|
its not even like a "she incorporates x and y elements of this particular deity's cult" kind of thing, she's straight up an irish fire goddess
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
the vatican won't let us venerate st. guinefort (aka st. good puppers) and that's the most wrong they've been since vatican II
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:the vatican won't let us venerate st. guinefort (aka st. good puppers) and that's the most wrong they've been since vatican II
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Christianity Thread II: Y'all need St. Good Puppers
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Looks like we lost another one to the dog
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheDweck/status/917632509906534400/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
I stand before the flag I kneel before the cross
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Lots of stress fractures appearing in the American Civic Religion lately...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
So how is the fetishistic veneration of the flag not just idolatry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
It is
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:So how is the fetishistic veneration of the flag not just idolatry? Since American popular Christianity became an imperial cult dedicated to the American Soldier. The deaths of soldiers creates FREEDOM which isn't freedom to do anything in particular like protest but rather a pure essence that shines into our heart via the radiant icon of the flag. The only tweak I can suggest is it would be more effective to sacrifice the soldiers atop a ziggurat wheeled out to the fifty yard line during the anthem rather than waste billions shipping them to die in far off deserts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Well, the persecution and killing of perfidious heathen Others is a core part of the rites, you can't just leave that out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
As an American I don't see what's inherently wrong with standing for the anthem, but I'm also 100% for not doing it as a protest for the people America left behind
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
I think to compare the current American Imperial Cult with the Roman one is a vile calumny. The roman imperial cult didn't actually require human sacrifice on an unending scale to justify it's horrendous treatment of people, it just did it.
Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I think to compare the current American Imperial Cult with the Roman one is a vile calumny. The roman imperial cult did actually require human sacrifice on an unending scale to justify it's horrendous treatment of people, it just did it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:actually the romans found human sacrifice morally abhorrent and furthermore Meant to say didn't there, whoops!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Which is more cruel though - Feeding people to animals for your Sunday afternoon entertainment, or a game that causes slow and insidious brain injuries that will haunt its players for years to come and offering them no aid? That's actually not a rhetorical question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Which is more cruel though - Feeding people to animals for your Sunday afternoon entertainment, or a game that causes slow and insidious brain injuries that will haunt its players for years to come and offering them no aid? The latter is worse, because it's not as entertaining to watch. Also feeding animals is arguably good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Which is more cruel though - Feeding people to animals for your Sunday afternoon entertainment, or a game that causes slow and insidious brain injuries that will haunt its players for years to come and offering them no aid? tbh the glory days of heavyweight boxing were like both at once
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Which is more cruel though - Feeding people to animals for your Sunday afternoon entertainment, or a game that causes slow and insidious brain injuries that will haunt its players for years to come and offering them no aid? The Roman Games were more hosed up than you probably know. A lion trainer was ordered to feed a bunch of jews to the lions, but if he fed his man-eating lions jews on day 1 of the games, they wouldn't be up to eating some other slaves on the day 3 finale. So he went to them, and struck a deal--he'd buy and free their relatives from slavery if they acted a specific way that would encourage the non man-eating lions to eat them. Also sometimes female criminals would be sentenced to be (spoiler for awfulness) raped by donkeys. Not ACTUALLY, they would just train a donkey to sit on a bed a certain way, and then one day there'd be this woman tied there, donkey doesn't care and no one in the audience is close enough to see the difference. ALSO they threw pots of scorpions into the crowd, but that seems pretty funny to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Also sometimes female criminals would be sentenced to be (spoiler for awfulness) raped by donkeys. Not ACTUALLY, they would just train a donkey to sit on a bed a certain way, and then one day there'd be this woman tied there, donkey doesn't care and no one in the audience is close enough to see the difference. If you've never read the donkey show bit from Apuleius' Metamorphoses, it's a rather notable bit of awkward and grotesque comedy. And yeah, the games were awful, but - call it my cynicism - I find some relief in the fact that they were completely honest about what they were.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:So how is the fetishistic veneration of the flag not just idolatry? Me, I think the mortal threat of idolatry goes beyond an individual's unseemly relationship with a symbol. The severity of the problem is measured by how far an individual has gone acting and believing in the state as the ultimate good, especially when the state is in conflict with higher order virtues like justice. Numerical Anxiety posted:If you've never read the donkey show bit from Apuleius' Metamorphoses, it's a rather notable bit of awkward and grotesque comedy. And yeah, the games were awful, but - call it my cynicism - I find some relief in the fact that they were completely honest about what they were. All else being equal, a lot of folks prefer honesty to hypocrisy. Mystic Mongol posted:Also sometimes female criminals would be sentenced to be (spoiler for awfulness) raped by donkeys. Not ACTUALLY, they would just train a donkey to sit on a bed a certain way, and then one day there'd be this woman tied there, donkey doesn't care and no one in the audience is close enough to see the difference. Standard Def is the worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
"Is that donkey loving her?" "I dunno, I can't see. But what else would it be doing there?" "Maybe it's just standing there?" "What, donkey, just standing there, over a common criminal harlot?" "Yeah, I supposed you're right... take that donkey dick, you bread stealing slut!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
The veteran show-goer sighs and proceeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
i can't believe the romans had kayfabe donkey shows
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i can't believe the romans had kayfabe donkey shows Well, the donkey is getting a pretty sweet deal out of this, and who is going to believe a criminal who claims that she didn't gently caress a donkey for all of Rome to see?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Hey thread, I'm about to start confirmation classes, to be received into the Anglican church. As I've been confirmed Presbyterian, it's actually a bit of moot point as to whether I need to take this step, but given one reason I'm an Anglican is that I believe in the historic episcopacy, it made sense to me. Thirteen Orphans posted:The first episode in our religion podcast "Smells and Bells" including questions from Tias![/url] Good work you two. Caufman posted:All else being equal, a lot of folks prefer honesty to hypocrisy. But so-called "honesty" is normally just another type of hypocrisy. Like the man who tries to say he's "got a weakness for beautiful women," which translates as serially unfaithful and probably a rapist. Or person who will own up to loving money, when really they just hate other humans. Or when someone freely admits to having a temper, when in reality they enjoy the ability to hurt those around them and cause destruction, then write it off as a temporary loss of control. The only way to honestly admit sins is by being truly repentant. If you are proud of your actions, then by definition you don't believe they are sinful. Also, and I don't want to start an internet fight, but I think gladiatorial games were a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:But so-called "honesty" is normally just another type of hypocrisy. Like the man who tries to say he's "got a weakness for beautiful women," which translates as serially unfaithful and probably a rapist. Or person who will own up to loving money, when really they just hate other humans. Or when someone freely admits to having a temper, when in reality they enjoy the ability to hurt those around them and cause destruction, then write it off as a temporary loss of control. The only way to honestly admit sins is by being truly repentant. If you are proud of your actions, then by definition you don't believe they are sinful. This doesn't really check out. Honesty and having an admirable (or just compatible) moral stance with someone else aren't the same thing. If I say "I am a murderer" but I care nothing for the value of human life and am simply stating a legal or practical fact, I'm being honest, and my lack of concern is a moral failing but that moral failing isn't dishonesty, specifically. Equivocation like "having a weakness for beautful women" is hypocritical but it's also just not honest -- because it indicates a double consciousness, a need to hide something out of guilt or shame, to ameliorate what you're saying by using words that lessen the impact or personal responsibility in what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Or put another way, the real heart of the question is whether you find something admirable about the character and conduct of a completely unrepentant, honest, and unencumbered monster. And, weirdly enough, I think I do -- but for utilitarian reasons. A truly unrepentant monster is easy to spot and easy to prosecute, so their honesty is a social good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:But so-called "honesty" is normally just another type of hypocrisy. Like the man who tries to say he's "got a weakness for beautiful women," which translates as serially unfaithful and probably a rapist. Or person who will own up to loving money, when really they just hate other humans. Or when someone freely admits to having a temper, when in reality they enjoy the ability to hurt those around them and cause destruction, then write it off as a temporary loss of control. The only way to honestly admit sins is by being truly repentant. If you are proud of your actions, then by definition you don't believe they are sinful. Asking forgiveness in order to get something better later on/ to appease God is not hypocritical? You don't get to judge if people are truly repentant, heck even those people don't get to do that. People will prefer being told "I am a bastard and trying to hurt you" as opposed to being told "You are suffering to make your life better". I mean it still hurts but the latter is, I would argue, worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Or put another way, the real heart of the question is whether you find something admirable about the character and conduct of a completely unrepentant, honest, and unencumbered monster. And, weirdly enough, I think I do -- but for utilitarian reasons. A truly unrepentant monster is easy to spot and easy to prosecute, so their honesty is a social good. The point is that the unrepentant, honest, and unencumbered monster basically doesn't exist, or at least is vanishingly rare compared to the person who hides their greater sins by boasting of their smaller ones. Romans who went to gladiatorial games weren't self-confessed monsters, they had a whole bunch of lovely little excuses and justifications for what they were doing, just like I do when I watch boxing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The point is that the unrepentant, honest, and unencumbered monster basically doesn't exist, or at least is vanishingly rare compared to the person who hides their greater sins by boasting of their smaller ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The point is that the unrepentant, honest, and unencumbered monster basically doesn't exist, or at least is vanishingly rare compared to the person who hides their greater sins by boasting of their smaller ones. Romans who went to gladiatorial games weren't self-confessed monsters, they had a whole bunch of lovely little excuses and justifications for what they were doing, just like I do when I watch boxing. Is that the case? My sense was always that, philosophical critics aside, a decent segment of the Roman population would have seen nothing wrong with the games. If you don't think that "I like watching things die" is a reprehensible sentiment, then there's no need to disguise it. Same with the crowds who gathered to watch executions up until the last century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:you've studied the 17th century but you are obviously unfamiliar with the 17th century military Ehh, I don't know what the gently caress was happening on the continent, but the problem with ECW was emphatically not a shortage of principles. You've read the Putney Debates. Does anyone there sound like they've ever admitted about being in the wrong about anything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Ehh, I don't know what the gently caress was happening on the continent, but the problem with ECW was emphatically not a shortage of principles. You've read the Putney Debates. Does anyone there sound like they've ever admitted about being in the wrong about anything? i choose to interpret ecw in this post as extreme championship wrestling, because it could also apply there. just look up the mass transit incident. also thumbtack matches are really hosed up has nothing on japanese matches, tho. there was one extreme rules match that was all flourescent bulbs. over a hundred were broken during the match with all sorts of glass dust everywhere, the wrestlers bleeding all over the place. horrifying. anyway extreme rules wrestling is basically the gladiators of our time. heck people die in the ring sometimes too
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Is that the case? My sense was always that, philosophical critics aside, a decent segment of the Roman population would have seen nothing wrong with the games. If you don't think that "I like watching things die" is a reprehensible sentiment, then there's no need to disguise it. Same with the crowds who gathered to watch executions up until the last century. Sorry, that wasn't clear. What I meant was that people didn't think the games were wrong, because of lovely reasoning (slaves don't deserve mercy etc). I don't mean they were uneasily justifying it to themselves, I just mean they weren't thinking "I'm a bad person so I'm off to watch a lion tear apart a human". Edit: I don't know much about classical history, so I may be talking out my hole. I think as a rule people tend to admit to immorality as a sophistic device, to try and minimise it. Like when someone says something racist and then says "I suppose I shouldn't say that, lol" they're trying to give themselves a pass for saying it, not to actually admit to any wrongdoing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
no there was definitely a strong element of Romans going to the Coliseum so they could watch lessers (slaves, Jews, Christians) get fed to animals. that was basically halftime entertainment though but I don't know if that makes it better or worse.Senju Kannon posted:i choose to interpret ecw in this post as extreme championship wrestling, because it could also apply there. just look up the mass transit incident. also thumbtack matches are really hosed up an ECW character who has strong opinions about the Putney Debates is a weird angle to take but I like it there's this weird poo poo with the juggalo championship wrestling league where yeah it's brutal but they are incredibly well-respected because they actually pay their talent and make sure everyone is safe and having a good time. compare this to something like state-level MMA league undercard matches where it's just two dudes beating the poo poo out of each other for real for almost no money
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The point is that the unrepentant, honest, and unencumbered monster basically doesn't exist, or at least is vanishingly rare compared to the person who hides their greater sins by boasting of their smaller ones. Romans who went to gladiatorial games weren't self-confessed monsters, they had a whole bunch of lovely little excuses and justifications for what they were doing, just like I do when I watch boxing. quote:Just Heaven! with what inconceivable rapidity I learnt to adore that woman. At sixty, I worshipped her with the volcanic ardour of eighteen. All the gold of my rich nature was poured hopelessly at her feet. My wife—poor angel!—my wife, who adores me, got nothing but the shillings and the pennies. Such is the World, such Man, such Love. What are we (I ask) but puppets in a show- box? Oh, omnipotent Destiny, pull our strings gently! Dance us mercifully off our miserable little stage! quote:On a calm revision of all the circumstances—Is my conduct worthy of any serious blame? Most emphatically, No! Have I not carefully avoided exposing myself to the odium of committing unnecessary crime? With my vast resources in chemistry, I might have taken Lady Glyde’s life. At immense personal sacrifice I followed the dictates of my own ingenuity, my own humanity, my own caution, and took her identity instead. Judge me by what I might have done. How comparatively innocent! how indirectly virtuous I appear in what I really did! http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/118/the-w...unts-narrative/
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Sorry, that wasn't clear. What I meant was that people didn't think the games were wrong, because of lovely reasoning (slaves don't deserve mercy etc). I don't mean they were uneasily justifying it to themselves, I just mean they weren't thinking "I'm a bad person so I'm off to watch a lion tear apart a human". We might be talking past one another - I think it's less that the Romans used lousy reasoning as pertains to a shared premise, namely that killing is wrong. The ancients in general, but then particularly the Romans didn't intrinsically value human life the way that we do. We're talking about a culture where the pater familias could kill his children - even grown children - or slaves without the laws being applicable. The games were another area where this could play out - people without the protection of rank or dignity could be killed for entertainment, because their lives didn't matter. One didn't have to explain away why killing was wrong, because - aside from a few philosophers - the thought didn't really come up absent other considerations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Ehh, I don't know what the gently caress was happening on the continent, but the problem with ECW was emphatically not a shortage of principles. You've read the Putney Debates. Does anyone there sound like they've ever admitted about being in the wrong about anything? Except my friend and yours, the army's dad: Tilly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:46
|
|