Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Luminesa]

Catholics and Orthodox have joined together in designating Friday July 24th as a Day of Mourning over the Turkish Government's regrettable decision to revert the Hagia Sofia back into a mosque. The USCCB directs Catholics to recite the Akathist Hymn, or if they're unfamiliar with it, to recite a fully Rosary.

Do you have a link to it? The Hymn, I mean, so others can access it.

[Tarsonis]

Catholics and Orthodox have joined together in designating Friday July 24th as a Day of Mourning over the Turkish Government's regrettable decision to revert the Hagia Sofia back into a mosque. The USCCB directs Catholics to recite the Akathist Hymn, or if they're unfamiliar with it, to recite a fully Rosary.

Do you have a link to it? The Hymn, I mean, so others can access it.

I honestly don't know much about it, it's not a Latin thing it seems.

Here:
https://dioknox.org/akathist-hymn/

Link has a pdf download and a recording.

[Pax Nerdvana]

I know I've never really talked about religion here on NS, mainly because I'm not very good at it. Anyway, I just got back from a missions trip that I went on through my church. It was a small town, filled with rundown houses and empty lots. While there, I think I found my calling in life. I think God is trying to tell me to learn a trade and use those skills to fix up broken down houses in places like that, free of charge to the residents. Sorry if I'm incoherent and rambling. I'm not good at talking about religion.

That’s not rambling! I’m so glad you’ve felt that calling in your heart!

Get involved with Habitats for Humanity! That’s a good way to start.

Thanks for the advice and the kind words, Lumi. I don't want to get ahead of myself though. After all, I still need to get myself an apprenticeship and learn a trade.

[Luminesa]

That’s not rambling! I’m so glad you’ve felt that calling in your heart!

Get involved with Habitats for Humanity! That’s a good way to start.

Thanks for the advice and the kind words, Lumi. I don't want to get ahead of myself though. After all, I still need to get myself an apprenticeship and learn a trade.

Yes! And keep doing volunteer work in the meantime. You can do it. I believe in you.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Thanks for the advice and the kind words, Lumi. I don't want to get ahead of myself though. After all, I still need to get myself an apprenticeship and learn a trade.

Yes! And keep doing volunteer work in the meantime. You can do it. I believe in you.

That I shall. Thanks for the encouragement. We all need it in these crazy times.

[Lost Memories]

The Cathar sect wasn't even christian. Dualistic(good god, evil god), Gnostic(good spirit, evil world), belief in reincarnation(evil reincarnation, since life is sin), Evil Jesus.

Though, is it true the record that some of the Cathars did push their gnosticism so far (the spirit is holy, and the body/materiality is cursed) that they did starve themselves to death, because "freeing oneself from the cursed body" was considered an holy pursuit for them?

[Lost Memories]

While reading a bit more about the history of heretical sects of, or related to, christianity, i've stumbled over the Baptist revisionist idea of "Baptist successionism"
It's surprising the supposedly continuous sequence over time they were able to patch up, i would have added in there also the possible origins of Gnosticism, and the possible relation between Waldensians as inspirators of Protestantism:

Hellenic paganism/philosophy -> Hellenic Judaism -> Early gnostics -> Paulicianism(600-800) -> Cathars(1100-1300) <contemporanean> Waldensians(1100-present) -> Protestantism(1400-present)

Or rather than continuous, various independent attempts of revivals over the remains of the previous versions. (though the Waldensians don't seem to share much with the Cathars, aside the time period, the Waldensians were/are way less crazy/heterodox, or just more subtle/mild in their heterodoxy)
Though, the Baptist's original idea placed themselves (Baptists) even outside protestantism, and claimed the Baptists had their own distinct lineage, tracing back to ??? basically gnosticism?



This may be tangential, but wouldn't the teaching of philosophy in schools be relatable to teaching concepts closely related to Graeco-Roman paganism/philosophy ?
If that's a correct assumption, why isn't the teaching of philosophy in schools treated on an equal level to the teaching of religion in schools?

[Diopolis]

Catholics and Orthodox have joined together in designating Friday July 24th as a Day of Mourning over the Turkish Government's regrettable decision to revert the Hagia Sofia back into a mosque. The USCCB directs Catholics to recite the Akathist Hymn, or if they're unfamiliar with it, to recite a fully Rosary.

Do you have a link to it? The Hymn, I mean, so others can access it.

https://www.fisheaters.com/akathisthymn.html

[Lower Nubia]

So random question - since I haven't been here in a while. I've been reading more and more lately and have come to the conclusion that while I've been Presbyterian - and Christian - for about seven years now, some of my beliefs align more with Lutheran tradition than Presbyterian tradition. Though some of my beliefs definitely continue to align with Presbyterian tradition.

I guess my question is rather than calling myself nondenominational for not fitting into the box of any one denomination, is there any basis in Christian tradition to call yourself two different denominations, so labeling myself a Presbyterian Lutheran?

Sure, I know at the basis of anything personally, all that matters with labels is how I label myself and not what others think of me, but I was wondering if there are any popular examples of this in modern times or even the ancient church or throughout history - pre-reformation or post-reformation, etc.

No. You can't call yourself a Presbytarian Lutheran.

You can be a Lutheran with Calvinistic tendencies, and vice versa, but Presbyterian and Lutheran are two different systems of Church organisation and confessional documents.

[Lower Nubia]

While reading a bit more about the history of heretical sects of, or related to, christianity, i've stumbled over the Baptist revisionist idea of "Baptist successionism"
It's surprising the supposedly continuous sequence over time they were able to patch up, i would have added in there also the possible origins of Gnosticism, and the possible relation between Waldensians as inspirators of Protestantism:

Hellenic paganism/philosophy -> Hellenic Judaism -> Early gnostics -> Paulicianism(600-800) -> Cathars(1100-1300) <contemporanean> Waldensians(1100-present) -> Protestantism(1400-present)

Or rather than continuous, various independent attempts of revivals over the remains of the previous versions. (though the Waldensians don't seem to share much with the Cathars, aside the time period, the Waldensians were/are way less crazy/heterodox, or just more subtle/mild in their heterodoxy)
Though, the Baptist's original idea placed themselves (Baptists) even outside protestantism, and claimed the Baptists had their own distinct lineage, tracing back to ??? basically gnosticism?



This may be tangential, but wouldn't the teaching of philosophy in schools be relatable to teaching concepts closely related to Graeco-Roman paganism/philosophy ?
If that's a correct assumption, why isn't the teaching of philosophy in schools treated on an equal level to the teaching of religion in schools?

Baptist Successionism, it's terrible, like, yuck. The ones in the southern US get taught it though - very common belief. It's not Gnosticism, it's trying to keep with Matthew 16:18-19. It needs sects which aren't the Catholic Church to claim some historicity. When Baptists find out their history comes from John Smyth who baptised himself, it really dampens the whole: "we're the Church Christ made" mantra.

[Salus Maior]

While reading a bit more about the history of heretical sects of, or related to, christianity, i've stumbled over the Baptist revisionist idea of "Baptist successionism"
It's surprising the supposedly continuous sequence over time they were able to patch up, i would have added in there also the possible origins of Gnosticism, and the possible relation between Waldensians as inspirators of Protestantism:

Hellenic paganism/philosophy -> Hellenic Judaism -> Early gnostics -> Paulicianism(600-800) -> Cathars(1100-1300) <contemporanean> Waldensians(1100-present) -> Protestantism(1400-present)

Or rather than continuous, various independent attempts of revivals over the remains of the previous versions. (though the Waldensians don't seem to share much with the Cathars, aside the time period, the Waldensians were/are way less crazy/heterodox, or just more subtle/mild in their heterodoxy)
Though, the Baptist's original idea placed themselves (Baptists) even outside protestantism, and claimed the Baptists had their own distinct lineage, tracing back to ??? basically gnosticism?



This may be tangential, but wouldn't the teaching of philosophy in schools be relatable to teaching concepts closely related to Graeco-Roman paganism/philosophy ?
If that's a correct assumption, why isn't the teaching of philosophy in schools treated on an equal level to the teaching of religion in schools?

....The Gnostics, Paulicians, and Cathars all believed things that Baptists definitely don't believe in.

Except maybe hating on the Catholic Church.

[Sundiata]

I love Our Lady for her loyalty to me. She waits on me through struggle and prays for my triumph, blessed is she as she comes in the name of the Lord.

Amen.

[Lower Nubia]

While reading a bit more about the history of heretical sects of, or related to, christianity, i've stumbled over the Baptist revisionist idea of "Baptist successionism"
It's surprising the supposedly continuous sequence over time they were able to patch up, i would have added in there also the possible origins of Gnosticism, and the possible relation between Waldensians as inspirators of Protestantism:

Hellenic paganism/philosophy -> Hellenic Judaism -> Early gnostics -> Paulicianism(600-800) -> Cathars(1100-1300) <contemporanean> Waldensians(1100-present) -> Protestantism(1400-present)

Or rather than continuous, various independent attempts of revivals over the remains of the previous versions. (though the Waldensians don't seem to share much with the Cathars, aside the time period, the Waldensians were/are way less crazy/heterodox, or just more subtle/mild in their heterodoxy)
Though, the Baptist's original idea placed themselves (Baptists) even outside protestantism, and claimed the Baptists had their own distinct lineage, tracing back to ??? basically gnosticism?



This may be tangential, but wouldn't the teaching of philosophy in schools be relatable to teaching concepts closely related to Graeco-Roman paganism/philosophy ?
If that's a correct assumption, why isn't the teaching of philosophy in schools treated on an equal level to the teaching of religion in schools?

....The Gnostics, Paulicians, and Cathars all believed things that Baptists definitely don't believe in.

Except maybe hating on the Catholic Church.

Honestly, for Baptist successionism, that’s all they needed to be.

Have you seen Baptist’s try and mould the Paulicians into Baptists, saying that: “We only know of the Paulicians through Catholic/Byzantine writing, which means they have been embellished and distorted from what they were: Genuine God fearing, faith in the Christ and the gospel, people.”

Like Oof it makes you cringe.

[Lower Nubia]

This may be tangential, but wouldn't the teaching of philosophy in schools be relatable to teaching concepts closely related to Graeco-Roman paganism/philosophy ?
If that's a correct assumption, why isn't the teaching of philosophy in schools treated on an equal level to the teaching of religion in schools?

Philosophy has many different aspects, and certainly can deal with the metaphysical, but can also be about methodology of a discipline; like positivism for science. The laws of logic, necessary for business, law, and science come under philosophy and there’s nothing inherently necessary about teaching paganism with those rules, though some were formed around the time of the ancient Greeks.

With that in mind, it can’t really be classed a religious “class” unless it’s actually just teaching religious philosophies.

[Lost Memories]

....The Gnostics, Paulicians, and Cathars all believed things that Baptists definitely don't believe in.

Except maybe hating on the Catholic Church.

Honestly, for Baptist successionism, that’s all they needed to be.

Have you seen Baptist’s try and mould the Paulicians into Baptists, saying that: “We only know of the Paulicians through Catholic/Byzantine writing, which means they have been embellished and distorted from what they were: Genuine God fearing, faith in the Christ and the gospel, people.”

Like Oof it makes you cringe.

That explains it, because it confused me how the Baptists could seriously claim to be related to sects whose affity with christianity can be very dubious. (to say it in a polite way)

Though, given the premise that gnostics aren't christians, i wonder why they were threated like heretics and not just a new religious cult unrelated to christianity. Was it because they themselves claimed to be christians?
Like the Cathars called themselves "the good christians", while they shared very little of the beliefs all the previous christians did hold. So would it have worked like: "if you want to call yourself a christian we are going to take your word for it, then that makes you an heretic." ?
Or was the conclusion, that gnostics weren't christians, not clearly defined yet at that point in history?




About philosophy classes at school, i was going by the premise that when philosophy deals with (especially) things like social concepts originated in the Graeco-Roman times, teaching those uncritically as present-day ideas, and not framed in an historical setting from where they actually come, would be like making present-day again the mindset which was common at the times of Graeco-Romans. Which said mindset was the common mindset inside which Graeco-Romans paganism flourished.
Given that premise, it would be like applying a double standard regarding the teaching of ideological subjects. Where ideology if religious is frowned or strictly regulated, while if ideology isn't religious it's allowed as if it wasn't ideology at all. That said you are right that philosophy also contains purely practical and methodological aspects which hold no ideological value.

But maybe that's all an overly simplified view of the matter, or maybe i'm even putting the cart before the horse, as it could have been the Graeco-Romans paganism to influence and determine the mindset of their time, and not the opposite. (or maybe it isn't even that, as there could have been a mutual influence, between paganism and popular mindset, in ancient times)

Maybe the more ideological parts of the common philosophy classes should be taken apart into a new subject, called "ancient ideology", and that new subject would have to be treated equally to other religious classes.

To make maybe an extreme example, the chinese schooling system includes classes, and references inside common subjects, about "(communist)party ideology", would that be ok to teach in western schools too, like any other subject, since it isn't about religion?
With that i mean, i think unreligious ideologies shouldn't get a free pass in the schools of a nation who claims to don't make preferences between religions, only because they aren't religious, because they are ideologies all the same. It would rather make it look like the nation in question is actually having a preference towards a specific ideology (or political mindset), being it secularism (or pre-christian Graeco-Roman ideological revival) in western nations.

Hmm, to sum it up, i guess i'm actually calling hypocritical all those nations who claim to hold "freedom of religion" as a national value, which implies no favoritism, but at the same time plaster secularism (meant as an ideology: anticlericalism, atheism, naturalism, materialism), or other state approved ideology, all over the place, starting from places of education.

[Lower Nubia]

Honestly, for Baptist successionism, that’s all they needed to be.

Have you seen Baptist’s try and mould the Paulicians into Baptists, saying that: “We only know of the Paulicians through Catholic/Byzantine writing, which means they have been embellished and distorted from what they were: Genuine God fearing, faith in the Christ and the gospel, people.”

Like Oof it makes you cringe.

That explains it, because it confused me how the Baptists could seriously claim to be related to sects whose affity with christianity can be very dubious. (to say it in a polite way)

Though, given the premise that gnostics aren't christians, i wonder why they were threated like heretics and not just a new religious cult unrelated to christianity. Was it because they themselves claimed to be christians?
Like the Cathars called themselves "the good christians", while they shared very little of the beliefs all the previous christians did hold. So would it have worked like: "if you want to call yourself a christian we are going to take your word for it, then that makes you an heretic." ?
Or was the conclusion, that gnostics weren't christians, not clearly defined yet at that point in history?

Gnostics would be born out of Christian Churches, that's why they were heretics, they were not exclusively developed in Christendom, but they very easily could as the Docetists. Which is why John is very clear in his epistles about Docetism being wrong. That's why they're heretics and not just an unconnected cult.

About philosophy classes at school, i was going by the premise that when philosophy deals with (especially) things like social concepts originated in the Graeco-Roman times, teaching those uncritically as present-day ideas, and not framed in an historical setting from where they actually come, would be like making present-day again the mindset which was common at the times of Graeco-Romans. Which said mindset was the common mindset inside which Graeco-Romans paganism flourished.

What ideas are those?

Given that premise, it would be like applying a double standard regarding the teaching of ideological subjects. Where ideology if religious is frowned or strictly regulated, while if ideology isn't religious it's allowed as if it wasn't ideology at all. That said you are right that philosophy also contains purely practical and methodological aspects which hold no ideological value.

Ideologies are omnipresent, religions are not. You can't not teach an ideology in a classroom, you can stop teaching religion. Many Philosophy teachers are religious, ours was Sikh. All common religions and philosophies were taught, I wouldn't say well, but... meh. I wouldn't expect perfect nuanced thought.

But maybe that's all an overly simplified view of the matter, or maybe i'm even putting the cart before the horse, as it could have been the Graeco-Romans paganism to influence and determine the mindset of their time, and not the opposite. (or maybe it isn't even that, as there could have been a mutual influence, between paganism and popular mindset, in ancient times)

I'm confused, what is this ancient philosophy you're referring to?

Maybe the more ideological parts of the common philosophy classes should be taken apart into a new subject, called "ancient ideology", and that new subject would have to be treated equally to other religious classes.

It tends to be split that way in the UK, it's just grouped under ancient philosophers.

To make maybe an extreme example, the chinese schooling system includes classes, and references inside common subjects, about "(communist)party ideology", would that be ok to teach in western schools too, like any other subject, since it isn't about religion?

That would come under citizenship classes. Teach a variety of political ideologies is a good thing. Alongside critical evaluation of claims.

With that i mean, i think unreligious ideologies shouldn't get a free pass in the schools of a nation who claims to don't make preferences between religions, only because they aren't religious, because they are ideologies all the same.

You can't escape ideologies, there is no neutral ground here. It's just best to teach all (or the common ones) and be done of it. There is no secular bias in schooling, the emphasis is removal of religion, and ideologies like Secularism aren't classically religions - but it is an ideology that accommodates diversity of faith, which is useful in a public classroom setting.

It would rather make it look like the nation in question is actually having a preference towards a specific ideology (or political mindset), being it secularism (or pre-christian Graeco-Roman ideological revival) in western nations.

That's not a thing in the UK.

Hmm, to sum it up, i guess i'm actually calling hypocritical all those nations who claim to hold "freedom of religion" as a national value, which implies no favoritism, but at the same time plaster secularism (meant as an ideology: anticlericalism, atheism, naturalism, materialism), or other state approved ideology, all over the place, starting from places of education.

It's just easier to do secularism than find the mythical true neutral. I've never seen an openly atheistical philosophy class. It tends to compromise and teach all groups, which is the best.

[Luminesa]

....The Gnostics, Paulicians, and Cathars all believed things that Baptists definitely don't believe in.

Except maybe hating on the Catholic Church.

Honestly, for Baptist successionism, that’s all they needed to be.

Have you seen Baptist’s try and mould the Paulicians into Baptists, saying that: “We only know of the Paulicians through Catholic/Byzantine writing, which means they have been embellished and distorted from what they were: Genuine God fearing, faith in the Christ and the gospel, people.”

Like Oof it makes you cringe.

It’s more or less plain old historical revisionism. If you go back to the 1st/2nd century, some of the first mentions of the Infant Church mention a “Catholic” Church. You can only deny so much until you have to admit you were not the first Church.

[Lower Nubia]

Honestly, for Baptist successionism, that’s all they needed to be.

Have you seen Baptist’s try and mould the Paulicians into Baptists, saying that: “We only know of the Paulicians through Catholic/Byzantine writing, which means they have been embellished and distorted from what they were: Genuine God fearing, faith in the Christ and the gospel, people.”

Like Oof it makes you cringe.

It’s more or less plain old historical revisionism. If you go back to the 1st/2nd century, some of the first mentions of the Infant Church mention a “Catholic” Church. You can only deny so much until you have to admit you were not the first Church.

Certainly just old revisionism, but what really gets me is the tenacity and the ludicrous claims of that revisionism. A classic Baptist argument against what Ignatius writes in the first century is that Catholic refers to the whole Church; imbued in doctrine and truth, and not the organisation which exists today.

When I gave Church History lessons to our Baptist Church, destroying the myth of Baptist Successionism was very successful in converting them to historical methods of thinking; including infant Baptist, (some) presence of Christ in the Eucharist (from their previously memorialist take) and the validity of Apostolic Succession and Church Councils.

[Tarsonis]

It’s more or less plain old historical revisionism. If you go back to the 1st/2nd century, some of the first mentions of the Infant Church mention a “Catholic” Church. You can only deny so much until you have to admit you were not the first Church.

Certainly just old revisionism, but what really gets me is the tenacity and the ludicrous claims of that revisionism. A classic Baptist argument against what Ignatius writes in the first century is that Catholic refers to the whole Church; imbued in doctrine and truth, and not the organisation which exists today.

When I gave Church History lessons to our Baptist Church, destroying the myth of Baptist Successionism was very successful in converting them to historical methods of thinking; including infant Baptist, (some) presence of Christ in the Eucharist (from their previously memorialist take) and the validity of Apostolic Succession and Church Councils.

That argument is technically true, while at the same time ignoring so much context that it's distorted to the point of being false. Insidious really.

[Lower Nubia]

Certainly just old revisionism, but what really gets me is the tenacity and the ludicrous claims of that revisionism. A classic Baptist argument against what Ignatius writes in the first century is that Catholic refers to the whole Church; imbued in doctrine and truth, and not the organisation which exists today.

When I gave Church History lessons to our Baptist Church, destroying the myth of Baptist Successionism was very successful in converting them to historical methods of thinking; including infant Baptist, (some) presence of Christ in the Eucharist (from their previously memorialist take) and the validity of Apostolic Succession and Church Councils.

That argument is technically true, while at the same time ignoring so much context that it's distorted to the point of being false. Insidious really.

That's what makes it a good argument for them to use, a sprinkle of truth covering a terrible alteration of Ignatius' belief. Like those of the Eucharist, and Church Organisation.

[Auristania]

The Cathar sect wasn't even christian. Dualistic(good god, evil god), Gnostic(good spirit, evil world), belief in reincarnation(evil reincarnation, since life is sin), Evil Jesus.

Though, is it true the record that some of the Cathars did push their gnosticism so far (the spirit is holy, and the body/materiality is cursed) that they did starve themselves to death, because "freeing oneself from the cursed body" was considered an holy pursuit for them?

True. Catharism is NOT Christianity. Likewise, burning people alive don't fit the God who is Love incarnate.

[Lower Nubia]

The Cathar sect wasn't even christian. Dualistic(good god, evil god), Gnostic(good spirit, evil world), belief in reincarnation(evil reincarnation, since life is sin), Evil Jesus.

Though, is it true the record that some of the Cathars did push their gnosticism so far (the spirit is holy, and the body/materiality is cursed) that they did starve themselves to death, because "freeing oneself from the cursed body" was considered an holy pursuit for them?

True. Catharism is NOT Christianity. Likewise, burning people alive don't fit the God who is Love incarnate.

Lake of Fire: "Am I a joke to you?"

[Salus Maior]

Honestly, for Baptist successionism, that’s all they needed to be.

Have you seen Baptist’s try and mould the Paulicians into Baptists, saying that: “We only know of the Paulicians through Catholic/Byzantine writing, which means they have been embellished and distorted from what they were: Genuine God fearing, faith in the Christ and the gospel, people.”

Like Oof it makes you cringe.

Even if it were embellished, there's no evidence that they were secret Baptists or whatever.

Waldensians, from what I know of them, are the only heretical sect that comes anywhere close.

[Narland]

I know I've never really talked about religion here on NS, mainly because I'm not very good at it. Anyway, I just got back from a missions trip that I went on through my church. It was a small town, filled with rundown houses and empty lots. While there, I think I found my calling in life. I think God is trying to tell me to learn a trade and use those skills to fix up broken down houses in places like that, free of charge to the residents. Sorry if I'm incoherent and rambling. I'm not good at talking about religion.

Thank you for posting this. It is a blessing to have a sense of direction and calling in one's life. Not everyone has a sense of surety with what God has called them to do. But God uses us as vessels of honour when we seek his face openly and with humility. He is faithful.

[Luminesa]

I know I've never really talked about religion here on NS, mainly because I'm not very good at it. Anyway, I just got back from a missions trip that I went on through my church. It was a small town, filled with rundown houses and empty lots. While there, I think I found my calling in life. I think God is trying to tell me to learn a trade and use those skills to fix up broken down houses in places like that, free of charge to the residents. Sorry if I'm incoherent and rambling. I'm not good at talking about religion.

Thank you for posting this. It is a blessing to have a sense of direction and calling in one's life. Not everyone has a sense of surety with what God has called them to do. But God uses us as vessels of honour when we seek his face openly and with humility. He is faithful.

Amen!