|
ThePopeOfFun posted:Also I need resurrection or I get depressed. I have, since I was literally 5 years old, been terrified of annihilation. I don’t believe because of the hope of the Resurrection, but it’s still nice to have.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
I just want to thank people for the translation advice. I do have more of an academic interest/perspective, so I will look up the NRSV. I don't understand the appeal of a paraphrase like "the message", but I would like to understand the perspective of people who do prefer those types of translations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:#4s post in the thread (and did in its ancestors) on occasion. *raises hand* I’m in this category. I believe that I would be happier with a devout belief that X (non-Sithrak) religion were true, but at this point in my life I don’t expect belief to manifest and it’s not like I wasn’t given the option in the past. On a separate note I enjoy the history of the Christian churches and their various debates and splits, as well as the overall philosophy discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Broken Mind posted:I just want to thank people for the translation advice. I do have more of an academic interest/perspective, so I will look up the NRSV. I don't understand the appeal of a paraphrase like "the message", but I would like to understand the perspective of people who do prefer those types of translations. I bought a The Message for one Lent when I wanted to try to read the Bible as literature as a devotional practice. I got really hung up on places where it's obvious the translator-paraphraser-guy is a Protestant, but I do still like it on occasion for meditating on a verse; my mind moves through "All the day long my enemies reproached me: and they that praised me did swear against me. For I did eat ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping." in a different way than it moves through "All day long my enemies taunt me, while others just curse. They bring in meals—casseroles of ashes! I draw drink from a barrel of my tears." (I didn't buy the "Ecumenical Edition", because I didn't know such a thing existed. I still really want to read how the person who did Tobit (a different guy than the person who did the rest of The Message) renders it, because if Job bears the marks of having an earlier folktale's serial numbers filed off, Tobit reads like it was intended to be fantastical. The titular character goes blind from having birds poop on his face! An archangel drives out a demon by putting fish guts on an incense burner in a newlywed couple's bedroom!) [Edit: Ecumenical Edition is only $10 for Kindle. I'll let y'all know how Tobit goes. Any other deuterocanonical books anyone wants a report on?] zonohedron fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Aug 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Broken Mind posted:I don't understand the appeal of a paraphrase like "the message", but I would like to understand the perspective of people who do prefer those types of translations. It doesn’t adhere strictly to the letter of what was said but tries to give you a sense of how they talked. There’s a couple spots where I don’t like the paraphrase but that’s nitpicking. I guess it loses some of the ‘poetry’ but I think in many cases we just think of it as poetic because it’s scripture and not because the words have inherent poetic quality to them. It’s easy enough to google any given bible verse and get 50 different translations if you’re curious about some wording in a version like the message. Some of it is just personal preference I guess. I read it and liked it and eventually it became the default for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:An archangel drives out a demon by putting fish guts on an incense burner in a newlywed couple's bedroom!) Is this the first known instance of microwaving fish?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
I loathe the Message to my core because, instead of "making things clearer" or "readable," it employs cliché for everything INCLUDING THE POETRY which does the drat opposite job. whew I get steamed about this. I should go to bed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:This is the point that stuck out to me. If you break people up into: That fourth one really resonates with me a lot sometimes. It would be deeply comforting to believe that there is an benevolent, omnipotent Lord watching over us, and all the senseless horror in the world is in line with some greater Plan. But what kind of benevolence requires this sort of horror to exist? Thirteen Orphans posted:I have, since I was literally 5 years old, been terrified of annihilation. I don’t believe because of the hope of the Resurrection, but it’s still nice to have. It's interesting, because more and more I'm comforted by the opposite. The idea that once life is over, subjective experience just ends seems restful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
pneuma, breath, air, that which animates us. My grandfather is dead. He is not here any more and has not been for 15+ years. But are the things that animated him absent, gone, not existing in the world. No. I’m comfortable believing that they are not. In a very literal sense I’m comfortable believing that when we die we die but that our soul, spirit, pneuma, that which animated us in the world continues. I mean hope for the resurrection too. But as Im oft fond of repeating the context of hope is the absence of its object.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That fourth one really resonates with me a lot sometimes. This is exactly where I am at. The answer to the question seems to ultimately boil down to the Benevolent, Omnipotent Lord operating beyond our understanding, and that if we could understand the senseless horror, well, I guess that means it's acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
I have a lot of sympathy with the viewpoint that there must be a logical, reasoned way to decide whether to believe in God or not, but that's outside my own interaction with faith. I have a deep love of physics, in particular of astronomy and cosmology, so I know there is no scientific, logical reason to posit the existence of God. I don't agree with the position that there *must* be a God for the world to exist as it is. But I do believe there is a God, and it's for more nebulous, difficult-to-explain reasons. My belief in God exists on the same inner level as my joy in the sight of a rainbow, or my love for my nieces and nephew, or how the song Ara Batur makes me feel, like my heart is swelling and my eyes filling with tears despite the words not being in English, or, for the most part, in any existing language. Not everything is amenable to logic and reason. There are things existing in the world outside my comprehension and outside the comprehension of science. Not because science isn't trying hard enough but because they are different spheres. And that's why I don't expect God to intervene to protect me from, say, the coronavirus. Covid exists in the material world of logic and reason and science and numbers. It happened because of a natural process of evolution that is the same way human beings happened, the same way all biological things happen. God didn't send the virus, the virus just happened, and the same goes for earthquakes and floods and hurricanes. Those are things of the material world and have their origins and consequences in the physical. It would be nice to think of the sort of God who only sent disaster upon bad people and put out a big glowing hand to protect the good people, but that would lead to a completely different kind of world. The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. I'm not arguing with anyone here btw I've just been pondering this overnight. Excuse my thinkings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Broken Mind posted:I just want to thank people for the translation advice. I do have more of an academic interest/perspective, so I will look up the NRSV. I don't understand the appeal of a paraphrase like "the message", but I would like to understand the perspective of people who do prefer those types of translations. I am not aware of anyone who "prefers" a translation like The Message for all of their Bible needs. I have only ever heard it talked about or used as a secondary aid or as a curiosity. I think the most use I ever got out of it personally was when my wife and I were trying to figure out a scripture reading for our wedding and I read a bunch of the horny verses out loud to her as ironic suggestions. If you think the NRSV is where you're headed for now, check out the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It has loads of footnotes and commentary. You don't need to start with the absolute newest edition either, anything from 3rd edition on has the more "ecumenical" modern style that has input from both Christian and non-Christian scholars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
For much of college I attended Wednesday evening services held by Chi Alpha, an Assemblies of God college group. The pastor used the Message from the pulpit almost exclusively. I considered their theology pretty suspect regardless, but they were great people and tolerated my eccentric Baptist ways. Still, the Message definitely has some primary users.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
my guess is that that was more of a youth pastor thing than an assembly of god thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Meridian posted:This is exactly where I am at. The answer to the question seems to ultimately boil down to the Benevolent, Omnipotent Lord operating beyond our understanding, and that if we could understand the senseless horror, well, I guess that means it's acceptable. Like for me the answer is that there was no ultimate singular creative Act, things just rise, persist, decline, and decay. So there is no one ultimately individually responsible. However, this is very much not the arc that Judaism, Christianity and Islam take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:my guess is that that was more of a youth pastor thing than an assembly of god thing Very possibly. Youth pastors have a tendency to shoot for what's relevant to the youth these days. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's Hello Fellow Kids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Bono recorded a video message for my denomination's national youth gathering wherein he told us to check out The Message.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
My “favorite” youth ministry story is when I was in college helping with a high school retreat for graduating seniors. One of the young women had mentioned that she was a painter going into art school. Later into the retreat I was given a folder with some info and the folder was an interesting color; I couldn’t quite place a name to it. So when the young artist and I were talking I asked, “Hey, you’re a painter, what would you call this color?” She looked at me sideways and said, “You’re a guy, why do you care about color?”
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
A college political philosopher I subscribe to on YT recently did a video on this book called "The Enchantments of Mammon." And, as good fortune would have it, it just got an audiobook made of it and released this very month. So I've been listening to that. If any of you are interested,here is her video series starting about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AteDsxBcViU The book's main point is that Capitalism is not this cold, sterile, secular world of rational utility maximization. It's as bound up with sacrament and ceremony as ever, only its profane and disgusting. Quotes in Mammon: "Ah, my friends, that's the gist of the whole question. Did Providence put them in that position, or did you? You knock a man into a ditch, and then you tell him to remain content in the 'position in which Providence has placed him.' That's modern Christianity." -John Ruskin The Crown of Wild Olives (1866) Christian Radicalism is cool and good. I am not a Christian but I've always felt more kinship with this sort of...spiritual critique. I've seen so much change in just my short life. This idea we are heading towards a secular, enlightened age free of "superstition" is not only a thoroughly dead idea, now a lot of scholars argue religion nd spirituality never left the world at all. I know some folks don't like to get too political and I respect that. I just thought I'd recommend a cool book for anybody who might be interested. There's a lot of history of radical Christian movements starting in the Late Medieval period that I never knew about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 09:42
|
|
|
Thank you, that does sound very interesting. I think this sort of thought is very much in vogue at the moment too, I'd see a lot of similar newly purchased books in the theology library of my university before I left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 10:26
|
|
|
 from the GiP CE Thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
I can see blessing equipment and even personal weapons in a "lord keep this person safe and bring them home" kind of way, but I will always find blessing a nuke to be profoundly weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can see blessing equipment and even personal weapons in a "lord keep this person safe and bring them home" kind of way, but I will always find blessing a nuke to be profoundly weird. Those priests have adopted the buddhist practice of skillful means. They tell the army they're blessing it then they secretly curse it to be a dud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can see blessing equipment and even personal weapons in a "lord keep this person safe and bring them home" kind of way, but I will always find blessing a nuke to be profoundly weird. Yeah that's spooky. Though I don't know anything about what Orthodox blessings actually mean. Maybe it's "God's will be done with this weapon (which is that it will never be used)"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
I mean it sure as heck looks more like "big rocket shooty time fun". You'd hope that they would all just explode harmlessly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
blessed nukes are treated as having a +1 enhancement bonus against evil incorporeal creatures so they'd be more effective against ghosts and maybe some types of demons??
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
I said I would post Chapter 6 of Shantideva's The Guide to the Bodhisattva's way of Life in the Buddhism thread when they were discussing anger but I flaked out like I do and now that thread's basically dead so I'll just post it here. I'm going to break it up over several posts I think so it's not an impenetrable wall of text. Patience 1. Whatever wholesome deeds. Such as venerating the Buddhas, and generosity that have been amassed over a thousand aeons will all be destroyed in one moment of anger. 2. There is no evil like hatred, and no fortitude like patience. Thus I should strive in various ways to meditate on patience. 3. My mind will not experience peace if it fosters painful thoughts of hatred. I shall find no joy or happiness; Unable to sleep, I shall feel unsettled. 4. A master who has hatred is in danger of being killed. Even by those who for their wealth and happiness depend upon his kindness. 5.By it, friends and relatives are disheartened; though drawn by my generosity they will not trust me, In brief there is nobody who lives happily with anger. 6. Hence the enemy, anger, creates sufferings such as these, but whoever assiduously overcomes it finds happiness now and hereafter. 7. Having found its fuel of mental unhappiness In the prevention of what I wish for and in the doing of what I do not want, hatred increases and then destroys me. 8. Therefore I should totally eradicate the fuel of this enemy; For this enemy has no other function than that of causing me harm. 9.Whatever befalls me I shall not disturb my mental joy; For having been made unhappy, I shall not accomplish what I wish and my virtues will decline. 10. Why be unhappy about something if it can be remedied? And what is the use of being unhappy about something if it cannot be remedied? 11. For myself and for my friends, I want no suffering, no disrespect, no harsh words and nothing unpleasant; but for my enemies it is the opposite 12. The causes of happiness sometimes occur but the causes for suffering are very many. Without suffering there is no renunciation. Therefore mind, you should stand firm. 13. If some ascetics and the people of Karnapa endure the pain of cuts and burns for no reason, then for the sake of liberation why have I no courage? 14. There is nothing whatsoever that is not made easier through acquaintance. So through becoming acquainted with small harms I should learn to patiently accept greater harms. 15. Who has not seen this to be so with trifling sufferings such as the bites of snakes and insects, feelings of hunger and thirst and with such minor things as rashes? 16. I should not be impatient with heat and cold, wind and rain, sickness, bondage and beatings; For if I am, the harm they cause me will increase. 17. Some when they see their own blood become especially brave and steady, but some when they see the blood of others faint and fall unconscious. 18. These (reactions) come from the mind being either steady or timid. Therefore I should disregard harms caused to me and not be affected by suffering. 19. Even when the wise are suffering their minds remain very lucid and undefiled; For when war is being waged against the disturbing conceptions much harm is caused at the times of battle. 20. The victorious warriors are those who, having disregarded all suffering, vanquish the foes of hatred and so forth; (Common warriors) slay only corpses. 21 Furthermore, suffering has good qualities: through being disheartened with it, arrogance is dispelled, compassion arises for those in cyclic existence, evil is shunned and joy is found in virtue. 22. As I do not become angry with great sources of suffering such as jaundice, then why be angry with animate creatures? They too are provoked by conditions. 23. Although they are not wished for, these sicknesses arise; And likewise although they are not wished for, these disturbing conceptions forcibly arise. 24. Without thinking, ʺI shall be angry,ʺ people become angry with no resistance, and without thinking, ʺI shall produce myself,ʺ likewise anger itself is produced. 25 All mistakes that are and all the various kinds of evil arise through the force of conditions: They do not govern themselves. 26 These conditions that assemble together have no intention to produce anything, and neither does their product have the intention to be produced. 27 That which is asserted as Primal Substance and that which is imputed as a Self, (Since they are unproduced) do not arise after having purposefully thought, ʺI shall arise in order to cause harm.” 28 If they are unproduced and non‐existent then whatever wish they have to produce harm will also not exist. Since this Self would permanently apprehend its objects, It follows that it would never cease to do so. 29 Furthermore if the Self were permanent it would clearly be devoid of action, just like space. So even if it met with other conditions how could its unchanging nature be affected? 30 Even if when acted upon by other conditions it remains as before, then what could actions do to it? Thus if I say that this condition acts upon a permanent Self, How could the two ever be causally related? 31 Hence everything is governed by other factors which in turn are governed by others, and in this way nothing governs itself. Having understood this, I should not become angry with phenomena that are like apparitions. 32. One asks: "But if everything is unreal like an apparition then there exists no person to restrain anything- including anger. Surely to attempt to restrain anger would be inappropriate." The other answers: "It would not be inappropriate because it is a state of dependent origination and it is considered to be the cessation of suffering." 33. So when seeing an enemy or even a friend committing an improper action, by thinking that such things arise from conditions I shall remain in a happy frame of mind. The translations have some weird grammar that make the technical parts of the poem, like at the end even harder to understand than normal. I tried to clean it up a bit but I don't speak anything other than english so I may have muddied it further. If a buddhism expert pops in to tell you all how badly I hosed up or whatever defer to them. I'll post more later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
I'd definitely prefer a blessed nuke to a cursed nuke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Freudian posted:I'd definitely prefer a blessed nuke to a cursed nuke. All nukes are cursed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
A Guide to the Boddhisatva's Way of Life Continued Patience Part II 34 If things were brought into being by choice, then since no one wishes to suffer, suffering would not occur to any embodied creature. 35 Through not being careful people even harm themselves with thorns and other things, and for the sake of obtaining women and the like they become obsessed and deprive themselves of food. 36 And there are some who injure themselves through the unmeritorious deeds of hanging themselves, leaping from cliffs, eating poison and unhealthy foods. 37 If, when under the influence of disturbing conceptions, people will even kill their treasured selves, how can they be expected not to cause harm to the bodies of other living beings? 38 Even if I cannot develop compassion for all such people who through the arisal of disturbing conceptions, set out to try and kill me and so forth, the last thing I should do is to become angry with them. 39 Even if it were the nature of the childish to cause harm to other beings, it would still be incorrect to be angry with them. For this would be like begrudging fire for having the nature to burn. 40 And even if the fault were temporary in they who are by nature reliable, it would still be incorrect to be angry. For this would be like begrudging space for allowing smoke to arise in it. 41 If I become angry with the wielder although I am actually harmed by his stick, then since he too is secondary, being in turn incited by hatred, I should really be angry with his hatred instead. 42 Previously I must have caused similar harm to other sentient beings. Therefore it is right for this harm to be returned to me who is the cause of injury to others. 43 Both the weapon and my body are the causes of my suffering. Since he gave rise to the weapon and I to the body, with whom should I be angry? 44 If in blind attachment I cling to this suffering abscess of a human form which cannot bear to be touched, with whom should I be angry when it is hurt? 45 It is the fault of the childish that they are hurt, for although they do not wish to suffer they are greatly attached to its causes. so why should they be angry with others? 46 Just like the guardians of the hell worlds and the forest of razor‐sharp leaves, so is this (suffering) produced by my actions; with whom therefore should I be angry? 47 Having been instigated by my own actions, those who cause me harm come into being. If by these (actions) they should fall into hell surely isnʹt it I who am destroying them? 48 In dependence upon them I purify many evils by patiently accepting the harms that they cause. But in dependence upon me they will fall into hellish pain for a very long time. 49 So since I am causing harm to them and they are benefitting me, why, unruly mind, do you become angry in such a mistaken manner? 50 If my mind has the noble quality (of patience) I shall not go to hell, but although I am protecting myself (in this way) How will it be so for them? 51 Nevertheless, should I return the harm it will not protect them either. By doing so my conduct will deteriorate and hence this fortitude will be destroyed. 52 Since my mind is not physical in no way can anyone destroy it, but through its being greatly attached to my body it is caused harm by (physical) suffering. 53 Since disrespect, harsh speech and unpleasant words do not cause any harm to my body, Why, mind, do you become so angry? 54 "Because others will dislike me" the mind answers. But since it will not devour me either in this or in another life why do I not want this dislike? 55 "Because it will hinder my worldly gain." the mind answers. Even if I do not want this I shall have to leave my worldly gains behind and my evil alone will remain unmoved. 56 Thus it is better that I die today than live a long but wicked life; For even if people like me should live a long time, there will always be the suffering of death. 57 Suppose someone should awaken from a dream in which he experienced one hundred years of happiness, And suppose another should awaken from a dream in which he experienced just one moment of happiness; 58 For both of these people who have awoken that happiness will never return. Similarly, whether my life has been long or short, at the time of death it will be finished like this. 59 Although I may live happily for a long time through obtaining a great deal of material wealth, I shall go forth empty‐handed and destitute just like having been robbed by a thief. 60 "Surely material wealth will enable me to live and then I shall be able to consume evil and do good" the mind interjects. But if I am angry on account of it will not my merit be consumed and evil increase? 61 And what use will be the life of one who only commits evil, If for the sake of material gain he causes the merits needed for life to degenerate? 62 "Surely I should be angry with those who say unpleasant things that weaken other beingsʹ confidence in me" the mind argues But in the same way why am I not angry with people who say unpleasant things about others 63 If I can patiently accept this lack of confidence because it is related to someone else, then why am I not patient with unpleasant words about myself since they are related to the arisal of disturbing conceptions? 64 Should others talk badly of or even destroy holy images, reliquaries and the sacred Dharma. It is improper for me to resent it For the Buddhas can never be injured. 65 I should prevent anger arising towards those who injure my spiritual masters, relatives and friends. Instead I should see, as in the manner shown before, that such things arise from conditions. 66 Since embodied creatures are injured by both animate beings and inanimate objects, Why only bear malice to the animate? It follows that I should patiently accept all harm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Those priests have adopted the buddhist practice of skillful means. They tell the army they're blessing it then they secretly curse it to be a dud. This would own so hard if true, and be (yet another) case of Life Imitating Shadowrun. E: many potent thread titles. Does: Religionthread: (Common warriors) slay only corpses. or Religionthread: Nukes are always cursed. work better? Tias fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 09:10
|
|
|
Big Fluffy Dog, I appreciate you sharing some of the dharma but I would be interested to read what you take away from these sections. You might also focus on particularly meaningful sections. (You could fill up the Buddhism thread too if you wanted, it is pretty quiet and peaceful  )
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 09:43
|
|
|
my dharma ran over ur gregma
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Big Fluffy Dog, I appreciate you sharing some of the dharma but I would be interested to read what you take away from these sections. You might also focus on particularly meaningful sections. (You could fill up the Buddhism thread too if you wanted, it is pretty quiet and peaceful The biggest thing I take away from it is really its (I think) radical argument that there is no such thing as righteous anger. The guide to the Boddhisatvas Way of Life is particularly important to Tibetan Buddhist thought and although I'm not vajrayana reading a vajrayana website when I was first exploring buddhism say that being angry about an evil or injustice in the world is actually worse than being angry about something mundane and petty because the righteous anger is far more addictive and leads you to start trying to make mountains out of molehills so that you can convert your anger to "righteous" anger more often was the biggest "mind blown" thing I heard from a buddhist source. Especially coming from a Christian background which very heavily stressed the image of the holy warrior Jesus throwing the money lenders out of the temple over the Prince of Peace Jesus telling criminals they'll join him in heaven. We're only half-way through this chapter but theres no good stopping place for the rest because its all just one thought directly leading into another so when I post it'll be a p big wall of text. FYI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
There was a poster elsewhere in a Christian Theology thread who askedquote:I have a Christian Theology question I'd like to hear people's thoughts on. I'd like to hear the answer of this thead on this question. Here was my answer, though: quote:The single greatest aspect of Christianity to me is its emphasis on unconditional love. Stripped away from all the poo poo I hate about it, that is what always keeps me reading Christian stuff. We humans are expected to act like God as we were made in his image and his image is that of somebody who loves and cherishes all. Also this coincides with me reading up on john Calvin. He would seem to agree: quote:To this question, I insist, we must apply our mind if we would profitably inquire concerning true righteousness [i.e., justification]: How shall we [i.e., Calvin, you and I] reply to the Heavenly Judge when he calls us to account? Let us envisage for ourselves that Judge, not as our minds naturally imagine him, but as he is depicted for us in Scripture: by whose brightness the stars are darkened [Job 3:9]; by whose strength the mountains are melted; by whose wrath the earth is shaken [cf. Job 9:5-6]; whose wisdom catches the wise in their craftiness [Job 5:13]; beside whose purity all things are defiled [cf. Job 25:5]; whose righteousness not even the angels can bear [cf. Job 4:18]; who makes not the guilty man innocent [cf. Job 9:20]; whose vengeance when once kindled penetrates to the depths of hell [Deut. 32:22; cf. Job 26:6]. Let us behold him, I say, sitting in judgment to examine the deeds of men: Who will stand confident before his throne? “Who … can dwell with the devouring fire?” asks the prophet. “Who … can dwell with everlasting burnings? He who walks righteously and speaks the truth” [Isa. 33:14-15 p.], etc. But let such a one, whoever he is, come forward. Nay, that response causes no one to come forward. For, on the contrary, a terrible voice resounds: “If thou, O Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who shall stand?” [Ps. 130:3; 129:3, Vg.]. quote:Sermon on Micah 6:1-5 God cannot love us for anything we did but only because it is in His nature to love. I apply this idea to my own admittedly confused beliefs in a higher power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
The way I've come to think of it lately (and this is just my personal thoughts, I am not a theologian and I am not YOUR theologian, posting is offered for entertainment purposes only, and may not be valid in your church, state, or plane of existence) is that "God is love" can and should be taken literally. God and Love are exactly the same word and mean exactly the same thing. And one of the things about Love (and therefore God) is that it propagates itself by inspiring more of itself in others, and that was realized most fully in Jesus' (Love made into a flesh-and-blood person) life, death and resurrection. By walking with us, breathing our air, eating our food, living our lives, he spread love (himself) throughout all of creation in a way that makes it possible for us to both be sustained by that love and spread it (and thus God) to others. I'm still putting this all together in my head (and probably always will be) but that's my answer for now. My other answer (to most questions about God's nature, existence, and the other big theological problems) is I can tell a lot of stories, but I don't really have a clue. My idea of Christ at the moment is as much inspired by an amalgamation of Raymond Chandler's famous "mean streets" quote and the version of Orpheus in the musical Hadestown (specifically his ability to make people see how the world could be in spite of the way that it is). How that translates into actual theology is left as an exercise for...someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:The biggest thing I take away from it is really its (I think) radical argument that there is no such thing as righteous anger. The guide to the Boddhisatvas Way of Life is particularly important to Tibetan Buddhist thought and although I'm not vajrayana reading a vajrayana website when I was first exploring buddhism say that being angry about an evil or injustice in the world is actually worse than being angry about something mundane and petty because the righteous anger is far more addictive and leads you to start trying to make mountains out of molehills so that you can convert your anger to "righteous" anger more often was the biggest "mind blown" thing I heard from a buddhist source. Especially coming from a Christian background which very heavily stressed the image of the holy warrior Jesus throwing the money lenders out of the temple over the Prince of Peace Jesus telling criminals they'll join him in heaven. I anticipate the rest of the juicy text with appropriately moderate delight
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
docbeard posted:The way I've come to think of it lately (and this is just my personal thoughts, I am not a theologian and I am not YOUR theologian, posting is offered for entertainment purposes only, and may not be valid in your church, state, or plane of existence) is that "God is love" can and should be taken literally. God and Love are exactly the same word and mean exactly the same thing. This sounds like moral influence atonement and it’s pretty common on the liberal Protestant side of things. It’s pretty close to what I think too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
God created us in his image and likeness. God loves us because God is-loving, and we are love-able because we resemble the-constant-action-of-loving, and we resemble that because God wanted us to, because God wanted to love us and therefore made us love-able. We should love each other because we already resemble the-constant-action-of-loving, so we should act like it, and the other whom we should be loving resembles goodness-without-defect, so we should find them lovable, and we should want to seek after and serve what is lovable, because that's the whole point of being able to seek after things - to find the good. Buddhists might suggest that the problem here is the seeking, and we should stop seeking after things at all, recognizing that they're impermanent and thus not worth seeking after. But I would reply that in creating us in God's own image, God created us to experience eternity with Him, and thus not to be impermanent - and in giving us a desire for what is good, God intended us to try to attain what is good. "If I become angry with the wielder although I am actually harmed by his stick, then since he too is secondary, being in turn incited by hatred, I should really be angry with his hatred instead." I think here we would suggest that the hatred belongs to the wielder like the stick does, and the wielder is choosing to act on the hatred but with the stick, so the wielder isn't secondary to the hatred at all. On the other hand, "If I can patiently accept this lack of confidence because it is related to someone else, then why am I not patient with unpleasant words about myself since they are related to the arisal of disturbing conceptions?" makes me think of the Litany of Humility! quote:From the fear of being humiliated, deliver me, Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
Nessus posted:I think that that is an interesting and powerful perspective on anger. It is often difficult to articulate especially lately - there are plenty of things to "be angry about," and the justice and truth of the causes do not directly connect to the anger. When I was first learning of the Stoics, the professor teaching about them was doing it at a local library. This was 2016 or so maybe? Trump was surging onto the scene and with the last few years everybody was pretty riled up. Anyway, the folks he was talking to said "emotions are good. They lad to all sorts of good things." Anger was specifically brought up as a way to bring about change. The professor said the Stoics would have said you don't need anger to recognize or do something about injustice. Our ability to reason lets us identify injustice and put a stop to it. That's how I read the current discussion. A Buddhist would think "yeah, all this stuff happening in the world sucks but we don't need anger to know that or to be motivated to fix it." A noble idea but as ha been pointed out, we can't all be Stoic sages or Enlightened Buddhists. I guess it depends if you think it's harmful to aim at a near-impossible ideal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 22:06
|
|