Thanksgiving

So I'll go ahead and go the obvious route this week. What am I thankful for?

While I would like to go ahead and go over what I'm thankful for and would love to get some comments regarding what you all are thankful for as well I'd like to go in a slightly different direction. When I was thinking about what to post I started thinking about what I'm not thankful for. And without getting too mushy I realized, I can't think of anything. Are there portions of my life I'd rather not go through again? Obviously. Are there people and things in my life or that used to be in my life that I wish weren't or cause/d problems? Again, the answer is a pretty obvious yes. The thing is, why shouldn't I be thankful for those things too? If I truly believe that God is in control then all of those things are, in some way or another, for my benefit. Whether I realize it or not, or ever will realize it, is beside the point. I have to trust that God has my benefit, or the benefit of those around me in mind. Therefore, why shouldn't I be thankful for those things.

Couple of examples. First of all, I lived in St Louis for about 3 months in the fall of 2012. I worked a terrible job there for about 2 of those months. It required me to lie, required me to change who I wanted to be to be successful, got me arrested, and didn't pay me. I had a boss that thought only of himself, coworkers that weren't necessarily the best influences even if they were friends, and made me think very poorly of myself. It made me do what I had sworn to myself I wouldn't ever do, borrow money from my parents to get by. In short, it was about as awful of an experience as I've had in my life. But I can, am, and should be thankful for all of that on 2 levels. First of all, through all of that I still had a roof over my head, food in my fridge, and clothes on my back to go along with friends and family that loved and supported me. The second level is a little more long reaching. First of all, ever since, in the 2 jobs that I've held, even though parts of them have frustrated me, angered me, or stressed me out, I've been able to realize that things aren't really that bad. Furthermore, in this most recent one it helps me to focus on the positives, I'm still getting paid, I'm not lying to people, I've got good coworkers and bosses, and it allows me to pay my bills without any help. So, even though it's stressful and makes me want to avoid the entire state of Georgia like the plague, I still can't, and won't complain.

Second example would be high school basketball. For those of you who know much about me (which is I'm assuming most of you) you know that basketball is my game. I love playing, watching, coaching, or just talking about it as much as I can. Makes sense considering I've spent a good portion of my life living in Indiana. So naturally, I played for my high school. To say those 4 seasons were frustrating would be an understatement. Despite my unwavering effort, despite tearing ligaments and tendons for the team, despite carrying scars to this day from practices and games, I played little. Even worse, at times, especially my senior year, it seemed as though my coach wouldn't even think about playing me. For a 14-18 year old that was beyond frustrating. My whole life I'd been taught to work hard, put in the effort, and keep a good, team first, attitude, and eventually something would come your way and something good would happen. But I kept doing all those things and nothing seemed to go my way. It seriously bothered me. The thing of it is of course, that life doesn't work that way either. Just because you work hard and have a good attitude doesn't mean you'll succeed. You also have to have the talent, or knowledge, or skill. You also need luck. There's a thousand things other than just hard work that determine success at anything. Hard work goes a long way, but it isn't the sole factor. So, seeing that firsthand as a teenager/high schooler, and looking back on it now, when something doesn't break my way even though I've done everything in my power for it to do so, I'm better equipped to let it roll off my shoulders and move on with my life.

As always, Even so come quickly O Lord Jesus

Lutheranism postponed

So seeing as I'm going to be going through a review of my Lutheran Catechesis in January I figure it would make more sense to hold off on hitting that till then. So in the meantime, does anyone have any suggestions for topics?

Currently I'm leaning towards doing something along the lines of a comparison between the three major monotheistic religions. What they believe, how they differ, how they're the same, and other bits and pieces. As always, other thoughts, suggestions, or ideas are welcome.

Catechism, Orthodoxy, and Core Beliefs

In an effort to boost participation here's my idea for my next post. I'll post the core Lutheran theology based upon Luther's small catechism and Scripture. In other words, I'll do my best to post the basic core tenants of Lutheran belief in short and in hopefully basic enough terms for everyone else to understand. In return, it'd be great for all of you to post the core tenant beliefs of your church whether that be a strictly outlined denomination/synod, or something more amorphous. Either way, please try to stay away from the "I feels" and such, preferably stick to clearly explained or held beliefs of your church body.

My thinking is once we do that, assuming we get more than my Lutheran post, we can move on to questions, or comments, again staying respectful, regarding the beliefs of other groups. Thoughts, comments, concerns, or suggestions are of course welcome as always.

Extra bonus topic

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/11/20433950-pope-francis-no-2-clerical-celibacy-is-open-to-discussion?lite

To you Catholics out there, thoughts, concerns, opinions? To the rest of you, the same.

The Pope, His role in non-catholic Christianity, and the connection between Catholicism and Protestantism

Seeing as we have one suggestion and one vote for it plus a vote for one of my topics, I'll start us off with the Pope etc...

I didn't want to come into a post regarding the pope unprepared so I went ahead and I did some basic research. Catholics out there please correct me if I'm wrong in this regard but this is what I've come to understand as the reasoning for the Primacy of the Pope, the infallibility of the pope in ex cathedra (I think I phrased that right), and the general idea of the apostolic succession. The primacy of the pope is based off the idea that Christ referred to Peter as "the rock upon which I shall build my Church" (Matthew 16:18, and yes I did play with the wording a bit there but it was purely for grammatical purposes). In other words, due to that passage and the fact that there are numerous other passages throughout the Gospel that seem to point to Peter, James, and John are used to declare Peter the first pope and the leader of the church. The other two items come from this. The idea of the apostolic succession comes from a combination of these passages and the fact that the Old Testament Church/Judaism relied upon a High Priest, whose title was passed down through the ages. The argument is, just as the High Priesthood necessitated a succession of power so does the primacy/leadership of the church in these latter days. The infallibility of the pope then, again to my understanding, essentially a logical offshoot of these ideas basically arguing that if the pope is the spiritual successor to Peter and appointed by God Himself, then it follows that, while in ex cathedra, the pope's decrees come straight from God.

Personally, I follow the idea of both the Primacy of the Pope and the apostolic succession. I understand where the idea comes from and I understand the logic that it follows. In fact, though I'd also argue that Peter's primacy within the 12 is more or less irrelevant, I'm more than willing to accept that as valid. The apostolic succession though is where I draw the line and it is for 2 reasons. The first is that there is nothing in the Scriptures calling for the idea of the apostolic succession, simply passages regarding Peter or the triumvirate of Peter, James, and John, as closer to Christ. The second is the bit concerning the connection with the High Priesthood of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament the High Priest was the only one that could enter the Holy of Holies, the High Priest was, in other words, the intercessor for the people to God. He committed the sacrifices and interceded on the people's behalf for God. It was necessary then for this rule to be passed down, for one to succeed another through the ages, for without an intercessor the people would be lost. However, since Christ came, since His Death and Resurrection, He is our intercessor, the Great Intercessor as it were. Christ is the greatest and last intercessor, He is still going to God on our behalf, still taking on our sins, still defeating Death. Therefore, there is no need for equivalent duties of the High Priest. That is also why I feel as though the idea of the infallibility of the pope is both incorrect and treading in very dangerous waters. But more on that either in the comments or perhaps a follow up post. If I'm just completely wrong in regards to all this, just ignore all of the above lol.

On the other hand, my own church the Luther Church Missouri Synod or LCMS has a president. Clearly the earthly church needs earthly leadership. We need earthly leadership for the earthly church for everything from how to pay our pastors/priests/ministers or whatever name you use, to how to lead schools and so forth. Long story short, we need some form of earthly leadership for the earthly necessities of the church as well as to help lead and figure out how to perform our eternal function of bringing others to Christ. So in that regard, yes the pope is necessary. My problems with the pope then are 2 fold. The first is the spiritual side, I feel like the pope is sometimes held up as a substitute for Christ, which obviously is wrong. The second part is that I think the Catholic church, under the leadership of the pope, sometimes finds itself too deeply involved in earthly affairs. Long story short once again, I believe that, were the pope/Catholic church as a whole, to reduce the spiritual power of the pope and slightly reduce the earthly involvement, the pope would be mostly a positive. As it is I still believe that the pope is a net positive.

In regards to his role with protestantism, well there I'd like to defer to my other protestant friends. While I obviously don't think the pope is infallible or even "follow" him, I don't have a problem with him either and I can understand why he exists and how some might look to him for leadership. However, that's just me.

Thoughts, comments, or ideas are obviously welcome and encouraged. If I've gotten anything wrong in the reasoning behind the papacy etc please correct me.

Possible first post ideas/topics

Ok here's the ideas I've had for the first topic on the blog.

The Resurrection, physical or purely spiritual

Historical veracity of the Gospel accounts

Purely for kicks and giggles, what would have happened if The Fall had never happened

Please vote via the comments or suggest a different one. I'll choose whatever seems the most popular by Saturday and get this whole shindig started

Goals, thoughts, and purposes

Hey just as my first blog post I would like to kind of set the goals/thoughts that led to this. I've had the tremendous opportunities over the last few years to participate in several very good, very interesting, and very thought provoking discussions with friends, pastors, professors, and family regarding faith, religion, life, and the way we think. I've also, since moving out of my parents' house, been reading several theological blogs and getting into (quite often pointless) discussions with people of other faiths, including atheists, catholics, methodists, baptists, and agnostics. However, the majority of these people are at least a decade or so older than myself and that kinda skews things. I just thought that I'd maybe open up my own blog, if possible, and open it up primarily to people of my age group so to speak. I'm not pretending to be an expert in apologetics. While I enjoy it and find it fascinating, I haven't studied it nearly enough to truly be considered an expert. However, I would like to have open and honest discussions with other people my own age or near it on topics such as abortion, homosexuality, the core tenants of the Christian faith, the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts and other similar topics. If anyone has a topic they'd like to discuss, please just email me and if it seems reasonable, we'll do it.

Some rules first before we really get started. Keep it friendly and respectful. I will kick you out/off if you get nasty or start name calling or the like. When possible, cite sources. Try to keep an open mind. However, if there's something you just feel like you dogmatically need to stick by, that's fine, just state that and be respectful and hopefully others will do the same. See the first rule I mentioned in regards to if they don't. Otherwise, have fun, be thoughtful, and enjoy yourselves hopefully.

I'll hopefully post a topic by the weekend, thoughts and suggestions for first topic are welcome just email me at mm478@evansville.edu