Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So you must really hate Hindu's then.

As I said, I'm done here, but I will say that I don't hate anyone.

I beg to differ, you clearly have issues with Christians. Clearly we disgust you to the point where you can't even stomach a conversation with us. Your words, not mine.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

As I said, I'm done here, but I will say that I don't hate anyone.

I beg to differ, you clearly have issues with Christians. Clearly we disgust you to the point where you can't even stomach a conversation with us. Your words, not mine.

Being disgusted by an aspect of your beliefs is not the same as hatred for an entire person or group.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I beg to differ, you clearly have issues with Christians. Clearly we disgust you to the point where you can't even stomach a conversation with us. Your words, not mine.

Being disgusted by an aspect of your beliefs is not the same as hatred for an entire person or group.

You don't even understand our beliefs, and why have them, you're unwilling to even try so, and have the nerve to tell us(me) that we're blind to our own religion.

Call me crazy, but I'm willing to conclude there's a deep seated animosity driving that disgust.

[Pasong Tirad]

They do, yes. And it is part of what I believe.

I hesitate to call it wrong, per se. There is an anti-slavery message that can be derived from it, (as has been done) but I would consider that, for lack of a better term, secondary theology.

It's a beautiful narrative, one that no doubt resonates with liberation theology's "target audience" (for lack of a better term), perhaps also one of the reasons why I gravitate towards it.

[Lady Scylla]

It's a discussion thread. Moderation doesn't like the prospect of limiting such in these threads. If that's a problem, then converse in a church. You either allow non-believers, and let them argue from their POV -- or you disallow them and turn this thread into an echo chamber where you don't have to worry about your opinions being questioned. The latter isn't good discourse.

I think what UMN is trying to say is that non-believers are just as welcome as any Christian on this thread, and we encourage them to ask questions about our faith(s), it's just that those non-believers shouldn't come in with guns ablazin' with a heart of stone unwilling to listen to what we have to say.

Fair point, but this goes both ways.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I think what UMN is trying to say is that non-believers are just as welcome as any Christian on this thread, and we encourage them to ask questions about our faith(s), it's just that those non-believers shouldn't come in with guns ablazin' with a heart of stone unwilling to listen to what we have to say.

Fair point, but this goes both ways.

We clearly don't come in with guns a blazing. We lob Holy Hand Grenades.

[Thermodolia]

Fair point, but this goes both ways.

We clearly don't come in with guns a blazing. We lob Holy Hand Grenades.

1, 2, 5! 3 my lord 3! Oh right 3!!

[Salus Maior]

Do any of you guys know of any good sources that I can read up on/watch through on Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Historically and Theologically speaking.

[Pasong Tirad]

Do any of you guys know of any good sources that I can read up on/watch through on Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Historically and Theologically speaking.

That would depend on the topic you had in mind.

[Salus Maior]

Do any of you guys know of any good sources that I can read up on/watch through on Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Historically and Theologically speaking.

That would depend on the topic you had in mind.

Anything you think would be vitally important to understanding it I suppose.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's a discussion thread. Moderation doesn't like the prospect of limiting such in these threads. If that's a problem, then converse in a church. You either allow non-believers, and let them argue from their POV -- or you disallow them and turn this thread into an echo chamber where you don't have to worry about your opinions being questioned. The latter isn't good discourse.

There's nothing wrong with Non-Beliverser/Atheists/Agnostics/What have you contributing to this thread. The problem is people who post in bad faith. AWEBH is not contributing in good faith, but rather tilting at their perceived demon of "Christianity." Their purpose here is not to engage in lively and respectful discourse about the finer points of Christianity, what it means, what it teaches, its history etc etc. Their purpose, since they've been here has been aimed at "defeating" Christianity, to tell us that we're all evil.

Look at my interaction with AWEBH, I gave two calmly (edited greatly to reduce my palpable annoyance) on the subject, and both times their response was not a critical analysis but basically "that's evil, you're evil, you disgust me, your beliefs disgust me, etc etc" That sort of attitude isn't welcome or appropriate here, though we can't outright ban in from showing up here, as evidenced by the multiple iterations here.

This.

I am happy to see non-Christians post constructively here about theology. But I fail to see how questions only tangentially related to theology, the Christian faith, and the practice thereof, are constructive. It's like people going onto the transgender or LGBT threads with the express purpose of trolling the community there. Granted, some might see me as occasionally doing that, but I try to limit my posting there to simply offering another perspective, instead of actually attacking the perspective of the community.

Many of the atheists who frequent this thread (and I say atheists because I don't think I have ever seen someone of another faith do this) are here to attack Christianity, not to discuss Christian theology or practice.

[Dylar]

Fair point, but this goes both ways.

We clearly don't come in with guns a blazing. We lob Holy Hand Grenades.

We don't? Then what the hell is this minigun on my shoulder for!?!

[United Muscovite Nations]

Do any of you guys know of any good sources that I can read up on/watch through on Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Historically and Theologically speaking.

Good Orthodox websites:

Orthodo Church in America -- official website. Includes good question & answer sections, scripture readings, lives of saints, and some essays on the finer points of theology.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America -- Official website. Includes much of the above.

Antiochian Archdiocese of North America -- official website. Also has much of the above.

OrthodoxWiki -- a Wiki maintained by Orthodox people who contribute articles on Church history, theology, etc.

Russian Orthodox Church -- Official website. Probably the most expansive Orthodox media website in-existence. Available in multiple languages. In addition to news and stuff on Church history and theology, it also hosts articles by clergy on various things, from theology, politics, everything.


As for Roman Catholicism, the Catholics here can probably find more stuff, but really the gold standard would be the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, here available in English on the Vatican's official website.

I hope this helps.

It's much harder to find stuff on the Oriental Orthodox Church in english, but here is a collection of Coptic sermons in English: http://www.orthodoxsermons.org/

[Luminesa]

There's nothing wrong with Non-Beliverser/Atheists/Agnostics/What have you contributing to this thread. The problem is people who post in bad faith. AWEBH is not contributing in good faith, but rather tilting at their perceived demon of "Christianity." Their purpose here is not to engage in lively and respectful discourse about the finer points of Christianity, what it means, what it teaches, its history etc etc. Their purpose, since they've been here has been aimed at "defeating" Christianity, to tell us that we're all evil.

Look at my interaction with AWEBH, I gave two calmly (edited greatly to reduce my palpable annoyance) on the subject, and both times their response was not a critical analysis but basically "that's evil, you're evil, you disgust me, your beliefs disgust me, etc etc" That sort of attitude isn't welcome or appropriate here, though we can't outright ban in from showing up here, as evidenced by the multiple iterations here.

This.

I am happy to see non-Christians post constructively here about theology. But I fail to see how questions only tangentially related to theology, the Christian faith, and the practice thereof, are constructive. It's like people going onto the transgender or LGBT threads with the express purpose of trolling the community there. Granted, some might see me as occasionally doing that, but I try to limit my posting there to simply offering another perspective, instead of actually attacking the perspective of the community.

Many of the atheists who frequent this thread (and I say atheists because I don't think I have ever seen someone of another faith do this) are here to attack Christianity, not to discuss Christian theology or practice.

I mean, even on the Feminist thread, shoot, the OP put in the first post basically, "If you're only here to attack feminism and to rant about it, go make another thread." And now that I consider it, she has a point.

Discussion does not have to involve agreement. I mean, Scylla, you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, but we occasionally find things we also agree on. (Which makes me happy, because I would rather find common ground than do otherwise.) However, if one is only coming on a thread to tell everyone, "YOU'RE WRONG AND YOUR RELIGION IS WRONG, LEMME TELL YOU ALL WHY," then it turns into a mess.

When you explain and then they continue to attack and refuse to potentially even look at your posts (I mean, it's one thing to miss something in an argument, it's another to post the exact same point over and over, even after multiple people have told you why you're wrong or people have even suggested otherwise), it gets even worse. It becomes even a question of, "What are you trying to accomplish? You're obviously not here to talk, and you're not convincing anyone, what do you want?"

[Luminesa]

I think what UMN is trying to say is that non-believers are just as welcome as any Christian on this thread, and we encourage them to ask questions about our faith(s), it's just that those non-believers shouldn't come in with guns ablazin' with a heart of stone unwilling to listen to what we have to say.

Fair point, but this goes both ways.

Right. Both sides have done it, and I've done it myself at times. Overall, discussion should mean tossing points back and forth, and being willing to listen to the points each side has.

[Diopolis]

There's nothing wrong with Non-Beliverser/Atheists/Agnostics/What have you contributing to this thread. The problem is people who post in bad faith. AWEBH is not contributing in good faith, but rather tilting at their perceived demon of "Christianity." Their purpose here is not to engage in lively and respectful discourse about the finer points of Christianity, what it means, what it teaches, its history etc etc. Their purpose, since they've been here has been aimed at "defeating" Christianity, to tell us that we're all evil.

Look at my interaction with AWEBH, I gave two calmly (edited greatly to reduce my palpable annoyance) on the subject, and both times their response was not a critical analysis but basically "that's evil, you're evil, you disgust me, your beliefs disgust me, etc etc" That sort of attitude isn't welcome or appropriate here, though we can't outright ban in from showing up here, as evidenced by the multiple iterations here.

This.

I am happy to see non-Christians post constructively here about theology. But I fail to see how questions only tangentially related to theology, the Christian faith, and the practice thereof, are constructive. It's like people going onto the transgender or LGBT threads with the express purpose of trolling the community there. Granted, some might see me as occasionally doing that, but I try to limit my posting there to simply offering another perspective, instead of actually attacking the perspective of the community.

Many of the atheists who frequent this thread (and I say atheists because I don't think I have ever seen someone of another faith do this) are here to attack Christianity, not to discuss Christian theology or practice.

Modern day adherents of the "zombie heresies" tend to do that.

[Diopolis]

Do any of you guys know of any good sources that I can read up on/watch through on Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Historically and Theologically speaking.

Good Orthodox websites:

Orthodo Church in America -- official website. Includes good question & answer sections, scripture readings, lives of saints, and some essays on the finer points of theology.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America -- Official website. Includes much of the above.

Antiochian Archdiocese of North America -- official website. Also has much of the above.

OrthodoxWiki -- a Wiki maintained by Orthodox people who contribute articles on Church history, theology, etc.

Russian Orthodox Church -- Official website. Probably the most expansive Orthodox media website in-existence. Available in multiple languages. In addition to news and stuff on Church history and theology, it also hosts articles by clergy on various things, from theology, politics, everything.


As for Roman Catholicism, the Catholics here can probably find more stuff, but really the gold standard would be the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, here available in English on the Vatican's official website.

I hope this helps.

It's much harder to find stuff on the Oriental Orthodox Church in english, but here is a collection of Coptic sermons in English: http://www.orthodoxsermons.org/

A few good Catholic websites:
Fisheaters- explanations of Catholicism for newcomers. Start here- very entry-level, easy to understand explanations and an easy-to-navigate website make it a logical choice.
Rorate Caeli and Fr. Z's blog for commentary on events in the church.
The catechism of Trent for doctrinal questions, come here- it's the only catechism issued by an ecumenical council and declared binding by the same.
Summa Theologica the definitive manual of Catholic theology.
For sermons:
http://romans10seventeen.org/ Collection of homilies by Fr. Phillip Wolf, FSSP
http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html Collection of talks by Fr. Chad Ripperger, founder of the Doloran Fathers(an order of exorcists)

[Constantinopolis]

This is the thing I can't understand about religion. You claim to be moral, you'll condemn horrific actions, except when they're performed by your god.

Do you condemn immoral actions performed by wolves? Jellyfish? Ants? Hypothetical alien civilizations? Artificial intelligence?

No. And why not? Because they're not human. Human morality does not apply to non-humans. Atheists understand this every time I've talked to them in the context of science-fiction and robots or aliens are brought up, but then you suddenly forget it when it comes to God.

Most atheists are intelligent people capable of understanding complex philosophical issues. But then as soon as God comes into the discussion, it's as if you put blinders on and forget everything you know. You're fine with the Prime Directive in Star Trek, but condemn God for not following the cultural standards of early 21st century Western civilization. It's extremely odd.

[The Alma Mater]

This is the thing I can't understand about religion. You claim to be moral, you'll condemn horrific actions, except when they're performed by your god.

Do you condemn immoral actions performed by wolves? Jellyfish? Ants? Hypothetical alien civilizations? Artificial intelligence?

No. And why not? Because they're not human. Human morality does not apply to non-humans. Atheists understand this every time I've talked to them in the context of science-fiction and robots or aliens are brought up, but then you suddenly forget it when it comes to God.

Maybe because they never heard a jellyfish telling them what is right or wrong ?
However, following you reasoning, the logical conclusion is that God, while not immoral, is an enemy of humanity. Just like how humans are an enemy of the hornets who made their nest near a childrens playground.

[Constantinopolis]

Do you condemn immoral actions performed by wolves? Jellyfish? Ants? Hypothetical alien civilizations? Artificial intelligence?

No. And why not? Because they're not human. Human morality does not apply to non-humans. Atheists understand this every time I've talked to them in the context of science-fiction and robots or aliens are brought up, but then you suddenly forget it when it comes to God.

Maybe because they never heard a jellyfish telling them what is right or wrong?

That's why I added aliens and robots in there.

However, following you reasoning, the logical conclusion is that God, while not immoral, is an enemy of humanity. Just like how humans are an enemy of the hornets who made their nest near a childrens playground.

No, God is an enemy of early 21st century Western civilization.

Do not confuse your own particular culture at a particular point in history with "Humanity" in general. The conflict between you and God comes entirely from your cultural standards and the ideas you were brought up to believe in.

[The Alma Mater]

Maybe because they never heard a jellyfish telling them what is right or wrong?

That's why I added aliens and robots in there.

Never heard those ssying such things either.
Well, in scifi - but as hinted hunanity tends to fight the aliens that see us as food and such in that

No, God is an enemy of early 21st century Western civilization.

Do not confuse your own particular culture at a particular point in history with "Humanity" in general. The conflict between you and God comes entirely from your cultural standards and the ideas you were brought up to believe in.

Fair enough.
Still, what should the consequence of that be ?

[Constantinopolis]

That's why I added aliens and robots in there.

Never heard those ssying such things either.
Well, in scifi - but as hinted hunanity tends to fight the aliens that see us as food and such in that

Asimov's robots, on the other hand, are morally superior to humans in every way, and (in the latter part of the timeline) seek to control and shape human history for the humans' own good. I would absolutely side with the robots and fight against their enemies.

No, God is an enemy of early 21st century Western civilization.

Do not confuse your own particular culture at a particular point in history with "Humanity" in general. The conflict between you and God comes entirely from your cultural standards and the ideas you were brought up to believe in.

Fair enough.
Still, what should the consequence of that be ?

The consequence is that Christians should fight against present-day Western civilization and seek to change it. Christians should absolutely NOT see themselves as part of Western civilization, but rather as a sort of resistance movement that exists within it. We live inside an anti-Christian culture and it's long past time we acted like it.

For example, right-wing Christians who seek to defend "the West" from Muslim immigrants are the greatest of fools. We have more in common with Muslim culture than with present-day Western culture. We should not be helping Western culture in any way, shape or form. If it collapses, we should rejoice.

[Conscentia]

This is the thing I can't understand about religion. You claim to be moral, you'll condemn horrific actions, except when they're performed by your god.

Do you condemn immoral actions performed by wolves? Jellyfish? Ants? Hypothetical alien civilizations? Artificial intelligence?

No. And why not? Because they're not human. Human morality does not apply to non-humans. Atheists understand this every time I've talked to them in the context of science-fiction and robots or aliens are brought up, but then you suddenly forget it when it comes to God.

Most atheists are intelligent people capable of understanding complex philosophical issues. But then as soon as God comes into the discussion, it's as if you put blinders on and forget everything you know. You're fine with the Prime Directive in Star Trek, but condemn God for not following the cultural standards of early 21st century Western civilization. It's extremely odd.

The Prime Directive is justified by it's advocates on consequentialist grounds - it's believed interference will have worse unintended consequences than non-interference. Star Trek has humans applying their morality to other species and AI all the time when they're warp capable.

[The Alma Mater]

Never heard those ssying such things either.
Well, in scifi - but as hinted hunanity tends to fight the aliens that see us as food and such in that

Asimov's robots, on the other hand, are morally superior to humans in every way, and (in the latter part of the timeline) seek to control and shape human history for the humans' own good. I would absolutely side with the robots and fight against their enemies.

Depends on the robot. R. Daneel ? Certainly (though I have some.. qualms.. with him after the last Foundation book). The Georges that tried to make certain that robots would replace mankind since robots were more worthy of protection than actual humans ? No so much. Even though the story is named after a Bible quote
And all were forced to be good by laws hardwired into their systems.

The consequence is that Christians should fight against present-day Western civilization and seek to change it. Christians should absolutely NOT see themselves as part of Western civilization, but rather as a sort of resistance movement that exists within it. We live inside an anti-Christian culture and it's long past time we acted like it.

I see. And what should the non-christians do after this declaration of war ?

[Constantinopolis]

The consequence is that Christians should fight against present-day Western civilization and seek to change it. Christians should absolutely NOT see themselves as part of Western civilization, but rather as a sort of resistance movement that exists within it. We live inside an anti-Christian culture and it's long past time we acted like it.

I see. And what should the non-christians do after this declaration of war ?

Tie yourselves up in logical knots, because you are mostly liberals and cannot use state power against a religion without violating your own principles.