[CJ_W]

(05-12-2016 12:36 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  

I think the Pope "crossed the Rubicon" when he welcomed the crossing of millions of Muslims across the Mediterranean.

We should rename him Pope Cuck the First

[Khan]

(06-28-2016 02:19 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Even the firm Catholics that I know who fervently support the Pope are shocked by how brazen this is. This is full-on Year Zero statement from the head of a supposedly traditional institution. Unbelievable!

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

The worst thing is, the Pope can't be impeached. This idiot is apparently in good health, and he obviously has no intention of resigning. It seems we'll have to endure many more years of his SJW virtue-signaling.

[Clockwerk]

The Catholic Church is not Christianity from day one. Catholics are pagans. Their doctrine is upside-down from Christianity and I'm not surprised by a single thing that comes out of Francis' mouth.

[rawbeefcake]

(06-28-2016 06:14 AM)Clockwerk Wrote:  

The Catholic Church is not Christianity from day one. Catholics are pagans. Their doctrine is upside-down from Christianity and I'm not surprised by a single thing that comes out of Francis' mouth.

Read your history, I think your opinion may change when you learn more about early Christians. At the very least, you will have more respect for Christians that value tradition (Catholics/Orthodox).

By the way, I wouldn't say that Faithful Word Baptist is a good reference for any argument - they sound like they are one step away from Westboro Baptist.

[hydrogonian]

(06-28-2016 06:14 AM)Clockwerk Wrote:  

The Catholic Church is not Christianity from day one. Catholics are pagans. Their doctrine is upside-down from Christianity and I'm not surprised by a single thing that comes out of Francis' mouth.

"The Catholic Church" of today is not the Catholic Church in terms of its modern face, thought the original Church may exist somewhere underneath awaiting its rebirth.

"Pagan" is a Jewish and Catholic term with little relative meaning other than "not-Judaism" and "not-Catholic". Of course, each of those systems sees the term differently. And the tradition of seeing the term differently continues with you in seeing the Catholic Church as "pagan". This should tell you that the term has no meaning other than as a derogatory appellation used to denote an "other" religion that is ostensibly retrograde.

Insofar as you might dig down for any concrete meaning, original Christianity would certainly be 'Pagan' even by the estimation of the common Christian who doesn't understand what or who they worship, as would be most Christianities, except the heavily Judaized varieties (because Judaism would be the authority on what is pagan, amirite?). Variously, they are mostly covers for and new varieties of worship of the "sky god" or Dyeus that traces back as far as religion can be traced back.

And this is where we run into trouble because, like I said, "Pagan" was originally used by the Catholic Church but, by its concrete Jewish definition, perhaps meaning any form of polytheism or any worship of any god other than Yahweh, all historical Christianity is Pagan.

Only newer Christianities explicitly worship Yahweh, and they are inventions that are reverse justified. Thus, they are mostly illegitimate as anything but a new and invented religion. Which is also fine, as most religion was invented at one point. Just don't kid yourself into believing that they are more legitimate as "Christianity" than "pagan" Christianity unless you want to assert that Christianity was invented in the 16th century or so.

Also, I'm not defending the Catholic Church. Just trying to shed some clarity on comparative religion. It's mostly likely that original Christianity was invented as a common (catholic) religion to culturally unite the Roman Empire and beyond.

Last, if you really want to gain perspective, look into the origins of Yahweh worship in the polythesitic Canaanite religion. Researching the etymology of Yahweh along with understanding the Ba'al cycle, and understanding the general mythology of the Thunder God fighting the Serpent or Dragon God should give you a start. After that, you'll realize the ridiculousness of the term "Pagan".

The variations in religion over the millenia, especially with the development of Yahwehism that departed so vastly from the polytheistic religion of the area in the 3000 years prior, is almost always smoke from the fire of tribal competition.

[Clockwerk]

I'm not sure how it actually matter to split hairs over the word "pagan". In this context, I'm using it generally as "not Biblical". Yeah, there were all kinds of weird sects of Christianity throughout history and there still are. my main point is that the Catholicism is simply not Biblical. It will never rebirth. Or, if it will "rebirth" it will in the form of a one world religion. So, in that sense, Francis is an antichrist.

(06-28-2016 07:20 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 06:14 AM)Clockwerk Wrote:  

The Catholic Church is not Christianity from day one. Catholics are pagans. Their doctrine is upside-down from Christianity and I'm not surprised by a single thing that comes out of Francis' mouth.

"The Catholic Church" of today is not the Catholic Church in terms of its modern face, thought the original Church may exist somewhere underneath awaiting its rebirth.


Cut

gion over the millenia, especially with the development of Yahwehism that departed so vastly from the polytheistic religion of the area in the 3000 years prior, is almost always smoke from the fire of tribal competition.

[Kid Twist]

^^^

Like so many western christian legalists/inerrancy supporters/juridical framework, you miss the point entirely of christianity.

Want me to blow your mind? If you are a sola scriptura follower, you are a crypto-papist. Yes that's correct, YOU ARE A DESCENDANT of the Roman Catholic Church. What became your (new) tradition? An extra-biblical tradition called "sola scriptura" or whatever other flavor you'd like to name it. Something that is not in the Bible.

If you have read my posts above, you would realize, and I hope you would test and examine, that there is only one "church" that hasn't changed its doctrine and practice since the beginning. It is a faith that shares, and has communion with, its theology and practice with sister churches just as St. Ignatius said in the 2nd century, "Where the bishop is, is where the [katholikos, greek for "whole, complete'] church is"

The Franco-Germanic takeover of Rome after its fall forever set what is now called the RC church on a political course, because it was not "Rome" anymore. The empire had moved (became Byzantium) and there were real romans (and greek speakers) who were persecuted as the original church (by the franks) and were still there, remnant people part of the original holy catholic and apostolic church. The stress that's most important is that the "Romans", what Constantine and the easterners maintained as their title, were actually preservers of that same faith that had been in a Rome. Recall that Rome, still, was an island from the birthplace of Christianity, which had always been the Near East/Holy Land.

The Franco Germanic takeover, the movement of the papacy (Avignon), the restructuring of the "Holy Roman Empire" by people with entirely different motives, and untrained in the practice and theology of the original church, forever set what is now called Roman Catholicism to a political, authoritarian venture. A top down ecclesiology with a structure and theology that was "of this world". That's why its leaders was a head of state, why Kings considered themselves (French and English) ordained by God, and why heresy became normal to maintain the top-down order.

The quick litmus test is this: In early christianity, the island was Rome (Peter and Paul were there later anyway, well after the church was established in many ways). It has thousands of offshoots due to multiple reasons, bearing children in the "Reformation"

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the original christians of the East have never changed their practice, theology, or idea of consensus among bishops in councils (approved only ultimately by the PEOPLE) --- and most importantly --- still do to this day.

From a logical, straight forward point of view, just looking at the basic facts, it is obvious what the original church is, which exists today and teaches what it always has. And it cannot be, nor never will be, RC or its daughters. What will become of its adherents, as to those of any other background ... God knows.

But the clear evidence shows that the eastern (now called "orthodox") churches are the only ones that have maintained the faith and practice unchanged. No one else can claim it, because their deviations are so apparent. Oh, by the way, they also wrote the Bible, in greek. And the septuagint, in greek.

The answers are really pretty obvious to anyone who studies cursory history and just walks into a church, if they have any knowledge of what's going on. And I really do not mean that in a condescending way --- in my experience people have absolute NO IDEA about the original, christian church and therefore, no knowledge whatsoever about the eastern orthodox churches. And it's a shame, because its theology is true christianity and in fact, what seekers are yearning for, being tired of guilt/shame/damning to hell and all other manner of disgusting, gruesome teachings of the West that developed over time as a way to scare and control ...

[Hades]

There is no doubt in my mind he is the Antichrist.
Restore Benedict, as he was probably ousted by the same satanic influences keeping Hollywood under lock and key.

[Beijong]

(05-12-2016 03:54 PM)Khan Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:58 AM)redpillage Wrote:  

This liberal Marxist fucker - is this really what 1.2 Billion catholics stand for? It

Not entirely, but sadly the majority of people who declare themselves as Catholic will probably laud this move.

It really was just a matter of time, the Catholic Church is no more immune against subversion and infiltration of liberal/universalist values than any other institution. What is soon going to be decreed from above by the Pope (women grabbing power in the Church) has already taken place 'below'. Just visit any local Catholic parish, if you have the stomach for it, and you'll see a lot of them having their layman activities run by post-Wall women who live in sexless marriages. I'm speaking from experience because as a practicing Catholic, I've had some opportunities in the past to witness the growing degeneration within the Church.

Manly Catholic men such as Charlemagne, Jean de Vallette or Jan Sobieski are a thing of the past - instead, the modern, politically correct Catholicism of today has already begun to raise an army of schmucks. You'll hear from them more often in the years to come.

I haven't been to mass in 6 months. My priest recommended that we all go to a protestant service as a way to atone for our past intolelrance of protestants and that he would be going to X church X service. He wanted to bring a protestant minister as a guest speaker to the youth group I was running. He said we should pray for the same sex couples with adopted children because they're just as much of a family as a regular family. I haven't gone back, and a lot of people complained the the archbishop but he's still there slinging his stuff at the laiety.

[Carlos199]

(06-28-2016 01:22 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

^^^
Want me to blow your mind? If you are a sola scriptura follower, you are a crypto-papist. Yes that's correct, YOU ARE A DESCENDANT of the Roman Catholic Church. What became your (new) tradition? An extra-biblical tradition called "sola scriptura" or whatever other flavor you'd like to name it. Something that is not in the Bible.

Kid Twist
This is my first post on Roosh's forum and I feel a bit odd about jumping into a theological discussion as my first thing after you guys have already been discussing it for a few pages. But nevertheless, I wanted to ask you about this sola scriptura thing.
I am a Christian, and like you, I also maintain that my religion is the original and true Christianity (but it is not Eastern Orthodox). I do accept sola scriptura on the basis that it is the only thing available to us that is unchanging. Anything else which comes from the mouths of uninspired men may be useful for consideration and analysis, but is not inerrant truth. My question to you is: How do you know for certain than Eastern Orthodox hasn't changed since 33AD?
I ask this as an honest question, not to test you, but to satisfy my need to explore all avenues to ensure I arrive at truth.

I also don't quite understand how your statement that being a sola scriptura follower means you are a crypto-papist? I don't get the connection...

Thanks

[hydrogonian]

(06-28-2016 11:19 PM)Beijong Wrote:  

I haven't been to mass in 6 months. My priest recommended that we all go to a protestant service as a way to atone for our past intolelrance of protestants and that he would be going to X church X service. He wanted to bring a protestant minister as a guest speaker to the youth group I was running. He said we should pray for the same sex couples with adopted children because they're just as much of a family as a regular family. I haven't gone back, and a lot of people complained the the archbishop but he's still there slinging his stuff at the laiety.

That's insane.

[Mercenary]

I am not religious in any sense of the word, but I want to remind anyone who follows Christianity, that for the past 3 years we have had 2 popes who are both alive at the same time.
The church has tried to convince people that this is normal, but it is most definitely not.

One of them must be an impostor.

[Orion]

(06-28-2016 06:14 AM)Clockwerk Wrote:  

The Catholic Church is not Christianity from day one. Catholics are pagans. Their doctrine is upside-down from Christianity and I'm not surprised by a single thing that comes out of Francis' mouth.

What evangelicals actually call "pagan" is that in Catholic tradition which is traditional, and not explicitly Semitic, since Baptism (Anderson is one) is an explicitly Semitic denomination of Christianity, the trademark of Semitic spirit being ardent hatred of and intolerance of other religions, violent opposition to any transcendence and insisting on a purely dualistic, passive religious spirit.

No, "paganism" isn't problem of Catholic Church. Problem of Catholic Church has been that it completely indulged into sentimental, fatalistic, humanitarian/globalist portion of Christian religious spirit, in accordance with globalist agenda, and shunned that in Christ, which was more confrontational, judgmental, revolutionary and masculine.

Catholicism has always been a "Mother Church" and hence, it always had that inherited flaw of being a gynecocratic religion, with only a healthy dose of European, masculine tradition that it inherited from European, Roman spirit.

However, it hardly gets better with Protestants. While they dismiss any feminine pathos from their dogma, they do the next most stupid thing, and that is convert their religion into a derivative of Judaism. Only, difference is that unlike Jews, Protestants are naive. Jews are fully aware of all theological implications and connotation of their faith. Protestants are just deluded.

[rpg]

My gut tells me the globablists blackmailed the popes to go along with their agent or else.

[Kid Twist]

(06-28-2016 11:19 PM)Beijong Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 03:54 PM)Khan Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:58 AM)redpillage Wrote:  

This liberal Marxist fucker - is this really what 1.2 Billion catholics stand for? It

Not entirely, but sadly the majority of people who declare themselves as Catholic will probably laud this move.

It really was just a matter of time, the Catholic Church is no more immune against subversion and infiltration of liberal/universalist values than any other institution. What is soon going to be decreed from above by the Pope (women grabbing power in the Church) has already taken place 'below'. Just visit any local Catholic parish, if you have the stomach for it, and you'll see a lot of them having their layman activities run by post-Wall women who live in sexless marriages. I'm speaking from experience because as a practicing Catholic, I've had some opportunities in the past to witness the growing degeneration within the Church.

Manly Catholic men such as Charlemagne, Jean de Vallette or Jan Sobieski are a thing of the past - instead, the modern, politically correct Catholicism of today has already begun to raise an army of schmucks. You'll hear from them more often in the years to come.

I haven't been to mass in 6 months. My priest recommended that we all go to a protestant service as a way to atone for our past intolelrance of protestants and that he would be going to X church X service. He wanted to bring a protestant minister as a guest speaker to the youth group I was running. He said we should pray for the same sex couples with adopted children because they're just as much of a family as a regular family. I haven't gone back, and a lot of people complained the the archbishop but he's still there slinging his stuff at the laiety.

redpillage is nailing it, and I say none of this with any contempt but rather sadness. If we are honest with ourselves, however, the natural evolution of such a political institution (not an institution of men, per se) into expanding overly-feminized madness and SJW obsession has been obvious for some time. With particular, global social outlook (as opposed to communities) as the Franco-Romans have always had, the idea of the church being not of this world will necessarily be eroded. Think of how pathetic, sad, and anti-Christian, even, American universities have become: some of the worst offenders have been "Jesuit" or "Catholic" universities (DePaul, Notre Dame, Marquette, etc). They stifle free speech and demonize even "conservative" speakers, which is just unfathomable, but reveals much.

This could be a much longer post but if you are overly legalistic in your approach, especially if you hold any position of Anselmian similarity about the "justice of God", you will always devolve into making things in this world try to fit that concept, but it is empirically obvious that such a thing cannot exist in this world. Especially when you create vague adjectives trying to further explain and promote it. It becomes an idol. The appeal to justice in the Bible expressly is against this type of human understanding, even showing us examples where this understanding of ours needs to be right in accepting the harsh realities of the world, knowing that God has always, and will continue to love us (the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son, the parable of the talents where God is pissed that one of his servants did nothing with his talent to repay at least interest, etc). All of these biblical stories show us that ultimately there is no real justice in this world, at least the way we perceive it.

Ironically, the jewish fixation on justice and peace "in this world" will be the precise reason why so many people fall for the barbs, comforts and deception of the antichrist when he appears. It will be revealed that those that are deluded and overly focused on this world, as opposed to the true Prince of Peace, the true Peace and Judge of all --- through beauty, truth, virtue and love --- will condemn themselves into inner anguish because they rejected the light and author of life.

[Kid Twist]

[see below, something was deleted]

[Kid Twist]

(06-29-2016 02:24 AM)Carlos199 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 01:22 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

^^^
Want me to blow your mind? If you are a sola scriptura follower, you are a crypto-papist. Yes that's correct, YOU ARE A DESCENDANT of the Roman Catholic Church. What became your (new) tradition? An extra-biblical tradition called "sola scriptura" or whatever other flavor you'd like to name it. Something that is not in the Bible.

Kid Twist
This is my first post on Roosh's forum and I feel a bit odd about jumping into a theological discussion as my first thing after you guys have already been discussing it for a few pages. But nevertheless, I wanted to ask you about this sola scriptura thing.
I am a Christian, and like you, I also maintain that my religion is the original and true Christianity (but it is not Eastern Orthodox). I do accept sola scriptura on the basis that it is the only thing available to us that is unchanging. Anything else which comes from the mouths of uninspired men may be useful for consideration and analysis, but is not inerrant truth. My question to you is: How do you know for certain than Eastern Orthodox hasn't changed since 33AD?
I ask this as an honest question, not to test you, but to satisfy my need to explore all avenues to ensure I arrive at truth.

I also don't quite understand how your statement that being a sola scriptura follower means you are a crypto-papist? I don't get the connection...

Thanks

Carlos,
Best wishes to you on your quest for Truth. There is much to be unpacked here, so for starters, you must understand the basics, which I think you may take for granted (the premise is wrong) or maybe through lack of knowledge of historical Christianity and its progression over time, is hard to comprehend:

1. The "Church" existed before the Bible was written, and certainly, before canonization took place. What's more, it took the "Church" to decide which books were considered reliable. This happened over a process of many years, and it wasn't until the 4th century that what was considered (consensus) to be reliable was formed (the best approximation would be St. Athanasios 27 books). But note that the development of that wasn't based strictly on him, nor did it fall out of the sky (inerrant? we'll get to that), it was developed by the Church because just like the books of the church that are considered to be [/b]part of the life of the church[b]. Just like the Sabbath was not made for man, the Bible was not (think about that --- man was to understand one another, live in communion with God and one another, as members of the church, not as a robot idolizing a rule book --- that is in fact what the gospel letters instruct and show).

2. How can you understand what the church is, what the right understanding of the bible is, who Jesus Christ is, God the Father is, the Holy Spirit etc. unless you receive this, in one way or another, from the universal teachers of the faith (the Holy Apostles)? Apostolic succession relies on the principle of an unbroken chain of teaching and practice, precisely because there is no other way to transmit/teach (2 Thess 2:15) "what you have learned by word or letter" and have any reliability that it was from Christ who told his apostles that the "gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against it." Or that Jesus' prayer that "You may be one" must be fulfilled (yes, the church has to be maintained over time in unity of faith and practice, and it has been!).

3. Anyone who picks up a bible, and interprets it by himself, will have no clue what it is talking about, ultimately. You are not a greek speaker, you didn't see Christ and hear all he taught, you weren't witness to the descent of the Holy Spirit, you didn't decide what should or shouldn't be in the bible (why is this reliable, or not?) ... there are so many levels of hermeneutic that you have to go through, it is unfathomable and impossible to comprehend ... apart from the fact that it is clear to any person that those closer to the source provide the most clear testimony as to the teachings! Didn't the Ethiopian eunuch say "How can I understand this, unless someone guides me?"

4. Look at history. Look at the catacombs. Look at the churches. You see the early church with icons and practices (also explained in the Didache) in the same place that the same surviving christians (easterners) are. They have not changed. On a fundamental physical, archaeological level even, the evidence is clear. Now, look around. Who does this? You know who.

5. Even if the Bible were inerrant, which it isn't (but again that's the wrong thought process or even question, that was a presumption that was essential to those who wanted to GO AWAY ON THEIR OWN and do their own thing --- why there are now 30,000+ protestant denominations) you still have the hermeneutics/interpretation problem (who is the authority to interpret since so many disagree on what each thing means!?). You would need modern day prophets and assume they are essentially know-it-alls and cult leaders (see what's happened?), who all duke it out for more followers! How do you discern that a particular guy is right, wrong, and on what basis?

6. The bible never says it is inerrant. In fact, it says the opposite. Using only the bible is a tradition outside of the bible itself, as I've said before. So who's got the "right" tradition?

7. All protestants, in one way or another, are children of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't blame them from protesting, but the evolution of thinking (legalistically, rules based, focus or even obsession on suffering, guilt and pain or judgment) is, and forever will be, inextricably tied to (Franco) Rome. The children rejected their parents and went off their own way.

Meanwhile, the easterners retained their faith and practice, unchanged, in the original locations of christianity. You know the Street called Straight?

There are "Orthodox" Christians there. There always been been. They, in fact, are in the location where "the people were first called 'Christians'"(Acts 11)

I hope that helps.

[Carlos199]

Thanks for your response KT.
But I want to know how do you know for CERTAIN that nothing has changed? If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, how can you accept the oral tradition is inerrant?

Peter wrote the letter of 2 Peter soon before his martyrdom. In the letter, it is clear he is deeply concerned about the impending damage to be done by false teaching. So he leaves his final letter - his 'reminder' - to the brethren to stay on the correct path. Why bother with this reminder at all if he is passing on his apostolic authority to some successor?

Actually, there is much reason to believe that the layman is expected to study and examine scripture: Eph 3:1-4, Acts 17:11, 1 Thes 5:27; 1 John 2:12-14; Luke 10:26. But I cannot accept the notion that the layman interpretation of biblical text is the reason for 30,000 denominations. Evidence of denominations was already forming in the time of the Apostles ('I of Apollos, I of Cephas' etc); plus the numerous warnings of false teachers drawing away whole families and congregations. So denominations already existed at the time, but it was not due to giving the layman the ability to decide whether a teaching was true or false, but rather because people wanted to 'follow after their own lusts'.

All this said, I do find a slight irony that Protestant denominations state 'sola scriptura' whilst at the same time allowing 'tradition' to determine what is scripture and what isn't. This is something I feel may be unstable ground. But there is also evidence (both intra and extra biblical) of the apostles writings being circulated between churches prior to 100AD, and what was considered scriptural or unscriptural was generally considered an uncontroversial matter. Thus, subsequent councils which set out to formalise a 'canon' of Scripture were really only just stating the obvious.

[YossariansRight]

(06-29-2016 08:44 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

I am not religious in any sense of the word, but I want to remind anyone who follows Christianity, that for the past 3 years we have had 2 popes who are both alive at the same time.
The church has tried to convince people that this is normal, but it is most definitely not.

One of them must be an impostor.

Yep. First time ever I believe. And as a Catholic, I consider Bendict to be the Bishop of Rome.

The Red Jesuit Cuck referred to as "Pope Francis" is a pathetic embarrassment of a "leader".

[EDantes]

(06-28-2016 06:14 AM)Clockwerk Wrote:  

The Catholic Church is not Christianity from day one.

Catholics are pagans. Their doctrine is upside-down from Christianity and I'm not surprised by a single thing that comes out of Francis' mouth.

Fundamental Baptist doctrine isn't "Christian" either in my book. The pastor in the video (Steven Anderson) is pretty much a hack overall who says controversial stuff just to get attention in the media. He has no theological degrees or anything other than a HS diploma, basically just a shock jock pretending to be a pastor.

In fact overall I consider fundamentalist Christianity or IFB more of an "Islamized" bastardization of the faith - the central idea that the text of the Bible is the literal versus inspired word of God is more similar to Islam's teaching regarding the Koran being the verbatim word of God, than to most theological interpretations historically. They're concerned only about the letter and not the spirit.

There's also nothing in the Bible that completely forbids Christians from incorporating elements of pagan culture into theirs. - even Arabic numerals, and much of the English language has pagan or non-Christian origins. The only way to do give it up entirely would be to give up English in favor of the Hebrew language, and give up our modern numeric system in favor of measurements like "cubits".

(IFBs also apparently reject the notion of the 'universal' church and believe the local church is the only way to salvation, making them actually more similar to the medieval Catholic Church in which the church itself, rather than the actual gospel was the way to salvation; sex abuse scandals within IFB churches are also a higher rate than in the Catholic Church, for the record).

[Spectrumwalker]

(06-28-2016 01:22 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

^^^

Like so many western christian legalists/inerrancy supporters/juridical framework, you miss the point entirely of christianity.

Want me to blow your mind? If you are a sola scriptura follower, you are a crypto-papist. Yes that's correct, YOU ARE A DESCENDANT of the Roman Catholic Church. What became your (new) tradition?

Kid Twist, some questions.

So, what is the "point" of Christianity?

Did the eastern orthodox church also not split from the RCC?

What is the view on salvation in the eastern orthodox church. Does salvation come by faith on Christ alone, or faith+works. From my understanding salvation in your church is a "process".

What exactly is wrong with sola scriptura? All this means is that you recognize the Bible, as the final authority on all matters. Not man's word, not church tradition, not your feelings, etc. It's an anchor that keeps you attached so you don't float away with the winds of cultural change like so many Christian and Catholic churches are.

What is your view on the Eucharist. Do orthodox men believe that bread and wine genuinely become the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ by some great holy mystery?

You wrote one can read a Bible and not understand what it means because they don't speak Greek. Does that mean for someone to be properly be saved they must learn Greek and become Orthodox? That's like Muslims saying you need to learn Arabic to understand the Quran. Looking at the tower of Babel it's clear God wants different languages. That's why in Acts they were given the power to preach the Gospel in different languages to men of all nations. The King James Bible is crystal clear for English speakers.

You wrote earlier about people are tired of hearing about being damned to hell. Do actions not have consequences? Does the Bible not speak of hell more than it does of heaven? Is this not one of many reasons why we Christians feel compelled to give the gospel to save people from the wrath of God? Yes God is loving in that he paid the price and is wishing that none should perish. But as is written in Romans 2:11, "For there is no respect of persons with God." For the wages of sin is death, and death outside of Christ means hell.

[Orion]

(06-30-2016 12:15 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

What is the view on salvation in the eastern orthodox church. Does salvation come by faith on Christ alone, or faith+works.

The "faith and works" dichotomy is one of the greatest logical fallacies there are, which is easily dissolved by even a mediocre polemicist.

But even if we stick to it, we are still debating religion and religious spirit on a most base theological level, on level of pure demagogy, which fails to make a conclusive introspection, a thorough and meaningful investigation into what is it in religions that has this or that character, and how were religions shaped by various spiritual influences.

Christianity is particularly notorious for the fact that it's core religious base, Europeans, vary from being ambivalent towards it, to straightforwardly reject some of it's core tenets, though also accepting some portions of it, those which bear the least possible amount of cultural implications.

Let me give you an example. 90% of European Christians, young or old, working class or rich, male or female, find Old Testament, which makes 80% of Bible, repulsive. That is simply known to anyone who has ever witnessed someone read it, and discussed it. So many themes in Old Testament are repulsive to Europeans, so many things Europeans find bizarre, unintelligible, overtly passionate, hateful, disproportionate in every fashion.

Europeans simply find story of Joseph straightforward repulsive. It is repulsive to European spirit that Joseph settled among Egyptians, "saved" their crop for years of hunger, and then sold it back to them for money. They find even more repulsive that he gave all that Egyptian fortune to his brothers from Judea, while displaying complete disloyalty towards people who gave him shelter when he was in trouble. Europeans loathe the fact that Bible narrator celebrates this amazing achievement of Joseph.

Europeans find most of genocide, cruel murder, and annihilation of neighboring tribes by Israelites excessive, repulsively passionate, barbarous, base and envious.

Europeans almost completely cannot identify with Yahweh. They find him too human, to passionate, emotional, jealous, they reject his excessive interest and intervention in even most petty of human affairs - what shall you do with your goats, how you shall build your house, what to do with your property, what to do with your brothers wife, what to eat item by item, what to wear, how to speak. To Europeans all of this seems like complete excess, a folly. Moreover, it seems to him that such detailed "divine" intervention in human affairs is necessary only where we are dealing with particularly unruly, disobedient people, with enormous lack of self-control, which coincidentally, Bible describes Israelites just as such.

Too an European man, the entire narrative, dictate, moral, teaching and spiritual value can be summed up as - completely useless and unintelligible.

And then, how could it be useful to a European ? To him who cannot be connected in any way to the pathos of middle-eastern slum. To the pathos of people destined to be packed together, where they will constantly yearn for each other's property, to get close, emotional, passionate, to do murder, adultery, to bear false witness on each other. All of this is typical pathos of a slum, of a packed "community".

Far from saying that European modus operandi is 19th century individualism, European model of association has been much different. Europeans even when bound by loyalty to a tribe, state or leader, always keeps a healthy distance. That's his basic rule of living. He will use vastness of his living space to create such natural distance. Much more than yearning for other's peoples property, an European will keep himself on distance from other's possession, while yearning for a resourceful land that can feed him instead.

European man needs no theological tranquilizer to do conquest. Nor does he need to eradicate the conquered. He elevates himself to the highs of Empirehood. Persia, Macedonia, Egypt, Rome - These were all Empires of conquerors, those who were not lead by genocidal rage, but by pure and detached adventurism - overcoming of all that is mediocre.

To a European man, all these possessed old dudes in robes, throwing themselves in emotional, effeminate trances and cataclysmic visions seem as nothing else but weaklings, those who give up on confronting this world.

European divinities are those who look at humans with indifference, completely contrary to Yahweh's pathological dependence upon them. European divinities are those who, through their superhuman endeavors, only serve as an example of what is "more than human", more than mediocre. To European, it takes both some of black and some of white color, to portray his spirit in authentic, more than human fashion. European gods of the underworld or chaos, aren't hated or feared of lurkers for damned souls, but objective supernatural forces, that make sense only if put in opposition to forces of order.

If we take these considerations, and there are countless many to be said, since Old Testament is inexhaustible resource for motives that Europeans find repulsive or loathe, we can begin to understand why Europeans find New Testament, particularly the 4 canonical gospels much more acceptable, and why Europeans can identify with Jesus of gospels, the one Man against many. And why Europeans are completely puzzled by everything preached by St. Paul, and his return to Old Testament, and why they cannot understand why was there any space left for Jesus's straightforward and simple teachings, to be further elaborated by a man of shady background who wasn't even his apostle. (St. Paul)

Only by indulging into complete and senseless, fatalistic demagogy, can we defend this incoherence of Bible through theological "apologism" of how things are not mathematically contradictory, as if that is what matters, and not the complete confusion of Biblical teachings, it's complete mix up of what is high and what is low, what should be holy and what base, what should be divine and what human, and what should be beginning and what should be end.

[nomadbrah]

(06-29-2016 08:57 AM)Orion Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 06:14 AM)Clockwerk Wrote:  

The Catholic Church is not Christianity from day one. Catholics are pagans. Their doctrine is upside-down from Christianity and I'm not surprised by a single thing that comes out of Francis' mouth.

What evangelicals actually call "pagan" is that in Catholic tradition which is traditional, and not explicitly Semitic, since Baptism (Anderson is one) is an explicitly Semitic denomination of Christianity, the trademark of Semitic spirit being ardent hatred of and intolerance of other religions, violent opposition to any transcendence and insisting on a purely dualistic, passive religious spirit.

No, "paganism" isn't problem of Catholic Church. Problem of Catholic Church has been that it completely indulged into sentimental, fatalistic, humanitarian/globalist portion of Christian religious spirit, in accordance with globalist agenda, and shunned that in Christ, which was more confrontational, judgmental, revolutionary and masculine.

Catholicism has always been a "Mother Church" and hence, it always had that inherited flaw of being a gynecocratic religion, with only a healthy dose of European, masculine tradition that it inherited from European, Roman spirit.

However, it hardly gets better with Protestants. While they dismiss any feminine pathos from their dogma, they do the next most stupid thing, and that is convert their religion into a derivative of Judaism. Only, difference is that unlike Jews, Protestants are naive. Jews are fully aware of all theological implications and connotation of their faith. Protestants are just deluded.

This is very good, all of it, insightful post, I think you are absolutely right.

Not sure about protestantism and judaism though as Luther was a raging jew-hater, made Hitler look servile.

What I dislike about the protestantism I know is the self punishing, self depriving mentality, it's a religion for the feeble minded, the jealous and uncreative.

[Spectrumwalker]

(06-30-2016 05:22 AM)Orion Wrote:  

Europeans almost completely cannot identify with Yahweh.

Yes and hence why they find themselves in the precarious position of being ruled by technocrats and their countries invaded by what the Bible would refer to as strangers. All stemming from ignorance of scripture.

[Kid Twist]

(06-29-2016 09:21 PM)Carlos199 Wrote:  

Thanks for your response KT.

Quote:

But I want to know how do you know for CERTAIN that nothing has changed? If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, how can you accept the oral tradition is inerrant?

Now you are getting into epistemology. No one knows anything for certain. Everything is degree of probability and how convincing an argument is, or how a story fits with life. Do you know that ICXC rose from the dead? No, you don't. You trust those that came before you (they weren't protestants and consent to their experience and witness. Also, your question hinges on so many assumptions (that there has to be inerrancy, for example) that are not necessary with the right mind, which is the (phronema) mind of the church. When you partake in the community that is known as the Church, with Christ as the head, you are members of one another and it is through your communion that you are his body, and also through which the spirit dwells. He didn't institute the Church so that we wouldn't know what it is --- it is the historical presence of the Kingdom that is IN the world but not of the world. I accept all things that have been laid down by the holy fathers and that persisted, as approved by the people. It's never been an either or. We'll get to more on that lower down in the post.

Quote:

Peter wrote the letter of 2 Peter soon before his martyrdom. In the letter, it is clear he is deeply concerned about the impending damage to be done by false teaching. So he leaves his final letter - his 'reminder' - to the brethren to stay on the correct path. Why bother with this reminder at all if he is passing on his apostolic authority to some successor?

Because there were divisions, gnostics, etc. and that was also the purpose of Paul's letter's to the churches. Notice that the letters aren't addressed the Holy Apostles, but that the people to whom the revelations were given, would remain steadfast in what they learned, "for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (1 Cor 11:19)

I fail to see how that shows that receiving correct teaching from an Apostle and appealing to the credentials of such a person is irrelevant. On the contrary, it is a support and an exhortation of just how important it is!


All of the evidence: Geographical, historical, practical, doctrinal, hermeneutical, is clear that the only unchanged church with regard to practice and faith are the eastern churches.

If you are a protestant, your tradition started in the 1600s! And might I add, far away from the birthplace of Christianity, and as a result of outrage at the Roman Catholic church!

This fact cannot be denied. More importantly, the jewels of the holy, catholic and apostolic church --- its teachings and practice --- are so significantly different than the bodies we are talking about I'm quite confident that once you encounter them, you will be aware that they were always the "orthodox" ones.