[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / druz / jenny / vichan / vril ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 9ef4bbf3335b4f3⋯.jpg (151.33 KB, 650x818, 325:409, PQ4315_13_C3_1868pg326c.jpg)

75104d  No.793565[Reply]

I'm starting to doubt whether or not having children in this God forsaken world is a good thing brethrens.

What's the point of having a progeny in a world that is going to hell ? They will witness things that no one should. Just to have more people in His kingdom ? Then why stop at 4, 5 ? Why not produce thousand of offsprings ?

Someone enlighten me on anti-natalism (or Nihilism as a whole) and Christianity, please. God bless.

5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

75104d  No.793982

Thank you everyone. I hope to get futher guidance from our Lord on whether or not I should pursue children.

3f6049  No.794009


df4355  No.794019


Hi Noah, name’s Mark!

235910  No.794028


I think the point is that Noah had children even though the world was literally going to come to an end. It puts OP in perspective.

694d7b  No.794056

the world has always been filled with godlessness and sin since the fall. there is nothing new under the sun.

File: 332a72eee3a7088⋯.jpg (12.62 KB, 1280x1024, 5:4, 2f33af7cec9a0f1c9993e24531….jpg)

57b9de  No.792996[Reply]

Is everything fated? Like is every single event already predetermined to occur by God which we have absolutely no control over? Even this moment right here and me typing this was all predetermined? Is there no such thing as coincidences then? What does the Bible say?

39 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

4c1b3a  No.793598



Also the suggestion that you can solve the free-will versus determinism debate in philosophy, on the authority of the Bible alone is an epistemological fail, so there's no point in trying to prove that the Bible endorses it either way.

At best it's just what the Orthodox might call a homologumenon, in other words, cool_story_bro.jpg

408c97  No.793605


>Plain reading is not always correct reading, this goes for the quote here

Yes, context is key and you should also try to figure out the point the writer is trying to prove. But I believe that there is no possible alternative when reading the verses that I have posted. If there is I would love to hear it.

>What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Zero

Beautiful quote by tertullian. The funny thing is that even though tertullian said that, little did he know he himself was actually reading pagan philosophy into the scripture. I see that we are moving from a debate about what the bible says to one of philosophy and epistemology and other such things but it's funny since assuming that you are a cathodox you believe in the trinity, a doctrine that relies heavily on gnostic terms such as ousia and hypostasis to explain itself. Just because it uses terms and language foreign to the bible does that mean it is false? I mentioned earlier that I don't just find verses in the bible that say words but also try to see if the purpose of the text is to prove what I want it to. That is, when it uses such terms does it mean it in the sense that I mean it? This is why although romans 8 talks about predestination I don't use it because it does not neccesarily entail my definition of it.

But if we go on I like how you compare our view of predestination to the stoic and greek view of it. To the greeks fate was a immaterial force that favoured no one and had to real purpose. Even the gods were subject to it and couldn't resist fate. On the other hand, as Ephesians 1:11 states, all things are predestined for a purpose and that is to bring all of God's people back to him and for God to be glorified.

408c97  No.793606


I think you've misunderstood sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is just that we see the bible as the ultimate authority and we can use philosophy, which I see as a way to understand things at their most basic level. And that is fine but you should never substitute the bible for philosphy but rather philosophy is a tool that we use to understand the bible and theology better.

4c1b3a  No.793629


Let's back it up a minute. We're not naturalists, so there are two ways things can be predestined.

>1) The final ends of things (teleological determinism)

>2) What is going on here and now (hard determinism)

I get the decided impression that Paul is talking about predestination in the first sense, meaning our final fate and purpose is to be united to God. I am disinclined to believe that he was speaking in the second sense. Hard determinism was considered fringe back then (and still is to some extent today). The consensus in Cathodox circles is free will, and I as an Anglican (yeah I know) we agree.

a7b018  No.794007


>I wanted to give early evidence for the existence of of our belief and prove that it isn't a 16th century innovation.

There is nothing new under the sun. There's early evidence for questioning God's word in the garden of Eden, still doesn't make it right even a little bit. This whole point is completely irrelevant it gets you nowhere. If we as individuals reject the concrete meaning of words such as all then pretty soon we're talking past each other with completely different languages that sound the same.

>Ok, right off the bat we have a typical arminian talking point.

Arminians reject eternal security though. So what does that have to do with any of the scripture I brought up? Calvinist and arminians are both wrong and a total false dichotomy.

>We see here that even before the pharaoh was even asked about letting the people of isreal go God alraedy told moses beforehand than he will harden the pharaohs heart.

Now you're confusing foreknowledge with actively preventing belief which is what hardening is. Also, I'm pretty sure the Pharaoh wasn't an unborn child when God said this. There's good reason to believe by this point he was quite possibly reprobate or a good way towards it. And we know that he hardened his own heart first early on, we can account that to the Pharaoh himself.

You would like to lay all the blame for sin at the feet of God, but Jeremiah 19:5 clearly demonstrates that he is not the author of sin, as I have said before.

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: - Jeremiah 19:5

>we see that it's always shown that God was the one i charge

This still doesn't remove accountability to Pharaoh for his sins. This was pharaoh being recompensed for his own actions and God used it to magnify his ownPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 78a6b34ff250220⋯.png (156.62 KB, 896x685, 896:685, 8DFF62C6-4144-491E-839E-93….png)

3e8855  No.793707[Reply]

I have work where I can listen to stuff for long hours. I'm looking for podcast, lectures, audiobook, anything audio really that would be great. It can be bible studies, sermons, christian podcasts, discussions, debate, whatever. Ofcourse that means the actual amount of material fitting the criteria is overwhelming so I ask you: what would you recommend? What has been your favorite for deepening your knowledge and faith? Thanks, have a blessed day.

12 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

b3e825  No.793863



Hi friend. Look up this app called “VoiceDream” . It’s a text to speech app, and it’s designed for blind people. It costs money, (more than most apps), but it’s completely worth it (seriously). The voices that it has are much much better than the ones that come stock on your phone / computer. The voices that come with the VoiceDream app are … ok, but there are others that are even better imo. I use the one called “Brian (UK)” (The UK styled pronunciation I’ve found is a little bit more clear at higher rates of speed, because it enunciates the consonants a bit more). All told, $25 should get you the app plus one voice extra.

>church fathers

With that set up, then you can download , for instance , the philokalia , the Bible, whatever suits your fancy. Give it a try, see what you think. It has honestly been a game changer.

501aec  No.793885


Okay sorry ur right

d12151  No.793984


Or you can just get an audio Bible app for free. They have a bunch of versions with real human beings reading the scriptures to you.

d12151  No.793986


Learn the Bible in 24 Hours with Chuck Missler. Or any of his other 24 hour studies.

cee2cf  No.793989


Cringe and redditpilled

File: 55598d3949c5270⋯.jpeg (198.36 KB, 1125x960, 75:64, 9C71E8E1-766D-4D58-B5ED-4….jpeg)

c1c339  No.790515[Reply]

I heard this thrown around a few times, curious what you guys have to say.

9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

5d18dd  No.790842

File: 39978e9e0c0a0ec⋯.jpeg (31.8 KB, 300x420, 5:7, qwe_download.jpeg)


Based and "actually reading mythological texts like Gilgamesh instead of repeating memes"pilled.

ce8c39  No.793800


Is it Because blood line?

c2b70d  No.793887


So apparently the Dead Sea Scrolls have scriptures that the Israelites lost or removed at some point right? Well in the Book of Giants, Gilgamesh is listed as a Nephilim. That implies that all pagan gods are various cultural depictions of angels during the Antediluvian period, if they're not man made idols. Pagan religions copied us, not the other way around.

418df5  No.793896


>the Book of Giants


ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, also the meme says Nephilim were the children of angels, not angels themselves

0ac4dc  No.793920


>the Book of Giant

What is this, discount book of Enoch?

File: 41e10f1616a1a6b⋯.jpg (15.41 KB, 255x247, 255:247, a2ed8b20cc6cbcb18038a4e9d5….jpg)

583424  No.792811[Reply]

I'm new here so I don't know if there's a specific thread I should be posting in or if this warrants a thread by itself, but I really need help.

I, for many years of my life, have been burdened by homosexual urges. I don't believe I was born this way, some of my earliest memories was chasing girls in preschool and I never really found myself interacting with girls the same way I do with men. Ever since puberty, I have found myself wanting to perform sexual acts with men. I want to say that this is because of pornography (which I have been quitting thanks be to God), but the source doesn't matter. I want to get rid of these demonic temptations.

What should I do? Is there any literature I can read or groups I can join that aren't BS?

22 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

99dc54  No.793871


I was only half serious. The luminous mysteries aren't actually part of the Rosary that Our Lady told us to pray, but at the end of the Rosary, I feel that the prayer to St. Micheal is a staple that everyone should pray.

e64fdb  No.793876




To all of you folk and for anybody who deals with lustful thoughts in general as well. The first step that you need to do is to not dwell on these thoughts of lusts.

Be more diligent in your daily life, the moment a lustful thought crosses your mind immediately rebuke it. And then drown it out with an Our Father and Hail Mary, Prayer to your Guardian Angel or the St. Michael prayer.

Take your pick I would recommend praying the last two in general each day as well in addition to whatever prayer to our Lord you already do.

By praying everytime you catch yourself in a sinful thought you're not only praying to the Lord for deliverance and aid in overcoming these thoughts. You're also training yourself to just drop these thoughts immediately. I used to have many a sinful lustful thoughts cross my mind each day, they have lessened greatly over time doing the aforementioned rebuking and prayer. And when they do come they're instantly silenced by thoughts of God.

It is a start to your problems anyhow, for the one anon that is typically straight thinking that should fix both your issues. To the anons that have SSA as a default, once you stop thinking about lustful thoughts you can work on trying to change the root of the problem. I can't offer much to help you here in this regard unfortunately, all I can do is include you in my prayers. I think the rosary daily with intentions of overcoming homosexuality is a good idea. And I believe there are some good sites that help Christians overcome SSA.

God bless you anons and good luck.

727b0a  No.793877


Since you haven't always been like that, and consider it weird yourself, chances are they aren't inherent impulses and are learned behaviour.

Some possible reasons:

1. you have low self esteem in one area or another, this makes you want to 'give up' or be submissive to other men

2. you confuse a wanting of brotherhood with sexual ideas. being liked and respected by your male peers, and bonding with them in brotherly ways is what you probably really want but don't understand it.

3. porn - years of porn inducing escalation of perverted fetishes which don't at all reflect your real sexuality or what you really want from life.

Stop porning forever, stop fapping for a month or so, and avoid sexual thoughts as a whole for a while. After around 6 months, you'll realise your mind feels a lot cleaner, and the fetishes are gone.

4. not enough male role models when growing up. you learned feminine behaviour from being around your mother too much. you can fix it, and raise yourself now, by reading and studying real men, and by spending time with fully developed men. do what they do, spend time with them, and over time you will have learned a lot.

You mention porn, the longer you are away from it, and the less you think about it, the less hold it will have on you. You won't even think about it and will wonder why you ever found it interesting in the first place after a year.

There's a website called 'your brain on porn' which explains some it. Read some stuff on there for a few hours, you'll feel better.

Also, if you masturbate, then do it only in the shower, away from the computer, thinking about penetrating a girl you know/like/have a chance with, and no weird or taboo stuff. Do it maximum 2-3 times a week, spend no longer than 10-15 minutes on it. That way it won't have a hold on you anymore, especially with porn gone.

When you have a girlfriend/wife, stop masturbating completely if you are having intercourse with her. Beforehand, though, it could be helpful for you to masturbate to the idea of her, it will make you less nePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

727b0a  No.793880


Stay away from porn forever, stop masturbating for a month or two so that masturbating no longer has a hold over your behaviour or mind or routine.

It is difficult the first few weeks, but after that it does become a lot easier.

Keep yourself busy, stay around other people as much as possible, keep your door/curtains open so you don't have privacy in the first few weeks or as long as you need.

Don't make a big deal out of it if you slip up, just start again and consider it a positive that you went for however many days without it.

In your thoughts, just push away the wrong ones, and perverted urges, they are just echoes of the porn, and will go away in time.

It might help to express anger AT the thought, not at yourself, and shout at it to go away, either in your head or out loud if you want. That will put you in control.

When you have a long term girlfriend, you will realise that you love being around her, love everything about her, and porn and any weird fetishes will be completely gone from your mind. You'll instead experience a great thrill from simply holding her hand or kissing her on the lips.

Focus on those things, not everything in life is about sex, even though that is what porn wants us to believe.

10285b  No.793881

File: a93e94bab7148d3⋯.jpg (78.45 KB, 640x495, 128:99, s-l640.jpg)


Technically the prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel isn't a part of the Rosary either. But that's neither here nor there. It's always good to pray the St. Michael prayer after all prayer sessions imo.

File: 8d76b0b46476d9c⋯.png (204.25 KB, 1000x650, 20:13, kidnapped.png)

8f3ed3  No.791951[Reply]

Galatians 6:2: Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

Italian abducted in Africa. Not all vacations or working trips abroad go as planned. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-46329234

5 months later, the aid volunteer is still missing, and media have forgotten about her.

19 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

3115ba  No.792476


You can't even formulate a proper sentence. Learn English if you want to argue with me, Pablo.

aa24a0  No.792582


General consensus (that's how you spell it, by the way) does not delete posts. What you're doing is walking into someone's house who has bug zappers and roach spray and telling them that insects are permitted. Clearly, they are not, and nothing you say will change that.

311da9  No.792722

File: de67c0578824a7e⋯.jpg (31.98 KB, 735x541, 735:541, kc5puk4builz.jpg)


You are the most reddit person I've ever seen. Leave


20a3d2  No.792727


>I have no brain, and I must argue

319aec  No.793860

definitely keeping her in my prayers

File: 77430d98ccf9c59⋯.jpg (58.96 KB, 750x825, 10:11, 46000759_1612596642219528_….jpg)

d0e5c9  No.780968[Reply]

>tfw been trying to fit into churches for the past 4 years

>whole spectrum from the catholicism of my youth to confessional protestant churches to begrudgingly checking out evangelical groups on campus

>tolerated in all of them, completely rejected by evangelicals. Never really fit in to any of them.

>only christian friends are online and in the same boat

why is christianity in America like this, so comfortable and "bourgeois" (i hate to use this commie term). It's no different than the normie world with cliques and social ladders. I thought the church was supposed to be for the undesirables too.

21 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

f5a8fe  No.781632


No u, modernist

f5a8fe  No.781676

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


I support the idea of using clowns as a means of spreading christian values, just keep it out of mass please.

ecdb96  No.781759

File: a96d13eda43b914⋯.png (298.22 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, a96.png)

f5a8fe  No.781784

File: bed8a56cdb53d35⋯.jpg (45.11 KB, 420x326, 210:163, junior-and-lala.jpg)


I was about to say.

It's okay brother. I forgive you. I am open to someone doing clown acts for kids parties and have the act teach some christian virtues.

2f24dc  No.793796


that's a false gospel. salvation is a free gift, not of works lest any man should boast. your son would be punished, but he would still go to heaven if he was saved. but he would be punished in this life

File: 081b9635bd48185⋯.jpg (41.2 KB, 800x450, 16:9, disgusted.jpg)

e7fcf2  No.781910[Reply]

>"I'm Orthodox because it's the church with the best optics"

I've seen Orthos unironically use this as a reason to convince prots to join their church. If anything, the fact that satan is not attacking your church so heavily should be a sign that your church is not the true Church of Christ.

31 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

819f14  No.782835


It's definitely more true of Protestantism than RC. Some crazy sects even deny that there are any mysteries.

cbf1a8  No.791381

>every "Orhtodox" I've talked to online was just a larper and never went to an Orthodox mass

6c50ad  No.791388

File: 8a8dcf1f6909cc9⋯.jpg (82.78 KB, 960x640, 3:2, Ortho priest snowman.jpg)


>Satan doesn't attack your church

He does. But our Church is more resilient. Gates of Hell will not prevail…etc.

da8671  No.793784


You might spit on god but NEVER on God.

And what exactly do you consider God's failures?

And for which of HIS actions specifically should he take responsibility for?

God is not just a father.

99365b  No.793787


It is just a Charlie post.

File: 65e9027368110c6⋯.jpg (329.06 KB, 1322x1154, 661:577, baal-sacrifice-to-moloch.jpg)

071a78  No.793385[Reply]

So I've been through a bit of feels lately. As most of you know, two movies have come out recently dealing with the subject of abortion. This first is Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer. The second is Unplanned. Both of these are good movies, rare for Christian movies, and shocking given that the people who made Unplanned also made God's Not Dead. For those of you unfamiliar with the subjects.

Kermit Gosnell ran an abortion clinic in Philadelphia in the inner city. His clinic was filthy and covered in cat feces, among other things. Staff were administering drugs and procedures without so much as a nursing license, as Gosnell didn't actually spend a lot of time at the clinic. An investigation started by a narcotics detective (Dean Cain in the movie) led to the discovery that many babies were born alive from their dilated mothers while they were waiting for him to show up. When he did show up, he would simply 'snip' the baby's spinal cord at the base of the neck. Further investigations revealed that the unsanitary conditions and downright dangerous practices at his clinic (at least one woman who came in for an abortion died) went on for so long because the state neglected to inspect it. One of the more touching stories was a poor girl who changed her mind on the table. Gosnell yelled at her and left her dilated and in the stirrups for, IIRC, over half an hour. She had a miscarriage, but the child survived and is in Kindergarten today. Gosnell was convicted for the murder of the born alive babies and cut a deal for life without parole (instead of death) on the condition that he not appeal the conviction.

Unplanned is about Abby Johnson, founder of "And Then There Were None," an organization dedicated to getting abortion workers out of the industry. She grew up a Southern Baptist and, like many young people, went astray and started having sex before marriage. Her contraceptive failed and she got an abortion, but never told anybody. In college, she continued to say she was pro-life for a long time, but was recruited as a Planned Parenthood volunteer on the lie that Planned Parenthood actually tries to reduce abortions and provides services to women. She went on to a) have another abortion, this one chemical (ru486) and b) become one of the youngest PP clinic directors in history. She did terrible things at that clinic, but in 2009, she was asked to assist a viPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

16 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

001ca1  No.793553


1. All of Homo sapiens being descended from Adam

2. The same rules you have for everyone else also apply to you

3. The dispersion of Babel was punishment for attempting to reach Heaven through the wisdom of man, for it was God’s will that this should be accomplished through Christ. Now that He has died and risen again, we may all enter the kingdom of God through Him

4. Any “””biblical””” foundation for saying that any race is less than human (muh beasts of the field) is no newer than the 15th century, and was invented by Talmudic Jews to give a false justification for their chattel slave empire. Do some research; every one of the arguments used by plantation owners in the American south comes from Jewish fan fictions like the “satan seed bloodline” myth.

e564ef  No.793573


I didn't come from /pol/, dickhead. I literally asked for citation, get off your high horse.

e564ef  No.793575


>point 4

That's actually pretty interesting, thanks.

6b41dd  No.793781


>I can stop abortion

you're really glowing anon

414e26  No.793785


>Frankly, if God is too much of a coward to step up and take responsibility for his actions

There is nothing for God to take responsibility for. Mankind creates his own problems by his own choice.

File: 21fe4a770a34051⋯.jpg (27.76 KB, 390x362, 195:181, a8e15b851114c01e9bcccbbe51….jpg)

fbb697  No.773779[Reply]

Share the posters you notice here:

>The catholic that always says "pastor jim" as his stereotype of a protestant

>The guy who coined his own term "bible idolatry"

>ID 1c98e6 who's a mod apologist in the meta thread

>The orthoLARPer who adds a completely unrelated icon to all his replies

>The guy who plugs the other board whenever someone is upset with a deletion here (always gets deleted)

>The New IFB false-flagger who makes fun-posts parodying the Anderson cult (and people fall for it)

100 posts and 26 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

782015  No.793689


Well, Babylon was abondoned in the 1st century. So it probably wasn’t the literal Babylon.

Not a catholic.

5b567e  No.793691


The earliest "explicit" instance is in Revelation (I say "explicit" because there is little in that book that is actually served to the reader on a plate, but it's not difficult to put the pieces together). But the idea of Babylon having "successors" or "reiterations" is found as early as in Daniel, although throughout the prophets the invasion of Judah by Babylon is often "transposed" to the far future where it becomes the last judgement. Whether 1 Peter is actually written by Peter, or written by a community that claims his memory, it doesn't change that the epistle is very likely of Roman origins (in fact the only instance I could find of someone arguing otherwise is the Assyrian Church of the East).

199225  No.793693


When Jack Chick decided he really, really hated Catholics.

d987c3  No.793736

File: 4fee08042b7a396⋯.jpg (246.83 KB, 705x527, 705:527, 1532044318424.jpg)


>Bible is the mark of the beast

>The part about the mark of the beast is IN the Bible

This is some almond activater right there

1ea950  No.793744


Whore of Babylon = Your mother


File: 797e9cba7e8ecb1⋯.jpg (69.66 KB, 312x450, 52:75, St Constantine.jpg)

0f32df  No.792108[Reply]

Why should I not view St. Eusebius' "Church History" as an authentic and reliable source of the Apostolic Churches? I see atheists and (to be fair, usually really offshoot heretical like Continuing Church of God) evangelicals crapping on it all the time, but I want to know if there is any reason for an Apostolic not to use it from fellow Apostolics. I've read it and found it to be the most remarkable piece of literature by a Church Father I've read in a long time. Like the fact his Church History contains the oldest quotations to Josephus talking about Our Lord Jesus Christ in a positive manner, while the ones that DON'T depict Jesus Christ as the Messiah are from the 11th century. Or the fact his Church History points to the fact Philo may have very well been a Christian by the end of his life. Or the history of the Apostles after the death of Christ. It has really strengthened my faith.

And please, do not give me the 2 standard "arguments" I always see in regards to St. Eusebius' Church History being unreliable:

>He was a Caesaropapist who supported that evil Nazi (Saint) Constantine (the Great)!

>He said in his writings (taken completely out of context) that lying is okay so that must mean his Church History is full of lies and interpolations!

9 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

5bf206  No.792352

File: 98abb1b1bffe1f0⋯.jpg (440.84 KB, 599x1181, 599:1181, Screenshot_20190218-103935….jpg)



Yes, it is exactly as he said. I can say we have the same Christology as you do. Chalcedon's Schism is seen as a tragic misunderstanding. Look at the links I posted from the Coptic Diocese of Los Angeles for example. Even the anathemas on our Church Fathers no longer exist.

Where I live, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox intercommune with each other regularly. When I am abroad I have full permission from my bishop to take communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church, and they, when asked, will allow me with no issue. As the EO priest I frequent most says of Copts, "we have the same faith," and my own priest echoes these sentiments.

I will say I believe in what Chalcedon teaches, because its Christology is no different than our Miaphysitism.

My own priest, who knew several bishops that attended the common faith declarations in the 90s, told me we came to an agreement on everything with both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox admitting everything tge other taught as sound theologically, and we were set to reunify, but a few hardliners on Mount Athos saw reunification as unjustifiable because they still did not believe we had the same Christology despite the signed declarations that we do, and since then talks have sadly died. But both my priests look on those reunification meetings fondly.

Back on topic however, why do Protestants hate Church History so much? It contains so many helpful historical proofs for Christ and the Apostolic Church!

3109d4  No.792358


>Back on topic however, why do Protestants hate Church History so much? It contains so many helpful historical proofs for Christ and the Apostolic Church!

Because anything after about 100AD shreds their legitimacy. They do selectively accept some however. Which is why they conveniently accept Roman historians talking about Jesus but reject anything later as "corrupted", usually giving some arbitrary cutoff date.

6bbca4  No.792889


Just about everything Ante-Nicene shreds Christo-paganism. Theodosius I single-handedly destroyed the physical Church on Earth.

cdccb2  No.793646


Speak for yourself, caesaropapist. Only Orthodox people are the real Christians and you're just a bunch of schismatics

01f28b  No.793652


Curb your autism. He was mocking how the moderation, and so the whole board, tends to be heavily biased in favor of Catholicism. He said this because he thought I was one of those idiot Deus Vult LARPers who plague this place. (it turns out I'm only an idiot OrthoLARPer)

File: 89482846aedf171⋯.jpg (23.41 KB, 249x379, 249:379, immaculate_conception_dogm….jpg)

f03eeb  No.792698[Reply]

Why does she so easily trigger prots?

129 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

07e5fe  No.793621

73498b  No.793623


Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus created Mary and existed before her.

ee78ad  No.793640

File: 7a5a2cc1944f54a⋯.jpg (19.58 KB, 470x362, 235:181, 1521225044551.jpg)


>the writing of Paul, and Paul himself are suspect.

f01782  No.793650



Is God, as God, birthable? If Mary is the "Mother of God", did she gave birth to the Father and the Spirit as well? Is God only one person now? But enough of that.

>literally cannot answer 2 simple questions

Loaded questions and poisonings of the wells are neither "simple" nor honest. The cliche you'll just make is the obnoxious part-to-whole fallacy saying that Christ's identity as God the Son transfers and overrules His identity as a man when it comes to Mary birthing Him. Not distinguishing the two natures (Christ the man and God the Son) when forcing a conclusion from our answers is bad logic and worse theology. I thought we were not to be monophysitists.

10ca3e  No.793681


Absolutely cringe

File: eefcbc144b7fdc9⋯.jpg (1.87 MB, 1820x1346, 910:673, scan0119.jpg)

eb0383  No.791594[Reply]

The Four Articles of Prague were more than reasonable and more Christian than the Catholic Church:

>(1) freedom of preaching;

>(2) communion in both kinds;

>(3) poverty of the clergy and expropriation of church property;

>(4) punishment of notorious sinners.

After the Hussites had crushed two crusader armies. thousands of knights strong, with nothing but peasants and wagons, Polish king Jogaila refused the Bohemian crown because he would have had to accept the Four Articles of Prague and this would've "angered the Pope".

Why are the Poles such CUCKS and left Bohemia to the Pope and his Kraut minions? Is there even a good theological reason for it, or just simple cuckoldry and betrayal?

27 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

0bb8fc  No.793224

File: 45c7644336d6456⋯.jpg (120.55 KB, 1032x780, 86:65, 43913983_585979645169185_2….jpg)


>he has the fanciful view of Slavs that many Westerners fall into.

I am a Slav, and my people are not any less capable than Westerners, they just had less opportunity. I don't really care what you think, but pertaining to this discussion it is factually wrong.

7e0faf  No.793259



0e0744  No.793480


Serbia is not exactly eastern europe but whatever, neither is Greece.


>I am a Slav, and my people are not any less capable than Westerners,

I am a Slav too. But I do not fancy the "holy russia" meme even though I tend to like russia. I am skeptic about memes. Also slavs have strong sides as well as their vices and weaknesses…as any other ethnic group.


>Meanwhile America is brimful with degeneracy and racemixing and it won't make it past its 300th birthday, despite having an ideal geography and unlimited resources.

Americanism is a worse form of bolshevism. It is more subversive. The last thing I would stand for is America. But that does not make Russia holy.

We will also disagree about the "greatness of patriotic war". I do not think wwii helped Russia or Europe.

Historical autism aside. Russia does build mosques, they have civic nationalism over there, not real nationalism. Abortion is also rampant. I am in no way anti russian/anti slav but I would be more careful with outright claims of some "great eastern european alliance" First we are too divided right now to form such a thing. Second Russia has hard time coming to terms with ukraine in the first place since they will not let their stalinist myth at all costs. This apparently will not help the relationship in the long run. And no….not everything bewteen those two countries is a "western shill plot" Russia criminalizing historical revisionism of "muh patriotic war" and their attitude towards Ukrainians is not a western plot. It is a superiority complex of russians, some of them seem to think they have right to govern over a sovereign nation.

>You will always be a bitch of Judeo-Liberal culture.

After one hundred years of being bitch to jewish bolshevism, screwing up the europe and larping about it I do not think Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

9e4419  No.793498


Yeah, no one is perfect…and we should admit our shortcomings and even the poisonous forms of denials which come from arrogance and spoiled pride in our people (which does not mean we should not be able to appreciate who we are and where we come from, but should put always God’s glory first)

t. Mediterranean guy

3fd745  No.793533


I can speak for Poland, it's partly because of communist propaganda. Women were encouraged to get an education and a good job as part of the "both sexes are equal" myth.

File: 754489a5813ef7c⋯.png (285.16 KB, 558x291, 186:97, trinityicon.png)

File: 3771c094ccad1b1⋯.jpg (179.44 KB, 1100x733, 1100:733, img-1791_1_orig.jpg)

bd13a0  No.793206[Reply]

Any Oriental Ortho bros on here?

20 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

b8da20  No.793468


>Nope. However, the wide variety of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox here are definitely Christians. I do apologize because I should have been more clear, but these are the majority of /christian/ posters.

Again, I'm not saying this to insult the faith of the Catholics who post here, or to say that they should leave. From my personal view however, what defines whether one is a Christian or not is the ecumenical councils, not a random forum board's rules.

I'm saying "I don't believe Catholics are Christians", not "Catholics are not Chistians and should be banned from here". But either way this is beside the point - which is that non-Chalcedonians are not Christians.

b8da20  No.793473


>to be clear, I wasnt arguing that they are, but rather that they seem to have more hopes of returning to orthodoxy than most of the Western Churches at the moment.

Oh, then I definitely agree. Although this has been primarily driven by shared culture and geography than by real doctrinal argument. Even the talks in the 80s-90s where bishops on both sides agreed that we have the same Christology could not find an actual solution regarding acceptance or rejection of Chalcedon.

>well, even under that interpretation they're still better off, because it would mean they haven't explicitly rejected the proper faith either. It's only damnable if you reject it after you've been properly evangelized.

I don't know where you get this idea from. Not having the true doctrine is damnable whether you had it before or not. Apostasy and heresy are both of the same gravity.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure if this is actually the official stance of the church. AFAIK the stance is more that salvation outside the church is unlikely (due to not receiving correct teachings), but is otherwise not impossible, nor really knowable. As such, damnation can't really be assured for all those we've deemed as Heretics.


I don't know what your catechesis taught you, but what I was taught and what I will continue to preserve is that there is no salvation outside the Church, full stop. Whoever dies without baptism goes to Hell, and whoever is baptized but does not have faith goes to Hell. While I've heard that a recent theologian has said that there is a difference between "faith" as in belief in Christ and "faith" as in the received doctrine, that sounds like mental gymnastics to me. You cannot have faith in Christ if you did not receive the correct teaching as to Who Christ is. Hence why the ecumenical councils were concerned with this teaching (the Trinity for the first 2, the Incarnation for the latter 5), and why I put Oriental Orthodox (who reject Chalcedon) and Roman Catholics (who reject Constantinople I by agreeing to FlorencPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

37b919  No.793494


>I don't know where you get this idea from. Not having the true doctrine is damnable whether you had it before or not. Apostasy and heresy are both of the same gravity.

Just relaying what I was taught with regards to the non-orthodox. The idea was based on the general principle that if you happened to be born in the middle of nowhere with no access to, nor knowledge of any form of Orthodox Christianity, then you couldn't really be accused of rejecting the proper gospel, and that therefore the state of such people is undeterminable. Kinda like how you mentioned

>You cannot have faith in Christ if you did not receive the correct teaching as to Who Christ is.

Except as applied to rejection/damnation instead of acceptance/salvation. Because to say we can know for sure that they're damned/saved implies something a bit too close to predestination. Once somebody consciously chooses to reject clear Orthodox teachings however, then we can safely make the assumption they're screwed. But otherwise we're not really privy to know such things. Or so I've been told. But I'm Greek Orthodox in the US, so idk how "authentic" that is.

>I don't know what your catechesis taught you, but what I was taught and what I will continue to preserve is that there is no salvation outside the Church, full stop. Whoever dies without baptism goes to Hell, and whoever is baptized but does not have faith goes to Hell.

What I was taught wasn't nearly so cut and dry. The book I linked to was closer to what I was taught, and elaborates on all that. But fundamentally, the answer I was given to those sorts of questions was always "we don't know".

>While I've heard that a recent theologian has said that there is a difference between "faith" as in belief in Christ and "faith" as in the received doctrine, that sounds like mental gymnastics to me.

Yeah, I don't know about all that. Doesn't sound like anything I've heard.

>But I will let our hierarchs figure something out.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

b8da20  No.793507


>Except as applied to rejection/damnation instead of acceptance/salvation. Because to say we can know for sure that they're damned/saved implies something a bit too close to predestination.

Well, my catechism says that the Church is always available for those who are predestined to salvation, but those who never have an opportunity to become Orthodox are not predestined for salvation to begin with.

But predestination is based on our free choices. For those who never get a chance to join the Church, God foreknows that they would reject His grace anyway.

I'm Russian Orthodox in France, if that means anything.

e595ee  No.793522


>Ok, you have a point there, but they're still just a sect within the RCC, and are basically the exception that proves the rule

Eastern Catholics are not "a sect within the RCC". They are autonomous churches having full authority and control over their canon, tradition, and liturgy. We accept the position of Pope and are in communion with the Holy See, which is what makes us *Catholics* in the first place. The RCC is not "the" Catholic Church, if that makes sense.

>That being said, I have no idea how Eastern Catholics justify following Eastern teachings while accepting the Papacy. Seems like a pretty untenable position taken for a misguided sense of compromise.

Eastern teachings are fully in line with the Papacy. Most of our Saints accept the Papacy, and they were Eastern.

File: b5a136a32ec10a4⋯.png (761.01 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, ufgw43xz1d801.png)

ee468e  No.789575[Reply]

I have been a cradle Catholic my whole life. I have become frustrated with the Church recently, mainly with the papacy, Vatican II, the NO, etc. and so I have been looking into Eastern Orthodoxy. I then find out they allow priests to be married (before, of course), allow contraception in some cases, some believe in toll-houses, etc. I, have become super zealous, strict, and rigorous in my beliefs. If there is even a hint of degeneracy I lose all faith in the Church. Should I lighten up? I sin too. I am not perfect, I fall to sexual desires like many men, and yet I am overly critical of the two Churches teachings/behavior. Why is the choice of RCC and EC so hard? On one hand I love saying the rosary and the Marian apparitions and the close connection to Mary we have in the Catholic church, the TLM, and the long history my family has had to the RCC. On the other hand, I love Eastern Orthodox Liturgy, the Jesus Prayer, the amazing monks they have, the way they have overall handled modernism, and their spirituality in general. I feel like the both have great things to offer which would allow me to come closer to Christ. I wish they weren't in schism so I wouldn't have to choose. What should I do fam?

88 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

0372e2  No.793387


One argument that our Catholic brothers make a lot on here is that the papacy is a central authority and therefore necessary to shepherd the church. The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that it relies on the central authority being incorruptible, as Catholics rely on the pope for spiritual guidance. The pope is as they say God's primary representative on Earth (if I am understanding them correctly).

But any such authority, once corrupted, does far more harm than it does good. Unless there is some unforeseen coup in the college of cardinals, I cannot imagine a traditionalist becoming pope. Perhaps a deceiver who throws a bone to traditionalists while fully in line with the modernist agenda, but not a true traditionalist.

During the Arian crisis, most bishops were embracing Arianism. The "just follow what your priest/bishop says" types would be in Arianism had they lives in those times under an Arian bishop. Truth has the final say in these matters.

ca38c1  No.793455


>One argument that our Catholic brothers make a lot on here is that the papacy is a central authority and therefore necessary to shepherd the church.

Really, we only throw it forward as an example of the wisdom and Will of God in being able to shepherd the Church. But the true pillar lies not in this, but in that Christ gave Peter the Keys exclusively.

>The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that it relies on the central authority being incorruptible

Which would be nice, but we've had many "bad" Popes before. We say the Church Herself is incorruptible, not the man. The Pope has veto-power, in other words, the Keys. Things he signs off on in this capacity, is infallible.

>But any such authority, once corrupted, does far more harm than it does good.

We've had plenty of bad Popes for over two millenia, the confidence comes from Christ Himself, whom not only gave Peter alone the Keys, but promised upon Peter alone, that Hell would not prevail.

>The "just follow what your priest/bishop says" types would be in Arianism had they lives in those times under an Arian bishop

Well, no. Arianism was objectively heresy.

ca38c1  No.793461


>I hope the authority you're referring to here is Christ, because anything other than that would be historically inaccurate

You would need to prove, because while St. Cyprian insisted on the need for independent, national churches, he quite clearly acquiesed to Rome on the subject of the Novation (or was Donatist?) heresy. That one heresy where they said the baptism of heretics was non-applicable. Fun fact, the Seat of Rome was actually empty. Yet, St. Cyprian still appealed to the clergy of Rome either way.

This is important, because Cyprian was actually sympathetic to the heresy that the baptism of heretics was invalid, but he followed along with Pope Victor I either way.

>It's not my idea

Then you should be careful whom you quote, if you really believe St. Cyprian is seriously responsible for a such a gross heresy, why is he still a Saint? When you take up another's argument, you become liable for their mistakes.

>We don't view Saints as being infallible prophet-like figures in the East.

Oh! So they can be heretics then?

>Original Sin, etc, all carry implicit notions of justice based around transactions

Original Sin is an explanation of why Baptism is even needed; and how exactly we can be considered "born again".

>Our whole argument basically boils down to "see, this is what happens when you embrace dubious presuppositions".

Yes, the Catholic Church alone is responsible for every single bad thing that has happened to the Orthodox. The Orthodox need not come up with an explanation of a defense of any bad thing, all bad things come from the Catholics and the West. The errors of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine hound the true Orthodox believers to this day.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

ca38c1  No.793464


>Right, so it still goes back to my point about viewing it as something an individual is guilty of.

Yes, guilty of Lust. I'm not sure what the original argument is even about now, you were lambasting Augustine over a "misreading", but step back when I point out that he never said sex was bad.

>but they themselves are always very careful to distinguish between what Augustine himself said, and what Western Christiandom has gone on to teach

It's the same thing. Funny, you read these anti-Catholic polemicists, and just assume what we teach isn't what St. Augustine teaches. I didn't notice any contradiction between the two when I read City of God.

>The idea that "works" can be sinful is a contradiction under Orthodox interpretation.

Then it contradicts Scripture, because Christ condemns "workers of iniquity".

>but it should be obvious that assigning error to particular Hellenistic schools of thought is different from assigning error to Philosophy in general.

Which in your haste to quote your polemicists, becomes the argument. I've yet to see anyone actually critique Scholasticism or Thomism on its own terms, just broad generalizations of "hellenism and legalism".

>The methods of philosophy came before Christ for example, and those are fine

Then, there is no issue with Western theology, because it is the methods that have survived. No Aristotelian Thomist believes in Eternal Being like Aristotle did.

>You can read the book "Aristotle East and West" if you really want more details about that sort of stuff.

Sounds good, thanks.

4d5fd0  No.793491


>why is he still a Saint?

So do you think repeatedly asking the same question is going to magically yield different answers now? Cool your emotions and re-read what you're responding to.

>When you take up another's argument, you become liable for their mistakes.

Cool, is that supposed to be an argument against the essay somehow? Because it seems you're just doing that thing of not reading the actual argument again.

>Oh! So they can be heretics then?

Funny you should joke about that considering that this can unironically be said about your pope.

>Original Sin is an explanation of why Baptism is even needed; and how exactly we can be considered "born again".

That's the Catholic interpretation, not the Orthodox one. Orthodox view it as a sacrament to accept the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

>Yes, the Catholic Church alone is responsible for every single bad thing that has happened to the Orthodox.

Ok, I give up. You just keep spouting this same victim complex while intentionally misrepresenting everything you read, so you clearly have no interest in debating in good faith, thus I'm ending this here. It seems I've already cast more pearls before swine than I originally bargained for as it is. Lord have mercy!

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / druz / jenny / vichan / vril ]