The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Czechanada]

Leo the Isaurian must be turning in his grave!

On the surviving artistic evidence - for example the apse of Hagia Irene - Leo III would have been all in favour of a massive great big cross.

Icons, not so much; but he seems to have been fond of crosses.

Well, time to hang my head in shame then, as I take great pride in my hobby of reading Byzantine history.

[Living Stones]

Is it morally permissible to not vote?

I actually agree w/ Efriam on this case; unless you live in a country where voting is mandatory, you're under no moral obligation to vote. If you really can't support any of the candidates, you could always write another name/party on the ballot, leave the ballot blank, or spoil it in another way. This way, you can make a statement without compromising your beliefs, thought it would not really have any more effect than voting for a third party or yelling loudly in a room, as Tarsonis mentioned.

You'd have to ask an actual competent Catholic authority for a real answer, but I don't think the EWTN article you linked is morally binding. Isn't there a list of mortal sins, or something?

Romans 14:23 is also relevant in this case; if you accept Fr. Torraco's reasoning, than you couldn't vote for the pro-abortion candidate.

[Efraim-Judah]

So as I sit here in the library surrounded by books on Christian Eschatology, I realize I think it's time I took a hiatus from NSG. I will will still pop in once and a while, but not nearly as much. I have a lot to work on, and I should probably focus on that.

Don't let efraim run wild while I'm gone

TOO LATE, SIR!

[The Princes of the Universe]

You guys could use this, too.

(Image)

His name is Floof and he loves you. X3

BUNNEH

My nameday saint is another important early theologian related to Arianism, though one just pre-dating the Cappadocian Fathers/Three Holy Hierarchs.
That doesn't really give anything away about my identity, incidentally; that's not how my name is shown on my passport.

My personal patron saint converted Russia.

[Kannap]

Why must it feel so hard to even think about the decision to switch churches?

Like, joining a church near my college was just easy because it was too far away from home to stick with my home church on Sundays.

But I am currently thinking about whether or not I want to stay with my current hometown church during breaks when I am at home or if I want to jump to a church across town.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

I'm a roman Catholic who is currently studying for confirmation, and I was wondering what you guys thought of Gay Marriage. It's interesting to see a range of opinions from a group of people

[Athenasius]

I am Bulgarian... I was baptised in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, my son was baptised in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, my siblings were and my parents were. I have never hear of a tax for it; anywhere in Bulgaria...

65 levs in order to get baptized m8, i live in Rousse and every Bulgarian Orthodox church here told me this.

Huh. I was baptised in Veliko Tarnovo (of course, I was an infant) but my mther said she did not have to pay a tax for it. When I had my son baptised, he was in Sofiya. The Church said that they would accept donations for it, but there was no fee. I guess we will find out if the Church here (I recently moved to Pleven) has one, since i am expecting a daughter.

[Nordengrund]

Why must it feel so hard to even think about the decision to switch churches?

Like, joining a church near my college was just easy because it was too far away from home to stick with my home church on Sundays.

But I am currently thinking about whether or not I want to stay with my current hometown church during breaks when I am at home or if I want to jump to a church across town.

I have switched churches several times.

Ask God and see where He wants you to go before making a decision.

[Living Stones]

I'm a roman Catholic who is currently studying for confirmation, and I was wondering what you guys thought of Gay Marriage. It's interesting to see a range of opinions from a group of people

"He who made, from the beginning a male and a female made them, and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and split to his wife, and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh.'" - Mat. 19:4&5

Polygamy may have been tolerated under the old covenant, but Jesus "has obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises has been sanctioned." - Heb. 8:6

The old covenant prohibition of homosexual acts, in contrast, carriers over in to the new.

"And with a male thou do not lie as one lies with a woman; abomination it [is]." - Lev. 18:22

"God [did] give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the repayment of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving." - Rom. 1:26-27

[Menassa]

I'm a roman Catholic who is currently studying for confirmation, and I was wondering what you guys thought of Gay Marriage. It's interesting to see a range of opinions from a group of people

I'm not planning to gay marry anyone.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Besides, a priest is supposed to be apolitical in his public life, and I really couldn't do that. Perhaps later, after I have nothing more to say or do with regard to political matters.

Why exactly is that? Shouldn't a priest be obligated to advocate the most Christian of political positions?

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

You could vote for candidate A.

Abortion is not the only moral issue in the world, nor is it the only matter of life and death. You are certainly not obligated to vote for the anti-abortion candidate if that candidate would, for example, let poor children die from lack of access to health care, or send drones to murder children (among others) in foreign countries.

People tend to forget that a lot of political issues are matters of life and death - even seemingly boring stuff about the allocation of government spending.

Besides, in some countries (such as the US), abortion isn't a matter of legislative or executive policy anyway. It's a matter decided by the judiciary. When the candidates are running for an office that has no power to do anything about abortion anyway, it doesn't matter where they stand on it.

My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?[/

I recall hearing about a guy on the radio who said the abortion issue is so important to him that he will vote for a pro-life candidate no matter what even if he disagrees with them on everything else.

One has no obligation to vote. One however does have an obligation to uphold God's law and to uphold the teachings of Messiah.

Do what you will, do it for the glory of God.

Thanks for the quick responses guys

I will admit that my question is coming from a Catholic perspective, so please bear with me.

According to the guide on how Catholics are to vote, voting for anyone who is pro-abortion, even if they support other policies that emulate Christ, is being complicit in mortal sin as abortion is a mortal sin.

Thus, I want to vote for the candidate who supports policies that I feel are best, but then I feel I need to vote for the candidate who I disagree with but is anti-abortion.

Or do I take the third option and just not vote?

Alas though, knowing me I'm probably just overthinking this.

I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I don't see what's wrong with it.

Can they build a church next to it, though?

Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.

nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.

[Czechanada]

Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.

nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.

And here I thought that God needed no glorification.

[The Alexanderians]

nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.

And here I thought that God needed no glorification.

What gave you that idea?

[Luminesa]

Thanks for the quick responses guys

I will admit that my question is coming from a Catholic perspective, so please bear with me.

According to the guide on how Catholics are to vote, voting for anyone who is pro-abortion, even if they support other policies that emulate Christ, is being complicit in mortal sin as abortion is a mortal sin.

Thus, I want to vote for the candidate who supports policies that I feel are best, but then I feel I need to vote for the candidate who I disagree with but is anti-abortion.

Or do I take the third option and just not vote?

Alas though, knowing me I'm probably just overthinking this.

I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.

Well you're voting for candidates, not parties. A good bit of the Republicans have good pro-life records, whereas most of the Democrats don't. TRUMP certainly won't do anything about abortion if he's elected, but Rubio or Cruz probably will.

But we can't wait for our presidents to do stuff concerning abortion. This is not just a political issue, but a human rights issue. We should be working in our communities right where we are, if we want to help to end abortion. What state are you from? Whichever one it is, you've still got plenty of work to do.

[Nordengrund]

You could vote for candidate A.

Abortion is not the only moral issue in the world, nor is it the only matter of life and death. You are certainly not obligated to vote for the anti-abortion candidate if that candidate would, for example, let poor children die from lack of access to health care, or send drones to murder children (among others) in foreign countries.

People tend to forget that a lot of political issues are matters of life and death - even seemingly boring stuff about the allocation of government spending.

Besides, in some countries (such as the US), abortion isn't a matter of legislative or executive policy anyway. It's a matter decided by the judiciary. When the candidates are running for an office that has no power to do anything about abortion anyway, it doesn't matter where they stand on it.

My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?[/

I recall hearing about a guy on the radio who said the abortion issue is so important to him that he will vote for a pro-life candidate no matter what even if he disagrees with them on everything else.

One has no obligation to vote. One however does have an obligation to uphold God's law and to uphold the teachings of Messiah.

Do what you will, do it for the glory of God.

Thanks for the quick responses guys

I will admit that my question is coming from a Catholic perspective, so please bear with me.

According to the guide on how Catholics are to vote, voting for anyone who is pro-abortion, even if they support other policies that emulate Christ, is being complicit in mortal sin as abortion is a mortal sin.

Thus, I want to vote for the candidate who supports policies that I feel are best, but then I feel I need to vote for the candidate who I disagree with but is anti-abortion.

Or do I take the third option and just not vote?

Alas though, knowing me I'm probably just overthinking this.

I am an independent only because my state has open primaries and I think it is pointless to declare yourself as a member of a party unless you plan to go into politics.

I lean Republican even though I am probably evenly split betwen both parties. While I sympathize with Dems on immigration, education, etc., I side with Republicans on social issues and foreign policy which is FAR more important to me.

Right now, abortions and ISIS are the greatest evils in the current times. Democrats don't seem to be willing to do anything about it. While we should protect the environment and provide social programs, our poor are better off than in most countries and I am sure ISIS is a bigger danger than global warming.

[Constantinopolis]

Besides, a priest is supposed to be apolitical in his public life, and I really couldn't do that. Perhaps later, after I have nothing more to say or do with regard to political matters.

Why exactly is that? Shouldn't a priest be obligated to advocate the most Christian of political positions?

From ancient times, clergy were banned from holding political office in the Roman/Byzantine Empire (and vice versa, political leaders could not be ordained), because the job of the Church is different from the job of the state, and a man cannot properly dedicate himself to both at the same time.

The Orthodox Church continues to uphold the rule that clergy cannot hold political office (although, in Cyprus, there was a time in the 20th century when, uh, this wasn't exactly respected very well).

This rule does not ban clergy from advocating political positions as such, but I personally believe that it is not appropriate for clergy to do so. Or at least, it's certainly not appropriate for parish priests, anyway. A parish priest must be concerned with saving the souls of his flock, and antagonizing people by taking divisive political stands - even if those stands are correct! - goes against this goal. It's hard to show kindness and patience and teach people how to live a Christian life while you're arguing politics with them.

Both priests and political activists perform essential roles that can greatly help their communities and the world. But it's extremely difficult to juggle both roles at the same time, and, in my opinion, you shouldn't try.

I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.

This is also a very important point. If you focus obsessively on a single issue, you're letting yourself be easily manipulated by politicians who will give you what you want on that issue (or maybe just promise to do so), and thereby get your vote, regardless of how cruel, corrupt, or just plain evil they are on all other issues.

A person who wants to cut welfare for single mothers or deny health care to poor families doesn't actually give a damn about children, born or unborn. If such a person claims to be anti-abortion (or even takes concrete steps against abortion), it's only because they're trying to manipulate you into voting for them.

I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.

Well you're voting for candidates, not parties. A good bit of the Republicans have good pro-life records, whereas most of the Democrats don't. TRUMP certainly won't do anything about abortion if he's elected, but Rubio or Cruz probably will.

But Neptumousian is Canadian, Lumi.

And Ted Cruz has specifically advocated mass murder in the Middle East ("carpet bombing ISIS", to be exact, which would imply flattening entire cities and would constitute a war crime), so I don't see how it matters where he stands on abortion.

Marco Rubio hasn't gone that far, but he's a war hawk as well.

[Coulee Croche]

Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.

nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.

I agree. Beautiful Churches are also an investment. If Churches can bring in more people, then it can reimburse the money that was lost and hopefully yield a larger profit. That larger profit could be used for other things like charity.
Beauty can also open up a conversation of interest to the Church, which could spark a possible spiritual journey and eventually conversion.

[Constantinopolis]

I am an independent only because my state has open primaries and I think it is pointless to declare yourself as a member of a party unless you plan to go into politics.

I lean Republican even though I am probably evenly split betwen both parties. While I sympathize with Dems on immigration, education, etc., I side with Republicans on social issues and foreign policy which is FAR more important to me.

Right now, abortions and ISIS are the greatest evils in the current times. Democrats don't seem to be willing to do anything about it. While we should protect the environment and provide social programs, our poor are better off than in most countries and I am sure ISIS is a bigger danger than global warming.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have anything remotely resembling a good plan to deal with ISIS. They are both utterly delusional. Democrats think that it's possible for some vaguely-defined and largely imaginary "moderate opposition" to win the war in Syria with American support, and Republicans want to shoot first and ask questions later, as if blowing stuff up will suddenly lead to peace and harmony (and because taking out the "bad guy" with overwhelming force and then declaring "mission accomplished" worked so well in Iraq, amirite?).

The only realistic way to stop ISIS is to help Assad take back control of Syria, which is what Russia is trying to do, but no one in the US government is willing to help them with that. And it may be too late for even this plan, in any case.

The fact of the matter is, with the possible exception of Assad's government, there is no faction in the war that has both the ability and the desire to actually rule the territory currently held by ISIS. So no matter how much you bomb or shoot ISIS, the territory they hold right now will remain a chaotic No Man's Land from which other terrorist groups will inevitably spring up.

There is no possible way this can end well.

[Diopolis]

Of course. Where is it written "you shall vote"?

My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?

This is actually a fairly complicated question(I am assuming based on your scenario that you are both a)Catholic and b)American. If you are not, then this is the teaching of at least certain members of the USCCB). On the one hand, abortion is the greatest human rights struggle of our time, and is probably the weightiest issue around. On the other hand, it's not the only issue. The party line from most of the American bishops(who are faced with your exact same dilemma) is that you may not vote for A unless there is a very compelling reason to vote against B(the only candidate for this election I think this applies to is Trump, but there may or may not be others) or unless there is an equally compelling reason to vote for A(depending on your views, this may or may not apply to Sanders. It certainly does not apply to Clinton.). Whether or not you're actually morally obligated to vote is a trickier question, because the bishops who answered this question assumed that anyone who asked it was planning on voting. My own two cents is that, as Catholics are obligated to obey civil authority, and civil authority tends to want you to vote, you are obligated to vote.

[Talvezout]

My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?

This is actually a fairly complicated question(I am assuming based on your scenario that you are both a)Catholic and b)American. If you are not, then this is the teaching of at least certain members of the USCCB). On the one hand, abortion is the greatest human rights struggle of our time, and is probably the weightiest issue around. On the other hand, it's not the only issue. The party line from most of the American bishops(who are faced with your exact same dilemma) is that you may not vote for A unless there is a very compelling reason to vote against B(the only candidate for this election I think this applies to is Trump, but there may or may not be others) or unless there is an equally compelling reason to vote for A(depending on your views, this may or may not apply to Sanders. It certainly does not apply to Clinton.). Whether or not you're actually morally obligated to vote is a trickier question, because the bishops who answered this question assumed that anyone who asked it was planning on voting. My own two cents is that, as Catholics are obligated to obey civil authority, and civil authority tends to want you to vote, you are obligated to vote.

Alright, a fellow Catholic is providing views, thank you.

[Constantinopolis]

Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.

nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.

You're both forgetting the distinction between stocks and flows.

Having a massive cathedral (that was built a long time ago) is not the same thing as building a new massive cathedral.

Should we refrain from building new massive cathedrals, because the money would be better spent elsewhere? Perhaps. This is a suggestion that we should at least consider.

But we can't just stop having the massive cathedrals that were built centuries ago. They are already built. Other than the maintenance and restoration costs (which would have to be paid by someone anyway, no matter if the Church owned these buildings or not), it doesn't take a lot of money to just keep worshiping in them, no matter how extravagant they are. Having a massive cathedral passed down to you from previous generations is like having a diamond ring passed down from your grandmother. It's not an indication of any actual large spending on your part.

[Diopolis]

Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.

nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.

And beautiful surrounds enhance worship by better engaging the senses. Didn't Jesus denounce his apostles for exactly the error that money spent on churches really ought to be spent on the poor, and that it's gravely wrong to spend money glorifying God for this reason?

[Coulee Croche]

I think we also have to take into account that some large Churches- not all- werent just up and made huge. Many of them were gradually expanded upon over time to accomodate parishoners, and others were made due to combining parishes and with the intent of loosening pressure. We also have to take into account the fact that many Churches were built, the way they were built, based upon the decisions of the parishoners that would occupy it. So, if they want a grand Church, and they help provide the necessary resources, then they'll get it and likewise if they wanted a lowly-church.