Is Christianity the most cucked religion?

[Mothra1988]

the only competition for Christianity in europe was the roman imperial cult

ive seen this stupid fucking idea posted all the time, there really aren't many religions in the world

historically and currently, the only competition for Christianity are sects of Christianity

I meant other Christian churches. The apostles went out and started a bunch of other churches. It was never supposed to be just one single hierarchy centered in Rome. The Bible specifically references the church in Jerusalem ran by James the Just as being important.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

No thanks. Also you're trying to gatekeep Chrsitanity/conservative politics discussion with a "I LOVE LOLICON!" user identity who repeats "Jesus is a jew!" asshurt verbatim from /pol/. No one takes you seriously. Alternatively, I didn't put whatever is or is not my sexual preference in my user name like you did, lolicon.

Says the "lesbian" (man in a dress) trying to gatekeep Christianity and conservative politics. No wonder you popped up here again once June ended because you were finished with your pride month "fun".

the only competition for Christianity in europe was the roman imperial cult

ive seen this stupid fucking idea posted all the time, there really aren't many religions in the world

historically and currently, the only competition for Christianity are sects of Christianity

There were many religions in the Roman Empire that weren't the Imperial cult, it's just the Imperial cult just claimed primacy over them and most all were fine with it since the ones who weren't (i.e. druids) were killed. Like for instance Manichaeism is one of the more famous. It's definitely not Christianity since it was more of a fusion of Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism, and it had a presence throughout Europe (although North Africa is the most famous because St. Augustine wrote about it). Other Gnostic sects count too, but were more Christian in nature.

 

[Zagrim]

Says the "lesbian" (man in a dress) trying to gatekeep Christianity and conservative politics. No wonder you popped up here again once June ended because you were finished with your pride month "fun".

There were many religions in the Roman Empire that weren't the Imperial cult, it's just the Imperial cult just claimed primacy over them and most all were fine with it since the ones who weren't (i.e. druids) were killed. Like for instance Manichaeism is one of the more famous. It's definitely not Christianity since it was more of a fusion of Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism, and it had a presence throughout Europe (although North Africa is the most famous because St. Augustine wrote about it). Other Gnostic sects count too, but were more Christian in nature.

thats like uhh 4 other religions

when ricky gervagina did his UR GOD IS THE RITE ONE OUT OF THOUSANDS OF RELIGIONS, I didn't really put much thought into it

ricky....buddy.... friendo.... there are a very very limited amount of religions with followers out there that last more than 10-20 years. Some branch davidian shithead getting all of his followers killed after 5 years is not a "competitor" to christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

like I said there are a lot of SECTS of different religions, but very few actual "competing" religions

 

[Lone Wandering Courier]

It's been said before but needs repeating, worshiping a jew god is 100% cuck shit.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

I meant other Christian churches. The apostles went out and started a bunch of other churches. It was never supposed to be just one single hierarchy centered in Rome. The Bible specifically references the church in Jerusalem ran by James the Just as being important.

There are arguments on both sides going back to at least the 4th century about Papal primacy.

Ultimately where they screwed up is making Rome a gigantic Apostolic See that covered all of Western Europe. Back in the Early Middle Ages when things were going to shit and that part of the world was very depopulated, it seemed balanced. Of course as Western Europe recovered and more of the Byzantine Empire was lost to Islam, all of a sudden Rome had a lot more power than its counterparts...

 

[Zagrim]

It's been said before but needs repeating, worshiping a jew god is 100% cuck shit.

the bible literally says slaughter the non believers and take their women and children as war trophies

if that is "cucked" to you... well... good luck

 

[Balalaika Z Bree]

being protestant means you can follow the pope but retain veto power over stupid shit like condom and abortion bans

this is why Catholicism has been a meme for the past 500 years

Being protestant essentially means becoming your own pope and permanently seated ecumenical council almost, or delegating that authority to another.

Contraception closing the door to life in the marital act, and murder of the unborn are not minor issues, they are key issues of obedience to god's will for our marriages and chaste lives outside those holy marriages.

I meant other Christian churches. The apostles went out and started a bunch of other churches. It was never supposed to be just one single hierarchy centered in Rome. The Bible specifically references the church in Jerusalem ran by James the Just as being important.

Every church founded by the Apostles and their successors is important. I think the martyrdoms of St Peter and St Paul in Rome and the seat of Peter remaining their is strong evidence there was supposed to be a special prominence there.

Other Gnostic sects count too, but were more Christian in nature.

I agree they counted as distinct religious groups, possibly entirely separate cults. Perhaps some strayed from the fundamental truths a lot farther than others, but they were not Christian in nature.

It's been said before but needs repeating, worshiping a jew god is 100% cuck shit.

The Creator of all things chose the ancestors of some alive today to be set apart to be his people, in preparation for the Incarnation, that God might overcome sin and death and free us eternally. God is not merely human, that he can be adequately described as a "jew god" or Jewish. One person of the Almighty Trinity took to himself a human nature, through a Jewish woman. So in a sense God the Son is Jewish in his human nature, and certainly the Almighty Trinity is the One True God worshiped though less clearly understood by the ancient Israelites and tragically sought by many of those still waiting for a Messiah to be born who entered Creation over two thousand years ago.

None of this is elevating or promoting cuckoldry, or anything deviant or wicked. The holy family is a perfect example of holy virginity, chastity, and self-sacrificial love.

the bible literally says slaughter the non believers and take their women and children as war trophies

if that is "cucked" to you... well... good luck

Where does it say that? There are specific orders to wipe out specific cities and groups of peoples at a specific time. For that kind of general destruction of all non-believers by the sword I think you might be reading the Koran...

 

[oh no its pipkun]

this is what happens when you listen to your retarded preacher who spews some verbal diarrhea about jesus every sunday

it is literally not possible to write something more militaristic or anti authoritarian than the abrahamic relgions

christ died on the cross bub. he didn't overthrow Rome or the Jews.

 

[BirdUp]

christians’ martyrdom helps nobody (to be fair, most cults waste solidarity)

 

[Mothra1988]

trying to gatekeep Christianity and conservative politics.

You hate Jesus and again you believe democracy should be replaced by authoritarianism and have specifically said so many times on Kiwi Farms. You can't even enter the discussion on Christianity or conservatism because you don't believe in either thing because a you're a butt hurt /pol/tard that is so schizophrenic you bought into an edgy meme ideology that only complete dolts buy into. I may not align perfectly with other Christians or conservatives, but at least I'm not completely opposed to them like you are, you angry manchild.

I know where part of this anger comes from though. The traditional stormfags on /pol/ have been getting their asses kicked by Christian infiltration on that board for multiple years now hilariously. Even the lolcow ecelebs have been replaced by ones claiming to be Christian. Not only do people here not give a fuck about what you think, but fucking 4chan stopped giving a shit too about the "Jesus is a jew on a stick" bullshit and your non-stop butthurt at Donald Trump as well. It's hilarious honestly. Your own dumb beliefs are being supplanted in your hugboxes just like the antique paganism you defended was by ancient Christians. lol

Being protestant essentially means becoming your own pope and permanently seated ecumenical council almost, or delegating that authority to another.

The papacy was a later invention that did not exist in the apostolic age no matter how hard Catholics try to retcon that. Catholics suck at evangelizing, especially internet Catholics. If you would at least own up to your own flaws such as how corrupt the papacy was throughout history and focus on the actual Biblical teachings, people may listen to you more instead of the constant non-stop self-referential appeals to authority like it still the Middle Ages or something and anyone cares when the sins of your church are so infamous they changed the course of history multiple times.

christ died on the cross bub. he didn't overthrow Rome or the Jews.

In a way he did, but I think they're referring to the pre-new-covenant old testament narratives. Christians aren't supposed to be war mongers, although that hasn't stopped certain people from trying to use it as justification for wars, genocides, etc. anyways.

 

[Male Idiot]

It is all fairy tales and fake, so I will worship the one true messiah, Adolf Hitler.

Well, lets hope Allah will have a better run at it.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

The papacy was a later invention that did not exist in the apostolic age no matter how hard Catholics try to retcon that. Catholics suck at evangelizing, especially internet Catholics. If you would at least own up to your own flaws such as how corrupt the papacy was throughout history and focus on the actual Biblical teachings, people may listen to you more instead of the constant non-stop self-referential appeals to authority like it still the Middle Ages or something and anyone cares when the sins of your church are so infamous they changed the course of history multiple times.

What Biblical teachings do Catholic evangelists ignore that would make them somehow effective in your mind? And for that matter, where does the Bible get its authority from?

Sort of hard to evangelize using the Bible by itself when the only reason the Bible exists is the result of Apostolic Tradition. Remember they had to decide what books were inspired canon and which were not.

Well, unless you're middle-class Britons in Victorian England who decided they knew better than Martin Luther and St. Jerome and decided to remove the Apocrypha entirely.

 

[Mothra1988]

What Biblical teachings do Catholic evangelists ignore that would make them somehow effective in your mind? And for that matter, where does the Bible get its authority from?

Sort of hard to evangelize using the Bible by itself when the only reason the Bible exists is the result of Apostolic Tradition. Remember they had to decide what books were inspired canon and which were not.

Well, unless you're middle-class Britons in Victorian England who decided they knew better than Martin Luther and St. Jerome and decided to remove the Apocrypha entirely.

Are you suggesting that the Bible only has authority because of councils that came later long after the original texts were divinely inspired, because that's not how the religion works. Again, this is not about what the books say, it's about self referencing post-apostolic age traditions. I'm not saying those weren't important developments, but the scriptures were already in circulation. It would be like giving importance to Random House for printing it or something instead of just what the text is or whether it is a faithful translation.

I have no problem with the apocrypha. They are important books. Some of the apocrypha may even be divinely inspired imo unlike what certain people say including whatever council or whatever denomination.

Keep in mind there are also probably divenely inspired texts that are lost to history like the original book of Jasher (as opposed to pseudo-Jasher). If more of Paul's epistles were discovered, I would say those are likely divienly inspired too, but still what we have is extremely important.

For a long time, Catholics tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of believers. In some sense, they still try to do that by de-emphasizing its own importance versus ritual and tradition. This month alone, I've probably seen like three or so online tradcaths suggest the Bible doesn't matter because they have their own traditions that are somehow more important. Like I said, self-referential calls to authority trying to own the "prots" isn't going to convert anyone. If it wasn't for Spanish era colonialism, the catholic church would be fucked right now. The only thing I think Catholics may be better at is charity, but there are plenty of non-Catholic Christian charities so it's not a complete disparity.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Are you suggesting that the Bible only has authority because of councils that came later long after the original texts were divinely inspired, because that's not how the religion works. Again, this is not about what the books say, it's about self referencing post-apostolic age traditions. I'm not saying those weren't important developments, but the scriptures were already in circulation. It would be like giving importance to Random House for printing it or something instead of just what the text is or whether it is a faithful translation.

But who says they're divinely inspired? That's the issue, you're still stuck. More effective evangelism starts with the concept of God and man's desire for this God and goes from there.

The New Testament only has authority because of the councils that fixed the canon, there were many different works circulating in the first centuries of the church that claimed to be inspired. These councils decided which books were inspired and should be included and which should not, but it wasn't an arbitrary decision.

For a long time, Catholics tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of believers. In some sense, they still try to do that by de-emphasizing its own importance versus ritual and traditon. This month alone, I've probalby seend like three or soonline tradcaths suggest the Bible doesn't matter becuase they have their own traditons that are somehow more important. Like I said, self-referential calls to authority trying to own the "prots" isn't going to convert anyone. If it wasn't for Spanish era collonialism would be fucked right now. The only thing I think Catholics may be better at is charity, but there are plenty of non-Catholic Christian charities so it's not a complete disparity.

They're Internet tradcaths. They know next to nothing about the theology and just LARP as Catholics from the long-forgotten past of 1962.

One thing you have to remember about the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages is it was inseparable from the social system and culture that existed alongside it. There really weren't any restrictions on translating the Bible into the vernacular or even possessing your own copy but it had to be an authorized version.

And realistically most people couldn't read, let alone afford the cost of a manuscript. So the Church was naturally going to be concerned when someone with education and money started making their own Bibles and Bible translations. If you believe your church is the one true path to salvation, there's no other way to act.

 

[Mothra1988]

But who says they're divinely inspired? That's the issue, you're still stuck. More effective evangelism starts with the concept of God and man's desire for this God and goes from there.

The New Testament only has authority because of the councils that fixed the canon, there were many different works circulating in the first centuries of the church that claimed to be inspired. These councils decided which books were inspired and should be included and which should not, but it wasn't an arbitrary decision.

These questions are irrelevant. Because the councils did not make them divine and the text existed beforehand, sometimes also in compiled form. Sure some groups liked Matthew and others liked Luke, etc. and those were not the Catholic Church. Those people were Christians and their scripture was inspired. Putting them together in the same tome is not what made them divine. The people who compile things are not prophets or else we wouldn't have things like scribal errors and other mistakes in translation, copying, etc.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

These questions are irrelevant. Because the councils did not make them divine and the text existed beforehand, sometimes also in compiled form. Sure some groups liked Matthew and others liked Luke, etc. and those were not the Catholic Church. Those people were Christians and their scripture was inspired. Putting them together in the same tome is not what made them divine. The people who compile things are not prophets or else we wouldn't have things like scribal errors and other mistakes in translation, copying, etc.

How did they know they were divinely inspired, as opposed to a work such as the Shepherd of Hermas or the Gospel of Peter?

All of the evidence we have shows the canonical gospels were known and accepted from an early date but there were many other writings that were known and in use but ended up not being part of the Biblical canon because of the church councils. It wasn't the Catholic or Orthodox or any individual church with apostolic succession that did any of this, it was their ancestor.

Even today not all of these churches agree on the same canon. There are small differences between them with the Ethiopian canon having the largest number.

 

[Zagrim]

Where does it say that?

do you actually read the bible or do you just listen to your local pedo preacher/priest?

the old testament is the most pornographic and violent thing ever written

 

[Mothra1988]

Even today not all of these churches agree on the same canon. There are small differences between them with the Ethiopian canon having the largest number.

Those are much larger differences than you admit to. Like huge cavernous ones. Why do Jesus and Jude elude to passages from Enoch in the New Testament? Can you explain that one to me?

I think I answered you several times now on the other things. You are going in circles. People can be right in some things and wrong in others. The fact a council of human beings correctly chose divine texts to place into a compilation (not even the first compilation mind you or the first similar compilation) does not mean Christians have to respect the decisions of a long series of councils, popes, whatever when they were wrong.

Certain people Catholics consider saints and hold up in high regard got basic facts like Jesus's age wrong. If you want to go down the rabbit hole, I don't think it's going to work out for your argument. No, I don't think the papacy has legitimate apostolic authority. It's a church, but not higher than any other church that has (most) of the basics of the faith correct.

 

[Zagrim]

Why do Jesus and Jude elude to passages from Enoch in the New Testament? Can you explain that one to me?

“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Matthew 5:17


your local preacher/rapist does everything to convince you and your soccer mom that the old testament is not christianity..... it very much is according to doctrine

if you actually followed the old testament you would probably honor kill your preacher and take his wife and kids as spoils of war

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Those are much larger differences than you admit to. Like huge cavernous ones. Why do Jesus and Jude elude to passages from Enoch in the New Testament? Can you explain that one to me?

Probably for the same reason the Old Testament refers to the Book of Jasher and the Book of the Wars of the Lord. These were widely known works and had some kind of religious merit; just because something isn't inspired scripture doesn't mean it's worthless.

None of these canonical differences impact the underlying theology to any meaningful degree. Almost all of the differences between these churches are driven by Christology rather than anything in their Biblical canons that conflict with each other.

I think answered you several times now on the other things. You are going in circles. People can be right in some things and wrong in others. The fact a council of human beings correctly chose divine texts to place into a compilation (not even the first compilation mind you or the first i similar compilation) does not mean Christians have to respect the decisions of long series of councils, popes, whatever when they were wrong.

I agree, there have been councils in the past that were disregarded for various reasons especially around the fall of Byzantium. However, what makes a decision a council makes wrong?

That's where it gets dangerous. People start picking and choosing what they believe and you wind up with something either completely meaningless or completely different from the original religion. Christianity by its very nature has to be a dogmatic religion or else it just doesn't work.

Certain people Catholics hold up in high regard got basic facts like Jesus's age wrong. If you want to go down the rabbit hole, I don't think it's going to work out for your argument. No, I don't think the papacy has legtimmiate apostolic authority. It's a church, but not higher than any other church that has (most) of the basics of the faith correct.

Who got Jesus' age wrong? You can arrive at a range based on the facts of the crucifixion and life in the Gospels but nothing absolute. so unless it was way out of left field it's hard to be wrong.