Do you have any Christian beliefs that could potentially get you in trouble or are plain unusual for modern norms?

I'm condemning anyone, I'm simply saying what God has taught us

not* lolol

Those are perfectly normal.

Attached: 1536329131001.jpg (626x626, 61.7K)

theistic evolution

Normie

Apart from the Catholics, most of whom are pro-homo.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_Catholics

Attached: CathedralOct2010-1.jpg (720x541, 120.93K)

Sure. The most obvious is that I believe the Bible teaches clearly that modern day Jews are that in name only and are literally the Synagogue of Satan, who have as their main purpose to bring about the Antichrist. But, more controversially on this board is that Catholics aren't saved, and can not be saved without a total rejection of their pagan heresy dressed as Christianity. This goes for Orthodox as well, since they're essentially the same thing.

This really comes to the forefront considering the aggressive and biased moderating style that takes place from catholic mods here.

I'm going to come across as a joykill here but wouldn't it be better to have a thread that tries to point out errors people have regarding basic dogma or in tradition, and fix them? Rather than listing them out as personal opinion, so that someone gets the wrong idea about something? I myself have suspicions on some things, but I haven't consulted someone with expertise in those areas yet and thus don't feel like sharing them until then, otherwise I'll just contribute to net error and potentially damn more souls to Hell if I am not both accurate and precise on those areas.

Not the cathbros here, I wouldn't think. I think we scared every one of the libCaths back to r/Christianity where it's safe for them.
It's pretty obvious when reddit comes for a visit.

Attached: lol.png (1500x1125, 39.37K)

You seem fairly orthodox to me, user.

(((Sophia takes the place of the Holy Spirit)))

Most of my Christian beliefs would be deemed radical in this current day and age

Attached: 1469097559121-1.jpg (552x923, 77.17K)

I cannot find any Biblical support for remarriage after divorce, unless the divorced spouse is dead. This alienates me from most Christians. Almost half my church is remarried after divorce.

Try to convince me I'm wrong. because I'd actually like to be this time

Mark 10.

Attached: tilDeath.png (225x225, 6.95K)

I used to be a universal reconcilationist and believed transubstantiation despite being a Prot.

I don't believe the bible is divinely inspired.

You aren't wrong. Divorce is evil and "remarriage" is nonsensical. A woman bonds to the man who takes her virginity and children deserve to live with their biological parents. One marriage. Christ isn't going to divorce His Bride, after all.

I'm theologically Protestant, but I love the aesthetic of Eastern Orthodox liturgy and don't particularly care for that of low church prots. I'd like to be Orthodox for their liturgy, but I can't help but see the Orthodox system as salvation by works. What do, fam?

begome Byzantine Rite Lutheran

Read James.

Hitler was the greatest modern Christian and that WW2 was a battle of good vs evil with evil prevailing.

Because everything in Revelation happens on earth, I am led to believe that Jesus's second coming will occur before we make any substantial progress in multi-planet colonization.

I remember reading some old analysis of prophecies from Isaiah that talked about some sort of AI system that was in charge of making policies for the entire world, but I was really young at the time and don't remember what portion of Isaiah it talked about… any ideas where this may have come from?

Referring to someone as virgin to mock him in the Internet or in general is retarded and subhuman.

I believe demons exist and actively work in the world to turn Humanity away from God.
The Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. (A person I knew who knows i'm going through RCIA who's Catholic believes its a metaphor. Not entirely surprising considering her Baptist upbringing, but its still heretical.)
We aren't living in the end times just a particularly bad time.
Atheists are extreme Protestants.
Theistic Evolution

The Hyksos is a very shaky theory. They predate all proposed (both liberal and conservative) estimates of the Exodus timeline by hundreds of years. As well as using the Palestinian coast as their escape route (rather than anything in the Sinai).

I think my position on homosexuality is the main thing that could get me in "trouble". I'm not sure I care about what kind of trouble that entails though.

That moment when I realize /christian is no different than /pol. I guess that will get me in trouble here now..

One of the most important and often misunderstood/underestimated lines in the entire bible is when Jesus prays for us to be "one with the Father". I really think this draws the line between the many who are called and the few who are chosen.
Without the spirit, it is just a religion. Stop chasing the wind, give up on this material world, and enter a true spiritual practice (MORE than reading the bible, MORE than going to church, I'm talking go out and fast/pray for 40 days kinda real deal stuff).
Monks, mystics and ascetics get it.

Attached: the fountain.gif (500x262, 1.5M)

I believe in annihilationism.

Zig Forums is very different from Zig Forums. This idiot's opinion doesn't speak for the board or for Christ. Hitler is boiling in Hell.

Way to fall into your own trap.

I don't really think that's unusual to be honest. Actually I've wondered what would happen to any astronauts or people stationed on ISS if the end came in the foreseeable future.

That's very orthodox again. Is "what people used to normally believe" now hetrodox fringe or something to the normals?

Now that's a little different.

I hold a teaching role in my church with many anti-Calvinists members, and I hold to Reformed theology.
I'm not so much in danger of loosing my position, but I could end up in an uncomfortable place if I push it too far.

Attached: Screenshot_13.png (511x522, 212.38K)

You're correct, and most of your church is in grave sin. Does you congregation practice church discipline?

I doubt a sensible Prot believes faith can help to someone who hates and execrates God. The devil also has such false faith.

The true Orthodox faith is always coupled with love. The Orthodox system is salvation by such true faith. For example, if someone turns to God with such true faith, just a minute before he dies, then we believe that such person is saved despite that he doesn't have time for works. But when an Orthodox Christian has time, then his true faith makes him have works. If an Orthodox Christian doesn't have works, then he should analyze himself to see what is wrong with him.

We do not believe in salvation by works. We believe in salvation by faith which makes us able to receive the grace of God. All this leads to works, but the works are side effect, not a goal.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Don't respond to redditors, this is a board to convert people and subreddits like r/christian are barely christian.
And I'm not saying he's a redditor because he thinks Hitler was a bad guy. That much is correct.

Fortunately for you, megachurch Prautists don't have their own inquisition.

gays should be put to death like god tells us to

Hey /leftypol.
Remember that we don't know who is in hell apart from a few cases, all we know is that saibts are definitely in heaven.

Hitler was right
Gays should be separated from society and a cure should be researched for them.
Racemixing is spitting in the face of God, pretty much the equivalent of telling him that the crown of his creation is not worth preserving.
Protecting the environment should be a christian cause.
Earnest faith in Jesus and God and true repentance are more important than denomination.

what exactly is the "crown of his creation"?

Even Jesus' bloodline had mixed races. If you read the scriptures. Rahab and Ruth were his Gentile ancestors.

epic.

Christians who believe race mixing is a sin are alt-right larpers who converted out of contrarianism

t. somebody who did exactly that before actually reading the Bible

...

Transubstantiation is just Aquinas applying Aristotelian "Substance Theory" to theology. Except Aristotle was wrong and outdated. He basically believed that matter was eternal and couldn't be removed from the equation… therefore Aquinas tried to rationalize the Eucharist in light of that.

The Orthodox never taught this, so it's not just Protestants who speak against it.

And now Quantum physics would just smash this theory to bits.

Almost all errors in the Church come from men trying to graft human philosophers into it.

Even Judaism fell to the same trap, when the famous Rabbi Rambam proposed that the "correct" translation of Genesis 1:1 was "When God began to create the heavens and the Earth" rather than "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth". The former presupposes that matter always existed and God just formed it. While the latter says God created out of nothing - which is the correct way of saying things. He is God. Same goes for the Eucharist. The bread doesn't matter. Only what our true High Priest is Heaven is doing matters.

Oops. My bad. I meant Rashi, not Rambam.

If by Substance Theory you mean the theory of substantial forms, then you are very mistaken. Science has not superseded these ideas, nor could it ever, because metaphysics by definition comes before any scientific theory in significance. Without substantial forms a person is unable to make sense of anything, our very language being dependent on such concepts, this position being nominalism. The theory's explanatory power also does not depend on matter being eternal.

All human error rather starts with a bad heart. Men first choose evil, and only then attempt to rationalize it.

Attached: a change of heart.png (753x1658, 202.99K)

I believe in Mosaic law. I think the death penalty is appropriate for rapists, murderers, pedophiles and urepentent sodomites.
I don't have a problem with national-socialism or fascism as long as they don't go genocidal. I'm a fan of a lot of the ultra-nationalist Orthodox movements before WW2.
I'm not sure whether young earth creationism or old earth creationism is the proper view.
Saint Nicholas was killed by the Jews as part of a Jewish ritual and almost all Bolsheviks were Jews.
Ethnic Jews who convert to Christianity can be saved, religious Jews cannot.

Attached: Black Sun Cross.jpg (500x500, 95.73K)

That's Saint Tsar Nicholas, not the other Saint Nicholas.

Isn't that pretty standard Orthodox belief? Jews have cursed themselves by demanding that the Lord's blood fall on themselves and their children. Our liturgical hymns imply that all ethnic Jews are guilty of deicide (but this obviously is lifted by conversion to Christianity).

LGBT propaganda has no room in public spaces and should be defiled or removed whenever possible.
That's it… Still enough to get me kicked out of many Christian communities, apparently.

Yes, the Orthodox believe Jews won't be saved. I live in the west so most of the prots here are completely pro-Israel and pro-Jewish.
Jews literally say Jesus is boiling in excrement in hell. They do not worship our awesome God and they are not saved.

To be fair, Catholics and Protestants cannot be saved either. In fact, the heresies and blasphemies of heterodox Christians are an even worse offense than the deicide committed by the Jews.

If you want to talk about bad hearts, then Plato was thoroughly wicked. As was Aristotle. They both argued for slavery and elitism. It's why the Gnostics loved them so much. Perfect for their mystery cults, that keep some people in and others out. Augustine and Aquinas should have never used them.

As for substance. It's not about what humanity can make sense of. It's about subjecting God himself to this nonsense. He doesn't anything to create life. The Orthodox are right in properly calling it a "mystery". Instead of trying to use Aristotle in making sense of it.

You know the Orthodox love Plato too, right? Plotinus and Origen's neoplatonism had a huge influence on Byzantine theology.
And Aristotle is used by the Orthodox too. In fact Gregory Palamas used him to devise the essence-energy distinction and the book "Aristotle East and West" argues that if anything he relies more on him than Western theologians have.

I guess St. Paul was wicked too.

If slavery were to be redefined as paternalism and elitism as natural inequality, it then becomes harder to see such evil in them because both describe intrinsic features of our human world. Just as there can be an evil "freedom", there can be a good "slavery" and a good "elitism". But regardless of their inherent wickedness, one flaw in character would have no bearing on the validity of a philosopher's entire body of thought.

God would not make the world intelligible and imbue man with intellect if He did not also want us to understand both man and the world. On the other hand, no philosopher believes that the world is entirely intelligible to man, and thus most have always defined limits around our understanding of a being like God. Some things will always beyond our grasp, but others are very often within it, and so the only potential fault becomes overlooking our limitations. But there's no wisdom in adopting ignorance where none could ever exist.

Funnily, this is the same interpretation atheists usually have of Paul's writing on slavery. Next you'll be telling me pedophilia is mandated by God and cite Numbers 31:18. As one user once said, real biblical analysis is for fags.

Yes, and I think I could get shunned and even imprisioned for my beliefs
And probably some others that I dont remember at the moment. On the subject of the last item, I have to list it because, believe it or not, I had teachers on high school that literally said that there is nothing wrong with zoophilia and necrophilia, and that only because our society is puritan that it is frowned upon and outlawed

Attached: 0bf528c5b6546ee12ad67fe1cd8feca054770a0b7500532791bcb09e970d072f.jpeg (635x1024, 347.12K)

No, next I'll say that you're an idiot. Why you pretend to disagree with them, or to able to do so? If a case can be made for Plato and Aristotle defending slavery, then a much better one can be made for St. Paul. And in each of these cases, such accusations would be either merely disingenuous rhetorical exercises or exercises in actual ignorance. And never mind that this discussion shouldn't even have reached this point where we are now at, as if either being faithless or wicked causes the sky to turn green should one ever say that it is blue. You're simply wrong on all counts.

The prevalence of premarital sex and no-fault divorce has been far more damaging to the institute of marriage than 'gay marriage' has or could be.

This is a good point. I used to try and argue this in chatrooms and such. We need to meme this more, because it's actually a great argument. Based on secular 'morality' there is literally no reasoning they can use to say why zoophilia is wrong. It has to be open and celebrated. They say oh 'animals can't consent' and like wait, what?

So I can kill a cow, but I can't have sex with it? Oh wait, I can even masturbate a bull to extract its semen, that's fine, but wait, if I happen to 'enjoy' this, then it's wrong? Then it should be illegal?

They have no answer other than well deep down they know Christian Morality is the true morality but without it they have to be forced to allow zoophilia. I wish people would keep pressing the issue more so people realize you need morals from God.

>On the subject of the last item, I have to list it because, believe it or not, I had teachers on high school that literally said that there is nothing wrong with zoophilia and necrophilia, and that only because our society is puritan that it is frowned upon and outlawed

Attached: 1469140428776.jpg (720x380, 59.7K)

This is the only legit stupid thing you have said. What is wrong with you? Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

No.

Of course. Why woudn't I believe in Saint Nicholas?

every tradition is unusual for modern norms.

This post is MAXIMUM LARP

Yes.
His bloodline, but not Jesus himself.

Everyone is a larper, especially an ex-nazi like yourself.

Only earnest conversion though.

This, but with the cave-at that only because we have normalized degeneracy, doesn't mean that we should allow new degeneracy to enter the mainstream. Gay marriage is wrong, but divorce laws must be reformed as well.

I don't think canon is divinely inspired at least not in any exceptional way. Sola-scriptura is completely fabricated, every scripture I have seen posted in favor of it has been taken out of context. That being said, I think the word of Jesus is the only important part of the new-testament. Last but not least, paul was just some guy. If I said I saw jesus, nobody would give a shit.

Attached: 051b4b6feb3e6e92d733d607733270f9afec1c386c4fb5a85f764252f4f04b0d.gif (300x300, 1.5M)

The good theology is good psychology sign is the cringiest part of that photo. What does it even mean? The statement itself is dubious, but the fact that psychology just caved into pressure on homosexuality for political reasons makes the very idea that theology should follow psychology retarded.

John Paul II did nothing wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Relations_with_other_denominations_and_religions

John Paul II had good relations with the Church of England. He was the first reigning pope to travel to the United Kingdom, in 1982, where he met Queen Elizabeth II, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. He preached in Canterbury Cathedral and received Robert Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He said that he was disappointed by the Church of England's decision to ordain women and saw it as a step away from unity between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.[178]

In 1985, the pope visited the African country of Togo, where 60 per cent of the population espouses animist beliefs. To honour the pope, animist religious leaders met him at a Catholic Marian shrine in the forest, much to the pontiff's delight. John Paul II proceeded to call for the need for religious tolerance, praised nature, and emphasised common elements between animism and Christianity, saying:
"Nature, exuberant and splendid in this area of forests and lakes, impregnates spirits and hearts with its mystery and orients them spontaneously toward the mystery of He who is the author of life. It is this religious sentiment that animates you and one can say that animates all of your compatriots.[181]"

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, visited John Paul II eight times. The two men held many similar views and understood similar plights, both coming from nations affected by Communism and both serving as heads of major religious bodies.[186][187] As Archbishop of Kraków, long before the 14th Dalai Lama was a world-famous figure, Wojtyła held special Masses to pray for the Tibetan people's non-violent struggle for freedom from Maoist China.[188] During his 1995 visit to Sri Lanka, a country where a majority of the population adheres to Theravada Buddhism, John Paul II expressed his admiration for Buddhism:

In May 1999, John Paul II visited Romania on the invitation from Patriarch Teoctist Arăpaşu of the Romanian Orthodox Church. This was the first time a pope had visited a predominantly Eastern Orthodox country since the Great Schism in 1054.[190] On his arrival, the Patriarch and the President of Romania, Emil Constantinescu, greeted the pope.[190] The Patriarch stated, "The second millennium of Christian history began with a painful wounding of the unity of the Church; the end of this millennium has seen a real commitment to restoring Christian unity."[190]

John Paul II oversaw the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which makes a special provision for Muslims; therein, it is written, "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[200]

With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.[210]

Reading this turned another considerable portion of my worries into resolve, and I know want to read much more about JPII.

inb4 LarpCath & Zig Forums start posting crusaders with inaccurate plate armor.

Even parts of my family have animist beliefs and I still wouldn't stoop so low as to be nice to about it.

Revering God's nature > confessing to a priestess.

The provision for Muslims is one of the first things I read in the Catechism since it's close to the papal infallibility passage, and it decisively put an end to my flirtings with Catholicism

...

If this is your idea of doing no wrong, then we seem to share a different understanding of those words. The best that could be said for this is its capacity for scandal, to drive the little ones away from the one, true Faith into the company of wolves, case in point

It's actually modernist gobbledygook that by design conveys nothing and everything all at once. It's a big topic, but you needn't fear modernism or this particular statement because it's important to remember that a binding dogma of the Church is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
and the statement cannot be read outside of this context. Meaning, the statement is literally saying nothing. It's saying something to the effect: "Muslims worship a monotheistic God, and so do we." The text gives no indication that we worship the exact same God, therefore. But all of this is all so tiresome and the text should be nowhere near a Catechism.

If Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a binding dogma of the Church, then what about this:

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)" -Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, solemnly propagated by his holiness Pope Paul IV, Lumen Gentium

It seems to me that Vatican II pretty much destroyed that doctrine, if according to dogma, even pagans and atheists can be saved.

The key terms are quoted above. This could never apply to any westerner, for example. It expresses the very sensible, human (and historically Catholic) notion that where the Gospel is not known, the natural law and the human conscience become in effect witnesses to Christ.

theradicalcatholic.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-virtuous-pagan-limbo-and-theology-of.html

I do agree that conscience is a witness to Christ in the absence of direct access to the Gospel, but is it a witness to the Church? Isn't the Church a worldly institution, and isn't baptism within it necessary for salvation?

No, because it's the Church Christ Himself instituted. And, yes to the second question, indeed, although I'm not sure if you're referring now to those who know not the Gospel or those who do but question the Church itself. To the first group, I can say nothing about it myself, not being God, likewise to the second group. I can only say what I know and that is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

I think there are legitimate ways to interpret scripture to accept polygamy. Most scripture that appear to be against it just tell you not to divorce, and that you become one in marriage, but many people become one in the body of Christ, so that's not a deal breaker.
There's less against it then there is against the gays, at least.

If polygamy is okay, is it also okay to have threesomes?
I would argue that if threesomes are wrong, then polygamy is also wrong.

And yes, I think any sexual acts involving more than 2 people are wrong.

I don't think threesomes being wrong means polygamy is wrong.
Threesomes are wrong because sex outside marriage is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong. The women aren't married to each other, therefore cannot be involved in sexual relations with each other. But you are married to both the women, and therefore can have sex with both of them at different time. You're having sex within marriage for procreation. Which isn't wrong.

Well we know that polygamy is wrong, I was just trying to come up with an argument that failed.

So if the entire market consists of previously promiscuous women, then our options are limited to adultery and blueballs?

I don't like jews or faggots.

Attached: b9904ba161c98ebcc4533923399e870952a0799d6d572b179fca3952b62765e4.jpg (1748x1200, 672.71K)

...

Everything there is extremely wrong and somewhat heretical though