Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Czervenika]

What do you mean was dead? You mean after he rose? Sorry it's getting late, haha.

Well, I just mean He died on the Cross on Holy Friday, and then He rose from the dead on Sunday, so in between those two events, He was dead.

But, since the Resurrection, He is alive again.

Yea, that's what I thought you meant, but I had a total derp moment.

[Constantinopolis]

So it is now Great and Holy Wednesday (the Wednesday of Holy Week, in the Orthodox Church), and I wanted to take this opportunity to share two of the special hymns that are reserved for Holy Week, and which sound particularly angelic to my ears.

1. "The Bridegroom comes at midnight"



YouTube links:
- A version in English, by Archangel Voices
- Another version, by Cappella Romana

Behold, the Bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is the servant whom He shall find watching; but unworthy is the servant whom He shall find heedless. Beware therefore, O my soul, do not be weighed down with sleep, lest you be given up to death and be shut out of the kingdom; but rise yourself crying: "Holy! Holy! Holy are You our God; through the Theotokos, have mercy on us.

This hymn references the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25: 1-13), explicitly identifying Christ as the bridegroom in the parable. It is sung during special services of Matins held on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week.

2. "The Hymn of St. Kassiani"



YouTube links:
- One version
- Another version

O Lord God, the woman who had fallen into many sins, having perceived Thy divinity received the rank of ointment-bearer [myrrh-bearer], offering Thee spices before Thy burial, wailing and crying: "Woe is me, for the love of adultery and sin hath given me a dark and lightless night! Accept the fountains of my tears O Thou Who draws the waters of the sea by the clouds. Incline Thou to the sigh of my heart, O Thou Who did bend the heavens by Thine inapprehensible condescension. I will kiss Thy pure feet and I will wipe them with my tresses. I will kiss Thy feet Whose tread when it fell on the ears of Eve in Paradise dismayed her so that she did hide herself because of fear. Who then shall examine the multitude of my sin and the depth of Thy judgment? Therefore, O my Saviour and the Deliverer of my soul, turn not away from Thy handmaiden, O Thou of boundless mercy".

This hymn references the incident when a sinful woman expressed her deep repentance and desire for forgiveness by purchasing fragrant oil and anointing the feet of Christ with it (Matthew 26:6-16). It is sung only during the Matins of Holy Wednesday, and it was composed by St. Kassiani, a 9th century nun and poet who played an important role in the final defeat of iconoclasm and who is also one of the earliest known female composers in history.

[Dinake]

I think there's some pretty good evidence for a number of instances of spontaneous stigmata.

What do you all think of Marian apparitions? What's the opinion of you Protestant guys on them?

Marian apparitions are a thing that happens, but not every reported Marian apparition is real. For example, medjugorje. The important thing is to trust the judgement of the church, as in all things.

[Pachenstein]

So it is now Great and Holy Wednesday (the Wednesday of Holy Week, in the Orthodox Church), and I wanted to take this opportunity to share two of the special hymns that are reserved for Holy Week, and which sound particularly angelic to my ears.

1. "The Bridegroom comes at midnight"

(Image)

YouTube links:
- A version in English, by Archangel Voices
- Another version, by Cappella Romana

Behold, the Bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is the servant whom He shall find watching; but unworthy is the servant whom He shall find heedless. Beware therefore, O my soul, do not be weighed down with sleep, lest you be given up to death and be shut out of the kingdom; but rise yourself crying: "Holy! Holy! Holy are You our God; through the Theotokos, have mercy on us.

This hymn references the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25: 1-13), explicitly identifying Christ as the bridegroom in the parable. It is sung during special services of Matins held on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week.

Nice hymn and icon you've got there.

[Grand Calvert]

So it is now Great and Holy Wednesday (the Wednesday of Holy Week, in the Orthodox Church), and I wanted to take this opportunity to share two of the special hymns that are reserved for Holy Week, and which sound particularly angelic to my ears.

1. "The Bridegroom comes at midnight"

(Image)

YouTube links:
- A version in English, by Archangel Voices
- Another version, by Cappella Romana

Behold, the Bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is the servant whom He shall find watching; but unworthy is the servant whom He shall find heedless. Beware therefore, O my soul, do not be weighed down with sleep, lest you be given up to death and be shut out of the kingdom; but rise yourself crying: "Holy! Holy! Holy are You our God; through the Theotokos, have mercy on us.

This hymn references the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25: 1-13), explicitly identifying Christ as the bridegroom in the parable. It is sung during special services of Matins held on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week.

2. "The Hymn of St. Kassiani"

(Image)

YouTube links:
- One version
- Another version

O Lord God, the woman who had fallen into many sins, having perceived Thy divinity received the rank of ointment-bearer [myrrh-bearer], offering Thee spices before Thy burial, wailing and crying: "Woe is me, for the love of adultery and sin hath given me a dark and lightless night! Accept the fountains of my tears O Thou Who draws the waters of the sea by the clouds. Incline Thou to the sigh of my heart, O Thou Who did bend the heavens by Thine inapprehensible condescension. I will kiss Thy pure feet and I will wipe them with my tresses. I will kiss Thy feet Whose tread when it fell on the ears of Eve in Paradise dismayed her so that she did hide herself because of fear. Who then shall examine the multitude of my sin and the depth of Thy judgment? Therefore, O my Saviour and the Deliverer of my soul, turn not away from Thy handmaiden, O Thou of boundless mercy".

This hymn references the incident when a sinful woman expressed her deep repentance and desire for forgiveness by purchasing fragrant oil and anointing the feet of Christ with it (Matthew 26:6-16). It is sung only during the Matins of Holy Wednesday, and it was composed by St. Kassiani, a 9th century nun and poet who played an important role in the final defeat of iconoclasm and who is also one of the earliest known female composers in history.

Wait, the Orthodox have nuns?

[Dinake]

So it is now Great and Holy Wednesday (the Wednesday of Holy Week, in the Orthodox Church), and I wanted to take this opportunity to share two of the special hymns that are reserved for Holy Week, and which sound particularly angelic to my ears.

1. "The Bridegroom comes at midnight"

(Image)

YouTube links:
- A version in English, by Archangel Voices
- Another version, by Cappella Romana

Behold, the Bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is the servant whom He shall find watching; but unworthy is the servant whom He shall find heedless. Beware therefore, O my soul, do not be weighed down with sleep, lest you be given up to death and be shut out of the kingdom; but rise yourself crying: "Holy! Holy! Holy are You our God; through the Theotokos, have mercy on us.

This hymn references the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25: 1-13), explicitly identifying Christ as the bridegroom in the parable. It is sung during special services of Matins held on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week.

2. "The Hymn of St. Kassiani"

(Image)

YouTube links:
- One version
- Another version

O Lord God, the woman who had fallen into many sins, having perceived Thy divinity received the rank of ointment-bearer [myrrh-bearer], offering Thee spices before Thy burial, wailing and crying: "Woe is me, for the love of adultery and sin hath given me a dark and lightless night! Accept the fountains of my tears O Thou Who draws the waters of the sea by the clouds. Incline Thou to the sigh of my heart, O Thou Who did bend the heavens by Thine inapprehensible condescension. I will kiss Thy pure feet and I will wipe them with my tresses. I will kiss Thy feet Whose tread when it fell on the ears of Eve in Paradise dismayed her so that she did hide herself because of fear. Who then shall examine the multitude of my sin and the depth of Thy judgment? Therefore, O my Saviour and the Deliverer of my soul, turn not away from Thy handmaiden, O Thou of boundless mercy".

This hymn references the incident when a sinful woman expressed her deep repentance and desire for forgiveness by purchasing fragrant oil and anointing the feet of Christ with it (Matthew 26:6-16). It is sung only during the Matins of Holy Wednesday, and it was composed by St. Kassiani, a 9th century nun and poet who played an important role in the final defeat of iconoclasm and who is also one of the earliest known female composers in history.

Wait, the Orthodox have nuns?

The Orthodox have monasticism, although it is different from Catholic monasticism.

[Czervenika]

Wait, the Orthodox have nuns?

Yes, although I assumed that was common knowledge. Now I'm kind of wondering what the Protestant arguments against monasticism are. I think it can be a very good thing personally, provided a person is going into it willingly and with full conviction.

[Zenete]

Anyone else like me? I am roughly a protestant (non-denom), but draw inspiration from all branches of the faith. I feel like most people only look to other believers in their denomination, and consider other denominations to be heretics, or something. I feel there is plenty of beauty and wisdom from Catholicism, EO, Nestorianism, etc.

[Nordengrund]

Anyone else like me? I am roughly a protestant (non-denom), but draw inspiration from all branches of the faith. I feel like most people only look to other believers in their denomination, and consider other denominations to be heretics, or something. I feel there is plenty of beauty and wisdom from Catholicism, EO, Nestorianism, etc.

Kinda. I'm Baptist, but I want the aesthetics of the EOC, and I find myself agreeing with Presbyterians on alot of things except pedobaptism and I am more of a moderate Calvinist or a classical Arminian. I also want the worship style of Anglicanism while still holding to the Baptist view of the sacraments.

[Luminesa]

Wait, the Orthodox have nuns?

Yes, although I assumed that was common knowledge. Now I'm kind of wondering what the Protestant arguments against monasticism are. I think it can be a very good thing personally, provided a person is going into it willingly and with full conviction.

Without monasticism, Western Civilization would have never survived the Fall of Rome.

Make sure to thank a monk or a nun, when you see them passing by, for saving Western Civilization. Bonus points if you hug one.

[Czervenika]

Yes, although I assumed that was common knowledge. Now I'm kind of wondering what the Protestant arguments against monasticism are. I think it can be a very good thing personally, provided a person is going into it willingly and with full conviction.

Without monasticism, Western Civilization would have never survived the Fall of Rome.

Make sure to thank a monk or a nun, when you see them passing by, for saving Western Civilization. Bonus points if you hug one.

I can believe that, considering they spent their time copying down old manuscripts and such. And technically Rome didn't fall. Not entirely anyway .

[Cill Airne]

Yes, although I assumed that was common knowledge. Now I'm kind of wondering what the Protestant arguments against monasticism are. I think it can be a very good thing personally, provided a person is going into it willingly and with full conviction.

Without monasticism, Western Civilization would have never survived the Fall of Rome.

Make sure to thank a monk or a nun, when you see them passing by, for saving Western Civilization. Bonus points if you hug one.

I hugged a nun today! Then she told me "It's alright, I still love you even if you're balding". She's so funny. XD

Oh, I just realised I also hug a monk every week at church! At least the week's he is there.

[Luminesa]

Without monasticism, Western Civilization would have never survived the Fall of Rome.

Make sure to thank a monk or a nun, when you see them passing by, for saving Western Civilization. Bonus points if you hug one.

I hugged a nun today! Then she told me "It's alright, I still love you even if you're balding". She's so funny. XD

Oh, I just realised I also hug a monk every week at church! At least the week's he is there.

Citizen, you are doing a good job.

[Luminesa]

Without monasticism, Western Civilization would have never survived the Fall of Rome.

Make sure to thank a monk or a nun, when you see them passing by, for saving Western Civilization. Bonus points if you hug one.

I can believe that, considering they spent their time copying down old manuscripts and such. And technically Rome didn't fall. Not entirely anyway .

YOSH. NOW GO HUG YOURSELF A NUN!!!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I wrote this for a class I'm in, and I'm curious what y'all might think about it. The class is "The Bible in the 21st Century" and the subject matter of the week was Same-Sex relationships. The week before it was Queer interpretation. And the main sources to consider if you wish are
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... .html?_r=0
http://www.christianity.com/christian-l ... g.html?p=0

(It was a discussion forum like this one, not a formal paper so excuse the format please)

This week’s topic for me has been quite a quagmire. No matter what way I attempted to approach this subject, I found myself returning to the concept of Authority. All these arguments make appeals to Authority on their claims, but are any of them correct? I shall return to this at the end, but first I want to explain how I got there.
Starting with the New York Times article, I honestly approached this with an open mind. But the more I read the arguments, the more I found the arguments posted by Mathew Vines to become weaker and weaker, in the face of Caleb Kaltenbach’s. And the reason was this: Kaltenbach’s arguments came from a foundational perspective, every argument he gave not only addressed the point he was given, but also wove well into the established paradigm of faith. Vines on the other hand, to me, gave arguments that would fit into a type of defense litigation, where one attacks the point they’re given through legalism and technicality. The argument works in disrupting the point, but crumbles in the face of the total package. While this maybe efficacious in creating reasonable doubt, to build a religious ethical paradigm it is woefully inadequate.
For Example: Vines’ response to Romans 1:26-27, he points to lust as an explanation, that any sex borne of lust is wrong, not just homosexual sex. “Christians should continue to affirm with Paul that we shouldn’t engage in sexual behavior out of self-seeking lustfulness. But that’s very different than same-sex marriages that are based on self-giving love, and we shouldn’t conflate the two in how we interpret this text today.” While admittedly, the first sentence is a good conclusion, and seemingly supports his second sentence in the immediate sense, in the larger picture it ultimately falls short. Especially when we consider, A. That wasn’t even a main concept of marriage in that early church, and B. Paul outlined the purpose and function of marriage: “ Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must[a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7: 1-4) The Pauline concept of Marriage was heterosexual, and seen as a haven in which one could express their own desires through dutiful commitment. Vines’ appeal that Paul wasn’t talking about his type of marriage ring hollow, when taking this in account.

Another, brief example of this type of failure comes in his next argument against Leviticus: “But the New Testament casts a vision of God’s kingdom in which the hierarchy between men and women is overcome in Christ. So not only is Leviticus’s prohibition inapplicable to Christians on its own, the rationale behind it doesn’t extend to Christians, either.” His argument is that sex has no place in Christian discourse, because of the sacrifice in Christ, but we see that is not true even within scripture, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34) We see quite clearly that sex is an important determinant even within the New Testament Paradigm.

So, after finishing that article, I was ready to engage in that discussion alone. By and large, the Bible is not condoning of same sex relationships, and as I argued last week, attempts to re-categorize certain aspects of the bible in a “Queer” light is eisegesis, not exegesis, and should not be taken as valid as traditional exegetical arguments.
But then I jumped over to the Christianity Today article. And while Alex Crain should be applauded in presenting the Evangelical rationale, of love not hate, as I read, certain turns of phrase started to leap out at me: “Bible Believing Christian”(which has always been used as a thinly veiled slight against Catholics) “Accurate Bible Interpretation” “True Christian” etc. All appeals to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy aside, one quote really stood out to me: “The bad news for those who engage in homosexuality does not go away simply by the spurious claim that somehow the Church has "misunderstood" these texts for centuries, only to be corrected by later revisionist scholars in recent decades.” It was at this point, as a Catholic, I was struck by the utter hypocrisy of it all.
While I may disagree on a fundamental level with people like Mathew Vines, their motivation has never been a dubious one: they want LGBT to be embraced by the Christian church, and their reasoning is simple: the church has lost its way, (as evidenced by the shear amount of vitriol), gotten stagnant in misunderstood ideas, and needs to be shaken up with new information and a deeper understanding that brings it closer to the original ideals espoused by the first Christians. It was noticeable to me, that all the readings this week hailed from Evangelical sources. It is then astounding to me, that these LGBT Christians are called “revisionists” by people who profess their allegiance and to be the legacy of people who did the exact same thing! The Reformers, reinterpreted scripture to conflict with centuries old interpretations, even tossing out seven books of the Bible in order to make the Bible more closely conform to their new “Reformed” paradigm. They were called “Not True Christians” and “Revisionists” and many, much less polite things, but managed to persevere. In many ways, these LGBT Christians are facing exactly what their predecessors like Luther and Calvin faced.

It is because of this, I have again circled back to Authority. Because frankly, (and my question for this week) who can authoritatively say who’s right on the matter? The Bible was compiled by an Institution that uses a linear succession to authority. They claim to inherit the institutional authority held by the Apostles, to preserve the Apostolic teaching, and the value of their instruction is based in this authority by Tradition (though that institution has fragmented since then.) But when we remove this component, of authority by institution and vest sole authority in the words of a book, the solidity of that authority begins to fracture. A book cannot clarify itself, you cannot ask it questions, and you are in a sense limited to the words on the page. This is where the process of hermeneutics comes into play. And because of this, truth is pulled out of an Institution, and given over to the whims of the individual’s interpretation. The validity of the Bible, comes not from faith in the institution any more, but in the books itself. That means the Bible is then subject to the individual’s faith and reasoning.
So essentially, within this framework, both arguments are equally valid, though one may have more solid reasoning than the other. Which means the Bible both supports and does not support same sex relationships. Not because it’s what the books says, but because it’s what you believe the books says. While I think LGBT activists would be better off simply removing those condemnations from their religious text, in this framework I cannot fault them.

[Luminesa]

I wrote this for a class I'm in, and I'm curious what y'all might think about it. The class is "The Bible in the 21st Century" and the subject matter of the week was Same-Sex relationships. The week before it was Queer interpretation. And the main sources to consider if you wish are
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... .html?_r=0
http://www.christianity.com/christian-l ... g.html?p=0

(It was a discussion forum like this one, not a formal paper so excuse the format please)

This week’s topic for me has been quite a quagmire. No matter what way I attempted to approach this subject, I found myself returning to the concept of Authority. All these arguments make appeals to Authority on their claims, but are any of them correct? I shall return to this at the end, but first I want to explain how I got there.
Starting with the New York Times article, I honestly approached this with an open mind. But the more I read the arguments, the more I found the arguments posted by Mathew Vines to become weaker and weaker, in the face of Caleb Kaltenbach’s. And the reason was this: Kaltenbach’s arguments came from a foundational perspective, every argument he gave not only addressed the point he was given, but also wove well into the established paradigm of faith. Vines on the other hand, to me, gave arguments that would fit into a type of defense litigation, where one attacks the point they’re given through legalism and technicality. The argument works in disrupting the point, but crumbles in the face of the total package. While this maybe efficacious in creating reasonable doubt, to build a religious ethical paradigm it is woefully inadequate.
For Example: Vines’ response to Romans 1:26-27, he points to lust as an explanation, that any sex borne of lust is wrong, not just homosexual sex. “Christians should continue to affirm with Paul that we shouldn’t engage in sexual behavior out of self-seeking lustfulness. But that’s very different than same-sex marriages that are based on self-giving love, and we shouldn’t conflate the two in how we interpret this text today.” While admittedly, the first sentence is a good conclusion, and seemingly supports his second sentence in the immediate sense, in the larger picture it ultimately falls short. Especially when we consider, A. That wasn’t even a main concept of marriage in that early church, and B. Paul outlined the purpose and function of marriage: “ Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must[a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7: 1-4) The Pauline concept of Marriage was heterosexual, and seen as a haven in which one could express their own desires through dutiful commitment. Vines’ appeal that Paul wasn’t talking about his type of marriage ring hollow, when taking this in account.

Another, brief example of this type of failure comes in his next argument against Leviticus: “But the New Testament casts a vision of God’s kingdom in which the hierarchy between men and women is overcome in Christ. So not only is Leviticus’s prohibition inapplicable to Christians on its own, the rationale behind it doesn’t extend to Christians, either.” His argument is that sex has no place in Christian discourse, because of the sacrifice in Christ, but we see that is not true even within scripture, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34) We see quite clearly that sex is an important determinant even within the New Testament Paradigm.

So, after finishing that article, I was ready to engage in that discussion alone. By and large, the Bible is not condoning of same sex relationships, and as I argued last week, attempts to re-categorize certain aspects of the bible in a “Queer” light is eisegesis, not exegesis, and should not be taken as valid as traditional exegetical arguments.
But then I jumped over to the Christianity Today article. And while Alex Crain should be applauded in presenting the Evangelical rationale, of love not hate, as I read, certain turns of phrase started to leap out at me: “Bible Believing Christian”(which has always been used as a thinly veiled slight against Catholics) “Accurate Bible Interpretation” “True Christian” etc. All appeals to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy aside, one quote really stood out to me: “The bad news for those who engage in homosexuality does not go away simply by the spurious claim that somehow the Church has "misunderstood" these texts for centuries, only to be corrected by later revisionist scholars in recent decades.” It was at this point, as a Catholic, I was struck by the utter hypocrisy of it all.
While I may disagree on a fundamental level with people like Mathew Vines, their motivation has never been a dubious one: they want LGBT to be embraced by the Christian church, and their reasoning is simple: the church has lost its way, (as evidenced by the shear amount of vitriol), gotten stagnant in misunderstood ideas, and needs to be shaken up with new information and a deeper understanding that brings it closer to the original ideals espoused by the first Christians. It was noticeable to me, that all the readings this week hailed from Evangelical sources. It is then astounding to me, that these LGBT Christians are called “revisionists” by people who profess their allegiance and to be the legacy of people who did the exact same thing! The Reformers, reinterpreted scripture to conflict with centuries old interpretations, even tossing out seven books of the Bible in order to make the Bible more closely conform to their new “Reformed” paradigm. They were called “Not True Christians” and “Revisionists” and many, much less polite things, but managed to persevere. In many ways, these LGBT Christians are facing exactly what their predecessors like Luther and Calvin faced.

It is because of this, I have again circled back to Authority. Because frankly, (and my question for this week) who can authoritatively say who’s right on the matter? The Bible was compiled by an Institution that uses a linear succession to authority. They claim to inherit the institutional authority held by the Apostles, to preserve the Apostolic teaching, and the value of their instruction is based in this authority by Tradition (though that institution has fragmented since then.) But when we remove this component, of authority by institution and vest sole authority in the words of a book, the solidity of that authority begins to fracture. A book cannot clarify itself, you cannot ask it questions, and you are in a sense limited to the words on the page. This is where the process of hermeneutics comes into play. And because of this, truth is pulled out of an Institution, and given over to the whims of the individual’s interpretation. The validity of the Bible, comes not from faith in the institution any more, but in the books itself. That means the Bible is then subject to the individual’s faith and reasoning.
So essentially, within this framework, both arguments are equally valid, though one may have more solid reasoning than the other. Which means the Bible both supports and does not support same sex relationships. Not because it’s what the books says, but because it’s what you believe the books says. While I think LGBT activists would be better off simply removing those condemnations from their religious text, in this framework I cannot fault them.

I think each of the two writers has their strengths and their weaknesses in their arguments. Vines does say that founding a sexual relationship on lust is wrong, and that Christ was talking about how marriage should be permanent, which it indeed should be. The two obviously disagree on more than a few points, but each of them makes good points about the passages they describe.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I wrote this for a class I'm in, and I'm curious what y'all might think about it. The class is "The Bible in the 21st Century" and the subject matter of the week was Same-Sex relationships. The week before it was Queer interpretation. And the main sources to consider if you wish are
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... .html?_r=0
http://www.christianity.com/christian-l ... g.html?p=0

(It was a discussion forum like this one, not a formal paper so excuse the format please)

I think each of the two writers has their strengths and their weaknesses in their arguments. Vines does say that founding a sexual relationship on lust is wrong, and that Christ was talking about how marriage should be permanent, which it indeed should be. The two obviously disagree on more than a few points, but each of them makes good points about the passages they describe.

Like I said, I thought they made good arguements in the immediate, but when you dug deeper into the framework, Vices' floundered while Caleb's held up.

[Luminesa]

I think each of the two writers has their strengths and their weaknesses in their arguments. Vines does say that founding a sexual relationship on lust is wrong, and that Christ was talking about how marriage should be permanent, which it indeed should be. The two obviously disagree on more than a few points, but each of them makes good points about the passages they describe.

Like I said, I thought they made good arguements in the immediate, but when you dug deeper into the framework, Vices' floundered while Caleb's held up.

Ah. Anyway, the paper looks good! I'm just wondering-why didn't you get a Catholic author, if you wanted to discuss Authority?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Like I said, I thought they made good arguements in the immediate, but when you dug deeper into the framework, Vices' floundered while Caleb's held up.

Ah. Anyway, the paper looks good! I'm just wondering-why didn't you get a Catholic author, if you wanted to discuss Authority?

It's a discussion forum board for an online class . The teacher picked the sources for her weekly lesson. So the response was geared to those sources she provided

[Luminesa]

Ah. Anyway, the paper looks good! I'm just wondering-why didn't you get a Catholic author, if you wanted to discuss Authority?

It's a discussion forum board for an online class . The teacher picked the sources for her weekly lesson. So the response was geared to those sources she provided

OHHHHH. Okay.

Well, I can tell you what, you've probably got the longest answer in the class. Nice.

Should be an interesting conversation, though. We'll see how it goes.

[Czervenika]

I can believe that, considering they spent their time copying down old manuscripts and such. And technically Rome didn't fall. Not entirely anyway .

YOSH. NOW GO HUG YOURSELF A NUN!!!

I have a lot of respect for monks and nuns. The poor Protestants are missing out, ahahahah.

[Northern Freikur]

You all need Jesus...

[Salus Maior]

You all need Jesus...

I think we got Jesus. For the most part anyway.

[Czervenika]

You all need Jesus...

Oh the irony of saying this in the CHRISTIAN Discussion Thread .

[Constantinopolis]

Wait, the Orthodox have nuns?

Of course. Like Czervenika, I thought that was common knowledge. Monasticism is hugely important in the Orthodox Church - more so than in the Catholic Church. The most influential voice in the Orthodox Church is not any one of the patriarchs, but rather the monasteries of Mount Athos.

Without monasticism, Western Civilization would have never survived the Fall of Rome.

What fall?

New Rome is Best Rome.