more about you know what

the catholic church claims that truth lies in itself. truth is not in scripture, not in God's revelation, not from the holy spirit, but primarily from the church. they first of all claim that scripture is a creation of the church. therefore they change scripture, rewrite it, add or remove from it whenever and however they like. scripture is not the only means of God's revelation. it is written by men.
the church does this because they desire to centralize power, like any human institution. why do you think God has allowed the protestant church to splinter into a thousand different denominations? because a single denomination has power, and power desires to maintain and increase power. centralization brings wealth and unity, but in the case of the catholic church, the unity is not created nor maintained by the spirit, but by the organization itself. think about the world religions. is any so fractured as the protestant church? God allows this for a reason

Arminianism

Pride sits as the core of the Arminian gospel. Pride is the desire to understand God, his ways, his purposes, and his desires in spite of what scripture reveals. Whatever we comprehend we have power over. This is what their false gospel seeks: power over the almighty.
"I will send a deceiving influence." Does God lie? Does he deceive? No. He sends judgment. He removes the possibility of repentance. How fits this into "free will"? It does not. God judges now and he  judges before all creation. He determines or fate because he is God.  This arbitrary consignment to one side of eternity or that other baffles us. He is not comprehended by us. Would you remove scripture? Would you say it does not mean what it clearly declares? Feel free, but do not claim to minister the gospel of Christ.

The Fear of God

Fear is fear. The word means fear. We know what fear is. Yes, fear is reverence. That's the easy part. Let's talk about the hard part.
"It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Why would the author of Hebrews say this? Fear is reverence but it is also terror.
Terror is what is unknown, inconceivable, unnatural. The incomprehensible terrifies us. God is incomprehensible. He is far beyond anything and everything that we conceive or create. Terror also threatens us, not with mere harm or common peril or even death. Terror threatens us with uncommon destruction. Terror threatens us with a lasting trauma that affects us deeply and to our core. It causes us to question everything that we have built our identity on. Terror exposes us for the conceited, egotistical cowards that we are. Terror burns us down to ash. God is terrifying, for he passionately hates the sinner.  Outside of Christ, God threatens us with eternal, agonizing, burning destruction. Do not merely revere him. Fear him.

The Hate of God

"God loves everyone"
Think about it. God loves Jesus and Abraham and Paul and you and me. God also loves Satan and Hitler and murderers and child molesters and rapists and so on and so on.
What kind of weak, two-dimensional, loser, no-standard-of-right-or-wrong coward loves everyone the same?
"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
"For forty years I loathed that generation"
God is not holy if God does not hate, not merely the sin,  but the sinner. Sin is an abstract; it is a phantom that deserves contempt and scorn. It does not warrant our slightest attention. It is corruption and decay and death. However the sinner... The sinner gives himself to this corruption. He willfully surrenders to the destruction and death that sin brings. He celebrates it. He promotes it and he delights in it. He happily takes what has been given for his and for others' benefit and he uses it to kill, to maim, to poison, to molest and to destroy.
Yes. God hates the sinner or he is not God.

an essay on theodicy

Atheist William Rowe presents his evidence for not believing in God in “The Evidential Argument from Evil,” yet in doing so simultaneously defeats his own argument. Rowe believes that God cannot exist if evil exists such that there is no discernible nor imaginable good that can come from such evil. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good, then God would necessarily prevent this kind of evil from occurring. Rowe argues theoretically and practically, and in both he makes arrogant assumptions that destroy his argument.

Rowe begins with the proposition that God is wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient. Rowe’s argument against God’s existence adds another oft-used proposition, that an entity such as God, good, omnipotent, and omniscient, will necessarily prevent every kind of unnecessary evil that occurs in the world. Rowe conveniently tosses out man-made evil, for this kind of evil does not help his argument, and man-made evil does not account for all evil in the world. He also ignores the kind of evil (or suffering) that aids men in producing strength of character. Again, this kind of evil does not help his argument, and as he says, “it’s reasonably clear that suffering often occurs in a degree far beyond what is required for character development” (Rowe, 368). Rowe limits his evil to that which, in his estimation, “could have been prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse” (Rowe, 366).

Rowe first argues theoretically. There must be some evil, somewhere in creation, that does not bring with it some sort of good. There must exist some evil completely disconnected from any good consequence. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows about it and can prevent it. Since he does not prevent this disconnected and fruitless evil, he is not good. Rowe claims that God does not exist because he allows evil to exist, the particular evil that has no purpose.

This theoretical argument appears damning on the surface, but at the surface is where it remains. Philosophers have long created word games that mean nothing in reality: Can God make a rock that he cannot move? The words contain meaning, but when placed together and examined in the context of reality, the actual statement means nothing. The problem of God creating a rock that he cannot move is not a theist problem, but a semantic problem. God “cannot” do many things, including commit sin, for example. In a sense, he is “limited” by his nature. In this rock problem, he is “limited” by the meaning of the words, “cannot” and “move”, but not by any actual limit of his power. Rowe can argue about unnecessary suffering, and he can throw around words like “God”, “omniscient,” “omnipotent,” and “good,” but he has no true idea what they mean, particularly in the biblical context. The God that he refutes does not exist in the first place. Rowe assumes he understands what “good” means, and he assumes that “good,” when applied to men, applies equally and identically in every situation to God, but God is not a man.

God commands men to be good, and yes, he commands men to shun sin (evil) and pursue the welfare of others. God commands men to trust in him and do good (Psalm 37.3, 4), for God created man to glorify him. God’s purpose, however, is not to pursue the good of mankind, but to glorify himself[1]. God uses evil and he uses it frequently[2]. God does not sin, but he uses sin and he uses the destructive forces of nature to accomplish his purpose. Rowe misunderstands both the purpose of men and the purpose of God. God created man to show his glory (Romans 9), and not to bestow temporal and material blessings upon him. Rowe’s argument against God betrays a simplistic and ignorant view of God that many atheists possess.

We see further evidence of Rowe’s overly simplistic caricature of God in the practical illustration of the fawn. If a forest fire catches a fawn, and the fawn is badly injured and dies, no good can possibly come from this. To Rowe, this is “reasonably clear” (Rowe, 368). This example raises many questions about the nature of a universe that Rowe would create if he were omnipotent. Are forest animals never to suffer? Do forest fires not exist in Rowe’s world? Do animals not burn? Does wood not burn? Does fire exist? Does heat not exist? Do we eat raw meat? Do we even eat meat at all in Rowe’s world? If Rowe were God, would he defy the natural laws that he created to run the world and work miracles every time a fawn was threatened with unnecessary and preventable suffering? What kind of nonsense universe does Rowe want to live in? With this meaningless example, Rowe has eliminated a number of basic necessities (fire, meat, heat) that men have used for millennia, simply because he cannot imagine how the death of a forest fawn can have any good connected to it. These necessities provide good for men and women that Rowe’s superficial understanding of the world and God cannot imagine.

Rowe’s fawn illustration contains yet another good that destroys his argument. Rowe fails to see any good that can come from the prolonged agony of a fawn that burns to death in a forest fire. Rowe, however, has taken great pains to craft an argument against the existence of a God that he believes does not exist, and he uses the suffering of the fawn to do this. Rowe’s argument “proves” that God does not exist, therefore removing the lie of this eternal deity, freeing men from the chains of religion, and setting them on a path to truth. Good has come from suffering, and therefore Rowe’s argument is false. The “good” of Rowe’s argument disproves the argument itself, and one more atheistic argument collapses in on itself in a colossal display of irony. Rowe’s failure lies not in his logic, but in his hubris. Rowe fails as has every philosopher since Job.

Rowe and the biblical patriarch Job ask the same question of God: Why is there suffering if you are good? God denies them any sort of justification of his actions. Instead, he questions the audacity that any man would ask the question at all. “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” he demands. God silences the question by revealing its arrogance and its assumption of knowledge that only deity can possess. While Job humbly submits to God’s wisdom, Rowe questions the Almighty. Rowe assumes that he understands every possible good that can come from a given situation. Rowe believes that he knows what only God can know. Rowe categorically declares that God does not exist because Rowe cannot see any good that can come from suffering. In order for Rowe to declare that no good can possibly come from suffering of which he cannot imagine or observe any connected good, Rowe must possess exhaustive knowledge of every good connected to every instance of suffering. Rowe must be omniscient. In order for Rowe to question God, he must assume the role of God, yet in doing so, abolishes his own argument.

We naturally question God. In our curiosity, we wonder how God’s goodness can be reconciled with the suffering in creation. In our pride, we disagree with God’s governance of creation and we believe that we could do better. God’s word to Job demonstrates that we have no idea of the magnitude regarding God’s work, his wisdom, and his goodness in managing what he has created. Many philosophers before and since William Rowe have asked the same question of God. Many will continue to ask, but the truly wise, however, will acknowledge their limitations as Job did, and trust in him who created the universe and say,

I know that You can do all things,

And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’

Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,

Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”

‘Hear, now, and I will speak;

I will ask You, and You instruct me.’

“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;

But now my eye sees You;

Therefore I retract,

And I repent in dust and ashes.

William Rowe, “The Evidential Argument from Evil” in Philosophy of Religion, editors Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014)

---

[1] See Ezekiel 20, where God acts on the behalf of the Israelites not for their sake, but for the sake of “My name”. This theme of God acting so his name will be known and known correctly appears throughout the prophetical books and also in Romans 9.

[2] In the book of Job, which I will discuss later, God assumes full responsibility for the acts of Satan. God allowed Satan to destroy Job’s family and wealth, but he says, “he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to ruin him” [Job 2.3, emphasis added]. Though Job and his friends blame God repeatedly for Job’s destruction, at no point does God mention Satan or blame chance for what he allowed.

men suck but we should all be men

why does feminism exist? why do women feel "powerless"? women have plenty of power. while men possess physical power, the emotional separation that leadership often requires, the ability and will to earn money much easier than women, women have sexual and emotional power. women, with their beauty and their charm, easily gain the upper hand in any relationship whenever they please. why do women need more power?

obviously, sin. whoever wants power necessarily wants more. there is nothing new here. i also believe men, specifically fathers, carry the blame here. of course, they always do. we always do.

imagine a young girl, desperate for her father's affection. her father may be preoccupied with the War, or with providing a living for his family. he may be an alcoholic, or a serial cheater. he may simply find it difficult to express the affection he feels for his daughter. he does not validate her "girl-ness" or show her how special she is just because. is she special because she can do what only a woman can? care for a family? bear children? support a husband, strong in certain ways, physically, economically, but patently weak emotionally? because her father has not shown her what is important about being a woman, she cannot do these things. she only believes in what has been revealed to her. strength and fulfillment can only be found in what men have: leadership, money, physical power. what is a young girl to do? turn to Christ? ideally, but God does not gift grace to everyone. she will turn elsewhere for what she needs.

political power. economic power. the power to destroy life.

eventually she realizes she can literally "become" a man. what could be more "empowering"? what can possibly be more powerful than becoming your father, doing everything he can, being as strong as him, as neglecting, as empty, as desperate...

Julian of Norwich is Insane and Everyone Loves Her

I was assigned this book to read for my Church History course:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations
The book describes a mystical experience with Christ. Julian "sees" Christ, his crucifixion, and lots and lots of blood. Blood upon blood oozing out of bloody sores poring out of wounds everywhere blood blood blood. Also she sees Mary, the Single Greatest Thing Ever Created Ever. Also, God loves us so much that we are "his bliss his worship his meed (no idea)".
Do I need to say I hated this book?
Well, my professor loved it. He said I needed to evaluate the book "in context" of it being written in Middle English and during the Bubonic Plague.
(1) It's not the Bible. It's not "God-breathed" and it doesn't deserve context. If the book cannot stand on its own, it doesn't stand at all. We don't need it, and if it has no value in and of itself, why read it?
(2) See (1) above.
Scripture alone is scripture. Nothing else deserves our attention, much less, reverence unless it points back to scripture.
My professor didn't like that I pointed out that this book had no scripture references in it. "Lack of references isn't the problem," he said. "Faithfulness to scripture is what matters."
YES I KNOW THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT THIS BOOK SUCKS BECAUSE IT CRAPS ON SCRIPTURE BUT EVERYONE LOVES IT
Anyway, I got a C+ on the paper. I never get Bs, much less Cs. Oh well.

Painful Revelations Providing Painful Reading:
Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love.

Alejandro Gonzaga
HCHT 502
March 3, 2018
 
Poor English, explicit, gory detail, and questionable theology overwhelm the few barely recognizable nuggets of truth in Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love. Written in the fifteenth century , Julian attempts to present a comprehensive theological treatise through progressive "visions", but instead fails on nearly every point and swamps the reader with terrible syntax, unnecessary and unbiblical detail, and additions to scripture that would make any heretic blush. Julian received sixteen “shewings” from God and relates them to her readers in her book. In Revelations of Divine Love, Julian relates visions she has received that intend to display Christ’s love for his people. She begins by listing each revelation and explaining what happens in each. The visions range from perverse, bloody, obnoxiously detailed explorations of Christ’s crucifixion to visions of heavenly reward, or of Mary, second in worthiness only to Christ, who “after [Christ] is the most blissful sight” . Julian sprinkles in various bites of truth, but with absolutely zero biblical quotations, and only mild allusions to scripture, these bites do not satisfy; instead, they merely aggravate one’s appetite for clear, biblical truth, and cause one to wonder if this work is her attempt to add her name late to the holy canon.
Christ’s suffering features prominently in Julian’s visions. Other themes in her revelations include Christ’s love, Satan’s defeat, God’s comfort, Mary, and mankind, who is God’s “bliss”. Julian begins her journey by praying for sickness so she can suffer with Christ. “I desired a bodily sight wherein I might have more knowledge of the bodily pains of our Saviour,” she says.  She reasons that “after the shewing [of pain] I should have the more true mind in the Passion of Christ.”  Julian desired the pain so that she would better understand Christ’s suffering. She believed that the suffering would aid her in her relationship with God, and that she “would be purged, by the mercy of God, and afterward live more to the worship of God.”  She eventually received her request . All of this occurred before she received the first revelation.
Julian’s revelations contain an excess of explicit detail on Christ’s suffering on the cross. She “saw the red blood trickle down from under the Garland hot and freshly and right plenteously, as it were in the time of His Passion when the Garland of thorns was pressed on His blessed head.”  In Chapter 7 she adds, “I saw the bodily sight lasting of the plenteous bleeding of the Head. The great drops of blood fell down from under the Garland like pellots, seeming as it had come out of the veins; and in the coming out they were blood-red.” The second revelation adds more detail to her crucifixion vision, as she saw “half the face, beginning at the ear, over-gone with dry blood till it covered to the mid-face.”  Julian provides a level of detail not described in scripture. Many other chapters add even more detailed descriptions of Christ’s suffering.
Christ made man because of love, and through this same love, Christ redeemed man. “The blessed Trinity made Mankind to His image and His likeness… He that made man for love, by the same love He would restore man to the same bliss,”  she says. Christ was motivated by love to create us and to die for us.  There is no longer any wrath, “for our good Lord endlessly hath regard to his own worship and to the profit of all that shall be saved.”  Since Christ has died, God’s wrath is appeased.
Through Christ’s death we have God’s comfort. God desires us to seek him, and in seeking him we receive comfort and he condescends to us that we may know him. God wills “that we seek for and trust to [him], joy and delight in, [as he is] comforting us and solacing us.”  God gave Julian “pleasance in [her] soul,”  to overcome all sorrow and pain. God showed her that “it is speedful to some souls to feel on this wise: sometime to be in comfort, and sometime to fail and be left to themselves.”  God allows pain or comfort in our lives, and he keeps us secure in both “woe and weal.”
The Passion of Christ has overcome Satan. Christ, through his death, has overcome the “Fiend” and his malice and “all souls of salvation escape him, worshipfully, by the virtue of Christ’s precious Passion.”  Julian physically encounters Satan at one point, as the stench of the encounter “was so vile and so painful”.  Christ reveals the hatred of Satan. Julian “understood that all that is contrary to love and peace is of the Fiend and of his part.”
Mary occupies a special place in these visions, and a special place in Christ’s affections, according to the visions. Mary is above all else in creation and is only lower in prominence than Christ. In Julian’s vision, “she is more than all that God made beneath her in worthiness and grace; for above her is nothing that is made but the blessed Manhood of Christ” . Her loves for Christ causes her pain as he suffers. Mary and Christ are particularly united, “for Christ and she were so oned in love that the greatness of her loving was cause of the greatness of her pain.”  Mary is the “highest joy” of Christ, and “most pleasance and worship to me; and most she is desired to be seen of my blessed creatures.”  Julian’s visions revealed Mary to be near Christ himself in glory and beauty.
I had great difficulty reading through Revelations. The language is poor. Julian admits that she was a “simple creature unlettered,”  and her lack of education shows. Difficulty also arose in comparing Julian’s revelations to scripture. There is absolutely no scripture in Revelations. Faint allusions are scattered throughout. There are mentions of the crucifixion. Christ, God, Mary and Satan are all obvious characters, but in places where scripture would have greatly strengthened the impact of her visions, she refuses to give even the slightest nod to the Word of God. Mary receives a place in Julian’s revelations that is completely unwarranted by anything in scripture. The detail given to Christ’s physical suffering is grotesque. On top of all of this, Julian declares that instead of God delighting in his Son (Matthew 3.17), “we be his bliss, we be his meed, we be his worship, we be his crown.”
Revelations was written in Middle English, instead of Latin, which was the standard for religious texts of the time. Pains have been taken to translate into modern English, but confusion still abounds. Julian says “oned” instead of “united”. She uses words like “meed” and “ruth” which are not clearly defined anywhere in the text or in the footnotes. One is left to decipher on his own.
Revelations does not disappoint those with an appetite for blood. Julian adds details not given in the historical Gospel accounts. In these visions, she saw “the body plenteously bleeding in seeming of the Scourging, as thus:--The fair skin was broken full deep into the tender flesh with sharp smiting all about the sweet body. So plenteously the hot blood ran out that there was neither seen skin nor wound, but as it were all blood.”  She describes Christ’s bloodless body: “all the precious blood was bled out of the sweet body.”  She describes his “dried flesh”. In scripture, we see beating, a crown of thorns, crucifixion, yet this level of detail is not present. One wonders how this adds to devotion.
Consistent with Catholic teaching, Julian creates a sort of demigod out of Mary. She is especially “oned” to Christ. She possesses “high Wisdom and Truth in beholding her Maker so holy, so mighty, and so good.”  She has compassion that no other character in these revelations has except Christ.  Christ invites Julian to take joy in Mary “in the love that I have in her and she in me”.  Scripture does not invite us to take joy in Mary, nor does it place Mary above any creature particularly. Mary is “favored”, but not “most beautiful above all of creation.” Mary trusted in Christ and she played her role well, but any faithfulness in her is because of God’s grace. We are all sinners (1 John 1.8).
Julian’s revelations unjustly center on man. For her, we are the center of God’s world, and that is why he sent his Son. To Julian, we are God’s bliss, worship, and crown.  Scripture repeatedly declares that God works for his name, and not for our sake (Isaiah 48.11; Ezekiel 20.9, 14, 22; 36.22; Romans 9.17, 22). God’s glory is his crown, and this he will give to us, but we are not his crown (Psalm 8.5; 1 Peter 5.4). Christ is his happiness, and his holiness is his own cause to worship, not us (Isaiah 6.3; Revelation 4.8). Our faith in Christ pleases him (Hebrews 11.1), but the extent to which Julian ascribes God’s worship and bliss to men is antibibilical.
Julian has taken characters from the Gospels and fashioned a sort of crucifixion play. Christ and his death, with all of its gory detail, plays the lead role, with Mary supporting him, his beloved mother, “oned” to him in a sort of perverse union, above all else of creation. Satan is the antagonist, creeping around, causing pain and sorrow to the believer. God gives comfort, orchestrating everything, “for there is no doer but He.”  The Holy Spirit has a minor role, giving grace when needed. Briefly, this play gives fleeting moments of inspiration, yet the reader cannot help but be overwhelmed by difficulties in language, in doctrine, with unnecessary gore, and worship of Mary and men. The absence of scripture is glaring and this book is best left unread for any who desire true devotion to Christ.
Volz, Carl A. The Medieval Church: From the Dawn of the Middle Ages to the Reformation. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997).
Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love. Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/j/julian/revelations/
My thoughts:

1. It’s clear that the 1901 translation of the Middle English coupled with the emphasis on the physicality of Jesus’ death and suffering in Julian had a visceral effect on you. For this reason, you really could not interpret her correctly. I found a lot of distortions in your paper. You did not even try to understand her on her own terms. Instead, most of your effort was to turn her into a heretic. So, even though she quite clearly says, “For He is the endlessness, and He hath made us only to Himself, and restored us by His blessed Passion, and keepeth us in His blessed love; and all this of His Goodness,” indicating that it is on the basis of God’s goodness that salvation occurs, you claim she is “man-centered.” Why don't you respond to the "we are His bliss" quote?

Or, take this rather long quotation and not how many times she mentions God’s goodness: “And we pray by His holy Cross that he died on, and all the virtue and the help that we have of the Cross, it is of His Goodness. And on the same wise, all the help that we have of special saints and all the blessed Company of Heaven, the dearworthy love and endless friendship that we have of them, it is of His Goodness. For God of His Goodness hath ordained means to help us, full fair and many: of which the chief and principal mean is the blessed nature that He took of the Maid, with all the means that go afore and come after which belong to our redemption and to endless salvation. Wherefore it pleaseth Him that we seek Him and worship through means, understanding that He is the Goodness of all.”

You do realize that the phrase “of His Goodness” means “on the basis of” or “grounded in” or “a result of” or “from” the goodness of God. This completely contradicts your claim of Julian being “man-centered.” I am flabbergasted by this interpretation. Because you are Catholic and absorbed in Catholic Tradition

2. If you did not like the translation, why didn’t you get another translation? I gave you more than one option? While I realize that you don’t have a lot of time, given your reaction to her, I think you owed it to Julian to get the most modern translation of her work in order to better judge what she wrote. The bad grammar and language was a side issue.

3. You left out a number of themes in Julian. In fact, I did not detect much effort to synthesize her ideas. For example, Julian’s desire to have the three wounds and the sickness at the beginning is really a desire to enter fully into that passion. In the face of the Black Death, she is striving to see life from God’s perspective, which she thinks requires a complete immersion into the work of Christ. It is also crucial to see that Julian does not remove wrath and judgment from the equation. She just places it within creation rather than the Creator. There are real consequences for sin in Julian’s world. Also, you did not mention Julian’s understanding of Christ as mother, which is a crucial theme. In a world where male knights are running around killing people and where kings literally use the sword and where people are saying that the Black Death is the judgment of God, Julian chooses the image of mother and applies it to Christ to reveal his status as one who enters humanity and suffers for humans. False. You just don't like the themes I pointed out.

4. You need a clear thesis. You don’t have one. Your citation of Julian is incorrect. MY FIRST SENTENCE IS MY THESIS 

Grading Rubric Points
GUM (Grammar, Usage, Mechanics) (5%) 5
Proper Use of Turabian (5%) 3
Clear Thesis (2%) 1
Synthesis (44%) 35
Analysis (44%) 35
Final Grade 79