thread_prefix.19 General christian thread

[soybwc123]

who
bruh nigga what
what the fuck
what are you talking about

>he can't name the single most famous byzantine emperor

secularsissies these are the people on our side?

 

[BLACKHAWK]

>he can't name the single most famous byzantine emperor

secularsissies these are the people on our side?

no i cant becase i wasnt talking about jistinian or anything related. you larpers are living in fiction and cant follow dialogue since you believe in non-eucledian fairy tales.

 

[BLACKHAWK]

i mean why would a half black turkish mutt who is literally muslim mudslime nigger know about european history and be capable of talking about it

 

[Nihilma]

I am only arguing with retard for my entertainment.

Woke up from my nap, is my favourite blacked ESL clown still delivering comedic genius ?

 

[Nihilma]

Why would a turk know european history ?

Justi-who ?

Oh yup xe is.
I'm starting to wonder if you do all of that as a big joke, can't believe crow on a BBC can be that stupid

 

[AshkeNazi]

>atheists when it's faucimas eve and they hear dawkins claus (PBUH) evolving down the walkable chimney

 

[King of kyrgyzstan]

What color is the fur of the easter bunny?

 

[baqqrih]

What color is the fur of the easter bunny?

Atheist libtards will tell you the fur evolves dependent on his environment, but THE LORD once told me in a dream that his fur is white no matter where he travels.

 

[JC Denton]

One of the main criticisms that mudslimes use against christianity is that there are so many bibles that it's impossible to tell which is real or which has added verses (or even if any of them is the true bible). So following a religion whose members don't even agree on its scripture is illogical since the scripture is the most important part of the religion and without it the religion is meaningless. What do YOU christcucks say in response to that?

 

[Nihilma]

One of the main criticisms that mudslimes use against christianity is that there are so many bibles that it's impossible to tell which is real or which has added verses (or even if any of them is the true bible). So following a religion whose members don't even agree on its scripture is illogical since the scripture is the most important part of the religion and without it the religion is meaningless. What do YOU christcucks say in response to that?

Christians don't see the Bible the same way muslim see the quran.
Muslims believe the qurans is the litteral almost God written word of God, written in the holy language that is arabic, which is the reason as to why reading the quran in another language is seen as unholy.

Christians see the Bible as a composition of books written by humans who have been inspired to write by God. The Bible is thus the inspired Word of God. It is divine, and God speaks through the Bible, but it is important to understand that there is still a human component to the Bible, anf that the numerous books of the Bible were written at different times, by different people with different background.
God used all of these people, but they are very different.

And that's the point. The Word of God isn't just the bible, it is whatever God gives us of his truth, the true doctrine, the orthodoxia. And the Bible is part of this truth, but so is a preacher moved by the Holy Spirit, so is tradition, et cetera et cetera.

And christians try to understand where the Word of God is, and where it isn't.
And on the Bible, christians disagree on some books of the Old Testament on whether these books are inspired or not. But on 90% of the books of the Bible, including every single book of the New Testament, christians agree.

My point is that there surely are way more texts outside of the Bible, maybe some even written today, which have the inspired Word of God in them.

But the Bible is very useful as it is some of the oldest inspiration, and thus a very important testimony and faith deposit of the Church.

 

[JC Denton]

Christians don't see the Bible the same way muslim see the quran.
Muslims believe the qurans is the litteral almost God written word of God, written in the holy language that is arabic, which is the reason as to why reading the quran in another language is seen as unholy.

Christians see the Bible as a composition of books written by humans who have been inspired to write by God. The Bible is thus the inspired Word of God. It is divine, and God speaks through the Bible, but it is important to understand that there is still a human component to the Bible, anf that the numerous books of the Bible were written at different times, by different people with different background.
God used all of these people, but they are very different.

And that's the point. The Word of God isn't just the bible, it is whatever God gives us of his truth, the true doctrine, the orthodoxia. And the Bible is part of this truth, but so is a preacher moved by the Holy Spirit, so is tradition, et cetera et cetera.

And christians try to understand where the Word of God is, and where it isn't.
And on the Bible, christians disagree on some books of the Old Testament on whether these books are inspired or not. But on 90% of the books of the Bible, including every single book of the New Testament, christians agree.

My point is that there surely are way more texts outside of the Bible, maybe some even written today, which have the inspired Word of God in them.

But the Bible is very useful as it is some of the oldest inspiration, and thus a very important testimony and faith deposit of the Church.

Then what makes the mormons and quakers le bad? Are they not inspired by god? Who decides what is inspired and what isn't?

 

[Nihilma]

Then what makes the mormons and quakers le bad? Are they not inspired by god? Who decides what is inspired and what isn't?

Usually, what decides are councils of bishops, as testified in both the Acts of Apostles, one of the books every christian denomination agrees on, and as testified by the early Church.
The most important councils are those who have clarified the nature of God, aka who he is and what he isn't. In particular, the council of Nicea is probably the most important out of all the councils, which has unified the Church in one of the first creeds clarifying the orthodox faith.

It was made to decide on a controversy lead by another bishop named Arius, who claimed that the Son and the Holy Spirit weren't God in nature, but God in nurtur, and thus creatures.

This heresy is confessed by mormons and by Jehovah's witnesses, to this day.

Quakers are orthodox, I believe. They are Chalcedonian christians. The only iky part about them is that they interpret the signs such as baptism and the Eucharist as being purely spiritual symbols without any physical grounding, which is an error made by gnostics and platonists who believe the physical world to be inherently bad. They thus believe in baptisms and the Eucharist but don't partake in it physically, claiming that they partake in it in spirit. But they are christians.

 

[Nihilma]

If you want, I can explain to yoy why each Bible has it's own set of books according to each denomination, and how we got to where we are, but it'd take a while because i'd have to explain the difference between the torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketouvi'im which are where the points of disagreements lie.

However, on the NT, understand that it works the same, Evangelists and early christian writers wrote epistles and evangiles, which during the first two centuries weren't compiled into a single book. But as time went on, a lot of writers started inventing stuff and writing shit that didn't actually happen, such as the apocryphal evangile of Thomas. And so somewhere in the years 300s, a council took place in Rome, who decided which books of the NT were inspired and which weren't. They all agreed, and it is the NT of our time.

But maybe, inspiration can also be found somewhere else, though it's hard to tell who has the authority to claim that nowadays with 100% assurance.

 

[JC Denton]

Usually, what decides are councils of bishops, as testified in both the Acts of Apostles, one of the books every christian denomination agrees on, and as testified by the early Church.
The most important councils are those who have clarified the nature of God, aka who he is and what he isn't. In particular, the council of Nicea is probably the most important out of all the councils, which has unified the Church in one of the first creeds clarifying the orthodox faith.

It was made to decide on a controversy lead by another bishop named Arius, who claimed that the Son and the Holy Spirit weren't God in nature, but God in nurtur, and thus creatures.

This heresy is confessed by mormons and by Jehovah's witnesses, to this day.

Quakers are orthodox, I believe. They are Chalcedonian christians. The only iky part about them is that they interpret the signs such as baptism and the Eucharist as being purely spiritual symbols without any physical grounding, which is an error made by gnostics and platonists who believe the physical world to be inherently bad. They thus believe in baptisms and the Eucharist but don't partake in it physically, claiming that they partake in it in spirit. But they are christians.

Makes sense. About this part tho:

the Son and the Holy Spirit weren't God in nature, but God in nurtur, and thus creatures.

I've heard mudslimes criticizing this part of the christian belief, the holy trinity. They say that christcucks believe that god is three different beings at the same time which is blasphemy and "unmonotheistic". What do you think about this?

 

[JC Denton]

If you want, I can explain to yoy why each Bible has it's own set of books according to each denomination, and how we got to where we are, but it'd take a while because i'd have to explain the difference between the torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketouvi'im which are where the points of disagreements lie.

I think that would be a bit too much for me since I don't know much theology geg. But I will do my own research if I get more interested and I don't want to waste your time.

But maybe, inspiration can also be found somewhere else, though it's hard to tell who has the authority to claim that nowadays with 100% assurance.

This is one of my main problems with religion. If god is real I don't want to listen to anyone else's words because people are full of shit and hypocritical. Last month we had Khamenei claiming that god is speaking through him and the problem is I think he actually believes it. And then you have a bunch of retards that mindlessly follow him and act out his cruel and ignorant ideas. If god really wants me to believe in him he should communicate with myself not some person living 3000 years ago. And definitely not some dementia having old man that needs someone to finger his asshole every once in a while so his prostate doesn't kill him.

 

[Nihilma]

Makes sense. About this part tho:


I've heard mudslimes criticizing this part of the christian belief, the holy trinity. They say that christcucks believe that god is three different beings at the same time which is blasphemy and "unmonotheistic". What do you think about this?

The trinity sure is the most mysterious part of the orthodoxia, and a testament to the depth of this mystery is that any metaphor you will ever try to use the trinity is always going to end up being a heresy.

The trinity is not like water which has three states : frozen, liquid and gas, as this is modalism, a heresy which professes that God takes three different forms.

The trinity is not like the Sun, which is a star that produces heat and light, as this is Arianism, the heresy condemned by the council of Nicea, and the trinity is not like a three leaves clover, which has a stem and three leaves, as this is considered Partialism, a heresy professing that each person innthe trinity is one third of God.

As St Athanasius puts it in his creed : "That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence."

As for the reason we believe this, it first and foremost is because it is hinted at throughout the Old Testament and clearly expressed in the New Testament that there are multiple persons in God, but that there is only ever one God.

One very striking example of this can be found in genesis, when God shows up to Abraham's crib in the form of three men, yet Abraham always adresses thel in a singular tense.

But as a justification, I have this : God in nature never changes. He was, is and will always be the same, with or without creation around him.
And he is in nature love. God is love. Yet without any reference to love, one cannot love. To be love is to love, and to love is to have something to love.
God without his creation is singular and alone, and yet he remains love. So he cannot be singular.

 

[Nihilma]

This is one of my main problems with religion. If god is real I don't want to listen to anyone else's words because people are full of shit and hypocritical. Last month we had Khamenei claiming that god is speaking through him and the problem is I think he actually believes it. And then you have a bunch of retards that mindlessly follow him and act out his cruel and ignorant ideas. If god really wants me to believe in him he should communicate with myself not some person living 3000 years ago. And definitely not some dementia having old man that needs someone to finger his asshole every once in a while so his prostate doesn't kill him.

Yeah I definitely get you on that. Atheist apologist call this problem the problem of divine hiddenness.
"If God exists, why doesn't he irrefutably show himself in a manner that would allow the denial of his existence to nothing less than pure unadulterated folly ?"

I can try to give an answer based upon the theology I know.

If God showed himself to every human being that ever lived as soon as they asked, it would be as if heaven and earth were merged into one, as God would dwell on the earth with the human as his company. Then why not merge heaven and earth ?
It was. Before the fall of Adam & Eve, heaven and earth were merged, and God dwelles amongst the human. But the fall brought upon the fall of nature, and the earth became the kingdom of Satan, still to this day.
In short, God doesn't show himself to us in our everyday life because we have fallen far from him, and nothing we can do can get us closer to him.

That's why the evangile, the good news, is so important.
Christ has paid the price of death we were supposed to get from our fall, and now we can get closer to God within his kingdom : the Church. But the Church still lives on the earth, which is still the domain of Satan, and until the earth gets redeemed and heaven and earth merge again, we will not be able to see God face to face.

 

[JC Denton]

But as a justification, I have this : God in nature never changes. He was, is and will always be the same, with or without creation around him.
And he is in nature love. God is love. Yet without any reference to love, one cannot love. To be love is to love, and to love is to have something to love.
God without his creation is singular and alone, and yet he remains love. So he cannot be singular.

My esl ass barely understood this last part but I think I know what you're getting at and it really reminds of sufism in islam. It also reminds me of non-dualism. One of my favorite poets (rumi) believed in non-dualism and I really like his poetry about it because it gives me a feeling that no religious scripture has ever managed to give or convey. I feel divine and spiritual every time I read them eventho I don't really believe in anything. Do we have non-dualism in christianity?

 

[JC Denton]

Yeah I definitely get you on that. Atheist apologist call this problem the problem of divine hiddenness.
"If God exists, why doesn't he irrefutably show himself in a manner that would allow the denial of his existence to nothing less than pure unadulterated folly ?"

I can try to give an answer based upon the theology I know.

If God showed himself to every human being that ever lived as soon as they asked, it would be as if heaven and earth were merged into one, as God would dwell on the earth with the human as his company. Then why not merge heaven and earth ?
It was. Before the fall of Adam & Eve, heaven and earth were merged, and God dwelles amongst the human. But the fall brought upon the fall of nature, and the earth became the kingdom of Satan, still to this day.
In short, God doesn't show himself to us in our everyday life because we have fallen far from him, and nothing we can do can get us closer to him.

That's why the evangile, the good news, is so important.
Christ has paid the price of death we were supposed to get from our fall, and now we can get closer to God within his kingdom : the Church. But the Church still lives on the earth, which is still the domain of Satan, and until the earth gets redeemed and heaven and earth merge again, we will not be able to see God face to face.

Sorry if I'm asking too many questions but why did god allow adam and eve to fall in the first place? Since he's omni-everything he could clearly stop it but he didn't. I guess asking this question is the same as asking why did god create evil which many answer as "what god does is beyond our understanding" which is an unsatisfying answer.

 

[Nihilma]

My esl ass barely understood this last part but I think I know what you're getting at and it really reminds of sufism in islam. It also reminds me of non-dualism. One of my favorite poets (rumi) believed in non-dualism and I really like his poetry about it because it gives me a feeling that no religious scripture has ever managed to give or convey. I feel divine and spiritual every time I read them eventho I don't really believe in anything. Do we have non-dualism in christianity?

I'd say that if you see duality as an opposition of force, then yes duality does not exist in Christianity.

In the fundament of everything is God, the creator. Yet evil exists, and evil is not God.
One might be quick to oppose God to Satan and evil to good as opposite forces but they are not.

The first creation of God is light, and darkness is not the opposite of light either.

In Christianity, Satan is the absence of God, a being created by God who wanted to be above God, only to be as far to him as can be. Evil is not the opposite of good, evil is the absence of good. Thus, sinning means "missing the target", it is not something, it is the absence of something, a fail. And thus darkness is not the opposite of light, darkness is the absence of light.

Yet darkness and light aren't the continuity of one another, they are vastly different things. A photon and the absence of a photon are not the same thing. Same for evil and good. Same for God and Satan. Neither is the continuation of the other, but they are not the opposite of one another either.