Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Czechanada]

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

Why would you need to be one? You've already captured some.

[Urran]

What?

[Czechanada]

What?

Carefully reread your initial statement.

[Serretes]

What?

You did a typo.
net as opposed to met.

[Urran]

Dam autocorrect.

You still didn't answer my question. What's so great about it? Other than it gives you the right to act like douches, claiming to worship a God of love while snubbing those that don't think the way you do.

[Czechanada]

Dam autocorrect.

You still didn't answer my question. What's so great about it? Other than it gives you the right to act like douches, claiming to worship a God of love while snubbing those that don't think the way you do.

I'm not Christian, so I cannot answer.

[Conscentia]

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.

It's flawed.

[Othelos]

Dam autocorrect.

You still didn't answer my question. What's so great about it? Other than it gives you the right to act like douches, claiming to worship a God of love while snubbing those that don't think the way you do.

They don't think of it like that.

Since they are doing 'the will of god', they think that everything they do is right.

[The Rich Port]

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.

It annoys me, is what. It's reads like a teenager who thinks he's deep.

[Cetatsenia]

Dam autocorrect.

You still didn't answer my question. What's so great about it? Other than it gives you the right to act like douches, claiming to worship a God of love while snubbing those that don't think the way you do.

Being a Christian doesn't give you the right to act like a douche to people who don't think like you do, some just use it as an excuse to. Muslims can use Allah as an excuse to be a douche to non-Muslims, atheists can use their disbelief in a God as an excuse to act like a douche towards those who do believe in a God, etc. So, in short, the issue with those people isn't that they're Christian. it's that they're douches.

[Sun Wukong]

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

Why would you need to be one? You've already captured some.

Gotta catch 'em all.

[Urran]

Uh huh. Then why does it seem that's it's the majority of you people.

[Othelos]

Uh huh. Then why does it seem that's it's the majority of you people.

I wouldn't say it's the majority.

And actually anyone can be like that, regardless of religious affiliation.

[Cetatsenia]

Uh huh. Then why does it seem that's it's the majority of you people.

It's not a majority, it's a vocal minority. There are a lot of Christians that you'd never know were a Christian unless you specifically asked them about their religion. But if you have someone who uses their religion as an excuse to be an asshole, well, their religion is going to come up a lot more. Or you could just be unlucky when it comes to meeting Christians; that's always a possibility.

[Urran]

And I don't get it, how do you believe in something you can't feel? I just don't get it.

[Sun Wukong]

Uh huh. Then why does it seem that's it's the majority of you people.

Where are you from? Because in most English-speaking nations Christians are the majority of the population. So if most of the people around you are douches to you, then you are the common denominator. Alternatively you might live in New York.

[Urran]

Louisiana/Mississippi state line.

[Sun Wukong]

And I don't get it, how do you believe in something you can't feel? I just don't get it.

I'll let Dennett explain.

[Sun Wukong]

Louisiana/Mississippi state line.

That explains it then.

[Urran]

Louisiana/Mississippi state line.

That explains it then.

How so?

[Serretes]

That explains it then.

How so?

The Christians from that area are often radical and somewhat militant. Any opinion that is not theirs is wrong.
In my experience with the area, that is the case.

[Urran]

It's not just religion. Your opinion on anything has to be mine or you're out.

[Menassa]

It's not just religion. Your opinion on anything has to be mine or you're out.

That's tolerant.

[Urran]

It's not just religion. Your opinion on anything has to be mine or you're out.

That's tolerant.

It's my state

[Constantinopolis]

Sorry to post and run - I know I owe you a lengthy reply, Ryfylke - but I really don't have much time now. I'll try to write more later.

For the moment I'll just make a few quick points in response to others.

There's a very good reason for that. If, as the Donatists claimed, the sacraments performed by an immoral priest are invalid, then the people baptized by an immoral priest are not really baptized, the people who confess to an immoral priest don't actually have their sins forgiven, and the people who receive the Eucharist consecrated by an immoral priest have not really taken Communion. In other words, if the Donatists were right, then God punishes innocent people for the sins of an immoral priest, by withholding grace from them. Obviously you can see why that's a heretical doctrine.

It feels to me like a doctrine which is intended mainly for institutional stability.

If you allow priests to be immoral, as Augustine did, how can you avoid the modern pedophile controversy?

Priests are not allowed to be immoral. It's just that the effectiveness of their sacraments does not depend on their personal morality. If a priest secretly molests a child and you have no idea and go to him for confession, how does it make any sense for God to refuse to forgive your sins because the priest was immoral? That would be punishing you for the priest's sin.

Church doctrine says that a priest's sins weigh upon his soul, but do not affect his parishioners, because it's not their fault.

Would it be possible to increase the presence of Nuns in the Church to equal that of Priests?

Monastics (nuns and monks alike) are usually laity, not clergy. It is possible to be both a monk and a clergyman, of course (we call such people hieromonks, and, as mentioned earlier, we draw our bishops from among them), but monasticism and ordination are still separate things. A monk who is not ordained cannot administer the sacraments or perform any other priestly duties, because he is a layman. In the Orthodox Church (and I assume also in the Catholic Church) the majority of monks are not ordained.

Could it be possible to make it so that a Nun could be a Bishop, or even Pope / Patriarch?

Not unless the nun is ordained first, just like a monk cannot be bishop (or priest, or deacon) unless he is ordained.

So in order for a nun to be a priest, or bishop, or patriarch, we would need to allow female ordination first, so that gets us right back where we started.

This particular issue is one I find conflicting. On one hand, barring women from having the same authority in the Church as men seems sort of sexist, but on the other hand, I also value the Church's traditions and authority, and I can't advocate against Church teaching as that would be heretical. As a result, I just keep my stance neutral because I can't decide.

Technically speaking, ordination and administrative authority are separate things, too. There is no particular doctrinal reason why a bishop has to be entrusted with the finances of the Church, for example, or with the authority to decide what new missionary projects to launch or what books to publish or what buildings to construct. Some or all of these duties could be entrusted to laity, including women.

So, in other words, the solution to increasing the role of women and their authority within the Church is to have more laity participation in the administration of the Church.

What's so great about it? Other than it gives you the right to act like douches, claiming to worship a God of love while snubbing those that don't think the way you do.

Anyone who acts like Christianity gives him the right to act like a douche is doing it completely backwards.

As a wise priest once told me, the first step on the Christian path must always be repentance. And not a one-off repentance, but a habitual daily practice of repentance. I am a sinner. I am not better than other people. In fact, I am worse than them. I have wronged my sisters and brothers. I have wronged God.

I really think that the first sentence of the pre-communion prayers of St. John Chrysostom perfectly encapsulates the perspective that a Christian should always hold towards his/her own sins:

"I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first."

We should all say it at least once a week...