The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[The Flutterlands]

Well, commandments 6 and 8... I don't think the government can or should criminalize adultery nor coveting...

I'm not sure adultery should be criminalized, but there should be legal consequences (e.g. forfeiting certain marital rights in a divorce case).

Fair enough.

[Salus Maior]

Why were they good?

They were designed to retake the lands taken by the saracens for Christianity.
If they had won, saracens would not still rule the Middle East.

And yet they made no effort to separate Christians from the rest when they slaughtered entire cities, including Jerusalem (I believe they put it, "the corpses were piled as high as houses" after they sacked Jerusalem). And even toppled independent Christian rulers in the Middle East in order to grab land for themselves.

So, I'd say that the Crusades were less beneficial to Christianity as it was to the Pope's political positioning and the territorial ambitions of Western nobles.

If they had actually did what Alexius asked, which was, to bolster his own forces to take Anatolia back from the Turks, I'd agree that the Crusades were a good thing. Although, notably, the Crusaders were known for being more brutal than the Byzzies, as evidenced by the siege of Nicea. So, perhaps even then, it would not have made a difference in the bloodiness of it all.

[Alvecia]

I've a question that came up I a podcast I was listening to.
What is an Evangelical?
The conclusion on the podcast was that it differed depending on who you ask.
So I thought I'd ask.

[Tutukerala]

I've a question that came up I a podcast I was listening to.
What is an Evangelical?
The conclusion on the podcast was that it differed depending on who you ask.
So I thought I'd ask.

Evangical was originally another name for Christian( Luther said Followers of Jesus should call themselves either Christian or Evangicals).


If look further into historical theology it is also used to identify Reformed Christians(Calvinists). Then it was used to identify Protestants who emphasized sola fide and devotion to Jesus.


Recently( 20th century) it meant somebody who wish to spread the Gospel.

Now it means nothing, just a word for fundies

[Muinordgrad]

I've a question that came up I a podcast I was listening to.
What is an Evangelical?
The conclusion on the podcast was that it differed depending on who you ask.
So I thought I'd ask.

An evangelical is someone who is 1.) truly believing that Jesus is the only way to heaven and 2.) propagates that idea to anyone who will reasonably listen.

[Diopolis]

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

No it doesn't. The first amendment bans the federal government from establishing a religion(aka having a state religion- although this does not apply to the states) and from discriminating against organized religions. Other things it supposedly says on freedom of religion are later additions added when the Supreme Court legislated from the bench.

[Luminesa]

Again, extremes are generally not good for politics. Of course we don't want an Iraq or a Saudi Arabia. But what's the other extreme? Complete and utter atheism in government? Politicians are not allowed to defend their religious beliefs outside of their churches?

No, politicians should be able to voice their religious beliefs in a government setting, even if other people disagree with them. Plus, as long as there is a balance, the government should be fine. Thus actively trying to remove 1,500 years of Christian history from a country's culture, like they're doing in France, is quite dangerous. Religion is a big part of the identity of the history and growth of the Church's Eldest Daughter, even if many of the people in France aren't practicing Christians.

Though at the same time, it's not like basing a country's law on the Ten Commandments would necessarily be a bad thing. After all, the Ten Commandments and Sharia law are very different.

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

Well, they tell you not to do things like lie, steal, murder, go after someone else's stuff, and disrespect sacred things (or at least respect them). I'm not sure what would be inherently bad about them.

[Luminesa]

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first commandment declares you can only have one religion and that's Judo-Christianaity.

...No it doesn't. For example, it says you have freedom of religion, which means you can be Christian. Which means you can obey the Ten Commandments. And yes, the Ten Commandments are meant for Christianity.

Shocker guys, I can be a Catholic and I can bleed red, white, and blue. At the same time. And to say that one goes against the other implies I can't be. Which is a very old and outdated notion.

[Constantinopolis]

Though at the same time, it's not like basing a country's law on the Ten Commandments would necessarily be a bad thing.

Any country with laws based on the Ten Commandments would have to be a theocracy, for the simple reason that Commandment #1 says you must worship God and God alone. If turned into state law, that would require banning non-Christian religions (or non-Abrahamic religions, depending on whether you think Jews and Muslims worship the same God we do).

Also, most of the Ten Commandments are far too vague to serve as guidelines for legislation. Take the one commandment that absolutely everyone can agree with, for example: "Do not kill" (or "do not murder"). So... what counts as killing/murdering, precisely? That is the question. How about killing in self-defense? Killing civilians in war? Causing people to die in an accident? etc. etc. etc.

And that's the "easy" commandment! The others are even more difficult to put into legislation.

When we apply the Ten Commandments as a guide for personal morality and to help us realize our sins, it's good that they are vague, because that allows us to judge things based on personal circumstances. For example, I know if I have honoured my parents or not. But trying to define, in strict legal terms, what counts as "honouring your parents" - that would be a legal nightmare.

After all, the Ten Commandments and Sharia law are very different.

Maybe. That depends on which Muslims you ask. Sharia law is not a list of rules. It's a long and complicated set of principles, stories, examples, and precedents, which require extensive interpretation in order to be turned into legal rules.

In other words, getting Muslims to agree on what is required by Sharia is like getting Christians to agree on "what the Bible says". There are many different schools of thought.

[Czechanada]

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

Well, they tell you not to do things like lie, steal, murder, go after someone else's stuff, and disrespect sacred things (or at least respect them). I'm not sure what would be inherently bad about them.

Is killing wrong in self defense? War? To directly defend others?
Is worshipping other gods wrong?
Is stealing to feed one's family wrong? Is pirating something wrong if one is denied legitimate access to the content they purchased?
Is lying to protect someone's feeling wrong? Are surprises wrong? Is lying to keep oneself safe wrong?
Is working whenever one feels like wrong?
Is the simply thought of desiring something wrong? Is it really bad to think "My neighbour's car is cool"?
Is it wrong to not to honour one parents if they are unfit or are abusive? Or to honour others who act as parental figures instead?
Is making a work of art based an image of god wrong?

[Tutukerala]

Well, they tell you not to do things like lie, steal, murder, go after someone else's stuff, and disrespect sacred things (or at least respect them). I'm not sure what would be inherently bad about them.

Is killing wrong in self defense? War? To directly defend others?
Is worshipping other gods wrong?
Is stealing to feed one's family wrong? Is pirating something wrong if one is denied legitimate access to the content they purchased?
Is lying to protect someone's feeling wrong? Are surprises wrong? Is lying to keep oneself safe wrong?
Is working whenever one feels like wrong?
Is the simply thought of desiring something wrong? Is it really bad to think "My neighbour's car is cool"?
Is it wrong to not to honour one parents if they are unfit or are abusive? Or to honour others who act as parental figures instead?
Is making a work of art based an image of god wrong?

1. Augustine already answered this, so have most theologians. Go look it up
2. Yes
3. Yes it is. Well that is why we have courts.
4.Lying is deliberately trying to err someone by withholding the truth.
5. No, but saying " I deserve that car" is.
6.Abusive parents are not parents. Parental figures are parents, ok smartass
7.Yes it is, nothing on Earth can express God's holiness

[Cill Airne]

After my work cut my hours down from 32 to 20 I kind of expected this, but I got laid off today. Said they were overstaffed and had to let me go. I've got an interview on Monday, but i'd really appreciate it if everyone could say a prayer that I'm able to find employment fast. It'd be appreciated.

[Tutukerala]

After my work cut my hours down from 32 to 20 I kind of expected this, but I got laid off today. Said they were overstaffed and had to let me go. I've got an interview on Monday, but i'd really appreciate it if everyone could say a prayer that I'm able to find employment fast. It'd be appreciated.

Sorry man. Good thing you said it now I was going to do my devotion.

[Luminesa]

Well, they tell you not to do things like lie, steal, murder, go after someone else's stuff, and disrespect sacred things (or at least respect them). I'm not sure what would be inherently bad about them.

Is killing wrong in self defense? War? To directly defend others?
Is worshipping other gods wrong?
Is stealing to feed one's family wrong? Is pirating something wrong if one is denied legitimate access to the content they purchased?
Is lying to protect someone's feeling wrong? Are surprises wrong? Is lying to keep oneself safe wrong?
Is working whenever one feels like wrong?
Is the simply thought of desiring something wrong? Is it really bad to think "My neighbour's car is cool"?
Is it wrong to not to honour one parents if they are unfit or are abusive? Or to honour others who act as parental figures instead?
Is making a work of art based an image of god wrong?

1.) No, the CCC says specifically that if other lives are in danger, you must defend them if you are able. Also, see Augustine's Just War Theory.

2.) If you don't know anything about the Christian Faith, not necessarily. As long as you're searching for God, then you're on the right track. But if you're Catholic and you turn away to Egyptian gods or whatever...you're probably going off the wrong track.

3.) That's not a question with a clear answer. I really couldn't tell you. And define an example for the second part. If you have the money and you can buy it, then there's no reason to pirate. If you have the money, however, and they're not giving it to you, why not just sue?

4.) Lying to protect someone's feelings doesn't always make one a good friend. If someone wants to know if their cooking is good, for a cooking show, and I tell them it is when it's awful, what's going to happen when they get on the show thinking it's good? If you're doing it to defend someone, like you're in Auschwitz and you're protecting a friend from dying, that's heroic. Are surprises wrong?...No, because surprises don't always entail lying. They just entail things you didn't see coming.

5,) No, but you shouldn't work yourself to death. The reason for the 3rd commandment is not just to give a day to God, but also to give oneself a day of rest, to stop working and to rest one's weary bones.

6.) No, desires are not wrong, desires are part of being human! There's a difference between me saying, "Oh, that Volkswagen my friend has is cool!" and "Dang, I want that Volkswagen, if only there was some way I could steal it..." The first is nice. The second is envy. And greed.

7.) You should try to at the very least be thankful they gave you life. I've been in a situation where my parents have been fighting and are separated, and it's often hard, but they do love me. And I love them back. Even if you can't bring yourself to love them, though, you shouldn't wish terrible things on them and stuff. And of course you can honor other people who are your father figures or whatnot. Like, if your father isn't in the home, but your football coach is kinda like a father to you, there's nothing wrong with seeing him as such.

8.) No, otherwise I'd be in trouble, because I have images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints all over my room!

The 2nd commandment warns against worshipping the images themselves, not against making images to give glory to God and to present one's love for their faith.

If you wanna best understand the commandments, pick up a Cathecism, look for any of the commandments, and read what the CCC has to say about them. It probably will explain them better than I will.

[Luminesa]

After my work cut my hours down from 32 to 20 I kind of expected this, but I got laid off today. Said they were overstaffed and had to let me go. I've got an interview on Monday, but i'd really appreciate it if everyone could say a prayer that I'm able to find employment fast. It'd be appreciated.

Praying for you now.

[Herskerstad]

Well, they tell you not to do things like lie, steal, murder, go after someone else's stuff, and disrespect sacred things (or at least respect them). I'm not sure what would be inherently bad about them.

Is killing wrong in self defense? War? To directly defend others?
Is worshipping other gods wrong?
Is stealing to feed one's family wrong? Is pirating something wrong if one is denied legitimate access to the content they purchased?
Is lying to protect someone's feeling wrong? Are surprises wrong? Is lying to keep oneself safe wrong?
Is working whenever one feels like wrong?
Is the simply thought of desiring something wrong? Is it really bad to think "My neighbour's car is cool"?
Is it wrong to not to honour one parents if they are unfit or are abusive? Or to honour others who act as parental figures instead?
Is making a work of art based an image of god wrong?

1 - I do believe that killing for egotistical reasons, as strange as that may sound, is wrong. That is not to say that violence never is justified, but that a Christian will generally have some impulse when it is time for their martyrdom and should not use force against thieves, but rather the word which have changed so many. Furthermore a Christian should attempt to serve the prince of peace before setting off to war or injury, but should sufficient reprobation of purpose be present with the enemy in this case then the secular impulses generally will act and support of such will stand justified. I would make a distinction between clergy which never should be part of any physical wars at least in a combat role, and laity, which can't at times help themselves given the power structure that enforce such.

2 - Yes, can hardly follow the first commandment otherwise which is not to say that heathens without possibility have not been given great blessings nor come to fascinatingly close conclusions with say the ten commandments. As far as judgement is concerned? I leave that to God whom will be glorified regardless.

3 - The sum of the Christian Life is the denial of our old selves as the Lord will sustain his flock. They will generally look elsewhere for drastic actions, but the denial of the common good for the poor by the rich is theft in itself. As far as pirating goes, do I think that someone who let's just say have bought FF IX when he was a kid, and then downloads an emulator later on in his life commits the act of stealing? Not really. Only partially if he desires to test something before he buys something, and should for reasons of comparability and nations be redundant enough to deny access? No. Though he should remember taking that liberty and paying up should the product be available later.

4 - The gravity of a lie depends on the lie itself. A lie in say self-irony is no lie at all and can have great effects, lying about a saddened person having done something wrong generally do not advance their cause in any way no matter how good the intent. Surprises? Depends again on the kind. Nothing wrong with a birthday surprise, any surprise that involves burning down a house however may be a bit more problematic. As far as to protect oneself? The more clever ones manage to coat intentions in words, but if we utilize the classic example of hiding Jews in the barn while the SS break down the door? No, as both the substance and the impulse is not there for reasons of ones own.

5 - Keeping the Sabbath holy is a good impulse, but certain people do not have the liberty of such and labour in it not in sin like hospital workers or the significantly impoverished. It again depends on impulse, is this additional work for that nice vacation house or because you need to feed your family?

6 - And no, if it is a general thought as to the usefulness or for that matter style of an item like a car? Envy however holds entirely different standards and impulses as does lust, whom requires not material means to be sinful. Yes, thoughts and desires can be sin in themselves, but, not the same degree as actualizing them. A Christian should work however to improve themselves inside and out, though, that is a struggle that we should both be very patient and forgiving to each-others about.

7 - While a Christian may be abused and with a free conscience tell a system of law of said abuses, as the truth soberly spoken is not a tool for dishonouring, but going beyond such in the worst case scenario and engaging in lie or seeking destruction is yes, something which would be wrong. To the second part, no. Adoptive parents take on the full role of a parent.

8 - Not if you are talking about the imageo dei which is God's own art, but making an image of the Father I find imprudent yes.

[Constantinopolis]

Because banning modest dress is totally great.

Say what now?

Not content with the fact that the hijab is already banned in all public spaces (since 2004), some French local authorities have recently taken things one step further and even started banning Muslim girls from wearing skirts deemed too long in school.

There was one particularly famous case of this last year.

The Crusades were good.

You mean the part where they massacred Christians in Jerusalem and murdered Orthodox bishops throughout the Levant, or the part where they sacked Constantinople and dealt a fatal blow to the greatest Christian state of the Middle Ages?

When forced to choose between Catholic rule or Muslim rule, Orthodox Christians in the Middle Ages almost always chose Muslim rule. Why do you think that is?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first commandment declares you can only have one religion and that's Judo-Christianaity.

...No it doesn't. For example, it says you have freedom of religion, which means you can be Christian. Which means you can obey the Ten Commandments. And yes, the Ten Commandments are meant for Christianity.

Shocker guys, I can be a Catholic and I can bleed red, white, and blue. At the same time. And to say that one goes against the other implies I can't be. Which is a very old and outdated notion.

Err.. Freedom of Religion is freedom from religion.

Introducing the First Commandment we would have to dispute which God to follow, and since the majority is Christian, it would be the Judeo-Christian God by default. It would also mean that whomever doesn't follow God they'd be either not accepted as part of society, deported, and for policy they'd have to be theocrats.

Freedom of religion lets you be a Christian without repercussions. The First Commandment codified would imply that you can be persecuted if and when the majority's deity changes.

So yes, it inherently goes against the First Commandment if we want to implement the First Commandment as a matter of law. As a matter of morality however the First Commandment can be practiced freely because of the First Amendment.

[Herskerstad]

You mean the part where they massacred Christians in Jerusalem and murdered Orthodox bishops throughout the Levant, or the part where they sacked Constantinople and dealt a fatal blow to the greatest Christian state of the Middle Ages?

When forced to choose between Catholic rule or Muslim rule, Orthodox Christians in the Middle Ages almost always chose Muslim rule. Why do you think that is?

Well, on the latter one it rarely was as much a case of choice than it was inevitability. The general court intrigues did not help much either.

On the former, in particular after the sack of Constantinople it had a great deal to do with rather terrible demands from the Pope. Acknowledging his supremacy rather than primacy and you get to keep on marrying as clergy with some potential military assistance was prevalent among the rather crappy guarantees, whereas the Islamic side gave them the option to worship as they liked as Dhimmi or a very likely 'else'. Though, other things would follow such as the blood tax. To a certain degree the mystique of Islam was still rather prevalent in the judgement of many who'd not comprehend just what kind of a monster she would turn into, but picking between Rome and the Turks was a choice between Cyanide and Arsenic regardless. Many made the right choice in picking Moscow if you ask me.

[The Archregimancy]

You mean the part where they massacred Christians in Jerusalem and murdered Orthodox bishops throughout the Levant, or the part where they sacked Constantinople and dealt a fatal blow to the greatest Christian state of the Middle Ages?

When forced to choose between Catholic rule or Muslim rule, Orthodox Christians in the Middle Ages almost always chose Muslim rule. Why do you think that is?

Well, on the latter one it rarely was as much a case of choice than it was inevitability. The general court intrigues did not help much either.

You just made Dr Archregimancy put his fingers to his temples and sigh deeply in despair.

[The Alexanderians]

Say what now?

Not content with the fact that the hijab is already banned in all public spaces (since 2004), some French local authorities have recently taken things one step further and even started banning Muslim girls from wearing skirts deemed too long in school.

There was one particularly famous case of this last year.

France's human right record regarding religion (among other things) hasn't been very stellar. Hows the saying go? "She is no longer the favorite daughter of the church".

The Crusades were good.

You mean the part where they massacred Christians in Jerusalem and murdered Orthodox bishops throughout the Levant, or the part where they sacked Constantinople and dealt a fatal blow to the greatest Christian state of the Middle Ages?

When forced to choose between Catholic rule or Muslim rule, Orthodox Christians in the Middle Ages almost always chose Muslim rule. Why do you think that is?

Would you say "enemy mine" or "bros before..." "brethren preceding wenches"?

[Herskerstad]

Well, on the latter one it rarely was as much a case of choice than it was inevitability. The general court intrigues did not help much either.

You just made Dr Archregimancy put his fingers to his temples and sigh deeply in despair.

Not saying that it was not a centuries long process with back and forwards, but the migrations on the one hand were steadily increasing in population and power to which the Byzantines had no lasting response towards.

[Korhal IVV]

Well, they tell you not to do things like lie, steal, murder, go after someone else's stuff, and disrespect sacred things (or at least respect them). I'm not sure what would be inherently bad about them.

Is killing wrong in self defense? War? To directly defend others?
Homicide and murder are two different things."
Is worshipping other gods wrong?
Asherah sucks. Baal is crap. At the time of the Israelites, almost all other religions beside their own have extremely bad practices that even atheists would cringe at - Human sacrifices, temple whores, executing people fro leaking temple secrets, and such.
Is stealing to feed one's family wrong? Is pirating something wrong if one is denied legitimate access to the content they purchased?
THere are always charitable people around willing to help
Is lying to protect someone's feeling wrong? Are surprises wrong? Is lying to keep oneself safe wrong?Lying to protect people's lives is alright. Lying to get self-centered desires is wrong.


You can always ask for forgiveness... But God's grace is not be abused.
Is working whenever one feels like wrong?

Is the simply thought of desiring something wrong? Is it really bad to think "My neighbour's car is cool"?Thinking "My neighbour's car is cool" is different from "I want my neighbours wife!"
Is it wrong to not to honour one parents if they are unfit or are abusive? Or to honour others who act as parental figures instead?If your parents are dead, there is no wrong in honouring people acting as your parents. Abusive parents aren't parents anymore unless if they repent and change their ways.
The Bible tells parents not to be abusive, by the way
Is making a work of art based an image of god wrong?
God is a spirit and has no physical form(atleast most of the time), so He probably considers it disrespect.

[The Archregimancy]

#

The Crusaders volunteered to help a Christian empire defend against foreign invasion.

I think you would likely find it useful to make a distinction between Alexius I's initial request for assistance to Urban II and the reason why most of the Crusaders volunteered for the First Crusade.

I also think you would likely find it useful to make a clearer distinction between the First Crusade and subsequent Crusades.

The First Crusade did indeed initially come about due a Christian Empire's request to the Papacy for assistance against the Turks.

However, it's clear that not everyone who volunteered to join the Crusade was doing so to help the Byzantines - though a quantitative assessment of who was doing what, and for motives, is impossible so many centuries later; but the First Crusade wasn't a homogeneous political or ideological movement.

No crusade after the First Crusade was in any way intended as assistance for the Byzantines, and the Fourth Crusade dealt the 'Christian Empire' a fatal blow that it never recovered from.

So at best you're guilty here of gross oversimplification based on a partial assessment of the First Crusade as representative of the entire crusading movement; at worst you're simply point-blank wrong.

You just made Dr Archregimancy put his fingers to his temples and sigh deeply in despair.

Not saying that it was not a centuries long process with back and forwards, but the migrations on the one hand were steadily increasing in population and power to which the Byzantines had no lasting response towards.

I lack the time to deconstruct that in detail, but the Byzantines had a perfectly adequate long-term military response to Islam for ]nearly 400 years between the foundation of the thematic system and the Battle of Manzikert; for over 300 years after the Second Siege of Constantinople, there was even a steady long-term advance of Byzantine control in the east. Even after Manzikert, they managed to restabilise the situation during the Comnenian period; Manzikert significantly weakened the Empire, but didn't destroy it. It was the Fourth Crusade that in the end fatally undermined the Byzantine response to Islam, not 'general court intrigues' or any sense of inevitability caused by inherent weaknesses within the Byzantine system; no doubt the thematic system was mismanaged between the death of Basil II and accession of Romanus IV, but mismanagement by incompetent rulers is not the same as an inherent fatal flaw.

[The Alexanderians]

#

The Crusaders volunteered to help a Christian empire defend against foreign invasion.

I think you would likely find it useful to make a distinction between Alexius I's initial request for assistance to Urban II and the reason why most of the Crusaders volunteered for the First Crusade.

I also think you would likely find it useful to make a clearer distinction between the First Crusade and subsequent Crusades.

The First Crusade did indeed initially come about due a Christian Empire's request to the Papacy for assistance against the Turks.

However, it's clear that not everyone who volunteered to join the Crusade was doing so to help the Byzantines - though a quantitative assessment of who was doing what, and for motives, is impossible so many centuries later; but the First Crusade wasn't a homogeneous political or ideological movement.

No crusade after the First Crusade was in any way intended as assistance for the Byzantines, and the Fourth Crusade dealt the 'Christian Empire' a fatal blow that it never recovered from.

So at best you're guilty here of gross oversimplification based on a partial assessment of the First Crusade as representative of the entire crusading movement; at worst you're simply point-blank wrong.

Not saying that it was not a centuries long process with back and forwards, but the migrations on the one hand were steadily increasing in population and power to which the Byzantines had no lasting response towards.

I lack the time to deconstruct that in detail, but the Byzantines had a perfectly adequate long-term military response to Islam for ]nearly 400 years between the foundation of the thematic system and the Battle of Manzikert; for over 300 years after the Second Siege of Constantinople, there was even a steady long-term advance of Byzantine control in the east. Even after Manzikert, they managed to restabilise the situation during the Comnenian period; Manzikert significantly weakened the Empire, but didn't destroy it. It was the Fourth Crusade that in the end fatally undermined the Byzantine response to Islam, not 'general court intrigues' or any sense of inevitability caused by inherent weaknesses within the Byzantine system; no doubt the thematic system was mismanaged between the death of Basil II and accession of Romanus IV, but mismanagement by incompetent rulers is not the same as an inherent fatal flaw.

Didn't the advent of a great bombard (and by extension gunpowder) contribute to the final downfall of Constantinople? Out of curiosity.