|
HEY GAIL posted:so mostly we hear about the aryans hanging around trump, but the Arians who like him have also said a thing: isnt this the plot of farcry 5
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:so mostly we hear about the aryans hanging around trump, but the Arians who like him have also said a thing: And heaven only knows in which god they can trust...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
gently caress. marry. t-rex posted:isnt this the plot of farcry 5 Handmaid's Tale, too, I think. I wonder how controversial the makers are going to let Far Cry 5 be. My guess is that it will be about a doomsday cult with biblical roots, but I doubt they'll ever say the name Jesus. I think they might also draw the line before getting into LGBT discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
WE SPEAK IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT MAKES US LOOK INTELLIGENT is a pretty solidified meme on the mouth-breathing right these days, huh
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
WE ARE completely obsessed with sex
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
The amount of people within the Church falling over themselves to deny basic human rights to "undesirables" shouldn't surprise me anymore but here we areTias posted:WE SPEAK IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT MAKES US LOOK INTELLIGENT is a pretty solidified meme on the mouth-breathing right these days, huh You know they're imagining themselves as Doctors of the Church in a 17th Century painting standing around a parchment looking all noble while Luther, Calvin and Jesus all smile warmly at them from the heavens feldhase fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:so mostly we hear about the aryans hanging around trump, but the Arians who like him have also said a thing: I'll be honest here. Setting aside the thing that focusing on such matters shouldn't really be as large a focus as it seems to be, what that council says there doesn't seem to differ from mainstream Christianity's teachings very much. What points stick out particularily to you (all)? Now, I know we have both gay and transgender people here in the thread and even if there weren't, let me say that the above question is strictly theological and one of the reasons I asked what I did is because I'm not at all familiar with English language debate on these matters. It's pretty probable I can't read the meanings behind all those words in the context. A bit like how, in Lutheran circles, someone describing themselves as confessional sends out all kinds of strong signals not at all apparent to outsiders. I do see some very problematic parts there myself but I'd rather play dumb and ask than assume my interpretations are correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:I'll be honest here. Setting aside the thing that focusing on such matters shouldn't really be as large a focus as it seems to be, what that council says there doesn't seem to differ from mainstream Christianity's teachings very much. What points stick out particularily to you (all)? there is a seventeenth century example of an intersex person going out in public as either male or female depending on whether they wanted to have sex with men that day or not. "I goe in weomans aparell to gett a bitt for my Catt,” as they put it. (I keep saying it: these are not a subtle group of people.) The court ruled that they should wear both mens' and womens' clothing from then on--this is a fundamentally legalistic society, and as it were they were inventing a sumptuary law just for them. But the problem was the legal anomaly, they're actually fine with the other stuff. They don't seem to think this is "a disorder," which is what that document is trying to frame sexual or gender ambiguity as. http://the-toast.net/2016/05/26/intersex-and-genderfluid-identity-in-the-colonial-period/ edit: also when i said Arian I literally meant it: this organization believes Christ is subordinate to the Father. edit 2: If God didn't design marriage to be a polygamous relationship, all of the Old Testament Fathers and Mothers were living in sin. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
For a statement about sexual morality, it has such a narrow focus on LGBT issues. It has a token mention of heterosexual immorality, but hardly elaborates on it at all. I kind of can't believe that there's no mention of pornography, and no direct mention of hookup culture; on the other hand, they've found themselves with our most pornified president ever, so maybe that's no wonder. It's a cliche at this point that conservative Christians focus on homosexuality and virtually ignore behavior by straight people, and this group is living up to it perfectly. The Orthodox fall into this trap, too, but I can at least still find plenty of work on chastity that focuses primarily on straight--even married!--people. It hardly has anything to say about what LGBT people--or anybody, for that matter--should do, except "don't." Or potentially "Die alone and unloved." That even leaves "Side-B" gay Christians crowd out of luck, and having read plenty of Spiritual Friendship, I know it's difficult enough for them as it is. I get the sense that the people behind this statement would love to endorse ex-gay ministries, but know it's political poison at this point to say it out loud. HEY GAIL posted:edit: also when i said Arian I literally meant it: this organization believes Christ is subordinate to the Father.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:Yep, that's a definite strike against it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:such an old school heresy to find in the wild
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:Actually, where can I look up more about that? I didn't dig all that deep into the CBMW's website--and I'm not going to at work--but their statement of faith has the Nicene Creed in it. https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/eternal-subordination-of-the-son-and-cbmw/ https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/cbmws-blog-series-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/ The Phlegmatist might know more since they used to be Protestant, and the people arguing against this are as far as I can tell other Protestants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:I think this is the group that argues that women are subordinate to men by arguing that the relationship of wife to husband should be analogous to the relationship of christ to the Father. They backed themselves into Arianism through trying to find a rationale for their sexism. They call it "eternal subordination of the son." This has been going on at least since 1991. I've never heard of this line of thinking. The stuff about Christ being subordinate to the Father, that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I've never heard of this line of thinking. The stuff about Christ being subordinate to the Father, that is. Same here. This is some fringe nuttery, and not any kind of accepted doctrine that I'm aware of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
A lot of people believe that Christianity forbids homosexuality. I have a horse in that race so I'm not comfortable saying those people are all heretics and wrong. They have a right to that belief. I know what my own belief is and I pray God will forgive me if I'm wrong. That said, that list does not look like text written by a person with love, compassion and/or respect for people they disagree with. It reads like a whole lot of mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that it is a Christian's moral duty to behave like a shithead to LGBT people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:I think this is the group that argues that women are subordinate to men by arguing that the relationship of wife to husband should be analogous to the relationship of christ to the Father. They backed themselves into Arianism through trying to find a rationale for their sexism. They call it "eternal subordination of the son." This has been going on at least since 1991. Speaking of Arianism, Twitter has alerted me to an interesting coincidence: today's the feast of St. Alexander of Constantinople. His bio on the OCA website has this to say about him: quote:The heretic Arius was punished through the prayer of Saint Alexander. Arius had apparantly agreed to enter into communion with the Orthodox. When the Emperor asked him if he believed as the Fathers of Nicea taught, he placed his hand upon his breast (where he had cunningly concealed beneath his clothes a document with his own false creed written upon it) and said, “This is what I believe!” Saint Constantine (May 21), unaware of the deceitful wickedness of Arius, set a day for receiving him into the Church. All night long Saint Alexander prayed, imploring the Lord not to permit this heretic to be received into communion with the Church. (I'd link to the tweet, but I don't want to mess up the poster's mentions.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Public Serpent posted:A lot of people believe that Christianity forbids homosexuality. I have a horse in that race so I'm not comfortable saying those people are all heretics and wrong. They have a right to that belief. I know what my own belief is and I pray God will forgive me if I'm wrong. I take the view that most of us are wearing mixed fabrics. And for anyone who brings up Leviticus, I'd better not be catching you eating a clam basket at Friendly's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Public Serpent posted:I'm not comfortable saying those people are all heretics and wrong. the Arianism is literally a heresy
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Oh, for sure those are two different things, and I phrased that poorly. I just meant that my own situation (lesbian, married) makes me reluctant to even disagree with people about the gay stuff. I don't want to feel like I'm rules lawyering myself into a position of never questioning the rightness of my actions. Ultimately, I'm usually comfortable with my marriage and my family being what it is, but it's through trusting God, not through some unassailable mathebiblical proof that gay = ok. I tried to write more here but I'm terrible at turning thoughts into words today so y'all were spared a whole lot of 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Public Serpent posted:Oh, for sure those are two different things, and I phrased that poorly. I just meant that my own situation (lesbian, married) makes me reluctant to even disagree with people about the gay stuff. I don't want to feel like I'm rules lawyering myself into a position of never questioning the rightness of my actions. Ultimately, I'm usually comfortable with my marriage and my family being what it is, but it's through trusting God, not through some unassailable mathebiblical proof that gay = ok. Actually, that's quite well put. I'm fairly sure that's a common stance when it comes to lot of things. Not sure more needs to be said, exactly because that would invite people to argue. Not that that kind of discussion isn't good but when it's that personal, it should only really be among friends. Thanks for replies to that committee thing, by the way. The thread continues to be a good place to expect replies in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
its not what goes into your body than makes you unclean its the words you speak :P
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I take the view that most of us are wearing mixed fabrics. And for anyone who brings up Leviticus, I'd better not be catching you eating a clam basket at Friendly's. I doubt any literate Christian who takes the heteronormative stance would make their argument from Leviticus; they would most certainly make the argument from Paul. gently caress. marry. t-rex posted:its not what goes into your body than makes you unclean its the words you speak :P SA has an emoji for that. WerrWaaa fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:I doubt any literate Christian who takes the heteronormative stance would make their argument from Leviticus; they would most certainly make the argument from Paul. You'd be surprised. OT law is a great source for cherry-pickers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
I know, but that's easy to proof text against with, "Oh, well look here in Acts, where Gentiles don't have to..." to which their retort will be, "But Paul says..." Paul is the problem. Paul is always the problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:I know, but that's easy to proof text against with, "Oh, well look here in Acts, where Gentiles don't have to..." to which their retort will be, "But Paul says..." They don't care what Paul has to say. Leviticus is still THE BIBLE so it counts. Their position is not logical or nuanced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Paul is also why I said mixed fabrics, that was one of the things he said was sinful. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Paul is also why I said mixed fabrics, that was one of the things he said was sinful. Citation please, I can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:I know, but that's easy to proof text against with, "Oh, well look here in Acts, where Gentiles don't have to..." to which their retort will be, "But Paul says..." I've always thought Paul suspicious as gently caress with his 'Jesus came to me as a ghost in the desert where noone else could see us' and his v standard 1st century Roman Empire dude social views tbh Is there a version of Christianity that chucks his bullshit out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:Citation please, I can't find it. Think it was in the same passage where he says it's sinful for women to enter church with their head uncovered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Think it was in the same passage where he says it's sinful for women to enter church with their head uncovered. Browsed that (1 cor 11) and no sign of mixed fabrics, but behold, ARIANISM: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Is there a version of Christianity that chucks his bullshit out? Chucks it? Unitarian Universalists. Christians? No, and I wouldn't want to. Good progressive mainline protestants, though, take the good road and understand him in his context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I've always thought Paul suspicious as gently caress with his 'Jesus came to me as a ghost in the desert where noone else could see us' and his v standard 1st century Roman Empire dude social views tbh I don't think that would be called Christianity. Cythereal posted:Think it was in the same passage where he says it's sinful for women to enter church with their head uncovered. Deuteronomy 22:11 at least. I'm fairly positive Paul has nothing of it. e: after some googling, Leviticus 19:19 also.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I've always thought Paul suspicious as gently caress with his 'Jesus came to me as a ghost in the desert where noone else could see us' and his v standard 1st century Roman Empire dude social views tbh Paul has been considered authoritative since the very beginning of the church, in the 1st century. His epistles formed the core of the New Testament canon. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Is there a version of Christianity that chucks his bullshit out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:Chucks it? Unitarian Universalists. Christians? No, and I wouldn't want to. Good progressive mainline protestants, though, take the good road and understand him in his context. Or at least doesn't claim his views to be literally divinely inspired. I'm fine with him being a central figure to early Christianity like many others, but having him in the actual New Testament next to the Gospels is uh a bit beyond that. Context is for people who don't lay claim to be as authoritative as Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Or at least doesn't claim his views to be literally divinely inspired. I'm fine with him being a central figure to early Christianity like many others, but having him in the actual New Testament next to the Gospels is uh a bit beyond that. Context is for people who don't lay claim to be as authoritative as Jesus. You seem to have a rather flawed understanding of Paul. His encounter with Jesus was the basis of his claim to authority as an Apostle, making him equal with the other disciples and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Context is for people who don't lay claim to be as authoritative as Jesus. Jesus is contextual too! Note that Jesus didn't write the Gospels, other disciples did, so having Paul in the NT put him on par with them, not Jesus. Same for James, John, Peter, and whoever the hell wrote Hebrews.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Me I wrote Hebrews
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
You've got some explaining to do in that case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
I wrote, He brews.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 01:21
|
|
