How do we restore the Christianity in an age that is slowly falling away from religion?
Aside from church doctrines and corrupted organizations, how do we help people understand the importance of Jesus in the New Testament?
Is it possible that Christianity could restore it's root of deep spiritual practice rather than Orthodox church rituals? I like church sometimes, but it's important to meditate on God more than it is to say "I went to church today"..
Also, how to convert people without telling them they are going to hell and your doing them a favor. Jesus never gives up on a disciple, but the present day, people aren't looking out for your salvation but their own, like they are the high and mighty..
Any other thoughts?
>How do we restore the Christianity in an age that is slowly falling away from religion?
You don't. Mankind was always meant to be free from such shackles.
Religion isn't bondage. I think people who believe a relationship with God is bondage is because they do something that they know God wouldn't approve of. (That's a small example, don't take it personal)
Your relationship with God is eternal. Of course religion comes with duty, but that duty doesn't have to be bondage.
Like working 9 to 5, how do you make life worth living?
Can't go wrong with Gaunt's Ghosts, or just about anything by Dan Abnett for that matter.
The Ciaphas Cain series was my entry, and I'm kind of thankful for that, since it doesn't take itself or the universe too seriously.
You can't. The things that keep a religion alive (Cultural institutions, belief, and percieved benefits) have all been done away with. We don't have to pray to get a good harvest; we have irrigation and fertilizer. Earthquakes are not Yahweh's wrath; they are tectonic plates moving. The church is not the source of morality; humans are. And so on and so forth. Just like Roman Paganism, Christianity will become increasingly politicized. You can see it today with the "Christian Right" in America and Christposters onlone. They do not believe in the existence of Yahweh in the slightest, but romanticize an aesthetic and promote an agenda to increase their political power and use the supposed belief in Yahweh to legitimize their beliefs (and more importantly, their power).
There will be a Christian revival in the future, make no mistake. But it will be a facade, atheists using Yahweh's name to justify their actions. And then we will see a great fall off followed by a new religion introducing itself and taking the reigns, filling the void that Christianity could not adapt to fill.
If you read into Gnosticism and compare it to Sumerian legends, it was Enki and Enlil in the garden genetically manipulating humankind.
So Enlil floods the Earth to destroy the Nephilim, and Enki warns about the flood to Noah.
This is why I mean the New Testament because Jesus has a specific teaching that is meant to free us of the tyranny of the old testament
>how do you make life worth living?
"If man merely sat back and thought about his impending termination, and his terrifying insignificance and aloneness in the cosmos, he would surely go mad, or succumb to a numbing sense of futility. Why, he might ask himself, should he bother to write a great symphony, or strive to make a living, or even to love another, when he is no more than a momentary microbe on a dust mote whirling through the unimaginable immensity of space?
"...Those of us who are forced by their own sensibilities to view their lives in this perspective—who recognize that there is no purpose they can comprehend and that amidst a countless myriad of stars their existence goes unknown and unchronicled—can fall prey all too easily to the ultimate anomie… The world's religions, for all their parochialism, did supply a kind of consolation for this great ache…
"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death—however mutable man may be able to make them—our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."
That actually makes a lot of sense, atheists use the name YHWH (I am that I am) to promote themself to be their own God, and in Gnostic culture, Samael says "I am the only God" and commits a huge sin by doing so.
I guess that is the reformation, aside from Gnostic lit, but a form of Christianity that isn't concerned with money or politics. If you are a Christian, Christ is God, The Son is honored with the Father, they are different and yet the same.
I think the light we make for ourselves is us recognizing out divinity, and our light is but a small parcel of God's light, and every thing that exists also is a resonate piece of God's energy.
Sometimes I look at the stars and feel so small, but sometimes we look at the stars and feel our purpose in this life is restored.
How do we restore the history board in an age where it's gravitating towards religion?
Aside from saging and reporting, how do we help people understand the importance of making relevant threads and following board rules?
Is it possible that Christianity could be a real fucking cancer to this board? I like religious discussion sometimes, but it's important to remember this board wasn't made for meta topics such as this thread.
Also, how to convince christfags to stop without telling them they are shitposting and YOU'RE doing them a favor. Jesus never gives up on a disciple, but the present day, he'd look down on you and say "STOP FUCKING POSTING THIS TYPE OF SHIT HERE."
Any other thoughts?
Just because you don't like it doesn't make a big difference, unless you do something about it.
I go on /x/ and it's all about Satan and drinking cum and blood magic, deal with it.
It's like you see a post about Christianity and some witch is burning with water. Big deal, there are all kinds of "Why do you believe in God kek he is a meme" threads... go make a post about history
Detach humanities from the board, dead serious about this. We should have history discussions only and not DEFINE THE MEANING OF MEANING pseudo-intellectual spam and atheist/Christian memestorm like it's 2008 on /b/.
Historical Jesus is a little harder to prove, but Paul persecuted Christians before c35AD when he converts. And Nero in 64AD killing Christians, so a group of people named after Christ existed.
Paintings of Jesus are renditions of the people's culture influenced the depiction of Jesus.
I love soviet propaganda.
Most propaganda tries to be politically correct, don't go to far to appear reasonable or go full retard with caricatures. Here you have straightforward:
>GLORIOUS WORKING-PEASANT SOVIET HERO
>HORRIBLE MONSTROUS REACTIONARY LIARS
>so a group of people named after Christ existed.
A group of people who followed one of several sects that purported to be the true followers of the Hebrew Messiah existed. Christianity as a single religion and not a spectrum did not exist until the First Nicaea council.
Yeah but at least then they weren't naming their own religion and separating themselves, the early "christians" knew what was good, and probably had a better practice with God than we do today
Jesus from Nazareth existed.
The problem is that historian living the closest to him(both geographically and chronologically) was jew from a tribe... I don't remember the one talmudic judaism was born from - and that guy claims he was some carpenter turned freedom fighter kind of guy.
And the worst thing that you still can't say whether it is a proof of him existing or just a jab at competing tribe and religion.
God told us the end times would be marked with a great falling away.
And that's exactly what's happening. Atheist Marxism and Liberalism is encroaching on the west and destroying Biblical foundations, family morals and values.
We can't change that.
All we can do is spread the Gospel to those willing to hear, and remain strong in the faith until Christ comes back for His bride and the destruction of the Illuminati forces.
Evolutionism is a death cult.
>death brought man into the world
>endless cycle of death
>life has no purpose
Christianity is about life
>man brought death into the world
>we have souls, the body is not the end
>we can have eternal life
So go fuck off back to /b/ with your monkey garbage.
>There will be a Christian revival in the future, make no mistake.
I think we have it since the classical liberalism, through the notion of will and humanity as a willing agents.
DUDE RIGHT. Whoa, Marxism is definitely a huge impact on the world today, but I never thought about Liberalism, until just now..
America is literally promoting all of it too. Damn subconscious mind control Illuminati TV.
That's why it's immpirtant to expose Gnosticism, because that is where the Illuminati Also has a base for its beliefs..
U have to consider the dates of the Gospels too, of course the dates might not be the most super accurate
>but u said the Bible was written by God
It's hard to give someone secular an opinion that is somewhat subjective and worldly rather than "God did it"
The Gospels "could" use purports every now and again
>All we can do is spread the Gospel to those willing to hear, and remain strong in the faith until Christ comes back for His bride and the destruction of the Illuminati forces.
hedonism is the praxis of the human rights and most people are not willing to adopt a non-hedonistic doctrine, since after all, hedonism is the natural doctrine of the humanity (and parents teach this more than anything), especially the non-hedonistic doctrine which they have been explicitly fighting against for the last centuries.
>god wouldn't approve of
This is always funny to me in two aspects.
>1. Does that mean god dissaproves anything it does? Because god is a pretty sick fellow
>2. Why do lowly humans dare to interpret the will or desire of a diety? Isnt that overstepping your boundaries?
>Bro, there's 10x more atheist threads than Christian threads on this board.
how did i get to bizarro /his/?
>mfw Christian who believes in reincarnation
Also there are different hell planets in Hindu texts for those who do really bad.
You have to make the best of this life otherwise you come back or you go to a hellish planet
Not all of them but a lot of them
>"I am that I am"
"I am who I am"
That's satanic atheism and in luciferianism where people deny God but use the name of Yhwh as a way to exalt themself.
Not all atheists
I want you to consider the following without freaking the fuck out and responding through memes: there have been too many advances in natural science to honestly accept any religion's claims without incredible levels of doubt.
It might be possible to save Christianity but you're going to have to do so without any of these "one, holy, apostolic" churches. Which is to say, to save it you'll have to destroy it. Alternatively, initiate a global nuclear war that knocks humanity back to the bronze age and try to force people into absolute monarchy.
Break up the institutionalized religion.
Study and look how they done it in early churches - just do that with adaptations of symbols and elements for the modern era.
Church been restored.
Basically take orthodox church and kill most priests, then educate them in the spirit of God and not of money.
>How do we restore the Christianity in an age that is slowly falling away from religion?
Remind people that Christianity isn't "GO TO CHURCH FOR 5 HOURS BURN IN HELL"
I am by no means a Catholic, but a crusade-esque movement against American Protestantism would be greatly beneficial. Those fundamentalists act as if they speak for all of Christianity, and autistic atheists mindlessly assume that is the only form of Christianity. This has lead to most of society forgetting about the spiritual aspects of Christianity.
Also, modern parenting has lead to an increase in autism. Religion, and other philosophies, is an incredibly abstract school of thought. This is a trouble for autists, as their brains are inhibited when it comes to abstract thought. This, paired with the ever growing number of autistic people, has lead to a generation who cannot comprehend religion. Since they cannot understand these abstract concepts, autists simply brush religion aside as "fairytales".
Aside from science, science isn't exactly "Absolute" when it changes its results after the first set of them are made facts only to be disproven later
Also, no monarchy, no rule through bloodlines nor war, not mainstream religion, just a path to take for the person to experience God through a righteous practice...
Spirit of God over money every day..
Even the early church, got'dang' Romans shouldn't have been able to control Christianity the way it still does today
That's a big problem is that people look at Christianity
>stereotype church goer
Which unfortunately the church is I filtrate with non-Christian who have their own agenda but no one ever looks into it..
>science isn't exactly "Absolute"
Science is not absolute, but that's exactly why it's stronger than religious doctrines have proven. The latter claim to be "Absolute" yet the they have no answer to fact based investigations showing, for example, that the Earth itself is billions of years old, or that the Exodus event not only didn't happen but could not have happened. Scientists CAN be wrong, but scientists are shown by OTHER scientists USING scientific investigation that those other scientists are wrong. Science can adapt where religions can't because they immediate cede authority. That, and the childish denial of this, is why people are abandoning religion.
The entire basis of christianity is "come to me (Jesus) and you will go to heaven." The flip side of this is that if you don't go to him you won't go to heaven.
Just because the sermon this week might be on abortion or something the actual structure of that act that is being participated in is in the fundamental premise.
I find it interesting that, while Christianity is superior to many religions with its earthly morality, it's probably among the more brutal ones with its consequences for disbelieving. I mean, eternal torment. Judaism, as far as I know, never had this concept of FOREVER BURNING AND SUFFERING, and it really makes the OT bastard of a God much more reasonable. Christ is like a madman in sheep's clothing.
>if you miss a week of church you go to hell
No offense but this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of christian doctrine.
>The entire basis of christianity is "come to me (Jesus) and you will go to heaven."
No it's not.
Jesus was proof that one doesn't have to be a deity to be monastic. Jesus was a man on earth, tempted by Satan, yet still resisted temptation and went on to fulfill a prophecy. Jesus is a perfect example of how one can acquire spiritual enlightenment through charity, humility, and letting go of worldly materials (Heaven).
The flip side is rejecting God, and letting oneself be gulped in mundane hedonism. The hedonism is pleasurable for a time being. However, once one realizes they could have had God's love, they weep, moan, and gnash their teeth.
Islam is much much much worse in this regard. You can, through a vexing mental process, accept a form of christianity that doesn't accept the existence of hell, or you can accept a form of christianity that makes the result of hell a near impossibility, since god is loving and forgiving.
Islam on the other hand is uncompromising. The Quran is filled with vivid descriptions of the horrors of hell, and it constantly reminds the reader/listener that it is their fate if they fail to accept islam.
Nobody said that.
You're deeply confused. Islam flat out states that non-Muslims are allowed into Heaven. Christianity denies that it was possible for anyone prior to Christ's death, no matter how decent a person, to enter Heaven, and everyone that doesn't accept Christ (even those that believe in the One God of Abraham) is abandoned in Hell.
>14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe[a] in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?[b] 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And you know the way to the place where I am going.”[c] 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know[d] my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
If you didn't lack the capabilities of abstract thought, you'd see how my point stand.
Jesus saying that "I am the and the truth, and the life" is Him explaining that following His ways leads one spiritual enlightenment. "No one comes to the Father except through me" is Jesus explaining that following His model and acquiring spiritual enlightenment is achieving union with God.
it also flat out states the opposite
>Whoever prefers a religion other than Islam, it shall definitely not be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter, he shall be among the losers. (3:85)
>They have rejected who say that God is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary. And the Messiah [actually] said: O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever ascribes partners to the One God, God shall forbid Paradise for him and his abode shall then be the great Fire. And the unjust shall have no helpers. (5:72)
but there's two ways to resolve the contradiction
the first is by recognising that the entire message of the quran is that an uncompromising belief in one god is required, and that pretty much rules out christians
the second is by islamic jurisprudence which goes as such: when there is a contradiction in the quran the latest statement (chronologically) overrides the earlier statements. now the quran isn't sorted chronologically, but islamic legal scholars do have a chronological order for it, and that resolves basically every contradiction.
notice how chapter 5, which i quoted, is one of the very last chapters chronologically. it overrides the earlier stuff about being cool with christians.
it's more than that because he rails against scripture and shit like that, effectively saying that you have to go to him and not corrupt jews
he's even referred to as logos, the word of god
>implying I don't believe Jesus is the Messiah
If anything, satan wants Christianity to become a standardized belief ruled by a bureaucracy.
Then again, satan is a metaphor for temptation and suffering.
What does that have to do bureaucracy?
Jesus is God in the flesh.
He is the only man to be completely sinless and without flaw.
The only way to heaven is through His precious blood. He sacrificed Himself for our sins.
I mean, God disapproves of obvious things, but morality can still be subjective to each of us. We can't deny there are certain things that we should be mindful of. The NT has new commandments that make sense
As for interpreting the will and desire of a "deity" people have been writing down the will of God in other places, also if you have a relationship with God, you know what He needs of us.
also just to continue on a bit, the pope has recently said that literally anyone can go to heaven, christian or not
granted, some christians don't believe this is the case, but the majority do
as for previous to christ, there is a tradition in christianity that christ saved them by literally journeying to hell and freeing them, called the harrowing of hades
of course it's all fairy tales and nonsense, but let's at least be accurate about the fairy tales, lest we use our time fruitfully on a board about history
Why would the Son of God™ need to be baptized by a mortal man?
because jesus was a mortal man and follower of john the baptist but he stabbed him in the back and took over his ministry
I never said He was just a guy. Him having the temptations of a human (fasting in the desert) yet overcoming said temptations shows that we all can do the same.
My point is that very few people nowadays take the time to think for themselves when it comes to the story of Jesus. They simply rely on their priest or preacher to tell them the Word. This inevitably leads to bureaucracy.
You're severely misquoting here, and it's clearly in ignorance as well as malice since your knowledge comes from anti-Islam websites. The ayat from sura 3 is specifically about apostasy, and it refers not only to Muslims but to all People of the Book.
>81: And [recall, O People of the Scripture], when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him." [ Allah ] said, "Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?" They said, "We have acknowledged it." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."
>82: And whoever turned away after that - they were the defiantly disobedient.
>83: So is it other than the religion of Allah they desire, while to Him have submitted [all] those within the heavens and earth, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they will be returned?
>84: Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him."
>85: And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.
You're also confusing Islam the religion with Islam the action (submission, which qualifies in Islamic doctrine the pious before Muhammad including Christians, Zoroastrians, and even the Hunafa). This is understandable since you're not very familiar with the subject. Incidentally, this also proves that capital punishment for apostasy isn't doctrinal.
Isn't lying against your religion?
I still don't understand, are answering from an outside view, or only giving from what faith allows?
You say "god dissaproves" as though he has told you himself, and don't give me the 'relationship with him' crap. This is the same type of delusion people used when a monarch would become I'll and then the chancellor or whatever would command on "his word", even if it was completely against everything the ruler has ever been about.
I don't comprehend how you can distrust the word and action of man, but when one tells you its from god, you just go "oh OK it must be true than".
If you deny the fact you can have a relationship with God then what is the point in asking?
People all over the world wrote about God and different ideas about God since the beggining of time.
I don't think people should use God's word to rule over people.
It is obvious to see what is good and bad behavior, and God's laws are in the NT. It's that simple really.
>separate church and state
>abandon puritanism and literal interpretations of scripture
>focus on feel-good spirituality rather than harsh, moralistic dogma
>don't assiduously brainwash children
>allow blasphemy, criticism of religion, and degenerate lifestyles to flourish
>be surprised when Christendom falls to the fedora
A secular, permissive society is destined to lose religiosity in the long-term. This is especially true the more pluralistic that society is. Waning adherence to Christianity is already inevitable in the vast majority of the West.
>Because it makes for a better story. Stories are important.
Okay fine, but then maybe Christianity should have sticked to Arianism (Jesus is not God, and he is subordinate to God) or even Nestorianism (Jesus is part of the Trinity, but he has a human nature too). It makes for a better story.
The whole temptation in the desert part makes zero sense if he's fully divine. Also, the need for baptism would make more sense that way.
The temptations are actually very important.
1. It shows man and angels alike that God cannot be tempted, no matter how harsh the conditions.
2. It shows how strong Christ's willpower is.
3. It's part of Christ's suffering for us.
It gives us a clear message, it shows us the correct way. i.e don't sell your soul for fame like the celebrities in Hollywood, don't crumble and don't give in to the devil.
At any point, did I deny the possibility of having a relationship with god? No, I just said that it isn't an excuse to hear his word. What I'm getting at is that if all you have is other humans interpretations of what god wants, there's a more than likely chance that none of them are the true interpretation.
we can argue about the interpretation of sura 3 all day but ultimately it isn't important to the discussion about whether christians go to paradise in islam because sura 5 is unambiguous that they do not, and in any contradiction (if there is one) sura 5 overrules sura 3 as it is a later revelation.
>[5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
>[5:70] We have taken a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we sent to them messengers. Whenever a messenger went to them with anything they disliked, some of them they rejected, and some they killed.
>[5:71] They thought that they would not be tested, so they turned blind and deaf, then GOD redeemed them, but then many of them turned blind and deaf again. GOD is Seer of everything they do.
>[5:72] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers.
>[5:73] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third in a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution.
The Quran says the Mahdi will do exactly as the what Antichrist will do in the Bible.
Just a coincidence? Retard.
The Mahdi and Issa (Jesus) of the Quran are exactly as the Antichrist and False Prophet of the Bible.
No wonder, Islam is a false religion started by a demon who choked Mohammed (piss be upon him).
Hew, I'm glad the eternal anglo killed him then.
>Christianity as a single religion and not a spectrum did not exist until the First Nicaea council.
This is an /x/-tier conspiracy. If you were to read the works of the early Church fathers like Clement of Rome and Julian Martyr you would see that the church meaningfully existed as a (mostly) united Church. Tons of early epistles (like Clement to the Corinthians) are all about preserving the unity of the Church. It was a single religion, but it was only official and really solidly set up by Nicaea. Christians believed in what the Council of Nicaea said before it happened, it just made it official.
Trust me man, I look into all the conspiracies, I still believe in God and I see the "suspicious crap" you're mentioning.
It's about trust and faith, not blind trust and faith, you have to apply it.
The fact that there were writers trying to "preserve the unity of the Church" just proves how fragmented it already was.
>Christians believed in what the Council of Nicaea said before it happened
What? Nestorianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, and so forth would like to have a long word with you and a good laugh.
To another point, Islam took its Christ crucifixion story straight from Gnostic tradition (where it was merely an illusion), which shows how widespread heterodox beliefs were around provinces of the Roman Empire even as late as the 6th century.
Seems to be about blind trust and faith. Most people who do believe this tier of crap tend to have it in their mind, yet do nothing with it. No offense, but how you're representing as opposed to the majority is why it gets little respect anymore.
Maybe if, as such a strong faith, y'all preached critical thinking as well instead of just "take the word, live by it", there'd be some type of middle ground.
>implying I support pagan beliefs
>implying I support paganism whatsoever
I'm a Christian. However, it is idiocy to think that simply saying that a culture was once Christian in anyway is a successful critique of Islam. Europeans are converting to islam because you faggots resort to shitty arguments, thus making the opposition appear correct.
I mean, can only give you so much info behind a screen you know? Experience and works can't just be given you have to have them yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where it would be like "I believe it because this dude wrote it a long ass time ago and because I was told to" but I used to work against the church and stuff so I only know through repentence and stuff.
Same with Protestantism. No Church Father is a sola scripturist
>After all, in their exegesis the early Church theologians neither received the Bible as a 'Bible without notes' nor interpreted it in a vacuum. They received along with the Bible a tradition of interpreting it for a worshipping community and they proceeded to interpret it for a worshipping community. The study of the Bible as a scientific discipline to be carried on for its own sake was very far from their thought, and at all times has been, one suspects, a mere will-o'-the-wisp. This does not mean that the Fathers sacrificed everything for the sake of the edification of the faithful or for the consistent articulation of a doctrinal system. They sacrificed too much for these ends, but they were not unconscious of limits and controls on this process imposed by the Bible itself. Their purpose in exegesis was nevertheless purely practical, and we do not understand their exegesis until we understand this. They began the story of the Church's relations with the Bible, in which the Bible and the life of the Church were to interact for all the centuries to come, each correcting, deepening, fertilising the other. They inaugurated the Church's dance with the Bible, fancifully perhaps, but not irresponsibly, perhaps erratically, but at least gaily.-Cambridge History of the Bible, pg 453
Yeah, I get'cha. Have you, though?
Personally, I've heard the voice without words. It came from vice and not virtue; more like a warning than a welcoming.
This is where I guess I take offense for it. Many claim to understand the word and wants of something they've never encompassed. Calling it a him and such is just insulting to yourself, not even it. Shows how strong personal biases can be.
>I don't understand it or like it, so it doesn't make sense!
I think the "voices" can be the mind / other entities idk, something along those lines.
God's "voice" is hard to explain what "sound" it makes.
We all understand but none of us do. It's like "I understand the word of God and it says here you are done for its to late" and that is a lack of understanding.. and personal bias
I guess voice without words makes it sound vernacular. More like speaking in pure intention or emotion. Very hard to explain, as that was the conundrum I came across in conversation.
How would I be able to explain or share such an experience, beyond telepathy? I haven't come up with an answer yet.
>How do we restore the Christianity in an age that is slowly falling away from religion?
There has been a massive intellectual gap in Christianity ever since the Reformation and the start of the modern era. Whether that can ever be fully rekindled is still very much up in the air, as many attempts to are still troubled by lasting problems. Either way, filling that is still the main issue at hand. Both trying to adopt these philosophies to the modern language and trying to unify concepts between Christian groups. Most Christians or generally people in the west have no grasp of protestants v. catholicism despite how it has shaped the west, and all they're knowledgeable of is the variety of understandings of concepts out there, leading to a lack of unity between all groups in relation to Christianity. Seeking to unify the concept of God and the concept of prayer and the concept of justification and the concept of everything else should be top of the to-do list.
>Is it possible that Christianity could restore it's root of deep spiritual practice rather than Orthodox church rituals? I like church sometimes, but it's important to meditate on God more than it is to say "I went to church today"..
It is possible to begin work on people understanding Mass as a spiritual practice rather than an act simply to be done out of cultural tradition but I've said, this requires some unity between people intellectually.
>Also, how to convert people without telling them they are going to hell and your doing them a favor.
Don't treat Hell as simply a legal punishment but rather their own self-imposed consequence to their actions, as Catholic doctrine would have it. But of course this will be taken by some as a "softening" compared to the legal punishment view despite it being a view between theologians in at least the medieval era.
The point of Christianity, outside salvation, is a path towards a life of virtue and joy. Ethics are not shackles.
Is nudism a sin?
I see people saying "ethics are not sheckles" and disagree. Because of societies standards, I'm essentially forced to wear clothes every day at risk of being shunned/ outcast. At heart though, I am a nudist. Clothes are unnatural. The winter and cold season is different, I can see for the need for warmth and protection, but otherwise, my natural state is naked and is accepted.
Relevant to every religious thread on 4chan to both the religious and the irreligious
This is how all of you sound
>The fact that there were writers trying to "preserve the unity of the Church" just proves how fragmented it already was.
Yeah, there was heresy back then, but the church as a whole was united. Its main opponent, Gnostic Christianity, heresy'ed out of existence and burned itself out.
>What? Nestorianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, and so forth would like to have a long word with you and a good laugh.
They're dead Jim. The majority of Christians followed the Nicaean creed. The Nestorians left to the Persian Empire and Arianism fizzled out by the time Islam came knocking, Monphysitism to a lesser extent. They're all heresy, the rest of this "spectrum" you talk about isn't Christianity.
>To another point, Islam took its Christ crucifixion story straight from Gnostic tradition (where it was merely an illusion), which shows how widespread heterodox beliefs were around provinces of the Roman Empire even as late as the 6th century.
Yes, this is true.
Jesus gave meaning to death - before Jesus death had no meaning, no purpose... it was the price Adam ( humanity ) hat to pay for sin.
Jesus took this which is meaningless and gave it purpose and meaning.
Now death is nothing but the door to eternal life - trough the resurrection.
Oh Christianity is about God seeking lost man.
There are no schools of thinking required for that - You have God the omnipotent Creator of everything - and you have us humans that feel eternal but yet get destroyed in death.
Also God decision to seek lost creation is based on love and mercy only.
Not on some intellectual process, or mechanic of universe.
Salvation and everything involved by it comes by grace not by merit - it's a gift from God that wants man back in eternal life, where man is able to evolve towards becoming by grace what God is by being.
+ Jesus said we're going to keep our personalities and not going to fused back into Adam.
It feels very liberating to be a Christian.
I don't fear death anymore.
As an atheist I was insecure.
But now? If someone pointed a gun at me and told me to renounce Jesus or die, I would say
>Pull the trigger faggot
>I will never reject my Lord and Saviour
People who fear death do so because
A) they don't know about eternal life
B) they are too attached to earthly things
>it's important to meditate on God more than it is to say "I went to church today"..
That's why the church is dying
Reading the Bible in the middle of the night is so comfy.
I'm happy for this anon.
But really don't say pull the trigger faggot, just pray for that person.
Everything we do in life as Christians it's not for others to see and observe us.. it's for God to see us.
And think about it - in Christ we are one - if you do everything for Christ you do everything for the community.
Fearing death is natural, you just poop into existence after 9 months of intrauterine life - cry, laugh, have fun, have sex, eat, sleep, dance, play - and then you learn about death and that even if you feel eternal you will be destroyed.
Basically after resurrection you still get in contact with earthly things... because you will be resurrected in the same body you have now (actually an more improved version of it ).
So it's eternal material life.
And to complete - if your transform the qualities of man into altruistic ones then eternal life makes sense and has a purpose.
And with God around you receive everything and give Him back everything.
But before we die - we have to take care of each other, because that's where Christ is the closest.
Former Christian here. You do the exact opposite of what you're saying to do, because your ideas are shit.
We don't need 'spirituality', and people don't want or need cheap therapeutic nonsense, and they don't need your cheap ass watered down, not-worth-the-scripture-its-printed-on, Jesus Junk-handing, praying-before-high-school-football games bullshit!
Restore the doctrines! Build up the church! Make your virtues and values strong and applicable again! Encourage the study of the creed and its philosophy. Aquinas is spinning in his grave at how ILLITERATE you sons of bitches are.
And stop talking so fucking much about 'personal relationships'. I swear, if I could ban one word from all Christian discourse, till the very end of time, it would be 'relationship'. How much more meaningful theology we'd get into if these stupid idiots would stop pushing that garbage.
Your values are fading away because the doctrines they are based on are false and because the will to power, to LIFE has completely faded from your philosophy, no one goes to your religion for moral perfection or wisdom anymore, because none of you sell it.
You just play bad rock music, wear T-shirts, celebrate your 'youth groups', who go on to college and never look back.
If you want 'spirituality' or 'a relationship with Jesus' fine, but take such potent poison out of the Church! Go meditate in the forest and leave those with actual interest in peace.
You know what the modern church is like? Imagine joining a club for astronomy, with the goal of studying and admiring the heavens. You pack a lunch, bring your telescope, and head out to the middle of nowhere to gaze upon the heavens, and when you arrive, there's spotlights everywhere so you can hardly even SEE the stars, and they're all playing loud music, talking about how much they just LOVE the stars, wearing and selling cheap merchandise that says shit like "The stars are my home-boy".
Thats what modern Christianity is like.
imo yet another board split is required for faith oriented discussions, I think. Not necessarily everything related to religion needs to go, especially not debates on historicity of texts, but threads about restoring Christianty/Islam/whatever should clearly not be here and are clogging the pipes. but I guess the more we split the boards, the closer we get to reddit shit.
speaking of which, when did it become lame and reddit to be an atheist here? Is this a /pol/ meme? It seems like every time I see a thread like this they dismiss atheists as fedora reddit tumblrina faggots.
newsflash dickcheese, we're all on 4chan right now so I think we have more in common than you realize. You think I'm walking around like "debate me chris peopel!!!"
no, I just want to live my fucking life.
and right now, I want to suck your fucking dick until you nut in my mouth
>Every second thread is some Chrstfag circle jerking bible study.
Why shouldn't I be free to come up with my own code of ethics? These are ethics forced upon you, dictated from on high.
This goes for anything. A wife is not shackles. A wife provided to you by your King in an arranged political marriage is.
Ethics are by their very nature a subject of great contention. Your religions removes that contention. Freewill is still present, but the way to score and win the game is spelled out for you. Sure, you can turn around and go the wrong way in Mario Kart, you have free will. But if the game punishes you for it then it's just the illusion of free will. You will always do what the rules say will benefit you.
Apologies for comparing your religion to a video game, just was what came to mind quickest for the analogy, and we are writing on a time limit on 4chan. Replies become irrelevant very quickly.
>Thread makes mention of atheism or Christianity
>Clearly atheists are ruining /his/
1 of them is attacking Christianity.
1 of them is questioning the historical accuracy of the bible.
1 of them is just asking a legitimate question about the historical reaction to atheism.
>Currently, there is an ongoing debate on whether Friedrich Nietzsche's insanity was caused purely through disease or whether his atheistic/nihilistic philosophical outlook on life was the cause.
I'm dying. Fucking Christians.
Kill all the southern baptist leadership and increase the number of RCIA classes being given so that people with different work schedules can find time to be catechized.
Literally that. The reason good christianity is failing is because there literally isn't enough education being made available about it, and because fundies are the folk religion of the backwaters of america.
Solving these two problems makes christendom rise again.
>the restoration of christianity
>implying that this ought to happen
>implying that no one on the planet can live without christposter's specific flavor of really simplistic self-reflection
>implying that christposters and christposting don't do more harm than good in their futile attempt to manage and control society, babying adults in the process, who get even more irritated with christianity than they did before
Keep christposting, fellers. Pretty soon, everyone will hate you
You can't. The complete erosion of all of the religions that we know of is inevitable - as sure as the tectonic plates will shift. You can only hope to slow its decline. You cannot stop it.
People should join the Church because it represents truth, beauty and wisdom, and then discover Christ and work their way to sanctification.
Evangelicals seem to think you should join the Church because "JESUS IS YOUR FRIEND", nevermind that nobody properly understands the nature, role and relation to Christ to humanity. There's a reason so many scholastics dealt with God's Incarnation LAST, because it is preceded by a huge number of philosophical teachings that people took for granted, and which are gone for most people today.
Increase the rigour of youth education. Make sure that we don't leave religious instruction at a sunday school tier, but drill our children so that they are always the philosophical superiors of their secular peers. After that, just wait for the heathen to contracept themselves into extinction.
Knowledge belongs to god;
"...there is nothing new under the sun..."
Refuse to acknowledge copyright on grounds of ancient faith that predates informational society, remind everyone of monastic preservation of ancient knowledge that enabled scientific revolution
-> Provide free server space and refuse copyright and personal information seizures by secular law on grounds of sanctuary
"This is my flesh given up for you..."
-> endorse free healthcare for all, create lifetime organ trust for heart replacements until artificial hearts are successfully demonstrated, then convert
"The Lord make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon you,
And give you peace."
-> convert church land to solar and renewable energy, provide free power to church goers who make confession. all others must tithe
The church, if it serves a purpose is to preserve the body and soul of the world and energize it with faith in the good. If it cannot do this, it betrays its mission and will be cast off.
>How do we restore the Christianity in an age that is slowly falling away from religion
Its a safety blanket the humanity has long outgrown.
Better. Fucking. PR.
Dispel the Christian Dark Ages meme, demonstrate the massive benefits the church has given European arts and sciences, stop pandering to leftists who will never go to church anyway, point to how much the church does for charity, stop getting involved in political policy. Stop letting atheists control the narrative.
Well, a real wonder or something might work, because honestly, I currently haven't much use for an imaginary firend, and if I had to choose one, it likely wouldn't be the christian one.
In other words, your religions is dying in the 1st world, and there is not much you can do about it.
Many developed countries already have a non-religious majority, most othrs will follow soon.
Oh I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
Never mind, I'm not an atheist, I'm just a person living in acountry where the majority of people doesn't give a rats ass about religion, and so do I.
Have fun wating for your religious revival, could take some time.
>OP here, looking for better answers than "you can't" and "invisible sky daddy" haha
Told you it'll take a miracle, but seems like God have stoped performing them, right after the devil invented the videocamera.
If it cheers you up, mysticism is in the human nature, so there will always be a spiritual thing going on, it just won't be Christianism.
The Christian faith is just another one of the thousands of different beliefs mankind hat in its history and abandoned over time.
See it positive, Europe (already is to a good part) and North America likely will turn irreligious majority durking your lifetime, but there is always Africa or South America, they likely gonna have religious majorities, even in the next century.
>Why shouldn't I be free to come up with my own code of ethics?
I think this question missing the issue slightly, but I really do appreciate the response. The overall issue with establishing one ethical system over another would be asking what the validity is of the system compared to others.
Religions, in most cases, speak of a way of life intrinsic to people as a whole. No matter what system of thought is used to express validity of universal teachings between humans as long as there is that it is an argument over the validity of subjective morality. The basis for subjective morality is mainly a denial of unified essences. "We're all different" and the like. If there is a system that argues that there is something that transcends those differences (Like, say, Natural Law) then we have a reason to believe in unified essences in some manner.
And depending on the goal of the ethics and where it derives itself from it can have varying cases of "dictated upon you". Hellenistic "do this or nature will fuck your shit up" is the most blunt, while other systems will derive their order from nature itself. Thus, the ethics are not "dictated from on high" but rather telling of nature itself, which already dictates the being of the person and his capabilities.
The latter of which is what Christianity goes into, despite some people acting like the shitty theologians in the Book of Job and taking the Hellenist route.
>Oh no people on the internet don't like me
This might surprise you, but also off the internet, people don't like to be babied and have their life micromanaged by people who know absolutely fuck all about them
If you want to engage in your naive interventionism offline as well, you're more than welcome to. I can however almost assure you that people will absolutely despise you for it, especially if you're one of those /pol/ack neckbeards
Focus on Mark out of all the synoptics. According to scholars it is believed to be the earliest form of the Gospel. The genealogies among other things make Matthew seem like an adaption of the original story made to appeal to a Jewish community unless you consider perhaps the verses which also show up in the Gospel of the Hebrews reconstruction.
Luke is the latest of the three so in any place where it disagrees with the other two preference should be given to those.
Use the Gospel of John and the non-pseudepigraphical epistles as a supplement to your understanding of the Gospel.
Avoid placing much importance on the Torah or Revelations and focus only on the parts of the OT that are mentioned in the Gospel.
You clearly know on surface level stuff about the gospels if your complaining about John being different than the synoptic gospels.
I bet you've never even heard of the Q source before.
The best way is to reform the image of Christianity in the eyes of young secular people.
To many people Christianity means retarded fundie jesus camp protestants or lecherous catholic priests, and nothing else.
The messianic bit is the only authentic part. Jesus and his early followerrs were a bunch of nutters who thought the world was about to end and Jesus was the Jewish messiah who was going to bring the apocalypse about.
It's all the other nonsense in Christianity, like Jesus being god, that is inauthentic.
Probably the best blend of Christian tradition would be Lutheranism and Messianic Christianity to give it an more authentic cultural style that is closer to the traditions of the original Hebrew followers of Christ, while at the same time leaving room open for people of all backgrounds in the true spirit of Jesus's ministry. Of course this should be done without going full Anabaptist retard "hurr durr we're bringing back some laws from Leviticus hurr."
>You clearly know on surface level stuff about the gospels if your complaining about John being different than the synoptic gospels.
No, I'm well aware. I just don't believe the Christian line that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses.
>I bet you've never even heard of the Q source before.
Q is the name given to the assumed but never found source to explain the shared tradition of Luke and Matthew that isn't drawn from Mark. Which again, argues that none of the Gospels are really eyewitness accounts, given all the copying and drawing from each other they do, which is a pretty solid blow to the mainstream Christian interpretations.
John's different from the Synoptics because it was written by a totally different person and with significant gnostic influence that the others lacked.
>I just don't believe the Christian line that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses.
I've ever only heard protestants say that. I went to a catholic elementary and middle school, as well as a prestigious catholic college prep and catholic university, and we we're only ever taught that mark was a eye wittness account, and that the Q source was most likely the correct theory, based upon current evidence.
Don't judge catholics and orthodox based upon what protestants say, as the protestants had to re-write parts of the bible for their beliefs to make sense.
This might surprise you, but also looking for people who have a somewhat optimistic attitude, not "neckbeard /pol/ack interventionalist" like who are you? Lol
No offense, but really, looking for constructive answers
>you just don't. you can't re-convince yourself that santa is real once you've learnt that he's not real
>learnt that he's not real
Not takong a side on the debate of the existence of God, but to say learnt is to imply you can truly know if God exists or of he doesn't, which is simply untrue. We can't know if God exists or not, we can only theorize and go with the theory that seems the most true.
Do you also happen to belive that science is the end all be all, and that things like evolution are facts?
Sorry that the other anon did the Reddit meme without explaining himself, but it is point of origin for this, along with reddit-famous atheist philosopher like John Loftus and Bart Erhman.
The wrong crucifixion date is an atheist meme. That's it. Mark 15:42 explicitly states the same day as John's.
If you simply googled it and looked at a source, theist or atheistic, outside of the circlejerk, you can read a fair deal of research on the matter that unanimously comes to the conclusion it was on the same day.
Gonna throw this out to all the atheists / skeptics, what is something Christianity could do that would make it more enticing for you?
I don't mean like "join my church today" but, legitimately, what is something that would make you be like "hey, that Jesus guy is pretty interesting when you put it like that?"
>and we we're only ever taught that mark was a eye wittness account, and that the Q source was most likely the correct theory, based upon current evidence.
Please, if Mark is an eyewitness, he's the dumbest and most oblivious person in history, given how he consistently gets Judean geography, local politics and titles, existing Jewish law and sectarian positions, and even his Aramaic wrong. Matthew would at least be a more pleusible candidate for eyewitness status, if he didn't so clearly copy from Mark.
Except Mark's Sabbath is the day after the Paschal offering was brought, given his statements about the Last Supper in Mark 14:12. John, in 18:28, makes it equally clear that when being presented before Pilate (after the last supper by a day), Passover hasn't started, as the Priests are worried that if they go into Pilate's house, they won't be eligable to eat it. (Which is also weird, unless Pilate keeps corpses lying around and nobody thought ot mention this detail)
>If you simply googled it and looked at a source, theist or atheistic, outside of the circlejerk, you can read a fair deal of research on the matter that unanimously comes to the conclusion it was on the same day.
I have. I've pretty consistently seen the same apologetic answer that "Oh, there were different passoverts between different Jewish sects and the Gospel authors are referring to different ones"
I don't find it convincing because
A) I've never actually seen a Jewish source claim anything such, only Christian apologetics.
B) It wouldn't matter anyway unless the Sadducees, who had a tight grip on the Temple priesthood, would be giving the paschal offerings on days that they considered to be the wrong date for it, something which seems exceedingly unlikely: Remember, the Gospels talk about in reference to the lamb sacrifice.
Please don't assume I'm an idiot just because I'm highly critical of Christainity. It's quite insulting.
I don't know, I don't think I could ever be interested in religion as a valid belief, but I'd be less put off if it didn't spout values that I find immoral.
Jesus and Christianity is already plenty interesting, I just don't believe in it.
>Gonna throw this out to all the atheists / skeptics, what is something Christianity could do that would make it more enticing for you?
Focus on the Q source alone. Don't soccermom the shit out of people's lives. Focus more on the golden rule. Actually practice what you preach.
You don't believe the mind and soul exist or free will?
Also, this isn't just base Catholicism, I used to be Catholic but I think the separation of the millions of sects of Christianity is keeping them from working together
Aside from religious terms, I feel like everyone has a soul, and Christ helsingborg us connect back to God.
It makes more sense than "do this, eat this bread so you don't go to hell" like, if they taught the process of connecting your soul to God, like yoga or something, it would make sense to you?
That's why I focus on NT and other non-canonical sources rather than the "lore" of the OT (aside from prophecies)
The very energy in your body, is a reason. Your body moves because your mind, but your mind dies with your body. The very fact you are a conscious entity that can move on its own, unlike inanimate objects, makes you living. When you pass, that energy goes somewhere. We can't calculate the soul's energy with science because we are talking of an extremely subtle essence. God would be the source of the essence
Honestly, the sorts of changes that would get me interested in Christianity would be so great that it probably wouldn't be Christianity at all anymore.
My biggest problem with Christianity isn't anything in regards to its moral message, but the theology, especially in relation to Judaism. I don't really buy that the Gospel authors, any of them, were eyewitnesses to Jesus's life. I find the explanations as to how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy to be incredibly unsatisfactory, and the overall tone of the NT in regards to OT symbolism baffling. And I don't think I'm alone, I think there's a very good reason that Christianity has been more successful among the non-Jews than among the Jews since just about day 1 for a good reason.
And that if you're going to claim there's a validity to these old books, if you're going to claim that Jesus is the God of Israel and Jesus is fulfilling the prophecies laid down in Isaiah and Jeremiah and others, you kind of need to do a better job about it. It's not just prophetic revelation either; implicit in the Christian position is that none of the Jewish thinkers for roughly 1,000 years understood their own religion, and that furthermore, God actively lied to who knows how many millions of people about something regarding the salvation of the soul and the ultimate purpose of life before Jesus came along and gave the "right" message.
It's happened before and it'll happen again. People need to find a reason for needing God again and then the new generation will grow up with it once more. The power of the Church and Christianity has waxed and waned throughout the centuries due to political turmoil or straight up political and power struggle reasons.
to OP and many on this thread:
1. I don't consider OP Christian. Although by conventional naming rights through the laws at work in general social operation, I am the one who is not a Christian, I am become "something else", unable to identify with a demagoguery for the convention that is at play upon those host to the world.
2. Religiosity must die, and the bible will survive to the extent that it directly be seen in secular 'understanding'. This is perfectly acceptable to myself... take heed: I am not revisionist at all also.
3. The bible is wholly misunderstood; most of what I call- so called Christians, and therefore also the common critique for Christian apologetics, does not apply to my opinion.
Most people, so called Christians included: are married to their word games, because its all 'world views' are just false schemas wielding authority in a obtuse unconvincing way.
I know I'm right, because I can't be shown to be wrong, I win, I overcome.
Everything I have come across in the bible I have made sense of, the scriptures are just vastly detailed in an elaborate account of what has happened, so much so, that just like a sophisticated academic paper, they are easy to misconstrue and oversimplify into bad interpretation.
Step 1. Get a KJV
Step 2. If anyone tells you what something means, never believe in what they say; discern if believing on it works, and to what extent it works.
Generally speaking, all organised religion is dependent on chain letter thinking, with the same emotional catches, same as current thinking around scientism also a cult of non-thinking.
Listen to the worm of doubt.
Hate your own life, and your brother, and mother and father, and your whole family, pure devotion needs clear vision on the soul.
I would offer my council to supplement some of the major work that is required for proper development of spiritual understanding; because there are so many stumbling blocks that many could blindly become prone to.
I should go onto say also: there is no point in building up any story in your head, upon some one else's 'authority' and say-so.
Thats how we got into every single mess, ever, and stop being able to talk anyone out of that shit.
>I don't consider OP a Christian
Following the teachings of Christ and trying to restore the original essence of Christianity isn't Christian?
>religiosity must die
No, that is the purpose of this thread is to help it stay alive while restoring it's root
>I know I'm right, because I can't be shown to be wrong, I win, I overcome.
>Get a KJV
I wouldn't recommend a KJV or a NIB version but whatever version you have is the one you should read.
>God actively lied
I think it is very possible the people on charge are hiding something from us.
I appreciate your comment thought at least seeing there might be some interest in it.
Think of all the other creation stories aside from Genesis, and also look into Gnosticism Demiurge and it opens up the perception of why the God of OT isn't always the "nice guy" however God speaks through His prophets and we see Jesus is prophecied to come but is denied for some reason.
I could go on and on about the Bible being two different stories that were sewn together unlawfully... but that is just one take. It isn't the whole OT but you can see for yourself
For the practical, atheist who might consider Jesus, should understand it is the attempt to use the teachings of Jesus to purify the body and mind in order to advance spirituality.
I don't care about how you construct the story of your "faith".
I still don't consider OP a Christian.
and I obviously do not endorse your recommendation.
Well done not petty reflation though, not even one question? Or obviously the implication is that you are asking for an argument... lawl, this is as far as I'll go.
>I think it is very possible the people on charge are hiding something from us.
But then, if pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament is a lie, you either have Jesus or the church fathers jumping through hoops to perpetuate the lie, which isn't exactly a good start.
Think of all the other creation stories aside from Genesis, and also look into Gnosticism Demiurge and it opens up the perception of why the God of OT isn't always the "nice guy" however God speaks through His prophets and we see Jesus is prophecied to come but is denied for some reason.
Niceness of the OT God aside, it's really the second part that I take issue with: I just don't see any prohpecies about Jesus that don't involve wholesale twisting of meanings, like every time something in Psalms is brought up despite Psalms not being a book of prophecy. Or you know that famous Isaiah verse, 7:14? I don't even entirely understand why Jews and Christians are so hung up as to whether or not "הָעַלְמָה" refers to a virgin or just a generalized young woman, the very next word הָרָה is third person masculine past tense. It's not "And she will conceive", it's "And she has already conceived" (been impregnated, really) To take it to mean that it's a prophecy about Jesus requires to actively distort the grammar of the original prophecy, and it's precisely that kind of twisting that I find making it impossible to really take Christainity seriously.
>For the practical, atheist who might consider Jesus, should understand it is the attempt to use the teachings of Jesus to purify the body and mind in order to advance spirituality.
And what "teachings of Jesus" do we have? We have the words of people who came decades if not centuries after Jesus, claiming as to what Jesus said and how it's great. How is that any different from say, reading the works of Plato to advance Socrateeism as a religion, and use the teachings of Socrates to purify the body and mind to advance spiritually?
Mainly the beginning legends that go back to other civilizations, the OT has some faults.
Not entirely though, OT prophecies just point to Christ, different sects have different traditions and ideas so it's looking for it yourself.
The teachings are passed down through succession of disciples, and the dates are not that far off from Christ's death. Considering Christians being persecuted from 33 to 64 to 70, where the Gospels start, it is a hard "historical" argument but it isn't that far off with dates.
Christ would have been something more than the people at the time could handle if they completely wiped the slate of His potential historical evidence by persecuted all His early followers who followed Him as Messiah
They all believe in Christ otherwise they wouldn't be labeled "Christian".
Similarities between Protestants
1)Sola Scriptura-Scripture Alone is the highest authority on all matters of faith and doctrine
2)Sola Fide-One is saved by Faith Alone, not by works. Different conceptions of this exist. Arminians believe that you have free will to simply consent, the rest...is Divine mind control where God acts through the person(where even the faith itself is from God)
3)Solus Christus-Christ alone is where Salvation is at
4)Sola Gratia-God's grace alone is that which saves
5)Soli deo Gloria-Glory to God alone, you are an unworthy piece of shit.
1)Free will-Calvinists don't believe in this or would take compatabilism to window dress this fact. Everyone else does though the Calvinists are closer to the original Reformers
2)Predestination-Calvinists and Lutherans believe that God predestines people. The former believes that God does both to salvation and damnation. The later, to salvation.
3)Atonement-Various theories such as Christus Victor and more commonly Penal Substitutionary Atonement
4)Eucharist-Lutherans believe that it is the real body and blood of Christ consumed, the rest don't.
5)Worship-Lutherans practically follow the Catholics in worship with some alterations made of course. The Calvinists are different.
6)Sola Fide-Lutherans and Calvinists approach this differently. Philip Cary does a good job pointing out how the Lutherans are in fact closer to the Medieval theory of Sacraments in contrast to the Calvinists.
7)Art and Iconography-Lutherans and even some Calvinists are happy with them. Calvin and Zwingli however refuse them.
8)Extent of Christ's atonement-Practically anyone but Calvinists believe it's for everyone. Calvinists believe it's only for the elect and the rest aren't liable for it
I know of 9 huge differences that divide the Protestants They can't even solve this.
There's an additional five more when we add the Orthodox into the mix.
Who follows Christ's teachings? We can answer this through looking back at the history of doctrine but once we do this, we have to root out all of Protestantism.
I don't distinguish much between different forms of false religion. I'm not catholic, I'm not protestant.
Without use of the KJV you have no chance of realizing this, but I believe most people most be very illiterate on the scale of independent literacy to not have the same ideas I had when I researched the bible, consulting everyone who had a different opinion on it, and not just joining one small cult, or populist interpretation.
The small flock yo, your numbers don't give me a pause at all: >>583372
Since you asked me a rather fleeting curt question without a real serious depth, I will give can only honor your vague interest with a summary answer:
1. Jesus Christ WAS a person.
2. Jesus Christ IS not a person.
the second point probably should rather be the first point, because its the most important part of the doctrine. Perhaps you have used some kindof KJV search tool, you could search "doctrine" and educate yourself on the plain and radically different contents the real bible professes.
I think there is a documentary on youtube that someone posted on this forum about the KJV... I wouldn't say I agree with the speakers 100% in the depth of their spiritual understanding, however, in the documentary, their arguments against the other versions of the bible are compelling enough.
The importance is not on the "KJV", its on the plain suppport it has for a deep spirituality that is completely and utterly lost in any church and person who has recourse to a non-KJV bible.
I'm not going to give you any of the arguments that are already out there, there is stuff on vimeo and youtube that is very compelling. But look at how foolish you are in your first language, do you really wanna dilute your intelligence into the pretense of wielding a 2nd language that so few would have opportunity to re-direct your stupidity in?
At least in the 16th century all people had to do was books and no porn.
On your the second point you raise:
Simpleton makes accusation. Shouldn't worry too much about that though, I mean, it's not like we've ever crucified people over accusations that weren't sublimated into questions that are answerable.
Protestants use the KJV and we see how disgustingly spiritually lost they all are.
If you believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, you are a fucking Protestant by definition like it or not.
Here we can even add a 10th difference between the KJV and non KJV.
But here's the fucking thing, can you show me from the KJV alone where it proves and shows its Divine Inspiration?
Can you show where in your entire KJV Bible did it define what the Bible is?
If you can't even answer these two questions satisfactorily then you have no right to shill your shit here and fuck off.
it's a statement of fact.
>over accusations that weren't sublimated into questions that are answerable
>dilute your intelligence into the pretense of wielding
>have opportunity to re-direct your stupidity in
you talk about language, so I don't think that words be like it manes, but it do.
I dont know what is:
Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura
So if you define that I can have discuss it.
I can't quite tell because you didn't set out your position fully, only by tacit implication-
Are you agnostic/atheist then I take it? Why does the bible have to axoimatically propound it's own use?
There any many scriptures that apply around this issue, and which make the issue as you raise it to be avoided with a fuller, compelling schema.
If you disagree with someone, why do you presume that your framing of the subject is already an objective authority on the matter?
Stay dead, you already love it so.
Reason cannot be consumed to the challenge of the powers of self-delusion.
Not all questions have happy answers, when the question is based on the gratification of an external authority over this world.
Yes this this true.
However, the quality of the literacy for those that weren't, but thank you for allowing me repeat my point for all of those trying their best at this "literacy" thing.
I was going to make a general rebuke of most everyone in this thread (havent careful read through each post, so I will say "most everyone"):
Knowledge of good is your God, you can give it a story and clothe call it Christ, or some ethical drive within an Agnosticism... its all chain letter storytelling. All obvious principality shouting matches... None of you can win, only "it" can. "It" can be a angel of light, I don't care what how you dress it up.
One day when you stop caring about knowing the Good that your on the right side on, and you start caring for the truth itself, then you might ask a question that leads somewhere.
Until then, you guys have eaten enough of time today...
I should of included that my last response was probably also refers to this person who likes to play incredulous in the thread, because he is scoring points somehow...
maybe "it" is winning for him?
>Not all questions have happy answers, when the question is based on the gratification of an external authority over this world.
Thank you for showing me that you are a fallacious twat who can only into circular reasoning.
You are so ignorant that you don't even know what Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are.
You can't even answer the two simple questions I had provided that you have provided and instead wiggle around them.
>There any many scriptures that apply around this issue
Nope. To do this is to apply circular reasoning which is fallacious. This is why the Bible must be examined as with any other text that claim historicity such as the Quran which we can easily apply your own logic here to infer its divine inspiration.
This is something so easy that a major in philosophy isn't needed to answer these questions. No, you don't even need to read those intro to philosophy books to understand and easily answer them or know that saying that X is true because X says so is not proving that X is true.
Even the basic axioms that guide the attainment of information do not assume themselves true because they say so but because they are required to make progress and gain information which questioning them would not enable any information to be gained.
Here, you just showed the fatal flaw of Protestantism.
And here you aren't even justifying anything at all.
You might be right.
I don't think you are right.
You wouldn't like to join my Church of full blown Schizophrenia (as you've identified it)?
Ah well, I guess it's not for the faint of heart, having to abandon the comforts of all the parts of this world that make it so stable and pleasant, like psychiatry and conventional and populist opinion.
Enjoy your culture of demagoguery, but if that's what you call Christian or Reasonable, I'll be no part of that thanks.
still hasn't set out a full position
still didn't define use of dead language
(still also a rude dishonorable twat, even by his own logic) (guess this explains all the evasion and diffuse side-stepping of getting into a real discussion, displaced by shouting).
Please don't directly respond to anything I write to you, because I'm no longer interested in furthering any matter towards resolution in your behalf. Just make a laundry list of specious and insulting claims again, thanks.
As usual none of my arguments or points or even the two basic questions I outlined >>583832 answered.
Your pathetic attempts at dodging the question had been debunked and yet as usual not a single refutation of them or any address of the two questions I had presented.
Thank you for showing the idiocy of your belief and logic.
Sola Scriptura confirmed for destroyed.
Now go cry in the corner you dumbfuck
>I genuinely find them impossible to read now
Why, they're (mostly) typical mil sci fi that are designed to be easy and fast to read. Just because its trash literature doesn't mean it can't be fun to read.
>The point of Christianity, outside salvation, is a path towards a life of virtue and joy.
The latter is not exclusive to the former. Morality (as a Christian would interpret the meaning) existed before Christianity.
Oh, your one of those crazy sectarian Christians who have a bank of "titled" arguments disguised in latin to help you keep-up the story of supremacy for your brand religiosity?
I guess its plain now why you didnt want to fill me in on your full position, as I guess there is no way of presenting that kindof position in a [patent] way that doesn't make you look like a gainsaying airbag.
So we have this kind of principality of the air... Disguising the source and nature of your position so well,- that you can pretend to obtain to the pristine 'faith' of murky self-acrimony.
Of course I must succumb to those tactics, who I am to challenge one so committed to dealing in the shadows, when I can only venture to engage with which makes itself open to account. I would have to shout over and louder than you to "win" with the way your advancing your cause, I don't know if this style of thought works at your congregation of spiritual-sophistry, but I find it intellectually disingenuous, are you a JWitness?
Oh, and well done on misidentifying the targets to your critique; but I guess its safer not to go into founding your claim when you can just cast strawmen in the gutter. Conveniently forgetting that you've had all your thinking done for you by the story [you've bought into] in your head, which I might add, is a story you find obviously too feeble to lay it out in the light of open and direct expression.
I find it unappealing that probably 1/3 of the time in forums is dealing with the likes of the intellectually-pretentious idiots like these... I'm going to have to work out a stronger way to guard against these sorts of time wasters, cause, if you just leave their words stand, I'm afraid they self-promote themselves quickly into louder and louder hot air bags..
I don't think its possible to tell an INFP to set out a reasonable account before making a claim though.. I think they are just... too far gone.. there is a no claim for them anymore, only acclaim.
Hey retard, actually address the points made rather than cry like a little bitch. Did Pastor Jeb fucked you hard in the arse or something because the amount of pretentious butthurt is too damn high in your post. Types like you are disgusting pieces of arrogant shit as proven by the very existence of your Inbred tier posts here. Until you can actually address the arguments properly without flaunting your arrogance, fuck off