The others have provided quite comprehensive answers to this, so I’ll simply say — it’s often more helpful to think in terms of ‘Christ Jesus’ than ‘Jesus Christ’.
“Even the most secular, critical scholars will tell you that the Bible contains no historical falsehoods.” I’m sorry, but precisely what scholarship are you reading? The general and well-established consensuses in current critical scholarship are the exact opposites to the claims you are making here. Equating truthfulness and authority with historicity and lacking in errors or contradictions is extremely problematic and on a hidin’ to nothin’, as we say in this neck of the woods. Inerrancy is very much the minority position, both in terms of the tradition of faith (it is a modern claim in response to asking the wrong question about the texts) and critical scholarship.
100% this! It’s really reductionistic to think in terms of factual (/historical/literal) truth, as there are other kinds of emotional and psychological truth that we should count into the calculation. To oversimplify it: it’s a question of genre, not veracity.
Came here to say this! I’d also want to stress in terms of myth being a symbolic story: this doesn’t mean it isn’t profoundly true. I’ve noticed that a lot of folks on here focus exclusively on factual truth, but there are other kinds of emotional and psychological truth that we should count into the calculation.
Duelling, potion making, flying etc do seem to require a significant amount of exertion and pretty hard physical graft, though.
The Demiguise — the non-magical equivalent (sloth) is adorable and can’t sneak up on us.
Certain spells and potions can be used to share a person’s essence onto the painted canvas so that a portrait is alive and can interactive with viewers. Does that mean, technically speaking, they function as more ethically created horcruxes?
My little godson (4) loves And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell — it’s a great way to talk to little ones about same-sex relationships and how families can be of different configurations and that’s a good thing. See What I Can Do! by Jon Roberts is also an excellent celebration of individuality. The Someday Birds by Sally J. Pla is a great introduction to neurodiversity, which he could read when he’s older but you could read to him now.
(And as an important aside: OP appreciation! Your baby brother is blessed to have you. The clear love and affection behind your post is truly wonderful and inspiring. Keep up the good work — you sound like precisely the kind of older sibling I wish I had!)
Annie Graham in Hereditary — Toni Collette is magnificent in the role, but I don’t think Annie can be loved as the protagonist. Her treatment of Peter is horrendous and makes me unsympathetic towards her in the way others are.
The musical is much better imo
Original recipe coca-cola
They don’t like dogs
A pasta bake, using pasta, a tin of tomato soup, and cheese!
Evanna Lynch as Luna. JK Rowling said Lynch was so well cast that she influenced how Luna was subsequently written.
This! Playing The Sims was my substitute for a social life in my early teens — who needed real life when you could live vicariously through them?
S/he could be seeking warmth or a cool spot, or might be feeling stressed or anxious. What age is your pal? It could be the case that s/he is simply exploring new surroundings. If the behaviour persists, I’d mention it to the vet. This sounds odd, but is s/he licking the wall? That could also be a sign of a nutritional deficiency.
In horror films the monsters are usually quite easily identifiable as monsters, whereas real life is much more complex. And, relatedly, there is usually a pretty clear-cut good vs evil/bad, whereas in real life things are frustratingly mixed. In short, horror is a good escapism from the complexity of reality.
Came here to say this! Feuerbach famously referred to God as a ‘human projection’, and hence declared ‘all theology is anthropology’.
The authentic saint is the one who can most convincingly be transparent to who God is as shown fully in Jesus. There are number of different layers of the kinds of people we call saints in the church: there is a sense in which someone who has been united to Jesus in baptism is a saint — God has received us as sons and daughters through Jesus, joined us in one fellowship with the saints, and made us citizens of the kingdom; there are also those who the church recognises as being particularly good examples to follow and expresses this in a formal way. The latter kind of saint depends very much on which part of the Christian family you are talking about: those traditions that emerged from the Reformation tend to give a trimmed down list of saints, usually those whose lives and careers can easily be traced throughout the New Testament. How saints are formally recognised as such depends on the particular tradition in question, and varies slightly depending on local custom.
I was thinking Good Omens, Stardust, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, as well as his illustrated books, Coraline, The Day I Swapped My Dad For Two Goldfish… Obviously, I wouldn’t recommend going with the works he explicitly states as being for adults, but he has written heaps of books for children that bear up under reading as adults.
I’ve delivered a talk at a school assembly about this. I talked about how there are only three people mentioned in the creed: Jesus, the one who said no to him (Pilate), and the one who said yes to him (Mary). Each time we say the creed together, we stand either with Pilate or Mary.
Physically older; mentally younger
You’ve revised your claim in the above. I’m a professional theologian — a systematics lecturer who regularly interacts with my colleagues in biblical studies (in fact, we co-teach a module on the theological interpretation of Scripture) — so it is hilarious to be told to do my research LOL. I could have said precisely that in response to your first post.
To which extent You think Genesis 1-11 Is literal?
Christianity