Support NeoGAF

[Chaplain]

New resources:





















Edited

 

[#Phonepunk#]

The pain of systemic injustice is not ignored or swept over by the Bible. It is a prominent concern in both Old and New Testaments, and a significant focus of the ministry of Jesus.

on the money, let's not forget that Jesus himself was a victim of state violence

 

[Teslerum]

i like "The Witch Test" that has been proposed by some blogging Christians i follow. it seems quite effective at disarming bad faith arguments at the start:

I know this is older and I don't really want to talk about the witch test itself, but honestly if I hear just that first sentence with nothing else after my brain would already stop and I would get angry.

No, you shouldn't. You should absolutley never, never have that goal.

As a christian, yes if it comes to it provide shelter, share what you can, help. That's what you can do. That's what a lot of christians in this world do. For example in refugee camps.

But for fucks sake, never ever, ever, ever should your goal be *let them in*. Because you're definitly doing something there, but it sure as hell isn't an act of mercy.

No, instead gift them the ability, the strength of mind, the grace of god by leading them to him to go back to their home and rebuild it. Spread the word and help their communities. That's the christian way.

No, instead what you're doing is twisting them and others for your own self-satisfaction. You don't care about the people dying during this never ending transit. You don't care about the political and humanitarian realities of their home countries. You don't care that millions get born in hellholes that get exploited by people exactly like you.

Your answer is to just *let them in* grind their souls into nothingness, twist them until they are your perfect puppets. The only compassion you know is the fake one you use to pretend that your soul isn't rotting.

/Rant over but honestly that sentence would make me want to throw a table. A man who doesn't even know what compassion is, should not speak its name. And I know I'm just ranting about a meme, but some things just get me rantin'.

 

[Johnny Silver]

Welcome, bro. I'm also a Catholic and an educated theologian (master's degree) so if you have any (interesting) questions, feel free to @ me.

I'm baptized, and have gone through the first communion, but for many years I didn't give any thoughts about Christianity, I was not invested in it emotionally nor intellectually.

But over the course of these last years I have learned to recognize the inherent value in Christianity. In fact, I have come to recognize it as a logically and theologically extremely complex set of beliefs.

Presently, I would say that for someone to understand its complexity, a very high intelligence is required, and this was evident through out history, as the smartest normally joined the clergy.

The argument from atheists that Christianity is a "set of backwards beliefs to appease simpletons" is a very unfair and inaccurate one.

 

[Chaplain]

The argument from atheists that Christianity is a "set of backwards beliefs to appease simpletons" is a very unfair and inaccurate one.

Especially when they borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview to arrive at many of their own beliefs:

"The belief that liberal values are on “the right side of history” is a confession of faith, asserted against an accumulating body of evidence. Liberal societies are by-products of western monotheism, which underpinned the practice of toleration with the belief that it was mandated by God. Generations of secular thinkers have attempted to detach liberalism from its theistic base. But decoupling the universal claims of liberalism from monotheism is easier said than done. Secular liberals believe history is moving in the direction of their values. Yet without a guiding providence of the sort imagined by monotheists, history has no direction." (Atheist political philosopher John Gray)

"Science cannot underwrite any political project, classical liberal or otherwise, because science cannot dictate human values...As Nietzsche never tired of pointing out, the ideal of equality is an inheritance from Judaism and Christianity." (Atheist political philosopher John Gray)

"To believe in progress is to believe that, by using the new powers given us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals. . . . Darwin showed that humans are like other animals, humanists claim they are not. Humanists insist that by using our knowledge we can control our environment and flourish as never before. In affirming this, they renew one of Christianity’s most dubious promises — that salvation is open to all. The humanist belief in progress is only a secular version of this Christian faith. In the world shown us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress...The idea of humanity taking charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the species; but Darwin’s discovery was that species are only currents in the drift of genes. The idea that humanity can shape its future assumes that it is exempt from this truth." (Atheist political philosopher John Gray)

“The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant...questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion...[Therefore], contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.” (Atheist Ethicist Richard Taylor)

"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.” (Atheist German philosopher Jürgen Habermas)

"This might help: "The Greek world was fundamentally an aristocratic world, a universe organized as a hierarchy in which those most endowed by nature should in principle be “at the top,” while the less endowed saw themselves occupying inferior ranks. And we should not forget that the Greek city-state was founded on slavery. In direct contradiction, Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identically, that men were equal in dignity—an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance." (Atheist philosopher Luc Ferry)

"Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of properties and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them. If there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.” (Atheist philosopher JL Mackie)

"...despite a majority no longer self-identifying as Christians, the way of thinking and the world view of the vast majority of post-Christians – whether they are out-and-out atheists or people who would describe themselves as agnostics – is still shaped by Christianity, or more generally by Western monotheism, than by anything else...Most of the central traditions of atheism have been a continuation of monotheism by other means. Certain beliefs are rejected but the way of thinking that monotheism embodies can still go on in other ways. For example, pretty well all contemporary atheists subscribe to a view of the world in which humankind has some of the functions of the deity that they’ve got rid of, because they imagine that there’s something you could call humanity or humankind that acts as a sort of collective moral agent." (Atheist political philosopher John Gray)

 

[Chaplain]

"Finding credible and meaningful answers to our questions deepens our understanding of the Bible and the person of Jesus, and helps us grow in our Christian faith. I always love the Q&A portion of talks and trips and hope you find something meaningful and useful in this clip!" (Apologist Michael Ramsden)

 

[Chaplain]

New Resources



4 lessons from Carl F. H. Henry’s “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism”

More than half a century has passed since the publication of Carl F. H. Henry’s prophetic volume, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. In only 89 pages, Henry delivered a word that shocked and challenged Christians in the post-war era. Having lived through the brutal and horrific realities of the second world war, including the Jewish Holocaust and the deployment of atomic weapons, Americans in the middle of the 20th century were facing a difficult future. And Henry knew the moment demanded a serious response from the church, one that applied the depths of the Christian message to the heart of society’s problems.

If Silence Is Violence, Jesus Is A Sinner

Social justice ideology is a religion for people who make gods out of their skin-colours or self-interests. Social justice ideology is a religion with its own orthodoxies and heresies, its own priests and prophets, its own sacred slogans and confessions or catechisms—and particularly, its own version of sin and righteousness. Therefore, after social justice followers experienced a revival a couple of weeks ago—one of the most righteous things a person can do right now, in their mind, is speak out against perceived systemic racism. And consequently, according to their rhetoric, one of the most sinful things a person can do right now is to be silent about perceived systemic racism.

Understanding What is Happening in America, Part II: The Pale Marxist Trojan Horse

"...Kimberlé Crenshaw, a legal scholar who coined the terms Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Intersectionality in the late eighties...applied the hegemonies/Critical Theory model to race, arguing that black people are victims of white hegemony, white supremacy, or what is sometimes called “white privilege.” Are you black? You’re oppressed whether you know it or not. Are you white? You’re an oppressor whether you know it or not. Crenshaw argued that America is guilty of “systemic racism”—sound familiar?—because, she claimed, it is deeply ingrained in every aspect of our society. A civil war, constitutional amendments, affirmative action, and a multitude of government programs designed to help black students, would-be homeowners, and businesses are not enough. Nothing will ever be enough. If a black man or woman fails to succeed in America, it cannot be the result of his or her own choices or limitations; it is always the fault of a racist system. And if you are white, you are part of that racist system and you must be made to pay for your sin." (Scholar Larry Taunton, 8/26/20)

Video: Mohammed Hijab and the Trinity | Dr. Joshua Sijuwade & Dr. Beau Branson | Debate Review

Today we are joined by Dr. Joshua Sijuade a debater at Speakers Corner who, like Dr. Beau, did his PhD in Trinitarian theology. We will briefly discuss his dissertation he did under David Efird, which was also examined by Dr. Richard Swinburne.

Video: How to Walk in a World in Conflict (Ephesians 4:1-3) (8/27/20)



Video: The Great Awokening, Cancel Culture & JK Rowling: David French & Jonathan Pearce (8/28/20)

Is ‘woke politics’ and the progressive left creating a ‘cancel culture’ that prevents freedom of speech? Or is the right as much to blame?

Video: John 3:1-12 (8/27/20)

“If it is true that heredity plays a role in the spiritual dispositions that are imprinted on our souls, Jesus’ declaration that each of us needs to be born again is even more profound. The DNA of generations past marks itself very deeply in us, and it takes a new birth for us to be able to see through new eyes. [Therefore], Jesus did not come into this world to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.” (Ravi Zacharias)

Video: An Interview William Lane Craig | West University Baptist Church

Dr. Craig answers questions about his life, faith, ministry, parenting, debates, and arguments for God's existence in this interview at West Univesity Baptist Church in Houston, Texas.

Video: The Truthfulness and Goodness of the Cross of Christ | Fulfilled Conference

In January of 2020, Dr. Craig participated in the Fulfilled Conference at Grace Evangelical Free Church in La Mirada, California. In this video, he gives a lecture in defense of penal substitution followed by a time of Q&A.

Video: Panel Discussion @ Fulfilled Conference | Grace Evangelical Free Church - La Mirada, CA - 2020



Video: The Joyful Slaves of Christ



Video: What is Critical Theory and should Christians be wary? - A Critical Witness (8/28/20)

We have a conversation around Critical Theory and Marxism and discuss a little bit about why Christians might be wary or at least want to dig deeper into definitions being used. Is oppression being used by critical theorists the same as what Christians mean? Does it make a difference?

Video: Knowing the God Who Knows You - Psalm 139:1-6, 23-24

A person with knowledge can be intimidating. They spew facts and figures and can dizzy us with information and understanding. But rightly seen, a study of God’s comprehensive knowledge can be a source of great comfort to us. In this series, 20/20: Seeing Truth Clearly, we come to grips with the fact that God sees everything most clearly. His knowledge is vast, infinite, comprehensive, specific, and personal. But let’s observe how God’s omniscience can become inspiring rather than intimidating.

 

[Tesseract]

 

[Tesseract]

 

[mcz117chief]

The topic of peace also brings to mind the thought of "world peace". Recently, I heard/read the speech general MacArthur gave when the Japanese surrender. It is an incredible speech and I love it from start to finish, but on the topic of world peace, he says this:

"Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found insofar as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years, It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."

Thoughts?

 

[Tesseract]

The topic of peace also brings to mind the thought of "world peace". Recently, I heard/read the speech general MacArthur gave when the Japanese surrender. It is an incredible speech and I love it from start to finish, but on the topic of world peace, he says this:

"Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found insofar as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years, It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."

Thoughts?

tough one, i'm of the mindset that war is inevitable so long as tribal minds prevail

close acquaintance goes a step further, believes war to be closer to godliness (my opinion is godliness is closer to psychosis)

not sure the cognitive limit to the # of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships can be overcome without some order of chaos and destruction, nature seems to reward this behavior on some levels, better cold wars than heated wherever possible with mass injections of spiritual recrudescence in between

 

[mcz117chief]

tough one, i'm of the mindset that war is inevitable so long as tribal minds prevail

close acquaintance goes a step further, believes war to be closer to godliness (my opinion is godliness is closer to psychosis)

not sure the cognitive limit to the # of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships can be overcome without some order of chaos and destruction, nature seems to reward this behavior on some levels, better cold wars than heated wherever possible with mass injections of spiritual recrudescence in between

Right, but what about what MacArthur says, do you believe that our spiritual growth should match our technological/cultural growth, that we must nurture our spirit to save the flesh? Shouldn't it be possible for people, through the message of Jesus Christ, find ultimate peace and never seek to harm another person? If one person can be peaceful then all people should be able to on some level. If all people took Christ's teachings to heart, there would be no need for violence anymore imo.

 

[Tesseract]

Right, but what about what MacArthur says, do you believe that our spiritual growth should match our technological/cultural growth, that we must nurture our spirit to save the flesh? Shouldn't it be possible for people, through the message of Jesus Christ, find ultimate peace and never seek to harm another person? If one person can be peaceful then all people should be able to on some level. If all people took Christ's teachings to heart, there would be no need for violence anymore imo.

it should or we'll probably lose our better angels to the cosmic horrors of advanced technologies which invariably dehumanize us and destroy any sense of individuality (therefore soul)

macarthur was very wise to say those words

 

[Tesseract]

as for ultimate peace, i'm not sure

i want to believe yes but sin is inherent in the system, noah knew this, jesus understood better than any and had to conquer hell itself to defeat and atone the totality of sins for all time

tend to go back and forth between what i think i know to be true and what scripture says

 

[Tesseract]

this scene comes to mind when considering macarthur's words and ultra violence on earth

people forget that even simple tools like rocks are technology, it's all a firmament to the complexity of nature and her elements

 

[Cycom]

I’ve been spending entirely too much time on the politics forum, so these spoke to me:

 

[Cycom]

Can someone please shed some light on the following:

How does a Catholic who believes in the magisterium of the Church and the primacy of the Pope reconcile his negative thoughts regarding the Pope (how shall I say this with grace: I believe he’s no bueno) and his need for obedience to the Church? Hope this makes sense.

 

[Chaplain]

Can someone please shed some light on the following:

How does a Catholic who believes in the magisterium of the Church and the primacy of the Pope reconcile his negative thoughts regarding the Pope (how shall I say this with grace: I believe he’s no bueno) and his need for obedience to the Church? Hope this makes sense.

Paging theologian mcz117chief .

 

[Bolivar687]

Can someone please shed some light on the following:

How does a Catholic who believes in the magisterium of the Church and the primacy of the Pope reconcile his negative thoughts regarding the Pope (how shall I say this with grace: I believe he’s no bueno) and his need for obedience to the Church? Hope this makes sense.

I really struggled with this during the Amazon Synod and it's part of the reason I first checked out the SSPX, although I must acknowledge it's probably not licit to attend there solely out of this confusion. They put out a press release that they were dedicating one Sunday across all of their entire order in reparation for the idolatry that took place at the Synod. Our chapel chanted the litany of the Saints between masses. It was during the homily at this mass that our pastor said that it is not up for the laity or even the clergy to determine who is the Pope at any given time or how much obedience we are supposed to give to him. If there are any issues with the Francis papacy, that is a determination for the Cardinals and Bishops to collectivley decide. Rather, it is the duty of every Catholic to pray for the Pope, since the salvation of souls is fundamentally the entire purpose of the Catholic Church.

The reality is, there are Popes in history that have done some morally abhorrent things. That didn't change their office or teaching authority. We can even look at our first Pope St. Peter in sacred scripture for all of his flaws. By his own admission, he was a very sinful man (Luke 5:8), our Lord says that he was of little faith (Matthew 14:31), he was disobedient and earthly-thinking (Matthew 16:23), and lied denying his knowledge of the Lord out of his own cowardice (Luke 22:54), and, even in the apostolic age, there was an episode when St. Paul had to rebuke him to his face (Galatians 2).

 

[Cycom]

I really struggled with this during the Amazon Synod and it's part of the reason I first checked out the SSPX, although I must acknowledge it's probably not licit to attend there solely out of this confusion. They put out a press release that they were dedicating one Sunday across all of their entire order in reparation for the idolatry that took place at the Synod. Our chapel chanted the litany of the Saints between masses. It was during the homily at this mass that our pastor said that it is not up for the laity or even the clergy to determine who is the Pope at any given time or how much obedience we are supposed to give to him. If there are any issues with the Francis papacy, that is a determination for the Cardinals and Bishops to collectivley decide. Rather, it is the duty of every Catholic to pray for the Pope, since the salvation of souls is fundamentally the entire purpose of the Catholic Church.

The reality is, there are Popes in history that have done some morally abhorrent things. That didn't change their office or teaching authority. We can even look at our first Pope St. Peter in sacred scripture for all of his flaws. By his own admission, he was a very sinful man (Luke 5:8), our Lord says that he was of little faith (Matthew 14:31), he was disobedient and earthly-thinking (Matthew 16:23), and lied denying his knowledge of the Lord out of his own cowardice (Luke 22:54), and, even in the apostolic age, there was an episode when St. Paul had to rebuke him to his face (Galatians 2).

This was very useful. A sincere thank you.

As an aside, you go to sspx chapels regularly?

 

[Ornlu]

Can someone please shed some light on the following:

How does a Catholic who believes in the magisterium of the Church and the primacy of the Pope reconcile his negative thoughts regarding the Pope (how shall I say this with grace: I believe he’s no bueno) and his need for obedience to the Church? Hope this makes sense.

Not to offend my Catholic brothers and sisters, but in all truth, the Pope is a human being, has all of the flaws the rest of us have, and was never meant to be upheld above all others. The office of the Papacy has been held by some truly abhorrent men at times through the ages; the idea of Papal Infallibility should never have been permitted to take root within the Church.

 

[Chaplain]

New Resources:

Sermon: A Honey Of A To-Do List! - 2 Peter 1:4-8 - Jon Courson (8/30/20)



Interview: Evangelism: Interview with David Robertson (ACL Podcast Episode 4, 8/20/2020)



Sermon: Christ Jesus our Lord (Philippians 2:5-11, 8/29/20)



Interview: Christian [Biblical Scholar and Theologian] Dr. Richard Bauckham "Jesus and the eyewitnesses" (8/28/20)



Interview: Critical Theory, Post-Colonialism, and Missions: Neil Shenvi on Social Justice (8/30/20)



Interview: Christians and the LGBTQ Conversation: A Powerful Story of Redemption (8/27/20)



Lecture/interview: Dr. Sean George: 'I was raised from the dead'. Medical evidence for a miracle? (6/19/19)



Edited

 

[Cycom]

Not to offend my Catholic brothers and sisters, but in all truth, the Pope is a human being, has all of the flaws the rest of us have, and was never meant to be upheld above all others. The office of the Papacy has been held by some truly abhorrent men at times through the ages; the idea of Papal Infallibility should never have been permitted to take root within the Church.

No offense taken. Thanks for your respectful disagreement. I do have to say from your response that you don’t understand the concept of papal infallibility. It’s not a carte blanche for him to shoot from the hip. Infallibility only applies when the pope speaks about issues relating to faith and morals. This is the reason why you’ve never heard (and never will) the office of the papacy promote degeneracies like abortion or the like. Others with more knowledge can feel free and correct me if I’m mistaken.

Secondly, while you’re indeed correct that there have been some awful popes throughout the history of the Church, this is not a valid reason to discredit the papacy. Much in the same way if a Protestant denomination had a pastor that was an evil man, that in itself wouldn’t be grounds for dismissing the tenets of that group.

God bless you.

 

[mcz117chief]

Can someone please shed some light on the following:

How does a Catholic who believes in the magisterium of the Church and the primacy of the Pope reconcile his negative thoughts regarding the Pope (how shall I say this with grace: I believe he’s no bueno) and his need for obedience to the Church? Hope this makes sense.

To quote Rambo the Video Game: "he's a man not a God." Of course he has a special mission passed on to him by Jesus/Peter but after all is said and done, he can pick up a machine gun and mow down a school trip just like any other person. We have to believe that the Holy Spirit guides him on his special mission, so we consider him "above" others, but in reality he is just one bishop who was chosen as Peter's successor by other bishops.
Got to remember, you are called Christian for a reason. The ultimate primacy has Jesus and his voice inside your heart.

 

[Cycom]

To quote Rambo the Video Game: "he's a man not a God." Of course he has a special mission passed on to him by Jesus/Peter but after all is said and done, he can pick up a machine gun and mow down a school trip just like any other person. We have to believe that the Holy Spirit guides him on his special mission, so we consider him "above" others, but in reality he is just one bishop who was chosen as Peter's successor by other bishops.
Got to remember, you are called Christian for a reason. The ultimate primacy has Jesus and his voice inside your heart.

Thanks for this response. Gave me some clarity. ¡Viva Cristo Rey!

 

[Ornlu]

No offense taken. Thanks for your respectful disagreement. I do have to say from your response that you don’t understand the concept of papal infallibility. It’s not a carte blanche for him to shoot from the hip. Infallibility only applies when the pope speaks about issues relating to faith and morals. This is the reason why you’ve never heard (and never will) the office of the papacy promote degeneracies like abortion or the like. Others with more knowledge can feel free and correct me if I’m mistaken.

Secondly, while you’re indeed correct that there have been some awful popes throughout the history of the Church, this is not a valid reason to discredit the papacy. Much in the same way if a Protestant denomination had a pastor that was an evil man, that in itself wouldn’t be grounds for dismissing the tenets of that group.

God bless you.

I hear you, but I think on this we must respectfully disagree. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. Either the Pope is truly just the Bishop of Rome, and at most a 'first among equals' with the leaders of the other cities of the early Church, or he is somehow touched by the Divine directly through the Office itself.

In my (and many others within and without the Catholic Church) eyes, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and, since the Schism (which is partly about this issue) the head of the Catholic Church. He should be the subject of just as much scrutiny as any other person holding office within a church. If he is the head of the Church, then Catholics should be able to ultimately "vote" (directly or via representation) on whom that head is. Otherwise those within the Catholic Church find themselves in the situation commonly found today, where many congregations and members do not agree at all with the Pope, and choose to simply ignore him.

So, in your original question, your belief in the primacy of the Pope, and your lack of enthusiasm/ambivalence about the current Pope were causing you to question yourself. If the Pope is in fact a mortal, as full of flaw and sin as any other leader political or religious, then why should there be any reconciliation of thought needed?

Further, were a Protestant denomination have a leader who was found to be an evil man, and it came to light, he would not lead the denomination for long. He would either find himself removed, or his membership would leave.

 

[Bolivar687]

This was very useful. A sincere thank you.

As an aside, you go to sspx chapels regularly?

I did before the lock down. They kept having masses early on and the local prosecutor threatened to take them and the pastor in his personal capacity to court. I don't believe they've had mass since.

It was definitely my preferred mass center because I had never heard the traditional Latin mass said so reverently, thoughtfully, or carefully before, although this might just be the pastor himself. The people were also the most friendliest and down to earth congregation I've met.

I hear you, but I think on this we must respectfully disagree. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. Either the Pope is truly just the Bishop of Rome, and at most a 'first among equals' with the leaders of the other cities of the early Church, or he is somehow touched by the Divine directly through the Office itself.

In my (and many others within and without the Catholic Church) eyes, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and, since the Schism (which is partly about this issue) the head of the Catholic Church. He should be the subject of just as much scrutiny as any other person holding office within a church. If he is the head of the Church, then Catholics should be able to ultimately "vote" (directly or via representation) on whom that head is. Otherwise those within the Catholic Church find themselves in the situation commonly found today, where many congregations and members do not agree at all with the Pope, and choose to simply ignore him.

So, in your original question, your belief in the primacy of the Pope, and your lack of enthusiasm/ambivalence about the current Pope were causing you to question yourself. If the Pope is in fact a mortal, as full of flaw and sin as any other leader political or religious, then why should there be any reconciliation of thought needed?

Further, were a Protestant denomination have a leader who was found to be an evil man, and it came to light, he would not lead the denomination for long. He would either find himself removed, or his membership would leave.

I think every believing Christian must acknowledge that the papacy is indeed a divinely instituted office. The Gospel of Matthew says that Peter's authority is founded upon his assertion that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, a fact that was revealed to him by the Father and not by Peter's own capacity to reason (Mt 16:16-17). As first among equals, he was the first granted the authority to bind and to loose on matters of doctrine (Id. at 19). At the Council of Jerusalem, there were different opinions within the Church on the salvation of gentiles, and it was Peter who made the final determination (Acts 15), based on his own private revelation (Acts 10:9-16). St. John tells us that the High Priest of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem may have received similar private prophecy in his official capacity (John 11:51). We know from St. Irenaeus that the early Church continued to follow the directions of Peter's successor. St. Augustine tells us that when questions were sent to Rome and the response was received, the matter is finished (Sermon 131:10).

Again, St. Paul tells us that even St. Peter was not perfect as the visible head of the Church. The doctrine of papal infallibility holds that we are not bound by every comment by the Pope on every subject but only when he speaks in his official capacity from the Chair of St. Peter, which is a very rare occasion and has only been used twice in the entire history of the Church, I believe. This may be analogous to our Lord commanding his followers to abide by the teachings of the Pharisees, since they spoke with authority from the Chair of Moses, while also telling us not to follow their personal example (Mt 23:1-2).

 

[Chaplain]

One of the best debates between a Catholic and Protestant ever recorded: Catholic vs Protestant debate on Sola Scriptura - Catholic Apologist Peter D Williams vs Reformed Baptist apologist James White

"The Protestant Reformation brought forth the cry "Sola Scriptura" - that Christianity should be based on the words of scripture alone, not on Roman Catholic church tradition. Peter D Williams of Catholic Voices argues that the reformers were wrong and that the ultimate authority for Christians rests in the three strands of sacred scripture, sacred teaching and sacred tradition. James White of Alpha and Omega ministries argues that the Catholic church has fallen into error, and that Christians should look to scripture alone for their doctrine."

 

[Ornlu]

think every believing Christian must acknowledge that the papacy is indeed a divinely instituted office. The Gospel of Matthew says that Peter's authority is founded upon his assertion that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, a fact that was revealed to him by the Father and not by Peter's own capacity to reason (Mt 16:16-17). As first among equals, he was the first granted the authority to bind and to loose on matters of doctrine (Id. at 19). At the Council of Jerusalem, there were different opinions within the Church on the salvation of gentiles, and it was Peter who made the final determination (Acts 15), based on his own private revelation (Acts 10:9-16). St. John tells us that the High Priest of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem may have received similar private prophecy in his official capacity (John 11:51). We know from St. Irenaeus that the early Church continued to follow the directions of Peter's successor. St. Augustine tells us that when questions were sent to Rome and the response was received, the matter is finished (Sermon 131:10).

Again, St. Paul tells us that even St. Peter was not perfect as the visible head of the Church. The doctrine of papal infallibility holds that we are not bound by every comment by the Pope on every subject but only when he speaks in his official capacity from the Chair of St. Peter, which is a very rare occasion and has only been used twice in the entire history of the Church, I believe. This may be analogous to our Lord commanding his followers to abide by the teachings of the Pharisees, since they spoke with authority from the Chair of Moses, while also telling us not to follow their personal example (Mt 23:1-2).

Jesus proclaimed Peter as his rock. Jesus did not create the office of the Papacy. Jesus did not state that the Bishop of Rome would inherit Peter's status. In fact, in Matthew 18:18, he grants the same power to bind and loose unto all of the disciples. There is no Biblical justification for the office of the Papacy as it has existed throughout history.

 

[Bolivar687]

Jesus proclaimed Peter as his rock. Jesus did not create the office of the Papacy. Jesus did not state that the Bishop of Rome would inherit Peter's status. In fact, in Matthew 18:18, he grants the same power to bind and loose unto all of the disciples. There is no Biblical justification for the office of the Papacy as it has existed throughout history.

The first Christians treated it like a successive office.

 

[Ornlu]

The first Christians treated it like a successive office.

Some of them did, yes. Some of them did not. Early Christians also did not have a Pope, nor did they all agree that the seat should be in Rome, or upon exact specifics of worship, etc.

The office of the Pope, and the importance it holds comes from the city of Rome itself, and the Empire. It's not as if, upon the death of Peter, all of Christendom swore fealty toward Linus as the undisputed head of the faith. Years later it came to be viewed as such. Then the seeds of the Schism were sown, as both the Bishop in Rome and Constantinople vied for power and influence among Christendom. Just as Eastern and Western Rome ended up with separate capitals, so too did they end up with separate spiritual leaders.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

so on the Audio Mullet podcast they keep talking about Chesterton. "have you read your Chesterton?" they always say.

what are they on about? reading about Chesterton, i see he was a lay theologian who wrote a number of books on modern Christianity. apparently he was friends with J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis?

where should i start with him? anybody have any recommendations? is there a work of his that is considered a classic i should look into first?

 

[Bolivar687]

I just follow the GKC daily twitter account:

 

[hard_boiled]

 

[Chaplain]

"In this segment John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and internationally renowned speaker on the interface of science, philosophy, and religion, leads us in a journey through the whole wondrous story of Scripture. Come join us as we stand in awe of the Word of God." (8/31/20)



"Through the ages, people have turned to science, philosophy, religion, and politics to satisfy their curiosity and their cravings for answers. Now, in the twenty-first century, the question of where we are going has become tied to technological advancements and is given a new urgency by the development of artificial intelligence. But what does the often unsolicited and unrestricted incorporation of AI in our lives mean for us? For our individual and corporate privacy? Our political and personal freedom? The security of our jobs? Indeed for the future of our species as a whole? What implications do advances in AI have on our worldviews in general and the God question in particular?" (8/31/20)

 

[Chaplain]

New resources

We’re All Children of the Sixties

Reflect on ideas such as “progressivism,” “postmodernism,” “political correctness,” “identity and tribal politics,” or the “sexual revolution.” Think about socialism’s recent popularity surge or the leftward drift of the Democratic Party and many in the media. It quickly becomes clear that these ideas have little or nothing to do with 1776 and the American Revolution and its views of freedom. These are rooted in ideas that come directly or indirectly from the French Revolution in 1789, the French Enlightenment, and its later heirs, such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Antonio Gramsci, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Saul Alinsky, and Michel Foucault. Hence the significance of the 1960s and its expression of the “revolutionary faith” that has flowed down from the French Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The “seismic sixties”—with their “youthquake” (Christopher Booker), “the making of a counter-culture” (Theodore Roszak), and “the greening of America” (Charles Reich)—was the decade when the radical ideas first broke through into mainstream American thinking and life. Even more importantly, the ’60s were the years when many of the seeds of today’s most radical ideas were sown, only to flower more recently in their most destructive forms, such as the extremes of “transgenderism” and the violence of the “Antifa” movement. (Scholar Os Guinness, 9/2/20)

Video: Os Guinness: "The Roots of the Present Crisis"

"One of the great cultural commentators of our generation, Os Guinness, explains how a 200-year-old disagreement laid the groundwork for huge changes in how we live—and how chaos has grown from that rift."

Video: Why Does God Care Who I Sleep With?

It might be the biggest stumbling block for modern non-believers: The Christian view of sex. Why, as author Sam Alberry asks in his new book, does God care who I sleep with?"

Video: J. Warner Wallace: “The Case for Speaking Unpopular Truths”

It’s hard to say things that are unpopular. In this session, one of the premier apologists of our generation, J. Warner Wallace, shows why (and how) we have to do it—and how the world could change if we do.

Video: Joni E Tada: “The Love of God - How We Know What Love Is”

Our lives are full of doubt, stress, and pain. Where is God? Joni Eareckson Tada has known more pain than most; in 1967, she took a dive that left her a quadriplegic. In this session, she asks the question: what does it mean that God loves me?

Video: Abdu Murray: “How We Can Love Truth in a Post-Truth World”

It’s not enough to just believe the truth. We have to love God, which means we have to love the truth. Abdu Murray shows how we can do that, even in a world where we can’t seem to agree what truth is.

Video: Does consciousness point to God? Philip Goff & Sharon Dirckx (11/2019)

The mystery of mind and consciousness are causing some philosophers to move away from physicalist explanations to theories such as ‘panpsychism’. Philip Goff is a consciousness researcher whose new book ‘Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness’ defends panpsychism. He engages with Christian thinker Sharon Dirckx who has a background in neuroscience. Her new book ‘Am I Just My Brain?’ aims to show why consciousness points towards God.

Video: James Tour & John Lennox: Christianity, Humanity, and A.I.

"In this interview, Dr. James Tour and Dr. John Lennox discuss science and faith while also diving into artificial intelligence (AI). In this deep conversation with two great minds, Dr. Tour and Dr. Lennox converse on Dr. Lennox's latest book "2084", including topics on the Christian perspective on humanity's future, the problems raised by AI, and a naturalist conception of what it means to be human. This is then followed with questions from the audience. "

Audio: Trusting the Bible podcast series

Trusting the Bible is a podcast series by Tyndale House, Cambridge and Bible Society featuring conversations with experts in biblical studies. In this series, we’re exploring the reliability, relevance and reality of the four Gospels.

Video: Choosing between wokery and salvation: Jesus on losing our lives to save our souls (Catholic theologian Gavin Ashenden)

Choosing between wokery and salvation:- Jesus on losing our lives to save our souls. Gavin Ashenden. A reflection for the 22nd Sunday from Matthew 16.

Edited

 

[Darkmakaimura]

I have to admit I was and still am not a big fan of Christianity.

Ethnic-wise I am of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. If I ever converted to monotheism, I would become a practicing Jew and not just because of my heritage.

Anyways I'm sort of going off the topic. I did want to say that I respect and sympathize with Christians and Christianity more than I ever have.

I forgot now what exactly I was going to say, lol, but with everything going on I have a lot more respect and am more open to the Christian faith and just Judeo-Christianity in general.

I've listened to Christians on Biblical prophecy as well and it's just in my opinion, and how I just feel, that there's much more legitimacy in it all.

I also sympathize because I feel Christianity is under attack in America, currently.

Anyways I'm probably going to attract negativity for this but I just felt like sharing what was on my mind about it.

Edit: I would at some point like to own a copy of the Bible - more specifically, the Torah, but I'm an awful Jew and cannot read Hebrew - but I'm not sure I'd be able to comprehend a lot of it.

 

[mcz117chief]

I also sympathize because I feel Christianity is under attack in America, currently.

America is on easy mode. Look at Africa, the Middle East or Asia if you want to see an actual attack on Christianity.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

America is on easy mode. Look at Africa, the Middle East or Asia if you want to see an actual attack on Christianity.

Yeah quite true. I just think here is really escalating.

 

[mcz117chief]

Yeah quite true. I just think here is really escalating.

It still is on a completely different level. Maybe you got an occasional bully or idiot trying to "gotcha" you about some part of the doctrine you or him don't understand but in the regions I mentioned just mentioning or even just people telling about you that you are a Christian will get you killed. Entire Christian communities ritualistically slaughtered, imprisoned, cut up for organs etc. insane stuff is going around the world. I'll gladly take an edgy atheist over Boko Haram any day.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

It still is on a completely different level. Maybe you got an occasional bully or idiot trying to "gotcha" you about some part of the doctrine you or him don't understand but in the regions I mentioned just mentioning or even just people telling about you that you are a Christian will get you killed. Entire Christian communities ritualistically slaughtered, imprisoned, cut up for organs etc. insane stuff is going around the world. I'll gladly take an edgy atheist over Boko Haram any day.

I understand and I don't want to too political in this thread but most of those people "protesting" in the streets here in America would probably want nothing less than full persecution of Christians and Christianity.

If we're not careful and in a very worse case scenario, we could see some real ugliness like what you're describing even in this country.

 

[mcz117chief]

I understand and I don't want to too political in this thread but most of those people "protesting" in the streets here in America would probably want nothing less than full persecution of Christians and Christianity.

If we're not careful and in a very worse case scenario, we could see some real ugliness like what you're describing even in this country.

Sure, that is quite possible. I still believe that there are more good people in America than bad, it is just that the bad people are louder. I got faith in the American people and in the Lord to get us through this.

 

[Cycom]

I have to admit I was and still am not a big fan of Christianity.

Ethnic-wise I am of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. If I ever converted to monotheism, I would become a practicing Jew and not just because of my heritage.

Anyways I'm sort of going off the topic. I did want to say that I respect and sympathize with Christians and Christianity more than I ever have.

I forgot now what exactly I was going to say, lol, but with everything going on I have a lot more respect and am more open to the Christian faith and just Judeo-Christianity in general.

I've listened to Christians on Biblical prophecy as well and it's just in my opinion, and how I just feel, that there's much more legitimacy in it all.

I also sympathize because I feel Christianity is under attack in America, currently.

Anyways I'm probably going to attract negativity for this but I just felt like sharing what was on my mind about it.

Edit: I would at some point like to own a copy of the Bible - more specifically, the Torah, but I'm an awful Jew and cannot read Hebrew - but I'm not sure I'd be able to comprehend a lot of it.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts respectfully.

Btw, you’d need to be practicing in order to be an awful Jew. Take it from me, I’m an awful Christian.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

There's actually a guest on tonight discussing similar issues right now on Coast to Coast AM. I only caught about the last five minutes of first hour but he's coming back on for another after the commercial break.

Cycom and mcz117chief or anyone else interested I post link to the radio station for the live stream.

Edit: the show repeats again at 2am Pacific time if you missed it and are up and have nothing better to do.

KFI AM 640 - The News. What It Means, Why It Matters.

More stimulating talk and news radio in Los Angeles and Orange County. Listen to Amy King, Bill Handel, Gary and Shannon, John Kobylt, Tim Conway Jr, Mo' Kelly, Coast to Coast AM, KFI News and more on KFI AM 640!

kfiam640.iheart.com

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Ordered a copy of the apocryphal Books of Enoch which I’ve not read. Should be interesting!

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Edit: I would at some point like to own a copy of the Bible - more specifically, the Torah, but I'm an awful Jew and cannot read Hebrew - but I'm not sure I'd be able to comprehend a lot of it.

I recommend this book. No need to read Hebrew right away. There is a lot of commentary on the Hebrew Bible that is in plain English. You may be surprised at how much sense it makes.

Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic …

Long regarded as the classic introduction to the teachi…

www.goodreads.com

My position on religion is: everyone should feel free to believe what they want, and looking into the rich traditions of your culture is always a good thing. Also reading is always a good thing, learning about the world and how people have lived in it.

 

[mcz117chief]

Ordered a copy of the apocryphal Books of Enoch which I’ve not read. Should be interesting!

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I wrote my thesis on demonology and the book of Henoch was one of my primary sources. It is some seriously good stuff.

 

[Cycom]

I wrote my thesis on demonology and the book of Henoch was one of my primary sources. It is some seriously good stuff.

Does that book go into detail about demons? I’ve read entries from the Dictionnaire Infernal and it’s pretty interesting. Any idea as to the methodology used to categorize them?

 

[mcz117chief]

Does that book go into detail about demons?

Not very much, but it has some insight on the aspect of hell and such. The book is a real riot though..

 

[Chaplain]

New resources:

Video: Morality and the Common Good

What are the prospects for liberal democracy absent a shared sense of moral commitment to one another? And how do we restore a commitment to cooperation and the common good? These were the questions we tackled last week with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

Video: God in the Old Testament: Slavery, Violence, and More

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics. In this interview, I talk with Dr. Copan about understanding God in the Old Testament.

Video: Is free will an illusion? And does it matter if it is? Dan Barker vs Braxton Hunter

Notable atheists like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett claim we live in a deterministic universe and that free will is an illusion. But does losing human free will pose a problem for justice, morality and even the very act of reasoning itself? Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and author of 'Free Will Explained' defends determinism. Christian guest Braxton Hunter defends libertarian free will, which he believes points to God.

Video: Why Would God Allow Slavery?

Slave-trade prohibited: Ex. 21:16, Slavery to be voluntary: Lv. 25:39-40; 25:47; Dt 15:12, Slavery to be temporary: Ex 21:2, Physical integrity: Ex 21:26-27, Sacredness of slave's life: Ex 21:20, Provision for freedom: Dt 15:13-14, God's goal no poverty & no slavery: Dt 15:-1-18

Video: The Atonement: His Death, Our Life - John 12:20-33

Wasn’t there any other way for God to save human beings than by sending His Son to die? The very idea of a bloody crucifixion sounds brutal and barbarous to some, yet it is the centerpiece of our faith. What is the big deal about the atonement? Why the cross? Why had it been the plan of God through the ages? Today we examine the death of Christ for us and, in His own words, His own estimation of its necessity and consequence.

Video: Betraying Christ: A Tale of Two Disciples


Video: Take A Load Off! - or - He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother! - Romans 7-8


Video: Can I Become a Christian If I Still Have Questions?

Christianity is not a neat formula between answering our big questions about faith and trusting in Jesus. Some people have all their questions satisfied but still choose not to follow Christ; others aren't sure if they can follow Jesus while they still have questions. In this video, Solas speaker Gareth Black answers the question of whether we can, with integrity, become a Christian even if we still have some important questions to explore.

We are living in an age of cultural climate change

Whatever its source, morality is what allows us to get on with one another, without endless recourse to economics or politics. Morality is what broadens our perspective beyond the self and its desires. It places us in the midst of a collective social order. Morality has always been about the first-person plural, about ‘We’. Morality achieves something almost miraculous, and fundamental to human achievement and liberty. It creates trust.

The striptease of Humanism by Scholar Os Guinness

Camus could not escape it either: “I proclaim that I believe in nothing and that everything is absurd, but I cannot doubt the validity of my own proclamation, and I am compelled to believe, at least in my own protest. . . . Hence it is absolutely necessary that rebellion derives its justifications from itself, since it has nothing else to derive them from.”81 Knowing that as an existentialist he has no base for his values in positivism, he fights against the alternative of scepticism by making rebellion into an absolute. It is certainly understandable that both optimistic humanism and existentialism rejected the smug Christianity of their day. But humanism is now equally smug and existentialism has elevated despair from a moment to a way of life. There is almost a perverse refusal to reconsider historic Christianity which once produced the answers to these very dilemmas and still offers the sharpest contemporary critique. Nietzsche at least was courageous in facing nihilism squarely. He was impatient with Burckhardt because he felt that Burckhardt knew the desperate truth but constantly avoided it. Writing once of Burckhardt’s lectures, he described “their profound thoughts, and their silently abrupt breaks and twists as soon as they touch the danger point.”