Sunday favorites

Revelation 3:17

For you say, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.” You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

"Ugh that just,pissed me off more. The prosecution was dropped due to a corrupt elected ..."

And you may say to yourself, ..."
"Sounds like yes, there will be. It would be a collection of more L.B. posts ..."

LBCF, No. 190: ‘Something happens’
"For another tale where the obsessive hunt for a red heifer is a plot point ..."

LBCF, No. 190: ‘Something happens’
"One of his first adventures was teaching some rich coal mine capitalists a lesson."

LBCF, No. 190: ‘Something happens’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Fusina

    Huh. I was just having a discussion with my Mom about gluttony.

    I think I need to start living by the words to the crowd during the event of the woman taken in adultery, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Because I am good at throwing stones. I need to become worse at it.

  • friendly reader

    Okay, I knew I recalled the way that PMDs explain away the fact that Revelation is explicitly written to 7 churches in Asia Minor in the 1st century, but I had to look up the specifics again.

    Supposedly each church really represents an age of the Church. This is one model I found, and it seems pretty typical:
    1) Ephesus (2:1-7): Apostolic church (33-100 CE)
    2) Smyrna (2:8-11): persecution under Rome (100-312)
    3) Pergamum (2:12-17): Constantine and Roman patronage (312-590)
    4) Thyatira (
    2:18-29): The Middle Ages and eeeeevil Catholicism (590-1517)
    5) Sardis (3:1-6): The Reformation (1517-1750)
    6) Philadelphia (3:7-13): Missionary church (1750-early 20th century)
    7) Laodicea (3:14-22): Apostate church, i.e. ecumenical groups like the World Council of Churches and all that liberal scholarly stuff that says premillennial dispensantionalism is a load of hogwash made up by a single guy in the 19th century.

    So as you can see, the only portion of this advice John gives to early churches that has any relevance to the present day is the last bit, and it’s totally not a condemnation of us, no sirree.

    Don’t get me wrong: politically liberal, ecumenical churches can be very guilty of lukewarm and blind to their own problems, of being financially well-off while being spiritually weak or of being unwelcoming to God’s message or whatever else you can decipher out of the difficult text of Revelation.

    But it’s yet another example of how PMD “theology” divides up the Bible into textually unsupported models rather than accepting the plain meaning, i.e. advice to early churches in Asia Minor. And yet we (i.e. Preterists) get accused of being the ones who don’t take it literally (see Fred’s last post for more on that word).

    (Also, and this is a pet peeve of mine, but that model of church ages totally ignores the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church or any of the other Eastern churches like the Copts. I’d assume they all fall into the “not really Christian” category, but so do Catholics and yet they get a chunk of time. What gives?!)

  • veejayem

    A commenter in the Independent newspaper said yesterday that Obama and Romney ~ like most of us ~ see the world as it is to them. Romney is a very wealthy man. He has far more money than he is ever likely to need (although he probably thinks of himself as not being especially wealthy). Therefore he assumes that having metric tonnes of money is the most desirable condition on earth. Anyone who says otherwise is merely envious, lacking the bootstraps to amass their own vast heap of cash and wishing to prevent others from doing so. The commenter speculated that Romney is incapable of believing that many people simply don’t regard the acquisition of money as the be-all and end-all of human existence. Which would be very sad, were it not for the scary implications to our environment, economic stability, the more vulnerable sections of society, etc., etc. 

  • At Mass this morning one of the readings was 

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    We’ve had James all month. One of the things I like about the order of readings at Mass is when they really go on at a theme for an extended period.

    Our priest took the Gospel reading as a springboard for a homily about tribalism and tied it into Social Justice Sunday, specifically naming our culture’s treatment of refugees* and people who are mentally ill, poor, and/or homeless.

    It made me think of discussions on this blog. We get homilies like this a lot. I can’t recall a single one from this priest about sex, sexuality or gender roles, and when the Powers That Be last year issued a statement about same-sex marriage legislation to be read from the pulpit he ignored it. But he talks about refugees every second week, and statistically about half the congregation is likely to feel very uncomfortable by what he says each time.

    *A hugely divisive issue in Australian society over the last decade; don’t ask me why

  • christopher_young

    Supposedly each church really represents an age of the Church. This is one model I found, and it seems pretty typical:
    Well goodness me! That’s the most literal interpretation of anything I ever saw!