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

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Nth Doctor posted:

I like to take that now a step further: I have no place standing between somone and their concept of divinity, of holiness, of guidance from Gods. There is no compulsory Church of Nth Doctor and I've also come to the conclusion that I myself am not a diety so I can't self appoint myself inquisitor. :-)

I agree with this, as well. I'm a non-denominational midwestern Christian who has been multiple different religions growing up (Jewish, Quaker, Catholic, Agnostic) before coming back to faith in college and staying there. I suppose I'm a Protestant in that I'd be Catholic if not for some doctrinal differences I feel I cannot take confirmation in good conscience with.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2021 20:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 21:46

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

By popular demand posted:

Be true to yourself and your own spiritual truth friend.
That many religious conversions must have been a hell of a trip, did you ever write down a lengthy thread about that?

They were when I was a kid, so I was just following my family at the time. I drifted into agnostic in high school because I was like 'eh, this seems like nonsense if you can change that often' and then later back out of it because one of my professors in college actually addressed some of my main objections to the factual truth of the Gospels. Specifically that they're not meant as historic accounts as it is and that ideas about literalism are new, that they're theological documents trying to express the religious truth of Christ and preach to others.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2021 21:32

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Slimy Hog posted:

Depending on what the doctrinal differences are, Eastern Orthodoxy is something you may want to check out. (What I'm really saying is JOIIINNNNN UUSSSS)

I believe that the church cannot satisfactorily justify not ordaining women as priests and that priests should not need to be celibate (I know Orthodox allow married priests), primarily.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2021 22:08

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

White Coke posted:

I've come across an argument several times recently that goes like this: Jesus existed, but he was just a millenarian cult leader. Aside from predicting the immanent apocalypse he was a conventional Second Temple Judaism practitioner. He predicted the apocalypse would happen within the lifetime of his followers, and when it didn't they just doubled down like all apocalypse cults do and once they decided to proselytize among gentiles their religion began to acquire more and more pagan characteristics.

Where did this argument come from? It seems to me like it's something that was worked backwards from the conclusion, since it contradicts scripture, but it can do so at will since it allows one to just declare any part of the bible that contradicts the theory to be a later addition contrary to what Jesus "really" taught.

Will do.

Saying he was conventional isn't accurate but most of the rest of it is fairly historically accurate/plausible based on a mixture of sources at the time and scripture itself, if you take the stories and don't necessarily believe any of the supernatural elements. It's less 'began to acquire more pagan characteristics' and most importantly 'opened up to conversion much more fully than conventional second temple Judaism'. Similar, there's a lot in Paul's letters where people are beginning to die off and they're like 'what gives, where is Jesus' and he comes up with a theological explanation based around the resurrection of the dead similar to the Book of Daniel. From a secular scholastic point of view most of what you've written up there is the conventional take on the story, from my time studying it from that point of view. It's not about declaring what Jesus 'really' taught or anything, it's more about a best guess about what we can say confidently historically, based on looking at when sources agree or disagree or are mentioned in other sources or what we can determine about when sources were written.

Now, when they say Jesus was fairly conventional, they probably mean more that this was a really fraught time of civil and religious tension, where new sects and teachers were popping up constantly. Which probably also helped get Jesus killed, if you take the purely secular view of things, because our Roman sources say that Pilate was a goddamn brutal man who was recalled from governing because of multiple incidents where he was too kill/execution happy in a tense province (like the time he slaughtered a bunch of peaceful religious pilgrims, mistaking them for a rebel army) and so a guy causing a disturbance at Passover would probably be taken for a religious rebel and executed. Which still tracks with Scripture, really, considering Jesus's entry into Jerusalem and all. The secular scholarly consensus (when I was still actively studying, I need to add this caveat: I finished my Masters about 9 years ago and failed to get into a PhD since I'm terrible at Hebrew and Greek) isn't that Jesus was super conventional but rather that his situation was common at the time period, being a preacher with a new doctrine. And his followers adapted to circumstances after his death, caught on, and ended up becoming a big deal and splitting from Judaism in part because, yes, Paul was an extremely successful missionary and the faith in general was more adaptable about being for everyone, letting them spread among the neighboring communities to Jews in the Hellenistic diaspora because those people might be interested and also had heard the basic parts of the story and knew what Paul was talking about.

But again, all this is the secular scholastic interpretation. As a believer, there's a lot to add on to/into there when viewing the story from that perspective. Where are you encountering this take? If it's from, like, a professor in a religious studies program I wouldn't be that surprised.

E: Another important thing to add is that in this take, usually people believe the teachings are primarily what's in the scriptures, because the Gospels were designed to get Jesus's teachings wider attention; they might have various alterations to get through to an audience better or emphasize different aspects of it, but they're our best evidence for what he taught and some of them are very close to his time, so there isn't a lot of reason to believe his teachings were somehow something radically different than the Gospels themselves. If they were, they were in a way we have no evidence for and thus can't say much about. When you're dealing with ancient history you're always dealing with 'this is our best guess from available sources' and 'this is acknowledging that this is the source we've got so we have to work off it'. Thus, a historian who believed in a historical Jesus (and there's evidence for him existing, certainly, and his existence is extremely plausible) would probably say that the Gospels are reasonable evidence of his teachings as a preacher.

Night10194 fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jan 21, 2021

# ¿ Jan 21, 2021 15:42

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

TOOT BOOT posted:

Depending on how you look at it the destruction of the culturual and religious center of Jewish life was certainly a form of apocalypse for many of Jesus's followers.

Yeah there's a reason it ended an entire period and tradition of a major religion and led to entirely new paradigms of Judaism. The destruction of the Second Temple was a monumental event.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2021 22:10

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

I think they might be inherently unhealthy because, and forgive the presumption, you always seem to be deeply unhappy in every thread I encounter you in. The way you make yourself think seems to cause you a great deal of pain, and that's the definition of unhealthy to me.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2021 02:30

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Nessus posted:

My big issue with Hell has always been that at a certain point you're giving an infinite penalty for a finite action. I just can't square that even if the finite action was really, really bad. Purgatory has always been far more intuitive to me, even if, of course, now I think any hell realms are all Purgatory, whether they like it or not!

It's funny because as I have mentioned in the past, the fairest system seems to be the Mormon proposal, where everyone is raised at the last judgment and gets all of their questions answered by patient angels and/or Jesus until they are fully satisfied, and only THEN can they make the fully informed, pressure-free decision if they want to go to Hell or be annihilated, I forget which. I don't think Satan gets this privilege, but to be fair Satan seems to know what he was up to.

Hey, you've accurately described why I'm a universalist! For the precise same reason! Because I don't believe any finite human fault can ever merit infinite punishment, nor do I think finite human sin can withstand the infinite love of God forever.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2021 20:22

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Nessus posted:

I wonder how much was Dante's original creation and how much was the like... penumbra of ideas that develop around a religion which don't go against it, but aren't doctrine, or even theologically related. Like the various theories and practices in Tibetan Buddhism do connect back to core Buddhist ideas in a way that the details of devotion to a Jizo statue in Japan do not.

The Christianity Cinematic Universe.

Please, the term is heterodoxy! And it is everywhere.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2021 23:47

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Nessus posted:

What's it mean exactly? Is that the stuff which is like "this doesn't go against the teachings, but it doesn't go towards them either."

Yes precisely. It's stuff that isn't heresy, isn't necessarily orthodoxy, and isn't a problem.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2021 23:55

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

HopperUK posted:

Yeah it says in Genesis that the reason God expels Adam and Eve from the garden is that they've eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, and if they stay they might eat from the Tree of Life and become 'like us'.

The Genesis story seems to really be two stories tacked together and I enjoy it a lot.

It is, in fact, two different accounts tacked together because they both cover important points.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 05:07

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

An important thing: Job gets his answer. It's indirect, but he does. God does not actually blow Job off the way it first appears, because God does settle Job's account with his friends and in so doing confirms Job was without sin by adjudicating their dispute. Job does not learn the exact reasons for his trial, but he does gain immensely by having disputed matters without abandoning God since he now has divine confirmation that this didn't happen because of his sins.

And yes, Job demanding an accounting with the Most High is perfectly acceptable.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 21:17

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Tias posted:

Good lord(s), how many ADHD folks are in this thread? I count 4, myself not included.

I too deal with the ADHD, though my case is pretty mild and well-managed. It's the Generalized Anxiety Disorder that gives me trouble.

They tag team.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2021 13:21

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

White Coke posted:

My father is going in for surgery tomorrow to have a tumor removed from his remaining adrenal gland, please pray for him.

God be with him.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 14:56

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

CarpenterWalrus posted:

I haven't seen anyone mention Satanism in previous pages, so I'll be the resident Satanist. AMA, spiritual fellows

Are you worshiping Satan as God's prosecuting attorney or the 'lives in hell' style (presumably as something other than the prince of evil, because I'm pretty sure Satanism doesn't worship Satan as being a bad dude)? If the latter, is there any incorporation of the former and the way Satan appears in the Old Testament?

# ¿ Feb 23, 2021 23:09

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Bourricot posted:

I self-identify as a Reformed Protestant, but more due to heritage/cultural inertia than theological grounds (to be honest, I often struggle with some parts of Reformed theology).
I'd appreciate this thread insight on something that's been bugging me: I've been reading James 2 recently, and how do you explain sola fide next to James 2:17 "Faith that doesn't lead us to do good deeds is all alone and dead!" (and the next verses continue in the same spirit).
I keep thinking about it and I can't find a satisfying answer. So I welcome any and all viewpoints on the subject.

In general isn't an important part of most interpretations of Sola Fide that having actual faith will lead to you trying to be righteous anyway? Which would harmonize just fine with that bit.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2021 21:41

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Keromaru5 posted:

1: Who created humanity?
a) The one God of the Israelites.
b) Prometheus.
c) Some demiurgic idiot.
d) Aliens.

2: How many gods are there?
a) One
b) Three
c) A whole bunch
d) both a and b
e) both a and c
f) all of the above

3: Who was Jesus?
a) liar
b) madman
c) The organizer of Woodstock
d) Donald Trump's protege
e) The Son of God

4) Was Jesus divine or human?
a) Human
b) Divine
c) Yes

A, A, E, C, but Jesus can also have C on question 3, as a treat. Guy deserves some time for hobbies.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2021 22:54

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Christ is risen!

# ¿ Apr 4, 2021 15:07

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

there's a definite strain among conservatives, Scalia being the most prominent example, that really really likes using big words needlessly and its always struck me as coming from a place of insecurity where they're aware of how much the intelligentsia leans left/liberal and thinks knowing what munificent means validates their opinions.

It's not just them. You see it in a lot of fantasy authors, too. You can always tell dumb writing gussied up with a thesaurus in the writer's lap and I always hate it. It's my stylistic white whale.

# ¿ May 7, 2021 03:03

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Freudian posted:

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

Yeah, there will always be the important point that the Spanish Inquisition's reason for being was to help enforce ethnic cleansing, originally.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 16:47

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Kayten posted:

�The inquisition would be a footnote in the history of Europe if it hadn�t been politically advantageous for Protestant kings to fire up the propaganda mill� is a mild and mainstream view?

I hope that�s only among tradcaths.

It's certainly news to me that 'The Inquisition was a footnote! No biggy, just a little ethnic cleansing. Mostly just useful for protestant propaganda' is 'mild and moderate'.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2021 23:50

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

I just want you to look at the sentence 'It's true they were founded for ethnic cleansing, but-'

And think about the fact that Jewish members of our community here in this thread are listening. I was born Jewish, myself. I converted to Christianity later in life, but I was born into Judaism. Reform Judaism, certainly, but while I do not consider myself Jewish any longer it still hurts to hear 'Those guys were founded to hound and persecute members of a fellow faith that believes in the God of Abraham, but-'

# ¿ Jul 20, 2021 18:52

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

The hint would be that, again, you could write the sentence 'I know they were founded for a crime against humanity, but-'.

If you've said the first clause of that sentence, you know there were serious issues with the foundation and purpose of an organization.

This is not actually as difficult or complex as you're making it out to be. And I say this as someone who also knows the Inquisition did a great deal to limit the damage of witch trial hysteria in Spain, accurately citing exactly how ridiculous most standards of evidence were, etc. Before going back to 'It's also taking away time we could be using for persecuting the Jews' as another critical reason to cease dealing with witch trials.

Judge Salazar's writings on the Witch Trials are kind of a rollercoaster that way.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2021 17:52

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Captain von Trapp posted:

Those of us of a more conservative bent tend to be open to the idea that not only are we not the apex

You really could fool me. I mean, you're right there, right now, saying we're 'going backwards' in the same pair of sentences you're decrying trying to measure teleological progress (because we do agree, history is not teleological).

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 17:14

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

Ancient Greeks: oh today is so morally corrupt unlike the pure world of the heroes
Ancient Romans: oh today is so morally corrupt unlike the pure world of the founders
Medieval Europeans: oh today is so morally corrupt unlike the pure world of the Greeks and romans
Colonial Americans: oh today is so morally corrupt unlike the pure world of the knights and chivalry
Modern Americans: oh today is so morally corrupt unlike the pure world of the founding fathers.

This is only the western world, not even getting into Hindus, East Asian societies etc all of which do the exact same thing.

Yeah, that's the point I'm making. Declaring 'oh we're going backwards, the past was better' is about as foolish as blanket declarations it was inferior.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 18:42

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

NikkolasKing posted:

The history of the human race is looking backward and honoring those to whom we owe everything. The modern ideal is to spit on our ancestors for being narrow-minded bigots.

Analyzing history does not constitute 'spitting on people for being narrow-minded bigots'. I can respect George Washington for being willing to step aside after 8 years to try to prevent himself being president for life and for refusing the possibility of becoming a king while saying slavery is a monstrous institution and its legacy has done great harm. The past is another place. Its people are just people. They're not epic heroes on a pedestal. They did more than one thing with their lives.

E: This is a sensitive topic for ME, as well. Treating the past as epic heroes who can do no wrong does no more honor to their legacy. Acknowledging them as people, who were pushed and pulled in many directions, who sometimes did more than ever could be expected but who also fell prey to human fallibility, sin, participated in terrible things and practices (that we all might have, had we been in the circumstances that led them to them! We don't know!) does far more honor to the events of the past than whitewashing it.

Night10194 fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jul 24, 2021

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 18:53

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

The problem with 'authority' is agreeing on what just authority is, how much power it should have, and also what you do for recourse if that authority proves to be untenable or deleterious. These are not, in fact, simple things where there has been a great degradation in the love of authority, either. Plenty of those anti-maskers love an Authority. It's not one you care for, but they love it and obey it and get their orders from it. What then?

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 19:29

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Also the idea that there was some glorious age of authority in the past where everything was just is uh.

Really funny if you actually read history. What about all the civil wars? All the plotting and jockeying? All the succession struggles? It's like reading someone who earnestly believes monarchism was stable as a system of government. Instability is not some invention of the present.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 20:32

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

I follow God because I believe in God and because I wish to be better to the extent that a human can be better, even knowing that I will always fail to live up to the example of Christ. Which is also why the sins of the past, the imperfection of all humans who have ever lived, and the moments when they managed to do just and compassionate and good things despite all of it and despite all of their failings matter so much to me.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 20:39

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Jupiter Jazz posted:

Here's the thing: I would be a Jew. Except I believe Jesus really was Messiah and the Jewish faith is pretty exclusionary and consider themselves special. But don't think he should be worshipped because he himself only prayed to God of Abraham. This makes Islam and maybe Messianic Judaism or Unitarianism the only options for me so the idea we don't worship the same God is preposterous to me. A lot of Christians say Judeo-Christian to specifically exclude Islam from the Abrahamic tradition.

Yes, a deeply unfortunate thing. The 'Judeo-Christian used to exclude Islam' thing. It's why I default to Abrahamic these days.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2021 15:10

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

No in Jesus� time sacrifices had already been centralized to the point that it was only valid if performed at the grand temple in Jerusalem which was destroyed by Titus in the 70s as direct retribution for the Jews revolting against Roman rule. This is why Titus was Jewish people�s go-to bogeyman/evil person pre-Hitler. This also led to Judaism being radically reoriented towards rabbis to the point that quite a few religious scholars don�t consider Judaism pre and post-Titus to be the same religion. Jews have no animal sacrifice requirements (except for certain holidays) until the third temple is built on the Temple Mount.

I wouldn't say it's a different religion but there is a very big difference between Second Temple practice and post-Temple practice as the religion was heavily centered around the Temple, as you said. The term we generally use is the Second Temple Period/Second Temple Judaism (Second Temple period was my specialty in grad school when I got my master's, though that was a long time ago). I've never seen them called different religions entirely, though, so much as Jesus Movement practice and Rabbinic practice competing for a brief period before splitting more definitively (Jesus Movement being the term I was taught as opposed to Judeo-Christian, though Judeo-Christian is used by some scholars for the very specific group that was 'we are Jews but we believe Jesus was the Messiah' during very early Christianity, Jesus Movement refers to the same thing).

# ¿ Sep 9, 2021 17:25

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

If a person dresses a certain way, my reaction to how they dress is still on me. I was still the one in control of myself. If I commit sin in my heart in such a situation, it is my sin, not theirs. That is my objection to that line of thinking.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 03:20

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Cyrano4747 posted:

The reverse is also true. If a person chooses to cover more of their body than I find "normal" due to my own cultural and religious norms, that's their right.

See: the "burkini" ban in France. That's some garbage, if someone wants to cover up a bit more flesh at the beach than their neighbors do, that's their prerogative and it should be their right.

Absolutely. People should be able to dress as they wish. I'm just saying 'they dressed immodestly and that provoked me' is removing a person's own agency and responsibility from a situation in a very bad way. In an attempt to absolve oneself from moral responsibility.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 03:29

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

I would appreciate prayers for the sake of my kidney. There's a possibility I've figured out what's been messing it up and God willing, changing one of my medications might fix it.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 18:09

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Not to mention the power of...The Death Cookie.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 13:08

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Cythereal posted:

I have been to a therapist before. I found the experience unhelpful. Perhaps I need to try another one, perhaps not.

I have had both helpful and unhelpful experiences with therapy and a big part of it is finding someone who fits with you. It can be worth it to try again, though I also know it's difficult to do so after an unhelpful experience; the times I've found someone who fit have really helped but it can be a difficult process.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2021 15:21

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

White Coke posted:

And people.

Well, that, and brain diseases.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2021 04:34

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Some excellent news! We really did figure out what was wrong with my kidney and my kidney function is back up to completely normal, healthy levels! Thank god for that, sincerely, and thank you to those who offered their prayers for it.

And God be with you, Thirteen Orphans. I hope all will go well and you'll find your calling.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2021 13:28

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Cyrano4747 posted:

S3 of What We Do In The Shadows taking an interesting turn.

"What is Guillermo doing here?" was my first thought too.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2021 00:24

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Liquid Communism posted:

Even if we're ignoring the stuff like Vatican II, this is the Church.

A Pope (Stephen VI) once had his predecessor once removed (Formosus) dug up 7 months after burial, tried his corpse for perjury, and retroactively declared him an antipope before having his corpse thrown in the Tiber, possibly in revenge for having made Stephen bishop of Anagni

Stephen VI lasted fifteen months before being deposed, imprisoned, and strangled to death. The Cadaver Synod as it was called was nullified the next year by Pope Theodore II (who took over as Stephen's successor Romanus lasted only three months before being deposed himself ), had Formosus' recovered body reinterred in Saint Peter's. Pope John IX, Theodore II's successor, affirmed Theodore's stance and excommunicated seven cardinals involved as well as prohibiting any trial of a corpse.

Five years ( and three Popes) later, Sergius III, being one of the bishops that took part in the trial as a judge, overturned both rulings to reaffirm Formosus' conviction, which has been disregarded by every successive Pope since.

The Church's history is wild, and often its' decisions had much more to do with Italian politics than questions of faith.

People really undersell that the best part of the Cadaver Synod is that in the end, the Cadaver basically won.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2022 14:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 21:46

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Shitstorm Trooper posted:

I invited the mormon fellas into my home once, got them some ice water, and gradually steered the conversation to Star Trek. Those were some hot takes.

I would like to hear mormon star trek hot takes

# ¿ Apr 18, 2022 14:50

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

«‹›2 »