#but he wrote more about pneumatology than all other subjects combined | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

queer-queen-bean · 14 hours ago

Text

(good lord I ran out of tags I got so heated if you want to hear more about The Drama™️ of early protestant reformers and philosophers PLEASE tell me I will provide EXTRA CREDIT READINGS AND A POWERPOINT)

OK this is an excuse for me to be a little pretentious/pedantic, but I figured others might also want the opportunity to be a little pretentious/pedantic, so I'm making a poll out of it!

My pretension: I like reading (duh!), and I'm OK with a little inaccuracy for the sake of artistry. I mean, there are definitely authors who never bother to google basic terminology in a field, or try to write convincing history (or fantasy) without actually knowing much history...but if an author I otherwise like gets a little detail wrong about some specialist thing, I'm not likely to even notice. Except! If the thing is about boats/sailing. Examples below, but first, the poll:

I'm sure there's some technical mistakes (especially related to boats I'm less used to, like tall ships) that still slip by me. But I've had a couple times recently (different books/authors) where I was reading and enjoying myself and was suddenly twitched out of the story by an inaccuracy. One book where someone was asked to secure the boom after a tack (on a nice 45-ft modern sloop) which already doesn't make a ton of sense, and then she moved to a strange place in the boat to apparently do this. Another where the author twice mixed up jibing and tacking in dialogue (on the lines of "Don't sail to close to the wind or you'll jibe!" At least once the speaker was supposed to be an expert sailor).

Anyway, I still enjoyed the books overall, but I noticed both times I literally had to stop reading a think for a second, like wait, was I imagining it wrong? No, it's the author's fault! So now I'm telling you all about it.

#i struggle deeply with early christian history #i mean inaccuracies in representations of ancient rome are annoying enough #but whenever there's anything about the “early church” or like late second-temple judaism or whatever #it's always always always inaccurate at best #christianity based cosmology is also kind of a brutal one #the problem with having a degree in a theology you no longer subscribe to at all #is that you still know when people are wrong about it #but it feels infinitely stupider because it's all made up #i feel like that kid who would stop everyone while we're playing pretend to correct them on the lore #like yeah i dont believe god exists but you cant just REINVENT MANICHEANISM BECAUSE IT SUITS THE PLOT #and yes there have been multiple instances of more than one pope #but that's so boring compared to some of the other unhinged shit popes have gotten up to #the drama? the intrigue??#oh my god you've got me going #im so sorry #but everyone talks about how authoritarian Calvin's theology was and how up his own ass he was #but he wrote more about pneumatology than all other subjects combined #and calvinists are all cessationists like...#did we read the same institutes???#and god #if you really want some fun early protestant drama you gotta look at schleiermacher #my BOY #he literally wrote like a little theology book about how we can only understand faith by experiencing it #and so it creates its own chicken-and-egg situation where we have more experiences that generate more faith that generates more experiences #etc etc etc #and he wrote about how every person's experience of faith is only verifiable to their own selves and god #so everyone's authentic experience of faith is correct and telling people how to do it right is what jesus was talking about #when he was like “if any one of you causes one of these little ones to sin it would be better if you had tied a stone around your neck and #thrown it in the jordan river“#anyways he was a real one

492 notes · View notes