Kates Playground Hardcore Blogs

Mystery of the Holy Trinity

a long time now trying to understand one of the mysteries of the Christian faith - the mystery of the Trinity. Traditionally, we understand it as follows. There is an eternal God, creator, which lasts over time and space. Some very mysterious person. Maybe the greatest of mathematicians, who in the words of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the counts, it becomes the world. This absolute, omnipotent and omniscient planned incredibly precise algorithm, which resulted in the creation of man. When the man began to strive for self-destruction, God became the Father and sent his Son (which some unexplained way is the same God) to save a beloved genre. Its fate is well known from the papers of the Gospel. After his death has sent the Spirit, through whom God rather than away, remained among the faithful.

admit that this type of explanation is not satisfactory for me. Kind of unity, but the Trinity. Something does not agree. How is one God, may be both Father, Son and Holy Spirit? But Christ clearly says both the Father and the Spirit like. Where should I look for explanations. Christ said: If you know me, know my Father . Clearly indicates that he is the source of revelation and can not begin consideration of this mystery from anything else. Let's think so. Let's say that Christ is not God a-priori. He was born a man, and remained until the end of man. He felt the same pain, the same ignorance and uncertainty. Only through his life became a preaching God's love and forgiveness, giving at the end of his life for us all. Christ is God.

If Christ did not die on the cross, at the last minute to give witness of love by forgiving his persecutors, whether it's science have been taken so much in the hearts of the faithful? You could say that thanks to death, resurrected his Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a separate entity, but it is what Christ left behind in the lives of Christians. Christ is gone, but students are still living in the Spirit of His love - in the spirit of forgiveness. In this way Christ and the Spirit are one. These are the same God.

Christ says, however, also of the Father, and to admit that these considerations were by far the hardest. However, when combined with the tradition of logical thinking, you can also understand that without the slightest inconsistencies. Christ as man, is their human parents. However, in his life was something that caused that went the way toward becoming God. That something is what His Father. This is what is the source of the birth of Christ God. What is it? And what does an old traditional song? God is love.

And all finds its logical explanation. Christ speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is in our hearts and which we pursue in our lives here and now. As the Father lives in Heaven, it was live in the UK. In the Kingdom of love, which is a different world than the Kingdom of force. Ruled their rights, so very different from the rights of labor. This is what love meant that Christ sacrificed his life, to be born of the Spirit among the people. With the love of Christ has become God. It is the love of God is the Father of Christ. Love, which is in him / herself and who is also the same God. Love, Life of Christ and His Spirit are the three forms of the same God. God's love and forgiveness. God, who reigns in the kingdom of heaven.

Is Novocaine The Same As Benzocaine

Kingdom forces

has always been in the natural world works right strength. The one who won the confrontation of both the stronger for food, and of partners for reproduction. Hence, a stronger individual genes have a greater chance to survive and consolidate in the population. Stronger end of the end could do with a weaker, which only wanted to view behind the argument of force. Such natural law in which the stronger the lawmaker.

Weaker individuals not wanting to be doomed to the tyranny of another stronger contain non-aggression pact and join forces to repel attacks stronger. In this way, they are stronger, but still those resources which Arms must share among themselves. Among them the most important and so are stronger. Also win a confrontation between groups of groups that have a greater amount of force. For these battles, however, designate your group leader, which for some reason they consider to be the stronger.

Strength does not always mean physical strength. Often, the physical qualities are of less importance than the intellectual virtues. A clever person can defeat a stronger physically, using the power of his intelligence. Intelligent and charismatic individual is also able to exploit the strengths of other to fight the stronger. Also, the wealth of help in the use of force against others. The more different kinds of resources I have, the easier for me to buy the services of others - for equally intelligent and charismatic, and strong physically. Can I choose people for his army.

As you can see the different forces are calculated, but still one that is stronger, has unlimited power over those who are weaker. The structure of a democratic state slightly improves the situation. Camera strength is subordinated to the will of the people, that is the will of the majority. It is through their representatives, most constructed right. The law protects the weak from strong, until the stronger will be the majority that the law change. But either way is the camera strength upholds the rule of law. Is there a way to turn the kingdom of forces in the kingdom, where everyone has the same rights regardless of whether it is stronger, smarter, richer, and even whether it is in the majority?

my opinion, far too little is said about it. Accepted as a natural state in which you are right, which is more. Also, the media, which are governed by the laws of the market does not help us in the case. Not enough is meaningful debates about ethics and freedom, and too much about politics and the will of the majority. Too much calculation, and not enough consistency in the views. Is there a chance to improve the situation? Sure. But first we must awaken in themselves and their own environment awareness of the need for such debates. Awareness of the ethical basis for policy. If more people will want to talk about this, donośniejsze will also echo in the media. Maybe then grow up to to talk not about power but about freedom.

How Can I Be My Sisters Slave

Reconciliation

- I'm sorry.
- Nothing happened.

these words pass us by the throat, quite casually. We consider not even when they speak. Ot element of good manners. And when someone asks if we forgive, bearing in mind the elementary good manners, of course, to answer in the affirmative. But in these everyday situations is really anything to forgive? When

exists a need for an apology and forgiveness? Apologies and forgiveness are two sides of a single act - reconciliation. Reconciliation, or the restoration of unity. It follows that something must be separated in order to restore this unity. Or accidental knocking someone on the bus, or the ball accidentally hitting the neighbor's window causes splitting, or breaking something?

When we talk about the break we need to be thinking of breaking the bond that connects me with another man. If you met the person who is random, it is difficult even to talk about relationships. If she is, it is so weak that it is indeed this type of stupidity can lead to its rupture, but also reconciliation does not require any extraordinary gestures. In this case the trite excuse - nothing happened can repair the tarnished relationship and restore it to ordinary human kindness. However, in this case, reconciliation is not a unique achievement, and based on such events, it is difficult to identify yourself as a person who forgives.

When the bond between two people is stronger, nobody is probably silly to apologize for accidentally touching or any other trivial operation carried out unintentionally. Because what a mature relationship may suffer from such a reason. Unity goes on, so no need for reconciliation. However, the question is complicated really, when you close wyrządzimy real evil person. And rarely is a problem lay in the very essence of that particular act, but in nadszarpniętym trust. Suddenly, the other person becomes distrustful and move away from each other tearing bond.

Is courtesy a "sorry" to repair the damage? Not at all, or even just the opposite. There are no adequate repentance means that either do not understand the damage that wyrządziliśmy, or treat someone close, like a random person, and we believe that the bond was so weak that we can easily repair it. So what is needed for reconciliation?

The first step is definitely a reason to run and try to find the essence of the problem and the effects experienced by the other person. If the relationship is strong, is to understand the problem, should arouse in us an authentic remorse - a shrill cry of pain arising as a result of wounds they inflicted another person. Understanding and regret the error analysis will lead to his own mistake and try to eliminate him because he felt the pain, I'm sure I'll do my best not to feel it again. If we can successfully wade through these stages, it may finally be ready to say "sorry" with adequate seriousness of the situation and the conviction that we want to fix what spoiled. This is only for recovering trust the other person and be reconciled in a further enhanced through the experience of the relationship.

Patricia N Avidad Caliente

Jeff Beck - Brush With The Blues

this time without words. For this guitar, which not only speaks, but he cries.

Ron Pope Sheet Musicfree

everyday miracles

And how can you not believe in miracles? Or at least very strange, yet happy coincidences. It is no secret that I'm fascinated by the preaching of Father John Andrew Kłoczowski, wygłaszanymi every Sunday in the so-called. Dozen. Yesterday I came to Dublin for a week, so today I could not automatically appear on the Dozen. A surprise here. Kłoczu leads retreats in the Polish Dominican ministry in Dublin. Is this a sign?

sermon about everything, but it is not surprising. Fruit of life considerations, which regales us every Sunday for years, here you must pass in the course of four homilies. I will not summarize the sermon, as most thought runs through my entire blog. But I liked a quote from Meister Eckhart:

Some want to look at God with the same eyes, which look at a cow, and they want to love God as love her. And they love it because milk and cheese, due to its own advantage. This is what all those who love God because of external or internal wealth of comfort, not love Him as they should, they love their own advantage.

It is worth considering whether we love God precisely because of the benefits which we expect from this? Is our love is like to be? Is it selfless? Does doing good, we think about the reward that awaits us, instead of the world that we have a chance to create and save?