The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

I haven't read the recent letter, but the dubia from the five cardinals accused Pope Francis of nothing. They simply pointed out—correctly—that certain parts of Amoris Laetitia were murky, and could be read as saying that Catholics in a material state of adultery could receive communion.

Now, if that's what Francis meant to say, that would be a seemingly direct contradiction of past Church teaching on the subject, and would raise several fundamental questions that would need to get settled ASAP. A couple of Maltese bishops said they believed that's exactly what Francis was hinting at, and were going to distribute Communion accordingly.

So the five archbishops wrote the dubia, asking, without copping any attitudes, if the Pope could please clear up that specific ambiguity. Since last year, Francis hasn't responded. Moreover, several of his loyalists have attacked the five authors in various articles for asking such a question. They say the passages' implications are perfectly clear ... even though they won't say what they are.

As for the recent letter: some of the signatories are notorious cranks & marginal figures whose opinion I mistrust highly; if the Tribune reporter is right, and they're outright accusing Francis of spreading heresy, then they're full of crap and should stay out of the news. But the issue that they're glomming onto is a serious one—one in which Francis has acquitted himself poorly and divisively.

The fee discussion reminds me of why I like having a state church, from what I understand I'm legally entitled to a burial in my local Church of England church, I don't have to have ever stepped foot in the place but they still have to bury me if it so desired.

Yep just checked, "every parishioner and inhabitant has the right of burial in the churchyard or burial ground of the parish in which (s)he resides.".

Hello,

I was in a debate online, and because of that I have a question for any Hellenistic Pagans hanging around- is it a standard part of the faith that the gods are axiomatically perfect and that attempting to critique or question that is hubris?

I saw that post. I think the guy on the other side was an ass.

Certainly wasnt true back in the day, as anyone with even passing familiarity with classic literature would know.

@Hellenistic Religion (which I will call "Hellenism"): God Is Flawed is so common in that Hellenism that it's practically the hat of that belief system. The Greeks saw their deities as sort of projections of humanity and the human condition as a whole.

It's essentially the Spiritual Antithesis of Zoroastrianism. There was no God of Evil or God of Good. Greek gods have motives similar to humans, and generally take turns between being Antiheroes and Antivillains. Zeus isn't a paragon. He isn't malevolent, but he's very deeply flawed. He does what you would do with the same power.

edited 5th Oct '17 12:27:46 PM by Protagonist506

You mean bang everything?

Exactly!

Neopaganism does often take a very Platonic approach to gods, combined with elements supposedly from the mystery cults. So Zeus or some other god would be considered a perfect representation of some spiritual principle, rather than a perfect being/person. Discovering these mysteries would require years of intense practice.

These things tend to be heavily dependent on the group though.

Following the Way of the Gods: Shintō Priest Florian Wiltschko, interview with the first foreigner to become a Shinto priest

I find it a bit odd that there's never been a work of fiction about Greek gods that delves more into Uranus/Ouranos, compared to Cronos. He's the closest the Greek pantheon has to a Greater-Scope Villain, as it was his abuse and decrying of his son's actions that caused history to repeat itself. Also, his actions must have contributed a lot to the Dysfunctional Family of the gods

That does seem odd, come to think of it, how often does the Titans in general get works about them and their contributions? It seems to be either about the Olympians or the demigod heroes.

The Titans had very limited though crucial roles. There was Prometheus and Epithemeus and the whole fire and Pandora's box. There was Helios who rode the chariot of the Sun.

Most of the rest? They existed only to be the Starter Villain the Olympians defeated.

Uranus was even more pathetic, since he was effectively Cronus's Starter Villain before he became a Fallen Hero due to paranoia.

The real Arch-Enemy the Olympians had to face throughout their mythology was arguably Gaia. The Olympians' eventual triumph could be seen as symbolic of civilization triumphing over nature.

edited 9th Nov '17 11:33:07 PM by M84

There was also Selene and Endymion. And given the nature of the myths it's always Selene rather than Artemis (whereas I have seen re-tellings of the story of Phaeton that replace Helios with Apollo).

I think part of it is the Greeks themselves were a little vague on the nature and actions of the Protogenoi. Possibly because after their overthrow by the Titans they no longer had that big an impact and it was so long ago that outside of creation stories they were no longer relevant.

Well, if you go by the ages of Man, things were nicer under them.

Is it O.K. for Christians to discuss/debate their beliefs here?

Uranus is literally emasculated by Cronus before the story begins. Also, pet peeve, that's not what Greater Scope Villain means. He's not some bigger, badder offscreen threat. The trope you're looking for is Predecessor Villain—the villain who came before the current one.

If anyone is the Greater-Scope Villain in Greek Mythology, it's Gaia.

Yes, it's in the thread's name, and the first post of a thread will usually give you an idea of what the scope is. But there's also this one...

edited 15th Nov '17 6:52:33 AM by CenturyEye

Uh, yes. Why wouldn't it be? We've been on a classical mythology jag for a bit, but... <points at the thread title>

We've discussed loads about the Abrahamic religions before now, including their possible connections to ancient kemetic philosophies.

edited 15th Nov '17 6:52:56 AM by Euodiachloris

I often post here about sermons I hear when I go to church, partially because they are different from the kind of sermons you normally hear about online.

I do it all the time. Go for it.

I went to a sermon last week where the preacher talked about the incident where Jacob's daughter was kidnapped and raped by another king (Shechem) and tried to bargain with the early Israelites to marry her. Jacob's sons basically said "yeah, get everyone circumcised and you can marry her" then, after Shechem did so they went in while everyone was still recovering and killed all the males in the village. Jacob was unhappy with how this might effect his family's PR.

He used it as an example of a situation where "everyone screwed up" and began talking at length about what to learn from this (as it applies to situations in a family where everyone screws up). However, I got in a debate with my family later on discussing it-their actions came across to me as pretty "fair for their day" at worst-and I don't read much from the passage that the writer thought they were in the wrong, either.

Church of Sweden to stop referring to God as 'he' or 'Lord'

Considering God is consistently referred to as "the Father" in Christian scripture, doesn't this change seem a bit... contradictory?

edited 24th Nov '17 8:59:55 AM by DrunkenNordmann

It's pointless and silly. If you do believe in the Bible, there is absolutely no indication that God is anything other than a man. This honestly seems like a move for the Church of Sweden to prove they are "progressive" and bring in young followers, but which will definitely fail.