/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>585358

At least America still has the bible belt.

What's even more pathetic is Europe is even worse off & more degenerate than America but there are idiots on here that honestly think its immune.

America relative to other nations is Still far more traditional.

my life is falling apart, everything is fucked. no more car, money, job. i had a wet dream 7 days ago, saturday and then this morning. i think maybe i'm going insane. i don't know how i am going to ever become a priest.

Deo Gratias!

With Respect, though, you actually have to have a bit more doctrinal conviction than that. You have to believe that it's the True Church, not because it's less bad than what you have now.

>What do I need to do to get ready for mass?

A proper spiritual comportment, for a start. From now on you will be in the physical presence of the Lord. Never forget that. The dress is less important than the attitude.

In the meantime try this:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

It's the official compendial version of the larger CCC but hits all of the points of doctrine nonetheless, which you can probably get through in under a week.

I will pray for you anon. I hope you find what you are looking for!

assyrians receive communion in the hand, interesting

I am Assyrian too, but I'm not Catholic. I'm Protestant.

>>585652

Probably, it's not a big board, really.

>>585732

alalalalalalalalala snakcbar

>>585349

I sure hope you're right.

>>585369

Are you not able to read or something?

>(besides maybe Jesus being a loaf of bread)

>>585313

>Right, it starts with grace but you believe that then you have to earn salvation from that point.

And where in the catechism does it say that? I can show you where the catechism contradicts this if you like.

>With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

>>586023

You pretend the statements are not equal; that "you yourself must do XYZ works to be saved" is different than "if you yourself do not do XYZ works, then you shall not be saved." And stressing the hard effort and personal struggle not to get disqualified by works and be dispossessed of salvation for not glorying enough in your flesh, the flesh of others and in a man's personally achieved works. Well those two are the same thing, but all this fancy wordplay is meant to mask this fact that these are yet the same. You realize saying the first is against scripture, but you try to say the second and badly want to act like it's somehow different. And this all goes back to enabling boasting in their personally achieved so-called spirituality and how great they are (not God, them), which many catholics like to do.

>>585170

My point is that the language itself does not remove the possibility of infants being baptized.

>>585252

An infant can be baptized and still raised through faith. John the Baptist was not even born but he still excited at Jesus' presence. Additionally, the raising through faith can come at a later time, it is not required to occur at the same exact moment, though I believe it does even for infants. The passage cited in colossians can't be used to deny infant baptism has some affect, even assuming the infant is not raised. It says "Buried with him in baptism", with no condition placed on faith, so at the very least an infant baptism would still accomplish the putting away of the old, with a later putting on of the new, but it cannot be repeated because a person can only be buried with Christ once, and the burying is said irrespective of faith.

>>585250

Salvation and sin aren't "rational decisions"

>>585252

>Without faith, you're not risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, making this not a baptism but just a simple splashing

You're twisting that verse. It doesn't say anything about faith being essential to baptism or baptism being invalid without faith.

>>585299

>putting away of the old, with a later putting on of the new

Those are the same thing

>>585310

Mortal sin, a rational and deliberate decision to break a sin designated as such, is.

Since the mods don't care enough to edify others by refuting this. Here's a ban appeal denied or ignored for my post here >>584835

Baptisms aren't physical they are spiritual due to a scriptural lesson that starts with

hebrews 10:22

>Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Also see john 6:54-55

>Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

>For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Now see 1 corinthians 10:3-4

>And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

>And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Now see Hebrews 10:12-14

>For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat

>For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

>But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

So Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He then calls it "my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed". 1 corinthians 10:3-4 that the isrealites did eat and drink of that Rock which was Christ. Finally hebrews 10:12-14 calls milk "one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness". Followed by saying "strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.". Hence why Jesus' flesh is meat, which is "to be skilled in the word of rightousness" spiritually. Jesus' blood "is drink indeed" see 1 corinthianPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>585299

>Additionally, the raising through faith can come at a later time,

That's right, because it comes with the actual baptism.

>>585525

>>585559

There are several verses in The Bible that speak against mixing different kinds of things, as well as nations, which, if translated from the Latin word "natio" means the begotten; species/race/lineage; tribe. The word "race" isn't found anywhere in The Bible because 400 years back, considering the language during that time, it is plausible that "race" isn't used because "nation" was the regular term, which was used indifferently and interchangeably in regards to nationality and race. Sanderson should consider the temporary linguistic aspect of his beloved KJB, before he rationalizes one important rule away.

>>586057

>latin

if you're a catholic, i'll just throw CCC 1935 at you:

<1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

<Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

discouraging an interracial Christian couple from marrying would be a one of those forms of discrimination.

the reason why it was bad to mix nations was because the other nations were heathens, it wasn't about keeping a pure jewaryan bloodline.

<3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

<4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:3-4)

Ruth and Rahab were from foreign nations, and are part of the lineage of Christ.

>>583679

I see nothing wrong here

>>586057

Wasn't Timothy mixed?

I have less issue with interracial marriage and am more offended by the Jew-driven fetish stuff that's pushed politically on Jews' political enemies.

>>585826

Stealing is evil. Voluntarily sharing property isn’t evil, but it is liable only to work among small communities of people. I don’t think private property is inherently good, but Marxism’s attempts to abolish it have resulted in great evil.

>>585830

dude beer lmao

>god

First recognize it is trash pieces of useless paper and not a god. Then work towards doing literally everything yourself with no dependence upon others for anything including food and water. Maybe ask some christians for help getting there.

This anon >>586033 is 100% correct though. Communism implies you have the authority to dictate what God should do with His land, as God owns literally everything due to exodus 19:5 and other things.

>>585956

>accidental sage

bump

The blood is type is AB+.

>>585996

I would expect Jesus' blood type to be O-.

>>586019

ab+ works more symbolically.

You see, 0- is a universal donor, yes, but ab+ is the universal recipient. Original sin is passed simply by nature of birth, so you can sort of say it's bloodborne (clumsy metaphor but work with me here). Jesus, capable of receiving blood from all of mankind, died for all sins, being biologically capable of receiving the blood of all mankind. Or something. I'm kind of a novice here.

>DNA found in Jesus's blood

Is it red or clear? Which blood? This post >>585705 makes me lean towards it being fake and gay.

>>581455

>Posting pro-fag cartoon gif

>>581516

I will never forgive Savino for letting it happen ;-;

Lol he drew a petrine cross in a bible. Nice one, that really got us Christians riled up.

>>579595

Yes, because this liberalized passive outlook modern Christians have taken has truly helped save more people from atheism. The Church has been in decline due in part to passive "nice" alternatives to pious religious fervor.

Whilst pride is a cardinal sin, I'd argue that having severely lacking conviction derived from a pride-less outlook, is detrimental to building yourself as a man and shows extreme weakness. People naturally follow strong masculine leaders, letting yourself/faith be walked upon is cowardice.

Day Four, downloaded about 25 GBs of porn, knew exactly what I was doing and had no excuse, and eventually deleted it. Didn’t end up fapping at least, so better than my normal routine of downloading a whole bunch of porn, fapping, then deleting everything out of shame. I have a real compulsive habit here, it’s really about porn and the collecting of porn, much more than it is about fapping. I have a serious problem and things are going to have to change seriously if this sin is to be beaten.

>>585128

> God forgive me for justifyng myself, but from on 'ill fornicate once a month,then once every two months and so on until I can conquer lust

You shouldn’t plan it out like that anon, that’s dangerous. Better to plan for total abstinence, even if there’s still a high likelihood of failure. Trust me, a few hours ago I was making all sorts of excuses for possibly masturbating to porn in future, but the guilt was unbearable and I had to stop making excuses.

>>585106

Well frankly, I'd say I simply feel 'normal'. I don't have images of fornication on my mind as much as I used to, but I also don't feel 'invigorated' or anything like that. It's still a good feeling though!

>>586041

Except I did. How do you know where I post? Do you claim to be all-knowing?

>>586051

That's a frog, good sir. Not a toad

>>586051

I posted in two such threads in the past few

weeks. Maybe I missed yours.

>>586048

Is it good to delete the thread because of one guy though?

>>586053

>deflecting

that's a sin anon.

>>586026

Too many mods spoil the broth. No question about porn, but over moderation is bad. Start banning controversial conversation and interesting people will leave, leaving only groupies and toadies.

>>586024

>shadman

>>586025

In animals, not humans. Women have swolen mammaries all the time, not just while pregnant.

>>585503

But faith saves you? And what if the OP is right and we have the permission to sin? Those statements and your statements are mutually exclusive, provided you're a protestant. I know the Orthodox say that all sin is basically mortal sin.

Also, didn't you read the parts of the Bible I quoted? Especially, 1 John 5, I'll even quote the KJV:

>17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

And the rest of that chapter confirms what I said earlier, that God keeps us from sin and that mortal sin keeps us away from God.

>>585507

>But faith saves you?

Yep.

>And what if the OP is right and we have the permission to sin?

Where did he claim we have permission to sin?

>Those statements and your statements are mutually exclusive, provided you're a protestant.

How so?

>And the rest of that chapter confirms what I said earlier, that God keeps us from sin and that mortal sin keeps us away from God.

Well, the problem is that John has no concept of a sin that kills grace, because he isn't a medieval theologian from western Europe. So your reading is anachronistic since it involves reading ideas into John that would not exist for quite a long time. In fact, if John were saying that, it would contradict verse 13 when he says we can know we have eternal life. In verse 16, John says that if we pray for those committing a sin which does not lead to death, that God will give them life. But if this describes venial sin, don't they have life already, albeit stained? All sin leads to death, but what John means is a sin which certainly leads to death, an unforgivable sin, of which there is one. This is why he says we are not to pray for those who commit it. Are we to not pray for those who commit mortal sin, anon?

>>585834

We have permission, because as above we cannot stop sinning. Paul says he is not responsible for his sins, because

20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Romans 7

Which leads Paul to conclude that he will serve God and serve his sinful nature.

25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Romans 7

But …

24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Romans 7

We are still saved. Hallelujah.

>>585983

>We have permission

God never says it's ok to sin

>Paul says he is not responsible for his sins

No he doesn't. Read the passage again, he says his sins are not what he desires.

>Which leads Paul to conclude that he will serve God and serve his sinful nature

He is a servant to God in his mind, that is, he desires to serve God, and he serves sin in his members, that is, in his lower will. Read the passage closely, it means that while Paul can't separate himself from his sins, he still never gives in, he fights it constantly.