CHRISTIAN FIGHT!!!

[Zeropoint]

I basically go by the rule that anyone who calls themselves a Christian counts as one, but I do agree that believing in the guy you're naming yourself after would seem to be important.

The reason I bring this up is that it seems that lots of Christians are very keen on declaring lots of other Christians to be "not true Christians." For an extreme and Godwin-licious example, Hitler was a Christian, and a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church, and wrote about how important Christianity was to Germany . . . but for obvious reasons, most Christians try to disavow him as a member of their group.

Christians LOVE them some No True Scotsman.

[Raw Shark]

[snip] Most Protestant denominations will agree that salvation comes via Christ. The more liberal ones might not harp on it as much as the conservatives will, but it's generally a given. I'm a bit muddy on the Catholics, to be frank, but I think they agree with the general theory and then add a bunch of bollocks to it. [snip]

[disclaimer: vaguely-remembered Catholic upbringing] Depends on what you consider bollocks. In general, I'd say that Catholics emphasize the Holy Spirit slightly more and Christ slightly less than the Protestants, though the latter still gets talked about way more.

Church attendance isn't compulsory-- but it helps. Worship isn't compulsory either-- but again, it helps. Personal devotions aren't compulsory-- but they help.

It's not compulsory on a week-to-week basis, but Catholics who don't do official Communion and Confession at all are completely fucked according to the party line.

[jwl]

As a general rule, the main additions of catholic groups on top of protestant groups is:
>Transubstantiation- In mass (as administered by a catholic priest), the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of jesus, this is not a metaphor.
>Perpetual virginity of Mary: Mary remained celibate after giving birth to jesus, james is not jesus's genetic brother.
>Immaculate Conception: Mary was "sinless" before she gave birth to jesus.
>Veneration and Intercession of Mary and the Saints: In heaven, there is a "hirarchy" of people, with Mary at the top and the Saints (as recognized by the Vatican recognizes) below. Christians should "venerate" (i.e. honour) the Saints and Mary, and can ask them to "intercede" (i.e. pray) for themselves and others.
and, most importantly:
>Supremacy of the Vatican: The Vatican is the continuation of the apostles, with the pope as the successor to peter, so try to follow what they say or have said in the past.

Of course there are lots of people who don't follow this simplistic division, but there you go.

I don't think any of these things affect what I consider the "core tenants" of Christianity.

[Elheru Aran]

^ Yeah, most of that the Protestants are 'oh hell naw' with. I suspect that if you pressed Catholic theologians enough, they would eventually admit that most of the above is trimmings tacked on top of the essentials. However, to the Catholics, those trimmings are pretty important. *shrugs* I can't say I particularly agree with it, but whatever.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Jesus Christ, jonesy, what is it with you and the way you quote other people's posts? Sometimes it feels like you intentionally quote people in an incredibly opaque manner in the hopes that it will let you ignore some points. I mean, this isn't even an issue of you being lazy and not quoting point by point, you very carefully edited my post when you quoted it, but then mangled up your response to make it difficult to figure out what the fuck you are even referring back to. It takes MORE effort to do what you did than to just respond to posts the way every single other member of this site does. I know that I should never ascribe to malice what can simply be ascribed to ignorance, but it's a very suspicious way of conducting yourself.

A LOT. Well, he IS the word, right? Good question, there are a lot of reasons, I suspect one is that they are heretics. I already answered this, I specifically stated that they ARE Christians, they are just heretical on this point.

How do you define heretical? That was the entire thrust of my post. You are claiming that this church's opinions on these issues of Christian doctrine are heretical. Why? Heretical with respect to WHAT? Difference denominations will define heresy in different ways, since different denominations put different weights on elements of Biblical teaching.

So, to you something can only be considered a major point if ALL Christians agree on it? Do you realize how many denominations there are, just in America?

You are the one that is arguing that these progressive churches are heretical in some way. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate why these views are heretical. My point being that pointing at an issue of church doctrine that is not consistently interpreted across Christian sects doesn't prove anything, because each of those denominations will call each of the others heretical. Heresy is not an absolute statement in this context, it is a relative one, because you need to define what theological lens you are choosing to interpret Biblical law. Despite multiple direct requests to do so, you have not. All you do is repeat yourself and refuse to provide any clarification or evidence in support of your assertion.

Actually this is a VERY important moment in the new testament. There are several things going on here. #1 Jesus is announcing his death and burial #2 he is announcing that his body will not be there to BE anointed. #3 he is specifically giving this woman a place of honor in Christianity that was heretofore UNHEARD OF. #4 he specifically renounces FOR ALL TIME the major justification of pure socialism that many on this board seem son in love with, and associates the desire to use force to do "good" with Judas. You cannot through human means eliminate the poor or change the human condition. It is only with the intervention of the divine that human nature can be elevated.

And yet it doesn't even make the list of the "70 Most Important Events in the Bible" (by H.L. Willmington, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, 1987). Obviously that's not the most authoritative source in the world, but just try a google search for "Important events in the New Testament." I have yet to find a single one that discusses this in any detail. I am not arguing that it is a MEANINGLESS event, but simply that, compared to all the other happenings in the life of Jesus as recorded, it is pretty minor.

And no, see above, already answered that.

What is this referring to? Is this referring to my question of what Christian denomination you consider "correct"? If so, you have NOT answered that despite multiple explicit requests to do so, so you are just blatantly lying.

This is an incredibly dishonest way of presenting your post, as I've already mentioned. If you respond to my post this way again, I am going to report it to the mods and see what they think, because it makes debating with you even more of a tedious chore than it already is.

Orthodoxy and I don't have very strict standards, that is your insinuation.

Again, which part of my post is this referring to? What 'orthodoxy'? What 'standards'?

You realize I can dismiss everything you say, just from this statement, right?

You're the one that responded frankly and sincerely to an obvious joke. Don't try turning it around on me, it makes you look like an asshole.

Again, I reiterate... if the great work was accomplished ~2015 years ago, what progress is needed? What type? Towards what? I am honestly curious.

Again, I reiterate ... if the "great work" requires no progress, why has there been so much change in church doctrine over the last 2,000 years? Again, it seems as if you didn't even read my post, because you just repeated the same bullshit you were already shitting out all over the place.

Are you seriously arguing that Christian doctrine has remained unchanged for 2,000 years? If so, how do you explain the proliferation of different denominations with different belief structures? And for the third time I ask you: what church holds the "correct" doctrine, if all deviations from doctrine are heresy?

AS for Sodom, at the end of along list of their sins, they wanted to rape some angels.... sodomy is not limited to homosexual sex, you get that right?

What a surprise, you didn't even understand what the fuck I was talking about, and know nothing about the Bible you claim to love. The Bible never actual says that the men wanted to rape the angels. It has been interpreted that way by some, but it is not a universally held belief, and some scholars believe it actually stems from a mistranslation from the Hebrew.

And as for you up in arms about God ordering murder, if God IS God, then how can he order murder?

Why is it not murder if God orders it?

[Raw Shark]

^ Yeah, most of that the Protestants are 'oh hell naw' with.

Yeah, that and objection to corruption in Rome gets you pretty much the whole original point of Protestantism.

I suspect that if you pressed Catholic theologians enough, they would eventually admit that most of the above is trimmings tacked on top of the essentials. However, to the Catholics, those trimmings are pretty important. *shrugs* I can't say I particularly agree with it, but whatever.

Depends on what you mean by important. The crazy fantasy stuff and stained glass windows of people being tortured and whatnot is the only thing that made it kind of fun when I was forced to be there as a kid.

[cmdrjones]

Jesus Christ, jonesy, what is it with you and the way you quote other people's posts? Sometimes it feels like you intentionally quote people in an incredibly opaque manner in the hopes that it will let you ignore some points. I mean, this isn't even an issue of you being lazy and not quoting point by point, you very carefully edited my post when you quoted it, but then mangled up your response to make it difficult to figure out what the fuck you are even referring back to. It takes MORE effort to do what you did than to just respond to posts the way every single other member of this site does. I know that I should never ascribe to malice what can simply be ascribed to ignorance, but it's a very suspicious way of conducting yourself.

My bad.

How do you define heretical? That was the entire thrust of my post. You are claiming that this church's opinions on these issues of Christian doctrine are heretical. Why? Heretical with respect to WHAT? Difference denominations will define heresy in different ways, since different denominations put different weights on elements of Biblical teaching.

heretical = wrong thinking
Heretical with respect to Orthodox teachings. I should have made that more clear.
You are correct that different denominations have different ideas, that's nothing new.... but one has to choose a position, (IMHO) especially with matters concerning the Truth (Big T)

You are the one that is arguing that these progressive churches are heretical in some way. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate why these views are heretical. My point being that pointing at an issue of church doctrine that is not consistently interpreted across Christian sects doesn't prove anything, because each of those denominations will call each of the others heretical. Heresy is not an absolute statement in this context, it is a relative one, because you need to define what theological lens you are choosing to interpret Biblical law. Despite multiple direct requests to do so, you have not. All you do is repeat yourself and refuse to provide any clarification or evidence in support of your assertion.

I WAS being opaque and insinuating that they are heretical partially because I was in a hurry. Also, I was hoping you'd get around to figuring out what I meant without having me spell it out. I meant it as a fun exercise, not to try to piss you off.

And yet it doesn't even make the list of the "70 Most Important Events in the Bible" (by H.L. Willmington, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, 1987). Obviously that's not the most authoritative source in the world, but just try a google search for "Important events in the New Testament." I have yet to find a single one that discusses this in any detail. I am not arguing that it is a MEANINGLESS event, but simply that, compared to all the other happenings in the life of Jesus as recorded, it is pretty minor.

I brought it up as an example of how many layers upon layers of nuance there actually ARE in the NT, even if it doesn't make Willmington's list... kinda impressive no? I have only jsut started studying Orhtodox theology and there are things like this all over the place. I'd suggest Mr Willmington spend some time with Father George.

What is this referring to? Is this referring to my question of what Christian denomination you consider "correct"? If so, you have NOT answered that despite multiple explicit requests to do so, so you are just blatantly lying.
This is an incredibly dishonest way of presenting your post, as I've already mentioned. If you respond to my post this way again, I am going to report it to the mods and see what they think, because it makes debating with you even more of a tedious chore than it already is.

Eastern Orthodoxy, y'know the first church? (Yeah yeah I can predict the howls of "Nuuuh-uuhhh! There were lots of churches before Constantine! Constantine's conversion marks the ascenscion of Christian power to taking over 'Rome' as the state religion, but what would eventually be called Orthodoxy existed all the way back to Christ before Constantine converted to it.)

Again, which part of my post is this referring to? What 'orthodoxy'? What 'standards'?

Again, I reiterate ... if the "great work" requires no progress, why has there been so much change in church doctrine over the last 2,000 years? Again, it seems as if you didn't even read my post, because you just repeated the same bullshit you were already shitting out all over the place.

Are you seriously arguing that Christian doctrine has remained unchanged for 2,000 years? If so, how do you explain the proliferation of different denominations with different belief structures? And for the third time I ask you: what church holds the "correct" doctrine, if all deviations from doctrine are heresy?

Note how you put it in quotes.... that tells me volumes right there, much like your continued ad hominems and accusations of lying, hostility, hypocrisy, etc.... but, I'll give it a go.

#1 because people are sinful
#2 No
#3 See #1
#4 Eastern Orthodoxy (IMHO)

What a surprise, you didn't even understand what the fuck I was talking about, and know nothing about the Bible you claim to love. The Bible never actual says that the men wanted to rape the angels. It has been interpreted that way by some, but it is not a universally held belief, and some scholars believe it actually stems from a mistranslation from the Hebrew.

Some scholars claim the holocaust didn't exist either.

Why is it not murder if God orders it?

Because: His universe, his rules.... otherwise, he ain't God, is he?

[cmdrjones]

I'll ask again: what denomination of Christianity do you consider "correct," since you have such incredibly strict standards for what can be considered Christian doctrine?

I went back and I see where this went bad... for my part i was saying that I DON'T and Eastern Orthodoxy DON'T have "very strict" standards for "who can be a christian" as you seemed to be insinuating... A heretic is still a Christian, just perhaps one who is not in line with Orthodox thinking....

I'll give an example.... many times you'll hear protestants ask: Are you saved? Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior? etc etc ad nausem....

Now a thoroughly Orthodox reply to that is: A: 'I hope so, and I'm working on it.' and B. Of course, but the process of theosis is ongoing.

That confuses a lot of protestants, but hey it a matter of perspective.

I find it a little odd that Protestants will reject all the "Catholic" guilt for sin, (the 'hey i'm saved! and you can be too!' thing) but also claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus... now if he is the word and exists outside time, then he died for ALL sins in ALL time. Therefore, when you sin, you DO pile a little more on his head, and he's supposed to be the best friend who took YOUR place on the cross! Don't ya think you should perhaps offer up some daily thanks and at least cheerlead a little for him as if you were at the foot of the cross at calvary?
I screw up EVERY. DAY. but, I don't subscribe to beating yourself up over it like the common catholic stereotype nor ignoring it and claiming "saved by grace" status like the stereotypical protestant... (I've been both BTW), Now I and trying (badly) to walk the path of Theosis, to become a little more like him each day... when I'm not failing miserably that is.

[cmdrjones]

I basically go by the rule that anyone who calls themselves a Christian counts as one, but I do agree that believing in the guy you're naming yourself after would seem to be important.

The reason I bring this up is that it seems that lots of Christians are very keen on declaring lots of other Christians to be "not true Christians." For an extreme and Godwin-licious example, Hitler was a Christian, and a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church, and wrote about how important Christianity was to Germany . . . but for obvious reasons, most Christians try to disavow him as a member of their group.

Christians LOVE them some No True Scotsman.

He also wrote about how much he hated Christianity and established a violent pagan death worshipping cult.... so, perhaps at some point it is safe to say he left the Church? In any case, I go with: I hope fervently that he IS in heaven, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[jwl]

^ Yeah, most of that the Protestants are 'oh hell naw' with.

Yeah, that and objection to corruption in Rome gets you pretty much the whole original point of Protestantism.

Actually, originally "protestant" was referring to "protest" as in "procalim" e.g. "protest your innocence". The idea was about proclaiming the gospel, basically the word had the same meaning as evangelical.

[jwl]

Eastern Orthodoxy, y'know the first church? (Yeah yeah I can predict the howls of "Nuuuh-uuhhh! There were lots of churches before Constantine! Constantine's conversion marks the ascenscion of Christian power to taking over 'Rome' as the state religion, but what would eventually be called Orthodoxy existed all the way back to Christ before Constantine converted to it.)

So you are suggesting that both the church in the OP and the churches that are having a go at it are heretical? Because none of them are described as eastern orthodox.

Also, while I haven't been to an eastern orthodox church and I don't know that much about their positions, my limited knowledge indicates that your interpretation of the woman anointing jesus is not the predominant eastern orthodox view. So what's going on there?

[cmdrjones]

Eastern Orthodoxy, y'know the first church? (Yeah yeah I can predict the howls of "Nuuuh-uuhhh! There were lots of churches before Constantine! Constantine's conversion marks the ascenscion of Christian power to taking over 'Rome' as the state religion, but what would eventually be called Orthodoxy existed all the way back to Christ before Constantine converted to it.)

So you are suggesting that both the church in the OP and the churches that are having a go at it are heretical? Because none of them are described as eastern orthodox.

Also, while I haven't been to an eastern orthodox church and I don't know that much about their positions, my limited knowledge indicates that your interpretation of the woman anointing jesus is not the predominant eastern orthodox view. So what's going on there?

She's honored as a saint, specifically for RECOGNIZING the impending crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ. Whereas the disciples, (especially our friend Judas, patron saint of communists everywhere) missed the point entirely. This is CRITICAL to understanding the relationship between The Word and the World. Now, I am sure there are 'more important' stories all over the new testament, but with regards to the overall conversation I am having with all of you on this site this is the critical point. AS I stated above, the fascination with material well-being and the placing of that ABOVE spiritual well-being is at the core of the 'modernist' heresy. All attempts to create a so called paradise on earth through secularism, technology, and abundance will fail. This is exemplified by Christs rejection of Judas' suggestion.

To give to the poor, to care for the poor, widows, orphans, to tend tot he sick, to bury the dead, these are all imperatives of the Church which the Church has FAILED to carry out, and thus has lost its mission to the state, but the state can never carry out these responsibilities to even a fraction of the level that the Church should be able to, due to the aforementioned inability of secular philosophies to inspire people to carry out those tasks.

It is MY failing that i am not better able to describe this gap to all of you.

I'll illustrate. In 2007 I was named Employee of the Month at a local hospital that i worked at as a security officer. All did was overhear a patient calling for help from her room and found a 80+ year old woman with a lap belt half in half out of bed. She was complaining that she couldn't get up due to the belt and that it hurt. I, being a security officer, and new to the job, knew that I couldn't touch her without a medical person (Rn, Nursing Asst etc) so I talked with her (she had dementia and eventually came to think i was he long dead husband) and convinced her to get back into bed. The nurses came in as I left after 20 minutes or so and gave me that "WTF are you doing here?" look. I scurried away and forgot about it, a month or so later they presented me with the award because I had shown them the meaning of compassion for this patient who stayed in her bed for the rest of her stay and was very contented and didn't give them any further problems etc etc.
The point of that blurb being that these are well-paid professionals who forgot, entirely the basic need of their patient to feel human and have someone take the time out to treat them like a human being. This doesn't make the nurses bad people, but it makes them simply human. I have grave reservations that any troupe of utilitarians will show up any time soon to any hospitals and tend to the 'least among us'




http://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_of_Bethany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_B ... g_of_Jesus

Eastern Orthodox tradition

In Orthodox Church tradition, Mary of Bethany is honored as a separate individual from Mary Magdalene. Though they are not specifically named as such in the gospels, the Orthodox Church counts Mary and Martha among the Myrrh-bearing Women. These faithful followers of Jesus stood at Golgotha during the Crucifixion of Jesus and later came to his tomb early on the morning following the Sabbath with myrrh (expensive oil), according to the Jewish tradition, to anoint their Lord's body. The Myrrhbearers became the first witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus, finding the empty tomb and hearing the joyful news from an angel.[15]

Orthodox tradition also relates that Mary's brother Lazarus was cast out of Jerusalem in the persecution against the Jerusalem Church following the martyrdom of St. Stephen. His sisters Mary and Martha fled Judea with him, assisting him in the proclaiming of the Gospel in various lands.[16] The three later moved to Cyprus, where Lazarus became the first Bishop of Kition (modern Larnaca).[17] All three died in Cyprus.
Commemoration as a saint

In the Catholic Church, Mary of Bethany is celebrated, together with her brother Lazarus, on 29 July, the memorial of their sister Martha.[2]

29 July is the date of her commemoration also in the Calendar of Saints of the Lutheran Church (together with Martha and Lazarus); and in the Calendar of saints of the Episcopal Church and the Church of England (together with Martha).[18]

She is commemorated in the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches with her sister Martha on 4 June, as well as on the Sunday of the Myrrhbearers (the Third Sunday of Pascha). She also figures prominently in the commemorations on Lazarus Saturday (the day before Palm Sunday).

[jwl]

She's honored as a saint, specifically for RECOGNIZING the impending crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ. Whereas the disciples, (especially our friend Judas, patron saint of communists everywhere) missed the point entirely. This is CRITICAL to understanding the relationship between The Word and the World. Now, I am sure there are 'more important' stories all over the new testament, but with regards to the overall conversation I am having with all of you on this site this is the critical point. AS I stated above, the fascination with material well-being and the placing of that ABOVE spiritual well-being is at the core of the 'modernist' heresy. All attempts to create a so called paradise on earth through secularism, technology, and abundance will fail. This is exemplified by Christs rejection of Judas' suggestion.

Okay, so what you are not saying is that Eastern Orthodox Christianity fundamentally opposes taxes to care for the poor because of the interpretation you mention of this passage.

[cmdrjones]

She's honored as a saint, specifically for RECOGNIZING the impending crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ. Whereas the disciples, (especially our friend Judas, patron saint of communists everywhere) missed the point entirely. This is CRITICAL to understanding the relationship between The Word and the World. Now, I am sure there are 'more important' stories all over the new testament, but with regards to the overall conversation I am having with all of you on this site this is the critical point. AS I stated above, the fascination with material well-being and the placing of that ABOVE spiritual well-being is at the core of the 'modernist' heresy. All attempts to create a so called paradise on earth through secularism, technology, and abundance will fail. This is exemplified by Christs rejection of Judas' suggestion.

Okay, so what you are not saying is that Eastern Orthodox Christianity fundamentally opposes taxes to care for the poor because of the interpretation you mention of this passage.

You have that exactly backwards.... render unto Caesar etc....

The Church believes that the states power Should NOT be necessary to force people to do what's right, if that were true, then many of the secularists arguments about people simply "knowing" what is right, or most people simple being "good" by nature start to fall apart, and those arguments are the basis of the heresy of modernism.