|
Spacegrass posted:I don't understand that too well. I need a clear simple answer. Jesus is eternal and has always existed, so he is not a "son" in the sense that a father participates in the creation of a son. Most if not all traditions consider the idea that Jesus is not eternal to be a heresy. Now, you're likely thinking about those ~30 years about 2000 years ago where there was a human named Jesus wandering around Palestine. This is referred to as the "Incarnation" because that was the time when the Jesus who has always existed became "incarnate", a word that literally means something like "came into flesh" or "took on flesh". During this time Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. That isn't something that is easy to grasp and theologians spend centuries hammering out exactly what it means and that full understanding written in the vernacular would be a book-level undertaking. So you're probably asking why Jesus would refer to another person of God as "Father" and himself as "Son" if they have both always existed. The answer to that is complicated, but is generally explained that it is the best human approximation of their divine relationship. Jesus is fully God but fully follows the will of The Father. There's a lot of patriarchy bound up in that symbolism, so careful on extrapolating it too far based on our human understanding of the meaning of those words in a human context. During the Incarnation (the period described in the Gospels), Jesus was perfectly obedient to the Father but remained a co-equal with the Father, showing the limits of Father / Son symbolics. In Christian thought, God is fundamentally unknowable so while we can use our limited understanding to try to perceive how things work, we need to accept that the exact nature of God isn't something that we can understand in this life. At the end of the age / the eschaton / in the coming Kingdom of God, we'll fully understand but not right now.
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 15:27
|
|
|
I just realized what a unitarian is.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 06:40
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Jesus is eternal and has always existed, so he is not a "son" in the sense that a father participates in the creation of a son. Most if not all traditions consider the idea that Jesus is not eternal to be a heresy. That makes some sense to me. Yeah. Most people probably won't figure out the truth till we pass. It's too intense. Though I just read the new Beyond Today (a Christian magazine) that said the Trinity isn't like most people think. It said Jesus is our "Elder Brother". And the holy spirit is God and Jesus in our uh, soul/spirit, whatever you call it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 01:27
|
|
|
Spacegrass posted:That makes some sense to me. Yeah. Most people probably won't figure out the truth till we pass. It's too intense. There's a lot of different ways to understand the Trinity, but that's also one of those things that we can only come to by approximations, signs, metaphor, etc. The Holy Spirit really is the neglected person of the Trinity, at least outside of the Charismatic movement where the Holy Spirit is emphasized. The way that I understand it, and don't take this as being authoritative, is that God the Father is the capital-P Power, Jesus is the way in which we can come to understand that power and you might call this reason, and the Holy Spirit is the way that power interacts with the world. They're all distinct persons, but they interact in a complex way that I don't think is fully understandable. That isn't to say it isn't good and useful to try to understand, but we need to be humble in our approach to seeking that understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 01:46
|
|
|
Spacegrass posted:That makes some sense to me. Yeah. Most people probably won't figure out the truth till we pass. It's too intense. this is non-Nicaean doctrine from the United Church of God, a small religious movement roughly 30 years old.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 02:47
|
|
|
yeah the United Church of God understanding is outside of "mainstream" little-o orthodox Christianity. doesn't mean it's wrong or bad but it's not at all typical. United Church of God is similar to other non-trinitarian groups in being restorationist - they consider themselves to be the restoration of the original Christian church (which has been led astray etc) and therefore separate from most Christians. Mormons/LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses are other non-trinitarian, restorationist churches. the Trinity is very confusing but it's also core to most Christian theologies. edit: oh the UCG observes the prohibitions on unclean meats in Leviticus. and they're also pacifists / conscientious objectors. neat Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 04:08 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 04:00
|
|
|
So no bacon shrimp for 'em?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Mormons/LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses are other non-trinitarian, restorationist churches. I wouldn't call LDS restorationist at all, they're another branch off the Abrahamic tree like Islam - they follow another prophet who came after the Biblical ones who, in their theology, came with a new set of teachings that override the previous.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I wouldn't call LDS restorationist at all, they're another branch off the Abrahamic tree like Islam - they follow another prophet who came after the Biblical ones who, in their theology, came with a new set of teachings that override the previous. They literally use the word Restoration in direct reference to the idea that their Prophet reestablished the true Church and priesthood.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:They literally use the word Restoration in direct reference to the idea that their Prophet reestablished the true Church and priesthood. I know. I think their rhetoric is at odds with what they've actually done. Frankly, I don't consider Mormons to be Christian at all.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I know. I think their rhetoric is at odds with what they've actually done. The term restorationism is about how the movement characterizes itself, rather than an outsider perspective on what categories it falls into. I would describe the LDS church as a new-ish Abrahamic religious movement derived from Second Great Awakening Christianity. It is its own thing from Nicene Christianity in terms of doctrine but it came from a very specific Christian context and maintains strong mainstream Christian influences.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 16:16
|
|
|
I just imagined McBain screaming at the ceiling. Except instead of shouting "Mendoza!" he's shouting "Spinoza!"
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:The term restorationism is about how the movement characterizes itself, rather than an outsider perspective on what categories it falls into.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
yeah it's sort of academic how you define and describe different traditions, but I think "agrees on the Nicene creed" and "generally accepts the validity of each others' baptisms" to be a good way of defining little-o orthodox Christianity. LDS, UCG, JW and other restorationist groups don't agree with the Nicene creed and there isn't inter-recognition of baptisms with other Christian groups. they consider themselves separate from other denominations, but they still share pretty much all the same scriptures and are quite similar in many many ways. by definition they went for a "reboot" of Christianity because they believe the rest of Christianity has gone astray from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, so we need to toss out basically all of Christian tradition and restore the Early Church edit: I know there are exceptions to the validity of baptisms being recognized in orthodox christianity but generally there's a lot of inter-acceptance afaik Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 05:14 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
I mostly call myself "Follower of the teachings of Jesus" rather than Christian. Saves me from a lot of the "Which kind of Christian?" gatekeeping. Deeds, not Words, and all that stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 10:12
|
|
|
I was walking in the park today and I think being surrounded by trees is like being at Quaker meeting. Beings in silent worship. Also I'm reminded of Tolle saying that if trees could speak they'd just be saying "Om" like in Hindu chants. Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 11:28 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 11:19
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:I was walking in the park today and I think being surrounded by trees is like being at Quaker meeting. Beings in silent worship. I'm reminded of Jack Handey saying that if trees could scream, do you think we'd be so cavalier about cutting them down? I think we would, if they were screaming all the time for no reason
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 12:22
|
|
|
What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 12:37
|
|
|
While I'm reasonably sure that trees or other long-lived plants do not have awareness in the same sense that complex animals or humans do, I imagine they do have something going on. It's interesting to consider if it would be fundamentally different (or perhaps nearer to corals, adult oysters, etc.) or if it would just be slow.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 14:00
|
|
|
I'm kind of into Ganesha at the moment. I'm really into this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz5NN-TKtQE
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 10:36
|
|
|
Happy Pentecost Sunday!!! May 19th is the feast day of St. Crispin of Viterbo, the first saint to be canonized by Pope St. John Paul II. I really enjoyed watching this YouTube video about St. Crispin of Viterbo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhMZGHFxgOI So I looked for a book about this saint and found one on Amazon called TRUE STORY OF SAINT CRISPIN OF VITERBO by Kim Flintoff and ordered a paperback copy of the book and then waited until today to start reading it. It turns out that this book is some kind of a scam product with no citations and a generic story about a holy man who went on a pilgrimage and preached love and brought peace and unity to groups of people who had previously been at odds with each other. The book contains no mention of the saint joining the Capuchin Franciscans and no mention of his canonization by John Paul II and no mention of Mary and little reference to anything specifically about Christianity. Oops! Welp, this isn't the first time I have been ripped off. And there's still plenty of religious material that I have available to read. Thanks be to God!!!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
I haven't read this but I feel that it belongs here. https://www.religion-online.org/article/the-theology-of-pac-man/ I do believe that Pac Man and the teachings of Jesus have the same content.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 09:00
|
|
|
I'm sorry I follow the path of Dot Gobbler
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 09:38
|
|
|
Dot Gobbler. Did that woman die in vain?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 14:25
|
|
|
inky, blinky, holy, and clyde
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
The Episcopal Church has unveiled a new Pride shield and has announced the hire of its first gender justice staff officer: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/publicaffairs/episcopal-church-unveils-new-pride-shield-in-celebration-of-lgbtq-inclusion/
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
A front without a back.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:I was walking in the park today and I think being surrounded by trees is like being at Quaker meeting. Beings in silent worship. Trees *can* speak, though. Tolle was well capable of contacting an animist population to get an interpreter. Not really trying to poo poo on master Ekhardt mind you, it's just annoying when he makes metaphysical assumptions like that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Was out there looking to see if The Lord of the World by Adolf Mützelberg ever got a translation, this being an unofficial sequel to Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas, one of my favorite novels especially as a child. Anyways in looking I found that a former Angelican turned Catholic priest wrote a sort of proto dystopian novel about the Antichrist rolling up that was a stealth influence on some heavy hitters, this book is also coincidentally called The Lord of the World. Anyone read this lad, worth picking up?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Was out there looking to see if The Lord of the World by Adolf Mützelberg ever got a translation, this being an unofficial sequel to Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas, one of my favorite novels especially as a child. Anyways in looking I found that a former Angelican turned Catholic priest wrote a sort of proto dystopian novel about the Antichrist rolling up that was a stealth influence on some heavy hitters, this book is also coincidentally called The Lord of the World. It is extremely good and I love it as a book and it is also incredibly super-duper really really racist in places.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:"But mom," she persisted, "where do Gods come from?" Help, I'm screaming internally (with delight) at this.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
We've come a long way since "Who am I to judge?"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
Mad Hamish posted:Help, I'm screaming internally (with delight) at this. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
I wish it was remotely surprising that sort of language is still a norm behind closed doors in he Church, but I suppose I'll consider it a positive if I'm not hearing it casually from random Catholics as often.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2024 22:26
|
|
|
There's an idea of Tillich's where he substitutes the word "sin", or the idea of being "sinners" or "fallen", with the idea of "estrangement". In this way to be "fallen" is not that humanity is inherently broken or wicked, but a description of the way we are (inarguably, I should think) not existing in states of permanent union with God. Similarly, things which might be considered "sinful" are not wrong in and of themselves, but because they are things we do that might be damaging to us, which might further that spiritual estrangement. Two excerpts to illustrate this point:Theology of Culture posted:Second, it was a rediscovery of the meaning of the word "sin" which had become entirely unintelligible by the identification of sin with sins, and by the identification of sins with certain acts that are not conventional or not approvable. Sin is something quite different. It is universal, tragic estrangement, based on freedom and destiny in all human beings, and should never be used in the plural. Sin is separation, estrangement from one's essential being. That is what it means; and if this is the result of depth psychological work, then this of course is a great gift that depth psychology and existentialism have offered to theology. Ultimate Concern: Tillich in Dialogue posted:Now take the term "estrangement." When I speak in any college about estrangement, everybody knows what I mean, because they all feel estranged from their true being, from life, from themselves especially. But if I spoke of their all being sinners, they would not understand at all. They would think, "I haven't sinned; I haven't drunk or danced," as in some fundamentalist churches, or whatever they understand as sin. But estrangement is a reality for them. Yet estrangement is what sin means -- the power of estrangement from God. And that is all it means. The passage from the second book is followed by a student making an observation. Ultimate Concern: Tillich in Dialogue posted:STUDENT: I was talking to a friend of mine who doesn't go to church, mainly because her parents didn't. And her sister happens to be radically antichurch in all ways, shapes, and forms. We got talking about the same thing you are discussing now -- estrangement rather than sin. She was truly excited about the idea and said, "Well, I have never heard anything of this sort in a church." And I said, "Well, I haven't either in any church I've gone to." Is there any example you can give of an organized church today that understands and presents this point of view? I think about that exchange with that student, that anecdote about the student's friend, not infrequently, because the perception of "sin" as "estrangement" really resonated with me too. I think it's the sort of linguistic reframing that can sit more comfortably with many sorts of people who might bridle at the very Catholic-feeling terminology of being told they are sinful, or fallen; and further I also perceive the ideas it conveys as having an accuracy to our relationship with the Divine that the other terminology choices lack. To be "fallen" from some place or something does not carry with it a firm connotation of being able to find a way back to the place you have fallen from. To be a "sinner" is nearly synonymous with making poor or disapproved-of moral choices; it is often perceived as an indictment of the individual in ways that can provoke reactivity and resentment. Conversely, when one is "estranged" from another there is always the possibility of no longer being estranged, of returning to that from which you have become separate. When one is estranged from another, it is understood that there is a deep emotional complexity that fills the gap between those who are estranged, things which must be examined and addressed and healed for reunification. Not so with the word "sinner"; to my mind, in any case. I was wondering how the word choice strikes those here, who presumably are more familiar and comfortable with the ideas implied with the traditional theological language. It is certainly possible that "estrangement" only seems like more precise and accurate terminology to me because Tillich's ontological perceptions were much closer to mine than seem to be those of many lay Christians. But it is exactly the way our perspectives so often align that I find so compelling and interesting. Both of the works I cite are from late in his life, and it feels as though much of his ontological belief was built in the same way I have realized I have been building mine. He knew that his understanding of his "Personal God" was true, and after he was satisfied with that his work became to discover what else is true, and what those other true things mean in relationship to his personal truth, and what new truths exist to be revealed when current truths are brought into alignment and looked at closely -- so much more closely than I ever thought a person was allowed to do in the past. So anyway, estrangement. What do you all think? Yes, no, sort-of? Perhaps and maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
Getting to that understanding was a huge turning point for me in my own personal theology, as I grew up being taught a prescriptive legalistic version of sin (aka sin is doing one of these enumerated actions or thinking a prescribed thought) without an understanding of why those actions are problematic. I was first exposed to the concept in a book by Dr. J. DeOtis Roberts, I think Liberation and Reconciliation where he introduces it and then extends it to racism and original sin, which was a huge AHA! moment on original sin too. Taking that understanding back to the Hebrew Bible makes a lot more of the "do's and don'ts" make a ton more sense, and it is (so far as I can tell) entirely consistent with the biblical tradition. It also helpfully provides a framework for being biblically faithful while contextualizing stuff like the "clobber verses" about LGBTQ relationships being sinful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
The other word you’ll see him use is “separation”, “sin is separation“. Along with “sin is a state before it is an act. There is an excellent sermon he wrote in Shaking of the Foundations where he goes into what sin and grace are. I’ve posted it a couple of times in this thread. But here’s a link to the whole book: http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/Religion-Online.org%20Books/Tillich,%20Paul%20-%20The%20Shaking%20of%20the%20Foundations.pdf Edit: You are Accepted, is the specific sermon. Anyway sin is a consequence of existing. If one exists, one is separated from other things that exist. Think, I am not you, for each of us to exist there has to be a separation. Sin is that distance between individuals, between each of us and God, and between us and our own self. And if thought about this way, it does follow that we will each die. It’s also important to understand that grace is the reconciliation of this, the negation of sins negation. It’s like the Marxist idea of alienation, but more radical as it is universal as a consequence of existing rather than just a consequence of capitalism. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jun 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
LAB just a heads up there
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2024 18:42
|
|