/lit/ - Literature

>>15532997
actual spiritual crisis and experiencing the glass ceiling getting shattered over and over again

>>15533293
>glass ceiling getting shattered over and over again
Are you saying women getting leadership roles has caused a spiritual crisis in you and allowed you to understand Christ better?

>>15532997
everyone here is a lonely piece of shit with no prospects in life and have nothing else to turn to. and god is found through suffering

>>15532997
This place is filled with larpers, if you were a proper christian you wouldnt be on 4chan

The three Churches that actually matter (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic) are literally thousands of years old and for the most part it takes a very long time for new ideas to penetrate their innermost depths. And sometimes when they TRY to change it winds up being a bit of a mess (like the Catholic Church with Vatican 2).

Hopefully, in time, the relevant Churches will properly adjust themselves to the 3rd Millennium. I suspect they will, this won't be the first time a great crisis has rocked Christendom and caught it offguard. But Christendom always manages to recover and thrive, in the end.

>>15533293
legitimately what do you mean by this?

>>15533315
Why not?

>>15532997
you guys are still plebs, but at least you're learning that there are no real answers.

>>15533629
Truth is just the will to power. Nothing is true everything is permitted

>>15532997
It gives social outcasts a sense of community. Imagine (many of you might not have to) you're a young man who feels disaffected and never had any real friends, maybe you hate others and secretly feel superior to them. What better way to channel these feelings than by LARPing as a religious fundamentalist? It allows you to put normies into hell for being degenerates who drink alcohol and have sex and allows you to put yourself into heaven because all you do is play screengames. In addition, you have a whole community of similarly minded people to talk anonymously to about it. It really is the perfect solution to the problems of the average 4chan user.

>>15533667
God works in mysterious ways; once their loneliness and nihilism has passed away from them, Christ will still remain; in earnest this time.

t. an actual Christian

>>15533667
Some of you should crossdress and then we all could meet up and have a big orgy. Would help us all feel better

>>15532997
Hard to answer since I don't know what you think 4channel's understanding of Christianity is. I've seen everything from hardcore Catholic mysticism to twitter-grade /pol/ larping to Jordan Peterson-inspired atheism with a DLC Christian skin on it here.

I made a thread about this but nobody responded, but how do you guys feel about blake's theology? According to the poll he's one of the most popular poets on here, and I just started reading him(SoI&E was based) so I wanted to know your opinions on it
Here's the basics:
All Bibles or sacred codes have been the cause of the following errors
1. That man has two real existing principles, viz., a Body and Soul
2. That Energy, called Evil, is alone from the body; and that Reason, called Good is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment man in Eternity for following his Energies
But the following contraries to these are true:
1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul. For that called Body is a portion of Soul discerned by the five senses, the cheif inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life, and is from the Body; and Reason is bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal Delight
Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained, and the restrainer or reason usurps its place and governs the unwilling.
And being restrained, it by degrees becomes passive, till it is only the shadow of desire.

>>15533312
Based take

>>15533315
>thinking you need to be perfect to be Christian

because literally no one on the face of the earth gives a shit about us. only God does.

>>15532997
The modern world has created a people so contemptible in their weakness and ignorance that religion has largely changed shape over the past century to keep up with their addiction to comfort and instant gratification. The faiths practiced for thousands of years by people who were willing to literally cross the desert and sacrifice their very lives in pursuit of spiritual fullness is not the same thing as the McReligion a retarded boomer sits through once a week before returning to obsessive yard work or a young slut wears around her neck so she call tell people "only God can judge me." In a civilization that has steered so far from the kind of world in which it was developed, an actual understanding of religion takes years of study, thought, and experience. Religion as a studied person understands it is not religion as the world at large understands it, or even the practitioners of that religion understand it. Honestly, it asks so much of you that it's no wonder so many analytical people wind up becoming anti-religion, because coming to understand it is daunting and illusive, whike making fun of creationists who think that Adam rode dinosaurs is easier and appeals more to their sophomoric vanity.

>>15533785
I unironically care about the state and wellbeing of each and every one of you. I really mean that.

>>15533739
Interesting ideas, now, please provide the Biblical references and proper exegesis.

Be careful though, Genesis is very clear that Adam was made with a physical body and it was 'very good'. Meanwhile, the idea that soul is good and body is bad is a distinguishing feature of pagan thinking and Gnostic philosophy

>>15533315
This is a ppace to exhaust one's demons without actual action. I use it to train myself, I've gotten to the point where only exceptionally well drawn japanese porn or well written erotica putting the focus less on the sexual act and more on the affection between the two parties can arouse me

>>15533714
This. I've seen people that know what they're talking about and are clearly serious in their actual tradition and then I've seen people who think a church's stance on homosexuality is more of a litmus test for orthodoxy than the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds and that Christianity is little more than the BASTION OF THE WHITE MAN, etc. etc.
>>15532997
It doesn't. There's some people who may be more educated than some priests, but that's not remotely the same thing--nor is it the norm.

>>15533796
Would you suck my dick? Not asking in an offensive way just that someone that really cared about me would help me out that way since I really need it

>>15533794
its crazy. when you go read shit written in the middle ages, it seems like an entirely different religion.

>>15533812
>more educated
Christianity is about brotherly love above everything else. in my humble opinion, the entire bible could be described as a bromance.

>>15533657
100% bullshit, all paths are not equal. Some lead to suffering and others will make you content

>>15533739
Wdym by this is the basics, I clearly remember that you just copy and pasted one of the beginning pages in its entirety here

>>15533899
Whether something leads to suffering or contentment does not have anything to do with whether it is true. Pragmatism is generally derided here

>>15533794
There is nothing wrong with obsessive yard work

>>15533929
Mowing the grass is the most boujie Jordan Peterson thing imaginable. If you worry about it you're a normie dead to /lit/

>>15533920
That's literally just the bullet points he put at the start of the book

>>15533898
Yeah, that's why I said "that's not remotely the same thing", though it definitely isn't a bad thing to read theology. This idea that 4chan as any sort of whole knows religion is fairly universally bad.

>>15533943
what i hate most is how boomers will always mow a filed so they can make a couple hundred from hay. they can literally never just let a nice meadow grow, they have to suck every last drop of revenue out of everything they possibly can or they'll go insane.

>>15533943
There is a lot more to yardwork than mowing grass, gardens are objectively based

>>15533796
we're all brothers in Christ; there's less larping on here than people realize

>>15534060
Most people on here have accepted Guenon(PBUH). Jesus does not lead all the way to the primordial tradition

>>15534074
Muhammad is a false prophet

>>15534099
No one figure leads all the way to the truth besides Guenon(PBUH)

>>15533333

>>15534060
That may be, but a great many people here are still LARPing, or are needlessly aggressive with their thoughts of what orthodoxy are. It might be ironic /pol/-esque shitposting, but there are people here that say some of the dumbest things, thinking those things are even sensible.

I do not want the Holy Catholic Church to change, I want to to remain unaltered forever. If it was good enough for my ancestors it is good enough for me.

I know it exists because of their sacrifice and I would not dare change what they have created. May the Catholic Church remain forever.

>>15533667
Maybe we are better than everyone else. Most people aren't able to limit their vices.

>>15534155
Your ancestor's real religion has been erased by (((them))) cuck.

>>15533667
You do know that there are some earnest believers here, right?

I used to go to Church before this Covid lockdown, I have a cross hung on my wall, I pray and am Baptised, I carry a Rosary in my pocked and prayed it every night for over a year at one point. If I am not a "true Christian" by your standards, then who exactly is?

>>15534205
I think they were speaking about the majority, anon.There's obviously some devout people here, for example, myself. (Though since I'm an Episcopalian I'm sure I'm not exactly a popular example)

>>15534254
>Episcopalian

>>15534060
the real LARPers are protestants.

>>15534489
Yes? Do you have something you'd like to say? I don't speak shitty wojak memes.
>>15534515
Anyone calling all Protestants is a LARPer, they can't even take their religion seriously enough to use the language their denomination uses. You'll notice even in the most egregious examples of Roman Catholic triumphalism (from the Roman Catholic Church itself, not teenage boys pretending to be PIOVS AND HOLY CRVSADERS) they don't use phrasing like that.

>>15534554
the catholic church agrees that protestantism is false. vatican ii established that people born into protestants "sects" are technically our brothers in Christ due to the fact that they didn't choose to be protestant and still have a "valid" baptism (some would disagree), it was forced on them by their heretic ancestors. this is the official position of the church at the moment, but that position is not infallible. personally, i don't know how anyone could think this shit is Christian, as it grossly advocates and propagates one of the four sins which cry out to heaven for vengeance, sodomy:

>In 1976, both the House of Deputies and House of Bishops voted for a fully inclusive Episcopal Church, stating, “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the church.” Canon law includes “gender identity or expression” in its list of persons who are assured full access to the ministry of the church. The law further specifies that administrative forms must include options for both preferred and legal names, and for gender identity and pronoun preference. In an intentional move toward diversity, it adds,

>“As transgender people and their families increasingly come out within or find their way to congregations, their specific naming in our Canons . . . will encourage congregations to deepen their understanding and widen their welcome.”
ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY

>The Episcopal Church codified theological support for same-sex marriage with two resolutions passed in 2015. The first (A054) formally approved gender-neutral and same-sex marriage ceremonies, while the second (A036) changed the current marriage “canons” to allow clergy to officiate same-sex marriages using either a marriage rite from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer or a “trial” liturgy.

>In 2018, the Episcopal Church’s General Convention approved Resolution B012, expanding marriage rites for same-sex couples to all dioceses. One of the core compromises of B012 was to allow clergy who object to marriage equality on theological grounds to request that another bishop provide pastoral care and oversight for same-sex couples who wish to be married by priests in their home churches. The resolution also makes clear that no clergy member can be forced to preside over any marriage ceremony.

>>15534674
are there any robust movements of conciliariasm/dialectical approaches to theological consensus rather than being a "do whatever you want, stick a carrot up your ass, it's cool" protestant or a "do whatever i tell you, even though i constantly fuck up and allow pedophiles to run rampant" catholic?

>>15533315
all christcucks are neurotic larpers.

>>15534685
yeah here's one:
>He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives the One who sent Me.

>>15534674
I'll just leave this here

t. Pew Forum 2014

>>15534697
so you're trying to say the catholic priests were the "givers?"

>>15534704
literally irrelevant.

>>15534674
You'll notice they don't use any language so stupid (or divisive, but that's another thing) as "LARPer" though. Shocking, isn't it?

As for the 4 paragraphs on homosexuality: So? You think I'm unaware of the Roman Catholic arguments on homosexuality? The "sins that cry out to Heaven" are a strictly Roman Catholic thing, and the phrasing in Scripture that talks about anything that could possibly be interpreted as referring to homosexuality as well as crying out to Heaven talks of Sodom, who wanted to gang rape angels. If your interpretation of a story about trying to gang rape angels hinges on the fact that they're men and not that it either A) breaks the Near-Eastern rules of hospitality or B) they wanted to rape literal angels or C) it's rape, then your interpretation is biased as fuck and you can't be trusted, especially since A is pretty clearly attested to elsewhere in Scripture, B makes sense with "strange flesh" as well (and is a big detail to miss) and C should be glaringly obvious.
This idea that certain conservatives have that everyone who's okay with gay marriage are uneducated or something is stupid.
>>15534685
All things have to be done in love, see the Great Commandments (Love God, love your neighbor). That doesn't mean "do whatever you want", though as Christians we do have freedom, though it's obviously wasted at times.

>>15534721
In what way? The Church will change, it's changed before.

>>15534728
its literally doctrine in your church that the sacrament of marriage can exist between two faggots, that the Holy Spirit will join together two faggots so they can buttfuck each other all night long. this is fucking blasphemy of the highest order, you are calling the Holy Spirit a faggot essentially.
>>15534719
its called apostolic succession. our church wasn't founded by some degenerate anglojew who wanted to divorce his wife, it was founded by Christ.

>>15534751
Neat, so you're one of the aforementioned LARPers, you can't understand any sort of disagreement without jumping into throwing slurs around freely. Have a good evening, anon.

>>15533315
Christ ate with the tax-collectors, prostitutes, and sinners. He even hung around with people who had leprosy. Being here and telling people about Christ is part of what being a Christian is.

>>15533806
Based.

>>15534759
i'm truly sorry you think men should fuck each other in the ass and that God would condone such a thing. you are deceived by satan, the biggest faggot of all time.

>>15534728
Can you clarify what you mean by Christians not being able to do what they want?
It is on that premise that it would be easy to reject your apologia for homosexuality in a Christian context, yet you mentioned it as though it supplemented your argument.

>>15534780
I didn't mention it as supplementing my argument, it was a response to "Where's the middle ground?"
That said, basically, we can technically do whatever we want, but it has to be actually loving and self-giving, not just selfish with a thin veneer of pretending to love as things sometimes are. 1 Corinthians 10:23 talks about everything being allowed, as we do have libertarian free will. That said, given those two Great Commandments, as well as 1 Corinthians 16:14, what we do should be done out of love. Operating under the assumption that a man can truly love another man or a woman could truly love another woman (and give themselves to the other) then it doesn't violate that. If you're just fucking someone, regardless of biological sex, it's bad. Even if you're married.

>>15534819
To expand a little further, it seems incredibly freeing, to have that sense of liberty, but in actuality, doing all things in love makes things incredibly difficult.

>>15532997
L'église, c'est moi.

>>15534738
When the Church is right and correct it doesn't change even if the entire world is arrayed against it.

Are you familiar with Saint Athanasius the Great and the Arian Heresy?

>>15534854
Yes. In this situation, those who support same sex marriage are Saint Athanasius.

>>15534834
holy based.

>>15534860
No they aren't, the gay marriage supporters are the Arians. They have the popular will and the support of vested authority on their side, just as the Arians had the support of the Emperor, the Pope, and most of the bishops. You don't really know about this, do you? You don't know anything about Athanasius, do you?

>>15534764
This!

>>15534764
the difference is is that Christ actually lived in the real world and didn't LARP safely behind an anonymous mask on the internet

>>15534860
lmao no

>>15534900
Yes, and you'll notice the pro-gay voices tend to be a lot of the laity. The clergy refuse to support it. So a better example may be the lay response of the Orthodox to the Council of Florence, even though the St. Athanasius example still holds—despite the majority of the clergy being wrong, there is still a voice that says "No, you're wrong, even if you're the majority and 'more powerful'"
>>15534934
lmao yes

>>15534925
>told people not to tell anyone about His miracles
>gave all His disciples new gamertags
>ranted about the crimes of the jews
>lived with His mom
>was a virgin
>not /ourGuy/

>>15534958
Bullshit. The cause of gay marriage and the LGBTQ agenda is supported by hugely powerful forces. Who gives a shit if the clergy oppose it? The institutional Church is not nearly as strong as it was in Athanasius' time. The gay marriage agenda is supported by Wall Street, Hollywood, and the Washington bureaucracy. Any reasonable estimation of that side results in the conclusion that they are exactly the same as the Arians during the crisis. They have the bulk of state and establishment power on their side.

>>15534958
you're too retarded to argue with.

>>15534985
That sounds like moving the goalposts—the laity didn't have the power to change things then, and it doesn't really now either. Clergy are the group at hand, and yes, the laity are affirming largely as well, but that doesn't grant them the ability to make Rome change again.
>>15534996
"no u"

>>15535019
>In this situation, those who support same sex marriage are Saint Athanasius.
you literally fucking 180'd your opinion.

>>15535034
??? Anon, are you retarded? I've been arguing that pro-gay people are the equivalent to Athanasius from the start. I mentioned it's closer to the Council of Florence, since the laity are actively like "The clergy are wrong, what the fuck are you guys doing", but I've stayed firm that pro-gay stances are the modern Athanasian stances.

>>15535116
The laity flagrantly disobey other stated elements of Church teaching, such as the prohibition on birth control (reemphasized by Pope Saint Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae). The laity do not wield the natural authority of Athanasius in this matter since they are not leading exemplary lives in the eyes of the Church, while Athanasius was.

>>15535116
>but I've stayed firm that pro-gay stances are the modern Athanasian stances.
>Yes, and you'll notice the pro-gay voices tend to be a lot of the laity. The clergy refuse to support it.
>the laity didn't have the power to change things then, and it doesn't really now either.
who do you think athnasius is?

>lgbt marriage is christian!
>it was two males at Cana not a female and a male!
>Adam and Eve were a metaphor for a group of people!

>>15534819
>1 Corinthians 10:23
Read the context. Paul was not talking about literally everything. He was talking about eating food sacrificed to idols. 'Everything is lawful' means that all edible foods are lawful; not every possible act is lawful.
The Greek word for 'Everything' in this verse is Πάντα which can mean everything or it can me everything out of a small group of specific things.
>"the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... (C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption)

I wish more of 4chan would read more modern theologians. A lot of the best Christian theologians are analytic in their influence though, which makes this board rather averse to reading them.

There are a lot of very interesting thinkers that get written off very unfairly. Alvin Plantinga is extremely popular in academia and theological circles, yet has nearly no traction on here.

African American Micropenises Awareness

In light of George Floyd's death, let's raise awareness of African Americans with Micropenises.

>>15535284
The most modern theologian I've read is Ratzinger/Benedict.

>>15535284
>lay theologian
meme

>>15535349
I'm not a Protestant and I still think Plantinga is interesting to read. I don't see how his statements about modal logic has anything to do with clerical status, or the lack thereof.

>>15533929
Full points for standing your ground like a man, but lawns should be controlled chaos. Fuck that suburban bullshit.

>>15533667
>It allows you to put normies into hell for being degenerates who drink alcohol and have sex
I can't take Christians who want other people to go to hell seriously.

>>15535743
The idea of Hell legitimately frightens and disturbs me and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I have such an intense love of God that the idea of getting cut off from his presence for all eternity is horrifying. I don't want anyone I know to go to Hell. I've barely ever wished that anyone in history would go to Hell. The only person I've ever, at any time, desired to actually be in Hell was Oliver Cromwell.

>>15534819
>man can truly love another man
Why do you need to engage in a disgusting act of sodomy to love another man?

>>15535743
Christians are more compassionate (we want you to convert and join us in heaven) than the lying atheist who denies the existence of eternal hell. Why would anyone want to make reality sound nicer for people and lead them to their demise by sweet lies?

>>15534254
Serious question, why Episcopalianism?

Does anyone else feel like they live in a state of damnation? I don't know how else to explain it, but at one point I think I genuinely lost any hope of salvation, and I woke up the next day without any interest in anything or ability to do anything. I still function as a biological and psychological organism, but it's like my spirit has left me – is this what the absence of God feels like? I cannot maintain any interest in anything, I do not genuinely care about anything, and all life is mildly painful and desperate in its hollowness. There is nothing inside anymore, I'm unable to connect to my fellow man and I feel like I blasphemed against the Holy Spirit in my heart of hearts, aka the sin that can't be forgiven. My life right now feels like a foretaste of what waits for me in hell. I really fucked up.

>I can do whatever horrible act and god will still forgive me and i will be ok
what's the comeback?

>>15536262
Forgiveness demands repentance. You have to genuinely regret your sins for the forgiveness to truly matter. It's not some get out of jail free card.

>>15536305
Thank you sir Anon, i will now proceed abolish my brother!

>>15536262
Remember the parable of the prodigal son. The son came back to his father's house to work hard as any other servant for a decent salary and to be close to his family which he had been away from, but not to ask his dad if he can live with him as his son, suspecting he's not going to receive (and does not deserve) such privilege. That's the reason why his father forgives him, and let's him be reunited with the family like before. He "was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".

>>15536151
Because it lets me have my cake and eat it too. I can have a high view of sacraments, like liturgy, etc. and be pro-same sex marriage and pro-ordination of women. I know there is some support for the former (and less for the latter) with some Orthodox Christians, but it's hit or miss, and since I believe the Anglicans have valid sacraments, I'm with them. I abhor certain movements that exist(ed) and some of that stupid braindead wokeness that exists here, though if I were with the Catholics or Orthodox, I'd have to put up with the other end of that horseshoe: the braindead trads who think that quoting Aquinas or the Fathers mindlessly is a substitute for a serious prayer rule and worshipping God.
Because it has sacraments and is free enough theologically that I can look to the Catholics and Orthodox for many things, but have the ability to actually disagree and not be barred from the sacraments for a theological dispute, plus the fact I don't believe either of them individually is wholly legitimate and only together (along with some of the liturgical Prots. I don't really care much for Baptist and other super low church theology) do they form the Church properly; Branch theory isn't really much of a serious thing outside of Anglicanism.
To sum it up, because I can have my theology be somewhat Eastern Orthodox influenced, somewhat Roman Catholic influenced, and where certain theological ideas become untenable, I don't have to hold to them. A true pursuit of the Truth is more viable imo, though we've admittedly got some utter fucking morons in my denomination.

>>15536618
>Anglicans have valid sacraments
Nope. They schismed from schismatic heretics.

>>15536099
Then when you get married, don't have sex.
With less smarm: Because sex is, ideally, the physical manifestation of the love found within a relationship. Try asking your questions more directly and without so much loaded terminology in the future, it helps discussions be had, if you care.

Read the church fathers if you want to understand Christianity.
Church "leaders" are mostly a joke

>>15536625
You Orthodox? That'd explain that stance, and I don't expect the Orthodox to think Anglicans have valid sacraments. However, operating under the Western idea of sacraments wherein ordination can't really be undone and even if you're defrocked you can still technically "do" the sacraments: yes, we do.
And the schism was a problem, mostly politically motivated (though the Pope had no right to deny the annulment, it was for purely political reasons) it did provide a decent avenue for reform, though some of the original Anglican reformers went too far. Thank God for the Oxford Movement.

>>15536618
>pro-same sex marriage and pro-ordination of women
>substitute for serious prayer rule and worshipping God
do you think the countless saints in history who would despise your modern blasphemous innovations didn't have a prayer rule and didn't worship God? how do you get a correct prayer rule which gives you proper spirituality and theological truths without trusting the historical church in the first place?
>true pursuit of the Truth
>free enough theologically
how is mixing and matching things (based on subjective preferences) from conflicting and contradictory schemes a "pursuit of the truth"?

>>15536628
>Then when you get married, don't have sex.
Which false teacher gave you this idea?
>It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

>sex is, ideally, the physical manifestation of the love found within a relationship
False. Sex is a physical manifestation of the two fleshes (male and female, paralleling Adam and Eve) being joined in the mystery of marriage, it has nothing to do with liberalized notions of "love". You can have the sacrament of marriage even between two people who aren't mature/old enough for love yet, which happened all the time in history. Also, this is why one should not join oneself to a prostitute, you become one flesh and she affects you negatively.

>>15536653
>That'd explain that stance
Yes, I follow the true church and am calling you join it and drop your heresies.
>operating under the Western idea of sacraments
It's a false heretical idea to begin with. You guys have no truth, as you are operating under a false Latinized theological framework even if you protest against their false ecclesiology.

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

>>15536658
Friend, tone it down a little. That was more at certain types, not at the saints in history—and if I offended you, sorry. I wasn't talking about you in particular.
You cannot deny that the saints couldn't talk about things that they didn't know about, and the mere concept of an actual loving homosexual relationship (especially one that didn't do serious social harm to one another) didn't exist until rather recently. Hell, pederasty was the norm for a while too. However, sometimes people mess up and focus too heavily on the specific example rather than the underlying rule that sex should be self-giving and not selfish and harmful.
Also, the development of the Faith is a very real thing—to use it as a metaphor of a tree, which I have heard among some Orthodox Christians, the Fathers and all are the roots. The Episcopalians are part of the branches. We must look to the roots, and we cannot exist without them, but they are not the entirety of the tree, and sometimes, things must be pruned for the sake of the tree.
They're no more subjective preferences than any other point of adiaphora, this is just important to people because of culture war trash. Given the objective facts with regards to various cultures, it's not just blindly picking and choosing as you'd like to believe. If you're talking moreso about the "it permits some degree of Catholic thought and some degree of Orthodox thought" I'm more towards the Catholic side than the Orthodox side, though for two key examples of Orthodox thought I hold, I hold to Ancestral Sin as well as a view of sin as a disease. Once again though, it's not just picking and choosing, it's coming to a choice after study, discussion, and prayer. And the discussion isn't just with other Episcopalians, my beliefs don't exist in a vacuum.

>>15536708
>Sex has nothing to do with love
Tell that one to your priest, see how that goes. That's all I'll say on that, aside from "something having happened in history, even if it was frequent, doesn't necessarily make it good"

>>15532997
Christianity preach love but the """Christians""" I have seen here are one of the most toxic and cancerous posters on the website. As >>15533667 have already mentioned, they're not sincere. It's just LARPing.

>>15536763
>I'm not a Christian but let me tell you who the real Christians are
Lamo

>>15536788
Where did he say he wasn't Christian?
Plus we should be noticeably Christian (as in, we should be clearly bearing good fruit), and if we're not, that is a problem.

>>15533739
>1
Already wrong man is Tripartite creature body soul and heart(noose)
>2
Dualistic gnostic heresy
Evil has no real existence only a negative one
>3
No clue what that means but if you mean hell is a different experience of God in the aftherlife , then that is true

>>15533667
These guys bring to mind that one veggietales movie about Nineveh

https://youtu.be/RFxqQWYv74o

Will god forgive me for being gay?

>>15537053
Only LARPing tradcaths and similar tryhards care that you're gay, because they're the only people with such a shallow experience of religion that they're excited to enforce dogma for the sake of enforcing dogma. You can explore Christianity and its mysteries while being heterodox. If you explore it and find that you agree with the bans on homosexuality in whatever church you think is the true church, then sure go ahead, stop being a fag. But there are ways to be deeply Christian while being gay, even if those other churches say you are a heretic for it. The point is, explore Christianity yourself before listening to what any one church tells you.

Trads make such a big deal out of respecting dogma, and sure dogma should be respected, but only to make you investigate it and develop an understanding of scripture and revelation as an aid to understanding God. Trads mostly don't do this, they are just excited to have certainty about something in an uncertain world. Bashing on fags is an easy way to assert your own orthodoxy.

God forgives everyone. The whole reason Christ sacrificed himself is so we wouldn't have to find salvation alone, since either most or all of us would fail without that help, depending on your denomination.

>>15537086
The entire tradosphere bittered my experience with Christianity, never have I felt closer to hell than in those circles. I've been looking in eastern religions, and what spirituality is like around the world, all in all I'm thinking of just returning to Christianity as a liberal Catholic or Lutheran.

>>15533657
Truth is pure will, not will to power. Unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, in every way perfect. Belief in your values is mandatory, failure to do so forbidden. Those whose consciousness is unified abandon all attachment to the results of action and attain supreme peace. But those whose desires are fragmented, who are selfishly attached to the results of their work, are bound in everything they do. In the end, they can only fail, no - they have failed already.

>>15537086
Mega pseud post ,homolust is suck a big sin you can't even read The Bible properly. All conversation stats with renunciation of sin, and repentance. If you think you can be a devil worshiper and lover of God at the same time you are deluded.

>>15536725
>>Sex has nothing to do with love
he did not say that.

>>15537086
>while being heterodox
Heterodox literally means "wrong worship" or "wrong teaching". It's not far from the Biblical "strange worship" (idolatry). I guess this describes protties very well.

>>15537053
Most priests are gay

>>15534163
Using 4chan is a vice.

>>15537086
>care that you're gay,
Experiencing lust towards other men if you recognize it as a sin isn't the problem in this discussion. What actual Christians (those who follow Christ and his apostles) don't want is serving Satan by blaspheming the Holy Sacraments and innovating marriage rites for "same-sex couples". What gives you the right to change sacraments? How can you just decide that something seen as a despicable sin is now okay and should be openly practiced and encouraged in the Lord's temple?
>ways to be deeply Christian while being gay
Yes, by repenting and getting Christ's help in the sacrament of confession to not fall into this sin again.

>>15536723
>You cannot deny that the saints couldn't talk about things that they didn't know about
If every saint in history says one thing an an anglo in modernity says another thing, I'll go with the saints every single time.
>development of the Faith is a very real thing
There is no development of core truths. This is a Latin heresy.
>I'm more towards the Catholic side than the Orthodox side
We can tell by your support of homosexuality. It is usually very easy to spot Latin-influenced heretics.
>it's not just picking and choosing
>my beliefs don't exist in a vacuum
You're still picking and choosing, but now as a group (since you ignore history and every singe Church Father). I don't see how this is better than opening up a one-man church and still spouting the same heresy. Arguably it's even worse, since you are leading even more people into hell.

Romans I. 26, 27

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another."

>All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases.

>But that which is contrary to nature has in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God has left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical.

>these I say are even worse than murderers: since to die even is better than to live under such insolency. For the murderer dissevers the soul from the body, but this man ruins the soul with the body. And name what sin you will, none will you mention equal to this lawlessness. And if they that suffer such things perceived them, they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil. For there is not, there surely is not, a more grievous evil than this insolent dealing. For if when discoursing about fornication Paul said, that "Every sin which a man does is without the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body" 1 Corinthians 6:18; what shall we say of this madness, which is so much worse than fornication as cannot even be expressed?

>For when the Devil saw that this desire it is, principally, which draws the sexes together, he was bent on cutting through the tie, so as to destroy the race, not only by their not copulating lawfully, but also by their being stirred up to war, and in sedition against one another.

>>15537726
>these I say are even worse than murderers
>they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil
holy based.

>>15537726
kek how will the devilhomo spin this one

>>15533815
Sure. Why not.

>>15537726
He and John of Damascus are my favorites. Can't thank him enough for the great Eastern orthodox liturgy and John of Damascus btfo Islam.

>>15536763
The concept of 'love' has been grotesquely warped, the level of nihilism required to sit back and watch somebody you 'love' condemn themselves is unimaginable.

>>15536172
I feel somewhat the same now, but I never explained it like this. I just think that it's just a depression period that will end if you finally man up and resolve the problem that have lead to it. I hope I'll make it soon.
In religious terms, I think that God is a representation of our ideal, what we want to become. Failure is a sin, that can sometimes can lead to hell, separation from God, destruction of our goals, interests and ideals. Jesus have forgave us all the sins (but it works if we actually accepted him), therefore that means that you don't go to hell, you are still connected to God. You can still chase your ideals in one form or another, you just need to believe in it and forgive yourself the past.
That's probably some heretical shit, but it works for me.

>>15538304

>>15537665
I don't know how to put this delicately, so sorry: it's glaringly obvious that either you're only a catechumen (at most) or you really need to actually talk with other people, off of 4chan and out of trad circles. Even the clergy (not Anglican) I talk to don't sound like you.
In any case:
>If every saint in history says one thing an an anglo in modernity says another thing, I'll go with the saints every single time.
And you know what? For their time, they were right. In a world where loving homosexual relationships aren't even really possible to imagine, yeah, don't have homosexual sex.
>There is no development of core truths. This is a Latin heresy.
Two words: Birth control. More words: the ruling on birth control changed. Teachings on sexuality aren't a core truth, at least not the way you go about it. You're no fun, so if you want, we can just go with "Sex has to occur within marriage, and marriage can only between a man and a woman." and we can pretend you'd win that discussion too?
>We can tell by your support of homosexuality. It is usually very easy to spot Latin-influenced heretics.
And yet my arguments for being in favor of homosexuality are from a Greek speaking Eastern clergyman. My Orthodox friends are the theologically serious people who are in support of same sex marriage.
>You're still picking and choosing, but now as a group (since you ignore history and every singe Church Father). I don't see how this is better than opening up a one-man church and still spouting the same heresy. Arguably it's even worse, since you are leading even more people into hell.
If you think that the saints can randomly talk about things they had no way to even know about, then sure. But even the Orthodox pick and choose, there are areas where people can disagree--show me, in what Creed is homosexuality mentioned? In what binding documents is it the case that you can't be in support of same sex marriage?
>>15537726
Romans 1 is in the context of idolatry. Hence "mad lust" as well. I'd hesitate to call all homosexuality mad lust, or else we've basically gone to calling all heterosexuality mad lust as well, given that all sexual desire cannot categorically be mad lust.
But wow, it's almost like a Church Father, born in a time where
1. homosexuality is never in a loving, equal relationship
2. homosexuality causes social harm
3. homosexuality is often used in pagan temples
4. homosexuality is also often viewed as (at least in Christian circles) a form of lust that occurs when people give in to the passions too heavily, particularly when they've indulged their lust so heavily that women bore them (which is now understood to not be the case)
5. semen is believed to contain fully formed (albeit tiny) human beings, so sex that doesn't at least attempt to procreate is ultimately murder
would have such views!
>>15537819
Dunno who the devilhomo is, but that doesn't sound very nice.

>>15538650
>And you know what? For their time, they were right.

>>15538600
Epic. I bet God could beat all the blasphemers in a swordfight.

>>15538650
Also, to everyone else who keeps copy-pasting the Fathers thinking they exist outside of their context or something: the Fathers can be wrong. It's not "Sola Scriptura et Patres", they can be wrong.
>>15538669
Good meme. He looks happy--I hope you can be too.

>>15538600
>bros i spoke with a greek-speaking bishop he told me Arianism is the right truth for our time! trust me!

>>15538715
>Conflating a formally denounced heresy that has to do with the very nature of God and a stance on sexuality while tagging the wrong person
>>15538600
Christ, who literally died for us, definitely says we should kill. Louis is a saint because he was decent in some ways. This is not one of those ways. Also, please don't get your fucking quotes by saints from ifunny. Read a book or something.

>>15538685
>they exist outside of their context or something
Why did God not correct his chosen people for chastising these "innocent" "loving" acts? Why did God not teach us to accept sodomite marriages even if it went against the cultural norms of all societies? Christ's teaching and the Gospel itself are already so challenging to the paganistic mind that it wouldn't be a big addition to add in homosexual marriages to the new covenant if they were truly legitimate. Why is a group of people influenced by atheistic modernity the ones who showed us this truth and not the people closest to Christ and the direct successors of the Apostles? Isn't the Church supposed to be a tool of guidance, why would it wrongly anathematize/condemn so many people so consistently over such a long period of time?

>>15538746
>NOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST KILL ME FOR BLASPHEMING!!!! YOU HAVE TO LET ME CORRUPT YOUR SOCIETY AND YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!

You can reach a point of alienation and unhappiness where your choices are

1) An hero
2) Drink vodka and die in 10-15 years
3) God

And then when you do find God his grace shows you how to love other people and you actually somewhat recover from your sad autism.

Any nihilistic chantard is already 99% of the way there. He already sees how horrible the modern world is and how empty most pursuits and ambitions are. And most of us are really contrary by nature anyway.

It's way more rebellious to pray a rosary than it is to take LSD or whatever...

It transforms everything. It gives you a reason not to be a prick, because even though life here is empty there's a higher reality. And when you suffer it's not mindless empty "depression", it's penance for sin that makes you rely on God more.

I'm not trolling, I'm positive I'm describing a process many others have gone through.

>>15538757
I’m not and have no desire to corrupt society, I just want to be intimate with another man.

>>15533302
men turn from the beef roast and take up a path of holiness

>>15538778
YEAH, RAMMING YOUR COCK IN AND OUT OF HIS STINKY SHITHOLE IS SO INTIMATE BRO!

>>15533794
>an actual understanding of religion takes years of study, thought, and experience.

The most important parts of the gospel are so simple a 7 year old can understand it.

>>15538752
Why didn't Christ fix every other social/cultural problem? Because that wasn't the purpose of Him being here. He, to use 4chan terminology, BTFO the Pharisees and death. That's what he came to do--to fulfill prophecy, show that the Law wasn't sufficient, and defeat death, providing a means for us to not die.
As for why the Church would wrongly condemn people: because the Church is largely wrong on this, just as the Church has been largely wrong before (See: the Arian controversy). In a previous situation, wherein homosexual acts only occurred in negative situations, I'd stand behind a full ban of them. However, nowadays that isn't the only situation in which homosexual acts occur, so that can't be the case.
>>15538757
Not if you're a Christian. And corrupt is a rather strong word, even if you're ultimately against homosexuality, given the countless (and much worse) things that are permitted in society.

>>15538789
I’m not even interested in sex.

>>15538807
why do non-christians feel the need to tell me what i can and cannot do as a christian? well, the answer is obvious. they have a vested interest in guilt tripping us into being afraid of dealing out justice, which would destroy them. fuck you faggot

>>15532997
Christianity has always been for the depraved and not the pious.

@15538807
>Arian controversy
Didn't last for 1900+ years. Explain how the Church lead by the Holy Spirit could wrongly condemn people for an innocent act for most of its historical existence.
>wherein homosexual acts only occurred in negative situations
Why are you denying the love of those people? How do you truly know it was negative in those times? Seems highly bigoted of you.

>>15538807
>given the countless (and much worse) things that are permitted in society.
they're all connected intimately. idolatry, abortion, atheism and sodomy always occur together.

Because people on 4chan are far better at deluding themselves than the average person.

>Because people on 4chan are far better at deluding themselves than the average person.

>>15538830
I'm a Christian. Anyway, justice is for God, and learn to work on not throwing out slurs and ad-hominem attacks whenever you can't respond to an argument.
>>15538832
>Didn't last for 1900+ years. Explain how the Church lead by the Holy Spirit could wrongly condemn people for an innocent act for most of its historical existence.
Because until relatively recently, it wasn't an innocent act. It was as I described, a form of social violence and ultimately selfish.
>Why are you denying the love of those people? How do you truly know it was negative in those times? Seems highly bigoted of you.
I'm going to pretend that you're not just being smarmy and trying to make fun of woke types. We know it was [almost universally] negative due to the fact that homosexual acts often occurred in the context of pederasty for the Greeks, and in a plethora of other cultures, saying that someone was the receiving partner was actually a criminal offense (hence the social harm). Academia is pretty universal on this one, except for idiots that think they have to prove something used to exist for it to be legitimate now.
>>15538846
I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are.
>>15538893
I'm gonna assume you're the same person with all the other Wojacks: How do you have so many?

>>15538901
>I'm a Christian
faggots can't be christian.

>>15538909
An orientation itself cannot be a sin, as that'd merely be temptation. If an orientation is a problem, then temptation is as well, and if temptation is a sin then Christ sinned.
Sin doesn't stop one from being Christian either though, so your culture wars trash is showing, anon.

>>15538943
looking at a man's shithole with lust in your heart is a sin, not a temptation. being gay is not an orientation just because Dr. schlomo on the TV told you it was a-okay.

>>15538901
>>>15538830
>I'm a Christian. Anyway, justice is for God, and learn to work on not throwing out slurs and ad-hominem attacks whenever you can't respond to an argument.
>>>15538832
>>Didn't last for 1900+ years. Explain how the Church lead by the Holy Spirit could wrongly condemn people for an innocent act for most of its historical existence.
>Because until relatively recently, it wasn't an innocent act. It was as I described, a form of social violence and ultimately selfish.
>>Why are you denying the love of those people? How do you truly know it was negative in those times? Seems highly bigoted of you.
>I'm going to pretend that you're not just being smarmy and trying to make fun of woke types. We know it was [almost universally] negative due to the fact that homosexual acts often occurred in the context of pederasty for the Greeks, and in a plethora of other cultures, saying that someone was the receiving partner was actually a criminal offense (hence the social harm). Academia is pretty universal on this one, except for idiots that think they have to prove something used to exist for it to be legitimate now.
>>>15538846
>I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are.
>>>15538893
>I'm gonna assume you're the same person with all the other Wojacks: How do you have so many?

>>15538957
Ah, so you're an anti-semitic dork who disagrees with contemporary research. I don't know why I expected anything better from 4chan, in all honesty.

>>15535658
Based
>>15538850
Are they? I think it may be the opposite. People here like cold, dirty truth. The thing is that they never do anything with it.
>>15538823
This may be weird and rude question but I will ask: Why are you gay? What is it in men that attracts you to them? If it's not about sex then are you sure that it's romantic attraction that cannot be replaced by brotherly love or deep friendship? I'm just curious about it.

>>15538995
People here act like they like the cold, dirty truth, but they don't actually pursue it--it's just edgy counter-culture with the tiniest bit of an attempt at a pursuit of truth.

>Ah, so you're an anti-semitic dork who disagrees with contemporary research. I don't know why I expected anything better from 4chan, in all honesty.

>>15538650
>1. homosexuality is never in a loving, equal relationship
>2. homosexuality causes social harm
>3. homosexuality is often used in pagan temples
>4. homosexuality is also often viewed as (at least in Christian circles) a form of lust that occurs when people give in to the passions too heavily, particularly when they've indulged their lust so heavily that women bore them (which is now understood to not be the case)
>5. semen is believed to contain fully formed (albeit tiny) human beings, so sex that doesn't at least attempt to procreate is ultimately murder
morality does not work that way it is a commandmets of God not something you make utilitarian arguments about.
Revalation is the only way to get morality, and it is preaty clearly reveal that beeing a fag is not moral no mater what the devil tells you.
Plus all your points are speculation that homos have changes in the last 1000 years witch is bullshit.

>>15539054
Please spellcheck your work, it's jarring.
Morality absolutely does work that way--acts cannot be understood outside of their context. Utilitarianism judges something by its outcome, not its context. Don't go throwing words around you don't understand.
>it is preaty clearly reveal
It's clearly not. You'd notice that nobody has provided any real argument, just vague shitposting about me with shitty wojacks.
>Plus all your points are speculation that homos have changes in the last 1000 years
Closer to 200ish, but it's an undeniable fact that culture has changed, and thus the social effects of homosexuality have changed. You can deny sociology, anthropology, etc. all you'd like though, I forgot; we can't trust any work from anywhere because [[[da joos]]] control everything that disagrees with us.

anons:
>we love Christ because we're losers and He's the only one who cares about us
literal faggots and trannies:
>they're just being edgy LARPers who want to feel justified for hating gays
this much is to be expected from such narcissistic degenerates.

>>15538995
I’m just attracted to people I get along with, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a man.

>>15539097
The whole thread started as a pride-filled shitshow of people thinking that they're better than clergy. Good try though? Have fun continuing to try to co-opt Christianity.

>>15539104
>i'll fuck anything with a hole!

>>15539115
and then it turned into a gay pride parade. go back to discord you faggot

>>15539097
Have you seen this thread? It's a bunch of people acting like they're better than their priests and bishops that like to argue for violence and can't even defend their own positions. It's quite literally as bad as the memes about zoomer tradcaths portray.

>>15539074

The real reason Christians (and Buddhists and pretty much all major religions) oppose homosexuality is the same reason they oppose masturbation or looking at women lustfully.

Being chaste, i.e. never having sex outside of marriage and only to have children, and even that is a "second best" scenario for people who can't be celibate, has a hugely positive effect on the soul just like fasting from food does.

The problem is that most people are so spoiled by pro-sex propaganda from childhood that they think it's impossible or unhealthy to even go without masturbating let alone cultivate purity of mind. So they never get to see what the saints/jesus/paul were talking about.

You don't have to believe me but I'm not talking about something supernatural. People from all religions across the world for thousands of years have described what I'm describing. Being chaste brings you closer to God.

>>15539123
Try setting foot in a church just once in your life. Talk to the clergy about the hate that's clearly ruling your spiritual life. Or don't, because a bunch of uneducated teenagers clearly understand Christianity better, because they can post ifunny pics and quote the Fathers (with no understanding of the situations in which the Fathers lived)!

>>15539131
all of a sudden the clergy is some council of the holiest men on earth? i guarantee you call them a bunch of pedophiles in other threads, whatever tactic you need to disparage the faith, you'll use because you don't care about truth, you care about shilling your faggot degeneracy over everything else.
>>15539141
yes, i hate sin, is that a problem to you? get the fuck out.

>>15538793
>The most important parts of the gospel are so simple a 7 year old can understand it.
I first read the gospels when I was 8 yo. I thought I fully understood it but with time more things became clearer to me. Even now I wouldn't say I fully understand it. I saw some anon take on Jesus wept and it was really beautiful and I still think about it sometimes. The gosple isn't hard to read and get the final meaning out of it but alot of the verses have deeper layers that we won't appreciate or fully get immediately.

It isnt "4 Han" it is everyone.
The church is always 100 years behind.

>>15539156
>all of a sudden the clergy is some council of the holiest men on earth? i guarantee you call them a bunch of pedophiles in other threads, whatever tactic you need to disparage the faith, you'll use because you don't care about truth, you care about shilling your faggot degeneracy over everything else.
Then you're wrong. I actually vehemently deny that clergy are horrid pedophiles, given that they molest at a lower rate than teachers, for example. The only reason clergy molest more than the average person is because they're around more kids. The only issue with clergy was that they got shuffled around rather than actually punished. But yes, continue to assume.

>>15539156
>>15539136
That's contrary to what Orthodoxy teaches, at least--it's not good for man to be alone. From the very beginning, Adam had Eve. Further, for a point of reference, cultures tended to privilege men, and women were little more than slaves to emotion and passions. By being a passive partner, you were willingly becoming a "woman." You were becoming a slave to the passions, nothing more. Yes, full on celibacy generally does help, because it's denying the flesh outright, but it's clearly not as though everyone actually has to live as a monastic.
>>15539156
>Get the fuck out.
No u. You, along with the cadre of other illiterate twats here who don't even know how to disagree amicably, are a blight upon any proper understanding of Christianity and a disgrace even among your own churches, if any of you even regularly attend (though, in my optimism, I'm sure at least one of you folks does.)

>>15533319
I predict that in the 3rd Millennium we'll see the complete demoralization and dissolution of the Protestant churches. You already see the rapid liberalization and degeneration of protestant churches across the West as they embrace values antithetical to their theology. Inversely, they'll be a greater demand for the traditional churches as the human condition demands that spiritual void to be filled.

Once Protestantism goes, I would expect the ancient Churches to eventually work on mending the schism and begin unifying.

>>15539204
>all this effort and word soup to seem like the morally just one when you're advocating for homosex
ok faggot.

>>15539214
i would be surprised if the more mainstream protestant churches beyond a couple of more generations
the catholic church maybe a couple of hundred years, tops

>>15539227
That's a nice response, shame it doesn't actually refute me. I love the route of poor attacks, slurs, and emptying the Wojack and Pepe folders because you can't actually argue. It's almost fun.
>>15539233
Honestly, Christianity in the West is dying. Sadly, Evangelicals have dominated with evangelization, and the biggest increases of Christianity are Evangelicals in Africa and Asia.

>>15539250
>Sadly, Evangelicals have dominated with evangelization
It's the easiest to sell since it's the most shallow form of Christianity.
It'll also be the easiest to discard like any other disposable consumer product.

>>15539204

>That's contrary to what Orthodoxy teaches, at least--it's not good for man to be alone.

I don't know a ton about Orthodoxy but this is 1 Cor 7 which I'm sure you've read before:

>Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

"Permission, not commandment". I'm just saying that the ideal of Christian perfection would be celibacy, even monasticism, but most people can't handle that and should get married, marriage itself is holy, the body is holy, and sex is a good thing within those bounds. We're probably in agreement on that.

Beyond what I said about chastity and the need for sex to be restricted I've never particularly understand the ban on homosexuality, my best friend is gay, etc. It's something I accept "on faith" along with other things I never would have come to by my own lights, like the assumption of Mary. Your statement that passive homosexuality makes you a slave to passion doesn't hold up for me. How is having sex with a prostitute any different, besides the fact that you're having sex in a normal heterosexual way?

In the medieval church it was thought that seeing a prostitute, while gravely sinful, was a notch less sinful than masturbation or homosexuality, which is why it was legal.

Interested in any information on this as it is a big stumbling block for a lot of people who might otherwise be drawn to traditional faiths

>>15539265
Exactly. It removes all of the heavy thought that is done by more theologically-minded types and replaces it with a blind sort of emotionalism, and once people realize that tithing doesn't fix all their issues and bad things can happen to good people, they'll end up discarding Christianity wholesale. When big-name Evangelicals stop being Evangelical, they tend to go atheist rather than joining a liturgical church that has actually thought about the Problem of Evil or anything else.

>>15539274
Well, obviously it doesn't hold up for you (or me, or much of anyone nowadays) as it was a view in cultures of antiquity. I can find you the title of a relevant work on the topic of effeminacy as a sign of being a slave to the passions if you'd like.

However, for how they differed in the past, with passive homosexuality you violate the concept of a man as a man and instead acted as less than a man, whereas with prostitution, at least you still acted as a man.
Nowadays, that difference is a lot harder to see, since we lack the same sort of views on men and women.
To go further than that and end up with a view that doesn't merely tolerate occasional homosexuality but rather accepts homosexuality outright, we have to remember two key details:
1. Homosexuality as we discuss it (in a loving, equal, consensual sense) did not exist until extremely recently.
2. Marriage is ultimately a social construct that was later formally declared a social construct around the 1500s.
If, then, marriage is a social construct and homosexuality didn't exist until recently, (and an individual act isn't the problem, but rather the circumstances around it. Such as how punching someone may be a sin but it may also not be.) then it stands to reason that, by virtue of the fact that a sacrament is, fundamentally, something that bestows grace, there's no reason that a homosexual marriage is outside of the bounds of orthodoxy/sanity. It's merely acknowledging that the circumstances of the social construct have changed and that now people can marry people of the same sex. Ultimately, the Church is the arbiter of the sacraments, and thus has some leeway on changing them and recognizing them.

This doesn't hold with Roman Catholics, but they tend to hold to Natural Law (though that's not a good system by any means) and have already written themselves into a situation where they can't change. The Orthodox could, eventually, change their minds on this, and some of the American clergy already have, but many of the Orthodox churches are situated in homophobic countries/cultures. So it'll take time, especially since the only place that even blesses gay relationships is Finland (though they distinctly don't marry them).

There's more work that could be done, and a full piece could be written (as, contrary to what 4chan would have you believe, not all pro-same sex marriage people are illiterate Satanists) and many works have already been produced on this topic.

>>15539289

In traditional faiths it's thought that you have to suffer and undergo difficult things to get close to God. If your life is easy (or even if it isn't) pious people will go out of their way to make it harder, give up licit pleasures, etc. You're supposed to share in Christ's passion.

I don't think any Catholic or Orthodox thinks that believing in Jesus will make them rich, well-liked, or even "happy" in the popular sense of the word, though there can be a lot of happiness and joy at times.

You can't even expect that you'll "feel close to God" or have some sort of sensible relationship. You might feel spiritually dead for long periods of time or even forever. You're supposed to think about God and pray but you can't expect to always "feel his presence".

Seems like a much more realistic way to prepare people for what actually happens in faith. There will be times when you feel far from God, or like it isn't worth it, or like it's a doomed effort, and life can be very difficult.

>>15539104
Simple as, hmm? Okay
>>15539233
Doubt it. It is not question of time in catholic case - it's about the number of believers and it still seems to be growing; but I do think that further "balkanization" and schism are not unlikely - based more on the politics than the bible.
>>15539250
Your points - assuming you are >>15538650 are based on entirely personal experience, not on the bible, writings of the church fathers and saints or teachings of the church. You go against the bible, since Romans I clearly calls lustful relations between the men unnatural even if the main purpose of this passage is different. You mention arguments of your friends and orthodox clergyman, but you don't say what was their argumentation. And while I agree that church fathers can be wrong, so can you.
>>15539396
>Marriage is ultimately a social construct
I not even gonna comment on this one.

>>15539411
Even the Episcopalians (or at least, the devout and sane ones) don't believe any of that, though there's laity among every single denomination who think in terms of "I pray every day, why don't I have a new car? I even tithe 15%!"

However, with Evangelicals, they tend not to have done that theological legwork, even among people "in teaching roles" who have a lot of influence and publicity. It's a house of cards and it's doomed to fall, the only things that really keep it afloat are how easy it is to convert into and the fact that they tend to have somewhat larger families (than, say, atheists. Catholics historically have them beat, though I'm not sure if that's still the case.)

>>15539396
> Marriage is ultimately a social construct
no it a sacrement given by God

The Church cant "change its mind" on basic issues that are clearly stated as wrong even in the Bible

>>15539396

As a Catholic we'll have to agree to disagree, though I understand your points (I was secular most of my life and, like I said, my best friend is gay).

I'm sure you know, but I'll say it anyway, that most Catholics don't think God will necessarily send someone for hell merely for being homosexual. To go to hell you have to reject God's law knowingly and resolutely ("deliberato consensu"). It's not hard to imagine a modern, non-believing homosexual not meeting those criteria. God is more merciful than human beings, not less merciful, and nobody knows how he forms his judgments, or how he treats people who are outside the Church, or how he might reconcile people at death. Nobody knows how he treats people within the Church for that matter.

That's what Francis meant by "who am I to judge?" I don't think a homosexual will always go to hell, I don't even think a murderer will always go to hell. Even if I think homosexuals are doing something wrong I know how offensive some of my own inclinations, thoughts words and behaviors are to God.

>>15538650

Why do you think homosexual relationships in the ancient world were never loving or stable?

Read Catullus' homosexual poems.

Greco-Roman gays weren't that different from gays today. They fell in love, some of them were really promiscuous but some of them stayed with one person for a long time.

>>15538650

For that matter, why do you think the Church opposes heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, which can be loving and stable while they last?

People loved their girlfriends in the ancient world and wrote about it.

You can't say "the Church only opposed homsexuality because it really was totally degenerate back then and caused social harm" because that isn't true, at least not true enough to make it a sin worse than murder...

It must be wrong because it is actually wrong by nature.

>>15539431
>You go against the Bible
You deliberately rip verses out of context. If you read that in the context of idolatry people give up their actual orientation and start having sex contrary to it, there's no reason to plug your ears and insist that it's universally about homosexuality altogether.
As for their arguments, their arguments are similar to mine, and the thrust of the arguments are the same, though my friends are infinitely more eloquent than I.
>>15539431
Marriage is a social construct. It's existed in various forms and under various rules in different cultures. It wasn't something commanded by God to every single person, nor was the specific manner by which we get married directly given by God. It is, by its very nature, a social construct, albeit one blessed by God and the Church (and notably listed as a sacrament beginning around the 1500s).

>>15539462
See above. And, as I've gone through minor pains to explain in this thread, the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality. Arsenokoites was translated as pedophile prior to recently, malakoi (soft, effeminate) has to do with being a slave to the passions, and Romans 1 is about idolatry. We can do this all day.

>>15539463
Yeah, my arguments don't really "work" in the context of Roman Catholicism, as you guys have (semi) infallibly declared homosexuality to be wrong, along with the Natural Law thing (which there are responses to). That said, a great many people don't actually care about the theological aspect of it one way or another.

>>15539499
It's not that they weren't ever loving or stable, they were just rarely. Plus, more importantly, homosexuality as an orientation didn't exist as a cultural idea. That there may have been some "aberrations" from that and that there were men who loved men or women who loved women doesn't change the surrounding situations, especially since Greece was a "decent" place for being gay, since they weren't quite so violent about questions of sex at the time, unlike some areas where you could have to fight and possibly die for calling someone a homosexual. Finally, and most importantly, the concept of an actual gay marriage didn't exist, so it couldn't be wholly self-giving public commitment. It could come close situationally, but it wasn't generally the case. The History of Sexuality covers this.

>>15539531
>while they last
That's the key word. Marriage, as a lifelong and public commitment, is part of what makes it actually loving and stable and wholly self-giving. Also, you're somewhat right--the only reasons that homosexuality could historically be worse than murder are
1) A dated understanding of reproduction, where non-procreative sex are murder/abortion/what-have-you
2) Homophobia existing within the culture.
I suppose there is a tertiary option, that "murder only kills a person and maybe they can go to Heaven, homosex ruins them socially and then they're stuck living as less of a person" though that's a shoddy argument.

>>15539603
you are deeply, deeply disordered.

>>15539627
Mostly just bored, actually. Unless we're talking about depression and anxiety, though that's more due to circumstantial issues than some underlying psychological problem.

>>15538793
Knowing what the words mean is not the same as understanding them.

>>15539603

You're saying that early Christians supported heterosexual marriage because those relationships were loving, stable, and good for society.

But most marriages didn't have anything to do with romantic love, with the sort of love you see in modern marriages or in longterm homosexual partnerships/marriages.

And you seem to think that all homosexual relationships were pagan temple rapes or something when that's definitely not the reality.

Your entire argument is a red herring.

Homosexuality is actually wrong for the same reason masturbating is wrong. It's a belief that a lot of other religions/cultures have had and it grows out of a tradition of Jewish asceticism. If it's hard to understand for people in this society that's just because our society has moved so far from Christianity.

>>15539603
>Marriage is a social construct.
Genesis 2:24

>>15539603
if you think marriage is a social construct there is nothing to discuss really.
Your heart is just to dark to understand even clear words in the Bible.

>>15539722
Nah, ideally they should be about love, and nowadays that is the case (try telling your priest you want to marry someone you don't love, see how that works out) but historically it isn't. However, they did end up with love and little/no social damage to either person. Whereas homosexuality as an orientation wholesale did not exist until roughly the 19th century, and circumstances permitting anything even remotely similar situations for people that we may try to understand as homosexual didn't exist--they may have written poetry and loved one another, but it categorically wasn't the same thing. Things don't have to be a pagan temple rape to be bad. Once again, I'd suggest at least glossing through the History of Sexuality, even just the first book should be helpful.

As for the latter part about other cultures having it, we no longer allow honor killings, which were a part of a great number of cultures, even until rather recently. Should they be permitted again? An appeal to numbers is no appeal at all. For the Jewish asceticism part, that has more to do with abstinence altogether, which is not a universal norm in Christianity, as not everyone is called to be a monastic. Further, suggesting that any cultural shift away from this understanding is a shift away from Christianity is tantamount to suggesting that the "ideal Christian culture" has ever existed, which is a laughable idea, as it's fairly clear that no matter how much political power Christianity has, or how much a culture may seem Christian, it's never been wholly perfect and there has never been a properly Christian culture. In fact, I'd posit that the shift to proper concern for the poor governmentally, the shift to a concern for the environment, etc. is actually a shift towards Christianity, even if we have lost some cultural fights as well.

>>15539738
Read it in the context of the rest of Genesis, it's talking about the framework by which children are to be had. Further, the Bible is not the Quran--as it wasn't literally dictated by God, it had to use phrasings that people could understand. A permanent union of two people is a marriage. So they were married. Neat. Doesn't make it less of a social construct. I'd also like to note that marriage being a social construct doesn't make it less legitimate.

>>15539762
Neato. I have no desire to try to educate someone who thinks a collection of books from Ancient Israel are completely clear and can be easily understood with no understanding of the context in which they were written.

>>15539873
>Read it in the context of the rest of Genesis, it's talking about the framework by which children are to be had. Further, the Bible is not the Quran--as it wasn't literally dictated by God, it had to use phrasings that people could understand. A permanent union of two people is a marriage. So they were married. Neat. Doesn't make it less of a social construct. I'd also like to note that marriage being a social construct doesn't make it less legitimate.

Surely you understand you're being sophistical? Stop the mental gymnastics, please. Just be an atheist or something and be honest.

>>15539873
>as it wasn't literally dictated by God,
you are wong the Bible is the word of God.
Maximus the confessor even says the Bible is a form of incarnation of the Logos.
Again you are arguing not form a theological perspective but form some weird outside look, it reminds me of Jorden Peterson.

>>15539881
I am being intellectually honest. I may be only marginally better at argumentation than most of the people here (especially given that the vast majority of the responses are weak arguments, but the worse and simpler the argument the more time you have to use to refute it) so it's unclear at times, but I'm no sophist. Marriage is a social construct, Genesis didn't literally happen, and the Bible was written by men so it had to use language and ideas that they could write. That doesn't make it even remotely less valid, unless you're the sort of Christian who reduces it to some type of Quran, in which case your faith will only exist until you find the right "Atheist points out contradictions in the Bible: Christians BTFO!" video on YouTube.

>>15539902
>the Bible is a form of incarnation of the Logos
You got a citation for that one? Because in every single discussion I've had, there's either "The Bible is wholly the direct word of God given to us, He dictated it to the authors!", "The Bible is just a book", or "The Bible is best understood iconographically, as the story of the salvation of man and God's relationship with man".
So yes, in some ways it can be an incarnation of the Logos, as it is through the Son that we know the Father, and the Bible is that by which we know God as well, but that doesn't make the Bible a book directly written/dictated by God.

>>15539902
>Maximus the confessor even says the Bible is a form of incarnation of the Logos.
i find that hard to believe.

>>15534205
It's easy to do all those things and not be a Christian, since those are just the outer shell of religion. You may be a true Christian, but such a claim may not be made on that basis. Being a Christian is about an internal transformation. Besides:

> That when we enter upon the spiritual we should consider, and examine to the bottom, what we are. And then we should find ourselves worthy of all contempt, and such as do not deserve the name of Christians, subject to all kinds of misery, and numberless accidents, which trouble us, and cause perpetual vicissitudes in our health, in our humours, in our internal and external dispositions: in fine, persons whom GOD would humble by many pains and labours, as well within as without. After this, we should not wonder that troubles, temptations, oppositions and contradictions, happen to us from men. We ought, on the contrary, to submit ourselves to them, and bear them as long as GOD pleases, as things highly advantageous to us.

>>15539141
>understanding of the situations in which the Fathers lived
why are you suddenly immune from the situations you live in?

>>15533319
just because they have the same name doesn't mean the same spirit that created them is still present. It is clear that the catholic church has changed their mind on their former based takes, think aquinas and augustine (both of which luther entirely agreed with), the reformation showed that the spirit of the catholic church had left it, and then entered into the lutheran church, although luther did not want a schism at all, but it came anyways. It is likely that spirit has adapted to the modern day and realized the inevitable decentralization, and that only individuals can accept the doctine. The way to heaven is narrow. That means few can walk it, although, in theory, all can be saved, most will perish here on this barren rock.

>homosexuality is actually a blessed sacrament!
Nice try, satan.

>>15536172
Seek a spiritual counselor. The Catholic Church offers that service. Perhaps others do as well.

>>15539999
>spirit has adapted to the modern day

>>15533667
He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down and without walls.

Oh wow the holy Bible predicted your *quirky*degeneracy. If only you knew how trite and banal your existence was, you would loathe it as much as a true christian comes to loathe his own.

>>15539989
In no way am I either--the difference is that I am cognizant of this fact and try to think about things as many ways as possible (and deal with trying to refute them as well) to avoid such biases, unlike those who read the Fathers and Scripture, take everything at a plain face value and run with it in some sort of quasi-traditional OrthoBaptist nightmare. Note that, once again, before the entirety of this thread descends upon me once again with vagueposts and reaction images, I'm speaking in generalizations, of things that I have observed numerous times, both here and elsewhere. A great many people, on both sides, (liberal and conservative) are unable to critically think and understand the underlying ideas, and instead either reject things outright (Well, maybe the Bible is wrong!) or take them at face value (The sort of thing you see elsewhere in this thread).

>>15539214
>>15539233
The Catholic Church needs to abandon the Vatican City, along with their political ambitions. Dostoevsky was right to observe that they're preaching a Christ who succumbed to the third temptation of the Devil.

>>15539942
spotted the mono lingual. Just look up an interlinear of 1;1 john

>>15540011
while ever never changing i admit, but our perception of how the spirit acts is very much different. And it is very clear that certain churches do not have the spirit in them and are despicable hell holes.

>>15540063
>Spotted the monolingual
Good try, but no.
Anyhow, logos doesn't mean always "word" in the sense of a literal word. Are you stupid, playing stupid, or do you not know the difference between rhema, lexi and logos?

>>15540110
bro nice strawman it literally says that christ is the incarnate logos go back to your pagan stick and cum worship

>>15540142
Okay, neat, so you're actually stupid. Logos in the sense of Christ is one thing, and that doesn't make Him a fucking book. I've also noticed there's been no citation on the Maximus thing. Just admit you misremembered, anon.

>>15539873

>they may have written poetry and loved one another, but it categorically wasn't the same thing.

I'm sure homosexual relationships in the ancient world weren't "pure love" any more than heterosexual relationships are now.

You'll never see our side on this but it should disturb you that your line of reasoning could be used to dismantle literally any point of Christian teaching.

Every single item of Christian belief was transmitted at some time in history and to some extent reflects the social conditions it arose in. If nothing else they were spoken and written in certain languages current at the time.

Why not have female priests?

Do we even really need auricular confession?

Why do we have to go to church? Isn't God everywhere?

>Neato. I have no desire to try to educate someone who thinks a collection of books from Ancient Israel are completely clear and can be easily understood with no understanding of the context in which they were written.

And I think it's a waste of time to argue with someone who wants to read those books in a way different from the way that they've always been read for as far back as we can read...

You're a homosexual. I love using drugs. I don't think drugs particularly impair my reasoning, not like alcohol. The Church fathers never even talk about drug abuse. I could make a stronger pseudo-Christian case for smoking black tar than you can for homosexuality. They don't even mention drugs in the Bible. I could argue that opiates are a step above alcohol: they don't cause violent or irresponsible behavior, they just cause a profound sense of wellbeing. I could argue that it's a venial sin at worst.

But I still quit using drugs.

>>15540176
https://onancientpaths.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/st-maximus-the-confessor-on-three-levels-of-incarnation/

>>15540047
>implying

Not only does the Church need to keep Rome, Christianity needs to retake the other four ancient sees. I want Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem back in Christian hands. They've been in the hands of the haters of Christ for way too long by now.

>>15537586
Nope

>>15540232
My argument doesn't hinge on every relationship having been pure love, but part of it hinges the possibility of love, as well as social damage.

My line of reasoning only really holds for sexual ethics, though I'm also fine with women priests, and it's fairly clear that God isn't limited to the sacraments (though I still think auricular confession is good).

God may be everywhere, but it's been seen as good for believers to come together and worship God specifically in church since forever, regardless of culture.

As for the different way that they're being read--fine. You can cling to a reading of the Scriptures and the Fathers that's little better than what a Baptist may use. However, just as reading poetry or basically any other work, if you focus solely on the words on the page, with no understanding of the context, you get nowhere. It's why to properly understand philosophy you should understand the culture in which it was written; if you hear Nieztsche say "God is dead" it means drastically different things to different people, for example.

Further, drug use routinely either causes something similar to drunkenness and/or routine physical harm. Homosexuality doesn't do the same.

Also, I'm not a homosexual, though I don't know how important of a point that is.

>>15540251
What you posted doesn't argue what you said it did. Obviously God is present in Scripture and one could argue it's a form of incarnation--that doesn't mean that every single word must be understood literally sans context.

>>15540266
Are you implying the Orthodox aren't Christian, or is this about the literal geographical areas not being Christian?

>>15537586
This tbqh

>>15540266
>I want Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem back in Christian hands. They've been in the hands of the haters of Christ for way too long by now.

>>15540362

>As for the different way that they're being read--fine. You can cling to a reading of the Scriptures and the Fathers that's little better than what a Baptist may use. However, just as reading poetry or basically any other work, if you focus solely on the words on the page, with no understanding of the context, you get nowhere. It's why to properly understand philosophy you should understand the culture in which it was written; if you hear Nieztsche say "God is dead" it means drastically different things to different people, for example.

You're asking us to believe that your "contextual" reading, that malakos doesn't mean someone who commits homosexual acts, that Paul talking about idolatry means he wasn't talking about simple homosexuality later in the setence, is more accurate than the writings of people who came out of that same culture, or one much closer to it, i.e. the fathers, who universally and unequivocally condemn homosexual activity, indeed all sexual activity outside of marriage...

>>15540362

http://www.orthodoxchurchquotes.com/tag/literal-interpretation-of-scripture/
The chuch fathers belived in the literal meaning of scripture.
Origen did not and or his teaching was condemned heretic in the 4th or fifth counsel.

The sacred Scripture, taken as a whole, is like a human being. The Old Testament is the body and the New is the soul, the meaning it contains, the spirit. From another viewpoint we can say that the entire sacred Scripture, Old and New Testament, has two aspects: the historical content which corresponds to the body, and the deep meaning, the goal at which the mind should aim, which corresponds to the soul. If we think of human beings, we see they are mortal in their visible properties but immortal in their invisible qualities.
Maximus again

>>15540362
>im also fine with women priests.
>1Tim3:9-15
be silent and be saved through childbearing pagan.
>1 Corinthians 14:34-35
also he says in revelation that he will spit out the lukewarm water, so if you disagree with any portion of the book, which is Him, He is the Book, so if you disbelieve any part of Him, your name is cut out of the book of life, which is to say you go to hell.
Also for good measure
>Ecclesiates7:29-31.
women are incapable of righteousness alone, which why they must cling to their husbands as their husbands shall cling to the bosom of the church, where all wisedom flows. Women are unwise and are therefore unfit to preach.
Repent.

>>15539603

>Arsenokoites was translated as pedophile prior to recently, malakoi (soft, effeminate) has to do with being a slave to the passions

Malakoi can mean morally weak, it can also mean cowardly. Or maybe he meant soft, people who take too much care of their skin? It can mean sickly, maybe he was talking about sickly people...

No, he meant gay, as the word is used in other places and as it is defined in classical dictionaries. It is used as a synonym of παθητικός. This is absolutely how the Christian community understood it and we know this because it is what the Church has always taught everywhere.

As for ἀρσενοκοίτης my dictionary defines it with one word: sodomite.

The authors you read are torturing the natural meaning of the scripture, the meaning always accepted even before Christianity in Mosaic law, the interpretation attested by all early Christian writers.

If you think the teaching is not that important and should be changed, fine, that's an honest argument, but don't try to convince us the scripture doesn't say what it obviously does.

>>15533315
This is no longer 4chan

>>15539603

>Arsenokoites was translated as pedophile prior to recently, malakoi (soft, effeminate) has to do with being a slave to the passions

Malakoi can mean morally weak, it can also mean cowardly. Or maybe he meant soft, people who take too much care of their skin? It can mean sickly, maybe he was talking about sickly people...

No, he meant effeminately gay. This is absolutely how the Christian community understood it and we know this because it is what the Church has always taught everywhere.

As for ἀρσενοκοίτης my dictionary defines it with one word: sodomite.

The authors you read are torturing the natural meaning of the scripture, the meaning always accepted even before Christianity in Mosaic law, the interpretation attested by all early Christian writers.

If you think the teaching is not that important and should be changed, fine, that's an honest argument, but don't try to convince us the scripture doesn't say what it obviously does.

>>15540585

I'll add that ἀρσενοκοίτης is literally man+sex. But this person wants us to think he was only condemning pedophiles, as if ancients made a distinction between pederasty and adult homosexuality.

>>15540423
Stop with the ... like a teenage girl.
More to the point, Knuth (as one example among a great many) argues that malakos is about being "soft" like that. But I doubt anyone on 4chan thinks that anyone aside from a misunderstanding of the Fathers is worth reading.

>>15540459
They don't mean literal in the way you do, in fact, it's really hard to tell the difference between the various forms of interpretation of the past. For the symbolic groups, separation of water and land would be the separation of spirit and matter, but for the literal groups it would have shown how water (often deified) and earth (often deified) were beneath God. Neither group would have said is "God literally separated the water from the land on such and such calendar day,", as we often mean literal nowadays.

>>15540501
Timothy is a letter to a specific area that had a problem with heretical priestesses, so a categorical ban on women preaching was best for them.

I don't disagree with the Bible, I disagree with your misreading of it. It's the same trite Baptist "If you don't agree with me, you're disagreeing with God!" and quite frankly, blow it out your ass.

As for Ecclesiastes, it's part of the OT, now there is neither male nor female. Plus I'd like to see how your priest reacts to you saying women are incapable of righteousness alone while implying that men are.

>>15540611
>>15540585
Ignoring the connotation and baggage around the word is as bad as ignoring the word itself. Further, arsenokoites been traditionally translated as a number of things, ranging from things unclear "defiler of themselves with mankind" to "boy defiler" (pedophile). And even if the ancients didn't give a flying fuck of a difference between adult homosexuals and pedophiles, it's pretty clear that there is a difference, and if the language they used is more clearly against pedophiles (as it is) then obviously we should condemn them, especially since pedophilia actively goes against the Great Commandments, though since I'm on 4chan I'm sure there's someone waiting to say they should be allowed to marry a 12 year old.

All of that said, to everyone here, it's been almost fun, though it's weird how little care and concern you guys give to anything remotely modern in terms of theological work--it's almost as if you guys have an agenda (though, if we're speaking in grandiose terms like that, I suppose I do as well), or are thoroughly convinced that everyone born after the year 1900 is some anti-Christian monster (or it's THE JEWS, as some people have said) hence why it's not fun anymore. This isn't even really a discussion anymore, it's just a bunch of people repeating bad arguments from an RCIA book that was used maybe 60 years ago that doesn't even know what modern scholarship is. It was fun while it lasted though.

>>15540748

You don't have to be an antisemitic reactionary troll to know that Christians have always condemned homosexuality.

You don't have a leg to stand on, only insults. Argue that Christians were wrong on that point but you can't say that they haven't condemned homosexuality both inside the NT and consistently outside of it as well.

Take a deep breath and read the exchange again. You just say "you misread the fathers!" with no evidence at all.

Maybe you should spend a little less time with your new theologians and a little more time with primary sources...

>For the symbolic groups, separation of water and land would be the separation of spirit and matter, but for the literal groups it would have shown how water (often deified) and earth (often deified) were beneath God.

Where do you get this stuff? What are these "symbolic groups"? Jews and Christians interpreted scripture both literally and symbolically. There weren't symbolic and literal "groups". Your arrogance and ignorance are simply astounding.

>>15533667
nice, you just rewrote Nietzsche's On Genealogy of Morals

>>15540748
I have talked with my pastor quite a bit on this subject and he agrees with me entirely, and this wasn't in the context of satisfying a layperson, as he knew that I plan to carry on in ministry. And there is no male and female IN christ. All are equal before the Lord. Thats why hes great, but outside of his house youre a complete moron to believe that people are equal. Im smarter, faster, and stronger than 95% of women. You call that equal? But in sin we are all equal. We are all dirt, we are all dead. And it is very much not a misreading, and if you look to the tradition of the entire church, now two thousand years, no one has even once considered, that is in a church body of sound scriptural mind, that a woman should be pastor. You're obviously a woman and it astounds me that there are women as pathetic as us men on 4chan. Stop being quirky and go be the whore that God made you.

>>15540748
>It's the same trite Baptist "If you don't agree with me, you're disagreeing with God!"

That's not the argument at all. We're not even talking about God, really, we're talking about what the NT writers and early Christians said and believed, which is a clear constant condemnation of all sexual activity outside of marriage.

Even looking lustfully at a woman is totally verboten.

Go read them, they talk about it a lot because sexual sin is so common and easy to fall into.

You cite Knuth a computer scientist.

It's extremely clear what the early Christians, and the Catholic/Orthodox today, thought about sexual morality and homosexuality.

Jesuits be wilin

>>15540927
I'm sick of arguing with 18 people who don't even know what the fuck they're talking about with regards to what the Fathers meant by literal, so I'll just correct myself: I didn't mean Knuth (I don't know why I know that name), but rather Knust. Apologies.

>>15540992
LaTeX, that's why I know Knuth, kek

>>15540232
>Why not have female priests?
>Do we even really need auricular confession?
>Why do we have to go to church? Isn't God everywhere?

Have you tried reading the Bible?

>>15541072
Those were all rhetorical questions.