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

«‹›2 »

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Squizzle posted:

re�ction

👽

# ¿ Jul 7, 2023 01:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 22:13

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

quiggy posted:

Alright I have to know now: is there a contingent of vegan Catholics who believe in literal transubstantiation and how do they square that circle?

It is not un-vegan to consume human -- see breast milk.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2023 16:58

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Just found out the chief education officer at the Church of England is Rev. Canon Nigel Mark Genders, sometimes named as Canon Genders in the media.
https://twitter.com/nigelgenders

# ¿ Jul 16, 2023 21:46

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

there's an interesting article that came out on public orthodoxy on Peter Heers, antivax/mask, and orthobro culture that I thought folks would be interested in
The Conspiratorial Cleric

publicorthodoxy.org posted:

In 2020, Orthodox Church in America (OCA) Archbishop Alexander (Golitzin) of Dallas and the South warned his flock in a diocesan letter about the teachings of Fr. Peter Heers, which His Grace noted were �sanctioned by no canonical jurisdiction.� While the focus on Heers�s canonical status has demanded much attention in the past few years, it is the content of Heers�s digital proclamations that concern me the most. As an anthropologist of Orthodoxy, social politics, media in the United States, Heers has been on my radar for quite some time. He is a popular social media presence in the digital media worlds of the Reactive Orthodox crowd, where folks actively participate in each other�s podcasts and video streams. On the same day the Assembly�s communiqu� was released, Heers was a guest on the Church of the Eternal Logos, a YouTube channel with 17k plus subscribers run by David Patrick Harry. During the episode, �in which the two men discussed how transhumanism is �antichrist,� a word that Heers likes to use regularly regarding things he disagrees with theologically, Heers proclaims that the pandemic was �part of the machinations of the enemy.�� Harry, a Ph.D. student at Graduate Union Theological Seminary, has made a career out streaming about a variety of religious and conspiracy theory ideas, and his content is openly homophobic, transphobic, fatphobic, and ableist.
Several years ago, Harry came under fire for creating show merchandise in the form of an Orthodox cross and rebel flag mash up. Heers has also appeared on wide variety of politically radical podcasts, including one hosted by Dissident Mama, a Neo-Confederate �Southron� Orthodox member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in North Carolina.

On any given day, Heers is mentioned in hundreds of Twitter posts by users who tout highly ideological, often racist and bigoted ideas about the world. While Heers has a wide variety of theological opinions that are not steeped in Orthodox history but in a rigorist approach to the faith, including the idea that reception into the Church should be through baptism only, I want to focus on a pressing topic that highlights why Heers is a problematic and theologically dangerous figure for Orthodoxy: COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic was a time of immense digital content production for Heers, and he readily gave his opinion about everything from Church closures, to masking, to vaccinations. While Heers claims to focus his work through the teachings of the Church Fathers, the reality is that his understanding of the Fathers is steeped in elderism. When Heers mentions the Holy Fathers, he is typically referring to more contemporary Greek elders, often obscure ones at that, who have premonitions or foresight about evils in the future. The intellectually adroit Pantelis Kalaitzidis reminds us that in �these critical times when global Orthodoxy is confronted with the waves of gnoseomachy, fundamentalism, anti-Westernism and anti-modernism . . . and gerontism (elderism),� we must embrace the Florovsky model that emphasizes a �necessary synthesis of reason and faith� (Kalatizdis 2021, 267-68). Elderism is not the middle path of Orthodoxy, but a maladaptive emphasis on obedience to obscure figures that does nothing but push down reason, lead to cults of personality, and reify reactionary approaches to pressing social and theological issues.

In 2022, Heers co-edited a volume about COVID-19 with other reactionary figures that focused on putting aside a fear of death in favor of a fear of God. Rather than seeing the Church�s prudent response to public health measures and the urging of religious hierarchs to be cautious as part of theological love and care for one�s neighbor, Heers sees it as �the tell-tale signs of a demonic methodology� and a �spiritual challenge of the greatest magnitude� (Heers 2022, 180). �Heers�s chapter in the edited volume is a written version of his two-part Orthodox Ethos video podcast series titled �The Coronavirus Narrative and its Demonic Methodology.� In the series and the chapter, Heers condemns �clergymen� who have �accepted as fait accompli the light-hearted abandonment of the patristic axiom and the adoption of a utilitarian approach to the taking of these �vaccines��an approach so antithetical to the narrow Way of the Lord� (2022, 196). Elsewhere, Heers, drawing on an monastic elder, suggests that the Covid-19 vaccine might be the mark of the beast, and urges repentance for those who have succumb to the temptation for vaccination.

Heers has continually preached theological objections to public health protocols and expressed concerns about vaccines, proclaiming that �being cut off the Holy Mysteries by voluntarily closing the churches or restricting access to the Holy Things is a loss of the grace of God and its giving rights to the enemy.� Heers has also claimed that �so-called pandemic has been allowed by God as a test for all Orthodox Christians, for a purification as it were, as [sic] separating the sheep from the goats.� These statements were made when Heers was a guest on Craig Truglia�s �Orthodox Christian Theology� channel, in an episode which has now been removed by YouTube because of misinformation. In that same episode, Heers returns to the idea that demonic activity is transforming the world, causing Orthodox �clergy shutting down churches and encouraging people to take untested vaccines,� and he sees all of this as an expression of the eschaton. Drawing on his affinity for elderism, Heers engages with remarks from St. Paisios to suggest that vaccines �will be utilized to manipulate and control the masses.� When Heers claims that government-imposed lockdowns, talk of virus mutations, and the need multiple vaccinations against the coronavirus was demonic, he is ultimately gesturing to conspiratorial ideas about globalism and the Deep State that have no place in Orthodoxy.

During a conversation with the Dissident Mama, Heers offered pastoral advice on how to deal with a bishop or priest who �asks you to mask.� Heers argued, through his understanding of �patristic tradition� and the �elders,� that wearing a mask is a spiritual delusion, especially in Church. Like many among the Reactive Orthodox, Heers has taken to decrying the authority of priests, bishops, and metropolitans he disagrees with about globalism, Covid-19, and a variety of political topics. In the same episode with the Dissident Mama, Heers proclaimed that among the Orthodox clergy there is �mass apostasy from Orthodox ethos and dogma,� specifically �through ecumenism and now through covidism.� While seemingly outside of the canonical Orthodox Church, Heers seems comfortable critiquing Orthodox clergy broadly through his theological conspiracism that is in no way orthodox. Heers links the coronavirus to a wide range of far-right ideologies, including cabals of elites, a one-world government, and Marxism/socialism. This type of rhetoric is indicative not of theological depth but of reactionary, political propaganda that has become part of Orthodox Christianity since the mid-2010s. Heers�s digital reach, through a variety of different platforms, is global, and he is influencing like-minded individuals to convert to the faith, individuals who defend Heers and his ideologies in opposition to the Bishops. This meme, recently posted on the Facebook by Pascha Press, a reactionary Orthodox social media account, is a great example of the type of support Heers receives and why we should be concerned about the trajectory of the Church through the influence of these radicalized digital media personalities. We must certainly take seriously Heers�s canonical standing, but we must also acknowledge and institutionally address (even correct!) him (and others like him) who are part of this reactive movement within Orthodoxy that weaponizes the faith for their own ideological/political purposes.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2023 23:46

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Keromaru5 posted:

Oy, that guy. And of course, since it's Sarah Riccardi-Swarz and Public Orthodoxy, Fr. Peter's critics are going to dismiss this all as more Fordhamite subterfuge.

I don't really follow this stuff all that much but have PO on my news reader, having found it when I was looking for info on antivax in the church. What's the drama here with Fordham?

# ¿ Jul 20, 2023 03:45

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Deteriorata posted:

It would be nice if you could break up some of these walls of text into paragraphs to make it more readable.

here an attempt

quote:

The first is the doctrine which will bring you into despair when we come to the history of Trinitarian and Christological thought, namely the doctrine of the Logos. But we must deal with it, otherwise no part of the Christian dogmatic development can be understood. Logos means word, and means also the meaning in a word, the reasonable structure which is indicated by a word. Therefore, logos also can mean the universal logos or law of reality. This is the way in which the first one who used this word philosophically - Heraclitus - used it. The logos is the law which determines the movements of all reality.

Now this logos was used by the Stoic as the Divine power which is present in everything that is, and which has three sides to it, all of which have become extremely important in the later development. The first is the law of nature. The logos is the principle according to which all natural things move. It is the Divine seed, the Divine creative power in everything, which makes it what it is. And it is the creative power of the movement of everything.

Secondly, logos means the moral and legal law, what we could call today, with Immanuel Kant, "practical reason," the law which is innate in every human being when he accepts himself as a personality, with the dignity and greatness of a person. It is the moral or legal law. This is equally important and even precedes the other. When you see in classical books the word "natural law," we should not think usually of physical laws, but of moral and legal laws.

For instance, when we speak of the "rights of man," as embodied in the American Constitution, that would be called by the Stoics and all their followers in all of Western philosophy, natural law. The rights of man are the natural law, which is identical with man's rational nature. But it is also identical with man's ability to recognize reality. It is not only practical reason; it is also theoretical reason, It is man's ability of reasoning, because he has the logos in himself and can discover the logos in nature and history.

From this follows, in Stoicism, the man who is determined by the natural law, by the logos; he is the logikos, corresponding to, determined by, the logos: the wise man. But the Stoics were not optimists. They did not believe everybody was a wise man. Perhaps only a dozen, and no more, reached this ideal. All the others were either fools, or between the wise and foolish... the majority of human beings, those who are in the process of improvement, those who are -- as we would say in America - under the power of education. All this was a fundamental pessimism about most human beings.

The Stoics were originally Greeks, but they also became Romans, and some of the Roman emperors were some of the most famous Stoics. When Stoicism came in the hands of the Roman emperors - e.g., Marcus Aurelius - they applied it to the political situation, for which they were responsible. The natural law, in the sense of practical reason, had the consequence that every man participates in reason by the very fact that he is man. And out of this they derived laws which were far superior to many things which we find in the Christian Middle Ages.

They gave universal citizenship to every human being, because he potentially participates in reason. Of course, the Stoics - and certainly not the Stoic emperors, who knew people - were optimistic about man and believed he was actually reasonable. But what they meant was that man potentially participates in reason and that through education they might become actually reasonable, at least some of them. That was their presupposition, from which presupposition they did the great and tremendous thing: they gave Roman citizenship to all citizens of the conquered nations. Everybody could become a Roman citizen or, finally, was declared to be such by birth.

This citizenship was a tremendous equalizing step. Further, the women, slaves and children, who in the old Roman law were the least regarded and developed human beings, became equalized by the laws of the Roman emperors. This was done, moreover, not by Christianity, but by the Stoics, who derived the idea from the belief in the universal logos in which everyone participates. (Of course, Christianity has another foundation for the same idea: human beings are the children of God who is their Father.) Thus the Stoics conceived of the idea of a world state embracing the whole world, based on the common rationality of everybody.

Now this certainly was something in which Christianity could enter and develop. The difference was that the Stoics did not know the concept of sin. They knew the concept of foolishness, but not of sin. Therefore, STOIC SALVATION is salvation through reaching wisdom. CHRISTIAN SALVATION was a salvation through reaching Divine grace. And these two things still fight with each other in our days.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2023 07:33

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

A Bad King posted:

Does Mara afflict crustaceans? Imagine being a lobster with anxiety.

Lobsters have octopamine (norepinephrine) and dopamine, I think they probably feel anxiety. :qqpeters:

# ¿ Aug 4, 2023 17:22

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Prurient Squid posted:

To Manicheans, Christians blaspheme God by making him the source of evil. St Augustine was a Manichean before he switched to Christianity and then he went on to argue against Manichean ideas.

Do Christians actually make God the source of evil? To me, Augustine appears to argue it is not.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2023 09:56

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

You can think of the Lord as a kind of game designer (Kojima, anyone?) who could in theory trace all the inputs and outputs of the game engine to determine the outcome, but chooses not to because it's not fun.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2023 18:05

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Killingyouguy! posted:

So I'm wrapping up Romans in my quest to read the entire Bible and the author makes mention of saints, and I think this is the first time? Does the Bible actually lay out how the whole 'saints' thing works or are you just supposed to know

Pellisworth posted:

it's largely my Protestant upbringing but I've always been really uncomfortable with intercession of saints, the idea that you can pray to saints who are hanging out in Heaven and they'll put in a good word for you with the Father. I'm of course being flippant and horribly flattening the theology, so apologies. I'm probably Too drat Lutheran but it feels like edging into idolatry to ask saints for help when you could just pray to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost directly.

otoh I think telling stories of the Saints and holding them up as examples is very rad and cool. more dog-headed saints, the goodest boys, we should all strive to be like them. even the saints who are probably mythical like the dog-headed saints have value, I feel like. that's how mythology works--even if a myth isn't literal truth, it can be metaphorical truth and there are important lessons we can learn

You might find something interesting from the Orthodox perspective in these quotations by Orthodox writers from the last 30-50 years or so.

A book on introductory Orthodox theology:

Hopko, Orthodox Faith vol 4 posted:

Intercessory Prayer

In praying to His Father, Jesus prayed for His people (cf. Jn 17), He Himself is the only competent intercessor for men before God.

quote:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all (1Tim 2�3).

Jesus, in His resurrected glory, prays eternally to His Father on behalf of His creatures.

quote:
. . . He holds His priesthood permanently because He continues forever. Consequently He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
For Christ has entered, not a sanctuary made with hands . . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf (Heb 7.24�25; 9.24).

In and through Christ, Christians become competent to intercede before God. In the name of Jesus, Christians are commanded and empowered to pray for each other and for all creation: �on behalf of all and for all� (Liturgy of St John Chrysostom).

quote:
First of all I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions . . . This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim 2.1�4).
Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like natures with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain and . . . it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit (Jas 5.16�18).

Intercessory prayers can be made for every �good gift� from God for the sake of the salvation of others. Such prayers can include petitions for every kind of blessing, both for the body and the soul. They can be made for the inspiration and instruction of men, as well as for their healing and salvation. Whatever one can ask for oneself, one can ask for all men. Whatever one does ask for oneself should be entreated for all. �It is right to pray not only for one�s own purification, but for the purification of every man . . .� (St Nilus of Sinai, 5th c., Texts on Prayer).

To understand intercessory prayer, one must remember the eternal providence of God. One must grasp the fact that God knows all things eternally and takes into consideration each act of man in His overall plan. With this perspective one can then see that even before the creation of the world, God has heard, or rather, more accurately, eternally hears, the cries of His people. He considers man�s prayers in all that He does in His dealings with men. Thus it is the case that God does not wait to see what we do or how we will pray. He considers our actions and prayers from the perspective of eternity. And in the light of our desires and deeds He sees that �all things work together for good for those who love God� (Rom 8.28).

If we understand this we can see how our prayers are considered by God, for ourselves and for others. We can understand as well how we can pray even for those who are dead, whose lives on this earth are over and done. For the Lord does not hear our prayers �after� something is finished, because for God there is no �after� at all. God knows what we ask before we even ask it, for He knows all of man�s life in one divine act of all-embracing vision and knowledge. Thus all of our prayers, even for those who are dead, are heard and considered by God before we even make them. If we fail to pray, this too is known to God, and it takes its effect in God�s plan of salvation. Therefore we have to �pray for one another� and our prayer will have �great power in its effects� through the eternal and providential action of God.

A book comparing Orthodox to non-Orthodox beliefs:

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, Damick posted:

Soli Deo Gloria
Soli Deo gloria is the teaching that to God alone is due glory. This doctrine is a rejection of the veneration of saints and other holy objects or persons. It is a reaction to the ostentatious earthly glory of sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism. In some ways, soli Deo gloria may be regarded as redundant with solus Christus, since it emphasizes salvation as being only from God; but it adds the idea that human beings should not seek out their own glory (in other words, it preaches humility).

Soli Deo gloria also conflates worship with veneration, thus teaching that God alone is both worshiped and venerated. This conflation may be why many Protestants, when seeing the veneration practiced in Orthodox Christianity, mistake it for worship and thereby conclude that the Orthodox Christian kissing an icon or bowing before a cross is committing idolatry.

Orthodoxy agrees with the essence of this doctrine, that God alone is worthy of our worship. However, it is a rejection of His Incarnation and of His work in human beings in history to deny honor to those people and places, because we see the holiness that entered matter in the Incarnation as extending everywhere that Christ�s blessing is given.

In Orthodoxy, worship is a total self-giving and union with God primarily through sacrifice. Therefore, it makes no sense that we would worship saints or holy objects. Veneration, by contrast, is showing the respect and honor due where God has worked, whether in a person (such as a saint) or even inanimate objects (such as the tomb of Christ).

Veneration is given to saints only because of the work of Christ in them. It in no way detracts from the worship due to God alone. We should of course never seek our own glory, but there is nothing wrong with showing respect and veneration to God�s saints, who show forth His glory.

Protestants often show veneration of a sort to people in their own traditions they admire, though they usually stop short of the sort of piety that is normal in Orthodox veneration practices, such as kissing icons or singing hymns. They may name churches or even entire denominations after their heroes, however, and there is a tradition of telling the stories of Protestant martyrs or missionaries which in some ways parallels Orthodox hagiography.

Soli Deo gloria, while attempting to preserve the exclusive worship of God, in fact detracts from His saving work in His creation, because it denies the fullest sense of recognition for the work that God does in His saints. Underneath it is the sensibility that there can be no true union between the Uncreated and the created, only a bestowal of �favor.� When applied to Christology, this is a form of Nestorianism.

An interesting note: In its emphasis on humility, the phrase soli Deo gloria has been used as a way of giving thanks to God for a particular work of art. The great Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach, for instance, wrote �SDG� on many of his musical manuscripts.

A history of the Orthodox Church:

The Orthodox Church, Ware posted:

The Saints

Symeon the New Theologian describes the saints as forming a golden chain:

quote:
The Holy Trinity, pervading everyone from first to last, from head to foot, binds them all together� The saints in each generation, joined to those who have gone before, and filled like them with light, become a golden chain, in which each saint is a separate link, united to the next by faith, works, and love. So in the One God they form a single chain which cannot quickly be broken.1

Such is the Orthodox idea of the communion of saints. This chain is a chain of mutual love and prayer; and in this loving prayer the members of the Church on earth, �called to be saints�, have their place.

In private an Orthodox Christian is free to ask for the prayers of any member of the Church, whether canonized or not. It would be perfectly normal for an Orthodox child, if orphaned, to end his evening prayers by asking for the intercessions not only of the Mother of God and the saints, but of his own mother and father. In its public worship, however, the Church usually asks the prayers only of those whom it has officially proclaimed as saints; but in exceptional circumstances a public cult may become established without any formal act of canonization.
�
Reverence for the saints is closely bound up with the veneration of icons. These are placed by Orthodox not only in their churches, but in each room of their homes, and even in cars and buses. These ever-present icons act as a point of meeting between the living members of the Church and those who have gone before. Icons help Orthodox to look on the saints not as remote and legendary figures from the past, but as contemporaries and personal friends.

At Baptism an Orthodox is given the name of a saint, as a symbol of her or his entry into the unity of the Church which is not only the earthly Church, but also the Church in heaven. Orthodox have a special devotion to the saint whose name they bear; usually they keep an icon of their patron saint in their room and daily ask for his or her intercessions. The festival of their patron saint they keep as their Name Day, and to most Orthodox (as to most Roman Catholics in Continental Europe) this is a date far more important than one's birthday. In Serbia each family has its own patron saint, and on the saint's day the family as a whole observes a collective celebration known as the Slava.

An Orthodox Christian invokes in prayer not only the saints but the angels, and in particular her or his guardian angel. The angels �fence us around with their intercessions and shelter us under their protecting wings of immaterial glory�.1

And for an example of intercessory prayer that might give insight into a monastic's thinking:

Ephraim the Syrian posted:

I DARE NOT DO SO MYSELF:PRAY FOR ME, O YE SAINTS.

Who will not lament for me, who have renounced the eternal kingdom for the sake of meagre pleasures, ignoring the eternal fire? Having surrendered myself to the passions, I have destroyed the integrity of my soul and become like the unreasoning beasts.

At one time I found myself rich with gifts, but now I have come to love the poverty of the passions.

I have become a stranger to the virtues and departed for the distant land of corruption. I am half dead; I have only a tiny remnant of life in me.

Because I am this way by mine own free choice, I cannot even raise mine eyes to the kindhearted Lord.

Lament, O blessed and righteous ones, for me who am caught in the embrace of passions and sin.

Lament, O ascetics, for me who am a glutton and voluptuary.

Lament, O merciful and condescending ones, for me who am hardhearted and cause much grief.

Lament, O God-pleasers, for me who strive to please men.

Lament, O ye who have attained meekness, for me who am irritable and wrathful.

Lament, O humble ones, for me who am pompous and arrogant.

Lament, O ye who have attained the nonacquisitiveness of the apostles, for me who, burdened by my love for possessions, cling to material things.

Lament, O ye who have loved lamentation and hated laughter, for me who have loved laughter and hated lamentation.

Lament, ye who contemplate the judgement that will come after death, for me who affirm that I remember the judgement but act to the contrary.

Pray, O saints of God, for my soul which is convulsed by all manner of passions. Inasmuch as you are able, help me, O saints of God.

For I know that if you beseech God, the Lover of mankind, all will be granted you from the sea of His kindness. And, like our man-befriending God, so also when I, a sinner, beseech you, do not despise my supplication; for I have not the boldness to pray to Him myself because of the multitude of my sins.

Your role it is, O saints, to intercede for sinners; God's role is to have mercy on those who despair. Saints of God, pray to the King on behalf of the prisoner. Pray to the Pastor on behalf of the sheep. Pray to Life on behalf of the corpse, that He might lend His hand to aid me and strengthen my humble soul in its feebleness.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2023 02:27

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

I like the relics. Would it be posting gore if you embedded?

# ¿ Oct 25, 2023 15:22

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Bar Ran Dun posted:

It probably was vinegar then. It�s unfortunately pretty common to save opened but unused communion wine for the next communion.

I thought they are required to drink it all, among Orthodox at least.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2023 16:25

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Bar Ran Dun posted:

It�s not actually the body and blood and merely represents them for many Protestant denominations.

doesn't sound as fun tbh. I hear many of them just use grape juice :/

# ¿ Oct 25, 2023 16:47

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Deteriorata posted:

Ahem, it's not grape juice.

It's unfermented wine.

Orthodox very big on fermentation for the wine and the bread (leavened, not a cracker -- I'm not entirely sure but it seems to he an interpretation of the new covenant and whether it allows and encourages it). Yeasty!

# ¿ Oct 25, 2023 22:10

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Basically you have idealistic Neoplatonism / Aristotelianism on the Orthodox / Catholic side vs the beginnings of modern materialism on the Protestant side. Then Lutherans having a foot in each.

Could you or someone else go into how Orthodox incorporate Neoplatonism or Aristotelianism? I have read more criticism of these by Orthodox, usually when discussing differences with the Catholics.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2023 22:56

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

they post interesting articles on this blog sometimes. Thought some folks here might enjoy this.
Religion and Humor: An Unorthodox Relationship?

publicorthodoxy.org posted:

To say that religion and humor make for strange bedfellows may be stating the obvious! Yet one cannot escape the other; they are �mutually attracting phenomena� (Schweizer 2020, p.162). According to Christian writer and philosopher G. K. Chesterton, �Life is serious all the time, but living cannot be. You may have all the solemnity you wish in choosing your neckties, but in anything important such as death, sex, and religion, you must have mirth or you will have madness.� (as cited by Terry Lindvall, 2015). Institutional religion and religious dogma leave no room for ambiguity since they are founded on absolute moral truths, certainty of belief and conformity to a higher spiritual authority and order. In contrast, humor thrives on ambiguity and transgression, on pushing boundaries, on challenging and questioning social norms and moral truths. Unlike the somewhat universal appeal of religious faiths and religious beliefs and in contrast to laughter, which is part of human nature, humor does not universally translate well across time and space. Something that was funny a few years, decades, or centuries ago will not necessarily have the same comic appeal or be viewed as funny today. Humor is also relative and culturally embedded so it is very personal. We laugh together but we laugh at different things. Like beauty, humor is in the eye of the beholder, as Sister Vassa Larin points out in her podcast on religion and humor (Episode 106, 16 February 2017).

Despite these fundamental differences, religion and humor both have a �redemptive value� (Ingvild Saelid Gilhus, as cited in Gardner 2020, p. 162), especially laughter, in dealing with the incongruities of life and the human experience (Berger 2014). Just as religion offers a spiritually comforting sense of certainty in a chaotic world, humor offers a light-hearted comedic approach in trying to make sense of the world. Religion and humor both hold a great deal of power, positive and negative. Just as the force of religious conviction and belief cannot be overestimated, �within a well-delivered joke lies power,� as the late US comedian Dick Gregory aptly said in 2017. They both have a great potential to magnify differences and inflame sensitivities but also to express frustration in a more nuanced way and help defuse tension. Religion and humor can help us disengage from our own problems and prompt us to go beyond the bubble of our everyday reality. They invite us to think about the world in a different way. Religion and humor are both relational and community-based: a religious idea and a joke can each foster mutual understanding, help build bridges, maintain our connection to others and increase a sense of community. But inversely religion and humor can also exclude and belittle the �other,� legitimize and sanction prejudice, implicitly or explicitly, and thus magnify differences, tear people apart and divide.

What seems to prevail is a highly cautionary and suspicious view when religion and humor intersect, not least because of the legal and sometimes violent conflicts that have erupted over various forms of humor crossing religious boundaries. Accusations of blasphemy[1] have been triggered after joking and laughing about religion that has been perceived as inappropriate and offensive. We mention here the fierce backlash of only two well-publicized cases after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons and the release of the comedic film Life of Brian by Monty Python. Such conflicts have questioned the limits of freedom of expression, especially as it pertains to religious sensitivities, and have solidified the view that religion and humor are incompatible.

The Intersections of Religion and Humor

Given the fraught relationship between them, why should we look at the intersections of religion and humor? To start with, as humor studies scholar Christie Davies aptly said, �Jokes are a thermometer� (2001, p. 300); they reveal prevalent social, cultural and political attitudes and moods. Religion and humor intersect in various ways and in different domains and this raises a series of questions. First is the question of whether there is humor (and its corollaries of laughter, lightheartedness, etc.) in sacred texts, including the Bible. Related to that is the question of whether humor can be found in the world�s religions, including in religious texts, the sacraments, religious practices and lived religion, that is in the different ways believers and clergy engage with, practice, express and communicate religion in everyday life. Second is the question of what impact religious affiliation and religiosity may have on humor creation (making a joke and having a sense of humor) and appreciation (understanding and laughing at a joke) which is shaped by a variety of factors, such as one�s world view and beliefs, including religious beliefs. The work of Vasilis Saroglou and others on humor creation as well as Karl-Heinz Ott and Bernard Schweizer on humor appreciation offer some interesting reflections. Third is the question of religious humor, i.e. humor about religion including joking and laughing about religious figures, sacred texts, religious practices and religious believers. We will primarily look at the first and the third question.

Related to the first question of whether humor can be found in religion and in sacred texts is also the issue of whether we can observe relevant patterns and differences in the comic visions of the world�s religions. Are certain religious traditions more open to humor and its corollaries (e.g. laughter, merriment, cheerfulness)? John Morreall�s analysis in Comedy, Tragedy and Religion (1999)compares in somewhat binary terms the comic and the tragic dimensions of Eastern and Western religious traditions. To push this thinking further we also have to consider how sacred texts have been interpreted across several centuries to produce a variety of visions and attitudes towards humor at different times and in different socio-cultural, political and religious contexts (Gardner 2020). Eastern religious traditions, including Buddhism (as is often exemplified by images of a laughing Dalai Lama) and Hinduism, but also Confucianism and Taoism, seem to inherently appreciate comic laughter and be particularly imbued with what Morreall calls �anti-tragic� visions and �pro-comic� features. As we move into the realm of the Western monotheistic religions, there is a broader range of anti-tragic/pro-comic and pro-tragic/anti-comic features. In Judaism, humor features in the Talmud itself but more importantly it has also functioned as a political and psychological coping mechanism of resistance and survival in the vicissitudes of the Jewish people. In Islam, while the tragic and comic visions may not be present explicitly, there are distinct principles on permissible types of humor, joking and laughter; yet the comedic and satirical practices in the Muslim world and its restrictions vary across Islamic contexts according to different religious sensibilities, social norms, political regimes and legal frameworks.

In Christianity, the range of anti-tragic/pro-comic and pro-tragic/anti-comic seems to be very diverse across the variety of Christian strands (Catholicism, the Protestant churches, Orthodox Christianity, etc.). In terms of the presence of humor in the scriptures, the prevalent view is that humor and its corollary, laughter, but also sarcasm, can be found in many passages of the Old and New Testament, as several religious (theologians) and secular scholars have demonstrated, including Rev. James Martin, S.J., Bernard Schweizer, Terry Lindvall, Ingvild Saelid Gilhus, and Sister Vassa Larin. The Christian view of humor and the �theology of laughter� that has taken shape since the second half of the 20th century, rests on five basic principles, outlined by Bernard Schweizer in his volume Christianity and the Triumph of Humor: �Christianity has a long and regretful history of denunciations of laughter; humor plays a vital role in the life of the faithful and Christians should not curb their laughter; laughter is a gift from God since it is equivalent to joy, and joy is a divine attribute; the Bible is replete with humor and God has a sense of humor; and there a two kinds of laughter morally good and bad laughter, or �positive� and �negative� laughter� (Schweizer 2020, p. 31).

As Sister Vassa Larin recently pointed out during our informal conversation a couple of months after the 2023 IOTA conference in Volos, lightheartedness and humor are both divine qualities. Arguably, the resurrection is God�s ultimate and �most extravagant joke� and can be considered as an archetypal Christian joke albeit with an underlying profoundly positive message: the triumph of life over death, of good over evil (Donnelly 1992, p. 1). Moreover, the early Christian risus paschalis tradition of so-called �Easter laughter�, which also features in the Greek Orthodox tradition on Easter Monday when jokes and humorous stories are exchanged as part of the joy of Easter celebrations, stands in contrast to the serious and solemn spirit leading up to Easter.� Yet, if God�s sense of humor does not always stand the test of time, the humorous and sarcastic passages in the Old and New Testament are not necessarily funny (or even appropriate) today, they are concrete examples of the type of humor that can be found in the Christian scriptures.

Even though it is a work of fiction with multiple levels of analysis especially about questions of truth, Umberto Eco�s novel, The Name of the Rose, provides a few pointers on Christian Medieval theological interpretations of the meaning of laughter. According to the story, the Benedictine abbey�s eldest and most learned blind monk Jorge de Burgos rejects that Jesus ever laughed and the idea of laughter all together as �weakness and corruption� (p. 507) that prevents man from accepting the idea of a single and unquestionable truth. He thus laces with poison the pages of Aristotle�s second Poetics book with his views on laughter in an attempt to eliminate laughter by eliminating the book itself (Donnelly 1992).

Since Medieval times and in contrast to such views, contemporary �Christianity has yielded, more or less willingly, to the forces of humor� (Schweizer 2020, p. 164). In his book, Bernard Schweizer provides an in-depth overview of numerous contemporary examples of humor, including irreverent humor, about Western Christianity. Especially in Western Europe and North America, there are countless examples of contemporary genres of humor, including comedy and cartoons, making jokes that target Christian faith, practices, believers and clergy. Yet, there seem to be few cases of recent large-scale public outcries and backlash or formal accusations of blasphemy and when those instances do take place, they are usually initiated locally by certain religious and political conservative groups.

Humor and Orthodox Christianity

In comparison to Catholicism and the various strands of Protestantism in the West, is there a distinctly Orthodox stance on laughter and vision of humor? One could claim Orthodox humorlessness precisely because Orthodox Christianity and humor seem to make strange or unorthodox bedfellows given the Orthodox faith�s foundational stance as a faith that follows and conforms to a more original, true and authentic Christian dogma and practice. This Christian Orthodox claim to authenticity suggests a degree of seriousness, coupled with a certain reluctance to change with the times. This outlook also suggests a probable incompatibility with humor, joking and laughing about religion. The presumed Orthodox lack of openness or resistance towards humor can also be substantiated by the regressive current of moral conservatism, focused on preserving traditional family values against the perceived growing threat of secularization, that seems to have taken hold in the last two decades. This critical development also encompasses cultural aspects that seem to further strengthen the Orthodox traditionalist ethno-nationalist downturn that began in the 2010s. In the current culture wars, Russia is at the helm and aspires to be a moral leader for Christian moral conservatists around the globe, as Kristina Stoeckl and Dmitry Uzlaner discuss in their book The Moralist International. Russia in the Global Culture Wars. Yet,issues of biology (i.e. procreation and sex), marriage and family values, which have become the key litmus tests of the Orthodox faith against the morally corrupt values of the West, seem to overlook the fact that the same western values of human rights that are so vilified, were conceived and founded and are deeply immersed in Christian values, as Sister Vassa Larin pointed out during our recent conversation.

Yet, Orthodox Christianity is not a monolithic bloc. It is important to distinguish at least the Orthodox diaspora (including those who are cultural or nominally Orthodox, thus who identify with the faith and its cultural traditions but are not necessarily religious) from the mostly, but not exclusively, ethno-nationalist Orthodoxy of traditionally Orthodox majority home countries, as Father Dragos Herescu distinguished during the IOTA conference in 2023.

Sister Vassa Larin, who belongs to the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), also known as ROCA (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), and her personal trajectory is a case in point. During our conversation, she expanded on her initial light-hearted and humorous comment that Orthodox Christians tend to be dead serious when they talk or teach about matters of faith. As a priest�s daughter having always been around lots of priests, bishops, and other clergy, she observed that they all joke and laugh quite a lot. Presumably there are members of the Orthodox clergy and Orthodox theologians and advocates who use some form of humor in their work and mission. But when it comes to giving a sermon or teaching catechism or speaking publicly about faith-related matters, Orthodox monastics or clergymen tend to be dead serious. Sister Vassa did not believe that the dead seriousness of Orthodox discourse was conducive to the mission work she wanted to engage in after her decision to leave academia. She wanted to share the light of the Orthodox faith and be inside the world, rather than inside a monastic community. She began her work on online mission, initially on YouTube, where she embraced a �theology with a smile�. Her black religious habit acted as an obstacle so she also used humor, including self-deprecating humor, to be able to come across as more accessible, less severe, and thus build bridges in order to connect with the audiences she wanted to reach and negotiate her unique position in the Orthodox community. Using humor she fashioned a �parody of herself� with her black religious habit, as illustrated in her Orthodox comic strip from a few years ago, The Adventures of Sister V and Crew. Overall, she has received both positive feedback and negative pushback, including the comment that she was �unhinged�; �I am not a door�, she aptly and responded humorously! Sister Vassa is not the only Orthodox liturgiologist, scholar and author to use humor in her online mission work of catechism and religious education through her platform Coffee with Sister Vassa.

So, how does humor about religion fare within Orthodox Christianity? There is no official Orthodox stance or pronouncement on humor and on what constitutes permissible or sanctioned forms of humor, as is also the case in Christianity as a whole. This, however, does not negate the fact that there are Christian views, including presumably some Orthodox assumptions, on what constitutes good, soft, positive or tasteful humor and laughter that �build up,� that �expose cant and hypocricy� (similar to what is called �punching up� humor in humor studies) versus bad, hard, negative or tasteless humor and laughter that �tear down,� that �belittle the marginalized� (�punching down� humor), as articulated by Rev. James Martin, S.J. in his book Between Heaven and Mirth (2011, p. 23). The subversive and transgressive figure and religious archetype of the holy fool (yurodivy or iurodivyi in Russian) in Russian Orthodox Christianity is relevant here. The idea of holly foolishness originates in ancient Eastern Christianity, Byzantium and Medieval Russian Orthodoxy where it survives to this day with contemporary figures of holy fools. In Russian literature, the figures of Bishop Tikhon and Abba Zosima in Dostoevsky�s Demons and Brothers Karamazov seems to represent and capture some key character attributes as the speaker of unwanted insights reminding us that �self-conscious holiness can�t be holiness,� as Rowan Williams aptly shows. The figure of the holy fool pretends publicly to be an unruly stupid and insane fool who crosses the boundaries of social conventions (just as a modern comedian would do today). According to Sergey A. Ivanov�s pioneering volume on the subject, holy fools lead a secular and socially embedded life that appears ordinary and yet they pretend to be insane fools inviting public ridicule. Turning the traditional concept of a saint on its head, behind the apparent foolish madness hide the gifts of humility, revelation, prophecy,�allegiance to God and to the truth of the gospel, thus inner sanctity and spiritual insight.

The Question of Blasphemy

Blasphemy is a useful lens through which to examine attitudes towards religious humor. If we look at contemporary Russia the picture that emerges is one of a highly restrictive environment for religious humor and freedom of speech more generally. This is partly due to Russia�s anti-blasphemy laws and legislation making it illegal to insult the religious sensibilities of believers or offend religious institutions, namely the Orthodox Church. Indicative examples include stand-up comedian Alexander Dolgopolov who in 2020 was formally investigated and had to temporarily flee Russia after making jokes about the Virgin Mary and Jesus. There have also been incidents of social media users facing criminal action for religiously themed posts, images and memes that satirize religion and the Orthodox Church. For example, according to a BBC report, Maria Motuznaya, Daniil Markin, and Andrei Shasherin each separately posted several memes and images with religious themes and were subsequently accused and charged of hate speech, insulting believers� religious feelings and discrediting the Orthodox Church. In 2021, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reportedly stated that: �You can�t joke about what is sacred for the Russian people, you can�t joke about the war, you can�t joke about religion, you can�t joke about�well, about some very, very heroic, but painful pages of our history [�] everything else is up for making jokes, but elegant and nice ones,�

The Case of Greece

Against the current situation in Russia and through the blasphemy lens, Greece presents an interesting case. The affair of the Father Pastitsios Facebook page was a turning point in Greece�s blasphemy legal regime which targeted anyone who was critical of the Orthodox Church or of religion in general and placed restrictions on the freedom of expression thus raising concerns over self-censorship. In 2012, Philippos Loizos (at the time, in his late twenties) created a Facebook page that parodied the Greek Orthodox monk Elder or Father Paisios who is revered as a prophet and believed by many Orthodox Greeks to have performed numerous miracles and prophecies; he was canonized as a saint after his death in 1994. Loizos used a play on words to change the monk�s name from Father Paisios to Father Pastitsios the Pastafarian after the popular Greek pasta dish pastitsio. He posted images showing Father Paisios� face covered in the pasta dish and the pasta-shaped dreadlocked hair of Rastafarians, inspired by Pastafarianism, also known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[2]

Loizos� aim was to satirize the unquestioning worship of Father Paisios, who, as he claimed, represented anti-western, xenophobic and intolerant ideas and was linked to derogatory statements on women. He also wanted to expose the gullibility of blind faith and worship. Even though the Greek Orthodox Church remained officially silent, several conservative Orthodox groups and individual citizens mounted a public mobilization campaign. Following about 100,000 complaints, Father Pastitsios� Facebook page was reported to Facebook. An official motion was submitted to the Greek Directorate for the Prosecution of Electronic Crime ordering the suspension of confidentiality in order to obtain from Facebook the details of the owner of the Facebook page. Representatives of the far-right group Golden Dawn also tabled a question in Parliament and Loizos was ordered to suspend the Facebook page which he did. Yet, Loizos was subsequently arrested on the charge of malicious blasphemy and religious offence. He went on trial in January 2014 and was sentenced to four months imprisonment but was acquitted in 2017 after appeal. In this case it was ultra-conservative (far-right) political and Orthodox groups, rather than the Greek Orthodox Church, that mobilized and proclaimed themselves as guardians of Greece�s Orthodox values, pressuring the state to take legal action against the creator of the Pastitsios Facebook page.

Another incident took place in 2013 when Greek artist Dionysis Kavalieratos was charged on blasphemy charges, again. filed by an ultra-conservative Orthodox group whose religious sensibilities were offended by three Christian-themed sketches that were on display in a private Athens art gallery. The artist was acquitted, partly because the exhibition where the offensive cartoons were displayed was a private and not a public space.

As Effie Fokas and Panayote Dimitras (Greek Helsinki Monitor) highlighted, a unique feature in the Loizos case was the application of Greece�s blasphemy law and the fact that the Facebook page creator did not commit an act of blasphemy against Orthodox Christianity or the Greek Orthodox Church and its members. Rather, he satirized and parodied an individual religious figure. The case was important because it helped accelerate the Greek campaign of the international End Blasphemy Laws movement to decriminalize blasphemy and revoke such legislation. In December 2019, as part of an overhaul of Greece�s criminal code, the law on blasphemy (Articles 198 and 199 of the Penal Code) was dropped. The Greek Orthodox Church and public outcries from certain conservative milieus have argued that preserving an amended blasphemy legislation (with a penalty of imprisonment of up to two years for maliciously insulting the Greek Orthodox Church or any other religion) would help safeguard the religious sentiments of believers and help protect the rights of religious minorities in Greece. Although unlikely, it remains to be seen if an amended blasphemy legislation may be introduced at some later stage.

An interesting contrast to the two blasphemy cases mentioned above is the case of humorous cartoons about religion that are regularly published in Greek newspapers even when the blasphemy legislation was still in effect. Greek humor studies researcher Vily Tsakona conducted in 2004-2005 an analysis of 250 religious cartoons, drawn from mainstream newspapers, about religion and the Orthodox Church of Greece, as well as political issues and political figures with explicit religious references. Yet, these cartoons did not provoke any public outcries in the name of blasphemy. As Tsakona argues, �religious cartoons are not by definition considered offensive or blasphemous; their uptake depends on the social context of their production and consumption� (p. 262). Greek cartoons often satirize clerics for their political entanglements and behaviors, politicians for their religious posturing when it suits their political agendas and often ordinary citizens as part of ongoing public discussions about political, social and religious issues. Yet, the cartoonists do not seem to push the boundaries of social and political criticism beyond what is socially permitted. �Cartoonists seem to strike a balance between voicing dissent with authority, respecting norms on the limits of humor and avoiding censorship by the media� (Tsakona 2011, p. 262). Since religion is accepted as part of Greece�s political reality and social fabric, cartoonists do not typically push the boundaries to the point of contesting Orthodoxy as the accepted system of beliefs, practices and moral values. This suggests that the relation between humor, religion and politics, at least for now, seems to be one of symbiosis that reflects the connection and the established norms between the Greek Orthodox Church, state and society. Given the repeal of the blasphemy law in 2019, it remains to be seen whether in the future the boundaries of this symbiotic relationship will be pushed further by cartoonists, other humorists and artists in Greece�s new reality.

Concluding Reflections

Even if the Orthodox Christian faith can appear humorless and the Christian Orthodox world a religious and cultural sphere that is lacking a sense of lightheartedness and humor, the situation on the ground is more nuanced. Humor and its corollaries, including laughter, are present and manifest themselves in different degrees and in various contexts, including especially in the ways Christian Orthodoxy is practiced and lived individually around the world.

Even if there are no official Christian Orthodox pronouncements on permissible types of humor, joking and laughter, the application of anti-blasphemy laws and practices of censorship remain a reality. Yet the situation on the ground is far from uniform, just as there are many different ways in which Orthodox Christians practice and live their religion in Orthodox contexts or among the Orthodox diaspora. Humor practices and humor restrictions vary across Orthodox contexts and nations and depend on different political regimes and legal frameworks, religious sensibilities, and social-cultural norms. Further research in this field can be very promising and yield thought-provoking and fascinating answers on the different ways in which humor and laughter feature in Orthodox Christian practices and mission work.�

[1] According to S. Brent Plate (2006, p. 60) blasphemy is about �impure crossings from one side of the sacred-profane divide to the other; about juxtaposing the sacred and the profane in times and places where they are expected to be kept separate; of twisting the profane so that it appears sacred, or making the sacred appear profane.�
[2] The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a parody of religion created in 2005 in protest at the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in the state�s public schools.

[Bibliography in article]

# ¿ Oct 30, 2023 16:53

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Do they have something like icons?

# ¿ Nov 6, 2023 02:39

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

sinnesloeschen posted:

tbf if those thrones were sat upon by heavenly bodies asbestos might be the best way to go

It's not like they're gonna get cancer... I assume

# ¿ Nov 7, 2023 16:03

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

killer crane posted:

Also congregations often want married clergy, because it's expected the spouse will do unpaid labor for the church. A two for one deal.

E: of course that only applies to non roman catholic denominations. I don't have any experience with small or rural catholic churches.

in some cases this seems to extend to their children, who may be drawn to or pressured to join in support roles and then clergy later on.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2023 21:54

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Civilized Fishbot posted:

What's the gender verse?

Google alpha and omegaverse to find out

# ¿ Nov 12, 2023 18:30

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Tias posted:

I try every time this come up, but I really really don't understand the problem of filioque.

Did the problem arise because the latin churches added filioque, and now do it while the orthodox don't? Also, why does it matter?

Dictionary says: "important implications for how one understands the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to the majority of Christian churches. For some, the term implies a serious underestimation of God the Father's role in the Trinity; for others, its denial implies a serious underestimation of the role of God the Son in the Trinity."

Is god not one? Why are christians supposed to care?

I cannot answer these directly, but this quote may help to understand the matter from an Orthodox perspective:

Damick (2017) - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy posted:

The filioque (Latin, �and the Son�), as we have already explained, is an addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that defines the eternal procession (origin) of the Holy Spirit as being not only from the Father (as is the wording of the original Creed and of John 15:26), but from the Father �and the Son.�

The procedit (�proceeds�) in the Latin translation of the Creed can be interpreted more broadly than the more narrowly technical original Greek ekporevetai, leading some theologians to redefine this doctrine to refer not to the Spirit�s eternal origin as a divine Person but only to His temporal mission. That is, the Spirit proceeds from the Father differently (eternally as a Person) than he proceeds from the Son (temporally for salvation). That definition is consistent with Orthodoxy and taught by some of the Fathers of the Latin West (even using the word filioque), as well as by the Fathers of the Greek East, though not using ekporevetai but proienai.

Such an interpretation is nevertheless inconsistent with Rome�s official doctrinal statements, which make it clear that they refer to the Spirit�s eternal origins:

Council of Lyons, 1274 posted:
We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman Church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike.

This kind of language is likewise used in the current Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:

CCC, 246, quoting the Council of Florence, 1438 posted:
The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

The filioque has been seen as the biggest strictly theological (in the sense of true theology�dogma about who God is) problem between the Orthodox and Rome, because it concerns the very heart of Christian theology, the Persons of the Holy Trinity. A lot of theological work has been done on this point, however, and some major currents of Catholic theology have tried to lead Rome in the direction of interpreting the filioque as temporal mission rather than eternal origin, despite the official statements to the contrary. Some theologians�both Catholic and Orthodox�now consider the matter essentially solved.

The Orthodox can agree with the interpretation of the filioque as the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, though we reject the manner in which it was inserted into the Creed. There is also language in St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor that the Spirit �rests in the Son,� which has been the basis for some agreement in talks between our churches. Our critiques from here forward, therefore, are for the sense of the filioque as referring to the eternal origin of the Spirit.

The most damning charge against the doctrine is that it changes the words of Christ Himself: �But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me� (John 15:26). Jesus did not say, �who proceeds from the Father and the Son,� but only, �who proceeds from the Father.�

The filioque also violates the perfect balance of Trinitarian theology: instead of any particular attribute belonging either to the divine Nature or the Person, the filioque grants an attribute to two Persons but not the other. For instance, unbegottenness belongs only to the Father, begottenness belongs to the Son, while procession belongs to the Spirit. Likewise, all divine characteristics (e.g., immortality, perfection, omniscience, etc.) belong to all three Persons. But if the eternal origin of the Spirit�s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son, that subordinates the Spirit in that He does not possess something that the other two Persons do.

The addition of the filioque to the Creed, besides being heretical, was also uncanonical and a sin against the unity of the Church. The Creed as it now stands was professed and ecumenically ratified at the Second Ecumenical Council (381). The inviolability of the Creed was confirmed by several popes anathematizing any changes to it, most especially John VIII, whose legates were sent to Constantinople in 879�880 specifically to reinstate the deposed Patriarch St. Photius the Great and to reject the filioque. The council they participated in there leveled an anathema against any credal changes. Earlier, as the filioque first came to be used in Rome, Pope Leo III forbade its use and famously had the original Creed (without the addition) in both Greek and Latin inscribed on silver tablets at the tomb of St. Peter.

Some practical implications may be suggested from the theology inherent in the filioque. Because the Holy Spirit is subordinated by this theology, His ministries are �quenched� (see I Thess. 5:19) and replaced in certain practical ways in the prayer life of believers and the administration of church life. Orthodoxy teaches, for instance, that Church unity and infallibility are both the ministry of the Spirit, but Rome puts those in the hands of the papacy. Likewise, a dynamic spiritual life is replaced by legalism (�the letter [of the law] kills, but the Spirit gives life,� 2 Cor. 3:6), and balanced asceticism gives way to a fleshy, materialistic spirituality. Despite these suggested implications, however, it would be difficult to draw a direct causative relationship between the doctrine and these phenomena.

For a highly detailed refutation of the filioque, see St. Photius the Great�s On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, which includes a close study of how the teaching is not only heretical but even absurd (e.g., if the spiration of the Holy Spirit belongs to the Godhead and not the Person of the Father, then the Holy Spirit must spirate even Himself!).

# ¿ Nov 21, 2023 09:07

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

LITERALLY A BIRD posted:

Sure, I appreciate that. As an observer though, an incarnation of Holy Wisdom / the Logos that is feminine in nature is a really appealing idea to contrast the overwhelming maleness of the Trinity. I feel like maybe women would get treated a little nicer if there were a feminine aspect of Divinity with similar emphasis as all of the other three.

vv Oh I misunderstood what you were alluding to in your original post then I am sorry.

The church is a woman

# ¿ Nov 22, 2023 16:47

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Nessus posted:

There's a Buddhist practice of making water offerings - obviously, gods would not need our gifts, and Buddhas even less, but developing the practice of gratitude is seen to have value. (Also, you can pour the water on your plants or crops later.)

I'm told the kami take five-yen coins, though. Convenient!

There often seems to be a similar type of practice in venerating icons in Orthodox churches on significant days associated with the subject of an icon. Sometimes an icon will be brought to the fore during that week and be adorned with flowers in front of or around it. Maybe a special candle/oil lamp too.

I like this kind of stuff; it's cool they are recognizing people who actually lived and it adds to the lore.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2023 23:17

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Nuclear Pizza posted:

The Church Fathers have written extensively on the books of the Bible. They will stand you in good stead.

It might even be a good idea to read it alongside commentary etc. by the church fathers instead of doing solo sola scriptura. Some priests may specifically warn you about this. There are highly differing views on this by denomination, of course.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2023 23:12

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

LITERALLY A BIRD posted:

"what's hillsong???"

hhhhhhuh. feel like I was sniffing around the edges of something like this last page.

How askance do most modern Christians look at the idea of "continuationism," then?

I think cessationism is held by a minority of Christians today, as Catholics and Orthodox comprise the majority of world Christianity, and a chunk of Protestants are also continuationists.

Azathoth posted:

"very"

Outside of the Charismatic movement, you're not gonna see many people speaking in tongues or faith healing, though it wouldn't surprise me to see something like it pop up from time to time in the nebulous Evangelical movement, at least with the churches that play fast and loose with their theology if their leaders either came from a Pentecostal background or were otherwise influenced by it. Most churches believe that miracles from God can and do happen, but they will reject the sort of "miracles on demand, effected by the preacher's individual holiness allowing them to channel divine power" that leads people to think snakebites don't hurt them or that they can drink poison if they are favored enough by God.

I could go into why that is bad theology, but honestly what turned off most folks outside the movement to it was a neverending series of expos�s starting in the 70s where disillusioned former Charismatic preachers and/or their helpers went public with how the faith healing fraud works. Marjoe is a good example.

Healing and prophecy are attributed even to modern day saints, as well as the relics of saints generally. There are also recognized miracles by the Catholic Church. Unless I misunderstood continuationism cause I only read about it on this page, I think this means most Christians belong to denominations that endorse continuationism.

mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jan 15, 2024

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 17:52

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Azathoth posted:

You're misunderstanding continuationism and the very specific concept of "gifts of the spirit" in this context.

Can you say how? I only just heard about this here, just skimming through the Wikipedia article now and I don't see how it doesn't still apply to Catholics and Orthodox who believe in saints who can prophecy and heal. The whole idea of cessationism seems to be a Protestant reaction to Catholicism.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 18:20

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Azathoth posted:

There is a difference between God giving someone a prophecy or using them to heal and someone having prophecy or healing as a gift of the spirit, which means that a person can exercise that gift of their own volition (sorta, it's complicated) but the gist is that it is the difference between God grabbing someone and using them and someone living a perfect life so they can ask God to do things for them and because of their great personal holiness, God listens to them and does what they ask whereas if you or I were to ask the same God would be like "lol no, get holy scrub"

The early church example is Montanus, founder of Montanism, who in the 2nd century had two prophets who were giving new prophecies. They were declared heretics because that sort of thing didn't happen anymore back then. They founded their own church after that, but it did not survive.

As I pointed out, there is a lot more tied up in this than "do miraculous things happen" because most if not all Christians say yes to that. This is a very specific concept within a specific movement and it needs to be understood as such. The generalizing that you're doing to "gifts of the spirit" as "anything miraculous" is the root of the disconnect.

Didn't the whole idea of cessationism arise as a reaction to Catholicism though? It doesn't seem like they call themselves continuationists (probably because there was no real reason to define themselves in opposition), but if the cessationists defined themselves in their disagreement with the established Catholic doctrines, I'm not sure how you can say "well it's different now."

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 18:51

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Azathoth posted:

If you pray hard enough, God will not teach me how to make a structurally sound shed overnight, as is suggested in the craftsman gift. I cannot pray to God to know how to perform open heart surgery, no matter how little sin I have. I cannot lay my hands on someone with cancer and have it go into remission.

I can study hard and pray and learn to do those things, and thus have those as "gifts of the spirit" I suppose, just like the circumstances of my life might lead me to be gifted at music or public speaking, but I am not going to go from pitting out my sport coat and stammering through a speech to eloquence because I live a sinless life and ask God real hard.

I don't understand how you are defining these terms in those ways, it would be helpful to point to some sources where you are getting your definitions. I'm mainly working backward from the position of cessationism as LAB posted. You have obviously thought about this stuff a lot more than I.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 18:54

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Azathoth posted:

Write down the prophecy, date it, and put it in a sealed envelope, give it to a trusted friend and tell them to open it the day after the prediction. If my buddy did that a couple times and the predictions kept coming true, it would be pretty conclusive proof they're on to something. But if I open the envelopes and they're just full of vague nonspecific predictions that I need to puzzle over to fit into actual events, that's pretty solid evidence that my buddy isn't channelling God.

Or God knows what you're up to and isn't going to let you facts and logic your conclusion, just like when the Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 19:30

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Azathoth posted:

Then your prophecy isn't coming from God, but rather yourself, and so isn't actually a prophecy. It seems like a peculiar kind of torture to be given an accurate understanding of future events by God but only if you don't act on it. If that were happening, I'd expect something more demonic than divine.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think the scripture heavily implies you can't determine the legitimacy of prophecy by this kind of experiment.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 19:37

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

If you read the hagiographies of Orthodox saints even in the last 200 years they're constantly prophesying mundane stuff like when someone is going to arrive in the village. They also do healing.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 20:06

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Nessus posted:

If you can't use track records, how are you supposed to determine which prophecies are valid? If the methods are essentially the same as you would use to assess a reasoned argument, at what point is prophecy as a divine intervention shading into just "I reflected a lot on something and had an idea/insight, but I did it while praying instead of while staring at a rock or sitting under an apple tree"?

What I was trying to say is you can't set up an experimental design to assess prophecy or some other miraculous ability because he will know and gently caress with you just because.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 20:48

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Nessus posted:

That's not very cash money of the Lord, we're just trying our best down here

# ¿ Jan 15, 2024 20:56

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Nessus posted:

This one may be nearer to moral philosophy than religion but I think 'moral philosophy' is something that overlaps many branches.

How closely cognate do you think that "criminal" and "evil" are, as concepts?

And: How close should they be as concepts?

My view is that they share a fair volume of space but are not cognate terms. Ideally there should be alignment but there are many criminal acts which are not evil (yet are justly proscribed), and many evil acts that are not criminal (and should not be; though where the pragmatic boundary vs. the philosophically-ideal boundary is, is its own kettle of wax)

I don't think the thief on the cross or Moses the Black were evil

# ¿ Jan 18, 2024 17:47

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Can you explain the Minecraft and Swedish stuff? Is the Swedish guy the guy who made Minecraft?

it's the guy on the right
https://twitter.com/tolkienntnlst/status/1747033437817467034

# ¿ Jan 18, 2024 18:53

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Greater specificity is available in places. According to several hadith and guys who told me this, in heaven you will be 33 years old, with no body hair and no beard. Some source you will have eyeliner (kohl), apparently, but nobody has said this to me personally.

It is possible some folks end up different though

quote:

We asked 'Abdullah about the Qur'anic verse:" Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they are alive, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.." (iii. 169). He said: We asked the meaning of the verse (from the Holy Prophet) who said: The souls, of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise from wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers. Once their Lord cast a glance at them and said: Do ye want anything? They said: What more shall we desire? We eat the fruit of Paradise from wherever we like. Their Lord asked them the same question thrice. When they saw that they will continue to be asked and not left (without answering the question). they said: O Lord, we wish that Thou mayest return our souls to our bodies so that we may be slain in Thy way once again. When He (Allah) saw that they had no need, they were left (to their joy in heaven).

Literally birds?

# ¿ Jan 20, 2024 16:31

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Azathoth posted:

The body Jesus had post-Easter had the holes in his hands and the spear wound but was, to those who saw him, very much like his body during the Incarnation. I don't personally think our bodies will be more incomprehensible than that.

It was probably because of the doubting guy needing facts and logic

John Chyrsostom posted:

As to believe directly, and any how, is the mark of too easy a mind, so is too much inquiring of a gross one: and this is Thomas�s fault. For when the Apostle said, We have seen the Lord, he did not believe, not because he discredited them, but from an idea of the impossibility of the thing itself: The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe. Being the grossest of all, he required the evidence of the grossest sense, viz. the touch, and would not even believe his eyes: for hedoes not say only, Except I shall see, but adds, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side.

Consider the mercy of the Lord, how for the sake; of one soul, He exhibits His wounds. And yet the disciples deserved credit, and He had Himself foretold the event. Notwithstanding, because one person, Thomas, would examine Him, Christ allowed him. ButHe did not appear to him immediately, but waited till the eighth day, in order that the admonition being given in the presence of the disciples, might kindle in him greater desire, and strengthen his faith for the future. And after eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be to you.

Jesus then comes Himself, and does not wait till Thomas interrogates Him. But to show that He heard what Thomas said to the disciples, He uses the same words. And first He rebukes him; Then says He to Thomas, Reach hither your finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither your hand, and thrust it into My side: secondly, He admonishes him; And be not faithless, but believing. Note how that before they receive the Holy Spirit faith wavers, but afterward isfirm. We may wonder how an incorruptible body could retain the marks of the nails. But it was done in condescension; in order that they might be sure that it was the very person Who was crucified.

If any one then says, Would that I had lived in those times, and seen Christ doing miracles! let him reflect, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2024 18:42

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

long Origen piece posted the other day, haven't read it yet but he was an interesting person, most assuredly.
Origen among the Critics

publicorthodoxy.org - Wed, 17 Jan 2024 posted:

...consider Origen of Alexandria. His theory and practice of biblical interpretation and practice of biblical interpretation�as ever�defies our expectations of how �pre-critical� exegesis supposedly differs from its late modern descendants. For he assayed the moral quality of Scripture no less than such contemporary scholars, even as he sublated their concerns into a broader vision of theological interpretation. Indeed, Origen took such ethical criticism of Scripture a radical step further by including even our moral revulsion at particularly egregious stretches of the biblical narrative within his concept of revelation. Which is to say, Origen incorporates the faithful reader�s response to the Bible into his account of what it means for the text itself to be inspired: the Wisdom of God turns out to be not only the substance of Scripture but equally the subject responsible for its interpretation, such that we cannot speak of the Word�s embodiment in Scripture at all apart from its reception in and through the Spirit.
�

# ¿ Jan 21, 2024 05:00

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

NikkolasKing posted:

As someone who loves music, I've always wondered at how..."dead" our English language is when used for religious purposes. Have you ever heard a recitation of the Quran in Arabic? They chant it and it's so beautiful. The English translation alongside it I've heard is just plain reading. Same for when I've heard the Tanakh in Hebrew, and I was once told their book even has specific notes for which parts are to be chanted. And then of course many Buddhist and Hindu texts are turned into mantras.

But The Bible, at least English readings of it, are read without a trace of lyrical beauty.

OCA churches do speak only in English the gospel in singsong as well as prayers and services, as is typical of Orthodox everywhere. I think it sounds odd in English tbh. they use English in some parts
at sone GOA as well.

here's an Arabic hymn sung in an Orthodox Church in Turkey
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fsu5ctk-NJ4

# ¿ Jan 26, 2024 04:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 22:13

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Jesus never says "lmao" :raise:

# ¿ Jan 29, 2024 04:05

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

«‹›2 »