|
Smoking Crow posted:Hello and welcome to the apostolic successor of the last Christianity thread. While most of us are liturgical in some form (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc), we cover a myriad of denominations. Ask anything you want! Just remember the rules: 1) be a cool guy 2) don't be an uncool guy. Just as the devil is disorderly and jumbles things together, so your writings and head are equally disordered and mixed up, so that it is exceedingly annoying to read and difficult to remember what you write, OP. (source)
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:Also, after presenting my spiritual autobiography to my discernment committee for holy orders, a member said, "I have a lot of questions, but I need more time to think about it," which is terrifying. which order are you trying to  in
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
such teacher. very miracle. wow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Tias posted:This is, essentially, why organized christianity isn't for me. Not content to accept my father in the sky as the only godlike intelligence, I also cannot place him above( or below) mother earth. Both things must be, and be equal, for the universe to be in harmony. the first problem here is the assertion that you can give God a defined, logical form with your human abilities. this is not an accurate description of Christian thought. the second problem is that you say God has a ding-dong. eww, gross, don't do that
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't think I assert that. I've learned from the body of lore in my particular tradition that these are some of the aspects the father has, not them all or that they are particularly well defined. im usually only half-serious posting 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Evangelicals don't wear religious hats. Checkmate, liturgical. easter bonnets. check. and. mate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
dk2m posted:I'm a non-christian immigrant, but I've lived in America long enough that I want to visit a church just to observe and get a general sense of it all. A few questions: I have two main suggestions. One is to consider what type of brown you are and where, specifically, you live. It goes against everything I believe the Gospel stands for, but the fact remains that the Church (i.e. all people who consider themselves Christian) are humans, and humans do terrible things. The second suggestion is to simply check in with the church office before you go to visit. Give them a call or even stop by in person. This is probably the easiest way to figure out what you should wear and what you should/shouldn't do during a church service. There are a couple rules of thumb that you can probably go by, though. For fashion, and I am a dude so I will give advice about dudes, people generally aren't going to look funny at a first-time guest who shows up somewhere in the range of business casual to semi-formal. Something nicer than a T-shirt, jeans, and athletic shoes, but I would max out at semi-nice dress shoes, pants, shirt and tie. If you're in this range, reasonable people will think that you understand the range of proper church attire. For what to do and not do during a service, probably the big one is that if they do communion during the service, don't eat the bread or drink the wine. There might be an exception for Orthodox friendship bread or whatever it's called, but Orthogoons can explain that. The safest way to go here is to just stay in your pew during communion, but if you're visiting a place where the priest/pastor does verbal blessings for people not taking communion, it's something you could consider: in my opinion it would be kind of rude to go for a blessing if you don't genuinely want one, but even in that case, as long as you don't say anything or talk poo poo publicly on Twitter, nobody will know (except God, right?  ).Finally, I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but one of the key things to remember is that Christianity is an extremely varied religious tradition. So whatever you think of the first service or event you go to, know that there are an almost uncountable number of variations upon it, as well services and events that are almost completely different. This variation exists even within very small geographic areas, within single denominations. There is also a lot of variation depending on things like: the occasion for gathering, the time of year, and the time within different seasons. edit: and if you are comfortable sharing the general area you live in (e.g. metro area or corner of some state) i'm sure we could give you some specific recommendations edit2: HEY GAL posted:cythreal, isn't your ex black? wait, really??? lol how can you not know about this cyth? like, it was even a significant plot point in The Wire, so i would assume most goons are familiar with it Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Yeah I can't say I've ever seen a church in Minnesota that did not have a kitchen. It's even part of a pretty well-known in-joke here, the idea of church basement ladies. The joke, which even some of you foreigners might agree with, is that no matter who the people are who are nominally "in charge", the real power and heart of a parish lies in the middle-aged and older women who work tirelessly to put on events and keep things running smoothly. Many church buildings in America, or at least throughout much of Minnesota and other Upper Midwest states, were made such that the basement underneath the sanctuary was the combination fellowship hall, kitchen, and (if you have it set up with room dividers) Sunday School rooms. During my youth, I spent many Sunday mornings on feast days in the basement of the church, helping cook for youth fundraiser meals during the worship service. One thing that every church basement kitchen has is a PA speaker with a wire running to the sanctuary's PA system. This allows the people tending to the food to still participate somewhat in the service and hear the sermon. It is an interesting experience to cook and worship at the same time, for sure. There are times when you might have to temporarily take over for someone who is following deeply the church prayers, or someone who needs to run up and sing with the choir 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:this all seems in line with Lutheranism CATHOLICS! eh eh eh eh. LUTHERANS! doot do do do
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:I don't know about Luther not being venerated, I definitely know about some movements within the Lutheran Church of Germany where he is the next best thing to a saint, complete with St Martin's Day being changed into Martin-Luther-Day in some parts. This reached its peak in the 19th century, but is in some places still very much alive (just a couple of days ago I read in an article about that very topic how American Lutherans come to Eisleben to kiss Luther's baptismal font) In my experience Lutherans do not treat Luther like a saint, or "close" to a saint. I'm not an expert on saint-stuff but he is not associated with any of the checkmarks I know of, such as: he wasn't a martyr, he didn't do any miracles, he isn't considered particularly moral or pious. The closest thing to supernatural I've ever heard about him is the story that he was struck by lightning and survived; Luther himself took this to be significant, but when I was young this was never presented to me as divine intervention or as something that marked him as special, rather it was just treated as an anecdote about his life story and his development as a person. I've been sitting here for like ten minutes trying to think about how Lutherans actually do consider Luther's relation to anything divine, and I haven't had any trains of thought that went anywhere I was happy with. Another thing that is bugging me a little bit is that I'm curious if (part of) the premise of your comparison is based on saming Lutheran thought with more Catholic/Orthodox thought. Perhaps I will think of something later, or someone else can help me out here. (also I bet my one religion professor would be super proud of me using the critical-theory verb "same" here) Finally, I'm pretty sure that nobody is changing St. Martin's Day into "Martin Luther Day". The moment I read this in your post, I guessed that St. Martin's day was in October or November, and I was right. Why did I guess this? Because that's around when Reformation Day is, of course. In the churches I grew up in, it was celebrated on a Sunday during late October or early November, but Wikipedia claims that some churches have done it on St. Martin's Day. However I don't think I have ever heard of it being officially related to or replacing anything with regard to St. Martin. I mostly remember it just being the one Sunday a year when maybe the confirmands would put on a little play about Luther, or the sermon would have some bits about the Reformation worked into it. And I'm stretching my memory, but I think sometimes the vestments are red on this day, instead of the typical Pentecost-season green.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:someone needs to show Martin Luther how to set up a Ghost Twitter account oh lol should i do this e: too late Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
how many trinities can i get for this dvd copy of the animetrix
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The latest salvation model comes with a six-cylinder confessional, so a triple-dual godhead is needed to maximize the Holy Power band. maybe, but can i turbograce it and still eke out a respectable indulgences per gallon?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
whoa whoa whoaquote:On October 30, 2016, the Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia) will present the first exhibition in the United States to explore the indelible impact of the Protestant Reformation through major works of art, as part of an international initiative to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s “Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.” On view through January 15, 2017, “Martin Luther: Art and the Reformation” will feature paintings, sculptures, gold, textiles and works on paper—many of which have never before left Germany—as well as Luther’s personal possessions and recent archeological finds from his boyhood homes to shed new light on the critical religious, cultural and societal changes of this tumultuous and transformative period. The anniversary will be observed around the world on October 31, 2017.  quote:“Martin Luther: Art and the Reformation”places particular emphasis on Luther’s use of art as a tool for worship, teaching and propaganda. Among the works on view will be paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553), who was inspired by Luther’s preaching to develop didactic paintings that vividly depict the viewer’s choice between salvation and damnation. Cranach’s narrative paintings illustrate biblical stories in brilliant colors and ravishing—sometimes gory—detail, and his stylized portraits capture the humanist spirit of the age.  quote:“Polemics and Conflicts” underscores the turbulence of the era through vandalized works of art, satirical woodcuts, weaponry and war trophies 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
holy crap i should have kept readingquote:* The pulpit of Luther’s last sermon, from St. Andrew’s Church in Eisleben, created in 1518. This pulpit remains in its original location to this day, and features painted depictions of Saints Catherine, Andrew, Martin and John the Evangelist, as well as the Madonna being crowned by angels. The pulpit will make its inaugural trip from Germany to Minneapolis for this special exhibition.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
I feel so incredibly  right now. This exhibition is only going to New York, Minneapolis, and Atlanta, and they're doing it here first. Gonna go on a man-date with my dad and giggle at O.G. political cartoons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
i went to a church this evening. i almost embarrassed myself several times by laughing during inappropriate moments. this is a good thing, though! it's good because of the reason i almost laughed. and that reason was: the church prayers and the sermon were honest. like, brutally, awkwardly, and even somewhat goonily honest. it's not every day i have been asked to say "hear our prayer" to the statement (in part) of "our two biggest candidates for president sometimes feel to us less like leaders, and more like two horsemen of the apocalypse". like, poo poo, yeah that's how i feel, but, just......
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Death: Clinton aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
no it's because he's the candidate of the libertarian party
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
don't forget the various contingents of "it's a nice gesture, but actually this is good/bad because..."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:IDK it's kind of mess and I'm still kind of thinking through it all. I... I hope nothing I said is out of line? Since I'm not actually part of any religion sometimes I feel like it's just not my place to say anything at all. Have you tried taking a few deep breaths? That might be a good place to start  I have a few thoughts on your post. One is that you don't have to label yourself anything: the fact that you see yourself as different from people who label themselves X, doesn't mean that you necessarily have to also label yourself with something different or opposite to X. Specifically, for a person who doesn't follow a religion or really believe in any kind of God, it is not required that they label themselves an "atheist". I would encourage you to explore different ideas, whether they are religious or not, and not feel pressured to put yourself in a box. And also, it's OK if you just took a label on by default! That's a normal thing that people do. And it's OK that you're now examining this label more critically and thoroughly. The other thing I want to say is that I'm sorry so many Christians are ignorant about queer people, and that you don't feel welcome waltzing into any ol' church to check it out. I feel this is a major failure of the Church (by which I mean all churches, collectively) and it makes me sad that a lot of people I know feel rejected by the spiritual families they grew up in. But I feel that there is also hope, and there are already many churches that will welcome you as you are. You are perceptive in that particular churches within some of the more queer-friendly denominations might not be as friendly as the denomination says they are, but if you are interested in trying to figure out how to tell, I can make a post about this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
growing up as a liturgical protestant i actually agree with both of you most of the time 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
i didn't think much about it before i signed the lease, but at my new place there is a big huge church literally in my backyard. they have a bell tower, and also, when they have choir practice, if the weather is nice they open the windows, which point directly toward my bedroom 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Regarding the Trinity, "Father" and "Son" is pretty self explanatory, but what is "Holy Spirit" supposed to be? i don't know if this is dogmatically correct, but i always thought the holy spirit was kind of the mystical part of god that is accessible to one's idiot human brain and body
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:*schisming intensifies* man i don't know wtf im talking about, c'mon i will say that the only part of the movie Hail Caesar that i throught was genuinely funny was when the producer character has meeting with the religious leaders, one Catholic, one Orthodox, one Protestant, and also a rabbi for some reason. they all start going on about the nature of Jesus and the producer guy eventually just throws up his hands and walks out yesss somebody uploaded it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJEiDRi4Itc Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Can you elaborate on what the differences between Matthew, Mark, and Luke are? One difference is simply which stories and events you can find in each gospel, as well as how passages in Synoptic gospel A might be in a different order or "moved" several chapters compared to Synoptic gospel B. I don't know if this is a good or accurate website, but here is a page where you can get the basic idea about this, as well as an idea of why John is considered the odd duck compared to the other three: http://www.gospelparallels.com/ Another big difference is in terms of literary techniques and ideological/editorial decisions made on the part of the author(s). For example, Matthew is very big on making Jesus look like Moses. What Luke calls "the sermon on the plain", Matthew calls "the sermon on the mount", possibly to draw the parallel of Moses going up onto the mountain to talk to God and receive the Ten Commandments. Another example is how Luke focuses a lot more than the others on social issues, often framing things in an almost proto-socialist manner. The sermon on the mount/plain is again a good example of this difference: where Matthew says "blessed are those who are poor in spirit", and "blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness", Luke says "blessed are the poor" and "blessed are those who are hungry now". Italics are mine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Tias posted:This is interesting, are there non-crackpot versions of the bible being the inerrant word of God?  In the context of the quote you were responding to, it would be kind of a trap to fixate on the word "inerrant". That word gets used a lot when talking about biblical authority and biblical interpretation, and its meaninng can vary depending on the context in which it is being used, as well as who is using it. One way to think about it that I have found helpful personally, is to consider the history of all the schools of biblical interpretation. For example, the biblical "literalism" that is popular among certain conservative American protestants, this traces back only two or three hundred years, and was at least partially a reactionary movement against the rise of things like scientific rationalism and the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
DO YALL WANT A
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:didn't name names or hit the pulpit with his fist #JustMinnesotaThings
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:yeah, the catholodox don't know poo poo about oratory right now, although i've attended some good catholic homilies none of them have been good in the way that'd really get you het up. one catholic priest explicated some aristotle for us once, that was fun i used to go to Catholic mass with my ex girlfriend when we'd go visit her family, and the monsignor at that parish gave sermons that were engaging and had jokes. on the other hand i think every one i ever heard was mostly an explanation of church doctrine, which for me was a very different experience. maybe it's a traditional Protestant thing, but i would say that 99% or more of the sermons I've heard in my life were primary based on the lectionary readings of the day
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
my dad served a church for a little while that had a lot of native american parishioners and he would call me on the phone nerding out because he did a service or a wedding with some native stuff mixed in with the more traditional european bits 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Got a message this morning, my grandma said she is ready to go to heaven. Make sure she has enough tokens for the toll booths and some power armor for the final boss of purgatory. That's how it works, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Nah she told everybody that. She's in the hospital. It might be time soon. I'll miss her but she knows better than me and I will support her if that's what she wants.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:As an ELCA, what do I need to know about Missouri and Wisconsin synods of the Lutheran church? A guy was talking at length to me about being Missouri Synod and it seemed almost foreign to me My dad is an ELCA pastor I grew up in it  One of the basic differences is that the Missouri and Wisconsin Synod denominations are much more conservative/reactionary. They follow a lot more the modern "literal" interpretations of the Bible. They deny women full equal membership and authority within the church. They base a lot of their exclusionary practices upon the "fact" that, for example, the Book of Concord doesn't say anything about gays, ergo, we can demonize gays all we want.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
pick the one that lets you drink beer and eat ham, imo. YOLO
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Bollock Monkey posted:I saw a thing saying that lurkers should just post, and whilst I'm not much of a lurker here I haven't seen this broached in my skim-reads of this thread. I have always wondered how people know they've picked the right religion/the right version of a religion and I'm interested to hear some thoughts on that, if anyone's happy to tell me any. Whilst I appreciate that not all religious institutions/individuals have the same "If you don't believe exactly what I do then you're going to Hell!" thing, as I understand it there is usually some degree of feeling that your version is the 'correct' one to some degree or another and I find that interesting because it's something I just don't have context to understand. So... How do you know you picked correctly? I notice in your post here that you seem to be talking about what I would say are several separate issues, and it's not clear to me if you realize that many people consider them separate. One is the issue of how people approach religious, cosmological, and philosophical ideas in terms of truth and authority. Another is the issue of how someone believes their chosen understanding of truth and authority relates to other people who do not have the same beliefs or life experiences that they do. These aren't the only ideas in your post, but these two are very large ideas on their own so let's just stick with them for now. When considering the ideas of truth, authority, and/or correctness, I have to start by saying that I'm a little skeptical of your statement that you "don't have the context to understand" how people accept ideas about the world, their experiences, reality, etc., because everyone does this. Regardless of whether someone considers themselves religious, not religious, whatever, everyone has ideas and reasoning about their experience and how/whether this experience exists within a broader reality, as well as about the nature of that broader reality. So if you are indeed basing your reasoning about this issue upon the logical assumption that there are several ways of looking at the world, one being your own way and another being the "religious" way, and that these two ways are mutually exclusive and possibly incomprehensible to each other, I would then have to put on my smug postmodernist hat and say that this assumption is (1) in some ways Othering religious people in comparison to you and your own school of thought, and (2) not a whole lot different from, for example, a religious person who cannot conceive of how an atheist could possibly live by a code of morals. Please note that I am not saying that you are indeed doing this or that you're bad or mean or anything negative: I'm just trying to give you some ideas to think on, because clearly you are someone who has thoughts about stuff and is curious to learn, which is cool and good. And actually, I lied that I was going to cover the two topics I listed in my first paragraph. I will try to write more eventually but time is short at the moment, so I'll just post this part for now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Question for the Catholics: ah, even i know the answer to this one! *pulls back curtain revealing ten Encyclopedia Britannicas' worth of church law and errata* now do you want to go chronologically, or hierarchically?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
I ranted about it in the last thread but I will say again that I have never felt comfortable when I hear Lutherans use the word "confessional" to describe their Lutheran-ness. This is because I've only ever heard it used as a dog whistle term, where a Confessional Lutheran is a "proper" Lutheran and Christian, compared to those loony ELCA heretics. This may not be the only way the term is used, but that has been my (unfortunate) personal experience.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Tias posted:Also, do you handle snakes or speak in tongues? if by snakes you mean long skinny pastries, and by speaking in tongues you mean german/norwegian...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that's why it's bad, from beethoven to the 20th century music is just self-indulgent. you want something that's over the top without being eeeyuuuck? then lully or charpentier, deromanticism yourself and face to baroque lol if u think bach didn't get a big ol stiffy writin those organ fugues
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 21:13
|
|