|
Bob bless us every one
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
praise “bob”
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:praise “bob”
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
Bob actually sounds pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
UwUnabomber posted:Way too late, I have a large tattoo of Liber AL 2:9 in Crowley/Aiwass's handwriting. Where do you fall on the "Crowley melted Neuberg's brain with his mad bottoming skills in the desert" theory?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
I've read White Stains, I'm sure Al's bottoming skills were  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
Purchasing human created icons on etsy has become impossible in the last 6 months because of the deluge of AI generated pieces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Ai needs to be punishable with jail time. We as a world need to collectively tell ai'ists to gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Some friends got their baby baptized today. First time I've been to an Orthodox infant baptism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
oh man I hadn't even considered AI religious/sacred art but of course it's a thing i hate it
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
I wanna try out the new religions the AI comes up with
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:oh man I hadn't even considered AI religious/sacred art but of course it's a thing Oh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
Killingyouguy! posted:I wanna try out the new religions the AI comes up with
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
Killingyouguy! posted:I wanna try out the new religions the AI comes up with Google bard just keeps returning forms of decentralized nature worship. Google Bard posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:06
|
|
|
Something called 'bard' would do nature worship Anyway I'm into it
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:09
|
|
|
That's just Unitarian Universalism. You can't judge a religion based on the distilled philosophical topline of their doctrines in a forward-facing and appealing way! We need strange idiomatic rulings. Diapers on chickens! Beavers being a fish! Self-mummification rites! Hats. e: Would this "Way of Nature" have rabbis jumping out of a van to break a guy's kneecaps - so he'll divorce his estranged wife??
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
I tried to get it to create a polytheistic religion and one of the gods is from Dungeon Crawler Carl.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
i'll be creating a non-profit organization for the Way of Nature, and specifying how I am permitted (encouraged, even) to have many wives in the bylaws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
I was visiting my parents this weekend and poked around in some of my grandfather's old stuff. There was some discussion of Masonry on the Discord so I'll repost this here, it's a bunch of pictures from gpa's gigantic Masonic Bible. I remember reading it as a kid because it's got a lot of cool artwork and it's physically massive so it was neat for a young book nerd. I know almost nothing about my gpa's involvement in Masonry and frankly very little about his early life (pre-30s and kids), unfortunately. Not great pics but whatever, it's not a super rare book or anything, you can pretty easily find these. I think it's a 1956 Holman KJV Masonic Bible. quote:This special edition of the BIBLE is the first and only book to present the inter-relation of MASONRY and the HOLY WORD, and was prepared under the auspices of a Masonic Educational Bureau for the purpose of showing the Scriptural Source of Masonic Philosophy. Masonic Educational Bureau feels like it'd be part of some very old-timey conspiracy theory stuff. Weirdly enough, there's a page for the Mason initiate and supervising brothers to sign dedications, but it's blank. Gpa was a quite dutifully religious Episcopalian (went to an Episcopal boarding school) and also extremely active in the Masons. My dad remembers cross-country road trips to visit Lodges for stuff. I wish I'd talked with gpa about it, it's a bit odd to me that he never got his three sons involved or ever spoke about it at all. He wasn't active in Masonry during my lifetime, must've stopped at some point. Anyway, a bunch of crappy pics:  The book is a monster, shown with a playing card for scale. It's a good 12" tall and 4" thick and weighs upwards of 20lbs.  It spends a good 30 pages on illustrations and descriptions in exhaustive detail of a "reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon."  Then there's a bunch of masonic ritual stuff that goes through each of the Degrees   Then the Bible text itself, it's a KJV. There are a bunch of gorgeous full-page illustrations and images of paintings.  Then at the end there's a concordance, dictionary, index, and a bunch of Biblical genealogy family trees. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:That's just Unitarian Universalism. You can't judge a religion based on the distilled philosophical topline of their doctrines in a forward-facing and appealing way! We need strange idiomatic rulings. Diapers on chickens! Beavers being a fish! Self-mummification rites! Hats. This is just the Church of Nuggan, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I was visiting my parents this weekend and poked around in some of my grandfather's old stuff. There was some discussion of Masonry on the Discord so I'll repost this here, it's a bunch of pictures from gpa's gigantic Masonic Bible. I remember reading it as a kid because it's got a lot of cool artwork and it's physically massive so it was neat for a young book nerd. I know almost nothing about my gpa's involvement in Masonry and frankly very little about his early life (pre-30s and kids), unfortunately. Share it with the Masonry thread! https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3523447
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
So I've been approaching reading scripture in a particular kind of way and I just want to bounce it off what others think here. I am starting with the gospels, and have gotten through Matthew now. My intention is to treat this a lot like I would anything as a student, which is to do a clean read of the text and then bounce it off reference material and conversations with the rector at my church. So having read Matthew, formed my own ideas about it, the next step is to cruise over to the Oxford study bible and read their introductory lessons and notes about it, as well as some of their introductory essays as well. Something that really strikes me so far is that while there is this popular idea of Christ as a kind of listless hippy, he comes off very often as a pretty intense dude, who is kind and charitable with individuals but utterly ruthless with institutions. I really enjoyed particularly two things: his refusal to give a demonstration of power to the priests. He hasn't had problems previously with displaying his power at all, when asked by those who are suffering and sick. But when asked by someone who just wants it because without a vulgar display of power they would be unwilling to let go of any of their own authority he just outright refuses. The other thing that stuck out to me is how he chastises Peter when he complains after he reveals that he will die and be resurrected for the first time. There's this constant feeling in the text that while he is trying to teach people, he's operating on a different wavelength and has a second strand of thought he's dealing with, and this is the first time I feel like he really reveals that he's not just thinking in human terms, as Peter was. But that he's focused on the divine as well. It was an interesting tidbit in the text because it clarifies a little bit as to why he has such trouble getting his point across even to his own disciples sometimes, since the divine element is beyond human (and their) comprehension. I'm excited to read the others. I have also been reading the daily offices because it seems like an interesting way to get tidbits of scripture that sometimes actually illuminates what I have already been reading, but sometimes just leaves me going "Hm, I have no context for this  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Hats. That episode from Star Trek: Lower Decks with the Pakled and their increasingly larger authority hats was a coded reference to schismatic churches. NomChompsky posted:So I've been approaching reading scripture in a particular kind of way and I just want to bounce it off what others think here. I am starting with the gospels, and have gotten through Matthew now. My intention is to treat this a lot like I would anything as a student, which is to do a clean read of the text and then bounce it off reference material and conversations with the rector at my church. Jesus was definitely not afraid to tell people they were loving up and what they should do (repent), and then there's the whole incident in which he may or may not have beat some people for doing bad poo poo in the Temple. The Gospels aren't explicit about it, but from a narrative perspective, I suspect that it was that incident that led to him getting got. He also, contrary to what a lot of Christians of all stripes say, cared a shitload about what happens on Earth, both to people and to the world, and the whitewashing of that out of modern Christianity is a huge issue. As for how you are reading the Bible, I think that's a good approach and a good bible. Something to note, the NRSV translation folks just released an updated translation of the NRSV called the NRSVUE (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition) and study bibles for that are just starting to come out, so that might be something to keep an eye on. There's a lot of little changes, most you probably won't notice but little changes can make a big difference, for example, take Galatians 3:22: NRSV posted:But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. NRVSUE posted:But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. The difference is taking the footnote translation from the older version for the main text in the new version, the previous main text becoming a footnote, so it's not a new translation, but there's some interesting theological implications there for whether one translates "in" or "of" there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:That episode from Star Trek: Lower Decks with the Pakled and their increasingly larger authority hats was a coded reference to schismatic churches. I'll keep an eye out for that. Once I finished Matthew I went over the chapter notes in the Oxford bible (the study bible I own is digital, the actual bible I've been reading is a giftshop NRSV faux leather blue bible because I just like chilling on the couch and reading my book). They did have some interesting notes about the Temple incident, specifically that it seems like the table he flipped over when he went there was basically the currency exchange table since they only allowed the local currency to be traded within the Temple, and not Roman money. Something definitely didn't sit right with him seeing money and goods being traded there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The difference is taking the footnote translation from the older version for the main text in the new version, the previous main text becoming a footnote, so it's not a new translation, but there's some interesting theological implications there for whether one translates "in" or "of" there. whoa yeah, them's some pretty different sentences huh
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
NomChompsky posted:I'll keep an eye out for that. Once I finished Matthew I went over the chapter notes in the Oxford bible (the study bible I own is digital, the actual bible I've been reading is a giftshop NRSV faux leather blue bible because I just like chilling on the couch and reading my book). They did have some interesting notes about the Temple incident, specifically that it seems like the table he flipped over when he went there was basically the currency exchange table since they only allowed the local currency to be traded within the Temple, and not Roman money. Yeah, I'm a little fuzzy on the exact mechanical details but there was a whole set of businesses around the Temple that made a profit by taking money from pilgrims and selling them whatever they would need when they went into the Temple proper. I forget the exact terms for where they set up but they basically sat on the outside of the holiest parts, where non-Jews were still allowed and, depending on one's perspective, either provided less-prepared travelers with religious necessities or fleeced common folks who were just trying to do their religious duty. I tend to think it started as the former but had devolved into the latter by the time Jesus rolled in. LITERALLY A BIRD posted:whoa yeah, them's some pretty different sentences huh The "faith of Jesus" translation is interesting, in that it hangs with verses like 2 Corinthians 5:19: NRSVUE posted:that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. and others to make an argument that we are justified and saved by the faith of Jesus, not by faith in Jesus, which is language much more amenable to universal reconciliation. Basically whatever Jesus did, and there's a bunch of different atonement/justification theories, his actions during his earthly ministry are sufficient for everyone. I'm not sure personally, but the more I dig into the original language and past layers of Augustine and those who followed him, the more I like the case for it. There is, of course, verses on both sides but I definitely see a colorable argument for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
It also hangs, as you say  , with the famous "I am the way" verses too, no? If it is the faith "of" Jesus the Christ then it is clearer that it is his own belief and conviction that opened a door, or provided a bridge, for humanity to use to approach and reconcile with God if they are willing to follow the path he laid to get there. Whereas translation as belief "in" him now comes off as more sort of, elevating the significance of his worship past the significance of his actions.
LITERALLY A BIRD fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Of course, that same chapter of Galatians also has Paul talking about how the faith of Abraham was reckoned to him as righteousness, and being "sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ," and that verse about the promise being given "to those who believe" (πιστεύουσι - the same root as πίστεως, "faith") Context is important, too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't put forward that chapter in Galatians as evidence for universal reconciliation. The wider context definitely makes it clear that an individual's belief matters, you are completely right. My bigger point was that small differences in translation can have material theological implications and that verse in Galatians was the first one I could find on the "in" / "of" swap. And regardless of how one takes those with regards to salvation, popular piety (at least with Protestants) doesn't talk much about Jesus' faith. They focus on Jesus being fully God and so the idea that he ever didn't know anything is a completely foreign concept and since he had full access to the entirety of divine knowledge, he didn't need to have faith in anything, because he always knew everything. Obviously a defective understanding of trust and faith, to say nothing of how it ignores all those times Jesus didn't seem to have perfect knowledge (he doesn't know when he's coming back, for example), but definitely one that comes up a lot. So the idea that Jesus not only had faith, and not only that his faith matters, but that his faith is critical for salvation is ... a tough pill to swallow for folks who have, at best, a shaky conception of Jesus' humanity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
see also: filioque but yeah, I need to do more thinking about Jesus' faith. obviously that is something we should try to emulate in some ways, and like Azathoth said I haven't encountered it too much in mainline Protestantism Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Nov 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:It also hangs, as you say This is probably trending in the direction of a discussion of atonement theory, about which I have a lot of Big Questions but very few Satisfying Answers, but yeah, one of the biggest areas of theological diversity within Trinitarian Christianity is what exactly folks think Jesus did. Everyone agrees that he did something and that it brings salvation, but start digging into that and oh boy do things start to diverge from church to church and person to person. I think switching out that word, assuming one agrees ("in" is a valid translation, it's in the footnote for a reason), somewhat weakens theories of substitutionary atonement, which all basically boil down to "God was gonna gently caress you up but Jesus took the punishment for you". I find those ideas to be overall bad theology as they tacitly accept that God cannot simply choose to be merciful but must instead have a pound of flesh from someone, which is itself borne of a defective view of justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Moral influence is significantly better than substitutionary atonement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
it is dangerous, in bible interpretation, to fixate on one meaning to the exclusion of others. christ's ultimate act has important meaning in multiple lenses
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
That’s a good point, but certain lenses have had less than desirable outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
i think substitutionary atonement is necessary to process in terms of the people of god moving past animal sacrifice as a means of reconciliation, for example. it is not how i would explain the passion to some american dude my age just learning about christianity though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
Again good point and that’s similar to the sort of place I’ve come to when I think of the symbol of Jesus as King or Monarch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:i think substitutionary atonement is necessary to process in terms of the people of god moving past animal sacrifice as a means of reconciliation, for example. it is not how i would explain the passion to some american dude my age just learning about christianity though. yeah that's a good callout, though i feel compelled to point out that it took way longer than one would think for Christians to actually get around to figuring out what Jesus was up to than you'd think Anselm of Canterbury (in the late 11th century) rather famously argued for the satisfaction theory of atonement, a later development from substitutionary atonement, by saying that mankind's sin so offended God's honor that God could only have God's honor satisfied by Jesus' death. this was developed because the previous theory was insufficient, the theory that because of ... something... God owed a debt to Satan on behalf of humanity so God paid the debt to Satan by crucifying Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:yeah that's a good callout, though i feel compelled to point out that it took way longer than one would think for Christians to actually get around to figuring out what Jesus was up to than you'd think i definitely dont sign on to theologies that anthropomorphize god or give him contractual obligations to an anthropomorphic adversary! i'm big on multiple meanings to things in christ's ministry and the bible but 'wrong' is a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:i definitely dont sign on to theologies that anthropomorphize god or give him contractual obligations to an anthropomorphic adversary! i'm big on multiple meanings to things in christ's ministry and the bible but 'wrong' is a real thing. Yeah, I don't think it has to be one thing either and I'm definitely not denying sin or wrongness, I just don't buy that in the final accounting, any part of it will be that God got so righteously angry that Jesus needed to die to make God less mad. I'll even accept that humanity could justly deserve punishment, I just don't buy the specific "ok now that Jesus is dead I don't have to kill the rest of you" interpretation of why God would show mercy. That's the same logic that leads abusers to punch a hole in the wall so they don't punch someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Again good point and that’s similar to the sort of place I’ve come to when I think of the symbol of Jesus as King or Monarch. I think it's worthwhile to consider that theories of atonement are created within a historical context, especially as a reflection of concurrent beliefs about the means by which the powerful derive authority. I've recently been listening to Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk by Delores Williams. In the book she examines the west's history of forcing black women into surrogacy roles, and how that relates to their relationship to God. She has a chapter arguing against classical views of atonement that made Jesus into the ultimate surrogate; that human redemption should have nothing to do with Jesus in a violent bloody surrogate role.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 04:41
|
|