/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I've read Heaven & Hell. Fascinating read.

I can't believe this man was just mentally ill. You don't talk with angels for 13 years (or more) and write a volume like this through mere mental illness. I don't exclude demons, though, but who knows.

What's up with the squares though? Whatever was supposed to be displayed, I only see squares in red.

>>4830

>I can't believe this man was just mentally ill.

I sure can.

>You don't talk with angels for 13 years (or more) and write a volume like this through mere mental illness.

We have already talked about this. How much are you in contact with mentally ill people?

>>4833

>I sure can.

How familiar are you with the mentally ill?

>How much are you in contact with mentally ill people?

That would depend on which illness, but I see no signs of mental illness in Swedenborg that I wouldn't also see in Paul.

>>4834

>How familiar are you with the mentally ill?

I was around mentally ill people since I was born because of the work of my parents.

>That would depend on which illness, but I see no signs of mental illness in Swedenborg that I wouldn't also see in Paul.

Mentally ill people can be great and do glorious things. Mental illnesses are usually something that only affects one part of a personality/trait. If it gets worse it gets overboard and starts affecting different and multiple areas which can leave the person a failure.

>>4836

>Mentally ill people can be great and do glorious things. Mental illnesses are usually something that only affects one part of a personality/trait. If it gets worse it gets overboard and starts affecting different and multiple areas which can leave the person a failure.

What I want to say is:

We cannot determine if Swedeborg was mentally ill according to the quality of his work, because mental illness does not have to diminish this, in fact it can also increase it and his output.

>>4836

>I was around mentally ill people since I was born because of the work of my parents.

And you have seen mentally ill people who correspond to Swedenborg?

>We cannot determine if Swedeborg was mentally ill according to the quality of his work, because mental illness does not have to diminish this, in fact it can also increase it and his output.

OK, but tell me what makes you think Swedenborg was mentally ill and Paul was not, because if you give me their writings, I don't see how I can know that Swed was crazy and Paul was just enlightened by God; what's your criterion here?

>>4841

>And you have seen mentally ill people who correspond to Swedenborg?

I have seen loads of people that "talk" to God, angels, demons, spirits, the dead…. the idea that one off them might write a book about it won't shock me.

> what's your criterion here?

Paul is a Church father and Swedenborg not. Simple as that. I cannot start checking anyone that claims to talk with angels or to be the new Jesus, there are lots of them. That's why I prefer the Church to determine wether something is a miracle or not.

No idea if there is something official to his stuff. That he is crazy is just my personal first thought.

because I heard/hear very similar stuff

>>4844

>I have seen loads of people that "talk" to God, angels, demons, spirits, the dead

And the devil. People that think they are haunted by him, see him everywhere, talk to him etcpp

This is the most disturbing tbh

>>4844

>I have seen loads of people that "talk" to God, angels, demons, spirits, the dead…. the idea that one off them might write a book about it won't shock me.

Sure, but with this amount of detail and information? For this long? With this level of coherence? I have seen the writings of the mentally ill and all, and I have never seen anything remotely similar in quality.

>Paul is a Church father and Swedenborg not. Simple as that.

Sure, but at the time, Paul was just Paul, a human claiming to be the messenger of Christ, which isn't very different from Swedenborg. If you had been present during Paul's time, you'd have treated him like Swedenborg, so that's not a reason.

>That's why I prefer the Church to determine wether something is a miracle or not.

>That's why I prefer the High Priest to determine wether something is a miracle or not.

And that's how you'd have rejected Christ had you been alive when He was here. That's why I can't accept that as a reason.

Have you read Swedenborg at all or are you going on hearsay?

>>4846

>Sure, but with this amount of detail and information? For this long? With this level of coherence? I have seen the writings of the mentally ill and all, and I have never seen anything remotely similar in quality.

Shouldn't be a problem for a perfectionist maniac. This is not enough to "prove" him.

>Sure, but at the time, Paul was just Paul, a human claiming to be the messenger of Christ, which isn't very different from Swedenborg. If you had been present during Paul's time, you'd have treated him like Swedenborg, so that's not a reason.

Would I have been a Christian at 33 AD? No idea, doesn't matter to me.

>And that's how you'd have rejected Christ had you been alive when He was here. That's why I can't accept that as a reason.

The problem is that we are not pharisees…

>Have you read Swedenborg at all or are you going on hearsay?

>>4844

> I cannot start checking anyone that claims to talk with angels or to be the new Jesus, there are lots of them. That's why I prefer the Church to determine wether something is a miracle or not.

>>4845

>And the devil. People that think they are haunted by him, see him everywhere, talk to him etcpp

>This is the most disturbing tbh

How would you know if someone was actually seeing the devil? What if the devil causes mental illnesses?

The two aren't mutually exclusive to me, and even though I'd always start with the medical stuff, I don't exclude the rest. Possession is gospel, Christ was an exorcist. I know it's not hip anymore to talk of exorcism and demons with the Catholic Church, but I don't think we can relinquish all of it so easily.

>>4847

>Shouldn't be a problem for a perfectionist maniac. This is not enough to "prove" him.

I'll sooner believe that he was a conman than an honest mentally ill person, based on his writings.

>Would I have been a Christian at 33 AD? No idea, doesn't matter to me.

It's not that it doesn't matter to you, it's that you realise that if you had been there, you'd have rejected Christ based on the parameters you use today. Instead of acting like it doesn't matter, you should pause and ponder.

>> I cannot start checking anyone that claims to talk with angels or to be the new Jesus, there are lots of them. That's why I prefer the Church to determine wether something is a miracle or not.

Books like Swedenborg's aren't that frequent at all. It isn't the BS you might have come across in general. If you've ever read anything like that, let me know, and I'll see how it compares.

>>4848

>How would you know if someone was actually seeing the devil?

I do not think they are seeing him. They do.

I think however that it is part of his plan and "works" for him like that even better.

>What if the devil causes mental illnesses?

Possibly.

But what then?

> I know it's not hip anymore to talk of exorcism and demons with the Catholic Church, but I don't think we can relinquish all of it so easily.

It is not "hip" ? We are like one of the last left with professional exorcists and stuff. If I'd ask my priest I'm sure he could

a) do eas stuff on his own

b) send me to a professional/send him here

>>4849

>I'll sooner believe that he was a conman than an honest mentally ill person, based on his writings.

Relevance?

> it's that you realise that if you had been there, you'd have rejected Christ based on the parameters you use today

I simply cannot know that. That's why it doesn't matter.

>Books like Swedenborg's aren't that frequent at all. It isn't the BS you might have come across in general. If you've ever read anything like that, let me know, and I'll see how it compares.

Why should I read him?

>>4850

>But what then?

I don't know, I'm improvising this stuff, thinking out loud.

>It is not "hip" ? We are like one of the last left with professional exorcists and stuff.

There might have been a revival since the 70's but I think exorcists are very few and far between nowadays. Pretty sure if I asked the local priest for an exorcism he'd just laugh. It's not hip at all and the Church downplays it a lot, just like miracles and related affairs.

>>4852

>I don't know, I'm improvising this stuff, thinking out loud.

Should we start exorciscing people? If they want to they probably can be…

> Pretty sure if I asked the local priest for an exorcism he'd just laugh.

I'd not go 100% tinfoil head about it. I would just tell him for what I needed it and why. Simple blessings, protection prayers and rituals, I even think mass has parts that are like exorcism traditionally, I'm rather sure he'd listen.

>t's not hip at all and the Church downplays it a lot, just like miracles and related affairs.

Sure.

By the people you like so much, by the Vatican II fans and the likes of Fr Barren.

What does your Theology friend think about this?

>>4853

>By the people you like so much, by the Vatican II fans and the likes of Fr Barren.

It's in your mind only that I'm some huge fan of Vatican II. I like Barren because his videos are interesting and I have learned from them. I don't remember any video where he strays from Catholicism, and I'm sure he knows better than you about because he's a sanctified expert and scholar, the sort you put your faith in for everything else (so why the double standard all of a sudden?). You can't just choose which Church-approved scholar you trust, you take them all or you're not Catholic, I believe is what you'd say.

I'm not Vatican II, and I know that Popes in the past didn't wait for Vatican II to scorn Marian apparitions.

But yeah, keep riding my ass about assumptions you make from nothing but your own fantasies about me. Maybe one day you'll prefer to know the truth rather than fantasise around.

>>4855

>It's in your mind only that I'm some huge fan of Vatican II.

I'm assuming based on your uttered beliefs and your ideas in general. Someone that adheres to Universalism will naturally think VatII is dandy and tradition bad.

>ou can't just choose which Church-approved scholar you trust

I sure can.

You are aware that there are actually controversies and debates happening in the Church? How should this work if I had to approve of both sides?

> you take them all or you're not Catholic

So if there was a single priest I do not like in the last 2000 years I cannot be a Catholic?

If you really believe that I may know why you think ou can't be Catholic anymore….

>>4853

>What does your Theology friend think about this?

I have never asked him about it. He is not easily approached and has very little patience, despite appearances.

>>4857

>I'm assuming based on your uttered beliefs and your ideas in general.

I don't recall uttering that Vatican II was my nigga.

>Someone that adheres to Universalism will naturally think VatII is dandy and tradition bad.

I don't recall adhering to Universalism beyond using their flag for a time, although when I did that, I specified that I was neither a Unitarian, nor that I believed in the same Universalism as the Universalists did, and you'll notice I don't wear that flag anymore. I also explained that I was trying to find a flag that wouldn't offend anybody, considering my ideas and questions. The Universalist flag ensured that nobody would be pissed off if I wore it. It doesn't mean I agree with it 100%. Just less collateral damage than if I had worn the Catholic one.

Tradition is all I care for in terms of Christianity because it's all we have. I just prefer older traditions to newer ones, since a "new tradition" is often the work of the devil.

>>4857

>You are aware that there are actually controversies and debates happening in the Church? How should this work if I had to approve of both sides?

Oh? Debates within the Church? No way! Then how come you guys always speak in absolutes and never accept that even the Church has debates and doesn't agree on everything? How come the side that doesn't fit your preferences instantly gets considered less-Catholic than the side you prefer?

Don't tell me now that you consider that you have a personal responsibility in what you believe when you've spent weeks telling me you had none and all you had to do was follow the Church.

As I said for a long time, that position can't exist and I'm glad you admit it now.

>So if there was a single priest I do not like in the last 2000 years I cannot be a Catholic?

Nice substitution of "priest" with "scholar". Note that I didn't talk of priests, but scholars. Barren isn't just a priest.

>If you really believe that I may know why you think ou can't be Catholic anymore….

It's what you and the other radical Catholics keep saying to everyone: ALL THE CHURCH OR HELL FOREVER.

>>4861

>Oh? Debates within the Church? No way! Then how come you guys always speak in absolutes and never accept that even the Church has debates and doesn't agree on everything? How come the side that doesn't fit your preferences instantly gets considered less-Catholic than the side you prefer?

>mentioning debates within the Church

>countered by the claim debates within the Church are never mentioned

I cannot even

>Don't tell me now that you consider that you have a personal responsibility in what you believe when you've spent weeks telling me you had none and all you had to do was follow the Church.

If you follow the Church you are fine though :^)

>Nice substitution of "priest" with "scholar". Note that I didn't talk of priests, but scholars. Barren isn't just a priest.

It's common for a couple of centuries for priests to be scholars now, I assure you that your local priest has attended a seminary and is therefore an academic.

>It's what you and the other radical Catholics keep saying to everyone: ALL THE CHURCH OR HELL FOREVER.

You need to learn to distinguish different things from each other.

>>4865

Your friend got real upset yesterday and banned me from his board until Christmas. Top kek.

He's gonna be super assmad when he realises I can use proxies and continue posting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say, back then, that you didn't want to be on his board anymore out of personal reasons?

Just a parenthesis because I don't know where else to ask you this.

>>4867

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say, back then, that you didn't want to be on his board anymore out of personal reasons?

No. I could look it up but I have to go now.

I said I left because I dislike the former board. Moderation is part of this of course. But I have no problem with Cathmod personally nor with him being a mod and never said otherwise.

>>4869

I must mistake you for the other Catholic here, then.

>>4867

How is it even fun to post in that board to you?

>>4888

As he admitted in the welcome board, he does it solely to disturb.

And win people over in good faith—but so does the devil

>>4901

>As he admitted in the welcome board, he does it solely to disturb.

Don't be a moron, you know exactly why I did all of this and I've explained it and I've stated it and it's fairly obvious from the posts themselves: giving people a chance to see something else than your massive ego and Catholicism.

What would I gain from disturbing? Uh? I don't care to "disturb" anybody. You're either lying knowingly or you're too far up your own ass that you can't see reality anymore and keep calling everybody a liar to compensate for that sorry fact.

I never "admitted" anything of the sort in the welcome thread.

The sad thing with you is that you do to me what you do to Christ: you twist our words, you paraphrase without quoting because you reshape the words your way. Properly amazing.

Today I posted on /christian/ in response to a thread about Christopher Hitchens, and I posted a video of his brother Peter, whom I like.

Don't bother banning that proxy, I have countless others and I'll post whenever I want to until Christmas. This massive narcissist decided to come back to an older post I made on /christian/ to punish me for my words here on /christ/; and he banned me until Christmas, to make sure I feel the Christian goodness in him, top kek.

Stop being a filthy liar. You don't fool me, you don't fool God. Your behaviour makes me think you don't even believe in God. Nobody can take God for such a fool and believe in Him at the same time.

You bluff constantly, you never respond to direct questions.

If I asked you to show me where, in the welcome thread, I said I posted "solely to disturb", you couldn't find anything. Prove me wrong.

Also this, I want you to tell me which part of my words in pic related were "lies" as you titled the file when you posted it in the other thread.

I'm calling your bluff. I'm giving you a chance to show you're not a manipulative liar.

If you dodge both of my questions, you will tacitely admit to being the filthy manipulative liar I accuse you of being.

>>4924

>guerilla posting

Sounds like a euphemism for behaving like a sounding cymbal.

>you twist our words

For that you would have to not constantly contradict yourself. You are lukewarm like a pool full of toddlers.

>Don't bother banning that proxy

I won’t, ban evasion isn’t bad if you’re an anon. It stops becoming a rightful rebellion if you abuse it to behave like a twat, however.

>Today I posted on /christian/ in response to a thread about Christopher Hitchens, and I posted a video of his brother Peter, whom I like.

:—–DDD

>he banned me until Christmas, to make sure I feel the Christian goodness in him

You have a perverted sense of Christianity.

>>4941

>>guerilla posting

>Sounds like a euphemism for behaving like a sounding cymbal.

By "guerilla", I meant exactly what I defined afterwards: short bursts of activity rather than me staying a thread and responding for hours, as I do here. That's all "guerilla" meant. It didn't mean that I was going to be a terrorist on /christian/.

>For that you would have to not constantly contradict yourself.

It remains to be seen whether I actually do contradict myself or whether sometimes you actually understand what I say (as opposed to all the times where you read what you want). Again, if you don't cite actual examples, I can only respond very generally (which I assume is what you want, convenient).

>I won’t, ban evasion isn’t bad if you’re an anon. It stops becoming a rightful rebellion if you abuse it to behave like a twat, however.

I care absolutely nothing about Internet rules of the sort.

>You have a perverted sense of Christianity.

You have no sense of sarcasm.

You still haven't responded to my two questions. What was a lie in the picture and where did I say I only wanted to "disturb"?

None of the Gnostic writings were known to the public in his time, right? I wonder what he would have thought of the Gospel of Thomas, and the other Nag Hammadi scriptures.