|
So would Eastern Orthodox recognize the baptism of a protestant? If they're wrong about its legitimacy, and the baptism was legitimate (say, through the holy spirit) would a second baptism have some negative consequences?
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
All of this talk on Aquinus' alleged corpulence made me curious, and I discovered a passage where Chesterton compares him to Count Fosco, were that character turned suddenly to saintliness! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
So there's saint Francis and the wolf, Saint Anthony and his pig, and Saint Cuthbert and his otters... are there any other great saint/animal comboes that I should be aware of?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:I've seen it in Minnesota, but this area is very heavily German. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/9448
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
I'd say gnosticism is the heresy which has the greatest number of modern adherents. It's just that it isn't really organized at all (that I know of).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:There's Ecclesia Gnostica and Église Gnostique Catholique Apostolique, and they both have a number of parishes in the US as far as actual Gnostic churches go. This is a relatively uncharitable view of gnosticism. The most charitable view would be adopting gnosticism in order to "solve" the problem of evil. I'd recommend the books "The Divine Invasion" or "Valis" to get a sense of this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:also, the only good fascist continues to be a dead fascist. this is known Lord have mercy on this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:While the Bible doesn't say much, don't forget that the most prominent suicide in there is by none other than Judas Iscariot, who isn't exactly presented as a role model. The sect you're speaking of would be the Donatists (and their more radical offshoot, the Circumcellions); maybe it's their attitude towards suicide that moved St Augustine to wholly denounce suicide as a sin in the early 5th century. The case wasn't entirely clear-cut before; Jewish religious law was always uneasy with suicide, and they were/are, in theory at least, buried in a separated part of the graveyard. There are examples of Jews who chose suicide to escape dishonour, though, with Samson or King Saul being prominent examples. Romans and Greeks were pretty relaxed concerning suicide, though Aristotle and possibly Plato as well opposed it. I've also read that in Athens, suicide without the explicit permission of the state was disallowed as well; the victims would be buried outside of the city in this case. Greco-Roman stories abound with honourable soldiers and officers falling on their own sword than conceding defeat to the enemy, though. Early Christianity too regarded suicide as a possibly virtuous act - Eusebius writes of two young Christian women in Antioch who killed themselves to avoid being raped by a roving band of soldiers. Augustine comes back to this example and says that they should rather have suffered the rape than kill themselves. For Augustine, purity is a state of mind which may survive even a horrible experience like rape, whereas suicide is a direct violation of the fifth Commandment; a sin that, by design, cannot be confessed and repented and which consequently cannot be forgiven (though Augustine makes an exception: when God personally orders you to commit suicide, then it's cool 17. Of suicide committed through fear of punishment or dishonour. And consequently, even if some of these virgins killed themselves to avoid such disgrace, who that has any human feeling would refuse to forgive them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 00:54
|
|
) Augustine was super important in this regard (as in virtually everything else), and by the sixth century suicide starts to become a secular crime as well.
|
quote:Raised in the Russian Orthodox tradition, director Andrei Tarkovsky once told an interviewer, "I consider myself a person of faith, but I do not want to delve into the nuances and problems of my situation, for it is not so straightforward, not so simple, and not so unambiguous." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/julyweb-only/foftarkovsky.html It is possible that Parajanov also remained a committed christian, despite his sexual peccadilloes. I'm not sure what he believed in the end. I do know that I find the films of both Parajanov and Tarkovsky spiritually fulfilling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
I mean, I'll take Sunday in the Park With George as my choice for transcendent musical theater. "The choice may have been mistaken, the choosing was not." It's a piece that has gotten me through some hard, dark times.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:sorry, they're schmaltzy and musically simplistic They're schmaltzy and musically simplistic in the same way that church is boring and repetitive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0wVML-Kffw CountFosco fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
Read the Man Who Was Thursday.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Yes, I agree, disagreeing with an author on one particular book is reason enough to dismiss his entire oeuvre.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:I got a question for the historians: Why did Christianity come to be the dominant religion of the late Roman Empire while the superficially similar Judaism had only a small following? No historian can answer this with infallible authority. There is too much distance between our time and theirs to say for sure. Also, this is a situation where there may not be a mere one cause, but many (much like the fall of the Roman Empire had more than one cause). The best any historian can give you is an educated opinion. For my part, I like to believe that it was the egalitarianism inherent in the theology and spirit of Christianity that was the deciding factor, but this could be wishful thinking. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Two major obstacles that weren't insuperable in themselves but together made a pretty high barrier to entry. The first was monotheism: Judaism is REALLY BIG on there being only one God, and that offering anything approaching worship to anyone or anything other than God is a grave sin. Monotheism and polytheism interact in very weird ways when they meet one another, but they really are fundamentally incompatible. Secondly, Judaism was and is heavily tied up in ethnic identity, and the path to conversion was (and in some denominations still is) extremely stringent. Plus, as others have said, Judaism didn't and doesn't evangelize, whereas Christianity is entirely focused on spreading the good news for the salvation of the world. Being explicitly multiethnic while evangelizing and having a relatively easy initiation process goes a long way toward contributing to the spread of a religion. On your second point, I'm not sure that this was unique to Christianity and can really be pointed to as the primary source of its great expansion. There were other, non-Judaic mystery religions at the time which also took on followers of various ethnicities. A good example of this is the cult of Isis, and The Golden rear end is an important work in understanding this mystery religion as a potential alternative to Christianity. People think that the novel takes a turn in the last act toward the religious, but really the entire work is devotional (in my opinion). That Christianity eventually achieved dominance over this faith is a fact whose causes are hazy, multivalent, numerous (and perhaps numinous).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
In what word are you using the word devotional? Because I'm pretty sure the cult of Isis required sacrifices and our pal Lucius clearly became some sort of proto-monk in the service of Isis at the end of his journey. And it seems a bit of a cheat to dismiss it as just a platonic allegory when allegorical readings of scripture have been a part of Christian interpretation from time immemorial.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Normally for something to be a work of devotional literature with respect to a particular religion, it has to be written by someone who believes in the religion in question, and Apuleius's Platonism absolutely precludes belief in the kind of personal god that would be worshipped in an actual cult of Isis. Even if he'd been initiated (and we don't know if he was an initiate of Isis, although his Apologia mentions his initiation into several mystery cults), the satirical dimension of the work (particularly the continuing initiation fees despite Lucius's being flat broke) raises serious questions about its reliability. I'm sure there's some truth in there, but since it's our sole account of the cult of Isis, and knowing its literary features and the biography of its author, we need to be extremely careful in using it as a source for what the mysteries of Isis were actually like. http://www.jnanam.net/golden-rear end/ga-11.html quote:“Behold, Lucius,” she said, “moved by your prayer I come to you—I, the natural mother of all life, the mistress of the elements, the first child of time, the supreme divinity, the queen of those in hell, the first among those in heaven, the uniform manifestation of all the gods and goddesses—I, who govern by my nod the crests of light in the sky, the purifying wafts of the ocean, and the lamentable silences of hell—I, whose single godhead is venerated all over the earth under manifold forms, varying rites, and changing names." If we can't describe this as a "personal" god I don't know what we can. We don't need to know the specific nature of the mysteries for us to understand that the cult of Isis really was focused on Isis and thus distanced from polytheism than other pagan faiths of the time, despite perhaps not diving whole-hog into strict monotheism. And to say that Apuleius' Platonism presents a concrete barrier to belief in a personal god, well, this just seems to assume too much. One can be a platonist and absolutely believe in a personal deity. Much as one can believe in a Jesus wholly human, and wholly divine. Seeming contradictions are the building blocks of mysticism as opposed to legalistic scholasticism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Wait what? poo poo that's pretty cool. I's it alright if I ask stupid questions like what saint or apostle would be most likely to be able to go super Saiyan? I just like connecting things to other things, I'm the kind of person who would love to hear metaphors extended well beyond their welcome. Saint Moses the Ethiopian?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Most Christian mythology originated with the Divine Comedy or Paradise Lost. Explain where I can find toll-houses in those works.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Yeah, I'll definitely keep those in mind. I mean, how do you define power? Because in terms of power to dominate, worldly power to command servitude, it goes: triune God > humans > creation. As I see it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:re: reformationchat Am I the only one who notices that this image compares this Cardinal to St. Jerome himself? If he asked for this specifically, it takes some serious cajones to commission a painting which visually places yourself in the image of a saint.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:it's also cranach fanboying over duerer, if it helps Hmmmm. I've heard that some of the symbolism of Durer's Jerome in his Study is meant to point out the flaws of Jerome, and given that Cranach was a contemporary, I wonder if perhaps this was some super subtle criticism of the cardinal as well? He does, after all, have enormous horns hovering right over his head. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
1. the chandelier of horns can apparently symbolize... cuckoldry? perhaps? 2. the beaver represents castratation 3. notice the statue of Jesus on the table. Notice how the white cloth seems to rise from the pelvic area. I'm starting to think I have a Dan Brown book on my hands.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:That does tend to be the question. Though even now I think it might be hard to find Catholic priests considering "Adultery" an actual evil right? I mean somewhat dickish, but evil always seems much worse to me than just two people boning. To call adultery "just two people boning" seems reductive in the extreme.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Well what else is it? Breaking an oath? Damaging another trust? Making a choice to abandon someone you used to care for? All of those things are, extremely, dickish. However I would argue that they are not evil. Hitting someone you are in a relationship with is, to my mind, far lower on my personal moral scale. Or psychologically abusing someone. No, actually it is evil, hth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Actually I think in a lot of cases the more pressing question is why be morally good when happiness is more accessible? Why would self-deprivation be a good thing? And that's the thing that modern society struggles with. Being morally good is happiness. The happiness of our millenia-old consumerist culture pursues is chasing after the wind. Those for cardinal virtues speak NOTHING of the telos. A demon could be prudent. A complete monster could act in a just way. How many demons show temperance? What could be more courageous than to rebel against God? CountFosco fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Adultery / cheating is pretty obviously evil it seems to me, you're breaking your vows and trust and hurting your partner. Obviously as The Phlegmatist points out there can be a lot of nuance there in who's at fault and so on, but it's a Not Good thing to do. John 4 15 The woman said to him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come here to draw. 16 Jesus said to her, Go, call your husband, and come here. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You have well said, I have no husband: 18 For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband: in that said you truly. I personally read this as a teaching on fornication. That fornication is essentially a lie. Sexual acts come with emotional love, abiding love, i.e. marriage. To pretend that it's mere physical pleasure and nothing more is to deny the transformative power of the mystery of sexual communion. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:i think your exegesis here says a lot more about you than it does the text, realtalk So what do you think Jesus meant when he said that she had five husbands?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i disagree wholeheartedly. I was with my ex for eight years and we never married. But I loved them. Plenty of people in shorter-term relationships love each other, you can see it every day. I love the person I'm with right now, even though where we are in our lives doesn't let us get married, but I already promised in front of God to be with them. I'm currently in a relationship, and I have resolved, truly resolved, that it will be the relationship which I celebrate and reify for my remaining years. We're not married, officially, but in my heart I am married. I've had two past extra-marital loving relationships (and one relationship which was less than fully loving), and for the longest time I liked to imagine that that was just the way things were, but during a moment of great pain, I realized that the rationalizations I told myself to justify their end were just that, rationalizations. In the loving relationships I had, I really could have made them better, made them fullfilling, made them what they ought to have been. That I didn't was a sin of missed opportunity. A good example: in the first one, I ended a relationship that became long-distance because I blithely assumed that it just wouldn't work because of that. The truth was that, having lost my virginity, I felt much more confidence in my sexuality, and wanted to play the college field. This I wanted to do because I felt that that is what it means to be a guy in college. The end result of that being that I have lived with guilt and regret and at the same time failed comically at playing the field. To hurt others IS to hurt ourselves. This harm can exist below the level of our immediate understanding. Addictions are attempts to cure this harm that we have given ourselves with more harm. Imagine that you have a gaping wound in your abdomen. To sin against others is to pack mud and twigs and leaves over the wound and expect it to be fine. As far as fornication goes, it is because I take consent so seriously that I have decided that I ultimately can no longer just shrug of fornication as "just one of those things." Of course, this desire to take consent originally came from a psychological neediness and desperate insecurity, but so it goes. I really believe that sex has psychological power, and it shouldn't be considered lightly. That said, it is something which happens more often than not from a desire for good, a desire for love, and that really does matter so I also believe that it isn't something that should inspire crippling guilt or public shame. I say all of this in the spirit of fallibility: I could be wrong about all of this. My experience is merely one point of data in a vast ocean of phenomena, and it may prove contrary to the spirit of our age, the spirit of all ages. But still, it is an experience that happened and I would hope at least warrants consideration. As an aside, it really pisses me off when fire and brimstone preachers condemn homosexuals into hellfire with such vigor while remaining mysteriously silent on the role of heterosexual procurers in the persistence of sex trafficking. I say this to demonstrate that my views on sexual morality are not paleo-conservative as they may seem. It's not like I'm advocating instituting laws punishing fornication.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Take a child from now back to ancient Greece and he'd wax poetic on the joys of slave ownership. Do the same and take her back to the 1700's and she'd probably believe women shouldn't have the franchise. The only other option is to either construct a conscience based on what seems like a good idea, again informed by ones cultural ideas, or in active opposition to the cultural ideas. Even the latter would still be informed by the ideas, they'd simply be based on rejection. Active personal choice would mean being able to work from first principles and even most of those are constructs to a greater or lesser extent. What does this even prove, or say? Morality comes from an attempt to transcend worldly wisdom in favor of divine wisdom. If all children blithely accepted their given culture so completely, there would never be social/cultural change. When Xenophanes said men "have attributed to the gods all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men: theft, adultery, and mutual deception" where did this idea come from? Did he merely learn it from some previous sage? Or was it a revelation to him that he came to accept? People really do have the ability to accept understanding which transcends time. Note how Gregory of Nyssa speaks on slavery more like a modern than like a man of his age. Saint Gregory posted:‘I acquired slaves and slave girls.’ What is that you say? You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by him. For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:i am not familiar with common interpretations of it, but looking at john 4 i am rather sure in saying that the four verses you quoted are part of a much larger story, starting from the first verse and going into the 20s or 30s depending on translation. upon reading it right now i see no inherent sexual meaning at all. the text, or at least the translations i have peeked at, say nothing about this woman's relationships to her five husbands, and depending on the translation some of them don't even say anything about her relationship to the man who is not her husband. true, some english versions apparently translate part of verse 18 as her "living with" the man, but others do not (and i don't know NT greek, nor why this difference exists) I respect your reading of the text, and admit that it may have truth in it. "Origen believed that scripture should be interpreted according to three levels of meaning. " (https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/origens-literal-level-of-interpretation/). Perhaps on some level I may be right.  My reading of the text comes from a purposeful naivety were I desire simply to understand what he was getting at when he corrected her. She said one thing, he said something else. In other words, he expressed to her a truth which she was uncomfortable admitting publicly. Having been in the position of being in her shoes, I attempt to interpret the scene with charity and reason. I'm not trying to create dogma here, I'm just trying to bring a relevant piece of scripture to bear on how my own fornication was, through pain to myself and others, revealed to me as sinful. There are two options here: either fornication is sinful or it is not. It behooves us to try to understand why it is sinful, if it is. Ultimately, in my opinion it seems to invariably lead to objectification in a way which breaks bonds. I could be wrong.I cannot read scripture as an impartial observer, nor can I pretend to. This was where I see the problem of the protestants: they seemed to imagine that they were guided by reason alone in their exegesis. It'd be nice to have a perfect exegesis, but all I can do is try my best to approach it, but like an asymptote perhaps never reaching it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 00:37
|
|
"
|
Josef bugman posted:I'd like to hope so. Well, in order to answer this, first we'd have to establish their morality in first the one state, then the other. We'll call Anglicanism A and Catholicism C. Now, we have intent, which we'll call i. Then we have faith, f. Works, w. Lastly, we can't forget grace, we'll label that g. We know that faith without works is meaningless, so that'll have to factor into the equation. As a Catholic, their morality could this be summed: C = (I+F+G)xW And as an Anglican, the equation would be easy enough: A = (I+F+G)xW Simply do the math on the right side for each, then subtract the difference. If it's a big number its profound, if its small its a little change. This really isn't that hard.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:http://www.hbo.com/the-young-pope From the clips I've seen of this, the character of the young pope himself is a completely Satanistic figure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
I've only seen clips from the later episodes, not full episodes, so I can't say for sure, but that isn't the impression I had of how it ended. In episode 10 he talks about how to humiliate someone effectively, and how effective it is. Then he's called diabolical and it's just laughed off. He's a complete egotist. You can see his inability to think outside of his own desires in how he literally makes little children cry. Just because he's working to remove a corrupt sister in Africa or exile a paedophile Bishop to Alaska doesn't mean he's doing God's work. He's Satan, he knows his own, and he hates them just as much as he hates everyone else. Another example. He says that Gutierrez has transformed fear into anger. He congratulates growing anger in Gutierrez, stokes that flame. Does that seem Christian to you? CountFosco fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nobody will persuade me that Jude loving Law in dark makeup is an italian Certainly. But the imagery they use, and one monologue that he delivers in particular, leads me to believe that he sets himself above all others in terms of value. One way of understanding Satan is that he's the prosecutor of mankind, he's the one who condemns us, makes the case to God that we are unworthy of his love. This way of understanding Satan is how I see the Jude Law character. Again, this is my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
His Venice speech is a veritable plethora of half-truths and theologically dubious messages.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Caufman posted:
Yup. That scene is a good example of how little he's changed. There's this guy, suffering before him. He cause this man to suffer. And something passes by, and he abandons that suffering to indulge his own petty psychological needs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I apologize if you feel that your Protestant exegetical tradition was calumnied. Forgive me. Please understand that it comes from a deep sense of revolt against ideas of predestination and lack of free will which seem prevalent in Calvinism. Obviously, as a Lutheran, you might share some disagreement of Calvinist theology with me (although I'm not sure how much, my knowledge of Lutheranism isn't as much as Calvinism).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
The closest I've been to church camp was a church camping trip where several of the families and the minister all went out camping at a site for a few days. It wasn't really a big thing in Congregationalism. Or, at least, in our church.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Can I baptize my computer? For the sake of economia, I understand that I can use a sprinkle of water, but would the bread go in the dvd tray?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 16:55
|
|