|
well i mean i guess he can rap but he sure can't write great rhymes. good beats, though. they cover up his own deficiencies (like making reference to drug dealing in what looks like white suburbia; like, really dude? i get that it's a common theme in rap music but like can you make it believable at least) course i wonder what the point is with white people making christian rap when rap is already super religious at times (and not just at award season either). kinda like why i don't get why white people do nerdcore when hip hop is nerdy as poo poo already
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:I'm seeing y'all talk about Mysteries with a capital M as something relating to prayer, so I can only assume this is yet another weird high church thing the Protestants ditched. Maybe an explanation of the rosary is in order for all non-Catholics itt: The Rosary is a pretty, uh, "haptic" prayer; you can pray it without the beads, of course,but it's that long and repetitive that it has become common to pray it with the beads in your fingers. It's become *the* Catholic devotion since it was according to legend given in 1214 to St Dominic by the Virgin Mary. It's got its own feast (Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7th, which was initially instituted to celebrate the victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto), there have been dozens of papal encyclicals and apostolic letters been written about it, there are archconfraternities of the Rosary all around the world with millions of members, there are tons of pious legends about the spiritual benefits of praying it and so on. lt's prayed like this:  You start with the Sign of the Cross followed by the Creed at the cross; the first bead is for the Lord's Prayer and at the following three beads you pray one Hail Mary each and then the Glory Be on the next bead. Afterwards you've got five "decades", that is ten Hail Marys (Maries?  ) concerning a specific Mystery (today for example you'd try and meditate on the Glorious Mysteries of the resurrection of Christ, His ascension, the descent of the Holy Spirit, the assumption of Mary and her coronation in heaven) - five Mysteries with ten Hail Marys each altogether. After each decade there's the Glory Be, and the next decade is started with the Lord's Prayer again.There are some interesting differences between how I pray the Rosary and how it's apparently prayed in the English-speaking world. For one: we don't say any psalms at the cross as the English wiki tells me; at the end of each decade it's common at least in Germany and Austria to say the Fatima Prayer as well ("O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.") And finally, and most surprising to me, is that we don't "simply" meditate on the mysteries as you apparently do; we also insert them into the Hail Mary, e.g. like so: quote:Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus, who has risen from the dead. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen Around here it's also common for groups to recite the Rosary alternatingly, i.e. the one half of the group (normally it's divided left-right) saying the first part of the Hail Mary including the Mystery, after which the other half picks up and says the rest. Which half of the group says what also changes with each decade to keep things fresh  Do you do that too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
If you want some meditative fodder then I recommend "Spiritual Exercises" by St Ignatius of Loyola.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Maybe an explanation of the rosary is in order for all non-Catholics itt: Wow, thanks. I had no idea what the Rosary meant, other than it's some beads and people hold it in their hands sometimes when praying. That's some serious time used for meditation. How long does it usually take to pray it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Wow, thanks. I had no idea what the Rosary meant, other than it's some beads and people hold it in their hands sometimes when praying. That's some serious time used for meditation. How long does it usually take to pray it? It'll take me about 20-25 minutes or so when alone, and maybe half an hour when in a group. I'd say that in my area the repetitive aspect is more important/prominent than the meditation though, so your mileage may vary. Around here the rosary will often be used simply to fill the time in a pious manner, like before Mass (where the rosary will simply end whenever the service begins) or during pilgrimages. In rural Catholic areas it was common well into the 20th century to describe units of time by how many prayers of a specific sort you could say in it, like "boil it for the length of a rosary" or "it'll take you about three Lord's Prayers". A handwritten late 19th-century cookbook my grandma has somewhere still uses this as units of time
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Maybe an explanation of the rosary is in order for all non-Catholics itt: The Fatima Prayer's prayed in the US also, and I've never heard any psalms said in any part of it either, so that's the same; but I'd never heard of adding the mysteries into the Hail Mary! I like that, though. It seems like it'd be easier to keep one's mind on the mystery, rather than doing "HailMaryfullofgrace theLordiswiththeeblessed artthouamongstwomenand blessedisthefruitofthywomb Jesus Holy MarymotherofGod prayforussinnersnowand atthehourofourdeathAmen" ten times in a row. (Given the mention of the Fatima Prayer: the three visionaries got scolded for more or less doing exactly this when they prayed, prior to seeing the apparition of Mary!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks. I had no idea the Rosary was anything but that beads-and-cross thing itself. That being said, no wonder the Protestants ditched it. We have a very different view of what prayer is supposed to be about, but that being said if it's spiritually meaningful to you then knock yourselves out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Apocron posted:If you want some meditative fodder then I recommend "Spiritual Exercises" by St Ignatius of Loyola. Which is based on the mysteries of the Rosary. Ignatian retreats are awesome and everyone should do one. System Metternich posted:And finally, and most surprising to me, is that we don't "simply" meditate on the mysteries as you apparently do; we also insert them into the Hail Mary, e.g. like so: Great post. That idea of inserting the words into the Hail Mary comes from St. Louis de Montfort. I've seen it done privately, but never in public. We're doing a 12 million rosary crusade in preparation for the centenary of Fatima.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:mods??? please don't insult my Friends. Mormons believe virtually the same thing. I wonder if they got it from the Quakers. I used to have a Religious Studies buddy who specialized in Mormonism and Mormon practice (though not theology) fits very nicely with your radical Protestantism in Colonial America. Obligatory nativist, anti-Catholic political cartoon from 1926 (and a Klansman!):  Edit: Why isn't the image showing up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:Mormons believe virtually the same thing. I wonder if they got it from the Quakers. I used to have a Religious Studies buddy who specialized in Mormonism and Mormon practice (though not theology) fits very nicely with your radical Protestantism in Colonial America. you made it into an album, not an individual pic 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:you made it into an album, not an individual pic So... Rome (which for some reason wears tattered clothes) is hiding under the Star-Spangled Banner while preparing to storm public schools, beat up the children/teachers with violence, pour holy water on them (probably making them Catholic in the process?) and finally giving out propaganda leaflets? I wonder what the tree stands for
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
It's amazing that people were angry at first about public schools because it would indoctrinate kids, and then immediately hated catholic private schools...because they were indoctrinating kids
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:It's amazing that people were angry at first about public schools because it would indoctrinate kids, and then immediately hated catholic private schools...because they were indoctrinating kids And support their own private or home schools... so they can indoctrinate kids. To this strain of person in the US, it's not about the religious (or secular) indoctrination, it's about the wrong kind of indoctrination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And support their own private or home schools... so they can indoctrinate kids. To this strain of person in the US, it's not about the religious (or secular) indoctrination, it's about the wrong kind of indoctrination. It's crazy because people got mad at Horace Mann over this Everything old is new again
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:Mormons believe virtually the same thing. I wonder if they got it from the Quakers. I used to have a Religious Studies buddy who specialized in Mormonism and Mormon practice (though not theology) fits very nicely with your radical Protestantism in Colonial America. Church of Christ doesn't believe in original sin either and both that denomination and the Mormons are part of the restorationist movement. I'll have to dig around a bit to see but I'm not sure of any Quaker connection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:It's crazy because people got mad at Horace Mann over this It's a sad but all too true joke that that strain of Christian fundies and Islamic fundies would actually find they have a lot of common ground if only they could agree on what to call God.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
i want to go on a camping trip with the Catholic Conspiracy, it looks nice under that flag 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Church of Christ doesn't believe in original sin either and both that denomination and the Mormons are part of the restorationist movement. I'll have to dig around a bit to see but I'm not sure of any Quaker connection. Am I the only one who feels icky lumping these two together under the generic "restorationist" banner? My liberal-arts sense is all tingly 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Okay, this is kind of a deep question (and I suspect differs by denomination): was Christ's crucifixion pre-determined?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Am I the only one who feels icky lumping these two together under the generic "restorationist" banner? My liberal-arts sense is all tingly Yeah considering that it's probable that Campbellite Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon I'd say that the restorationist churches were actually kind of an incestuous mess. Anyway no there appears to be no connection to Quakerism from what I've researched. It was just Alexander Campbell (a Presbyterian) returning to the Bible as the sole basis of all authority and seeing all contemporary churches as apostate. Since original sin can't be proved from Biblical texts, it was thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Okay, this is kind of a deep question (and I suspect differs by denomination): was Christ's crucifixion pre-determined? Catholics say yes, while remaining a perfectly free offering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Catholics say yes, while remaining a perfectly free offering. That's always been my understanding, as well. Christ's death and resurrection was the plan from the start, but he had the choice to say no. If he had, I guess God would have figured out some other plan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Okay, this is kind of a deep question (and I suspect differs by denomination): was Christ's crucifixion pre-determined? In one hand I have the blue pill and it's labeled Thomism, and in the other I have the red pill and it's labeled Calvinism. The question is...how deep do you want to go?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:In one hand I have the blue pill and it's labeled Thomism, and in the other I have the red pill and it's labeled Calvinism. The question is...how deep do you want to go? *Inhales the blue pill* Summa IIIa q46 a1 posted:I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches, there are several acceptations of the word "necessary." In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end--namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Luke 24:44-46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead." Sweet, sweet Thomism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
General thoughts on the scholar Robert M. Price? He was kind of my portal into theology and really got me interested in the idea of looking at what religion means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Okay, this is kind of a deep question (and I suspect differs by denomination): was Christ's crucifixion pre-determined? Enter post-foundational free-will individualistic American version (aka, no church I know of believes this but I like it so F the man!): Upon creating something that was not-God, God always intended to move that thing closer to communion with God: Hence, the incarnation of God in humanity. But, given sin, it was always going to happen that when God entered the world, humanity would kill God. The death of Christ was not so much pre-determined as a stand alone event, but was inevitable given God's desire for the world and the world's rejection of God. My more process inclinations would say something about it being the fulfillment of a divine promise made after the Flood. I reckon it would go like this: After the Flood, God regrets killing everyone. God hangs a bow in the sky-- key here is that there isn't a separate word for rainbow, so we read it as an archer's bow hung in the sky, pointing at God. If things ever get so bad again, God promised to fire the divine weapon at God's self. In Jesus, God owns up to that promise. Taking the first scheme, I just realized I might be willing to say the Flood was the Father's attempt to thwart the Son's destiny and save him from the cross. Maybe. Heresy for everyone!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Here's what St. Athanasius has to say about the necessity of the crucifixion. Most of it is about why Christ chose public crucifixion in particular rather than some other means of death. He does, however, say that Christ "did not arrange the manner of his own death lest He should seem to be afraid of some other kind. No. He accepted and bore upon the cross a death inflicted by others, and those others His special enemies, a death which to them was supremely terrible and by no means to be faced; and He did this in order that, by destroying even this death, He might Himself be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be recognized as finally annulled."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Cast Iron Brick posted:General thoughts on the scholar Robert M. Price? He was kind of my portal into theology and really got me interested in the idea of looking at what religion means. As far as the Jesus Mythicism stuff goes? He's better than Carrier at least. Carrier's methodology makes me puke. There's a debate coming up between Price and Bart Ehrman this Friday if you didn't know already. Should be interesting. Hopefully it gets uploaded to Youtube at some point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Yeah considering that it's probable that Campbellite Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon I'd say that the restorationist churches were actually kind of an incestuous mess. I think the part that confuses me is that I've seen other groups, such as Oneness Pentecostals, also referred to as "restorationist". I sort of think you are referring to some specific cluster though, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:course i wonder what the point is with white people making christian rap when rap is already super religious at times (and not just at award season either). kinda like why i don't get why white people do nerdcore when hip hop is nerdy as poo poo already I mean there aren't that any rap songs exclusively about media I in particular consume, and my entire identity is based around those intellectual properties! Also im racist
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:*Inhales the blue pill* Now this I find fascinating, because it really highlights the difference in how God is portrayed between the Old and New Testament. Compare it to the story of Jonah, where God basically railroads Jonah into doing what He wants. Is there any explanation for this change in attitude, either in the Bible itself or by theologians in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Is there any explanation for this change in attitude, either in the Bible itself or by theologians in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
god became a better DM over time
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:god became a better DM over time still uses 3d6 in order most egregrious DMPC in history game rules as physics he's got a ways to go
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I think the part that confuses me is that I've seen other groups, such as Oneness Pentecostals, also referred to as "restorationist". I sort of think you are referring to some specific cluster though, right? The restorationist movement was a product of the second Great Awakening; the movement was led by Alexander Campbell in the north and Barton Stone in the south, both of whom kinda came to the same conclusions (restoring the church to AD 33 based solely on the Bible) and they linked up later. About a hundred years since that whole mess started, Oneness Pentecostals kinda grabbed a whole bunch of ideas and theology from the Campbellites, leading them to reject the Trinity 'cause it's difficult to prove its existence from scripture alone and they were returning to the Bible as the sole source of authority. The one big tell about restoration theology is if a Protestant denomination thinks that a believer's baptism by immersion is absolutely necessary for salvation. That was Campbell's view. Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, $city_name_here Christian Churches, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals all believe that. So yeah they're all related theologically if not in history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
That's really interesting: I always understood "restorationist" as sort of a catch-all for groups who don't view the Church as a continuing community, but rather who aimed in some way to restore a church that had disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Speaking of restorationists, could we talk for a minute about the Bible? I guess this is a pretty fundamental question, but I've been trying to wrap my head around it for months and I just can't figure it out. That question is: Why do we even care about the Gospels? So I was reading this bit from Luke 18: The Bible posted:9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” Now, the content of this text is also somewhat offensive to me, but more importantly it just seems really badly argued: What does it mean to be righteous or justified? What's the relation between these two states? How and why will those who exalt themselves be humbled? What mental state is the tax collector expressing by looking down and beating his chest? Is a tax collector in the same category as robbers and thieves, or is he a lesser offender? I guess some of these things would have been clear to the original audience, but it's not obvious to me. I guess you can read all kinds of things into these passages, as the Ignatian guys and girls do. But the text itself isn't really giving me much to work with. Any Buddhist Sutra or philosophical text is much clearer about what it's trying to say and why that's relevant. And it's not just this passage: Basically any sequence in the Gospels is either a context-free parable or a story about Jesus commenting on contemporary issues or healing some guys. The latter are basically irrelevant to my life, and the former are actually pretty bad at spiritual direction. So why am I supposed to mediate my relationship to the divine through this? I assume it's because Jesus is the son of God, but ultimately I'd expect to identify him as that by his words and actions, and frankly I've read better. I guess the people of this thread would recommend I just find a different religion, but I'd like to know how you deal with these issues, or whether my thought process here is something that has never bothered you. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
well until roughly fifteen minutes ago, nobody read these things absent a thousand years of interpretation and ongoing conversation about the text, which we call "tradition" for short also the pharisee is in the wrong because "thank you that I'm cooler than other people" is something a douche would say when they pray, it's smug and gross.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
TBH I'm not really sure where you're coming from here. There are some obfuscated parables but that one always seemed pretty clear to me- the Pharisee makes a show of being religious because he thinks he's better than everyone else but he's blind to his own faults and pride; while the tax collector (btw tax collectors are whipping boys a lot in the Gospels because a) they were tied to the Romans who were, uh, not terribly popular with the Jews and b) Roman tax collectors were basically paid off what they could extort from people) acknowledges his faults and asks God for mercy. Those who think they're the best are inherently prideful but those who recognize their flaws will be forgiven.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
pidan posted:So I was reading this bit from Luke 18: Why would the tax collector be justified and the Pharisee not? I mean, serious question here. What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:43
|
|