NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:35 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
Luminesa wrote:> Gnostic Christian Jesus.
Uhhhhhh need I explain to you that Jesus Himself was...Jewish? What verse are you quoting in that bit? I don't think you were actually quoting any verse, in fact, because not only are you giving me absolutely no doctrine that tells me about Gnosticism, you refuse to actually explain what was incorrect about the 'Inquisitors' view of Gnosticism. Again, St. Augustine was a Gnostic at some point. He had a firsthand view of what they believed. Your view of Gnosticism is nothing more than some modern, skewed version of what the ideology actually entailed. And because you're not refuting me with any sort of coherent argument, I don't see what somehow makes Gnosticism so special.

Also, "Inquisitors"? Fam, the Vampire: The Masquerade RP is in Portal to the Multiverse. I'm in, we can use more players if you wanna make one. I actually play an Inquisitor, now that I mention it!

'Lust' and 'pride' are referred to as deadly sins, which are contrary to charity and humbleness, which John speaks of in the same letter. Lust results from a warped view of love, pride results from a warped view of the self. Remember that Jesus in the Bible calls us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

The funny part is we actually have Gnostic writings and Christian Polemics from the first century. We know what they believed.... and DL has not accurately represented it at all. He's correct that Gnostics didn't uniformly reject the material universe. By and large they did. (Though Marcion wasn't actually a gnostic.) But Christian Gnostics like Valentinus were less concerned withe the Demiurge / Monad dualism.

Eh. Wiki listed him as a Gnostic, I went with that. Curse you, Wiki.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:08 pm**

Luminesa wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
The funny part is we actually have Gnostic writings and Christian Polemics from the first century. We know what they believed.... and DL has not accurately represented it at all. He's correct that Gnostics didn't uniformly reject the material universe. By and large they did. (Though Marcion wasn't actually a gnostic.) But Christian Gnostics like Valentinus were less concerned withe the Demiurge / Monad dualism.

Eh. Wiki listed him as a Gnostic, I went with that. Curse you, Wiki.

He bad similar beliefs as Gnostics, relieving in the Monad and Demiurge, but this system did not stress the obtainement of “Secret Knowlege” which is what Gnosticism was all about. So while he’s similar I don’t think he can really be called a Gnostic

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:55 am**

Tarsonis wrote:Why is it that all you obscure minority Christian groups always get this stuff wrong? Constantine didn't believe in the Trinity... he was an Arian. Constantine's lasting influence on the Church isn't doctrinal, it's practical. When he attempted to influence Christian Doctrine, the Church prevailed against him.

That's not entirely true, Tarsonis.

It's true that Constantine didn't force his own theology on anyone, that the Council of Nicaea wasn't called to enforce a Constantinian Trinitarian theology on the Church, and that non-Trinitarian doctrine remained strong in the Eastern Empire for decades after both Nicaea and Constantine's death.

But it's not really true that he was an Arian. It would be better to say that Constantine was simply a poor theologian who didn't really grasp the key doctrinal divisions of the time, and largely wanted them to go away. He oscillated erratically between Nicene and Arian Christianity depending on a combination of political considerations, personal belief, mood, and convenience.

It is true that Arian sympathisers were dominant in Constantinople by the end of his reign, that he was baptised by the Arian sympathiser Eusebius of Nicomedia (who had nonetheless accepted Nicaea) shortly before his death, and that his son and primary successor Constantius II was a strong Arian sympathiser; but in the decades immediately following Nicaea, the division between Nicene and Arian Christianity - however obvious it may be to us today - wasn't always clear-cut. Constantine, under the influence of Eusebius, seemed to have convinced himself that Nicene and Arian doctrines were somehow compatible, and Constantius (a marginally better theologian than his father, though not by much) seemed to be groping, unsuccessfully, towards some sort of compromise between Nicene Christianity and his own inclinations towards Arianism. The divisions had crystallised by the end of the 4th century, but calling Constantine I an Arian is misleading given the context of the period; for one thing, if he was a clear-cut overt Arian, none of us would be venerating him as a saint.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:20 am**

Does one have to be a Christian to post in this thread?

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:58 am**

Andromeda Islands wrote:Does one have to be a Christian to post in this thread?

Nope! We welcome anyone who is interested in learning more about the faith!

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:29 am**

Xmara wrote:
Andromeda Islands wrote:Does one have to be a Christian to post in this thread?

Nope! We welcome anyone who is interested in learning more about the faith!

(Well, first of all, I am jumping into a long, long thread and haven't read all the posts and that itself might be considered rude, but I have read some of the more recent posts which seem somewhat interesting.)

Of course, I do know a lot about "Christianity", but that doesn't mean that it isn't problematic.
I can't convince any of you that it is false, and none of you can convince me that it isn't.
So, what's the point in having a debate? (a rhetorical question, if you will).

The point is, that "it"(Christianity) isn't one "faith" or "religion", but more like a (dysfunctional?) family of religions which don't entirely
disagree with each other. Like most "religions" (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc) it is extremely(?) sectarian.
It is like the tower of Babel myth, a lot of people saying and thinking seemingly contradictory things.. not making much sense.
The one thing Christians have in common is that they call themselves Christians, but other than that there doesn't seem much else.
Have you heard of John Shelby Spong? He's a good example. He hardly believes in anything that most Christians believe, and yet he is under the "Christian" umbrella.
I don't have a good memory for complex details, and do have a religious background. Long ago I read Augustine and many parts of the Bible
(such as Genesis, Revelation, and the Gospels)
So, trying to form a cohesive philosophy from a "book" such as the Bible is complicated.
Do you see it as a revelation with simple instructions or a complex enigmatic book that only the elite can understand?
Matthew 7:13 for example.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:33 am**

Clarification:
There are things in the Bible that I like...
"Blessed are the peacemakers" for example,
But how many who call themselves Christian are peacemakers?

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:44 am**

Andromeda Islands wrote:Does one have to be a Christian to post in this thread?

Yes, I expect you submit a certificate of baptism within the next 24 hours or you're booted. ;P

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:56 am**

Salus Maior wrote:
Andromeda Islands wrote:Does one have to be a Christian to post in this thread?

Yes, I expect you submit a certificate of baptism within the next 24 hours or you're booted. ;P

Well, I guess that I have nothing to worry about because I was baptized into a Christian (heterodox) faith.

:clap:

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:28 am**

Salus Maior wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:I’m thinking of writing a contra book against a Protestant reformer. Who’s a good one to do?

Well, if you want to write a book against heresy in general (although Protestants are guilty of these as well) I have a couple that I've heard at my church that are both pretty high profile and seemingly widespread in our own Church in this age.

One being "the Old Testament covenant is still valid for Jews", which my own Bishop said in the couple homilies I've heard him say at my church, even going as far as to lead a prayer that "the Jews would stay true to their covenant". Which I didn't participate in. Now, I'm not one of those internet lay Catholics who thinks he knows Catholicism so much better than their own priests and Bishops, but I think this is pretty clearly crossing a line into error and a relativist view of God as well as basically making Christ's sacrifice at the cross unnecessary and irrelevant.

The other being excessive "Low Christology", I.E really pushing Christ's humanity at the expense of His divinity. Now As I understand it (from a book given to me by my parish) "Low Christology" is emphasizing Christ's likeness to humanity (with it's counterpart "High Christology" emphasizing Christ's divinity and his "beyond comprehension-ness") now I don't have a problem with either Christology and I think both are true, as Christ is 100% Divine and 100% human, so He is amazing and beyond full comprehension yet He brought Himself down to be familiar and akin to us. But I think there is a trend that many in the Church today have decided not to maintain a balance between these positions, and have excessively pushed Christ's humanity to theologically absurd points.

One example that's been on my mind is my Priest's homily last Sunday, in which the reading was Luke 2:41-52, where Jesus got left behind at the Temple by his negligent parents ;P (I mean, how do you travel for days without seeing your kid and not worry about him?). Anyway, my Priest very vocally made the point from this passage that "Jesus didn't know everything" because He was asking questions of the teachers in the Temple and the later portion of the passage where it is noted "Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man". Now, again, I don't want to tell Priests what to do and say and I couldn't anyway because I don't have that kind of authority or education, but I do feel like this statement is in error, and sets up some fundamental theological problems later on down the road.

And another, much more cringey but higher-profile example of emphasizing Christ's humanity over His Divinity is Fr. James Martin's interpretation of Jesus and the gentile woman, where apparently Jesus didn't know that His ministry was meant for all peoples, and this gentile woman corrected Him, you know, God , into making it for all people. I don't think I need to say much more about how wrong this interpretation is.

And a third example of this being pushed to heresy, perhaps the most extreme example, is the Bishop of Porto Manuel Linda outright stating that Jesus was just one of the children of Joseph and Mary conceived by them. This not only denies Christ's divinity totally but also obviously has a billion other outright heretical connotations that gives me a headache and depression to hear from any clergyman, let alone a Bishop.

If it would be about several topics, I think the theology of the Council of Jerusalem would be something well needed. Why Christians don't follow the Old Law, but still follow much of its morality, is a near constant source of error. It's not just from non-Christians, who just can't help repeating false premises that declare Christians to be hypcrites, but it's also widespread among Christians. A large number of Christians genuinely don't know why we follow the morality, but not the legal codes. This is especially true among liberal Christians, who use this false argument against other Christians to justify their obvious breaks from Christian orthodoxy.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:21 pm**

Visited a traditional Latin Mass today. I wasn't disappointed.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:02 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:Visited a traditional Latin Mass today. I wasn't disappointed.

We welcome you in.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:37 pm**

Diopolis wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:Visited a traditional Latin Mass today. I wasn't disappointed.

We welcome you in.

Woop. It was administered by the Carmelite Order which I thought was interesting.

I'm a big fan of the FSSP, but there's literally no FSSP church in my state.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:39 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:
Diopolis wrote:We welcome you in.

Woop. It was administered by the Carmelite Order which I thought was interesting.

I'm a big fan of the FSSP, but there's literally no FSSP church in my state.

Wait, carmelite rite or tridentine?

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:44 pm**

Diopolis wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Woop. It was administered by the Carmelite Order which I thought was interesting.

I'm a big fan of the FSSP, but there's literally no FSSP church in my state.

Wait, carmelite rite or tridentine?

I guess it's Carmelite? It was Ad-Orientum and all the trappings of the TLM that I understand. But I don't know what the difference would be between the Carmelite rite and the Tridentine.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:45 pm**

Diopolis wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:Visited a traditional Latin Mass today. I wasn't disappointed.

We welcome you in.

There's a Latin mass church in my home city but I haven't visited it yet, although I do plan to.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:15 pm**

Church was very helpful, and assured me mom would be looked after when I go. I expect to get my brother's death certificates tomorrow. Then I can start probate court.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:30 pm**

Mardla wrote:Church was very helpful, and assured me mom would be looked after when I go. I expect to get my brother's death certificates tomorrow. Then I can start probate court.

That's very good of them. What's your mom's relationship to the church, if you don't mind me asking?

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:
Mardla wrote:Church was very helpful, and assured me mom would be looked after when I go. I expect to get my brother's death certificates tomorrow. Then I can start probate court.

That's very good of them. What's your mom's relationship to the church, if you don't mind me asking?

None. Same goes for my brother. And yet now they're picking up the tab for his mortuary and funeral expenses. I'm pretty overwhelmed.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:27 pm**

Finally broke out of my shell and sung in the congregational hymns at church today. I didn't think I missed out on much by not singing but it does give you a nice feeling. Weird how that works.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:29 pm**

Mardla wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
That's very good of them. What's your mom's relationship to the church, if you don't mind me asking?

None. Same goes for my brother. And yet now they're picking up the tab for his mortuary and funeral expenses. I'm pretty overwhelmed.

You’re not alone! Even if we can’t help you pay for the expenses, you have our support! :hug:

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:54 am**

Merry Christmas.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:56 am**

The blAAtschApen wrote:Merry Christmas.

Merry *Orthodox* Christmas.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:56 am**

The National Salvation Front for Russia wrote:
The blAAtschApen wrote:Merry Christmas.

Merry *Orthodox* Christmas.

I stand by what I said.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:17 am**

A very happy Julian Calendar Christmas to everyone in the CDT; and an equally happy Armenian Christmas for yesterday to any Armenians who might be floating about.

The blAAtschApen wrote:Merry Christmas.

Thank you, Blaat - the same to you.

NationStates

The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15