>>23526 >as such thinks of churches as businesses Unfortunately, he's probably right about many (if not most) of them. (2 Peter 2:1-3) Maybe if you show him that the Bible warned us about these false teachers it might break the ice. Keep praying every day for God to open his eyes. It may ultimately be up to your father's free will, but God can break through the toughest hearts. He loves you because you trusted in Jesus. Trust that he'll also love the people you love. >he takes everything very jokingly and not seriously That's a tough one. Maybe he's uncomfortable/terrified being reminded of certain death and is trying to put it out of his mind, hence the interruptions. The only thing that can relieve that fear is the faith that Jesus paid it all.

>>23523 >I have been debating with myself whether free will is even real, how predestination works and if it does, does that mean anything I do has true meaning or am I just a pawn in things I do not understand. You are free when you are a participant in God's grace which cleanses you of your sin. Otherwise you are a slave to sin. Free will is kind of a moot question because freedom apart from God is vanity.

>>23532 Yes I figured that would be the case, a brother of Christ IRL told me something the night before that has encouraged me a little. I am still demoralized in many things atm but I do hope deep down my father will hear me out, God willing that be the case

>>23533 If you could explain that if possible I would appreciate it, bible verses would be a great help also

>>23535 I am just going to post these verses which I assembled, but held off on posting earlier as I was looking for an additional verse which I was unable to find: "Watch and pray so that you will not enter into temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” Matthew 26:41 Paul elaborates in Romans chapter 7 and 8: "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good. In that case, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot discover how to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

>>23614 >the sons role isnt made clear if it means temporal procession as in pentecost or eternally. That's the great tragedy of Florence. The Emperor specifically forbid them to discuss Palamas' essence/energy distinction. So the Latins, operating on theology Augustine and Aquinas didn't know enough about Eastern theology to find the way forward to synthesis, but they knew enough to write themselves into a corner. There was also some question about the letter's authenticity. Which looking back today, seems strange to me. Who cares who wrote it if that's the way to create union? It's a real shame they couldn't engage with Maximus on his own terms. >proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. One principle = father >one spiration = sharing of common divine nature between >father and son since there is only one divinty Grab a pen and paper and draw it. The way Florence is written forbids a reconciliation. Unless the Catholics are going to rewrite dogma and admit they were wrong. >>23615 >the son has no role is spiration Spiration is a Latin theological term coming from their idea of defining the Trinity's relations by/in opposition. Such is foreign to the Orthodox.

>>23615 It also lends itself to the possibility of subordinationism and Arianism that the filioque is designed to exclude. >>23616 >Grab a pen and paper and draw it. It's just a matter of perspective. The Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the two as if a single principle. So if you didn't draw the relations as a triangle, but rather were looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source. Our God is three-dimensional.

>>23618 >from the two as if a single principle. And we know from Florence, Latin principle = Greek cause. Therefore >from the two as a single cause >From the [Father and the Son] as a cause. Therefore, the son IS a cause of the Holy Spirit. Which s EXACTLY what the Orthodox reject. They believe the father is the only cause. There is no way around it now. 2=/=1. Catholics would have to backtrack the declarative statement of a council ratified by the Pope 600 years ago. Which they cannot and will not do. If it were so simple as saying "from the Father through the son" we would've reunited it by now.

>>23618 >looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source. Rev 22:1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

>>23619 >They believe the father is the only cause. But do they actually, since they seem to believe in a variety of things so long as they disagree with what the scummy Latins believe.

>>23396 >would you accept the Confraternity Bible? I'm Catholic, and my grandparent's Bible is a mix of it and D-R Challoner revision. I have no idea about the Confraternity Bible. Father made me toss out this one Bible I had because I bought it before I learned the faith and it was a protestant Bible. It was really kewl, leather cover but the best part was that it had maps and stuff in the back so I could see what they were talking about. If your priest says it has to go, say that it's not the Bible to you, but a family heirloom. I'm guessing he'd be merciful and let you keep it, especially if you say it would seem a sinful dishonor to your grandparents to part with it. To be accepted even by the Novus Ordo/FSSP, it has to have a Bishop's imprimatur, which is found in the front. Anon 252fd8 said mentioned that my Knox Version should be acceptable to me because the Knox version came out before Vatican II, in 1945. While 252fd8's knowlege of Catholic and Quasi-catholic bibles is impressive, this Knox version bears the Nihil Obstate of Father Cowan and Imprimatur of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who was born in 1945 and couldn't have anything to do with a pre-war Knox version. I don't really care about the history of various Latin Vulgate versions. I just get the right one and I'm done. Once I've made sure I got the divinely inspired Bible, what remains is to read and study it.

>>23399 this makes sense, thanks. it's a fine book, hardcover with gold-edged pages, illustrations, and has family records, so it's definitely an heirloom. I just checked, and it has a nihil obstat from a censor librorum, and an imprimatur from an abbot-ordinary. I wonder how well that measures up? Also, Confraternity text is Genesis-Ruth, Psalms, and NT, while the rest of the OT is Douay-Challoner. My understanding is that the Confraternity Bible is the last traditional Catholic version before Vatican II, so that's why I asked. My version is from 1960.

>>23398 >The Council of Trent says that there wasn't one standard edition. That's why the named one. They declared that the Vulgate was the authentic and authoritative text, which is not the critical point of controversy. Rather, the question is over the fulfillment of their intention to disseminate an edition that was free from errors: >Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. >And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm Several editions were subsequently approved. Since the latest edition by the Vatican II church is a counterfeit that doesn't deserve the name, and the previous traditionalist revision was never fully completed, is Clement's the de facto optimal edition? Was the idea of attempting to revise it at all defective?

>>23245 True, there are still 350 million people with their language untranslated

>>23396 >The same is true for learning Japanese just to play certain games. You generally need other motivations besides that, otherwise you're better off relying on translations; they may not be perfect, but a quality translation serves as a bridge to the original. This is doubly true of learning an ancient language that has limited utility outside of certain fields; at least with the Japanese example it's a current, living language. My friend, you cannot compare weeabooism with dedicating your time by understanding the mysteries of God better. You think that Latin and other ancient languages are dead while you could not be further from the truth. These languages are alive eternally because they are tied to a past we do not know, to a time and to a class of people that understood and were closer to God. As God never changes, so never do liturgical languages, while vernacular languages die and born again every once in a while.

>>22573 >These two posts are enlightening. So, AOC wasn't completely wrong, she was basing her claims on >pro-Abortion Jewish groups. >I thought it was a thing from the wicked Talmud. >Oh wait, it is, and Jews put their wicked Talmud above the Law of God as given to Moses in the Torah: abortion is not supported by the Talmud. Its supported by Reform Jews whose logic relies so heavily on twisting the Torah that it can hardly even be considered Judaism. Orthodox Jews think abortion is an abomination. Talmud is just a collection of old rabbinical discussions. Think of Reform Jews like Liberal Christians, just a little different.

>>22534 Whatever reason that horse-faced bartender says is a lie. Their real reason is they want more goyim dead. It's easier to control a deliberately dumbed-down, sex-addicted populace that can't even take responsibility for the consequences of their actions like intercourse. They literally started putting fluoride in the water after WWII because they learned it was used in camps to sedate prisoners. They spray the air with aluminum, barium, and strontium. They patent aluminum-resistant seeds. Whatever 99.999...9% of politicians do or say, it's in service of satan. Just boil it all down to that; satan wants to kill, so they want to kill and they want to go after the most vulnerable, a baby in his mother's womb, where the baby should be the safest.

>>22526 >I want to help him, but not give him money that he'll spend on drugs. I have the same thought often when thinking of the homeless of my city. It would be optimal to help them and take no credit, but it seems more elusive from my perspective than I think it should be.

>>22643 >>22539 that would make sense if they were trying to say it for everyone, but for libjews abortion is a right for jews for shitty revisionisms

>>22526 Donate to the local homeless shelter. I don't think they have an agenda.

>>22309 >Because the Talmud (both versions) weren't made until after the destruction of the second temple. This can't be stressed enough because its origins stem from Jews that moved BACK to Babylon(!) after the destruction of the Roman-Jewish Wars, not from the Babylonian exile. Everyone just assumes it comes from the exile due to the name (ans deliberate confusion over its history), but the reality is even more ridiculous in that this group chose to return to the centre of idolatry that God had delivered them from to produce the worst writings in the history of mankind: >The Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) consists of documents compiled over the period of late antiquity (3rd to 6th centuries).[14] During this time, the most important of the Jewish centres in Mesopotamia, a region called "Babylonia" in Jewish sources and later known as Iraq, were Nehardea, Nisibis (modern Nusaybin), Mahoza (al-Mada'in, just to the south of what is now Baghdad), Pumbedita (near present-day al Anbar Governorate), and the Sura Academy, probably located about 60 km (37 mi) south of Baghdad.[15]

>>22299 Allegedly there are Christian communities in Israel and Palestine. I guess these are most likely to be descendants of the originals but I also suspect this >Did the original Jewish Christians simply intermarry amongst the Gentiles to the point of being absorbed? to be true. Once they accepted Christ they lost the need for genealogical purity and the inbreeding it engenders.

>>22299 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=uzuYZi749CM This video in denominations I think may imply an answer. Jewish Christians were those who stoll kept the old covenant; but then they Listened too the Pauline Christian's and eventually only practiced the New Covenant.

using /christian/ to talk about jews made me realize that we don't have a /judaism/ or /jewish/ board even when we have the /islam/ one. We should have one or at least make public the israel chan

>>22299 what is Jewish culture but the sum total of the mosaic law? Take it away and all is left is language at best, Jews were always a minority especially after getting crushed by the Romans. Of course there are the Ethiopians were majority Jewish being known as 'beta-israel' and many of them who accepted Christianity kept their judaizing customs.

>>23432 >Should "repenting of sin" be included when preaching the Gospel? Yes, but only if repentance is fully understood. When you repent of a thing you 1. Stop doing thing 2. Recognize thing as sin and abhor it 3. Stop trying to justify having done thing in the past 4. Actively reject the temptation to do thing ever again It has nothing to do with paying money or tribute or honor to any man or organization made by men. Those are abuses. Even abstract acts of penance are questionable. At best they are as Matthew 6:16 "When you fast, do not be somber like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward." At worst they seek to preempt the judgement of God and deny His mercy. Repentance is best explained by Romans 12:2 "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." >Does it turn the free gift of salvation into a works-based program, denying that Christ's life, death, and resurrection was sufficient to reconcile us to God? Salvation is not a free gift. You must believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and you must stop sinning. Both are a form of repentance. Then, when you are ready, God will give you works to do according to the measure of your faith and ability. But these works will be a joy, serving the living God, rather than the obligated misery of human penitence. There is already enough suffering in this world without inflicting it upon ourselves.

>>23441 >Salvation is not a free gift. It was the costliest gift that ever was, or will be. But it was paid for by God with the blood of his only Son. He gives it freely to us: 1)"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -Eph.2:8-9 2)"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -Rom.5:15-19 3)"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" -Rom.3:24 4)"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." -Rom.3:28 5)"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." -Rev.21:6 6)"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." -Rev.22:17 >4. Actively reject the temptation to do thing ever again By that definition, the apostle Paul was unrepentant: "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." -Rom.7:19 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" -Rom.7:24 >Repentance is best explained by Romans 12:2 Here Paul was speaking to believers. He was discipling, not preaching the gospel. Encouraging brothers in Christ to live holy lives is perfectly fine. Making it a condition of salvation is not. Read Romans 4:3-8. Our righteousness is an imputed righteousness. God chooses to see us as righteous because we're in Christ, but without that covering, let's not delude ourselves and call God a liar... we're not righteous at all.

>>23445 It seems you misunderstand, or perhaps I misunderstood you. A 'free gift' implies it's available to anyone without obligation like a pack of tissues handed out in the street. My point is that there is an obligation. Not to live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit. You have written an awful lot of words trying to convince us of something but what that thing is is not clear to me. Can you state your views on repentance succinctly?

>>23448 After reading every one of those 112 scriptures, I'm thinking "repentance" as used in the Bible regarding salvation is referring to faith alone in Jesus. I would agree that you have to believe God raised Jesus from the dead, but I don't see any scriptures that make one's salvation additionally-contingent upon a cessation from sin. Every saved person should strive to live a holy life free from sin, and this the epistles entreat us; but even if we don't: "...to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -Rom.4:5. For the longest time, I assumed repentance meant "turning from sin", or what the common parlance of our day defines it as. How many evangelists on TV and radio would always add "turn from sin" to the promise of this "free gift"? If you have to turn from sin to be saved, then it's not a free gift. That kind of obligation is a mountain so tall we could never climb over it. It's so disheartening that you couldn't even call such a gospel "good news". But the real good news is that even though we all die because of Adam's transgression, we believers will all have eternal life because of Jesus' righteousness.

>>23441 If you don't accept that you have been called to salvation by God in your heart, attempting to live in the spirit on human terms is futile. You have to recognize that Christ as Lord has the power to purify your being of your sins through His atoning sacrifice first as the good news on which you premise your repentance. Unless you set your hope on faith in the truth of His resurrection, victory over death, and the certainty of His coming Kingdom, you'll immiserate yourself over your individual powerlessness over sin, despair that you have too much sin such that no amount of repentance will ever be enough, and set yourself up for failure in worldly mindedness. "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied," as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19. "But in fact," he continues, "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep... Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 'For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.'" 1 Corinthians 20, 23-27; and furthermore "For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:52-58 Amen.

>>23420 Oh and if you take the reference to the stars falling out of heaven in the following passage in Revelation as a reference to angels, then you get the interpretation that a third of the angels in heaven accompanied with him: >And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.  Revelation 12:3-4

>>23420 Thanks. I guess my eyes glazed over when reading the Book of the Apocalypse. You're certainly right about Isaiah 14:12-15, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 1:6 Pretty sure Matthew 25:41 is talking about people at judgement day. 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. Isn't the Ezekiel about people as well? Angels don't have sanctuaries, or trade. Yet, the scripture says "And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,"... where Cherub is a type of angel. Still, Ezekiel 28:1 says the Lord is telling a son of man that this is address to the ruler of Tyre. "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre,..." which was a city in Lebanon. But where did the part about the legion of angels throwing themselves into the Pit upon seeing Christ come from, or that Saint Micheal found the "battle" easy?

>>23422 >Pretty sure Matthew 25:41 is talking about people at judgement day. It is, but the second part of the verse says that the fire is prepared not only for people being judged but for "the devil and his angels," which indicates that not only Satan alone is going to be cast into it. I was debating whether to include that verse in the post. >But where did the part about the legion of angels throwing themselves into the Pit upon seeing Christ come from, or that Saint Micheal found the "battle" easy? I suspect it may have come from medieval pastoral works or a saint's mystic vision, or secular literature. Popular conceptions of Satan and hell are colored by secular works like Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, but scripture itself is concise on the details of the events. The altarpiece you posted technically just depicts the events of Revelation, but I'm unable to locate the specific source of the more florid account you have in mind.

>>23420 Why is Lucifer called a man? And why is it said that he had, past tense, deceived the nations before nations presumably existed?

>>23422 >Ezekiel 28:1 says the Lord is telling a son of man that this is address to the ruler of Tyre. "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre,..." which was a city in Lebanon. He is commanding Ezekiel, as prophet, to deliver the message. >>23435 Old Testament prophecies were read with two senses. The immediate sense in the book was referring to the king of Babylon, but the passage is also taken to be a prophecy of the background and eventual destruction of Satan. Also, since the Babylonians worshipped idols and destroyed all of Israel, the king of Babylon was effectively Satan in the flesh to the ancient Jews.

>>23311 Ah! Catholic! Which one? Novus Ordo? FSSP (Novus Ordo lite), SSPX, SSPV? Sandbornist? >you love dividing, don't you? No, I hate dividing. That the issue. There is ONE Catholic faith, and the divine revelations are found in the Bible, where we see Our Lord Jesus Christ founding ONE CHURCH on Saint Peter the Rock and giving him the keys to heaven (faith and morals). Thus, the Bible and the Popes become the true Catholic Faith. And by Saint Paul, we know that Church tradition, e.g. the form of the various valid Holy Masses per the Council of Trent, are part of the faith. So, why are there 5 different "Catholic" religions, and most importantly, why do none of them keep the Catholic faith?

>>23313 I donno. It may be because he put a pagan idol on the Alter of Saint Peter. On that day, the Alter of Saint Peter was desecrated. He's not even a heretic. He'd have to have been a Christian to be a heretic. He's more in line with Freemason beliefs, like John Paul II. Problem with that is if you're a Freemason, you absolutely cannot be Catholic, and a Pope has to be Catholic. And a Pope, being a Vicar of Christ, can't be an anathema either. True Catholics must shun an anathema. Every "Pope" since Pope Pius XII has said that the mass can be changed, that the Holy Eucharist can be taken in un- ordained hands, that the mass can be said in the Local venacular. Because Bergoglio made the FSSP become an anathema too. The Council of Trent has to be true, thus the Vatican has lost all legitimacy. Yeah, crazy me. I don't think Popes should be popular. That is a quality of the anti-Christ.

>>23321 >Btw, that's not scripture. Wow, I had no idea. >It references scripture, but its not, and it's taking things out of context. My bad for preferring a Catholic theologian in the process of canonisation over some random on the Internet. >>23322 >division through unity You need to understand you're not doing anybody any favours with your black and white thinking. Good riddance you're not listened to. Also meds. >>23323 Meds here too. There's nothing wrong with syncretism to spread the faith so long as it isn't replaced/diluted. Those aren't pagan idols any more. The Andes is one of the most devoutly Christian regions but you lose your shit over handicrafts.

>>23321 You do realize that there have been at least two other people in this thread?

>>23327 >My bad for preferring a Catholic theologian in the process of canonisation over some random on the Internet. Catholic faith is that divine revelations come from the Bible and the Popes, not Saints. And the naming of saints a matter of fact. Popes, even speaking from the chair, are not infallible on matters of facts. I don't trust Saints. Saints have been wrong. For example, the Lord told the Apostles not to kill those who wouldn't convert, while some Saints, like Saint Louis, was saying run them throught with a sword. So... I like to go back to the Bible and Popes, those you HAVE to believe, and only by understanding them first can you detect what errors the saints made. >You need to understand you're not doing anybody any favours with your black and white thinking. Good riddance you're not listened to. Also meds extra ecclesiam nulla salus The Catholic faith, as taught in the Bible and the true Popes, IS black and white. You have to believe it all. If that seems crazy to you, you are what Catholics have named as the invincibly ignorant. Sorry if that seems unfair to you, but I trust the perfect Justice of the Lord Our God.

You forgot the most important part >Christianity: Is true.

Why do you talk about beliefs like they're fashion statements? >it's also not schizophrenic/too unscientific So you think it's somewhat unscientific? Why do you believe in it then? Because you don't want to be a "gay rootless redditor"? You want to be cooler than "those people"? That's pride.

>>22332 Natural science isn't the end of all that is possible to be known.

>>23273 True. The very fact we have directly-observable scientific proof of the historical beginning of the universe is the Christian's best friend when it comes to apologetics. Sadly, the vast majority of the body of Christ today don't even recognize the wonderful boon to our gospel message that the so-called 'Big Bang' actually is. It directly correlates with the Christian Biblical message, and is an extremely strong argument for the Divine inspiration of the Biblical canon. Many non-theistic scientists & philosophers from the 1700s through the mid 1900s recognized that if it could be shown that the universe was in fact limited in time & space, then it threatened their materialist views at the most basic & fundamental level. They proposed the 'steady state' universe with both infinite time & infinite space to explain the observable -- particularly life. After Einstein, et al, and particularly with modern astronomical/cosmological observations, we know the hot creation origin of the universe is real, and that the Christian Bible got it right all along. >tl;dr Even a child knows that if the universe had a beginning, then something must have existed before it. What Who was that?

>>20928 it's believed that it was one of the first books to be written and officially accepted into canon.

>>17420 Anywhere that God speaks, the warnings and calls to return to God from the prophets, the majesty of God's law, the wisdom of the proverbs, the beauty of the psalms >>20901 Eye for an eye was a judgement, turning the other cheek was about avoiding petty squabbles and not returning evil for evil. If someone does assault/batter you, you can still press charges and have them held accountable, who knows, maybe they'll find God in prison and maybe that's where God will put them because nothing else would humble them enough to find God. Nebuchadnezzar had to go among the beasts of the field as a beast until he recognized God's Authority and Kingdom. >>20940 >All because we turned our backs on the Christian religion No. It's because we turned our backs on God, and "religion" was largely responsible for it happening. Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Similarly in Christ's ministry on earth, there were many problems with "religion" then too.

>>20940 Sadly we have turned from the faith of our fathers

>>20940 This is a very good point! It amazes me that the Christian faith works and that all the man made sociological "improvements" fail in a major way. It is, I think, proof of the God like Intelligence of our creator who knows how his creation - that would be us, works. And God knew it thousands of years ago and modern sociologists still don't understand it.

>>22522 This. A Christian anthropology is the only valid, true, and meaningful view of human existence.