Christian general?

>Since most Christians(outside of the Bible Belt ones) don't take the story of Adam&Eve literally
Why should I care? Athanasius contra mundum.
>What exactly is original sin anyway, what was the first sin man ever committed
The first sin was the fall of man. Adam ate the apple.
The guilt is inherited by all of Adam's progeny because he is the head of our household, so we are all counted in him. Then, the new Adam, Christ came, so a new house was founded, and all Christians are counted in Him, and are viewed as sinless by God.
>Do you guys ever question your faith?
No.

american catholic schools are the reason why most kids and teens become atheists, what they're teaching is complete garbage

>What exactly is original sin anyway

Not following God's will, which is to love God with all your heart, and to do onto others as they would have them do onoto you

No, that is personal sin, not original sin. Original sin refers to the sin that all people have from birth.

Shhh

Yes, precisely. By being born a mortal, fallible, material being, you have original sin, because you are not eternal, infallible, etc. like God.

No, you only have original sin because of Adam. Adam did not have original sin.

Yes he did. That's why he ate the fruit in the first place.

Adam was created perfect and sinless.

Adam was created, and therefore imperfect by definition. That's why you have so much screeching about heresy when you get idiots implying Jesus was created somehow non-eternal.

...

Do you guys confess your sins to a priest or simply do it alone with God?
How do you know that you have truly forgiven yourself, what does repentance look like to you?

God said Adam was created "good".

"Good" to God is perfect.

When Adam sinned, he became less than perfect, and could only sire children who were also less than perfect.

Admittance to heaven is only for the perfect, so by Adam's sin, we were condemned as a race to eternal hellfire.

...

You have to know what it takes to have sins forgiven, and you have to (slowly) realize that Jesus forgave all sins on the cross. So your sins were forgiven you before you were born, Jesus having taken them all onto Himself and paid the ultimate punishment for them.

So now you don't have a sin problem, you have a "born dead" problem and need to be "born again" in the Spirit.

forcing people to live a life of constant repentance and obedience and failure and repentance and obedience and failure and repentance and obedience and failure is of the devil, not of Jesus.

He came to set us free from that.

Why do you save images like that?

Lutherans>>>other protestants>>>>>>>>old churches>mormons

Why are there so many religions? Why do some religions like islam and buddhism have such a large following?

which direction of christianism is the true one and why

>"Good" to God is perfect.
That is demonstrably wrong, otherwise you have to come to the idiotic conclusion that plants, water, the sun and moon, birds, bugs, cows, and literally everything ever created is perfect.

Also, if "Good" is perfect, then what is the "Very good" that creation as a collection gets at the end of Genesis 1? ULTRA-PERFECT, more perfect than perfect?

READ the Bible, you dumbass cathocuck. It helps.

>When Adam sinned, he became less than perfect, and could only sire children who were also less than perfect.
>Implying Cain wasn't sired before the fall, owing to the lack of any diction about her pain in childbirth or anything like that.

There are many ways that seem right to a man, but they all end in death.

Many false prophets have arisen, and lead many to their destruction.

When God says "many", it's usually millions or billions.

Most people are going to hell, by their own choice, and by their own plan.

The corruption of man split the abrahamic religions(I know Buddhism isn't one of them, Judaism is)

It was until the Fall of Man.

After the Fall of Man, it was all cursed.

You're judging the pre-Fall creation by what exists now, and the two are very different.

Yes, God is able to increase infinities. It's his specialty, actually. That and turning evil into good.

Pr*testants aren't Christian

...

...

People who know how they became Christians are generally Christians.

Catholics? They only know how they became a Catholic.

>People who know how they became Christians are generally Christians
>Catholics only know how they became a Catholic
>Catholics are indisputably Christians
>Christians don't know how they became Christians

Great logic there Proddy.

Only American evangelicals do that shit on the right

>Civil theology thread on Veeky Forums

>Oh no here comes the butthurt kathlicks

Catholic or bust honestly

>orthodoxy didn't break from Rome
But that's literally what they said
>being a latitudinarian

>civil church in Christendom
>oh no here comes the Protestants
>NO CHURCH NO TAXES XDD
>ALL MY PEASANTS MUST BE PROTESTANTS JO TOELRARION FOR THEM BUT TOLERATE ME

Airtight.

How is a man saved, papist?
How were you saved, papist?
How do you know you were saved, papist?
What does being saved mean, papist?
How would you lead someone to salvation, papist?

I don't owe a satan worshipper any explanations.

I HEAR THAT! sans Francis.

Not him but a man is saved by being baptised, that gives him a lifering, but with sin he tears the rope, then with confession ties it up
Gods plan for him will be revealed sometime, it was probably to remove cultural Catholics from the church

>Christians
>on Veeky Forums
Literally why
Everyone here talks in a vulgar manner, people are offensive on purpose here because no one is stopping us from doing so. Most of boards here are dedicated to sex and they would all be considered sinful.

Airtight.

Not him, but as wrong as him.

Can you confess every sin you do? Think? Can you confess every good you do not do? Think? Can you confess every sin you commit unconsciously? Can you ever repent and pay penance and be like God?

Then you can no more answer my questions than he could. If it were as you say, heaven would be God and angels only. If your salvation depends on you in any way possible, it fails because you fail.

Don't know about you, but when I go fishing, I go to where the fish are. I don't ask them to come to me.

I mentioned this in another thread a few days ago but where do you make the "leap' or "jump" between the metaphorical and the literal? My train of thought has been following of some lectures from Jordan Peterson in that he makes the strong case that the Christian stories in the bible have deep and complex meaning and significance and help us to find order in our lives. In one interview he mentions that one may say that literature like Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare reveal a certain moral truth that helps orient our lives and that religious stories do the same. Some archetypes, themes, and meaning are found cross culturally as well and thus, in a sense are true. But at what point do you go from that view that "these stories are useful" to these stories are true? Peterson mentions in another interview that for him he acts as if God exists rather than possessing a cognitive belief that he exists. Belief is found more in our actions rather than our thoughts. But what if I am acting based on the assumption that the archetypal hero and his action exist and not one specific hero? What if acting as if Jesus really did rise from the grave is no different than acting as if Gandalf really rose from the grave? Again if certain archetypes, themes, and meaning,especially morals, are actually found cross culturally and not just in Christianity, then by me acting according to these principals why would that make me Christian? Sure they are Christian values found in Christianity, but they may also be jewish values, Islamic values, Norse values, or values found in fictional mythology like in Tolkien. There is validity in the abstractions we gain from religious stories but where do you find the validity in the specific details of the stories, such as Jesus rising from the grave or God existing?

When the literal leads you to an absurd conclusion.

Start with the literal sense first. Golden rule of hermenuetics.

Because you're dealing with the supernatural, you will require supernatural assistance. No amount of delusion will cause you to actually believe that Gandalf rose from the dead in real life because he was presented to you as a fictional character.

There are no such fictional characters in the bible, and especially not Jesus.

So literal first; if that's absurd (like thinking Jesus is really made out of bread) then go to metaphor; just as bread sustains physical life, so Jesus sustains spiritual life.

If symbolic language is used, the bible will explain the symbols, somewhere. And in 2 or 3 places, as that is how many witnesses it takes to make the claim to it being true. (No prophecy is of private interpretation.)

If the bible is speaking parabolically, this is not for the lost, but for the saved. The lost will only get the lower story, and never the upper story. So while you might get that a shepherd was happy he found his lost sheep, you'll never know it was about you and Jesus and the moment you got saved.

>there are no fictional characters in the bible
Job
Moses
Noah
Abraham
Adam
Eve

Is St. Paul responsible for the split of Judaism and Christianity

to go off of that though, it is plausible that there actually was a man named Jesus who existed at that time in that place. But it is harder to say if he actually performed miracles and rose from the dead. Another example of this would be something like I, Claudius. Sure all the main characters were actual people who really lived in that time and place, and mentions actual events that they caused or took part in. But I, Claudius is still a fictional book. You can't use it as an accurate account of events or actions like a scholarly source. So again there are some elements where you would grant that some of what is described is literal, in that it is a historical "fact" that this happened as described. Yet there are also many other moments which are pure fiction or exaggerated for artistic license. So again with the resurrection story, it is possible that a man named Jesus was crucified, but how do you decide if his resurrection from the grave actually happened or was artistic license for the purpose of metaphor?

When you say that the literal turning into the absurd is when it becomes metaphor one could argue that it is exactly these absurd "miraculous" events that drive belief in God or Jesus. Would Jesus be seen as who he is if he never performed any miracles? Would God be viewed the way he is if he never created the world or interacted with us? In that a certain element of Christian or religious belief is belief in certain seemingly absurd ideas. For example, Moses parting the Red Sea sounds absurd. Jesus turning water into wine sounds absurd. Noah building an Ark with 2 of every animal and surviving a flood that wipes out the rest of the world sounds absurd. What makes the bible different from a fictional piece of literature that is centered around true events?

yeah I have seen peterson's explanation, yet I find it ultimately trivial. Who cares about a story that isn't true. I believe folks like Aquinas (and Aristotle) are correct in that man's final end is in the contemplation of truth (God).

>Adam was created, and therefore imperfect by definition.
So you're saying that God isn't perfect?

Did I say God was created?

Created beings being imperfect by definition implies that their creator cannot be perfect either, because otherwise he would be able to create perfect beings.

A lot of the stuff in the bible is allegorical and metaphorical. Taking a story like the one of Job as a real event would destroy all the meaning of the story. It's easy to separate the bible and what's within it from the LOTR mythology
Middle earth isn't real, the lands Jesus visited were real(the Levant)
No one in LOTR mythos is real
St. Paul, herod, and St. Peter are real people
The writings of Josephous and tacitus prove the validity of Jesus

I think you need some understanding of the Christian theological tradition. Not of the American Evangelical tradition, but read the summa theologica. This would clear up some confusion you have.

>Created beings being imperfect by definition implies that their creator cannot be perfect either,
No, it does not. That's just stupid. A created being is imperfect by definition because it was not self-actualized, and it did not exist at a specific point in time; neither of which apply to God.

well in response to that I think he makes the good point in that the stories may not be literally true but have another kind of "meta" truth. They reveal certain moral or value archetypes that are seen in multiple stories cross culturally and thus, in a way, are true. Again to mention Tolkien, it is a completely fictional world and mythology yet there are still certain archetypes and moral values that accurately map onto our world. So stories can still matter and people can still care about making sure people read them even if they aren't literally true, in that the characters, locations, and actions didn't historically happen.

To your mention of truth or a story being true you then have to define what this truth is. This was the basis of Peterson's discussion with Sam Harris. He tries to make the distinction between truth being the 'objective material world" and thus scientific facts and statistics and truth in the way of, I guess, meaning or usefulness. Is it "true" that people should not act maliciously too each other? Its not something you can prove scientifically, or with statistics. But you can pull that "truth" out by examining stories and extracting that moral out of multiple stories across multiple demographics and cultures. So is it more true to say that God is a particle or that God is the manifestation of the archetypal father of civilization that both gives us order and is tyrannical?

The issue I have is that if you say that religious stories are on the same plane as literature, or share archetypes and truth between multiples cultures then how do you make the distinction that you will worship God, as described in the bible, as opposed to worshipping the gods in I, Claudius? Or how do you say that the Christian stories got it right and that the jewish or Islamic stories didn't?

You're right when you say that a definition of truth is needed, but I do not assent to Scientism, that only the measurable is true (I think you're saying that too?). Yes, there is a metric of truth within the stories concerning what they teach.
However it would be unscientific, and more importantly unreasonable, to operate on the assumption that something like the Gospels are not true, as in, they did not happen and are not correct in what they claim: that Christ is God. To answer your last question, if Christianity is true, it only further validate the Torah as that's where we find the prophesies of the messiah who Christ claimed to be.
To further explain where I am coming from when I talk about God, I'm speaking of the non-conditioned cause of all contingent reality. Therefor scientific inquiry is sort of out of bounds when making claims against the existence of God, since science is the measurement of observable reality.

NO ONE MENTIONED YOUR TRIPS?!

>christian thread
>literally can't even get past the first post before protestant vs catholic shitposting and larping
>tfw just want to have a normal conversation

it's a game of who's the better christian, and they're all losing

I want to beleive in Christianity, but I can't reconcile it with my deep-seated conviction that Mexicans are at best sub-human if not completely inhuman, and are thus not worthy of salvation.

What should I do?

Get rid of that deep-seated conviction. Conversion is a life-long process.

that is the other point of discussion, what is meant by God. If I understand you correctly, when you talk of God you mean an unmoved mover, a first cause. That isn't necessarily the conception of the Judeo-Christian God. So there is a difference in saying that God could simply be the unexplained first cause and saying that God has a personality and is actively concerned with our actions and regularly talks to people or intervenes in certain cases? So I agree that scientism doesn't seem sufficient, in that God is outside of scientific inquiry. But again should we stop at God as described in Christianity or the bible, or gain should we extract out a "meta" God from all religions. Thus there is a belief in God, but not necessarily the Christian God, or being a Christian. Again the point I am trying to figure out and understand is that if these "meta" truths are extracted from stories throughout multiple cultures, then do the specifics of the stories matter or just the meta truths and archetypes that are extracted from them? So does it matter if Jesus, rather than Gandalf, existed and rose from the grave or is all that really matters is the meta idea of sacrifice and resurrection?

or you could an hero too

But it's so self-evidently true. I mean, have you ever had to deal with them?

unitarian here. can anyone give me 3 good reasons that catholicism isn't a load of horse shit?

like, its the most autistic way any fucking person could ever interpret either the bible or the organization of religion. it's comically fucking stupid.

Judaizers are heretics.

I'm currently reading matthew and it seem like Jesus only came to save the jews. What's going on here?

he didn't want to get blacklisted in Hollywood. Also they promised to always portray him as white in movies.

This is exactly and precisely the God that all of Thomistic Theology speaks of. It is explicitly the grounds of Aquinas' 5 proofs, which is the foundation of all Christian (no, actual Christian) Theology.

"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation"
Mark 15:16

ehh read john

The religious organizations around me iirc are mormon, baptist, and Jehovah's Witness

Which one is the best?

I hope I'm at least 1% jewish.

Baptist

Who here /Jewish Christian/

Christianity and Judaism should have never split, yeshua is the fulfillment of the Old Testament

Are you high? The two religions are pretty much nothing alike. You're nothing more than a filthy heretic.

So you're a messianic jew?

none of the above, go find some quakers or jews or something

...

Great, how do you explain why the Orthodox, the Coptic, and a bunch of obscure eastern Churches basically agree with the Catholics on all those things?

Either all of Christianity was wrong before protestants came along, or the protestant interpretations were something new.

...

THIS THIS THIS

what I meant is that I think there is a difference in saying that logically there is a God and assuming and believing in a certain nature of God. The first mover argument for God says nothing of whether onto he is all good or all knowing, or if he cares about what we do or how we act towards each other. There is a leap between there is a first mover, which we attribute to God, and this is the nature of God.

it costs money to move and afaik there aren't many jews in the south

Aquinas five proofs were practically copy pasta'd from a muslum writer

...

>a muslum writer
Aristotle
Or maybe those beliefs are later developments and novelties contradicted by both scripture and the fathers.

...

>Christians of all denominations are welcome
Does a deist who goes to Episcopal churches (since that's how I was raised), just in case God actually does want active worship and not just general good deeds, count?

refer to