Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Diarcesia]

The monarchy was plenty strong in the turn of the century Austria, and effectively maintained the support of the diverse peoples of the Dual Monarchy. That it didn't survive WWI doesn't mean it wasn't a strong government, considering even republics like France barely survived it intact, and Britain also ended up losing territory to instability like Ireland when they won.

Ultimately, Austria-Hungary is a decent demonstration of how a monarchy works well as a unifier.

It had been getting pieces of territory picked off for decades after barely weathering a revolution, and then it was mostly on the losing end of a war against Nicholas II’s Russia. It didn’t “unify” its people, it played them against each other— quite expertly, to be sure, but that’s not “unification” in any sense, and its permanent postwar breakup as opposed to the continued existence/territorial integrity of literally all the other powers (even the ones whose governments collapsed) should be an obvious demonstration of that. The maintenance of Habsburg power over the centuries is certainly impressive, but I don’t know why you think their use of the church to prop up their own family’s legitimacy and imperial rule across several different political incarnations of their empire is a desirable outcome for an ideal state.

Salus is Habsburg nostalgic. I wonder if he's Austrian or whether his family originated there.

[Senkaku]

Alright, and nobody's asking you to see what's good about Imperial Britain. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I'm not going to attempt to flame him over it.

You’re asking people to see what’s good about Imperial Austria, which is not exactly a quantum leap away.

[Salus Maior]

The monarchy was plenty strong in the turn of the century Austria, and effectively maintained the support of the diverse peoples of the Dual Monarchy. That it didn't survive WWI doesn't mean it wasn't a strong government, considering even republics like France barely survived it intact, and Britain also ended up losing territory to instability like Ireland when they won.

Ultimately, Austria-Hungary is a decent demonstration of how a monarchy works well as a unifier.

It had been getting pieces of territory picked off for decades after barely weathering a revolution, and then it was mostly on the losing end of a war against Nicholas II’s Russia. It didn’t “unify” its people, it played them against each other— quite expertly, to be sure, but that’s not “unification” in any sense, and its permanent postwar breakup as opposed to the continued existence/territorial integrity of literally all the other powers (even the ones whose governments collapsed) should be an obvious demonstration of that. The maintenance of Habsburg power over the centuries is certainly impressive, but I don’t know why you think their use of the church to prop up their own family’s legitimacy and imperial rule across several different political incarnations of their empire is a desirable outcome for an ideal state.

From what I've read, I disagree. And I'll leave it at that, considering this isn't the Austria thread.

[Salus Maior]

It had been getting pieces of territory picked off for decades after barely weathering a revolution, and then it was mostly on the losing end of a war against Nicholas II’s Russia. It didn’t “unify” its people, it played them against each other— quite expertly, to be sure, but that’s not “unification” in any sense, and its permanent postwar breakup as opposed to the continued existence/territorial integrity of literally all the other powers (even the ones whose governments collapsed) should be an obvious demonstration of that. The maintenance of Habsburg power over the centuries is certainly impressive, but I don’t know why you think their use of the church to prop up their own family’s legitimacy and imperial rule across several different political incarnations of their empire is a desirable outcome for an ideal state.

Salus is Habsburg nostalgic. I wonder if he's Austrian or whether his family originated there.

No, I'm as Anglo-Irish as they come.

[Senkaku]

It had been getting pieces of territory picked off for decades after barely weathering a revolution, and then it was mostly on the losing end of a war against Nicholas II’s Russia. It didn’t “unify” its people, it played them against each other— quite expertly, to be sure, but that’s not “unification” in any sense, and its permanent postwar breakup as opposed to the continued existence/territorial integrity of literally all the other powers (even the ones whose governments collapsed) should be an obvious demonstration of that. The maintenance of Habsburg power over the centuries is certainly impressive, but I don’t know why you think their use of the church to prop up their own family’s legitimacy and imperial rule across several different political incarnations of their empire is a desirable outcome for an ideal state.

From what I've read, I disagree. And I'll leave it at that, considering this isn't the Austria thread.

No, but if that’s your model for the ideal Christian monarchy or government or something, it seems reasonable to at least discuss its merits. I don’t know what you’ve read that would lead you to disagree, either since nothing I said is really subject for debate in the historical record.

[Salus Maior]

Alright, and nobody's asking you to see what's good about Imperial Britain. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I'm not going to attempt to flame him over it.

You’re asking people to see what’s good about Imperial Austria, which is not exactly a quantum leap away.

Considering OT isn't here, I'm not going to carry on this conversation. Considering what he prefers about the British Empire is likely not the same thing I prefer about Austria, considering they were completely different sorts of powers.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Well, gross. As usual I now regret involving myself here.

If you don’t believe that the state should embody a moral position, then why do you believe it ought to exist?

After all, if all outcomes are equally ethical, then there is no moral reason to use collective effort to cause certain outcomes to happen instead of others, no? To bring up an utterly trivial example just to illustrate the point, when we call on the state to do something (regardless of what that something is) to curb school shootings, we are expressing a preference towards living schoolkids over dead schoolkids, and this is not merely a personal preference (in the sense of ‘I personally would be better off if this happened’) but a moral stance (in the sense of ‘society would be a more just place if this happened’).

I don’t agree with the reason-alone stance that some Enlightenment thinkers embodied; there should be limits to the state’s tolerance, even in a free and pluralistic society, because if there are no limits to what the state will accept then what exactly is the purpose of the state in the first place? This is the main argument I have against old-school ‘all are welcome’ liberal types.

[Salus Maior]

From what I've read, I disagree. And I'll leave it at that, considering this isn't the Austria thread.

No, but if that’s your model for the ideal Christian monarchy or government or something, it seems reasonable to at least discuss its merits. I don’t know what you’ve read that would lead you to disagree, either since nothing I said is really subject for debate in the historical record.

I spent a semester studying turn of the century Austria, and I've read three different biographies on the last Emperor and written a hefty paper on him.

I can explain a great deal about why Austria had the issues it had, but I frankly really just don't want to right now. I don't really see the point of attempting to convince anyone about my political ideas that aren't going to be receptive to them, and the opinions of people here really don't matter to me with a few exceptions, though you're not one of those.

[Diarcesia]

No, but if that’s your model for the ideal Christian monarchy or government or something, it seems reasonable to at least discuss its merits. I don’t know what you’ve read that would lead you to disagree, either since nothing I said is really subject for debate in the historical record.

I spent a semester studying turn of the century Austria, and I've read three different biographies on the last Emperor and written a hefty paper on him.

I can explain a great deal about why Austria had the issues it had, but I frankly really just don't want to right now. I don't really see the point of attempting to convince anyone about my political ideas that aren't going to be receptive to them, and the opinions of people here really don't matter to me with a few exceptions, though you're not one of those.

I think it's within the purview of the topic to discuss the particulars on why the Dual Monarchy appears to be your ideal melding of Christian principles with earthly power.

[Salus Maior]

Well, gross. As usual I now regret involving myself here.

If you don’t believe that the state should embody a moral position, then why do you believe it ought to exist?

After all, if all outcomes are equally ethical, then there is no moral reason to use collective effort to cause certain outcomes to happen instead of others, no? To bring up an utterly trivial example just to illustrate the point, when we call on the state to do something (regardless of what that something is) to curb school shootings, we are expressing a preference towards living schoolkids over dead schoolkids, and this is not merely a personal preference (in the sense of ‘I personally would be better off if this happened’) but a moral stance (in the sense of ‘society would be a more just place if this happened’).

I don’t agree with the reason-alone stance that some Enlightenment thinkers embodied; there should be limits to the state’s tolerance, even in a free and pluralistic society, because if there are no limits to what the state will accept then what exactly is the purpose of the state in the first place? This is the main argument I have against old-school ‘all are welcome’ liberal types.

That's a whole lot of text to simply say "I want to exterminate the groups I don't like".

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

That's a whole lot of text to simply say "I want to exterminate the groups I don't like".

That is a gross mischaracterisation of my stance and you know it.

[Melrovia]

What do you guys make of those Christian preachers who think that the USA is the new Israel, deserving of more of God's attention than every other country in the world? I think it's ridiculous for a multitude of reasons:

1. Why the USA? Out of all countries in the world, why the USA? How did you come to that specific conclusion? What about Canada? Or Russia? Or Greece? Or Italy? Or... how the fudge did you come to the conclusion that the USA was special and exalted of all countries? I mean, you could ask, why Israel, but the answer is clear, the Bible specifically says that it's from the seed of Abraham, making it clear that Israel was special and exalted above all nations, but how did they arbitrarily pick the USA?
2. They do realise that being the special l, exalted nation gives you special responsibilities, not special privileges. I mean, compare what Jews believe they're obligated to do compared to the Gentiles (Laws of Moses vs Laws of Noah). What special responsibilties do these people think that the USA has?
3. It's even more insane when you consider that the USA didn't exist till 1700 years or so after Jesus
4. This contradicts the Pentecost and everything associated with

Sounds like British Israelism

It seems particularly common among certain sects, many which are unsurprising such as Mormons and the Christian Identity sect. However, it's the most commonly associated with Herber Armstrong.

[Narland]

What’s the order of jurisprudence in Christianity. (Muslim)

This was on my clipboard to to post, but got forgotten.

Right Orthodoxy produces Good Orthopraxy

Christianity doesn't have fiqh in the same sense as Islam. The conduct as an expression of our faith is of a different significance. Our fiqh or discourse is that we reflect on the right way to believe about God's nature, who He is in relation to his creation, and what is required of us as human beings (orthodox theology). This then informs us as to how we are to live our lives as practicing Christians. We are guided by the Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and the Church (with all that may entail), as fellow believers (orthopraxy) because of who and what Jesus Christ is and what he has done for us.

The valuation of doctrine (from orthodoxy) is of of similar significance as levels of jurisprudence for Islam. We have essential doctrine, consequential doctrine, and nonessential doctrine. An example of essential doctrine is something that God cannot change about himself, such as God alone is God, God cannot lie, or that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Eternal. A subsequent doctrine would be one that God could have done differently but did so by His own good pleasure, such as incarnating Himself to redeem mankind. And non-essential doctrine doesn't mean it isn't important, it just means that they are not as clear to us as Christians so we give each other latitude in our understanding. An example would be eschatology (the teaching of end time events, what happens when we die, and the like).

Purpose of the Law in Christianity

In Christianity the purpose of the Law is to show the truth, justice/righteousness, and goodness of God and reveal the wickedness of the human race. Our salvation isn't derived from keeping the law, but repenting of our sins, and trusting in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins (which he atoned for). Once we are saved by grace through faith, the Holy Spirit will work in our lives and the good works will show as a testimony to God's faithfulness. The salvation of our souls is trans formative at the very core of each individual who working together as the Church are a living testament to the Risen Christ.

Purpose of Clergy in Christianity

The clergy of Christianity are foremost sacramental ministers and secondarily legal scholars (if at all). The sacraments are visible signs and seals of God’s invisible grace promised to his people. Among the signs and seals of these sacraments are the preaching of the Gospel, assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, testimony to God's presence in our daily lives, the resurrection of the dead, and the promise of eternal life. Christianity administers a golden mean of God's grace between Antinomianism (Lawlessness) and Legalism (Works Righteousness).

Canon Law

Because of these differences Canon Law (or Denominational Distinctives) do not have the functions like civil courts as one would expect of fiqh. Canon Law (or the denominational equivalents) is most usually binding directly on the ministry of that particular church and its institutions. It regulates how the church administers the sacraments, qualification for clergy, how it exercises its mandate to preach the Gospel, etc. It plays a supporting role for the individual Christian in his relationship to God and his fellow man.

Bible

Christianity receives the Bible in such a way that it has a discipline called hermeneutics, (which is rightly dividing the word of truth). I cannot remember the equivalent in Islam. The Bible states that it contains everything pertaining to life and godliness in Jesus Christ so that a man of faith may be fully equipped, not lacking in any good thing. It is and has been the rule of faith (or a substantial part of it) for Christianity since the Early Church. Christians may also include certain decrees, and traditions.

Ethics

Our ethical behavior is summed up into this command, "Love one another, for love is the fulfilling of the Law." It is sufficient that God commands us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength; to love our neighbor as we love ourselves; and to treat other people the way we ourselves would want to be treated. This is a transactional expression of the 10 Commandments that reflect the character and nature of God.

That is not to say we do not need moral counselling, ethical guidance, arbitration, or criminal punishment when we go astray. But in our daily lives because are admonished to imitate Christ, it is imperative that as Christians we do all that we say we will do, do not defraud anyone, respect the dignity and worth of the human soul as image bearers of the Creator, behave in such a way that brings glory and honor to God. For the Christian it isn't about legal uniformity. All these things are summed up into our freedom on Christ to love each other.

[Tarsonis]

That's a whole lot of text to simply say "I want to exterminate the groups I don't like".

That is a gross mischaracterisation of my stance and you know it.

It really isn't. You may not want to violently exterminate said groups, but you do wish to wield the power of the state to eliminate them from existence by striping them from the public sphere, so they either give up the practice or forcing them under ground. It's not stretch of the imagination to see you boarding churches, synagogues, etc.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

Broadly, that is my point; our positions are fundamentally incompatible, and while we might be able to seek an understanding, which is one of the handful of reasons why threads like these are useful, we will never really be able to sympathise with each other’s position, and attempts to build such sympathy - like Senkaku is doing there - assumes there being more common ground than actually exists.

And yes, I happen to suffer from this crippling condition called not being a well-off straight male of European descent, unfortunately shared by the vast bulk of humanity, which prevents me from seeing what was so nice about that particular stage in human history.

When people talk about ‘decadence’ or ‘materialism’ and how horrible those things are, it inevitably seems to boil down to “I liked it back when we had an unquestionable social order that put people like me on top and didn’t have to deal with all these plebeians questioning things I take for granted”.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that of the many centuries in which Christianity was the dominant social ideology in Western Europe, OT happened to single out that particular time period in which Britain was at the height of its power and had an empire in which the sun did not set to reminisce on.

I don't really appreciate having my name dragged into a conversation that I've played no part in purely in order to slander it.

I don't believe that I've ever cited early 20th century Britain specifically as representative of my idea of an ideal Christian society. In fact, as far as British history goes, I'm more interested in the Anglo-Saxon period, the High Middle Ages and the Stuart period than in any part of the 20th century. I do like the aesthetics of the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods, and I admit to some nostalgia for the most recent period in history when Britain was still solidly Christian, but that by no means amounts to me supporting absolutely everything about the time period. It's particularly offensive to insinuate, as you have, that I would support things like the legal persecution of LGBT people when I have on multiple occasions strongly defended both the legal rights of the LGBT community and the doctrinal position of affirming same-sex relationships in this thread, or British colonialism when I have always been fairly clear in my opposition to imperialism in general, including when carried out by my own country. If I've ever said anything that implies otherwise, then it is probable that I was not being entirely serious. It's worth noting that the inspiration for many of my own foundational political views were the original Tory Party, who were the anti-imperialist faction in 17th and early 18th century British politics.

That's a whole lot of text to simply say "I want to exterminate the groups I don't like".

That is a gross mischaracterisation of my stance and you know it.

Seems that you don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

I spent a semester studying turn of the century Austria, and I've read three different biographies on the last Emperor and written a hefty paper on him.

I can explain a great deal about why Austria had the issues it had, but I frankly really just don't want to right now. I don't really see the point of attempting to convince anyone about my political ideas that aren't going to be receptive to them, and the opinions of people here really don't matter to me with a few exceptions, though you're not one of those.

I think it's within the purview of the topic to discuss the particulars on why the Dual Monarchy appears to be your ideal melding of Christian principles with earthly power.

The idea of the Roman emperor as the earthly reflection of God's rule in Heaven was long a foundational one in Christian political theology, dating back to the early history of the church and becoming central to the self-perception of both the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine (or Eastern Roman) Empire and to the Catholic Holy Roman Empire in the west. Given that the Austrian emperors were effectively the direct successors to the medieval Holy Roman emperors, and continued to possess a privileged relationship with the Roman Catholic Church until the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I think it's perfectly reasonable that a traditionalist Catholic like Salus would feel sympathetic to the ideal of a Catholic emperor as the supreme secular authority in Christendom. Similarly, many Eastern Orthodox Christians have some sense of nostalgia for the Byzantine Empire as well as for Imperial Russia, which assumed and upheld the mantle of Orthodox imperial authority until the Russian Revolution ended the rule of the House of Romanov. Additionally, Austria-Hungary was for a time a fairly successful example of a cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic society united by a common allegiance to the imperial authority and by the Catholic faith. It's often assumed in popular historiography that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was always doomed to collapse as it did, but this kind of retrospective determinism is taken less seriously by scholars, and whilst the Dual Monarchy had many significant issues to overcome, it also had a number of advantages and was by no means doomed to imminent collapse in 1914. The same is true of the Russian Empire.

[Luminesa]

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

By state atheist you mean militant atheists who persecute all religions?

Yes, but the terminally indoors way of saying it. The US doesn’t have state anything (or ideally should not). We’re meant to live beside each other in a diverse country which protects us all as having an equal seating at the table, regardless of our religious views or lack thereof. Wanting “state atheism” more or less just amounts to wanting fascism.

[Sordhau]

show me where it says that.

there's no arguing with Sundiata, he's fully convinced in the righteousness of his own folly. He will happily continue his works, poisoning and decaying the church from within as he seeks the to convert people via the sword. He cares not for the health nor the souls of his fellow man, seeks only to force them to conform to his twisted vision, and will destroy any who does not with a smile on his face. He stopped walking the Christian path a long time ago, and there really is no hope for him, because he doesn't even know it. He is one of the many wolves in sheep's clothing Christ warned us about.

Rare based Tars moment.

[Sordhau]

I mean I don't know why you're surprised that in the Christian discussion thread there are some posters who prefer a Christian government.

"Christian government" is an oxymoron. The powers and nature of the state and government prevent any form of genuine Christianity manifesting in the political sphere. We've already seen this here in America. It is not possible to have a "Christian" government because there is no way to create a government that adheres to "Christian" principles - which are not universal among all denominations. No government in history has done this, nor will they ever. It is impractical and counter-productive for a government to uphold or defend "Christian" values, especially when those values can sometimes differ radically from denomination to denomination. To try and create a "Christian" government is to corrupt the very purpose of Christianity. Christ did not come to tell us how to govern but to guide us toward salvation. This is a path we must choose to walk and not a path that any government can force us to follow.

The intermingling of state and church has been a net negative for the faith as a whole. It has not only corrupted the spiritual integrity of the church but it has allowed for gross, inhumane actions by states to be justified in the name of God Almighty. Be it monarchs or clerics or elected representatives the Christian religion should not dictate how a society runs. To do so is to pervert Christianity into a secular ideology.

[Tarsonis]

I mean I don't know why you're surprised that in the Christian discussion thread there are some posters who prefer a Christian government.

"Christian government" is an oxymoron. The powers and nature of the state and government prevent any form of genuine Christianity manifesting in the political sphere. We've already seen this here in America. It is not possible to have a "Christian" government because there is no way to create a government that adheres to "Christian" principles - which are not universal among all denominations. No government in history has done this, nor will they ever. It is impractical and counter-productive for a government to uphold or defend "Christian" values, especially when those values can sometimes differ radically from denomination to denomination. To try and create a "Christian" government is to corrupt the very purpose of Christianity. Christ did not come to tell us how to govern but to guide us toward salvation. This is a path we must choose to walk and not a path that any government can force us to follow.

The intermingling of state and church has been a net negative for the faith as a whole. It has not only corrupted the spiritual integrity of the church but it has allowed for gross, inhumane actions by states to be justified in the name of God Almighty. Be it monarchs or clerics or elected representatives the Christian religion should not dictate how a society runs. To do so is to pervert Christianity into a secular ideology.

well at least there's some things we do agree on

[The Archregimancy]

Similarly, many Eastern Orthodox Christians have some sense of nostalgia for the Byzantine Empire

I couldn't possibly comment.

[Diopolis]

Do you consider JWs and Mormons to be Christian? JWs are a bit of a complicated one, but Mormons, absolutely not. Mormons are Christian in the way that Christians are Jews. If you wanna get real technical about it, sure, but in a realistic, theological sense, they're very different faiths

Mormons are probably slightly closer to nicene Christianity than JW's, but neither of them are really Christians.

[Diopolis]

Did the Catholic Church endorse religious freedom before the Second Vatican Council? Like did thru have any objection to the policy of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, or any other catholic majority nation granting religious freedom( at least to other Christians)

The Catholic Church did not use the term "religious liberty" for ideas it favored prior to Vatican II.
The Catholic Church did support religious tolerance at various times and places.

[Benuty]

Do you consider JWs and Mormons to be Christian? JWs are a bit of a complicated one, but Mormons, absolutely not. Mormons are Christian in the way that Christians are Jews. If you wanna get real technical about it, sure, but in a realistic, theological sense, they're very different faiths

Neither, and to add to this list Unitarians, they all can have a meaningful faith, and there are Unitarians (even in the UU) that believe seriously in Christ, but their faith simply isn't Christianity. I know our threads resident Unitarian would disagree with me, but if you have to mutilate the Trinity in any aspect (not referring to heretics as honestly even heretical applications of the trinity are Christian) by denying it entirely then simply put they aren't it.

[Salus Maior]

I mean I don't know why you're surprised that in the Christian discussion thread there are some posters who prefer a Christian government.

"Christian government" is an oxymoron. The powers and nature of the state and government prevent any form of genuine Christianity manifesting in the political sphere. We've already seen this here in America. It is not possible to have a "Christian" government because there is no way to create a government that adheres to "Christian" principles - which are not universal among all denominations. No government in history has done this, nor will they ever. It is impractical and counter-productive for a government to uphold or defend "Christian" values, especially when those values can sometimes differ radically from denomination to denomination. To try and create a "Christian" government is to corrupt the very purpose of Christianity. Christ did not come to tell us how to govern but to guide us toward salvation. This is a path we must choose to walk and not a path that any government can force us to follow.

The intermingling of state and church has been a net negative for the faith as a whole. It has not only corrupted the spiritual integrity of the church but it has allowed for gross, inhumane actions by states to be justified in the name of God Almighty. Be it monarchs or clerics or elected representatives the Christian religion should not dictate how a society runs. To do so is to pervert Christianity into a secular ideology.

I disagree that there is or should be a separation between the "secular" and "religious" life, as exists currently in Western society. The same me that kneels before Christ in the Eucharist in adoration is going to be the same me everywhere else. I'm not going to be this schizophrenic that adheres to different realities depending on where I am and who I'm interacting with. And no Christian should, after all if that were the case Rome would have never Christianized. If it were, I doubt anyone would have had a problem offering a token of veneration to the Emperors when demanded, then go to Church like nothing happened.

[Salus Maior]

Similarly, many Eastern Orthodox Christians have some sense of nostalgia for the Byzantine Empire

I couldn't possibly comment.

Tbh I'm a bit of a Byzantine-nostalgic too.

1453 worst year of my life.