|
Ceciltron posted:I did the sound for a show that was being held in a unitarian universalist hall. I wasn't very impressed. It was like the modern commodification and equivocation of religion given form. This wimpy, pathetic "everyone is riiiiight, maaaan" hippy nonsense combined with the dilution of christianity into its least possibly contentious, least challenging or demanding form. Yeah, I agree with this. I used to go to a UU church pretty often because they had one of the Religious Studies professors from the nearby state university as the pastor. Sunday services were basically lectures on comparative religion, and I learned a lot. But that's just what it was, a lecture. It never felt like communal worship because how on earth would that work out? When your congregation consists of Jews, Christians, neopagans, atheists, etc. and the overlying message is "just be good in your own minds, I guess, also but that doesn't really matter because everyone gets to Heaven anyway if you even believe that exists" you've managed to self-select into the most boring and sterile religion on the world that makes absolutely zero demands of you.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Non-Trinitarian Christians, as far as I'm concerned, are just those who lack the courage to see their convictions through, which would entail converting to Judaism or, more likely, Islam. What about if they really liked Jesus a lot? I guess they could be Messianic Jews then but that still runs into the problem if you think the Trinity is Scripture-based or is the result of Church orthodoxy. I dunno. Speaking as someone who has spent way too long on Wiki and Catholic Encyclopedia and other places reading up on "Christology" there have been a billion views of Jesus. Like CountFosco posted:I mean this depends upon taking it as a given that a human-created (or transmitted?) religion/church/faith can only be rotten to the core. This depends upon viewing humans as inherently corrupt, inherently fallible, etc. There are many humanists who I'm sure would argue that a religion based on a founder's humanity would be more pure than superstitious "divine revelation." the whole idea of Adoptionism tallies up with this point and I can see why people like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
muslims like jesus as much as christians do, they just don't believe he died on a cross
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Non-Trinitarian Christians, as far as I'm concerned, are just those who lack the courage to see their convictions through, which would entail converting to Judaism or, more likely, Islam. I've got some bad news for you: The Phlegmatist posted:On a related note there was a poll done recently where 71% of evangelicals said Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:I've got some bad news for you: I've got a feeling some Catholics may veer into Donatism. Also Rahner hit the nail on the head with his Cryptomonophysitism observation, those who didn't realize they believe Christ was only Divine by virtue of their Christological anthropology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
You mean that a religious movement marked by anti-intellectualism would lead to its members being ignorant of basic points of theology? Well I never!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:it's almost like this is a christianity thread and no matter how open and affirming your christianity is, or how interreligious your being religious is, when you identify as a member of a religion there are some truths that are absolute and cannot be compromised on I don't think that is even strictly true. Every persons take on Christianity is going to be slightly different after all. Plus in a world where people find faith through many different methods it isn't surprising that the whole "Arianism" vs "Tridentine" thing has fallen by the wayside just a little.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I don't think that is even strictly true. Every persons take on Christianity is going to be slightly different after all. i'm saying individuals hold certain things they believe to be true because they subscribe to a specific religion, not that these truths are necessarily identical to things that religion teaches for instance, i know many lgbt catholics who feel that they cannot compromise on things like real presence in the eucharist while having no problem with being in a same sex relationship and/or transitioning. everybody has a line where they say "this far no further" and it might not be the same for everyone but everyone cares about that line
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:it's almost like this is a christianity thread and no matter how open and affirming your christianity is, or how interreligious your being religious is, when you identify as a member of a religion there are some truths that are absolute and cannot be compromised on Sure, the truths are absolute, but the witnesses (myself included) still see as through a glass, darkly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
the fact that two people with two opposite points of view read my post as disagreeing with them says to me that i am not nearly as good a communicator as i thought. paul knitter was right about me
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I don't think that is even strictly true. Every persons take on Christianity is going to be slightly different after all. Saying "well everyone disagrees and nobody can come up on a consensus of what the truth is, so I guess it's just up to personal interpretation" is pretty intellectually lazy though, and also a standard seemingly applied only to religious belief and nothing else. Like if I said that this guy Alex Jones says Sandy Hook was a false flag so there's no consensus, maybe he's right, who knows the real truth, you'd justifiably think I was a complete idiot. But if I said that all these religions in the world can't even agree on which false god to worship so nothing they believe in can be true I'd be number one rational thought man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
that's a bad comparison because we have verifiable first hand accounts of the sandy hook shooting, including records involving the children and other people involved. theology and scripture doesn't quite have the same verifiable nature as that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I dunno. Speaking as someone who has spent way too long on Wiki and Catholic Encyclopedia and other places reading up on "Christology" there have been a billion views of Jesus. Well, yes, but the overwhelming majority of those are posed around the Nicene and Chalcedonian Controversies - after the seventh century, the question seems to be more or less settled into duo- and miaphysite positions, no? Minus a couple short-lived medieval heresies and some decidedly odd branches in American Protestantism, how much real innovation does one see on Christological questions later on? Thirteen Orphans posted:I've got a feeling some Catholics may veer into Donatism. Also Rahner hit the nail on the head with his Cryptomonophysitism observation, those who didn't realize they believe Christ was only Divine by virtue of their Christological anthropology. Donatists? Weren't they the "no forgiveness for apostasy, even in the face of persecution" guys?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Donatists? Weren't they the "no forgiveness for apostasy, even in the face of persecution" guys? And also the "if a priest is a Bad Man then his sacraments are invalid" guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 22:48
|
|
Ceciltron posted:I did the sound for a show that was being held in a unitarian universalist hall. I wasn't very impressed. It was like the modern commodification and equivocation of religion given form. This wimpy, pathetic "everyone is riiiiight, maaaan" hippy nonsense combined with the dilution of christianity into its least possibly contentious, least challenging or demanding form. The relevant jokes here are: Unitarians believe in one God maximum And What do you get if you cross a Jehovah's witness with a unitarian? Someone who comes to your house to tell you about nothing in particular.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 23:00
|
|
zonohedron posted:And also the "if a priest is a Bad Man then his sacraments are invalid" guys. This was the bigger problem and why Augustine et al were down for murdering them.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:They were wearing a three piece suit and said it was really only one suit? Disinterested posted:What do you get if you cross a Jehovah's witness with a unitarian? Someone who comes to your house to tell you about nothing in particular. God drat me, but I dig these catty theological humors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
I wonder if we are talking around different groups of general belief... Unitarian Universalists Christian Unitarians Christian Universalists How much snark does do you reserve for each category?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Saying "well everyone disagrees and nobody can come up on a consensus of what the truth is, so I guess it's just up to personal interpretation" is pretty intellectually lazy though, and also a standard seemingly applied only to religious belief and nothing else. Well it's pretty hard to come up with an objective moral truth, everything is considered morally good (or at least neutral) in some culture at some point. Whereas you can point to things that exist to prove that Sandy Hook happened. Disinterested posted:This was the bigger problem and why Augustine et al were down for murdering them. Well what was Augustine's solution to lovely priests?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 07:36
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Well what was Augustine's solution to lovely priests? Your concept here is slightly flawed since if you make ordinations by sinful priests ineffective then amongst other things you're going to render Ambrose of Milan no longer a bishop. No church of any size can proceed in this manner. ed. Particularly since the church really only flourished with the assistance of the state, and the Donatists viewed the Empire as evil. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
well they weren't wrong about that. Empire is evil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Really.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
It ain't the Kingdom of Heaven, I can assume that much.Josef bugman posted:Well it's pretty hard to come up with an objective moral truth, everything is considered morally good (or at least neutral) in some culture at some point. What cultures think means less to me than what an individual person thinks. A culture is a groupthink. It can't sit under a bodhi tree to meditate; it can't go to the river to be washed; it can't climb a mountain to hear a message. Cultures have their value, but the whole is actually less than the sum of all its parts. Don't ask me to talk to cultures, but I've never encountered a person or dog that I couldn't find at least one moral truth we both can agree with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Really. Have you not met history and imperial power? I mean there is no time period in history that does not suck, but conquering and enslaving people in order to justify your own way of living back home and then telling them its their fault for the enslavement is never a good thing. Caufman posted:It ain't the Kingdom of Heaven, I can assume that much. If it is then there is going to be a lot to answer for. I see where you are coming from there. But how much moral value they apply to that thing vs another thing that you regard as monstrous? I mean I am going to  here but you could have agreed with Goering on the idea of animal rights.And aren't dogs and cats unable to make a moral choice? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I see where you are coming from there. But how much moral value they apply to that thing vs another thing that you regard as monstrous? I mean I am going to Hitler and I like dogs. I don't think he should have killed Blondie, though. Or himself. Or live a life by fascist principles. A part of what Emperor Marcus Aurelius discovered in his meditations is that someone who behaves monstrously is not literally a monster. They are literally a human who doesn't know what the good is. Monsters only exist in the flesh in stories. Demons only appear (to me) in sacred stories. Unlike Jesus Christ, I don't go out of my way to encounter nazis. But if was still peace time and I had to encounter Adolph over a long period of time , I wouldn't start with the radically different choices we've made. I would start with what I know we have in common. We both love dogs. Doesn't he know that Jewish children and gay children love dogs as much as he does? And doesn't he know how angry the dogs get when their children are taken away, and how sad they are when the children don't return? edit: And if I discern that he was psychopathic and could not respond to empathy, I would use what common pragmatism we had. I'd show him how his plans will fail so disasterously that it will cause his country to completely reject his goal of a thousand year Reich as soon as the man dies. But once Hitler went to war against human decency using his tanks and secret police, then my best moral and practical option is to destroy my enemy until they surrender. I would study what Bonhoffer did before he was martyred for taking part in the plan to kill Hitler. Not because I need his encouragement, but because I need to make sure my plan succeeds. quote:And aren't dogs and cats unable to make a moral choice? Even my cat Boo knows what she could do to annoy me, and as long I meet her halfway on what she likes and doesn't like, she will meet me halfway, too. Here's a video of dogs responding to economic injustice with civil disobedience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1QcydgdsE0 Felines and canines have to make choices like us primates do. But, indeed, it is apparent that humans have a larger portfolio of dilemmas by magnitudes. I mentioned getting along with dogs as a joke, though. Caufman fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:And aren't dogs and cats unable to make a moral choice? Are humans? I confess to still being a bit unclear on this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Just do your best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Cats are usually unwilling to make the moral choice 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Caufman posted:I mentioned getting along with dogs as a joke, though. I gathered, but it got me thinking about how we view justice when it comes to animals. Some people hold that animals can't murder because there is no intent behind it whereas there are times when pigs have been hung on the gallows because they "murdered" someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I gathered, but it got me thinking about how we view justice when it comes to animals. Some people hold that animals can't murder because there is no intent behind it whereas there are times when pigs have been hung on the gallows because they "murdered" someone. An animal that kills someone today typically gets euthanized, so really the only difference between now and then is that the pig got a fair trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:An animal that kills someone today typically gets euthanized, so really the only difference between now and then is that the pig got a fair trial. Weirdly they didn't do that for a tiger at a zoo near me. Partially because the family of the person who it killed told them not to kill it. It'd be interesting to see how much it is a difference between "The animal may now be dangerous" vs "KILL THE HUMAN KILLING THING".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Donatists? Weren't they the "no forgiveness for apostasy, even in the face of persecution" guys? zonohedron posted:And also the "if a priest is a Bad Man then his sacraments are invalid" guys. Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
I’ve recently moved to a new place, and I felt like something was missing in my life, so I’ve started attending church. I was raised Catholic, but I hated the rituals—I wanted a little more substance. I also didn’t want to join a church that was either a Republican church or a Democrat church. That boiled it down to the Lutherans and the Methodists, and the Methodists were closer to my apartment. So far, I’ve enjoyed the college-lecture presentation style, the opportunity to make friends with people who aren’t my age for once, and the challenge to become a more compassionate person. I remain skeptical, but the pastor told me that doubt is healthy, so I’m on the right track. I just felt like writing about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
echopapa posted:I’ve recently moved to a new place, and I felt like something was missing in my life, so I’ve started attending church. I was raised Catholic, but I hated the rituals—I wanted a little more substance. I also didn’t want to join a church that was either a Republican church or a Democrat church. That boiled it down to the Lutherans and the Methodists, and the Methodists were closer to my apartment. Welcome! Methodists and Lutherans, broadly, aren't that different other than Lutherans are a bit more into ritual. Sounds like you've found a good home though, Methodism in particular emphasizes the importance of your lived experience in shaping your faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
echopapa posted:I’ve recently moved to a new place, and I felt like something was missing in my life, so I’ve started attending church. I was raised Catholic, but I hated the rituals—I wanted a little more substance. I also didn’t want to join a church that was either a Republican church or a Democrat church. That boiled it down to the Lutherans and the Methodists, and the Methodists were closer to my apartment. As a fellow Methodist, I'm glad you're home. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
echopapa posted:I’ve recently moved to a new place, and I felt like something was missing in my life, so I’ve started attending church. I was raised Catholic, but I hated the rituals—I wanted a little more substance. I also didn’t want to join a church that was either a Republican church or a Democrat church. That boiled it down to the Lutherans and the Methodists, and the Methodists were closer to my apartment. Love has sought you out, echopapa. Be immersed in the spirit of holiness, fam-in-Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Aw, I love faith-outside-your-door stories  Christianity Thread II: the Methodists were closer to my apartment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ER_Bayern/status/878337450430484481 Some sedevacantist “bishop“ blessed a cross at a neo-Nazi rally in Munich today. Turns out he got thrown out of the SSPX for being bugfuck insane and now claims to be a “wandering bishop“.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Discursus: Has anyone read Too Like the Lighting by Ada Palmer yet? I just finished the second book in the series and the imagined future Sensayers are what I would imagine for Unitarian Universalists with teeth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Hmph, scarequotes on "bishop" when people were just talking about Donatism in this thread  There was an Old Catholic bishop (i.e., from the schismatic Utrecht lineage) who reconciled with Rome a while back The Vatican determined that he had been validly ordained and was a bishop, having the indelible mark of episcopal ordination on his soul, but he was dismissed from the clerical state and got tossed into a monastery for the rest of his life. 17th century punishments for 17th century heresies 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:16
|
|