[ingliz]

@annatar1914

Do you deny that arguments over whether to use leaven or unleavened bread to celebrate the Eucharist contributed to the East-West Schism? I know of no theological reason why this should be considered a matter of great import.

The filioque, yes, but bread...

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

Do you deny that arguments over whether to use leaven or unleavened bread to celebrate the Eucharist contributed to the East-West Schism? I know of no theological reason why this is a matter of great import.

The filioque, yes, but bread...

I don't deny the arguments over Azymes contributed to the Roman Schism, and indeed it is a matter-literally-of great theological import. As I said, signs and symbols of inner realities. unleavened bread is ''dead bread'', it isn't living real bread at all but a dessicated lump, a dried up cracker, like a matzoh. It's a symbolic reversal of the very miracle of the sacrament itself, the eating of the body and blood living man and divinity of Christ Himself, Alive forever. Living Bread is real bread, real world nutriment for real people. And Christ Himself said; ''I am the living bread...'' and so forth... It may not seem important, but it is part of a set of Christian beliefs carried on from earliest times for a reason.

[Donna]

A lot of emotions running high in this thread...which begs the question of what is more obscene, that Jesus may have modestly enjoyed the fruits of the flesh (drinking wine, physical intimacy etc.), or centuries of LGBTQ persecution by Christians and Christian religion?

[ingliz]

@annatar1914

The filioque, yes, but bread...

It may hold some significance for you but the Latin Church, for its part, regards the question as of little importance, since at the Council of Florence, which sought to reunite East and West (1439), the difference in custom was simply acknowledged and accepted.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914


It may hold some significance for you but the Latin Church, for its part, regards the question as of little importance, since at the Council of Florence, which sought to reunite East and West (1439), the difference in custom was simply acknowledged and accepted.

Which is why the East Roman Empire fell for it's Apostasy from the Orthodox faith to the Muslim Turks, and why the Latins still seek vainly to conquer Orthodoxy and bring her churches into communion with her, completing the Apostasy for good. It's more than a difference in custom, but a lived theological reality, just as their theology of celibate priests (in most cases they are celibate-unmarried) is an abnormal and spiritually unhealthy deviation and innovation, etc...

[ingliz]

just as their theology of celibate priests (in most cases they are celibate-unmarried) is an abnormal and spiritually unhealthy deviation and innovation, etc...

You've changed your tune.

A few pages ago, the 'Go forth and multiply' spat, you were arguing that "those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" were on theologically sound ground.

[annatar1914]

You've changed your tune.

A few pages ago, the 'Go forth and multiply' spat, you were arguing that "those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" were on theologically sound ground.

That's by no means 'changing my tune'

the operative sentence being ''those who CHOOSE to live like eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven''. Married Priests are fine. Un-married Priests are fine too, and Bishops should be (most of them are widowers actually/drawn from the Monastic life). But demanding that a Priest be celibate is tyrannical innovation, and you wind up with many abnormal and psychologically warped people in your clergy.

[ingliz]

the operative sentence being ''those who CHOOSE ...

They chose to be Catholic priests, "to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".

[annatar1914]

They chose to be Catholic priests, "to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".

Yes, there is a distinction sure because they volunteer to be Latin priests, but since only those who are unmarried can apply to the Latin priesthood (again, in most cases), so too can those who have problems being heterosexual find a niche there. Now, you may or may not see what the issue is there, but for a Christian of orthodox and traditional morality there's a definite problem.

And since I don't as a rule get into the habit of letting non-christians or even anti-christians define Christianity for me, again I find it's a big issue along with Azymes, men not wearing beards, smoking, drinking hard spirits, and a lot of other things.

It's a whole way of life, and for me I define it as the way of life. May not be easy in a sense, and the road can be narrow and difficult, but that's the way it is.

[ingliz]

@annatar1914

The issue I see with those that have no physical sexual impairment yet choose to follow Paul's path and live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven - "they that have wives be as though they had none" - is their perverse disobedience.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

The issue I find with those that have no physical sexual impairment who choose to follow Paul's path - "they that have wives be as though they had none" - and live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is their perverse disobedience.

I think you're not understanding something, whether consciously or not, related to the actual Christian role of marriage.

Throughout Christian history, there have been Saints who were indeed continent within marriages, for the sake of the Kingdom of God. That was their calling, and it's a higher one. But that doesn't mean that marriage isn't holy when a married man and woman are engaging in sexual activity (to state otherwise is a heresy), and yet even in that marriage, there are times when a man and woman shouldn't have sex. Other than that, it's an actual duty, an obligation even when possible, for the man and woman to have sex when the other or both wishes it. Of course the other role of sex is the propagation of the human race itself which is another subject...

Everything has it's proper place and time, proper order, there's nothing ''perverse'' in that, quite the contrary.

[ingliz]

@annatar1914

Gen 9:7

Marriage is "for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God."

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

Gen 9:7

Marriage is "for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God."

That is one aim, yes. But not the only aim, as the Old Testament book of Tobias indicates for example.

[Verv]

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

That's right -- some of our very best Christians used to be gluttons and murderers, and we're proud of everyone who turns over a new leaf and lives a good life.

[quote[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.
[/quote]

Wow, I am cu rious about that. How do you measure something like that?

Are you a Christian?

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.

(1) What is bigotry? It's a word that is thrown out there a lot.

Preview of my thoughts on this: bigotry is rarely actually bigotry by the dictionary definition, but usually just indicates someone who is committing heresy to liberals.

(2) Yes, people who are living absolutely lavish lifestyles should really think about what they are doing, and I will continue to speak out against that.

Since you recognize this as unchristian based on the teachings of the Bible, you also recognize the other teachings of the Bible on sexual morality as well, right? Or have you come up with a special set of circumstances under which those are dismissed and these other teachings against greed and gluttony are upheld?

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.

How so? How was it based on that?

The first centuries were in a state of persecution, and then going into the 5th century, we see that the Christians were maybe a plurality of the religious, and they practiced a doctrine of tolerance.

Even after Emp. Julian the Apostate died, there was not a gross reversal of the policies of tolerance, but they were reinstituted.

[Verv]

A lot of emotions running high in this thread...which begs the question of what is more obscene, that Jesus may have modestly enjoyed the fruits of the flesh (drinking wine, physical intimacy etc.), or centuries of LGBTQ persecution by Christians and Christian religion?

What's more obscene is the blashpemy of God. But I understand. I think Protestantism has resulted in a lot of people willing to compromise endlessly on what they think Christ is until it even takes a sort of robust protestant to consciously reject universalism and embrace a really orthodox view of the trinity and the Bible.

When you believe Christ was God on earth, and that He came for a very specific reason that was vital for man's salvation, it is quite blapshemous to suggest that God was intrigued by things as base as getting drunk, fornicating, etc.

He is categorically above us.

This was very important to Christian perspectives, and is kind of the origin of a lot of debates about the nature of the hypostatic union and how there was a lot of steam in things like gnosticism and Manicheanism. People thought Christ was only light on earth because the earth itself is too dirty for God to be joined to it in flesh.

Here's also a fun take...

What if gay identities did not exist because premodern people had radically different views of sexuality in their own cultures? It's a common enough argument. I think there's a lot of truth to it, too.

[Donna]

What's more obscene is the blashpemy of God. But I understand. I think Protestantism has resulted in a lot of people willing to compromise endlessly on what they think Christ is until it even takes a sort of robust protestant to consciously reject universalism and embrace a really orthodox view of the trinity and the Bible.

When you believe Christ was God on earth, and that He came for a very specific reason that was vital for man's salvation, it is quite blapshemous to suggest that God was intrigued by things as base as getting drunk, fornicating, etc.

He is categorically above us.

This sounds more like a projection of social convention onto divine matters than anything else, likely driven by existential guilt.

This was very important to Christian perspectives, and is kind of the origin of a lot of debates about the nature of the hypostatic union and how there was a lot of steam in things like gnosticism and Manicheanism. People thought Christ was only light on earth because the earth itself is too dirty for God to be joined to it in flesh.

As someone who is coming from the Western Catholic Ignatian tradtion, I really have to shake my head at Christians who are frightened of Christ's humanity. You're missing out on an incredibly intimate relationship with Jesus.

What if gay identities did not exist because premodern people had radically different views of sexuality in their own cultures? It's a common enough argument. I think there's a lot of truth to it, too.

It's a pretty terrible argument though. People who had same-sex relationships were still mercilessly persecuted. The fact that they didn't have a rainbow flag yet doesn't justify the persecution ex post facto.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's right -- some of our very best Christians used to be gluttons and murderers, and we're proud of everyone who turns over a new leaf and lives a good life.

You misunderstood. Many notable Christians were gluttons and murderers while being lauded as notable Christians.

Wow, I am cu rious about that. How do you measure something like that?

Are you a Christian?

I quoted passages in a debate to see if @Hindsite would recognize them. He did not.

No, I am not Christian.

(1) What is bigotry? It's a word that is thrown out there a lot.

Preview of my thoughts on this: bigotry is rarely actually bigotry by the dictionary definition, but usually just indicates someone who is committing heresy to liberals.

The centuries of prejudice and discrimination that orthodox churches have levelled at LGBTQ people is a good example of bigotry.

(2) Yes, people who are living absolutely lavish lifestyles should really think about what they are doing, and I will continue to speak out against that.

Since you recognize this as unchristian based on the teachings of the Bible, you also recognize the other teachings of the Bible on sexual morality as well, right? Or have you come up with a special set of circumstances under which those are dismissed and these other teachings against greed and gluttony are upheld?

When you start condemning divorced people with the same antipathy that you direct towards LGBtQ people, you can then talk about following Biblical law on sexual morality. Until then, you are are just as inconsistent as anyone else who does not follow Bronze Age teachings about sex.

How so? How was it based on that?

The first centuries were in a state of persecution, and then going into the 5th century, we see that the Christians were maybe a plurality of the religious, and they practiced a doctrine of tolerance.

Even after Emp. Julian the Apostate died, there was not a gross reversal of the policies of tolerance, but they were reinstituted.

I already explained this. Would you like me to repeat it?

[Verv]

This sounds more like a projection of social convention onto divine matters than anything else, likely driven by existential guilt.

The Bible generally affirms that the things of this world are flawed and expendable. It tells us to not be like the world, and it also says

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6

You also can see this attitude throughout the Old Testament.

As someone who is coming from the Western Catholic Ignatian tradtion, I really have to shake my head at Christians who are frightened of Christ's humanity. You're missing out on an incredibly intimate relationship with Jesus.

Christ was fully human and did experience the pain, suffering, and joys of this world, but He remained sinless.

This is in all traditions of Christianity.

It's a pretty terrible argument though. People who had same-sex relationships were still mercilessly persecuted. The fact that they didn't have a rainbow flag yet doesn't justify the persecution ex post facto.

So you believe that there is a natural inclination toward homosexuality, yes?

I think that there may be natural inclinations to degrees of it, sure, but I think that in a society where someone who is inclined to do X is told to not do X, there are no real outlets for X, etc., they eventually will just adapt to this life without it in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I think it is also the case that context is really everything... the devil uses our visions against us very much. When we feed dark desires in us by watching adult entertainment, we become obsessive, our desires grow, we become something else.

Modern man tends to feed himself poison, and more poisoned he becomes.

[Verv]

You misunderstood. Many notable Christians were gluttons and murderers while being lauded as notable Christians.

I wouldn't really know about that.

The centuries of prejudice and discrimination that orthodox churches have levelled at LGBTQ people is a good example of bigotry.

I do not think there was any discrimination. LGBTQ people did not exist in any way that is recognizable.

Moreover, telling people to not do X is not discriminating against them. I do not discriminate against alcoholics by telling people to not be drunks.

But I don't know, perhaps you can find some unique, historic moments that would convince me.

When you start condemning divorced people with the same antipathy that you direct towards LGBtQ people, you can then talk about following Biblical law on sexual morality. Until then, you are are just as inconsistent as anyone else who does not follow Bronze Age teachings about sex.

(1) People do not spend time talking about divorce because there are very few occasions upon which people talk about divorce as positive. The people who get divorced also regret their divorces much of the time, or they present it as having had a valid reason, or they simply never want to talk about it because they know it was an embarrassing episode.

For the same reason, I do not really spend much time "condemning" alcoholics. The bulk of them know that they are wrong.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, presents itself as completely valid and worthy of affirmation. It isn't.

(2) I thought I would be a hypocrite for judging people.

But now I am a hypocrite for not actively condemning divorcees on PoFo?

I already explained this. Would you like me to repeat it?

Yes.

[Hindsite]

I quoted passages in a debate to see if @Hindsite would recognize them. He did not.

No, I am not Christian.

If you are referring to Isaiah 5:20, which I did recognize, why did you think I did not when you did not address it to me for comment? But because you seem to want my comment, let me just say that in the USA today, it describes the liberal left-wing Democrats.

It was clear to me before that you were not a Christian and could not distinguish a Christian from a frog.