Christian Discussion Thread V

[Grave_n_idle]

(I wasn't talking about Paul dropping the command/applying the spirit, I was talking about what Salus said about the command)

My mistake - I thought we were still discussing Paul.

But how to apply the Homosexuality law Paul spoke of in spirit (in modern times) is definitely a concept.

But you said that you had to take the connotations in the different eras into account.

In Paul's time, the kind of homosexuality condemned scripturally tended to specifically refer to temple prostitutes - so any judgement about homosexuality is - again - about prostitution.

Secondly - contextually - Paul was talking to a tiny church that was desperately trying to grow. In Paul's time, Christians practising birth control, abstinence, or having alternative sex would all be a direct threat to the continued survival of the nascent Christian sect. Today, with more than a billion Christians in the world, Paul's worries about the church membership is no longer relevant.

[Constantinopolis]

I got a question. Why should the Church care about what people, particularly those outside the Church, are doing in the bedroom? It doesn't really concern them what nonbelievers are doing does it? Why should the Church try so hard to defend the 'Sanctity of Marriage', even when it comes to secular marriage, if nonbelievers don't believe in 'traditional marriage'? Why can't the Church mind it's own business and only care about what it's own followers are doing when it comes to 'sexual immortality'?

Because Christians and non-Christians live in the same culture, and it is silly wishful thinking to imagine that the social standards of one group have no influence on the other group.

Like it or not, what Christians do in the bedroom will always tend to be more or less the same thing that their non-Christian neighbors do in the bedroom. You can't draw a line and say that you care only about one but not about the other. They are not separable.

Only if Christians became an ethnoreligious group - like the Jews, or the Amish, or the Sikhs, or the Druze - could we realistically expect Christians to develop a separate culture from that of their secular neighbors.

[Prusslandia]

I got a question. Why should the Church care about what people, particularly those outside the Church, are doing in the bedroom? It doesn't really concern them what nonbelievers are doing does it? Why should the Church try so hard to defend the 'Sanctity of Marriage', even when it comes to secular marriage, if nonbelievers don't believe in 'traditional marriage'? Why can't the Church mind it's own business and only care about what it's own followers are doing when it comes to 'sexual immortality'?

Because Christians and non-Christians live in the same culture, and it is silly wishful thinking to imagine that the social standards of one group have no influence on the other group.

Like it or not, what Christians do in the bedroom will always tend to be more or less the same thing that their non-Christian neighbors do in the bedroom. You can't draw a line and say that you care only about one but not about the other. They are not separable.

Only if Christians became an ethnoreligious group - like the Jews, or the Amish, or the Sikhs, or the Druze - could we realistically expect Christians to develop a separate culture from that of their secular neighbors.

I think that would be very interesting to see, though I probably hope for naught.

[Grave_n_idle]

I got a question. Why should the Church care about what people, particularly those outside the Church, are doing in the bedroom? It doesn't really concern them what nonbelievers are doing does it? Why should the Church try so hard to defend the 'Sanctity of Marriage', even when it comes to secular marriage, if nonbelievers don't believe in 'traditional marriage'? Why can't the Church mind it's own business and only care about what it's own followers are doing when it comes to 'sexual immortality'?

Because Christians and non-Christians live in the same culture, and it is silly wishful thinking to imagine that the social standards of one group have no influence on the other group.

Like it or not, what Christians do in the bedroom will always tend to be more or less the same thing that their non-Christian neighbors do in the bedroom. You can't draw a line and say that you care only about one but not about the other. They are not separable.

Only if Christians became an ethnoreligious group - like the Jews, or the Amish, or the Sikhs, or the Druze - could we realistically expect Christians to develop a separate culture from that of their secular neighbors.

Scripturally, that's what Christians are supposed to be.

[Bari]

There's been some talk of this on here, but I do believe women ought to cover their hair in church. Also, they shouldn't talk in church.

[Constantinopolis]

There's been some talk of this on here, but I do believe women ought to cover their hair in church.

Well, a lot of Christian women - usually either Catholic and Orthodox - do indeed do this. However, the great majority do not.

Also, they shouldn't talk in church.

Wait, wait... what?

I mean, if you're referring to not talking during the Divine Liturgy or Mass, then yes, obviously, no one should talk during the divine services, regardless of gender. But surely you're not suggesting that women shouldn't talk before and after the divine services, like everyone does... right?

[Liberty and Linguistics]

There's been some talk of this on here, but I do believe women ought to cover their hair in church. Also, they shouldn't talk in church.

Are you saying that they should never speak inside a church, or that they shouldn't speak while mass is in session?

Granted, when I do go to mass, I have a tendency to talk or doze off during the homily, but nobody ever notices since I'm not an inconsiderate prick who speaks loudly at mass.

[Bari]

There's been some talk of this on here, but I do believe women ought to cover their hair in church.

Well, a lot of Christian women - usually either Catholic and Orthodox - do indeed do this. However, the great majority do not.

Also, they shouldn't talk in church.

Wait, wait... what?

I mean, if you're referring to not talking during the Divine Liturgy or Mass, then yes, obviously, no one should talk during the divine services, regardless of gender. But surely you're not suggesting that women shouldn't talk before and after the divine services, like everyone does... right?

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it. They also should not serve as altar servers or lectors or extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or deacons or so on.

[TomKirk]

Rome had plenty of terrible emperors and barbarian invasions in previous centuries, but maintained its borders. After adopting Christianity, suddenly it started losing provinces left and right.

I wasn't aware Christianity caused the Three empires Crisis of the Third Century?

Rome lost zero provinces during that crisis. Rome survived all kinds of bad emperors and barbarian wars-- until it adopted Christianity.

[Bari]

I wasn't aware Christianity caused the Three empires Crisis of the Third Century?

Rome lost zero provinces during that crisis. Rome survived all kinds of bad emperors and barbarian wars-- until it adopted Christianity.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.

[Constantinopolis]

I wasn't aware Christianity caused the Three empires Crisis of the Third Century?

Rome lost zero provinces during that crisis. Rome survived all kinds of bad emperors and barbarian wars-- until it adopted Christianity.

No. False. Wrong. Let me repost the relevant explanation.

The Roman imperial system established by Augustus - commonly called the "Principate", this was basically the political system shown in every movie and TV show about ancient Rome - collapsed in the third century. For all intents and purposes, the Roman Empire that most people imagine when they hear the phrase "Roman Empire" ceased to exist during the Crisis of the Third Century. Imperial authority collapsed. There were 26 official Emperors in 50 years (and many other claimants). The Empire split into three competing states. The city of Rome lost its political importance as the capital of the Empire, never to be regained (after the Crisis of the Third Century, the Empire was no longer ruled from Rome). New religions gained popularity, as many people came to believe the old gods had abandoned them, or maybe never existed in the first place. Among the new religions were Manichaeism, Mithraism, the cult of Isis, and of course Christianity.

Eventually, through the efforts of the Emperors Aurelian, Diocletian and Constantine, the de facto independent provinces of the Roman world were reunited to form a new state, with the same name and the same borders as the old Roman Empire, but with radically different politics, and tremendous social changes. This was the "Dominate", the second stage of the Roman Empire (or, depending on your interpretation, the Second Roman Empire). The new Empire was not ruled from Rome, but from various other cities, until Constantine established a new permanent capital at Constantinople in 330 AD. It was sometimes ruled by a single Emperor, and sometimes by sets of 2 or 4 co-Emperors (an idea first introduced by Diocletian, then abolished by Constantine in favour of single rule, then re-introduced by Theodosius with the famous East-West split in 395 AD). The old Emperors of the Principate had been, in modern terms, military dictators. The new Emperors of the Dominate were absolute monarchs instead.

As far as religion was concerned, the old gods were dead. Hardly anyone except a few reactionary aristocrats took them seriously any more. The aforementioned new religions were spreading like wildfire across the Empire, and one of them in particular - Christianity - was getting extremely popular among slaves and the urban poor, and proved impossible to stamp out. Diocletian tried to suppress all these annoying new religions and impose a custom-made religion invented by himself - the cult of Sol Invictus - but the attempt failed quite miserably. In the process, however, Diocletian instigated the greatest persecution of Christians in Roman history... which also failed, since it did not seem to even slow down the growth of Christianity. Eventually, Diocletian's successor, Constantine the Great, ended all religious persecution and extended official tolerance to all the new religions, while showing special favour towards Christianity. Constantine's mother, Helena, was a Christian (although his father wasn't), and Constantine himself converted on his deathbed.

Under Constantine and his successors, the Empire experienced somewhat of a renaissance in the Fourth Century, as it became increasingly Christian.
The adoption of Christianity coincided with a REVIVAL of the Roman Empire, not a decline.

It is true that the revival was short-lived, however, lasting only about one century. In 395 AD, the Emperor Theodosius divided the Empire between his two sons. The Eastern half continued to be ruled for Constantinople, as the whole Empire had been since 330 AD, while the Western half established its capital at Ravenna. Over the following decades, a series of catastrophes and invasions struck both parts of the Empire, but the West was hit by far the hardest, and began rapidly losing provinces (starting with Britannia in 410 AD), until the entire Western Empire collapsed in 476 AD. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire took only 66 years, all in the fifth century, which came as a surprise after a fairly successful fourth century.

Finally, between 530 and 560 AD, the Eastern single Roman Empire, under Emperor Justinian, re-conquered North Africa, Italy, and the southern part of Spain, almost restoring the Roman Empire to its historic borders, and making the collapse of the West look like just a temporary setback. So, in the sixth century, the Empire experienced a second century of revival after a second episode of collapse.

Then Islam happened in the seventh century, and that was the thing that put an end to the periodic revivals of the Roman Empire, this time permanently. After the Muslim Conquests, the Empire was reduced to a rump state in a small corner of its former domain, and remained this way for the next 800 years.

[Bari]

There's been some talk of this on here, but I do believe women ought to cover their hair in church. Also, they shouldn't talk in church.

Are you saying that they should never speak inside a church, or that they shouldn't speak while mass is in session?

Granted, when I do go to mass, I have a tendency to talk or doze off during the homily, but nobody ever notices since I'm not an inconsiderate prick who speaks loudly at mass.

They shouldn't speak, of course, during any part of the Mass. They also should not speak within the sanctuary, the room where Mass is to be celebrated.

[Constantinopolis]

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

*shrug* I admire modesty, but it's among the least important issues in all of Christianity. It's hard to think of a "problem" less important than this.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it.

"Speaking", in this context, refers to women performing the priestly function. Women cannot be priests.

But obviously women can talk within the walls of a church building. It would be beyond absurd to suggest otherwise.

[Menassa]

Second, Jews don't stone anyone either. So even the religion that is based entirely on the Old Testament still rejects the idea that OT legal penalties should apply in the modern world. Even leaving aside the fact that the Law has been fulfilled, not every instruction in the Old Testament is supposed to be a universal rule applying to all people at all times. Some are just specific instructions for the ancient Israelites alone.

And third, neither Christianity nor Judaism are supposed to be based on an individual reading of the Bible alone. Sorry, but the idea that Christian beliefs should be based purely on the Bible - with no other input or guide - is just a Protestant invention from the 16th century. Original Christianity relies heavily on Church Tradition, and Judaism relies heavily on the accumulated wisdom and rulings of past rabbis.

Your second paragraph should really get in touch with your first and see if it can correct your first paragraph

Jews don't 'stone' people because they view the death penalty in the Bible in a completely different way then most people. Jews look to the 'Oral Law' to explain the death penalty, not that it is anachronistic.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/jewish/ ... -barbaric/

[The Flutterlands]

Well, a lot of Christian women - usually either Catholic and Orthodox - do indeed do this. However, the great majority do not.


Wait, wait... what?

I mean, if you're referring to not talking during the Divine Liturgy or Mass, then yes, obviously, no one should talk during the divine services, regardless of gender. But surely you're not suggesting that women shouldn't talk before and after the divine services, like everyone does... right?

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it. They also should not serve as altar servers or lectors or extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or deacons or so on.

Yeah and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 prohibits homosexuality. What's your point? I haven't forgotten that post when you've said that you're a practicing homosexual.

[Menassa]

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it. They also should not serve as altar servers or lectors or extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or deacons or so on.

Yeah and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 prohibits homosexuality. What's your point? I haven't forgotten that post when you've said that you're a practicing homosexual.

An Elephant never forgets.

[Constantinopolis]

Are you saying that they should never speak inside a church, or that they shouldn't speak while mass is in session?

Granted, when I do go to mass, I have a tendency to talk or doze off during the homily, but nobody ever notices since I'm not an inconsiderate prick who speaks loudly at mass.

They shouldn't speak, of course, during any part of the Mass.

Sure, because no one should speak during Mass.

They also should not speak within the sanctuary, the room where Mass is to be celebrated.

Where do you get that from? And don't say 1 Corinthians 14:34, because dedicated sanctuary rooms did not yet exist when that epistle was written. The Eucharist was typically celebrated in people's homes, in rooms that were also used for other purposes. Saint Paul was certainly not suggesting that women should never speak inside any room where the Eucharist was sometimes celebrated.

[The Flutterlands]

Yeah and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 prohibits homosexuality. What's your point? I haven't forgotten that post when you've said that you're a practicing homosexual.

An Elephant never forgets.

A number of reasons. One of them having his SSA being compared to alcoholism. Which is stupid because even drinking is seen as okay by the Church if done moderately.

You see, I am gay myself, and I am a practicing Catholic. And a practicing homosexual. I've never even gone to those sessions that he has, and I have read the Catechism on homosexuality, and, whereas it offers the consolation it can, it is not exceedingly helpful in that regard. The most help I've received from a priest is him telling me God loves all of His children, and it was quite touching, but it did not help my situation. I know what the Church wants me to do, but it is hard to for me to do it.

But, speaking of alcohol, I am completely abstinent from alcohol and all intoxicants.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it. They also should not serve as altar servers or lectors or extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or deacons or so on.

Yeah and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 prohibits homosexuality. What's your point? I haven't forgotten that post when you've said that you're a practicing homosexual.

Bad. That's not an argument.

[The Flutterlands]

Yeah and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 prohibits homosexuality. What's your point? I haven't forgotten that post when you've said that you're a practicing homosexual.

Bad. That's not an argument.

Right. My bad. I'm just saying that he shouldn't be saying that women should follow one rule in a book in the bible, while he ignores another rule in the same book. It's just not right. Lots of Christians are guilty of that actually, particularly those who use Leviticus as a way of arguing against Same-Sex Marriage.

[Bari]

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

*shrug* I admire modesty, but it's among the least important issues in all of Christianity. It's hard to think of a "problem" less important than this.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it.

"Speaking", in this context, refers to women performing the priestly function. Women cannot be priests.

But obviously women can talk within the walls of a church building. It would be beyond absurd to suggest otherwise.

That does not mean this problem is any less important or legitimate.

I will concede it does not mean absolute silence, but I believe it applies even further than sacerdotal functions. It prohibits women to be in a teaching authority (in regard to the faith) over men. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 also states this.

So, I have come to a more full understanding of what is meant. Still, no one should be holding a casual or irreverent conversation in the sanctuary of a church, as it is a place of worship, and to hold one would be disrespectful.

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it. They also should not serve as altar servers or lectors or extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or deacons or so on.

Yeah and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 prohibits homosexuality. What's your point? I haven't forgotten that post when you've said that you're a practicing homosexual.

What's your point with continually bringing that up? Are you attempting to discredit me by suggesting I'm homosexual? Or that I'm a sinner, perhaps even a hypocrite?

I am a sinner, just like you. Everyone is a sinner. Pointing that out proves nothing. If you think it makes me unfit to say other actions are sinful, well, I'll pose this scenario to you. When you have kids, would it be wrong for you to teach them that lying is bad, even though you yourself have lied? No, it wouldn't.

In end, you repeating the same statement over and over is contributing nothing.

Bad. That's not an argument.

Right. My bad. I'm just saying that he shouldn't be saying that women should follow one rule in a book in the bible, while he ignores another rule in the same book. It's just not right. Lots of Christians are guilty of that actually, particularly those who use Leviticus as a way of arguing against Same-Sex Marriage.

I don't ignore it. I know it's sinful. I have never said otherwise. Everyone is a "practicing" sinner, even Christians. That doesn't mean they're ignoring rules they don't like. I go to confession and confess those sins. I don't receive Communion if I haven't gone to confession. I follow the same rules as every other Catholic. The nature of my sin is no worse than yours; this divide you're trying to make ultimately means nothing. We are one and the same when it comes to committing sin.

[The Lacedaemonians]

What are the stances of the modern denominations of Christianity on heathens and non-monotheistic faiths (such as myself, who was born and raised a heathen in an Asatru-practicing family) now in the 21st century?

[Diopolis]

[...] Several non-Trinitarian groups reject oaths (Doukhobors, Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, & probably some more), though I suppose it's up to the mods whether discussing heterodox, non-Nicene sects falls outside the scope of the Christian Discussion Thread.

The poll should've made it obvious that discussing those sects is permitted.

... why wouldn't it be?

Because they're not Christians. Though, I will say that being that there's not really anywhere else to lump them in as, this would be the closest to a place to discuss them.

[Menassa]

The poll should've made it obvious that discussing those sects is permitted.

... why wouldn't it be?

Because they're not Christians. Though, I will say that being that there's not really anywhere else to lump them in as, this would be the closest to a place to discuss them.

But what defines a Christian?

[Diopolis]

Not enough wear the mantilla or any hair cover.

Women are not permitted to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbids it. They also should not serve as altar servers or lectors or extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or deacons or so on.

Yeah and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 prohibits homosexuality. What's your point? I haven't forgotten that post when you've said that you're a practicing homosexual.

Everyone has sins that they fall in the habit of and have difficulty quitting after they repent. Sexual sins tend to be particularly prone to this; it's part of why they're so insidious.