B-b-but.. muh tradition!

tfw southern baptists had a conservative resurgence and directly contradicted that resolution

Attached: Views_about_abortion.png (777x1005, 24K)

Catholicism is literally a satanic religion created by the Vatican, pretty much any other Christian denomination would be better.

>tfw the Church of Christ is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15)
>and yet they get a simple moral issue so, so wrong
>because they're just another Johnny-come-lately sect

>tfw SBC comes together to vote on morals and doctrine
>theological democracy

That's the point, the SBC isn't a church and resolutions aren't doctrine

Protestants are based, at least the evangelical branches and not the mainline branches

>wow can you believe they actually believe the holy book that was supposedly divinely inspired by god lmao that's SO dumb
>they should listen to squabbling priests instead :)
one of the dumbest things about christianity ,aside from the trinity, is when christians literally argue that you can't trust the only holy book in their religion. they don't seem to realize that it completely undermines their entire faith. I honestly have never heard of another faith doing such a thing.

We agree that the devil is finding footholds in nearly all Christian sects, the subject of debate is to compare how well each group is holding to the truth

Attached: Views_about_homosexuality.png (777x1005, 25K)

i thought its about christianity, but its only about americans

It's an american surveyor

Yes you're right, it's a conglomeration of autonomous sects that must adhere to a set of resolutions or tenets in order to remain part of the SBC.
Still unable to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19; 18:18).
You can't hold on to the truth when your ancestors already left it.
Besides, you could make that argument during the Arian crisis in the fourth century when 95% of the hierarchy were either sympathetic to Arianism or outright Arians. The Church constantly goes through crises and recovers.
She outlives all of her temporal conquerors.

Attached: st-maximus-confessor.jpg (878x334, 87K)

No, you do not have to adhere to resolutions to be a member church
our confessional document is the Baptist Faith and Message

Two years ago we voted in a resolution encouraging churches to stop using the confederate flag, yet here I am disregarding it

You just contradicted yourself by making a claim about lack of authority based on your ancestors, then directly outlining the rampant heresy in your ancestors
Either way your mistake is in reading "church" as anything besides local congregation

Attached: Views_about_size_of_government.png (777x1005, 24K)

>You just contradicted yourself by making a claim about lack of authority based on your ancestors, then directly outlining the rampant heresy in your ancestors
Heresies test and refine the Church.
This was precisely the reason Constantine called the Council of Nicaea (325). Constantine was an Arian. He didn't want instability in his kingdom so he wanted the Church to settle the matter once and for all.
It ended in the Pope and Bishops together proclaiming that Arius' teachings were heretical and that Christ was both God and man.
Constantine remained Arian until the end of his life.
The canon of (NT) Scriptures you use today wasn't canonized until 382 at Council of Rome, reaffirmed again in 393 at Synod of Hippo, and reaffirmed again in 419 at Council of Carthage.
The Church wasn't lost.

Unfortunately, Father Luther and his theological children all unwittingly adopted tenets that 1st century Gnostics adhered to.
>be Ignatius of Antioch
>be personal friend of St. John the Beloved Apostle, sit at his feet and learn
>be ordained a Bishop by St. Peter
>be captured by Romans and brought to Rome for martyrdom
>write flock in Smryna
>exhort them to stay away from heretics (Gnostics)
>CHAPTER VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
>They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
>Also first known writing of calling the church the Catholic Church
>Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.
>write this in 110AD
>tfw Protestants are like the 1st century Gnostics that deny the Body and Blood of Christ
>tfw Constantine was in the fourth century
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-roberts.html

Attached: protestant-gnostics.jpg (315x475, 30K)

The books have been picked by priests as canonical. They are inspired, as are the writings of say, St Athanasius.
Thinking they are the end all of religion is literally islam tier retardation about having books being dictated by God.
You are Christian for following the apostles (bishops). Saying the bible is necessary for Christianity is saying that there were no Christians in the frist three centuries.
>I honestly have never heard of another faith doing such a thing.
That's because they are under various levels of idolatry.
Christian are people believing the message sent by the Apostles. The books, written after, were selected as containing all that was necessary for faith and were in this manner authoritative. This is the true meaning of the sola scriptura of Luther (before brainlet protestants started the bible fetish) and all Catholic or Orthodox or Anglicans theologians will agree with that.

Agreed, so the claim "You can't hold on to the truth when your ancestors already left it" is to be revised or discarded

So the majority is fooled by our shill of a pope, which I already knew. Your point?

Absolutely not. We held fast and many of us still do.
Athanasius contra mundum

Attached: file.png (1061x1061, 1.73M)

What tradition? Are you fucking aware how close and eternal is our sense of the spirit?

Orthodox care less about politics, at least in the us.

Here's a few verses that destroy cuckolicks and orthocucks

1 Timothy 3
3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

>must be the husband of one wife, children

Attached: 22AD0F9B-B228-45D1-A339-D8CCB1487169.jpg (1024x864, 137K)

>must be the husband of one wife, children
The entire reason why this was even mentioned was because of a problem with polygamy among peoples who were converting.
Which is why it says "husband of ONE wife".
It is not a prescription for the Bishopric.

Attached: eunuchs-for-kingdom-matthew-19-12.png (614x69, 12K)

>You are Christian for following the apostles (bishops).
Bold faced lies from an entitled and power man clergy. No living man has special divine authority.

If a man has no house of his own, how can he be expected to manage the house of god?

>America,less than 5 mil Orthodox.
>Sstatistics
Pick one.

Well, Protestants certainly don't as they're a sixteenth century tradition of the man, a Catholic priest, Father Luther.
Christ did bestow divine authority upon the Apostles to forgive sin.
>[22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
>[John 20:22-23]
You really believe that God would let this awesome authority die with the last Apostle?
Or the authority to bind and loose? (Mt. 16:19, 18:18)
St. Paul, the inspired author here, was not married himself.
Polygamy was an issue as well as divorce and "remarriage," another which modern-day protestants ignore.
>that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.

This is what happens when you are scared to purge pedos from your hierarchy

>No living man has special divine authority.
Even the books you fetishise are full of declarations by Jesus Christ for the call of the apostles and their authority in teaching.
You are following only God, but the world learned of him from the apostles, not from the bible, which is a compendium of books that at a late stage the bishops (successors of apostles) chose.
What do you think give the texts of the bible authority except that they were chosen as such by a council of men?
If you want God to give you a book he wrote himself, go for islam.

lol not even Francis wants gay marriage.

>What do you think give the texts of the bible authority except that they were chosen as such by a council of men?
By that Church which has the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19, 18:18) and is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

>Well, Protestants certainly don't as they're a sixteenth century tradition of the man, a Catholic priest, Father Luther.
Luther had no special divine authority, he moved in logical response to the failures and lies of the catholic church, using scripture and history as his guide.
>You really believe that God would let this awesome authority die with the last Apostle?
Yes. There's no evidence to the contrary. The apostles'job was to form the church and they did. Neither bishops nor the pope have this authority, they were never granted it and do not need it.

>be christian
>don't believe in God
wat?

The apostles are all long dead. Bishops succeed their roles as leaders but not their divine mandate.

Exactly, the authority of the bible is derivative.
If someone goes against Christianity (including bishops today), it is ultimately not because he goes against the bible but because he goes against the teaching of the fathers of the church.

>Luther had no special divine authority, he moved in logical response to the failures and lies of the catholic church, using scripture and history as his guide.
And yet he claimed he was chosen by God to give the proper interpretation and condemned all other protestants who disagreed with him as hellspawns.
He certainly thought himself as an infallible teacher;
>removes book of St. James because conflicts with his new doctrine of faith alone
>adds the word "alone" to Romans 3:28
>tells Philip of Hesse it's okay to take a second wife (while retaining the first); the great reformer himself endorsing polygamy
One could go on and on with the traditions of this charlatan.
>Yes. There's no evidence to the contrary.
I see. So Christ is so short-sighted that He did not intend on establishing a universal kingdom of God not of this world which was the fulfillment of ancient Israel; a Church which St. Paul calls the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16).
We're all supposed to just take the New Testament that the Catholic Church put into canon and figure it out for ourselves.

>was not married himself.
because he wasn't a leader of a church

Also you say Peter was the first pope, and Peter had a wife

Orthodox Christians in the US are not Orthodox.
You will literally be killed by your own Orthodox priest, if you were pro-faggot, whether in Eastern Europe, Egypt or Greece.

>being religious
ISHYGDDT

Attached: religion vs science.jpg (850x744, 266K)

He left his wife to follow Christ.
The discipline of being "eunuchs for the kingdom," as Christ said, "he who can take it let him take it" was instituted on the Latin Church to imitate Christ in all ways.
>[32] But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.
>[1 Corinthians 7:32-33]

dark ages are a myth made up during the Renaissance by romaboos

If luthor claimed he was chosen by god, he was mistaken, though I don't believe you.
Bishops need only teach and spread the teachings of christ and his followers to establish the kingdom of god.
James should not have been removed, I agree. It was an overreaction to an overly literal interpretation of its text on good works.
>We're all supposed to just take the New Testament that the Catholic Church put into canon and figure it out for ourselves.
Yeah basically.

The founding work in almost every scientific field was done by christians and paid for by the church, you fucking moron.

>See I have recieved a (You)
>O boy! Another user wishes to enter into discussion about the claim I've made, time to discuss our views and help each other reach a mutual understand
>Actual response is a fucktard being edgy
Here's your undeserved (You)

>If luthor [sic] claimed he was chosen by god, he was mistaken, though I don't believe you.
You ought to read all of Fr. Luther's writings by the protestant historian De Witte then.
He is very clear on this.
>Yeah basically
Not even sure what to say here. This is a 20th century belief that even protestants of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century didn't believe.
The lack of an hierarchical structure and an authoritative Church in the protestant theology has led to thousands upon thousands of sects and people who have become churches unto themselves.
As Fr. Luther himself lamented at the end of his life, he had created a pope for every head.

False.

That doesn't make religion true, YOU FUCKING MORON.

>time to discuss our views and help each other reach a mutual understand[ing]
I'm happy to do that, but if you're too fucking stupid to come up with a salient response to my assertion, then that's your own fault.

Attached: brainlet.jpg (645x729, 81K)

Christianity literally gave us the Renaissance.
The dark ages were caused by the black death you stupid fuck.

>Renaissance
When you speak of the Renaissance, there was two. The Christian and the humanist.
Out of the humanist came the Endarkenment philosophy, which was preceded by the Protestant Revolt.
Liberalism in theology (protestantism) begat liberalism in philosophy (Endarkenment) begat classical liberalism (American/French revolutions) begat socialism & Bolshevism begat cultural Marxism

Attached: gramsci-praxis-over-doctrine-captioned.jpg (800x408, 140K)

>As Fr. Luther himself lamented at the end of his life, he had created a pope for every head.
He ought not have lamented, it's not a problem

Christianity is obsolete. Yes, it must have had some good value, because it gave us great art, music, architecture, etc. And it probably had social value as well - morals, traditions, etc.

BUT that doesn't mean Christianity is TRUE. Its claims (like the existence of God, Jesus being the son of God) are not backed by evidence. Whereas the claims of science ARE backed by evidence.

So sure, Christianity has been beneficial in the past, but that doesn't mean it is true. We have no reason to believe that it is true.

Do you believe in anything that isn't backed by evidence? What is your standard for evidence, by the way?

Saint Maximus. Husbands Saint. Based.

>not a problem
>thousands upon thousands of autonomous sects all believing differently (instead of one faith like Ephesians 4:5 tell us) meanwhile all believing to be a part of the same Body of Christ
Whew

Mine is Maximilian Kolbe, chose him because I used to struggle with drug addiction, his teachings against the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the Masons.
Wife's is St. Augustine's mother; St. Monica

Science is a set of laws that govern the Universe.
If there was no intelligent being behind the creation of the Universe and life, how is there laws and rules to everything around us?
Fuck off back to Lutuin Ahmad.

The foundational beliefs of nearly all christian sects are the same. Being a part of different churches is not being of different faith, that's why they're called denominations instead of religions.

>Do you believe in anything that isn't backed by evidence?
No, I don't think so. I try to make sure I only believe in things which have hard evidence behind them.

>What is your standard for evidence, by the way?
That's a tough question. I don't think there is an objective standard of what constitutes enough evidence in order for something to be considered "true". The most objective standard that one might come up with might be "something that can be believed in beyond reasonable doubt".

But anyway, if we're talking about God specifically, there is just isn't any compelling evidence that would make me believe in the existence of a god - or anything resembling a god.

It's pretty clear, in my mind, that Christianity (and other forms of deism/theism) were merely invented by people who lacked a sufficient understanding of the universe. So they posited that there must be a "god" who created everything in the universe, because they didn't have any other explanation.

>No, I don't think so. I try to make sure I only believe in things which have hard evidence behind them.
No you don't. The vast majority of that which you believe is merely that which you have been TOLD there is hard evidence of. And the vast majority of that information is true! Buf you're still only just believing it, you have not seen for yourself.

*snap*

>The foundational beliefs of nearly all christian sects are the same.
This is a gross display of ignorance of not only history but of theology.
There are many sects that split from the Catholic Church, ranging from the 4th century all the way to now. The Christological heresies were the first and make up the heretical sects of the first five to six centuries of Christianity.
They resulted in completely different notions of Christ and thus, an alien religion and an alien Christ.
The Protestant Revolt is another matter in and of itself; a sixteenth century invention by a rebel Catholic priest who was unable to control his passions, unable to pray his breviary every day (often cramming the week's prayers on a Friday), and his fear that he was going to hell because he was unable to control his passions. Thus he came up with the doctrine of faith alone while on the toilet. Socrates said that people become revolutionaries for person reasons; and Fr. Luther is a perfect example of this.
The religion he ended up with was alien to the faith of his fathers, and the various protestant religions we have today are generally alien to even the original protestant pretended reformers.
There is no denomination of Christ's Church; there is only one truth and only one Church as their is only one Body, One Lord, One Baptism, and One Faith (Ephesians 4:5).

Your position can be disproved merely by human reason without the need of theology.

Attached: leo-xiii-immortale-dei.jpg (1760x538, 167K)

>Science is a set of laws that govern the Universe.
No, science is an academic discipline, which aims to DISCOVER the set of laws that govern the universe.

>If there was no intelligent being behind the creation of the Universe and life, how is there laws and rules to everything around us?
Why on Earth do you assume there must be an intelligent being? What hard evidence do you have that indicates the existence of such a thing?

It is perfectly possible that the origins of the universe will be explainable without invoking any notion of a supernatural being - and even if there does ultimately turn out to be a supernatural being (which I am skeptical of, since I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that things which break the laws of physics can exist), why on Earth should we assume that such a supernatural being would bear any resemblance to the God characterised in Christianity?

And if you're a Christian, you believe Christ is the son of God, yes? Again, why believe that? Because you believe the written word of the Bible, which claims Jesus performed miracles some two thousand years ago? Is that your only basis for believing in a magic man? Written testimony, from people who were scientifically illiterate?

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it smacked you across the face.

I guess I should have clarified EXISTING sects, though I really should not have had to. Obviously a church that denies the divinity of christ is fundamentally different from one that does not, but there are no even remotely relevant modern "christian" churches with such beliefs.
>The religion he ended up with was alien to the faith of his fathers, and the various protestant religions we have today are generally alien to even the original protestant pretended reformers.
While the former is true, the latter is not, and most of the aspects of catholicism that protestants reject are both unimportant and unsubstantiated by scripture (priests being chastate, saint worship, etc)

Mines Saint Sarah, commemorated on the day of my birth. Husband has had big struggles and Saint Maximus is the opposite of who he has been. How can anyone say Americans aren’t Orthodox.

>and most of the aspects of catholicism that protestants reject are both unimportant and unsubstantiated by scripture
>priests being chastate
Addressed this here.
>saint worship
No Catholic worships saints. We ask their intercession with Christ, just as it is shown in St. John's Apocalypse that the saints do with Christ.
Saints in heaven are the spirits of just men made perfect:
>"And to the church of the firstborn, who are written in the heavens, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the just made perfect,"
>[Hebrews 12:23]
Which Sacred Scripture tells us,
>[16] Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.
>[James 5:16]
The just man's prayer availeth much; how much more does Christ hear the prayers of those men made perfect before God, who are more radically connected to Him than we are?
The Church in heaven is not disconnected from the Church on earth.

The difference is that I believe sources which have demonstrated things which I have seen to be true with my own eyes.

I believe sources like BBC News, Wikipedia, or Google Maps (sure, those sources can make mistakes sometimes, but by and large, they're usually accurate). That is, they present information which I MYSELF have been able to verify with my own eyes. For example - before I moved to London a few years ago, I used to research things about London on Wikipedia and Google Maps. And when I moved there, all of those things turned out to be accurate. There really IS a St. Paul's Cathedral, because I've seen it. Same with the Houses of Parliament. Etc.

Also, concepts which I've been taught in school, and which are also explained by sources like Wikipedia (or any reputable science book, or encyclopaedia, or whatever) - things like electricity. Electricity is able to explain things which I've seen with my own eyes. Like my computer, and my phone, and light bulbs. I remember experiments at school which demonstrated the effects of electricity. So that's why I believe in the existence of electricity.

Whereas the idea of a "supernatural" claimed by Christianity... I have seen NO evidence of anything supernatural, WHATSOEVER, throughout my entire life.

So I guess that is why I don't trust the Bible as an authoritative source - because its claims do not cohere with what I've experienced myself in life. I have never seen anyone walk on water, or turn water into wine. So I'm very sceptical of the claims made in the Bible. Until I see evidence which would corroborate the possibility of those things, I will not believe that the Bible is a source of factual information.

Not an argument.

Attached: not an argument.png (500x365, 73K)

"36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married."
>No Catholic worships saints. We ask their intercession with Christ
In practice there is little difference and intercession is not nessisary or desireable. All men should speak to christ themselves.
>how much more does Christ hear the prayers of those men made perfect before God, who are more radically connected to Him than we are?
God hears all prayers equally because he hears and knows all things perfectly. NO man, living or dead, is more connected to christ than any other.

WHERE MY #PAGANG AT!?

Attached: pagang.jpg (1279x720, 153K)

>"36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married."
Indeed.
And yet Christ tells us that there are those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom. The priesthood imitates Christ, who was celibate.
>In practice there is little difference and intercession is not nessisary or desireable
Once again, James 5:16
>pray for one another
Intercession with those in heaven is the same as asking someone on earth to pray for you. What you're saying is that even asking someone to pray for you is undesirable.
>God hears all prayers equally because he hears and knows all things perfectly. NO man, living or dead, is more connected to christ than any other.
Oh, I see. So those men and women who are "made perfect" before the Lord in heaven are no more connected to Christ than we are. Gotcha.

>And yet Christ tells us that there are those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom. The priesthood imitates Christ, who was celibate.
As they can, but there is no reason they must
>Oh, I see. So those men and women who are "made perfect" before the Lord in heaven are no more connected to Christ than we are.
All who are forgiven are made perfect.

>but there is no reason they must
It is a holy discipline that the Latin Church has Scripturally adopted.
>All who are forgiven are made perfect.
Oh so you're saying if you're forgiven that you no longer have to struggle with the consequences of the effects of original sin? You don't have any more temptation?
Where can I purchase this protestant kool-aid?

>It is a holy discipline that the Latin Church has Scripturally adopted
Which, again, is fine. But it is also fine for pastors to marry.
>Oh so you're saying if you're forgiven that you no longer have to struggle with the consequences of the effects of original sin? You don't have any more temptation?
Where did I say that?

Daily reminder: if you believe in religion, you're an idiot.

Attached: faith vs fact.jpg (480x724, 44K)

>But it is also fine for pastors to marry.
It is an impediment; married priests (such as Anglicans who have converted to Catholicism) are against the idea of married priests. Why?
1) a wage befitting someone able to raise a family is required. Holy poverty is untenable.
2) the priest is then torn between his parish (spiritual children) and his family; and can give neither sufficient time.
3) the priest is often moved from parish to parish as priests are needed, this means the uprooting of families.
Not only is it a holy discipline, it is prudent and practical.
>Where did I say that?
>>All who are forgiven are made perfect.
To be perfect is to be *like* God, as He allows us to partake in His divine nature via Holy Communion that we may become like Him.
>"By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world."
>[2 Peter 1:4]

Why the fuck are you arguing about details of religion, when religion itself is a lie?

Attached: religious sheep.jpg (640x920, 76K)

Because I believe life is teleological; there is a purpose.
And logically, because there is a purpose, there is truth.
Further, truth cannot contradict truth; thus there is only one truth.
Philosophy 101. The kind of claptrap you will get in modern universities is that truth is relative to the individual and time which by definition nullifies the notion of truth.
Plato tells us that true philosophy is religion.
Christ is the Incarnate Logos, truth and divine order incarnate in man, who is the personal bridge between God and man who founded a religion, which the base word religio means to [re]connect God and man.
Thus true religion.
Submit to Logos.

>Christ is the Incarnate Logos, truth and divine order incarnate in man
*truth and divine order incarnate AS a man.

Wow, what an absolute load of garbage.

>there is a purpose.
There is a purpose to life, yes. That purpose is to propagate oneself as much as possible. We know this from empirical, scientific observation of all lifeforms. Bacteria, fish, elephants, algae, trees, birds, humans - every single lifeform strives to propagate itself as much as possible.

>And logically, because there is a purpose, there is truth.
Er, I'm not seeing a logical connection there chief - but I do believe in objective truth. The objective reality that each of us is able to observe through our physical senses, and which we can study through science.

>Philosophy 101. The kind of claptrap you will get in modern universities is that truth is relative to the individual and time which by definition nullifies the notion of truth.
Beliefs are relative, but yes I agree there is most likely an objective reality, which we all interact with every day.

>Plato tells us that true philosophy is religion.
Plato said something so it must be true? Erm, no.

>Christ is the Incarnate Logos, truth and divine order incarnate in man, who is the personal bridge between God and man who founded a religion, which the base word religio means to [re]connect God and man.
There is literally no hard evidence that Christ was a "personal bridge between God and man". There is also no hard evidence that supports the idea of a "god".

Sorry m8.

>propagate itself
Sure, multiply and be fruitful. Yet, we are separate from
>Bacteria, fish, elephants, algae, trees, birds
for the very fact that we are rational, sentient beings; precisely the meaning of the Scripture which announces that we are "created in the image and likeness of God," because if there is a God, He must logically be rational, the prime mover, and the origin of all order.
>Plato said something so it must be true? Erm, no.
It's merely the connection between philosophy and religion. Philosophy aids us in understanding the temporal and subjective order while religion completes this through divine revelation.
>no hard evidence
And yet it is all around us; creation screams creator.

Sodomy is sin.
How did they miss that?

To be safe for all eternity:
A: Admit that you are a sinner, who violates the Will of God, and that you need a Saviour.
B: Believe that Jesus Christ, Son of God & Messiah, died for you sins and rose again, as prophesied and recorded in the Word of God.
C: Call on His name, ask Him to save you, and confess that He is Lord.

Some resources that may help:
TTB.org has a verse by verse Bible Study for download or daily listening.
Chuck Missler’s Learn the Bible in 24 Hours (youtu.be/PZ3hESj__M8)
Robert Breaker’s Bible Study and Topical Sermons (youtu.be/H124iZiyGUs)
J.D. Farag’s Bible Study and Prophecy Updates ( youtu.be/UK4b6tGThI4 )

Clearlywrittendotnet YouTube channel details near future events. (youtu.be/zRrkUymeST4)

BlueLetterBible.org has a free online bible & apps with cross references.

OneForIsrael.org is a group of Israeli Jews who know Jesus is their messiah.

Unsealed.org tracks information that points to Jesus’s soon return.

Watchfortheday.org shows how many world events are prophetically and numerically linked.

The End is nigh. Tomorrow may be too late.

Attached: image.jpg (1583x2048, 363K)

>wherein shit-tier protestants show up
>muh once saved always saved
I suggest you get familiar with Church history and the writings of the successors of the Apostles and the writings of their successors to know what the early Christians believed and taught.
Their writings aren't inspired, but they give us an historical account of what was handed down by Christ to the Apostles.

Attached: judaizing-protestantism-plus-19th-century-rapture-doctrine.gif (2822x1914, 108K)

The Bible is the word of God

>we are separate from >Bacteria, fish, elephants, algae, trees, birds for the very fact that we are rational, sentient beings
We're still animals, just like them. We just happen to be slightly more intelligent, that's all.

>we are "created in the image and likeness of God," because if there is a God, He must logically be rational, the prime mover, and the origin of all order.
There is no hard evidence for the existence of a "god".

>And yet it is all around us; creation screams creator.
There is no hard evidence that the universe is a "creation". Take evolution as an example - evolution is not something which has a purposeful direction. This is evidenced by the fact that many species have died off - many branches of evolution came to an end. There is no design in evolution - evolution is the result of random mutations, which create genetic diversity, and the lifeforms that are the strongest / most intelligent / best able to adapt to their environment are the ones that survive.

Of course though, we don't really know yet what was before the big bang (if there was anything at all, that is - perhaps there was nothing).

Perhaps it will turn out that there really was a "creator" of the universe, even though currently there is no evidence of such a thing. But if that does turn out to be the case, why on Earth should we assume that it would bear any resemblance to the Christian God? For example why should we believe the Bible's claim that we are "created in the image and likeness of God"? If we've never seen "God", how can we make this claim?

For the love of all things holy, study early church history. Your Protestant is showing.

>wasting your time studying religion when you could study science and learn about the objective reality which surrounds us
ISHYGDDT

Attached: science vs religion.jpg (630x630, 45K)

>We're still animals, just like them.
Not just like them. There are no philosophizing canines.
>There is no hard evidence for the existence of a "god".
Science is the study of things that can be measured. So the whole canard about "prove God through science" is a contradiction in terms as God cannot be measured. What we do have is evidence of His presence; but for unbelievers no evidence will ever suffice.
>Take evolution as an example - evolution is not something which has a purposeful direction
This is typical Judeo-Anglo drivel.
Evolution posits that mutations further the adaptation of a species to a greater, more advanced species. Let's take cave-dwelling creatures for example. Darwin claims that these began without eyes, but through evolution, grew eyes. This simply cannot happen without a prior biological framework of what makes up an eye to begin with.
Precisely like the big bang, which was a theory developed by a Catholic priest, by the way (except he posited that it was God who initiated).
To say that something comes from nothing is a display of fundamental ignorance of philosophy. It's the equivalent of saying "shit happens" and calling it science.

(poll taken outside of the agnostic catholic club.)

wew

Attached: logic assassin.png (1240x874, 798K)