From Roe-Bots to Inflatable IUD in DC: Pro-Abortion Scare Tactics Hit a New Low

I do? What gave you that impression?
All that talk about design, evolution, survival of genes and when we begin to have urges.

Made me feel like you were claiming that we were supposed to be doing the deed once puberty starts.

If not - then I stand corrected.
I guess we can lock them up until they reach an age you deem applicable for release. Nah, that's a dumb idea. Forget that. We have to allow them a certain amount of freedom.
You really believe that a parent protecting their child is the same as prison?
So what we must then do is warn them about what can happen when people have sex.
Yes. Don't have sex because it can result in a baby or disease. Class dismissed.

We don't have to explain what our sexualities are or how best to have sex or anything like that.
Which is kinda difficult to do without talking about sex. In an age appropriate way, of course.
You think you can properly protect someone without them knowing what they are being protected from?
Upvote 0

Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

We don't like being accused of evil, which is why we like to come up with things like humanism, and say that morality is relative, etc, but what we are actually saying is that we don't like actually saying that we are ever guilty of any kind of evil, or wrongdoing, etc, when we're guilty as "you-know-what", etc, but we don't like saying that of ourselves, or anybody else, etc, but most especially ourselves first, etc, we really, really don't like that, etc, which is part of why Christianity and any kind of belief in the true God is rejected by some, etc, rejected by those of us who want to think; most especially our own selves first, as being more righteous than God, etc.

The truth is that the true God has a standard, and that standard is an absolute, and it does condemn us all as no one can live up to it perfectly, but it is also the very beginning of the Christian gospel message that ends with Jesus being crucified, but also his being resurrected, and ascending afterwards, etc, which is proof of forgiveness, etc, but I don't expect you to know anything about that, etc, after all, the gospel is foolishness to the rest of the world, so I don't expect those who are belonging to the world to be able to comprehend it, or believe in it, etc.

God Bless.
Upvote 0

I really need prayer

Seeing info on how eating a healthy diet impacts our mentality. Might want to checkout Dr William Li on Youtube

Also, here's some Scriptures that help me.

"The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." Jer 31:3

"God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." Psa 46:1

"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippines 4:7

Amazing just in these few verses, God's love, His protection, strength, and peace for us.
Upvote 0

How can I stop myself being addicted to conspiracies ?

There are other members of the forum who have been articulating the conspiracy theories you post about for much longer such as d taylor, and do so without resorting to ad hominem fallacies against NASA employees, for example.

@d taylor tells the truth, he knows & understands.

One thing you might really want to consider is a retreat to a monastery, which is a thrilling experience and also rather blissful, because at the monastery, one is cut off from the distractions of the world. There are several good ones in the UK (I myself suggest the Monastery of St. John the Baptist in Essex, which is Eastern Orthodox but has its services primarily in English, and is known for a focus on prayer, being founded by Elder Sophrony, memory eternal).

Thanks Liturgist, I'd love to do this, do they except women ?
Upvote 0

How can I stop myself being addicted to conspiracies ?

Well it's not really a problem untill you sell all your belongings and go sit on a mountain waiting for the sky people to come and get you and take you back home to planet such and such.

Haha, not so far-fetched.

Hebrews 11:37-40
They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.

39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
Upvote 0

Right wing media is facing a reckoning for lying to consumers

That is not what Robert Hur's report said in his testimony before Congress.
Well, yeah, Hur's report did not make out Biden as a criminal. I read the report. Many of the docs Biden had were written by him. He probably expected he could keep them like Pres. Reagan did when he left office.

And as Jamie Raskin said:

“President Biden did not assert executive privilege or claim absolute immunity from presidential crimes,” Raskin said. “He did not hide boxes of documents under his bed or in a bathtub. He did not fight investigators, nor did he seek to redact a single word of Mr. Hur’s report.”​
From the same article and I am making part of the quote bold:
Most importantly, Hur never said explicitly that Biden committed crimes, which Jordan suggested.​
Hur found some evidence that Biden willfully retained classified materials after he left the Obama White House. He also uncovered some examples of Biden sharing classified information with his book author.​
However, Hur also said his team found plenty of exculpatory evidence that led him to conclude that Biden’s actions weren’t illegal, and ultimately concluded that criminal charges weren’t warranted.
There were enough facts favorable to Biden that would “create reasonable doubt” for a potential jury, and “innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute,” Hur wrote in his report.​


Had Trump simply returned the documents, those charges would not have happened. Trump didn't want to return them, and they involved national security, and he conspired to keep the documents from the FBI;

Trump (37 counts):[1]

  • 31 counts of retaining and failing to deliver national defense documents under the Espionage Act.
Each of these charges is for possession of a separate, specific document. Ten of these documents were handed over to the government in June 2022, and the other 21 were recovered in the August 2022 search.[39] According to the indictment, the 31 documents describe U.S. nuclear weapons; foreign military attacks, plans, capabilities, and effects on U.S. interests; foreign nuclear capabilities; foreign support for terrorist activity; communications with foreign leaders; U.S. military activities; White House daily foreign intelligence briefings; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.[40]
  • 5 counts relating to conspiracy to obstruct justice and withholding documents and records[1]
  • 1 count of making false statements.
Upvote 0

Bored with the church enamored with Israel

The Body of Christ with Him on His own throne in the third heaven, actually reigns over each realm - Third heaven, Universe AND the earth. So as Heb. 11: 40 says we have a greater dominion. (something better in Gk. is greater dominion.)
You are determined to make sure new covenants saints of the church are not on earth.
This is a deception you have bought into detracts from Christ's glory though you unconvincingly spin it to appear to glorify Him.
It serves the enemy's purpose to obscure his defeat and the victory of the Lord and His overcomers of the church.

Hebrews tells us plainly that in the second coming Christ as the Firstborn Son
leads many sons not to stay in heaven but "into the inhabited earth" and "into glory." In doing this He is leading many sons into glory.

For to which of the angels has He ever said, “You are My Son; this day have I begotten You”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him, and He will be a Son to Me”? And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” (Heb.1:5,6)

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (Heb. 2:10)
Upvote 0

How can I stop myself being addicted to conspiracies ?

This post is intended for my blog, but I figure I might as well post it here for your edification:

Understanding Apatheia in Eastern Orthodox Theology

In Eastern Orthodox theology, "apatheia" is a spiritual state of being free from emotional disturbances and disordered passions, which allows a person to focus more fully on their relationship with God. It is not to be confused with the modern English term "apathy," which typically implies a negative indifference or lack of care. Instead, apatheia is considered a virtue and a sign of spiritual maturity.

Biblical Foundations of Apatheia

1. Peace and Tranquility:
- "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27, KJV)
- Jesus speaks of a peace that surpasses worldly understanding, suggesting a state of inner calm and tranquility that aligns with the concept of apatheia.

2. Freedom from Passions:
- "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23, KJV)
- The virtues listed here, especially peace and temperance, reflect a life led by the Spirit, free from the tumult of unruly passions.

3. Focus on the Eternal:
- "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." (Colossians 3:2, KJV)
- This verse encourages believers to prioritize spiritual over earthly concerns, embodying the essence of apatheia by focusing on eternal truths rather than temporary worldly matters.

Apatheia in Practice

Achieving apatheia involves the practice of spiritual disciplines such as prayer, fasting, and meditation on the Scriptures. It requires a conscious effort to detach from the passions and distractions that can lead one away from God.

- Prayer: Regular, heartfelt prayer helps to cultivate a sense of inner peace and reliance on God, fostering the state of apatheia.
- "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." (Philippians 4:6, KJV)

- Fasting: By denying physical appetites, fasting helps to train the soul to focus on spiritual nourishment and control over bodily desires.
- "But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." (Matthew 6:17-18, KJV)

- Meditation on Scripture: Reflecting deeply on God's Word helps to align one's thoughts and actions with divine will, promoting inner tranquility.
- "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." (Psalm 1:1-2, KJV)

Conclusion

Apatheia is a cherished ideal in Eastern Orthodox spirituality, signifying a heart and mind at peace, untroubled by earthly passions and focused on God. By striving for this state, believers can experience deeper communion with God and greater spiritual fulfillment.
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Sky
Upvote 0

SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

And no therapy is required. You continually talk of therapy but there isn't any required.
No they aren't. We've been over this. No therapy is required.
I know what is. Always did. I wanted ro know if you knew. Now let's break this down..

6 months rhat all it takes and you only need only 2 of so called symptoms. Let's see how rhat goes.

Doc.. Tommy would would really like to be a girl?
Tommy: yes Doc.
Doc.. How bad?
Tommy.. Real bad doc, I would feel so much better if I were.
Doc.. #E check
Doc.. why do you think you would feel better as a girl?
Tommy: Cause I cry a lot and like to clean house.
Doc.. check #F
Doc.. How long has this been going on?
Tommy..6 months
Doc.. Okay well you meet rhe criteria Tommy. Here's your puberty blockers and in a few weeks we'll.fet you started on your hormones.

That's literally all it takes. At most it might take a full 45 minutes meeting usually no more than 20-30 minutes to get a child on harmful, permanent body altering chemicals. There is NO therapy involved. Affirmative Care requires NO therapy. How many times does that have to be explained. 20-40 minutes tops and you are on your way.

Are you aware that in Europe they require 5 years of history of ongoing incongruence before even considering drugs?

You know the DSM was altered due to the influences not from the psychologists but from the activists?
Where was absolutely NOTHING new discovered.

I seriously was hoping g you would take a hard look at the DSM and see the ridiculousness of the so called guide. The 6 month portion should have been enough for you. You actually think 6 months is long enough to put a child on mother medicalization that will effect the rest of their lives?
No it's not a requirement. You can immediately begin the drug treatments with no therapy.

See, you accused me of saying something I didn't say. It is a psychological condition. It's in the DSM. Children ought to be treated with therapy and not with chemicals rhat alter their physical bodies rhat have very dangerous conditions. Especially with the facts that if you don't medicalize they will stop this at a rate as high as 90%. Medicalizing kids makes them transition at about a 100% rate. That means you are actually creating trans kids and not treating the disorder and allowing them to desist.
Ah, yes. Homosexuality was removed as a list of mental disorders from the DSM in the 1973, because homosexual activists demanded it, but that’s a whole different can of worms.
Upvote 0

Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

My morality is based on ethical principles that can be derived from various sources, such as reason, human experience, and understanding the consequences of actions. Many moral systems, such as humanism, value well-being, justice, and empathy, and do not necessarily depend on a divine authority. As for judging God, the issue is not about judging in the traditional sense, but about questioning and understanding. If God is presented as an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, it is logical to ask how these attributes reconcile with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. This line of questioning is not a condemnation, but a search for coherence and understanding.
You do realize don't you, that humanity has only gotten to where it is just now recently at, with ethics and morality and "whatever" (humanism, etc) only due to how it has suffered so greatly in the past, don't you? But that will ultimately go away, or be destroyed, or be reset way, way back in the very, very hard, and very difficult times that are ahead, or that are about to come upon the world, don't you? So that we will be able to ultimately see with our own eyes that we were all wrong, and that we were never more righteous than God, don't you?

God Bless.
Upvote 0

As it was in the days of Noah

It can become a Frankenstein's monster or it can be a product of God's mandate to Man that he should "keep the garden." We were given tools to fight back against diseases. And since Man chose to work independent of God, he has to use his own knowledge, coupled with God's grace, to develop positive advances. My opinion only...

It makes one wonder what it must have been like in the days of Noah.

a centure.jpg
Upvote 0

Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

However, when you take an extreme example of people clearly saying what the text does not say, and clearly ignoring what it does say, and then compare it to others who have noted the text in no way justifies bruises, breaking of bones, etc. that is simply smearing. the other position.
I disagree. It all hinges on the questions of power and control. If we read the text in ways which give one person power and control over another, then we bolster the sense of justification and entitlement for the person who uses violence to enforce that power and control.
I am not responsible for every depraved person who ignores various portions of the passage so that he can beat his wife.
But we are all responsible for the way that we speak and teach about Scripture, and how that supports or calls into question the attitudes which underpin abuse.
Because you consider wives submitting to husbands, or unequal power dynamics, to be abuse in its own right.
I consider (and that consideration is informed by the best secular understandings of abuse and trauma) control of wives by husbands to be abuse in its own right. And the way that we talk about submission as a one-sided thing can certainly support this form of abuse.
But you have been unwilling to look at what Scripture says in the specific arguments in these passages.
Is there anything that Scripture says which would justify any form of abuse? No? Then for the purposes for which I've engaged in this thread, it's moot. None of those argumetns can justify abuse, control, coercion or the like.
However, you rule out any God-ordained submission to humans.
No, that's not what I've said.
Since the thread is about what the Scriptures say, you have simply not addressed the topic at all.
I certainly have. The original question to which I responded was: "Should wives submit to husbands? Should wives and husbands be equal partners?" I answered that both are true. Wives should submit to husbands, within a dynamic of mutual submission in which husbands and wives are equal partners. That was really the only point I wanted to make. Everything I have posted since then has been in response to what others have asked of me, but I am free to choose how I respond, and what I consider it unlikely to be helpful or fruitful to engage with.
What is different is that you have not established that willing submission to husbands is coercion.
But what I am pointing out, is that telling wives that they must submit, (in an unequal, one-sided way), that God commands it of them, is certainly coercion. It is to threaten them that if they do not submit on any particular matter, on any occasion, they are disobeying God, with all of the weighty consequences which come with that.
Yes, I am using you statements, because I am conversing with you. And I am describing what you have, and have not, been willing to address in the argument.
In a very accusatory way.
You are conflating arguments that people can commit violence, which the text never says, and rules out, to actually reading what the text says, which does indicate wives submitting to husbands.
I am pointing out that violence is only one dimension of abuse, and that particular readings of the text do support the attitudes which underpin various forms of abuse. Especially, in this context, spiritual abuse; the use of religious beliefs and authority to control others.
So now we are back to your claim that submission of wives to husband is itself abuse. And for that, we have to get into the text. Because the Bible does not see it as abuse.
The Bible doesn't see it as abuse because the Bible places it within a relationship of mutuality and equality. Remove that mutuality and equality, and you're in a completely different dynamic.
You have been unwilling to engage the specific arguments in the text on a thread for that purpose, and instead have simply asserted what could not be a correct reading.
I answered a very specific question posed in the OP. I have, in response to further questioning, explained why I answered that question the way I did. Since the specific arguments you have identified as important to your position have no real bearing on my position, I am not inclined to get dragged into discussing them in detail.
I don't think that ...characterizing your views is in fact attacking,
But those characterisations go beyond my views, to say things such as that I simply ignore, or refuse to look at, parts of Scripture I don't like. That is false, and I certainly take it an attack, since it suggests a lack of integrity as a Christian, as a priest, and as a forum participant.
And at the same time, you have continually associate my view, and others in this thread who are looking at what the text says about submission, with domestic violence, with broken bones, etc.--despite our saying over and over that we do not endorse violence in any way, and despite saying repeatedly that the text does not permit such violence.
Yes. I do make that association. Because the research into the attitudes of abusers shows that they tend to hold particular attitudes; and when we identify that our religious ideas align with and reinforce those attitudes, that should be a great big red flag about how our thinking can feed into supporting abuse. Even if we ourselves would never hit someone, would never say that such behaviour is acceptable, if we still make arguments which reinforce those attitudes, we contribute to a culture which normalises abuse in its various dynamics.

That is not a personal attack on anyone. I am not accusing you of being an abuser, or an abuse apologist. I am attempting to hold up a mirror to a very common blind spot and show people how our religious discourse can, inadvertently and without us ever intending it, have awful ramifications in the way that it contributes to cultural norms which underpin abuse.
And it is not addressing the topic, which is what the Scriptures say on this topic.
It is explaining why certain readings of the Scriptures are harmful, and highly questionable.
Upvote 0

SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

Actually, you are way off here. Where do you get prescription drugs prescribed? What? A doctor? How id gender dysphoria diagnosed? By the DSM-% diagnosis criteria which is a guide for mental disorders. We've been over all of this before. Is it that you forget or don't pay attention?
And no therapy is required. You continually talk of therapy but there isn't any required.
They are. Again the DSM-% has the criteria and the DSM=5 only diagnoses mental disorders. Again, we've gone over this.
No they aren't. We've been over this. No therapy is required.
Here ya go.......
I know what is. Always did. I wanted ro know if you knew. Now let's break this down..

6 months rhat all it takes and you only need only 2 of so called symptoms. Let's see how rhat goes.

Doc.. Tommy would would really like to be a girl?
Tommy: yes Doc.
Doc.. How bad?
Tommy.. Real bad doc, I would feel so much better if I were.
Doc.. #E check
Doc.. why do you think you would feel better as a girl?
Tommy: Cause I cry a lot and like to clean house.
Doc.. check #F
Doc.. How long has this been going on?
Tommy..6 months
Doc.. Okay well you meet rhe criteria Tommy. Here's your puberty blockers and in a few weeks we'll.fet you started on your hormones.

That's literally all it takes. At most it might take a full 45 minutes meeting usually no more than 20-30 minutes to get a child on harmful, permanent body altering chemicals. There is NO therapy involved. Affirmative Care requires NO therapy. How many times does that have to be explained. 20-40 minutes tops and you are on your way.

Are you aware that in Europe they require 5 years of history of ongoing incongruence before even considering drugs?

You know the DSM was altered due to the influences not from the psychologists but from the activists?
Where was absolutely NOTHING new discovered.

I seriously was hoping g you would take a hard look at the DSM and see the ridiculousness of the so called guide. The 6 month portion should have been enough for you. You actually think 6 months is long enough to put a child on mother medicalization that will effect the rest of their lives?
It is, unless you want to skip treatment and go under the knife with a plastic surgeon and pay cash.
No it's not a requirement. You can immediately begin the drug treatments with no therapy.
It's been implied in that you question whether it's a medical or psychologicalcondition

See, you accused me of saying something I didn't say. It is a psychological condition. It's in the DSM. Children ought to be treated with therapy and not with chemicals rhat alter their physical bodies rhat have very dangerous conditions. Especially with the facts that if you don't medicalize they will stop this at a rate as high as 90%. Medicalizing kids makes them transition at about a 100% rate. That means you are actually creating trans kids and not treating the disorder and allowing them to desist.

Planned Parenthood Prescribing Sex Change Hormones After 30 Minutes of Consultation | TIMCAST


  • Like
Reactions: RileyG
Upvote 0

How can I stop myself being addicted to conspiracies ?

Yes I am, I also want to be a better Christian as I have a tendency to backslide. I was bought up church of England by good parents so I don't know why I've always rebelled against Authority, maybe this is where my conspiracy addiction comes from as I really enjoy joining all dots especially about the elite.

Then respectfully, I suggest you stop posting in this specific forum and instead focus on reading the Gospels and the Psalms and on prayer, such as the Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, a Sinner), and the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father, Who Art in Heaven…).

There are other members of the forum who have been articulating the conspiracy theories you post about for much longer such as d taylor, and do so without resorting to ad hominem fallacies against NASA employees, for example.

Also consider this: in embracing these conspiracy theories, you are really just trading one secular authority for another.

By focusing on prayer, and discernment, and also making a point to attend Sunday services and partake of the Eucharist, and also Choral Evensong if your local C of E parish has it, that would be spiritually profitable.

One thing you might really want to consider is a retreat to a monastery, which is a thrilling experience and also rather blissful, because at the monastery, one is cut off from the distractions of the world. There are several good ones in the UK (I myself suggest the Monastery of St. John the Baptist in Essex, which is Eastern Orthodox but has its services primarily in English, and is known for a focus on prayer, being founded by Elder Sophrony, memory eternal).

The real answer to conspiracy theories is to develop the extremely healthy Christian value, which the Orthodox Church has always emphasized, and which I believe we also see in traditional high church Anglicanism, of spiritual nepsis and apatheia.

Apatheia would be particularly helpful in your case, and I have a follow on post which will explain it in greater detail.
  • Informative
Reactions: Apple Sky
Upvote 0

The perpetual virginity of Mary

You don't think that is obvious from the narrative?
I'm pointing out that the phrase "knew them socially" is awkward English, and I'm not sure what you mean to contribute to the sentence by adding "socially."
ECFs were not infallible, and their writings were not inspired of God. I take my doctrine from scripture, not from traditions or opinions of the ECFs. If what they wrote aligns with scripture, then I accept it, but if what they wrote contradicts what I see in scripture, I reject it - regardless of consensus.
So if native speakers of classical Greek reading these documents understood Mary to be ever-virgin, but you, not a native speaker, reading a translation of the documents, come to a different conclusion, the proper interpretation is yours and not theirs?
The primary def. is "a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother."
And yet that is not the only definition. You can insist until you're blue in the face that the context is obvious, but obviously it's not because you've come to an extreme minority position, considering how many Christians have come before us and took the historical position that Mary was ever-virgin.
Upvote 0

What is freewill?

ok But do you think being responsible for one's own choices implies "free will"? (I'm still trying to see where you are going with this)
To me the term free will is an unstable term to reason upon. I note that it's a fluid term so long as the adjective 'free' is not qualified. Also, people don't factor in that the term 'will' is not just the ability to reason and choose, but also the desire of the heart.

So, I'm going to answer your question in terms that indicate both the heart and mind. I THINK knowledge and ignorance are the ultimate determiners in the outcome of my mental deliberations. I don't BELIEVE I'm responsible for knowledge or ignorance. I KNOW I'm responsible for my actions, but I don't BELIEVE that's what causes me to care about how my actions affect others.
  • Agree
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?

If on average, whites and blacks in the same situation get unequal treatment, don't try to justify it.

I don't have to justify it....

I'm asking if you understand that even if a judge, on average, sentences black men to 3 months longer than he does white men for simple assault.....

Do you understand that he still sentences some white men longer than he does black men? Or do you think that means every black man convicted of simple assault does more time than a white man sentenced by this judge?

I'm just trying to figure out if you understand the basics of these statistics.
Upvote 0

Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

@Felix.manuel

I think you think you are much more better, or are more righteous than God, and that you, and those who think like you, should be God, and that "that" is what's really going on or is happening here, etc.

That being said, without the negative, you cannot know/feel/experience the positive, and all feelings/experiences become neutral, with no good or else bad (or feeling or emotion) to them at all, etc.

Much has been written about this, and I suspect you know some of it, etc. There can be no love without hate, pleasure without pain, joy without sorrow or suffering, and the list goes on, and on, and on, etc, and also like I said, I suspect you already know some of it, etc.

I'm very, very sorry about your friend, but don't try to lie to us and say that hasn't made you at all biased in this that we are right now talking about, or are right now discussing right now, etc.

No one could have made/done it any better (life, existence, etc) and no human beings soul is more righteous than God's, etc.

Your "humanism" will never trump God.

And your "humanism" is also way, way disproven in bad times, etc.

God Bless.
Upvote 0

The Essene Quarter

I'm a bit rusty on the history of "Herod defrocked Matthias ben Theophilus".
Would you please elaborate.?


Interesting bit of history related to the priesthood and countering views.
[ The Mishnah, as well as the Baraita, mentions the Boethusians as saying that the omer offering must be offered on the Sunday of Passover (in opposition to the Pharisees who offered it on the second day of Passover), resulting in different dates for the Shavuot holiday ]
Sunday? I wonder if that's a greco/roman influence that survived till now.

I agree with yhdm's comment on zadok remaining in the priesthood during the 1st century

MATTHIAS BEN THEOPHILUS:​

Name of two high priests.
1. The successor of Simon ben Boethus, and, unlike the other high priests appointed by Herod, who were foreigners, a native of Jerusalem (Josephus, "Ant." xvii. 4, § 2). On the eve of a Day of Atonement—for the priest the most important time in the year—he had become ritually unclean, and consequently was unable to perform the duties of his office, which were discharged instead by his kinsman Joseph ben Ellem ("Ant." xvii. 6, § 4). This occurrence is mentioned in the Talmud (Tosef., Yoma, i. 4; Yoma 12b; Yer. Yoma 38d), although the name of Matthias ben Theophilus is omitted. His deposition, however, was not due to this cause, but to the fact that he was supposedto have been implicated in the insurrection when the golden eagle was pulled down from the gate of the Temple (see Judah ben Zippori). His tenure of office lasted only one or two years (5-4 B.C.).

Concerning Herod: when his wings of an eagle were plucked, (with axes).

Josephus, Ant. XVII, 6:3-4
3. And with such discourses as this did these men excite the young men to this action; and a report being come to them that the king was dead, this was an addition to the wise men's persuasions; so, in the very middle of the day, they got upon the place, they pulled down the eagle, and cut it into pieces with axes, while a great number of the people were in the temple. And now the king's captain, upon hearing what the undertaking was, and supposing it was a thing of a higher nature than it proved to be, came up thither, having a great band of soldiers with him, such as was sufficient to put a stop to the multitude of those who pulled down what was dedicated to God; so he fell upon them unexpectedly, and as they were upon this bold attempt, in a foolish presumption rather than a cautious circumspection, as is usual with the multitude, and while they were in disorder, and incautious of what was for their advantage; so he caught no fewer than forty of the young men, who had the courage to stay behind when the rest ran away, together with the authors of this bold attempt, Judas and Matthias, who thought it an ignominious thing to retire upon his approach, and led them to the king. And when they were come to the king, and he asked them if they had been so bold as to pull down what he had dedicated to God, "Yes, (said they), what was contrived we contrived, and what hath been performed we performed it, and that with such a virtuous courage as becomes men; for we have given our assistance to those things which were dedicated to the majesty of God, and we have provided for what we have learned by hearing the law; and it ought not to be wondered at, if we esteem those laws which Moses had suggested to him, and were taught him by God, and which he wrote and left behind him, more worthy of observation than thy commands. Accordingly we will undergo death, and all sorts of punishments which thou canst inflict upon us, with pleasure, since we are conscious to ourselves that we shall die, not for any unrighteous actions, but for our love to religion." And thus they all said, and their courage was still equal to their profession, and equal to that with which they readily set about this undertaking. And when the king had ordered them to be bound, he sent them to Jericho, and called together the principal men among the Jews; and when they were come, he made them assemble in the theater, and because he could not himself stand, he lay upon a couch, and enumerated the many labors that he had long endured on their account, and his building of the temple, and what a vast charge that was to him; while the Asamoneans, during the hundred and twenty-five years of their government, had not been able to perform any so great a work for the honor of God as that was; that he had also adorned it with very valuable donations, on which account he hoped that he had left himself a memorial, and procured himself a reputation after his death. He then cried out, that these men had not abstained from affronting him, even in his lifetime, but that in the very day time, and in the sight of the multitude, they had abused him to that degree, as to fall upon what he had dedicated, and in that way of abuse had pulled it down to the ground. They pretended, indeed, that they did it to affront him; but if any one consider the thing truly, they will find that they were guilty of sacrilege against God therein.

4. But the people, on account of Herod's barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel and to inflict punishment on them, said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done. But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead. Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, (7) to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. (8)
Upvote 0

What's on your mind?

Somehow turning 40 just now reminds me of that Pat Monaham song that was so bad from about twelve years ago, where the lyrics are "Oh, I swear to ya! I'll be there for ya! This is not a drive by -ay-ay-ay-aye ....!"

I don't know, maybe because I think he was in his early forties when he made that song, where he was acting like he dates as though he's still 20. ... Kind of admire that aspect of him if so, I guess. ^_^

maxresdefault.jpg
  • Like
Reactions: venksta
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,843,887
Messages
64,842,333
Members
273,877
Latest member
nivash