Liturgical Christianity: Weird Catholic Twitter

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Liturgical Christianity: Weird Catholic Twitter

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

pidan posted:

I realize that Christianity or almost any other belief system can be used to justify violence, and I'm definitely aware of Europe's history of religious wars. I think those wars were based on the following argument: People are believing a wrong thing, we need to stop them from believing the wrong thing, because their wrong belief undermines our authority as people who know what the right thing to believe is. And this argument can be used with literally any belief.

But I think that Christianity is peaceful at its heart. There is no description of Jesus killing people, ordering or endorsing the killing of people. Instead, he forgives the people who torture and kill him. I'm aware that many Christian leaders have believed that God supports their wars, but I think this belief is not supported by the religion's core teachings.

Just to say here what I said in the other thread as well: There are many valid interpretations of Islam that are not violent at all. I just think that the violent interpretations are also valid, in a way that they aren't in other religions.

But the question wasn't "Is an abstract version of Christianity the true Christianity", which is a no-true-Scotsman argument, it was "Has Christianity been used to justify killing in the same way that Islam is now", and the answer is "Holy hand grenades, yes." I think you can't honestly discuss Christianity unless you describe it as-built, not just as-I-interpret-it.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 17:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 22:08

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Arsenic Lupin posted:

But the question wasn't "Is an abstract version of Christianity the true Christianity", which is a no-true-Scotsman argument, it was "Has Christianity been used to justify killing in the same way that Islam is now", and the answer is "Holy hand grenades, yes."

has? still is

radical right terrorism is still the most dangerous kind of terrorism in the us

# ? Nov 14, 2015 17:43

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

HEY GAL posted:

has? still is

radical right terrorism is still the most dangerous kind of terrorism in the us

Yes, but how much of that is explicitly Christianity-based? Most of it that I've seen -- which is by no means all, it's mostly based on terrorism proprietors who got caught -- is political/racially motivated, not religious-based except as a side effect. Yes, they burn down black churches, bastards, but they seem to be doing it because they're black, not because their theology is wrong.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 17:46

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Yes, but how much of that is explicitly Christianity-based? Most of it that I've seen -- which is by no means all, it's mostly based on terrorism proprietors who got caught -- is political/racially motivated, not religious-based except as a side effect. Yes, they burn down black churches, bastards, but they seem to be doing it because they're black, not because their theology is wrong.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/cliven-bundy-ranch-rancher-claims-god-called-him-to-standoff-possibly-engage-in-civil-war-124320/

# ? Nov 14, 2015 17:48

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

HEY GAL posted:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/cliven-bundy-ranch-rancher-claims-god-called-him-to-standoff-possibly-engage-in-civil-war-124320/

Well, poo poo. GOD HATES MURDERERS.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 17:51

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

a lot of the racist terrorism is religious at the same time; Christian Identity is a Christian heresy

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:04

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

HEY GAL posted:

a lot of the racist terrorism is religious at the same time; Christian Identity is a Christian heresy

That's the one that's really chic in prisons right now, isn't it?

e: Slacktivist proposed that the prosperity gospel should be explicitly labeled a modern heresy, and I'm down with that.

Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Nov 14, 2015

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:09

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

You get nuts in everything, sadly.

I followed the earlier link to Typology and, as so often happens on Wikipedia, I just kept linking to other things and reading t hem too. My reading of Supersessionism led me to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

I didn't even know Excommunications still happened! John Paul II was certainly right to do it here though but Benedict reversed it because.......

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:09

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

Arsenic Lupin posted:

But the question wasn't "Is an abstract version of Christianity the true Christianity", which is a no-true-Scotsman argument, it was "Has Christianity been used to justify killing in the same way that Islam is now", and the answer is "Holy hand grenades, yes." I think you can't honestly discuss Christianity unless you describe it as-built, not just as-I-interpret-it.

OK. My argument has never been that Christian terrorism does not exist. I know it does, and I know it has been a lot worse in the past.

But why would you argue that Christianity is not a peaceful religion? Just because there are two sentences in the bible where Jesus argues in favor of bringing swords?

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:10

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

pidan posted:

OK. My argument has never been that Christian terrorism does not exist. I know it does, and I know it has been a lot worse in the past.

But why would you argue that Christianity is not a peaceful religion? Just because there are two sentences in the bible where Jesus argues in favor of bringing swords?

we are not arguing that christianity isn't peaceful, we're arguing that both christianity and islam can be misused, and that they have been misused about the same amount. a thousand years ago if you told the complacent burghers of bagdhad that the savages to their west and north were inherently peaceful they'd laugh in your face

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:13

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

pidan posted:

OK. My argument has never been that Christian terrorism does not exist. I know it does, and I know it has been a lot worse in the past.

But why would you argue that Christianity is not a peaceful religion? Just because there are two sentences in the bible where Jesus argues in favor of bringing swords?

That's changing the argument. Your argument is that Islam is inherently violent.

The answer is that people are inherently violent, and will use anything, including religion, to justify that violence. Islam is not inherently violent any more than Christianity is.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:15

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

pidan posted:

But why would you argue that Christianity is not a peaceful religion? Just because there are two sentences in the bible where Jesus argues in favor of bringing swords?

Because Christians have been and are violent in the cause of the faith. If Christianity were a peaceful religion, killing would be anathema. I can happily say Quakerism, or any of the other peace churches, is a peaceful religion because they have doctrinal theology coupled with a real-life willingness to undergo suffering rather than to kill. Those are peace churches. Christianity as a whole has, in the past and the present, not been a peace church.

If you get to describe Islam as an inherently violent, you have to do the same for Christianity. Both of them have inspired murderous movements. And don't quote single verses from the Koran; just as the Christian fathers have an important influence on interpreting the Bible, so do the hadith and one of several traditions of interpretation have an important influence on interpreting the Koran.

You do keep trying to insist that prooftexts from the Bible define Christianity, when in practice one of the ongoing forces defining Christianity is individual theologies based on both Biblical interpretation and existing theology.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:18

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Because Christians have been and are violent in the cause of the faith. If Christianity were a peaceful religion, killing would be anathema. I can happily say Quakerism, or any of the other peace churches, is a peaceful religion because they have doctrinal theology coupled with a real-life willingness to undergo suffering rather than to kill.

and both quakers and anabaptists were insanely loving violent when they were first founded, they developed the pacifism only later

i think the amish always were pacifist, tho

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:20

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Because Christians have been and are violent in the cause of the faith. If Christianity were a peaceful religion, killing would be anathema. I can happily say Quakerism, or any of the other peace churches, is a peaceful religion because they have doctrinal theology coupled with a real-life willingness to undergo suffering rather than to kill. Those are peace churches. Christianity as a whole has, in the past and the present, not been a peace church.

A counter example. In Buddhism, nonviolence is literally the first rule you're supposed to obey as a layperson. But there have been many violent Buddhist groups, starting with King Ashoka and going up to today's Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka and Myanmar. I would still argue that Buddhism opposes violence, because that teaching is at the center of the religion.

In Christianity, there are groups of Christians that do not believe in God. Does that mean that Christianity is not a theist religion?

Whether or not "Islam is inherently violent" depends on what you mean by that phrase. But just because any belief system can be used to justify violence, that does not mean that all belief systems are violent to the same degree. We may have to agree to disagree on that.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:25

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

HEY GAL posted:

and both quakers and anabaptists were insanely loving violent when they were first founded, they developed the pacifism only later

Wow, stuff that wasn't discussed in Friends Sunday School for $500, please, Alex.

Pidan, the infamous phrase Kill them all, God will know his own was reputed to have been said by the Christian abbot, the leader of the Catholic forces, laying siege to a Cathar city. The meaning was that the successful siege should kill everybody, Cathar and other, when sacking the city.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:27

System Metternich: Feb 28, 2010; But what did he mean by that?

NikkolasKing posted:

You get nuts in everything, sadly.

I followed the earlier link to Typology and, as so often happens on Wikipedia, I just kept linking to other things and reading t hem too. My reading of Supersessionism led me to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

I didn't even know Excommunications still happened! John Paul II was certainly right to do it here though but Benedict reversed it because.......

...because he hoped to get the SSPX back into the fold by lifting the excommunications. You mustn't forget that Benedict led the Congregation of the Faith when Lefebvre decided to ordain the four bishops (which incurs an automatic excommuniation btw, so no special pronouncement by JP2 was required) and tried really hard to keep them within the Church back then, only to fail. I think it was always sort of a personal thing for him, and this is also why he had lifted the bans without properly vetting the bishops and especially Williamson beforehand.

I'm not too sure on why the SSPX are still in schism (or whatever their status is right now) despite Benedict's efforts to get them back, so maybe Worthleast can tell us a bit about it

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:29

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

HEY GAL posted:

has? still is

radical right terrorism is still the most dangerous kind of terrorism in the us

and in Europe, even including the last 15 years of wahabi terrorist attack

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:32

my dad: Oct 17, 2012; this shall be humorous

Tias posted:

and in Europe, even including the last 15 years of wahabi terrorist attack

I mean, wahabi terrorist attacks are also radical right terrorism. Same poo poo, different package.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:37

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Tias posted:

and in Europe, even including the last 15 years of wahabi terrorist attack

are your radical right dudes christian tho? americans of all kinds are far more religious than all other first world countries

pidan, maybe you should read scholarly works (NOT by the clash of civilizations guy) on islam, parts of its history are fully sick

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:37

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Yeah, I misread. I meant that 99+% of terror attacks in Europe are still carried out by non-muslims. Also, it's very often christians.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:42

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

I would add the "people suck" is a foundational part of Christianity in most nominations, both Catholic and Protestant. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) has had a LOT of exegesis over the years, most notoriously in Calvinism.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:45

System Metternich: Feb 28, 2010; But what did he mean by that?

When the Pegida guys (their name literally is an abbreviation for "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the Occident") in Dresden started their weekly demonstrations in the weeks preceding Christmas last year, they sung Christmas carols as a sign of their deep concerns about Christianity in Europe. Most of them needed cheat sheets because they didn't know the lyrics, lol

But yeah, at least in Germany right-wingers like to talk big about how the Judeo-Christian fundaments of their fatherland is in danger, but haven't actually seen the inside of a church since ever

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:46

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

HEY GAL posted:

are your radical right dudes christian tho? americans of all kinds are far more religious than all other first world countries

pidan, maybe you should read scholarly works (NOT by the clash of civilizations guy) on islam, parts of its history are fully sick

Tias posted:

Yeah, I misread. I meant that 99+% of terror attacks in Europe are still carried out by non-muslims. Also, it's very often christians.

Tias probably has better knowledge of it, being a swamp Scandinavian, but wasn't the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik sort of Christian? Or at least his manifesto and ranting are coming from a fundamentalist right-wing Christian perspective even if he himself wasn't particularly devout.

System Metternich posted:

But yeah, at least in Germany right-wingers like to talk big about how the Judeo-Christian fundaments of their fatherland is in danger, but haven't actually seen the inside of a church since ever

Ok yeah that's what my general impression was. Christian "culture" and "identity" driving the fundamentalism rather than actually being religious fanatics.

Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Nov 14, 2015

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:50

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

System Metternich posted:

When the Pegida guys (their name literally is an abbreviation for "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the Occident") in Dresden started their weekly demonstrations in the weeks preceding Christmas last year, they sung Christmas carols as a sign of their deep concerns about Christianity in Europe. Most of them needed cheat sheets because they didn't know the lyrics, lol

lol
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/22/atheism-east-germany-godless-place

i wonder why they're downplaying their culture. to seem more palatable to non-east-germans?

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:53

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

System Metternich posted:

But yeah, at least in Germany right-wingers like to talk big about how the Judeo-Christian fundaments of their fatherland is in danger, but haven't actually seen the inside of a church since ever

Yes. People like the PEGIDA supporters just want our "judeo-christian culture" as a marker of identity. They don't really care about the content, just that its the culture that belongs to them.

Many actual Christians have helped in welcoming and creating support structures for the various muslim refugees coming in now. Because Christianity just isn't about anxiously defending your stuff against any people who might want to share it.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 18:57

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

pidan posted:

Many actual Christians have helped in welcoming and creating support structures for the various muslim refugees coming in now. Because Christianity just isn't about anxiously defending your stuff against any people who might want to share it.

neither is islam

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:01

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

HEY GAL posted:

pidan, maybe you should read scholarly works (NOT by the clash of civilizations guy) on islam, parts of its history are fully sick

I've read "In the shadow of the sword", which despite the name is a pretty cool and not-taking-sides description of the arising of Islam in the context of its time, i.e. the conflict between the Roman and Persian empires. I've read a bunch of books by modern muslims on their interpretation of the religion. I've also read a bunch about the Mongol conquests in the muslim world. But I'll admit I don't know much about the time in between those things, so if you can recommend something, that'd be cool.

I started reading the clash of civilizations book at one point, but it was just so wrong about so many things.

quote:

neither is islam

yeah, both religions are big on sharing and giving to the poor, probably because they're both derived from Judaism, which has the same rule.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:05

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

pidan posted:

I started reading the clash of civilizations book at one point, but it was just so wrong about so many things.

it's really bad, just really really bad and terrible

the only book i can think of off of the top of my head is "all shall be saved," about chill multi-religious bros in medieval spain

or you can visit the islam thread. right now it's about southeast asians and food. also there's a cat that lives in the hagia sophia and his/her head is fat as hell

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:11

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Pellisworth posted:

Tias probably has better knowledge of it, being a swamp Scandinavian,

I will fight you :argh:

quote:

but wasn't the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik sort of Christian? Or at least his manifesto and ranting are coming from a fundamentalist right-wing Christian perspective even if he himself wasn't particularly devout.

Self-declared christian conservative, yeah. His books and manifesto focus on the theme of christian civilization vs. muslims (and freemasons, I think!).

E:

HEY GAL posted:

also there's a cat that lives in the hagia sophia and his/her head is fat as hell

it's the fattest head :3:

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:29

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Tias posted:

it's the fattest head

you need to go to the yospos cat thread and have a look at Refurb and Bucket

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:34

zonohedron: Aug 14, 2006

NikkolasKing posted:

You get nuts in everything, sadly.

I followed the earlier link to Typology and, as so often happens on Wikipedia, I just kept linking to other things and reading t hem too. My reading of Supersessionism led me to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

I didn't even know Excommunications still happened! John Paul II was certainly right to do it here though but Benedict reversed it because.......

Benedict XVI reversed it (well, for those who were still living) because excommunications are meant to be medicinal - it's meant to be a way of saying, "What you have done damages the unity between us to such a degree that you aren't in communion with us anymore and giving you any of the sacraments would profane them." Ordaining someone as a bishop without permission is pretty much the least-controversial "yo, this keeps us from being fully united" thing possible.

But the SSPX never accepted that their bishops were excommunicated, because Lefevbre had Important Reasons and also John Paul II was a big meanieface whose face was big and also mean, and the bishops weren't exactly heartbroken at being told they couldn't receive sacraments in a rite that they thought was inferior if not necessarily invalid, so the excommunications weren't working; if a medicine isn't treating a condition, you try a different one.

System Metternich posted:

I'm not too sure on why the SSPX are still in schism (or whatever their status is right now) despite Benedict's efforts to get them back

There's no SSPX laypeople, so unless someone who attends a SSPX chapel has done something to warrant otherwise, they're not schismatics. The priests don't have faculties from the bishop of the diocese they're in, so unless something out-of-the-ordinary supplies otherwise they shouldn't be publicly celebrating Mass and can't officiate at a wedding or validly absolve, but, again, not in schism, unless they see themselves as The Remnant Of The Real True Church in which case maybe. The bishops don't have dioceses and shouldn't be ordaining priests without permission, but unless they've done something to warrant it they're not in schism either, not officially.

On the other hand they're "not in schism" the way a fever of 102F isn't an emergency: still not a good situation, and awfully close to schism or medical emergency, respectively.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:47

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

Tias posted:

I will fight you

You mean to tell me Danes are not, in fact, chain-smoking swamp Scandinavians? Just giving you poo poo, if I wanted to be mean I'd have said "swamp Swedes" :v:

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:53

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

denmark is just discount sweden anyway

# ? Nov 14, 2015 19:55

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

StashAugustine posted:

denmark is just discount sweden anyway

hey now they have Lego and that statue of the Little Mermaid that Asian tourists inexplicably line up to take pictures of

# ? Nov 14, 2015 20:05

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

zonohedron posted:

Benedict XVI reversed it (well, for those who were still living) because excommunications are meant to be medicinal - it's meant to be a way of saying, "What you have done damages the unity between us to such a degree that you aren't in communion with us anymore and giving you any of the sacraments would profane them." Ordaining someone as a bishop without permission is pretty much the least-controversial "yo, this keeps us from being fully united" thing possible.

But the SSPX never accepted that their bishops were excommunicated, because Lefevbre had Important Reasons and also John Paul II was a big meanieface whose face was big and also mean, and the bishops weren't exactly heartbroken at being told they couldn't receive sacraments in a rite that they thought was inferior if not necessarily invalid, so the excommunications weren't working; if a medicine isn't treating a condition, you try a different one.

There's no SSPX laypeople, so unless someone who attends a SSPX chapel has done something to warrant otherwise, they're not schismatics. The priests don't have faculties from the bishop of the diocese they're in, so unless something out-of-the-ordinary supplies otherwise they shouldn't be publicly celebrating Mass and can't officiate at a wedding or validly absolve, but, again, not in schism, unless they see themselves as The Remnant Of The Real True Church in which case maybe. The bishops don't have dioceses and shouldn't be ordaining priests without permission, but unless they've done something to warrant it they're not in schism either, not officially.

On the other hand they're "not in schism" the way a fever of 102F isn't an emergency: still not a good situation, and awfully close to schism or medical emergency, respectively.

Hm, fair enough. I just thought of Excommunication as "we don't want anything to do with assholes like you." In which case, that seems like a good policy to take with people like this.

I read some stuff from their website. They accused the recent Synod on the Family of misquoting John Paul II and others which I found to be highly ironic and hypocritical.

# ? Nov 14, 2015 20:13

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Denmark is the O.G. scandinavian liberal paradise. These days we're ruled by neo-fascist scum like the rest of them, but we used to be the place where swedes got drunk, norwegians got laid, and icelanders and the finnish were revered for their axe-murderous prowess and not feared for being the crazy psychos they are :eng101: