Why did Catholicism get all the cool stuff in Christianity while Orthodox and Protestantism stayed pretty boring?

Why did Catholicism get all the cool stuff in Christianity while Orthodox and Protestantism stayed pretty boring? I don't really believe in God but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.
    many such cases.
    can you just start a stoic or philospohical "church" or something instead of blaspheming Christ?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the culture is an emanation of the doctrine. austere churches look austere.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Catholicism has a lot more theologians to read because of no sola scriptura so you get more philosophy there.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You should convert to a religion because you think it's true, not because it's "cool."

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.
      many such cases.
      can you just start a stoic or philospohical "church" or something instead of blaspheming Christ?

      There's nowhere else to go for this kind of thing, not my fault. Tell the Protestants to start wearing robes and doing cool marches and I'll consider them instead.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and I'll consider them instead.
        I dont want you to join any religion just so you can dissimulate.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You know who disagrees with you? The Catholic Church.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thankfully I'm not Catholic and I disavow that religion of dissimulators.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is your fault that you're a larper.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Catholic Church would rather than I be a larper than an atheist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No they wouldn't. Catholics are not desperate for members. And you'd still be an atheist anyway, since you're only in it for the aesthetics and don't actually believe it. Further, you're gonna have to lie to the priest who baptizes you when they ask you to confess your faith. If you consider yourself a half-decent person, you shouldn't be willing to do that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You'd be surprised at just how many Catholics are largely just cultural Christians. The reason Catholicism is so big in the first place is because their appeal to fence-sitters like OP. More often than not the Catholic attitude towards God in my experience has been "We don't actually know if he exists or not but can you reall afford not to believe in him?"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those cultural Catholics are invariably cradle Catholics who have just lapsed, but they're still considered Catholics because "once a Catholic, always a Catholic." But if you try to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy or any other sect of Christianity that takes catechesis seriously, and are obviously insincere, they will absolutely turn you away.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The thing is though most of them don't even participate or go to Mass so they're snoozing while the trads take over. The 1920s to 1950s were when modernists were taking over behind the scenes.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No they wouldn't.
            Then why do they advocate for it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Catholics are not desperate for members
            Why on earth would the church allow pagan holidays like the Mexican day of the dead?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Tell the Protestants to start wearing robes and doing cool marches
        I think they tried that already in America

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Tell the Protestants to...
        Tell them yourself? Or better yet, start your own LARP church with whatever aesthetics or ritual trappings you like? It's alright, everyone's doing it anyway.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why would I start my own when I can just join the Catholic Church instead?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        High Church Prods already do. It's kind of what being "high church" is all about (besides believing in a physical real presence and that baptism saves automatically)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The true religion will necessarily be the most aesthetically pleasing religion. If it were not so, that would mean that God was surpassed by something that is not Godly, which is an impossibility.

      Like Keats said, "beauty is truth, truth beauty."

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They are all wrong so might as well pick the coolest one

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Catholicism is literally a continuation of Romes government. Even the term "diocese" comes directly from the Roman Civil Diocese which was an administrative division.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. In the early Middle Ages, barbarians did not allow Romans, who were much more advanced, educated, and cultured than they were, into positions of power. The only path to self-realization for a Roman was the Church. That's why, traditionally, the Catholic Church became the stronghold of Roman (and overall) culture in Europe during the Middle Ages.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s a Med thing, you wouldn’t understand Timmy Cletus

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's because they have the pride of the lucifer they worship.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.
    Please don’t, if that’s the case you will only serve to make mockery of the faith. Better that you stay away and admire from a distance.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's the only choice left to me. They're the last bastion of tradition in the west.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's the only choice left to me. They're the last bastion of tradition in the west.

      >but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.
      many such cases.
      can you just start a stoic or philospohical "church" or something instead of blaspheming Christ?

      You should convert to a religion because you think it's true, not because it's "cool."

      to be fair, you might come for the culture, but because of the way catechism works, you can only stay for the doctrine. you will have to learn it eventually.
      hopefully you'll genuinely interact with and have questions for your teachers. it's a little difficult to get far without a real encounter with the core ideas of the faith but it happens.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well the problem is that I don't really like the nu-doctrine, it's too modern for my taste, Vatican II was a huge mistake.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you're obviously not alone.
          you need to check out michael e. jones.

          i believe the distributist also addresses the whole "catholic church in exile" movement.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Go to https://vaticancatholic.com/ then

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Well the problem is that I don't really like the nu-doctrine
          You'll find it hasn't really changed if you read the catechism, which is what you'll have to do if you start the conversion process

          what has change is the attitude and interpretation of a large number of bishops and priests since vatican II, but there are plenty of traditional priests going around

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Vatican II did change things. See picrel.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Literally nothing wrong with any of those passages and Bill Gates is a catholic you brainrotten q tard.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In the order of revealed Hierarchy, the first is the Throne of Grace (Divine Life) upon which Christ the King sits. All authority (throne) in heaven and on earth flows from His Absolute Dominion. The Patristic fathers give to Him the title, “Supreme Pontiff” because “no one comes to The Father except through Me [Him].” The authority of Christ the King is greater than that of the Church, for the Church was made by Him. She and she alone is His Chosen Bride, and He has given to Her and Her alone a share of His inheritance to be passed on those who are born from Her. In this way the Church (the throne[authority] of Wisdom) is greater than all those born out of Her, including the man who will be seated upon the Chair of Saint Peter, for outside of Her Grace no man may lay a just claim to this inheritance.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pontiff is a Roman pagan office.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As if most Catholics dont make a mockery of it?

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because cool stuff is haram.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you'll find orthodox iconography (in general - not just the paintings) is beautiful and ornate if you research it.
    >stayed boring
    the point of the two "non-protestant" faiths - the eastern and the western traditions - is to STAY TRUE - even if it's boring.
    the point of the protestants, from Luther onward, was to stay true as well, reacting to church corruption. the beauty of the austere protestant is in his daily work. it got taken over by humanists who now think the beauty is in tolerance of homosexuality but initially it was about being a man and having self control.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well, the Orthodox at least have their own modern military religious orders, like a modern Knight's Templar, so that's pretty cool at least.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        With regard to correct worship - "The gate is narrow and few shall enter".
        War is necessary in a very specific circumstance in Christianity. Maintaining spiritual tradition as the orthodox and the catholics do is about maintaining your spiritual integrity. Being too excited about violence is a quick path to paganism.

        The orthodox style of art is more abstract than the catholic for this reason. If art is worship - then it needs to be honored with certain laws, procedures - ritualized.
        The protestant argument against ritual is that it's unnatural and stilted.
        The catholic and orthodox argument is that it's a way of expressing obedience to the lord. You submit your will to his will when you do things *his* way, not yours.
        It's about balancing your sensuality with the memory of his beyond-sensible nature.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The protestant argument against ritual is that it's unnatural and stilted.
          THAT’s what you think THE “Protestant” argument is?
          Legitimately, do you block out what other people say when that present their views and opinions?
          It’s one* argument, but more like a sub-argument amongst far greater ones.
          You’ll find plenty of “ritual” outside of “orthodoxy,” as ritual is not merely defined as “gold, silver, and art graven by man’s device.”

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you should realize i'm trying to be generous with you. i should have clarified that it's not the only argument. and it's a legitimate concern.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The catholic and orthodox argument is that it's a way of expressing obedience to the lord. You submit your will to his will when you do things *his* way, not yours.
          That's the Protestant argument. Protestants oppose iconodulia because there is neither a scriptural warrant nor is the practice present in the early church. The practice is a human innovation. Humans like to pray to statues and images. That's why the 2nd commandment exists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well then they share the same motive.
            The apostle luke painted an icon of mary holding jesus. the image of the cross was given to us the way man himself is an image of god. jesus was a living icon that was necessary because the israelites kept losing focus with only letters in front of them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Must’ve been real awkward for Luke when Paul started giving that sermon on Mars’ Hill, probably trying to hide some icon he was carrying behind his back lol.

            The ability to interpret the New Testament as condoning idolatry is truly impressive.
            If I told you that in the New Testament, it is written that creating “icons” (the literal word in Greek) of God is wickedness, would you believe it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The apostle luke painted an icon of mary holding jesus
            Can you point me to anything before the 7th century that attests to this? I'm not in the habit of taking iconoclast controversy propaganda as true tradition, sorry.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i don't know honestly but it seems to me just as credulous to believe the iconoclasts simply waited until the 7th century to get upset

            Must’ve been real awkward for Luke when Paul started giving that sermon on Mars’ Hill, probably trying to hide some icon he was carrying behind his back lol.

            The ability to interpret the New Testament as condoning idolatry is truly impressive.
            If I told you that in the New Testament, it is written that creating “icons” (the literal word in Greek) of God is wickedness, would you believe it?

            i'm still learning about this myself. what did paul say specifically that would contradict christian artwork of jesus - who was himself as visible and knowable as a painted image?

            is the word for icon different from the word for idol in greek?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >iconoclasts simply waited until the 7th century to get upset
            Iconodulia was not a thing in the church until the late 6th century at the earliest.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is a new word to me. Does it mean the painting of icons or just the kissing of them?
            How do we know it "wasn't a thing" and is that the same as being heretical?

            Please forgive my skepticism - tradition that dates back to an ecumenical council is still tradition, even if heretical. The bible itself is a consolidation guided by tradition and so when things deviate from tradition, I get skeptical. Jesus himself didn't write the new testament, and yet, we follow it as if it were all his word.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Iconodulia is just the veneration of icons, including kissing them, bowing to them and lighting incense for them. There definitely is religious art much earlier, but all of the historical evidence we have suggests that the practice of venerating icons as mandated by Nicaea II did not come until much later.

            The ecumenical nature of Nicaea II is also questionable. There was another competing iconoclast council, Hieria, which had more bishops than Nicaea II and made the exact opposite points. The Franks also had their own council that opposed Nicaea II. Nicaea II wasn't accepted in the West, especially Germany, for hundreds of years.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the veneration of icons, including kissing them, bowing to them and lighting incense for them
            idolatry

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so the trouble is that all this is in english.
            i feel as though the word for "icon" and the word for "image" is different in greek and that there is a greater context for these quotes, given the 7th ecumenical council wherein the church fathers decided the use of iconography for worship was okay.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wherein the church fathers decided
            Let me correct myself - upheld, not decided.
            (spectators like myself, as well as detractors at the council, might have "decided" based on the results therein)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it also strikes me as dishonest or at least ironic that the anti-icon post is constructed out of icons

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only they fight side by side with Muslims this time

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe, but at least the Orthodox have the balls to actually have religious militias in the name of their Church. You don't see that from Protestants or Catholics, not anymore.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            pretty sure he was being positive about it.
            he's framing it like an episode of early dragonball z when goku teams up with piccolo or vegeta.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Please stop promoting caeseropapism and warfare.
        The Anabaptists are right.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Orthgodogs will tell you that this is not idolatry

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Better to be a traditional idolater than to be a plain believer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, it's not. if you're an idolater than your tradition is just going to fall apart. because you never understood the tradition in the first place.

            Catholicism will tell you that you are made of dust. It's god's breath that gives you life.
            The robes and the chanting and the buildings are all going to degenerate back into dust without god's breath sustaining them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yet those robes and chanting and buildings have survived far longer than the rest of the degenerate west.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the degenerate west is tradition, degenerated.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't really believe in God but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.
    Spoken like a true Catholic. I’m sure you’ll fit in nicely.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"cool stuff"
    >posts demonic esoteric papoid ritualism
    I'll pray for you OP, you are on a dark path revering this satanic shit

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation.
    While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature:
    >no man has seen God
    >John 1:18
    He can be depicted simply because He "became human and took flesh."
    Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made.
    In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    >THE TRUE ONLY CHURCH GETS ALL «THE C00L STUFF».

    MAKES ONE COGITATE.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I am a believer because look at that costume

    Well I am not surprised christcucks are ... cucks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i'm a pagan because look at my muscles / listen to this lightening / etc
      >i'm an atheist because look how pretty this nasa image of the crab nebula is
      human beings are not "rational" in the scientific sense. we rely on narratives.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >most people are idiots
        Which means nothing, if you pursue the truth.
        You literally have said nothing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you literally have said nothing
          nice narrative.
          but i posited an aspect of human nature that's new and upsetting to you - that narratives are an inextricable part of our thought process.
          narratives are how human beings - even autists - encounter truth.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't really believe in God but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.
    have a nice day, Maurras. Frick off and die.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i'm a pagan because look at my muscles / listen to this lightening / etc
      >i'm an atheist because look how pretty this nasa image of the crab nebula is
      human beings are not "rational" in the scientific sense. we rely on narratives.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One thing I dislike about catholic history is how the churches kept changing style to follow trends, we lost so many basilicas, romanesque and gothic designs because of it. Wish they could've build entire new churches instead.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we lost so many basilicas, romanesque and gothic designs
      You wouldn't have any of those designs if the church didn't change their style to go along with trends

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects
    Hope you like tacos and burritos

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I actually do like them. You must be a Southerner IMO. In the Midwest most Catholics are Italian, Irish, or Polish.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >In the Midwest most Catholics are Italian, Irish, or Polish
        Damn, that sucks. I'm really sorry.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't really believe in God but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects.
    You'll fit right in

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      me but w/ prottie

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody becomes a Protestant without believing in it because it isn't le cool

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Actually they do. See the church of England or the European national churches.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            People don't join those though, they're born into it, taught by the """"church"""" God isn't real and being a homosexual is great, and then they become consistent by identifying as atheists instead of wasting their time at the old folk's social club. I'm talking about real Protestantism, the kind where they believe the bible.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are they wearing purple Klan robes? The Klan hates Catholics so what's the connection?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics were wearing those robes first.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capirote

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are thinking of the white Klan. The Katholic Klan wears purple and eternally battles the white Klan in the spirit realm.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it was probely to mock to catholics with those outfits. remember, they use to went after israelites and catholics not just black

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The KKK has an interesting history. But basically for the same reason that they have wacky titles: the Klan intended itself to be a fraternal organization and took inspiration from other such clubs.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Please don’t

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Catholic Church throughout its history was quite literally a self-hating, self-prosecuting mages guild by any other name.

    For all the claims of “no! God works miracles! not magic!” there are countless examples in history of Catholic monks attempting to summon fricking demons.

    There are countless fat Mexican ladies sacrificing chickens to mother Mary.

    Haitian Vodou incorporates Catholicism.

    Christians will scream “but that’s heresy!!” like fricking morons.

    Christian occultism was fricking dangerous because you put your life on the line constantly.

    Christianity was a huge fricking influence on the western esoteric (stereotypical wizardry, high ceremonial magicks, etc) tradition, and dumbass Christians are terrified of acknowledging that.

    Moses was a wizard.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/9YyzHVt.png

      —“Don’t worry, sweetie. Witchcraft isn’t real. Only God is real. And you must fear Him. You don’t want to go to the bad place when you die, right? Now let’s go worship a ghost at his temple and partake of his flesh and blood!”

      —“o-okay mommy…”

      Hoodoo and Folk Catholicism have historic magical practices using Psalms, Saints, etc...

      Christianity in general has plenty of magic in the Bible, its arguable its an occult text itself given the symbolism. Urim and Thurrim (divination), Psalms (incantations), prophecies/visions (self explanatory)...even the more modern charismatic denominations emphasize prayer (intention/incantation) and use Christian dressing as a means of group/energy work. Ever hear the 'Christianese' "speak life" and "intentional xyz"? Not by accident...even the prosperity gospel, megachurch pastors, snake handlers, preachers who use sermons to stir emotions, Sacred Name movement...all of them are forms of magic just as the high church rituals of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions in different forms.

      Also historically many Christian mystics have used astrology and angelology (angel work). Saints and saint candles are magic.

      (All religions involve magic in some form including those who claim to be entirely against it...aligning to a religious law or deity is sympathetic magic...with the Bible its very Saturnian (OT) and much of the traditional modern day Christian celebrations are Solar based (NT).

      Christians don’t, or refuse to see the nuance, but it’s there. Same goes for scientists, not realizing science is magic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Moses was a wizard.
      No he was a Cleric.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    —“Don’t worry, sweetie. Witchcraft isn’t real. Only God is real. And you must fear Him. You don’t want to go to the bad place when you die, right? Now let’s go worship a ghost at his temple and partake of his flesh and blood!”

    —“o-okay mommy…”

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    western rite orthodox have similar sorts of things as the catholics, rather than being like protestants
    its just that most orthodox prefer eastern practices
    i dont really see how you can compare it to protestantism though

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Aside from Eastern Orthodoxy where else can you find such tradition?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      human beings are not drawn to truth by reason alone. it's peer pressure and aesthetics. there's no shame in this.
      there is a little shame in being butthurt and rude about it just because you yourself feel culturally alienated.
      but i don't know for sure if that's you.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        dude literally said he doesn't believe it's true, anon

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's dumb but he's not going to get through catechism and baptism like that. they'll weed him out or enlighten him.
          it's that or he's trolling.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he's not going to get through catechism and baptism like that. they'll weed him out or enlighten him.
            You clearly have no idea how easy it is to just say the things people want to hear.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i do know but i also know that kids are impressionable and information is powerful when combined with an empathetic narrative.
            he might be a c**t but it's not worth calling him stupid.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm 29

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you the original poster? That's who I was calling a kid. Bit embarrassing but that's okay. Catholicism requires some childlike innocence and humility.
            >Matthew 18:1-3
            >Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
            At least you're not 40.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing wrong with seeking tradition and the Church is the last bastion of it. America is a cultureless wasteland but in the Catholic Church alone you can find people still wearing traditional clothes, adhering to old rituals, and raising their daughters to be good traditional wives.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tradition is only a means to an end.
            It's almost like saying you want to learn how to read music just because everyone that reads music happens to be a skilled musician. You might lose interest or you might acquire skill. But someone that loves playing music will inevitably produce more beauty than you and be more capable of learning the theory and notation.

            If you learn tradition for it's own sake you end up building a facsimile of it. Which is what America has become. A tacky imitation.

            To use memes - chad is what he is because he's true to his nature. He's not building an image of what he thinks chad should look like based on the history of chads. His look sprouts from his nature.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My only issue with the Catholic Church is that they aren't as good today about preserving tradition as they used to be. You don't see as many Catholic monarchists as you used to, and the Orthodox seem to have more sway over their governments along with their own military holy orders.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If they're having trouble it's because their people don't understand God - which is a description of "being" in itself, as opposed to "becoming".
            "Becoming" means trying, which means changing. "Being" means just existing. Everything other than god exists for a short time and then degenerates because it is imperfect.
            A perfect being is unchanging and perfect.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can find people still wearing traditional clothes, adhering to old rituals, and raising their daughters to be good traditional wives
            you're thinking of the amish

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            actually a great point.
            there's something more valuable to OP than tradition.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is truth, moron?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Something multi-dimensional and pre-material, which sensual, irrational human beings can't digest, without a suitable narrative.
          You're not a robot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Something
            Could have stopped there instead of pretending to know.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Have you ever heard the atheist line about being able to say "i don't know"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah it's garbage

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're garbage. go read a book.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go read this book

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The first thing that falls apart when you read that one is Catholicism

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Amen.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This. If I hadn’t studied the Bible extensively over the last few months I would have converted. Also read like 8 books from different Catholic apologists. Unfortunately the kind of mental gymnastics you have to jump through to square the round peg of the Bible with the Catholic faith was too much for me. The Mary “dulia” (lmao) is probably the biggest obstacle for me. Unfortunately the protties got it right. I am part of the Anglican Church who separated from the gay worshipping Episcopal church here in the states so we get the cool stuff from Catholicism without the heresy

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can you please elaborate? Ive never heard of the dulia

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this is what happens when you insert yourself into an argument just to talk shit. i was debating an atheist and using philosophy because that's what an atheist understands.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophy is pagan theology. The correct response to atheists is to destroy their pagan worldview, not join them in it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is that what it says in the bible

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, see 1 Corinthians 1 and 2.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it doesn't say that all philosophy is pagan
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard
            (Did you know existentialism is a christian philosophy?)

            nor does it say that pagan thought has no bridge to christian thought.
            the gospel does say that pagans, by virtue of being made in the image of god, have the capability of being good, and they have been exposed to him partially through nature.
            that exposure comes out in their religion.
            that religion is not just "destroyed" but completed and repaired by christian theology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this is what happens when you insert yourself into an argument just to talk shit. i was debating an atheist and using philosophy because that's what an atheist understands.

            (me)
            i re-read this chain and i stand corrected. even if you're not an atheist, you use obtuse, atheistic talking points.
            jesus didn't come to explain the kingdom of heaven rationally to a bunch of engineers. he, being truth, is super-rational and he revealed himself to human beings, who use narratives, not computers. which are material alone and can only process reason.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he, being truth, is super-rational
            how do you know that if you're not supra-rational too though?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            are you the "philosophy is pagan" guy? you're asking philosophical questions right now and using terms described by philosophy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i'm not him i'm asking how do you know jesus was what he claimed to be

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You mean how we know He was God?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yeah

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He said He was God, and He performed many miracles, revealed His divine glory to His disciples, breathed out His Spirit on them, and raised Himself from the dead.

            it doesn't say that all philosophy is pagan
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard
            (Did you know existentialism is a christian philosophy?)

            nor does it say that pagan thought has no bridge to christian thought.
            the gospel does say that pagans, by virtue of being made in the image of god, have the capability of being good, and they have been exposed to him partially through nature.
            that exposure comes out in their religion.
            that religion is not just "destroyed" but completed and repaired by christian theology.

            >it doesn't say that all philosophy is pagan
            Yes it does
            >(Did you know existentialism is a christian philosophy?)
            This feels like some cringe a reddit homosexual would say to me in a sassy voice, should have added "HMMMM" to the end of it
            >nor does it say that pagan thought has no bridge to christian thought.
            The "bridge" is called the gospel, and it's more like escaping from a burning building.
            >that religion is not just "destroyed" but completed and repaired by christian theology
            No, the ancient Christians did not "repair" the Greek pagan religion, they did not rehabilitate Zeus, they abolished the idols and called the wicked to repentance. You yourself did it, even false religion betrays knowledge of the true God. The apostle Paul told the Areopagus that they already knew God, this was not to their commendation, but to their condemnation; for they knew better yet did not perform their duties to their creator, but failed to acknowledge Him and fell down in worship of stone and wood. Thus, he also wrote "declaring themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images of corruptible men, and beasts, and birds, and creeping things". It is no different with the modern pagans.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're just being mad dude cut it out
            Christianity is more than being based and redpilled about everything
            Go read about the apostle peter who was called simon

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok

            >Christians did not "repair" the Greek pagan religion, they did not rehabilitate Zeus,
            these are different things.

            How so?

            sorry bro but that's a load of bs
            where's the evidence?
            [...]
            >and He performed many miracles, revealed His divine glory to His disciples, breathed out His Spirit on them, and raised Himself from the dead.
            proof?

            The atheist definition of "evidence" is "authority figures declared it's true and said you have to believe it", so you'll find what you're looking for a few hundred years ago.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >authority figures declared it's true and said you have to believe it
            that's one way to describe the bible, but i was thinking of something more tangible, or at least logically sound than appeal to authority

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was talking about the Science(tm)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Firstly, lets just look at how saints literally went about converting pagans.

            you repair a computer by pulling out the dirt and dead bugs in it and running an anti-virus and maybe updating the software.
            you don't need to tear everything out. there's already working circuitry and software in it that only needs to be cleaned and reoriented.
            the "rehabilitation" applies to the system as a whole, not the old junk.

            the old gods couldn't give pagans eternal life, because they were demonic or mistaken interpretations of the truth.
            but the gospel will tell you that god offered them limited grace anyway - in the blooming of their trees and whatnot. they appreciated god's creation without knowing that it was god's.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Firstly, lets just look at how saints literally went about converting pagans.
            I'm assuming that's a Russian and it doesn't matter because the eastern church is incredibly corrupt and paganized just like Rome. But even actual saints aren't going to perfect in their response to paganism, Justin Martyr's apologetic for example was awful. What really matters is how the apostles responded to it.
            >you repair a computer by pulling out the dirt and dead bugs in it and running an anti-virus and maybe updating the software.
            >you don't need to tear everything out. there's already working circuitry and software in it that only needs to be cleaned and reoriented.
            Yeah there's working circuitry in there, and it isn't compatible with their machinery because they stole it out of Jesus' computer. You don't tell the unbeliever he's got a good thing there with just a few problems because that's a lie, you tell him to repent for his theft and unconditionally surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
            >in the blooming of their trees and whatnot
            This is called common grace, and it is not salvific.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know it's not salvific, I said exactly that.
            >the old gods couldn't give them eternal life
            >because they were corruptions of the truth (part demonic, part innacuracy)
            If you have a partial truth, you recognize what's right and complete it. Peter cut off the ear of the roman guard but Jesus said calm your shit and put it back on.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I know it's not salvific
            Which means it isn't doing them any good for our purposes
            >you recognize what's right
            They specifically do not do this. They declare themselves to be wise, and are fools.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Many people confess Jesus as their one and only god and savior after people like St.Innocent acknowledged the partial truths in their developing faiths.
            It's doing them good in that it's giving them a basis for understanding what submission to an immortal creator even looks like.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God is a chronic procrastinator who leaves his computers unclean for millennia
            Man was truly made in his image

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The poor state of the computer is the poor state of humanity due to the fall of adam and of satan before him.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Satan doesn't actually fall from heaven in the Old Testament though, he's still flying around doing his accusations and shit. People conflate him with the snake because they haven't read the books.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He explicitly is the snake.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol no, post the verse where the snake is called Satan.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Revelation 12:9

            Many people confess Jesus as their one and only god and savior after people like St.Innocent acknowledged the partial truths in their developing faiths.
            It's doing them good in that it's giving them a basis for understanding what submission to an immortal creator even looks like.

            God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Revelation
            >Old Testament
            >"explicit"
            Anon...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's one bible.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's fanfic from centuries after Genesis was written, and it's not even implicit. Satan is fricking around in the book of Job in the OT he ain't crawling on his belly and eating dirt.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's the word of God. The serpent stuff is all metaphor

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The serpent stuff is all metaphor
            What isn't?

            I don't think that's the case, but what do you conclude from this technicality?
            The books comprise part of a greater tradition and they don't make sense or utility without more traditions surrounding them, guided by God.

            It's not a technicality though, it's different people with different beliefs writing at different periods in history.

            So if the snake wasn't Satan, who else is the father of sin?

            God.

            Satan is just a title that means trickster.
            Lucifer is just another title that indicates false light or intellect gone astray.
            The snake not being called satan doesn't mean he's not the devil.

            Satan means adversary, it's a title but also a specific character.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What isn't?
            All the stuff that isn't a metaphor

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well that's a tiny fraction of the bible.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's the vast majority.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hardly. From Abraham and Moses and the Exodus to Jesus it's mostly fiction.

            >It's not a technicality though, it's different people with different beliefs writing at different periods in history.
            We still need context in order for this conversation to mean something. What are you concluding that contradicts the idea of salvation, or that we're stuck here because we freely choose to stay here? that kind of thing.
            >satan means adversary
            thanks for the correction. my point still stands though. the specific character has many titles and once he was called a snake.

            He's never called snake in the Old Testament, the snake was just the animal.

            >So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
            Genesis 3:14

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            euphoric

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even Christian scholars acknowledge that nowadays.

            When we write books, concrete events take place in our created world which nonetheless have metaphorical significance.
            There's no reason the created world under God's authorship shouldn't function the same.
            I don't think it's accurate to say "the majority of the bible is fiction" or "just metaphor".

            There's a historical basis for everything yes, but most of the events as described in the bible didn't literally take place.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Even Christian scholars acknowledge that nowadays
            No they don't

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They do, look it up. Few still think stuff like the Exodus happened, because modern archeology shat all over their narrative.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >these atheists pretend to be Christian, now you buy my appeal to authority right??
            They're just as Christian as the people flying troony flags at their "church". There's plenty of genuine Christian scholars, and they haven't capitulated on anything.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            being an erroneous christian isn't the same as being an atheist. that's needlesly obtuse and prideful.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's the worldview they have.

            The ones with a modicum of honesty have.
            [...]
            But is the description itself real? It can never grasp the phenomenon, only relate it in terms we can understand.

            >The ones with a modicum of honesty have.
            No no, joining your religion isn't honesty.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Archeology isn't a religion though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was talking about secularism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't have to be a secularist to accept archeological findings.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Agree completely. That's why equating secularism and scholarship is bogus, even though they have to do it even to make their fallacious appeals to authority.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't equate them either, which is why Christian scholars can accept the Exodus didn't actually happen.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You just did, clown

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're embarrassing yourself

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they could be wrong though

            There's no devil in Genesis, it's a snake.
            Your model has to be infinite to describe an equally infinite thing.

            what is an infinite model?
            why aren't you putting any effort into making yourself understood? have i been that rude to you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You might be too low IQ for this conversation.

            You're embarrassing yourself

            Thought so.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i think you're just mad. I've been very generous to you. Show some respect.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah you're intentionally obtuse, I know your type
            >inb4 b-but what's my type?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're talking to multiple people. I was nice to you. If you think I wasn't then I'm sorry. It's just banter. I'm trying to get to the bottom of something here. The mean guy is, too. He just has a different method.
            You came this far with us so you might as well put some effort into it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, being mean is fine, just don't be a homosexual.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If being a homosexual means doing my absolute best to make you understand my point of view while you act increasingly difficult then sorry bud

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You must have dropped that point of view with your youtube links hours ago because I can't find it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            can you articulate that better so i have something to move forward with or do you just want to call me a hypocrite and not back it up

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm serious I have no idea what your point is, you haven't elaborated much on it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i posted a bunch of links regarding philosophy and consciousness to illustrate that the bible makes more sense with those ideas in mind.
            i think the main point was that human beings don't process info like computers. the narrative of the bible is necessary because the truth is too weird to be expressed in limited language, which tends to simplify it.
            so it uses poetry and such. indirect descriptions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why aren't you putting any effort into making yourself understood
            He's an atheist, acting in bad faith is what they do. All we can do is tell them the truth and pray for them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm the only one speaking honestly here. You have yet to achieve that goal.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every single thing you've said is false including that

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Every single thing you've said is false
            Can't be when you granted the point about Christian scholars accepting that the Exodus never happened (with an added No True Scotsman but still)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I did that in the same world where you're a real woman.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Kek, of course it's another troony obsessed zoomer.

            i think it's perfectly consistent for the snake that tempted adam to be the same entity as the devil that tempted jesus.
            there's consonance to it. it's poetry.

            The snake tempted Eve, not Adam.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i think it's perfectly consistent for the snake that tempted eve* to be the same entity as the devil that tempted jesus.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bro just read the book.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do you disagree or what

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The thing that struck me most when I read the bible was how everything secular scholarship says about it is a blatant lie. For example, there is no polytheism in the Old Testament, they made that up. They're really dependent on people not thinking for themselves. Secularism dies in independent thought.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i think some of the words of the old testament are passed down by people who were at least partially in the dark about what they were writing.
            we only know now that the polytheism is monotheistic trinitarianism.
            but the original authors were polytheists, then israelites.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No.

            There's plenty of polytheism in the Old Testament. Every other verse you find Yahweh seething because the israelites are worshipping other gods.

            True, but they claim the Old Testament teaches polytheism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The hebrews wrote about God talking as a plurality without understanding it. Before them it would make sense that polytheists described multiple gods without understanding why.
            Both of their traditions consolidated into the bible, which is itself a tradition that has had books taken from and added to it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do you disagree that books were added to and removed from the bible by different traditions? because i can tell you right now that Catholics, protestants, and orthos have different canons. not to mention interpretations of those canons.

            do you disagree that abraham was a polytheist at some point and that his tradition was in development before moses brought the torah from sinai?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >do you disagree that books were added to and removed from the bible by different traditions?
            Yes.
            >because i can tell you right now that Catholics, protestants, and orthos have different canons. not to mention interpretations of those canons.
            This is irrelevant. "The bible" is those books written under the inspiration of God. Whether or not a book is part of that canon is determined by its inspiration alone, and its inspiration places it immediately in that canon.
            >do you disagree that abraham was a polytheist at some point
            No, I deny he was a polytheist after his God revealed Himself to him.

            There is one God and many gods. Angels are gods, demons are gods, there are gods of nations, and the disembodied dead become gods.

            The question is not whether there are multiple senses of the word "god", even multiple proper senses. The question is whether there is one properly divine infinite being who exists outside of and before the world, and by whose will all things were created, or whether there are a multitude of divinities worthy of worship which themselves are of the creation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is irrelevant. "The bible" is those books written under the inspiration of God. Whether or not a book is part of that canon is determined by its inspiration alone, and its inspiration places it immediately in that canon.

            But how do you tell what's part of the canon? How do you know the book of Mormon isn't canon or the Gospel of Thomas?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know because I have the Holy Spirit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can claim to be God's divine prophet. Prove that I'm not.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You live after the closure of the canon with the death of the last apostle, therefore you are not a true prophet. I also ascertain this from the fact you are being facetious and attempting to mock the faith, and thus are not even claiming to be a true prophet.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Monotheism is a fool's errand. Any sufficiently powerful being will seem infinite to the human mind. You're at the mercy of any one you meet.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Zeus doesn't seem very infinite

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Have you ever met him?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I deny he was a polytheist after his God revealed Himself to him.
            but that's not what i asked you. you're saying "no" for no good reason here.
            neither are you actually disagreeing with me when you admit that false traditions tamper with the bible. they exist and they add and remove books to it.

            that there is one true arrangement, we are both in agreement. that it's guided by inspiration from god, we are in agreement.
            you just don't want to admit that this process is reflected in the old testament itself when israelites - who had no concept of the trinity - wrote about god as if he were a multitude.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but that's not what i asked you. you're saying "no" for no good reason here.
            I'm saying no for a very good reason, which is you're wrong.
            >neither are you actually disagreeing with me when you admit that false traditions tamper with the bible. they exist and they add and remove books to it.
            I just explained how this is an error.
            >jews - who had no concept of the trinity - wrote about god as if he were a multitude.
            Amen. But what they absolutely did not do is posit more than one God, nor conceive it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >which is you're wrong.
            pride talking

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wrote about god as if he were a multitude
            because their god was an amalgamation of several canaanite gods

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            we know now in our stage of theological development that it would be more accurate to say the multiple gods were a confused and demonic vision of the one god.
            the reason the canaanite gods are left out but the plural language is left in is because they recognize this.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that would be the christian cope

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I dont think so. Certain philosophies are acknowledged to be downstream from others and certain scientific discoveries are as well. These developments are inevitable sometimes, and foreshadowed.
            "Cope" would imply this doesnt happen and is unreasonable to expect.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >monotheistic trinitarianism
            dry water

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you mentioned before how language is problematic. this is why.
            "dry water" can indeed have meaning to someone who isn't a materialist.
            this is part of why i shared those youtube links with you. they'll help you understand my view of this.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wrong poster

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            well let me introduce you to the concept then. language is limited, so we use devices like "dry water" to describe abstract concepts.
            God's nature being mysterious, and our nature being part rational, part irrational - reliant on narratives and intuitions as well as hard facts - leads to us saying things like "there are three persons which comprise one essence"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's plenty of polytheism in the Old Testament. Every other verse you find Yahweh seething because the israelites are worshipping other gods.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            he means that the secularists would have you thinking that the old testament pointed toward and advocated polytheism instead of refuting it both implicitly and explicitly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            [...]
            True, but they claim the Old Testament teaches polytheism.

            The OT doesn't teach Polytheism, it teaches Monolatry. The old israeli religion was just a Monolatric form of Mesopotamian religion that instead focused on just the father diety as their supreme diety. By the Second Temple Period though they were full on monotheist

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. That's completely made up and has no relation to the text of the Old Testament, which consistently denies the existence of other gods.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is one God and many gods. Angels are gods, demons are gods, there are gods of nations, and the disembodied dead become gods.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The ones with a modicum of honesty have.

            It's not a falsification, it's a simplification.
            When you describe the physical nature of a flower, you describe something real. You're not making up colors.

            But is the description itself real? It can never grasp the phenomenon, only relate it in terms we can understand.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fair enough. Personally I wouldn't rush to quantify it as most, half, or even a few; but the more interesting thing to me is whether you agree that concrete, real events could hold metaphorical significance.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >whether you agree that concrete, real events could hold metaphorical significance
            Of course, it's the magic of storytelling.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And what is "the magic of storytelling"? Is it real?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I should say - is there an objective narrative that reflects the truth?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think so, language is always inherently a falsification of reality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a falsification, it's a simplification.
            When you describe the physical nature of a flower, you describe something real. You're not making up colors.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Magic is definitely real, much like faith. Brains can be programmed to believe in all sorts of things and see the world in all kinds of ways. It's semiotics.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's reality and then there's a mistake you were programmed to believe. The question I'm asking is whether an objective, accurate narrative exists.
            But I know you already agree or else you wouldn't be talking to me. Because there would be nothing to learn.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We only get useful approximations, no narrative or intellectual model will ever portray reality 100% accurately.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how do you know

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When we write books, concrete events take place in our created world which nonetheless have metaphorical significance.
            There's no reason the created world under God's authorship shouldn't function the same.
            I don't think it's accurate to say "the majority of the bible is fiction" or "just metaphor".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not a technicality though, it's different people with different beliefs writing at different periods in history.
            We still need context in order for this conversation to mean something. What are you concluding that contradicts the idea of salvation, or that we're stuck here because we freely choose to stay here? that kind of thing.
            >satan means adversary
            thanks for the correction. my point still stands though. the specific character has many titles and once he was called a snake.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >different people with different beliefs writing at different periods in history.
            seeing the same thing, thoughever

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >seeing the same thing
            Not really.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It happens all the time and makes perfect sense and has consistent implications Why would you disagree?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It happens all the time and makes perfect sense and has consistent implications
            No? Their beliefs changed dramatically, it's not consistent at all, not by a long shot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The beliefs of the individuals changed - but there's a correct interpretation that's been waiting for them to accept it, which a certain tradition has consistently held. That the snake in the garden is the same entity as the guy that tempted jesus and the angel that fell from heaven.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That interpretation makes zero sense, anon. Even if you discard the books where Satan plays a role in the Old Testament, the snake in Eden was explicitly just an animal.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >zero sense
            I find it hard to believe you can't make sense of there being an animal, metaphorical or otherwise, that happens to be the same character as a non-snake that also happens to be the main antagonist of history.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That connection not only is never established, it contradicts every mention of those characters. Go read the Old Testament and tell me if you still think they're the same.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >t contradicts every mention of those characters
            give me an example and i'll show you how it's not the case. i'll use google and everything.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Start with the book of Job.

            how do you know

            A 100% accurate model would presuppose a finite Being.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how does the book of job's devil contradict genesis's devil?
            why and in what sense would an accurate model "presuppose a finite being"?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's no devil in Genesis, it's a snake.
            Your model has to be infinite to describe an equally infinite thing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So the contradiction is that in genesis the devil takes the form of a snake and in job he doesn't?
            Is that incomprehensible to you?
            What if the devil could change his shape or what if human beings could depict one thing in two different ways? would that make it sensible to you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, again, the snake is never called Satan, nor referred to as a shapeshifter or whatever. Read the fricking book.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i understand he wasn't called satan. sometimes a thing can have two names, or be referred to in two different ways.
            why not this time?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then Yahweh and Satan are the same character then. Why not?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The bible is a tradition that was put together methodically, to describe a consistent truth, and that god and the devil are the same character contradicts that truth - the objective one.

            There are other traditions which interpret it differently, but they're wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >put together methodically
            Lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are books that are left in, and there are books that are left out, for example.
            The correct arrangement and interpretation of texts involved a partnership between God and Men.
            If you don't believe in God, substitute "partnership with God" with "practiced and developed intuition, philosophical tradition, and so on"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >practiced and developed intuition, philosophical tradition
            Which wasn't nearly as consistent as you think it was.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i think it's perfectly consistent for the snake that tempted adam to be the same entity as the devil that tempted jesus.
            there's consonance to it. it's poetry.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So if the snake wasn't Satan, who else is the father of sin?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.
            I agree

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Satan is just a title that means trickster.
            Lucifer is just another title that indicates false light or intellect gone astray.
            The snake not being called satan doesn't mean he's not the devil.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that's the case, but what do you conclude from this technicality?
            The books comprise part of a greater tradition and they don't make sense or utility without more traditions surrounding them, guided by God.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians did not "repair" the Greek pagan religion, they did not rehabilitate Zeus,
            these are different things.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you know by this mechanism -
            the human brain has rational and irrational components that work in concert for us to grasp truth.
            the christians posit also a "heart" and a "soul" which don't necessarily mean a lump of tissue in your chest and an ethereal gas permeating your body but probably indicates a sum that is greater than your material parts.

            that sum provides you with a sense that is not just rational, but superrational - which you might call intuition. Meaning you grasp some things before it's rationally explained to you, because you're not merely rational.

            "Knowing" Jesus is who he claimed to be comes about through a mixture of rational evidence and a gut feeling called faith, which is developed through self control.
            You can be misled by your gut because you don't exercise self-control. That's why you do things like give charity, fast, and pray, which is like meditating, only better. It's the process of getting to know yourself beyond your physical urges.

            Jesus isn't just a physical human being, but a divine entity. You have no sense for divinity if you're too wrapped in in physicality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            sorry bro but that's a load of bs
            where's the evidence?

            He said He was God, and He performed many miracles, revealed His divine glory to His disciples, breathed out His Spirit on them, and raised Himself from the dead.
            [...]
            >it doesn't say that all philosophy is pagan
            Yes it does
            >(Did you know existentialism is a christian philosophy?)
            This feels like some cringe a reddit homosexual would say to me in a sassy voice, should have added "HMMMM" to the end of it
            >nor does it say that pagan thought has no bridge to christian thought.
            The "bridge" is called the gospel, and it's more like escaping from a burning building.
            >that religion is not just "destroyed" but completed and repaired by christian theology
            No, the ancient Christians did not "repair" the Greek pagan religion, they did not rehabilitate Zeus, they abolished the idols and called the wicked to repentance. You yourself did it, even false religion betrays knowledge of the true God. The apostle Paul told the Areopagus that they already knew God, this was not to their commendation, but to their condemnation; for they knew better yet did not perform their duties to their creator, but failed to acknowledge Him and fell down in worship of stone and wood. Thus, he also wrote "declaring themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images of corruptible men, and beasts, and birds, and creeping things". It is no different with the modern pagans.

            >and He performed many miracles, revealed His divine glory to His disciples, breathed out His Spirit on them, and raised Himself from the dead.
            proof?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sorry bro but that's a load of bs
            it's just a new narrative which you aren't used to admitting, in this particular context. but you know it already.
            for example you know already that there's a forebrain and a reptilian brain.
            you know that the rational capacity, is toward the front, and that in the back you have more primitive and fear-based thinking. and that they call that the reptilian brain.
            And obviously you know that when people talk about praying with "all your heart" that it doesn't mean merely "thinking with that organ that pumps blood through your circulatory system"

            You may have heard outside of religious contexts that consciousness isn't isolated to one area in the brain but spawns out from all of it, being greater than the sum of its parts.
            Take your pick-

            ?si=4S1K___opu_wecqi

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok but how do you go from that to crucified carpenter was god made flesh?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There isn't a cute formula to it.
            Humanity came to the crucifixion through a slow and painful development from Amenhotep to Socrates and so-on. Jesus' story is the fulfilment of it.
            You might start by saying it was all just a powerful and fruitful and deep metaphor, or you might then eventually accept the literal events as being real based on the absurd things that have happened in history which science eventually explained, or still hasn't and probably won't - like the universe prior to the big bang.

            Some people get there by understanding the nature of truth, as in, via philosophy, aka metaphysics.
            Some people get there by studying history and the development of religion there.

            Some people just find that the culture speaks to them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus' story is the fulfilment of it
            what are we still doing here if jesus fulfilled history?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Waiting for people to accept him. God gave us free will and we are choosing to remain here.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but aren't we choosing to stay here just because he doesn't repair our circuits?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, we have the ability to seek him and the ability to help others to find him. Salvation only makes sense in this context. If it were forced then all creation would be redundant.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            romans 9 tells another story

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            well i don't know what you mean by that but i'm sure it's sorted out in the context of the rest of the bible. can you explain?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Spreading news of His kingdom to the four corners.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its peer pressure and aesthetics. there's no shame in this.
        No, there is MUCH shame in this.

        >thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't really believe in God but I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism for the cultural aspects

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can build an ostensibly traditional culture without god. The soviets had it. The problem is that it will collapse.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I prefer Catholic over Protestant because I love Marian apparitions, eucharistic miracles, Catholic exorcisms, studying old texts, saint miracles, and hate iconoclasm. I love statues and art and hate bare minimalism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I do too, I love all those things but unfortunately there is too much of Catholicism that is straight up unbiblical…

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        all those things are straight up unbiblical. I hate all those things

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah I guess even though they are aesthetically cool they separate people from Christ. Probably some of the most evil stuff ever now that I think about it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The "Biblical" churches aren't having as many of these miracles or apparitions. When Padre Pio spoke tongues he knew how to talk to people who spoke in languages he never knew. It wasn't just jibberish on the floor like some people call tongues. I value genuine supernatural experiences.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholicism has a fuller faith. There are tons of Catholic theologians to read like St. Thomas and you can get lost in Thomism for years.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God created the Church as the singular channel of grace by which fallen man is restored to a loving relationship with God. This is the essence of the Church. St Robert Bellarmine, a Father of the Sacred Council of Trent and Church Doctor teaches, “The Church is defined as those who have been called out of sin and death into eternal life.” To this we can add that the Church exist in Heaven as well as on earth.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the Rite of Episcopal consecration (verses, ordination of a bishop for the Modernist Socialist church) in use up until the changes introduced in 1968, the Form stated, “complete in thy priest the fullness of thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.” After 1968, the Rite was changed and the following form was instituted in its place, “so now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.” The Rite of consecration, where a priest receives the fullness of the priesthood has now become the ordination of a bishop as a governor of the people of God (a title used for the israelites). Our Lord promised to St. Peter and the other Apostles that they would sit upon twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel, not govern them! Knowing this, is it any wonder that modern bishops have become CEOs of a corporation instead of the spiritual Fathers of the elect?

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    catholicism is for civilizational epicenters where there are lots of under-occupied people and plenty of wealthy patrons and plenty of demand for pagentry and ostentatious architecture and that sort of stuff. Protestantism is for outlying areas and the people on the outskirts who just want to be left alone because they're too busy just trying to stay alive and they can't be bothered with the pagentry and they can't afford to spend time/energy/money on frivolous stuff

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And orthodoxy?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        same thing as for protestantism

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Protestantism is for people too busy living in this world to glorify God.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >too busy living
        gotta eat to live.
        I think you dont understand poverty.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Funny you should say that, many monastic orders, particularly Franciscan orders, most notably the order of minims have the vow of poverty and they live just fine.
          >But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >most notably the order of minims have the vow of poverty
            So don't have a family and live off the charity of others

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, many religious orders take the vow of chastity too, what is the problem with it? Are you also condemning Christ for not having children? And what is the problem with receiving alms? Is charity also looked down upon by protestants? Not to mention the famous motto "ora et labora" which means monks also work, the minims for example opened a brewery.
            See, this is what i mean when i say protestants are too busy living in the world to glorify God. They serve Mammon while penny-pinching God.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you're going to take the poor's money...then extol yourself for 'not worshipping money'. Uh huh.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >most notably the order of minims have the vow of poverty
            So don't have a family and live off the charity of others

            https://i.imgur.com/15DjvDG.jpeg

            >too busy living
            gotta eat to live.
            I think you dont understand poverty.

            you're a jealous poor, whose bitter he wasn't smart enough to get rich, now you reee against those who "dont have hood" or aren't resentful poors like you, and try to use family as a space-goat for failure or as a token for alleged responsibilities for-which, you need more monies.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholics went pseudo-pantheistic because Europeans instinctively like pantheons.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox are similar and attract even more "cultural" converts. Prots do it as well its just normefied/amaericanized with hillsong shit.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Protestants hate anything fun because it's "pagan" and screech about Catholics being greedy but also screech against a higher minimum wage. Protestants just hate any joy. REEEEEEE dress plain. REEEEEEE no decor. REEEEEEEEE everything is a sin.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholocism only looks cool because it's the least Christian of them all, just be true to yourself and become a neo-Pagan troony larper instead

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cultural appropriation isn't a thing. Greek philosophy belongs to everyone and is in Catholic theology. We get to take the good parts of any culture and apply them. Seethe.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have to be doped Up to think catholic anything is "cool"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bullshit. Have you SEEN their Cathedrals? They look like the fricking Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40k.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >guys this cathedral is just like muh hekkin 40kay!!1
        Does he know?

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why did the Sadducees get all the cool stuff while John the Baptist was preaching in the wilderness and eating locusts everyday? Don’t let bling blind you to the Truth.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have no dog in this fight, but doesn't it seem like a Protestant argument would be that faith and observance shouldn't have anything to do with superficial stuff and looking cool? That you should be doing it for deeper reasons than what's basically fashion or spectacle?

    larpers like OP make a great case for prots in that they're openly shopping around for an aesthetic and could care less about theology. to be clear I don't believe this of observant Catholics outside of this stupid board

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