Kyril Theosis ☦︎

@Adrianaerjo @Symphony_res Dit heet ecological fallacy. Dus wat voor een groep mensen geldt, geldt niet voor elk individu. Daarom zijn verklaringen die over individuen (een vrouw) gaan vaak onjuist want ze gebruiken groepsdata als bewijs. Maar zo werkt het niet. Bron: ben statisticus / psycholoog

@Adrianaerjo @Symphony_res En dat mag!

Lidewij de Vos (FVD) zet Kamer op z’n kop: “Mannen en vrouwen zijn niet gelijk”

@PageauJonathan I wondered about this. I get that praying for some unnecessary luxury isn’t the way. But, for example, praying for humility and patience while being in the process of purchasing a home that feels beneficial for the soul (peace and quiet), how does that fit in?

A mature Christian wouldn't ask God for a Ferrari Watch the full version: youtu.be/7WqrbWNHJBs?si…

@Adrianaerjo @Symphony_res “Algemeen” is dus alleen algemeen. Maar als je dan dieper kijkt zie je dat “on average” niets zegt over het individu. Er zullen zeker gevallen van discriminatie zijn. Maar er zijn veel andere verklaringen.

@_Advent__ @Symphony_res Dat zal inderdaad ook bestaan, maar algemeen verdienen vrouwen vaak nog steeds minder dan mannen.

@Adrianaerjo @Symphony_res Ik ken ook veel vrouwen die wel goed hebben onderhandelt en wel een hoger salaris hebben gekregen / of auto. Maar ik ken ook mannen die minder hebben gekregen. Niet iedereen ziet hier sexisme.

@Symphony_res Wat een kletsverhaal!! Vrouwen verdienen niet minder omdat ze deeltijd werken, maar omdat ze minder betaald worden dan mannen voor dezelfde functie. Ik ken gevallen waarin ze zelfs een kleinere leaseauto kregen dan mannen in dezelfde functie.

@Adrianaerjo @Symphony_res Hier moet je dan vragen of het verschil is dat het mannen of vrouwen zijn, of of dat deze vrouwen gewoon niet sterk genoeg hebben onderhandelt. HR probeert iedereen zo min mogelijk te geven. Het is dus vaak niet omdat je vrouw bent, maar omdat je niet sterk genoeg onderhandelt

“The Lord does not show Himself to a proud soul. The proud soul, no matter how many books it reads, will never know God, since by its pride it does not give place for the grace of the Holy Spirit, while God is known only by the humble soul.” - St Silouan the Athonite

People have fallen into unbelief because they have completely lost the spirit of prayer, or never had it at all—in short, because they do not pray. The prince of this century [the devil] has free rein in the hearts of such people; he is their master. Because they do not pray, they do not ask the Lord for the dew of His Grace (for only those who seek receive the gifts of the Lord). Consequently, their hearts, corrupted by nature and lacking the nourishing dew of the Holy Spirit, have dried up. From this extreme dryness, they are finally set ablaze by the hellish flame of unbelief and various passions. The devil then knows how to ignite the passions that sustain this terrible fire, triumphing at the sight of the perishing souls—souls redeemed by the blood of Him who purified them. St. John of Kronstadt

@shagbark_hick Not trying to offend. Just trying to understand because my own experience is that I tried Catholicism but found exactly nothing there. It felt empty to me, overly „clean“ and metaphysically not coherent. Eastern Catholicism may be an exception but then why not become orthodox?

@shagbark_hick I don’t see how „everyone“ would find something in Catholicism, while you claim a „certain type of guy“ goes to other churches. How? If your argument were true, that certain type of guy would find something within Roman Catholicism, but that is not so.

I've noticed that most Christian groups seem to really only attract people of a certain personality type. There's a "certain type of guy" who becomes a Baptist, a Messianic, Megachurch, Orthodox, etc. Where Catholicism shines is that there is something for everyone regardless of personality type, intellectual ability, political background, particular charism, etc. We can take anyone -- literally anyone -- and that person will find a particular tendency within the Church that really speaks to them, so long as they are not averse to accepting what the Church teaches. And even then (for better or worse) they'll probably find something, too. It's the only genuinely "universal" expression of the Christian faith that I have ever seen. Nothing else really comes very close. I can't think of anyone I've ever met who just straight up wouldn't find some thread of Catholicism to bite down on and feel at home within. I cannot say the same of the vast majority of non-Catholic expressions of Christianity.

@GemmaPfaff @LisaBritton None of what you said here makes any sense or has any relation to the criticism Lisa made. It’s repeating propaganda slogans, half-truths, and most importantly presents them without any context.

@LisaBritton If societies were teaching the masses to hate & disrespect men, then why are men responsible for 9/10 violent crimes? Why hasn’t America had a female president? Why are there more male CEOs? Why are men paid 20%+ more? Why are pain complaints of female patients ignored?

We’re teaching boys they have to love and respect girls but not teaching girls to love and respect boys. In fact, we’ve been teaching the opposite... for decades! Our modern society lacks love and respect for men today and it begins with what we’re teaching children.

It is basically a universally well-attested tradition in the early church that the Devil fell after refusing to venerate mankind. This has obvious implications to how you should understand the 7th Ecumenical Council.

Mount Athos, 1866 Monasteries and saints

@kahnfessions @TimonDias Im a happy “fascistic planner” with lots of whimsical flâneur friends. And they all love the planners in the friends group because otherwise nothing would ever happen.

I really loathe restaurant reservation culture. It favors the "fascistic planners" over the "whimsical flâneurs" like myself.

When Jesus broke the bread “their eyes were opened” This was the reversal of man’s eyes being opened after we ate from the tree of knowledge. This is because the Cross is the Tree of Life

@DrJohnVervaeke What I mean is this: if someone asks me, I would say I don’t see an image in my mind. But that’s because I take that literal. I don’t actually “see” anything. But I could very well describe the colors of the image that I don’t see. So what is it ? :D

@DrJohnVervaeke I always found this concept really vague. What do people mean with “seeing” it inside of their mind? It’s so subjective. It may jus come down to interpretation whether one “sees” an image or not. The same process may be described with “not seeing” and “seeing”

Most people view mental images as "inner pictures"...a seemingly intuitive notion since many experience visual-like imagery in their minds. However, the existence of conditions like aphantasia (where individuals cannot form such visual images) complicates this perspective. These individuals still navigate spatial questions effectively. When asked to visualize a sunset, they may not "see" anything in their mind’s eye. Despite this, people with aphantasia can still reason spatially and navigate their environments. For example, if you ask them: “In your bedroom, where’s the nearest window to the door?” they can accurately answer: “To my left.” This means that the brain doesn’t need a literal picture in the mind but instead uses underlying processes to simulate spatial relationships.

Francisco de Holanda, The First Day of Creation - Let There Be Light, c.1545

St. Seraphim of Sarov, pray for us. ☦️📿