/christian/ - christian

>>24070
"irish" americans are less irish thsan the average englishman

the Guinness family of fame and renown, whose brewery is of much note and honour, were Protestants for your information

>>24073
>"irish" americans are less irish thsan the average englishman
Yeah it's not that simple, mate. I'm not going to defend the ignorant, cringey behavior that gets played up on T.V. Nevertheless, there is a living cultural continuity present in America, like it or not. 

But this is the internet so I'm not going to change your mind anyway.

>>24071
Hmm... I've never heard that before. St. Patrick's Day is a Holy Day of Obligation in Ireland, and feast days cannot simultaneously be a day of fasting. But I understand that as more a coincidence than an act of his intercession because Patrick's died on 17 March. There is no extant record or myth that I've encountered to say he died specifically during Lent to provide the Irish a relief during the 40 days. 

Even if the intercession justification were true, that would only count in Ireland. St. Patrick's Day is not a Holy Day of obligation outside of Ireland. Or at least not in America, anyway.

>>24078
>Even if the intercession justification were true, that would only count in Ireland. St. Patrick's Day is not a Holy Day of obligation outside of Ireland. Or at least not in America, anyway.
I think St. Patrick's Day is a first class feast day in dioceses which have St. Patrick as their patron. Even in other dioceses where he is not, it's not too uncommon for bishops to grant a dispensation to eat meat because I suppose the faithful cannot go without their corned beef.

Jesus_revolution.jpg
[Hide] (444.4KB, 1249x1878)

It's a good movie about the "Jesus movement" that transformed the hippie movement into a Christian movement.

>>23913
Is that how all these gay Christians came about?
Kinda funny how I've been calling them hippie Christians then.

>>23916
They shouldn't make their sin into their identity, but it's better that they're Christian and aware that what they're doing is wrong than just being a rebellious gay. It's not the healthy but the sick who needs a physician.

>>23916
it's not. 'christian gays' started with liberalism.
the jesus people movement was an evangelical (and to mainline christians 'fundamentalist') movement that did not accept worldly hippie practices like recreational drug usage & sinful sexual perversions

Cool image, Op.

>>23526
>as such thinks of churches as businesses
Unfortunately, he's probably right about many (if not most) of them. (2 Peter 2:1-3) Maybe if you show him that the Bible warned us about these false teachers it might break the ice. Keep praying every day for God to open his eyes. It may ultimately be up to your father's free will, but God can break through the toughest hearts. He loves you because you trusted in Jesus. Trust that he'll also love the people you love.
>he takes everything very jokingly and not seriously
That's a tough one. Maybe he's uncomfortable/terrified being reminded of certain death and is trying to put it out of his mind, hence the interruptions. The only thing that can relieve that fear is the faith that Jesus paid it all.

>>23523 (OP) 
>I have been debating with myself whether free will is even real, how predestination works and if it does, does that mean anything I do has true meaning or am I just a pawn in things I do not understand.
You are free when you are a participant in God's grace which cleanses you of your sin. Otherwise you are a slave to sin. Free will is kind of a moot question because freedom apart from God is vanity.

>>23532
Yes I figured that would be the case, a brother of Christ IRL told me something the night before that has encouraged me a little. I am still demoralized in many things atm but I do hope deep down my father will hear me out, God willing that be the case

>>23533
If you could explain that if possible I would appreciate it, bible verses would be a great help also

Ephesians+3-16+Prayer+Be+Strengtherned+In+The+Inner+Man+gray.jpg
[Hide] (63.3KB, 700x525)

>>23535
I am just going to post these verses which I assembled, but held off on posting earlier as I was looking for an additional verse which I was unable to find:

"Watch and pray so that you will not enter into temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”
Matthew 26:41

Paul elaborates in Romans chapter 7 and 8:
"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good. In that case, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot discover how to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me.

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!

>>23614
>the sons role isnt made clear if it means temporal procession as in pentecost or eternally.
That's the great tragedy of Florence. The Emperor specifically forbid them to discuss Palamas' essence/energy distinction.  So the Latins, operating on theology Augustine and Aquinas didn't know enough about Eastern theology to find the way forward to synthesis, but they knew enough to write themselves into a corner. 
There was also some question about the letter's authenticity. Which looking back today, seems strange to me. Who cares who wrote it if that's the way to create union?
 It's a real shame they couldn't engage with Maximus on his own terms. 

>proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. One principle = father
>one spiration = sharing of common divine nature between
>father and son since there is only one divinty
Grab a pen and paper and draw it. The way Florence is written forbids a reconciliation. Unless the Catholics are going to rewrite dogma and admit they were wrong. 

>>23615
>the son has no role is spiration
Spiration is a Latin theological term coming from their idea of defining the Trinity's relations by/in opposition. Such 

>>23615
It also lends itself to the possibility of subordinationism and Arianism that the filioque is designed to exclude.

>>23616
>Grab a pen and paper and draw it.
It's just a matter of perspective. The Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the two as if a single principle. So if you didn't draw the relations as a triangle, but rather were looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source. Our God is three-dimensional.

>>23618
>from the two as if a single principle.
And we know from Florence, Latin principle = Greek cause.
Therefore
>from the two as a single cause
>From the [Father and the Son] as a cause. 
Therefore, the son IS a cause of the Holy Spirit. 

Which s EXACTLY what the Orthodox reject. They believe the father is the only cause. 
There is no way around it now. 2=/=1. 
Catholics would have to backtrack the declarative statement of a council ratified by the Pope 600 years ago. Which they cannot and will not do. 
If it were so simple as saying "from the Father through the son" we would've reunited it by now.

>>23618
>looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source.
Rev 22:1
Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

>>23619
>They believe the father is the only cause. 
But do they actually, since they seem to believe in a variety of things so long as they disagree with what the scummy Latins believe.

>>23396
>would you accept the Confraternity Bible? I'm Catholic, and my grandparent's Bible is a mix of it and D-R Challoner revision.
I have no idea about the Confraternity Bible. 
Father made me toss out this one Bible I had because I bought it before I learned the faith and it was a protestant Bible. It was really kewl, leather cover but the best part was that it had maps and stuff in the back so I could see what they were talking about. 
If your priest says it has to go, say that it's not the Bible to you, but a family heirloom. I'm guessing he'd be merciful and let you keep it, especially if you say it would seem a sinful dishonor to your grandparents to part with it.

To be accepted even by the Novus Ordo/FSSP, it has to have a 'Bishop's imprimatur', which is found in the front. 
Anon 252fd8 said mentioned that my Knox Version should be acceptable to me because the Knox version came out before Vatican II, in 1945. While 252fd8's knowlege of Catholic and Quasi-catholic bibles is impressive, this Knox version bears the Nihil Obstate of Father Cowan and Imprimatur of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who was born in 1945 and couldn't have anything to do with a pre-war Knox version.  

I don't really care about the history of various Latin Vulgate versions. I just get the right one and I'm done. Once I've made sure I got the divinely inspired Bible, what 

>>23399
this makes sense, thanks. it's a fine book, hardcover with gold-edged pages, illustrations, and has family records, so it's definitely an heirloom. I just checked, and it has a nihil obstat from a censor librorum, and an imprimatur from an abbot-ordinary. I wonder how well that measures up?
Also, Confraternity text is Genesis-Ruth, Psalms, and NT, while the rest of the OT is Douay-Challoner.
My understanding is that the Confraternity Bible is the last traditional Catholic version before Vatican II, so that's why I asked. My version is from 1960.

>>23398
>The Council of Trent says that there wasn't one standard edition. That's why the named one. 
They declared that the Vulgate was the authentic and authoritative text, which is not the critical point of controversy. Rather, the question is over the fulfillment of their intention to disseminate an edition that was free from errors:
>Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

>And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name

>>23245
True, there are still 350 million people with their language untranslated

Polish_boy_got_courage.jpeg
[Hide] (79.8KB, 639x425)

>>23396
>The same is true for learning Japanese just to play certain games. You generally need other motivations besides that, otherwise you're better off relying on translations; they may not be perfect, but a quality translation serves as a bridge to the original. This is doubly true of learning an ancient language that has limited utility outside of certain fields; at least with the Japanese example it's a current, living language.
My friend, you cannot compare weeabooism with dedicating your time by understanding the mysteries of God better. You think that Latin and other ancient languages are dead while you could not be further from the truth. These languages are alive eternally because they are tied to a past we do not know, to a time and to a class of people that understood and were closer to God. As God never changes, so never do liturgical languages, while vernacular languages die and born again every once in a while.

>>23432 (OP) 
>Should "repenting of sin" be included when preaching the Gospel?
Yes, but only if repentance is fully understood.
When you repent of a thing you
1. Stop doing thing
2. Recognize thing as sin and abhor it
3. Stop trying to justify having done thing in the past
4. Actively reject the temptation to do thing ever again
It has nothing to do with paying money or tribute or honor to any man or organization made by men. Those are abuses. Even abstract acts of penance are questionable. At best they are as Matthew 6:16
"When you fast, do not be somber like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward."
At worst they seek to preempt the judgement of God and deny His mercy.
Repentance is best explained by Romans 12:2
"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but 'be transformed by the renewing of your mind'."
>Does it turn the free gift of salvation into a works-based program, denying that Christ's life, death, and resurrection was sufficient to reconcile us to God?
Salvation is not a free gift. You must believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and you must stop sinning. Both are a form of repentance. Then, when you are ready, God will give you works to do according to the measure of your faith and abi

>>23441
>Salvation is not a free gift.
It was the costliest gift that ever was, or will be. But it was paid for by God with the blood of his only Son. He gives it freely to us:
1)"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the 'gift' of God: 'Not of works', lest any man should boast." -Eph.2:8-9
2)"But not as the offence, so also is the 'free gift'. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the 'gift' by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the 'gift': for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the 'free gift' is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the 'gift' of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the 'free gift' came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -Rom.5:15-19
3)"Being justified

>>23445
It seems you misunderstand, or perhaps I misunderstood you. A 'free gift' implies it's available to anyone without obligation like a pack of tissues handed out in the street. My point is that there is an obligation. Not to live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit.
You have written an awful lot of words trying to convince us of something but what that thing is is not clear to me. Can you state your views on repentance succinctly?

>>23448
After reading every one of those 112 scriptures, I'm thinking "repentance" as used in the Bible regarding salvation is referring to faith alone in Jesus. I would agree that you have to believe God raised Jesus from the dead, but I don't see any scriptures that make one's salvation additionally-contingent upon a cessation from sin. Every saved person should strive to live a holy life free from sin, and this the epistles entreat us; but even if we don't: "...to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -Rom.4:5. 
For the longest time, I assumed repentance meant "turning from sin", or what the common parlance of our day defines it as. How many evangelists on TV and radio would always add "turn from sin" to the promise of this "free gift"? If you have to turn from sin to be saved, then it's not a free gift. That kind of obligation is a mountain so tall we could never climb over it. It's so disheartening that you couldn't even call such a gospel "good news". But the real good news is that even though we all die because of Adam's transgression, we believers will all have eternal life because of Jesus' righteousness.

ICXC_NIKA.svg.png
[Hide] (21.6KB, 480x480)

>>23441
If you don't accept that you have been called to salvation by God in your heart, attempting to live in the spirit on human terms is futile. You have to recognize that Christ as Lord has the power to purify your being of your sins through His atoning sacrifice first as the good news on which you premise your repentance. Unless you set your hope on faith in the truth of His resurrection, victory over death, and the certainty of His coming Kingdom, you'll immiserate yourself over your individual powerlessness over sin, despair that you have too much sin such that no amount of repentance will ever be enough, and set yourself up for failure in worldly mindedness. "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied," as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19. "But in fact," he continues, "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep... Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 'For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.'" 1 Corinthians 20, 23-27; and furthermore

"For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this 

You forgot the most important part
>Christianity: Is true.

Why do you talk about beliefs like they're fashion statements? 
>it's also not schizophrenic/too unscientific
So you think it's somewhat unscientific? Why do you believe in it then? Because you don't want to be a "gay rootless redditor"? You want to be cooler than "those people"? That's pride.

>>22332
Natural science isn't the end of all that is possible to be known.

db4597e62c589e07c57422c1ca9b7634.jpg
[Hide] (61.2KB, 735x503)

>>23273
True. The very fact we have directly-observable scientific proof of the historical beginning of the universe is the Christian's best friend when it comes to apologetics. Sadly, the vast majority of the body of Christ today don't even recognize the wonderful boon to our gospel message that the so-called 'Big Bang' actually is. It 'directly' correlates with the Christian Biblical message, and is an extremely strong argument for the Divine inspiration of the Biblical canon.

Many non-theistic scientists & philosophers from the 1700s through the mid 1900s recognized that if it could be shown that the universe was in fact limited in time & space, then it threatened their materialist views at the most basic & fundamental level. They proposed the 'steady state' universe with both infinite time & infinite space to explain the observable -- particularly life. 

After Einstein, et al, and particularly with modern astronomical/cosmological observations, we know the hot creation origin of the universe is real, and that the Christian Bible got it right all along.
>tl;dr
Even a child knows that if the universe had a beginning, then something must have existed before it.
What Who was that?