Being an adult virgin shouldn’t be thought of negatively, mocked, or inferiorized. Engagement in sexual activity shouldn’t be used as a tool to think of oneself as superior to those who don’t have sex.
Neopagans: We have to return to the ways of our great ancestors, before Europe was ruined by Christianity!
The Author of the actual Norse saga Beowulf: Our ancestors had not the light of Christ, they lived in darkness, times were bad, they were embroiled in endless blood feuds, they literally worshipped demons, don’t be like them.
No arguement whatsoever, just bitching about being offensive.
Tumblr: omg epic.
Also nobody uses the “illegal” part as a noun, it’s an adjective. Immigrants is the fucking noun, illegal is the adjective describing the type of immigrant they are. Learn basic fucking English you morons.
It’s basically an abbreviation.
Also, he was correct. It’s not fair to everyone who did things the right way. I’ve never met anyone as opposed to illegal immigration as my friends whose families spent years working to come here legally. It pisses them off to see other cut the line and get rewarded for it.
What I would really like to see (or be) is an author who can do for science fiction what Lewis and Tolkien did for fantasy.
I don’t mean to write a grand sweeping space epic with an allegory in it. Even if it was set on a space ship, the genre of such a story would still be fantasy.
Fantasy was once considered pagan, and still is by some people, but it was “converted”, if you will, by taking the elements of the genre such as symbolism and supernatural powers and making them Christian. But the thing is, symbolism isn’t the hallmark of the sci-fi story, so it would be a mistake to think you could make a “Christian sci-fi” story by inserting Christian symbolism. You have to actually work within the boundaries of the genre, which is something that I rarely see Christian writers do for sci-fi. Ted Dekker is a great example of how not to do this, since almost all his supposed sci-fi stories rely heavily on symbolism. This comes off heavy-handed and just weird in this genre.
No, the hallmark of sci-fi is posing difficult philosophical questions. And then answering them. Exploring ethical dilemmas or dangers that could potentially be real life. If you wanted to Christianize science fiction then what you would have to do is try to answer these questions from a Christian point of view. If the fantasy genre is perceived as pagan than the sci-fi genre is perceived as atheist, since it is usually atheists or humanists answering the questions in the stories, but they don’t HAVE to be.
This is what I was attempting to do in Copper (the automaton with a human soul) and what Julie Rollins did in her (very edgy) stories discussing ethical issues, which were a big influence on me. For example one of them was about a woman who, in a parallel universe, had an abortion, and another one was about a society where clones are raised to harvest their organs, but considered to not be alive since they’ve never been conscious. I’d love to see more of this sort of thing and if anyone knows of any authors who are doing this sort of thing please let me know.
Can we please not? Tolkien and Lewis did so much damage to fantasy for so long, it’s all built up on Christian bias and “Civilising the pagans” tropes. Sci fi is about the boundaries and social commentary on current world through analogy, we don’t need one of our few outlets dragging into the christianisation and homogenisation of the world. Fantasy is only just getting over this now.
Someone better at wording what I mean, please take over, because this is just wanting more problematic sci fi pushing harmful doctrines… (Such as the heavy handed anti-abortion stuff).
I am a Christian, so you’re not gonna sell me on the idea that Christian doctrines are problematic, and certainly not that Tolkien and Lewis, the fathers of modern fantasy, “damaged” the genre. Sorry.
Tolkien, Lewis, and Godawa improved fantasy, you’re just too cowardly to see you’re own depravity.
👏👏👏
“Tolkien and Lewis did so much damage to fantasy”
Yeah the heavy-handed Christian science fiction & fantasy has to go but the heavy-handed atheistic science fiction & pagan fantasy stuff … that’s OK.
Um, wat.
I mean, the whole point of His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman was to kill God. If that’s not heavy-handed …
And I loved Arthur C Clarke as a kid but since the whole point of Childhood’s End was to leave behind the religious aspect of society and move on with science (which is apparently inherently atheistic), it strikes me as ignorant of history & human nature.
Christians have been using speculative fiction to tell stories for centuries. Read A Midsummer Night’s Dream by Shakespeare.
Damage? Really?
Someone’s not reading the really good stuff.
Honest question, are we considering Lewis’s Space Trilogy science-fiction or not?
What about vocations for people who experience same-sex attraction?
“My vocation is clear: I’m called to become a saint. That’s the universal vocation, which is fulfilled in different ways. Some people fulfill that call of becoming holy as priests, religious, or in the married life, but that doesn’t somehow minimize or replace the universal call to become like Christ.
The key here is a problem with a myopic (if understandable) self-focus on “what about me?” To be honest, this sort of self-focus is one of the deep wounds I think is associated with SSA. There is a wounded Narcissism that was certainly something I’ve had to work to overcome. One of the biggest helps for me was when I realized that there are far more single men and women who desire to be married and never will be than there are people with SSA in the world.
The great vocation of us all is seen in Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane: not my will, but thine be done. For some people, that will be seen as a lifetime of self-denial. In some sense, I’ve always seen the call of holiness as a theology of “don’t.” Don’t put myself in the place of the Father. But of course, that “don’t” is in service of the great “yes” of saying, “Thy will be done.”
The Catechism has this which is a rich vocation to redemptive suffering: “These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
A lot of people were horrified beyond words by Jill’s press conference. Though the Saint Catherine team’s actions had been noticed by the wider world, most Americans treated superhero teams like football teams–they typically followed the locals, and those were the teams that felt like “theirs.”
The broadcast exposed the events of Battlecry to the entire nation, most especially who and what Patrick was. The human mind dislikes shades of gray, and a lot of people assumed that all leaders were like that. Moreover, Edward (codename: Hunter) had a few unfortunate attributes in common with Patrick: he was handsome and popular with the media, he allowed interviews, and he was charismatic. Unlike Patrick, he was a genuinely kind and caring person, and he spoke to the media to improve his team’s standing with the citizens of Burlington.
None of that mattered after the broadcast. Edward pulled his team off the streets after the broadcast, knowing something large was coming, and the superhero-watchers of the area interpreted that as foul play on his part. They came to the house armed to the teeth and ready to “rescue” their heroes. As you saw in Mercury, it went wrong very quickly.
Yes you should get baptized. And no its not a second baptism, I believe if you get baptized it would actually be your first time getting baptized. Why? . Because Infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. Therefore sprinkling water onto an infant is not baptism.
If you have more question or you just don’t understand I will explain it more in a upcoming post which will be called (What does the Bible say about infant baptism?)
BTW I am very happy you have been thinking about getting baptized. I really encourage it, if you are serious about Christ. I will be praying for you. God Bless.
Catholics believe, and most Protestants I believe , believe in original sin. Baptism is nessesary for the removal of original sin. It counts as a baptism, however it must be ratified as an adult – which is Why Catholics renew our baptismal vows every year and at Confirmation.
Infant Baptism became a practice because at the beginning converts were baptized as families, but as children became born into the faith there became a concern for their souls since infant mortality was a pretty big thing. Thus, babies were baptized to let them be reborn in Christ and then they could choose to be in the faith or not when they got over.
Thats just a Catholic perspective.
AFAIK, the Protestant view on Baptism is that it is an outward sign of your salvation? IDK how to phrase it. Like, if Baptism was enough to remove and forgive your sins then Jesus wouldn’t be necessary? You get Baptized after you are saved. As an act of obedience to God, and sometimes as a public declaration of your commitment to God.
Baptism is just original sin only (and sins up to that point if you’re an adult). Otherwise confession is nessesary.
I grew up Protestant and was baptized when I was about 6. A lot of Protestant denominations place importance on the baptize-ee making a conscious choice in the matter (my church was this way); the person has to say yes to Jesus themselves first (and sometimes recite the sinner’s prayer, which is asking Jesus to come into your heart and be your Lord and Saviour). There’s a lot of difference between denominations as to which ones consider baptism to be an actual sacrament vs. an outward symbol of an inward truth.
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Protestant baptisms are considered valid and sacramental if they are done explicitly in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (this practice is rooted in Scripture, where Jesus gives the great commission- Matthew 28:19). However, Protestant denominations all have their own varied beliefs about Catholic infant baptism. It would depend on what each individual pastor’s interpretation of Scripture is.
Now (since I can’t resist), doesn’t the Protestant side of the Church seem rather fractured in all of this when it comes to “correct” teachings and interpretations? Ask three Protestants from three different denominations about what baptism really is and you’ll see what I mean. But Jesus Himself, just hours before He knew He was to die for our sins, prayed to the Father asking that the whole Church “be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). The Catholic Church is unique among all Christians in that it is the ONLY branch of Christianity that is officially and completely united in its teachings. Do some Catholics stray from official teachings? Yes, but it is the person who strays while the teachings remained fixed.
I would strongly urge this anon to take all of this into account when comparing their non-denom church to the Catholic Church they grew up in. It seems to me that a lot of people leave the Catholic Church because they do not fully understand her teachings and they have an experiential encounter with Christ somewhere else. Again, as someone who has seen both sides, I GET it. I’ve had certain powerful experiences among my Protestant friends that I have only experienced on very rare occasions in a Catholic setting.
But let me say this. The Catholic Church claims that Jesus actually gives us Himself to consume when we take Holy Communion. The Church claims this is NOT a symbol, but an actual fact. As a former Protestant I can’t help but ask my Protestant brothers and sisters: If there’s even a chance that the Catholic teaching about Communion is true, is it not worth looking into? Because what could possibly be a better experience of Christ than THAT? If you reject this teaching of the Church, I humbly beg you to prayerfully read John’s Gospel, chapter 6 and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you. He will, whether I myself am right or wrong.
As someone who has been on both sides, and who is so convinced of the rightness of the Church that I experienced painful rejection from some of my own family members, I urge every Christian to reconsider the Catholic faith. There are answers to every question you could pose concerning doctrine and practices, I promise. It just takes time to seek and find them.
Wide Spread Interests 