annatar1914 wrote:Pretty much any Feudal document of the era.
For example? Magna Carta? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? The Golden Bull of Emperor Charles IV? The Salic Law?
Which one did you read
How is Feudalism a ''Myth'', exactly?
It was made up by modern people who knew nothing at all about medieval life and did not care to find out. It is implied to be a definable belief system or system of practice but it has no properties, no distinct characteristics, no proponents and no adherents. The spoof religion of Jedism or the flying spaghetti monster is more real.
annatar1914 wrote:Even to someone entirely lacking in understanding of Christianity, being outside Christianity itself, would see the gigantic difference between the Papacy as an institution and the Orthodox episcopacy.
Trust me, no one outside of Christianity can see what all the fuss is about. To us your schisms are a bunch of people who believe in a god called jesus being really angry at another bunch of people who also
believe in a god called jesus.
annatar1914 wrote:But then, you deny Feudalism existed so it's like hearing an otherwise normal man say he's a grilled cheese sandwich.
Can you point to any medieval book that defines, expands upon or describes, refers to, or advocates feudalism? Even just one?
See you can easily do the equivalent of this for proving the existence of Christianity because beside the bible there are innumerable documents explicitly describing or refering to some aspect of Christianity. You can also do this for Communism, Scientology, Republicanism, Democracy, Buddhism, Islam, Keynesianism, Absolutism, Bonapartism etc. For feudalism there is nothing except the fantasy fiction book written in the 19th century called Ivanhoe.
If you mean to speak of western europeans circa the turn of the last millenium, you can refer to the medieval period in europe or even medieval people in europe (a bit of generalisation but whatever) and be less liable to start making up Ivanhoe like fancies in place of actual factual history.
The medieval period had a fair amount of literacy so we have a lot of real sources to go to find out what life was really like, there is no need to make stuff up.
annatar1914 wrote:Another bad faith effort on your part-and not the first either-by a non-christian to tell Christians what we should and should not believe, including who we think are excluded as genuine Christian denominations in some circumstances....
I am taking self-identifying Christians at their word. I have no reason to doubt them and you have no provided any reason to doubt them on that point. Are you denying that all those billion Catholics believe that they are Christians? Why should i believe you are christian? Just because you say so?
annatar1914 wrote:Denying Christ is serious business for all men. And why should I care about what you think of my religion as being of ''minor importance'' or not, exactly?
Are you disputing the basic fact that Catholicism represent the majority of Christians at this time in history?
annatar1914 wrote:Sometimes you do tend to pretend to other belief.
It is not really a pretence; I just have a complicated, multi-faceted and evolving personal theology.
annatar1914 wrote:And somehow your attack on Marxist Leninists rings particularly hollow now...
Why? Those idiots make everyone starve. They are the worst criminals in history.
annatar1914 wrote:There is no ''Eastern Church'', and it had nothing to do directly either with it's promulgation or banning in any case, the religious entity you are speaking of.
I do not know the proper term for what we in English call the Orthodox church. I thought "eastern" church would not be offensive as it is a simple geographic correlation the same as if I were to call the Catholic church western Christianity.
annatar1914 wrote:Do you believe in various forms of human servitude/slavery? Why or why not?
I am not sure you have phrased that question correctly. You appear to be asking if I think it exists. Of course I recognise that it exists. My guess is that you mean to ask me if I approve of, or condone human slavery? I will try to answer. Firstly although I have a complicated and evolving personal theology, I am an English man and my country and people have been pretty deeply committed to Christianity (as we know it) for longer than most Europeans north of the Alps (The Saxons were among the first western heathen to sign up at around 600AD) so consequently some of that basic (Anglican) Christian sentiment is part of the general framework of my casual morals. My reflexive answer will be a sweet but boringly conventional Anglican sentiment that humans are special and should not be enslaved or humiliated.
If I engage the lower gears of my reason for some extra grunt I think I would acknowledge some kinds of slavery might be morally or pragmatically justifiable, such as forced labour of wrong doers to make compensation to their victims.
Otherwise I would calculate quid pro quo that since I personally would violently object to myself being enslaved then as a matter of tactics I should be against slavery since in a society that allowed it I could not be sure that it would not be done to me even if potentially i might benefit from it too. Simple enlightened self-interest, essentially.
What is your take on slavery?