Are there any theological contradictions that make your faith tremble from time to time, Zig Forumss?

Are there any theological contradictions that make your faith tremble from time to time, Zig Forumss?

Attached: erdererergergergerw.jpg (690x398, 195.55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=e9dolzwdOVE
carm.org/verses-showing-justification-by-faith
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The sermon on the mount gives me trouble because many of the verses seemingly contradict with other parts of the NT, like Jesus saying the poor will be filled when He says later that for those who have not more will be taken away. And the turn the other cheek passage seems to contradict with Jesus acting violently in the temple and talking back to His accusers.

If you ever sin at all (as everyone - believer or not - does from time to time, as man is sinful by nature), you never knew God in the first place?

Turn the other cheek just means don't get into fights over grudges. Nothing to do with removing the merchants from God's house.

I guess dubs confirm.

Stuff about life in heaven/the new earth. I'm down with striving for the beatific vision and all, but it seems like after that we just all turn into lifeless, sexless drones who just pray every second for eternity and never do anything fun or entertaining. Also the new Jerusalem sounds really tacky with all the gems and shit and it sounds like we'll just be living in a giant prison cube. I like trees

me too. I hope we can get to explore the entire new earth, and hopefully other places as well. I love living in the world ( as in, i love experiencing life, not living in sin or with wordly corcerns ) and i hope we can have similar experiences from the current world in the future as well.

For me it's hell and mass damnata, lately I've been feeling hopeless like giving up and just having fun while this life passes me by. Hell is such a horrible concept, but it makes too much sense

Heaven sounds like being stuck in 2nd Life forever. With no struggle and context of such, pleasure would just turn to smothering numbness.

Attached: lets chat im always online pepe.gif (400x554, 893.46K)

I'm not overly worried about that, for three reasons:
1) Our bodies - and therefore, our senses and perceptions - will likely be different in Heaven
2) God is not stupid, he surely must be aware that constant joy would eventually be numbed, and will prevent that
3) God created things like the pleasure of eating, the pleasure of exercise, the pleasure of good sex, for us to enjoy on Earth because they were good - and he made us well suited to enjoy them. I don't see why he wouldn't allow us to experience those same pleasures in the New Earth.

the only thing that challenges my faith is my desire to sin and live selfishly.

God is infinitely good and just. There's no reason to worry.

now a sinful life is a real reason to worry

...

Zero contradictions

The issue is that you're thinking about it from a human perspective. It will not look tacky as gems are just rocks that are found naturally on earth

You only think they appear tacky because you think of the gems that are carved by humans. God is more than a human.

It will be fine

You’re living the struggle right now.

He’s explaining the SHEER IMPOSSIBILITY of being saved any works, or any combination of “faith” and works.
It’s faith alone. We’ll never measure up no matter what.

Sources?

You can't approach how your experience will be in heaven from the base and simple pleasures you perceive on Earth. Heaven is not perfect because it is infinitely full of things that give you base pleasures so you never get bored, just being in the presence of God alone will fulfill you completely forever. We only feel the need to constantly fill ourselves because we are fallen creatures, like a bucket with a hole in it that never lets water completely fill it, in heaven you will be made complete again.

Attached: 1549527550896.jpg (480x480, 46.79K)

Not a contradiction, but an awesome paradox that makes me wonder: why would a thrice-holy, all just God want to save and bring into His joyful Kingdom a filthy-spewing, evil-loving, ungrateful, hypocritical son of a bitch like me?

"Theological contradiction" is an oxymoron since God Himself is One and cannot, logically, contradict Himself.

Assuming you mean "things that challenge your faith" in a broader sense, not intellectually, only sentimentally, e.g., the problem of suffering.

Not really a contradiction, but I fell prey to the cult of universalism a while back. It's hard to interact with people and think that some of them might go to hell for eternity.

Attached: 1551403796868.png (719x718, 641.43K)

Faith without works is dead

But it is not the works that makes one rtight.
The good works are a product of being made right with God through Jesus Christ. That requires faith. And faith is not of your own doing but it is a gift given to by Jesus Christ.
Any faith you have comes from Christ Jesus himself. It is the faith of Jesus Christ that saves you.

Good works are produced and carried out naturally in response to faith. It's done in autonomy. If you give to the poor with your right hand do not let your left hand know what your right hand has done.

yeah, it's the faith with works, because faith without works is dead. quit trying to make something so simple very complicated

that makes no sense, we have free will, and we aren't robots. the holy spirit defines it as a "foot race", you can fail a "foot race".

works will not save you.

faith without works is dead

Nobody disagrees with you. The protestant/Baptist view is this:
What you just wrote would be:
Which is wrong, because that would mean our works have a part in saving us.

If works aren't optional, it's literally works based salvation.
If man HAS to go to church or soul winning or repent than that is literally works based salvation and you don't believe that Jesus can save you.

So stop lying to the papist and sin boldy.

the Catholic view (2,000 years old) is:

faith without works: dead
faith with works: alive

We don't believe that someone HAS to go soul winning to be saved, but if someone is saved they'll be driven to do it not out of fear of hell but out of love for the Lord and wanting to spread his word.

I don't disagree at all. A faith that doesn't show works is dead, the person was never saved. But if a person is saved by their faith they'll show good works.

Both Jesus and Satan being called the Morning Star

17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

Was the Roman Centurion and the Ethiopian Eunuch converts in Acts, actual gentiles? The Roman Centurion already believed in only God, and the Ethiopian was already reading Isaiah when Philip happened across him.

Attached: Rembrandt,_The_Baptism_of_the_Eunuch,_1626,_Museum_Catharijneconvent,_Utrecht.jpg (3401x4495, 5.76M)

Your error is that you re-define what faith is, all works of the spirit (works of faith) are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but those that have faith can falter, and do bad works, and fall away.

This is why we are called to prayer, to fasting, and to trembling before the Lord our God, as St. Paul and Christ Himself taught us.

NIV is satanic user
youtube.com/watch?v=e9dolzwdOVE

*Anything that's not KJV

Ephesians 2:8 in comparison with basically all catholic and orthodox soteriology

It's not just Ephesians 2:8, friend.

Attached: Screenshot_20190224-222752_Omnichan.jpg (1080x6048, 731.97K)

James 2:24 in comparison with sola fide

Please read this
carm.org/verses-showing-justification-by-faith

Yes, I already understand Protestant theology, but if sola fide merely contradicted James 2:24 it would be one thing, but it also contradicts traditional Christian understanding of salvation.

Why are you pushing James 2 as a proof text against sola fide if you know they're compatible?

They had a feminist on the radio earlier today, rattling of a list of already debunked feminazi talking points as if they were accepted facts and that made me think for a moment that there is no god.

Their compatibility is contingent upon sola fide being incorrect. The fact that they're compatible is why sola fide is wrong. If sola fide were correct James 2:24 wouldn't exist.

Ok, so you dont understand Protestant theology then.

Attached: hard laugh.jpg (257x283, 17.7K)

Protestant theology is the attempt to reconstruct the vase of Christian theology after shattering it and throwing away every piece that points toward Rome. Just like the vase in the metaphor, it doesn't hold water.

Maybe when prots stop schisming and arguing with each other we will take their "theology" seriously.

Attached: 603e50_f4d4d8b7751c485b890e4165f2443c35-mv2_d_2000_1333_s_2.jpg (626x417, 31.2K)

thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming here

Something something gay mafia.

If you are able to find theological contradictions pray more for decrease your QI and anymore affect your faith.

cringe

This is all you need to know of that matter; repent and the Lord will find you once more.

Attached: 2a3715ea45b543ced7deea4b2011eebd5be2813e308619ff24c562bc13490f20.jpg (689x500, 40.92K)

Luke 19:27. Can anyone decipher it.

Anyone who is called to God, and denies Christ, will be slain in the day of Judgement. Which means they will be cast into the pit of Fire, which we know as "the second death".

you sound brainwashed and dumb.

The USA is making it unreasonably difficult for me to practice my rights of free exercise of having sex with farm animals. This makes me reasonably concerned about everyone's faith here.

Repent furry or else you will only know hellfire.

Anybody who does not practice peaceful beliefs should be subject to the free exercise of unpeace onto themselves.

There is nothing peaceful about animal abuse.

It's your belief that sex with animals is animal abuse, and that is why you may not have sex with animals unless your beliefs we're to become tolerant of it. However it is an infringement on my free exercise if my beliefs are tolerant of the practice.
This is how the Constitution was meant to allow a freedom of religion in USA while preventing unfair advantages against others. Nobody can say it's unfair if I have sex with farm animals when their beliefs are opposed to it and nobody can use their own beliefs to prevent me from practice because that would also be a violation of obstruction.
I never stop people from practicing their beliefs and I have no desire to practice conversion, as long as I'm afforded my free exercise.

You're probably baiting, but the same men who wrote the Constitution also wrote strict laws against beastiality because they knew it's an abomination

The absolute state of LARPaganry

I don't even think Charlie would stoop so low, and he worships a literal faggot. Go away, sodomite, and repent from your furry perversion!

What? Youre going to have a difficult time proving that, because the people who wrote the Constitution didn't write that into the Constitution. That's why sodomy laws were stuck down as unconstitutional and any other law discriminating against what was originally covered under sodomy is still unconstitutional. If it was once religious discrimination it still is religious discrimination.
This is why tithes and taxes imposed by churches on people's rights to belong to a religion or worship is not a religion, it's a business and strictly against the christian people's rights to assemble or belong to the religion. It's the same concept.
Donations are voluntary but allowing people the right to free exercise is not.

A real christian should understand how we've allowed them their rights to free exercise and according to the Bible they should respectfully allow us our rights to free exercise. It is not neighborly, christian, nor US constitutional to deny these rights to people. I care about christians rights so long as christians are who they say they are.

Yep it's just shit b8

I want to be religious but it just doesn't make sense. If Christianity started 2000 years ago, what about all the humans that lived before that? Despite being older than Islam, it's still such a young religion. How could such a relatively modern thing be true?

In one of the Gospels, Jesus exorcises a demon from a mad man who lives in the catacombs. In another of the Gospels, it's two mad men. This doesn't necessarily shake my faith, but I have a difficult time resolving this contradiction.

The offspring of Christianity is younger than Christianity itself. The son is not the father but he is the offspring of the father.

When Christ died, he descended into hell and taught salvation to the souls imprisoned there. The ones who listened were freed and taken to heaven. Google "The Harrowing of Hell".

Just because one of the mad men isn't accounted for doesn't mean he isn't there in the Gospel where Jesus healed one instead of two.

That sounds to me like a a post time justification. I was raised religious, mostly Baptist and Presbyterian, sung in the choir, rang the brllwy, acted in the plays. I really wanna believe, but like I said, it just doesn't make sense to me. Christianity now seems too convenient for a servile race, while jews pull the strings and Muslims carry on with their holy wars.

Some people just don't agree with other people's rights to worship. Have to understand what you're worshiping before jumping onboard.
This is like, you might be interested in going on a cruise called Christianity, but there are some people inviting you to take a ride on the life boats which are a breakoff of the main vessel and unknowingly filled with explosives. They want you to do all the work to row it into the cruise ship where everyone else is sharing the religion and having a good time.

Jews never "pulled the strings" until the last 100 years. Even in britain, the native aristocravy and royal family still held most power and influence. Jews lived in ghettos for millenia until the french revolution and Napoleon.

Deuteronomy 32:35
Jesus has the authority to flip over tables and whip merchants.
whether we have that authority or not is up for debate, and possibly a case-by-case basis.

Apocrypha

I have an opinion on the slight differences in the Gospels that someone will call heresy.
I think it's possible that the differences between gospels(which are many) speak of possible realities where Jesus is exactly the same and behaves the same way.
we know that God sees all possible realities, and we know that God wrote the Bible.
all 4 gospels are true regardless. this is simply my theory, which, if it can be successfully refuted, will be abandoned.

That's a corruption of Isaiah 14:12 not found in the original language sources. You only find it in corrupted versions of Isaiah 14:12 which draw from corrupt sources.

And yeah, definitely one of the first proofs of how satanic those modern versions are.


Guess who owns the radio and tv stations right now? And the newspapers?

Yes jews can be terrorists too. Given the chance, bad people use their protected statuses for profit or for more than they're honest beliefs allow for. It's opportunistic predation of other people's rights to worship. This might make people feel well ng for having saved the Jews but saving was never actually wrong. Wrong is the people with the intentions to do wrong in the name of the Lord.

Yes. My point is that jews never had any real power and influence until the last 100 years

test

Yup. We will see if Jews gain more power, most of the bad christians will become Jews to exploit the unfair advantages. It's like how people lie about cancer and ptsd to gain access to marijuana.

Uh no they weren't. First off you seem unfamiliar with the basis of English Common Law and many of the bases for these legal concepts. Secondly it's only a matter of time before a major parts of the civil rights act of 1964 is struck down as unconstitutional due to violating these things. That and wrongly allowing talmudists to legislate from the bench is how this whole situation happened. There never should be any such concept of enforcing anti-discrimination on the populace, it's legally groundless.

>IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity,–the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast; a crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out; for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.


>This the voice of nature and of reason and the express law of God determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance long before the Jewish dispensation by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven; so that this is a universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our antient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burned to death,(n) though Fleta(o) says they should be buried alive; either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the antient Goths.(p) But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging; and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy by statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6, revived and confirmed by 5 Eliz c. 17.
— Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England


See "Goldstein's massacre" if you're interested for more on this. You should still be able to find it on youtube.


I would tend to disagree with this analysis. For instance they were very influential in the "enlightenment" period with humanism being nothing but a thinly veiled kabbalism philosophy. There were many banker dynasties that go back that far and more, which controlled and influenced a lot of the state churches doctrines regarding them over the years. Their elite has more or less always been in the rulers of the darkness of this world, and in spiritual wickedness in high places.

It can't be struck down as unconstitutional unless people are intending to strike down the Constitution itself. You'll have to be more specific on how it could be struck down, otherwise you don't really know you're conspiring against the USA which is a serious crime. The only people who get away with avoiding those consequences are not really american citizens but any American citizen who is found guilty of contributing is still under the jurisdiction of US law and can be tried for treason.

Also how does that add up with this?

Attached: 1471813694334-0.jpg (1280x727 59.36 KB, 1.1M)

Please explain.
How could it be struck down? The United States Constitution provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble,'

Included in this, the first amendment, has always been the freedom of association. The US government really doesn't have the right to outlaw certain organizations on an anti-discrimination basis. Nor does it have the right to specify "protected group" status limited to certain individuals but not others. Both of those things violate the freedom of association guaranteed by the first amendment. And are outclassed by the first amendment. All it would take is the right case to be made for this to be established and the civil rights acts 1964 or a large part of it, to be overthrown as unconstitutional.

The right to peaceably assemble is not synonymous with the right to lie. Perjury is illegal on all floors and in the supreme court that constitutes as fraud against the USA which is also a major crime. This is why striking down the civil rights act is not permanent because striking down the civil rights act is in turn a violation of other people's right to peaceably assemble. One person's rights may not be misconstrued to take rights from another. Misconstruction of the constitution for such purposes is also a major crime.

Never forget, the 9th amendment USC. This is why armed robbery is illegal. It is peaceful to assemble with people who have guns but it is not legal to use your assembly to rob a bank.

The US claims to be "one nation under God" but it was a completely secular state from the beginning.

1776 was a revolution against throne and altar, it was the leadup to the French Revolution.

I quoted the first amendment and noted how people have the freedom of association at least according to a constitutional legal basis. Everything I just said is true and not a fraud. The first amendment really does say that. How is any of that false?

You have to first show what part of what I said is fraudulent, and to argue a case for legal fraud you would have to prove that I had the intent of committing fraud, otherwise every time an attorney sincerely argued a case that was found to be untrue that attorney would have committed fraud! No, he sincerely argued for his case, there is no intent of criminal fraud on his part.

Exactly my point. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of association and that includes assemblies of people you don't like who wish to band together. We cannot impede them from making an organization or running a company on an anti-discrimination basis. Just as it is to each individual to make decisions about their personal conduct. The US government cannot take away its citizens' right to associate given under the first amendment protections afforded by the US Constitution. All it would take is the right case to be decided in court for the "civil rights act" to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Additionally no person has the right to decide what constitutes a "protected group" under the same legal basis. Nobody has that kind of power. Nobody has the right to say in an official capacity that "we're going to protect one group, but not these other groups because we decided according to humanism and the talmud that they aren't protected." That's also against the Constitution because ironically, that is discrimination by the government, which is also unconstitutional.

One nation under God, not one nation under one god. God is synonomous of all religions. God is anyone's belief and that is what makes our nation One. It's very specifically understandable.

Yes there were bankers, slave owners, userers, influencers for sure. But they weren't always the ruling elite that they are now..and also i guess they could have different degrees of influence in each country, like england, america, and so on. But less so on places like Spain, Portugal, Austria, and so on.

It's fraud if you say the first amendment allows you to assemble to prevent other people from practice because the ninth amendment says your first amendment may not be construed to deny other people's rights to practice. If you own property you may not use that property to prevent my ownership of property and so on. If your assembly creates undue hardship on my constitutional rights to practice my beliefs of sex with farm animals, when you own a herd of 100 cows and my practice does not actually deprive you of your ownership then there is nothing unconstitutional about my practices.
Constitutionally everybody should be allowed to own a cow and if we may not due to property availably restrictions then the Constitution allows for people who believe in sex with animals to assemble on whoever is hoarding property and cows in violation of my rights.

Apply this to religion everybody is allowed to have a place of worship and access to free exercise of such. This prevents stagnation and let's say the freedom of religion was created to prevent things like communism.

Also vast majority of jews lived in ghettos, that's a fact..But i won't deny that they had some degree of influence in some instances in history, but the power they have now is unprecendented in history

Claiming it's OK to strike down rights is wrong. Nobody can't strike down rights without being unpeacefully assembled.

Imagine being this indoctrinated with Western relativism out of the Frankfurt school.

Go read the first commandment, fren.

But at least we aren't clinging to the fantasy that America is a Christian place.

Attached: the-adoration-of-the-golden-calf-by-nicolas-poussin.jpg (1600x1146, 380.25K)

Let's look at this another way. That is fear mongering. Fear mongering is causing "un-rest."
Un-doing people's rights is un-assembly and that is un-constitutional.
Un-assembly is disassembly is opposite of assembly and it is disgusting to the Constitution.

The great thing about this countries religious freedoms it allows multiple beliefs and not everybody would practice their right to have sex with animals and therefore what is depicted in your photo cannot happen in the USA. That's what makes it a right and not an obligation and the only obligation we have is to allow people their rights.