|
Hi there from Finland. I'm a Lutheran like most of the Finns and used to work for the church as a parish youth work director until very recently. I've done that my entire adult life and then some but recently our parish couldn't afford me anymore so I had to find other work.
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
zonohedron posted:Respectfully, you're begging the question. "How do people in this thread deal with Christianity being all made up?" "No." (Or "Mu." or "n/a" or "NAN", or "divide by cucumber error", take your pick.) "If Jesus's relationship to God is developed from a worldview we no longer agree with, is that still a valid theological concept?" Well gosh, it would be interesting to discuss whether the doctrine of Jesus's relationship to God was developed from a worldview, or whether we agree with that worldview today, or whether the development was itself a disagreement with the worldview, and I think we could probably have an interesting conversation about whether theological concepts can be valid or invalid, too, but I can't answer that question either. This is way better put than I would be able to so I just quote it. In the heart of a problem of describing my faith in the triune God to non-religious people is that words like philosophy, way of life, ethics, truth and belief are incomplete. They are, mostly, very human-centric and describe humans more than they do God. I like the comparison I read in some book ages ago: humans figuring out the divine are a bit like fish figuring out life above the ground. They have no means to reach what they wish to explore and even if they had, they wouldn't understand anything, really. The only real solution is for someone aboveground to reveal something to the fish in a way they can understand it. And I only now realize there's a saying in English language about that.  But yeah, the above quote.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Probably the same kind as everyone else. If I've understood correctly, it might be pretty much anything "externally". I don't think there's enough information about it in the Bible or if it can even be accurately described in human terms at all. Same as Heaven. Also, you get to stay there for eternity. The defining factor is, though, that you didn't really want to be there after all. Personally I think that is because without God the place just has no love or other good things. Virtues, if you will.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
Just wanted to share that our youngest child will be babtised in about an hour. It's weird, having to stream the babtism from your home to all the relatives and recording it for those who can't participate in the live version. We can only have our own family, the godparents and the priest here and we're at the safety limit. All will be wearing masks, which, I assume, will be discussed with the little fellow a lot when he grows up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2021 11:22
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Many good words about how to discuss tough subjects without them getting too personal. I agree, well said. Still, I feel I need to comment "out loud" on what you said, for the benefit of the thread in general if not anyone else: Christianity has missionary work, to use computer terms, hardwired into it. Jesus straight up commanded us to bring the message about him to the whole world and make everyone his disciples through babtism and teaching. He certainly didn't mean us to force faith or any specific way of life on anyone but that command does contain the idea that the most important thing in life is to follow Jesus. (What that means depends on who you ask.) In even more plain terms, Christianity is fundamentally more or less at odds with pretty much everything else in the world. So, depending on your faith tradition or your own personal faith, some things might be so close to the core that they are hard to discuss. That doesn't we shouldn't try. We have sailed through some pretty rocky waters here in the past, and luckily most people agree with radical manifestos such as "everyone should be equally precious" or "don't be a dick".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
About miracles in general: I have experienced things in my life that I classify as miracles. I don't think there's usually any real use in telling about them to others though. I have done so occasionally, but those events are mostly meaningful to me or a very limited group of people. They also have perfectly plausible "natural" explanations, which actually is my entire point. Miracle is not necessarily the same as supernatural. Besides: It is way more impressive to cure a disease through centuries of scientific development than divine intervention. It is way cooler to topple a mountain through billions of years of erosion than by an unexplainable invisible force. It is way more impressive to time a cosmic event to coincide with the birth of your son than to create a temporary star from nothing. I already belive in the resurrection and that's awesome. Now, what if that entire thing was, after the fact, completely explainable by science after all? Wow. Fake edit: I really like Miracles by Newsboys, too. It is a good take on which miracles really matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Nothing is unforgivable, except "sin against the Holy Spirit". It's debatable what that means, but given that repentance itself is a sign of Holy Spirit working with and within us, it's kinda academical question anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2021 10:21
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:There's a specific recommendation that an interpreter be present in one of Paul's epistles. He seems kinda dubious of the whole matter honestly. Specifically 1 Corinthians 14. I won't quite it here since it's quite long and taking parts out wouldn't do justice to it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Happy Easter! We participated remotely in an Easter service in the town of Ylivieska today. (It was televised nationally.) It was really a moving experience. So many things to tell but I'll list some: Exactly 5 years ago, the same mass was held next to fresh ruins of the 230-year-old church. A mentally ill person had lit up the church just before Easter and there was no saving it. It burnt down nearly completely. This morning, it was time to bless the new church. The bishop was there for the blessing. He equated Easter with the burning and building of the church and it just fit. First he blessed the building and then the babtismal bowl, the pulpit and the altar separately. (The big three of Lutheranism besides, you know, Father, Son and Holy Spirit: pulpit for the Word of God and bowl and altar for the sacraments; the three means through which God gives His grace.) Parishioners read relevant passages from the Bible for each blessing. The bishop also talked about how the mere existence of the church is in itself a message, how the building itself evangelizes. I'm usually of the opinion that the circumstances don't matter much, people do, but I have to agree and reverse my views. I have no doubt the the destruction and building of the parish church is worth way more than if the money had been used in some other way and the parish had instead started to rent an auditorium or something for the services. I doubt there are many people in Ylivieska and the surroundings who haven't had to take a long deep thought of what church and all it represents means to them personally. Also, the retired vicar of the parish was there. He was supposed to retire five years ago at spring, but agreed to keep working a couple of years longer to support the people of the parish in their sorrow. Now he got to lead the first mass of the new church. In addition there was a bunch of talented musicians, a few other assistants and the camera crew. And then that was it. 700 people could fit inside but because of corona they couldn't be there. So many things. And to me the most important thing was that our teenager was glued to the screen. He was born in Ylivieska, though we moved out when he was 1. So good, so blessed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:People leave the religion because of the way you think. I wish to comment, that this is not a very good or persuasive reason to do something (or not do it). People leave religion because of many reasons, good and bad. And religion is not inherently good or bad either. This is not aimed at you, personally. I don't mean to snipe at you nor do I feel capable of taking part in the actual conversation going on. I just felt like pointing out that at least in Christianity, belonging to the club is not the end goal. e: grammar
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 11:13
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:But misogyny is bad. And asserting that our symbols to talk about God are only and have only been masculine is misogyny. I'm not disagreeing with you, though I don't think you are debating with anyone present here, since I've seen no one state that God, not just Jesus, is actually literally male. I just used your words to point out that "people might leave a religion" is not relevant if the question is "is this thing true or not?". Like, as an example, I believe all of the Christian churches teach that Jesus is the son of God. That will make some people leave the church but the teaching should not be altered because of it. It was just a side note to the actual ongoing conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
CrypticFox posted:Ultimately, trying to classify God into the category of "masculine," "feminine," or "neuter" is a fool's errand. Sorry for double post. Phone posting here. In some languages this is way easier a point to teach than in others. In Finnish not only there is no concept of grammatical gender or gendered pronouns but the word for both "sex" and "gender" is the same: "sukupuoli". It is a compound word make of "suku" (family in the large sense of the word, not only, like, mom and dad and on average 1.8 kids) and "puoli" (half). So, the word itself carries the implication that someone having a sex/gender is only half of the whole. In short: Linguistically, by definition, it's not possible for God to have a "sukupuoli" since it would require the existence of another God of a different "sukupuoli". Not to say people actually always think this far. We certainly have people who insist that God is literally male because He's called Heavenly Father.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Pershing posted:Don't know why I'm posting that but I feel called to do so. *hands over the certificate for the most Lutheran post of the month*
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
CarpenterWalrus posted:Ultimately, religions try to control how people engage sexually because that's an excellent way to control their behavior generally. . I see this claim on the internet, and only there, a lot and it infuriates me how disingenious it is. While I don't doubt that there are cults that do so, I have never ever met a religion that wants to control people. Yes, some commandments and rules might be very strict, depending on the religion, and yes, some people are power hungry or otherwise want to control others and yes, sometimes the power hungry people are religious people. But it sounds like a conspiracy theory that a religion wants to control people. Who does that even mean, exactly? Who does that accusation target? I'm deeply religious and I believe that the world would be a better place if people were more responsible in their lives which naturally includes their sex lives. Do I want to control people? Heck no, that's completely the opposite of why I am religious in the first place. I, until recently, teached teenagers. Those teachings included relatively conservative (for this forum) biblical values regarding sexual behaviours. I know there is no secret cabal in my religion that makes up rules to control people so I feel personally attacked. Who else could it even mean, except us who try to teach what we believe and why?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
CarpenterWalrus posted:Most Christian sects control how and under what circumstances people have sex. My biggest issue lies with the word "control". I have never encountered a religious community that has the level of power over the people in it that could be described as such. For clarity, I can say that with full confidence about every Nordic Lutheran church since I'm really familiar with how they work. I also have personal experiences from some Finnish Pentacostal parishes and two Western European Hillsong communities and I can say they don't qualify either. Then, through missionaries that I personally know or whose letters and stories I've read and listened to, I dare to claim that most of the churches they work for (in Europe, Asia and Africa) don't control their parishioners at all either. I assume you use the word control for a reason, though. I'll be back to that in a second. quote:Sex before marriage is a sin (PS only the right kind of marriage counts). Sex for fun is a sin. Sex between same-sex people is a sin. Masturbation is a sin. In some sects, sexual excitement and fantasy are lumped in with "adultery" and "covetous thought." Sexual "purity" is a powerful concept to the American Christian and great pains are taken to adhere to that idea. It seems difficult to believe that you'd be unaware of things like purity vows, purity rings, purity balls, girls signing over their virginal purity to their fathers, the Christian side-hug, etc., if you're deeply religious. These things aren't secret at all. Based on some of your spelling, you probably aren't American. The CoE very famously forbade divorce to the point that death and murder was the preferable alternative. Is this not an attempt to control how people have sex? The Catholic Church forbids birth control, either as a means of maintaining their population or by ensuring pregnancy as a punishment for sex, or encouraging Catholic marriages by saying having children out of wedlock is sinful. Again, these policies aren't secret. It's worth examining why you, personally, feel attacked by recognizing these things. I'm not American, correct. (Finnish, as Smoking Crow already said.) You're not missing the target here though. Of your list of sins, there are more than one that our church recognizes as such. I personally do too. I'm not going to elaborate, to not derail the discussion but I'll accept that if I had to pick a side, I'd probably be more opposed to you than with you. Also, yeah, I'm vaguely aware of those purity things, mostly through this forum, Last Week Tonight and such. Those, for the record, are utterly insane and would get horrified laughs out of everyone I know if anyone tried to introduce them here. I don't know what the Church of England has done so I can't unfortunately comment on that. Catholic Church I leave to Catholics, to not misrepresent them, but I strongly suspect neither of the reasons you present are correct. Back to control: I didn't remember that you are a satanist and it might explain things. I understand that you guys value personal freedom above everything else, am I correct? If a church teaches that something is a sin, do you see that as a violation of that freedom and an attempt at controlling others? I'd wait for your reply but it's late night here and I gotta go to bed very soon, so I'll assume I'm at least somewhat correct and type my thoughts right away. Apologies if I'm not right at all. First of all, we (= me, our church and probably most Christians I guess?) believe it's not us who declare something a sin. It's God. Our theologians try to figure out what God wants but it's hard sometimes. So, saying that a church tries to control someone by saying that something is a sin implies that the church considers itself the highest authority in the matter. The original sin, according to the Bible, was man thinking they know what is good better than God. In other words, a church that declares something a sin just because it wishes to control someone, and not because of a sincere belief that God considers the thing a sin, is committing one huge, horrible sin. It's kind of offensive to imply that, despite there no doubt being both historical and contemporary examples of it. Secondly and more to the point, everybody is a sinner and everybody sins both accidentally and willingly. To say that something is a sin should not be a condemnation aimed at someone else. It should be a call to self-examination and personal improvement. It should be a warning sign that drives you to seek God's mercy and grace and forgiveness. It should encourage you to right wrongs and mend relations with other people. Again, I know there are a lot of people who bludgeon others by calling them sinners. That is just plain wrong and explicitly against Jesus' teachings. It's the extremes that get all the media time and that twists reality a lot. I'm glad I rarely see it on grassroots' level. Finally, I feel attacked since accusing a church of something indirectly accuses those who teach in and for it. I count myself among those. God knows I suck at lot of things, including trying to describe my faith to others, but I'm not trying to control anyone. Moreover, I know a lot of teachers who are way better than me and sacrifice a lot to help other people and the accusation is aimed at them, too.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
The situation reminds me of what our church has been going through for a few decades now, after the priesthood was opened for women in 1986. At the core of the issue was and is an interpretation of certain parts of the Bible. Some theological interpretations say that gender equality applies to priesthood. Other (traditional) interpretations arrive to the conclusion that it is a matter of different responsibilities of sexes/genders (not sure which is correct here) issued by God and almost like with biological differences between sexes: being different or having different responsibilities is not the same as being unequal. Equality is certainly a hugely important thing in the Bible and neither side of the issue denies that. Anyway, I'm not going to dwell on that. That's just background information. My point is, when our church decided that the more modern interpretation was also more correct, it was also recognized that the traditional interpretation is not evil and people who believe differently should have a home in the church. However, in a few decades we are in a situation where it's super hard for male-only-priesthood people to participate in a communion at all. A large number of priests, if not a majority, are women and it is illegal to arrange work responsibilities by gender so there can be no reliably male-priest-only services. An issue, which both sides agree should not be very divisive, had led to spiritual homelessness of a large number of very active people who used to love their church and still would like to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
magic cactus posted:Howdy! I'm not Catholic but Lutheran. Figured I could chip in a bit. I've been in a bit similar situation but on the other side of it. I was happily married and befriended a person through work. Later it turned out that this person had a crush on me. The situation was a bit more complicated than "just" a friendship, since cutting ties with that person wasn't really possible or ethically correct. We ended up with an arrangement that was, in essence, like thia: We will meet incidentally through work stuff from time to time and that will be professional and not personal. Once or twice a year, we have a cup of coffee or something like that, just to ask how it's going. Nothing closer than that and no calling or texting. It worked well for us and the crush apparently died. However, my wife, who knew fully what was going on knew of the crush and also and why cutting ties entirely wasn't possible or ethically correct, still suffered. The situation is different now, but my take, based on my experiences, is that you can feel good about yourself. You did a loving deed towards your friend and her relationship. I believe time will heal much.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2021 07:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:private necrohomoerotic members-only pseudonymous comedy and discussion forum
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
A couple of examples come in mind, where either myself or a person I know has received a confirmation about the course taken. Both things happened after the decisions in question had been made so these do not actually answer the question but eh. I'm also fully aware that both of those are possible to dismiss as coincidences but neither of us think they are. (Philosophically speaking, I really dislike the term anyway but that's besides the point.) One case involved a purchase of an apartment. The apartment seekers had prayed a lot and were thrilled to have a look at one place. They were certain it would be their future home since it matched their wishes really well. Only, they discovered it was actually in a disastrous shape. Back to the market it was. The seekers eventually found a place that they accepted and bought. After they had moved in, they later found the advertisement for the first apartment from inside a jacket pocket or somewhere. (They had cut it from a newspaper back then.) This time they turned it around and what do you know, on the flipside of that piece of paper had been an advertisement for their new home all along. The other case is about schools. I had managed to secure a place to study in higher education in exactly where I wanted. I then met a girl. It got serious. She was going to study in a whole other part of the country, though. Long story short, it was possible for me to apply to study in that same city as her, in the same field I was already accepted in. However, the way important dates happened to line up, I would have had to give up my already secure dream spot first. If I was rejected, I would be without school and on minimum social security for a year and couldn't afford to move. Well, since I'm telling this story, all worked out well in the end. After a year of studying we were allowed to see the exact points we had gotten from the entry exams/tests/interviews. Due to the nature of the tests it was almost literally impossible to get a full score but I had gotten it. I don't think anyone else can really understand how little I deserved to get that score so I interpret it as a sign that I had ended up where I was supposed to end up and could stop second guessing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I don't really have anything to offer. I'm looking for someone who does or did practice to tell me what they got out of it, how they practice with or without a community for it, and if it challenged them to be a more moral/ethical person. Strictly speaking, I'm agnostic, and while I've been looking for something to develop as a moral being and subsume myself in something greater, orthodoxy is a real big hurdle for me. I guess what makes me curious about Taoism is the possibility of a practice that makes few of the kind of big demands of faith the way many religions do. I don't remember any actual Taoist introducing themselves here but that would be interesting to read for sure. Taoism is the "world religion" I know least about. I think we had like one chapter's worth of information about it in school. And also welcome to the new person!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
My favourite Christian rock bands are/were almost all Finnish so there's not much point naming them but the one American band I return to every now and then is Tourniquet. It's just so really good.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
Killingyouguy! posted:What will people think when they hear that I'm a Jesus freak Oh shoot. How can I forget that. I wish they'd thrown a tour in Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
It's actually because of a religious Orthodox tradition. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
I've tried explaining, elsewhere on these forums and in real life, why some of my friends and relatives do not agree that women should or could be ordinated as priests. It has not gone well in either case. It pains me, personally, when I see someone misrepresenting sincerely held religious beliefs of my friends even if I don't necessarily share them myself. It makes me want to at least try to set the representation right. At the very least it makes me want to remind the other person that beliefs are complicated. I owe that to my friends. Too often this causes conflict, if the belief itself is something that pains the one doing the misrepresentation. From their point of view there might not be any value in understanding how such beliefs come to be. Or maybe it is too painful to try to understand. The end result is at least two troubled people. Maybe two angry people. Maybe two frustrated or disappointed people. What I am saying is please try to emphatise with each other.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:thats what this is. captain von trapp is literally saying that gay folks are going to hell. No he is not and it is not semantics or whatever is the right English language word for unimportant wordplay. I do not know if you read my previous post but this is exactly what I meant about misrepresenting someone. I assume you are not doing it on purpose and your motivations are morally defensible in every possible light. I am not being snide either, I mean it. I get the impression that you want to speak plainly and call out disrespect and bigotry. That is a good motive by any standard. I am not against you at all. This is just my attempt to say that things are complicated. I do not know Captain here well enough that I could claim to speak for him but the way he writes is close enough to how a relative of mine would speak so I think I am doing the thing I described in my previous post. I feel I have to try to open my mouth for the sake of peace. The point you are missing, frankly, is that even if homosexual acts were wrong, they would rank so low on the scale of things wrong in this world that hurting another person by talking about it is worse. My relative(s) would, if pressed, admit that they are pretty traditional and conservative in this matter. They would try to use neutral and impersonal words, though, because hurting another person is bad. It is way worse than romantically loving a member of the "wrong" sex. Making a valued list of sins is in itself a misrepresentation of how my relatives believe but the internet loves lists so I'll try that here. Bad things one should condemn: * all the stuff you yourself do wrong (loving God less that you love your earthly possessions, talking Lord's name in vain, not keeping holy days, not respecting your parents, hurting other people, coveting other people than your spouse, stealing, lying etc etc...) * all the stuff that is hurting those who can't defend themselves, or who have historically been treated wrong, like gay people Things so low on the list that it's not worth mentioning: *someone being gay somewhere * other similar stuff that does not actually do very much harm
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
I want to be that otter. Either one.  Also, drat. That some heavy duty moderation. Amateurs move over. Thank you for taking care of this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:the thread denizens who aren't on Discord (and why not, I ask you) Taking this at face value because this is interesting. I didn't even know that the discord that was set up during the forum crisis was active after Jeffrey bought the site. I like the thread a lot and it is important to me but I cannot stand the idea of a chat I would "have" to read constantly. I like that I can check here once a day or every couple of days and see what's up. Having to keep up with a discussion through an electronic means feels exhausting. (On top of whatsapp discussions that I have going on sometimes. ) I wonder if I'm to only one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:You're probably not the only one, and I really hope the "and if not, why not" I tacked on came across as joking - it really really wasn't meant to be pressure to join. Honestly, the majority of good discussions still happen here in the thread; there's just occasional gems that I like to bring back to the thread, because I do know chat isn't everybody's thing. The only thing I do there that I don't do here is post religion-related tweets that I run across, because I don't think anybody wants me using this thread as a tweet aggregator. No problem, the joke came across just fine. In a stereotypical Finnish way I just cannot take a rhetorical question without answering it at least in my mind. And this time it made me curious. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:1. Praise to Medicine Buddha, Master of healing, Lapis Lazuli Radiance Tathagata Had I made that prayer, I would have slipped a small change of words on the line 97 or so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2022 08:39
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:I think I'll drop the Lutheran Insulter in this thread. It took a surprisingly long while to get into anything close to scatological: "You say, "What comes out of our mouth must be kept!" I hear it - which mouth do you mean? The one from which the farts come? (You can keep that yourself!)" Edit: A little too close to the home. "You seem to be wrangling about goat's wool, like the man who watched the play in an empty theater."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
I have no idea what shortbread is (gotta Google next I guess), but rosemary and chocolate sounds so weird a combination that I simply must see what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2022 11:33
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I adore all the moments where Jesus is noticeably frustrated with his close friends. It has come up often in the previous threads but "the apostles are cowards and idiots" is simultaneously one of the funniest but also most merciful themes of the Gospel according to Mark.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I mean, there's a *lot* of stuff in there. Almost everyone picks and chooses from the Bible. Of those three examples, I would say we're not picking and choosing. Different fabrics thing is for the Old Covenant. Blood as a food is covered in the New Testament where, while the apostles still forbid us gentiles from consuming blood, it is made clear that reasons for avoiding certain foods have nothing to do with the foodstuff itself. And giving everything to the poor is a task that Jesus knows is impossible for most, which in turn is the point of why he commands it. The above is not my own thinking but based on a LOT of research. When there's a whole lot of solid theology behind "picking and choosing", then it most certainly isn't that. Edit: Even solid theology can obviously be wrong, but it would still not be picking and choosing. And I am not saying we (and I in particular) don't try to downplay and ignore those things in the Bible that make us uncomfortable, we certainly do. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:St Francis did. Looks like we’ve accidentally reached pelagainism again I presume He would have tasked Francis with something else, had he been trying to be righteous on his own. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, it is a genuine commandment and not a rhetorical device. It makes sense that people take it seriously and some even succeed. In that part at least. For those not familiar with the story, there was this rich, young person, who claimed he had followed all the commandments. The first and most important one is to have God in number one place in your life. But when the (Son of) God personally asks you to sell everything, give the money to the poor and then follow him, and you cannot, it kinda makes it obvious how wrong you were in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:I’ve done a lot of soul searching these past few weeks. It’s clear to me now, I will not be a priest or religious. It hurt, a lot, recognizing that to be true. In fact for a time it felt like grief. Then I also had to reconcile the fact that I thought my vocation would be my career. Thanks be to God, I’ve made peace with my realizations and in fact find it is a moment of grace. It is an opportunity to re-examine my strengths and talents and find my way in the world. I just wanted to thank everyone who supported me with your prayers, they didn’t fall on deaf ears, God worked His Will in His own time. Thanks again, and please say one last prayer that in all things God’s Will be done. For what it's worth, my calling to be a church youth worker was also my career for over a decade. I never imagined leaving that path until I was forced to. (Money problems arise when the parish shrinks.) It likewise hurt a lot. For some years afterwards I was still practically acting and thinking like that was my responsibility, even though it wasn't. Being a youth worker was part of my self and part of my identity. My point is, I imagine it will take time for you to re-adjust, too. Take your time. Like you said, there possibly is grace in there. I'll definitely say that prayer you asked.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2022 12:26
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I memorized this in high school in the King James Version: Except that part of the letter is explicitly about salvation: following the law perfectly is impossible, so Jesus took our sins and died, thus freeing us from the stranglehold that the law had on us. It does not follow that we should ignore the law going forward, just that it has no power over our salvation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:What is salvation? I don't remember what tradition you come from but in general salvation in the Bible means restoring the connection to God, in other words, being saved from sin, death and the devil. Getting to heaven after death and being able to live in peace before that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:
Pardon me if I'm being simple about this but if someone saves a child from falling from a high chair or saves a puppy lost in a big city, the word save does not mean sharing one's knowledge about being in the world. Now, I don't know or can't recall what other meanings or roots the original greek/hebrew/arameic words might have but certainly "saviour" is normally simply just "someone who saves"?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:No certainly not. Savior is from soter which is teacher. But not any teacher, the head of philosophical school. Putting aside the actual matter (I have time to read that lecture later so I'll return to it then), what does it matter where the word saviour is derived from? I originally said that the passage in Romans is about salvation, the concept of being saved from something. I used English in the same sense a sports commentator or a news reporter might use when they see someone saving something. If you believe that the biblical salvation is something else, sure, fine, I'll read the lecture and return to this later.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2022 10:47
|
|