Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Auze]

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?

D&C 101.78-80

[Merrill]

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?

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
CONTAINING REVELATIONS GIVEN TO JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET
WITH SOME ADDITIONS BY HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH

[Auze]

What is that quote from?

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
CONTAINING REVELATIONS GIVEN TO JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET
WITH SOME ADDITIONS BY HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH

Dude, leave Caps lock off. There's no need to shout, and he was just asking.

[Punished UMN]

I mean, tbh I don't even consider the LDS to be Christian, so that doesn't really hold any bearing on me. Hobbes' Leviathan is more binding imo.

[Punished UMN]

I mean, tbh I don't even consider the LDS to be Christian, so that doesn't really hold any bearing on me. Hobbes' Leviathan is more binding imo.

I don't say that to be rude, btw, I just don't believe in mincing words.

[Auze]

I mean, tbh I don't even consider the LDS to be Christian, so that doesn't really hold any bearing on me. Hobbes' Leviathan is more binding imo.

I'd rather not start a debate on that when I have schoolwork to do (ironically, it's a reading analysis on some of the writings from the Protestant Reformation), so I'll just respectfully state that I disagree and that our beliefs are similar enough that they can be considered Christian, and leave it at that.

[Merrill]

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
CONTAINING REVELATIONS GIVEN TO JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET
WITH SOME ADDITIONS BY HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH

Dude, leave Caps lock off. There's no need to shout, and he was just asking.

Sorry, copied from the Title Page that way...

[Merrill]

I mean, tbh I don't even consider the LDS to be Christian, so that doesn't really hold any bearing on me. Hobbes' Leviathan is more binding imo.

I don't say that to be rude, btw, I just don't believe in mincing words.

We worship the Father in the name of the Son, as Jesus commanded. We follow the doctrine and authority given by Christ to his Apostles. How are we not Christian?

[Punished UMN]

I don't say that to be rude, btw, I just don't believe in mincing words.

We worship the Father in the name of the Son, as Jesus commanded. We follow the doctrine and authority given by Christ to his Apostles. How are we not Christian?

Rejection of the trinity, addition of a false prophet, henotheism, etc.

[New Steuben]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

[Salus Maior]

I don't say that to be rude, btw, I just don't believe in mincing words.

We worship the Father in the name of the Son, as Jesus commanded. We follow the doctrine and authority given by Christ to his Apostles. How are we not Christian?

That doesn't sound quite right.

Might be that you're missing the Holy Spirit there. We worship the One God in Three Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Lord Dominator]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

Quite a bit of these discussions are part and parcel on the teachings of Christ (and the Bible more generally), and disagreements on what those teachings precisely are.

[Punished UMN]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

Tbh, kinda, yeah. All of that "filler" is contained in scripture or has its place in historical development of the faith and serves a particular purpose. There's some stuff that is filler, but that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. But the arguments about this kind of stuff have actual bearing on how we practice our faith and what we believe.

[New Steuben]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

Quite a bit of these discussions are part and parcel on the teachings of Christ (and the Bible more generally), and disagreements on what those teachings precisely are.

it seems just...inflammatory when a christian would call another christian, not a christian, based on some petty disagreement in theology.

[Lower Nubia]

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.

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.

The obvious answer is a Monarch, or other form government, is only validly appointed only while it follows the will of God - the difficult bit is knowing the will of God. God has previously used people to remove monarchies and devolve states as per Israel removing the ancient Canaanite petty kingdoms - it couldn’t be said that God was against himself in that he both appointed and maintained those kingdoms and then simultaneously tore them down. In that regard, deposing a state for Tyranny is a good thing. The more difficult questions are, how much tyranny is enough to act, what is the most appropriate means of removing a tyrant, when does deposing a tyrant in and of itself become tyranny?

The simple means of acting to depose a tyrant is fine, the actual means and conclusion are the difficult area to determine.

My feeling is; deposing a leader through a defensive civil war, for self determination is fine. Deposing a leader who is not a tyrant, through a defensive civil war, for self determination is wrong. What is defensive? Where a break-a-way state only attacks within the territory it has broken from, anything else beyond that area is threatening that which did not break away and itself becomes tyranny.

Civil wars for self determination are pretty normal and even God sanctioned in the Old Testament.

[Punished UMN]

Quite a bit of these discussions are part and parcel on the teachings of Christ (and the Bible more generally), and disagreements on what those teachings precisely are.

it seems just...inflammatory when a christian would call another christian, not a christian, based on some petty disagreement in theology.

The trinity is literally the most important part of our faith.

[Lower Nubia]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

As if Pagan’s arn’t so petty in their vast opinions on worship or to whom.

[New Steuben]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

As if Pagan’s arn’t so petty in their vast opinions on worship or to whom.

not really, Pagans don't have an extremely centralized structure that dictates so harshly, the downside is that organization does become more difficult.

[Salus Maior]

The obvious answer is a Monarch, or other form government, is only validly appointed only while it follows the will of God - the difficult bit is knowing the will of God.

The problem with that statement is that the Will of God can't be undone by anything. Even a bad monarch is within the Will of God.

[Salus Maior]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

Well, who is Christ and what are His teachings?

Even at that point there's about a billion disagreements which are foundational to peoples' beliefs.

It's never that simple, my guy.

[Auze]

... aaand it took that long for a debate to be launched. I'll see if I can make some responses (against my better judgement) and clarifications later.

[New Steuben]

these are the petty arguments i was referring to between Christians

the only thing that should matter for a christian is christ and his teachings, everything else is just filler, or am I just wrong?

Well, who is Christ and what are His teachings?

Even at that point there's about a billion disagreements which are foundational to peoples' beliefs.

It's never that simple, my guy.

I know it's not that simple, meh, oh well.

[Lower Nubia]

The obvious answer is a Monarch, or other form government, is only validly appointed only while it follows the will of God - the difficult bit is knowing the will of God.

The problem with that statement is that the Will of God can't be undone by anything. Even a bad monarch is within the Will of God.

That begs the question. Nothing can happen without the will of God. Yet we know of monarchs being deposed.

[Lower Nubia]

As if Pagan’s arn’t so petty in their vast opinions on worship or to whom.

not really, Pagans don't have an extremely centralized structure that dictates so harshly, the downside is that organization does become more difficult.

Exactly... it’s decentralised to accommodate the vast variety of methods. A variety of methods that exist because people barely agree on anything.

[New Steuben]

not really, Pagans don't have an extremely centralized structure that dictates so harshly, the downside is that organization does become more difficult.

Exactly... it’s decentralised to accommodate the vast variety of methods. A variety of methods that exist because people barely agree on anything.

sure, but that decentralized structure also allows more personal freedom of worship, instead of people pointing at each other and saying "No that's NOT what they meant!"