Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

Sidetrack: Why atheism was so popular during the late 90s to the early 2010s?, was it something planned or related to antichrist stuff?, or just simply religious Burnout? After all most of the most prominent proponents we're either jewish or from distant jewish heritage and that was something that ya'll were discussing here on the first pages
There have been waves of atheistic feeling since the Middle Ages (in any recorded quantity,) but likely since the beginning.

Shitting on Christ in either a quasi-intellectual sense, right down to the 'lol what can God provide???' sense has been around since forever. The intellectual caliber of the argument changes over time, but the emergence of sentiment is constant.

Ingersoll's rhetoric is at times humorous and understandable, given his experiences; but he's one in a long line of edgy faggots, no different from Hawkins and Hitchens over a century later.

To quote a priest and dear friend of mine: 'they're missing the point... but let them come.'
 
what can God provide?
"What can God provide?"
"What can the factory owners provide?"
"What can the bourgeois provide?"
"What can the government provide?"
"What can the nanny state provide?"
"What can the opposite gender provide?"
"What can my e-daddy provide?"

Nothing is ever enough for these lazy sacks of shit. What do you have to offer? You ain't entitled to nothing.
 
Shitting on Christ in either a quasi-intellectual sense, right down to the 'lol what can God provide???' sense has been around since forever. The intellectual caliber of the argument changes over time, but the emergence of sentiment is constant.
True to that you made me remeber the testimony of some bodybuilder about how he was knee deep into the new atheism , he reminisces about how he used to participate in things like blasphemy day and do all kinds of stunts that new atheist usually did until he snapped and realized that the whole deal of the movement was just pissing and mocking other peoples beliefs as much as possible using the freedom of speech argument as a scapegoat motive
 
Yes, usually in the main churches. Elaborate on 'conservative circles'.
In the denominations that aren't mainstream. Like the Presbyterian Church of America vs. the Presbyterian Church of the USA. One is much more conservative in its views regarding the mode of worship and other such things, as well as in certain beliefs (e.g., the Bible being inerrant, unchanging, infallible, &c.), whereas the latter is much more willing to accept worldly ideas concerning Scripture (all of it revolving around the denial or diminishment of Christ as the Son of God). Another example is the United Methodist Church vs. the recently-founded Global Methodist Church. The trends in the PCA and PCUSA are likely mirrored, to some extent, but the dividing issue had to do with the acceptance of homosexuality.
 
Why is Eucharist in the Mass reserved for Catholics only? Are they trying to tell us that you cannot accept Christ's sacrifice if you are non Catholic?
Take everything i write with some less salt, cause at the moment i'm salty about the whole church thing and my illusions are breaking.
I feel that way too, the biggest Catholic Church in Turkey holds it's Turkish Sunday Mass in 19:00. They aren't even trying to hide their contempt anymore.
 
Ive always from a young age felt that the idea of the popes and church's being institutionally infallible and unable to be criticized as being wrong in some way.

Im not necessarily ragging on it for any particular thing but recently going over documentaries and info I've read, it seems like there's been an inborn amount of corruption and persecution going back to the days of Constantine. If you step out of line even peacefully your ass is grass.

Latin mass seems to be a good example of this.
 
Sorry to double post but I found this to be quite profound.


What are your options on the man?
 
Ay, just wanted to pop in here and explain that I am conflicted.
In Kings 2:23-24 Elisha gets BTFO for being bald by 42 kids, but then upon literally crying about it to God for vengeance, God rezzed in two bears to maul the shit out of those kids.

Clearly making fun of bald people has been a time tested tradition for it to be in the bible. Meaning clearly it is based.
Should I still be giggling every time I see a bald person or should I be repentant and afraid of bears for my actions? Are there any other accounts of bears being spawned in to punish kids for belittling baldies?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Dr. Jaime Reyes
Can one Baptize themselves? When I first came to Christ it was late at night and I wasn't sure when I would be able to contact a clergyman for a proper baptism so, wanting to cover myself with the sacrament of Baptism, I did it myself under the sink using the trinitarian formula before having a proper one a few weeks later. My question, especially for those of you who think Baptism is required for salvation, would a "self-baptism" be valid, if I had passed away that night would it have covered me?
The Bible (according to my tradition, YMMV) teaches that you are irrevocably saved at the moment of belief. Baptism is the next step to take as a demonstration of your belief. God is not autistic. He knows when you're for real. John 3:16 makes it very clear that belief is the gate. Baptism is more of a firstfruit.

The sacrament of baptism ought to be administered by someone who has been baptized. Just go get baptized when you have a chance. These days, it's usually a bit of a hassle, as you'll have to coordinate around whomever is baptizing you.
 
You don't believe someone can lose salvation? i.e. turn from Christ?
All of the metaphors Jesus uses to describe the gift of eternal life are irreversible. You cannot undrink water. You cannot be unborn after you are born again. However, you can certainly forfeit reward in the kingdom. It would contradict Jesus' recorded words repeatedly to suppose you can lose salvation from hell.

You have to understand, salvation from hell is just the start. There is so much more to come after this life.
 
The Bible (according to my tradition, YMMV) teaches that you are irrevocably saved at the moment of belief. Baptism is the next step to take as a demonstration of your belief. God is not autistic. He knows when you're for real. John 3:16 makes it very clear that belief is the gate. Baptism is more of a firstfruit.

The sacrament of baptism ought to be administered by someone who has been baptized. Just go get baptized when you have a chance. These days, it's usually a bit of a hassle, as you'll have to coordinate around whomever is baptizing you.
This is doctrinally incorrect. Because it countermands Christs command in John, Chapter 8 verses 10 and 11 where he pardons the prostitute.
[10] When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
[11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Christ offers a pardon, but he does not offer a blanket pardon into the future. A Christian must be mindful of their fallen nature going foreword and strive every day to follow Gods law. If they should fall short for whatever reason, they must own up to their failings through prayer. This is what eventually led to the Catholic Confessional system, though I would argue that is not strictly necessary, especially if you are protestant and follow in the "personal relationship" doctrine. Owning up to your failings through prayer works just as well, as is actually striving to not do the thing again.

Its not enough to say, cheat on your wife, pray about it, and then go and do it again next week. The state of grace is one of constant maintenance, and is why its often referred to as walking "the straight and narrow", where a single deviation off the path leads to damnation.

If you are interested in a theological dissertation on the subject, this excerpt from Augustine's "retractions" would be very illuminating.

 
This is doctrinally incorrect. [Catholic doctrine here.]
I reject the false tradition of papism.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/4300/ -- Here's contemporary theology reasoning from scripture, not the Talmudic distortions of one of the organizations responsible for more Christian deaths than any other. It affirms eternal security and absolute assurance, doctrines taught by Christ, John, Peter, and Paul.
 
I reject the false tradition of papism.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/4300/ -- Here's contemporary theology reasoning from scripture, not the Talmudic distortions of one of the organizations responsible for more Christian deaths than any other. It affirms eternal security and absolute assurance, doctrines taught by Christ, John, Peter, and Paul.
The problem with the Calvinists is that they lean way too hard into predestination and the power of God to guide his chosen saved through the pitfalls and wat not of life. Its no doubt a comforting thought that Christ is always on your shoulder guaranteeing you a safe passage through the trials and tribulations. But it is a cold comfort when life inevitably smacks you in the face.
 
This is surely not a Calvinist teaching. Your misapplication of labels highlights your dearth of understanding.
Wat? Its literally a doctrinal position of the Calvinists about how God has perfect control over his creation, with humanity having no agency within the confines of God's plan. Which is doctrinally impossible, because if we have no agency, then how can a just God allow for the existence of sin, which is definitionally "rebellion against God", to punish us with? Maybe John Calvin himself wasn't quite as retarded about this idea, but his inevitable offshoots took that shit and ran with it all the way to the end logical conclusion. The Jehovas Witnesses are the consequence of that shit.
 
The problem with the Calvinists is that they lean way too hard into predestination

This is surely not a Calvinist teaching. Your misapplication of labels highlights your dearth of understanding.

What do you mean that "this is surely not a Calvinist teaching?"

I don't see really any problems with what @mindlessobserver wrote. I would add that that Calvinists would believe that God had preordained all events, including their own suffering.

What about TULIP? Aka. the "five points of Calvinism?"


R (4).jpeg


The "U" in TULIP is referring to predestination.

A major part of the disagreement is over that point and ultimately if and how free will is reconciled with God.

I'm missing how predestination is not a Calvinist teaching.
 
Back