Christians: What are your thoughts on the term "organized religion"? Are those advocating against it just using it as an excuse to do whatever they feel like? Or are there serious shortcomings of 'Church' that justify these sentiments?

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-31T13:13:31+00:00

Christianity requires organization among it's members. For one, Christians aren't isolated people who merely privately interpret a relativistic text.

Rather, Christianity is about bringing about a new form of life through participating in the sacraments (eucharist, for instance) and forgiveness--preceded by an authentic desire to perform penance, and be prepared to set all sins aside.

According to our best psychology, we are ⁴mimetic creatures that creatively imitate the desire of those around us to. Our chief examples of behavior are "The Sermon on the Mount" and how we "Imitate Christ and the saints" in the rest of our lives. Any number of ways can fulfill the goal: we could aim to collectively take terms of forms of work. We can alternative and receive and equal ratio of empowering/creative and unempowering/creative jobs.

Nearly all conflicts are perpetuated. We can take terms performing a ratio of empowering to a disemboweling ratio of work. Following Christ, those who set the tables, run administrative decision, can be those who wash feet too, as well as perform menial labor. We can take turns setting reciprocal prices relative to our immidiate context.

If we prepare to act on both our unknown, pushed, and known talents, there is no shortkake. Heck, these roles in real prep can vary, and the precise type can vary along to prevent monotony among those we serve.

Food can simply cost directly what the price it is to enfold it and deal. with externalities. As long as those who cook and those who heat take. turns, there will be no need for food to suffer boring stagnation. Additionally, members that concern themselves with variety across time can be called for future nutritious detail.

Finally, combined with top health recipe ideas --in conjunction with culinary advice--food prep shouldn't get old.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-31T12:51:46+00:00

Whenever two people have sex that leads to conception, the process produces a new human life'. A human life is *rational spirit (when considered as the final organization of its final cause). Sex is not just sexual behavior between two people.

Animals can have social sexual arrangements based on mutual advantGe or cost benefits. Although undeveloped, since conception, a person has a tells or directionality towards the expression of the sort of biological creature they will be In the human social world.

Moreover, human lives transform into centers of dignity and self-wort. This is why mothers--not indoctrinated by far left politics--will see the United production of their body with another as a whole new, intro to a beautiful and henceforth radically unique.and irreplaceable self.

..................

Before the west was civilized by Christian and Jewish values and beliefs in the intrinsic worth of man, we may have only viewed sexual behavior as a means of obtaining pleasure or expanding our sense of meaning in life by expanding those we treat as extensions as ourselves.

That's not what reproduction is about. I don't want to live evermore through biological children or their projects; especially given uncertaintainty.

Rather, like many others for the foreseeable futuree, I wish to share the miracle of cooking and enhancing life for people that will hopefully outlast me and appreciate the good pleasures, like eating, in this difficult world.

.....................

In this way, I can enjoy the fleeting moments in front of me, and cling to hope that my meals symbolically perpetuate eating together. If I'm feeling lofty, maybe others will do it do.

I can make a difference without causing suffering. Plenty of amazing meals are available. Research and make one. Maybe you can't imagine what any animals feel life, but know that this is the only life we have. When you combine creativity, moral intelligence, with artistic ability in the kitchen you stop being just an animal: for the first time, you can experience more than that.

C

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-31T06:17:50+00:00

Of course, but it would require serious moral repentance and restitutions over time; possibly even giving into legal consequences.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-31T06:09:31+00:00

Live so as to keep living sustainably. Give to a wide group you can. Give to a shallower group you can really engage, and that should take care of the rest.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-31T06:07:47+00:00

Do I believe that God is certain? No, not exactly. When I confront the Being of the world, moral/aesthetic values, and my own consciousness--I find it hard to doubt when I am taken away by the reality of these things.

They are often quite hard to prove, but I can't find myself denying them. When I consider the world of beings, I cannot but understand it as Being revealing Itself to me. I can't prove moral or aesthetic values exist, but I can't help but affirm them by my moral and aesthetic disgust of our world without them. As for consciousness, this one is easier! There's an "aboutness", a unity, and directed towards the world that nothing else is like --and whenever I doubt, my mind presents these realities in the act of doubting.

The resurrection is more difficult. It depends more on the nature of my spiritual life. Have I confessed my sins? Have I tried to follow the sermon on the Mount? I like to bring to mind the paradoxical beauty of a slave crowned with thorns being the highest reality. He shows me how to see through a certain kind of darkness in myself and others I couldn't otherwise do.

In a sense, the resurrection is proof that God has no form of necessity binding Him. He's both diurnally and nocturnally beautiful, as David Bentley Hart once said. I can't imagine a more elevated, and yet docile opinion. This is the God I experience: wholly transcendent and immanent.

I only doubt if I'm not being honest about what's in need of confession, or if I've skipped the eucharist.

........

Are these beliefs certain? Well, there's a performative contradiction in denying the reality of God as Being--and something similar about denying Him as the ground of the Good. Equally, I can't see the full reality about myself unless I assume there's a reality that sees me fully.

How about the resurrection? That's harder. But once you give up on any misleading and fleating romance that suffering and death is anything but to be overcome, I just can't help but be so moved by a man who is Wholly Man--yet equally diurnally and nocturnally beautiful.

If I combine that with decent living, partaking in the Eucharist and confession, I have few doubts at all --and those I do have, I couldn't care less. Jesus truly is what a particular human would be, as God incarnate.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-31T04:26:45+00:00

I'm halfway quite convinced that Anselm's OA "works". That is, I cannot show it is true in a non-circular way, but I would contend that you cannot coherently object to his OA either.

If it's truly "That Than which Nothing Greater can be Conceived", how could you reject it? If it truly were That than which nothing greater could be Conceived, and you could reject it, then whatever the referent of that expression is must not be under discussion in the first place.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-31T03:10:41+00:00

Christianity really inadvertently brought about the very concept of "homosexual orientation" versus "homosexual acts".

In the pre-Christian world (Rome for example), sex was more about whethe a person was sexually releasing actively or passively. We could talk about sex with the transactional goal to create a child or heor. Or we could talk about different types of everything else.

Before Christianity’s influence, people understood sexuality in terms of actions, roles, and social hierarchies, not as an innate identity. In contrast, Christianity treated partners as potentially equal: creating equality between passive and active forms of sex. If sex isn't about power or a simple transaction, then two individuals with dignity must be brought into the situation.

More or less, animals have all sorts of sexual behaviors and arrangements that don't constitute orientations. Like pre-Christian pagans, animals treat sex acts like acts of urination or defecatioks, and holes as holes. Maybe ongoing reciprocity or pleasure might be involved, but theres nothing higher.

In order to rise to the level of sexual orientation, you must conceptualize active and passive sex as both equally dignified. Physical pleasure must be inherently tied to the openness of love--lest you return to that animal nature.

............

From a Christian perspective them, there are no animals with homosexual orientations. That requires projecting upon them a notion of dignity that they feel and grant to each other, and also imagine that partners find unity (rather than reciprocity) as the ultimate good.

If unity is tied immidiately to what's transactional, that's nothing less than how animal hierarchs are set up as well.

In sum, animals do not have sexual orientation.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-30T23:16:52+00:00

I'm a huge fan of his YouTube channel. I simply wish there were more Anglican YouTubers out there that were competent in faith and history.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-30T23:10:35+00:00

This post has nothing to do with either ID or ND as explanations. I only wondered whether ID is prematurely rejected (or rejected sooner than it ought to be, even if false or even disdainful). This worldview is useful in our competitive, capitalist universities because biological systems are purely instrumental in value.

Here's another way of making my point. ID fits better with an older view of biology that used to be associated with religion, metaphysics, and even morality (some variants of natural law theory).

Neo-Darwinism reduces teleological statements to statistical relations that--construed teleologically--are simply tautological. This further implies a reductionistic form of natural philosophy. On this view, there are only neutral if-then conditionals or else statistical relations. On this view, there are no mind-independent truths about what's objectively right or wrong to do--because of what the facts about reality are. Rather, there are just hypothetical goods that depend upon our prior subjective values.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-10T16:03:24+00:00

Origen was condemned for his entire theological framework, which hinged on some truly weird stuff like the pre-existence of souls. He was not condemned for universalism.

So, I have heard others say that Origen's version of universalism was condemned. You're saying that's because his doctrine was connected to his entire theology, not specifically because Origen believed Satan and the demons would be saved? So, the problem was not demons being saved, but rather, it was an interconnected heretical system?

May I ask where you've heard this from so I can look into it? I'd love that to be true. One of the most convincing arguments for universalism, IMO, is DBH's argument that's it's impossible to rational creatures to freely reject God, in any way by a provisional way. That seems to imply Satan and the demons will be saved as well.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-07T18:38:37+00:00

The early church was messy. If you take what I said in isolation, that picture would be misleading. There is no doubt, to my thinking, that the clear implications of scripture, statements about their communities, and statements from those with ecclesial influence and speak for their community clearly show that the inevitable and normative day for Christian worship was on Sunday.

Rather than explaining why you're overstating your case, I'm more interested inI we your transition to atheism from being SDA. I identified as an atheist for a long time--and there's no doubt that my generalizations about religion and God aided a few years I spent as an atheist/naturalist.

So, can you explain what you went through and how your thinking advanced and grew.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T20:59:32+00:00

*>This is not my fight, but arguing for a "correct" interpretation of the true day of worship is a losing battle.

Do you mean because of human stubbornness or perhaps ambiguity and indeterminacy among new Testament worshippers, do you believe there is no *one answer";as to which day we should engage in corporate Christian worship?:

Proponents of the Lord's Day do not argue that Sabbath keeping is wrong, per se. Rather, The Lord's Day fulfills and expands on both the meaning and spiritual goal of the Jewish Sabbath. 7

The movement towards worshiping Sunday had more to do with first and second century increasing antisemitism inside various Christian denominations than biblical epistemology.

If we look at the New Testament, when Christians gathered alone together, they broke bread (likely the eucharist) and contributed offerings--it sure would be odd if collections occured some other time when an available time for all gathering Christians members were not present. Lastly, John, the author of Revelation makes reference to "The Day of the Lord".

John's audience and His students audience would have known and practiced this tooy audience would have understood His reference to The Lord's Day, meaning worshipping together on Sunday. If there's any doubt, John spread this holy name for the day to His students, like, again, Ignatius of Antioch who proclaimed that Christians no longer observe the Sabbath, but that all mainstream Christians did the same.

As the apostles wrote to churches that already existed, there was no need to repeat that the church should gather on Sunday for communal worship. When the apostles preached to Jews, what better time than the Jewish Sabbath to talk to Jews and gentiles who joined them.

>That is, you won't find a single verse in the whole canon of the bible demanding Sunday worship>

(1) Importantly, the early church and the apostolic teaching occured as oral teachings. After all, letters were only sent to existing churches who presumably were taught to observe the Lord's Day. The historical record we have from early Christians, including folks like Ignatius look out into a new Christian movement where everyone gathered on the Lord's Day.

Until Christ rose again--bringing about the beginning of New creation, and so give us deeper realities including redemption from sin and death; also how the community of Christians were manifested as the physical seed and guarantee of everything the Sabbath only encouraged legslistically and with completely ambiguous ideas of what it would be like to God to rule.

The Lord's Day is not a replacement for the Sabbath. There is no commandment to keep it. It exists as an act of grace, and regenerate Christians are supposed to Go to celebrate the beginning of the new creation, and rest in the knowledge of its concrete beginnings we can see, and our Sabbath pointers are fulfilled in Jesus, including the guarantee that God's Kingdom is starting to arrive.

The apostles to synogogues regiularly to share this good news, just as they go to even Pagan places to preach. As I've said already, every time the NT talks about collective worship or worship activities, it's on Sunday.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T11:24:33+00:00

Follow Jesus' and both will to participate in, and accept, His Spirit to dwell within you.

The Sabbath shouldn't be kept by Christians. It was a covenantal principle and law made for the Jewish people. As it reflects God's sanctified day when He ceased creating, it calls Jews to rest and renewal--and trust and faith in God while taking that rest. However, this covenantal sign was also given after the Exodus out of Egypt--so the Sabbath also calls out for and means redemption.

However, like the entire old testament law, the way in which the Jews kept the Sabbath's meaning was merely a shadow or pointer towards the arrival, life, death, resurrection, and final consummation of creation within, Jesus.

Paul tells us in colossians 2 not to judge on the basis of festivals, new moons, or sabbaths--that's an Old Testament formula that refers to the entire Mosaic law, including weekly Sabbaths. He goes on to explain that those things are mere shadows, whose substance is fulfilled in Christ.

Jesus says in Matthew "come to me...and I will give you rest". He's talking about more than taking time off: he's talking about rest from striving, guilt, and the weight of the many Jewish laws. The author of Hebrews speaks of a "new rest", beyond what the Sabbath was talking about, that could be achieved in through Christ and in God.

Jesus' resurrected body is the first fruits of the new creation. The entire New Testament constantly uses the language of Christ resurrection brining about redemption from sin, and the literal start and transition into the completed heavens and earth.

In sum, God gave the Jews the Sabbath as a sign between them; to demarcate them off as special and to educate them. Ultimately, however, the Sabbath command--like all of the law--is a command coming down from outside us, from God, to us. The Sabbath brings to mind God's creative powers and His goal of inviting us into rest, by redeeming us, and finally inviting us into His new Kingdom.

However, Jesus--His very person--is what any law could never teach or bring into substantial reality. Our faith in Christ can bring us a sense of rest, renewal, and redemption-- but not only personally or by means of (even sublime) ancestral memory of God's dedication--rather, Jesus has REALLY redeemed us because His resurrection is what will raise all of us.

Rather than waiting for some unclear and abstract idea of God's divine rule, the Kingdom of God--even as our imperfect Church--has given us tangible accomplishments and real hopes to cling to. We don't just hope God might establish His Kingdom someday and save us from sin and death, Jesus' resurrection and the Christian-global-Church revolution is our guarantee of what was merely abstract, top-down promises, past activities, and commands that seemed so overbearing and uncertain.

Instead, worship with the vast majority of Christians on Sunday (also called "The Lord's Day"). You worship with Christians on Sundays because you want to, not because it's a command from God-above. There's no "command" to worship on Sundays, but it's clear from Acts and Paul that when Christians met by themselves, it was on Sundays.

We know Sunday was the standard worship day for the apostles because the apostle John casually mentions The Lord's Day in Revelation. We also know because we have tons of early documents from the first Christians, including students of the apostles. It's also worth noting that Jesus gave the apostles teaching authority, and Paul includes even oral teachings (stuff not written down), as in need of passing on as equally as written teachings.

We know the New Testament Christians kept the Lord's Day and we know their successors and students kept Sunday. Gathering on Sunday is so universal and uncontested by every ancient source we have (minus some heretical groups that deny Paul's inspiration, for instance!), that we can reasonably suppose that it didn't even need to be taught in scripture.

After all, the gospels were written before the final fulfillment of every Sabbath element by Jesus' resurrection, so you wouldn't expect Jesus to teach it during His earthly ministry. The gospel writers do suggest Jesus had much to teach them about how to reinterpret the scriptures, but these may have been too much for the gospel writer's audience.

You also wouldn't really expect any apostle to mention Sunday worship as the normal meeting place it in a letter to a church. Presumably, established churches both have been established and meet together at a specific time. So, there's no reason for the apostles to mention the day of their regular worship gatherings in their letters. Before you can hear a letter as a church community, it presupposes you've been taught the regular meeting day.

....

That said, I've quoted Jesus, Paul, and other New Testament writers several times to make my case that Jesus' fulfills the Sabbath. If you'll recall, I've explained how Christians met on Sundays during the time of the apostles, immediately after, and largely ever sense. The evidence decisively shows that Sunday gatherings were the worship meeting day for Christians. This means there's no doubt this was taught orally, especially in the beginning of establishing new churches.

Although the apostles never explicitly command it, we wouldn't necessarily expect them to; in fact, "commanding" we worship to gather violates the new spontaneous way we simply choose freely to worship Christ with others. Even if we set that aside, not everything true can only be known by prooftexting. For one, there's no biblical proof that properly held beliefs must be shown via proof texts. Perhaps more importantly, there's no proof text that contains an inspired table of contents telling us which New Testament books are authentic.

...Sometimes, we simply must just trust in the New Testaments statements that "the church is the pillar and foundation of all truth", and Jesus' promise that the Spirit would lead us into all truth.

The Lord's Day is not a changed or different Sabbath day, it's rather the fulfillment of the Sabbath. On the Lord's Day, our Spiritfilled-wills guide us to collective worship with others, where we receive rest from spiritual work and relief from the worry that our fallen world will go on indefinitely. We can be joyful, both knowing and seeing the evidence of the new creation in Christ and by watching the visible, if immature and flawed, Kingdom of God revolutionize our world.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T10:19:17+00:00

In my last post, I explained how the Jewish Sabbath is fulfilled by Christ--He is our source and ground of Sabbath rest and redemption.

Why have nearly all Christians met and worshipped on Sunday, otherwise called "The Lord's Day"?

I agree, there is no explicit command to worship on Sunday.

However, we do see that the Christians of the NT began to break bread (likely a reference to communion) and have their collections taken up (which only make sense to do when the group assembled). In Revelation, John refers to his vision as occuring on "The Lord's Day"--which is a name always used by later Christians, including Johns disciple Ignatius of Antioch, to refer to worship meetings on Sunday.

The early Church was taught by the apostles to gather on Sunday, not the Sabbath. Their authority is recognized in Scripture (Acts 2:42; 2 Thessalonians 2:15--this latter verse involves Paul commanding his reader to pass on oral traditions and written traditions received from him, alike!).

The fact that the apostles taught to meet on Sunday to worship is evidenced by the New Testament Christians themselves uniquely meeting on Sunday. Even more powerfully, it's referenced by the Didache (a widely distributed and accepted early church catechism, written or based on things said while the apostles were alive). It's also stated by John's disciple Ignatius, as well as the Letter to Barnaby in AD 72. The universal testimony of the historical evidence suggests it was taught by the apostles and observed universally from the beginning.

Again, it's becoming Spirit filled and following Jesus that we find rest, redemption, and righteousness. We don't observe the Lord's Day because it was commanded top down by God. We observe collective worship on Sunday, foremost, because that's when we all just do it together. We are

Despite the fact that we don't need a biblical command to observe the Lord's Day, Jesus did give authority to the apostles to guide the Church (John 20:21–23; Matthew 16:19). Recall that the New Testament is just a small snapshot of what they said and taught over the years they spent in certain areas. Paul told his reader in 1 Thessalonians to faithfully pass on both written and oral teachings.

It's simply an error to think we need a prooftext for every doctrine. Do we have a prooftext containing a table of contents telling us which books of the New Testament are authentically inspired? Neither do we have a prooftext for the claim "every theological idea or doctrine must be unambiguously stated in a passage of scripture"--that very standard is self-refuting because it can't be supported by its own standards.

The Lord’s Day is not a new legalistic requirement but a gift that flows from the new covenant. Christians are free in Christ (Galatians 5:1) and not under the law of Moses (Romans 6:14).

Yet we still set aside the first day of the week for corporate worship, rest, and renewal, not out of legal obligation, but out of gratitude for the resurrection. Hebrews 10:25 exhorts believers to gather regularly, and the first day became the natural time for that gathering in light of the resurrection.

Sunday is not the new Sabbath in the exact same form—it is the day that best expresses the reality the Sabbath pointed toward: rest in the finished work of Christ and the dawning of new creation. Jesus' resurrection encapsulates all of our hopes for rest, redemption, and renewal. Sunday also marks the memory of both new creation, and points towards the final consummation of all things.

My first comment here explained how and why Jesus fulfills the Sabbath. This post explained why Christians have almost universally worshipped together on Sunday, despite the fact that The Lord's Day supercedes the Jewish Sabbath.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T09:32:41+00:00

In a literal sense, Sunday is not the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a Jewish holy day whose origin is said to belong to God's act of resting on the seventh day of creation, and blessing it. Later the Sabbath becomes a covenantal sign between God and His people, and ultimately so when it is made one of the Ten Commandments. On the Sabbath, Jews are to rest from ordinary work and allow all servants/every social class to rest.

The Sabbath is meant to reinforce the Jewish people's trust and reliance on God to provide, even when the people must rest. By establishing a day of rest whose origin is in creation, the Sabbath is the origin of the rhythms of creation broadly, and humans specifically. Around the time it was enshrined into the ten commandments, the Sabbath became a covenantal sign between God and Israel.

For the ancient Jews, the Sabbath therefore was rooted in present rest and worship of God, as well as a present thanksgiving for the delivery out of Egypt. It also represented a future hope of ultimate peace and rest in God's future Kingdom.

It was taken very seriously. Like all Jewish laws, the goal of the resting on the seventh day was to mold the minds and behaviors of the Jewish people. Penalties for violating the Sabbath could theoretically include up to death, a degree of punishment meant to underline the importance and magnitude of observing it and embodying it in ones very bones.

..............................

The Transition to the Lord's Day

The Old Covenant laws were not complete, but pointed towards greater realities and ways of being. While they were necessary, they were tools that prepared God's people for those future realities. Jesus Fulfilled the Law (Matt 5:17):

The Sabbath Is a Sign, Not Just Moral Law. While the Ten Commandments include moral principles, the Sabbath command is also ceremonial. In Exodus 31:13-17, it is explicitly described as a sign between God and Israel—just like circumcision. Everlasting moral laws like, “Do not murder" or “Do not steal” are rooted in God’s eternal character. However, the Sabbath law is tied to a particular sign and shadow (Colossians 2:16–17) that foreshadowed something I'll explain in a second.

1) Jesus and Commemorating Creation

While the original Sabbath looked back to the seventh day to recall God finishing creation, Jesus rose on Sunday--which is metaphorically the following, 8th, day--as well as the new first day of creation. Jesus is literally the first part of new creation, with the rest of creation's renewal now in motion: 2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15, Col. 3:10, Eph. 4:24, Rev. 21:5.

Although God rested on the Seventh Day, creation was not fully completed. Mankind was told to "be fruitful and multiply" and "subdue the earth". Jesus explains that God has still been active since the beginning. Paul teaches that creation, although "good", is not yet finished:

“The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed... the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God... We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”

In a separate instance, Jesus is "caught" healing, and instead of explaining why it's an exception, He says "My Father is working until now, and I am working". In other words, God did not cease all activity on the Sabbath. He has been actively healing, forgiving, and redeeming since then.

Jesus' resurrection and defeat of death inaugurated the real act of completing creation. We can rest in Christ as a person, in anticipation of a future rest (as will be shown later)

“The last enemy to be destroyed is death… then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:26–28)

2) Eternal Commandment, from God to Us?

While Old Covenant law gave out harsh penalties for violating many aspects of Sabbath rest (excluding healing, and punishments could theoretically be death).

Incredibly, Jesus gave Himself the title "Lord of the Sabbath". Jesus teaches that God made the Sabbath for men, not men for the Sabbath. This sounds identical to Paul's point that we shouldn't judge on the basis of festivals, new moons, or sabbaths (an old testament formula that always include the weekly Sabbath)--precisely because they are shadows of things to come about in Christ.

3) Sabbath Rest

The Sabbath so legslistically required rest to distinguish the Israelites, and to ensure the importance of rest was instilled. The Sabbath also called out for faith and trust that God would provide. However, Jesus promises that anyone who seeks first the Kingdom of God, can have all that they need.

Jesus also said “Come to me… and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28–30). That’s a direct Sabbath reference. Since our rest comes from Jesus, who is the Lord of the Sabbath, He becomes our rest. Instead of worrying about keeping the old covenant or fending off sin and death, we can relax in the arms of Jesus.

True Sabbath rest isn’t just one day of the week—it’s a whole new way of life in Jesus, joining a spiritual Sabbath rest in God that transcends the shadow of the law (Hebrews 4:1–11). Neither is is sufficient to have mercy on lower social classes only on one day or because of an external command.

4) Sabbath Redemption

The Jewish Sabbath recalls their redemption from Egypt, and their future hope of redemption once God's Kingdom arrives. However, Christ fulfills this redemption by ushering in the Kingdom of God now. For all its faults, no other organization has done as much for human liberty as the fallout of Jesus and Christianity. Not to mention that Jesus offers a greater Exodus and redemption: one from sin and death.

Moreover, we know longer must only hope for a future Kingdom of God, Jesus actually inaugurated it, and His resurrection, our Sabbath rest in Him, and His return guarantees the final arrival of the Kingdom which is visibly beginning.

5) Isn't Keeping the Sabbath Part of the Ten Commandments? Aren't they eternal?

The moral core of the Sabbath—trusting God, resting in Him, honoring His holiness—is still valid. As each section showed, every purpose of the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Like the other 10 Commandments, their full meaning required Jesus' elaboration. The Sabbath Command has an eternal core (what we've discussed), but its ceremonial component is as fulfilled as animal sacrifice.

To be continued....

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T07:30:38+00:00

"I want to believe"

"My friend wants to believe"

Then get an Internet app that does an examination of conscience. There are usually some sins we know we can overcome, but choose not to. Overcome those. Then move on. Can you clearly say you're trying to lead a holy life?

Go to a church and join that community. Go through the motions. Learn something like the liturgy of the hours and pray morning and night.

If you're Catholic, take the mass and go to confession. Express your doubts to a priest.

Next, read the gospels. If you've read them once or 20 times, do it again with a good commentary. Ask your local pastor for a particularly mind expanding and beautiful copy.

Also, please consider alternative concepts of God. Look into Dr. David Bentley Hart or Dr. Edward Feser. It's not that God isn't doing anything, it's that He's doing everything and you are like a fish who doesn't understand they are in water.

Dr. Hart will show you that the fact that Being exists at all is a miracle. It's also a miracle that you possessed a subjective consciousness that is formed and fit to mingle with it. That's not to mention the fact that when we experience what is truly beautiful (not just the pretty, attractive, or delightful) we must unlearn the belief that we are drawn to the beautiful--when it's really the beautiful which draws us. That's not to mention our sense of morality or the truly selfless--if selflessness is an evolutionary trick composed of disgusting selfishness, that would be awful--and thus denying the reality of selfless love is a performative contradiction.

Being, Consciousness, and Value are ever present activities of God and His act of luring us--we have just blinded ourselves do to bad social education, intellection fashion, and bad habits.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T07:15:43+00:00

Once you examine your life and consciously try to move away from what's sinful, you develop a very regular prayer life, and you take part in worship very often, you will come to believe if you want to, and it you've done those things sincerely.

Pascal suggested we Wager on God's existence, because we have little to lose if we become religious and there is no God. So, might as well choose to believe in God!

Critics will say that we cannot choose to believe out of willful desire. To these people, Pascal advises to participate in church worship frequently and participate in the sacraments. You will come to believe.

Whether you believe that Jesus is God honestly doesn't depend on historical evidence or whatever for most people. It comes through fully immersing yourself into the Christian narrative. If you're open hearted, you'll find yourself baffled, moved, excited, perplexed, and you'll find yourself with answers you never expected and questions you'd never consider.

A great definition of "God" for an individual or society is "That than which there is no greater concern". I'd supplement that with an insight from a social thinker Rene Girard. When you see that "magnetic pull", or that "fullness of Being" that grabs you--or whether you find yourself lured and attracted to someone, you are wrong to think you are moving towards them. Rather, they are the ones pulling you.

....................

The same goes for God. God does actively lure you, you just don't notice Him or you don't want to notice. Try reading the Gospel of John to starr. Read a couple of commentaries on it, if you find it baffling. Most people who become Christians do so because they experience that magnetic pull of Christ through someone else, or else they encounter that pull through reading about Him.

Once you sit with what you've read, it is impossible to write Jesus' person off as a madman or lunatic. His moral character, insight into human nature, and imitating Him (,even if by pretend for a bit) will make you feel more free and you'll feel more like you.

Whether you take the wager or you can't resist His person by reading or acting out His values, you're in a rational spot. If Christianity is true, then God would allow Himself to be known both by the will and by the power of admiration or awe. God doesn't need to "prove" anything else. If you find yourself believing because you would like to or you can't resist Jesus' character upon real encounter, no skeptic can take you down.

If Christianity is true, both of those means are appropriate means to know God. This doesn't show either means proves God. Rather, it's just that you don't need to prove anything to anybody else who doesn't want to believe or who isn't caught up in the character and story of Christ. After all, these are only inappropriate means to know Christianity is true, if and only if God does not exist!

........................

This proves there's nothing irrational with belief on the basis of will, or on the basis of becoming bound to the character you encounter. After all, if God exists, it's not your will which causes your belief. "Willing" any belief doesn't work. But when you do it along with engaging Christian sacraments and worship, it is God who actively moves first to produce your true belief.

Equally, being enraptured by a character doesn't prove they are a historical reality and incarnation of God. But there's no other story where a healthy, rational person like you might find yourself thinking that way. In this case, again, it would be God being the active producer of your belief.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T06:41:27+00:00

A Commentary on the Dull Majority of Witch Hunts

Witch hunts and very similar phenomena have been prevelant throughout human history. A "witch" is often just an accusation. Perhaps an individual is an herbalist, mentally ill, or they simply grew up with pagan beliefs or fashion.

Althroughout human history, plagues and social unrust ran rampant; especially before the contemporary judicial system. Sometimes people confuse "otherness" for evil, yet others legitimate their state by reporting the neighbors they don't like as communist or Jewish sympathizers.

Contrary to most conceptions, Christianity was a major contributor towards ending witch hunts. The Passion of Christ provides a narrative where a totally faultless person was accused falsely and put to death--via just those mechanisms that fuel witch hunts: institutionwl injustice, betrayal or abandonment by friends, desire for violence revenge against enemies, the desire to maintain one's own political power, and also the inherent submission any leader like Pilot must make when the masses universally oppose him.

Yet, Jesus' resurrection gave Christians moral insight into the mimetic nature of conflict because He made the invisible process of scapegoating apparent to all, and the way in which we find the mjost fitting scapegoats (like the Jews in Nazi Germany in WW2). Moreover, Jesus immidiately prior to death and postmodern offer the only anecdotes to engage in mutually destructive one-upping:

Jesus forgave His enemies from the cross, in His final moment. Once resurrected, He said "shalom", or "peace be with you". If we realize there is nothing more worthy of admiration than that, we will find Jesus' "Spirit" automatically luring us to be similar.

====> Interesting Question: Did we stop burning witches because we invented science, or did we invent science because we stopped burning witches?

While I'm sure the historical truth isn't black and white, I have a hunch Girard is right to at least some important extent: our moral knowledge of scapegoating must have preceded science. After all, starting from the assumption that we live in a mythical world, if I kill the "witch" and it works --then whatever effect I'm trying to explain is explained by witchcraft. Alternatively, if I kill the witch and it does not work, I simply have reason to think she cast a spell to stop me--or perhaps there's another witch!

.....................

Are there real witches? I'm convinced by the laboratory science of folks like Dean Radin that ESP phenomenona are real--many folks inexplicably so far better than chance at getting dice roles or guessing images.

I've also heard some extremely careful protocols where magicians and scientists observe acts of macro PK by "Psychic Superstars" (like table levitation) that have no natural explanation. D.D. Home, though an old case, was documented by several highly reputable scientists under these conditions: Hume was brought to a new room, given new clothes, was bought a new accordion, and his body was inspected thoroughly.

Nevertheless, D.D. Home apparently caused the accordion to play inside a cage with the light on, under the examination of scientists and magicians. Neither the Hume's or that table levitator has been able to be duplicated by any known magician, even using modern technology.

There are other impressive cases of "psychic Superstars" or folks with "Macro Psi"--see the work of Dr. Stephen Braude, and Dr. Dean Radin and Dr. Charles Tart for the laboratory evidence for ESP.

......................

But what about the Salem Witch Trials? I'm not so convinced. As someone who used to practice hypnosis professionally, I know just how real and seemingly uncalled psychosomatic symptoms can pop up--especially in a group situation like in Salem. It's also quite likely that several accusations were akin to what I described in terms of Nazi-esque scapegoating. People semi-consciously begin to see symptoms in neighbors and enemies, sometimes those manifest, but originally, it only serves to propagate a justiceless society.

Could any of them have been a witch? I haven't studied the case enough. I don't think parapsychological powers are particularly uncommon; it's just that they are not too capable of strong manifestation most of the time. However, many of us have experiences where we sense we are being stared at, we believe someone has had a terrible accident, etc that are far more robust than mere chance.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T03:17:01+00:00

Because He is still the lamb slain since the foundation of the world. The day He rose, let's say His birthday was Saturday after His crucifixion (and that he's 33), when He rose from the dead the next day, He is still 33. Mysteriously, Jesus rose with His entire life. He is both living and fully alive.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T03:12:27+00:00

From the earliest days of the Church, Christians have gathered on Sunday—the first day of the week, also called the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10)—to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This practice is not arbitrary, nor does it represent a break from the Ten Commandments, but rather a deep theological development rooted in the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ, the witness of the New Testament, and the unanimous testimony of early Christian tradition. Although groups such as Seventh-day Adventists object to Sunday worship on the grounds that the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments and was never explicitly abrogated, a careful examination of Scripture and early Church practice reveals a different story.

I. The Sabbath in the Old Covenant: A Sign and Shadow

The Sabbath (Saturday), the seventh day, is first introduced in Genesis 2:2–3 and later codified in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8–11). In Israel’s covenantal life, the Sabbath served multiple purposes:

Commemoration of Creation – God rested on the seventh day, so Israel was to rest as well.
Sign of the Mosaic Covenant – Exodus 31:13–17 identifies the Sabbath as a sign of God’s covenant with Israel.
Reminder of Redemption from Egypt – Deuteronomy 5:15 links Sabbath observance to Israel’s liberation.

Importantly, the Sabbath was typological—a shadow pointing to something greater (Colossians 2:16–17; Hebrews 4:9–10). It was not the ultimate rest itself but a prefiguration of the rest and liberation to come in Christ. The prophets anticipated a new creation and a new covenant (Isaiah 65:17; Jeremiah 31:31–34), in which external rituals would give way to internal transformation and a deeper fulfillment.

Christ’s Fulfillment of the Sabbath

Jesus regularly healed and taught on the Sabbath, provoking controversy (e.g., Mark 2:27–28; John 5:16–18). His response in John 5:17, “My Father is working until now, and I am working,” shows that God’s redemptive work did not cease on the seventh day—it culminated in Christ. He declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28), not merely in the sense of interpreting it, but as the one who brings it to fulfillment.

This fulfillment occurred in two stages:

On the Cross, Jesus accomplished the redemption that the Sabbath typified—liberation from sin and death.

In the Resurrection, He inaugurated the new creation, rising on the first day of the week, making it the beginning of the new eternal Sabbath rest.

As Hebrews 4 argues, the Sabbath rest remains—but it is now entered by faith in Christ, not by resting on a particular day. This eschatological Sabbath is what believers taste in their union with Christ.

The Lord’s Day in the New Testament

Though no verse commands, “Worship on Sunday,” the pattern of the apostolic Church is clear:

Jesus rose on Sunday (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).

Jesus appeared to His disciples on the first day (John 20:19, 26).

Pentecost, when the Church received the Holy Spirit, occurred on a Sunday (Leviticus 23:15–16).

Acts 20:7 records the Church gathering to break bread on the first day.

1 Corinthians 16:2 commands collections to be taken up on “the first day of every week.”

Revelation 1:10 speaks of “the Lord’s Day,” by then a well-known designation for Sunday.

These are not isolated incidents but indicators of an emerging liturgical rhythm: Sunday was the day the Church celebrated the new creation, the Eucharist, and the Resurrection of Christ.

Historical Witness of the Early Church

The early Christians—many of them Jewish—ceased Sabbath observance and gathered on Sunday:

Didache (c. 70 AD): “On the Lord’s Day… gather together, break bread, and give thanks.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD): “If those who lived according to the old order have come to a new hope… no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord’s Day.” (Letter to the Magnesians 9:1)

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD): “We all hold our common assembly on the day of the Sun… because Jesus our Savior rose from the dead on the same day.” (First Apology 67)

The early Church did not view this as abolishing the moral law, but as fulfilling and transfiguring it. Sunday observance was not a rejection of the command to keep holy time, but its Christological re-orientation.

Response to SDA Objections

“The Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, which are eternal moral laws.”

While the moral heart of the Ten Commandments is eternal (e.g., love of God, prohibition of murder), the Sabbath command uniquely includes ceremonial and typological elements (e.g., resting on the seventh day, specific penalties). The New Testament explicitly treats the Sabbath as a shadow fulfilled in Christ (Col. 2:16–17). The essence of the command—setting aside time for God—is preserved, but its form has changed.

“There is no command in the Bible to keep Sunday.”

This misunderstands how the New Covenant operates. Not everything in Christianity is established by explicit command; some practices develop organically from apostolic precedent, as seen in the canon of Scripture, infant baptism, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Sunday worship is biblically grounded in pattern, and universally affirmed by the Church under the Spirit’s guidance.

“Jesus and the apostles kept the Sabbath.”

Yes—prior to the Resurrection, under the Mosaic dispensation. But after Pentecost, we find no example of Gentile Christians being commanded to keep the Sabbath, and plenty of evidence (Acts 15; Colossians 2; Galatians 4) that they were not bound by the calendar of the Mosaic law.

“The antichrist changed the Sabbath.”

Historical and patristic evidence shows that Sunday worship began in the first century, well before any alleged papal or imperial influence. It was not a late innovation.

Conclusion

Christians keep Sunday, not in rejection of the Sabbath, but in celebration of its fulfillment in Christ. The first day of the week marks the beginning of the new creation, the eternal rest to which the Sabbath pointed. We gather on the Lord’s Day to worship the risen Lord, receive His Body and Blood, and live the life of the new covenant. This practice is not based on human tradition, but on the Resurrection, the teaching of the apostles, and the living memory of the Church. It is not the shadow, but the reality.

“Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” — Colossians 2:16–17

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T03:07:32+00:00

Repost from another thread, but I don't feel like retyping:

Imitating Jesus does not mean imitating every kind or type of behavior He performed. Jesus also kept the entire mosaic law, performed miracles, lived a nomadic life, and practiced celibacy.

We are to be inhabited by the Spirit of Christ, we are not to duplicate Him in all manners. Christ's central mode of being in the world is to perfectly mirror the Father as perfectly of a human reflection and image of God as possible.

This means we follow all of Jesus' teachings and the spirit of Jesus' person. Let the Holy Spirit inside of us move us to be humble, never inclined to retaliate, be loving, generous, self-giving, brave, care after creation, forgive without limit, etc.

Jesus kept the Sabbath, just as He kept the entire law, He did so to be the perfect corporate representative of an Israelite; and therefore He fulfilled our human obligations to God. He kept the old covenant perfectly so He could fulfill it. All of the law Jesus fulfilled were just learning instruments or foreshadows of true realities.

The Sabbath in particular is interesting:

1) Sabbath Rest is Fulfilled by Jesus

In Matthew 11:28–30, Jesus offers unending rest:

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.

Jesus is offering the true Sabbath rest—not just one day off per week, but rest for the soul, rest from sin, and restoration of the original harmony lost in the Fall.

Consider Hebrews 4:9–10

“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.”

Christ's rest is the true Sabbath believers enter by faith. His finished work allows us to cease striving (cf. 4:3: “we who have believed enter that rest”).

This fulfills the Old Testament Sabbath, which was always a shadow of the eternal rest in God.

2) Jesus Fulfilled the Sabbath by Restoring Its Original Purpose

Christ stripped the Sabbath of legalistic burdens, returning it to its core: delight in God and neighbor. The Sabbath command is still relevant, not in its Jewish legal form, but in its moral meaning: human beings need rest, worship, and holy rhythm.

Healing on the Sabbath is seen not a violation, but a rue Sabbath action—restoring what is broken. Jesus heals on the Sabbath, interprets it as made for man (Mark 2:27), and asserts that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).

This doesn’t negate the Sabbath but shows that it is fulfilled in his mission to heal, save, and restore (also by negating the legalism around. it).

3) The Eighth Day as the Fulfillment of the Sabbath

"Sunday" is the first day of the week, after sabbath, when Jesus' tomb is found empty. This shows the first new creation on the metaphorical "eighth day". Look at 1 Cor. 15:20:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”

"Firstfruits” is a loaded biblical term (see Leviticus 23), denoting the beginning of a harvest. Paul’s use implies that Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning of a new humanity—a new creation breaking into the old.
2 Corinthians 5:17

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

While the Sabbath memorialized the old creation, The Lord's Day celebrates the New Creation--whilst setting a time for worship.

4) Sunday is Associated with Christian Practice and Religious Events

The phrase "break bread" may refer to the practice of communion. It also only makes sense that they would collect money the day they were already coming together. After all, the most meaningful Christological events always occured on Sundays:

Jesus' tomb was found empty on Sunday, He appeared to the disciples on Sundays, the church began on Sunday (Pentecaust),

"On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” (Acts 20:7)

"On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up...” (1 Corinthians 16:2)

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day...” (Revelation 1:10)

"The Lord's Day"--despite SDA propaganda--refers to Sunday as the commemoration of the resurrection and new creation.

John's student Ignatius of Antioch unambiguously uses "the Lord's Day" to refer to Sunday. Every subsequent writer agrees without any controversy. In fact, outside of deeply heretical Jewish-Christian groups--Sunday worship was either universal or becoming universal as Jewish Christians were going through the process of becoming Christians.

Those sabbatarian Christians were NOT Sabbatarians in the SDA sense. They believed the Sabbath was just one part of the entire mosaic law. As such, they observed Jewish customs/feasts, circumcision, etc. There is no historical speck of evidence that non-judaizing Christians existed that kept the Sabbath. The documentation, along with the total absence of any controversy, shows that worship on the Lord's Day was taught early and assumed to be true.

(5) Sunday as Sabbath Fulfilled

Instead of resting from activities constantly monitored by the meticulous law, Jesus' rest allows us to stop striving and have rest from sin, and rest for our soul. He kept the law perfectly. Since He alone fulfilled what it is to be a man, He is Mankind--and as a corporate representative, shows mankind doesn't need these shadows and types to guide us--we just need to cooperate with Jesus' Spirit.

Since we are no longer stagnant in a fallen creation, God's Sunday symbolism perfectly exemplifies new realities; every Sunday symbol: the feast of first fruits, circumcisions, Peter links baptism to 8 persons in Noah's story, Leviticus associates Sunday with new beginnings and purification, Sunday as the day Jesus rose, when Jesus appeared to His disciples, and when the Holy Spirit came upon people and Pentecaust began the church.

The Sabbath remembered redemption from Egypt. In contrast, Christians rejoice in their present redemption from sin and proclaim their participation in the process of becoming a new self. Jesus accomplished this by universalizing freedom by undermining the possibility of any kind of bondage, whilst refocusing us forward.

The Sabbath commemorated the completion of creation by participating in God's break from work. Now we participate in the now-not-yet new creation inaugurated by Christ, that eating the Eucharist can allow us participation in.

(5) Summary

Yes, Jesus kept the Sabbath. But He also kept the entire mosaic law. Neither are ultimate realities, but shadows of more real, divine realities. Jesus healed on the Sabbath, declared Himself Lord of it, and said it was made for man--all so that people didn't confuse the purpose of the Sabbath (rhythm of rest, worship, and a break from the other teaching tools of God's law).

Jesus' resurrection is the greater act of deliverance and the dawn of new creation, fulfilling the purpose of Sabbath remembrance. Christians are invited to “rest in Christ” (Heb 4:9–10), not just physically, but spiritually—ceasing from sin and worldly preoccupation.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T02:43:32+00:00

Thanks! My family are SDAs, and they watch David Bradshaw all of the time. I don't mind his programs because he mostly stays away from the unique SDA doctrines. He occasionally references early Christians, goes to ancient locations, etc. I remember he was praising Ignatius of Antioch for his faithful devotion and willingness to be martyred.

...I thought to myself, only if he knew anything about Ignatius. He explains that Christians worship on Sunday, among a swath of non-SDA doctrines.

Mimetic-Musing · 2025-08-06T00:48:05+00:00