United States Christianity, History, and US Politics

Megadeath

Well-known member
-Snip-

"THAT MEANS NOTHING!!1!"
t. Leftard, butthurt
Uh, so what does it mean? Did NK get rid of a single weapon system? Or even a single warhead? Did they reduce the size of their military, or pull back forces from the DMZ? Did it change anything about future negotiations, or change NK foreign policy?

"B-b-b-but, OUR god-president got closer to the scary ghost house den urs!!!!1!"
- Deplorable Trumpeter

Also, @Bacle keep in mind you're arguing with the kind of people who think natural disasters are the invisible sky daddy's way of arbitrarily punishing the general population because one too many fellas like it up the bum and the government didn't do enough to demonise them for it. :rolleyes: Never mind all the stuff about how it's not their place to judge sinners, or how one should turn the other cheek, they've found one rule they're not even tempted to break and by gosh they're going to show daddy just what good boys they can be by trying to enforce that one rule whilst ignoring any that do get in their way.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Also, @Bacle keep in mind you're arguing with the kind of people who think natural disasters are the invisible sky daddy's way of arbitrarily punishing the general population because one too many fellas like it up the bum and the government didn't do enough to demonise them for it. :rolleyes: Never mind all the stuff about how it's not their place to judge sinners, or how one should turn the other cheek, they've found one rule they're not even tempted to break and by gosh they're going to show daddy just what good boys they can be by trying to enforce that one rule whilst ignoring any that do get in their way.
Which is why I say I'm spiritual, but not religious.

Because I've dealt with religious fanatics and radicals before, seen the damage they do to innocent people that simply do not share thier faith, and recognize that morality and ethics can exist independently of any holy text. Not to mention how Christians often cherry pick which parts of the Bible they want to use to make an argument or take seriously. It freaking forbids mixing cloth types and really has no real problem with slavery, yet most Christians chose to ignore those parts.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Which is why I say I'm spiritual, but not religious.

Because I've dealt with religious fanatics and radicals before, seen the damage they do to innocent people that simply do not share thier faith, and recognize that morality and ethics can exist independently of any holy text. Not to mention how Christians often cherry pick which parts of the Bible they want to use to make an argument or take seriously. It freaking forbids mixing cloth types and really has no real problem with slavery, yet most Christians chose to ignore those parts.

And I'm supposed to take your word over the faith as practiced by the Fathers, Doctors, and Apostles?

LOL, no. Go ahead, pull the other one.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Which is why I say I'm spiritual, but not religious.

Because I've dealt with religious fanatics and radicals before, seen the damage they do to innocent people that simply do not share thier faith, and recognize that morality and ethics can exist independently of any holy text. Not to mention how Christians often cherry pick which parts of the Bible they want to use to make an argument or take seriously. It freaking forbids mixing cloth types and really has no real problem with slavery, yet most Christians chose to ignore those parts.

You should probably spend some time learning what Christians actually believe, before you go around calling them hypocrites. The prohibition on mixing cloth types is old testament mosaic law, which Christians are explicitly not bound by. Likewise, the fact that the bible doesn't explicitly and in no uncertain terms say "Slavery is not acceptable" doesn't mean you cannot apply it's moral teachings and conclude that slavery is wrong, which is what many abolitionists went on to do. Your argument here is broadly akin to saying "well, the bible says that if you lust after another man's wife you have already committed adultry with her in your heart......but my anime waifu isn't a real person I could commit adultry with in any circumstance, so that's totally cool". You're looking at the bible as a list of do and don'ts that you have to follow legalistically, which is the exact thing Christians are not supposed to be doing.


Now, that aside, you're correct that religious people can apply the tenets of their faith hypocritically or have blind spots, but it's an odd point of criticism, since everyone does that, religious or not. Very few people can avoid those failings, it's just more obvious when religious people do it since you have a better idea of what they're supposed to do.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
And I'm supposed to take your word over the faith as practiced by the Fathers, Doctors, and Apostles?

LOL, no. Go ahead, pull the other one.
Why do you always speak in such weird code? You sound like you were raised in a cult sometimes.

Also, I think you're either supposed to take the bible exactly as written (Or, at least as it was compiled and canonised hundreds of years after the fact.) or accept that interpretation effectively comes down to the individual, just as their relationship with god must. It's not only blasphemous, but rather disgusting that you'd presume to dictate your own interpretation as necessarily correct.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Why do you always speak in such weird code? You sound like you were raised in a cult sometimes.

Well, I have escaped the cult of liberalism, so I suppose I would sound weird to your ears. Not surprising.

Also, I think you're either supposed to take the bible exactly as written (Or, at least as it was compiled and canonised hundreds of years after the fact.) or accept that interpretation effectively comes down to the individual, just as their relationship with god must. It's not only blasphemous, but rather disgusting that you'd presume to dictate your own interpretation as necessarily correct.


That's the thing, as one who strives to be Orthodox and Catholic, I reject the possibility of private interpretation. I cleave to the Tradition handed down from the Apostles, as explained by the Teaching Authority of Mother Church, nothing more, nothing less.

The Bible is not the source of my Faith, my Faith is the source of the Bible. My own opinion means nothing. The opinion of Mother Church however, means everything and it binds my conscience.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Also, I think you're either supposed to take the bible exactly as written (Or, at least as it was compiled and canonised hundreds of years after the fact.) or accept that interpretation effectively comes down to the individual, just as their relationship with god must. It's not only blasphemous, but rather disgusting that you'd presume to dictate your own interpretation as necessarily correct.

Yes and no. In the protestant tradition, there is a lot of wiggle room for personal interpretation about how you relate to God and what you are called to do and not do, but wiggle room doesn't mean that you have unlimited freedom to interpret and misinterpret.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Well, I have escaped the cult of liberalism, so I suppose I would sound weird to your ears. Not surprising.




That's the thing, as one who strives to be Orthodox and Catholic, I reject the possibility of private interpretation. I cleave to the Tradition handed down from the Apostles, as explained by the Teaching Authority of Mother Church, nothing more, nothing less.

The Bible is not the source of my Faith, my Faith is the source of the Bible. My own opinion means nothing. The opinion of Mother Church however, means everything and it binds my conscience.
So... how exactly do you reconcile that with the fact that mummy church and her current pr spokesperson disagree with you?
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
So... how exactly do you reconcile that with the fact that mummy church and her current pr spokesperson disagree with you?

Disagree with me how?

TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED:

Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

RESPONSE:

Negative.


 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
You should probably spend some time learning what Christians actually believe, before you go around calling them hypocrites. The prohibition on mixing cloth types is old testament mosaic law, which Christians are explicitly not bound by. Likewise, the fact that the bible doesn't explicitly and in no uncertain terms say "Slavery is not acceptable" doesn't mean you cannot apply it's moral teachings and conclude that slavery is wrong, which is what many abolitionists went on to do. Your argument here is broadly akin to saying "well, the bible says that if you lust after another man's wife you have already committed adultry with her in your heart......but my anime waifu isn't a real person I could commit adultry with in any circumstance, so that's totally cool". You're looking at the bible as a list of do and don'ts that you have to follow legalistically, which is the exact thing Christians are not supposed to be doing.


Now, that aside, you're correct that religious people can apply the tenets of their faith hypocritically or have blind spots, but it's an odd point of criticism, since everyone does that, religious or not. Very few people can avoid those failings, it's just more obvious when religious people do it since you have a better idea of what they're supposed to do.
I will spend time going into the nitty gritty of the Bible when it's followers are willing to admit much of it is up to interpretation, may be straight up made up for political purposes by people after when Jesus supposedly lived, and that half thier holy days are actually stolen 'pagan' holidays. Or when they can admit geological evidence is a more dependable historical record than their holy book.

I am not going to give the Bible or Christians special leeway to act as if thier scripture is the end all, be all of ethics and morality. Particularly not when they try to make it a basis for politics they want to force on everyone else as well.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
I will spend time going into the nitty gritty of the Bible when it's followers are willing to admit much of it is up to interpretation, may be straight up made up for political purposes by people after when Jesus supposedly lived, and that half thier holy days are actually stolen 'pagan' holidays. Or when they can admit geological evidence is a more dependable historical record than their holy book.

I am not going to give the Bible or Christians special leeway to act as if thier scripture is the end all, be all of ethics and morality. Particularly not when they try to make it a basis for politics they want to force on everyone else as well.

So you don't actually care what the text actually says or what the relevant jurisprudence and teaching surrounding the text is, or even the actual history of things (protip none of the holidays are 'stolen' you're just repeating bad Whig historiography and black legend) you just want us to agree with you. Therefore, all of your opinions regarding the sacred things should be summarily ignored by the faithful as empty rhetoric nakedly given in bad faith.

Got it.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Disagree with me how?

TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED:

Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

RESPONSE:

Negative.


So, there's a clear and obvious distinction between "The Catholic church can't bless homosexual marriage." and "The government should not be allowed to extend the same benefits to homosexual life partners as heterosexual life partners receive under secular law."

Second, we also have the quote: "I likewise ask God, the source of all wisdom and truth, to guide your efforts to foster understanding, reconciliation and peace within the United States and among the nations of the world in order to advance the universal common good".
I'd ask you to call up your last 10-20 posts on this site, and reflect on if you're truly trying to "foster understanding, reconciliation and peace" as called to do as god's true servant. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll see you're far from doing so.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
So you don't actually care what the text actually says or what the relevant jurisprudence and teaching surrounding the text is, or even the actual history of things (protip none of the holidays are 'stolen' you're just repeating bad Whig historiography and black legend) you just want us to agree with you. Therefore, all of your opinions regarding the sacred things should be summarily ignored by the faithful as empty rhetoric nakedly given in bad faith.

Got it.
Christmas being a stolen, reskinned version of Yule, that actually isn't even close to when Jesus was born (hint, we've backtracked star positions as described in the story of Jesus's birth, and he was born around when Easter is, not in December) is not anything related to politics, while All Saints Day/Halloween is a reskinned Celtic/Druid harvest festival.
 

StormEagle

Well-known member
So, there's a clear and obvious distinction between "The Catholic church can't bless homosexual marriage." and "The government should not be allowed to extend the same benefits to homosexual life partners as heterosexual life partners receive under secular law."

Second, we also have the quote: "I likewise ask God, the source of all wisdom and truth, to guide your efforts to foster understanding, reconciliation and peace within the United States and among the nations of the world in order to advance the universal common good".
I'd ask you to call up your last 10-20 posts on this site, and reflect on if you're truly trying to "foster understanding, reconciliation and peace" as called to do as god's true servant. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll see you're far from doing so.

There can be no peace with liberals, as they actively want to destroy conservatives, and traditionalIst Christians.

Why should we, the right wing, make peace with people that actually want us dead, jobless and homeless, or driven to the edges of society.

And why, pray tell, should we not give them the exact same treatment they give us?
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I will spend time going into the nitty gritty of the Bible when it's followers are willing to admit much of it is up to interpretation, may be straight up made up for political purposes by people after when Jesus supposedly lived, and that half thier holy days are actually stolen 'pagan' holidays. Or when they can admit geological evidence is a more dependable historical record than their holy book.

I am not going to give the Bible or Christians special leeway to act as if thier scripture is the end all, be all of ethics and morality. Particularly not when they try to make it a basis for politics they want to force on everyone else as well.

So you want to come into the Conservative movement, and drive out or force the submission of it longest-running and largest constituency. While trying to lecture us on how what we believes works, and ignoring every time we try to explain that no, you don't actually understand it.

Did you take classes on how to be this arrogant and condescending? This abrasive and offensive?

As a note, the longer you're like this, and the more you're entrenched in this position? The less often patient and reasonable Christians are going to be willing to waste time trying to reason with you, and the more you'll just end up only arguing with fringe heretics like DocSolarisReich. I'll say you shouldn't let them dominate your perception of Christians, but you already let a few bad apples prejudice you against the whole lot of us, so I doubt my words will have any effect.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
So you want to come into the Conservative movement, and drive out or force the submission of it longest-running and largest constituency. While trying to lecture us on how what we believes works, and ignoring every time we try to explain that no, you don't actually understand it.

Did you take classes on how to be this arrogant and condescending? This abrasive and offensive?

As a note, the longer you're like this, and the more you're entrenched in this position? The less often patient and reasonable Christians are going to be willing to waste time trying to reason with you, and the more you'll just end up only arguing with fringe heretics like DocSolarisReich. I'll say you shouldn't let them dominate your perception of Christians, but you already let a few bad apples prejudice you against the whole lot of us, so I doubt my words will have any effect.
Reasonable Christians do not try to make their religion the focus of their politics, or get upset when people point out the inaccuracies/contradictions in their holy book.

As I said, I want more Rand Paul's on the Right, and more libertarian-conservatives in general, along with more LGBT GOP office holders.

The Right can adapt and evolve, or it can fade farther from power and political relevancy. I'm trying to help it adapt and evolve, even if outdated fossils don't like it.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
So, there's a clear and obvious distinction between "The Catholic church can't bless homosexual marriage." and "The government should not be allowed to extend the same benefits to homosexual life partners as heterosexual life partners receive under secular law."

Separation of Church and State is an error and condemned.

Syllabus of Errors # 55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Second, we also have the quote: "I likewise ask God, the source of all wisdom and truth, to guide your efforts to foster understanding, reconciliation and peace within the United States and among the nations of the world in order to advance the universal common good".
I'd ask you to call up your last 10-20 posts on this site, and reflect on if you're truly trying to "foster understanding, reconciliation and peace" as called to do as god's true servant. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll see you're far from doing so.

I welcome peace and reconciliation with all who follow my Lord my God, the one Christ. Never his enemies, for Error has no Right. If there are bishops who seek to make peace with the World or deviate from the Defined Doctrine of the Ages, I do not follow them.

Christmas being a stolen, reskinned version of Yule, that actually isn't even close to when Jesus was born (hint, we've backtracked star positions as described in the story of Jesus's birth, and he was born around when Easter is, not in December) is not anything related to politics, while All Saints Day/Halloween is a reskinned Celtic/Druid harvest festival.

FALSE. And easily proven so.

"The two principal claims for Christmas having pagan origins pretend that the early Church chose December 25 in order to divert Catholics from Roman pagan festival days. The first claim pretends that it replaced the ancient Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a time of feasting and raucous merry-making held in December in honor of the pagan god Saturn."

"Now, the Saturnalia festival always ended on December 23 at the latest. Why would the Catholic Church, to diverge the attention of her faithful from a pagan celebration, choose a date two days after that party had already ended and whoever wanted had already overindulged? It makes no sense. No serious scholar believes this claim."

"The second claim is that the Catholic Church established Christmas on December 25 to replace a solar feast invented by Emperor Aurelian in 274 AD, the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birth of the Unconquered Sun).

The fact that Christmas entered the world calendar (the accepted Roman calendar) in 354 – which was after the establishment of the pagan feast – does not necessarily mean the Church chose that day to replace the pagan holiday. Two principal reasons concur with this conclusion:

First, one must not simply assume that the early Christians only began to celebrate Christmas in the 4th century. Until the Edict of Milan was published in 313, Catholics were persecuted and met in catacombs. Hence, there was no public festivity. But they celebrated Christmas among themselves before that Edict, as hymns and prayers of the first Christians confirm (2).

Second, this claim is based on unsound assumptions. As scholar Thomas Talley points out in his book The Origins of the Liturgical Year, Emperor Aurelian inaugurated the festival of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun trying to give new life – a rebirth – to a dying Roman Empire. It is much more likely, he argues, that the Emperor’s action was a response to the growing popularity and strength of the Catholic religion, which was celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25, rather than the other way around. (3)

There is no evidence that Aurelian’s celebration preceded the feast of Christmas, and more reason to believe that establishing this festival day – which never won popular support and soon died out – was an effort to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Catholics."

"The early tractatus De solstitiia records the tradition of the Archangel Gabriel appearing to Zachariah in the High Temple when he was serving as high priest on the Day of Atonement (Lk 1:8). This placed the conception of St. John the Baptist during the feast of Tabernacles in late September, as the Archangel Gabriel said (Lk 1:28) and his birth nine months later at the time of the summer solstice. (4)

Since the Gospel of Luke states that the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary in the sixth month after John's conception (Lk 1:26), this placed the conception of Christ at about the time of the spring equinox, that is, at the time of the Jewish Passover, in late March. His birth would thus be in late December at the time of the winter solstice.

That these dates, based on Tradition and Scripture, are trustworthy is confirmed by recent evidence taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls, whose authors were very concerned about calendar dates, essential for establishing when the Torah feasts should be celebrated. The data found in the Scrolls make it possible to know the Temple’s rotating assignment of priests during Old Testament times and show definitely that Zachariah served as a Temple priest in September, thus confirming the tradition of the Early Church. (5)

The Catholic Church determined March 25 as the date of Our Lord’s Conception long before Aurelian decided to make his solar feast. For example, around 221 AD, Sexto Julio Africano wrote the Chronographiai in which he affirmed that the Annunciation was March 25. (6) Once the date of the Incarnation was established, it was a simple matter of adding nine months to arrive at the date of Our Lord’s birth - December 25. This date would not be made official until the late fourth century, but it was established long before Aurelian and Constantine. It had nothing to do with pagan festivals."

Christmas Was Never a Pagan Holiday by Marian T. Horvat
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Separation of Church and State is an error and condemned.

Syllabus of Errors # 55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.



I welcome peace and reconciliation with all who follow my Lord my God, the one Christ. Never his enemies, for Error has no Right. If there are bishops who seek to make peace with the World or deviate from the Defined Doctrine of the Ages, I do not follow them.



FALSE. And easily proven so.

"The two principal claims for Christmas having pagan origins pretend that the early Church chose December 25 in order to divert Catholics from Roman pagan festival days. The first claim pretends that it replaced the ancient Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a time of feasting and raucous merry-making held in December in honor of the pagan god Saturn."

"Now, the Saturnalia festival always ended on December 23 at the latest. Why would the Catholic Church, to diverge the attention of her faithful from a pagan celebration, choose a date two days after that party had already ended and whoever wanted had already overindulged? It makes no sense. No serious scholar believes this claim."

"The second claim is that the Catholic Church established Christmas on December 25 to replace a solar feast invented by Emperor Aurelian in 274 AD, the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birth of the Unconquered Sun).

The fact that Christmas entered the world calendar (the accepted Roman calendar) in 354 – which was after the establishment of the pagan feast – does not necessarily mean the Church chose that day to replace the pagan holiday. Two principal reasons concur with this conclusion:

First, one must not simply assume that the early Christians only began to celebrate Christmas in the 4th century. Until the Edict of Milan was published in 313, Catholics were persecuted and met in catacombs. Hence, there was no public festivity. But they celebrated Christmas among themselves before that Edict, as hymns and prayers of the first Christians confirm (2).

Second, this claim is based on unsound assumptions. As scholar Thomas Talley points out in his book The Origins of the Liturgical Year, Emperor Aurelian inaugurated the festival of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun trying to give new life – a rebirth – to a dying Roman Empire. It is much more likely, he argues, that the Emperor’s action was a response to the growing popularity and strength of the Catholic religion, which was celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25, rather than the other way around. (3)

There is no evidence that Aurelian’s celebration preceded the feast of Christmas, and more reason to believe that establishing this festival day – which never won popular support and soon died out – was an effort to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Catholics."

"The early tractatus De solstitiia records the tradition of the Archangel Gabriel appearing to Zachariah in the High Temple when he was serving as high priest on the Day of Atonement (Lk 1:8). This placed the conception of St. John the Baptist during the feast of Tabernacles in late September, as the Archangel Gabriel said (Lk 1:28) and his birth nine months later at the time of the summer solstice. (4)

Since the Gospel of Luke states that the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary in the sixth month after John's conception (Lk 1:26), this placed the conception of Christ at about the time of the spring equinox, that is, at the time of the Jewish Passover, in late March. His birth would thus be in late December at the time of the winter solstice.

That these dates, based on Tradition and Scripture, are trustworthy is confirmed by recent evidence taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls, whose authors were very concerned about calendar dates, essential for establishing when the Torah feasts should be celebrated. The data found in the Scrolls make it possible to know the Temple’s rotating assignment of priests during Old Testament times and show definitely that Zachariah served as a Temple priest in September, thus confirming the tradition of the Early Church. (5)

The Catholic Church determined March 25 as the date of Our Lord’s Conception long before Aurelian decided to make his solar feast. For example, around 221 AD, Sexto Julio Africano wrote the Chronographiai in which he affirmed that the Annunciation was March 25. (6) Once the date of the Incarnation was established, it was a simple matter of adding nine months to arrive at the date of Our Lord’s birth - December 25. This date would not be made official until the late fourth century, but it was established long before Aurelian and Constantine. It had nothing to do with pagan festivals."

Christmas Was Never a Pagan Holiday by Marian T. Horvat
Except I said Yule, not the Roman holidays, even if it effectively stole those too.

Also, none of that changes the star positions calculations that show Jesus was born in the spring, not in December.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Except I said Yule, not the Roman holidays, even if it effectively stole those too.

Also, none of that changes the star positions calculations that show Jesus was born in the spring, not in December.

Christians were celebrating the Nativity of Christ on December 25th before the Edict of Milan which means they can't have 'stolen Christmas' from 'Yule'. Is reading difficult for you?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top