Quotes for Lent

lunamoth

Episcopalian
Messages
3,915
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Wild, Wild West
Hi All, I thought I'd start a thread to share Bible paasages and other sayings or quotes we find especially meaningful for the season of Lent. They don't have to be related to Lent and Easter, just something you find inspirational at this time of year.

peace,
lunamoth
 
...thay are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.--Romans 3:24-25
 
Lent is not a deprivation, but rather a reminder of what you have been blessed with. By depriving self of your blessings, you remember them with more appreciation (Mom H.)
 
i dont do lent but respect those who do.

i am not sure if this is a literal lent or a liberal lent, i dont know if this is a literal meaningful or a liberal meaningful.

so i dont know what scriptures to put.

(John 11:35) Jesus wept
 
i will share quotes from a song i like instead, if that will be ok:)

As I journey through the land, singing as I go,
Pointing souls to Calvary—to the crimson flow,
Many arrows pierce my soul from without, within;
But my Lord leads me on, through Him I must win.
  • Oh, I want to see Him, look upon His face,
    There to sing forever of His saving grace;
    On the streets of glory let me lift my voice,
    Cares all past, home at last, ever to rejoice.
 
"I don't preach a social goapel; I preach the gospel, period. The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is concerned for the whole person. When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, 'Now is that political or social?' He said, 'I feed you.' Because the good news to a hungry person is bread."

--Desmond Tutu
 
No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting it, not by giving in. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.
That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it.
(C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p 13)
 
O Lord, make me an instrument of your Peace!
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is discord, harmony;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light, and
Where there is sorrow, joy.

Oh Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

--St. Francis of Assisi
 
lunamoth said:
Hi Bandit, thank you for sharing, but please don't make this thread into a debate. :(

peace,
lunamoth

i want to clear this up.
not all christians do lent in the literal sense. if you read my first post you will see where i was being very serious & i said I RESPECT THOSE WHO DO IT.

AND I said,
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT SCRIPTURES TO PUT.
so i put the shortest one & shared a song because i do not really know what scriptures go with it that are meaningful to lent.

by literal meaningful- i do not know what scriptures go with lent. i am only aware that it is something observed by catholics from my understanding it is probably like fasting, but i am still not sure.

please accept my apology - however i was being serious & admonishing to those who do lent by saying i respect those who do & trying to chime.
a debate was not intended.

again, i am sorry & sorry for that being taken wrong.
i wont be posting on the christian board, for awhile, if ever- so hopefully that will make things better here.
 
Thank you for clearing that up Bandit. I hope you will continue to post in this thread. Lent refers to the weeks leading up to Easter; how one uses this time will vary although traditionally it is a time to reflect on our life and relationship with God and neighbor, to repent of the sin we find in our life, and renew our committment to God.

peace,
lunamoth

BTW, the song you shared was beautiful and quite appropriate.
 
Lent is not a deprivation, but rather a reminder of what you have been blessed with. By depriving self of your blessings, you remember them with more appreciation (Mom H.)

I enjoyed this quote, Quahom. May I reuse it? And if so, to whom would I credit it?
 
Great timing to resurect a 6 year old thread.

In our tradition we don't 'give up' anything we are simply going to 'take up' 40 days later.

What we do is utilize those 40 days as springboard to changing a detrimental habit and taking up a new one....so the 40 days of fasting is fasting from something we want to eliminate permanently from our lives.

Now this could be something material, like smoking, drinking, or meat. Or it coud be something like negativity, sarcasm, or blame.

Tis a good time to make a change, unlike a New Years Resolution, the period of time provides those 40 days to be 'resolute' and to die (paul I die daily) to the old you, and 'resurect' the new you.

Happy Lenten Journey to all who participate.
 
"Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
(Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23)

The outward observations of Lent, the kiddie's giving up sweets, or swearing at mum, have come to define the 40 period in the minds of many, but really it is far more than this.

The Christian Way is, as Christ said, the Way of the Cross, and 'taking up one's cross' requires prior preparation — self denial — a period of spiritual preparation and spiritual formation, generally treated under the one heading of spiritual ascesis. The forty day period reflects Christ's own preparations in the wilderness prior to the commencement of his ministry.

Most people today baulk at the idea of self denial, under any other terms than the kind of thing necessary to get what they want. The idea of surrendering one's 'autonomy' and 'freedom' to a doctrine seems unnatural. It does not occur that the 'freedom' and 'autonomy' they cherish is neither realm nor meaningful in the first place. (As one Buddhist master has said, what people in the West mean by freedom is the ability to chase the next whim or novelty without hindrance. It never occurs that real freedom and real autonomy first requires self-possession, and that takes discipline.)

The Way of the Cross need not, however, be seen as a via dolorosa:
"Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light."

Lent reaches its climax in the Liturgical Vigil after dusk on Holy Saturday:
The Service of Light, The Liturgy of the Word, The Liturgy of Baptism, the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Christ is risen, and we are risen in Him.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Most people today baulk at the idea of self denial, under any other terms than the kind of thing necessary to get what they want. The idea of surrendering one's 'autonomy' and 'freedom' to a doctrine seems unnatural. It does not occur that the 'freedom' and 'autonomy' they cherish is neither realm nor meaningful in the first place. (As one Buddhist master has said, what people in the West mean by freedom is the ability to chase the next whim or novelty without hindrance. It never occurs that real freedom and real autonomy first requires self-possession, and that takes discipline.)

The trouble with the way you're saying this is that you're finding fault in the individual without explaining why they should find fault in themselves. Sin must have negative consequences and if there are no negative consequences why should one feel guilty? People don't believe in futile guilt trips.

If you had said that self-denial is important or useful because of the economic and ecological consequences of selfishness, self-indulgence or hedonism, it would be more likely for people to agree with you.

What are the consequences of hedonism, materialism and consumerism? The consequences are damage to our environment. It is not merely about being spiritual or worrying about one's place in heaven or the afterlife. The consequences are real in this world, in the earthly realm.

Capitalism and the desire to emulate, follow or surpass the wealth, accomplishments and achievements of your next-door neighbour ramps up people's consumption. People in the Western world and developed countries have higher living conditions than those in poorer parts of our world and yet, they can't get enough. Enough is never enough. Bigger is never big enough. Better is never good enough. We have to keep chasing, chasing, chasing because yesterday's big is today's small. You will never catch up to your next-door neighbour because tomorrow, he'll have something else up his sleeve.

The developed world is like a parasite that consumes more and more and more. This exponential rate of consumption has consequences on the world's ecology. Rivers dry up. Waterways belch with pollution and industrial waste. Toxic gases fill the atmosphere. People aren't worrying about having enough food to go around. They worry about profit margins and economic growth. (Remember Jesus' story about the man who wanted to build bigger barns?)

It's a competitive world where you have to be either better or at least as good as everyone else. If you're not, you fall behind the game. If life were a game, then we're playing a zero-sum game. If there are winners, then there must also be losers. In the present generation, the Western world is winning and the environment is losing.

The way to change the game is to tell people that self-denial is worth it. We can't all be winners can we? But if you don't want to lose, you can at least strive for a draw. If you're not going to starve to death, die and commit suicide, you can go for the middle ground where nobody wins, nobody loses. Everyone draws. This is the point of being spiritual. It is where you recognise the economic consequences of your actions and take a more moderate approach to life. You will neither win nor lose. Instead, you pursue a balance.

Spirituality is about recognising that there is power in you. That power does not come from wealth or material achievements. The power and pleasure that most people pursue today is external. Spirituality is about embracing the internal. When we realise how much power we have inside us, we can "say no" to the pressure to seek external power. The motivation to seek the internal, however, often comes from recognising that the pursuit of external power actually destroys the natural world. Guilt trips are getting old .........
 
The trouble with the way you're saying this is that you're finding fault in the individual without explaining why they should find fault in themselves. Sin must have negative consequences and if there are no negative consequences why should one feel guilty? People don't believe in futile guilt trips.
OK. But the argument is obvious ... one doesn't have to be a Christian to see that. And this is a Christian forum.

So my argument is that people do not want to pick up their cross, nor follow Jesus ... what they want is not to have to carry a cross at all, and for Jesus to follow where they want to go.

If you had said that self-denial is important or useful because of the economic and ecological consequences of selfishness, self-indulgence or hedonism, it would be more likely for people to agree with you.
But I'm not arguing a social or political agenda. I'm arguing a Christian one, which is the Way of Self-Denial. That's fundamental to it:
"For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it." Matthew 10:39, 16:25, 17:33, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, Luke 17:33, John 12:25.

It is not merely about being spiritual or worrying about one's place in heaven or the afterlife. The consequences are real in this world, in the earthly realm.
The former shapes the latter.

Spirituality is about recognising that there is power in you.
No, I really don't think it is. Spirituality is not about power, that's the consumer version, and it's a fantasy.

Spirituality is about love.

The power and pleasure that most people pursue today is external.
Same in many cases with religion, and moreso with the 'I'm spiritual but not religious' brigade. Its self-serving consumerism, and it's being marketed as such.

Spirituality is about embracing the internal. When we realise how much power we have inside us, we can "say no" to the pressure to seek external power.
I would disagree again ... spirituality is about going out from self to the other, it's about all those things that are unfashionable — detachment, humility ... as long as it's about power, it's about self-empowerment, and empowerment of self over others.

God bless,

Thomas
 
"For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it." Matthew 10:39, 16:25, 17:33, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, Luke 17:33, John 12:25.

This does not deny however, that actions/behaviour taken in saving or losing one's life have much to do with the consequences of those actions/behaviour.

The former shapes the latter.

To me it's the other way round. If you know how to act appropriately in this world, that is the same as acting appropriately in the next.

No, I really don't think it is. Spirituality is not about power, that's the consumer version, and it's a fantasy.

Spirituality is about love.

There is often too much fantasy in the idea of "love." I think it is much better to find something more practical and mundane. Love sounds too dreamy and fantastic to be true.

Same in many cases with religion, and moreso with the 'I'm spiritual but not religious' brigade. Its self-serving consumerism, and it's being marketed as such.

The trouble with what people call "spirituality" is that too often it is about theology and philosophy and not about practice. Theology and philosophy makes religion dreamy and fantasy-like. That is what is self-serving because it then serves only as a kind of hormonal stimulation of the brain. You feel good, but you are not doing good. Religion is about doing, not dreaming and having fantasies.

I would disagree again ... spirituality is about going out from self to the other, it's about all those things that are unfashionable — detachment, humility ... as long as it's about power, it's about self-empowerment, and empowerment of self over others.

Detachment and humility require that you be strong, so how then is that not about power? The power to resist, the power to ignore, the power to deny, etc. That takes inner strength. The inability to detach and be humble is due to a person's inner weakness. Modern culture tolerates weakness but does not compel us to be strong.

Remember what Kyle said to Sarah in the movie, "The Terminator?"

Thank you, Sarah, for your courage through the dark years. I can't help you with what you must soon face, except to tell you that the future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. You must be stronger than you imagine you can be. You must survive, or I will never exist.

To be spiritual, we must be stronger than we imagine we can be. We must recognise the power within. The weak person says, "I cannot be humble. I must be arrogant! I cannot ignore, I must be obsessed!"
 
This does not deny however, that actions/behaviour taken in saving or losing one's life have much to do with the consequences of those actions/behaviour.
And everything to do with the cause of those actions.

To me it's the other way round. If you know how to act appropriately in this world, that is the same as acting appropriately in the next.
That's rather putting the cart before the horse, isn't it?

'Appropriate action' is determined by the end in view. If your view is purely worldly, then your actions are appropriate to the world ... but that does not mean you enter the spirit world, even if your actions appear to tick all the right boxes.

There is often too much fantasy in the idea of "love."
I know. There's a fantastic amount of fantasy out there about 'spirituality', 'cosmology, 'quantum theory' and 'neuroscience' ... but that does not invalidate the idea.

When I say love, I do not mean the sentimentalism that usually springs to mind.

I think it is much better to find something more practical and mundane. Love sounds too dreamy and fantastic to be true.
That's the sentimental version, then.

The trouble with what people call "spirituality" is that too often it is about theology and philosophy and not about practice.
Well, as a famous theologian observed, 'we need more saints, not more theologians' ... you're right, it's a problem that came about as soon as education was made available to those outside religious institutions ... eventually you'll end up not needing God, because the idea of God is, really, an abstract one and not really 'lived'.

But that's not the trouble with spirituality per se, that's the trouble with people, who read something in a book, and then believe they are equivalent to what they have read ... consumerism again ...

Theology and philosophy makes religion dreamy and fantasy-like.
Well on the one hand you've obviously never argued with a Doctor of Moral Theology, or a Doctor of Dogmatics, or ... then again, on the other hand, you've never experienced what the theologian or philosopher might well experience, which you assume to be 'dreamy' and 'fantasy-like'.

If Christianity was that easy, we'd all be saints, but it ain't, and we ain't saints. The only 'dreamy' and 'fantasy-like' I see is the posturing of modern politics, which is the art of keeping the populace in the dark because the populace do not want to face up to the responsibility and repercussions of rampant consumerism ... so politicians come up with schemes they know will not succeed, and voters will keep rotating them through the mill for as long as they can, to keep reality of their situation at arm's length.

As someone said, 0there is no 'fix', quick or otherwise, for a lifestyle that has exhausted its resources. Change is the only viable solution, and that is change to a lifestyle that uses less ... yet computers are a massive waste of resources on so many levels, so i don't see a change of heart any time soon.

The new model of thinking and being was, of course, enshrined in the great religious traditions long, long ago ... it's man who, in the so-called 'Enlightenment', believed that nature was a wanton women and science was the means by which man would become her master (read Bacon) ... so you will excuse me if I believe, according to the evidence, that secularism, or at best lip-service spirituality, is the cause of our current problems.

In fact, if society as we know it collapses under the strain of environmental exhaustion/ecological deprivation, then it is the spiritual traditions who have the cure. Not the secular structures.

That is what is self-serving because it then serves only as a kind of hormonal stimulation of the brain. You feel good, but you are not doing good. Religion is about doing, not dreaming and having fantasies.
Quite. That's why I draw a distinction between the reality of religion, and the fantasy of a non-religious spirituality.

Detachment and humility require that you be strong, so how then is that not about power?
Not really ... It depends what you want ... and not living in a culture that reduces human worth to a value according to its economic production, and which renders the spirit weak.

The power to resist, the power to ignore, the power to deny, etc. That takes inner strength.
Again, if you want something, then the power to resist other things comes naturally.

The inability to detach and be humble is due to a person's inner weakness. Modern culture tolerates weakness but does not compel us to be strong.
The inability stems first in that man is prey to his sensible apetites, and then second modern culture discreetly enforces and endorses that.

Western culture depends on weakness, it absolutely depends on creating aspirations that are ultimately empty, and insists that all values are ephemeral, all virtues are negotiable, depending on the novelty of the moment.

Modern culture is so successful and so pervasive, because it appeals to the shallowest aspect of man. The East, for example, find its encroachment inexorable and unstoppable.

What comes back the other way? Yoga is reduced to a keep fit regime, meditation is reduced to a technique to attaining material goals, the Kabbalah to a little piece of red strong round your wrist ... the west desecrates everything it touches, by reducing it to the lowest common denominator, its material trading value.

Remember what Kyle said to Sarah in the movie, "The Terminator?"
The last place I would look for insight or enlightenment on the human condition is Hollywood.

To be spiritual, we must be stronger than we imagine we can be. We must recognise the power within. The weak person says, "I cannot be humble. I must be arrogant! I cannot ignore, I must be obsessed!"
As I thought ...

God bless

Thomas
 
The last place I would look for insight or enlightenment on the human condition is Hollywood.
then you are missing out on some great concepts and ideas...

while there is much trash, much of it stands on a few thousand years of old books and old thoughts...

The movie theater is todays sitting around the fire reciting the oral traditions....in both cases you can find nuggets but got to take the whole mythology with a grain of salt (meister). They both have truths, adventure, shock and hypebole...the tool used to cause us to remember the truth.

How about for lent, give up that notion that hollywood can provide nothing for you, and take a notepad when you sit down with movies and find out how much you find worth quoting, how much is of value, how much instigates thought.
 
then you are missing out on some great concepts and ideas...
I've yet to be convinced ...

while there is much trash, much of it stands on a few thousand years of old books and old thoughts...
That's rich, coming from someone who regularly diss's 'old books' and old thought'! :eek:

But then, the point is the virtue is not Hollywood's, is it?

I look for insight in 'old book', 'old thought' and indeed all 'old art' and 'old science' ... but the tendency of Hollywood is to take and dumb down for wider commercial appeal (like remaking European films so people don't have to read subtitles). I've rarely seen a remake that came anywhere near capturing the quality of the original ... and often loses its subtlety altogether.

The movie theater is todays sitting around the fire reciting the oral traditions....in both cases you can find nuggets but got to take the whole mythology with a grain of salt (meister). They both have truths, adventure, shock and hypebole...the tool used to cause us to remember the truth.
No, I don't agree. I think Hollywood spun its own mythology — the Star System as was — and derailed the American Dream in the process. Hollywood depends on formula and cliché, and is driven by the bottom line.

I remember a comment made about the cartoon. In the East, the cartoon became a very powerful political commentary, a beautiful artform, and told some of those 'oral traditions' with spine-tingling intensity ... in the west we got Mickey Mouse and The Flintstones ...

How about for lent, give up that notion that hollywood can provide nothing for you, and take a notepad when you sit down with movies and find out how much you find worth quoting, how much is of value, how much instigates thought.
I've done that, Wil ... and that's why I said what I did.

If I want escapist entertainment, then Hollywood can't be beat ... but if I want serious film, then you have to go to the Indie, the European or the Foreign Film. Hollywood is all about box office, and all about the text going through the money-maker mill.

Wings of Desire was the closest I ever got to having a male pin-up on the wall. City of Angels? Forget it. The Vanishing, the Dutch original, a spine-chiller. The Hollywood remake? Glamour, Cliché and a Happy Ending ... ... and I could list a score of such remakes that aren't a shadow of the original.

Take Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven ...

Actually, a veery good point was made by a friend of mine. Why are SciFi movies such crap, compared to the quality of the material available? Apart from the rare exception (Bladerunner? Even then the idea was never really investigated, and another Happy Ending tagged on).

The issue is that good sf rests on a good idea, whereas movie sf seems to rest on eye-candy. So we get Star Wars, which is cowboys-and-indians-in-space, and ET, which is a galactic version of Lassie.

The last fim that made me think was Nightwatching (Peter Greenaway) which investigates a mystery in the Rembrandt painting ('The Night Watch') that has intrigued art critics for 300 years ...

God bless,

Thomas
 
Back
Top