The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Luminesa]

I've heard way too many stories about people messing with Ouija boards and accidentally summoning something. And Tarot cards...well, the Church says divination isn't good, anyway, because we can't tell the future, soooo...*Shrugs.*

Why would you believe those stories? Do you also believe every spooky camp-fire story you hear? What about creepy-pasta?
If we can't tell the future, then what's there to fear from using playing cards for divination? It'll have no effect. Tarot cards were invented for gaming purposes - and they're much more effective at this intended purpose than at predicting the future.

I don't read creepy-pastas (or not now, I don't), and I don't hear a lot of spooky campfire stories. Sooooo...no.

[Conscentia]

Why would you believe those stories? Do you also believe every spooky camp-fire story you hear? What about creepy-pasta?
If we can't tell the future, then what's there to fear from using playing cards for divination? It'll have no effect. Tarot cards were invented for gaming purposes - and they're much more effective at this intended purpose than at predicting the future.

I don't read creepy-pastas (or not now, I don't), and I don't hear a lot of spooky campfire stories. Sooooo...no.

Those 2 questions were rhetorical, the point being that the stories you've heard are equivalent to camp-fire stories and creepy-pasta.

[Czechanada]

[...]Now tarot cards and ouija boards? Stay away from playing with those.

Why would you believe in tarot divination? They're literally just playing cards.
And talking boards like Hasbro's Oiuja are just a parlour game.

If someone already believes in supernatural phenomena like gods, demons, and angels, then it's not really a stretch to believe that that person would impute supernatural characteristics onto trinkets.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Why would you believe those stories? Do you also believe every spooky camp-fire story you hear? What about creepy-pasta?
If we can't tell the future, then what's there to fear from using playing cards for divination? It'll have no effect. Tarot cards were invented for gaming purposes - and they're much more effective at this intended purpose than at predicting the future.

I don't read creepy-pastas (or not now, I don't), and I don't hear a lot of spooky campfire stories. Sooooo...no.

There is a reason why it is called a "Oui-ja" board, it just confirms everything you already think.

Also, tarot, you mean these things:

[Czechanada]

If any kid old enough to read Harry Potter still believes in medieval wizardry and monsters and stuff, that is an extremely worrying sign.

That's hypocritical to the point of sheer arrogance.

"It's okay to believe in gods and devils, but God forbid if someone believes in wizards and monsters!"

[Czechanada]

I don't read creepy-pastas (or not now, I don't), and I don't hear a lot of spooky campfire stories. Sooooo...no.

There is a reason why it is called a "Oui-ja" board, it just confirms everything you already think.

Also, tarot, you mean these things:

That's right. All Ouija boards do is move according to the natural tremours of one's hands.

[The Wolven League]

If any kid old enough to read Harry Potter still believes in medieval wizardry and monsters and stuff, that is an extremely worrying sign.

That's hypocritical to the point of sheer arrogance.

"It's okay to believe in gods and devils, but God forbid if someone believes in wizards and monsters!"

I'm not religious.

[Czechanada]

That's hypocritical to the point of sheer arrogance.

"It's okay to believe in gods and devils, but God forbid if someone believes in wizards and monsters!"

I'm not religious.

Ah, I wasn't implying that you were religious.

[The Wolven League]

I'm not religious.

Ah, I wasn't implying that you were religious.

It sounded like you were saying I was being hypocritical.

[Czechanada]

Ah, I wasn't implying that you were religious.

It sounded like you were saying I was being hypocritical.

Not hypocritical in your belief, but rather the propagation of the normality of religious belief in addition to these things you mentioned.

[The Wolven League]

It sounded like you were saying I was being hypocritical.

Not hypocritical in your belief, but rather the propagation of the normality of religious belief in addition to these things you mentioned.

Alright then.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Getting back to Christianity, as a nonbeliever, I have always found Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, to be the most absurd of the Christian denominations, in that they believe that the priest, some fellow who went to seminary for a couple of years, now have a magical power, the power to make Jesus actually there as bread and wine. And that tradition is grand because they have always been doing this, so they must, necessarily, continue to do so, and interpret the way they have always interpreted scripture, simply because that is how they have always been [within their memory] (not how Christianity has always been, mind you, because we really don't know how the first Christians lived without actually having a time machine). These people claim that the diversity of opinion in the Protestant Ring show that they are the one true Church (never mind that Orthodox had a giant row over how you spell Jesus' name in Cyrillic and how many fingers you need to cross oneself).

[New confederate ramenia]

Since a lot of this occult discussion isn't directly related to Christianity I made a new thread about it. Please discuss there.

[The Wolven League]

Getting back to Christianity, as a nonbeliever, I have always found Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, to be the most absurd of the Christian denominations, in that they believe that the priest, some fellow who went to seminary for a couple of years, now have a magical power, the power to make Jesus actually there as bread and wine. And that tradition is grand because they have always been doing this, so they must, necessarily, continue to do so, and interpret the way they have always interpreted scripture, simply because that is how they have always been [within their memory] (not how Christianity has always been, mind you, because we really don't know how the first Christians lived without actually having a time machine). These people claim that the diversity of opinion in the Protestant Ring show that they are the one true Church (never mind that Orthodox had a giant row over how you spell Jesus' name in Cyrillic and how many fingers you need to cross oneself).

Wait, Catholics and the Orthodox literally believe clergy can channel God?

I'm sorry, but that's... pretty laughable.

[New confederate ramenia]

Getting back to Christianity, as a nonbeliever, I have always found Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, to be the most absurd of the Christian denominations, in that they believe that the priest, some fellow who went to seminary for a couple of years, now have a magical power, the power to make Jesus actually there as bread and wine. And that tradition is grand because they have always been doing this, so they must, necessarily, continue to do so, and interpret the way they have always interpreted scripture, simply because that is how they have always been [within their memory] (not how Christianity has always been, mind you, because we really don't know how the first Christians lived without actually having a time machine). These people claim that the diversity of opinion in the Protestant Ring show that they are the one true Church (never mind that Orthodox had a giant row over how you spell Jesus' name in Cyrillic and how many fingers you need to cross oneself).

That's not what we believe.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Getting back to Christianity, as a nonbeliever, I have always found Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, to be the most absurd of the Christian denominations, in that they believe that the priest, some fellow who went to seminary for a couple of years, now have a magical power, the power to make Jesus actually there as bread and wine. And that tradition is grand because they have always been doing this, so they must, necessarily, continue to do so, and interpret the way they have always interpreted scripture, simply because that is how they have always been [within their memory] (not how Christianity has always been, mind you, because we really don't know how the first Christians lived without actually having a time machine). These people claim that the diversity of opinion in the Protestant Ring show that they are the one true Church (never mind that Orthodox had a giant row over how you spell Jesus' name in Cyrillic and how many fingers you need to cross oneself).

That's not what we believe.

Yes, yes it is. What about my description of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and your insistence on Tradition is wrong?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Getting back to Christianity, as a nonbeliever, I have always found Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, to be the most absurd of the Christian denominations, in that they believe that the priest, some fellow who went to seminary for a couple of years, now have a magical power, the power to make Jesus actually there as bread and wine. And that tradition is grand because they have always been doing this, so they must, necessarily, continue to do so, and interpret the way they have always interpreted scripture, simply because that is how they have always been [within their memory] (not how Christianity has always been, mind you, because we really don't know how the first Christians lived without actually having a time machine). These people claim that the diversity of opinion in the Protestant Ring show that they are the one true Church (never mind that Orthodox had a giant row over how you spell Jesus' name in Cyrillic and how many fingers you need to cross oneself).

Wait, Catholics and the Orthodox literally believe clergy can channel God?

I'm sorry, but that's... pretty laughable.

Transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

https://carm.org/transubstantiation

[The Wolven League]

Wait, Catholics and the Orthodox literally believe clergy can channel God?

I'm sorry, but that's... pretty laughable.

Transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

https://carm.org/transubstantiation

*ignore*

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's not what we believe.

Yes, yes it is. What about my description of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and your insistence on Tradition is wrong?

The Eucharist/ last supper is tied to the Levitical Sacrificial system. In order to partake in the sacrifice of Christ and inherit the life, we partake in the flesh and blood of the lamb. Transubstantiation is then an implicit tradition.

[Salus Maior]

And that tradition is grand because they have always been doing this, so they must, necessarily, continue to do so, and interpret the way they have always interpreted scripture, simply because that is how they have always been 1.[within their memory] 2.(not how Christianity has always been, mind you, because we really don't know how the first Christians lived without actually having a time machine).

1. Their memory which goes back a couple thousand years. Because they actually took the time to record their history.

2.Of course, at the same time, you can't say that what Orthodoxy is doing now is not how it was done way back in the early Church.

That being said, sure some things have changed. Orthodox and Catholics don't congregate in basements and sewers out of fear of being thrown into a sports stadium and murdered via lions, or become desert hermits out of fear of being persecuted by the authorities for not saying political figures are gods.

Sure, it may not be exactly the same, but that doesn't mean that modern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the other Ancient Churches are not the natural progression of Early Church tradition and teachings, and there isn't much reason outside of being super edge and a Christophobe to doubt that is the case.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Yes, yes it is. What about my description of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and your insistence on Tradition is wrong?

The Eucharist/ last supper is tied to the Levitical Sacrificial system. In order to partake in the sacrifice of Christ and inherit the life, we partake in the flesh and blood of the lamb. Transubstantiation is then an implicit tradition.

It is also nonsensical. Just because you Christians want to get as many references to the Temple and the Old Testament as possible (Jesus riding on two donkeys in Matthew 21:1-7) for your street cred, but, com'on, at some point, you just have to say that this whole thing is symbolic of eating Jesus because he was the Lamb to be sacrificed, and not actually eating Jesus who is magicked into bread and wine.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

1. Their memory which goes back a couple thousand years. Because they actually took the time to record their history.

One particular group of Christian, in a extremely diverse Christian community. Which may have represented an ideal of an educated elite of the group, and not the actual practices of the group in question.

2.Of course, at the same time, you can't say that what Orthodoxy is doing now is not how it was done way back in the early Church.

Yes, yes I can, because, for one, the Ancients probably didn't use Cyrillic or spoke in liturgical greek/Slavonic, for one.

That being said, sure some things have changed. Orthodox and Catholics don't congregate in basements and sewers out of fear of being thrown into a sports stadium and murdered via lions, or become desert hermits out of fear of being persecuted by the authorities for not saying political figures are gods.

They also don't make woman clergymen, as, evidently, Paul did.

Sure, it may not be exactly the same, but that doesn't mean that modern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the other Ancient Churches are not the natural progression of Early Church tradition and teachings, and there isn't much reason outside of being super edge and a Christophobe to doubt that is the case.

It is the whole Theseus ship thing all over again, innit?

Regardless you are assuming that Theseus had a ship to begin with, or that the ship whose plank you replace every year was originally from that ship, and not a spurious one created by some (perhaps sincere) hoaxer wanting to legitimate his or her claim to this or that.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Eucharist/ last supper is tied to the Levitical Sacrificial system. In order to partake in the sacrifice of Christ and inherit the life, we partake in the flesh and blood of the lamb. Transubstantiation is then an implicit tradition.

It is also nonsensical. Just because you Christians want to get as many references to the Temple and the Old Testament as possible (Jesus riding on two donkeys in Matthew 21:1-7) for your street cred, but, com'on, at some point, you just have to say that this whole thing is symbolic of eating Jesus because he was the Lamb to be sacrificed, and not actually eating Jesus who is magicked into bread and wine.

So why do you care?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It is also nonsensical. Just because you Christians want to get as many references to the Temple and the Old Testament as possible (Jesus riding on two donkeys in Matthew 21:1-7) for your street cred, but, com'on, at some point, you just have to say that this whole thing is symbolic of eating Jesus because he was the Lamb to be sacrificed, and not actually eating Jesus who is magicked into bread and wine.

So why do you care?

Because it is an positively anti-rational belief. It commits people to the absurd.

[Salus Maior]

1.One particular group of Christian, in a extremely diverse Christian community. Which may have represented an ideal of an educated elite of the group, and not the actual practices of the group in question.

2.Yes, yes I can, because, for one, the Ancients probably didn't use Cyrillic or spoke in liturgical greek/Slavonic, for one.

3.They also don't make woman clergymen, as, evidently, Paul did.

4.It is the whole Theseus ship thing all over again, innit?

Regardless you are assuming that Theseus had a ship to begin with, or that the ship whose plank you replace every year was originally from that ship, and not a spurious one created by some (perhaps sincere) hoaxer wanting to legitimate his or her claim to this or that.

1. Considering the Ancient Church is still a heavily diverse and fairly schismatic group (Among whom are included: Armenian Apostolics, Coptics, and the Church of the East) I'd say your "educated elite" didn't do a very good job.

2. Greek they likely did. Almost everyone spoke Greek in the Eastern Roman Empire during the rise of Christianity, nevermind that some of the largest Christian centers back in that time was Greece. As for Slavonic and Cyrillic, are you blaming the Slavic side of the Church for bringing their own vernacular into the practice of their religion? There's literally nothing wrong with that. It's useless nitpicking. That doesn't mean the practices themselves are much different.

3. That's because Paul didn't, as I understand. Also, being part of the clergy =/= ministering.

4. Which is based on your baseless assertions that the Church has somehow gone completely haywire from it's origins, which you've provided no evidence for outside of your own personal disdain for their traditions.