questions on doctrine

Honestly, every Muslim goes through a transformation in their religious beliefs at some point in their life. It’s almost necessary for our growth in my personal opinion. I grew up with religion as a big part of my life but as much as my parents did try to teach us reasoning, for my brother and I, a lot of our thoughts and opinions on religion came from our personal research. But they set the foundation for that critical thinking which I am forever grateful for. We went to the mosque, we looked online, we referenced scholarly interpretations, we debated with Christians, Jews, Atheists, other Muslims. That was how we grew closer to God. 

Had we lived our life being taught how to pray and practice without the encouragement of higher level thinking, we may very well have moved away from our faith. Because practice without belief and belief without practice make one’s faith weak. Practice as in making your child attend the mosque or making them pray without taking the time to help them understand it easily becomes a habit.

Habits don’t make your faith stronger. They don’t help your child understand why you do things a certain way, why you spend all this time in prayer while other kids don’t. Why you have to fast for 12+ hours days in the heat of the summer when other kids are out enjoying barbecues and ice cream. 

This is why I think Sana’s outburst and her mom’s response is important even if outsiders get the impression that it proves religion is intolerant. It doesn’t. It proves that religion doesn’t require such blind faith that you never question doctrine. Islam encourages education, scholarly studies, critical thinking. What Sana is doing is a right of passage for the religiously inclined. It will allow her to navigate her faith in the future and interpret her understanding and find her balance in a complicated world. It will make her stronger and I like that we get to see the different interpretations of how one practices their faith. 

I hope nonMuslims will come out of this with one thing. Faith is no more black and white that the lack of it. Our world is full of grey areas and nuances. Don’t expect one Muslim to be the shining beacon of all the answers because we don’t have all the answers and we’re trying to be good as much as you are. 

After thousands of years as a crusading chapter the Flesh Tearers eventually settled on an extremely hostile Death World known as Cretacia. A lost colony of primordial humans proved perfect recruits for the chapter, being pure of taint and extremely strong. The world lies deep in the galactic west.

The chapter has since become more and more dependent on the easy access to recruits, as their gene-seed mutation gradually worsens. More and more marines succumb to the Black Rage, with few marines older than two centuries. As of late M41, the Flesh Tearers only have 4 full Companies of marines, less than half of the normal number. If the degradation of their gene-seed continues at the same rate they will count no more than 200 marines within a millennium.

Over the years several Imperial bodies have questioned the combat doctrines and sanity of the Flesh Tearers. Many have refused to fight alongside the chapter, disgusted by their savagery in combat or fearing they would get caught up in the bloodshed along with the enemy. The chapter has been under Inquisitorial investigation since the Kallern Massacres of M36

When I left my church

I did not consider myself an atheist. I did not know that my church was wrong, I did not know whether or not I believed in a God. Only that I had heard nothing from him in some time. And left alone, I had taken it upon myself to form for the first time my idea of morality. I had never dared to do this before, because I had been taught not to question the complex web of doctrine that made up God, namely his scriptures, prophets, and occasionally his direct promptings to me. But God left me alone, he wanted little to do with me, and in the meantime I had form some way of governing my actions independently.

It took time to work up the nerve. I wanted to trust my feelings, after all morality, if objective, as at the time I believed it to be, should be innate and natural. But I dared not acknowledge any conflict between myself and my God. I had no right to contradict him. Neither, however, could I refuse to take action. Fearfully I accepted the possibility of apostasy. For the first time I listened to my flawed human emotions and started to postulate independently what was right and wrong, and more importantly why.

I very quickly found disagreements between myself and the Lord. In fact our opinions were opposite in most areas. I believed in gender equality and determinism, he in separate roles and restrictions of power. He taught that love held to strict rules, that it was unacceptable between same gendered individuals. I decided love must only cause no harm. God had so many laws and stipulations that I saw as unnecessary. And plenty that were averse and repugnant to me.

And so the two of us where at a standstill. Opposed. I knew what God taught, and I knew that to me it was wrong. I thought God was wrong. I didn’t know what to do. Was it right for me to oppose my creator? I was imperfect, I was mortal, did not he as the owner of all have the right to objectively state how one must live? After all my work I was faced with the choice, the God-given obligation to destroy it and return to him.

In that time of decision I was reminded of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. The man who chose to slaughter his only, innocent son rather than to disobey God. Of course murder is wrong. Abraham knew it. But God asked it of him. Did that absolve Abraham? If he carried out the murder would God’s permission have made that a right action? Was it right in the first place for Abraham to abandon his moral sense for God’s approval? And of course, at the heart of it all, was God capable of evil.

I left my church when I decided that it was possible for God to be wrong. I had not made up my mind one way or the other as to his existence, or if the Mormon church was accurate in their description of him. But I did know what was right. I could not deny it, I could not abandon my new morality. I made the terrifying decision that if God existed as described by Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, or any other hell-fearing, homophobic, gender unequal religion, then he was evil. And it was right, my moral duty, and my honor to oppose him, to defy him. I left the church accepting with pride, and maybe a little terror, the possibility that I had declared myself an enemy of God. If I meet the despicable God of the Bible after death, I will accept punishment with my head held high, knowing that I chose to live with kindness, and that I was unafraid to do what was right. To hell with perverted moralities, to hell with God.


- The Gospel In Two and a Half Minutes - 

What is the Gospel? What is the story of humanity? Where is all this going?
The entire Bible in two and a half minutes. And a different way to see the Gospel of the Bible.

Subscribe to my channel here. Love y’all!

– J.S.

[Thank you to Steven Hause of pudgyproductions]

The Purgatory Doctrine

Questions about afterlife are one of the many unique aspects of all religions. According to British scholar John Casey, Protestants have accused the Catholic leaders of inventing the doctrine of Purgatory in order to extort money from their members (226). But just because the members of the Church have used this doctrine to manipulate people, it does not make the doctrine itself false anymore than the use of Einstein’s physics to make nuclear weapons that killed so many innocent lives make the physics formulas themselves false. While the word “purgatory” does not appear in the Bible, the Catholic Church teaches that there are verses that describe a purifying place in which souls are eventually destined to go to Heaven. 

To Christians, God is the Infinite Goodness. Goodness is the truth, beauty, and all kinds of virtue, Heaven is where God dwells and where the righteous ones go to after their deaths and enjoy the company of God forever. Hell is the painful eternal separation from God - where all of the people who had freely chosen to do what is contrary to God’s will dwell. When asked “how can a loving God send people to Hell?” Christian apologist William Lane Craig replied, “how can an all-just God send [all] people to Heaven?” Dr. Craig is not Catholic, but all Christians agree that God is the absolute justice. With absolute justice, the Catholic Church argues, comes with a place of hope where souls pay their dues for the sins committed on earth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of Heaven” (291). In agreement with this teaching, purgatory is the place for the souls who failed to imitate God’s perfection but still desires to be with God. 

As early as in the days of the Old Testament era, there are people who believed in a place for the souls in the afterlife. After a battle against Gorgias’ men, Judas Maccabeus and the remaining soldiers found the dead Jewish soldiers wearing amulets of a pagan deity, which the Jewish law has been adamantly against. So Judas 

… prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out… then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view (2 Maccabees 12: 39-43). 

Wishing that the sin of idolatry would be washed away from these soldiers, the surviving soldiers interceded for them and offered sacrifices to ask God’s forgiveness. These actions show how they believe that God can still bestow His Infinite mercy upon the sinners who have gone ahead of them. These Bible verses clearly illustrate a history of people praying for the ones who had passed away. 

In the New Testament, Jesus spoke about the existence of Purgatory during His ministry. He preached, 

Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison. I say to you, you will not released until you have paid the last penny (Luke 13: 57 - 59).

In this passage, Jesus is urging His disciples not to waste a moment in their lifetimes to do what is immoral. That is because the time here on earth is a pilgrimage - a journey striving for sinless perfection each day. The line “… you will not be released until you have paid the last penny” shows how God with His loving mercy and absolute justice, and humans who are fallible creatures, sinners are not damned eternally in Hell but are required to suffer the consequences for offending God until they are worthy to enter Heaven. Furthermore, later in His ministry, Jesus also told a parable describing a state between Heaven and earth. in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, when both have died, Lazarus

… was carried away by angles to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side… [The rich man] said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send [Lazarus] to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them…(Luke 16: 22, 27-28).

For the rich man be able to see Lazarus, it can only mean that they are in the same place. If the rich man were actually suffering in Hell, he would not be able to see anyone not in torment at all, much less speak with someone who have been carried by angels, which are creatures from Heaven. Since Hell is the eternal separation from God, no one dwelling there can see anyone who has been a good servant of God on earth, who in this case is Abraham. And because the rich man asked Abraham to have Lazarus go to his family, there is still something good in him. This concern for his family’s salvation is evidence that he still desires to do God’s will. This makes him worthy of Heaven but his sins of failing to give to the poor during his earthly life hinder him from entering. When Jesus was teaching, He did not say the word “purgatory,” but in these Bible verses there is no doubt that He described a place that is neither Heaven nor Hell. 

Not only did He spoke of it but Jesus went so far as going there. Peter, the apostle that Jesus appointed as his first pope, wrote about Jesus descending to the place of the dead to the early Christian communities, “For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,” (1 Peter 3: 18 - 19). Jesus Christ being eternal breaks into time, and whose death becomes a sacrifice for those who had died before and after Him. Sinners who died before Him could not possibly enter Heaven because they were unclean. But because God is so loving He could not possibly send them to Hell. The verse “spirits in prison” that Peter refers to cannot apply to earthly creatures because spirits are purely immaterial. These souls could not be in Hell because there cannot be a trace of hope to see God there. Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, preaching “…to the spirits in prison” can only mean that He went to purgatory to invite people back to God. 

Having imperfect human beings running any kind of organization is bound to have abuses and corruption. But these acts do not make the Truth that the organization had stood and still stands for untrue. Heaven, the home of all obedient servants of God, and Hell being everything that is completely opposite of God, can easily be spotted in the Sacred Scriptures. God, who is all-loving and all-just, and the majority of human beings falling mostly in the middle of good and evil spectrum, logically follows the necessary existence of purgatory. Not only is it logical but the Bible itself draws portraits of it in the Old Testament, in the records of Jesus’ ministry, and in the first letter of the apostle Peter. The Catholics may have invented the word “purgatory,” but not its definition. By teaching the doctrine of Purgatory, the Catholic Church draws the most accurate picture of God compare to Christian denominations. 

Work Cited:

+Casey, John. After Lives: A Guide to Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

+Catechism of the Catholic Church: With Modifications from the Editio Typica. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Print.

+Craig, William L. “William Lane Craig Q&A: What is Hell? Is Hell Compatible with a Loving God?” Reasonable Faith. YouTube, 11 June 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

mad-comet-moved  asked:

Hi Father, I was wondering about the infallibility of church teachings, my priest said that the church has never changed its moral teachings (not quite clear on my definitions,) but I remember that Pope Bendict changed the teaching on unbaptized infants to say that they didn't go to hell in 2007. Could you help me understand this? Thanks, have a great day!


In the Catholic faith, there is a hierarchy of truths. Dogma is at the top level, which is Church teaching on those truths God has revealed in Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching (Tradition).

 Lower down there are doctrinal teachings of faith and morals. At the lower level of certitude of truth, there are pastoral teachings, which apply the dogmas and doctrines to specific practices and programs, such as the Catholic Bishops’ support of more liberal immigration laws.

Dogmatic truths cannot be reformed or altered because the Church is certain that God has revealed them through Scripture and Tradition. Doctrinal truths which are taught with high levels of certitude also do not get reformed or altered. 

Doctrinal teachings which are not based on the Gospel or Tradition itself, however, are not proposed by the Catholic Church with the same level of certitude, because they are not based in Scripture or Tradition. For instance, teachings about religious freedom were more “liberal” in the ancient Church, with Christians believing firmly that governments should not coerce people’s religious choices.

When Church and State entered into a sort of union after the Roman Emperor Theodosius made the Catholic faith the religion of the Roman Empire, the Church’s teachings about religious freedom became more restrictive, with various church teachers allowing for government intervention to discourage people from practicing others faiths besides the Catholic faith.

That restrictiveness on religious freedom lasted until the appearance of democracy in the 1700′s in the United States. At that point, church teachers began to speculate on whether the Catholic Church could allow for more religious freedom in the civil laws. Finally, by Vatican II, the Catholic Church returned to a teaching of religious freedom which reflected more the ancient Church’s liberality, instead of the restrictions of the medieval Church later on.

How could this happen? Because neither Scripture or Tradition speaks clearly on the role of the State, in matters of religion, or religious freedom. Therefore, the Church’s moral doctrine that other religions should be outlawed or totally restricted, was authoritative teaching. However, it was teaching that admitted of development or even some change, because the medieval teaching itself had departed from the convictions of the ancient Catholic communities.

Thus, the medieval teaching about religious freedom did not really have the same level of certitude as, say, the teaching about the immorality of abortion and contraception. Abortion and contraception could be easily inferred from the Scriptural teaching on fertility and the precepts of the Natural Law, which direct humans to respect their body’s health and fertility. 

However, there was nothing in Scripture, or Tradition, or the Natural Law, which mandated that governments make Catholicism the only, legal religion of a country.

To answer your question, a doctrine of faith and morals proposed by the Church, but not based clearly on Scripture or Tradition, can undergo some development and even a change if later circumstances show that the doctrine is untenable and goes against what right reason mandates. Thus, there have been changes in other doctrines, such as how the Church regards interest rates on loans, how the Church regards slavery, and how the Church regards the death penalty.

A dogma or a doctrine proposed by the Church and more clearly linked to God’s will, manifested in the Bible and Apostolic Tradition, can be better understood and taught with more development or nuance, but does not undergo any change or alteration. An example of this is the teaching of “No salvation outside of the Church.”

While that teaching is not altered, the Catholic Church has refined its theological concept of what “outside the Church” means. At one time, it was understood that anyone who is not a baptized Catholic is completely unconnected to the Church. Now, we say that such people are not members of the Catholic Church, but they are connected to the Church in a certain way because the Church prays for them, and hopes that they follow what is right in their mind and heart, so that God can reach them.

It is not changing “No salvation outside the Church” but the modern teaching of this dogma has undergone some refinement and development for how we see God reaching people who are not baptized Catholics. If at one time Catholics could not envision such people being saved, now we can, because of the Church’s intercession for those outside of the fold of her membership.

Pastoral teachings, such as about immigration, can certainly undergo change, depending on the specific circumstances of the nation, which the Church is studying. 

This is a very complicated subject, but I have tried to bring simplicity to it. I hope this answer is helpful. God bless and take care, Fr. Angel

anonymous asked:

What's your opinion on instruments in church?

Praise the Lord!
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heaven!
Praise him for his mighty works;
praise his unequaled greatness!
Praise him with a blast of the ram’s horn;
praise him with the lyre and harp!
Praise him with the tambourine and dancing;
praise him with strings and flutes!
Praise him with a clash of cymbals;
praise him with loud clanging cymbals.
Let everything that breathes sing praises to the Lord!
Praise the Lord!

Psalms 150

What I can guess about praise from this chapter.

1) We’re to praise God in church. 

2) We’re to praise God all over the place. 

3) We’re to praise God for what He’s done

4) We’re to praise God for who He is. 

5) We’re to praise God with a loud horn instrument. 

6) We’re to praise God with multiple different kinds of stringed instruments.

7) We’re to praise God with the tambourine.

8) We’re to praise God with dancing. (uh oh) 

9) We’re to praise God with more strings.

10) We’re to praise God with wind instruments.

11) We’re to praise God with cymbals that clash. 

12) We’re to praise God with cymbals that clang. (loudly) 

13) Everybody’s supposed to praise. 

14) Repetition in lyric is not a bad thing. 

Kuwait United

Kuwait is known to have almost an equal number from both Shia and Sunna people.
Shia and Sunna people interact everyday normally without even questioning what the other doctrine is.
Kuwait is holding a funeral for all who died in the bomb attack on the Shiite masjid and it’s going to be held in al-masjid al-kabeer.
which is one of the biggest Sunni masjids in Kuwait.
Kuwaitis are one Shiite and Sunni, ALL of us are Muslim.
The Islamic state does not represent Islam in any way.
They are nothing but a terrorist organization.

knightenchanterenjolras replied to your post: One of my biggest frustrations with Mo…

literally the only things I know about mormons is from american movies/shows but now i’m curious

I have never seen a movie or TV show that portrays Mormons accurately, except for maybe the ones we make ourselves and even then…

I can give you my whole Mormon socialism spiel if you want.

To quote Rose’s tags when she reblogged this post

“The New-Testament and the Book of Mormon are blatantly anti-capitalist. And early Mormon settlers were literal communists”

anonymous asked:

how do you believe how do you have faith

I wish I knew. It just showed up one day, and fit inside my head like–something I’d never been without. The world made more sense with it in there.

If I ever lost it, I’m not sure I would know how to coax it back into my skull.

anonymous asked:

Hey! So can you help me with a question ? My girls youth group have been having. How can I explain to them that “secular music” is not right ? They want an exact verse that says it. But in my eyes there is no right or wrong. When we do something we have to ask if it's something that praises or is parroted by God ...

Secular just means anything not sacred. I don’t think the secular song “Happy Birthday” is a sinful song to sing. I also don’t think singing about the love someone has for their wife or daughter or tractor is bad. It’s bad when we start talking about how inappropriate this one girl in the club was and how it got us lusting after her in our heart. Or when we start talking about how much we want wealth and fame and everything for ourselves. Or how we are god of our own lives and no one can tell us what to do. 

Music itself isn’t a moral concept. It’s amoral. It’s not good or bad. But like many other amoral things, (wealth, fame, etc) it can carry or amplify a moral message. Music is holy and unholy based off of the content of the lyrics.

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Philippians 4:8

And probably the best passage for evaluating media: 

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Galatians 5

anonymous asked:

Salut, je ne veux pas relancer le débat mais il y a quelque chose que je ne comprend pas. En quoi Charlie Hebdo représentait la liberté d'expression, et en quoi le spectacle de Dieudonné était-il un discours antisémite, puisque c'était de l'humour, comme Charlie ? L'interdire n'était-il pas une atteinte à la liberté d'expression dans ce cas ? Je ne soutiens évidemment pas Dieudonné, mais je me demandais en quoi les deux étaient différents. Je suis sûrement juste ignorante.. Merci de ta réponse !

Oula, alors il ne faut pas faire d'amalgame entre satire et incitation à la haine. 

Charlie Hebdo est un journal satirique, c'est à dire qu'il réagit à l'actualité avec un regard humoristique, et ce peu importe l'actualité. C'est une réaction simple, un peu bête et méchante, à l'actualité : ça peut traiter de fondamentalisme religieux, de politique, d'évènements culturels.. Ca rejoint un peu tous les humoristes radio comme Sophie Aram, Canteloup, qui tournent l'actu en dérision plus ou moins acide . Bien sûr que parfois, des opinions transparaissent à travers les propos tenus, mais il n'est jamais question de prôner quelconque doctrine. Charlie Hebdo tape sur tout le monde, Chrétiens, Athées, Musulmans, Juifs, Manifs pour Tous, Pro-LGBTQ, politiques de gauche ou de droite… Charlie Hebdo, c'est un peu la machine à la bonne (ou mauvaise blague), un peu comme le mec bourré au zinc d'un bar qui, en regardant les infos passer sur la télé du bar, voit par exemple un énième attentat en Syrie et dit : “Ah bah moi si j'étais Mahomet, j'aurais franchement les boules d'être vénéré par des cons pareils.” “Tiens, si j'en faisais un dessin !” Ca passe auprès de certains, pas auprès d'autres.

Mais Charlie Hebdo n'est jamais à propos d'inciter qui que ce soit à combattre, à se soulever ou rien. Il n'est pas question d'endoctriner, Charlie Hebdo est une volonté de protéger une certaine insolence en humour, du “on peut rire de tout”, il y a une volonté de protéger une liberté de ton qui est un peu une signature française. D'ailleurs, la même qu'utilisait Coluche, Les Nuls et j'en passe. On n'a pourtant jamais dit que Coluche était raciste ou antisémite, au contraire. Chez Charlie Hebdo, on croit que banaliser l'horreur de l'actu avec un humour caca pipi, c'est aider la lutte contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme ou tout autre phobie qui détruit la France et le monde. Qu'on adhère ou pas au moyen, Charlie Hebdo reste dans une démarche très démocratique. C'est vraiment la génération Coluche, c'est une génération portée sur l'amour de l'autre mais aussi à l'humour particulièrement corrosif. Qui dit corrosif ne dit pas agressif ou discriminant.

Les dessinateurs de Charlie Hebdo se sont très souvent engagés , à titre personnel, dans les luttes contre le racisme, contre les discriminations en tout genre. D'ailleurs, on retrouve beaucoup de dessins de Cabu ou de Wolinski dans les livres d'école pour illustrer les discriminations. Avec eux, on est dans l'ultra-gauche, c'est à dire une gauche partisane des valeurs de la Résistance, une gauche très égalitaire, très tout. Leur lutte à Charlie Hebdo, c'est vraiment banaliser pour que les gens finissent par s'en foutre. Ceux qui ont du mal avec Charlie Hebdo et qui les accusent de racisme et autres, c'est souvent parce qu'ils ont une conception de l'humour différente, à savoir qu'on ne peut pas rire de tout et qu'il existe des sujets intouchables, qu'y toucher amène une équation automatique de type rire d'un black = racisme, rire d'un juif = antisémitisme, etc. 

Dieudonné, c'est compliqué. Là, on n'est même plus à l'ultra-droite. C'est un électron libre avec des idées pire que le FN père (C'est dire). Certes il est humoriste de profession, cependant il utilise l'humour pour vendre une doctrine antisémite. Il ne tacle que le “lobby juif” qu'il accuse de tous les maux de la terre. Preuve en est : hier, il participe à la Marche Républicaine et poste sur son facebook en rentrant que personnellement, il se sent “Charlie Coulibaly.” (= “La liberté d'expression antisémite” > La liberté de s'exprimer contre les juifs) C'est constant chez lui, de s'insurger sur le fait qu'on lui supprime sa liberté d'expression.

Le problème, ce n'est pas son ton d'humour, c'est le discours qu'il tient, quand on analyse un tant soit peu ce qu'il dit. L’“avantage” de l'humour, c'est que cela peut plus facilement être compris par des populations influençables et/ou moins éduquées, et qui ont donc moins de faculté d'analyse. Il se sert de l'humour pour enrober des pilules d'antisémitisme, et les personnes qui les gobent finissent par penser, puisque le message a été transmis avec la “douceur” de l'humour, qu'il est le défenseur d'une certaine vérité. Et que donc, comme lui, il faut combattre ce “lobby juif”. Il y a chez lui une volonté de buzz, de faire le spectacle, avec sa quenelle, avec ses déclarations grandiloquentes… Sans se mentir, je pense que c'est une volonté de toucher un plus large public aussi. Plus on en entend parler, plus on est curieux, plus on tente de voir… Et Dieudonné tente d'accrocher des proies faciles sur sa toile.

De plus, il s'allie de plus en plus à des politiques très ancrés dans la discrimination, comme Alain Soral, avec qui il a tenté de créer un parti politique. C'est à cause de ce problème de doctrine et d'influences que Dieudonné est dans le collimateur de la Justice. Il y a une réelle volonté politique antisémite chez lui, il la revendique. Or, l'antisémitisme est un délit en France, et il en est de la responsabilité de l'Etat français de contrer cette volonté politique, d'autant plus quand elle s'inscrit dans le temps. Faut voir les choses en face, la quenelle, c'est le salut nazi inversé. Ca te donne une idée du problème.  

anonymous asked:

hello! I've just discovered your blog so I apologised if you've already answered this but how was your interview experience? do you have any advice for a prospective applicant? thank you and hope you're having a lovely day xx

Hey - I don’t think I have answered this! 

I was, understandably, terrified before my interview. I remember I broke down in school the day before, and one of my teachers had to calm me down (so melodramatic). I was really scared that interviewers were going to expect me to know so much, and I thought it was going to be like a quick-fire question thing. I hadn’t had any ‘practice interviews’, and my school didn’t send students to Oxbridge so there was no help there, so I was quite truthfully, stepping into the unknown. 

But I will never forget my interview. I think its something that will stick with me forever. I remember being shocked because I actually enjoyed the process. A lot. You have two interviews at Cambridge - one that’s ‘academic’, and the other for a more general purpose (to see the kind of person you are). 

My ‘general’ interview wasn’t run by architecture professors (even though thats the subject I interviewed for). I had a Natural Scientist and an English professor. After a ‘task’ (I was given a worksheet of 4 images 5 mins before the interview & had to choose one and talk about it, I chose the image of Saint Jerome in his Study by Antonello da Messina and spoke about space and perspective), then we had a general chat about stuff I had written in my personal statement, and about my interests. I talked about the fact I’d been to the RSC a few times because I loved Shakespeare and mentioned the recent renovation, and then I got into this amazing chat about my favourite Shakespeare plays with the English professor. At that point I’d forgotten it was an interview, they made me feel so comfortable. At the end I was hit with a weird question - something like ‘explain a doctrine,’ I can’t really remember but I remember talking my way through it. I figured it was one of those myths about strange questions you get at Oxbridge interviews and thought I’d give it my best shot. 

In the second interview, the Architecture one, things were a little more tense and more focused on the degree I had chosen to do. The two professors (both architects) asked me a lot about my views on recent architecture news/developments, and then about my work experience in an architects office, and then I had to present my own portfolio of art work in front of them, as well as present the ‘task’ that was set about a month before the interview to draw a ‘space’ (wow, precise brief). But still, they were really nice and not as scary as I had ever imagined. I came out of my interview and laughed with relief. I knew that even if I hadn’t got in, I had done my best. 

I think one thing I would want everyone with an upcoming interview to know is - no matter how scary you think it’s going to be, it’s really not going to be so bad once you’re there, and you’re doing it, and it will just seem so normal for you (yet so amazing at the same time). My main advice to you would be: whatever you do, do not lie in your personal statement. Interviews are primarily formed around this, so if you say you’ve read a book, please bloody well have read the book. Be yourself, and if you have an opinion on something, say it but also justify it - be open and flexible to wider ideas ,and if your interviewer challenges you, treat it as an opportunity to explore something you’ve never thought about before. Stay calm. These people aren’t trying to catch you out in any way, they just want to see who you are. 

But I also think that even if you don’t get an offer, don’t take it personally or anything. It’s probably for your own good - interviewers know who will suit the pressurised atmosphere and crazy/inhuman expectations the university has for its students, so don’t beat yourself up if you’re not wired that way. 

Hope I helped? 

- Sarah xoxo 

Guilt and Forgiveness in Outlander

A long while back, @aruza83 and I had a chat about the ways that guilt and forgiveness are addressed in the Outlander series and I’ve had it sitting in my drafts as something to write an analysis about since then. Part of why it’s taken me so long to get around to it is that it’s addressed from so many perspectives and angles, it’s proving a difficult subject to get a coherent handle on. There are the aspects in the books that speak to various religious doctrines and practices; there’s the question of the guilt one feels versus the responsibility one bears; there’s forgiveness of others and how that differs from forgiveness of oneself. 

So rather than try to condense this subject down into one massive post, I’ve decided instead to examine some of my favorite scenes in the books (and possibly the show) that address these topics in a series of posts. (And yes, I do still have a few unfinished analysis series in my drafts that I promise I will eventually get back to but also, feel free to send more ideas, questions, etc. to my inbox or send me a message via chat).

To start, I’m going back to the end of the first book. 

Claire’s Confession

I think that it’s interesting that in the book, Claire makes her confession to Father Anselm after she ransoms Jamie’s soul while the show chose to place that scene before she gets through to Jamie and pulls him back. As someone who was raised (but has since lapsed) in Catholicism, this placement afterwards feels like a more natural position for this scene and its relationship to everything else in this part of the book. Once Jamie is on the mend, Claire can finally let herself process everything that has happened and begin to really feel the guilt of what she had to do in the process of saving him from Wentworth and the role her actions and her choices made in how events came about. It is a chapter of their lives that Claire is looking to move on from and Confession with the promise of an absolution is one way that she might begin moving forward. 

Keep reading

The ‘lalalalala I can’t hear you’ attitude of some feminists is all well and good. But others CAN hear us. And they are listening intently.

Originally posted by missysnark

Feminists who instantly block those that disagree with them instead of engaging them in conversation are only proving what anti-feminists are saying.

You are proving that feminism is cult like in nature and that those who question the doctrine will be punished or shunned.

You are proving that you can’t back up your own arguments.

You are proving that feminism doesn’t care about all women, only about feminists.

You are proving that feminism weakens women rather than strengthening them.

You’re adding weight to anti-feminism every time you do this. And the more people see this happening the more they will question feminism. You’re destroying your own movement. Think about it. If you want feminism to be taken seriously, if you want to change its reputation, then you need to actually talk to the rest of us. Your echo chamber is helping nobody.

anonymous asked:

The Crusades were wars that met the Just Cause doctrine of the Church, and were primarily about land-grabs done by Muslims. Moreover, the difference between Islam and Christianity is plain to see: One advocates killing in its Scripture, and the other is Christianity.

I’m gonna try really hard to unpack your confused and convoluted point, here, Anon, without ridiculing you with stuff like a Let Me Google That For You link to “Places Where The Christian Bible Advocates Killing” or just line after line of direct quotes from scripture. It’ll be difficult, but I want you to know that I’m Going To Try.

First, casting the Crusades as meeting a “Just Cause Doctrine” question-beggingly assumes the legitimacy of The Church to say which campaigns of violence are “worthy” and which are not. From where does the Church garner this authority? From where does the state? When we dig down into either of these questions, we come to see that structures of authority maintain themselves by casting any and all actors outside of their rules and interests as “illegitimate.” This has been the case for thousands of years, and, with this understanding, we can chart the history of Nations’ relationships with “Freedom Fighters,” “Privateers,” and other forms of mercenary actors.

SECOND: Let’s talk about the conflation of Christian Doctrine and Christian Scripture, wherein Christianity—the followings of the teaching of Ieshua Ben Dauid, of Nazareth, The Christ—is primarily held up as a religion of love and peace, PRECISELY in those instances wherein people attack the doing of violent atrocities by those calling themselves “Christian.” Fundamentalists who point to Deuteronomy and Leviticus when they bomb abortion clinics or kill LGTBQIA people, and say they’re “Christian” all the while; church leaders who use the Old Testament to endorse the disregard of human rights for groups they don’t like—from slavery until today; these are the acts of people who say they’re following the teachings of the Christ.

Who said (and I quote The Guy Himself, from their scripture, here): “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another;” “This I command you, that you love one another;” “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood…;” and then ABOUT THAT COVENANT:

“Who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” And:

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

So we have this history of SO MANY Christians CONVENIENTLY IGNORING that Old Covenant/New Covenant thing, ascribing weight to ALL of the rules written under the auspices of the Old Covenants, rather than the ONE RULE of the New Covenant: LOVE EACH OTHER. Which, incidentally, is actually the only rule that was ever intended. At least according the Nazarene, it is. They ignore that split that is, RIGHT up until the point where they need to denounce someone else’s religion.

And speaking of Doctrine Vs Scripture, the reverse can be seen in a lot of the Quranic exegeses. That is, where the original TEXT of the Quran may seem to call for the deaths and dismemberments of nonbelievers (several times, in fact), the commentary and doctrinal interpretations have focused on the understanding of those scriptures called “The Sword Verses” as being ABOUT SELF DEFENSE in the face of broken treaties and NONVIOLENT STRUGGLE. For an example, turn your face to Brother Malcolm who said, “I have no mercy or compassion in me for a society that will crush people, and then penalize them for not being able to stand under the weight,” and

Usually the black racist has been produced by the white racist. In most cases where you see it, it is the reaction to white racism, and if you analyze it closely, it’s not really black racism… If we react to white racism with a violent reaction, to me that’s not black racism. If you come to put a rope around my neck and I hang you for it, to me that’s not racism. Yours is racism, but my reaction has nothing to do with racism…

So that is the commandment to give no quarter to those whom you once welcomed with open arms and formed an alliance, but who then turned on you and broke their peace. See also Qur’an, Surah 9: AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION). Anyone who honours their agreements and treaties is a friend and is to be granted Every Courtesy.

Now. Taking all of that into account, we can see that those who interpret the Quranic passages about violence as being about offensive rather than defensive or “corrective” violence, and then use that to justify things like terrorist attacks are a) the VAST minority of Islam, and b) cherry-picking.

Which seems to be a habit among people who like to talk a lot about religion, in public, without ever actually, y’know, STUDYING it.

Oops. I see that I kind of failed in not laying out line after line of both scripture and exegesis for the sake of clarity, but I DO SO HOPE YOU’LL FORGIVE ME.

This has gone on way too damn long, but let me just end on this thought: From the framing of your statements I’m pretty safe in assuming that you’re some species of Christian or someone who calls themselves “secular-but-spiritual” while being steeped in a tradition of uninvestigated Western pseudo-Christianity, so how about when you come at me, don’t do it with your half-comprehended texts and your pastor/deacon/priest/minister’s words, but with the doctrine you LIVE.

Where’s that Love?