Christian Discussion Thread V

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not to mention the continued threadjacking.

It ain't thread-jack. Does Frozen have a pro or anti Christian message? is a valid topic.

True Love cures a frozen heart is a pro Christian message.

Elsa and Anna are Prods and Good. RC point of view is that RCism is the One True Faith, therefore any story with Prod heroes has an anti-christian message.

Bishop is Prod, but we never see him after the coronation, so we don't know his alignment.

We don't know Hans' and Weaselton's religion, all we know is that they are evil.

IF they had been explicitly RC, then the message would have been anti-RC.

IF they has been explicitly Prod, then the message COULD have been interpreted as anti-Prod. Look at all the political shennanigans that Kings get up to when they don't have a Pope telling them what to do. France, Spain, Bavaria, Austria and Portugal have never EVAH gone to war with each other.

No it's not a relevant topic. It's a relevant topic in the Frozen thread. This is for discussing Christianity, not whether a disney movie contains a religion specific message. Take it back to the Frozen thread.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

How do you know she didn't have a series of extremely convenient (or inconvenient) miracles?

Or even that her ice powers weren't "her Cross to bare"?

Just stop

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Effectively, they are indeed Atheists. Apart from Coronation and Weaselton, religion is irrelevant to the story.

The story focuses on Love rather than focusing on the GOD of Love. I continue to assert that a pro-Love message is a pro-Christian message.

Elsa uses magic which is un-Christian.

So the commandment Thou shalt Love is a very minor part of Christianity and the most important commandment is Thou shalt not use magic???

Good news! In the entire history of the Universe, no-one has EVAH broken the most important commandment. Christians, Jews, Pagans, monkeys, amoebae and rocks all count as Christians according to your definition.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Effectively, they are indeed Atheists. Apart from Coronation and Weaselton, religion is irrelevant to the story.

The story focuses on Love rather than focusing on the GOD of Love. I continue to assert that a pro-Love message is a pro-Christian message.

Elsa uses magic which is un-Christian.

Are you one of those people that thinks Harry Potter is Satanic?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Or even that her ice powers weren't "her Cross to bare"?

Just stop

Just stop trying to persecute those that believe differently than though. Just stop being Christian. Just stop, stahp, pls

[Cogitation]

I would say Anna and Elsa are atheists.

The Duke is most likely Lutheran. Weselton appears to be based on Prussia and Prussia was Lutheran in the 1800s. The Duke of Weselton is a very devout Christian who acts on his faith. Hans is also most likely a Lutheran since the Southern Isles is based on Denmark and Denmark is Lutheran. Hans may also have a deist view like Napoleon Bonaparte.

NORMALLY, discussions about whether or not Movie X has pro-Christian or anti-Christian themes would belong in a thread discussing Christianity.

HOWEVER, you have a history of threadjacking disucssions about Frozen into threads everywhere you can. We handed down an edict to you that you needed to limit bringing up Frozen to just a thread specifically about Frozen and posted in the Arts & Fiction board. You’ve now violated that edict yet again.

The above, in combination with your past offenses of attempted Moderators As Weapons and Trolling have now led The NationStates Moderation Team to declare you *** Delete On Sight ***.

*** ”Greater Weselton”, a.k.a. “United Russian Soviet States”: You are hereby permanently banned from NationStates.net. All of your existing accounts will be terminated. Any new accounts you create will be deleted without further warning or reason. Do not come back. ***

...

To everyone else, we would like to put a firm end to this spate of Frozen-related derailings, so please redirect discussion to pro- or anti-Christian themes in other movies, or to discussion of other aspects of Christianity in general. Thank you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
“Think about it for a moment.”
NationStates Game Moderator

[Pope Joan]

Elsa uses magic which is un-Christian.

So the commandment Thou shalt Love is a very minor part of Christianity and the most important commandment is Thou shalt not use magic???

Good news! In the entire history of the Universe, no-one has EVAH broken the most important commandment. Christians, Jews, Pagans, monkeys, amoebae and rocks all count as Christians according to your definition.

pharmakopoiia is a Greek word associated in Biblical times with magic. It seems more like herbology to me, like something a licensed druggist might do.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I would say Anna and Elsa are atheists.

The Duke is most likely Lutheran. Weselton appears to be based on Prussia and Prussia was Lutheran in the 1800s. The Duke of Weselton is a very devout Christian who acts on his faith. Hans is also most likely a Lutheran since the Southern Isles is based on Denmark and Denmark is Lutheran. Hans may also have a deist view like Napoleon Bonaparte.

NORMALLY, discussions about whether or not Movie X has pro-Christian or anti-Christian themes would belong in a thread discussing Christianity.

HOWEVER, you have a history of threadjacking disucssions about Frozen into threads everywhere you can. We handed down an edict to you that you needed to limit bringing up Frozen to just a thread specifically about Frozen and posted in the Arts & Fiction board. You’ve now violated that edict yet again.

The above, in combination with your past offenses of attempted Moderators As Weapons and Trolling have now led The NationStates Moderation Team to declare you *** Delete On Sight ***.

*** ”Greater Weselton”, a.k.a. “United Russian Soviet States”: You are hereby permanently banned from NationStates.net. All of your existing accounts will be terminated. Any new accounts you create will be deleted without further warning or reason. Do not come back. ***

...

To everyone else, we would like to put a firm end to this spate of Frozen-related derailings, so please redirect discussion to pro- or anti-Christian themes in other movies, or to discussion of other aspects of Christianity in general. Thank you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
“Think about it for a moment.”
NationStates Game Moderator

Please don't do this. I am innocent.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So the commandment Thou shalt Love is a very minor part of Christianity and the most important commandment is Thou shalt not use magic???

Good news! In the entire history of the Universe, no-one has EVAH broken the most important commandment. Christians, Jews, Pagans, monkeys, amoebae and rocks all count as Christians according to your definition.

pharmakopoiia is a Greek word associated in Biblical times with magic. It seems more like herbology to me, like something a licensed druggist might do.

Please, the witch is dead. Let it go.

(Yes I realize the irony of that statement)

[Unified Imperial States]

pharmakopoiia is a Greek word associated in Biblical times with magic. It seems more like herbology to me, like something a licensed druggist might do.

Please, the witch is dead. Let it go.

(Yes I realize the irony of that statement)

That being said, I'm curious about how the people here in general feel about the use of magic as a fictional plot device.

Does anyone have serious reservations about that?

Oh, and because I couldn't resist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js

[Idzequitch]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on course, I have a bit of an odd subject to ask about: Snake handling.
A video was brought to my attention a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IRXwsXYxs They, of course, use Mark 16.17-18 as the basis of their belief: "17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
It seems to me that they are cherry picking Scripture. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold so steadfastly to one action mentioned in their source text, but not the rest. At least, I assume they aren't driving out demons, speaking new tongues, or miraculously healing people by touching them as the immediate context says.

What do you all think? Are they right, or crazy? What does the verse actually mean? Is the passage even authoritative, since it was apparently absent from the earliest manuscripts? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

[Grand Calvert]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on course, I have a bit of an odd subject to ask about: Snake handling.
A video was brought to my attention a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IRXwsXYxs They, of course, use Mark 16.17-18 as the basis of their belief: "17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
It seems to me that they are cherry picking Scripture. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold so steadfastly to one action mentioned in their source text, but not the rest. At least, I assume they aren't driving out demons, speaking new tongues, or miraculously healing people by touching them as the immediate context says.

What do you all think? Are they right, or crazy? What does the verse actually mean? Is the passage even authoritative, since it was apparently absent from the earliest manuscripts? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Well as a cessationist, I think the Mark verse is referring to the Apostles at that time: these spiritual gifts existed to show that the Apostles were authoritative and to establish the Church. When the Apostles died, these gifts died with them.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on course, I have a bit of an odd subject to ask about: Snake handling.
A video was brought to my attention a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IRXwsXYxs They, of course, use Mark 16.17-18 as the basis of their belief: "17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
It seems to me that they are cherry picking Scripture. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold so steadfastly to one action mentioned in their source text, but not the rest. At least, I assume they aren't driving out demons, speaking new tongues, or miraculously healing people by touching them as the immediate context says.

What do you all think? Are they right, or crazy? What does the verse actually mean? Is the passage even authoritative, since it was apparently absent from the earliest manuscripts? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I've saw that snake-handling s*** at a documentary at Nat Geo before, it was the first time I was oriented that such a thing exists at Christendom. Basically, a radical extremist spin on Pentecostalism.

However, why establish a dogma on a one-two Bible verses that don't show up in other parts of the Bible and even its authenticity is doubted by several scholars?

That being said, I'm curious about how the people here in general feel about the use of magic as a fictional plot device.

Does anyone have serious reservations about that?

Oh, and because I couldn't resist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js

Magic is explicitly banned in the Old Testament, but entertainment and fiction are a different topic. Basically, for me, one who squirms at the use of magic at fiction dosen't even understand the most basic premise of fiction at all. It's fiction, it's covered with several tropes and lots of storytelling techniques, and it's not even grounded in reality. Fiction is a creative work with lots of freedom and little restriction to depict or portray things.

And, Christians, in general, as I stated in previous pages, reactions to such things vary wildly.

[Efraim-Judah]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on course, I have a bit of an odd subject to ask about: Snake handling.
A video was brought to my attention a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IRXwsXYxs They, of course, use Mark 16.17-18 as the basis of their belief: "17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
It seems to me that they are cherry picking Scripture. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold so steadfastly to one action mentioned in their source text, but not the rest. At least, I assume they aren't driving out demons, speaking new tongues, or miraculously healing people by touching them as the immediate context says.

What do you all think? Are they right, or crazy? What does the verse actually mean? Is the passage even authoritative, since it was apparently absent from the earliest manuscripts? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I have never understood this practice.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on course, I have a bit of an odd subject to ask about: Snake handling.
A video was brought to my attention a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IRXwsXYxs They, of course, use Mark 16.17-18 as the basis of their belief: "17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
It seems to me that they are cherry picking Scripture. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold so steadfastly to one action mentioned in their source text, but not the rest. At least, I assume they aren't driving out demons, speaking new tongues, or miraculously healing people by touching them as the immediate context says.

What do you all think? Are they right, or crazy? What does the verse actually mean? Is the passage even authoritative, since it was apparently absent from the earliest manuscripts? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I've saw that snake-handling s*** at a documentary at Nat Geo before, it was the first time I was oriented that such a thing exists at Christendom. Basically, a radical extremist spin on Pentecostalism.

However, why establish a dogma on a one-two Bible verses that don't show up in other parts of the Bible and even its authenticity is doubted by several scholars?

That being said, I'm curious about how the people here in general feel about the use of magic as a fictional plot device.

Does anyone have serious reservations about that?

Oh, and because I couldn't resist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js

Magic is explicitly banned in the Old Testament, but entertainment and fiction are a different topic. Basically, for me, one who squirms at the use of magic at fiction dosen't even understand the most basic premise of fiction at all. It's fiction, it's covered with several tropes and lots of storytelling techniques, and it's not even grounded in reality. Fiction is a creative work with lots of freedom and little restriction to depict or portray things.

And, Christians, in general, as I stated in previous pages, reactions to such things vary wildly.

Indeed. When I listen to people talk about how Harry Potter is evil or what not, I can't help but think these people have latent schizophrenia and can't tell reality from fiction.

It brings to mind a case of our beloved moderator Jenrak who once, in an RP, had a character that would remove and dine on the uterus virgins. While the thought of this actually happening would be abhorent, the fact that its fiction just makes one mildly uncomfortable. Separating fact from fiction is incredibly important when one considers religion or religious life.

[Efraim-Judah]

I've saw that snake-handling s*** at a documentary at Nat Geo before, it was the first time I was oriented that such a thing exists at Christendom. Basically, a radical extremist spin on Pentecostalism.

However, why establish a dogma on a one-two Bible verses that don't show up in other parts of the Bible and even its authenticity is doubted by several scholars?



Magic is explicitly banned in the Old Testament, but entertainment and fiction are a different topic. Basically, for me, one who squirms at the use of magic at fiction dosen't even understand the most basic premise of fiction at all. It's fiction, it's covered with several tropes and lots of storytelling techniques, and it's not even grounded in reality. Fiction is a creative work with lots of freedom and little restriction to depict or portray things.

And, Christians, in general, as I stated in previous pages, reactions to such things vary wildly.

Indeed. When I listen to people talk about how Harry Potter is evil or what not, I can't help but think these people have latent schizophrenia and can't tell reality from fiction.

It brings to mind a case of our beloved moderator Jenrak who once, in an RP, had a character that would remove and dine on the uterus virgins. While the thought of this actually happening would be abhorent, the fact that its fiction just makes one mildly uncomfortable. Separating fact from fiction is incredibly important when one considers religion or religious life.

I'm going to have to agree with this.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on course, I have a bit of an odd subject to ask about: Snake handling.
A video was brought to my attention a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IRXwsXYxs They, of course, use Mark 16.17-18 as the basis of their belief: "17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
It seems to me that they are cherry picking Scripture. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold so steadfastly to one action mentioned in their source text, but not the rest. At least, I assume they aren't driving out demons, speaking new tongues, or miraculously healing people by touching them as the immediate context says.

What do you all think? Are they right, or crazy? What does the verse actually mean? Is the passage even authoritative, since it was apparently absent from the earliest manuscripts? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Well let me answer this in reverse order.


Firstly, on it being authoritative, yes. This idea of only text by the Original Author, and the original unedited text being authoritative, is actually a modern construct. In ancient times, adding to works, or writing under someone else's name was actually a common practice and especially in early Christianity widely accepted in the community of faith. The question wasn't whether or not the author wrote or not, but rather did the additions keep the spirit of the overall work, or in the case of plagiarism, did the work keep the spirit of the supposed author. The writing of the NT was as much as an elective process as was the Canonizing of the NT. Several of the Epistles are disputed as to weather Paul actually wrote them. The Writer of the Gospel of John is not the same as writers of John 2 and 3. John 1, might be by the same author as the Gospel, or perhaps a 3rd author. But it doesn't matter, because the community saw how they were, for lack of a better word, "inspired" and accepted them.

In fact the epilogue of Revelations is very telling of how common a practice this was. The author warns against people adding or subtracting from that particular work, because it happened so often to others.

So in summery, as long as additions kept to the spirit of the Work, and was accepted by the community of faith, it can be safely be considered authoritative.


Now taking the verse itself, it's not meant to be taken overly literally, its a typical hyperbolic literary device. It gives these extraordinary examples to show how "powerful" these witnesses will be, but its not mean to be taken as a checklist. Now we also know almost all these witnesses met a very bloody end, so it was by no means meant to show that these witnesses were invincible, just that these people would be powerful and do great works.

Are they crazy? No crazier than any other person who has great faith in a God they've only read about in a book.
Are they right? Debatable but I'd say no. While Christ did talk about the faith of a mustard seed, he also mentioned the old adage "Do not put the Lord thy God, to the test." Seems to me like they are testing God, by purposefully putting themselves in danged and expecting God to save them. Jesus explicitly refused to do this. So should they.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on course, I have a bit of an odd subject to ask about: Snake handling.
A video was brought to my attention a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IRXwsXYxs They, of course, use Mark 16.17-18 as the basis of their belief: "17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
It seems to me that they are cherry picking Scripture. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold so steadfastly to one action mentioned in their source text, but not the rest. At least, I assume they aren't driving out demons, speaking new tongues, or miraculously healing people by touching them as the immediate context says.

What do you all think? Are they right, or crazy? What does the verse actually mean? Is the passage even authoritative, since it was apparently absent from the earliest manuscripts? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Well as a cessationist, I think the Mark verse is referring to the Apostles at that time: these spiritual gifts existed to show that the Apostles were authoritative and to establish the Church. When the Apostles died, these gifts died with them.

An Idea with out base, but okay.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Indeed. When I listen to people talk about how Harry Potter is evil or what not, I can't help but think these people have latent schizophrenia and can't tell reality from fiction.

It brings to mind a case of our beloved moderator Jenrak who once, in an RP, had a character that would remove and dine on the uterus virgins. While the thought of this actually happening would be abhorent, the fact that its fiction just makes one mildly uncomfortable. Separating fact from fiction is incredibly important when one considers religion or religious life.

I'm going to have to agree with this.

The Devil truly doth play hockey.

[Efraim-Judah]

I'm going to have to agree with this.

The Devil truly doth play hockey.

I'm not familiar with this expression.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The movie 'God's not dead' came up earlier, though it seems like anything interesting that might have been said was swept up in USSR's silliness (and boy am I glad that's over.)

So I just wanted to ask... does anyone want to take a go at trying to defend this movie? Because to me, it just comes off as an anti-Atheist hate film. The Atheist professor acts in a ridiculously unethical manner that would get any real philosophy professor fired and inspire protests outside of his college in the real world.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Devil truly doth play hockey.

I'm not familiar with this expression.

Means hell froze over.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The movie 'God's not dead' came up earlier, though it seems like anything interesting that might have been said was swept up in USSR's silliness (and boy am I glad that's over.)

So I just wanted to ask... does anyone want to take a go at trying to defend this movie? Because to me, it just comes off as an anti-Atheist hate film. The Atheist professor acts in a ridiculously unethical manner that would get any real philosophy professor fired and inspire protests outside of his college in the real world.

No. I haven't seen the movie, nor do I care too. These movies are supposed to be for "evangelizing" but they're produced in such a way that they're just a circle jerk for the Choir.

[Efraim-Judah]

I'm not familiar with this expression.

Means hell froze over.

I'm not sure I understand...

[The Alexanderians]

The movie 'God's not dead' came up earlier, though it seems like anything interesting that might have been said was swept up in USSR's silliness (and boy am I glad that's over.)

So I just wanted to ask... does anyone want to take a go at trying to defend this movie? Because to me, it just comes off as an anti-Atheist hate film. The Atheist professor acts in a ridiculously unethical manner that would get any real philosophy professor fired and inspire protests outside of his college in the real world.

No. I haven't seen the movie, nor do I care too. These movies are supposed to be for "evangelizing" but they're produced in such a way that they're just a circle jerk for the Choir.

This^, I have no interest in seeing it (much to the surprise of my non-religious friends who thought I would hop on it's bandwagon...) and it seems like it would be kind of like the left behind series (which I watched for it's apocalyptic themes. The religious themes I ignored, I still came away from it like a preacher tied me to a chair and lectured me for 2 days nonstop). Really it's kind of rare for me to like religious movies that are directly religious intentionally, I prefer the ones that use symbolism better or recounting biblical stories. Take for instance the Kingdom Hearts game series, it certainly isn't a Christian work but it has some Christian symbolism (as well as other religion's symbols) and it's a fantastic work. So I'll say the ones that try too hard are the ones that suck, like God's not Dead for this reason.