/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18280116]

theologists, what's the correct answer here?

[Anonymous No.18280126]

>>18280116
Everyone who isn't baptized goes to hell eithe

[Anonymous No.18280132]

>>18280116
Are you implying Eskimos at some point in history didn't know about God and sin?

That's preposterous and ahistorical.

[Anonymous No.18280145]

>>18280132
what about some guy in the middle of china in some small village that never had any exposure to Christianity? will he go to hell for simply being born in the wrong place and setting?

[Anonymous No.18280208]

If you lived a virtuous life I’m sure God would forgive you. Christianity is all about forgiveness etc. The dogmatic parts were added in over the Middle Ages.

[Anonymous No.18280266]

>>18280208
The "dogmatic parts" were the foundation of all christianity ever since they destroyed the gnostic parts

[Anonymous No.18280272]

>trying to rationalize your jewish schizo tales
I hope christians dont do this

[Anonymous No.18280282]

>>18280116
It's just defeatism.
I would answer :
"For you to go to heaven, if you didn't knew anything you would have gone anywhere your inclination tends to, be it hell or not. So I gave you freedom to choose conscientiously your path." "God frees you from destiny".

[Anonymous No.18280288]

Its impossible that he didnt know about some kind of god or some kind of sin

[Anonymous No.18280297]

>>18280282
>So I gave you freedom to choose
you say like this is a good thing lol

[Anonymous No.18280366]

>>18280288
this

>>18280297
It means "I give you the means to change ineluctable destiny".
Yes, he could have gone to hell without knowing it. Because in fact his consciousnesses knew good and evil. So the missionary just repeat and remind a truth independent of his teaching, he just gives other means than the local shaman.
Basically I disagree with the priest that says he couldn't go to hell, that's an rhetorical oversimplification

[Anonymous No.18280378]

>>18280208
>just do good things and be nice to people without religion lmao
That's called Pelagianism and it's on an official list of heresies

[Anonymous No.18280423]

is Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity a good start if I want to understand the doctrine of the church when it comes to questions like picrel?

[Anonymous No.18280442]

>>18280116
The premise is false. You must actively be saved through grace.

>>18280208
Against Paul, and James and the gospels. Formerly condemned with unanimity at the council of Ephesus (431 AD) but had already been condemned in various synods and by several church fathers before that.

[Anonymous No.18280451]

>>18280116
No one goes to eternal hell. Everyone eventually goes to heaven. All things will be reconciled to God

[Anonymous No.18280455]

>>18280116
The Priest is wrong. People who do not follow God's law go to hell. No exceptions

[Anonymous No.18280462]

>>18280442
*Formally
That's what sneedposting does to a man.

[Anonymous No.18280467]

>>18280442
Yet Vatican II claims that Muslims can go to Heaven, why would our eskimo chieftain be barred from it but not a Muslim?

[Anonymous No.18280469]

>>18280208
>Christianity is all about forgiveness etc. The dogmatic parts were added in over the Middle Ages.

[Anonymous No.18280487]

All of the coping christcucks itt just remind me why christianity is taken less serious as the years go by

[Anonymous No.18280510]

Christianity will never make sense. They will never be able to justify their dogma over other religions without resorting to brute force.

[Anonymous No.18280519]

>>18280467
Muslims can be saved by accepting Christ which wouldn't make them Muslim anymore.
The second Vatican council does not change anything here. The few lines of goodwill about life in this world in nostra etate do not at all mean that anyone is saved through islam, and the opposite is clear dogma.

[Anonymous No.18280530]

>>18280510
This

[Anonymous No.18280533]

The opportunity of Heaven outweighs the threat of hell by such a boisterous margin that only the truest of fools wouldn't leap at the chance to spend forever with their loving creator.

[Anonymous No.18280554]

>>18280510
You want to know why it is superior metaphysically or anthropologically? I have nothing against other religions, in fact, I recognize Platonism can have a genuine metaphysics very close to Christianity’s, but kind of depends on interpretations which differ from others in Platonism itself.

[Anonymous No.18280558]

>>18280530
>>18280554
I can explain to you too.

[Anonymous No.18280570]

>>18280423
no, the papist (or protestants) church created this problem, so they are a bit confused still (cf : extra ecclesia nulla salus).
Better see eastern fathers, who didn't have predestination and such.

Anyway it's a mysterious subject for christians.

[Anonymous No.18280593]

>>18280510
OP presented a supposed dilemma that only appears in heresy and asked for the theological answer.
>without resorting to brute force.
In the sense of receiving it perhaps, which is the historical case and to this day 80% of religious persecution is by non-Christians against Christians.

>>18280570
The only mystery is why God saves at all.
The problem at hand in OP has nothing to do with any "papist" or protestants creation. Even you schismatics should follow that as it is presented in fifth century ecumenical councils.
>Orthodox theology

[Anonymous No.18280625]

HELL is a process of atonement for your sins also known as Bardo. I saw it in a Vision when i was 4 years of age.

[Anonymous No.18280639]

>>18280593
>that only appears in heresy
Yes and why is that? I get it is a riddle and not practical, but isn't it an answer worth having? Thats one of my biggest hang ups with religion, besides on thr hypocrisy, is the inability for someone to say 'I don't know.' Even in the OP example the correct answer is 'I don't know my child, but now that you hsve this knowledge you can be saved.'

[Anonymous No.18280646]

>>18280145
Depends, if he's virtuous he will spend eternity in purgatory with the other virtuous pagans.

[Anonymous No.18280683]

>>18280116
Noahic covenant gives us natural law, but the spiritual man must be born again. We all have to grow up sometimes.

[Anonymous No.18280757]

>>18280208
>>18280266
>>18280378
>>18280469
Then what is the deal with the story about the good samaritan? I thought it was about that good deeds are more important

[Anonymous No.18280773]

>>18280208
>>18280145
>>18280116
What happened to people before Christianity? If Christianity is the only way to get into heaven?

[Anonymous No.18280793]

>>18280773
Obeying the law of Moses (Ten Commandments, animal sacrifice etc)

[Anonymous No.18280806]

>>18280773
All of them could go to haven, Christ made it known to them. I’m sure Plato and Aristotle are there.

[Anonymous No.18280808]

>>18280806
This is absolutely false and why new believers should beware of what they read here.

[Anonymous No.18280812]

>>18280757
It's about calling the Pharisees out. If anything they were the "legalist" faction that focused on performing deeds of the law. The story also calls the chosen people autism of the Jews.
Good deeds are not more important. You need faith and external deeds. You can't skip one. Even those two are steps to receive grace, which is the actual salvaging factor.

[Anonymous No.18280852]

>>18280808
Why is this false? Dante put them in Limbo. But I think the Limbo is the place for people who were good, virtuous after Christ, or that did not accept Him. Plato and Aristotle should have the chance to accept Christ.

[Anonymous No.18280859]

>>18280145
Yes but not because he didn't know about Christianity or born in the wrong place, it's because he's Chinese

[Anonymous No.18280883]

>>18280852
Dante is not an authoritative description of hell, it’s basically bible fanfic. There’s no mention of limbo in the Bible, and the old testament is clear that salvation was through the law before Jesus’ sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.18280888]

>>18280757
Pharisees applauded themselves for both being ethnically Jewish and for being great pious men. Jesus points out that neither a Pharisee or Levite would help a wounded and dying man because, should they get blood on themselves, they would become ritually unclean for the coming Sabbath. However, the Samaritan, an ethnic outcast, showed love and mercy to a Jew that would have likely spit on him. The story is meant to demonstrate that the religious leaders of the time were serving themselves before serving God, as well as to highlight that we should be charitable in all things, even to those who would harm us.

Jesus still had qualms with the Samaritan beliefs, however, which is why he called them out on it regarding the reality of the resurrection.

[Anonymous No.18280889]

He won't get to heaven either.

[Anonymous No.18280916]

>>18280883
Is this a dogma of the Church? Does Christ say anything on this question? Quote the OT passage.

[Anonymous No.18280928]

>>18280883
Not him, but there are some theological arguments for the idea of "Virtuous Pagans" who never had the chance to know Christ but recognized what a righteous and godly life was and strived for it.

>For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20

[Anonymous No.18280935]

Christ is the ultimate Good. To withhold knowledge of the greatest good is a terrible act

[Anonymous No.18280942]

>>18280116
Eskimo antisemitism is the future, boys

[Anonymous No.18280943]

>>18280773
Pretty sure Paul mentions that in the first couple of chapters in Romans. I'm a little rusty on scripture tho

[Anonymous No.18280947]

>>18280935
>Ultimate good
Take away Christ from the Cathedral and what do you have? A European building.
Take away the Cathedral from Christ and what do you have? A dead man. Worse.

[Anonymous No.18280949]

>>18280423
Just read Mere Christianity and a catechism. Sure there will be schismatic issues unaddressed or whatever, but if all you're looking for is an intro then that's sufficient

[Anonymous No.18280961]

>>18280947
Well sure to say that Christ and the Church go hand in hand is just to acknowledge the function of marriage. To introduce the eskimo to one is to introduce him to both

[Anonymous No.18280963]

>>18280646
That concept comes from Dante's fanfiction and there is nothing in the Bible supporting it

[Anonymous No.18280969]

>>18280916
>>18280928

Leviticus 17:11, For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.

Hebrews 9:22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Romans 4:1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is Jesureckoned as righteousness

[Anonymous No.18280975]

>>18280116
Why do I see all of the same low effort religious bait threads on /his/ and /lit/? It's almost as if...

[Anonymous No.18280986]

>>18280947
Worse than a dead man you have the corpse of a mongrel. And not just any mongrel: the executed bastard of a young harlot and Roman soldier gangbang. This is his fame among his race of swindlers.
Just as he convinced you he can walk on water and turn the immoral into moral just as he tells you today he turns blacks into whites, his Jewish pure bloods have convinced you to value the worthless. Empty Calorie religiousity has padded the minds and volumes of mankind for Millenia but only for unselective prey not for picky predators.
A full blooded Jew or Roman on the cross would have been a martyr for a definite idea. But that is exactly what the information pruning powerhouse of Christianity is designed to pilfer and pervert exclusively weaponized on the European soul and it's detrimental altruism and unbounded affection.

[Anonymous No.18280991]

>>18280975
People have been having low effort online conversations about religion since you were still shitting in diapers. This thread is exactly the same conversation I saw repeated ad nauseam on Yahoo Answers ten years ago.

[Anonymous No.18280997]

>>18280975
meds
now

[Anonymous No.18281005]

>>18280991
Brb gonna get my powdered wig and stockings

[Anonymous No.18281029]

>>18280969
>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Yes and thus He fulfills the Law. Knowing and accepting Christ is all one need. He made himself known to those who lived before Him. We cannot say whether Plato and Aristotle are in heaven or not, that is, whether they accepted Him or not, but we can say they could be.

[Anonymous No.18281044]

>>18280116
You can still be saved by living a virtuous life if there was no way for you to have heard the gospel.
Living a virtuous life is very difficult without having heard the gospel.

[Anonymous No.18281071]

>>18281029
That’s true. I was arguing off the assumption that they had not accepted Christ.

[Anonymous No.18281089]

>>18281044
Where in the Bible is this?

[Anonymous No.18281115]

>>18280969
None of this runs counter to what I've said...?

[Anonymous No.18281190]

>>18280116
If he didn’t accept Christ upon hearing it that means he wasn’t going to heaven without him. Anyone who is worthy of him without knowing about him directly would rejoice at hearing the gospel.

[Anonymous No.18281216]

>>18280116
how about YOU READ YOUR FUCKING CATECHISM OP?
> VI. The Necessity of Baptism

> 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

> 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

> 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

> 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

> 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

[Anonymous No.18281641]

>>18280116
Eskimo is a slur

[Anonymous No.18281672]

>>18281071
Ah I see.

[Anonymous No.18281678]

>>18280116
his ignorance was just a cloak for his sin

[Anonymous No.18281714]

>>18280116
Where is this quote from?

[Anonymous No.18281978]

Romans 2:15: verse of the thread

>>18280986
>bastard of a young harlot and Roman soldier gangbag
>sources: the Talmud, look it up
Where are you getting your slander, Shekelgrueber?

Otherwise, pure unsupported nonsense; he is lying? He turns blacks into whites? (Revelation 7:9)- and all "being one in Jesus Christ" does not mean the destruction of personality or ethnic differences.

>convinced you to value the worthless
If you begin with the supposition that there are any "worthless" people, sure; but all can be edified.

>unselective prey and not picky predators
You are not even the shadow of a predator, don't flatter yourself.

[Anonymous No.18281996]

>>18281115
yes it does you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.18282007]

>>18280116
Original sin though

[Anonymous No.18282325]

>>18280757
Samaritans were viewed as ethnically inferior and were seen as a bad sect of Judaism. If you read the parable like a Jew would've heard it, the logical step from the Levite would be a "down to earth" Jewish man doing something righteous. What instead happens is a slap to the balls when it's a filthy Samaritan. It's not about good deeds. The actual context is that Jesus was asked "who is my neighbor" since "love your neighbor" is the second greatest commandment. At the end of it, the Jewish lawyer says the Samaritan was the neighbor, not the Pharisee nor the Levite [significant since these two presented the Law].
Good works are important as mentioned in James 2, but the Good Samaritan is about love not works. Also works are worthless without faith and faith is dead without works.

[Anonymous No.18282331]

>>18280116
If you are a non schizophrenic Christian you deserve to go to hell. Of you hear god's voice you can be saved. If you are an agnostic you go to hell. If you sin you go to hell. If you don't sin but think about it you go to hell.

[Anonymous No.18282336]

>>18280943
>>18280773
Natural/general revelation is the term you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.18282388]

>>18281005
Yeah, everybody get your best outfits on for the big Yahoo Answers thread.

[Anonymous No.18282456]

>>18280116
Ignore tradcath smoothbrains.
In the generalized theologian sense this knowledge would also reveal a path to redemption so the eternal punishment is equalized by its rewarding counterpart. The ignorant are still free to not believe if they truly don't but if they do then they work towards that new enlightenment for their own sake.
Knowledge and belief here are almost interchangeable. And the concept of the omnipotent patriarch is innate to anyone who's had parents anyway, this image was made by some tumblr atheist who inadvertently injected their own racism onto the uncontacted tribe trope. It's nonsense.

[Anonymous No.18282506]

>>18280116
Not /lit/ related

[Anonymous No.18282523]

>>18280116

John Calvin has an easy answer to this: if you don't know about Christ then you're going to hell period. More sentimental theologians can't quite say this, so they usually rationalize the great commission by saying that the sacraments and faith in God somehow make you a better person. If you ask me, the great commission was a Pauline forgery.

[Anonymous No.18282547]

>>18280757
the point is that if you were bursting at the seams with the holy spirit, you'd be doing good deeds anyway

[Anonymous No.18282700]

>>18280116
He’s still going to hell if he didn’t know. That’s not how Christianity works.

[Anonymous No.18282877]

>>18280116
mi compadre Francis answered that already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRbUTfSds0U

[Anonymous No.18282894]

>>18282877
wholesome

[Anonymous No.18282904]

>>18280986
>retarded writing
>retarded anime pic
congrats, you're retarded

[Anonymous No.18282937]

>>18280282
So God would punish someone simply for not knowing, when that's outside the person's control? Alternatively, if God judge's everyone justly no matter their level of knowledge, then there is no need to prosyletise at all because everyone will be judged correctly anyway (it's not like God makes mistakes).

[Anonymous No.18283013]

>>18282937
See>>18281216
Proddie's opinion not wanted.

[Anonymous No.18283019]

>>18280757
>I thought it was about that good deeds are more important
That's Zoroastrianism, which is about good deeds.
Christianity is a religion of guilt and cucking to Jews.
Islam is about beheading and sucking Arab dick.
Judaism is about killing all non-Jews.

[Anonymous No.18283028]

>>18280116
All the virtuous non-christians who would not be converted or existed before Jesus Christ are in hell.

[Anonymous No.18283033]

>>18280773
They went to hell, obviously.

[Anonymous No.18283047]

>>18283013
Not an answer to my question. If God judges an ignorant person fairly anyway, why prosyletise? If prosyletism and baptism increase the chance of salvation, then there is less chance of being saved if you have not been prosyletised to. Therefore, your chance of going to hell is affected by something utterly outside your control and you can be punished for ignorance which is no fault of your own.

[Anonymous No.18283059]

>>18283047
>ignorance...is no fault of your own
Except it absolutely is.

[Anonymous No.18283062]

>>18280928
>bronze age semite retards actually thought of and predicted and outsmarted faggot OP thousands of years ago
I'm kind of impressed desu, this is what you call philosophical rigor I guess. A pseud like OP is so well beyond his ken it's laughable.

[Anonymous No.18283069]

>>18283062
Wait what the heck? Why does my post say “desu?” I typed desu not desu this is weird

[Anonymous No.18283082]

The correct answer to this question is that of invincible ignorance. Those who have never been exposed to the Gospel, through no fault of their own, will be judged based upon how their actions adhered to the urgings of their conscience. However, it is necessary for the Gospel to be spread, because one can be raised in a society corrupted by spiritually damaging and accursed practices (like human sacrifices in ancient Mesoamerican cultures, ritual prostitution in Greco-Roman civilization, or degenerate Dionysian drunken orgies, etc.), which can cause their soul to fall into bondage.

The essential question is, "Can a (person/society) be in spiritual bondage (performing evil), without knowing it"?

Jesus taught on this subject while speaking with the Jews, of whom many were slaves to the accursed sins of pride and wrath:
"As Jesus spoke these things, many believed in Him. So He said to the Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, you are truly My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

“We are Abraham’s descendants,” they answered. “We have never been slaves to anyone. How can You say we will be set free?”

Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

TL;DR cultures can unknowingly fall into bondage to sin, and so it is righteous to spread the gospel, so that all know how to follow the divine דֶּ֖רֶךְ/dharma/way and advance to eternal paradise

[Anonymous No.18283097]

>>18283082
>while speaking with the Jews
Stopped reading.
Not a single value thing has come from the Semites.
Worship a Semite, become a Semite. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.18283098]

>>18280997
Ok reddit

[Anonymous No.18283118]

>>18283047
???
This is all clearly explained in the quoted passage.
If you act according to God's will and would have accepted his Sacrament, given the chance, the Church holds the belief that you'll be accepted into heaven. But obviously acting based on someone's will is easier when you know some parts of that will.

[Anonymous No.18283132]

>>18283097
Without Christianity (a religion originating from the Messiah, who was of the bloodline of David), Germans and British people would still be running around in the forest, chasing pigs, and dwelling in swamps. Like it or not, Christianity, a Semitic religion, is a key factor responsible for the rise and dominance of Europe. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the faith of your forefathers, which you reject out of anti-Christian Judaic brainwashing.

Don't be sorry - with all due respect, it is you who needs help here.

[Anonymous No.18283166]

Didn't address this question already in the actual Bible? Read this excerpt from Romans chapter 2, and remember of course that when Paul says "the Law" he's referring to the Old Testament Mosaic law.

There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

[Anonymous No.18283175]

>>18283069
>pitiful misdirection attempt
honestly pathetic desu ne

[Anonymous No.18283182]

Didn't Paul address this question already in the actual Bible? Read this excerpt from Romans chapter 2, and remember of course that when Paul says "the Law" he's referring to the Old Testament Mosaic law.

There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

[Anonymous No.18283187]

>>18283132
>Without Christianity (a religion originating from the Messiah, who was of the bloodline of David), Germans and British people would still be running around in the forest, chasing pigs, and dwelling in swamps.
Contrary to popular belief, Sassanids were proselytizing. Zoroastrianism would have melded better with European myths and had a better effect than Christianity.
Abrahamism is largely a distortion of Mazdan wisdom (e.g., check Anders Hultgard's essay, Ch. 7, in Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism by Mihchael Stausberg).
>Like it or not, Christianity, a Semitic religion, is a key factor responsible for the rise and dominance of Europe.
The key fact is an explicit moral dualism that privileges virtue over vice, that leads to caring for communal and ecological welfare, while encouraging artistic expression. This is not exclusive to Christianity.
>Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the faith of your forefathers,
You have no ancestral connections to Jesus. He was a Levantine.
>Don't be sorry - with all due respect, it is you who needs help here.
You are historically ignorant, and it is you who needs help.
Constantine fabricated his vision of Jesus because he wanted to use Nestorians as a fifth column against the Sassanids. In fact, this is the first time in history appealing to oppressed minorities was used as pretext for intervention.
Jesus is not coming back. Plenty of your past "mystics" claimed Jesus would come again in such and such years. It never happened because Jesus was irrelevant.
The Levant was intellectually bankrupt compared to Central Asia with figures like Sogdians and Bactrians. It is only due to historical contingencies pertaining to geopolitics you became Christian. You basically gave meaning, sometimes in beautiful ways, to something totally meaningless: Christ.

[Anonymous No.18283199]

>>18283187
>had a better effect
have a better effect*

[Anonymous No.18283209]

>>18283059
If you've had no opportunity to hear the gospel then that is not in your control.

>>18283118
So therefore it hasn't answered my question. If prosyletising (teaching about God's will) makes it easier for someone to be saved, then it is harder for a non-contacted person to be saved. The non-contacted person has no control over whether he is contacted or not, therefore God punishes people for something totally outside their control. Why?

[Anonymous No.18283224]

>>18283187
>Constantine fabricated his vision of Jesus
during a time of war*
Forgot to mention that.

[Anonymous No.18283227]

>>18283182
>For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This Bible verse is literally the answer to this whole thread.

[Anonymous No.18283231]

>>18283187
>Contrary to popular belief, Sassanids were proselytizing. Zoroastrianism would have melded better with European myths and had a better effect than Christianity.
This is your hypothesis. It does not deny the obvious reality that the Christianization of Europe was a direct causal factor in its cultural domination.
>The key fact is an explicit moral dualism that privileges virtue over vice,
Again, the important factor of Christianity being "moral dualism", rather than a complex theology based on self-sacrifice in the model of Jesus Christ, is just your opinion.
>You have no ancestral connections to Jesus. He was a Levantine.
Did I say anything about ancestral connection? What I said was, and I repeat:
"Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the faith of YOUR forefathers".
>It is only due to historical contingencies pertaining to geopolitics you became Christian
Literally as wrong as you could possibly be. I am only bringing this up to show you that your postulation "Not a single value thing (sic) has come from the Semites" is woefully false.
>something totally meaningless: Christ.
Your (poor, and misguided) opinion. I will pray for you.

>>18283209
If somebody, through no fault of their own, has not been contacted of the Gospel, they are judged based upon their adherence to the natural law (which is instantiated through the human conscience). See >>18283082

[Anonymous No.18283257]

>>18283231
>If somebody, through no fault of their own, has not been contacted of the Gospel, they are judged based upon their adherence to the natural law (which is instantiated through the human conscience)
Therefore there is no need to prosyletise because everyone is judged justly anyway. Yet the New Testament commands prosyletisation. This is the dilemma I have kept posing in this thread and Christians have answered by just moving back and forth between the two points of the dilemma, I haven't seen a way to escape it.

[Anonymous No.18283277]

>>18283257
As I said in the post you didn't read:
>However, it is necessary for the Gospel to be spread, because one can be raised in a society corrupted by spiritually damaging and accursed practices (like human sacrifices in ancient Mesoamerican cultures, ritual prostitution in Greco-Roman civilization, or degenerate Dionysian drunken orgies, etc.), which can cause their soul to fall into bondage.
>The essential question is, "Can a (person/society) be in spiritual bondage (performing evil), without knowing it"?

Again, see >>18283082

[Anonymous No.18283288]

>>18283231
>It does not deny the obvious reality that the Christianization of Europe was a direct causal factor in its cultural domination.
Yes, it does because it shows it could have proceeded via a different religion.
You are reducing all European accomplishment to Christianity, which disrespects non-Christian European minds too. There are more factors at play than just being Christian. It is disingenuous to reduce European accomplishments wholly to religious identification.
>rather than a complex theology based on self-sacrifice in the model of Jesus Christ
I am criticizing this view as being fundamentally regressive but the moral dualism was necessary for large-scale societies because order should be privileged over chaos.
To make my point clearer, why should the sacrifice of an irrelevant Jew matter?
Wouldn't it make sense when he died a pillar of light appear in the sky so that way all people's around the world can see? Instead we're told he rose from his dusty tomb and went to preach one last time. Do you know anyone can claim this to delirious followers? It's not convincing at all.
>"Not a single value thing (sic) has come from the Semites" is woefully false.
You haven't convinced me. You are historically illiterate.
Semites were notorious plagiarists and known to be very greedy and duplicitous even back then. Jews and Arabs are brothers of the Trash.
>Your (poor, and misguided) opinion. I will pray for you.
Your prayer means nothing. Even praying to an ancient tree or old-growth forest makes more sense than a goddamn Jew.
You are going to Ahriman's House of Lies unless you can understand the nature of purification outside of dogma.
Also, you are too optimistic about mankind's collective movement. There has never been more filth and defilement than there is now. It is the fault of you Christians, Muslims, and Jews largely.
I will not pray for you. God is not as forgiving as you think. Only those who can be purified will be welcomed into his light, and purification goes beyond mere beliefs and ratiocination.
When was the last time you actually did something for this world beyond babbling about your shit Jew?

[Anonymous No.18283294]

>>18283288
>you can understand
you cannot understand*

[Anonymous No.18283315]

>>18283277
Which brings us right back to the other point of the dilemma. Someone has more chance of going to hell in a non-contacted society but being born into a non-contacted society is not something they had control over. Therefore they are punished for something they had no control over.

[Anonymous No.18283322]

>>18283209
It's not in your control. That says nothing about fault, however.

[Anonymous No.18283371]

>>18283288
>Yes, it does because it shows it could have proceeded via a different religion.
You have asserted this, not "shown" it. It is a baseless hypothesis, not based on any historical reality, but only your opinion.
>There are more factors at play than just being Christian.
Which is why I said "a direct causal factor".
>It is disingenuous to reduce European accomplishments wholly to religious identification.
I haven't done that.
>order should be privileged over chaos.
Welcome to every single society that has ever existed. Why do you think hero myths include the heroic God killing the chaotic serpent, and creating the world from his corpse?
>Wouldn't it make sense when he died a pillar of light appear in the sky so that way all people's around the world can see?
This is answered in the New Testament. If you haven't read it, why are you critiquing a position you don't understand?
>You haven't convinced me.
Because of your pride, and unwillingness to engage in an intellectually honest assessment of the facts.
>Even praying to an ancient tree or old-growth forest makes more sense
Okay, keep worshipping inanimate trees like your degenerate human-sacrificing ancestors (who were utterly wiped out and converted by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ), LARPagan.
>Your prayer means nothing.
That's your opinion. Duly noted, and discarded.
>It is the fault of you Christians, Muslims, and Jews largely.
I think you mean atheistic materialism.
>I will not pray for you.
Why would I be afraid of a pagan, in prideful bondage to sin, not praying for me?
>When was the last time you actually did something for this world beyond babbling about your shit Jew?
Why would I share information about my life with somebody who is clearly not interested?

>>18283315
One can live in a society that has cultural norms which transgress against the natural law, but choose to not partake in their rites. These people would be judged justly as such, as would their neighbours who did choose to transgress against their conscience and partake. Instilling the morals of Jesus Christ to this society will lead to less people falling into bondage to sin. Nobody is punished for something they have no control over.

[Anonymous No.18283410]

>>18283371
>You have asserted this, not "shown" it. It is a baseless hypothesis, not based on any historical reality, but only your opinion.
And you have not shown that without Christianity Europe would have failed. You have shown that at all.
>Which is why I said "a direct causal factor".
It is not a direct causal factor. It is incidental at most.
>Welcome to every single society that has ever existed.
That is a unique factor of Zoroastrianism. Such a view did not exist until Zoroastrianism. Read the Gathas.
>This is answered in the New Testament. I
Of course that will argue in favor of the Incarnation and Resurrection, but outside of Bible fanfiction, you have nothing. Even the quotes from Tacitus and more are taken out of context.
>Because of your pride, and unwillingness to engage in an intellectually honest assessment of the facts.
Intellectually honest assessment leads to the realization Jesus was in all likelihood not the son of God.
>degenerate human-sacrificing ancestor
I never condoned such things.
>I think you mean atheistic materialism.
Atheistic materialism grew thanks to Abrahamism. If it weren't for Abrahamism, we would not have seen atheistic materialism reach this level.
>Why would I be afraid of a pagan, in prideful bondage to sin, not praying for me?
Everyone who doesn't accept Jewsus is a pagan to you. What's the point of even debating then?
>Why would I share information about my life with somebody who is clearly not interested?
Read some more outside of your shit-bubble, Christcuck.

[Anonymous No.18283436]

>>18283315
>>18283322
Trying to make sense of nonsensical bullshit like Christian ideas of faith and salvation is a waste of time. Anyone with an honest mind will come to see how the foundations of all the beliefs hinges on nonsense.
If I read that the Sogdians or Chinese had seen a pillar of light, dreamt of a Jesus like figure, or whatever at his sacrifice, I would take claims of Jesus as son of God more seriously. However, it was excluded to an entirely irrelevant, intellectual bankrupt region of the world at that time.
Thus, the question becomes, why did Christianity grow with its nonsense?
It grew because Constantine was at war with Sassanids, needed a way to rally support and perhaps use Nestorian minorities as a fifth column, and more. His vision was fabricated.
It is not uncommon in history for leaders to adopt a new religion for purposes of military campaigns. In other words, Constantine was willing to sacrifice Roman culture to beat the Persians.
Now why did Islam grow? That is easier to understand. It grew as a tool for Arabic imperialism.
Every single Christian, Muslim, and Jew will go to Ahriman's House o Lies for their druj, for their endless lies and dogmas. They have done a good job of spreading impurities into this world. However, the Dharmic religions, as a whole, are more sensible and easier to sympathize with, even though I may disagree with them. I will say many Buddhists will Ahura Mazda's House of Songs, but too bad for the Christcucks!
Just you wait. Mutually Assured Destruction is bullshit. Mankind is invariably going to annihilate itself, yet the Christians, Muslims, and Jews will continue to babble about their bullshit. They are not human beings in the real sense of the word. They are agents of Ahriman.
I do not care for all of this so-called scientific "progress" or technological development. What good does that do? You found a better way to destroy the forests, spread filth to the oceans, kill one another, etc.? This is the end-goal of Abrahamism: destruction of life. This is because they never found the light within life or virtue itself, and that light is tacitly apprehended via deeds, words, and thoughts. Faith is secondary to the qualitative dimension of manifesting light and helping to bring forth order.

[Anonymous No.18283453]

>>18280116
God probably lied about hell to encourage people to behave virtuously. If he exists it is more likely everyone goes to the same place.

[Anonymous No.18283460]

Even the hunting for a snark makes more sense the Cuckstianity.
>OOOOH YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT A JEW FROM LEVANT AS THE SON OF GOD! HELL FOR YOU!
You are on the level of shit-skins. AGENTS OF AHRIMAN.
You spread forth impurities, RIPPED OFF MY RELIGION, and have the audacity to claim you are in access of the Truth?
Jerusalem and Mecca should be razed to the ground, Abrahamists impaled and blood soaking the ground. The fire would cleanse the filth, the fire would be radiant and blessed by Ohrmazd.
You are beyond the capacity of purification. Your nonsense makes less sense than the Voynich Manuscript.
Zoroastrianism is much more elegant, gets straight to the point, yet out of your envy and LIES you rip it off, bastardize it, and make it into something truly demonic and irredeemable.
Every single Christian, Muslim, and Jew deserves to die.

[Anonymous No.18283463]

>>18280116
>>18280126
>>18280132
>>18280145
>>18280266
>>18280297
>>18280288
>>18280423
>>18280442
>>18280451
>>18280462
>>18280467
>>18280519
>>18280530
>>18280646
>>18280683
>>18280942
>>18280943
>>18280975
>>18281005
>>18281029
>>18281190
>>18281216
>>18281978
>>18282007
>>18282456
>>18282700
>>18282877
>>18282937
>>18283082
>>18283182
>>18283224
>>18283231
>>18283257
>>18283277
>>18283288
>>18283294
>>18283315
>>18283322
>>18283436
>>18283410
>>18283453
>>18283436

Why is everyone ignoring the post that answers this entire worthless thread:

>>18283227

[Anonymous No.18283467]

>>18283453
>it is more likely everyone goes to the same place
Yeah, it's fucking called hell. Everyone goes to hell.

[Anonymous No.18283473]

>>18283463
Even if you hear about Jewsus, so what?
That is no proof of his supposed divinity.
It's just a religion of peer pressure and suspending critical thinking skills for fundamental metaphysical claims.
So I'm supposed to drop everything and accept I live in sin?
So I am supposed to suspend all disbelief and inquiry into the historical context or whatever?

[Anonymous No.18283486]

>>18283467
*Sheol

[Anonymous No.18283514]

Cyrus the "Great" should have slaughtered all of the Jews, so that way Abrahamic filth would not exist. Dammit.

[Anonymous No.18283624]

The priest is wrong, It doesn't matter whether you know or not

[Anonymous No.18283634]

>>18283473
2007 wants their fedora back

[Anonymous No.18283694]

>>18283634
I'm not an atheist, historically illiterate dumbass. There were plenty of better PreSocratics than Jewsus. Likewise, your tradition is a trashy Jewish ripoff of Zoroastrianism.

[Anonymous No.18283701]

>>18280423
yes and no
if you want something good read Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

[Anonymous No.18283710]

>>18283694

[Anonymous No.18283718]

>>18283473
>So I'm supposed to drop everything and accept I live in sin?
Step 1: Figure out which actions are conducive to reaching enlightenment and becoming a saint
Step 2: Figure out the antithesis of these actions - these are called sins (so called because of proverbially "straying from the way [of Holiness]" in Hebrew, or "missing the mark [of perfect conduct]" in Greek.
Step 3: Figure out which of these actions you perform
Step 4: Accept that if you perform even one transgressive action, you are by definition "living in [a] sin[ful way]"
Step 5: Seek the opposite (repent)
Step 6: At some point on your journey of cultivating virtue, you will realize Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Anonymous No.18283720]

>>18283710
Edgelord Atheism is an outgrowth of Abrahamic culture.

[Anonymous No.18283730]

>>18283718
I've done that, and I've realized Jewsus, M*hammad, and Moses were frauds.

[Anonymous No.18283755]

>>18283730
You are still between steps 4 and 5. I wish you the best of luck on your journey, brother. May peace be with you as you explore our beautiful world, and come to realize the incomprehensibly vast love of the God of mankind.

[Anonymous No.18283782]

>>18283755
The idea of God being akin to Love came from Zoroastrianism. Love is sufficient and making Love hinge on accepting a schizophrenic Jew as God incarnate is in reality a form of hatred of this world. It doesn't make sense and strips man of his agency. You either find God through your own mind/heart or nowhere else. I find more love in the singing of the birds than your despicable Jew.

[Anonymous No.18283790]

>>18283782
You sound pretty hateful desu

[Anonymous No.18283807]

>>18280593
>The problem at hand in OP has nothing to do with any "papist" or protestants creation
It has to do with the retarded "predestination" and indeed forcefull rhetoric of papist and proties that traumatized everyone.

[Anonymous No.18283811]

>>18283069
anta baka

[Anonymous No.18283816]

>>18283782
I hope one day you will understand. Good luck on your journey, friend. By rejecting the incarnate Logos, you embrace the all-consuming entropic forces of chaos and animosity, implicitly accepting the truth of the reactionary Jewish cosmic vision. This evil hatred will devour you from the inside, until you repent. I pray that you will see the light, brother - I love you, and wish only the best for you. To the one who knocks, the door shall be opened - and a humble and contrite heart, He will not spurn.

[Anonymous No.18283832]

>>18283790
Anyone who claims to be God incarnate and claims to be in access of a divinity solely exclusive to Himself is undeserving of Love. Empedocles was a better man than Jewsus because the former never claimed he was more special than other life. Empedocles also promoted ecological welfare unlike Jewsus. All Abrahamists spread the highest form of druj and, in reality, hate life itself.

[Anonymous No.18283844]

>>18280773
Everyone went to hell before Jesus died on the cross, with certain exceptions. When Jesus died on the cross is when you could be saved, if you accept it and when he died he went to hell, known as the Harrowing of Hell, and he saved those in hell who were willing to accept it.

[Anonymous No.18283847]

>>18283816
Logos, in Christian context, is ripped off from Zoroastrian concept of Asha.

[Anonymous No.18283877]

>>18283847
The concept of there being an ordering principle to the universe far predates Zoroastrianism. Nonetheless, knowing that similar concepts exist does not allow you to transcend from the toxic hatred arising from your rejection of the literal, physically incarnate Logos, the saviour of all mankind, who was killed for our sake, and was resurrected as the firstborn of the dead. One day, I hope you will realize this. Et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.

[Anonymous No.18283882]

>>18283720
>>18283473
>>18283187
>>18283288
Ohh if is not our Zoroastrian friend who persist in error after being shown everything he needs in order to understand even his own behaviour! How are you? Day after day and you are still here in the exact same way, friend.

[Anonymous No.18283893]

>>18283847
Logos is literally Reason. This is common to all religions because it is inherent to the numinous consciousness, my zoroastrian friend; and no religion lacks the numinous. However, as I already told you, Christ is the Logos because of what He reveals - He reveals the very essence of all of religions which spring from the first degree, most basic and primordial conscousness of numinous.

[Anonymous No.18283906]

>>18280116
Like >>18280126 said, everyone who wasn't baptized can't get into Heaven. When we say Hell, we get the impression that it's a horrible place where you'll burn for eternity, but there are different levels to Hell. Hitler and an atheist that lived a harmless life while on Earth are not on the same Hell, they're on different levels. The agreed position these days is that the place where people who did not know of God or Sin go is a place without suffering, but also a place without the divine view of God. So you would want to know about God because of that.

[Anonymous No.18283913]

>>18280116
Like >>18280126 said, everyone who wasn't baptized can't get into Heaven. When we say Hell, we get the impression that it's a horrible place where you'll burn for eternity, but there are different levels to Hell. Hitler and an atheist that lived a harmless life while on Earth are not on the same Hell, they're on different levels. The agreed position these days is that the place where people who did not know of God or Sin go is a place without suffering, but also a place without the divine view of God called Purgatory. So you would want to know about God because of that.

[Anonymous No.18283922]

>>18280116
Sure not heaven, but what about purgatory?

[Anonymous No.18283924]

>>18283877
>>18283893
>literal, physically incarnate Logos, the saviour of all mankind, who was killed for our sake, and was resurrected as the firstborn of the dead
>Christ is the Logos because of what He reveals - He reveals the very essence of all of religions which spring from the first degree, most basic and primordial conscousness of numinous.
I am not convinced by these claims. Guess I am going to hell in your views. Neither side is going to convince the other.

[Anonymous No.18283926]

>>18283906
I think this ''lesser hell'' is similar to a Limbo, no? I think in the Divina Commedia nonchristian sages are all in the Limbo. They have even a good ''state'' there (better than we here in the fallen world), but suffer because they know they can't reach God fully, they can't even have hope.

[Anonymous No.18283938]

>>18283922
isn't purgatory just a passage? I haven't read much about these questions but either the souls there purify themselevs and go to heaven or fail to and go to limbo/hell.

[Anonymous No.18283940]

>>18283486
Well, yeah.

[Anonymous No.18283955]

>>18283924
Well, seeing the amount of hatred, how you persist in error and muster consuming resentment within you, yeah, who knows... You are the same person I wrote rather extensively about Christianity's superiority, and thus truth, in metaphysical and anthropological spheres comprising the whole extent of human life.

[Anonymous No.18283988]

>>18283924
>I am not convinced by these claims.
That's understandable. I got to this point of acceptance through the following question - if you are seeking the truth, perhaps it may help as well. In your opinion, what happened 2000 years ago that made the disciples of Jesus believe He had appeared to them in a physically resurrected body after His death?
>Guess I am going to hell in your views.
Who knows what God has planned for you? Far be it from me to proclaim somebody is going to hell. You may repent, you may have a mental illness precluding you from making rational decisions, you may have been abused by a Christian - there are many factors that only God can justly judge. I do not judge you, I am only trying to talk.
>Neither side is going to convince the other.
Stranger things have happened.

[Anonymous No.18283989]

>>18283955
>seeing the amount of hatred
Love towards delusions is not good.
At most, I have a kind of slight disgust, but I am not going to cause problems the way rapefugees do. Regardless, I will never accept Abrahamic framework of the divine.
>You are the same person I wrote rather extensively about Christianity's superiority
We debated, but I had to go somewhere else.
I pretty much won the debate because you agreed there is no satisfactory argument for Christ's divinity beyond faith, so there's no point in delving into the foundations of such a belief more.
My religion is superior, and also it is easier to defend because it makes less contentious claims in its fundamental metaphysical arguments.
Debating Buddhists is harder than Christians. I actually take them more seriously than you. There is more intellectual rigor in, say, The Diamond Sutra than the entirety of the Bible. Granted, I don't agree with Mahayana Buddhists though because I think there is some kind of cosmic dualism at play in the Universe.

[Anonymous No.18284023]

>>18283989
>We debated, but I had to go somewhere else.
>I pretty much won the debate
Your stupidity is blatant. You affirm your having won a debate which the last post was mine? You lie all the time, you are dishonest. I never said anything of Christ's divinity being affirmed solely by faith because of all I told you concerning anthropology and metaphysics.

> I will never accept Abrahamic framework of the divine.
Not Abrahamic. I know you are lost, no need for apologies.

>I think there is some kind of cosmic dualism at play in the Universe.
You are right and this is what I try to do: to show the side you have chosen.

>My religion is superior
It does not seem despite the fact that there is truth in your religion (as in most and, to a degree, all religions). Our conversation was divided between my explanations and your hatred, your irrational retorts about how much you hate truth.

Whoever is not convinced by arguments and reason will be convinced by force. The remedy for disorder will be pain—this is the law of the nature you know.

[Anonymous No.18284069]

>>18280378
>That's called Pelagianism and it's on an official list of heresies
Ok holy shit time to burn this dude. #gotem

[Anonymous No.18284084]

>>18284023
>You affirm your having won a debate which the last post was mine?
I had things to do at that time. That does not mean you won.
>Not Abrahamic.
I mean, you accept Abrahamic myths like Noah's Ark, Abraham as first man, and much more, whether allegorically or literally. I don't see what's inaccurate with calling Christianity an Abrahamic religion even if it may have non-Abrahamic influences in its scholastic tradition.
>You are right and this is what I try to do: to show the side you have chosen.
I judge what side someone is based on how his or her intentions map to various thoughts, words, and deeds. It can only be judged in relationship to the individual.
>It does not seem despite the fact that there is truth in your religion (as in most and, to a degree, all religions).
I mean, I would argue there is truth in much of your religion too (e.g., a lot of what various Catholic saints like John of the Cross have to say is beautiful). However, the fundamental claims of your religion, the Incarnation and Resurrection, are peculiar kinds of lies.
>Whoever is not convinced by arguments and reason will be convinced by force. The remedy for disorder will be pain—this is the law of the nature you know.
Sounds Islamic.
I do not think pain is the law of nature either.
The law of nature is sacrifice. The wise choose to minimize sacrifice only to what is essential (e.g., a fox that hunts a rabbit for his family). Oversacrifice leads to overindulgence and greed.

[Anonymous No.18284139]

>>18284084
>That does not mean you won
Questions and positions left unanswered?

>you accept Abrahamic heilsgeschichte
Yes, but Abrahamism is a limited term to define what goes beyond it, its own fulfillment.

>Incarnation and Resurrection
I explained both of these in those posts of mine in our last extensive conversation.

>Sounds Islamic.
Was it you who said here >>18283288:
>God is not as forgiving as you think
Was it you? Now this seems Islamic. As long as you have will, God will (and also wills forgiveness) forgive you.

>The law of nature is sacrifice
Yes. And this is why our nature (both, literally) is fallen. This is the spark of the anthropological ouroboros you people find yourselves in. And, above all, this is what Christ is: the Reason, Logos, which give consciousness of the numinous—the numinous beyond this eternal cycle of destruction and construction, violence and peace, chaos and order.

Everything I had to say I already told you here and in our last talk. It is a pity to find someone like you as a zoroastrian, a religion I admire and wished to integrate more in my worldview, and Zoroaster a man I consider to have been a prophet.

[Anonymous No.18284228]

>>18284139
>Questions and positions left unanswered?
What positions of mine do you want me to clarify?
>I explained both of these in those posts of mine in our last extensive conversation.
Yes, I remember our discussion on Girard. I said his views are interesting, but I wasn't convinced any of that proved Jesus was divine and the only path to salvation. You do realize plenty of mystics and more have been scapegoated throughout history?
>Was it you who said here
I've argued with Muslims a lot too. I don't think Muhammad had a revelation, and it doesn't make sense to also claim it is the 'final' one. It has a certain arbitrariness to it. The central claim of Islam was best conveyed with Avicenna's "Proof of the Truthful", but even if there is a necessary existent of a monotheistic conception of God, I think the Hindus argue it better.
The persecution Ahmadiyya experience is to be expected given Islam's theology.
>Was it you? Now this seems Islamic. As long as you have will, God will (and also wills forgiveness) forgive you.
In my view it's about purification, not repentance. I do not think it is as simple as repenting on one's deathbed, especially if one has engaged in heinous crime. Also, I think the nature of God is akin to an orb of serenity, light, love, etc. Bundahishn and Mazdak the Younger argued this a bit.
>And, above all, this is what Christ is: the Reason, Logos, which give consciousness of the numinous—the numinous beyond this eternal cycle of destruction and construction, violence and peace, chaos and order.
Empedocles argued it better. His philosophy can give consciousness of the numinous too, and he focuses a lot on the eternal cycle of destruction and construction, strife and love, chaos and order. He also never said He is the only Way.
My issue with non-Gnostic forms of Christianity is its adherents claim you can only be saved by accepting Jesus as God incarnate. If Jesus was treated more like a teacher, I could accept it as an expedient means to enlightenment, sure, but not when he is treated as possessing a divine spark inaccessible to other beings.
>Zoroaster a man I consider to have been a prophet.
Zoroastrians don't accept Jesus as God incarnate. Many of them agree he is wise, but it is strange thing to call a man a literal God that others can never reach up to. In fact, it is very Semitic in mentality.
Surprisingly enough, Empedocles didn't have this problem. Even if someone claims to be a God or avatar of some divinity, the fact is, it's the message that matters, and there can be likewise be those who reach that level, who can reach the level of Gods with a magnanimous mind.
This ties into the conception of Buddha nature, which is about the latent potential of all sentient beings reaching Buddha hood. Once you reach Buddha hood, you are equivalent to Buddha in metaphysical status. This is where the meme of referring to Christians as "cuckholds" comes from because you consider yourself to be insignificant to Christ.

[Anonymous No.18284410]

>>18284228
>You do realize plenty of mystics and more have been scapegoated throughout history?
This has nothing to do with what Christ does. You don't need to be a mystic in order to be scapegoated, as history of religions shows.

>purification, not repentance
Repentance is purification and of the essence of man: purification of will.

>Nature of God akin to...love
I have really bad news to you: you'll find Love only in Love, that is, Trinity. If I recall well I exlpained this, which goes into the metaphysical sphere of my explanation.

> His philosophy can give consciousness of the numinous too, and he focuses a lot on the eternal cycle of destruction and construction, strife and love, chaos and order.
Do you even understand what I'm saying? All of this is evident in all religions.

>non-Gnostic forms of Christianit
Christianity is gnostic in the sense it is Gnosis itself (not mentioning the fact that gnosticism and Christianity share a lot in common and have some influences derived from the same sources).

>you can only be saved by accepting Jesus as God incarnate...when he is treated as possessing a divine spark inaccessible to other beings.
I explained this in that old thread.

>it is very Semitic in mentality.
Your definition is pretty distorted but aside of it, doesn't exclusivism reeks of gnosticism to you?

>Buddha
It is funny how buddhism is the first to show how any principial axiom is futile, regressive, and literally even, empty. I explained this about Christ as well in posts of mine from that thread. Good luck attaining buddhahood.

[Anonymous No.18284528]

>>18284410
>>/lit/thread/S17843676#p17844644
I am rereading our past discussion. I was not satisfied with your answer to this claim: "By treating Jesus more like an avatar, from which there can be many manifestations (this is a key point), one can therefore avoid the dogmatism that is inextricably tied with much of Abrahamism. Jesus would then be seen as a model to emulate rather than worship at the exclusion of all else."

Where I disagree with your response is that the the anthropological is separated from the metaphysical (i.e., I take a somewhat more idealist approach) and Christ is not peak of numinous consciousness or highest metaphysical expression (i.e., it could be for certain individuals -- but as you've agreed, there are other mediators between man and God). Also, I'm not convinced for arguments for hypostatic union.

What I'm saying is simple: Jesus may be a good guide for bringing forth stable consciousness in the flux, for understanding the nature of mimetic desire, or cultivating Love. However, none of this proves his hypostatic union or the Incarnation. Others guides could be equally viable for certain people. So is a person damned to hell for not accepting Christ even if they brought forth their own ordered, stable consciousness by their own means? So be it.

[Anonymous No.18284637]

>>18284528
>I disagree with your response is that the the anthropological is separated from the metaphysical
Where did I claim this? I expressed the exact opposite in the last post.

>Christ is not peak
This means nothing. I gave presented reasons for it His being.

>as you've agreed, there are other mediators between man and God.
I don't remember saying anything like this, so again you have to quote me. I may have said Reason? Yes, it is possible since Christ is Logos and systems like Platonism did get a lot of the truth.

>I'm not convinced for arguments for hypostatic union.
Another affirmation of your own being irrelevant.

>Jesus may be a good guide for bringing forth stable consciousness in the flux, for understanding the nature of mimetic desire, or cultivating Love. However, none of this proves his hypostatic union or the Incarnation. Others guides could be equally viable for certain people.
Maybe the Sacred is also just another phenomenon giving us stability to abstract things and all things divine mere illusions.

>So is a person damned to hell for not accepting Christ even if they brought forth their own ordered, stable consciousness by their own means? So be it.
I think this thread can answer this.

[Anonymous No.18284647]

>>18284637
>I gave presented reasons for it His being.
gave, presented reasons for His being.

[Anonymous No.18284725]

>>18284637
>Where did I claim this? I expressed the exact opposite in the last post.
I wasn't clear. Sorry a bit tired. I meant to say I think the anthropological is separate from the metaphysical. I disagree with your claim that they're not separate.
>This means nothing. I gave presented reasons for it His being.
You said other religions give a glimpse to the mechanism of the primordial victim, ordered consciousness coming from the phenomenological flux, and so forth, and then proceeded to argue Christ is the peak of numinous consciousness and is, thus, Logos. None of this necessarily leads to concluding Christ is Logos.
>Christ is Logos
There is a logical disjunction with your explanations of Girard's mechanism and Christ being Logos. All you've done is a give a descriptive analysis on why Christ's story/mythos may have deeper significance from an analytical and theological perspective; however, none of that leads to concluding that Christ is Logos and such a path is superior to others. In order to justify your claim, you must actually give metaphysical arguments in favor of the hypostatic union, Incarnation, and Resurrection, which go beyond anthropological analyses.
>Another affirmation of your own being irrelevant.
I mean, technically speaking, you're irrelevant too... We're all insignificant to Christ in your worldview. One cannot hope to become greater than Christ, which is Logos.
It seems fundamentally nihilistic to me.
>I think this thread can answer this.
Not really.
Also, you place a huge emphasis on the Girard's mechanism of primordial victim; don't you ever question that the modern culture of revering victim consciousness could have stemmed from this heavy emphasis? There are other virtues and mechanisms that I think are equally, if not more, important.

[Anonymous No.18284742]

>>18280282
Sounds nice and all... but can I just be done? Why torture me just yeet me into nonexistence plz

[Anonymous No.18284845]

>>18284725
>I think the anthropological is separate from the metaphysical.
Quite at odds with idealism, don't you think?

>You said other religions give a glimpse to the mechanism of the primordial victim
They don't give a glimpse, they are literally it.

>and then proceeded to argue Christ is the peak of numinous consciousness
As is clear above you misunderstood and ignored steps leading to the conclusion. Parse the posts.

>In order to justify your claim, you must actually give metaphysical arguments in favor of the hypostatic union, Incarnation, and Resurrection, which go beyond anthropological analyses.
And I did. I went beyond the anthropological with Trinity on the metaphysical sphere and mainly with the union of the human and divine in opposition to the pagan/common/primitive religions where the Violence and the Sacred are repelled, banished and later integrated, at variance from transcendent to immanent, from immanent to transcendent.

>We're all insignificant to Christ in your worldview
I'm taking into account rationale, analyses, here.

>don't you ever question that the modern culture of revering victim consciousness could have stemmed from this heavy emphasis?
We see everyday the same old practice of scapegoat mechanism all the time everywhere. As for the modern culture, you see secularism is parasitical, see the perversion of morality, being even more strict to certain people and regarding certain acts. The modern phenomena cannot occur without the religious, it is itself a new religion.

[Anonymous No.18284971]

>>18284845
>The modern phenomena cannot occur without the religious, it is itself a new religion.
I agree secularism is a new religion.
>I went beyond the anthropological with Trinity on the metaphysical sphere and mainly with the union of the human and divine in opposition to the pagan/common/primitive religions where the Violence and the Sacred are repelled, banished and later integrated, at variance from transcendent to immanent, from immanent to transcendent.
Yes, and I said that was interesting. However, that doesn't give sufficient reason to believe Jesus was a teleological culmination of this over-encompassing-narrative, an end-to-be or beginning-to-be so-to-speak. Also, how do you know the narrative conforms to the sacred dimension?
>As is clear above you misunderstood and ignored steps leading to the conclusion.
I didn't really ignore the steps.
It's more like you're making claims without backing it or convincing me. For example, here you say:
>"Our Lord gathered the whole cosmos within him on the Cross and bathed all with his blood"
>"With Christ’s Incarnation, with the Passion, the metaphysical and the physical becomes one in Love."
Your posts are littered with these. They assume one accepts the Incarnation.
Here is what you said about the Trinity. None of this is an argument or defense; they are just conjectures:
>The perichoretic movement. The perichoresis, this movement and rest, is also an expression of the Trinity, three and one, for that is Love, and love is this “movement and rest” relation, emptying oneself to make room for the other and being fulfilled as if you filled by your own intimate essence. Anyway, there is a lot about the Trinity.
>However, the metaphysics is the foundation, for Christ is God's Son before being incarnated. Divine before assuming humanity. So our foundation is the Trinity, and there is nothing superior to it metaphysically, theosophically, theologically, as I have attested here in this thread.
>This takes a phenomenological point of view in which the reduction, the epoché, in husserlian terms, of this consciousness is transposed to what Christianity preaches, with what Christ means, compassion, love, understanding, justice and because of this ''order'' or purely conscious state, we leave the natural attitude (phenomenological conception indicating the phenomenal flux, the passivity of daily life, that is the blind acceptance of the religious systems and its institutions - this is obvious in the treatment of the legalistic pharisees, for example) to gain an ample view and profound cognition, The anthropological is not separated from the metaphysical, and the anthropological revelation of ''things hidden since the foudation of the world'' (Mt. 13:35) leads to the consciousness of the apophatic character of Trinity and highest metaphysical expression: Love, and this is the uttermost significance of the relation between man and God, of both humanity and divinity being encountered in Christ.

[Anonymous No.18285014]

>>18284971
>They assume one accepts the Incarnation
It is what the Incarnation of the Divine implicates. And that Christ died and resurrected is attested (people were tortured and died for truth).

I should have gone to bed hours ago. I may answer this properly tomorrow if the thread is still up.

[Anonymous No.18285065]

>>18285014
>And that Christ died and resurrected is attested
From what I've read, a lot of quotes such as those from Tacitus are taken out of context. Do you have any books or articles that argue for Christ's resurrection? I will read them critically.
>It is what the Incarnation of the Divine implicates
Right, but I need real arguments to believe such a thing.
The most you have done is made me accept Jesus as a kind man but misguided in his central claims. He is better than Muhammad at least.
The life of Jesus and Zoroaster do parallel each other more than Muhammad in some ways. In the case of Zoroaster, he was critiquing the war-mongering and "oversacrifice" of steppe warlords who rejected him; likewise, Jesus was critiquing the money changers and vanity of the rabbis. However, they arrived at different conclusions, and when I compare them, I am more convinced by Zoroaster's central claims overall.

[Anonymous No.18285104]

>>18280116
Most people know certain things are sin (rape, murder etc) regardless of culture, and if he did those things without repenting he'd probably go to hell whether he knew about God or not. And now he has an incentive not to.

Also Christians tend to stress sacraments like Baptism moreso than just "knowing God" in some abstract legalistic way.

[Anonymous No.18285118]

>>18280773
>what is the harrowing of hell
>what is sheol
It's amazing how much people want you to fucking spoonfeed them all this shit.

[Anonymous No.18285400]

>>18283463
I've pointed out multiple times that there is a dilemma which isn't answered by that verse.

[Anonymous No.18285419]

>>18280116
one orthodox theologian gave an answer here in a much more detailed manner than any 4chan post

[Anonymous No.18285423]

>>18283913
Is there any scriptural basis for this?

[Anonymous No.18286885]

>>18285065
Again, we have history showing people giving their lives for what they witnessed.

>I need arguments
You either accept that the Sacred is instantiated through human events or then we have no reason to talk about anything related to the anthropological inquiry and expression of the divine. In the first case then, what Christ reveals is not the Sacred veiled, but its full character, He reveals the very ignorance inherent that degree of numinous consciousness. It is with Christ that we have a full reduction of Reason, not partial as it were with the prior expressions of the divine. Manifestation of divinity and reason are the same thing. And this is important to anthropological and phenomenological inquiry on Christ, I’ll not even comment about the metaphysical/theological.

[Anonymous No.18287471]

>>18286885
From my own past studies I came to conclude the early epistles and Paul treat him as a celestial being that people know through divine revelation, and the Gospels were altered a lot in the beginning by early Christian rival sects to give the impression of Jesus being a historical figure (i.e., "Euhemerism"). Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus are not reliable evidence too for obvious reasons.

It's possible Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha (surprisingly there is more evidence of Bodhidharma's existence) didn't even exist due to some scriptural and dating inconsistencies. For example, the earliest Koran is dated as written before Muhammad’s maturity. A belief in the historical reality of these hagiographic supermen implies “God's justice”, which is actually contrary to the way the world really works (i.e., "the good die young!").

[Anonymous No.18287490]

>>18283882
Kek is he the one that thinks the Byzantines created Islam?

[Anonymous No.18287498]

>>18285423
only in the quraan lmao

[Anonymous No.18287507]

>>18287471
>Gospels were altered by christian sects because christians sects were in conflict about the foundation of their own religion: the existence of christ
Can you please understand what you think before posting these things?

>Tacitus, Josephus and Tallus are not reliable
I’d like to know why

Funny how you don’t mention the fact that Zoroaster could be probably as real as Vyasa and how the scant material about the person points to doubt of his existence. In any case I believe Zoroaster was a person and existed, I don’t need to conform to biased speculations (since having material proving existence of someone is irrelevant if you already thinks the contrary beforehand).

[Anonymous No.18287527]

>>18280116
The Eskimo's reasoning betrays an unethical mindset that devalues truth in favor of comfort.
By more to the point, being in the Church VS being outside of the Church is akin to comparing an ocean voyage in a passenger liner to an ocean voyage in a tiny little dinghy.
Which do you think would be safer?

[Anonymous No.18287553]

>>18280116
The correct answer is that this is your brain on Catholicism

[Anonymous No.18287642]

>>18280266
Exactly

[SAGE GOES IN ALL FIELDS No.18287725]

>>18280986
That writing
>executed bastard of a young harlot and Roman soldier gangbang.
My drowsiness is gone. You have my gratitude

[Anonymous No.18287766]

>>18280975
What type of person is this invested in a Congolese whale watching forum?

[Anonymous No.18287793]

>>18283062
How does "You always knew lmao" outsmarting what OP posted?
Christianity requires faith of one specific God and there's nothing indicating that every given secular or non-Christian community would intrinsically know of or be familiar with his power and Godhead and the invisible things of him.

Otherwise, there would be no reason to tell people about God and sin.

[Anonymous No.18287878]

>>18280986
>the executed bastard of a young harlot and Roman soldier gangbang
Your perverted and degenerate mind is on clear display with this absolutely shameful and disgusting statement.
I can't imagine unironically using the Talmud as a source to support your hatred of Christ - you are so unaware of how brainwashed you are. As usual, the anti-Christ nature of Jews like you is on clear display. May God have mercy on your soul.

[Anonymous No.18287901]

>>18280986
>the executed bastard of a young harlot and Roman soldier gangbang
Your perverted and degenerate mind is on clear display with this absolutely shameful and disgusting statement.
I can't imagine unironically using the Talmud as a source to support your hatred of Christ - you are so unaware of how brainwashed you are. As usual, the anti-Christ nature of disgusting Jews like you is immediately apparent. May God have mercy on your soul, if you repent.

[Anonymous No.18288102]

>>18287507
It takes too long to discuss. I could be wrong, but there's a lot of issue with authenticity and later interpolations with these texts. I know Wikipedia is not a viable source, but you follow the citations and spend more time with serious scholarly research, which I will do in the future:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
There's not that much scholarly consensus. I think I'd need to spend at least a year critically analyzing each of the texts. The thing with Christianity, compared to Zoroastrianism, it's entirely hinged on a historical event whereas in the case of esoteric Zoroastrianism one can approach it from an metaphysical angle like Buddhism. The most I can say is Tacitus is not reliable because he's just echoing what he was born 25 years after Jesus' death, and he does not reveal source of his information. The authenticity is thus debatable. It's also possible he's just echoing what Christians were saying at that time. Other sources require more thorough analysis.
Also, even if Jesus' Incarnation and Resurrection didn't occur, or he didn't exist, I still think a lot of Catholic saints St. John of the Cross were enlightened. Remember my point regarding "mental templates"? I actually find the stories of many Catholic saints more interesting than Jesus himself.
Also, sometimes I do feel I have dreams with religious figures. In particular, I felt I talked to Han Shan, Zurwandad, and Jesus. In my dream with Jesus, I did think he existed, but I was not impressed by him. If I were to go off my dream, I would say he was just an apocalyptic teacher who found this life unsatisfactory, but the stuff surrounding his resurrection and such are largely myths. In this sense, I think Mani's views on Jesus are closer to what original Christians believed compared to mainstream ones.
It's possible Zoroaster was a composite of different people. It doesn't affect my religious identification. Gathas resembles a Pre-Socratic text for example.
I consider Mazdak the Younger as an evolution of the fundamental principles.
I went through a period of reading a lot of philosophy and theological texts and also meditation. I also became critical by nondual antinomian tendencies. I came to the opposite conclusion of, say, Schopenhauer. That is, I know there is a "rudimentary dualism" at the basis of reality, and the process of artistic creation can also unveil it, hence why I call myself Zoroastrian. For example, an art piece made from concentrated, unadulterated Love will have a different phenomenological and ontological character from one made of pure malice or deception. It's why I focus largely on either children's literature and horror. The short horror story I published btw would make you call me a demon, but I was doing it of a part of a larger comprehensive project, which will also involve me publishing children's literature.
I agree with Empedocles on the two antagonist properties (attraction/love vs repulsion/strife).

[Anonymous No.18288249]

>>18280116
He wouldn't go to hell, if he act with his own good.

[Anonymous No.18288311]

>>18288102
>The most I can say is Tacitus is not reliable because he's just echoing what he was born 25 years after Jesus' death, and he does not reveal source of his information. The authenticity is thus debatable
Know that most historians are pretty much the same or even worse than the case of Tacitus. By this you are conceding an entire field to be dismissed as not reilable. Let's reject Plutarch, Diogens Laertius, Diodorus Siculus, Gibbon, Vico, Tacitus, Plinius, Josephus, Montaigne... and the historians denying the historicity of Jesus! What is left is the main document of the contemporaries of Jesus: The Gospels.

[Anonymous No.18288941]

>>18288311
I've read that the Gospels had later interpolations with rival sects altering it. I would have to research it more thoroughly though on a linguistic level.
What I'm claiming is when you begin with historical claims, rather than metaphysics, then it makes sense to focus on that more. It's not like reading Bodhidharma or Dogen where you reflect on your own experience and consider their philosophical argumentation.
I don't think it's fair for the son of God not to leave more apparent clues, in the phenomenal or natural world, that faith in him alone is the only path to salvation.
Also, even if Jesus wasn't the son of God or didn't exist, I would think the tradition is still valuable because of my "mental template" argument, and I do think saints like St. John of the Cross are very pure and wise. The Catholic tradition of saints is interesting. Even Emil Cioran was wow'd by it as an atheist.

[Anonymous No.18288973]

Only the elect saved. If you aren't one of the elect then you will go to hell. All humans are deserving of hell due to their sin. You don't go to hell because you don't have faith, you go to hell because you are a sinner, and it doesn't matter whether you've heard of Christ or not.

[Anonymous No.18288981]

>>18281641
get a load of this Eskimo

[Anonymous No.18288985]

>>18288311
"In the inner stillness where meditation leads, the spirit secretly anoints the soul and heals our deepest wounds." -- St. John of the Cross

[Anonymous No.18289080]

>>18280116
ummmm Es*imo is a racial slur sweaty we call these heckin valid pipo Inuits. Yikes! Downvoted

[Anonymous No.18289086]

>>18288941
There is no serious renowned scholar stating interpolations in the original Gospels and in their compositions. What there is and always will be is translation issues, scribal mistakes. What is likewise the case is some slight modifications and additions in *different copies of the originals*. Do you know how many copied papyri we have? This is not the case with some gnostic gospels, guess why? Because they were not repeatedly copied and transmitted as the canon ones.
All I told you was regarding the anthropological and phenomenal manifestation of Christ. But if history is also not a clue and meaningless to you then there is simply no reason to talk about anything that is not metaphysics. I explained a lot as well about the metaphysical side of Christianity in that other thread.

[Anonymous No.18289125]

>>18280288
>some kind of god or some kind of sin
But the thread isn't about that. It's about the specific Judeo-Christian God.
>sin
This is a Christian concept. Other cultures don't have this concept.

[Anonymous No.18289161]

>>18283844
That's fucking retarded.
There are a lot of things in Christianity that I find interesting, but ultimately these cheese ball ideas they have about what happens to you after you die just make me roll my eyes.
It's like something you say to scare a child or mentally deficient person into doing what you want.

[Anonymous No.18289186]

>>18289161
>It's like something you say to scare a child or mentally deficient person into doing what you want.
Yes, they're called Christians. You'd have to be retarded to worship a jew on a stick.

[Anonymous No.18290432]

>>18289086
Well, after all of our talks and my own reading, I will say Catholicism is a very rich tradition. If I could believe in it, I would convert. Protestants are retarded though.
Granted, from my own intellectually honest approach, I cannot believe it.
Regardless, may Christ bless you, and I apologize for my rude tone before and such.

[Anonymous No.18290582]

>>18288973
>you go to hell because you are a sinner, and it doesn't matter whether you've heard of Christ or not.
what if a native on some small isolated island worships a god that his tribe created? isn't worshipping other gods a sin?

[Anonymous No.18291123]

it only makes sense if one believes that Christianity actually leads to a better sort of life, a more enjoyable life. Jesus says "my yoke is light and my burden is easy". if you truly believe that living as a Christian gives one freedom of mind, freedom from fear, joy, hope, peace, love - then that is why you preach the gospel. God does not play a "gotcha" game, contrary to what Protestant theology preaches. The Catholic Christian life is a joyous life - if it wasn't it would be worthless. The story of Jesus is more about the resurrection than the death.

[Anonymous No.18291832]

>>18289086
Are you sure? Arent some parts contested, like the stoning story in John, the end of mark, and 1 John 5:7? Can you recommend a good book on the preservation of the bible please?

[ReleaseMeFromThisMask-LikeForm !!HraTM3Vvtb/ No.18291844]

>>18291832
Dear Mr F

There are many books out there that do explain in detail what is and isn't in the bible. John Sherry's Complete Book of the Bible, for example, is a fairly comprehensive guide to how certain parts of the bible are recorded, where they are recorded, and how the bible's authors obtained what they recorded. The best source for the stoning story and the end of mark is, of course, the Bible itself.

[Anonymous No.18291873]

>>18291832
Yes, in the case of the stoning story and the end of mark, they are not in the original Gospels, that is why they can contest the copies including them.
In the case of 1 John 5:7, the well known Johannine Comma, it was a translation addition in the 15th century.
I have no particular book in mind now, but I'm sure you can find good resources if you make a diligent research.

>>18290432
May God bless you.

[Anonymous No.18291949]

>>18291844
>John Sherry's Complete Book of the Bible
Can’t find this book anon

[Anonymous No.18293272]

>>18280116
Have a better look.
https://archive.org/details/NikolaiLeskov-SentryAndOtherStories/page/n205/mode/2up

[Anonymous No.18293581]

>>18280266

This does not refute his point.

[Anonymous No.18293613]

>>18281216
>marymarymary...oh uuhh i mean our "lord" afirms that baptism is necessary for salvation
>if people can't get baptized then..........they just get baptized anyway LOL

This is a Logical catastrophe. So bad it has to deliberate.

[Anonymous No.18293633]

>>18280116
The correct answer is that the statement from the priest does not accurately reflect the moral teachings of any religious organization that refers to its ministers as priests or which have historically evangelized the Inuit. Invincible ignorance is a theological postulate not a dogma. The fate of the unevangelized remains a mystery so missionaries err on the side of caution. This image is a strawman.

[Anonymous No.18293667]

>People still think your human mind and personality translate directly into your immortal soul.

The idea that you are "yourself" after death, with all your desires and dreams and temperaments, is a laughably human notion. Just like how we try to append our ways of thinking on an omnipotent and omnipresent being.

[Anonymous No.18293687]

>>18290432
>Protestants are retarded though.
Why? Clergy are unnecessary for salvation, they're just a useful organizational vehicle who can be corrupt like any other men.

[Anonymous No.18293756]

>>18280116
The concept of sin has for the first time substantially entered their mind, with that comes a greater responsibility and sense of humanity. Before, they had no sense they were a free actor who could better or worsen the world by their actions. Essentially, the Eskimo has experienced the fall of man. But because this has occurred, man has been fully differentiated from animals, which is necessary for the kingdom of God to be established on earth and beautify God’s creation.

[Anonymous No.18293936]

>>18293667
basado

[Anonymous No.18294445]

>>18283913
da big bearded man in the sky is punishing da bad guys trust me i have read it in a book written by jewish sheperds 2000 years ago

[Anonymous No.18294810]

>>18280116
Yes they would still go to hell if they didn't know
Vessels of wrath

[Anonymous No.18295255]

>>18280116
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/nhn3w3/can_you_guys_help_me_with_refuting_this_quote/

[Anonymous No.18295354]

This is kinda racist and implies that Eskimos are retarded, semi-sentient beings not capable of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.18296183]

>>18295354
They have some consciousness but it’s less developed than ours.

[Anonymous No.18296548]

>>18280116
Ordinary means of salvation.
Extraordinary means of salvation.

Also, if the priest didn't tell him, that priest would be denying the great commission, and sinning, therefore jeopardizing his own soul.

[Anonymous No.18296553]

>>18296548
Also:
Vincible ignorance vs Invincible ignorance

[Anonymous No.18296594]

>>18281216
/thread

[Anonymous No.18296632]

>>18280116
The God I believe in would not abide leaving his virtuous and good children in a firey pit for eternity. I don't care what the Church doctrine is, that is the God I know.

[Anonymous No.18296655]

>>18296632
Catholic church stance is that even if people haven't heard of God/Jesus, he's still instilled in them a consciousness and they will be judged accordingly to their fruits

[Anonymous No.18296709]

>>18280116
Fucking Protestants.

Works MATTER.

[Anonymous No.18297295]

Many groups make exclusive and absolute truth claims, and there is no universally accepted standard or authority that could arbitrate the disputes. Either all are wrong or all but one are wrong and it isn't possible to know which is which.

[Anonymous No.18297319]

>>18280116
The opportunity, or choice, to go to heaven is obviously greater than the threat of hell.

[Anonymous No.18297753]

>>18280116
Let's say he is saved if so (I wont argue since we dont really know at least we dont pretend to in orthodoxy) he should be glad to know about God. Believing is not a chore.

[Anonymous No.18297774]

>>18296632
I don't think any amount of hopeful thinking would change reality

[Anonymous No.18297785]

>>18280116
Implying european colonialists are heralds of God's good will.

[Anonymous No.18297804]

>>18280116
Unborn/unbaptized babies writhe in eternal torment.

A glorious, flawless theology really.

[Anonymous No.18297808]

the OP image is wrong, he would still go to hell whether or not he would have known. at best he gets a shot at salvation, at worst, he still goes to hell but gets it worst. there's no "then he was better off without knowing" because God sent the message to salvation to him anyway - he was always going to get whatever hell awaited him

>>18294810

this is correct

[Anonymous No.18297818]

>>18280116
the priest is wrong here, the bible says there is no excuse if some sinner with a face paint wearing nothing but a loincloth in some amazonian rainforest die and go to hell.

Romans 1:20 KJV
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

because they can know that God exists from observing nature, God's creation. If people are seeking God and seeking for the truth, God will send a man to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to them just like Peter was sent to Cornelius, Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch, etc. A lot of people have this misconception that people will go to hell if they reject the gospel, but merely failing to receive God's free gift of eternal life in this lifetime will get you sent to hell for your sins.

Hebrews 9:27 KJV
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

If you reject the gospel, you will have much bigger punishment because you had that much more chance to be saved compared to others. This is what Jesus said to the cities who rejected him for the most part. have in mind Sodom and Gomorrah were scorched with fire and brimstone for their wicked ways.

Matthew 11:20-24
20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

If you are not 100% sure that you'd go to heaven, read the gospel tract in the pic, and if you want to hear the full gospel presentation, watch the video linked below. Trusting in a faith + works false gospel will not save you.

https://youtu.be/WuMTe9l6nzM

[Anonymous No.18297829]

>>18297804
wrong, they go to hell but don't suffer any palpable sense of torment because they've committed no sin. as Aquinas states, they will more than likely know a sense of peace, but not the sort of peace that man would know in heaven. and yes, heavenly peace is palpably different from a peace known in hell or earth

[Anonymous No.18298570]

>>18297829
Got any of day scriptural evidence my dude?

Thomas Aquinas is not scripture. Purgatory is not in the Bible.

Catholicism is an idolatrous bastard pig version of "Christianity" and should be ignored.

[Anonymous No.18298575]

>>18298570
*Dat* not day

[Anonymous No.18298580]

>>18297829
Aquinas is not scripture.

[Anonymous No.18298600]

>Eternal torment for finite transgressions

Not just.

[Anonymous No.18299777]

>>18293272
It seems that no one on /lit/ reads books.

[Anonymous No.18299963]

>>18280116
based eskimo btfos the boy fucker for wasting his time with nonsense

[Anonymous No.18299972]

>because the purpose of my religion (Christianity) is to spread
that's the only answer, plain and simple
if you disagree, you're an apologist

[Anonymous No.18300170]

>>18298600
transgressions against a being of infinite majesty and goodness is an infinite transgression and demands infinite punishment

[Anonymous No.18300179]

>>18298570
St Thomas Aquinas was imprisoned by his noble family because he wanted to become a priest against their wishes. in his captivity, he memorized the entire bible, and his brothers hired a prostitute to seduce him and demoralize him, and he fought this thot off with a burning log. but yeah, let's listen to pastor jim instead.

[Anonymous No.18301621]

>>18298570
>Thomas Aquinas is not scripture. Purgatory is not in the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is not in the bible

[Anonymous No.18301728]

>>18280272
Getting the white man to take on their religion was the greatest victory the jew ever had

[Anonymous No.18301924]

>>18300179
speaking of Aquinas, can anyone recommend what books i should get if i wanna know more about his thought?
oxford world classics has a "Selected Philosophical Writings" while penguin classics has "Selected Writings". these any good?

[Anonymous No.18302009]

>>18280975
Good job the Left can't meme then

[Anonymous No.18302035]

>>18283069
4chan mods thought it'd be funny to change t b h to it's Japanese equivalent. Fucking gay as shit, huh?

[Anonymous No.18302067]

>>18280378
Pelagius was right, seethe augusticuck

[Anonymous No.18302086]

>>18280116
>theologists, what's the correct answer here?
Whatever I say when I wave my hands just so
christcucks have retconned everything about their eternal truth so many times, no one can tell you just one thing that they all agreed on

And that's how you know it's so much shit

[Anonymous No.18302118]

>>18302067
Yeah maybe. He's still a heretic though

[Anonymous No.18302130]

>what's the correct answer here?
It's all made up.

[Anonymous No.18302237]

>>18287901
Why do Christians hate jews for killing Christ when Christ's death was vital for Salvation and was predestined by God at the beginning of time?

[Anonymous No.18302247]

>>18293667
This

[Anonymous No.18302250]

>>18302237
It isn't because they killed him - that was planned. It is because they deny him in spite of this

[Anonymous No.18302256]

>>18289125
What does taboo mean?
What does pāpa mean?
What does haram mean?

[Anonymous No.18302266]

>>18302250
Ok I get that, but all the criticisms quoted are "they're bad cos they killed Him".

[Anonymous No.18302278]

>>18301621
bruh

[Anonymous No.18302286]

>>18301728
Jews have a seething psychotic hatred for Christianity. You have never met a jew

[Anonymous No.18303468]

>>18287553
Why does Luther look like Doge on that pic

[Anonymous No.18303505]

>>18302286
>jesus was a jew
>first pope( peter ) was a jew, current pope bows and scrapes for jews
>americans christians believe that restoring the jewish temple in israel will cause the second coming of christ, circumcise en masse
>european christians barely even exist
Yeah christians are just jewish cucks, but keep enjoying your 'accessible' version of Judaism boiled down for the gentiles.

[Anonymous No.18303619]

>>18287553
ywnbarw

[Anonymous No.18303931]

>>18283913
Hitler was baptized

[Anonymous No.18304340]

>>18280116
He has a very slim chance of not going to hell. If he somehow managed to die in a state of grace. So the priest is lying or wrong and was correct to introduce the good news to the Eskimo. problem solved

[Anonymous No.18304548]

>>18280975
5 upvotes on reddit
those 5 must be putting in a ton of effort god damn

[Anonymous No.18304900]

>>18280116
That priest is wrong, invincible ignorance is retarded and so is everyone who takes this position.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.