The presence of Christ is a mystery not a weird thing.
Ascencion.
Ascencion.
Transubstantiation as viewed by other faiths (and Catholics)
10,376 Views |
141 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Dies Irae
Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Christian metaphysical beliefs were revealed to mankind, not constructed. That's the whole crux of the matter. The fact that there is independent overlap between some of the foundational principles of Platonism and the teachings of the Torah don't make one derivative of the other - though from the 2nd century BC through the 2nd century AD you find Jewish, Christian, and neopythagorean writers making the claim that the Platonic philosophical tradition were constructed and interpreted through the Jewish tradition.
So your argument is to retreat to an unprovable metaphysical claim about revelation? A claim which doesn't really stand up to historical scrutiny given what we know about the metaphysics of ancient near East religious traditions, including Judaism, and the claims about the nature of God and the soul made by late Antiquity Christian theologians like Augustine, Origen, and Dionysius (among others) that are very explicitly using the metaphysical arguments and assumptions of Neoplatonists to build their understanding of the Trinity and the relationship between the soul and the material.
Hellenism was a dominant cultural force for centuries, but the embrace of Platonism as the dominant foundation for metaphysical claims was a project of late Antiquity Christians and absolutely influences Christianity to this day, including Orthodoxy.
I think this blurs the true development of concepts like the Trinity, which did not rely on neo-platonic concepts. The first Church father, we believe, to use the concept of the Trinity, Christology, or Original Sin was Tertullian who was about as "anti-philosophy" as you were going to see.
When I look at standard history books, you don't see a lot of neo-platonists in the earliest fathers. They, in a sense, saw Christianity as "the one true philosophy" to overcome the others, not just a utilization of a particular one. For example, something like the Logos was derived from stoicism.
However, it is fair to say that there are key church fathers who relied on various forms of philosophy throughout the centuries to further our understanding of God, but that is very different than saying a certain philosophical method is necessary to understand God.
This thread is weird. There were certainly neoPlatonist early Christians. Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Augustine come to mind. Many medieval Christians were Aristotelians, like most the scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas. I've been trying to make the point already that later Protestant movements were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. It's very easy to see that many 20th century theologians were heavily influenced by Marxism, and many current branches of Christianity are wrestling with postmodernism.
Any time a new framework of thought occurs, we see Christians borrow from it to more accurately try to describe or think about Christianity. But in the end they are all Christians. Those philosophies are tools to help them think about Christianity. They don't follow the worldview of those philosophies. A neoplatonist pagan is going to treat the Timaeus like scripture where a Christian neoplatonist is going to almost entirely ignore it. A scholastic might use Aristotelian ideas like the prime mover and the harmony of the spheres as a description of how God influences the world, but he would reject Aristotle's moral theory as lacking. You could still say they count as neoplantonists and aristotelians, but you'd have an argument either way.
It also seems really weird to say Christianity is based on neoplatonism when Christianity predates it by centuries. It makes as much sense to say that Christianity is based on Scholasticism, the Enlightenment, Marxism, or Postmodernism
Any time a new framework of thought occurs, we see Christians borrow from it to more accurately try to describe or think about Christianity. But in the end they are all Christians. Those philosophies are tools to help them think about Christianity. They don't follow the worldview of those philosophies. A neoplatonist pagan is going to treat the Timaeus like scripture where a Christian neoplatonist is going to almost entirely ignore it. A scholastic might use Aristotelian ideas like the prime mover and the harmony of the spheres as a description of how God influences the world, but he would reject Aristotle's moral theory as lacking. You could still say they count as neoplantonists and aristotelians, but you'd have an argument either way.
It also seems really weird to say Christianity is based on neoplatonism when Christianity predates it by centuries. It makes as much sense to say that Christianity is based on Scholasticism, the Enlightenment, Marxism, or Postmodernism
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel said:
I'm so glad you're here to explain my faith to me. Thank you.
Wait… this is coming from you? You're going to feign outrage over my posts without the slightest hint of irony?
Quote:
It also seems really weird to say Christianity is based on neoplatonism when Christianity predates it by centuries. It makes as much sense to say that Christianity is based on Scholasticism, the Enlightenment, Marxism, or Postmodernism
The development of the modern orthodoxy (small o) on concepts like the trinity emerged during late Antiquity and were heavily, heavily influenced / based on Neoplatonism. As Zobel also mentioned, Platonism and middle Platonism were part of the Hellenistic cultural landscape that dominated the Mediterranean world around the 2nd or 3rd centuries BC, and was far more prominent in Turkey and Greece, where Paul worked. So Christianity already had that influence in its theology early on. Still, you see a great deal of variation and debate until the Neoplatonists, who also happened to coincide with Constantine.
Very good post.
Christian Platonism is not Platonism. Can't emphasize that enough. St Augustine ceased being a platonist when he became a Christian. You say it rightly that they borrow from these frameworks tools or vocabulary with which to express or communicate or thinks about or evangelize Christianity.
But they reject the worldview, like you said and that is important. You can't separate the "religious" part of Platonism or Neoplatonism from the "philosophical" part. Or rather when you do, neither of the two things you just created by cutting the first is Platonism or Neoplatonism any more.
The Britannica article on Platonism notes rightly that "There is no more superficial and misleading generalization in the history of philosophy than that which sharply opposes "Christian Platonism" and "Christian Aristotelianism."" The only way this makes any sense at all is because these are shades of Christianity, and neither is Platonism or Aristotelianism. Because, yknow, you can't be a platonist and a Christian.
Christian Platonism is not Platonism. Can't emphasize that enough. St Augustine ceased being a platonist when he became a Christian. You say it rightly that they borrow from these frameworks tools or vocabulary with which to express or communicate or thinks about or evangelize Christianity.
But they reject the worldview, like you said and that is important. You can't separate the "religious" part of Platonism or Neoplatonism from the "philosophical" part. Or rather when you do, neither of the two things you just created by cutting the first is Platonism or Neoplatonism any more.
The Britannica article on Platonism notes rightly that "There is no more superficial and misleading generalization in the history of philosophy than that which sharply opposes "Christian Platonism" and "Christian Aristotelianism."" The only way this makes any sense at all is because these are shades of Christianity, and neither is Platonism or Aristotelianism. Because, yknow, you can't be a platonist and a Christian.
lol this is fractally wrong.
I guess I don't understand why you are defining that having a particular philosophical methodology necessitates a singular world view?
that's the point i'm making. its easy for us now to sit back and say yeah plato had <<a method>> and aristotle had <<a method>> and pythagoras had <<a method>> and then, alongside these, each also had <<a religion>>. but when you get down to it, nah man, plato really had a religion and his method was part of it. pythagoreans really worshipped numbers. now we can say, hey music and pythagorean theorem, cool... other weird ideas, let's leave them out. but we can do that now in hindsight, you couldn't do that then.
being a platonist isn't like a strictly defined thing with clear dogma and has meant many things over the centuries but there are core things about it - the idea of the interconnection of all things / the unity of the universe; the principle of hierarchy with simplicity at the top, the reality of the principles or forms in the spiritual world; the divine or the One at the top of the hierarchy as the source or principle of all things; the dualism of the soul, the immortality or eternal nature of the soul, the soul as the connection of the person to the hierarchy, the rejection of matter or body as lower in the hierarchy than soul. neoplatonism adds some things here in there, in particular the the One is simple, unknowable, and transcendent.
some of this is fine for a Christian and you can say yeah - man that's right there in the Torah. some of it is not fine and fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
so the methodology doesn't have an identity relationship with the philosophy, but you have to break it apart to see that. there are some axioms in platonism that are key parts of it as a religion / philosophy that can be used methodically in Christianity - the idea of hierarchy, the idea that there is a form or principle underlying all things. but then really quickly any Christian taking these ideas runs right off the platonic reservation by saying - yeah, that One at the Top? The Father. the Principle? Christ, the Logos. souls? not immortal in and of themselves but sustained by God. Salvation? no, not by freeing the soul from the lower plane of bodily existence but by union with the divine in and through matter. God being transcendent, no, only balanced with His immanence, and by the way He became Incarnate.
ok... so... what is that? that is not platonism. no amount of contortions will make that platonism, because Christianity exists over and against platonism.
A person who accepts part of the methodology or structure of platonism and uses it as a tool to express their faith in Christ is a Christian using platonism like a tool, not a platonist. Just like a person using pythagorean theorem as a tool isn't a pythagorean. And just like you can be a Christian using pythagorean theorem, but you can't by a pythagorean and a Christian, you can't be a platonist or a neoplatonist and be a Christian.
being a platonist isn't like a strictly defined thing with clear dogma and has meant many things over the centuries but there are core things about it - the idea of the interconnection of all things / the unity of the universe; the principle of hierarchy with simplicity at the top, the reality of the principles or forms in the spiritual world; the divine or the One at the top of the hierarchy as the source or principle of all things; the dualism of the soul, the immortality or eternal nature of the soul, the soul as the connection of the person to the hierarchy, the rejection of matter or body as lower in the hierarchy than soul. neoplatonism adds some things here in there, in particular the the One is simple, unknowable, and transcendent.
some of this is fine for a Christian and you can say yeah - man that's right there in the Torah. some of it is not fine and fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
so the methodology doesn't have an identity relationship with the philosophy, but you have to break it apart to see that. there are some axioms in platonism that are key parts of it as a religion / philosophy that can be used methodically in Christianity - the idea of hierarchy, the idea that there is a form or principle underlying all things. but then really quickly any Christian taking these ideas runs right off the platonic reservation by saying - yeah, that One at the Top? The Father. the Principle? Christ, the Logos. souls? not immortal in and of themselves but sustained by God. Salvation? no, not by freeing the soul from the lower plane of bodily existence but by union with the divine in and through matter. God being transcendent, no, only balanced with His immanence, and by the way He became Incarnate.
ok... so... what is that? that is not platonism. no amount of contortions will make that platonism, because Christianity exists over and against platonism.
A person who accepts part of the methodology or structure of platonism and uses it as a tool to express their faith in Christ is a Christian using platonism like a tool, not a platonist. Just like a person using pythagorean theorem as a tool isn't a pythagorean. And just like you can be a Christian using pythagorean theorem, but you can't by a pythagorean and a Christian, you can't be a platonist or a neoplatonist and be a Christian.
Except Platonism is a philosophical approach with certain principles and not a religion. You're trying to force Platonism into a very narrow, specific box so that you don't have to admit that Neoplatonism was a huge philosophical influence on Christian theology. It doesn't work. It's not just little tools here and there. The Church fathers of late antiquity were using the basic metaphysical framework of Platonism to build important concepts in Christianity.
While explicitly rejecting fundamental tenets.
By your method there's no functional difference between Philo, Plotinus, and St Justin Martyr. If you can't see why that is nonsense, dunno what to tell you.
If Platonism is just a philosophical approach, how come Plethon had to not be Orthodox to be a Platonist?
By your method there's no functional difference between Philo, Plotinus, and St Justin Martyr. If you can't see why that is nonsense, dunno what to tell you.
If Platonism is just a philosophical approach, how come Plethon had to not be Orthodox to be a Platonist?
It was both. At least neo-Platonism was explicitly both. Plotinus and others specifically formulated neo-Platonism to reclaim Plato's ideas and teachings for Greek paganism. He did this explicity. He saw that Christians had co-opted the thoughts and ideas of his favorite Greek philosopher and sought to put Plato back into a pagan religious context. As another example, Julian the Apostate specifically converted to neo-Platonism and away from Christianity. He became generally hostile to Christianity and began to promote Greek paganism throught his empire. If neo-Platonism was merely some sort of ancient secular philosophy, then the story of Julian doesn't make any sense.Sapper Redux said:
Except Platonism is a philosophical approach with certain principles and not a religion. You're trying to force Platonism into a very narrow, specific box so that you don't have to admit that Neoplatonism was a huge philosophical influence on Christian theology. It doesn't work. It's not just little tools here and there. The Church fathers of late antiquity were using the basic metaphysical framework of Platonism to build important concepts in Christianity.
To me it's sort of like Buddhism. You can be influenced by Buddhist teachings about avoiding suffering and non-attachment without fully buying into the reincarnation of souls, nirvana, and deification through complete lack of desire. I wouldn't say that a Christian who follows Buddhist teachings about avoiding attachment and not causing others to suffer would stop being a Christian. Jesus taught similar things about losing our attachment to earthly things, including family. I also wouldn't say they were a Buddhist unless they fully bought into the metaphysical concepts such as reincarnation. At that point, you're not really a Christian any more. Using common philosophical convention, we could call someone a Buddhist philosopher without them actually being a Buddhist. So in the same vein, Boethius was a neo Platonist philosopher but he wasn't a neo Platonist. We just use that label for people that primary interacted with those philosophical ideas
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel said:
While explicitly rejecting fundamental tenets.
By your method there's no functional difference between Philo, Plotinus, and St Justin Martyr. If you can't see why that is nonsense, dunno what to tell you.
If Platonism is just a philosophical approach, how come Plethon had to not be Orthodox to be a Platonist?
Platonism is not a religion. It's a school of philosophy very concerned with the metaphysic. Plato himself was a pagan, but there is nothing that says one must be a particular kind of pagan to be a Platonist. This is like saying a scholar who uses dialectical materialism MUST be a communist because Marx was a communist, rather than seeing the scholar as an individual using the tenets of a philosophical system for their own project. To say nothing of the long history of branches and new schools breaking off from the original system of a philosophy.
As for Plethon, who said he had to be? He wasn't cast out of the Orthodox Church for being a Platonist and he re-popularized Plato in the Orthodox and Catholic worlds without anyone screaming about paganism. It certainly says something that you have to reach 1000 years later than the era I'm discussing to try and find one example of Neoplatonic philosophy not being seen as compatible with or usable for Christianity. And failing with that example.
The comparison with Buddhism makes sense to me, but maybe a little spin from how you're presenting it. Buddhism is, at its heart, a philosophy. There's no explicit religion defined by the basic teachings of the Buddha. Buddhism becomes a religion by blending it with local faiths. To that end, there are dozens of very, very different strands of Buddhism as a religion that share little in common besides the basic philosophical principles. Neoplatonism, as a reanalysis of Plato, and middle Platonism, are very much the same. Yes, there's a pagan religious project using Neoplatonism as its base. Christianity, as it develops its metaphysical doctrines, is also using middle Platonism and Neoplatonism as its base.
You see a lot of secular philosophy where the rest of the world sees religion. Seems a bit anachronistic since secular philosophy didn't start until the 1700s
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Regarding your pastor's comment about the symbolism being weird for some (assume Orthodox and Catholics) to look beyond the bread we eat…
One of my early stumbling blocks as I started to really tune in, was the Eucharist. What helped me more than anything was sacred geometry. As someone who looks for meaning in the built environment, I came across the vesica pisces This is known as the mother of all shapes. It is simply two intersecting circles.
Essentially it represented for me the Kingdom of God and the created world. The Eucharist is at that intersection. It is more than symbolic, it is the real presence of Jesus.
One of my early stumbling blocks as I started to really tune in, was the Eucharist. What helped me more than anything was sacred geometry. As someone who looks for meaning in the built environment, I came across the vesica pisces This is known as the mother of all shapes. It is simply two intersecting circles.
Essentially it represented for me the Kingdom of God and the created world. The Eucharist is at that intersection. It is more than symbolic, it is the real presence of Jesus.
John Italus, Plethon, all same same. Plethon was a self-admitted pagan in his writing who intentionally hid his views, which included the idea that the philosophy of Plato was both big-T true and stood against Christianity. He was not a Christian.
Being a Christian using Platonism as a tool to express is fine. There is a line where you cross over to being a Platonist - not fine. So, again, you can't be a Platonist and a Christian, because they have mutually exclusive claims.
Being a Christian using Platonism as a tool to express is fine. There is a line where you cross over to being a Platonist - not fine. So, again, you can't be a Platonist and a Christian, because they have mutually exclusive claims.
ramblin_ag02 said:
You see a lot of secular philosophy where the rest of the world sees religion. Seems a bit anachronistic since secular philosophy didn't start until the 1700s
The idea of a philosophical system for approaching the world that was separate from a specific religious system / dogma is much, much older than that. And Eupicurus would quibble with your claims about the foundation of secular philosophy.
Zobel said:
John Italus, Plethon, all same same. Plethon was a self-admitted pagan in his writing who intentionally hid his views, which included the idea that the philosophy of Plato was both big-T true and stood against Christianity. He was not a Christian.
Being a Christian using Platonism as a tool to express is fine. There is a line where you cross over to being a Platonist - not fine. So, again, you can't be a Platonist and a Christian, because they have mutually exclusive claims.
Platonism is not a religion. It's a school of philosophy. What is so difficult about this?
Because, shockingly, your opinion isn't the sole arbiter of truth. You're reading a distinction that is anachronistic on the one hand and incorrect on the other.
Quick, what do you call a thing that makes truth claims about the nature of the universe, the divine, the human soul, qualitative distinction between good and evil, how people should behave accordingly, and the ultimate means of salvation?
Quick, what do you call a thing that makes truth claims about the nature of the universe, the divine, the human soul, qualitative distinction between good and evil, how people should behave accordingly, and the ultimate means of salvation?
Well! I'm actually feeling rather good about this. I think we all arrived at a very special place eh? Spiritually. Ecumenically. Grammatically.
I'll take the opposite axiom. Secular philosophy is just religion without salvation. You've got worldviews, measures of right and wrong, rules to live by, leaders, gatherings, and even rituals. I heard Pythoageaus threw ragers.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
John Italus, Plethon, all same same. Plethon was a self-admitted pagan in his writing who intentionally hid his views, which included the idea that the philosophy of Plato was both big-T true and stood against Christianity. He was not a Christian.
Being a Christian using Platonism as a tool to express is fine. There is a line where you cross over to being a Platonist - not fine. So, again, you can't be a Platonist and a Christian, because they have mutually exclusive claims.
Platonism is not a religion. It's a school of philosophy. What is so difficult about this?
If its just a school of thought, than it doesn't matter because its going to be subservient to actual salvic religious beliefs. Bits and pieces get taken from it but thats its. If its a psuedo-religion then its completely opposed to other religions.
Zobel said:
Because, shockingly, your opinion isn't the sole arbiter of truth. You're reading a distinction that is anachronistic on the one hand and incorrect on the other.
Quick, what do you call a thing that makes truth claims about the nature of the universe, the divine, the human soul, qualitative distinction between good and evil, how people should behave accordingly, and the ultimate means of salvation?
Oh, that's right, you believe everything is a freaking religion. My bad. Got you on your asinine hobby horse.
This conversation got way too smart for me. Dumb it back down.
Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because, shockingly, your opinion isn't the sole arbiter of truth. You're reading a distinction that is anachronistic on the one hand and incorrect on the other.
Quick, what do you call a thing that makes truth claims about the nature of the universe, the divine, the human soul, qualitative distinction between good and evil, how people should behave accordingly, and the ultimate means of salvation?
Oh, that's right, you believe everything is a freaking religion. My bad. Got you on your asinine hobby horse.
I think we all agree nihilism isn't a religion
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3391727
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
We live in a world where the female ***** exists but not God, and the only blasphemies are the "n-word" and the "f-word" (gay slur)
Gotcha. I don't think I'd disagree with you on any major points.
I think if the compromise is to say that someone like Augustine or others utilizes the neo-platonic concepts to explain God, that's fine. Most are going to short hand he was a neo-platonist, but it seems to be splitting hairs.
I think if the compromise is to say that someone like Augustine or others utilizes the neo-platonic concepts to explain God, that's fine. Most are going to short hand he was a neo-platonist, but it seems to be splitting hairs.
Clearly you are not religious. You implicitly believe in a 'neutral ground' that, of course, you're on and this 'neutrality' bestows you clarity and truth. An examiner of religions like a health inspector at a Jason's Deli salad bar.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because, shockingly, your opinion isn't the sole arbiter of truth. You're reading a distinction that is anachronistic on the one hand and incorrect on the other.
Quick, what do you call a thing that makes truth claims about the nature of the universe, the divine, the human soul, qualitative distinction between good and evil, how people should behave accordingly, and the ultimate means of salvation?
Oh, that's right, you believe everything is a freaking religion. My bad. Got you on your asinine hobby horse.
The central tenet that rubs you the wrong way the hardest is when religious people claim their isn't neutral ground and abdicate the modern position of deciding morality for themselves. Because you've put religious people in this nice little box (specifically western christians. Jews, muslims and non-westerners are exempt) where they should basically be just like you, and think the way you do 6.5 days out of the week. Sunday morning the unenlightened get to go to their town hall meetings and return right back to agreeing with you on every point of science, morality, and philosophy.
And doing anything more than that is grounds for 'everything is a freaking religion!'
Look, Jesus is real, your soul does not die, you've been deceived about being able to decide right and wrong, and your life is just an accumulation of things that rot and corrode and die. There is no cause for hope, love, justice, or salvation. Anything that looks like those virtuous things are just the vestiges of Christianity and Christian thought in your life. People who truly believe these things don't agree with a 6.5 days a week secularism/0.5 days a week christianity.
Everything is a freaking religion. Not picking one is still picking one.
Divine Liturgy is at 10, if you're in Houston you and whomever else is welcome to come.
Howdy Dammit said:
This conversation got way too smart for me. Dumb it back down.
Thanks! I was beginning to think I was the only one lost in this conversation!
I just want to add that St. Thomas Aquinas often cites Aristotle in the Summa Theologica, referring to him as simply, "The Philosopher" and his many works.
I think you can pretty well track the rise of a philosophical method with a primary church father utilizing that method to defend God/Christianity.
Back to the topic of the Eucharist and what Catholics call the Real Presence. It seems that throughout the Bible we see examples of God speaking things into existence (e.g. Genesis). I have always been struck by the declaration of Christ, who is God, that the bread and the wine are things they do not appear to be. What God says IS.
This.ramblin_ag02 said:Counterpoint, Jesus lost a lot of followers because Jews are forbidden to eat human flesh by God Himself. So when he said that people must eat his flesh and crunch his bones, they all took him literally and peaced out. Only those that knew it was a parable (or a metaphor, or a symbol, or whatever non-literal word you want to use) stuck around, realizing that Jesus wasn't teaching sinful cannibalism.TSJ said:
Jesus lost a lot of followers when he reiterated that you have eat his flesh and drink his blood. It's pretty black and white.
That's the wild part, to think of all the miracles through out the Bible but your pastor is hung up on the Eucharist. No problem talking about a guy getting thrown overboard to stop a storm only to be eaten by a fish three days later to be spit out near the town he needed to testify to in the first place.
Even for non-Jews: If the leader of your religion today asked you to eat his flesh and drink his blood, wouldn't you be grossed out by the demand?
If it seems normal, that's because the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years normalizing it.
BonfireNerd04 said:This.ramblin_ag02 said:Counterpoint, Jesus lost a lot of followers because Jews are forbidden to eat human flesh by God Himself. So when he said that people must eat his flesh and crunch his bones, they all took him literally and peaced out. Only those that knew it was a parable (or a metaphor, or a symbol, or whatever non-literal word you want to use) stuck around, realizing that Jesus wasn't teaching sinful cannibalism.TSJ said:
Jesus lost a lot of followers when he reiterated that you have eat his flesh and drink his blood. It's pretty black and white.
That's the wild part, to think of all the miracles through out the Bible but your pastor is hung up on the Eucharist. No problem talking about a guy getting thrown overboard to stop a storm only to be eaten by a fish three days later to be spit out near the town he needed to testify to in the first place.
Even for non-Jews: If the leader of your religion today asked you to eat his flesh and drink his blood, wouldn't you be grossed out by the demand?
If it seems normal, that's because the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years normalizing it.
It ties back perfectly with the Old Testament and the Passover. The Lamb's blood smeared over the door protected the household from the plagues, but it was only efficacious if the entire lamb was eaten. Jesus being the fulfillment of the Paschal lamb, also saves us from the plague of sin, if we but eat of his body and drink of his blood, like the Passover sacrifice.
one MEEN Ag said:Clearly you are not religious. You implicitly believe in a 'neutral ground' that, of course, you're on and this 'neutrality' bestows you clarity and truth. An examiner of religions like a health inspector at a Jason's Deli salad bar.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because, shockingly, your opinion isn't the sole arbiter of truth. You're reading a distinction that is anachronistic on the one hand and incorrect on the other.
Quick, what do you call a thing that makes truth claims about the nature of the universe, the divine, the human soul, qualitative distinction between good and evil, how people should behave accordingly, and the ultimate means of salvation?
Oh, that's right, you believe everything is a freaking religion. My bad. Got you on your asinine hobby horse.
The central tenet that rubs you the wrong way the hardest is when religious people claim their isn't neutral ground and abdicate the modern position of deciding morality for themselves. Because you've put religious people in this nice little box (specifically western christians. Jews, muslims and non-westerners are exempt) where they should basically be just like you, and think the way you do 6.5 days out of the week. Sunday morning the unenlightened get to go to their town hall meetings and return right back to agreeing with you on every point of science, morality, and philosophy.
And doing anything more than that is grounds for 'everything is a freaking religion!'
Look, Jesus is real, your soul does not die, you've been deceived about being able to decide right and wrong, and your life is just an accumulation of things that rot and corrode and die. There is no cause for hope, love, justice, or salvation. Anything that looks like those virtuous things are just the vestiges of Christianity and Christian thought in your life. People who truly believe these things don't agree with a 6.5 days a week secularism/0.5 days a week christianity.
Everything is a freaking religion. Not picking one is still picking one.
Divine Liturgy is at 10, if you're in Houston you and whomever else is welcome to come.
Homo Religiosus meaning people by nature are religious.
Featured Stories
See All
LIVE from Reed Arena: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. Abilene Christian
by Richard Zane
A&M's season ends with microcosmic second-half collapse in Las Vegas
by Olin Buchanan
Learned, Loved, Loathed: USC 35, Texas A&M 31 (2024 Las Vegas Bowl)
by Olin Buchanan
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United