Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

:agree:

I don't see what's so based about making utopian idealistic declarations which aren't actually true rather than recognizing reality and being pragmatic about it.

I suspect that this is less about it becoming politically "acceptable" to openly oppose abortion and more about it becoming politically safe (not to mention the Church being infiltrated by the KGB). And you will not find any canon, catechism, synod, or otherwise which says that abortion is okay.

I don't, I was just pointing out where I thought it came from.

I guess I'm just more inclined to be lenient on people having extended brainfarts.
Well you're a lot more fair than I initially believed, so I apologize if I seemed a bit brash and rude. I have been arguing with Dyer fanboys elsewhere and it's started to get a wee bit grating. I do want to ask from an Orthodox perspective, because as someone who has had an interest in World War One... why is Tsar Nicholas II a saint in Orthodoxy? I get it, he was gunned down by Bolsheviks, but so were a lot of others who had a lot less fault in bringing down the Russian Empire. I'm not being a smug prick about it, I just genuinely do not get it.
 
Well you're a lot more fair than I initially believed, so I apologize if I seemed a bit brash and rude. I have been arguing with Dyer fanboys elsewhere and it's started to get a wee bit grating. I do want to ask from an Orthodox perspective, because as someone who has had an interest in World War One... why is Tsar Nicholas II a saint in Orthodoxy? I get it, he was gunned down by Bolsheviks, but so were a lot of others who had a lot less fault in bringing down the Russian Empire. I'm not being a smug prick about it, I just genuinely do not get it.
He and his family were very pious, and they accepted their deaths in a Christlike manner. And even if his incompetence somehow made him have "fault in bringing down the Russian Empire", he was trying his best. Also, there was a semi-martyrial aspect to his death, the atheist communists killing the Orthodox monarch had a symbolic meaning beyond its immediate political utility.
 
And they're always in motels, aren't they?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=q_YJRe7yiZYCurious people's thoughts on Langan's take on God here.
I'm an old enough faggot to know who this fat pedostach wearing freak is.
Laging is a massive faggot, self entitled "smert'est white nigger in the world" due to scoring really really high on an IQ test. Issue being is that the test he scored really high was some bullshit mail in yourself test that nobody in their right mind would take seriously.
He's supposedly pretty good at physics and isn't a total retard. Issue being he has absolutely no skin in science and his most prominent intellectual achievement is conning people that he's a genius.
He has some retarded theory out there about proving God through math or some other larp bullshit that he has been peddling along the way. Issue with that is literally nobody gives a fuck. The few scientific reviews you can find about that theory is that it's just semantic philosophy and pretty shit at that. It's also plagiarized as well from some B tier philosopher from decades ago that Ligger apparently read in college or some shit.
With all that in addition to his racist comments and interesting eugenics ideas where smert people like him should be the only ones allowed to procreate, the fat fuck is a massive piece of shit conman white nigger who should be ferociously scorned upon.

TL;DR: Christopher Langan is a fat fuck, massive piece of shit conman white nigger who should be ferociously scorned upon and nothing he says should be considered as anything more than larp bullshit.

One good thing I can give him is for coming out of the woodworks some years back and doing an interview with that gay faggot Michael Knowels who, for a big conservative Catholic "intellectual gentleman", has himself ousted to be a brainlet pussy who almost sucked Lagan's penis throughout the interview with boatloads of glazing and asking softball questions without even a remark about him being a massive fake.
 
He and his family were very pious, and they accepted their deaths in a Christlike manner. And even if his incompetence somehow made him have "fault in bringing down the Russian Empire", he was trying his best. Also, there was a semi-martyrial aspect to his death, the atheist communists killing the Orthodox monarch had a symbolic meaning beyond its immediate political utility.
It is interesting that he's one of the two WW1 leaders elevated by their faith. Karl I of Austria is considered blessed by the Catholics, but that's because he tried to negotiate a peace a year before the war ended, he died in 1925 I believe.
 
Well you're a lot more fair than I initially believed, so I apologize if I seemed a bit brash and rude. I have been arguing with Dyer fanboys elsewhere and it's started to get a wee bit grating. I do want to ask from an Orthodox perspective, because as someone who has had an interest in World War One... why is Tsar Nicholas II a saint in Orthodoxy? I get it, he was gunned down by Bolsheviks, but so were a lot of others who had a lot less fault in bringing down the Russian Empire. I'm not being a smug prick about it, I just genuinely do not get it.
I mean the man's on KiwiFarms. You can ask Tsar Martyr Nicholas II yourself.

In other news: Bishop Gerasim will be the Locum Tenens for the OCA Diocese of the South
 
He and his family were very pious,
And had a literal insane sex cultist in their inner circle who got the Tsar cocaine.
and they accepted their deaths in a Christlike manner.
Says who? The guilt ridden communist murderers?
And even if his incompetence
He literally laughed off people getting stomped to death on his crowning.
The stupid retard even told British press that he'll fuck up the bolsheviks who dare oppose him. Bar that he completely failed at that, the Brits were in disbelief hearing that bullshit from a foreign monarch, while theirs was put on a leash for centuries.
Nick wasn't just incompetent, we was an outright asshole.
somehow made him have "fault in bringing down the Russian Empire", he was trying his best.
So was Lenin and Stalin. In Stalin's case, he did improve the state by a gargantuan scale. Nick got the country into a war that nobody wanted just because he didn't want to be seen as a pussy.
Also, there was a semi-martyrial aspect to his death, the atheist communists killing the Orthodox monarch had a symbolic meaning beyond its immediate political utility.
No there wasn't lol
Fuck with this cope. He was an elitist leader who was close to getting freed and he died as a political prisoner, atheist regime or no. We don't know the full details of how they died and the only one worth consideration for sainthood in your own definition is his daughter Tatiana, who actually did express piety throughout her life. The drug addicted retard asshole is no more a saint than anyone else who died under the regime that he himself had a hand in bringing about due to his extreme retardation even with good advisers trying to help. Fuck him.

And the only reason the Tsar's family are saints is because its typical Orthodox emotional response to something without any proper analysis just to appear as these wheeping dorks for fake piety points.
Funny being that the same Ort branch that elevated the guy to sainthood became a bitch to the communist regime and today promotes the idiotic slaughter of its Ukraine neighbors.
 
Última edición:
One must repent and believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour before the day of judgement. On that day, it will be too late. There is no "little review". Jesus will return in glory, and every knee will bow to him, and be judged according to what they have done. As all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, salvation can only be found by calling upon Jesus to cover our transgressions.
Thanks again for these replies. I hope you've been well. I've been thinking/reading more about God/consciousness lately and had some more random thoughts on this.

So, how does the judgement work when one has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior? Like, we are all sinners and when Jesus returns, he judges us all, believers and non-believers the same. Wait, is the return describing Jesus walking the Earth again or when we die?

A believer recognizes that Jesus died for our sins.* He accepts Him as his Savior, because otherwise without him, he's in hell. Because hell is the absence of God. Dark, disorderly, without purpose, absence of light, etc.

Thus, he is saved because he has laid his sins on the cross and is washed clean with the blood of Christ. Is part of repentence living in a WWJD way? Because God is perfect, just, truth, light, goodness, etc., we strive to be these things to become closer to Him.

But we are wicked and live in rebellion to Him. We don't really deserve His grace and have amassed a debt that we can never repay. Even living a very nice and decent life isn't enough because no person is without sin. And becoming one with God again can't happen if you're imperfect, like a square peg into a round hole. So Christ takes all of that sin off you so when you die, you can rejoin God?

So on your day of judgment, which is aftet dying, Jesus reviews your transgressions, regardless of whether he has saved you or not? During this, you'd recognize how you truly don't deserve His mercy due to your sinfiul nature (and likely be blown away in the presence of the Lord, magnifying just how much you really don't deserve His Grace).

But because you have already accepted that He did this for you, He still lets you rejoin Him? Or do you just skip past the transgression review like Jesus is a club bouncer at the pearly Gates letting the homies through without a pat down? Seems more meaningful if the former. I would hope so.

What if you never attempted to be less sinful after the acceptance? Is that even possible with true acceptance that Jesus died for us?

Ok, so nothing can change anything at the review point for non-believers. Not because God is vengeful or doesn't love us, but because we are the ones who rejected Him. And recognizing Him as our Savior in His Glory now doesn't count because it would essentially be forced? God doesn't want a relationship by force, which is why He gave us free will to choose?

So even if we beg and plead and admit we were sinful, nothing can change now. Not because God wants us to be without Him, but because we have already chosen to disassociate with him by rejecting his love and the mercy he already showed us on the cross. And any desire for a relationship with Jesus in this moment wouldn't be genuine, it would be pure selfishness and forced because God revealed himself to you. He essentially removed your free will at that point.

Sorry for how rambling this is. I am sure there are many parts I am misunderstanding and would appreciate where I go wrong.

* So many bits of Christianity are such ubiquitous fixtures in our country that I feel it's detrimental for a largely secular person. Like, you develop an understanding of the terms and phrases when young, but without any connection to/understanding of their meaning. God's Triunal nature is extremely confusing and obviously not something humans can relate to.

I never understood what Him dying for our sins meant or why it mattered, though knew the phrasing. It just sounded to me like this dude came down and died because we suck. Like he died just because of our sins, not also for them (which was essentially buying our debt we can't repay). It also makes it sound like we're all good regardless of recognition of it, which seems dangerous. Maybe that's why spreading the Gospel is important, haha.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo