What the fuck is a chick tract?

>>33227700
oh boy

>>33227700
http://chick.com

>>33227700
Christian propaganda comics.

>>33227700

Chick tract is a nightmarish comic about how an omnipotent bearded psychopath will torture you forever for the slightest infraction of his arbitrary and nonsensical rules. It's the sort of thing that will traumatize a child like nothing else.

>>33227766

I think my paranoid schitzophrenia is largely due to the religious literature I read when I was very young, among them Chick comics.

Five star post

>>33227827

Oops, that was directed at you, >>33227766

>>33227766

Unless you're an adult.

Then they're just hilarious.

Especially if you're one of those groups that Chick hates with a bloody-minded passion.

Chick-ists fucking creep me out. I can't tell if they are all pedophiles or just have idiotic ideals.

>>33227766
Chick tract sounds like some sort of female genitalia surgery. Why would they name it that?

>>33227700
>4 sets of dubs

>>33227895

To make it more horrifying, obv.

>>33227895

Because the name of the guy who writes them is Jack Chick.

His D&D comic is easily the best, most accurate thing ever written

>>33227849
I still want to see Jack meet and harangue the pope. He honestly believes the pope is scared of him and wants him dead. To see the pope ask him who he is would probably make Jack's head explode Scanners-style.

Has anyone been here long enough to remember raiding the Chick people back in 05 or 06?

>>33227939

That sounds like Jack Shit, why wouldn't he change his name?

Jack Chick does deserve credit for a couple unintended things - he made Hinduism look like the manliest religion that doesn't involve vikings (demons and human sacrifices and skull necklaces everywhere) and he made an utterly hilarious rapture comic that had, among other things, "homeopathic healers" that were buff commandos dressed like Klansmen that would crash into the houses of good Christians with machineguns.

>>33227849
Soooo... every existing human that isn't protestant?

Also God is the biggest asshole ever in that series. Remember the comic with the plane crash?
>Missionaries worked tirelessly for 30 years in Africa feeding poor malnourished people
>Didn't actually push Christianity that much, let the people there find their own way
>God chews them out, throws them in Hell

>Murderer (rapist?) in jail for his horrible crimes
>Converts to a Christian and "gives himself to Jesus" at the last second to save his soul
>Eternal Paradise

Let's not forget the fact that Catholics are going to create 1984's Big Brother fiasco using their magical jew powers.

>>33227975

I don't know. Really, his name is the least abnormal and irritating thing about him.

>>33227962
He'd be waiting for the atheist Muslim Catholic gay evolutionist scientist Jesuit ninja assassins the whole time

>>33227915
>double doubles

>>33227969
Hurm, I got here about '07 or '08, so nah.

One day, I'm going to find an artist who's willing to go in with me on "logic tracts"

Then go to church parking lots on Sunday and put them on people's cars.

>>33228091
>atheist Muslim Catholic gay evolutionist scientist Jesuit ninja assassins

I was about to point out the obvious that no one person can be all those things, but dammit, in Chick's mind they all are.

>>33228091
Catholic is redundant. According to Jack, they made Muslims, Communists, Nazis, influence homosexuality, stop Jews from converting to Christianity, the Orthodox are Catholic despite the schism, made Freemasons, donate funds to advancing atheism, and have a super computer with the name of every Protestant in the world on it in preparation for pogroms.

>>33228272
Didn't people like him used to blame Jews for everything?

>>33228272
I think a Catholic touched Jack when he was young, there's no other explanation.

Though, I wonder who actually hands out his more extreme ones? The Chick Tracts I've actually seen (maybe three in my whole life) are all his absolute most tame ones, which are still kind of creepy but for Chick they're mostly devoid of racism and insanity. I've never seen people handing out the crazy KKK Nazi Catholic Jew supervillian ones.

>>33228272
But if we put it on a scale Orthodoxy is way worse than catholicism, they are at least progressing their organization to fit modern values albeit ever so slowly.

>>33228356

I'm sure there's some crazy unkempt homeless guys somewhere who believe it and try to hand them out to people.

>>33228356
I've seen them posted here periodically, but I suppose his fans at least have the good sense to realize you're not winning converts by offending everyone.

The best Chick tract.

My favorite thing about these tracts is the speed with which people convert (bonus points if because of a Chick tract). Religious conversion isn't a deeply personal matter of introspection or study or argument. Never asking serious questions about how and why one believes something.
It's just apparently no one has heard of Jesus. It makes me think he doesn't think much of the intelligence of his fellow evangelicals.

>>33228723
Apologetics is much too difficult for Jack

>>33228723
That drives me crazy.
>Guy that grew up in middle class US
>"Have you ever heard of jesus?"
>GOOD GOLLY GOSH NO MISTER

Also I fucking love the "easy readings" Chick Tracts that contain little to no dialogue which are made for black people.

>>33228723

This is why I think the best evangelists are people that converted themselves. Someone that's been brought up in a certain faith their entire life can't really imagine what it's like to NOT believe in it, and has no idea of the kinds of questions or trains of thought that someone outside of their religion would have regarding it.

There's also the fact that different Christian groups treat the process of conversion itself differently. Catholics have a long process that adults undergo that involves education about their teachings, acceptance and initiation into the community, and then finally the sacraments themselves. Protestants just generally go "BAM GRACE HALLELUJAH" and done.

>>33228723
WOLOLO

This whole thread

>>33228916
>implying politics in a chick thread
no.

I don't get why Jesus dying for our sins is such a big deal. He's omnipotent and omniscient. Dying isn't a big deal for him. He came back anyway.

>>33227766

Just for the sake of argument: If you were omnipotent you'd probably go a little insane yourself. I think anyone would.

>>33228916
It takes a special kind of dumbass to get asspained in a Chick tract thread.

>>33228916
There aren't politics in a Chick thread unless you drag them here. Regardless of what people believe, everyone agrees his crazier than a shithouse rat.

>>33229029
I never understood it either. I guess his martyrdom inspired people to cast aside sin? I think dying for sins was symbolic, Jesus wasn't some sin sponge or something. The way I see it he died to show the 'sins of man', considering all of the betrayal and hatred that lead to his demise, so people would realize their sins and cast them aside.

But, I'm not much of a religious man.

Anyone up to storytiming some? I would but I'm on a phone. Was thinking a best-of of his utter ignorance of history, theology, science, and maybe finish up with his thinly veiled bigotry.

>>33229149
God, there are so many to choose from.

What about the anti-evolution one? Where the professor is maximum strawman and uses totally false statements to argue for evolution, and then the SUPERCHRISTIAN uses equally false statements to argue against it?

I like that one.

>>33228916

Either you're a really weak troll or you are unaware that this thread isn't just filled with Atheists. It's full of Muslims, Jews, Hindu, Sikh and other Christians united under one common goal: Mock Jack Chick.

>>33229029
It's something about fullfilling a prophecy in the old Testament.
I actually don't remember but it makes sense in context.

>>33229149
Hmm.
History - Any of the Halloween ones tend to include his idiotic concept of druids
Theology - The Death Cookie, The Prophet, etc., any direct attack on any religion includes a mix of bad history and making up shit he thinks those people believe
Science - Any evolution tract, naturally.
Bigotry - Anti-gay tracts? Easy reading and their bent toward black audiences is pretty offensive.

>>33229121
>>33229029

This is a big issue in theology, regarding how Jesus' atonement (his suffering and death on the cross) works, what it accomplished, and to what extent it applies to humanity.

You'll get different answers out of different Christians. But most explanations have certain things in common. There's the idea of a sacrifice (think the origin of the term "scapegoat") that took on everyone's sins and paid for them in a way that no other sacrifice of just a goat or a sheep or even another normal human person could. In that way, God reconciles us to him through His son, and establishing a new covenant that allows for humanity's salvation in a way that Abraham's or Moses' covenants fell short of.

I would like you all to meet Serenity.
This side of the AD/BC time scale's greatest work.

>>33229121
>>33229029

Everything in the bible should be taken symbolically, not literally, which is the problem with Evangelists. Other than Jesus was a real human being at one point in history, son of god or not, and was actually a pretty chill guy.

That's why I actually like Episcopalians. They don't take everything super serious like the Roman Catholic Church or Evangelists. If the Roman Catholic Church is Straight Whiskey, then Episcopalian is Light Beer. The hardest I've ever seen an Episcopalian try to convert someone is "You should come by Church on Sunday sometime to see if its for you, if it is, great, if not, no big."

Jack Chick confirmed for sex tourist.

>>33229191
That one is fantastic.

>>33229029
Its more about the suffering.
Would you like it if you were tortured and executed with one of the most lengthy and painful methods of execution, you wouldn't want that even if you knew you would come back to life.

That shit hurts,

The ressurection bit is important because it shows that God can over come anything, even death.

Can someone post the "WHATS STOPPING ME FROM BEING A GOD" one?

>>33229262
So basically the sinful people had a common enemy in Christ and the newly created Christians were granted something to believe in and fight for?

>>33229368
What the hell was up with that kid? Why can't you be God? You don't even believe one does or can exist, you freaky little goon.

>>33229318

I'm catholic, and we sometimes make fun of Episcopalians/Anglicans as "Diet Catholic". I have no beef with them though, and I agree they're pretty chill about everything.

One of the best priests I've known actually grew up Episcopalian and converted later on. Really laid-back dude, and he used to tell jokes about the time Mormon evangelists came by and he invited them in for coffee and theological debate.

>>33229368
So you can ship the kid with God? No thank you.

>>33229353
> one of the most lengthy and painful methods of execution

Prometheus says hi.

>>33229400

Uh no. Think on a more metaphysical level. Jewish tradition used animal sacrifices to atone for sins and offer them up for forgiveness from God. By sending His only Son to serve as that sacrifice, it basically did the same thing, but for the entirety of humanity.

>>33229430

Oh god, that must be an awesome story.

>>33229423

i don't think anyone in jack chick's tracts acts like a normal human, except maybe that guy who wrote "you're fired," when one of them tried to convert him on his death bed.

Is it just me or does everyone who refuses to convert from whatever to puritan evangelism look like a really offensive old school Jewish caricature?

>>33229501
I said ONE of the most. Not THE most.
You die from asphyxiation
And if you try to slow it down by propping yourself up, they break your legs.
Plus the whole "spikes in your wrists" thing doesnt help.

>>33229430
>catholic
Believing in the teachings of Cathol, and EVERYTHING he stood for.

>>33229582
Izzard?

>>33229546

You're not the only one who's noticed that.

>>33229516

It was. I can't do it justice telling it myself, unfortunately.

>>33229484
Uh, no? What the fuck are you on? Its just a really funny panel because of the look of pure evil determination on the kid's face.

>>33229606
But of course.

>>33229546
Not at all. It gets noticed a lot.

>>33229631
Well I don't like you so I have a pretty biased opinion.

But anyway here you go.

>>33229191

You know what I never understood about that tract? What was a creationist doing in a university-level lesson on evolution anyway?

>>33229753
Getting in the mandatories for another degree.

>>33229318
And this is why other Protestants make fun of Episcopalians for failing to take their faith seriously. It's supposed to be a matter of life and death.

Jack Chick's a loon, but I have more respect for him than for "if it makes you feel good" Christians.

>>33229751
My favorite thing about that comic is how his mom converts when she gets some Evangelical dick in her.

The message seems to be, "Go out, find someone who doesn't believe, and fuck the SHIT out of them."

>>33229826
Anal?

>>33229534
There was one with an interdenominational minister. He talked about Jesus and faith and seems set up to be the protagonist until he mentions interfaith dialogue and ecumenicalism and combating bigotry. He sounded very much like an altruistic Christian who wanted to help.

He went to Hell. Just in case you got the wrong idea that caring about others is good, and that you should do anything but bitch about Jesus to everyone. Thanks Jack.

>>33229753
So he could be confrontational while pretending to be a victim under attack.

>this thread

>>33229753
Community College, I know, but the only 100-level biology course at my local uni was "Biological Anthropology", AKA Evolution: The Class. If you wanted your bio credits, you had to take it.

>>33229845
Those are great. Think you're a good Christian but don't spend every waking moment demanding people convert? Going to Hell!

>>33229751
I dont see why you'd be like that in a thread about Jack Chick, but OK...just seems kinda childish, IMO.

Anyway, anybody up for storytiming one? I kinda want to read one after this thread.

>>33229808

That's like praising the hard smokers while those that quit should be shunned.

Praise and respect of THAT regard I think we can all do without.

>>33229808

A lot of times one's actions are more effective at getting people interested in your faith than just lecturing to them.

>>33229968
I didn't claim to be a mature adult about it, I just said I don't like you. You ruined AT threads for me, I find your presence a general blight, like when MTL shows up and a thread goes to hell.

>>33229121

It was basically god saying "Look, I was a bit of a dick when I killed all your firstborn and whatnot, so let me kill my own son to make it okay". Lutherans, probably other sorts of Christians too, mark it as the point where the psychopathic Old Testament God changed his evil ways. Presumably that's to explain away why they can with a straight face call a mass murderer "loving".

>>33230212
>Lutherans, probably other sorts of Christians too, mark it as the point where the psychopathic Old Testament God changed his evil ways.

You're thinking gnostics or other early splinter groups from Christianity. Lutherans don't believe that.

>>33230212
>calling a mass murder 'loving'

In fairness, how big is god? On what level does he exist? Motherfucker makes planets and creates people. If people are on the top of the totem pole on Earth, God is certainly above that or on an entirely different totem pole. Our petty morals don't apply to him, because he's better, smarter, more of a being than us.

Would you call your friend a mass-murder for owning a bug-zapper? Fuck no. But Sodom and Gomorrah were god's bug-zappers.

We're infinitesimally small to him, he's impossibly large. The miracle isn't the fact that he sent his son to die for us, it's that he decided to address us as thinking beings at all. God talking to us and expecting us to understand what he does would be like you trying to convey your wishes to a dog pissing on your carpet that he stop doing that, with millions of times more separation.

Not that I'm one of those faggots that treats Cthluhu as the answer to everything, but were there a god, he'd certainly be closer to Cthluhu than bearded sky wizard.

>>33230329
Not even all Gnostics believed that. Gnosticism wasn't a single group, but many who held a belief that death freed one. Later heresies and cults were Gnostics (like Cathars, they had suicide cult elements), but had little in common with the ancient Gnostics in belief or practice aside from the basic beliefs that defined Gnostic churches.

http://chick.com/reading/tracts/1066/1066_01.asp

Christian BS aside, I'd love to personally watch every judge in the world be tortured for eternity. I've always been curious to see if they'd actually believe in that justice bullshit as hardcore after about five minutes of demonic cornholing.

>>33230501

Right, but there's still certain aspects of belief that Gnostics had in common, hence why they're classified as "gnostic".

And we really don't know a lot of the specifics of the different groups that comprised them yet either, since most of our information used to come from people who were writing specifically to argue against them and denounce their teachings. It wasn't until recently that we actually found real Gnostic texts that give us some more insight into what they actually believed.

>>33230464
You may mean negative theology. While its been around for a very long time, it wasn't well organized until the medieval rabbi Maimonides wrote of it at length, at which point its acceptance or rejection was a necessary consideration of any Jewish, Christian, or Muslim theologian. For example, Aquinas was a huge fan.
It states, because of the transcendental nature of a being that must exist outside of the universe (given it created it), we can't logically say what it IS, but rather what it is not. One may say 'God is X' best as a simplification, but in an actual examination of such a being, any words we possess can't actually describe it in an accurate way. Rather, we dumb it down, or define it but what it isn't.

>>33230805

Right. Where most branches of Christianity differ on is to what degree we can understand God and His will, and in what ways can that knowledge be attained.

>>33230805
That's sort of what I was on about, but even the concepts of "is" and "is not" probably fail to express anything that would exist on the scale that god would. This is a being that created, not the sun, not a star, but LIGHT ITSELF in an instant, according to the bible. A fundamental construct of reality popped into being at his whim.

How the fuck are we humans supposed to interact meaningfully with anything that exists on that scale? Through bedtime prayers? They'd be less than gnats buzzing in his ears. Even an institution like the Catholic Church would be less than a hangnail to something that can will a reality into being.

To me, it's downright terrifying that some people think that the creator of the universe is their bestest personal friend. It'd be like a single e-coli living in your stomach thinking that it was your favoritest e-coli in the whole world.

I do find it interesting mention of Chick draws out much more learned people. It's like the intelligence of a rebuttal is directly inverse to his ignorance.

A reasonable discussion of religion?

Never thought I'd see the day. Keep it up.

>>33231035

Well to others, it's really comforting to know that something that vast and powerful created humans with a specific place in the world and is invested in whether or not they're happy with their lives.

>>33231035
That would operate on an assumption of 'is' itself. If there is an all-powerful creator, how do you know it doesn't care? If truly omniscient and omnipresent, in so far as we can grasp such concepts, it would know everyone to the finest detail, and presumably be capable of caring. Either option lay with a presumption though; presuming to know the attitude of such a being. It would certainly be alien to our own experience in all likelihood, but if that's utter alienation or rather a matter of sheer scope of its being would be beyond us.

>>33230464
I'm going to say right now, on the eternal record. If there is a god, I have better morals than him, fuck him.
Okay I'm a bit of a kleptomaniac but other than that....

>>33229751
That kid's name? Victor Von Doom

Someone post the entire comic of the god kid.

>>33231191
That gets into complicated philosophy of morality in regards to omniscience.
If we assume in this argument there is a God, one infinitely powerful intelligence, even if it tries to communicate what is 'good' to us, we'd barely grasp an iota of it.
Nevermind the potential of divine punishment. I like the Catholic and Orthodox concept of Hell (less a literal judgment and more a willful choice to be apart), but even without going into eschatology, death.
Death as a punishment to us seems horrifying, but its concept of death would be so utterly alien to us we couldn't understand it (barring our own eventual demise, assuming one can even continue on after physical death).

>be a christian
>get disturbed by chick tracts
Not as disturbing as jesus camp though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSwZJ55g80Q

>>33231427
>Death as a punishment to us seems horrifying, but its concept of death would be so utterly alien to us we couldn't understand it

In my personal belief, this is where Jesus' atonement comes into play. Jesus IS God, so by sharing in the suffering and death that every human must face, it ties us closer to him and opens a way for God's grace to be present that wasn't possible before.

God knows what it's like to be human now.

>>33231089
Chick threads get these. When people of disparate beliefs can agree on one point (Chick is an ignorant douche), it's easier to discuss and argue in a civil fashion.

>>33231176
But there are 7 billion of us. And probably life in worlds beyond ours, if we're playing the odds. Why would he care about an individual one of us in any way that would be meaningful to that being? Why would he care how they would worship him, or that they worshipped him at all?

To me, it's a little like a warlock in D&D calling to the stars for intervention before assuring his comrades that they shouldn't worry, because this Eldritch being of immeasurable power totally likes him. The only difference being, the warlock can actually expect "help" to arrive.

I just can't get comfortable with that idea.

>>33231246
Haven't you been listening? Morals are a human construct. If you're morally "right," god is morally "orange." You can't apply human-based morals to something that can deconstruct and reconstruct reality in an instant.

>>33231427
I would think that god, with his inherent difficulties in communicating with us, and his entirely alien moral standpoint, might have different ideas about what is "right" and "wrong" than we do.

In short, whether you go to heaven or hell is kind of a crapshoot. But, to me, a completely alien, all-encompassing intelligence's idea of what we would "like" is almost as bad as its conception of what we "wouldn't like."

God is scary stuff.

>>33231089

That's because everyone, religious or not, tends to think that Chick is a fucking looney.

>>33231548
and this isn't /v/.

>>33231527
>In short, whether you go to heaven or hell is kind of a crapshoot.

This is actually John Calvin's whole deal. If God wants you to be saved, you're saved, period, nothing you do can change that, and we can't predict who God elects for salvation or not.

This is a very interesting conversation. I'm going to go grab a cup of coffee, keep it up.

>>33231527
Odds here seem a moot point, if we assume it does know everything. It may perceive each individual as part of a mass, but given its infinite nature, even that mass would be irrelevant, if it thinks like we do. But we've established in all likelihood, it does not. Even its conception of what we'd call morality, if we even have a tiny bit of it, isn't so much as scratching the surface of how it'd think and feel. We can't say it'd not care just because of numbers; at its point, it has no need of such concepts. It doesn't mean it would care, but it has no more reason to care as to not care given its scope. To say it shouldn't puts it in as much a box as to say it should; it gives a definite to a being of imperceptible scope.

Here's something I never really understood, growing up in a conservative Christian religion. Assuming that (1) God is an all-knowing, all powerful being, has always existed, will always exist, and knows everything that has happened and that ever will happen, we get the story of how he created everything. For some reason he couldn't predict that one of his angels would turn against him and become Satan. That's my first issue.

My next issue is, well, okay so God decides to create human life. Instead of making them robots or programming them a certain way, he gives them things like free will, curiosity, critical thinking. Okay, fine, great. He then puts a giant tree in front of them and just says DON'T EAT FROM THIS TREE, nothing else. Doesn't say why, doesn't say what will happen. (What exactly was he expecting to happen, here?) He then /punishes/ them and the rest of humankind, forever, for exhibiting a human trait (curiosity) that they would not even have /had/ if it wasnt for him creating them with it in the first place, once they eat the fruit.

How
does
this
make
sense

>>33231716

So what you're saying is that given the fact that God is beyond our comprehension, there's equally as likely a chance that it does care about humanity in some way as it not caring?

Hmm.

>>33231753
>How
>does
>this
>make
>sense
I'm a christian with a terminal illness, I have the answer.
God is a practical jokester.

I remember getting one of these from the weird family down the street as a kid on Halloween one year. It was about a little girl with cancer and she died, it went into great detail as she died and it scared the living shit out of me. My mom was so pissed that they gave it to me.

>>33231753
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist

I've always thought that really God was okay with someone rebelling at one point, to sort of show the angels or other supernatural beings the results of sinning against Him.
Like, it would really just be proof of His goodness or something, showing what naturally happens when a species is left to themselves instead of living with God and his provisions or something sort of like that.

I'm not really sure how to explain my point, but it still wouldn't make that much sense regardless.

>>33231614
I actually find Calvin's idea of predestination hitting pretty close to the mark, too. If there is a god, it would make sense that he would know exactly what you are going to do, because of things like time starting at his whim and having an omnipresent consciousness.

So you're bound to do certain things, and god knows you will. However, he doesn't interfere directly, if at all, even though he certainly could. Why is this fair? Why is this right? To humans, it is not, but god has an entirely different moral compass than we do.

Some of us get saved, and some of us get damned, and god knew what it was going to be all along and didn't do a thing, because why would he? We're so much less than he is, that the saved and the damned merit less attention from him than the air flowing in and our of our lungs. It's a process of the cosmos, one that he doesn't care to be personally involved in.

>>33231782
I'd stake the claim that "caring" is another one of those words that can't apply to god. Humans are, and he IS, and we exist in very different ways.

>>33231753
It's easy if you assume an unreliable narrator. If god has to condescend impossibly low to us in order to convey a message, you can expect that a healthy amount of radio static got lumped in the mix. Take with that the fact that the people who were writing the testaments had an entirely different perspective on life than we do, and certainly than god does, and it ends up being a game of telephone where the first message was the sound of a thrown bologna sandwich hitting an eardrum.

There's a message there, but there's no way in fuck we're going to be able to decode it.

>>33231753

Well I'm not sure I can articulate how to interpret that effectively, so here's the Catholic explanation straight from the Catechism:

>The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Basically, the story is an allegory meant to show that human nature is flawed in some way, and that by embracing the salvation offered by Jesus through his sacrifice, we can overcome that original sin and be better people than what we could be otherwise.

>>33231753
In Catholicism, some Orthodoxy, Coptics, and some Protestants take the story of the Garden as a metaphor for the enlightenment of humanity; the instant humans came to be truly self aware.
And the concept of the War In Heaven wasn't unforeseen in most narratives. Rather, as in the theory of Diaparz, the devil was cognizant of other options, and God is aware of every potential option and outcome. He then allowed the devil to choose, knowing he'd get his ass kicked, but never taking from him free will.
His theory seems to promote an omnidimensional God; not just aware of what we do, but of everything we can and could do, allowing omniscience and free will at once. Interesting theories, but hard to find.
He wrote in the days of Aquinas, gets overshadowed. He also wrote in some archaic Catalan dialect. That's less than helpful.

>>33231971

Diaparz, you say? Never heard of the guy before, I'll have to check out his stuff.

>>33231899
I think I get what you're saying. But honestly it just makes God sound like more of a dick to me, haha.

>>33231903
>it ends up being a game of telephone
I think this sums up the entire Bible, unfortunately.

>>33231948
>>33231971

I had never heard Catholicism's take on it so that's pretty interesting. The people at my church never really had a good answer to my questions other than "just believe" (part of the reason why I just don't bother anymore!) I've always been of the opinion that most of the Bible should be taken metaphorically anyway. So I guess according to them humans have been sinners from their creation?

>>33232082
I probably utterly mangled his name. I think he was from the kingdom of Aragon in Iberia. It's not been since highschool we read him, and it was just some of his work in Latin. Most was vernacular. I tried to write his name like the pronunciation I recall.

>>33232101
>So I guess according to them humans have been sinners from their creation?

Another way of looking at the exile from the Garden of Eden is gaining knowledge of our own mortality and becoming subject to the ravages of time, injury, decay, and disease.

>Genesis 3:19
>"By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat,
>Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken;
>For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return"

Basically, God gave us everything we needed, but in our arrogance, we didn't think it was enough, we wanted to have knowledge of the world, and by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, God basically goes "fine, if that's what you want, you're now wholly a part of it. Including the part where you die."

>>33232101
More since we were self aware enough to be responsible for own actions; when it was no longer instinct or learned response, but driven by reasoned will, one is capable of committing sin.
It's why they also hold the mentally infirmed or deranged aren't, in a spiritual sense, responsible for their actions.

>>33232278
>God basically goes "fine, if that's what you want, you're now wholly a part of it. Including the part where you die."
Then the best course of action would be to somehow become what we originally were and exist forever!

>>33232278

Yea I remember being taught something similar.

Also I wouldn't call that arrogance, just... human nature, honestly. A human nature that, once again, they were created with, by God. So... yea.

>>33232334

Hmmm this sounds a little different than what I am used to hearing, that were were created with free will to begin with.

>>33232334
>It's why they also hold the mentally infirmed or deranged aren't, in a spiritual sense, responsible for their actions.

This is also why the Catholic church has begun to take a more accepting view regarding people who commit suicide, since now we know that it's the result of actual mental disorders and thus the person who kills his or herself can't be held entirely accountable for their actions.

>>33232459
That doesn't imply a lack of freewill. Freewill was already present. It's a matter of self awareness of action. You can't be blamed for doing something you don't grasp at all as wrong anymore than a beast can be. Freewill isn't really an issue at that point. It's a matter of awareness.

>>33232459
>Hmmm this sounds a little different than what I am used to hearing, that were were created with free will to begin with.

We were. It's the difference between following a rule because we simply trust in the person who made it implicitly, and being able to think about that rule in explicit ethical terms. It gave us the ability to question WHY we had to do as God said.

>>33232463
So, basically they're re-writing their beliefs to be more in line with reality?

Any Catholics here really unhappy with theway the church is run at the moment? John Paul was such a step in the right direction despite his numerous flaws; like when he denounced condom usage in Africa, but still it was on the right tract. I don't know I'm a big believer that the Catholic church can be an inherently good force if they choose to be. I think it was Erasmus who wanted to reform the catholic church into a more charitable organization?

I'm a deist but I attend catholic mass, partially because I really like their church architecture (dem 16th century churches like San Andrea hngggg) and partially because the local priest is a total bro and has group discussions after mass; like looking at the bible through a logical lens and actually figuring out what things mean and why they were put in. Anyways the direction that the church is heading right now really annoys meand I wish there was a letter I could send to someone.

...So no storytimes?

I like these conversations but they're usually post stories.

>>33232572

The Church never does anything without literally years of contemplation, argument, and debate. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes not.

Holy fuck I had no idea 4chan was even capable of a theological discussion of this class. Not this early, at least.

You're all taking it a bit too literally, I think. Debating over individual bits and pieces of the bible or like books is pointless, as the message is watered down, amorphous, and impossible to discern. The rebellion of Lucifer could be about photons colliding off a sheet of glass, and refracting contrary to the physical laws created by god, more than it ever would be about an actual entity that exists with an actual name. The abstract clockwork of reality seems to be something that would be the domain of god more than actual armies and actual demons, devils, and angels. You have to take into account that all this stuff, all the information god may have given us, has been filtered down through the years from god through people who thought that too much of any one humor could make you sick.

For all we know, god attempted to give someone an accurate 100% true representation of disease and people wound up believing that pork was unclean. In an abstract sense, it correlates what with pigs in the desert rolling in their shit, but that's a far too specific bit of information for god to have much stake in.

The Bible, Torah, Koran, et al, are all layers upon layers upon layers of abstraction. If you want to live by their word, or your interpretation of their word, that's fine. Just so long as one doesn't believe that they are the literal word of god.

>>33232656
I wish we had them more often. I don't understand a goddamned word of it but it's really interesting.

>>33232572
Not really. Mental infirmity has always given clemency due to teaching on sin. However, only the blatantly mad tended to be forgiven suicide, since most were believed to be done under much better self control than they tend to be. It was never doctrine though, which are technically the things a religion believes. Actual doctrine includes relatively little of what people think it does. Most common beliefs tend not to be doctrine, but individual beliefs that are neither officially supported or denied.

>>33232688
>>33232656

Six years of Catholic schooling and years of Religious Studies classes at the university starts to pay off. I'm just happy to find other people on here that know what they're talking about as well. It's nice to have a scholarly debate about this stuff.