|
Controversial opinion: some new things are actually better than old things.
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
What if it's electric candles?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
I keep getting videos from this channel in my youtube recommendations, and this one I thought was funny enough to share. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6WI7opaMUI
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Honestly I thought that was quite a good answer. I liked the way he said even prayer can be sinful when wrongly motivated. Yes, the answer was good, it's just funny to me how serious it was compared to the subject matter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
What if you're too coolastic for scholastics?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I like Pellisworth's list a lot. I do think an explicit "Don't talk about If someone asks why a certain denomination views abortions in a particular way, there's no reason not to answer. I think we even had a civilised abortion-related discussion in the previous thread, too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
The quill looks like a knife in the thumbnail. Very menacing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Deep in the Protestant Headquarters, the Head Protestant sits on a plastic stool, wearing ugly polyester vestments. Cringing Lackey approaches. Someone needs to draw a Catholic Chick tract about this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Omnidimensional googleplex trinitrinity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nobody celebrates anything on the same day, we got different calendars The majority Orthodox churches* have adopted the Revised Julian calendar for fixed feasts which will be identical to the Gregorian calendar for almost three thousand years. *doesn't mean the majority of Orthodox people
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Not to drag C-SPAM into this thread, but would anyone like to pick apart Jerry Falwell Jr's reply to his students upset that he supports the Orange Bastard? I have no idea what any of this means.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i don't know anything about this in particular, i just remember that paladinus said that in their experience russian theologians drew on aquinas. none of the russians i've read have been obviously influenced by him, but then again i wouldn't have read them if they had. ask paladinus if you want anything more specific I'd like to clarify that a bit. There is a brand of Russian Orthodox who believe that Russian theology was tainted by Catholicism in the 18-19th century, and that the real Orthodoxy is that only expressed essentially by people who spoke Old Slavonic at least four centuries ago plus people like Ignaty Bryanchaninov and John of Kronstadt (notoriously anti-Catholic figures). And obviously I may be biased here with my own papism, but I think they are wrong about it, and everyone can only profit from reading Berdyaev, Lossky, Solovyov, and many other more contemporary Russian theologians. However, the problems those more 'conservative' Russian Orthodox have with some Russian theologians are rarely related to original sin. In fact, as I'm not a big expert on Orthodoxy outside of ROC (and even then not an expert at all), the whole idea that other Orthodox churches may not believe in original sin is very alien to me. One of the influential dogmatic writings of the Russian church created by Peter Mogila specifically to help distance Orthodoxy both from Protestantism and Catholicism all the way back in the 17th century called The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church is very explicit about original sin, and it was endorsed by four Patriarchs at the time. It has the following to say on the subject (sorry for a crummy translation): quote:Question 20. What is original sin? So the idea is not knew and at least by the 17th century it wasn't even particularly controversial. Was the idea really borrowed from Catholicism and Aquinas specifically? I wouldn't be able to say that. E: Just saw the correction. Augustine is definitely a big name in Russian Orthodoxy. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
AmyL posted:If you are bringing up Peter Mogila to a Greek Orthodox or OCA, they might be a bit skeptical of him because they think he was influenced too much by Roman Catholic Theology. Well, see, that's the thing I don't get. His work was well-regarded enough at the time and still is in Russia, so what's changed in other places? quote:You should not lump or add people regarding Real Orthodoxy is only expressed essentially by people with who spoke Old Slavonic at least four centuries plus Ignatius Brianchaninov and John of Kronstadt because those are two totally different things. Probably something went wrong with copy and paste here, because I don't understand what you're saying here. But just in case, I checked, and both Ignatius Brianchaninov and John of Kronstadt believed in original sin. Ignatius discusses it at length in his Ascetic Experiences, and John talks about it in Conversations about the Evangelical Beatitudes. I can translate exact quotes, if you're interested.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Jack Chick is dead. Legit sad about that. His comics were fun. Hope he stands sweating profusely in front of a giant faceless man who is supposed to be God.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Soo Benny Hinn, yesterday, came out in support of the Catholic Church because of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the devotion Catholics have to the Church (rather than church hopping like Protestants.) Lol at his pseudo-vestments first and foremost. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
St. George and a dragon. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Every year I re-read Luther's theses, and each time I can't but smile at how much he defends the Pope as the Vicar of Christ in them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
And not to lose face, I had to give half of my possessions to the poor, Jeremiah! Half of my possessions!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
No love for Étienne Gilson?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
pidan posted:I love all languages. Have you heard Dutch?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Come to think, why don't they revive heresies? Surely there should be people interested in, dunno, Cathars or Arianism today! There are organised Arian churches. And I don't mean Jehova Witnesses, but things like that: http://www.arian-catholic.org/ It may not look like much, but they have parishes even in Russia. Note also that the background on this website is stolen from the official site of the Holy See. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Maybe when Trump learns all the Illuminati secrets after inauguration, he'll change his style. Seriously, though, have hope Amerigoons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:swamp german is still the best word for the goddamn dutch and i will hate the dutch forever for what they did to spain 1648 never forgeeeeeeeeeeeet I am a big fan of Potato Germans myself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The claim, as I understand it, is that all acts of intimacy must be "open to conception", or words to that effect. I'm 57. There is no act of intimacy I am capable of that is open to conception. Pregnancy after 50? It's more likely than you think! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
All facebook groups are equally bad, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Apparently, good subreddits exist. https://www.reddit.com/r/monkslookingatbeer/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Catholicism is 90% cultural appropriation. And it's good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:There are plenty of good Christian films. The Vatican even has an official list. It has Metropolis, though. Jesus Christ Superstar is better on stage, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Yeah the show is amazing, the first movie (don't watch the recent one) wasn't great but man their Judas and Jesus were brilliant singers. If by recent you mean the one from 2000, yeah, aesthetically it was really weird to say the least. But it had a great Caiaphas, and also my favourite rendition of this song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znz_GAqtUvQ
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Who, and what movie are you thinking of? Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew is on that Vatican's list.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
If Kepler jumped off a bridge, would you, too?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:
Weren't you the one chastising me about how I presented my fake horoscope app in the Android apps thread? C'mon, I'd like to hear more from HEY GAL on how she reconciles her belief in astrology with from what I know a complete rejection of the practice by all Orthodox churches.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:if the entire cosmos is an ordered system in which everything connects to everything else, then the position of the stars relative to the earth at the time of your birth had an effect on you since everything's relationship to everything else has some kind of effect on you. in my opinion, astrology is a distillation or systematization of the meaningful relationships to be found everywhere, a symbol, a way to order your thoughts. Okay, I see your general point, but here's a question. From how I see it, people used and still use stars and planets for divination because, essentially, it's a surviving pagan practice from the time people actually worshipped celestial bodies. Even if everything is connected and influences you on some level, why do you think that stars that are light years from you are more influential on what may happen in your life than, say, a car parked right outside your house? Wouldn't the place of your birth be more influential on your life than the placement of stars on that day? Wouldn't it make more sense to provide divinations based on what you have on your work desk, for example? This would also definitely be more in tune with seeing some astrological categories in terms of psychoanalysis. And like with many things, I don't think that not hurting others is enough of a justification, because often we can't really tell what effect some of our actions may have on us or others. Looking for personal signs from God in every aspect of existence sounds, sorry, borderline paranoid. The more you seek those signs, the more you believe them, the more you try to adjust your life to follow those signs from God, the higher the chance that one day those signs may point you toward something really harmful, and you won't be able to distinguish it from your own will. I'm sorry if this comes out a bit on the preachy side, but I have some personal experience with people who lost their mind, and consequently jobs and families, over astrology.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:For whatever my thoughts are this are worth, I think you can believe in all sorts of weird poo poo, as long as you remain clear that all worldly phenomena are God's creation. I feel the danger is when you start seeing things like fate and luck as out of God's hands, which is a fast route to pride and despair. Even if you consider everything as God's domain, it's still, in my opinion, dangerous to seek God's immediate and active presence in every aspect of your life. More often than not there are no signs, sometimes thing are just happening as a consequence of someone else exercising their free will. If you are want God to give you a cool custom sign composed of enormous gas giants across galaxies for what to wear today, you kind of put God to the test that is easily failable if something goes wrong because of the decision you made based on a perceived sign that you (or an astrologist) interpreted a certain way. It is more honest to just flip a coin embracing the relative randomness of the result, without thinking that God himself personally flips that coin with you and it lands in the best possible way that God intended to. Or if something bad happens out of the blue, and you start to blame God for not sending you a sign. And Newton was an avowed heretic! While it's a mistake to view medieval scientists as loony superstitious idiots, it's also a mistake, I think, to say that, well, it worked for them, so it will work for me. It was an important step in development of both science, and philosophy (and theology by extension) that shows there is no intrinsic conflict between religion and science, but it's just one step. Aristotle was a great philosopher, but his views on medicine, while historically important, are not always correct to put it mildly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Astrology doesn't just run into the problem of falsehood leading to sin. This is a valid issue, but, as St. John Damascene points out, belief that celestial bodies control us personally is a rejection of free will. St. Gregory of Nyssa concurs with this. St. Gregory the Great writes from a different but also interesting perspective, that "Man was not made for the stars, but rather the stars for man; and if a star can be called the ruler of man, then man must be considered the slave of his own servants." This is of course a reference to the creation of the world in Genesis. Well, HEY GAL's perspective is slightly different from a more traditional understanding of astrology, from what I can tell, so I don't think those obvious rebuttals actually work in that case. Celestial bodies can very evidently influence our lives, through moon phases and tides, or meteorites falling from the sky, or solar winds, etc., and all this doesn't impede free will. Of course, those phenomena can be scientifically observed and explained, while influence of far-away stars is barely noticeable on physical level. Maybe there is some middle-ground, but I don't see how one can argue for it properly. Rodrigo Diaz posted:I like this line of argument. Would you see it as a former of selfishness? Also, I know HAY GAL is all about tradition, but only Western astrologists/scientists were mentioned. Were there any Orthodox astrologists or something close to that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
What about Biblical magi/wise men? They've followed the star to find Jesus. This was an extraordinary event, although it does show that God reigns over celestial bodies and can use them to reveal things to humans in general. The only thing that doesn't follow from it is that there is some eternal system to how stars and planets we look at from Earth influence particular individuals from the day they are born.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The Star of Bethlehem was a sign and not a cause. Yes. And this is what HAY GAL argued were all stars in the sky, if not all things in the universe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I think there were generally a lot of Seances I think they were usually associated with the Theosphcial societies around the middle of the 19th Century. Though I believe at least one of their big leaders had come from Russia, so maybe there was a bit of cross over. You're probably thinking about Roerichs and Blavatskaya. They had a seances period, but they've also tried a whole lot of weird poo poo. Like trying to incorporate Lenin's communism into Buddhism, even going so far as calling Lenin a Mahatma. Then there was a period of pseudo-scientific yoga that had very little in common with the real thing. Basically, it was new age before new age was even a term. There are still small Roerich centres all over Eastern Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Incredible. I love these weird things that are coming out at a time when the middle class just goes barmy and starts trying to jam all the ideology into a blender and see what comes out. The whole Victorian New Age thing has always been rather fun, could it be a bit of a reaction to the same impulse that had Nietzsche write "Thus spake Zarathustra". I personally blame Schopenhauer for introducing the Upanishads as the best philosophical writing from the ~Exotic Orient~. He literally thought that every Indian farmer was so enlightened, they weren't even afraid to die, whereas filthy peasants of the West were just grasping at life like idiots all the time with their stupid Christianity that is just depressing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Oh I more meant that convincing people Faith is "incorrect" is impossible through trying to argue the toss because, at the end of it all Faith does not require evidence. Or it does not require it necessarily, I imagine that it helps an individuals Faith if they perceive or experience evidence for it. If that was the case, people would never convert from one religion to another.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 12:34
|
|