And for many that may be part of the reconciliation process.In Catholic theology confession isn't about receiving counseling(although you may receive some)but rather turning away from your sin and returning back into communion with God and the church. It's not the only step though. Someone receiving the sacrament in good faith and conscience would have contrition for their actions and seek to rectify not just the spiritual damage but secular as well. If they require a psychologist then so be it
My cat Grayla did this when we first got Rascal. Rascal is not her kitten.
You are correct. The Pope is only considered infallible when speaking Ex-Cathedra in his capacity as the Pope on a matter of faith and morals. This means he must explicitly state/intend that he is making an Ex-Cathedra statement. His thoughts in his capacity as a private theologian are not considered infallible. Neither are any statements outside the realm of faith and morals.
And for many that may be part of the reconciliation process.In Catholic theology confession isn't about receiving counseling(although you may receive some)but rather turning away from your sin and returning back into communion with God and the church. It's not the only step though. Someone receiving the sacrament in good faith and conscience would have contrition for their actions and seek to rectify not just the spiritual damage but secular as well. If they require a psychologist then so be it
Id just like to point out that the law referred to in this article was specifically requiring priests to break the seal of the sacrament of confession. Anything revealed outside of confession the priest would (hopefully) report to proper authorities. In Catholic theology and canon law breaching the seal of confession is a big deal and there have been priests who have died rather than breaching the sanctity and confidentiality of the sacrament.
How so?
No. If he's 72% water he's <=28% Jesus
Meanwhile every time I consider therapy there's that annoying voice in my head that says I'm not that bad
Looks like A....134L to me
I think that's it. I'll look at Timothy O'Tooles stuff since I got them together
Hi, wanted to catch up. I'm still working on the article. Taking longer than expected but I'll keep you updated. Currently writing the section about the Old Testament.
So just to get back with you on this comment I'm currently at (not including my introduction) 718 words and I haven't even finished arguing that God exists.
Oh I am not discounting it as a religion. However, Odin's theology doesn't make a historical claim. It asks for one to completely disregard reason. Christianity is making a historical claim so we must consider if such a claim is true.
On the subject of the death cult there's one big question with Christianity. Was Jesus crucified and did he raise from the dead. Its not a big deal for a man to die and stay dead. Also remember that Christianity started largely by oral preaching. The Bible is a collection that was compiled later under a list of criteria, not a singular book.
And yet unlike Christianity as I will expound in my article Odin lacks a claim of physical manifestation in such a way that it reverberates through religion today. People don't claim Odin appeared in Greece neither do we have evidence Frost Giants ever existed. We have no evidence of a secular historical Odin. We do have evidence of the historical Jesus Christ and although that doesn't necessarily prove Christianity it is an important midpoint to my argument.
2/2 As far as other Gods we would have to tackle that on a case by case basis. Odin for example we know is a character with origins in Indo-Germatic folklore without any evidence of the likes of religions such as LDS, Islam, and Christianity. My goal of this writing will be to argue not that Christianity is true (as smarter men than me have tried) but that given the evidence it is reasonable. If you have evidence you believe is just as compelling for other gods I welcome the dialog.
1/2 Well the question comes down to a few separate questions. Is it reasonable to believe that A god exists. In the case of the Abrahamic God we must ask about the historical possibility the tribes of Israel (1) existed and (2) whether the account of the Old Testament of this tribe is reasonably possible given current historic knowledge. Finally we must analyze the person of Jesus and if (1) he was a historic person and (2) whether it is reasonable to believe that he was killed and resurrected.
I need to clock in for work. I'll respond to comments later tonight.
In other words an actual argument. Not 100 word paragraph that lets be honest is an insult to human intelligence.
Because I want to craft a response that goes beyond Atheist Stoopid. Christian smart. I cannot "prove" God but through historical, scientific, and philosophical reasoning I can at least make a strong argument that it is more than reasonable to believe he exists.
In fact, I'll post it to my website and I encourage all of imgur to participate in the conversation that ensues.
Tell you what. Give me...id say 2 weeks(to be conservative) to craft a full fledge respond to how one can be reasonably Christian and I'll gladly give you a link.
Another platform I could prove that a god/gods exist, disprove Odin, and give strong evidence for my God. I cannot do that in a 500 character limit.
Thank you. I will keep an eye out.
Definitely interested. Anything helps
Before tax
Sounds like something somebody WOKE WOULD SAY. BURN THE HERETIC (jk)
Eat Have More More Bacon Sex
That's actually a misconception. The biblical canon was decided on at the Council of Rome. However, at the Council of Nicaea the biblical canon was reconfirmed with no changes made.
As a extremely religious person heres my stance. God created everything including science which is the process by which we learn about his creation. Learning how God works is the purpose of religion. Learning how his creation works is the purpose of science.