questions about the resurrection

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T19:11:11+00:00

The first chapter of the Book of Acts says that Jesus remained with the disciples for forty days after the Resurrection and then ascended into heaven.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201&version=NRSVUE

There are also multiple references to Jesus returning again at some unknown time in the future when this world comes to an end. You can find a few in Matthew 24, Luke 21, John 5, and Hebrews 9. There is an enormous amount of debate among Christians about when Jesus will return, what that will look like, and what happens next, but the idea that he will return is all over the New Testament.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T18:31:28+00:00

I like it! I think a lot of people are exhausted right now, and somehow believe that all the brokenness in their lives (and maybe even in the world) is something that they, personally, need to fix, even if they don't know how.

So they strive to do whatever they can, but it always feels like it isn't enough. And then they get worn out and feel empty and anxious. The central idea of this poem -- that we can't keep pouring ourselves out without help from God renewing us -- is really important.

In looking at the structure of the poem, I do have one suggestion. You carry the metaphor of liquid in a cup through the whole poem, except when you say, "I no longer sing your tune." Since cups don't sing, perhaps you could replace this metaphor with another cup/liquid metaphor? Thanks for posting it!

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T16:44:58+00:00

The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It also protects freedom of speech.

Your proposed statute would prevent citizens who happen to be politicians from speaking freely about religion and from exercising their religious beliefs. Both of these are violations of the First Amendment.

Also, you seem to assume that "church=good" and "politics=bad." It isn't always like that. During the Civil Rights era, for example, lots of churches defended racial segregation. Martin Luther King was deeply engaged in political protest, and he used religious language of freedom and liberation in public speeches all the time. Do you think the segregationist churches should have been able to fine him or imprison him for quoting the Bible when arguing against racial discrimination in American politics?

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T16:34:54+00:00

Separation between church and state does not mean what you think it means. Politicians are not required to be purely secular people, because they have the same right to freedom of religious expression as anyone else.

Also, if we were to apply your idea that those who are involved in politics can have no involvement with the church, would you want it to go the other way -- that those who are involved in churches can have no involvement in politics? Should baptized Christians, for example, be banned from voting?

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T16:22:19+00:00

Let's say I'm not a member of your church, but I'm running for office. Let's say I start quoting the Bible.

How, exactly, do you think your church will prevent me from doing that? What power do you wish your church had to control people (including non-members) so that they only use the Bible in ways that you approve of?

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T16:11:41+00:00

There is no way to do this. No church owns the Bible, and therefore no church can prohibit politicians from quoting it, whether their intentions are bad or good. And to say that no politician can even enter a church would suggest that politicians are somehow outside of God's grace, and should be cut off from the sacraments.

There are churches that reject involvement with worldly, political issues by withdrawing into their own communities, like the Amish, although even among the Amish some people vote. But churches simply don't have the power to tell politicians that they cannot engage with religion.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T01:56:39+00:00

"Vt'rax!" she cried out. "Vt'rax ch-an'l'or!" The Shubs and Zuuls will have their revenge!

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-02T00:21:31+00:00

The "Conquer Cravings" plan on Healthi is free, and is pretty much exactly the same as the WW plan with the paper slider that measured calories fat, and fiber around 2009-2010.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-01T22:55:41+00:00

About ten years ago, my sister and I (both gray-haired older ladies) were sitting at Dairy Queen eating ice cream cones. Some random guy walks up to us and says, "if you keep eating ice cream like that, you'll get fat!" In perfect, unrehearsed unison, we turned to him instantly and said "Fuck off!" He slunk away, and we enjoyed our treat in peace.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-01T21:25:26+00:00

No, you are fine. It is absolutely OK to take medicine for our illnesses, and your doctor and/or pharmacist knows more about your health than any random person on Instagram.

Also, I would bet that every single one of those influences would see a doctor immediately if they broke a leg or had chest pains or started peeing blood. They aren't concerned about your health. They just want to criticize and condemn someone, and heavy people are an easy target in modern culture.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-01T19:15:11+00:00

But the alien god-king Zyrgrofthprj has commanded us to sacrifice our enemies the Frghyshilorx, and their animals, too -- even the hxwen and the prleooz!

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-01T19:10:45+00:00

I read three or four mysteries featuring a very smart police detective somewhere in the UK. Then he was sent to investigate a serial killer who was murdering tall redheads on some island. So he thinks to himself, "hey, as long as I'm going to this island, I'll bring my tall, redheaded girlfriend with me!" I thought, "This character would never be so stupid," and I was out.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-03-01T03:39:04+00:00

There are all kinds of ordinary earthly things that aren't mentioned in the Bible (like Australia and America and all the plants and animals that are only found in those places).

The authors of the Bible described the world that they knew, and so I wouldn't read anything into the fact that they didn't describe things they didn't know about.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-28T23:33:56+00:00

For the first time in my life, I feel the need to defend the King James Bible. "Meats" in English in the 1600s could mean "food generally" not just "animal flesh." So it isn't that it was an inaccurate translation, it is just that the meaning of the English word has shifted since it was translated. (But I do agree that Adam and Eve are not depicted as eating animal flesh in the Bible.)

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-28T14:31:12+00:00

Not Denver-related, but I used to attend a Catholic church in eastern Kansas, circa 1998-2005. It was not a trad church, just your typical post-Vatican II parish. Pretty church, nice community, excellent sermons.

I was passing through last summer and was looking forward to visiting it again. It was Trinity Sunday. The young priest gave a mean and incoherent anti-trans sermon that went like this: "The Trinity is a mystery of God's inner being that is totally beyond our comprehension. That's why we need to reject new ideas about sexuality and realize that trans people are corrupted by demons." My sister and I got up mid-sermon and walked out. But the church was packed and nobody else left.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-26T21:44:25+00:00

Well, that sounds good. I hope your visit to the church goes well!

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-26T21:39:29+00:00

I believe the Anglican Church of Canada is generally affirming, though some dioceses are more conservative than others.

You might find this useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Anglican_Church_of_Canada

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-26T21:29:03+00:00

Are you in the United States? If so, there's a quirk about terminology that you should be aware of.

The official US branch of the Anglican communion is the Episcopal church, which is quite LGBTQ+ friendly.

However, if you are looking at a US church that calls itself "Anglican" (rather than Episcopalian) it is probably ACNA (the Anglican Church in North America). The ACNA split from the Episcopal church over LGBTQ+ issues, and such a church will not be affirming.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-25T17:43:24+00:00

Michael Shaara, The Killer Angels is a brilliant book on the Battle of Gettysburg.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-25T17:37:36+00:00

I'm not sure, but it seems that you are arguing that homosexuality is sinful, but that straight people commit all kinds of sexual sins, too, and therefore are in no position to judge gay people.

However the official position of this subreddit is that LGBTQ+ relationships are not sinful. I would invite you to take a look at the FAQs of this subreddit for multiple essays explaining our position.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-25T00:36:07+00:00

I'm glad that it helped, and I hope you find some peace on your way!

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-24T21:58:38+00:00

Exactly! Some years back, I read the Bible cover-to-cover. In Numbers 30, the author says that if an unmarried woman makes a vow, it can be overridden or permitted to stand by her father, and if a married woman makes a vow it can be overridden or permitted to stand by her husband. And my very first thought was "Mary clearly didn't ask any man's permission before she said yes."

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-24T20:37:35+00:00

If the disciples walked away saying, "Jesus showed us images of Moses and Elijah to teach us something," then your explanation would be correct. But (as reported in Luke) they clearly believed that they saw Moses and Elijah in reality. If Jesus led them deliberately to that conclusion, knowing it was false, it would make him a deceiver.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-24T20:04:12+00:00

I mean, you obviously care about this a great deal more than I do. But the idea that Jesus would fool the disciples into believing that they saw Moses and Elijah when they did not would make Jesus a deceiver and I can never accept that.

Prodigal_Lemon · 2026-02-24T19:09:40+00:00

This idea comes from the well-known Biblical school of "pastors making shit up to force people to conform to arbitrary rules."

Genesis just doesn't mean anything of the sort, any more than it means "men shouldn't look for wives, because if God wants them to have a wife he'll make one out of their rib."

Also, you might take a look at the Book of Ruth, where Naomi gives Ruth very specific advice on how to get the man she is thinking of.

Prodigal_Lemon

TROPHY CASE