/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>815399

His wager is laughable, and with the many options and faiths there are vying for attention, irrelevant.

What inability to believe?

>>815407

Yes, but its useful inasmuch as its complemented by the scholastic dictum 'fides et ratio', to help those with 'ratio' to accept 'fides', so they can atleast play the 'game'.

>>815412

This inability to believe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Inability_to_believe

>>815399

I mostly agree with him. He says that coming to the rational conclusion that God exists is relatively easy, but that doesn't mean you actually fully believe it, and actions are what really build up your faith. I experienced something similar: I was a theist, but my life was a mess, and it wasn't until I started getting some order into my life that I began to fully embrace the christian faith. Religion is not to be understood in a merely rational way, you have to act it out to internalize and comprehend it. That's why a five minute prayer will often bring you closer to God than a whole afternoon of laying on your bed thinking about the meaning of existence.

Pascal's wager is usually presented as "I don't believe but I'll say I do to get to heaven :epic trollface: X^DDD", but it's instead something more complex: it says that reason is, and will always be, just not enough to truly get close to God, that you need to embrace religion and the Church (which, in the case of Pascal, was the Catholic Church).

Alongside Judaism could Zoroastrianism count as one of God's Old Covenants with people before the Messiah we know as Jesus came?

Thus what can the rule or law in the books of this old covenant regarding the treatment of dogs count as if it was infact one God made with man besides Judaism?

They are selfless animals and offer only unconditional love to owners or those they serve. Although they can be traumatized no matter how cruel some owners have treated them they never gave in to hate and still selflessly love?

>>814520

>Alongside Judaism could Zoroastrianism count as one of God's Old Covenants with people before the Messiah we know as Jesus came?

If you're Nestorian…

>>814520

>could Zoroastrianism count as one of God's Old Covenants with people before the Messiah we know as Jesus came?

No. There were lots of pagan religions that had something like a "Christ-prophecy" in them. In Norse paganism, for example, Ragnarok ends with a being greater than all the gods rising up out of the destroyed world. That doesn't make Norse paganism a valid form of proto-Christianity, it just means that its mythos was partially inspired by God, as are all stories with any amount of good in them at all.

>>814534

>>814530

>>814520

They're all corruptions of divine revelations from a singular source which is the Vedas. The Indo Aryans migrated across Eurasia which is why you see reoccurring themes within paganism. Aside from that, corrupted right hand traditions could not grant salvation and are most certainly defunct in modern day since Christ established his new covenant.

>>815317

The Zoroastrians predicted the Messiah's coming allegedly before the Jews unless I'm wrong also?

The Savior or possibly redeemer in Zoroastrianism would be of virgin or immaculate conception as well as talking to Ahura Mazda/God at 30 or something.

He was known as the Saoshyant and apparently they also already believed in a Holy Spirit (Spencer Mainyu)?

Anybody expand on this and got any thoughts?

>>800927

>earn

palagian heresy

I guess one way of thinking of it, is we're here to both discern and pursue the right thing. Other than that, we are here to work, eat, and have a family.

[Ecclesiastes 2:24]

A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God,

>>800717

Only thinking about the afterlife and metaphysical subjects is akin to Gnosticism. The Church never taught this. It doesn't neglect one for the other. If anything, what is central to Jesus' teachings is bringing Heaven on Earth as much as we can. Not simply going to heaven, but also spreading it here. Via the Gospel and our conduct.

"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

"You are the light of the world."

In addition to that, he knew that we had material needs, along with spiritual ones. He didn't tell us to starve ourselves and wish for death. He said to ask for your daily bread, but don't let your life revolve around it. He taught us to live without worry, but that God knows we have need of some things and will provide. If he wanted us to think none of this mattered, he wouldn't have even mentioned it.

>>800728

>And if the world was so meaningless, then GOD HIMSELF would have not come in the flesh and lived with us

If the world weren't meaningless, He wouldn't have felt the need to visit to make it less so.

>>800717

Real Buddhism is not about the here and now at all. It's just as afterlife focused as Christianity is. The goal is to completely break out of the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) by removing all attachments to this world.

https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Samsara

>>813565

Sinners: we all are. I’m not saying this justifies us for falling short, but at least we have a moral standard set in place. There were homosexuals in the past centuries, but the general consensus was that it was immoral and despicable; just because the Governments of many Western Countries changed their laws, doesn’t make it a lesser evil.

So the fact that many Catholics fall short of what we are expected to do speaks about our individual shortcomings in comparison to the standard of the Church.

>>812598

God brings good from evil. God is permitting this evil so we all start praying again in Latin

>>813759

Unironically this. Can't change the meaning of words if the language is dead.

>>815468

>I suppose it could change in English

Forgot to finish writing that part as it was a "post-script" (or abstaining from writing, as the question wasn't directed to me).

I suppose it could be changed in English, but it would be probably more likely for it to happen if as a part of a slightly bigger liturgic change. I don't even know if there are, in English, differences between the Roman Catholic version and the "mainstream version" (if there's any "national" one). The new Catholic one would replace the old mainstream one probably only in Ireland, and then I have no idea how things work there.

If there's a "classic national version", then it's more unlikely to be changed, I suppose. And I also suppose there are already discussions about the subject in the Anglosphere that are completely unknown by me.

Probably it would be better for me to have abstained from commenting on this subject. That was probably what I was going to do but forgot to delete it from the post above.

>>815249

>While they may not believe explicitly that members in other churches are going to hell, they do believe they are in grave error

The GOC really believe that literally everyone is going to hell, especially other orthos. I don't need to say what they believe about Catholics kek. I view them as pharisses.

They are just silly, I have no idea how anyone can believe the entire Church has fallen except for their sect of 60 people.

Also this is my favorite thing on Sedes

http://www.papastronsay.com/resources/sedevacantism/index.php

>>815256

All the partial communion meme is that people who are baptized have some sort of relationship with the Church that non-baptized people don't.

It's used to confuse people quite often sure but it hardly is an even slight argument against the Church in any way. I don't know anyone serious who would say other religions are in any sort of communion with the Church though, there are probably some goofy people with some weird theology about how worshiping any monothiestic God is in some sense being in communion with the Church but it's so utterly detached from how anyone actually uses the word I don't see why anyone should even care.

Also the idea of a random lay person totally grasping the problems in the Church is the actual problem, all the authority is above us, and God knows far better then any of us. It just doesn't make sense for us to be able to grasp everything and then act on it. It's reflected in their idea they can hear some youtube video and read some old documents they don't understand then pronounce the pope isn't actually the Pope, we can't understand everything but we can understand what we ought to do and that's what God gives us.

Reminds me of this from Chesterton (the whole section on the madman in general but this line in particular)

Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion, like the physical exhaustion of Mr. Holbein. To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. IPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>815275

>some goofy people

The last three Popes dude…

>>815250

He based

>>814819

Have no problem with all the above except the fact he's pro-homo marriage (doubt he still is since the villain in KCD is a faggot).

Game is good, m8.

>>814782

Doesn't surprised me but still rather a disappointment.

>>814819

cringe and cuckpilled

>>814616

>>814601

Check his Twitter, this guy is unironically based and breadpilled.

Them fags can't cope.

>>814465

this, but also John 3:19 is what we're witnessing today, men loving darkness rather than light and ignoring the good word for their lusts.

>>814485

This Matthew Vines guy is likely going to suffer so much in Hell. Gonna be great considering the amount of damage he has done to the world.

Assuming you are Catholic or Orthodox, all that is required is to fulfill the Sunday Holy Obligation. Baby steps.

Pray about it (your anxiety). Find parish, email priest or RCIA coordinator. You will probably have to attend RCIA, which is helpful if you missed anything or have questions. In the meantime, develop your prayer life further and have no fear. You know who awaits you in Confirmation and Holy Communion. After this, you will be ready to go forth in the fullness of life we're all meant to live. The process of you joining the Church will be the past and eternity awaits. (Recent Catechumen who had the same issues).

>>815289

Don't go Orthodox, your only choice is the One True Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded

>>815336

>the One True Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded

>this being the Orthodox Church

>>815341

>Rejecting God's one and only Church

>life is a gift to be cherished and to throw it away is a sin

>the very world will hate you and you are cursed since birth with sin

>Which is it?

The first one. The second one is what the Cathar heretics believed (as well as other gnostics).

>God created this universe every variable is known to him no matter how small, he knows what we will choose with our free will

There you have the problem of omniscience and free will. If God knows everything, that means everything is set, your choices are chosen and free will is not free (servo arbitrio as opposed to libero arbitrio). Some denominations go this way, and they say you're saved even by pure randomness or predestination (your suffering would then be a sign of you being destined to heaven as a rather sick way to glorify the ones who are chosen to be saved). This ideas, reinforced by faulty readings of Romans 9, stem from profound misconceptions about how creation itself happened and what's the process of creation.

God created man in His own image. That's the very first page of the Bible, when all that has been said about God is that He creates, He's the creator. We have to look to how our own creative processes are if we want a glimpse into the whole Creation. Think of painting, music, writing, cooking or whatever other creative enterprise you want. When you create something, it comes from your mind, you will it into existence, and you know everything there is to know about it. That's why God is omniscient about His creation. But not all creations are equal, some are better than others. What makes a creative product "bad"? It's bad when it's forced, when it doesn't follow certain patterns; it's bad when the author tries to cram certain messages or characteristics into his creation; it's also bad when it follows patterns too closely and it becomes predictable; it's bad when it's not something original, something on it's own accord and is instead just an uninspired copy. An artist has full knowledge of his creation, but he doesn't create as a scientist, systematically determining from the beginning every single characteristic. Instead, he wills it into existence, shaping it but also letting it take it's own form, reinventing it with every new stroke of the brusPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>815234

Well first of all I stated I wasn't OP so I'm not Muslim and second my uni is two hours away. But thanks for the advice anyway.

My grandmother says she and my grandfather baptised me, and my parents say they did something but my Dad says it wasn't a baptism. My grandmother also lies about tons of stuff, and she said this after I told her I wanted to be baptised Catholic.

Can't a layman baptise people? If so, does this mean my grandparents baptised me?

The larger context of this debate is that if I'm not baptised, I get all my sins cleansed without confession and I'd rather not mention some things. But if I was baptised, I want to know. My brother says I just don't want to be forced to confess and says I'm baptised, and my Dad says I wasn't baptised.

Basically, my family has turned my baptism into an excuse to fight and tell each other they're wrong - I may never know the truth of whether I've been baptised.

What do I do?

>>815244

Go to a Catholic Church and ask for the assistance of a Priest at the Parish Office, that's their job to make the call.

>>815221

Jesus Christ is the Son of God; Jesus Christ is God.

3 persons, one substance. When the Father does something, it can be attested that Christ and the Holy Spirit have shared in the act. No, the true nature of the Trinity is a mystery, and is not meant to be something grasped by pure reason alone.

God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Think of a diamond; God is depicted as being seated on a throne of diamond many times - why is this?

Now, for those in the audience waiting to leap up and shriek about Sabellianism, we must dwell upon what differentiates the 3 persons.

*God the Father, does not have a body nor is He a Great Spirit. He is absolutely uncreated and unchanging. "I AM THE I AM", the Father is Being itself.

*God the Son, Jesus Christ, emptied Himself and took on human form, and aged, and learned, and suffered, and died, and rose again for our sake.

*God the Holy Spirit, dwells within us, justifying us and has spoken through the prophets.

>>815159

>And my mother wants me to be just like she wants me to be

I had the same problem, my mother projecting an image onto me and forcing me to adapt to that image. It screwed up my growing up, I felt my relationship with her was more a pet-owner relationship than a healthy one between adults.

>>815244

Once you move out and are free to practice Christianity, go ask a local priest. He may not be able to give you an answer, but he'll direct you to someone who can. In the meanwhile, if you believe in Jesus, you're a Christian.

>>815225

>You guys can always renounce your heresy and come home to Rome.

So people like Father James Martin are respected members of the Catholic Church in good standing, while Orthodox Christians are "heretics." Interesting. Very interesting.

>>815269

James Martin isn't a respected member of the Church, but it is true; he is not in schism.

>while Orthodox Christians are "heretics."

Orthodox Christians are schismatics; not in communion with St. Peter, and thus not in communion with the Church Christ built.

>>815158

>Peter was bishop of Antioch for 8 years.

I'm sick and tired of answering this charge, Peter gave up this position to someone else, and Peter was the head of the Church in Rome.

If the Early Church believed as you did, then patriarchs/bishops would be able to hold two simultaneous posts, or St. Peter's Seat would have been clearly identified with BOTH Rome AND Antioch, simultaneously.

It's incredibly obvious that neither is the case, quit arguing in bad faith.

>>815284

>James Martin isn't a respected member of the Church

Lie. He's a personal advisor to the current Pope and he was invited to speak at a Youth Synod in 2018.

>he is not in schism.

https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/06/17/father-james-martin-lgbt-community-bridge-far/

>Instead Martin associates himself with LGBT groups who openly dissent from church teaching. In October 2016, Martin received the the annual “Bridge Building Award” from New Ways Ministry. New Ways is a pro-gay-identity, pro-gay-sex, pro-gay-“marriage” group whose work has been condemned by both the Roman Curia and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

>In 1999, the Vatican condemned New Ways Ministry and put in place a permanent prohibition against Sister Jeanine Grammick working in this area of ministry. Grammick defied the restriction and the prohibition has not been withdrawn. Neither has the USCCB withdrawn its condemnation of New Ways Ministry.

>In 2010 Cardinal Francis George stated, “No one should be misled by the claim that New Ways Ministry provides an authentic interpretation of Catholic teaching and an authentic Catholic pastoral practice. Their claim to be Catholic only confuses the faithful regarding the authentic teaching and ministry of the Church with respect to persons with a homosexual inclination.”

>Should Martin - newly appointed communications guru for the Vatican - publicly support New Ways Ministry? There would be no problem if New Ways had changed their ways, but it is still openly in favor of gay identity, gay sex and gay marriage. And yet Martin acknowledges that Grammick is “one of his heroes.”

So how the hell is he not in schism? Isn't this the definition of a schismatic group?

>>815287

>Lie.

I'd like to ask you as a Christian to hold off on accusation. When I mean the Church, I mean the wider Church - me, /christian/, nearly any Catholic with a keyboard, traditionalist catholics, orthodox catholics, center catholics, right catholics, etc etc.

I'm certainly not happy that Martin hasn't been defrocked and thrown out, but he is quite clearly unpopular in the wider Church, I didn't necessarily speak of the Vatican. Contrary to what you might think, all the Church Herself isn't merely constrained to Rome, though it be the crown of the Church Herself.

>So how the hell is he not in schism?

schism means to not be in communion with the Pope or the Catholic Church, there are many heretics, or liberal modernist Catholics, or Catholics in mortal sin, or Catholics in dubious moral standing who are not guilty of schism.

look up the definition. Martin "associating" with the group, does not mean he himself is guilty of schism. there are Catholics who attend SSPX masses whom are not necessarily guilty of schism either.

>>815099

>Kierkegaard

Based

>>815121

>>815121

Ohhh I see now, of course.

<>I refined it a little bit. Take 2:

Atheists do indeed go to Heaven. They are greeted by all of the Saints and by God Himself. They spend eternity surrounded by the eternal bliss that comes only from the limitless goodness and pleasure of God.

In their mortal lives, however, they did not see God. They did not hear Him. They did not feel Him, smell Him, or taste Him. Rather, they did see Him – they heard and felt and smelt and tasted Him – but they did not recognize Him. They ignored Him.

This alone – this abominable negligence – is not enough to keep God from them. No; they go into Heaven. But they enter Heaven in the same manner they wandered through their earthly life. Blind. Deaf. Mute. Purposeless. They enter without concept of touch, smell, or taste. Of anything. Because Heaven consists entirely of God, and they have trained themselves to be ignorant of Him.

When the atheist enters Heaven, their experience isn’t the same as the Saints. The Saints may speak to them and embrace them but the atheist is entirely alone in the personal void of his own mind. He hears no words of consolation. He sits in silent contemplation of the infinitesimal world of nothing at all unknowingly in the midst of splendor he does not perceive. Surrounded by a God eternally beckoning and trying to reach him. A God who refuses to give up on him.

The lips of his spirit resound with the single satisfaction, single horror, and single falsehood of his existence for all eternity: “I was right.”

>>815257

Impressive. Good piece of writing anon.

>>815261

Thank you. God bless.

>>815246

1) It wouldn't be the same

2) It would certainly have been worse (read early Church Father accounts of paganism) in some ways

3) It would have possibly been better in others, specifically I am thinking of greater religious tolerance and the lack of causing Islam to exist (Christians had a MAJOR part in this). Which has caused indirectly all the chaos we see with them today

>would it be the same?

It wouldn't be a thing.

The concept of Europe was solidified during the Middle Ages and it was (and still is to the dismay of many) a Christian concept. Western Civilization and Christianitas are one and the same.

>>815045

>me good

>you bad

The protestant is holding a flag with an emblem of the SBC which rejects homosexuality and female clergy, by the way. It is the most anti-homo group on the pic

>>815040

>>815035

Blessed Orthodox saints have said much worse things about Rome.

>radioaryan

>sven lonngshanks

>alt-right and deep-right

no, sorry. absolutely not.

>>815083

That verse can apply to all denoms

>Notre Dame burned down? Matthew 7:16

>Communism rose and grew in Orthodox countries? Matthew 7:16

>Liberal degeneracy hailing back to the times of Noah in Freemasonic countries? Matthew 7:16