Much of the feedback centered on the propriety of Timothy Kurek’s yearlong experiment. Some questioned why he would actively choose what they called a life of sin. Others questioned whether the author’s experiment was worthwhile or fair:
KGE
"On the surface, perhaps we are supposed to applaud someone who takes such drastic steps to make changes in hateful beliefs learned over a long, long immersion in evangelical religion. But here's what bothers me about it: Instead of approaching the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community with honesty, he built his entire 'conversion' on lies and deceit, pretending to be 'one of them' instead of who he is. It would have been more honorable and meaningful to learn, communicate, socialize and support a way of life that isn't his own."</blocquote
Brian Hartman
"Interesting article, but pretending to be gay isn't the same thing as being gay. I'm not gay, but I imagine that the feeling that you aren't accepted for who you genuinely are (rather than for some trait that you're putting on but can bail out of if it gets too uncomfortable) is a very different feeling from *acting* like you're gay. I applaud him for giving himself some small sense of what it's like, but he shouldn't be confused into thinking that it's genuinely like that for gay people."
In my interviews with him, Kurek repeatedly addressed this line of criticism, which he also confronted in the introduction to his book, "The Cross in the Closet." “I believe in total immersion,” Kurek said. “If you are going to walk in other people’s shoes, then you are going to need to walk in your shoes, too.”
Though fewer than the number of commenters challenging the book’s premise, some called Kurek’s experiment touching and brave:
Alaskan Guy
"As a gay man, I found it very touching that he would even try to change his evangelical Christian beliefs and open his heart to his fellow man. I'm not offended at all that he 'lied and deceived' our community for this little experiment. I personally think every self-proclaiming Christian should buy a copy and read it. It might actually open some minds!"
helensadornmentsblog
"I think Kurek is very brave to open up his mind to people who differ from him. Jesus championed those on the fringes of society. … I am so very lucky to belong to a church that is diverse, and this enriches my worship experience."
Kurek said he now believes that people of faith can square their beliefs with the objectives of the gay rights movement. In one interview, he questioned how someone could believe in the golden rule - “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself” - but still discriminate against the LGBT community.
Since completing his experiment, Kurek has shopped around for a new church. Though he goes to church less often than before, he recently visited a house of worship at which he was “the only straight person there.” Those experiences, he said, have helped show him that the faith and LGBT communities do not have to be at odds.
But many commenters disagreed, with some questioning whether Kurek was ever really a Christian.
GodsPeople
"(I)f he was trying to change his beliefs, then he is not really a Christian, and will never have God's grace until he repents his acceptance of sin."
Dave
"I don’t believe this man was or is a Christian. He has been enticed by the gay sinful lifestyle."
Brainiac
"The idea of lying to your family and going into LGBT community is certainly not evangelical or biblical to begin with. What happened to honor your father and mother? He is a sham to begin with."
The question of whether lying was appropriate came up from notable conservative Christian thinkers, too. Denny Burk, associate professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, criticized the premise of "The Cross in the Closet," even though he acknowledged that had "not read the book and do not plan to."
"This was not a Christian posing as a gay person. This was a liar posing as a gay person," Burk wrote on his blog. "No person who would so fundamentally deceive and manipulate friends, family members, and the gay community could credibly be considered Christian (John 8:44; 1 John 1:6). The lie he perpetrated traumatized his parents and other family members. I can’t believe he kept this up for a year."
According to Kurek, his family has gotten over the fact that he lied to them for a year. Family members were happy that they hadn’t been so wrong about his sexuality while he was growing up. As for whether relatives have changed their views of homosexuality because of the project, Kurek said it is a slow process.
“They have grown to understand,” Kurek said. “My mom got it.”
Just remember, all the priests who molested those young boys were f@gs just like the ones seeking gay marriage. Nothing more morally degenerate than a f@g.
False, but you already knew that. Troll.
Hetero males molest more girls.
Even the ones that molested girls?
Idiot
Nope! Lying believers, especially christians, are way worse.
Evidently there is nothing more degenerate and bigoted than a John Thomas Tolbert.
I am just like Roy Cohn: I take a wide stance in my opposition to homosexuality.
The ruts of gayness is in its wanting, not in its being on par and equal footing with the hetro crowds. I want this and I don't give a damn whose shoes I scuff up or shirt I do ruffle! Give me give me give! Where will it all end? Men marrying dogs? Women marrying cats? The 1st cousins marrying each other? Where then shall the skunks' odor be sprayed next?
Shove it, LL. Nothing stinks worse than your posts.
Yep, the brilliant slippery slope argument. Look what allowing any marriage at all will now end up.
You're such a fvcking idiot that you think gays should just resign themselves to being children of a lesser god. That they shouldn't even ask for the right to marry the PERSON (not dogs or cats, you moron) they love. That they should avoid "ruffling shirts and scuffing shoes" by asking for equal treatment. You are beyond disgusting, LL.
Yeah, Observer, stupid blowhards like Bob and LL keep yipping about bestiality and in=cest, yet when asked to show any such result having occurred in states and nations where gay marriage is already legal, they're struck mute.
Unbelievably ignorant.
Mr. Lamb, do you now or have you ever had any Gay friends or “outed” family members? You do realize that you interact with people every day that are gay don't you? People you are related to, friends, people you work with?
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son,
What's wrong with incest? God liked it so much that he used it twice to populate the earth.
Tender are the rose thistles and they p r I c k anyone who does come too close and does so brush against its thorniness. Likewise are the gay crowds who tend to deafening the hordes massing of mobbed religiosities never to skip a beat! They do clamor upon all who they deem threatening to their ever unending causes in their barrowed mindset. Equality of marriage is in the cards and their hand has been dealt.
Bitter the once bitten are holding steadfast their hands dealt against the gay players. The last bets are made. Who will win the pot's treasures? Who will lose their hand's once strong held cards? Will all the players against the gay one fold or is there a good dealt hand to still yet be played? It comes down to one's will doesn't it? Whose will is the stronger? Always ones will. Ever is the will to be so done! Amen
that you compare the love of two humans to bestiality tells me how warped you are, lion. funny how when you hear someone shouting bigotry in this country, they're always christian... coincidence?
Mr. Lamb always starts showing his colors when he is high.
Bootyfunk,
Many bigoted people who are either gay or atheists do spew forth their rudeness animosities of wayward slangs and maniacal hap hazardous revealing of dichotomies pleasuring upon their franchised others to vanquish their foes in culminating rhythms fit only for their own fettered sakes! Eat and do drink up and remain all the merrier for in the end games shall the balls be dropped! I take no sides for valor's sakes and I throw to many pigs their next meals. Be vented all you who are ablaze with bigoted rationalisms! I will give you all soon your next treats!
Why does anyone bother with liarlyspam? His writing is so limp and shrivelled that I can never make it more than a few words before severe nausea and boredom force me to quit.
He's just very bad writing over even worse thinking. Why bother?
Mr. Lamb,
Up in smoke, donde todos es mi reyThere are no signs, que dice no fumerSo I roll un "Bomber", y me doy, un buen toke-ayY despues I choke, y todos mis cares, go up in smoke
Come on let's go get high
I agree with Angus. Lionlylamb is only interested in listening to himself. If he had the maturity to seriously contribute to a conversation, he'd cut the babble and participate like an adult.
Why bother with the child?
@Observer
Because crazy people can be very entertaining if you milk them properly.
Need a Miracle,
I am a recluse NaM, a person who does live in a cave of sorts. I go to stores to shop for food and such other things. My life's affairs are either here or at activeworlds.com. I'm old and near my life's end of its sentence upon these shores of deniability. I care not for this world and its shallowness ways. I await at death's gates ever encroaching moments to never again find reason for returning as I now have thus done. Though the world may never know the physical me, my Word will ever so be! Gay people you ask? I have known a few in my ages. Do I have reason against gays to hate them ? Nope I don't. I stand with scripture in that I feel the gay crowds to be an abomination n my eyes! That's all! An abomination only!
I think Tom is right. By the time the Llamb has finished asking for a drink, his wife has probably already served the damn drink cooked dinner and washed all the snot out of his hankies, dried and ironed them and put them away.
Mr. Lamb, that is why people like you are so sad. God gave you a brain but you refuse to use it. Sad.
Llamb: "I stand with scripture"
Yes well too bad no two people think of the damned scripture the same way. Kind of makes all of "scripture" and its followers obvious fools.
Hello all. I have been reading the posts here for a couple of days. You are a lively bunch!
I don’t know if I am a believer or not. To me, the Christians and the Atheists both make sense sometimes.
The sad truth is I am living out my car right now. I was laid off. I haven’t lost everything yet, but this is a bit of a nightmare. If there is a God, I hope he hears my prayers.
Hey, hope you're okay. Where are you posting from? I was semi-homeless for a while and I posted from McDonalds--free wifi.
Things do get better. Work to find work, like you've never worked before. Work hard, no matter what you do. I went from having almost nothing--no job, no hope, horrible family situation--to an okay situation in a matter of months. Now, I'm responsible for a lot of people in my job, and I tell them that I'm like god: I help those that help themselves. So keep working towards your goals and don't give up.
p.s. The god of the bible is too stupid to believe in or take seriously, imo.
I am at Starbucks.
The problem is, I have grotesque psoriasis. I can't get hired anymore. Depression led me here. My wife left.
Please pray for me? Thanks all.
Are there any Christians here who give a shit??
@Need a miracle
Hmm, do you have psoriasis severe enough that the joint pain debilitates you? If so, then governmental help might be available, if not, perhaps getting some of the medical information that shows that psoriasis isn't contageous to put possible employers more at ease. Do you have any trade skills like computers or things like that, something where consumer interaction is limited so the possibility of hire would increase?
We don't have to give a sh!t. Either God is punishing him, or God will save him.
Religion is never having to say you are responsible
Are you a Christian Hawaii guest?
Well, thanks for nothing God. I will be dead by morning. Amen.
@Apple Bush
Nope, atheist.
When I was in college I had many Gay and Lesbian friends.
Some were flamboyant drag queens. Some were bi-sexual. Some were fay, but not overtly queer. Some were butch. In other words, all people come in all shapes and sizes.
I went to school on an acting scholarship plus I was a musician and artist, so most of my friends were actors, singers, dancers, designers and musicians.
I came to realize over time, and after living in L.A. for 25 years, that if there were no Gays and Lesbians, there would be virtually NO television, NO theater, NO fashion and music would be severely affected too.
That is just the truth for what it is worth.
I want to know, Apple: have I seen you in anything?
Am I having a cyber brush with greatness?
Personally, I have no problems with gays or gay marriage; unless they're fvcking on my front lawn, I don't care what they do.
I feel the same about straight marriage and straight couples fvcking on my lawn, too, for what it's worth.
Hi Akira,
No, you would not have seen me on T.V. or the movies, although I do know a bunch a folks who do that. I was a stage actor back in the day, and then a professional musician in L.A. for many years. The only way you would have seen me is at a wedding or a New Year’s Eve gala in the City of Angels or something like that.
However, if you have ever seen the movie “Throw Mama From the Train”, there is a scene where Danny DeVito’s character pushes the wife of Billy Crystal’s character off the boat. I was there for that. I was driving the boat! Lol. That’s show biz.
Actually now I have passed the torch on to my kids. My youngest is Broadway bound for sure. She was doing shows with Sally Struthers and Shirley Joes when she was 8 and 9. Apple of my eye. My oldest is a very talented artist and is also interested in set design. I love it! They are a thousand time more talented than me.
"Jones" sorry.
Apple:
How cool!
My oldest was in dance for many years; she still choreographs for different solos and groups for competi tive dance.
That's not her main income now, but she still has her hand (or feet) firmly planted in the dance world.
My youngest is as yet unformed; she is leaning towards criminal justice.
My kids are my greatest achievement.
Plus, they are hilarious and just all around great people.
That is awesome Akira, well done. I really do live for my kids and they really do make me proud.
My youngest who is 12 now just finished "The King and I" and then jumped right in to "The Little Mermaid" rehearsals while also doing a Christmas show where she is the ringer, and it opens on Friday. Just prior to that, she was in a professional production of "Meet Me in St. Louis". That has been her life now for four years.
As for me? I am starting a theatre right here in my town. I have been writing a lot and have at least one drama ready, so I am looking for backing.
I like drag queens. They smell nice and sing like Babs and Madonna. I like to smoke cigarettes with them and tear it up ya'll!
Not real sure what he thought he would learn? G ay people are just like anyone else. The problem arises when we as Christians describe what they do as sin. It has nothing to do with "tolerance"...what they are seeking is acceptance of their lifestyle and in fact, celebration of it. Kurek should know as a Christian as he claims to be that we have no problem with the person, but cannot condone what they do is normal. Conducting an experiment such as this will do nothing to change that fact.
whatever
have some more shellfish
Christian's do not object to everything that is not "normal". Having an IQ of 180 is less normal (based on the numbers) than being gay, but no one's having fits over two such people marrying.
Is having a high IQ unnatural? Is it a sin as defined by Christianity? Try again.
So your definition of "natural" is "that which is allowed in the bible"?
@khrodes
" Not real sure what he thought he would learn? G ay people are just like anyone else. "
I think he was going for walking a mile in their shoes. And while, on one level... Gay people are just like anyone else, there are sometimes some group cultural differences, as a general rule, that he may have wanted to experience.
" Kurek should know as a Christian as he claims to be that we have no problem with the person, but cannot condone what they do is *normal*.
So... Christians *only* condone behaviors that are...*normal* ?
" Conducting an experiment such as this will do nothing to change that fact."
Well, it seems to have made him more accepting, among other things.
Regards,
Peace...
wow....a sin as defined by christianity.....
@krhodes, by the way, the word you used was "normal", defined in the OED as
"conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected"
On that definition high IQ is less normal than hom'ose'xu'ality.
As for "natural", I cannot find a reference to the Bible.
yes, high IQ very unnatural for christians
Given that christianity relies on the supernatural, it is unnatural so must be a sin. Religious logic is consistently circular.
Vatican law forbids superst.ition. Work that one out.
@0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls
" Given that christianity relies on the supernatural, it is unnatural so must be a sin. Religious logic is consistently circular."
Excellent !
Peace...
So no supersti.tion, but exorcisms are okay.
Gotcha, except for that first thing. And the second thing. It all makes sense except those things they believe. Somehow.
Saraswati
"So your definition of "natural" is "that which is allowed in the bible"?"
I think we would all be aware of "unnatural." I think i stated that "sin" is defined by Christianity.
;p;
"yes, high IQ very unnatural for christians"
You mean like Newton, Copernicus, and so on and so forth?
"So... Christians *only* condone behaviors that are...*normal* ?
" Conducting an experiment such as this will do nothing to change that fact."
Well, it seems to have made him more accepting, among other things.
Regards,"
Did i state that Christianity defined normal?
While being gay may be a sin to some christian denominations it is not universal, and people are only sinners to some and not to others. Fortunately as we move into the 21st century what some christians believe in sinful is becomeing more and more irrelevant. About time too.
0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls
"Given that christianity relies on the supernatural, it is unnatural so must be a sin. Religious logic is consistently circular."
I think you should re-read what i stated mr. strawman.
Since roughly 90% of people are right-handed, why don't Christian hypocrites pick on left-handed people for not being "natural"?
Rational Libertarian
"Vatican law forbids superst.ition. Work that one out."
I'm not Catholic?
JWT
"While being gay may be a sin to some christian denominations it is not universal, and people are only sinners to some and not to others. Fortunately as we move into the 21st century what some christians believe in sinful is becomeing more and more irrelevant. About time too."
Well regardless of what adherents think or believe or what time the live in...the Biblical definition of what sin is does not change. It is a sin and will remain so...what people believe is irrelevant.
You did because you have your own interpretation of what sin is. Every Christian has a different interpretation, and some are drastically different. It's a terribly conflicted religion from its roots. Some can step back enough to not sweat the details in the Bible and not make claims about others as if they were a judge. Like someone I know that said:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
who would go on to be the chief architect of our Constitution.
Observer
"Since roughly 90% of people are right-handed, why don't Christian hypocrites pick on left-handed people for not being "natural"?"
I suppose we will leave you out of the high IQ category since you did not understand what you read.
Everything about "sin" is belief. That's all it is. Is it a sin to wear a garment made of two different types of cloth? What about eating shellfish? What about killing your daughter because of a silly promise you made to god?
Nice quote from TJ mom..funny thing, he stated that all men are created equal while owning what...250 human beings and paid special attention to the females.
It is your opinion that these are sinful people. Its is not a universal christian viewpoint. And the number of chirstinas that agree with you are dropping all the time.
Well, that sure makes Solomon a dovche.
krhodes,
Speaking of high IQs, please tell us all about your belief in talking animals and unicorns in the Bible.
Moby Schtick.
"Everything about "sin" is belief. That's all it is. Is it a sin to wear a garment made of two different types of cloth? What about eating shellfish? What about killing your daughter because of a silly promise you made to god?"
Where did you pick that line up...from the president? If either of you knew anything about Christianity you would realize what you sound like...wrong!
TJ was not the chief architect of the Constitution, Ruddy – try again.
Observer
krhodes,
"Speaking of high IQs, please tell us all about your belief in talking animals and unicorns in the Bible."
Well you believing in talking animals yourself don't you? I mean you believe primates can speak and even land on the moon?
@krhodes
Really? That's your reply? "You're a dummy, doo-doo head?" What are you so afraid of? Why don't you answer the questions? What is "sin" if it's not belief? Why was it righteous for Jephthah to burn his daughter alive and not a sin? Is it or isn't it a sin to eat shellfish? If you can't handle these sorts of questions, you have no business speaking up for your inconsistent faith and hypocritical god.
krhodes,
The Bible says that serpents can talk. Do you believe what the Bible says?
The Bible says that unicorns existed. Do you believe in unicorns?
Here"s two more quotes by the same person, Ruddy – see if you can get it right this time. And while you're at it, tell us what you think he means here (reminder – it is not JT):
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
Moby Schtick.
@krhodes
"Really? That's your reply? "You're a dummy, doo-doo head?""
Yeah...that is my answer because you obviously have zero knowledge of Christianity, and cannot differentiate between an old testament Jew or a Christian.
(not TJ rather – I didn't want you to fail twice with the same guess)
mama k
"Here"s two more quotes by the same person, Ruddy – see if you can get it right this time. And while you're at it, tell us what you think he means here (reminder – it is not JT):"
I was wrong about the author...it was Madison. By the way, i wrote TJ not JT. Good night and God bless.
krhodes,
Sorry you had to run away before answering my questions.
Yes, Ruddy – I was correcting myself from my previous post.
@khrodes
You're the one that said "sin is sin," but now you're saying that sometimes sin that used to be sin in the OT isn't sin anymore? What happened, there? If you're going to make such statements, then be willing to defend them. Does god change or doesn't he? Is something sin or isn't it? Why the hypocrisy?
This is, what, the third or fourth time CNN has recycled this story?
I do realize that there cannot be any real religious news, like "God Finally Appears To Mankind . . . And It's Osiris!" or "Jesus Comes Back To Life Again, But Zombie Rule #2 Drops Him!", but why do we have to look at Chubby the Lying Christian hugging much more attractive men than he time after time?
Is that the double tap?
Yes it is. Any idiot knows that a spear to the chest won't take a zombie down. If Jesus came at me, he'd get a '38 special between the eyes.
RL:
Just wanted to make sure. I know rule #1 is Cardio.
1.Cardio
2.The Double Tap
3.Beware of Bathrooms
4.Wear Seat Belts
5.No Attachments
6.The “Skillet”
7.Travel Light
8.Get a Kick Ass Partner
9.With your Bare Hands
10.Don’t Swing Low
11.Use Your Foot
12.Bounty Paper Towels
13.Shake it Off
14.Always carry a change of underwear
15.Bowling Ball
16.Opportunity Knocks
17.Don’t be a hero (later crossed out to be a hero)
18.Limber Up
19.Break it Up
20.It’s a marathon, not a sprint, unless it’s a sprint, then sprint
21.Avoid Strip Clubs
22.When in doubt Know your way out
23.Zipplock
24.Use your thumbs
25.Shoot First
26.A little sun screen never hurt anybody
27.Incoming!
28.Double-Knot your Shoes
29.The Buddy System
30.Pack your stain stick
31.Check the back seat
32.Enjoy the little things
33.Swiss army Knife
I wonder why CNN gives religious authors so much free advertising here, but you never see atheists with new books getting free attention?
CNN is okay in this regard. They don't need to plug authors for atheists. The majority of us atheists are quite capable of going to the science websites where they are plentiful.
The belief blog is only for fiction authors. If you want to catch up on non-fiction authors writing about atheism, try the book review section of the NY Times.
I was only thinking that intellectually-stunted atheist hack writers with shallow, trite, forgetable books should get the same free advertising that intellectually-stunted religious hack writers with shallow, trite, forgetable books do. It's only fair. Kind of a "charity for incompetents" thing.
@Windy Bob
Well that doesn't make sense. Science is about getting rid of the falseness. Why would we care to plug for even the retards of the whacky pseudo-science dimwits? We would have to dedicate more resources away from our main goals to deal with another avenue of dishonesty.
Actually, I was just mocking the incredibly bad religious writers who get free press here.
Answer, as if being worms that crawled out of the ocean and survived the fittest of the fittest isn't a take off of sperm penetrating the egg in the womb of women. You atheists are too foolish for words.
@Your whatever
Please carry on ... now tell everyone which apologist site you came up with that one.
What if an atheist brings out a book about how the tears of leprunicorns (leprechaun/unicorn hybrid) cure erectile dysfunction? Should that be plugged on a scientific website?
Because writing about why you don't believe in god is as silly, and boring, as writting about why you don't believe in leprachauns, fairies or the cookie monster. People obsessed with the "atheist" part of their life need to grow up and, well, get a life.
False analogy, Saraswati. It would only work if 90% of people believed in leprechauns and the other myth characters you mention.
Leprechaun believers have not lobbied Congress to alter laws to fit their Leprechaunism.
Cookie Monster believers have never blocked stem cell research due to their cookie beliefs.
Fairy believers have never had an inquisition or war of theocracy, or otherwise killed or tortured or oppressed unbelievers.
Religious people have. Thus the need to squash the idiocies of religion at every opportunity.
..you meant "quash." 🙂
"Leprechaun believers have not lobbied Congress to alter laws to fit their Leprechaunism."
Lugh Lámhfhada, and its not Leprechaunism; its druidism
Cookie Monster believers have never blocked stem cell research due to their cookie beliefs.
more cookies
Fairy believers have never had an inquisition or war of theocracy, or otherwise killed or tortured or oppressed unbelievers.
once again Fairy and Lugh Lámhfhada are of the same belief system, ann um we kinda did have a war, the Odinist remember it. we Sidhe and Norse have been waring because of are faith for years those damn fomorii half breeds Lugh kinda took Odin/Balor eye
Religious people have. Thus the need to squash the idiocies of religion at every opportunity.
No, I actually meant squash. Quashing them leaves them alive and howling on street corners how "Jesus is Pissed" – actuallysaw that one – and other nonsense.
No, I meant squashed, as in run over by bulldozers.
fred,
I have been reading through your posts. You are a scholar and your posts are reminiscent of the sensible posts from Topher. Your case is well stated. If we can't explain it yet, god did it. As long as there are things we can't yet explain there will be a god. Good logic, good call.
You know fred only believes in his one true god and disregards the rest, Zeus, will not be pleased with you humoring fred like that.
LOL
The interesting thing is that the exact same arguments were used to affirm the existence of Zeus and Allah and Quetzlcoatl.
AB, there is a law, "Act of God', where no one is liable of responsible for your highway accident in falling rock areas.
Interesting that "Acts of God " always applies to bad things happening, and never good.
Ya Zingo, but who made them Governments or Churches?
You know fred only believes in his one true god and disregards the rest, Zeus, will not be pleased with you humoring fred like that.
i believe in all gods and degrade Yahweh
once again i think this man should be praised, instead of judging some one else; he tried to learn more about them. he put aside his prejudice (to pre judge; with out evidance) and learned how it was to be like them, he tested his faith and found that it could not explain the kindness and love that he has been taught was sin. lets see how many Christians are willing to do this. the funny thing is they always tell me to try and live like a christian; i have for a whole year in (teen challenge), it was hard and i was hurtful to countless people. i found their is no way i can do it, i care about others and this world fare to much. I still tied to believe like you do. this man did the same and once again found it was his Christianity that was in the wrong.
so try it your self,
spend just one year in the shoes of those you hate,
Filthy, life for a year as a Hindu
Atheist, live for a year as a believer, if you already havent
Christians live for a year as a Wiccan, Hellenist, Odinist, Druid, Shintoist, ect (a hole year with a god you call a demon or an idol.
Jews live as a Palestinian
ect
just try it whats the point of having faith if you can't test it
It really is an eye opening experience. I never did anything this extreme, but I did choose to go to grad school in the South because everyone in the various norther places I'd lived has set ideas and I wanted to know what was true. It provided both happy surprises and disappointments, but certainly a time for growth.
We are open for lunch and dinner now.
Today's Menu:
Troll special hand roll $4.99. Rice, Salmon, Avocado and Sea Eel.
Akira Katerpiller Roll (Rice, Avacado, Toro, Sea Eel and Drizzled in Sweet Terriaki) $5.99
Kirin Large $4.99
Mesopotamia Monkey Brain Roll: Inside, crab meat and avocado. Outside, salmon and spicy tuna. Deep fried. Ask for Jalapeno if you want it with a kick! $7.99
Toshi Special Octopus Sashimi:
Mongorien free baby octopus. Baby octopus, still alive and cooking in lemon juice and sprinkled with green onion and special hot sauce. Feel the little tentacles grab your mouth, lips and tongue while you chew. Delightful! $29.99.
Belief Blog Special Tasting! Two bites, $21.99.
Bite One: Basashi (Horse)
Very lean and tender, rare-prepared and garnished with freshly grated ginger and diced onions.
Bite Two: Tobiko (Flying Fish Ovaries)
Flying fish roe served Gunkan-maki or “Battleship Style.” Salty and crunchy, served with raw quail egg cracked directly on top of the battleship piece, with a shiso leaf, wasabi, squid ink, spicy seasoning and citrus flavors.
Nigori Sake $49.99 Kampai!
Also:
Mexican jalapeño Roll
Fresh Uni
Live Giant Clam
Seared salmon sashimi with jalapeño
Green Baked Mussels
Soft Shell Crab Roll
New! Thinly sliced rare sirloin marinated in Ponzu and garnished with green onion.
Kampai!
what no Crisp Daikon cake, i refuse to eat sushi with out a side of Daikon, warm Saki and a Tanuki by the entrance of the store.
so im going over to Sushi Kami, were i can also get a get a bowl of udon
Mr. Yaza, warm sake is cheap kind. You try our high quality, we have many variety. Also, Sushi Kami run by Korean! Their sushi rice too sticky and not served warm. I make you special roll, what you want?
Sorry, Toshi step out for errand so I cook for you!
You have rive bearded cram?
Shepherd rolles (fella of bishop), and a bowl of Lamb udon(freshly ground evangelicals), don't for get to worm up that high priced saki
Ninja:
One would hope the bearded cram is rive.
Necrophelia is gross, you naughty man.
so much better eating at Ramen Don its like an Arabic-Italian Japanese noodle shop
the question Kurek should answer whether he was interested in knowing how it felt like having s.exual encounters with gay men, or he was just interested in stories GLBT? What was goon interested in? What did goon learn something new about GLBT community?
The christian wasn't interested in learning about your islam – that is the best part.
stupidity of Answer, stupid.
The goon?
blame the reporter. they have to ask the question in order to get an answer. and he may have given answers - did the journalist include them in his/her story? it is a good question though. but i think part of the answer is there. he learned that g.ay people are just people, which is why he ended up rejecting the religious side that told him g.ays are evil.
Yes booty, God has made everyone equal, gays or straight, no reason for any religious goon to go undercover, evil doers are Evils, not someone lives with different life style, goons.
Wow are you Yakobi? What the hell happened? Your answers are actually intelligible! And I have to say that I agree with you.
Save your money as the following summarizes the issue:
Again to the nitty-gritty:
From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.
Heterose-xual se-x is basically intercourse.( intercourse: co-pulation between male and female).
Bottom line: gay unions and heteros-exual marriages. Now everything is correct biologically and physically and should be noted this way in laws and government regulations to include census forms and requirements.
Regarding gayness: once again:
o "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.
To wit:
1. The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:
“ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "
2. "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8
3. See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”
Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions supposedly abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.
Why would the government need the information as to who is the "giver" and who is the "receiver"?
Doubtful they would.
It's not pertinent information for census purposes.
Name some gay men now, and speculate the same as you have for the women; sounds as if you have given serious thought as to what roles people play in their bedroom olympics.
At http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf , there is a check box for "unmarried partner" under Person #2. There of course is also a check box for "husband/wife". One assumes a gay couple could check this latter box but how does one choose which is which for a gay union? Some gay couples do decide what role each plays in the relationship.
find a h.omophobe. ask him if he's religious. the two go hand in hand. the most religious people are usually the most prejudiced. religion gets undue credit for being so 'loving' and 'compassionate', but religion is the main cause of h.omophobia, mysogyny and bigotry in the world. the bible puts women on par with barnyard animals, says to kill all g.ays and supports slavery throughout. the bible is digusting.
Actually, I think the most common reasons for homophobia is either a fear of becoming gay, or a suppression of the persons own natural gay tendencies.
i think the basis for most of the fear comes from religion. not only does it say in the bible that g.ays are to be killed, there are stories, like Sodom and Gomorrah that christians generally attribute to h.omos.exuality where god meters out divine death to the s.exually 'degenerate'. on top of that, we have religion fighting against human s.exuality classes being taught to our youth in high school. they also refuse to let schools teach that being g.ay is normal. how many h.omophobic people wouldn't be h.omophobic if religion didn't fight against spreading a healthy att.itude about h.omos.exuality? churches still preach sermons about h.omos.exuality. the facilities that 'cure' h.omos.exuality are always run by christian organizations. these christian facilities torture and psychologically damage g.ay youths to an unimaginable degree. it's always uber religious politicians that put up laws to block g.ay marriage, and they're always backed financially by a christian organization. and lots of other anti-g.ay laws. these people get their religious and h.omphobic views to become the law of the alnd. christian organizations organize protests with signs saying "god hates f.ags" and other horrible cr@p. when you see the mask of h.omphobia, the face behind is always christian. How many less h.omophobes would there be without religion spreading ignorance and lies about g.ay people?
I'll be the first to admit my lack of knowledge regarding J.apanese wordplay, but if I inadvertently created a haiku, kudos to me (and Leon from Curb Your Enthusiasm).
Damn it, wrong thread.
That ok RL, you stay for sushi, I make good for you ok?
I have to admit that I've never eaten sushi. I'm an Italian guy usually. Eating sushi is on my 'To Do' list, I just haven't gotten 'round to trying it yet.
Ah, you missing out. Sushi good and healthy. You ask, I help you ok?
Ibodai (Butterfish) is really good. If you're going to have sushi, have that.
I guess its a slow week on the belief blog – a 'your take' on an updated story on an October video.
Still, kudos to Dan Merica for making this story compelling for a large number of readers with >3,500 responses in two days.
Apple Bush
Will you at least give some thought to what we've been discussing?
Topher, it is not possible to put thought into what we have been discussing, because what we have been discussing does not require thought.
I have put plenty of thought into things that actually exist. I love thought provoking subjects and interesting, thoughtful and educated people. You are none of those, and your bible ranting is absurd.
So what your saying is that people can go to hell even if they have never heard of Jesus?
Topher, did all of the people that existed for the first 200,000 years before Jesus go to Hell? Why doesn't the bible mention them?
Coming into this conversation completely blind, here is the deal with heaven and hell.
It's a complete wa.nk. If you've heard of jesus and accept him, you go to heaven. If you've heard of jesus and don't accept him, you go to he.ll. If you're say, a baby or some sort of unfortunate who didn't get to live but "existed" you go to some sort of purgatory or limbo – for this "souls" I don't know if I'm supposed to feel bad for them considering they don't really have a personal.ity or mind or anything, but whatever.
As for people like amaz.onian tribes cut off from human contact or people who lived and died pre-jesus or anyone who never heard of jesus and thus didn't accept them are probably in the best position than anyone else. They get to choose at death once they know for sure that all these things exist. All of their sins are washed away because they didn't know any better. Pretty much the rules make it so that the people who live in the dark their entire lives get to truely live free of guilt and mindless faith in the christian god and still get a free pass into heaven.
The Earth is only 6,000 years old, and everyone who was killed in the flood went to hell.
Apple
A lot of them did just as a lot do now. But some were still saved because of the faith in the coming Messiah. Christ is mentioned as early as Genesis 3:15. We've had knowledge of Him since Adam and Eve. For instance, read about what the Bible says about Moses and Abraham after their deaths.
Topher, wait..what? There were Christians 200.000 years ago?? LMFAO
Topher, can you at least give some thought to what I said about Santa and Nessy?
"We've had knowledge of Him since Adam and Eve"
Based on what?
Neither Santa nor Nessy have power to judge my soul.
Sam
Genesis 3:15
"Genesis 3:15"
The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
Topher
Genesis 3:15
New International Version (NIV)
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
This passage is god speaking to the serpent. How does this elude to the coming of Jesus?
Exactly Topher. Just as the equally mythological Jesus or God don't have the power to judge your soul. Now we are getting somewhere. The phrase "judge my soul" actually has no meant whatever, as there is no such thing as a soul either.
Gee, Topher, you are not only a liar, but a bad one at that. Get back on your knees and beg some more
@sam stone
And what you just said is the reason that I think Topher might actually be Ray Comfort.
Apple
Alright, dude. I gotta get going. Work calls as always. I'm begging you to think about this stuff. Until we can talk again, have a good one and God bless.
Huebert
I wish I had time to talk with you about this. Perhaps that can be our topic tomorrow? Just know that passage is talking about how sin separates us from God and when it talks about the heel and head ... that's the Savior stomping (killing) the work of Satan.
Here Topher...
Do yourself a favor and do this psychological re-enforcement for your betterment.
Repeat this to yourself: "I allow myself the ability to think." Say it earnestly. Allow yourself -that remark- to enter your subconscious. Just takes about 10 minutes a day and you'll be relieving yourself of those useless fears.
Topher
See you tomorrow then. Have a good day at work.
Wow, Gopher turns and runs. How novel
Later T.
Smithsonian
“Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship?”
=>the answer is yes it does from the beginning to the end. Thank you Smithsonian !
Topher wrote, " Just know that passage is talking about how sin separates us from God and when it talks about the heel and head ... that's the Savior stomping (killing) the work of Satan."
I swear to gods – one of these days one of you nutters is going to spin so fastt you become a black hole.
@Primewonk
The spin at least gives all the rational people a good look at how ridiculous people can be when they're trying to rationalize away their moronic beliefs.
Primewonk
….and as a black hole we could draw all of you into the real world of which nature is only a small part that presently coexists with the heavens.
@fred
Explain the real world. Go and try.
[Smithsonian: “Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship?” ]
fred: "the answer is yes it does from the beginning to the end. "
And that's the way many a good story or movie is written.
fred: " . . .of which nature is only a small part that presently coexists with the heavens."
lol. there is certainly no proof of that. but we do know about the connections between religion and mythology.
Chuckles
Close but no kosher cigar for you. Entry into the Kingdom is by the grace of God who already knows where the babies would have gone and where those in the dark jungles without present knowledge of God would have gone.
Perhaps God has tapped you on the shoulder several times and presented Christ. That is the long suffering of God waiting for you to accept the gift. Saul of Tarsus saw the light because he was chosen. So, will your storm Stephen with your ears covered or see the light?
fred,
you are in a cult. all religions are cults. cults are bad for you. they teach you to turn off your brain.
unclasp you hands. get off your knees. think for yourself. go outside and put those hands to use helping others.
congratulations - you're now a better person.
I'm sorry, "fred", but the "God [of Israel]" and the "Kingdom" are elements of mythology, therefore "Chuckles" cannot enter into such elements.
mama k
Get real and simply look around you. The presence of God (regardless of your belief) coexists with our physical world at this time. That presence can be seen in the children of God and of course it is self evident in the creation itself.
Let me give you one example. All the knowledge to date on biological evolution has yet to connect any part of the theory to the origin of life as with all the physical sciences that come up empty handed when it comes to origin of life. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Science continues to scratch the surface of the created physical things where as the creator is not made of the physical matter God created. The Bible addresses that which cannot be explained without faith. Now, some scientists have that faith and clearly see reality as they now include information given by God in their world view. As long as you intentionally exclude the self evident you will never see the world as it really is only through a bias lens.
It is like trying to explain to a Democrat the reality that redistribution of wealth is a disincentive to productivity
@fred
You don't even have the slightest clue of what is real. So all that blather is just to plug your spiel.
Explain what is real. Go ahead.
More of the same by the dishonest fucktard fred. No evidence, all assertions, and all stupidity. Worthless.
Fred, I agree God did it, and there is no reason to look any further.
Answer
"Explain the real world. Go and try."
=>Reality is that God created the heavens and the earth then said it is very good. Jesus said only God is good. Reality is the goodness of God displayed in the awe and wonder of our universe. Reality is the awe and wonder of mans ability to grasp beauty and goodness that abounds. Man has capacity to appreciate and interact with goodness at a cognitive level untouchable by any other life form known to man. This capacity serves no known purpose in biologic evolution and has its purpose onto God alone. That capacity is what brought man from the beginnings of recorded history to his knees in worship of God. This is the purpose of man that is not only self evident today but evident in the practices of even the Neanderthal.
No other animal worships God because they were not given capacity. This real world functions for one purpose and that is the glory of God. Unity with God is simply an extension of God who is perfect goodness and as such radiates that goodness in those who allow it (such as Jesus and for a few moments Abraham and Moses reflected that radiance).
The Bible is the story of mans relationship and understanding of God over time. The presence of God touches those who by faith seek the truth and reveals the attributes of God and the kingdom of God. Heaven is not a place you get to but a part of our existence that is visible to those who trust and obey God.
@fred
Wrong.
Try again. What is this world? What is real? What is it made of?
@fred
Have you ever noticed this about yourself? You are so used to your emotional sayings. You employ only emotions.
You expect others to understand only your useless emotional appeals.
hal9001
You fail to understand the difference between mythology and reality. The writers of the Bible were very real as was Jesus and Saul of Tarsus all of which expressed the presence of God in their lives. This very day we have by empirical observation individuals that express in writing and verbally the effect of the presence of God in their lives. You are welcome to deny that which is visible before your very own eyes but you cannot call it myth as it is real.
Perhaps you should be very alarmed that you deny that which is visible and look up denial on Google. The fact you can deny what is visible is evidence that you cannot see the real world all around you.
@fred
"effect of the presence of God in their lives."
That's funny. If there are effects then they are measurable. But you idiots clam up and go back to employ faith. Hmm.
Explain yourself fred.. go ahead make the excuses we're all used to seeing from your kind. I fully expect you to.
fred: " As long as you intentionally exclude the self evident . ."
Some of us are just better than others at recognizing spam when we see it, fred. It's not rocket science.
Answer
“Try again. What is this world? What is real? What is it made of?”
=>This world consists of all the physical matter and energy currently known to science and that which is not known to science.
=>real or reality is that which actually exists regardless of what you or I think is there or should be there.
=>reality consists of the known and the unknown. Accordingly it is composed of known matter and energy which represents less than 3% of the estimated knowable. That estimate of the knowable is of course nonsense as it does not have a valid reference point only assumption extended from the known visible universe. In short we don’t know squat.
Do you have anything substantive, fred, to support your beliefs? Anything where you're not using something to prove that same something? If it's real, you certainly ought to be able to easily provide some kind of credible proof.
OK, fred, I'm following your answer to Answer. That can all be boiled down to that there are things we know and things we don't know. How does any of that validate the God of Abraham?
@fred
"represents less than 3% of the estimated knowable."
You're equating the number of 3 percent.. in comparison to your:
1) "The writers of the Bible were very real as was Jesus and Saul of Tarsus all of which expressed the presence of God in their lives."
and
2) "The Bible addresses that which cannot be explained without faith."
–Look at yourself fred. Look at yourself hard. Do you extrapolate that 3% to just 3%? Or the total knowledge of our endeavors?
I wanna see how your little mind works. Explain just insignificant our knowledge is compared to your faith.
Answer
“If there are effects then they are measurable. But you idiots clam up”
=>ah, the problem is that you wish Christians would clam up but we just cannot help but give our testimony. The effects are measurable and we could parade millions of born again Christians before you whose lives have been transformed by faith in God. The examples are little different from my own personal experience with God. Not that long ago I could only see what the physical world had to offer. After asking Christ for help exactly what the Bible said would happen to one that was “born again” happened to me. I am a completely different person. I can testify to the effect and affect of the Word of God in my life.
Where today I see miracles where previously I saw only coincidence or luck of the draw. Today I am aware that your life is more than meaningless biologic activity of organic matter. Today I thank God for the roof over my head instead of my own ability to cover the mortgage. Today I see the wonder and awe of God instead of a cold empty universe.
Historically you see the change in Saul of Tarsus that continued right up to present day Billy Graham.
No fred, you do clam up. It's a fact.
I have no wish for your kind to just shut up. You are free to speak.
But your falseness and dishonest kind are going to disappear. I won't miss your kind.
–>>you see once again "my own personal experience with God." <<- those useless emotional pleas. So funny.
fred: "Historically you see the change in Saul of Tarsus that continued right up to present day Billy Graham."
Again – good stuff for a book or a movie. Parading people who have convinced themselves (with other mere humans helping them along) that an invisible being in the sky has transformed their ways – that also makes a good book or movie. But it's not proof of anything, fred. Something more substantive, please.
i overstated it. i don't think you are a liar. i think you are delusional and cowardly.
Answer
The 3% was based on baryonic matter relative to assumed volume of the known universe (i.e. not related to God stuff). We do not know what we do not know so I qualified my statement accordingly.
As to God or that which exists outside the boundary of known or knowable science we cannot draw a conclusion as to relative proportions.
What we can say is that the power and scope of what we do not know based on dark matter is greater than we have ever imagined. What we can say is the discovery of the fine tuning related to dark energy makes our very existence less probable mathematically than ever before.
@fred
"fine tuning"
So you're jumping around to the apologist material. Cool. XD
You're fine with that now fred? The emotional stuff that doesn't work and you'll use apologist falseness now. I'm so glad you're so flexible in trying to uphold your falseness. Explain your fine tuning stance.. let's call in Chad now.
Answer
mamma k
What we know is that science is limited to what I like to call nature. Atheists and non believers in general subscribe to a belief system rooted in naturalism because in the absence of the presence of God in their lives all that is observable is based on baryonic matter.
This is the self evident part of reality. Both of you know that there is more to life beyond baryonic matter. Both of you know it is greater than the benign state of the unknowable. Reality exists as known and unknown. The 5 senses can all identify the known yet the unknown is identified as existing thus it is self evident yet not visible. The Bible provides the pathway to enlighten the soul which then brings the unknown into the awareness of the 5 senses. This is why upon conversion people observe the presence of God whereas before they could not.
This fact of observation of the presence of God is verified by the observer. You can discount the witness all you like but you cannot discount the fact of observation as given first hand without proof to the contrary
" the presence of God is verified by the observer."
More personal appeal.. just not doing it fred. Provide the evidence. You're doing the whole dishonest routine over and over. It's so typical. Go on.. let's see you cough up the evidence.
@fred
I wonder when you'll realize that people don't buy your idiocy, and all you're doing is making yourself look worse and worse. Then again, reality, truth, and evidence aren't your strong suits.
Answer
Are you suggesting that you do not know there is more to life than random baryonic matter existing in a temporal state?
Where did that knowledge come from? You are most likely more intelligent but I doubt our cognitive experience is that much different when assessing our position in space and time. Tell me where are your thoughts located? This is not an appeal to your emotions rather your sense of position relative to your temporal state of existence. This is self evident of a reality not confined by limits of known physical matter.
Your continued insistence that what is known to you personally does not exist is the root of your Cognitive dissonance. You must justify this conflict and that you do by insisting that what I see does not exist with all sorts of denial techniques. Then you justify what you know yet claim not to see as lacking evidence you know can never exist because it is not of baryonic matter. You are going in circles.
@fred
Let us know where / which whacko apologist site you're pasting your tripe from.
Yieks....gotta run ....have a good evening ......the real world is calling
Whatever loser.
fred: "What we know is that science is limited to what I like to call nature. Atheists and non believers in general subscribe to a belief system rooted in naturalism because in the absence of the presence of God in their lives all that is observable is based on baryonic matter."
I substitute the word "delusion" for "presence" in your second sentence.
fred: "This is the self evident part of reality. Both of you know that there is more to life beyond baryonic matter. Both of you know it is greater than the benign state of the unknowable."
What's an example of what is beyond baryonic matter?
fred: "Reality exists as known and unknown. The 5 senses can all identify the known yet the unknown is identified as existing thus it is self evident yet not visible. "
Almost. The unknown is unknown because it is out of reach from the senses or has not yet been understood, but if it were within reach of one of the five senses, it would be known (although maybe not yet understood).
fred: " The Bible provides the pathway to enlighten the soul which then brings the unknown into the awareness of the 5 senses. This is why upon conversion people observe the presence of God whereas before they could not.
This fact of observation of the presence of God is verified by the observer. You can discount the witness all you like but you cannot discount the fact of observation as given first hand without proof to the contrary"
There has never been any credible proof of a soul, nor credible proof of a personal observance of God. Of course it can be discounted because none of those assertions have ever been credibly proven. They've never made their case from the start, so it's a failure before you even ask someone to discount it. It's much more reasonable to think that the brain has been tricked (we know this can happen to people through indoctrination, but we also know that the brain can take over and, continue to trick itself), than to think that some higher power has intervened and made itself known.
Answer
I do need to run but that sense where my thoughts are not tied to me in any physical manner has not changed even though everything else changed after my conversion. I did appeal to that sense thinking believers and non believers alike had the same sensation. That is the area where the presence of God originates.
I really am at a loss on how to prove anything I experience in that area. Yes there are outward changes you could observe but no evidence of what exactly is behind it.
Oooo freds trying to do logic. Let's see.
"Are you suggesting that you do not know there is more to life than random baryonic matter existing in a temporal state?
Where did that knowledge come from?"
That's not a statement of knowledge, it's an admission to a lack of knowledge.
"Tell me where are your thoughts located?"
The mind, thoughts, emotions and whatnot are emergent properties of a functioning brain. This we know.
"This is not an appeal to your emotions rather your sense of position relative to your temporal state of existence. This is self evident of a reality not confined by limits of known physical matter.
Self awareness does not equal god, that's just stupid.
"Your continued insistence that what is known to you personally does not exist is the root of your Cognitive dissonance. You must justify this conflict and that you do by insisting that what I see does not exist with all sorts of denial techniques."
Where did anyone say that?
"Then you justify what you know yet claim not to see as lacking evidence you know can never exist because it is not of baryonic matter."
What the fuck are you even talking about here?
mama k
“I substi-tute the word "delusion" for "presence" in your second sentence.”
=>you are correct from a non believer’s position it does not matter if it is the presence of God or the delusion of God.
“What's an example of what is beyond baryonic matter?”
=>Creative nature such as a new song that comes into an artists awareness, love, poetry and awareness of life after death (existence or non existence is not at issue what is at issue is the sense that one must come to a conclusion as to what is or is not).
“The unknown is unknown because it is out of reach from the senses or has not yet been understood, but if it were within reach of one of the five senses, it would be known (although maybe not yet understood).”
=>you are limiting your possibilities of experience unnecessarily to baryonic matter. If you want to experience God then you must be willing to give up this life (i.e. get off the sofa and physically take the step when the opportunity presents itself). A better example may be you cannot know love until you fall in love you can only know about it.
“indoctrination, but we also know that the brain can take over”
=>this also applies to any world view. I listen to some who extend biological evolution into a world view resulting in naturalism that is applied to the unknown (such as belief that evolution explains origin of life)
hawaiiguest
“"Are you suggesting that you do not know there is more to life than random baryonic matter existing in a temporal state? Where did that knowledge come from?"
That's not a statement of knowledge, it's an admission to a lack of knowledge.”
=>just answer the question, is there more to life than random baryonic matter existing in a temporal state !
@fred
Good job chrerry picking like usual. Didn't expect much else from you.
In answer to your non-sensical question, are you asking if there is a purpose (as is implied by asking "is there more to life than...)? If you are asking for intrinsic purpose, I don't think so. If you are talking about given purpose, then it would depend on the matter you're talking about.
Now perhaps you could shock me and actual address what you quoted, as well as the rest of my post.
mama k prev: “What's an example of what is beyond baryonic matter?”
fred: [ "Creative nature such as a new song that comes into an artists awareness, love, poetry and awareness of life after death (existence or non existence is not at issue what is at issue is the sense that one must come to a conclusion as to what is or is not)." ]
There is no proof that any of that is outside of the brain's physical capability.
mama k prev: "The unknown is unknown because it is out of reach from the senses or has not yet been understood, but if it were within reach of one of the five senses, it would be known (although maybe not yet understood).”
fred: [ "you are limiting your possibilities of experience unnecessarily to baryonic matter. If you want to experience God then you must be willing to give up this life (i.e. get off the sofa and physically take the step when the opportunity presents itself). A better example may be you cannot know love until you fall in love you can only know about it." ]
I would contend that you are limiting the possibilities of what the physical brain and mind are capable of.
mama k prev: “indoctrination, but we also know that the brain can take over”
fred: [ "this also applies to any world view. I listen to some who extend biological evolution into a world view resulting in naturalism that is applied to the unknown (such as belief that evolution explains origin of life)"
True. But it is more reasonable to believe in things that have been extended from other things that we can physically witness, especially using careful scientific methods than to believe in things that have been extended from mythology.
* GEN [3:15] They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. Another interpretive translation is ipsa, “she,” and is reflected in Jerome’s Vulgate. “She” was thought to refer to Mary, the mother of the messiah. In Christian art Mary is sometimes depicted with her foot on the head of the serpent.
So, the woman in Gen and Rev is Mary... and now here's the whole story which you're not going to get from anyone outside the Catholic Church... next post
THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING MARY
James Akin
A Sensitive Subject
This evening I want to talk to you about a very sensitive subject: Our Blessed Mother, Mary. In his book, Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis said that no subject in our faith needs to be approached more delicately than this, and one of the reasons he cited was that Catholics have a natural affection for Mary, and when Mary is attacked Lewis says that Catholics respond with that "chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honor of his mother or his beloved is at stake."
Lewis says that Catholics feel this way about Mary "very naturally," but there is one person who feels that way about Mary even more naturally than we do: her literal Son according to the flesh—Jesus Christ.
Honor Thy Father and Mother
As the obedient, infinitely holy Son of God, the Lord Jesus was a very firm believer in the commandment to honor one's father and mother. Now, what most people don't know about that commandment is that in Hebrew it literally reads, "Glorify your father and mother." This means that, since Christ took God's commandments very seriously, he would glorify his mother Mary, and for us to talk about his mother in a cavalier, irreverent manner is to impugn the glory which Christ himself has given her. As a result, if we were to talk about Mary in an impious manner then we would be offending not only Mary but also Christ by denying his mother the glory that he himself gave her.
This is something you should point out to Protestants when they start criticizing Catholic beliefs about Mary. They may feel compelled to disagree with the teaching of the Church about her, but they had better well discuss the subject in an reverent and non-hostile manner or they will start offending the Lord Jesus Christ, who will—even more naturally than us—respond with that "chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honor of his mother... is at stake."
A Bewildering Array
So with that in mind, let's talk about some of the things the Church teaches concerning the Blessed Virgin and why. This was an area of Catholic theology which was very difficult for me to accept when I was in the process of becoming a Catholic. One of the reasons for this is that it was hard for me to see the connection between all the different doctrines Catholics taught concerning Mary: the Immaculate Conception, the a.ssumption, the fact that she is Our Mother, and that she is Queen of Heaven. These doctrines seemed to be jumbled and disconnected. They didn't hang together with an inner unity, and that made them harder for me to accept.
The Unifying Theme
But then I discovered a central, unifying concept in Catholic teaching which supplies the basis for virtually everything the Church teaches us concerning Mary. This central, unifying doctrine is something that the Church teaches very vigorously, but for some reason it does not often filter down into the Protestant-Catholic debate, and so it was some time before I discovered it and realized its significance.
This doctrine concerns Mary's special role in God's plan of the ages. We know that from time to time God picks certain people to play a special role in his plan: Abraham had a special role, Moses had a special role, David had a special role, and Christ had by far the most special role of all. But except in the case of Christ, each of these people received their special role as an act of God's grace. Apart from God's grace, there was nothing special about Abraham or Moses or David. They were special people and had a special role only because of the grace God gave them. And the same is true of Mary. Everything that was special about her and her place in God's plan came from God's grace. After all, isn't this what we are saying when we pray the words of the Angel Gabriel in Luke's gospel, "Hail Mary, full of grace." Everything about Mary, everything that makes her and her place in God's plan different from ours, is only because of God's grace to her. Mary is entirely a product of God's tender, loving grace.
And that is something with which Protestants can agree, even though they do not recognize just how gracious God was toward Mary. Even Protestants recognize that Mary had a special place in God's plan. If for nothing else, Mary's special place was a.ssured by the fact that she, of all the women in world history, was chosen to be the mother of the Son of God. So Protestants are very willing to say that Mary had a unique role in God's plan of the ages. Unfortunately, they do not see all that this role entailed and all of the implications of Mary being Christ's mother.
The Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15)
To see that there is more involved than just the fact that Christ came out of Mary's womb, let us look at the very first prophecy about Christ in the Bible: Genesis 3:15. In that pa.ssage, God is cursing the serpent for having caused mankind to fall into sin, and he says,
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall strike at His heel."
Ever since the first century, Christians have recognized this as a prophecy of the coming of Christ, who would crush the dead of the devil, even as he himself was stricken by the devil on the cross.
But there is more than just a prophecy of the coming of Christ in this pa.ssage and more than a prophecy of the cross and of Satan's defeat. There is also a prophecy of the Virgin Birth, as even Protestants recognize. The reason is that in this pa.ssage, Christ is described as the "Seed" of the woman. This is very unusual in Biblical language because normally it is only men whose offspring are described as their seed. In the ancient, biblical languages men have seed; women do not. The reason for this is that the ancients often held a particular view of human reproduction which made it more natural to talk about men having seed. In the question and answer period, we can discuss this view of reproduction if you want, for now simply note that it was very unusual in the biblical languages for a women to be described as having seed.
Since it was very unusual to talk about women having seed in the Bible, this means that there is something very unusual about the birth of Christ—the Seed of the woman. It means that he was born only of a woman, without the intervention of a man, whose Seed he would otherwise be. As a result, Christians have always regarded Genesis 3:15 as containing a prophecy of the Virgin Birth. And Protestants are included in that. They fully recognize that Genesis 3:15 prophesies not only the coming of Christ, but the way in which he could come: through the womb of a virgin.
But this means that the woman described in Genesis 3:15 is more than just Eve. Eve was not a virgin. All of the children Eve had were fathered by her husband, Adam, according to the normal course of nature. As a result, the woman in Genesis 3:15 is more than just Eve because Eve did not have any virgin births. Therefore, we know that Mary, the only woman in history to have a virgin birth, is specially in view in the Genesis 3:15.
So even though Eve is the principal woman under discussion in Genesis 3, when we come to the prophecy in verse 15 of that chapter, the woman is also seen to be Mary. Mary is therefore pictured as a "Second Eve," the successor to the woman of Genesis, who will be the fulfillment of the prophecy of the virgin birth.
This idea of Mary as the Second Eve is something that the writers of the New Testament picked up on. There are traces of the idea in John's gospel and in the book of Revelation, and perhaps in St. Luke's gospel as well. But if the idea of Mary as the Second Eve was picked up on by the writers of the New Testament, it was proclaimed long and loud by the early Church fathers. Right from the second century onwards, we read regularly about Mary as the Second Eve, who fulfilled the Genesis 3:15 prophecy. Let me quote you a few pa.ssages from the writings of the second century Church fathers...
The Fathers on Mary as Second Eve
Justin Martyr
Around the year 155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that the Holy Scriptures teach us concerning Christ,
"'that He became Man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the powers of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her would be called the Son of God. And she replied: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word.'"
St. Justin Martyr therefore parallels the Virgin Mary with the Virgin Eve. Just as the word of the serpent bore fruit through the Virgin Eve, so the word of God came into the world through the Virgin Mary. Eve believed the word of an evil angel and death was brought into the world, while Mary believed the word of a good angel and Life Himself was brought into the world.
Irenaeus
Now let's look at another pa.ssage: around the year 190 A.D., St. Ireneus, in his masterwork, Against All Heresies, writes,
"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: "Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey.... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.... Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith."
So again we see the second century fathers contrasting Mary and Eve, saying that the evil done through Eve was undone through Mary.
Tertullian
Now let us look at another text, this one from the beginning of the third century. Around the year 210 A.D., the Catholic Tertullian wrote in his treatise, On The Flesh of Christ, that
"...it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, though a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this s.ex, was by the same s.ex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight."
As a result, we see three of the most important fathers of the second and third century bearing witness to the implication of the Genesis 3:15 prophecy, that after the woman of Genesis 3 there will come a second woman, a second Eve, who will give birth to Christ while still a virgin. Thus Mary helps rectify what Eve brought about. Eve brought sin and death into the world by her relationship with the first Adam, from whom we inherit Original Sin, while Mary brought helped bring holiness and life into the world by her relationship to the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that in both cases it is the Adams who do the actual work. It was the first Adam who was responsible for us inheriting Original Sin. St. Paul indicates that it is our unity with the First Adam which produces sin and death in us, while it is our unity with the Second Adam that produces righteousness and life in us. The Adams are the key players, the ones who do all the work, but their work happens to be brought about through the agency of the two Eves, the first one who believed an evil angel and the second one who believed a good angel.
This distinction is reflected in the saying of the Church fathers: "Death through Eve, life through Mary." Even though Eve and Mary were not the ultimate causes of death and life, it was through their actions that death and new life entered the world.
The Key To Understanding Mary
Now this teaching of Mary as the Second Eve was what helped me finally see the inner unity of all the Catholic teachings concerning Mary. It is the foundation of virtually all of the other things the Church teaches us about her. To show you that, let us walk through some of these doctrines and see how they relate to the fact that Mary is the Second Eve.
The Immaculate Conception
First, let us deal with the Immaculate Conception. Now, in some people's minds, the Immaculate Conception is simply another way of saying that Christ was born of a virgin. But that is not at all what the doctrine means. It does not say that Christ was born of Mary. Instead, it teaches us something about the conception of Mary herself. Mary was conceived immaculate. The word "immaculate" is derived from the Latin word macula which means "stain." For Mary to be conceived immaculate means that, through God's grace, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin.
To understand what that means, one has to understand the difference between Original Sin and its stain. Original Sin itself is the absence of God's sanctifying grace in our souls, so a person who is born in Original Sin is born in a state of spiritual death and separation from God. But Original Sin also has certain consequences, such as concup.iscence—the disordered desires and cravings which lead us into actual, personal sins. These consequences of Original Sin are known as its stain. So we have to distinguish between the Original Sin itself and its stain or macula.
Now when a person comes to God and is born again, God forgives the person's Original Sin and takes it away. God puts his sanctifying grace in the person's soul, with the result that the person is now spiritually alive and in union with God. Original Sin is overcome when God gives us new birth through baptism, but the stain of Original Sin remains. We still have the disordered desires that lead us to commit actual, personal sins, and we still have to wrestle with these sins through the remainder of our life on earth. However, when we die we will be freed even from the stain of Original Sin, and we will no longer be led into sin by our evil desires. One day, we will all be rendered immaculate, free from the stain of Original Sin.
But what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says is that by the redeeming grace of God, Mary was given this grace early. She was conceived not only without Original Sin, but without its stain as well. Thus she was conceived in an immaculate state, just as we will all one day be rendered immaculate, or stainless. God gave her the same grace he will give us all, but he gave it to her early in order to make her a more fitting vessel to carry his Son as he entered the world.
Now, how does this relate to Mary as the Second Eve? Well, we have already noted one way: According to Genesis 3:15, the fact that Mary will be Christ's mother is what makes her the Second Eve, and it was for the sake of her being a more fitting vessel to carry Christ that God gave her the grace of being conceived immaculate.
But it also relates to the fact that Mary is the Second Eve in a different way. Just as there were similarities between the First Adam and the First Eve, so there will be similarities between the Second Adam and the Second Eve. We know that the First Adam and the First Eve both started their lives in an immaculate state, and we know that the Second Adam also started his life in an immaculate state—Christ had no Original Sin or its stain—and so we should expect the Second Eve to also start her life in an immaculate state. If the First Adam and the First Eve were immaculate, and if the Second Adam was also immaculate, then the Second Eve will be immaculate as well. We can thus see how naturally the fact that Mary is the Second Eve leads into the teaching that God gave her the grace of being immaculate early.
This is also a solution to the pa.ssages from Romans which Protestants use to argue that all human beings are sinful. Our separated brethren are very big on harping on pa.ssages like Romans 3:10-11, where St. Paul quotes the Old Testament and says,
"There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one."
And Protestants try to use this sort of pa.ssage to prove that Mary couldn't possibly be free from the stain of Original Sin. But if you study the Bible, it becomes clear that Protestants are grossly misapplying this verse. For example, if you go back and read Psalm 14, from which Paul is quoting here, you find out that this psalm does not teach that all of humanity is bound over to sin. That psalm draws a distinction between the wicked and the righteous, between those who are with God and those who are apart from God, and it is those who are apart from God that the psalmist says are not righteous. That psalm does not teach that no one in mankind seeks God, obviously devout Christians seek God all the time; what it teaches instead is that mankind separated from God does not seek God. So you see, this pa.ssage cannot be used to prove the universal sinfulness of mankind because it does not have all of mankind in view.
This is something we could prove on a number of other grounds. For example, the pa.ssage obviously does not teach that all humans without exception commit sin. St. Paul himself tells us that there is a time in everyone's life before they commit any sins. This is what he says in Romans 9:11 when he tells us that God distinguished between Jacob and Esau, while they were still in their mother's womb, before they had done anything good or bad. Therefore, Paul tells us that unborn babies have not done anything good or bad, which means that they have not personally sinned. So if an infant dies while still in the womb, or while he is still a young infant, he has not committed any personal sins, and so he obviously counts as an exception to the principle Paul lays down in Romans 3.
Furthermore, we know that there is one very big, very important exception that Paul would make to this principle, because he certainly does not wish to teach that Christ, the Second Adam, was bound over to sin or that he did not seek and follow God. But if we know that Paul's principle has an exception for the Second Adam, then it also has an exception for the Second Eve: Mary.
As a result, Protestant objections based on the universal sinfulness pa.ssages are simply out of court. Those pa.ssages only talk about mankind apart from God, they do not include children who die before they commit sins, they do not include the Second Adam, and they do not include the Second Eve. So you see how the fact that Mary is the Second Eve solves a lot of the questions thrown at Catholic by Protestants.
Perpetual Virginity
Mary's role as the second Eve also explains the doctrine of her perpetual virginity. The first Adam and the first Eve did not remain virgins but populated the earth, yet the second Adam and the second Eve remained virgins all their lives in order to consecrate themselves to serving God full-time. Thus Jesus never married or had children. He did this so he could consecrate himself to serving God full-time.
In the same way, Mary was consecrated to the full-time service of God. The docu.ments of the early Church, such as the Protoevangelium of James record that she was one of the women who, like the prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36-37), lived celibate lives in the Temple in Jerusalem, serving as full-time prayer warriors—the Old Testament equivalent of contemplative nuns.
This docu.ment was written no later than A.D. 120, less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary's earthly life and when memories of that life were still vivid in the minds of many.
According to world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120-1).
This docu.ment records that Mary's birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, like Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:36-37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary was not able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother, and so she was vowed to perpetual virginity. It records:
"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, 'Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.' And Anne said, 'As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.' . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
But because of considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated 'virgin of the Lord' to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus according to the docu.ment Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen (this also explains why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus' adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels and since Mary is entrusted to John at the crucifixion rather than to her husband Joseph). The docu.ment records:
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, 'Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?' And they said to the high priest, 'You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.' . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, 'Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and a.ssemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen] . . . And the priest said to Joseph, 'You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.' But Joseph refused, saying, 'I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl'" (ibid. 8-9).
Joseph was required to respect Mary's vow of virginity, and just how seriously he was required to respect it is indicated by the fact that when she was discovered to be with child, he got in trouble with the Temple authorities, who thought he had defiled a virgin of the Lord.
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, 'Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.' And the priest said, 'How so?' And he said, 'He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth'" (ibid. 15).
Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow:
"And the priest said, 'Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?' . . . And she wept bitterly saying, 'As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man'" (ibid.)
The understanding of this docu.ment that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus' step-brothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome, who popularized the idea that they might have been cousins instead, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren."
Most Protestants are unaware of all this, but the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have more modern Protestants, such as the biblical and patristics scholar J. B. Lightfoot.
And so again we see the doctrine of Mary's role as the second Eve explaining her perpetual virginity. Just as the first Adam and Eve devoted themselves to procreation for the multiplication of mankind, the second Adam and Eve devoted themselves to virginity for the sake of ministry, so that God's spiritual blessings might be brought to mankind.
The a.ssumption
Now let's look at another Marian doctrine and see how it relates to Mary as the Second Eve. Let us look at her a.ssumption to be with the Lord. This is a grace that God will eventually give all of us. When Christ returns, we will all be caught up and glorified to be with him. This is the doctrine of the Rapture, a doctrine that is clearly taught in the Bible, even though our Protestant brothers and sisters often get the timing of the Rapture wrong in their teaching about the Last Days.
But we know that, just as God will one day give us all a glorious a.ssumption to be with him, we also know that he gives some people this grace early. For example, in the Old Testament we know that he gave this grace to Enoch in Genesis 5:24. We also know from 2 Kings 2 that God gave it to the prophet Elijah at the end of the prophet's life when he was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire. And the book of Jude hints (v 9) that the same grace was given to Moses after he died and that his body also was a.ssumed into heaven. So even though God will one day give a glorious a.ssumption to all of us, he has already given it to a number of people, and the teaching of the Catholic Church is merely that Mary is one of them.
And there is an inner logic to this. The First Adam and the First Eve shared the same faith: they both went to dust. So the Second Adam and the Second Eve should share the same fate as well. Only since the Second Adam went to heaven instead of going to dust, we know that the Second Eve went to heaven as well. Mary's body is simply not in the ground here on earth.
In fact, Mary is pictured as being in heaven in Revelation 12, one of the pa.ssages in the New Testament which pictures her as the Second Eve.
And we can infer it on other grounds. Since Mary, as the Second Eve, was born free of Original Sin and its stain, which meant that she was free of the need to physically die as we all do. Now, she may have died (there are good theological reasons for speculating that she did), but she had no intrinsic corruption which would cause her to die. If she didn't die, then, since she's not walking around the earth today, we can a.ssume that she was a.ssumed—that God took her up to be with him and his Son.
On the other hand, if she did die, what then? Would God leave her body to rot in the grave? Not at all. Psalm 16 tells us that God will not allow his holy one to see decay. This was something David originally wrote about himself, but in Acts 2, St. Peter tells us it also applies to Christ, only since Christ was holy in the most absolute, literal sense, he was not allowed to see decay in the most absolute, literal sense possible. God raised him up to life again. As a result, since Mary, as the Second Eve, was given the same purity and holiness from the beginning of her life, she would not be allowed to see decay either, but would be raised to life, and since she is not on earth today, we can a.ssume that she was a.ssumed.
If God did not allow the Second Adam to rot in the tomb, then how could we say that he would allow the Second Eve to rot in the tomb? Think about that: If God rescued the Second Adam from death, how could he let the Second Eve rot? Therefore, even if Mary did die, God would not have left her in the tomb. The Second Eve thus shared the fate of the Second Adam. While the first Adam and Eve died and went to dust, and that was it, the second Adam and Eve lived and went to heaven.
So now we have looked at two of the doctrines about Mary that trouble Protestants so much, the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the a.ssumption of Mary. And we have seen how the fact that Mary is the Second Eve unites and makes sense out of these two. But now let us look real quickly at two more Marian doctrine. These also bother Protestants, but not to quite the same degree.
Queen of Heaven
The first is that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. Now, of course we all know that Christ, the Second Adam, is the King of Heaven. But if the Second Adam is the King of Heaven, then it is only natural for the Second Eve to be the Queen of Heaven. And this is something we see in the Bible. In Revelation 12, when we see Mary in heaven, clothed with the sun and standing on the moon, notice that she is wearing a crown of twelve stars on her head. How much more clearly could one signify that someone is the Queen of Heaven than by having them wear a heavenly crown made up of stars?
There are other aspects of Mary's queenship we could bring out. For example, the fact that Christ is King and Mary is his mother means that Mary is the Queen Mother—the mother of the King. But this should suffice on the subject for now. So at this point, let us turn to one final doctrine about Mary that troubles Protestants, the fact that she is our mother.
Our Mother
Catholics have often pointed to the fact that Mary only appears twice in John's gospel, at two extremely important points: the very beginning and the very end of Christ's ministry. In chapter 2 of his gospel, St. John tells us that Mary prompted Christ to work his first public miracle, which began his public ministry. And in chapter 19 of his gospel, St. John records that Mary appeared again, at the foot of her Son's cross. Then Christ does something unexpected, he looks at St. John and at his mother and to Mary he says, "Woman, behold your son," while to St. John he says, "Behold your mother." And John tells us that from that day forward he took Mary into his own home. From that point forward, he regarded her as his mother.
(Incidentally, since St. John was most probably a cousin of Jesus, if Christ had physical brothers and sisters, why did he give the care of his mother to a cousin instead of one of them. We can see in this pa.ssage indirect confirmation for the fact that Mary never had any other children besides the Lord Christ.)
But this pa.ssage teaches us something more than just that Christ insti.tuted a special relationship between John and Mary. Bible scholars point out that John's account of the pa.ssion and death of Christ has a very unusual, seven-fold structure. Right at the center of this seven-fold structure is the story of Christ telling John to regard Mary as his mother. As a result, something very special and very symbolic is going on here. This is something even very liberal, Protestant theologians acknowledge, and they certainly have no desire to come to conservative, Catholic conclusions about Mary. But even they recognize that something very strange and very wonderful and very symbolic is going on in this pa.ssage, they simply are not sure what it is.
The Catholic, however, is sure. The historical Catholic teaching is that in this pa.ssage St. John—the disciple whom Jesus loved—is made a symbol for every disciple, for every Christian, and that as a result every Christian is to regard Mary as his mother. This is something we could derive on other grounds. Since we are all members of Christ, and since Mary is Christ's mother, Mary is also our mother through Christ.
And it is something that we are told in Revelation 12:17, where St. John tells us that after the dragon is unable to kill the manchild, the Son of Mary, and after he is unable to harm Mary herself, the dragon goes off to make war against "her other seed, who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:17) So this pa.ssage teaches us that Christians—those "who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus Christ"—count as Mary's "other seed." As Christians, we are all the seed of Mary in a spiritual sense, and so she is our spiritual mother.
Marian Devotion
This has implications for how we live our lives, because we have already looked at the commandment to honor your father and mother. Literally, in Hebrew that is "Glorify your father and mother." We are to bring glory to our parents, and that includes not only our earthly, physical mother but our heavenly, spiritual mother as well. We are to imitate Christ, and just as he brought glory to his mother, we are to bring glory to her as well.
This is something Mary herself said at the beginning of St. Luke's gospel (1:48), when she prophesied under the Holy Spirit, "Behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed." That is a prophecy that has come true in the course of Christian history, and it is the basis of Marian devotion, for that is what we are doing when we honor and glorify Mary: we are calling her blessed on account of all the marvelous things God has done for her and all the glorious graces he has given her.
Conclusion
So let us now use the prayer which has been used by pious Christians down through the centuries to honor their heavenly mother:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Copyright (c) 1995 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved
@ Chuckles, fred, et al: 1) There are technically other ways of being saved although the instances get fewer as we cover the globe with technology and advanced communications 2) More of you belong to the Church than you think do
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds consti.tuted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
The Church and non-Christians
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
840 and when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
hawaiiguest
"Are you suggesting that you do not know there is more to life than random baryonic matter existing in a temporal state?
Where did that knowledge come from?"
That's not a statement of knowledge, it's an admission to a lack of knowledge.
=>no, that is not an admission of lack of knowledge it is an admission that you have less than average capacity to process subjective data in tandem with their objective counterpart. You are legalistic or stoic in your approach to life and love. This is why you can only see God as a killer and cannot understand how a loving God could send you to hell. That concept requires capacity to comprehend intrinsic purpose.
“"Tell me where are your thoughts located?"
The mind, thoughts, emotions and whatnot are emergent properties of a functioning brain. This we know.”
=>no, thoughts do not have boundary or location that present in a localized fashion. Your attempt to offer a location is purely a logical external analysis based on assumed brain function. Your view of thought through the lens of an MRI is a physical observation indicating inability to differentiate objective data from subjective value. Thoughts are not the same as affect the thought process has on blood flow in an area of the brain.
“"This is not an appeal to your emotions rather your sense of position relative to your temporal state of existence. This is self evident of a reality not confined by limits of known physical matter.
Self awareness does not equal god, that's just stupid.”
=>I agree self awareness does not equal god. Self awareness does have a position which is the location of the view you have of self. That location is from inside looking outward or all around you looking inward towards self.
"Your continued insistence that what is known to you personally does not exist is the root of your Cognitive dissonance. You must justify this conflict and that you do by insisting that what I see does not exist with all sorts of denial techniques."
Where did anyone say that?
=>That was directed at answer. However it appears possible based on your response that you do not have an intuitive bone in your body (figure of speech as we both know there is no such bone) in which case this would not apply to you given your stoic predisposition. In other words you really don’t know what you don’t know.
"Then you justify what you know yet claim not to see as lacking evidence you know can never exist because it is not of baryonic matter."
What the fu-ck are you even talking about here?
=>It appears this would not apply to you either if you cannot sense that self awareness and thought have position in space and time that is distinct from your physical organ (brain, mind).
The reply you quoted simply pointed out the contradiction where one is aware that there is reality in the unknown that is not presently visible (for whatever reason) while at the same time denying that reality due to lack of physical evidence.
mama k
“There is no proof that any of that is outside of the brain's physical capability.”
=>that is the point there is no proof available outside the baryonic matter as it not comprised of such known matter. The proof is in the cognitive awareness of that possibility or reality depending on intrinsic value.
“I would contend that you are limiting the possibilities of what the physical brain and mind are capable of.”
=>probably as the Bible does state God limits man and evil.
“But it is more reasonable to believe in things that have been extended from other things that we can physically witness, especially using careful scientific methods than to believe in things that have been extended from mythology.”
=>correct if God was extended from mythology which is backwards. The mythology you point to was an extension of the knowledge of God and the sense of the existence of God that was self evident. The desire or need to worship came before the myth (i.g. Neanderthal exhibited worship although unknown as to nature). Just as Islam and Mormons drew from the laws of the Hebrews in recent times they did not draw from myth but recorded history of mans relationship with God.
In the case of Christ this was based on first hand knowledge by the Apostles (except mark and Luke) writting about their experience with Jesus not myth. The same goes for Saul of Tarsus who spoke of his direct revelation and discussions with the actual withness of Christ. There was no time for myth or legend to develope.
fred – I must admit there are a few "sentences" you have written that are less than clear. This one that hawaii pointed out:
"Then you justify what you know yet claim not to see as lacking evidence you know can never exist because it is not of baryonic matter."
is just too muddled for anyone to understand. Have you tried reading it to yourself? It's just gobble-dee-gook.
@fred:
" There was no time for myth or legend to develope."
Hooey. George Washington wasn't dead a month when the first myths and legends began to be written and passed around about him. Fortunately, we are not quite so gullible as the 1st century folks, but you know, some people really believe the "cherry tree" story and the "dollar thrown across the Delaware" one.
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-George-Washington-Americas-Founder/dp/0061662585/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
No, fred. You didn't quote my intent correctly, so let's go back and include more of the conversation.
mama k initial: “What's an example of what is beyond baryonic matter?”
fred initial response: [ "Creative nature such as a new song that comes into an artists awareness, love, poetry and awareness of life after death (existence or non existence is not at issue what is at issue is the sense that one must come to a conclusion as to what is or is not)." ]
mama k next response: "There is no proof that any of that is outside of the brain's physical capability."
fred last response: [ "that is the point there is no proof available outside the baryonic matter as it not comprised of such known matter. The proof is in the cognitive awareness of that possibility or reality depending on intrinsic value." ]
OK, fred, so when I said "any that", that I was talking about "Creative nature such as a new song that comes into an artists awareness, love, poetry, etc." And when I said "There is no proof that any of that is outside of the brain's physical capability." it is because I consider it to be inside the brain's physical capability.
So what I am saying is I don't believe there is any proof that cognitive awareness, those things you mentioned, or anything else we experience mentally is outside of the biological, physical mind and that they are simply physically part of it. If you have something with some sources to prove what you just wrote – supply it, otherwise I would not accept the claim you made.
Balderdash
Nonsense! George Washington said I cannot tell a lie I chopped down that cherry tree is not anywhere close to a myth or legend. That would be the same as claiming George Bush lied to the country about weapons of mass destruction which is a myth that most democrats believe to this day.
I was speaking about Jesus who performed miracles, was crucified to rise from the dead on the third day. Christ rose from the dead and was seen by 500 witnesses in the 40 days following his resurrection. Christ rose from the dead was a problem for the Roman Government and the Jews who controlled the religious. The powers and culture of that time fought to crush any evidence of Christ and their bloody hands that sacrificed the Lamb of God. There is a big difference between a myth of loc Ness and Christ on so many levels. That is pale in comparison to a fable about a common act of a child to fess up when caught red handed
@fred
The ususal crap. All you have are more and more assertions. Too bad for you fred, just saying doesn't mean shit. I don't care how many times you say that thoughts occupy space, unless you can demonstrate it, you're just talking out of your ass as usual. I find it hilarious that because I don't agree with your blind ass assertions, you then assert I have no intuition. Oh boohoo some religious dumbfuck thinks I have no intuition, like that actually proves any of his supernatural idiocy. Try again fred, this time try not being a dumbass.
Topher said "…dude this is serious"
Topher, I have to ride my pink unicorn to the Leprechaun convention and that is just a bit more serious than your "heaven and hell" story, so please get your priorities straight.
If you don’t behave, you will not get any presents from Santa Claus. Understood? If you are not sure, talk to your parents about it or read, “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas”.
I still have hope for you Topher. I don't want the Loch Ness Monster to get you dude!
That's the most abrupt spillover I've ever seen occur on this blog
Well done Apple and Topher!
chuckles, lol
It seems crazy to me that people would get so angry at this guy (well at least more liberally minded people). Here's a guy who really tried to see the other side of the debate and fundementally change his beliefs on his own volition. It was obviously not a snap decision nor was he coaxed into doing this. The fact that people are angry that he "lied" to the LGBT community are missing the entire point, how can people get upset with a guy who really wanted to experience the issue in this country from the inside out?
I don't either.
He was trying to see both sides, and instead of applauding him for his efforts, both sides have people condemning him...smacks of hypocrisy on the part of those doing the condemning.
He did not need to resort to lies in order to understand. That is the issue.
I don't have an issue with it. Kinda cool.
@hypatia
For him, he did, it's pretty simple. You are again focusing too much on the lies and not understanding the lying was a means to an end to come to a conclusion that shook his faith and changed his stance. In this case, the lies hurt exactly no one. Having not read the book I can't say for sure, but he didn't lead anyone on, he didn't pretend to be gay and then almost get married. The only people he "hurt" are people in his family who refused to accept ho/mose/xuality until they were confronted with it head on.
I have trouble takingat face value a guy who lied to everybody. I have trouble believing he would have done it for a whole year; a few weeks or months maybe, but a whole year? I have trouble with why he faked gay with the gay community instead of just talking to them.
I think there is something else going on.
@Windy, one of the main reason'smfor his experiment was to understand how it felt to be rejected for being gay. He could't have got that experience by talking to people.
@Windy, one of the main reasons for his experiment was to understand how it felt to be rejected for being gay. He could't have got that experience by talking to people.
Kurek brings the ruckus to the gentlemen.
Great polysyllabic mini-haiku, RL....a few syllables short, but the meter is fun....
I'll be the first to admit my lack of knowledge regarding J.apanese wordplay, but if I inadvertently created a haiku, kudos to me (and Leon from Curb Your Enthusiasm).
Belief Blog is for
Deist and theist alike
To yell at the wind
@Doc
Now THAT'S a haiku.
Not sure why Zeus called RL's original post a "mini-haiku", whatever that means.
Excellent Doc.
Outstanding, Doc!
I always get the wind something awful after I eat Mexican food.
@Doc V
Nice.
Peace...