@autisticarab A Christian can do a 40 day larp-fast in the desert in 1st century judean clothing, and its not a larp.
English
Humiliate Putin
4.1K posts
@autisticarab Christians don’t know what larper means, if pagans live normal lives, they are weirdos who larp as warriors, if pagans join the military and fight for their country they’re still larping somehow?
English
I think its very funny that "pagans" in the military now have to sit their ass down with someone who does actual research into religions and basically get told "you are a larper and don't actually know anything about paganism you retard"
polycarp ☨@Monocarp_
My humble submission of evidence in favor of the “everyone is 12 now” theory
English
@elordendelser @AmericaeHispano @Punki008 This is silly. It would prevent antique stoicism, antique platonism and even some forms of Hinduism from being considered polytheistic, even though practitioners worship a plurality of gods.
English
@AmericaeHispano @Punki008 Eso no es politeísmo, eso es compatible incluso con el cristianismo. Politeísmo es creer de verdad en una colección de personas con superpoderes que se entretienen con nosotros mientras se pelean, copulan, se enfadan, se aman, etc. Como el egipcio, griego, romano o nórdico.
Español
Esos Antiguos Dioses que nunca existieron. Y apuesto a que ninguno de estos neopaganos de X se baña en sagre de animales, les saca las vísceras y ofrecen al fuego ritual las primicias de cada banquete, como buenos paganos que dicen que son.
Español
@MJPETTY7 I suppose that’s a possible reading, but the passage could just as easily be nodding to the fact that the disciple who Jesus loved had to live a long time because the gospel was written late. That’s how I had always read it.
English
@HumiliateP75865 In Revelation, John is an old man on Patmos who has outlived the rest of the 12. Thus, that John 21 passage likely nods to the fact that (while he would die), the Lord had a specific job for him in writing Revelation.
Nothing like that is said about the other 12.
English
Well now I know we're not having a serious discussion because the author of the Gospel of John quite literally calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved."
We know this because John 21:24 reveals that the author is "this disciple."
Humiliate Putin@HumiliateP75865
@MJPETTY7 The idea that the beloved disciple who wrote the gospel of John and John son of Zebedee are the same person is based on an extra biblical tradition that I’m not willing to take at face value. So it is still not relevant.
English
@MJPETTY7 I’m not sure how you’re getting that from John 21:22. I guess it could mean that the disciples who Jesus loved was supposed to live a long time.
There are reasons to think that revelation and the gospel of John were not written by the same person.
English
@MJPETTY7 As early as the third century, you had people like Dionysius of Alexandria arguing that they couldn’t be the same person on philological grounds.
English
@MJPETTY7 These verses do demonstrate that the disciple who Jesus loved was one of the 12. But it doesn’t show which one of the 12. I’m not denying that the disciple who Jesus loved is both the author of the gospel of John and one of the 12. I’m not convinced that it’s John son of Zebedee.
English
@HumiliateP75865 Matthew 4:21 — John is called by Christ as one of the 12.
Matthew 26:20 and Luke 22:13-14 — the 12, the apostles, who reclined with Christ at the Last Supper.
John 13 — the Last Supper (v. 23 notes the "disciple whom Jesus loved")
John 21:24 identifies him as the author.
English
@MJPETTY7 Historically, the first person to assert this was Irenaeus, writing around 180 CE in his work Against Heresies.
English
@MJPETTY7 Yes. The author of the gospel of John calls himself the disciple who Jesus loved. How do you know that the disciple that Jesus loved is the same person as John son of Zebedee?
English
@MJPETTY7 The idea that the beloved disciple who wrote the gospel of John and John son of Zebedee are the same person is based on an extra biblical tradition that I’m not willing to take at face value. So it is still not relevant.
English
@HumiliateP75865 Also, the John statement is not irrelevant. We may be talking about Paul specifically, but even he notes that he met with Peter, James, and John in Galatians 2, with them all being of the same mind toward the gospel (but with different emphasis).
The early Church was consistent.
English
Believing the Trinity IS required for Christianity because the Triune Christian God is One. Paul undoubtedly affirms this throughout his epistles.
Romans 3:30
1 Corinthians 8:6
2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14
Galatians 3:20; 4:4-6
1 Timothy 1:17
Humiliate Putin@HumiliateP75865
@LibertyEthics Is believing in the Trinity is a requirement for Christianity than the apostle Paul must not have been a Christian.
English
@MJPETTY7 1. Authors other than Paul are not relevant because we are talking about Paul.
2. He says Christians have one God and one lord, but I have one mother and one father they are not the same person. Do not let the capitalization of Lord fool you. The word just means lord in Greek.
English
@batboysagogo @lukeisamazing Yeah, but we know most of the elite in society were highly religious because they wrote things and we can tell they were highly religious. The important characters in Game of Thrones are elites who should be highly religious, but aren’t.
English
@HumiliateP75865 @lukeisamazing We don’t know if some people were neutral on religion, because we didn’t have the ability to be in peoples’ heads.
Also, most people weren’t writing their thoughts on religion.
English
the issue overly religious ppl have with how Martin handles religion is that there are no kid gloves and it’s presented as a coldly political organ, which is absolutely how people at the top handled it in our reality, while fundamentalists are treated as psychos, which is correct
Milan Busk@KarolusWangus
GRRM's problem -and they almost all do this- is that he can't imagine a world where religion is taken seriously. Every single "educated" person in his work sneers at the idea. This is not how things worked, historically.
English
@batboysagogo @lukeisamazing Yeah, but we’re comparing Westrose to medieval Europe, where basically no one was neutral on religion.
English
@HumiliateP75865 @lukeisamazing —being mostly neutral on their religion doesn’t actually speak to anything outside of “we’re not following the religious characters.”
English
@AndrewPaulWood @arjuna_uvaacha @real_mahalingam There’s a difference between failing to live up to your religion and not acting as though you believe it at all. The characters in Game of Thrones don’t act like they believe in their religion at all.
English
@HumiliateP75865 @arjuna_uvaacha @real_mahalingam The entire history of Europe consists of nobody actually acting like they believe in their own religion.
English
A problem with fantasy works, even with well-built worlds (e.g. GoT) is inability to take religion seriously.
There is a clear normative sense of who the "good" guys are, but as though the society depicted itself completely lacks any self-awareness of such goodness.
English
@batboysagogo @lukeisamazing OK touché. What I should’ve said is that most of the important characters do not act like they believe their own religion.
English
@HumiliateP75865 @lukeisamazing If “almost nobody in the setting” (your words) gaf about the Seven *that plot point would not exist*.
English
@TNIOU2 @TheIronWarden The Talmud feels more like reading a Reddit board than like reading a unified text. one part of it will say it’s better to die than to speculate about what happened before creation and then a few pages later they’ll be five pages of speculation about what happened before creation
English
@TNIOU2 @TheIronWarden What Crusader larpers think the Talmud is : Step by step guide on how to destroy the Goyim.
What it actually is : Rabbi Joestein debates Rabbi Bobowitz about whether they should stand or kneel during prayer for 200 pages. This somehow divides their community into five sects.
English
