zloubida
@zloubida@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 5 days ago:
… and Jesus hates liars
Evangelicalism is a religion of hate, evidence #8376383.
I pray that you’ll find Jesus one day. Then you’ll understand that he hates no one. In the meantime… bye, you’re blocked. I can’t do anything more for you.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 5 days ago:
Okay, bro.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 5 days ago:
I’m not American. I know no denomination outside evangelicalism which teach that. And in France, even evangelicals does not teach that for a large part. Catholicism does not. Mainline Protestantism does not. I don’t know well Eastern Orthodoxy, but as far as I know, they do not either.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Yeah, that’s what cults do. I’m very sorry.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Wrong. But I had this discussion with evangelicals 1000 hundred times it’s not interesting anymore. I’ll begin by citing theologians like Aquinas (13^th^ century), you’ll answer saying “meh don’t care it’s not in the Bible” or, if you studied theology, citing the one big exception, Augustine (which still wrote that God’s mysterious grace could be greater than what he himself thought). But with that I will have proved that no, it’s not a recent evolution of Christian theology, but something the churches hold still the beginning, with exceptions.
Then I’ll cite Romans 2:12-16, Luke 12:47-48, Matthew 25:31-46 or Acts 10:34-35, and you’ll do mental gymnastics that will grant you a place in the coming Olympics to reconcile this with the idea that only Christians are saved, using texts like John 3:18. And I’ll say, yes, the Bible contradicts itself on this subject like on most others, but my position is better established and coherent with the global message of the Bible and the reason, while yours is not. And you’ll be shocked : “what? You don’t believe in biblical inerrancy? You’re not a Christian!” and I’ll answer “okay, bro”.
And we will both have lost a lot of time.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Unitarianism is a good spiritual path, but it is not my tradition. I believe there is more than one valid way to pursue spiritual growth, and Unitarianism is one of them. At the same time, I believe that a person needs to commit to a particular path in order to explore it deeply. My path is Trinitarian Christianity, but that does not mean I reject or dismiss other traditions.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Purgatory is a step that leads to heaven, not a final destination. It’s a step that a lot of Catholics will have to take too, according to the catholic church so it’s not something that separates believers and non-believers.
Baptists and Pentecostalism are categories of evangelicalism. So yeah, they believe that. But they’re a minority within Christianity.
Jesus’ sacrifice saving humanity from eternal damnation is a key tenet of nearly all denominations.
Yes.
And most of them also say that you need to actually accept it and turn your life over to him to qualify for the get out of Hell free card.
No. Only in evangelicalism.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
It always impresses me how Christianity = evangelicalism in the mind of most Lemmynauts. Outside evangelicalism (and even partly within evangelicalism), going to hell or heaven as nothing to do with being theologically correct or not. I mean, even the Catholic church, which is both by far the biggest one and absolutely not one of the most open ones states that with an absolute clarity.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
I love to exchange and discuss with people with different opinions, as long as it’s respectful! I live in a very secular country, most of my friends are atheists, and we have long and very interesting discussions.
Regarding biblical inconsistencies, we believe that the Bible is not identical to the Word of God; rather, the Word of God is found within the Bible. This may sound like wordplay, but the distinction is fundamental. If the Bible were literally the Word of God, then every word and every comma would have to be absolute truth, because God cannot lie. This is the position held by many evangelical churches.
We, however, believe that God speaks to us through the Bible. God spoke to men and women, and those people wrote down what they understood. Their texts express the Word of God within the cultural frameworks of their own times and societies. There is no other way it could be: as finite human beings, we cannot directly comprehend the infinite with our limited minds. It is simply impossible. As a result, authors from different periods and backgrounds sometimes expressed different ideas.
For example, Genesis contains two creation accounts, in chapters 1 and 2. People in antiquity were aware of these differences, yet they preserved both accounts because they understood that the truth was not necessarily found in one account or the other, but in the dialogue between them. The Bible is full of apparent contradictions because it is a dialogue between a plural humanity and God, rather than a monologue spoken by God in a single, uniform voice.
Our task today is to read these texts through a particular interpretive key—a metaphor associated with Luther. In Christ, God gave us life out of love for humanity. Therefore, when reading any biblical passage, we should ask ourselves: Could a loving God—one who gave us life out of love—say this? If the answer is yes, then the passage represents a legitimate, though not necessarily infallible, interpretation. If the answer is no, then it is not a legitimate interpretation and should be rejected.
To distinguish between different legitimate interpretations, we use the tools of science, especially history, linguistics, and philosophy. History helps us better understand the cultures and circumstances of the biblical authors. Linguistics helps us translate the original Hebrew and Greek texts more accurately. These original languages have authority; the King James Version, by contrast, is only one translation among many—and it is an English translation, a language that is not central to our approach. Philosophy helps us ensure that the theology emerging from our interpretation is internally coherent.
Religion is not about accepting a simple, complete truth without questioning it or examining it through reason. That is closer to a cult. Religion is a series of questions that people investigate together using shared intellectual tools. Religion is not the enemy of critical thought; rather, critical thought is necessary for religion to function properly.
A warning about the site you used though: we Protestants lack a central authority which could differentiate acceptable and unacceptable theologies, unlike the Catholic church with the Papacy. Every Protestant must find its own way. So we are veeeeeeery divided, it’s a complicated mess. “Reformed” for example means something different in the Anglo-Saxon world and in the old continent. My tradition is more like what is called “Presbyterianism” in America. At least I think so, I’m not a specialist of American Christianity. If I was American, I would probably be a member of the United Church of Christ but others seem cool too, like the Presbyterian Church or the Lutheran Church. But I wouldn’t be a member of the United Reformed Churches in North America which published the site you cited.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Mainline Protestant (in a united Reformed-Lutheran church).
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
I don’t think most people get it wrong. In fact you’re the first one I meet, both IRL and on the Internet, who thinks that Islamist = Muslim. But it may be because English is not my mother tongue, maybe it’s clearer in French than in English. If it’s the case, I’m sorry for my mistake.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Islamist ≠ Muslim. Here a link which explains the difference.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Thank you! I’m so relieved.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Okay, bro.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
No worry, as a very practicing Christian with friends in different traditions, I can say nobody but a few extremists (evangelicals, islamists, …) believes that being atheist prevent you to be saved.
- Comment on SBA #226 Sins and Virtues 1 week ago:
I love this series!
- Comment on the last season was so ass 1 week ago:
Ask Polanski.
- Comment on if only people knew how based He is 2 weeks ago:
What if Jesus came to show who God actually are?
- Comment on Team Car! 3 weeks ago:
You live in a country where the police actually does something on these cases?
- Comment on Drop your unpopular opinions here because c/unpopularopinions is filled with popular opinions 4 weeks ago:
What do you mean, “store”? The only good mayonnaise is thw home-made one.
- Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark 4 weeks ago:
Still more risky than constructing a windmill, which was what OP’s post was about.
- Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark 4 weeks ago:
Both. Cattenom and Chooz are closed right now because there’s not enough water. And some are constructed near the sea to not have this problem. But with the see level rising, the problems will come soon.
- Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark 4 weeks ago:
Absolutely. If you broaden the scope to include R&D, mining, transport, manufacturing, service, and disposal, you can’t eliminate fossil fuels from everywhere. And if you widen the scope even further and look at the absolute numbers, it’s very clear: even if the share of renewables in total energy production grows, fossil fuel use still increases in absolute terms. Renewables do not replace fossil fuels; they add to the energy mix. There is no transition. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use them, because they are faaaar better than “pure” fossil fuels and better than nuclear. It just means we shouldn’t think of them as the solution. They are not green; green energy simply does not exist. The only solution is degrowth. And it will happen, with or without humanity’s consent.
- Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark 4 weeks ago:
Oh yes of course, a mine only use fuel for their vehicles. You know a whole lot about mining, obviously.
- Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark 4 weeks ago:
“You just have”… that wishful-thinking and technosolutionism.
- Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark 4 weeks ago:
Yeah nobody ever died here (an uranium mine) and you absolutely don’t need any fossil fuel to make it works.
Nuclear energy is better than fossils, but it’s far from green.
- Comment on 4 weeks ago:
🇨🇵❤️🇩🇪
(Ich bin französisch)
- Comment on thoughts and prayers for science 1 month ago:
No, I wanted to say: “he created them with the ability to reason”
- Comment on thoughts and prayers for science 1 month ago:
I mean if we accept the hypothesis that God exists, and that he created humans, he created them with a reason.
- Comment on Their entire strategy was to win was force a foul and take a penalty kick 1 month ago:
Football is like wrestling now.
