The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Stonok]

Sacrilege maybe but I wouldn’t say blasphemey.

"Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name."

I'm not entirely sure, but having read the LOLcat Bible's first few sentences of "Genesis" I lean towards it being blasphemous, personally. I don't know about the others that were mentioned in passing.

I agree, but I admittedly did chuckle a little at "Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a"

[Northern Davincia]

You haven't seen anything yet.

Isn't Notch a devout atheist?... and a member of the "technoprogressive" Pirate Party?

Yes.

[Tarsonis]

Sacrilege maybe but I wouldn’t say blasphemey.

"Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name."

I'm not entirely sure, but having read the LOLcat Bible's first few sentences of "Genesis" I lean towards it being blasphemous, personally. I don't know about the others that were mentioned in passing.

I'm gonna have to arrogantly disagree.

Key words there, hatred, reproach or defiance. Things like the LOLcat bible aren't created out of hatred, reproach, or defiance like say the "Skeptics annotated Bible," it's just good natured humor. Nothing I've read so far strike me as ill intentioned.

Now sacrilege maybe, because yes there is a certain lack of reverence at play here, but not blasphemy.

[Nioya]

Hey guys. How should I go about describing my nation’s stars church? What do you guys think?

[Forsher]

I heard a theory that Adam and Eve, as names, represented early civilizations or city-states. This is a pre literate time after all. It could be comparable to the story of the tower of Babel.

The only way you can rationalise any of Genesis as anything meaningful is divine revelation which was communicated as a metaphor. Or it might just be bollocks. The Bible's clearly not infallible, it's a collection of myths, oral traditions, personal accounts, letters, and alleged divine revelations, many of which are contradictory and/or of somewhat dubious providence or are clearly exaggerated or sexed up in some respect, and all of which have been translated and rewritten fuck knows how many times. That's not to suggest that there's no truth in it, but taking all the text at face value's not really an option.

My preferred take on all mythologies... Christian, Ancient Greek, Norse etc... is that they're all motivated by fundamentally the same things as early scientific developments. That is, while we (today) see science as a systematic attempt to interpret and explain the world, religion is differentiated by the absence of the systematic qualities rather than anything actually intrinsic. It is, after all, hardly true to say that scientists are flip floppers, they definitely schism when the contemporary conceit is that science is all about flip flopping.'In the case of Christianity there's definitely a lot of gatekeeping (heresy etc.) which has had a tendency to act to prevent the continued evolution of Christian thought (or possibly it'd be more accurate to say that it's constrained to follow certain paths). But, again, while it would seem highly dubious to suggest, for example, that ethical approval is not actually different to heresy if the effect is the same I think we ought to take it as evidence of this version.

In terms of what you're saying what I think my view means is that it's irrelevant to consider whether or not there's a truth or even metaphorical synthesis behind anything in the Bible, but I do approach this from the position that it's not only is nothing in it divine revelations but, rather, it can't be. By logical extension, therefore, Genesis is just a band.

A more religious interpretation of my point of view might ask... why is the Bible even relevant to Christians/Christianity? Surely the essential feature is an agreement on the gods responsible (i.e. God) and a similar view of what it is the gods have done. This should be allowed to develop in all its logical directions, surely? These different versions of the Bible that you're talking about are hence all equally valid since they all contribute to a shared understanding of your religion, even if they may in some cases be mocking it.

I think that last point is less a question of belief but another take on the nature of religion, i.e. is it personal? And hence I reveal the real reason I came to your thread... although I do actually believe the above things... and that is to plug my survey on political opinions. One of the principles behind it is whether or not religion is personal and/or private... a point that I believe is, in fact, at the very crux of the matter which you now discuss.

[Cill Airne]

"Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name."

I'm not entirely sure, but having read the LOLcat Bible's first few sentences of "Genesis" I lean towards it being blasphemous, personally. I don't know about the others that were mentioned in passing.

I'm gonna have to arrogantly disagree.

Key words there, hatred, reproach or defiance. Things like the LOLcat bible aren't created out of hatred, reproach, or defiance like say the "Skeptics annotated Bible," it's just good natured humor. Nothing I've read so far strike me as ill intentioned.

Now sacrilege maybe, because yes there is a certain lack of reverence at play here, but not blasphemy.

Or "in failing in respect toward him in one's speech" and an attempt to be humorous it may be, failing in respect towards God in their speech it certainly does.

[Tarsonis]

I'm gonna have to arrogantly disagree.

Key words there, hatred, reproach or defiance. Things like the LOLcat bible aren't created out of hatred, reproach, or defiance like say the "Skeptics annotated Bible," it's just good natured humor. Nothing I've read so far strike me as ill intentioned.

Now sacrilege maybe, because yes there is a certain lack of reverence at play here, but not blasphemy.

Or "in failing in respect toward him in one's speech" and an attempt to be humorous it may be, failing in respect towards God in their speech it certainly does.

But Blasphemy requires malice, in which the intent and/or impact of such utterance is to degrade and wound the honor of the individual or thing being blasphemed.

I don't buy that these lighthearted books are meant to /or have the effect of, degrading or injuring the honor of the Word of God. Again, sacrilege sure, but Blasphemy? Hardly.

I think you guys are being a bit to puritanical.

[Cill Airne]

Or "in failing in respect toward him in one's speech" and an attempt to be humorous it may be, failing in respect towards God in their speech it certainly does.

But Blasphemy requires malice, in which the intent and/or impact of such utterance is to degrade and wound the honor of the individual or thing being blasphemed.

I don't buy that these lighthearted books are meant to /or have the effect of, degrading or injuring the honor of the Word of God. Again, sacrilege sure, but Blasphemy? Hardly.

I think you guys are being a bit to puritanical.

Where does it say that blasphemy requires malice? That's not what the CCC says, it states it consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - a failure of respect towards God in one's speech; the misuse of God's name; uttering words of hatred, reproach, or defiance. The usage of the ; separates them and to me means it does not require all parts of the definition to be present for it to be blasphemy.

But, I guess that's me. The Puritan Catholic :')

[Jolthig]

Genesis from my own observation seems to be a compilation of various oral narrations and smaller books put together into one judging by the fifth chapter with the offspring of Seth. Because the previous chapter is cut off with the intention to focus on the offspring of Seth.

[Tarsonis]

But Blasphemy requires malice, in which the intent and/or impact of such utterance is to degrade and wound the honor of the individual or thing being blasphemed.

I don't buy that these lighthearted books are meant to /or have the effect of, degrading or injuring the honor of the Word of God. Again, sacrilege sure, but Blasphemy? Hardly.

I think you guys are being a bit to puritanical.

Where does it say that blasphemy requires malice? That's not what the CCC says, it states it consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - a failure of respect towards God in one's speech; the misuse of God's name; uttering words of hatred, reproach, or defiance. The usage of the ; separates them and to me means it does not require all parts of the definition to be present for it to be blasphemy.

But, I guess that's me. The Puritan Catholic :')

Those are all semicolons not commas, which means they are reiterating the same sentiment rather than listing of different aspects. Or more to the point we’re talking about the the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

The CCC defines Blaspheymy bluntly as speaking ill of God, coloring all the other examples as having the intent to offend God. Something like the LOL cat Bible isn’t there to dispariage or degrade the Word of God, it’s just kind god funny with adorable cat pictures.

Again I’m with you in sacrilege but not Blasphemy.

[The Archregimancy]

Can anyone explain to me how Cryil of Alexandra became a saint when he did shit like getting a mob to kill Hypatia a brilliant scholar?

I missed this from a few pages back. If the thread will forgive me for following up a little late...

There are two separate issues here.

On the first issue, you're making the common mistake of assuming that saints must by necessity be saintly. Or, in other words, that an individual recognised as a saint must also by necessity be a moral exemplar. While this is true of the majority of saints, it's not a necessary qualification; Saint Cyril of Alexandria is the most prominent example of a saint whose recognition comes from the importance of their theology rather than the sanctity of their life. His theology is an exemplar, his involvement in Alexandrian politics less so; the latter led to his participation in events that we would struggle to characterise as 'saintly'.

On the second issue, few events in late Classical history have been as misunderstood as the murder of Hypatia. On this subject, I would recommend a short 1995 Harvard University Press book called Hypatia of Alexandria by Maria Dzielska. Summarising a complex issue as briefly as I can, her death was political, not religious. As Dzielska notes, she wasn't an active pagan, she circulated freely in Christian circles, and sympathised to some degree with Christianity. Her students - whom she often actively protected - were overwhelmingly Christian, and included at least two future bishops. Cyril's predecessor as patriarch (and his uncle), Theophilus, in turn had offered official patriachal recognition of Hypatia's role in the city. This is why Cyril attempted to discredit her for witchcraft, not for paganism - an important distinction in the context of the early 5th century.

Indeed, the immediate catalyst for Hypatia's murder was her close friendship with Orestes, the Christian Imperial Prefect for Egypt. She was caught up in an often violent power struggle between the secular (though Christian) power represented by Orestes, and the religious power represented by Cyril. Cyril was actively trying to expand the latter at the expense of the former, and Hypatia was seen - correctly - as one of Orestes' most important supporters. Following her murder, support for Orestes and opposition to Cyril collapsed.

The open question is the extent to which Cyril was directly responsible for her murder. This is ultimately unprovable at this distance, but it seems most likely that the murder was undertaken by supporters of Cyril who believed in his active campaign to discredit Hypatia for political reasons, but who weren't operating under his direct orders. As such, he bears a measure of personal responsibility for fomenting the atmosphere that led to her political assassination, but not direct responsibility for actively ordering her murder. The only near-contemporary source that makes an accusation of direct responsibility was written by a pagan opponent of Cyril's who was seeking to discredit him. The other near-contemporary sources, which include sources written by Christian opponents of Cyril, fail to make that accusation. Given that the imperial court in Constantinople also opposed Cyril, and was actively looking for an excuse to depose him, it seems improbable that they wouldn't have used the murder of Hypatia against Cyril if there had been hard evidence he was responsible; and certainly the court of Theodosius II actively investigated the issue.

Which isn't to whitewash him of any responsibility; clearly he has to take some of the blame. But nor did he 'get a mob' to murder Hypatia.



As an aside, it's always irritated me that, for all his brilliance, Carl Sagan managed to get the burning of the Library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypatia so badly wrong in the first episode of Cosmos.

[Tarsonis]

Can anyone explain to me how Cryil of Alexandra became a saint when he did shit like getting a mob to kill Hypatia a brilliant scholar?

I missed this from a few pages back. If the thread will forgive me for following up a little late...

There are two separate issues here.

On the first issue, you're making the common mistake of assuming that saints must by necessity be saintly. Or, in other words, that an individual recognised as a saint must also by necessity be a moral exemplar. While this is true of the majority of saints, it's not a necessary qualification; Saint Cyril of Alexandria is the most prominent example of a saint whose recognition comes from the importance of their theology rather than the sanctity of their life. His theology is an exemplar, his involvement in Alexandrian politics less so; the latter led to his participation in events that we would struggle to characterise as 'saintly'.

On the second issue, few events in late Classical history have been as misunderstood as the murder of Hypatia. On this subject, I would recommend a short 1995 Harvard University Press book called Hypatia of Alexandria by Maria Dzielska. Summarising a complex issue as briefly as I can, her death was political, not religious. As Dzielska notes, she wasn't an active pagan, she circulated freely in Christian circles, and sympathised to some degree with Christianity. Her students - whom she often actively protected - were overwhelmingly Christian, and included at least two future bishops. Cyril's predecessor as patriarch (and his uncle), Theophilus, in turn had offered official patriachal recognition of Hypatia's role in the city. This is why Cyril attempted to discredit her for witchcraft, not for paganism - an important distinction in the context of the early 5th century.

Indeed, the immediate catalyst for Hypatia's murder was her close friendship with Orestes, the Christian Imperial Prefect for Egypt. She was caught up in an often violent power struggle between the secular (though Christian) power represented by Orestes, and the religious power represented by Cyril. Cyril was actively trying to expand the latter at the expense of the former, and Hypatia was seen - correctly - as one of Orestes' most important supporters. Following her murder, support for Orestes and opposition to Cyril collapsed.

The open question is the extent to which Cyril was directly responsible for her murder. This is ultimately unprovable at this distance, but it seems most likely that the murder was undertaken by supporters of Cyril who believed in his active campaign to discredit Hypatia for political reasons, but who weren't operating under his direct orders. As such, he bears a measure of personal responsibility for fomenting the atmosphere that led to her political assassination, but not direct responsibility for actively ordering her murder. The only near-contemporary source that makes an accusation of direct responsibility was written by a pagan opponent of Cyril's who was seeking to discredit him. The other near-contemporary sources, which include sources written by Christian opponents of Cyril, fail to make that accusation. Given that the imperial court in Constantinople also opposed Cyril, and was actively looking for an excuse to depose him, it seems improbable that they wouldn't have used the murder of Hypatia against Cyril if there had been hard evidence he was responsible; and certainly the court of Theodosius II actively investigated the issue.

Which isn't to whitewash him of any responsibility; clearly he has to take some of the blame. But nor did he 'get a mob' to murder Hypatia.



As an aside, it's always irritated me that, for all his brilliance, Carl Sagan managed to get the burning of the Library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypatia so badly wrong in the first episode of Cosmos.

Cosmos gets a lot of those details wrong, especially in the new ones

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I missed this from a few pages back. If the thread will forgive me for following up a little late...

There are two separate issues here.

On the first issue, you're making the common mistake of assuming that saints must by necessity be saintly. Or, in other words, that an individual recognised as a saint must also by necessity be a moral exemplar. While this is true of the majority of saints, it's not a necessary qualification; Saint Cyril of Alexandria is the most prominent example of a saint whose recognition comes from the importance of their theology rather than the sanctity of their life. His theology is an exemplar, his involvement in Alexandrian politics less so; the latter led to his participation in events that we would struggle to characterise as 'saintly'.

On the second issue, few events in late Classical history have been as misunderstood as the murder of Hypatia. On this subject, I would recommend a short 1995 Harvard University Press book called Hypatia of Alexandria by Maria Dzielska. Summarising a complex issue as briefly as I can, her death was political, not religious. As Dzielska notes, she wasn't an active pagan, she circulated freely in Christian circles, and sympathised to some degree with Christianity. Her students - whom she often actively protected - were overwhelmingly Christian, and included at least two future bishops. Cyril's predecessor as patriarch (and his uncle), Theophilus, in turn had offered official patriachal recognition of Hypatia's role in the city. This is why Cyril attempted to discredit her for witchcraft, not for paganism - an important distinction in the context of the early 5th century.

Indeed, the immediate catalyst for Hypatia's murder was her close friendship with Orestes, the Christian Imperial Prefect for Egypt. She was caught up in an often violent power struggle between the secular (though Christian) power represented by Orestes, and the religious power represented by Cyril. Cyril was actively trying to expand the latter at the expense of the former, and Hypatia was seen - correctly - as one of Orestes' most important supporters. Following her murder, support for Orestes and opposition to Cyril collapsed.

The open question is the extent to which Cyril was directly responsible for her murder. This is ultimately unprovable at this distance, but it seems most likely that the murder was undertaken by supporters of Cyril who believed in his active campaign to discredit Hypatia for political reasons, but who weren't operating under his direct orders. As such, he bears a measure of personal responsibility for fomenting the atmosphere that led to her political assassination, but not direct responsibility for actively ordering her murder. The only near-contemporary source that makes an accusation of direct responsibility was written by a pagan opponent of Cyril's who was seeking to discredit him. The other near-contemporary sources, which include sources written by Christian opponents of Cyril, fail to make that accusation. Given that the imperial court in Constantinople also opposed Cyril, and was actively looking for an excuse to depose him, it seems improbable that they wouldn't have used the murder of Hypatia against Cyril if there had been hard evidence he was responsible; and certainly the court of Theodosius II actively investigated the issue.

Which isn't to whitewash him of any responsibility; clearly he has to take some of the blame. But nor did he 'get a mob' to murder Hypatia.



As an aside, it's always irritated me that, for all his brilliance, Carl Sagan managed to get the burning of the Library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypatia so badly wrong in the first episode of Cosmos.

Cosmos gets a lot of those details wrong, especially in the new ones

I personally found Cosmos to be good with the science and bad with the history, if you catch my drift.

[The Archregimancy]

Cosmos gets a lot of those details wrong, especially in the new ones

I haven't seen the new ones. I only know that Sagan was a much better astronomer and astrophysicist than he was a historian. Which is a shame.

Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

You're the one in black, I assume? I jest, of course.

[Yagon]

I haven't seen the new ones. I only know that Sagan was a much better astronomer and astrophysicist than he was a historian. Which is a shame.

Yeah, I always wondered whether there were really biiiilllllions and biiiillllions of confederates at Fredreicksburg...

[Tarsonis]

Cosmos gets a lot of those details wrong, especially in the new ones

I haven't seen the new ones. I only know that Sagan was a much better astronomer and astrophysicist than he was a historian. Which is a shame.

Their bit about Bruno, heroically being burned at the stake for science, would have been laughable if it weren’t for the people who don’t know any better.

Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

You're the one in black, I assume? I jest, of course.

I’m Patsy

[Negarakita]

Hey Catholics!

I do Latin at school, but due to acceleration, I have very little assessments to do from the Latin subject itself. Instead, I plan on doing some religious studies stuff, analysing Catholic Latin texts to keep up my language stuff. Who would y'all recommend, and which texts?

Thanks!

[Northern Davincia]

Hey Catholics!

I do Latin at school, but due to acceleration, I have very little assessments to do from the Latin subject itself. Instead, I plan on doing some religious studies stuff, analysing Catholic Latin texts to keep up my language stuff. Who would y'all recommend, and which texts?

Thanks!

Summa Theologica is always a good choice.

[Diopolis]

Hey Catholics!

I do Latin at school, but due to acceleration, I have very little assessments to do from the Latin subject itself. Instead, I plan on doing some religious studies stuff, analysing Catholic Latin texts to keep up my language stuff. Who would y'all recommend, and which texts?

Thanks!

Biblia Sacra Vulgata can be found at: http://www.drbo.org/lvb/index.htm

[Minachia]

Hey, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I want you to defend the veneration of Mary and the saints.
Namely, explain to me how it isn't idolatrous.

[Northern Davincia]

Hey, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I want you to defend the veneration of Mary and the saints.
Namely, explain to me how it isn't idolatrous.

Are we not to respect and admire the saints for the examples they set out?

[Luminesa]

Hey, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I want you to defend the veneration of Mary and the saints.
Namely, explain to me how it isn't idolatrous.

Mary is venerated by the angels in the Bible, as St. Gabriel tells her she is Full of Grace. Christ Himself also said from the cross that she is our mother, when He said, "Behold, your mother." We know that Mary is the queen of those who follow Jesus, not the Queen who is the co-equal of Christ. We see her as the exemplar follower, who helps us to love Jesus the best we can without taking anything from Him. In fact, because of her incredible humility, every line she has in the Bible says that one should follow Jesus. The saints also point to Jesus without taking away from Him. They are our family in Heaven! We know that all souls are alive in Heaven, and thus we are never truly separated from those who have come before us. Rather, they aid us in our fight against sin and evil.

[Stonok]

You know, the Swiss Guard isn't as laughable as I originally thought. I thought all they did was LARP, but they actually get the same training as any other military or law enforcement body. Firearms, tactics, self defense, etc. etc. The medieval stuff comes in second in their training.

I bet they'd whip my behind in a fight

[Luminesa]

You know, the Swiss Guard isn't as laughable as I originally thought. I thought all they did was LARP, but they actually get the same training as any other military or law enforcement body. Firearms, tactics, self defense, etc. etc. The medieval stuff comes in second in their training.

I bet they'd whip my behind in a fight

IN COLORFUL TIGHTS, TROUSERS, AND SPLIT-SLEEVE SHIRTS LIKE BOSSES.

[Minachia]

Hey, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I want you to defend the veneration of Mary and the saints.
Namely, explain to me how it isn't idolatrous.

Are we not to respect and admire the saints for the examples they set out?

There is a difference between admiration and worship.
Following their examples is fine, praying to them is not.

Hey, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I want you to defend the veneration of Mary and the saints.
Namely, explain to me how it isn't idolatrous.

Mary is venerated by the angels in the Bible, as St. Gabriel tells her she is Full of Grace.

Give me a verse. Also, just because someone is full of Grace doesn't make them worthy of being worshiped

Christ Himself also said from the cross that she is our mother, when He said, "Behold, your mother." We know that Mary is the queen of those who follow Jesus, not the Queen who is the co-equal of Christ. We see her as the exemplar follower, who helps us to love Jesus the best we can without taking anything from Him.

Notice how at the end of Matthew, Mary is not portrayed as a leader of Christ's followers, and the rest of the Bible after the Gospels has little to say about her.
I don't deny that Mary is certainly a good example for what Christians should try to be, but venerating and praying to her is not okay.

In fact, because of her incredible humility, every line she has in the Bible says that one should follow Jesus.

Exactly. So why do y'all pray to her!?

The saints also point to Jesus without taking away from Him. They are our family in Heaven! We know that all souls are alive in Heaven, and thus we are never truly separated from those who have come before us. Rather, they aid us in our fight against sin and evil.

"Then I fell down at [the angel's] feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Revelation 19:10 (ESV)