|
Josef bugman posted:So which bits are the "true" bits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_in_the_Middle_Ages
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So which bits are the "true" bits? You seem to be contrasting "true" vs "false" and that's not really what I meant here. In my tradition, scripture is read to understand the underlying truths. For example, the creation myth(s) are not literal but they are included in our scriptures because they teach us something important. Really easy examples are the parables of Jesus. Jesus as a preacher made extensive use of metaphors and figurative stories to illustrate his points. Similarly, the Bible isn't necessarily trying to be 100% historically accurate, rather its purpose is to communicate basic spiritual truths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:in my part of the U.S. we have pączki, which are basically Polish jelly doughnuts, rather than pancakes  
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So which bits are the "true" bits? The part of scripture which most directly responds to your question is from 2 Timothy 3: "But don’t let it faze you. Stick with what you learned and believed, sure of the integrity of your teachers—why, you took in the sacred Scriptures with your mother’s milk! There’s nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God’s way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us." Sooner or later, a believer will be confronted by a conflict between the sacred story and a plausible historical narrative. We may long for the confirmation and/or fear the repudiation of these sacred stories by historical evidence, but there is at least one other consideration to make that comes from a Jesuit practice of the Examen. Consider also that you yourself may be playing a part in a sacred story, the full mysteries of which have yet to be revealed. It is a spiritual perspective that acknowledges the chronological, conscious experience we all share from birth to death, but also ventures to wonder what is God's view, beyond the boundaries of our limited perspective. Ultimately, though, sacred stories and the Examen should not end in some kind of mystical, esoteric, or even mind-blowing experience, like those memes with the progressively enlightened wire-frame humans. Scripture is very clear what the imperative is, and our conscience reinforces this; God is love, and we will be measured against our compassion to the least among us. Either a sacred story delivers spirits to this truth, or it is not of much value and probably not sacred anyway. Grandmother of Five posted:I'd very much like to hear any personal stories of people having experienced acts of mercy. You drive at a hard definition of mercy, but I don't think you're wrong, either. Now that you make me consider it, I do not know if anyone has been merciful with me, or if they've been mostly kind or wise. All I'd add is that I do not think kindness and wisdom exclude mercy from the equation, that they are synergizing virtues for good reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
I think it was some Orthodox priest who said that if archaeologists found Jesus's skull, Christianity would only be more triumphant, because it'd be a proof that Jesus existed, even if our understanding of his ascension wasn't on point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Caufman posted:You drive at a hard definition of mercy, but I don't think you're wrong, either. Now that you make me consider it, I do not know if anyone has been merciful with me, or if they've been mostly kind or wise. All I'd add is that I do not think kindness and wisdom exclude mercy from the equation, that they are synergizing virtues for good reasons. You are absolutely right, I feel, that an act of mercy can also be an act of kindness and wisdom. I made a mistake if I implied otherwise. I am not so much looking for a very clear definition on what mercy is, as much as I am interested in hearing how people may have personally experienced acts of mercy, and what those acts of mercy have been. I am genuinely curious, because my understanding of what mercy is, makes an act of mercy both an unlikely situation to begin with, but also something that is extremely hard to do, making an act of mercy something so rare, I think, that most people may never see one. It is an odd request, I suppose, but the concept of mercy is one that the Bible speaks of every so often, but one that I do not really recognize readily in real life. Other virtues and acts such as kindness, wisdom, patience, forgiveness, are much more readily recognizable in human, everyday behaviour, I feel. I suppose, part of the reason I would like to hear of personal stories of acts of mercy, is in part, a desire to see that acts of mercy between people are even possible. I'm sure you noticed, but I was inspired by our talk from earlier  And "Thirteen Orphans" mentioning earlier in this thread being shown an act of mercy, and I was curious if people had personal, real-life acts of mercy to share.By the way, Caufman, the one reservation that has come through so far is "The Act of Killing", which I've now seen, and enjoyed a lot. A genuinely worthwhile documentary for anyone to watch, I feel. So thanks again for the recommendation. I expect to be recommending it highly to others, as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Christianity Thread II: Still No Explanatory Power The Explanatory Power of Christ Compels You!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I think it was some Orthodox priest who said that if archaeologists found Jesus's skull, Christianity would only be more triumphant, because it'd be a proof that Jesus existed, even if our understanding of his ascension wasn't on point. Frankly, if there was a way to assure me that said skull truly was his, I'd probably go Jewish/Muslim at that point. Basically I'm 100% with this attitude: Pellisworth posted:You seem to be contrasting "true" vs "false" and that's not really what I meant here. but there are limits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Eusebius pretty much admitted to lying for good reason because communicating the truth was more important than communicating the facts. Well, communicating what they thought was the meaning at least. Still counts as fibbing in my book. I know that historians did not really see the point in accuracy if it got in the way of being interesting until fairly recently. I may also be using a different definition of truth. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, communicating what they thought was the meaning at least. As an example, the Gospel of John has Jesus crucified on Thursday, while the synoptics all say Friday. Which was it? To John, the specific day was less important than the symbolism of who Jesus was. Thus Jesus is crucified on the Day of Preparation, when the lambs are slaughtered for Passover. The truth of who he was mattered more than the fact of which day he died on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Whereas I would argue that changing or making up things like that because you are starting from that premise of what you believe Christ to be, is a bit dishonest. I think it is possible to argue a thing in which you sincerely believe and which may actually be true by dishonest methods. It is possible, in essence, to deceive someone into believing the truth. Which again I suppose depends on how you define lying, and truth. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Whereas I would argue that changing or making up things like that because you are starting from that premise of what you believe Christ to be, is a bit dishonest. That's a somewhat strange conflation of methodology and ethical claims though. Ancient authors had a different sense of what is a valid inference in historical thought and what is not than contemporary historians; they're only liars if we apply contemporary standards of method to ancient works, as if our own were universally true for all periods. Keep in mind, however, that it is still debated amongst contemporary historians what constitutes a valid inference. Say, I'm non-Marxist historian, I reject the premise that any historical series of events should be viewed as reflecting class conflict. Strict Marxist historians definitely do think that any series of historical events should be viewed as reflecting a larger historical process of class warfare. Given my presupposition, are all Marxist historians necessarily dishonest?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
I would suggest that if you believe either of those two readings to not be a materially accurate representation of events and you continued to employ it, then you would be being dishonest. It is obviously possible to have two honest interpretations of history, neither of which are correct, as well as a dishonest one that is, nonetheless, correct. Honesty, I think, is when you attempt to convey an idea to someone without obscuring other things you know from them because you think those would be an impediment to understanding what you believe to be the more important truth. Honesty, essentially, is when you try to give people the same degree of nuanced understanding that you do. It's... I suppose indicative that you respect the person enough to believe them capable of understanding things on the same level you do. To use the earlier example, dishonesty is when you tell people that Jesus was crucified on a symbolically significant day because you think that will help them to believe he is what you believe he is. Honesty is when you tell them why you believe he is what you believe he is. Which I think again fundamentally depends on whether you define honesty as anything which facilitates the understanding of truth or whether you define it as the method by which you do that. And also whether you consider truth to be reducible to key things or whether you consider it to be the whole complex tapestry of context in which things occur. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To use the earlier example, dishonesty is when you tell people that Jesus was crucified on a symbolically significant day because you think that will help them to believe he is what you believe he is. Honesty is when you tell them why you believe he is what you believe he is. I don't think there's any reason to assume that the Gospel writers didn't believe in what they were writing. For example it's assumed the author of Matthew is an upper-class Jewish scribe due to his extensive knowledge of the Tanakh and the fact that he softens a bunch of Mark's anti-Sadducee polemic. So it'd be very natural for him to plug Jesus into a very Jewish milieu. Jesus being the second Moses is very likely how the author of Matthew saw Him, and wasn't simply used as a tactic for evangelization. Then you have the author of Luke and Acts who is incredibly Hellenized, and the author of John (who...was likely actually John for at least some parts of it if we're going with the theory that the Gospel of John is an accretion) is very familiar with Philo of Alexandria, etc. so it all influences their view on who Jesus was and what He did. It's like if I were to write a Gospel I'd focus most on the reigning king/suffering servant dichotomy because that's a Christian distinctive that's not found in other religions, and that's the lens in which I view Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
But I imagine you would probably not make up a bunch more stories about Jesus in order to do that? Or at least not without mentioning that they're hypothetical. I mean I imagine this is my modern bias showing but I suppose I think that it is possible to judge historical actions in a modern context especially if we are looking for advice from historical texts about how to conduct ourselves in the modern day. A practice might have been fine when the work was written but in a modern context it can still not be an ideal moral guide. Though that would probably be my atheist bias showing and not really being able to conscience anything other than a materially, presently derived concept of morality. I obviously look at the Bible for historical examples and eloquent expressions of practices which may be validated as just and moral by modern standards rather than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Consider my loins girded and tempers in check.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But I imagine you would probably not make up a bunch more stories about Jesus in order to do that? Or at least not without mentioning that they're hypothetical. No, but obviously standards are different now. Stories about Jesus were invented to fulfill theological aims. poo poo, this still goes on. The Jesus Seminar was a gigantic fellowship of academic Biblical scholars that tried to recreate the historical Jesus but they were super into a sapiental eschatology (also known as realizing eschatology, the idea that Christians need to be working on this earth to make earth like the Kingdom of God) which is a rather new theological idea. Sixty years ago dialectical eschatology was popular, where God would work everything out behind the scenes. Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement could only have come out of a feudal society; Calvin's penal subsitutionary atonement could only come from a dude who was a lawyer. The idea that people's personal view of God influences what they write about God is inevitable, and there's nothing malicious behind it. OwlFancier posted:I mean I imagine this is my modern bias showing but I suppose I think that it is possible to judge historical actions in a modern context especially if we are looking for advice from historical texts about how to conduct ourselves in the modern day. A practice might have been fine when the work was written but in a modern context it can still not be an ideal moral guide. Last Sunday's Gospel reading is still poignant. It was Jesus' discourse about not being able to serve two masters: you cannot serve both God and money. And this is true, because how many NYC investment bankers work 110 hours a week and make half a mil in salary in bonuses every year and still feel like they're poor because their boss owns two yachts. And the boss feels like he's poor because his boss owns a private jet. And THAT guy feels like he's poor because HIS boss owns a private island. If you chase money then you will never find contentment, because there is always more to buy and somebody else will always have better material things than you. This teaching is about two thousand years old and it's relevant more now than ever, when in our society your worth is determined by the things you own. So actually I find the Bible very timeless in its moral teachings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
I would agree with that, but I would agree with that because the teaching is relevant now. Not because it came from the bible. Some of it is good, not all of it is. The parts that are good are good because they are good... I can't believe I just wrote that but it's sort of succinctly my position. That's what I mean by how I can look at the bible and find eloquent expressions of fine moral concepts. Some people might argue you can do that because the bible tells you what fine moral concepts are, I argue you can do it because some ideas remain relevant, while others don't, but there is beauty and weight to the idea that a relevant modern teaching has been expressed for thousands of years. Which is why I distinctly take the more modern standard on how to look at honesty and dishonesty and what role materialism has in that, rather than the ancient historical one. But again I also wouldn't argue that being dishonest is malicious, because as I started with I think it's fine to lie for a good reason. So I could simultaneously argue, hypothetically, that a story could be a) dishonest b) correct c) created morally and d) have a moral message or, really any inversion of any of those depending on the specific subject matter, none of them contradict any of the others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Last Sunday's Gospel reading is still poignant. It was Jesus' discourse about not being able to serve two masters: you cannot serve both God and money. And this is true, because how many NYC investment bankers work 110 hours a week and make half a mil in salary in bonuses every year and still feel like they're poor because their boss owns two yachts. And the boss feels like he's poor because his boss owns a private jet. And THAT guy feels like he's poor because HIS boss owns a private island. If you chase money then you will never find contentment, because there is always more to buy and somebody else will always have better material things than you. This teaching is about two thousand years old and it's relevant more now than ever, when in our society your worth is determined by the things you own. You know, so many of the new Atheists think the battle is between Religion vs. Atheism, when in reality it's both of those vs. consumerism and consumerism seems to be taking the lead at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
i thought new atheists thought it was the white races versus the saracen hordes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:You know, so many of the new Atheists think the battle is between Religion vs. Atheism, when in reality it's both of those vs. consumerism and consumerism seems to be taking the lead at the moment. Don't just lump in the New Atheistm movement with plain old Atheism unless someone is trying to no true scotsman things away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
is there a version of atheism with like hundred-handed demons and flying monks and stuff because otherwise I'm not really interested
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:is there a version of atheism with like hundred-handed demons and flying monks and stuff because otherwise I'm not really interested I'd say technically many forms of Buddhism are atheistic. Quick question: it's ok for me to get the ash on head thing if I'm not currently fit for the sacraments, right? I'd like to give it a try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
pidan posted:I'd say technically many forms of Buddhism are atheistic. no edit: i thought that said aesthetic i'm very tired
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
i'd argue buddhism is more agnostic than atheist because whether gods and devas exist doesn't change the teachings and how you need to practice to escape samsara
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
pidan posted:Quick question: it's ok for me to get the ash on head thing if I'm not currently fit for the sacraments, right? I'd like to give it a try. Yeah, ashes are for everyone who wants them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
when i was a kid i got to help my dad make the ashes one time
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
my dad posted:Don't just lump in the New Atheistm movement with plain old Atheism unless someone is trying to no true scotsman things away. I lumped them in together in the sense that from their subjective point of view, they would lump themselves in together, i.e. Dawkins doesn't see himself necessarily as a "new atheist" but as continuing a long tradition of anti-superstitious rationalism. And that perspective is important to recognize. To say that I can't lump in New Atheism, or Atheism+, or Atheism 2.0, with plain old Atheism, what exactly do you mean? Do you suppose there is no connection? No connection at all? Because that would be as absurd as saying that ISIS has no relation to Islam, or the Westboro Baptist Church has no relation to Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
pidan posted:Quick question: it's ok for me to get the ash on head thing if I'm not currently fit for the sacraments, right? I'd like to give it a try. Everyone's gets to die. Ashes for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I lumped them in together in the sense that from their subjective point of view, they would lump themselves in together, i.e. Dawkins doesn't see himself necessarily as a "new atheist" but as continuing a long tradition of anti-superstitious rationalism. And that perspective is important to recognize. Don't give New Atheism (both the movement itself and the people who endorse its views whether they consider themselves a part of it or not) free publicity by turning discussions of Atheism into discussions of New Atheism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:is there a version of atheism with like hundred-handed demons and flying monks and stuff because otherwise I'm not really interested icantfindaname posted:i thought new atheists thought it was the white races versus the saracen hordes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
got to hear a fabulous men-and-boys choir sing the Allegri "Miserere" today at Ash Wednesday liturgy and maaan, did that inspire some serious repenting
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I lumped them in together in the sense that from their subjective point of view, they would lump themselves in together, i.e. Dawkins doesn't see himself necessarily as a "new atheist" but as continuing a long tradition of anti-superstitious rationalism. And that perspective is important to recognize. Please don't conflate us Atheists with the people who've convinced themselves that being agressively evangelizing and smugly self-righteous is only a vice when religious people do it. I really don't see why you think acknowledging the roots of extremists means pretending they're the same as the more moderate groups they've broken away from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
sometimes we talk about cultural christianity or cultural catholicism, and Mardi Gras/Carnival is probably a good example of that. New Orleans's is the most famous, but Mobile Alabama has one as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/mardi-gras-mobile-alabama-new-orleans.html Metternich take note! there's masked secret societies behind this link!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
I know it's not one of the easiest parts of faith, but can we discuss being thankful when/in spite of God taking away people and things we love? I've been struggling for some time*, and now, rather out of the blue, my girlfriend left me. She's a wonderful person who never lied to or harmed me, but evidently something's driven her quickly and irrevocably away from our relationship. When it rains, it pours. I thought we were going to get married soon, and stick it out for the rest of this life  I refuse to despair, and I've been looking into prayers about being thankful for what you have been given, and for how long it lasted and the good things it brought you all the while. What are your denom or churchs thoughts on this matter, and how can it be put into practice? * thanks to the people itt who wrote me saying they prayed, you guys are the best and also rad christians 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
I'm sorry to hear that you are struggling, Tias. From the Scandinavian thread, and the few PMs we've exchanged, I have the impression that you are a kind and empathic person, and I hope and will pray that you are able to preserve those qualities even when facing hardship. Prayer is a useful tool for reflecting, I feel. Whether people simply call it reflection without any religious concoctions, or meditation with or without a specific spiritual framework surrounding it, or praying to any particular god or gods; moments of self-reflection and perspective are universally useful, I feel, especially in times of hardship. I seem to remember you mentioning the Serenity Prayer, which is a great example of a prayer that contains directly applicable wisdom to pretty much any situation, I feel, and I hope that it, or whatever other prayers you may turn to will be able to help you. I don't have a close positive relationship with the Serenity Prayer, and would be more likely to pray in a more loose form, and Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 is a comforting prayer to me. I don't know if I am understanding your request exactly right, but I don't think that the way you describe as coping now, is different from what I'd do and have done in times of spiritual hardship; turning to prayer and self-reflection, and hopefully being able to lean on a real-life support-network of friends and family, as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
I can't give you religious advice Tias but everything you've posted suggests you're a drat fine sort and I hope things work out for you a bit better, if there's any justice in the world you deserve it to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:one of the five orthodox vedic hinduisms is atheist, get that one I know the Orthodox Church contains lots of autocephalous churches, but I didn't know there was an atheist Hindu one!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
I can understand how you can be a Christian Hindu, but being a Hindu Christian sounds rather tricky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:56
|
|
