Finally, a post about girls... Here is a post in which I will identify one very simple way for people who don't have the balls or guts to get to know or approach girls they don't relatively know.
To be absolutely frank, I don't exactly do this often. I prefer a more mutual or casual type of meeting. Plus I've already grown out of the days where I get to know girls for only one simple reason. To get laid. Here I derive a method of getting to know girls that you don't quite know, without actually making any effort at all. In fact, it actually gets her to make the effort..."if you do it with great effect that is".
However this is not the best method but it works perfectly well if you're the not exactly the *very bold type with lotsa guts* type of guy. There are of course other elements in which I do not include in this post like how does your appearence count for this approach, about whether your appearence seems to be of any inclination towards the girl that you are trying this approach on, or rather she might already know you and has heard of your bad reputation, or probably she just finds you to be rather ugly and is crystal clear that she does'nt know you and assumes you're a freak. These are the few unlikely scenario's that you might just fail. Albeit so, fear not for to be exactly precise your chances of failing using this particular approach is less then 20%. What we want here is an opportunity to approach the girl and have a conversation. And this approach has an 80% or more percentage of the possibility for you to get that opportunity. Soon, but I won't clarify on how soon that will be, I will of course post on other relevant stuffs relating to this post about girls.
"Just Say Hi"
This is a really simple strategy. If you're consistent and persistent with this strategy, this could yield you a lot of beautiful women. It'll take a long time though, but then again, it requires almost no effort on your part:)
Here's what you do. You see a girl you like, but for some reason can't do an approach (you don't have the time, or maybe the guts, or the situation disallows it etc), at least do this - say "Hi". Keep enough eye-contact to get a confused "Hi" in return, then continue with what you were doing (walking, working etc). Maybe you'll never see the girl again. But if you do (oh joy and behold!:) - say "Hi" again. Then continue with what you were doing (basically, ignoring her:). And so on, and so on. After the first three "Hi's" the girl is still wondering, if or how she is supposed to know you. After the fifth "Hi" she is already wondering, how come you never actually talk to her. After the tenth "Hi" she can't understand, how come you never even approach her. After the twentieth "Hi" she is so confused and intrigued about you that she just can't stand it anymore and will approach YOU instead. She'll try to find out how the two of you know, and why you never talk to her, or why you never even approach her, but you still keep saying "Hi", is there something wrong with her etc - be very vague and mysterious about it in your answers (after all, you don't have much to tell anyway:). Now however, you're talking to an absolutely gorgeous girl (remember, you almost didn't even have the guts to say "Hi" to her:), who is so intrigued about you the she approached you - make the best of it:)
So the good part of this tactic is - almost zero effort on your part, just remember saying "Hi" to her:) The downsides however are numerous - you might never see her again, which is especially bad if she became interested in you when you said your first "Hi" already. Or you might see her a few more times but not on a consistent enough basis to build up enough intrigue in her. Also, this takes a monstrous amount of time to ripen - months, possibly even years. Neither is it much of a confidence- and experience-builder - you'll develop a confidence of saying "Hi" to beauties (not much is it?:) and acquire no experience whatsoever. But it serves it purpose as a last-ditch resort when you see a 10 approaching down the street, hurrying somewhere - say "Hi", get one in return, make her think that the two of you know each other somehow (obviously she can't remember you:) and hope for another chance meeting (when she hopefully still vaguely remembers you:).
A modification of this tactic (which seems to make some more sense) - just say "Hi" to any girl you like. Yes, any girl and anywhere - the commuter, the street, the airport, the corridor, the cafeteria. Some won't answer (maybe you greeted her too late for her to notice you), some answer, some smile and answer (you need eye contact here), some answer, smile and stop (!) to initiate conversation with you (most probably about how come you know her when she doesn't seem to be able to remember you from anywhere:).
The ones that you have exchanged "Hi"-s with (without ever being introduced to each other or having actually approached her) are the best to use the "We already know each other" tactic with. The next time you meet, just start in the middle, like with an old friend, comment on something/anything etc, she responds and BOOM - you're acquintances!
Ok, so that's still a long way from having her naked body between your sheets - but you've made a start and you're already well on your way:)
Have a nice day. Ohhh I can only imagine what a girl would say if she reads this.... =/
Friday, June 1, 2007
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Fall Out Boy : Thanks for the Memories
I am personally addicted to this song currently...albeit I find the song to be kinda gay.
Fall Out Boy - Thanks for the Memories.
I'm gonna make you bend and break
Say your prayers, but let the good times roll
In case god doesnt show(let the good times roll, let the good times roll)
And i want these words to make things right
But its the wrong that makes these words come to life
Who does he think he is (if thats the worst you got you better put your fingers back to the keys)
One night and one more time
Thanks for the memories even though
They werent so great
He tastes like you only sweeter
One night yeah and one more time
Thanks for the memories
Thanks for the memories
See he tastes like you only sweeter
ooooooooh
And looking forward to the future
But my eye sight is going bad
And these crystal balls
Its always cloudy except for (except for)
When you look through the past (look into the past)
One night stand (one night stand, oh!)
One night and one more time
Thanks for the memories even though
They werent so great
He tastes like you only sweeter
One night yeah one more time
Thanks for the memories
Thanks for the memories
See he tastes like you only sweeter
They say I only think in the form of
Crunching numbers in hotel rooms
Collecting paychecks lovers
Get me outta my mind
Get you out of those clothes
I learned my way of getting you
Into the mood (wa-ooooohhh)
Fall Out Boy - Thanks for the Memories.
I'm gonna make you bend and break
Say your prayers, but let the good times roll
In case god doesnt show(let the good times roll, let the good times roll)
And i want these words to make things right
But its the wrong that makes these words come to life
Who does he think he is (if thats the worst you got you better put your fingers back to the keys)
One night and one more time
Thanks for the memories even though
They werent so great
He tastes like you only sweeter
One night yeah and one more time
Thanks for the memories
Thanks for the memories
See he tastes like you only sweeter
ooooooooh
And looking forward to the future
But my eye sight is going bad
And these crystal balls
Its always cloudy except for (except for)
When you look through the past (look into the past)
One night stand (one night stand, oh!)
One night and one more time
Thanks for the memories even though
They werent so great
He tastes like you only sweeter
One night yeah one more time
Thanks for the memories
Thanks for the memories
See he tastes like you only sweeter
They say I only think in the form of
Crunching numbers in hotel rooms
Collecting paychecks lovers
Get me outta my mind
Get you out of those clothes
I learned my way of getting you
Into the mood (wa-ooooohhh)
The Immaculate Conception and The Assumption.
This will be a post dedicated to the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ which thus makes her the Mother of God. Well this logic only applies to those who think of Jesus Christ as God.
Immaculate Conception and Assumption Of The Virgin Mary Into Heaven.
The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings. In this tract we’ll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that Fundamentalist writers frequently object to—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
The Immaculate Conception.
It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
Fundamentalist's Objections.
Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned. Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" {now this is found somewhere in Luke.}, and only a sinner needs a Savior. Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation. Consider this analogy of logic: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner! But what about, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" { this is found in Romans 9:11}. We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus. So if Paul’s statement includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made. Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain. The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
The Assumption of the Virgin Mary Into Heaven.
The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven." The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection, after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.
No Remains.
There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith. It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.
Complement to the Immaculate Conception.
Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB). But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
Mary's Cooperation.
Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory. All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.
The Bible Only?
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture. The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true
Conclusion.
Basically, what we can conclude here is that in terms of the bible, in terms of logical reasoning, there is certainly no doubt that the Virgin Mary was indeed Immaculately Concepted and was in deed assume into heaven.
Though there can be a conflict regarding views and opinions derived from the thoughts and words of Protestant Fundamentalist, it is only precise to say regardless of whatever sound or unsound reasons and answers that might surface to object this particular Dogma of the Church, The Dogma will now and forever, stay the same.
Please, any views or disagreements can be channel to edwinchan88@hotmail.com
Have a pleasant day.
Immaculate Conception and Assumption Of The Virgin Mary Into Heaven.
The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings. In this tract we’ll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that Fundamentalist writers frequently object to—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
The Immaculate Conception.
It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
Fundamentalist's Objections.
Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned. Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" {now this is found somewhere in Luke.}, and only a sinner needs a Savior. Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation. Consider this analogy of logic: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner! But what about, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" { this is found in Romans 9:11}. We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus. So if Paul’s statement includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made. Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain. The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
The Assumption of the Virgin Mary Into Heaven.
The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven." The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection, after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.
No Remains.
There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith. It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.
Complement to the Immaculate Conception.
Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB). But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
Mary's Cooperation.
Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory. All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.
The Bible Only?
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture. The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true
Conclusion.
Basically, what we can conclude here is that in terms of the bible, in terms of logical reasoning, there is certainly no doubt that the Virgin Mary was indeed Immaculately Concepted and was in deed assume into heaven.
Though there can be a conflict regarding views and opinions derived from the thoughts and words of Protestant Fundamentalist, it is only precise to say regardless of whatever sound or unsound reasons and answers that might surface to object this particular Dogma of the Church, The Dogma will now and forever, stay the same.
Please, any views or disagreements can be channel to edwinchan88@hotmail.com
Have a pleasant day.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Whats nice to listen to...
My taste and preferance when it comes to music....
Well... oldies have always been a favourite albeit there are many good songs these days.
Why?... Not exactly sure, but oldies seem to give me a sense of serenity whenever I take a listen to it. Plus oldies have a type of natural musical feeling that songs these days dont give. And oldies seems to be much more original compared with songs these days.
Well I dont listen to every single oldies, only a handful actually.
I favour Air Supply,Led Zeppelin,Gary Moore, Nirvana, Guns N Roses, The Beatles, Rod Stewart, Richard Marx, Bryan Adams, Roxette, Eric Clapton, George Michael, Michael Jackson, Scorpions and many more actually.
These are the list of songs and their singer or band.
Air supply : Even the nights are better
" " : Here I am
" " : Making love out of nothing at all
" " : Goodbye
" " : I can't live, if living is without you
" " : All out of love
" " :The one that you love
" " : Lost in love
" " : When I need you
" " : Because I love you
" " : Total eclipse of the heart
" " : Love hurts
Nirvana : Smells like teen spirit
The Beatles : Let It be
Richard Marx : Now and forever
" " : Right here waiting
Bryan Adams : Heaven
" " : Please forgive me
" " : Everything I do, I do it for you
George Michael : Careless Whisper
Guns N Roses : November Rain
" " : Sweet Child Of Mine
" " : Paradise City
" " : Don't Cry
" " : Knocking on heavens door
Scorpions : Wind Of change
" : Still loving you
Michael Jackson : Thriller
" " : Beat it
" " : Billie Jean
" " : The lady in my life
Eric Clapton : Blue Eyes Blue
" " : Tears In Heaven
" " : Wonderful tonight
Roxette : It must have been love
" : Listen to your heart
Rod Stewart: Have I told you lately
" " : First Cut is the deepest
" " : I don't wanna talk about it
Led Zeppelin : Stairway to heaven
Gary Moore : Still got the blues
Aaron Neville & Linda Ronstadt : I don't know much
Bon jovi : Thank you for loving me
" " : Always
This is by far my preferance towards oldies. There definitely are other oldies that I enjoy as well but did"nt post it here. I'm just posting those that are on my mind at the moment.
Will post a post regarding songs that are on the current charts and those just a couple of years back next week.
Have a nice day.
Well... oldies have always been a favourite albeit there are many good songs these days.
Why?... Not exactly sure, but oldies seem to give me a sense of serenity whenever I take a listen to it. Plus oldies have a type of natural musical feeling that songs these days dont give. And oldies seems to be much more original compared with songs these days.
Well I dont listen to every single oldies, only a handful actually.
I favour Air Supply,Led Zeppelin,Gary Moore, Nirvana, Guns N Roses, The Beatles, Rod Stewart, Richard Marx, Bryan Adams, Roxette, Eric Clapton, George Michael, Michael Jackson, Scorpions and many more actually.
These are the list of songs and their singer or band.
Air supply : Even the nights are better
" " : Here I am
" " : Making love out of nothing at all
" " : Goodbye
" " : I can't live, if living is without you
" " : All out of love
" " :The one that you love
" " : Lost in love
" " : When I need you
" " : Because I love you
" " : Total eclipse of the heart
" " : Love hurts
Nirvana : Smells like teen spirit
The Beatles : Let It be
Richard Marx : Now and forever
" " : Right here waiting
Bryan Adams : Heaven
" " : Please forgive me
" " : Everything I do, I do it for you
George Michael : Careless Whisper
Guns N Roses : November Rain
" " : Sweet Child Of Mine
" " : Paradise City
" " : Don't Cry
" " : Knocking on heavens door
Scorpions : Wind Of change
" : Still loving you
Michael Jackson : Thriller
" " : Beat it
" " : Billie Jean
" " : The lady in my life
Eric Clapton : Blue Eyes Blue
" " : Tears In Heaven
" " : Wonderful tonight
Roxette : It must have been love
" : Listen to your heart
Rod Stewart: Have I told you lately
" " : First Cut is the deepest
" " : I don't wanna talk about it
Led Zeppelin : Stairway to heaven
Gary Moore : Still got the blues
Aaron Neville & Linda Ronstadt : I don't know much
Bon jovi : Thank you for loving me
" " : Always
This is by far my preferance towards oldies. There definitely are other oldies that I enjoy as well but did"nt post it here. I'm just posting those that are on my mind at the moment.
Will post a post regarding songs that are on the current charts and those just a couple of years back next week.
Have a nice day.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
A crime commited in the name of God...
I came across this particular crime on the internet yesterday...
Seems to be another crime commited in the name of God...
A 17-year-old girl has been stoned to death in Iraq because she loved a teenage boy of the wrong religion.As a horrifying video of the stoning went out on the Internet, the British arm of Amnesty International condemned the death of Du'a Khalil Aswad as "an abhorrent murder" and demanded that her killers be brought to justice.Reports from Iraq said a local security force witnessed the incident, but did nothing to try to stop it. Now her boyfriend is in hiding in fear for his life.
Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy.They said she had shamed herself and her family when she failed to return home one night. Some reports suggested she had converted to Islam to be closer to her boyfriend.Miss Aswad had taken shelter in the house of a Yezidi tribal leader in Bashika, a predominantly Kurdish town near the northern capital, Mosul.A large crowd watched as eight or nine men stormed the house and dragged Miss Aswad into the street. There they hurled stones at her for half an hour until she was dead.
The stoning happened last month, but only came to light yesterday with the release of the Internet video.It is feared her death has already triggered a retaliatory attack. Last week 23 Yezidi workmen were forced off a bus travelling from Mosulto Bashika by a group of Sunni gunmen and summarily shot dead.An Amnesty International spokesman in London said they receive frequent reports of honour crimes from Iraq – particularly in the predominantly Kurdish north.Most victims are women and girls who are considered by male relatives to have shamed their families by immoral behaviour.Kurdish authorities have introduced reforms outlawing honour killings, but have failed to investigate them or prosecute suspects, added the Amnesty spokesman.
Kate Allen, the organisation's UK director, said: "This young girl's murder is truly abhorrent and her killers must be brought to justice."Unless the authorities respond vigorously to this and any other reports of crimes in the name of 'honour', we must fear for the future of women in Iraq."
Seems to be another crime commited in the name of God...
A 17-year-old girl has been stoned to death in Iraq because she loved a teenage boy of the wrong religion.As a horrifying video of the stoning went out on the Internet, the British arm of Amnesty International condemned the death of Du'a Khalil Aswad as "an abhorrent murder" and demanded that her killers be brought to justice.Reports from Iraq said a local security force witnessed the incident, but did nothing to try to stop it. Now her boyfriend is in hiding in fear for his life.
Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy.They said she had shamed herself and her family when she failed to return home one night. Some reports suggested she had converted to Islam to be closer to her boyfriend.Miss Aswad had taken shelter in the house of a Yezidi tribal leader in Bashika, a predominantly Kurdish town near the northern capital, Mosul.A large crowd watched as eight or nine men stormed the house and dragged Miss Aswad into the street. There they hurled stones at her for half an hour until she was dead.
The stoning happened last month, but only came to light yesterday with the release of the Internet video.It is feared her death has already triggered a retaliatory attack. Last week 23 Yezidi workmen were forced off a bus travelling from Mosulto Bashika by a group of Sunni gunmen and summarily shot dead.An Amnesty International spokesman in London said they receive frequent reports of honour crimes from Iraq – particularly in the predominantly Kurdish north.Most victims are women and girls who are considered by male relatives to have shamed their families by immoral behaviour.Kurdish authorities have introduced reforms outlawing honour killings, but have failed to investigate them or prosecute suspects, added the Amnesty spokesman.
Kate Allen, the organisation's UK director, said: "This young girl's murder is truly abhorrent and her killers must be brought to justice."Unless the authorities respond vigorously to this and any other reports of crimes in the name of 'honour', we must fear for the future of women in Iraq."
Monday, May 28, 2007
Ability, Advice, Actions, Age, Anger, Argument, Art and Attitude.
This is my compilation of all quotations regarding Ability, Advice, Actions, Age, Anger, Argument, Art, and Attitude.
- The less their ability, the more their conceit.
-Natural ability without education has more often attained to glory and virtue then education without natural ability.
-There is simply no limit to your abilities. If there ever was a limit, it is created by the person who is being limited.
-All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.
-I have long since come to believe that people never mean half of what they say, and that it is best to disregard their talk and judge only their actions.
-People who ask our advice almost never take it. Yet we should never refuse to give it, upon request, for it often helps us to see our own way more clearly.
-The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right.
-Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. It's true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place.
-Never forget what a person says to you when he is angry.
-Speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret.
-Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.
-Never get angry. Never make a threat. Always try to reason with people. We are people after all.
-If you go in for argument, take care of your temper. Your logic, if you have any, will take care of itself.
-It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.
-Eccentricity is not, as dull people would have us believe, a form of madness. It is often a kind of innocent pride, and the man of genius and the aristocrat are frequently regarded as eccentrics because genius and aristocrat are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd.
-Anger is a powerful but negative energy. If only we could channel that powerful energy in the right direction.
-Understanding is the path to take before you apply logic into anything.
-It is not wrong to be angry. But acting upon anger is wrong.
-If you want to find out whether your plan or theory has any flaws, argue about it.
- The less their ability, the more their conceit.
-Natural ability without education has more often attained to glory and virtue then education without natural ability.
-There is simply no limit to your abilities. If there ever was a limit, it is created by the person who is being limited.
-All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.
-I have long since come to believe that people never mean half of what they say, and that it is best to disregard their talk and judge only their actions.
-People who ask our advice almost never take it. Yet we should never refuse to give it, upon request, for it often helps us to see our own way more clearly.
-The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right.
-Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. It's true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place.
-Never forget what a person says to you when he is angry.
-Speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret.
-Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.
-Never get angry. Never make a threat. Always try to reason with people. We are people after all.
-If you go in for argument, take care of your temper. Your logic, if you have any, will take care of itself.
-It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.
-Eccentricity is not, as dull people would have us believe, a form of madness. It is often a kind of innocent pride, and the man of genius and the aristocrat are frequently regarded as eccentrics because genius and aristocrat are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd.
-Anger is a powerful but negative energy. If only we could channel that powerful energy in the right direction.
-Understanding is the path to take before you apply logic into anything.
-It is not wrong to be angry. But acting upon anger is wrong.
-If you want to find out whether your plan or theory has any flaws, argue about it.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Boy Girl Paradox."WARNING" "Might seem complicated to some"
This will be a post regarding reasoning and logic.
Of delusions and truths.
The Boy And Girl Problem.
The Boy or Girl problem is a well-known example in the probability theory. Drop me and email or drop a comment if you would wish to know what is the probability theory.
- In a two-child family, the older child is a boy. What is the probability that the younger child is
a girl?
- A two-child family has at least one boy. What is the probability that it has a girl?
There are variations in the exact wording; often the second question confusingly asks about the "other child".
Although these questions appear to be of equal at first glance, at deeper investigation they turn out to be very different and to lead to different answers as well.
There are four possible combinations of children. Labelling boys B and girls G, and using the first letter to represent the older child, the sample space is
{BB, BG, GB, GG}.
These four possibilities are taken to be equally likely a priori. This prior follows from three assumptions: that the determination of the sex of each child is an independent event; that each child is either male or female and that each child has the same chance of being male as of being female. It is helpful to acknowledge these assumptions, not least because in the real world none are true. The ratio of boys to girls is not exactly 50:50, and amongst other factors the possibility of identical twins means that sex determination is not entirely independent.
The 1st question.
In a two-child family, the older child is a boy. What is the probability that the younger child is a girl?
When the older child is a boy, then the elements {GG} and {GB} of original sample space cannot be true, and must be deleted so that the problem reduces to:
{BB, BG}.
Since only one of the two possibilities in the new sample space, {BG}, includes a girl, the probability that the younger child is a girl is 1/2.
The 2nd question.
A two-child family has at least one boy. What is the probability that it has a girl?
In this question the order or age is not important. Therefore the set is:
{BG, GB, BB}
Therefore the probability is 2/3.
There is also a 3rd approach which is called the Bayesian approach which is exactly identical to the conclusion of the 2nd question but is derived is mathematical terms. Which is rather complicated. The Bayesian approach which consist of arithmatic theorems supports the 2nd question.
Conclusion.
The majority of people coming across this paradox for the first time will agree with the answer to the first question, but will consider the second as nonsense as it has to be of course the same as the first.
Two ways of explaining the error are as the following:
The second question does not assume anything about the age of the boy. He might be the older or he might be the younger sibling. Therefore the thought that there are only three possibilities
(2 boys {BB}, 2 girls {GG}, or a mix)
does not take into account that the last of these three is twice as likely as either of the first two, because it can be either {GB} or {BG}.
The chance that there are two boys is 1/4, the same as the chance that there are two girls. The chance that there is one boy and one girl (or one girl and one boy) consumes the remainder (1/2), therefore two boys are half as likely as a mixture.
Please... if there are any errors or flaws identified in this post, I wish to be notified of it.
Any disagreement, additional views are gladly welcome together with confusions that seems to be in need of clarity can seek me in comments or e-mail.
Have a nice day. Or night. Whatever the time is after you are done viewing this.
Of delusions and truths.
The Boy And Girl Problem.
The Boy or Girl problem is a well-known example in the probability theory. Drop me and email or drop a comment if you would wish to know what is the probability theory.
- In a two-child family, the older child is a boy. What is the probability that the younger child is
a girl?
- A two-child family has at least one boy. What is the probability that it has a girl?
There are variations in the exact wording; often the second question confusingly asks about the "other child".
Although these questions appear to be of equal at first glance, at deeper investigation they turn out to be very different and to lead to different answers as well.
There are four possible combinations of children. Labelling boys B and girls G, and using the first letter to represent the older child, the sample space is
{BB, BG, GB, GG}.
These four possibilities are taken to be equally likely a priori. This prior follows from three assumptions: that the determination of the sex of each child is an independent event; that each child is either male or female and that each child has the same chance of being male as of being female. It is helpful to acknowledge these assumptions, not least because in the real world none are true. The ratio of boys to girls is not exactly 50:50, and amongst other factors the possibility of identical twins means that sex determination is not entirely independent.
The 1st question.
In a two-child family, the older child is a boy. What is the probability that the younger child is a girl?
When the older child is a boy, then the elements {GG} and {GB} of original sample space cannot be true, and must be deleted so that the problem reduces to:
{BB, BG}.
Since only one of the two possibilities in the new sample space, {BG}, includes a girl, the probability that the younger child is a girl is 1/2.
The 2nd question.
A two-child family has at least one boy. What is the probability that it has a girl?
In this question the order or age is not important. Therefore the set is:
{BG, GB, BB}
Therefore the probability is 2/3.
There is also a 3rd approach which is called the Bayesian approach which is exactly identical to the conclusion of the 2nd question but is derived is mathematical terms. Which is rather complicated. The Bayesian approach which consist of arithmatic theorems supports the 2nd question.
Conclusion.
The majority of people coming across this paradox for the first time will agree with the answer to the first question, but will consider the second as nonsense as it has to be of course the same as the first.
Two ways of explaining the error are as the following:
The second question does not assume anything about the age of the boy. He might be the older or he might be the younger sibling. Therefore the thought that there are only three possibilities
(2 boys {BB}, 2 girls {GG}, or a mix)
does not take into account that the last of these three is twice as likely as either of the first two, because it can be either {GB} or {BG}.
The chance that there are two boys is 1/4, the same as the chance that there are two girls. The chance that there is one boy and one girl (or one girl and one boy) consumes the remainder (1/2), therefore two boys are half as likely as a mixture.
Please... if there are any errors or flaws identified in this post, I wish to be notified of it.
Any disagreement, additional views are gladly welcome together with confusions that seems to be in need of clarity can seek me in comments or e-mail.
Have a nice day. Or night. Whatever the time is after you are done viewing this.
Purgatory: The reasoning behind it.
First and foremost we have to understand, what is Purgatory?
Purgatory, simply define is "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven". In an even more simplify manner, purgatory is a place where souls are purge off all its sins before it proceeds to ascend into heaven.
Purgatory, is a place of suffering, a place of cleansing, a place of purging, a place of forgiving and a place of atonement. Purgatory is a place which is generally concluded to be a place which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" . One must clearly understand, that the suffering that the souls suffer in purgatory, though alike in many ways of the sufferings of the damned in hell, is still entirely different.
Why must we suffer and purify ourselves in purgatory? The purification is necessary because, it is clearly stated in the bible "somewhere in the book of revelations" that nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven. We have to understand that even though we may die with our sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and also the feelings of regrets and unworthiness. Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem our sins, such sacrifice for us who are not worthy of him. Yet instead of being grateful, most of us, if not all of us, tend to take that sacrifice for granted. We tend to blatantly ignore him. We only tend to seek him in dire times of need. Do anyone of you honestly believe that his death will wash away all your sins, every single one of them just because you believe that he died for you?
Believing in the word is not sufficient. Practising the word is also not sufficient. Living the word is what we need to do. And if any of you live your live ignoring God and sinning like hell everyday assuming that because you believe he died to save your sins therefore you will go to heaven, please... do not be a moron.
Now, this is why purgatory comes into purpose. Jesus Christ redeems your place for you in heaven. That is as much as he does for you. He even guides you there. You want to go there as well very very much. But now... ur cloths are all dirty...its all torn up. Do u really wanna go in heaven looking like that. You need to clean yourselve first. Now he died so you may go to heaven. He died to wash away your sins. You are dirty... He gives you the opportunity to clean yourselve up... He gives you a bathroom, he gives you a water heater, he provides the electricity, the water, the light, heck he even provides you the shampoo, toothbrush, toothpaste shower cream and etc etc. But, for goodness sake, you don't expect the lord to bath you right?
After all you dirtied yourself. He has done most of the part... is it absurd to accept the fact that you at least have to bath your ownself before you ascend to heaven? Its not a matter of whether God cares whether ur clean or not...
Its a matter or whether you care how God would feel seeing you in heaven looking like that.
It all comes down to respect.
Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter heaven". Again that is found somewhere in revelations. Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely. It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross. Christ redeem our sins by suffering and dying and that logic applies to us also if anyone of you were asking why do we need to suffer to clean our sins.
And to all the people who claims that because purgatory is not clearly stated in the bible, therefore they are not taking it into account into their belief. I have no valid argument on that, except just a friendly reminder; God gave us the bible, the word of God. But God also gave us a mind. Our mind. Which is the work of God. Think and open your mind. That is all I could say.
Purgatory, simply define is "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven". In an even more simplify manner, purgatory is a place where souls are purge off all its sins before it proceeds to ascend into heaven.
Purgatory, is a place of suffering, a place of cleansing, a place of purging, a place of forgiving and a place of atonement. Purgatory is a place which is generally concluded to be a place which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" . One must clearly understand, that the suffering that the souls suffer in purgatory, though alike in many ways of the sufferings of the damned in hell, is still entirely different.
Why must we suffer and purify ourselves in purgatory? The purification is necessary because, it is clearly stated in the bible "somewhere in the book of revelations" that nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven. We have to understand that even though we may die with our sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and also the feelings of regrets and unworthiness. Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem our sins, such sacrifice for us who are not worthy of him. Yet instead of being grateful, most of us, if not all of us, tend to take that sacrifice for granted. We tend to blatantly ignore him. We only tend to seek him in dire times of need. Do anyone of you honestly believe that his death will wash away all your sins, every single one of them just because you believe that he died for you?
Believing in the word is not sufficient. Practising the word is also not sufficient. Living the word is what we need to do. And if any of you live your live ignoring God and sinning like hell everyday assuming that because you believe he died to save your sins therefore you will go to heaven, please... do not be a moron.
Now, this is why purgatory comes into purpose. Jesus Christ redeems your place for you in heaven. That is as much as he does for you. He even guides you there. You want to go there as well very very much. But now... ur cloths are all dirty...its all torn up. Do u really wanna go in heaven looking like that. You need to clean yourselve first. Now he died so you may go to heaven. He died to wash away your sins. You are dirty... He gives you the opportunity to clean yourselve up... He gives you a bathroom, he gives you a water heater, he provides the electricity, the water, the light, heck he even provides you the shampoo, toothbrush, toothpaste shower cream and etc etc. But, for goodness sake, you don't expect the lord to bath you right?
After all you dirtied yourself. He has done most of the part... is it absurd to accept the fact that you at least have to bath your ownself before you ascend to heaven? Its not a matter of whether God cares whether ur clean or not...
Its a matter or whether you care how God would feel seeing you in heaven looking like that.
It all comes down to respect.
Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter heaven". Again that is found somewhere in revelations. Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely. It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross. Christ redeem our sins by suffering and dying and that logic applies to us also if anyone of you were asking why do we need to suffer to clean our sins.
And to all the people who claims that because purgatory is not clearly stated in the bible, therefore they are not taking it into account into their belief. I have no valid argument on that, except just a friendly reminder; God gave us the bible, the word of God. But God also gave us a mind. Our mind. Which is the work of God. Think and open your mind. That is all I could say.
To mark the beginning...
Well 1st and foremost...this will be my very first post on this blog.
Not gonna write anything much about myself just yet...
The purpose for this blog is to express my thoughts, views, notions on alot of matters.
The purpose of this blog is also to educate individuals regarding certain issues.
The purpose of this blog is also to vent out my frustarations and disappointments on certain issues.
The sole purpose of this blog is to give viewers a different view on things, a new perception on certain issues; mainly religion, ethics, philosophy issues, phenomenal mysteries and many many more that leaves many people wondering.
Inspiration, motivation, and understanding. This is what every mind needs.
And that is exactly what this blog will attempt to give.
Only a small favor is all I ask.
Yours Sincerely,
EdwinChan.
Not gonna write anything much about myself just yet...
The purpose for this blog is to express my thoughts, views, notions on alot of matters.
The purpose of this blog is also to educate individuals regarding certain issues.
The purpose of this blog is also to vent out my frustarations and disappointments on certain issues.
The sole purpose of this blog is to give viewers a different view on things, a new perception on certain issues; mainly religion, ethics, philosophy issues, phenomenal mysteries and many many more that leaves many people wondering.
Inspiration, motivation, and understanding. This is what every mind needs.
And that is exactly what this blog will attempt to give.
Only a small favor is all I ask.
Open Your Mind.
Yours Sincerely,
EdwinChan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
