|
Kyrie eleison posted:Fun facts about Mary. Mary most certainly wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born (also God is a real rear end in a top hat making someone who never even had sex give birth, that had to be painful as hell for her). fade5 fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Dec 2, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
fade5 posted:Jesus had brothers and sisters. Although technically they're not direct/actual siblings, but they're the children of Mary and Joseph, and the "Virgin birth" thing only applied to Jesus so you know what that means: SEX. Look at who's a fuckin' Protestant over here 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Look at who's a fuckin' Protestant over here  (I don't know what you'd actually call me, but I was raised Lutheran so close enough.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Lutheran, aka the OG Protestants. Minnesotan 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Jesus had brothers and sisters. Although technically they're not direct/actual siblings, but they're the children of Mary and Joseph, and the "Virgin birth" thing only applied to Jesus so you know what that means: Mary had SEX. (Just like the idea of your parents having sex: it happened, get the gently caress over it already.) Not according to the True Church. The "brothers" of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are interpreted to be either cousins or (more likely, in my opinion) step-brothers from Joseph's prior marriage (as he was likely a bit older than Mary and was marrying her mostly to take her under his wing). The rationale for this is not scriptural, but it is logical: if you had knowingly given birth to the Lord, and you were perfect like Mary, would you profane yourself in such a way? Of course not!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
So its only literalism if they believe the ENTIRE BIBLE is literally true? Not just bits and pieces? That sounds like an exercise in futility. I get what the term means, and I'm saying that the term shouldn't exist since first, if you take 100% of it literally, your head should explode since so much of it outright contradicts different parts of itself, and second, who can actually do that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Not according to the True Church. The "brothers" of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are interpreted to be either cousins or (more likely, in my opinion) step-brothers from Joseph's prior marriage (as he was likely a bit older than Mary and was marrying her mostly to take her under his wing). Surely, of all things, sex between a married couple with full openness to children is not "profane" or "defiling" to the Catholic Church? Or is it just that they have to grudgingly accept that or else there will be significantly fewer future Catholics? Jastiger posted:So its only literalism if they believe the ENTIRE BIBLE is literally true? Not just bits and pieces? That sounds like an exercise in futility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:A Jewish woman would not consider sexual relations in the context of a married relationship to be profaning or defiling, it would be a fundamental part of the relationship. Indeed, if Mary refused sexual relations to Joseph he would have been within his rights to divorce her. That is not the issue. The issue is that she had the unique privilege of giving birth to the Lord, and she would therefore never profane herself. The Catholic Church also, despite popular reputation, does not maximize for childbirths. In fact, the Catholic Church, unlike the Protestants, views celibacy as even greater than having marriage and children. This is why the entire priestly Hierarchy, as well as all religious monks and nuns are celibate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:So its only literalism if they believe the ENTIRE BIBLE is literally true? Not just bits and pieces? That sounds like an exercise in futility. They have to at least believe the majority of it is true. But the thing is very large quantities of the books of the bible are literally intended as fictional stories to illustrate a certain point. So believing them to be literally true is completely missing a point that the illiterate masses in church in the middle ages were able to understand! I mean yes, literalists are dumb as hell, but there's a reason we have an entire term just about them. It's a term that's meant to describe people who are disagreeing with the majority way to interpret basically any religion's holy books. Just as "fundamentalists" doesn't really describe people who actually are returning to the fundamental components of their claimed religion; but rather are people who've basically made poo poo up even within the context of religions being made up poo poo (largely) as their justification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That is not the issue. The issue is that she had the unique privilege of giving birth to the Lord, and she would therefore never profane herself. As for your view on celibacy, how does it stack up contra the Orthodox? I know their priests apparently can marry, at least in some situations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You're saying it would profane her to sleep with her husband, who she married. Is there some kind of scriptural evidence here? Because otherwise it seems like you're starting with a pre-defined assumption ("sex is profane") and are then coming up with justifications against the plain meaning of the text. Obviously, yes, the Catholic Church is not sola-scriptura but this makes no sense. Sex is not profane in and of itself, but when you have given birth to the Lord, there is something unique about that. It applies only to Mary. It is a traditional belief from the early Christians, and therefore it is upheld as sacred Tradition. The "Orthodox", who we prefer to call the Eastern church, or the Byzantine church, allow their priests to be married, but only if they married prior to their ordination. HOWEVER: there are currently married Catholic priests. Since Vatican II, some priests, Anglican and Eastern, have converted to the Catholic Church, despite being married. But unless you go the conversion route, you cannot be a married Catholic priest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ So, according to Catholic dogma, what is the relationship between the different liturgical Churches in terms of ordination? Legitimately curious. Jastiger posted:So its only literalism if they believe the ENTIRE BIBLE is literally true? Not just bits and pieces? That sounds like an exercise in futility. Yeah, in practice, literalists don't actually believe what they claim they believe. But the point is that they do claim that's what they believe. Sometimes they're forced to wiggle around when they're challenged on it. That's when we get into the dregs of apologetics. Edit: I'm pretty sure we all know they aren't few and far between, in fact, they're helping to rot our country from the inside out. But to address your main point, again, accepting that part of scriptural interpretation involves believing in metaphor and historical context is categorically different from the pretense that every verse is true without any hermeneutic work. VVVVVVVVVV Flip Yr Wig fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Right. So Literalists with a capital L are few and far between and are bad news bears. Got it, that makes sense. I'm merely saying that if you're going to accept any part of Christianity you have to take at least PART of it literally, which means its hard for me to bridge the gap between someone that is a Christian bemoaning those assholes Fundamnetalist Literalists when they are simply employing the same logic. They just take it further.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Minnesotan Nessus posted:As for your view on celibacy, how does it stack up contra the Orthodox? I know their priests apparently can marry, at least in some situations. quote:Martin Luther eventually married Katharina on June 13, 1525, before witnesses including Justus Jonas, Johannes Bugenhagen, and Barbara and Lucas Cranach the Elder. There was a wedding breakfast the next morning with a small company, but two weeks later, on June 27, they held a more formal public ceremony which was presided over by Bugenhagen. Von Bora was 26 years old, Luther 41. The couple took up residence in the "Black Cloister" (Augusteum), the former dormitory and educational institution for Augustinian friars studying in Wittenberg, given as a wedding gift by the reform-minded John Frederick, Elector of Saxony, who was the son and nephew of Luther's protectors, John, Elector of Saxony and Frederick III, Elector of Saxony. 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right. So Literalists with a capital L are few and far between and are bad news bears. Got it, that makes sense. I'm merely saying that if you're going to accept any part of Christianity you have to take at least PART of it literally, which means its hard for me to bridge the gap between someone that is a Christian bemoaning those assholes Fundamnetalist Literalists when they are simply employing the same logic. They just take it further. They're not particularly few, they're just nothign like a majority. You're still loving up usage of literalist there, because literally believing many parts of the bible means believing in moral prescriptions that are present in many other world religions and even non-religious movements. You're using it in a way that doesn't really make sense, much like using say Protestant to refer to the Eastern Orthodox. Literalists aren't "using the same logic, just taking it further". They're actively going against what people have believed for sometimes thousands of years, and using completely different logic to get to that point. They'll do things like claim all of Genesis is literally true, even though it has two conflicting creation stories, which have been recognized as being in conflict since before iron tools were invented and popularized. fade5 posted:Doesn't work since I was born, raised, and live in Texas. While Minnesota has the whole "Democrats are in control of most of the government" thing which is nice (and they weren't part of the Reagan wave), it's too goddamn cold there for my tastes. It's joke on the fact that Minnesota is full of people Lutheran by birth, weak agnostic by practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
fade5 posted:When the founder of your religious movement has no problem marrying and having kids, then you tend to not worry about it too much. As such, having a Pastor/Priest get married and have kids is most definitely not unusual among Protestants. Yeah, I'm definitely showing my own Protestant roots here, no matter how much I differ on some of the specific beliefs. The founder of our religious movement is Jesus Christ, and he did not marry or have children. Nor did Paul, for that matter. Flip Yr Wig posted:/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ I can't answer this with the amount of exactness you might want. I will say this: none of the teachings on priestly marriage are technically dogma or doctrine. These words are reserved for infallible religious teachings, such as the Trinity, or the Assumption of Mary. The celibacy of the priesthood is considered a discipline and is open to exceptions. Exemptions were made for certain Episcopalians who wanted to convert to Catholicism, after the schism of their own church, following rampant modernization. More information available here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I can't answer this with the amount of exactness you might want. I will say this: none of the teachings on priestly marriage are technically dogma or doctrine. These words are reserved for infallible religious teachings, such as the Trinity, or the Assumption of Mary. The celibacy of the priesthood is considered a discipline and is open to exceptions. Exemptions were made for certain Episcopalians who wanted to convert to Catholicism, after the schism of their own church, following rampant modernization. More information available here. Okay, to be more specific, how is the chain of ordination interpreted? Since Anglicans and Orthodox priests get ordained in a succession that supposedly goes back to your big guy, how legitimate are the sacraments they perform, and whatever else can only be ordained by a priest?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They're not particularly few, they're just nothign like a majority. I think I'm just using the word 'literally' in a different way. Yes, obviously there is conflict in Genesis. But, the Christian will LITERALLY take Jesus' existence as a thing that LITERALLY happened, and he LITERALLY came back from the dead. But pshaw, talking snakes? Get outta town wacko.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Okay, to be more specific, how is the chain of ordination interpreted? Since Anglicans and Orthodox priests get ordained in a succession that supposedly goes back to your big guy, how legitimate are the sacraments they perform, and whatever else can only be ordained by a priest? The Catholic Church holds that the Eastern churches have valid sacraments, due to Apostolic succession. (This is not held in the reverse.) The Catholic Church also accepts as valid all Trinitarian baptisms from other churches. Also: any layperson can perform a baptism, if necessary (so long as it is invoked in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.) Anglicans, on the other hand, are considered to have lost their Apostolic succession.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yeah, the Buddha didn't have the ancestry to lean on so he had to hustle harder. Paid off in the end of course. Nessus posted:Jesus starts out poorish (a carpenter is still skilled labor), became a teacher, got crucified, and was during this entire sequence of events literally God at all times. Yes? Or is there some nuance here - did Jesus not know he was literally and completely God during some parts of this? (This is actual authentic curiosity, since it seems like a point that would need reconciliation. From one perspective, it was all just God play-acting in front of us; from another, it implies that God can, to some extent, stop being God for a while.) I think it makes more sense if this happened he was a normal kid who got made fun of throughout his growing-up times for being a child born out of wedlock. His peers probably made fun of him a bunch for having a mother thought of as promiscuous and it really got to him. Eventually, his comeback was an elaborate myth: "oh, you think I don't have a dad? You keep making fun of my mom? Well guess what, god is my dad and my mom is so holy that he chose her as a host for me (no sex was involved, she's better than that)." e: this post is completely wrong, oops Rodatose fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK so the gospel stories aren't even true, but I should go ahead and believe in the resurrection because...why? the point effectronica I think is trying to make is not about what you should or should not believe. I think it's that, from a scholarly pov, when you are trying to analyze why people have historically done things, you should know the context of where people are coming from. For instance, if you are talking about 18th century russia, you would want to know about what practices and beliefs of the Orthodox church were predominently held by the people in charge and the common folks as an possible insight into what would lead to certain events - what might motivate people to do certain actions. The truth or falsity of something like the story the ten commandments came from is irrelevant. What's relevant is its popularity, that some cultures have followed the ten commandments. From there, you can look at the text and see what some traits of the narrative are, and compare it to common characteristics of the societies throughout history that have gravitated around that common teaching (for instance, does following a code of laws with a patriarchal attitude contribute to patriarchal attitudes in societies?). Just because the truth isn't verifiable in a popular story doesn't mean you should just ignore it. Like with a myth of autism-vaccines, once it's widely-held enough, you have to engage it if you want to have a better chance of fixing things up regarding it. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I think I'm just using the word 'literally' in a different way. There are plenty of Christians who hold that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but rather shed his mortal body and toodled around Judea for a while in his true form before peacing out to heaven. And the existence of jesus is widely believed by tons of non Christians. So yeah you're really not using literalists in any sort of useful sense here. You've used it in a way so broad that nearly every human qualifies as one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There are plenty of Christians who hold that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but rather shed his mortal body and toodled around Judea for a while in his true form before peacing out to heaven. Let's be real here.  ``Christians''
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The founder of our religious movement is Jesus Christ, and he did not marry or have children. Nor did Paul, for that matter. Paul certainly seems like the more important one than Jesus, even though Jesus is the guy on the signboard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Which would you say is more important to the religion, in your view? Without a doubt, it is Christ! I mean, Paul is nothing compared to Christ. Like a tiny flea in front of an enormous giant. But I mean... that is also the relationship the average believer has to Paul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
The most important books of the Bible are the first four books of the New Testament, referred to as the Gospel, the Good News, which conveys the life and times of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is more important than any other figure in the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Seriously, all of you atheists and agnostics need to take your Bible off the shelf and read the book of Matthew. Like, the whole thing. It's really not that long. And it's amazing. There is no work of literature you could read in your life that is more important. Really though, it's 23 pages in my copy. And that's with half of the pages covered by footnotes; your copy is probably 17 pages. You've probably read Kurt Vonnegut short stories longer than that. Maybe you can spare it for literally the most important written word in all of human history?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Maybe if God made the effort to show his face to the works once in a while you clear up a few things you'd find the rest of us more likely to take the bible a little more seriously. For a supposedly omnipotent being, it would be trivial to come down and say hi once in a generation or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Maybe you can spare it for literally the most important written word in all of human history? which word is it
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
oops double post e: let's fill it up with something: the greek ethics of virtue that christianity incorporated. Aristotle divides acts regarding negatively socially harmful things into three categories: incontinence, continence and temperance. Someone who has temptation to do a harmful act and acts upon it is incontinent. Someone who has temptation to do a harmful act but shows restraint and does not act upon it for reasons such as the well-being of others or fear of consequences is continent. Someone who does not have the temptation or appetite for acts of harm is temperate. Aristotle defines only the temperate person as being virtuous, because even in those with restraint, the appetite for such an act in the first place shows they are in conflict and do not truly understand and feel the social harm of such an act taking place enough that they are able consider it without rejecting it automatically. Such restraint can be easily fall apart in the wrong conditions. Under that definition, then someone saying they don't do Bad Things only because God would punish them otherwise has no virtue. They are continent, not temperate, and are hardly any kind of authority anyone would ever want to listen to about morality. if their belief in their code of ethics falters, you would not be surprised to see them do atrocities and so you wouldn't want to be anywhere near them when poo poo goes down Rodatose fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Without a doubt, it is Christ! I mean, Paul is nothing compared to Christ. Like a tiny flea in front of an enormous giant. But I mean... that is also the relationship the average believer has to Paul. As his namesake I've always enjoyed that the name means "small" (ironic in this context) Most male name meanings are stuff like "exalted" "godly" "resolute" etc. Hardly any humble ones Kyrie eleison posted:Seriously, all of you atheists and agnostics need to take your Bible off the shelf and read the book of Matthew. Like, the whole thing. It's really not that long. And it's amazing. There is no work of literature you could read in your life that is more important. What's your preferred translation? I don't know if you've ever said. Torka fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Torka posted:As his namesake I've always enjoyed that the name means "small" (ironic in this context) My name means simply "Yahweh is God." Fitting. I wanted to point out that if any of you has read the book of Matthew when you were 13, give it another reading. It is the sort of book that changes with the years. Torka posted:What's your preferred translation? I don't know if you've ever said. The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) which is the official Catholic Bible of the United States. It contains not only the most modern and critical translation, but excellent scholarly introductions to all of the chapters and sections, as well as in-depth footnotes. You will learn not only about the traditional perspective, but the modern perspective by reading it. It is the Bible used in the Catholic Mass in America. You can read it online here: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
I like Luke best because of the social justice message. "poor in spirit" my butt, it's about helping the for-real poors
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:I like Luke best because of the social justice message. "poor in spirit" my butt, it's about helping the for-real poors An excellent and short book about helping those less fortunate is called Poverty of Spirit by Johannes Baptist Metz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
The most important words ever written in human history would have been the first words, because from them came writing itself (so probably some sumerian poem or whatever). But even if you use 'influence' as a standard of important, there's are way more important texts for the creation of the modern world - euclid's elements, decartes' discourse, artistotles ethics, etc. By contrast, there's nothing really 'Christian' about the modern world any more than there simply being a lot of christians - if they were zoroastrian instead of christian, would anything important have changed?
rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The most important words ever written in human history would have been the first words, because from them came writing itself (so probably some sumerian poem or whatever). But even if you use 'influence' as a standard of important, there's are way more important texts for the creation of the modern world - euclid's elements, decartes' meditations, etc. By contrast, there's nothing really 'Christian' about the modern world any more than there simply being a lot of christians - if they were zoroastrian instead of christian, would anything important have changed? We do not have the first words ever written. Descartes' Meditations? Really? The dude lived 1600 years after Christ, and referenced God throughout the text, even attributing all of his findings to God! And it's more important than the story of Christ? Euclid gets props, but nowhere near Christ. The modern world is born of Christian principles, not Zoroastrian principles, so what good is your hypothetical?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
rudatron posted:, artistotles ethics, etc. By contrast, there's nothing really 'Christian' about the modern world any more than there simply being a lot of christians - if they were zoroastrian instead of christian, would anything important have changed? If zoroastrian attitudes instead of christian attitudes had been predominant, we might expect people to have acted differently. Like, would the clergy have sided with franco and the fascists in spain still and condone the sacking of the people, or would they have sided with the anarchists and republicans if they were guided by an ideology that sought truth as the foremost virtue instead of grace? Of course this is a what if, so we can't really know if the world would have been different. I think it might be. But as it has shaped up in this universe, christianity's characteristics (and other abrahamic religions) lend it to conquest over other areas which have religions that are less condoning of the conquest of other people and resources (seriously, all of the talk in exodus of how many precious objects like gold and incense were desired for the First Temple because it would Please God seemed too much like an excuse for plunder of the worldly objects that happened to be rare at the time for the sake of concentration of power). Rodatose fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Not according to the True Church. The "brothers" of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are interpreted to be either cousins or (more likely, in my opinion) step-brothers from Joseph's prior marriage (as he was likely a bit older than Mary and was marrying her mostly to take her under his wing). You mean would you make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage (supposedly for procreation), reject gifts from God (like a fully functional body to enjoy sex), and otherwise do something utterly remarkable in the period Jesus lived that is never mentioned in the bible? Of course not. You'd have sex and enjoy it, and you'd have more kids, who would probably be blessed. You wouldn't withhold blessings from the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
why is sex a sin. whydon't we breed asexually through budding that happens when you pray hard enough and get your holy levels through the roof
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Of course, Descartes was himself a very religious person, but that's not relevant. There are many great thinkers in any religion you care to look at, would they be dumber if they followed another religion? I doubt it, and I'd hardly call the modern world a creation of christianity. It's the result of changes in modes of production, advancements in knowledge and philosophy, etc. Christianity is just a religion, it's not 'responsible' for any of that. Advancement of science and philosophy, however, now that's different. You can't have any of what we know without it, hence stuff like elements is actually much more influential. More people read the bible, and more people may even claim the bible is 'the most important', but it as a text just isn't that important. Now you of course believe the opposite, that christianity alone is uniquely gifted or whatever, but this belief does not survive contact with reality. Greatness doesn't correlate with religion, the ancient greeks were not hamstrung by their lack of christianity, they in fact achieved great things in their time. China remained the most advanced nation in history, without any monotheistic religion, for a very long time. What gods any of them prayed to ultimately never mattered. It's material conditions that dominates history, claims of the Unique Awesomeness of X Religion are just ways to make yourself feel better. I can't read this as anything but the inverse or what kyrie has been saying, and it's wrong for the same reasons. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 12:28
|
|