Voddie Baucham Why I Choose to Believe the Bible Part 5

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
You do realize that’s not the trilemma most people are thinking about when they hear the word, right?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Brother Chris- How does the trilemma [/quote]

No, it’s just something I vaguely came to a conclusion about and I was talking to my dear friend about it, and she asked me if I had read C.S. Lewis (I had no clue who he was at the time) and I said no, and she told me that it was an author she read all the time as a kid before she became an atheist.

Jesus could have been three things as I see it (I had a few others because I wasn’t entirely sure if I had processed everything correctly): lunatic, liar, or lord. You have those three options, based on the historical account. I choose the third option. I could be wrong, but I can’t see it.

And, if he was lord than his Traditions would be valid. I don’t much care if someone doesn’t believe Jesus is lord, I wish they would, but they have free will and reason for a reason. And, as long as they follow Natural Law, I’m not much to interfere with other people’s business when it comes to religion as I respect people’s freedom of conscience. They can figure it out if they want to, I’ll stand here patiently if anyone wants me to instruct them.[/quote]
[/quote]

What is the Trilemma you were thinking about?[/quote]

1.if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
2.if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
3. if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?[/quote]

That’s easy, G-d let’s evil happen for the greater good. I knew that before I even started looking.[/quote]

The above is nonsensical. At least support the above with some substance.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?

[/quote]

No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]

Being generous, we can defend the Bible and say it (suppressing women) was the culture at the time. Or, we can develop the view (similar to some Muslims) that women are so cherished, the suppression is for their own protection.

But to hold to this view in this day and age is very sad indeed. Might as well be the Taliban.

Honestly, some of the best spiritual teachings I’ve ever received have been from women.[/quote]

I’m sure, I read the Doctors of the Church (they are the people who’s writing is of the highest caliber) which have women in their ranks. However, they still are not to be in the priesthood and are supposed to wear veils. Paul told the Corinthians to forget their modern sensibilities, they will only lead them away from the Lord. As well, a woman cannot be in persona Christi, it would be impossible even if we did try and ordain a woman. It would just be invalid.[/quote]

What about Galations 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.(KJV) ?

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme030.htm[/quote]

KJV…

3:28 you are all one: All peoples, irrespective of ethnic, gender, and social distinctions, are equal candidates for salvation and sonship in Christ (Col 3:11; CCC 791). You have to be in body of Christ to be saved.

Ver. 28.�¢??There is neither Jew nor Greek.�¢??i.e., in Christ. In the Church of Christ there is no distinction before God of birth, position, or sex. All, whether Jews or Greeks (= Gentiles), whether slaves or freemen, whether males or females, make one mystical body, the Church, of which the Head is Christ.

[/quote]

Fine. How does that support your earlier statement ‘a woman cannot be in persona Christi, it would be impossible even if we did try and ordain a woman. It would just be invalid.’?

I’m not crazy about discrimination in its various flavors (age, sex, race, position). It reeks like bad fruit to me.[/quote]

How does what support my earlier statement?

[system]

I’m trying to understand your earlier statement… ‘a woman cannot be in persona Christi, it would be impossible even if we did try and ordain a woman. It would just be invalid.’

It doesn’t make any sense to me, especially in light of Galatians 3:28, noted above.

[Oleena]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
By meditating do you mean prayer or do you mean meditation as a Buddhist monk would tell you to do it (and yes, you could meditate as a Buddhist monk does with the concepts of universal love and care laid out by Jesus in your mind but that’s not close to the same thing as prayer.)

First of all, what do you mean by “the world as we see it today”? Do you mean earth, the galaxy, the universe, humanity? What are you getting at. And to all of those, my answer is I don’t know but probably not.
[/quote]

Just to point out that Buddhist meditation would go against Christian morals as we’re not supposed to let our intellect and will be weakened.[/quote]

Yeah, many Christians don’t believe in meditation and go so far as to say that it could put you closer to the devil. It’s most certainly not an originally christian or Catholic practice, and if religions other than the judeo-Christian didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have it.

Edit: Although, I’ve never seen them argue that it would weaken your intellect or will. Why do you say that?[/quote]

I maybe wrong, but Catholics have lots of meditations. So, I’m not sure there wouldn’t be meditation if there weren’t other religions. Every time one of those meditations threads pops up I post a bunch of Catholic meditations resources in there.

Because with Catholic meditation you are focusing on something, with Buddhist meditation you’re clearing your mind trying to not think. Catholics are big on free will, intellect, and responsibility. So, stopping thinking does two things, it opens your mind to demonic influence and possibly it would allow for you to do something grave unwillingly.[/quote]

Wrong. Buddhists often focus on something when they meditate. They have thousands of prayers and mantras covering every peaceful, compassionate topic you can think of and those have been in existence for thousands of years, the point of which are to focus on during meditation. I’m curious as to whether the Catholics came up with meditation on their own or developed the practice after observing Buddhists.

Edit: Actually, we’re both right. I don’t know what kind of meditation you’re referring to. The idea of trying to completely clear one’s mind is Eastern. When western religions refer to meditation, they mean meditate on God (his life, good deed, etc) which isn’t the same experience as Buddhist meditation, where they don’t try to conceptualize but rather let their conscious selfs fade next to a larger ideal (it is REALLY hard to put eastern meditation into words!!!)

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I’m trying to understand your earlier statement… ‘a woman cannot be in persona Christi, it would be impossible even if we did try and ordain a woman. It would just be invalid.’

It doesn’t make any sense to me, especially in light of Galatians 3:28, noted above.
[/quote]

Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with the priesthood (not anything explicit anyway). You want to know why a woman cannot be a priest? There is different layers to this question, kind of complicated. I’ll go threw them briefly and if you have questions on them, I’ll try and answer them and if I can’t, I will find an answer for you somewhere. Note, I don’t know much about this subject so I had to do some research (reason for taking so long to respond).

Why did G-d make it so that only men can be ordained priests? I don’t know. That is his plan and when I get to Heaven I’ll be sure to ask him about that.

Even though I don’t understand G-d’s reasonings I do believe it to be the unchangeable truth that only men can be ordained priests (this is different than preachers and theologians, &c. a lot of women make good preachers because they are very sympathetic, which some men tend to lack. I have met a few Sheed women and they are quite fine preachers, however they would never attempt to preach women ordination. As well, there is a few women theologians that I cherish like the wonderful lady Dr. Alice von Hildebrand who I have met on a few cases and I would recommend her and her husband who is a pure genius).

Theologically speaking…women can’t become priests because the priest, as I said, is ‘in persona Christi’ and Christ is 1) a man, 2) married to his Bride, the Church. Christ is referred to as our Bridegroom and the Church is his Bride, which with the two become one flesh turns into the Church being the body of Christ. A priest is married to the Bride, our Mother, the Church. And, it is a lie that a bride can marry a bride, so because of G-d’s plan (only he knows his reasons) a woman couldn’t possibly be ordained.

So, these congregations where they have women preachers…awesome. I have two women who preach on Saturday and Wednesday down town, but they both know they can’t become priests (and both happenstance to wear veils when praying).

Now, on the abilities of women to be priests. Yes, women would make good priests, they have the characteristics: they are caring, sympathetic, understanding, they listen, they are usually good with administrative work, good with little kids. However, the priesthood has is special because it is brought into the oneness of Fatherhood. Priests are called Father for a reason, because from Peter and Paul they were call Fathers, and Abraham was known as Father Abraham. Jesus’ priesthood is in form of the Leviticus priesthood, they offer up sacrifices to the Lord, and they have to be men. However, the only Sacrifice that is sufficient to the Father, is the Son.

Tradition…from the early writings like the Didache we can see that only men were allowed to be Priests.

Inference…we can infer from the Bible that if Jesus wanted women to be priests he had one greatest human alive to make a priest (two if you count Mary Magdalen), his beloved Mother. She always (and I mean always) followed the Lord’s will and never sinned (I mean never), she would have been great as a priest, she’s our Mother! I mean the Jesus did pick her after all, you’d think that if women could be priests, he would have made her one. But, he didn’t.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
By meditating do you mean prayer or do you mean meditation as a Buddhist monk would tell you to do it (and yes, you could meditate as a Buddhist monk does with the concepts of universal love and care laid out by Jesus in your mind but that’s not close to the same thing as prayer.)

First of all, what do you mean by “the world as we see it today”? Do you mean earth, the galaxy, the universe, humanity? What are you getting at. And to all of those, my answer is I don’t know but probably not.
[/quote]

Just to point out that Buddhist meditation would go against Christian morals as we’re not supposed to let our intellect and will be weakened.[/quote]

Yeah, many Christians don’t believe in meditation and go so far as to say that it could put you closer to the devil. It’s most certainly not an originally christian or Catholic practice, and if religions other than the judeo-Christian didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have it.

Edit: Although, I’ve never seen them argue that it would weaken your intellect or will. Why do you say that?[/quote]

I maybe wrong, but Catholics have lots of meditations. So, I’m not sure there wouldn’t be meditation if there weren’t other religions. Every time one of those meditations threads pops up I post a bunch of Catholic meditations resources in there.

Because with Catholic meditation you are focusing on something, with Buddhist meditation you’re clearing your mind trying to not think. Catholics are big on free will, intellect, and responsibility. So, stopping thinking does two things, it opens your mind to demonic influence and possibly it would allow for you to do something grave unwillingly.[/quote]

Wrong. Buddhists often focus on something when they meditate. They have thousands of prayers and mantras covering every peaceful, compassionate topic you can think of and those have been in existence for thousands of years, the point of which are to focus on during meditation. I’m curious as to whether the Catholics came up with meditation on their own or developed the practice after observing Buddhists.[/quote]

Well I didn’t go into detail, so I am sorry I made a presumptuous statement about Buddhist meditation, but you reminded me of Centering Prayer (or meditation), here is a reading. Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers

However, I do find that Eastern Religions’ (besides Judaism and Catholicism) meditation is based on clearing the mind and emptiness of mind (for what I see and hear about meditation, now while studying Religion at the Uni). However, Catholic meditation is the opposite: it is an active mental task in which we reach the depth’s of G-d’s mind.

No, Catholics got their meditations from Jewish tradition, which you contemplated and remembered the word of G-d.

[quote]
Edit: Actually, we’re both right. I don’t know what kind of meditation you’re referring to. The idea of trying to completely clear one’s mind is Eastern. When western religions refer to meditation, they mean meditate on God (his life, good deed, etc) which isn’t the same experience as Buddhist meditation, where they don’t try to conceptualize but rather let their conscious selfs fade next to a larger ideal (it is REALLY hard to put eastern meditation into words!!!)[/quote]

Well look at that!

[system]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I’m trying to understand your earlier statement… ‘a woman cannot be in persona Christi, it would be impossible even if we did try and ordain a woman. It would just be invalid.’

It doesn’t make any sense to me, especially in light of Galatians 3:28, noted above.
[/quote]

Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with the priesthood (not anything explicit anyway). You want to know why a woman cannot be a priest? There is different layers to this question, kind of complicated. I’ll go threw them briefly and if you have questions on them, I’ll try and answer them and if I can’t, I will find an answer for you somewhere. Note, I don’t know much about this subject so I had to do some research (reason for taking so long to respond).

Why did G-d make it so that only men can be ordained priests? I don’t know. That is his plan and when I get to Heaven I’ll be sure to ask him about that.

Even though I don’t understand G-d’s reasonings I do believe it to be the unchangeable truth that only men can be ordained priests (this is different than preachers and theologians, &c. a lot of women make good preachers because they are very sympathetic, which some men tend to lack. I have met a few Sheed women and they are quite fine preachers, however they would never attempt to preach women ordination. As well, there is a few women theologians that I cherish like the wonderful lady Dr. Alice von Hildebrand who I have met on a few cases and I would recommend her and her husband who is a pure genius).

Theologically speaking…women can’t become priests because the priest, as I said, is ‘in persona Christi’ and Christ is 1) a man, 2) married to his Bride, the Church. Christ is referred to as our Bridegroom and the Church is his Bride, which with the two become one flesh turns into the Church being the body of Christ. A priest is married to the Bride, our Mother, the Church. And, it is a lie that a bride can marry a bride, so because of G-d’s plan (only he knows his reasons) a woman couldn’t possibly be ordained.

So, these congregations where they have women preachers…awesome. I have two women who preach on Saturday and Wednesday down town, but they both know they can’t become priests (and both happenstance to wear veils when praying).

Now, on the abilities of women to be priests. Yes, women would make good priests, they have the characteristics: they are caring, sympathetic, understanding, they listen, they are usually good with administrative work, good with little kids. However, the priesthood has is special because it is brought into the oneness of Fatherhood. Priests are called Father for a reason, because from Peter and Paul they were call Fathers, and Abraham was known as Father Abraham. Jesus’ priesthood is in form of the Leviticus priesthood, they offer up sacrifices to the Lord, and they have to be men. However, the only Sacrifice that is sufficient to the Father, is the Son.

Tradition…from the early writings like the Didache we can see that only men were allowed to be Priests.

Inference…we can infer from the Bible that if Jesus wanted women to be priests he had one greatest human alive to make a priest (two if you count Mary Magdalen), his beloved Mother. She always (and I mean always) followed the Lord’s will and never sinned (I mean never), she would have been great as a priest, she’s our Mother! I mean the Jesus did pick her after all, you’d think that if women could be priests, he would have made her one. But, he didn’t.[/quote]

OK, so it has to do more with fitting into the traditional and allegorical story of the bridegroom and bride than ‘in persona Christi’. Since in Christ, there is no male or female.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I’m trying to understand your earlier statement… ‘a woman cannot be in persona Christi, it would be impossible even if we did try and ordain a woman. It would just be invalid.’

It doesn’t make any sense to me, especially in light of Galatians 3:28, noted above.
[/quote]

Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with the priesthood (not anything explicit anyway). You want to know why a woman cannot be a priest? There is different layers to this question, kind of complicated. I’ll go threw them briefly and if you have questions on them, I’ll try and answer them and if I can’t, I will find an answer for you somewhere. Note, I don’t know much about this subject so I had to do some research (reason for taking so long to respond).

Why did G-d make it so that only men can be ordained priests? I don’t know. That is his plan and when I get to Heaven I’ll be sure to ask him about that.

Even though I don’t understand G-d’s reasonings I do believe it to be the unchangeable truth that only men can be ordained priests (this is different than preachers and theologians, &c. a lot of women make good preachers because they are very sympathetic, which some men tend to lack. I have met a few Sheed women and they are quite fine preachers, however they would never attempt to preach women ordination. As well, there is a few women theologians that I cherish like the wonderful lady Dr. Alice von Hildebrand who I have met on a few cases and I would recommend her and her husband who is a pure genius).

Theologically speaking…women can’t become priests because the priest, as I said, is ‘in persona Christi’ and Christ is 1) a man, 2) married to his Bride, the Church. Christ is referred to as our Bridegroom and the Church is his Bride, which with the two become one flesh turns into the Church being the body of Christ. A priest is married to the Bride, our Mother, the Church. And, it is a lie that a bride can marry a bride, so because of G-d’s plan (only he knows his reasons) a woman couldn’t possibly be ordained.

So, these congregations where they have women preachers…awesome. I have two women who preach on Saturday and Wednesday down town, but they both know they can’t become priests (and both happenstance to wear veils when praying).

Now, on the abilities of women to be priests. Yes, women would make good priests, they have the characteristics: they are caring, sympathetic, understanding, they listen, they are usually good with administrative work, good with little kids. However, the priesthood has is special because it is brought into the oneness of Fatherhood. Priests are called Father for a reason, because from Peter and Paul they were call Fathers, and Abraham was known as Father Abraham. Jesus’ priesthood is in form of the Leviticus priesthood, they offer up sacrifices to the Lord, and they have to be men. However, the only Sacrifice that is sufficient to the Father, is the Son.

Tradition…from the early writings like the Didache we can see that only men were allowed to be Priests.

Inference…we can infer from the Bible that if Jesus wanted women to be priests he had one greatest human alive to make a priest (two if you count Mary Magdalen), his beloved Mother. She always (and I mean always) followed the Lord’s will and never sinned (I mean never), she would have been great as a priest, she’s our Mother! I mean the Jesus did pick her after all, you’d think that if women could be priests, he would have made her one. But, he didn’t.[/quote]

OK, so it has to do more with fitting into the traditional and allegorical story of the bridegroom and bride than ‘in persona Christi’. Since in Christ, there is no male or female.
[/quote]

No. It has a lot to do with in person Christi, there is a difference between in persona Christi and in the body of Christ. When a priest is in persona Christi, he acts as Christ himself, as the high priest as the one priest. When we are in the body of Christ, we do not act as Christ himself at least not in the position of high priest.

And the no male or female is referring to the Jewish tradition that people with money were looked upon with favor by G-d and that women were second rate. It doesn’t mean that women can be priests, just like man can’t be a mother.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:<<< OK, so it has to do more with fitting into the traditional and allegorical story of the bridegroom and bride than ‘in persona Christi’. Since in Christ, there is no male or female >>>[/quote]It has to do with the simple fact of God’s created order and decree. He said so. Women are precious in His sight. They are in every sense just as valuable to Him as men, but He has ordained that there be a hierarchy of authority in which men are charged with ultimate responsibility. This doesn’t make men more intelligent or more holy. It simply makes them ordained by the order of the King to that position. Women are honored in ways that are denied to men such as the carrying, bearing and nurturing of new life. A breathtakingly awesome blessing that has of course been relegated to almost a curse in this sick and twisted society any more.

In typical religious fashion Rome takes this simple 3rd grade principle, easily accessible to a child (the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ) and transforms into a 7 volume treatise of gobbledy gook requiring a post graduate seminary education to discern. See, to me “He said so” is enough because I don’t need any further naturalistic autonomous qualifications and explanations like Aquinas did. It all comes back to that. When you forsake Jerusalem in favor of Athens, when you hire Aristotle to help God out, this is what you always get.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It has to do with the simple fact of God’s created order and decree. He said so. Women are precious in His sight. They are in every sense just as valuable to Him as men, but He has ordained that there be a hierarchy of authority in which men are charged with ultimate responsibility. This doesn’t make men more intelligent or more holy. It simply makes them ordained by the order of the King to that position. Women are honored in ways that are denied to men such as the carrying, bearing and nurturing of new life. A breathtakingly awesome blessing that has of course been relegated to almost a curse in this sick and twisted society any more.

In typical religious fashion Rome takes this simple 3rd grade principle, easily accessible to a child (the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ) and transforms into a 7 volume treatise of gobbledy gook requiring a post graduate seminary education to discern. See, to me “He said so” is enough because I don’t need any further naturalistic autonomous qualifications and explanations like Aquinas did. It all comes back to that. When you forsake Jerusalem in favor of Athens, when you hire Aristotle to help God out, this is what you always get.
[/quote]

Haha you’re right. We have been around for a long time so we do know the simple but deep truth of Jesus Christ. That is what happens when you’re guided by the Holy Ghost and protected by Jesus for the past 2000 years.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It has to do with the simple fact of God’s created order and decree. He said so. Women are precious in His sight. They are in every sense just as valuable to Him as men, but He has ordained that there be a hierarchy of authority in which men are charged with ultimate responsibility. This doesn’t make men more intelligent or more holy. It simply makes them ordained by the order of the King to that position. Women are honored in ways that are denied to men such as the carrying, bearing and nurturing of new life. A breathtakingly awesome blessing that has of course been relegated to almost a curse in this sick and twisted society any more.

In typical religious fashion Rome takes this simple 3rd grade principle, easily accessible to a child (the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ) and transforms into a 7 volume treatise of gobbledy gook requiring a post graduate seminary education to discern. See, to me “He said so” is enough because I don’t need any further naturalistic autonomous qualifications and explanations like Aquinas did. It all comes back to that. When you forsake Jerusalem in favor of Athens, when you hire Aristotle to help God out, this is what you always get.
[/quote]

Haha you’re right. We have been around for a long time so we do know the simple but deep truth of Jesus Christ. That is what happens when you’re guided by the Holy Ghost and protected by Jesus for the past 2000 years.[/quote]

Given the verifiable recorded history of your Church this is staggeringly arrogant and under any reasonable analysis (other than a devout Catholic’s) quite delusional.

[system]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In typical religious fashion Rome takes this simple 3rd grade principle, easily accessible to a child (the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ) and transforms into a 7 volume treatise of gobbledy gook requiring a post graduate seminary education to discern.[/quote]

LOL Yes, good reminder to become (or stay) like little children…

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In typical religious fashion Rome takes this simple 3rd grade principle, easily accessible to a child (the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ) and transforms into a 7 volume treatise of gobbledy gook requiring a post graduate seminary education to discern.[/quote]

LOL Yes, good reminder to become (or stay) like little children…[/quote]

Yes, I agree come like little children!

I have a story on being like little children: Two women, Mother Theresa and St. Therese of Lisieux both were described as having the minds of children. Mother Theresa of Calcutta was taken to the hospital one day because of one of her many medical ailments her body was riddled with and they decided to see what her brain activity looked like since this great woman had such a powerful faith.

Well there is two different kinds of brain waves, adult brain waves and child brain waves. Mother Theresa was found to have the latter and none of the former. She literally had the mind of a child. And, she had a great mind and so did St. Therese of Lisieux. Both were neither ignorant of the faith and both were very strong in their understanding of their faith.

Now, to look at St. Therese of Lisieux, her nick name was the ‘little flower’ because everything she did was ‘little.’ She could not give big sacrifices, she could not do big prayers (she didn’t even like the Rosary, some say), she could not do big repentance; and, everything she did, she did little by the grace of G-d. She was described by those around her as being like a child. And, St. Theresa was definitely not ignorant of her faith, she was a great writer, she wrote many great things on the Catholic faith in her time. So much so she was declared one of the 33 Doctors of the Church. However, I doubt if anyone would describe St. Therese of Lisieux as anything but coming as a child.

You do good to bring up becoming like little children and you’d do good to follow the advice and go to Mass on Sunday instead of going golfing.

In Matthew 18:3 Jesus tells us “unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” and this is very important. It is a strong statement. For context of what Jesus is showing here Jesus calls the child over and the child humbles himself to Jesus’ command, as we are to be humble to the will of G-d. The example of a child is important because it teaches us that we need to do several things 1) to be lowly, 2) to be patient, 3) not scandalize a weak brother, 4) mildly correct a brother when he sins, 5) and forgiven him when repentant.

As well looking at St. Augustine, when looking at a child we can see that they neither envy others nor covet precedence; however are simple, humble, innocent, and candid. St. Augustine in his Confessions tells us that he has seen a young child become green with envy at his twin brother who was at the same chest of their mother. But, little children are not ambitious for a kingdom or the first place in a kingdom as the Apostles were known for.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In typical religious fashion Rome takes this simple 3rd grade principle, easily accessible to a child (the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ) and transforms into a 7 volume treatise of gobbledy gook requiring a post graduate seminary education to discern.[/quote]

LOL Yes, good reminder to become (or stay) like little children…[/quote]

Yes, I agree come like little children!

I have a story on being like little children: Two women, Mother Theresa and St. Therese of Lisieux both were described as having the minds of children. Mother Theresa of Calcutta was taken to the hospital one day because of one of her many medical ailments her body was riddled with and they decided to see what her brain activity looked like since this great woman had such a powerful faith.

Well there is two different kinds of brain waves, adult brain waves and child brain waves. Mother Theresa was found to have the latter and none of the former. She literally had the mind of a child. And, she had a great mind and so did St. Therese of Lisieux. Both were neither ignorant of the faith and both were very strong in their understanding of their faith.

Now, to look at St. Therese of Lisieux, her nick name was the ‘little flower’ because everything she did was ‘little.’ She could not give big sacrifices, she could not do big prayers (she didn’t even like the Rosary, some say), she could not do big repentance; and, everything she did, she did little by the grace of G-d. She was described by those around her as being like a child. And, St. Theresa was definitely not ignorant of her faith, she was a great writer, she wrote many great things on the Catholic faith in her time. So much so she was declared one of the 33 Doctors of the Church. However, I doubt if anyone would describe St. Therese of Lisieux as anything but coming as a child.

You do good to bring up becoming like little children and you’d do good to follow the advice and go to Mass on Sunday instead of going golfing.

In Matthew 18:3 Jesus tells us “unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” and this is very important. It is a strong statement. For context of what Jesus is showing here Jesus calls the child over and the child humbles himself to Jesus’ command, as we are to be humble to the will of G-d. The example of a child is important because it teaches us that we need to do several things 1) to be lowly, 2) to be patient, 3) not scandalize a weak brother, 4) mildly correct a brother when he sins, 5) and forgiven him when repentant.

As well looking at St. Augustine, when looking at a child we can see that they neither envy others nor covet precedence; however are simple, humble, innocent, and candid. St. Augustine in his Confessions tells us that he has seen a young child become green with envy at his twin brother who was at the same chest of their mother. But, little children are not ambitious for a kingdom or the first place in a kingdom as the Apostles were known for.[/quote]

Forgive me, but honestly you sound brain washed and I think the above is plain tripe.

First, children also believe in Santa Claus.

Next, I hold the scripture “become as children” dear to my heart because of what I believe it means and I don’t believe it means any of what you claim. Please provide reference that that scripture refers to “1) to be lowly, 2) to be patient, 3) not scandalize a weak brother, 4) mildly correct a brother when he sins, 5) and forgiven him when repentant.” Children are not lowly. Children are not patient. Children do not scandalize. Children do not correct.

I do agree that children are “neither envy others nor covet precedence; however are simple, humble, innocent, and candid.” That’s what we should strive for. A group of kids play, love, are honest and do not hate. If they hurt, they tell you. If they love, they hug and kiss and tell you. Adults should never lose this. It’s a lesson of an open heart, a lesson of love - not this “lowly, patient, scandalous, corrective” lesson you proclaim.

[Tiribulus]

You don’t have any kids do ya?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t have any kids do ya?[/quote]

Is that directed to me?

I have two wonderful older boys in college and a wonderful loving 5 year old. I’ve also taken notice of kids in preschool - young children, before the world and adults fucks them up and teaches them anger and hatred.

What’s your point?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t have any kids do ya?[/quote]

Me?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You don’t have any kids do ya?[/quote]Me?[/quote]Nah, I know you don’t have any kids yet.

Kids, especially boys, will fight over anything and everything if left to themselves. MINE MINE MINE GIMME GIMME GIMME. Temper tantrums, throw themselves on the floor screaming. They will not share food, toys, a seat etc unless taught to do so and even then it doesn’t come easy. All generally speaking.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You don’t have any kids do ya?[/quote]Me?[/quote]Nah, I know you don’t have any kids yet.

Kids, especially boys, will fight over anything and everything if left to themselves. MINE MINE MINE GIMME GIMME GIMME. Temper tantrums, throw themselves on the floor screaming. They will not share food, toys, a seat etc unless taught to do so and even then it doesn’t come easy. All generally speaking.[/quote]

I’ve helped raise enough kids to know that this is the truth…sometimes (not close to majority for me). My brother, my cousins, my second-cousins, &c. were all well behaved and are still well behaved.

[Oleena]

We should try hooking Westerners meditating on god up to electrodes and see how it compares to the eastern meditation.