Limits of Christianity

>he hasn't read the Old Testament

Take Rosicrucianpill user

Attached: 41I4UQXEroL.jpg (349x500, 30.22K)

>I just tried giving Christianity a fair shot
>The whole redemption for sin is obviously just made-up
>basing anything on scripture as if it has any iota of truth is nonsensical

Scripture is the history of God's relationship with man, from the creation of the world up until the incarnation of Christ.

If you chose to reject that history, and try to make sense of Christianity without accepting it, then no wonder you think it's retarded. You're judging Christianity based on your own retarded made up ideas about what Christianity is, instead of what it actually is.

And what Christianity actually is, is the living continuation of that relationship with God, complete with miracles and deified Saints, up till this present day. That's Orthodox Christianity - the other breakoffs from it, like the hundreds of flavours of Protestantism, are disconnected from that living continuation.

If you had even a shred of honesty in you, you would know that you're not giving it a fair shot if you're not even trying to understand the Christian worldview on its own terms, or trying to see how it has been continued up until this present day.

Take the GermanIdealismpill user

Attached: 0813914582_thumbnail.jpg (166x250, 9.19K)

Take the Christianity as mystical fact pill user

Attached: E7BDAEA3-EC32-40E5-8982-DE58645AF426.jpg (1247x1472, 53.73K)

Oooooooooohhhhhhh I just jizzed

Why is man in a fallen state? Because according to ancient Hebrew mythology the first man and women were convinced by a sepent to take a bite of forbidden fruit? Even if the Edenic story is meant to be allegory, the story isn't necessary for any meaningful observation of man or reality.

If a myth or fable has a meaningful truth in it, that myth or fable isn't necessary for that that truth to be true, it's just a way of expressing it. And the story doesn't need to have actually happened for that allegorical truth to be meaningful.

In my pants

Attached: jizz-jizzed-in-my-pants.gif (480x276, 2.24M)

And how is there any grounds that the Bible is correct? How it is correct - because it is divinely inspired? It is only divinely inspired because the Bible says it is. It's a circle.

>How it is correct
It was written by the Hebrews.

What are you, an anti-semite?

>I have serious doubts you gave it a "fair shot". If you start by lying to yourself you will ngmi. It seems that you are more interested in 'thinking for yourself' than accepting what is correct.

Why do you doubt him? This is what our Lord said would occur.
> "The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful."

No its divinely inspired because the Catholic Tradition says it's divinely inspired

>than accepting what is correct
all problems with christianity occur because of these words

How is it incorrect? If you can present a single saying of the Lord Jesus that is false, or imperfect, I will accept what you say as true.

How is scripture the history of god's relationship with man? It's only because it claims to be so and people who believe that claim affirm it. That's all.

And I've engaged with Eastern Orthodoxy for over four years now. I was a catechumen for a long time. But I could not get past the fact that all of this stuff is clearly made up and only buttressed upon itself.

Example: all the messianic prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ were simply invented by taking passages of the Old Testament scripture and making up things that Christ did in order to fulfill them.

But your exact argument could just as easily be used against you.

It is only false because you claim it is false and people who do not claim it affirm you.

>If you had even a shred of honesty in you, you would know that you're not giving it a fair shot if you're not even trying to understand the Christian worldview on its own terms, or trying to see how it has been continued up until this present day.

And this is all I've been trying to do. But all it takes is one step back to see that it's all made up. I'm not trying to lambast Christianity or anything, I just can't get past how glaringly obvious it is that it's just invented by human minds.

Every religion is soteriological and starts by acknowledging man is in a fallen state. Even Buddhism.

It is not up to me to explain you the genesis story.

That would still stand even if I were not a Christian. I.e. if user wants to give a fair shot to a religion he should accept what is orthodox (correct) in them. In the same way he should start by accepting Christian orthodoxy (not eastern orthodoxy) if he wants to give Christianity a fair shot. The same would apply to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc

That's another circle. Tradition bases itself on the divine authority of scripture and the authority of scripture is divinely inspired because it is claimed as such by tradition.

I don’t normally do this because the teaching is so sacred, but read The Perfect Matrimony by Samael Aun Weor in full and you will have the pure, complete, inner secret teaching of Christianity revealed to you. May your father who is in secret guide you on the path

Attached: 59FF403B-7588-42D6-9629-ACB9DFFCBBED.jpg (2124x1411, 695.51K)

NO THE TRADITION PRECEDES THE SCRIPTURES

>In the same way he should start by accepting Christian orthodoxy (not eastern orthodoxy) if he wants to give Christianity a fair shot.
why not the original form of early christianity, you know, the one that jesus actually preached, instead of the ones created by his followers?

When I read this book it made me so angry I ripped in half and through it across the room.

It is divinely inspired because it is the word of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. Catholic Tradition is beside the point.

I'm not basing my observation on the affirmation of others. I never even used the term "false", I just pointed out that Christianity bases its truths on its own circular affirmation.

It is not the work of christ or the holy spirit

This is nonsense.

If the words of Christ are false, simply show me a single teaching of his that is false, or imperfect. The burden of proof on you is extremely minor here.

Huh? Early Christianity is the continuation of Christ's teaching through St. Paul and the apostles as commanded by Christ.

Acts, the epistles, the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, apostolic constitution... All of this is early Christianity and catholic.

What is this early Christianity you speak of if not what I just mentioned?

But the Genesis story is not necessary to observe the "fallen state" of man. Even so, the "fallen state" is not exactly what a Buddhist believes, and in fact, Buddhism often bases itself solely on direct observations of reality. The three marks of existence can be brought up without a mythic story to convey them.

No wonder you have no hope

I will never have sex with the vestal virgins you homo. I will never do those dirty nasty things.

>That would still stand even if I were not a Christian. I.e. if user wants to give a fair shot to a religion he should accept what is orthodox (correct) in them. In the same way he should start by accepting Christian orthodoxy (not eastern orthodoxy) if he wants to give Christianity a fair shot. The same would apply to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc

I did precisely this. I tried to accept Christianity on its own terms. I did not solely engage with Eastern Orthodoxy, I also engaged Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, many of the different Protestant branches, and they're all the same major made-up things shuffled around.

It's rather disingenuous to say that Buddhism is not mythic though isn't it?

Enlightenment is unification with the Atman, the Brahmin. The cycle of death and rebirth rewards the karmically positive with elevation to angelic states. A proper philosophy of Buddhism encompasses all this, and much more.

how is catholicism closer to early christianity than eastern orthodoxy when catholicism came later?

Catholicism is the original Church. The Orthodox Church are schismatics. This is clear by the fact that their Church is in schism this very day.

If you want to interpret it as just obviously made up, then you will interpret it as obviously made up. There's nowhere else to go there. This is very easy to do if the only thing you knew about Christian history was just the bible, and there was literally nothing after the events of the Book of Acts to support a historical view consistent with it.

But, like I've mentioned, the 2000 years after the events of the New Testament are completely chock full to the brim of personal, eye-witness accounts of Orthodox Saints, up until the present day. I know people who have met the recent Saints, like St Paisios of Mt Athos, Elder Ephraim of Arizona, Fr. Seraphim Rose of Platina, and St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco. Here's an example of Roosh V giving his account of meeting Elder Ephraim of Arizona. youtube.com/watch?v=ZRl3THDYN6Q

This isn't a matter of abstract reasoning from books detailing things that no-one has experienced - it's fundamentally about the direct, lived experience of God in this life, in recent history, that has continued to be true up until this day. If this point is taken seriously, then the idea that it's all just made up becomes far less plausible.

We believe in Napoleon because people who knew Napoleon wrote about him - and we live with the historical consequences of Napoleon to this day. It would be simply insane to disbelieve in the historical reality of Napoleon. The exact same thing applies to Christ, and the lineage he left, preserved in the Orthodox Church.

Or, you could continue doubling down, and claiming that each and every claim about a recent Orthodox Saint is simply made up, to continue backing up the original claim that the events in the bible are made up. This would have to make the Orthodox some of the most extensive pathological liars on the planet, since there are literal mountains of documentation about the lives of miracle-working Saints over the past 2000 years - and yet, somehow, this same level of rampant, institutional, and prodigious dishonesty is not extended to other groups of beliefs.

Side Question: Do either of you two believe in evolution? If so, have either of you tried to consistently apply the same level skepticism to evolution, as you have to the claims of Orthodox Christianity?

Once again you charge me of claiming something is false when I simply did not. It's the clear human invention of Christianity that gives no reason to regard it as holding divine truths. How could anything Christ said not be said by a normal person or the Gospel authors penning in something like a prophetic prediction of something that already occurred (like the fall of the temple)?

You are probably a fag or a chronic masturbator. Just kys

>It would be simply insane to disbelieve in the historical reality of Napoleon.
Well what do we have here? Could it be? A Napoleon denier? Hehehehe Why yes I am insane? Hehehehehe

You can see Jesus' parables also reflect principles from reality.

It is false that Buddhism is purely naturalistic and that there aren't supernatural elements (miracles, demons, gods, etc). Explain nirvana as in direct observations of reality...

I will never kill myself you homogay kys

Take the Guénonpill, don't fall into the pseud larp of pretending via self-adulation that you've "transcended" this illusory construct of "Christianity." Pic related.

Attached: MuttoidMuhChristianitya.jpg (957x1983, 509.76K)

Vatican II says that the Orthodox Church still has retained the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the tradition of the first 1000 years of the Church, despite being in schism for over 1000 years, and without a Pope.

That’s why you need to make threads about how you don’t know Christ. You rejected him for your perverse desires. You’re your only worst enemy

Who has ever said the things Christ said? Show me a single person who rivals him as a moral teacher. A child has little knowledge of Socrates or the sayings of the Buddha. But the parables of the Prodigal Son, or the Good Samaritan are practically universally known. Every one on the Earth knows something of the Lord Christ. Who else can possibly be compared to him? Point to a single normal human who has accomplished anything like this.

>people are comparing the historical authenticity of napoleon to jesus
fucking hell get these people off of my board

Sidenote but I went to that exact monastery in Arizona. It was an important step in my journey to Eastern Orthodoxy. I still treasure the memories, despite what I think of Christianity.

Almost everything you said could be used as proof of the truthfulness of Islam, where Muslims attest to Allah performing miracles in their day-to-day life, and even direct experience of the divine in a way that is (albeit superficially) similar to theosis.

It's not a matter of lies, I don't think people who think they saw a miracle think they saw one. But they attribute that miracle to Christ or Allah because they have the potential of such things in their mind.

I don't "believe" in evolution lol, I honestly don't care evolution enough to read into the evidence for it. Those "two" are the same person btw.

>Every one on the Earth knows something of the Lord Christ.
Slow down there with the categorical judgements before you wreck yourself fanboy

The Lord God does not abandon schismatics. Christ himself said "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?"

But it is clear you are rewarded equally for your turning away from the true Church. This is why Constantinople fell to the Muslim hordes and the Church in Rome stands to this day.

ldsscriptureteachings.org/2018/03/05/5629-2/

(I'm aware this is an LDS site lol)

Holy shit. You're right! I never thought about it like that... But what about the sack of Rome?

Show me a single child of age who doesn't know his name. Again, you have nothing but pithy negations. Come into the light, brother. For your own sake.

Muhammad? We are approaching a Muslim majority planet by 2050, so by that point there will be more believers in the truths of the Qur'an than the Christian Bible. Just because Christianity was influential or popular doesn't mean it is accurate.

The Light? Why I have- Lucifer has shown it to me.

>I can't "prove" exclusivism
>Perennislism "disproves" Christianity
This is your Brain on Protestantism.

The morality espoused by Christ isn't that special in comparison to other ethical philosophers of the ancient world. If anything, his morality feels flimsy.

The sacking of Rome where the Visigoths left after three days? You're right! That's exactly the same as 600 years of conquest. I'm convinced.

The Light

Attached: lucistrust.png (225x225, 3.11K)

Not that user but Jesus would have been forgotten long ago if his followers had not been so strong in their convictions to spread the message, which tells me something is different about Christianity and that it has only ever happened once afterwards (Islam) and that tells me that there is psychological trickery regarding the success of Christianity more so than any "real truth" about it
As for rivals as a moral teacher, you named two of them, Cyrus, Mohammed, Alexander, Benjamin Franklin, a few more too

Religion is not about mere moralism/sentimentalism it's about metaphysical realisation/salvation of the human existence.
Read Guénon!

lol for real, all the major attestations to Jesus are books that are mythic portraits about him. Comparing this to hundreds and hundreds of eyewitness accounts of Napoleon throughout his entire life and it's a molehill and a mountain. We have many portraits made of Napoleon made during his lifetime, his tomb, and even his death mask for crying out loud.

>But it is clear you are rewarded equally for your turning away from the true Church. This is why Constantinople fell to the Muslim hordes and the Church in Rome stands to this day.
You're lucky the lads from /his/ aren't in this thread otherwise they'd tear you a new asshole for that last statement.

Historical Cope.