Lutheran thread (also protestantlols)

[Emphyrio]

"Trad" protestants are still protestants, they were never good even when the heretical ideology was conceived.

waaaah waaaah waahhh

[maidenhaver]

"Trad" protestants are still protestants, they were never good even when the heretical ideology was conceived.

Why does religion need to be trad?

[KnightoftheWind]

"Trad" protestants are still protestants, they were never good even when the heretical ideology was conceived.

Why does religion need to be trad?

I care not for the false religions of heathens, but the Christian Truth must be safeguarded from innovators and heretics. That is why Protestantism remains as the sole contributor of Christianity's decline in the west. It has led rise to false notions of the Gospel, and distorts the very life of Christ Himself. Protestant heretics preach whatever they want, with little rhyme or reason because they can justify it with out of context verses from scripture, or twist the verses themselves to suit whatever view they want to present to their gullible followers. Men like Joel Osteen, alone, prove just how harmful protestantism is.

[WhiteShark]

"Trad" protestants are still protestants, they were never good even when the heretical ideology was conceived.

Why does religion need to be trad?

Because religion is supposed to convey an eternal truth, so if it changes with the times, it can't possibly be doing that.

[maidenhaver]

The popes do harm and teach new things. The orthodox are more liberalized than prots. Religions change as they get older.

[WhiteShark]

The orthodox are more liberalized than prots.

This is an utterly absurd claim. Assuming you aren't trolling, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[maidenhaver]

Also, I don't believe religion is for conveying eternal truth, but for remembering the dead and celebrating their good lives. Eternal truth is just some invention of plato's, based on the perverse teachings he received from his butt-lover socrates.

[WhiteShark]

What is a good life? Why is it important to remember the dead?

[maidenhaver]

The orthodox are more liberalized than prots.

This is an utterly absurd claim. Assuming you aren't trolling, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Hate to tell you, but the vast majority of radtrads are internet personas. People don't actually believe in that stuff. Orthodox are pro divorce, pro abortion, pro liberalism just like protestants, catholics, and jews. They've innovated and reformed their masses as well. The only difference is orthodox have more smells and bells.

[WhiteShark]

Hate to tell you, but the vast majority of radtrads are internet personas. People don't actually believe in that stuff. Orthodox are pro divorce, pro abortion, pro liberalism just like protestants, catholics, and jews. They've innovated and reformed their masses as well. The only difference is orthodox have more smells and bells.

False. I am Orthodox and I attend an Orthodox church and I talk to Orthodox people in person routinely. We do, in fact, believe this stuff. Just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean we don't. Don't project your personal lack of faith on the rest of us.

[maidenhaver]

What is a good life? Why is it important to remember the dead?

A good life. You don't have desires or a will to find out for yourself? What do you need to be told for, there's no judgement when you die. No samsara. Its important if the dead was somebody you love, they won't be remembered by anybody else the same way.

[maidenhaver]

Hate to tell you, but the vast majority of radtrads are internet personas. People don't actually believe in that stuff. Orthodox are pro divorce, pro abortion, pro liberalism just like protestants, catholics, and jews. They've innovated and reformed their masses as well. The only difference is orthodox have more smells and bells.

False. I am Orthodox and I attend an Orthodox church and I talk to Orthodox people in person routinely. We do, in fact, believe this stuff. Just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean we don't. Don't project your personal lack of faith on the rest of us.

A lot of protestants believe liberalism bad, too.

[WhiteShark]

What is a good life? Why is it important to remember the dead?

A good life. You don't have desires or a will to find out for yourself? What do you need to be told for, there's no judgement when you die. No samsara. Its important if the dead was somebody you love, they won't be remembered by anybody else the same way.

If there is no truth, there is no measuring stick, and therefore to call a life 'good' is meaningless.

[maidenhaver]

The values I use for good aren't going to be yours.

[WhiteShark]

The values I use for good aren't going to be yours.

You don't have values because you don't believe in truth. You have feelings.

[maidenhaver]

The values I use for good aren't going to be yours.

You don't have values because you don't believe in truth. You have feelings.

Truth can't be abstracted out of or cleansed of feelings. The world doesn't work that way, and nobody thought it did before plato. Value predates christianity, not surprising people will go on valuing after christianity's bit the dust.

[Emphyrio]

even in the most trad churches most people are cucked when you get to know them. found that out during covid, and was surprised by some of them. one guy i thought was super based called me a bigot because i said i don't need a biblical justification to hate homos. when its anything race related theyre really bad. more than once ive gotten them to agree that we're just a few years out from a race war, and five minutes later theyre back to cucking.

and ive realized it cant be any other way. a big church requires employees and if the pastor ever says something racially sensitive the church will get some type of discrimination lawsuit. the top sets the tone. soon theyll cuck on gays and trannies teaching kids sunday school too.

[WhiteShark]

Truth can't be abstracted out of or cleansed of feelings. The world doesn't work that way

Is that... true?

[maidenhaver]

So it seems.

[WhiteShark]

So it seems.

Then you contradict yourself and your point is incoherent. Your claim is either true, that is, true regardless of what anyone thinks of it, or else it is a mere opinion based on your subjective feelings, and if it boils down to nothing more than feelings, then it is entirely irrelevant and powerless to make any claim about reality. You might as well have posted, "I don't like religion." It would have amounted to the same thing.

[maidenhaver]

Not at all, what's true for me isn't true for you. There's no eternity suit you can step into, to perceive the unclouded Truth from outside here and now, and your judgements at later times will be mixed with egoism and personal desires. So there is no essential truth, I've never been outside now, how am I supposed to know Truth, except through my own senses and limited intelligence? So it seems.

[WhiteShark]

Not at all, what's true for me isn't true for you. There's no eternity suit you can step into, to perceive the unclouded Truth from outside here and now, and your judgements at later times will be mixed with egoism and personal desires. So there is no essential truth, I've never been outside now, how am I supposed to know Truth, except through my own senses and limited intelligence? So it seems.

So you are not claiming that there is no such thing as Truth, but rather that it is unknowable. This, too, is self-defeating. If you say it is objectively true that the Truth is unknowable and also say that you know that, then you claim to know something unknowable and contradict yourself. Since the claim that Truth is unknowable is self-defeating we must conclude that at least some aspects of Truth are knowable. Indeed, I think even you would agree that 2+2=4 regardless of anyone's thoughts and feelings on the matter, and this is but one example of Truth that can be known.

[maidenhaver]

2+2=4 doesn't teach me that there's an eternal world of unchanging dogmas we can talk to, to find out how I should live in the world in front of me. I've told you nobody can know the Truth, that it doesn't exist in some eyes unclouded, pure eternal state like math on paper. Truth as such is just an idea that can't be brought into our world, except by believing in it, so no it isn't real in any objective sense. Its completely subjective, like love. Or the way you want to read this post.

[WhiteShark]

2+2=4 doesn't teach me that there's an eternal world of unchanging dogmas we can talk to, to find out how I should live in the world in front of me. I've told you nobody can know the Truth, that it doesn't exist in some eyes unclouded, pure eternal state like math on paper. Truth as such is just an idea that can't be brought into our world, except by believing in it, so no it isn't real in any objective sense. Its completely subjective, like love. Or the way you want to read this post.

And yet, things do not cease to be true if humans aren't aware of them nor do they become true if a human believes strongly in a falsehood. Neither failing to notice the chasm nor disbelieving gravity will save you if you step off a cliff. Truth clearly exists independently of our subjective perspectives. It does not need to be brought into the world because it already exists and is an exact metaphysical map of our world.

Truth describes reality. That which is true is that which corresponds to reality. Why shouldn't there be eternal truths about how we should live? Are we not men, the same as men ever were? Do we not live in the same reality, in the same universe, under the same natural laws, and, in principle, with the same needs and wants? The only thing that has changed is the means available to us. It is plainly obvious that there are worse and better ways to live—you yourself mentioned celebrating a 'good life' earlier—and if some ways of living are better than others, then there is necessarily a best way to live.

Also, don't think I haven't noticed how you muddy the waters by alternating between 'truth doesn't exist' and 'truth can't be known' as it pleases you. As I have shown already, both propositions are self-defeating. Truth necessarily exists and necessarily can be known. Men are fallible, certainly, and often mistake error for the truth, yet some truths are so blatant that there is no room for denial: for example, Cogito, ergo sum.

[maidenhaver]

You're muddying waters by bringing magic talk about a super-world outside our limits of comprehension into this world through a book that alleges somebody rose from the dead. I've been abundantly clear: there is no TRUTH. You have your own perspective on truth that can't be purged of your time and place, or whatever values you've decided on. You haven't shown me eternal Truth, only told me that it must exist, because you can think it does, or because I can't prove it doesn't. Its just a metaphysics game for coping with reality, same as the idea of justice or love. Not that these are bad ideas, they just aren't real. They're agreed on by a clique, in this case your religion, and they help you live. Just don't tell tell me they're Truth, and that I have to chase down the correct interpretation of Truth for the rest of my life, when christians can't even agree what the book that tells them God is real says. Now, as I've said, I don't hate religion, I just don't agree with what's commonly understood by religion. I've already told you that religion is simply burial rites and remembering the dead, what they've meant to us or done, so that they won't be forgotten. Any religion that neglects the dead, leaving the preservation of their memory to some eternal security land, is tantamount to atheism. I have a family cemetary, so I am religious. To the extent you remember the dead, you're also religious. But to "let the dead bury the dead" is to me atheism.

[Klerik]

When was the last time you reviewed your auto policy?

[WhiteShark]

I have logically proved both the existence of truth and its knowability to you and I have showed you multiple examples of it, but you reject it anyway. I repeat:

You might as well have posted, "I don't like religion." It would have amounted to the same thing.

You don't get to wriggle out of that by redefining religion into something of which you approve. You dislike religion as it actually exists and for what it actually teaches.

Its just a metaphysics game for coping with reality, same as the idea of justice or love. Not that these are bad ideas, they just aren't real. They're agreed on by a clique, in this case your religion, and they help you live.

Have you ever considered that they help people to live and society to flourish precisely because they are real? When an engineer designs a bridge, calculating correctly makes the difference between its holding and collapsing. It is for the very reason that mathematics is true that it is useful. Two plus two will always equal four. This is an eternal truth upon which the engineer relies to do his job.

[maidenhaver]

Christianity redefined religion into belief in dogma, yet most of the world, even many christians, can't agree on those dogmas. Religion, the bonds that tie one to his ancestral lands, is still widely practiced, and lays frozen within even the three globohomo religions' rites for the dead. Your homeland is up in the clouds, mine is right here under my feet, so your religion needs a heaven and an evil one, or a lake of fire where you can watch bad guys melt for eternity. As for proving eternity through math? Abstractions don't prove eternity exists. You have an idea, that doesn't mean its an eternal truth. Certainly doesn't mean I bow down and worship it, or accept it into my heart.

[WhiteShark]

Christianity redefined religion into belief in dogma, yet most of the world, even many christians, can't agree on those dogmas. Religion, the bonds that tie one to his ancestral lands, is still widely practiced, and lays frozen within even the three globohomo religions' rites for the dead.

You warp even paganism to suit your materialistic atheism. Are you aware that atheism was a capital crime in the pagan ancient world? They had their dogmas. Religion meant more than burial rites to them.

As for proving eternity through math? Abstractions don't prove eternity exists. You have an idea, that doesn't mean its an eternal truth.

Was there ever a time when two plus two did not equal four? Shall there ever be a time when two plus two does not equal four? Can there ever be? If all humans died, would two plus two cease to equal four?

[maidenhaver]

Atheism wasn't always a capital crime, but it did exclude the lower orders from participating in society and having personhood. What you call paganism wasn't some unchanging universal religion, nor was it always syncretic. In ancient times, only the founding families, that is land holders, had religion and therefor citizenship. In later times, foreigners and lower orders could be welcomed into the religion, but only as the city expanded beyond the boundaries set by the founding fathers. These ancestor cults grew into polytheism. That's why there are so many jupiters, zeuses, aphrodites, etc Am I pagan? Yes, because I'm a redneck, and I have a family cemetary. That's all the religion I need.

As for do two things plus two things always equal four things, when you're just doing numbers in your head, a tiny hollow full of imaginary things that don't exist, then yeah I guess your two plus two is always four. If you want to be any more descriptive than things and numerals, that equation is going to be inadequate and false. Is the color blue ever red? No. Does that mean Truth exists? No. Not once you bring those abstracts into the world that does exist, where two things and two things start occupying different times and places, and perspectives on what are equal and valuble matter. Math never built anything eternal, and if math proves eternal truth, why aren't you a just a pythagorean or platonist? Why attach more things onto it, like a judgement or resurrection?