Christian Discussion Thread III

[Distruzio]

GnI... you know better. He really is, actually alive. It's a core part of Christian dogma. As in... can't be a Christian if you don't believe that. If you can't affirm it. When Paul said all that junk, Jesus did affirm it. Because He's alive.

Again, I think you're missing the point - perhaps deliberately.

I can say that Jesus just came and told me that the whole Bible is bullshit. And you'll notice that if I do, Jesus won't make a formal rebuttal.

This doesn't mean he isn't in some spiritual form, tending to us as a kind of deity shepherd - it means that, for want of a more explanatory way of phrasing it - he has left no forwarding address.

Could Jesus be some kind of God entity, invisibly messing with reality? Sure. Does he have a material presence and/or a history of offering actual, physical commentary on words and actions? Not so much.

The best you can say is that some people who claim to represent him, say they know what he wants to be said. Not the same thing.

You're right. I was doing so deliberately at that point in the hope that you would go a particular direction. Which you didn't. So... that sucks. Anyway, Christian dogma states that Christ is alive. It also states that Christ is the head of the Church. Meaning that whatever the Church says, Jesus says.... until the Church says otherwise... at which point, we presume, Jesus has said, "I was wrong. Ooops." This whole approach to the "life" of Jesus is part of the reason the Church never ever does anything quickly and is, often times, quite vague in its positions.

So, what I'm saying is that, because the Church affirmed Paul's legitimacy, Jesus affirmed it.

[The Archregimancy]

As noted to Benuty earlier in the thread, you're very welcome to file a GHR if you disagree with the above.

If the subject comes up, I'll discuss it. If you decide to moderate me based on me joining an on-topic discussion about something central to the thread, and you actually carry out some action based on it? Sure, I'll file a GHR.

I will take the opportunity to raise your concerns over the issue internally with the rest of the Moderation team.

[Grave_n_idle]

There's considerable debate about when the Great Commission texts were added, and it's commonly speculated that Mark and Matthew (for example) have had their Great Commission content either totally added from another source, or modified. And that's not new - I have an antique Bible which mentions in it's notes that the Great Commission text in Matthew appears to have been copied from other texts.

So - the 'oldest texts' argument is actually against most of the Great Commission content, which is an important argument against it.

More importantly, though - it directly opposes Jesus' actual recorded earthly ministry, where Jesus explicitly told his followers NOT to preach to anyone else. You should instantly be suspicious of ANY teaching that allegedly occurs AFTER the death of Jesus that is an absolute contradiction of the text attributed to him while he was alive.

Except that one of the three quotes I gave you (the one in Mark) is NOT from a Great Commission text, but rather from before the death of Jesus. It's part of Him making a prophecy that "the gospel must first be preached to all the nations" before the end of the world comes.

In any case, please note the fact that you began by claiming that Paul's writings did not represent the "true" preaching of Jesus and now you are claiming that the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels don't represent the "true" preaching of Jesus, either. Keep throwing away Biblical texts for arbitrary reasons and you might soon be left thinking that Jesus was a traveling physician preaching about herbal remedies.

I'm not throwing away any texts, much less for arbitrary reasons - quite the opposite. Indeed, I think what I'm doing is the only objective and honest approach - assessing the text based on who is alleged to have said what, and when they are alleged to have said it - just as I would with any other text.

Texts attributed to the living Jesus are obviously the most valid. If someone attributes something to him after his death, that conflicts with something he taught in life, it's less reliable.

[Grave_n_idle]

If the subject comes up, I'll discuss it. If you decide to moderate me based on me joining an on-topic discussion about something central to the thread, and you actually carry out some action based on it? Sure, I'll file a GHR.

I will take the opportunity to raise your concerns over the issue internally with the rest of the Moderation team.

Which concerns? Is this some new Moderation approach we need to know about?

[The Archregimancy]

I will take the opportunity to raise your concerns over the issue internally with the rest of the Moderation team.

Which concerns? Is this some new Moderation approach we need to know about?

If you wish to discuss concerns over Moderation approaches, please start an appropriate discussion thread in Moderation.

Thank you.

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, I think you're missing the point - perhaps deliberately.

I can say that Jesus just came and told me that the whole Bible is bullshit. And you'll notice that if I do, Jesus won't make a formal rebuttal.

This doesn't mean he isn't in some spiritual form, tending to us as a kind of deity shepherd - it means that, for want of a more explanatory way of phrasing it - he has left no forwarding address.

Could Jesus be some kind of God entity, invisibly messing with reality? Sure. Does he have a material presence and/or a history of offering actual, physical commentary on words and actions? Not so much.

The best you can say is that some people who claim to represent him, say they know what he wants to be said. Not the same thing.

You're right. I was doing so deliberately at that point in the hope that you would go a particular direction. Which you didn't. So... that sucks. Anyway, Christian dogma states that Christ is alive. It also states that Christ is the head of the Church. Meaning that whatever the Church says, Jesus says.... until the Church says otherwise... at which point, we presume, Jesus has said, "I was wrong. Ooops." This whole approach to the "life" of Jesus is part of the reason the Church never ever does anything quickly and is, often times, quite vague in its positions.

So, what I'm saying is that, because the Church affirmed Paul's legitimacy, Jesus affirmed it.

And I'm saying that that's fine for the Church, because they are using circular logic to justify their claim to authority. i.e. we speak for Jesus because Jesus hasn't said we don't, and we know he hasn't said we don't, because we haven't said that he said that...

And I'm saying that absent an actual physical (or hell, spiritual) appearance of Jesus to the masses to set the record right, that's the best claim to authority there is - but it's not a good one. Nor would it be, for example, admissible in a court of law.

If Paul claims that Jesus spoke to him, and changed the scope of his ministry, and Jesus doesn't pop out of his grave and say 'nuh uh', that doesn't mean that Jesus is affirming Paul's credibility. It could just mean he's, you know... dead.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which concerns? Is this some new Moderation approach we need to know about?

If you wish to discuss concerns over Moderation approaches, please start an appropriate discussion thread in Moderation.

Thank you.

If you want to start a thread over it, perhaps I'll join - but you've effectively hijacked this thread to discuss moderation that you - by your own admission - are not likely to be involved in yourself.

Now you're nebulously talking about raising my concerns (whatever you think they are) internally (whatever that means), and you're neither doing it in an on-topic way, nor in a moderation thread - so I wonder what exactly you think this serves as a purpose.

[The Archregimancy]

If you wish to discuss concerns over Moderation approaches, please start an appropriate discussion thread in Moderation.

Thank you.

If you want to start a thread over it, perhaps I'll join - but you've effectively hijacked this thread to discuss moderation that you - by your own admission - are not likely to be involved in yourself.

Now you're nebulously talking about raising my concerns (whatever you think they are) internally (whatever that means), and you're neither doing it in an on-topic way, nor in a moderation thread - so I wonder what exactly you think this serves as a purpose.

I apologise for the lack of clarity. For clarity, I have raised your points directly with my colleagues in the internal closed Moderator discussion forum so they can address your concerns over A) my request to avoid a threadjack over the historical Jesus topic, and B) your new concern that I've hijacked the thread, so that they can take action against me as necessary.

Thank you again for raising your concerns over this issue; if further moderation action is necessary, one of my colleagues will post as appropriate.

[Grave_n_idle]

If you want to start a thread over it, perhaps I'll join - but you've effectively hijacked this thread to discuss moderation that you - by your own admission - are not likely to be involved in yourself.

Now you're nebulously talking about raising my concerns (whatever you think they are) internally (whatever that means), and you're neither doing it in an on-topic way, nor in a moderation thread - so I wonder what exactly you think this serves as a purpose.

I apologise for the lack of clarity. For clarity, I have raised your points directly with my colleagues in the internal closed Moderator discussion forum so they can address your concerns over A) my request to avoid a threadjack over the historical Jesus topic, and B) our new concern that I've hijacked the thread so that they can take action against me as necessary.

Thank you again for raising your concerns over this issue; if further moderation action is necessary, one of my colleagues will post as appropriate.

In the future, perhaps you should consider letting other people raise their own concerns, if they think they are worth making an issue of. As it is, it just looks like you are - as we say down south - 'stirring up shit'.

This is beginning to look like maybe you shouldn't moderate on threads you are keen on participating in - a point you, yourself, made earlier - and one I'm becoming increasingly inclined to agree with.

[The Archregimancy]

In the future, perhaps you should consider letting other people raise their own concerns, if they think they are worth making an issue of. As it is, it just looks like you are - as we say down south - 'stirring up shit'.

I am sorry that you believe that I am intentionally "stirring up shit"; I assure you I have absolutely no intent of doing so.

I have merely self-reported a potential player concern over inappropriate behaviour on my part.

I fully and happily apologise if you think there's been any lack of professionalism here.

I also apologise to all thread participants that this has been an apparent source of tension.

I agree that no further purpose can come from discussing this point, and will now log off so as to avoid potentially exacerbating this unfortunate misunderstanding.

[Socialist Tera]

What is your opinion on Christian "heresies" such as Catharism or Lollardism?

[Constantinopolis]

What is your opinion on Christian "heresies" such as Catharism or Lollardism?

Well, they are heresies. That is to say, they are mistaken views of God and His relationship with Humanity (that is what any heresy is).

[Bunkeranlage]

What is your opinion on Christian "heresies" such as Catharism or Lollardism?

Cathars don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This is already more than enough to stamp the heresy label on them.

[Constantinopolis]

On a related note, I wonder why our time exhibits such a distinct lack of dualist religions, considering how popular they used to be from Classical Antiquity and up to about the 14th century (the Cathars were the last, as far as I know).

Zoroastrianism was once a great world religion, Manichaeism once rivaled Christianity in the number of followers and influence, and so on. The idea that there are two gods, one good and the other evil - often connected with the gnostic concept that the spiritual is good and the material is evil - seems to have radiated out from Persia several times in history. Then it just... ended.

[Bunkeranlage]

As far as I know, Christianity has been the largest religion in the world for a long time now.

(I'm surprised no one has brought up any end time prophecies here yet)

[Bunkeranlage]

So... the Church "kicked you out" for being LGBT...seems contradictory to what Christianity is supposed to be about.

They did. The church/school that I grew up in, St Peters Lutheran, kicked me out when they found out I was gay. They basically told me to never come back again.

That's just wrong. Jesus came to save the sinners, not those who were already righteous. The church you were in obviously failed to remember that.

[Constantinopolis]

As far as I know, Christianity has been the largest religion in the world for a long time now.

Well, what do you mean by "a long time"? Prior to about 1500, Christianity was definitely not the largest religion in the world - with Christian-majority areas largely restricted to the relatively minor continent of Europe and a few scattered pockets on the borders of the great empires of the world (pockets such as Ethiopia and Armenia). The Asian empires were so dominant in the world at this time, and Europe was so sparsely populated by comparison, that even though Christians were a minority in the Middle East, that minority was probably similar in terms of absolute numbers to the Christian majorities in Northern Europe.

It was only after Europeans reached America, and began to colonize the new lands as well as experiencing a population explosion back home, that Christianity became a serious competitor with Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.

I don't think any reliable statistics exist, but I would guess that Islam was the largest religion in the world between the years 1000 and 1500 (give or take a century or so).

And Christianity was definitely not anywhere close to being the largest religion in the world before 1000, considering the fact that large parts of Europe remained mostly pagan until the 9th or 10th centuries. I would guess that the total number of Christians stagnated for centuries as the pagans of Northern Europe were gradually accepting baptism on the one hand, but the Christians of the Middle East were gradually converting to Islam on the other hand.

[Bunkeranlage]

I don't think any reliable statistics exist, but I would guess that Islam was the largest religion in the world between the years 1000 and 1500 (give or take a century or so).

They had the Silk Road to travel along to spread their religion. Christianity, on the other hand, originated a little further off of the road.

[The Archregimancy]

I don't think any reliable statistics exist, but I would guess that Islam was the largest religion in the world between the years 1000 and 1500 (give or take a century or so).

They had the Silk Road to travel along to spread their religion. Christianity, on the other hand, originated a little further off of the road.

I think you perhaps underestimate the influence of the Silk Road on the spread of Christianity.

The Church of the East (Syriac: ܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ʿĒ(d)tāʾ d-Maḏn(ə)ḥāʾ), also known as the Nestorian Church, is a Christian church, part of the Syriac tradition of Eastern Christianity. The church of the Persian Sassanid Empire, it quickly spread widely through Asia. Between the 9th and 14th centuries it was the world's largest Christian church in terms of geographical extent, with dioceses stretching from the Mediterranean to China and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_ ... t_in_China

[Constantinopolis]

The Church of the East was spread widely, but thinly. They had believers as far as southern China and the Mongol heartland, yes, but no great numbers.

[Bunkeranlage]

They had the Silk Road to travel along to spread their religion. Christianity, on the other hand, originated a little further off of the road.

I think you underestimate the influence of the Silk Road on the spread of Christianity.

The Church of the East (Syriac: ܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ʿĒ(d)tāʾ d-Maḏn(ə)ḥāʾ), also known as the Nestorian Church, is a Christian church, part of the Syriac tradition of Eastern Christianity. The church of the Persian Sassanid Empire, it quickly spread widely through Asia. Between the 9th and 14th centuries it was the world's largest Christian church in terms of geographical extent, with dioceses stretching from the Mediterranean to China and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_ ... t_in_China

True, the Silk Road was connected to Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christianity. I'm sure the early disciples would have considered it a valuable tool to their ministry. Not to mention the fact that Thomas was in India when he died (killed in a crossfire during a riot, I heard). If he could get as far as India, why not China too?
Now that you bring up China- Some people say that China is the Antichrist, being the Dragon of Asia. I don't think so. China has 100 million registered Christians, and who knows how many unregistered.

[The Archregimancy]

The Church of the East was spread widely, but thinly. They had believers as far as southern China and the Mongol heartland, yes, but no great numbers.

It's not the issue of the numbers I'm addressing, though; it's the implied assertion from Bunkeranlage that Islam was larger than Christianity in the period 1000-1500 AD because Islam had access to the Silk Road and Christianity didn't.

Both religions had access to the Silk Road,and both religions used that access with some success (initially at least); the reasons for the rise of Muslim dominance in Central Asia over Christianity or other faiths has more to do with Islam having state and military backing from the Caliphate in the lead-up to and aftermath of the Battle of Talas, whereas the Church of the East lacked similar backing from either the Zoroastrian Persian Empire or the Caliphate that replaced the Empire.

[Bunkeranlage]

The Church of the East was spread widely, but thinly. They had believers as far as southern China and the Mongol heartland, yes, but no great numbers.

It's not the issue of the numbers I'm addressing, though; it's the implied assertion from Bunkeranlage that Islam was larger than Christianity in the period 1000-1500 AD because Islam had access to the Silk Road and Christianity didn't.

Both religions had access to the Silk Road,and both religions used that access with some success (initially at least); the reasons for the rise of Muslim dominance in Central Asia over Christianity or other faiths has more to do with Islam having state and military backing from the Caliphate in the lead-up to and aftermath of the Battle of Talas, whereas the Church of the East lacked similar backing from either the Zoroastrian Persian Empire or the Caliphate that replaced the Empire.

I have to admit, you've got a point. Checking a map, I realised that my original statement was wrong. Both had ready access to the Silk Road.

But if it wasn't the Silk Road, what was it?

[The Archregimancy]

I have to admit, you've got a point. Checking a map, I realised that my original statement was wrong. Both had ready access to the Silk Road.

But if it wasn't the Silk Road, what was it?

"the reasons for the rise of Muslim dominance in Central Asia over Christianity or other faiths have more to do with Islam having state and military backing from the Caliphate in the lead-up to and aftermath of the Battle of Talas, whereas the Church of the East lacked similar backing from either the Zoroastrian Persian Empire or the Caliphate that replaced the Empire."

Islam's expansion into Central Asia (and, separately, North India) had the full military and political backing of the Caliphate, culminating in the Battle of the Talas.

Christianity's initial expansion in the same region was undertaken by a socio-political minority that lacked military or political backing from either the Persian Empire or the Caliphate within which the relevant Christian group was based.

While that's not enough to completely explain why one religion succeeded better than the other - history offers us plenty of examples of religions successfully expanding without political or military backing from a state - it's at least a useful starting point in explaining why one had a metaphorical head start over the other.

[Murkwood]

WTF
There was talk of Orthodox holding an Ecumenical Synod and now Orthodox are throwing away 2000 years of Tradition and surrendering to Papal Infallibility

We're doing no such thing.

First of all, the forthcoming 2016 pan-Orthodox "Great and Holy Synod" is not claiming "Ecumenical" status.

Secondly, as is common in some Catholic circles, the linked article is more than a little over-optimistic about the possibility of reunion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, while also making the common mistake of placing too much emphasis on the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch within the Orthodox Church.

Catholic newspaper The Tablet has a firmer grasp of the situation.





And some of the rest of you might want to leave off the whole tapdancing around the trollnaming rule thing. To avoid any appearance of bias on my part, I've raised it with other members of the moderation team rather than act directly on it myself, but let's assume for the time being that it's not something we're not necessarily going to view with unmitigated pleasure.

I will admit, the article I chose was a tad bit optimistic, and probably won't happen soon.