NationStates

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 2:59 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:

Are you trying to get me to become a papist?

This is why we had immigration laws in the 1920s.

Communists and Catholics were causing a lot of bullshit.

Son, there would be no private schooling in the United States without Catholics. I would thank Elizabeth Ann Seton, next time you two pass.

ALSO. The anti-Catholic propaganda against Irish and other Catholics was primarily launched by a society that was mostly Protestant, and thought that any Catholic who ran for office (Al Smith in 1926) would make a theocracy out of America. All of this was false.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:00 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
On the contrary, America itself would not have existed without Catholicism.

The discovery of the New World was inevitable.

I never said it wasn't. That however has nothing to do with what I said. The United States of America, and with it the concept of Western Religious Freedom, would not exist without Catholicism. In fact, British American Catholics were the one's who essentially pioneered modern religious freedom. I suppose we can thank the Anglicans for oppressing them so much

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:02 pm**

Luminesa wrote:
The Sauganash Union wrote:
This is why we had immigration laws in the 1920s.

Communists and Catholics were causing a lot of bullshit.

Son, there would be no private schooling in the United States without Catholics.

What are prep schools?

The most prestigious ones in the US are secular and were until recently, very anti-Catholic.

Luminesa wrote:ALSO. The anti-Catholic propaganda against Irish and other Catholics was primarily launched by a society that was mostly Protestant, and thought that any Catholic who ran for office (Al Smith in 1926) would make a theocracy out of America. All of this was false.

That same society still is mostly Protestant. Much to your disappointment, we still exist.

And given how Catholic immigrants basically wrecked our cities with machine politics and organized crime, while they didn't create a theocracy, it's obvious things were heading in a very bad direction.

Thank goodness we nipped the problem in the bud and then sent out the FBI to get cracking down on them.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:04 pm**

Luminesa wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:^ This.

Also, Calvin was an evil man, a heretic, and a blasphemer, who probably did more than any other Christian in history to defame and insult God.

Everything the Catholic Church did against Calvinism was 100% justified.

While I strongly disagree with a LOT that Calvin did...well...let's put it this way...he's still better than Joel Osteen.

Hmmm. True. I might have to revise my statement.

That's the thing about Calvinism and its offshoots, though: Just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they come up with something even worse.

Currently I'd say you are correct, and the "Prosperity Gospel" of the likes of Joel Osteen is the absolute worst pack of lies and blasphemy to masquerade under the name "Christian" in the modern world. But I suppose it can always get worse. *shudder*

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:05 pm**

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The Sauganash Union wrote:
The discovery of the New World was inevitable.

I never said it wasn't. That however has nothing to do with what I said. The United States of America, and with it the concept of Western Religious Freedom, would not exist without Catholicism. In fact, British American Catholics were the one's who essentially pioneered modern religious freedom. I suppose we can thank the Anglicans for oppressing them so much

I thought you meant that Americans should "owe" their existence to Catholicism because the discovery of the New World was done by a Catholic.

But to get to what you're saying, that's not true. The concept of American religious liberty comes from the experience of Calvinists dealing with a state religion in Anglican Britain and realizing how bad that is.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:06 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:
Luminesa wrote:While I strongly disagree with a LOT that Calvin did...well...let's put it this way...he's still better than Joel Osteen.

Hmmm. True. I might have to revise my statement.

That's the thing about Calvinism and its offshoots, though: Just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they come up with something even worse.

Currently I'd say you are correct, and the "Prosperity Gospel" of the likes of Joel Osteen is the absolute worst pack of lies and blasphemy to masquerade under the name "Christian" in the modern world. But I suppose it can always get worse. *shudder*

Pentecostalism (where Prosperity Gospel comes from) is not Calvinism.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:12 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm rather secular. But this thread is a Popish circle-jerk where people pat each other on the back based on more "traditional" their church is

Well that's your problem right there. You're secular and you don't actually care about Christ, or God, or the faith - your arguments are based entirely on your political preferences.

I have strong political preferences too, but I don't mix them up with matters of faith and theology.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:15 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:
The Sauganash Union wrote:I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm rather secular. But this thread is a Popish circle-jerk where people pat each other on the back based on more "traditional" their church is

Well that's your problem right there. You're secular and you don't actually care about Christ, or God, or the faith - your arguments are based entirely on your political preferences.

I have strong political preferences too, but I don't mix them up with matters of faith and theology.

I care about Christ, for he is my Savior. I go to worship every Sunday and try to live my life as ethically as possible.

However, I do not believe that government should be religious. The fact that you'd even equate secular governance with being anti-Christian is absurd.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:19 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
I never said it wasn't. That however has nothing to do with what I said. The United States of America, and with it the concept of Western Religious Freedom, would not exist without Catholicism. In fact, British American Catholics were the one's who essentially pioneered modern religious freedom. I suppose we can thank the Anglicans for oppressing them so much

I thought you meant that Americans should "owe" their existence to Catholicism because the discovery of the New World was done by a Catholic.

But to get to what you're saying, that's not true. The concept of American religious liberty comes from the experience of Calvinists dealing with a state religion in Anglican Britain and realizing how bad that is.

That's categorically false. The precedent for what constitutes American Religious Freedom was pioneered by the Lord of Baltimore and Catholic Cecilius Calvert in the Colony of Maryland. In his life time, through his brother Leonard Calvert he strictly managed the religious governance laws in the colony allowing free practice to all shades of Christians. Ironically, it was the Maryland Calvinists who, after the Calvert brothers passed, seized control of Maryland and outlawed Catholic Practice.

Calvinism was openly practiced in the US and they sided with the Anglicans during the Quebec Act controversy. Much of the build up of to the Revolution was categorized by anti-catholic propaganda. However, within a year the Colonials had about faced, and courted not one but 3 Catholic nations/provinces, to assist them in the war, and had adopted the Religious Freedom as one of the causes of the Revolution.

If you want further information, I'll let you read my term paper on the subject, that I wrote for My "History of US Religious Freedom Class" here at Yale Divinity.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:19 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Of all of the Great Powers at the beginning of the 20th Century, or, hell, the beginning of the 19th Century, I'm pretty sure not a single one was majority-Calvinist.

Maybe so. But the Calvinist spirit of the most radical elements of English society manifested themselves in the United States (and to lesser extents in the wider British Empire and the Netherlands), allowing it to become the great rival to the Old World Catholic despots and create a superior society.

But maybe it's not fair to say just Calvinist, but rather Protestant (mainline that is) in general. Anglo Anglicans/Episcopalians and German and Nordic Lutherans produced similar results.

I don't see how one can associate Calvinism with Anglicanism/Episcopolianism or Lutheran Germanic Protestantism. While I do believe that Calvinism had a hand to play in the development of capitalism as we know it, particularly in its cradle, the Netherlands, I don't see what Calvinism has to do with Britain or Germany's successes, as neither were Calvinist, and both of their Churches would actually significantly disagree with much of Jean Calvin's teachings.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:23 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Well that's your problem right there. You're secular and you don't actually care about Christ, or God, or the faith - your arguments are based entirely on your political preferences.

I have strong political preferences too, but I don't mix them up with matters of faith and theology.

I care about Christ, for he is my Savior. I go to worship every Sunday and try to live my life as ethically as possible.

However, I do not believe that government should be religious. The fact that you'd even equate secular governance with being anti-Christian is absurd.

Um, you were the one who called yourself secular, in the very post that I quoted...

And you have to admit: Everything you've said in this thread so far has been entirely about politics, and how Protestantism is better because you support its political consequences.

I don't pick a church based on how much it agrees with my politics. That is entirely the wrong way to go about it. The True Church, whichever one it is, must stand on the basis of theological, ecclesiological and historical arguments. Present-day politics is irrelevant in deciding which Church is correct and which is mistaken.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:24 pm**

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The Sauganash Union wrote:
You justify despicable acts of cruelty because people dared to tell the Pope to shove it?

Come on, we all know the Protestant reformation wasn't that simplistic.

Clement VII: Henry, I gave you special permission to marry your dead brother's wife, ESSENTIALLY HAD A COUNCIL OVER THE ISSUE, AND NOW YOU WANNA LEAVE HER FOR SOME OTHER CHICK?!
Henry VIII: YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!

*Creates Church of England, marries Anne Bolelyn.*

Clement VII: WE TRUSTED YOU. YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE, THE DEFENDER OF THE CHURCH. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO UNITE THE CHURCH, NOT DESTROY IT!!! YOU WERE LIKE A BROTHER TO ME!!! I LOVED YOU!!!
Henry VIII:...Whut?
Clement VII:...Yeah. I'm not sure where I got that line from. Um...Oh! I sense a disturbance elsewhere.

*In Germany.*

Luther: YOU CAN'T SELL INDULGENCES.
Tetzel: Uh huh!
Luther: NUH UH! AND I'M GONNA DO A LONG LIST OF STUFF ABOUT IT ON HALLOWEEN!

*Dresses like a gnome on Halloween and puts the Theses on the Church.*

Random Villager: Hey, Luther? Why you dressed like a gnome?
Luther: 'Cause once the people see this stuff I wrote, the Vatican won't GNOME what hit them.
Charles V: *Dressed like a Poptart.* GOOD MERCIFUL MOTHER OF SCHNITZEL, THAT WAS SO BAD THAT WE'RE SENDING YOU INTO EXILE.
One of the Fredricks: Don't worry, I got you fam.
Luther: Thanks, man, you like a bro to me.
One of the Fredricks: Yeah, yeah, you like a bro to me too.
Luther: This is the best bromance ever.
One of the Fredricks: You know what's even better?
Luther: What?
One of the Fredricks: This German Bible we did.
Luther: Good stuff, my home-slice brother.

*PRINTING PRESS!!!*
*Calvin, Knox, and a bunch of other people show up.*

Knox: This room is getting crowded.
Mary, Queen of Scots: Just like your face is crowded with that hideous beard.
Knox: WOMEN IN THE KITCHEN. WOMEN IN THE KITCHEN. WOMEEEEEEEEEN IN THE KITCHEEEEEEN!!!!
Calvin: For the love of God, John, shut up.
Knox: NOT UNTIL I GET ALL OF SCOTLAND!!!

*John Knox gets all of Scotland.*

Calvin: Yeah? Well, I can do that too!
Knox: Oh yeah? LET'S SEE IT, SMARTY-PANTS.

*Calvin gets Switzerland and some of the HRE.*

Pope Paul III: Man, you guys, things getting hectic.
Ignatius of Loyola: I know, man, it's bad. I can't even walk outside without someone shouting, "THAT FILTHY SPANISH PAPIST OWES ME $20."
Pope Paul III: Fam, you do owe Calvin $20.
Ignatius of Loyola: Man. I ain't paying him nothing. Hey, can I start a religious order of priests to preach all over the world and do other dank stuff?
Pope Paul III: Yeah, man.

*JESUITS!!!*
*Council of Trent.*
*Battle of Lepanto!*
*Thirty Years' War.*
*English Civil War!*
*BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.*

Puritan #1: Ayo, John?
Puritan #2: Yeah, Smith?
Puritan #1: Man, this king, he don't like us. I wanna go on vacation.
Puritan #2: Ay, I heard those thirteen colonies across the ocean are real swag.
Puritan #1: Let's do it, man.

*PURITANS IN THE COLONIES.*

The end.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:25 pm**

However, I do not believe that government should be religious. The fact that you'd even equate secular governance with being anti-Christian is absurd.

Have you seen the Communist countries out there? They're secular and pretty anti-Christian...just putting that out there...

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:26 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:
Luminesa wrote:While I strongly disagree with a LOT that Calvin did...well...let's put it this way...he's still better than Joel Osteen.

Hmmm. True. I might have to revise my statement.

That's the thing about Calvinism and its offshoots, though: Just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they come up with something even worse.

Currently I'd say you are correct, and the "Prosperity Gospel" of the likes of Joel Osteen is the absolute worst pack of lies and blasphemy to masquerade under the name "Christian" in the modern world. But I suppose it can always get worse. *shudder*

We can at least say that Calvin has read his Bible, and has written interesting and influential writings on the subject. Joel Osteen and his wife think you should go to church to make YOURSELF HAPPY!!!

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:28 pm**

Luminesa wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Hmmm. True. I might have to revise my statement.

That's the thing about Calvinism and its offshoots, though: Just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they come up with something even worse.

Currently I'd say you are correct, and the "Prosperity Gospel" of the likes of Joel Osteen is the absolute worst pack of lies and blasphemy to masquerade under the name "Christian" in the modern world. But I suppose it can always get worse. *shudder*

We can at least say that Calvin has read his Bible, and has written interesting and influential writings on the subject. Joel Osteen and his wife think you should go to church to make YOURSELF HAPPY!!!

Well...St. Anselm would agree with that last statement. The Prosperity Gospel is way worse than that. It's actually directly refuted in Job which is amusing.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:28 pm**

Venerable Bede wrote:
Diopolis wrote:They don't actually control the college of cardinals, and probably won't for a while. The largest section of cardinals were appointed by Benedict.

It's actually not much larger than how many Francis has up now, and I get the feeling Francis is going to be Pope much longer than Benedict was.

Hi am am a jew please come back

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:28 pm**

Luminesa wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Hmmm. True. I might have to revise my statement.

That's the thing about Calvinism and its offshoots, though: Just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they come up with something even worse.

Currently I'd say you are correct, and the "Prosperity Gospel" of the likes of Joel Osteen is the absolute worst pack of lies and blasphemy to masquerade under the name "Christian" in the modern world. But I suppose it can always get worse. *shudder*

We can at least say that Calvin has read his Bible, and has written interesting and influential writings on the subject. Joel Osteen and his wife think you should go to church to make YOURSELF HAPPY!!!

And to give them money. Lots of money. All your money, ideally. Because that will make you rich and happy.

But yeah, I agree with you.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:29 pm**

Luminesa wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:I love you Lumi!

Can I get in on this group hug too? Mind the metally-armor bits. *jumps* :hug:

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:30 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:
Luminesa wrote:We can at least say that Calvin has read his Bible, and has written interesting and influential writings on the subject. Joel Osteen and his wife think you should go to church to make YOURSELF HAPPY!!!

And to give them money. Lots of money. All your money, ideally. Because that will make you rich and happy.

But yeah, I agree with you.

I personally don't care for John Oliver ever since he left the Daily Show,.. but his take down of televangelists, so delicious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:35 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:usually it's the militant atheists, who come during summer.... this militant fundamentalist invasion is an oddity this year.

I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm rather secular. But this thread is a Popish circle-jerk where people pat each other on the back based on more "traditional" their church is, all while basking in the benefits brought on to them by the blood and sweat of Calvinists who created the modern world.

TIL I am a non-denominational papist Christian according to the opinion of a single Calvinist.

How, oh how can I ever recover from this insult?

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:35 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Apart from Papal Infallibility, I don't see too much what he did that was that bad.

He spurred on the Irish Catholic hordes and implicitly recognized the Confederate States. His whole papacy was a "fuck you" to the United States.

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Luminesa wrote:ALSO. The anti-Catholic propaganda against Irish and other Catholics was primarily launched by a society that was mostly Protestant, and thought that any Catholic who ran for office (Al Smith in 1926) would make a theocracy out of America. All of this was false.

That same society still is mostly Protestant. Much to your disappointment, we still exist.

And given how Catholic immigrants basically wrecked our cities with machine politics and organized crime, while they didn't create a theocracy, it's obvious things were heading in a very bad direction.

Thank goodness we nipped the problem in the bud and then sent out the FBI to get cracking down on them.

The Sauganash Union: *** Warned for trolling. ***

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:43 pm**

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Not really. Christianity, like virtually all religions, is a tradition and precedent based system. Any new doctrine cannot simply be invented with any credulity, new doctrine must be invented within a conceivable relation to existing precedent. Therefore the claim that your position has no historical backing does stand as a potentially legitimate critique of your position. However, it also does not adequately dismiss your position, as precedent as a concept can and often is over turned by new precedent. Whether precedent can be overturned in the religious context is a different argument.

This critique however also falls flat on its face because there is historical precedent. Marcion was a real person. He had a position which he taught and defended. However his rejection by the Christian community at the time also undermines your position, though not dispelling it. The real problem is not much of the first two centuries is known, and true marcionism isn't known as well, just like true pelegianism isn't known. No collection of their teachings exists, all that we know of their teachings is known through their critics, which, well, aren't a great representation of anything.

And traditions and precedents aren't typically established by popular opinion regarding them; in most religions, Christianity included, they come from prophets and or scriptures. If the prophet Zoroaster said something, it would be precedent for establishing a doctrine within Zoroastrianism; if the Qu'ran said something, it would be a precedent for establishing a doctrine within Islam. In the case of some of Churches, such as the Church of Rome, traditions and precedents are also established by the clerical elite. But no religion creates traditions and precedents based solely on the majority-opinion of laymen.

And as for Marcion being rejected by the Christian community, it should be worth mentioning that Marcionism was initially a rather popular doctrine; a not-insignificant portion of the Christian community agreed with him. His doctrines didn't fall from popularity because everybody was convinced Nicene Christianity was the right path, they fell from popularity because of political repression and utilization of violence by political authorities. The same applies to the Cathars (a demographic which agreed with Marcion's theory of two Gods); they were a widespread movement, and non-violent attempts to counter their theology failed, thus the Church resorted to genocide. And also to the Paulicians as well, another somewhat sizable group that was violently repressed by the local rulers at the time. There wasn't overwhelming opposition in the Christian community; there was opposition from the Nicene Churches, who controlled the political authorities and used them as a tool to destroy their religious opponents. It's hard to place an exact figure on the number of Christians throughout history who have supported Marcion's doctrines, as there isn't a ton of data recording the religious demographics of early and medieval Christianity, but it certainly isn't a minuscule number; several sects and a significant amount of people agreed with him, at least on certain issues.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Not quite. The New Testament Canon, and the various OT canons, reflect the opinions of the people who codified said canons. They chose the books and rejected others, because certain books correlated with what they taught, and the other books didn't. Hence why the Christian establishment accepted the Gospel of John, and rejected the Gospel of Thomas. Christianity and the Christian establishment preceded the codified Christian Bible. Not the other way around.

Also, all Christianity is a man made religion. All religion is man made, because all religions are curated by humans. The Bible did not fall form the sky. It was written, edited, and ultimately codified by men. God's hand in this process is a matter of faith, not a matter of demonstrable fact.

If the texts of the Bible are simply a political message, adopted to reinforce the opinions of men, and every aspect of Christianity is man-made, then by what right do you profess it to be divinely inspired? If the right theology is simply a matter of "faith," then, by that right, every religion must be equally valid because they would all have the same volume of evidence; that the believer believes it to be true.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:44 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:

Are you trying to get me to become a papist?

This is why we had immigration laws in the 1920s.

[...]Catholics were causing a lot of bullshit.

Source?

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 4:01 pm**

Dylar wrote:
Luminesa wrote:

Can I get in on this group hug too? Mind the metally-armor bits. *jumps*

Sure!

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 4:03 pm**

The Sauganash Union wrote:
Luminesa wrote:Son, there would be no private schooling in the United States without Catholics.

What are prep schools?

The most prestigious ones in the US are secular and were until recently, very anti-Catholic.

Luminesa wrote:ALSO. The anti-Catholic propaganda against Irish and other Catholics was primarily launched by a society that was mostly Protestant, and thought that any Catholic who ran for office (Al Smith in 1926) would make a theocracy out of America. All of this was false.

That same society still is mostly Protestant. Much to your disappointment, we still exist.

And given how Catholic immigrants basically wrecked our cities with machine politics and organized crime, while they didn't create a theocracy, it's obvious things were heading in a very bad direction.

Thank goodness we nipped the problem in the bud and then sent out the FBI to get cracking down on them.

I'm not disappointed that Protestants exist. I'm far more disappointed that you've wasted so many posts demonstrating your utter hatred for your fellow Christians.

NationStates

Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.