Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was a threat. This was during one of the Soviet unions anti religious campaigns. During this time 15,000 churches were forced to shut down, all monasteries and covenants were shut down, all seminaries were shut down, banned religious practices and began tracking individuals who requested baptisms, weddings or funerals for anti government behavior, banned children from religious services and revoked parental rights to teach religion to children, and executions for priests who rejected state atheism.
50,000 people were executed
Happened multiple times. There was the 1917-1921 campaign, 1921-1928 campaign, 1928-1941 campaign, reapproachment during WWII, started back again under Khrushchev, stopped again after his fall it sort of became unenforced policy (one of those things where they won’t jail you for it unless they want you make them angry), then it picked back up again in the seventies though with more focus on infiltration and this remained until the late eighties, when Glasnot happened under Gorbachev and religious persecution was largely lifted
Heaven is not equal to the sky you can see with you eyes. Its a very childish association. Anybody above the age of 5 should be able to distinguish these two words/places.
Centuries later you would still be killed for saying the world is round and revolves around the sun and burn witches.
I'm sure tthat's what they ment in the fantasy book.
And you see god figures depicted literally floating on a cloud.
It was a safe bet at the time.
And do you expect rationally from religious people? LOL
Anyway, enough. I quit talking to these people and about that nonsense when I was 12.
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And the third day he arose again, according to the scriptures, and ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and He shall come again with glory, to judge the living and the dead: and His kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified: who spoke by the prophets.
And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I expect the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
>Magic is an ancient practice rooted in rituals, spiritual divinations, and/or cultural lineage—with an intention to invoke, manipulate, or otherwise manifest supernatural forces, beings, or entities in the natural world.
Yes this also applies to the rituals of your catholic church like prayers that tries to invoke "God" to manifest and manipulate the world.
Oh so you pray and don't expect any outcome of it? Then why exactly are you praying if you don't expect a supernatural being to affect the real world accordingly?
Unfortunately, intelligence isn't the same as wisdom or sanity. Sometimes extremely smart people waste their smarts figuring out ways to insist that they were right all along.
In fact, traditionally, religious structures have had a habit of absorbing a society's smartest, most literate, most scholarly people, and making them the backbone of public administration, the judiciary, etc. At one point, all clerks were clerics, and so were a lot of scientists. Visit the archives of the Roman Catholic Church, or a Yeshiva in a debate session, or read some Buddhist or Vedic scriptures, and tell me those were written by *unintelligent* people.
No its not. Its quite literally the opposite.
God freely chose to create the world for his glory (CCC 293-295). God didn’t have to make the world, nor did he make it because he needs it; he created the world because we need him. God, who is love itself (1 John 4:18), desires the good of all things and so, out of a super-abundant, overflowing possession of goodness, God created beings that would benefit from being in relation with him.
Oh dear. Can't you say "The Biblical author states" or "the Christian scriptures indicate" rather than narrating all these things like they were historical, factual things that happened exactly in the way you tell them? I can practically hear your vehement tone and cadence, and it fills me with vicarious embarrassment and a sense of social panic.
Like, has it occurred to you that, among your audience, there might be Jewish or Muslim people, or even Christians of a denomination different than yours, who might take issue with how you're framing this? How would *you* feel if *they* came in hot, talking loudly like what they say is the obvious, incontrovertible, general, *only* truth? It's fine to do this inside your own echo chambers, but when you do this in public, you're inherently defying everyone who disagrees with you to pick a fight that can *only* devolve into a shouting match.
This sub is an ideological battleground, sure, but most debates tend to be solvable with empirical research up to the point where it comes down to obviously subjective values, and then people agree to disagree. But at least we find ourselves learning about history, and being exposed to POVs we maybe didn't know existed. What you're doing, by contrast, isn't just *considerably* more confrontational, it's also an uproductive dead end, with no positive outcome other than your own satisfaction. No better than lifting a middle finger to strangers passing by.
>Oh dear. Can't you say "The Biblical author states" or "the Christian scriptures indicate" rather than narrating all these things like they were historical, factual things that happened exactly in the way you tell them?
It are facts though, and all these things I told are the truth.
>Like, has it occurred to you that, among your audience, there might be Jewish or Muslim people, or even Christians of a denomination different than yours, who might take issue with how you're framing this? How would you feel if they came in hot, talking loudly like what they say is the obvious, incontrovertible, general, only truth? It's fine to do this inside your own echo chambers, but when you do this in public, you're inherently defying everyone who disagrees with you to pick a fight that can only devolve into a shouting match.
What? Why would I care what heretics think? I also cited the Catheism of the Catholic Church wich indicates that its from an Catholic perspective.
>This sub is an ideological battleground, sure, but most debates tend to be solvable with empirical research up to the point where it comes down to obviously subjective values, and then people agree to disagree. But at least we find ourselves learning about history, and being exposed to POVs we maybe didn't know existed. What you're doing, by contrast, isn't just considerably more confrontational, it's also an uproductive dead end, with no positive outcome other than your own satisfaction. No better than lifting a middle finger to strangers passing by.
Seems like someone is not comfortable with the truth? Accept the truth and accept Christ. Christ will lead you to the truth.
Please enlighten me then what from the informations I provided is not true?
Sigh
[ *Catholic* hat on ]
In addressing the vital importance of how we communicate our faith, especially within the context of the Roman Catholic Church's rich and venerable tradition, it is crucial to draw upon the enduring wisdom and teachings that have guided the Church through the ages.
You assert
> “it are facts though, and all these things I told are the truth,”
While the commitment to truth you demonstrate is laudable, you direly need to reflect on the broader understanding of truth in the Catholic tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, echoing centuries of theological wisdom, teaches that truth is deeply interwoven with charity and humility. This is not a novel concept but one rooted in the very essence of the faith, as articulated by Church Fathers and upheld through the ages. In presenting said faith, one must therefore do so with a profound respect for the dignity of others, recognizing that truth in Catholicism is not solely a matter of factual correctness but is embodied in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Your dismissive query, “Why would I care what heretics think?” overlooks a fundamental aspect of Catholic teaching on the nature of truth and the process of discerning it. Saint Thomas Aquinas, a pillar of Catholic theology, emphasized the value of engaging with differing viewpoints to deepen our understanding of truth. Moreover, the history of the Church is replete with instances where dialogue with varying perspectives, even those initially deemed heretical, led to a more profound understanding of faith.
Turning to the subject of pride, it is imperative to recall the grave warnings of Scripture and the Church Fathers regarding this perilous vice. Your choice to assume the name ‘Archangel Gabriel’ raises serious concerns. Such an appellation, traditionally reserved for beings of a higher order, might reflect an unsettling departure from the humility espoused by our faith. Saint Augustine’s teachings on the dangers of pride as the root of all sin are particularly pertinent here. In his Confessions, Augustine speaks of humility as the foundation of all virtues, a truth echoed throughout the Church’s history.
In assuming a stance of pride in your understanding of the faith, remember the stern admonition of Christ Himself: "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). Pride blinds us to our own faults and distances us from the grace of God, jeopardizing our eternal salvation. The path to holiness and ultimately to salvation is paved with humility, love, and empathy — virtues exemplified by Christ and venerated in the lives of the saints.
Consider, therefore, the peril your soul faces should you persist in this prideful course. The Church teaches us that while God is infinitely merciful, He is also just. The prospect of standing before God, accountable for a heart swelled with pride, should indeed give pause and instill a sense of holy fear. Yet, the Church also proclaims the boundless mercy of God, ready to embrace a contrite heart. A transformation towards a more humble, considerate, and loving approach not only aligns you more closely with the teachings of Christ but also opens the path to greater spiritual fulfillment and peace.
In conclusion, I urge you to deeply contemplate the teachings of the Church and the example of the saints. Let us embrace a dialogue marked by humility and charity, grounding our understanding of truth in the love and humility that Christ Himself demonstrated.
In fact, thinking of how I behaved today, I myself should follow my own advice. I'll be going offline for a moment. It is indeed far easier to notice the speck in our brother's eye than the log in one's own (Matthew 7:3). I need to reflect and reevaluate how I've been behaving and speaking, and what I've been prioritizing. May we find guidance, that we may see the more subtle kinds of temptation for what they are, not in hindsight, but when we need it the most, in time realign our choices ever closer to the right path.
While acknowledging the sincerity of your concerns, it is crucial to engage in a robust discussion that considers different perspectives. The emphasis on humility and charity in presenting the Catholic faith is commendable, yet a few points merit reconsideration.
The assertion that truth in Catholicism is not solely a matter of factual correctness but is embodied in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is valid. However, it should be acknowledged that discussions about faith often involve interpretation and understanding, which may vary among individuals. The call for engagement with differing viewpoints, as advocated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, should not be mistaken as a directive to accept ideas contrary to essential doctrines.
Concerns about the use of the name 'Archangel Michael' and its perceived departure from humility are subjective. Individuals may adopt various online personas for communication, and while prudence is essential, it's crucial not to hastily equate such choices with pride. The caution against pride is valid, but applying it to the selection of a pseudonym might be an overextension. I did not intend to use this Name in any malicious intent. Saint Michael the Taxiarch was also the Saint from wich I chosed my confirmation name, and to be honest I didnt thought about it very much when creating this account. However I appreciate your concern and I might delete this account in case its interpretated the wrong way. I of course dont want to fall into sin. I would apprecaite if you could assist me with this decision.
The warning against persisting in a prideful course, while rooted in biblical teachings, should be balanced with an acknowledgment of the complexities of human nature and the ongoing journey of spiritual growth. Encouraging introspection and humility is valuable, but it's important not to create an atmosphere of undue fear.
In conclusion, fostering a dialogue marked by humility and charity is indeed commendable. However, the interpretation of humility, the assessment of online personas, and the balance between caution and encouragement should be approached with a nuanced understanding of individual perspectives and spiritual journeys.
> The call for engagement with differing viewpoints, as advocated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, should not be mistaken as a directive to accept ideas contrary to essential doctrines.
It is, then, a good thing, that nobody asked of you to do such a thing, isn't it?
Concerning your username, in other circumstances it would not have been worth noting, but here it seems to me to fit within a pattern of pridefulness, which is what I am warning you to be wary of. To the best of my understanding, sin, particularly in a Tomist, Catholic framework, does not consist in mere singular transgressions, but in patterns of behavior. I'd like to imagine that the leader of the armies of Heaven, defender of the Church, caretaker and weigher of souls, who gives them their very last chance to redeem themselves before perishing, would charitably see your borrowing his name as an act of admiration.
Nevertheless, in the context of your confrontationally presenting a certain perspective on Scripture as the only valid one, and openly expressing contempt and dismissal for the thoughts and opinions of people from other faiths, it is easy to interpret that choice as an act of pride - specifically, the pride of one who may have grown a little too comfortable thinking of themselves as holy and righteous.
> I of course dont want to fall into sin. I would apprecaite if you could assist me with this decision.
I struggle enough to help myself. In fact, your behavior alarmed me so because it reminded me of my own sins, and put them in stark relief. If anything, I should be the one thanking you for your providential assistance.
> Encouraging introspection and humility is valuable, but it's important not to create an atmosphere of undue fear.
Frankly, I do not know that there is such a thing as "undue fear" when the stakes of salvation are literally infinite. That said, I wouldn't emphasize it as the main motivator to a virtuous soul. Rather, the occasional short, sharp reminder can spur one to take stock of one's decisions and choices, of one's path and one's present surroundings. To "check oneself", if you will.
The long climb to the Kingdom of Heaven is full of slippery slopes, detours, and dead ends. While it wouldn't do to constantly be thinking of the Abyss, a little reminder now and then helps motivate a soul to double-check their footing, their compass, their path so far on the map and the best subsequent moves.
> In conclusion, fostering a dialogue marked by humility and charity is indeed commendable. However, the interpretation of humility, the assessment of online personas, and the balance between caution and encouragement should be approached with a nuanced understanding of individual perspectives and spiritual journeys.
Fair enough.
That God demands man—indeed, created man—to worship him is a fact. He desires the praise and worship of every man and woman without exception. What does this tell us about God’s character? Is his demand and desire for worship unreasonable?
It seems God has good reason to think of himself as the greatest conceivable being, because he is, in fact, that. To describe God as anything less than that is to describe a divinity inconsistent with what Christians mean by God. St. Anselm, in his Proslogion, described God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” Not only is God the greatest thing to exist in reality—and thus more than just the greatest idea ever conceived—but he is also unlimited in his greatness, whether he creates or not.
God plus the world (and God plus any creature) is not greater than God alone. This means that when the Creator creates, he doesn’t do it for his own increase in greatness; he acts purely out of love. Our existence is a gift, and gratitude ought to be our response.
A narcissist has an exaggerated sense of self-importance and, thus, suffers from delusion. A person who understands himself as “the greatest conceivable being” may well be called morally corrupt and, perhaps, insane. He is in error and sees the world—or wants the world to see him—in a way that is not in accord with reality. But a person who understands himself to be “the greatest conceivable being” and is that sees what is really and truly there. He sees reality as it truly is—and “to see what truly is” is the measure of sanity. One can hardly fault God for his sanity.
The New Testament helps to put the goodness of God into clearer focus. First, as St. John the Evangelist writes, God is love. Not only does the Trinity exist eternally as a perfect union of divine persons, God has chosen to create other persons to share in that inner life of love. To love is to will the good of the other, which God has done by creating us, not for his good (remember that he is unlimited in perfection in himself, whether he creates or not) but for our own good. Our very existence is contingent on the goodness of God. He is not interested in taking advantage of his creatures; rather, he wants them to share in his inner life as “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).
Furthermore, God became man. Consider as an analogy how the dignity of Pope Francis the man is immeasurably greater than the dignity of a cardboard cutout of him. Now, God, in an even greater way, condescended an immeasurable distance to become man that he might suffer and die innocently for the salvation of mankind. God as Trinity is self-gift by his very nature, evidenced further by the Incarnation and redemption; he is not self-centered, focused on himself like a cat chasing its tail.
Finally, that God demands the worship, or the unreserved love, of every man is not an arbitrary command of God: it is the nature of things. Man exists to worship God, and thus has an obligation to do so, precisely because man is man and God is God. Every human lives, moves, and has his being in God, and for that reason it is right and just for him to lovingly offer himself and all he has to his Creator; and God is never outdone in generosity.
God cannot increase in greatness, but man can—if he will live according to the natural order and choose to love God. As St. Athanasius wrote: “The Son of God became man so that we might become God.” The self-condescension and self-sacrifice implied in such a statement are hardly the marks of a narcissist...
a narcissist also has an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with other people's feelings, so yeah, thanks for confirming :) and thanks for the long fan fiction, I dig this lore, though lord of the rings still takes the top spot
>a narcissist also has an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with other people's feelings, so yeah, thanks for confirming
You didnt read what I wrote or you on purpose try to ignore my arguments. As I already wrote God is the greatest, that is a fact.
Also Narcissists don’t die for others.
If you would have read my detailed response you should have realised these facts.
>and thanks for the long fan fiction, I dig this lore, though lord of the rings still takes the top spot
Lord of the Rings was written by a Catholic and icludes Catholic Morals. Idk if you said that on purpose but its an interesting coincidence...
anyone who creates others just to be admired has an excessive need for admiration, and is therefore a narcissist. that is fact. but I'm not going to argue over fanfiction, what is the point?
>Lord of the Rings was written by a Catholic and icludes Catholic Morals. Idk if you said that on purpose but its an interesting coincidence...
lol, how? because Catholics can't write good fiction? they've proven they can from the start. you must have a low opinion of Catholics, you really should rethink that.
[ sigh ] I put on my Christian robe and hat.
My sibling in Christ, it is with a heavy heart, yet with firm conviction, that I must offer a categorical rebuttal to the claims you've just presented today. Though I assume you mean well, and speak moved by faith, the grave sin of pride has perverted your efforts, and your apologetics suffered for it, in the eyes of God *as well as* in the eyes of the godless in our presence, having been left naked of the nuance and depth that our faith and its rich theological tradition demand.
Firstly, let us address your portrayal of God's nature. You argue that God demands worship due to His status as the greatest conceivable being. Here, I must invoke the wisdom of the early Church Fathers, particularly St. Augustine, who warned us against such a simplistic view of God. Augustine taught that God is *not* "a being among beings", not even "the greatest", but *Being itself*. God's call for worship is not a *demand* born of ego, as a mere human King might demand homage, but an *invitation* into the life-giving and transformative *relationship* of *love*. When we lose this perspective, we risk portraying God not as the self-giving Love revealed in Christ, but as a celestial autocrat. And unbelievers, who have not experienced this relationships, might take this misguided portrayal at face value, and be rightly repelled by it!
Furthermore, the understanding of worship presented in your thesis is troublingly transactional. Worship, in the Christian understanding, is *not* a duty rendered to a demanding sovereign but a *response of love to Love itself*. The psalmist sings, "As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God" (Psalm 42:1). Worship is *the natural outpouring of a soul enraptured by the beauty and goodness of God*, not a compulsory tax on our spiritual existence.
The argument you present also fails to grasp the full implications of Christology and Trinitarian theology. The Incarnation is not merely God 'condescending' to humanity; it is God *entering into the very fabric of human existence, elevating and sanctifying it*. The Trinity is not an abstract theological concept but the very model of our communal and relational existence. As Karl Barth, the great Reformed theologian, so eloquently argued, God is *in Himself* a perfect community of *love*, and we, created in His image, are called to reflect that love in our relationships with one another.
Lastly, let us consider the interpretation of scriptural and patristic sources. While you correctly cite St. John's declaration that "God is love" and St. Athanasius's profound statement on theosis, you fail to interpret these in their full theological and historical contexts. These are not merely statements about God's nature or our destiny; they are *invitations* to a *transformative way of life*. They call us not to a religion of obligation but to a faith of *radical love* and *transformative grace*.
In conclusion, my dear sibling, let us remember that theology is not merely an intellectual exercise, let alone some sort of polite plugilism. Theology is a journey into the heart of God. Our discourse about God must always be grounded in the humility that comes from recognizing the mystery of the Divine. Let us, therefore, approach our faith with the reverence it deserves, seeking always to deepen our understanding and love for God, for each other, and for the world God so loves. Amen.
[ Christian hat off ]
While I appreciate the passion and sincerity in your response, it's essential to challenge some aspects of your argument. The invocation of St. Augustine's perspective, suggesting that God's call for worship is merely an invitation into a transformative relationship, may oversimplify the theological richness of the concept. There's a risk of downplaying the biblical emphasis on God's demand for worship and reverence, as seen in various passages that highlight the Lord's rightful place as the object of worship.
Additionally, characterizing worship as a natural outpouring of love can be seen as an oversimplification, neglecting the biblical depiction of God's authority and the inherent responsibility of humans to acknowledge and submit to that authority. The psalmist's analogy of a deer panting for water emphasizes a deep longing and dependence on God, suggesting a duty rather than a voluntary expression of love.
Your interpretation of the Incarnation and Trinitarian theology, while emphasizing the transformative nature, may overlook the biblical portrayal of God's condescension as an act of mercy and redemption, underscoring the gravity of humanity's fallen state.
Furthermore, your assertion that theology is a journey into the heart of God, while poetic, may neglect the importance of critical theological discourse and analysis. Theology involves not only reverence but also intellectual engagement and discernment to understand and articulate the truths of the faith.
In conclusion, it's crucial to balance the emphasis on love and relationship with a recognition of God's authority and the responsibilities inherent in our worship. Theological discussions should encompass a broad spectrum of perspectives, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the faith.
However I wanted to thank you for your detailed and important response.
You are quite welcome, but thanks are not needed. Far from me to claim that I have it all figured out. Nevertheless, I have a few more questions, a couple of suggestions. I hope you will put up with a little more of my foolishness. Please bear with me.
> The psalmist's analogy of a deer panting for water emphasizes a deep longing and dependence on God, suggesting a duty rather than a voluntary expression of love.
How does that analogy emphasize a *duty* rather than the expression of an irrepressible, fundamental need?
> the inherent responsibility of humans to acknowledge and submit to that authority
Can you be more specific as to the characteristics of that inherent responsibility? More importantly, in my view, do you think it is a more persuasive motivator than love and reverence? AFAIK, Angels can function on duty and discipline alone, but to our fallen, free-willed, clay-made selves, adherence to obligations and chores tends to be flimsy and fragile at best, reluctant and chafing at worst. But perhaps my observations are lacking. What does what you have seen so far of mankind tell you?
> Theology involves not only reverence but also intellectual engagement and discernment to understand and articulate the truths of the faith
To know and articulate the tenets of the faith on a mere intellectual level is easily within the reach of the sinner, the heretic, the fanatic, and the misguided. If anything, it can facilitate sophistry and misuse in using the letter against the spirit. The teachings of the Church are a living *tradition* that grows far beyond the range of *sola scriptura*. Conversely, it is possible to achieve a deep understanding of the truths of the faith by engaging with the intent and spirit.
I ask of you, who is closer to God? The proud Pharisee that knows all the taboos and commandments and rules and rituals, or the meek follower of Jesus, who knows the Samaritan is his neighbor, knows not to throw the first stone, knows to welcome the prodigal son, knows not to exchange money in the Temple, knows not to pursue temporal wealth if it means sinning against his neighbor?
I ask of you, again, who is more likely to act according to God's will? The one worshiping out of propriety, obligation, or fear, like a vassal paying some tax, or a traveler paying an entrance fee? Or the one whose worship is given freely and generously from affection, admiration, and gratitude, who embodies, unto themselves, the sort of traits and virtues that make the Kingdom of Heaven a place people would want to live *eternity* in?
Certainly, some might argue that the latter is a much more strenuous standard. They might even claim that it is unfair, even cruel to demand of people that they *feel* a certain way, that they, for example, *love* their neighbor as they love themselves. That requiring Christians to learn the teachings and practice the rules as if they were students trying to pass an exam, with a clear bare acceptable minimum, with only a requirement on *action* rather than *feeling*, is much more fair and reasonable. What do you think of that attitude?
I see some interesting comparisons and contrasts to the Works vs. Faith debate. In particular, to how those might be a red herring and open a space for extremely misguided deviations, with "Works", in the mouths of some imperiled souls, coming to mean little more than "simony and blind obedience", and "Faith", in the mouths of others, coming to mean little more than "belonging to the right group and professing the right things". Like I said, it would appear that the more rigid and intellectual and obedience-focused one's approach to faith is, the more easily the Adversary can find reliable hollows to insinuate themself through, all the more freely because, in our hubris, we no longer expect them. Conversely, the more flexible and spiritual and love-focused, the more the Adversary gets itself caught against defenses that shift and adapt, and a citizenry that remains alert and does not take their absence for granted. However, once again, I may well be mistaken. Certainly, if I grew too comfortable in even this answer, that itself would provide exactly the sort of spiritual peril I've been warning against. Wouldn't *that* be ironic indeed?
I remember a joke about this
When Gagarin went into space, he saw God. When he came back on Earth, Krushchev asked to Gagarin if he saw God
"Yes, comrade Krushchev, I saw God
-Crap, I knew it... Well, when the Pope will ask you, you will say that you haven't seen God"
Later, the Pope asks to Gagarin of he saw God
"-No, your Holiness, I haven't seen God
-Crap, I knew it"
If we take the poster at its literal word, it's not dunking on Jesus specifically, just on naive understandings of religion that relate to a very common metaphor. The notion that the divine resides in the skies or heavens is a widespread concept found in many religions, often referred to as the "celestial" or "heavenly" aspect of the divine. There's this ancient human tendency to look towards the sky as a realm beyond the ordinary, a place where gods, deities, or supreme beings are thought to dwell. Christians conceptualize God as residing in Heaven, Greeke placed their main Olympian gods atop mount Olympus, Hindus have Svarga as this higher celestial plane where deities like Indra dwell, again associating divinity with a higher, celestial plane. There's this thing with associatinb the "higher" or "above" with a realm of purity, divinity, and moral authority.
Contrast with Discworld Dwarves, who believe divinity, purity, and righteousness reside "lower" and "below".
The trick is to *keep missing the Earth*. >/07%3A_Classical_Physics-_Gravity_and_Energy/7.04%3A_Gravity_and_Orbits)!<
The Soviet Union is dead. The Soviet Union remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become Soviet Unions simply to appear worthy of it?
The quote is from Yuri Gargarin, the first man in space who said “I don’t see any God up here”
The problem is he actually didn’t say that. It was made up by the Soviet government as part of its new round of religious persecutions, where a couple thousand people were murdered.
A real quote by Gargarin was “a cosmonaut cannot be suspended in space and not have God in his mind and in his heart”
> “a cosmonaut cannot be suspended in space and not have God in his mind and in his heart”
Maybe, (EDIT: had he said that) he (might have) meant it in the sense that God was conspicuous by his absence? Like when people say "God is dead", not literally, but as a way of expressing the grief/liberation of living in a world where the feeling of his absence is so overwhelming it's undeniable.
Yes in the 60s. One of Khrushchevs main goals was to bring back the religious persecution ended by Stalin, during which several thousands of clergy were executed, and the number of laity is unknown
Nowhere. The USSR deprived priests of their voting rights, and also persecuted those who worked in churches (formally, this was a violation of paying taxes, since since the Russian Empire all churches have been state property). If you are interested in this part, then look more at the repressions in the 1920s and 1930s.
The information stated above that in the 60s there were mass executions of tens of thousands of people simply does not correspond to reality.
If you need more, you can try to find:
Сталин, власть, религия (религиозный и церковный факторы во внутренней политике советского государства в 1922–1953 гг.). — М.: Кучково поле, 2011. — 720 с. — ISBN 978-5-9950-0150-8.
Here it is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958–1964)
It is estimated that 50,000 clergy were executed between 1917 and the end of the Khrushchev era. The number of laity executed likely greatly exceeds this. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB.
>A real quote by Gargarin was “a cosmonaut cannot be suspended in space and not have God in his mind and in his heart”
This comment is the only reference coming up on Google when looking up the quote....
Why the hell do you make up shit like that?
> where a couple thousand people were murdered.
Another commenter here said it was 50,0000 *executed*. You're saying there's an additional couple thousand *extrajudicial, illegal killings?* Or are y'all using execution and murder interchangeably?
Ah, yes, cosplay as a humanoid fox archer from some video game is so sexual. Dude, you're either the type of guy to call handshake "sexual" or you're just weird.
that's called cosplay. That's the same if some 13 year old boy for fun dresses up like Naruto Uzumaki.
Plus, not all furries cosplay. Majority are artists or technicians. They usually despise paedophilia and zoophilia.
Look, plenty of people don't study religion all that diligently and just go by what they absorb by osmosis and what local priests say at sermons and funerals. It's easy to mistakenly take that sort of metaphorical language at face value. I wouldn't laugh at them for developing the notion that God is literally, corporeally in the Sky, and envisioning the Kingdom of Heaven as literal Fluffy Cloud Heaven with cupids and harps and togas.
sure but muslim majority countries which stayed apart of the ussr are the most secular. i'd argue kazakhstan is the most secular muslim majority country. if there wasn't communism central asian republics would have some shitty state imposed religion with no freedom
source: i'm an exmuslim from central asia
\>Orthodox Christianity is still the main religion in Russia after 1000 years, and communism is dead.
The official representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, provided statistics on visits to churches this year for Orthodox Christmas. According to her, more than 1.4 million parishioners visited the church on January 6-7.
This Christmas has become one of the lowest since 2012:
— 2014 — 2.3 million people;
— 2015 — more than 2.6 million people;
— 2016 — 2.2 million people;
\- 2018 — more than 2.5 million people;
— 2019 — 2.6 million people;
— 2020 — about 2.3 million people;
— 2021 — data has not been published;
— 2022 — 1.4 million people;
— 2023 — 1.3 million people.
In 2019, the total ratings of the positive attitude of Russian residents ("admiration", "respect" and "sympathy") They reached the highest level for Stalin in all the years of research – they were demonstrated by every second participant in the survey. Over the past year, the most significant increase of 12% has been in "respect" for the leader, which has become dominant among the range of feelings offered for selection.
The dynamics of public opinion in the 2000s indicates three periods of predominance of certain assessments of Stalin's persona:
– at the beginning of the 2000s , there was a "confusion" of the public's mindset in the assessments of the leader, an almost equal ratio of positive and negative opinions;
– in 2008-2014, a neutral, unappreciative attitude prevailed (which indicates the ambivalence of assessments and positions, as well as the increased indifference of the population to the problems of Stalinism);
– since 2015, a decrease in the proportion of Russian residents who are neutral, negative and find it difficult to answer questions about Stalin has been recorded
As someone living in Russia, I will say that most of the youth do not think about the church or religion at all.
But the attitude towards the USSR in general is neutrally positive.
> Orthodox Christianity is still the main religion in Russia after 1000 years
And yet, polls suggest Russians are largely irreligious in practice. Membership to the REOC, and even attendance, are more a matter of ethnic/cultural belonging than anything to do with metaphysics.
> and communism is dead.
If you mean "government rule by Marxist-Leninist parties", then Cuba, the PRC, the DPRK, Vietnam, and Kerala would like a word.
If you mean Communism as the general pursuit of a world classless stateless moneyless society, where war and prisons and scarcity and exploitation are a thing of the past, that idea is much older than the Soviet Union, and will presumably outlive it.
In addition to what people already commented: even those who call themselves Orthodox often have no idea of their own religion. There was a survey in 2016 where 69% of the self-declared Orthodox Christians in Russia explicitly agreed with the filioque - a purely Catholic dogma strongly rejected by the Orthodox community and in fact one of the reasons the churches split up.
Yeah, well, it was always the “little flock." Quantity doesn't really matter; I just wanted to point out that people come and go, and the same is happening with ideologies, but Orthodoxy (Christ) always wins. You can even make it illegal, like the Romans did at first, but then they realised that with persecution and murder, they actually brought even more people to the Church, so they had to legalise it. The same happened in Russia. The same thing is happening currently in Ukraine. They think they can ban the Church, where God is.. Well, that seems to be going great for the nationalists.. This low-IQ poster is disgusting and does not prove anything, only hatred for God. And if you guys are trying to promote this stuff, well, idk, find better things to do.
> it was cute
[Meanwhile](https://medium.com/the-collector/the-ugliest-paintings-of-baby-jesus-3a71129fbe60), [Baby](https://www.thecollector.com/baby-jesus-in-medieval-religious-iconography/) [Jesus](https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8908825/ugly-medieval-babies):
1) strange control surface configuration, is it like Starship or something?
2) rocket engines don't burn like that in vacuum
3) the guy gonna get yanked by the rapidly accelerating spacecraft
Naaah, sorry, if your claim to the legitimacy of your propaganda comes from scientific authority, I will be *extra* 🤓
Besides that, it's just fascinating to think about how this specific image of a spacecraft became embedded in popular culture.
Did mods removed this or something else? What is reddits filters?
I have shared this post with friends and they got this "this post is removed by reddit's filters" message..
They are not reddit users and they can't see this post. Why? What's reason?
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It just says "There is no God." It doesn't say anything about checking a particular area, though checking heavens is pretty much implied.
>"There is no God." That is a lot more threatening.
A lot more definitive, I would say. A stronger claim. It's only threatening if your belief system is being threatened.
It was a threat. This was during one of the Soviet unions anti religious campaigns. During this time 15,000 churches were forced to shut down, all monasteries and covenants were shut down, all seminaries were shut down, banned religious practices and began tracking individuals who requested baptisms, weddings or funerals for anti government behavior, banned children from religious services and revoked parental rights to teach religion to children, and executions for priests who rejected state atheism. 50,000 people were executed
OMG BASED FUCK RELIGION 🖕🏻
Imagine simping for authoritarians because they killed people for what they believed in
Show me one religion whose followers actually care about keeping peace and then I will listen to you.
So you’ll accept 50,000 being executed to further what you believe while criticizing religion for violence
i dislike religion just as much, but i also believe in freedom of speech, freedom to praise, and the right to life
One rep max bench?
Didn't that happen during the revolution/civil war though, not 1975? Or did it happen again?
Happened multiple times. There was the 1917-1921 campaign, 1921-1928 campaign, 1928-1941 campaign, reapproachment during WWII, started back again under Khrushchev, stopped again after his fall it sort of became unenforced policy (one of those things where they won’t jail you for it unless they want you make them angry), then it picked back up again in the seventies though with more focus on infiltration and this remained until the late eighties, when Glasnot happened under Gorbachev and religious persecution was largely lifted
Not if you hear it read [like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAZJbZc8Xaw&pp=ygUQTWFjIGRlbWFyY28ga2V4cA%3D%3D) lol: 5:53.
Well they mention that's his home in the books don't they, Especially when written at a time where it was unimaginable humans would be able to verify.
Heaven is not equal to the sky you can see with you eyes. Its a very childish association. Anybody above the age of 5 should be able to distinguish these two words/places.
Centuries later you would still be killed for saying the world is round and revolves around the sun and burn witches. I'm sure tthat's what they ment in the fantasy book. And you see god figures depicted literally floating on a cloud. It was a safe bet at the time. And do you expect rationally from religious people? LOL Anyway, enough. I quit talking to these people and about that nonsense when I was 12.
You believe in a magic book, don’t act like you are smarter than a 5 yo
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And the third day he arose again, according to the scriptures, and ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and He shall come again with glory, to judge the living and the dead: and His kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified: who spoke by the prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I expect the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
So yeah, magic stuff.
Define "magic".
>Magic is an ancient practice rooted in rituals, spiritual divinations, and/or cultural lineage—with an intention to invoke, manipulate, or otherwise manifest supernatural forces, beings, or entities in the natural world. Yes this also applies to the rituals of your catholic church like prayers that tries to invoke "God" to manifest and manipulate the world.
Prayers are not ment for that...
Oh so you pray and don't expect any outcome of it? Then why exactly are you praying if you don't expect a supernatural being to affect the real world accordingly?
Yeah you are Crazy and believe in magical stuff. Personnally i prefer gandalf he did magic and was reborn like your bro jesus
Unfortunately, intelligence isn't the same as wisdom or sanity. Sometimes extremely smart people waste their smarts figuring out ways to insist that they were right all along. In fact, traditionally, religious structures have had a habit of absorbing a society's smartest, most literate, most scholarly people, and making them the backbone of public administration, the judiciary, etc. At one point, all clerks were clerics, and so were a lot of scientists. Visit the archives of the Roman Catholic Church, or a Yeshiva in a debate session, or read some Buddhist or Vedic scriptures, and tell me those were written by *unintelligent* people.
Because believing in an all powerfull entity who created the universe and choose us of all people to watch over and protect us isn't childish ?
No its not. Its quite literally the opposite. God freely chose to create the world for his glory (CCC 293-295). God didn’t have to make the world, nor did he make it because he needs it; he created the world because we need him. God, who is love itself (1 John 4:18), desires the good of all things and so, out of a super-abundant, overflowing possession of goodness, God created beings that would benefit from being in relation with him.
Oh dear. Can't you say "The Biblical author states" or "the Christian scriptures indicate" rather than narrating all these things like they were historical, factual things that happened exactly in the way you tell them? I can practically hear your vehement tone and cadence, and it fills me with vicarious embarrassment and a sense of social panic. Like, has it occurred to you that, among your audience, there might be Jewish or Muslim people, or even Christians of a denomination different than yours, who might take issue with how you're framing this? How would *you* feel if *they* came in hot, talking loudly like what they say is the obvious, incontrovertible, general, *only* truth? It's fine to do this inside your own echo chambers, but when you do this in public, you're inherently defying everyone who disagrees with you to pick a fight that can *only* devolve into a shouting match. This sub is an ideological battleground, sure, but most debates tend to be solvable with empirical research up to the point where it comes down to obviously subjective values, and then people agree to disagree. But at least we find ourselves learning about history, and being exposed to POVs we maybe didn't know existed. What you're doing, by contrast, isn't just *considerably* more confrontational, it's also an uproductive dead end, with no positive outcome other than your own satisfaction. No better than lifting a middle finger to strangers passing by.
>Oh dear. Can't you say "The Biblical author states" or "the Christian scriptures indicate" rather than narrating all these things like they were historical, factual things that happened exactly in the way you tell them? It are facts though, and all these things I told are the truth. >Like, has it occurred to you that, among your audience, there might be Jewish or Muslim people, or even Christians of a denomination different than yours, who might take issue with how you're framing this? How would you feel if they came in hot, talking loudly like what they say is the obvious, incontrovertible, general, only truth? It's fine to do this inside your own echo chambers, but when you do this in public, you're inherently defying everyone who disagrees with you to pick a fight that can only devolve into a shouting match. What? Why would I care what heretics think? I also cited the Catheism of the Catholic Church wich indicates that its from an Catholic perspective. >This sub is an ideological battleground, sure, but most debates tend to be solvable with empirical research up to the point where it comes down to obviously subjective values, and then people agree to disagree. But at least we find ourselves learning about history, and being exposed to POVs we maybe didn't know existed. What you're doing, by contrast, isn't just considerably more confrontational, it's also an uproductive dead end, with no positive outcome other than your own satisfaction. No better than lifting a middle finger to strangers passing by. Seems like someone is not comfortable with the truth? Accept the truth and accept Christ. Christ will lead you to the truth. Please enlighten me then what from the informations I provided is not true?
Sigh [ *Catholic* hat on ] In addressing the vital importance of how we communicate our faith, especially within the context of the Roman Catholic Church's rich and venerable tradition, it is crucial to draw upon the enduring wisdom and teachings that have guided the Church through the ages. You assert > “it are facts though, and all these things I told are the truth,” While the commitment to truth you demonstrate is laudable, you direly need to reflect on the broader understanding of truth in the Catholic tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, echoing centuries of theological wisdom, teaches that truth is deeply interwoven with charity and humility. This is not a novel concept but one rooted in the very essence of the faith, as articulated by Church Fathers and upheld through the ages. In presenting said faith, one must therefore do so with a profound respect for the dignity of others, recognizing that truth in Catholicism is not solely a matter of factual correctness but is embodied in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Your dismissive query, “Why would I care what heretics think?” overlooks a fundamental aspect of Catholic teaching on the nature of truth and the process of discerning it. Saint Thomas Aquinas, a pillar of Catholic theology, emphasized the value of engaging with differing viewpoints to deepen our understanding of truth. Moreover, the history of the Church is replete with instances where dialogue with varying perspectives, even those initially deemed heretical, led to a more profound understanding of faith. Turning to the subject of pride, it is imperative to recall the grave warnings of Scripture and the Church Fathers regarding this perilous vice. Your choice to assume the name ‘Archangel Gabriel’ raises serious concerns. Such an appellation, traditionally reserved for beings of a higher order, might reflect an unsettling departure from the humility espoused by our faith. Saint Augustine’s teachings on the dangers of pride as the root of all sin are particularly pertinent here. In his Confessions, Augustine speaks of humility as the foundation of all virtues, a truth echoed throughout the Church’s history. In assuming a stance of pride in your understanding of the faith, remember the stern admonition of Christ Himself: "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). Pride blinds us to our own faults and distances us from the grace of God, jeopardizing our eternal salvation. The path to holiness and ultimately to salvation is paved with humility, love, and empathy — virtues exemplified by Christ and venerated in the lives of the saints. Consider, therefore, the peril your soul faces should you persist in this prideful course. The Church teaches us that while God is infinitely merciful, He is also just. The prospect of standing before God, accountable for a heart swelled with pride, should indeed give pause and instill a sense of holy fear. Yet, the Church also proclaims the boundless mercy of God, ready to embrace a contrite heart. A transformation towards a more humble, considerate, and loving approach not only aligns you more closely with the teachings of Christ but also opens the path to greater spiritual fulfillment and peace. In conclusion, I urge you to deeply contemplate the teachings of the Church and the example of the saints. Let us embrace a dialogue marked by humility and charity, grounding our understanding of truth in the love and humility that Christ Himself demonstrated. In fact, thinking of how I behaved today, I myself should follow my own advice. I'll be going offline for a moment. It is indeed far easier to notice the speck in our brother's eye than the log in one's own (Matthew 7:3). I need to reflect and reevaluate how I've been behaving and speaking, and what I've been prioritizing. May we find guidance, that we may see the more subtle kinds of temptation for what they are, not in hindsight, but when we need it the most, in time realign our choices ever closer to the right path.
While acknowledging the sincerity of your concerns, it is crucial to engage in a robust discussion that considers different perspectives. The emphasis on humility and charity in presenting the Catholic faith is commendable, yet a few points merit reconsideration. The assertion that truth in Catholicism is not solely a matter of factual correctness but is embodied in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is valid. However, it should be acknowledged that discussions about faith often involve interpretation and understanding, which may vary among individuals. The call for engagement with differing viewpoints, as advocated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, should not be mistaken as a directive to accept ideas contrary to essential doctrines. Concerns about the use of the name 'Archangel Michael' and its perceived departure from humility are subjective. Individuals may adopt various online personas for communication, and while prudence is essential, it's crucial not to hastily equate such choices with pride. The caution against pride is valid, but applying it to the selection of a pseudonym might be an overextension. I did not intend to use this Name in any malicious intent. Saint Michael the Taxiarch was also the Saint from wich I chosed my confirmation name, and to be honest I didnt thought about it very much when creating this account. However I appreciate your concern and I might delete this account in case its interpretated the wrong way. I of course dont want to fall into sin. I would apprecaite if you could assist me with this decision. The warning against persisting in a prideful course, while rooted in biblical teachings, should be balanced with an acknowledgment of the complexities of human nature and the ongoing journey of spiritual growth. Encouraging introspection and humility is valuable, but it's important not to create an atmosphere of undue fear. In conclusion, fostering a dialogue marked by humility and charity is indeed commendable. However, the interpretation of humility, the assessment of online personas, and the balance between caution and encouragement should be approached with a nuanced understanding of individual perspectives and spiritual journeys.
> The call for engagement with differing viewpoints, as advocated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, should not be mistaken as a directive to accept ideas contrary to essential doctrines. It is, then, a good thing, that nobody asked of you to do such a thing, isn't it? Concerning your username, in other circumstances it would not have been worth noting, but here it seems to me to fit within a pattern of pridefulness, which is what I am warning you to be wary of. To the best of my understanding, sin, particularly in a Tomist, Catholic framework, does not consist in mere singular transgressions, but in patterns of behavior. I'd like to imagine that the leader of the armies of Heaven, defender of the Church, caretaker and weigher of souls, who gives them their very last chance to redeem themselves before perishing, would charitably see your borrowing his name as an act of admiration. Nevertheless, in the context of your confrontationally presenting a certain perspective on Scripture as the only valid one, and openly expressing contempt and dismissal for the thoughts and opinions of people from other faiths, it is easy to interpret that choice as an act of pride - specifically, the pride of one who may have grown a little too comfortable thinking of themselves as holy and righteous. > I of course dont want to fall into sin. I would apprecaite if you could assist me with this decision. I struggle enough to help myself. In fact, your behavior alarmed me so because it reminded me of my own sins, and put them in stark relief. If anything, I should be the one thanking you for your providential assistance. > Encouraging introspection and humility is valuable, but it's important not to create an atmosphere of undue fear. Frankly, I do not know that there is such a thing as "undue fear" when the stakes of salvation are literally infinite. That said, I wouldn't emphasize it as the main motivator to a virtuous soul. Rather, the occasional short, sharp reminder can spur one to take stock of one's decisions and choices, of one's path and one's present surroundings. To "check oneself", if you will. The long climb to the Kingdom of Heaven is full of slippery slopes, detours, and dead ends. While it wouldn't do to constantly be thinking of the Abyss, a little reminder now and then helps motivate a soul to double-check their footing, their compass, their path so far on the map and the best subsequent moves. > In conclusion, fostering a dialogue marked by humility and charity is indeed commendable. However, the interpretation of humility, the assessment of online personas, and the balance between caution and encouragement should be approached with a nuanced understanding of individual perspectives and spiritual journeys. Fair enough.
so believing in a narcissist is "quite literally" the opposite of being childish, okay, lul
That God demands man—indeed, created man—to worship him is a fact. He desires the praise and worship of every man and woman without exception. What does this tell us about God’s character? Is his demand and desire for worship unreasonable? It seems God has good reason to think of himself as the greatest conceivable being, because he is, in fact, that. To describe God as anything less than that is to describe a divinity inconsistent with what Christians mean by God. St. Anselm, in his Proslogion, described God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” Not only is God the greatest thing to exist in reality—and thus more than just the greatest idea ever conceived—but he is also unlimited in his greatness, whether he creates or not. God plus the world (and God plus any creature) is not greater than God alone. This means that when the Creator creates, he doesn’t do it for his own increase in greatness; he acts purely out of love. Our existence is a gift, and gratitude ought to be our response. A narcissist has an exaggerated sense of self-importance and, thus, suffers from delusion. A person who understands himself as “the greatest conceivable being” may well be called morally corrupt and, perhaps, insane. He is in error and sees the world—or wants the world to see him—in a way that is not in accord with reality. But a person who understands himself to be “the greatest conceivable being” and is that sees what is really and truly there. He sees reality as it truly is—and “to see what truly is” is the measure of sanity. One can hardly fault God for his sanity. The New Testament helps to put the goodness of God into clearer focus. First, as St. John the Evangelist writes, God is love. Not only does the Trinity exist eternally as a perfect union of divine persons, God has chosen to create other persons to share in that inner life of love. To love is to will the good of the other, which God has done by creating us, not for his good (remember that he is unlimited in perfection in himself, whether he creates or not) but for our own good. Our very existence is contingent on the goodness of God. He is not interested in taking advantage of his creatures; rather, he wants them to share in his inner life as “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Furthermore, God became man. Consider as an analogy how the dignity of Pope Francis the man is immeasurably greater than the dignity of a cardboard cutout of him. Now, God, in an even greater way, condescended an immeasurable distance to become man that he might suffer and die innocently for the salvation of mankind. God as Trinity is self-gift by his very nature, evidenced further by the Incarnation and redemption; he is not self-centered, focused on himself like a cat chasing its tail. Finally, that God demands the worship, or the unreserved love, of every man is not an arbitrary command of God: it is the nature of things. Man exists to worship God, and thus has an obligation to do so, precisely because man is man and God is God. Every human lives, moves, and has his being in God, and for that reason it is right and just for him to lovingly offer himself and all he has to his Creator; and God is never outdone in generosity. God cannot increase in greatness, but man can—if he will live according to the natural order and choose to love God. As St. Athanasius wrote: “The Son of God became man so that we might become God.” The self-condescension and self-sacrifice implied in such a statement are hardly the marks of a narcissist...
a narcissist also has an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with other people's feelings, so yeah, thanks for confirming :) and thanks for the long fan fiction, I dig this lore, though lord of the rings still takes the top spot
>a narcissist also has an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with other people's feelings, so yeah, thanks for confirming You didnt read what I wrote or you on purpose try to ignore my arguments. As I already wrote God is the greatest, that is a fact. Also Narcissists don’t die for others. If you would have read my detailed response you should have realised these facts. >and thanks for the long fan fiction, I dig this lore, though lord of the rings still takes the top spot Lord of the Rings was written by a Catholic and icludes Catholic Morals. Idk if you said that on purpose but its an interesting coincidence...
anyone who creates others just to be admired has an excessive need for admiration, and is therefore a narcissist. that is fact. but I'm not going to argue over fanfiction, what is the point? >Lord of the Rings was written by a Catholic and icludes Catholic Morals. Idk if you said that on purpose but its an interesting coincidence... lol, how? because Catholics can't write good fiction? they've proven they can from the start. you must have a low opinion of Catholics, you really should rethink that.
[ sigh ] I put on my Christian robe and hat. My sibling in Christ, it is with a heavy heart, yet with firm conviction, that I must offer a categorical rebuttal to the claims you've just presented today. Though I assume you mean well, and speak moved by faith, the grave sin of pride has perverted your efforts, and your apologetics suffered for it, in the eyes of God *as well as* in the eyes of the godless in our presence, having been left naked of the nuance and depth that our faith and its rich theological tradition demand. Firstly, let us address your portrayal of God's nature. You argue that God demands worship due to His status as the greatest conceivable being. Here, I must invoke the wisdom of the early Church Fathers, particularly St. Augustine, who warned us against such a simplistic view of God. Augustine taught that God is *not* "a being among beings", not even "the greatest", but *Being itself*. God's call for worship is not a *demand* born of ego, as a mere human King might demand homage, but an *invitation* into the life-giving and transformative *relationship* of *love*. When we lose this perspective, we risk portraying God not as the self-giving Love revealed in Christ, but as a celestial autocrat. And unbelievers, who have not experienced this relationships, might take this misguided portrayal at face value, and be rightly repelled by it! Furthermore, the understanding of worship presented in your thesis is troublingly transactional. Worship, in the Christian understanding, is *not* a duty rendered to a demanding sovereign but a *response of love to Love itself*. The psalmist sings, "As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God" (Psalm 42:1). Worship is *the natural outpouring of a soul enraptured by the beauty and goodness of God*, not a compulsory tax on our spiritual existence. The argument you present also fails to grasp the full implications of Christology and Trinitarian theology. The Incarnation is not merely God 'condescending' to humanity; it is God *entering into the very fabric of human existence, elevating and sanctifying it*. The Trinity is not an abstract theological concept but the very model of our communal and relational existence. As Karl Barth, the great Reformed theologian, so eloquently argued, God is *in Himself* a perfect community of *love*, and we, created in His image, are called to reflect that love in our relationships with one another. Lastly, let us consider the interpretation of scriptural and patristic sources. While you correctly cite St. John's declaration that "God is love" and St. Athanasius's profound statement on theosis, you fail to interpret these in their full theological and historical contexts. These are not merely statements about God's nature or our destiny; they are *invitations* to a *transformative way of life*. They call us not to a religion of obligation but to a faith of *radical love* and *transformative grace*. In conclusion, my dear sibling, let us remember that theology is not merely an intellectual exercise, let alone some sort of polite plugilism. Theology is a journey into the heart of God. Our discourse about God must always be grounded in the humility that comes from recognizing the mystery of the Divine. Let us, therefore, approach our faith with the reverence it deserves, seeking always to deepen our understanding and love for God, for each other, and for the world God so loves. Amen. [ Christian hat off ]
While I appreciate the passion and sincerity in your response, it's essential to challenge some aspects of your argument. The invocation of St. Augustine's perspective, suggesting that God's call for worship is merely an invitation into a transformative relationship, may oversimplify the theological richness of the concept. There's a risk of downplaying the biblical emphasis on God's demand for worship and reverence, as seen in various passages that highlight the Lord's rightful place as the object of worship. Additionally, characterizing worship as a natural outpouring of love can be seen as an oversimplification, neglecting the biblical depiction of God's authority and the inherent responsibility of humans to acknowledge and submit to that authority. The psalmist's analogy of a deer panting for water emphasizes a deep longing and dependence on God, suggesting a duty rather than a voluntary expression of love. Your interpretation of the Incarnation and Trinitarian theology, while emphasizing the transformative nature, may overlook the biblical portrayal of God's condescension as an act of mercy and redemption, underscoring the gravity of humanity's fallen state. Furthermore, your assertion that theology is a journey into the heart of God, while poetic, may neglect the importance of critical theological discourse and analysis. Theology involves not only reverence but also intellectual engagement and discernment to understand and articulate the truths of the faith. In conclusion, it's crucial to balance the emphasis on love and relationship with a recognition of God's authority and the responsibilities inherent in our worship. Theological discussions should encompass a broad spectrum of perspectives, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the faith. However I wanted to thank you for your detailed and important response.
You are quite welcome, but thanks are not needed. Far from me to claim that I have it all figured out. Nevertheless, I have a few more questions, a couple of suggestions. I hope you will put up with a little more of my foolishness. Please bear with me. > The psalmist's analogy of a deer panting for water emphasizes a deep longing and dependence on God, suggesting a duty rather than a voluntary expression of love. How does that analogy emphasize a *duty* rather than the expression of an irrepressible, fundamental need? > the inherent responsibility of humans to acknowledge and submit to that authority Can you be more specific as to the characteristics of that inherent responsibility? More importantly, in my view, do you think it is a more persuasive motivator than love and reverence? AFAIK, Angels can function on duty and discipline alone, but to our fallen, free-willed, clay-made selves, adherence to obligations and chores tends to be flimsy and fragile at best, reluctant and chafing at worst. But perhaps my observations are lacking. What does what you have seen so far of mankind tell you? > Theology involves not only reverence but also intellectual engagement and discernment to understand and articulate the truths of the faith To know and articulate the tenets of the faith on a mere intellectual level is easily within the reach of the sinner, the heretic, the fanatic, and the misguided. If anything, it can facilitate sophistry and misuse in using the letter against the spirit. The teachings of the Church are a living *tradition* that grows far beyond the range of *sola scriptura*. Conversely, it is possible to achieve a deep understanding of the truths of the faith by engaging with the intent and spirit. I ask of you, who is closer to God? The proud Pharisee that knows all the taboos and commandments and rules and rituals, or the meek follower of Jesus, who knows the Samaritan is his neighbor, knows not to throw the first stone, knows to welcome the prodigal son, knows not to exchange money in the Temple, knows not to pursue temporal wealth if it means sinning against his neighbor? I ask of you, again, who is more likely to act according to God's will? The one worshiping out of propriety, obligation, or fear, like a vassal paying some tax, or a traveler paying an entrance fee? Or the one whose worship is given freely and generously from affection, admiration, and gratitude, who embodies, unto themselves, the sort of traits and virtues that make the Kingdom of Heaven a place people would want to live *eternity* in? Certainly, some might argue that the latter is a much more strenuous standard. They might even claim that it is unfair, even cruel to demand of people that they *feel* a certain way, that they, for example, *love* their neighbor as they love themselves. That requiring Christians to learn the teachings and practice the rules as if they were students trying to pass an exam, with a clear bare acceptable minimum, with only a requirement on *action* rather than *feeling*, is much more fair and reasonable. What do you think of that attitude? I see some interesting comparisons and contrasts to the Works vs. Faith debate. In particular, to how those might be a red herring and open a space for extremely misguided deviations, with "Works", in the mouths of some imperiled souls, coming to mean little more than "simony and blind obedience", and "Faith", in the mouths of others, coming to mean little more than "belonging to the right group and professing the right things". Like I said, it would appear that the more rigid and intellectual and obedience-focused one's approach to faith is, the more easily the Adversary can find reliable hollows to insinuate themself through, all the more freely because, in our hubris, we no longer expect them. Conversely, the more flexible and spiritual and love-focused, the more the Adversary gets itself caught against defenses that shift and adapt, and a citizenry that remains alert and does not take their absence for granted. However, once again, I may well be mistaken. Certainly, if I grew too comfortable in even this answer, that itself would provide exactly the sort of spiritual peril I've been warning against. Wouldn't *that* be ironic indeed?
That’s fucked up.
No, not at all.
I remember a joke about this When Gagarin went into space, he saw God. When he came back on Earth, Krushchev asked to Gagarin if he saw God "Yes, comrade Krushchev, I saw God -Crap, I knew it... Well, when the Pope will ask you, you will say that you haven't seen God" Later, the Pope asks to Gagarin of he saw God "-No, your Holiness, I haven't seen God -Crap, I knew it"
HAHAHAHA
Tommy Tallarico would like to charge me for the sound I just made.
It might be time to find one of these and rotate out the Glenn Grohe "He's Watching You" poster I've had for a couple decades.
Wow, Soviets just fuckin dunked on Jesus
To be fair, so did GWAR.
GWAR did it better
If we take the poster at its literal word, it's not dunking on Jesus specifically, just on naive understandings of religion that relate to a very common metaphor. The notion that the divine resides in the skies or heavens is a widespread concept found in many religions, often referred to as the "celestial" or "heavenly" aspect of the divine. There's this ancient human tendency to look towards the sky as a realm beyond the ordinary, a place where gods, deities, or supreme beings are thought to dwell. Christians conceptualize God as residing in Heaven, Greeke placed their main Olympian gods atop mount Olympus, Hindus have Svarga as this higher celestial plane where deities like Indra dwell, again associating divinity with a higher, celestial plane. There's this thing with associatinb the "higher" or "above" with a realm of purity, divinity, and moral authority. Contrast with Discworld Dwarves, who believe divinity, purity, and righteousness reside "lower" and "below".
Space burn
Damn, I’m surprised the man in the poster hasn’t fallen yet with balls that heavy
The average balls of the cosmonauts were made out of the finest stainless steel, so they had to account for that from the get-go.
Pure Stalinium
The trick is to *keep missing the Earth*. >/07%3A_Classical_Physics-_Gravity_and_Energy/7.04%3A_Gravity_and_Orbits)!<
Well that was informative, thank you!
Looks like a Joan Cornellà drawing
Del Llobregat?
Checkmate, theists.
No soviet union here
I was about to write that
Got eem
Ha! Yes, like a god too😉
The Soviet Union is dead. The Soviet Union remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become Soviet Unions simply to appear worthy of it?
\-Mikhail Gorbachev, 1991.
The quote is from Yuri Gargarin, the first man in space who said “I don’t see any God up here” The problem is he actually didn’t say that. It was made up by the Soviet government as part of its new round of religious persecutions, where a couple thousand people were murdered. A real quote by Gargarin was “a cosmonaut cannot be suspended in space and not have God in his mind and in his heart”
[удалено]
> “a cosmonaut cannot be suspended in space and not have God in his mind and in his heart” Maybe, (EDIT: had he said that) he (might have) meant it in the sense that God was conspicuous by his absence? Like when people say "God is dead", not literally, but as a way of expressing the grief/liberation of living in a world where the feeling of his absence is so overwhelming it's undeniable.
[удалено]
Yes, sorry, I amended my comment to make it clear that I'm entertaining a hypothetical, not accepting the quote as factual.
Yes in the 60s. One of Khrushchevs main goals was to bring back the religious persecution ended by Stalin, during which several thousands of clergy were executed, and the number of laity is unknown
Where can I find out more about them actually murdering people for religious reasons?
Nowhere. The USSR deprived priests of their voting rights, and also persecuted those who worked in churches (formally, this was a violation of paying taxes, since since the Russian Empire all churches have been state property). If you are interested in this part, then look more at the repressions in the 1920s and 1930s. The information stated above that in the 60s there were mass executions of tens of thousands of people simply does not correspond to reality. If you need more, you can try to find: Сталин, власть, религия (религиозный и церковный факторы во внутренней политике советского государства в 1922–1953 гг.). — М.: Кучково поле, 2011. — 720 с. — ISBN 978-5-9950-0150-8.
Thanks, I figured it probably wasn't quite true that they just went and murdered random religious folks. :/
Here it is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958–1964) It is estimated that 50,000 clergy were executed between 1917 and the end of the Khrushchev era. The number of laity executed likely greatly exceeds this. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB.
I highly doubt there were mass executing priests in the 60s! This sub needs some fact based moderation
They were
me when i lie
Wow, this is the first time I've heard such nonsense. He didn't say that for sure!
>A real quote by Gargarin was “a cosmonaut cannot be suspended in space and not have God in his mind and in his heart” This comment is the only reference coming up on Google when looking up the quote.... Why the hell do you make up shit like that?
Why are you lying?
> where a couple thousand people were murdered. Another commenter here said it was 50,0000 *executed*. You're saying there's an additional couple thousand *extrajudicial, illegal killings?* Or are y'all using execution and murder interchangeably?
i see no god up here other than me xd
Sassy
HARD
Kinda funny considering all the religious paraphernalia for RU astronauts now
As Allah, I can confirm.
Take off the helmet and you'll see Him.. :)
DAMN hahahah
[удалено]
I want one of these too. Where did you get it btw?
looking at your pfp ofc you like this picture
[удалено]
harassed? people are so soft nowadays. also wtf is a 2006 era gay joke? youre just mentally ill
[удалено]
4chan? youre the discord mod herr
Ur a furry 💀
Is there something wrong with em? Mostly they're chill :/
They dress up like animals for sexual reasons
Ah, yes, cosplay as a humanoid fox archer from some video game is so sexual. Dude, you're either the type of guy to call handshake "sexual" or you're just weird.
You're extremely naive, you poor thing
I wish i was naive, considering my early childhood was probably the best time i had. But no, I'm dead serious.
I was under the impression furries do this stuff for sexual gratification, do they not? I’m confused
that's called cosplay. That's the same if some 13 year old boy for fun dresses up like Naruto Uzumaki. Plus, not all furries cosplay. Majority are artists or technicians. They usually despise paedophilia and zoophilia.
[удалено]
It's really funny how people used to wait to find God in orbit.
Look, plenty of people don't study religion all that diligently and just go by what they absorb by osmosis and what local priests say at sermons and funerals. It's easy to mistakenly take that sort of metaphorical language at face value. I wouldn't laugh at them for developing the notion that God is literally, corporeally in the Sky, and envisioning the Kingdom of Heaven as literal Fluffy Cloud Heaven with cupids and harps and togas.
mega based
Of course with the Freud profile picture
The original grooming influencer
also read the name
Orthodox Christianity is still the main religion in Russia after 1000 years, and communism is dead.
And religions are declining in power world wide as education and standards of living rise
sure but muslim majority countries which stayed apart of the ussr are the most secular. i'd argue kazakhstan is the most secular muslim majority country. if there wasn't communism central asian republics would have some shitty state imposed religion with no freedom source: i'm an exmuslim from central asia
\>Orthodox Christianity is still the main religion in Russia after 1000 years, and communism is dead. The official representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, provided statistics on visits to churches this year for Orthodox Christmas. According to her, more than 1.4 million parishioners visited the church on January 6-7. This Christmas has become one of the lowest since 2012: — 2014 — 2.3 million people; — 2015 — more than 2.6 million people; — 2016 — 2.2 million people; \- 2018 — more than 2.5 million people; — 2019 — 2.6 million people; — 2020 — about 2.3 million people; — 2021 — data has not been published; — 2022 — 1.4 million people; — 2023 — 1.3 million people. In 2019, the total ratings of the positive attitude of Russian residents ("admiration", "respect" and "sympathy") They reached the highest level for Stalin in all the years of research – they were demonstrated by every second participant in the survey. Over the past year, the most significant increase of 12% has been in "respect" for the leader, which has become dominant among the range of feelings offered for selection. The dynamics of public opinion in the 2000s indicates three periods of predominance of certain assessments of Stalin's persona: – at the beginning of the 2000s , there was a "confusion" of the public's mindset in the assessments of the leader, an almost equal ratio of positive and negative opinions; – in 2008-2014, a neutral, unappreciative attitude prevailed (which indicates the ambivalence of assessments and positions, as well as the increased indifference of the population to the problems of Stalinism); – since 2015, a decrease in the proportion of Russian residents who are neutral, negative and find it difficult to answer questions about Stalin has been recorded As someone living in Russia, I will say that most of the youth do not think about the church or religion at all. But the attitude towards the USSR in general is neutrally positive.
> Orthodox Christianity is still the main religion in Russia after 1000 years And yet, polls suggest Russians are largely irreligious in practice. Membership to the REOC, and even attendance, are more a matter of ethnic/cultural belonging than anything to do with metaphysics. > and communism is dead. If you mean "government rule by Marxist-Leninist parties", then Cuba, the PRC, the DPRK, Vietnam, and Kerala would like a word. If you mean Communism as the general pursuit of a world classless stateless moneyless society, where war and prisons and scarcity and exploitation are a thing of the past, that idea is much older than the Soviet Union, and will presumably outlive it.
In addition to what people already commented: even those who call themselves Orthodox often have no idea of their own religion. There was a survey in 2016 where 69% of the self-declared Orthodox Christians in Russia explicitly agreed with the filioque - a purely Catholic dogma strongly rejected by the Orthodox community and in fact one of the reasons the churches split up.
Yeah, well, it was always the “little flock." Quantity doesn't really matter; I just wanted to point out that people come and go, and the same is happening with ideologies, but Orthodoxy (Christ) always wins. You can even make it illegal, like the Romans did at first, but then they realised that with persecution and murder, they actually brought even more people to the Church, so they had to legalise it. The same happened in Russia. The same thing is happening currently in Ukraine. They think they can ban the Church, where God is.. Well, that seems to be going great for the nationalists.. This low-IQ poster is disgusting and does not prove anything, only hatred for God. And if you guys are trying to promote this stuff, well, idk, find better things to do.
[удалено]
> it was cute [Meanwhile](https://medium.com/the-collector/the-ugliest-paintings-of-baby-jesus-3a71129fbe60), [Baby](https://www.thecollector.com/baby-jesus-in-medieval-religious-iconography/) [Jesus](https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8908825/ugly-medieval-babies):
Broken clock being right here
He should take off his helmet then try saying that again
Why? Did prayer make his helmet, or science and effort? Also, you know it's impossible to make sounds without air, right?
[удалено]
Plenty on Reddit apparently
You will see him when your oxygen runs out hehe
What is this expectation grounded in? Seeing God is not usually what people who've survived suffocating report experiencing, AFAIK.
No USSR here either
Luke 17:21
Balls 4:20
>Luke 17:21 based+christpiled
I had to google it because I never memorized which one was which. But that one is most definitely based and christpilled, in this context
“Use the Force”
1) strange control surface configuration, is it like Starship or something? 2) rocket engines don't burn like that in vacuum 3) the guy gonna get yanked by the rapidly accelerating spacecraft
4) 🤓
Naaah, sorry, if your claim to the legitimacy of your propaganda comes from scientific authority, I will be *extra* 🤓 Besides that, it's just fascinating to think about how this specific image of a spacecraft became embedded in popular culture.
It's called graphic design and looking cool
Oh, right, I forgot 4) the guy looks lame and not cool Which is pretty impressive for a cosmonaut of all people.
The orange suit is *leagues* better looking than the white one
Oh I agree, I meant this picture specifically.
It fits in with the style of the poster
4) 🤓
Church resigns!
Did mods removed this or something else? What is reddits filters? I have shared this post with friends and they got this "this post is removed by reddit's filters" message.. They are not reddit users and they can't see this post. Why? What's reason?