Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Tarsonis]

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

No it literally doesnt make sense in the Christian concept. Christianity teaches that Christ is the Jewish Messiah. That doesnt make sense under the dualist Gnostic outlook.

This isnt a different but equally valid take, its completely wrong.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

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.

My "non-conformism", as you call it, is not an organized institution with centuries of corruption, criminality, and abuse. Folks can dismiss it all they want. I don't care.

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not a Nondenominational Christian because I don't want to be associated with an institution I don't approve of; I'm a Nondenominational Christian because I do not believe in the authority of that institution. I believe whatever moral authority the Catholic Church might have had began to dwindle around the time it became the single largest land owner in Rome and was finally lost when it threw a hissy fit at the prospect of a woman ruling the Roman Empire.

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.

Are you having a stronk? Do you need me to call a bondulance?

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.

"But! But! But! Other churches did it too! Why don't you criticize them!?" is whataboutism. You can try and pretend it's not, but you're wrong.

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

Evidence of what? Immorality, corruption, criminality, and even sin in what is supposed to be an infallible institution held by infallible men? Because that's what it looks like to me.

This kind of apologism is what turned people off from the church in the first place. It's what ticked off Martin Luther so much. It's why many people today still don't approve of the Catholic Church. You're turning a blind eye to abuses committed by the very organization you claim speaks and acts for God because you don't want to admit the possibility you may be wrong because it goes against everything you believe. It's revolting.

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

No it literally doesnt make sense in the Christian concept. Christianity teaches that Christ is the Jewish Messiah. That doesnt make sense under the dualist Gnostic outlook.

This isnt a different but equally valid take, its completely wrong.

Sorry Nak but I gotta agree with Tarsonis here. Saying the OT God and NT God are different beings and opposing forces makes zero sense. There is admittedly a clear difference in approach, but that doesn't indicate a different entity - simply a change in strategy.

[Lower Nubia]

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.

My "non-conformism", as you call it, is not an organized institution with centuries of corruption, criminality, and abuse. Folks can dismiss it all they want. I don't care.

You dismiss any authority system as you believe, falsely, that negativity eliminates legitimacy. Of course, that's a nonsense way of thinking. The British government has done plenty of vile things, yet it is still legitimate in its rule through Democratic mandate. Likewise, the Catholic Church, as well as any other (Apostolic Succession) Church, have done negative things but maintains legitimacy.

Your non-conformism hides the gospel, committing the greatest sin of all by obfuscating Christ himself & Christian teaching.

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not a Nondenominational Christian because I don't want to be associated with an institution I don't approve of; I'm a Nondenominational Christian because I do not believe in the authority of that institution.

That's fine, but don't say Church's lacks authority based on bad things they've done, it's a non-sequiter & a logical fallacy.

I believe whatever moral authority the Catholic Church might have had began to dwindle around the time it became the single largest landowner in Rome

In what world does land contradict legitimacy? Did the Jewish Synagogues that Christ preach in not own the land? What about the time he so adamantly defended the Jewish temple as his Fathers house? What was Israel and Judah but God's consecration of owned land in a religious pretence!

and was finally lost when it threw a hissy fit at the prospect of a woman ruling the Roman Empire.

Can I have specifics?

[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.

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.

Lectio Divina with Eucharistic Adoration is the beeeest!

[Hakons]

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.

With respect, that's a terrifying way to try to find religious truth. What you personally believe is right? You can personally believe anything! Our personal opinion is subjective. Our view of the world is terribly limited. We are uncontrollably biased by our circumstances. We only see a speck of time in comparison to history. We misinterpret. We don't get references, don't understand allusions, and are unaware of context. For something as eternally important as religion, we must be dependent on a source of truth that transcends centuries and cultures, and is guided by the divine plan of Christ Himself.

This is the truth of holy religion. This is the foundation of Christianity. This is the Bride of Christ, the Church.

[Lower Nubia]

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.

With respect, that's a terrifying way to try to find religious truth. What you personally believe is right? You can personally believe anything! Our personal opinion is subjective. Our view of the world is terribly limited. We are uncontrollably biased by our circumstances. We only see a speck of time in comparison to history. We misinterpret. We don't get references, don't understand allusions, and are unaware of context. For something as eternally important as religion, we must be dependent on a source of truth that transcends centuries and cultures, and is guided by the divine plan of Christ Himself.

This is the truth of holy religion. This is the foundation of Christianity. This is the Bride of Christ, the Church.

To be fair, in these quests for truth, our personal opinion on the weight of evidence is always the final determiner - for everyone involved.

[Northern Davincia]

My "non-conformism", as you call it, is not an organized institution with centuries of corruption, criminality, and abuse. Folks can dismiss it all they want. I don't care.

Pray tell, are you an anarchist?

[Hakons]

With respect, that's a terrifying way to try to find religious truth. What you personally believe is right? You can personally believe anything! Our personal opinion is subjective. Our view of the world is terribly limited. We are uncontrollably biased by our circumstances. We only see a speck of time in comparison to history. We misinterpret. We don't get references, don't understand allusions, and are unaware of context. For something as eternally important as religion, we must be dependent on a source of truth that transcends centuries and cultures, and is guided by the divine plan of Christ Himself.

This is the truth of holy religion. This is the foundation of Christianity. This is the Bride of Christ, the Church.

To be fair, in these quests for truth, our personal opinion on the weight of evidence is always the final determiner - for everyone involved.

In one sense yes. We have free will, and ultimately we either use our will to follow God or to reject Him. However, when it comes to hammering out many large theological issues, we have to rely on the authority of the eternal Church, not what our hot take is on each issue. Essentially, there is a difference between using our own opinion to find a theological position, and using our opinion to accept a Church and then defer to her teaching.

[Lower Nubia]

To be fair, in these quests for truth, our personal opinion on the weight of evidence is always the final determiner - for everyone involved.

In one sense yes. We have free will, and ultimately we either use our will to follow God or to reject Him. However, when it comes to hammering out many large theological issues, we have to rely on the authority of the eternal Church, not what our hot take is on each issue. Essentially, there is a difference between using our own opinion to find a theological position, and using our opinion to accept a Church and then defer to her teaching.

Although I accept that statement, one must first find the evidence to conclude its necessity & reality. Bringing us back to: "our personal opinion on the weight of evidence is always the final determiner" in concluding that the church is a necessity & reality in determining Christian truths.

[Tarsonis]

Well you what they say happens when you assume.

Are you having a stronk? Do you need me to call a bondulance?

Have you never heard the phrase: "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me?"
And no, my phone has an edge screen which really fucks up my typing from time to time.

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.

"But! But! But! Other churches did it too! Why don't you criticize them!?" is whataboutism. You can try and pretend it's not, but you're wrong.

Except you're arguing for the superiority of protestantism over Catholicism, based on this criteria that Protestants are just as guilty of. So no, it's not a whataboutism to point our that your divining line is no line at all, and is hypocritical posturing.

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

Evidence of what? Immorality, corruption, criminality, and even sin in what is supposed to be an infallible institution held by infallible men? Because that's what it looks like to me.

Well that's where you're mistaken. Nowhere in the doctrine of the Catholic Church does it state that Church is an infallible institution run by infallible men. There are no infallible men running the church, and claiming there are would be egregious heresy. Scripture is actually pretty pointed on this subject. (1 John 1:8)

This kind of apologism is what turned people off from the church in the first place.

And those that went out from us were never with us to begin with.

It's what ticked off Martin Luther so much.

Martin Luther was a heretic who seduced a nun, hated Jews, and encouraged adultery from the pulpit. He doesnt have a leg to stand on.

It's why many people today still don't approve of the Catholic Church.

H
Many, but hardly the majority. The majority of people who dont approve are Protestants, who grew up Protestant and who have been fed lies and falsehoods about the Church, since birth. Honestly, when ever there's a discussion between members. the things you're talking about are usually way down on the list of topics.

You're turning a blind eye to abuses committed by the very organization you claim speaks and acts for God because you don't want to admit the possibility you may be wrong because it goes against everything you believe. It's revolting.

Well this is just bullshit. Nobody is turning a blind eye to anything. You can't bullshit a bullshitter, I used to be a protestant, so I know all their dirty secrets too. I converted to Catholocism after years of study. So no I'm not hiding from the darker side of the Church. I'm well aware of it.


We, i.e Catholics, fully recognize the abuses of the Church. We love the people at the Globe who exposed the abuse scandal. Hell Pope Benedict was elected specifically because of his work on cleaning up the Priestly abuse issue. We fully acknowledge the Church has blood on its hands. Both St JP2 and Francis have strove to atone for and make amends with the groups that have been persecuted.


What it is, is 1that we also understand that the Church is bigger than any one Priest, any one Pope, or any group of persons. The Church is bigger than the scumbags that infiltrate the ranks of the priesthood and cause harm. We fully understand that the Church has transgressed, just and all of us has Transgressed. Just as we repent and atone for our transgressions, so does the Church.

No my defense of the Catholic Church, which traces its priestly line in an unbroken succession to the very first Apostles, is not revolting. No, what's revolting is your self righteous bullshit. You think yourself so right and righteous that anyone who thinks differently is beneath you. That's the true travesty.

[Albrenia]

On the 'those who left were never with us to begin with', isn't that a bit harsh? Having a crisis of faith is extremely common for people of any religion (and even sometimes lack thereof) and to claim those who are dismayed by their fellows enough to lose faith are simply 'fake' believers seems overly simplistic.

They may well be wrong to abandon their faith, but claiming they never had it to lose doesn't ring true to me.

[Lower Nubia]

On the 'those who left were never with us to begin with', isn't that a bit harsh? Having a crisis of faith is extremely common for people of any religion (and even sometimes lack thereof) and to claim those who are dismayed by their fellows enough to lose faith are simply 'fake' believers seems overly simplistic.

They may well be wrong to abandon their faith, but claiming they never had it to lose doesn't ring true to me.

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

[Tarsonis]

On the 'those who left were never with us to begin with', isn't that a bit harsh? Having a crisis of faith is extremely common for people of any religion (and even sometimes lack thereof) and to claim those who are dismayed by their fellows enough to lose faith are simply 'fake' believers seems overly simplistic.

They may well be wrong to abandon their faith, but claiming they never had it to lose doesn't ring true to me.

"19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 1 Jon 2:19

[Aeritai]

Does that apply to people who left the Faith, but came back to redo their wrongs and rebuild their relationship with God?

[Albrenia]

Does that apply to people who left the Faith, but came back to redo their wrongs and rebuild their relationship with God?

I got ninja'd, but this is basically my question too.

[Tarsonis]

Does that apply to people who left the Faith, but came back to redo their wrongs and rebuild their relationship with God?

Naw, they get the Prodigal Son treatment.

[Lower Nubia]

Does that apply to people who left the Faith, but came back to redo their wrongs and rebuild their relationship with God?

To be fair, it could mean an awful lot depending on your mentality, the novationists certainly believed so, but Pope Cyprian of Carthage refuted their heresy and that reverts were fine as long as they repented.

[Albrenia]

Does that apply to people who left the Faith, but came back to redo their wrongs and rebuild their relationship with God?

To be fair, it could mean an awful lot depending on your mentality, the novationists certainly believed so, but Pope Cyprian of Carthage refuted their heresy and that reverts were fine as long as they repented.

So those who die believing were always believers, and those who die nonbelievers were never believers at any point?

Or something like that?

[Aeritai]

Does that apply to people who left the Faith, but came back to redo their wrongs and rebuild their relationship with God?

To be fair, it could mean an awful lot depending on your mentality, the novationists certainly believed so, but Pope Cyprian of Carthage refuted their heresy and that reverts were fine as long as they repented.

Ah okay, thanks!

[Lower Nubia]

To be fair, it could mean an awful lot depending on your mentality, the novationists certainly believed so, but Pope Cyprian of Carthage refuted their heresy and that reverts were fine as long as they repented.

So those who die believing were always believers, and those who die nonbelievers were never believers at any point?

Or something like that?

Yes... maybe? yes... purgatory might have more to say on the matter...

[Albrenia]

So those who die believing were always believers, and those who die nonbelievers were never believers at any point?

Or something like that?

Yes... maybe? yes... purgatory might have more to say on the matter...

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing it up.

I like how nicely you folks answer my queries about your faith, even if I can sometimes seem rather clueless.

[Tarsonis]

To be fair, it could mean an awful lot depending on your mentality, the novationists certainly believed so, but Pope Cyprian of Carthage refuted their heresy and that reverts were fine as long as they repented.

So those who die believing were always believers, and those who die nonbelievers were never believers at any point?

Or something like that?

No. I'm being brash, forgive me. The "went out from us" bit doesnt refer to those who have a legitimate crisis of faith and struggle. It refers to those who go their own way, abandoning the Church, to follow their own warped version of the Gospel. It suggest they never really held allegiance in the first place.

Those that have a legit crisis of faith and leave the Church, are more akin to the Prodigal Son, and we pray daily that the lost find their way home to the Church.

[Lower Nubia]

So those who die believing were always believers, and those who die nonbelievers were never believers at any point?

Or something like that?

No. I'm being brash, forgive me. The "went out from us" bit doesnt refer to those who have a legitimate crisis of faith and struggle. It refers to those who go their own way, abandoning the Church, to follow their own warped version of the Gospel. It suggest they never really held allegiance in the first place.

Those that have a legit crisis of faith and leave the Church, are more akin to the Prodical Son, and we pray daily that the lost find their way home to the Church.

Yeah, that top clause is very important.

[Tarsonis]

So those who die believing were always believers, and those who die nonbelievers were never believers at any point?

Or something like that?

Yes... maybe? yes... purgatory might have more to say on the matter...

Purgatory is a part of Heaven, so it really wouldn't.

[Lower Nubia]

Yes... maybe? yes... purgatory might have more to say on the matter...

Purgatory is a part of Heaven, so it really wouldn't.

I simply mean in its flexibility in comparison to say a Reformed understanding of the question.