|
HEY GAL posted:unfortunately, i did not find the quality of his products irresistible. you must not be one of the elect, sorry
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Take a child from now back to ancient Greece and he'd wax poetic on the joys of slave ownership. Do the same and take her back to the 1700's and she'd probably believe women shouldn't have the franchise. The only other option is to either construct a conscience based on what seems like a good idea, again informed by ones cultural ideas, or in active opposition to the cultural ideas. Even the latter would still be informed by the ideas, they'd simply be based on rejection. Active personal choice would mean being able to work from first principles and even most of those are constructs to a greater or lesser extent. What does this even prove, or say? Morality comes from an attempt to transcend worldly wisdom in favor of divine wisdom. If all children blithely accepted their given culture so completely, there would never be social/cultural change. When Xenophanes said men "have attributed to the gods all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men: theft, adultery, and mutual deception" where did this idea come from? Did he merely learn it from some previous sage? Or was it a revelation to him that he came to accept? People really do have the ability to accept understanding which transcends time. Note how Gregory of Nyssa speaks on slavery more like a modern than like a man of his age. Saint Gregory posted:‘I acquired slaves and slave girls.’ What is that you say? You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by him. For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:What does this even prove, or say? Morality comes from an attempt to transcend worldly wisdom in favor of divine wisdom. If all children blithely accepted their given culture so completely, there would never be social/cultural change. When Xenophanes said men "have attributed to the gods all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men: theft, adultery, and mutual deception" where did this idea come from? Did he merely learn it from some previous sage? Or was it a revelation to him that he came to accept? People really do have the ability to accept understanding which transcends time. Note how Gregory of Nyssa speaks on slavery more like a modern than like a man of his age. I would argue that a single individual cannot simply abandon the culture they grew up in entirely and build something fresh without being influenced by their previous views. I would personally argue that whilst we can make some choices as regards "good" or "moral" conduct it can be very difficult to decide what those are based on the idea that we grow up and are taught ideas about what is good and moral already and they are almost ingrained.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:you must not be one of the elect, sorry
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I am trying to think up a schism joke that involves underpants. Anyone got any good ones? *rends garment @ u*
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I would argue that a single individual cannot simply abandon the culture they grew up in entirely and build something fresh without being influenced by their previous views. I would personally argue that whilst we can make some choices as regards "good" or "moral" conduct it can be very difficult to decide what those are based on the idea that we grow up and are taught ideas about what is good and moral already and they are almost ingrained. You would do well to have lunch with a religious convert about 10 years post conversion. I think you underestimate the profound change that occurs in the process. Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:You would do well to have lunch with a religious convert about 10 years post conversion. I think you underestimate the profound change that occurs in the process. I'd like to hope so. But how far of a change would it be from the initial position. Say someone converts from Catholicism to Anglicanism. Would you argue that that is a profound change in their views on morality, or merely a minor change?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:So what do you think Jesus meant when he said that she had five husbands? i am not familiar with common interpretations of it, but looking at john 4 i am rather sure in saying that the four verses you quoted are part of a much larger story, starting from the first verse and going into the 20s or 30s depending on translation. upon reading it right now i see no inherent sexual meaning at all. the text, or at least the translations i have peeked at, say nothing about this woman's relationships to her five husbands, and depending on the translation some of them don't even say anything about her relationship to the man who is not her husband. true, some english versions apparently translate part of verse 18 as her "living with" the man, but others do not (and i don't know NT greek, nor why this difference exists) those verses are only a minor part of the story, too. the main point of the story appears to generally be about the impermanence and imperfectness of the earthly realm, as compared to the spiritual, and how jesus is the one who brings us news of this/unlocks it/etc. so again, while i don't know a lot about this text, based on just my reading of a couple of english translations of it, i really think you're reaching very hard on this one. i think if you are going to seriously make the claim that it's correct to pull out of context the four verses you quoted, and that these verses clearly are a very specific teaching about extramarital sex, you have a lot more to prove than just saying something barely above the level of "hmm well obviously  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'd like to hope so. Between denominations? Can be a big change, but the paradigm is similar. I'm thinking more like converting to Catholicism from Western Occultist East-Asian Religious Syncretist. Total paradigm change, including morality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:i am not familiar with common interpretations of it, but looking at john 4 i am rather sure in saying that the four verses you quoted are part of a much larger story, starting from the first verse and going into the 20s or 30s depending on translation. upon reading it right now i see no inherent sexual meaning at all. the text, or at least the translations i have peeked at, say nothing about this woman's relationships to her five husbands, and depending on the translation some of them don't even say anything about her relationship to the man who is not her husband. true, some english versions apparently translate part of verse 18 as her "living with" the man, but others do not (and i don't know NT greek, nor why this difference exists) I respect your reading of the text, and admit that it may have truth in it. "Origen believed that scripture should be interpreted according to three levels of meaning. " (https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/origens-literal-level-of-interpretation/). Perhaps on some level I may be right.  My reading of the text comes from a purposeful naivety were I desire simply to understand what he was getting at when he corrected her. She said one thing, he said something else. In other words, he expressed to her a truth which she was uncomfortable admitting publicly. Having been in the position of being in her shoes, I attempt to interpret the scene with charity and reason. I'm not trying to create dogma here, I'm just trying to bring a relevant piece of scripture to bear on how my own fornication was, through pain to myself and others, revealed to me as sinful. There are two options here: either fornication is sinful or it is not. It behooves us to try to understand why it is sinful, if it is. Ultimately, in my opinion it seems to invariably lead to objectification in a way which breaks bonds. I could be wrong.I cannot read scripture as an impartial observer, nor can I pretend to. This was where I see the problem of the protestants: they seemed to imagine that they were guided by reason alone in their exegesis. It'd be nice to have a perfect exegesis, but all I can do is try my best to approach it, but like an asymptote perhaps never reaching it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Ha, fair enough. Well okay there's a lot within Buddhism but that's far too large a category for me to discuss in any detail. I mean, I include peasant uprisings in my understanding of liberation and let me tell you in China alone that happened at least five times that I'm vaguely aware of. Jodo Shinshu, on the other hand, I know pretty well and Japanese history is almost as accessible to my recall as American history, so I can go into some detail without too much ado. So the principle of Jodo Shinshu, what separates us from other Buddhists, is the idea that there is no way a person can practice Buddhism and become a Buddha in this degenerate age. The condition of humanity is such that while the teachings still exist, we cannot hope to follow them and achieve nirvana. However, Amida made a vow before becoming a Buddha that all who call his name with a worthy heart would be reborn in his pure land, where we will be instructed by him and several bodhisattva as to the correct way to practice, and therefore achieve Buddhahood. This is the Primal Vow, as we call it, and all Shinshu teaching is derived from it. This means that regardless of your karma, regardless of your merit, you will be reborn in the pure land without fail. That means morticians, butchers, burakumin, women, anyone who for whatever reason cannot practice Buddhism "properly" has a place in Jodo Shinshu. This has led to ikko ikki revolts, where the peasants revolted against the government, as well as activism among burakumin for their rights. Takagi Kenmyo is a good example of this spirit of non discrimination. He was a shinshu priest who wrote an unpublished political tract, "my socialism." In it, he outlines how he derived his political ideology from shinshu principles. Kenmyo was arrested, along with some of his leftist friends, on trumped up treason charges. He killed himself in prison, but his writing about pacifism in the face of Japanese aggression as well as concern for the poor and his burakumin congregation shows a prophetic alternative to the dominant narrative of jodo shinshu at the time. As for books, takamaro shigaraki and taitetsu unno are good people to check out
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Between denominations? Can be a big change, but the paradigm is similar. I'm thinking more like converting to Catholicism from Western Occultist East-Asian Religious Syncretist. Total paradigm change, including morality. Isn't that just a wholesale rejection of the prior life based on the hope, sincere though it may be, that what dissatisfied you with the previous faith will be found in the new one? (I am meaning "You" in the generic here)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'd like to hope so. Well, in order to answer this, first we'd have to establish their morality in first the one state, then the other. We'll call Anglicanism A and Catholicism C. Now, we have intent, which we'll call i. Then we have faith, f. Works, w. Lastly, we can't forget grace, we'll label that g. We know that faith without works is meaningless, so that'll have to factor into the equation. As a Catholic, their morality could this be summed: C = (I+F+G)xW And as an Anglican, the equation would be easy enough: A = (I+F+G)xW Simply do the math on the right side for each, then subtract the difference. If it's a big number its profound, if its small its a little change. This really isn't that hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
http://www.hbo.com/the-young-pope Very excited for this to come out. I work in the entertainment industry and am privy to some of the scripts. There will be hard-hitting topics in this show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
I read them on Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Isn't that just a wholesale rejection of the prior life based on the hope, sincere though it may be, that what dissatisfied you with the previous faith will be found in the new one? (I am meaning "You" in the generic here) I thought your point was no person can escape the 'culture' they were raised in and find that their new paradigm is always bound by the old one. In this example I want to demonstrate how profound a shift you can get, to a point where people would never know the 'culture' which came before. The question about why people convert is totally different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:http://www.hbo.com/the-young-pope From the clips I've seen of this, the character of the young pope himself is a completely Satanistic figure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:From the clips I've seen of this, the character of the young pope himself is a completely Satanistic figure. Tremendous spoilers: The pope of the show has unlikable qualities, and it takes several episodes for what is holy and loving about him to be apparent. When they do become apparent, you see him to be deeply un-Satanlike. I found it to be a worthy show by the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
I've only seen clips from the later episodes, not full episodes, so I can't say for sure, but that isn't the impression I had of how it ended. In episode 10 he talks about how to humiliate someone effectively, and how effective it is. Then he's called diabolical and it's just laughed off. He's a complete egotist. You can see his inability to think outside of his own desires in how he literally makes little children cry. Just because he's working to remove a corrupt sister in Africa or exile a paedophile Bishop to Alaska doesn't mean he's doing God's work. He's Satan, he knows his own, and he hates them just as much as he hates everyone else. Another example. He says that Gutierrez has transformed fear into anger. He congratulates growing anger in Gutierrez, stokes that flame. Does that seem Christian to you? CountFosco fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
nobody will persuade me that Jude loving Law in dark makeup is an italian edit: countfosco, you are aware that someone can be imperfect or villainous without being satanic, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nobody will persuade me that Jude loving Law in dark makeup is an italian Certainly. But the imagery they use, and one monologue that he delivers in particular, leads me to believe that he sets himself above all others in terms of value. One way of understanding Satan is that he's the prosecutor of mankind, he's the one who condemns us, makes the case to God that we are unworthy of his love. This way of understanding Satan is how I see the Jude Law character. Again, this is my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
I mean the thing that most disturbed me was in the first episode when he has a priest begin regularly breaking the Seal of the Confessional in order to learn his opponents' secrets and secure his own political power. That kind of made me sick to my stomach, and I imagine it'll do the same for a lot of Catholics. That, to me, cements that this character is Really Not A Good Dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
His Venice speech is a veritable plethora of half-truths and theologically dubious messages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I mean the thing that most disturbed me was in the first episode when redacted That kind of made me sick to my stomach, and I imagine it'll do the same for a lot of Catholics. That, to me, cements that this character is Really Not A Good Dude. Yeah, whatever a non-Catholic or ex-Catholic (i.e. the kind of Protestant who was Saved From Rome) may think of that spoiler, I'm with Bel Canto: that makes him (and the priest in question) Not One Of The Good Guys. I can't think of any action (short of confessing having done the redacted thing and doing public penance) that would make me change my opinion of him. Brrr.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:That's the thing, from my own limited perspective, it is not broken. Her mum and dad are married for a very long time, her mum a successful writer and her dad with a job in land surveying. Her brother and her get along well, and they often seem to play articulate together and have fun. But she still sees them as going to hell because they do not believe in God. Her family is none religious, to the point of Atheism, but she was very into Church during school and it continued on to university when there was a huge break up with her boyfriend etc. Now she believes that God will not accept her family at all because of their lack of direct belief. For what it's worth, I find that sad, too. This is the most compassionate, intelligent thing I've heard a Christian say about atheism, and something to keep in mind if you ever ask your friend why she thinks God either hates or does not accept her family. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWIsawVjvWI CountFosco posted:I've only seen clips from the later episodes, not full episodes, so I can't say for sure, but that isn't the impression I had of how it ended. It does, because of Gutierrez's development. I've loved Gutierrez from the very first scene he has with Pope Pius XIII; his goodness and meekness was so clear and lovable. But he was also timid. It's virtuous that he is timid before God, but he was also afraid of the material world and the very real evil that lurks in it, and that limits the goodness that Gutierrez can perform. His harrowing journey and ultimate success in America is a transformation of fear of evil into righteous anger that, when channeled through justice and love, serves God. Was one of the scenes you happened to catch the one where Cardinal Ozolins returns from Alaska and the Pope approaches him in the garden? But after one watch through the series, I am glad Pope Pius XIII is a fictional pope and Pope Francis is a real pope. An ambiguous pope is an anxious thing to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Caufman posted:
Yup. That scene is a good example of how little he's changed. There's this guy, suffering before him. He cause this man to suffer. And something passes by, and he abandons that suffering to indulge his own petty psychological needs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nobody will persuade me that Jude loving Law in dark makeup is an italian i'm a Christian from the second century and what is this e: I should add that one of the popular objections to early Christians (besides y'all weird incestuous cannibals having orgies I bet) was that if God was really on your side, Domitian wouldn't be murdering you by the hundreds. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:i'm a Christian from the second century and what is this Much later Christians would dust off the same exact argument to convince the Aztecs that their gods were fake and/or lame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:This was where I see the problem of the protestants: they seemed to imagine that they were guided by reason alone in their exegesis. did you really just say this, itt, to a goon with a reformation superhero avatar and i apologize for saying this bluntly, but i really don't see much exegesis in your analysis of those four verses. to me it appears you have taken them out of the context of their larger story. and it appears that you have taken them out of the context of the time period and culture from which they arose. and it appears you have taken them out of the context of the author. and it appears you have taken them out of the context of the literary style in which they were written. and it appears you have taken them out of the context of a passage which is wall-to-wall symbolism and riddles if you want to say "yeah, well, that's just, like, my opinion, man" sure. great. go ahead. but if that opinion is "it's fine and correct to cut out a few verses from the gospel that is just crammed to the gills with symbolism and claim that those verses clearly refer to this issue that i struggle with in my personal life", i'm not sure if i'd call that exegesis. i don't know what i would call it instead of that, but i would definitely say that you should take care not to become like the guy who melted down on the silent hill fan wiki and edited everything to say that the symbolism of silent hill 4 is one big critique about the psychological horrors of circumcision
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:if you want to say "yeah, well, that's just, like, my opinion, man" sure. great. go ahead. but if that opinion is "it's fine and correct to cut out a few verses from the gospel that is just crammed to the gills with symbolism and claim that those verses clearly refer to this issue that i struggle with in my personal life", i'm not sure if i'd call that exegesis. i don't know what i would call it instead of that, but i would definitely say that you should take care not to become like the guy who melted down on the silent hill fan wiki and edited everything to say that the symbolism of silent hill 4 is one big critique about the psychological horrors of circumcision Eisegesis?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
honestly, i was probably not going to hit "submit" on that post until i remembered the silent hill thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Cool stuff I learned today, as a parallel to beavers biting off their own testicles and throwing them at hunters.quote:"Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason. Thou shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth. For this animal conceiveth with its mouth." That's the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, which isn't in any canon as far as I know but it's in the Codex Sinaiticus. Eating weasels in the Bible (mods, namechange pls) was forbidden under Kosher laws. Why? Well, Barnabas explains that it's because a male weasel impregnates the female weasel through the mouth, whereupon she later gives birth out of her ear, and this has been known since the time of Aesop. Therefore, bing bing boom oral sex is bad and God said so. e:  hot weasel on weasel action in the 14th century The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:symbolism of silent hill 4 is one big critique about the psychological horrors of circumcision this is my favorite piece of goon legend that gets passed around On a more serious note my grandma's in the hospital and it could be bad, I'd appreciate prayers for her health.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I mean the thing that most disturbed me was in the first episode when he has a priest begin regularly breaking the Seal of the Confessional in order to learn his opponents' secrets and secure his own political power. That kind of made me sick to my stomach, and I imagine it'll do the same for a lot of Catholics. That, to me, cements that this character is Really Not A Good Dude. I always assumed that was just how high-level Church politics worked. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nobody will persuade me that Jude loving Law in dark makeup is an italian I believe his character is actually supposed to be American.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Much later Christians would dust off the same exact argument to convince the Aztecs that their gods were fake and/or lame. Literally "Might makes Right" as theology. Bloody hell. Samuel Clemens posted:I always assumed that was just how high-level You'd be pretty much right from here on out. StashAugustine posted:On a more serious note my grandma's in the hospital and it could be bad, I'd appreciate prayers for her health. I hope your Grandma gets better soon. The Phlegmatist posted:hot weasel on weasel action in the 14th century Did no-one keep or breed animals during the medieval period? Then again, monks probably didn't know too much about how anything is born so maybe that is a forgiveable error in "just plain not looking". Thirteen Orphans posted:I thought your point was no person can escape the 'culture' they were raised in and find that their new paradigm is always bound by the old one. In this example I want to demonstrate how profound a shift you can get, to a point where people would never know the 'culture' which came before. I more meant that often their new paradigm is influenced greatly by the old one. But you are right, I'll have a think about this. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
JcDent posted:...I was born as a German cyborg in a fleshy Lithuanian body and I need a skull gun to express my true self.  ... I love you. Christianity Thread II: Might I sugest agin, a skul-gun for my head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:did you really just say this, itt, to a goon with a reformation superhero avatar I may have to apologise, too, but you've not exactly shown anything to counter his interpretation. I'm not taking sides but with that tone you should really offer something else than "I disagree". For what it's worth (and I do think the Finnish Bible translation is very good), it seems apparent that while Jesus doesn't actually condemn the woman sleeping around with men (since it seems his point is just to show that he knows about the woman's life), that's exactly what he refers to. The words "living with" appear in the newest translation and the older ones, who are more word-centric instead of meaning-centric talk about "having a husband who is not your husband".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Did no-one keep or breed animals during the medieval period? Then again, monks probably didn't know too much about how anything is born so maybe that is a forgiveable error in "just plain not looking". Nah, monks knew where babies came from. It's just that weasels do it differently, but it's okay because their stench is the only thing that can kill a basilisk. Most weird animal things in the medieval age came from Pliny the Elder (who is, by the way, very much not a Christian) writing in the first century. He's recounting older folk traditions, so there's really no way of actually dating some of these ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
I apologize if you feel that your Protestant exegetical tradition was calumnied. Forgive me. Please understand that it comes from a deep sense of revolt against ideas of predestination and lack of free will which seem prevalent in Calvinism. Obviously, as a Lutheran, you might share some disagreement of Calvinist theology with me (although I'm not sure how much, my knowledge of Lutheranism isn't as much as Calvinism).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:09
|
|