Fair enough.
I encourage you to dig deeper into the history of Christianity. There are hidden treasures there, even if they do not exactly correspond to what the Church says about them.
Serious Logically, incels should convert to Catholicism
I encourage you to dig deeper into the history of Christianity. There are hidden treasures there, even if they do not exactly correspond to what the Church says about them.
And why would you care about its validity? Most people here wouldn't be incels if we lived in a real christian society
because i am in favor of what is true. i am not delusional and i dont uphold superstitions for the fun of it or whatever
D
I will, I'm just still learning right now, im reading into the stuff you said
[UWSL]So is that also why you spread a misunderstood version of the law of conservation of energy? Just to feel superior to someone who believes in superstitions?[/UWSL]
[UWSL]You also feel superior knowing that you won't get sex due to the separation of morals and religion? Unless you are a fakecel of course[/UWSL]
i feel superior knowing i dont follow something which isnt grounded in any sort of reality or can be proven at all. i refuse to take that leap of faith when none of these biblical claims can be substantiated. its just cope
otaku i am not going to awnser all of the stuff in here(want to cope with tv series),but the thing is catholics see the church as a gift from god and some of the stuff found in the church to be a "direct" communication from god(like the canon of the holy bible and a million dogmas).i guess this aspect is usually seen as worshipping men or that which comes from men, when catholics see the complete opposite(that it comes from god himself).
there is actually some proof that some parts of the new testament were written in araimaic.also, in the old testament there are odes to wisdom and knowledge,so this idea that christrianity is opposed to reasoning is a weird perspective.admiteddly, to come to christ one does not need to be wise,but that isn't saying anything. you should buy catena aurea by thomas aquinas(in that series of books he goes sentence by sentence on what the saints and theologians of old said.so that could clarify some parts of the holy bible a bit more).
i don't know how much of a role the church of rome played in the days of old,but i don't see how it's lack of action means anything.christ died in jerusalem,does that mean that the church that sprang from there,is the one that should have the most political power?
you picked like 50 controversies and threw them into one post.otaku i respect you,but most catholics come to the church in a much different way then the way you analyse a religion for it's merits.a lot of them came through miracles,faith and grace etc etc so talking to them about x controversy or x theological issues,when their belief is entrenched in entirely different things is kind of like missing the point? the way a lot of catholics verify what they believe in is often very different in the way a philosopher or theologians verifies it.to a catholic all he needs is the church tradition to believe that purgatory exists.to someone outside of it they need a 500 page dissertation on if purgatory is even ethically right,another 1500 dissertation to see if there is some proof or vague mention in the holy bible,plus 1000 pages dissertation on who claimed this idea and his intellectual capacities.Plus another 3000 page on if we can definitely prove it's existence etc etc. obviously i am somewhat exaggerating(kind of),but you get the point.
Hi, brocel. I have nothing against you personally. It seems to me you are a legit sincere catholic. What I am saying here is that the Catholic Church has many faults. Who hasn't?
Don't you think that a lot of the Catholic tradition is just the result of concessions it had to make with pagan habits during the Middle Ages? I am not saying that those concessions were not worthwhile at the time. They certainly helped the civilizing mission of the Church. But should they remain in force, after they have stopped being necessary?
Protestants see it this way, yes.
Isn't it a temptation for man to worship a human organization rather than God? Protestants decided that to be sure they were not falling for that, they left the Church. For them, it was like a spiritual exercise to see if they were still able to worship God alone, without the crutch of the Church. It worked for them.
There are no definite "proof" of that. Claims have been made to that effect, but no definitive argument has ever been brought forward. Greek speaking Jews of the first century were understandably influenced by Aramaic habits and forms when they wrote Greek. Finding an Aramaicism in a Greek gospel is therefore no proof that it was originally written in that language. Only the discovery of an Aramaic manuscript datable to the 1st century would settle the issue. As you know, there is not a single extant manuscript of the NT from before the middle of the 2nd century; not even fragments.
These are in the Deuterocanonical books (Sirach, Odes of Solomon).
It seems weird because you are steeped in the Catholic tradition. To me, it seems like one of the most fundamental, and original, aspect of true Christianity. In the NT, faith is clearly held to be superior to human knowledge and reason. Look at all the passages to that effect in Paul.
Honestly, I prefer to read the Fathers directly, like Augustine or Cassian (my two favorites). To me Aquinas was too fond of Aristotle. It obscured his understanding.
It means that the Latin tradition is derivative. The original tradition was that of the Greek churches and the Greek Fathers in the East.
No. But it is a fact that Antioch and Alexandria were far more active in shaping Christian belief than Rome at a time when it was being standardized (in the 3rd to 6th centuries).
My goal was to challenge @TorturedSoul into digging deeper into his assumptions about Church history. I am glad it worked. I did not mean it as a mark of disrespect to anyone.
I agree. Faith and devotion are the right way to approach religion, not theology or, for that matter, "rationality".
Theological dispute has its place too. It played a huge role in the history of the Church. Most of the output of the Fathers was triggered by controversy.
Ok, but what happens when a believer suddenly realizes that the term "purgatory" does not occur in the Bible at all? Then a controversy arises and it needs to be addressed because it becomes a matter of faith. To be honest, non-Christians are not interested in the purgatory. It is a matter of contention between Christians and the faith of many hung in the balance when this was a hot topic, at the time of the Reformation. You have to remember that all Reformation-era protestants were ex-Catholics. Many left the Roman Church reluctantly (including Luther). They just felt that their faith could not survive if they were told to believe in something that was not mentioned in the Bible. My own great-great-great grandfather was a young Catholic priest in 19th century France. He left the Church and became a protestant pastor over the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. He too just could not believe in something that was not mentioned in the Bible and not even by the Fathers. The Catholic Church is its own worst enemy when it issues doctrine like this. And then, because of the dogma of papal infallibility, it becomes locked forever into every stupid mistake it made. No wonder so many priests become gay nowadays. They do know Church history and that is why they cannot feel respect for its moral magistery.
Abrahamic religions are a gigacope. The idea that some supreme God created everything and that it is all in order is false
. The universe and nature is random and natural selection is the true rule of the land.
. The universe and nature is random and natural selection is the true rule of the land.
yeah,i am fine with us discussing things.i am quite stupid,so don't expect anything big,but i don't take it as an offense when you try to post things which go agaisn't the faith.
>Don't you think that a lot of the Catholic tradition is just the result of concessions it had to make with pagan habits during the Middle Ages? I am not saying that those concessions were not worthwhile at the time. They certainly helped the civilizing mission of the Church. But should they remain in force, after they have stopped being necessary?
the concept of church tradition is a bit complicated,since catholics distiguinsh tradition in a much more complicated way.Most people see tradition as meaning that which people of x group practise.what catholics mean by tradition is different.what they mean by tradition is what was passed down by the apostles.this gets even more complicated since the apostles passed down the church and that means that the church can then accept x miracles as signs of god,verify that someone went to heaven etc etc etc. So the topic itself is complicated. but anyway,i wrote all of this to say that,i am not sure which concessions you are talking about,and even if i did there are several traditions done by catholics but not approved by the definition of catholic tradition(as in the tradition has not said anything about it),and there are several catholic traditions which barely any catholic know about(like the liturgy of the hours or the little office of the blessed virgin). And none of this would matter,because catholics accept that the members of the church can sin(shocker right),and so unless something is infallibly spoken by the pope, it's more of a matter of discernment and seeing if the thing is right.
>Isn't it a temptation for man to worship a human organization rather than God? Protestants decided that to be sure they were not falling for that, they left the Church. For them, it was like a spiritual exercise to see if they were still able to worship God alone, without the crutch of the Church. It worked for them.
they are not worshipping an organization,they are worshipping god. they believe in the words of the church,not because it's the church but because they think it comes from god.it's quite different.it's true catholics treasure the church,because it's gods gift to them and what allows them to eat and be with our lord in the sacrament of the holy eucharist,so catholics are glad for the church,but again it's because it's a gift from god not because it simply exists.
>There are no definite "proof" of that. Claims have been made to that effect, but no definitive argument has ever been brought forward. Greek speaking Jews of the first century were understandably influenced by Aramaic habits and forms when they wrote Greek. Finding an Aramaicism in a Greek gospel is therefore no proof that it was originally written in that language. Only the discovery of an Aramaic manuscript datable to the 1st century would settle the issue. As you know, there is not a single extant manuscript of the NT from before the middle of the 2nd century; not even fragments.
yeah i know there are no definitive proofs.I said what i said not as a definitive argument,but something to comtemplate the possibility that maybe not everything in the early church was whole greek.i doubt christ spoke to the apostles in greek,so i don't think i need to find some random paper to have a semi good guess.
>These are in the Deuterocanonical books (Sirach, Odes of Solomon).
Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 1 - Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: Prologue - That men may know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity; that prudence may be given to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— the...
>It seems weird because you are steeped in the Catholic tradition. To me, it seems like one of the most fundamental, and original, aspect of true Christianity. In the NT, faith is clearly held to be superior to human knowledge and reason. Look at all the passages to that effect in Paul.
faith is superior to knowledge and reason,but reason is required to have faith.if you believe in anything anyone tells you,you are a fool.you don't need christ to tell you that.you must see that even the devil believes,so reasoning and belief isn't all.many wise men believed in god and yet lived lives of sin.yet little children of 7 who barely know how to count,understood god in their own little way and had great faith and now are in heaven while those wise ones are in hell.
>Honestly, I prefer to read the Fathers directly, like Augustine or Cassian (my two favorites). To me Aquinas was too fond of Aristotle. It obscured his understanding.
oh sorry i wasn't clear.in that book aquinas just compiled the sayings of the fathers.he didn't write anything himself.he just compiled sayings and threw them there.it's an expensive collection but you get so much amazing stuff that it's cool.
>It means that the Latin tradition is derivative. The original tradition was that of the Greek churches and the Greek Fathers in the East.
this is a jump in logic i think.the latin tradition could have been small(no clue i am not reading hundreds of years of politics and history to figure out something like that.),but it's still it's own thing.a small kingdom is still a kingdom even if it's surrounded by giants.
>Theological dispute has its place too. It played a huge role in the history of the Church. Most of the output of the Fathers was triggered by controversy.
it does have and it's important.reason leads one to the faith.i just wrote what i wrote, because when i see you talking about the faith,i never see you bringing up miracles(e.g the miracles of the waters of lourdes), and other things,so i feel like you are hyper focusing on x stuff but kind of throwing away a bunch of other aspects.that's i said it was kind of missing the point.the faith needs to be defended and understood,but there is much more to the faith then reasoning.if reasoning was all that mattered, saint augustine would have been a philosopher not a catholic.
>Ok, but what happens when a believer suddenly realizes that the term "purgatory" does not occur in the Bible at all? Then a controversy arises and it needs to be addressed because it becomes a matter of faith. To be honest, non-Christians are not interested in the purgatory. It is a matter of contention between Christians and the faith of many hung in the balance when this was a hot topic, at the time of the Reformation. You have to remember that all Reformation-era protestants were ex-Catholics. Many left the Roman Church reluctantly (including Luther). They just felt that their faith could not survive if they were told to believe in something that was not mentioned in the Bible. My own great-great-great grandfather was a young Catholic priest in 19th century France. He left the Church and became a protestant pastor over the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. He too just could not believe in something that was not mentioned in the Bible and not even by the Fathers. The Catholic Church is its own worst enemy when it issues doctrine like this. And then, because of the dogma of papal infallibility, it becomes locked forever into every stupid mistake it made. No wonder so many priests become gay nowadays. They do know Church history and that is why they cannot feel respect for its moral magistery.
i am sad that your great grandfather abandoned his post.at the same time i do respect that he seems to have been a man of integrity.maybe it's apt that our holy mother had so many apparations after the insane ammount of persecution she suffered throughout the 19th century.
When it comes to your question,the church infallibility is there to solve issues or ascertain certain things if needed.i won't touch our holy mother theological issues(if i am not mistaken even aquinas didn't believe in her immaculate conception),but such a discussion has nothing to do with the topic at hand.if the pope spoke infallibly about some fact of god that had never been heard before or even thought out,it would still be valid.whatever the issue is it doesn't matter,what matters is that the pope spoke in an infallible manner.if christ gave his church such an ability,then there is nothing one can do abou it.when god speaks,do i know more then him?
what i wrote in the paragraph above is complete nonsense to you since you see the church as nothing more then an instuition,but the way a catholic looks at christ bride is much more different what can i say.
btw,i am not happy with the way the church is,but to a catholic unless something is spoken infallibly it can be criticized and fought agaisn't.being catholic doesn't mean you need to think that the roman catholic church is ruled by saints in shinining golden armour whose only interests are saving the poor,the sick and the ugly and leading them to god. saint athanasius fought agaisn't the pope and the ruling hierarchy,but now he is a saint.being catholic doesn't mean you are all of a sudden a saint who can do no wrong.being catholic and a member of the church hierarchy doesn't mean you are now a saint and can do no wrong.
also curious question when was the last time you went to a catholic mass?
also sorry for all the paragraphs and sorry for not formating my stuff well
Don't care. I'm an Orthodox.
Idiot post. Christianity and the mentality that comes with it is the root of all the current problems of today
Sure, except those problems only started when Christianity was rejected. Two thousand years of Christedom and there were no problems, then Euroretards reject religion, suddenly everything goes to shit. Somehow that's still the fault of Christianity though.
2 thousand years of living as peasants and serfs under Judeo-feudalism. Yes very good rabbi. Thank you once again for showing us how malicious and evil christcucks are to think that the dark ages and inquisition were anything positive for European peoples.
And when the BAD GOYS rejected this slavery, only then does it become a problem, and then the Goyim get victim blamed for abandoning their illegitimate rulers and fake abrahamic “god”. Christcuck logic 101
Couldn’t have said it better myself, based and vril-pilledI’m not an atheist idiot.
Jews created this pathetic ripoff of pagan religions originally to subvert the Roman Empire, it worked so well that eventually all of Europe fell hostage to this curse against us and made us WEAK and under their control.
That’s all xianity is. WEAKNESS. The opposite of nature and natural law. The thought that all humans are equal under some shitty kike prophet. Christianity is the main school of thought that communism and other degenerate ideologies that destroyed the world come from.
Generally, when something is complicated, it means that there is something not quite right. Notice that you used the word "complicated" twice in the above sentence.
The Jews have the same kind of thing. The Torah is supposed to be the word of God, while the Talmud is the tradition of Moses passed down orally until it was written down. The Muslims also have something similar. The Quran is the word of God while the Hadith are the tradition of Muhammad passed down through his companions (orally) until it was written down in Hadith collections.
Don't you think this kind of thing sounds a little fishy. "We have the written word of God, but oh, shoot! some important stuff was left out (by God?); yet, lucky for us, we found this guy who remembers he was told something orally that came from his great-great-great-great-grandfather who happened to be an eyewitness to the life of Moses/Jesus/Muhammad" Don't you think that this sounds an awful lot like a convenient way to add new stuff to a tradition when some adjustments need to be made?
I am not saying that all catholics worship the Church instead of God, but I think some do and that it is a perennial temptation for all. For example, I noticed you had doubts about whether @TorturedSoul was a Catholic or just someone sympathetic to catholicism. I think that the reason you had this feeling is because he appears not too sure about whether he believes in God and yet says "I am Catholic". To me, that is what "worshiping the Church instead of God" looks like.
My own personal opinion is that Jesus Christ is an invented character made up by Greek-speaking Jews who lived outside of Judea but wanted a person from the Jewish heartland to be the founder of their movement. I understand why they did that and I do not blame them. I think that in reality Christianity was created by Paul from within a semi-Essene sect that was headed by Peter. They came to a compromise and this is what the "council of Jerusalem" episode in Acts talks about. At that point, the saving Messiah was imagined as an angelic being or as someone who had lived a few centuries before and was important in Essene circles (the Teacher of Righteousness). Later in the 1st century AD (after the First Jewish-Roman war), followers of Peter and Paul rewrote the story to make the Savior a more recent character and this is how the Jesus we know was invented. None of this is wrong in my view. It is just how new religious movements are created and improved over time. Peter, Paul and their followers were Jews who were dissatisfied with the state of Judaism (rightly so in my view). What they invented together was a massive improvement and proved to be the best religion mankind had ever invented.
Reason is fine as long as it stays reasonable, but it becomes your enemy if it leads you to Gnosticism. Read Irenaeus, Epiphanius or the other Fathers for more details. For example Origen was never canonized because he had been tainted by Greek-style "reason" (i.e. Gnosticism). It is a constant danger, especially today as Gnosticism has come back to the fore with a vengeance.
I did not know that. Thanks. I will definitely have a look.
The Latin tradition was indeed small in the beginning (there was only Tertullian, basically). The Greek tradition was far more developed because 9 out of 10 Christians lived in the Greek-speaking East until quite late (the 6th or 7th century at least). That is why all the foundations of Christian theology that was laid out at the councils was 95% the work of Greek-speaking Eastern bishops, with little input from the see of Rome.
I do not believe in miracles of this kind. To me, what Christianity achieved (the building up of Western Culture with all its achievements) is a far more impressive miracle than a few people being cured for unclear reasons. The real miracle of Christianity (turning hairless monkeys into creatures that can walk on the Moon) is so huge that few people can truly fathom it. That is why many of the faithful need Lourdes-like "miracle stories" because they are simpler to understand.
I am glad you can believe the way you do. I have no doubt you are sincere and I am sure it does you a lot of good. I am sorry I cannot share your belief in these matters
No doubt about that.
About 5 years ago, I would say. I do not dislike mass; on the contrary. However, I think it lends itself to many different interpretations. To me, it certainly does not mean the same as it does to you.
Nothing has changed, except the life of modern "serfs" is bereft of any spirituality and is mere machine-like toil, which it never was in the past.
Progressives have no idea whatsoever of what life was like in traditional societies, all they can think of is material progress which only succeeds in forcing people to acquire things that didn't exist before which they don't actually need but that's what their entire existence revolves around now. Just work all day so you can watch satanic, subversive garbage on Netflix when you go home. Truly an improvement over the medieval serf, who has his religion, his tradition and virgin nature all around him.
>Generally, when something is complicated, it means that there is something not quite right. Notice that you used the word "complicated" twice in the above sentence.
i said complicated,because not because the concept is complicated,but because tradition is used differently.i guess i had a bad choice of words.
>The Jews have the same kind of thing. The Torah is supposed to be the word of God, while the Talmud is the tradition of Moses passed down orally until it was written down. The Muslims also have something similar. The Quran is the word of God while the Hadith are the tradition of Muhammad passed down through his companions (orally) until it was written down in Hadith collections.
Don't you think this kind of thing sounds a little fishy. "We have the written word of God, but oh, shoot! some important stuff was left out (by God?); yet, lucky for us, we found this guy who remembers he was told something orally that came from his great-great-great-great-grandfather who happened to be an eyewitness to the life of Moses/Jesus/Muhammad" Don't you think that this sounds an awful lot like a convenient way to add new stuff to a tradition when some adjustments need to be made?
the holy bible itself said that christ had much to say and that there weren't enough books to fill it all.Eitherway,christ didn't write anything so in some sense tradition and the church is all that we have(the words of his apostles and the church). I don't know what you mean by adjustments(don't want to assume i know what you mean by adjustsments).it is accepted that since god is infinitely wise that there is much we don't know about him,so there is much theological dispute(as you know),but that rarely affects the church at large. I understand your concern,but the church is selective.as you know there are a million gospels,but only four were chosen.
>I am not saying that all catholics worship the Church instead of God, but I think some do and that it is a perennial temptation for all. For example, I noticed you had doubts about whether @[UWSL]
i asked him because most christrians in the west are "spiritual" but not "religious" and there are a million trad symphatisers who are more worried about politics then actually getting closer to god.i was questioning his belief,not because he said anything specific,but just because i mistrust most people who call themselves catholic,especially when they are done by someone who recently started posting here and has very different views then most brocels here.
>My own personal opinion is that Jesus Christ is an invented character made up by Greek-speaking Jews who lived outside of Judea but wanted a person from the Jewish heartland to be the founder of their movement. I understand why they did that and I do not blame them. I think that in reality Christianity was created by Paul from within a semi-Essene sect that was headed by Peter. They came to a compromise and this is what the "council of Jerusalem" episode in Acts talks about. At that point, the saving Messiah was imagined as an angelic being or as someone who had lived a few centuries before and was important in Essene circles (the Teacher of Righteousness). Later in the 1st century AD (after the First Jewish-Roman war), followers of Peter and Paul rewrote the story to make the Savior a more recent character and this is how the Jesus we know was invented. None of this is wrong in my view. It is just how new religious movements are created and improved over time. Peter, Paul and their followers were Jews who were dissatisfied with the state of Judaism (rightly so in my view). What they invented together was a massive improvement and proved to be the best religion mankind had ever invented.
sorry,i found it weird that you typed this entire paragraph when i didn't write much of anything.i find the conspiracy theory to be personally very weird,even from your standpoint as i find it very hard to think as to why jews would go agaisn't their own people,get tortured and then ultimately killed,so they can spread the word about a supposed messiah which they never even meet(and considered to be fiction or a figure of speech from what i understood from you post) for absolutely nothing.hard to imagine that these supposed pious men would endure a great deal of torture for a lie they invented,knowingly fully well the sin involved.btw i wouldn't die on what i wrote here,it's just that it stroke me as weird from your intepretation of what happened.
>Reason is fine as long as it stays reasonable, but it becomes your enemy if it leads you to Gnosticism. Read Irenaeus, Epiphanius or the other Fathers for more details. For example Origen was never canonized because he had been tainted by Greek-style "reason" (i.e. Gnosticism). It is a constant danger, especially today as Gnosticism has come back to the fore with a vengeance.
i suppose if you are falling for gnosticism or any heresy then you are not reasoning well.still the growth of gnosticism lately has scared me a bit.i suppose it's much easier believing in gnosticism when it comes to issues like the problem of evil,but old heresies coming back strong and the biggest crisis the church has ever seen(the issues inside the church are the least,as the family nowadays pretty much doesn't exist in a lot of places,and the family is the main backone of spreading the faith),is scary.
>I do not believe in miracles of this kind. To me, what Christianity achieved (the building up of Western Culture with all its achievements) is a far more impressive miracle than a few people being cured for unclear reasons. The real miracle of Christianity (turning hairless monkeys into creatures that can walk on the Moon) is so huge that few people can truly fathom it. That is why many of the faithful need Lourdes-like "miracle stories" because they are simpler to understand.
i think you are making a mistake,as christ himself used his miracles to spread the faith.many of the saints and greek authors whom you read also thought they were important as many of defended miracles and prophecies.i don't see how carrying men to the moon is better then uplifting men to heaven where they are above anything achievable here.also i am not sure miracle stories are easy to understand.if most philosophers have discarded them apart from catholic philosophers,it can't be that easy to understand or accept.i also before used to think miracles were simple,but now,i see them as much more.
I am sorry I had to say this. But I did have to because it is what I believe.
I do not think that the first generations of Christians suffered martyrdom. They were too small a group, and too inconsequential, to be noticed. After that, in the 2nd century, the subsequent generations believed that what the first ones had said and written was real. Even the first generations, those who invented the Gospel story, did not fully lie. They had visions and dreams and told them as if they had witnessed them. Or they heard rumours (there were always many of them, especially after the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple) and they embellished them. Also, many people had died in the war so it was easy to "misremember" what they had told you before they did.
The fact that some Jews were dissatisfied with Judaism is not surprising at all. Judaism was extremely fractious at that times. There were many factions and they hated each other. During the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD, several groups were fighting each other inside the walls while the Romans were outside. The only factions that eventually survived are what we call Christians today and the Pharisees, who are the direct predecessors of Talmudic Judaism.
The story I am outlining here is actually far more likely to be what more or less happened than what is told in the Gospels or Acts. I am sorry I have to say this as bluntly as I am doing but I would be dishonest if I did not. Again, I do not mean that Christianity was wrong. It worked very well for a very long time and did a lot of good (more so than any other human cultural movement). However, today, because of the progress we made in our understanding of History, the literal Gospel story has become very hard to believe for most educated people. Honesty eventually forces us to own up to it.
i am used to a million theories like this one and i am sure most catholics have heard a million conspiracies theories too.if you think you are just being a dick,don't.it's normal nowadays.Though admiteddly,if you come up with random theories to a random catholic,then you are being a semi dick,since these people are less acquainted with such stuff,and often believe in christ for other reasons.
i am not disputing that the jews were having issues with each specific group of theirs.i just said what i said,because i find it hard to put much trust in your theory,even if i wasn't catholic due to the issues i mentioned above.there are several documents proving the marytdom and hate for christrians in the first century but you probably think that all of those were doctored or changed in some form.e.g tacitus on christrianity and how nero blamed the christrians and tortured them.
There is a huge difference between visions and dreams and real life.the ancients knew this,so that escuse doesn't mean much.unless you meant to say that they were all hallucinating.if so,then this theory is even more outlandish as you have to account for several people tripping on the same thing and on the same events.Plus if anyone wrote the gospels knowingly he must have been quite feeble minded,for if in your eyes they are true,then you have to account for how paul and everyone else writes the story of a men who went everywhere and spoke to a great deal of jews and people and went to the most religious places in judaism,yet no one has ever seen or heard of him.
i am fine with the story you have outlined,so again don't worry.i have heard multiple stories like this and these theories are so famous that most apologetic books involving christ history and crucifixion dedicate a rather surprising ammount on such theories(e.g. books like the case for the ressurection of jesus by habermas and other similar books)people only pick hallucinations,mass hysteria,mental illness,craziness,optical illusions etc etc when they have to account for the supernatural or odd events so it's not that surprinsg i guess.
also sorry for all the paragraphs.kinda hard to keep things short even in a casual conversation.
You’re ignorant of history if you think that nothing has changed. All the peasants had to eat was grain and some dairy. Now anyone can get meat and other vital things were that only relegated to the (((rulers))). You should live in the woods for a week without electricity and water if you think medieval society was so much better idiot.
Xianity is also devoid of any spiritually and treats people as machines and cattle, IE Goyim.
Modern society is what you make of it and isn’t a zero-sum game that’s all about materialism.
That garbage is not satanic. You have no idea what “Satan” even means.
Xianity is not our natural religion or “tradition”.
Anyone is free to move to a rural area.
I think you should not use the expression "conspiracy theory" here. FIrst of all this expression is used today by leftists to silence people who actually tell the truth. Are you trying to tell me that I am telling the truth? Also, technically, what I am talking about is not a "conspiracy" theory. I never said anybody conspired to invent Christianity. I am just telling that it was elaborated over a certain period of time (say a century) by a number of people, starting with Paul. These people operated psychologically in the grey zone between sincere mistake and outright fabrication. This gray zone is quite big and we still see it at work today in the reports of people who talk about UFOs, for example.
I only know of 2 supposed references to Christians in the first century AD, both from Josephus. The first of these references (the Testimonium Flavianum) is generally considered an interpolation. The second one is very brief and ambiguous. Its authenticity is not universally acknowledged. This is very little.
Tacitus is from the 2nd century. And yes, forgery happened a lot during antiquity, including among Christians.
Some had visions (hallucinations) under the influence of medical conditions. Paul road to Damascus event is a prime example. The cause might have been a sunstroke or vagal discomfort. In ancient times, events like these were routinely interpreted as divine communications by everyone. Dreams were also used to substantiate claims, as you know. This is what I call the "grey zone" between sincere mistake and outright fabrication. Both the former and the latter might have also occurred on occasion.
Not really because most of the Gospel material comes from the Jewish culture of the time. Everyone had stories about the Messiah in their minds. They were all quite similar
The people who wrote down the Gospels were probably not inventing anything. They were harmonizing a lot of stories that had been current in Christian groups in oral form for several decades and, which they had heard about by questioning various people. What I believe is that the original versions of these stories go back to visions (like Paul's), or dreams, or sometimes to outright fabrication or simply honest errors. For instance, I believe that initially, Christians were a dissident Essene faction and so believed in the "Teacher of Righteousness" who had been executed around 100BC. After the Jewish War with the Romans, and all the turmoil that went with it, someone might have honestly mistaken this date for 1AD (imagine someone who heard the story as a child for example).
The Gospels were written in Greek, and probably not in Judea. After the war, the Judean Jews had been massacred. There were hardly any left. The Gospel stories were probably by and for the Jewish Diaspora; people who lived in Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria, etc. Given the upheavals that had occurred during the war, no one among the diaspora had any clear picture of what the situation in Judea had been before it (there were no newspaper archives you could consult then).
The problem with Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, is that, today, every educated person thinks that the stories like those I am telling are more believable than the Gospel narratives (hence the many "rebuttals" in the books you mention). Educated people who claim to be Catholic (or Protestant for that matter) are generally "conflicted". @TorturedSoul is a prime example. They want to remain part of Christianity but they also believe that the kind of stories I am telling are probably more accurate than the Gospel ones, even if they don't say so openly. There is a fine line between "being conflicted" and being a hypocrite.
>I think you should not use the expression "conspiracy theory" here. FIrst of all this expression is used today by leftists to silence people who actually tell the truth. Are you trying to tell me that I am telling the truth? Also, technically, what I am talking about is not a "conspiracy" theory. I never said anybody conspired to invent Christianity. I am just telling that it was elaborated over a certain period of time (say a century) by a number of people, starting with Paul. These people operated psychologically in the grey zone between sincere mistake and outright fabrication. This gray zone is quite big and we still see it at work today in the reports of people who talk about UFOs, for example.
sorry my intent wasn't to laugh at your theory.the pursuit of truth is important and one should be skeptic about that which is a place rife for lies and cofunsion.
>Tacitus is from the 2nd century. And yes, forgery happened a lot during antiquity, including among Christians.
tacitu was born in the first century and had plenty of resources and witnesses,so discounting his statements easily is a mistake.it is true that it could have been a "forgery",but from the text itself i can't see anything that outs itself as being one .if one was to be as skeptic as one is to "christrian" events when looks at every other event in ancient history then one could never believe anything that happened back then.after all everything could have been forged or been a lie by the author etc etc.i am not saying that one should blindly believe,but one should look at one own prejudice before analysing such texts.
>Some had visions (hallucinations) under the influence of medical conditions. Paul road to Damascus event is a prime example. The cause might have been a sunstroke or vagal discomfort. In ancient times, events like these were routinely interpreted as divine communications by everyone. Dreams were also used to substantiate claims, as you know. This is what I call the "grey zone" between sincere mistake and outright fabrication. Both the former and the latter might have also occurred on occasion.
i think this is hard to defend just due to the sheer size of these miracles that supposedly happened(trying to talk from your view).they were occuring left and right if one reads the new testament. they were occuring so many times to so many people in so many different forms,that to chalk it up as a medical condition is kind of crazy due to how impossible it is.it's much easier to think of them as simple lies then as events that happened under medical conditions.
>The people who wrote down the Gospels were probably not inventing anything. They were harmonizing a lot of stories that had been current in Christian groups in oral form for several decades and, which they had heard about by questioning various people. What I believe is that the original versions of these stories go back to visions (like Paul's), or dreams, or sometimes to outright fabrication or simply honest errors. For instance, I believe that initially, Christians were a dissident Essene faction and so believed in the "Teacher of Righteousness" who had been executed around 100BC. After the Jewish War with the Romans, and all the turmoil that went with it, someone might have honestly mistaken this date for 1AD (imagine someone who heard the story as a child for example).
my point still stands,even if the person who wrote the gospels wasn't inventing anything.not sure it's reasonble to suppose that someone could have confused 100 bc with 1 ad.if it was a one off mistake,but every single writer?again you can always write it off,as you can always suppose it's always "possible" something else happened,but we are talkin about chances here.obviously i am sure you have many ideas about what happened,so it's quite hard to talk about them.i suppose you could always get historical apologetic literature.there is a surpsingly huge ammount of it.
>Not really because most of the Gospel material comes from the Jewish culture of the time. Everyone had stories about the Messiah in their minds. They were all quite similar
i have never heard of any jew whatsoever who ever thought that the person who came to "save" them would fail so miserably at doing that.i suppose you can just chalk it up as "spiritual" practises of back in the days,or some mystical view of it.but even then i find it hard to imagine that they were all "similar" especially when so many jews barely wrote and that's not missing the fact that we probably lost most of it.
>The Gospels were written in Greek, and probably not in Judea. After the war, the Judean Jews had been massacred. There were hardly any left. The Gospel stories were probably by and for the Jewish Diaspora; people who lived in Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria, etc. Given the upheavals that had occurred during the war, no one among the diaspora had any clear picture of what the situation in Judea had been before it (there were no newspaper archives you could consult then).
so the story of christ got out,but the other events believed by many more jews didn't?Assuming everything in the gospels wasn't a fabrication, it would be strange,if what i wrote happened.it's not strange for there to be a lack of writing on certain subjects,but not even a mention would be quite strange.I never read much on the war of the jews back then,so i can't say much about the massacre bit.
>The problem with Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, is that, today, every educated person thinks that the stories like those I am telling are more believable than the Gospel narratives (hence the many "rebuttals" in the books you mention). Educated people who claim to be Catholic (or Protestant for that matter) are generally "conflicted". @[UWSL]
"trad" catholics believe in the gospels fully heartedly,but i agree with you.most people mistrust the gospels since they kick out the possibility of anything spiritual or miraculous happening.unless it's demons or some mystical form of hinduism then everything all of a sudden becomes fine and the spiritual becomes a "fine" way at looking at things.btw what i just wrote wasn't a dig at you,i am just writing what i have seen from observation.it does amaze me that the same people who laugh at christrianity are the same people going home and doing eastern practises in hopes of miracles and spiritual ecstasies.there is a huge hatred agaisn't christrianity imbed in modern society.
Also, most "educated" catholics are barely catholics(just ask them basic questions about what is a sin and what isn't and you will see the whole ship sail quick),and their education is more of a meme then anything.doing uni or being rich isn't a sign of wisdom.also a lot of these "educated" catholics you are thinking about are probably uni vermin tryin their best to claw their way into a nice job at a uni,so they obviously can't just accept the faith.they have to stir up controversy and question everything,since the saints have already expoused on the faith well enough,so repeating the same stuff over and over again won't get them anywhere.most "educated" catholics are usually either sophists(who are often more interested in politics then anything else) or philosophers(who today might as well be called fake scientists as they have mostly abandoned metaphysics).
there is still "trad"(i hate this word so much) catholics writers and priests so it's not all bad.
That is the problem Catholicism has today, I agree with you. @TorturedSoul is the perfect example (see my post on the other thread he started)
In the past, it was not like that. In the Middle Ages, Catholicism had something to offer to everyone. Peasants worshiped saints and educated people were called to be professors of theology and educate everyone else. Both the educated and the simple met in monasteries, where they were all brothers. If I had lived then I would have been a monk. 100% sure.
Now, the educated cannot really be Catholic. If they say they are, they are hypocrites.
The problem is that education gives you access to things that contradict the Bible and make it look foolish. This is true in Science, of course, but it is not the worse area. History and Archaeology really paint a different picture of how the world evolved over the last 6000 years. In the light of modern history, it is impossible not to conclude that the Bible is the work of men and not of God. You have to realize that all these discoveries in history were often made by Christians, who were forced by their Christian honesty to admit and publish them. For example:
- How do you explain that the story of Moses being left in a basket on the river was used in the biography of Sargon of Akkad, 2000 years before the Bible was written?
- How do you explain that the formula "he rules over the waters" (Ps 29:10) was first used as an attribute of Enki, the patriarch of the Sumerian pantheon, whose cult was established at least 3000 years before the Bible was written?
- How come Moses has an Egyptian name and seems to teach a form of religion that is fairly similar to the cult of the Aten, which was current at the same time as Moses is historically placed?
- How come certain descendents of Adam have names that correspond to the earliest Sumerian cities (Irad = Eridu, Enoch = Unug = Uruk)?
- How come Daniel kills a Dragon in Babylon (Daniel 14) exactly like the main Babylonian god, Marduk?
- Why is God himself said to kill Leviathan (Job 3:8, etc.) exactly like the Ugaritic god Baal Hadad was said to have killed Lotan?
- Why is Tehom (the Biblical hebrew name of the sea) a cognate of Tiamat, the female sea-monster killed by Marduk in the Babylonian mythology?
An educated person today cannot deny these things. As a result, he has only two choices.
- Declare himself a Christian and fall into hypocrisy.
- Accept that he is no longer a Christian.
Yes, but how few they are, compared to the past ...
Last edited:
no offense or anything but i think you are overblowing the issue to completely epic proportions.the pure fact that you are comparing stuff in anquity which happened 2000 thousand years to 2000 years later when people still didn't have any decent form of containing information(which kind of kills the possibility of there being a direct connection),kind of speaks of the insanity of this logic jumping. I have seen lots of these supposed "contradictions" and have analysed quite a few,and some of them are even complete lies.
there are a million stories(a lot of them child stories) about shoving kids or animals down a basket and sending them over a river in a million cultures.does that mean that they were all inspired by moses?
>How come Moses has an Egyptian name and seems to teach a form of religion that is fairly similar to the cult of the Aten, which was current at the same time as Moses is historically placed?
from what i remember there is nothing in which moses taught,that could not be conjured up by anyone else.Paul himself says that the laws of god are in mans heart,and one can easily grab any book on catholic ethics and discover that those ethics can be thought about by man logically.Not everything needs to be divinely revealed to ascertain the truth.
>How do you explain that the formula "he rules over the waters" (Ps 29:10) was first used as an attribute of Enki, the patriarch of the Sumerian pantheon, whose cult was established at least 3000 years before the Bible was written?
i don't see how this argument means anything.god rules over all that exists, and aristotle wrote that without the need of any christrian or jew.does that mean that aristotle was in direct communication with god?no. So i don't see how a random formula which even if copied would mean nothing since it's being used to described something different and which has much more control then 99% of "gods" from antuiquity.this isn't even counting the supposed 3000 years difference.people barely remember what happened 100 years ago and that's with all the information and technology we have,so the jump is even more incredible.
i am not going to over all of your rebuttals(i am not historian of old religions so i am not apt to anwser all of them or say much of anything.not that my faith is wagered on such questions),but i do find a lot of them to be a huge leap of faith.Also the way the holy bible is translated(even by good catholics) leaves a million questions,and sometimes changes the entire meaning of the text.A lot of these contradictions are often solved just by trying to understand what the original text actually means.i unfortunely have had to deal with some of the "contradictions" and have had to search online and do research to understand what is happening in the text. there is a reason why the catholic church calls itself the interpreter of the holy bible.one can read a small bit in ten different ways,and it's worrisome to have small issues turn into cyclones of confusion.
also history is interpreted by historians not by history itself.what i mean is that whatever you are reading will be conjured up in a thousand biases,so whenever you read history or archeology for that matter,you should be quite careful.
otaku i respect your will of not being a hyprocrite(which is good),but i think you gave up on it a bit too quick. obviously you have much on your mind,and your criticism are worth of consideration,but still i hope you one day will look at these problems and comtemplate them anew.Saying this because i have had similar issues in the past(nowhere near to your extant though),but when comteplated and researched things a bit more,my mind changed on them.
The proof is in the pudding i'm afraid. Europe under Christedom was several order of magnitudes greater than anything we have today, and that's just a fact. The modern world should have dispelled all the delusions of the progressives once and for all but they still cling to their old demented religious cult despite all the evidence of the collapse of human society around them. You have naked tranny dudes twerking in front of kids in broad daylight and progressives are still bitching about the middle ages, a period of history they understand almost nothing about.
I experienced that bias first hand when i read the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours. Right off the bat, the preface claims half the book was omitted because it consisted mostly of a long list of miracles which Gregory reported as no less factual as anything else in the book, which of course the editors of the translation didn't think qualified as "history". Meanwhile, the other half, which consisted entirely of urban legends and things Gregory "heard" but never witnessed first hand is taken to be real history and this part of the book has influenced the perception of the middle ages all the way down to stuff like Game of Thrones today.
It doesn't take much to see that the book is not about the actual history of the Franks but is a Christian apocaliptic morality play, contrasting sin and evil with miracles and the glory of God all in the same breath, so that both parts of the book are actually seen through a religious prism. To take all the evils reported in the book (some of which Gregory has difficulty describing and in fact in some cases he stops short of being too explicit in order not to "disturb" the reader too much, which seems to suggest that kind of violence wasn't as common place as people today seem to think) as indicative of what that era was like without taking into account that Gregory had a vested interested in painting his own time as bably as he could because it aligns with the modern progressivist interest in painting past eras as badly as they can is sheer hypocrisy, and to claim none of the miracles were important enough to include in the translation because of a bias against the supernatural is also not what i would call an "impartial" investigation of history.
Modern Catholicism doesn't work. What went wrong with Protestantism has infected Catholicism. The current Pope is a total disaster. But Catholicism was essentially doomed by the Second Vatican Council which fully gave in to modern culture.
Atheism, nothing else. There's no god.
Average sfcuck
Doesn't seem to realize the contradiction here
No, it piggybacked off of one.
There is nothing logical about scripture or faith. 'Billions' is best used to describe the massive amount of revenue acquired by the Christian churches by selling fake salvation to the ignorant masses.
Christianity teaches you are helpless without the salvation of [clergy]. It is the perfect doctrine for underclass sheeple who have no intention of adopting virtues related to the strong (such as critical thinking).
Religion is popular because it utilizes dogma, and dogma is effective because the majority of people would rather not scrutinize their predicaments. God is a method through which people attempt to absolve themselves of culpability.
But forget that. Looking at religion from a utilitarian perspective, they don't serve the interests of incels. I would argue they contributed to our situation due to the artificial enforcement of monogamy in the past. Attempting to curb women's desire for the dark triad and chadsexuality was a bubble that would pop inevitably.
Last edited:
@Vitarius thoughts on this thread? Does Catholicism benefit incels.
if we lived in a catholic society, degenerates would be social pariahs. Society becoming secular led to moral decay. However secularism is only one of many factors for why we are in a waking nightmare atm. Capitalism is also to blame. Feminism and liberal politics as well, of course.
Call it artificial if you want, I would even agree, but it was a great system that benefited everybody. Women got protected and provided for and men received love and a family as long as they were willing to work.
Women will always be protected and provided for regardless, and men are still willing to work.
The religious tradcon setup was destined to fail, because women will always demand more despite being safe and men always willing acquiesce to said demands.
Your response to the reveal of the smoke and mirrors behind the Wizard of Oz is to somehow pretend we didn't see it and 'go back' to pretending it was still real. The cat's out of the bag. The only way forward is to address the core problem the smoke and mirrors was masking to begin with. We have no choice but to acknowledge the sickness. Placebos are no longer an option. We either get better or die.
No the response is, the old way was better for both sexes (women aren't really happy being pumped and dumped by Chad). There's no smoke and mirrors. It's the current way that's doomed to fail: birth rates are declining and a generation of men are refusing to contribute to society.
Knajjdpilled
It doesn't matter whether it was 'better' or not.
Something built on foundation of sand is bound to fall eventually. Its not sustainable. That's my point.
It fell because it was based on smoke and mirrors, ie. a falsehood.
No catholicism for your face
It's a shame that since Vatican II, the Catholic church has sealed its fate.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
