Christianity Thread II: Y'all need Jesus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Christianity Thread II: Y'all need Jesus

«‹›4 »

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2016 16:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:37

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Cythereal posted:

I've spent a while church shopping in four different cities, and for me it's the community that matters more than the theology - I'm a young person (well, relatively young these days), and I keep looking for a church with people my own age. It's always been hard to find one that also isn't hardcore right-wing.

Be the change you want to see. Old congregations know they're old and know they need younger members. Join one and be the seed of a new generation in the church. They're all sick of being on committees at this point so in a few years you could be running the place.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2016 21:03

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Brennanite posted:

I unironically think a case could be made for the so-called "prosperity gospel" being one of the antichrists. The idea of God being a magical ATM or a genie that grants wishes is morally repugnant to me. To paraphrase Morbo, "Deity does not work that way!"

Keep in mind that prosperity gospel is nothing new. It's one an argument put forth by one of Job's friends and is properly shredded by Job.

The notion that God rewards good people and punishes bad people has been a constant heresy in both Judaism and Christianity for millennia.

So don't ascribe it more status that it merits. It's not some hot new thing - it's the same old bullshit that's been around since Moses. The sitcom Maude had the tag line "God'll get you for that!" which infuriated my Dad every time he heard it, because it was yet another iteration of the same dumb idea that so many fall into so easily. Jesus fought against it constantly - before most of his healings he asked "was it this boy or his parents who sinned to make him blind?" with the point being nobody could really answer. He would then emphasize he had done nothing to deserve his blindness, then healed him and sent him on his way.

I guess we need to learn to use an encounter with PG people as an opportunity to teach and evangelize. "You get what you deserve" is the opposite of salvation by grace, as any honest reading of the Bible makes it clear that what we deserve is not riches, however good we are. We're saved despite being terrible scumbags purely through God's gift - there is absolutely nothing we can do to earn it.

That's a concept that is a stumbling block for many people. We're ingrained that everything is earned, good or bad. Rejecting that framework and accepting freely given Grace is the first leap of faith for most.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2016 04:46

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Well, you gotta be careful because rebaptizing a validly baptized believer will make them catch fire and explode, like they're sodium.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2016 18:19

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

StashAugustine posted:

Hey Hegel- I was doing some research into the Galileo affair and came across the claim that asserting the Earth is not in the center of the universe caused theological problems (that is not just in terms of scriptural interpretation but in asserting that humanity isn't the center of the universe) - does your knowledge of the early modern period back that up?

That was the prime charge of heresy against him. It's not a disputed point as far as I know.

The whole thing was a political mess primarily, but the Pope fired the heresy gun when Galileo wouldn't back down.

ETA: Here's a pretty good writeup on it.

Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Sep 23, 2016

# ¿ Sep 23, 2016 23:30

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

The latest salvation model comes with a six-cylinder confessional, so a triple-dual godhead is needed to maximize the Holy Power band.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 20:47

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Keromaru5 posted:

Huh, so a Catholic church in my town is trying to start the canonization process for a local priest who died in a Yellow Fever epidemic in the 1800's.

Small world. I saw this on the local news last night. Greetings, fellow Chattanoogan!

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 15:05

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

JcDent posted:

God-drat OCD is annoying, I'll tell you that.

Theodora, you might have noticed that this thread suggested that acting like you're Christian (praying, going to the mass, clenching fists whenever you hear about gospel of prosperity) will eventually lead to being one. I hope that will work to shield me from the worm at the back of my mind who will use any possible doubt against my belief.

On the off days, it will use any possible doubt against my girlfriend.

Being conscious of it helps, but only a little.

Doubt is a necessary part of faith. Faith without doubt is knowledge (or delusion). It should bother you that we can't physically prove any of this. That's why it's called "faith" in the first place.

Embrace your doubt and use it to spur you on to greater understanding of your faith.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 14:47

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

HopperUK posted:

Late, but wanted to shout-out to my fellow possibly-atheist still-Catholics. I am in the middle of a long slow process of working out what the hell I believe at all, but I'm certain cultural Catholicism is a thing because that's what I am.

Also the phrase 'prosperity gospel' makes me want to set things on fire.

I can identify with that. I was raised Lutheran and by the time I graduated from high school I was sick to death of Luther's Catechism being shoved down my throat. I deliberately stayed away from church-related stuff through college to give me time to sort out what I actually believed from what I was simply parroting from Lutheran indoctrination.

When I got back into it, I joined a Methodist church and have been happy there since. Wesley's concept of the "four-legged stool" of Methodism - Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason (STER) - along with his quote, "But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think" are what hooked me.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 13:55

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

SirPhoebos posted:

Question to the Catholics (or any Christianity historian): How did the Catholic Church get so powerful during the Middle Ages? (by which I mean, say, 800's to the end of the 4th Crusade)

Largely because priests were the only literate people around in most places and thus many of the functions of government devolved to them by default.

The Church was also a visible vestige of the Roman Empire and thus commanded more authority than it would have otherwise. As everything else fell apart, it was the one institution that stayed together and people clung to it for security.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 16:39

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

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?

They're all wrong, to one degree or another. The true nature of God is incomprehensible, and all religions are an approximation to the experience of the infinite.

I picked the one that best fits my culture, upbringing, and personality. It's about all any of us can do.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 18:24

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

HEY GAL posted:

nah you can still emergency baptize

edit: and i may be pulling this out of my rear end, but i seem to remember someone baptizing with sand when water was not available

A former pastor of ours was raised a Quaker and had been dry baptized. The rationale being that water was merely a symbol of God's grace and true baptism was spiritual, not physical.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 17:15

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

The Lutheran church I grew up in used Manischewitz for communion.

My Methodist church uses only the finest Welch's non-fermented wine.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2016 00:58

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

System Metternich posted:

There are about a million variants of the rosary, many of them dating back centuries (to assuage HEY GAL's fears ), either devise your own (which is totally cool) or pick one that suits you. Here is just a small number of the historical rosaries (or rosary-based prayers, I guess) around. Here's another site gathering those prayers; if you speak other languages than English then these should be worth checking out; at least the German page has way more prayers listed than the English one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 22:30

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Worthleast posted:

Catholics say yes, while remaining a perfectly free offering.

That's always been my understanding, as well. Christ's death and resurrection was the plan from the start, but he had the choice to say no. If he had, I guess God would have figured out some other plan.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2016 20:40

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

pidan posted:

Sure, but there has to be a reason we founded our tradition on this stuff in particular. Is it just the miracles? Lots of guys do miracles.

Sure, but let's assume the pharisee is actually a fine dude in general (after all, the text doesn't state otherwise). Is he also supposed to beat his chest and stare at the floor in shame? And anyway, I think it's pretty dangerous to recommend constant self-deprecation and shame as a religious practice. The bit about tax collectors is an interesting bit of trivia, but still - I get why robbers and thieves are bad, but is the tax collector really in the same category? Would a robber or thief also be "justified" just by beating himself up a bit?

I guess it has to do with the tax collector judging himself and the pharisee "judging" others, as in the parable about the board in a guy's eye. But I don't really know because I don't know what "justified" is supposed to mean. Justified in relation to what?

"Justified" here means the punishment associated with your misdeeds is nullified. Like self-defense is a justifiable homicide - you still killed the guy, but there is no punishment for it.

The point of the passage is that God knows what you have or haven't done, he knows the state of your soul. Putting on a big show as to how contrite you are is nothing but a show to impress your neighbors - and you'd better hope your neighbors are impressed, because God isn't. The tax collector's prayer was heard, the Pharisee's wasn't.

Your sins are between you and God. Confess them humbly and quietly, and you will be forgiven. That's all you need to do.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 19:40

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

pidan posted:

Thank you all for taking the time to answer, but I don't think you're addressing my criticism at all. Basically I'm asking - why is it such a good idea to humble yourself, and who gave Jesus the authority to tell people to do that, and why didn't he explain it better, and your answer is essentially "it's good to be humble".

My question is not so much "what is this text trying to say", it's more "what is supposed to be the benefit of paying attention to this badly argued story. The Calvin text really is a great illustration of this problem, essentially saying that we should obey this text because God said it, but if he did, why didn't he explain some of the assumptions inherent in that recommendation.

Does this make sense to you? Essentially, I can't just take Jesus at his word because he's God, after all, I have to accept his words to believe that he's God in the first place. It's circular reasoning. The Muslims at least claim that their holy book is so well written only God could have done it, Christians don't even have that.

You're basically asking us to prove God exists and that Jesus is a manifestation thereof. Good luck with that.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 22:13

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

pidan posted:

I'm not asking for proof, I'm just asking what people's reasons are for believing it. It's not so much that I want to be convinced, I just want to understand.

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.

As for the value of humility, my point is just that the text makes no argument for it at all, it just goes "humility: God approves", and 100% of the reasoning is filled in by the reader.

Edit: I guess my instinct is that there must be some technical meaning to the terms the text uses, so that there is some solid explanation there if you just understand the definition and contexts of the words. But maybe it really is like zonohedron says and is just a shorthand note about an ongoing discussion. Like, the sayings of Confucius don't make too much sense as soundbytes, but when you look at the discursive context it's much clearer.

One of the fundamental themes of the Bible is putting God first, others second, and yourself last. The parable is just one of hundreds of illustrations of the concept.

The Pharisee is putting himself first - he's not praying, he's putting on a show starring him. The publican puts God first, sincerely asking for forgiveness. That's all there is to it.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 23:23

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Disinterested posted:

Sounds like some dodgy eastern affectation to me, like red carpet.

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that bling.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 02:08

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

StashAugustine posted:

where two or three are shitposting in my name there I am in the midst of them

But the Moderator, the Red Hammer, whom the Lowtax will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that the Forum Rules said to you.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2016 15:25

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

I'm glad you said this because I was trying to think of how I could say it without sounding like an rear end in a top hat.

He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. - Matt 5:45

# ¿ Oct 24, 2016 18:49

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

Although of course I take the position that a fully Good God would protect you from suffering, that the fact that He does not implicitly gives us the right and duty to master the material world for ourselves, and that when suffering cannot be avoided the appropriate reaction is scorn for the cause of your suffering; "I suffer but will not be bowed!"

Still, the core of all of this is that you will suffer, and any stable source of endurance against suffering is probably for the best.

I'm not so sure that protecting us from suffering would actually be to our benefit, and thus not something a Good God would want to do.

When I try to imagine how a world would function in which good people don't suffer (or there is no suffering at all), it quickly breaks down into chaos unless it is literally Heaven. Knowing that my actions would cause no harm to anyone regardless of what I do would make me an irresponsible toddler, totally self-centered with no concern for anyone else. Suffering seems to be a necessary side-product of a sustainable real physical reality.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2016 19:01

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

"Irresponsibility" as a vice only makes sense in a world where the risk of needs going unfilled exists; it's a circular argument. If your needs are met, and the needs of everyone who might otherwise have relied on you are met, you are free to create, discover, observe, and evaluate; to participate in the world in the mode of an artist instead of the mode of at best a repairman or soldier, and at worst, a prisoner.

Being able to fix broken things is a virtue in a broken world, being able to fight is a virtue in a world that oppresses you, and the will to protest is a virtue in a broken, oppressive world that cannot be fixed or fought. But all of those things are contingent on the sad state of the world.

e: Basically, selfishness comes from unmet needs. If the only unmet needs you have left are those that depend on the will and happiness of others, you'd have no reason to think only of yourself.

By that logic, the wealthy aristocracy should be the most creative, loving, giving, altruistic people on earth since they and everyone they know have no needs unmet. If you follow the news at all, that seems not to be the case. Creativity and altruism do not seem to have any relationship to whether or not peoples' needs are being met.

Your thesis fails the test of reality.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2016 22:27

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

No one on this Earth is without unmet needs, which is to say, my thesis can't be tested. I just think Heaven is a cool idea.

The wealthy aren't safe from mortality or hunger or loss, they just have more to lose.

I misunderstood your point then. I thought you were arguing that people would be creative and virtuous if only they had all their needs met.

Agree that Heaven will be a terrific place. However, we need fixing before we'll be able to handle it.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2016 22:58

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Tias posted:

Thank you all. I still feel too dumb to 'get' the concept of perfect trust in God, but your verses and recommendations really are helping me! I spent the better part of two hours reading about Therese of Lisieux yesterday, and if nothing else, I strongly appreciate her Little Way.

You might try "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas A Kempis, as well. Lots of small chapters, so it's easy to read a few minutes at a time.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2016 14:33

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

The Lord is all that, I need for nothing
He allows me to chill.
He keeps me from being heated
And allows me to breathe easy.
He guides my life so that
I can represent and give
Shouts out in his Name.
And even though I walk through
The Hood of death,
I don't back down
For you have my back.
The fact that you have me covered
Allows me to chill.
He provides me with back-up
In front of my player-haters
And I know that I am a baler
And life will be phat
I fall back in the Lord's crib
For the rest of my life.

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Hip-Hop-Version/dp/1593308000

# ¿ Oct 27, 2016 01:50

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Valiantman posted:

:protestantsay: side remark, if it's allowed: Forgiveness is 100% free and actually already earned for everyone but it's not forced on those who don't want it.

Basically the same thing you said but as a person who often struggles with feelings of inadequateness and outright guilt I find the phrasing important. Asking for forgiveness is hard when you (rightly) feel you don't deserve it.

And forgiving someone else is not necessarily about welcoming them back with open arms, it's about letting go of the hurt and desire for vengeance and moving on. Rather than stewing in your bitterness and letting your hatred of the person ruin the rest of your life, you move the incident to the "poo poo happens" box and get on with living.

As you said, the hardest part is when I'm the perpetrator = accepting forgiveness and moving on with my own life, rather than beating up on myself for being a schmuck. We have to pick up the pieces and keep striving to be better, while remembering but not dwelling on the past.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 14:23

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

cerror posted:

Just speculating on this, I was thinking it may have more to do with the effect of technological development on Western society than anything else. With the advent of things like affordable air travel, television, and more recently, the internet, it is becoming increasing easy to be isolated from one another. Maybe the diminishing role of community brought on by that has led to a reduction in religiosity as well (or at least, a decrease in more traditional forms of it). Or maybe I'm overthinking it.

Possible. History also seems to show religiosity is cyclic in societies. That church attendance is decreasing now does not necessarily mean it's going to continue decreasing to zero. It will likely start heading back up again at some point.

If the Church is truly an institution of God, it's not going anywhere.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 21:05

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Lutha Mahtin posted:

We're all catholic

Our hymnal has an asterisk next to "holy catholic church" in the Apostle's Creed, making sure we understand that it simply means "universal" and has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

Always makes me giggle.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 15:42

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

HEY GAL posted:

well i prayed to god for things to go well with this English guy i am seeing and now we agreed that we'll get married to get me out of the US so i am engaged now

it was me, i did this

Congrats!

I'm glad at one thing positive came out of this!

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 15:49

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

pidan posted:

Congrats HEGEL!

I've been following US election news a bit over the past year, and what really disturbed me is the extremely negative view that each party's fans have of each other. I think my country is going in a similar direction, and that's pretty bad. The US will survive four years of Trump, but it's not a good sign that half the population seems to hate the other half.
Love your neighbors even if they vote Trump, is what I'm saying.

For the sake of the country and its citizens, I hope Trump does a superb job.

There's just nothing in his CV that suggests he will be in the slightest bit competent, however.

His supporters supposedly wanted change. I don't think they're going to like the change he brings.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 16:37

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

The Phlegmatist posted:

Clinton would have won if her or her team actually engaged in dialogue with the fractured Christian Right. I've never seen so many evangelical pastoral leaders denounce a Republican candidate before, but the evangelical voters all turned out in record numbers to vote for Trump anyway.

Not in my experience. The Christian Right is generally Right first, Christian second.

They were never going to vote for Hillary, they just needed to invent the proper justifications for voting Trump.

Clinton would have won if more Democrats had simply shown up. Turnout was the lowest since 2000. Those that stayed home effectively elected Trump.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 18:51

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Jedi Knight Luigi posted:

Actually yes, I think I should re-qualify my "QFT" reaction: were Bernie's economic populism on the ticket instead of HRC's cronyism with the 'godless' east coast (which apparently in the end earned her nothing), Midwesterners, even if they were Christian in name only, would've been able to look past Bernie's pro-choice stances etc.

And my point is that no, they wouldn't. They'd just invent different reasons for hating Bernie.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 19:02

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Jedi Knight Luigi posted:

Because of Zionism? Give me a break.

Because he's a Democrat. Remember they're right first, christian second. The latter is the servant of the former.

Their hatemongering doesn't have to based on anything true or meaningful. Don't be naive.

/end political chat

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 19:21

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Scionix posted:

fully admitting I didn't read the thread so maybe this has been asked before but is there a TL;DR on how the hell you reconcile the old testament cranky god with new testament hippy jesus or is it all ~a metaphor~ or what have you

God didn't change, the culture did. The perception of God and how he's described is what is different between the two testaments.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2016 14:21

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

The only possible mechanism by which some astrological-type personality influence could occur would be through climate. Historically, a child born in March would go through his early formative months with a different diet and climate than one born in, say, September. Thus it is conceivable that children could develop in different ways with distinct personalities based on when they were born - but not due to the influence of any celestial bodies. Those bodies would simply be markers as a universal calendar.

There were no calendars with officially named months for most of history, so keeping track of the time of year by the stars was a natural thing for people to do. However, it was what was happening here on Earth that influenced things. Claiming that it was the bodies themselves doing the influencing is indefensible bullshit.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 15:37

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Ask away. Our only rules are to be thoughtful and respectful, which apply to everyone on any topic.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2016 23:49

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

1) Faith is a personal issue. I pray that people without faith will find it eventually, both for the sake of their salvation in the next life and because they'll be happier in this life for it. It is a gift, however, and must be found by each of us individually. It cannot be forced or chosen on someone else's behalf.

2) I've always thought C. S. Lewis was a bit of a poseur. He makes some good points here and there but I was never all that impressed with him.

3) The fundamental lesson of Job is that God is God and humans are incapable of comprehending the universe from his standpoint. We have every right to feel indignant when bad things happen, but ultimately it doesn't matter. i.e. God ultimately praised Job for getting angry and yelling at him for the bad stuff that happened, but told Job to get bent anyway.

My own $0.02. Others can offer their own ideas.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 00:13

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Tias posted:

That's why I attempted to explain it with the term "metaphysical evidence" - it clearly proves what it has to inside a mind that needs it, but I guess it was not exactly visible proof to anyone but me.

Essentially, the evidence for the existence of God tends to be almost entirely personal, internal, and non-reproducible. It's enough to convince an individual, but not amenable to controlled studies.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 16:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:37

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

SirPhoebos posted:

I got a question for the historians: Why did Christianity come to be the dominant religion of the late Roman Empire while the superficially similar Judaism had only a small following?

Christianity expressly appealed to all people and its message of hope and salvation was quite appealing to the down-trodden underclass, as well as elites. All you had to do was confess your faith, get baptized, and you were in. Judaism was in contrast a fairly closed society and if you weren't born into it the process of joining was quite onerous.

That doesn't explain why Christianity specifically became dominant, but why it was more popular than Judaism.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 17:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Christianity Thread II: Y'all need Jesus

«‹›4 »