|
Byzantine posted:Byzantium collapsing and the West demanding submission to their heresy in exchange for crusades. What do you call the bootlickers in the time between them licking the boot and senpope noticing them and extending his dotted like of double‐quote “Union”?
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 11:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
My father-in-law is Eastern Orthodox, my mother-in-law is Roman Catholic, so obviously my wife was christened (Slovak) Greek Catholic. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I think if you're including Mormons you also have to include Muslims and that's a can of worms no one wants. i mean, unlike Muslims Mormons do in fact claim to be christians. Whatever your feelings on the matter, on questions of theology I take the same position as the US judiciary. That is to say LOL gently caress making sense of this poo poo, none of it is my business anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
Here's one: It's missing Unitarians though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:i mean, unlike Muslims Mormons do in fact claim to be christians. So do Americans 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
goethe42 posted:My father-in-law is Eastern Orthodox, my mother-in-law is Roman Catholic so when my wife sees a monstrance, she doesn't know whether to eat it or to shove it up her rear end!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 12:41
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Here's one: It's also missing Ibadi, Calvinist and Arian, to name a few.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
Catharism as an offshoot of catholicism is certainly A View
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It's also missing Ibadi, Calvinist and Arian, to name a few. I would have added Calvinist next to Lutheran, with Presbyterian an offshoot of the former and not the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 14:00
|
|
|
What's the Nestorian to Islam thing based on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
Grevling posted:What's the Nestorian to Islam thing based on? Geography?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
Grevling posted:What's the Nestorian to Islam thing based on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The first convert to Islam (Warqah) canonically being a Nestorian priest who said that Mohammed's revelation was legit. Cool. His Wikipedia page includes the heading "Post-mortal career".
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Cool. His Wikipedia page includes the heading "Post-mortal career". I knew my resume needed some spicing up
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
I love maps like this (from 1870) Translation from reddit
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Mormonism is basically just Proto-Scientology in that it's very transparently a scam by a conman. Scientology makes its living off of the religious tolerance of the US government that they use to get tax exemption for their endlessly expensive self-help seminar scam and their abuse of their own members against labor laws. Mormonism, even if you think it was just another cult taking advantage of its members, had to go through it's own persecution that chased it halfway across the country until they settled in a barren wasteland. At the very least, you can say that there was something more than profit motive there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Catholics in Greece are mostly in a few islands, like Syros and Tinos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I think if you're including Mormons you also have to include Muslims and that's a can of worms no one wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Agreed. The moment you expand on the canon, you're starting something new. Thus standard would mean that Mahayana Buddhism is a completely separate religion from Theravada Buddhism
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Thus standard would mean that Mahayana Buddhism is a completely separate religion from Theravada Buddhism Which wouldn’t be true. Vajrayana, however
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
I never thought about it but it would make perfect sense for Buddhism to also have that thing where each denomination considers all other denominations to be Not True Buddhism
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I love maps like this What's up with Sweden, did half the country drop into the ocean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Thus standard would mean that Mahayana Buddhism is a completely separate religion from Theravada Buddhism
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Mormonism, even if you think it was just another cult taking advantage of its members, had to go through it's own persecution that chased it halfway across the country until they settled in a barren wasteland. At the very least, you can say that there was something more than profit motive there. Being far too proud to admit to having been scammed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I never thought about it but it would make perfect sense for Buddhism to also have that thing where each denomination considers all other denominations to be Not True Buddhism Actually no denomination is true buddhism because true buddhism is completely beyond words or human language. The denominations are merely imperfect methods to achieve true buddhism. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Here's one: Really loving the placement of Nation of Islam on this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Only in the same sense that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are completely separate religions. Anyway, what is the scriptural difference between the two? Like, are the sutras that are the basis of Mahayana Buddhism completely fresh material, or more like a philosophical interpretation of earlier texts raised up as religious texts of their own? Sort of like an expanded version of Protestantism vis-a-vis Catholicism, making the reinterpretation a religious text in its own right? I guess perhaps Buddhism also has a different base concept of God/prophets/divine authenticity compared to the Abrahamic religions, that might blur the lines? Mahayana has a very different approach to cosmology and "salvation", if we can call it that, than Theravada. The key Mahayana sutras are, as far as I can tell, considered absolute nonsense in Theradava
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 09:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
This seems realistic. I particularly like the choice to bridge the channel somewhere far from the narrowest point. I also can't imagine it works have any negative impact on commercial shipping to northern Europe. On the other hand, Dokkerland is cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
Nobody show Boris Johnson. *not to scale
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
BonHair posted:This seems realistic. I particularly like the choice to bridge the channel somewhere far from the narrowest point. The idea is to protect coastlines from rising seas. Bridging at Calais would leave the channel coasts and Channel Islands vulnerable. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Feb 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
The authors also meant it more as a warning: "this is the kind of crazy poo poo we'll have to do if we don't act against global warming right now".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Kassad posted:The authors also meant it more as a warning: "this is the kind of crazy poo poo we'll have to do if we don't act against global warming right now". There is not enough concrete in the world to build a dam that large.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Want some more water for the Great Lakes? Close off James Bay with a hundred-mile dam and make it into a giant freshwater lake, then have a series of nuclear-powered pumping stations send the water uphill for five hundred miles, keeping a nice moderate pace of two or three Niagara Fallses. Easy peasy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Religious schism chat: Look up the Moscow–Constantinople split, it's a loving mess. If someone can explain the history of the Orthodox churches in Ukraine over the past few years, that would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Agreed. The moment you expand on the canon, you're starting something new. you're making the mistake of believing religion is something you can define logically or create objective taxonomies for. As the central premises of all religions make no sense this is an utterly fruitless endeavor, just like trying to understand the significance of eastern christian schisms. Instead religions need to analyzed as identity groups. In terms of social effect they are comparable to races, nations, and ethnicity, which are also defined inconsistently and arbitrarily. Christian sects are not like species, and we can't create neat phylogenies based off an objective evaluation of homologous features. Instead a religion is an identity group, and for this reason they can only meaningfully be defined by in and out group identification. Mormons might violate basic tenants of Christianity, but those tenants are completely arbitrary and make no sense anyway. More importantly, they consider themselves christian, and in that way the ARE Christians, unlike Muslims. While many mainstream christian theologians disagree, theology makes no sense anyway so who cares. More importantly, surveys indicate that in the US at least, most other people consider Mormons to be Christians as well, and in my experience they are generally treated as such. Even if they are recognized to be somewhat distinct, it's not treated significantly different from Catholicism or whatever.  This poll was from 2007, when most Evangelicals fell behind the Mormon Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate for President.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Mahayana has a very different approach to cosmology and "salvation", if we can call it that, than Theravada. The key Mahayana sutras are, as far as I can tell, considered absolute nonsense in Theradava Squalid posted:you're making the mistake of believing religion is something you can define logically or create objective taxonomies for. As the central premises of all religions make no sense this is an utterly fruitless endeavor, just like trying to understand the significance of eastern christian schisms. Instead religions need to analyzed as identity groups. In terms of social effect they are comparable to races, nations, and ethnicity, which are also defined inconsistently and arbitrarily. Christian sects are not like species, and we can't create neat phylogenies based off an objective evaluation of homologous features. Squalid posted:Instead a religion is an identity group, and for this reason they can only meaningfully be defined by in and out group identification. Mormons might violate basic tenants of Christianity, but those tenants are completely arbitrary and make no sense anyway. More importantly, they consider themselves christian, and in that way the ARE Christians, unlike Muslims. While many mainstream christian theologians disagree, theology makes no sense anyway so who cares. More importantly, surveys indicate that in the US at least, most other people consider Mormons to be Christians as well, and in my experience they are generally treated as such. Even if they are recognized to be somewhat distinct, it's not treated significantly different from Catholicism or whatever. The fact that only a little over half (of interviewed Americans) identified Mormons as Christians at the height of "Nah, Mormons are totally mainstream Christians you guys" election propaganda, might indicate that they're not usually considered as such. And that's accepting the framing that American Christians are representative of Christians in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 06:58
|
|
|
There's some disagreements that are purely on a social level, but then there's some actual very important philosophical implications of the summarized disagreements that only make themselves apparent after a few steps of extrapolation.TinTower posted:Religious schism chat: Look up the Moscow–Constantinople split, it's a loving mess. In very basic terms, Russia has a long history of styling itself as "the third Rome" ever since the fall of Constantinyye to the Ottomans in the 15th century. Aside from being a fairly generic prestigious title in a world full of self-proclaimed inheritors of Rome, the implication was that since Russia (or as it was then known, the Grand Duchy of Moscow) was the biggest Christian Orthodox state left, so therefore the Patriarch of Moscow should have some kind of supremacy over the rest of Orthodoxy in the way that the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople traditionally did. Traditionally, the administrative structure of Eastern Orthodox Christianity has been a weird thing called "autocephaly" that meant while the Ecumenical Patriarch had a nebulous "first among equals" status, the various autocephalous patriarchs all were autonomous and largely independent, although I think they're supposed to largely be on the same page about most scripture. That meant that the assertion of the Patriarch of Moscow was one of those weird things that could persist for a long while without really being pushed one way or the other. It helped that the Ecumenical Patriarch has been under the earthly rule of Muslim Turks while the Patriarch of Moscow has traditionally had a very close relationship with the Russian government, along with all the power that entails. The current Russian government also has a fairly close relationship. So now you have the modern state of Ukraine which broke away from the rest of Russia about 30 years ago, and before that had been under Russian rule for a very long time. The modern capital of Ukraine was actually the original seat of Russian Orthodoxy until the 14th century. Ukraine even overthrew its president over his close relationship with Russia, and generally Ukraine has been trying to work out of the Russian sphere of influence, to which Russia responded by forcibly annexing Crimea. Not good politics between Russia and Ukraine. But religiously, the Ukrainian Orthodox church (well, three churches because things are complicated) were still under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow, who was close to the Russian government, which seems like a liability. So Ukraine asked the Ecumenical Patriarch for autocephaly, and the Ecumenical Patriarch was cool with it, but the Patriarch of Moscow was very angry with losing that amount of dominion, and asserted that it was up to the Patriarch of the region to grant autocephaly. That was the basis for declaring schism, and Russia broke with Greece (by which I mean Turkey) and that's where we are today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Religious leadership in the US seems to generally not accept Mormons as Christians though. Like, they officially don't consider Mormon religious practices to be in line with Christian practices, and they're required to get baptized in their new faith if they want to convert - whereas this is not necessary if you were baptized in something they consider a Christian faith. some religious leadership in the united states is suspicious of the idea of catholics being christian, so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 15:12
|
|