Mothra said:
Doc Holliday said:
The_barBEARian said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
BUDOS said:
Sounds like you are pretty grounded and have a good sense of self about religion and politics. Additionally I definitely agree with you also about the difficulty in dealing with people who not only disagree but let you know it in a manner that makes it even harder to give them any credibility, much less want to do so.
Perhaps having the opportunity to express yourself that way in these forums is a form of therapy. Having said that there are some posts on this forum which I enjoy and some which make me reflect on my beliefs.
I have learned some things about Catholicism for example which I never knew before as well as gaining more depth on how different Protestant beliefs can differ. Hang in there and try not to give in and be like the few who are not as disciplined. I know that I have my moments that can be pretty shameful.
I am all for discussion. I may even agree that some take Mary-ism too far.
I for one was never into the novena to Mary and so on. But, it makes many women feel better. That is the area that doesn't get discussed. Many women want a female to talk to about things and Mary fills that role. I know my Grandmother and Mother said that. Only a Mother knows what I am feeling and the rosary brought her closer to God. I am sure Tarp and company will say they are in Hell. I don't think so, Mary was never put on the same level just an intermediary that could understand a women's feelings.
My wife was WELS Lutheran, women can't do anything. They have no vote, no say. Their role is to provide luncheons for funerals and decorate the Church, with the Pastor's approval. My wife is very interested in the role Mary Magdeline played, but we hear little about if the Bible is the only source.
Does any of this give a slam dunk on Mary, NO. Of course not. It is why Mary was important to two Catholic women and the rosary made them feel heard because religion is run by men.
Regarding your last comment, depending what you mean by "run by" men, that is of course also Biblical and part of the battle waging now in the Catholic church by the velvet mafia of which Pope Leo also supports unfortunately for him and those he confuses like Francis
The Bible was also written by men...
True... but at least Catholicism and the Orthodox have ****ing badass aesthetics and conservative vibes.... there is a reason why those denominations are overtaking Protestantism. Bcs Protestantism is fake AND lame. Most Protestant churches have more Israeli flags than crosses.
Yep! Eastern Orthodox churches refer to themselves as hospitals for the soul. They don't mess around. Like you'll go Divine liturgy at 9:30am to 11:00am. Lunch with them at noon and then take a catechumen class from 1:00pm to 2:30pm every Sunday. Catechumens do that for about a year or so. The Priest will hold you accountable and task you to get over habitual sin and give you all sorts of tools, practices, prayer rules, and ways to change your heart to really transform. Some Priests will hear confessions for 8 hours straight and dive deep into people's sins, fears, issues to help them work it out during these confessions.
I think one of the things I like about it the most is that they're very specific on how to have closer communion with God. They'll show you how to Pray so that your heart is really in it. Everything is about the heart and your real intentions, nothing superficial.
The Orthodox also don't hold to the belief that the modern state of Israel or any ethnic group as such remains God's uniquely "chosen people". They believe God's covenantal "chosenness" is fulfilled in Christ and extended to the Church, not tied to ethnicity or a modern nation-state.
Some protestants share that same view with the Orthodox, but a massive amount of them, especially boomers are subscribers to Evangelical dispensationalism which teaches the opposite, that God has two parallel peoples: Ethnic national Israel and The Church. It's essentially Christian Zionism and is very easy to refute.
You're pretty far off in your views of protestants, as usual.
Speaking for reformed theology at least, it doesn't teach two paths to God. It closely follows the Pauline letters in determining there is an "elect" of God that form the body of Christ, while at the same time recognizing that God has not dispensed with the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, as Paul makes clear in Romans Chapters 9 and 11, that covenant remains, and there remains a plan for the descendants of Abraham (which entails acceptance of Christ as savior). For gentiles, the "elect" are the branches of the wild olive tree grafted into the cultivated tree, as Paul makes clear in Romans 11.
So contrary to your unscriptural assertions, God's covenant with Israel is not over. Indeed there remains a plan for them and as he clearly states, his covenants are never broken. It appears to me you are confusing the "elect" of God with the "chosen", and those are two very different concepts. There simply is no biblical basis for the idea that Christians have replaced Jews as the chosen people.
I'm not far off, you're just relying on a faulty way of reading Scripture if you buy into dispensationalism.
Treating the Old Testament promises literally and politically as though they must apply to modern Israel is wrong because it fails to see how Christ fulfills the Old Covenant's promises for all peoples.
There are only two covenants: Old (Sinai) and New (Christ). The Old can't "keep giving life" apart from Christ. Just so we're clear, I'm not making an anti Jewish critique, I'm making an anti dual-covenant critique. I'm not using my position to argue Israel should not exist or have security either.
I'm not claiming reformed theology teaches two paths of salvation and I agree that Paul is clear there's one means of salvation: Christ alone. Where we disagree is what it means to say the Abrahamic covenant "remains".
Romans 9-11 doesn't teach the continued covenantal chosenness of Israel as an ethic or national entity.
"Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" Rom 9:6. Paul is redefining Israel Christologically, not preserving it ethnically. The Covenant isn't "paused", "awaiting" or "still operative"...its reconstituted around Christ.
When Paul speaks of Jews being grafted back in (Rom 11:23), he gives a single condition: faith in Christ. There's no category prior to or apart from that faith.
Its Christ Himself, with believing Jews and Gentiles as branches and unbelieving jews explicitly cut off.
God doesn't break covenants, he fulfills them. The Abrahamic covenant wasn't abolished, its transfigured and universalized in Christ. "The promises were made to Abraham and to his Seed...who is Christ" (Gal 3:16).
Chosen, elect, people of God, Royal priesthood, Holy nation...these terms are all applied directly to the Church. (1 Pet 2:9-10).
