|
aside from how it deals with the issue that shall not be named itt, to an uninformed heretic such as me, that ruling seems to touch on some issues francis keeps pushing. one is how he has championed a more reconciliatory tone with regards to some of the church's more conservative social teachings, even while those teachings have themselves mostly not changed. another is his sustained effort against "clericalism" and petty fiefdoms within the church bureaucracy. if im super off base here let me know
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
Ceciltron posted:I don't think implying that the old testament is angry and mean is antisemitic. I mean there is the entire fact the thing is a kind of racial-supremacy narrative that, *thank God*, is swept away by the decision to bind the Gentiles to the Jews like the branch of a wild olive tree is joined to a cultivated one. Then again, if looking at the (biblical) actions of Jews regarding non-Jews in the places they're in charge of leaves me with a sour taste, then maybe I'm antisemitic! Judaism is like that. You cannot understand Judaism by saying "Oh, here's the 'Old Testament'", because that's not how Judaism works. There is what we call the Old Testament and Jews call the Tanakh, but there is also an ancient body of work called the Talmud, which is interpretation of the Tanakh, and without which there is no Judaism. Then there are centuries of interpretive work *on* the Talmud. Interpreting Judaism through an English translation of the Tanakh is like interpreting Christianity through nothing but an English translation of Gospels. Judaism is a practiced and lived religion, and if you want to understand how it is lived and prayed, you don't go to Christian sources to find out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:aside from how it deals with the issue that shall not be named itt, to an uninformed heretic such as me, that ruling seems to touch on some issues francis keeps pushing. one is how he has championed a more reconciliatory tone with regards to some of the church's more conservative social teachings, even while those teachings have themselves mostly not changed. another is his sustained effort against "clericalism" and petty fiefdoms within the church bureaucracy. This is pretty much exactly what's going on. Francis has steadfastly emphasized that our first response to sin must be mercy and welcome: we can worry later on about what brought a person there or how they might fix it, but their primary and most immediate need is to be loved, full stop. And if we aren't equal to the task, we have to pray that God will, for their sake, either make us equal to it or send someone who is. Like The Phlegmatist said, he wants to remove as many obstacles as possible to people's participation in communal and sacramental life, because that's where they can best find healing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Interpreting Judaism through an English translation of the Tanakh is like interpreting Christianity through nothing but an English translation of Gospels. Judaism is a practiced and lived religion, and if you want to understand how it is lived and prayed, you don't go to Christian sources to find out. The problem is that many American Protestants do do just that, or, worse, only through a carefully curated selection of verses. So it makes intuitive sense that Judaism should be equally-well interpretable that way. (From a Catholic point of view, it is equally-well interpretable, which is to say 'equally badly'.) "Why do you have all these extra-biblical ideas?" the non-liturgical Protestant demands. "Well, because not everything important to our faith was written down; some was handed on orally," the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian replies, defensively. "But God said that 'all scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach'!" retorts my lovingly-constructed strawman, quoting the Douay-Rheims because it amuses me. "Yes, and?" sighs the Catholic. "The Jews also had extra-biblical traditions, both revelations that were not written down and interpretations of those instructions, plus interpretations of what was written down." "Just because the Jews did it, that makes it okay?" exclaims the straw-Protestant. "Next you'll say it's okay to use incense in church because the Jews did!" "Weeeellll...." Ceciltron posted:I don't think implying that the old testament is angry and mean is antisemitic. I mean there is the entire fact the thing is a kind of racial-supremacy narrative that, *thank God*, is swept away by the decision to bind the Gentiles to the Jews like the branch of a wild olive tree is joined to a cultivated one. Then again, if looking at the (biblical) actions of Jews regarding non-Jews in the places they're in charge of leaves me with a sour taste, then maybe I'm antisemitic! It's anti-semitic insofar as it implies that Christians adopted a friendly, loving variant of God, and Jews stuck with an angry, mean variant, as if they just didn't like the friendliness or something. It is also not an accepted fact that the Old Testament is a racial-supremacy narrative; it is common for Christians to identify different covenants between God and man and to look at how they expanded in scope from 'a single family' to 'an entire nation', and certainly Jews would point out that conversion was possible, at which point someone became a member of the Jewish race. Further, saying that the Old Testament is 'mean' and Jesus is 'nice' ignores all the times that God, in the Old Testament, is referred to as full of mercy, remembering good deeds for thousands of generations, and ignores Jesus calling the Pharisees white-washed tombs full of rot, or making a whip to clear out merchants from the Temple. Jesus is not a hippy who just wants "everyone to be friends and share, man," and the God of the Tanakh (torah + prophets + writings = the Old Testament) is not a cruel judge sitting on a cloud waiting to zorch everyone with lightning bolts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:I'd also say that there's a big disconnect between Justice and Law in the old testament. The old Testament is a book concerned with laws. These laws aren't terribly just, in and of themselves, and seem (forgive me my audacity here) arbitrary. I'd argue that the New testament, with the Golden Rule, fosters far more Justice than the previous legalistic approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Judaism quote:You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
it's not only anti semitic, it's anti catholic. the (protestant) christian denigration of judaism as legalistic owes a lot to martin luther's view of the catholic church
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the (protestant) christian denigration of judaism as legalistic owes a lot to martin luther's view of the catholic church It's not really denigrating to think of practical Judaism as legalistic. The rabbinical legal tradition is something a lot of Jewish scholars are very proud of (predominantly Jewish law schools, too - somehow). Even contemporary Judaism is bifurcated along whether or not a group of practitioners believes that the application of the Halakha is a binding part of the covenant with God. There seems to be a parallel with the approaches taken by some Christian groups, in this regard. Curiously this seems to be the one critical question of contemporary Judaism that doesn't have any particular extreme ultra-conservative/orthodox group denouncing Israel over it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:What in the world do you think "we can't talk about abortion" means? It means we can't talk about abortion, anything about it. Whether we can talk about it or not, I'm very glad to have it brought to my attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:Whether we can talk about it or not, I'm very glad to have it brought to my attention. I'm not unsympathetic, just acutely aware of the fragility of this thread in this area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:"Why do you have all these extra-biblical ideas?" the non-liturgical Protestant demands. Like the Trinity? That's one of the weirdest features about Protestantism. The Trinity is really difficult thing to back up when you're working with a solely Biblical theology. Calvinists, at least, appeal to tradition: The Nicene Creed, St. Augustine, and certain parts of the ecumenical councils (including the Athanasian Creed and Chalcedonian Creed, most parts of the Canons of the Council of Orange) up until Pope Gregory the Great, and then after that apparently the Catholic Church fell into apostasy until Luther and Calvin rescued it. Then modern Calvinists refer to documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, the London Baptist Confession of Faith (for the Calvinist Baptists), etc. as essentially having the Reformed equivalent of magisterial authority. The conservative Reformed denominations, at least, consider them inviolable. Then we get into regulative/normative principles of worship that has caused some pretty deep divisions in Reformed circles since the 17th century. Should we worship according only to what is in scripture, doing nothing in worship that is not in the Biblical pattern? Or should we be able to do anything in worship that is not directly contraindicated in scripture? When you grow up in a church that doesn't celebrate Christmas because celebration of Christmas is not in the Bible, you start to see how far down the Protestant rabbit hole goes. Sola scriptura is, unfortunately, kind of a mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:I'm not unsympathetic, just acutely aware of the fragility of this thread in this area. Out of curiosity, how long has this topic's prohibition been going on, and how much longer is it planned for? Eternity is an acceptable answer. Mercy to the people who bring it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Out of curiosity, how long has this topic's prohibition been going on, and how much longer is it planned for? Eternity is an acceptable answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:since the last thread; until the next one, probably. we should all remain friends in here Inshallah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Out of curiosity, how long has this topic's prohibition been going on, and how much longer is it planned for? Eternity is an acceptable answer. Not eternity; presumably after Christ returns in glory we'll be able to discuss contentious topics in this thread. This is why... uh... was it Thirteen Orphans and I? Somebody and I were very seriously discussing haruspicy as a substitute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Not eternity; presumably after Christ returns in glory we'll be able to discuss contentious topics in this thread. This is why... uh... was it Thirteen Orphans and I? Somebody and I were very seriously discussing haruspicy as a substitute.  It was you and I. It was what really endeared you as a poster to me. I loved that conversation and it was really important as I went on trying to find my way around magisterial assent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
tickets to the gunt show posted:It's not really denigrating to think of practical Judaism as legalistic. The rabbinical legal tradition is something a lot of Jewish scholars are very proud of (predominantly Jewish law schools, too - somehow). Even contemporary Judaism is bifurcated along whether or not a group of practitioners believes that the application of the Halakha is a binding part of the covenant with God. There seems to be a parallel with the approaches taken by some Christian groups, in this regard. The generally accepted term for Judaism's emphasis on the Law and its application is that Judaism is, in pretty much all of its strains, strongly orthopraxic: Jewish scholarship even in its more liberal denominations is concerned with what God wants people to do and how they should do it. Pretty much all Christian denominations are more orthodoxic than orthopraxic, though of course Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both more heavily orthopraxic than most Protestant denominations. Some of those can still, however, be heavily orthopraxic in practical terms even though in theory they're all about sola fide (see: some of the Neo-Calvinist churches with their extensive member covenants). Point is, calling anything "legalistic" is generally accepted as a form of derision, especially in Christian contexts, and we'd be better served by avoiding the term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:
Aha! Yes! Here we go: Let's say I disagreed with the Church's teaching on divination
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:The generally accepted term for Judaism's emphasis on the Law and its application is that Judaism is, in pretty much all of its strains, strongly orthopraxic: Jewish scholarship even in its more liberal denominations is concerned with what God wants people to do and how they should do it. Pretty much all Christian denominations are more orthodoxic than orthopraxic, though of course Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both more heavily orthopraxic than most Protestant denominations. Some of those can still, however, be heavily orthopraxic in practical terms even though in theory they're all about sola fide (see: some of the Neo-Calvinist churches with their extensive member covenants). Point is, calling anything "legalistic" is generally accepted as a form of derision, especially in Christian contexts, and we'd be better served by avoiding the term. I have always envied the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to be an atheist Jew; God doesn't care if you believe in Him, He just cares that you obey the laws. (Which include laws on making the world better, feeding the poor, and so on.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Aha! Yes! Here we go: Let's say I disagreed with the Church's teaching on divination I completely forgot that I brought up the Oath of Fidelity. Man did I have a long fight with that one. Weird that I got to a place where I would be comfortable taking it. Mysterious ways, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Like the Trinity? The Baptist spin on the Trinity is that the Trinity as such isn't really talked about, no, but all three aspects are each individually talked about a great deal and spoken of a couple of times by Jesus as a whole. We Protestants go down new and interesting rabbit holes we find looking through the Bible, rather than feeling the need to invent new holes like the idea of saints. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
S my D
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The Baptist spin on the Trinity is that the Trinity as such isn't really talked about, no, but all three aspects are each individually talked about a great deal and spoken of a couple of times by Jesus as a whole. it was cute for a while but we all see it coming now and we just 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:We Protestants go down new and interesting rabbit holes we find looking through the Bible, rather than feeling the need to invent new holes like the idea of saints. Intercessory prayer to the departed saints? I don't think something that is well-attested a millennium before Luther could be particularly considered a new idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The Baptist spin on the Trinity is that the Trinity as such isn't really talked about, no, but all three aspects are each individually talked about a great deal and spoken of a couple of times by Jesus as a whole. cythereal the next time you see a discussion like this and decide that your contribution should be something along the lines of "your thing is weird mine is normal," you should write out your post on a piece of paper, preferably a notebook, and put it under your pillow before you sleep. and when you wake up in the morning read it again. and if you think you should still post it, what you need to do is take that notebook and throw it in the garbage because no you should not. talking about your tradition is cool and good. contrasting it with other traditions is great. talking poo poo about other people's religions is not. i know you think you're being coy and funny but it's really not either! we get it, you're baptist, ritual and saints and mary seem like superstitious hogwash to you. at least do something new with it other than these passive aggressive jabs, it's just boring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
in less  news i went to an episcopal service last sunday. i plan to poast more later but its highly more relevant to share this dumb photo i took of United States Interstate 94 a week or 2 back: um ok so it's an american highway wasteland, great. but....  uhhhhh so there's a billboard. congrats. except  oh hi
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
One of my parish priests was unsure about his vocation and was praying for guidance, walks outside the church and literally sees a billboard advertisement for the priesthood. Signs from God don't get better than that
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:
Fabulous. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
 Spot the shittiest facebook group!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
you'd think the answer is obvious but i looked up "christianityball" and it's a bunch of jokes about Mike Pence electrocuting people e: the obvious answer is WH 40k Humor, of course
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:you'd think the answer is obvious but i looked up "christianityball" and it's a bunch of jokes about Mike Pence electrocuting people it's clearly WH40K humor, intergalactic war is serious business
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:e: the obvious answer is WH 40k Humor, of course heresy
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:heresy check my first post in this thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
wrong way 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:you'd think the answer is obvious but i looked up "christianityball" and it's a bunch of jokes about Mike Pence electrocuting people It's a lovely group - usually going on about Muslims - but Christians for President Loompa has 20 times more folks in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
All facebook groups are equally bad, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Some are more equally bad than others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:cythereal the next time you see a discussion like this and decide that your contribution should be something along the lines of "your thing is weird mine is normal," you should write out your post on a piece of paper, preferably a notebook, and put it under your pillow before you sleep. and when you wake up in the morning read it again. and if you think you should still post it, what you need to do is take that notebook and throw it in the garbage because no you should not. Ty for phrasing this better than I could. Tuxedo Catfish posted:you'd think the answer is obvious but i looked up "christianityball" and it's a bunch of jokes about Mike Pence electrocuting people Where I think you are missing out is that they think this is good
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Ty for phrasing this better than I could. Fair enough. :/
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Apparently, good subreddits exist. https://www.reddit.com/r/monkslookingatbeer/
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:cythereal the next time you see a discussion like this and decide that your contribution should be something along the lines of "your thing is weird mine is normal," you should write out your post on a piece of paper, preferably a notebook, and put it under your pillow before you sleep. and when you wake up in the morning read it again. and if you think you should still post it, what you need to do is take that notebook and throw it in the garbage because no you should not. Plus there's really no such thing as "Protestant view on X." High church Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians don't have intercessory prayer to the saints, but they revere saints as examples of holiness and even have feast days. Calvinists and everyone coming out of that branch just ignore them entirely. Or baptism. Baptismal regeneration, baptize infants: Lutheran. No baptismal regeneration, baptize infants: Presbyterian. No baptismal regeneration, baptize adults: Baptist, Most Pentecostals Baptismal justification, baptize adults: Church of Christ. Protestantism is this huge tent where nobody agrees on much except sola fide (and there are divisions even in that camp; I see Lordship Salvation get called crypto-Catholicism every once in a while) so it's weird to put forth a "general Protestant view" of theology, period. e: Haha someone posted about the alt-right on this Reformed FB group I'm a part of, and I really enjoyed people contorting themselves into knots about it. They're awful and also actually racist (good) but at the same time are made up solely of Democrats (uh...) which is a new interesting take on the whole thing that I've never seen before. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 15:40
|
|