Lybrah said:

I am in my forties and never been married, or in a long term relationship. Everyone I've wanted never wanted me, and vice versa. The hardest thing is that when I go on dates, I don't fall in love by the third date. Men are expecting to fool around at least, but I don't want that yet. I feel like I would have to get to know a man very well in order to fall in love, and I can't do that with most men because they want instant relationship. I am beginning to think that God wants me to be alone, and it is so sad watching everyone else I know get married.

Click to expand...

You're not alone to be sad or single forever. I am almost 40 and I am single as well doesn't bug me at all. Recently just landed my first ever job in my life. I am a production worker at this job I am working at.

linux.poet said:

Dear Lord,
I pray for healing for this doctor, and that Carmen may be free from worry. Please help her to walk with You and to ride the ups and downs of this fallen world.
In Christ’s Name,
Amen

Click to expand...

Thank you so much

Jacque_Pierre22 said:

My views:
1) TULIP
2) Either the PCA or Lutheran view of baptism
3) liturgical worship
4) clearly defined documents
I know I was told the Anglican ACNA would be a good fit for me but after watching interviews, it seems like I would be an oddball there being a 5 pointer; but then the worship service in the local PCA is very modern with guitars, and everything with a massive number of people where I would just be ignored by all the large families. So I really just think it's pointless for me. I wanted to maybe study in a seminary in order to preach to Muslims with my Arabic knowledge but it seems that I will never be involved enough to be recommended, and I'm an older male anyway now.... thoughts?

Click to expand...

I am thinking of switching my Catholic faith to another Christian as well myself once my parent die.

Fantine said:

be among the most untrustworthy statements I've ever heard.

Click to expand...

Which ones in particular?.....Maybe you can post the clips here?......ya know, 'Trust but Verify' kinda thing?

ThatDumbChicken said:

Thanks for skipping everything I posted and posting a verse taken completely out of context to support your theory.

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Okay see ya at the Judgment

Hans Blaster said:

That's OK, your recent intervention on this thread had almost as much success as one of Hood's "sorties".

Click to expand...

Or it could end up being a Vicksburg......

stevevw said:

But if we look at our history for any major global sized flood we do find one around 14,000 years ago. The evidence that most people cite such as the giant ripples in the landscape and massive washing away of landscape to form the Scablands and other major signatures is from this same global sized flood at the end of the last iceage.

Some sort of big melt and massive amounts of water in a fairly short time washed over the Northern hemisphere and left its marks.

Click to expand...

Living in the Pacific Northwest and having been a member of the Ice Age Flood Institute for a period of time, I'm fairly well versed in the floods that ran through Eastern Washington. Though the floods were large ( there were many over many years) they were contained in a known path. We know how large some of those flood were, where they originated, the amount of water released and in some places the speed through which the water passed. No where are there any physical signs of floods outside of the geographical area where the Ice Floods occurred. It's a well defined and known area.

I recently finished reading My Confrontation with Hell: Real Demonic Encounters of an Exorcist, an interesting and informative new book by Monsignor Stephen J. Rossetti, D.Min., Ph.D. Rossetti is an exorcist for the Archdiocese of Washington, a priest of the Diocese of Syracuse and the president/founder of the St. Michael Center for Spiritual Renewal. He’s also a licensed psychologist and has spent many years working in psychological treatment as well as the spiritual renewal of priests and religious.

Rossetti doesn’t perform exorcisms on everyone who believes they need them. There’s a process that those experiencing what they think are demonic attacks have to undergo. And an exorcist-priest must have permission from the local bishop to perform a formal exorcism. (Beware of anyone who claims to be an exorcist who isn’t approved by the local bishop.) “The Saint Michael Center for Spiritual Renewal carries out its ministries with the approval of the Archbishop of Washington,” according to a statement by the Rev. George E. Stuart, J.C.D., episcopal vicar for canonical services for the Archdiocese of Washington. This is very important.

Rossetti’s latest book is easy to read and non-polemical. His writing is firmly grounded in traditional Catholic teaching without being pretentious. The demonic encounters he writes about are warnings for people not to get involved with the occult in any way, shape or form. In fact, the majority of people who have sought his assistance over the years either dabbled in the occult or were heavily involved in it for a long time.

A few brief excerpts from the book are as follows:

“I know a man who became possessed after an unholy interest and visits to haunted houses and ghost hunting. His unholy interest and personal sins made him vulnerable, and his frequenting these ‘haunted’ locations actually put him in regular contact with the demonic. The currently popular ‘ghost hunting’ craze is a spiritually dangerous idea.” (page 23)


Continued below.

tharkun73 said:

The terms 'fulfill' and 'abolish' are technical terms still used in orthodox Jewish communities/schools to this day. They simple mean to interpret correctly (fufill) or interpret incorrectly (abolish). Jesus teachings were largely targeted at the interpretaion of the Law of Moses. It wasn't about 'fulfilling' it to do away with it, it was about understanding and interpreting it correctly as God intended whether Jew or Gentile.

Click to expand...

What is Paul teaching in the following verses?

“For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “the righteous one will live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs them will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭10‬-‭14‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

The use of redeem here should be clear.

Maria Billingsley said:

I believe this refers to spiritually dead.

Ephesians 2:1-5
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked... But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have beensaved".

Click to expand...

There are several opinions on the passage from St. Peter's epistle. I'm not familiar with "spiritual death" as one of them. More common opinions are:

1) This is a reference to Christ's descent into Hades, and what Christ preached was His victory over the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil--this is a victory proclamation and is a crucial aspect of the historic Christian doctrine of Christ's descent into the place of the dead, which is what is referred to whenever the Apostles' Creed is recited, "He descended into hell"--His descent into hell is not "going to hell" but entering into the depths of death, to the place of the dead, and the spirits here are the imprisoned fallen powers Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3, which provides the necessary context for what is being said in 1 Peter 4.

This preaching of the Gospel, then, is not an evangelization; but is the victory proclamation of God's conquest of death and the devil. Thus the spirits in prison are not unbelievers, but the dark powers, fallen angels, devils, demons, whatever else we might want to call them. Because the Gospel for human beings is Good News of our rescue; but this same Gospel is, for the devils, the declaration of their bitter defeat and downfall--they've lost, God has won.

2) If the spirits in prison are, instead, viewed as the souls of the dead--the dead who were wiped out during the flood--then this does beg questions: Is the preaching to the spirits in prison, those who formerly disobeyed, in hearing the Gospel perhaps able to upon hearing the Gospel be lifted up and out of the prison? And how does this jive with where in Hebrews we read "It is appointed for man to live once, and then the judgment", which suggests that at the time of our mortal death we experience a judgment, what is traditionally known as "Personal Judgment" which is a foretaste of the future and Final Judgment. I don't have an answer to my own question, but that is certainly an important question we need to ask if we take a view such as this about what St. Peter is writing.

3) I'm going to offer a third option here, which I'm not sure how pervasive it is, or how defensible it is; but in the back of my mind I'm sure I've heard some offer this view: The spirits in prison, and thus the preaching of the Gospel to them, refers to those who died before the time of Christ and that, in this way, the descent into hell and proclaiming the Gospel involves a rescue of the Old Testament saints. Essentially the ancient patriarchs are being brought out of the place of death and ultimately are brought into the fullness of God's presence through Christ's victory over hades/hell. If this view were put forward, I think it has some problems, for one the spirits are said to have been disobedient. Now I could see a counter to this by presenting the list of pre-Diluvian patriarchs contains both righteous and unrighteous--there is probably some case for that to be made and so given the uniqueness of the pre-Diluvian period this is some kind of restoration of all the patriachs. I'm just spitballing at this point. Ultimately, I just don't think this third option would really hold water.

I think the view that probably makes the most sense is the first one I mentioned. The spirits in prison aren't humans, but fallen powers. This language of the devils as imprisoned has precedence within the language of the 2nd Temple Period. It's a big theme in the Enochian literature (I'm not giving the Enoch texts legitimacy, only that they provide evidence of this sort of language in the time period which would have been well known to Peter and all the early Christians). There is also the large amounts of ambiguity when we talk about devils/demons/fallen angels. Our modern perspective is pretty clean-cut, when we talk about devils/demons we understand them to be Satan and all his fallen angel followers who rebelled and in falling, now are down here on earth causing all kinds of problems. And while I think that's all true, I think it might also be minimalistic.

Biblical language is often a bit more complicated, for example why are the demons called dark forces in "heavenly places", or why is the devil specifically called "the prince of the power of the air"? There are, I think answers to these questions--the idea that the demons literally inhabit the air, or sky, is actually a pretty normal idea in the context of 2nd Temple Judaism during the Hellenistic era. During the 2nd Temple Period when the Jewish people were inundated with Greek culture, one of the ways Jewish thinkers responded was by viewing Greek Pagan ideas as diabolical; even borrowing a Greek word, daemon, to refer specifically to evil spirits and fallen angels. In Greek Paganism a daemon is a generic term for any supernatural being, from the Olympian gods to various nature spirits like nymphs and naiads, even a human soul could be conceived of as a daemon. But this word was appropriated in a Jewish context to mean evil spirits, to refer to ha-Shaytan, fallen angels, etc.

And this language of "power of the air" makes sense in this Judeo-Greek context, because daemons often referred to intermediate supernatural beings between the gods above and man below--in a paradigm that views spirits such as these are nefarious, as the same sort of thing as Satan is, or the various "impure spirits" or "evil spirits" we read about in the Old Testament--then this is simply a way of talking about dark/demonic spiritual forces. They are "of the air" and "in heavenly places". And, in other ways, the demons and devils are also viewed as cthonic, that is, of the underworld; probably because of death. The fires of Gehenna are said to be prepared for the devil and his angels, though this seems to speak of future Judgment, and looks similar to what we read in the Revelation about being cast into the lake of fire. Yet 2 Peter directly speaks of those demons who sinned and now are imprisoned in Tartarus (where Tartarus here is clearly a borrowing of a Greek idea, but it's a Greek idea mediated through 2nd Temple Judaism, as we find this language also in the Enochian literature) So where are the devils? Are they in the air? Are they here on the earth? Are they in in the prison-place of the dead? Perhaps all three at the same time, if we try not to try to imagine fixed physical location.

Anyway, my opinion is probably that 1 Peter is talking about Jesus proclaiming His victory over the dark powers and principalities, e.g. the devil and his fallen fellows.

-CryptoLutheran

Pommer said:

Meh, normal for VIPs. I hope that they had fun and didn’t throw up.

Click to expand...

Very Irritating Persons.

The Barbarian said:

Perhaps you're not familiar with biology. For example, I could mention deer, which like at least some other mammals, have cloven hooves.

Click to expand...

Deer also like fish, are vertebrates. Deer must be advanced fish.

The Barbarian said:

It says that birds are part of the maniraptoran group of dinosaurs, which have feathers, pneumatized bones, and other "avian" characters.

Click to expand...

So you are deciding to call birds dinosaurs even though they are distinct from other dinosaurs. Why not just call them birds? Why do you have to call them dinosaurs at all?

The Barbarian said:

Just as deer are part of the artiodactyl group of mammals which have cloven hooves. Doesn't seem like that difficult a concept. But then, you may not have been paying attention in 8th grade science.

Click to expand...

Deer are also part of the vertebrate group along with fish. Vertebrate, like Invertebrate, (or artiodactyl) is merely a way of ordering animals based on similar traits.

It doesn't mean that artiodactyls evolved from non-artiodactyls or that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates, or that birds evolved from non-birds.

It is only your ontological belief system that demands these conceptual groupings "evolved" from something else.

The Barbarian said:

(some ways humans differ from fish)
Hair. Four-chambered heart. Three-bone middle ear. Separate reproductive and excretory passages. Heterodont dentition.
How many would you like?

Click to expand...

And birds differ from "some" types of dinosaurs, e.g. those dinosaurs that lack feathers. Yet you still greatly desire to call them dinosaurs.

Just like I could arbitrarily designate humans as advanced-fish, or fish as proto-humans. Humans are just those fish that advanced beyond a certain level of fishiness, but since they still share some traits with fish, we can still call them fish.

It's arbitrary storytelling.

The Barbarian said:

You asked for particulars. Now you don't want to know these things?

Click to expand...

In your ontological system, they aren't particulars though. All vertebrate structures are part of one continuous chain of being, descended from a common source. A four-chambered heart is just a heart that has undergone different selection pressures.

The Barbarian said:

No. Might seem like that, but you're wrong. They are evolved (your support for evolution is appreciated) from placodes, structures that form teeth in fish. Would you like to learn about how that happened? It's some interesting genetics.

Click to expand...

Yep, they are different expressions of the same genetic pathways found in both groups. But you claimed it was something found in humans but not in fish. Do you really understand your own theory as well as you think?

The Barbarian said:

Yep. Evidence shows that it has always worked pretty much the way we see evolution proceeding to day. Directed evolution works under natural selection.

Click to expand...

"things change"
"that which survives, survives"
therefore
"fish can turn into humans over time"

The Barbarian said:

Your ontological beliefs prevent you from even looking at the evidence, which is a common issue with many YECs. Like the "authorities" who refused to even look in Galileo's telescope, your unwillingness to learn what evolutionary theory is, helps preserve your assumptions and holds the threat of learning at bay.

Click to expand...

That's a two-way street though. Your ontological tradition has demanded "Natural process" be the author of something whether or not there was actually evidence for it, even if the evidence points away from it.

Your biggest weakness is that you can't admit it and have to pretend your "just doing science"

The Barbarian said:

I see the denial, but your behavior is more persuasive. You seem to be determined not to know anything about it, for reasons that seem obvious.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the whole "Evolution" thing was always a bit of a dumb idea. Mutations and Natural selection kills things, it doesn't create.

Natural Process as Divine Providence was all the philosophical rage back in the 18th / 19th century academic circles when the institutions were being firmly established. It seemed really clever back then and nobody has really wanted to give up the franchise. Nobody wants to just admit that God created different types of creatures (or planets, or any structures), so we have to keep hearing about how everything evolved from something else.

"Nature did it" ... It's a philosophy that undergirds modernity, so we're stuck with it, I guess.

The Barbarian said:

And of course, people didn't evolve from fish; they evolved from other primates.

Click to expand...

"humans could be considered highly-evolved fish." - The Barbarian

The Barbarian said:

God is not neutral in this issue, you know. God is truth. If you're a Christian, you should never be afraid of the truth.

Click to expand...

Amen to that.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the pinnacle of the Catholic spiritual life. Even the most rudimentarily catechized Catholic is aware of its importance, our obligation to participate, and its distinguishing character in relation to other denominations. Naturally, it has been the subject of many books, essays, lectures, podcasts, etc. From ancient works (On the Sacraments by St. Ambrose) to early modern (The Holy Mass by Dom Gueranger) to contemporary (The Mass: The Glory, the Mystery, the Tradition by Mike Aquila and Cardinal Wuerl), a considerable amount of time and money has been spent on explaining the Mass. In such a world, especially given that so much of that material is in the public domain, it can be difficult to distinguish one’s own work and justify its place in the discussion. The Mass Explained: Fostering a Deeper Understanding and Appreciation for the Roman Catholic Mass by Dan Gonzalez has earned a justified place in this multi-generational discussion.

Continued below.

Always in His Presence said:

???? He didn't appoint RFK a life long Democrat from a family of Democrats? News to me.

Click to expand...

RFK was never in elected politics, ran as an independent and joined a republican presidency. What exactly makes him a Democrat, besides the Kennedy name?

Always in His Presence said:

Tulsi Gabbard?

Click to expand...

No longer a democrat.

Always in His Presence said:

Surely you jest - or will complaint that they are not real Democrats

Click to expand...

They are not anymore, if they ever were. Is Donald Trump still a Democrat, in your opinion?

"Where these sleeper cells may be is in plain sight," former FBI special agent and terrorism task force member Jonathan Gilliam said. "And that's the real terrifying part of this is that putting people in place, as we've seen over the past four years, everyone's scrambling because certain amounts of people could come in here and get in here."

With the lax security during the Biden administration there may be hundreds of Iranian terrorists in the country.

Hentenza said:

Stupid is one of the main ones. You don‘t really want to start with the quotes do you?

Click to expand...

Quote away.

Dating is Broken. Courtship is the Cure​

The modern dating scene can be a nightmare: one-night stands, open relationships, and infidelity. Dating is a loose, often ambiguous term: it can be casual, noncommittal, or open. But for those seeking something deeper and more traditional, there is a solution.

The Church designed a system called courting. Courting or courtship is defined as "the period wherein some couples get to know each other prior to a possible marriage or committed romantic, de facto relationship."

Courting is the traditional way to be in a romantic relationship. It typically leads to happier, healthier relationships, which turn into happier, healthier marriages. It should be noted that there are exceptions to both methods. Plenty of couples form healthy, committed relationships through modern dating. And courting doesn't always lead to a happy relationship or end in marriage--couples who court are not exempt from cheating, lying, or broken hearts.

However, the key differences between courting and dating point to courting as the holier option that's more likely to lead to a happy marriage.

The Core Differences: Why Courtship Leads to Real Love​

Continued below.

rjs330 said:

If the stories arw true he wouldn't have been there if not for the actions of the leftists.

Also, apparently the illegals were trying to run away. This guy was seen trying to leave as well. This would have led agents to believe he was fleeing becauae he was an illegal or at least part of the group that had been part of this illegal hiring operation and was trying to flee.

So grabbing him would have been perfectly logical.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's understanable.

rjs330 said:

So before you get all worked up about 4 days in detention my answer is, under the circumstances its reasonable.

Click to expand...

No, detaining hime for 4 days is NOT resonable.

rjs330 said:

This is what the outcome is when illegals are allowed to enter and stay in the country with the support of sanctuary places.

Click to expand...

No, this is the outcome of an intentional policy that rounds up as many hispanic looking people as possible without any regard for their citizenship, much less their contistutional rights.

rjs330 said:

Now I will state that if you raid a place and a person claims to be a citizen of the US then they should go to the front of the line for proofing. "Yeah, that's what they all say" shouldn't be in their vocabulary. It should be, step into my office and lets get the information we need to prove this as soon as possible.

Click to expand...

Obviously, protecting the rights of legal citizens and residents is not a priority in Trump's ICE operations.

Many misunderstand the Catholic teaching on Mary as the Mother of God—but what does Scripture and Sacred Tradition actually say? In this video, we dive deep into the theological foundation of this doctrine, exploring why the Church affirms that Mary is not just the mother of Jesus’ humanity, but truly the Mother of God (Theotokos).

Through Scriptural evidence, early Church teachings, and logical reasoning, we will clarify Mary’s role in salvation history and her unique relationship with Christ and His Church.

Continued below.

I've met a lot of crazy people in my life.
Frank from Jersey City comes to mind. A local legend with Elvis hair, a fixture on the corner of Grand and Columbus, who kept a switchblade in his sock and sang doo-wop at passing buses.

Then there was Zef, who ran a gypsy cab company on the Upper East Side. He believed that rules…all of them…were meant for others, as evidenced by how he may/ or may not have ‘edited’ my application so he could hire me back in the day.

And Harry the Trucker. Built like a medieval door. Always sweating, always muttering. One eye pointed towards the sky, the other right through your soul. If you saw him barreling down the block, you instinctively crossed the street or made for an alley.

City life teaches you something early: crazy is relative. And without these people, life would be far less colorful.
But lately, I've encountered a different species of crazy entirely.

The holy kind.

The Other Kind of Crazy​

Continued below.

In Defense of Crazy

I've met a lot of crazy people in my life.

www.jeffreybrunophotojournalist.com

Hey,
@VaticanNews
, stop blocking the ad orientem images of
@Pontifex's mass -- this is ridiculous and pathetic.

This morning Pope Leo XIV offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ad orientem for the Carabinieri in the Chapel of their station in the grounds of Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo







Hey, Vatican News, Stop Blocking the Ad Orientem Images of Pope Leo XIV’s Mass

BCP1928 said:

Of course it must be to a considerable extent. It was "the West" who conquered Ottoman Palestine

Click to expand...

And the Ottomans should conquered Palestine before that. Of course there were the Romans and the Babylonians etc etc. So what.

BCP1928 said:

pushed the indigenous inhabitants (including Jews and Christians) aside to erect a western-oriented secular state forcibly populated by European immigrants.

Click to expand...

So what? Would it somehow been better if the Jews and Christians would have been pushed aside for another Islamic state?

The left hates the west by and large. Blames it for all the ills of the world and never misses an opportunity to protest against west. Its an anti-west group who want to end capitalism, and all western ideas. And they will jump onto bed with any other group that is also anti-west including radical Islamists.

Anytime the left see the west and non-west rhey ALWAYS side with the non-west. Becauae rhe west is seen as primarily white, capitalistic, European colonialism oppressors. Everyone else is a victim of them. You showed it yourself in your post.

The thing is if the left really was most concerned with the rights of women, lgbtq, the press, and religious freedom and the right to free speech they would be pro-Israel. But they aren't.

No the left is wildly agai st Israel and always have been. They are against anything west related and therefore must protest heavily against anything the west is involved in.