/lit/ - Literature

First for Divino Afflante Spiritu

>>19758043
third for no bickering
2 Timothy 2:14
>Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

>>19758061

>>19758088
Okay, now we need a prot one

>>19758092
We are slippery and come in many forms so you cannot pin us down so easily.

>>19758088
The funny thing is that compared to the image I posted your image is actually factually disproven with any actual interaction with a real Orthodox convert.

>>19758110
lmao ya seethe?
>t-there are no OrthoLARPers! nononono!
have you seen the past 10 threads?
>Jay Dyer is le based!
pic related, it's you

>>19758101

The weeb bible.

>>19758135
>there are no Ortholarpers
>Jay Dyer is based
Yes.

>>19758160
mommy letting you stay up this late?

>>19758163
>what are different time zones.

>>19758110
Unless you're a Slav or Greek, Orthodoxy is 10x more larpy than even the worst tradcath is.

>>19758179
Orthodox converts fall into LARPing and Catholic converts fall into being unhinged and hateful.

>>19758179
>you have to be part of a certain ethnic group to believe in the Church which sticks to the original teachings the most
First, I'm not a larper. Most Orthodox converts aren't, and the ones that are haven't converted or even become catechumens yet.
Second, Catholicism past 600 years ago, was essentially unorthodox (small o) Orthodoxy, with all of the included 'exotic' beliefs, ritualism, and incense. The pope wasn't even infallible until Vatican I.

>>19758288
How is attended a church full of old babushkas, with a service in Slavonic or Greek or Coptic, as an upper middle class white American "based conservative orthobro" with zero orthodox ancestors, heritage, or family members not a massive and embarrassing larp?

Fence sitter anon here.
My local Antiochian parish is almost exclusively converts, its priest is a convert, and it has like three ethnic Greeks or Arabs to its name.
Despite that I've never encountered anyone close to the >orthoLARPer stereotype there. The young people there were serious about their faith and very respectful.
The young Catholics I've met in real life have been pious and humble, and very willing to both debate politely over points of doctrine and to joke around and trade bantz.
I know this is anecdotal, but in my experience the only place I've encountered ortholarpers or twitter tradcaths has been right here on 4chan, which makes me doubt those people even go to church at all.

>>19758352
From what interaction i've had (here of all places) orthos appear the most polite. Nice folk. You reckon they'd friendily chat theology with a prot?

>>19758310
I go to an english language liturgy in a parish with lots of converts, but exteriors don't matter, a foreign parish would be fine.
How is pretending to be a Christian when you're actually a modernist lukewarm identitarian nationalist fool who's 'Christian' because your parents were and who has a half step in the world and goes to a church that's been caving in and submitting to the world for either ~1000 or ~500 years not a massive and embarrassing (but socially acceptable and common! lol) larp?

>>19758310
>with a service in Slavonic or Greek or Coptic
You don't even know what you're talking about
OCA parishes exclusively use English, most GOARCH parishes use English, even a lot of ROCOR parishes these days are using English

>>19758434
>Orthos appear the most polite.
Is this before or after they call you a papist, or heretic or demonic?

>>19758434
In real life, definitely.
On here you have a 50/50 shot of talking to a polite anon or some creature from a Jay Dyer discord.

>>19758452
I'm a prot, as you probably didn't read it to the end. So they might just call me wrong.
Also please don't feed the troll other threadgoers. It's the same guy.

>>19758452
I'm Orthodox and I've been called ortholarper, heretic, and demonic in these threads. I haven't really seen such vitriol besides passive aggression arising out of frustration from insults from Orthodox yet, though I was missing for the thread before last.

>>19758478
I'll let you in on a little secret
It's the same trolls trying to anger people over and over.

>>19758470
*the* Jay Dyer Discord. I have seen it said on YT that he runs *the* big "Orthodox™" server there. I do not have a Discord account and have not seen these things directly, but apparently it's quite the operation.

>>19758435
>le orthodoxy doesnt submit to the world
LMAO. good thing orthodoxy doesn't have state churches! oh wait...
good thing Moscow consecrating a russian military cathedral didnt happen! oh wait...
good thing the patriarchs cutting deals with the USSR client states didnt happen! oh wait....

you're right, constant schisming is better. enjoy Moscow and Constantinople and Kyiv fighting!

>>19758470
The idea of getting denominations together and enjoying an evening seems comfy.

>>19758486
>>19758478
Sadly there a few ravenous Protestants who refuse to say what their denominations exactly are.

>>19758499
Indeed, there have been literal KGB agent "Orthodox™" Metropolitans and priests. One of them was the president of the World Council of Churches even.

>>19758512
prot field is full of pitfalls honestly. I'm one and dislike how much of an umbrella term it is. I get clumped with the hyper-grace folk and the showmen, along with other deviants.

Bros, I have a huge soft spot for animals.
Are there any Church writings about the relationship between man and animals, or their purpose in creation?

Thoughts on anabaptists and radical reformers? They never get mentioned here.

>>19758512
I've been thinking of using a tripcode because of this but I've always been averse to it.

>>19758571
You a polite lad? Just keep being anon, it makes it look like there's more of us

>>19758512
What motivates the radical Protestant extremism? I'd really like to get inside the mind of one of the KJV-only, Baptist fundamentalists who posts in these threads.

>>19758499
>state Churches
No. Local autonomy do not equal state churches.
> consecrating a russian military cathedral
Why wouldn't you consecrate a cathedral? Catholic Chile has a military cathedral, I'm sure other countries do to.
> good thing the patriarchs cutting deals with the USSR client states didnt happen
What are you even talking about? Ukraine? You are really stupid. The Church had lots of fighting but it's endured 2000 years keeping the original tradition, while you Catholics with an absolutist head have not.

I feel bad for taking the vaccine now that the data is coming out. I messed up. I should have quit my job. I pray God will forgive me and heal me.

>>19758600
You'll be fine, anon.
Now, if they start wanting people to wear something on their foreheads or on their right hands, then it's time to worry.

>>19758599
You're right, establishing state churches with shithole eastern government support who persecute political and religious dissidents is what Jesus would've wanted. why didn't I guess?
Only the Orthodox churches take state funding from oppressive governments, primarily the Russian government. I don't care if it's "based", to pretend the Orthodox patriarchs aren't hopelessly politically and spiritually corrupted is laughable.

>>19758441
How is attending an ethnic Russian, Greek or Slavic church as a white American young zoomer not a massive larp? You still have answered that. It's based off the understandable desire to "feel a part of something" but it's no better than posting on /pol/ or enlisting in the military to fit in.

I'd bet the vast majority of these newfound American middle class "ortho bros" come from broken families and went through a radical edgy /pol/ or leftist phase. It's just another evolution in the role play.

>>19758632
haven't*

What's the difference between attending Liturgy in Slavonic or Aramaic and attending Mass in Latin as an English-speaking American?

>>19758632
My church conducts services in English
The clergy were all born in America
The members are all American

>>19758646
The Mass isn't in Latin anymore anywhere in the world, and it hasn't been for 60 years.

That was the point of Vatican II, to make the Mass accessible to the people of God in their language.

TradCath zoomzooms who support saying only the old form in latin? yes, they're larpers.

But the fact the Orthodox strongly resist translating into the vernacular, and instead use the language of whatever state government sponsors them, shows how little they are committed to seekers or to actually meeting the people of God where they are. Another sign they are not the true Church.

>>19758680
>But the fact the Orthodox strongly resist translating into the vernacular, and instead use the language of whatever state government sponsors them
>>19758441

>>19758680
>The Mass isn't in Latin anymore anywhere in the world, and it hasn't been for 60 years.
It isn't normally but you can still attend Latin masses in numerous places.

>>19758691
They are now being suppressed, and rightly so.
>>19758688
the exception proves the rule. the fact you had to explicitly name tiny branches which say the liturgy and prayers in the vernacular shows just how unusual it is for the orthodox.

>>19758706
>the fact you had to explicitly name tiny branches
>OCA
>GOARCH
>ROCOR
>Literally 90% of the Orthodox churches in the US fall under one of these jurisdictions
>small branches
Do you even have a single idea what you're talking about

>>19758611
pic related. How does it feel holding the same views as Jewish billionaires and the NWO deep state?
>>19758632
I think you're a tradcath zoomer who went through a /pol/ ANDlefist phase and is projecting

>>19758723
what percentage of orthodox worldwide are in the OCA, ROCOR and GOARCH?

>Orthodox members worldwide:
220 million
>GOARCH total:
107,400
>ROCOR total:
27,700
>OCA total
33,800

168,000/220,000,000

0.0767%

You're right bro, that's the norm for orthodoxy! Lmao.

>>19758726
>anime poster is also an OrthoCoomerLARPer

and the mask slips. keep pretending to understand while babushkas around you babble in ge'ez, slavonic, and neo-aramaic

>>19758794
I live in America
It is the norm for Orthodoxy in America, which is what I (and you) are talking about largely when we refer to new converts to Orthodoxy

>>19758804
I don't watch anime, it's a common meme. You're grasping for straws.

>>19758814
>moving the goalposts again
It is dishonest and misleading to pretend that the 0.0767% of orthodox worldwide who use the language of the vernacular is somehow the norm.

Guess how many Catholics worldwide hear Mass in the vernacular? 100%. 1, 345, 000, 000.

Orthodoxy is not seeker friendly for a reason

>>19758842
>>moving the goalposts again
You are the one who has done this, not me
>Guess how many Catholics worldwide hear Mass in the vernacular?
Orthodox in Greece hear liturgy in Greek
Orthodox in America hear liturgy in English
You are so high on your own arrogance you've just made my own point for me without realizing it
Thanks

>>19758842
>seeker friendly
meme term
Anyways, why don't you show the percentage of OCA in America specifically? Combined with Antiochian parishes there's a solid number of enlgish parishes.

>>19758824
>can't deny state churches with shithole eastern government support who persecute political and religious dissidents is what orthodoxy is all about
>can't deny only the Orthodox churches take state funding from oppressive governments, primarily the Russian government
>can't deny Moscow approves the Russian orthodox bishops and partiarchs before they're installed
>can't deny consecrating a russian military cathedral didn't happen
>can't deny patriarchs cutting deals with the USSR client states didn't happen
>can't deny orthodoxy constantly schisms, with another major schism in 2018 (!) and 2020 (!!)

I'll just call him a jewish billionaire satanic papist NWO deep state agent then! look mommy, I'm using /pol/ words!

Orthodoxy, everyone! What a fucking joke

>>19758865
Anon, you're humiliating yourself with your posts.

notice how vile and vitriolic anti orthodox posters always are, without fail
very interesting stuff

>>19758852
>everyone speaks Church Slavonic today! wait...
>everyone speaks Koine today! wait...
>everyone speaks Ge'ez today! wait...
>everyone speaks Coptic today! wait...
>everyone speaks pre-modern-Aramaic today! wait...
>everyone speaks Old Georgian today! wait...

keep on LARPing!

>>19758868
>t. the prime #1 unhinged shitposter himself
okay

>>19758867
>>19758868
feel free to refute any of the facts I posted.
you shall know a tree by it's fruits.
it's obvious what the fruits of orthodoxy are.

quite rotten.

>>19758878
What facts

>>19758867
>>19758868

>can't deny state churches with shithole eastern government support who persecute political and religious dissidents is what orthodoxy is all about
>can't deny only the Orthodox churches take state funding from oppressive governments, primarily the Russian government
>can't deny Moscow approves the Russian orthodox bishops and partiarchs before they're installed
>can't deny consecrating a russian military cathedral didn't happen
>can't deny patriarchs cutting deals with the USSR client states didn't happen
>can't deny orthodoxy constantly schisms, with another major schism in 2018 (!) and 2020 (!!)

I'll just call him a jewish billionaire satanic papist NWO deep state agent then! look mommy, I'm using /pol/ words!

Orthodoxy, everyone! What a fucking joke

>>19758878
Everything you have posted thus far has been refuted

>>19758893
Do not feed the troll

All these Catholic posters basically resemble >>19758061 entirely.

>>19758893
>>19758881

feel free to dispute any of these.
>>19758883
I've yet to hear anything but name calling. I'm sure you'll ad hominem and squim away and call me Satanic as usual. how very Christ like of you! brood of vipers.

>>19758897
>>19758903
address any of these points >>19758883
ortholarpies

>>19758144
That's the version I read when I read in Japanese, I think it's good.

>>19758926
No, I won't zoom zoom, it's not worth responding to because it's not as big as a deal as you think. Everything you say is basically anti-orthodox shit flinging and misrepresentation. You're either a tradcath zoomer larper attacking tradition, or you're a modernist zoomer larper attacking tradition. I haven't even researched any of those things you mentioned because they're basically insignificant and won't be an issue many years later just like they were historically.
I've already stated that consecrating military cathedrals is done by catholics, it's almost like cathedrals need to be consecrated... This isn't a schism either, we're all still in communion with each other, Moscow or Constantinople didn't break off communion with every other Orthodox Church, and this whole fault is essentially the American deep state's pushing for it's agenda in Ukraine, which you seem to support.

>>19759012
>attacking tradition
"You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” ~ Christ Jesus

>How many different bible translations do you have in your house?
>Are there any bibles that are being released in 2022 that are you looking forward to picking up?
>Who are the best bible reviewers online?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRhxB46f5ak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M2rsl8tijc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70BRXzoHAdU

>>19758138
based

>>19758138

There is nothing based about violating the first commandment

If you are not regularly buying Bibles and burying them for safe keeping from what is coming then you are barely Christian if that.

>>19759455
What's coming?

>>19759461
A lot of stuff is coming but for starters the faggots are going to get the Bible banned.

>>19759466
Good luck to them.

>>19759472
It is our duty to ensure there are Bible caches everywhere.

Mormons are right. As humanity’s knowledge of the world increases we are further able to actualize God’s dictum to us that we should regulate nature. Our ability to preserve the past increases. Eventually we reach the point where the past is so tangible we can bring it into the present. This is the Resurrection as well as an escape from determinate linear time— an apotheosis. Rediscovering the past of say, ancient Egypt is more difficult since it is older, but resurrecting an ancient Egyptian is less difficult because they had a less complex shape of consciousness. Indeed Egypt as a whole was less complex than society now.

The Resurrection of the Dead coincides with the Last Judgment. It is the uniting of Heaven & Earth. Our mission on Earth will be complete. Time will be overcome. We will have a divine consciousness akin to God’s. We will have the technology to spread the Gospel to every atom of the universe. But we will do so as God not as humans. Therefore when we preside as God over a planet & begin the drama of existence there we will do so with certainty as to how the story will end. This is how God presides over us now. Joseph Smith saw this.

When a Mormon is resurrected he will be there with his family. In his past life he made sure to prepare a good life with a good family for the Eternal Life that is to come. The Mormon family will, like the pioneers, venture out into the universe setting up homesteads on far-flung planets & cultivate them as God did our planet. Upon the resurrection on Earth many will not immediately know what to do for they were not Christians. But the Mormon will know exactly what to do for it is a part of their religion. Indeed the Mormon vision has the farthest sight of any religion I know. The future, the vast future, is theirs.

What I have outlined here I have not outlined in exact terms. Presently it can only be communicated in metaphorical language for the scientific actuality of such things is not yet here. This is how humanity comes to understand its destiny. Religion foresees & creates the future by providing a spiritual, metaphorical language to then abstract potentials that become material realities. Mormon prophecies are the latest revelation of a divine lexicon for alchemical union of Heaven and Earth. Our task is to refine this lexicon, for in the Mormon revelation is impurity to be sifted out. This process will concretize what is mystical.

I'm probably eventually going to commit suicide around age 50-60. Will I go to hell? serious question

>>19759551
I would think so. It depends, what would your reason for suicide be?

>>19759551
Stick it out to the end, be he who overcomes.

>>19759012
Ah, the cornered ortholarpie
Rather than respond to any of the legitimate points raise about his schismatic and highly corrupt church, he says "it's insignificant".
>those multiple modern schisms aren't real schisms because ... they just aren't!
>he doesn't know the history of his own disharmonious "communion"(s)

Ortholarpers like to pretend the Church they schismed from is the real schismatic, but just look at Orthodox history - complete breakdown in inter-communion, constant schisms even up until 2020 (last year!), no unity, multiple rival patriarchies establishing different "jurisdictions" which have no intercommunion (ROCOR, OCA, Greek jurisdictions etc.), not to mention the schisms in China, Moldova, Asia, Ukraine, the Balkans etc.

The history of the orthodox church is a history of a church rent apart by division because they illicitly rejected papal authority, and you see the result today. In fact, the collapse of the Byzantines and the modern spread of Islam is directly attributable to the post-Schism weakness of the orthodox.

Does this sound like the church which is "the foundation" to you? A church that has an entire history of constant splintering even though they hold to the same beliefs? OF course, I'm sure you'll call me a deep state agent again but listen zoomie, at least keep your LARPing to yourself and don't shit up the thread.

>>19759198
you're right, to attack the papal authority is to attack Jesus' own pronouncement.

>>19759545
Where do the ward potlucks and basketball courts filled with folding chairs fit in?

>>19759335
Show me where the Ishtar touched you

>>19759576
God knew we were made to ball

>>19759545
Joseph Smith was the ultimate larper.
The "Jesus in Mexico" theory is all you need to read about to dismiss mormonism. Mormonism is a larp that got wildly out of hand. However, it is quite amusing and interesting to read about, I'll give you that. Plus Mormons have some great architecture.

>>19759551
Why?

>>19759565
>>19759564
there is no overcoming the decline of age. I'd like to die by my own means, not become more weak and sick and lose my independence and dignity. I simply do not want to become an old man. Will God forgive me?

>>19759591
>Amen amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst girde thy self, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall girde thee, and lead thee whither thou wilt not.

John 21:18

>>19759591
You overcome not wanting to become an old man. Old age is all part of God's design for us, it all holds crucial meaning.

>>19759612
did my favorite authors all go to hell too, then? surely god is merciful

>>19759628
Don't make idols of authors. Following in the footsteps of fools is well covered in the Proverbs.

>>19759576
>>19759584
I’m not Mormon & have major disagreements with parts of Mormonism. Though other parts of Mormonism I find very prophetic. I’ve just been reading a lot of Mormon stuff lately. The LDS church has this thing where you can call them & request missionaries to come to your house. I’ll probably do that & chat with them about what fascinates me about their religion. I’ll also grab the Book of Mormon & their other scriptures from them, I assume they freely give them, to dive deeper.

The fake US history stuff & the polygamy of the early church are some of its bad parts. They hindered what could’ve been a great Christian revival.

>>19759628
"And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. " Matthew 10:22
"Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. " Revelation 2:10

Suicide is unacceptable for believing Christians. You plan to commit suicide, not even out of despair, but because you don't want to experience the pains and discomforts of old age, when you know that Christ expects those who follow Him to bear their crosses faithfully til their last breaths.
God is merciful - one thief who was crucified was saved.
But the other thief was not.

>>19759656
The BoM isn't super interesting unless you accept some of the fundamental claims of the LDS church. A lot of it is essentially a retelling of the KJV, and the historical parts of it have a lot of anachronisms that don't make sense when compared with archaeological findings in America.
The really out-there stuff is in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, which are a record of revelations supposedly given to church authorities and a "retranslation" of some books of the Old Testament, with some colorful additions to support LDS theology, respectively. Look up Kolob, or D&C Official Declarations 1 and 2, or the Adam-God doctrine sometime.

>>19759656
What is interesting about Mormonism specifically?

>>19759723
It's Gnosticism but flipped on its head, so the material world is all that exists.

>>19759591
>there is no overcoming the decline of age.
Falling into this Spenglerian determinism is the deceit of Satan. Satan is a tragic determinist while the comedy of Christ overcomes all determinism. Therefore submission to the “decline of age” is submission to the God of this world. Such an act imperils your immortal soul for Hell. Whether that’s where you go is for the judgment of God, not me, & that judgment will be made with the context of the rest of your life.

Of course God will be willing to forgive you but will you be able to accept that forgiveness? Or will you commit that unpardonable sin— denial of that spirit of salvation the Holy Ghost? When one lets in sin one recedes from God a chooses to resign themselves to Hell because the truth of God to them is too bright.

Remember that Christ can overcome all. Deepen your relationship to him and you will better know this.

>>19759723
Plus the Christus Consolator statue

>>19759723
Joseph Smith getting killed in a shootout.

>>19759628
>did my favorite authors all go to hell too, then?
They may have, only God knows. I for one am unsure if in the Last Judgment God will harrow hell & there will be a universal salvation or the souls who have resigned themselves to oblivion will be permitted stay there, for if they don’t want to be saved what for them can be done? But would not the light of Christ burn strong enough to save all?

>>19759691
Oh yea I know all about these things, I’ve been diving into Mormonism the past few weeks. While what I’ve read from the BoM is pretty dull, it’s significance lies in the religious imagination’s attempt to root itself in a foreign & undeveloped land.

>>19758991
The new JBS Interconfessional Version or the old New Interconfessional Translation?

>>19759723
Said most generally it’s their modern apocalypticism. Which the church today tries to sterilize but Smith was adamant about. Same with Christ’s apocalypticism and the church’s subsequent distancing from to lessen Christ’s radical message. LDS apocalypticism recovered old weird Hebraic stuff as well as incorporating in the recently opened reaches of space. It’s resulted in stuff like Mormon transhumanism as propounded by this guy: https://lincoln.metacannon.net/

This strain of thought I’ve been mining of “immanentizing the eschaton” is in other authors such as Nikolai Fyodorov & Frank Tipler. Contrary to what most here would believe, I do not think this heretical, but rather it is the true radical apocalypticism of Christ. Or perhaps it is heretical in the same sense Christ was heretical in the eyes of his day’s priesthood.

You fags still larping?

>>19759772
watch out, you'll summon the angry Protestant dude with that (logical) talk.

>>19759882
Sounds like you would enjoy Teilhard de Chardin.

>>19760010
Yes, I downloaded a pdf of The Phenomenon of Man a couple hours ago

KJV
J
V

>>19760024
Nice. Everything you're interested in about Mormonism is also present in depth in Catholic thought too, just so you know (though it's on the margins and it's really not well known to the average Catholic or Christian)
Ilia Delio is another author to check out if you're into the Cosmic Christ vein of thought.
Also some of von Balthasar's stuff like Heart of the World.

>>19760044
>Catholicism has those things you like about Mormonism
Who would have guessed that heretical cults have so much in common.

>>19760044
Is this stuff similar to Maximos the Confessor's cosmic vision of Christ?

>>19760058
You do realize St. Ireneaus speaks about the Cosmic Christ in the 2nd century right?
Rev. 21:5
>Watch me create everything all over again.
That's Christogenesis bro.

>>19760071
I am not familiar with the Maximos much.
But I think his ideas are similar to Sr. Delio's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFhK_LdjqBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yk-a66swN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZD-OFJi7Cc

>>19760104
I don't see how what some dude named Irenaeus spoke about matters regardless of when it was, but I will grant that I am enjoying listening to this strange ET looking woman and will probably play many hours of her in the background because the material is densely packed and stimulating.

>>19758607
This person says I am going to die soon and I rejected God by getting the shot, that I can't be saved.

https://rumble.com/vhi4n5-proof-that-jesus-christ-is-against-vaccination.html

>>19760369
to be fair all of /pol/ is saying that, and their persuasion is quite convincing.

>>19760379
I feel terrible about it but I deserve it.

>>19758600
I took it way on back and am fine.

>>19760369
Not putting your family through dying prematurely and pointlessly by getting a shot is not rejecting God.

>>19760414
Injecting yourself with poison when you aren't sick to get sick so you can get sick again later but worse is rejecting God if you think about it. It's twisted in that sense and you don't trust God to take care of you by naturally getting sick, you're so afraid of dying and want to live in this world so badly, so you hand yourself over to the experimental mRNA program. Or if you don't believe like that anyways but you take it because the evil ones mandated it, you care more about your job and education than trusting God. That's how I see it at least. What do you think?

>>19760458
Why would they force the military to take it and even take it themselves if it caused premature death?

>>19760458
I think my son needs his dad.

>>19759551
That's prime age for dying from your bad habits (drinking, smoking, etc.). Long term suicide is too murky so they usually just let you in.

Read anything edifying today /lit/?

>>19760476
I don't know why they would do that. Do you disagree with what I said and if you do, what is your reasoning?

>>19760476
not him but I don't personally think it causes death or is designed to kill anyone or anything, rather that it simply doesn't work (which is undeniable looking at the data and is also basically admitted to by the CDC and pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them)
The virus isn't deadly to the majority of people under 65, especially the new variant which is significantly less deadly than the older ones, overwhelming majority of people who died of covid had four or more unrelated comorbidities
and the vaccine is experimental, and the companies that produce them have no liability for negative effects
so its really a why risk getting it situation when, while I don't think it was designed to kill everyone, there are a very large number of people who experience negative effects, to prevent a virus that isn't dangerous to me, when the vaccine doesn't even prevent me from getting sick or spreading the virus anyways

>>19760498
I don't like vaccines, but I'm a scaredy cat coward who's never liked getting sick, even with colds. My reasoning is that if the wealthy and powerful are taking it, the worst that can happen is that I sink with them and go to God.

>>19760513
Would you believe me if I said the wealthy and powerful aren't taking it and all the public vaccinations were fake and for show? Because that is what I believe.

>>19760458
Why are you going to the store to get food instead of just trusting God to bring it?

>>19760479
You are significantly more likely to die in a car accident on your way to the clinic to get your 8th booster than you are to die of Covid

>>19760532
Yeah? Tell that to my son's girlfriend who lost her mother, who is younger than myself, to it.

>>19760535
Nice anecdote but that doesn't dispute what I said at all

>>19760528
I don't see the equivalence with poisoning yourself with toxic chemicals for no reason and eating nutritious food for sustenance.

>>19760520
I would believe you but i already took it so I'm going to think that they took it.

>>19760539
OK, feel free to be a retard then. If someone doesn't take the jab that's their business, but once you've done it there's not much more retarded than ruining your life with hypothetical regrets instead of just letting the shot either kill you like you fear, or nothing happening, which is by far the most likely result.

>>19760563
>don't get the shot
>get sick
>be able to spread it to other people
>99.9% chance you get over it without issue if you're under 65 and not obese
>0 chance of vaccine related negative effects
>get the shot
>get sick anyways
>be able to spread it to other people anyways
>99.9% chance you get over it without issue if you're under 65 and not obese
>small chance of vaccine related negative effects

>>19760571
>get the shot
>worry about having gotten the shot
>nothing bad happens from the shot
>worry causes schizo breakdown

I hope God forgives us for taking the covid vaccine bros...

>>19760594
If God forgives Catholics and Orthodox for praying to "Mary" He'll let this slide, I'm sure.

And BTW, I got the Omicron and it was no joke, worse than any flu I've ever had. I sure was grateful for my 2 jabs, figuring without them it would have been a lot worse. My wife, also 2 jabs, was worse than myself and for longer. It hits everyone differently, there's no predicting.

>>19760618
your jabs don't work against omnicron, according to the cdc and vaccine manufacturers themselves

>>19760625
Citation needed, everything I've seen says it doesn't prevent infection but lessens the severity.

>>19760618
>And BTW, I got the Omicron and it was no joke, worse than any flu I've ever had.
It was barely a cold.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk
"Results from fitted regression slopes (p<0.05 FDR corrected) suggest a US national average VFR of 0.04% and higher VFR with age (VFR=0.004% in ages 0-17 increasing to 0.06% in ages >75 years), and 146K to 187K vaccine-associated US deaths between February and August, 2021. Notably, adult vaccination increased ulterior mortality of unvaccinated young (<18, US; <15, Europe). Comparing our estimate with the CDC-reported VFR (0.002%) suggests VAERS deaths are underreported by a factor of 20, consistent with known VAERS under-ascertainment bias. Comparing our age-stratified VFRs with published age-stratified coronavirus infection fatality rates (IFR) suggests the risks of COVID vaccines and boosters outweigh the benefits in children, young adults, and older adults with low occupational risk or previous coronavirus exposure. Our findings raise important questions about current COVID mass vaccination strategies and warrant further investigation and review. "

From Columbia University

>>19760649
pffff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF88ZhIuw6w

>>19758043
books for making personal sacrifices, living for the kingdom of God, accepting that my life on earth will never be a happy one? i am in agony

>>19760719
Matthew 23:13

>>19760720
The Bible.

>>19760720
The Bible.

>>19760730
>>19760743
ok thanks

>>19760720
The Holy Bible.

>>19760720
The life of Saint Antony by Athanasius

Do you leave the ribbon(s) hanging out of the Bible or tuck them back in like how they usually come when initially sold?

>>19761058
Leave hanging. If i'm being particularly daring i use it to bookmark two pages

>>19761058
I have cats and dogs so I use it to bookmark the page incase they try to pull it.

>God, the Logos, the Christ, comes to Earth.
>The ministry of God is short, the records we have of it also short.
>Main points are to love God and love each other (e.g. Mathew 22).
>Second most common point is to not get hung up on dogma and doctrine. "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" The focus is on the spirit, not on dogmatism and formula. He explicitly says not to do as the scribes, which is essentially to put the law above loving each other (Matthew 23).
>Almost every sect makes the foundation of their religion a systematic theology, a code of laws and tries to teach everyone to follow these laws. The laws also govern how God will act, and how he rewards people.
>Then the sects fight over whose laws are right or whose books of the Bible are right (Jesus came and wrote nothing, proclaimed no Canon, proclaimed no systematic theology).

It's very sad.

I am guilty too. As a history hobbiest, I am particularly susceptible to getting irked by misrepresentations of historical evidence, although the most common shortfall on all sides is to declare that there is strong evidence for X or Y, when if fact we have been bequeathed inconclusive evidence. Same goes for commentary on passages definitely meaning X or Y, when in fact there is widespread disagreement. But I pray to not get irked. I think we have lack of certainty for a reason. We aren't supposed to be certain, we're supposed to love.

Churches shouldn't attack each other. Why do we have so little faith in the Spirit that we think someone will try to come to Christ, but man's various doctrines will keep them away?

Should I read the KJV or something else?

Jay Dyer is very well read and intelligent.
Catholics try to say he's dumb just because he does silly meme humor or whatever.
When he is discussing serious issues he clearly knows what he is talking about.

Why do people call white American westerners larpers if they convert to Orthodoxy? Why is that a larp if it is what you genuinely believe to be the truth? Why are you pretending that you have to have Orthodox ancestry?

https://youtu.be/4MZErPk3_MU

>>19761950
>"""V"""
KJB instead.

Catholics and Protestants always like to point out the KGB influence in the Russian church, and yet conveniently ignore the CIA, Tavistock, and Freemason influence in the Vatican and in many American evangelical churches!

>>19762150
Wrong, the Vatican has had times of being worse than the CIA, KGB, etc., all on their own, so there's simply no need.

>>19760369
>pastor
you can safely disregard anything a "pastor" says
>>19760379
>radical KJV-only schizo prots are /pol/ posters
shocking!
>>19760458
how do you know God doesn't want you to take the vaccine and trust that you'll be fine?
>>19760535
>>19760618
I got delta and I'm a young guy, not fat or unhealthy, and it was really rough. Was sick for about a month.
>>19760720
He Leadeth Me
With God in Russia
>>19761685
God is intelligible. We are able to derive principles, laws and dictums from the scriptures and the traditions of the Apostolic Fathers. You forget the part where Jesus establishes sacramental ministries, or the ministerial priesthood. Those can't just be fulfilled by "well just be nice to each other and it's all good!". Jesus established a Church, he appointed a lineage, and the institutional Church is the direct heir of that lineage.
>>19761950
Do you have experience with the bible? are you christian? the answer depends on those questions. If you dive into the KJV from scratch you'll be discouraged forever.
>>19762087
1. Avatarfagging is against the rules
2. Join the church of Dyer then
3. go back to discord zoomzoom
>>19762105
it's a larp because
see >>19758310 and >>19758179 and >>19758632 and >>19758872
>>19762150
>>19762158
The difference is that the KBG/state influence in orthodoxy can't even be denied by the orthodox themselves, while the "tavistock" influence in the Vatican is held to by no one except Pastor Billy Boy in the Freewill Calvinist Independent Fundamentalist Super KJV-only Baptist "church".

>>19762327
Mass replying is a sin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkbvNgybN8Q

I think it is very clear that the covid "vaccine" is a preparation for the mark of the beast and I shall not be getting it.
Many Orthodox people have said this including priests.

Which version of Ecclesiastes is your favorite?

>>19762327
>it's a larp because
You didn't answer the question at all. You only repeated what has been called into question.
If a westerner genuinely believes that Orthodoxy is the truth, then how is it a larp

>Dyer has changed his religion at least five times, including from Christianity around 2010 and a repudiation of Eastern ‘Orthodoxy’ after having embraced it the first time.

>He embraced various non-Christian religions to some extent, including the Kabbalah, Esotericism, Perennialism, etc. Dyer also publicly argued against the Incarnation and the Trinity after having spent many years involved with what he deemed to be Christianity.

>Dyer completely contradicts himself on whether the ‘uncreated energies’ are the divine nature (his core position), demonstrating that he has no idea what he’s talking about and that he makes it up as he goes along.

>When cornered, Dyer says that “God transcends such logical categories” to argue that contradictions in his position don’t matter, which means that God’s reality can be contrary to the law of non-contradiction.

>Dyer argues that God’s energy can be both one and many in the same respect. That’s literally nonsense. Nothing can be both one and many in the same respect, but only in different respects.

>Dyer publicly endorses a video that calls the Son and the Holy Spirit ‘accidents’, which is modalism (denying that they are true hypostases).

>Dyer argues that knowing that a council is true comes down to each individual person “knowing God” – which is akin to sola scriptura subjectivism. This is also the official 'orthodox' position.

>>19762327
The retarded shitposter is here

>>19762345
Science is a gift from God. The vaccine is not perfect but it does protect against severe illness. Yes, mandates are tyrannical but to use words like you don't understand like "mark of the beast" betrays your simplistic, uneducated fundamentalist baptist background.
>>19762356
Orthodox like to pretend the Church they schismed from is the real schismatic, but just look at Orthodox history - complete breakdown in inter-communion, constant schisms even up until 2020 (last year!), no unity, multiple rival patriarchies establishing different "jurisdictions" which have no intercommunion (ROCOR, OCA, Greek jurisdictions etc.), not to mention the schisms in China, Moldova, Asia, Ukraine, the Balkans etc.

The history of the orthodox church is a history of a church rent apart by division because they illicitly rejected papal authority, and you see the result today. In fact, the collapse of the Byzantines and the modern spread of Islam is directly attributable to the post-Schism weakness of the orthodox.

Does this sound like the church which is "the foundation" to you? A church that has an entire history of constant splintering even though they hold to the same beliefs? Of course, I'm sure you'll call me a deep state agent again but at least keep your LARPing to yourself.

Catholics get so mad at Jay.
>He changed his religion a lot!!!
Yeah because he was searching for the truth. He has been in Orthodoxy for many years now.
Why do they insist on attacking him?
How come you don't say that western Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are larpers?

>>19762381
>if you don't support that the KJV descended from heaven into a 17th century translation committee room, y-you're r-retarded!

>>19762397
The retard can only make up things like this that no one has said, let us pray for him and his delusions.

>>19762393
Respond to any of these valid points, larpie
>>19762372

And yes, western "converts" to hinduism, buddhism, etc are also larpers. Same with "radtrad" zoomzoom catholics who support latin-only masses.

>>19762390
The filioque and absolute divine simplicity make no sense. Theistic evolution makes no sense.
On the other hand, the essence energy distinction makes sense. A literal view of creation makes sense.

>>19762409
>unironically defending neoplatonic gnostic palamism about "energies" and essences"

oh nononononono! that's aerial tool booth level.

>>19762409
>theistic evolution
"days" doesn't mean literal day, zoomzoom. how can it be a literal day if the sun wasn't created until "day" four? day = aeon. we are still in the aeon of creation since god acts outside of time.

read teilhard de chardin.

>>19762436
The whole world goes by a seven day week just like creation you papalist evolutionist pervert.

St. Augustine, The City of God:
Chapter 10.—Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past.
They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
(Footnote: Augustin here follows the chronology of Eusebius, who reckons 5611 years from the Creation to the taking of Rome by the Goths; adopting the Septuagint version of the Patriarchal ages.)

>>19762409
>absolute divine simplicity
how could God have "parts"? he is outside the realm of matter. there cannot be "essential" divisions of God's being. God's essence is literally inexpressible. And incarnated properties =/= expressions of being itself. it's a very coherent and simple doctrine.

>>19762462
Augustine is wrong here. The Church does not endorse literal creationism, at all. Maybe omphalos hypothesis but the official position is teleological evolution.
>b-but when was the soul "infused"
The first cavemen neanderthals who looked up to heaven and called on a god - that was the beginning of the "adam and eve" saga.

Science and religion can't contradict, zoomzoom. God created both.

Oh no no no no no!!!
https://youtu.be/ZJKD6M9VUuU
https://youtu.be/3Fd3k3IlamU
https://youtu.be/Xp-9rUiO37w
https://youtu.be/pzv-hPzPYYI

>>19762481
I don't care at all what your "church" endorses.

>>19762481
You are implying that death existed before the fall which is impossible and wrong!
Evolution is a Luciferian myth promoted by the global elite.

>>19762327
(You) just quoted me 3 times with responses in agreement, and I'm KJB only who rarely ever goes to /pol/ (sometimes to check on certain happenings).

>>19762482
>https://youtu.be/pzv-hPzPYYI
Saw this one. I agree with the Orthodox commenter that said Horn creamed Dyer because Dyer was incomprehensible.

>>19762596
Well I disagree entirely!!

Jay Dyer makes about 30 seconds of actual point per hour of talking.

>>19762602
>I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian getting his PhD in philosophy. Horn won this debate. And I think Dyer needs to re-read Kripke et. al. on rigid designation and definite descriptions. A lot of silly stuff said in this debate. Natural theology is rad, and has a rich history in our EO tradition.

>>19762619
don't care
Horn kept repeating the same things that Jay had already refuted

>>19762624
And Jay was so undisciplined that he tried to interrupt a closing statement lol

>>19762616
This is very much not true. I have listened to many hours of his videos and he is always making good points. The only exception I might make is I think sometimes he gets too riled up at those Catholic trolls who are always attacking him and he spends too much time on that. But I understand. It is natural to want to defend yourself when liars are slandering you.

>>19762482
>>19762624
>>19762639
Guys, Jay's here. Say hi to him.

>>19759723
They've socially metastisized capitalism better than any other ethnoreligious group, including Jews and Han Chinese

>jay diaper

>>19762639
He spends more time trying to get his gay hair swoop to stay where he wants it than he does making worthwhile points.

>>19762639
listen to something worthwhile at least like ancient faith radio. dyer is JBP or Roosh or Nick Fuentes tier

>>19762765
>ancient faith radio.
They are subversive liberals who support lgbt garbage and the vaccine. I have no interest in them.
>JBP
Jay is way smarter and has made some very good critiques of him.

>>19762644
>>19762713
>>19762733
Don't think I haven't noticed that you have failed to respond to any of the arguments Jay makes on why the Roman Catholic church is wrong.

>>19760720
Imitation of Christ

>>19762348
Knox
>Go thy ways, then, eat thy bread with a stout heart, and drink wine to thy contenting; that done, God asks no more of thee.
>Ever be thy garments of white, ever let thy brow glisten with oil;
>live at ease with the wife that is thy heart’s love, long as this uncertain life is granted thee; fugitive days, here beneath the sun. Live thou and labour thou under the sun as thou wilt, this thy portion shall be, and nothing more.
>Whatever lies in thy power, do while do it thou canst; there will be no doing, no scheming, no wisdom or skill left to thee in the grave, that soon shall be thy home.

>>19762790
>Don't think I haven't noticed that you have failed to respond to any of the arguments Jay makes on why the Roman Catholic church is wrong.
You already posted the video from Trent where that already happened, so there's nothing to add.

Here Jay makes good critiques of both Sam Harris's atheism and Jordan Peterson's wishy washy, new agey, psychological pseudo-spiritualism.
https://youtu.be/PjQh8ij4R4o

Anyone try the Ancient Faith Study Bible. It's a Bible with assorted commentary from the Church Fathers. I've heard mixed things about the CSB translation it uses, but mostly good.

The downsides I've heard is that it excludes viewpoints contrary to Evangelical Protestant viewpoints and doesn't include the books not in the Masoretic text. But apparently it's still the best Bible with Church Father commentary right in it.

My other option is the Oxford Study Bible. Reason I want one or the other is that I have been using my phone to look up questions I have, but it distracts me. I also get too much commentary on Biblehub and go down rabbit holes.

I also prefer my guide to be upfront about alternative views, and not biased in history. So maybe the Oxford is the way to go?

I thought of getting the other on Kindle, but are notes frustrating to read there. I see there is also 28,000 pages of the Church Fathers for $3, but then it's like having information overload. I'd like to see commentary by verse without having to sift through all that.

Or is a software maybe what I'm looking for? I did just get a tablet for graphic novel reading. I could use that. Is there a digital collection of old church commentaries? It would be cool if something had old Jewish commentaries too, Maimonides, etc. I have the Stone Tanakh and it has interesting takes at times.

I could get both, I just have a shortage of book space.

>>19762790
Why would I concern myself with that? I could make my own videos on "why the Roman Catholic church is wrong". And not one second of it would feature concern for my hair or "look at all muh books".

>>19762826
>Anyone try the Ancient Faith Study Bible.
It's a poor man's abridgment of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series. If you can't afford the books in that series, then the AFSB is serviceable, while taking into account the fact that the quotes are truncated and a few times actually taken out of context due to the abridgment. Doesn't help that the CSB uses a very MT-based OT whereas all of the AFSB commentaries are quoting the LXX.

>>19762393
They only think that staying in the religion you were born is not larping, i.e. muslims should stay muslim and hindus hindu.
Thinking deeply about religion from a Catholic perspective is a huge no no you see.

>>19762826
Navarre bible one volume sets. Yes it's expensive but it has extensive commentary from the fathers, includes the full canon, and is faithful but academic.

It's also up front about being a Catholic commentary, unlike Protestant study versions which often try to appear ecumenical or don't state their editorial bias.

>>19762853
Oh, this reminds me.
>>19760104
>>19760221
I did indeed listen to maybe 2 hours of this...woman? And I can only assume that her ilk is exactly type that caused Paul to instruct for women to keep quiet. She is trying to coat New Age with a bit of Christian outward shell. She even tries to claim that the new wine in new skins means that the church needs to evolve into modern understandings of everything. Apparently "she" is a Franciscan nun. Every time I hear things from Catholic "orders" it sounds utterly Babylonian.

>>19761950
It's the best English version if you can read it.

>>19762892
>best
*sole

Half of presuppositionalism is biblical inerrancy. The other half of presuppositionalism is German idealism (and you're a liar if you say it is not.) And so the German idealist question arises: How does the presuppositionalist know the noumenon of the Bible from the phenomenon of the Bible?

Hey guys! Dutchposter Anon here. I know you like to argue, but I think that God would like you guys to get along.

>>19762914
That sure is an unnecessarily complex method of announcing to us that (You) are a faggot, which we already knew.

>>19762914
>The other half of presuppositionalism is German idealism
I don't have any clue what that would even mean.

>>19762482
Trent Horn is an actual academic, unlike Jay Larper.
>>19762488
>screw tradition and logic!
thank you for making your position clear
>>19762489
>Luciferian myth
>global elite
Baptists, everyone!
"Flood geology" is discredit, the Ark Encounter is not history, and belief in a 6000 year old Earth only makes all Christians look like idiots by proxy. The 6000 year old earth hypothesis is undefendable, period.

Scripture contains the truth necessary for salvation, not the literal truth. Do you really think a talking serpent existed 6000 years ago?
>>19762543
the only acceptable KJV-only position is for aesthetic reasons (maybe) - even then the original DR is superior of course.
>>19762639
Please spend your time listening to something with substance, zoomie
>>19762782
>he criticizes the own patriarchs of his denomination
so you're the ortholarper equivalent of radtrad extraordinary-form only zoomies. good to establish.
>>19762900
you're an embarrassment to all other christans. please go sacrifice to moloch or whatever you idolators do
>>19762873
nope, there's a difference between actual conversion and meme trend hopping because you grew out of your edgy /pol/ phase. id bet 100% of the ortholarp posters here weren't even born into the church.

>>19762958
He is trying to say that Kant's transcendental arguments are the same as the transcendental argument for God.

>>19762968
really awful post

>>19762970
Yeah, that loses me. I don't read any secular philosophy at all.

>>19762968
You STILL have not made an argument for how death would supposedly exist before the fall. You are saying that God created death, that it was not a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin.
You are saying that God created a flawed, imperfect world. You are a GNOSTIC!!!

>>19762826
The CSB is a very evangelical translation and is purposefully unclear about the translation philosophy ("dynamic literal equivalence").

The Oxford/Harper commentaries are good if you're really interested in in-depth historical-critical commentary. If you get distracted by commentary it might be a bit much though.

Look into Haydock's commentary. It's very Catholic, yes, but includes Church Father commentary a good bit. Narvarre is another good choice.

I have the massive 2000-page International Bible Commentary. It's ecumenical, theological yet historical, includes commentary from a historical faith perspective, and goes paragraph by paragraph with great supportive essays. It's worth the $80 investment imo.

>>19763001
Well he is wrong anyway. Kantianism is not the same as the transcendental argument for God.

>>19762886
Imagine mocking the monastic tradition as "modern" when it started in the 3rd century AD. Shows you how historically illiterate Protestants are.

>>19762892
It's really not. The only reason it gets pushed here is the edgy "muh old words". It's textually inaccurate and obsolete. Pick up an RSV if you want a balance between traditional renderings and accuracy.

Catholics are very hateful.

>>19762914
>presuppositionalist
Natural law apologetics is the best form of apologetics because it's actually valid and not self-referential.

>>19763043
You have already been proven wrong!

>edgy edgy edgy
>larp larp larp
>meme meme meme
Catholics are the most awful posters.

>>19762984
>>19763036
nice arguments, as usual. insults don't cover up how you built your house on sand.
>>19763002
The Genesis creation narrative is a myth. It provides truths about the nature of humanity. It's not literal history. It was assembled from multiple sources, derived from the Enuma Elish, and it typical of polytheistic Near East creation and "flood" myths.
If you believe the world is 6000 years old, and at one point only two people existed, and there was a magical talking snake, I don't know what to tell you.
You know it's possible to read the Bible without looking like a literalist clown?

Look into the four senses of Scripture. Even the early Church Fathers understood Genesis expressed metaphorical truths about humanity and its relationship to God.

But go ahead, keep digging for the ark in Turkey or whatever else evangelicals waste their money and time on.

>>19763027
It is more accurate than nu-English versions. I don't know what you mean when you say obsolete... what do the nu versions do that obsolete the KJV?

>>19763055
Please, explain why without calling me a satantic NWO CIA deep state jehovah's witness Tavistock luciferian, as you usually do.

Use big boy arguments, I know you can do it!

>>19763080
>Even the early Church Fathers understood Genesis expressed metaphorical truths about humanity and its relationship to God.
They also believed it was a literal historical document. See for example Basil's Hexaemeron which is a book about how the six literal days of creation occurred. The Byzantine Empire also calculated the current year from the date of creation.

>>19763080
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
YOU ARE TELLING SATANIC LIES!
SCRIPTURE IS BOTH LITERAL AND SYMBOLIC!
https://youtu.be/c1qAYAE_8ps

>>19763081
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769?
2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible?
3. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
4. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
5. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates.
6. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
7. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
8. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
9. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

>>19763081
10. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
11. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
12. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate?
13. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
14. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
15. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
16. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
17. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

>>19763081
18. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
19. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
20. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
21. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
22. Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
23. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
24. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."
25. Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

>>19763081
26. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8?
27. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"?
28. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"?
29. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611?
30. What copy or translation of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? Does this mean if the Reformation is illegitimate, if they didn't have the KJV? What if the KJV is a product of the Reformation? Wouldn't that make the KJV itself illegitimate?

>>19763121
Can you please just answer the question pointedly instead of blindly copy-pasting a huge wall of text like a robot that doesn't address the question succinctly? I won't read all that.

The question specifically is: what do the nu versions do that obsolete the KJV?

>>19763141
The most practical thing would be using modern English, so you don't run into discrepancies where words have changed meaning over time. I would not say the KJV is "obsolete" though, just that it is harder to read and this may obscure one's understanding.

>>19763092
We now know it is not a literal historical document due to advances in science, astronomy, archeology, biology, geology, and cosmology. They did not have access to this information, but even they were able to see, like modern Protestants are not, that Genesis was of value primarily for its metaphorical expressions of truths about God and humanity.

Of course, the modern Church Fathers in the Catholic church rightly recognize Genesis as metaphor and not literal history.

>>19763098
>jay diaper
You don't post in good faith, animeposter, but I'll respond anyway.

St. Gregory the Great on the phenomenon of multiple senses in the Bible: “Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery.The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification, of primary importance".

A medieval couplet which summarizes these four senses goes : Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. (The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; the Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny)

Discernment shows where and when to apply the senses. Genesis obviously speaks anagoglicallly.

>The advantages to the study of the quadriga, as this classical fourfold interpretation is called, are manifold. First, it is traditional. St. Thomas and other scholastics, along with such later scholars of renown as Cornelius A Lapide used it all the time. Its use by such approved authors makes it safe. Second, it reconciles what is the best from schools which were often at variance. In the patristic era, Antioch and Alexandria were often at each others’ throats. The Antiochene authors specialized in the literal sense, often to the deprecation of the other senses, whereas the Alexandrian authors could advance spiritual meanings at the expense of the literal. In reconciling the two the way St. Thomas did, we get the best of both worlds and avoid the confusion of the Orthodox. More than this, studying Scripture according to the quadriga keeps the text living for us, preventing it from dying on the dissecting tables of historical critical scholars who see the sacred page as something to parse, reconstruct, cross reference with pagan fables, check for errors, and otherwise cut up as an historical cadaver.

>The fourfold interpretation helps us draw out dogmatic, moral, ascetical, and mystical theology directly from the inspired text, using the analogy of faith, instead of isolating the Scriptures as the subject of a specialty distinct from the rest of theology and Christian life

>>19763162
>We now know it is not a literal historical document due to advances in science, astronomy, archeology, biology, geology, and cosmology.
This is not a tenable viewpoint as it means the text could not actually be understood until the modern era. The audience is not you, but the Jews and then all Christians throughout history. You are actually engaging in what you accuse Protestants of, by saying that everyone misunderstood the text until thousands of years later.

Let me tell you what is really ironic here. Earlier some Catholic said that Jay Dyer is "JBP tier" even though Jay has refuted Peterson many times.
And now these Catholics are saying that Genesis isn't literal history, it's a myth, it's a "powerful psychological truth about the human condition" blah blah blah. Now who does that sound like to you? Those are LITERALLY Jordan Peterson arguments.

>>19763172
>The audience is not only* you
Left out a word

>>19763134
>won't admit the KJV itself has textual errors, is based on outdated manuscripts, and is impossible for the modern reader to understand.

if you actually read what I posted (which you won't, because you don't argue in good faith), you would see in MULTIPLE places the KJV has *actual* textual errors, both in substance and in grammar. It is not the accurate Word of God.

Translation methodology and archeology have unveiled older source texts, better understandings of the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words, and more accurate renderings. The KJV had its place, but it's time to move on.

There are Christians who believe the science of evolution and big bang theory over Genesis?

>>19763141
NRSV, NABRE, REB, NETS, Alter, to name a few.

>>19763162
>the "We now know" argument
Catholics talk exactly like atheists.

>>19763179
Can you post the textual errors and then show how the nu-versions correct them? And are the nu-versions based on the same manuscripts, or are you arguing that different manuscripts say different things so the KJV is inaccurate?

>>19763172
Scripture has always contained the truths necessary for salvation. There is no truth necessary for salvation in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

>>19763203
Irrelevant. You are claiming that the text could not be properly understood by anyone until the modern period. This is nonsense.

>>19763203
If you want to be honest you should simply say that you don't believe the Bible is inspired and that you believe Genesis is wrong. You're a theological liberal like all good modern Catholics so should just own it instead of beating around the bush.

>>19763182
>big bang theory
That theory was conceived by a priest and initially rejected by atheists who thought it sounded too much like Gen 1:3. In fact, the term "big bang" was created as an insult by atheists mocking Christians who thought the universe came into being in a "big bang" by God.

>>19763202
I posted numerous instances of them here. Please read this and then I'll belief you're posting in good faith.
>>19763100
>>19763112
>>19763116
>>19763121
>are you arguing that different manuscripts say different things
it's obvious you know very little about textual history, the schools of texts, or translation methodology.
The TR, which the KJV was translated from, was the best available textual base at that time in the original languages.
In the 600 years since then, we have discovered physical texts which are older than the texts used to translate the KJV (DSS, for example) and they show the TR renderings were AFTER the original manuscripts and are inaccurate (ie, the text was distorted over time).

Modern translations use these new oldest manuscripts and thus, quite literally, are more accurate.

>>19763226
>conceived by a priest
a Jesuit

>>19763182
>>19763200
>there are christians who believe in science
yes, there are Christians who know that God gifting us the rational power to use the scientific method is a wonderful gift.

Aka, there are Christians who are not reformed fundamentalist baptists who live in the southern and midwest USA. In fact, they're the majority of Christians!

>>19763173
>>19763173
>>19763173

The crux of the issue regarding evolution is that to affirm it, you have to believe that life developed through millions of years of suffering and death. That means suffering and death are an intentional and good part of the world and that God created it that way. Death is not the consequence of sin but how God originally created things to be. This overthrows the entire logic of Christianity. Why do we need to be saved from death when God created us and intended us to die?

>>19763237
Begone reddit!!!
>>19763242
I have said this over and over again and they ignore because they have no answer.

>>19763210
Scripture has always contained the truths necessary for salvation. There is no truth necessary for salvation in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
>>19763218
Genesis contains the truths necessary for salvation. The Eastern Fathers believed in multiple senses of scripture interpretation, they were wise. Why don't you? By what authority do you dismiss your tradition?

Btw, if anyone here can actually prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake, I'll admit you were right. Pro-tip: it's a myth. God gave us logical rationality for a reason. You are blasphemous to him by not using it.

>>19763237
>Aka, there are Christians who are not reformed fundamentalist baptists who live in the southern and midwest USA. In fact, they're the majority of Christians!
You are ignoring all the Orthodox Christians who rightly reject your Luciferian doctrine of evolution.

>>19763251
>The Eastern Fathers believed in multiple senses of scripture interpretation
They held to multiple senses without making them exclusive of each other. They read it allegorically while not denying that it was also literal. You are misrepresenting them.
>God gave us logical rationality for a reason. You are blasphemous to him by not using it.
From scripture we can use or reason to conclude that uniformitarianism is wrong. Due to the fall the world does not abide by the same physical laws that it did before the fall. We therefore cannot look at the current state of things and extrapolate backwards. Our dating methodologies for example are all wrong. We are cut off from this period at an epistemological level.

>>19763226
You know these scientific tales are all faith based, right? There isn't a scientist who was around for the beginning nor is there anyone who has lived long enough to witness dinosaurs and evolution of all creatures. It's called theory because it's tentative based on facts (evidence) they gathered and then they made up the story (theory) to fit the evidence so they can cope better. It says in the Bible in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Why do you feel the need to complicate things if you aren't a scientist trying to explain God out of everything without the Bible to make a new faith-based religion (cult of science)?

>>19763242
>science is reddit
you're blatantly retarded. no wonder you're a NEET who lives with his parents, is unbaptized, isn't even a Christian, watches anime, and can't leave the house, and can't drive (you yourself admitted all these things). Instead of watching Jay Larper, watch videos on how to stop wearing velcro shoes.
>>19763248
Genesis is not literal. Who says God created death? God teleologically created. Anyway, Jesus himself died. God himself didn't spare God from death and suffering. In fact, God is eternally dying and suffering and rising since he is outside of time. The nature of God is incarnational and redemptive suffering. Of course the imago dei would reflect that.

Catholic evolutionists present a false dialectic in which you can only believe either in a literal interpretation or a symbolic one. The correct view is both.

>>19763258
>Science is Luciferian
God created reason and the natural world too. You blaspheme, heretic.

>>19763289
>>19763294
You are false prophets! You say that lies are truth and truth is lies!

>>19763273
I noticed you conveniently ignored the points you can't argue against, as usual.

If anyone here can actually prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake, I'll admit you were right. Pro-tip: it's a myth. God gave us logical rationality for a reason. You are blasphemous to him by not using it.

>Scripture has always contained the truths necessary for salvation. There is no truth necessary for salvation in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

>>19763305
You keep saying the same things that have already been proven wrong.

>>19763288
Yes, God created by setting in motion the quantum fluctuations which led to the Big Bang.

God created science and religion both. They are not in conflict. You're dangerously close to blaspheming.

One thing these threads have convinced me of is that Catholicism is utterly false. I have reasons for rejecting Orthodoxy as well but I at least respect them for having a belief system that mostly makes sense and has a closer track to the history of the church.

Why does every Catholic priest look like a pervert

>>19763316
Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake, then I'll admit you were right. Pro-tip: it's a myth. God gave us logical rationality for a reason. You are blasphemous to him by not using it.

Go ahead. Prove it. I'm wrong, so it should be easy to prove! Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake.

Where's the ruins of the ark? How come we can carbon date rocks to millions of years old? How come we can see the paradox shifts of cosmic light lightyears away? Did God create this as an illusion? Why is God trying to trick us then? Is God a deceiver?

If you follow your logic, you must call God a deceiver, as scripture and history conflict. You are a blasphemer. Very sick stuff.

>>19763242
Excellent reasoning brother.

>>19763323
Learn to drive, NEETboy. Stop watching anime and porn by the way. Not very Christ-like of you, isn't it?

>>19763319
Nice argument as usual, prottie. It's fun to see you flail after you get BTFO time and time again.

>>19763324
Ok here is your proof:
1. The Bible is the word of God
2. The Bible says all those things happened
3. Therefore, all those things really happened

>>19763328
Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake, then I'll admit you were right. Pro-tip: it's a myth. God gave us logical rationality for a reason. You are blasphemous to him by not using it.

Go ahead. Prove it. I'm wrong, so it should be easy to prove! Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake.

Where's the ruins of the ark? How come we can carbon date rocks to millions of years old? How come we can see the paradox shifts of cosmic light lightyears away? Did God create this as an illusion? Why is God trying to trick us then? Is God a deceiver?

If you follow your logic, you must call God a deceiver, as scripture and history conflict. You are a blasphemer. Very sick stuff.

God created by setting in motion the quantum fluctuations which led to the Big Bang.

God created science and religion both. They are not in conflict. You're dangerously close to blaspheming.

Is the Critique of Pure Reason the 67th book of the Bible?

>>19763324
>How come we can carbon date rocks to millions of years old? How come we can see the paradox shifts of cosmic light lightyears away? Did God create this as an illusion? Why is God trying to trick us then? Is God a deceiver?
I just told you here >>19763273. If you assume uniformitarianism, which modern science does, which means that our current laws have always been in effect, if you apply that to the past you will come to false conclusions because physical laws were not the same prior to the fall. For example the carbon decay rate would have been different if there were no decay or death in the world. What it is today means nothing about some ancient object. If you date it that way you will get the wrong answer. God has told us that these things are not reliable by giving us an account of creation. If you ignore him you were not deceived, because he gave you the truth.

>>19763342
>Philosophy is wrong, but evolution is correct Christian dogma!!!

https://youtu.be/eXohYX96oKs

>>19763339
Genesis contains the truths necessary for salvation. The Eastern Fathers believed in multiple senses of scripture interpretation, they were wise. Why don't you? By what authority do you dismiss your tradition?

Where in the Bible does the Bible say sola scriptura is the only way you can read the Bible? It should be in the Bible right, since it's your belief? Right?

Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake, then I'll admit you were right. Pro-tip: it's a myth. God gave us logical rationality for a reason. You are blasphemous to him by not using it.

Go ahead. Prove it. I'm wrong, so it should be easy to prove! Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake.

Where's the ruins of the ark? How come we can carbon date rocks to millions of years old? How come we can see the paradox shifts of cosmic light lightyears away? Did God create this as an illusion? Why is God trying to trick us then? Is God a deceiver?

If you follow your logic, you must call God a deceiver, as scripture and history conflict. You are a blasphemer. Very sick stuff.

God created by setting in motion the quantum fluctuations which led to the Big Bang.

God created science and religion both. They are not in conflict. You're dangerously close to blaspheming.

>>19763340
I'm not a scientist so I don't care about digging up dinosaur bones and making up stories about how they used to live and what they looked like. I have faith in Jesus and believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, so if the Bible says there were snakes that talked in the garden of Eden then that was the case. It's not any more complicated than that. Christianity is faith-based. If scientists came out tomorrow with some 'definitive proof' and 'overwhelming evidence' of a 'theory' that showed Jesus wasn't real or whatever I wouldn't care. I just don't care what scientists make up when the Bible tells us the truth.

>>19763363
>Dyer has changed his religion at least five times, including from Christianity around 2010 and a repudiation of Eastern ‘Orthodoxy’ after having embraced it the first time.

>He embraced various non-Christian religions to some extent, including the Kabbalah, Esotericism, Perennialism, etc. Dyer also publicly argued against the Incarnation and the Trinity after having spent many years involved with what he deemed to be Christianity.

>Dyer completely contradicts himself on whether the ‘uncreated energies’ are the divine nature (his core position), demonstrating that he has no idea what he’s talking about and that he makes it up as he goes along.

>When cornered, Dyer says that “God transcends such logical categories” to argue that contradictions in his position don’t matter, which means that God’s reality can be contrary to the law of non-contradiction.

>Dyer argues that God’s energy can be both one and many in the same respect. That’s literally nonsense. Nothing can be both one and many in the same respect, but only in different respects.

>Dyer publicly endorses a video that calls the Son and the Holy Spirit ‘accidents’, which is modalism (denying that they are true hypostases).

>Dyer argues that knowing that a council is true comes down to each individual person “knowing God” – which is akin to sola scriptura subjectivism. This is also the official 'orthodox' position.

This Catholicuck is literally just copy and pasting the same garbage over and over again

>>19763347
Genesis contains the truths necessary for salvation. The Eastern Fathers believed in multiple senses of scripture interpretation, they were wise. Why don't you? By what authority do you dismiss your tradition? You still are unable to answer this.

Scripture has always contained the truths necessary for salvation. There is no truth necessary for salvation in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Name a truth necessary for salvation in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Go ahead, name one truth necessary for salvation in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

God created science and religion both. They cannot be in conflict. You're dangerously close to blaspheming.

I don't know much about Jay Dyer but regardless of which church you are in I don't think it's a good idea to take this random laypeople as authoritative voices on anything just because they have an internet presence.

>>19763367
If you follow your logic, you must call God a deceiver, as scripture and history conflict. You are a blasphemer. Very sick stuff.

God created science and religion both. They are not in conflict. You're dangerously close to blaspheming.

You're not a Christian at all.

>>19763384
No argument for anything that I said, surprise surprise. We can use science but only to a certain extent. It's not contrary to our faith but has to be properly contextualized.

>>19763367
if the Bible says there were snakes that talked in the garden of Eden then that was the case. It's not any more complicated than that.
LMAO. Protestant "reason", everyone! God gave you rationality. You offend him by not using it. Faith and reason cannot conflict, ever.
Read Fides et Ratio. How anyone can believe in this Protestant anti-God bullshit is beyond me.

>>19763399
And by that I mean that science must be approached with the assumption of catastrophism, which is the scriptural teaching. If you approach it with the assumption of uniformitarianism, which is false, you will come to false conclusions.

>>19763371
Yes, she gets it from Catholic Answers. Women don't know anything themselves and cannot formulate their own positions.

>>19763389
Yes but Jay has permission from his priest and he also works with other priests, at least one of whom also has a PhD in philosophy and affirms all of Jay's points.

>>19763399
Why did God create physical laws and then change them? Where is that in the Bible? Isn't God unchanging? Are you saying God's decree and law is changeable? What evidence do you have for that? Cite Bible verses where God changes. Cite detailed physical and Biblical evidence where God changes his eternal decrees.

Next, these Catholics will cite Carl Jung and Aleister Crowley as great Christian thinkers.

>>19763394
You put words in my mouth, everyone is able to see you do this and no one believes you.

>>19763406
Not an argument.

>>19763406
In Genesis the serpent is cursed as well. So exactly how it appeared, how it spoke, we do not know, but it was not the same as a serpent you observe today.

>>19763418
>whatever any priest thinks is correct even if all priests do not have identical thoughts

>>19763399
How can God's eternal laws change, but his word can't? If God's eternal physical laws change, how do we know he didn't change his word? You're a fucking heretic.

>>19763424
Why did God create physical laws and then change them? Where is that in the Bible? Isn't God unchanging? Are you saying God's decree and law is changeable? What evidence do you have for that? Cite Bible verses where God changes. Cite detailed physical and Biblical evidence where God changes his eternal decrees.

>>19763422
>>19763434
>Why did God create physical laws and then change them?
They were corrupted by sin like everything else in the world.
>Where is that in the Bible?
It is extrapolated from death not existing prior to the fall. You can also see the gradual decrease of the human lifespan and other various physical changes throughout Genesis.
>Isn't God unchanging? Are you saying God's decree and law is changeable? What evidence do you have for that?
God is not changing, his creation has changed. Also physical laws are not God's moral laws. The latter is indeed unchanging but the former is not. If we are later to inhabit a new, redeemed earth, then you too must believe that physical laws are changeable.

>>19763413
Stop sniveling, it's an ugly look.
>>19763428
Source that a "curse" means physical change as well. Cite Hebrew definitions which show the word curse implies physical change.

>>19763418
Imagine defending Jay fucking Dyer as the hill to die on.

>>19763448
Part of the curse is that the snake will go about on its stomach, which I would take to mean that the snake previously did not go about on its stomach. Now in that case how did it move? I have no idea. Something changed about it.

>>19763452
All you do is insult

>>19763454
Cite Hebrew definitions which show the word curse implies physical change. Cite Biblical verses which support that the word curse implies physical change in Hebrew.

>>19763458
I don't need to. The verse tells us the snake's form of movement changed. Given that it's a snake I don't know else it could have moved before. Also how could the curse not imply physical change? DEATH is physical. Man is now subject to death, which is the death of the physical body.

>>19763445
Cite detailed physical and Biblical evidence where God changes his eternal decrees. Cite Bible verses to support that God changes his moral laws.

"In him there is no change at all".

You're contradicting the Bible. How can God's laws be corrupted by sin? Are you saying God's eternal decrees are subject to human contamination? Cite Bible verses to support this.

>>19763452
You are defending evolution, of all things.

>>19763463
Cite Hebrew definitions which show the word curse implies physical change. Cite Biblical verses which support that the word curse implies physical change in Hebrew.

You say your point is supported by the Bible, so this should be easy, right?

>>19763469
I SAID HE DID NOT CHANGE HIS MORAL LAWS.
Learn to read idiot.

>>19763463
Why did the snake's physical movement change after sin but humanity's didn't? Cite Bible verses to support this claim.

>>19763469
>>19763473
Apparently the Catholic teaching is that physical laws of the universe are immutable. So people were always subject to death and always will be subject to death, sin or no sin. Quite amazing. All this to defend evolution. This is where the idea leads you.

>>19763475
"In him there is no change at all".

You're contradicting the Bible. How can God's laws be corrupted by sin? Are you saying God's eternal decrees are subject to human contamination? Cite Bible verses to support this.

>>19763482
Because the curse for the snake was about its physical movement and the curse for humans was not. That's what the text says. If you don't want to believe it is your problem.

>>19763483
Cite Bible verses to explain why God's eternal physical decrees were changed by human sin but God's eternal moral decrees weren't.

>>19763488
>>19763493
God's law properly is his moral law. Physical "laws" are just the operating rules of the universe. They are aspects of creation and God change them however he sees fit. You are equating created things with God's eternal self. Just stop before you harm your soul please.

>>19763490
Cite Hebrew definitions which show the word curse implies physical change. Cite Biblical verses which support that the word curse implies physical change in Hebrew.

Cite Bible verses to explain why God's law that sin affects physical decrees doesn't affect all physical laws of species equally. Are you saying God is changeable and his law cannot apply across all physical realms? Cite Bible verses to support this.

Catholic posters in this thread doing a good job of showing they trust atheist scientists more than the word of God. Really makes you think.

>>19763501
I don't need to. I can just tell you what the curse actually says. If the curse says X occurs, then that's what the curse means. THAT IS THE DEFINITION. You are so stupid.

>>19763498
Cite Bible verses to explain why God's eternal physical decrees were changed by human sin but God's eternal moral decrees weren't. I'm hearing the words of man here corrupted by the devil, not the Word of God.

Cite Bible verses to support your claim.

>>19763508
What is this "eternal physical decree"? You are saying that gravity is an eternal part of God. Get a grip mate.

>>19763503
Religion and science can't be in conflict, God created both.

Are you saying God didn't create the physical Earth and it's history and laws? Are you a Christian?

>>19763503
Did you see my joke about how they will start citing Aleister Crowley and Carl Jung as great Christian thinkers?
I thought that was a pretty good joke.
But maybe not even a joke anymore. It almost wouldn't surprise me at this point.

>>19763507
Where in the Hebrew does the word curse imply physical change? Cain was cursed, he was not physically change. Adam was cursed, he was not physically changed.

Are you claiming God's physical laws are mutable? Cite Bible verses to support this claim.

>>19763514
Religion and science can't be in conflict, God created both.

Are you saying God didn't create the physical Earth and it's history and laws? Are you a Christian?

>>19763518
Adam was physically changed by becoming subject to natural death, which entails the physical decay and expiration of the body. QED bucko.

>>19763521
Cain was cursed, he was not physically changed.

Are you claiming God's physical laws are mutable? Cite Bible verses to support this claim.

>>19763521
How do God's physical laws change over time? Are you saying God changes?

>>19763523
Why should all curses be the same? The curse is whatever it says it was.
>>19763523
>>19763528
You are claiming that physical laws like gravity are an eternal part of God. You are LITERALLY A HERETIC because you are claiming that creation is an eternal aspect of God's self. You need to stop now.

Evolution is pseudo-science with no evidence and with faulty metaphysical assumptions behind it.

>>19763511
Are you saying God didn't create eternal physical laws? Do you believe God created everything? You're not a pagan, are you?

>>19763532
Are you saying God didn't create the physical laws of the universe? Who created them then? How are they changeable? Who is changing them? are you Christian?

>>19763534
The world is not eternal. It had a beginning and it will have an end. You've abandoned Christianity frankly.
>>19763538
For the good of your own soul I am going to stop talking to you because you are leading yourself into perdition in your slavery to evolution. You are unhinged and cannot handle this at the moment.

>>19763532
Are you saying the Word of God is inconsistent? Are you saying there's errors in the logical application of the word of God? Why would God violate his own eternal laws of the universe like that? Are you a Christian?

>>19763549
see >>19763533

>>19763549
It's over anon. Go pray.

>>19763546
Who created the physical laws of the universe? Who is changing them? Do you deny God created the physical laws of the universe?

You can't answer this, you're backed into a corner and flailing. It's fucking embarrassing.

>>19763554
>g-go pray
you're a fucking pathetic pussy. it's embarrassing. not only are you blasphemous, but you're a passive aggressive piece of shit. it's fucking disgraceful.

come back when you have an argument.

>>19763551
Why would God violate his own eternal laws of the universe like that? Are you a Christian?

Please answer this question. Where do the laws of the universe come from if God didn't create them? The Bible says God created everything. Cite evidence that God didn't create the physical laws of the universe.

Are you a Christian?

Liberal theologians are crypto-atheists.

>>19763563
You don't understand metaphysics. You think that evolution sounds reasonable but you don't even question how that would mean the laws of evolution themselves would evolve.

>>19763564
Not an argument.

>>19763512
Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

>>19763573
Are you saying God created the laws of the universe as mutable? How did God create eternal laws of the universe as changeable? Are you saying God's eternal decrees are subject to human corruption? Are you a pagan?

>>19763577
Did God or did God not create the universe and its laws? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not deny that God created the scientific laws of the universe?

>>19763587
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

New thread

>>19763592
>>19763592
>>19763592

>>19763588
Did God or did God not create the universe and its laws? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not deny that God created the scientific laws of the universe?

You sound like a pagan for real.

>>19763600
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

>>19763605
Did God or did God not create the universe and its laws? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not deny that God created the scientific laws of the universe?

Do you know the Devil can quote Scripture too? The only thing I hear from you is the denial of the sovereignty of God.

>>19763600
>>19763610
You are saying that he sounds like a Pagan and is denying the sovereignty of God for posting Bible quotes.

>>19763610

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

>>19763628
>>19763639

Did God or did God not create the universe and its laws? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not deny that God created the scientific laws of the universe? Yes or no?

>>19763641

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

>>19763643
God created both science and the Bible. They can't be in conflict.

Are you saying God is a liar? Why would God create nature to contradict his word? Are you calling God's word false?

Science and the Bible cannot contradict. Genesis contains all the truths necessary for salvation.

>>19763649
Did God or did God not create the universe and its laws? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not deny that God created the scientific laws of the universe? Yes or no?

You can't fucking answer this because you don't actually believe God created the physical universe. You'd have to admit God created the universe that isn't 6000 years old.

You're a pagan. You don't believe in God's creation.

>>19763655
Science is a human methodology of understanding the natural world. Whether we use that properly is our problem.

>>19763665
Are you saying God is a liar? Why would God create nature to contradict his word? Are you calling God's word false?

>>19763677
He didn't. It is your understanding of nature that is false.