United States Christianity, History, and US Politics

King Arts

Well-known member
Only in protestant countries.Catholics or Orthodoxs rarely hurt sodomites just becouse they were sodomites.But protestants are big on Old Testament,so as long as they belive they must prosecute sodomites.And witches,too.

But considering that lutherens now have lesbian bishops,you have little reasons to be afraid.
Catholics and Orthodox don’t tolerate sodomy. While it is true that the churches that actually have apostolic succession aren’t as Old Testament as old school protts. That’s more because gays had the good sense to not be out and proud. Conservative orthodox Christians won’t shed a tear if sodomy was made a crime I assure you.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Catholics and Orthodox don’t tolerate sodomy. While it is true that the churches that actually have apostolic succession aren’t as Old Testament as old school protts. That’s more because gays had the good sense to not be out and proud. Conservative orthodox Christians won’t shed a tear if sodomy was made a crime I assure you.
Then we won't shed a tear if religious fanatics end up being marginalized into political irrelevancy, or if churches lose thier tax free status, because they want to roll same-sex marriage back.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Then we won't shed a tear if religious fanatics end up being marginalized into political irrelevancy, or if churches lose thier tax free status, because they want to roll same-sex marriage back.
I mean secularists already wouldn’t have shed a tear. In fact you pretty much earlier said you wanted religion to be irrelevant and people to not think about it. Let alone have any place in society and definitely don’t want it to have any place in government. As for taxes. You are probably neutral now but eventually you might think it might be a nice cash cow. And to be honest taxes aren’t something I care too much about render unto Caesar and all that. As long as the taxes aren’t burdensome or being used as punishment.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
@King Arts I do somewhat at this point have misgiving with giving a blanket statement of "slavery is immoral", much in the same way I take issue with a blanket statement of "killing is immoral". Their both immensely strong applications of power, and should be used with immense care, but I'm not fully comfortable just declaring it immoral.

On the base liberal level, can one reasonably forbid people from voluntarily entering an agreement. Thus, the least coercive form seems to lack inate evilness. I'm not sure it's moral to say one can't enter a binding contract with long term commitments.

At higher levels, there seems to be this stong division between private coercive authority and state which I'm not sure is reasonable: the state can declare any man to give the state years of labor, based upon the decisions of their grandfather, but such a private relation is verboten? Is that truly an reasonable standard?

Like killing and the state are immensely powerful, dangerous things which need serious restaints on their use, but aren't necessarily inherently evil, I'm starting to wonder if slavery falls in that same category.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
@King Arts I do somewhat at this point have misgiving with giving a blanket statement of "slavery is immoral", much in the same way I take issue with a blanket statement of "killing is immoral". Their both immensely strong applications of power, and should be used with immense care, but I'm not fully comfortable just declaring it immoral.

On the base liberal level, can one reasonably forbid people from voluntarily entering an agreement. Thus, the least coercive form seems to lack inate evilness. I'm not sure it's moral to say one can't enter a binding contract with long term commitments.

At higher levels, there seems to be this stong division between private coercive authority and state which I'm not sure is reasonable: the state can declare any man to give the state years of labor, based upon the decisions of their grandfather, but such a private relation is verboten? Is that truly an reasonable standard?

Like killing and the state are immensely powerful, dangerous things which need serious restaints on their use, but aren't necessarily inherently evil, I'm starting to wonder if slavery falls in that same category.
I pretty much agree with you after all slavery is still legal in America as a punishment. Conscription could also be thought of as slavery forcing people to do something with no pay except for covering the essentials of life food water clothes etc. now practically speaking slave holding is 99/100 sinful. I can think of aces ways it’s sinful off the top of my head. First off is greed and sloth you want profit to sell farm produce yet don’t want to work for it so are trying to get another person to do it for free I’d say that is sinful. Another sin is pride thinking you are better than others due to accident of birth or them being unlucky, and the last sin is wrath. Most people don’t want to be slaves so if you are being brutal torture branding etc your slaves I’d say that you aren’t being very forgiving and Christ like. Of course it’s possible to be a slave owner and not fall into these but it’d be pretty hard and I think there were few in history that managed it. So slavery is not inherently wrong such as captured enemies debtors etc. though that’s more indentured service but it’s mostly wrong. Oh and slavery does have a negative component on how it corrupts republic’s specifically I’ll talk about that when I’m no longer on the phone though.
 

Laskar

Would you kindly?
Founder
Which is pretty fucked up if you put even a little bit of thought into it. But that's besides the point. The point is, you're already picking and choosing, so it doesn't pass muster to claim you're simply following "God's law" when you've shown you won't in other instances. All you are doing is searching for an excuse.
You must be fun at the tabletop.

Captain X: I cast fireball.
GM: You... Can't do that.
Captain X: Sure I can. It's right here in the book, halfway down the Level 5 spell list.
GM: But you're playing a fighter.
Captain X: Oh, so now you're picking and choosing what part of the sourcebook you pay attention to. Classic.
 
Last edited:

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
And thank you for showing why LGBT folks have every reason to fight tooth and nail against anyone who even hints at wanting to strip away same-sex marriage; because we know it won't end there. It'll end with gays being thrown off buildings like in ME shit holes.

Your capacity for hyperbole never ceases to amaze me.

Can you point to a time in history when sodomy was a capital offense in the US? Last I recall, under the strictest laws any state ever had, it was an imprisonable offense, but never a capital offense.

Do you have any evidence to counter this?
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Your capacity for hyperbole never ceases to amaze me.

Can you point to a time in history when sodomy was a capital offense in the US? Last I recall, under the strictest laws any state ever had, it was an imprisonable offense, but never a capital offense.

Do you have any evidence to counter this?
Well, according to another thread, the punishment for it was either lobotomy or castration. Neither of those seems much better than death. Also the right-wing version of being unpersoned.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Ahh a protestant, someone who listened to a heretic like Martin Luthor whose words are worse than shit from a horses ass. That might explain why you don't know anything about Church history, or even the religious history of Israel. Here is a hint, sola scriptura is false. You need the tradition of the early Church.
It has nothing to do with being a Protestant. You have at least one Protestant (Battlegrinder) in this very thread schooling the person on Christian theology soundly who's expressed the underlying theology more thoroughly than any of the Catholics or Orthodox posters have, who mostly seem to be content just sniping at "Protestants" even while said Protestant does the heavy lifting in argument.

No, it has to do with the fact that Lutheran is a "Mainstream" denomination in the US. Mainstream denominations in the US, which includes Catholics by the way, seriously lost their way starting in the 1920s and 30s with the Modernist / Fundamentalist split, where the Modernists decided small unimportant things like "Christ wasn't a real historical person" and "miracles didn't happen" were more important and that Christianity was more about the "social gospel". They utterly lost their way theologically starting with the colleges meant to teach pastors, meanwhile the Catholics lost any and all spine, allowed homosexuals to use their schools to hide in and then making them priests and enabling them to abuse children all while actively covering it up, so don't pretend being Papist makes you any better. Anyway, it makes sense then that a layperson coming out of that tradition would have an utterly incomplete understanding of theology and scripture.

This is also why Battlegrinder is able to explain things accurately to the point where he's a Prot you likely didn't even notice. He's from the Evangelical sect of Protestant Christianity in the US, who are descended from the Fundamentalists of the aforementioned Modernist/Fundamentalist schism, which retained an orthodox understanding and placement of Scripture and theology.

Also, you really have a misconception of what Protestants accept. Protip: Protestants, especially of the Evangelical strain, DO study and adhere to early Church tradition, and most hold that to be considered Christian one must also agree with the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed (it's constantly reprinted in Evangelical Churches). Are there Protestant sects that reject them? Sure, and most other Protestant consider those groups to be at best, non-Christian to at worst cults (IE Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons have rocky relationships with other Protestant-descended denominations).

But I'm sure that doesn't matter, since it seems you don't care about theology, you seem more to care about dissing on Prots, even while it is Prots fighting on the front line of the culture war while your precious Papal Church sits back and virtue signals to the Progressive Left that it really isn't so bad, look the Pope cares about the Environment and holds Capitalism to be a worse evil than Communism! Ain't you hip and cool?! Oh sure, you hold that Abortion is a terrible Sin against Goid, but can't be assed to actually take a REAL stand on the topic by Priests and Bishops by excommunicating or at least denying communion to politicians who continue to support it institutionally, that would be CRASS and might result in losing your precious TAX BREAKS.

Give me a break, this constant dunking on Prots by Catholics and Orthodox is some of the most transparent cope I've ever seen. Yeah, sure, Evangelicals have issues, but they're at least actually still fighting.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Well, according to another thread, the punishment for it was either lobotomy or castration. Neither of those seems much better than death. Also the right-wing version of being unpersoned.

Lobotomy was a practice that was massively over-used for a variety of reasons, generally horrifically. I recall reading like a decade or two ago about some fringe cases where serious, blatant brain damage can be alleviated with one, but for the most part, lobotomization was a sick fad used to 'treat' all kinds of things. It isn't unique to homosexuality.

Castration is also certainly a nasty thing, but it isn't on the level of execution.

Both of these things were not appropriate ways to treat homosexuals, but you've said nothing that disproves 'death sentence' from being hyperbole.

Yeah, sure, Evangelicals have issues, but they're at least actually still fighting.

Thank you for this post. It's nice to know some people still appreciate what the Evangelical church is still trying to do; given how few Evangelicals spend much time online, and that even fewer will do it outside of Christian-controlled 'shelter' communities, it's easy to feel under siege on the internet.
 

TyrantTriumphant

Well-known member
No, it has to do with the fact that Lutheran is a "Mainstream" denomination in the US. Mainstream denominations in the US, which includes Catholics by the way, seriously lost their way starting in the 1920s and 30s with the Modernist / Fundamentalist split, where the Modernists decided small unimportant things like "Christ wasn't a real historical person" and "miracles didn't happen" were more important and that Christianity was more about the "social gospel".
There is no Lutheran church. There are multiple Lutheran denominations who all have their own view of theology. The most prominent of these, the ELCA, have sadly been taken over by wokeness. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church on the other hand, of which I am a member, maintains orthodox teachings. There are also other smaller groups.

Please don't lump us together.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Catholicism staid in the fight until Vatican II, 30 years after the mainline Prot descent into modernism. Yes all churches have been under constant attack and subversion. But asking us not to roll our eyes and snipe at the bad art and the bankruptcy of sola scriptura or sola fide is like asking Prots not to insult the Queen of Heaven or roll their eyes at the priesthood or the transubstancination.
 

Buba

A total creep
constant dunking on Prots by Catholics and Orthodox is some of the most transparent cope I've ever seen. Yeah, sure, Evangelicals have issues, but they're at least actually still fighting.
Are US Orthodox [shudders] progressive? In my part of the world - Central/Eastern Europe - the Orthodox are the least [harks, spits] progressive Christian variant. On hierarchy level, that is, some grassroots Catholics are still fighting, to use your expression.
I have no contacts among Protestants, so I cannot comment.
 
Last edited:

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Are US Orthodox [shudders] progressive? In my part of the world - Central/Eastern Europe - the Orthodox are the least progressive Christian variant. On hierarchy level, that is, some grassroots Catholics are still fighting, to use your expression.

There’s no single Orthodox hierarchy in the United States, so... It depends. The Greeks and the Antiochians in the OCA tend to run a sprectrum from neocon suburbanites to progressive suburbanites, and the clergy tend to fall along World Council of Churches lines and support the Ecumenical Patriarch against the Russians.

Whereas the Russians are split between MP and RORCOR which tends to be a split between Tradcon and RadTrad.

The the other ethnic churches, well you can generally predict things by if they support the Greek or the Russians in the schism, although there are always exceptions of course.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Catholicism staid in the fight until Vatican II, 30 years after the mainline Prot descent into modernism. Yes all churches have been under constant attack and subversion. But asking us not to roll our eyes and snipe at the bad art and the bankruptcy of sola scriptura or sola fide is like asking Prots not to insult the Queen of Heaven or roll their eyes at the priesthood or the transubstancination.
You know, if the Prots here had actually done any of that, maybe you'd have a fair point. But they haven't. Instead y'all have come in and been picking a fight that nobody here asked for or was even marginally involved with.

Also, the protestant Fundamentalist/Evangelical Movement hasn't stopped fighting and yes while there is rot within it, don't even pretend to group those Churches in with the Mainstream who gave up the fight long ago. Congratulations on outlasting the Mainstream Protestant Churches in the US, have a cookie. Heck, I'd even say you guys stuck in longer than Vatican II, as Pope-Emeritus Benedict and John Paul II were both strong forces for tradition and against toxic western ideologies, to bad Benedict got forced out for the guy who's all of two steps away from espousing Liberation Theology.

Are US Orthodox [shudders] progressive? In my part of the world - Central/Eastern Europe - the Orthodox are the least [harks, spits] progressive Christian variant. On hierarchy level, that is, some grassroots Catholics are still fighting, to use your expression.
I have no contacts among Protestants, so I cannot comment.
There’s no single Orthodox hierarchy in the United States, so... It depends. The Greeks and the Antiochians in the OCA tend to run a sprectrum from neocon suburbanites to progressive suburbanites, and the clergy tend to fall along World Council of Churches lines and support the Ecumenical Patriarch against the Russians.

Whereas the Russians are split between MP and RORCOR which tends to be a split between Tradcon and RadTrad.

The the other ethnic churches, well you can generally predict things by if they support the Greek or the Russians in the schism, although there are always exceptions of course.
This may well be, but there's also the fact that Orthodox Christian make up all of 0.5% of the US Population, as opposed to 25% for Evangelical Protestant, 21% for Catholic, and 15% for Mainline Protestant.

So... uhh... sorry, we have more nutjob non-orthodox "Christians" (Mormons at 1.6%) than we have Orthodox in the country, so y'all are kinda a non-entity as far as influencing things here go...
 

Buba

A total creep
Pope-Emeritus Benedict and John Paul II were both strong forces for tradition and against toxic western ideologies
According to my "still fighting" Catholic friends (who do not dismiss sedevacantism) both were bleeding edge liberals ...

@DocSolarisReich Thanks for the info - so the Orthodox Churches (what a complicated landscape, BTW) are not really relevant in the US.
 
Last edited:

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
You know, if the Prots here had actually done any of that, maybe you'd have a fair point. But they haven't. Instead y'all have come in and been picking a fight that nobody here asked for or was even marginally involved with.

That’s fair and I would like to apologize for that. Mea Culpa.


Heck, I'd even say you guys stuck in longer than Vatican II, as Pope-Emeritus Benedict and John Paul II were both strong forces for tradition and against toxic western ideologies, to bad Benedict got forced out for the guy who's all of two steps away from espousing Liberation Theology.

Yep, things are pretty bleak under the current pretender, but he’s just more open about things than his equally modernist and revolutionary predecessors who nevertheless concerned themselves with keeping up the appearances.


So... uhh... sorry, we have more nutjob non-orthodox "Christians" (Mormons at 1.6%) than we have Orthodox in the country, so y'all are kinda a non-entity as far as influencing things here go...

You’re right, I was just answering a question as honestly as I could.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
According to my "still fighting" Catholic friends (leaning towards sedevacantism) both were bleeding edge liberals ...

Francis has been a salesman for the Sedevecantism thesis like Obama sold guns.


@DocSolarisReich Thanks for the info - so the Orthodox Churches (what a complicated landscape, BTW) are not really relevant in the US.

In terms of raw numbers? No, not really. But if they could all be mobilized they could be at least as effective as the say the SSPX. It’s really the division in their ranks that hamstrings them.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
You’re right, I was just answering a question as honestly as I could.
Oh, I wasn't trying to contradict you, but build on what you said and give further context to why Orthodox Christians in the US seem to be afterthought in these discussions. Overall, they are small in number and highly scattered around the country; unlike, say, the Mormons, who concentrated themselves in Utah thus giving them a more unified voice in politics.

Evangelicals and Catholics are the largest two main factions of Christianity in the US, and the conservative elements of both should really be more focused on working together against progressivism and heretical teachings in the Church than on the historical theological divisions between Protestant and Catholic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top