- Registrado
- 13 de Feb, 2023
Str8 wasn't weird (beyond liking anime) and he was a nice user in the thread
Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante
- Iniciador del tema Sissyagamben
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 22 de Oct, 2023
Pretty much trying to ape Jay Dyer's schtick.
- Registrado
- 12 de Nov, 2024
Now that the topic's been brought up, what do orthoposters think about their online presence as a denomination? I'm sure local communities have their own websites & channels, but as far as spokespeople/apologists go, fr. Moses comes to mind. He doesn't entirely escape the man-up mentality, but he seems nice.
- Registrado
- 22 de Oct, 2023
It largely depends on the priest. I normally just listen to Fr. Turbo's homilies, the priest interviews on Roots of Orthodoxy, or Patristic Nectar. harmony is a good channel too.
To answer the first question, it's eh. A lot of newbies in the church, but they end up like this:
- Registrado
- 1 de Oct, 2025
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." (Matthew 10:14).
A common problem Christians have in argumentation is that we are usually on the back foot. We have a position that is established, we have a high tower that all can see, read about, and learn from, which makes us a highly visible target. We try desperately to defend our positions in hopes of justifying our beliefs to others, and in order to show them the Truth. Problem is this never works, and we end up being pushed in directions by people and arguments that have no basis or bearing on anything. They are just pointed, menacing words that when pushed upon have no substance. They believe nothing, and so they have nothing to lose. At the same time, however, they have nothing to stand on, so don't let them rattle you.
We have to remember that A). God can defend himself, and B). we must engage in conversation and argumentation in love and kindness, rather than simply winning. It drives me up a wall too, but sometimes you have to shake the dust off and move on.
A common problem Christians have in argumentation is that we are usually on the back foot. We have a position that is established, we have a high tower that all can see, read about, and learn from, which makes us a highly visible target. We try desperately to defend our positions in hopes of justifying our beliefs to others, and in order to show them the Truth. Problem is this never works, and we end up being pushed in directions by people and arguments that have no basis or bearing on anything. They are just pointed, menacing words that when pushed upon have no substance. They believe nothing, and so they have nothing to lose. At the same time, however, they have nothing to stand on, so don't let them rattle you.
We have to remember that A). God can defend himself, and B). we must engage in conversation and argumentation in love and kindness, rather than simply winning. It drives me up a wall too, but sometimes you have to shake the dust off and move on.
- Registrado
- 9 de Nov, 2022
From what I've read so far, I don't take much of the Bible literally. I don't believe it was the divinely inspired word of God, especially when you get to the New Testament when some books, like Galatians, are literally just letters Paul wrote to various churches about matters like gentiles not having to get circumcized and whatnot. There are so many translations throughout the years in manuscripts, codices, from koine Greek, Hebrew, to Latin, then romantic languages, and everything in between I'm not sure how you could even take it literally if you really thought about it beyond it being the 'word of God'. To me personally, that doesn't mean it's lacking in wisdom or poetry, especially the KJV although I would never use that as a Study Bible. The story of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, speaking parables, etc. I do believe along with him going to Jerusalem, I do take the Clements letters and the Book of Mark for their historicity. In going back and forth I get the impression you're wanting a level of strong evidentialism that the ancient world simply can't meet for a lot of figures. In fairness though, I appreciate you apply that standard universally and just not to a figure like Jesus.
You mentioned the non-literary evidence for Alexander I'm assuming you're talking about the numismatic evidence? Like silver tetradrachms, Porus medallions, shit like that? Or like the Priene Inscription? Because that level of evidence makes sense for Alexander and I'm glad you brought it up since he was a world conqueror, taxed lands he conquered and had currency minted, so that makes sense for their to be coins with Alex's face on it that we can date back to when he was alive. If that's the level of strong evidence you need, we go back to the problem then that you're going to have to dispute the historicity of virtually everyone in the ancient world outside of extremely influential world leaders. There are no Socrates coins. There are no Plato coins. But there are writings that we believe have been written by both of them, and corroborating accounts that they existed. Again, you can agree to disagree with that level of evidence, but I'm sorry, Christian or not, that makes the ancient world really fucking boring to me if we can only go by thinking that world leaders are the only ones that verifiably existed.
And there certainly are no Jesus coins, Jesus was craftsman living in a backwater satellite of the Roman empire. It's believed he was a carpenter that's the traditional idea of what he did for work, and unless there's things Jesus made buried deep under sand somewhere that somehow got preserved, we have no evidence of that either, so it makes sense, given Jesus's social position to have no (that we currently know of) non-literary evidence.
AFAICT, the best primary source is Philostratus's Life of Apollonius. Although it's strongly believed to be literary fiction, so you might be onto something with it being a historical trolljob.
I think a problem some people have, and I know this was a big sticking point for me when I was agnostic - is the Biblical literalism/fundamentalism, simply taking it at face value and not wanting to engage with the Scripture beyond a surface level. Like, I don't see why you can't believe in God, love Christ as the savior, but at the same time not be able to talk about something like Isaiah 7:14 for example.
In the KJV Bible and most English translations, it says something like “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” As evidence of the prophecy for Jesus. When you look at the Hebrew, it doesn't use the Hebrew word for virgin which is "betulah". It uses the word "almah", or young woman of nubile age for marriage. Does that make Isaiah useless in a Christian context? I say no. The translations, and history of the books of the Bible is so rich, to me that's the good stuff! It doesn't belittle or reduce it's importance or power by looking at it critically.
- Registrado
- 14 de Ago, 2025
This is an old, old argument against the Virgin Birth. I think the first time I heard it was in a movie. Young, unmarried women were assumed to be virgins. Almah (being the language equivalent of "maiden," possibly meaning 'concealed one,' ala a woman hidden behind a veil for betrothal) is meant to denote her status as betrothed to Joseph, rather than as a generically virginal woman. The Septuagint authors used the word "parthenos," which explicitly means virgin, to refer to the same prophecy you're talking about, 200 years before Christ.
- Registrado
- 9 de Nov, 2022
Oh interesting, I wasn't aware the Septuagint authors translated the OT into Greek. But this connects to my larger point though, that engaging with Scripture critically makes me more interested and wanting to learn more, and I personally find to be spiritually affirming.
- Registrado
- 13 de Feb, 2023
It's a bit odd, but I recall the argument to why it's "divine" is through the discernment of the early church. The Biblical canon was made to address the multitude of forgeries throughout the many communities of the church, a litmus test, where they took those that did not contradict and bundled them into a book. This means the early church must've debated if certain books are coherent, with Revelations still being in question among the general church until the 7th century. Even Martin Luther doubted Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations long after the canon was established.
The Muratorian Fragment is a great example of this, where it doesn't mention Hebrews, James, 1st and 2nd Peter, alongside denouncing multiple forgeries. However, it includes the Apocalypse of Peter, a vivid text on hell and heaven that suggest universal salvation-including those in hell. We'd be in huge trouble if the Apocalypse of Peter was part of the actual canon, but we ultimately have to have some faith that these investigators (and the subsequent Church) were guided by God, which gives the Bible it's divinity in a very roundabout way.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 9 de Sep, 2021
Thanks for dropping the flavourful tone @Koomala Sharrtis it made reading the thread and parsing your arguments much easier.
Funny, I went from "another slapfight to scroll past" to wishing I had more time this morning to read the thread more closely.
When my husband talked about losing his Faith, he said it happened in stages. The last being "but historical Jesus, even if not divine, still existed, right?" Before concluding he didn't. I think some reddit-demon swayed him.
I'm no scholar, and have no free time so felt like I had nowhere to start when it comes to refuting this. I'm really glad that I can go back and re read some of the posts re historical evidence now. We stand on the shoulders of autists!
Hopefully what was taken from him can be given back, in reverse order. Please pray for him if you have the inclination. He's a hurting and troubled man, and I wish that he would let Jesus back in. That he could experience the peace, strength and consolation He offers.
I love it when my expectations for how a thread is going get confounded in this way!
Funny, I went from "another slapfight to scroll past" to wishing I had more time this morning to read the thread more closely.
When my husband talked about losing his Faith, he said it happened in stages. The last being "but historical Jesus, even if not divine, still existed, right?" Before concluding he didn't. I think some reddit-demon swayed him.
I'm no scholar, and have no free time so felt like I had nowhere to start when it comes to refuting this. I'm really glad that I can go back and re read some of the posts re historical evidence now. We stand on the shoulders of autists!
Hopefully what was taken from him can be given back, in reverse order. Please pray for him if you have the inclination. He's a hurting and troubled man, and I wish that he would let Jesus back in. That he could experience the peace, strength and consolation He offers.
I love it when my expectations for how a thread is going get confounded in this way!
- Registrado
- 13 de Ago, 2020
It's polarizing. It wins a lot of converts and it turns off a lot of people. People who get into philosophy too much sometimes lose track of the fact that no matter how important they consider it to be, it's an objectively niche interest and having the most bulletproof series of syllogisms will do nothing to change the mind of a majority of people. It is not immoral to not follow or care about heady philosophy and ultimately the point theyre trying to use heady philosophy to prove is that God doesnt live within a syllogism, and there is no point in trying to reconcile the Greek schools with Christianity, which is kind of ironic.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ene, 2023
Non sequitur
I got recommended this channel some time ago and while he's not a theologian (he's mostly just a businessman), I enjoy listening to him about his own experiences in life. www.youtube.com/@antonwisbiski
I'm upset that he paywalled the Kundalini video though, I watched it before it became members only. Anton is an ex-newager, so it's nice to have someone to talk about actual experience with demonic stuff and that video was the best on the channel about this topic. Although he did mention that he paywalled it out of shame, he goes deeper into personal experiences in that video, so I get why he did that. Besides, other videos contain enough valuable information already.
It's also nice to find someone who doesn't make a spectacle out of his experience with new age. I'm tired of seeing what I'm assuming are Evangelicals spawning enormous amount of sensationalist content about how everything around is demonic and if you even look at, for example, a maneki neko, you're participating in witchcraft or something. Or, I remember someone saying that everyone should burn books about ancient mythology. It's really cringy and honestly I doubt the faith of these people. Some girl was talking about labubus being demonic because they're little gremlins based on trolls or whatever, and reason to avoid them at all costs is because we're told not to look at evil. I'm sorry but all said to me was that she had no real problems or worries in her life. I'd rather look at labubu than ... well, looking back, I don't think there's anything in this world I wasn't exposed to.
I have been digging into various verses and their translations and honestly sometimes I feel defeated when I try to say "this isn't what it originally meant" to believers who refuse to take historical and linguistic context into account, and they just get defensive. Or maybe they're so rigid in their thinking, they assume that if the Bible doesn't say what they thought it does, then it means it's all false and God doesn't exist. When in reality it's the same old problem as usual: shitty authorities and parents who taught nonsense. Fundamentalism is really dangerous.
An atheist aquaintance of mine said to this that it's all so overcomplicated though and sees this as a reason not to look into faith. I tried telling that refusing to learn that is akin to refusing to learn colors as a toddler, but alas.
Often times I question (albeit unseriously) predestination because of that. I can't tell what's happening in people's hearts, nor where or what anyone gets when they die, but it's like... some people are just completely closed off, it's like it's in their nature itself. I used to think that this is the norm and I'm just crazy, suppressing all the oddities of my life as "coincidences", but honestly I think it was a form of spiritual oppression. I was getting insane because I refused to acknowledge real experience that I was going through as real. These people though? They have had nothing of that sorts, while I'm in it since childhood. It's like we live in completely different worlds, so that's why I said it makes me think of predestination: it's like these people were made differently.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ene, 2023
To me, every depiction of hell that features comically violent torture immediately raises some red flags... The mix of "everyone will be saved" while also having sadistic depictions of hell just scream "human definition of justice", and not something divine. Humans constantly jump between wanting to violently torture each other, using humiliation along the way and thirst for domination, while also hoping and wanting for everyone to "go to heaven" when they die no matter what. It's not a divine revelation, it's your average state of a human mind. Even in this realm we know that psychological torture is worse, yet these pop culture depictions of hell still try to sell cheap animalistic horror, as if afterlife is more primitive than this life. That's retarded, and gives off pagan vibes.
Also while I'm at it. Even though canon Bible itself does feature simplistic (though I'd say incomplete, scarce details, and that's for a reason) depictions of both, I'm always wary of depictions of afterlife that make it sound like there's no complexity in the existence beyond our world. You know, all these "nothing but eternal fire", and boring saints with zero personality stuck on an eternal loop of singing songs. This life is complex enough, our world is currently behind the veil (we don't see spiritual world yet, we don't know what exactly awaits us in terms of details and every day life, along with what kind of reality+ in general awaits us specifically), I don't believe that we will only have one single activity or two in the afterlife, be it heaven or hell.
Otherwise that would also be retarded. All these cartoonish accounts of both (especially coming from alleged NDE survivors and such) are clearly made up by people who are incapable of abstract thinking and seeing beyond immediate emotion/state they experience. I mean, even based on scarce descriptions in the Bible, from knowing that heaven is described as a city, we can deduce there's plenty of stuff to do rather than just being npcs floating in clouds that can't stop singing. Just like it's easy to deduce that life in the garden wasn't some nebulous existence without activity, thought, emotions, and senses, the gardener is a job, not a vague state of being.
- Registrado
- 24 de Jul, 2024
This is why I think it's so important to talk about "the new creation" separately to "heaven". While we await the resurrection, our spirits will be at rest with God in heaven. But one day there will be a new heavens and a new earth in the new creation; all of the world will be resurrected at Jesus' return. That, to me, means plainly that after the resurrection will be engaged in work and rest in the same way as we do here, but in a way that is perfect.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ene, 2023
marlimar
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Abr, 2025
My mother brought up a potential reason why the fallen angels couldn't be saved, because they were in the immediate presence and had the full knowledge of who God was and still denied him his glory. We know that every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, be it in heaven or hell, I'm of the belief that salvation must occur while you are alive, even deathbed repentance a-la Scott Adams is sufficient. NDE wasn't a thing for me, just cut to black and woke up in the hospital wanting to know where my glasses, cigarettes and lighter were. I find NDE stories to be akin to UFO abduction stories, I assume them to be tall tales told by narcotics enjoyers who aren't getting enough attention for their liking.
It's full of paradoxes, where "few" will be saved while "many" sons will be led to glory, to read it literally (which I do) you have to accept that it says what it says and God doesn't have our limitations on understanding. The most comforting / distressing encouragement is that God works all things for good for those who love him; do I really love God and is this apparent tragedy just a single step on the road to good or don't I truly love God? I imagine this is why we are told to work on our salvation with fear and trembling even when Christ completed paying off in full our debt to God through his sacrificial death on the cross.
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2024
The concept of eternal hell is something that has bothered me for a lot of my life (as a little kid I would have nightmares of dying and going to hell). I hold some beliefs that would make me a heretic to a lot of Christians because they seem logical to me looking at scripture. I want to believe in some sort of universalism even if it's people getting stuck in purgatory forever because the majority of all humans being tortured for aeons almost seems like a cosmic horror type concept, not something that God would do. I am afraid that it's just cope like certain modern "interpretations" (see homosexuality).
- Registrado
- 24 de Ene, 2023
- Registrado
- 26 de Dic, 2025
God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. As Catholics (as far as I know), we assume God will work in unknown ways to help people repent and accept His ways, even after Death. If they ultimately refuses, they will go to Hell, but it will be because they freely chooses Hell over Heaven.
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2024
I am watching this video right now and relate a lot. Getting into mysticism and eschatology really made me feel like a protagonist from Lovecraft's stories discovering that most people are completely unaware of the sheer horror of the reality of this world and being.
Maybe I am too afraid of God.