[Pants-of-dog]

Well you know what you can do with your ''research'', which I reject on the face of it.

Baloney, we have plenty of evidence of that from the patristic fathers. I'm not buying into your biased and godless ''research'', with biased and godless ''experts'', to the Devil with them. So, I think we're done here

I am not atheist, nor am I Gnostic.

I simply believe that the early Christians also had political agendas, and that these political maneuvers influenced what we now understand as orthodox Christianity.

[annatar1914]

I am not atheist, nor am I Gnostic.

I simply believe that the early Christians also had political agendas, and that these political maneuvers influenced what we now understand as orthodox Christianity.

Well, you would be wrong, because the ''agenda'' of the early Church was and still remains the salvation of mankind. To the powerful the power will remain to the end, and politics is subordinated to the order of seeing people in spiritual health. None of that is there in the literature you're speaking of. It's all so very stupid, tawdry and banal, put out by bourgeoisie with superficial minds, empty hearts, and palms itching for their 30 pieces of silver.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, you would be wrong, because the ''agenda'' of the early Church was and still remains the salvation of mankind. To the powerful the power will remain to the end, and politics is subordinated to the order of seeing people in spiritual health. None of that is there in the literature you're speaking of. It's all so very stupid, tawdry and banal, put out by bourgeoisie with superficial minds, empty hearts, and palms itching for their 30 pieces of silver.

No.

The agenda of the early church was to ingratiate itself with Rome, and thereby get in the good side of the ruling power structure at the time.

[annatar1914]

No.

The agenda of the early church was to ingratiate itself with Rome, and thereby get in the good side of the ruling power structure at the time.

Horseshit. Almost every day that same Church celebrates the memory of martyrs to the ''ruling power structure at that time'', who refused to ingratiate themselves and later refused to settle for heretical doctrines that the Roman Empire was all-too-ready to embrace.

Your theory is as ridiculous as it is old and hackneyed. I'm done here with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

. Almost every day that same Church celebrates the memory of martyrs to the ''ruling power structure at that time'', who refused to ingratiate themselves and later refused to settle for heretical doctrines that the Roman Empire was all-too-ready to embrace.

Your theory is as ridiculous as it is old and hackneyed. I'm done here with you.

Yes, thank you for illustrating why the early church felt it needed to ingratiate itself with Rome.

[annatar1914]

Yes, thank you for illustrating why the early church felt it needed to ingratiate itself with Rome.

Hardly

Rather, it was the constant attempt by heretics to ingratiate themselves with the Roman Emperors and make their sect the official religion and persecute Orthodoxy that has always been the case, every single time. Whether Arianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, or Papism, the Temporal power has been all-too-ready to make a deal with Sects in error, in exchange for being given spiritual free reign here on Earth.

But anyway, no necessity to feel the urge to have your usual last word here, just setting the historical record straight.

[Verv]

The original issue was whether or not you can be Christian and homosexual.

There is nothing in the Nicene Creed that is inconsistent with being gay.

There's also nothing in the Nicene creed about being an alcoholic, a murderer, a prostitute, a glutton, a whoremonger, etc.

The Nicene Creed was designed to shortly and succinctly state necessary doctrinal truths.

Can someone be a Christian and a homosexual? Of course. Someone can also be a murderer and a Christian, a glutton and a Christian, etc.

The thing is, though, that if one does not recognize that they are sinning and rejects the clear teachings of the Church, you have fallen into heterodox or heretical beliefs.

Here's a classic quotation on that issue:

20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!

Isaiah 5:20

[Verv]

Yes, thank you for illustrating why the early church felt it needed to ingratiate itself with Rome.

J. B. Bury, a famous historian of late Rome who took a very materialist perspective that was critical of Church history in spite of being Irish and undoubtedly familiar with the Church narrative, actually advanced the idea that the Empire itself realized that it was incapable of defeating Christianity after a period and herself was inclined to ingratiate itself to the Christians.

Christianity was the religion whose time had come, and had the blessings of God, and thus went on to become the official state religion.

You should check out his series on Byzantium -- very, very cheap on Amazon and they are good reads.

[annatar1914]

I pointed it out to you directly in the Coronavirus thread. Thank you for finally taking the brave step of saying that reveling in the murder of black people is wrong. I'm glad your religion has helped you so.

Also "I fucked a black chick" shows an amazingly deep level of understanding and empathy.

Is there any filthy thought, fornication and abomination and depraved language you do not revel in? I am at a loss based on what you continue to write on this thread and elsewhere on how to continue a conversation with you. For shame, but maybe you don't know any better, or were shown a better example by alleged ''Christians''. I myself am one of the worst of sinners, but I try to help others best I can with what feeble lights I have.

For your information ''reveling'' in anyone's murder, whoever they are, is wrong; ''He who hates his brother is a murderer''. I have rarely hated anyone in my life, it's a terrible feeling like a mark of Cain in itself, as i've experienced it anyway. And what's the use?

And I never said anything about sexual relations with a woman in my past, did I? Nor will I. The woman I spoke of was a good woman. Looking back, I did not have the maturity to have a serious relationship with her, and I realized that just as she did. It had nothing to do with race. Some people just aren't as racially obsessed I think as others in this world. It's hard enough being a good person without adding stupid baggage to it all.

Time is short, remember that. Too short for evil and wasteful nonsense that means less than nothing.

[Hindsite]

Is there any filthy thought, fornication and abomination and depraved language you do not revel in? I am at a loss based on what you continue to write on this thread and elsewhere on how to continue a conversation with you. For shame, but maybe you don't know any better, or were shown a better example by alleged ''Christians''. I myself am one of the worst of sinners, but I try to help others best I can with what feeble lights I have.

Apparently, as a sinner, you do not even come close to SpecialOlympian.

[annatar1914]

Apparently, as a sinner, you do not even come close to SpecialOlympian.

You shouldn't mock someone, and you shouldn't mock me either; both are evil. Maybe you don't know that this is what you are doing though.

And no, I am much worse a sinner than him or you or most I think, because when I sin, I sin against what I know to be right and true, with no possible shadow of ignorance that I could claim an excuse for what I do or don't do. Nor do I judge him personally, just objective acts and words which I know are wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

Hardly

Rather, it was the constant attempt by heretics to ingratiate themselves with the Roman Emperors and make their sect the official religion and persecute Orthodoxy that has always been the case, every single time. Whether Arianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, or Papism, the Temporal power has been all-too-ready to make a deal with Sects in error, in exchange for being given spiritual free reign here on Earth.

But anyway, no necessity to feel the urge to have your usual last word here, just setting the historical record straight.

And yet it is the Roman Catholic Church that became partners with the temporal power and was given spiritual free rein. Though I like your accidental use of “reign”, since the Church used its ability to ingratiate itself with Rome to amass political power.

——————————

There's also nothing in the Nicene creed about being an alcoholic, a murderer, a prostitute, a glutton, a whoremonger, etc.

The Nicene Creed was designed to shortly and succinctly state necessary doctrinal truths.

Can someone be a Christian and a homosexual? Of course. Someone can also be a murderer and a Christian, a glutton and a Christian, etc.

I agree, and the history of Christianity shows that gluttons and murderers have been accepted as Christian many times.

The thing is, though, that if one does not recognize that they are sinning and rejects the clear teachings of the Church, you have fallen into heterodox or heretical beliefs.

Here's a classic quotation on that issue:

20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!

Isaiah 5:20

Yes, I am familiar with the book of Isaiah. It was one the books I used to test @Hindsite to see if he was actually Christian. He failed, by the way.

I would think that this admonishment should be targeted at those Christians who condemn others and use religion to support their bigotry.

This same judgment, that Christians who do not recognise their sins are heretodox or heretical, could be and should be applied to people who do not follow Jesus’ teachings of caring for the poor and healing the sick. Like modern conservatives.

J. B. Bury, a famous historian of late Rome who took a very materialist perspective that was critical of Church history in spite of being Irish and undoubtedly familiar with the Church narrative, actually advanced the idea that the Empire itself realized that it was incapable of defeating Christianity after a period and herself was inclined to ingratiate itself to the Christians.

Christianity was the religion whose time had come, and had the blessings of God, and thus went on to become the official state religion.

You should check out his series on Byzantium -- very, very cheap on Amazon and they are good reads.

Yes, Rome also had its own reasons for ingratiating itself with the early Christians. Thank you for pointing out more political reasons why current orthodox Christianity is based at least partly on the political context of the time.

And so you agree that Interpretation can be influenced by current political thought and needs.

[annatar1914]

@Pants-of-dog , you said in response to my reply about heretics and the state cozying up with each other for mutual benefit that;

And yet it is the Roman Catholic Church that became partners with the temporal power and was given spiritual free rein.

And it is that body which has been condemned many times for heresy and schism by the true Catholic Church, the Orthodox Faith, in numerous councils and encyclicals by Orthodox bishops ever since 1054 AD. The Donation of Pepin was the beginning of many evils, when the Bishop of Old Rome became also a temporal ruler. Time was given for their repentance and straightening out their un-canonical practices, but they exalted the Bishop of Rome even more, and added to his temporal rule, and added more heresy and schismatic acts to their system of belief, until they finally had to be cut off from the Living Vine of Christ's Body.

Though I like your accidental use of “reign”, since the Church used its ability to ingratiate itself with Rome to amass political power.

It was not accidental, lol. Let me quote from just one Council under which the Papists fall under the Anathemas of;

''The 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council says:

Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”

And this has happened one way or another with them more times than I can count. But I am not of them.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog , you said in response to my reply about heretics and the state cozying up with each other for mutual benefit that;



And it is that body which has been condemned many times for heresy and schism by the true Catholic Church, the Orthodox Faith, in numerous councils and encyclicals by Orthodox bishops ever since 1054 AD. The Donation of Pepin was the beginning of many evils, when the Bishop of Old Rome became also a temporal ruler. Time was given for their repentance and straightening out their un-canonical practices, but they exalted the Bishop of Rome even more, and added to his temporal rule, and added more heresy and schismatic acts to their system of belief, until they finally had to be cut off from the Living Vine of Christ's Body.

So you agree that the early Christians ingratiated themselves with Rome.

It was not accidental, lol. Let me quote from just one Council under which the Papists fall under the Anathemas of;

You said they were given free reign. The actual wording is free rein. It is a metaphor involving horses.

And this has happened one way or another with them more times than I can count. But I am not of them.

I am not discussing you. I am discussing how early Christians were influenced by their political context when they interpreted and made the Bible and formulated what is now orthodox Christian belief.

[annatar1914]

@Pants-of-dog ;

So you agree that the early Christians ingratiated themselves with Rome.

No. Heretics are not true Christians, unfortunately.

You said they were given free reign. The actual wording is free rein. It is a metaphor involving horses.

I'm aware of the metaphor and the wording.

I am not discussing you. I am discussing how early Christians were influenced by their political context when they interpreted and made the Bible and formulated what is now orthodox Christian belief.

And I'm saying that they were not, because the people who transmitted (not ''formulated'') Orthodox belief from the time of the Apostles and set the Canon of Holy Scripture were not 'influenced by their political context', and were very often persecuted by heretics and Imperial Rome (under frequently heretical Emperors) for that very reason; exiled, calumnied, imprisoned, murdered, tortured, forced to flee for their lives, all to keep the true Christian salvific doctrine free from innovation, novel invented theologies, and teachings of worldly men.

That's all that can really be said.

[Pants-of-dog]

@annatar1914

No True Scotsman.

[ingliz]

[schisms] not 'influenced by their political context'

The arguments over the Pentarchy that led to the East-West schism were political in nature.

[annatar1914]

The arguments over the Pentarchy that led to the East-West Schism were political in nature.

In the West, with the Bishopric of Old Rome taken over by Germanic barbarian warlords, the temporal and the spiritual were confused, sure. But the theological arguments were genuinely serious, the Trinitarian heresy of the ''Filioque Procedit'' inserted into the Creed in the West for example.

[ingliz]

genuinely serious

Leaven or unleavened bread?

[annatar1914]

Leaven or unleavened bread?

Mock all you want, external signs of inner realities, Christianity as a way of life rather than living after the way of the world. This is why I don't regard you as a poster worth debating, because your interest in this is not in good faith but in malice and an anti-christian worldview.