There is no good Christianity. >Orthodoxy. Obviously not the universal church. >Catholicism

There is no good Christianity
>Orthodoxy
Obviously not the universal church
>Catholicism
Scary how you constantly have to fear losing grace and are forced to live confession to confession
>Protestantism
Attractive but not unlike Mormonism, Judaism etc.

What’s a simple guy to do??

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Obviously not the universal church
    Why?
    >Scary how you constantly have to fear losing grace and are forced to live confession to confession
    >Being forced to take your religion seriously and actually better yourself.
    Kek.
    >Attractive but not unlike Mormonism, Judaism etc.
    Protestantism is the most unattractive form of Christianity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      .
      >Protestantism is the most unattractive form of Christianity.
      How so?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Why?
      Lack of universal episcopacy.
      > Kek
      Can you go an entire week without sinning and therefore bringing hellfire upon yourself? It’s unnecessary and psychologically damaging for a believer to feel like Christ will withdraw His grace for a moment of indiscretion. If someone takes Catholicism seriously they are compelled to fall into scrupulosity.
      > Protestantism is the most unattractive form of Christianity
      In many ways, but the assurance aspect is attractive.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Can you go an entire week without sinning and therefore bringing hellfire upon yourself? It’s unnecessary and psychologically damaging for a believer to feel like Christ will withdraw His grace for a moment of indiscretion. If someone takes Catholicism seriously they are compelled to fall into scrupulosity.
        We're all sinners, that's the entire point of the gospel, and Catholicism's view of sin is much more nuanced, you only go to Hell if you die in a state of mortal sin, which not all sins are.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have to rush to confession every week or go to hell? Isn’t that a ball and a chain around your ankle for the rest of your life?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're supposed to confess to God directly right after you sin, then make it to confession later. No need to rush.

            >The first grace and final perseverance right before you die (you can have contrition for your sins before you die) are given freely and not merited in Thomism so this is a relief. However, if you have an aversion to the sacraments this is a sign of reprobation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Isn’t that a ball and a chain around your ankle for the rest of your life?
            Yes? That's the point, carry your cross.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >assurance

        Profoundly dangerous. Spiritual complacency. You must be wary of the wolves that circle you always, seeking out a moment of weakness to strike. They are temptations.

        Judgement is assured, be content knowing that.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Assurance is biblical and God is love, and heaven with a god you don’t like is not heaven.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can fall from a state of grace. Adam and Eve did.

            Romans 11

            21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

            22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

            23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

            >if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off

            Matthew 24

            11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

            12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

            13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

            That's pretty clear anon. You must not fall away, rather endure. If salvation were totally assured, there would be no such warning.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When was the last time you jerk offd?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Protestantism
    Attractive but not unlike Mormonism, Judaism etc."
    Pfff.....
    Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahaha hahaha.
    Someone actually likes the proteshits?
    Lol, that's hilarious.
    Anyways reading your post makes me think, you really wouldn't fare well in Christianity, so i recommend you to just not get into it. Ok?
    I think that's the best outcome for you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your post itself makes Christianity less attractive so have fun repenting of this sin to your god..

      https://i.imgur.com/QeNf1Np.jpg

      Evangelical Catholic. Or confessional Lutheran.

      I think that any Protestant brand of Christianity is inherently disrespectful to Jesus’ authority.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, i don't have to actually repent, idiot.
        The Proteshits deserve it, and i know god doesn't like heresy, like Protestantism.
        So shut up, you idiot.
        I hope you actually deal with Protestants so you can see how actuality shit they are.
        Hahahahaha.
        Lol.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I think that any Protestant brand of Christianity is inherently disrespectful to Jesus’ authority.
        nope.
        "The more recent concept of "Catholicism" as an antonym of
        "Protestantism" is a typical product of Reformed thought. The Lutheran Church has not the slightest theological interest in this antithesis between Catholicism and Protestantism. It does not know to which side it belongs. If only there were a clear-cut contradiction between true and false doctrine in the antithesis! But this does not happen to be the case. For there are heresies in Protestantism which are just as dangerous as those of Catholicism. Lutheran theology differs from Reformed theology in that it lays great emphasis on the fact that the evangelical church is none other than the medieval Catholic Church purged of certain heresies and abuses. The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Anthanasius and Irenaeus once belonged. The orthodox evangelical church is the legitimate continuation of the medieval Catholic Church, not the church of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council which renounced evangelica truth when it rejected the Reformation."
        -Herman Sasse, Here We Stand

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pff....
          Hahahaha hahaha hahaha.
          Why are you defending Protestantism bro?
          Thats cringe, you are a literal clown. Lol.
          "I think that any Protestant brand of Christianity is inherently disrespectful to Jesus’ authority.
          nope."
          Proceeds to write a novel full of Proteshit nonsense. Lol.
          You Protestants are so funny. Lol.
          Literally Clowns.
          Hahahahaha.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nice quote.
          > It does not know to which side it belongs
          Neither does Canterbury, but Rome would know..
          > The orthodox evangelical church is the legitimate continuation of the medieval Catholic Church
          Seems an absurd claim, since it lacks the universal episcopacy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >evangelical church is none other than the medieval Catholic Church purged of certain heresies and abuses.
            An “universal episcopate would be one of those abuses.

            https://i.imgur.com/UbQkxd3.jpg

            Ignorant Lutheran ideologue

            Turn your trip code back on Dirk.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Dirk

            Do you concede the point?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No. Since the reformed church chose other heresies than the catholic faith.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Dirk

            That's a completely different allegation
            If the reformed are prone to be buttholes Lutherans are prone to be midwits who overstate everything. Reformed derangement syndrome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stay out of our church.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Dirk

            Please do not worry about it. My kids will stay in our own integrated family worship away from Lutheran Sunday school classes led by adults who watch children's cartoons (red flag)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what website you’re on?!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your children may be predestined to fall away from the faith and suffer eternal conscious torment forever and there's literally nothing you can do about it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Dirk

            Act 2:39 BSB This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off—to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ignorant Lutheran ideologue

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Protestants are Jesus fanatics to the point where it creeps other branches out.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, i don't have to actually repent, idiot.
      The Proteshits deserve it, and i know god doesn't like heresy, like Protestantism.
      So shut up, you idiot.
      I hope you actually deal with Protestants so you can see how actuality shit they are.
      Hahahahaha.
      Lol.

      Pff....
      Hahahaha hahaha hahaha.
      Why are you defending Protestantism bro?
      Thats cringe, you are a literal clown. Lol.
      "I think that any Protestant brand of Christianity is inherently disrespectful to Jesus’ authority.
      nope."
      Proceeds to write a novel full of Proteshit nonsense. Lol.
      You Protestants are so funny. Lol.
      Literally Clowns.
      Hahahahaha.

      underage spic

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Evangelical Catholic. Or confessional Lutheran.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >There is no good Christianity
    Correct, it's all Judaism.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Obviously not the universal church
    I'd wager between the Orthodox Church and Catholicism that the Orthodox are far closer to being the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
    >Scary how you constantly have to fear losing grace and are forced to live confession to confession
    On the flipside, say a little prayer and get an instant indulgence for your sins!
    >Attractive but not unlike Mormonism, Judaism etc.
    The worst Protestant denomination is still far better than Mormonism imho.
    >What’s a simple guy to do??
    Maybe your answer isn't in Christianity?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Obviously not the universal church
    Why would you confuse centralism and universality ? Or universality and juridictional centralism ?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It occurred to me at some point that Jesus’ leadership was universal, therefore so was Peter’s, therefore so is leadership in the church today.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would you confuse Christ and Peter ? Then why would you confuse Peter and the first bishop of Rome Lin ? And then why would you confuse the first bishop of Rome with the others that came after him ?
        Admits it's just an arbitrarily narrative and interpretation. Antioch was funded by saint Peter too, the first bishop of Rome is said to be Lin by saint Ireneus of Lyon. An arbitrary interpretation cannot be universal. A local church cannot be universal, by definition. Only spiritual truth can be universal, like the divinity of Christ, and the faith in Christ's divinity that peter confessed (through the Spirit, who is universal)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Why would you confuse Christ and Peter ?
          There is a clear handing off of Jesus’ authority. It’s obvious that early Christians after the Ascension and Pentecost were under the authority of the apostles. If you are confused as to why, see picrel.
          > Then why would you confuse Peter and the first bishop of Rome
          Why would someone not? Universal episcopacy wouldn’t just evaporate with Peter’s death. If Jesus was able to hand over his divine authority, I think Peter would too.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is a clear handing off of Jesus’ authority
            This autority comes to everyone who confess the divinity of Christ, so to the confess of Faith, infiallible because built upon Christ, made through the Holy Spirit. He makes son of God, everyone who believes in the son of God, thus givess him his autority. To limit it to only one individual (the bishop of Rome) is a late arbitrary invention of the bishops of Rome.
            I also believe in the apostolic succession, but the church of antioch has also been founded by Peter, and the church of Rome is said to be Lin, not peter, according to saint Ireneus of Lyon. Thus the idea of Rome having universal juridiction prerogattive over the whole church is a latter innovative interpretation (not found in the church fathers).

            >Universal episcopacy
            No one said Peter had "universal episcopacy. He was special, had a specific role, he was not infaillible, nor had a divine autority among apostles. He was confronted by saint Paul in the first concil of Jerusalem. Admit it's just an interpretation. And it's a latter one. I explained to you how this theory has several logical jump to come to this conclusion.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This autority comes to everyone who confess the divinity of Christ, so to the confess of Faith, infiallible because built upon Christ, made through the Holy Spirit. He makes son of God, everyone who believes in the son of God, thus givess him his autority.
            I just repeat in this regard the interpretation of the church fathers on the famous verse used by the papacy to invent a theory of a primacy of juridiction of Peter, then of the bishop of Rome (supposedly his heirs). This pontifical interpretation is not found in the church fathers, who interpreted it differently.
            Nowhere Christ says Peter has to be the chief of the apostles, nor that he will have a line of successors who will have the right to control all of the Church. He would have said something, and the church fathers too, if it was such a big deal. In fact, even ancient bishops of Rome, like saint Gregory the great opposed attempts of a bishop putting himself above others :
            >"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > This autority comes to everyone who confess the divinity of Christ
            Why did Jesus only give the keys to Peter and binding and loosing authority to the apostles then, as opposed to the masses or even the seventy?
            > I also believe in the apostolic succession, but the church of antioch has also been founded by Peter
            Why isn’t Antioch the globally recognized leading centre of Christianity today then?
            > not found in the church fathers
            It is found in the church fathers, not unanimously, but consistently. All the people who felt entitled to disagree with the Bishop of Rome were in communion with him regardless.
            > No one said Peter had "universal episcopacy. He was special
            If he was special, then he was the leader. If he was the leader, then he was the universal bishop even among apostles. If he was the universal bishop, then there is a universal bishop today.

            >This autority comes to everyone who confess the divinity of Christ, so to the confess of Faith, infiallible because built upon Christ, made through the Holy Spirit. He makes son of God, everyone who believes in the son of God, thus givess him his autority.
            I just repeat in this regard the interpretation of the church fathers on the famous verse used by the papacy to invent a theory of a primacy of juridiction of Peter, then of the bishop of Rome (supposedly his heirs). This pontifical interpretation is not found in the church fathers, who interpreted it differently.
            Nowhere Christ says Peter has to be the chief of the apostles, nor that he will have a line of successors who will have the right to control all of the Church. He would have said something, and the church fathers too, if it was such a big deal. In fact, even ancient bishops of Rome, like saint Gregory the great opposed attempts of a bishop putting himself above others :
            >"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."

            > Nowhere Christ says Peter has to be the chief of the apostles
            Even Orthodox theologians admit Peter was the leader of the apostles.
            > nor that he will have a line of successors who will have the right to control all of the Church
            Hard to interpret the keys/binding and loosing power any other way.
            > He would have said something, and the church fathers too, if it was such a big deal
            The church fathers talk about Rome’s primacy frequently… as for Peter mentioning his own leadership, why would he have, if it was widely known and accepted at the time? Doctrine only gets made explicit in the face of heresy and as understanding deepens.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Luc 9: 46
            >46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”
            >Marc 9 33 He came to Capernaum, and when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you arguing among yourselves on the way?"
            >34But they were silent, for they had disputed one with another on the way about who was the greatest.
            >35He sat down, and called the twelve; and he said to them, "If any man wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all."
            >36He took a little child, and set him in their midst. Taking him in his arms, he said to them,
            >37"Whoever receives one such little child in my name, receives me, and whoever receives me, doesn't receive me, but him who sent me."
            A single verse can assblast your interpretation unfounded on the church father's testimony of the traditional interpretation.

            Then for the apostle their is the power of binding, like the keys, same effect

            >Why isn’t Antioch the globally recognized leading centre of Christianity today then?
            Why ask this and not Why had Rome tried to be the globally recognized leading centre of Christianity today then?

            >If he was the leader, then he was the universal bishop even among apostles
            It's not the same, you jump to conclusion. You just have a narrative, you are not interested in reasonning. It's a poetic interpretative jump.
            >If he was the universal bishop, then there is a universal bishop today.
            Jumping all the time.
            >If he was special, then he was the leader.
            This is also jumping. He have been called mostly spokeperson of the apostle. Doesn't make him a binding leader with power over others. There is even different types of leaderships. He can be an autority who is not exclusive.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > It's not the same, you jump to conclusion
            It’s not a jump. If the early church had the universal episcopacy, it’s absurd to say that it would dissipate or evaporate.
            > Luke 9:46
            Jesus didn’t say everyone was equal, he said the servant is greatest. The bishop is the servant.

            >Hard to interpret the keys/binding and loosing power any other way.
            It's simply the apostolic transmission and the sacraments. Does saint John being special, being loved by Christ or not dying (and Peter not receiving answers about it),... have to lead us to an ecclesiastical conclusion of the sort of an underground church like masons do ? Or that the Church he was in have more authority ? That's just excessive and arbitrarily interpretation.
            >Rome’s primacy frequently
            Primacy in honnor, said in the councils. First among equals according to saint john chrysostomos.
            Dogmas always have a traditional basis in orthodoxy, only in papism can they be made up. Christology existed before the council of Nicea, trinity and such too. The idea of papal juridictional primacy is completely new and even contrary to councils who delimit territories to patriarchates.
            I stated the view, argued very summarily on the main points, the ressources are online, and more extensive and serious expositions have been made on the internet, I will not feel obliged to continue on this. You have made this narrative a personnal affaire. I can give informations to people who are interested, not spare with someone's else ego to help him practice the thoughts he craft against his own counciousness's cries, which make this little narrative and autoritative cocoon you wrap yourself up in arbitrarily, because truth is less important than this feeling of security. You could have been anything, what matters to you is an autority and this gives you stability or something you need more than truth.

            > Primacy in honnor, said in the councils. First among equals according to saint john chrysostomos
            Emphasis on primacy and firstness. To be Orthodox is to declare the existence of a major fall of the church.
            > Dogmas always have a traditional basis in orthodoxy, only in papism can they be made up
            Theoretically, Orthodoxy could drift and accrue doctrinal accretions just like Catholicism. It’s only by faith in the grace of God that we believe this isn’t the case, whether you are Catholic or Orthodox.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Hard to interpret the keys/binding and loosing power any other way.
            It's simply the apostolic transmission and the sacraments. Does saint John being special, being loved by Christ or not dying (and Peter not receiving answers about it),... have to lead us to an ecclesiastical conclusion of the sort of an underground church like masons do ? Or that the Church he was in have more authority ? That's just excessive and arbitrarily interpretation.
            >Rome’s primacy frequently
            Primacy in honnor, said in the councils. First among equals according to saint john chrysostomos.
            Dogmas always have a traditional basis in orthodoxy, only in papism can they be made up. Christology existed before the council of Nicea, trinity and such too. The idea of papal juridictional primacy is completely new and even contrary to councils who delimit territories to patriarchates.
            I stated the view, argued very summarily on the main points, the ressources are online, and more extensive and serious expositions have been made on the internet, I will not feel obliged to continue on this. You have made this narrative a personnal affaire. I can give informations to people who are interested, not spare with someone's else ego to help him practice the thoughts he craft against his own counciousness's cries, which make this little narrative and autoritative cocoon you wrap yourself up in arbitrarily, because truth is less important than this feeling of security. You could have been anything, what matters to you is an autority and this gives you stability or something you need more than truth.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    reinterpret esoteric vajrayana buddhist ideas in a gnostic christian cultural context and look for your own personal enlightenment

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If I were going the esoteric route I would just stick with the Gita.

      >but not unlike Mormonism, Judaism
      So no real argument against it, just "it's like these things that are bad" but no explanation as to how.

      What do Mormonism and Judaism have in common?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but not unlike Mormonism, Judaism
    So no real argument against it, just "it's like these things that are bad" but no explanation as to how.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    sage

    "I want to be a christian but not take it seriously" the post

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just become Orthodox and help build your local Patriarchate.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Scary how you constantly have to fear losing grace and are forced to live confession to confession

    Imagine having to concern at all for the state of your immortal soul.
    Yeah, sinning causes you to separate from God. That's what happened to Adam.

    Like, theology 101 over here.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >sinning causes you to separate from God
      Right. And telling a clergyman subordinated to the Bishop of Rome about the sin causes you to link up with God again.
      Honestly, it's simple divine metaphysics.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Confession is part of repentance. It's biblical, you daffy heretic.

        Moreover, you pretend Roman Catholics are the only church that practice the sacrament of confession. But every other church that enjoys apostolic succession also confess to their priests. The Orthodox, the Orientals, all of them.

        Protestants are totally aberrant in this. You have to ignore the entire history of the church to think you somehow don't need confession.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You want to make sure to die right after confession.
        Like, if you get in a deadly car accident on Friday, that's no good. You want that to happen while driving home from church.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You will literally never understand how Catholics understand grace. It's pointless to even try explaining it to you because you've already made up your mind that confession is pointless.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Was I mistaken about it being much worse to die on the way to church, rather than on the way home from church?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah.

            If through no fault of your own you are unable to confess (be it untimely death or the absence of a priest) even though you desire to and endeavor to confess as soon as possible, then through perfect contrition even mortal sin is forgiven.

            Obviously dying before confession is not ideal, but it doesn't mean you are necessarily damned.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >King James Bible
    >Book of Common Prayer
    >Pilgrim's Progress
    >Paradise Lost
    Take the Prot pill

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Almost like there isn't a fact of the matter!

    Btw, this is entirely predicted on my atheist hypothesis, where Christianity is made-up by people

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *