Профиль

So I’m gonna be kind about this but the vibe you’re giving tells me you missed or skipped some pretty basic 20th c epistemological work and … maybe(?) you got a seminary education, back in the day? 60s-90s?

Okay but you continue to miss my point and I don’t see you trying

αἵρεσις means “choice,” and whether a statement of belief qualifies as αἵρεσις depends on the perspective of the one making the judgment

No, you’re not understanding. There is no “what everyone sees” — that’s a liberal conceit. It’s a viewpoint with a vintage, a time and a place. It’s a view that arrogates to itself a universal, God’s-eye standpoint

Back up to six fwiw and everything else is still true

TBD if Marie Glue sticks around

If you’ve never driven up or down that way, the 101. Or if you have

Neener

Actually I think it’s about basketball. And by basketball I mean the personal enrichment of one guy

May I have the full three minutes?

Further, while "shitty" has a negative valence, it has no content outside of a system of value. It can only ever be shitty-relative-TO; it can never be shitty-as-such. The as-such is the projection I was referencing above — assuming your values are common universal values

Conservative Evangelicalism is not my problem. Those aren't my people. They read the same Bible (ish) and reference Nicaea, sure, but that bloodlusty white white deity they're always wielding against their neighbors is not my God. They aren't simply being "shitty" — it's a different Christianity

Right by papering over those internal differences we let a JD Vance happen in the first place. Overlooking things, holding our tongues, pretending everything's the same, believing everything will work out for the best. Those differences continue to exist and we can point them out and talk about them

There are real and active differences among our beliefs about what Christianity is, and about what is and is not Christian, and there are ways of accounting for these differences, and we shouldn’t be shy about naming them and trying to explain them

Yeah I think it is, and I think the risk in underrepresenting it (e.g., to show our unity) is at our doorsteps: tiki torch parades and JD Vance in the name of Christ. We can trace the path from Jesus to Augustine and on to Hitler or Pope Leo, but not without drawing a few forks along the way

Politically pessimistic as I am, the pessimism of the AVT caps arg about floors me

Individual believers then (and I think naturally) project their personal beliefs onto their neighbors: “Nancy over here is taking communion; she believes in the Real Presence exactly like I do”; “Ralph hasn’t missed a Sunday and neither have I; obviously this man knows the Reich is imminent as I do”

My premise here is that “Christianity” as experienced by believing and/or practicing Christians is wildly diverse, even from one person to the next, and that common practices (like baptism) and articulations (the creeds) give a seamless sheen to this diversity

Yes, that was a core argument between synagogues, but Paul was already winning converts outside of Judaism and doing so well at it that we struggle to account for contemporary antisemitism without touching on the resulting Judaizing debates

I’m sympathetic here despite your assertion’s dependence on a universal or canonical definition of Christianity, which can only be asserted over the top of actually diverse beliefs and practices bsky.app/profile/dara...