|
the end-of-act-one twist in this is gonna be that its actually an earthbound making blood sacrifices to access the labyrinth, or some similar
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
poo poo, we're going to need Mages then (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the Mage and their whole Deal)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
well too late, you already declared malkavian or the other thing. locked in! Delicious
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
guideline: no character concepts that force the chronicle to materially contend w the presence, existence, or nature of any significant otherworld outside of the lower umbra/dark umbra/underworld/the one w ghosts. sui generis anomalies like the malkavian madness network or w/e: fine. normal werewolf: not fine
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:07
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:well too late, you already declared malkavian or the other thing. locked in! Delicious Orbs has issued a correction as of 00:10 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:07
|
|
|
The Technocracy is about to point a giant orbital mirror at this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
I just witnessed a double rainbow on a golden sky The lash of disbelief cannot harm me
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:08
|
|
|
Rudeboy Detective posted:The Technocracy is about to point a giant orbital mirror at this thread  Nah, I'm not really that type of player. I actually once ran a game where the players and I openly blended the editions of Mage in the characters and setting, and that kind of ruled. The Technocracy totally existed there and was a threat to be careful of for sure, as it is in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Paul Tillich posted:The question of being is not the question of any special being, its existence and nature, but it is the question of what it means to be. It is the simplest, most profound, and absolutely inexhaustible question — the question of what it means to say that something is. Paul Tillich posted:Ontology uses man's rational power. It does not ask the question of sin and salvation. It does not distinguish between original and distorted reason, nor does it envisage a renewed reason. It starts where it is and goes ahead toward being-itself. The Bible often criticizes philosophy, not because it uses reason, but because it uses unregenerated reason for the knowledge of God. But only the Spirit of God knows God and gives knowledge of God to those who are grasped by him, who are in the state of faith. As in the beginning, so we must ask at the end of this confrontation: Is there any way to unite the opposite ways of ontology and biblical religion? The answer seems to be that the conflict is insoluble. Point after point (first in the objective and then in the subjective side of biblical religion) showed a seeming incompatibility with the ontological attempt. Many people never go beyond this confrontation and draw the consequences in the one or the other direction. It is understandable that some reject biblical religion completely because they are called in the depth of their being, in their intellectual and moral conscience, to ask the radical question — the question of being and nonbeing. They become heretics or pagans rather than bow to a religion which prohibits the ontological question. It is equally understandable that many faithful Christians shy away from the dangers of the ontological question which makes doubtful that which is most sacred and of infinite significance for them. Neither of these ways is acceptable to some of us, and I believe that neither of them is a service to truth and consequently to God. But, if we try a third way, we must be prepared for the reaction of people who doubt that a third way is possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
warmly lol every time at the concept of a pagan tillich enjoyer
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:warmly lol every time at the concept of a pagan tillich enjoyer
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
He was a smart fellow, whose work I admire greatly!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:He was a smart fellow, whose work I admire greatly!!! i see and appreciate this every time and hell, it adds to the warm and welcome irony
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
I am starting to become a fan based on these excerpts as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
[bill clinton voice]quote:This word "is" hides the riddle of all riddles, the mystery that there is anything at all. Every philosophy, whether it asks the question of being openly or not, moves around this mystery, has a partial answer to it, whether acknowledged or not, but is generally at a loss to answer it fully
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Lutherans stay winning
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Lutherans stay winning “stay”
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:“stay” 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Lutherans stay winning
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:“stay” lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
https://www.commentary.org/articles/michael-novak-2/the-religion-of-paul-tillich posted:Tillich’s view was that a historical community of faith supplies concrete symbols which “point to” God. These symbols are not adequate for all times or all purposes, but men cannot do without them; if churches do not supply them, political parties or other organs will. There is a tension between man’s need for concrete symbols and his need for abstract, critical thinking. The first involves his whole active personality; the second preserves him from understanding the concrete symbols to be more than “pointers.” Tillich thought that it was necessary both to stand within a concrete, historical community of faith and to deny through critical reflection that any concrete symbol is identical with genuine ultimate concern. The name “being-itself” warned that God is not a being like other things, and cannot be named like other things. I fully appreciate the affectionate amusement provided by me being Tillich's Biggest Fan while seated at the polytheism table, but I think the above excerpt does an excellent job of articulating some of his ways of thinking that clearly participated in people like me being able to derive wisdom and guidance from his work. Something equally relevant to observe is that after developing this life's work of ontology as experienced via a Christian path, Tillich came to identify the God-beyond-God, Being-Itself, the Ultimate Divine, as the entity that is called Spirit, rather than the Father. I think this is wildly important for understanding the sense of pluralism that sometimes arises in his work and for which he was (and still is) subject to enormous criticism from traditional Christian theists. Tillich was adamant, for example, that Being-Itself is being, but it is not a being. It is not a person. The Son and the Father are perceived and communicated with as one would another person; they are Deities. The Spirit, ever present, at once immanent and transcendent to us all, human and Deity alike, is God. quote:Tillich had a very strong sense of the fact that we do not possess truth; when we enunciate a true proposition, we are possessed by something greater than ourselves. We participate in an understanding in whose light our own hypocrisies or characteristic errors stand condemned. We pursue full understanding, trying to make our intelligence ever more faithful, accomplished, and docile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Thats too complicated for me. But yes religious experience is widely shared and essentially undeniable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 20:10
|
|
|
Hmmmmm okay. tldr is something like: Everyone who has a sense of "God" is sensing the same God: Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. IMPORTANT: the Spirit. Everyone who seeks out that God already has a relationship with some personalized aspect of God (a Deity). For Tillich, his relationship was with the Logos. Through the lens of our relationship with our personal Deity or Deities, we grow capable of getting closer to, and perceiving more accurately, the Ultimate Divine. -- and also, as we recall, Magic = Gifts of the Spirit = Gifts from God. You don't think you know better than God by turning up your nose at its gifts, do you??
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 20:30
|
|
|
I think that individual understandings may vary about that, necessarily. But I think that he had a strong sense that the pervasive and interpenetrating aspect of goodness (to maybe simplify: love) was the key. Beyond conceptualization, or definition into a concrete object or form. Like our experience of a massive fire or the sky or the depths of an ocean. The main thing that you do not want to ever do in Christianity is: blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Slandering the Dharma is a big existential no-no in Buddhism as well, and it doesn't mean a text or a teaching of a Buddha per se. More like stamping on the root of life, or turning away from it. Maybe sometimes that's limiting it, squishing it down to our present view. I think that some people do that by thinking of the Christian God as only just a Sky Dad, which to me seems very "pagan". In the sense in which Christians use the term pejoratively, not like how it often really is. Like denying the Trinity by focusing on it incorrectly. So he might be mostly pushing against that current. nice obelisk idiot has issued a correction as of 20:50 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
I would just like to point out that we don't really know what is meant by "blasphemy against the Spirit". It clearly doesn't mean denying that Jesus is the Messiah or any other claim, as the next line is "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
i think its very charming that Christ spoke in riddles and our engagement with the scriptures about him is now discerning what in the gently caress he meant by some of that
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
nice obelisk idiot posted:The main thing that you do not want to ever do in Christianity is: blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I would enjoy it if you explained this further, as the specificity of against the Holy Spirit is not something I have encountered along the average Christian worshipper. Usually it is one of the other two persons of the trinity that are felt most strongly about (Pentecostals aside, I know I know) edit: lmao Azathoth posted:I would just like to point out that we don't really know what is meant by "blasphemy against the Spirit". It clearly doesn't mean denying that Jesus is the Messiah or any other claim, as the next line is "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven". LITERALLY A BIRD has issued a correction as of 21:13 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:Hmmmmm okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
it doesn't help that they just started saying "holy spirit" suddenly and without explanation
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I would just like to point out that we don't really know what is meant by "blasphemy against the Spirit". It clearly doesn't mean denying that Jesus is the Messiah or any other claim, as the next line is "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
the holy spirit was a pre-existing concept in second temple thought, which i think a plain reading of the gospel will brutally miss. the concept, as my tradition might explain it, is that the high priest or other priests were the ones who had the holy spirit in them and therefore a direct relationship with god. the response of jesus to this is no, anyone can have the holy spirit, here's how, and also if you betray that direct relationship with god you're toast, you've got no chance
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:I would enjoy it if you explained this further, as the specificity of against the Holy Spirit is not something I have encountered along the average Christian worshipper. Usually it is one of the other two persons of the trinity that are felt most strongly about (Pentecostals aside, I know I know) There is a theory of the Holy Spirit which holds that she is what arises out of the interaction between God the Father and God the Son, which would be reasonably consistent with what you wrote there. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the way we experience Jesus and thus the Father, who is entirely transcendent and cannot be experienced in a rational way. I'm not sure I buy it, but your post made me think of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:the holy spirit was a pre-existing concept in second temple thought, which i think a plain reading of the gospel will brutally miss. the concept, as my tradition might explain it, is that the high priest or other priests were the ones who had the holy spirit in them and therefore a direct relationship with god. the response of jesus to this is no, anyone can have the holy spirit, here's how, and also if you betray that direct relationship with god you're toast, you've got no chance interesting. i hadn't heard that. did they see it as some kind of emanation of god's essence or more like an angelic intermediary?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Sherbert Hoover posted:interesting. i hadn't heard that. did they see it as some kind of emanation of god's essence or more like an angelic intermediary? judaism is pretty specific about the monotheism so in that context the holy spirit is a created non god entity which acts as intermediary but i couldn't go into specifics beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:25
|
|
|
Sherbert Hoover posted:it doesn't help that they just started saying "holy spirit" suddenly and without explanation whom amongst us
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:judaism is pretty specific about the monotheism so in that context the holy spirit is a created non god entity which acts as intermediary but i couldn't go into specifics beyond that. in terms of being the active, agent form of theophany, you see a ton of manifestations from burning bush to the angel of the lord. and arguably, any time the txt describes a pneumatic babe,
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
nice obelisk idiot posted:Yeah no disrespect intended by being presumptuous sorry. I get maybe a tiny bit of a sense of it in this extreme example: Jesus would categorically forgive Judas, but Judas hanged himself instead. Like Judas got some of that Holy Spirit juice by hanging with Jesus and them poof, gone. Life is a black abyss and earnest repentance was too painful. Oh you are absolutely fine. The reason that I wanted to bring that up is that particular passage has been used in a lot of lovely ways (like committing suicide is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit gives life, and so that is why someone who commits suicide is damned to conscious eternal torture spoilered for discussing self harm). Personally, I interpret it as being unable to forgive oneself and others and thus "blaspheming", which means then that God cannot forgive until the person comes around and is able to show the love and grace of God through their own actions, but I acknowledge that this isn't the only interpretation and many others could be just as valid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:52
|
|