/lit/ - Literature

The heretics strike again

>implying Francis won't endorse this

#feast4jesus

Jesus Christ

surely this is a parody?

at least it isn't a church in macdonalds
#fast4jesus

>mfw

>>5791770
interesting. i remember when i first read the new testament i felt that when they talked about food sacrificed to idols that mcdonalds would fall under that category. however, if mcdonalds started giving out free hamburgers, like, you get max 5 free mcdoubles a day, in the name of Jesus, that'd be a win for charity.

>>5791770
At least they are actually producing something rather than just leeching of the income of their flock now.

jesus christ ain't die for this shit smh

If I didn't know better I would think that Americans are secretly trying to sabotage Christianity

>>5792082
combining religion and capitalism is the opposite of sabotaging. they're creating the ultimate opiate weapon

I'm non-religious, but I honestly don't get the hate that Protestantism gets (I was raised Roman Catholic, by the way). I mean, Roman Catholics are usually very unresponsive towards criticism of their religious claims. It's not even the spiritual claims that I have a problem with, but some of the claims they make about the start of their religion and the problems that Christianity dealt with (with concerns to sin, purpose of life, law, and general philosophy) are just very, very questionable. Catholicism in particular works a lot on demarginalizing and strawmanning the ideals of the Greek thinkers, the Jews, and the pagans. They draw conclusions to classical Greek problems without using any clear and sound methodology. They create problems that they claim Judaism has while ignoring the fact that many of their problems are actually not problems at all for Jews (this is mostly with concern to original sin, the impossibility of living a sin free life, et cetera). And this isn't just based on modern analysis of Jewish thought, you can clearly see that these were not problems that Israelites had. And finally they often like to bash paganism for their over obsession on ritual and very primal acts. Like sacrifices, offerings, worshiping physical objects, but Catholicism is very guilty of this, we have paintings of Saints everywhere, sculptures and paintings of Jesus, we also feel a physical connection made with the flesh and blood of Jesus (i.e. through crackers and wine), and yet the Catholic community takes the intellectual highground, that we're somehow more spiritual and less rooted into the world that we live in because of this. And not only this, but we say that this is a virtue, to separate religion from how we live in this physical realm.

Protestants may do stupid shit like build McDonald churches, but Catholicism has a lot of faults on its own.

>>5792195
you're confusing modern judaism for the judaism practiced in the time of Christ. Judaism has changed over the years as has christianity.

>>5792212
>you're confusing modern judaism for the judaism practiced in the time of Christ.
No, I'm a history major (I like biblical studies a lot though) and these weren't problems for them. Sin was not a problem. Imperfection was not a problem for them. This isn't even deniable or subjective in much any way, you can read their texts, look into the general history of early Jewish thought and see this. That's why I said this isn't even with relation to modern Jewish thought, this also applies specifically to the religion of the Israelites. Catholicism, and I guess Christianity in general, created a lot of problems that didn't exist, or at least weren't acknowledged. They had a system for dealing with sin and imperfection.

>>5791770
This is surreal. I cannot believe that this is genuine.

>>5792228
Large portions of the old Jewish text are prescriptions on how to act to avoid sin. Are you seriously trying to argue otherwise? If so then you're degree is worthless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2V7KbbfRHA

>typical protestant gathering

>>5792286
>Large portions of the old Jewish text are prescriptions on how to act to avoid sin.
This doesn't mean that being imperfect is a problem for them. They had means of Temple service to help forgive them of their previous sins, they had means of forgiveness and repentance to deal with other sins. They had courts to deliver retribution. It's not like they were just kind of always wondering what to do about those pesky sins they inadvertently or rashly do. They had institutions and spiritual means of repenting that they thought were adequate. This idea that the Jews just kind of sat around with a debt of sins, unknowing what to do with them is foolish.

>>5792297
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI

>>5792305
>They had means of Temple service to help forgive them of their previous sins

So like confession?

>>5792312
They had an organized body of priests that would help Jews do sacrifices to help atone for their sins. I'm not a Jew though, so I'm not sure how far this extends, but they have this holiday of repentance (called Yom Kippur) where they'd fast and offer sacrifices.

It's kind of like confession, but very Caananite oriented. You might disagree and say that it's foolish to think that sacrifices can atone for anything and that repentance can only come through explicit faith and such, but it's not like they didn't have a system for dealing with sin. They clearly did.

>>5792297
>typical catholic gathering

>>5792305
Such a huge part of their lives were specifically devoted to avoiding sin. Claiming that "sin wasn't a problem" because they had ways of pardoning them is inane. Especially given the exhaustive nature of it all. Christ's sacrifice is supposed to be the end of that way of life, it is the only sacrifice that the world needs. Christ's whole message was "things aren't working this way, I'm here to fix them"

>>5792319
What's that video of some Pope howling like a wolf? I can't find it anywhere

>>5792317
That they did is not up for discussion. You said "sin wasn't a problem for them". They're elaborate system of living in avoidance of and ways to forgive sins indicates it very much was.

If sin wasn't a problem nobody would have become Christian, the main argument of guys like Paul is to ease people's guilt
Everyone knew they were fucked and so they became Christians, it's the main reason why making people convert today by inane arguments doesn't work, like Lewis said you have to believe something is wrong in order to take the cure

The hippy version of Christianity is what happens when you think the world is a-okay and just add God to the mix

>>5792321
>Such a huge part of their lives were specifically devoted to avoiding sin.
That's with any religion though. You'd want to avoid doing immoral and unethical deeds. Doesn't mean that Christians, Muslims, and Jews are all trapped in sin. If they do something bad, they have a means of repentance.

>Claiming that "sin wasn't a problem" because they had ways of pardoning them is inane.
It's a problem in the sense that there needs to be solutions, but it wasn't a problem that they didn't deal with. They clearly had systems put into place to deal with sin to the point where you committed a sin, you could pretty much get forgiven for it.

>Christ's whole message was "things aren't working this way, I'm here to fix them"
They thought it worked fine though. Sins existed, they had a system for dealing with sin, and that was that. Same with Catholicism, you can commit a sin, you ask for repentance with a priest being necessary for closing the deal. Feel sorry, feel guilt, and then have the priest help with ultimately finishing the repentance. It's not really anything different, just that he helped fulfill the commandments that made even living a single hour into life rack up quite a few sins that one may not even account for. But it's not like Jews didn't understand this and thus not deal with it. They clearly did. As far as they were concerned, they had established institutions and methodologies that worked for them.

>>5792360
>They thought it worked fine though
Some did. A great many didn't and converted. Not to mention all the non-Jewish converts.

>>5792329
>You said "sin wasn't a problem for them".
As so far as Catholics go to say that they didn't know how to deal with it (thus needing faith in Christ to fulfill the commandments and so forth). Once there's a solution, the problem stops existing as a philosophical/intellectual thing. If I have a problem, losing my keys, and then I instill a solution, putting them into a bowl near my door, then it stops being a problem anymore, the solution took care of it. You can still reference the fact that I can lose the keys easily, but the solution makes the problem, for practical purposes, disappear.

>They're elaborate system of living in avoidance of and ways to forgive sins indicates it very much was.
Problems of sin exist for Jews as so far for Catholics as well, but they both have practical solutions. The main point that Catholics make is that Jews had no practical solution and that it was virtually impossible to deal with sin.

>>5792375
>The main point that Catholics make is that Jews had no practical solution
Raised Catholic and went to Catholic school until college. That is not what we were taught. We were taught Jews didn't have a lasting solution to sin, that Jesus' sacrifice put an end to the unnecessary rituals of Jewish life & avoidance, that it was the last sacrifice needed and through it all sins were forgiven.

Fucking americans. They have to turn everything into a fucking business for more "innovation".

Also, I think The Simpsons did something similar in a episode.

>>5792366
>Some did. A great many didn't and converted.
I can't honestly say how many did, I think the Catholic authorities exaggerate how much of a problem this was; but, at least from a point of historical and religious studies, they were a valid sect that ultimately broke off and gained a large number of converts from gentile populations. It wasn't so much that the Jews had a problem as it was the non-Jews. Roman religious thought was insanely problematic, hierarchical, and didn't place much hope for the peasants. And then Christianity comes along and gives them thoughts on afterlife, sound living, a reason to be a martyr. Romans saw how passionate the Christians were and many joined them. You can argue that a lot of this deals with political and class struggle, but it was largely a change in belief as well. Romans were tired of their pagan system and wanted something new and expansive outside of their Roman government.

>>5792401
When I was little and didn't know the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism it always confused me that Rev Lovejoy had a wife and kids.

>>5792412
For a long time in it's early history Christianity was simply thought of as another form of Judaism (Messianic Judaism I think). It was almost exclusively Jewish until the number of gentile converts became so great that the church fathers asked "hey should they adopt Judaism as well?" Stop trying to minimalize parts of early Christianity/Judaism to fit your narrative

>>5792394
I went to Catholic school until I ended middle school and I was taught roughly the same, thought here has always been an emphasis that the status quo didn't resolve the problem. Obviously the long lasting nature of Catholic repentance was important (with admittance of guilt and shame being necessary for formal repentance); but, as you said, a large amount of criticism were on the sacrifices and carnal nature of the Temple. Based on physical elements of meat and wheat and all that jazz. It's so "primitive" in some sense that it focuses on Earthly needs.

I mean, just look at this stained glass picture. You can see the dichotomies that the Church drew between Christian and Jewish beliefs. More particularly, look at how the Jewess holds the ram's head which emphasizes that the Jews are stuck in archaic methods of sacrifice.

At least protestantism doesn't engage in idolatry.

>>5792435
>Christianity was simply thought of as another form of Judaism (Messianic Judaism I think).
>For a long time
This isn't true. Paul took this problem head on, arguing that the Gospels should be spread to the gentiles. Whether or not he truly argued this or if it was another disciple is irrelevant because we can see that the early Christians had to deal with non-Jews fairly quickly. Jesus died, they thought that revelations would come, the end of days, blah blah, and that that'd be the end. And then years after Jesus died and the disciples were getting old they realized Jesus wasn't coming back anytime soon, so they expanded their recruitment campaign to help continue the faith.

> It was almost exclusively Jewish until the number of gentile converts became so great that the church fathers asked "hey should they adopt Judaism as well?" Stop trying to minimalize parts of early Christianity/Judaism to fit your narrative
The Christians got into Rome primarily through converts. This is something you're going to learn in History until 1650AD. And I don't even go to some fedora tipping university, this is standard material taught in a Jesuit school that I go to! I go to Loyola!

>>5792499
>comparing sacred art to idolatry

>>5792505
For a substantial amount of time. Long was improper and I apologize.

They didn't "get into Rome" through converts. Palestine was a Roman territory, part of the empire. Romans were actually pretty "good" about multiculturalism and a multicultural society.

>>5792522
>b-but it's sacred idolatry

nice golden calf

>>5792546
>muh idols
Just cut to the chase and go full "WHORE OF BABYLON!"

>>5792523
>They didn't "get into Rome" through converts. Palestine was a Roman territory, part of the empire. Romans were actually pretty "good" about multiculturalism and a multicultural society.

They were multicultural, of course! That's how they were so successful, they blended various pagan belief systems into their own, adding gods to their list. But they didn't like martyrs. The Romans fucking hated those pesky Christians preaching anti-government messages (not necessarily anarchical, but pretty close). And those Christians were not going to pray to some emperor as God, so they kept getting crucified and put into their place. Christianity was very disrupting for Roman government. There were secret churches in Rome itself. They banned Christianity.

>>5792572
We're 10 steps removed from the original point of discussion at this point.