Looking to find a way to reunite the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church...

>But isn't the rock of Peter just his admission that Jesus is God, after first denying him?
No, Jesus clearly intended to give Peter leadership in (ie Matthew 16:18-20). Also, history shows early Churches also show that a clear hierarchical structure with a clear leader. Even the group that would eventually grow into the Orthodox adhered to the Pope until the schism.
As for in-fighting, this happened even when Christ was on earth among the Apostles. Read Acts and you'll realize this is the way the Church has always been. As for having to defend Catholicism, I don't know what to tell you, if you lack the conviction to defend the Truth, tooth, and nail, maybe become a modernist.

"Some" is very much an understatement as they more often than not acted as nations where the church actively participated in excesses and abuses. And it's not like pederasty is somehow foreign to the two Churches. Russian Church is a tool of the state even now. There was a very nice video of a Serbian episcop enjoying two boys recently. And Catholicism is far less centralised than you would expect. Centralisation is doctrinal, but each bishop excercises his own authority on almost all matters that do not directly concern doctrine.
But these things do not really matter. It's a matter of which Church holds the fullness of truth and authority over the other.

It's not that I lack conviction, it just seems like a blatant abuse on the part of Catholics, when the Orthodox have never fallen for those traps and have a theology which is both simpler, more intuitive and less modernist.

I mean, are there very strong arguments against Heidegger's critique of Aquinas? None of that even phases Orthodox theology. With Catholicism I just get mental gymnastics and muh Peter. I really do like Catholicism but Orthodoxy looks as flawless as Christianity can get, theologically and historically.

> try explaining away sedevacantists (who seem more loyal to the church than actual church loyalists)
Uhhhhhhhh, no, Sedes are just heretics, plain and simple.
>'muh unbroken tradition'
Nothing the Church has ever deemed infallible has ever been gone back on. Sure the Mass has changed radically since Vatican II (for the worse I would say) but the Order of the Mass wasn't deemed infallible, to begin with.
>a large portion of church fathers didn't even believe that
A lot of them didn't believe in the Trinity. But eventually, it was deemed doctrine. The Papacy was only questioned when it was politically convenient.

>But isn't the rock of Peter just his admission that Jesus is God, after first denying him?

Say what? There's a few things about this that I can't make any sense of. Jesus gave Simon a new name after he uttered the dogma of the incarnation. Jesus explained to Simon that such a truth couldn't have been gained by natural means; Jesus is saying the Simon received a revelation from God, and that Simon, with God's help, spoke infallibly. The new name that Jesus gave to Simon was Peter. I'm not sure who familiar you are with the Old Testament but when God changes somebodies name it's very significant. This name literally means rock. Then Jesus continued by saying "on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The key imagery indicates that Peter will be given the office of prime minister in Jesus' Church (Isa 22; If you wish me to elaborate on this point I'll be happy too, it'll just be too long for this reply). The power to bind and loose gives Peter and his successors the power to absolve sins and to make definitive judgement in matters of faith and morals. Therefore Peter and his successors are protected from teaching error, because God who is truth binds and looses in heaven what Peter binds and looses on earth.

The three-fold denial came after this during the last supper. At the very time Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial, Jesus also reminded Peter to fulfill his office by strengthening his brothers after he repented (Lk 22:31-32). After the resurrection, Jesus confirmed Peter as the head of the church when he commanded Peter three times, "feed my lambs ... Tend my sheep ... Feed my sheep," then Jesus added "follow me" (Jn 21:15, 16, 17, 19).

thats a slippery slope.
Less than 20 years after the East West - Schism (1054) the Greeks/Romans/Byzantines lost in Manzikert to the Turks (1071), which was the first step into turning all the inhabitants of Anatolia from Greek Speaking christians into Turkish speaking muslims.

Some isn't an understatement when you have Greece and the entire middle-east.

> Russian Church is a tool of the state even now

When every other state is more or less explicitly anti-Christian, this doesn't seem to me like something Catholics should complain about right now. Unless, of course, they're jealous that the Russians' missionary work is more effective. Again I'm not Russian. I don't see how this would trigger a Copt or a Greek Orthodox.

That's largely because Orthodoxy is in philosophy almost completely irrelevant. As far as I know there are no great Orthodox philosophers of relevance until maybe the 19th century and they are still much weaker than their Catholic counterparts. And yes, if having firm, compelling philosophical systems which stay relevant and consistent, than it is mental gymnastics, which the Orthodox sadly do not have at all.

>The key imagery indicates that Peter will be given the office of prime minister in Jesus' Church

Yeah, please elaborate. You seem knowledgeable.

I'd be lying if I said I haven't considered converting to Orthodox for these reasons. However, at the end of the day, none of them pertain to being the Church Christ founded and just serve to make me feel better about my faith. I can't just skip around churches because "I think this theology seems better", logically if the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded its theology will be true even if it occasionally looks weaker than Orthodoxy.

The Catholic church puts more emphasis on liturgy whilst Orthodoxy is more mysticism.

I was not the one to imply that the sinfulness of the structures somehow means a church is the true one. The Russian and Serbian one would I guess not fit under that, but because they are cut from the rest, it's somehow not a problem?

I second this, not that I doubt you, but rather I'm curious.

>does anyone have a non-meme argument for why anyone should switch to Catholicism?
>It seems like being Catholic is at least 50% defending Catholicism against its obvious mistakes (colonialism, pederasty).
>With Catholicism I just get mental gymnastics and muh Peter.

There's a bit of a catch-22 with you. You ask Catholics to explain or defend their church but then when they do it becomes a mark against them. The truth is the problems that plague the Church are not unique to Catholics. Things like pederasty and clerical abuse are just as much if not moreso a problem in orthodox and protestant denominations. It's the more centralized (appearance-wise anyways) nature of the Catholic church that makes them an easy target for criticism. On the other side of the coin it makes fixing these problems easier, which is why the rate of child abuse among Catholic clergy is now lower compared to any random sampling of protestant churches.

As a non-religious guy, mysticism sounds better.

Sufism > Wahhabism

In the Davidic kingdom, the king appointed a cabinet of ministers (1 Kgs 4:1-6; 2Kgs 18:37). Of these ministers, one was elevated to a unique status. His authority was second only to that of the king, who gave him the authority over all other minsters and everyone else in the kingdom. This was a common practice in the Near East. For example, when Joseph became the prime minister of Egypt, Pharaoh said, "You shall be over my house [dynasty and kingdom], and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you ... I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" (Gen 41:40,44). The Symbol of Joseph's office was the signet ring that Pharaoh took from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand (Gen 41:42)

Now let's fast forward to David's kingdom. David ruled from 1010 to 970 BC. However, his dynasty continued after his death. Hezekiah became the king of Judah at the age of 25 approximately 265 years after King David's death. Hezekiah's rule from 715 to 687 was marked by a great religious reform. It was during his reign that Shebna, the prime minister or royal steward (Is 22:15) was removed from his office:

Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man ... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station" (Is 22:17, 19).

Eliakim will be installed in his place as prime minister (Is 22:20-22). The symbol of that office is "the key of the house of David" (Is 22:22).

The point of Jesus' reference to Isaiah 22 is to indicate that Peter will also be given an office in Jesus' kingdom, which is his Church. That office will continue as long as Jesus' kingdom on earth continues. Jesus is the new Moses. Like the first Moses, Jesus established a priestly hierarchy in his kingdom. Peter and his successors are the chief ministers in that kingdom, the rock upon which Jesus will build his Church.

Honestly I think the difficulty with defending Catholicism is it requires the person be knowledgable about both theology and history to a decent standard.

Well, the argument would be that they don't need them. Can Thomism really withstand post-modernism? I'd like to think so, but the defenses I've read haven't been as compelling. Maybe I need to look them over again.

Very informative. Thanks for this.

Eh, mysticism isn't fulfilling and gets old quickly when its all you have, hence why Orthodoxy is trying to revive their liturgical traditions.

>Can Thomism really withstand post-modernism?
It can if people study the grander philosophical background. The problem is people who are post-modernist typically are only familiar with post-Enlightenment thinkers with only a brief view of pre-Enlightenment thinkers

The big problem for me with the pederasty is it seems systematically covered up from the highest powers in the church. In that sense it does appear to me really centralized.

I don't see why a Copt should want to become Catholic because Serbs and Russians did the equivalent of what Catholics have done.

But then your entire defense of Catholicism rests on Peter. If the Orthodox are right about Peter, then you're just kind of dishonestly washing your hands of it.

>Can Thomism really withstand post-modernism?
Considering post-modernism is nearly dead and Thomism continues to flourish -- actually a better question would be can continental philosophy survive the decade?

They don't seem to need philosophy because they were in a was preserved by communism from many of the plagues of modernity as well as secularist revolutions and the Reformation. There was less need for a strong philosophy, that's true, but the Eastern Fathers were always more mystical and less philsophical than the western ones. For example, Aristid, Antenagoras, Justin and Augustine were all Western fathers, even if some were Greek, they gravitated towards Rome (Justin getting beheaded there for example). And thomism is now more alive than it was from the 17th to 19th century. Since early 20th century thomism has had a massive revival and it continues today as well, with equal intensity. And these aren't random figures, these are major philsophers, reaching far beyond just the Catholic world. Maritain, Gilson, Copleston, Amscombe, Geach, MacIntyre, Feser, Oderberg are all big names.

The Church was certainly built upon Saint Peter, he is the first Apostle to be given the authority of a bishop, and to confess that Jesus is the Christ; but the rock is not some higher office (see 1 Peter 5:1), and certainly not a title passed down; being the rock refers to Peter's role in the *founding* of the Church, which the Pope of today obviously has no part in, he is not the rock the Church is built on.

If you care to read Matthew 16:19, you'll see that by being given the keys to heaven, it means he can bind and loose. You will also note that Christ says δώσω, which is futurist punctual case, meaning that Christ is not giving now and into the future (durative future case), but *will* give--he has yet to. Then also note that Peter actually receives this authority when Christ it gives to all his Apostles in Matthew 18:18. The idea that Peter, let alone whoever is Bishop of Rome, has the keys to heaven and the ability to bind and loose, in any sense beyond the other Apostles (which of course, if they were still alive, the Roman Catholic Church would demand be subjected to whomever was Pope, see A4b of this FAQ), is equating him with God (Isaiah 22:22).

In the same way, I don't see why a Catholic should doubt his faith because progressive bishops (check it out, it's always the modernists) who already hate the Church and love the spirit of V2 and wish to become Orthodox. You find refuge in God and his love admissioned by sacraments and hold fast your faith on three legs of the stool, Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, not a particular person, however highly he may be positioned.

>If the Orthodox are right about Peter, then you're just kind of dishonestly washing your hands of it.
Well yeah, but I don't think I am. Like I said, in the early church papal authority wasn't questioned much. It was just as the East became more independent they began to resent the Bishop of Rome had so much power. It was less an intellectual disagreement and more of a political grudge. I don't see any reason to look at the Eastern Church during the Great Schism and say "yeah they seem to be the legitimate Church."

Do you not believe in the sacrament of confession and apostolic succession? Because, those are really the two main points of your attack.

>The big problem for me with the pederasty is it seems systematically covered up from the highest powers in the church. In that sense it does appear to me really centralized.

That certainly did happen but it's important to note that many of cases that we look at today and see as coverups, such as moving priests around after they've been cost molesting a kid, was actually Bishops following doctors orders. The prevailing wisdom throughout the 60's, 70's, and even 80's within the psychiatric proffesion was that these pedophile priests could be rehabilitated and allowed back to work without any further trouble. They would send these priests to therapy and then move them to a new diocese once they were "cured" to avoid any awkward situations with the victims. Of course we know better than that now but that was how it was, they legitimately thought these priests were back to normal and the problem was solved. Today we see these specific cases as cover ups but they're really just unfortunate tragedies.

The Church has made a lot of great reforms and they're dealing with the problem. There's no way to eliminate the problem entirely because we're all human but I would say at present day the Catholic Church is the safest place for kids.

But the early Church right after Christ did have leaders. Are you claiming the Early structure of the church was erroneous? Also Jesus clearly insinuates that Peter should be a leader. (John 21:17).

That's actually a good way to think about it. V2 and progressive bishops is quite annoying. How do you find a Catholic church that isn't...well...'cucked.'

Just look around nearby Catholic Churches. If you can't find one that's fine. The Sacraments are all valid regardless, so aesthetic isn't important.

>and certainly not a title passed down

Jesus confirmed Peter alone in an office as the first of the Apostles and he intended it to be a permanent office transmitted to Peter's successors because Jesus' kingdom will last until the end of time. This office of shepherding the Church is passed on through the sacred office of the bishops. Therefore, the church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution take place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such a way's that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.

Peter's succession is already intimated when Jesus connected the promise of the keys he will give to Peter with the prime ministerial office in David's kingdom in Isaiah 22. Jesus affirmed that Peter will be given the dynastic office of chief shepherd in Jesus' kingdom. Apostolic succession is also clearly evident when Peter determined that a successor must be chosen to fill the place vacated by Judas' betrayal and suicide:

Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share of this ministry ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and, 'His office let another take" (Acts 1:16-17, 20).

Apostolic succession is evident in the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. They "appointed elders [bishops and priests] for them in every church, with prayers and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believe" (Acts 14:23). In his second letter to Timothy St. Paul laid out the generational program for apostolic succession that was practiced by the Apostles and their successors, and is continued to the present time: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you [Timothy was a second generation of Christians] have heard from me [Paul was of the first generation] before many witnesses entrust to the faithful men [the third generation] who will be able to teach others [the fourth generation] also (2 Tim 2:1-2). By the end of the second century, apostolic succession was understood as the sure indicator of orthodoxy. St. Irenaeus of Lions, writing against the Gnostics around the year 180, affirmed "the tradition of the Apostles," was safeguarded in the unbroken line of succession of those men who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors. He placed the greatest importance on the successors of St. Peter in Rome.

Decided to youtube Christian mysticism.

You might be right.

>youtube.com/watch?v=Fft0ua9dRpg

kinda joking obviously, I doubt this is what the church(east or west) means by it but damn was this a shitshow

>How do you find a Catholic church that isn't...well...'cucked.'

SSPX (preferred) or FSSP

Many of the Church Fathers are taken out of context to support Papal Supremacy, when the Church Fathers did not support Papal Supremacy at all. Let me give you an example from Saint Jerome, as quoted by a Catholic Site (catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy):

> "‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).'

Now take a look at the quote in context: first of all, Saint Jerome is responding to Jovian, who says chastity is of no importance, and Jovian argued that if chastity were important, then Saint John, who was a virgin, would have been made the rock, not Peter, who was not a virgin. Saint Jerome is not presenting his own opinion about Peter being the rock, he is actually responding to Jovian voicing that opinion (indeed, if we look as Saint Jerome's commentary on Matthew, he says, on Matthew 16:18, that Christ is referring to HIMSELF when he says "on this rock", see Ephesians 2:20).

Now let's remove the ellipsis and see the full quote:

> "But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We may be sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet." (newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm)
Casts the quote in quite a different light, doesn't it?

What the fuck man

Wat in the heresy

delete this

FSSP, Institute of Christ King, or virtually any parish that offers the Tridentine mass. Alternatively, Opus Dei. Outside of that, you'll have to look around and ask a few people in your city, but if you are not from Eastern Europe, avoid the Jesuits like the fucking plague. Their superior general is a formal heretic and too many of the priests are at least material heretics.

I think I understand Islamic terrorism now because I want to run them over with a truck.

Good post

>avoid the Jesuits like the fucking plague. Their superior general is a formal heretic and too many of the priests are at least material heretics.

I think that's what Pynchon was trying to warn me about in Mason & Dixon. Apparently he was a practicing Catholic for a while (his mother being a fierce Catholic) and possibly again with Against the Day.

It doesn't, as it confirms the papal primacy, but asks why Peter was chosen. He doesn't give an answer, only poses a question. The very fact that he's having the argument means at least some of the fathers believed it.

>almost all of the greatest minds are Catholic or convet at deathbed or were brought up by devout Catholics
Every time

discord.gg/DfWxj
Best aquinasposters join quick

>Maybe if I show the quote as having some ambiguity I can trick them into thinking St. Jerome didn't support Papal Supremacy.
Bruh...

Sweet, I've been looking for a Christfag thread for awhile now to ask this:

Does anyone know of any writings defending, condemning, or discussing Saint worship? Not veneration, outright worship or """""""Veneration"""""" that is certainly not what veneration should be. I'm not so much interested in Santa Muerte as I am this phenomenon occurring in Europe/North America.

These are the good or poor reasons why I became a Catholic when I was around 20 (I am 33 and not a native English speaker). I don't think you become a convert for fully rational reasons btw.

-I became convinced protestantism was an innovation, and that the church fathers of the first centuries whom we can still read wouldnt have recognized their religion there.

-Jesus didnt write a book, he founded a Church. The Church decided which books belong to the new testament, which ones are canon and which ones arent. The Church therefore has an authority comparable or superior to that of the bible (as the only ones who can interpret it infallibly). Tradition is a good enough justification, the same goes for what was decided in the the universally acknowledged councils by the bishops of church.

-Jesus never intended us to live in doubt of which one is the true church among thousands of christian denominations

-The Orthodox have to explain away an enormous ammount of quotes from Church fathers about the primacy of Rome, all those texts would be "it looks like it says xxx, but it actually says something else" for them. I couldnt take that seriously.

-The Orthodox allow people to divorce and remarry multiple times. I find it to go against what Jesus explicitely said on divorce. They also have no position on contraception unlike the Catholic Church. And they dont really do much against abortion in the former soviet block countries with sky high abortion rates.

-History. The kingdoms of northern Spain managed to reconquer their land from muslims, and spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia and Africa. France also helped through their colonialism.
On the other side, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople are in muslim hands, in completely islamic countries. Jerusalem has a disputed status between Israel and Palestine, and post communist eastern europe is one of the most atheistic places on earth.
Pope John Paul II did more against communism than the Russian Orthodox Church which was in bed with the government and completely infiltrated with kgb agents.
When the URSS fell, millions of unregistered catholics appeared in Ukraine, and there are still problems about the property of churches, because the catholic churches were given by Soviet Authorities to the Orthodox.
an article from 1990
articles.latimes.com/1990-03-17/entertainment/ca-317_1_orthodox-church

my last words, I only reached this conclusions after despairing thinking it was impossible to find the "true church" and reading history, patristics and apologetics for 3 years. And I think divorce, not the filioque, not papal supremacy, is the greatest difference between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Catholic threads are always the most interesting threads on Veeky Forums. Thanks for the fascinating conversation gents, please carry on.

Yeah, you aren't kidding. Just today he apparently said that the Devil is a "symbolic" figure. One of the Dominican priests I follow on Twitter is PISSED and posted a huge article about all the times Pope Francis has talked about the Devil as an actually existing entity. The Jesuits are a fucking mess, but as long as one of their own is pope they won't be suppressed like they need to be.

>oh this is going to be some old orthodox church tradition that is strange and cryptic
>click video
>holy fuck what is happening here why is he blowing in peoples faces and smacking them why is there smoke and lazer lights everywhere, why is there money on the floor why is the good black guy from the city of god movie hanging out dancing like a retard
what religion is this

apply directly to forehead

>the Devil is a "symbolic" figure

I agree with most of these with the exception of history. If you're going to use positive history as proof of church supremacy, does it not follow that you can use church history as an example of church fallibility? Indulgences and Pope Leo X certainly? Pope Alexander VI?

Well he is. He's an extra Biblical amalgamation of several characters from the Old Testament along with several malignant forces in the New Testament (The entity that tempts Christ, the demons that are legion, the Babylonian king Helel, the pharaoh, Shaytan the angel, hunger, leprosy, etc).

You do realize that Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno are both fictional and not canon, right? And that Revelations is apocrypha, not canon, right?

In the CCC the Devil is called a literal individual being, a person and (a) spirit.

Revelation is in the Bible, of course it's canon. The canon was closed and sanctioned once and for all at the Council of Trent, no one is allowed to declare anything within the binding of a Bible "not canon."

we are legun :PP

After the schism the eastern church was tormented by mongols and arabs.

After the schism the west rebounded, rebuilt, and was given an entire new world to colonize and cultivate.

If this schism never happened the world would be entirely white and would be in harmony. Instead the nigger barbarbarian put up a fight and we have to go in cycles of genocide until one side wins.

It is known.

Is Christianity responsible for autism?

Because its the only place on Veeky Forums where the shitposters don't bother touching, so the discussion flows uninterrupted. The rest of Veeky Forums could read like this too, but people are too busy memeing around.

>comparing these two

This is the second time I've seen it today. Where is this meme coming from? I need to find the source.

Christians aren't interested in this kind of thing at all, because it's inane.

>The Church therefore has an authority comparable or superior to that of the bible
ah yes, just like the Pharisees had an authority that outshined the Old Testament scriptures (that were physically penned by humans and not God) such that they were not shaken by Jesus Christ the stumbling block, who led many astray, because of their great wisdom (as attested to by their prominence in that age) that surpassed the words of the prophet Isaiah.

The Revelation is canon, not sure why it wouldn't be. We aren't protties, we don't remove books from our holy books because they don't fit.
As for the devil being symbolic, any authority of historical critical methods are completely null compared to Tradition and that is consistent. The devil is seen as a single real entity by all the Fathers and Doctors and based on that there could be an ex cathedra proclamation on his reality.

Some guy who read the Quaran and now fanatical about it.

Papal infallibility is protection against error in regards to what is taught, now how they act. One example of how this works can be seen with Peter himself, when he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship, and Paul reproved him. Not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Paul was merely exhorting Peter to practice what he infallibly preached.

>You do realize that Paradise Lost

its not a Christian work, go figure that a Prot would write a book defending God and end up endorsing Satanism...All the best Milton scholars are avowedly anti-Christian.

> Is Christianity responsible for autism?

No, that's "muh stimuli."

Unrelated, but I've been thinking of becoming Christian, I feel like it's been missing from my life like something I can't explain.

But I absolutely despise the view of some people on places like /r/Christianity where they have some revisionist view on loving everyone.
All the churches in my city are CofE, but the cathedral is catholic.
What to do Veeky Forums?

>/r/Christianity

Avoid that place like the plague. That's supposed to be Christian yet they have moderators that are atheist, Jewish, and Muslim and they absolutely control the discourse by deleting comments and threads that offend them.

>yet they have moderators that are atheist, Jewish, and Muslim

I believe one of them is an "LBGT Christian" as well.

Is it an accurate representation of the current Christian demographic? I'd say I'm fairly traditionalist.

Yeah, I saw that on a thread recently. I guess its how to go to hell the easy way in one simple step

No. That subreddit is the internet avatar of what a leftist progressive wishes Christianity would be. You're liable to get downvoted there for saying that we shouldn't kill unborn babies.

Daily reminder that sodomy is one of the sins that cry to Haven for vengeance and that calling yourself an LGBT Christian is exactly the same as murderer Christian, poor oppressing Christian or worker exploiting capitalist Christian.

Go to the cathedral and read John Henry Newman.

Yeah I posted a few comments there arguing with the 'LGBT Christian' and got downvoted. How can they even call themselves Christians?

>/r/Christianity
Go check out /christian/ on double-chan instead.

It doesn't endorse satanism at all. Milton did a great job making Satan alluring. God is alien and Satan is close to man.
Those you reference are edgy and lack self-consciousness and side with the "relatable" character, precisely falling into the trap.

I haven't been to reddit in a while. The guy you speak about is just homosexual or are we talking about the deranged political activist advanced faggotry?

>successor to the throne of Peter
Holy shit who fucking cares what ancient man was the first pope, this is about God

Not really. Maybe among urban dwelling teens to twenty somethings with a liberal bent, but in general not in the least in my experience.
t.formerly performed various styles of music at churches of various denominations throughout the midwest

Hmm, im not sure but his flair is 'LGBT christian' so it could be either. He has lots of posts about how he is against conservative christians and all that.
I don't see why (if he dislikes Christianity so much) he doesn't fuck off and practice some neo-hippie bullshit

>implying that Christianity at its core isn't about God interacting with historic events and giving us an institution.
Wew lad

Heres a link to the terrible thread.
reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/6epeji/why_do_you_think_that_most_churches_are_losing/

I really do despise this "DON'T JUDGE" attitude from liberals and roleplaying Christians. It completely ignores scripture and the explicit commands to reprove sinners because they conflate any reproval with a condemnation to hell, which is something that only God has the authority to do and is what Jesus was talking about in Matt 7:1. They just want people to accept their faggy bullshit without question.

They (on /r/christianity) seem to have there own very special interpretations of the scripture, it's generally the 'god says to love all so accept me as a potato rainbow queer'.
I've been lurking /christian/ on 8ch and it seems that protestants have a bad rep. The only churches that look decent in my area are protestant. Help me out?

>and it seems that protestants have a bad rep. The only churches that look decent in my area are protestant. Help me out?

Yeah, I'm not sure about Europe but I know in north America, despite all the memes about Prots (which are mostly valid) it's really the Prots who actively believe and are engaged with Christianity and they don't nearly infuse pop culture liberalism with Christianity. Although there are definitely are Prot churchs which go full liberal, that's the tendency that I've encountered.