My son was an organ donor. He was 15 when he died. He donated his heart. He also donated both kidneys. What do people think about wanting to one day meet the person who has his heart? Only if that person wants to meet. I totally respect their privacy. I love and miss my son so much. Would hearing his heart be too painful? Or would it be helpful? Thank you for your advice.
My fiancé and me will be married next year. Ever since we started planning he has planned for it to include communion. For context he is lutheran. I don't adhere to any specific religion, but I occasionally attend church and enjoy it (we are both baptized)
Like stated, this is something we can't really compromise on, since it's something you either do or you don't. I have a few reasons why I don't like the idea, but I thing the major three are:
It makes the ceremony longer, especially with the attendees possibly taking it as well. I'm already equal parts excited and anxious about the day in general, as crowds and noise leave me fatigued for days.
It makes (in my opinion) the reason for celebrating very two-sided. Are we celebrating the union of our relationship, or God?
Many attendees would not be comfortable taking communion, which would feel awkward and potentionally excluding.
I think I'm just looking for advice from like-minded christians in this. Is there a way to compromise that we haven't thought of? Or is there a way to look at the situation that would be eye-opening for either one of us? Please share your advice if you have the time, and please be kind.
Edit for clarification: We were both raised lutheran, WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE US
Edit 2: We have been together for more than 10 years and have had MANY discussions about our individual faith and future together. It's hurtful to read the conclusions some of you are making.
Without the authority of Catholic Church, how is an average pastor's interpretation of the Bible more valid or binding than that of Bart Ehrman's?
Please stay respectful for people's positions.
Hi everyone,
I was born and raised protestant (am a member of the pentecostal church) however am now exploring high-church denominations and orthodoxy as I do believe in the Eucharist being real. I am comparing Lutheranism and Orthodoxy and I wonder what is your perspectives on which is the true church?
Thanks!
Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world”. I’m not afraid to say that Christian nationalism is hurting the Church.
Thank you.
Growing up in a strict religious household meant missing out on something as simple as movie day at school 🎬
Every time my class watched a movie, I got pulled into the hallway instead — waiting for my siblings and other kids from our church to join me before being shuffled off to do something else. No movies, no TV, no music — that was the rule. So while my friends bonded over whatever show was popular that week, I just sat there at lunch, listening, always the odd one out.
This is a small piece of what growing up Laestadian Lutheran looked like for me.
#growingupreligious #exvangelical #religioustrauma #churchkid #lgbtq
Good morning/afternoon/evening my fellow sisters in Christ. Don't mind me. I'm just cruising through to promote my interdenominational discord server for adult Christian women who struggle to fit in with other Christian communities, group chats, servers, and so forth. This is in NO WAY an attack on any Christian subreddits – this ad is much more targeted at people that crave close connections and more intimate spaces than an online forum. I just felt I had to clarify that.
Essentially, I'm a weird person. I'm eclectic. I'm strange. I'm a MASSIVE nerd. I'm also a Christian, which seems to exile me from a lot of nerd spaces. I'm an Episcopalian, to be specific. I'm also human, so I sin more than I ought to and come from a pretty gritty past - and it has me struggling to feel at home in a lot of Christian spaces. I'm sure many of you have been in them one time or another. There's a lot of performativeness in spaces that I just don't resonate with. I'm someone still in the world. I'm new. I'm learning. I don't agree with some things and I LOVE others. I want to be able to talk about that without stepping on any toes. I'm growing, I'm healing. I'm finding Jesus. I'm slowly but surely coming into my own.
I made this server for ladies who feel the same way, for the women who always end up feeling like the ogre on the hill, who feel like they're too traditional or they're too liberal or they're not feminine enough - or maybe even too feminine. I'm just here to exist a space for women who just want to belong somewhere. Now, mind you, Weird Girls for God - yes, that is our name - is a place of unity DESPITE differences. We host a large variety of denominations, political beliefs, and are open to women who identify as LBA.
If you're interested in joining the server, please DM me or comment down below!
People often say since LDS aren't trinitarian, the baptism is invalid since you need to be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
But here's the thing im caught up on.
When you are baptized in the LDS church, they DO baptize this way.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:73, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
So here it seems to meet the "criteria" of baptism.
But even if this isn't valid since its hidden in this verse specifically that the Mormon god is not triune, are we saying that The Holy Spirit didnt affect 8 year old me? When I truly believed I was being baptized and receiving The Holy Spirit?
The Lutheran view of baptism to my knowledge is that its saving. Outward rejection of baptism means you reject The Holy Spirit and cant be regenerated.
MAIN POINT!!
If the Mormon baptism was invalid, then what im hearing is that baptism isn't a work of God, but a work of ourselves since id have to go out of my way to get re-baptized even though I fully believe I received The Holy Spirit and was saved then and there.
Im trying to find a clear answer but everyone ive talked to says the same thing, "the Mormon church isn't trinitarian", which to me isn't sufficient reason as to why I need to be rebaptized, and it makes it seem like baptism then would be a work of myself getting rebaptized. I hope you can see where I'm coming from!
David Boice of 52 Churches in 52 Weeks and 52 Temples in 52 Weeks returns to MBR to talk with Steven Pynakker to talk about his Faith Journey from Protestantism to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since David's last appearance he has started a new YouTube exploring LDS Temples. He describes his experience in those Sacred Spaces as well.
The New Testament does not teach that Jesus will return to this Earth. Neither Mark, Paul, Matthew, Luke, nor Acts ever teach it. Revelation explicitly denies it by destroying the old creation. The only "return" in the New Testament is Christ's final manifestation prior to the annihilation of the present world and the creation of a new one. The traditional doctrine of a Second Coming to Earth is therefore not New Testament teaching but a later theological construction.
Mark 13:24–27 is the only passage that resembles a "second coming" expectation:
>Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26)
This echoes Daniel 7:13–14. But the ambiguity is crucial: in Daniel, "coming with the clouds" is not a descent to Earth; it is the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days in heaven. Many scholars therefore read Mark's language as describing Christ's heavenly enthronement rather than a future earthly return. Others interpret it as a cosmic, future revelation. In Mark 14:62, Jesus says to the high priest:
>You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
Again, the imagery is Danielic. It is not an explicit descent to Earth. It signifies enthronement, vindication, and divine authority, but not a geographical "return."
Paul's eschatology likewise concerns cosmic transformation rather than spatial movement. It is participatory and transformative, not geographical. Paul never says that Christ returns to Earth. The movement he describes is upward (believers) and downward (Christ), but the meeting point is "in the air," and Paul does not narrate what follows.
The New Testament teaches a transition to a new creation, not a return to the old. There is no stage in which Jesus resumes residence on the present Earth. Every text traditionally used to support a "second coming to Earth" dissolves under close analysis. In Matthew and Luke, Christ's future manifestation is apocalyptic and symbolic, not geographically specified.
Augustine's eschatology (City of God 20) is fully compatible with the conclusion that the New Testament does not teach a true return to Earth. Augustine explicitly rejects millenarianism (the notion of a future earthly reign of Christ) and denies any idea of Christ returning to dwell on this Earth or establishing an earthly kingdom. He interprets Christ's "coming" as the final judgment, not a geographical descent. In Augustine's cosmology, the present Earth will be destroyed; Christ's eternal dwelling is not on the old Earth.
The central point of New Testament teaching is that Christ has already risen and taken his throne in the heavenly Jerusalem.
hi, I was wondering if you all could join in prayer with me to get some food. I'm in stage 5 renal failure (I need a kidney transplant) so I can't work. I applied for state benifits but in talking to them Friday it's going to be a while. I get ssdi but between rent, lights, and gas bill there's really no money left. I can't take my medicine without food and I have no food so I stopped taking the medicine until I can get something to eat I tried talking it without food before and it did not go well so please if you could take a few minutes and say a short prayer for me I would be forever grateful thenk you for reading and GOD bless you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lutheranism
Considering Wikipedia is widely used and the project semi-inactive, I think some of y'all can help.
The current version i find has the lyrics:
I do believe
That I receive
His very body and His blood
Christ, truly present in this meal.
But the version I remember is:
I do believe
That I receive
God's very body and God's blood
Christ, truly present in this meal.
The odd thing is despite the song being Lutheran in origin I remember it distinctly being sung at my Grandparents (on mother's side) church when I visited despite theirs being Catholic. I've tried asking my mother's family but they only remember the current version (if they remember it all).
Additionally when i was a kid the only overtly Lutheran thing I was involved with was watching episodes of Davey & Goliath along with the fact Dad would be driving past a Lutheran church to get to our church. Not sure how this happened but my best guess is when driving me they had a Christian radio station on & a DJ tried singing it from memory & got the 2nd to last lyric wrong. I am wondering if any of y'all from British Columbia (or Washington State) remember this happening & can help me solve this mystery that's been bugging me for literal years. Thanks In Advance & God Bless Y'all
Does anyone here have a good prayer book of sung prayers or something along those lines for individual people? There are good liturgies of the hours for multiple people, but I haven't really found any for individual people, I'd like to get into that, does anyone have anything of value on this? Would appreciate lots
On one hand they administer the same holy sacraments we do but on the other they reject their holy authority additionally in the small catechism it says we condemn the anabaptist for not Baptising babies in the section on baptism