llevronbelac

[llevronbelac]

I hate the term "religious guilt" because most people who use it are severely muddling up (a) religious OCD (b) some messed up heresy like "it's wrong to be happy" (c) religious doctorine you don't agree with but aren't sure whether you're right not to

[llevronbelac]

I wanted to start off by saying that I am truly sorry that you have experienced such loss in your life. The loss of a child is not something that I have ever experienced nor will ever experience as a celibate Christian.

I also praise God that you affirm your children are with God, because they are. Our God is good and holy and just and there is nothing that would deviate from His character than the damning of infants. I do not believe in Augustinian Original Sin, that children are born guilty and condemned for the sin of Adam because they share his nature. While mortal, they are innocent of sin.

From my understanding of OP's post, definition 2 is being claimed to be a sin. When a same-sex attracted (Side B) Christian sees someone they are attracted to, experiencing the temptation to lust, but rules over that desire and doesn't give into the temptation instead looking away/not giving them a second look; in your definition that is not a sin. But to the OP, the very fact that they felt that attraction at all was sinful. Because that attraction/temptation can not come from anything natural. I disagree with this assertion. I believe SSA can come from natural desires - the desire for companionship, to be loved, even sexual intercourse are intrinsically good God given desires. They must be directed appropriately which is why we have to rule over them.

I also disagree with the assertion that desire or temptation can be a sin with (what seems to be) post-hoc category creation of internal vs external temptations/desires and how if it is internal it is sinful (because original sin makes man's very nature sinful) and if it is external it is not a sin (and Jesus only experienced external temptations/desires conveniently). Jesus desired food but didn't give in to gluttony, Jesus desired drink but didn't give into drunkenness, and yes as unpleasant as it may seem Jesus desired sexual intercourse but never gave into lust. These are all internal desires and temptations that Jesus suffered through as one who was fully human to redeem those of us who do give in. To deny that Jesus was tempted by His desires like us but instead experienced this wholly other sort of suffering, is in my opinion to deny an essential part of the redeeming work of our savior. That through the incarnation, the eternal Word becoming mortal flesh, He was able to experience our pain, our shame, our feelings of loneliness and forsakenness, our desires and temptations, our sufferings, and our death. And He did this to redeem and heal and restore us of all of these things.

As Hebrews 2:14-18 (my current favorite passage in the Bible) says:

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

In my younger youth, before I’d ever heard the term “Side B”, I did espouse their unbiblical belief that the desire for sin is not in itself a sin. And (in my memory) I expressed that lie on Tumblr with all the confidence of a seminary undergrad.

And for that public sin, and the faithlessness that bred it, I publicly repent. I may never know the extent of damage I caused, but I know I am forgiven in Christ.

[llevronbelac]

Very well written. I don't think I even necessarily disagree with you (I do for the record, but it's kinda a 50/50 thing).

But when you make everything a sin. Temptation is a sin, desire is a sin. Breathing is a sin, the beating of my heart is a sin. In your theology unborn fetuses are sinners sinning against God for merely existing. When my dad's sperm combined with my mother's egg and I became a distinct human being, in that moment I was sinning against God, condemned and under His wrath, because of my genealogy.

So why, and I'm genuinely asking this to you and others who hold your theology, should I care what you think is a sin?

When everything is a sin, nothing is.

In my younger youth, before I’d ever heard the term “Side B”, I did espouse their unbiblical belief that the desire for sin is not in itself a sin. And (in my memory) I expressed that lie on Tumblr with all the confidence of a seminary undergrad.

And for that public sin, and the faithlessness that bred it, I publicly repent. I may never know the extent of damage I caused, but I know I am forgiven in Christ.

[llevronbelac]

Okay so... I'm gonna dunk on the concept of election for a second. Specifically it's that idea of election where "the elect" are those that God predestined to go to heaven when they die as opposed to the "non elect" who are either directly or indirectly condemned to hell (as if those are different things). My main problem with this concept is that it is (probably unintentionally) completely divorced from the concept of election in the HB.

Election in the tanakh is not about who gets the privilege of going to the "good place" instead of the "bad place", but rather it's about who gets the responsibility of bringing the good place to everyone else. Not about who goes "up" to heaven, but who brings heaven "down". Nor about any personal or individual salvation, but about who is called to bring salvation to the rest of the world and rescue them from the promise of evil and the curse of destruction.

Abraham. Isaac. Jacob. Judah. David. Bethlehem. These people (and a town) are not chosen because God wanted to save them and smite everyone else. They're chosen to be the vehicle through which God blesses the others. They are the people through whom God will defeat evil and elevate all peoples. God desires that all be saved. He elects some to rescue others.

If you have any conviction that you are part of "the elect" who am I to tell you if you are not? But I can say this: you are not elected to whatever position you are in so you can sit comfortably in your salvation. You are elected to go out of your comfort place, out into the wild and waste land, and to bring God's blessing of life and love and goodness and beauty to the nations. Anything less than that is an abuse/misuse of God's blessing upon your life

[llevronbelac]

My Biggest Objection To Calvinism

I think that Calvinism is, if taken to its logical conclusion, a nihilist theology.

Calvinists affirm, as per Westminster Catechism 1, that the purpose of human existence is the glorification of God. Furthermore, the standard Calvinist theodicy states that evil is permitted in order to glorify God by Him punishing and destroying it - hence, damnation is glorifying to God, because He is punishing evil. Furthermore, it is as glorifying to God as salvation, because if it were not God would be limiting His glory (which makes no sense when God is absolutely sovereign and created the universe to glorify himself) or universalism is true (which any orthodox Calvinist would deny, and rightly so).

The conclusion, hence, is that the damnation of the reprobate and the salvation of the elect are equally glorifying to God, and hence, within the logic and value system of Calvinism, equally good - which, in my opinion, is a transparently nihilist stance. Why work for the salvation of others or devote oneself to the Christian life if damnation is equally good?

A Calvinist might object that systems that include free will also have this problem, since they too assert that God permits evil for His glory (so that people can be free and hence do meaningful good). However, such systems (at least Eastern Orthodoxy, the one I belong to), deny that damnation is glorifying to God, and state that the greater good comes from the fact that humans following God of their own volition and cooperating with Him is far more glorious than humans doing so because of compulsion.

A Calvinist might also object that I've cut the Westminster Catechism short; it says "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" the latter of which people in Hell are obviously not doing; hence, damnation is worse than salvation. But that makes the problem worse, because if you say that enjoying God forever is one of the chief ends of man and there are many people who will not be enjoying God forever, you've conceded that it's possible for God's purposes to be thwarted - and once you concede that, the entire edifice of Calvinism is fatally compromised.

Any Calvinists here, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Tagging @greater-than-the-sword, @rabbits-of-negative-euphoria and @theexodvs for that purpose.

[llevronbelac]

The real central tension of Puella Magi Madoka Magica is that Homura Akemi is a Catholic living in a world where Calvinism is demonstrably correct, but only for girls.

[llevronbelac]

By all means you do not have to take on this task, but I have a request. Could you assign each D&D 5e class a denomination? If you need a list of the classes, I can DM you a link. IF you want to do this. Just figured it'd be interesting

Send me the link and I'll try!

[llevronbelac]

The Pevensie Children

[llevronbelac]

Among the themes of the gnostic gospels include 1) a sexualization of God into a bisexual being in who’s image all initiates are made, 2) the elimination of the divinity of Christ, 3) the re-branding of the Biblical God as an evil demiurge, 4) the glorification of secret mysteries only accessible through the abandonment of reasoning powers, and in some cases, 5) redemption through sexual frenzy, and hallucinogenic beverages.

- Matthew Ehret, "Carl Jung’s Gnostic Revival, Abraxas, and the 20th Century Cult of Mithra (part 5)"

[llevronbelac]

I found reading the ecumenical councils last year to be super enlightening on this subject.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three.

Reformation Study Bible, The Triunity of God

[llevronbelac]

did he ghost you or did he get trapped in a gorilla costume and no one would help him out?

[llevronbelac]

I thought it was hilarious when Redeemed Zoomer came out and said that he wasn't going to debate protestantism anymore because it was leading more people to Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Because his debate with Jay Dyer did indeed significantly pushed me towards Orthodoxy.

I'm finding Redeemed Zoomer increasingly irritating, but he's still coming up with some crackers.

In his most recent video (about when he visited a non-denominational church), he said "do you need to give people hearing damage in order to share the Gospel?" about non-denom churches having loud music.

And on Twitter:

[llevronbelac]

can't believe I really just came across someone saying "nono, the JEWS didn't kill jesus, the ZIONISTS killed jesus."

I'm literally laughing. This is histeric. It almost makes it hard to see these antisemites as a serious threat. Almost.

[llevronbelac]

Seven Theories of Atonement

While all Christians agree that, as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3), they've disagreed with each other about the specifics of it and come up with different theories about it. Hence, I'm going to describe seven theories of atonement in short. (Also, many people from the Protestant world are unaware of theories other than penal substitution, and I want to do a little to alter that).

Recapitulation Theory

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22)

First proposed by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the late 2nd century, this posits that Christ atoned for us by leading a sinless life, hence succeeding where Adam failed and becoming the new head of the human race, taking away our guilt. While pretty much no-one holds this as their primary view of atonement anymore, it's become a component part of pretty much all views of atonement.

Ransom Theory

"For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

First proposed by Origen of Alexandria in the mid-3rd century, this posits that Christ was given to the Devil in exchange for the Devil relinquishing his hold on humanity, but the Devil could not claim Christ due to His sinlessness, and the Devil was left empty-handed. While almost extinct in the West, it's still popular among the Orthodox.

Satisfaction Theory

"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

First proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in the late 11th century, this posits that Christ's death was a sacrifice that gave infinite honour to God, and hence removed the dishonour of our sins. This became and remains the most common Roman Catholic view of atonement.

Moral Influence Theory

"...but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

First proposed by Peter Abelard in the early 12th century, this posits that Christ's death revealed to humans that God who was merciful and self-sacrificing rather than judgemental and angry, and hence moved us to repentance. This was condemned as heretical at the time, but was later adopted by theological liberals of all stripes and has become their standard theory of atonement.

Penal Substitutionary Theory

"For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21)

First proposed by Martin Luther in the early 16th century, this posits that Christ's death saved us because he was punished for our sins in lieu of us, fulfilling God's justice while allowing Him to be merciful. While there are some exceptions, this has become the standard view among Protestants, particularly ones of a Calvinistic tendency.

Governmental Theory

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit..." (1 Peter 3:18)

First proposed by Hugo Grotius in the early 17th century, this posits a variant of penal substitution, wherein Christ was punished as a demonstration of God's wrath, not for specific sins. This is the dominant view among Arminian Christians such as Methodists.

Christus Victor Theory

"He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him." (Colossians 2:15)

First proposed by Gustaf Aulen in the early 20th century, this posits a re-interpretation of ransom theory, wherein Christ saved us by defeating sin, the Devil and death - defeating sin by being accursed under the Law due to death on a cross despite being sinless and hence discrediting the Law, defeating the Devil by being sinless and so giving the Devil no claim on Him, and defeating death by resurrecting. While it doesn't have as many followers as the others due to being very recent, it's rapidly growing in popularity, particularly among Evangelicals and Anabaptists.

[llevronbelac]

(If you're not familiar with any of them, read this post).

Put your reasoning in the tags!

[llevronbelac]

The de-alcoholization of communion wine and the subsequent replacement with grape juice, which is all sweet with no bitter, parallels the modern church's lack of gravity with regard to the things of God and the desire for Christianity to be a nice and fun religion, send tweet.

[llevronbelac]

Look, we joke a lot, but really, "you were born evil, wretched, worse than the scum of the earth, and it took killing a god to make you salvageable, so now you'd better be grateful to that god and thank him 10,000 times a day for it and fill your thoughts with him 24/7 and abide by the letter of his every word, lest you suffer unimaginable torture for all of eternity" is a truly horrendous thing to believe about yourself and other people