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

[Salus Maior]

It's more that the public and prominent don't have a different standard of what's sinful than the rest of us. That's just as true for Biden and Pelosi as it was for the Emperor Theodosius the Great.

Again, I don't give a fuck about Biden or Pelosi

My whole point is that they're representative of a wider problem.

[Tarsonis]

I think you're full of shit. Good we both think negatively of each other's position.



I really don't give a shit. Fuck Biden and Pelosi. That's what you want right? When you're actually interested in having a discussion an honest discussion about the intersection of faith, law, and human rights, come back to me. I'm not interested in scratching your book club desire to condemn certain people you don't like.

I'm not interested in your pollution of the faith and what's sacred with profanity. Or at least that's as equally uncharitable as you're being to me.

You've been nothing but an ass to me and trying to manipulate me to scratch your pet vendetta against Biden and Pelosi. I'm not interested in playing and my demeanor is a result my patience exhausted at your continued insistence.

As I said, you want to have real discussion about the intersection of faith, the law, and human rights, cool. I'm not gonna play twenty rounds of "But Biden and Pelosi..."

[Prima Scriptura]

I'm not interested in your pollution of the faith and what's sacred with profanity. Or at least that's as equally uncharitable as you're being to me.

You've been nothing but an ass to me and trying to manipulate me to scratch your pet vendetta against Biden and Pelosi. I'm not interested in playing and my demeanor is a result my patience exhausted at your continued insistence.

As I said, you want to have real discussion about the intersection of faith, the law, and human rights, cool. I'm not gonna play twenty rounds of "But Biden and Pelosi..."

Well, there is a difference between the proper role of religion in government policy and the internal policy of the Church giving communion.

[Tarsonis]

Yes.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

St. Ignatius

Well, most Catholics taking communion are sinning then.

Indeed. Not just that but many don't go to confession either. But the Priest doesn't know the mind of every one of his flock, nor does he keep tabs on who's been to confession and who hasn't, so he's not hip checking people out of line. Denial of Communion is usually in response to very public offenses.

[Tarsonis]

You've been nothing but an ass to me and trying to manipulate me to scratch your pet vendetta against Biden and Pelosi. I'm not interested in playing and my demeanor is a result my patience exhausted at your continued insistence.

As I said, you want to have real discussion about the intersection of faith, the law, and human rights, cool. I'm not gonna play twenty rounds of "But Biden and Pelosi..."

Well, there is a difference between the proper role of religion in government policy and the internal policy of the Church giving communion.

Sure. that's not the issue I'm having right now.

[Salus Maior]

I'm not interested in your pollution of the faith and what's sacred with profanity. Or at least that's as equally uncharitable as you're being to me.

You've been nothing but an ass to me and trying to manipulate me to scratch your pet vendetta against Biden and Pelosi. I'm not interested in playing and my demeanor is a result my patience exhausted at your continued insistence.

As I said, you want to have real discussion about the intersection of faith, the law, and human rights, cool. I'm not gonna play twenty rounds of "But Biden and Pelosi..."

How the hell am I manipulating you? Seriously? As for being an ass I'll admit that, but there's plenty of that for the both of us.

I'm sorry I'm not going to have a "real discussion" with you where I agree enough with the fundamentals of your position when I don't.

[Tarsonis]

You've been nothing but an ass to me and trying to manipulate me to scratch your pet vendetta against Biden and Pelosi. I'm not interested in playing and my demeanor is a result my patience exhausted at your continued insistence.

As I said, you want to have real discussion about the intersection of faith, the law, and human rights, cool. I'm not gonna play twenty rounds of "But Biden and Pelosi..."

How the hell am I manipulating you? Seriously? As for being an ass I'll admit that, but there's plenty of that for the both of us.

Because there's two discussion happening, there's me: trying to have a discussion about the complications of Catholic Faith in a secular and liberal government, particularly into the matters of abortion. It's a discussion that Intersect various schools of theology, competing ideas of liberty, and human dignity.

and then theres you, who have been badgering me since the leak about Biden, (and now pelosi) and are trying to force me to draw a side on whether or not the should be excommunicated. I don't have one, and I have no interest in forming one. I don't pay enough attention to assess them, nor do I care to. And I'm not gonna keep a conversation going when your response to every point I made, is a "what about Biden and Pelosi."

I'm sorry I'm not going to have a "real discussion" with you where I agree enough with the fundamentals of your position when I don't.

Hence my comment about water into rock. You're not interested in what I have to say, you're not open to being convinced, so I'm really not gonna expend a lot of effort on an exercise in futility. Regardless if you think it's lazy or not. Which makes what I said above even more annoying. You're not actually interested in the discussion, you're just trying to maneuver me into a position so you can tell me you think I'm wrong.

[Suriyanakhon]

Apparently there was a bit of an uproar in the Greek Orthodox Church over the children of a same sex couple being baptized, and Mt Athos released a statement. I was curious what the Orthodox members of the thread's thoughts were.

[Salus Maior]

How the hell am I manipulating you? Seriously? As for being an ass I'll admit that, but there's plenty of that for the both of us.

Because there's two discussion happening, there's me: trying to have a discussion about the complications of Catholic Faith in a secular and liberal government, particularly into the matters of abortion. It's a discussion that Intersect various schools of theology, competing ideas of liberty, and human dignity.

and then theres you, who have been badgering me since the leak about Biden, (and now pelosi) and are trying to force me to draw a side on whether or not the should be excommunicated. I don't have one, and I have no interest in forming one. I don't pay enough attention to assess them, nor do I care to. And I'm not gonna keep a conversation going when your response to every point I made, is a "what about Biden and Pelosi."

I'm sorry I'm not going to have a "real discussion" with you where I agree enough with the fundamentals of your position when I don't.

Hence my comment about water into rock. You're not interested in what I have to say, you're not open to being convinced, so I'm really not gonna expend a lot of effort on an exercise in futility. Regardless if you think it's lazy or not. Which makes what I said above even more annoying. You're not actually interested in the discussion, you're just trying to maneuver me into a position so you can tell me you think I'm wrong.

I just don't see how any of these man-made concepts like liberty or natural rights have anything meaningful say about access to communion. I think that gives these kinds of America-centric concepts more credit than they're due in the context of the eternal, which the Eucharist is. America and everything it is is entirely profane and temporal, and has nothing to add to our understanding of the sacred. The constitution of this country, or any other doesn't change a damn thing about who should or shouldn't receive communion. If that pisses you off, I really don't care. I'm never going to be fine with sacrilege.

[Prima Scriptura]

Because there's two discussion happening, there's me: trying to have a discussion about the complications of Catholic Faith in a secular and liberal government, particularly into the matters of abortion. It's a discussion that Intersect various schools of theology, competing ideas of liberty, and human dignity.

and then theres you, who have been badgering me since the leak about Biden, (and now pelosi) and are trying to force me to draw a side on whether or not the should be excommunicated. I don't have one, and I have no interest in forming one. I don't pay enough attention to assess them, nor do I care to. And I'm not gonna keep a conversation going when your response to every point I made, is a "what about Biden and Pelosi."







Hence my comment about water into rock. You're not interested in what I have to say, you're not open to being convinced, so I'm really not gonna expend a lot of effort on an exercise in futility. Regardless if you think it's lazy or not. Which makes what I said above even more annoying. You're not actually interested in the discussion, you're just trying to maneuver me into a position so you can tell me you think I'm wrong.

I just don't see how any of these man-made concepts like liberty or natural rights have anything meaningful say about access to communion. I think that gives these kinds of America-centric concepts more credit than they're due in the context of the eternal, which the Eucharist is. America and everything it is is entirely profane and temporal, and has nothing to add to our understanding of the sacred. The constitution of this country, or any other doesn't change a damn thing about who should or shouldn't receive communion. If that pisses you off, I really don't care. I'm never going to be fine with sacrilege.

Do you think that Christianity and liberal democracy can co-exist?

[Dreria]

Apparently there was a bit of an uproar in the Greek Orthodox Church over the children of a same sex couple being baptized, and Mt Athos released a statement. I was curious what the Orthodox members of the thread's thoughts were.

infant baptism is intended for the children of a couple whose marriage is blessed by the church and who intend to raise the child orthodox. And a godparent is assigned to help ensure that the latter is the case. When neither of those conditions have been met — as the church does not bless same sex marriages, and this couple are evidently not enthusiastic about obeying what the church teaches — it is not appropriate to conduct the sacrament. Holy baptism is not a right of those in the household of an ethnic Greek, nor is it a way for one bishop to court plaudits and controversy by overruling the church.

Sadly for the Greek church, Elpidophoros is an unworthy bishop for this and many other reasons.

[Tarsonis]

Because there's two discussion happening, there's me: trying to have a discussion about the complications of Catholic Faith in a secular and liberal government, particularly into the matters of abortion. It's a discussion that Intersect various schools of theology, competing ideas of liberty, and human dignity.

and then theres you, who have been badgering me since the leak about Biden, (and now pelosi) and are trying to force me to draw a side on whether or not the should be excommunicated. I don't have one, and I have no interest in forming one. I don't pay enough attention to assess them, nor do I care to. And I'm not gonna keep a conversation going when your response to every point I made, is a "what about Biden and Pelosi."







Hence my comment about water into rock. You're not interested in what I have to say, you're not open to being convinced, so I'm really not gonna expend a lot of effort on an exercise in futility. Regardless if you think it's lazy or not. Which makes what I said above even more annoying. You're not actually interested in the discussion, you're just trying to maneuver me into a position so you can tell me you think I'm wrong.

I just don't see how any of these man-made concepts like liberty or natural rights have anything meaningful say about access to communion. I think that gives these kinds of America-centric concepts more credit than they're due in the context of the eternal, which the Eucharist is. America and everything it is is entirely profane and temporal, and has nothing to add to our understanding of the sacred. The constitution of this country, or any other doesn't change a damn thing about who should or shouldn't receive communion. If that pisses you off, I really don't care. I'm never going to be fine with sacrilege.

Hence why I'm not giving you the time of day. You're not interested in a counter argument, you just want to rant about the problems you see with the world and are using me as proxy since you can't get in the same room as them. Jog on and jog fast

[Sordhau]

Apparently there was a bit of an uproar in the Greek Orthodox Church over the children of a same sex couple being baptized, and Mt Athos released a statement. I was curious what the Orthodox members of the thread's thoughts were.

I feel like the Greek Church has forgotten what the primary purpose of baptism is for.

[Tarsonis]

Apparently there was a bit of an uproar in the Greek Orthodox Church over the children of a same sex couple being baptized, and Mt Athos released a statement. I was curious what the Orthodox members of the thread's thoughts were.

I feel like the Greek Church has forgotten what the primary purpose of baptism is for.

They didn't say say it was invalid, they're addressing the scandal of apparently giving tacit approval of same sex couples and adoption. But on the other hand, is the implication that they're gonna deny baptism to future kids adopted by same sex couples? I feel for the rock and the hard place position they're in, but I'm not sure what exactly they did to make it better.

[Diopolis]

Yes.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

St. Ignatius

Well, most Catholics taking communion are sinning then.

This is not news to anyone.

[Diopolis]

I feel like the Greek Church has forgotten what the primary purpose of baptism is for.

They didn't say say it was invalid, they're addressing the scandal of apparently giving tacit approval of same sex couples and adoption. But on the other hand, is the implication that they're gonna deny baptism to future kids adopted by same sex couples? I feel for the rock and the hard place position they're in, but I'm not sure what exactly they did to make it better.

You cannot baptize a child unless you have a reasonable degree of belief that they will be raised within the faith. So the children of open and public sinners should not be baptized until they have repented.

[Sordhau]

I feel like the Greek Church has forgotten what the primary purpose of baptism is for.

They didn't say say it was invalid, they're addressing the scandal of apparently giving tacit approval of same sex couples and adoption. But on the other hand, is the implication that they're gonna deny baptism to future kids adopted by same sex couples? I feel for the rock and the hard place position they're in, but I'm not sure what exactly they did to make it better.

The reality is that same-sex couples will exist, that they will adopt, and that they may want their child to be baptized. There is no point in kicking up a fuss about it. It isn't required for them to make a statement in support of SSRs or gay adoption. All they have to do is baptize the child which, in and of itself, is a harmless act that is spiritually beneficial to the child. There is no reason not to do it and no reason to make a big fuss out of it either. Baptize the kid, and move on. The baptism isn't for the parents; it's for the child.

[Sordhau]

They didn't say say it was invalid, they're addressing the scandal of apparently giving tacit approval of same sex couples and adoption. But on the other hand, is the implication that they're gonna deny baptism to future kids adopted by same sex couples? I feel for the rock and the hard place position they're in, but I'm not sure what exactly they did to make it better.

You cannot baptize a child unless you have a reasonable degree of belief that they will be raised within the faith. So the children of open and public sinners should not be baptized until they have repented.

Everyone is a sinner. By this logic no one should be baptized.

[Tarsonis]

You cannot baptize a child unless you have a reasonable degree of belief that they will be raised within the faith. So the children of open and public sinners should not be baptized until they have repented.

Everyone is a sinner. By this logic no one should be baptized.

He means unrepentant sinner, and unfortunately he as a compelling point. Baptism is more than just a dunk to keep the devil at bay. It's an indunction into the Church family, with the explicit and declared intent of raising the Child according to the Tradition of the Church. The Church doesn't baptize the kids of non-Christians who might request it, for that reason.

While you and I might disagree with the Church's position on the matter, the Church as it stands would be within its obligation as it understands them, to withhold the sacrament for children of parents who are, for lack of a better word, flagrantly defying Church teaching.

[Sordhau]

Everyone is a sinner. By this logic no one should be baptized.

He means unrepentant sinner, and unfortunately he as a compelling point. Baptism is more than just a dunk to keep the devil at bay. It's an indunction into the Church family, with the explicit and declared intent of raising the Child according to the Tradition of the Church. The Church doesn't baptize the kids of non-Christians who might request it, for that reason.

While you and I might disagree with the Church's position on the matter, the Church as it stands would be within its obligation as it understands them, to withhold the sacrament for children of parents who are, for lack of a better word, flagrantly defying Church teaching.

Really sucks to have to live in a time period where the Church still thinks being gay is a sin. Wish I had a time machine.

[Salus Maior]

Do you think that Christianity and liberal democracy can co-exist?

Christianity can co-exist with a lot of things that want to overturn and undermine it.

[Prima Scriptura]

Do you think that Christianity and liberal democracy can co-exist?

Christianity can co-exist with a lot of things that want to overturn and undermine it.

Do you think there is such a thing as Christian Democracy?

[Salus Maior]

Christianity can co-exist with a lot of things that want to overturn and undermine it.

Do you think there is such a thing as Christian Democracy?

It doesn't exist right now, if it ever really did.

[Sordhau]

Christian Democracy is literally just theocracy but with voting.

[Fahran]

Christian Democracy is literally just theocracy but with voting.

Honestly? Based.