|
HopperUK posted:I've only ever had Communion wine twice and it was absolutely horrible both times. I have a fun story on this. When I was a little kid, my dad served a two-church parish in Appalachia. This being the type of area where he would get invited out to go fishin' with old guys, and when they were out in the middle of the lake, the old guys would pull out a secret thermos and offer a bit of 'shine, the smaller and more rural location in the parish was provided with their Eucharist wine by a fellow who made his own. And I don't know if this is scandalous to the Ye Olde Cristiennes of the thread or not, but the wine he made was white. So it came to pass one Sunday when our family was out of town, and a supply pastor did the service at this little country church. And as he lifted the cover of the communion tray, he thus proclaimed to the congregation "well I don't know how your regular pastor does it, but I cain't turn this water intah wine!"
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
dammit mo. i'm really sorry. i am completely truthful in that the most anger i have ever felt in my life is toward men who assault women. in a detached egalitarian way perhaps you could count my opinions toward some kind of "oh yes, sexism bad" feel-good TV special. but the reality is that there are at least a few of us out here who are absolutely livid that there is a clown of a boy running for president who is normalizing really grotesque and disgusting narratives about gender relations. I have no answers here but know that, at least in spirit, most everyone here is behind you. There is a lot of hosed up poo poo in the world but we can and will overcome it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Church of Christ doesn't believe in original sin either and both that denomination and the Mormons are part of the restorationist movement. I'll have to dig around a bit to see but I'm not sure of any Quaker connection. Am I the only one who feels icky lumping these two together under the generic "restorationist" banner? My liberal-arts sense is all tingly 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Yeah considering that it's probable that Campbellite Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon I'd say that the restorationist churches were actually kind of an incestuous mess. I think the part that confuses me is that I've seen other groups, such as Oneness Pentecostals, also referred to as "restorationist". I sort of think you are referring to some specific cluster though, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
god became a better DM over time
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
pidan posted:Like, I've never met a Buddhist who goes "I really struggle with this text but I think God must be trying to tell me something here". But for Christians are all about believing things because they're in scripture. i think my advice to you would honestly be to stop with the Orientalism
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
and to maybe spend more than two minutes on Wikipedia when it comes to how the Bible and Christianity are related to each other
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
pidan posted:If you want to discuss the role of texts in Buddhism more, maybe we should take this to the Buddhism thread. I was comparing the practitioners of Buddhism that I've talked to to the practicing Christians I know; maybe the difference isn't really due to the nature of the religions but some other factor. This post encapsulates a lot of what I think you're doing wrong in your approach. You said in another post that you study Buddhism. This is cool and good, and I think it's important to keep in mind, because the impression that I get from your recent posts is that you are someone who has recently discovered this shiny new intellectual thing that excites you, and you are now trying to hammer the square peg of Buddhism into the round hole of unrelated philosophical and religious traditions, instead of going and learning about another tradition until you understand it from within the framework of the other tradition itself. (Side note: Parable of the Sower amirite folks? :iamafag:) I think a good example of this is how you mention that the function of texts in Buddhism is maybe a derail here in this thread, because to me I think the opposite is true. Your recent posts here include what sound to me like odd and inaccurate assumptions about the role of texts within Christianity, so I think it's important to consider your view of how texts function within the tradition that you are probably basing some of these assumptions on. My only real exposure to Buddhist texts is indirect, as filtered through the Dharma talks at a Vipassana meditation center I go to occasionally, but if the teachers I've heard are representative of any significant portion of Buddhism, I don't understand how or why one could make some of the comparisons and distinctions that you are making. The Bible is sort of the main "primary source" text for all of Christianity, while my understanding is that there is not really an equivalent thing for all of Buddhism; instead, in Buddhism you have more variations on texts, more commentaries on texts, and less-strict/less-all-encompassing canonization of texts. Christianity certainly has textual variations, commentaries, and disagreements about canonization, of course, but these often don't function the same way within Christianity that the Buddhist ones function within Buddhism. And even in cases where they do function in similar ways, it can be to a different degree, or it can be the case that what appears similar in isolation actually works much differently overall once you step back and look at how it interacts with other parts of the respective tradition(s). Another thing that stands out to me is your assertion that Christianity doesn't have skeptical or critical discourse about itself, and Buddhism does. Now, this is certainly an argument that a person could make. However, in this post I'm quoting you seem to present as a somewhat-significant point in your favor the fact that "Christians usually just say 'yeah, Jesus is totally the guy who's the human part of the Trinity'" (n.b. not direct quote). This little nugget of yours is, quite frankly, such a weak thing to put forward that many Christians would be offended by it if they didn't understand the weird direction you're trying to come at the issue from. And I would again say that your direction is one of taking issue X in Buddhism that you understand, and trying to clobber issue Y in Christianity with it, because you think issue Y is equivalent to issue X. So while your comparison makes sense internally, it is ultimately invalid because the premise of X=Y is not a correct assumption. And the reason it is incorrect is because Christianity has a long and rich history of skepticism and arguments about core doctrinal issues. For the issue of Jesus being part of the Trinity, there are in fact many aspects of this that people disagree on, and asking a couple of random Christians about it does not give you the authority nor the necessary information to loudly conclude you completely understand it and can correctly compare it to something in a completely unrelated religion. And for the issue of biblical authority, I would respond to you by asking how a person could possibly explain almost any significant part of Christian history without spending a good deal of time talking about disagreements over the role of the Bible, its authority, its authorship, and its canonization. I don't really have a focused, central thesis to all this, and while a lot of this will probably come across as super critical and blunt, I really am just trying to give you some knowledge about the things that you're asking for. And I guess my conclusion thus far is that you are asking really broad questions that require using a lot of Christian theory and tradition in order to talk about accurately, yet it seems like you either (a) aren't familiar with some of it, and/or (b) misunderstand some of it, because it seems like you're blindly sameing aspects of two very large, diverse, and old religions, and then when you get a weird result from doing this, you act confused and skeptical about the one religion you aren't as familiar with. So my advice would be to study Christianity more, and stop trying to think that you can compare it with Buddhism in the same way that you can compare two carries in a MOBA or something. Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
AmyL posted:If you are bringing up Peter Mogila to a Greek Orthodox or OCA, they might be a bit skeptical of him because they think he was influenced too much by Roman Catholic Theology. i think you're missing a bunch of punctuation marks itp
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
there's a "remix" version of the message that would fit right into
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Today is the feast of St. Jude... so people who receive food stamps are lost causes? harsh
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
cerror posted:Doesn't St. Jude cover desperate situations in general as well? Yes, and while I admit I am not an expert on St. Jude, it just really sits wrong with me to look at charity and social programs for lower-class people, and package them into a box labeled "desperation/giving up". To me this is incompatible with much of the Gospel, as it places a second-class humanity onto those who find themselves in the position to receive such aid, and denies the transformative power of loving one's neighbor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/09/program_for_popes_visit_to_sweden_reformation_anniversary/1256960
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:This papal trip is really cool and I'm actually looking forward to the 500 year anniversary next year, but what I decidedly didn't like was the horrible fanfic I read in one of Germany's most prestigious weeklies today about the Pope getting rid of transsubstantiation to reconcile the churches which was good because he abandoned this “medieval superstition“ but also bad because it gave Benedict the opportunity to declare himself antipope my dad (my actual dad irl) is really excited about this, because he supports reconciliation between the two churches. even if it's just a gesture, it's still a really nice gesture
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
The Golden Rule is not a fire-and-brimstone edict that requires you to, always and at all times, have in your heart the love emotion toward all humans on the planet. It is more a teaching that everyone is human, and that you should open your mind and heart toward the Earthly reality that is outside yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:In those texts Protestantism apparently still defines itself through a decidely anti-Catholic lens, and the authors just can't help themselves to drop petty digs against The thing is, both of these statements are kind of true. To a degree. Sort of. At the least, they are related to actual historical trends. The first thing I quoted is easy, because the word "Protestant" pretty much says it all. It is a movement of people who were protesting about something. And the something that they were protesting was Catholicism, or at least parts of it. So when your founding myths and early thinkers often defined themselves as what they weren't, not just what they were, this colors how later generations think. And also I think it's important to point out that this is not solely a Protestant phenomenon. In every church you will find people hating on other churches. A saying I have often heard is that the Devil works hardest within the church, which I myself don't take literally, but it's something to keep in mind. The human rights thing is a bit of a stretch to connect directly to Luther. However I think it is inaccurate to exclude him and other church reformers from Western history when it comes to the rights of common people. Many movements for human and civil rights can be traced back (at least partly) to the Reformation. People being jerks about it is not good though, of course 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Oh, I totally agree, but see: you began your post with some qualifiers. The texts I'm ranting about don't tend to do that Don't worry, now that we have a lot of non-religious people in Western society, we have newspaper editorials that are equally tone-deaf and offensive whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu...
Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/nyregion/muslims-parents-donald-trump-staten-island.html (Seven-year-old) Maaria said that if Mr. Trump became president, “I’m going to stay in my room forever.” 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Another non-Catholic who is fun to read about is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a pastor and theologian. That dude died in a Nazi concentration camp because he tried to infiltrate the Nazi government and assassinate Hitler. He also tried to help protect Jews.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
i went on an internet first date tonight and for some drat reason we spent like 20 minutes discussing theology and church politics. imo the reason this poo poo happens is that you fuckers have ruined my brain. but also, on the other hand, you have given me enough knowledge about Catholic things to still get a kiss at the end of the night. i am not making this up edit: side note her childhood beagle was named after a dostoevsky character. GET OUT OF MY HEAD CHRISTIANITY THREAD Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
ecclesiastes is pretty much goon.txt and i love it for exactly this reason
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
"heh so i went and studied for years and years, right? then i applied this knowledge to the world and cuck cuck  DEATH IS CERTAIN lmao"this is basically the conclusion of ecclesiastes chapter 1
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hsjoihs/status/792206474902515712
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
the joke is that the question "does zero equal zero?" in a computer language is something that should be very straightforward and easy, not something that rises to the level of a complex doctrine like that of the Trinity edit: in even simpler terms, the joke essentially boils down to "pee pee, doo doo, javascript is the antichrist"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:I'm dating a rad trad and it's hard to be on all the time ok. It's nice that I have this thread to vent in. EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM THE GOSPEL ONTO THE TABLE. IT’S THE GOSPEL OF JESUS AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I START DOING THE MIRACLES ALONGSIDE WITH THE MAIN CHARACTER, JESUS. I DO EVERY MIRACLE AND I DO EVERY MIRACLE HARD. MAKIN WHOOSHING SOUNDS WHEN I HEAL SOME BLIND GUYS OR EVEN WHEN I MESS UP TECHNIQUE. NOT MANY CAN SAY THEY ESCAPED REALITYS MOST DANGEROUS AFTERLIFE. I CAN. I SAY IT AND I SAY IT OUTLOUD EVERYDAY TO PEOPLE IN MY BIBLE STUDY AND ALL THEY DO IS PROVE PEOPLE IN BIBLE STUDY CAN STILL BE IMMATURE JEKRS. AND IVE LEARNED ALL THE PARABLES AND IVE LEARNED HOW TO MAKE MYSELF AND MY APARTMENT LESS LONELY BY SHOUTING EM ALL. 2 HOURS INCLUDING BENEDICTION EVERY MORNIng
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your sola fide. You think you're loving righteous by faith, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can pray for you in over seven hundred ways, i legitimately laughed out loud at this part 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Y'all know Commie NedFlanders has had many threads in GBS that are full of incoherent "Christian" rambling, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:How... how does someone convert before knowing what they're converting to? I'm not trying to be dense - someone discovers(?) or declares(?) or decides(?) they have faith in Christ, but rather than say "all right, this is what we teach, does this sound like beliefs you can accept?", your church says, "Okay, welcome to the church, here's what you've been saying you believe by saying you're a member of our church"? I think Jaramin just worded their post a bit loosely. My understanding of how most churches do believer baptism is that you have to sit down with a pastor and have a chat first. It's not like you can just waltz in to a random Baptist church on Sunday, put on the wetsuit, and get dunked with no questions asked. It isn't as big of a process as Confirmation, but there are still some guidelines and rules to be followed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
We're all catholic 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:There's been a *lot* of pushback against eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in Reformed circles recently. I think the recent controversy with the new ESV edition, where CrossWay decided to mangle Genesis 3:16 into saying something completely different to advance a complementarian/eternal subordination theology caused a lot of people to pay attention to what on earth was going on with complementarianism destroying the orthodox view of the Trinity. um  please post more about translations foreveralso i will write a post about dorky first communion things but its late also elections lolll
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
all this morning, i can't stop thinking of the old groaner "God sure does have a sense of humor". a couple of the times after thinking this, i have even chuckled a little i am on the skeptical side when it comes to the mystical power of prayer, and i still don't know how to even begin to articulate what i mean when i say that i believe in "God" or "a higher power". but i just said a genuine prayer right now for God to be with donald j trump, and to be with everyone in america. i pray that God be with everyone who is sad or scared. i pray that God be with everyone who is triumphant and feels the power of victory. and i especially pray that God be with those who feel that the anxiety or hate in their heart has now been validated. now on that last sentence, when i wrote it i was thinking about flaming crosses and mosques doused in pig blood. but after i typed it out, i realize it applies to me too. this election has in some ways grown the anxiety and fear in my heart about how many of my brothers and sisters in this country cling to prejudiced and hateful views of people based on things like gender, color, and religion. but if i grasp ever tighter to these fears of mine, i will probably just perpetuate this cycle of paranoia and anger. division will not heal division
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." i did, i was sitting in an actual locked room (pooping ) when the feeling came over me to pray. as i sat there i had a thought about how feelings of anger and self-righteousness are not going to change the election, and they aren't going to get many people to treat their political "opponents" more nicely. im just trying to share my confused feelings with some people who often have good insights, ok 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Hey skinhead antifa do god's work bashing nazis and I will hear nothing against them is it ok if i'm praying for you 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Oh and I think you mentioned your homophobia before? Guess what, LGBT protections with respect to housing and employment are sparse at best and rely on the few federal regulations that are now going bye bye. the us state that luigi and i reside in has had these protections since the 1980s i am very very concerned about what could happen over the next 2-8 years to many people i know. my queer friends, immigrant friends, muslim (and other non-christian) friends, and I'm even concerned about myself because I belong to certain demographics that are generally invisible and misunderstood in our country. but i must strongly disagree with your call to disregard facts, demonize an Other, and call for murder. i cannot see how this is acceptable in any way
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
it's telling you to wait in line with the other schmucks
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Maybe I'm crazy to call out a modern Christianity of the little wine and cracker. It looks weak, superficial, and unlikely to bring anyone to salvation. as with much in religion, it is not primarily the thing itself which has significance, rather it is the meaning behind the gesture. and i think you are right to question what the heck is going on in a country where its citizens overwhelmingly claim to be christian, yet millions and millions of these people did not react in laughter to the ham-handed religious appeals made by an orange man
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i blessed my fencing dagger, but not yet my sword *sigh* i guess it's time to post it again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBFOqnMrsZs
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:1) If the purpose of sex (or its ideal outcome, however you phrase it) is procreation, how would a knowingly infertile couple having sex be different than using contraception? (mostly aimed at Catholics here) I believe it is different because of intent. A Catholic couple who use contraception is intending to avoid or prevent pregnancy, while an infertile couple does not necessarily intend anything one way or the other about the potential result of pregnancy/childbirth. If they choose to feel about it the way the Church says is correct, i.e. be open and happy about the possibility of children, then they are OK as far as that rule is concerned. A minor thing to keep in mind here is that an "infertile" person or couple is often just diagnosed that way by a doctor, so science being imperfect, this means they could in theory surprise everyone and have kids someday. See: that King of the Hill episode about Hank's narrow urethra. Another small thing I will mention is that the Catholic Church has in fact acknowledged the positive effects that physical intimacy can have on a relationship. I have a lot of critiques of this teaching, as well as other "conservative" teachings on sex and gender, but I'm phone posting so laters
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:A couple diagnosed infertile in some way has sex with the expectation no children can be conceived It's different because I was talking about intent, and you are talking about expectation  . quote:You talk intent, but intent can be variable. Maybe the couple using contraception really wants to have children, but they're 22 and 24 years old and don't have stable, good-paying jobs able to support a family so they're waiting. Maybe the couple using contraception can't afford a pregnancy because it would mean the mother takes a year off from work and there's no compensation. The Catholic thing is that sex is fine if it's a (married hetero cis monogamous) couple who are "open to" the idea of children being produced by the sex. You don't get to say "yeah I want kids but not now" or "there is a 99.999% chance any children I create will be born with a condition that makes the entirety of their life filled with crippling physical pain" or any other thing as justification for using birth control. As you can tell from my last example I don't agree with some aspects of this, but that's the rule.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 04:43
|
|