Are there any theological contradictions that make your faith tremble from time to time, /christian/s?
The sermon on the mount gives me trouble because many of the verses seemingly contradict with other parts of the NT, like Jesus saying the poor will be filled when He says later that for those who have not more will be taken away. And the turn the other cheek passage seems to contradict with Jesus acting violently in the temple and talking back to His accusers.
>No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. [1 John 3:6]
If you ever sin at all (as everyone - believer or not - does from time to time, as man is sinful by nature), you never knew God in the first place?
Turn the other cheek just means don't get into fights over grudges. Nothing to do with removing the merchants from God's house.
I guess dubs confirm.
Stuff about life in heaven/the new earth. I'm down with striving for the beatific vision and all, but it seems like after that we just all turn into lifeless, sexless drones who just pray every second for eternity and never do anything fun or entertaining. Also the new Jerusalem sounds really tacky with all the gems and shit and it sounds like we'll just be living in a giant prison cube. I like trees
me too. I hope we can get to explore the entire new earth, and hopefully other places as well. I love living in the world ( as in, i love experiencing life, not living in sin or with wordly corcerns ) and i hope we can have similar experiences from the current world in the future as well.
For me it's hell and mass damnata, lately I've been feeling hopeless like giving up and just having fun while this life passes me by. Hell is such a horrible concept, but it makes too much sense
Heaven sounds like being stuck in 2nd Life forever. With no struggle and context of such, pleasure would just turn to smothering numbness.
I'm not overly worried about that, for three reasons:
1) Our bodies - and therefore, our senses and perceptions - will likely be different in Heaven
2) God is not stupid, he surely must be aware that constant joy would eventually be numbed, and will prevent that
3) God created things like the pleasure of eating, the pleasure of exercise, the pleasure of good sex, for us to enjoy on Earth because they were good - and he made us well suited to enjoy them. I don't see why he wouldn't allow us to experience those same pleasures in the New Earth.
the only thing that challenges my faith is my desire to sin and live selfishly.
God is infinitely good and just. There's no reason to worry.
now a sinful life is a real reason to worry
>You see God
>God is the infinite
>Everything good you can think of is included in the infinite (infinity of quality).
The issue is that you're thinking about it from a human perspective. It will not look tacky as gems are just rocks that are found naturally on earth
You only think they appear tacky because you think of the gems that are carved by humans. God is more than a human.
>When you take metaphors as fact statements
It will be fine
You’re living the struggle right now.
He’s explaining the SHEER IMPOSSIBILITY of being saved any works, or any combination of “faith” and works.
It’s faith alone. We’ll never measure up no matter what.
You can't approach how your experience will be in heaven from the base and simple pleasures you perceive on Earth. Heaven is not perfect because it is infinitely full of things that give you base pleasures so you never get bored, just being in the presence of God alone will fulfill you completely forever. We only feel the need to constantly fill ourselves because we are fallen creatures, like a bucket with a hole in it that never lets water completely fill it, in heaven you will be made complete again.
Not a contradiction, but an awesome paradox that makes me wonder: why would a thrice-holy, all just God want to save and bring into His joyful Kingdom a filthy-spewing, evil-loving, ungrateful, hypocritical son of a bitch like me?
"Theological contradiction" is an oxymoron since God Himself is One and cannot, logically, contradict Himself.
Assuming you mean "things that challenge your faith" in a broader sense, not intellectually, only sentimentally, e.g., the problem of suffering.
Not really a contradiction, but I fell prey to the cult of universalism a while back. It's hard to interact with people and think that some of them might go to hell for eternity.
Faith without works is dead
But it is not the works that makes one rtight.
The good works are a product of being made right with God through Jesus Christ. That requires faith. And faith is not of your own doing but it is a gift given to by Jesus Christ.
Any faith you have comes from Christ Jesus himself. It is the faith of Jesus Christ that saves you.
Good works are produced and carried out naturally in response to faith. It's done in autonomy. If you give to the poor with your right hand do not let your left hand know what your right hand has done.
>But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
>But it is not the works that makes one rtight.
yeah, it's the faith with works, because faith without works is dead. quit trying to make something so simple very complicated
>Good works are produced and carried out naturally in response to faith. It's done in autonomy.
that makes no sense, we have free will, and we aren't robots. the holy spirit defines it as a "foot race", you can fail a "foot race".
works will not save you.
faith without works is dead
If works aren't optional, it's literally works based salvation.
If man HAS to go to church or soul winning or repent than that is literally works based salvation and you don't believe that Jesus can save you.
So stop lying to the papist and sin boldy.
>the baptist view is: faith= salvation + works
the Catholic view (2,000 years old) is:
faith without works: dead
faith with works: alive
Both Jesus and Satan being called the Morning Star
17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven
Was the Roman Centurion and the Ethiopian Eunuch converts in Acts, actual gentiles? The Roman Centurion already believed in only God, and the Ethiopian was already reading Isaiah when Philip happened across him.
>But if a person is saved by their faith they'll show good works.
Your error is that you re-define what faith is, all works of the spirit (works of faith) are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but those that have faith can falter, and do bad works, and fall away.
This is why we are called to prayer, to fasting, and to trembling before the Lord our God, as St. Paul and Christ Himself taught us.
*Anything that's not KJV
Ephesians 2:8 in comparison with basically all catholic and orthodox soteriology
Why are you pushing James 2 as a proof text against sola fide if you know they're compatible?
They had a feminist on the radio earlier today, rattling of a list of already debunked feminazi talking points as if they were accepted facts and that made me think for a moment that there is no god.
Ok, so you dont understand Protestant theology then.
Maybe when prots stop schisming and arguing with each other we will take their "theology" seriously.
thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming here
Something something gay mafia.
If you are able to find theological contradictions pray more for decrease your QI and anymore affect your faith.
This is all you need to know of that matter; repent and the Lord will find you once more.
Luke 19:27. Can anyone decipher it.
Anyone who is called to God, and denies Christ, will be slain in the day of Judgement. Which means they will be cast into the pit of Fire, which we know as "the second death".
>>790396 you sound brainwashed and dumb.
Repent furry or else you will only know hellfire.
Anybody who does not practice peaceful beliefs should be subject to the free exercise of unpeace onto themselves.
There is nothing peaceful about animal abuse.
>This is how the Constitution was meant to allow a freedom of religion in USA while preventing unfair advantages against others
You're probably baiting, but the same men who wrote the Constitution also wrote strict laws against beastiality because they knew it's an abomination
>The LARPagan thinks sex with animals isn't abusing the animals
The absolute state of LARPaganry
I don't even think Charlie would stoop so low, and he worships a literal faggot. Go away, sodomite, and repent from your furry perversion!
What? Youre going to have a difficult time proving that, because the people who wrote the Constitution didn't write that into the Constitution. That's why sodomy laws were stuck down as unconstitutional and any other law discriminating against what was originally covered under sodomy is still unconstitutional. If it was once religious discrimination it still is religious discrimination.
This is why tithes and taxes imposed by churches on people's rights to belong to a religion or worship is not a religion, it's a business and strictly against the christian people's rights to assemble or belong to the religion. It's the same concept.
Donations are voluntary but allowing people the right to free exercise is not.
A real christian should understand how we've allowed them their rights to free exercise and according to the Bible they should respectfully allow us our rights to free exercise. It is not neighborly, christian, nor US constitutional to deny these rights to people. I care about christians rights so long as christians are who they say they are.
Yep it's just shit b8
I want to be religious but it just doesn't make sense. If Christianity started 2000 years ago, what about all the humans that lived before that? Despite being older than Islam, it's still such a young religion. How could such a relatively modern thing be true?
In one of the Gospels, Jesus exorcises a demon from a mad man who lives in the catacombs. In another of the Gospels, it's two mad men. This doesn't necessarily shake my faith, but I have a difficult time resolving this contradiction.
The offspring of Christianity is younger than Christianity itself. The son is not the father but he is the offspring of the father.
>what about all the humans that lived before that?
When Christ died, he descended into hell and taught salvation to the souls imprisoned there. The ones who listened were freed and taken to heaven. Google "The Harrowing of Hell".
Just because one of the mad men isn't accounted for doesn't mean he isn't there in the Gospel where Jesus healed one instead of two.
That sounds to me like a a post time justification. I was raised religious, mostly Baptist and Presbyterian, sung in the choir, rang the brllwy, acted in the plays. I really wanna believe, but like I said, it just doesn't make sense to me. Christianity now seems too convenient for a servile race, while jews pull the strings and Muslims carry on with their holy wars.
Some people just don't agree with other people's rights to worship. Have to understand what you're worshiping before jumping onboard.
This is like, you might be interested in going on a cruise called Christianity, but there are some people inviting you to take a ride on the life boats which are a breakoff of the main vessel and unknowingly filled with explosives. They want you to do all the work to row it into the cruise ship where everyone else is sharing the religion and having a good time.
Jews never "pulled the strings" until the last 100 years. Even in britain, the native aristocravy and royal family still held most power and influence. Jews lived in ghettos for millenia until the french revolution and Napoleon.
Jesus has the authority to flip over tables and whip merchants.
whether we have that authority or not is up for debate, and possibly a case-by-case basis.
I have an opinion on the slight differences in the Gospels that someone will call heresy.
I think it's possible that the differences between gospels(which are many) speak of possible realities where Jesus is exactly the same and behaves the same way.
we know that God sees all possible realities, and we know that God wrote the Bible.
all 4 gospels are true regardless. this is simply my theory, which, if it can be successfully refuted, will be abandoned.
That's a corruption of Isaiah 14:12 not found in the original language sources. You only find it in corrupted versions of Isaiah 14:12 which draw from corrupt sources.
And yeah, definitely one of the first proofs of how satanic those modern versions are.
Guess who owns the radio and tv stations right now? And the newspapers?
Yes jews can be terrorists too. Given the chance, bad people use their protected statuses for profit or for more than they're honest beliefs allow for. It's opportunistic predation of other people's rights to worship. This might make people feel well ng for having saved the Jews but saving was never actually wrong. Wrong is the people with the intentions to do wrong in the name of the Lord.
Yes. My point is that jews never had any real power and influence until the last 100 years
Yup. We will see if Jews gain more power, most of the bad christians will become Jews to exploit the unfair advantages. It's like how people lie about cancer and ptsd to gain access to marijuana.
>That's why sodomy laws were stuck down as unconstitutional
Uh no they weren't. First off you seem unfamiliar with the basis of English Common Law and many of the bases for these legal concepts. Secondly it's only a matter of time before a major parts of the civil rights act of 1964 is struck down as unconstitutional due to violating these things. That and wrongly allowing talmudists to legislate from the bench is how this whole situation happened. There never should be any such concept of enforcing anti-discrimination on the populace, it's legally groundless.
>IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity,–the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast; a crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out; for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.
>I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate, in this respect, the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named… Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.
>This the voice of nature and of reason and the express law of God determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance long before the Jewish dispensation by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven; so that this is a universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our antient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burned to death,(n) though Fleta(o) says they should be buried alive; either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the antient Goths.(p) But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging; and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy by statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6, revived and confirmed by 5 Eliz c. 17.
— Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
See "Goldstein's massacre" if you're interested for more on this. You should still be able to find it on youtube.
I would tend to disagree with this analysis. For instance they were very influential in the "enlightenment" period with humanism being nothing but a thinly veiled kabbalism philosophy. There were many banker dynasties that go back that far and more, which controlled and influenced a lot of the state churches doctrines regarding them over the years. Their elite has more or less always been in the rulers of the darkness of this world, and in spiritual wickedness in high places.
It can't be struck down as unconstitutional unless people are intending to strike down the Constitution itself. You'll have to be more specific on how it could be struck down, otherwise you don't really know you're conspiring against the USA which is a serious crime. The only people who get away with avoiding those consequences are not really american citizens but any American citizen who is found guilty of contributing is still under the jurisdiction of US law and can be tried for treason.
Also how does that add up with this?
>It can't be struck down as unconstitutional unless people are intending to strike down the Constitution itself.
>You'll have to be more specific on how it could be struck down, otherwise you don't really know you're conspiring against the USA which is a serious crime.
How could it be struck down? The United States Constitution provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble,'
Included in this, the first amendment, has always been the freedom of association. The US government really doesn't have the right to outlaw certain organizations on an anti-discrimination basis. Nor does it have the right to specify "protected group" status limited to certain individuals but not others. Both of those things violate the freedom of association guaranteed by the first amendment. And are outclassed by the first amendment. All it would take is the right case to be made for this to be established and the civil rights acts 1964 or a large part of it, to be overthrown as unconstitutional.
The right to peaceably assemble is not synonymous with the right to lie. Perjury is illegal on all floors and in the supreme court that constitutes as fraud against the USA which is also a major crime. This is why striking down the civil rights act is not permanent because striking down the civil rights act is in turn a violation of other people's right to peaceably assemble. One person's rights may not be misconstrued to take rights from another. Misconstruction of the constitution for such purposes is also a major crime.
Never forget, the 9th amendment USC. This is why armed robbery is illegal. It is peaceful to assemble with people who have guns but it is not legal to use your assembly to rob a bank.
The US claims to be "one nation under God" but it was a completely secular state from the beginning.
1776 was a revolution against throne and altar, it was the leadup to the French Revolution.
>Perjury is illegal on all floors and in the supreme court that constitutes as fraud against the USA which is also a major crime. This is why striking down the civil rights act is not permanent
I quoted the first amendment and noted how people have the freedom of association at least according to a constitutional legal basis. Everything I just said is true and not a fraud. The first amendment really does say that. How is any of that false?
You have to first show what part of what I said is fraudulent, and to argue a case for legal fraud you would have to prove that I had the intent of committing fraud, otherwise every time an attorney sincerely argued a case that was found to be untrue that attorney would have committed fraud! No, he sincerely argued for his case, there is no intent of criminal fraud on his part.
>One person's rights may not be misconstrued to take rights from another.
Exactly my point. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of association and that includes assemblies of people you don't like who wish to band together. We cannot impede them from making an organization or running a company on an anti-discrimination basis. Just as it is to each individual to make decisions about their personal conduct. The US government cannot take away its citizens' right to associate given under the first amendment protections afforded by the US Constitution. All it would take is the right case to be decided in court for the "civil rights act" to be struck down as unconstitutional.
Additionally no person has the right to decide what constitutes a "protected group" under the same legal basis. Nobody has that kind of power. Nobody has the right to say in an official capacity that "we're going to protect one group, but not these other groups because we decided according to humanism and the talmud that they aren't protected." That's also against the Constitution because ironically, that is discrimination by the government, which is also unconstitutional.
One nation under God, not one nation under one god. God is synonomous of all religions. God is anyone's belief and that is what makes our nation One. It's very specifically understandable.
Yes there were bankers, slave owners, userers, influencers for sure. But they weren't always the ruling elite that they are now..and also i guess they could have different degrees of influence in each country, like england, america, and so on. But less so on places like Spain, Portugal, Austria, and so on.
It's fraud if you say the first amendment allows you to assemble to prevent other people from practice because the ninth amendment says your first amendment may not be construed to deny other people's rights to practice. If you own property you may not use that property to prevent my ownership of property and so on. If your assembly creates undue hardship on my constitutional rights to practice my beliefs of sex with farm animals, when you own a herd of 100 cows and my practice does not actually deprive you of your ownership then there is nothing unconstitutional about my practices.
Constitutionally everybody should be allowed to own a cow and if we may not due to property availably restrictions then the Constitution allows for people who believe in sex with animals to assemble on whoever is hoarding property and cows in violation of my rights.
Apply this to religion everybody is allowed to have a place of worship and access to free exercise of such. This prevents stagnation and let's say the freedom of religion was created to prevent things like communism.
Also vast majority of jews lived in ghettos, that's a fact..But i won't deny that they had some degree of influence in some instances in history, but the power they have now is unprecendented in history
Claiming it's OK to strike down rights is wrong. Nobody can't strike down rights without being unpeacefully assembled.
Imagine being this indoctrinated with Western relativism out of the Frankfurt school.
Go read the first commandment, fren.
But at least we aren't clinging to the fantasy that America is a Christian place.
Let's look at this another way. That is fear mongering. Fear mongering is causing "un-rest."
Un-doing people's rights is un-assembly and that is un-constitutional.
Un-assembly is disassembly is opposite of assembly and it is disgusting to the Constitution.
The great thing about this countries religious freedoms it allows multiple beliefs and not everybody would practice their right to have sex with animals and therefore what is depicted in your photo cannot happen in the USA. That's what makes it a right and not an obligation and the only obligation we have is to allow people their rights.
Sorry I might have misinterpreted your photo.
Everything I said was true just apply what I've said to freedom to worship God how one sees fit.
You cannot have pluralism and yet believe in objective “rights”.
The picture is Moses condemning the idolatry of the ancient Israelites. They decided to worship a golden cow instead of almighty God. You see this in the modern world where people worship their race, their constitution, “human rights”, or “Western civilisation” as an idol designed to replace God.
Saying all religions are the same is just blasphemy and inaccurate. God gave us the first commandment firstly because it is most important.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Proverbs 9:10.
Incorrect. Everyone has rights in the USA and religions have the right to idolize here. This is why christians idolize the cross and statues of Jesus Christ. My beliefs don't require me to idolize cows but I would worship by having sex with cows. Likewise christians worship by practicing Christmas. The cow is not god but the practice brings me closer to what is universally named God.
That is idolizing the first commandment. The first commandment allows us to worship God when facing opposition from actual idolatry. It is not to be worshiped itself. Therefore the idol is a catalyst to worship and that's why it was given to us. God is in the idol, god is not the idol.
>It's fraud if you say the first amendment allows you to assemble to prevent other people from practice
If the practice is criminal then it should be reported to the authorities and law enforcement. And if a practice is criminal then I should also be allowed to support the legal framework and the legislation to pass against it in a peaceful manner.
>the Constitution allows for people who believe in sex with animals to assemble on whoever is hoarding property and cows in violation of my rights.
You sound like a sodomite straight out of Genesis 19. Please follow due process and don't promote threats on here. Allow the case to be made orderly in court. The powers that be will ultimately decide this.
>Claiming it's OK to strike down rights is wrong.
Abortionists claim their right to kill children, but this violates the child's right to life. Slave owners claim their right to trade slaves, drug dealers claim their right to trade narcotics, whoremongers claim their right to prostitute people. All those trample of the rights of the rest of us, they violate the natural law and they need to be stricken down in court and the case will be made against it. You've greatly oversimplified things in order to promote your self interest. But fortunately, that won't be tolerated.
Hmm…You must not be a true christian or law abiding American citizen if you feel that way. There's supposed to be a separation of church and state but the state is supposed to respect people's beliefs.
>>Abortionists claim their right to kill children, but this violates the child's right to life. Slave owners claim their right to trade slaves, drug dealers claim their right to trade narcotics, whoremongers claim their right to prostitute people.<<
All of these things infringe on other people's rights and they are not the same as a person's right to practice sex with farm animals. All of those things are a true "taking" conversion or a business while sex is akin to kissing a cross. Nothing was taken when someone kisses the cross or kneels and bows to the east.
Not to be misunderstood, you also have the right to not worship God or live in this country if it bothers you.
The courts here are corrupt and they do not take people's rights seriously. It's the same reason why we are having a communication dysfunction here. I'm not threatening anyone I'm just letting you know your rights and the consequences people would face when violating mine. Some people including the courts just don't care about other people's rights and thats what requires violent representation. I don't want that, but without rights who has a choice?
>Are there any theological contradictions that make your faith tremble from time to time, /christian/s?
pagan fishes for a crack in the wall so they can find an attack vector.
get behind me satan.
The concept of Elohim multiple gods makes one wonder. In corinthians there’s a bit about there being other gods etc. While in genesis let’s make man in “out” image. Does not shake my faith but is interesting. Now the Dead Sea scrolls, book of Enoch specifically creeps me out. And in relation to Jesus, in Matthew when he says he’s here to fulfill the law but says >surely you’ve heard an eye for an eye “exodus laws for the Jews” >turn the other cheek I think he was trying to show other ways of law idk
I thought it referred to turning your head in such a way that someone was forced to slap you with their right hand and thus they had to treat you like an equal, since they generally slapped around slaves with their left hand? It's been ages since I've heard that though, so maybe I remember it wrong.
Not a frequent user of this board, so pardon me if I spout too much heresy, but I always found the concept of hell to be a tad unfair given its basis.
As I understand it, hell is a place/plane where the wicked and sinners/etc. will be punished for what they have done in their lives. Problem for me is, isn't eternity, technically speaking, too much?
Say, for a man who lived the entirety of his life in relative peace and charity, but commited murder due to rage and died without repenting, being tortured for eternity isn't a tad unfair?
For example, wouldn't a more err… acceptable solution be to give a soul such punishment until it completely, wholeheartedly repents and regrets what it has done, then giving it acess to heaven or maybe another attempt at life?
That always bugged me when people told me of god as wholly kind and just.
Please enlighten me, as I am not an avid reader of the scriptures, just a mere worker. Thanks in advance.
>Not a frequent user of this board, so pardon me if I spout too much heresy, but I always found the concept of hell to be a tad unfair given its basis.
>As I understand it, hell is a place/plane where the wicked and sinners/etc. will be punished for what they have done in their lives. Problem for me is, isn't eternity, technically speaking, too much?
God is eternal and infinite. An offense against God demands equally great reparation. It is not that God is petty and vengeful for His own sake, but rather that, if you put your hand in cold water, you will feel the pain of cold to some degree, and if you freeze your hand in ice, you will feel the pain of cold to a much greater degree, but God is infinitely greater and more dangerous for our fallen nature than whatever analogy I would write here. At the final judgement, the glory of God will permeate all of creation, and we will enter into the eternity of God - which will be eternal bliss for those who love Him and eternal torment for those who hate Him.
The saved cannot receive eternal life if the condemned do not receive eternal punishment, and the condemned cannot receive eternal punishment if the saved do not receive eternal life.
>For example, wouldn't a more err… acceptable solution be to give a soul such punishment until it completely, wholeheartedly repents and regrets what it has done, then giving it acess to heaven or maybe another attempt at life?
The time for repentance and corrective punishment is here and now, in the life we're given. This time cannot last forever, or else it would mean Christ would never return and the righteous would never find their salvation. In fact, this is why God cursed us with death - so that, after eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, we would not also eat of the fruit of life and live eternally in sin. Death motivates us to repent before it is too late.
>Are there any theological contradictions that make your faith tremble from time to time
Not any more. The clear opposition of Ezekiel 18 to Romans 9 at one point led me to disregard Christianity as a crock because those two chapters completely oppose one another on the nature of God and the duty of man. One is firmly Calvinist (Romans 9) and the other is Armenian. They can't be reconciled. Since that is the case, and since almost every Christian church maintains the tenant that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God then it followed that Christianity was nonsense since one of their main tenants was clearly false.
However, with time I realized that the bible is not the complete or infallible word of God, that the word of God is actually written into the fabric of reality. The claim by religious institutions that the word of God is only expressed by the writing of men is an arrogant and despicable proclamation that makes the scripture in the bible into an idol rather than an aid.
Once I realized that then I was able to place my faith in God and not in men, so I don't become conflicted and my faith isn't challenged by the opinions of men.
If everything is prophesied then what difference does it make? Know God and guide others to know God, and have faith that in the end evil is destroyed.
… Romans 9 is only the middle of a longer point Paul is making.
Have you tried to simply read Romans 1-11 as a whole, without thinking of them as individual chapters?
Because even in Romans alone, if we treat Romans 1-11 in isolation from each other, Paul contradicts himself in all of them. You don't even need to go reach into Ezekiel to conclude that the Bible contradicts itself, in that case.
>However, with time I realized that the bible is not the complete or infallible word of God, that the word of God is actually written into the fabric of reality.
Why not both? Christians have always asserted that both are true.
None. The universe is not mine and how it is, is how it is. What I believe is not going to change what is. The golden rule and better way were put forward and we listen and follow at our own taking for better or worse. What is dropped on our heads is either dropped from the heavens or isn't but the better path remains the same. It is the only way.
I have a fear similar to this. I worry about losing the concept of self: all that makes me who I am. If that is lost, then can it really be said that I'm alive? What is there preventing the possibility that it won't be me there, but an idealized version of me? Strip away all I've struggled for, all I've lost, all I've overcome, all I've failed, and all I've succeeded in, and what is left? What value is there in triumph if there is no trying?
I look back at all the work I've done, and I know full well that it is imperfect, but that doesn't matter to me. What matters is that it is mine, that it is unique; irreplaceable and impossible to replicate the essence of. When I put to pen and pencil to paper, it can be traced, it can be copied, but it can never be truly "created" again: much like ourselves, in a way. We are all the first, last, and only instance of all that we are. This is not to equate evil with good, for they are very real and quite distinct, but rather to call into question into what gives reason why there are many of us, all unique, and where there is not just one human if all were to be the same. It's not how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but why would they dance in the first place? Why should they dance? Would they want to dance? More importantly, would we want to dance, and should we? Do angels even have a concept of friendship? Will we?
If that is a sin, a faulty way of perception, then surely my perception will be uprooted and changed entirely lest my pride get the better of me. If that perception - that pattern of thought, creativity, and imagination - is to be shed, then who is left but an idealized shell of what once was and, unfortunately, not to be? Heaven often sounds like all that we are will be purged and replaced: a sort of celestial communism where everyone has the same desires, is the same person by their fruits, and cannot conceive existence in any other way. Perhaps the greatest fear of all these is that the capacity to fear, in itself, would be eliminated. We'd be nothing but stones: rocks that just 'are.' Everything is fulfilled, thus follows an unchanging eternity to which we cannot even feel fatigued of like mice unaware of their cage - unable to even fathom the concept of a cage.
The only shining hope through these dreadful thoughts is free will. To have free will, there must be choice. For there to be choice, there must be true consequence. If there is consequence, choice, and thus will, then there is the hope that who we are will still be preserved. Cleansed, enlightened to be sure, but the real us, all our thoughts, imaginations, memories, and ambitions, will remain. We could still choose our paths, but perhaps with even more freedom than we have now. In free will, personal agency, and the purpose behind us all being unique, lies the only hope I have against all this.
I don't mean to attack anything or anyone, but to express these fears; the fear of losing fear, oddly enough.
And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
— Revelation 14:13
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
— 1 Corinthians 3
If homosexuality is wrong, then why is my 'G-spot' located up my ass?
>if pleasure of the flesh is sin then why do I like
I used to be confused by the kingdom of God concept, when does it start, 'this generation…'.
Then I realized that the kingdom is wherever somebody has god as master and everything fits.
I used to be confused by the way Jesus never says I am God literally, but then I realized that the 4 levels of interpretation of the scriptures would then encourage man to follow him in saying the same, which is blasphemy. There are videos floating around of islamic "professors" who say the bible denies Jesus as God and I see point after point in the scriptures, and the scriptures don't assert it, in fact you can see they don't even disprove the assertion that Jesus and God are an Identity (stronger assertion than the Trinity concept).
Basically, whatever your belief, the scriptures are amazing. Theologians are a mixed bag IMHO but they are trying to put the sea in the proverbial hole in the sand, so…
maybe the g spot is the only place of sensitivity left, while the penis is strangled by 3x a day fapping.
No seriously, as a male your first instinct should be to rape, not to have the prostate tickled, which is quite irrelevant reproduction wise. If a sizable percentage of people likes that, then something is wrong, exposure to estrogen-like substances, porn, modern lifestyle, mind control, aliens, whatever.
I suggest a bit of empirism. Look at the people who chose to have fun. Rockstars, billionaires, mafia men. Their eyes are void, they get dependent on drugs, suicide young.
Consider moreover that not all who choose the wide path end up succesfully evil like those people. Most drift into self destruction. Because Fun is not Happiness. Happiness is knowing you are. And Happiness itself, it is not the Truth.
Stefan Molyneux as a whole. The logical argument against Deity seems rock-solid.
What's the argument?
>The saved cannot receive eternal life if the condemned do not receive eternal punishment, and the condemned cannot receive eternal punishment if the saved do not receive eternal life.
that doesn't make sense.
What part does not make sense? The damned are those separated from the elect. Freedom from the damned is a necessary part of Heaven, because they cannot be in the presence of God.
Therefore, if the elect are still among the damned, the elect are deprived of Heaven.
No, we will have the exact same bodies, just cured of any disability
Checked Holy dubs
>or else it would mean Christ would never return and the righteous would never find their salvation.
People already get their salvation when they die right now.
Why do some translations of Matthew 5:22 contain the words "without a cause" and others don't? Is one right and the other wrong? The Bible isn't supposed to be changed. Are there any other parts of the Bible that might have been changed, whether by adding or removing something?
Only stuff post Vatican II mostly. Let's say stuff up to the 1800s or so nothing bothers me much at all. I'm very thankful for St. Athanasius though because I think thinking about him also made me really understand more of what faith actually is. He didn't need a council to tell him what was true, faith did. I hope that a council will come to kill all the various heresies that are extremely prominent in the church right now, but until then we still have faith.
It's considered to be a variant or a footnote added in. Regardless that is considered to be an authoritative interpretation. Here is Lapide's commentary, and then the Catena:
Whosoever is angry. The Greek adds εικη, rashly, without cause. But the Roman Codices, S. Jerome, and S. Augustine (lib. 1, Retract., c. 19) omit it. But those or similar words must be understood. For unlawful anger is what is here treated of; since anger for a just cause, as for example against sin and sinners, is both lawful and praiseworthy. Anger has been for this very purpose implanted in manís nature, that it should make them brave against vice, and against those things which are really their enemies.
Observe, anger is the thirst for vengeance, and is itself a mortal sin if it deliberately contrive, or wish for, any serious evil of body, or goods, or reputation of oneís neighbour, or rejoice in such evils, even though he deserve them, for he who is angry rejoices in them not as fruits of justice but of revenge. But anger is a venial sin if it desire some trifling calamity to oneís neighbour, even though the anger be violent, and flame out both internally and externally. Lastly, anger is no sin at all if it be assumed from zeal for righteousness, for the extirpation of sin and sinners. Such was the anger of Mattathias when he slew the legate of Antiochus, who was forcing the Jews to sacrifice to idols. (1 Mac. ii. 25.) Such was the anger of Christ when He drove the buyers and sellers out of the Temple.
Hear S. Chrysostom on the words in Ps. iv., Be ye angry and sin not: “We may be angry lawfully, for Paul was angry with Elymas, and Peter with Sapphira. But I should not call this anger without qualification. I should call it philosophy, carefulness. The father is angry with his child, but it is because he cares for him. It is he who avenges himself who is rashly angry, but he who corrects the faults of others is of all men the meekest. For even God is angry, not to revenge Himself, but to correct us. Let us therefore imitate Him. Thus to act is divine, otherwise it is human anger.” Hear also S. Gregory (on Job v. 2, Anger slayeth the foolish man): “There is an anger which springs from zeal for righteousness. This is the anger which, because Eli had it not, he roused against himself the vengeance of the wrath of God. For the sword of the eternal Ruler flames against him who is lukewarm in correcting the vices of those who are placed under him.”
(Lapide is the most recent and probably the most complete very holy commentary. Sadly most of it hasn't been translated from Latin yet!)
And from the Catena:
Pseudo-Chrys.: He who is angry without cause shall be judged; but he who is angry with cause shall not be judged. For if there were no anger, neither teaching would profit, nor judgments hold, nor crimes be controlled. So that he who on just cause is not angry, is in sin; for an unreasonable patience sows vices, breeds carelessness, and invites the good as well as the bad to do evil.
Jerome: Some copies add here the words, without cause; but by the true reading [ed. note: Vid. also in Eph. iv. 31. Augustine says the same speaking of Greek codd. Retract. i. 19. Cassian rejects it too, Institut. viii. 20. Erasmus, Bengel. follow. vid. Wetstein. in loc. who would keep the word on the ground of a “consensus,” of Greek and Latin Fathers and Versions. There is an agreement of existed MSS. also.] the precept is made unconditional, and anger altogether forbidden. For when we are told to pray for them that persecute us, all occasion of anger is taken away. The words “without cause” then must be erased, for “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.”
Pseudo-Chrys.: Yet that anger which arises from just cause is indeed not anger, but a sentence of judgment. For anger properly means a feeling of passion; but he whose anger arises from just cause does not suffer any passion, and is rightly said to sentence, not to be angry with.
Aug., Retract., i, 19: This also we affirm should be taken into consideration, what is being angry with a brother; for he is not angry with a brother who is angry at his offence. He then it is who is angry without cause, who is angry with his brother, and not with the offence.
Aug., City of God, book 14, ch. 9: But to be angry with a brother to the end that he may be corrected, there is [p. 177] no man of sound mind who forbids. Such sort of motions as come of love of good and of holy charity, are not to be called vices when they follow right reason.
Pseudo-Chrys.: But I think that Christ does not speak of anger of the flesh, but anger of the heart; for the flesh cannot be so disciplined as not to feel the passion. When then a man is angry but refrains from doing what his anger prompts him, his flesh is angry, but his heart is free from anger.
Catena Aurea: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/
>It's considered to be a variant or a footnote added in.
No, not really. To remove it is actually an inaccuracy that needs to be corrected. After all, whosoever arbitrarily removes his words will face serious consequences.
In this case its actually inserting sort of a contradiction as elsewhere like in Ephesians 4:26 it positively says to be angry but without sinning. That's why you'll often see people bring it up (Matthew 5:22) as a flaw in some translations which leave out the full sentence.
Jerome literally explains his case that it should not be there. Also St. Irenaeus already deals with the case of if something is accidentally changed, such as 616 vs 666, if it's accidental sure it's okay if the person was doing it on purpose it's bad. The consensus is that the word isn't there though, that's why it doesn't appear in any modern Bible. Regardless the interpretation is the same as I've referenced from all the commentary. Did you not read it? Are you a Protestant?
I actually looked into this following my initial bump and theg guy's case against theism/deism is absolutely laughably weak, I have no idea why it poses any problem at all for >>796894 . Molyneux essentially says in order for something to exist it has to be material, God is immerterial, therefore God does not exist. Pic related
I wouldn't say tremble, but I struggle with always seeing the world with love… when a part of me wants to see it all burn. I used to want to be a cop, but I've always known I'd probably be a bad one. Harsh justice has appealed to me since I was a kid. It's not something I've completely dropped, even after believing in the Gospel. It comes out at times when I hear news of abuse around the world. That's when I wish God would press the Reset button.. or I daydream about taking things in my own hands.
You aren't entirely wrong. All of us deserve death. Never forget that. Instead of obsessing over your brothers sin, worry more about your own.
I understand.. I really do. But I'm not necessarily pointing out at individuals.. but entire power structures. It's all like an impersonal behemoth in my mind. Hollywood, Trade, Government.. they're all involved. Our own churches, for heaven's sake. Along with other community outlets (like schools and the Boy Scouts). And it isn't because I want to condemn sins for their own sake - I only want to stop the suffering. I only have victims in mind. Not "sin" per se. It's more a pragmatic desire for action rather than anything spiritual.
And I don't think mere lawmaking and shining a light on these things will help either. No matter what clout you have. There have been famous people with plenty of clout who tried to take on this stuff in recent years and they're all mysteriously dead. You've heard their names, but everyone is duped into believing the cover stories that they're all suicides or illness cases. Everyone seemingly lives in a stupor and doesn't realize just how hellish it all is. It's the Matrix. And even when you first are open to it, it's so much worse than what you first think too.
Sometimes when I realize how large the problem is and how helpless anyone has been at fighting it, I think that there needs to be an actual WAR against all of it. As in executions on a grand scale. Not these smaller measures. Either that or everything needs to burn.
I have to wonder if Abraham had the same thoughts, seeing that he was also a partaker in some bloody battles… yet he pleaded for mercy for Sodom. I have to wonder if that was his first thought. He probably knew everything about it and cringed every time he had to be even near it.. and plead with God that such a place begone. But when God finally came, Abraham realized he was all talk and it frightened him when he realized what God was going to do. Am I going to feel this way? Am I merely all talk too?
The people who control these groups, participate in them, they have names and addresses. Furthermore, give a smart man a microphone and an hour and you will get an idiot.
Put yourself in the shoes of each of those people and really think about why they act the way they do. Dismissively saying they are "just" degenerates is not helpful here. What circumstances lead them there, what character defect do they lack that you take for granted? For that is through the grace of God what you have, and they too. Now what if you were in their position, realistically. Think of the temptations you are afflicted with, and what you succumb to. What error they fall into is the same sensation you experience, but they are not given the grace of God to see. Then think of what great low you would be in if you lacked that grace. That is how you empathize.
You suffer from dehumanization. This is a deliberate process brought about through trauma and manipulation. I do not think you are one of the few who are "natural-born" killers. Such people have no real remorse or concern of it, it simply is. Even if you are a "natural-born" it has not been approached or expressed healthily. It is ok for you to be either, the goal is the same. For the former, truly become intimate with killing and death. Not unhealthy and obsessive, but comfortable with it. Then realize that this too can and will happen to you. When you are there, then maybe you will be prepared to even seriously say you can and should kill a man. The act of killing should be a very pensive action, because you risk eternal damnation in the action. Crusaders are blessed, for their pope has to answer for it Really, through faith alone are we redeemed and justified, and faith is terrifying and uncomfortable.
I apologize for the rambling, I think you understand all of this but struggle in application. It's not often I find someone besides my priest who is as interested in this topic as I am. Christ is not just Fully God or Fully Human, he is both in one. It is not either forest or trees, but both. Likewise, Men and Humankind are one and the same, as a Man and his Nation, as a Man and a Collective, as Man and Church. It is misguided and futile malice that fuels error, something you and I are guilty of, and all Men are.
The point for the last paragraph: trying to say that a man is innocent but a group is not, or that a group is innocent but the man is not is pointless. You are still condemning them by saying they deserve death. The goal is to never condemn your fellow Man, but to be fair in your judgement. "Forgive me, as I forgive you, and pray for me as I pray for you. May God be merciful to us. Do not damn yourself for my sake."
ID changed. Same anon. It's strange that you made me the dehumanizing one, when what comes to my mind when I say these things are their victims and wanting it all to stop. I experience sadness for them. It's not like I'm coldhearted. I'm just selective on who deserves love, I guess. This is what I struggle with. Even Jesus pronounced greater judgements on crimes against children. I'm just trying to make sense on how he balances that with everything else he says.
When you say "faith alone", I'm going to assume you're a Protestant. I'm not going to disrespect that, but it seems we'll never agree if that's your overall stance. Faith Alone equalizes everyone's crimes and tells people they're perpetually saved. This is dangerous to me.
You are dehumanizing them. When you say these people deserve death, it's done with implication that you or the victims don't as well. None of us deserve love, yet even to the most vile and reprehensible is offered it by God. You're putting them on the same level as beasts, subjugated to the will of men. Desire justice and righteousness, but do so without error. How many times did Christ rebuke the Apostles for haughtiness? The Israelites? The Pharisees?
I wanted to end proactively, but ended up misspelling. It is by Grace alone that we are saved, but salvation can only be received through faith, and faith without works is dead. The longer I take, the more prone I am to make a mistake. I apologize for being inaccurate.
None of us deserve love, yet it is freely given. All of us deserve death, yet Christ destroyed it. We are unworthy of his Mercy, but he offers it to us by Grace, and it is by Faith through Works that we may attain it. He has instructed us to be like Christ, to suffer for God as he has suffered for Us. To be as merciful to each other as He has been to Us. He takes in those who have been vagabonds, welcomes them. He loves them that hate Him. This should be our goal.
Yet, at the same time, God is jealous and protective of His people. He sends guardian angels to watch over them. He guides them from the clutch of Pharoah. He grants them triumph over the foes. Of course, now the enemy He triumphs over is Death and His people are all those willing to take up His name, we are not so great as God. We are lesser, and so our triumphs and our problems are much lesser in comparison to the of Gods. Yet, we should treat it very seriously, as seriously as God treats His work. So we must manage our flawed institutions, wage our wars, raise our families, and suffer the petty indignities all for the sake of and with remembrance of Christ.
I hope this is helpful.
>You are dehumanizing them. When you say these people deserve death
Actually everyone deserves HELL, which is worse than death. It is not dehumanizing. It's dogma that everyone deserves Hell. That doesn't make it dehumanizing
>When you say these people deserve death, it's done with implication that you or the victims don't as well
Do not misquote me.
Okay you're right sorry
No problem. At least you admitted your mistake, more than most do.
>The consensus is that the word isn't there though, that's why it doesn't appear in any modern Bible.
That doesn't mean it's accurate.
>Regardless the interpretation is the same
The real Matthew 5:22 is indeed true, but the partial form of it is actually misleading others down a wrong path. You can't get the full doctrine when things are being changed.
>as I've referenced from all the commentary.
So what's the point of that? You can't go changing scripture and expect it to still be true. It's good to agree on the true meaning if you do, but that doesn't change the fact of advocating a corruption of Jesus' own words when someone actually removed (partially) the sentence. You can't get away from that without acknowledging its incorrectness.
>Did you not read it?
What does it matter? Ephesians 4:26, and like scripture establishes things when it comes to doctrine. Are you implicitly questioning its foremost place by disregarding it?
>Are you a Protestant?
No. Also nice subject change at the end.
What on earth are you talking about. I legitimately can't understand what you're writing. Are you an orthodox? What on earth are you. Are you a Christian? Jehovah's Witness? What are you? You sound just like a prot who on earth would say Ephesians 4:26, c'mon you're a prot of some sort aren't you? You talk just like a prot.
Why do people think that being co heirs with Christ means being a soulless choir drone sentenced for eternity of singing? This retarded meme must end.
Also, I doubt that any temporal action or pleasure would be fun on a long run when you are immortal. Only fun guaranteed to be eternal is relationship with God.
To be honest, I'm troubled whenever people bring up supposed Biblical errors contradictions, even if I find the contextual explanation.
Whether it's between different Gospels or other parts of the Bible, or between the Bible and modern science.
Also the existence of multiple churches, which have different answers to different questions, like how to interpret parts of scripture, whether or not something is allegory, Revelation interpretation, whether or not eternal sin can be committed, etc.
How do people answer the supposed differences in each Gospel's account of the resurrection and the time after? What about the disputed ending of Mark, or the claims that the Gospels were written by someone else about 30 years later?
I think I can half answer this. The Ethiopians do have some Jewish roots. In fact, due to the fact that they have Jewish ancestry they are eligible for citizenship in isreal. But due to the fact that they're black they do experience a lot of discrimination.
>How do people answer the supposed differences in each Gospel's account of the resurrection and the time after?
It's literally written by different men, inspired by the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't work like a fallen angel possessing people.
>works won't save me so they won't condemn me either.
oh you sweet summer child