are assuming so many things that are just not the case.

>>5908

>Adding to that, by now I even believe that Cathvol likes you in his own weird way.

It's called dislike and contempt. Nothing weird about it. He simply can't accept the idea that he dislikes me and much less can he accept the reasons why.

>You are projecting yourself into a position where you are not, you'd like to be shunned and "persecuted" but you are not.

That's crazy. I left the former because of the mood there. I never imagined I was "shunned" or "persecuted", to use your words. I've never suggested I was either.

>You'd like that people would hate you, but they are not.

Why would I want anyone to hate me? You are deluded.

>I do not understand any of this, and I've already told you that I don't know how to help you.

I don't need help, there's nothing you can do.

>Untrue, no idea how you can even think that.

You're most likely the person who likes me second best, after the Mormon, but even so, I annoy you quite a bit. After you two, there's no appreciation. I don't feel "persecuted", though, we aren't very many. It'd be wrong to say, as you did, that I'm "popular" or even generally liked. That's all I corrected. It doesn't matter that much, either. I speak of this stuff solely so that you understand where I speak from.

>>5888

Anyway, I invited you to the IRC channel of both boards, I won’t waste any more time trying to address false accusations.