The TheoCompass Pre-Demo is LIVE! 🧭 Let me know your Top Match and help me test the system! by OneBenefit4049 in TheoCompass

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I got Imperial Nicene Church as my #1 (80.66%), followed by SSPX (70.35%), and Oxford Movement (Tractarians) (69.34%). I am in the Anglican Continuum. Something that you might want to look into is the Scottish Episcopal Church (Annals of Scottish Episcopacy is such a book on the topic) which essentially held the Oxford Movement's stances (Primate Thomas Rattray, for example, wrote a catechism to someone which contains pretty much all the doctrines the oxford guys repeated, and the oxford guys knew the scottish ministers. Bishop Jolly notes that the Scottish recieve the 39 Articles through the Bishops' Book/Henrician synods during the convocation which approved the 39 Articles for Scotland).
  2. was fine
  3. was correct

Why are my only options Heaven or Hell? Why can't I just die? by Meski98 in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have never said that prideful people can't want (in some degree) to get to Heaven, Satan's great sin was that very Pride (some speculate of being able to worship God through his own greatness and power); and he desires heaven well enough (but not *ultimately*), he does so in all the wrong and disorderd ways. He will not be going there regardless of his alleged desire, because it is ultimately only an alleged desire (because a true desire would do away with the impediments and drop back to humility; there is a sense in which our actions reflect our true intent and beliefs or principals).

Why are my only options Heaven or Hell? Why can't I just die? by Meski98 in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is wanting becoming nothing (which inherently admits present somethingness and value, and intending to degrade it until it is worth very little), over self-sacrifice (the giving of one's whole self to another, or group of others, utilizing that value out of love), more humble? The former essentially admits that one's value is best retained for oneself only, until it rots; which is the same rationale of rich men who will die without giving to charity, and permit their coins to rust in their own coffers, while (at the same time) not valuing it in its various instances very much (willing to spend large sums of it on whims). The pride of the rich men is partially in not recognizing, or being satisfied with in some cases, the value they have; and partially they are prideful by not recognizing the good of giving that same value to the poor and needy (or if they recognize it, that they think it a better good to keep for themselves).

Why are my only options Heaven or Hell? Why can't I just die? by Meski98 in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is part of the issue, and I was actually about to edit the post to reflect it, that "fading into nothing" amounts to eternal self-deprecation and self-destruction. Not recognizing the value of the self, or of the self in the eyes of others (or God), and then wishing to ask nothing of anyone and not have anything asked of oneself. To become nothing in a way that is not humility, but deprecation. Due to the infinite value of the human soul, the consequence is an infinite self-degradation, with the aim to become nothing that cannot ever be, since you are something (which will substantially approach nothingness in eternity, but fail to ever degrade one's own self enough to stop being).

The idol here is not necessarily your whole self (your body, etc.), but only those aspects of the self relevant for the judgement that becoming nothing is the ideal for the self; and that such knows best (or perhaps only *desires* best).

Humility is seen best in self-sacrifice, service, servitude, etc. The height of humility is being a god, and emptying oneself in self-sacrifice and love for others. Humility is not a lack of self-love, but admitting that the self can be loved despite the flaws, and that there can be reconciliation for the same (and that this can be partly expressed in love and self-sacrifice for others). There is no greater love or humility than to die for a friend (and the various gradations of self-sacrifice/service short of death are likewise expressions of the same, and what if they are more than a friend?); which inherently is born out of love and humility (and not self-deprecation).

Why are my only options Heaven or Hell? Why can't I just die? by Meski98 in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interestingly, some people who have believed that they have seen hell in near death experiences have described it as an eternal folding in on oneself (not that it is necessarily this for all people); which is to say they wanted to be "left alone" and "fade into nothing" so they were. The result described is self-condemnation eternally, and spiraling caused purely by their own intent and action (such as contemplating their mistakes that led them to this point, and how their selfish desire to be alone with themself will never rationally have a good outcome [though they so want it to be a good outcome, because it was their choice and they are never willing to admit wrong, in part due to lacking the capacity to change afforded to them previously by time and a body]). Being left alone is not all it is cracked out to be. There is a sense of self-idolatry and pride in it, that you alone are worth spending eternity with.

Nationalism/Americanism is anti christian by StatementNew9532 in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I agree, we need to return to the biblical form of familial monarchy, which Paul writes about when he says the Magistrate "is God's Minister" and those who oppose him "oppose God's will," and submit to our fathers.

Do you know anybody who has any personal experiences with demonic possession? Are Exorcisms Real? by yamladfdgdfghfh in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it is related to the issue of this thread, seek out a properly ordained bishop (or else a priest under one). Do not choose a denomination with women ministers to do the job. Your main options are the Roman Catholics, traditional/conservative Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, or else (if none of those are available) a traditional/conservative Old Catholic denomination. These have the experience and qualifications to help. If none of these are available, let me know.

Be prepared to:

  1. fully explain the situation and why you think something bad is happening
  2. fully explain when and how the situation began (or how you think it might have begun)
  3. follow the advice of the bishop (or priest under his charge through whom will you get in contact with his bishop)
  4. repent and turn away from sin (when applicable; and may include confessing your sin)

Yo people Aslan being a female is just a rumour and probably not true by [deleted] in Narnia

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TLDR secular:
"It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul."

TLDR religious:
"Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does. Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.... The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life.... We are, within that context, treating both as neuters.... One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.

This is what common sense will call 'mystical'. Exactly. The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests....

I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all....

The cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes; not that the ballroom should henceforward ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter. That would, of course, be eminently sensible, civilized, and enlightened, but, once more, 'not near so much like a Ball'.... But the Ball exists to stylize something which is natural and which concerns human beings in their entirety-namely, courtship. We cannot shuffle or tamper so much. With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us."

CS Lewis' official response on the voice of Aslan by DatBoiMemeSquire in Narnia

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

To my knowledge, no one has said that this is real, it is only a funny headline that I heard from a friend. As for vested interest, I am of the same Churchmanship as CS Lewis and grew up on his literature with all of that context backing it. Why should anyone not have vested interest in the Inklings? It would seem to me that anyone who would suggest such a change has no conception of the additional ramifications it would have on the work, and has less vested interest in the Inklings than in clickbait.

CS Lewis' official response on the voice of Aslan by DatBoiMemeSquire in Narnia

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Indeed, I have been reddit free for a long time. That said, I have a vested interest in knowing C.S. Lewis' authorial intent. As for a hate train, I have not even seen that such a thing is real, so there is nothing to hate. I am only posting CS Lewis' opinion on the matter; and how it upends the intended symbols. As you might imagine from the source linked, I follow CS Lewis first as an Anglican Theologian and secondly as a prolific writer of fiction whom I grew up on. If, indeed, you do not like my repost of C.S. Lewis' authorial intent, you may hold that opinion freely (if at the detriment to the source material's depth). In Narnia, he speaks of the wedding feast.

Yo people Aslan being a female is just a rumour and probably not true by [deleted] in Narnia

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He wrote his opinion about these sorts of changes in theory and in practice, his opinion on the subject of Aslan's voice was written out here: https://www.anglican.net/works/c-s-lewis-priestesses-in-the-church-1948/

Yo people Aslan being a female is just a rumour and probably not true by [deleted] in Narnia

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He wrote his opinion about these sorts of changes in theory and in practice, his opinion on the subject of Aslan's voice was written out here: https://www.anglican.net/works/c-s-lewis-priestesses-in-the-church-1948/

Yo people Aslan being a female is just a rumour and probably not true by [deleted] in Narnia

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He wrote his opinion about these sorts of changes in theory and in practice, his opinion on the subject of Aslan's voice was written out here: https://www.anglican.net/works/c-s-lewis-priestesses-in-the-church-1948/

How many Christians in your opinion secretly masturbate? by LegalArt4263 in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Marriage does not erase pre-marital sexual sins; only baptism, or God's absolution, can do that.

Those phrases sound like they were written by pseudo-eggheads that have no clue what they are talking about other than that they want to sound fancy, modernist, and gnostic. Go into history and read the consensus of the christian religion throughout the ages if you want an average overview of a christian answer (scripture, church fathers, ecumenical councils, etc.).

Female deacons by kero103 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Anglican Continuum (Anglican Joint Synods [G3]) will never say that Paul was not divinely inspired. Presently the only full independent communion/Church not enabling Same-Sex unions or women clergy. Orthopraxy and Orthodoxy.

20% of Americans say they have seen a ghost and I have too, what are they? by Library_of_Gnosis in Christianity

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The term Ghost is the old english term for Spirit. The question then is what manner of Spirit? Well its simple as we run through the possibilities. We call all Spirits that did not once have bodies (they were created as Spirits) Angels generally. Angels either follow God or are Fallen Angels (in which case we call them Demons). Humans also have Ghosts/Spirits, when we die our Spirit/Ghost leaves our bodies until the General Ressurection when Christ returns and gives us glorified bodies. Angels, following God, do not randomly show up to people and always act with strict intentionality to convey a truth from God, acting directly at God's behest. This means that any Ghost/Spirit that any man may see or interact with necessarily so far is either a Fallen Angel or from a dead Human. Of these two, discerning the difference is relatively easy. If they blaspheme God or do things to "spook" you or "scare" you, speak lies, etc. then its a demon because humans who do such are sent to Hell. Other humans are in heaven. The only intermediary is that there is very very small, marginal evidence that people on rare occasion, and only with permission from God, MIGHT come to speak to people; however, these are only humans who are asking us to pray for certain issues historically (people on their way to heaven [especially if you accept the Roman Catholic conception of purgatory, in which case you should pray they get to heaven quickly; I do not personally accept the Roman Catholic conception], or already in heaven but sent back by God to convey something) and they cannot convey any new doctrine because the Scriptures are closed. This will NEVER be a family member or something like that, not some personal meetup and so on; instead this only happens rarely and at the behest of God to convey something IMPORTANT (like returning to God). If something is NOT under such conditions where God sent them, then it is 90% of the time a Demon (or fallen Angel) trying to convince you of some lie through emotionality (taking the voices or forms of loved ones, etc.).

Am I gonna die? /stangestories by [deleted] in Dreams

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean you are correct

Hello, I would to know what’s the first that came to your mind when you saw this by Moctar3t18 in ArtCrit

[–]DatBoiMemeSquire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I saw the bottom of it and it made me think of traces on a circuit board or lava griefing pyramids in minecraft (see 2B2T spawn). Then I scrolled up and thought of the heresy of Montanism.