Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Shalltear?Stan? (sharutiaburaddofouren@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 00:16:37 JST Shalltear?Stan?
   When it comes to salvation people are sadly lazy and stubborn. They won't go through the effort to see if what you claim about their religion is true or not
   
   This isn't unique to low IQ religions like islam, the roman church and eastern church are just as false and make claims that can be easily refuted and/or are not apparent in the history they claim. The natural fallen man hates God's Word so whenever he is exposed to it, even when he thinks he's following Christianity he shrinks back or ignores it
   
   It's plain and simple all you'd need is Romans 3:28 or Ephesians 2:8-10 and the roman church is defeated. Bible says faith without works, they practice this bizarre concept of faith 'cooperating with grace'. even though Ephesians literally says that you have faith by grace, and THIS IS NOT OF YOURSELVES--NOR WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST. It's why they can read(or likely haven't read because that is common to find them who've never read the bible, just a handful of approved passages by the church) Matthew 16 and somehow, the part where it says NOT THROUGH FLESH AND BLOOD and the grammar making obvious reference that 'the rock' is Peter's confession, it somehow means Peter is the head of the church(no, that is Christ Himself) and holds an office called pope(literally did not exist until much much later) where he presides over other church offices(Peter didn't even lead the church in the first century, John, James, and Simeon did) where he has a magic chair that makes any other pope not make mistakes(I am not kidding. It is just as ridiculous as mormon magic underwear or scientology)
   
   I have seen easterners claim things like Mary's perpetual virginity(late fabricated concept, scripture uses the euphemism for Joseph having sex with her, and talks about Jesus' siblings trying to prevent His ministry including His mother meaning of course she sinned) and that she is owed praises and tidings and that there is biblical citation for this when there isn't. The bible has very little to tell of Mary and that's not because she isn't important, but she was a virgin who gave birth to our Lord, raised Him with her husband Joseph, she was a witness to the resurrection, and had a couple small parts to play in His earthly ministry that being her requesting the water to wine(which was her pride) and trying to stop Him from fulfilling His mission by claiming He was insane or mentally ill and bringing Him back home with them(need I remind you that Christ called Peter "satan" for doing the same thing but slightly better because at least Peter believed Jesus' message but just didn't want to see Him arrested, tried, and executed)
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 00:16:37 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to
     @sharutiaburaddofouren >scripture uses the euphemism for Joseph having sex with her, and talks about Jesus' siblings trying to prevent His ministry including His mother meaning of course she sinned
     I don't believe Mary was sinless, but I also don't see a scriptural basis for this. I don't find it unreasonable that Joseph, who was significantly older than her at their betrothal, might have already had children, nor that they might have abstained from marital relations for other reasons. I also don't see it as a hill to die on and don't find the concept worth much discussion. Salvation is through Christ, not Mary, and discussion of private martial matters is a bit odd to me. People become "autistically serious" about their stance and opinions on this sometimes, which I think is foolish.
   • Embed this notice
     Shalltear?Stan? (sharutiaburaddofouren@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 00:18:49 JST Shalltear?Stan?

     in reply to
     My experience has been just being ignored whenever I demonstrate verses that outright contradict false churches of merit claims and even when I break down arguments where it is irrefutable what I've said follows through whereas what the churches say is incoherent I don't get a response
     
     Sometimes people appeal to patristics but that's laughable but only to anybody who has spent even a small amount of time studying early church theologians, because they got into debates over theology and did not agree on anything, including between themselves such as in the case of augustine famously writing a series of RETRACTIONS for when he got things WRONG, and worst of all for the roman church the MAJORITY of the early church theologians had the correct view of Matthew 16 and said 'the rock' was the professing faith of Peter. Some of them viewed it as meaning all Christians, with origen saying incredulously, "Does Peter hold the keys to the Kingdom alone?!"
     
     Besides on it's face being an idiotic causality loop argument where scripture cannot be interpreted by men so we must turn to men to interpret scripture, which is also present in the "we created the canon of scripture therefore we own it but it also informs our doctrines" chicken and egg hypocrisy. Both east and west churches claim the early church theologians were unanimous in consensus. Rome hilariously makes this claim while at the same time labeling some as heretics(but only later of course). Similar in concept to them claiming the church has been unchanged but also that vatican I and II were these landmarks where the church redefined itself by going back to its traditions which how can you go back to tradition unless you strayed from it in the first place?
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 00:24:59 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to
     @sharutiaburaddofouren Read the context of the verse, unless you also believe calling people "teacher" is wrong. The point is likely about destroying false hierarchy that led to Pharisee behavior.
     >8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
   • Embed this notice
     Shalltear?Stan? (sharutiaburaddofouren@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 00:25:00 JST Shalltear?Stan?

     in reply to
     It's hard not to make reference to the church theologians without calling them the colloquial term of 'father' but do you know why I don't want to call them that? Because in Matthew 23:9 it literally says, "Do not call anyone on earth 'father' for you have one Father who is in Heaven
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 00:58:16 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to
     @sharutiaburaddofouren >It's actually funny to claim that Mary did not fulfill her marital duties because refusing each other is a sin, therefore that means if she were a perpetual virgin not only would it not have been necessary for Joseph to marry her, but it means she is not 'full of grace'
     A child needs a father and mother. For all we know, Joseph was resigned to celibacy before his betrothal to Mary, and perhaps that was a thing he had accepted. One has to consider just how big of a deal the birth of The Messiah was to these people; that is a tough thing to consider today with the advantage of hindsight and limited writings on the historical feelings of common faithful practitioners of Old Testament Religion / late second temple Judaism.
     >But in the bible it clearly says that Joseph "knew her not until she bore a Son" and literally every single other time in the bible knowing in a marital context means intercourse.
     Nobody in the East or West disputes that meaning. The point is explicitly that Joseph did not have relations with Mary at any point between the conception and birth of Christ. It does not imply [but afterwards he did] nor does it imply [or ever at any point]. It is a statement of fact regarding that specific time period that would have been written differently today.
     >Throw Joseph under the bus and ignore his role in the Lord's upbringing
     I think you could make the opposite argument, which the East does a pretty good job of. Joseph's decision to honor God is almost as big a commitment as Mary. All he did would be seen as sacrifice and work for The Lord's benefit, which is a fantastic model for teaching Jesus as He would go in to do the same thing.
   • Embed this notice
     Shalltear?Stan? (sharutiaburaddofouren@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 00:58:17 JST Shalltear?Stan?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle I agree that it shouldn't matter. I didn't care even if she were a perpetual virgin. The problem is because of late heretical doctrines like asceticism it became a "holier state" to be a virgin so because Mary became through extrabiblical late apocryphal tales the "queen of Heaven" she had to become sinless and immaculately conceived and worshipped and praised. It's actually funny to claim that Mary did not fulfill her marital duties because refusing each other is a sin, therefore that means if she were a perpetual virgin not only would it not have been necessary for Joseph to marry her, but it means she is not 'full of grace'
     
     So the issue then become important because rome and the east both claim you MUST believe in the sinless perpetual virgin who hears your prayers and all that idolatry. But in the bible it clearly says that Joseph "knew her not until she bore a Son" and literally every single other time in the bible knowing in a marital context means intercourse. Some people try to argue that Jesus' brothers are either His cousins or Joseph's children but it's funny we have to throw Joseph under the bus and ignore his role in the Lord's upbringing
     
     I personally wouldn't mind if somebody believed Mary was perpetually virgin and it was Jesus' cousins, although I'd argue James using his title as "The Lord's brother" is tarnished by the thought that Mary wasn't his biological mother. I also think it besmirches Mary's character to state she never wanted to have other children and be a loving mother and dutiful wife. She has no real teaching or speaking role at all, and monasticism didn't happen until a few centuries later
     
     I once saw somebody say, "I find it disgusting that we have to talk about Mary having sex and get into the gross details of her having a natural birth because these these churches make these false arguments" and yeah, it's an unpleasant but necessary point to knock down
   • Embed this notice
     Shalltear?Stan? (sharutiaburaddofouren@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:19:51 JST Shalltear?Stan?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle that is quite literally the point that I made. That is exactly why these church theologians are called 'father' by the false churches. It is pharisee behavior to forsake the Word of God for tradition. Christ says, "Isaiah was right when he spoke about you, saying 'Their worship is mere lip service and their hearts are far from the Lord. Their teachings are the teachings of men'"
     
     The last verse you posted also demonstrates this, as some like augustine stated he'd rather have someone fervently disagree with him than take his word as truth when scripture is truth. These churches exalt these men to a greater status and hierarchy, by definition making their writings lord over scripture when it is the opposite that is true
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:19:51 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to
     @sharutiaburaddofouren I believe that's an apriori view; you do not agree with Catholic or Orthodox Christianity and therefore you're applying this verse to them. The reality of the verse is something else entirely. Many such cases, unfortunately. It would be better if we could agree to disagree on practice while recognizing our shared beliefs and common enemy.
     >Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. He rose again and conquered death. By grace and through faith in Him we are saved.
     Probably zero disagreement there, right? We can disagree on what practice of "faith" means within that, but we're simply at heterodoxy at that point.
   • Embed this notice
     Festive Vrilliam ⛄️ 🎄 (vril_oreilly@comfyboy.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:22:16 JST Festive Vrilliam ⛄️ 🎄

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren so if I said "Vril did not eat until noon" we'd generally take that to mean I ate at noon.
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:24:34 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • Festive Vrilliam ⛄️ 🎄
     @Vril_Oreilly @sharutiaburaddofouren We would think that, but we write things differently today. I'm not a scholar, and I also am not engaging in any hard apologetics on this. This is just simple commentary from someone who cares a lot less than most who argue on the matter.
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:40:46 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • Branman65?
     @branman65 @sharutiaburaddofouren Joseph's age is not stated in The Bible. I've heard arguments that he was of similar age, and arguments that was substantially older, e.g. 50+. It was left out of scripture for a reason, but we can assume he's dead by the time Christ's ministry begins since he isn't referenced, right?
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:40:47 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren Joseph was 30 years old when Christ was born, which is older but not THAT old. like Joseph wasn't an old man, let alone one too old for marital relations. but yeah it's really uncomfortable to be discussing these people's personal business, but it has weirdly become necessary for the marriage vs singleness argument. it sucks
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:59:57 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • Branman65?
     @branman65 @sharutiaburaddofouren I think it doesn't matter that much, much like this discussion at large. Like hey maybe if the focus on Jesus is the bigger aspect for a reason. :mind_blown_boar:
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:59:58 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     • Branman65?
     @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren I don't think a man who did hard labor in the sweltering Judean sun during a preindustrial society is gonna live to 108.
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 01:59:59 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren a french catholic religous product (they sell rosaries and stuff) website stated he was born in 30 BC and died in 20 AD age 49, a website for a catholic church in louisiana named after him gave the wildly old birth year old 90 BC and stated he died year 18 AD (making him 108, which I obviously doubt).
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 02:30:11 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     • Gundog
     @Gundog @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren yeah married at 30 died at 50 checks out more than married at 90
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Gundog (gundog@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 02:30:12 JST Gundog

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     • Branman65?
     @branman65 @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren This Catholic encyclopedia entry notes that a lot of details on Joseph are hard to discern because the canon Gospels don't speak of him much, whereas the books that do speak more extensively of him were never canonized, and have never been corroborated enough to be anything but apocryphal.
     
     Note that on the section 'Marriage', the second paragraph is prefaced with the apocryphal nature of the information that follows, so the entire second paragraph should be taken with a grain of salt, as well as the section on his death; for example, Joseph is given as 90 when he married Mary, but one of the accounts of his death puts his age at the same.
     
     newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 02:30:40 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren yeah true
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 02:30:53 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     • Gundog
     @Gundog @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren yeah he just kind of stops being mentioned,
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Gundog (gundog@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 02:30:54 JST Gundog

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     • Branman65?
     @branman65 @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren Honestly what has surprised me most is that there is no mention of Joseph's death, it is completely unmentioned it seems. The last clear mention of him appears to be when Jesus was left at the temple, when he was 12. I'm really surprised that Joseph does not get any mention as to his death, but given that the Gospels were written by the Apostles, and Joseph died between that last mention and the beginning of Christ's ministry, it may not have received mention for having been an ordinary matter, and unrelated to the ministry.
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 02:31:57 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • Gundog
     • Branman65?
     @branman65 @Gundog @sharutiaburaddofouren Knowing the history of the faith, there's probably some cult that formed around this.
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 02:48:07 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     • Gundog
     @BowsacNoodle @Gundog @sharutiaburaddofouren about what? that joseph is secretly immortal or he's like Muhammad Al-Mahdi from twelver Shia Islam?
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 10:50:14 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • Branman65?
     @sharutiaburaddofouren @branman65 Of course friend. Christians need to talk about this stuff. We need a coalition against the forces of evil in the world right now rather than turning our guns against our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
   • Embed this notice
     Shalltear?Stan? (sharutiaburaddofouren@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 10:50:15 JST Shalltear?Stan?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     • Branman65?
     @BowsacNoodle @branman65 btw Noodle I have to say thank you, I have a feeling you saw that I said I usually don't get much of a response so you were willing to discuss. We do all get into banter but what I believe touches people is the one on one discussion when preaching the gospel
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 13:15:57 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to
     @sharutiaburaddofouren >rome claiming that salvation is only found through their church and their belief system
     They claim that other Christians not in communion with them are still Christian and a part of the larger catholic Church. It's worth remembering the definition of 'Catholic' is "universal". This is not how they've always viewed things, but it's part of church doctrine at this point.
     >They call the early theologians 'father' specifically to set them apart when we know God shows no favoritism
     Isaac Newton, Max Planck, and Galileo Galelei are the fathers of physics, because they put to words and pen God's natural law previously not understood. The early theologians were the fathers of the church because they set standards and helped put to words theological concepts in a similar way. They're not "more saved" than any other believer, but the fact that they taught or modeled important things makes them worth looking at for inspiration and guidance.
     
     >"Practice" I would state has nothing to do with it for the fruit of our salvation is shown much as the fruit of unbelief in shown in those who pay lip service but whose hearts are far from the Lord.
     This is my problem. You don't realize it, but you're being the Pharisee here from Luke 18. They exist in all sorts of forms, and plenty have worn hats and vestments and esteemed designations in the West or East, but plenty exist in smaller churches of various denominations. I had more typed up, but that's to the point and either you'll see it or you won't. Just know that I'm not trying to be personal or attack you when I say that. That's all for tonight, but I'll get back to this tomorrow.
   • Embed this notice
     Shalltear?Stan? (sharutiaburaddofouren@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 13:15:59 JST Shalltear?Stan?

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle it is not because I disagree with them, I am irrelevant in the picture, it is because these churches are exactly what is described. In the woes to the pharisees for being hypocrites for instance when Christ says they slam the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people's faces yet cannot enter themselves and try to stop anyone else from trying that seems strangely comparable to rome claiming that salvation is only found through their church and their belief system. They call the early theologians 'father' specifically to set them apart when we know God shows no favoritism and there are none righteous on the earth, all have turned away, there are none who understand
     
     Faith is the belief, from the heart, that Christ Jesus both true man and true God, sent from the Father to save mankind from our sins by dying in our place on the cross, His once for all sacrifice. That it is by grace of the Father that we have this faith, it is not of ourselves, that Jesus counts us righteous by the shedding of His blood, by the witness of the Holy Spirit we are justified before the Father and our sins remembered no more
     
     "Practice" I would state has nothing to do with it for the fruit of our salvation is shown much as the fruit of unbelief in shown in those who pay lip service but whose hearts are far from the Lord. My issue is with these churches and false teachings for doubtless there are Christians who sit in the pews who put their faith and trust only in the Lord Jesus Christ, but there are many who do not and trust in merited salvation in the confessional with "degrees of sin" or that Mary is inherent to your salvation or you must pray to the saints or purgatory and all the extrabiblical nonsense. If I have love for humanity then I want them to be united with Christ, and not believing in a false gospel. The judaizers who likely followed Paul's footsteps to the church of galatia preached to them all the same but also that they must do works and that Paul's apostolic authority was less than the others as he was a latecomer. That's where the danger lies, in those who present a new gospel, pretending to speak for God as though His crosswork was incomplete, the Holy Spirit is not strong enough to transform the hearts of believers, and the Father's love based on condition
     
     Whether or not I can communicate well, that's on me, but my mission is to let God speak through me of His Word. That's always the issue, everything is to God's glory for it's His work and righteousness as we have none of our own. We are the Body and all works God prepared beforehand for us to walk in, nothing is from us, we can't even reason our salvation, it is only by His grace that we know Him to be the Son of God and our Savior
     
     I don't mean to misrepresent what you say but it sounds a bit to me like a 'fundamentals of faith' argument which the big problem is satan also believes that "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. He rose again and conquered death.", but what he wants it to mean is Christ died not in place of mankind but so that we foolishly try to make up for sin as atonement, which we never can, and that Jesus only conquered death in personal terms than for all of us who have eternal life in Him
   • Embed this notice
     BrokenScope (churnhinge@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 13:21:27 JST BrokenScope

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren wow. with all that time you could have made a Sandwich
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 13:21:27 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • BrokenScope
     @ChurnHinge @sharutiaburaddofouren >implying I wasn't spending time with my wife and children rather than lurking fedi for hours.
     🆗
   • Embed this notice
     BrokenScope (churnhinge@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-Dec-2023 13:23:32 JST BrokenScope

     in reply to

     • BowserNoodle ☦️
     @BowsacNoodle @sharutiaburaddofouren would have tasted really good though
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.