Відео

@@tacramerutube These are very wise words.

@@jgeph2.4 Hello, thank you for your comment. There are a variety of theories of the atonement in Christian theology. The penal substitutionary atonement is one of many. There is a short book by Anglican Bishop Ken Meyers titled Salvation and How We Got It Wrong" that illiterates certain flaws with this theory. The problem is going to always be who was this penalty paid to. The Scriptures themselves use a variety of images to express Salvation through Christ's giving himself on the cross. How salvation is accomplished is fundamentally a mystery but in it we come to a realization of the love God has for creation To deny that Christ redeemed us is a denial of the Gospel but the how has a variety of answers in the writings of the Church Fathers. Please look at Bishop Ken's book to get your appetite for other possibilities. The Christian message transcends any or all explanations for God is greater than all.

Hello Bishop Rob, the book can be found on Kindle. www.amazon.com/Dearly-Beloved-Building-Through-Morning-ebook/dp/B0BJQJY7WS?ref_=ast_author_mpb

I have been trying to think and pray over how to respond to your comments. I certainly do not hide my theology. I am honored you would put me in such esteemed company with Luther, Calvin and the like. I certainly would disagree with most of their conclusions. At the same time, I would agree with the need for reforming the Church as no Church on this earth is perfect nor does any constitute the fullness of God's kingdom. Jesus said his kingdom does not belong to this world. The Orthodox speak about knowing where the Church is but also not knowing the boundaries of the church end. Jesus speaks about having other sheep he must care for. Jesus also speaks about letting the weeds and the wheat grow together until harvest. I see all Christanity as a form of duplicity since our lives fall short of the reality we became in the waters of baptism. My own writings criticize and critique certain elements of Old Catholicism just as I have serious concerns regarding certain elements of Roman Catholicism. I do not want people who are committed to any theological tradition to leave their tradition. I have friends in many churches and denominations and want them to be the best Roman Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran or Presbyterian they can be. May God continue to bless and keep you and stay rooted in the faith passed down from the apostles.

Thank you for your response. I do apologize but I am not sure what you are saying in the first paragraph. Our senses can be unreliable in a number of contexts. I can drink rwo pints of ale and I can misjudge distances. Our senses also can be extremely reliable in other contexts. I was using Descartes skepticism as an epistemological perspective. As far as the argument you provided regarding betting on God. This comes from Pascal's Pensees which was just a series of notes. I am not trying to claim his position as my own. It is just a approach and does not try to prove God's existence. Pascal does not really deal with these objections as we must look at the context for which he is writing. He is trying to appeal to European Christians who have neglected their religious belief. Pascal would see other religions or your objection as not a living option for his audience. I think there are a lot of objections against the wager and I have seriois reservations as it approaches God as a means to happiness. I believe in God for a reward which is not authentic Christianity. The Saint Petersburg paradox has always fascinated me. Again, I certainly don't think it really does anything except illustrate human behavior. I really appreciate what you said about love. Are you familiar with Josiah Royce? Memory plays such an important part of love for Royce and what you said reminds me. At the same time, love is also directed to the future. Why do parents love tbeir newborn children? I would not reduce it to pure instinct but see a hope in the child for the future. Love is both rooted in the past and the future. I think someone could use reason to deconstruct all the reasons why I should not love someone but that logical argument would not change my love. I think of a person who loves hoping someone will change. We can argue that the person might be better off not being in that situation or of unrequited live yet it still happens. I certainly do not know the answers. Like Socrates, I can create arguments and then deconstruct them. I think of Kierkegaard and his criticism was he wanted the world to be passionate. I fear we are indifferent to so much or at least I am.

@@Mysteruim_Fidei *I do apologize but I am not sure what you are saying in the first paragraph.* I was suggesting that to fool your senses _all the time,_ in such a way as to still somehow allow you to _generally_ survive would be difficult. Yes, your senses can fool you, but we sorta _have to_ presume that they're at least _broadly_ reliable, even though we know they're not _perfectly_ reliable. *I think there are a lot of objections against the wager and I have seriois reservations as it approaches God as a means to happiness.* Fair enough. *Why do parents love tbeir newborn children? I would not reduce it to pure instinct but see a hope in the child for the future.* I would absolutely reduce it to instinct. That sort of love is like the drive to procreate. Members of our species that don't have it _tend to_ produce children who are worse off. As such, the cocktail of thought-altering hormones that rush through parents, especially women, at their newborn's presence is _insanely_ powerful, and when it goes awry you can easily end up with post-partum depression, which can lead to self-elimination. These hormones are no joke, and without them it's quite likely our species wouldn't reproduce. This is _especially_ true in the past where 'hope for the future' of any child, or even the mother, was... kinda lacking in some ways. Wealthy women, upon finding out they were pregnant, would write a will because their odds of dying in labor were so high (2.5%, higher than your chances, today, of dying from untreated c-vid from 2019 in some countries). Of the children born, 40% wouldn't survive to reach age 15. The pain of childbirth is apparently one of the worst things a human can go through (and survive). With that much tragedy and agony, I can't think of anything _short of_ a massive dose of mind-altering chemicals pumped into us by our reproduction-biased brains to motivate such a thing. That or a need to have children to look after you when you got old so you didn't perish in the streets (as was common until alarmingly recently). *I think someone could use reason to deconstruct all the reasons why I should not love someone but that logical argument would not change my love.* Never said it could. I said the reasons you love are not limited to the present, and thus are not transcendent. The reasons you love will have been built up in your brain over time, and they're hard to get rid of. Typically it either takes a while (falling out of love takes almost as long as falling _in_ love), or being hurt in a way the person finds unacceptable (being cheated on, for instance, or abuse). Of course, sometimes _even then_ people won't leave. Love is powerful stuff. So are hardcore drugs. *I fear we are indifferent to so much or at least I am.* Sometimes I fear we are not indifferent enough. We worry far too much about silly stuff that doesn't matter (who people love, how they express themselves, what clothing they want to wear, what people do with their own bodies) and not enough about things that _genuinely_ matter (climate change, the widening wage gap, insane housing prices). A flood is coming and instead of building a boat we're arguing over what color we should paint it. Have a nice day! :)