Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Yagon]

If you expect your policies to be obeyed as if they are the will of God, you are presuming to speak for God. You can write it up however you like, but "God says you must live like this, do this, not that!" means that you are saying what God thinks and wants apparently on his behalf, and demanding everyone take your word for it. That is speaking for God.

If your results are murder and shit and death and child rape and basically a society just a rife with any of the issues that strike those of other religions, it turns out you don't speak for God.

I get the feeling you don't really know how the Church works, or the Papacy.

The Church declares itself to be the source of accurate information and interpretation about the will of God.

That is speaking for God.

If you can show me where the Church admits "These are our opinions, we don't know what God actually thinks and we don't speak for him", then I'm wrong.

If they say "God's will is ________", then they are by definition presuming to speak for God.

[Salus Maior]

I get the feeling you don't really know how the Church works, or the Papacy.

The Church declares itself to be the source of accurate information and interpretation about the will of God.

That is speaking for God.

If you can show me where the Church admits "These are our opinions, we don't know what God actually thinks and we don't speak for him", then I'm wrong.

If they say "God's will is ________", then they are by definition presuming to speak for God.

Yes, that's the Church. Not necessarily the Pope or everyone in it.

The Church holds established doctrine, which is based off of Scripture and Tradition, to be true. Not necessarily everything the Pope says.

In fact, there have been a lot of Popes that have been wrong, and have been bad people. They're in violation of doctrine and would be in sin like anyone else would.

[Neanderthaland]

I suppose I shouldn't speak for them, but the more KKKish variety are probably operating on some version of the old Southern "Divinely Ordered Society." In which White folks are supposed to embody Christian ethics, and inspire/force lesser races to follow suit in a sort of paternal fashion.

The more Nazi-ish White supremacists (ignoring the pseudo-Pagan variety) are probably operating on old European ideas of blood libel and the view of Jews as Christ killers.

I know it's difficult to reconcile these with modern mainstream Christianity, but we should keep in mind that these two views of Christianity (especially the second one) are very popular historically. Most Christians in Europe would have held some version of them from about the High Middle Ages on. The Catholic Church only repudiated the charge of deicide in 1964.

So apparently it is possible.

I would disagree with this analysis. Nazism has a completely corrupted interpretation of Christianity. They completely disassociated from the old testament because it was "too Jewish." No other group of Christians did that.

I'm not sure that Nazism has any coherent interpretation of Christianity. If it does, I'm sure it is corrupt because Nazism also enjoys a lot of faux-Pagan blood myths, and a not-too-subtle leadership cult.

But Nazi antisemitism isn't unique to them, and their views don't come out of nowhere. The idea that Christians can't be antisemitic would probably exclude the majority of historical Christians. Which... I mean... you can do that. It doesn't seem very "Traditionalist" though.

[Yagon]

Yes, that's the Church. Not necessarily the Pope or everyone in it.

The Church holds established doctrine, which is based off of Scripture and Tradition, to be true. Not necessarily everything the Pope says.

In fact, there have been a lot of Popes that have been wrong, and have been bad people. They're in violation of doctrine and would be in sin like anyone else would.

Yeah, probably best then if they just be in charge of their own lives and not tell others how to live or what God says.

Also....it really seriously honestly never occurs to you even the possibility that these doctrines were made up by people and don't actually come from God?

What about all non-Christian religions? Are they made up and don't actually come from God. If they are, are you really sure yours maybe isn't?

Like, in no sneaking part of your brain is the idea that you do this because of something it gives you in how you relate to yourself and others, but doesn't actually really need to come from God to provide that?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, that's the Church. Not necessarily the Pope or everyone in it.

The Church holds established doctrine, which is based off of Scripture and Tradition, to be true. Not necessarily everything the Pope says.

In fact, there have been a lot of Popes that have been wrong, and have been bad people. They're in violation of doctrine and would be in sin like anyone else would.

Yeah, probably best then if they just be in charge of their own lives and not tell others how to live or what God says.

Also....it really seriously honestly never occurs to you even the possibility that these doctrines were made up by people and don't actually come from God?

What about all non-Christian religions? Are they made up and don't actually come from God. If they are, are you really sure yours maybe isn't?

Like, in no sneaking part of your brain is the idea that you do this because of something it gives you in how you relate to yourself and others, but doesn't actually really need to come from God to provide that?

I've kind of been influenced by Perennial Traditionalism in that I think that many of the world religions have an inspiration from primordial (pre-covenant) encounters with the Divine, and different cultures' attempts to understand what they encountered. I think this is why many religions have somewhat similar moral codes. That doesn't make their doctrines valid, as we hold true divine revelation, but that doesn't mean other groups are basing their religions on mere nothings either.

[Luminesa]

This is extremely unfair. Pope Innocent III attempted to peacefully convert the Cathars, sending several legates to the Cathar region. And what about Saint Dominic? He believed that only preachers with humility, zeal, sanctity, etc could successfully convert the Cathars, leading to the establishment of the Dominican Order.

'Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.'

Part of the issue is that I don't believe in Saints, and I don't believe in the notion of 'Sainthood' -- it's just farcical nonsense to me. In regards to the crusade: I see it as the Church showing lack of restraint, resolve, and letting their pride get in the way of their faith, and as a result, they drew blood. But they're dead, so yes, my condemnations now aren't going to help them, but my 'condemnations' weren't being aired for that reason. I find it curious that people still follow religion, especially the Church despite these things; I wonder if it's because of naivety, blindness, apathy, or maybe some think they could make the Church better. Why would a person support a Pope, or organisation, despite these actions in the past or more recent? That's what I'm after.

Any organization that's existed for 2,000 years is going to do stupid things every now and then. And for the recent things the Church has done wrong, she will have to own up to them. Many people are entirely aware of what the Church has done wrong in the past. Many are not. But those who are aware and who remain aren't there because they simply don't care. People remain in the Church because that's where they know they belong.

[Angleter]

That's a criminally simplified view of the Crusades, completely disregarding the political, historical, and social situation at the time.

Also, people doing wrong things in the Church doesn't discount Church teaching. I mean, they're human. If you had to stop following a movement because someone in that movement did something wrong, nobody would follow anything.

I think the difference is, if you claim to speak for God and want your policies applied with the same obedience as if they came from God, you have to live up to the standard.

You must live up to as much power as you claim over other people's lives.

If you say "God said this!" you better get it right.

It's repeatedly stated in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7:21*, John 8:7-11, Romans 3:10, 1 John 1:8) that none of us are capable of living up to the standard God has set us. The faith might be perfect, but the priests and laymen following it are not. The point should be to try, regardless of how well those preaching the faith are doing in that regard.

A science teacher's lesson about anthropogenic climate change isn't invalidated when they drive home from school in a massive gas-guzzling Hummer. It makes them a hypocrite, but it doesn't make anthropogenic climate change any less real. Likewise, Catholic theology doesn't come crumbling down when a bishop has a wank.

*7:20 if you're Protestant.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Archbishop of my diocese gave an interview in which he discussed possible reunion between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions: http://globalstoryline.com/home/2017/1/ ... h-ethiopia

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

I'm not a Christian, but I love this thread. You all are such nice people!

[Constantinopolis]

I would disagree with this analysis. Nazism has a completely corrupted interpretation of Christianity. They completely disassociated from the old testament because it was "too Jewish." No other group of Christians did that.

I'm not sure that Nazism has any coherent interpretation of Christianity. If it does, I'm sure it is corrupt because Nazism also enjoys a lot of faux-Pagan blood myths, and a not-too-subtle leadership cult.

But Nazi antisemitism isn't unique to them, and their views don't come out of nowhere. The idea that Christians can't be antisemitic would probably exclude the majority of historical Christians. Which... I mean... you can do that. It doesn't seem very "Traditionalist" though.

Christianity can be (and historically has been, on many occasions) intensely and even violently opposed to Judaism as a religion.

However, racial antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.

Christians can oppose non-Christian religions, but they can't oppose specific races or nations.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, probably best then if they just be in charge of their own lives and not tell others how to live or what God says.

Also....it really seriously honestly never occurs to you even the possibility that these doctrines were made up by people and don't actually come from God?

Like, in no sneaking part of your brain is the idea that you do this because of something it gives you in how you relate to yourself and others, but doesn't actually really need to come from God to provide that?

In that case no one is qualified for leadership of any kind if you hold that stringent a standard.

Everyone has doubts in their lives, but my past experiences and seeing other peoples' Christian walk leads me to believe that Christianity is true. Well, that among other things.

Nothing is 100% certain anywhere, not even science. In the end we still need to take some kind of a leap of faith in order to function and move forward in a belief and in life in general.

[Bari]

Salus Maior, are you Catholic?

[Salus Maior]

Salus Maior, are you Catholic?

I'm sitting on the fence really. Was Protestant, now High Church something and looking to join a denomination.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Salus Maior, are you Catholic?

I'm sitting on the fence really. Was Protestant, now High Church something and looking to join a denomination.

Join us, we've got cookies.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I think the difference is, if you claim to speak for God and want your policies applied with the same obedience as if they came from God, you have to live up to the standard.

You must live up to as much power as you claim over other people's lives.

If you say "God said this!" you better get it right.

It's repeatedly stated in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7:21*, John 8:7-11, Romans 3:10, 1 John 1:8) that none of us are capable of living up to the standard God has set us. The faith might be perfect, but the priests and laymen following it are not. The point should be to try, regardless of how well those preaching the faith are doing in that regard.

A science teacher's lesson about anthropogenic climate change isn't invalidated when they drive home from school in a massive gas-guzzling Hummer. It makes them a hypocrite, but it doesn't make anthropogenic climate change any less real. Likewise, Catholic theology doesn't come crumbling down when a bishop has a wank.

*7:20 if you're Protestant.

Though it does make make one question whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, if it's advocates all have private jets and air conditioned mansions

[Constantinopolis]

I'm sitting on the fence really. Was Protestant, now High Church something and looking to join a denomination.

Join us, we've got cookies.

Join us instead, we've got the Blood of Christ.

(this is only meant as a friendly jab at the fact that laity in the Catholic Latin Rite are only communed with the Body, not the Blood)

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Join us, we've got cookies.

Join us instead, we've got the Blood of Christ.

So do we, and our cookies are confirmed to be the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Top that.

[Constantinopolis]

Join us instead, we've got the Blood of Christ.

So do we, and our cookies are confirmed to be the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Top that.

Yeah but laity in the Catholic Latin Rite only get to receive the Body, not the Blood, so.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So do we, and our cookies are confirmed to be the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Top that.

Yeah but laity in the Catholic Latin Rite only get to receive the Body, not the Blood, so.

Thats not true. I've only had host only communion once.

And.... I haven't been back to that church since.

[Constantinopolis]

Yeah but laity in the Catholic Latin Rite only get to receive the Body, not the Blood, so.

Thats not true. I've only had host only communion once.

And.... I haven't been back to that church since.

Really? I thought host-only was the standard. Huh.

[Bari]

Deleted.

[Bari]

Also deleted.

[Angleter]

Thats not true. I've only had host only communion once.

And.... I haven't been back to that church since.

Really? I thought host-only was the standard. Huh.

Communion under both species for the laity was allowed again, at least on certain occasions, in Vatican II and the following liturgical changes. Its availability differs from church to church, and from region to region.

[Yagon]

Yeah, probably best then if they just be in charge of their own lives and not tell others how to live or what God says.

Also....it really seriously honestly never occurs to you even the possibility that these doctrines were made up by people and don't actually come from God?

Like, in no sneaking part of your brain is the idea that you do this because of something it gives you in how you relate to yourself and others, but doesn't actually really need to come from God to provide that?

In that case no one is qualified for leadership of any kind if you hold that stringent a standard.

Everyone has doubts in their lives, but my past experiences and seeing other peoples' Christian walk leads me to believe that Christianity is true. Well, that among other things.

Nothing is 100% certain anywhere, not even science. In the end we still need to take some kind of a leap of faith in order to function and move forward in a belief and in life in general.

Wow, that's poor reasoning, and totally misses the point.

One only has to meet that standard if one claims to know what God wants. If you're honest and just admit its only the opinion of humans, then it doesn't require that qualification.

Your leap of faith, if it includes that gays shouldn't get married, that people should have to live by what your church believes, that those who don't believe the same as you deserve to burn and be tortured forether, etcera, well, enjoy your leap, but if you push your Christian beliefs on others, your leap is hurting others.

Try to get at least this part as a takeaway: Any human who claims to know what God thinks has to produce content to that level. Any human who is honest and admits they only speak for humans can be imperfect because they aren't lying and claiming to have some sort of access to perfect teaching.

[Yagon]

I think the difference is, if you claim to speak for God and want your policies applied with the same obedience as if they came from God, you have to live up to the standard.

You must live up to as much power as you claim over other people's lives.

If you say "God said this!" you better get it right.

It's repeatedly stated in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7:21*, John 8:7-11, Romans 3:10, 1 John 1:8) that none of us are capable of living up to the standard God has set us. The faith might be perfect, but the priests and laymen following it are not. The point should be to try, regardless of how well those preaching the faith are doing in that regard.

A science teacher's lesson about anthropogenic climate change isn't invalidated when they drive home from school in a massive gas-guzzling Hummer. It makes them a hypocrite, but it doesn't make anthropogenic climate change any less real. Likewise, Catholic theology doesn't come crumbling down when a bishop has a wank.

*7:20 if you're Protestant.

Try with choices for yourself, not choices or teachings for others. When the "priests" are honest and admit they only are speaking what they believe and not what God believes, then what you say would make sense.

You really don't see the difference between climate scientist saying "I am human and human sciences says_____" as opposed to a religious person claiming "I know what God wants and you should do _______"?

The difference is enormous.

If you claim that what you say comes from God, you better have perfect results.

If you are honest and admit you are saying what you believe as a human, you are not expected to have perfect results.

Seriously, this is fascinating to me, you don't see the difference?

Humans who claim to know what God thinks and to have the authority to tell others what God thinks need to show some quality in what they say that reflects any involvement all in a "God".

Humans who speak truthfully and admit they are stating their own human findings have no such standard to reach.

If you don't get why, well, no point in continuing to explain it to you, because you're not able to process the central point.