|
Remember that you are glitter and to glitter you shall return?
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Remember that you are glitter and to glitter you shall return? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Who's having pancakes for Tuesday for Mardi Gras this week?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Who's having pancakes for Tuesday for Mardi Gras this week? in my part of the U.S. we have pączki, which are basically Polish jelly doughnuts, rather than pancakes
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Remember that you are glitter and to glitter you shall return? it's mixed with the ash so in addition to that it's also potentially a visible sign of support for LGBT people, which has interesting connotations for the ritual i say potentially because visible signs of support can be undermined by a lot of things; unexamined prejudice, unwillingness to intervene, or active subversion by people wanting to do harm
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Who's having pancakes for Tuesday for Mardi Gras this week? Laskiainen is the name of the day: meaty pea soup and buns filled with jam/almond paste + whipped cream. Also sledding or otherwise sliding downhill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
A friend of mine posted an icon I liked on Facebook: Iconographer's name is Kelly Latimore
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
that's the good poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
That is an amazing icon. It makes me wonder why I've never heard a homily or read an essay about the Holy Family being refugees or emigrating in secret, but I've heard at least one and read a few suggesting that the Holy Family were homeless, therefore poor, therefore the Church shouldn't have ornate things. (Did I mention here what happened when I asked the deacon of my parish whether he was going to mention the refugee ban in his homily?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
caltrans has been putting that icon up along interstate 5 for years
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:(Did I mention here what happened when I asked the deacon of my parish whether he was going to mention the refugee ban in his homily?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
genola posted:A friend of mine posted an icon I liked on Facebook: owns
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:is the secret spoiler...racism?  So I says to the Rev. Mr. Redacted, I says, "Were you going to mention the refugee ban in your homily?" And he says, "I don't like to mention politics, but I'll be talking around it, you understand." "I understand," I say, "but it's such a terrible thing that I think..." and I kind of trail off since I didn't know exactly what to say. "Well, it's a very complicated issue," he tells me, in that way that only a white guy in his sixties talking to a younger woman can manage, "and of course we have to protect our country first, our family first. You'd protect your kids above anyone else's, right?" "Of course we have to protect our country," I say, "but we don't have to protect it from 11-month-old babies, do we?" "Well, you know, that baby didn't come alone. Babies come with their parents, and who knows what they have in mind, right?" "An eleven-month-old baby," I repeat. "It must have been a very hard decision to make," the Rev. Mr. Redacted says, sadly. "I guess," I say, completely out of both ideas and any interest in talking to this very nice older gentleman who baptized my sons and blessed their Little People nativity figures, and I go back to the pew, where my mom was waiting, and...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
My parish won't directly mention politics either, but I've heard two homilies about how we should accept refugees and migrant workers (including one in December directly referencing the fact that Joseph and Mary were technically refugees) and we've been praying for the US to accept refugees and immigrants in the prayers of the people during Mass for months. So there's really no question of where our clergy stands on the issue. And we make gift baskets with personal hygiene stuff, laundry supplies, books, DVDs, etc. in them to send to refugees and migrant workers. My diocese is actually....cool and good??? deacon watches fox news, so what e: There are also a lot of Quakers involved in that new underground railroad thing giving illegal immigrants rides to the Canadian border. Which reminds me of the old Quaker story about how Quakers can't lie, so when they were leading slaves to the actual underground railroad, they'd extinguish their lamps and never look back at who they were leading, so when an overseer asked them if they had seen any escaped slaves they could truthfully say "nope." The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:e: There are also a lot of Quakers involved in that new underground railroad thing giving illegal immigrants rides to the Canadian border. Which reminds me of the old Quaker story about how Quakers can't lie, so when they were leading slaves to the actual underground railroad, they'd extinguish their lamps and never look back at who they were leading, so when an overseer asked them if they had seen any escaped slaves they could truthfully say "nope." There's similar stories about Jesuits underground in England during the Elizabethan period, I always wanted to make a hidden movement/social deduction board game about it where one party can't lie
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:My parish won't directly mention politics either, but I've heard two homilies about how we should accept refugees and migrant workers (including one in December directly referencing the fact that Joseph and Mary were technically refugees) and we've been praying for the US to accept refugees and immigrants in the prayers of the people during Mass for months. So there's really no question of where our clergy stands on the issue. If my parish prayed for the US to accept refugees, or made gift baskets for migrants, that'd be one thing, but we do not. And, for all I know, the homily wasn't awful; I was in the cryroom by that point and the 2-year-old was shrieking too loudly to hear it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:That is an amazing icon. It makes me wonder why I've never heard a homily or read an essay about the Holy Family being refugees or emigrating in secret, but I've heard at least one and read a few suggesting that the Holy Family were homeless, therefore poor, therefore the Church shouldn't have ornate things. Not to try and deflate your point, but I've got a professor who insists Joseph's family were Roman citizens and collaborators just because he did have to answer the census. Is there anything to that theory?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:Not to try and deflate your point, but I've got a professor who insists Joseph's family were Roman citizens and collaborators just because he did have to answer the census. Is there anything to that theory? I thought the whole thing was done so that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem to make sure that he could fulfil the Jewish Messiah prophecies? Was there a census done about that time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:Not to try and deflate your point, but I've got a professor who insists Joseph's family were Roman citizens and collaborators just because he did have to answer the census. Is there anything to that theory? The Holy Family were refugees because they were escaping from Bethlehem in Judea, to Egypt (as described in Mathew), in order to escape Herod, who ordered the massacre of all newborn children in Bethlehem. They later settle in Nazareth. The story of the census is from Luke. The family travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census, then return to Nazareth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The Holy Family were refugees because they were escaping from Bethlehem in Judea, to Egypt (as described in Mathew), in order to escape Herod, who ordered the massacre of all newborn children in Bethlehem. They later settle in Nazareth. The problem is that the Census of Quirinius took place in 6 AD, ten years after Herod's death and roughly twelve years after Jesus' birth. Beyond that, Galilee was still independently ruled by Herod Antipas at that point, so Joseph wouldn't have been included in any event. So Luke was probably confused on the chronology, writing some 60 years after the fact. It's entirely possible that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem and then raised in Nazareth, but not for the reasons Luke gives. If Joseph was more of an itinerant handyman than a craftsman, he could conceivably have moved around a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
I got the discrepancy explained as Luke really needing a reason for the Holy Family to go the Bethlehem because of existing prophecies saying that the Messiah would come from there, so he fell back on the (chronologically wrong) Quirinian census as an explanation for something that probably didn't even happen. Anyway, have a heart-warming story about the Benedictine monk who saves invaluable manuscripts from ISIS. The pictures of him perusing ancient books in half-forgotten monastic libraries like it ain't no thang are almost enough to make me run to the nearest monastery and join up 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:Not to try and deflate your point, but I've got a professor who insists Joseph's family were Roman citizens and collaborators just because he did have to answer the census. Is there anything to that theory? Well the historical details given in Luke are incorrect. There *was* a census (the Census of Quirinius) but it doesn't fit into Luke's chronology and also the fact that everyone had to move back to their home towns for the census to be taken is rather ridiculous. IIRC that did happen once in Egypt, so the author of Luke may have been familiar with that and used it in his Gospel. But no, Joseph and Mary were definitely not Roman citizens. The census was for everyone (even though, technically, they would have been exempt from it since they lived outside of the geographical border forming the province of Judea but whatever) not just citizens. That would've made Jesus a citizen as well. And Pilate wouldn't have crucified a Roman citizen; the only recorded cases of crucifixion being used as a method of execution for citizens is when they were deserters. As far as I know, the academic consensus is that the nativity narratives are completely fabricated. Matthew was going for Jesus as the second Moses and Luke is trying to ham-fistedly make Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill Messianic expectations. The likely actual history is that Jesus was born in Nazareth and pretty much lived in that area His whole life until He started His ministry. So trying to glean historical cues from the nativity narratives is kinda weird for a professor to be doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:As far as I know, the academic consensus is that the nativity narratives are completely fabricated. Matthew was going for Jesus as the second Moses and Luke is trying to ham-fistedly make Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill Messianic expectations. The likely actual history is that Jesus was born in Nazareth and pretty much lived in that area His whole life until He started His ministry. So trying to glean historical cues from the nativity narratives is kinda weird for a professor to be doing. I really have to make a note here and say that this is the historian's answer, one that treats the Bible as a source material the same as any other book. I don't think any church (or me personally) is willing to allow such a large portion of the Bible to be dismissed entirely as a fabrication.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:I really have to make a note here and say that this is the historian's answer, one that treats the Bible as a source material the same as any other book. I don't think any church (or me personally) is willing to allow such a large portion of the Bible to be dismissed entirely as a fabrication. At least from the Roman Catholic perspective, we wouldn't call it a fabrication so much as a device to tell a sacred story, rather than a strictly historical one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
I think it's okay to say that the nativity stories are ahistorical because the authors of the Gospels wanted to make a theological point rather than create a historical document though. Yeah I know a bunch of atheists point to stuff like this and say "hahaha checkmate Christians your magic sky fairy don't real" but to me the actual salvation theology contained in scripture is its main point, not its historicity. It's all mediated through through the culture of the times. The OT draws upon Ugaritic sources that are ridiculously ancient. I think that's actually more awesome to see God's providence at work making all this come together than "okay the Bible is inerrant, Bible says it I believe it good enough for me" but also I'm a history nerd, so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:At least from the Roman Catholic perspective, we wouldn't call it a fabrication so much as a device to tell a sacred story, rather than a strictly historical one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:At least from the Roman Catholic perspective, we wouldn't call it a fabrication so much as a device to tell a sacred story, rather than a strictly historical one. Well, again from a Catholic perspective, there's a limit to that - "maybe the census isn't why Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem; maybe Luke was trying to give a plausible reason for their travel and didn't realize the census didn't coincide" seems okay, but "yeah Jesus probably wasn't born in Bethlehem at all" doesn't seem okay. Historicity is important because Jesus really did become incarnate as a human like us, really was born of a virgin, really did change water to wine and a few fish into five thousand portions, and all this happened at a specific time - not 1000 or 500 BCE, not 500 or 1000 CE either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
I'm sorry to ask this, but does that mean you should lie if it is meant to support a greater truth? I don't mean this in a finger pointy way, but the "truth" on display is not an actual real world truth but a mystic one... doesn't that make it a lie? Sorry I am probably saying this wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm sorry to ask this, but does that mean you should lie if it is meant to support a greater truth? Yes, that would make it a lie, and it would be wrong to lie about facts to support doctrine. Providing a plausible reason for someone to go somewhere, because you don't know the actual reason and you feel you need to justify that person's travel, isn't lying; even saying, "Well, nobody remembers where Jesus was born, and it'd be significant if he were born in Bethlehem, so maybe that's what happened," wouldn't be lying. What would be lying would be saying, "Well, we know he was born in Nazareth, because I learned Hebrew from the son of the midwife who delivered him there, but let's say he was born in Bethlehem anyway," and that would be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm sorry to ask this, but does that mean you should lie if it is meant to support a greater truth? Well, one should also consider that no ancient historian wrote anything like what we consider to be "history" today - that is, an ideally more or less objective recounting of the facts. Histories were written to be edifying at a more ethical level - learn to be a great guy by reading about great guys, learn to not to be an rear end by recognizing the symptoms of assholery, run your politics like they did in the good old days, etc.. And it was thought fine to shape your narrative to the ethical end; besides, really, there weren't libraries or archives like there are today, so your source material is going to be a series of second, third, or eighth hand accounts and there are going to be problems stemming from that anyway. Some degree of filling in the gaps was inevitable. Aristotle put it nicely - poetry is about truth. History? That only deals with what was probable. Some guesswork is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Yes, that would make it a lie, and it would be wrong to lie about facts to support doctrine. Providing a plausible reason for someone to go somewhere, because you don't know the actual reason and you feel you need to justify that person's travel, isn't lying; even saying, "Well, nobody remembers where Jesus was born, and it'd be significant if he were born in Bethlehem, so maybe that's what happened," wouldn't be lying. What would be lying would be saying, "Well, we know he was born in Nazareth, because I learned Hebrew from the son of the midwife who delivered him there, but let's say he was born in Bethlehem anyway," and that would be wrong. I feel like making up things that are convenient to one's argument in the absence of an ability to to actually know the truth might be lying, personally...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
would either of you call myth lying?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
If you're deliberately setting out to write one using that methdology, well, yes I would. Also if you're trying to sell one you believe to be founded on that method as, well, true then also yes. At the least it seems noticeably lacking in honesty even if the presence of deception is uncertain. It seems like a rules-lawyery way to try to justify lying for what you believe to be a good reason by not calling it lying, which I think would be better served by just flat out saying that lying for good reasons is OK. Because, well, it seems more honest 
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:would either of you call myth lying? "What is truth?" - some Roman guy
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Where my folks are from in Kentucky there's a really strong storytelling culture. Nobody actually teaches anybody how to tell stories, you just grow up around the table over time listening to different people tell the same stories differently. No one is lying to make a better story, though. Rather, some people focus on some details while others on others. Also, as the community/family ages, people get confused, and often names, dates, etc. will be replaced. The story remains true, because the point of the story never changes. I can give a perfect example, the man I am named after died tragically when he was 26. I asked when I was very young how he died, again as a teenager, and then once more a few years ago. Three different stories, as in in one he drowned and in another he died of exposure. But that doesn't change the truth of the story, which is my father's favorite nephew was ripped from the earth doing something outdoorsy, which he loved, leaving my father in agony, and my name is my father's way of helping his nephew live on. Personally, I have a problem remembering fine details unless I study them a bit. So many of my stories, when I perform them, have bits here and there that help the narrative because I've lost some of the framework. Again, the truth of the story isn't in facts, it's in experience. When I have been asked to tell stories to a group I always preface it with: "Because of the nature of storytelling and memory, these stories are 100% true and at least 80% factual."
Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It seems like a rules-lawyery way to try to justify lying for what you believe to be a good reason by not calling it lying, which I think would be better served by just flat out saying that lying for good reasons is OK. Eusebius pretty much admitted to lying for good reason because communicating the truth was more important than communicating the facts. You're projecting the practice of modern historians onto historians of antiquity. They didn't really care about being 100% factually correct. Communicating the meaning behind what happened rather than a 100% factual recount of what happened was the style at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Eusebius pretty much admitted to lying for good reason because communicating the truth was more important than communicating the facts. but where's the explanatory power
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Eusebius pretty much admitted to lying for good reason because communicating the truth was more important than communicating the facts. I was taught and believe in the idea of reading scripture "for Truth." Scripture may be metaphorical or ahistorical, which is important to consider but ultimately scripture is read for the underlying truths or messages that are being communicated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:but where's the explanatory power Christianity Thread II: Still No Explanatory Power
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I was taught and believe in the idea of reading scripture "for Truth." Scripture may be metaphorical or ahistorical, which is important to consider but ultimately scripture is read for the underlying truths or messages that are being communicated. So which bits are the "true" bits?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:36
|
|