Religion Thread: I never metaphysics I didn't like

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Religion Thread: I never metaphysics I didn't like

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Went to a Methodistish church when I was growing up, but it never really grabbed me and I slid into casual atheism - about five years ago I started finding myself connecting with Judaism, and now I'm a member of the UK movement of Liberal Judaism (roughly on par with the more progressive wing of American Reform, as I understand it). Still an atheist!

By popular demand posted:

Some thoughts on Judaism:
Post WW2 and the founding of Israel Judaism is considered by many, possibly most Jews to be a matter of heritage at least as much as a faith system.
This outlook is well supported by tradition as a 'converted Jew' historically was the common way to refer to a person rather than acknowledging their new spiritual outlook and a new convert to Judaism is referred to as an ex-gentile.
some traditions call for honoring ex-gentiles as they came over by choice but there are of course dickheads who refuse to acknowledge a new convert and their offspring as proper Jews.

A bit from wikipedia

I have a love-hate relationship with my heritage, I despise this sort of regressive xenophobia especially in a faith which otherwise encourages debate and open-mindedness.
In a very real way modern Jewish thought just went to sleep and left the worst conservative shitheads to guard the gate.

that's enough for this post, please add your thoughts as jews or gentiles or whatever.

Speaking as a convert, or Jew by choice, or however you want to put it - like I say above, to a progressive movement - I was specifically told, again and again, "when you're a Jew, you're a Jew", and that to bring up someone's conversion as a mark against them was a sin in and of itself. I've known a number of Jews by choice, and they range the entire gamut of approaches to their Judaism, from people who came to shul once in a while, to people who kept asking questions even when the rabbi wanted to move on, to someone who if you cut him open would have the sh'ma written on the inside of his spine. It's incredibly shameful that even after a century such as the 20th, there are still people who think there is such a thing as "Jewish blood", rather than Jewish spirit. Points if you remember who else thought this, and how they put it into practice!

GreyjoyBastard posted:

I am, as far as I know, our only Hindugoon. Hindoon. Raised Episcopalian, can still argue that I'm a moderately heretical Episcopalian despite primarily worshipping Kali, which might itself be a sign my Episcopalian upbringing was pretty good.

specifically, loosely aligned with the teachings of a very, very strange man who was more or less one of the early Unitarians and also the product of a long-rear end tradition of Bengali goddess-worship - Sri Ramakrishna, which is incidentally also a silly name for a shakta guru / saint / whatever, what with being Vishnu's two most famous manifestations* mashed together

I would love to know more about Kali! I know extremely little about her, except that she's got what seems to be an incredibly unfair rap in Western circles, likely because of A) the Thuggee cult and British sentiments against it, B) that one Indiana Jones movie, and C) isn't she always depicted holding a severed head?

# ¿ Jan 14, 2021 21:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 16:42

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Thirteen Orphans posted:

And often standing on the dead body of Shiva!

People just can't handle a strong Hindupendent woman.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2021 21:59

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

It's important to note that philosemitism is, counterintuitively, also seen as a kind of antisemitism - whether through persecution or pedestalisation, both serve to make Jews into this Other thing. And philosemitism only lasts so long as the person in question is not criticised by Jews, at which point it often turns quite ugly - from what you've said about your ex-MIL, BK, I doubt she'd take kindly to a rabbi politely enquiring as to the scriptural or Talmudic basis of her beliefs.

I absolutely don't mean to offend anyone with the following, but it feels like Christianity has never properly come to terms with the fact that Jesus' own people rejected the Message - and then survived, being their own people. If the Jews had converted en masse, that would have been a good narrative, Christianity as a continuation of Judaism, no complications. If Judaism had faded out, or been wiped out, that would have been a narrative of "there were some who didn't join, of course, but they faded into insignificance as the grace of God transferred to the Christian Church as a whole". But Judaism continued, the Jewish people continued, and what do you do with that? Are Jews an evil force? Do Jewish traditions hold the mystic secrets of Christianity? Do the Jews need to finally be brought into the Church to complete the good works? If we wipe them out and eat their hearts do we gain their power?? There isn't an immediately obvious narrative that lines up with "treat them like normal people, what the gently caress", and so you get poo poo like this, or like Bush and Mike Pompeo trying to fulfil Biblical prophecy and immanentize the eschaton by supporting Israel.*

*This isn't D&D so I'm not going to get further into Israel/Palestine but it is pretty clear and horrifying that a good chunk of modern American policy in the situation has been informed by a desire to bring about the literal Apocalypse of St John. This is also not a healthy way to engage with the Jewish people.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2021 18:23

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

White Coke posted:

In your mind what would the proper way to come to terms have been?

If I knew that I would absolutely already be on my book tour.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2021 21:28

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

TOOT BOOT posted:

An apple that's fallen on the ground that harbors no insects?

As long as a snake didn't offer it to you.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2021 01:45

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

https://clickhole.com/cant-all-be-home-runs-how-many-of-jesuss-underwhelming-second-rate-miracles-do-you-remember/

# ¿ Jun 29, 2021 19:22

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Thirteen Orphans posted:

Did I read correctly, this does not change the rules surrounding the use of Latin in the Ordinary Form, correct?

This is just concerning the Tridentine Mass, yes.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2021 23:44

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Nessus posted:

So is this saying that a mass given in Latin is invalid now? Was this like a retroactive change? This confuses me.

Like if I have my facts straight here: There is an original Latin form of the Mass which was given in basically the same way for yea so long a time, with any local variations being trivial accidents.

Vatican II said "Start giving the Mass in your local language."

There was dispute here due to the change and there had been some flexibility on the use of the Latin Mass lately. (Perhaps this is the Tridentine Mass?)

Pope Francis's recent comments on the matter seem to be walking that back.

Were both Masses officially held to be like, sacramentally valid all this time?

So the Traditional Latin Mass, or Tridentine Mass (so called because its original form was promulgated at the Council of Trent), is the one published in the 1962 Roman Missal.

With Vatican II, the Mass of St Paul, or Novus Ordo Mass, was promulgated, with multiple translations into various languages - the aim being that Mass should be said in whatever the local vernacular is. There is a Latin version of this Mass. As this is the current main form of Mass, it is called the Ordinary Mass. This form of Mass was unpopular with a large segment of the Church (even an atheist theologian I know expressed his distaste for it!) for a number of reasons, and dislike of the Ordinary Mass became a focal point of general discontent with the outcome of Vatican II.

Benedict XVI issued the Summorum Pontificum in 2007, which said "all priests can use the TLM privately, and parishes that wish to use the TLM can do so". This established the TLM as an Extraordinary Mass - there are other Extraordinary Masses, but when someone uses the term without context this is what they mean. The hope, as I understand it, was that this would decouple the link between the TLM and dissent from Vatican II. From the letter accompanying the motu proprio, we can assume that Pope Francis does not agree with this.

Now this letter has stripped all priests and organisations of their previous right to use the TLM, and required everyone to ask their bishop for permission to use it, with a lot of restrictions for the bishop to consider - with the most significant one IMO being that bishops should not grant permission to new organisations. And the bishop can just say "no, we don't do that in my diocese" and that's the end of it.

So no Masses are being held retroactively invalid, but the right to perform the TLM has essentially been put on a firm leash.

(And all of this is happening in the context of the dissent of the German bishops on the liberal wing of the church, with the unspoken implication being "I have chosen which side I am going to crack down on".)

I hope these words are of solace to the people in this thread struggling to reconcile recent events with their faith:

Micah 6:6-8 posted:

6 With what will I come before the Lord
when I bow down before God on high?
Will I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Should I offer my firstborn son for my transgressions,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?[b]
8 The Lord has told you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
Only this: to do what is right, to show mercy,
and to walk humbly with your God.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2021 21:32

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Speaking as a Jew: Are we whitewashing the Inquisition now?

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 16:35

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

Not at all, just pointing out that the Inquisition has gotten a lot more focus in the last 60 years which has presented a more historically complicated picture. Forced conversion, religious persecution, and ethnic cleansing, all which took place in the Spanish Inquisition are obviously crimes against humanity, which is why Pope John Paul II apologized for it back in 2000 (And Spain in 2020). But a number of things commonly believed about the Inquisition, specifically the Spanish Inquisition, are not necessarily true (That the Spanish throne went after Jews and Muslims is definitely true, but no one debates that point nowadays). The BBC (hardly an apologist for the Catholic Church) had a good documentary about the Spanish Inquisition back in 1994 when most of this revision research was going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY-pS6iLFuc (To be fair, the documentary doesn't really touch on the expulsion of Jews and Muslims that the Spanish state engaged in simultaneously with the Spanish Inquisition).

I just don't think mentioning the Inquisition in a conversation should count as a mic drop moment.

https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762?lang=en

EDIT: like you're saying "yes, yes, there were some instances of crimes against humanity against Jews, Muslims, and the entire Americas, but you have to consider the NUANCE of it". gently caress no!

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 19:05

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Also it should be noted that I'm not saying the Spanish Inquisition was particularly worse in its treatment of the Americas than the other colonial powers. They were all: terrible. But genocide isn't graded on a curve.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 19:18

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

"On the topic of the Congo Free State by the by, I always found it fascinating that they were the first colony in Africa with guaranteed employment and that people frequently went to work when caught by Free State civil authorities because they knew the punishments of employment were less than the other colonies at the time.

But then it's only been in the last 60 years that modern scholarship has been able to start reversing a lot of the damage the UK and French did when it came to Leopold's history."

If this had been posted in an African history thread, I would already have been probated. Any good the Inquisition may have done is entirely eclipsed by its multifarious crimes, which were implicit in its founding and mission, and to attempt discussion of its benefits stripped of any context is ignorant at best. Good faith only counts for so much.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 21:44

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

"A footnote in the history of Europe" - it is absolutely not a footnote in the history of A) the Jewish people, B) the Islamic Mediterranean, or C) the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires and their relationships with their indigenous subjects. This is the worst post you have ever made.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 22:38

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

All I am asking for this thread is to not make excuses for the Inquisition. If that's too much for some posters then maybe this isn't the space I thought it was.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 22:39

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Fritz the Horse posted:

I will reiterate: if you're reading or listening to stuff on on boarding schools in the US/Canada and it does not include indigenous voices, it should be dismissed entirely.

The victims must be part of any discussion. Ask yourself--should you ever listen to the perpetrators of a crime without inclusion of the voices of those harmed?

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in the beginning of this, with the Inquisition, but I couldn't find the words. Thank you, and solidarity.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2021 11:18

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

docbeard posted:

The founder of our collective faiths made a point of being associated with his culture's equivalent of "those people".

No, Jesus made a definite point of shrugging them off in favour of solidarity with the oppressed and the outcast.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2021 14:10

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Viscardus posted:

Hello, I have never posted here before, but I have a sincere (if slightly silly) theological question for any Catholics (or other Christian denominations that recognize sainthood): can a dog (or other animal) be a saint, and if not, why not?

god is dog backwards I am afraid

# ¿ Jul 21, 2021 19:52

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Animals came from paradise, just like humans, so why shouldn't they go back there when they die?

# ¿ Jul 21, 2021 22:27

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Thirteen Orphans posted:

Are you familiar with the Talmud, the commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures? We didn�t adopt them into our canon when we broke from Judaism but those commentaries are eye-opening. They really wrestle with the Scripture, sometimes to the point of breaking it over their knee. A good example �spare the rod and spoil the child� was commentated �let your rod be as a shoelace.� Stuff like that. Kinda similar to our Early Church Fathers.

I will say, you guys didn't adopt them because they had yet to be written for several centuries :v:

but otherwise I endorse this point. There's even a school of thought in Jewish theology that asks whether permitting the Holocaust was a breach of contract on God's part - a famous story along these lines talks about Jews in a concentration camp, who put God on trial for his crimes, and find him guilty. Having done so, they adjourn to pray.

(the best thing about this level of critique of God is that you have the precedent to hold the Sages to the same level of scrutiny - my first sermon was calling out the Talmud on covering up sexual assault in the Torah)

# ¿ Jul 23, 2021 22:57

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Personally speaking, this is the best of all possible times and places for me to be alive, because it meets the very important criteria of "least likely to die of some random disease"*, "least likely to freeze/starve to death", and "least likely to be punished for being in a romantic relationship". There's a hell of a lot you can criticise about today's society and oh boy do I have some opinions on that**, but in terms of fulfilling the lower tiers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs it's way up there.

*yes, I know covid, but overall!
**this is not the thread to go into my personal thoughts on the word "anarcho-communism"

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 20:52

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

HopperUK posted:

That's a pretty standard Christian belief. Jesus was fully human but also was God, too. But because of the things he said, we know that he felt fear and doubt and pain. It's why 'Jesus wept' is an important Bible verse. He knew God was real, he knew death wasn't the end, but it still grieved him that his friend had died. Jesus was God experiencing humanity completely.

I think the specific thing Spacegrass is hung up on here is the third person - Jesus referring to God as someone else. Which ties into the Trinity, and how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are... let's see if I can navigate this without accidentally endorsing a major heresy: distinct persons but of the same substance? As I understand it, the Trinity is a divine mystery, which means that the official position of the Church is "if you think you understand it, you're wrong".

(of course the other divine mystery is that to everyone outside Christianity, the Trinity and polytheism appear to be distinct but of the same substance)

# ¿ Aug 3, 2021 13:02

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

HopperUK posted:

God is like the shamrock. Small, green, and split three ways.

Beloved by the Irish, but has yet to act in their favour.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2021 13:28

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

For me, prayer is more about taking time to organise my thoughts on the thing I'm praying about - taking stock of the situation, trying to find clarity on the matter. But then, that's also the attitude I take when I do a tarot reading, or consult the I Ching - viewing it as an opportunity to find the answers I might already have, or to find a connection I didn't realise was there.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2021 16:22

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Our synagogue's only had a couple of services in person since last March - everyone masked and jabbed, with limited numbers allowed at the shul itself and a zoom call for everyone else. The High Holy Days are coming up, and we're planning the same format for those - it'll be strange to have so few people in shul for them, usually we barely have enough chairs to fit everyone in.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2021 09:42

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Fritz the Horse posted:

Happy Rosh Hashanah to our Judaigoons!

(happy Jewish New Year)

!שנה טובה

# ¿ Sep 7, 2021 11:16

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Nth Doctor posted:

L'shana tova! Happy 5782!

TEKIAH

SHEVARIM-T'RUAH

TEKIAH

SHEVARIM

TEKIAH

T'RUAH

TEKIAH

# ¿ Sep 7, 2021 13:11

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Cyrano4747 posted:

. . . what?

I mean, I'm not surprised, but drat that's not something I've actually run across.

(and from our very own forums: )

# ¿ Sep 9, 2021 13:41

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

"Jesus Movement" sounds like the kind of organisation that would meet in a rented warehouse space downtown, with energetic music and even more energetic pamphleteers, before collapsing seemingly overnight, leaving behind only shady Caribbean bank accounts, intensive therapy, and a documentary five years later.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2021 17:30

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Sometimes, opinions get shouted down because they're being voiced into a competing echo chamber. Sometimes, opinions get shouted down because they're just lovely opinions. The trick is realising which is which.

I will say that in my own opinion, requiring modest dress of women to avoid inflaming the passions of onlookers, or indeed requiring immodest dress to "protect women's rights", is not just victim-blaming infringement of self-expression, but also fundamentally futile. Sexual attraction is wildly variable - the breadths of deviantart confirm that for every possible fetish, there is at least one corresponding fetishist, whether it be kneeflation or siren ducks or the bulk purchase of Wonderbread� (if you don't know what any of these mean, good). And likewise, sexuality is to some extent shaped by the environment - in Victorian times you had people worried that women merely showing ankle would frighten the horses. What this means is that no matter what kind of dress code you enforce, someone is going to be into it, simply because somewhere under all the protective layers there is a woman's body.

This leaves us the two options of forcibly uploading all women to digital shells, abandoning the sinful and provocative flesh for a chaste and sterile existence as a computer ghost, or doing our best to address the attitude that women should be made available for the pleasure of men. Neither of these options requires the prescription of dress codes for women, which is just as well, as nobody has yet designed a modesty veil for a server rack.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 14:04

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Mad Hamish posted:

If what you see causes you to sin, that's on you, bro.

And on the Muslim side of things, there's the story of a beautiful woman approaching Mohammed to ask him a question while he's out riding with a friend. The friend stares at her, and when Mohammed notices, he turns the friend's face away from her. He was behaving inappropriately, she was just there to ask a question.

On a queer note, this same tendency is dangerous not just to cishet women, but to LGBTQ people: part of the historic persecution of queer men is a fear among straight men* that they'll be treated in the same way they treat women; lesbians are basically incapable of giving the desired response to straight men's attentions; and trans women are not only sexualised as women, but then reviled as deceitful men when they're "found out", to the point that "trans panic" has been successfully used as an excuse for murder. (Trans men are, as ever, ignored or grouped into "women".) Focusing the debate on sexualisation/objectification on women's dress fails to address these points.

*some, not all, please assume this is what I mean when I generalise here

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 18:03

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Jupiter Jazz posted:

No one said anything about being treated "less than human". This is your own personal supposition and failure.

[...]

I'm just more willing than most to admit it.

So other people can't make suppositions about you, but you can make suppositions about what other people think?

Thinking of your kidney, Night10194, may it do what it's told.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 20:44

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Jupiter Jazz posted:

No one said anything about being treated "less than human". This is your own personal supposition and failure.

There are many reasons women dress the way they do. But at the end of the day, there's a river of difference between "fun" (which women that dress that invite into their lives) and someone of more substance. In our society which takes away accountability, it's suggested that you don't deserve to be held to a higher standard. Your post even says judgement isn't deserved. I don't really care. But most women that dress that way do so for male attention. Women like the attention while simultaneously expressing dislike. Many women are enraptured with low self esteem and getting male attention soothes that. So they dress loosely. It helps them feel good about themselves while also allowing them to pick up potential lovers because it acts as a beacon. They might turn down one guy but if Chad knocks on her door while wearing what she's got on she's definitely not saying no. Instead it'll be considered a successful hunt. Men tend to hunt and women tend to draw men in with lure. A tight dress with double D bra acts as a pretty good lure. They know what they're doing and it's a mating tactic and almost all about either power or seduction or the power of seduction.

But it still draws a specific kind of man. Me, I personally don't go for women like that and I would assume a lot of men in this thread (especially of the Orthodox tradition) wouldn't either. It's nice to feel something. Doesn't change the reality of this world. Men tick off boxes in our brains. Fun and wife material. A woman dressed in specific ways might be categorized as fun. Nothing more. Does this mean I treat ladies that dress loosely badly? No. I look them in the eye even when they have their breasts revealed (another mate tactic. show off your boobs but get mad when men look. Here's the kicker: they want you to look because it circles back to the topic brought up above: they get attention). But in the back of my mind I'm still applying the higher standard. I'm just more willing than most to admit it. I don't care if it's seen as "sexist". It doesn't change the truth of the matter.

In today's hyper sexualized society there are many women that try to get men's attention using their body. A woman that that dresses more modestly in today's world? That says a lot about her character. It makes her stand out and makes her more unique and worth getting to know more because the other women crave attention. Does this mean their actual character stands to their outside reflection? Not necessarily. I've met many beasts with a beautiful exterior but again, in this culture, it does make you stand out which increases their worth.

I just actually read the rest of this post and what the gently caress my dude? Yeah no wonder people yell at you when you just voice your opinions when your opinions are misogynistic horseshit about how women are disingenuous sluts going after "Chad" that could come straight out of 4chan or r/incel. Sort yourself out, buddy.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 21:09

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

https://twitter.com/EgirlSeppuku/status/1437948408334110722?s=19

# ¿ Sep 15, 2021 11:54

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Freudian posted:

TEKIAH

SHEVARIM-T'RUAH

TEKIAH

TEKIAH

SHEVARIM

TEKIAH

TEKIAH

T'RUAH

TEKIAH

TEKIAH GEDOLAH

# ¿ Sep 16, 2021 20:02

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Thirteen Orphans posted:

One of the regulars at the cafe I work at handed me a Chick-Tract with his name and number on it and said �Read this and call me; I�d love to chat with you about it!� Fortunately he did not ask me my religious affiliation. Funny timing as I�m leaving for the monastery for 2 weeks on Sunday. If you could say a quick prayer for me that this experience is fruitful I would appreciate it.

I'll also pray that he forgets he did that!

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 00:32

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

See, this is why the Gentiles think we have horns!!!

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 01:20

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

HopperUK posted:

They look like little cat ears

Y'know, Moses was said to have a speech impediment. Maybe he just talked like an uwu zoomer catboy.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 16:59

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

# ¿ Sep 20, 2021 19:18

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

I'm sorry do they have crowns floating above them. Royalty must not be presented with even the burden of a heavy hat!

# ¿ Oct 1, 2021 18:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 16:42

Freudian: Mar 23, 2011

Captain von Trapp posted:

As a matter of self-awareness it's worth acknowledging that you're writing from a perspective that's at least as righteously self-assured as them. "Why is this even a discussion" - with a full-stop and not a question mark no less - is no less a hallmark of moral absolutism, except it's in service of a moral code that you date to the 60s but which in terms of the gay and trans issues you cite is probably closer to the 2010s. Against this (in the view of your conservative Christian countrymen) is the order instituted by God himself, thousands thousands of years of history, and a conception of natural law that's so common among human civilizations as to inform the official policy of modern formally-atheist one-party states.

This is not to argue against any of your views, it's to give you a little insight into the workings of the minds of those you're chiding.

Kind of ironic to be the devil's advocate in the religion thread, don't you think?

# ¿ Oct 17, 2021 15:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Religion Thread: I never metaphysics I didn't like

«‹›4 »