Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[The New California Republic]

So, for example, contributing to a historical page about LGBT people who have been persecuted is "sinful"? Sorry but I don't buy the broad brush approach that is being used.

I’m not taking about academia here.

LGBT culture includes its historical aspects, as shown in how the term is defined, such as LGBT people from history. Contributing to LGBT culture includes contributing to the recording of LGBT history.

[Tarsonis]

I’m not taking about academia here.

LGBT culture includes its historical aspects, as shown in how the term is defined, such as LGBT people from history. Contributing to LGBT culture includes contributing to the recording of LGBT history.

Alright, I’ll concede that it’s not clear cut. Generally speaking, anything that would intentionally promote the idea that homosexuality is not sinful, and to that effect should be freely practiced and celebrated, would be considered sinful. Not the sin of homosexuality, but the sin of heresy. Each case would be unique. I’ll leave the haggling over specifics to God.

[Lost Memories]

I’m not taking about academia here.

LGBT culture includes its historical aspects, as shown in how the term is defined, such as LGBT people from history. Contributing to LGBT culture includes contributing to the recording of LGBT history.

.. (godwin law here i come)
That's like saying that an historian studying the USSR is a leninist and approves of stalin methods applied in the present.

The study of history isn't the same as political activism of the matter studied.

The talk here is clearly about activism. Not "contribution" taken out of context.

[New Visayan Islands]

LGBT culture includes its historical aspects, as shown in how the term is defined, such as LGBT people from history. Contributing to LGBT culture includes contributing to the recording of LGBT history.

.. (godwin law here i come)
That's like saying that an historian studying the USSR is a leninist and approves of stalin methods applied in the present.

The study of history isn't the same as political activism of the matter studied.

The talk here is clearly about activism. Not "contribution" taken out of context.

Wrong Champion of the Totalitarian Twins (not that it matters; both champions were pretty heteronormative, to the point that the LGBT community saw losses to both the Holocaust and the Gulags alike) but I see the point nonetheless.

[Hakons]

I imagine the intention to be the same. But it's still a declaration (or admission) of failure.

The ones proposing to lift the ban failed to get their suggestion across, so they left with their crowd.
The ones against the proposal failed to convince the proponents to desist, so they lost a piece.

There's a point at which continued failure is more unproductive than further argument. Ideally this will mean both have more energy and whatnot to do normal church things rather than internal arguments.

Protestants have a different view on what a Church even means. The Church is supposed to be one united body. The prospective schism in the UMC is disheartening because the people that desire the schism seem to think separating the Church is no big deal, that two truths can exist simultaneously as God's truth.

However, we know that there is one God, one truth, one faith, and thus one Church. Two opposite views cannot both be true. One is wrong, and therefor damming, while one is true, and therefor salvific. A schism is dreadful because one part of the schism is departing from the truth of God, ensuring condemnation for themselves and their posterity. As a Catholic I of course have a different view on the nature of what a Church means, but in my eyes every argument and every precaution is preferable to a schism and the destruction of the unity of the people of God.

For the UMC itself, I'm a bit miffed some of the traditionalist voices are agreeing with this. Let those that want to change Church doctrine on sexuality, marriage, clergy, ect... be the ones to schism and leave. The traditionalists have the majority and are not the ones forcing this disaster. Let the schismatics be the ones to break away and form a separate denomination. They certainly wouldn't be the United Methodist Church. I would even say let the schismatics have as little UMC resources and infrastructure taken with them as possible. If they detest being part of the Church, let them be consistent and detest the money and buildings of that Church. I admire the signatories of this plan for trying to be conciliatory, but in light of the gravity and disaster of schism, one needs to stand up for the Church.

[Hanafuridake]

Unrelated to my own religion, but I enjoy reading the Gnostic gospels for the historical information they present about the beliefs of early Christian sects and how different Hellenic and Jewish mystical concepts merged. Has anyone here studied them?

[Tarsonis]

Unrelated to my own religion, but I enjoy reading the Gnostic gospels for the historical information they present about the beliefs of early Christian sects and how different Hellenic and Jewish mystical concepts merged. Has anyone here studied them?

Yes but they’re not the early beliefs of Christians, they’re the early beliefs of Gnostics. Gnostics aren’t Christians, they’re a separate religion that tries to incorporate Christian ideas because Christianity was outstripping them in popularity.

[Celritannia]

Former Anglican.


I just questioned why LGBT culture (as it is usually defined) is a sin because it wasn't something that I ever really considered to be sinful, and I wasn't aware of anything in the Bible or any other texts that says even the cultural aspects surrounding a sinful act, but separate and distinct from it, are themselves sinful.

As biblical reference you could take the cult of the golden calf.

Is a statue of a golden calf by itself sinful? No, it's just a statue.
Is the cult of it sinful? Why? What are the implications of the cult?
Were those implications from the cult sinful?

(the statue can be an analogy for rainbow flags and other symbols taken by the movement, rainbows are politicized only if they get politicized, but otherwise are just a natural phenomenon of light refraction)
(the cult of the golden calf, analogy for the lgbt culture)
(implications of the cult, analogy for godlessness, there and now, and more specifically homosexual acts)

You know, most of the bible is translated over present matters by analogies, as it's not the literal meaning of a reality of 2000 or more years ago to matter, but the moral concepts expressed in them. Also because the understanding of the interpretation of the moral teachings contained in the bible isn't in the bible itself.
(bit of a sidetrack, but worth mentioning, once again, that taking the bible literally isn't an intelligent endeavour)


About your point, you're making a distinction from the lgbt culture and homosexuality and other sexual deviations.
For who thinks lgbt culture to be sinful, clearly that distinction isn't there.

Yet, the golden calf was an idol or a god.
Where as the LGBT flag is a symbol of pride of their identity and attempting to gain acceptance in society. The two concepts are very different.

[Tarsonis]

http://francismary.com/bleeding-host-in-poland/

Anybody know anything about this?

[The Archregimancy]

Unrelated to my own religion, but I enjoy reading the Gnostic gospels for the historical information they present about the beliefs of early Christian sects and how different Hellenic and Jewish mystical concepts merged. Has anyone here studied them?

Yes but they’re not the early beliefs of Christians, they’re the early beliefs of Gnostics. Gnostics aren’t Christians, they’re a separate religion that tries to incorporate Christian ideas because Christianity was outstripping them in popularity.

I would argue that the division between Christianity and Gnosticism was not always that clear cut. I think it would be better to say that Gnosticism was, in origin, an offshoot of Christianity and Judaism that became increasingly distinct over time.

The extent to which we consider Gnosticism to be related to Christianity in large part depends on the period under discussion, and the type of Gnosticism under discussion. Valentiniasm, for example, is clearly a Gnostic Christian heresy in origin, while Manichaeism and the still-extant Mandaeism are more obviously distinct religions. 'Gnosticism' doesn't describe a single coherent belief system.

In terms of the overlap between early Christianity and early Gnosticism, the Nag Hammadi library of 3rd and 4th century codices found here in Egypt is instructive, and I think it fair to describe the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas', for example, as a 'Gnostic Gospel' in that it likely exemplifies a transitional period in the development of Christianity and Gnosticism, showing syncretic influences of both. While not a gospel in the canonical sense as understood by Christians, it nonetheless holds considerable historical interest.

[Diopolis]

He's not.

Good to hear. Tarsonis is the Catholic rock of these threads.

Does that mean I’m the Catholic drunk uncle?

[Australian rePublic]

Ever notice how we call "God" by His job title, rather thaj His name? It's like calling your boss "manager" or "supervisor" or "duty manager", instead of "Bob" or "George" or "Sarah" it may be. Anyway, being God would be a very difficult job. Being God, you have to deal with everything- from natural disaster to injustice, from famine/drought to abundance. You have to deal with everything. You have to even look at the important details (e.g. preventing a car from starying for a few secs in order to avoid hitting someone). With such a big, stressful, important job, do you ever wonder if He sometimes gets it wrong?

[Lost Memories]

Ever notice how we call "God" by His job title, rather thaj His name? It's like calling your boss "manager" or "supervisor" or "duty manager", instead of "Bob" or "George" or "Sarah" it may be. Anyway, being God would be a very difficult job. Being God, you have to deal with everything- from natural disaster to injustice, from famine/drought to abundance. You have to deal with everything. You have to even look at the important details (e.g. preventing a car from starying for a few secs in order to avoid hitting someone). With such a big, stressful, important job, do you ever wonder if He sometimes gets it wrong?

It's for a reason of respect to use "god" instead of other more specific names, like yhwh or other ones. (the etymology studies of yhwh and other names are pretty interesting)
Apparently in Jewish tradition they avoid using the specific names and have various substitutes for them, like the common "our lord" to the less common for us christians: HaShem (="The Name")

I think calling God the "manager of the world" comes more from our human wish for there being someone in charge of things, someone dealing with the hard and complex stuff, someone to deal with stuff in our place, and someone to complain on when things don't go as expected.
Personally i don't agree with attributing to god the management of the world, i'm more fond of the idea god made humans the managers of his creation. But i can see how there are some merits with the manager idea, though it's flawed in the part of god making mistakes.

[Australian rePublic]

Ever notice how we call "God" by His job title, rather thaj His name? It's like calling your boss "manager" or "supervisor" or "duty manager", instead of "Bob" or "George" or "Sarah" it may be. Anyway, being God would be a very difficult job. Being God, you have to deal with everything- from natural disaster to injustice, from famine/drought to abundance. You have to deal with everything. You have to even look at the important details (e.g. preventing a car from starying for a few secs in order to avoid hitting someone). With such a big, stressful, important job, do you ever wonder if He sometimes gets it wrong?

It's for a reason of respect to use "god" instead of other more specific names, like yhwh or other ones. (the etymology studies of yhwh and other names are pretty interesting)
Apparently in Jewish tradition they avoid using the specific names and have various substitutes for them, like the common "our lord" to the less common for us christians: HaShem (="The Name")

I think calling God the "manager of the world" comes more from our human wish for there being someone in charge of things, someone dealing with the hard and complex stuff, someone to deal with stuff in our place, and someone to complain on when things don't go as expected.
Personally i don't agree with attributing to god the management of the world, i'm more fond of the idea god made humans the managers of his creation. But i can see how there are some merits with the manager idea, though it's flawed in the part of god making mistakes.

No, you misunderstood. I didn't calk God management. I said that "God" is His job title rather than His name. I did semi-satyrically call Him "management" in a different thread, but mabagement was His specific role in context. I'm well aware that God does more than management

[Lost Memories]

While looking more into the etymologies of the names, it seems Hallelujah is related to the names of god, it's the transliteration from the hebrew hallūyāh, which is composed of two words, hallū = "you(plural) must praise", and yāh = the first half of yhwh.
Similar with names like Elijah("my god is Jah"), John(original hebrew Yohanan "Graced by Yah") and even Joel (from hebrew Yoʾel "Yahu is god") and many others.
It's pretty amazing all the different names and combinations which were created over time.
makes me want to try it, yhuh hu eliun (יהוה הוא עליון)

http://francismary.com/bleeding-host-in-poland/

Anybody know anything about this?

I've tried to find different sources to expand on it, the first results did add nothing and were copypastas.

This article has many more details, but also different dates(2008-2009 and not 2013-2014) different places(Sokolka and not Legnica) and different names(Fr. Stanislaw Gniedziejko and not Fr Andrzej Ziombra), while the event is basically the same.
Wonder if there is some confusion going on with the details of the event, or if we have a double identical event taking place at 5 years of distance.

This other article talks about a documentary on miracles, sponsored by the vatican, where this case was included(the Legnica version).

Science can be used, and has been used, to refute miracles. This was the case in one church in Poland, where red stains were discovered on a host. After having it tested, it was discovered that the red was simply fungus.

Guess that host is no longer edible?
Though, bloody flesh fungus sounds metal.

[Tarsonis]

Yes but they’re not the early beliefs of Christians, they’re the early beliefs of Gnostics. Gnostics aren’t Christians, they’re a separate religion that tries to incorporate Christian ideas because Christianity was outstripping them in popularity.

I would argue that the division between Christianity and Gnosticism was not always that clear cut. I think it would be better to say that Gnosticism was, in origin, an offshoot of Christianity and Judaism that became increasingly distinct over time.

The extent to which we consider Gnosticism to be related to Christianity in large part depends on the period under discussion, and the type of Gnosticism under discussion. Valentiniasm, for example, is clearly a Gnostic Christian heresy in origin, while Manichaeism and the still-extant Mandaeism are more obviously distinct religions. 'Gnosticism' doesn't describe a single coherent belief system.

In terms of the overlap between early Christianity and early Gnosticism, the Nag Hammadi library of 3rd and 4th century codices found here in Egypt is instructive, and I think it fair to describe the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas', for example, as a 'Gnostic Gospel' in that it likely exemplifies a transitional period in the development of Christianity and Gnosticism, showing syncretic influences of both. While not a gospel in the canonical sense as understood by Christians, it nonetheless holds considerable historical interest.

I don’t disagree with anything here. I was thinking more specifically in line with the so called Gnostic Gospels, which teach things so foreign to the Orthodoxy that they pretty much constitute a different religion. I’d say they’re about as far from Christianity as Islam is.

[The Blaatschapen]

Merry Christmas

[The New California Republic]

Merry Christmas

...to the Orthodox.

[Auristania]

Unrelated to my own religion, but I enjoy reading the Gnostic gospels for the historical information they present about the beliefs of early Christian sects and how different Hellenic and Jewish mystical concepts merged. Has anyone here studied them?

Yes but they’re not the early beliefs of Christians, they’re the early beliefs of Gnostics. Gnostics aren’t Christians, they’re a separate religion that tries to incorporate Christian ideas because Christianity was outstripping them in popularity.

WTF??? Me agreeing with Tarsonis???

Who are you and what have you done with the real Tarsonis?

[6th National Revolutionary France]

Anyone here a friend of Nordengrund? Or know where I may contact him? I spoke to him long ago and feel convicted by the Lord to apologize to him for two things I did in the past.

[The Archregimancy]

Merry Christmas

...to the Orthodox.

Blaat's message was posted on the 6th, which is Armenian Christmas (Gregorian calendar only).

Russian and Coptic Christmas is on the 7th Gregorian (which is the 25th of December Julian).

Most other Orthodox follow the new calendar (very close to the Gregorian, but not identical), so Christmas is on the 25th of December Gregorian.

Anyway, it's Christmas for me, and it's Christmas here in Egypt (even if I'm typing this on my phone while waiting for a flight)....

So Merry Christmas!

[Neanderthaland]

...to the Orthodox.

Blaat's message was posted on the 6th, which is Armenian Christmas (Gregorian calendar only).

Russian and Coptic Christmas is on the 7th Gregorian (which is the 25th of December Julian).

Most other Orthodox follow the new calendar (very close to the Gregorian, but not identical), so Christmas is on the 25th of December Gregorian.

Anyway, it's Christmas for me, and it's Christmas here in Egypt (even if I'm typing this on my phone while waiting for a flight)....

So Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Arch.

[The Blaatschapen]

...to the Orthodox.

Blaat's message was posted on the 6th, which is Armenian Christmas (Gregorian calendar only).

Russian and Coptic Christmas is on the 7th Gregorian (which is the 25th of December Julian).

Most other Orthodox follow the new calendar (very close to the Gregorian, but not identical), so Christmas is on the 25th of December Gregorian.

Anyway, it's Christmas for me, and it's Christmas here in Egypt (even if I'm typing this on my phone while waiting for a flight)....

So Merry Christmas!

Arch, timezones are a thing

[Samudera Darussalam]

...to the Orthodox.

Blaat's message was posted on the 6th, which is Armenian Christmas (Gregorian calendar only).

Russian and Coptic Christmas is on the 7th Gregorian (which is the 25th of December Julian).

Most other Orthodox follow the new calendar (very close to the Gregorian, but not identical), so Christmas is on the 25th of December Gregorian.

Anyway, it's Christmas for me, and it's Christmas here in Egypt (even if I'm typing this on my phone while waiting for a flight)....

So Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Arch. Have a blessed day.

[Lower Nubia]

...to the Orthodox.

Blaat's message was posted on the 6th, which is Armenian Christmas (Gregorian calendar only).

Russian and Coptic Christmas is on the 7th Gregorian (which is the 25th of December Julian).

Most other Orthodox follow the new calendar (very close to the Gregorian, but not identical), so Christmas is on the 25th of December Gregorian.

Anyway, it's Christmas for me, and it's Christmas here in Egypt (even if I'm typing this on my phone while waiting for a flight)....

So Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!