Sunwalker

I like watching kids cartoons and movies. Before I go to bed I even watch some kids cartoons channels, like Disney Jr.

I use PC, laptop and phone, roughly in equal amounts. It was difficult to vote, but I have voted on laptop as primary and phone as secondary, because those are the ones I am most comfortable with. I am posting this from my phone, by the way

I don't know much about Christian imagery in the original Legend of Zelda game, since I didn't play that game much and I also didn't get far on it. However, one thing to keep in mind is that Japan is, to some extent, unfamiliar to Christianity. It is not uncommon for Japanese works, like animes or games, to have Christian symbols just because their authors thought that they "looked cool", without knowing what those symbols mean in Christianity. Not to say that all Japanese works are like that, but it is something to keep in mind when trying to get some Christian meaning out of them, if a Christian symbol looks out of place it probably is. That being considered, from what I do know about Legend of Zelda, the Christian themes I can get from it are traditional values of heroism, honor and chivalry, which originated from the Knights Templar. Chivalry involved bravery, skilled training, and dedication in service to others; and as far I can notice, Link embodies those values, like if he were a Knight Templar himself. For once I think that the Japaneses got right the Christian values here, but keep in mind that my knowledge about the game is limited, so I might be missing something. To be honest, I don't really get the insistence of games in USA to avoid religious imagery, specially Christian imagery. I think it is a valid plot point as any other, I see avoiding them as an arbitrary limitation. Perhaps this attitude is the consequence of a society that is abandoning its own cultural roots. I can think of quite a few old classics that were heavy on Christian imagery, like the Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of The Rings. And they handled the imagery in an way that can be enjoyed by Christians and non-Christians alike, it is not like it would be limiting your audience or alienating them. It is not unusual for stories to be crafted in order to teach some value. Jesus himself taught in parables, the imagery of stories can help to get a real life point across. You are onto something when you talk about beauty. The beauty here is supposed to be a reminder of God himself, who is the supreme beauty and truth. If something is truly beautiful, it is because it somehow goes back to God. Since you are interested on beauty, I would like to suggest you to study traditional Christian art and music. I am pretty sure you can find plenty of books on the subject in your local library

I got my daily dose of 1,3,7-trimethyl-3,7-dihydro-1H-purine-2,6-dione. And so should you

I win! I hereby declare this planet mine! xD

This one, I love acoustic music!

I am playing Stardew Valley. My farm is starting to grow, and I am beginning to become friends with the townspeople. But I still have a long way to go in the game, and I still have things to learn and improve. But the good of these kinds of games is that it allows you to do stuff at your own pace

You are welcome For the sake of clarity, the definitions of "sex" and "gender": Sex is a biological binary trait which has a reproductive objective, it is either male (XY chromosomes) or female (XX chromosomes); there are some very rare cases in which in which the individual can have extra chromosome, like the Trisomy XYY or the XXX Syndrome, but those cases are not considered a "third sex" (XYY is also male, and XXX is also female). Gender is the awareness and sense of oneself as male or female, it is a psychological concept, rather than an objective biological one. Feeling like someone of the opposite sex, or like someone in between, does not qualify as a "third sex". The individual, still remains a biological man or a biological woman. Ideally, both sex and gender should match. However, when a boy thinks he is a girl, or a girl thinks she is a boy, we have what is called "gender dysphoria". And now we get to the part in which things can get potentially controversial, I will remain as objective as possible and avoid debates, but if someone thinks different, feel free to also state your ideas. Thinking that you are something that you are not is considered confused thinking, or in other words, a psychological problem. This does not mean that someone is a less worthy person, everyone to some degree or another has his or her share or psychological issues, like (for example) social anxiety or depression, and this also does not make anyone a less worthy person. The American Psychiatric Association recognises gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. This is right on their manual, the DSM-V. Now about schools encouraging people to "choose their own gender". Simply put, this is encouraging a psychological issue. And I don't think you are wrong to feel the way you feel about this, and also it does not make you a bad person. Accepting an individual and promoting a certain behavior are two different things. I am just going to leave this here: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children Be careful to not commit generalizations here, it is not everyone in the Christian Church that is like that, as well in other churches. But here I am going to talk specifically about Christianity. It is also important to make the distinction between the Church herself and her followers. The Church (a.k.a. The Body of Christ) is holy, but people (the members of the Church) are sinners. Being a Christian does not guarantee that someone is free from sinning, even Judas (who was chosen by Christ himself) has betrayed Jesus. Do not confuse the sins of members of the Church for sins of the Church. The Church is holy, and have no sins in herself. Through the grace of Christ we are freed from sin, but it is a long arduous journey until there, and sometimes we may fall down until we arrive there. The theological explanation about how the Church can remain holy while still having sinful members, is that those people had not fully converted yet. In other words, the part of yourself that wants to sin still is outside the Church. Conversion is a gradual process, not an overnight thing, and it might takes a while until it completes. That being said, Christians are expected to be loving and accepting of other people, however loving and accepting people does not mean an approval of their actions. Accept the individual, not necessarily what he do. Love the sinner, not the sin (and everyone in this world is a sinner in some form). Jesus was not condescending with other people. Take the example of the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42), and when the Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). He did not condemn those women, he was cordial and loving, he wasn't judgemental. But he also said "leave your life of sin". The reason that people should abandon sin is not fear of some punishment, but rather because this is something that can harm both themselves and others. A church group that is rude and unwelcoming to other people, is not acting like Christ himself acted. And Christians are expected to be like Christ. So, yes, it is sad that some Christian religious groups treat rottenly transgender people, but what this requires is a change of attitude and not a change of doctrine. The mission of the Church is to spread God's word to all corners of the Earth, not to become popular. The Church is being successful as long it is spreading the Gospel, regardless of how many people accept it or not. It is a heresy to change God's Word to make it more "acceptable" to the world. Some people will accept the Word, others will not, but that is their choice and not yours. All in all, if some group shun other people, this is terribly wrong. They need to be more welcoming, loving and understanding. But nothing of this necessarily means an approval for any of their actions, and much less a promotion of them. Love the sinner, not the sin.

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!" (Luke 24:5b-6a) Happy Easter to you all! Today He has defeated the last enemy, death itself. On this day of life, let us remind ourselves that thanks to His sacrifice even souls dead in sin can also rise again.

Related to the word you learned, I had a similar moment just another day when I discovered what "priapism" meant I wasn't expecting that and the word sounds funny too, now I just have to find a way to use it in a sentence

I like taking a walk outside, specially if it is on a green area. What I like in it is the blue of the sky, the sunlight, the green of leaves, the sound of the birds, the breeze in my skin... In other words, I just like to stop and appreciate the life around me for a bit

I am 31. I have already recorded shows in a VHS tape and watched them in a tube TV. I still have memories of when the tape just got tangled inside the VHS, and I had to untangle it, haha I have started browsing the Internet with dial up several years ago. I still remember how slow it was, and how expensive it could get. Usually you had to connect, quickly look for what you want, and then disconnect. Unless on weekends, when phone calls were cheaper. And it was common for dial up plans to have limited minutes . The dial up modem noise was cool, though I have also recorded and listened to cassette tapes

Yeah, I can relate with you . I have also been noticing that as the number of websites grew in the last few years, the average quality of them just dropped. Older pages, even though they were less technologically advanced, used to be more informative. Today the information presented is much more generic, if not just a copy and paste from Wikipedia. Wikipedia by its turn is not exhaustive in any subject and also does not cover all the subjects, because of their overly strict "notability" and "sourcing" criteria, that hinders new information to be posted more than it helps.

Yes, but not in a formal way. By "formal way" I mean taking the theoretical concepts of Psychology and then elaborating a plan of action on how to behave towards other people. The way I use it is in a more practical and intuitive way. By that I mean empathy. When in person, I am good at noticing and understanding how people feel, what might be their intents, their doubts, and also the role of each one in their group dynamics. There are many factors to work from, like body language, the choice of words, the tone, etc. But this is not a knowledge that I use to harm or take advantage of other people, but rather to try being helpful to them and to respect any personal boundaries. I also use that to express myself on the best way possible, in order to get my ideas understood. Even though I care more than what I should about what others think about me, paradoxically I don’t really care to hide any idea or positioning that other people find disagreeable or even offensive to them. I just find wrong having to create and interpret a character when dealing with other people, I leave acting only for actors when they are doing their job. So I don’t hide my positions and neither I lie about then. It really depends on what you define by “experiment”. I don’t do any formal scientific experiments on this field. I also don’t do informal experiments, like trying different behaviors to see how others react; that would be manipulation, which is something I despise. What I do, however, is when I notice that some action, words or behavior of mine aren’t working; is to quickly realize that, figure out why, and then adapt myself in order to make it more effective. I take a mental note of why something didn’t work, and I also use this knowledge in the future. In a broader sense, this also might qualify as “experimenting” and “reformulating a hypothesis”. I like scientific trivia. The study of the brain is not the field in which I am the most interested, but I do have some interest on it. I still find it fascinating, though. It is interesting and I guess you could say that I find a pleasant experience to learn about stuff . But I don’t think that those facts themselves can be called “pleasant”. It is like doing an autopsy, you can learn stuff by taking a body apart and analyzing its parts, however the internal organs themselves aren’t a “pleasant” sight. The brain here, obviously, also is a body party. It doesn’t even need to be an autopsy, even when using techniques to analyze a living thing, its internals aren’t exactly “pleasant”. I guess this isn’t what people mean by inner beauty In all seriousness, the reason that those things might look not pleasant is because they are a reminder that everyone is mortal, that the body can be easily destroyed. The mind seems to be hardwired to avoid things that have to do with death (instinct of survival in action?), so it might find uncomfortable looking at someone’s internals. On the top of that, analyzing something’s parts to see how they work together breaks part of its “magic”, especially if this thing is you. On the other hand, knowing your own limitations is humbling, and also the knowledge can be useful Neurology is the study of the physical structure of the brain itself. Psychology studies the workings of the mind. If I were to make an analogy with computers, the former deals with the “hardware” and the latter with the “software”. The correlation between brain and mind isn’t straightforward, though. A good part of how one affects the other is just unclear. But this assumes that the mind is entirely limited to the brain, which might not be necessarily true. The merits of psychology? It is one tool for helping understanding people, and it can be useful if you know its limits. But it is not the only tool or way of knowing the others. The problem begins when it starts being taken as an exact science, when you think that it can make you fully knowing yourself and others beyond any doubt. That just isn’t how people work. Psychology looks for patterns in behaviors, and tries to formulate an explanation based on them. However, it is descriptive and not prescriptive. It is the theory that has to corroborate with the practice, and not the other way around. People can deviate of patterns, and they can behave in ways that are unpredictable to anyone else but them, which I see as an evidence for the existence of free will. And I also think that people are more than the matter and energy that form them, that they have an spiritual element to them, so this is also something that I take into account when understanding people. An armchair psychologist fails to see the nuances between people, and even to realize that each one is a different individual of their own. And then he starts lecturing you on how he thinks that you are, while getting everything wrong, as if he knew you and your motivations better than yourself. For me psychology is just one tool among others when it comes to dealing with people. It can be useful in certain circumstances, but I don’t put it at a pedestal and I don’t give it a special value. Anyways, it has helped me to understand some things about me and others. I don't blindly trust on it, though.

Welcome to the thread! I am Catholic too, however not long after my First Communion I had stopped going to Mass. I have returned around 8 years ago, though, and I since then I have not missed the Mass for more than a week . Hello! The name "Deuterocanonical" means "second canon". We have inherited the Old Testament of the Jewish communities, so the Old Testament canon is actually Jewish. The Jews had at least two different canons. The best known one was established in the city of Jamnia, and the Jews of that time have based it on 3 criteria: A book inspired by God should have been written in Hebrew; it should have been written in the region of Israel; it should have been written up until the time of Ezra (458-428 BC). Notice that this canon used nationalist criteria, rather than theological ones, especially considering that there were Jews spread throughout the known world at that time, not only in Israel. This canon excluded the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, plus portions of Esther and Daniel, because they did not comply with one or more of these three criteria. This canon was not accepted by all Jews, though, so a more flexible canon was established in Alexandria at Egypt, where the Diaspora Jews used the Bible translated into Greek. This version is known as Septuagint, and it includes both the books in Hebrew and also aforementioned books. Since most of the Christians of Jewish origins were Diaspora Jews, or where other converted people who did not speak Hebrew, the Bible used by them was the Greek version, the Septuagint, even if the Alexandrian canon had not yet been established officially. This is the version where the the Deuterocanonicals were already present. To end certain theological discussions and answer questions that have lasted for centuries, The Catholic church in 382 decreed biblical canon. The Catholic Church accepted those books because they were in the Septuagint, which was used by the Apostles to evangelize the world back in their time. Luther, however, had a hard time accepting these books as canonical, especially Maccabees, due to theological reasons. However, when he translated the Bible to German back in the 16th century, he included the translated Deuterocanonicals, placing them in an appendix at the end of the volume. In other words, Luther considered the Deuterocanonical of lower value, though he didn't fully removed them from the Bible. In the 17th century, in a Calvinist synod at the Netherlands, some people asked that those books were removed from the Bible, but the Calvinists of that time did not accept the withdrawal, however they accepted that the books would be printed with smaller letters on their bibles. On the 19th century, the English Bible Society decided that the Deuterocanonicals should be removed from the Protestant Bible, and began the printing process without such books, assuming the Jewish canon of Jamnia and calling the Deuterocanonicals as apocrypha. Yeah, I know the feeling... Anyways, I am happy you never got hate because of that . If you are unable to get calm, then it is wiser to just avoid discussion. More people were brought to God by kindness, than by words. You can still help other people when they fall, and pick them up . I generally avoid arguments between different Christian denominations, as well arguments between other religions. The reason is that I think that the attacks from the outside towards Christianity, or towards religion in general, are in the present moment more urgent than the internal differences. It is no secret that I am Catholic, and that I fully subscribe to all the doctrines and morals of the Church. However, when I am talking with other Christians, I generally prefer to stay within the common ground between us. I know about the theological differences between Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox; so I generally avoid steeping into them. If I do need to talk about them, I try to do so in a neutral way, by just giving an objective description of the Catholic Church's position, and I avoid as much as possible to actually debate it. All of this being considered, now about my take on the division among Christians. As a Catholic I do think that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus Christ when he said "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), and I also think that the authority Catholic Church can be traced until the Apostles themselves (what is called the Apostolic Succession). In the way I see it, the divisions in the Church started when people questioned the divine Authority of the Church, and thus branched away with their own theological interpretations on their own church, and those interpretations may or may not be in accordance with what God actually said. I think that the Christ's promise about "the gates of Hell not prevailing over his church" applies only to the church that he founded himself, so other churches are not covered by it. This way, other Christian denominations are subject to being divided by the Devil. He is the one who instills division between people, remember that the Devil is so cunning that he is capable of deceiving even the elect. This, in my opinion, is why there is an extensive division in certain parts of Christianity. That being said, I think that as long one has a genuine interest in pursuing the truth, the Holy Spirit will eventually guide them to it, even if little by little. And, who knows, it is me who could be wrong, I already changed my mind a few times during my faith's journey. Anyways, I am open to wherever the Holy Spirit takes me I recommend reading the book Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. He also threads on the common ground between Christians, and it is very useful if you are confused by so many different Christian doctrines. The book is already in public domain, so it is legal to just get it from the Internet: http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/Mere-Christianity.pdf

Welcome back I can say that I do understand what you say. I went through the same thing on a different forum, which I used to be part of until it closed down recently. I tried to be courteous and diplomatic, but most of those who replied me did so with vitriol. Even the admin of the forum got involved in the discussion, but at least he was one of the only ones that keep courteous in the discussion, which I am grateful for. I didn't get any sort of punishment there, but the reaction of other people still left a sour taste in my mouth. I imagine that you were nervous while typing your post, I say that because of the pattern of typos in your post. I also end up doing that when I am nervous, so I understand. I think it is important to have someone who you can open up about it, and just vent out. It can helps you to feel a little better. So I am open if you want to discuss it up in private Just remember that unfortunately some people will end up treating you badly no matter how nice you are about it, Christ warned us that we would be prosecuted if we stood by his side. But he also said that the gates of hell will never triumph and that he would be by our side until the end.

Nope... I should hang out more around the forum

Mine is the Psalms. I like meditating or praying a Psalm in order to calm down or just chill out. There is always something new to learn

Hmmm, I see. Thank you for the explanation! Thanks, I should have a look on the New American Bible too. When you said "apocrypha", at first I thought you were talking about those books that were left out of the Bible when the New Testament canon was established back in the 4th century. I was thinking in Portuguese, and at first I didn't associate the name "Book of Wisdom" with the name we use here, "Livro da Sabedoria", which is just a literal translation of the name and I should have associated it in first place . Anyways, @Mario3D13's explanation has cleared things up. This book is considered apocrypha for some Protestant Bibles (I just say "some" here to be in the safe side, because I am not sure whether it is all the Protestants that consider it apocrypha or not). But in the Catholic Bible it is one of deuterocanonical books.

Great to see you back, I am not really familiar with English Bible translations. The Bible sites I visit usually default to either the New King James Version or the New International version. Both of them look fine for me, but I am unable to discuss the nuances between them. I live in Brazil, and my primary language is Portuguese. The first Portuguese Translation I came across, ad a kid, was the "Bíblia Ave Maria" one, which can be freely translated as "Hail Mary Bible". This is an old translation, published back in 1959, I remember it was a difficult read for me, perhaps of the old Portuguese and the formal style, however I hear this translation getting praises. It has been some time since I last read this one, though, so I don't really remember it well plus I didn't know as much about the faith back then. This translation was made from a French one, which in turn was made from the originals in Hebrew and Aramaic. A translation I have head more recently was "Bíblia Edição Pastoral" ("Pastoral Edition Bible"). At first it looked great for me, which a language that was easy and accessible, with helpful notes. However I saw theologians pointing out that this translation has a Marxist bias, and that it distorts the biblical message. The translation I currently use is the one of CNBB, which is the conference of catholic bishops of Brazil (our equivalent of the America's USCCCB). This is a more recent translation, made from the originals, and is used in the Mass and liturgical texts. It is a good read for me, I have been liking it. This version is good for prayers and meditations. But from what I hear, the best Portuguese translation for studies is our version of The Jerusalem Bible. Its notes and organization favors an exegetical study. This translation is perhaps the closest one to the originals.

That is a beautiful account! Of course I am partial to that since I am Brazilian, but oh well, whatever I live in São Paulo. Around a year and a half ago I have traveled to Recife and João Pessoa for a couple scientific meetings. Even though it wasn't a trip on vacation, I could still enjoy the places, I really liked seeing different stuff. I have stayed on each one for a week. It is quite daunting to travel just by myself, but I managed to do well. I could walk around the cities and know them, their culture. They were cities on the litoral, so I could also visit the beaches. I have also visited some churches, and even watched the mass. Here are some pictures: Then thank you very much, my friend When did this trip happen, by the way?

You are welcome! I am very happy to hear that! I am glad I could be of assistance. I am just a servant of the Lord, and I am sure that He has used me to reach you If you want to talk more about the faith, have some doubts, or just want to chat, feel free to send me a private message . See you around!