|
HEY GAIL posted:it's terrible. he wears brioni suits, which cost about $3k-$5k each, but they're off-the-rack and i don't think he has them tailored at all after he buys them. (obama has his custom-tailored.) he's probably getting them too large because he believes this makes him look less fat, which is false. he also wears his tie too long and scotch-tapes the skinny end of the tie to the fat end instead of sticking it through the little loop in the back--he went to his own swearing-in like this. I read that he's intentionally cultivating a style that will be criticized in the papers, because that makes him more sympathetic to his audience. You see, the people he wants to be liked by are people who wear the kind of outfits that are considered low-class. So when he is raked over the coals for having a bad haircut or an unfashionable suit (or saying something sexist), his supporters say "I know that feeling" and like him more. But after seeing him react to unrelated criticism like the statement that his crowd was smaller than the protests', or that unfortunate Russian piss allegation, I think he honestly can't take any criticism at all. Which explains his outfits, too.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
The extended shot shows another man in purple passing Trump by. It looks like they may be ushers for the National Cathedral, and neither men was publicly snubbing Trump. I have no clue what's going on in their heads or in their souls, though. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315463-trump-attends-prayer-service-at-national-cathedral That said, watching the longer clip reminds me that I've always felt Trump is at his weakest in churches. He looks both uncomfortable and fake. I cannot tell if he fears God, but he certainly fears the fear of God.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
I believe, without any empirical or reasonable evidence to do so, that at his core what he fears is the feeling of vulnerability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:it's terrible. he wears brioni suits, which cost about $3k-$5k each, but they're off-the-rack and i don't think he has them tailored at all after he buys them. (obama has his custom-tailored.) he's probably getting them too large because he believes this makes him look less fat, which is false. he also wears his tie too long and scotch-tapes the skinny end of the tie to the fat end instead of sticking it through the little loop in the back--he went to his own swearing-in like this. I still don't understand people who spend that much money on off-the-rack clothes. Like if you have that much to throw around, you can get bespoke for $2k and it will look better in every possible way and probably will be made of better fabric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Just a funny non-political gif I thought I'd share.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I still don't understand people who spend that much money on off-the-rack clothes. Like if you have that much to throw around, you can get bespoke for $2k and it will look better in every possible way and probably will be made of better fabric. But measuring would require allowing some horrible common person to touch Lord Trump's mighty frame, and offering opinions on what sort of cut or fabric would be suitable, when as we all know Trump's taste is impeccable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Just a funny non-political gif I thought I'd share. Serious question: Why did he dunk the baby more than three times?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Serious question: Why did he dunk the baby more than three times? I imagine that for whatever reason full immersion wasn't an option (maybe there's some post-surgery scar on the baby's middle body), so the priest dunked the legs and the head three times each as a compromise. Or maybe the priest thought it'd be funny to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
I've been reading A Confederacy of Dunces and it's kinda freaky how on-the-nose it is about people who post about Catholicism online. The main character is a 30 year old unemployed loser living with his mom who uses his extensive knowledge of Thomas Aquinas to cast moral judgment upon everyone he meets while ignoring the moral degeneracy in his own life. Oh, and of course he really hates the dreaded modernist pop culture and wishes everything would just go back to the 13th century. This poo poo's like r/Catholicism: The Book, I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
have you met his girlfriend yet? he's r/catholicism or the tradcats who blog, she's a tumblr poster. or a tankie? that priest should flip the child around like a rifle in a drill team, imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
I do think the child should go in the water in full circles like a waterwheel instead of half circles like a drinking bird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:I've been reading A Confederacy of Dunces and it's kinda freaky how on-the-nose it is about people who post about Catholicism online. The main character is a 30 year old unemployed loser living with his mom who uses his extensive knowledge of Thomas Aquinas to cast moral judgment upon everyone he meets while ignoring the moral degeneracy in his own life. Oh, and of course he really hates the dreaded modernist pop culture and wishes everything would just go back to the 13th century. This poo poo's like r/Catholicism: The Book, I love it. So bummed that none of the attempts at a movie adaptation ever got off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I imagine that for whatever reason full immersion wasn't an option (maybe there's some post-surgery scar on the baby's middle body), so the priest dunked the legs and the head three times each as a compromise. In the original video it seems to be a constant thing with all the babies. Dunking the head three times I can understand, but I don't get why the feet. Maybe it's an alternative to full immersion specifically for babies? Beats me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
It's like Achilles, if you don't get full coverage you end up with a saved pair of legs and a saved head but the middle part is damned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Oh, on a more serious note: was Christ ignorant of his own nature at any point in his life?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Oh, on a more serious note: was Christ ignorant of his own nature at any point in his life? I'll ask him next time I see him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'll ask him next time I see him. Let me rephrase, does it have any theological consequences one way or the other if he did or didn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In the original video it seems to be a constant thing with all the babies. Dunking the head three times I can understand, but I don't get why the feet. Maybe it's an alternative to full immersion specifically for babies? Beats me. If it's a tradition, it's something local. My nephew was baptised with full immersion. And when I was baptised as an 8-year-old, I stood in a basin and the priest poured holy water on my head over another basin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Let me rephrase, does it have any theological consequences one way or the other if he did or didn't? actually yes this is a debate that has a lot of implications for like the hypostatic union and i think a lot of heresies are based around this question or similar ones i have no idea how to navigate it since early christian heresies aren't my thing but i know this is a good and valid question with a minefield of difficulties
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:touch...Trump
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Let me rephrase, does it have any theological consequences one way or the other if he did or didn't? To answer your question, yeah. When Jesus was a baby He probably didn't know anything about what was going to happen. When He starts his public ministry though, He knows what's up. For example, the Wedding at Cana, where Jesus is like "yo mom calm it down a bit, yeah I'm like the only begotten Son of God and everything but this miracle is gonna launch my ministry smdh." We see in the Gospel of Luke that at Gethsemane that He's kinda like "gently caress this crucifixion poo poo, I bet that hurts, drat, but 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me. Yet not my will but yours be done.'" This gets into the heresy of monothelitism, which is the idea that Jesus had only one will, which is the divine will shared by all the Persons of the Trinity. The orthodox teaching is that Jesus has both a human will AND a divine will. That's how we read the events at Gethsemane. Jesus' human will says "no" but His divine will says "get your butt up on that cross, Son." As far as theological consequences stemming from monothelitism, it's necessary for the Son to be both fully human (except without sin) and fully God so that we can approach God in His divinity in the same manner as he deigned to lower Himself into our humanity. Jesus actually having a human will apart from the divine will is important for that, because God knows us better through the Incarnation and we know God better through the Incarnation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:To answer your question, yeah. When Jesus was a baby He probably didn't know anything about what was going to happen. When He starts his public ministry though, He knows what's up. For example, the Wedding at Cana, where Jesus is like "yo mom calm it down a bit, yeah I'm like the only begotten Son of God and everything but this miracle is gonna launch my ministry smdh." We see in the Gospel of Luke that at Gethsemane that He's kinda like "gently caress this crucifixion poo poo, I bet that hurts, drat, but 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me. Yet not my will but yours be done.'" The only worthwhile scene in Mel Gibson's movie about those things is when Mary sees Jesus fall and remembers Jesus falling as a toddler, because it recalls the icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. (Though Wikipedia suggests the icon suggests toddler-Jesus saw his sufferings in a dream whereas I remember it being explained to me as toddler-Jesus falling and angels helpfully explaining, "so that falling thing? yeah you're going to get to do that again and it's going to be extra bad.")
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:To answer your question, yeah. When Jesus was a baby He probably didn't know anything about what was going to happen. When He starts his public ministry though, He knows what's up. For example, the Wedding at Cana, where Jesus is like "yo mom calm it down a bit, yeah I'm like the only begotten Son of God and everything but this miracle is gonna launch my ministry smdh." We see in the Gospel of Luke that at Gethsemane that He's kinda like "gently caress this crucifixion poo poo, I bet that hurts, drat, but 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me. Yet not my will but yours be done.'"  Does SMHD mean what it usually does in this context?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Tias posted:
read it again, it's "smdh" (shaking my drat head) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:The only worthwhile scene in Mel Gibson's movie about those things is when Mary sees Jesus fall and remembers Jesus falling as a toddler, because it recalls the icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. (Though Wikipedia suggests the icon suggests toddler-Jesus saw his sufferings in a dream whereas I remember it being explained to me as toddler-Jesus falling and angels helpfully explaining, "so that falling thing? yeah you're going to get to do that again and it's going to be extra bad.") Huh, interesting. I never noticed that before since I saw that movie way before I got interested in Catholic stuff. I'm kinda excited for the sequel though since it features the harrowing of hell -- and there's like almost no information in scripture about what went on so it'll just be the bizarre fever dreams of Mel Gibson and various medieval mystics. Should be a fun ride, at least. e: I'm also reading Bread & Water, Wine & Oil and it's really good. It kinda combines psychoanalysis with Eastern Orthodox sacramentology. I'm getting more into Orthodox stuff now and I do agree with some of the criticisms they levy against the west, like the excessive focus on legalism. That's just kinda what you get though when your theological heritage is Tertullian -> Augustine -> Anselm -> Aquinas though. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Would it be fair to hold up Calvin as the crown jewel of legalistic theology, given that he was an actual lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Sermon prepping: how would you preach Lectionary Epiphany 4 alongside a gospel performance? Those sweet beatitudes are going to be fun the preach in the Age of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:Sermon prepping: how would you preach Lectionary Epiphany 4 alongside a gospel performance? Those sweet beatitudes are going to be fun the preach in the Age of Trump. I don't know how familiar you are with Barth's dialectical eschatology but that'd be where I start. Or since you're...Episcopalian, right? N.T Wright's realized eschatology. So you can turn it around to say that this is how Christians should act within the world; following the commands of Christ in the Beatitudes. Because while we argue about politics, Christ is still the reigning king, forever and ever. So it's up to His subjects (which is every Christian, basically) to work out the Beatitudes in their own lives and in their own communities. Christ works behind the scenes to give you the graces necessary to accomplish this task. CountFosco posted:Would it be fair to hold up Calvin as the crown jewel of legalistic theology, given that he was an actual lawyer? Yeah, Institutes is a shining example of how a person trained in law can create a systematic theology with no holes in it. Good for raising up people who like to use their faith to be right 100% of the time (see also: presuppositional apologetics) but probably not so good for encountering the divine mystery that is God. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Delightful. I just realized I got scheduled to preach at the gospel mass and on the feast of Absalom Jones. This feels intentional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:read it again, it's "smdh" (shaking my drat head) Slightly better, though this has meant suck my dick hard every time I have seen it used until now 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
Serious question: How is it morally justifiable to impress your beliefs, faith, religion, etc onto your children when they see you as an the ultimate authority on everything. I went to a catholic school system with multiple daily prayer sessions, and at least 4 hours of religion class every week for 13 years. As a little kid 3-7 I was pretty iffy about it. I basically treated it as an particularly long-form RP session that people were great at not breaking character in. But I knew some kids who were 100% completely devoted to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Serious question: How is it morally justifiable to impress your beliefs, faith, religion, etc onto your children when they see you as an the ultimate authority on everything. Why would it be morally wrong to teach your children what you think is right? And what would the alternative be? Informing a 3 year old about the various belief systems in the world and encouraging her to draw her own conclusions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
pidan posted:Why would it be morally wrong to teach your children what you think is right? And what would the alternative be? Informing a 3 year old about the various belief systems in the world and encouraging her to draw her own conclusions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:is this a reductio ad absurdam? because i see nothing wrong with that Not a reductio. But three year old children are really really stupid. Language itself is a new concept to them, and you can't explain high level theology to them at all. At three years old, religious education is "why do we celebrate Christmas? Because God gave us a big gift  "I mean, you could give a simple explanation like that about multiple worldviews and be all "who knows which one is right", but the poor kid would end up more confused than anything. Edit: that wouldn't be morally wrong either though, just pedagogically unfortunate pidan fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
pidan posted:Not a reductio. But three year old children are really really stupid. Language itself is a new concept to them, and you can't explain high level theology to them at all. At three years old, religious education is "why do we celebrate Christmas? Because God gave us a big gift i doubt it--i mean, what do you think mixed religious families do now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i doubt it--i mean, what do you think mixed religious families do now? In my experience, if it's two branches of Christianity they just tell the kid they're really the same thing. If it's a bigger difference than that, they just raise the kid as one parent's religion. Even if some families try to present both religions as equally valid, I imagine few do the same thing with all religious and non-religious worldviews in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:is this a reductio ad absurdam? because i see nothing wrong with that I don't think that's true though. You wouldn't tell a child that Esoteric Hitlerism or Taqfiri Islam are valid belief systems. It's essential to indoctrinate ones children. The alternative is moral nihilism. The only question is which aspects of faith you think are fundamental, and which are incidental. For example, I believe that mainstream Islam is closer to my own belief system than is the Christian Identity Movement. So I'd be much more relaxed about hypothetical child of mine learning about the former than the latter. I would definitely restrict the access a young child had to Christian Identity texts and teachings, unless they were being shown as examples of a wrong and heretical worldview.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Serious question: How is it morally justifiable to impress your beliefs, faith, religion, etc onto your children when they see you as an the ultimate authority on everything. How is it not morally justifiable to impress one's beliefs on one's children? It's bad to hurt people. It's good to apologize if you do hurt someone anyway. It's bad to take things that aren't yours. It's good to share. The Earth is (vaguely-)spherical and orbits the Sun (which is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace). God created us to know him, love him, and serve him in this life, and be happy with him forever in the next. Some people disagree with me about each of those things, but that doesn't make it not morally obligatory for me to teach them to my children. Out of curiosity, why did your parents send you to a Catholic school if all you knew about prayer was that some people were great at pretending they believed it? That is to say, it wasn't to reinforce what they were teaching at home, and it wasn't because they wanted those beliefs impressed onto you, but it seems like you're annoyed at the whole idea of a religious school.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:How is it not morally justifiable to impress one's beliefs on one's children? It's bad to hurt people. It's good to apologize if you do hurt someone anyway. It's bad to take things that aren't yours. It's good to share. The Earth is (vaguely-)spherical and orbits the Sun (which is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace). God created us to know him, love him, and serve him in this life, and be happy with him forever in the next. Some people disagree with me about each of those things, but that doesn't make it not morally obligatory for me to teach them to my children. Agree completely. You have to give them a good grounding in moral reasoning. They can make decisions for themselves to continue or reject it when they're grown. You're not committing them for life, just until they can think for themselves on complicated issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
I don't fully agree with Wittgenstein's assessment that religion is a language-game, but there is definitely some truth to that. Imagine raising a child, while only teaching them one of the two languages you actively use around the house. If both parents are religious, go to church every Sunday, have religious symbols in their house, pray together, etc., not teaching children faith would mean to exclude them from an enormous part of family life. And if parents do believe in God, teaching children in terms of agnosticism would be dishonest at best, in my opinion. Alternatively, if parents are not particularly religious, or only culturally so, religion can be a good free baby-sitter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:34
|
|