Zone1 Gen Z Going "No Contact" With Parents. Patently Unbiblical.

[presonorek]

I am a whiskeypalian.

Jesus even if a person wrongs you seven times in a day, if they repent you must forgive them. If they do not repent you must rebuke them.

I thought it was 490 times.

 

[presonorek]

Cite the verse following the "seven times" (not in a day), where it says you must rebuke them

By the way, the Ten Commandments say HONOR. They don't say forgive. Not the same.

Jesus said not seven times but 70 times 7. Give me a second. I'll find it.

 

[presonorek]

Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times. Matthew 18:21-22 NABRE

 

[presonorek]

It is unchristian, per the Bible, to tell your parents that you're going "no contact" and then have absolutely nothing to do with them.

People aren't obligated to be Christians even people with parents.

Do you know a person that is doing this to their parents that is a Christian? Do you have an article that says Christians are doing this to their parents? Do you know a person that you assume is a Christian but they are not doing this to their parents?

I don't understand the psychotic obsession with assuming these children going no contact with their parents are Christians. Just because a person was raised by Christian parents, attend church, read the Bible, lives ethically, treats people well, and dresses nice does not make them a Christian at all.

Do you know what makes a person a Christian? Do you know? Well? Do you know? If so, tell us.

 

[MisterBeale]

The more havoc the Left can produce within society the more control they can exert over it.

For example, Ben Franklin once said that the Constitution would only last as long as the moral fiber of the country lasted, but once their moral fiber was no better than that of a jail house, then all that can be done is to build a wall around society and hire a warden to monitor them.

Only when society regulates their own morality can they be free, otherwise the state must be forced to do it for them which means their freedoms must go away, that is, if you want to try and maintain order within society.

And so it goes, as parents lose their ability to monitor their own moral behavior, the state must step in and be their mommy and daddy, which is a real win for Left wing tyrants.

And this is why the Left is at war with Christianity. It is the one method to help people monitor their own moral behavior.

The Politics of Hollywood with Andrew Breitbart​

"Identified as one of the ten most important people in the media that nobodys ever met, Andrew Breitbart details why leftward-leaning Hollywood is dangerous for America and why the people who run it are uninteresting, vitriolic, and vicious. Segueing from Hollywood to the Internet, Breitbart explores why the right dominates talk radio and the left seems to do better on the Internet and how the decline of print media is changing the nature of the national political conversation."

 

[The Irish Ram]

It is the only one of the 10 commandments that comes with a blessing.
Honor your mother and father, and I will lengthen your days.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Accepting Darwinian evolution by the Catholic church is considered by 'faith'ful Christians as 'overkill'.

The faithful aren't ambiguous on their belief on Adam and Eve!

The point I'm making is, Millennials find religion much easier to accept from their parents if the Adam and Eve story is rejected and thrown out. Have you found it to be not possible to accept 'evolution'?

That could explain why this is an issue for you.

I don't find that (emphasized) to be the case at all. I don't accept evolution as fact but a theory...a wrong headed one with a political objective. ie...Theory. of Evolution. Globalists would like nothing more than the destruction of faith in God. They would like Faith in the State.

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't find that (emphasized) to be the case at all. I don't accept evolution as fact but a theory...a wrong headed one with a political objective. ie...Theory. of Evolution. Globalists would like nothing more than the destruction of faith in God. They would like Faith in the State.

Natural selection, and a belief in a higher power, are NOT, mutually exclusive.

Why Evolution is Not a Problem for the Catholic Church - The Society of Catholic Scientists

Some Christians raise theological objections to evolution. This article examines eight of the common ones and explains why they have no force from a Catholic point of view.

catholicscientists.org

 

[Calypso Jones]

Natural selection, and a belief in a higher power, are NOT, mutually exclusive.

Why Evolution is Not a Problem for the Catholic Church - The Society of Catholic Scientists

Some Christians raise theological objections to evolution. This article examines eight of the common ones and explains why they have no force from a Catholic point of view.

catholicscientists.org

but natural selection is not evolution.

 

[Calypso Jones]

but natural selection is not evolution so your above statement is true.

 

[Moonglow]

My Gen Z kid talks to me, and they plan on visiting in December...

 

[ding]

but natural selection is not evolution.

Same difference.

 

[ding]

Do you know what makes a person a Christian? Do you know? Well? Do you know? If so, tell us.

Anyone who believes God was born into this world to testify to the truth, allowed himself to be put on trial, convicted, suffer death and rise from the dead to reconcile justice with mercy.

Apparently he knew jackanapes would put him on trial daily for creating an unfair world so he decided to beat them to the punch so they would have no argument when they came before him.

 

[BothWings]

Yes, there's usually a reason why the kids become assholes. The fruit always falls close to the tree, as you have apparently become aware.

Modern media grooms young people to be assholes.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Same difference.

not the same although the establishment (Leftist) science likes changing the definitions periodically to defend their ever diminishing theory.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Anyone who believes God was born into this world to testify to the truth, allowed himself to be put on trial, convicted, suffer death and rise from the dead to reconcile justice with mercy.

Apparently he knew jackanapes would put him on trial daily for creating an unfair world so he decided to beat them to the punch so they would have no argument when they came before him.

first sentence is run on. What about the person who believes your list??

 

[DGS49]

I am writing this for myself, but feel free to read it. It is relevant to the OP.

My wife (72) and I (76) both grew up attending Catholic parochial schools, K-12. Religious education was nominally only one subject that was taught in those schools, but Catholicism was embedded in every subject. We were taught that the Genesis creation story was allegorical, and not to be considered an actual recount of the creation of the universe. Without being zealots, we were, and are, about as Catholic as one can be without attending daily Mass. It's just part of who we are.

Our son (only child) went to public schools. Indeed, we chose to live where we did because the public schools were touted as the best in the region. He went to an hour of religious education every week while in grade school. It was worthless, but we insisted. He was confirmed as an 8th grader, as all good Catholics are.

When he was going into 9th grade, we asked him to consider going to a fairly posh Catholic HS with a very small student body. He was into baseball at the time, and the incentive was that he would probably be able to start on the varsity team as a Freshman at the Catholic school, which he did. We were happy that he would finally be getting a good Catholic education, to make up for what the one-hour of religious ed and our own negligence failed to teach him up to that time. It seemed like a good experience for him and we thought all was well, when he "threw us a curve-ball" on the first day of class for 10th grade, telling us he wanted to go back to the public school and - in my mind - continue playing grab-ass (******* around) with his worthless friends from the public school. We reluctantly withdrew him from the Catholic school and went along with his wishes.

He graduated from the public school, went on to college and graduated in due course, embarking on a career in Journalism which continues to this day. He is in his 40's now.

We are virtually estranged. He is now twice divorced, allows us minimal contact with his three kids, and sees us only when it is necessary or it would be inconvenient not to. He regularly asks for financial assistance, which is no problem and we give it promptly and without question. It is one of the benefits of being an only child.

In a rare candid moment when we asked him what was the problem, he revealed that, in his mind, we tried to force our religion on him, causing him to rebel into an "adamant" atheist - or maybe a Buddhist - so it is apparently all our fault. Was he abused? No. Neglected? No. Denied anything at all? No. He needs to take happy pills to even be around us. Literally.

He swears that he "loves" us, but can't stand being around us except, as I said above, when it is necessary and/or he needs something. To him, we have basically become little more than a no-limit ATM, and to our grandkids little more than a gift and money dispenser. If I were calling the shots, we would be neither, but my wife manages these relationships.

A recent and stunning revelation was that he "had to" get away from the Catholic HS because he was being victimized by an abusive basketball coach, and we should have seen that. This is why we Catholics are forced to say, "mea culpa" three times at Mass; everything is always our fault.

 

[ding]

not the same although the establishment (Leftist) science likes changing the definitions periodically to defend their ever diminishing theory.

Natural selection is the mechanism that drives evolution. So, they are effectively synonymous.

I think it does a poor job of describing the origin of species and doesn't address the origin of life but it does a good job of explaining how species evolve over time. Darwin's idea of slight successive changes as the explanation for the origin of species doesn't match the data.

 

[ding]

first sentence is run on. What about the person who believes your list??

Actually it's not. It's comprehensive.

What about them?

 

[Calypso Jones]

Natural selection is the mechanism that drives evolution. So, they are effectively synonymous.

I think it does a poor job of describing the origin of species and doesn't address the origin of life but it does a good job of explaining how species evolve over time. Darwin's idea of slight successive changes as the explanation for the origin of species doesn't match the data.

if natural selection drives the theory of evolution then evolution is a failed theory.