Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2
Non-Religious Topics / NYT - A Reassessment, 24 Years in the Making
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Today at 10:01:22 PM »
Quote
Marilyn Snell craved time to herself in the summer of 2012 so that she could take stock of the emotional losses enveloping her life in San Francisco.

She found that time on the Greek island of Kythira, at a friend’s early-19th-century home. There, she stayed in a room that was once a bakery, white-walled with a curved ceiling and a fireplace that had served as the bakery oven.

...

“I was in a moment where I needed to survive, and figure things out,” said Ms. Snell, now 57 and a freelance environmental journalist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/fashion/weddings/marilyn-snell-gregory-williams-a-reassessment-24-years-in-the-making.html
3
Other Topics / Re: Is prejudice against elders socially acceptable?
« Last post by RaphaCam on Today at 09:58:01 PM »
1) I'm really not reading any of your links.  Do they have anything to do with the question in your OP, or is the question self explanatory?
They don't have much more than what I quoted, I used it mostly to illustrate the question.

Quote
2) Are you asking if, in the West, is there a kind of cultural or even "metaphysical" trivialization, marginalization, and disdain for elders...I think the answer is yes, and that has been the case for some time, though millennials are reminiscent of a special breed of nuisance when it comes to disdain for the elderly.
Exactly.

Quote
3) As far as the word "socially" is concerned, I tend to cock my eyebrow every time that word is used.  It often functions as a weasel word. It needs to be heavily qualified when the word is used, as it tends to throw me off on what is being said (and I have heard the word used succesfully before, I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it should be used sparingly, like the word "patriotic").  Either way, I don't think I've ever in my life asked if I or anyone else was being "social" or "antisocial" except in the most trivial use of the word.

I'm not accusing you of this at all, I'm just letting you know that I think the word is a confusing word and doesn't let me know what you're trying to say exactly.  My guess is you're trying to say something like I said in my second point.
I understand. What I mean is that there is widespread disdain for elders (just like there is disdain for immigrants, homosexuals, Jews, blacks, etc.), but, unlike other kinds of commonplace prejudice, people don't seem to care in general. It's OK to laugh at grampa's innabilities, it's OK to be grumpy at old people taking our bus seats and passing in front of us at lines, it's OK to advocate for shortening their retirement. At least that's what I observe in my country and what the articles I quoted seem to observe elsewhere.

I think it's a fact that elders suffer a lot of disdain since we are a culture that cherishes being "young and hip" so much, and oldpeople are not seeing as much as valuable than they used to be.But let's not make "ageism" a thing. Right, Huffington Post?
Yeah, I think we don't need more isms. :P
4
I'm beginning to think it's just as easy to understand the true nature of the Church as to understand the Trinity...that is to say, impossible. :(
5
I am really praying that this will not get sent to Politics, which is NOT what I want, but here we go:


The Context of this whole conversation is that I had a very old Greek man in my parish approach me and tell me that the people who died in the night club in Orlando died because "sin leads to death".  I am trying to find a very good argument against that position because something about it is absolutely wrong (innocent people being killed by an evil person), and yet I really do not have a good argument against sin = death.  Also he said that if we sin, we estrange ourselves from God's protection...thereby ALLUDING that becuase the people who died were homosexuals (and in his opinion unrepentant), that God's protection was not upon them, since they had distanced themselves from God, through sin.

There is a part of his argument that makes sense, and yet I have a huge part of me that disagrees with his reasoning. I just don't know why.  That's why i'm asking for help. I feel like this is a REALLY important question as we begin to grapple with situations like this more often.

Physical death is not the measure of sin, especially those deaths that end up violently.  Otherwise, what of all the martyrs who died similarly?  Did they also lose God's protection?
.
Ok so this is the best part.  I brought up the martyrs, and he said "it was their hour to die".  to which I didn't really have a good response. 
Quote
I think when someone wants to connect violent crimes to "they deserve it", I would imagine Christ's response would be:  "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them."  "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."  Our job is to lament those who were taken away unjustly and untimely from God's light and sustenance, not to speculate on their unrepentant deaths.  Otherwise, we accrue judgment on ourselves when we end up on that fateful day, and wondering whether we done enough repentance or not.

That's the darndest thing about this conversation. I told him it is not ours to judge how people die...and he AGREED WITH ME.  He then went back immediately to make the claim that we DO die because of our sins, and we DO lose God's protection when we are sinning.  So he was saying it...but not saying it...all at the same time.  it was quite the conversation.
Quote
The unruly death of these people happened wrongly because they were not given a chance to repent.  The one who loses protection is the one who took God's job upon himself, God's plan of salvation for them was taken away by an evil act, and the "martyrization" of this only makes it more difficult.

He would say that they have been given their whole life, every second, to repent, and they did nothing to gain that repentence, and therefore lost the grace of God to protect them.  I believe...IMO.

Then my next answer would be the example of Cain.  Cain killed Abel.  God knew it, and yet God protected Cain from being killed by others, and even vowed that those who kill Cain shall be returned upon this killer seven-fold.  Does not Cain deserve death?  But God wanted to keep him alive, to have a family, and an offspring.  And yet look what happened with his offspring, inheriting his murderous behavior.  And yet God continued to protect.  Who are we then to say that these people who died in Orlando had their whole life to repent and did not?  Who are we to assume such a thing, or to even think or speculate about that?  If we do speculate, are we not putting ourselves in the hot seat of judgment?  Is it not enough to say "Lord have mercy"?  Do we really have to think which murders come from God's grace leaving when even the Bible is not clear on this?

What about David the prophet?  He committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and murdered Uriah, his most faithful servant.  David should have been stoned to death under the Law, but God kept him around after His deep remorse and protected Him.  Not everyone was afforded the same opportunity to avoid the Mosaic Law's prescriptions.  God's providence in this is mysterious, and we can only understand His judgments in the second coming.

The will and grace of God is not a computer automated system, where if we sin, we lose Him and if we do good, we gain Him.  This dangerously gets close to an idea where, frankly, it sounds like Pelagianism, where we control God, rather than God is free and chooses to do what He pleases within His mysterious Providence from which we can never understand or speculate.
6
Other Topics / Re: Is prejudice against elders socially acceptable?
« Last post by Svartzorn on Today at 08:49:22 PM »
I think it's a fact that elders suffer a lot of disdain since we are a culture that cherishes being "young and hip" so much, and oldpeople are not seeing as much as valuable than they used to be.
But let's not make "ageism" a thing. Right, Huffington Post?
7
Christian News / Re: EP Metropolitan excommunicated MP priest
« Last post by Iconodule on Today at 08:38:26 PM »
Words are the language of this world, "I told you so" is the language of the age to come.
8
I am really praying that this will not get sent to Politics, which is NOT what I want, but here we go:


The Context of this whole conversation is that I had a very old Greek man in my parish approach me and tell me that the people who died in the night club in Orlando died because "sin leads to death".  I am trying to find a very good argument against that position because something about it is absolutely wrong (innocent people being killed by an evil person), and yet I really do not have a good argument against sin = death.  Also he said that if we sin, we estrange ourselves from God's protection...thereby ALLUDING that becuase the people who died were homosexuals (and in his opinion unrepentant), that God's protection was not upon them, since they had distanced themselves from God, through sin.

There is a part of his argument that makes sense, and yet I have a huge part of me that disagrees with his reasoning. I just don't know why.  That's why i'm asking for help. I feel like this is a REALLY important question as we begin to grapple with situations like this more often.

So, there is no hope. Good to know.
9
I am really praying that this will not get sent to Politics, which is NOT what I want, but here we go:


The Context of this whole conversation is that I had a very old Greek man in my parish approach me and tell me that the people who died in the night club in Orlando died because "sin leads to death".  I am trying to find a very good argument against that position because something about it is absolutely wrong (innocent people being killed by an evil person), and yet I really do not have a good argument against sin = death.  Also he said that if we sin, we estrange ourselves from God's protection...thereby ALLUDING that becuase the people who died were homosexuals (and in his opinion unrepentant), that God's protection was not upon them, since they had distanced themselves from God, through sin.

There is a part of his argument that makes sense, and yet I have a huge part of me that disagrees with his reasoning. I just don't know why.  That's why i'm asking for help. I feel like this is a REALLY important question as we begin to grapple with situations like this more often.
When we say that sin leads to death, I think it is important to realize that that doesn't mean personal sin leads to death (although it can). It is the fact of the existence of sin or more specifically, the absence of goodness that leads to death. This is why the Theotokos died, this is why Christ submitted to death. If we are saying that personal sin leads to death, then you are basically begging some statistician to come along and correlate life expectancies with some measure of evilness. It doesn't work that way. We will face death because of all the sin that is in the world. My brother dies because of my sin, and I die because of his. It is not an individual measure, it a result of our collective sin.
10
Other Topics / Re: Is prejudice against elders socially acceptable?
« Last post by William T on Today at 08:15:03 PM »
1) I'm really not reading any of your links.  Do they have anything to do with the question in your OP, or is the question self explanatory?

2) Are you asking if, in the West, is there a kind of cultural or even "metaphysical" trivialization, marginalization, and disdain for elders...I think the answer is yes, and that has been the case for some time, though many affluent American millennials are reminiscent of a special breed of nuisance when it comes to disdain for the elderly.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10