|
HEY GAIL posted:now that The Phlegmatist is no longer calvinist i can say it: that's my least favorite religion on earth, including the ones where they stick bullet ants on your hands I know very little about the man of the religion but what I do know of Calvinism always conjured up in my head a picture of an ignorant rear end in a top hat just like all the fire-and-brimstone preachers I've seen in my life. But my readings of the Reformation made Calvin sound like he was actually fairly intelligent. Then again, so was Luther. Being knowledgeable doesn't stop one from being a jerk, I guess.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Calvin was brilliant but yeah he was a mean fucker. Always thought he was absolutely correct. That got handed down through the generations and made Calvinists fairly awful to argue with. Pretty sure most historians attribute Luther and Calvin's assholery (and anti-Semitism in the case of the former) to health issues, because they both had gout along with a bunch of other chronic pain issues that worsened as they continued the Reformation. So that's why Luther goes from "okay now that we have rescued the Gospel from the papacy now the Jews will surely convert" to "well they didn't so now I've written a book called On The Jews And Their Lies" as his health problems got worse. But really it just boils down to the fact that the Protestants had lived under the awful loving Renaissance popes for a long time and just hated the papacy. That's probably best seen with their abortive attempt to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy. Which basically entails the Patriarch of Constantinople telling them "we don't like the Pope either but your theology is bad and you should feel bad, there are seven sacraments, please don't write us ever again." e: EP Jeremiah II with the iceburns posted:Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you. Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendship's sake. Farewell. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:But really it just boils down to the fact that the Protestants had lived under the awful loving Renaissance popes for a long time and just hated the papacy. That's probably best seen with their abortive attempt to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy. Which basically entails the Patriarch of Constantinople telling them "we don't like the Pope either but your theology is bad and you should feel bad, there are seven sacraments, please don't write us ever again." Keep in mind this is at the end of the third reply. In the first letter he explains the need to follow the holy synods. In the second letter he goes in excruciating and heavily cited detail into why the filioque is aberrant and then beseeches them again to leave behind their innovations. He also, more briefly, defends the veneration of saints and the Virgin Mary and other Traditions. All of this is within the context of the Lutherans asking to join the Orthodox, but as the letters continue it is clear that they do not want to join them but convert them. Maybe Jeremiah could have written a fourth letter but I don't think it would have done much good. Also worth mentioning that this takes place starting in 1576, 30 years after Luther died. Translations of Jeremiah's letters are available here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/jeremiah.aspx
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:Oh no no, we were very much not UCC. We hated those hippies for changing it from "Glory be to the Father" to "Glory be to the Creator". Basically, there used to be just The Congregational Christian Churches Association. At some point a more liberal movement broke out within the church and eventually split into the United Church of Christ (which it sounds like you grew up in). The CCCA is very traditional and one of the things they emphasize is their claimed line of descent directly from the Puritan pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock. When my mom's ex-husband was doing his student pastorate it was at a UCC church because there were no CCCA churches that needed slots, but he was required to have weekly meetings with his CCCA advisor to talk about what aspects of his UCC services he couldn't carry over to a CCCA church once he was assigned one. He eventually cheated on my mom with a youth minister, but it was my mom who got kicked out of the church, if that gives you an idea of the sort of culture CCCA had. I have literally never heard of the CCCA until today. Growing up, for me the UCC was Congregationalism. We too claimed a line of descent from the puritans, but from our perspective it was more of a mildly embarrassing past that we were confident enough not to deny than a point of pride. Whenever I was asked what denomination I was and I answered Congregational, I took it for granted that that would instantly label me as a liberal. My sympathies on the situation with your mom getting kicked out, btw. That's awful and I would hope that it wouldn't be something that would fly at the church I grew up in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:I read a blog today arguing against Calvin's dislike of icons and I assume Calvin is a fucktard moron. Link?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Can someone itt explain the role of crows and ravens in christian mythology? I know one was sent from the ark, and that Elijah was fed by them, but given that they were around in biblical times, there's got to be more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Tias posted:Can someone itt explain the role of crows and ravens in christian mythology? Well, they're not kosher to eat, so I imagine one probably showed up in the pile of unclean animals that Peter was told to snack on. One of the penitential psalms says that the psalmist has become a night-raven in the house as a result of his misery, but I googled it and apparently modern translations say owl? It's little-t tradition that ravens pecked the unrepentant thief for having mocked Jesus while Jesus was dying, but I don't know if they were doing that on orders, as it were, or just because there were some free eyeballs that nobody else was using. That's all I've got! HEY GAIL posted:i tried to be an altar server as a child and the stage fright was awful, i served once and never again. my sister, on the other hand, was great at it, because she's stubborn, persnickity, and likes to tell other people what to do Stubborn, persnickety, and likes telling other people what to do - that's no doubt why I was a good server, to the point that when I was home from college the lady who organized the server schedule would call me and ask if I could substitute if a server couldn't be there for 8am Mass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Tias posted:Can someone itt explain the role of crows and ravens in christian mythology? They're smart birds, and cool. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Link? It's here, but I cannot speak to its overall quality. I've never had any love for Reformed theology or Calvin, but the quotes selected for this piece are especially good at making Calvin look like a dumbass. Vincent Gabriel posted:Calvin seems incapable of making the simple distinction between a statue of a false deity and that of Christ and his friends. This seems to me both obstinate and absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:now that The Phlegmatist is no longer calvinist i can say it: that's my least favorite religion on earth, including the ones where they stick bullet ants on your hands I was raised Presbyterian and teach Sunday School at a tiny Presbyterian church and while I feel there's plenty of room for a liberating faith within Calvinism, it's outweighed by snotty fresh converts alone, never mind the prosperity gospel and all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
There is, Fuller Theological Seminary is full of liberal Pentecostal Calvinists, which is definitely a strange ideation. But it happened. The disconnect between the pulpit and the pews is real, though. And my experience in the PCUSA was that if you get too liberal as a pastor the congregation just bolts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:There is, Fuller Theological Seminary is full of liberal Pentecostal Calvinists, which is definitely a strange ideation. But it happened. Our congregation would shuffle more than bolt, but yeah...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:There is, Fuller Theological Seminary is full of liberal Pentecostal Calvinists, which is definitely a strange ideation. But it happened. Good professors make liberal students. Edit: by which i mean politically progressive, not theologically liberal. Very orthodox evangelical, just without the fundamentalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I was raised Presbyterian and teach Sunday School at a tiny Presbyterian church and while I feel there's plenty of room for a liberating faith within Calvinism, it's outweighed by snotty fresh converts alone, never mind the prosperity gospel and all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:be honest: which do you prefer, that or the bullet ants religion I'm trying to think of what the difference is and my mind is coming up with "bullet ant religion doesn't have green bean casseroles with french fried onions" so Amazonia here I come
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm trying to think of what the difference is and my mind is coming up with "bullet ant religion doesn't have green bean casseroles with french fried onions" so Amazonia here I come
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:(i am unaware of 17th century people who turned from men into women) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevalier_d%27%C3%89on Diplomat, spy, fencer. she once fought an exhibition match against the Chevalier de Saint-Georges, who was a fencer and composer/ conductor who also happened to be black.  "conservatives" have no idea what the past was really like, it actually owned HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:litgoon road trip why do you seek out bullet ant? Be careful what you wish for, you may find it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Well, you gotta admit, an ant with a sting like a gunshot is one of God's more marvelous creations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Another question for Internet folks who probably have a lot more experience than me with the real world and especially real world Christianity. Have any of you noticed there is a weird movement that is anti-Paul? The smartest Christian I know on another site said he had observed it too and likened it to people viewing Paul as the "evil vizier" who corrupted Jesus' message and thus all the stuff said people don't like about Christianity they can blame on him. Although my same scholarly Christian acquaintance said that the infamous line attributed to Paul about women not leading men was most likely not actually written by him at all so ...whoops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Another question for Internet folks who probably have a lot more experience than me with the real world and especially real world Christianity. Yes, I've encountered it in a bunch of places - either the idea that they're 'just' Jesus-followers and not interested in 'Paul's religion' (usually meaning or that without Paul there'd be no organization higher than house-churches), or that Jesus would totally have approved of (thing the Catholic Church does not approve of) but Paul distorted Jesus's message, that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Another question for Internet folks who probably have a lot more experience than me with the real world and especially real world Christianity. It's pretty much in line with various efforts to reestablish the "Early Church" from medieval heterodoxy on down. The particular character emphasizing the "authentic" words of Jesus is probably more a relic of living in a post-fundamentalist world than of any specific differences of concern between such people and the Shakers or Fraticelli or early Protestants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Skipped 600 post backlog. What did I miss? Seems like we have some new folks and I like cookie isn't posting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
I'm sure Nietzsche wasn't the first to blame Paul for everything bad (perceived or otherwise) associated with Christianity, but I think he's the one who's popularised the idea in recent times with his Antichristian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I'm sure Nietzsche wasn't the first to blame Paul for everything bad (perceived or otherwise) associated with Christianity, but I think he's the one who's popularised the idea in recent times with his Antichristian. It's true that what we know as Christianity was almost wholly created by Paul, but he was called to do precisely that so I don't really see what the problem is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Another question for Internet folks who probably have a lot more experience than me with the real world and especially real world Christianity. Obviously I am not a scholar, but from the folks I talked to most often as I was sort of on my way out of the church, a lot of people blame Paul for a lot of the sexism and homophobia in the modern Christian church. Certainly he wrote in a way that comes off as gender essentialist and sex essentialist, but I've heard counter-arguments that the common English translations don't really bring his meaning across really well, and also that since most of what we have from Paul in the bible is written to specific churches in the context of addressing that church's needs, it's really more of a modern mistake to think he ever meant much of what he wrote to apply to everyone generally. Basically that day-to-day Christians think that if it's in the Bible then it's generally applicable. Full disclosure, my philosophy teacher was very much not a fan of Paul though, going so far as to call him a sophist at one point and kicking a kid out of class for constantly interrupting to bring up Pauline ethics during discussions on the various ethicisits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
People like having a scapegoat because it means they don't have to do the difficult work of reconciling seemingly contradictory passages of the Bible and can instead focus on what they're pretty sure Jesus must have said, somewhere. Searching for the "authentic teachings of Jesus" is the pinnacle of dumb liberal historicism getting into the theological water. Either you accept that Jesus is God and that if He had wanted to leave behind a written record, He would have done so, or you don't, in which case it's merely a question of historical interest rather than one of what's "authentic" or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:People like having a scapegoat because it means they don't have to do the difficult work of reconciling seemingly contradictory passages of the Bible and can instead focus on what they're pretty sure Jesus must have said, somewhere. Sure, the historical question is interesting, is it not? Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world and millions of people at least attempt to live their lives according to its teachings. Even if you are coming at it from a purely scholastic point of view, understanding the root of the beliefs of a large chunk of humanity seems pretty worthwhile to me. If you can trace particular bits back to particular writers, it helps you understand where conflicting beliefs come into the structure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:Sure, the historical question is interesting, is it not? Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world and millions of people at least attempt to live their lives according to its teachings. Even if you are coming at it from a purely scholastic point of view, understanding the root of the beliefs of a large chunk of humanity seems pretty worthwhile to me. If you can trace particular bits back to particular writers, it helps you understand where conflicting beliefs come into the structure. Oh sure, the historical question is deeply interesting, but at that point you've left the realm where "authentic" can really be said to apply. The use of "authentic" and similar words implies that those teachings have greater normative force than the teachings of Paul, and I'm contending that this is incompatible with belief in the deity of Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Oh sure, the historical question is deeply interesting, but at that point you've left the realm where "authentic" can really be said to apply. The use of "authentic" and similar words implies that those teachings have greater normative force than the teachings of Paul, and I'm contending that this is incompatible with belief in the deity of Christ. Gotcha, you're responding to a more general idea. I hadn't really seen anyone say anything about authenticity so I got a bit confused about what you were responding to  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:People like having a scapegoat because it means they don't have to do the difficult work of reconciling seemingly contradictory passages of the Bible and can instead focus on what they're pretty sure Jesus must have said, somewhere. i agree with this for the most part, cause i do often see a lot of queer theologians doing exactly that and calling it a day. even bringing pseudo-Paul into the picture fails to reconcile the fact that the writing is still in the Bible and was not considered canonical on the condition that Paul actually wrote it. a lot of the work around feminist and queer theology really tiptoes around the clobber texts and rarely questions the legitimacy of biblical hermeneutics in the first place. that's what i like about dale martin, he starts to get into this with his focus on how we read the Bible instead of insisting the text says anything. still holding a tension between the parables and psalms we like and the stories we don't can create a sort of ideological rift that's difficult to bridge. tho i found having a hermeneutical perspective prior to reading texts or tradition helpful in the short term, i did ultimately find it impossible to hold the tension between upholding scripture on one hand and condemning it in the other
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
see i just go with "ἀρσενοκοίτης is a Pauline hapax and you can't tell me you know what it means because that is philologically impossible" but i also have weird ideas about signification. we're broadly in agreement about the defects in queer theology, i think: the willingness to jettison Paul seems to me to point to a lot of more general sloppy reading habits. i recognize the need for a therapeutic theological praxis, and an initial step of distancing oneself from the clobber passages might be necessary for some people, but we need to admit that it's not good reading, and if we're going to take this book seriously as revelation, then we need to read it very well indeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:see i just go with "ἀρσενοκοίτης is a Pauline hapax and you can't tell me you know what it means because that is philologically impossible" but i also have weird ideas about signification. we're broadly in agreement about the defects in queer theology, i think: the willingness to jettison Paul seems to me to point to a lot of more general sloppy reading habits. i recognize the need for a therapeutic theological praxis, and an initial step of distancing oneself from the clobber passages might be necessary for some people, but we need to admit that it's not good reading, and if we're going to take this book seriously as revelation, then we need to read it very well indeed. It's also necessary to contemplate the social norms of the groups Paul was addressing and how his advice would have seemed to them in order to translate that advice to us in the present. Just because Paul said something to a Hellenic congregation 2000 years ago doesn't necessarily mean he'd give the same advice to us. To some extent Paul was restricted by what his listeners would consider too radical, so he had to tone things down to a level they would accept. That's part of why there's a distinction between when he's speaking in general principles (i.e. all are equal in Christ) versus specific advice for a particular group (i.e. women should stay quiet in church).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i agree with this for the most part, cause i do often see a lot of queer theologians doing exactly that and calling it a day. even bringing pseudo-Paul into the picture fails to reconcile the fact that the writing is still in the Bible and was not considered canonical on the condition that Paul actually wrote it. a lot of the work around feminist and queer theology really tiptoes around the clobber texts and rarely questions the legitimacy of biblical hermeneutics in the first place. Lots of people have written entire papers about 1 Tim. 2:12 with wildly differing conclusions. Well, it's got a hapax in it (and actually this one is really weird considering contemporary uses of it in Paul's time) so let's ignore it. Actually it wasn't written by Paul at all so let's ignore it Actually we can wildly re-translate this because it's referring to Gnostic sex magic. And so on, it gets confusing. But that's all ordered to egalitarianism. That's the bias. Then you have complementarians being unable to explain why this verse (which refers specifically to practice in a church) is somehow normative for marriage. Or why Paul seemingly contradicts himself here based on his other epistles, which are more egalitarian. And this is explained away by "the Bible says it so you gotta believe it." And this is all ordered to complementarianism. But complementarians will use historical-critical exegesis to explain why Paul really didn't mean celibacy was the best for everyone, because you see there was a famine at the time he was writing his epistle so you see it would be difficult to support a family there. So actually we can ignore that. In every case of exegesis you have a very explicit bias from the person interpreting the text. The egalitarian reading gets way too into historical intricacies sometimes to advance an agenda and the complementarian ignores them to advance an agenda. That's just something we have to deal with. I assume the reason that Catholics/Orthodox use the consensus of the early church fathers and try to interpret scripture in a communal manner is a tacit acceptance of the fact that individuals read their own preferences into scripture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
that's basically dale martin's thesis lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Maybe it's because the guy seems to have issues out the wazoo? Then people who don't read the bible but generally know that Jesus is the basis for a large number of our current moral stands on things need to find why "the faith" became a hideous behemoth that spits out lies and hypocrisy to justify itself? So you blame the guy who transmitted a lot of the early church stuff instead of the guy who were are still taught to treat as special even if not actually God. Again it could also be the whole Millenarian thing of "Jesus is coming back before I die because its vital the earth (and all life on it) end with me" that Paul seems to partake in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:that's basically dale martin's thesis lmao well I missed my calling in biblical studies then, i'll have to check him out
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:I assume the reason that Catholics/Orthodox use the consensus of the early church fathers and try to interpret scripture in a communal manner is a tacit acceptance of the fact that individuals read their own preferences into scripture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
the unchanging dogma thing is so asinine since you can see that it very much has but doesn't count apparently
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:the unchanging dogma thing is so asinine since you can see that it very much has but doesn't count apparently because the best way to get me to sign onto something is to accuse me of not having read something in depth and then condescend to me
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:46
|
|