Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[Misty Rose 3,216]

Don't say that. You don't know what your future holds. You could also get a job and go to college. Or do something else that will also lead to a happy life.

 

Don't think just because someone has everything means they are happy or satisfied, or that such is true happiness. As I said before, there's a difference between a firecracker and a roaring, well kept fire.

I know I'll get a job, I won't go to college though. I have different plans

 

What I mean by what I said is that he has things I will never have, like parents. He may move out of the house later on, but he'll still be able to contact them and they will still support him. However I have no family like that

Edited February 24, 2015 by Pink Mist

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I know I'll get a job, I won't go to college though. I have different plans

 

What I mean by what I said is that he has things I will never have, like parents. He may move out of the house later on, but he'll still be able to contact them and they will still support him. However I have no family like that

 

That is different, and I see what you mean. You're right, that is something that can be terrible to live without. As I said before, though not today, have faith that there are those who will love you like your parents did. 

 

When my mother lost her father in high school, she first met my father. When she lost her sister to cancer, she was pregnant with my brother. Love is like energy, it's not destroyed, it takes on a new form. 

Edited February 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Misty Rose 3,216]

That is different, and I see what you mean. You're right, that is something that can be terrible to live without. As I said before, though not today, have faith that there are those who will love you like your parents did.

 

When my mother lost her father in high school, she first met my father. When she lost her sister to cancer, she was pregnant with my brother. Love is like energy, it's not destroyed, it takes on a new form.

My dad absolutely hates me so only my mom really loved me -_- And I'm glad your mother had that kind of support when she needed it

 

Unfortunately I have to go on two years or more like this, all those years of living unhappy will really affect me No one really loves me down here and it hurts -_- Not to mention the people I thought were my friends online actually don't care about me

 

My mom never got another form of love. Once we left my dad and that horrible past behind she took on all the challenges of being a single mother. All she had was me, and even I was a pain because I didn't do things like she did once I got older, I wanted to be my own person and make my own decisions but she was holding me back. Her pain and grief from the past resulted in her being overprotective and not wanting to let go of me

[Steel Accord 6,660]

My dad absolutely hates me so only my mom really loved me -_- And I'm glad your mother had that kind of support when she needed it

 

Unfortunately I have to go on two years or more like this, all those years of living unhappy will really affect me No one really loves me down here and it hurts -_- Not to mention the people I thought were my friends online actually don't care about me

 

My mom never got another form of love. Once we left my dad and that horrible past behind she took on all the challenges of being a single mother. All she had was me, and even I was a pain because I didn't do things like she did once I got older, I wanted to be my own person and make my own decisions but she was holding me back. Her pain and grief from the past resulted in her being overprotective and not wanting to let go of me

 

If you would like, I would like to try and be your friend, Misty. I am sincere in that. You seem like a person that would be nice to talk to. Of course, one can't force friendship just from compassion, but I think it's worth a try.

 

Coincidentally enough, what you describe with your mother actually sounds exactly like what my own mother went through when she was young and her father died. It got so bad she basically disowned herself and didn't reconnect with my grandmother until years later.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Yellow Diamond 7,568]

My metaphor was meant to illustrate that God is something so ineffably beyond human comprehension (as of now anyway), that Jesus was truly divine in that He was God but He was God in the same sense that looking through a homemade telescope is observing a supernova.

 

The Transfiguration of Jesus in the Book of Matthew is when Jesus lets His disciples get a glimpse of His true nature.

I agree. There are many things that cannot be said about God. In the words of St. Augustine, "Si comprehendis, non est Deus." ("If you can comprehend, then it is not God.")

 

I would only qualify the Transfiguration in that Christ's full glory comes through on more than one occasion. His Resurrection from the dead is the ultimate triumph of God, and the foretaste of the eternal life we hope to experience.

 

No you are remembering correctly on all accounts.

 

The fact that the Gnostic sect has no formal organization anymore since the actions of my Church, has allowed me to pick through it's ideological ruins and see what I could piece together. What I found was actually quite compelling and it made a great deal of sense to me. To the point that I wondered why the Church excommunicated them in the first place, then I remembered the timeframe of which this took place and stopped wondering.

 

So yes, I would still say I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, I go to Mass, beleive Mary was the Mother of God, consider the Pope my highest (but still human and fallible) spiritual leader and until a Priest says something in mass that directly contradicts what I've read on Gnostic teaching, I see no reason why I can't be both.

I have also spent some time studying early Gnosticism and its Christian derivatives. There's a pervasive argument in modern circles that the Church opposed Gnostic teaching because the latter promoted women in positions of authority and some sense of general equality. My appraisal is that such an assessment is only partly true but tends to take front and center in order to criticize the Roman Catholic Church's stance on issues such as the ordination of female priests. In other words, it's a smokescreen for an ulterior motive.

 

My experience in reading Gnostic movements is this: Gnosticism in general appropriates teachings from Christianity for its own purposes. So God is God the Father and Christ is the Son of God, but those terms and figures have a drastically different meaning in Gnostic cosmogony. A Docetic Gnostic, for instance, will profess Christ's resurrection in a purely spiritual sense, whereas orthodox Christianity holds for the Resurrection as both spiritual and physical.

 

Moreover, Gnosticism is premised on a secret knowledge possessed by a select number of believers. It's inherently anti-Catholic (as in the Church being universally present and available, not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church, although Roman Catholics typically are targets) and very often anti-intellectual; the Church and orthodox Christians are treated as antagonists to true knowledge and spiritual power. Gnosticism is likewise anti-Incarnational (a pervasive problem among even orthodox Christians), treating the Incarnation and Resurrection as tangents in another narrative (e.g., rescuing Wisdom from physical captivity).

 

Therefore, although there's nothing intrinsically wrong with piecing together a theology from diverse sources, I fear you're playing with spiritual fire in the form of Gnosticism. Gnostic teaching is intended to sound very appealing and comforting -- but that comes at the high cost of eventually denying God acting pro nobis through covenant and in the person of Jesus Christ, who is present in the Church throughout the ages.

[Misty Rose 3,216]

If you would like, I would like to try and be your friend, Misty. I am sincere in that. You seem like a person that would be nice to talk to. Of course, one can't force friendship just from compassion, but I think it's worth a try.

 

Coincidentally enough, what you describe with your mother actually sounds exactly like what my own mother went through when she was young and her father died. It got so bad she basically disowned herself and didn't reconnect with my grandmother until years later.

I'm really thankful that you're offering your friendship A friend is truly what I need most right now

 

My mom was a happy person only because she had me, I don't even want to think about what she would have gone through completely by herself -_- But it just goes to show that not everyone's life truly gets better, because she struggled a her life.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Pink Mist

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I have also spent some time studying early Gnosticism and its Christian derivatives. There's a pervasive argument in modern circles that the Church opposed Gnostic teaching because the latter promoted women in positions of authority and some sense of general equality. My appraisal is that such an assessment is only partly true but tends to take front and center in order to criticize the Roman Catholic Church's stance on issues such as the ordination of female priests. In other words, it's a smokescreen for an ulterior motive.

 

Frankly I'm tired of people slamming the Church of Rome in the first place, so this doesn't surprise me in the least that they would use other sects's teachings completely out of context to discredit them.

 

 

 

My experience in reading Gnostic movements is this: Gnosticism in general appropriates teachings from Christianity for its own purposes. So God is God the Father and Christ is the Son of God, but those terms and figures have a drastically different meaning in Gnostic cosmogony. A Docetic Gnostic, for instance, will profess Christ's resurrection in a purely spiritual sense, whereas orthodox Christianity holds for the Resurrection as both spiritual and physical.

 

"It's own purposes" are the same as the Church. The praise of God and His son. While I have faith in the spiritual as well as the physical aspects of the resurrection, I don't know if it's true. Even if (I stress "if") it isn't true physically, it's just as I said before. In my heart, I call Jesus God, because He was human and that human sacrifice is what makes Him worthy of my worship.

 

 

 

Moreover, Gnosticism is premised on a secret knowledge possessed by a select number of believers. It's inherently anti-Catholic (as in the Church being universally present and available, not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church, although Roman Catholics typically are targets) and very often anti-intellectual; the Church and orthodox Christians are treated as antagonists to true knowledge and spiritual power. Gnosticism is likewise anti-Incarnational (a pervasive problem among even orthodox Christians), treating the Incarnation and Resurrection as tangents in another narrative (e.g., rescuing Wisdom from physical captivity).

 

No, that "secret" knowledge is "gnosis" meaning knowledge of the self. Of course it's secret, no one's supposed to know it but you. Gnostics also incorporated believers and iconography of other religions into their sect and were highly syncretic. They saw the Catholic Church as not universal, ironically given it's name.

 

I don't know where you get the anti-intellectual stuff as nothing in my faith has lead me to deny scientific evidence. In fact, the two often have reinforced one another.

 

And I think there is some truth to Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection being a part of something greater. Certainly when the eternal fate of all human (and possibly other sapient species') souls are on the line, there's going to be more going on than the story that matter tells.

I'm really thankful that you're offering your friendship A friend is truly what I need most right now

 

My mom was a happy person only because she had me, I don't even want to think about what she would have gone through completely by herself -_- But it just goes to show that not everyone's life truly gets better, because she struggled a her life.

 

Well if you ever want to share those memories, or talk about anything in general. Send me a PM. I promise I'll get back to you. 

 

 

Therefore, although there's nothing intrinsically wrong with piecing together a theology from diverse sources, I fear you're playing with spiritual fire in the form of Gnosticism. Gnostic teaching is intended to sound very appealing and comforting -- but that comes at the high cost of eventually denying God acting pro nobis through covenant and in the person of Jesus Christ, who is present in the Church throughout the ages.

 

Again, that's not what I see in the Gnostic teachings. The moment it does ask me to deny Christ, I will reject it. But until such a time presents itself, that doesn't seem feasible from what I've leaned of it. 

Edited February 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Misty Rose 3,216]

Frankly I'm tired of people slamming the Church of Rome in the first place, so this doesn't surprise me in the least that they would use other sects's teachings completely out of context to discredit them.

 

 

"It's own purposes" are the same as the Church. The praise of God and His son. While I have faith in the spiritual as well as the physical aspects of the resurrection, I don't know if it's true. Even if (I stress "if") it isn't true physically, it's just as I said before. In my heart, I call Jesus God, because He was human and that human sacrifice is what makes Him worthy of my worship.

 

 

No, that "secret" knowledge is "gnosis" meaning knowledge of the self. Of course it's secret, no one's supposed to know it but you. Gnostics also incorporated believers of other religions into their sects and were highly syncretic. They saw the Catholic Church as not universal, ironically given it's name.

 

I don't know where you get the anti-intellectual stuff as nothing in my faith has lead me to deny scientific evidence. In fact, the two often have reinforced one another.

 

And I think there is some truth to Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection being a part of something greater. Certainly when the eternal fate of all human (and possibly other sapient species') souls are on the line, there's going to be more going on than the story that matter tells.

 

 

Well if you ever want to share those memories, or talk about anything in general. Send me a PM. I promise I'll get back to you.

 

 

Again, that's not what I see in the Gnostic teachings. The moment it does ask me to deny Christ, I will reject it. But until such a time presents itself, that doesn't seem feasible from what I've leaned of it.

I'll be sure to And maybe you'll see me around this thread again.

[Yellow Diamond 7,568]

Frankly I'm tired of people slamming the Church of Rome in the first place, so this doesn't surprise me in the least that they would use other sects's teachings completely out of context to discredit them.

 

For clarification's sake, are you saying the Roman Church took the teachings of another sect out of context, or that other groups have tried to discredit the Roman Church?

 

 

"It's own purposes" are the same as the Church. The praise of God and His son.

 

 

Using like terms may not necessarily indicate identical definitions.

 

Consider Islamic teaching on Jesus: his name is invoked with great reverence and respect -- but not as the only Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. Standard Islamic belief denies Christ died, because Allah would never permit a great prophet to be put to death.

 

Similarly, Gnosticism carries a very different concept of how the universe operates and how God is to be identified. Some Gnostic groups will maintain Jesus was God in the figment of a human, but not truly human (Docetism); others have held Jesus was human but lacked a rational soul (Valentinianism); and another older branch (I forget the exact name) teaches that Jesus was sent to rescue Sophia (the embodiment of wisdom) from the physical realm.

 

God and Jesus are used to advance the Gnostic cosmogony of aeons. None of these versions attest to the triune God proclaimed by orthodox Christians.

 

Generally speaking, in the Gnostic cosmogony God the Father and the Son (the latter of whom is subordinate) are completely divorced from creation because the physical world is impure. And revelation is restricted to those who have accessed "true" knowledge over and against the world that we inhabit. This clashes with the Christian kerygma to be openly proclaimed to the whole world, and the universal salvific will of God (1 Tim 2:3-4).

 

While I have faith in the spiritual as well as the physical aspects of the resurrection, I don't know if it's true. Even if (I stress "if") it isn't true physically, it's just as I said before. In my heart, I call Jesus God, because He was human and that human sacrifice is what makes Him worthy of my worship.

 

 

Pardon my bluntness, but why are you hedging your bets regarding the physicality of the resurrection in spite of the Gospel evidence? Jesus instructed Thomas to place his fingers into his wounds; he walks, talks, and eats with the disciples in a glorified body, but a body that has real presence.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas further articulates this point beautifully in the Summa (III, Q. 54, Art. 1, co.):

 

As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to rise, which fell. But Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the body's nature is from its form it follows that Christ's body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before. But had His been an imaginary body, then His Resurrection would not have been true, but apparent.

 

Christ was deserving of our worship before he suffered death and rose to eternal life.

 

 

No, that "secret" knowledge is "gnosis" meaning knowledge of the self. Of course it's secret, no one's supposed to know it but you.

 

 

What will this self-knowledge attain for a person vis-à-vis their salvation?

 

 

I don't know where you get the anti-intellectual stuff as nothing in my faith has lead me to deny scientific evidence. In fact, the two often have reinforced one another.

 

Anti-intellectual, not necessarily anti-scientific -- although the two typically go hand-in-hand.

 

This description is the result of my experience of how difficult it is to systematize any given Gnostic worldview. They're also resistant to the burden of proof: point to a text that undermines their argument and a modern Gnostic apologist will say something along the lines of "You don't really understand the text's true meaning." There is little patience for systematic theological or philosophical inquiry apart from that which confirms their beliefs.

 

To be fair, Christians can be prone to this as well. (All people are prone to confirmation bias!) But with Gnosticism I never know exactly what I am dealing with at any given point in time. Conversely, I can discuss a topic of dispute with most any Protestant Christian and feel confident I'll get a straight answer, even if I disagree.

 

 

And I think there is some truth to Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection being a part of something greater. Certainly when the eternal fate of all human (and possibly other sapient species') souls are on the line, there's going to be more going on than the story that matter tells.

 

 

Greater than what? The salvation of the human race? The restoration of creation prior to the entrance of sin in the world? A full reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ? Those are already some high stakes, man!

[Steel Accord 6,660]

All very good points. Of which I concede that I have no proper rebuttal. You indeed have me beat from a theological standpoint.

 

I will address two portions specifically though.

 

This description is the result of my experience of how difficult it is to systematize any given Gnostic worldview. They're also resistant to the burden of proof: point to a text that undermines their argument and a modern Gnostic apologist will say something along the lines of "You don't really understand the text's true meaning." There is little patience for systematic theological or philosophical inquiry apart from that which confirms their beliefs.   To be fair, Christians can be prone to this as well. (All people are prone to confirmation bias!) But with Gnosticism I never know exactly what I am dealing with at any given point in time. Conversely, I can discuss a topic of dispute with most any Protestant Christian and feel confident I'll get a straight answer, even if I disagree.

 

I'm sensing that this charge is less against an abstract and more personal than perhaps you intended it as. 

 

 

 

Greater than what? The salvation of the human race? The restoration of creation prior to the entrance of sin in the world? A full reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ? Those are already some high stakes, man!

 

I agree. I didn't say those things didn't happen. 

Edited February 25, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Yellow Diamond 7,568]

I'm sensing that this charge is less against an abstract and more personal than perhaps you perhaps intended it as.

 

If my language and phrasing came off as aggressive, I do sincerely regret any offense that may have caused. I wasn't accusing you of shifting the goalposts. However, I express no regrets over my stated dismay in dialogues with Gnosticism.

 

 

 

I agree. I didn't say those things didn't happen.

 

I didn't say you denied them. My point, if a bit animated, was that those are the things about which we express ultimate hope. I know of no greater narrative or endgame than the promise of eternal salvation -- both as individuals and as a collective -- as expressed in the New Testament writings. If there is a world hidden behind the Gospels, then we're in serious trouble.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

If my language and phrasing came off as aggressive, I do sincerely regret any offense that may have caused. I wasn't accusing you of shifting the goalposts. However, I express no regrets over my stated dismay in dialogues with Gnosticism.

 

I'm not a Gnostic though. I incorporate some ideas here and there but I'm very much of the Church of Rome. The only thing about Gnosticism that truly appealed to me was the concept of gnosis and the cosmology.

 

If that is something you still find disagreeable then I'm afraid we are simply at an impasse.

 

 

 

I didn't say you denied them. My point, if a bit animated, was that those are the things about which we express ultimate hope. I know of no greater narrative or endgame than the promise of eternal salvation -- both as individuals and as a collective -- as expressed in the New Testament writings. If there is a world hidden behind the Gospels, then we're in serious trouble.

 

I believe the world of the gospels is more than what we physically perceive. Eternal salvation is just as much an immaterial ideal as much as the physical action.

[Yellow Diamond 7,568]

I'm not a Gnostic though. I incorporate some ideas here and there but I'm very much of the Church of Rome. The only thing about Gnosticism that truly appealed to me was the concept of gnosis and the cosmology.

 

If that is something you still find disagreeable then I'm afraid we are simply at an impasse.

 

It was never my intention to claim your faith for you. I know you are a Roman Catholic, a brother in faith. I'm concerned about Gnosticism because it is a belief system divorced from our own, even if it bears some similarities, but I don't seek to act as some sort of holy watchdog who howls at the first sign of trouble.

 

I think this all began with concerns over language. I've seen that happen more than once. If anything, I wanted to understand where your language about God was taking you. Admittedly, I'm still bothered some by the metaphors, but it was and shall never be my place to determine whether or not you're a "true" Christian. I'm more than happy and willing to take you at your word, just as I would hope other Christians trust in me when I say I believe in Christ.

 

 

 

I believe the world of the gospels is more than what we physically perceive. Eternal salvation is just as much an immaterial ideal as much as the physical action.

 

We agree, I think, insofar as eternal salvation transcends our current existence. The precise nature of that existence is unknown to us in our time and space, epitomized when Paul refers to knowing a man who was taken up to "the third heaven" but admits he doesn't know whether the experience was in or out of body. There are thus many instances in which we must plead ignorance to the heavenly realities, so long as we don't fill the void with our own imaginings and call them canon.

 

What we do know is that the biblical canon will not lead us astray as regards our salvation. A secret canon would mean generations of believers (including ourselves) had access to an incomplete deck. That's a disturbing reality, if such a thing was allowed to exist.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I think this all began with concerns over language. I've seen that happen more than once. If anything, I wanted to understand where your language about God was taking you. Admittedly, I'm still bothered some by the metaphors, but it was and shall never be my place to determine whether or not you're a "true" Christian. I'm more than happy and willing to take you at your word, just as I would hope other Christians trust in me when I say I believe in Christ.

 

I do admit, I entertain some rather unconventional notions of the Divine's nature. I do, however, also believe firmly that Jesus was more than a mere man, that He was God.

 

 

 

We agree, I think, insofar as eternal salvation transcends our current existence. The precise nature of that existence is unknown to us in our time and space, epitomized when Paul refers to knowing a man who was taken up to "the third heaven" but admits he doesn't know whether the experience was in or out of body.

 

We indeed are in agreement. 

 

 

 

There are thus many instances in which we must plead ignorance to the heavenly realities, so long as we don't fill the void with our own imaginings and call them canon.

 

I don't think that's necessarily wrong. If an angel appeared to me in the form of a Naaru, how is that any more wrong than appearing as a flaming wheel or with various different species' heads?

 

 

 

What we do know is that the biblical canon will not lead us astray as regards our salvation. A secret canon would mean generations of believers (including ourselves) had access to an incomplete deck. That's a disturbing reality, if such a thing was allowed to exist.

 

I would assume one of your obvious intelligence, would know of the apocrypha. The Bible already is an incomplete deck. It's important all right, but I don't think it's the one all, be all of Christianity.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Yellow Diamond 7,568]

I don't think that's necessarily wrong. If an angel appeared to me in the form of a Naaru, how is that any more wrong than appearing as a flaming wheel or with various different species' heads?

 

I'm uncertain how that example falls under our personal imaginings. What I mean to say is that such speculation should not be conflated with normative teaching.

 

 

I would assume one of your obvious intelligence, would know of the apocrypha. The Bible already is an incomplete deck. It's important all right, but I don't think it's the one all, be all of Christianity.

 

Are you referring to the Old Testament apocrypha (that is, books in the Septuagint omitted from the Protestant biblical canon), or writings that didn't make it into the New Testament (e.g., the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Peter)?

 

I'm not arguing for Sola Scriptura; rather, I'm reiterating the teaching that the Scriptural canon is an indispensable authority in collaboration with tradition. This comes through in Chapter III of the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation":

 

11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

 

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

 

Therefore, Scripture is essential; there is no source (save for God Himself) that supersedes it.

[Zach TheDane 234]

Hey guys, I just want to remind you all that the purpose of this thread is to meet other Christian bronies.  I don't mind if you ask some questions or have some conversation, but just try to refrain from having large scale debates on this specific thread.  We were already warned once about it, and I don't want to see this get taken down.  Thank you all for being so great!

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

I'm uncertain how that example falls under our personal imaginings. What I mean to say is that such speculation should not be conflated with normative teaching.

 

What I mean is, the Divine appears in many forms in many different religions. As long as one treats such an intelligence with the appropriate reverence, why is it any worse to personally picture God as an established fictional figure of divine authority and benevolence than as bearded king in the clouds? That's all I meant.

 

I agree though that we shouldn't let such dominate the moral aspect, because then morality becomes relative to the person rather than universal to everyone.

 

 

 

Are you referring to the Old Testament apocrypha (that is, books in the Septuagint omitted from the Protestant biblical canon), or writings that didn't make it into the New Testament (e.g., the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Peter)?   I'm not arguing for Sola Scriptura; rather, I'm reiterating the teaching that the Scriptural canon is an indispensable authority in collaboration with tradition. This comes through in Chapter III of the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation":

 

I meant the latter.

 

I agree though otherwise, I wasn't sure what you meant before.

 

 

 

Therefore, Scripture is essential; there is no source (save for God Himself) that supersedes it.

 

True, but how can we know that God doesn't speak to us in other ways? Through our dreams, through people we love, through clergy, through just singular moments of clarity, etc.? 

Hey guys, I just want to remind you all that the purpose of this thread is to meet other Christian bronies.  I don't mind if you ask some questions or have some conversation, but just try to refrain from having large scale debates on this specific thread.  We were already warned once about it, and I don't want to see this get taken down.  Thank you all for being so great!

 

Oops.

 

Yeah, read this right after posting this huge paragraph.

[Zach TheDane 234]

 

Oops.

 

Yeah, read this right after posting this huge paragraph.

No problem man, it's easy to do on a thread like this.  Honestly, I love discussion, I'd just rather it be done privately so we don't clog up the thread and let other posts get lost in the flood.

 

Also, a question in case any mods are reading this: did the title of this thread get changed without my knowledge?  Because I did not name this thread "Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle."  I'm a bit miffed that someone did this without telling me, and I'd like to know why they did.  

[HereComesTom 2,266]

Wow...even if that huge debate is over, it was a good one.  In more ways than one.

 

I guess I'll go with the purpose of the thread and introduce myself:  I've been a Christian all my life, of a rather small denomination called the Christian Reformed Church (more or less "Reformed" is to the Netherlands what Presbyterian is to Scotland).

 

I've been a brony since probably about 2010.  I loved seasons 1 and 2, thought season 3 was pretty good, and while I haven't seen much of season 4, what I have seen, I liked.

 

As you can see from my signature, I'm working on a fangame---it's taking up a lot of my free time, but I'm really enjoying the development, and would love to get it to the point where I can turn it into a collaboration to make something bigger.  (I feel like I need at least rudimentary custom NPCs and a dialog system before I'm at that point, though.)

 

I agree though that we shouldn't let such dominate the moral aspect, because then morality becomes relative to the person rather than universal to everyone.

 

 

I read that and immediately thought "I like this guy".  It drives me up the wall when I hear someone say that morality is relative, or worse, subjective.  *shudder*

 

 

 

Also, a question in case any mods are reading this: did the title of this thread get changed without my knowledge? Because I did not name this thread "Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle." I'm a bit miffed that someone did this without telling me, and I'd like to know why they did.

 

This didn't get merged with another thread, did it?  I see your opening post at the top, but is it a possibility?

[Zach TheDane 234]

 

This didn't get merged with another thread, did it?  I see your opening post at the top, but is it a possibility?

Hmm, I'm not sure.  I don't remember seeing another post like this, but I suppose it's possible.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I read that and immediately thought "I like this guy".  It drives me up the wall when I hear someone say that morality is relative, or worse, subjective.  *shudder*

 

Thanks.

 

I've engaged another on this subject matter many times, online and in life. Few things get me so angry so quickly. (Actually, that's a lie, many things get me angry very quickly. Insulting religion in general, insulting my country, insulting the concept of honor. Maybe I'm just not a nice person.   )

Edited February 26, 2015 by Steel Accord

[HereComesTom 2,266]

 

 

(Actually, that's a lie, many things get me angry very quickly. Insulting religion in general, insulting my country, insulting the concept of honor. Maybe I'm just not a nice person. )

 

Sorry if I'm seeming kind of Yoda-like saying this, but I don't think it's how quick a person is to anger that makes them a nice or not-nice person, more like how they respond to the anger.

 

In any case, it's nice to meet you!

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Sorry if I'm seeming kind of Yoda-like saying this, but I don't think it's how quick a person is to anger that makes them a nice or not-nice person, more like how they respond to the anger.

 

In any case, it's nice to meet you!

 

Don't apologize. I don't think sounding like a wise Jedi Master is something one should apologize for. I appreciate that bit of wisdom though.

 

The feeling, is mutual. 

[Yellow Diamond 7,568]

Hey guys, I just want to remind you all that the purpose of this thread is to meet other Christian bronies.  I don't mind if you ask some questions or have some conversation, but just try to refrain from having large scale debates on this specific thread.  We were already warned once about it, and I don't want to see this get taken down.  Thank you all for being so great!

 

I wouldn't be so rotten as to prompt a debate, only to order the thread be locked. However, you are correct: there was a specific request to avoid lengthy debates in this thread. It's my fault for not honoring it. I'd be more than willing to continue the discussion elsewhere.

 

 

 

Also, a question in case any mods are reading this: did the title of this thread get changed without my knowledge? Because I did not name this thread "Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle." I'm a bit miffed that someone did this without telling me, and I'd like to know why they did.

 

I don't see any sign of editing in the topic titled. It might have happened as the result of a merger with another topic, but I can't be sure that actually happened.

[Zach TheDane 234]

I wouldn't be so rotten as to prompt a debate, only to order the thread be locked. However, you are correct: there was a specific request to avoid lengthy debates in this thread. It's my fault for not honoring it. I'd be more than willing to continue the discussion elsewhere.

 

Oh, that's no problem at all!  I just know how easy it is for new people to get flooded out by a lot of back and forth.  It may honestly be worth it to start a thread specifically for (polite) discussion, as there are quite a few people here who seem to want to talk more in-depth.

 

As for the name change, an admin messaged me and cleared it up; they were just trying to make the thread name more accurate.

So, in the spirit of the thread's new name, let me ask you all a topical question: what's your favorite bible verse? I'll start! Mine's Galatians 5:1: "Christ has liberated us to be free. Stand firm then and don’t submit again to a yoke of slavery."