HEY GUNS posted:

god, imagine someone from Constantinople going up to Germany and trying to talk theology with these dudes

System Metternich posted:

https://twitter.com/dril/status/414136853302759424

RareAcumen posted:

quote:

Not that anyone should have been surprised. If the communism of the apostolic church is a secret, it is a startlingly open one. Vaguer terms like “communalist” or “communitarian” might make the facts sound more palatable but cannot change them. The New Testament’s Book of Acts tells us that in Jerusalem the first converts to the proclamation of the risen Christ affirmed their new faith by living in a single dwelling, selling their fixed holdings, redistributing their wealth “as each needed” and owning all possessions communally. This was, after all, a pattern Jesus himself had established: “Each of you who does not give up all he possesses is incapable of being my disciple” (Luke 14:33).

This was always something of a scandal for the Christians of later ages, at least those who bothered to notice it. And today in America, with its bizarre piety of free enterprise and private wealth, it is almost unimaginable that anyone would adopt so seditious an attitude. Down the centuries, Christian culture has largely ignored the more provocative features of the early church or siphoned off their lingering residues in small special communities (such as monasteries and convents). Even when those features have been acknowledged, they have typically been treated as somehow incidental to the Gospel’s message — a prudent marshaling of resources against a hostile world for a brief season, but nothing essential to the faith, and certainly nothing amounting to a political philosophy.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer posted:

When he was challenged by Jesus to accept a life of voluntary poverty, the rich young man knew he was faced with the simple alternative of obedience or disobedience. When Levi was called from the receipt of custom and Peter from his nets, there was no doubt that Jesus meant business. Both of them were to leave everything and follow. Again, when Peter was called to walk on the rolling sea, he had to get up and risk his life. Only one thing was required in each case - to rely on Christ’s word, and cling to it as offering greater security than all the securities in the world. The forces which tried to interpose themselves between the word of Jesus and the response of obedience were as formidable then as they are to-day. Reason and conscience, responsibility and piety all stood in the way, and even the law and ‘scriptural authority’ itself were obstacles which pretended to defend them from going to the extremes of antinomianism and ‘enthusiasms’. But the call of Jesus made short work of all these barriers, and created obedience. That call was the Word of God himself, and all that it required was single-minded obedience.

If, as we read our Bibles, we heard Jesus speaking to us in this way to-day we should probably try to argue ourselves out of it like this: ‘It is true that the demand of Jesus is definite enough, but I have to remember that he never expects us to take his commands legalistically. What he really wants me to have is faith. But my faith is not necessarily tied up with riches or poverty or anything of the kind. We may be both poor and rich in the spirit. It is not important that I should have no possessions, but if I do I must keep them as though I had them not, in other words I must cultivate a spirit of inward detachment, so that my heart is not in my possessions.’ Jesus may have said: ‘Sell thy goods’, but he meant: ‘Do not let it be a matter of consequence to you that you have outward prosperity; rather keep your goods quietly, having them as if you had them not. Let not your heart be in your goods.’ – We are excusing ourselves from single-minded obedience to the word of Jesus on the pretext of legalism and a supposed preference for an obedience ‘in faith’. The difference between ourselves and the rich young man is that he was not allowed to solace his regrets by saying: ‘Never mind what Jesus says, I can still hold on to my riches, but in a spirit of inner detachment. Despite my inadequacy I can take comfort in the thought that God has forgiven me my sins and can have fellowship with Christ in faith.’ But no, he went away sorrowful. Because he would not obey, he could not believe. In this the young man was quite honest. He went away from Jesus and indeed this honesty had more promise than any apparent communion with Jesus based on disobedience. As Jesus realized, the trouble with the young man was that he was not capable of such an inward detachment from riches. As an earnest seeker for perfection he had probably tried it a thousand times before and failed, as he showed by refusing to obey the word of Jesus when the moment of decision came. It is just here that the young man was entirely honest. But we in our sophistry differ altogether from the hearers of Jesus’ word of whom the Bible speaks. If Jesus said to someone: ‘Leave all else behind and follow me; resign your profession, quit your family, your people, and the home of your fathers,’ then he knew that to this call there was only one answer – the answer of single-minded obedience, and that it is only to this obedience that the promise of fellowship with Jesus is given. But we should probably argue thus: ‘Of course we are meant to take the call of Jesus with ‘‘absolute seriousness’’, but after all the true way of obedience would be to continue all the more in our present occupations, to stay with our families, and serve him there in a spirit of true inward detachment.’ If Jesus challenged us with the command: ‘Get out of it’, we should take him to mean: ‘Stay where you are, but cultivate that inward detachment.’ Again, if he were to say to us: ‘Be not anxious’, we should take him to mean: ‘Of course it is not wrong for us to be anxious: we must work and provide for ourselves and our dependants. If we did not we should be shirking our responsibilities. But all the time we ought to be inwardly free from all anxiety.’ Perhaps Jesus would say to us: ‘Whosoever smiteth thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ We should then suppose him to mean: ‘The way really to love your enemy is to fight him hard and hit him back.’ Jesus might say: ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God’, and we should interpret it thus: ‘Of course we should have to seek all sorts of other things first; how could we otherwise exist? What he really means is the final preparedness to stake all on the kingdom of God.’ All along the line we are trying to evade the obligation of single-minded, literal obedience.

How is such absurdity possible? What has happened that the word of Jesus can be thus degraded by this trifling, and thus left open to the mockery of the world? When orders are issued in other spheres of life there is no doubt whatever of their meaning. If a father sends his child to bed, the boy knows at once what he has to do. But suppose he has picked up a smattering of pseudo-theology. In that case he would argue more or less like this: ‘Father tells me to go to bed, but he really means that I am tired, and he does not want me to be tired. I can overcome my tiredness just as well if I go out and play. Therefore though father tells me to go to bed, he really means: ‘‘Go out and play.’’’ If a child tried such arguments on his father or a citizen on his government, they would both meet with a kind of language they could not fail to understand – in short they would be punished. Are we to treat the commandment of Jesus differently from other orders and exchange single-minded obedience for downright disobedience? How could that be possible!

It is possible because there is an element of truth underlying all this sophistry. When Jesus calls the young man to enter into the situation where faith is possible, he does it only with the aim of making the man have faith in him, that is to say, he calls him into fellowship with himself. In the last resort what matters is not what the man does, but only his faith in Jesus as the Son of God and Mediator. At all events poverty or riches, marriage or celibacy, a profession or the lack of it, have in the last resort nothing to do with it – everything depends on faith alone. So far then we are quite right; it is possible to have wealth and the possession of this world’s goods and to believe in Christ – so that a man may have these goods as one who has them not. But this is an ultimate possibility of the Christian life, only within our capacity in so far as we await with earnest expectation the immediate return of Christ. It is by no means the first and the simplest possibility. The paradoxical understanding of the commandments has its Christian justification, but it must never lead to the abandoning of the single-minded understanding of the commandments. This is only possible and right for somebody who has already at some point or other in his life put into action his single-minded understanding, somebody who thus lives with Christ as his disciple and in anticipation of the end. This is the infinitely more difficult, and humanly speaking ‘impossible possibility’, to interpret the call of Jesus in this paradoxical way. And it is just this paradoxical element which exposes his call to the constant danger of being transformed into its very opposite, and used as an excuse for shirking the necessity of concrete obedience. Anybody who does not feel that he would be much happier were he only permitted to understand and obey the commandments of Jesus in a straightforward literal way, and e.g. surrender all his possessions at his bidding rather than cling to them, has no right to this paradoxical interpretation of Jesus’ words. We have to hold the two together in mind all the time.

The actual call of Jesus and the response of single-minded obedience have an irrevocable significance. By means of them Jesus calls people into an actual situation where faith is possible. For that reason his call is an actual call and he wishes it so to be understood, because he knows that it is only through actual obedience that a man can become liberated to believe.

The elimination of single-minded obedience on principle is but another instance of the perversion of the costly grace of the call of Jesus into the cheap grace of self-justification. By this means a false law is set up which deafens men to the concrete call of Christ. This false law is the law of the world, of which the law of grace is at once the complement and the antithesis. The ‘world’ here is not the world overcome in Christ, and daily to be overcome anew in fellowship with him, but the world hardened into a rigid, impenetrable legalistic principle. When that happens grace has ceased to be the gift of the living God, in which we are rescued from the world and put under the obedience of Christ; it is rather a general law, a divine principle, which only needs to be applied to particular cases. Struggling against the legalism of simple obedience, we end by setting up the most dangerous law of all, the law of the world and the law of grace. In our effort to combat legalism we land ourselves in the worst kind of legalism. The only way of overcoming this legalism is by real obedience to Christ when he calls us to follow him; for in Jesus the law is at once fulfilled and cancelled.

By eliminating simple obedience on principle, we drift into an unevangelical interpretation of the Bible. We take it for granted as we open the Bible that we have a key to its interpretation. But then the key we use would not be the living Christ, who is both Judge and Saviour, and our use of this key no longer depends on the will of the living Holy Spirit alone. The key we use is a general doctrine of grace which we can apply as we will. The problem of discipleship then becomes a problem of exegesis as well. If our exegesis is truly evangelical, we shall realize that we cannot identify ourselves altogether with those whom Jesus called, for they themselves are part and parcel of the Word of God in the Scriptures, and therefore part of the message. We hear in the sermon not only the answer which Jesus gave to the young man’s question, which would also be our question, but both question and answer are, as the Word of the Scriptures, contents of the message. It would be a false exegesis if we tried to behave in our discipleship as though we were the immediate contemporaries of the men whom Jesus called. But the Christ whom the Scriptures proclaim is in every word he utters one who grants faith to those only who obey him. It is neither possible nor right for us to try to get behind the Word of the Scriptures to the events as they actually occurred. Rather the whole Word of the Scriptures summons us to follow Jesus. We must not do violence to the Scriptures by interpreting them in terms of an abstract principle, even if that principle be a doctrine of grace. Otherwise we shall end up in legalism.

We must therefore maintain that the paradoxical interpretation of the commandments of Jesus always includes the literal interpretation, for the very reason that our aim is not to set up a law, but to proclaim Christ. There remains just a word to be said about the suspicion that this simple obedience involves a doctrine of human merit, of a facere quod in se est, of insistence on preliminary conditions before faith becomes possible. Obedience to the call of Jesus never lies within our own power. If for instance we give away all our possessions, that act is not in itself the obedience he demands. In fact such a step might be the precise opposite of obedience to Jesus, for we might then be choosing a way of life for ourselves, some Christian ideal, or some ideal of Franciscan poverty. Indeed in the very act of giving away his goods a man can give allegiance to himself and to an ideal and not to the command of Jesus. He is not set free from his own self but still more enslaved to himself. The step into the situation where faith is possible is not an offer which we can make to Jesus, but always his gracious offer to us. Only when the step is taken in this spirit is it admissible. But in that case we cannot speak of a freedom of choice on our part.

And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. (Matt. 19.23-26)

The shocked question of the disciples ‘Who then can be saved?’ seems to indicate that they regarded the case of the rich young man not as in any way exceptional, but as typical. For they do not ask: ‘Which rich man?’ but quite generally, ‘Who then can be saved?’ For every man, even the disciples themselves, belongs to those rich ones for whom it is so difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven. The answer Jesus gives showed the disciples that they had understood him well. Salvation through following Jesus is not something we men can achieve for ourselves - but with God all things are possible.

Kanine posted:

opinions on this sort of take? im assuming there's been a fair amount of academic writing on how leftist concepts have sprung up throughout history?

Senju Kannon posted:

i just got out of temple and am on my way to lunch with my mother so pretend i posted about liberation theology

shame on an IGA posted:

Kanine posted:

opinions on this sort of take? im assuming there's been a fair amount of academic writing on how leftist concepts have sprung up throughout history?

Paladinus posted:

I am outraged!

The Phlegmatist posted:

Communism, actual Communism, seeks a radical change in society and not just simply allowing a bunch of hippies to live in a commune somewhere.

HEY GUNS posted:

Christianity can't be reduced to a mere worldly agenda. Christ explicitly says he did not come to set up a form of government or an economic system: "my kingdom is not of this world. If it were of this world, then my followers would fight." If he had, the closest success would probably have been the Byzantine empire, not Communism. (The Catholic Integralists tried something like this in the middle of the 20th century and the results were culty and depressing.)

HEY GUNS posted:

I pick up on your outrage but misread your argument!

System Metternich posted:

I'm currently in Hamburg being busy getting wasted with a couple friends, I'll try if I can manage an effort post on Sunday or sometime next week. It's definitely a super interesting topic!

Peter Hersche (my translation) posted:

In [post-WW2] Germany, the question [of how the counter-reformation took place] was more urgent than in other countries due to political and cultural reasons - especially clerical authors felt the need to prove that Catholicism hadn't just reacted aggressively to Protestantim by trying to fight back with fire and sword, but also underwent a thorough inner reformation. The [insanely detailed research on the Council of Trent done by German historian Hubert Jedin in the 50s and 60s] inspired a large amount of further studies, most of them local, the type of which still continues to be published. All of them follow more or less the same pattern: Mostly in the years around 1600 (with some belated examples like the Bishop of Münster, Christoph Bernhard von Galen), in each of the German dioceses a tridentine, busy and pious bishop appears, full of zeal and enthusiasm for a Catholic Reformation which is sorely needed in a German Church left in a pitiable state by the Protestant Reformation. First, he chases all remaining Protestants away, if necessary (if he isn't a prince-bishop himself) with the help of Catholic rulers with whom he closely cooperates on all levels anyway. In the same way, all traces of Protestant influence are removed from Catholic rites and theology, such as the communion of both bread and wine. Following the standards and rules set by the Council of Trent, he calls diocesan synods, personally undertakes lots of visitations in all parts of his diocese, establishes a seminary and brings Jesuits and other counter-reformation orders into his lands. He places a special focus on the deficits he finds in the lower clergy; he removes concubines, enforces clercial attire and morals, reminds his priests of their duty to live in their assigned parish, tries to improve the theological education and assigns the priests lots of new pastoral duties, e.g. regularly giving homilies and catechesis. If necessary, he starts new parishes, criticises the poor state of the existing churches (dirt, missing liturgical equipment, inappropriate images), tears down run-down old churches and replaces them with new ones and tries to clearly move the graveyard into the sacral sphere. After the clergy, the laity as well becomes the target of countless directives which aren't just aimed at enforcing religious duties (Easter confession, Sunday Mass, new marriage laws etc.), but also want to improve on public morals: secuality, drunkenness, gluttony, dance, gambling, feasts and working on Sundays are either to be reduced or fully abolished, while new counter-reformation confraternities and religious practices foster further Christianisation. The diocesan administration is optimised, control mechanisms like archdeaneries and rural deans are re-introduced or newly created and the ecclesiastical courts are revived. The epsicopal power is asserted and enlarged at the expense of other ecclesiastical institutions while the influence of laypeople within and on the Church is kept down to a minimum. With all these measures, the Counter-Reformation and the Catholic Reformation is, at least according to these authors, finished.

pidan posted:

Hey guys since this thread has a bunch of people who know about iconography and new religious movements I have an actual question this time.

One guy I know wears a weird pendant and I'd like to know what it stands for. It's a cross where all four arms are about the same length, and the part that attaches it to the necklace is designed like a goat head. The cross itself only has some geometric decoration.
If the guy was a teenager I'd assume it's a Satanist amulet, but he's a responsible adult. So maybe it's a metal fan thing, or maybe there's some obscure Christian or new religious meaning to it.

If anyone can tell me more about that kind of symbol please tell me, I don't want to ask the guy because I don't want to bring up religion at work.

pidan posted:

I'd assume it's a Satanist amulet, but he's a responsible adult. So maybe it's a metal fan thing, or maybe there's some obscure Christian or new religious meaning to it.

Worthleast posted:

Stolen from the PYF Funny Pictures thread.

HEY GUNS posted:

I pick up on your outrage but misread your argument!

HEY GUNS posted:

that made the rounds in the milhist thread and tias said it was basically "hegel.jpg" and i didn't contradict him

pidan posted:

It's similar to this design, but with a cross instead of a hammer, which I haven't been able to find online:



The goat bit is longer if you count the goat, but it's subtle. I googled the Amon Amarth connection but I haven't found that design and it seems sort of unlike them to bring out cross related merch. Lots of hammers though.

pidan posted:

The goat bit is longer if you count the goat, but it's subtle.

Kazak_Hstan posted:

(offhand reference to Newt Gingrich as anything other than a charlatan)

The Phlegmatist posted:

it's okay his wife is the US ambassador to the Vatican now

because they have both lived very moral, very Catholic lives, you see, a perfect choice