hiatus time
28.02.2026 05:21
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
hiatus time
Pope Leo tells priests to stop using AI to write sermons
Based pope Leo. Orange Catholic Bible, here we come.
The only group I know that doesn't have a statement of faith I disagree with or preachings I disagree with is maybe unitarian universalists?
yes, but like, having fallible people open to being fallible people with each other is one thing. Having a unified statement of faith I disagree with and having teachings I disagree with from the pulpit in God's name is another.
very relatable
Is this in reference to the salad you made for lunch? 😆
I'm going to have to do a review of a few more things to make complete sense of this idea though.
Being uncircumcised had other methods of argumentation besides speaking in tongues. There was the comparison Paul makes to Abraham for example.
I've seen people make the argument of "you will know them by their fruits" before but I hadn't seen evidence of something previously considered rebellion against God becoming accepted by this method specifically.
This could genuinely make a big difference to the possible ways of understanding Christianity for me.
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 15:6‐8
Peter and the early church in Jerusalem came to accept that the uncircumcised could be Christians because they showed gifts of the Holy Spirit like speaking in tongues.
I wonder if this reasoning could have been applied to other people groups.
This was my mental response as I read this
!!??!!
I would say a majority of my LLM usage is just finding a verse number that I can't remember.
good morning!
This theory makes so much sense to me that it seems obvious. I can't imagine why I hadn't heard it before.
I wonder if it is traditionally rejected because the story in acts says he was healed of his eye related issues.
He could have seen an overwhelmingly bright light that damaged his retina from him looking at it.
If this eye-related infirmity was something he received during his trip to Damascus, it would also make sense of how the infirmity could be the cause of him preaching to them.
I never understood how an infirmity could cause him to anounce the gospel
Galatians 4:12-15
Galatians 6:11
I was reading through Paul's letters again and I don't think I ever noticed before how in Galatians he says they would have given their eyes to him in relation to his "infirmity".
If his infirmity was eye-related that would perfectly explain why his letters were big & why he called attention to it.
oh I forgot about this verse in Hebrews for some reason. Thanks.
If it is connected to original sin, then I thought a major point about the marian dogma was that neither her nor Jesus had original sin? Could that explain the lack of concupiscence?
Where was it declared a sin to have a desire to sin? Is that some interpretation of the original sin? Sorry, I really don't know much about concupiscence.
Oh is this because it was declared a heresy to suggest that Jesus was not 100% a man? And that all men are tempted?
I don't understand. Why would God need to resemble us?
I don't understand the concern about Jesus not feeling a sexual attraction to others. Some humans don't feel sexual attraction.
Anyway, I've officially entered rambling territory. Thanks for sharing what you find beautiful about it. I'll try to reflect on the fractal concept of it, and I'll see if it could overcome the confusion elsewhere.
I certainly don't mean to argue that you shouldn't find it beautiful. I guess I feel some weird obligation to share why I don't, like trying to defend that I'm not weird and irrational. Or that I just innately hate goodness or something.
Of course this is all just me being curious about people who find this stuff beautiful, because I'm not ruling it out or anything. All I can do is ask people who find it beautiful to explain it to me anyway they can. I hope it's not just an instinct thing and is something that can be shared.
Sure, I can logically argue that no matter what is correct it is the greatest thing ever by definition (b/c of God's definition), but I don't personally *feel* anything unless I consider things like open theism and adoptionism, where sacrifices feel like sacrifices, and triumphs feel like triumphs.
Everytime I try to reason through Nicene Christology and Classical theism it always comes down to everything being known from the beginning and just us living through this already known timeline because *shrugs*, *hand wave*, "God is good, therefore..."
