|
If one goes back to the roots Christianity is radically egalitarian. Like lets draw lots to pick who will be in charge this year, share everything we have, community largely made up of widows, orphans, lepers, slaves, homosexuals and other outside of the social norms outcasts.rudatron posted:I feel a dressed-up sequel to the roman paganism can really tap into that. Well it's not like we don't have hidden state religion and groups that are devoted hidden cult gods right now all tied together with selfishness, ambition and overt desire for personal power. And it's not like they don't uh, name they their think tanks after some particularly lovely Romans drawing that comparison intentionally.
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:Religion is just a way of explaining how the world works and why things happen. Since humanity used to be pretty loving stupid and lived in caves we came up with the idea of gods because it was a easy way to explain everything that happened ever. Now we understand our environment and our existence and how it came to be, so people don't need religion anymore to explain why poo poo happens. People can get through their everyday life because they are sure in reality, we just don't take feeling from religion anymore. Have you met monotheism? Monotheism would like it's critique of polytheistic idols back. "they are sure in reality" Many people think the ineffable Real is what? It's almost like you are appealing to something higher and fundamentally true/real that we are all in and a part of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
OP read this. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2310&C=2307 Why theocracy is bad is in there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I do not want to be in a theocracy because it'd end up basically causing those who don't worship to be the go to people to blame for everything going wrong. Leading to oppression and eventually This is spot on. But Christians can say the exact same thing and then we can go onto say that be theocratic is against the spirit of Christianity, as it's certainly not the example of Jesus. Or we could say that the gospels were written by people who had just been utterly crushed by a Roman state built on a state religion, a theocracy (of a cult of emperor). And that the context that most of the apocalypses of the New Testament are written in, are of a Roman state/emperor cult doing pretty lovely things to people not participating in the theocracy. edit: Effectronica posted:Theocracy means rule by religious law. That's theonomy (God-law) not theocracy (God as head of state). Neither are good. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The Romans required people to follow the state religion. This is not the same thing at all, and the idea that theocratic rule always ends in the extermination/violent oppression of religious minorities ignores vast parts of Islamic history. Yes and the state religion was that the emperor was god and also was head of the state. That's a theocracy. Rule by God or human incarnation of God. And theocracy and theonomy, result in the criminalization of not following religious doctrine. How that gets expressed can vary wildly, but breaking the religious doctrine is always also a crime against the state in a theonomy and that's dangerous. And I do think Islam has ways out of authoritarian theonomy, into a more democratic theonomy (or even towards a version of secularism) that are inclusive and not authoritarian. You don't have to convince me there (someone else already did). But, when there is a theonomy if you break the law of God, you break the law of the state and there isn't any dodging that. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Baptism is not traditionally considered symbolic, it literally cleanses you of all sin, including original sin. It is also the initiation of a person into the church. Infant baptism was practiced by the early church, Paul says that it replaces circumcision, Christ says "Let the children come to me," entire households were baptized in the Bible (implying children), and the Bible nowhere restricts baptism to only adults. It's symbolic now for most of the protestant denominations (at least the nominalist ones.) But you're right that it was not symbolic and definitely literal in the early church. But then again in the early church one of the apostles was a lady, Junia (which gets changed to Junias in later references to hide this). We could talk about position of the "apostle to the apostles" too. I guess what I'm saying is don't pretend Catholicism is perfectly in line with early Christianity. My question for the Christians who want theonomy or theocracy. I've had some of you tell me that those who aren't Christian or who don't sign onto Logocentric Trinitarianism are not our brothers and sisters. That is not, from what I see of the example of Christ presented in the gospels, in line with the example of Jesus. Which to me seems to be that we are all children of the Father and His brothers and sisters. That is to say it seems to be against the Logos and frankly against the vision of Kingdom of God presented in the New Testament. Is it not a hypocrisy to want state theocracy (or a theonomy) while applying conditions to the grace of God? Is it a hypocrisy to equate the Kingdom of God, with a temporary human nation-state? And how did that go the first time, when the Kingdom of God was identical with the Jewish state? The very earliest Christians (still Jews at that point) wanted a theocratic state of Israel. How'd that go? Well the most recent things I've read put the writing of Mark just after the Romans kick the poo poo out of Galilee, destroying all those fishing villages and fish salting towns. Matthew and Luke after destruction of the temple. The very context of gospels is one of the Jewish dream of a physical Kingdom of God, (a theocracy or a theonomy) not happening. It seems to me that God answered this question, and the answer was Titus. Maybe theocracy is bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm just looking for the best system of governance and I don't think strict secularism is the way to go. Personally the more compelling argument would be that secular states aren't really secular, that in secular states the state religion(s) is(are) just hidden and that we should be honest about that. The US certainly isn't neutral in it's relationships to particular universals and some of them can definitely be idolatrous.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How much more honest about it can we really get? As honest as we need to be. Hypothetical theocracies aside, I'm saying that worrying about a potential Libertarian one. Effectronica posted:You do realize that the Reformation was more about power struggles between Church/Imperial and local authority and that the doctrinal issues were mainly justifications for the uprisings, right? Meh that kind-of simplifies the Reformation. Catholicism has the whole "objective, quantitative, and relative relations" thing going on. Protestantism rocks out qualitative, subjective and absolute. The nature of the categories used to describe the relationship between God and humanity changed fundamentally in the reformation. There is a new religion with Protestantism. Not schism over doctrine like the Catholic Orthodox stuff. By new religion I mean specifically: The fundamental nature of the relationship between God and humanity, the way the categories that describe how that works changes fundamentally. Or to quote it: "" posted:The Catholic religion is a system of objective, quantitative, and relative relations between God and man for the sake of providing eternal happiness for man. They are quantitative relations, which must come together – here a piece and there a piece; they are relative: none is absolute, each is relative; and they are objective, in the sense of being things and not personal relationship. The differences have even popped up in this thread with the baptism talk. On one side it's a literal washing away of sin and a literal renewal by the holy spirit in the act. The other side it's symbolic the baptism is a symbol that represents that God loves and accepts us without conditions. Effectronica posted:The early Christian Church had no problem with homosexuality as far as anyone can tell, beyond separating procreative and non-procreative sex, and would eagerly support gay marriage. Now, polyamorists would probably be poo poo out of luck. On this issue the "Beloved Disciple" is a very interesting thing to explore, and a great topic to make fundamentalists uncomfortable with especially because it's only in John. And why are they sneaking off to be alone all the time in non-canonical documents? I even seem to remember reading the Catholics basically had what were basically gay marriages for a long period based on the beloved disciple Jesus relationship. That's it, John Boswell wrote about that, don't remember the specific book. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
McAlister posted:You are pumping me full of mind altering chemicals and letting my brain stew in them for nine months. Literally changing my mind out from under me. You're underselling the length. Add the length of breastfeeding to the nine months. My wife describes the effects of prolactin as "foggy". And there are hormonal changes for the men too (not nearly as large, but large enough to notice at least I did) And don't forget the basically never sleeping again. All that said. This stuff goes way back. The Romans used to abandon unwanted children to die from exposure (threw them out with the garbage) and the Christians really didn't like that. It varies from place to place and between the different cultures but basically: Children (in some case even older children not just infants) weren't part of the household (weren't really people basically) until they were accepted (usually by the father). That's the context of this: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. Eventually pressure from Christians leads to Constantine basically going "okay don't abandon them you can sell them instead". Which is not really great either. Anyway, this metaphor is very Christian and possibly inseparable from Christianity: the very least of you are accepted by (loved) and into reality like a child being accepted into the household (usually the metaphor is by the Father but it doesn't have to be). And that's in tension with this: McAlister"432085788 posted:A born person may not sustain themselves on unwilling human flesh. You may not take of my body for yourself. You may not take of my body for another. That looks very much like Libertarian non-aggression even if that's not the place it actually comes from in your argument (and there are reasons for that). So we have Christian idea that everyone, without condition, should be accepted into society expressed metaphorically in terms of God and children of God in direct tension with: "You may not take of my body for yourself. You may not take of my body for another." Both sides when they ignore the other are being idolatrous. The Christians should know better than to take a particular metaphor for our relationship with God and to make it absolute and inviolable and to try make it state law (which is why this matters to a theocracy thread.) And the other side should recognize that it doesn't matter how far it gets pushed back (even though that ends up being the public argument) that when an abortion occurs we have chosen to not accept the very least of us (how least they are doesn't matter). TLDR: Miltank posted:The secret hidden answer to the abortion question; it is immoral, but it should be legal. Personally I'd add: and immoral actions are sometimes necessary (or even inescapable) and understandable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why is it immoral? That baby's literally coming right for you. Compare this: "You may not take of my body for yourself." to this: “Take it; this is my body.”
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Sedanchair, Don't forget I'm pro-choice. I'm saying sometimes immoral choices are necessary choices, but that the necessity of the choice does not change the morality of the choice. And I think the moral discussion is one part of and has a place in the discussion of what should be legal (or not) in a democracy. But there are many other parts to that discussion. And I also do not think it's moral for a women to be forced to have child she didn't choose to or doesn't want. As far as I'm concerned there is no moral side in the abortion discussion. SedanChair posted:Why don't men have to engage in this particular form of self-sacrifice anyway? This isn't an argument restricted specifically to abortion. We all make immoral choices everyday, many of out necessity, and often to protect ourselves and the people we love. Most of those choices are understandable and most of us would agree that we need to make them. And I do think men should aspire to that exact type of self-sacrifice too. Think of the shittiest person you know, or hell can conceive of, I'm talking real human excrement here. That person is deserving of that having that sacrifice made for them and is capable of choosing to make it for others. Little Blackfly posted:ignoring negative elements (like Paul) Paul is not all bad. Many of Paul's ideas are things we should take back from conservatives, they're good for going after greed selfishness and power. Edit: nvm I'll just put it in another post. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I brought it up in another thread. It's not in Acts (because its doesn't go well) but Paul gathered a collection from all the gentile churches to be given to Jerusalem Jewish Christians. This was a massive "gently caress you" to Rome and to selfishness and greed. It was a "All the believers were together and had everything in common" act from the Greek and gentile communities to the Jewish ones. He rolls into town and delivers it right to the temple. It gets rejected (basically yo we don't need that type of heat) and the rejection causes a shitstorm that ends up being a big deal in conjunction with a bunch of other things going on. Hell I can recite Romans 8 from memory. Little Blackfly posted:I'll try to keep the true voice of God in mind the next time a religious person tells me I'm a deviant sinner who should be treated like subhuman scum. If there is a true morality in everyone's soul, Christianity certainly isn't the key to it. "Who then is the one who condemns? No one." Paul is not the bigot they twist him into.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:It doesn't change the fact the right there in the bible is a passage by Paul telling people that the reason I'm the way I am is because I've given in to debauchery. That it exists at all will always leave room for Christians to justify their bigotry. I have no faith or belief in Christian doctrine as a guide to morality. From history and personal experience, it contains more than enough to justify hatred and bigotry. Talk to me again when the bible gets edited. Paul is talking about a specific thing in a specific time in roman society arising out of selfishness and the absence of love (and some of the examples they like to bring aren't really even Paul). But convincing biblical literalists of that is not easy. And the bible is definitely a heavily edited (and interpreted) very human work (convincing them of that isn't easy either). But you're missing the opportunity, to turn the irony of what they are doing back at themselves. They are being hateful and selfish, they are being what Paul is criticizing. Their bigotry has this character "they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy." They miss the forest for a single tree taken out of it's context. You have love and their morality is only nominally Christian and the number of Christians who will not tolerate what they have to say is growing. VitalSigns posted:No he's right, I just checked with the little Voice of God inside me and it said that vaginas and eggs aren't Papal property. Welp, sorry pro-lifers looks like God agrees with me so stop defying the Lord your God, impudent mortals. You're being satirical but do this part: "I just checked with the little Voice of God inside me and it said that vaginas and eggs aren't Papal property." and not this part "looks like God agrees with me so stop defying the Lord your God, impudent mortals."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:If Christianity was such a panacea to problems of temporal power, shouldn't it have won by now? Kyrie, Homosexuals have loving procreative relationships right now, in which they raise loving families. There is no reason you can't have that. Everything is "partly out of love, but partly out of sin" and no sin can separate you from God. http://www.thestar.com/life/2014/07/03/photo_of_toronto_dads_with_newborn_son_goes_viral.html Separately, you'll never sleep again, and you'll spend the rest of your life terrified for the child, and the whole business of children is exhausting. But after experiencing the relationship between parent and child, I cannot deny that experience to anyone. Homosexuality is a non sequitur to having a procreative marriage. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:OK but I'm not a Christian and this thread isn't about Christianity generally but about the ultimate good of giving temporal power to a Christian government. So providing some evidence of this, given Christianity's dominance of many parts of the world, would be a good start. Oh, I'm against theocracy and theonomy. But I don't think secular democracies have managed to actually be secular. I haven't made this argument yet (because frankly it's reaching even for me) but I think we're not moving towards a more secular world but that we're actually reverting to more polytheistic world. And more problematic we don't know it, we worship our gods of state or markets or liberty or guns or class struggle without recognizing that we treat them as gods. I don't see an alternative to a monotheistic response. I don't want a theocracy of any of those gods either. Because let's face it. Theocracy looks often looks like fascism. I think fascism is a, maybe the, clearest expression of the demonic. Anyway there is a reaction to, a diastasis, to a synthesis of Christianity and modernity (and that reaction is also a reaction to fascism). I think there are alternatives. SedanChair posted:He'd be like "gently caress these mud kingdoms bro, get ready for the kingdom I've prepared for you." Basically this but right now, immediate. The kingdom (heaven) and hell are immediate. And it's increasing ceasing to be an abstract conversation. And often the people I see as most advocating for the Kingdom are not Christian or are even are radically against Christianity. I keep trying to get away from Tillich but I don't see an out other than correlation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I think it's a rather narrow and facile conclusion. Societies have always been shaped by myth and ideology, and ours is no different. Secularity is in any case a very Christian and Roman concept, and decrying the necessity of a Christian underpinning of society isn't a call for the universalization of American capitalist democracy. Hell, your whole concept of polytheism, rather than the specific focuses of cultural worship, being a problem reveals an obvious bias in the way you think about religious faith in a world that is by no means only monotheistic. Why should Christianity be our blueprint for social organization, and not something like Buddhism, Hinduism, or the Iroquois's great law of peace, or even something entirely new? Why should anybody not invested in Christianity personally trust even a modern synthesis of it to provide guidance for society? And that's a very real problem. And again I don't think synthesis is possible anymore ( I did for a while, I don't now). Correlation is still an alternative. And it (correlation) may be as problematic as a synthesis. But I'm pretty far into a bottle of 1783 tonight. So this may not make drat bit of sense. Have you looked at that David Brat rear end in a top hat. He talks about the things Christianity should learn from Nietzsche and it confuses a lot of people. They can't figure out where hell that comes from. I know where that comes from, I know exactly where that comes from. There are a very limited (singular) number of theologian who call Nietzsche a prophet and make that argument and I happen to be obsessed with him. Now this is rambling and only tangentially connected to the specific conversation you and I are having, but it's relevant to discussions I've had with some other posters in the thread, for gently caress going on years at this point. But, to get back on topic I am aware of the obvious bias in my ideology and the repercussions but I'm still willing to risk them. And I think you're absolutely correct about secularity being "a very Christian and Roman concept". But when you ask this: "Why should Christianity be our blueprint for social organization?" I won't respond with a dogma or a doctrine. My response is to point to the cross. What do temporal powers do to individuals who are authentically for others? Little Blackfly posted:Where does that certainty come from, other than a lack of introspection? Christianity survives it's own negation. I haven't encounter another ideology that manages to survive that yet. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I contest the idea that their position is based on the ideal you describe. If this ideal were actually the driving force behind their position they would continue to hold life above bodily autonomy after birth. And I agree actually, there is something else going on. My argument was that it's always going to be problematic for Christianity because it's at odds with some core metaphors, implying that some denominations may not ever be able to change on the issue. But yes most of the actual pro-lifers / groups are another beast. And holy poo poo some of these state laws they are pushing. Some of these laws verge on criminalizing miscarriages. rudatron posted:Christian apologetics as a whole tend to be worthless garbage for similar reasons: they have as a goal the sustainment of a particular set of beliefs, rather than a real desire to inquire. They have the trappings and language of philosophical treatise, without any of the content. Yes they are protective but not of the set of beliefs, they're protective of the core substance of the religion. Any they definitely have a context. The context is church history. And they are also expressions of the reality of actual life in the church as a Christian. And if you live and have experiences, then think about those experiences, and then talk about them with others, well that's the same process. E-Tank posted:I believe in the moral of 'If I do this, and people get hurt through my actions, I am immoral for doing this'. The problem is, just by existing we hurt other people.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Okay, sure, they're not created insincerely. But because of their limited audience and nature they tend to function similarly to agitprop, regardless of intent. Functionally, they help people reaffirm already entrenched beliefs and ignore criticism. They act as a vanguard against the 'intellectual' assault (whether those intellectual criticism are legitimate or not). Their political nature is not an inherent feature of Christian apologetics, or religious apologetics more generally, or of apologetics as a kind of writing. It's a result of use and environment. You couldn't be more wrong though. You can't separate apology from politics especially in Christianity. It's why Christians started doing apology. It's why any group does apology. In Christianity it's the stoics politically going after the Christians. We've been conflating doctrine/dogma with apology a bit. Apology is always an answering to an accusation. It is always preceded by political conflict between at least two groups. Apology is always political. And it's doing the furthest thing from ignoring criticism, it is responding to criticism directly. The problem is that both of these things apology and doctrine get turned into rigid sets which cannot be questioned. But that is counter to the very process that creates them. Apology comes out of taking criticisms seriously and responding to them honestly. Doctrine comes out all the alternatives being tried and examined and then group picks one instead of the others. When people use apology and doctrine to re-enforce their entrenched beliefs they are making GBS threads on the very processes that leads to doctrines or apologies. rudatron posted:Let's take that quote of Bonhoeffer from Miltank. His framing of a increasing secularization is in utterly apocalyptic terms. It's not the logical culmination of western thought (which it is), it is a literal fall from grace - the loss of godliness being a-priori bad. Here we have the kind of environment that these apologetics circulate in. It's an ideological battle with material political goals; not achieving those goals is a catastrophe. So you have the implied 'counter-offensive', the set of actions to prevent that perceived catastrophe. Part of that is giving these kinds of beliefs intellectual currency (because the intellectual does have a kind of authority, which you can use). What is an apocalypse? It's often conflated with the end of the physical world. That's a pretty narrow take on it. More accurately it's a making of the hidden seen. When the topic is the shift of society from one dominate ideology to another, that discussion is fundamentally apocalyptic. It's about revealing the changes in the foundational ideas of society. This : "It's an ideological battle with material political goals" is what apocalypse talk deals with. That's what the new testament apocalypses deal with. That's what the gospels deal with! and: "not achieving those goals is a catastrophe" is the most common context of Christian apocalypse. Very real actual utter material defeat and catastrophe that's when we get apocalyptics. And Bonhoeffer's context is that too. It is of his country, Germany, in catastrophe (Nazis running ones country is definitely catastrophe). The apocalyptic language he's using is entirely appropriate. And even if he were not using that religious language, it'd still be apocalyptic talk. rudatron posted:The problem is that western thought didn't arrive where it did because it necessarily wanted to be there, it arrived there as a conclusion to a long (and continuing) collective chain of thought. And the same can be said about religious thought. And these chains of thought really overlap. rudatron posted:So they end up having to trying to 'roll it back'. The problem there is what you're rolling back has a long history and strong arguments behind it. So they end up with obvious errors, so they're not taken seriously. I would say they want a different foundational idea. And they are engaging in (and I like your phrasing of this) "an ideological battle with material political goals" and if we miss the nature of what they are doing, the conversation becomes about specific details of the systematics being correct or not. If you write them off because the system is poo poo (and it usually is) you can miss what is going on. One systematic has been taken hollowed out and another foundation has been jammed in. It is a mistake to not take that seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What? No I disagree with you there, I don't agree that apologetics must necessarily be political, I don't really think a defense of an intellectual position necessarily has political overtones. It often does, of course, and christian apologetics often do, but (for me at least) it honestly seems to depends more on form and on what they decide is valid. If it has a good logical flow to it then I don't necessarily think it's political, it's just following through on argument. Your obvious counter here is that their motivation (or true motivation) must necessarily be political, but to me that's almost impossible to resolve. And it kind of spreads 'politics' as the primary motivator for all human behavior, if you're not careful. Is that a useful result? How would you even prove it? I just take a functional view, much easier imo. Again I think there is some conflation going on here and some of it's probably my fault. I'm going to be very specific, I've been conflating them in other threads and I shouldn't do that. There is systematizing. Systematics are worked out, logical methodical, ways of looking at the world. They build formal definitions and connect ideas around the center foundational idea. The first Christian one I think was Origen, "De principiis" Now look at Bonhoeffer, he's not making a systematic (the general consensus that he dies before he gets to that point). Something like his writing from prison and ethics these haven't been methodically developed yet. What he is doing particularly in that passage is apocalyptic reasoning. Apology, is always responding to accusations and that looks like this : http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.i.html Apology may reference (and usually does reference) systematics, but the responding to an attack by an outside group defines what apology is. And again the conflict between groups makes it political. Doctrine and Dogma, are ideas from systematic thought that become agreed on by the community as defining what is inside (and outside) of the community. Eg We believe in one God. Believing in many god is thus outside the community. The creation of systematics usually is a step the creation of doctrine/dogma. The "just following through on a argument" is systematizing. Apology is responding to critique or attack, which may reference previously worked out systematics or it might produce new ideas that lead to new systems, or it might change the systems. And doctrines are the things the community agrees to define the community with. Which leads to: but what about apocalyptic reasoning? rudatron posted:Your use of apocalypse here is also strange. If any great ideological shift is necessarily an apocalypse, then doesn't that kind of devalue what an actual apocalypse is? Or even a catastrope? Perhaps from inside any given ideology, a shift away from that ideology must necessarily be a terrible thing. But you think that something with that kind of language, would be based a society-wide understanding of catastrophe? These writings are meant to be read by others outside that community, right? If he's engaging in what you say he is, then I think that's actually much worse then if he was doing what I say he was! What really are things? When there is a revelation (an apocalypse) foundational ideas can change, the substance of or the form of the world changes. The substance of the German people, and the substance of the German churches was becoming fascist, that is catastrophe! That's world ending (and also not). Religion in Germany had been taken over "nazified" what it was had been removed and something else "fascism" had been jammed in. The German churches had totally failed to oppose fascism. Do you know what Bonhoeffer thought about revelation (apocalypse). He thought that revelation abolished religion. He builds on Barth to do this, Barth thought revelation transcended religion. Barth attacks all religion (including Christianity) but then goes down a: but Christianity is true religion route. That's not what Bonhoeffer thought. We're talking the ground of Christianity, is not metaphysics, the church, tradition, culture, or doctrine it is solely the revelation where "(God) is pushed out of the world and onto the cross" So as for: "I think that's actually much worse'. He's going after all religion (and not just a lack of unity among Christians), with religion pretty broadly defined (like any organized sets beliefs relating humanity to reality broad.) I just want to make sure you get the full scope of what he is doing with the apocalyptic reasoning. Because you know who reads Bonhoeffer? Everybody. Conservatives, liberals, radicals, African Americans church leaders, Glenn Beck, everybody. That's the risk in just writing stuff like this off. It's not just in little walled castles of thought ShadowCatboy posted:Existence preexists essence. Yeah, but the other half of that is that: thought shapes reality.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Basically, this is how all dialethia I've seen can be reduced to. So no, I have yet to see a legit dialethia, because once more it only appears to violate a basic logical principle by virtue of using one word to describe two entirely different concepts. If one is arguing to prove a dialethia, one is doing it wrong. Especially in the Christian context. It's revelatory. And uh, if Bonhoeffer was right that abolishes organized belief sets that relate humanity to existence. And this is even implied, in the synoptics, and by Jesus. That bringing a sword to family stuff. It can be seen as bring a sword to household, breaking apart the way families were organized and how individuals defined who they were (using the concept of family). I don't know, I'm starting to think that the little commission might be more important than the great commission. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force. Kindof ignoring what he does, and says, in those occasions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:You mean the part where he calls the samaritan woman a dog? He never stopped them entirely from shielding him from people, probably for his own safety. Canaanite. Mixing up the women. And holy crap, you're missing the point of the metaphor. He's busting up another hierarchical (in this case Israel) relationship that relates people to God (the idea of a national god that is only for the members of the nation)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:He literally calls her a bitch. He obviously does not think she is on the same level as him and his followers. Every read Of Mice and Men? Curley's wife, what does Steinbeck have to say about Curley's wife? Is Steinbeck saying something about the way we all look at women, or is he being a misogynist? There's a right answer to that question (because Steinbeck was nice enough to write letters about his intent). And if you can figure out what it is, you should be able to figure out what Jesus is doing and why you are wrong. Edit: Bonus points if you start asking what's the context of the authors of Matthew and Mark (and her nationality is different in Mark), and what are they saying when they write Jesus as saying this. Little Blackfly posted:Except for the appeal to the revelatory nature of the bible as a justification for basing law and morality on it. That's a relatively new thing actually (and a idolatrous thing.) Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Jesus heals the Canaanite woman's child because she abases herself and says that she's like a dog compared to the Jews, the chosen people of God. I dunno how you're going to read that particular scene as Jesus saying that all religio-ethnic groups are equal but I'm sure it will be a good time. I've explained how I read that particular scene. But here's some more, Jesus is one satirical fucker. Many, many, of his actions and parables/sayings are pretty biting (and often irreverent) satire, (the most clear example is the triumphant entry). It's something rather important to keep in mind. I think he's loving with his disciples for keeping her away, and he does that a lot (fucks with his disciples). And what language are these gospels written in, and what groups are the authors probably from, and who in this passage do they probably identify with, and what's already happen to Israel? Start asking those questions and it makes more sense than just going, lol, he literally called her a bitch. Edit: and her nationality changes between Mark and Matthew, that implies things about the passage you know Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is far more complex, and fits far more poorly with the text, than assuming Jesus was inconsistent and had no real reason for consistency and plenty of reasons to be inconsistent. He's pretty consistent in basically going: You guys really don't get it do you, to his disciples. And he's actually joking, like a lot, in the gospels. Daniel J. Harrington posted:The Gospels have a lot of controversy stories and honor-shame situations. I suspect that the early readers found these stories hilarious, whereas we in a very different social setting miss the point entirely."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:When you look at the actual text, the disciples are only mentioned in one account. The important element of the story between Matthew and Mark is "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the children's crumbs underneath the table." Who are the authors of Mark and and Matthew and who would they identity with in this passage. And does the version in Mark or Matthew matter more (Mark probably because this isn't in Luke). Mark's audience is gentile (because the Jewish traditions have to be explained). So again who would the author and intended audience identify with. And is my interpretation in line with Mark's larger themes of "the failure of the disciples" and the "messianic secret"? To make it clear the author of Mark is writing about this "Greek born in Syrian Phoenicia" woman to an audience of Greek thinking gentiles. I think it's pretty clear the intent is to equate the audience with the woman. It's satirical and the audience would have known it was.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:And how is it a Christian's right to make theocracy a reality? Most of us think theocracy is bad and hypocritical. But think about the way you are arguing and what your argument implies as answers to these related (but not identical) questions. Is it anyone's right to make social progress? Do they have the right to march towards the Kingdom? If in going after theocracy you say no to those related questions that's a problem and very big problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm arguing from the perspective of assuming the gospels are recording and transmitting stories of Jesus first, so the question of whether the authors of Matthew and Mark are simultaneously writing this elaborate satire versus Jesus reaffirming the notion of Jews as God's chosen people is one that will be biased towards the latter answer. Then you're not understanding how the texts work. The whole bible is shaped by it's authors saying things in their context via the history. Religious texts were constantly being re-written and weren't really fixed, doing things like filling in story holes, or commenting on the current situation with the events being written about, those things were act of worship and were understood to be part of the documents.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Actually, even in theory, granting special privileges to one ethnic-religious group is a dumbass idea, with predictable outcomes. It's not a special privilege. I'm just saying be care to how you go after the theocracy advocates lest you rule out possibility of progress.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The people advocating invasion essentially used the US army as their own personal tool to reshape the middle east. In my Naval Science classes I remember we spent a lot of time on just war theory, like weeks specifically on the topic of the Iraq war. We also did non-violent resistance. It's actually kind-of humorous looking back. While the origins of the ideas and alternative ideas were discussed, there was a lot of these are the navy's procedures for these things that went on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
I'm obsessed with Paul Tillich, my sentence structure could have been clearer. But I was pretty trashed. Anyway Tillich is probably the only theologian to call Nietzsche a prophet, at least he's the only one I've ever seen do it explicitly. Tillich tried to reconcile Christianity, Stoicism, and some of what Nietzsche had to say in this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Courage-Be-Paul-Tillich/dp/0300084714 But many of Tillich's students eventually do go onto be be the "Death of God" theology people. But I'm not death of God theology person (even though I'll talk about it). But there is the idea of "religion against religion", or one could talk about Jesus as being anti-religion, or one could talk about God dying on the cross and what that means for organized religion. Anyway one can do all those things without being part of Death of God Theology. Don't get me wrong I think God died on the cross. But what about God behind the cross (that whole trinity thing)? But what about the resurrection? Christians talk about the death of God all the time: "He suffered" or "He was crucified for us". Anywho, back to the point, what it means when like someone like David Brat says "Christianity should learn from Nietzsche" combined with that he has a masters of divinity from Princeton, well, together those things imply strongly that he has probably read Tillich. Which worries me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Don't drunk post. Take it from me, I'm a pretty happy drunk fortunately. I was missing my sons first birthday because I had to travel for work, to a place where I was probably going to the facilities of an objectionable client, in some of the most depressed areas of the country, where my schedule was (is) going to be basically random (and on call) but most often between 22:00 and 05:00 daily for a solid week. Fortunately I dodged the work at the particular business run as a theonomy. (Don't ask the begged question because I won't answer it). The thread topic was a little too concrete.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Could you go into this more? What exactly worries you? I'm interested in your perspective here. Ok, So we've got this problem with modernity and Christianity and a bunch of people come to the conclusion that a synthesis isn't possible (this starts with Barth's NO), and there end up being some responses to that: Barth goes with that Christianity is true myth. What ends up as the Neo-Orthodox route. Bonheoffer goes the religion-less route, but dies before making a systematic. I'm starting to think Bonheoffer's ideas may have something to do with the Death of God movement too. But Tillich does something new and comes up with correlation. Anyway correlation tries to take the revelatory content of Christianity and to correlate that revelatory answer with the questions arising from an analysis of the the human situation. So no synthesis, instead a correlation of question and answer, repeating for all new questions. This method is apologetic, questions and criticism arise from outside Christianity and they are answered and responded to with Christianity's revelatory content (Jesus). I try to do this. I try to answer my existential questions (and questions that arise in discussions like these) with Christianity's revelatory content. Correlation is where I take that from. Anyway in digging into this Libertarian stuff, I started to notice that they sometimes think in the same way. Questions arise, they apologetically answer them with the content of their religion, absolute personal freedom, usually expressed as "markets". This happens at widely ranging levels of sophistication. I started to wonder "how did that get in there, that's a pretty specific way to think?" Followed by "I wonder if they took that from Tillich?" Anyway then there was the Libertarianism "is a severely bastardized neo-stoicism" moment I had, followed by the digging into the Charles Koch stuff where I went from speculating to being pretty drat sure that Libertarianism is a dogmatic religion seeking theonomy. I kept wondering how does the conservative religious crowd tolerate what is a straight up competing deity. Which lead to, I wonder if they think they have a real synthesis of Christianity and Libertarianism? Followed by I wonder if the ideas from "Courage to Be" (or very similar ideas from another source) have something to do with this? Then I see David Brat make Nietzsche as prophet type statements, which makes me go: of course some of them have definitely read Tillich. I guess I'm worried that there are people out there who read this: "Where from the one or the other side, the attempt will be made to identify Christianity with, let us say, the American ways of life, as understood by some leaders of the present-day Congress. Now if this happens, then there would be a real situation of life-and-death struggle: Christianity would have to fight for its very existence. " And then who go: that sounds like a good plan to me. Lets do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Tillich's God is also a synthetic a priori proposition, correct? No "God is not a thing beside other things". The truth of falsity of God isn't dependent on experience. Something like mathematics would be a thing. God is the unconditioned ground, not thing-itself, but being-itself. Our categories don't apply to God, even the category exists But one cannot talk about God independent of our experience. We can only talk about God in terms of our existence and experience. Assloads of Tillich: http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=24 Ultimate Concern in Dialogue is a good place to get the gist quickly. Also this is really good: http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2310 It's transcribed class notes from a history of Christian thought class taught at Union. I reference it a lot. The whole thing is also his argument for correlation. Negative Entropy posted:Mathematics in the platonic sense exists outside of physical reality, and reality is merely a crude approximation of mathematics. Yeah pissed a bunch of people off on that topic. Basically went , hey you all realize that is just neo-platonism and thus just an idealism right? And you are just appealing to something supernatural ( outside of reality) in a religious way. Also went onto argue that neo-platonism can get weird, even when it's just math talk, gave some examples of from commentary on, oh gently caress I can't remember who right now, one of the Greek mathematicians. But back to the Libertarians, what we have with the Libertarians is a synthetic a priori proposition (like math), but one I think not borne out by experienced reality for most of us. And they are trying to reshape reality with it. We had some people talking about axes essentially being for chopping. To which the other side responds: No existence precedes essence (and rightly so). But what other side forgets is that what we think axes really are, determines how we make and shape axes. If we think axes are for chopping, then the physical reality of the axes we make is shaped by our thought about axes. So when we get a Libertarian like Ted Cruz talking about redefining the meta narrative, that's like saying: No axes are for splitting. If we accept that thought then shape of our axes changes. Now what the Libertarians are trying to do is to redefine is the relationship between people and reality, if they change what society thinks of that essential relationship. Well that will change the shape of the axe, won't it. They're trying for a theonomy by redefining essential ideas, the ideas of our nation and faith (for some of us) and this has real repercussions on reality and us. rudatron posted:And how did you think that it happened, or rather, why particularly libertarianism ended up being the kind of surrogate god you're describing? From the outset, it's kind of an odd choice, right? I think it has something to do with the whole Libertarian: we're in this long line of thought leading back to Aristotle thing. Why do libertarians name their think tanks after Cato? I think they are looking to stoicism. "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature" (Bertrand Russel describing Stoicism). But they're half assing it. They've got this bastardized Stoicism going on with their "virtue economics" and "natural law" talk. It's not a new surrogate god, it's an old competitor they dusted off in desperation because they were losing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why does this sound like a very poorly worded Transcendental Argument for God? Well it's God above God, the Transcendental Argument for God is just more theological theism. The transcendental argument doesn't address radical doubt and despair. It doesn't address real total separation from God. It breaks down with "Why have you forsaken me?", the moment where God is not present. And further it forces that moment because we are utterly unacceptable before a prefect transcendent ideal. Here's some anime saying that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weK5m6Jn0zY
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Well I'm laughing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Meh, I assumed you'd already seen it. I seem to remember you posting in the evangelion thread right? Edit: hey now, only could find the dub in a youtube. Watched the real thing subbed like a civilized person.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Well if I can't find the divine in poo poo where else am I going to find it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Seriously though revelation abolishes religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH32Chen5Vo
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Ephemeron posted:Direct theocracy (i.e., a society ruled by an actual god or godlike entity) is a different matter. This got covered earlier, but more on it is probably good. That's what the roman cult of emperor was. Actual godlike entity as head of state of the entire world. Christianity inverts this, especially in Luke. That's why there is a birth narrative in Luke, because the Roman emperors had divine birth narrative, so the author would have wanted one for Jesus to make the comparison to emperor. One can find early Christian writings (clearest example Justin Martyr) talking about Jesus being born in a cave (strongly suggesting that Luke's birth narrative is constructed.) So there is evidence that it's fabricated and a reason to fabricate it. Basically one of the gospels (Luke) is straight up constructed to subvert this idea of direct theocracy (Roman emperor as God) and even implies that the idea put Jesus on the cross. It's actually kind-of amazing how Christianity gets get used to justify the exact same empire later, given this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 14:19
|
|