Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Fair enough, I suppose.

I've come to the belief that, spiritually speaking, there is only one church that all practicing Christians belong to by default and no Earthly division can truly sunder it since it goes beyond materialism. But maybe that's just some weird 'Christian unity' fantasy I came up with, I dunno. I feel God shakes His head every time a new denomination springs up, asking Himself "What are you kids doing?"

The idea that no particular church body can claim to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and that there is an invisible church formed of all believers that is distinct from visible church, is a fundamentally Protestant perspective. You are a Protestant in denial.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm just a heretic.

[Punished UMN]

Trollzyn doesn't consider himself Protestant...For some reason.

Because my nondenominational stance was born specifically out of a rejection of both Protestantism and Catholicism. I can't be a Protestant and reject Protestantism at the same time, and since my mother failed to raise me as a proper Catholic (mostly because she's barely Catholic herself), then what am I? I'm clearly not Protestant, and I'm clearly not Catholic, yet I don't belong to any specific church?

So, besides just "Christian", what do I call myself to designate the fact I follow Christ yet belong to no church?

I don't see how that's not Protestantism, and I don't mean that to be rude or anything.

[Merrill]

Sorry, haven't read that. I think the only time it would apply to RC, or any Christian denomination is if the Church was also the State. Islam explicitly does not separate them. My understanding of Scripture is that until Jesus reigns as King of Kings, the Laws of God and Man are not the same. Also, Scripture is adamant that Salvation comes by Choice. Only by understanding Good from Evil, and freely choosing the Good can we be blessed. Choices always have consequences, but any entity that seeks to force people to "Do the Right Thing" is in opposition to Heavenly Father's Plan.

While I do agree with some of your points, a lack of complete separation between church and state does not mean that freedom of religion and other values can't be maintained. While a state that does not maintain those freedoms is in opposition, just because some Islamic states completely fail to do so does not mean that Islam as a whole is responsible, but rather radical elements that cause trouble as they would in any other religion. At least, that's my view on it.

Freedom of Religion is not compulsion by either the State or the Church. The State should not maintain any 'values' other than punishing those that directly harm others. The State should not force people to follow a religion, nor block them from doing so.

As for Islam, if you read the Quran and the Hadiths, the 'radical' elements are the ones behaving as dictated by Mohammed. They haven't "hijacked the religion", they are trying to restore it to its roots.

[Nihon no Tengoku]

The idea that no particular church body can claim to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and that there is an invisible church formed of all believers that is distinct from visible church, is a fundamentally Protestant perspective. You are a Protestant in denial.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm just a heretic.

No, you really aren't. Unless you're taking the stance of the Catholic church at face value, in which case I have no idea why you wouldn't just be Catholic

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

No, I'm pretty sure I'm just a heretic.

No, you really aren't. Unless you're taking the stance of the Catholic church at face value, in which case I have no idea why you wouldn't just be Catholic

Personally I think that Western Christianity has strayed too far from what the original church was. I think the Eastern Churches are closer to it and am therefor more sympathetic to them. I've considered joining the Orthodox Church, even.

[New Steuben]

I find the squabbling of sects to be silly,your all christians and the disagreements feel petty

[Merrill]

Christianity should not, and does not need the State to support its values and doctrines. We should persuade our neighbors with love to Choose The Right. If a person only does The Right Thing because otherwise they will be punished by Man's Law, then how can God bless them? They did not freely choose Righteousness from their own heart.

[New Steuben]

Christianity should not, and does not need the State to support its values and doctrines. We should persuade our neighbors with love to Choose The Right. If a person only does The Right Thing because otherwise they will be punished by Man's Law, then how can God bless them? They did not freely choose Righteousness from their own heart.

Good point but if you have christian politicians would they not be compelled?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I find the squabbling of sects to be silly,your all christians and the disagreements feel petty

Honestly some of them are, but theological disagreements exist in all organized--and some unorganized--religions which naturally leads to division.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Christianity should not, and does not need the State to support its values and doctrines. We should persuade our neighbors with love to Choose The Right. If a person only does The Right Thing because otherwise they will be punished by Man's Law, then how can God bless them? They did not freely choose Righteousness from their own heart.

Good point but if you have christian politicians would they not be compelled?

99% of government officials in American history have been Christian, yet we've managed to more or less maintain a mostly secular government for over 200 years. It's not impossible.

[New Steuben]

I find the squabbling of sects to be silly,your all christians and the disagreements feel petty

Honestly some of them are, but theological disagreements exist in all organized--and some unorganized--religions which naturally leads to division.

Sure

But a catholic should have no issues praying in an orthodox church and vice versa

[New Steuben]

Good point but if you have christian politicians would they not be compelled?

99% of government officials in American history have been Christian, yet we've managed to more or less maintain a mostly secular government for over 200 years. It's not impossible.

I agree im just saying

[Merrill]

Christianity should not, and does not need the State to support its values and doctrines. We should persuade our neighbors with love to Choose The Right. If a person only does The Right Thing because otherwise they will be punished by Man's Law, then how can God bless them? They did not freely choose Righteousness from their own heart.

Good point but if you have christian politicians would they not be compelled?

Please provide an example. I'm not sure I'm following your question. I know of many Christian politicians that do not try to force others to believe or act as they do. Also, since Agency is fundamental to the Plan of Salvation, they would not be acting in a Christian way if they did.

[New Steuben]

Good point but if you have christian politicians would they not be compelled?

Please provide an example. I'm not sure I'm following your question. I know of many Christian politicians that do not try to force others to believe or act as they do. Also, since Agency is fundamental to the Plan of Salvation, they would not be acting in a Christian way if they did.

I would say by trying to apply the christian definition of marriage for one

[Salus Maior]

Trollzyn doesn't consider himself Protestant...For some reason.

Because my nondenominational stance was born specifically out of a rejection of both Protestantism and Catholicism. I can't be a Protestant and reject Protestantism at the same time, and since my mother failed to raise me as a proper Catholic (mostly because she's barely Catholic herself), then what am I? I'm clearly not Protestant, and I'm clearly not Catholic, yet I don't belong to any specific church?

So, besides just "Christian", what do I call myself to designate the fact I follow Christ yet belong to no church?

Well, when you say you reject "Protestantism", what do you mean?

Because Protestantism is a huge umbrella of different things.

[Auze]

While I do agree with some of your points, a lack of complete separation between church and state does not mean that freedom of religion and other values can't be maintained. While a state that does not maintain those freedoms is in opposition, just because some Islamic states completely fail to do so does not mean that Islam as a whole is responsible, but rather radical elements that cause trouble as they would in any other religion. At least, that's my view on it.

Freedom of Religion is not compulsion by either the State or the Church. The State should not maintain any 'values' other than punishing those that directly harm others. The State should not force people to follow a religion, nor block them from doing so.

As for Islam, if you read the Quran and the Hadiths, the 'radical' elements are the ones behaving as dictated by Mohammed. They haven't "hijacked the religion", they are trying to restore it to its roots.

Well ok then. I don't know much about Islam and even if I did this is probably the wrong thread to discuss it (that's better fit in the IDT), though I will state that that last sentence reminds me of the atheists that state that a fundamentalist/evangelical protestant interpretation of the Bible is the only correct way.

[Merrill]

Please provide an example. I'm not sure I'm following your question. I know of many Christian politicians that do not try to force others to believe or act as they do. Also, since Agency is fundamental to the Plan of Salvation, they would not be acting in a Christian way if they did.

I would say by trying to apply the christian definition of marriage for one

I would be thrilled if government got out of marriage all together. Let people create domestic partnerships the same way business partnerships are formed. Create a contract, and file it with the State. Take love and sex out of it. If 2 (or more) friends, siblings, whatever, want to run a household together, then do so. Then churches can define "Marriage" according to their doctrines.

Part of the reason for the culture wars is that government is too large. The State tells a business: "This couple is married so you must serve them this way".

[Merrill]

Freedom of Religion is not compulsion by either the State or the Church. The State should not maintain any 'values' other than punishing those that directly harm others. The State should not force people to follow a religion, nor block them from doing so.

As for Islam, if you read the Quran and the Hadiths, the 'radical' elements are the ones behaving as dictated by Mohammed. They haven't "hijacked the religion", they are trying to restore it to its roots.

Well ok then. I don't know much about Islam and even if I did this is probably the wrong thread to discuss it (that's better fit in the IDT), though I will state that that last sentence reminds me of the atheists that state that a fundamentalist/evangelical protestant interpretation of the Bible is the only correct way.

The difference is that Christianity as given by Christ and the Apostles does not advocate for obedience by force. Quite the opposite. To be Christian is to Love thy Neighbor, and persuade by example.

[Rosmana]

Well ok then. I don't know much about Islam and even if I did this is probably the wrong thread to discuss it (that's better fit in the IDT), though I will state that that last sentence reminds me of the atheists that state that a fundamentalist/evangelical protestant interpretation of the Bible is the only correct way.

The difference is that Christianity as given by Christ and the Apostles does not advocate for obedience by force. Quite the opposite. To be Christian is to Love thy Neighbor, and persuade by example.

This so much.

After all, our Lord is NOT a tyrant who rules through fear.

[Old Tyrannia]

Harking back to an earlier discussion in this thread on whether it is acceptable for Christians to rebel against lawful governments- I managed to find this post from the Anglican blog laudable Practice, which quotes at length a sermon delivered by Christopher Wordsworth, the then-future Bishop of Lincoln, at the Accession Day service on 20^th June 1841. The excerpt below effectively summarises my thoughts on the matter.

To deny due honour to the king, is to rob not him, but God. Therefore, let us not suppose that true loyalty is an act or habit of mere civil obedience, it is a religious duty. Let us not imagine, that it is a determination of the intellect, it is a Christian grace. Let us not conceive that it springs from earth, it descends from heaven... It is, then, on the grounds here stated, of their possessing the character of ministers and representatives of Almighty God, that kings are entitled to the allegiance of their subjects; and further, it is on this ground, that nothing can discharge their subjects from the duty of civil allegiance to them. Kings are responsible to Him whose officers and deputies they are, and not to man... The personal character of a ruler is not a question for the censorship of his subjects. His treatment of them, however harsh it may be, ought never to provoke them to injure themselves by casting off their loyalty to him. It is never safe to disobey; except when the injunction is in direct opposition to the command of God. The representative of God who orders any thing against the order of God, ceases to be God's representative: his claims, therefore, to obedience, in this particular respect, but not in others, cease. But even in this case, it is a sin to rebel. A Christian knows of no arms against kings but prayers. It would also be a sin to disobey the civil commands of such an authority.

[New Steuben]

I would say by trying to apply the christian definition of marriage for one

I would be thrilled if government got out of marriage all together. Let people create domestic partnerships the same way business partnerships are formed. Create a contract, and file it with the State. Take love and sex out of it. If 2 (or more) friends, siblings, whatever, want to run a household together, then do so. Then churches can define "Marriage" according to their doctrines.

Part of the reason for the culture wars is that government is too large. The State tells a business: "This couple is married so you must serve them this way".

Government should not be involved i agree

My problem when comes when christians and others try to claim a monopoly on what marriage is.

[Merrill]

Harking back to an earlier discussion in this thread on whether it is acceptable for Christians to rebel against lawful governments- I managed to find this post from the Anglican blog laudable Practice, which quotes at length a sermon delivered by Christopher Wordsworth, the then-future Bishop of Lincoln, at the Accession Day service on 20^th June 1841. The excerpt below effectively summarises my thoughts on the matter.

To deny due honour to the king, is to rob not him, but God. Therefore, let us not suppose that true loyalty is an act or habit of mere civil obedience, it is a religious duty. Let us not imagine, that it is a determination of the intellect, it is a Christian grace. Let us not conceive that it springs from earth, it descends from heaven... It is, then, on the grounds here stated, of their possessing the character of ministers and representatives of Almighty God, that kings are entitled to the allegiance of their subjects; and further, it is on this ground, that nothing can discharge their subjects from the duty of civil allegiance to them. Kings are responsible to Him whose officers and deputies they are, and not to man... The personal character of a ruler is not a question for the censorship of his subjects. His treatment of them, however harsh it may be, ought never to provoke them to injure themselves by casting off their loyalty to him. It is never safe to disobey; except when the injunction is in direct opposition to the command of God. The representative of God who orders any thing against the order of God, ceases to be God's representative: his claims, therefore, to obedience, in this particular respect, but not in others, cease. But even in this case, it is a sin to rebel. A Christian knows of no arms against kings but prayers. It would also be a sin to disobey the civil commands of such an authority.

My religion teaches that the American Revolution and Constitution were inspired by God:
"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

[Lower Nubia]

Do you all consider islam a abrahamic faith or a cult that latched onto abrahamic style.

I can't say I see a meaningful difference between the two. Regardless of how they started they worship the God of Abraham.

Christ is the God of Abraham, no?

[Salus Maior]

Harking back to an earlier discussion in this thread on whether it is acceptable for Christians to rebel against lawful governments- I managed to find this post from the Anglican blog laudable Practice, which quotes at length a sermon delivered by Christopher Wordsworth, the then-future Bishop of Lincoln, at the Accession Day service on 20^th June 1841. The excerpt below effectively summarises my thoughts on the matter.

To deny due honour to the king, is to rob not him, but God. Therefore, let us not suppose that true loyalty is an act or habit of mere civil obedience, it is a religious duty. Let us not imagine, that it is a determination of the intellect, it is a Christian grace. Let us not conceive that it springs from earth, it descends from heaven... It is, then, on the grounds here stated, of their possessing the character of ministers and representatives of Almighty God, that kings are entitled to the allegiance of their subjects; and further, it is on this ground, that nothing can discharge their subjects from the duty of civil allegiance to them. Kings are responsible to Him whose officers and deputies they are, and not to man... The personal character of a ruler is not a question for the censorship of his subjects. His treatment of them, however harsh it may be, ought never to provoke them to injure themselves by casting off their loyalty to him. It is never safe to disobey; except when the injunction is in direct opposition to the command of God. The representative of God who orders any thing against the order of God, ceases to be God's representative: his claims, therefore, to obedience, in this particular respect, but not in others, cease. But even in this case, it is a sin to rebel. A Christian knows of no arms against kings but prayers. It would also be a sin to disobey the civil commands of such an authority.

While I don't mean to disrespect Wordsworth, and by extension you yourself, Tyrannia, that is easy to say when the present is stable and the monarch is a decent sort.

I would wonder, however, how Wordsworth as an Anglican Bishop, thought of Charles II's dethroning. Whether or not the "Popish Plot" was entirely true (I haven't done a ton of reading in that era), Charles II was booted from the throne out of the fear that he would restore the Catholic Church in England. Do you think Wordsworth would have still held that line, or would he have made more of an exception?

Or perhaps as a more modern example, I wonder what he would have thought about Edward VIII and his pretty obviously pressured abdication. I think it's fairly clear that Edward VIII would have been a disaster for the monarchy and for Britain as a whole if he were monarch in WWII, so resisting him and pressuring him to abdicate and leave Britain I would argue was for the best.

I'm not really saying this as a "gotcha" or anything. Because as a Monarchist part of me does strongly believe that fighting the anointed monarch is wrong...But on the other hand there have been understandable situations where it was for the best that the monarch be removed. It's something I grapple with and I'm still trying to make sense of it.

[Punished UMN]

Harking back to an earlier discussion in this thread on whether it is acceptable for Christians to rebel against lawful governments- I managed to find this post from the Anglican blog laudable Practice, which quotes at length a sermon delivered by Christopher Wordsworth, the then-future Bishop of Lincoln, at the Accession Day service on 20^th June 1841. The excerpt below effectively summarises my thoughts on the matter.

My religion teaches that the American Revolution and Constitution were inspired by God:
"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

What is that quote from?