|
Josef bugman posted:I'm arguing that it wasn't performed in the same latin, across two thousand years, that it was often not transmitted to ordinary people with any understanding of the words being said and that it should not be held up as a permanent link to the past because of that. can you read classical and medieval latin? it's... a little bit like saying new yorkers and londoners don't speak the same english. i'm exaggerating a little, but not a lot - medieval latin is very close to classical latin, and many of the quirks that set it apart are derived from the way Jerome translated the Vulgate quote:that it was often not transmitted to ordinary people with any understanding of the words being said i am not disputing that. i have repeatedly said exactly that. i am saying that that is, in fact, not a bad thing. quote:I was trying to demonstrate that this claim quoted above is incorrect due to the fact that the classical and medieval latin possess differences. If I am being too focussed on details I do apologise. i think you're mistaken about the extent of those differences. and even if you were right - even if the mass only provided some kind of linguistic continuity with, say, the last thousand years, or the last five hundred years, i think that's much, much better than uh the last fifty quote:I will ask it as a question "What is more important, the sound Latin makes during mass or the meaning of the words said". Because if its the later shouldn't it be in the local language? the meaning isn't some hidden mystery; don't all latin masses hand out facing-page translations at the door? holding the mass - a ritual - in an unfamiliar, even alien tongue helps to elevate it and underline its status as a ritual; do you dispute that? it sets it apart more thoroughly from the flow of time, it helps to engender reverence (particularly of the host) and foster an atmosphere of the sacred. much of these thing is lost in the vernacular. of course i can only provide anecdotes, but i've never felt the kind of reverence at an english mass that i felt at the latin mass, and everyone i know who's done both has felt the same way.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:can you read classical and medieval latin? it's... a little bit like saying new yorkers and londoners don't speak the same english. i'm exaggerating a little, but not a lot - medieval latin is very close to classical latin, and many of the quirks that set it apart are derived from the way Jerome translated the Vulgate So its still not the same though. It might well be close, but it ain't the same is it? chernobyl kinsman posted:i am not disputing that. i have repeatedly said exactly that. i am saying that that is, in fact, not a bad thing. Okay I will chalk this up as a bone of contention. Not only does it pay no attention to what is supposedly a holy sacrament but it also seems to be dispariging the laity. chernobyl kinsman posted:i think you're mistaken about the extent of those differences. and even if you were right - even if the mass only provided some kind of linguistic continuity with, say, the last thousand years, or the last five hundred years, i think that's much, much better than uh the last fifty Is age the only criteria you accept for legitimacy of a tradition? Because that seems a tad weird, just becomes something seems newer than another thing doesn't mean its not traditional. If we are going on that rule, why not try and find the oldest religion and worship that. chernobyl kinsman posted:the meaning isn't some hidden mystery; don't all latin masses hand out facing-page translations at the door? holding the mass - a ritual - in an unfamiliar, even alien tongue helps to elevate it and underline its status as a ritual; do you dispute that? it sets it apart more thoroughly from the flow of time, it helps to engender reverence (particularly of the host) and foster an atmosphere of the sacred. much of these thing is lost in the vernacular. of course i can only provide anecdotes, but i've never felt the kind of reverence at an english mass that i felt at the latin mass, and everyone i know who's done both has felt the same way. I imagine that most of the people who worshipped down through history probably weren't given translations. I can't argue your own feeling about an event, I can merely point out that your own aesthetic preferences shouldn't inform how people choose to worship in your Church. And can you answer the question? If this is putting you on the spot I am sorry, but which is more important the sound or the words? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:can you read classical and medieval latin? it's... a little bit like saying new yorkers and londoners don't speak the same english. i'm exaggerating a little, but not a lot - medieval latin is very close to classical latin, and many of the quirks that set it apart are derived from the way Jerome translated the Vulgate As an Indo-European philologist, they're pretty different. Lots of shifts in vocabulary, usage, and sentence structure, including a pretty marked shift toward fixing word order.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
I really don't have a horse in this race, but last Sunday I was at a parish I'd never been to before and they had kneelers set up like altar rails and I loved receiving communion that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So its still not the same though. It might well be close, but it ain't the same is it? No, if we're really going to get into it, it's not exactly the same, but I can't imagine that you're good faith arguing that it doesn't provide more continuity with those that have gone before than does the vernacular. St. Francis heard the mass in Latin. I'll settle for that, as I said. quote:Is age the only criteria you accept for legitimacy of a tradition? Because that seems a tad weird, just becomes something seems newer than another thing doesn't mean its not traditional. If we are going on that rule, why not try and find the oldest religion and worship that. Yeah I... think age is the most important part of a tradition. Do you...not? Do you think just declaring a new tradition makes it so, somehow outweighing the millennia that have gone before? Does that just disappear? This year we just declare that we're going to decorate a hole in the ground instead of a Christmas tree, and nothing's lost, and we all assign to the Christmas hole the same kind of emotional importance that we did the tree? quote:I imagine that most of the people who worshipped down through history probably weren't given translations. I can't argue your own feeling about an event, I can merely point out that your own aesthetic preferences shouldn't inform how people choose to worship in your Church. It's much more than aesthetic, as I'm trying to make clear, and I apologize if I'm failing to do so quote:And can you answer the question? If this is putting you on the spot I am sorry, but which is more important the sound or the words? I think I have been answering the question, and I think you're creating a false dichotomy, here. Obviously not just the sounds of the words matter; I'm talking about the weight of historical tradition, not just how it sounds. But clearly the language, and the history of that language, play an incredibly crucial role in elevating or lowering the sacredness of a given ritual. Rituals are marked out by space, by words, by time, and by actions. If you profanate any of those you profanate the whole ritual. Conducting the mass with Wonderbread would lower its status and reduce the sense of reverence and awe it engenders,* as would shortening the mass to fifteen minutes long, as would conducting it in a McDonalds - as, too, does conducting it in the common tongue. The sacred needs to be set apart from the ordinary in order to be the sacred; I'm arguing that any intrusion of the ordinary cheapens the entire ritual. *which is exactly why the Vatican won't allow gluten free hosts to be used, lol Thirteen Orphans posted:I really don't have a horse in this race, but last Sunday I was at a parish I'd never been to before and they had kneelers set up like altar rails and I loved receiving communion that way. Yeah it rules chernobyl kinsman fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
i understand a lot of the criticisms of the latin mass but idk why people want to forbid it entirely
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:the meaning isn't some hidden mystery; don't all latin masses hand out facing-page translations at the door? holding the mass - a ritual - in an unfamiliar, even alien tongue helps to elevate it and underline its status as a ritual; do you dispute that? it sets it apart more thoroughly from the flow of time, it helps to engender reverence (particularly of the host) and foster an atmosphere of the sacred. much of these thing is lost in the vernacular. of course i can only provide anecdotes, but i've never felt the kind of reverence at an english mass that i felt at the latin mass, and everyone i know who's done both has felt the same way. yeah this is spectacularly subjective. I don't like it at all, I feel that it makes me feel unwelcome for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:No, if we're really going to get into it, it's not exactly the same, but I can't imagine that you're good faith arguing that it doesn't provide more continuity with those that have gone before than does the vernacular. St. Francis heard the mass in Latin. I'll settle for that, as I said. You may very well settle for that. The problem comes when you demand everyone else do the same, and start making up reasons as to why they should. chernobyl kinsman posted:Yeah I... think age is the most important part of a tradition. Do you...not? Do you think just declaring a new tradition makes it so, somehow outweighing the millennia that have gone before? Does that just disappear? This year we just declare that we're going to decorate a hole in the ground instead of a Christmas tree, and nothing's lost, and we all assign to the Christmas hole the same kind of emotional importance that we did the tree? Not really. I think good traditions can have started as little as a year ago. Everything needs to be reassessed based on context and whether or not it is helping people. If it turns out that the tree is causing people to be confused, or that people are asking for the hole because the tree keeps shooting pine needles, yeah I wouldn't really have too much of an issue. I'd sooner decorate something similar to the tree, maybe some sort of shrub, but if it made others feel better I'd have a crimble hole. chernobyl kinsman posted:It's much more than aesthetic, as I'm trying to make clear, and I apologize if I'm failing to do so I am not really seeing this I am afraid. chernobyl kinsman posted:I think I have been answering the question, and I think you're creating a false dichotomy, here. Obviously not just the sounds of the words matter; I'm talking about the weight of historical tradition, not just how it sounds. But clearly the language, and the history of that language, play an incredibly crucial role in elevating or lowering the sacredness of a given ritual. Rituals are marked out by space, by words, by time, and by actions. If you profanate any of those you profanate the whole ritual. Conducting the mass with Wonderbread would lower its status and reduce the sense of reverence and awe it engenders,* as would shortening the mass to fifteen minutes long, as would conducting it in a McDonalds - as, too, does conducting it in the common tongue. The sacred needs to be set apart from the ordinary in order to be the sacred; I'm arguing that any intrusion of the ordinary cheapens the entire ritual. It doesn't have nearly as much histroical weight as you'd like to believe, because from the looks of it Mass kind of changes a bit through time. You can have the ritual segregate off from "the world" to make it more sacred but it isn't the same ritual Augustine heard, it's certainly not the same one that he understood and it definately was used to make sure lay persons didn't understand their own faith. The fact that most people wouldn't have understood the words unless they were educated means that, in a given sense, you could have been saying any old rubbish whilst up on the pulpit. I also don't think forcing other nations to use your version of the mass is good, because it stamps on the ability to understand the faith in their own way and, to put it bluntly, is kind of chauvinist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
You must hate Orthodoxy with a blinding passion
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
so like "no vernacular" guy you're aware that there are rites within the catholic church that use vernacular languages and have for centuries, right? rites that survive despite the roman rite's attempt to codify latin as the only language for mass. heck eastern catholics are allowed to perform mass in their own languages and have been for centuries as well. so like, it hasn't always been "no items, latin only, final destination" and i've never understood why, even in traditionalist ideology, africans and asians and latin americans and indigenous peoples around the world SHOULDN'T be allowed to create their own rites using their own language and their own culture and customs
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Churches had pigs among the pews, chatting, gossip and couples making out midway through, your idea of it all being a great big sacred quiet space is apparently pulled from the same space that made G.K. Chesterton nostalgic for the medieval period. ALSO there would have been hella corpses since they buried the dead under the floors of the church/in the ground around the church. Only the extremely rich/important had markers, and even then those were more "near" the corpse rather than in its exact location. Except for sarcophagi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:As an Indo-European philologist, they're pretty different. Lots of shifts in vocabulary, usage, and sentence structure, including a pretty marked shift toward fixing word order. anyway here is another argument in favor of latin, in addition to the aesthetics argument which is what speaks to me: in the early modern period catholics from Bavaria were part of a network of literature that extended from Spain to Italy. Being able to easily read writings produced by people across the world is valuable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i've never understood why, even in traditionalist ideology, africans and asians and latin americans and indigenous peoples around the world SHOULDN'T be allowed to create their own rites using their own language and their own culture and customs. You are creating a strawman and then getting extremely mad at it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF4UDYwXt10 This is also pretty rich considering that what actually happened when the Latin Mass was forcibly abolished was not the flowering of vernacular forms but the centralized enforcement of new music and songs which had even less to do with the people who were supposed to practice them. The kind of lowest-common-denominator guitars-and-sap that Catholics were supposed to sing in the 70s and 80s had nothing to do with any culture, and were just as much an imposition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I am not really seeing this I am afraid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:i understand a lot of the criticisms of the latin mass but idk why people want to forbid it entirely
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:If this is what the people who attend Latin Mass prefer, you're not liberating them if you come in and force them to attend Mass in the vernacular in the name of their own native traditions. Which is why I said they should be able to go to the Latin mass if they prefer it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:They have. They always have. The existence of Latin as the language of the Mass did not prevent, for instance, the Baroque componists of the Early Modern New World from making music. Or the Last Supper in South America being Jesus and his disciples eating guinea pig. you are aware i'm also the person who goes "vatican ii didn't go far enough" right? like i think poo poo like this should be commonplace sorry that the majority of theologians from asia, africa, latin america, black america, indigenous peoples worldwide agree with me re; post-second vatican council liturgy and its ability to be used for inculturation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:If this is what the people who attend Latin Mass prefer, you're not liberating them if you come in and force them to attend Mass in the vernacular in the name of their own native traditions. at no point have i said the latin mass should be abolished, and in fact i think the decision to remove the permission previously required to celebrate it is a positive change what i oppose is the idea that the latin mass should be the only mass, and that mass in the vernacular is somehow an aberration at the end of the day the eucharist is the center of the mass, and at some point it feels like aesthetic takes the front wheel for some people
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
To chip in: When Josef bugman bluntly asks what is more important, the sound or the words, than I would have to take the sorta weaselly answer and say "It's both". Concerning Latin, this is for example for such simple yet annoying things like sung prayers that used to be a union of the Latin text and its melody - stuff like the voice rising when the text hits the "resurrexit" and so on. Much of this got lost due to rushed and inconsiderate translations, at least here in Germany. This should be a simple fix, admittedly, though I cannot imagine the episcopal conferences to invest time and money for proper translations into the vernacular that try to keep intact all the old musical connections, allusions to biblical texts etc. The other point is that Mass being unintelligible actually can add to the experience, making it appear more mystical, reverent, mysterious, placing it outside of everyday life and turning it into a "sacred space" all in itself. Latin isn't alone in this; so-called "sacred languages" (which are mostly the "fossilised" versions of whatever language was used when the respective liturgy got developed first) can be found everywhere and amongst a multitude of vastly different religions and rites. It's Latin for the Western Church, Church Slavonic for many Orthodox Churches, Ge'ez in Ethiopia and Coptic for the Copts, High German for the Amish, Occaneechi for priests and shamans throughout native tribes in what is now Virginia, Pali for Theravada Buddhists, Biblical Hebrew amongst Jews until Zionism made it a living language again and other stuff that's cool as gently caress like Jamaican Maroon spirit-possession language or Kallawaya, the secret language of a small group of itininerat healers in Bolivia. Sacred languages are a common occurence all over the world and also throughout time as the usage of Sumerian in Mesopotamia long after it had died out or of Etruscan by the Romans can show. So obviously, there seems to be something in using a "special" and "sacred" language for occasions that are deemed to be, well, special and sacred. Obviously you can also explain it with priests trying to develop and maintain a monopoly on knowledge and interpretation of the holy texts or simply with plain stubbornness (and you wouldn't be wrong), but nevertheless there seems to be something about using a sacred language that appeals to people. Concerning Latin in the western world, it appears that the future of the Tridentine Mass is shining even brighter than that of the reformed vernacular Mass - within the next 20 years the number of priests in France who are mostly or even exclusively offering Mass in the 1962 rite is bound to surpass that of post-VII priests. Similar stories abound throughout Europe and North America, and even in Asia and the Global South there is a growing number of native, i.e. non-western priests who made the conscious decision to return to the old Latin rite, and often it's their congregations that are growing the strongest. But then again, you would be amiss to assign that sucess to the usage of Latin alone. Obviously the Second Vatican Council got rid of much more than just the Latin language (imagine this sentence with an asterisk, as the Council didn't really do that, of course - clergy and laity alike just decided to overlook that and abandon Latin overnight); it reformed and reinterpreted almost everything that even slightly concerned the liturgy, and removed a ton of ancient stuff that reformers of the 1960s declared to be "useless ballast" unfit for modern times. And so not only Latin, but also the maniple, the Gospel of John, the prayers at the foot of the altar and much more went the way of the dodo. This marked a spectacular shift away from previous practice which mostly consisted of letting liturgy evolve more or less organically - now the episcopacy took out the shears and radically refashioned most everything as they saw fit. Therefore the language question in the Catholic world is sadly and inextricably linked with the much larger field of "was it right to do that?". Personally, I have no answer to this. The Latin language is deeply linked to almost two thousand years of ecclesiastical and liturgical history, and for a long time it served as an admirable conduit linking Catholics in worship and prayer throughout space and time. In the 20th century attitudes have changes, and by strengthening the vernacular the Council Fathers wanted to adress that, which is only fair, I think - nevertheless I lament not only the sudden disappearance of almost every single shred of Latin (which I see as a confirmation that Catholicism and Tradition are one and the same, and also as a confirmation of the unity of Mass worldwide) but the loss of so many more traditions and theological interpretations that went away with that, too. Personally I don't want to go back to when my grandparents were young, where hardly anybody had any clue as to what was happening at the altar and just prayed the rosary for the duration of the entire Mass, but I also want to be able to experience the same thing my grandmother experienced when she visited Rome in the 1950s and, in her own words, was "so glad that I was Catholic when I attended Mass there and it was almost exactly the same as at home". In my opinion the reforms of the 1960s did many wonderful and sorely needed things, such as opening the Church to interdenominational dialogue or trying to do away with its innate eurocentrism; in that process, however, they cut off the connection to centuries of tradition (and Tradition with a capital T) and wreaked havoc amongst the specific worship cultures of the western world - a loss that is more and more felt now that the the VII-generation that so desperately wanted (and honestly needed!) reform slowly goes away. There is a middle ground, I think, that lies somewhere between the sacrality of language, the preservation of old traditions, the global unity of Catholic worship, the intelligibility of Mass and the incorporation of local customs and traditions. I wish I knew where it is, though. ***WALL OF TEXT ENDS HERE*** In other news, I finally got off my lazy arse today and joined my local confraternity. Got a nice certificate stating that I was "forever added to its ranks", with forever meaning exactly that - not even death will end my membership, it'll just turn it from an active into a passive one. Confraternity bro 4 lyfe (and death!)  e2: re-reading my ramblings, I cannot believe how I mangled that poor "itinerant" up there. I'm letting it remain for posterity 
System Metternich fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
If it's the latin mass, but in English, isn't it just a translated Latin mass? The importance is in the meaning of the words, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:If it's the latin mass, but in English, isn't it just a translated Latin mass? The importance is in the meaning of the words, right? Well yeah, but as I said above there's still the danger of many subtleties getting lost in translation, as well as the fact that not a few people feel that the liturgical language being that removed from everyday speech adds to the 'sacrality' of the whole ordeal. It's not just the words, but the whole package that matters to them, so to speak. Also it keeps the liturgy from having to continuously be adapted to current lingo and adds a certain element of "timelessness" to it. Again, ymmv and personally I don't feel it to be necessary at all that Mass is offered in Latin, but I can totally understand where the people believing that are coming from. Also it doesn't help that in the RCC usage of Latin is tightly wound up with how you judge the liturgical reforms enacted by the Second Vatican Council, which in turn in closely linked to political leanings. Which is a shame, because I'd like for people to be able to visit or celebrate the Mass they like and not instantly be grouped into a specific political camp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
It's me. I'm the Protestant who took latin in high school and college and actually followed the Latin mass reasonably well the one time I visited a Catholic church that used latin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:this is true but no pews, pews are early modern Oh crap, I forgot that! Thanks HEY GAIL. HEY GAIL posted:Would you be responsive to the argument that the aesthetic is also a moral area? that bad art is literally evil? It's an interesting question. Personally I would say "no", partially because it is a creative thing and partially because definition of "good and bad art" are the most subjective thing in existence. Smoking Crow posted:You must hate Orthodoxy with a blinding passion I try not to hate any faith in totality. But I don't interact with Orthodoxy or know enough about it, other than HEY GAIL's talks, to be able to comment. Also thank you for the run down System Metternich, I am simply trying to put my own thoughts down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Which is why I said they should be able to go to the Latin mass if they prefer it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Oh crap, I forgot that! Thanks HEY GAIL.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Well yeah, but as I said above there's still the danger of many subtleties getting lost in translation
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Personally I'd be very happy with an elevated register of the vernacular, which I think is one of the great contributions of the Anglican tradition: "Prayer Book English" is sacralized and set apart, but still understandable to an ordinary person. The desire for sacral language crosses religious lines, like Metternich said: I was at a funeral yesterday at a black Baptist church in northwest Detroit, and the pastor's fluidity in shifting registers between the sacral English of the KJV and the still-sacred but closer-to-vernacular language of traditional black American preaching was really marvelous to witness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I was at a funeral yesterday at a black Baptist church in northwest Detroit, and the pastor's fluidity in shifting registers between the sacral English of the KJV and the still-sacred but closer-to-vernacular language of traditional black American preaching was really marvelous to witness. Your next mission is to visit a black Church of Christ and hear four-part congregational singing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:I really don't have a horse in this race, but last Sunday I was at a parish I'd never been to before and they had kneelers set up like altar rails and I loved receiving communion that way. Our Catholic Parish started doing this last year and I only receive the Eucharist kneeling now on the tongue. It feels much more reverent and I am glad the Parish Priests (One of whom I am pretty close with, we work out together a couple times a week) brought these things back. I'd like to see them perhaps beautify the Altar more next.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
hey guys! me and 13 orphans are trying to start a religion podcast where we answer questions about religion from people, as well as from the catholic answers forum (yes this is basically a religion based my brother my brother and me and while i am a little ashamed of this i am not ashamed enough). if any of you were wanting to help us achieve this, can you send us a question at smellsandbellspodcast@gmail.com? it would be very appreciated
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Only if I can be a guest commentator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
only if my brother is willing to learn how to make that audio editing wizardry work we are not tech savvy people. it's just current software makes creating things like podcasts and let's plays incredibly easy and cheap
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Only if I can be a guest commentator. only if it's like the f plus but for religion and if i can sperg out about the 30yw on it
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Only if I can be a guest commentator. HEY GAIL posted:only if it's like the f plus but for religion and if i can sperg out about the 30yw on it No joke I would love to have you guys and any other of the posters here share their knowledge, wisdom, humor. We'll make it work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:No joke I would love to have you guys and any other of the posters here share their knowledge, wisdom, humor. We'll make it work. I've already been quoted in Vox twice so i'm sure the trads want me dead already. count me in if you need gay catholic poo poo, and I'll happily listen in
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:No joke I would love to have you guys and any other of the posters here share their knowledge, wisdom, humor. We'll make it work. I cannot contribute anything whatsoever but I'd listen the poo poo out of this
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
I send you guys a torrent of dumb questions about buddhism. :doingmypart:
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I've already been quoted in Vox twice so i'm sure the trads want me dead already. count me in if you need gay catholic poo poo, and I'll happily listen in ahem 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:gay catholic poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
Good luck and keep us updated on the podcast! I'll definitely listen in. I'd be willing to guest and field some questions but really the only things I'm particularly knowledgeable or confident discussing are the relationship between science and religion and maybe Lakota-Christian syncretic faith. Might be a neat case study in colonialism which seems one of Senju Kannon's favorite topics, but I'd want to do some reading and research first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 17:30
|
|