|
Josef bugman posted:I would criticise this. I do not think you have to be superior (socially, morally etc) in order to judge someone. You can be equal or lesser in many respects to a thing you are judging. The only people (beings) who owe you an explanation or are answerable to you in any way are those inferior to you. Criticism is not the same as judgment. I can criticize my superiors while admitting I don't understand their perspective. To declare them to be in the wrong implies that I know more and understand more than they do.
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you take that position in your day to day life I would think that would make you a rather horrible person. You should not give things because you're obliged to but because you can and because it would benefit the recipient. I have no idea what you're referring to here. My children owe me an explanation for where they've been and what they've been up to (at least as long as they're my dependents). My parents do not.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Since when is the only reason to give someone something because they're owed it? You should give people things, including explanations, if it will benefit them. Especially something so easily provided as an explanation for which there is no scarcity other than what you enforce yourself. An explanation is generally a good thing for someone to have. Yes, I agree. It doesn't have much to do with the argument at hand, though. It would be nice of God to provide some explanations now and then, but he is not obligated to give any and we are not owed any. If it were otherwise he would not be God.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Meridian posted:So this might be a can of worms, but I don't really have anyone to ask about it. I am struggling with the concept of the Devil/Satan and emphasis on the idea that there's this external spiritual threat actively attempting to corrupt and lead man astray. Obviously some denominations focus more heavily on that than others, but I don't understand why if it is within God's power to deal with that, it isn't dealt with, so to speak. I, for one, am with you. I don't need the existence of Satan to explain evil. There is God, and there is absence of God. Many opposite concepts are actually the presence or absence of a single thing - light and dark, hot and cold. To me, "evil" is the default state of the universe, with everything acting in its own interests to the exclusion of others. Good is actively choosing to follow the will of God and putting aside natural inclinations. I don't claim it's philosophically or theologically rigorous, as I don't have the tools to develop the idea that far. However, in searching to simplify my understanding of the universe, I have found Satan to be an unnecessary extra variable I can throw away.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:Silly contrivance. Jesus started the church? The spirit? Paul? An Important Day to be sure. Well, it marks the day the apostles stopped looking back to their days with Jesus and starting looking forward to their own roles in the new church organization building around them. They took charge of their own (and the church's) destinies that day. They made it their own problem to deal with. They graduated from Disciples to Apostles. The all got pretty nice level up bonuses, too. Most of them got their attributes rerolled to amazing specs. Peter became like a 19 Constitution with a 17 Dexterity and Strength. He still had an issue with intelligence, but he made up for it with another big charisma score.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Angels? They exist, next question please. Yeah, it's pretty much this. Angels probably exist. You've probably met a few, in fact, but didn't recognize them. Which is as it's supposed to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I've seen some UU's who consider themselves Christians but I mostly meant anyone who doesn't believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all being one being. They maybe deny Christ was "pre-existing" and such. It makes them whatever they want to call themselves. UU seems to be largely "church for agnostics." They're not doing me any harm, so I let them be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
echopapa posted:I’ve recently moved to a new place, and I felt like something was missing in my life, so I’ve started attending church. I was raised Catholic, but I hated the rituals—I wanted a little more substance. I also didn’t want to join a church that was either a Republican church or a Democrat church. That boiled it down to the Lutherans and the Methodists, and the Methodists were closer to my apartment. As a fellow Methodist, I'm glad you're home. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I'm getting to be thurifer at my friend's wedding. Have you nerds got any advice for me? I'm planning to just swing it around like crazy. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Meridian posted:Hello friends. Apropos of nothing, I am curious about your thoughts on the fate of Judas Iscariot and the idea (per Wikipedia) that Gnostic texts – rejected by the mainstream Church as heretical – praise Judas for his role in triggering humanity's salvation and view Judas as the best of the apostles. I've always had a soft spot for Judas. He strikes me as deluded, not evil. IMO, the Passion would have proceeded pretty much the same, regardless. Jesus deliberately provoked the authorities, and the Sanhedrin wanted him dead. Judas made their job easier, but they would have found another way without him. Judas is an unfortunate footnote in the story, not the central character.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I've been sporadically making my way through City of God and I distinctly remember reading a passage where st. Augustine describes some holy women throwing themselves from high places to avoid being raped by an invading army, and suggesting that God would have mercy on them. I have a hard time buying that any human sin is actually unforgivable. That's putting limits on God and his power. He is free to exercise his mercy and grace in any way he sees fit, in any way he chooses. I agree with Augustine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:I never really got why “Catholic guilt“ keeps getting mentioned that often (and I suspect that it has turned in a meme of sorts tbh), I never really saw myself or other Catholics as especially guilt-ridden, particularly when compared to e.g. some of the stricter forms of Protestantism. But maybe that's just my Bavarian Catholicism talking, idk. Catholic guilt has been a thing for generations. George Carlin was making jokes about it 50 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:Thanks. I'm in a Master's program for Religious Studies and recently one of my professors had this long rant about how Paul never mentioned the resurrection, so his interpretation is that it never happened and that the disciples, in response, searched for and eventually discovered Old Testament texts that confirmed a self-sacrificing, meek Messiah and developed it into the concept of the Son of God. When I said why even believe if that's his opinion, he said, "God can work in mysterious ways," and that this was the way God wanted to reveal His truth to us. I didn't say it, but I definitely thought it was a poor response. I've never been very orthodox in my beliefs, had kind of always wondered about the whole "Son of God" thing, and I'm out right studying in my program because I find value in many religious perspectives, but that definitely shook me. I don't know how I should take it. Is he asserting that Paul didn't write Corinthians? Because 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 posted:But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Aug 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:He honestly might have. I didn't think to raise that. It was a weird moment. He was a guest professor, and the other professor seemed puzzled. At the same time, it is kind of surprising if that's the only direct reference to the Resurrection in the Epistles. I mean, given the importance that has been placed on it and it's part in the Biblical Narrative, you would expect it would come up more, especially if Paul is trying to bolster the faith of other communities. For someone in a Master's program in Religious Studies, you seem awfully ignorant of the Bible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I'm in interreligious studies. I've honestly done more work with the Shaivism and Mahayana Buddhism than the Epistles lately, just with introductory classes and such, so yeah, I'm a bit out of practice, I'll admit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Also, when Romans was written Christians were already being persecuted as enemies of the state; Chapter 13 is essentially a caution to keep their heads down and not give the authorities any excuses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Tias posted:and I have got to argue with loving physical engineer friends that the twin towers were not infused with nanothermite Actually, they were. Reflective red paint uses iron oxide for a pigment and aluminum flake for sparkle and heat reflection. There you go - nanothermite. It had nothing to do with any conspiracies, though, as such paint is widely used in every construction everywhere. It's also just paint - it poses no structural or flammability hazard. The fact that they found it in the WTC means nothing whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
 May the love of God go with you, brother. Heal and grow.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Rainbow Pharaoh posted:Well I finally went to church today. I somehow managed to avoid making a complete rear end of myself and about 80 minutes into coffee hour was even able to interact with people. Was also happy that one of the hymns was Amazing Grace, so I was able sing at least one of them without having to try to sight read. Baby steps. Hang in there. Each time you go will be easier than the previous one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
pidan posted:"Monotheism is more rational than the polytheism of European pagans" does not mean "all people who believe in anything other than monotheism are less rational than all people who do, in all aspects of life". Rather than "more rational" I would say it is neater and more elegant in getting at eternal truths than many of the pagan approaches. Sort of like how heliocentrism was so much easier to deal with than the epicycles upon epicycles of the Ptolemaic system. Perhaps it's still a bad analogy for other reasons, but I kind of get what you mean.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I've never heard of this line of thinking. The stuff about Christ being subordinate to the Father, that is. Same here. This is some fringe nuttery, and not any kind of accepted doctrine that I'm aware of.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:I doubt any literate Christian who takes the heteronormative stance would make their argument from Leviticus; they would most certainly make the argument from Paul. You'd be surprised. OT law is a great source for cherry-pickers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:I know, but that's easy to proof text against with, "Oh, well look here in Acts, where Gentiles don't have to..." to which their retort will be, "But Paul says..." They don't care what Paul has to say. Leviticus is still THE BIBLE so it counts. Their position is not logical or nuanced.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I've always thought Paul suspicious as gently caress with his 'Jesus came to me as a ghost in the desert where noone else could see us' and his v standard 1st century Roman Empire dude social views tbh Paul has been considered authoritative since the very beginning of the church, in the 1st century. His epistles formed the core of the New Testament canon. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Or at least doesn't claim his views to be literally divinely inspired. I'm fine with him being a central figure to early Christianity like many others, but having him in the actual New Testament next to the Gospels is uh a bit beyond that. Context is for people who don't lay claim to be as authoritative as Jesus. You seem to have a rather flawed understanding of Paul. His encounter with Jesus was the basis of his claim to authority as an Apostle, making him equal with the other disciples and nothing more.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The Red Letter Christians don't explicitly reject Paul but their dislike of Paul is a good part of the reason why they call themselves Red Letter Christians (for those who don't know, the actual words of Jesus were printed in a red font in many KJV Bibles.) Paul is generally a lot more progressive than the KJV Christians want you to think. He makes for a lot of good regressive sound bites, but taken in context he's pretty good. It usually takes going back to the original Greek meaning of the words, and putting them in the context of 1st century Roman society, though, which is hard so most people don't do it. Plus it's a lot easier to quote the English version to confirm your biases. We recently studied this book in our Sunday School class, which was useful to a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Synnr posted:I apologize in advance for what is going to be a poor description, but maybe someone will have a clue what I'm talking about and it seemed the correct place. It's probably a reference to the Harrowing of Hell, where Jesus is supposed to have traveled to Hell to rescue the virtuous souls who died before he came.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Our Lady, Star of the Sea, pray for us. You should go. If it's a big enough Mass it will stay put.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:antigua is safe! praise god! Barbuda, on the other hand, not so much. The PM was a bit optimistic. They're desperately trying to get everyone off before Jose hits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:istanbul is constantinople And it's nobody's business but the Turks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:do robots have original sin All software has bugs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Apparently there's a robot that prays the rosary (or at least goes through the motions): https://apnews.com/af04ff85edf54d7a9b7a047c9abb0218/exhibition-charts-500-years-evolution-robots 16th century, actually. Have a crappy video of it and how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycyj76VPOtc
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Ceciltron posted:When did he find the time to go to England, then? He squeezed it in before his trip to the American southwest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 23:42
|
|