#Theologian of the German Protestant Church | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

officialyourdailyinspiration · 5 months

Text

Argula von Grumbach: Mother Courage of the Reformation

Martin Luther’s re-discovery of the Scriptural concept of the priesthood of all believers encouraged women to get more involved in the Reformation.

Argula von Grumbach (1492–1554) was the Reformation's first woman writer. Although It was not initially her intent to be a pamphleteer, von Grumbach was upset that an 18-year old student at Ingolstadt University in Bavaria, who she had known, had been forced to recant his Protestant beliefs or die. So she wrote a flaming letter challenging the theologians at the university to a public debate.

She was livid, “My heart and all my limbs tremble,“ she wrote. “How in God’s name can you and your university expect to prevail, when you deploy such foolish violence against the word of God….You may imagine that you can defy God, cast down his prophets and apostles from heaven, and banish them from the world. This shall not happen….neither the pope, nor the Kaiser, not the princes have any authority over the Word of God. You need not think you can pull God, the prophets and the apostles out of heaven with papal decretals drawn from Aristotle, who was not a Christian at all. . . . I would be willing to come and dispute with you in German.”

“Von Grumbach’s challenge was unheard of. Theologians didn’t lower themselves to debate with lay people, and still less with women, not to mention in German rather than Latin,” said biographer Peter Matheson. “They tried to ignore her, but friends had her letter to them published by the new medium of the time: the printing press. Publishers all over Germany and into Switzerland then raced to reprint it, no less than 15 times. It was a huge sensation: a mere woman challenging a university! “She continued to write pamphlets for several years afterward. She felt compelled to make a stand. “I cannot see any man who is up to it, who is either willing or able to speak,” she said, “I claim for myself Isaiah 3: ‘I will send children to be their princes; and women, or those who are womanish, shall rule over them.” The public enjoyed hearing Reformation ideas from her simple language and from a woman’s perspective.

With Luther’s Biblical stance on the priesthood of the believer, she could boldly challenge the authorities. “What doctor [of theology] could be so learned that his vow is worth more than mine? The Spirit of God is promised to me as much as to him. As God says in Joel 2: “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy.”

She worked to bring the Zwingli and Lutheran parties together and was in correspondence with Luther and several key reformers. According to Mattheson, evangelical churches in little rural villages in Franconia, Germany, still trace their foundation back to her.

God’s spirit is within you, read, Is woman shut out, there, indeed? While you oppress God’s word, Consign souls to the devil’s game I cannot and I will not cease To speak at home and on the street. – Argula von Grumbach

9 notes · View notes

hedgewitchgarden · 5 months

Text

Not only is the term "Judeo-Christian" inaccurate, it's also antisemitic and Islamophobic.

The idea of Judeo-Christianity, and “Judeo-Christian values,” is a relatively new one, borne out of World War II and the Cold War. It is a term that has been adapted by many Christians and American political leaders in an attempt to talk about the “shared values” between the Jewish and Christian religions — but in reality, it erases Jewishness and excludes people of other faith backgrounds, particularly Muslims.

Why are we talking about it now?

On November 29, Dr. David Samadi, a contributor to the conservative Newsmax network, tweeted, “Our churches must reopen. We need to pray at this time of the year. It is the holiest time in the Judeo-Christian calendar. If we can have Walmart, Cotsco, liquor stores, strip clubs and supermarkets we can have churches.”

Quickly, many pointed out that the “Judeo-Christian calendar” is absolutely not a thing. Hanukkah, which is what we can assume he was referring to, is not the holiest time of the year for Jews — that’s reserved for a period called the “High Holidays” (also called the “High Holy Days,” the 10 days spanning Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). Also, Jews notably use a lunar calendar rather than the Gregorian solar one; it’s kind of our whole deal.

Soon, many began to point out not only is the term “Judeo-Christian” inaccurate, but has antisemitic roots, as well. Let’s get into it, shall we?

Where did the term Judeo-Christian come from?

Before the 20th century, there was no conception of Judeo-Christianity, especially in the United States. In the 1930s, it became a political term. We’ll get to that in a second, but first it’s important to note that the term Judæo Christian actually first referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.

It was first used in a letter from Reverend Alexander McCaul, a guy who is known for being a missionary to the Jews. (Aiming to specifically convert Jews: antisemitic!) Here’s what he writes:

“From all I can see there is but one way to bring about the object of the Society, that is by erecting a Judæo Christian community, a city of refuge, where all who wish to be baptized could be supplied with the means of earning their bread.”

Baptizing Jews, oof.

But that is not how the term is really understood today, so let’s move on…

How did Judeo-Christian emerge as a political term in the United States?

It all started in the 1930s with the rise of Hitler in Germany. As historian James Loeffler notes in The Atlantic, “A European émigré, the German liberal theologian Paul Tillich, was among the first to use the phrase, warning in 1933 that the ‘Protestant church in Germany has on the whole fallen under the spell of Hitlerism … [the] Jewish-Christian tradition [must fight] totalitarianism.'”

After the United States entered World War II in 1941, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” really took off. And Judeo-Christianity, the idea that Jewish and Christian traditions hold sacred similar values and traditions, came to define America itself and its global responsibility. Historian Jonathan Sarna writes in American Judaism: A History that interfaith groups popularized the term to define America in “more inclusive religious terms” so as to combat antisemitism and anti-Catholicism. The term was meant to include America’s “three faiths”: Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, and became a way to signal a fight against fascism.

But when the phrase really took off was after World War II, in the context of the Cold War. The Cold War, for those who are unfamiliar, was the period of tension/rivalry/sometimes actual war between the U.S. and its allies and the Soviet Union from around 1947 to 1991. The U.S. viewed it as a fight between democracy and communism.

Alright, tell me about “Judeo-Christianity” and the Cold War.

In the context of the Cold War, American leaders used the concept of a shared religious heritage to define America’s role in the world.

For President Harry Truman and other American leaders, the Cold War became a fight between freedom of faith and democracy versus “Godless” communism. Truman, then, recognized that appealing to vague religious values would unite America against its Cold War enemies, because, as he said in his 1948 State of the Union Address, “We are a people of faith.” (Notably, when Truman talked about “faith”, it didn’t exactly include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Native Americans, or the many other religious/faith groups that made up — and still make up! — the United States.)

Under the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the idea of “Judeo-Christianity” became fully enmeshed in American political discourse. Judeo-Christian values, Eisenhower asserted, guided America in its mission to spread liberty, democracy, peace, and tolerance. In Eisenhower’s own words, from 1952: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal.”

On the flip side, in a 1954 letter, Eisenhower actually cautioned his brother against the term “Judaic-Christian” heritage: “You speak of the ‘Judaic-Christian heritage.’ I would suggest that you use a term on the order of ‘religious heritage’—this is for the reason that we should find some way of including the vast numbers of people who hold to the Islamic and Buddhist religions when we compare the religious world against the Communist world.”

Yet, he did not do so publicly. American leaders — Truman, Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy — invoked the idea of Judeo-Christianity during the early Cold War to unify Americans behind the mission of defending freedom and democracy worldwide.

And, fun fact, this directly ties into the history of America’s relationship with Israel, which you can read all about here.

How did the term evolve?

Well, it quickly began to be used by all sides of the political spectrum.

In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1963:

One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Judeo-Christianity became a shorthand to signal morality, godliness, anti-communism, democracy, and more.

Soon, Judeo-Christianity became a way of Christianity to absorb Judaism in a way, erasing the very real differences that keep the two religions separate.

As Warren Zev Harvey notes in “The Judeo-Christian Tradition’s Five Others,” “The liberal ecumenical campaign on behalf of the term ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ was successful in the United States beyond all expectations. Indeed, for many Jews, it was too successful. Far too successful! The differences between Judaism and Christianity were being forgotten. Judaism was beginning to be seen as a Christian sect that had one or two idiosyncrasies — like preferring the menorah to the Christmas tree, or the matzah to the Easter egg.”

Say it with us: Not Great. Soon, the very progressives who championed the use of the term a decade earlier as a means for Jewish inclusion in mainstream American culture began to campaign against it.

Notably, Arthur Cohen’s 1969 essay, “The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition,” became a key document in refuting the idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” (You can read his full essay here, in Commentary Magazine.) Cohen writes, simply: “The Judeo-Christian tradition is a construct… What is omitted is the sinew and bone of actuality, for where Jews and Christians divide, divide irreparably, is that for Jews the Messiah is yet to come and for Christians he has already come. That is irreparable.”

But the term had already gained ground.

How is “Judeo-Christian” used in modern times?

After the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, “Judeo-Christian” became an Islamophobic dogwhistle.

Let’s run through some examples, shall we?

In 2002, the prominent evangelist Franklin Graham said, “The god of Islam is not the same god of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different god, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion.”

This isn’t true: As one of the Abrahamic religions (which includes Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the same God that revealed himself to Abraham in the Hebrew Bible.

In 2006, Republican representative Virgil Goode wrote an op-ed in USA Today titled “Save Judeo-Christian values,” decrying Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison’s decision “to use the Quran in connection with his congressional swearing-in.” He writes, “I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.”

Your Islamophobia is showing, Virgil.

The term is not exclusive to the U.S., nor solely used in an anti-Muslim backlash to 9/11; right-wing British politician Nigel Farage, for example, said in 2015 following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, “We’re going to have to be a lot braver and a lot more courageous in standing up for our Judeo-Christian culture.”

What about the Trump administration and “Judeo-Christianity”?

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” President Trump said in October 2017. “We’re saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.” I don’t have to point out the irony here that Christmas is not a Jewish holiday, do I?

Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, “has for some time been an evangelist for ‘the Judeo-Christian West,'” an article in the National Catholic Reporter notes. Bannon, remember, co-founded the far-right news platform Breitbart. As Bannon told the Economist in 2017, “I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won.”

As Beth Daley wrote in the Conversation at the time of Trump’s 2017 speech, Trump’s “‘Judeo-Christian values’ are about protecting Christmas, and about protecting Christians – at the exclusion of others… It seems, then, that the idea of Judeo-Christian values excludes both Jews and Muslims. The phrase tacitly excludes Jews by subsuming Judaism into Christianity, and it explicitly excludes Muslims in its use in anti-immigration rhetoric.”

Well said.

What about some tweets on the topic?

Well, since you asked…

just a reminder, too, that "Judeo-Christian" isn't a thing and was invented by Christians in cold war time in order to assert Christian hegemony. — Dianna E. Anderson (@diannaeanderson) November 29, 2020

“Christian” thought leaders only invoke “Judeo” when they are up to some shady shit. — Michael Green (@andmichaelgreen) November 29, 2020

Tl;dr?

Judeo-Christian values was a political term invented to unify Americans against “godless” communism during the Cold War, and has more recently been weaponized against both Muslims and Jews. It’s not a real thing. Bye!

#religion #us politics #political terms #weaponized terms

4 notes · View notes

nordleuchten · 1 month

Text

Brautbriefe Zelle 92

I am currently reading the Brautbriefe, the “bridal letters” or love letters and correspondence between German Pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his young fiancée Maria von Wedemeyer and … they are so very touching and sweet as they are, but knowing all that we know today, knowing how their story ended, they are even more touching and at times quite painful to read.

Bonhoeffer was a member of the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church), a movement within in the church in Germany at the time who opposed the attempts of the Nazis to lump all protestant churches together to one large, Nazi approved and approving church. (That is a very short summary, and I would highly recommend you do some reading if this topic interests you. The resistance and compliance within the church at the time and the differing theological views are quite interesting.) Bonhoeffer was involved in the civil resistance against the Nazi regime and arrested 1943 for a number of more or less vague charges. He was executed on April 9, 1945, at the expressed command of Hitler at a time when everybody knew that the Nazi cause was lost, at a time when every death was even more senseless than before, because there was no changing the outcome of the war.

To this day he is one of the most revered theologists of his time in Germany, valued not only for his theological writings but also for his ethics.

Today, he is maybe best known for a poem turned song that he wrote on December 19, 1944 in his prison cell as a Christmas present for his young fiancée Maria and their parents and siblings. It a deep expression of faith and hope and trust in God: Von guten Mächten wunderbar geborgen.

youtube

#dietrich bonhoeffer #maria von wedemeyer #1943 #1944 #1945 #youtube #von guten mächten wunderbar geborgen #history #german history #siegfried fietz #bekennende kirche #ns history #maundy thursday #i felt the song and story quite fitting for today #Youtube

2 notes · View notes

mingzisdrgongxuo · 6 months

Text

Mayflower - Wikipedia

Mayflower was an English ship that transported a group of English families, known today as the Pilgrims, from England to the New World in 1620. After a grueling 10 weeks at sea, Mayflower, with 102 passengers and a crew of about 30, reached what is today the United States, dropping anchor near the tip of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, on November 21 [O.S. November 11], 1620.

Differing from their contemporaries, the Puritans (who sought to reform and purify the Church of England), the Pilgrims chose to separate themselves from the Church of England, which forced them to pray in private. They believed it was beyond redemption due to its resistance to reform and Roman Catholic past. Starting in 1608, a group of English families left England for the Netherlands, where they could worship freely. By 1620, the community determined to cross the Atlantic for America, which they considered a "new Promised Land", where they would establish Plymouth Colony.[1]: 44

The Pilgrims had originally hoped to reach America by early October using two ships, but delays and complications meant they could use only one, Mayflower. Arriving in November, they had to survive unprepared through a harsh winter. As a result, only half of the original Pilgrims survived the first winter at Plymouth. If not for the help of local indigenous peoples to teach them food gathering and other survival skills, all of the colonists might have perished. The following year, those 53 who survived[2] celebrated the colony's first fall harvest along with 90 Wampanoag Native American people,[3] an occasion declared in centuries later the first American Thanksgiving.[4] Before disembarking the Mayflower, the Pilgrims wrote and signed the Mayflower Compact, an agreement that established a rudimentary government, in which each member would contribute to the safety and welfare of the planned settlement. As one of the earliest colonial vessels, the ship has become a cultural icon in the history of the United States.[5]

Motivations for the voyage

See also: Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) § History

A congregation of approximately 400 English Protestants living in exile in Leiden, Holland, were dissatisfied with the failure of the Church of England to reform what they felt were many excesses and abuses. But rather than work for change in England (as other Puritans did), they chose to live as Separatists in religiously tolerant Holland in 1608. As separatists, they were considered illegal radicals by their home country of England.[6]

The government of Leiden was recognized for offering financial aid to reformed churches, whether English, French or German, which made it a sought-after destination for Protestant intellectuals.[1]: 17 Many of the separatists were illegal members of a church in Nottinghamshire, England, secretly practicing their Puritan form of Protestantism. When they learned that the authorities were aware of their congregation, church members fled in the night with little more than the clothes they were wearing, and clandestinely made it to Holland.[1]: 18

in Holland became increasingly difficult for the congregation. They were forced into menial and backbreaking jobs, such as cleaning wool, which led to a variety of health afflictions. In addition, a number of the country's leading theologians began engaging in open debates which led to civil unrest, instilling the fear that Spain might again place Holland's population under siege, as it had done years earlier.[6] England's James I subsequently formed an alliance with Holland against Spain, with a condition outlawing independent English church congregations in Holland.[1]: 26 In aggregate, these became the separatists' motivating factors to sail for the New World, which would have the added benefit of being beyond the reach of King James and his bishops.[6]

Their desire to travel to America was considered audacious and risky, as previous attempts to settle in North America had failed. Jamestown, founded in 1607, saw most of its settlers die within the first year. 440 of the 500 new arrivals died of starvation during the first six months of winter.[6] The Puritan separatists also learned of the constant threat of attacks by indigenous peoples.[6] But despite all the arguments against traveling to this new land, their conviction that God wanted them to go held sway: "We verily believe and trust the Lord is with us," they wrote, "and that he will graciously prosper our indeavours, according to the simplicity of our hearts therein."[6][7]

Because they thought the UK sucked that bad. They decided they would take their chances sailing across the northern Atlantic Ocean on a wooden boat, to go be homeless in an unknown and unexplored world and live in the dirt and die in the dirt and build our lives back up to our own country from those who survived the north American fBritish.

Because fuck the british.

And fuck going back to correct YOUR SHITFINGER ON MY WORK in the north American frontier.

It's symbolic huh, fucking black sabbath mr. Crowley- brained fucking loser.

How many of you are still taught about the mayflower in school when you are between 8 and 9 years old?

Because we beat their fucking ass. That's why.

It didn't ask when our country was founded and won our independence and their banishment of the UK from the United States through war.

It asked "when did they leave the UK"?

November 21, 1620.

Thanksgiving. (United States holiday honoring the survival of the first year's seasons in North America, after leaving the UK forevah! )

See above mayflower article that got second billing and smokescreened in the screenshots of google.

What's the birth of England or the United Kingdom and the territory they occupy look like, ignoramus?

Fact checking bitch. Don't worry about my "political career" that will never happen and worry about your own.

You know, like stop giving me reasons to bring up cocaine addicts or cocaine and meth dealers that I think you care more about protecting them, or your own guilt, than protecting me.

5 notes · View notes

lesewut · 8 months

Text

It is the time of the Reformation. For years, the philologist, theologian and humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam has been working on a Greek-Latin edition of the New Testament. In 1516, before Luther posted his theses, Erasmus published the edition, which Luther used for his German translation.

Erasmus of Rotterdam enjoys a high reputation in the scholarly world, Luther also admired him and wanted to have such a learned man as Erasmus on his side and they also shared certain criticisms, such as the papacy, their skepticism of scholastic theology, the doctrine of the sacraments, the cult of ceremonies and relics. Both are against the sale of indulgences, because "you just can not buy heaven." It is said that Erasmus laid the eggs that Luther hatched.

But Erasmus tries to remain relatively neutral, he is of the opinion that Luther's "storming and pushing" is counterproductive and that one can only improve the world with patience and restraint, he takes Jesus as an example. Erasmus does not see himself as a people's tribune, but as a representative and defender of science and repeatedly emphasizes that he would have placed himself in the service of science. Through his attitude, he wants to help the bonae litterae to bloom again. He criticizes the general contempt for schools and education and calls for more meaningful studies. But Erasmus of Rotterdam is not alien to life and also knows that most things cannot be changed so quickly because they are so stuck. Real change takes time and consistency, it needs good arguments that are well thought out and not brusquely fed by a feeling. A healthier approach to science is needed, because this tragedy arose from the fear of science and the stupidity of the monks. Because what you don't understand, you want to suppress and destroy, so that the Church "can undisturbed rule with their barbarism".

This Erasmus-Attitude can also be found in his famous work "In Praise of Folly". This satirical writing began when Rotterdam wrote a letter of dedication in 1498 to More, who was twenty years old at that time. The Latin title "Stultitiae Laus" or "Moriae Encomium" is a play on words, because the Greek word moría means "folly".

The writing style is compared to Lucian, a supreme irony alien to any didactics, averse to any moralization. It is said that Erasmus wanted to distract himself from the power struggles in the church with this writing and to motivate himself by dealing with a humorous topic. Half seriously, half jokingly, a philosophy of life is praised and Horace's saying "dulce est decipere in loco" is used as the principle of the world view.

It is not surprising, that this work is one of the most important of the Renaissance era and supported the Protestant Reformation to a large extent.

This edition is a facsimile of the Leipzig edition from 1781 and was published in 1918. Numerous engravings by Holbein adorn the book and depict the eulogy of the goddess of foolishness.

"If no one wants to introduce me," says the goddess of folly, almost snippy, "then I have to eulogize myself!"

And the goddess tells about her origin. About her father Pluto “who mixed all things holy and unholy together.” And her mother Methe, the fairest and liveliest of the nymphs. Her milk nurse is said to be the daughter of Bacchus and the carefree Apedia, who herself is descended from Pan. She even explains why the goddess of foolishness had to be a woman by saying that women would find all their pleasure in foolishness. The pair of opposites wisdom and foolishness runs through the entire text, sometimes to represent the "real wisdom" in foolishness and sometimes to represent the "most foolish foolishness" in wisdom.

“For if by chance some woman wishes to be thought of as wise, she does nothing but show herself twice a fool.”

Without her is no life and no love, because basically everything is based on the fact that man is foolish and that foolishness is something all too human. Folly favors love, which is itself more or less the result of projections and desires. And from whom else could one get the beginning of one's life and love than from the Goddess of Folly herself? This also explains the phenomenon why more intelligent people or people who consider themselves wiser than others, have fewer children: Because nature arranges it in such a way that these dry souls, who break their eyes with the night lamp, are also less fertile.

"Jupiter has mingled in a pound of passion scarcely an ounce of reason."

For whoever renounces passion, who is constantly at war with physical things, not only enjoys life more, he almost disappears from it. The goddess of foolishness explains this to us with the Latin word “de vita”, which means “away from life” as well as “avoid”. So every renunciation is not only hostile to life, one departs alive from life, since one fights stiffly against what could bring one refreshment. That is why the philosophers, especially the Stoics, are described as arch-fools, they are "more foolish than fools", in truth their wisdom is only folly and they disfigure themselves with the "paint of virtue". The deity of folly demands:

"Away with wisdom if you want to enjoy life!"

And points out that the heart of the wise is with sadness, and with their wisdom they only make themselves hated and suspect.

“But who are they that for no other reason but that they were weary of life have hastened their own fate? Were they not the next neighbors to wisdom? among whom, to say nothing of Diogenes, Xenocrates, Cato, Cassius, Brutus, that wise man Chiron, being offered immortality, chose rather to die than be troubled with the same thing always.”

But she was also the begetter of wisdom and faith, for out of her tottering and ridiculous play the philosophers emerged "in whose place are now those who were used to be called monks."

The clergy are scathingly criticized by the goddess, and the vaunted "Christian bliss" is portrayed as a kind of delusion. There are even "no fools more stupid than those in whom the flames of Christian piety burn brightly." The symbol of the lamb was not chosen in vain, the animal was not famous even in Aristotle's time. The tree of knowledge should be interpreted as proof that knowledge works like poison in our spirit and that the consumption of the forbidden fruit was not forbidden for nothing. The goddess of foolishness emphasizes that God's foolishness is better than human wisdom, and numerous passages from the Bible are interwoven to make it even clearer that man really does not and will not possess wisdom.

It is amazing how directly and critically Erasmus expresses his criticism here, his attitude is also clear in the Pope's criticism:

"As if there were more pernicious enemies of the church than ungodly popes, who by their silence let Christ be destroyed, bind him by selfish laws, profane him by forced interpretation, kill by a poisoned life. The Christian Church is begotten, strengthened and expanded by blood. Now, as if there were no Christ to protect his own in his own way, his cause is being pursued through the Shear. There is something so inhuman about war that it should be left to the wild beasts.”

With the most diverse human appearances in this world, the goddess shows how we often think we are wise and actually are fools. How we actually unlearn life, laughter and dally, both sources of youth and freshness, and become shy and unable to act. Foolishness favors friendships, it inspires writers and poets, money and fortune fly to fools and the owl of Minerva would prefer the fool one more. Without folly there is no art, no heroes and love can never mature.

"The wise man stays like the sun, the fool changes like the moon."

Through the moon we understand human nature, through the sun we understand God. So we shouldn't deceive ourselves and think we're clever, but enjoy life through silliness and not lose ourselves in high spheres that ultimately make us unhappy and sad because we, as human beings, are too limited to fully understand them .

Fools have a special privilege "to speak things that do not annoy one out of their mouths." Why is the fool the king's closest adviser? Why does his clothing resemble that of the king, down to the scepter and jester cap?

“A remarkable thing happens in the experience of my fools: from them not only true things, but even sharp reproaches, will be listened to; so that a statement which, if it came from a wise man's mouth, might be a capital offense, coming from a fool gives rise to incredible delight. Veracity, you know, has a certain authentic power of giving pleasure, if nothing offensive goes with it; but this the gods have granted only to fools.”

Likewise, people should not complain of their lot, the Scythian, who wishes to be a citizen of the blessed Land of Cockaigne, would have to come to terms with their meager existence. Children shouldn't grow up too fast "that's suspicious and unpopular". It is far more important to laugh "from which everything draws life" than learn "that Pythagorean Quaternio." The old folks are transformed by the Goddess of Folly, who leads the old to the spring of Lethe so that they can drink the drink of oblivion. The high age is compared to childhood, except that "second childhood is preferable to first childhood". The older a person is, the closer he is to childhood. Unwise dalliance brings amusement and foolish babble, relieves the mind of grief, makes us human, as Dostojevky wonderfully summarizes:

„Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms. It’s by talking nonsense that one gets the truth! I talk nonsense, therefore I’m human.”

The archetype of the folly (and trickster) is also playing a big part in Jungian therapy for healing. As long as we lock ourselves from this juvenile spirit of joy, we can not touch our "Fisherking's wound" and get more depressive and unhappy. In Medieval and Rennaissance times, particularly in European courts, the concept of a fool was to serve the King as a truth-teller. The fact that the fool stood outside society, was certainly of great importance, as it allowed him to express concerns or offer advices without restrictive convention and politeness. During my researches, (inquiries into folly since may, has become a work for life), I've found a very interesting statement of Foucault in his work "Madness and Society", where he describes, that in the epoch of rationalism, craziness or madness (which can be considered as a characteristic of the fool) is not a illness, but a social construct, which was invented by psychiatry, to exclude or control deviant or undesirable people. Foucault claims that in the Age of Reason madness lost its original meaning as an expression of existence or resistance and was instead treated as an object of science and power. In the near future I will present further literary examples on the subject of foolishness. Among them I'm planning "The Idiot" by Dostoyevsky (Focus: why is the idiot "more human" than the others?) , "Don Quixote" (Focus: Living in a dream or dying of reality? Why I think that this book is one of the saddest + the danger of literature by feeding inadequate ideas, which lead to hunger for life and longing for phantastic adventures) and the legend of "Parsifal" (Main Topic: The fool represents the restoration of spiritual and physical harmony and the renewal of the kingdom, the symbol behind the wound of the Fisherking). Also, an extensive Jung contribution will explain the psychological meaning behind the archetype and I try to extract more examples from religion that illustrate the connection between madness and holiness. I want to end with a joke by Nasreddin Hoca (~ 13th century), who is the oldest and most famous satirist of Turkey. His stories often has a subtle humour and a pedagogic nature, turning unbelievable explanations ad absurdum.

„At dinner time, Nasreddin finds no meat on the table. He asks his wife, "What happened to the meat?" His wife replies, "The cat ate it." Nasreddin breezes into the kitchen, puts the cat on the scales, and discovers the cat to be weighing three pounds. Nasreddin quizzically questions the result, "If the meat I brought home weighed three pounds, then, where is the cat? And, if this happens to be the cat, then what happened to the meat?"

6 notes · View notes

apenitentialprayer · 2 years

Note

What is the Catholic Church's opinion or stance on the 1500's controversy about translating the Bible into common languages? I know they eventually came to accept translations, otherwise there wouldn't be multiple Catholic translations today. But do they hold to the belief that those who attempted to translate it in the Protestant reformation were in error, or do they teach that the Catholic Church leaders who tried to suppress translations were in error? Or something in between?

Yeah, this is a super complicated history, and I'm glad you're coming understanding that it is complicated. I feel less comfortable talking about the Church as it stands today on this issue, but we can talk about the nuances of the Catholic translation controversy as it unfolded over the course of the Reformation.

First, there is a tendency these days to claim that the Catholic Church was unilaterally against translations of the Bible into the vernacular language as a way of forcing reliance upon the Catholic hierarchy. This is a sketchy idea at best, because (i) we have prominent Catholic theologians who were publishing Biblical passages and paraphrases in the vernacular centuries before Wycliffe wrote his translation, and (ii) the fact that we have so many instances of folk retellings of Biblical stories implies that the laity were fairly familiar with the contents of Scripture, even if they couldn't read the Scriptures themselves.

But, speaking of Wycliffe, we see the raison d'être for the hostility towards these specific translations with him. Namely, the translation almost immediately became associated with the Lollards, a proto-Protestant group that militantly denied several Catholic teachings, using the vernacular translation of the Bible as justification for these differences. This criticism extended to Martin Luther's vernacular German translation, which includes some interesting interpretations of the text (including the infamous addition of "alone" to the phrase "man is justified by faith [alone], apart from works of the law"). The same is true of the Tyndale Bible, which included explicitly anti-Catholic translation choices and footnote-based commentary.

The point I'm trying to get across is that the Church was not opposed to the translation of the text into vernacular in and of itself; in 1408, for example, the Catholic response to the Wycliffe Bible was that no new translations into English were to be produced without approval of the Church, on penalty of being charged with heresy. Yet, in 1582, Catholic scholars were producing a translation of the English Bible that finally reached completion a year before the King James Version was fully published.

I hope it's clear that the Catholic Church's use of vernacular translation before, after, and even during the Protestant Reformation problematizes the claim that the Church was against vernacular translation in and of itself; rather, it was a reaction to historical circumstance in which translations of the text (in ways deemed by the Church to be incorrect) were considered dangerous. Now, that does not necessarily make people feel better or more sympathetic to the Church about this issue. But it is important to understand that the Church was not trying to keep the laity in ignorance, but rather sought to limit translations that it saw as deficient, as well as combat what it saw as a challenge to its right to definitively interpret Scripture.

#asks #Christianity #Catholicism #Scripture #translation #Protestant Reformation

47 notes · View notes

news-wtf · 11 months

Text

The chatbot, initially personified as a bearded man with a fixed expression and monotone voice, addressed the audience by proclaiming, “Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year’s convention of Protestants in Germany.”

The unusual service took place as part of a convention called Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag (German Evangelical Church Congress), an event held biennially in Germany that draws tens of thousands of attendees. The service, which included prayers and music, was the brainchild of Jonas Simmerlein, a theologian and philosopher from the University of Vienna. Simmerlein told the Associated Press that the service was "about 98 percent from the machine."

In this case, the remaining 2 percent went a long way, since ChatGPT doesn't work by itself. Simmerlein guided every aspect of the service's creation, working from the event's motto: "Now is the time." The sermon, which was led by computer-generated avatars of two men and two women, focused on topics of leaving the past behind, overcoming fear of death, and never losing faith.

“I told the artificial intelligence, ‘We are at the church congress, you are a preacher … what would a church service look like?’” Simmerlein told the AP. In his ChatGPT prompt, he asked for the inclusion of psalms, prayers, and a blessing at the end. “You end up with a pretty solid church service,” Simmerlein said.

3 notes · View notes

pathanga · 22 days

Text

The Protestant Reformation

The Protestant Reformation challenged many different aspects of life that were already comfortably established. The Reformation challenged the heart of society, the Church. This was a turning point in sixteenth-century Europe where pre-established notions surrounding economic, political and cultural ideas that affected society were questioned instead of blindly followed. Once again in the life-cycle of society, the norms that society had become accustomed to were challenged. Art, culture and day-to-day life changed, the new ideals of society readily accepted by those who questioned the old.

But before we understand the impact the Reformation had we must understand what the Reformation was, a revolution. Revolutions are said to be the beginnings of the nations, of ideas born for the betterment of man. Not all revolutions have political roots, many are just landmarks in the culture and history of a nation. No matter how small a revolution is, its effects can be seen in the art, religious activity and changes in society following it. The word ‘Protestant’ comes from the ‘protestation’ that princes and town delegates signed to suspend the Edict of Worms. The Edict of Worms was a proclamation condemning Luther and his followers. It was first introduced in 1521, suspended in 1526 and then reinstated years later in 1529.

The Protestant Reformation changed many things when it came to how the people viewed the Church. Papal Infallibility was questioned. No longer was the Church this untouchable institution, it was not the ‘Only international agency to possess any significant credibility or influence.’ (McGrath, 2007, p.161). Martin Luther (and others later on) questioned the idea of Indulgences and why they could affect a person’s salvation. In Luther’s beliefs, salvation was earned solely from a person’s penitence and faith in Christ.

In the 16th century, Indulgences had become profit-orientated, Pope Leo X selling Indulgences to support the rebuilding of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Johann Tetzel, a controversial Friar that sold Indulgences, even had a slogan. Historian Peter Marshall refers to the saying ‘as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory to heaven sings’ as an ‘advertising jingle’ (2009, p15). In protest to the commercialisation of religion, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Church Door in Wittenberg and sent them to the Archbishop of Mainz on the 15th of October 1517. Luther debated with other ‘reformers’ Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt and theologian Johann Eck. This debate, known as the Leipzig Disputation, substantially raised Luther’s presence.

In 1520, Luther’s reformation evolved beyond the abolishment of Indulgences to include the ideas that;

The bible has the utmost authority on salvation for both the church and individual christian.

Salvation was a universal gift, obtained by faith in God alone.

The clergy didn’t have superiority above the average churchgoer, all were equal in God’s eyes. This later became known as the ‘priesthood of all believers’.

With the emphasis on the Bible being the ultimate authority and salvation coming only from faith and penitence, the need for Indulgences faded away. This also meant that the Bible needed to be translated from Latin into German and in extension other Languages. For there to be equality among all believers, then all must be able to read the Bible themselves and gain the gift of salvation. Equality in worship also meant that the hierarchy of the clergy was questioned. Instead of the exclusivity previously enjoyed by the church, reformers advocated for a more democratic internal structure.

The Reformation also brought change in religious practices that were pillars of the culture. Iconography was rejected, the Zurich-led reformation steadfast in the destruction of images. Leo Jud, a friend of Zurich-based reformer Huldrych Zwingli argued that in the 10 commandments of the Old Testament, God forbade the creation of his likeness. Churches in Zurich removed icons of Christ and Mother Mary and images of the pair were removed from public places as well. This matter was one that both Zwingli and Luther disagreed upon greatly. Another change brought in by the reformation is the reduction of sacraments. The Catholic Church has several sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance and Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony). The Lutheran Church however settled on two (baptism and the Lord's Supper, Eucharist). (Boersma & Levering, 2015, 269). This is not a constant in all Protestant denominations. Some denominations that have branched off Protestantism such as the Mennonites have multiple sacraments.

In conclusion, the Protestant reformation took the norm created by the Church and the culture surrounding it and turned it on its head. The Reformation led to questions being asked that wouldn’t have been if change didn’t happen. Society changed as well, no longer were the art and daily routines that came with the Catholic church the norm. Art moved away from being heavily religious, to more secular historical pieces. Not that all art in churches was entirely shunned, ‘the Reformation renewed rather than removed the religious image.’ (Dixon, 2012, p.146)

#pathanga's own

1 note · View note

mybrainisalibrary · 6 months

Text

In honor of Reformation Day, I wanted to share about Philipp of Hesse for anyone who has never heard about him because his story will never not be wild to me.

Philipp was a German ruler during the Reformation, and a good friend of Philip Melanchthon (another powerhouse theologian who collaborated with Luther)

So: Philipp came to power in the state of Hessen at 13 years old, resolving a decade of unrest that had been going on since his father died when Philipp was a toddler. In the first week of his rule, he immediately went to settle the custody dispute over his teenage cousin that involved the freaking emperor of Austria-Hungary. His cousin and her mom had been approached about hanging out in the emperor's household, causing a power struggle between them and Philipp's mom because 1) the imperial lifestyle is expensive and would drain Hesse's coffers and 2) Philipp's mom didn't want her sister-in-law gaining more power

So 13-year-old Philipp took a group of men and rolled up to where his cousin was staying and told her she could either come with him right now, or he would never help her in any way for the rest of their lives. (His cousin agreed to go, and that was the end of that.)

At age 17 he attended the Diet of Worms and got to meet with Luther one-on-one because he wanted to ask a question - about polygamy. Nothing else. (This will come up again).

He encountered Melanchthon on the way home from the Diet and the two began correspondence. Years later he quietly converted to Protestantism on a hunting trip, then returned home and abruptly started closing monasteries and making immediate church reforms, in regular communication with Melanchthon.

In 1525 there was a big meeting of leaders in Augsburg that Austrian Archduke Ferdinand was attending. His presence was expected to cow the rebellious states that supported Luther - might of the Holy Roman Empire against them and all that. This did give some leaders pause and it's possible the tide would have turned here - except Philipp said 'nah, we're not gonna be bullied'

The FIRST thing he did upon arrival to the city that Thursday was have a cow slaughtered to be eaten the next day, Friday, when Catholics would abstain from meat. The SECOND thing he did was to set up his court preacher to give sermons from the balcony of his residence, breaking the 'no preaching' rule that was in place. This boldness inspired the other leaders and they did not back down.

A few years later in 1529, Philipp facilitated a meeting in his city, Marburg, between Luther and Zwingli. This was the first and only time the two EVER met face-to-face. They were debating the meaning and purpose of the Eucharist, and weren't able to find any common ground, but it was a big moment.

So this man has been a champion of the Protestant cause, a powerhouse - and THEN.

Remember how he was interested in polygamy as a teenager? Yeah he never got over that. There's a series of letters between him and Melanchthon and Luther, essentially going like:

P: Hey polygamy is a thing in the Old Testament is it cool if I take a second wife?

M/L: I mean I'd recommend against it because it's not called a good thing and most people are gonna consider it unbiblical. But like...it's also NOT explicitly condemned...

P: Okay cool I it should be fine right?

Luther: I guess but just keep it on the down-low, you don't want to spread this around, and definitely keep my name out of this please

P: Awesome, letting you know I just married this woman the other week!

L: Congrats dude, I'm happy you're happy - but again, please keep this quiet and DON'T tell anyone that I gave you tacit approval

Philipp, literally like 2 weeks later: So uh, the cat's out of the bag about my second marriage. I told my sister and she told...everyone.

And this was basically the end of Philipp's influence and overall reputation. He still tried to do his thing and tried to work for peace between Catholics and Protestants, but he lost a lot of credibility, and now he's mainly remembered for bigamy!

#this is kinda late but oh well #forget about studying fictional characters under a microscope - WHAT was this man thinking #history #reformation day #Philipp von Hessen

1 note · View note

tmarshconnors · 4 months

Text

"Be careful not to measure your holiness by other peoples sins."

Martin Luther was a German priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, professor, and Augustinian friar. He was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation.

Cloistered Monk to Reformer: Before becoming a key figure in the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther was a devout Augustinian monk. He entered the monastery in Erfurt, Germany, against his father's wishes, seeking spiritual fulfillment. It was during this time that he struggled with questions of salvation and the nature of God's grace, ultimately leading to his theological breakthroughs.

Tower Experience: Legend has it that Martin Luther had a pivotal moment in his life known as the "Tower Experience." In 1517, while in a tower at Wittenberg, Luther is said to have had a profound spiritual revelation that sparked his theological insights, eventually leading to the posting of his famous "95 Theses" on the door of the Castle Church.

Translation of the Bible: Martin Luther played a significant role in translating the Bible into German, making it more accessible to the common people. Completed in 1534, Luther's translation of the New Testament and later the Old Testament into German greatly contributed to the standardization and development of the German language.

Marriage to Katharina von Bora: In 1525, Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora, a former nun. This marriage was considered scandalous at the time, as it challenged the celibacy vows associated with monastic life. Luther and Katharina had a happy and supportive marriage, and they had six children together.

Advocacy for Education: Martin Luther was a strong advocate for education. He believed in the importance of educating the masses and worked to establish schools. His commitment to education laid the foundation for the development of a literate and educated society, and his ideas influenced the later establishment of compulsory education in some regions.

0 notes

translationday · 7 months

Text

In the 16th century.

Biography of translators of the 16th century.

Erasmus (1466-1536), a Dutch philosopher, produced a new Latin version of the New Testament by collecting several manuscripts of the Vulgate, and by polishing the Latin texts to create a new critical edition. He also synchronised, unified and updated the Greek edition. Erasmus’ New Testament was influential in the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Martin Luther (1483-1546), a German theologian, translated the Bible into German in his later years, from the original texts in Hebrew and Greek and not from the Vulgate in Latin. With the recent invention of the printinged press, the “Luther Bible” became the People’s Book in churches, schools and homes. It also contributed to the development of the German language and the creation of a national identity.

Jakub Wujek (1541-1597), a Polish Jesuit scholar, translated for the first time the Bible into Polish. He translated the Bible from the Vulgate in Latin while referring to the original texts in Hebrew and Greek. The “Jakub Wujek Bible” was the official Polish Bible for four centuries. Like the “Luther Bible” in Germany, it contributed to the development of the Polish language and the creation of a national identity.

Thomas North (1535-1604), an English lawyer, translated Greek philosopher Plutarch’s “Parallel Lives”. His English translation was based on the French translation by Jacques Amyot (1513-1593). Both translations introduced famous Greek and Roman people of antiquity to French and English readers. North’s translation was the main source of Shakespeare’s Roman plays “Julius Caesar”, “Coriolanus” and “Antony and Cleopatra”.

#16th century #translators #history of translation #chronology #biography

0 notes

officialyourdailyinspiration · 1 year

Text

Today in Christian History

Today is Thursday, April 20th, the 110th day of 2023. There are 255 days left in the year.

Today’s Highlight in History:

1479: Death of Alexander who founded the Orthodox monastery of Oshevensk, experienced miracles, and was a notable spiritual counselor.

1529: At the Second Diet of Speyer, the term “Protestant” is first applied to participants of the Reformation. The term was taken from the Protestatio, a statement by the reformers challenging the imperial stance on religion.

1558: Death of Johannes Bugenhagen, a leading Lutheran reformer, a professor at the University of Wittenberg, and the pastor of the city church there. Bugenhagen had helped Luther with his German Bible translation as well as translating the Bible into Low German himself.

1653: Cromwell dissolves the Rump Parliament, so-called because it consisted of only a few representatives who still remained. Cromwell lectures them on their vices and their uselessness, saying he is doing this at God’s command: “Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. Go!”

1676: Death of Baptist minister John Clarke, a founding father of Rhode Island, and the agent who obtained the colony’s charter from King Charles II in 1663.

1898: C.H. Spurgeon’s London tabernacle burns down. Efforts to rebuild it commence at once.

1962: Theologian Karl Barth is featured on the cover of Time magazine.

1988: Wilson Rajil Sabiya, a Lutheran theologian, writes a letter to General Ibrahim Babangida, President and Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, alerting him to Muslim efforts to make Nigeria an Islamic country by infiltrating the police force.

2001: A Peruvian Air Force aircraft shoots down a private airplane carrying missionaries, killing Veronica Bowers and her infant daughter, Charity.

#Today in Christian History #April 20 #Cromwell dissolves the Rump Parliament #Spurgeon’s London tabernacle burns down #the Second Diet of Speyer #Death of Baptist minister John Clarke #Death of Johannes Bugenhagen

7 notes · View notes

hedgewitchgarden · 1 year

Text

Why are we talking about it now?

Soon, many began to point out not only is the term “Judeo-Christian” inaccurate, but has antisemitic roots, as well. Let’s get into it, shall we?

Where did the term Judeo-Christian come from?

It was first used in a letter from Reverend Alexander McCaul, a guy who is known for being a missionary to the Jews. (Aiming to specifically convert Jews: antisemitic!) Here’s what he writes:

Baptizing Jews, oof.

But that is not how the term is really understood today, so let’s move on…

How did Judeo-Christian emerge as a political term in the United States?

Alright, tell me about “Judeo-Christianity” and the Cold War.

In the context of the Cold War, American leaders used the concept of a shared religious heritage to define America’s role in the world.

And, fun fact, this directly ties into the history of America’s relationship with Israel, which you can read all about here.

How did the term evolve?

Well, it quickly began to be used by all sides of the political spectrum.

In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1963:

Judeo-Christianity became a shorthand to signal morality, godliness, anti-communism, democracy, and more.

Soon, Judeo-Christianity became a way of Christianity to absorb Judaism in a way, erasing the very real differences that keep the two religions separate.

Say it with us: Not Great. Soon, the very progressives who championed the use of the term a decade earlier as a means for Jewish inclusion in mainstream American culture began to campaign against it.

But the term had already gained ground.

How is “Judeo-Christian” used in modern times?

After the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, “Judeo-Christian” became an Islamophobic dogwhistle.

Let’s run through some examples, shall we?

Your Islamophobia is showing, Virgil.

What about the Trump administration and “Judeo-Christianity”?

Well said.

What about some tweets on the topic?

Well, since you asked…

Mx. D. E. Anderson @diannaeanderson

just a reminder, too, that "Judeo-Christian" isn't a thing and was invented by Christians in cold war time in order to assert Christian hegemony.

1:25 PM · Nov 29, 2020

Jess Zimmerman

@j_zimms

Still mad about “Judeo-Christian calendar.” What year is it on that calendar my dude

2:42 AM · Nov 30, 2020

Tl;dr?

3 notes · View notes

jmreyes9 · 10 months

Text

“ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROMANS”

A Sermon Series on the Book of Romans by David Asscherick

By Jesse Reyes

On a sweltering day on the 4th of July, I felt eager to listen to a good sermon, one that would evoke fireworks in my soul on Independence Day in the United States. I decided to listen to Pastor David Asscherick’s sermon series on YouTube titled “All Roads Lead to Romans”, a series on the book of Romans. Pastor Asscherick, a very dynamic speaker, who moves about on the stage during his sermon, was pastor of Kingscliff Church in Australia at the time he dwelt on the series.

I only listened to Part 1 of the series titled “God’s Good News”, where Asscherick lays the groundwork for the whole series. He based this particular sermon on Romans 1:1-15.

Here are my notes on this sermon:

Sigve Tonstad, a Norwegian in origin and now professor of religion and medicine at Loma Linda University, in his book “Letter to the Romans” states that “Romans deserves to be read with reverence if for no other reason than it is one of the most influential pieces of literature of all time. This claim is defensible in absolute terms, and the influence of Romans relative to its size lies beyond computation.”

John Wesley, an English cleric, theologian and evangelist who was a leader of a revival movement within the Church of England known as Methodism, tracing his conversion to Martin Luther’s commentary on the book of Romans said “I felt my heart was strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation, and an assurance that He had taken away my sins.”

Martin Luther, a German professor of theology, composer, priest, Augustinian monk, and a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation wrote “This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is the purest gospel. It is well worth a Christian’s while not only to memorize it but also to occupy himself with it daily as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or meditate on this letter too much or too well.”

Rome was the imperial capital of Roman Empire at the time Romans was written.

Romans was written around AD 50, none more important book (letter) of Paul. It is the longest letter (16 chapters) impeccably argued because these are Paul’s well-researched sermons, unlike his other letters which addressed specific problems in the other churches.

Reasons why Romans was written (based on the written text and historical perspectives)

1. A kind of systematic theology

2. Support/awareness of his mission to Spain.

3. Wrapping up his work in East Mediterranean

4. Mediate between the “strong and weak”

5. Address the issue regarding Jew-Gentile

6. Address troublesome “counter-missionaries”

In AD 40 Roman Emperor Claudius expels Jews from Rome because of rioting and disturbances. When Claudius died, AD 54 Nero came to power and asked the Jews to return to Rome.

The book of Romans made sense due to the historical situation.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ. This amounted to social degradation because the Romans and some Jews considered Jesus, a crucified Messiah, a failure.

Shame is the one thing Roman society wanted to avoid.

Conversely, honor ranked highest in Roman values.

In his book “Romans: The new interpreter’s Bible”, N.T. Wright writes: “Paul’s contemporary Jews neither expected nor wanted a crucified Messiah . Paul’s contemporary Gentiles neither expected nor wanted to worship and serve the emperor.

In his book “Church history in Plain Language”, Bruce Shelley states: “Christianity is the only major religion that has as its central event the humiliation of its God.””

“Paul: A biography” N.T. Wright“ “From the time of Augustus onward, the Caesars had let it be known that events of their rule including their accession, their birthday, and so on were matters of “good news,” euangelion in Greek, since with Caesar as Kyrios (Lord) and Soter (“Savior”), a new golden age had arrived in the world.”

In “Romans: The New Interpreter’s Bible, N.T. Wright writes: “Remembering again that this is not after all, systematic theology but a letter addressed to a particular situation. Paul seems to explain to the Roman church what God has been up to (all along) and where they belong on the map of His purposes.

In “The Sonship of Christ”, Ty Gibson avers: “When we read the Bible as an unfolding narrative—as the big story it actually is with key characteristics played out an overarching, intentional plot line, the meaning of the Sonship of Christ becomes unmistakably evident. The God who made humanity intends to save humanity from the inside from within our very own genetic realm, from the strategic position of a God, of God who will be born within the Adamic and the Davidic lineage.

The Resurrected Messiah shows the power of the real Messiah.

“THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH”: Romans 1:15, 16. David Asscherick’s next sermon will be Part 2, “I Am Not Ashamed” and will be a treatise on just these two verses. I can’t wait to listen to it!

Written on July 5, 2020 in Chicago, IL. Other writings and poems of Jesse Reyes can be found in his blog: anadventurecalledlife.com. Posted in FB in 2020 and reposted in 2023.

0 notes

tastydregs · 11 months

Text

AI-powered church service in Germany draws a large crowd

Enlarge / Visitors and attendees during the AI-created worship service in Fürth, Germany. In St. Paul Church, a service created by ChatGPT.

Daniel Vogl/picture alliance via Getty Images

On Friday, over 300 people attended an experimental ChatGPT-powered church service at St. Paul’s church in the Bavarian town of Fürth, Germany, reports the Associated Press. The 40-minute sermon included text generated by OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot and delivered by avatars on a television screen above the altar.

Reactions to the machine-led service were mixed. The AP reports that the computer avatars occasionally drew unintentional laughter for deadpan delivery. Others took the event more seriously, but not necessarily positively. Some congregants, like Heiderose Schmidt, a 54-year-old IT professional, found the avatar's lack of emotions and fast, monotonous speech off-putting, remarking, "There was no heart and no soul."

Enlarge / Visitors and attendees during the AI-powered worship service in Fürth, Germany, on June 9, 2023.

Daniel Vogl/picture alliance via Getty Images

Others, like Marc Jansen, a 31-year-old Lutheran pastor, had a more positive outlook. "I had actually imagined it to be worse. But I was positively surprised how well it worked. Also, the language of the AI worked well, even though it was still a bit bumpy at times," said Jansen.

Simmerlein told the AP that his intention wasn't to replace religious leaders but to utilize AI as a tool that could assist them. For instance, AI could provide ideas for upcoming sermons, or it could expedite the sermon-writing process, freeing up pastors to devote more time to individual spiritual guidance.

But while the wisdom of outsourcing spiritual wisdom to a machine is an open question, Simmerlein frames it more like a hyperbolic necessity. “Artificial intelligence will increasingly take over our lives, in all its facets," he told the AP. "And that’s why it’s useful to learn to deal with it."

Reportedly, Simmerlein's AI sermon drew so much interest that people formed a long line outside the church an hour before it began. Ultimately, the event attracted fascination because there is still novelty in applying "AI" to traditionally human-moderated situations, even if the result is just a human cherry-picking large language model (LLM) output.

If, in the future, pastors begin to rely on LLMs for guidance while writing sermons, parishioners might end up hearing unintentionally novel interpretations of religious doctrine due to how this technology can easily make things up. To that end, Verge Senior Editor James Vincent quipped on Twitter, "Looking forward to future schisms caused by language model hallucinations—the equivalent of mistranslations between Aramaic and ancient Greek."

0 notes