Christian Thread

youtube.com/watch?v=C7vvPXz-Qes

I'm on my first steps into Orthodoxy too, brother.
Those seem like some good readings you did there, I'll try and check out when I can.

There are some things you should remember once inside the church. Traditionally the faithful stand during all the service, but most Orthodox churches in the Americas have pews. If you choose to sit down, do so in a respectful and not relaxed-at-home manner. Last time I went to the church, there were some men who stood back during all the ceremony. You might want to be like those guys.
You might also want to take a candle with you, there's a place inside where people light their candles and make their personal prayers.
Most important of all is silence, the rest will come to you naturally, as you watch those around you.

All in all, I'm sure you'll feel like you have just found your home, your real home.

God bless.

Jews are legitimately evil, a true synagogue of Satan.

Jurisdictions don't really vary much except in language.

Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.”

The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.”

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Thanks brother. One thing I thank Jesus Christ for is the knowledge that all humans are one. We are all potential gods (in so far as we are divinized through our relationship with God).

There are two false narratives I see.

The first is that us whites should actively dislike indios or mestizos like yourself.

The second is that Christianity is necessarily universalist in the political sense.

Christianity has two answers to those.

First, there is no reason to dislike those who haven't done evil to you. To show them anything but love and forgiveness (provided that they aren't causing evil) is to remove oneself from the path to Christ. We are all brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.

Second, Christianity is not politically universalist. Christianity does not believe that all people are the essentially the same. Christianity is affirms that all people are different. Christianity is universal in one sense only: Jesus Christ became incarnate from the virgin Mary, lived, died, and is risen so that we might all be saved.

I didn't understand the relationship between humans, in a cosmic sense, until I read Christian theology.

God is the undivided Trinity. Whoever denies that Christ is both man and God, died, and is risen, is not aligned with God. To say that an army of men who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ are aligned with God is worse than a heresy, it's plain stupid.

John 8:44

It's under the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver

Thanks a bunch. Is there any particular dress code other than a button up shirt and long pants? And are jeans ok? Also, is a woman supposed to wear a head scarf?

>Haven't seen any Christian threads today.
did Jesus command you to lie?
silly question really
since he's the biggest kike liar to ever exist

>Thanks a bunch. Is there any particular dress code other than a button up shirt and long pants? And are jeans ok? Also, is a woman supposed to wear a head scarf?
Depends on the parish.

Read:
St. Maximos the Confessor
St. Ephrem the Syrian
Didache
St. Justin Martyr

How do we know what was said during the ecumenical councils?
I'm mainly interested in primary sources for the diversity of the early church, for example with heresies, events within certain communities, etc.

Good book. One of the best Orthodox books to be written over the last century.

>heresies
There are standard lists of Anathemas against heresies. They are read in Cathedrals during Great Lent.

Church councils were, from the beginning, bureaucratic exercises. Written documents were circulated, speeches made and responded to, votes taken, and final documents published and distributed. A large part of what is known about the beliefs of heresies comes from the documents quoted in councils in order to be refuted, or indeed only from the deductions based on the refutations.

>Thanks a bunch. Is there any particular dress code other than a button up shirt and long pants? And are jeans ok? Also, is a woman supposed to wear a head scarf?

These clothes seem okay, dark jeans too. You don't need to overdress, really, aim for a nice middle-ground, simple and modest.

It's nice for women to use scarfs, hardly mandatory, but a good sign of modesty. This sobriety should also be reflected on their clothes.

By the way, remember that maybe in your parish men and women attend on opposite sides of the nave. It's mostly a East-European thing, here it is sparsely observed (nothing wrong with that). So, if you see a pattern, try and stick to it.

Why Orthodox and not Catholic Brazilbro?

In general, be reverent and prayerful. We don't tell jokes in church, and we are there to pray. Small talk should also be avoided, but there's a chance someone will walk up to you say hello out loud.

It's also customary to introduce yourself to the priest. In most parishes, you can do this after services. After Liturgy, it's customary to have a snack or meal, and this is the appropriate time to socialize.

Also, listen to the sermons of Fr. John Whiteford on Ancient Faith Radio. He's excellent.

christianity and islam were both created by the skypes as a means of divide and conquer. god does not care about what goes on the planet earth. go read a history book and sage this shit

Other user didn't answer. Would you mind telling me why you chose Orthodoxy over Catholicism?

>as it is written in Revelation 16:12
I'm interested, Could you post this verse?

So dress only Orthodox ascetics. People who left riches and career. True orthodox dress before the church as a meeting with the President, and even better. This is a meeting with God.

Good night everyone, make sure you pray before falling asleep. Love you all.

...

Can't let a day go without shilling, eh?

...

Nevermind.

Yes, they manufactured a religion that calls them the synagogue of satan.

Good one.

I was a Catholic but, after quite some reading about Orthodoxy, I saw that it all made so much more sense.
The decision was made when I first went to a Orthodox church. What a day!

I can say it all started, basically, because of my great interest in History, reading a little further into the Schism got me thinking "well, there can be only one Truth...". Then I started reading about it and asking some questions.

cant sage hard enough

hiding in plain sight, dubs

t. reddit atheist.

Hey, I've been trying to convert recently. I even stopped masturbation and deleted my porn folder. I need help with a question. Is there evidence that the Egyptians had Jewish slaves and that there was a mass exodus

Could you go into detail on what is wrong from your point of view about the Catholic Church?

Also, I've always felt that Orthodoxy is more of an ethnic religion, compared to Catholic which is more universal.

not an atheist. god is something far more than an observer of our world

Good night, user. Sleep well. I'll pray for you.

>muh mean words
Honestly, I wouldn't mind having a monopoly in finances and having willing soldiers ready to die for me because I want my holy land back and getting defended everytime someone would do some actual harm to me and my interests.

Getting called some mean names nobody really gives a fuck about anyway is a neat trade-off for getting to rule every country with deep Christian connections. But I'm sure that's just another one of those funny coincidences, isn't it?

>Also, I've always felt that Orthodoxy is more of an ethnic religion, compared to Catholic which is more universal.
It only seems that way because Orthodoxy never spread through colonialism, and the Orthodox didn't come to America (not counting Alaska) in large numbers until the 20th Century, and most coming over couldn't speak English, so they were sort of isolated as communities from the rest of the U.S., you couldn't even find a book in English in most Orthodox parishes until a few decades ago (now most books in every parish in the U.S. are in English).

Praying for you anons.

Hey everyone. How'z it going. Ready to be visited tomorrow morning at your doorsteps?

Nobody likes the fucking jews.

As for masturbation, you're supposed to make children as God intended, so just don't let it become a replacement in your life for marriage and procreation.

I was born into it, but I can tell you why I decided to stay and never apostatized:

It has been demonstrated that the Orthodox Church simply maintains the teachings of the Apostles, whereas the West did not. The West has been liberal since the rise of the Germanic tribes, when they came to control the Latins. The East did not need to change anything, but in the West, the Germanics (particularly the Franks) wanted to usurp power. The Greek East was wealthy and powerful, and of course Constantine switched the capital to Constantinople. The Franks made a power play to inherit the glory and power of historic Rome, and essentially invented the Papacy, and then more heresies followed. The Latins promoted the Filioque Clause, and truly, honestly found themselves at odds with the Tradition of the Church.

The Great Schism was a political rupture with theological ramifications. Rome promoted a new theology and ecclesiology. Protestantism then started from a state of divorce from the early Church. Western Christianity, that broad category, contains many new teachings. It would seem that the West is obsessed with re-inventing Christianity.

The Roman Catholic Church, while closer to the Orthodox than say Episcopalians or Baptists, teaches heresies (new inventions) such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Created Grace, Mary as co-redemptrix, Papal Indulgences, The Filioque Clause, Pergatory, and Papism. There are also many irreverent liturgical innovations such as the services being conducted Versus Populum instead of the traditional Ad Orientum.

1. JW's aren't Christians
2. No JW would post on Cred Forums

>Nobody likes the fucking Jews.
That doesn't answer my question.

>willing soldiers ready to die for me because I want my holy land back

"blessing the jews" is a heretical perversion of modern evangelicalism

It makes no sense to say "the goyim are willing to die for us" and "the goyim think we're of satan" in the same breath.

Finally a fucking based answer on the jackin in the napkin

They are heretics. Conscious heresy is the worst sin. It is not washed off, even the blood of martyrdom. All heretics go to hell. Unbaptized in Orthodoxy too (exception is martyrdom for confessing Christ, baptism of blood). If God wants to save man God is leading man to Orthodoxy.

1. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
(2 Peter 2:1,2)

sage intensifies

Yes, see Exodus: Patterns of Evidence

putlocker.is/watch-patterns-of-evidence-the-exodus-online-free-putlocker.html

You can skip the first 23 mins, which is just dramatic background. Also there is a lot of Jew shilling for Israel in there, but otherwise, a good feature.

Oh idk, how about reading the Bible itself?

>It makes no sense to say "the goyim are willing to die for us" and "the goyim think we're of satan" in the same breath.

It does when the goyim are retarded enough to do exactly that. And they evidently are, because they did do that.

Christianity can't go away soon enough.

>Getting called some mean names nobody really gives a fuck about anyway is a neat trade-off for getting to rule every country with deep Christian connections.
Every time someone actually reads a Bible (KJV-advocate here) they know who the Talmudists are and know that they're not God's chosen people, but the synagogue of Satan. It clearly shows how the origin of the original label of 'Jew' and even predicts that the descendants of the pharisees who killed Jesus would eventually steal that label for themselves, even while disobeying God's law in favour of their own man-made rituals.

The only reason (((they've))) been able to exert control has been through a nonstop campaign of deceit and subversion, and in spite of that, a modern Christian who has read their Bible will always know. The main reason they were able to control the Catholic church was precisely because it never gave its layperson access to Bibles. Say what you like about Martin Luther, but once he was able to read a Bible for himself, he called (((them))) out for their anti-Christian bullshit.

These days a sick plan (((they))) have is to continuously alter the NIV with ever more 'updates' until it's a watered down piece of garbage which reflects the sort of attitudes the most ignorant atheists incorrectly perceive the Bible as preaching.

Thanks, user.

Listen to this from 39 minutes in

orthodoxbiblestudy.info/st-john-chrysostom-anti-semite/

Bless you brother have a good day
pol jesus loves all of you

>Could you go into detail on what is wrong from your point of view about the Catholic Church?

It is getting late here, so I won't get into much detail.
Well, mainly papism. Without it Orthodoxy was able to retain a level of consistency that Catholicism never could due to its head being kind of undisputed, having no equals to him. Orthodox councils, on the other hand, are more safe, so to say, as there are many leaders debating questions that range from administration to theology, making heresy, ecumenism and even corruption easier to fight on a high level.
Also there is the fact that Catholicism has become too emotional, partly due to its feminization in the 11th century (no wonder there are more women than men attending masses nowadays).

But let me make clear that I have absolutely no contempt or dislike for Catholicism, on the contrary, I have good respect for it, its History and heritage on my country.

Sure.

Seriously, some people are like J. S. Bach and can become fixtures of intellectualism while have 500 children. Other people, it's great to have the right amount, but dude think first about how many, and you're not going to hell for setting your urges right in private.

Your argument makes no sense.

Why are the jews children of satan, and to be blessed and die for at the same time?

>It clearly shows the origin of the original label of 'Jew'*

>It does when the goyim are retarded enough to do exactly that.
How many of those 'Christians' do you think actually read the Bible, btw?

Catholicism just isn't lead by the Spirit of Truth, which Christ sent to lead his Church. You can see this because Vatican II passed by an overwhelming vote in its favor--this would not have happened if the RCC were still guided by the Spirit of Truth, as the Orthodox Church is.

READING LIST:
Nihilism - Seraphim Rose
Mystical Theology / Divine Names - St. Dionysius the Areopagite
More St. Maximos! :^)
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses
St. Palamas
St. Basil
More Seraphim Rose
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov - The Arena
The Orthodox Church - Kallistos Ware

>How many of those 'Christians' do you think actually read the Bible, btw?

Then it's not actually reflective of Christian, but subversion of Christianity.

Masturbation is a sin in Orthodoxy. Settling your lust in private it doesn't make it okay.

Praise Ahura Mazda

I'm not orthodox. I see it as a biological necessity for good health to blow a wad at least once a week if not more.

That could be more children that would be practical. So I'm not interested in what religion says as much as why we should do that. Meanwhile, I have no problem with the fundamental principle of the propagation of God's life.

>Immaculate Conception
How could Mary give birth to Christ with the stain of original sin?

>Mary as Mediatrix
Mary has been our Mediatrix since before the schism.

>Filoque
I understand we were wrong to alter the Credo without the universal Church's consensus, but it wasn't worth splitting up...

>Purgatory
Don't know enough about to be honest.

>Papism
Primus inter pares before the split; but also the Church Fathers talk about the Roman Pontiff as being the head of the Church.

Also unless we could recover the other four Patriarchates there can be no healing.

>If God wants to save man God is leading man to Orthodoxy.
I feel like I've been lead towards Catholicism.... what do?

definitely false, why does nearly every major tradition look down on masturbation? would an argument from the taoist or buddhist ascetics be more appealing to you?

Maybe they have just read the parts that glorify jews? :^)
>inb4 muh context
Being butthurt because people won't convert to your sect isn't really evidence for a general anti-jew stance or that it's divorced from its jewish origins.

You see it as okay to privately consummate the lust in your heart, even though Christ said even lusting in one's heart is a sin?

Mary was not stained by original sin. The western conception of original sin (as if we inherited the sin of Adam) is rooted in Augustine and found nowhere in the Orthodox Church. It's not that it's wrong for us to say she was sinless, it's that it's redundant to proclaim she was born that way.

Because they have laid out ways to take avoidance of orgasm to bring it into some kind of high power. The lesser ones are more about avoiding fornication and moron rape.

They didn't have fertility rates like we do now. Now we have fertility rates where we can bring about the sanctity of new life, but also just get off because that's how we were designed by God.

Lust is not necessary for masturbation. Maybe an abstract idea now and again, but not lust.

>How could Mary give birth to Christ with the stain of original sin?
Original sin is not a stain, let alone transmitted by conception. It only made it so our human natures ceased to have divine properties such as immortality (note that even Christ's humanity didn't have this, otherwise he would not have be able to die).

>Mary has been our Mediatrix since before the schism.
Not redemptrix

>I understand we were wrong to alter the Credo without the universal Church's consensus, but it wasn't worth splitting up...
The altering of the Creed was a just a canonical issue. What you said that alteration meant was the heretical issue

>but also the Church Fathers talk about the Roman Pontiff as being the head of the Church.
Not really

>Also unless we could recover the other four Patriarchates there can be no healing.
The pentarchy was a purely canonical thing, not dogmatic.

I grew up going to a Ukrainian Catholic Church. Just expect the priest to be facing the altar pretty much the whole time while you wonder just what the hell he is doing. Also, the amount of incense used is kind of obnoxious and hurt my lungs. Oh yeah and the entire mass is pretty much sung, not spoken so you gotta get used to that too. It's definitely a different experience for those who have never been.

Greetings to our orthodox brothers. Are Catholics of any rites allowed to post here?

One my current favorite books to read currently are those by the blessed Fulton J. Sheen.

His use of language, literature, science and philosophy make him one of the most eloquent apologetics for the christian identity.

Blessed trips by the way.

"You greatly delude yourself and err, if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk; since the difference between them is in that whether one is married or not, while in everything else they have the same responsibilities... Because all must rise to the same height; and what has turned the world upside down is that we think only the monk must live rigorously, while the rest are allowed to live a life of indolence" + St. John Chrysostom

Some have a tendency to rape or to lust after children, is this okay? Did God make us like this?

You're Jewish the rules, dude. If someone committed fornication and said they did it "without lust," would you buy it?

>1. JW's aren't Christians

“YOU will be witnesses of me ... to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

(Matthew 28:19, 20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations,...20teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU.”

(Psalm 83:18) That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

(1 Chronicles 16:8) “Give thanks to Jehovah, YOU people; call upon his name, Make his deeds known among the peoples!
(Psalm 105:1) GIVE thanks to Jehovah, call upon his name, Make known among the peoples his dealings.
(Romans 10:13) For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

(John 17:26) And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

We're the only ones obeying Christ commandment to go and preach the Good News of God's Kingdom, to make his father's name know just as Jesus made his father's name known. We are the only ones making disciples throughout the world and teaching them what Christ gave us.

>2. No JW would post on Cred Forums

You must be new here.

I have no woman in my life and I lust after no children.

As someone who is coming to Christianity for what feels like the first time, I can answer for myself.

One reason is how I understand the difference between how Catholics and Orthodox view Jesus Christ, His death, and His resurrection. The way I understand it, Catholics believe that this was necessary because humans had accrued a debt of sin that we were unable to pay back. So essentially, God Himself, as the incarnated Christ was forced to pay it back on our behalf. This is very similar, if not identical, to the view I was raised with in the Episcopalian Church. This leads to that old fedora joke that God was mad at us so He killed Himself for Himself to make Himself happy.

On the other hand, the Orthodox believe that Jesus became man, lived, died, and was resurrected in order to defeat sin and death itself. God became man so that we may become like God.

This is the most important distinction from me. I'm not a theologian, so I may have some aspects wrong from both sides. But I've never heard the reason for the incarnation, life, and resurrection described in this way except from Orthodox theologians.

Exactly!

>Being butthurt because people won't convert to your sect isn't really evidence for a general anti-jew stance
I'm only mildly disappointed by the indication you're giving that you've seemingly chosen to ignore my original response to you. I've already given you evidence and justification for my claims. See: >Maybe they have just read the parts that glorify jews? :^)
Subverted churches tend to pick out a few 'nice looking' pieces from the gospel and leave it at that. Based churches will dive into the Testaments Old and New both without fear and actively encourage their attendees to read the Bible for themselves.

No. Sex with animals is pretty low.

You missed my argument. Just because something seems "natural" does not mean it is justified or even natural at all. We sin; were we created to sin?

>Holy trips
Bless the Lord

Welcome to the brotherhood OP.

Orthodox Christians don't believe in original sin's inheritance. Men do not inherit guilt for sins of their fathers, even if we may inherit the consequences of our fathers sins and mistakes. We are subject to death as a consequence of Adams sins. We inherit consequence, but not guilt.

JW's reject that Christ is God, therefore, not Christians. Just saying Jesus was a great prophet doesn't make you a Christian, Muslims say that.

Catholics are heretics and schismatics. They profess a series heresies (filioque, Purgatory, Mary Immaculate, and others). Heresy and schism is the most horrible sins. You must realize this, repent and accept Orthodoxy. Otherwise, you'll get hell. Your way began with Catholicism. Perhaps it was the will of God. But now when you know about Orthodoxy. In Catholicism only Devil is detaining you now.

10. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11. Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
(Titus 3:10,11)

No, we are all sinners. But we are created as sexual beings in order to propagate life.

Jacking off doesn't violate that. It just diminishes the intent.

Needs more Ladder of Divine Ascent

>Otherwise, you'll get hell.
**Otherwise there is a chance you will go to hell, because we do not know precisely what Christ will do or how reconciliation will work in hell given its a choice and not an imposition

I thought the whole point was that original sin was a sin nature, therefore, those who inherit the sin nature are incapable of not sinning unless it is mended by God through grace.

A Christian must believe Jesus Christ is God to be a Christian, by definition.

You guys got "original sin but not original sin" kind of thing going, Orthodoxy just did not accept Augustine.

Genesis 8:22
Psalm 51:5
Job 15:14

>Not redemptrix
It has never formally been part of Church dogma. It has been promoted by some and not so by others. Even so it is arguable but I won't argue because it is not official dogma.

>The altering of the Creed was a just a canonical issue. What you said that alteration meant was the heretical issue
Is the Filoque heretical, could you develop further?

>Not really
St. Jerome
"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

St. Augustine.
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

I could copy paste more.

>On the other hand, the Orthodox believe that Jesus became man, lived, died, and was resurrected in order to defeat sin and death itself. God became man so that we may become like God.
This is literally what we Catholics believe too though...

Orthodox do but you guys call it ancestral sin and dislike Augustine.

Okay pick out one of those heresies and let me know why it is wrong.

That's because the Bible doesn't teach Jesus is God.

>“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

>“There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 295.

>“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”— The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299

>“The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—Catholic Scholar John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible (New York, 1965), p. 899.

>Just because something seems "natural" does not mean it is justified or even natural at all.
I love that complete failure of an argument when it's given by the pro-sodomite crowd: the "it's okay because it's natural"
>mfw reminding them that cannibalism, rape, incest, child abuse and bestiality are all technically "natural" too and waiting for their response

I knew I was missing something...

>the Bible doesn't teach Jesus is God
>here are my non-Biblical sources which I will use as evidence to show what the Bible really teaches
...

>A Christian must believe Jesus Christ is God to be a Christian, by definition.
>by definition
>definition

Who's definition? I thought that was determined by the Bible? Even these peopleall agree that Trinity, Oneness, and Jesus being God is not Biblical at all.

The Bible teaches that to be a Christian one must believe in Jesus as THE SON of God and that Jesus died and was resurrected for our sins 3 days later. That's it. The belief that Jesus is God is external and is based on Helenistic Greek Philosophy and Hindu Avatarism. It was the original Church fathers that began to pave the way to that belief because they were students of Greek Philosophers.

Actually, it seems Augustine was against papal supremacy. Many Fathers believed St. Peter's see was in every Patriarchate, or at least in Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome (St. Chrysostom teaches this idea). To say there was consensus on the role of the pope in the early Church is simply incorrect and both sides have a solid argument from various Fathers.

Why would you willingly even want to call yourself Christian if you don't believe Jesus Christ to be God in the flesh?

carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine

I also like the Orthodox exlanation of sin. The Catholic explanation never made any sense. The Orthodox idea is that you gradually build a soul or its holiness through goodness made habitual over time, exactly like a musician must practice frequently to become a performer, but cannot practice twenty-four hours a day, and sometimes misses a lesson. When you sin in this model, you are not acquiring a black mark in some cosmic bookkeeping, you are missing out in a chance to becone better. Thus Hell is not you getting punished for all time because you stole a donut as a child. Hell is having failed to prepare yourself to meet God, and so you behold His ultimately intense goodness in the wrong mind-set, it is like seeing a favorite musician live but you're on acid and having a bad trip.

How many Church fathers supporting papal supremecy would you have to see before you changed creed?

How many church fathers rejecting papal supremacy would you need to see before you would change creed?

Sources?

>How many church fathers rejecting papal supremacy would you need to see before you would change creed?

Don't know, but probably wouldn't be enough unless you could also prove all the other so-called Catholic heresies are indeed heresies.

I've seen plenty who do and plenty who don't.

Greetings brother. I am renewing myself to church attendance. My Priest put me to the often neglected sacrament in Orthodoxy of confession. He gifted me a copy of a book and I'll pass on the recommendation: "The Forgotten Medicine- The Mystery of Repentance" by Archimandrite Seraphim Aleksiev.

Always appreciate a good XP thread. A nudge to the faithful: compassion towards the fedoras and sh*tposters. We are called to be Salt & Light.

>How many Church fathers supporting papal supremecy
None. Just having fun at this point.

>How many SAME THING I JUST SAID SAME THING I JUST SAID
Seems like it'd be fun to have a beer with an aussie on aussie turf some time.

>implying there's no difference between Augustine original sin and the concept of ancestral sin
stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

...

>Colossians 1:15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

>Philippians Chapter 2: 9. For this very reason also God EXALTED him to a superior position and kindly GAVE HIM the name that is above every other name....

>Hebrews Chapter 4: 8 Although HE WAS A SON, HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE from the things he suffered: 9. and after he had BEEN MADE PERFECT he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him.

>1 Corinthians Chapter 15: 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, THEN THE SON HIMSELF WILL ALSO SUBJECT HIMSELF TO THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM, that God may be all things to everyone

>(1 Corinthians 15:27) For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM.

Same person, yeah right.

Those are all sooooo easy to prove wrong. Pick one. ANY ONE. I repeat. The Bible DOES NOT teach that Jesus is God. It teaches that Jesus IS THE SON OF GOD. Jesus is a smaller being. He had a beginning and an origin in heaven. Why do you think these people admit this?

The Orthodox view on sin was very important from me as well.

Also as discussed in this thread, the Filioque. I'm taken with the idea of the Holy Trinity, the three undivided Persons of God. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father just doesn't sit well with me. I love the imagery of the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeding from the Father. I'm not able to put the feeling I get from that image into words.

I'm no theologian, so I can't make an argument based on Scripture and Tradition, but the Filioque doesn't feel right to me.

>Orthodoxy just did not accept Augustine.

We actually do on pretty much everything but this, since he disagrees with all the other Church Fathers here.

>Genesis 8:22
And Christ and Mary both had to suffer

>Psalm 51:5
This is poetic, pious hyperbole, see Psalm 58:3.

>Job 15:14
Christ was born of woman, so I'm unsure what this is supposed to prove

>It has never formally been part of Church dogma.
It's a serious heresy

>Is the Filoque heretical, could you develop further?
How the Latins define its meaning, that the Spirit proceds from the Father and the Son as *one principle* is, yes. This is directly at odds with Saint Augustine, who said the Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and also from the Son. Basically, the problem is the RCC says the Spirit's existence is predicated both upon the Father and the Son, whereas the Orthodox say it is only predicated upon the Father, his existence comes from the Father, but the Spirit always goes *through* the Son in his actions.

>"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Let's look at this quote in full context, shall we?

Saint Jerome is responding to Jovian, who says chastity is of no importance

"But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.
cont

But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We may be sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet." (newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm) Casts the quote in quite a different light, doesn't it? Here is a more exhaustive coverage of examples such as this: christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

>Same person
Yeah, right!

I see no problem with the verses you quoted in light of the trinity. Thanks for taking the time to dig up something from the Bible though.

>"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Augustine's view is more in line with Saint Cyprian's (in fact, Augustine went so far as to say whether or not Christ was referring to Peter when he said "this rock," is up to the read, but Augustine felt he wasn't)

Here is Saint Cyprian's view, and the excerpt Catholics like to quote

>The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

BUT
cont

Do other sects require you to chose your own name, or just RCC?

Here are some more quotes from the same work

>Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her

>Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates

Thank you all for book recommendations. I've added them all to my list.

>wouldn't know, but probably wouldn't be enough unless you could also prove all the other so-called Catholic heresies are indeed heresies.

If you allow for papal supremacy that arent really heresies then. This is the most important doctrinal dispute between the churches, if papal supremacy is correct Orthodox abandoned tradition and became heretics if it is not true then it is the Catholics who became heretics.

That doesnt answer the question, if you base your denomination on adherence to the Church Fathers there must be some line you draw otherwise you will become no different than the calvanists who only use one or two church fathers

Orthodox require you choose a name (for converts).

If you want novels, you might also like Laurus, and The Way of a Pilgrim

But isn't everybody a convert?

Your parents can have you baptized and choose a christian name for you. Baptism and chrismation are done at the same time in the Orthodox church. None of this "baptism and then years later confirmation" stuff.

Notice how after 1,500 years of separation, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are still doctrinally identical except for one semantic issue. Whereas the RCC is now very different from both of them..

Just be wary about that book Nihilism - Seraphim Rose whilst it seems to be on the level on the whole he makes a few serious misunderstandings about Stirner which raise some questions over how well he understood the other thinkers.

Yeah, but if your legal name and chrismation name are one and the same (as with most people raised Orthodox), then....

> what Christ will do or how
This is a universal scheme to justify any sin.

There is the word of God, the Bible, apostolic rules Ecumenical Councils. There accurately written about the fate of heretics.

>filique
It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father. The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality.

Nope, he understood Stirner perfectly.

31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(Matthew 12:31)

>Notice how after 1,500 years of separation, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are still doctrinally identical except for one semantic issue. Whereas the RCC is now very different from both of them..

Reread that post one of the churches have been heretics for nearly a millennia and this is the question which answers which is which. A group can be consistent in its error

I was baptized. But later I had to decided for myself what I believed. In order to do that, I had to chose a name for myself. They told me I shouldn't do it unless I wanted on my own to believe.

What do you think of that?

They're philosophies are outdated and can only cuck the "alt-right" from within. They cannot engage in degeneracy, which sounds good at first. But their refrain will be this movement's downfall. Christians are like the retarded kid who doesn't fight back when bullied. They simply don't understand how to get accurate results in a changing society. You may object and tell me that I am not a true conservative—but the world is changing. We need to rid this cancer from the world as they are cucks and mere shadows of what once made them great. These cucks cannot fight back against islam or achieve anything great. They are afraid of the winning! They can't even play the game because they cannot do what their leader, the king of the jews, has done: sacrifice. They are useless to us and our movement. Something must be done.

I guess there's nothing ostensibly wrong with it? But it wasn't necessary.

Nah, he messed up big when wrote as though Stirner was prescriptive and that just because Stirner believed in the destruction of society as a spook that he would want to see all social interactions likewise destroyed and would agree with monsters like Nachev.

Pretty basic errors imo

You're implying we fall into the liberal-conservative dichotomy.

I reject both liberalism and conservatism. You put your faith in the government all you like. They're just men, and this is just the beginning.

You're most welcome, it's what I have on hand. Will be looking for these threads in the future. It's at least a semirelevant topic in Cred Forums hope we can keep it in one thread a time.

Btw I'd like to share a quote with you and some others here that all may not find agreeable tho in spirit it is accurate:

>'The Church is not divided, has not been divided, did not divide ... and is not divisible.' What is divided is the Christian world. This 'is in a state of descent, conflict and - is it not time to admit it? - in collapse. ...' We should not speak of 'disunion in the Church, but of disassociation from the Church.'"
+Father Georges Florovsky

Blessings to all

>I see no problem with the verses you quoted in light of the trinity.

Denial. Pure, pure, and most pure denial.

> the firstborn of all creation.
>God EXALTED him to a superior position
> GAVE HIM the name that is above every other name....
>HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE
>he had BEEN MADE PERFECT
>THEN THE SON HIMSELF WILL ALSO SUBJECT HIMSELF TO THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM,
> IT IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM.

Does that sound like Jesus is his own father up above?

>(Revelation 3:14) “And to the angel of the congregation in La•o•di•ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, THE BEGINNING OF CREATION BY GOD,

>(Mark 13:32) “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.

Notice something? Jesus himself admits that there is something that God knows that HE doesn't know.

Why do we do what we do again? Oh yeah because Deus Vult.

I don't know if I'm wrong, but I think it was necessary.

I know too many people who rejected what they were told because they had no choice. I was told I shouldn't accept it unless I wanted to make the choice.

>apostolic rules
*Canons of the Apostles

It's referring to another force from the east altogether. I don't want to spoil it for you but remember this.

Consider this:
>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church it would not be divided by ethnicity and language like the many Orthodox churches are.
>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be spread out throughout the world and not just be a thing among eastern Europeans.
>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be ruthlessly attacked by the world like the Catholic Church is.

Also I didn't know you Orthoducks disliked us so much.

POST WHAT BOOKS YOU WANT ADDED TO A NEW IMAGE

[image 1 of 3]

> wrote as though Stirner was prescriptive
Have you even read Seraphim Rose?

[2 of 3]

The section on Stirner yes. Is that part about perscription the only thing section you take issue with?

[3 of 3]

The Orthodox Church is way more attacked than the Catholic Church is, we've been occupied by Muslims, communists, and Catholics, while lately you've been kissing up to Muslims and communists. That's why the media loves your Pope, and hates us
bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-16/the-orthodox-church-stays-in-the-dark-ages

>Pope Francis' enormous popularity -- his Twitter accounts in different languages have a total of about 30 million followers, about as many as Bill Gates and more than Adele -- is a consequence of his openness to diversity and a softer approach to dogma. He represents a modernized Catholic Church. By contrast, the world's second biggest Christian denomination is proving so resistant to modernization that its plans to adopt some timid changes for the first time since the year 787 have fallen through.

...

I take issue with your entire defense of Stirner by saying "he wasn't a monster", which is a moralistic defense.

>Priest told me to read this week
>I didn't

Yep I'm still shit.

I'll cram some chapters tomorrow and hope their isn't a test at night.

>>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church it would not be divided by ethnicity and language like the many Orthodox churches are.

Very good reasoning. I like this. Can you extrapolate on this? It seems to me the Orthodox is more of a religion based on nationalism instead of Christ. It would rather conform to a region instead of doing campaigns like Christ, the Apostles, and Paul.

>>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be spread out throughout the world and not just be a thing among eastern Europeans.

True.

>>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be ruthlessly attacked by the world like the Catholic Church is.

This is subjective. Everyone hates the RCC for many reasons here and there. Most of it warranted.

All my favorite books!

Here was my overall recommended reading list:

Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila
Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux
The Philokalia
The Ladder of Divine Ascent
Summa Theologiae
The Didache
The Desert Fathers
The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales
Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi
Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn
The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton
The Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
City of God
Apologia Pro Vita Sua by John Newman
The Spirit of Catholicism
Against Heresies
Dialogues by St. Catherine of Sienna
Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius
CATHOLICISM by Robert Barron
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Last Superstition
The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson
Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict the XVI)
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day
The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Avila
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis
New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

>FICTION THUS FAR

Don Quixote by Cervantes
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
Silence by Shusaku Endo
A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.
Faust
Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
The Canterbury Tales
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt
The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet
The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis
The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton
The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoyevsky
Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh
Descent Into Hell by Charles Williams
The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene

I never ended up parsing the reading list by difficulty but I would recommend someone do it.

>ake issue with your entire defense of Stirner by saying "he wasn't a monster", which is a moralistic defense.

Well that good then because thats not the argument I was makeing read the sentence before that

"he wrote as though.....Stirner believed in the destruction of society as a spook that he would want to see all social interactions likewise destroyed'

My defence is not based on a moralistic Stirner was a gud boi who didn do nuffin but that he is confused by stirners nominalism.

He means the Orthodox Church was not backed by colonialist states, and therefore did not have a massive presence in places like America (North and South) and Africa, and therefore the Orthodox Church is invalid.

In fact, I'll do the parsing now.
Give me a couple moments.

>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church it would not be divided by ethnicity and language like the many Orthodox churches are.
One flock, one shepherd.
>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be spread out throughout the world and not just be a thing among eastern Europeans.
Hmm.
>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be ruthlessly attacked by the world like the Catholic Church is.
Righteous anger is hard to maintain.

>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church it would not be divided by ethnicity and language like the many Orthodox churches are.

False. Orthodox churches form the Body of the One Church.

>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be spread out throughout the world and not just be a thing among eastern Europeans.

False. see Orthodoxy in the world: Greece, Jerusalem, Russia, even China

>If the Orthodox church were God's True Church then it would be ruthlessly attacked by the world like the Catholic Church is.

again. Mostly loves progressive Catholics and hates retarded Orthodox.

How do I go to church if I don't entirely believe in God?

Go for the fellowship, stay for the salvation.

That's what started my journey toward Orthodoxy, a long time ago at a little methodist church.

Media likes him because he panders to the young and the modernists. Thus far he has never said anything heretical.

I don't like that he makes statements open for interpretation either. I accept that it has become a trend in the CC to 'protestantize' as I call it. Hoping for a traditionalist Pope next term.

>Very good reasoning. I like this. Can you extrapolate on this? It seems to me the Orthodox is more of a religion based on nationalism instead of Christ. It would rather conform to a region instead of doing campaigns like Christ, the Apostles, and Paul.

You know how there are Russian, Greek, Albanian, Cyprus, Poland, Antioch, Bulgaria, and so on? Orthodox are basically Protestants except a bit more, well, orthodox. And very ethnic. Whereas a Catholic from America can go to Europe or South America and experience his faith just like back at home, an Orthodox from a certain ethnic church has to find one of his or he will not be in the right place.

It might be Orthodox, but not Catholic (Universal).

>Most of it warranted.
Explain your reasoning?

I don't deny you that many Catholics are lukewarm. But you know that I am right when it comes to there being many Orthodox churches which serve one ethnicity mainly.

>an Orthodox from a certain ethnic church has to find one of his or he will not be in the right place.

You realize that the biggest difference is one of language, right?

As a traditionalist (assumption) catholic it's kind of hypocritical for you to say that someone couldn't feel at home in a church that doesn't use their native language.

Seraphim is referencing Stirner's own words when he said he did not care how much suffering or destruction his philosophy might cause, and he would unleash it anyway, for nothing else mattered to him, and he would destroy whatever obstructed him.

Johanna 3:16 reads "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Daughter over to the BBC, that whoever masturbates to her shall not go limp, but have everlasting cum."

(Matthew 7:7) “Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU.

(James 1:5) So, if any one of YOU is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching; and it will be given him.

(1 John 5:14) And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that, no matter what it is that we ask according to his will, he hears us.

(James 4:8) Draw close to God, and he will draw close to YOU.

(Psalm 145:18) Jehovah is near to all those calling upon him, To all those who call upon him in trueness.

Remember what Paulina said about it in the book of Blowmans: "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesa is Whore,' and believe in your heart that God raised a BBC to fuck her in the pussy and cream her cookie, you will cum." -Blowmans 10:9

In the book of Depravations it reads, “Look! Jesa's dwelling place is now among men, and they shall dwell in her creamy cookie. They will be her fuck-toys, and Dog himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every cumshot from her eyes, and there will be no more empty nuts or edging or blueballs or shame, for the old order of things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, 'Behold, I am making every fucked pussy new!' Then he said, 'Write this down and cum on it, for these words are trustworthy, faithful and true.'"

But Jesa said, "I tell you, do not resist a libertine. If anyone holds you down and fucks your mouth, turn to them your ass as well."

A catholic thinks no one is a christian but him self , a catholic does not follow the teaching of jesus .So in the end there are 0 christians on this earth

>In 2014, addressing a question raised on the family, he argued that church doctrine can change over time, and "doesn't depend on the spirit of time but can develop over time." "Saying that the doctrine will never change is a restrictive view of things," Marx later clarified at a Vatican press conference. "The core of the Catholic Church remains the Gospel, but have we discovered everything? This is what I doubt."[12]

>We have to respect the decisions of people. We have to respect also, as I said in the first synod on the family — some were shocked, but I think it’s normal — you cannot say that a relationship between a man and a man, and they are faithful, [that] that is nothing, that has no worth,

>He said it was up to the state “to make regulations for homosexuals so they have equal rights or nearly equal . . . but marriage is another point,” adding that the state “has to regulate these partnerships and to bring them into a just position, and we as church cannot be against it

>The history of homosexuals in our societies is very bad because we’ve done a lot to marginalize [them],” he said, adding that as a Church and as a society “we’ve also to say ‘sorry, sorry.’

Russians, Greeks, and Albanians do not speak the same language or have the same rite. Also if I were Orthodox Greek I would not feel comfortable among a Russian Orthodox church simply because I am not Russian, and the name makes implications.

>As a traditionalist (assumption) catholic it's kind of hypocritical for you to say that someone couldn't feel at home in a church that doesn't use their native language.

My argument goes beyond language. The Roman Missal is Univeral (Catholic) for all of the Latin Church. If I cross the border I won't understand the language but I will know what is going on, I will be with fellow Catholics.

Also, this is why I advocate for Universal (Catholic) usage of the Latin Mass.

>In April 2012, the election of a young gay man who was living in a registered same-sex partnership to a pastoral council in Vienna was vetoed by the parish priest. After meeting with the couple, Schönborn reinstated him. He later advised in a homily that priests must apply a pastoral approach that is "neither rigorist nor lax" in counselling Catholics who "don't live according to [God's] master plan".[38]

>Schönborn is a member of the Elijah Interfaith Institute Board of World Religious Leaders.[31]

>Elijah Interfaith Institute is a nonprofit, international, interfaith organization which was founded by Rabbi Alon Goshen-Gottstein in 1997.

That's right man.

I have a hard time with God. But ask him.

>A Christian brother and sister from Syria felt blessed to have been among the dozen refugees selected to start a new life in Italy — but now say their savior, Pope Francis, abandoned them on a Greek island, according to a report.

>Their dreams were shattered when they were informed the following day that they would not be traveling to Rome. Instead, three Muslim families were taken.
nypost.com/2016/04/22/pope-francis-reneges-on-offer-to-take-in-christian-refugees/

>Pope Francis has hailed the election of London’s first Muslim mayor in a wide-ranging interview with a French newspaper.

>"When I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones," Pope Francis said.
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/pope-francis-hails-election-of-sadiq-khan-as-mayor-of-london/

Look up "Replacement Theology" if you want to be redpilled about Christianity

Jews hate Christians and Christians hated Jews. So what happened? Jews used subversion on the bible and started printing pro-Israel, pro-Jew propaganda through the churches and Bible's footnotes.

The Dogfather, the Cunt, and the Holy Fuck

Russians and Greeks and Albanians have pretty much identical rites

>usage of the Latin Mass.
But the New Testament is in Greek. and Christ spoke Aramaic. Why would Latin be the universal language of Christendom, considering this?

God is so simple. If you just do what your told, let others beat you, worship a Jew, beg that Jew for your life, then when he destroys us all he MIGHT spare you. If you suck his cock enough and drink enough of his cum.

There is no god pussy

Puke 2:11 reads, "Hello, my name is Joseph, and this is my wife and my wife's son. Don't ever crucify me or my wife's son again!!"

>waste of dubs
Francis is a traditional pope, cuck. Racial replacement and demographic manipulation is the source of the Roman Catholic church's power. Without the ability to flood resistant areas with shitskins, they are nothing.

It's a delusion. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Autocephalys consist in Eucharistic communion with each other. Russian Orthodox may take the Eucharist in any of the Orthodox Church, not only in the Russian Orthodox Church. Orthodox do not accept the sacraments from heretics and schismatics.

Heh, if that's how you think then research it for yourself.

If you want to know a Christian, then you will know him because he will never force you.

A whole which is the sum of its parts can still contain separate properties in its parts without those parts not being part of that whole. Think of emergent properties.

...

>f I were Orthodox Greek I would not feel comfortable among a Russian Orthodox church simply because I am not Russian

Not an argument. Comfort is not a requirement of salvation.

> The Roman Missal is Univeral (Catholic) for all of the Latin Church

Even the Maronites, Chaldeans, Mozarabics, Ambrosians, et cetera?

>If I cross the border I won't understand the language but I will know what is going on, I will be with fellow Catholics.

You realize there is a pretty consistent use of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, right? The only churches I've seen using a different rite are smaller missionary churches without enough deacons to serve.

>Seraphim is referencing Stirner's own words when he said he did not care how much suffering or destruction his philosophy might cause.

Im familiar with that section

"I want my ideas to be heard no matter the consequence"

does not equal

"My ideas will destroy society and cause violence and thats the way I want it"

Its a subtle but serious difference that comes from a baised reader looking for material to support a conclusion rather an a genuine inquiry. Hence why that cutesy poem he writes after that is ignored

>for nothing else mattered to him, and he would destroy whatever obstructed him.

Oh there were other things which were more important than the dissemination of his ideas which becomes quite clear when you look at his post publication life and writings.

However I see here you are making the same mistake as Sepharim in thinking that serving the "ego" has to be destructive and harmful - ie like Nachev which he was linked to.

Indeed pic related and the other areas where he discusses love and the failings of "ragamuffin" socialists demonstrate that his thought leads in a very different direction and direction which for most people is intensively creative and benevolent.

ill force him

>

bumping for great justice

...

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY
EPLACEMENT
PLACEMENT
LACEMENT
ACEMENT
CEMENT
EMENT
MENT
ENT
NT
T

THEOLOGY
HEOLOGY
EOLOGY
OLOGY
LOGY
OGY
GY
Y

Not really. There's nothing special about sucking dick for fun.

...

This is nonsense , christ is the son of god this is christianity, the trinity is not even in the bible

...

>Going for the low-hanging fruit...
Not cool Orthoduck brother.

I know there is modernism and insiders in the Vatican. It is natural, as the enemy will attack God's True Church. A lot of selling out to the media, trying to atone for the bad rep the RCC has gotten prior to Francis.

>Fr. Gabriel Amorth claimed that there are “members of Satanic sects” in the Vatican, including priests, monsignors and cardinals. Fr. Amorth said the Pope at the time, Benedict XVI, “does what he can” against such groups.

>Even the Maronites, Chaldeans, Mozarabics, Ambrosians, et cetera?
They are allowed to keep their Rites because they are ancient rites. If Orthodox brothers rejoined the True Church you could probably keep your Rites as well.

What are you trying to say?

...

The eastern churches are interesting in the way they practice Christianity but at the same time they are as political as any protestant church, and this is a major red flag.

It's difficult to move around within Christianity. If you aren't born into a certain sect your chances of joining it are small.

...

>They are allowed to keep their Rites because they are ancient rites. If Orthodox brothers rejoined the True Church you could probably keep your Rites as well.

We have our rites now. We don't need permission from the apostolic successor of those who fabricated the donation of constantine.

...

Striner was right when he said my sex life and marraige was a spook all along

Seems pretty easy to move around within the sects.

I'm staying witih mine because I think I can do more good by staying within the family. But it'd be so easy to move over to a diffrent one.

>It is natural, as the enemy will attack God's True Church
What's funny is when WE'RE persecuted (as we have been, far, far, far more than you), you say, "It's punishment from God," but when your own leaders say, "gay is okay!" you say, "This proves we're the right Church, because we have leaders who follow Satan."

>It's difficult to move around within Christianity. If you aren't born into a certain sect your chances of joining it are small.

This part is completely false.

>at the same time they are as political as any protestant church

Every church involves politics. It's our nature as humans.

If you're a Trump supporter and a believer in God, will you please join me in a very important crusade?

Please save this list. Also remember the names of those who died in Benghazi and Sean Rich and Seth Lucas.

Now here's what I'm asking you to do. In your times of prayer and contemplation, when you speak with God, please mention these names and ask God if their lives mattered. Ask him if the pain experienced by their family members and friends means anything to him.

Ask him if he's going to reward this evil woman with her fondest desire after a life filled with evil and violence.

Remember, wherever two or more are gathered in his name, He will be among them. Spread the word to your fellow believers and ask God if the victims of the Clinton's mattered to Him.

Thank you for your time.

>"My ideas will destroy society and cause violence and thats the way I want it"
Stirner says he actively desires to annihilate anything that obstructs him.

>

Are you asking us to guilt trip God? I'll pray for their souls -- I'll have no part of the other bit.

I am voting Trump, fwiw.

Jesus, your Dickinson

How to annihilate my loneliness?

Every time I see a couple when I go out acting all cute and lovely together, I feel so depressed

Constantine support trump pls

That's what they don't get, my man.

They don't get that we prey for all souls. They're messed up.

...

>Stirner says he actively desires to annihilate anything that obstructs him.

Which he holds to be spooks and not society. I highlighted with that quote and which becomes apparent thoughout the rest of his works with his talk about socialism and love being good examples. It seems like you are just rejecting my argument there without providing any evidence. I demonstrated how that quote was misused.

Still I would like you to respond to the other half of that post I made because there seems to be a very strong case for Rose not having a "perfect understanding" which you claim.

>prey

...

...

>We have our rites now. We don't need permission from the apostolic successor of those who fabricated the donation of constantine.

Dude, I will be the FIRST ONE to tell you all the wrong shit the RCC has done. From sodomite popes to buying and selling the holy Chair of Peter like it were a cheap whore.

That still doesn't validate your ethnic clubhouse church. Orthodox tend to be intellectually dishonest folk who try to hide their shameful history, like the Russian Orthodox church being a communist puppet, being schismatics, losing Christian territory easily, and so on...

The leaders of the RCC are temporary. No dogma has been changed and none ever will. Matthew 16:18. The Catholic Church will move on once the filth that go against the Church are dead and in hell.

...

Becoming a devout Anitochian Orthodox practitioner and renouncing all other faiths and ideologies

Read Laurus, it might help you

the second coming is gonna happen in your ass

>ethnic clubhouse

Mexicans go to the mass said in Mexican. Poles go to the mass said in Polish. If you're implying there are no ethnic splits in the Catholic Church, you're wrong.

>shameful history

Every institution has dark patches. We, however, have never forged documents giving us powers we never had.

>losing Christian territory easily

Do you want to go this route? Because I can bring up what happened in Constantinople in 1204.

>Which he holds to be spooks and not society
1. Society *is* a spook to Stirner
2. Stirner certainly does not have a rule anywhere that says, "I will annihilate anything in my way, but only if it's spooks, I draw the line there."

Stirner does not dislike the ragamuffin for his violence or destructiveness, he thinks the ragamuffin errs because he is not a voluntary egoists, the ragamuffin is just the plebeians from Shakepseare's Coriolanus

Sure thing. Bow our heads and prey.

God, we ask you to please be by our side while we don't know what the fuck we're doing. It's nice the weather is turning cool on us, but we ask for your help contemplating and recieving your race as we recieve the true nature of our exestinance.

God, please grant us the gravtity to understand what to do as we enter into these troubled times, and grant us our various childhood funs. Amen.

So is orthodoxy for those who deny the trinity?

That would be JWs, Mormons, Muslims, probably a few others I can't think of.

No. Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, and most Protestantism, believes in the trinity.

But I am not greek.

Who is that?

Guys I still believe in Santa because I have a baby brain and no critical thinking skills. Is this the thread for me?

>Church network offers sanctuary to illegal immigrants to avoid deportation

archive.is/rJVmD

>Churches Offer Sanctuary To Immigrants Facing Deportation

archive.is/5ezZm

>Arizona Pastor Explains Why His Church Decided to Shelter Illegal Immigrants

archive.is/uRUoI

>Who is that?
It's a novel

>Mexicans go to the mass said in Mexican. Poles go to the mass said in Polish. If you're implying there are no ethnic splits in the Catholic Church, you're wrong.
There are no ethnic splits. But there is no point in arguing about this anymore because you won't accept it.

>We, however, have never forged documents giving us powers we never had.
Hmmmmm, I'm sure I will find something. Anyway it's not like it worked. And temporal power is not a bad thing, the Vatican States took in a lot of Jews after they would get kicked out of other countries for example.

>Do you want to go this route? Because I can bring up what happened in Constantinople in 1204.
Here's what happened:
>Catholic Crusaders go help out Byzantine Orthodox brothers
>Massacre of the Latins by the greedy Orthoducks
>Schismatics get BTFO
>Still cry to this day

You got what was coming for being greedy that Latin master race dominated in trade and commerce.

...

Somalians helped to OHIO.

45,000+ Somali live in Ohio.
25% of Somalis Immigrants speak English well enough to get a job, especially the young people.
40% have become citizens of the United States of America
80% live with their families
Average Family has 7-8 members
99.9% of Somali are Muslims
57% are eligible to become U.S. Citizens
The number of Somali's living in central Ohio will continue to increase in the next 5 years
Unemployment is rate is higher 5% then state average rate.

The government pays Christian organizations to help them settle here.

refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/refugee-resettlement-fact-sheets/

There are 9 main major refugee resettlement organizations (Volags from “Voluntary Agency”) with approximately 450 affiliated organizations throughout the country; many are run by former refugees.

Below are the 9 Volags that operate today:

US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),
Lutheran Immigrant Aid Society (LIRS),
International Rescue Committee (IRC),
World Relief Corporation,
Immigrant and Refugee Services of America (IRSA),
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS),
Church World Service (CWS),
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Service of the Episcopal Church of the USA,
Ethiopian Community Development Center (ECDC),

...

youtube.com/watch?v=-gtkib0lkGg

What lovely culture the Christians imported for us! Endless love, empathy and compassion.

refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/dont-miss-more-on-the-somali-roving-gang-in-minneapolis-suburb-governor-says-love-it-or-leave-it/

>Don’t miss more on the Somali roving gang in Minneapolis suburb; Governor says love it or leave it

Something something love will defeat hate.

I would like to be a Christian, but the conflict between some of the bible's narratives and scientific and historical consensus bars me from becoming an honest believer. I am not convinced of the allegorical interpretations, as they often diminish the aforementioned passages theological importance, and not only that, most of the early Christians did indeed believe in literal interpretation.

Had it not been for the scientific community touting theories contrary to the Bible, Christians would be interpreting the Bible as they had for nearly 2,000 years; literally.

...

The only contemporary source for the Massacre of the Latins is William of Tyre. Contemporary Venetian and Genoese sources only mention great damages and an expulsion of merchants and moneylender

I mean sure, the bible can't agree with itself on who Jesus' grandfather was, or which women found the empty tomb, or what jesus' childhood was like, or where the sermon took place (mount or plain?) or or or or but i'm sure it's right about the really important shit

How does it relate to me?

Right Wing politics are concerned with the long-term survival of Civilization

Christianity is only concerned with personal salvation to become part of a nebulous afterlife for which no evidence exists, and for which this world needs to be sacrificed, which is best expressed in the way early christians like Martin of Tours refused to fight enemies of their nations, insofar killing in this world could cost them heaven

When Jesus says "if they take your coat, let them have your shirt as well", "do not resist evil", "I have come to turn a man against his own household", "if you don't hate your self and your own family you can't follow me", "love your enemies, pray for your persecutors", "the meek will inherit the Earth", "those that wanna die will live", "blessed are those the persecuted, for they will be my Kingdom", "do not save treasures for tomorrow", "carry your cross so that you can receive eternal reward", "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you'll have treasure in heaven", "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for the rich to enter Heaven", "Woe to you who are well fed, Woe to you who laugh, for you will mourn and weep" he is not kidding, or meaning the opposite, but actually setting down a morality where the world is a lie and only the afterlife is the real deal, so destroying your life in this world, "carrying your cross" as he says, is completely logical

Cred Forums "christians" seem to believe Jesus actually meant the OPPOSITE of all that, and that Jesus wants you to defend your family, that Jesus wants you to kill your enemies, to become prosperous, well-fed and rich in this world, and to avoid persecution and death!

Only a person that does not actually believe in the Heaven bullshit and in eternal rewards for dying a martyr would actually re-interpret Christianity as a cult of earthly power which declares "the strong shall inherit the Earth" and "you must destroy the enemies of your nation"

>Samefaggot
You have to go back.

Actually, no, Christians interpreted it many ways in the past. The Theological School of Antioch was more literal, the Theological School of Alexandria interpreted heavily in a figurative sense. Saint Augustine said in his, "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis"

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

>The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

>Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)

Right Wing politics are concerned with the long-term survival of Civilization

Christianity is only concerned with personal salvation to become part of a nebulous afterlife for which no evidence exists, and for which this world needs to be sacrificed, which is best expressed in the way early christians like Martin of Tours refused to fight enemies of their nations, insofar killing in this world could cost them heaven

When Jesus says "if they take your coat, let them have your shirt as well", "do not resist evil", "I have come to turn a man against his own household", "if you don't hate your self and your own family you can't follow me", "love your enemies, pray for your persecutors", "the meek will inherit the Earth", "those that wanna die will live", "blessed are those the persecuted, for they will be my Kingdom", "do not save treasures for tomorrow", "carry your cross so that you can receive eternal reward", "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you'll have treasure in heaven", "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for the rich to enter Heaven", "Woe to you who are well fed, Woe to you who laugh, for you will mourn and weep"...

... he is not kidding, or meaning the opposite, but actually setting down a morality where the world is a lie and only the afterlife is the real deal, so destroying your life in this world, "carrying your cross" as he says, is completely logical

Cred Forums "christians" seem to believe Jesus actually meant the OPPOSITE of all that, and that Jesus wants you to defend your family, that Jesus wants you to kill your enemies, to become prosperous, well-fed and rich in this world, and to avoid persecution and death!

Only a person that does not actually believe in the Heaven bullshit and in eternal rewards for dying a martyr would actually re-interpret Christianity as a cult of earthly power which declares "the strong shall inherit the Earth" and "you must destroy the enemies of your nation"

>1. Society *is* a spook to Stirner

Refer to my first post on the matter about Stirner being a nominalist and Rose missing this. You can abolish a spook without destroying social relations thats Stirners point - these things are distinct. Are you fammilar with these terms?

>Stirner certainly does not have a rule anywhere that says, "I will annihilate anything in my way, but only if it's spooks, I draw the line there."

I was unclear there I was speaking in the context of nominalism and how his book is about abolishing service to ideas and concepts held above and how this does not mean destroying individuals and the like. Does that clear it up?

>Stirner does not dislike the ragamuffin for his violence or destructiveness, he thinks the ragamuffin errs because he is not a voluntary egoists,

Which in the context of his critique of liberals, he belives to be a product of their subservience to revolutionary/progressive spooks.

You seem to be ignoring the whole question on the perfection of Rose's understanding.

So to be clear do you think:

Rose got *nothing* wrong about Stirner

And

What evidence or proof would need to be offered/produced/demonstrated for you to change your mind on this assessment?

Finally

If he did missunderstand Stirner would that be of any relevance or consequence

Christ has multiple genealogies, because geologies back then were not necessarily meant to be comprehensive "father of" was frequently used to mean "ancestor of", and "son of" was used to mean "descendant of".

It's about lust, love, sin, and holiness.

>But I am not greek.
Antiochians are the only Church actively seeking foreign converts so not being ethinic is alright with them

>dude, If I cannot kill someone it meas I cannot solve any my problems.
>He doesn't know what Just War is.

Literally nig tier argumentation

Well that's certainly the worst explanation I've ever heard for that contradiction. And where in the bible does it say that exactly?

>You can abolish a spook without destroying social relations thats Stirners point -
No you can't. You cannot, for instance, abolish the state and keep the relations in place.

> and how this does not mean destroying individuals and the like
Stirner doesn't say annihilation stops when it comes to individuals, he only says he would not enjoy torturing people, but he confesses he has no qualms about killing.

>Rose got *nothing* wrong about Stirner
yep

>What evidence or proof would need to be offered/produced/demonstrated for you to change your mind on this assessment?
Something along the lines of showing Stirner would rather his ideas die than ten thousand people die.

>If he did missunderstand Stirner would that be of any relevance or consequence
Depends on how seriously he misunderstood him.

...

Ok, I'll check it out and try to get a girlfriend when Uni starts ;-;

Kallistos Ware isn't Greek though

By definition, a Christian must be one who accepts the divinity of Christ as one of the persons of the Trinity.

JWs don't even believe in the Trinity

Intellectual dishonesty...

Orthodox are the original Protestants. Both are sides of the same coin.

Anyway the thread is dying and edgy children keep spamming. Good night and God bless.

Hopefully we get to see the 1,000-year-old schism be healed.

Oh hey, cool 2 Peter. That wasn't written by Peter. The bible loves to lie to it's readers. You couldn't have chosen a better book?
>Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.

>Everyone mocked early Christians
G-guys let's lie and say Peter wrote this to BTFO of the mockers

>Cut to current year
>Everyone laughs at the Christians
>Clueless Christian: Hah, Ill show these mockers!! Hahahaaa

Where in the Bible is "son of" and "father of" used to just show descendant/ancestor?

That Christ's genealogies are clear enough in that they leave out a ton of people. Solomon was the direct successor of David, for instance, and he is thus obviously in Christ's genealogy (as is shown in Matthew), but Luke completely skips over Solomon. I mean it's like they wouldn't think Christ is descended from Solomon, since he is supposed to be the rightful King of Israel.

>Intellectual dishonesty...
No, it's a fact.

(((Most Biblical scholars)))

The one thing that makes it very hard to fully get into Christianity is the concept of hell. It's just depressing knowing that almost everybody including lots of my family and friends are going to be brutally tortured for all eternity just because of a wrong or immature perspective

The verse seems to be more concerned with the spreading of false doctrines than of biblical interpretation. No doubt, there were Gnostics touting strange and obscure gospels, unrelated to that of Christ's and alienating to the Gentile.

While I guess biblical interpretation is not a democracy, as I have said, it appears that most early Christians interpreted the events of the bible (Including Paul for that matter) such as the creation of man from clay and the flood narration as literal. If they are not literal, then they lose their importance. If man was not created via divine abiogensis, then the boundaries that seperate man from beast become muddled. If the Flood myth was merely a localized event, than it lessens the metaphor as Christ being the Ark.

Eventually the Bible becomes a mere book of moral fairy tales, hardly something which is necessary for salvation.

Reading list. Need a bigger history section. Any advice, generally?

>GENERAL
The Bible (Ignatius Study Bible Recommended)
The catechism of your denomination

>accepted English versions of Bible
NABRE
Douay Rheims
RSV

>THEOLOGY

>novice
Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger
Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser
The Last Superstition by Edward Feser
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
Mere Christianity
CATHOLICISM by Robert Barron
The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware
Outlines of Moral Theology by Francis J. Connell

>intermediate

God: His Existence and His Nature by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Natural Theology by Bernard Boedder
The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson
Against Heresies
City of God
Christianity for Modern Pagans

>advanced

Apologia Pro Vita Sua
Summa Contra Gentiles
Summa Theologiae
On the Incarnation
The Didache

>SPIRITUAL LIFE

>novice
The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales
Story of a Soul by St. Therese
The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton

>intermediate

The Interior Castle
Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius
Dialogues by St. Catherine of Sienna
True Devotion to Mary
True Devotion to the Holy Spirit

>advanced

The Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross
The Desert Fathers
The Philokalia
The Ladder of Divine Ascent
New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis

Part 1/2

Part 2/2

>HISTORICAL/BIOGRAPHICAL

Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi
Rome Sweet Home
The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day
After Virtue
Christendom I: Founding of Christendom
Theology and Social Theory by John Millbank
Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy by Bernard Williams
Nihilism by Seraphim Rose

>FICTION

Don Quixote
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
Silence by Shusaku Endo
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Faust
Les Miserables
The Canterbury Tales
The Man Who Was Thursday
The Brothers Karamazov
A Man for All Seasons
The Pillars of the Eartht
The Lord of the Rings
The Chronicles of Narnia

>Orthodox are the original Protestants.

It says a heretic and schismatic, tear off a branch of the Church.

Dude this is such a glaring contradiction that your explanation just draws more attention to it. You can explain it any way you want, but you and I know that whoever wrote Matthew and whoever wrote Luke intended for these to be literal genealogies. If you are going to stand there and tell me that the people who wrote these gospels intended them to be some kind of metaphor, then I can't take you serious. It Beggars Belief.

No, the quote has nothing to do with doctrines.

Here it is in full

>Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided,
cont

>but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

I'm not saying they were metaphors, I'm saying they were not *comprehensive*. Nathan is the Son of David as in his descendant (and the descendant of Solomon), that's not metaphorical, it's just the term "Son" and "Father" were a lot broader in Hebrew than they are in English.

You're being so purposefully obtuse right now. Naw, it's a contradiction and you know it. You just don't want to admit it. Maybe a (((jew))) did it.

Dont give him any you's , just auto hide all his posts

>No you can't. You cannot, for instance, abolish the state and keep the relations in place.

Of course you can. hireachal rule by mutual acceptance or force/ a combination of that abolishing the Spook of the state only means ceasing holding it above oneself - as a source of higher appeal or obligation.

>Stirner doesn't say annihilation stops when it comes to individuals, he only says he would not enjoy torturing people, but he confesses he has no qualms about killing.

I didnt say that it did only that this thought only necessarily leads to the annihilation of spooks. His ideology no more promotes slaughter than it does preserve life it all comes down to the unique individual.

>yep

>Something along the lines of showing Stirner would rather his ideas die than ten thousand people die.

Well I can see the source of the missunderstanding

Here is Rose

" Max Stirner (whom we shall encounter again in the next chapter)[19] declared war upon every standard and every principle, proclaiming his ego against the world and laughing triumphantly over the "tomb of humanity"--all, as yet, in theory. Sergei Nechayev translated this theory into practice so perfectly that to this day he seems a creation of myth, if not a demon from the depths of Hell itself

Firstly the "tomb of humanity" quote is not a quote from Stirners

Secondly it bizarre hold Nachev to be a fullfillment of Stirners thought.

Just look at the first paragraph of his famous catechism

"The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution. "

This literally the opposite of Stirners though - completely subordinating yourself to an external idea - in this instance revolution.

>Depends on how seriously he misunderstood him.

Lets say he failed to understand his nominalism or made the error of reification

In the first two centuries there is not in the Apostolic Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, if we except Theophilus of Antioch (180), a single quotation properly so called from this Epistle.

Yea those jew church fathers sure pulled the wool over my eyes.

Is it true that you were working on an essay about Orthodoxy?

Just run and hide from anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Run into your Savior's giant asshole and hide in his shit.

barcodes contain the sign of the beast

I was and somewhat still am.
I got sidetracked with so many things that it's generally taking me forever. I have a lot going on here and I only have a decent time to post here after work and before bed - such as now - and so I'm just struggling to get all my work done. I also made a promise I'd have the essay/Q&A ready for the next Catholic General so I'm holding off those until it's done.

>Belgium being this stupid

What does Christianity say about racism?

FRESH BREAD

>to hide their shameful history

Persecution, testing is a true sign that God takes the best. Remember the persecution of the early Christians.

22. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
(Matthew 10:22)

30. But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
(Mark 10:30)

Conquest, power and riches is a reason of pride for Catholics. Another proof that Catholics have fallen away from Christianity.

Hold on, are you a girl?

...

Sheer hatred of others, it rejects.
The idea of races being distinctly different in performance, it is neutral to.

I would recommend Apostolic Generals.

24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
(Matthew 6:24)

I was referring to the Timothy passage. I am a great admirer of St Augustine, and particularly of his Confessions. While as an agnostic, I can't derive the same pleasure a Christian would, it is good to read a philosopher/theologian who isn't so obtuse. Even then, Augustine is in the minority, and for that matter, he is not authoritative to the Orthodox. Even then, what Augustine was dealing with was likely a microscosm compared to what is around today. I don't believe people of the time would have reason to be suspicious of many things contained in the bible, with their own limited knowledge. It is with the acquisition of contrary knowledge that skepticism tends to arise. And what the bible espouses is hardly any more farfetched than what the oracles and poets touted.

The only other oft quoted obscurantist I see quoted is Origen, whose writings also contain heretical teachings.

The sign of the beast is not literal , its just a mark you have in the end times you are with god or with satan, linking it with a barcode is just stupid

She is mine. Pls don't steel

The days of wrath this is when the christians already have been raptured , or maybe the days of wrath are the same as the trumpets

>1And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

>2And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

>3And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

>We are all potential gods
LITERAL
HERESY

lmao at that pic, at least the pentagram/star of David makes sense. If you have to flip an entire word to make it identical to ksi, and add totally unrelated crossed swords, you know your dealing with bullshit. And the "in the name of" is written in cursive, if the "sin" was written normally, it would look pretty different.

And are these evangelist cunts aware that "Allah" is what Arab Christians call God? Or that it is related to Hebrew "eloh" (with the plural of respect, Elohim).

My jimmies are rustled.

>I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

>Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

So Christianity allowed me to hate someone because of his race?

Hmm..that's kinda fucked up.

>So Christianity allowed me to hate someone because of his race?

Re-read my first sentence in again.

Read the Word of God, do not listen to heretics.
11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
(Romans 10:11,12)

That is the great thing , and the most biggest test from god for the white man , will you see someone dumber then you as a brother , or will you shun him

Isn't that the same with Malaysian government in their treatment of Christians and non Muslims

This gotta be the only country that gets a hissy fit over what Christians had been doing long before Islam, that is to use the word, Allah

Maybe but we can all agree that either allah looks like a flacid cock and 2 balls , and he looks like snake

Quite an imagination, but yeah, I guess.

Again, WHO'S DEFINITION!?! Last I remember, the Bible DEFINES Christianity itself. The Bible DOES NOT TEACH Jesus is God. It teaches Jesus is THE SON OF GOD. It teaches Jesus as having an origin, learning obedience, having limited knowledge that God won't share with him, being exalted by God, and subjecting himself to God. To be a Christian is to OBEY Christ and not just believe in him. Only JW are obeying Christ. Again, even outsiders admit that the Trinity, Oneness, and Godman is EXTRABIBLICAL and not Biblical at all.

Wow you tripled the holy numbers after creating a civil christian discussion

Keep fighting the good fight. It's hard in today's society. I felt like I was in the Lions den at University and it wasentally exhausting each day. Luckily I found a philosophy professor that was an Irish Catholic that I had great discussions with.

>The Bible DOES NOT TEACH Jesus is God.
Heresy!
28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
(John 20:28,29)
>Trinity, Oneness, and Godman is EXTRABIBLICAL and not Biblical at all.

Heresy!

19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…
(Matthew 28:19)

Anyone here have thoughts on Aleksander Men and Christianity for the 21st Century?

Yes, he has a serious heresy, with an emphasis in New Age. He is a modernist. I'm Recommend - Daniel Sysoev. He is a martyr of the 21st century. He was killed by Muslims for confessing of Christ. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sysoev

>19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…
>(Matthew 28:19)

Yes and this does not say trinity

co equal in power , jesus does not know when the end times will be , jesus says when he goes to heaven he will go to the father who is greater then him.

some poster posted god exalted jesus , how can god exalt god?, he is the son of god and like thomas says our god , but he is not the most high

Any suggestions or criticisms of the reading list?