NationStates

This is the fourth version of the Christian discussion thread, where one can discuss Christianity in general, the difference between the sects, certain variations on the denomination and differences in what you believe, and many other topics regarding Christianity in comparison to other religions around the world.

While discussion naturally covers a broad range of themes, members of the moderation team (including those participating in the thread), may occasionally gently suggest that some topics might be best taken to a separate thread; this will usually only occur when a subject is itself the subject of recurring separate NSG threads.

Potentially unfinished business from the third version:

Neoconstantius wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Hussite Church and it's relation to Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism? There seems to be a scarcity of information on the subject.

Ryfylke wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Hussite Church and it's relation to Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism? There seems to be a scarcity of information on the subject.

The Hussites have since evolved into what is today know as the Moravian Chuch. Like most Protestant groups, their are organized by nation rather than having a central structure, so it's hard to get a solid picture of their ecumenical relations. However, they tend to cooperate well with the Lutheran and Anglican Churches, as the three are very similar theologically. The three have been on a trend toward full communion for decades.

And....

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Albicia wrote:
But... I thought Jesus founded the Church of England... haven't you guys heard the song?

(I'm hoping that this is sarcasm but if not,...)

Are we talking about the Anglican Church of England, or Catholic Archdiocese in England? The Catholic Archdiocese holds back to the 500's but Celtic Christianiy existed as early as the first century. The Anglican Church of England is founded by Horny Henry VIII

On that one.... Albicia was presumably wryly referencing Blake's Jerusalem, Tarsonis. Which of course begins:

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

Indeed I was. I do such love that song, one of my favorite sort of hymns. I love the legend as well. My ancestors from Cornwall and Somerset were devout believers in the Joseph of Arimathea legends, about Jesus coming to England. It likely has no shred of proof, but hagiography and folk tales about the life of Jesus are so interesting.

New thread #swag

Episode IV: A New Pope

The Flood wrote:New thread #swag

Episode IV: A New Pope

Got a question, to start this thing off.

Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?

Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).

Aodan wrote:

Menassa wrote:Got a question, to start this thing off.

Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?

Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).

In the Bible it says Homosexuality is condemned in the eyes of God, not other people.

But doesn't it say to put them to death? That was said for people to do.

Menassa wrote:

The Flood wrote:New thread #swag
Episode IV: A New Pope

Got a question, to start this thing off.
Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?
Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).

I support the rights of LGBT people because the Church's overarching teaching is love and acceptance. Hating people is always wrong. Furthermore, I don't believe a secular institution of gay marriage conflicts with the definition of Holy Matrimony, because 2 people getting married in an office by signing a paper isn't Holy Matrimony, so I don't believe secular gay marriage conflicts with my beliefs.

I'm against abortion because it is fundamental to the Christian faith; taking an innocent human life is among the gravest sins that can ever be committed, and must not be allowed under any circumstance. I don't believe it is possible in any regard for abortion to not be murder.

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, because it is a made up Protestant concept. How can the Bible be the only source of authority if the Church clearly predates the Bible? The Church wrote and compiled the Bible, which clearly proves the Church has at least equal, if not greater authority then the Bible.

The Flood wrote:

Menassa wrote:Got a question, to start this thing off.
Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?
Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).

I support the rights of LGBT people because the Church's overarching teaching is love and acceptance. Hating people is always wrong. Furthermore, I don't believe a secular institution of gay marriage conflicts with the definition of Holy Matrimony, because 2 people getting married in an office by signing a paper isn't Holy Matrimony, so I don't believe secular gay marriage conflicts with my beliefs.

I'm against abortion because it is fundamental to the Christian faith; taking an innocent human life is among the gravest sins that can ever be committed, and must not be allowed under any circumstance. I don't believe it is possible in any regard for abortion to not be murder.

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, because it is a made up Protestant concept. How can the Bible be the only source of authority if the Church clearly predates the Bible? The Church wrote and compiled the Bible, which clearly proves the Church has at least equal, if not greater authority then the Bible.

Ah, interesting, some of what I expected to read, some not.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Are we talking about the Anglican Church of England, or Catholic Archdiocese in England? The Catholic Archdiocese holds back to the 500's but Celtic Christianiy existed as early as the first century. The Anglican Church of England is founded by Horny Henry VIII

Again this irritates me to no end, and is an absurd simplification of the English Reformation and of course completely ignores the fact that many of the priests who were part of the initial church under Henry VIII and later Edward VI were reinstated under the co-reign of Mary I and Philip I, as well as ignoring the fact that much of the reformation took its roots from English liturgical traditions such as the Sarum Rite (Especially under Edward VI) which was later 'suppressed' under Elizabeth to avoid making such dogmatic statements that might create schism in the nascent church.
Not that the Roman Catholics did any better with their suppression of the same rite as the Southern European Tridentine Rite was promulgated. Surely a sign of political neutrality if there was ever one.

And of course the fact that Anglicanism traces its origins to said Archdiocese and Celtic Christianity.

And don't mention divorce...

Distruzio wrote:Heresies. Each and every one. The only Christian schisms are the Anglican Catholics (as opposed to the Anglican Communion which evolved from schism into heresy), the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox - perhaps, very tepidly, the Old (Utrecht) Catholics as well but I reserve the right for reconsideration of this as I increase my knowledge of their theological foundation. Each of the Protestants denominations, except for the Anglican Catholics (which seceded from the Roman Catholic Church due to political rivalries rather than dogmatic innovations (although the Church, later, ratified certain Protestant doctrinal innovations which were, even later still, repudiated or otherwise disregarded in order to bring the Church more in line with orthodox Christian doctrine), is heretical.

Considering that the Union of Utrecht is in full communion with Anglicanism, I would be interested in hearing your justification of the differences between Anglican Catholics (Does this refer to Tractarian Anglo-Catholics?), High Church Anglicans and the Anglican Communion (Which as far as I am concerned are relatively inseparable).

What heresy has the Anglican Communion fallen victim? The reissuing of the statement condemning gay marriage? Or the ordination of women (Which is about as limited as well as full controversy)? And to what difference to we make of the Anglican Communion and the Church of England, especially considering the whole fuss about via mede and the broad church.

Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

I just wanted to point that in addition to the Moravian Church, there exists the Czechoslovak Hussite Church as well as a descendant of the Hussites.

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

Personally I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it, since the common European portrayal of Christ as a white European bloke would technically be at odds with the fact that he would have been a brown Palestinian (...right?)

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

If your an atheist then why are you so righteous?
.

Benuty wrote:

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

If your an atheist then why are you so righteous?
.

There are some people who follow Christian teachings, but don't believe that Jesus is Lord. Fidel Castro, for example.

However, I'm not quite sure how that's working out, since believing in Jesus is the very first step to becoming a Christian.

Bunkeranlage wrote:

Benuty wrote:If your an atheist then why are you so righteous?
.

There are some people who follow Christian teachings, but don't believe that Jesus is Lord. Fidel Castro, for example.

However, I'm not quite sure how that's working out, since believing in Jesus is the very first step to becoming a Christian.

I agree with that statement, even Thomas Jefferson made his own bible taking out all the parts about Christ miracles, so he would not see the super natural side of Jesus.

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

Far as in movies, its all about what actor they hire, the skin color would probably be off, since people native in that are have a darker skin tone. Now, I have no knowledge of a raptor Jesus, I have seen black before, and I am not sure about Asian. It depends on what denomination your in for how Jesus is viewed, but most use the white version.

I hope your not going to start another color debate, like how fox did with the color of santa. He isnt even real and it caused a big fight.

Christainville wrote:

Bunkeranlage wrote:
There are some people who follow Christian teachings, but don't believe that Jesus is Lord. Fidel Castro, for example.

However, I'm not quite sure how that's working out, since believing in Jesus is the very first step to becoming a Christian.

I agree with that statement, even Thomas Jefferson made his own bible taking out all the parts about Christ miracles, so he would not see the super natural side of Jesus.

That said, we can follow all of the Bible's lessons and proverbs, but it's not getting us anywhere if we don't acknowledge that Jesus came to save us. Conversely, I could be a serial adulterer/murderer/cheat/thief, and I would still receive salvation even if my conversion was a last minute, deathbed one.

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

Well, the Biblical evidence, such as there is, seems to indicate that he had a whiter phenotype than is common to modern Palestinians.

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus

Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.

Albicia wrote:Well, the Biblical evidence, such as there is, seems to indicate that he had a whiter phenotype than is common to modern Palestinians.

What Biblical evidence? There's no description of His physical appearance anywhere in the Gospels; and I really don't think the description in Revelation 1:12-16 counts.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus

Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.

Hm. So even in depictions of him, the physical appearance of Jesus is secondary to his teachings? I can dig that. I just thought some priestly figure down the ages would have made a fuss along the lines of "OMG WTF gaiz Jesus is totally not look liek that".

As for my mouth frothing, well, I like you, and, indeed, I find many Christians entirely unobjectionable. I just have my philosophical and ideological disagreements with your god (as far as that can go, given I - conveniently for me - don't believe he exists!). Which I should probably not get into, lest this become yet another Christians vs. Atheists Thread. I lack the energy or the zeal for evangelism, and I enjoy poking about with theology, so I'd rather do that instead.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus

Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.

Albicia wrote:Well, the Biblical evidence, such as there is, seems to indicate that he had a whiter phenotype than is common to modern Palestinians.

What Biblical evidence? There's no description of His physical appearance anywhere in the Gospels; and I really don't think the description in Revelation 1:12-16 counts.

Jesus himself may not be described, but his ancestors are. King David is described as fair and ruddy, the princes of Israel are described as fair, white and ruddy (with blue eyes) in Lamentations, and some translations of the Psalms describe the Messiah as being fair. Obviously the descriptions in Revelation could mean anything.

And of course, his colour wouldn't change anything at all.

Albicia wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.




What Biblical evidence? There's no description of His physical appearance anywhere in the Gospels; and I really don't think the description in Revelation 1:12-16 counts.

Jesus himself may not be described, but his ancestors are. King David is described as fair and ruddy, the princes of Israel are described as fair, white and ruddy (with blue eyes) in Lamentations, and some translations of the Psalms describe the Messiah as being fair. Obviously the descriptions in Revelation could mean anything.

And of course, his colour wouldn't change anything at all.

The whole point of not providing any detailed descriptions of Jesus' image is so that we worship Jesus himself. An image would probably lead some of us to worship the image, which is not what we'd want. We don't however, have much of an image of Jesus except for the usual interpretations (beardy, long hair, etc).

(PS: It's late where I am. I gotta sleep now. Bai)

Bunkeranlage wrote:

Albicia wrote:
Jesus himself may not be described, but his ancestors are. King David is described as fair and ruddy, the princes of Israel are described as fair, white and ruddy (with blue eyes) in Lamentations, and some translations of the Psalms describe the Messiah as being fair. Obviously the descriptions in Revelation could mean anything.

And of course, his colour wouldn't change anything at all.

The whole point of not providing any detailed descriptions of Jesus' image is so that we worship Jesus himself. An image would probably lead some of us to worship the image, which is not what we'd want. We don't however, have much of an image of Jesus except for the usual interpretations (beardy, long hair, etc).

(PS: It's late where I am. I gotta sleep now. Bai)

I wonder what hair length Jesus had? Paul seems to be pretty critical of long hair on males.

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

No worries, baby. Orthodox doctrine is mum. From my experience, His portrayal as a white man has always been marginally offensive.

In essence, our position is that if Jesus wasn't constrained by death why, then, would He be constrained by race?

Mostrov wrote:

Distruzio wrote:Heresies. Each and every one. The only Christian schisms are the Anglican Catholics (as opposed to the Anglican Communion which evolved from schism into heresy), the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox - perhaps, very tepidly, the Old (Utrecht) Catholics as well but I reserve the right for reconsideration of this as I increase my knowledge of their theological foundation. Each of the Protestants denominations, except for the Anglican Catholics (which seceded from the Roman Catholic Church due to political rivalries rather than dogmatic innovations (although the Church, later, ratified certain Protestant doctrinal innovations which were, even later still, repudiated or otherwise disregarded in order to bring the Church more in line with orthodox Christian doctrine), is heretical.

Considering that the Union of Utrecht is in full communion with Anglicanism, I would be interested in hearing your justification of the differences between Anglican Catholics (Does this refer to Tractarian Anglo-Catholics?), High Church Anglicans and the Anglican Communion (Which as far as I am concerned are relatively inseparable).

What heresy has the Anglican Communion fallen victim? The reissuing of the statement condemning gay marriage? Or the ordination of women (Which is about as limited as well as full controversy)? And to what difference to we make of the Anglican Communion and the Church of England, especially considering the whole fuss about via mede and the broad church.

A very good question. One that I have been struggling to articulate for some time now. This response will afford me the opportunity to organize my thoughts more coherently.

I do not exclude the Tractarians or High Church Anglicans... and I now (as in, just this moment in reflection) realize that I should, henceforth, refrain from using the generic "Anglican Communion" to describe my distasteful perception of those members of the Communion that emphasize the Reformation at the expense of Catholicism. I should, rather, be quite more explicit in what part of Anglicanism I find to be more Protestant than Christian.

I, in the most basic sense agree with the Oxford Movement as I find the progressivism and liberal tendencies of the AAC innovative and non-traditional. While this alone doesn't discredit the value such a movement might have it certainly goes quite a long way toward reinforcing Reformed theology at the expense of Catholicism, in my mind (however much I may agree with them about the ordination of homosexuals - I disagree with them on this matter for different more theologically sound reason. That is to say that no person should be ordained if they consider their sexuality just as important as their faith. If they don't, then I see no reason to restrict their ordination. If they do...). I am suggesting that those elements within the Communion that align their faith with the more Reformed aspect of Protestantism at the expense of Catholicism court heresy. The mere history of the Anglican Catholic expression of faith shows that it is quite possible to be both Catholic and Reformed.

You've revealed a significant hole in my understanding of Anglo-Catholicism. Thank you for that. Now that I've been able to organize my thoughts more coherently (at least for me) I see where I need to better myself.

**I don't consider the Radical Orthodoxy adherents any more than I consider the Evangelical Protestants. They are each irrational.

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

In the. Orthodox Church, a lot of Icons portray him as Middle Eastern



And let's not forget, the Virgin Mary has also been portrayed as black, including the baby Jesus in her arms