NationStates

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:48 am**

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The Federation of Kendor wrote:Why did he think that those seven books are unnecessary

I don't know if I'm the best to fill you in, I'm pretty biased on the subject.

"Officially" the seven apocryphal texts were removed from Protestant canon because they don't appear in the Hebrew canon. However the truth is much more sinister, in that the Protestant reformers, Luther in particular, tried to remove books from the canon that contradicted their theology. Luther, for instance, tried to get James removed, going so far as calling it the "epistlenof straw" primarily for its emphasis on works as necessary for salvation. But fortunately other reformers rejected this effort.

James I also had a hand in that sort of thing, didn't he?

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:56 am**

Maineiacs wrote:
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

I don't know if I'm the best to fill you in, I'm pretty biased on the subject.

"Officially" the seven apocryphal texts were removed from Protestant canon because they don't appear in the Hebrew canon. However the truth is much more sinister, in that the Protestant reformers, Luther in particular, tried to remove books from the canon that contradicted their theology. Luther, for instance, tried to get James removed, going so far as calling it the "epistlenof straw" primarily for its emphasis on works as necessary for salvation. But fortunately other reformers rejected this effort.

James I also had a hand in that sort of thing, didn't he?

I'm actually unsure as to the extent of James I actual involvement with the matter beyond being a patron.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:20 am**

Do we really not know the name of Episode IX? We should have delayed thread IX by saying this thread is just a Christmas story.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:26 am**

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Do we really not know the name of Episode IX? We should have delayed thread IX by saying this thread is just a Christmas story.

Yeah I haven't actually been doing a Star Wars bit, more a franchise with too many sequels bit.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:31 am**

Pasong Tirad wrote:To continue a discussion from the previous thread, it is true that the United States (and any other nation) has to serve the interests of the state before God (thus is the nature of secularism). It doesn't explain, however, why so many Christians aren't themselves going out of their way to attempt to change policy in such a way as to make sure that refugees and immigrants are freely welcomed into their nation, and to make sure that Christians who hold differing views on immigration are smacked in the head with Matthew 25.

Truly, if we were to do as you say we should, then we would be overwhelmed with the sheer number of the unfortunate coming to us for help. We cannot help nor welcome everyone, not always; we have our own problems to deal with without adding more to the mix. We should do as much as we can according to our teachings, of course, but not suicidally so, not at the expense of ourselves and our sense.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:29 am**

Dylar wrote:
The Federation of Kendor wrote:What is the difference between Catholicism and Protestanism

There are tons of differences. Where should I start? Well, in Catholicism, we believe that the Eucharist, that is the bread and wine, transubstantiate into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, while the Protestants believe that it's nothing more than a symbol. The Catholic bible has 73 books in it, while the Protestant bible has 66. Why is this? Well, when Martin Luther started up Lutheranism, he took out 7 books that he deemed were unnecessary. Those books were: Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24), Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon), Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint), Additions to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90), Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue), Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.

Also, I love this new thread smell...smells like...baby powder almost...

Well while Catholics say communion transforms the wine and bread into blood and body, and protestants say it's symbolic, Lutherans say it's… both. In addition, Luther omitted the apocrypha since he believed they were extra books not divinely inspired (since they claimed to be from Hebrew times but were not represented in the Hebrew books), but agreed they at least had some good messages in them. The Catholics however doubled down and said that they were indeed divinely inspired because… church tradition?

That's a big difference between us really. Catholics love their traditions and Lutherans don't hold them nearly as high.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:34 am**

The Norgan Alliance wrote:
Dylar wrote:There are tons of differences. Where should I start? Well, in Catholicism, we believe that the Eucharist, that is the bread and wine, transubstantiate into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, while the Protestants believe that it's nothing more than a symbol. The Catholic bible has 73 books in it, while the Protestant bible has 66. Why is this? Well, when Martin Luther started up Lutheranism, he took out 7 books that he deemed were unnecessary. Those books were: Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24), Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon), Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint), Additions to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90), Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue), Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.

Also, I love this new thread smell...smells like...baby powder almost...

Well while Catholics say communion transforms the wine and bread into blood and body, and protestants say it's symbolic, Lutherans say it's… both. In addition, Luther omitted the apocrypha since he believed they were extra books not divinely inspired (since they claimed to be from Hebrew times but were not represented in the Hebrew books), but agreed they at least had some good messages in them. The Catholics however doubled down and said that they were indeed divinely inspired because… church tradition?

That's a big difference between us really. Catholics love their traditions and Lutherans don't hold them nearly as high.

And Luther's claim is somewhat eronious. The books have been dated to the Appropriate time period. However the Hebrew canon wasn't codified until around 70 AD, amidst a gaping divide between Christians and Jews who both sought to claim the validity of the OT for themselves in opposition to one another.

This fact makes the "Hebrew Canon" at best, a problematic canon source. Inspiration has very little to do with it I'm afraid.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:41 am**

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The Norgan Alliance wrote:Well while Catholics say communion transforms the wine and bread into blood and body, and protestants say it's symbolic, Lutherans say it's… both. In addition, Luther omitted the apocrypha since he believed they were extra books not divinely inspired (since they claimed to be from Hebrew times but were not represented in the Hebrew books), but agreed they at least had some good messages in them. The Catholics however doubled down and said that they were indeed divinely inspired because… church tradition?

That's a big difference between us really. Catholics love their traditions and Lutherans don't hold them nearly as high.

And Luther's claim is somewhat eronious. The books have been dated to the Appropriate time period. However the Hebrew canon wasn't codified until around 70 AD, amidst a gaping divide between Christians and Jews who both sought to claim the validity of the OT for themselves in opposition to one another.

This fact makes the "Hebrew Canon" at best, a problematic canon source. Inspiration has very little to do with it I'm afraid.

So what're you saying, just because they were written around the same time as the other books means they're divinely inspired as well? There were plenty of fraudulent books that were written around when real books were, so that would prove nothing.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:44 am**

The Federation of Kendor wrote:What is the difference between Catholicism and Protestanism

Couldn't resist it

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:15 am**

The Norgan Alliance wrote:
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
And Luther's claim is somewhat eronious. The books have been dated to the Appropriate time period. However the Hebrew canon wasn't codified until around 70 AD, amidst a gaping divide between Christians and Jews who both sought to claim the validity of the OT for themselves in opposition to one another.

This fact makes the "Hebrew Canon" at best, a problematic canon source. Inspiration has very little to do with it I'm afraid.

So what're you saying, just because they were written around the same time as the other books means they're divinely inspired as well? There were plenty of fraudulent books that were written around when real books were, so that would prove nothing.

No, I say they're inspired because the Church in codifying the Canon of Scripture determined them to be divinely inspired.

I'm saying the Protestants' reasoning for discounting them was eronious.

The Appcrypha is included in the Septuagint which was completed 200 years before the Hebrew canon was codified and 130 years before the birth of Christ. If you're looking for a source, that's a far more reliable one.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:37 am**

Minzerland II wrote:
Pasong Tirad wrote:To continue a discussion from the previous thread, it is true that the United States (and any other nation) has to serve the interests of the state before God (thus is the nature of secularism). It doesn't explain, however, why so many Christians aren't themselves going out of their way to attempt to change policy in such a way as to make sure that refugees and immigrants are freely welcomed into their nation, and to make sure that Christians who hold differing views on immigration are smacked in the head with Matthew 25.

Truly, if we were to do as you say we should, then we would be overwhelmed with the sheer number of the unfortunate coming to us for help. We cannot help nor welcome everyone, not always; we have our own problems to deal with without adding more to the mix. We should do as much as we can according to our teachings, of course, but not suicidally so, not at the expense of ourselves and our sense.

Magis, dude. We must always be asking "What more can I be doing for Christ?" There's always more that can be done. Always. Restricting borders just because you're able to take in an arbitrary quota is ridiculous.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:51 am**

Just wanted to pop in and say hi. I'm an Atheist but let me explain myself before I get invaded from all fronts. Before I stopped believing, I was very active in my church (Episcopalian) and I must say I very much love that version of Christianity. I never felt any hate or false intentions, very great form of religion.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:01 am**

Pasong Tirad wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Truly, if we were to do as you say we should, then we would be overwhelmed with the sheer number of the unfortunate coming to us for help. We cannot help nor welcome everyone, not always; we have our own problems to deal with without adding more to the mix. We should do as much as we can according to our teachings, of course, but not suicidally so, not at the expense of ourselves and our sense.

Magis, dude. We must always be asking "What more can I be doing for Christ?" There's always more that can be done. Always. Restricting borders just because you're able to take in an arbitrary quota is ridiculous.

Until now you have a whole bunch of refugees you can't care for, which leads to squalor, human rights abuses, and at high enough levels damaged economy. The situation is not alleiviated, instead is exascerbated.

Triage is a thing that exists for good reason. You can't always afford to help, no matter how much you might like to.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:34 am**

Little pup's ashes are home. He sleeps forever, side by side with Papa.

I hope those two are having fun up in heaven, Little pup was always worried about Papa. Even just a sneeze would send him running to check on him.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:47 am**

The Federation of Kendor wrote:What is the difference between Catholicism and Protestanism

...So many things. Also depends what kind of Protestantism because some sects are more similar to Catholicism than others.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:00 am**

It came to pass that the Christian Discussion Thread XIII died. From dust it was wrought, to dust it was rendered. Verily I tell you, it is time to rejoice the creation of the Christian Discussion Thread IX, who's birth is part of the unbroken line of Christian debate since time immemorial.

Let us dip leavened bread into grape juice. At least if you're Methodist.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:14 am**

The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:oh no now i dont got an option to vote for

There's a way to fix that :blush:

Vulkata II wrote:Thoughts on the Westboro Baptist church?

A group that is quite similar to a cult. They claim to be Christians, yet they lack basic knowledge of the Gospel and the Apostles.

The Federation of Kendor wrote:
Vulkata II wrote:Thoughts on the Westboro Baptist church?

I think they are radicals. They make modern pop songs into their propaganda songs preaching their values, and more things.

Also, how do you think of Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale (I know this isn't a Handmaid's Tale discussion thread but Gilead is christian)

The Handmaid's Tale is a ridiculous attempt to portray radical Puritanism. Of course, pro-abortionists now dress up as "handmaids" to protest restricted their "healthcare."

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:14 am**

Hakons wrote:It came to pass that the Christian Discussion Thread XIII died. From dust it was wrought, to dust it was rendered. Verily I tell you, it is time to rejoice the creation of the Christian Discussion Thread IX, who's birth is part of the unbroken line of Christian debate since time immemorial.

Let us dip leavened bread into grape juice. At least if you're Methodist.

It's time like this I always ask, "Why couldn't Christ have been a fan of Bourbon?"

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:27 am**

Pasong Tirad wrote:To continue a discussion from the previous thread, it is true that the United States (and any other nation) has to serve the interests of the state before God (thus is the nature of secularism). It doesn't explain, however, why so many Christians aren't themselves going out of their way to attempt to change policy in such a way as to make sure that refugees and immigrants are freely welcomed into their nation, and to make sure that Christians who hold differing views on immigration are smacked in the head with Matthew 25.

I have a... low opinion of secularism. It has been largely destructive to Christianity as people pushed for secularism beyond its original intent, in my opinion.

It is a Christian duty to help refugees, secular nation or not. The United States is secular, yet we must push for national policy that is suggested by the Gospel. No other nation on Earth has as much capacity to do good works than we.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:04 pm**

Hakons wrote:
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:oh no now i dont got an option to vote for

There's a way to fix that

don't think so

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:48 pm**

Hakons wrote:
Pasong Tirad wrote:To continue a discussion from the previous thread, it is true that the United States (and any other nation) has to serve the interests of the state before God (thus is the nature of secularism). It doesn't explain, however, why so many Christians aren't themselves going out of their way to attempt to change policy in such a way as to make sure that refugees and immigrants are freely welcomed into their nation, and to make sure that Christians who hold differing views on immigration are smacked in the head with Matthew 25.

I have a... low opinion of secularism. It has been largely destructive to Christianity as people pushed for secularism beyond its original intent, in my opinion.

It is a Christian duty to help refugees, secular nation or not. The United States is secular, yet we must push for national policy that is suggested by the Gospel. No other nation on Earth has as much capacity to do good works than we.

The gospel doesn't suggest a national policy, Christ had little interest in the affairs of state. Any national policy derived from the Gospel or Christian theology at large, would largely be open to interpretation.

Additionally you're presenting an overly simplistic problem in which the question is "do we help them or not". With no other considerations the obvious answer is A: help them. But in the course of national policy, there is no simple issue.

Consider this thought experiment. You're on a life boat that's almost almost full. There are people in the water who will drown if you do not help them. But if you help too many, the boat will sink and you'll all drown. How do you decide who to help and who not to help? And you've already got all those people on the boat, who already have the perilous task of surviving at sea i na row boat, you're potentially risking their lives to bring on more people, more mouths to feed, let alone the risk of sinking.

What do you do?

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:16 pm**

Dylar wrote:
The Federation of Kendor wrote:Why did he think that those seven books are unnecessary

Honestly, I don't know. Perhaps Tars can fill you in on that one?

Those seven books are found in the Christian but not Jewish old testament. For various complicated political reasons, the protestant revolt involved looking at retranslating scripture, and those seven books somehow offended the protestant mindset of the time, so they got left out using that as an excuse.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 pm**

Maineiacs wrote:
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

I don't know if I'm the best to fill you in, I'm pretty biased on the subject.

"Officially" the seven apocryphal texts were removed from Protestant canon because they don't appear in the Hebrew canon. However the truth is much more sinister, in that the Protestant reformers, Luther in particular, tried to remove books from the canon that contradicted their theology. Luther, for instance, tried to get James removed, going so far as calling it the "epistlenof straw" primarily for its emphasis on works as necessary for salvation. But fortunately other reformers rejected this effort.

James I also had a hand in that sort of thing, didn't he?

To a much lesser extent than the other protestants at the time. The KJV reads fairly similarly to a more awkwardly poetic douay-rheims. Both are fairly good translations liberal Christians randomly demonize because of who uses them, albeit complicated by the difference in vocabulary between the seventeenth century and modern day.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:42 pm**

Maineiacs wrote:
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

I don't know if I'm the best to fill you in, I'm pretty biased on the subject.

"Officially" the seven apocryphal texts were removed from Protestant canon because they don't appear in the Hebrew canon. However the truth is much more sinister, in that the Protestant reformers, Luther in particular, tried to remove books from the canon that contradicted their theology. Luther, for instance, tried to get James removed, going so far as calling it the "epistlenof straw" primarily for its emphasis on works as necessary for salvation. But fortunately other reformers rejected this effort.

James I also had a hand in that sort of thing, didn't he?

No, the books were included in the King James Bible. Most modern printings don't have them because Anglicans are the only Protestants who use them in services.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 pm**

Diopolis wrote:
Maineiacs wrote:

James I also had a hand in that sort of thing, didn't he?

To a much lesser extent than the other protestants at the time. The KJV reads fairly similarly to a more awkwardly poetic douay-rheims. Both are fairly good translations liberal Christians randomly demonize because of who uses them, albeit complicated by the difference in vocabulary between the seventeenth century and modern day.

They demonize the translations precisely because they are accurate. Liberal Christian translations tend to be...liberal.

NationStates

The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.