Wise as Serpents and Harmless as Doves

Matthw 10:16 "[ A Hard Road before Them ] “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves."

John 7:24 " Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Galations 5:17-24 NASB "17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."


There is so much talk about "judgment" in church, and some legit complaints do get lost in the mix with the ridiculous ones. The authentic problems with "judgment" in church are as dangerous to her as the false claims of it are.

I used to go to a church that pretty much became a cult. A guy who claimed to be an apostle (Chuck Clayton, in case you ever find yourself tempted by same snakes), and believed every church was supposed to be "submitted" to an apostle came to our church and the pastor agreed to "submit" to him and his group.

In the end, if you wanted to hold the mike, give a testimony about the pastor and how anointed he was and how he had all the gifts of all the the five-fold ministry, apostles prophets evangelists pastors and teachers.
In the end, the normally very sweet and extra gentle and quite shy pastor's wife was up on the platform yelling at us like a drill instructor, and everyone knew it wasn't her, at all. She was saying how its not an option when she and her husband start a ministry to be involved or not, and how you can't be going off and doing all these different things of your own, you need to get in line with what god is doing and that would come through them, basically. We all knew it wasn't her, but most people thought it was God speaking through her.
It definitely wasn't.
The "apostle" who introduced this teaching kept offering to lay his hands on people and "impart" his spiritual stuff to them and everybody was running for it. I did too, like an idiot. I have since renounced all that.

The thing is, I was a goth, and when I came there for that message of hers after a long absence living in another state, I was totally looking goth. I was "dressed to the nines" that day. People gave me a wide berth, like obviously walking way out around me to avoid getting close at all and to prevent any contact. Even when I went there before and had down dressed a lot, they would not lay hands on me but would hold their hands away, though stretched out to me for prayer but they wouldn't touch me. They'd walk along the line laying hands and "prophesying" to each person but would hold their hands out to me but not make contact because of how I looked, lest they should "catch" the devil from me. It was mean, actually. Why? because he was wearing an expensive suit and I was well, counter-culture. See my point?
There is, unfortunately, a dangerous current of unhealthy judgment in the church, probably not just directed at goths and tattooed folks, and is directly contrary to John 7:24 "judge not according to appearances, but judge righteous judgment". It is in fact real, and it does cause big problems. People running *to* a possessed person in a nice suit who spouts angry remarks about liberalism and etc, and asking him to impart his deceptive and controlling spirit to them, and fleeing from me for wearing black clothes and an unusual hairdo/make-up job because they think strangeness = devil worship. Many people of "a different breed" if you will, not just goths, have left the church and god, because they think its all about looking a certain way, conforming to a particular  outward standard they don't find appealing, and becoming to whatever you see/people-pleasing. Basically, that it is all about everything they can't stand.
You had church people truly afraid of me, but running to a person who was full of the devil asking him to impart the spirit he had to them. It brought a lot of destruction to their lives too, a LOT, besides wounding me way more than I even realized/faced at the time.

Besides, if certain attire were required of Christians, we would all have to wear togas or something. The early church didn't wear any leisure suits or dresses like what we have. Their music was way different too. Sometimes they didn't have any instruments whatsoever because it reminded them of pagan festivals...

thanks to whoever shared this photo in "*the gothic christains*" group on facebook, and to adam4d,whoever that is, for making it.
BOTTOM LINE: The fruit of the spirit mixed with *thoroughly* sound teaching is what matters, not political rhetoric and clothes. Chuck Clayton was on our side about homosexuality and abortion but he still wasn't from God. There are more deceptions out there than just those. Lets all be careful in these times, as it will likely only get worse. Even the elect will be tempted and it gets more extreme as it gets closer to the end. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves  "Harmless" means unmixed, pure,innocent. I don't think that means unmixed with clothes or outward things, I think it is a heart issue. Mixing rage, spite, name-calling, glorifying death and torture and violence happening to certain people (Arabs/Palestinians in this case), pride, and other carnal manifestations, perhaps even obscenity, with a Biblical standing on marriage and procreation or whatever else IS mixing, and is by no means harmless. Or wise (Proverbs 11:30 "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who is wise wins souls."). I'm not referencing Trump here when I make this list, in case he really is doing all that, (idk if he still is, because I ignore the news media; I don't have a tv or want one) but I'm referencing "apostle" Chuck Clayton here. Btw. if you see these signs anywhere, I don't care where, beware.
Cultural and sub-cultural things that pertain to celebrations/customs, clothes, stories, art and etc aren't necessarily mixing, per se. Not that it never happens but it isn't automatically "mixing" in and of itself; it depends what the custom/item/etc. is, and the reasons people are doing it. Not understanding this damages mission work and evangelism anywhere outside of a certain kind of Westerners. Plus it opens the door to serious deceptions, within said group of Westerners, by liars who "look the part". Lets be careful and separate sheep and goats, ok?
Godspeed.
~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA: An Updated Discussion on Mariology

On the Virgin birth, obviously I have always believed it and always will.
As to the perpetual virginity, the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe got me wondering and I went from disbelieving to wondering. Later, a friend who is studying the Orthodox church read a book by St.  James, who was Jesus' step-brother. In this book, James says Mary was indeed a virgin all her life because of his father's advanced age. He hinted that Joseph couldn't actually do anything about that, basically.
This differs from the Catholic teaching that she remained a virgin all her life due to a call to do so from God, but it does give an explanation for the perpetual virginity of a married Jewish woman. Being called by God to stay in that marriage, and after Joseph's death to be celibate and give herself to ministry, doesn't clash with anything she would likely have believed, as far as I know.
I therefore can assent to the perpetual virginity of Mary, in light of this further information.

As far as her ascension, she would not be the only person besides Jesus to do this. Enoch went that way and so did Elijah. All of the oldest churches believe this, including the Copts. I don't have legitimate reason not to. Therefore, I do.

Regarding the Immaculate conception, I am still unsure. It doesn't make any more sense to me than it did before. The only improvement I have in this area is that I can believe all the other ones. I do not believe that thinking this will send someone to hell. I have my doubts, serious doubts, but still,.. I think belief is a choice. I am going to pray about it, and consider if God would have a problem with my choosing to believe it until further evidence is offered that she wasn't. It may help me, in some ways, as far as theneed for a female role-model, and with this revised understanding of perpetual virginity, I would not have an obstacle to that anymore, especially since right now I am single.
I expect I will proceed as if she was, and just go from there, and if God wants me to not believe that, then He will be able to tell me. Right now, I feel called to the Catholic church and sense in my spirit that God is going to straighten out the reservations I have about gender roles. I hope so.
So, at this time I do, with some minimal reservation, accept the Catholic teaching on Mary.


Godspeed.

~Mother Star.

Adventures in RCIA - Catholics DO NOT worship the "Queen of Heaven"

Regardless of how this goes, whether I do get confirmed or not, I do want to clarify one more thing about Mary before I forget again.
"Queen of Heaven" does NOT mean to put St. Mary above, or on par with, God.
They say that in the Bible, the Isreali king's wife had to ask permission to come in, and bow, and do everything else the same way that others in the kingdom had to. The kind's mom on the other hand was the Queen Mother. She could walk right in and ask for something on somebody's behalf and pretty much expect it to get done. She definitely could not make decisions like the king, but held an awful lot of sway in his court.

Addressing Mary as Queen of Heaven is a reference to the ancient Isreali "Queen Mother" type of situation (though the term is not often used in the Bible) combined with the same beliefs behind "prayers" to saints. Look at 1 Kings 1:14-16, compared with 1 Kings 2:18-20. Bathsheba as King's wife versus Bathsheba as King's mom. That is where they get these notions about Mary. The term "Queen Mother" is not used but the idea they call "Queen Mother" is illustrated here, When they say that Mary sits at Jesus' right hand, it's because Bathsheba sat at Solomon's right hand. Therefore they infer that Jewish King's moms sat at their right hand and held a lot of influence. They think Mary has a position in Heaven kind of like Bathsheba had in Solomon's court, and is so very highly favored, throughout eternity.
 "Queen of Heaven" is not intended to revere Mary as a God(dess). I was really thrown by that "Queen of Heaven" reference a lot too, until it was explained. They also point to the story of turning Water into wine and say that Mary's intercession altered Jesus' decision about whether to do something about the wine shortage to demonstrate that she has the same degree of favor and her prayers have same impact as Bathsheba seems to have had in Solomon's court. They infer therefore that Prophet Priest and "King of the Jews" Jesus has the same setup in Heaven's court. That does not make her an actual ruler of Heaven, nor on par with God in Roman Catholic theology, though.

Personally, I am not sure I think the throne room in heaven works like the Isreali king's court did, just I know it resembles the temple/tabernacle Moses was ordered to set up and which foreshadowed Jesus' sacrifice and etc. The temple and the palace weren't the same thing. However, I understand the thinking, how they could think that way and say that. They are trying to keep with Jewish roots, and it may or may not have gone awry here, but at least no one need freak about idolatry. Not when it comes to an informed/educated Catholic anyway. Some people pay no better attention in catechism than some folks do in school, which is not much, and they walk out with weird ideas, I am told.


 


There are individuals who pray always to Mary and ask her to take everything to Jesus for them, but that is not required. There is a question of "Minimalism and Maximalism" concerning Mariology in the Catholic Church. The over-emphasis on Mary has been warned against by influential Catholics for centuries, but the opposite extreme is also warned against, and that is acting like she is no big deal at all or being too timid in presentation of her... well, basically what Protestants do.
So I hope I cleared that up for some people.
There are some prayers or songs I am not comfortable singing because I am uncomfortable saying the words in them to anyone but God. I rather doubt that Mary is offended by that, honestly, and these prayers are not required, as far as I know.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - To be Confirmed, or Not Be Confirmed

Well, my current struggle concerns whether or not to be confirmed. I began RCIA absolutely sure I wanted to be confirmed, however, if I am required to accept all the dogmas about Mary to do so, then I cannot. It's simply not an option.
I find denominationalism a sad thing, and I think it will be important for the Catholic attitude about this subject to loosen up if they and the orthodox church are ever to reunite.
I did a web search about being or remaining Catholic without receiving all of the 4 dogmas about Mary. I found a lot of haughty-taughty talking-down to people answers when others posed this question. Some people seemed to think you could actually go to hell for not believing it. If that is the case, then I will not be confirmed.
I find it funny though, that there are Catholics mad at Pope Francis, there are Catholics who regard most of the revisions of Vatican II to be ungodly, and call this a time of chastisement for the Catholic church, and etc. Yet, according to the doctrine of Papal infallibility, they can't do that and still be Catholic.
The mayor of NYC was promoting abortion like crazy, even though Catholic doctrine says he is to be excommunicated if he participates in abortion in any way. There are supposedly Catholic organizations that are openly gay and support "Gay theology." They have not been excommunicated.
There is at least one nun going around promoting abortion. I do not believe in any of this stuff, but are these people still catholic?
If they can be part of the church and not agree on those doctrines,some of which promise excommunication for disobedience, then what about me?
These are questions I hope I can answer after the next RCIA class.
I hope to be able to update this issue within the next couple of weeks.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

My questions about Mary make confirmation a question, not a certainty.

I pray for clarification on where to go with this issue and what to do.

Adventures in RCIA - Mary the Mother of Jesus Pt 2

Continuing on this sticky (for me) subject...

Dogmas of the Catholic church about Mary:
Virgin Birth: Jesus was born of a virgin.
Immaculate Conception: Mary was born without original sin, essentially born saved, so that she could give birth to Jesus without giving him original sin.
Perpetual Virginity: She stayed a virgin all her life, and Joseph agreed to support this calling on her life by abstaining along with her so she could be faithful to God's call as Jesus' mom.
Ascension into Heaven: Mary ascended like Jesus did, she did not die.

I covered the first two before. Now lets finish out the second half of the list.

Perpetual Virginity
This Catholic Dogma presents Joseph as sort of submitting, like a Western man might think of it, to give up the Western "masculine sex-right" to honor Mary's alleged call form God.
Joseph was Jewish, as Mary was.
Jewish view of sexuality:
Sex between a husband and wife is a mitzvah, which is a lot like our word sacrament. It is a commandment, and a meritorious or charitable act.
Jewish people link sexuality in marriage with holiness, so this dogma states that they served God by violating His rules for their lives as married people. From the Jewish Virtual Library:
"Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.
Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah."
To us Westerner's that might sound gross, or perverse, but it is the Jewish way going far, far back to ancient times. The mitzvah of procreation is a separate one, the pleasure and bonding aspect is also sacred in Judaism, not just procreation.
If you told our very beloved, Jewish, Mother of God the dogma that she responded to God's call by staying a virgin after she was married, this would have been, to her ears, bordering on blasphemy/sacrilege. It would mean that God called her and Joseph to sin, basically. To be married and abstain the whole time is, for them, about as bad as doing stuff when you are not married. It's on par with adultery, as we know it, and grounds for divorce.
A marriage counselor, Earl Henslin, who has worked with many Jewish couples wrote in Chapter 2 of This is Your Brain on Love that no matter how bad things are in their marriages, it does not get into their bedroom. Why? "I am not going to have sex with my spouse" is like saying "I am not going to pray." He writes, "It is unthinkable," because they link marital sexuality with holiness.

Mary was Jewish. Mary was married. Therefore, Mary had three basic rights Joseph was supposed to provide: food, shelter and sex. I don't think it will kill anyone to live without it, but still, they were Jewish, and that was and is Jewish teaching.
Matthew 1:24-25. "...he took her [Mary] as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had born a son; and he named him Jesus."
That word "until" is two Greek words:
heos Strong's #2193 Definitions: of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).
hou Strong's #3757 Definitions: generic of (3739) as adverb; at which place, i.e. where: - where (-in), whither ([-soever]).
It seems to indicate a span of time terminating at a given point. The point given in this case is the birth of Jesus. The necessity of abstinence was over then, Jesus did not need her to abstain anymore. Since she was a godly, Jewish, married woman, she had a different requirement for holy living than she did as the single or merely betrothed woman that she was when He was conceived. Nothing happened between them until after he was born, no doubt. After he was born, they clearly carried on with the mitzvah ordained by God for married people, since that is what they were. If they did not, they would have been less holy, not more. This mitzvah is not inextricably tied to procreation in Judaism either, so not having any (surviving?) children at Jesus' death does not really mean anything either.
The dogma of Perpetual virginity does not make any sense, given that Mary was Jewish, as Joseph also was.
Do I believe that Early Christians believed this? Absolutely. Many of them came from pagan cultures that had practices that could put extreme ideas about virginity in their heads. Old ideas sometimes die really hard, or don't die at all. However, that does not mean God would actually have called two Jewish people to live like that. These are very definitely pagan ideas, not sanctioned or created by YHVH.

Finally, Mary is an example to us. If she remained a virgin until married, and waited even longer because of carrying Jesus, but carried out God's intent for married women after he was born, then she is a great example. An ideal.
If she went through life pretending to be a good wife before the world while not living or relating in that important relationship like she was supposed to, refraining from a commanded and meritous behavior (mitzvah means a command, and a charitable or meritous act), then she is a bad example to follow, and so not much of a saint. Right? I believe the Catholic Church has attempted to be very true to the beginings, but this is a point where the pagan ways were not left behind, and Mary would likely be very upset by this story.

Assumption into Heaven
I would need more information. I think it is possible, kind of like Enoch and Elijah. I have no certainty at this point though, since I already see evidence of the early church projecting things onto Mary that seemed great to them but could not be true (e.g. Perpetual Virginity). Therefore, I really don't know. It sounds good, but that isn't enough for me...

This song has always been really cool to me. Now that I am studying and thinking about Mary more, it means even more than it ever did, with or without Immaculate conception or Perpetual Virginity. So Hail, Mary, full of grace.

Godspeed.
~ M. S.