Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Iím late to the what are you thing. Grew up Methodist in a big congregation. Married a seminary student and am now ELCA Lutheran. I like Christian existentialism and Tillich a bit too much, bordering on being obsessive about it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

The Cost of Discipleship is solid. Barthís Humanity of God is a good follow up. I made a list of books my sonís godfather should give my sons if I died and they wanted to know what I believed:

The Cost of Discipleship
The Humanity of God
Moral Man and Immoral Society
The Irony of American History
Dynamics of Faith

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

White Coke posted:

What's the deal with your text/avatar combo? I can't figure out who the saint is.

I got the avatar with a red text for pissing somebody off. I used to post in the D&D religion threads regularly and someone gave it to me. I donít know who it is. It grew on me over time so I just kept it when I changed the text.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

White Coke posted:

An argument I've see pop up is: religious experiences can be caused by drugs like LSD, or by medical conditions like schizophrenia, so therefore any and all religious phenomena are explicable by these means and therefore "untrue".

On a secular, materialistic level this appeals to me because I just want some kind of an answer. The biggest hole in this is that so much of it isn't falsifiable since we have no way of testing whether Joan of Arc was schizophrenic, or if Moses was high when he saw the burning bush, etc. Another red flag is that the people I see pushing this theory aren't neuroscientists or anything like that, they're just random people so I don't know how removed this argument is from its sources. Can anyone with more knowledge speak to this issue?

Personally Iíve never had a spiritual experience. I am a Christian for the reason Justin the Martyr gave: "This is the only philosophy which I have found certain and adequate."

When I was younger I was freakishly active. I was in multiple sports, Scouting, quiz bowl competitions, multiple martial arts and I did thousands of hours of community service. This was basically needed to keep me sane when I was younger. Anyway at some point I looked at the service I was doing in my community and wondered why am I doing this? I demanded that God tell me and give me a reason. I never got answer. Years later Iíd even realize that the crisis itself was a consequence of having a weird brain.

Iím not a Christian because of a spiritual experience. I am a Christian because I find the event of Jesus as the Christ, the only certain and adequate explanation and answer for my question of: ďWhat does it mean to be?Ē

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

What does miracle mean?

It doesnít have to mean there was some supernatural event. In a literal sense itís that which astonishes or that which causes wonder. The inexplicable doesnít have to make us feel happy or grateful even.

When I was at the academy, after we got recognized as plebs they have the parents weekend and they got to come visit us in Great Neck, they watch a few ceremonies, then they spend the weekend in NYC. Basically everyone in my classí parents were flying back from NYC to their homes on 9/10 or 9/11 in 2001. Itís hosed up but I still am in wonder about it and I am astonished by it. I donít think that state is one where one has to be happy or that everything that happened was good.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Thirteen Orphans posted:

The first project is about making a martial art/martial pedagogy that marries the teachings of my late teacher and father Grandmaster Thirteen Orphanís Dad 8th dahn Hapkido with the knowledge Iíve gained through my studies in the Chinese so-called ďinternalĒ martial arts, particularly Taijiquan and Baguazhang.

Back in high school I did my black belt test for Hapkido under Grandmaster J. Park. Way back when I first started Taekwondo he wrote something on my Dobok in Korean that he told me was my name that was also apparently a joke that no one would ever tell me.

Donít meet a lot of people involved in Hapkido.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Morning Bell posted:

. When is it loving your neighbour, when is it coming with a sword, what are striking differences between the secular humanist mindset.

I wouldnít cast in in opposition to a secular humanist mindset. Paul Tillich has an idea called the ďMethod of CorrelationĒ. But to talk about that I need to talk about Barth first. If one takes a philosophy of religion course they often end with Friedrich Schleiermacher and the emergence of liberal theology and Christian modernism. Well Barthís predecessors and professors were in a continuation of that line of thought. But WWI happens and these theologians, well they made arguments not particularly in line with the example of Jesus, arguments that were supportive of the horrors of that war.

Itís in that context that Barthís commentary of Paulís Epistle is written. The most famous metaphor for what Barth does with that work, ďlike a bombshell on the theologians' playgroundĒ. Basically Barth blows apart the intertwining of philosophy and theology that got rolling in the German Enlightenment with Kant, Hegel, etc. Sometimes this gets called Barthís ďNoĒ. Itís where dialectic neo-orthodox theology gets rolling and it breaks that intertwining of philosophy and theology.

Tillich is a response to what Barth sets in motion. His not particularly gracious characterization of Barthís evangelism is that the Gospel in it is ďthrown like a stone (at the head)Ē. Dude ends a lecture series on the history of Christian thought given at Harvard basically with: and this (the whole preceding history of Christian thought that Iíve been teaching) is why Barth is wrong. Anyway Tillich in responding to Barth is basically saying, we live in this time and place and we have this set of question about our existence arising, in his time it was self critical radical humanism, existentialism. When we talk about God we should think about these questions from our time, from philosophy. Then we use our answer, the event of Jesus as Christ to answer the questions. Thatís correlation in a nutshell. Itís not the synthesis of philosophy/ theology that liberal theology had that led to Barthís no. But itís not having them entirely separated and unrelated to each other.

Thatís the way I would think to try to answer and wrestle with those types of questions.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

When we talk about God as Christians we are also taking about humans, because of Jesus.

From the Humanity of God:

ďWe do not need to engage in a free-ranging investigation to seek out and construct who and what God truly is, and who and what man truly is, but only to read the truth about both where it resides, namely, in the fullness of their togethernessĒ

So when we talk about omnipotence or predestination we are doing that, engaging in that construction and ignoring that God was human and we donít have to construct him.

But

ďMan cannot be man without thought. He must think even if he is the most primitive devotional Christian, with no theological education or understanding. Even in religion we give names to special objects. We distinguish acts of the Divine. We relate symbols to each other. We explain their meaning. There is language in every religion, and the existence of language means that there are universals, and of universals that there are concepts, and of concepts that one must think, even on the most primitive level.Ē

Because thatís what we do because we use language. Between those two views there to me lies how to understand the error. omnipotence, predestination, etc, these are only our symbolic constructions to talk about God, our thinking about God. God was human and thatís what was real. But weíve got to talk about that to communicate, so we have to make constructions, but we know that they are only our constructions with our limitations and that we are also talking about ourselves.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

The omnis point they are not what they point to.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

They still think in the same way as the evangelical places they left. Different specific beliefs after leaving but the same way s of thinking about the world.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Things are.

ďfor in Him we live, and move, and are;Ē A creator is a being. Personally Iím strongly in favor of understanding the Father as Being-itself.

That there is an ďisĒ rather than some start of a casual chain.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

ThePopeOfFun posted:

You should dish your beef to God now and unceasingly, and that's Wise.

Iíd be willing to argue that this is even a serious act of faith.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Elissimpark posted:

I think there's a tendency in the Western world to assign the Christian God a more human point of view, which is a bit silly.

Assign isnít a strong enough word. Itís various degrees of God was human in Christianity. The Logos was flesh. There is a spectrum of Christology but basically all the denominations have a Christology.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

zonohedron posted:

Like this, this is the kind of conversation I mean. HEY GUNS and I have been insisting for at least four iterations of this thread that ritual isn't the seasoning you sprinkle on top of your religious life (where some people like more and some people like less and some people just leave it off) but is instead absolutely central to it, and along comes somebody who is definitely not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, saying, "Ritual often comes before belief, I find, and is an excellent vehicle for fostering that belief," which is a pretty good translation of "lex orandi, lex credendi," in my opinion.

I find myself going back to these lines from the history of Christian thought quite a lot:.

ďNow I repeat: reality precedes thought. But I repeat also: thought shapes reality. These two are interdependent. You cannot abstract the one from the other.ď

What I would say to "lex orandi, lex credendi," is that even before liturgy were people living lives following Jesus. I guess I mean donít leave off, lex vivendi.

We live as Christians first (reality precedes thought) but ritual and liturgy shape how we live as Christians.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

A good analogy I heard was:

You are stranded in a boat off the shore.

Sola Fide:
You are in a life raft. The only way back to shore is if the currents push you there and you are helpless to do anything about it. Just have faith you'll be saved.

Saved by works (I forget the exact term):
You are in a rowboat. You row to shore under your own power, and you are responsible for your own salvation.

The Catholic view:
You are in a sailboat. The Holy Spirit is the wind, and by carefully trimming the sails and keeping hold of the rudder you can make it back to shore. You are saved by God through cooperation with Him.

Faith as Ultimate Concern.

I am in the sea, whether on a lifeboat, rowboat or sail boat. That I am in the sea, means I think about being in the sea, even in the worst weather where I might lose hope, until I am not in the sea. All ships pale before the sea itself.

Separately open boat lost at sea is about the worst thing that one can experience.

Edit: Iíd also add that the larger and more seaworthy the ship the more easily one can become unafraid of the sea, which is a dangerous mistake.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Mar 5, 2021

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Nah thatís a harmful framing of faith, actively harmful to faith.

Edit: You edited your post in a way that itís not so bad now.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Mar 7, 2021

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I believe Christianity is the same way as well, based on its descent from Judaism, but I'm less sure.

An open question: What is the revelation of God, by God in Christianity?

Or rephrased: How does God show us that he is in Christianity?

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

What I'm saying is: The Bible is very clear that G-d loves proving that G-d is real, it's basically His favorite thing to do, so it's silly to say "G-d would never create the Earth in such a way to prove that G-d is real" or "G-d encourages the proliferation of evidence that G-d is not real."

Well first there is a foundational difference between you and I here. I donít think God the Father is a being. I think God the father is Being-itself. Next how do I know what it is to be and what Being-itself is?

From Jesus. And then from the Spirit in all (and I do believe all in the broadest all here) my brotherís and sisterís. The new testament to me is people writing about the experience of their communities or their personal understanding of the event of Jesus.

Having conversations like these talking about what it is to be for each of us. Doubting what I think it means to be. These are ways I learn about God and they arenít contradictory to faith. Reason isnít contradictory to faith. The logos isnít a threat to the Logos.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Freudian posted:

I absolutely don't mean to offend anyone with the following, but it feels like Christianity has never properly come to terms with the fact that Jesus' own people rejected the Message - and then survived, being their own people.

Well the Romans. I mean think a lot of that was the Jewish wars and then Christianity becoming Greek and Roman, which certainly is a can of worms.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/arts/bible-deuteronomy-discovery.html?referringSource=articleShare

Worth a read.

Edit: Potentially the oldest Duet. source was labeled a forgery in the 1880ís but probably isnít.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Mar 11, 2021

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Ehh the parts that are missing compared to Deuteronomy coincide with what should be missing based on the current versions of documentary hypothesis.

This is to say the text reflects a modern understanding of the writing of Deuteronomy and not one from the 1880s. My wife finds it compelling. But she and I are very much on the literary side of the argument.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Gaius Marius posted:

I really wanna go to the park in Nara where all the deer are tame and you can just walk up to them, such peaceful creatures. Very good if you don't have a field or garden cultivated

Weíve got an elk herd close to that where I live. They tolerate runners and bikers. Dogs and particularly aggressive photographers get the why donít you gently caress off display.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Gaius Marius posted:

I wouldn't gently caress with Elks though they'll gently caress you up if you accidentally set them off, lot of tourists in Yellowstone forget that wild animals are still wild

Tias posted:

On occasion we'll have a major loving accident with elk in Scandinavia, most often when a bull gets completely hosed up on fermented fruit and charges a car intersection.

The herd has been in and part of town for a long time. The Roosevelt Elk went out around 1900. But they introduced a herd from Montana in 1913. They maintain the Elk fence on the highway well and they have a clear path to go from the fields in town back and forth to the Cascades. About 450 Elk. In town when they cross roads they tend to do it at night. One elk will cross and then a second will come up to the road. The pair watch the road on either side. Then the whole herd moves across. Itís a hell of thing to watch. Some new construction has them coming through the community park I live on so now we get to watch them from our living room. Only real issue they cause is getting the kids to not throw the turds at each other.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Captain von Trapp posted:

I haven't seen this case made much, but you could (and I probably would) argue that in Christianity angels and demons fit many reasonable definitions of lowercase-g gods.

ďHistory of Christian ThoughtĒ posted:


But if God has become abstract, then it is not sufficient to hypostasize some of His qualities, such as heaven, height, glory: more is needed. Mediating beings appear between God and man who become more and more important for practical piety. There are three main concepts of this mediating character. First, the angels: they are deteriorized gods and godesses from the surrounding paganism. In the period of the prophets, when the fight with polytheism still was going on, they couldn't play any role. But when the danger of polytheism was completely overcome as it was in later Judaism then the angels could reappear without too great danger of a relapse into polytheism. But even so, the New Testament is aware of this danger and again and again warns against the cult of the angels. These are the first figures which mediate.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

Christians imo are overly-obssesed with purity.

Not necessarily, I mean to get a bit scatological is the divine in poo poo?

Look at it this way in its context who was Jesus to the Romans ? This was a nobody. Worse this was a criminal nobody, the worst of the worst and an enemy of the state. This is a scandalous assertion, that this nobody was God. Itís also an inversion, an assertion that the very highest is in the very lowest. The Word was Flesh is a scandalous assertion.

This idea is really embedded in our culture too that saviors reach down into the muck and poo poo to invert the location of the divine to pull us up. Just of the top of my head one can see it in the last Nolan Batman movie.

I mean the example of Jesus and the assertion the Jesus is the Christ is in conflict with the elements of Christianity that are more obsessed with purity.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

If one is into feminist theology, She Who Is, is pretty good.

https://www.amazon.com/She-Who-Feminist-Theological-Discourse/dp/0824519256

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

I could have suggested way more radical authors. Johnsonís methods are very much in the mainline Protestant .

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

There are well established reasons why God is referred to as He for all but the last few decades of Christian history.

Lol. Like do you even Hagia Sophia?

No but seriously you are very much wrong and harmfully wrong.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

Jesus Himself referred to God as His Father... Iíd consider the guy who Christianity is founded on to know best on the topic.

And harmfully wrong? How so exactly?

People leave the religion because of the way you think.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

There were many early communities that talked about Jesus in terms of both Logos and Sophia. Godís reason and wisdom made flesh. This tradition continued for like over a thousand plus years ( eg. The Hagia Sophia).

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

White Coke posted:

I think I brought this up earlier in the thread, but werenít there Gnostics who thought women couldnít be saved? How do you get from that to talking about Godís feminine side?

A broad bunch of beliefs were Gnostic it wasnít one thing.

The big thing with them is initiation into a community that told one the secret knowledge

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Thirteen Orphans posted:

Just to throw it out there, sheís a Roman Catholic religious sister writing from a Catholic perspective.

Yes but her thinking and methodology is very much taken from the work of Paul Tillich which is Lutheran and Protestant.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Also on topic is The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels.

https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Valiantman posted:

I wish to comment, that this is not a very good or persuasive reason to do something (or not do it). People leave religion because of many reasons, good and bad. And religion is not inherently good or bad either.

But misogyny is bad. And asserting that our symbols to talk about God are only and have only been masculine is misogyny.

Our words and symbols are constructed tools. When we assert that they are Godís words, we put the end and means of humans from a particular context in the place of Godís ends and means. We privilege a male and Greek way of thinking from a particular context. Iím not saying to not think in that way, I mean I do for a large chunk of how I think. We should recognize that it wasnít the only way to think and that itís symbols arenít the only symbols we can use to talk about God.

Iím comfortable saying that not doing that is bad and harmful and should be called such.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

zonohedron posted:

What if they are God's words? Like, what if God took a particular constructed tool and used it, specifically?

How does God reveal God to us? My first answer to that question is by the event of Jesus as the Christ. My second answer is by Godís reason, wisdom, and love in all of the rest of us.

Our scripture doesnít say the Word was a book. It asserts that the Word was flesh! What do I think God uses specifically to reveal God, the Word made flesh (Jesus) and the Word in humans, in all of us, given by God by the Spirit.

Truth is a whole not a part and all things serve God.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

zonohedron posted:

On the other hand,

That suggests that God uses our words, rather than our words teaching us in spite of themselves. If God is okay with using "masculine plural noun, singular verb" as a tool, we can use it too.

Iím objecting to the assertion that we should only use the masculine pronoun to refer to God combined with an assertion that we should not use feminine pronouns.

I am not saying to not use masculine pronouns.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Valiantman posted:

I'm not disagreeing with you, though I don't think you are debating with anyone present here, since I've seen no one state that God, not just Jesus, is actually literally male.

I was specially responding to this:

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

There are well established reasons why God is referred to as He for all but the last few decades of Christian history.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

We use familial words to talk about our relationship with God. Something Iíve always remembered is the assertion that when we talk about God with symbols we are also saying something about the symbol. If we use the symbol King to talk about Jesus we are also asserting something about Kings. So when we use familial terms to talk about God we end up implying things about our relationships within our actual families.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

I was saying that the position of the Catholic Church is that God has revealed Himself to humanity, and that He has chosen (for whatever reason) to use male pronouns to do that. In that view trying to force gender neutral pronouns on God is kind of ignoring how He has presented Himself throughout the ages.

Yeah Iím not a fan of forcing. Iím saying we should be okay with people using other language than we use. They arenít us, their lives arenít ours, and their symbols will be different.

I think you should look at what youíre doing. I think you should look at the conflating of how a community talks about God, with God speaking to us.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

docbeard posted:

One of the ways Menno Simons described what he called "true evangelical faith" (speaking of loaded religious terms!) was that it "becomes all things to all people". I'm not a hundred percent sure what that was intended to mean but this discussion has made me think of it a lot.

Truth is being; new truth is new being.

I mean thatís an idea like back to the apostolic church fathers.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply