Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Prima Scriptura]

I hold to the belief that even people in Hell can't be beyond salvation. It'd be theologically inconsistent with the concept of a merciful, forgiving God. Penance can be sought even when damned. Even Satan can (and I believe will) return to the fold.

Someone help me out here I think it was Origen who first posited this? That even the Devil can be redeemed?

I believe God sent him to spend eternity and have him dominion over hell. Also, satan would never repent because he is too full of himself

[Duvniask]

I will never understand people who are ashamed at their own sexuality.

That's cool, yo. No one asked tho.

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

And then you're affirmed in your shame by someone else, who also believes in this nuttery and even takes it a step further. It's really not that different from incel communities that churn and perpetuate their own suffering

Your dismissiveness is the cherry on top, as any real help for you would involve leaving the circlejerk.

[Australian rePublic]

Temporal punishment doesn’t entice man to repent of his sins and turns to Christ. “I’m going to be Heaven in the end, so why bother”

And? This assumes the primary purpose of hell is to scare one into following Christ. It's not.

Well, it has been used as such in the past. Probably one of the reasons why the interpretation of literal hell fire exists. As much as I am a Christian, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Christianity has never had widespread corruption/abuses of power in the past. It certainly has, and fear of hell is a great way to force people to obey their church leaders who have abused their power. Some people still use fear of hell to scare people into obeying Christ. Whether it's for abuse of power, or whether it's because they genuinely want to bring people to Jesus, fear of hell is an effective strategy. I think that if Jesus were alive today, a lot of heads would (metaphorically) roll in a lot of churches, starting with the true scams such as Televagalists and moving onto to the bad actors in the legitimate denominations. As much as it's important to weed out heresy and other such things from the church, it's more important to weed out the corrupt and those who wish to abuse their power. I think Jesus would be more concerned with the later rather than heresy (and there are people who interpret "Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" to mean using God's name to commit evil). Hell was probably at some point used to scare people into fearing Christ, so that the church could advance their own power, however, like all scam beliefs, given enough time, no matter how big or obvious of a scam they are, they eventually become legitimate beliefs. The problem with weeding out bad actors, however, is that:
1. Bad actors tend to have a lot of influence, which is why they act that way in the first place
2. It's hard to determine who a bad actor is. No matter how corrupt a person's belief may seem, you genuinely don't know whether or not they legitimately believe it. Case in point, there could very well be Televangelists who legitimately believe in the Prosperity Gospel

[The Archregimancy]

I hold to the belief that even people in Hell can't be beyond salvation. It'd be theologically inconsistent with the concept of a merciful, forgiving God. Penance can be sought even when damned. Even Satan can (and I believe will) return to the fold.

Someone help me out here I think it was Origen who first posited this? That even the Devil can be redeemed?

You're conflating two separate theological points here - though given the extent to which they've become muddied, this is understandable.

Apocatastasis is term usually used to describe the theological position that everyone, including Satan, can be saved. Sordhau's brief summary is an accurate enough reflection of the reasoning behind the position, though note that there are degrees of universal salvation; there's a significant difference between arguing that everyone can be saved and everyone will be saved.

Origen is usually strongly associated with apocatstasis, but in fact his beliefs on the issue are somewhat unclear, not least because the term didn't take on its narrowly defined current sense until some centuries after Origen's death. Some of Origen's writings can certainly be used to support a doctrine of universal salvation, but the specific range and applicability of his arguments on the topic are often contested.

And as always, it's always worth stressing in these contexts that Origen remains the most universally admired early Christian theologian to have been formally anathematised by an Ecumenical Council recognised by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

[Tarsonis]

And? This assumes the primary purpose of hell is to scare one into following Christ. It's not.

Well, it has been used as such in the past. Probably one of the reasons why the interpretation of literal hell fire exists. As much as I am a Christian, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Christianity has never had widespread corruption/abuses of power in the past. It certainly has, and fear of hell is a great way to force people to obey their church leaders who have abused their power. Some people still use fear of hell to scare people into obeying Christ. Whether it's for abuse of power, or whether it's because they genuinely want to bring people to Jesus, fear of hell is an effective strategy. I think that if Jesus were alive today, a lot of heads would (metaphorically) roll in a lot of churches, starting with the true scams such as Televagalists and moving onto to the bad actors in the legitimate denominations. As much as it's important to weed out heresy and other such things from the church, it's more important to weed out the corrupt and those who wish to abuse their power. I think Jesus would be more concerned with the later rather than heresy (and there are people who interpret "Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" to mean using God's name to commit evil). Hell was probably at some point used to scare people into fearing Christ, so that the church could advance their own power, however, like all scam beliefs, given enough time, no matter how big or obvious of a scam they are, they eventually become legitimate beliefs. The problem with weeding out bad actors, however, is that:
1. Bad actors tend to have a lot of influence, which is why they act that way in the first place
2. It's hard to determine who a bad actor is. No matter how corrupt a person's belief may seem, you genuinely don't know whether or not they legitimately believe it. Case in point, there could very well be Televangelists who legitimately believe in the Prosperity Gospel

Again, you miss the point. The Church saying "BEWARE OF HELL" is not the same as saying "God created hell for the purpose of making Christians afraid." One is a legitimate warning from assessing the facts, the other is a statement with broad theological implications.

[Tarsonis]

That's cool, yo. No one asked tho.

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

And then you're affirmed in your shame by someone else, who also believes in this nuttery and even takes it a step further. It's really not that different from incel communities that churn and perpetuate their own suffering

Your dismissiveness is the cherry on top, as any real help for you would involve leaving the circlejerk.

10000+ years of human civilizations possessing conflicting but emphatic sexual ethics vs Duvniask stroking their own ego in 2022, who wins?

[Australian rePublic]

Well, it has been used as such in the past. Probably one of the reasons why the interpretation of literal hell fire exists. As much as I am a Christian, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Christianity has never had widespread corruption/abuses of power in the past. It certainly has, and fear of hell is a great way to force people to obey their church leaders who have abused their power. Some people still use fear of hell to scare people into obeying Christ. Whether it's for abuse of power, or whether it's because they genuinely want to bring people to Jesus, fear of hell is an effective strategy. I think that if Jesus were alive today, a lot of heads would (metaphorically) roll in a lot of churches, starting with the true scams such as Televagalists and moving onto to the bad actors in the legitimate denominations. As much as it's important to weed out heresy and other such things from the church, it's more important to weed out the corrupt and those who wish to abuse their power. I think Jesus would be more concerned with the later rather than heresy (and there are people who interpret "Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" to mean using God's name to commit evil). Hell was probably at some point used to scare people into fearing Christ, so that the church could advance their own power, however, like all scam beliefs, given enough time, no matter how big or obvious of a scam they are, they eventually become legitimate beliefs. The problem with weeding out bad actors, however, is that:
1. Bad actors tend to have a lot of influence, which is why they act that way in the first place
2. It's hard to determine who a bad actor is. No matter how corrupt a person's belief may seem, you genuinely don't know whether or not they legitimately believe it. Case in point, there could very well be Televangelists who legitimately believe in the Prosperity Gospel

Again, you miss the point. The Church saying "BEWARE OF HELL" is not the same as saying "God created hell for the purpose of making Christians afraid." One is a legitimate warning from assessing the facts, the other is a statement with broad theological implications.

I misunderstood. Carry on

[Europa Undivided]

That's cool, yo. No one asked tho.

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

And then you're affirmed in your shame by someone else, who also believes in this nuttery and even takes it a step further. It's really not that different from incel communities that churn and perpetuate their own suffering

Your dismissiveness is the cherry on top, as any real help for you would involve leaving the circlejerk.

Absolutely hilarious

[Duvniask]

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

And then you're affirmed in your shame by someone else, who also believes in this nuttery and even takes it a step further. It's really not that different from incel communities that churn and perpetuate their own suffering

Your dismissiveness is the cherry on top, as any real help for you would involve leaving the circlejerk.

10000+ years of human civilizations possessing conflicting but emphatic sexual ethics vs Duvniask stroking their own ego in 2022, who wins?

Don't flatter yourself with this bile. Human civilizations have long engaged in wartime rape, marital rape and other harmful behavior, all while proclaiming the virtues of chasteness. Appealing to this long history is stupid, as newer and more open approaches to sex clearly don't do as much harm as the old ways.

I for one don't like when people needlessly subject themselves to this mindset, and in so doing, not just depreciating themselves over something perfectly natural and harmless, but also inferably shitting on the rest of us, too.

[Duvniask]

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

And then you're affirmed in your shame by someone else, who also believes in this nuttery and even takes it a step further. It's really not that different from incel communities that churn and perpetuate their own suffering

Your dismissiveness is the cherry on top, as any real help for you would involve leaving the circlejerk.

Absolutely hilarious

Do you have something to add, or?

[Tarsonis]

10000+ years of human civilizations possessing conflicting but emphatic sexual ethics vs Duvniask stroking their own ego in 2022, who wins?

Don't flatter yourself with this bile. Human civilizations have long engaged in wartime rape, marital rape and other harmful behavior, all while proclaiming the virtues of chasteness. Appealing to this long history is stupid, as newer and more open approaches to sex clearly don't do as much harm as the old ways.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point. Sexual ethics, for good or for bad, have been a hallmark of every culture on earth. Ethics of any stripe inherently brings a shame/pride dichomatic relationship to one's perception in their ability to act in accordance with ethic to which they subscribe. Waxing poetic about incredulity over it, only demonstrates the vacuousness of one's understanding of the ethical paradigm, and is purely the realm of one blowing smoke up their own ass on an ill conceived ego trip, rather than someone with anything worthwhile to contribute to the subject.

I for one don't like when people needlessly subject themselves to this mindset, and in so doing, not just depreciating themselves over something perfectly natural and harmless, but also inferably shitting on the rest of us, too.

That's okay, you're doing enough shitting for the both of us. I've seen plenty of NSG summers, but so far this year has certainly been the laziest. But thanks for confirming that this really all about how it makes you feel, rather than an actual concern on Sordhau's wellbeing.

Your position here can basically be summed up as "what you think you're better than me?"

[Europa Undivided]

Absolutely hilarious

Do you have something to add, or?

I only go to NSG to sow the seeds of chaos.

Besides Tarsonis already has all the talking points covered so I think I won't have to parrot what they said

[Sordhau]

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

I'm not broadcasting my misery, I'm broadcasting my triumph over my misery. I assure you that I don't enjoy watching porn and masturbating every day since I was 12. I have found the experience to be overrated, a waste of time, and not a viable solution for long-term happiness.

And then you're affirmed in your shame by someone else, who also believes in this nuttery and even takes it a step further. It's really not that different from incel communities that churn and perpetuate their own suffering

I'm sorry that you believe my opposition to quick-fix feels good brain chemicals is "nuttery". Sorry for you, that is - not me.

Your dismissiveness is the cherry on top, as any real help for you would involve leaving the circlejerk.

I'm already getting the help I need from myself. Your problem is your inability to understand that what you think is the solution is actually the problem itself, hence my dismissiveness.

[Sutalia]

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

I'm not broadcasting my misery, I'm broadcasting my triumph over my misery. I assure you that I don't enjoy watching porn and masturbating every day since I was 12. I have found the experience to be overrated, a waste of time, and not a viable solution for long-term happiness.

I applaud your efforts. Quitting is difficult enough but it's very strenuous when the habit started so early.

[Lower Nubia]

A wife. A girlfriend would just transfer the sin from masturbation to fornication.

I’d also be cautious that simply having a wife is an easy fix for masturbation and pornography, it’s absolutely normal for masturbation to still accompany married life which makes it a constant issue to deal with if it’s an issue now.

Tbh I don't believe it should be considered fornication to have sex with someone you're dating. Dating today isn't really the same as the courting of old. In many respects the barriers between having an SO and a spouse have been blurred to the point that functionally speaking the only real differences are ceremonial. Marriage doesn't carry the economic or political connotations it had in the Apostolic Era. At least not within the confines of Christendom.

And I'm aware that having a wife/girlfriend doesn't automatically mean an end to masturbation. I just think it'd be easier to avoid when I could just have sex instead.

Sure, they're more blurred, that doesn't replace the sacrament of marriage though.

I just think it'd be easier to avoid when I could just have sex instead.

That's not really how it works.

[Raskana]

Can you all pray for my friend Father Gideon, he is still sick.

Thanks.

[Lower Nubia]

Can you all pray for my friend Father Gideon, he is still sick.

Thanks.

Will do.

[Raskana]

Can you all pray for my friend Father Gideon, he is still sick.

Thanks.

Will do.

Thank you.

[Sordhau]

Tbh I don't believe it should be considered fornication to have sex with someone you're dating. Dating today isn't really the same as the courting of old. In many respects the barriers between having an SO and a spouse have been blurred to the point that functionally speaking the only real differences are ceremonial. Marriage doesn't carry the economic or political connotations it had in the Apostolic Era. At least not within the confines of Christendom.

And I'm aware that having a wife/girlfriend doesn't automatically mean an end to masturbation. I just think it'd be easier to avoid when I could just have sex instead.

Sure, they're more blurred, that doesn't replace the sacrament of marriage though.

I just think it'd be easier to avoid when I could just have sex instead.

That's not really how it works.

Marriage is still a sacrament of course. I'm not disputing that. But the nature of personal relationships needs serious reevaluation as we're still running off of concepts that were outdated by the Middle Ages.

[Duvniask]

Don't flatter yourself with this bile. Human civilizations have long engaged in wartime rape, marital rape and other harmful behavior, all while proclaiming the virtues of chasteness. Appealing to this long history is stupid, as newer and more open approaches to sex clearly don't do as much harm as the old ways.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point. Sexual ethics, for good or for bad, have been a hallmark of every culture on earth. Ethics of any stripe inherently brings a shame/pride dichomatic relationship to one's perception in their ability to act in accordance with ethic to which they subscribe.

You're telling me about the existence of ethics and its connection to shame when that has nothing to do with the content of those ethics.

Burn away these irrelevancies. What matters is the fact that needless shame occurs, not that it occurs at all.

Waxing poetic about incredulity over it, only demonstrates the vacuousness of one's understanding of the ethical paradigm, and is purely the realm of one blowing smoke up their own ass on an ill conceived ego trip, rather than someone with anything worthwhile to contribute to the subject.

Criticizing your ways as harmful is not an "ego trip" - rather I think this is a term you're throwing out there in frustration.

I for one don't like when people needlessly subject themselves to this mindset, and in so doing, not just depreciating themselves over something perfectly natural and harmless, but also inferably shitting on the rest of us, too.

That's okay, you're doing enough shitting for the both of us. I've seen plenty of NSG summers, but so far this year has certainly been the laziest.

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

But thanks for confirming that this really all about how it makes you feel, rather than an actual concern on Sordhau's wellbeing.

Nothing has been "confirmed". Christ, you argue like new haven america.

Perhaps re-read the quoted segment - it is possible to not read it in the most uncharitable way possible and instead derive from it that I am bothered both by people's detriment and the fact that they derive from this some sort of unearned sense of righteousness.

Your position here can basically be summed up as "what you think you're better than me?"

My position can be summed up as: your ways are harmful, self-defeating, out of touch, they reveal gross self-hatred along with depreciation of the natural (and harmless) urges of the species as a whole.

And yes: you are not better than me.

[Duvniask]

You're broadcasting your own misery into the aether that is the the Internet. Self-inflicted misery, I might add, thinking it's "pathetic" that you masturbate or that you watched porn.

I'm not broadcasting my misery, I'm broadcasting my triumph over my misery. I assure you that I don't enjoy watching porn and masturbating every day since I was 12. I have found the experience to be overrated, a waste of time, and not a viable solution for long-term happiness.

And then you're affirmed in your shame by someone else, who also believes in this nuttery and even takes it a step further. It's really not that different from incel communities that churn and perpetuate their own suffering

I'm sorry that you believe my opposition to quick-fix feels good brain chemicals is "nuttery". Sorry for you, that is - not me.

Your dismissiveness is the cherry on top, as any real help for you would involve leaving the circlejerk.

I'm already getting the help I need from myself. Your problem is your inability to understand that what you think is the solution is actually the problem itself, hence my dismissiveness.

You're broadcasting your "triumph over your own misery" in kind of the same way a gay person celebrates the completion of their conversion therapy.

And come on, have you ever really considered masturbation a "viable solution to long-term happiness"? I mean that would be incredibly naive. This, too, goes with the fact that you refer to it as "quick-fix feels good chemicals" - it's a natural urge, the same way eating tasty food is. It's nothing more than that and you should not ascribe anything more to it. One view is overly aggrandizing, the other strangely dismissive. Accept it for what it is: something that is just a harmless feel-good urge when practiced with temperance.

If your real problem is that you have been addicted to it, then the solution is not to deny that there should be any urge at all, but to engage in moderation.

[Duvniask]

Do you have something to add, or?

I only go to NSG to sow the seeds of chaos.

Besides Tarsonis already has all the talking points covered so I think I won't have to parrot what they said

Twitter mindset.

[Tarsonis]

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point. Sexual ethics, for good or for bad, have been a hallmark of every culture on earth. Ethics of any stripe inherently brings a shame/pride dichomatic relationship to one's perception in their ability to act in accordance with ethic to which they subscribe.

You're telling me about the existence of ethics and its connection to shame when that has nothing to do with the content of those ethics.

Burn away these irrelevancies. What matters is the fact that needless shame occurs, not that it occurs at all.

You not agreeing with the moral paradigm doesn't make it unnecessary. Yeah the self flagelations shouldn't be encouraged, but shame in failing to live up to one's moral code is what drives people to try and do better.

Waxing poetic about incredulity over it, only demonstrates the vacuousness of one's understanding of the ethical paradigm, and is purely the realm of one blowing smoke up their own ass on an ill conceived ego trip, rather than someone with anything worthwhile to contribute to the subject.

Criticizing your ways as harmful is not an "ego trip" - rather I think this is a term you're throwing out there in frustration.

No I'm pointing out you know fuck all about the subject , so your barbs here amount to a quixotic attempt to deal damage rather than lob any legitimate criticism. As I said, an ego trip.

That's okay, you're doing enough shitting for the both of us. I've seen plenty of NSG summers, but so far this year has certainly been the laziest.

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Admirable of you to admit it.

But thanks for confirming that this really all about how it makes you feel, rather than an actual concern on Sordhau's wellbeing.

Nothing has been "confirmed". Christ, you argue like new haven america.

Nah I don't run to mods at the drop of a hat. Careful though, I'm sure there's already a report filed.

Perhaps re-read the quoted segment - it is possible to not read it in the most uncharitable way possible and instead derive from it that I am bothered both by people's detriment and the fact that they derive from this some sort of unearned sense of righteousness.

Right, which is wholly motivated by projection of your own inadequacy. You came here, Sordhau didn't come to you. Jenny was sharing something with the group, not flaunting it to mock you. As I said, you've trussed it up in nice rhetoric, but your post is essentially you getting irrationally irate and challenging someone because "what you think you're better than me?" Toxic masculinity at it's finest.

Your position here can basically be summed up as "what you think you're better than me?"

My position can be summed up as: your ways are harmful, self-defeating, out of touch, they reveal gross self-hatred along with depreciation of the natural (and harmless) urges of the species as a whole.

And this is just lazy. 1. You don't actually know what we teach regarding sexuality. 2. Naturalism isn't a logically sound argument. You haven't leveled anything that can remotely be considered legitimate criticism of Christian doctrine, you've just gone after Jenny to try to bully her off her positions.

And yes: you are not better than me.

Nobody said I was, once again projecting your insecurities.

[Prima Scriptura]

I'm not broadcasting my misery, I'm broadcasting my triumph over my misery. I assure you that I don't enjoy watching porn and masturbating every day since I was 12. I have found the experience to be overrated, a waste of time, and not a viable solution for long-term happiness.



I'm sorry that you believe my opposition to quick-fix feels good brain chemicals is "nuttery". Sorry for you, that is - not me.



I'm already getting the help I need from myself. Your problem is your inability to understand that what you think is the solution is actually the problem itself, hence my dismissiveness.

You're broadcasting your "triumph over your own misery" in kind of the same way a gay person celebrates the completion of their conversion therapy.

And come on, have you ever really considered masturbation a "viable solution to long-term happiness"? I mean that would be incredibly naive. This, too, goes with the fact that you refer to it as "quick-fix feels good chemicals" - it's a natural urge, the same way eating tasty food is. It's nothing more than that and you should not ascribe anything more to it. One view is overly aggrandizing, the other strangely dismissive. Accept it for what it is: something that is just a harmless feel-good urge when practiced with temperance.

If your real problem is that you have been addicted to it, then the solution is not to deny that there should be any urge at all, but to engage in moderation.

This is type of shit makes me never want to embrace a gay identity, and it only reinforces my commitment to celibacy. I mean, if it’s your intent to make people “unashamed of their sexuality”, you really suck at it.

[Sordhau]

I'm not broadcasting my misery, I'm broadcasting my triumph over my misery. I assure you that I don't enjoy watching porn and masturbating every day since I was 12. I have found the experience to be overrated, a waste of time, and not a viable solution for long-term happiness.



I'm sorry that you believe my opposition to quick-fix feels good brain chemicals is "nuttery". Sorry for you, that is - not me.



I'm already getting the help I need from myself. Your problem is your inability to understand that what you think is the solution is actually the problem itself, hence my dismissiveness.

You're broadcasting your "triumph over your own misery" in kind of the same way a gay person celebrates the completion of their conversion therapy.

And come on, have you ever really considered masturbation a "viable solution to long-term happiness"? I mean that would be incredibly naive. This, too, goes with the fact that you refer to it as "quick-fix feels good chemicals" - it's a natural urge, the same way eating tasty food is. It's nothing more than that and you should not ascribe anything more to it. One view is overly aggrandizing, the other strangely dismissive. Accept it for what it is: something that is just a harmless feel-good urge when practiced with temperance.

If your real problem is that you have been addicted to it, then the solution is not to deny that there should be any urge at all, but to engage in moderation.

"It's natural" is not, has never been, and will never be a good argument for anything.