1 Thessalonians 4:

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Click to expand...

1. Jesus comes down.
2. The first group rises.
3. The second group catches up.

What's step 4? Will the entire bunch of people go up or down or stay in the air?

Down, I think.

YLT Matthew 25:

6 and in the middle of the night a cry was made, Lo, the bridegroom doth come; go ye forth to meet [G529] him.

Click to expand...

The word "meet" here is apantēsin. The virgins were to meet and welcome Jesus, the bridegroom.

7‘Then rose all those virgins, and trimmed their lamps, 8and the foolish said to the prudent, Give us of your oil, because our lamps are going out; 9and the prudent answered, saying — Lest there may not be sufficient for us and you, go ye rather unto those selling, and buy for yourselves. 10‘And while they are going away to buy,

Click to expand...

The foolish virgins went away to find oil. They missed being part of the welcoming group.

the bridegroom came, and those ready went in with him to the marriage-feasts, and the door was shut;

Click to expand...

The bridegroom continued in the same direction and reached his destination.

Now, Young's Literal Translation, 1 Thessalonians 4:

17 then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet [G529] the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be

Click to expand...

meet
ἀπάντησιν (apantēsin)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 529: From apantao; a encounter.

Presumably, after the meeting/encounter of the welcoming people in the air, Jesus will continue in the same direction to come down to reach his destination on Earth where the wedding banquet will take place. I don't think it is like the popular Left Behind film series, where unbelievers will be left on earth to face the chaos and the Antichrist.

See also The word "rapture"

What is the Christian stance on AI?

Are you worried that AI will strip away human nature?

Will AI enslave humans?

Is AI dangerous to human existence?

Do you think AI robot will dominate the world?

Family of black belts stops attempted sex assault next door, police say​

Simon An, a 20-year-old college student, was mindlessly scrolling social media inside his family’s Texas taekwondo school on Tuesday afternoon when he heard an unsettling scream. His father, Han An — a 59-year-old eighth-degree black belt who once served in the South Korean military — immediately sprung to action.

“My dad led the charge, and then my sister was just right behind him,” Simon said.

Within seconds, Simon’s father burst into a mobile phone store next door, where he said he saw a young man on top of a female, one hand over her mouth and the other touching her inappropriately.

From there, the scene unfolded quickly: Simon said his father grabbed the man’s shirt, but the man managed to take the shirt off. Han then grabbed the man’s pants, keeping one arm straight and stable while using the other to block any attacks. He was able to pin him down.

Although he used his taekwondo skills to help stop the attack, he said he hopes the public knows they can always intervene.

“If a regular person were to see something like that, I would hope for them to go and help,” he said. “Just help the person in need.”

Hi, I don't know a whole lot about this topic. There is a nursing home 10 miles away from me. I have a very strong attachment to the town it's in, but that's different story. However, it used to be under the umbrella of a Catholic hospital that was deconsecrated some time ago, I don't know when. With the hospital being deconsecrated, so was the nursing home. Also, when I was a kid, I could have sworn that when we entered the premises of the nursing home, there used to be a big cross on the side of the building. The cross is gone. The circular drive around the perimeter of the building is named after nuns. The name of the roadway was not changed, I guess. I would like to know:

- Why would a place that was once a Catholic facility be deconsecrated?
- Is it a sin to deconsecrate a facility?
- If not, why would the Bishop allow such a thing?

It does break my heart because it's a sign that society wants to "take God" out of a particular place.

Most Christians would say that Bible condemns antisemitism. Yet, starting from second century all the way throughout middle ages all the way till 19-th century and even beginning of 20-th century antisemitism was a mainstream belief among Christians. So the question is why did things change? Yes, we have antisemites now, but nowdays they are a minority, while in the past they were vast majority. The typical Christian answer is that "they were not true Christians". But this doesn't address the question of a timeline. Why would Christians in the middle ages not be true Christians, while Christians in 21-st century be true Christians, when Bible prophesizes the opposite, that there would be falling away of the church at the end times.

I think the real honest reason why Christians have sympathy towards Jews is simply because they feel bad for the Jews after the holocaust. As much as Christians will deny it, this is something that objective look at the timeline, and objective use of secular psychology would tell us. And whether the Bible supports antisemitism or not is a separate question. I am not discussing whether Bible supports antisemitism -- I am only discussing the psychology of people that cause them to choose one interpretation of the Bible over the other. Right or wrong, it was traditional to choose antisemitic interpretations of the Bible. But then the holocaust made them feel bad for the Jews, so they decided to rethink their interpretation of the Bible and choose less antisemitic ones.

This being said, lets ask ourselves a different question. On the one hand, Christians can't bear the idea that 6 million holocaust victims deserved it. Yet, on the other hand, Christians are okay with an idea that people that are in hell deserve it. But you see, the 6 million Jews only suffered for limitted period of time, while hell suffering is eternal (the reason I say they suffered for limitted period of time is because Christians are not comfortable in saying Anne Frank or any other holocaust victim is in hell, even though they don't believe in Jesus; or even if we do say they are in hell, they would have been in hell with or without Hitler; the amount of suffering Hitler ADDED to it is finite). So why is it finite suffering of 6 million Jews is harder to bear than infinite suffering of a lot more people in hell? I think its because Christians haven't actually seen hell, yet they seen the suffering of 6 million Jews. Yes, they say they believe in hell. But its one thing to simply believe, and its another thing altogether to actually see it.

In fact lets ask ourselves a famous question as to how Hitler could go to heaven if he accepted Jesus right before his death and how Anne Frank could go to hell for not believing in Jesus. But, instead of trying to answer this question, lets ask ourselves a different question. Regardless if its true or not, why would it be more appealing to our sensitivities to see Anne Frank in heaven and Hitler in hell? In other words, we are not asking who is actually in heaven or in hell, we are only asking the question about ourselves: namely our own sensitivities. And it is a valid question. Because you see, if Anne Frank were to go to heaven and Hitler were to go to hell, then Hitler would suffer in hell a lot more and a lot longer than Anne Frank suffered in the real life. So, since the honest reason for sympathy towards Anne Frank is that she suffered more (see above), then this reason is no longer true, since now Hitler suffered more. Yet, I still claim that the reason that Anne Frank suffered more is real honest reason. Because, again, people haven't seen hell. So even though they conceptually know that Hitlers suffering in hell are a lot more severe and a lot longer, still deep down on a more intuitive level they feel that Anne Frank's suffering are worse, because its here in the tangible, while hell isn't.

A counter-argument to this is a statement "yes Hitler suffered more but he deserved it while Anne Frank didn't". I don't buy this either. Because one can claim that Jews deserved it too, since they killed Jesus. If you say "Romans killed Jesus", again, let me ask you to be honest with yourself and others. What would have happened if for the past 2 millenia people were to persecute Italians instead of Jews beause Romans killed Jesus, and then Hitler were to kill 6 millions Italians instead of 6 millions Jews for that same reason. Then everyone would feel bad for Italians and would say "Jews killed Jesus" not because they hate Jews but simply because they want to redeem Italians who were victims of all that persecution. But since in actuality it were the Jews that were persecutted and not the Italians, thats why nowdays so many people want to say that Romans killed Jesus out of sympathy towards Jews. But if we were to be more honest then yes Bible teaches Jews killed Jesus or at least strongly suggests it.

Then the other argument is that its unfair to nowdays Jews to be punished for what their ancestors did 2 millenia ago. Well, by the same token, it is also unfair to punish humankind as a whole for what Adam and Eve did in even more distant past. Yet, most Christians feel like punishing Jews for their ancestors is objectionable while the belief in original sin isn't. Again, I think it is because they wittnessed the holocaust so they feel a lot of sympathy towards the Jews. But wait a second: wouldn't the majority of mankind suffer for original sin a lot more severely and a lot longer than Jews suffered for the holocaust? Again: the holocaust happened in the tangible while the future hell for original sin isn't.

And also, as far as the idea that "unlike Anne Frank, it was Hitler's own choice", if you look at it from Calvinist perspective, Hitler was predestined to make the choices he did. I am not saying I am a Calvinist. But I can still ask a question: why is it, the people that are Calvinist, still act as if Hitler is responsible for what he did, yet Jews aren't responsible for how they were born, if neither of them had a choice (from Calvinist perspective)? Again, the answer lies in their sympathies towards Jews after the holocaust. And again I can ask why don't they have even more sympathies towards Hitler, given that he had no choice either (from their perspective), and he would suffer eternally? Again, the answer lies in the fact that they see Jewish suffering in the tangible while the suffering in hell is not tangible.

Now, if you look at all the bolded parts, you will see that the jist of why people changed their theology out of sympathy towards the holocaust victims yet they are okay in believing in hell and so forth, is really because, whether they admit it or not, they treat hell as less real than this tangible world. So the holocaust was really just a small glimpse of hell here in the tangible. And the glimpse of hell in the tagible is something they can't stand to the point of having to change their theology, while the full blown hell in the intangible is something they are willing to believe in, because even though they say they believe in it, deep down they treat it as intangible.

A lot of other social issues point to the same thing too. How come people are more mad at David Duke than they are at John Macarthur? David Duke never said Jews or blacks go to hell, he simply wants to change some policies here on earth, while John Macarthur says vast majority of people were predestined to hell from birth (even though this predestination is not related to skin color, how is it any better than if it was? whether its skin color or not, the bottom line is that they had no control over it). The reason David Duke is more offensive than John MacArthur is, again, because David Duke deals with the tangible while John Macarthur deals with intangible. People claim they treat hell as tangible, since they want to say they are Chrsitian. But the fact is they don't, as the above contrast illustrates.

By the way, I am a Christian. If you ask me what I believe Bible wants us to believe about those issues, I would be a lot more honest than most and say I don't know: Bible has many interpretations. But the above secular analysis should be considered, if you want to be honest with yourself.

I know I've posted about Jim Carrey before, but this vid reveals a more thorough biography that makes his testimony even more profound. His expression of the Gospel and grace couldn't be more clear, imho. Enjoy and please say a prayer for his witness.

I am a Christian. However, I must say that Christians oftentimes use strawman arguments when dealing with atheists. If anything, it only hurts their case. I think it is very important to deal with things logically, admit where the other person's opinion comes from, and then address it.

This being said, one strawman argument Christians use is the following. They say that atheists must really hate God in order to say that God doesn't exist. They say that they don't even hate Stalin and Hitler as much as they hate God. Because they don't deny Stalin's and Hitler's existence, yet they deny God's existence.

I think this claim is simply not true. 99% of people would hate Stalin and Hitler more than God. Just ask them and see The reason they deny God's existence but they don't deny Hitler's and Stalin's existence is very simple. Hitler and Stalin made their existence tangible. God didn't. Hating Stalin and Hitler won't make people want to deny their existence: on the contrary their survival instinct would make them want to acknowledge their existence so that they can hide from them (at least if they lived at their time). But in Gods case its exact opposite because, unlike them, God doesn't make His existence known and tangible.

By the way, this is also the real honest reason as to why people prefer material things over praying. Material things are tangible. Prayer isn't. So it has nothing to do with liking material things more than liking God. If God were to speak in audible voice, the way He spoke in Genesis, maybe God would be more important than various material things. But since God doesn't speak in audible voice the way He used to, nor does He provide anything else tangible the way He used to, then its no wonder why people put him far from the top of their priority list.

And even the whole business with calling Christians bigots is related to this too. Most people don't call nutritionists bigots when they are telling them not to eat sweets, yet they call Christians bigots when they tell them something that would keep them out of hell. Christians would make a strawman argument that its because they hate God. No its not. The real reason is because if someone doesn't listen to nutritionists, they can come back 20 years later with a big regret about it. But if someone doesn't listen to Christians, they will only regret it once they go to hell, and at that point they can't come back from hell to tell about it.

Again, to reiterate: I am a Christian. The only reason I sound like an atheist in the above arguments is because I don't believe in using strawman arguments. I think it is very important to understand that atheists do have a point, in order to intelligently address it.

Now, lets address the above arguments (without strawman) from a Christian viewpoint. So, the key point in the above examples is that the root of atheism is the fact that God is not tangible. Now, ask yourself: why is that? Bible provides an answer. God used to be tangible in the early days, but then He became intangible due to human sin. So now we have a vicious cycle. Human sin makes God choose to be intangible, God being intangible makes people doubt His existence, which in turn causes people to sin even more, which in turn causes God to be even more intangible, and so forth. Now, that is biblical. The extreme version of this is when God makes it outright impossible for people to believe in Him by sending strong delusion (2 Thess 2:11). Now, like I just said, "strong delusion" is an extreme case. But then there are other cases, less extreme, when God doesn't make it "impossible" to believe, but simply makes it "harder". One example of this would be Jesus speaking in parables. A lot of people assume He spoke in parables in order to make it easier to understand. But if you read the plain text of Matthew 13:10-16, you will see that Jesus said that its the exact opposite: He spoke in parables in order to purposely hide the true meaning of what He was trying to say. Does it make it impossible to believe when true meaning is hidden? Not necessarily. One can still believe and say its a mystery to pray about (and we hear a lot of Christians saying they believe yet admitting that things like trinity and some other stuff are mysteries). But it certainly makes it harder to believe. Similarly, when God gives people over to depraved mind in Romans 1:24-28, it doesn't necesserely makes it impossible for them to believe either: after all, Paul then proceeds to offering them the solution of how to escape said depraved mind (in contrast to strong delusion in 2 Thess 2:11 when there is no solution since at that point its too late). Did God have to do it this way? Not necessarily. But it is Gods choice to punish non-belief/disobedience by making it progressively harder and harder to believe until, finally, one reaches a point of no return (either by getting strong delusion of 2 Thess 2:11 or by dying).

So then we see why God is not tangible (both to nonbelievers and believers): because, clearly, we are a lot more sinful than people used to be. And the fact that believers don't have tangible encounters with God is an evidenc in that direction. But the fact that believers have some sort of spiritual experience while atheists do not is simply saying that atheists disobeyed God more so God punished them more. In other words, atheism is not necesserely a choice but instead it is God's punishment for person's disobedience in other ways. Now, atheism does have a component of a choice. Because an atheist can say "yes, it is hard to believe in God because I never had any encounters, but I am going to make a free will decision to believe anyway" (which is possible to do, since Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a belief in things not seen). However, God made it harder for atheists by withdrawing Himself from them. So while its possible to believe in things not seen, it is certainly harder to do than to believe in things seen. So while atheists "can" believe in God if they "really" try super hard, its harder for them to do so than to Christians from whom God didn't withdraw. Thats why I would say atheism is a combination of human choice to be an atheist and Gods choice to withdraw Himself due to other since (not involving atheism). So to say its only the former and not the latter is a strawman. On the flipside you have Calvinists that say its the latter and not the former. That would be unfair. I say its a combination of both.

And this also can be extended to homosexuality. Christians argue that homosexuality is a choice. That doesn't make sense. First of all, as someone straight, I can't choose to be gay. So I don't see how it can be a choice for someone else, unless that other person happened to be bisexual (and bisexuality isn't a choice either, since I can't choose to be bisexual even if I wanted to). Secondly, even if it was a choice, I don't see why would someone want to choose to be gay anyway, particularly since gays are looked down upon. I guess some might make that choice out of rebellion (like satanists do) but then homosexuality would be a lot less common than it is. Now, here is a real, biblical, reason for homosexuality, that doesn't involve choice to be gay. And it is at the end of Romans 1. If you read the end of Romans 1, what you find is that people were involved in some other sins and then, as a punishment for those other sins, God gave them over to depraved mind which, among other things, caused them to become gay. One example of other sins Bible mentions is worshipping creation rather than creator. So picture the following. Someone, who is straight, decides to worship idols. God repeatedly warns that person against idolatry, but that person persists. Then eventually God punishes that person by making that person gay. So then that person didn't choose to be gay: that person chose to worship idols. But God made that person gay in response to that person's choice to worshipping idols. So was that person born gay? No, because that person didn't have a chance to worship idols in their mothers womb. Yet, that person didn't choose to be gay either: being gay is God's punishment for that person's idolatry. And by the way its not my theory; this is something I read directly out of Romans 1. I don't see why other Christians not notice it.

Now, would this thread prove to atheists they are wrong? No. Because atheists can still argue that there is no God altogether and the above theory is just a convenient way for Christians to explain why what they claim to exist isn't tangible. However, at the same time, this thread would disprove atheist argument that Christians are wrong. In other words, we now have two logical possibilities. One logical possibility is that atheists are right and this whole thing is just explaining away of why we don't see God. But the other possibility is that Christians are right and the reason we can't see God is God's choice to respond to our sins. So since we still have those two logial possibilities, we still have to look at other arguments on both sides that are beyond the scope of this thread. But at least this thread will show atheists that there is a logical possibility that Christians are right, even though its at a level of logical possibility rather than certainty.

H everyone, is anyone here aware if Benny Hinn is still doing healing revivals around the world? I remember him doing lots of these years ago. He came to the Giant Center stadium in my hometown Hershey, PA probably 15 years ago and I went, it was amazing, a blast! I did not get healed but probably at least 1000 people did, the stage was full of empty wheelchairs from paralyzed people that got up and walked en-masse. I haven't heard much from Benny in the last few years.

Hi everyone, I would greatly appreciate your prayers- I have a very severe spiritual problem, I do not understand the bible and I do not understand God very well either. I think it would take a sovereign act of God for me to understand the scripture, you need to understand the scripture or you are going to get fooled and you won't understand God either, so I am in a serious predicament. I have been through reading the bible at least 8 times cover-to-cover over the years and I still do not understand it. Please pray for God to help me to understand the scripture and also to understand Him!

It will be on live TV so there is no crying fake anything. Can't be selective editing when it is live.


Even the left's CNN has commentators talking about it.

Login to view embedded media
According to this Black Studies professor, romance is racist because romantic practices as we know them in American culture were invented in France.

The basis for her asserting that means those practices are racist is rooted in the Critical Race Theory assertion that everything about European culture is for the purpose of establishing their race as oppressors of all other races.

Olathe Northwest high school

ANNOUNCEMENT

of H.E. Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me, with a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial penal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and charging me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis” of having broken communion “with Him” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council. I have been summoned to the Palace of the Holy Office on June 20, in person or represented by a canon lawyer. I assume that the sentence has already been prepared, given that it is an extrajudicial process.

I regard the accusations against me as an honor. I believe that the very wording of the charges confirms the theses that I have repeatedly defended in my various addresses. It is no coincidence that the accusation against me concerns the questioning of the legitimacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the rejection of Vatican II: the Council represents the ideological, theological, moral, and liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal church” is the necessary metastasis.

It is necessary for the Episcopate, the Clergy and the People of God to seriously ask themselves whether it is consistent with the profession of the Catholic Faith to passively witness the systematic destruction of the Church by its leaders, just as other subversives are destroying civil society. Globalism calls for ethnic substitution: Bergoglio promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions. Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and imposes on the faithful the acceptance of homosexualism, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest positions of responsibility. Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol of the Pachamama, writes delirious encyclicals about the environment, supports the Agenda 2030, and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming. He goes beyond his role in matters that strictly pertain to science, but always and only in one direction: a direction that is diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them “an act of love,” in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous. Wherever governments at the service of the World Economic Forum have introduced or extended abortion, promoted vice, legitimized homosexual unions or gender transition, encouraged euthanasia, and tolerated the persecution of Catholics, not a word has been spent in defense of the Faith or Morals that are threatened, or in support of the civil battles of so many Catholics who have been abandoned by the Vatican and the Bishops. Not a word for the persecuted Catholics in China, with the complicity of the Holy See, which considers Beijing’s billions more important than the lives and freedom of thousands of Chinese who are faithful to the Roman Church. In the “synodal church” presided over by Bergoglio, no schism is recognized among the German Episcopate, or among the government-appointed Bishops who have been consecrated in China without the mandate of Rome. Because their action is consistent with the destruction of the Church, and therefore must be concealed, minimized, tolerated, and finally encouraged. In these eleven years of “pontificate” the Catholic Church has been humiliated and discredited above all because of the scandals and corruption of the leaders of the Hierarchy, which have been totally ignored even as the most ruthless Vatican authoritarianism raged against faithful priests and religious, small communities of traditional nuns, and communities tied to the Latin Mass.

This one-sided zeal is reminiscent of Cromwell’s fanaticism, typical of those who defy Providence in the presumption of knowing that they are finally at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, free to do and undo as they please without anyone objecting to anything. And this work of destruction, this willingness to renounce the salvation of souls in the name of a human peace that denies God is not an invention of Bergoglio, but the main (and unmentionable) purpose of those who used a Council to contradict the Catholic Magisterium and to begin to demolish the Church from within, in small steps, but always in a single direction, always with the indulgent tolerance or culpable inaction – if not the explicit approval – of the Roman authorities. The Catholic Church has been slowly but surely taken over, and Bergoglio has been given the task of making it a philanthropic agency, the “church of humanity, of inclusion, of the environment” at the service of the New World Order. But this is not the Catholic Church: it is her counterfeit.

The resignation of Benedict XVI and the appointment by the St. Gallen Mafia of a successor in line with the diktats of the Agenda 2030 was intended to allow – and has succeeded in allowing – the global coup to take place with the complicity and authoritative support of the Church of Rome. Bergoglio is to the Church what other world leaders are to their nations: traitors, subversives, and final liquidators of traditional society who are certain of impunity. Bergoglio’s defect of consent (vitium consensus) in accepting his election is based precisely on the evident alienity of his action of government and magisterium with respect to what any Catholic of any age expects from the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Everything that Bergoglio does constitutes an offense and a provocation to the entire Catholic Church, to her Saints of all times, to the Martyrs who were killed in odium Fidei, and to the Popes of all times until the Second Vatican Council.

This is also and principally an offense against the Divine Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whose sacred authority Bergoglio claims to exercise for the detriment of the Mystical Body, with an action that is too systematic and coherent to appear to be the fruit of mere incapacity. In the work of Bergoglio and his circle, the Lord’s warning is put into practice: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the guise of lambs, but who are ravenous wolves at heart (Mt 7:15). I am honored not to have – and indeed I do not want – any ecclesial communion with them: theirs is a lobby, which conceals its complicity with the masters of the world in order to deceive many souls and prevent any resistance against the establishment of the Kingdom of the Antichrist.

In the face of the Dicastery’s accusations, I claim, as Successor of the Apostles, to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, and with the uninterrupted doctrinal, moral, and liturgical Tradition which they have faithfully preserved.

I repudiate the neomodernist errors inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called “post-conciliar magisterium,” in particular in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the State, and the liturgy.

I repudiate, reject, and condemn the scandals, errors, and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who manifests an absolutely tyrannical management of power, exercised against the purpose that legitimizes Authority in the Church: an authority that is vicarious of that of Christ, and as such must obey Him alone. This separation of the Papacy from its legitimizing principle, which is Christ the High Priest, transforms the ministerium into a self-referential tyranny.

No Catholic worthy of the name can be in communion with this “Bergoglian church,” because it acts in clear discontinuity and rupture with all the Popes of history and with the Church of Christ.

Fifty years ago, in that same Palace of the Holy Office, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was summoned and accused of schism for rejecting Vatican II. His defense is mine; his words are mine; and his arguments are mine – arguments before which the Roman authorities could not condemn him for heresy, having to wait instead for him to consecrate bishops so as to have the pretext of declaring him schismatic and then revoking his excommunication when he was already dead. The scheme is repeated even after half a century has demonstrated Archbishop Lefebvre’s prophetic choice.

In these times of apostasy, Catholics will find in Pastors faithful to the mandate received from Our Lord an example and an encouragement to abide in the Truth of Christ.

Depositum custodi, according to the Apostle’s exhortation: as the time approaches when I will have to give an account to the Son of God of all my actions, I intend to persevere in the bonum certamen and not to fail in the witness of faith which is required of each one who, as Bishop, has been endowed with the fullness of the priesthood and constituted Successor of the Apostles.

I invite all Catholics to pray that the Lord will come to the aid of His Church and give courage to those who are persecuted for their Faith.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

20 June 2024

Silverii Papæ et Martyris

Dermitii O’Hurley, Episcopi et Martyris

How well do you tolerate doubt, uncertainty, unknowing and what do they do for your faith.

Jesus tells us:

Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.

And yet who among us can move a mountain into he sea?

Is the opposite of doubt faith?

Is it a character of the will or of the intellect.

Many of us pray for more faith. As if we want to believe but cannot.

And in our culture we must be skeptical. So many are out to deceive us, to scam us and toe persuade us with half truths.

Even when it comes to scripture we do well to exercise caution when it comes to literal versus figurative language.

I think for me there is a fundamental assurance that at least there is a personal God.
After that, so much is inexpressible. I don't rely on any particular interpretation of scripture.
I don't rely on any historical event other than the birth and death of Jesus.
I read it all with an openness to possibility.

I thin there may be a spectrum of our response to doubt:

1. Some people cannot tolerate it at all and then opt for a literal interpretation of scripture with black and white definite answers to any question.
2. Others, like myself, can tolerate some doubt and think there is a greater need for informed discernment on all matters.
3. Then there are the skeptics who doubt anything that does not have string objective evidence.

Naturally these three and the many in between do not agree on much of anything and it comes into every aspect from our lives from how we educate "groom" our children to who we let across our borders.

One guy who has done some research on all this is James Fowler who came up with 7 stages of faith.



The idea that we go through stages seems natural. But this relation ship between faith and doubt intrigues me because I do think doubt purifies faith so that we do not believe all sorts of crazy things.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has announced that more NATO member states than originally expected were set to fulfill the 2% target of GDP defense spending this year.

Hello everyone

I’m completely new to this Plattform but I wanted to give it a try and reach out to you.
Because I honestly don’t know where to seek advice. To understand all, I have to get a little in the past.

I was raised in a Christian household but my parents weren’t really living by the word of god. They were not like the other people going every Sunday to church. I also got baptized at the age of 6 and not as a baby. Due to several very painful things I’ve been through, as I got older I denied God more and more. At the age of 15 I wanted to commit suicide. And then like a miracle happened and it didn’t work. So I accepted it , I did resist it but I had obviously no choice. It was like it’s not time yet and I can’t go now. However at that time I was still young, had no guidance and was completely overwhelmed by my emotions and couldn’t think clearly. As years has passed I still kinda denied what had happened and of course Gods presence. I was very angry with him for all the bad things that happen (not just in my life but in general) and I couldn’t grasp a lot of things back then.

Today I’m 29 years old and i somehow, by „accident“ searched for God. Now there’s absolutely NO SHADOW OF A DOUBT that God does exist. I never heard him (unlike what other people are telling) but I felt him. I still really can’t explain how it all started cause I’m not surely aware of it but it started kinda with a song for god. It was a language I didn’t understand but as I was listening to it I began to utterly cry, couldn’t control myself anymore and was overwhelmed. And every time I sing this song in this foreign language I can’t even speak, I always cry. But it’s a different crying than when I’m sad.

However long story short, through this I started to go after the urge an seek for god.
Every time I prayed I also cried, and I’m sure he did hear me and he was there. And he already helped me, without me even asking for his help.
The thing is, due to all that I’ve done and the fact that I denied him for so long, and was such a bad child, im ashamed. And I feel like I’m not worth even his attention. I’m struggling so hard and I don’t know what to do and how.

Even when I pray, I first of all apologize to God that I don’t even know how to pray properly and every time I also apologize to him and ask for his forgiveness for my denial.

I tried to read the Bible but to be honest there are too many times where i absolutely DONT understand what it should mean.

Since I’m new to this, I literally have NO idea what I should do and how I should do it: praying, living the life God wants me to, how to connect to Jesus, how to overcome all the bad things that has been planted into my brain from the devil, etc.

A few days ago I asked him to hear his voice at least once, but now I don’t even need that anymore. I do know that he’s here and that he’s watching me.

I today even started to yell at the devil because he’s been trying to deceive me again and I literally FELT him being proud of me.

Still I have this doubts that I’m no good for him and that I have to change a lot for him , to be able to walk the path he put me in.


Can please someone help me? I’m so overwhelmed and confused.

I thank all of you for your time, help and support.

Blessed be your day❤️

The term Mother of God is not in the Scripture. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I approach it indifferently. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I would not bother using the term in the formal doctrinal sense. I would put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize in a doctrine. More precisely, I know the following:

Matthew 12:

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Click to expand...

Mary was Jesus' biological mother. When it comes to doctrines, I'd rather stick to the wording of the Bible.

See also

• “WOMAN, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
• My take on Trinity.

Is it in Middle East or is at the center of earth which is at the North Pole ?

The description given in Genesis 2 concerning the location of the Garden of Eden does not fit with what is observed regarding the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. God’s Word makes it clear that the Garden of Eden was located where there were four rivers coming from one head. No matter how one tries to fit this location in the Middle East today, it just can’t be done




Login to view embedded media

I have not seen this movie yet. I am glad that this movie is very successful and I plan on watching it soon with my wife.

Jesus said that we are to go into all of the world and to make disciples of him of all nations, baptizing and teaching them to obey all that he has commanded us (See Matthew 28:18-20). He said that when the Spirit of God comes upon us, whom we receive when we believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and as Savior, we will be his witnesses throughout the world (See Acts 1:8). And he said that we are the light of the world; a city on a hill that cannot be hidden. We are, thus, to let our light shine before others, so that they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven (See Matthew 5:14-16). As well, we read in Romans 10:14-15 (NIV):


None of us should be negligent in sharing the full gospel of Jesus Christ with others, for it speaks to them the words of life. Jesus said that if anyone would come after him, he must deny himself (his self-life), take up his cross daily (die daily to sin and to self), and follow (obey) him. He said that if we hold on to our old lives of living for self and in sin that we will lose them for eternity, but if we die to sin and to self, we will gain eternal life (Luke 9:23-26). This is what we are to teach, calling others to turn from their sin, and to walk by faith in Jesus Christ their Lord.

Should I Not Preach Jesus

An Original Work / July 4, 2013
Based off 1 Corinthians 9:16-10:13

Woe to me should I not preach Jesus.
I’m compelled to preach the full gospel.
I make myself a slave to ev’ryone
To win their hearts to Christ.
All this I do for my Lord Jesus,
And for the sake of His Name;
Do it for the sake of His gospel,
So that I, its blessings gain.

Scripture notates the sins of others;
Written down for us as examples
To keep us from setting our hearts
On evil as did those of old.
Do not worship other gods of man;
Do not give your hearts to them;
Not partake in immorality.
Do not test your Lord and King.

So, be careful if you think you are
Standing firm in your faith in Jesus.
God has given his word to warn us,
So through faith we will not fall.
No temptation has o’ertaken you
Except what is commonplace.
God is faithful to not let you be
Tempted past what you can bear.
He gives the way of escape.

Login to view embedded media

If you have heard about Jesus Christ, and if you are at that point of wanting to believe in him as your Lord and Savior, it is critical that you understand what it means to believe in him. For first of all the word “believe” means to be persuaded, and if that belief is in Jesus Christ, it means to be persuaded of God, for not one of us can come to faith in Jesus Christ unless God the Father first draws us to him. And we also need to understand that faith in Jesus Christ comes from God, and it is gifted to us of God, and it is not of our own doing – not of the will nor of the flesh of man.

[Jn 1:12-13; Jn 6:44; Rom 6:1-23; Rom 8:1-14; Eph 2:8-10; 1 Peter 2:24; 2 Pet 1:1; Tit 2:11-14; 1 Co 10:1-22; Heb 3:1-19; Heb 4:1-13; Heb 12:1-2]

Therefore, we do not get to define faith nor to decide what that faith should look like. God does, and his word does, and so we need to read the Scriptures to see what they say (IN CONTEXT) regarding what faith in Jesus Christ looks like. And this passage of Scripture here in Mark is one of the primary passages of Scripture which tell us what it means to believe in Jesus Christ and what it means if our faith in the Lord is not of God, and so it is not genuine faith. For there are many people who have been taught wrongly about what it means to believe in Jesus, and they need to hear the truth.

So, if we are desiring to be in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and to have him as our Lord and Savior, and to be saved from our sins, and to have the hope of eternal life with God, then the first thing we must do is to deny self, to give up the flesh and living according to the flesh and to die with Christ to sin and to be raised with him to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin but as slaves to God and to his righteousness. We are to no longer let sin reign in our mortal bodies to make us obey its desires, for if sin is what we obey, it leads to death, but obedience ends in eternal life.

Now this death to sin and these walks of obedience to our Lord are something that we are to put into practice in our lives every day. This is not saying that we will be absolutely perfect in everything that we do from this point forward but that sin should no longer be our habit, our practice, but now holy living and walks of obedience to our Lord should be what we practice, instead. For if we try to hold on to our old lives of living in sin and for self, we will lose them for eternity. But if for Jesus’ sake we deny self, die daily to sin, and follow our Lord in obedience, then we have eternal life.

So, don’t buy into the lies which are so popular these days, at least here in America, which are telling people that they can make a one-time decision to believe in Jesus and now all their sins are forgiven (past, present, and future), and heaven is secured for them, and it can’t be taken away, but regardless of how they live. For the Scriptures teach that we must no longer walk (in conduct) according to the flesh, but now according to the Spirit, and we must no longer make sin our practice, but righteousness and obedience to our Lord must be our practice, if we want eternal life with God.

And if we deny Jesus Christ by how we live, then when he returns he will deny that he ever knew us. For it is possible to profess him with our lips but to deny him by our actions. And we deny him whenever we are ashamed of him and of his words, and whenever we refuse to obey his commands and to follow him wherever he leads us. And if we do not share him and his gospel message with others, but we withhold the truth about Jesus from others, out of fear of their rejection of us, that is being ashamed of him and of his gospel message, and it is preferring the approval of humans, instead.

[Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 15:7-9; Luke 9:23-26; 2 Timothy 2:11-13; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; Titus 1:15-16; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Jude 1:4]

For, as followers of Jesus Christ, we are to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth in taking the message of the gospel to the people of the world. And we are to proclaim to others the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light. And we are to make disciples of Christ of people of all nations, teaching them to observe all that our Lord has commanded us to do as his followers. And we are to be his witnesses to the people of the world, but not just with our lips, but with our lifestyles, by how we conduct our lives in walks of obedience to our Lord in holy living.

[Matt 5:13-16; Matt 28:18-20; Jn 4:31-38; Jn 13:13-17; Jn 14:12; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:14-18; Acts 26:18; Rom 10:14-15; Rom 12:1-8; Rom 15:14; 1 Co 12:1-31; 1 Co 14:1-5; Eph 4:1-16; Eph 5:11-27; Eph 6:10-20; Php 2:1-8; Col 1:9; Col 3:12-16; Heb 3:13; Heb 10:23-25; 1 Pet 2:9,21; 1 Jn 2:6]

So, please take this to heart, for our salvation depends upon not only God’s grace but on us believing and putting into practice the truth, by God’s grace.

As the Deer

By Martin J. Nystrom
Based off Psalm 42:1

As the deer panteth for the water
So my soul longeth after You
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

You alone are my strength, my shield
To You alone may my spirit yield
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

In other Bible translations it says, “not even be named among you,” or “not even be mentioned among you,” or “must not even be hinted at,” or “should not even be heard of among you.” Or as one commentator stated, “must not even exist among you.” So, this isn’t just about blatant and obvious sexual immorality, but this is about secret sins and delving into anything of a sensual or sexual nature, no matter how miniscule it may appear to be. For it doesn’t take much to get our minds and emotions in the wrong direction.

But this isn’t just about professing Christians being engaged in acts of sexual immorality and/or in being entertained by anything of a sexual or a sinful or a seductive nature, though it is that. But this has to do with the gatherings of the church and what goes on within those gatherings in the name of Christ, and in the name of Christianity, and in the name of trying to get the world into “the church.” There should not be even a hint of sexual immorality nor sensuality, et al, within the gatherings of what are called “churches.”

Sadly, though, so many of these gatherings have been incorporated under the state and turned into businesses, and thus are being marketed to the world just like other businesses, and so they have also been incorporating much of the world into their gatherings and into their sermons and music and videos and plays, etc., to where many of these gatherings are very similar to what you might find at a local bar and not something that should be within the gatherings of the body of believers in Jesus Christ.

But let me give you some examples of this. Twice we have attended “church” services where the singers were singing like bar singers with very sensual inflections in their voices while they were swaying their bodies to the music also in sensual manners and/or were dressed inappropriately for being up on stage while singing and moving their bodies in such a manner. And then in other gatherings they have showed video clips from secular movies that, if you saw the movies, you would find they had sexual situations in them.

And then you have preachers wearing T-shirts with the names of some secular Rock Bands on the shirts. And if you look up the lyrics to the songs that these bands sing, you will see very clearly that their lyrics are against Jesus Christ and his morals and his values. But the preacher is trying to relate to the people he is trying to reach to come to his place of business. And so he tries to become more like the world to reach the world with what is a compromise with the world in order to draw in people from the world.

And then you have some preachers telling jokes, which sometimes are mocking the Scriptures and making people laugh at what should be taken seriously, because they want to entertain the world. And then there are praise bands where the music sounds like bar music and where the lyrics are so repetitive and shallow that they do nothing to stir the human conscience and to convict of sin and to teach repentance and obedience to our Lord and to lead people to holy living. But what they do is stir human emotions.

But our gatherings are not to be mimicking the world in order to attract the world to our gatherings. And we are not to be unequally yoked together (partnered) with the ungodly. And we are not to turn our gatherings into places of business, being marketed to the world like other businesses. For the purpose of our gatherings is that the people of God might be strengthened and encouraged and exhorted in our walks of faith and in obedience and in surrender to our Lord, as we encourage one another.

[Matthew 21:12-13; John 2:13-17; Acts 5:27-32; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Philippians 3:18-19; Revelation 13:5-8; Revelation 18:1-5]

But so many of these modern gatherings of what are called “churches” are all about becoming like the world to attract the world to their gatherings so that they can grow in physical numbers and build their earthly kingdoms. And so what they also do is that they dilute and adulterate the character of God – Father, Son Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit – and of his church, and of the message of the gospel of our salvation, so as not to offend the world and so as to appease human flesh, so people will come to their meetings.

But what does this Scripture (and many others) teach us is the result if we become more like the world and if we live like the world, and in sinful practices? If sin is our practice, i.e. what we do deliberately and habitually in direct disobedience to God, we will not inherit the kingdom of Christ and of God, regardless of what we profess with our lips. So we are not to be deceived into believing that our sins no longer matter to God or that he will not judge those who live in deliberate and habitual sin.

For what did Jesus say? He said that not everyone who says to him, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING the will of God the Father. And he said (in summary) that if anyone would come after him that he must deny self, die daily to sin, and follow him in obedience to his commands. For if we hold on to living in sin, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, and follow Jesus in obedience, in practice, then we have eternal life (Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 9:23-26).

So, this is a warning of God to all of us to not take him and his word lightly, but to take the warnings of God seriously, for he means what he says. If we live in sin, we will die in our sins. But if we die to sin, and live to righteousness, and we obey our Lord’s commands (New Covenant), and we live holy lives pleasing to him, then we have the hope of eternal life with God. It is what Jesus and his NT apostles taught, if read in CONTEXT. So, let there not be even a hint of any deliberate sin taking place in your lives.

[Matt 7:21-23; Lu 9:23-26; John 1:12-13; John 6:44; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Rom 2:6-8; Rom 6:1-23; Rom 8:1-14; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Co 6:9-10,19-20; 1 Co 10:1-22; 2 Co 5:10,15,21; Gal 5:16-24; Gal 6:7-8; Eph 2:8-10; Eph 4:17-32; Eph 5:3-6; Col 1:21-23; Col 3:1-17; Titus 2:11-14; 1 Jn 1:5-10; 1 Jn 2:3-6,24-25; 1 Jn 3:4-10; 1 Peter 1:15; 1 Pet 2:24; Heb 3:1-19; Heb 4:1-13; Heb 10:23-31; Heb 12:1-2; Rev 21:8,27; Rev 22:14-15]

Beautiful Lamb

“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29

By Gary Miller

Beautiful Lamb of God, guiltless and pure as snow,
Gentle and merciful, beautiful Lamb of God.
Sent from the Father’s love,
Sent from the throne above,
Sent to redeem us with His blood.

Beautiful Lamb of God, guiltless and pure as snow,
Gentle and merciful, beautiful Lamb of God.
Behold the Lamb of God
Suff’ring great pain for us,
And by His wounds we all are healed.

Beautiful Lamb of God, guiltless and pure as snow,
Gentle and merciful, beautiful Lamb of God.
Like sheep we’ve gone astray,
Each turn to his own way,
But Jesus will take our sins away.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

This is from Theopedia - a site I'm referring to for shorter theology definitions. It seems fairly helpful. I think below is a fairly gospel focussed message of eschatology - without all the details we all disagree on. Can we agree that this is what we agree on - in the most basic language - in the most general sense?
---

The Second Coming or Second Advent of Jesus Christ is seen as a yet future event by Christians. Jesus Christ's first coming, about 2,000 years ago, was to deal with sin. Before He ascended to heaven, He said, "if I go away, I will come back"; and His Spirit is given as a "guarantee" of His return and of our salvation in Him,^[1]^ to sustain the Church until His return.^[2]^ His return or Second Coming is sometimes called the Parousia (Greek: coming presence, arrival)^[3]^ and will be for the judgment of his enemies and the salvation of those who await his return.^[4]^ The many denominations of Christianity vary widely regarding the details surrounding Christ's return in relationship to the Great Tribulation and the Millennium. Because of the many false prophecies of man regarding His return, over the past 2,000 years, few dare to claim complete and authoritative interpretation of the many related prophetic biblical passages. However, it is commonly accepted that:

• Jesus Christ died on the cross.
• He was resurrected bodily.
• He ascended into heaven.
• He will return to earth, judge the world and establish his kingdom,
• No one knows the day or hour of Christ's return.

Daniel, the Gospel of Matthew and the Revelation are considered to be the most fruitful sources of study, although many parts of the Bible are sprinkled with references to the "last day(s)" and the "second coming" of Christ. A specific reference to it is contained in the early ecumenical creeds.

Multimedia

• The Basis of the Second Coming (MP3), by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Testimony of the early creeds

The second coming (or return) of Christ is contained as an article of faith in all the ancient creeds:

• "He ascended into heaven. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead" Apostles' Creed.
• "He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead" Nicene Creed.
• "From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead, at whose coming all men must rise with their bodies and are to render an account of their deeds" Athanasian Creed.

Hello. I'm new.

I personally believe that Issaiah 53 points to Jesus. But Jewish person says that it is pointing to the nation of Israel as a whole.

What do you say to that? Thanks.