Support NeoGAF

[nani17]

Weak answer. Again he/she has proven he/she can intervene and has chosen not. Anyway, I'm done with it said my part we'll only be going around and around.

Fact is my questions can't be answered. It's impossible to give the right answer because there aren't any when it comes to saying he/she exists but if you say he/she doesn't exist then all the questions are answered

 

[appaws]

Well here's what I don't understand.

It all starts with the story of Moses freeing the slaves. It clearly shows God can and did intervene. We all know the story of how Moses parted the red sea which helped free the salves.

So why did God not intervene when the ships left Africa with all those men, women, and children. It just ignored it altogether.

Why did he/she ignore the concentration camps during WWII? Over 10 million dead. Another here in Ireland why did he/she ignore all the children who were being molested by the very people who spread his word? He's proven from the Moses story and plenty of other stories he can intervene. Not only were the children molested but some mothers who were pregnant at a young age or unmarried had their children were taken from them and killed while the mothers were taken into forced labor.

Slavery existed in every human civilization until the west decided it was morally odious and started trying to eliminate it, including among themselves. God didn't free the slaves because of a particular stance against slavery. After all, he allowed the Israelites themselves to own slaves (and every other culture). He sent Moses to free them from Egypt because they were his chosen people.

These are just some of my reasons why I refuse to pray to him/her. I can not thank someone for everything while they ignored the fact children were being molested. Even though they have proven in the past the can intervene and stop or help these people. Funny thing is my uncle is a priest and I don't have an issue with it nor do I have issues with people believing in God.

The way I see it is A: they don't exist. B: They did but somehow died. or C: They do and gave up years and years ago.

I hope I haven't offended anyone it's not my intention to do so. Just telling you how I feel about it. Thanks for letting me express my feelings

God gave us free will. If he intervened every time we did wrong, and tried to make men perfect, there would be no free will and existence would just be a pantomime.

 

[the.acl]

This is an excellent question. I believe the slaves that were brought here were of Hebrew lineage.

You never answered my question, are you a Black Hebrew Israelite? You kinda sound like them, like a lot of your doctrine is similar to theirs. If not what do you think of them lol

 

[AngularSaxophone]

You never answered my question, are you a Black Hebrew Israelite? You kinda sound like them, like a lot of your doctrine is similar to theirs. If not what do you think of them lol

You haven’t answered more than a few of my questions either. And see how turning the image of Christ into someone he wasn’t could become a problem?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Weak answer. Again he/she has proven he/she can intervene and has chosen not. Anyway, I'm done with it said my part we'll only be going around and around.

Fact is my questions can't be answered. It's impossible to give the right answer because there aren't any when it comes to saying he/she exists but if you say he/she doesn't exist then all the questions are answered

Sorry if my answer wasn’t sufficient but now this makes me wonder. Are you that child? You have to remember that Although God is eternal, he’s not some sky magician with a wand answering prayers at our beck and call. We are to serve him. Not the other way around. Speaking for myself there were MANY times I prayed for things that God in no way shape or form would EVER answer. I only realize that after growing a little. We think we know what’s best for us in our little minds but only He truly knows that and will answer when it’s best for us.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

David Bentley Hart offers one of the most thoughtful and truly Christian responses to cases of great evil that went apparently unanswered (here, the great tsunamis in the Indian ocean; but it applies to the cases of suffering listed in this thread above):

I do not believe we Christians are obliged”or even allowed”to look upon the devastation visited upon the coasts of the Indian Ocean and to console ourselves with vacuous cant about the mysterious course taken by God’s goodness in this world, or to assure others that some ultimate meaning or purpose resides in so much misery. Ours is, after all, a religion of salvation; our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death, and so we are permitted to hate these things with a perfect hatred. For while Christ takes the suffering of his creatures up into his own, it is not because he or they had need of suffering, but because he would not abandon his creatures to the grave. And while we know that the victory over evil and death has been won, we know also that it is a victory yet to come, and that creation therefore, as Paul says, groans in expectation of the glory that will one day be revealed. Until then, the world remains a place of struggle between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, life and death; and, in such a world, our portion is charity.

As for comfort, when we seek it, I can imagine none greater than the happy knowledge that when I see the death of a child I do not see the face of God, but the face of His enemy. It is not a faith that would necessarily satisfy Ivan Karamazov, but neither is it one that his arguments can defeat: for it has set us free from optimism, and taught us hope instead. We can rejoice that we are saved not through the immanent mechanisms of history and nature, but by grace; that God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable; that He will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, He will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes”and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away, and He that sits upon the throne will say, “Behold, I make all things new.”

What he is saying: Christ's death / resurrection is not some kind of magical reassurance that horrors will never occur, or will never occur to good people, etc... after all, evil is very much interwoven into every part of our existence and our world, and this is the meaning of the "fall" that undergirds a Christian view of the world. The cross and the empty tomb illustrate a very different picture of how God overcomes the darkness: not by destroying it -- which would overpower creation and eliminate it as something set apart from God -- but by taking all that anguish upon Himself and yet transforming it, redeeming it, by an act of self-sacrifice.

In other words, the cross and its nails were a grand torture device of that era, a visible symbol of oppression, and the moment at the cross only places the awfulness of humanity on full display; because we will by our very nature resent, nail, and torture even the humble face of Jesus wherever it appears before us. But the solution wasn't a superhero moment of Christ throwing off the nails and standing triumphant; it was that God would show himself to take the place of the one we torture, bearing it in the kind of love you might see when a spouse persists through the mental illness of their partner even as they are hated or spit on by that person in their despair, and finally, with the resurrection we are to see that even the greatest evil doesn't extinguish the light... in that event, a kind of seed was planted that would rapidly transform a symbol of torture, the cross, into a worldwide symbol of its exact opposite. That's a small picture of the transformation of all evil that is promised to come at the end of creation, when God "judges" the world by separating the good from the evil, not in a merely punitive fashion, but by redeeming the good from the jaws of the worst that has ever been done, drying the tears, restoring all things in what the New Testament frames as a final wedding between God and humanity, and also as a consuming fire that can separate the impermanent things of suffering from the underlying metal that has long been obscured by it from our sight.

 

[VAL0R]

Well here's what I don't understand.

It all starts with the story of Moses freeing the slaves. It clearly shows God can and did intervene. We all know the story of how Moses parted the red sea which helped free the salves.

So why did God not intervene when the ships left Africa with all those men, women, and children. It just ignored it altogether.

Why did he/she ignore the concentration camps during WWII? Over 10 million dead. Another here in Ireland why did he/she ignore all the children who were being molested by the very people who spread his word? He's proven from the Moses story and plenty of other stories he can intervene. Not only were the children molested but some mothers who were pregnant at a young age or unmarried had their children were taken from them and killed while the mothers were taken into forced labor.

These are just some of my reasons why I refuse to pray to him/her. I can not thank someone for everything while they ignored the fact children were being molested. Even though they have proven in the past the can intervene and stop or help these people. Funny thing is my uncle is a priest and I don't have an issue with it nor do I have issues with people believing in God.

The way I see it is A: they don't exist. B: They did but somehow died. or C: They do and gave up years and years ago.

I hope I haven't offended anyone it's not my intention to do so. Just telling you how I feel about it. Thanks for letting me express my feelings

Nani, your objections can all be summed up into what's called, "The Problem of Evil." This is probably the best argument atheists have in their arsenal. The argument goes something like, "A morally good and all powerful God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil in the world." But really, the power of this argument and its variations is more emotional than rational.

All a theist has to do is show that so long as it is even logically possible that God has good reasons for allowing evil to happen (perhaps unknown to us), then the Problem of Evil is defeated from a rational standpoint, yet the emotional impact might still sting. For an example, think of a toddler who cannot possibly understand why his mother forces him to endure the painful vaccination needle. While he cannot understand her permitting his suffering, she is blameless, even praiseworthy, because she allows his suffering for a greater good for him.

Don't forget that in the end God will judge the world and all of humanity's thoughts, words and actions with perfect justice. Now we see imperfect human justice in our fallible human courts and we see villains prosper and just men suffer. We see the rain fall on the fields of the just and the unjust alike. But in eternity, God will make it all right and good and every knee will bow before Him and each will receive a judgement for how he used the time, talent and treasure that God gave him.

 

[the.acl]

You haven’t answered more than a few of my questions either. And see how turning the image of Christ into someone he wasn’t could become a problem?

Lmao just answer, are you a Black Hebrew Israelite?

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Thread needs a bit of humor, here's a classic:

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Lmao just answer, are you a Black Hebrew Israelite?

I don’t like such labels. Were my ancestors Hebrews? Yes. But so what. When Christ was here he said no jew no gentile, no free no slave. Either you believe that he came here or you don’t.

 

[VAL0R]

I don’t like such labels. Were my ancestors Hebrews? Yes. But so what. When Christ was here he said no jew no gentile, no free no slave. Either you believe that he came here or you don’t.

So you believe God has a wife? Literally? Is her name Shekinah? Can you explain this doctrine to me?

 

[the.acl]

So you believe God has a wife? Literally? Is her name Shekinah? Can you explain this doctrine to me?

I can't keep up with these deep interweb doctrines.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I can't keep up with these deep interweb doctrines.

And I’m the one you call proud.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Check the judiasm section. Not really “interweb doctrine” as it’s been around for thousands of years. She was also written out of scripture. Wonder who did that.
The targum of Isaiah translates Isaiah 40:22 as follows:

Who caused the Shekinah of his glory to dwell in the mighty height, and all the inhabitants of the earth are counted as grasshoppers before him; who stretched out the heavens as a small thing, and spread them out like a glorious tent for the house of his Shekinah (Stenning 1949,132-5, see also Chilton, 79).

The book of Enoch says this

3. And the herald went forth into every Heaven, saying: "This is Metatron, my servant. I have made him into a prince and a ruler over all the princes of my kingdoms and over all the presence and you shall speak to him now, instead of me."

(Advent of "The Lesser Yahweh". Lord Enoch, Son of Shekinah, Jesus.).

5. "And every command that he utters to you in My Name do ye observe and fulfill. For the Prince of Wisdom and the Prince of Understanding have I committed to him to instruct him in the wisdom of Heavenly things and of earthly things, in the wisdom of the world and of the world to come."

6. "Moreover, I have set him over all the stores of life that I have in the high Heavens."

Here’s a bonus from the gospel of Thomas with Christ himself speaking of God.

15. Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

Maybe you should ask papa Frankie to let you peruse some of those books in the basement of the Vatican.

 

[the.acl]

And I’m the one you call proud.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Check the judiasm section. Not really “interweb doctrine” as it’s been around for thousands of years. She was also written out of scripture. Wonder who did that.
The targum of Isaiah translates Isaiah 40:22 as follows:

Who caused the Shekinah of his glory to dwell in the mighty height, and all the inhabitants of the earth are counted as grasshoppers before him; who stretched out the heavens as a small thing, and spread them out like a glorious tent for the house of his Shekinah (Stenning 1949,132-5, see also Chilton, 79).

The book of Enoch says this

3. And the herald went forth into every Heaven, saying: "This is Metatron, my servant. I have made him into a prince and a ruler over all the princes of my kingdoms and over all the presence and you shall speak to him now, instead of me."

(Advent of "The Lesser Yahweh". Lord Enoch, Son of Shekinah, Jesus.).

5. "And every command that he utters to you in My Name do ye observe and fulfill. For the Prince of Wisdom and the Prince of Understanding have I committed to him to instruct him in the wisdom of Heavenly things and of earthly things, in the wisdom of the world and of the world to come."

6. "Moreover, I have set him over all the stores of life that I have in the high Heavens."

Here’s a bonus from the gospel of Thomas with Christ himself speaking of God.

15. Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

Maybe you should ask papa Frankie to let you peruse some of those books in the basement of the Vatican.

I'm Reformed Baptist, not Catholic.

 

[appaws]

I don’t like such labels. Were my ancestors Hebrews? Yes. But so what. When Christ was here he said no jew no gentile, no free no slave. Either you believe that he came here or you don’t.

So wait. Are you one of those guys with the megaphone in NYC yelling at passers-by? I would actually be more interested in learning about the teachings of your group, instead of just thinking you were a dude just coming up with stuff on GAF by yourself.

 

[Bolivar687]

Fact is my questions can't be answered. It's impossible to give the right answer because there aren't any when it comes to saying he/she exists but if you say he/she doesn't exist then all the questions are answered

I hope you're not done with it after one response, from someone who isn't aligned with traditional Christianity.

The problem you're referring to is called Theodicy, it's been dealt with by many great doctors of the Church like Saints Irenaeus and Augustine as well as great secular scholars and theologians like Liebniz and Weber. If you take this question seriously, you owe it more than to ask the question on a gaming forum and call it a day.

The foundation of Christian theology is free will and personal responsibility - I'm solely accountable for my own actions and inaction. Men commit evil and allow it to persist in the world. I assume God is like a judge in a criminal case where everyone understands the defendant is culpable but only unlawful or impermissible evidence has been submitted. God has the power to intervene and may even want to, but if he does, the system He created will no longer really exist.

Some in theodicy have said that the existence of evil in human relations does not discredit but rather points toward the reality of the transcendent. In the animal kingdom, there is no crime when a lion takes over another pride, or tragedy when a mantis consumes her mate. The fact that humans can conceptualize injustice and evil is proof of our special relationship with something beyond the mundane.

Of course, your question pertains to the story of exodus and how that reconciles with all this. I don't know the Catholic conception on this and it's relation to your question. I don't mean to unjustly trivialize God or elevate man but it still took Moses, a man of privilege, to humble himself and act to lead the exodus in accordance with God's will. Any help he received was in accordance with the plan of revelation to Israel, to serve as an example for all other nations.

 

[Marlenus]

Of course I believe murder for apostasy is objectively wrong, whether perpetrated by a religious authority or by the secular and atheist regimes of post-revolutionary societies.

Don't you?

I believe it is wrong. There are a lot of people who think it is moral though so how can two widely different positions exist when often both groups are claiming to adhere to the word of GOD. In the case of Islam it is the same GOD yet certain groups believe death for apostacy is moral.

A zygote is not a permanently braindead human being - one has an entire lifetime of possibility and value ahead of her while the other does not. Surely you must recognize why these circumstances would warrant completely different reactions.

About 33% - 50% of pregnancies miscarry in the first 12 weeks. Often without the mother even knowing they were pregnant. So sure, the chances of a zygote being born are greater than that of someone without brain activity being revived but it is not a sure thing. Besides with how little we know about the brain how do we know people in these states are permanently brain dead? Perhaps given enough time we could figure out how to revive them if they were kept on ventilators.

Do you honestly believe that the only thing making rape victim-blaming mistaken are your own personal feelings and nothing else? I very much hope you respond to this questions because I am incredibly interested in your answer.

Well not just feelings but my own thoughts and upbringing also play a large part. It feels wrong to me, but on top of that I can think that it is wrong because it is an individual choice to do something immoral and blaming external 3rd parties, especially the victim, makes no logical sense. It is just a way for the perpetrator to shift blame and focus or to make themselves feel better about their own actions so they do not have to confront what they have done. The fact society allows this to happen and some even believe this to be true, especially among believers, also tells me that the idea of an objective moral standard is just fantasy.

Arguments do not begin and end with feelings. Logic and critical reasoning are objective measurements of the validity of arguments. We also know that we subjugate our feelings when it is personally convenient or politically expedient to do so.

Agreed, but why do so many Christians support Trump when he is a serial adulterer? If there is an objective moral standard imbued into us by GOD then surely those who follow the scriptures would be the first to call him out on it rather than backing him?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

So wait. Are you one of those guys with the megaphone in NYC yelling at passers-by? I would actually be more interested in learning about the teachings of your group, instead of just thinking you were a dude just coming up with stuff on GAF by yourself.

Why does everyone keep trying to put me in a box? I’ve posted all the answers in various places in this thread. Although some of my views fall in line with Hebrew Israelites, most of what I’ve learned came from continuously asking questions. Seeking. Praying. When you’re reading scripture and there are all these holes and references to things that aren’t in the book you’re handed you should be doing the same.

The foundation of Christian theology is free will and personal responsibility - I'm solely accountable for my own actions and inaction. Men commit evil and allow it to persist in the world. I assume God is like a judge in a criminal case where everyone understands the defendant is culpable but only unlawful or impermissible evidence has.

This is nonsense. Can you truly be accountable for your own actions when your actions are heavily influenced by outside forces to a point? That’s probably why we aren’t supposed to judge those outside of the church. Only God can truly see the entire picture. All we get are bits and pieces.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Well, this thread is now showing a surprising amount of heterodoxy. I hope passersby recognize that odd speculation based on near-universally rejected Gnostic books like the Gospel [sic] of Thomas etc never belonged to any of the major currents of Christian thought worldwide at any point in history.

 

[the.acl]

Well, this thread is now showing a surprising amount of heterodoxy. I hope passersby recognize that odd speculation based on near-universally rejected Gnostic books like the Gospel [sic] of Thomas etc never belonged to any of the major currents of Christian thought worldwide at any point in history.

I give up with this thread lol

 

[AngularSaxophone]

And “near” universally will just tell me that someone wasn’t in agreement. If none of the churches are in agreement and the ones that are are all pretty much following Rome, then does that really say anything? I mean what purpose does a Christmas tree serve in ANY Christian church?

 

[the.acl]

And “near” universally will just tell me that someone wasn’t in agreement. If none of the churches are in agreement and the ones that are are all pretty much following Rome, then does that really say anything? I mean what purpose does a Christmas tree serve in ANY Christian church?

Seasonal decoration lol

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

A Christmas tree? We're talking about pseudo-gnostic texts, which were indeed never a part of the canon of any major or even significant minor branch of Christianity.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Why not just put a statue of Baal in the lobby? Mixing pagan with holy will never make sense. These are supposed to be places of worship. The very image of Christ that the Catholic Church uses is a lie. If you don’t see the problem with these things then I can’t help you.

 

[VAL0R]

Why not just put a statue of Baal in the lobby? Mixing pagan with holy will never make sense. These are supposed to be places of worship. The very image of Christ that the Catholic Church uses is a lie. If you don’t see the problem with these things then I can’t help you.

Why, do you think Jesus was a black man?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Why, do you think Jesus was a black man?

there were no “black” men back then. And being Hebrew, he definitely didn’t look like the Catholic Church portrays him. Are you going to pretend to be ignorant of the history of that image or are you being serious?

 

[the.acl]

To say Jesus was either black or white is kind of a reach. Being a Galilean, he most likely looked like what most Palestinian Jews look like today. Tanned skin maybe even brown or olive.

But tbh doesn't even matter what he looked like.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I agree it doesn’t matter what he looked like. Isn’t there a commandment about graven images though? Again, if you’re putting an image out there that isn’t representative of what he looked like though, isn’t that a lie? Especially if it was done with an agenda?

 

[the.acl]

I agree it doesn’t matter what he looked like. Isn’t there a commandment about graven images though? Again, if you’re putting an image out there that isn’t representative of what he looked like though, isn’t that a lie? Especially if it was done with an agenda?

We don't know what he looked like though. He could have been black or white. Very very unlikely though. Most likely olive skinned or light brown.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Perhaps that’s why there’s the commandment about graven images.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

So I have to confess to you guys that my pastor was out of town. He's teaching a series called " to what do the oppressed oh there oppressors?" If that sounds familiar, it is based on Paulo Freire pedagogy of the oppressed. As my church is committed to social justice, we wanted to explore this question alongside everyday discourse concerning Injustice.

Pastor is in India with Vineyard Church to do some International Ministry stuff. This week, he invited to women, who I consider friends (been to my house to hang out, etc) to speak on this question from the perspective of gender.

To prepare their talk, they surveyed women across generational, ethnic, and denominational spectrums.

Overwhelmingly, women have reported a negative experience in the church: Women are told to be submissive. Be modest. Be quiet. Do what your husband says. Be a Proverbs 31 woman. Be sexually appealing to your huaband. Don't be sexually appealing to other men."

There is almost no feedback concerning what one should do if they wish to become a leader in the church Beyond just children's ministry or leading other women.

They discuss Deborah in judges as an example of a woman in leadership who led over all of Israel. She was also serving double duty as a prophetess. This served as an example in their talk of what women could potentially do if they're uninhibited by gendered social structures in the church.

My wife, who never asks me what I thought about the sermon decides to ask me about this one. I wanted to call her out on it, but instead, I couldnt think of a single thing to say. How was I, a critic, incapable of cominf up with ANYTHING to say???

I was completely ambivalent.

They took pause so that people could ask themselves how they feel about what they're hearing. All I could come up with is, "I don't care about this." I heard every word, and can recall the talking points in detail. But I can't seem to muster much beyond that.

I've been thinking about this for the last 36 hours, and have not made any progress.

 

[appaws]

Overwhelmingly, women have reported a negative experience in the church: Women are told to be submissive. Be modest. Be quiet. Do what your husband says. Be a Proverbs 31 woman. Be sexually appealing to your huaband. Don't be sexually appealing to other men."

There is almost no feedback concerning what one should do if they wish to become a leader in the church Beyond just children's ministry or leading other women.

I think a lot of men as well as women could benefit from being a little more submissive (to God). Also modesty and quiet are virtues for both sexes. Also, I think spouses of both sexes should be sexually appealing to each other and not to others.

But I do understand that these are things that have been applied to women and not to men in orthodox Christian teachings. But why do the women find those things to be a "negative experience?" You don't come to the church for modernism and equality, you come for the Lord (although I am suspicious of that fact in a church committed to "social justice"). Men and women have different roles in society, the Church, and in the family. There is nothing wrong with that.

I do recognize that I (and my parish) are out of the mainstream, even among Catholics, on these issues. 90% of the women at my Parish veil themselves at mass by choice, and we never have female "Eucharistic ministers," or even altar girls. (Note: We don't have male Eucharastic ministers either, because only the hands of a priest should touch the host.)

Perhaps you are right to be ambivalent...? Maybe your innate sense is that the primary focus of the Church should be getting people to Heaven instead of reconciling itself to the modern world, or serving the vanity of women who want to be "a leader in the church" when they are not called to do so?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

So I have to confess to you guys that my pastor was out of town. He's teaching a series called " to what do the oppressed oh there oppressors?" If that sounds familiar, it is based on Paulo Freire pedagogy of the oppressed. As my church is committed to social justice, we wanted to explore this question alongside everyday discourse concerning Injustice.

Pastor is in India with Vineyard Church to do some International Ministry stuff. This week, he invited to women, who I consider friends (been to my house to hang out, etc) to speak on this question from the perspective of gender.

To prepare their talk, they surveyed women across generational, ethnic, and denominational spectrums.

Overwhelmingly, women have reported a negative experience in the church: Women are told to be submissive. Be modest. Be quiet. Do what your husband says. Be a Proverbs 31 woman. Be sexually appealing to your huaband. Don't be sexually appealing to other men."

There is almost no feedback concerning what one should do if they wish to become a leader in the church Beyond just children's ministry or leading other women.

They discuss Deborah in judges as an example of a woman in leadership who led over all of Israel. She was also serving double duty as a prophetess. This served as an example in their talk of what women could potentially do if they're uninhibited by gendered social structures in the church.

My wife, who never asks me what I thought about the sermon decides to ask me about this one. I wanted to call her out on it, but instead, I couldnt think of a single thing to say. How was I, a critic, incapable of cominf up with ANYTHING to say???

I was completely ambivalent.

They took pause so that people could ask themselves how they feel about what they're hearing. All I could come up with is, "I don't care about this." I heard every word, and can recall the talking points in detail. But I can't seem to muster much beyond that.

I've been thinking about this for the last 36 hours, and have not made any progress.

Deborah had nothing to do with “gender constructs” and everything to do with being appointed BY GOD. You can’t apply secular reasoning to the mind of God.

 

[VAL0R]

I think this is what Jesus looked like.

Here is a print from the original Divine Mercy image. Christ appeared to the famous Polish nun Saint Faustina many times, as she records in her diary. He commanded that she have this very image painted, with the words "Jesus, I trust in you", and shared with the world to declare a new call to his Divine Mercy and forgiveness before the coming judgement. Saint Faustina oversaw the painting, instructing the artist along the way and had him make multiple changes and corrections. In the end, she wept because it fell short of the beauty of Christ, but she did the best she could.

I have this hanging in my living room and have a special love for it. My family was received into the Church on Divine Mercy Sunday.

 

[VAL0R]

The Divine Mercy image overlaid on the Shroud of Turin is a perfect match.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I think this is what Jesus looked like.

Here is a print from the original Divine Mercy image. Christ appeared to the famous Polish nun Saint Faustina many times, as she records in her diary. He commanded that she have this very image painted, with the words "Jesus, I trust in you", and shared with the world to declare a new call to his Divine Mercy and forgiveness before the coming judgement. Saint Faustina oversaw the painting, instructing the artist along the way and had him make multiple changes and corrections. In the end, she wept because it fell short of the beauty of Christ, but she did the best she could.

I have this hanging in my living room and have a special love for it. My family was received into the Church on Divine Mercy Sunday.

Didn’t Christ say many would come in his name and not to believe them? No different than the one that appeared to Mohammad or all those people who claim to see Mary but she’s dressed in a miniskirt. and how is that a perfect match when the forehead is twice as big.

 

[Bolivar687]

I do recognize that I (and my parish) are out of the mainstream, even among Catholics, on these issues. 90% of the women at my Parish veil themselves at mass by choice, and we never have female "Eucharistic ministers," or even altar girls. (Note: We don't have male Eucharastic ministers either, because only the hands of a priest should touch the host.)

Tridentine/extraordinary form only?

 

[VAL0R]

Didn’t Christ say many would come in his name and not to believe them? No different than the one that appeared to Mohammad or all those people who claim to see Mary but she’s dressed in a miniskirt. and how is that a perfect match when the forehead is twice as big.

Yes, Jesus instructed us not to follow false Christs and prophets who teach heresy. A faithful Catholic nun who died in obedience to God is not among their number.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Yes, Jesus instructed us not to follow false Christs and prophets who teach heresy. A faithful Catholic nun who died in obedience to God is not among their number.

““You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬

But apparently he’ll come and contradict himself. Makes sense. Maybe he’ll come to me in my sleep tonight and tell me to commit adultery in the morning.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

So I have to confess to you guys that my pastor was out of town. He's teaching a series called " to what do the oppressed oh there oppressors?" If that sounds familiar, it is based on Paulo Freire pedagogy of the oppressed. As my church is committed to social justice, we wanted to explore this question alongside everyday discourse concerning Injustice.

This already sounds like a misstep... taking Friere's work into the church context is likely to lead things off course. His perspective tries to raise our suspicion of any patterns of thought and belief that belong to a colonizing influence, as if all externally given social structures and orders of meaning are inherently an imposition upon some pristine prior state of indigenous peace. That doesn't really match the Christian view of history and culture, in which the roles and social positions within which we find ourselves embedded aren't to be torn down, but to be recognized as part of the provision of our time, however imperfect, and lived out with respect, gratitude, and humility. The early churches pooled many things in common, and had the rich man kneeling next to the impoverished man under one church roof as equals, demanding that those who have been given resources be good servants of others with it -- but did not try to initiate a radical destruction of cultural norms and orders on the outside. The church redeems, shows a better way to use our differences in placement and personhood; it doesn't try to eliminate them with a radical suspicion.

To prepare their talk, they surveyed women across generational, ethnic, and denominational spectrums.

Overwhelmingly, women have reported a negative experience in the church: Women are told to be submissive. Be modest. Be quiet. Do what your husband says. Be a Proverbs 31 woman. Be sexually appealing to your huaband. Don't be sexually appealing to other men."

There is almost no feedback concerning what one should do if they wish to become a leader in the church Beyond just children's ministry or leading other women.

I don't know; first, this sounds like the typically loaded surveys that are peddled by progressive church-reform groups invested in this subject. I can already hear a hint of leading in the questions. A contrary witness to keep in mind is simply that women actually tend to consistently outnumber men in Christian churches, and always have been the very active members that keep every ecclesial community sewn together. Even in traditional churches with only men in senior positions, women tend to dominate its inner social life both organically and numerically, and men are the ones who fall away in much higher numbers. Accounts of the early church match this impression as well.

They discuss Deborah in judges as an example of a woman in leadership who led over all of Israel. She was also serving double duty as a prophetess. This served as an example in their talk of what women could potentially do if they're uninhibited by gendered social structures in the church.

There are so many ways to serve each other - why is explicit (political) power considered the peak? To put it another way: the outside world sees a male senior pastor up front and says, "we need women up there, where the important part happens." But the church should be showing a different kind of world and a different evaluation of importance, and says in turn: "Christianity doesn't value the person up front; he should only be a servant himself, and by no means the most important person in the room." Oddly, so much emphasis on "women must be in leadership" ends up diminishing the crucial Christian inversion of our understanding of power and importance, wherein it was Jesus's greatest showing of strength to wash his disciples feet, not to take up a throne. Church should show us, for example, how a decent, giving parent is far more important and consequential than the servant leading us in worship on the stage - else it has failed, and just created another stage for attention.

 

[appaws]

Tridentine/extraordinary form only?

Hmmm...the parish also has novus ordo masses. As I understand, they are quite reverent compared to other parishes in the city. Maybe they use altar girls or let non-sanctified hands touch the host, I don't really know. Among the EF community you don't see those things though. I'm not a super-purist about it, even though I question the theology that went into the creation of the mass of Paul VI.

““You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬

But apparently he’ll come and contradict himself. Makes sense. Maybe he’ll come to me in my sleep tonight and tell me to commit adultery in the morning.

I guess he "contradicted" himself when he ordered the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, or the statuary in the temple in Jerusalem.

You can't just take that one line in isolation and weave a whole system of rules around it. So, you can't make a representation of something "in the waters below?" Does that mean you can't make a drawing of a fish, even for secular purposes? I imagine you don't have a problem with drawings or pictures of fish, correct? So taken along with the First Commandment and the story of the Israelites and the golden calf, what we have is an admonishment not to WORSHIP statues and graven images...NOT a proscription of making them at all.

So humans having images and statuary is OK, just not making them objects of worship in the place of God. And we don't. (Although I know that in your straw man caricature of Catholicism you imagine everybody does.)

 

[AngularSaxophone]

So back to the trinity, If both Christ and the Holy Spirit are God himself, how do you explain this one?

“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6:19-20‬ ‭NIV‬‬

 

[Airola]

So back to the trinity, If both Christ and the Holy Spirit are God himself, how do you explain this one?

“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6:19-20‬ ‭NIV‬‬

I think you should first explain how this goes against the concept of Trinity before anyone can answer to you. At this moment there is nothing to explain because as far as I can tell there's nothing that goes against Trinity there. If anything this connects the Holy Spirit to God even more because it tells us the Holy Spirit is inside of our bodies and treating that body right directly honors God.

 

[VAL0R]

Yes, exactly. If Sax understood the doctrine of the Trinity, he wouldn't use this verse as a proof text against it.

 

[Thizz]

If Palestinians wrote the Bible why do Christians hate them so much?

 

[the.acl]

If Palestinians wrote the Bible why do Christians hate them so much?

What are you talking about? lol

 

[the.acl]

Yes, exactly. If Sax understood the doctrine of the Trinity, he wouldn't use this verse as a proof text against it.

Good picture for explaining The Holy Trinity

Three persons, one being.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

That makes no sense when scripture says all 3 are in agreement.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:7-13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

When Christ was pierced did he not bleed both blood and water?

“But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”
‭‭John‬ ‭19:34-35‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I think you should first explain how this goes against the concept of Trinity before anyone can answer to you. At this moment there is nothing to explain because as far as I can tell there's nothing that goes against Trinity there. If anything this connects the Holy Spirit to God even more because it tells us the Holy Spirit is inside of our bodies and treating that body right directly honors God.

So is God inside of someone when they commit a sin?

 

[the.acl]

So is God inside of someone when they commit a sin?

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? - 1 Corinthians 3:16

Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. - 2 Corinthians 6:16

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. - Romans 8:11

I can keep going?

The Holy Spirit continues in us, even through weak moments.

6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. - 1 Philippians 1:6

It's a process.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

See I don’t believe that. I don’t believe the spirit is with us in sin. Anyone can walk out of a temple. Are you familiar with possession? God dwelling in there too? With demons? How stupid does that sound? Now that I think about it, that would mean while Christ was here, he was in everyone else at the same time too. Why even bother coming if that were the case? Mary was supposedly already without sin. Enoch was so faithful that God snatched him up to heaven. You know why? Because there’s only one Son of God that’s why.