Catholic men's formation, St. Paul's letters, spiritual warfare, and what costly discipleship looks like for a young man.

I'm Antonio, a Catholic author and Bible scholar. Into the Arena: St. Paul's Guide to Heroic Living for Young Catholic Men (and for Those Young at Heart) grew out of my master's thesis in theology, "St. Paul and Contemporary Discipleship: Concepts and Correlations," defended at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in 2020. I wrote it because our culture trains young men for distraction and comfort, and many are unsure what they are for. The book is in editing and not yet published.

Its thesis is that discipleship is not a mood, a brand, or a Sunday compartment. It is training, combat, and patient labor. Paul's three images, the athlete, the soldier, and the farmer, belong together: intensity without patience burns out, combat without sowing is just noise, and sowing without training is sentiment. I'd love to hear how others have read these images, and what formation has helped you. (antoniolabarberasbiblicalmusings.blogspot.com)

Hey hey I’m a pastor in the UK with ADHD, and I’ve often found that studying with someone else in the room helps me stay focused, so I recorded a real-time Bible study session for anyone who wants company while they study the Bible. It’s three 45-minute Pomodoro blocks with 15-minute breaks, with easy-listening music. I’m working through Luke 4:14-44 in Logos Bible Software to go deeper in my study of the Scriptures.

https://youtu.be/3gK6d_5Xs8M?si=VGXYs9LxXpPr9CLj

•God has created everything

•God does everything for a purpose

•God never lies

• Therefore, the coincidences that happen to me are god’s work and are sending me a message

• I am experiencing coincidences that can lead to contradictory meanings

•Therefore, we must be able to say either god is not the creator of everything or he can lie

How do you solve this problem, or how might I be able to solve it? I would appreciate your help.

I stumbled across something interesting. If Jacob had 12 sons, first born had descendants and ultimate born had descendants, they all had to have first borns and ultimate borns and now the question, could there be now living people who are precisely first born through all generations (and ultimate borns) to this day? They would have to have kinda biblical importance, they would be two individuals precisely not related to each other.

I actually haven’t read much theology, but I’m fascinated by it. I’ve read Augustine’s Confessions and theology in texts of the Nag Hammadi library. Theologians I want to read include Bulgakov, Hart, Griffiths, Milbank, Origen, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Ninevah, Meister Eckhart, Luther, and Calvin.

Hello! I’ve been brainstorming my masters thesis and am looking for reading recommendations. I’m interested in the theological relationship between flesh, spirit, and self.

Here are some of the questions I have:

How does our flesh inform who we are? How does our spirit? How do the flesh and spirit work together? How do the flesh and spirit work against each other? Are we our physical selves? Are we our spiritual selves? What does scripture say about the tension between our physical selves and spiritual selves?

Does anyone have any recommendations of books/articles/papers that address these topics? Or anything tangentially related?

Someone over on r/christianity is arguing that Jesus’ instructions to care for the poor, etc., should be ignored because (just going to quote rather than try to summarize): “Jesus could not have conceived of a world in which millions of immigrants would travel to another nation and receive state-funded benefits supported by taxpayers. He was also unaware that the Earth is spherical. Consequently, when he spoke of "the least of these," he was referring to the people within his own social and cultural world, not to populations living on other continents such as South America or Australia, whose existence was entirely unknown to him” (the thread is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1xe2l1y/why_do_people_choose_burden_over_grace/).

I’m not a theologian (although I did come very close to majoring in religious studies as an undergrad) — is this an actually novel heresy, or has this argument been made before? I admit to being fascinated by (what appears to be a self-identified Christian) essentially arguing that Jesus was, basically, too naive and ignorant to actually listen to.

Creationism is foolish and laughable. But at least it is internally consistent: God makes a perfect world and humans mess it up. God is good in that story.

“Reasonable” Christians turn to theistic evolution to try to reconcile God and scientific evidence for evolution. But is it really all that reasonable?

Around 4,000 years ago, a single mutation in the small pox virus in Africa allowed the virus to jump from rodents to humans. This single viral mutation completely altered the course of human history and continues to have deep socio-political impacts. In particular, this single viral mutation led to the deaths of millions of Indigenous Americans between 1492 and the late 1800s. Entire communities were wiped out with death rates approaching 90% in some communities. This decimation of the Indigenous communities shaped the history of the Americas and led to easy subjugation of the surviving natives by Europeans. This massive loss of culture and population followed by subjugation has resulted in enormous suffering meted out upon Indigenous peoples including residential schools and associated generational trauma and substance abuse.

Old World colonies like India and Indonesia had millions of native inhabitants to sustain the economy of the colony. But the Americas did not because >90% the natives died, largely due to diseases like small pox. This resulted in the second greatest injustice and suffering in American history: the trans-Atlantic slave trade. If not for the small pox mutation, local people would have been able to build, contribute and sustain the economy (similar to India or Indoesia) and the industrial-scale slave trade would not have been necessary.

That single mutation 4000 years ago had a dramatic impact on human history and resulted in two of the greatest amounts of human suffering: the near-extinction of Indigenous populations and the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

If God controls the mutations, then he directed the small pox mutation to happen by divine providence. Unlike the simplistic creationist narrative which cleanly preserved God’s goodness, it feels like believing in theistic evolution raises some difficult questions about God’s character and “grand plan” when he would introduce mutations such as the small pox virus.

The assertion in sacred texts that "God does not lie" refers specifically to deception—lying that causes moral harm and constitutes a sin; could God, however, employ a harmless, tactical "bluff" or a strategic move in order to manage a process or conduct a test?

I’m an active believing member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Feel free to ask me anything.

If it’s a number of complex things, please break them up as to not engage in a Gish gallop

Why Latter-Day Saints love their haters

The figure provided by pew research I find to be a really interesting one.

Image

Survey

Latter-day Saints are near unanimously despised by their religious neighbors.

And contrasty Latter-day Saints unanimously love all of their religious and irreligious neighbors.

I’ve really been trying to do some thinking on this and what it all means. I’ve been struggling coming up with the reason for it or what exactly the conclusion or cause could be for this to be the case.

Latter Day Saints are generally known for being very kind and considerate and “good people”. While also in the same breath it sometimes seems that their religion is mocked, downplayed, condemned or made out to be maleficent.

An apologist made a video recently on this exact topic of the hate and love relationship giving his perspective on it.

Video

I thought it would be interesting to share some of their perspectives on it.

He mentioned how last year he had Latter-day Saint scholar, author, and theologian Terrell Given on his show.

Given explained that a series of cataclysmic shifts occurred in the early Christian church that changed the course of Christianity. He argues that in the
New Testament, God's most defining characteristic was his love for humanity. But as time passed, many
Christians placed less emphasis on this loving father figure role and greater emphasis on God's role as our sovereign and king.

The apologist then goes on and briefly touches on what is God's highest purpose for humanity? In his research the top three primary answers that are generally accepted was:

1.) God has created us for his glory.

2.) the ultimate purpose of man according to the Bible is simply to glorify God.

3.) the supreme goal of God in history from beginning to end is the manifestation of his great glory.

Latter Day Saints have a different perspective on this. One of our scriptures says: "For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

From a sovereignty first perspective, it's easier to say that God's ultimate goal is for us to glorify him. From a love first perspective, God's ultimate goal is for him to glorify us through the merits and mercy of Jesus Christ.

Next he goes into the difference between a heaven/hell binary for believers and the more universalist perspective we share. For us there is no condemnation for non-believers.

“we believe in a close feeling and physical father in heaven who prioritizes love over sovereignty. He genuinely loves everyone and genuinely wants and will do everything he can to save everyone. And over time, I believe that people become more like that which they worship for better or for worse. And because I think Latter-day Saints have transferred their allegiance to a God who wants to save everyone, their hearts well with love for everyone. We don't have to wonder if God gives everyone a fair shake. It's baked into our doctrine….

…Everything about the father's plan for his beloved children is designed to bring everyone home. The intent of the father's great plan of happiness is your happiness right here, right now, and in the eternities. The intent of the father's plan of redemption is in fact your redemption.

…data reveals a significant depth to these beliefs on an institutional level that I just think is really beautiful….”

He then concludes by essentially saying, the question gets raised if there is a God or not, but a better better question is assuming there is a God, is that God worthy of my adoration, my commitment, my devotion?

TLDR: data shows a lot of positive consequences and attributes that come either being LDS. Data points towards Latter Day Saints having a lot of love for others that can’t stand them. An apologist gives his perspective that it’s involved primarily in lds perspectives on who God is and who other people are.

But I’m curious what yall make of this data. Why do you think this disparity is occurring? Not saying it indicates truth or anything like that, but why is this happening, and what do you think is the cause, conclusion, or maybe even solution?

No matter what your beliefs are. I think we can all agree that we are living in interesting times. If people are trying to bring about the ends times. Will we live in a made up dispensational left behind world soon. Or will the Lord intervene.

If something happens to the Dome of Rock I cannot imagine the level of chaos this world will face. Does anyone see smoke and mirrors? Its scary right now, and I am trying to be no be afraid. I grew up in a Baptist home. So I get triggered very easily.

"Sin: The Path to Excellence"

Sin has long been associated with moral failure, but what if we reframe it? I see sin as something essential to human growth—a necessary part of striving for excellence.

At its core, sin simply means “missing the mark.” It’s not about wickedness but about falling short of an ideal. Christianity and even Gnostic traditions acknowledge this idea in different ways. The concept of felix culpa—the “happy fault”—suggests that sin is necessary for God’s plan. Whether or not one believes in the supernatural, the wisdom of this idea is clear: missing the mark is a natural part of aiming for something greater.

To evolve, both as individuals and as a species, we must take risks and inevitably fall short. This process—of setting goals, failing, and trying again—is what drives progress. Every moment of “sin” is evidence that we’re pushing ourselves beyond our comfort zones and striving toward our best possible selves. This is what we do, consciously or unconsciously, at every point in our lives.

Even competition, often seen as divisive, is tied to this idea. Competition highlights our shortcomings, creating a contrast between where we are and where we want to be. It creates leaders, innovators, and excellence by encouraging us to improve. Of course, competition produces losers, and those losses can feel like failures or even evoke the idea of "evil." But in truth, every loss is an opportunity—a moment to learn, adapt, and grow stronger.

This is why I celebrate sin—not as a call to moral failure but as an embrace of imperfection and growth. Without sin, without missing the mark, we would have no benchmarks for greatness. There would be no leaders to inspire us, no innovators to challenge us, and no progress to drive humanity forward.

I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I see wisdom in the way ancient scribes wove this idea into their teachings. Sin, in its truest sense, is not something to avoid but something to engage with thoughtfully. It is the evidence of our striving, our courage to try, and our commitment to evolve.

So, I invite you: aim high. Take your shot. Miss the mark. Become a sinner in the best way possible. In doing so, you’ll not only create a better version of yourself but also contribute to the collective excellence of humanity.