Republicans, Race, and the "Great Replacement"

LordSunhawk said:
It's actually been settled for an extremely long time, with only a few protestants and heretics (but I repeat myself) dissenting.

Read the Nicene Creed, it tells you precisely what we believe
Click to expand...
It tells me precisely what your doctrine is. There is a pretty damned huge difference between the doctrine and what the typical parishioners actually believe. Hence the eternal struggle against the de facto ditheism of there being a Devil or Satan or Lucifer or whatever-he-gets-called capable of meaningful opposition, because if there is a remotely coherent answer for the Problem of Evil, it's out so far in the weeds of theology that the vast majority of people cannot understand it.

Also all the stuff in Dante's Inferno drawing from already popular ideas well predating Protestantism, loads of demons in the apocrypha very obviously taken directly from older and unrelated pagan traditions, the farce that was Angelology, "Satan was not a pogo stick", when you start digging it gets extremely obvious that Catholicism is bullshit, because of how blatantly it's far more covering its own ass than legitimate point by now by volume of doctrine. With very, very little lay-worshipper buy in.
 
Morphic Tide said:
It tells me precisely what your doctrine is. There is a pretty damned huge difference between the doctrine and what the typical parishioners actually believe. Hence the eternal struggle against the de facto ditheism of there being a Devil or Satan or Lucifer or whatever-he-gets-called capable of meaningful opposition, because if there is a remotely coherent answer for the Problem of Evil, it's out so far in the weeds of theology that the vast majority of people cannot understand it.

Also all the stuff in Dante's Inferno drawing from already popular ideas well predating Protestantism, loads of demons in the apocrypha very obviously taken directly from older and unrelated pagan traditions, the farce that was Angelology, "Satan was not a pogo stick", when you start digging it gets extremely obvious that Catholicism is bullshit, because of how blatantly it's far more covering its own ass than legitimate point by now by volume of doctrine. With very, very little lay-worshipper buy in.
Click to expand...

1.Problem of Evil - free will.If you have free will,you could be evil.End of story.
2.Dante is not part of catholic doctrine,but one of our writer.You could start bitching about Silmarillion as well,becouse Tolkien was catholic writer,too.

And protestantism is dead.Once it was tool of rulers which made them mini-super popes,now it is something which made everybody head of his own church.
Just like pagan traditions,neopagans are cosplayers or satanists.
 
BlackDragon98 said:
Wait a sec, then who is God if Jesus is God?

I thought Jesus was the son of God?
Click to expand...
God is the father, Jesus is the son and finally the holy ghost completes the trinity, they are all part of God yet distinctly separate and its weird but that is the easiest way to phrase it.
 
Morphic Tide said:
It tells me precisely what your doctrine is. There is a pretty damned huge difference between the doctrine and what the typical parishioners actually believe. Hence the eternal struggle against the de facto ditheism of there being a Devil or Satan or Lucifer or whatever-he-gets-called capable of meaningful opposition, because if there is a remotely coherent answer for the Problem of Evil, it's out so far in the weeds of theology that the vast majority of people cannot understand it.

Also all the stuff in Dante's Inferno drawing from already popular ideas well predating Protestantism, loads of demons in the apocrypha very obviously taken directly from older and unrelated pagan traditions, the farce that was Angelology, "Satan was not a pogo stick", when you start digging it gets extremely obvious that Catholicism is bullshit, because of how blatantly it's far more covering its own ass than legitimate point by now by volume of doctrine. With very, very little lay-worshipper buy in.
Click to expand...
The typical parishioner is, sadly, very poorly catechized in the faith, especially if a cradle Catholic. This is changing in many parishes such as my own, where the priests are very strongly catechizing the faithful and in turn seeing rapid growth in the congregation as the human thirst for God is satisfied by true and faithful Doctrine.

That being said, allow me to address your two points.

First, the 'problem of Evil' and the supposed 'ditheism'. Satan exists, and is in opposition to God, being the Prince of the World, which is fallen into Satan's hands due to Sin. However, the Gospel explicitly shows that not only will God triumph over Satan, but that He already has defeated Satan in the Cross. Satan is not and never has been God's 'opposite' or capable of meaningful opposition, Satan is the original Big Lie, the fruit of sinfulness and lies, and the font thereof. Evil in the world is simply a consequence of our fallen state, if we all avoided sin and lived lives in accordance with God's will for us, there would be no evil in the world, for there would be no sin.

God created us in His image and likeness, not as slaves or mindless pawns, but as sons and daughters, and thus gave us the gift of free will. That we rebel against Him in sin allows evil into the world, but He still loves us enough to give us the sovereign remedy against sin, which is Christ.

Dante was a creative writer and novelist, he was not a theologian and has absolutely no relevance to the actual doctrine of the Church. As for your claims about 'pagan influence' on the Church, when you dig into them they are pretty much bullshit, just about all of the supposed 'pagan influences' are either cultural traditions that have grown up outside of the Church itself (see the various things around Christmas) or fail upon finding that said Church doctrine and tradition predates any possible contact with the aforementioned 'pagan influence'.
 
BlackDragon98 said:
Wait a sec, then who is God if Jesus is God?

I thought Jesus was the son of God?
Click to expand...
It's a complex subject and waaaay off topic, but I'll explain as simply as I can. (The following is all derived from the teachings of the Bible, assuming it is authoritative and infallible in communicating the truth of God's nature).

-There is only one God,

and,
-The Father is God;
-Jesus is the Son, and the Son is God;
-The Holy Spirit is God

But also,
-The Father is not the Son;
-The Son is not the Holy Spirit;
-The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

And,
-The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal. None are subordinate to the other.

From these Biblical teachings emerged the doctrine of the Trinity. Basically, the idea that the one God is three persons, equally. When a Christian says "God", they mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But if Christian says "the Father", they aren't referring to Jesus, etc.

Rusty Shackleford said:
God is the father, Jesus is the son and finally the holy ghost completes the trinity, they are all part of God yet distinctly separate and its weird but that is the easiest way to phrase it.
Click to expand...

Slight correction, but it's inaccurate to say they are "part" of God as if God has separate parts. He is one whole being.
 
Last edited:
Stargazer said:
Slight correction, but it's innaccurate to say they are "part" of God as if God has separate parts. He is one whole being.
Click to expand...
That's subjective because I am not arguing otherwise, my statements are that he is multiple and also singular at the same time. He doesnt follow either human definitions of separate or whole as we logically understand them which is just on par usual for a divine being.
 
Rusty Shackleford said:
That's subjective because I am not arguing otherwise, my statements are that he is multiple and also singular at the same time. He doesnt follow either human definitions of separate or whole as we logically understand them which is just on par usual for a divine being.
Click to expand...

That's fair in the sense that he is multiple persons, but a singular God. And it's fair to say that he doesn't follow human definitions of existence.
 
ATP said:
1.Problem of Evil - free will.If you have free will,you could be evil.End of story.
Click to expand...
It's still a problem because God had to have designed the world to be able to Fall in the first place knowing of a "chance" of it. Sin may be an unavoidable logical consequence, but Original Sin, to my recollection, was a deliberate punishment for Adam and Eve acquiring an independent moral compass. "Fruit of Knowledge of Right and Wrong", immediate consequences involved shame at nudity, very much looks like Adam and Eve did not possess the capacity to understand their wrongdoing in any fashion but "God said not to".

If you start thinking of potential issues with the scripture, problems pop up constantly. Catholic doctrine is far more epicycles added to cover these issues than getting across the original point.

ATP said:
2.Dante is not part of catholic doctrine,but one of our writer.You could start bitching about Silmarillion as well,becouse Tolkien was catholic writer,too.
Click to expand...
Morphic Tide said:
With very, very little lay-worshipper buy in.
Click to expand...

As with Tolkein, Dante did not do much in the way of conjure the ideas out of the World of Forms or whatever, he primarily remixed things already in the popular culture. Dante wrote biblical fanfiction with the omnipresent fanon of Hell as a place of obvious wordly-recognizable suffering, because the doctrine on that has no persuasive ability, so the spread of it had to invent the fire-and-brimestone interpretation rather early on to make points Pagans would make any sense of.

ATP said:
And protestantism is dead.Once it was tool of rulers which made them mini-super popes,now it is something which made everybody head of his own church.
Click to expand...
Like 70% of the Christians in the US come down to a half-dozen or so denominations. And unlike Catholicism's reaction to Protestants coming into being, they just bicker about their differences instead of starting wars over it. Which has a lot to do with how the English handled their remarkably repetitive turnover, giving the worst of the rabble-rousers over it the option to fuck off to the Americas, where they had no large-scale power structure to turn on the other guys.

LordSunhawk said:
Satan is not and never has been God's 'opposite' or capable of meaningful opposition, Satan is the original Big Lie, the fruit of sinfulness and lies, and the font thereof. Evil in the world is simply a consequence of our fallen state, if we all avoided sin and lived lives in accordance with God's will for us, there would be no evil in the world, for there would be no sin.
Click to expand...
It answers the questions far more readily, because the story of Original Sin is one of failing to be blindly obedient. It was the Fruit of Knowledge of right and wrong. Adam and Eve did not have any comprehension of evil. Their sole ability to understand it was what God told them. The first-order consequences involved them coming to feel shame at nudity. It inevitably devolves to an axiom that God is Good, no questions allowed.

Because being the First Cause and omniscient gives total culpability over all events due to total command of initial conditions and awareness of their possible results. Giving free will to humanity? All consequences known, the possibility of the Fall to the mistake of an incomplete moral actor incapable of understanding it is quite exactly a match for a failure of parental responsibility.

There's a cascade of ridiculous arguments arising from needing God to be an infinitely privileged actor, where we cannot apply day-to-day morality to Him. Again, Catholic doctrine is mostly ass-covering over a no-limits fallacy. In the Old Testament, you get plenty of implications that God is not three-Os nor the only existing divinity, thoroughly ignored by Christianity. For fuck's sake, under Judaism it's been valid to call God out for overstepping His bounds!

This doctrine has no persuasive power to a sceptic. Because you have to browbeat them into accepting God as the moral authority first before virtually anything else of Catholic doctrine can start making sense. Meanwhile, have the Serpent be something God cannot wipe away, cannot simply deny, and suddenly you get a cause for Evil that doesn't take years of education to even start justifying.
 
Morphic Tide said:
It's still a problem because God had to have designed the world to be able to Fall in the first place knowing of a "chance" of it. Sin may be an unavoidable logical consequence, but Original Sin, to my recollection, was a deliberate punishment for Adam and Eve acquiring an independent moral compass. "Fruit of Knowledge of Right and Wrong", immediate consequences involved shame at nudity, very much looks like Adam and Eve did not possess the capacity to understand their wrongdoing in any fashion but "God said not to".

If you start thinking of potential issues with the scripture, problems pop up constantly. Catholic doctrine is far more epicycles added to cover these issues than getting across the original point.




As with Tolkein, Dante did not do much in the way of conjure the ideas out of the World of Forms or whatever, he primarily remixed things already in the popular culture. Dante wrote biblical fanfiction with the omnipresent fanon of Hell as a place of obvious wordly-recognizable suffering, because the doctrine on that has no persuasive ability, so the spread of it had to invent the fire-and-brimestone interpretation rather early on to make points Pagans would make any sense of.


Like 70% of the Christians in the US come down to a half-dozen or so denominations. And unlike Catholicism's reaction to Protestants coming into being, they just bicker about their differences instead of starting wars over it. Which has a lot to do with how the English handled their remarkably repetitive turnover, giving the worst of the rabble-rousers over it the option to fuck off to the Americas, where they had no large-scale power structure to turn on the other guys.


It answers the questions far more readily, because the story of Original Sin is one of failing to be blindly obedient. It was the Fruit of Knowledge of right and wrong. Adam and Eve did not have any comprehension of evil. Their sole ability to understand it was what God told them. The first-order consequences involved them coming to feel shame at nudity. It inevitably devolves to an axiom that God is Good, no questions allowed.

Because being the First Cause and omniscient gives total culpability over all events due to total command of initial conditions and awareness of their possible results. Giving free will to humanity? All consequences known, the possibility of the Fall to the mistake of an incomplete moral actor incapable of understanding it is quite exactly a match for a failure of parental responsibility.

There's a cascade of ridiculous arguments arising from needing God to be an infinitely privileged actor, where we cannot apply day-to-day morality to Him. Again, Catholic doctrine is mostly ass-covering over a no-limits fallacy. In the Old Testament, you get plenty of implications that God is not three-Os nor the only existing divinity, thoroughly ignored by Christianity. For fuck's sake, under Judaism it's been valid to call God out for overstepping His bounds!

This doctrine has no persuasive power to a sceptic. Because you have to browbeat them into accepting God as the moral authority first before virtually anything else of Catholic doctrine can start making sense. Meanwhile, have the Serpent be something God cannot wipe away, cannot simply deny, and suddenly you get a cause for Evil that doesn't take years of education to even start justifying.
Click to expand...
This is why it's best to treat most Christian religious texts as bad fanfiction that was written by elites mostly to keep serfs and slaves from rising up, rather than as a literal record of things. Most historical events in the Bible are at best a twisted recording of an actual historical event, passed down via a long game of telephone and possibly 'reinterpeted' to fit the ideology/views of a later church higher-up.

I personally have no doubt the Divine is out there, that Jesus was part of it, and that some events in the Bible actually happened, if not exactly as written; everything beyond that is 90% fanfiction and the result of a long game of telephone.

Also, you got it right, in that in the view of hardcore Christians, Adam and Eve were wrong to not listen to God's word blindly. They do not worry about things like 'informed consent', 'duty to disclose', or 'parental cupability' when looking at the Bible or trying to explain things to those not already in the 'herd'.
 
Morphic Tide said:
It's still a problem because God had to have designed the world to be able to Fall in the first place knowing of a "chance" of it. Sin may be an unavoidable logical consequence, but Original Sin, to my recollection, was a deliberate punishment for Adam and Eve acquiring an independent moral compass. "Fruit of Knowledge of Right and Wrong", immediate consequences involved shame at nudity, very much looks like Adam and Eve did not possess the capacity to understand their wrongdoing in any fashion but "God said not to".

If you start thinking of potential issues with the scripture, problems pop up constantly. Catholic doctrine is far more epicycles added to cover these issues than getting across the original point.




As with Tolkein, Dante did not do much in the way of conjure the ideas out of the World of Forms or whatever, he primarily remixed things already in the popular culture. Dante wrote biblical fanfiction with the omnipresent fanon of Hell as a place of obvious wordly-recognizable suffering, because the doctrine on that has no persuasive ability, so the spread of it had to invent the fire-and-brimestone interpretation rather early on to make points Pagans would make any sense of.


Like 70% of the Christians in the US come down to a half-dozen or so denominations. And unlike Catholicism's reaction to Protestants coming into being, they just bicker about their differences instead of starting wars over it. Which has a lot to do with how the English handled their remarkably repetitive turnover, giving the worst of the rabble-rousers over it the option to fuck off to the Americas, where they had no large-scale power structure to turn on the other guys.


It answers the questions far more readily, because the story of Original Sin is one of failing to be blindly obedient. It was the Fruit of Knowledge of right and wrong. Adam and Eve did not have any comprehension of evil. Their sole ability to understand it was what God told them. The first-order consequences involved them coming to feel shame at nudity. It inevitably devolves to an axiom that God is Good, no questions allowed.

Because being the First Cause and omniscient gives total culpability over all events due to total command of initial conditions and awareness of their possible results. Giving free will to humanity? All consequences known, the possibility of the Fall to the mistake of an incomplete moral actor incapable of understanding it is quite exactly a match for a failure of parental responsibility.

There's a cascade of ridiculous arguments arising from needing God to be an infinitely privileged actor, where we cannot apply day-to-day morality to Him. Again, Catholic doctrine is mostly ass-covering over a no-limits fallacy. In the Old Testament, you get plenty of implications that God is not three-Os nor the only existing divinity, thoroughly ignored by Christianity. For fuck's sake, under Judaism it's been valid to call God out for overstepping His bounds!

This doctrine has no persuasive power to a sceptic. Because you have to browbeat them into accepting God as the moral authority first before virtually anything else of Catholic doctrine can start making sense. Meanwhile, have the Serpent be something God cannot wipe away, cannot simply deny, and suddenly you get a cause for Evil that doesn't take years of education to even start justifying.
Click to expand...

1.We are not muslims,we do not belive that Old Testament was dictated by God.People wrote it,and used their own belifs - thus,old testament could never be treated as true world by world.
It is protestant mistake to belive so.

2.Dante is still not part of dogma.

3.Protestants started most religious wars in Europe,not catholics.Alling with turks sometimes.
And,if american protestants truly belived what they preach,each of them would form his/her own sect.
 
ATP said:
1.We are not muslims,we do not belive that Old Testament was dictated by God.People wrote it,and used their own belifs - thus,old testament could never be treated as true world by world.
It is protestant mistake to belive so.
Click to expand...

The Biblical view, both in the Old and New Testament, is that God spoke through the prophets. It's incorrect to say they "used their own beliefs" and that the OT "could never be treated as true". That's directly opposed to what Jesus and his apostles taught.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:1 ESV


All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16‭-‬17 ESV

Jesus Himself referred to the OT writings as what "God said":

And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves also break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or mother.’ And by this you have invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Matthew 15:3‭-‬6 NASB2020

And things prophets like Isaiah said were referred to as "spoken through". Meaning it wasn't just Isaiah's words and beliefs.

This happened so that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled:
Matthew 12:17 NASB2020


I mean, you're free to reject the OT as not being true. But you're not following the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in doing so. They affirmed that it was God speaking through the prophets.
 
Stargazer said:
The Biblical view, both in the Old and New Testament, is that God spoke through the prophets. It's incorrect to say they "used their own beliefs" and that the OT "could never be treated as true". That's directly opposed to what Jesus and his apostles taught.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:1 ESV


All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16‭-‬17 ESV

Jesus Himself referred to the OT writings as what "God said":

And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves also break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or mother.’ And by this you have invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Matthew 15:3‭-‬6 NASB2020

And things prophets like Isaiah said were referred to as "spoken through". Meaning it wasn't just Isaiah's words and beliefs.

This happened so that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled:
Matthew 12:17 NASB2020


I mean, you're free to reject the OT as not being true. But you're not following the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in doing so. They affirmed that it was God speaking through the prophets.
Click to expand...

Speaking through,not dictating.So,it is for Church to decide what really was spoken.
That is why we do not need to belive in bloody fairy-tales about jews genociding all caananites.And could confirm that there was at least 2 Issaiash,not one.
And,we have no problems with world created in more ten 6 days,too.
 
ATP said:
Speaking through,not dictating.So,it is for Church to decide what really was spoken.
That is why we do not need to belive in bloody fairy-tales about jews genociding all caananites.And could confirm that there was at least 2 Issaiash,not one.
And,we have no problems with world created in more ten 6 days,too.
Click to expand...

No, it is not on the Church to "decide" anything. The Old Testament Scripture came before the Church and the Church is subject to its authority, not the other way around.

None of what you're saying is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and believed. If you claim to follow Jesus, yes, you do need to believe what is taught and recorded in the OT.
 
Stargazer said:
No, it is not on the Church to "decide" anything. The Old Testament Scripture came before the Church and the Church is subject to its authority, not the other way around.

None of what you're saying is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and believed. If you claim to follow Jesus, yes, you do need to believe what is taught and recorded in the OT.
Click to expand...

If you read NT,then you knew,that Jesus never said that HE is God.Or Holy Spirit.Or that He,God and Holy Spirit form Trinity.
All you have said by HIM is that peter get keys to kingdom.
In other worlds,you could take from NT alone fact that popes power exist,but not that Jesus is GOD.
 
ATP said:
If you read NT,then you knew,that Jesus never said that HE is God.Or Holy Spirit.Or that He,God and Holy Spirit form Trinity.
All you have said by HIM is that peter get keys to kingdom.
In other worlds,you could take from NT alone fact that popes power exist,but not that Jesus is GOD.
Click to expand...

The New Testament does identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. And it never talks about a succession of popes that would come after Peter. You're ignorant about what is actually written in the NT.
 
Stargazer said:
The New Testament does identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. And it never talks about a succession of popes that would come after Peter. You're ignorant about what is actually written in the NT.
Click to expand...
Source on where the Bible says Jesus is God? Because guess what if you follow a Protestant, idea of sola scriptura there is nothing wrong with Arianism. God created Jesus who is a lesser being like a prophet but is not God himself. Also how did a thread turn into theological discussion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top