Channel Avatar

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur @UCLHcGlZlW1Q0dqYefrJUoNA@youtube.com

9.5K subscribers - no pronouns :c

This channel is devoted to conversations in religion, philos

Videos Posts Playlists

Welcoem to posts!!

in the future - u will be able to do some more stuff here,,,!! like pat catgirl- i mean um yeah... for now u can only see others's posts :c

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 8 months ago

explicit admission, sure to be ignored by the liberal masses

0 - 0

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 11 months ago

We must never forget to contextualize homophobia and the belief that homosexuality is sinful within its historical precedents. The belief that homosexuality is a wrong is the basis of homophobia, and homophobia is the basis for the violence and murder we know has been perpetrated against LGBTQ folk. To act as though homophobia is suddenly divorced from this contextβ€”or that it can beβ€”is preposterous and ONLY happens in order to make homophobes feel better.



They say this because they want sympathy. They shed crocodile tears for themselves because they demand tolerance for their intolerance. They want to equivocate what is not even remotely similar problem of their wanting to be liked and tolerated for holding disgustingly hateful views with the problem of LGBTQ people suffering long-term, systemic oppression and extermination. It’s simply not comparable.

β€œlove the sinner, hate the sin” is the homophobes’ new cop out. They only say this because it is no longer socially acceptable to imprison and kill LGBTQ people.



Saying β€œhomosexuality is a sin” is hate speech. But in their book, they think something is only hate speech if someone explicitly calls for violence. (Even though the reality is that all it takes is for people to say crap like β€œhomosexuality is a sin” in order to promote and raise the rates of hate crimes. And research in this has been heeded by many EU states which have much stricter anti-hate speech laws.)

β€œLove the sinner…” is a new dog whistle which translates to β€œwe would rid society of you freaks if we could, but there’s modern obstacles [secular liberal democracy] in the way; so instead we try to sugarcoat and obscure what we really mean to get away with bigotry.”



The attempt to separate homophobia (i.e. the notion that homosexuality is sinful) from the historical reality of the violent oppression is just as absurd as if someone were to say that they β€œhate blackness and believe people of sub-saharan African descent are inferior to whites” but then say they love people of color and don’t have any ideological association with the institution of chattel slavery.



The belief that homosexuality is a sin is nothing less than extermination ideology. It’s no different than the belief that Jewishness is degenerate or something akin to what Nazis preached. And if you think i’m being extreme then that’s tough because what’s actually extreme is the senseless and unceasing violence that homophobes have inflicted upon queer people for centuries. So keep things in proportion why don’t we.



Lastly, β€œlove the sinner…” simply is not logically coherent, because it hinges upon the astonishingly ignorant and fallacious assumption that β€œhomosexual attraction is distinct from homosexual acts”. Sure buddy. And being hungry is ontologically separable from having a stomach. Or better yet, it’s as ridiculous as saying β€œit’s ok to be sentient; just don’t think thoughts.” These extermination apologists don’t even know what homosexuality is. And their mental gymnastics to defend and make excuses for their bigotry knows no bounds.

The β€œwe’re all sinners” talking point relies on / implies a very particular kind of theology that’s not shared by all Christians. Furthermore, it’s a gross equivocation and fails to acknowledge (and likely just doesn’t understand) the distinction between pre- and post-regeneration life.



β€œwe’re all sinners” is trite nonsense, and stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity and is a ridiculous attempt and imitation of actual Christian theology. This is because the β€œwe’re all sinners” trope evidently has no understanding or consideration of what atonement and justification actually is or how it happens.

If they said β€œwe were all sinners” with some added caveats about sanctification, and the distinction between those who possess and those who lack the charism of graceβ€”the deposit of the faithβ€”then maybe it would make more sense.



Lastly, it logically necessitates the opposite effect than homophobes think it should have; because if that’s the case and homosexuality is no different, then they shouldn’t be emphasizing it like they do; and yet they do disproportionately discriminate against that particular thing.

Clearly this is the result of people speaking when they have no reason, authority, or understanding: they prove their ignorance the more they pontificate.

In order for a person to be a homophobe, it requires an odious, uncharitable, and highly poisonous disposition. A mentality most at odds to respect of human dignity and the preservation of justice.


This disposition, and its accompanying aesthetic designed by only the most rabid paternalism, with its personal disgust for certain affections, is merely followed, as a tacked on afterthought, by the haphazard and logically devoid justifications fabricated by the knowingly guilty. Their cowardice bewraying itself inasmuch as their insistent attempts to excuse and defend the malice are put forth.


If, after all, it were perfectly justifiedβ€”all the hatred, vitriol, and contemptβ€”then it would be justification in itself and require no argument or mitigation. A thing self-evident and worthy of destruction (as they claim the scriptures argue).


But, tacitly knowing the injustice and ridiculousness of it allβ€”and by extension the very uncertainty and speciousnessβ€”these cowards fail their own principle, feigning to β€œpersuade the lost” whilst in truth reassuring only themselves. They do not care to prove or illustrate anything, only to confirm their own biases and waste our time by having us listen to their internal dialogue externalized.


So those who hold fast to truth, justice, charity, peace, kindness, and all other virtues need not concern themselves with the vain pretense and disingenuous articulations of the homophobic apologia of extermination.
Homophobes do not think, let alone think for themselves. Otherwise, if they actually read and studied the very texts they employ in service of their hatred, they would become aware that these authoritiesβ€”of which they ultimately know nothingβ€”convey exactly the opposite of what they insist upon.

17 - 3

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 11 months ago

Romans 3:23-26 is a very popular passage and is commonly translated as...
"23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

I would translate this differently, and so reveal a very different sense of the text (away from penal substitution and forensic justification). My translation is as follows:

"Since all erred and (in need) await the glory of God [[which he willed that they have]], they are now made righteous by his grace as a gift, through the manumission that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a means of at-one-ment (reconciliation) [[uniting the divine and mankind through theosis]] by his blood through his faithfulness; which he did to demonstrate his righteousness through the dismissal of past errors; in his divine clemency, to now demonstrate his own righteousness, so that he is righteous, he makes righteous the one who has the faith of Jesus."


note: I have in parentheses things that are alternative but equally valid meanings, and in brackets are things I inserted for framing and interpreting the text.

4 - 0

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 11 months ago

β€œMore than anything else, God desires to be known. God does not β€œdesire” love but is instead the very expression of love, and is, above all else, perfect love itself and the source of life.

In order to perfectly know something, it must be experienced, not told: the knower immersed in direct contact. True knowledge is deep familiarity.
What better knowledge is there than the union between the knower and the known? What more intimate union than the conjugal meeting?

Therefore, in order that God make his perfect love known, he met humanity where they were, as separated as they were, even to death. But no departure from him, not even death (the uttermost separation from life) could resist perfect Love and Life itself. For God is love, life, and truth; and the truth of God is his love and life in us.

By his triumph over death, he lovingly gave the gift of healingβ€”beyond mere remedy, but rebirth and resurrection: indwelling his creation, transforming it internally, regenerating with vivifying and deifying energies, that the creature would perfectly know God and so too be that same expression of perfect love, sharing the same nature.
So as he gave himself up for us, he gives himself within.”

- anonymous

β€”β€”β€”

β€œπ‘™π‘’π‘‘ 𝑒𝑠 π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ π‘œπ‘›π‘’ π‘Žπ‘›π‘œπ‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ, π‘π‘’π‘π‘Žπ‘’π‘ π‘’ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ 𝑖𝑠 π‘“π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘š πΊπ‘œπ‘‘; π‘’π‘£π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘¦π‘œπ‘›π‘’ π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’π‘  𝑖𝑠 π‘π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘› π‘œπ‘“ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘˜π‘›π‘œπ‘€π‘  πΊπ‘œπ‘‘. π‘Šβ„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘£π‘’π‘Ÿ π‘‘π‘œπ‘’π‘  π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ π‘‘π‘œπ‘’π‘  π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘˜π‘›π‘œπ‘€ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘, π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ 𝑖𝑠 π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’.
𝑖𝑓 𝑀𝑒 π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ π‘œπ‘›π‘’ π‘Žπ‘›π‘œπ‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ, πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ π‘Žπ‘π‘–π‘‘π‘’π‘  𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑠, π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ 𝑖𝑠 π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘“π‘’π‘π‘‘π‘’π‘‘ 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑠.
πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ 𝑖𝑠 π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’, π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘ π‘’ π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘Žπ‘π‘–π‘‘π‘’ 𝑖𝑛 π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ π‘Žπ‘π‘–π‘‘π‘’ 𝑖𝑛 πΊπ‘œπ‘‘, π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ π‘Žπ‘π‘–π‘‘π‘’π‘  𝑖𝑛 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘š.”
β€œπΌπ‘› π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘  𝑖𝑠 π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’, π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝑀𝑒 π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’π‘‘ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ 𝑏𝑒𝑑 π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ β„Žπ‘’ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’π‘‘ 𝑒𝑠 π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑑 β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘†π‘œπ‘› π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘Žπ‘‘π‘œπ‘›π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘ π‘Žπ‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘“π‘–π‘π‘’ π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑠.”
β€œπ‘‡β„Žπ‘œπ‘ π‘’ π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘ π‘Žπ‘¦, β€˜πΌ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘,’ π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’ π‘Ž π‘π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘ π‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿ π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘™π‘–π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘ , π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘ π‘’ π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘‘π‘œ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ π‘Ž π‘π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘ π‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿ, π‘€β„Žπ‘œπ‘š π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑛, π‘π‘Žπ‘›π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘, π‘€β„Žπ‘œπ‘š π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑛.” 1 John 4

β€œπΆβ„Žπ‘Ÿπ‘–π‘ π‘‘ π‘™π‘œπ‘£π‘’π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘β„Ž π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘”π‘Žπ‘£π‘’ β„Žπ‘–π‘šπ‘ π‘’π‘™π‘“ 𝑒𝑝 π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿ β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ 𝑖𝑛 π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿ π‘‘π‘œ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘˜π‘’ β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ β„Žπ‘œπ‘™π‘¦ 𝑏𝑦 π‘π‘™π‘’π‘Žπ‘›π‘ π‘–π‘›π‘” β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘€π‘Žπ‘ β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘” π‘œπ‘“ π‘€π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿ 𝑏𝑦 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘€π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘‘, π‘ π‘œ π‘Žπ‘  π‘‘π‘œ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘’π‘›π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘β„Ž π‘‘π‘œ β„Žπ‘–π‘šπ‘ π‘’π‘™π‘“ 𝑖𝑛 π‘ π‘π‘™π‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘œπ‘Ÿ, π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘‘ π‘Ž π‘ π‘π‘œπ‘‘ π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘€π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘›π‘˜π‘™π‘’ π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘Žπ‘›π‘¦π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘” π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘˜π‘–π‘›π‘‘, π‘ π‘œ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ π‘ β„Žπ‘’ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘¦ 𝑏𝑒 β„Žπ‘œπ‘™π‘¦ π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘‘ π‘π‘™π‘’π‘šπ‘–π‘ β„Ž.” Eph. 5

β€œπ‘‚π‘›π‘π‘’ π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘€π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘Žπ‘™π‘–π‘’π‘›π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘ π‘“π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘š πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘€π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘’π‘›π‘’π‘šπ‘–π‘’π‘  π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž β„Žπ‘–π‘š 𝑖𝑛 π‘¦π‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿ π‘šπ‘–π‘›π‘‘π‘ , π‘€β„Žπ‘–π‘β„Ž π‘€π‘Žπ‘  π‘ β„Žπ‘œπ‘€π‘› 𝑏𝑦 π‘¦π‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿ 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙 π‘Žπ‘π‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘›π‘ . 𝐡𝑒𝑑 π‘›π‘œπ‘€ β„Žπ‘’ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘  π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘π‘œπ‘›π‘π‘–π‘™π‘’π‘‘ π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ 𝑏𝑦 β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘β„Žπ‘¦π‘ π‘–π‘π‘Žπ‘™ π‘π‘œπ‘‘π‘¦ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘’π‘”β„Ž π‘‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘‘β„Ž, π‘‘π‘œ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘’π‘›π‘‘ π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘π‘’π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘’ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘ π‘Žπ‘  π‘Ž π‘π‘’π‘œπ‘π‘™π‘’ π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ β„Žπ‘œπ‘™π‘¦, π‘“π‘Žπ‘’π‘™π‘‘π‘™π‘’π‘ π‘ , π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘‘ π‘π‘™π‘Žπ‘šπ‘’.”
β€œπ‘‡β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘šπ‘¦π‘ π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘¦, π‘€β„Žπ‘–π‘β„Ž 𝑖𝑠 πΆβ„Žπ‘Ÿπ‘–π‘ π‘‘ 𝑖𝑛 π‘¦π‘œπ‘’β€ Col. 1

β€œπ‘‡β„Žπ‘’π‘  β„Žπ‘’ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘  𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑠, π‘‘β„Žπ‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘’π‘”β„Ž π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘ π‘’ π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘”π‘ , β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘π‘–π‘œπ‘’π‘  π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘£π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘¦ π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘Žπ‘‘ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘šπ‘–π‘ π‘’π‘ , π‘ π‘œ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘’π‘”β„Ž π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘š π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘¦ π‘’π‘ π‘π‘Žπ‘π‘’ π‘“π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘š π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘› π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘€π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘™π‘‘ π‘π‘’π‘π‘Žπ‘’π‘ π‘’ π‘œπ‘“ 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙 π‘‘π‘’π‘ π‘–π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘  π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘¦ π‘π‘’π‘π‘œπ‘šπ‘’ π‘π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘–π‘π‘–π‘π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘π‘  π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑒 π‘›π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’.” 2 Pet. 1

β€œπΉπ‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘šπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘™π‘¦, π‘€β„Žπ‘’π‘› π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ 𝑑𝑖𝑑 π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘˜π‘›π‘œπ‘€ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘, π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘€π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘’π‘›π‘ π‘™π‘Žπ‘£π‘’π‘‘ π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝑏𝑦 π‘›π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘”π‘œπ‘‘π‘ . π‘π‘œπ‘€, β„Žπ‘œπ‘€π‘’π‘£π‘’π‘Ÿ, π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ π‘π‘œπ‘šπ‘’ π‘‘π‘œ π‘˜π‘›π‘œπ‘€ πΊπ‘œπ‘‘, π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿ π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 π‘˜π‘›π‘œπ‘€π‘› 𝑏𝑦 πΊπ‘œπ‘‘, β„Žπ‘œπ‘€ π‘π‘Žπ‘› π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘› π‘π‘Žπ‘π‘˜ π‘Žπ‘”π‘Žπ‘–π‘› π‘‘π‘œ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘€π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘π‘’π‘”π‘”π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘™π‘¦ π‘’π‘™π‘’π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘Žπ‘™ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘›π‘π‘–π‘π‘™π‘’π‘ ? π»π‘œπ‘€ π‘π‘Žπ‘› π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘€π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 π‘’π‘›π‘ π‘™π‘Žπ‘£π‘’π‘‘ π‘‘π‘œ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘š π‘Žπ‘”π‘Žπ‘–π‘›?” Gal. 4

4 - 8

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 1 year ago

Is God as vengeful as people say? Will people be tortured forever for sinning or disbelieving?

u/RadicalShiba
"Nietzsche effectively argues, vengeance is the purview of the weak and petty, of which God is neither. God is not an emotional child, but the creator and sustainer of all things. Medieval theologians like St. Aquinas argued that an offense against God is akin to a peasant offending his king; the magnitude of punishment corresponds not to the severity of the offense, but the disparity in social standing between parties.

This is nonsense. Elihu, an oft forgotten character in the book of Job, chastises Job and his friends for thinking this way, after which God Himself enters the conversation. Elihu is the only figure God sees fit not to criticize, effectively allowing Elihu to speak on His behalf. God is not merely of greater social status than ourselves, but a higher degree of Being. When the Bible claims that God's ways are higher than our ways, it is because His ways are perfect embodiments of that which we strive for and fail to achieve. God's wisdom is infinite, power infinite, mercy infinite, patience infinite, so on. The claim that God is love is not a description of His attributes, but His essence. Love for Him is not an adjective, but substance.

When we love, when we bridge the gap between our isolated selves and the rest of God's beautiful creation, we express the will of God and enjoy its fruits. Vengeance is not a higher way of God, but a failure to overcome the lower aspects of our nature. To give in to vengeance does not require self-mastery or wisdom, merely to submit to the whims of one's rage. Think of the saints, are they known for their ruthlessness or their charity? Who among us, if not they, best expresses God's true nature?

Religious scholar Huston Smith once pithily claimed that if you told him your theology, he could tell you who you were. Theology is an intensely personal thing, because God is the most personal 'thing' there is. Scholarship can help us refine our thoughts, but God is not to be found in academia. He's found in the flux of life and the beauty of raw experience. We process our feelings on life in our contemplation, but it's reflection and not discovery. God is always with us, but our relationship to Him is a matter of perception and discernment, habit and action.

However we feel about His creation is how we're bound to feel about him. If we find ourselves full of hate, it's no surprise that we often conclude that God sanctions that hatred on His behalf. But when you meet people whose God is like this, do they seem happy? Or, more importantly, does their relationship with God seem to bring them a sense of solace and wisdom, or does it seem to stir them up into fits of righteous anger? This is really the most telling test of all: does a theology successfully cultivate one's relationship with the divine? If not, be very skeptical."

9 - 0

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 1 year ago

The NIV is filled with so many severe errors that I don’t think i’ll ever need to do a video on the topic. It’s so bad that it speaks for itself with even a cursory investigation.

if, however, you’re interested in the topic just for grins, then here’s a decent article
isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resour…

6 - 1

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 1 year ago

"People have lost the art of relaxing and doing nothing. That's one of the terrible things in today's world, that we're constantly agitated and never know how to be peaceful." - Ajahn Brahm

6 - 0

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 1 year ago

the myth of the barter economy is rooted in baseless assumptions. instead we should follow evidence-based Anthropological research

3 - 0

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 1 year ago

Capitalism does not raise people out of poverty. Productivity, industry, and socialism raises people out of poverty.

6 - 5

Sigalius MΓ½ricantur
Posted 1 year ago

the contradictions of capitalism unravel. we will either descend into fascism or rise up into socialism

5 - 2