NATION

PASSWORD

Christian Discussion Thread IV

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

What is your denomination?

Roman Catholic
315
34%
Eastern Orthodox
65
7%
Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East , etc.)
10
1%
Anglican/Episcopalian
57
6%
Lutheran or Reformed (including Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc.)
86
9%
Methodist
30
3%
Baptist
104
11%
Pentecostal
31
3%
Restorationist (LDS Movement, Jehovah's Witness, etc.)
36
4%
Other Christian
200
21%
 
Total votes : 934

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 23612
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Christian Discussion Thread IV

Postby The Archregimancy » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:32 pm

This is the fourth version of the Christian discussion thread, where one can discuss Christianity in general, the difference between the sects, certain variations on the denomination and differences in what you believe, and many other topics regarding Christianity in comparison to other religions around the world.

While discussion naturally covers a broad range of themes, members of the moderation team (including those participating in the thread), may occasionally gently suggest that some topics might be best taken to a separate thread; this will usually only occur when a subject is itself the subject of recurring separate NSG threads.

Potentially unfinished business from the third version:

Neoconstantius wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Hussite Church and it's relation to Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism? There seems to be a scarcity of information on the subject.


Ryfylke wrote:
Neoconstantius wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Hussite Church and it's relation to Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism? There seems to be a scarcity of information on the subject.

The Hussites have since evolved into what is today know as the Moravian Chuch. Like most Protestant groups, their are organized by nation rather than having a central structure, so it's hard to get a solid picture of their ecumenical relations. However, they tend to cooperate well with the Lutheran and Anglican Churches, as the three are very similar theologically. The three have been on a trend toward full communion for decades.



And....

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Albicia wrote:
But... I thought Jesus founded the Church of England... haven't you guys heard the song?


(I'm hoping that this is sarcasm but if not,...)

Are we talking about the Anglican Church of England, or Catholic Archdiocese in England? The Catholic Archdiocese holds back to the 500's but Celtic Christianiy existed as early as the first century. The Anglican Church of England is founded by Horny Henry VIII


On that one.... Albicia was presumably wryly referencing Blake's Jerusalem, Tarsonis. Which of course begins:

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
Last edited by The Archregimancy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Albicia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1178
Founded: Aug 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Albicia » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:00 am

Indeed I was. I do such love that song, one of my favorite sort of hymns. I love the legend as well. My ancestors from Cornwall and Somerset were devout believers in the Joseph of Arimathea legends, about Jesus coming to England. It likely has no shred of proof, but hagiography and folk tales about the life of Jesus are so interesting.

User avatar
The Flood
Minister
 
Posts: 3422
Founded: Nov 24, 2011
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Flood » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:08 am

New thread #swag

Episode IV: A New Pope
Last edited by The Flood on Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Agnostic
Asexual
Transgender, pronouns she / her

Pro-Life
Pro-LGBT
Pro-Left Wing
Pro-Socialism / Communism

Anti-Hate Speech
Anti-Fascist
Anti-Bigotry
Anti-Right Wing
Anti-Capitalism

Political Test
Political Compass
Personality Type: INFJ
I am The UNE now

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33379
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:12 am

The Flood wrote:New thread #swag

Episode IV: A New Pope

Got a question, to start this thing off.

Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?

Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Aodan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 903
Founded: Mar 28, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Aodan » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:16 am

1stttt page yas
0. Peace
1. Minor Threat
2. Minor Skirmish
3. Minor War
4. War
5. Major War
6. Full-Scale Homeland Defence
7. Nuclear Holocaust Inbound
GEOFICTIONAL WORKS SOCIETY MEMBER
Republique della France wrote:
British Prussia wrote:Italy because of the food...

German food is better, almost masterful if you will :lol:

Last post of the greatest fascist to walk Earth... RIP RDF
The New Sea Territory wrote:Putin needs to invade another country or something. We need real General topics, not BS ones.

User avatar
Aodan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 903
Founded: Mar 28, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Aodan » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:17 am

Menassa wrote:
The Flood wrote:New thread #swag

Episode IV: A New Pope

Got a question, to start this thing off.

Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?

Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).

In the Bible it says Homosexuality is condemned in the eyes of God, not other people.
0. Peace
1. Minor Threat
2. Minor Skirmish
3. Minor War
4. War
5. Major War
6. Full-Scale Homeland Defence
7. Nuclear Holocaust Inbound
GEOFICTIONAL WORKS SOCIETY MEMBER
Republique della France wrote:
British Prussia wrote:Italy because of the food...

German food is better, almost masterful if you will :lol:

Last post of the greatest fascist to walk Earth... RIP RDF
The New Sea Territory wrote:Putin needs to invade another country or something. We need real General topics, not BS ones.

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33379
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:20 am

Aodan wrote:
Menassa wrote:Got a question, to start this thing off.

Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?

Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).

In the Bible it says Homosexuality is condemned in the eyes of God, not other people.

But doesn't it say to put them to death? That was said for people to do.
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
The Flood
Minister
 
Posts: 3422
Founded: Nov 24, 2011
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Flood » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:20 am

Menassa wrote:
The Flood wrote:New thread #swag
Episode IV: A New Pope

Got a question, to start this thing off.
Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?
Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).
I support the rights of LGBT people because the Church's overarching teaching is love and acceptance. Hating people is always wrong. Furthermore, I don't believe a secular institution of gay marriage conflicts with the definition of Holy Matrimony, because 2 people getting married in an office by signing a paper isn't Holy Matrimony, so I don't believe secular gay marriage conflicts with my beliefs.

I'm against abortion because it is fundamental to the Christian faith; taking an innocent human life is among the gravest sins that can ever be committed, and must not be allowed under any circumstance. I don't believe it is possible in any regard for abortion to not be murder.

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, because it is a made up Protestant concept. How can the Bible be the only source of authority if the Church clearly predates the Bible? The Church wrote and compiled the Bible, which clearly proves the Church has at least equal, if not greater authority then the Bible.
Agnostic
Asexual
Transgender, pronouns she / her

Pro-Life
Pro-LGBT
Pro-Left Wing
Pro-Socialism / Communism

Anti-Hate Speech
Anti-Fascist
Anti-Bigotry
Anti-Right Wing
Anti-Capitalism

Political Test
Political Compass
Personality Type: INFJ
I am The UNE now

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33379
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:22 am

The Flood wrote:
Menassa wrote:Got a question, to start this thing off.
Why is it, that you support LGBT which is specifically condemned in the Bible but don't support abortion, which isn't referenced and potentially not considered murder?
Is it because you are not sola scriptura? (from what I understand about you being Catholic).
I support the rights of LGBT people because the Church's overarching teaching is love and acceptance. Hating people is always wrong. Furthermore, I don't believe a secular institution of gay marriage conflicts with the definition of Holy Matrimony, because 2 people getting married in an office by signing a paper isn't Holy Matrimony, so I don't believe secular gay marriage conflicts with my beliefs.

I'm against abortion because it is fundamental to the Christian faith; taking an innocent human life is among the gravest sins that can ever be committed, and must not be allowed under any circumstance. I don't believe it is possible in any regard for abortion to not be murder.

I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, because it is a made up Protestant concept. How can the Bible be the only source of authority if the Church clearly predates the Bible? The Church wrote and compiled the Bible, which clearly proves the Church has at least equal, if not greater authority then the Bible.

Ah, interesting, some of what I expected to read, some not.
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Mostrov
Minister
 
Posts: 2499
Founded: Aug 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mostrov » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:21 am

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Are we talking about the Anglican Church of England, or Catholic Archdiocese in England? The Catholic Archdiocese holds back to the 500's but Celtic Christianiy existed as early as the first century. The Anglican Church of England is founded by Horny Henry VIII

Again this irritates me to no end, and is an absurd simplification of the English Reformation and of course completely ignores the fact that many of the priests who were part of the initial church under Henry VIII and later Edward VI were reinstated under the co-reign of Mary I and Philip I, as well as ignoring the fact that much of the reformation took its roots from English liturgical traditions such as the Sarum Rite (Especially under Edward VI) which was later 'suppressed' under Elizabeth to avoid making such dogmatic statements that might create schism in the nascent church.
Not that the Roman Catholics did any better with their suppression of the same rite as the Southern European Tridentine Rite was promulgated. Surely a sign of political neutrality if there was ever one.

And of course the fact that Anglicanism traces its origins to said Archdiocese and Celtic Christianity.

And don't mention divorce...

Distruzio wrote:Heresies. Each and every one. The only Christian schisms are the Anglican Catholics (as opposed to the Anglican Communion which evolved from schism into heresy), the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox - perhaps, very tepidly, the Old (Utrecht) Catholics as well but I reserve the right for reconsideration of this as I increase my knowledge of their theological foundation. Each of the Protestants denominations, except for the Anglican Catholics (which seceded from the Roman Catholic Church due to political rivalries rather than dogmatic innovations (although the Church, later, ratified certain Protestant doctrinal innovations which were, even later still, repudiated or otherwise disregarded in order to bring the Church more in line with orthodox Christian doctrine), is heretical.


Considering that the Union of Utrecht is in full communion with Anglicanism, I would be interested in hearing your justification of the differences between Anglican Catholics (Does this refer to Tractarian Anglo-Catholics?), High Church Anglicans and the Anglican Communion (Which as far as I am concerned are relatively inseparable).

What heresy has the Anglican Communion fallen victim? The reissuing of the statement condemning gay marriage? Or the ordination of women (Which is about as limited as well as full controversy)? And to what difference to we make of the Anglican Communion and the Church of England, especially considering the whole fuss about via mede and the broad church.

User avatar
Tsaraine
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4033
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Tsaraine » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:31 am

Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is. :P

User avatar
Czechanada
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14851
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Czechanada » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:38 am

I just wanted to point that in addition to the Moravian Church, there exists the Czechoslovak Hussite Church as well as a descendant of the Hussites.
"You know what I was. You see what I am. Change me, change me!" - Randall Jarrell.

User avatar
Chelta
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1271
Founded: Apr 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chelta » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:46 am

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is. :P


Personally I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it, since the common European portrayal of Christ as a white European bloke would technically be at odds with the fact that he would have been a brown Palestinian (...right?)


Vuzghulia wrote:An uncivilized nation ... institutions do not meet civilized standards ... barely fit to be called a nation ... the people's beer smells like hobo-urine, their sports are silly and feminine ... your music is ridiculed ... nobody takes your politicians seriously ... it would be a public service if someone invaded and taught your people civilized ways.

Breheim wrote:Chelta is a den of deviants.

User avatar
Benuty
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35951
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Benuty » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:59 am

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is. :P

If your an atheist then why are you so righteous?
:P.
Last edited by Hashem 13.8 billion years ago
King of Madness in the Right Wing Discussion Thread. Winner of 2016 Posters Award for Insanity.
Please be aware my posts in NSG, and P2TM are separate.

User avatar
Bunkeranlage
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5221
Founded: Oct 24, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Bunkeranlage » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:15 am

Benuty wrote:
Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is. :P

If your an atheist then why are you so righteous?
:P.


There are some people who follow Christian teachings, but don't believe that Jesus is Lord. Fidel Castro, for example.

However, I'm not quite sure how that's working out, since believing in Jesus is the very first step to becoming a Christian.
Last edited by Bunkeranlage on Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
~+~+~ RIP, Mr. Lee | (1923 - 2015) ~+~+~
Economic Left: 4.00 Social Libertarian: 1.59 | Ich bin INFP
My Manga Gallery | Bertrand Russell: The Case for Socialism | On Holocaust Denial | My Views
"What a talentless bastard! It irritates me that this self-fellated mediocrity is acclaimed as genius."

- P. I. Tchaikovsky, on Brahms

~+~+~+~

"I liked everything about the opera. Everything, except for the music."

- B. Britten, on Stravinsky's The Rake's Progress

~+~+~+~

"Hell is full of musical amateurs."

- George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Christainville
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 361
Founded: Oct 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Christainville » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:18 am

Bunkeranlage wrote:
Benuty wrote:If your an atheist then why are you so righteous?
:P.


There are some people who follow Christian teachings, but don't believe that Jesus is Lord. Fidel Castro, for example.

However, I'm not quite sure how that's working out, since believing in Jesus is the very first step to becoming a Christian.


I agree with that statement, even Thomas Jefferson made his own bible taking out all the parts about Christ miracles, so he would not see the super natural side of Jesus.

User avatar
Christainville
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 361
Founded: Oct 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Christainville » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:21 am

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is. :P


Far as in movies, its all about what actor they hire, the skin color would probably be off, since people native in that are have a darker skin tone. Now, I have no knowledge of a raptor Jesus, I have seen black before, and I am not sure about Asian. It depends on what denomination your in for how Jesus is viewed, but most use the white version.

I hope your not going to start another color debate, like how fox did with the color of santa. He isnt even real and it caused a big fight.

User avatar
Bunkeranlage
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5221
Founded: Oct 24, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Bunkeranlage » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:22 am

Christainville wrote:
Bunkeranlage wrote:
There are some people who follow Christian teachings, but don't believe that Jesus is Lord. Fidel Castro, for example.

However, I'm not quite sure how that's working out, since believing in Jesus is the very first step to becoming a Christian.


I agree with that statement, even Thomas Jefferson made his own bible taking out all the parts about Christ miracles, so he would not see the super natural side of Jesus.


That said, we can follow all of the Bible's lessons and proverbs, but it's not getting us anywhere if we don't acknowledge that Jesus came to save us. Conversely, I could be a serial adulterer/murderer/cheat/thief, and I would still receive salvation even if my conversion was a last minute, deathbed one.
~+~+~ RIP, Mr. Lee | (1923 - 2015) ~+~+~
Economic Left: 4.00 Social Libertarian: 1.59 | Ich bin INFP
My Manga Gallery | Bertrand Russell: The Case for Socialism | On Holocaust Denial | My Views
"What a talentless bastard! It irritates me that this self-fellated mediocrity is acclaimed as genius."

- P. I. Tchaikovsky, on Brahms

~+~+~+~

"I liked everything about the opera. Everything, except for the music."

- B. Britten, on Stravinsky's The Rake's Progress

~+~+~+~

"Hell is full of musical amateurs."

- George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Albicia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1178
Founded: Aug 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Albicia » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:56 am

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is. :P


Well, the Biblical evidence, such as there is, seems to indicate that he had a whiter phenotype than is common to modern Palestinians.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 23612
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:11 am

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus


Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.


Albicia wrote:Well, the Biblical evidence, such as there is, seems to indicate that he had a whiter phenotype than is common to modern Palestinians.


What Biblical evidence? There's no description of His physical appearance anywhere in the Gospels; and I really don't think the description in Revelation 1:12-16 counts.

User avatar
Tsaraine
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4033
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Tsaraine » Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:51 am

The Archregimancy wrote:
Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus


Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.


Hm. So even in depictions of him, the physical appearance of Jesus is secondary to his teachings? I can dig that. I just thought some priestly figure down the ages would have made a fuss along the lines of "OMG WTF gaiz Jesus is totally not look liek that".

As for my mouth frothing, well, I like you, and, indeed, I find many Christians entirely unobjectionable. I just have my philosophical and ideological disagreements with your god (as far as that can go, given I - conveniently for me - don't believe he exists!). Which I should probably not get into, lest this become yet another Christians vs. Atheists Thread. I lack the energy or the zeal for evangelism, and I enjoy poking about with theology, so I'd rather do that instead. :P

User avatar
Albicia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1178
Founded: Aug 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Albicia » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:11 am

The Archregimancy wrote:
Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus


Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.


Albicia wrote:Well, the Biblical evidence, such as there is, seems to indicate that he had a whiter phenotype than is common to modern Palestinians.


What Biblical evidence? There's no description of His physical appearance anywhere in the Gospels; and I really don't think the description in Revelation 1:12-16 counts.


Jesus himself may not be described, but his ancestors are. King David is described as fair and ruddy, the princes of Israel are described as fair, white and ruddy (with blue eyes) in Lamentations, and some translations of the Psalms describe the Messiah as being fair. Obviously the descriptions in Revelation could mean anything.

And of course, his colour wouldn't change anything at all.
Last edited by Albicia on Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bunkeranlage
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5221
Founded: Oct 24, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Bunkeranlage » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:23 am

Albicia wrote:
The Archregimancy wrote:
Does it really matter? There's a centuries-old tradition of local cultures representing Jesus of Nazareth according to local physical norms, and I doubt that'll change. Mormon American Jesus has much older counterparts in Ethiopian Jesus and Chinese Jesus.

And we both know you're not really that "mouth-frothingly" atheist, Tsar; at least not if the mutually respectful past IRC discussions we've had on theological issues are anything to go by.




What Biblical evidence? There's no description of His physical appearance anywhere in the Gospels; and I really don't think the description in Revelation 1:12-16 counts.


Jesus himself may not be described, but his ancestors are. King David is described as fair and ruddy, the princes of Israel are described as fair, white and ruddy (with blue eyes) in Lamentations, and some translations of the Psalms describe the Messiah as being fair. Obviously the descriptions in Revelation could mean anything.

And of course, his colour wouldn't change anything at all.



The whole point of not providing any detailed descriptions of Jesus' image is so that we worship Jesus himself. An image would probably lead some of us to worship the image, which is not what we'd want. We don't however, have much of an image of Jesus except for the usual interpretations (beardy, long hair, etc).

(PS: It's late where I am. I gotta sleep now. Bai)
~+~+~ RIP, Mr. Lee | (1923 - 2015) ~+~+~
Economic Left: 4.00 Social Libertarian: 1.59 | Ich bin INFP
My Manga Gallery | Bertrand Russell: The Case for Socialism | On Holocaust Denial | My Views
"What a talentless bastard! It irritates me that this self-fellated mediocrity is acclaimed as genius."

- P. I. Tchaikovsky, on Brahms

~+~+~+~

"I liked everything about the opera. Everything, except for the music."

- B. Britten, on Stravinsky's The Rake's Progress

~+~+~+~

"Hell is full of musical amateurs."

- George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Albicia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1178
Founded: Aug 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Albicia » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:24 am

Bunkeranlage wrote:
Albicia wrote:
Jesus himself may not be described, but his ancestors are. King David is described as fair and ruddy, the princes of Israel are described as fair, white and ruddy (with blue eyes) in Lamentations, and some translations of the Psalms describe the Messiah as being fair. Obviously the descriptions in Revelation could mean anything.

And of course, his colour wouldn't change anything at all.



The whole point of not providing any detailed descriptions of Jesus' image is so that we worship Jesus himself. An image would probably lead some of us to worship the image, which is not what we'd want. We don't however, have much of an image of Jesus except for the usual interpretations (beardy, long hair, etc).

(PS: It's late where I am. I gotta sleep now. Bai)


I wonder what hair length Jesus had? Paul seems to be pretty critical of long hair on males.

User avatar
Distruzio
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23841
Founded: Feb 28, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Distruzio » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:46 am

Tsaraine wrote:Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is. :P


No worries, baby. Orthodox doctrine is mum. From my experience, His portrayal as a white man has always been marginally offensive.

In essence, our position is that if Jesus wasn't constrained by death why, then, would He be constrained by race?
Eastern Orthodox Christian

Anti-Progressive
Conservative

Anti-Feminist
Right leaning Distributist

Anti-Equity
Western Chauvanist

Anti-Globalism
Nationalist

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Byzconia, Captiotia, Chernoslavia, Crockerland, Dazchan, Democratic Exodian Territories, Diopolis, Dooom35796821595, Dresderstan, Evil Dictators Happyland, Fahran, Fartsniffage, Gagium, Garvtopia, Google Adsense [Bot], Great Jenovah, Greater Arab State, Hammer Britannia, Hediacrana, Ifreann, Ilanea, Kenmoria, Kirstein, Liecthenbourg, Lillorainen, Minachia, Nakena, Nea Videssos, Romisthan, SD_Film Artists, The order of the Rising Sun, Valentine Z, Vulgaro-Graznavian Commonwealth, Window Land, Xmara, Yomaira

Advertisement

Remove ads