Hello Normies

Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal Savior?

If not, please do so in this thread, before you proceed.

Thank you.

- Management

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rb2FOVYAsZI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

How?

Romans 10:9

>Romans 10:9
I guess its the believing part that is the really hard part. How much do I have to believe? Just a little or a lot or absolute certainty?

youtube.com/watch?v=rb2FOVYAsZI

It's not that hard, user. The words are all there.

They don't call it faith for nothing.

Remember, "Do not be afraid..."

The goddess protects all humans. Please remove your toxic masculinity from this board. Jessy Christ is our one true saviour from the barbarians (((men))).

Alright. Thanks.

All Canadian blasphemers will burn in Hell for eternity.

Question for my Christbros, are you supposed to take the story of Adam and Eve literal, because I can easily comprehend it as a metaphor for humanity gaining knowledge and therefore moral responsibility, but literal interpretation seems implausible.

...

Yes, I agree wtih this. I think it's more likely Adma and Eve were the first people to become Self Aware.

Thanks, but I think the catholic church accepts it as literal, but it makes much more sense as I've stated it. There are other sections in the Bible that refer to Adam and Eve and how it only makes sense if its literal.

...

Thats a new one

All Organised Religion asserts it's tenets as absolute. That's the nature of Faith when it's used to anneal a community.

Everything has to believe in it's *Self* if it is to thrive.

It's the deepest red pill in existence.

How else do you reconcile the pain and suffering in this world without a benevolent creator?

The universe is is math, an equation. There are two sides to every equation and they are always balanced by each other.

Its theme of rebellion is meant to be taken literally, since Original Sin makes no sense otherwise.

"According to Christian theology, God offered to our first parents more than what was “owed” to us given our nature. In particular, he offered Adam and Eve the beatific vision – a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers. He also offered special helps that would deliver us from the limitations of our natures – that would free us from the ignorance and error our intellectual limitations open the door to, the moral errors our weak wills lead us into, the sicknesses and injuries our bodily limitations make possible, and so forth. By definition, none of this was “owed” to us, precisely because it is supernatural, that is, above or beyond what our nature required us to have. Hence while God cannot fail to will for us what is good for us given our nature, He would have done us no wrong in refraining from offering these supernatural gifts to us, precisely because they go beyond what our nature requires for our fulfillment. Still, He offered them to us anyway. But this offer was conditional."

"The penalty for Adam's rebellion was the loss of the supernatural gifts they had been given and that their descendants would have been given, and a fall back into their merely natural state, with all its limitations. In particular, it was a loss of all the helps that would effectively have removed those limitations -- and worst of all, loss of the beatific vision. In short, the penalty of original sin was a privation, not a positive harm inflicted on human beings but rather the absence of a benefit they never had a right to or strict need for in the first place but would have received anyway had they not disobeyed. And it wasn’t the prospect of pitchforks and hellfire that Adam’s descendants had to look forward to because of what Adam did, but rather the privation of this supernatural gift. What is essential to Hell is the loss of the beatific vision, and while Hell can certainly also involve more than that (including the pains of sense) the standard view is that it does so only for those guilty of actual sin, and not those (such as infants who die without baptism) who merely suffer the penalty of original sin, without ever having committed actual sin."

Serbs are CTR proxy. Ignore

"The restoration of this supernatural gift is part of the meaning of the Incarnation, and thus part of the meaning of Christmas. But there is more to it than the restoration itself. As Aquinas says, the Incarnation was not in the strictest sense necessary for remedying the Fall, since God by His infinite power could have accomplished this another way. But it was necessary in a weaker sense, insofar as there was no more fitting way for it to be accomplished. (ST III.1.2) Quoting Augustine, Aquinas gives as one of several reasons it was most fitting the consideration that "Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?" Reason tells us to trust in God, but reason is cold, and falters in the face of a dying child. Yes, we are rational animals. But we are rational animals – creatures of flesh and feeling as well as of thought. And it is simply difficult to be a rational animal, a human being – to bleed, to feel one’s heart break, to suffer. The Son of God in His divine nature is beyond all that. Yet He took on human nature anyway, so that we poor men and women would not suffer alone. In Jesus Christ the God of the philosophers wears a human face. And in the end, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev 21:4). But not before crying some of them Himself, on a cross, and in a manger."

Fuck jesus, I hope a bull shits with diarrhea on his spirit and then cums all over it.

What is your opinion on Gnosticism?