Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I didn't realize being "spiritually satisfied" would get me into Heaven. If it doesn't, why does it matter?

Dude, I'm trying to help you here. If you are unhappy trying to get into heaven, then I'm sure Purgatory, Limbo, and Hell all have openings. I'm just trying to make the point that God want you to be happy, bottom line.

I think he/she has been baptized, so Limbo is off the table.

[Puerto Tyranus]

Dude, I'm trying to help you here. If you are unhappy trying to get into heaven, then I'm sure Purgatory, Limbo, and Hell all have openings. I'm just trying to make the point that God want you to be happy, bottom line.

I think he/she has been baptized, so Limbo is off the table.

Welp, Purgatory or Hell it is then.

[Ryfylke]

So you're absolutely certain of trends a century out because you compiled an assortment of attendance data. Wow. Somewhere, David Hume is having an aneurysm.

I'm not absolutely certain, but the fact is that (a) the number of practicing members of the CoE is extremely low and declining, and (b) religion on the whole is declining in the West. Neither of those trends - especially not the latter one - is likely to be reversed soon, unless some kind of spectacular reversal of fortunes takes place. That is highly improbable. The most likely scenario is that religion will continue to decline and the CoE will decline faster and more thoroughly than the majority of religious groups. As such, I think it is very likely that the CoE will cease to exist as an independent entity by the end of this century. I expect that it will end by merging with some other denomination(s) when it becomes small enough.

Then say what you mean. If you aren't certain, don't say you are. And for a denomination to "cease to exist," it's very much implied that you mean the denomination will literally dissolve, not merge with someone else.

I'm sure your perspective is somewhat different coming from one of the "Big Two" denominations, but over on the Protestant side, we've learned that you can have a successful Church with as many or few members as you can name. Where the Word is read and the sacraments administered, there is a living Church, regardless of the number of members it has.

Don't misunderstand me. Being a small Church is not any kind of problem in and of itself. The problem of the CoE is that it is a small Church even though it used to be much bigger. In other words, participation (and to a lesser extent nominal membership) is dropping fast. It's not the size that's the problem, it's the decline. A small group is fine, but if that small group is getting increasingly smaller...

And the ordination of women is lax and relativistic, how, exactly?

Well, I wasn't really focusing on the ordination of women specifically, but rather was talking about recent liberal attitudes in general (especially with regards to sexuality, but also the afterlife, hell, the uniqueness and importance of the death and resurrection of Christ as the only path to salvation, and so on).

But regarding the ordination of women specifically, it is lax and relativistic because it dismisses 2000 years of consistent Church practice as being nothing more than an artifact of patriarchal culture (despite this practice being followed in every single culture that the Church has ever existed in, despite the legions of strong female saints and leaders who never had a problem with it, and so on). The ordination of women is lax and relativistic because it says, "Oh, this thing that we've always done? Yeah, never mind, that was wrong."

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the reasons for membership declines in the CoE (and really across Mainline Protestantism). The crisis can be measured almost entirely by demographics. Historically in the Anglo-sphere, the Protestant Mainline has been in an unspoken pact with the middle and upper-middle classes, where these classes, largely in medium to small towns, both worship at these Churches and use them as a form of social interaction - there's a reason the Episcopalians had the stigma of being WASPs for so many years. You can see that pact reflected here. As you can see, Episcopalians are by far the best educated (and, most likely, most well-off) Protestants. And the runner-ups are also mainline: Lutherans, Methodists, UCC, Presbyterians, etc. Keep this in mind for the second section of this argument.

This arrangement broke down when the young Baby Boomers, as part of the general social upheaval of the 1960s, stopped going to church (pages 14-17). You can see that these structural problems were created in the 1960s (before liberalization), then made themselves known in the 70s, which is when the panicked Churches responded with a new emphasis on social justice. When the Boomers cut their ties to the Mainline, they broke a culture where these well-off, moderate churches were the center of the social life of a nuclear family. Individualism became the norm in the '60s and '70s, and the Boomers just didn't come back to Churches that seemed hopelessly suburban, mainstream, and white despite the fact that after their rebellious phases, the majority of these Boomers became hopelessly suburban and mainstream. I doubt many became white.

That arrangement remains broken because the upper-middle class stopped having kids. You can see from this report that Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians (the core of the Mainline) have the lowest birth rates of people of any Christian denomination (page 20 of the paper, 21 on the PDF). Only the nonreligious have lower birth rates. And as you can see on page 9 of the paper (10 on the PDF), it's been a trend for Protestants to have lower birthrates than Catholics for decades now.

The numbers don't look that big, but the effect has been absolutely astounding: approximately 70% of the Mainline's losses to Evangelicalism can be attributed to birthrate alone (page 11, footnote 47).

So to conclude: The Mainline indeed has a serious membership problem. However, it's not a problem that can be fixed either through liberalization or stalwart conservatism because it's a structural problem. Things would have been absolutely no different if women's ordination, gay ordination, or any other aspect of theological liberalism hadn't happened in recent decades - none of those things would have kept the individualistic Boomers in the Church because they had already left when these happened.

If we're afraid to admit the Church can, has, and will make mistakes and that we should absolutely try to fix those mistakes, we should really stop with this whole Christianity thing, considering how much value we supposedly place on sanctification.

There's a difference between "the Church has made mistakes" (which we should always admit and fix), and "the Church has promoted wrong doctrines as part of its official teachings". Just like there's a difference between a professor having character flaws and a professor teaching false things in class. The former is to be expected. The latter casts doubt as to whether he should be a professor at all.

So when the Theory of Relativity was published and Newtonian mechanics proved to be non-universal, professors should have continued to insist that Newton's Laws always apply no matter what. After all, if they had admitted that physicists had been wrong for three centuries, it might have casted doubt on whether they should have been professors at all.

For example, the Catholic Church has admitted and apologized for many past mistakes, such as the trial of Galileo, the recent child abuse scandal, and so on. But if the Catholic Church were to decide that, actually, Luther was right all along, that would be equivalent to a declaration that the Catholic Church has no theological ground to stand on and no reason to exist.

On the most important aspect of Luther's protest, they did:

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

So to all the Catholics in the thread, congratulations! You will now be inducted into Lutheranism. Guards, bring in the hotdish and lutefisk!

No church should retain or adopt a policy just to keep members. They should do so because they believe it is the right thing to do, and that is what the Anglicans have done. If you refuse to adopt a policy that is right because you are afraid you will lose members, you've let the Church succumb to a force even worse than mutability: timidity.

Agreed. But I am saying that it's really hard - perhaps impossible - to believe at the same time that (1) the recent liberal changes adopted by Anglicans were the right thing to do, and (2) the Anglican Communion is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which has always remained faithful to the teachings of Christ. Belief in (1) casts serious doubt upon (2), and belief in (2) casts serious doubt upon (1).

There is no cognitive dissonance in recognizing both that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic and that long-standing Church policy can be wrong. An institution run by man for two millennia (or five hundred years if we're counting their time as independent), even one instituted by Christ, will not be correct on all counts, simply by the frailty of those in charge.

So I'm saying that, basically, you have to choose: Either you really think these changes are the right thing to do, in which case you must believe that the Church was wrong for almost two thousand years about some really important stuff, in which case you have very little reason to remain a Christian - or you think the Church was correct about its consistent teachings and practices throughout its existence, in which case the recent changes are NOT the right thing to do.

Why would recognizing human frailty give me less cause to be Christian? If anything, the idea that even the most pious can teach false doctrine would only lead me to further certainty of the need for grace through Christ.

So, basically, the Church should conduct itself solely for the purposes of retaining members. "Don't fight for what's right for fear of losing members, unless not fighting will cause lose you members, then go ahead!" Yeah, no. It is neither right nor safe to go against conscience.

No. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is this: If your "fight for what's right" involves going against things that the Church has consistently taught and practiced for almost its entire existence, then your beliefs about "what's right" are probably incompatible with Christianity. Either change your beliefs about what's right, or give up Christianity.

This smacks of No True Scotsman.

Notice the word "consistently" and the clause "for almost its entire existence". They are important. I am not talking about beliefs and practices that the Church has endorsed in some historical periods but not others. I am not talking about specific measures that were adopted to deal with a specific situation, and which may have been wrong. I am talking about things that the Church has consistently taught and practiced for almost its entire existence. Having all-male priests and bishops is one of these things.

Are you seriously going to argue that something is necessarily right if it's been practiced for two millennia but isn't necessarily if it's only been practiced for one? The line between "for almost its entire existence" and "periods" is completely arbitrary.

Look, I absolutely recognize the existence of a visible Church. But I reject any notion that would somehow put it above scrutiny of scripture and into some quasi-deific realm. It's run by people, regardless of its divine institution.

[Puerto Tyranus]

So I've been wondering, how many theocracy's have their been over the years? And was the Papal States one?

[The Flood]

So I've been wondering, how many theocracy's have their been over the years? And was the Papal States one?

I have a question about the Papal States; would it be good or bad if we restored them?

[The Archregimancy]

So I've been wondering, how many theocracy's have their been over the years? And was the Papal States one?

Christian theocracies?

That's largely a matter of definition.

The Papal States, certainly; otherwise there's plenty of grounds for disagreement over individual examples.

Wholly unambiguous and inarguable cases are remarkably few and far between. Florence under Savonarola, perhaps. Montenegro under the Prince-Bishops from 1516–1851, perhaps. It's not simply a matter of looking for situations where the religious authorities have significant influence on the secular authorities, it's also a case of looking for cases where the religious and secular authorities are not just inseparable, but also indistinguishable.

By the standard of "indistinguishable", the Byzantine Empire wasn't a theocracy; by the standard of "inseparable" post-independence Cyprus wasn't a theocracy.

But in the Papal States (and the other two examples), the religious and secular authorities were both inseparable and indistinguishable.

[Quirina]

So I've been wondering, how many theocracy's have their been over the years? And was the Papal States one?

I have a question about the Papal States; would it be good or bad if we restored them?

For me, politically restoring the Papal States might shake UN and EU since both are very concerned in political context they are into, tho impossible. If it is possible, it cannot be done. I'm speaking of a general perspective here since the Pope is merely contented in managing 500 people to run a city full of Catholics.

[Al-Orthodoxia]

Hey man, if you don't feel spiritually satisfied, then, by all means, seek out that which makes you feel better as a person. And, with your obviously poor experiences with the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt that I can currently convince you to go to Church...but...maybe that is it. Try to go to Church without your mother, speak to the priest, ask your friends, seek out all the help you can find, and, if all that guides you on another path, so be it. All that I am currently sure of is that your mother is not being a Proper Catholic in her treatment of you.

I didn't realize being "spiritually satisfied" would get me into Heaven. If it doesn't, why does it matter?

Good deeds make you go into heaven, I think I've said enough.

[Bunkeranlage]

I didn't realize being "spiritually satisfied" would get me into Heaven. If it doesn't, why does it matter?

Good deeds make you go into heaven, I think I've said enough.

Please excuse my tl;dr explanation.

It's said in the Bible that (paraphrased) "All our good deeds are nothing but filth in the eyes of God". Also, Jesus said "...Nobody comes to the Father except through me".

Therefore, if a person lives an opulent and sinful lifestyle, yet repents on his deathbed, I'm sure he'll be welcomed into heaven after he dies. Similarly, a man can live a decent lifestyle, but if he rejects Jesus, he'll, you know. (That's not to say that anybody who doesn't accept Him won't go to heaven. If I'm not wrong, there's an exception for people who have never heard of Jesus and people who are mentally ill, since they can't make the choice themselves.)

[Al-Orthodoxia]

Good deeds make you go into heaven, I think I've said enough.

Please excuse my tl;dr explanation.

It's said in the Bible that (paraphrased) "All our good deeds are nothing but filth in the eyes of God". Also, Jesus said "...Nobody comes to the Father except through me".

Therefore, if a person lives an opulent and sinful lifestyle, yet repents on his deathbed, I'm sure he'll be welcomed into heaven after he dies. Similarly, a man can live a decent lifestyle, but if he rejects Jesus, he'll, you know. (That's not to say that anybody who doesn't accept Him won't go to heaven. If I'm not wrong, there's an exception for people who have never heard of Jesus and people who are mentally ill, since they can't make the choice themselves.)

Sorry, but I reject that part of the Bible, personally.

[Mostrov]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to address all of this, but I will address some of it.

Queen Mary and King Phillip of Spain reversed the English reformation, and re established communion with Rome. They ended the heresy started by Henry VIII. But when Elisabeth I came to the throne, she reversed everything Mary did, and began the heresy anew.

I am quite aware of the history of my own church, but you ignore several crucial factors in the matter. Under Edward VI the church was undoubtedly at its most 'protestant', yet upon the accession of Mary the Roman Church accepted all priests ordained under Edward. As a whole the Saepius Officio was never satisfactorily responded too, yet points out entirely valid criticisms.

English Translation of relevant section of Saepius Oficio

VI. As regards the practice of the Roman Court and Legate in the XVIth century, although the Pope writes at some length, we believe that he is really as uncertain as ourselves. We see that he has nothing to add to the documents which are already well known, and that he quotes and argues from an imperfect copy of the letter of Paul IVth Praeclara carissimi. Where, for example, are the faculties granted to Pole after 5 August 1553 and before 8 March 1554, which Julius confirms in his letter of the latter date, to be "freely used" in respect to orders received with any irregularity or failure in the accustomed form, but does not detail and define? Without these faculties the "rules of action" to be observed by Pole are imperfectly known. For the distinction made in the letters of both those dates between men "promoted" and "not promoted," to which the Pope refers, does not seem to touch the position of the Edwardian clergy, but the case of those who held benefices without any pretence of ordination, as was then often done. Who in fact knows thoroughly either what was done in this matter or on what grounds it was done? We know part; of part we are ignorant. It can be proved however on our side that the work of that reconciliation under Queen Mary (6 July 1553 to 17 Nov. 1558) was in very great measure finished, under royal and episcopal authority, before the arrival of Pole.

In the conduct of which business there is evidence of much inconsistency and unevenness. Yet while many Edwardian Priests are found to have been deprived for various reasons, and particularly on account of entering into wedlock, none are so found, as far as we know, on account of defect of Order. Some were voluntarily reordained. Some received anointing as a supplement to their previous ordination, a ceremony to which some of our Bishops at that time attached great importance.[1] Some, and perhaps the majority, remained in their benefices without reordination, nay were promoted in some cases to new cures. Pole did not return to England after his exile until November 1554, and brought the reconciliation to a conclusion in the fifteen months that followed. The principle of his work appears to have been to recognise the state of things which he found in existence upon his arival, and to direct all his powers towards the restoration of papal supremacy as easily as possible. In this period one man and perhaps a second (for more have not yet been discovered) received new orders under Pole, in the years 1554 and 1557; but it is uncertain in what year each of them began the process of being reordained. At any rate very few were reordained after Pole's arrival. Others perhaps received some kind of supplement or other to their orders, a record of which is not to be found in our Registers.

But if a large number had been reordained under Pole, as papal legate, it would not have been at all surprising, inasmuch as in his twelve legatine constitutions, he added, as an appendix to the second, the Decree of Eugenius IVth for the Armenians, saying that he did so "inasmuch as very great errors have been committed here (in England) with respect to the doctrine concerning the head of the Church and the Sacraments."[2] And this he did, not as our Archbishop, but as papal legate. For these consititutions were promulgated at the beginning of the year 1556. But Pole was only ordained Presbyter on the 20th March of the same year; and said Mass for the first time on the following day, being the day on which our lawful Archbishop, Cranmer, was burnt alive; and on the 22nd he was consecrated Archbishop.

We quote here the Decree of Eugenius Ivth, as reissued by Pole, because it shows how slippery and weak the judgment of the Church of Rome has been in this matter. Further when Pope Leo extols the learning of Pole on this point and writes that it would have been quite irrelevant for the Popes to instruct the legate "as to the conditions necessary for the bestowal of orders," he seems wholly to forget Eugenius' Decree, which he has silently thrown over in another part of his letter. (Cp. 3 and 5.) "The sixth sacrament is that of Order: the matter of which is the thing by the delivery of which the order is conferred : as for instance the order of the presbyterate is conferred by the porrection of the chalice with wine and the paten with bread : the diaconate by giving the book of the Gospels : the subdiaconate by the delivery of the empty chalice with the empty paten on it : and in like manner as regards other orders by the assignment of the things pertaining to their ministers. The form of priesthood is as follows: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And so as regards the forms of the other orders as is contained at length in the Roman Pontifical. The ordinary minister of this Sacrament is the Bishop : the effect, an increase of grace, so that a man may be a fit minister." Here the laying on of hands, and the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the candidates for orders, are not referred to even by a single word. Yet Eugenius, as is clear by his explanation of other Sacraments, is not speaking of things to be supplied by the Armenians, as writers on the Roman side are sometimes fond of saying, but is teaching the Church, as if he were its master, in careful adherence to Aquinas, about what is absolutely necessary to the administration of the Sacraments. So also he writes in the earlier part of his Decree: "All these Sacraments have three requisites for their performance, things as their 'matter;' words as their 'form,' and the person of the minister who celebrates the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does : and if any of these be absent, the Sacrament is not performed" (Conc. xiv. p. 1738).

Now in our Church from March 1550 to 1st November 1552, though the delivery of the instruments still remained in some degree (i.e., of the chalice with bread in the case of Presbyters, and of the pastoral staff in that of Bishops, and of the Bible in both) yet the forms attached to them had already been changed very nearly into those which now are in use. In the year 1552 the delivery of the chalice and the staff was dropped and that of the Bible alone remained. King Edward died on the 6th July 1553.

According to this Decree, then, all these Presbyters ought to have been reordained. But Pole's opinion scarcely agreed with his practice. Nor does Paul Ivth himself, in his Brief Regimini universalis, make any demands as to the form in which Presbyters are ordained, though careful about "properly and rightly ordained" Bishops. (See last page of Appendix.)

Well, I wasn't really focusing on the ordination of women specifically, but rather was talking about recent liberal attitudes in general (especially with regards to sexuality, but also the afterlife, hell, the uniqueness and importance of the death and resurrection of Christ as the only path to salvation, and so on).

This is actually quite a complicated issue, but what you must know is presumably somewhat flawed - and to be honest its an entirely understandable mistake - alot of the 'liberal' christanity we hear of in regards to Anglicanism is not in fact part of Anglican doctrine, merely due to the nature of the Communion individual parts may act as they see fit. The actual problem regarding say, homosexuality, is not so much Canterbury as it is Episcopalians doing so in defiance of Canterbury and the church struggling to be able to act in response.

Take for instance Mariology, this is a church that can be almost entirely Catholic in its devotations (with rosaries and all) and there are other parts who utterly detest Mary (extreme evangelists).

[Bunkeranlage]

Please excuse my tl;dr explanation.

It's said in the Bible that (paraphrased) "All our good deeds are nothing but filth in the eyes of God". Also, Jesus said "...Nobody comes to the Father except through me".

Therefore, if a person lives an opulent and sinful lifestyle, yet repents on his deathbed, I'm sure he'll be welcomed into heaven after he dies. Similarly, a man can live a decent lifestyle, but if he rejects Jesus, he'll, you know. (That's not to say that anybody who doesn't accept Him won't go to heaven. If I'm not wrong, there's an exception for people who have never heard of Jesus and people who are mentally ill, since they can't make the choice themselves.)

Sorry, but I reject that part of the Bible, personally.

That's the main message of the Bible, actually. That Jesus came to save us and that we can live forever with him if we just believe in him.

[Al-Orthodoxia]

Sorry, but I reject that part of the Bible, personally.

That's the main message of the Bible, actually. That Jesus came to save us and that we can live forever with him if we just believe in him.

Personally, and I do not force this view over anyone, but I rather think that Jesus' life and his moral code is more important than believing in him.

[Murkwood]

So I've been wondering, how many theocracy's have their been over the years? And was the Papal States one?

Most of the time, "theocracies" aren't based on the Bible. Rather, they use "God" as an excuse to fuel their power-hungry ambitions.

[Czechanada]

So I've been wondering, how many theocracy's have their been over the years? And was the Papal States one?

Christian theocracies?

That's largely a matter of definition.

The Papal States, certainly; otherwise there's plenty of grounds for disagreement over individual examples.

Wholly unambiguous and inarguable cases are remarkably few and far between. Florence under Savonarola, perhaps. Montenegro under the Prince-Bishops from 1516–1851, perhaps. It's not simply a matter of looking for situations where the religious authorities have significant influence on the secular authorities, it's also a case of looking for cases where the religious and secular authorities are not just inseparable, but also indistinguishable.

By the standard of "indistinguishable", the Byzantine Empire wasn't a theocracy; by the standard of "inseparable" post-independence Cyprus wasn't a theocracy.

But in the Papal States (and the other two examples), the religious and secular authorities were both inseparable and indistinguishable.

There were also the Taborites during the Hussite Wars.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's the main message of the Bible, actually. That Jesus came to save us and that we can live forever with him if we just believe in him.

Personally, and I do not force this view over anyone, but I rather think that Jesus' life and his moral code is more important than believing in him.

They're both important. Faith and good works

[Al-Orthodoxia]

Personally, and I do not force this view over anyone, but I rather think that Jesus' life and his moral code is more important than believing in him.

They're both important. Faith and good works

I believe in God, but not that Jesus Christ IS God, I just can't comprehend that idea, sorry.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

They're both important. Faith and good works

I believe in God, but not that Jesus Christ IS God, I just can't comprehend that idea, sorry.

That runs the fallacy in assuming God is being you can comprehend. or rather limiting God to only what you can comprehend.

[Al-Orthodoxia]

I believe in God, but not that Jesus Christ IS God, I just can't comprehend that idea, sorry.

That runs the fallacy in assuming God is being you can comprehend. or rather limiting God to only what you can comprehend.

Well, let me say, I feel comfortable more with a God, the Father, then adding Jesus in it. It's just personal.

[Angleter]

Moreover, could you imagine the hyper-clericalism from priests who were officially recognised as saints? The haughty attitude, the hairdryer treatment sermons ("YOU DEPRAVED, FILTHY, SINFUL CHILDREN OF DEATH WILL SURELY BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY...") - all the worst aspects of pre-Vatican II Catholicism would be magnified 1000 times.

But that isn't why it was heresy. It's heresy because, as Constantinopolis said, it punishes innocents for the sins of another. Trust me, no one wants immoral priests, but declaring anything they do invalid doesn't solve the problem of their immorality.

I'm aware of that. I was just adding why it wouldn't, contrary to what Pope Joan seems to be arguing, even work out better in practice.

[Sun Wukong]

I believe in God, but not that Jesus Christ IS God, I just can't comprehend that idea, sorry.

That runs the fallacy in assuming God is being you can comprehend. or rather limiting God to only what you can comprehend.

It's interesting to me that you could replace "Jesus Christ" in Al-Orth's statement with "a platypus dirigible" and your reply would be equally relevant. This line of argument merely hand-waves away all reasonable criticism.

[The Rich Port]

I believe in God, but not that Jesus Christ IS God, I just can't comprehend that idea, sorry.

That runs the fallacy in assuming God is being you can comprehend. or rather limiting God to only what you can comprehend.

It also runs the fallacy that you or anyone on Earth can ever hope to understand because, by it's very definition, we cannot understand it. It's not a matter of time, or the correct technology, or the correct mindset. You CAN'T.

So... STOP FUCKING TRYING TO.

[Puerto Tyranus]

So...anyone else read St Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God? It's rather fun, I think.

You can find it here.

[Czechanada]

So...anyone else read St Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God? It's rather fun, I think.

You can find it here.

As someone who has read of bit of logic, it looks like a propositional fallacy.

[Urran]

Some of the most hateful and vile people I've ever net are Christians. Why would I want to be one?