Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Turelisa-]

'X is Y 'isn't really a counterargument, is it? The least you could do is quote a catechism or two.

Pearls before swine comes to mind. Anyone who thinks killing a person is somehow for their own good, really doesn't seem capable of embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think it more likely you are unable to rationalise your emotive, biased opposition to anti-Catholic theology.

[Tarsonis]

mmm, no. None of that is true, especially not your perverted interpretation of 1 Corinthian 5 which calls for excommunication of the faithless to leave them for God's judgment. Excommunication is social expulsion, not separating them from life.

I haven't said the faithless should be executed. The faithless must be excommunicated.

Bullshit, you said "The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty" and then went on a nice rant about why putting these people to death is for their own benefit. It's right there. We can read it over and over again.

Worse than that your crime is even more insidious by quoting old testament law that has been superceded by Christ's teaching.

You might not have been banking on me having a decent knowledge of scripture, but you were clearly invoking Deuteronomy 17, which ordained death penalty for those who have violated the law, provided there are enough witnesses of the violation. This law specifically superceded by Christ when he told the mob that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." specifically noting that the witnesses had all left, therefore Christ i.e God, does not condemn her.

1st Corinthians 5:13, reiterates the need to expell evil from among us, but through social ostracization, not violence.

[Tarsonis]

Pearls before swine comes to mind. Anyone who thinks killing a person is somehow for their own good, really doesn't seem capable of embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think it more likely you are unable to rationalise your emotive, biased opposition to anti-Catholic theology.

I can rationalize it just fine, but I'm loathe to debate theology with someone who twists scripture worse than the devil himself

[Turelisa-]

I am not saying that I don't have significant theological objections to Calvinism myself, but taking Turelisa as a standard example of Calvinism is a bit like taking Leonard Feeney as the standard by which you judge Catholic theology in general. The position Turelisa is taking represents a particularly strict and unforgiving interpretation of Reformed theology and would not necessarily meet with the approval of most self-described Reformed Christians. Additionally, I think condemning a large swathe of fellow Christians as "satanic" is uncalled for. It's not as if Calvinists are sacrificing infants to Moloch.

Correct. I'm a Reformed Christian who belongs to the fringe Christian Reconstructionism movement. And yes, for a Christian to denounce another Christian as 'satanic' is unnecessary, bigoted and not very Christian.

[Punished UMN]

I am not saying that I don't have significant theological objections to Calvinism myself, but taking Turelisa as a standard example of Calvinism is a bit like taking Leonard Feeney as the standard by which you judge Catholic theology in general. The position Turelisa is taking represents a particularly strict and unforgiving interpretation of Reformed theology and would not necessarily meet with the approval of most self-described Reformed Christians. Additionally, I think condemning a large swathe of fellow Christians as "satanic" is uncalled for. It's not as if Calvinists are sacrificing infants to Moloch.

Correct. I'm a Reformed Christian who belongs to the fringe Christian Reconstructionism movement. And yes, for a Christian to denounce another Christian as 'satanic' is unnecessary, bigoted and not very Christian.

I didn't say you were satanic, I said your beliefs are satanic. Big difference.

[Tarsonis]

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

Based on his depiction in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, Satan would appear to agree.

Before time was, by some degree which I could never make out, I was predestined 'to deny' and yet I am genuinely good-hearted and not at all inclined to negation. 'No, you must go and deny, without denial there's no criticism and what would a journal be without a column of criticism?' Without criticism it would be nothing but one 'hosannah.' But nothing but hosannah is not enough for life, the hosannah must be tried in the crucible of doubt and so on... Without suffering, what would be be the pleasure of [life]? It would be transformed into an endless church service; it would be holy, but tedious.

Interestingly enough, Dostoevsky's Devil also seemed to believe that he would be redeemed in the end:

I know that at the end of all things I shall be reconciled. I, too, shall walk my quadrillion [kilometres] and learn the secret. But till that happens I am sulking and fulfil my destiny though it's against the grain- that is, to ruin thousands for the sake of saving one.

Of course, neither of theses quotes can be taken at face value as reflecting Dostoevsky's own opinions- firstly, the speaker is the Devil himself, i.e. the Prince of Lies. Secondly, it may not even be the Devil but simply a manifestation of Ivan Karamazov's imagination; it depends on the interpretation of the reader. There's a third possibility raised by Ivan, too- that it might a devil, but not the Devil. Whatever the case, I found it interesting that Esheaun Stroakuss' expressed thoughts echo those of Dostoevsky's version of Satan. Are you secretly the Devil, Esheaun?

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

I think you should be careful with this line of reasoning. You are essentially making the "problem of evil" argument but directed against the Devil rather than God, which is problematic because ultimately God permits everything that happens, including the actions of the Devil. If the Fall was such an unmitigated catastrophe, why would God permit it to happen? You can't say that He didn't foresee it, or that He couldn't have prevented it; not without abandoning the classical understanding of God as being both omnipotent and omniscient. The problem of evil is a serious philosophical objection to theism, but we shouldn't be tempted to counter it by passing blame for all the world's ills onto the Devil, because unless you place limits on God's power and wisdom then the buck, as it were, still stops with Him. I think we should consider the position that suffering may serve a greater purpose. Dostoevsky's Devil has a point- if it were all one "hosannah," what would be the point of everything? Is the taste of Heaven not sweeter for all our earthly sufferings?

This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.

I am not saying that I don't have significant theological objections to Calvinism myself, but taking Turelisa as a standard example of Calvinism is a bit like taking Leonard Feeney as the standard by which you judge Catholic theology in general. The position Turelisa is taking represents a particularly strict and unforgiving interpretation of Reformed theology and would not necessarily meet with the approval of most self-described Reformed Christians. Additionally, I think condemning a large swathe of fellow Christians as "satanic" is uncalled for. It's not as if Calvinists are sacrificing infants to Moloch.

Thats fair, but of all the theological systems to be birthed by the Reformation, Calvin's was the most detestable. And those who follow it are basically being Pied Piper'ed into damnation.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I found it interesting that Esheaun Stroakuss' expressed thoughts echo those of Dostoevsky's version of Satan. Are you secretly the Devil, Esheaun?

I think the Devil is in all of us. Whatever that may be.

[Turelisa-]

I haven't said the faithless should be executed. The faithless must be excommunicated.

Bullshit, you said "The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty" and then went on a nice rant about why putting these people to death is for their own benefit. It's right there. We can read it over and over again..

Woman, I suggest you read it over and over again if that what it takes to see what I really wrote -

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

The fact is you didn't read it properly in the first place, and, having realised your mistake after you denounced me, refuse to admit it. You're frustrated, and aggression is the only defence which you have left. That's why you're getting angry and using profanity, and stonewalling, which isn't very Christian.

[Tarsonis]

Bullshit, you said "The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty" and then went on a nice rant about why putting these people to death is for their own benefit. It's right there. We can read it over and over again..

Woman, I suggest you read it over and over again if that what it takes to see what I really wrote -

Never minding the fact that I'm a man, assumung I'm a woman because I call your bullshit out, shows your sexism as well.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

The fact is you didn't read it properly in the first place, and, having realised your mistake after you denounced me, refuse to admit it.

I didn't misread. What you fail to to grasp is that qualifier doesn't change the meaning. You specifically quoted Deuteronomy 17, when you said "Put away evil from among you." Quotes have a context and meaning.

That's why you're getting angry and using profanity, which isn't very Christian.

1. I'm not angry. I'm revolted, big difference.
2. Profanity isn't real.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Woman, I suggest you read it over and over again if that what it takes to see what I really wrote -

What century do you think this is?

[Turelisa-]

I might have sworn that in a previous interaction you implied you were a woman. My mistake. I was wrong.
Again, you are wrong to think I presume you were a woman just because....what? Who is calling whom out here for 'bull####?' I've had to disabuse you twice, now, yet still you refuse to acknowledge or admit your glaring misnotions, instead making desperate recourse to aggressive disingenuousness. Not very adult. Not very clever. Not very Christian.

[
I didn't misread. What you fail to to grasp is that qualifier doesn't change the meaning. You specifically quoted Deuteronomy 17, when you said "Put away evil from among you." Quotes have a context and meaning.

That's why you're getting angry and using profanity, which isn't very Christian.

1. I'm not angry. I'm revolted, big difference.
2. Profanity isn't real.

You did misread, old bean. Stop refusing to admit you're wrong. It's making you appear absolutely pathetic.


Profanity isn't real? What on earth is it, then? I should like to know your opinion. Are you prepared to swallow your revulsion and pride, and argue with a heretic?

[United Hemand Insia]

I have a question. Would the song "Hallelujah" be considered as a Christian song as it talks about David and Solomon?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Correct. I'm a Reformed Christian who belongs to the fringe Christian Reconstructionism movement. And yes, for a Christian to denounce another Christian as 'satanic' is unnecessary, bigoted and not very Christian.

I didn't say you were satanic, I said your beliefs are satanic. Big difference.

We have these fringe Calvinists here in America and they mix those terrible positions with ultracapitalism to make it even worse. Absolutely disgusting is what their positions are.

[Punished UMN]

I might have sworn that in a previous interaction you implied you were a woman. My mistake. I was wrong.
Again, you are wrong to think I presume you were a woman just because....what? Who is calling whom out here for 'bull####?' I've had to disabuse you twice, now, yet still you refuse to acknowledge or admit your glaring misnotions, instead making desperate recourse to aggressive disingenuousness. Not very adult. Not very clever. Not very Christian.

[
I didn't misread. What you fail to to grasp is that qualifier doesn't change the meaning. You specifically quoted Deuteronomy 17, when you said "Put away evil from among you." Quotes have a context and meaning.




1. I'm not angry. I'm revolted, big difference.
2. Profanity isn't real.

You did misread, old bean. Stop refusing to admit you're wrong. It's making you appear absolutely pathetic.


Profanity isn't real? What on earth is it, then? I should like to know your opinion. Are you prepared to swallow your revulsion and pride, and argue with a heretic?

Nobody talks like this, it's larping. Speaking in an antiquated way for the purpose of making yourself look old-fashioned is just a weird way of hiding that your movement and its theological opinions are pretty young.

Profanity is socially constructed, what is considered profane language is dependent on the user and audience.

[Tarsonis]

I have a question. Would the song "Hallelujah" be considered as a Christian song as it talks about David and Solomon?

Yes.

[Punished UMN]

Also, you said that the "criminally insane" should be put to death, what does that even mean? There's no such thing as being criminally insane, because being insane is not a crime. If someone is insane, they are, by definition, not criminally liable for their actions while insane. What you're basically implying is that being insane is itself a crime worthy of the death penalty.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Also, you said that the "criminally insane" should be put to death, what does that even mean? There's no such thing as being criminally insane, because being insane is not a crime. If someone is insane, they are, by definition, not criminally liable for their actions while insane. What you're basically implying is that being insane is itself a crime worthy of the death penalty.

Reconstrutionists tend to want a bunch of people put to death. People who don't support their worldview would be executed and so would children who disobey or strike their parents.

[Sundiata]

Wow...

[Salus Maior]

Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.

Well no, Satan didn't actually do that. We did it to ourselves.

In Genesis, Satan tempts Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which then Eve does and then brings sin upon herself and then Adam joins in too because he's a simp I guess.

Humor aside, of course, I think the meaning behind Genesis is that humanity brought sin upon themselves and so distanced themselves from God in the act, bringing evil into the world. Sure, Satan tempted them to do it, but Adam and Eve chose to do it.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.

At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And I thought *I* was a heretic, holy fuck. This is so heretical even the Bogomils were offended - and they're dead!

[Tarsonis]

I might have sworn that in a previous interaction you implied you were a woman. My mistake. I was wrong.

That's a politicians defense. "I might have sworn that I might have, on this one occasion, maybe misunderstood something that was said to me, and it's possible this misunderstanding may have grown and manifested into me having an incorrect perception. It's not that I fell back on personal biases and accidentally said the quiet part out loud. "

Again, you are wrong to think I presume you were a woman just because....what? Who is calling whom out here for 'bull####?'

Because this is where you said the quiet part out loud.

I've had to disabuse you twice, now, yet still you refuse to acknowledge or admit your glaring misnotions, instead making desperate recourse to aggressive disingenuousness.

That would be because your disabuse is disingenuous, and in truth, I read your post very closely I'll explain:

"The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts."

Now, you're claiming that you clearly didn't mean all the faithless, just Muderers, Adulterers, people who have sex with family members, people who have sex with children, the criminally insane, and well, we all know "Certain unnatural sexual acts" is code for Gays. Because those are all clearly, equally offensive and equally worthy of death. (Nevermind, that scripture doesn't say that (quite the opposite really) and that you're trying to distill the entirety of the Law into a single idiom so devoid of context and meaning that it becomes completely wrong.)

You then proceed to give a somewhat cogent reasoning, at least cogent in that it echoes traditional justifications for capital punishment:

People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates. They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence.

Lex Taliones and all that. Though let it not go unnoticed that you're saying Gays need to be put to death to save them from corrupting society.

But then you go quite into the realm of vaudevillian villain, (I assume you're a fan of Vaudeville given your use of an outdated syntax in an attempt to make yourself sound smarter than you actually are.):

"An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity"

Hell replace "reprobate criminal" with "Jew" and you could headline Nuremberg, 1934.

But then you give the game away:

"If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil."

But of course. They do these things because humans are naturally evil, and only the Holy Spirit, keeps them from going full Reaver. Thus, anyone who commits these crimes means they have no connection to the Holy Spirit. And by your reasoning, they must be killed to protect society from their corrupting influence, but also "future victims of their depravity." Because without the Holy Spirit they really just can't help themselves.

So in effect, you've argued for the termination of the faithless. Because by Calvin's own definition, the Faithless are faithless specifically because they don't have the Holy Spirit working in them, they weren't elect. And since without the Holy Spirit, they really can't help themselves from yielding to these depravities, then it's only a matter of time before they do. Thus, in order to protect society all the faithless should be killed, otherwise you're "guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity."

And if that weren't vile enough, you have the gall to put God's decree on it.

Not very adult. Not very clever. Not very Christian.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

You did misread, old bean. Stop refusing to admit you're wrong. It's making you appear absolutely pathetic.

But if I did that then we'd both be liars.

Profanity isn't real? What on earth is it, then? I should like to know your opinion. Are you prepared to swallow your revulsion and pride, and argue with a heretic?

I feel UMN has already satisfactorily answered this.

[United Hemand Insia]

I have a question. Would the song "Hallelujah" be considered as a Christian song as it talks about David and Solomon?

Yes.

Then that means it is my favorite Christian song. This means that Google is stupid. They put it as folk music.

[Tarsonis]

Yes.

Then that means it is my favorite Christian song. This means that Google is stupid. They put it as folk music.

Those terms aren't mutually exclusive.

[United Hemand Insia]

Then that means it is my favorite Christian song. This means that Google is stupid. They put it as folk music.

Those terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Genius has it listed as power pop and rock. The world is weird and confusing.

[The Blaatschapen]

Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.

At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

What are these unnatural sexual acts?