Lets follow Jmo logic for a moment. Suppose I post a thread saying "I am offended by abortion threads".

I would be punished for calling out the abortionists on this website. Given my prior violation Itd be strike 2 and Id be forum silenced.

I am in fact pro life and I believe life begins at conception. I choose not to post incindiary controversial topics or involve myself in those topics because I find the threads degrading to human life and uneccessarily contentious toward my beliefs about science, and personhood. Nobody is going to silence the abortionists. I have complained to the mods about the rape threads as well. I dont understand why we are punishing me; but allowing people who are pro rape and pro abortion to post their controversial drivel.

To imply that I am somehow evil like the people who got purged is offensive especially for someone who is claiming to be a liason of thus site. Shame on you young man.

if evolution is survival of the fittest, how do you explain braimbomb's reading comprehension?

checkmate, atheists.

if evolution is survival of the fittest, how do you explain braimbomb's reading comprehension?

checkmate, atheists.

who is braimbomb?

if the double-posting bug got deleted, how do you explain that it still happens to me?

checkmate, atheists.

Ok well let me explain my thread as its clearly been misunderstood.

1. I believe that there is a disconnect between followers of Jesus and what the purpose of Lent is. One observation ive made over the years is people giving up things for lent that are selfish sacrifices. For example someone gives up cigarettes for lent. Okay; who does that help? Is that really the type of sacrifice God had in mind?

2. I recall listening to a sermon on Ash Wednesday in 2011. I was so stunned as the Priest talked about how lent isnt about giving up things we like. Its about giving up things we have convinced ourselves we cannot live without. And about giving up our greed and selfish nature. That is the message of the crucifiction.

3. Easter season is 90+ days not 40. Pentecost and Ascension are equally important. I think that you as a community disregard the message of Lent which is to give everything. 40 days of Charity (IS) in fact the true message of Lent. It is NOT a season to give up beer and soda and claim youve made some big sacrifice.

I still observe Lent even being former Catholic. I think its important to be kind to others, and have fun at the same time.

if god was real why didnt he prevent that double post?

checkmate pious peeps

"40 days of Charity (IS) in fact the true message of Lent." brainbomb

"The purpose of Lent is the preparation of the believer through prayer, penance, repentance of sins, almsgiving, atonement, and self-denial." wikipedia

seems like you're missing some bits.

@kasimax: When roman catholics say "almsgiving," they mean much the same thing as when non-religious persons say "charity." And when roman catholics say "charity," they likely mean something broader than "charitable giving." It's a semantic distinction that comes from different uses of the word, but it seems to have caused unnecessary confusion here. bb's definition is at least included in the wikipedia definition. That said, I'd caution against citing wikipedia as an authority on the teachings of religious organizations. Its encyclopedic charagcter tends to obscure/generalize distinctions that are important for understanding and respecting religious customs. In short, it's safer to get the information from an authoritative source, like the roman catholic catechism.

@brainbomb:
1. I think you're right on this, though working to discipline yourself also has value.
2. Seems like that priest was on to something, yes.
3. I don't follow. Pentecost is 50 days after Easter Sunday (πεντεκοστα = "fifty" in greek), and Ascension is the first 40 days after Easter Sunday. Lent is at least five weeks PRIOR to Easter. Which one these seasons was your OP calling the 40 day celebration?

This one of the few threads that bb can be caught in the middle of a heated debate.

And what started it was everyone thinking he was trolling...

also charity=love

(I'm Roman Catholic also)

Charity is agape. Question: would you characterize the doors to the Halls of Mandos as agape, ajar, or shut?

@teacon: bb said that charity is the (only) goal of lent. wikipedia cites at least 5 more purposes, without saying that one of them is the center of lent.

@Lethologica.

1) agape means spousal love
2) my doors are ajar because only elves can enter, yet they shouldn't. Only by misfortune do they force my doors open.

If you don't understand a specific practice of Catholicism, it's probably because you don't understand Catholicism itself. If you really want to understand how Catholicism works: read Aristotle, and when you finished and are wondering what this pagan philosopher has to do with monotheistic Catholicism, read Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle. THEN, if you don't understand something, go back a read the internet explanation, and maybe it will make more sense.

The point of Lent was fasting because Jesus allegedly fasted after his baptism in Egypt. Everything else is embellishments.

Well, at least he didn't deny Jesus lived...

I just ignore Lent in general, and I give in equal measure year-round. More (and consistently more) would be better, though. And as for the celebration of the life and death of Jesus, it comes -- and comes completely -- every Communion. Easter isn't necessarily a bad idea, but on the other hand it isn't necessarily necessary either.

(Caveat: outsiders should be aware that I am a distinctly minority view among Christians, certainly in the United States. Nevertheless, I do myself find the hype over Easter, and its attendant seasons, to be overblown.)

Reformed theology is so delightfully dour.

HoM, agape love is not specifically spousal, though one is supposed to show agape love to one's spouse. In the words of the previous Pope, "Christian agape" is "love of neighbour in the following of Christ," and "the agape of the Church" is "her charitable activity." C.S. Lewis wrote of The Four Loves--storge, philia, eros, and agape--and titled his chapter on agape "Charity". I'm preeeeeeetty sure agape is charity.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060123_cor-unum.html

I would like to respond to the people who were saying all the 'if God exists why didn't he blah blah blah? Oh take that, check mate!' stuff (CommanderByron):

If God were to fix everything wrong with the world, and all the things saying He didn't exist there would be no point in Him putting us on this Earth. One of the main reasons He put us on Earth is to learn by having agency. Fixing all bad choices we make would be taking that away, so if He did that we might as well have stayed in heaven. They say you learn the most from the questions you get wrong, through Christ this is also true for our mistakes.

^

checkmate, atheists.

I think we can pretty much prove without a doubt that God did not in fact "put" us on this earth. We can easily argue god created the conditions for life to spring up, considering relative position to our sun, prescence of water on the surface of our world, and an atmosphere condusive to organic life. But to say that God, woke up one day and plopped some people down onto earth is ridiculous. Obviously human beings formed over centuries and our evolutionary origins are blatant. To imagine that God did anything other than create the preconditions essential for that to happen is also implying that an all powerful Deity would give a shit.

Let me tell you about what an all powerful Deity does. Nothing. They dont have to "DO" anything. Perhaps everyone is simply misunderstanding what it means to be so powerful you can create planets and stars... lets just say, if you have those powers, the rest takes care of itself.

"we can pretty much prove without a doubt that God did"

no.

It would be great if you would finish the sentence.

no indeed.

phoenix, your argument takes learning from mistakes as an axiomatic virtue. Why should we accept that axiom?