@FlailingAce's banner p

FlailingAce


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 09 19:25:25 UTC

				

User ID: 1084

FlailingAce


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 09 19:25:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1084

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you've actually been a replicant this whole time. The tests have just now gotten good enough to detect you.

From what I understand talking to my pastor, the 'monastic tradition' is not emphasized because it is a retreat from the world. At least for evangelicals, the Great Commission is the considered one of the most important commands from Christ. A monastic abandons this for their own spiritual development, which is fundamentally selfish.

There is, though (at least in my tradition) a history of temporary removal from the world for spiritual development, recovery from sin or trauma, or just to reset. Think either sabbatical or rehab. These sometimes include meditative practices alongside typical prayer. However, they are always intended to refresh or prepare a person to reenter the world so they can do the good works God has prepared for them.

I think the game you're describing is The Oregon Trail.

Another aspect may be the subjective experience of agency. Physical action is fundamentally agentic, so if the black male juror has experience with violence he would have a visceral sense that LC was taking action in her own hands. On the other hand, women are more likely to feel non-agentic, controlled by external factors - and not just women, but anyone inculcated with a postmodern paradigm that emphasizes how society shapes and controls everything about you. Non-agentic people are more likely to empathize with the idea of an uncontrollable psychotic break, because they already don't feel in control of their own lives.

This is a weak argument. They're not the same word in Greek. The flood 'took' (ἦρεν) them away, but the man in the field will 'be taken' (παραλαμβάνεται). The words are not etymologically related. The first has, among many meanings: 'to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence'. The second does not have that meaning at all, but does have this meaning: 'to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self' - which is how we would understand the pre-trib rapture, Jesus taking his Church to be with him. If Jesus meant it to be a parallel use of the word 'take' he would have used the same word.

I think you're doing a good job convincing me the rapture is legit!

I'll be praying for you brother :)

I actually considered going to Catholic seminary years ago, when I was still a Catholic, but couldn't bring myself to do it because of doubts I had about certain Catholic dogmas and worries about this same issue, being required to positively assent to doctrines against my own judgement.

It seems to me that amillenialism is a perfectly arguable position and retains the imminency of Christ's return, which is the important thing! But your link doesn't seem to teach amill theology... paragraph 674 seems to say that Israel needs to profess faith in Christ before his return (more a dispensational view), and 675 seems to describe the tribulation, just not using that word. I think typical amill theology says that the Church is the new Israel and so has already returned, and that the tribulation already occurred in/around 70 AD.

So you think that the people "taken" are going to judgement? That seems much less in line with everything else the Bible teaches. Why would only the damned be taken, if they're going to the throne of God to be judged - doesn't the Bible clearly say that all will go to judgement at the same time? What's more, it's pretty clear that the Church will go up to meet Jesus, but here you're arguing the Church will just be left in the field or at a hand mill.

I don't think most pre-trib rapture advocates actually rely on these verses, but your interpretation of them just seems backwards. The use of the word 'taken' does not imply the same as dying in a flood - 'the flood came and took them' is not the same.

Yeah I don't see the connection exactly, but at a recent conference a guy told me they were basically the same thing, that each one entails the other. It's that kind of thinking that puts me off this kind of theology, even if I think the scriptural basis for pre-trib rapture seems reasonable.

Yeah it's an interesting position they take. It's not a dogma in the sense that we say it's definitely true, and we can have communion and agreement with churches that don't teach it, but it's considered a 'distinctive' trait of Calvary chapels and thus obligatory for affiliation with the overarching organizations.

From what understand it's emphasized largely for pastoral reasons, because teaching Christ's imminent return is valuable both for getting people to make a decision for Christ today as well as to provide hope to believers. That's the theory anyway. But in practice I see a lot of people trying to predict the timing of the rapture (and getting it wrong lol) which I think is unhealthy. I like pretty much everything else about the church and its distinctives though!

This may not be exactly 'small scale' but it seems like the best place for it.

I attend a Calvary chapel church, and I'm being considered for a teaching role, and potentially looking towards taking over when the pastor retires. Lots to consider about this, but one thing that's a sticking point for me: Calvary chapel dogmatically teaches a pre-trib rapture, and I'm not convinced.

So, my questions, for anyone who has thoughts on them:

  1. Do any of y'all believe in pre-trib rapture, or more generally dispensationalism, and how would you steel-man the case for it? Or for others, how would you argue against it?

  2. What are your thoughts on having to teach a doctrine you're not confident in?

In other words, the only thing that makes this psychosis is that she wanted to kill her kids? Then what distinguishes her 'psychosis' from any other criminal's desire to do evil? If I killed someone in a crime of passion, what stops me from claiming it was a temporary 'psychosis'? I really can't see the distinction here.