Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Tarsonis]

Muslims really have no care for Jerusalem anymore, beyond its political potency in the Israel/Palestine debate. Mecca and Medina are far more relevant than Jerusalem.

That's not really true, Tarsonis.

Long before the post-WWII situation in what's now Israel and Palestine, Jerusalem had special significance for Muslims, going back to the very beginnings of Islam.

It would be fair to note that it's less significant than Mecca or Medina, but the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is the third-holiest site in Islam - following only the Ka'bah (Mecca) and Prophet's Mosque (Medina). Jerusalem marks the site of the Prophet's Night Journey; in Islamic tradition, Muhammed met all of the predecessor prophets at different stages of that journey, ascended to Heaven, and received the injunction directly from God (after a bit of back and forth negotiation involving Moses) that Muslims should pray five times a day. Even before the Night Journey, Jerusalem was considered so important that it marked the first direction of prayer for the first Muslims, before Muhammed changed the direction towards Mecca.

I'm not sure we can offer a direct equivalent in Christianity; but I wouldn't be so casually dismissive of the city's spiritual and theological significance to Islam.

I didn't mean to imply that it was never important, or that there aren't holy sites in Jerusalem. Rather that in the modern state of affairs, the issue of controlling Jerusalem has less to do with its religious significance and more to do with the political issue. Compared to say Mecca where non-muslims aren't even allowed to enter (supposedly). So long as the al-Aqsa Mosque stays open, must of the Muslim world seems content with the status quo.

[Kowani]

That's not really true, Tarsonis.

Long before the post-WWII situation in what's now Israel and Palestine, Jerusalem had special significance for Muslims, going back to the very beginnings of Islam.

It would be fair to note that it's less significant than Mecca or Medina, but the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is the third-holiest site in Islam - following only the Ka'bah (Mecca) and Prophet's Mosque (Medina). Jerusalem marks the site of the Prophet's Night Journey; in Islamic tradition, Muhammed met all of the predecessor prophets at different stages of that journey, ascended to Heaven, and received the injunction directly from God (after a bit of back and forth negotiation involving Moses) that Muslims should pray five times a day. Even before the Night Journey, Jerusalem was considered so important that it marked the first direction of prayer for the first Muslims, before Muhammed changed the direction towards Mecca.

I'm not sure we can offer a direct equivalent in Christianity; but I wouldn't be so casually dismissive of the city's spiritual and theological significance to Islam.

I didn't mean to imply that it was never important, or that there aren't holy sites in Jerusalem. Rather that in the modern state of affairs, the issue of controlling Jerusalem has less to do with its religious significance and more to do with the political issue. Compared to say Medina where non-muslims aren't even allowed to enter (supposedly). So long as the al-Aqsa Mosque stays open, must of the Muslim world seems content with the status quo.

I thought it was Mecca that was closed to non Muslims?

[Lower Nubia]

God did not invent abortion. As for adding to or removing books of the bible, that is a grave offense.
The Bible is fine, it's our interpretation that continually requires further examination.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
-Revelation 22:18

As far as I know, the Bible should be written by several prophets.The Koran is from the Old Testament.Have you read the Koran? The contents of these two books are so similar.Since Muhammad was the prophet revealed by Gabriel,I think Islam is also a branch of Christianity. And Judaism. Your holy cities are all in one place.I mean ,Jerusalem.

I... I don't know how to unpack this...

[Lower Nubia]

It gets you everyone from Martin Luther to Joseph Smith to Jim Bakker to Jim Jones. (Note: I'm not saying they're all equivalent).

I think that one of the many problems with most Protestant denominations is their abandonment of Christian tradition, especially the Eucharist.

*cough* Reformed Tradition *cough*

[Hakons]

Except this is covered by the Ten Commandments, which do still apply. As well as anything that was originally in the OT that was then repeated in the NT. Every that wasn't, however, is not still applicable.

Unless you're trying to tell me we should still be sacrificing lambs in the name of God and abstaining from pork.

See, this is a widely different argument than what you were saying before. I think talking it through you have found that we can't throw out the Old Testament, and that many parts of the Old Testament are still important and applicable for Christianity. This is why I said it's a popular myth among some Christians that the OT doesn't matter, because in this brief discussion you've already found ways where the OT does in fact hold truth. The OT is full of beautiful, poetic, and meaningful stories that give us guidance for life and tell of the grand events that God planned for His people. These stories and books are sacred scripture, stories that are blessed and given to us by God, so we should cherish them.

[Tarsonis]

I didn't mean to imply that it was never important, or that there aren't holy sites in Jerusalem. Rather that in the modern state of affairs, the issue of controlling Jerusalem has less to do with its religious significance and more to do with the political issue. Compared to say Medina where non-muslims aren't even allowed to enter (supposedly). So long as the al-Aqsa Mosque stays open, must of the Muslim world seems content with the status quo.

I thought it was Mecca that was closed to non Muslims?

Derp. Yeah it is, my brain farted.

[Hakons]

Some of the Old Testament can be a drag to read. The books are long, often repetitive, and are difficult to understand due to their focus on ancient cultures. Still, when you read in the OT you stumble on amazing passages that you might not have known before.

I'm reading Job, and it's pretty repetitive and it references a lot of things that I don't understand much, but here's a wonderful message from the first chapter:

20 Then Job rose up, and rent his garments, and having shaven his head fell down upon the ground and worshipped,

21 And said: Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.

---

In goods times or in despair, the Christian faith is that of devotion to and praise of the Lord.

[Lower Nubia]

Except this is covered by the Ten Commandments, which do still apply. As well as anything that was originally in the OT that was then repeated in the NT. Every that wasn't, however, is not still applicable.

Unless you're trying to tell me we should still be sacrificing lambs in the name of God and abstaining from pork.

The 10 commandments only apply if you're part of the Sinaitic covenant. Are Christians, or anyone else for that matter, a signature?

[The Archregimancy]

I thought it was Mecca that was closed to non Muslims?

Derp. Yeah it is, my brain farted.

Actually, you were technically right the first time - Medina is closed to non-Muslims. So the statement 'Compared to say Medina where non-muslims aren't even allowed to enter' was correct, even if it excluded Mecca. Both cities are closed.

Unlike Mecca, which is totally closed, non-Muslims are allowed into the outskirts of Medina, but the central historic zone and old city remain accessible to Muslims only.

[Nakena]

Derp. Yeah it is, my brain farted.

Actually, you were technically right the first time - Medina is closed to non-Muslims. So the statement 'Compared to say Medina where non-muslims aren't even allowed to enter' was correct, even if it excluded Mecca. Both cities are closed.

Unlike Mecca, which is totally closed, non-Muslims are allowed into the outskirts of Medina, but the central historic zone and old city remain accessible to Muslims only.

Has this always been the case or is this something specifically instituted since Saudi-Arabia took over?

[Diopolis]

Except this is covered by the Ten Commandments, which do still apply. As well as anything that was originally in the OT that was then repeated in the NT. Every that wasn't, however, is not still applicable.

Unless you're trying to tell me we should still be sacrificing lambs in the name of God and abstaining from pork.

The 10 commandments only apply if you're part of the Sinaitic covenant. Are Christians, or anyone else for that matter, a signature?

Christian doctrine usually understands the law given in the pentateuch to be divided into three parts- the moral law, the judicial law, and the ceremonial law. The moral law still applies, the judicial law never applied outside of ancient Israel, and the ceremonial law no longer applies and would be sinful to follow today. The ten commandments are considered part of the moral law.

[The Archregimancy]

Actually, you were technically right the first time - Medina is closed to non-Muslims. So the statement 'Compared to say Medina where non-muslims aren't even allowed to enter' was correct, even if it excluded Mecca. Both cities are closed.

Unlike Mecca, which is totally closed, non-Muslims are allowed into the outskirts of Medina, but the central historic zone and old city remain accessible to Muslims only.

Has this always been the case or is this something specifically instituted since Saudi-Arabia took over?

The prohibition on non-Muslims pre-dates any of the three Saudi states.

[Nakena]

You can't dismiss the OT and just hold on to the NT.

Ill spare you my own take but Marconites did that in the past and the Catharites condemned the OT god as evil demiurge. So those ideas aren't exactly unique or new. They came up early and reappeared since then a few times and had enough theological sway to inspire greater heresies/splits from orthodoxy, by people who genuinely believed this stuff.

[Lower Nubia]

The 10 commandments only apply if you're part of the Sinaitic covenant. Are Christians, or anyone else for that matter, a signature?

Christian doctrine usually understands the law given in the pentateuch to be divided into three parts- the moral law, the judicial law, and the ceremonial law. The moral law still applies, the judicial law never applied outside of ancient Israel, and the ceremonial law no longer applies and would be sinful to follow today. The ten commandments are considered part of the moral law.

I'm aware of the distinction, yet as a legal requirement, we are not bound, but as a Christian requirement, we are.

[Tarsonis]

You can't dismiss the OT and just hold on to the NT.

Ill spare you my own take but Marconites did that in the past and the Catharites condemned the OT god as evil demiurge. So those ideas aren't exactly unique or new. They came up early and reappeared since then a few times and had enough theological sway to inspire greater heresies/splits from orthodoxy, by people who genuinely believed this stuff.

And they were very wrong. Both the Marcionites and Cathars were gnostics who believed in two Gods, the Demiurge (antagonistic God) and the Monad (benevolent God.) The believed the OT God was the Demiurge and the NT Father Christ spoke of was the not the God of Isreal, but the Monad.

Not only is such thinking is antithetical to Christianity, it doesn't even make sense.

[Luminesa]

Some of the Old Testament can be a drag to read. The books are long, often repetitive, and are difficult to understand due to their focus on ancient cultures. Still, when you read in the OT you stumble on amazing passages that you might not have known before.

I'm reading Job, and it's pretty repetitive and it references a lot of things that I don't understand much, but here's a wonderful message from the first chapter:

20 Then Job rose up, and rent his garments, and having shaven his head fell down upon the ground and worshipped,

21 And said: Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.

---

In goods times or in despair, the Christian faith is that of devotion to and praise of the Lord.

I did actually try to read Leviticus while I was sitting in Eucharistic Adoration, and I almost fell asleep.

Song of Songs is still one of the best books of the Bible, though. Change my mind, you can't.

[Tarsonis]

Derp. Yeah it is, my brain farted.

Actually, you were technically right the first time - Medina is closed to non-Muslims. So the statement 'Compared to say Medina where non-muslims aren't even allowed to enter' was correct, even if it excluded Mecca. Both cities are closed.

Unlike Mecca, which is totally closed, non-Muslims are allowed into the outskirts of Medina, but the central historic zone and old city remain accessible to Muslims only.

Learned something new today.

[Tarsonis]

Some of the Old Testament can be a drag to read. The books are long, often repetitive, and are difficult to understand due to their focus on ancient cultures. Still, when you read in the OT you stumble on amazing passages that you might not have known before.

I'm reading Job, and it's pretty repetitive and it references a lot of things that I don't understand much, but here's a wonderful message from the first chapter:

20 Then Job rose up, and rent his garments, and having shaven his head fell down upon the ground and worshipped,

21 And said: Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.

---

In goods times or in despair, the Christian faith is that of devotion to and praise of the Lord.

I did actually try to read Leviticus while I was sitting in Eucharistic Adoration, and I almost fell asleep.

Song of Songs is still one of the best books of the Bible, though. Change my mind, you can't.

I like ecclesiastes

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Anyway, I think the real issue here is the ambiguous words choices you're making. In a subject as complex as theology, you must be specific in regards to what you're talking about.

I assumed it was pretty obvious what I was talking about and that it didn't need clarification.

You better throw out your bible whole sale then, because it was that same Church that codified what constituted the Bible in the first place. Further that's a bit of a cherry picked accusation. Every Christian denomination has blood on its hands over the preservation of doctrine. They've even fought wars over it.

Didn't say they don't. There's a reason I don't prescribe to any specific church's teachings. Nice whataboutism tho.

Catholic clergy, maybe. But I stopped trusting the Catholic Church as an authority on the Word of Christ when they started burning people alive for "heresy".

The charge was correct but the punishment was excessive. It is not a deciding factor on whether or not something is true.

Whether the charge was correct or not is dependent on a case-by-case basis. Or do I need to remind you of the fate of the Knights Templar?

At any rate, I can point to a number of incidents in the history of the Catholic church that puts doubts into it's legitimacy. The relative success of the Protestant Reformation, the Fourth Crusade, the Vatican Banking Scandal, the current scandals involving the church protecting pedophilic rapists, the Borgias, the aforementioned Templars, the fact there was at one point three popes, the Cadaver Synod, etc.

[Lower Nubia]

Anyway, I think the real issue here is the ambiguous words choices you're making. In a subject as complex as theology, you must be specific in regards to what you're talking about.

I assumed it was pretty obvious what I was talking about and that it didn't need clarification.

You better throw out your bible whole sale then, because it was that same Church that codified what constituted the Bible in the first place. Further that's a bit of a cherry picked accusation. Every Christian denomination has blood on its hands over the preservation of doctrine. They've even fought wars over it.

Didn't say they don't. There's a reason I don't prescribe to any specific church's teachings. Nice whataboutism tho.

The charge was correct but the punishment was excessive. It is not a deciding factor on whether or not something is true.

Whether the charge was correct or not is dependent on a case-by-case basis. Or do I need to remind you of the fate of the Knights Templar?

At any rate, I can point to a number of incidents in the history of the Catholic church that puts doubts into it's legitimacy. The relative success of the Protestant Reformation, the Fourth Crusade, the Vatican Banking Scandal, the current scandals involving the church protecting pedophilic rapists, the Borgias, the aforementioned Templars, the fact there was at one point three popes, the Cadaver Synod, etc.

As an Anglican, the Protestant Church's have their equivalent scandals.

[Camelone]

Anyway, I think the real issue here is the ambiguous words choices you're making. In a subject as complex as theology, you must be specific in regards to what you're talking about.

I assumed it was pretty obvious what I was talking about and that it didn't need clarification.

You better throw out your bible whole sale then, because it was that same Church that codified what constituted the Bible in the first place. Further that's a bit of a cherry picked accusation. Every Christian denomination has blood on its hands over the preservation of doctrine. They've even fought wars over it.

Didn't say they don't. There's a reason I don't prescribe to any specific church's teachings. Nice whataboutism tho.

The charge was correct but the punishment was excessive. It is not a deciding factor on whether or not something is true.

Whether the charge was correct or not is dependent on a case-by-case basis. Or do I need to remind you of the fate of the Knights Templar?

At any rate, I can point to a number of incidents in the history of the Catholic church that puts doubts into it's legitimacy. The relative success of the Protestant Reformation, the Fourth Crusade, the Vatican Banking Scandal, the current scandals involving the church protecting pedophilic rapists, the Borgias, the aforementioned Templars, the fact there was at one point three popes, the Cadaver Synod, etc.

With something like theology clarity is needed to make sure everyone is on the same page, think about how the legal world operates for a good comparison, in regards to communication that is.

Alright then why do you accept the authority of the Bible if the Bible was codified by these men, also do you accept the Catholic canon or the Protestant canon and what makes one more true than the other? There was structure and order, no Christian was left in total isolation with even the hermits still interacting with other believers from time to time. Who states what doctrine is correct or not?

For your final point lets use a more contemporary example. Say that there is some community church and it is discovered that one of the elders of the church is embezzling money, or is living a sinful life, or accidentally killed someone would that scandal destroy the credibility of the church regardless of their teachings or doctrines?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I assumed it was pretty obvious what I was talking about and that it didn't need clarification.



Didn't say they don't. There's a reason I don't prescribe to any specific church's teachings. Nice whataboutism tho.



Whether the charge was correct or not is dependent on a case-by-case basis. Or do I need to remind you of the fate of the Knights Templar?

At any rate, I can point to a number of incidents in the history of the Catholic church that puts doubts into it's legitimacy. The relative success of the Protestant Reformation, the Fourth Crusade, the Vatican Banking Scandal, the current scandals involving the church protecting pedophilic rapists, the Borgias, the aforementioned Templars, the fact there was at one point three popes, the Cadaver Synod, etc.

As an Anglican, the Protestant Church's have their equivalent scandals.

See my response to virtually the same thing Tarsonis said in the very post you quoted.

I assumed it was pretty obvious what I was talking about and that it didn't need clarification.



Didn't say they don't. There's a reason I don't prescribe to any specific church's teachings. Nice whataboutism tho.



Whether the charge was correct or not is dependent on a case-by-case basis. Or do I need to remind you of the fate of the Knights Templar?

At any rate, I can point to a number of incidents in the history of the Catholic church that puts doubts into it's legitimacy. The relative success of the Protestant Reformation, the Fourth Crusade, the Vatican Banking Scandal, the current scandals involving the church protecting pedophilic rapists, the Borgias, the aforementioned Templars, the fact there was at one point three popes, the Cadaver Synod, etc.

With something like theology clarity is needed to make sure everyone is on the same page, think about how the legal world operates for a good comparison, in regards to communication that is.

Alright then why do you accept the authority of the Bible if the Bible was codified by these men, also do you accept the Catholic canon or the Protestant canon and what makes one more true than the other? There was structure and order, no Christian was left in total isolation with even the hermits still interacting with other believers from time to time. Who states what doctrine is correct or not?

For your final point lets use a more contemporary example. Say that there is some community church and it is discovered that one of the elders of the church is embezzling money, or is living a sinful life, or accidentally killed someone would that scandal destroy the credibility of the church regardless of their teachings or doctrines?

My spiritual beliefs, much like my political beliefs, come from what I personally believe is right. For the most part this does fit within generic Christian doctrine. There are, however, some views I contest that might have had me branded a heretic back in ye olde times. Fortunately in this more civilized and enlightened age I can express these views without fear of being burnt at the stake.

I do not accept any church, any text, nor any individual as infallible. Christ alone was perfect; and Christ alone is infallible. I respect the wisdom of the Popes in Rome and the Apostles and the Saints and in general any clergyman, the various churches that follow the Word of God as spoken through Jesus Christ, and the Bible itself of course. But I hold none of them sacred. Men of God have faltered and failed, words in the Bible have been forged and fabricated, and churches have committed the very sins they preach against.

My faith in God is blind; my faith in Man - be it a Man of God or otherwise - is not. I believe what I feel in my heart and soul is true. Sometimes that is what others have said, sometimes it is what they have not said.

[Lower Nubia]

As an Anglican, the Protestant Church's have their equivalent scandals.

See my response to virtually the same thing Tarsonis said in the very post you quoted.

My point is that success is very arbitrary, by your definition, evil is won as the world is successfully evil. Yet we know evil is already crushed and will be further erased from time.

Catholicism failures as a reason to dismiss Catholicism is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.

Eventually, even your non-conformism is easily branded by its mistakes, do you dismiss it for this? I would not. I would dismiss it on other grounds.

[Tarsonis]

Anyway, I think the real issue here is the ambiguous words choices you're making. In a subject as complex as theology, you must be specific in regards to what you're talking about.

I assumed it was pretty obvious what I was talking about and that it didn't need clarification.

Well you what they say happens when you assume.

You better throw out your bible whole sale then, because it was that same Church that codified what constituted the Bible in the first place. Further that's a bit of a cherry picked accusation. Every Christian denomination has blood on its hands over the preservation of doctrine. They've even fought wars over it.

Didn't say they don't. There's a reason I don't prescribe to any specific church's teachings. Nice whataboutism tho.

It's not a whataboutism. You gave a specific reason for not accepting the Church's authority. I was pointing out how that argument doesnt work.

The charge was correct but the punishment was excessive. It is not a deciding factor on whether or not something is true.

Whether the charge was correct or not is dependent on a case-by-case basis. Or do I need to remind you of the fate of the Knights Templar?

At any rate, I can point to a number of incidents in the history of the Catholic church that puts doubts into it's legitimacy. The relative success of the Protestant Reformation, the Fourth Crusade, the Vatican Banking Scandal, the current scandals involving the church protecting pedophilic rapists, the Borgias, the aforementioned Templars, the fact there was at one point three popes, the Cadaver Synod, etc.

Except for the fact that none of that is the evidence you make it out to be.

[Nakena]

Ill spare you my own take but Marconites did that in the past and the Catharites condemned the OT god as evil demiurge. So those ideas aren't exactly unique or new. They came up early and reappeared since then a few times and had enough theological sway to inspire greater heresies/splits from orthodoxy, by people who genuinely believed this stuff.

And they were very wrong. Both the Marcionites and Cathars were gnostics who believed in two Gods, the Demiurge (antagonistic God) and the Monad (benevolent God.) The believed the OT God was the Demiurge and the NT Father Christ spoke of was the not the God of Isreal, but the Monad.

Not only is such thinking is antithetical to Christianity, it doesn't even make sense.

Nah its merely a radical different interpretation of christianity. And it was by far not the only one like that floating around. Like there were syncretic and gnostic forms around then too, like Manicheaism and so on. At some point they became extremly popular, too. So for a lot of people it made a lot of sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism