Comments by "John Crawford" (@JohnCrawford1979) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
4
-
Just one last aspect, the four terms for 'love' in Greek used to be a common sermon, or teaching among evangelical Christians, as well as a few other Protestant sects, particularly those with roots coming from the Anglican/US Episcopal sects. It became common after C.S. Lewis did a series of radio talks in 1958 on the concept of love, which were later compiled into his book, “The Four Loves,” exploring the four classical Greek terms for love: storge (affection), philia (friendship), eros (passionate love), and agape (charity). The radio talks were apparently criticized in the U.S. at the time for their frankness about sex. Until Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, which began with a series of 129 lectures delivered by the Pope during his Wednesday audiences from 1979 to 1984, C.S. Lewis' "Four Loves" was among the few most notable candid talks on sex and love that was had among Christians, Protestant or Catholic, in modern history to date.
3
-
True, the Greeks were somewhat conservative, especially if you are talking about being religious and traditional. Even in not being Christians, there was a strong sense of morality within Greek/Hellenic society. That's to be expected, as per the city-state held the νόμος (nómos), the law, rule, code, or 'norms' of the people within that city-state. These laws were regards to behaviors to either persuade or dissuade people doing things in order to keep the public unity. Plus this was long before state and religion being separate was a thing, so obeying the laws was obeying the gods. And yes, I do find it humorous that they think conservatives are humorless when it comes to sex or adult humor.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Catholic Tradition teaches that we believe in the resurrection of the body. Since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960's, the question arose due to some fusion of Eastern religions that practiced cremation, as well as modernists who believe that Earth is overpopulated, also believe that we don't have enough room to bury, or otherwise keep the body at cemeteries. It's still advised to be bodily interred (burried or in a tomb), but whether a Catholic or Christian cannot be resurrected without their body, or if cremating leads to Hell, has led to, well, a 'diplomatic' answer of that the Church can't say what will happen, but the soul is eternal, and awaits its judgement regardless. Because Man cannot judge the soul of a person, because only God can, we thus cannot say for certain what a soul's eternal destination is if their body was cremated. The revised Code of Canon Law (1983) states, “The Church earnestly recommends the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching” (Canon 1176.3). Thus, The Church can say 'it's not forbidden', even though the tradition is burial or entombment. As long as the purpose does not reject the resurrection of the body.
2
-
2
-
@sayaneechan5799 - I don't even know if my reply got to you, because apparently the algorithm either doesn't like me talking about being a conservative, or voting for the previous US president, or otherwise presuming saying it's OK to have a certain skin color was a no-no phrase. Or bringing up w-0-ke. Who knows what YouTube is so sensitive about?
Anyways, since I can't have grown up conversations on YouTube without childish YouTube censors deleting things, all I'm going to say is, American history and culture has been, and always will be a mix of cultures and people with skin colors. We talk about culture in color because we have a lot of color in our people. White makes sense to us since that's the color of our skin. Our culture is remotely European - especially if our lineage goes back to the Mayflower. I'm Sotts-Irish from my Dad's side, but it's been about three or four generations that we had a relative that actually lived in Ireland or Scotland. On my Dad's mother's side come the closest ties as I believe my great-grandmother, my grandma's mom, had come with her parents from Germany to the US. But again, my great-grandma moved here as a child at the turn of the 20th century, so I have little to no direct connection to Germany save memories of a sweet old lady that smiled at everything and everyone, but likely didn't know everyone nor what was going on since Alzheimer's kicked in. She died some time when I was in grade school in the early to mid 80's. So why call it European culture when most of us have little connection to Europe?
For a while, this culture was called WASP, as in White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I suppose that works fine for some, but Italian Americans are generally Catholic. And what about Jewish Americans? So it's easier to lump it all together as 'white'. That should be simple enough to understand, right? Unfortunately, a lot of baggage gets lumped into the term, which, fair enough, it is part of our history, and something we have to learn from. But we don't have to become self-loathing over it either. Nor do I believe that we forever pay a debt for the wrongs done by white people in the past. Eventually after repenting of something, there needs to be forgiveness and to move on with life. I don't own a slave, and no one in my family has that I have any recollection of. If they did, it's their sin, not mine. I have nothing to feel sorry about, and I have no reason to hate my skin color, especially if color of one's skin shouldn't mean anything about who one is as a person. Yet it is still tied to a history and a culture in the US. It shouldn't be used as a club against us, but it also shouldn't be something absolutely hated or vilified either. White people were involved in freeing the slaves, and white people helped fight for civil rights. History isn't black and white, it's full of color with many stories to be told and lessons to be learned.
2
-
2
-
1
-
As a Catholic, it's more of a historical interest than anything. If it's real, awesome! If not, well, it is what it is. I think for the Church, is more a matter of pride in being able to hold a relic attributed to Jesus, his burial, and what it may mean to the resurrection. But ultimately, it's not the cloth we worship, but we may have a certain veneration to the relic because of its attributions to Jesus. Beyond that, if the Shroud is not real, it's a historical elaborate hoax, but has little bearing to the main, and most important aspects of Christian faith.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's just among unhinged liberal idiots, usually white people pretending to be talking for black people. But I will say, simply being called "Yo white guy!" Would be annoying. Can't speak of how much more or less annoying than some one black being called, "Yo black guy!" It's somewhat disrespectful, though can be understandable if someone is trying to call for you, and your skin color is the most notably different feature about you then the rest of the guys around you. Preferably, most people would like to be called by their name, especially if you know their name. Yet, even there, some people don't even like their name. So maybe for some, "Yo black dude!" would be preferable than, say, being called Peewee, because that's what your parents named you after because they liked Peewee's Playhouse, and named you before the whole getting caught wanking it in a porn theater incident.
1
-
1
-
From a more traditionalist standpoint, the aspect here is more politically charged. In earlier times, things were more about the actions in the scandals that, in earlier terms would be considered 'buggery' or 'sodomy'. These would be things one would expect a priest to get defrocked, but, instead they did like the secular world did with problematic teachers, or how domestic disputes were handled by covering up, paying a blind eye, shuffling them off for another community to deal with, etc. Still kind of happens today, though politics are different,so the reasons for playing the same shuffle game are different, such as the case where a highs chool student identifying as female went into the hischool female bathroom and did things against the will of a biological female student. That student who identified as female was tossed off to another school where the same sort of incident as before happened to another biologically female student. Politics aside, most people would say if a person did such things against the will of another person, the person that did such actions should be charged and tried appropriately under criminal law. But, because of the politics, people don't want to touch it, lest they be labeled some sort of 'istaphobe'. In prior times, it was keeping things as private, domestic matters. But now, with things out in the open, people cover more for their politics. Even among traditionalists, we've had bad leaders and priests that got cover because people couldn't believe said person would so such things because, what was seen in public was them doing God's work, or otherwise showing as a face of a holy person. The scandal with Church Militant is a major example of it, and it's still hard to believe a person that went so hard in the fight against priests and Bishops doing bad things would himself be doing similar bad things behind the scenes. It may have been something taken out of proportion, but it could just be trying to look for a benefit of the doubt where there's none to give, which then becomes hopeful, wishful thinking. But that's just taking it from the angle of actual actions of abuse, and a general consideration for the way things were and still wind up being done, and a few reasons why. Between the public and private matters of any community or group of people, there are certainly many twists and turns that make it impossible to simply explain or define, as much as people may want a 'simple truth', which is practically an oxymoron in and of itself.
On the other aspect of priesthood, the barring based on sexuality is relatively recent, and reactionary to the priest abuse of the 1950's - 1970's among the Church in the US. At least that's part of it. However, there were scandals throughout the world, and while young boys were commonly preyed upon, there were cases the other way. But there is also the matter of the wording of the matter, and the implied meaning conveyed. It's like how conservatives opposed to a certain 'procedure' call themselves pro-life, and those at least wanting the 'procedure' to be legal in what they claim to be 'reproductive rights', or the 'right to choose', regardless the human developing in the womb neither did anything wrong, nor gets any choice in the matter of whether to live or die. People have this uncanny ability to define things, especially what is unsettling, in ways that can justify just about anything, regardless if it's justifiable or not. When it goes beyond an individual's private creed, and becomes that of a group or community, that creed becomes something like a cult and makes those beliefs more unshakeable because of having others around that believe similar, that share in the same creed. The secular equivalent is a shared ideology, which is what we get with politics. This is what we're up against with the sexuality issue in the Church, and even despite the attemp to keep people with deep seeded view of themselves attached to their sexuality, and thus the desires and actions thereof out of the priesthood, the creed of these alternate sexualities still entered the Church, and are adopted into the mix of political ideologies of the liberal, or leftist Catholics. Pope Francis belongs to that camp in a unique fashion that in Argentine politics is called Peronist. It's essentially the use of double speak, which can leave one confused as to what the Pope really stands for. In this, the actions speak louder than words, but yet the words effectively distract from the actions. Thus why traditionalists commonly believe by tossing out this leak of his naughty word and kind of weak apology, serves to distract from the supposed agenda to allow priests of alternate sexuaity to join the priesthood - the more liberal, the merrier.
Otherwise, if it wasn't for politics, I would agree that simply having a certain orientation should not bar someone from the priesthood. But with that comes with all things that makes a Catholic priest a priest. That boils dow to the role of alter Christi, being 'another Christ' by way of leading the congregation in the formal prayer of the Mass, presenting one's congregational community with the Sacraments, and all and all giving one's life fully to God to help serve His people, His Body, the Church Militant along this path of struggle to keep to the things holy of God in a world that constantly mocks it and tries to tempt the faithful away from the faith. The priest is there to help lead us to Heaven, bring us closer to God, and help us to become holy saints in our own right, regardless if we become canonized as one of the greats, or unsung heroes that made it to the Beatific Vision. It's a tall order, but being a priest isn't just another job, it's a lifetime service and calling of God. Because of the politics, that vision of what a priest is supposed to be is blurred, and diminished greatly by those who push their politics over their calling from God.
1
-
1
-
For the most part, Christians that didn't believe the Earth as round were among the illiterate and uneducated. Or, they took too literal things like the four corners. However, the circle is interpreted by many Christians as the world being round. However, early pagans did have a view of flat earth. After all, the cosmology described in the Prose Edda assumes a flat Earth. Aristotle even claimed the earth flat, so can't jest say it was a Christian thing, and as per Aristotle, we can't deny that the concept held sway in academics for quite some time. Even today, people will still deny the earth being round, despite having the best evidence from pictures from space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logicplague - On some level, I agree. I'm you're average white American mutt with family lineage coming from Scottish/Irish, German, possibly French descendents. Europe is/was predominantly white by color, and the cultures do have variations that are based more on region. Granted, there are various regional cultures in the US as well. We're a pretty huge land mass with 50 states, each with their own particular statewide culture, as well as each county in the states with their own traditions and folklore, etc. I've lived in 4 counties in my own state, and have visited others, and I can say that in Washington state, you can find differences of culture between King County where Seattle is, compared to Yakima, Benton, and Franklin, where there are cities and towns most people don't know about, and probably don't care about, especially if they bare care about Seattle to begin with. American history is just as much about the European settlers as it is about the black slaves and native Americans. Many of our counties in Washington state are named after tribes that were local to the region, with some of them remaining in the area to this day. Monolithic group means nothing to me other than BS people make up when they want to make an argument, rather than discuss a subject. Of course I know there are all sorts of tribes that were all over what is now the US. Which is also why it's stupid to claim they were all genocidal barbarians. They all as tribes had their particular cultures, just as the Euopean clans did that eventually became nations in Europe. Or do you thing those clans held hands with each other and never fought among each other? Heck, even when they became Christian nations, they fought among each other. So all I'm saying is no one has a moral high horse of superiority when it comes to war. All of humanity has partaken in war, so no clan, tribe, or nation is without blood on their hands.
1
-
@logicplague -however, I disagree that a color, black or white, diminishes anything. There is both a white history, and a black history in the US, and it's something we as a nation ought to recognize. Likewise with the differences of culture. Likewise with native Americans, because there's a lot to learn about the history before the US was a nation, and before European Pilgrims came to settle here. All this woke BS muddies the waters. It does nothing to help learn about these things. People would be more open to exploring the history and culture if not for people saying you should hate your white/European ancestry. And what point is there to expecting most people, save the self loathing to accept that they will be forever unforgiven and have no way to ever repent of whatever wrongs their ancestors may or may not have participated in? That sort of stuff is the rhetoric that leads to genocides, rather than people coming together to celebrate diverse histories, cultures, etc.
1
-
@logicplague - I don't know if anything got lost by the censors, but I think we agree more than we disagree. We may categorize differently, but I don't think it disregards anything. Of course there are numerous American tribes, each with their own histories and cultures. The same is true when we talk about US American history and culture, because each state, as well as the various counties, cities, towns, and native tribal reservations have their own particular histories and culture. Not all of history is found in textbooks, and a lot of it can be lost without the storytellers and people that keep record of such histories and cultures. Sadly, these local histories tend to be ignored, even deemed unimportant to the people that live there locally. Unless you're in Seattle, NYC, Los Angeles, or any of the 'important' cities that have a certain amount of name recognition around the world, that have been put on the map, as it were. Even there, you also have the so-called fly by states, the history of how a huge chunk of the US gets ignored, despite how much the farm land has been important for feeding the whole nation, and how they suddenly become important when it comes to getting votes and electing a president
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sayaneechan5799 - Probably because being a conservative and voting for Trump, people call that voting literally for Hitler. So I'm used to hearing that rhetoric.
All I'm saying is it's OK to be white. You don't have to be ashamed of your skin color. Call yourself whatever you want, but I'm perfectly fine with being called white. And outside of the woke BS that goes all over the world, most Americans are fine talking about American white/European culture or black American culture, native American culture, and Latin American, etc. Most Americans that haven't gone woke insane can talk about the different cultures and histories and learn from them. 'Colorblindness' is nonsense. We live in a world full of color, from sky to the sea, to the earth, plants, animals, and yes, even human beings have color. I refuse to live in a bland and boring colorless world.
1