Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Religion debate from Kit's thoughts
#61
Honestly. I think I can put my thoughts on this pretty simply.

1. Markus, please try and refrain from mentioning religion so frequently. Yes, it plays a part in the community, but people get fed up of hearing it mentioned over and over.
2. Everyone else, calm down. You're really not helping the situation. If it even needs further talking over (which, to be frank, it doesn't), then state your opinion calmly and respectfully.
Reply
#62
I'm starting to think that the best option here would simply be to just completely ignore Markus when he does such things. This isn't the first time someone's asked him to stop, and because of the arrogance his posts display, I doubt anything I or anybody else here can say can convince him to stop.

He certainly does have a right to believe and say what he wants, even if he exercises that right in an annoying way. Normally people control what they say out of courtesy and respect for the community, but we can't really force him to not exercise his right.

What he says doesn't really mean anything unless someone else takes heed of it. I think a lot of people here right now have already learned just to ignore him in these cases, and I think I'll start to do the same as my way of telling him that not everyone cares about what he has to say. And since I attribute his posts to arrogance, I think that this would be a fitting response.

So yeah. That's my opinion on this.
Sincerely,
Spago.

Proud subject of the Aggrawal.
Reply
#63
O, as for the original thread topic. (Just noticed that this was originally not about Markus's antics).

Here's what I believe (I'm an atheist by the way).

1. It's okay to believe in something because of faith. (eg, if one was Muslim, "Because of my religion, I believe one should not drink alcohol." is okay).

2. It's not okay to expect someone else to also believe the same, or to do, or not do, something because of your religion. ("You should not drink alcohol because the Quran forbids it" is not okay [unless this were a section addressed only to Muslims])

3. That doesn't mean that just because religion contributes to your belief, that it is necessarily invalid. (A Muslim can still say, "You should not drink alcohol because it makes you a riskier driver.")

4. Using religion as evidence in a discussion is not useful. In a discussion, one should back up one's points with stuff that's been previously agreed upon. ("Pork is evil because the Quran forbids it." is meaningless to anybody who's not a Muslim. Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just useless as an argument, while "Pork is unhealthy because it contains lots of cholesterol" is more meaningful, because we can agree on the fact that pork contains cholesterol, and that cholesterol can lead to clogged arteries.)


TL;DR: Religion is okay unless you try impose your beliefs on others. It also doesn't work as useful evidence, other than to people who share your religion.
Sincerely,
Spago.

Proud subject of the Aggrawal.
Reply
#64
(28 Oct 2015, 08:02:46)Austenasia Wrote: .
>founds own denomination
>calls others schismatics
:P

The Church of New Israel is not a denomination. Frankly I am no fan of that word, because it only encourages dispute. We are a church. With a holy see, in Augustinople. We consider ourselves part of the worldwide churches of Christendom and support several of the original ecumenical councils.

Schismatics are those who defy the teachings of the holy scriptures. It has no bearing on whether they fall under the Apostolic Church of New Israel's jurisdiction or not. Do not presume me to consider myself some sort of "pontiff" with special authority over anyone. I am merely one sinful servant of Christ out of many, striving to set apart my nation and our church as a city on a hill, a light which cannot be snuffed out.

May the Lord be with you, &c.
Reply
#65
(29 Oct 2015, 03:04:55)Emperor Markus II Wrote:
(28 Oct 2015, 08:02:46)Austenasia Wrote: .
>founds own denomination
>calls others schismatics
:P

The Church of New Israel is not a denomination. Frankly I am no fan of that word, because it only encourages dispute. We are a church. With a holy see, in Augustinople. We consider ourselves part of the worldwide churches of Christendom and support several of the original ecumenical councils.

Schismatics are those who defy the teachings of the holy scriptures. It has no bearing on whether they fall under the Apostolic Church of New Israel's jurisdiction or not. Do not presume me to consider myself some sort of "pontiff" with special authority over anyone. I am merely one sinful servant of Christ out of many, striving to set apart my nation and our church as a city on a hill, a light which cannot be snuffed out.

May the Lord be with you, &c.

I'm only teasing Markus, I hope I didn't offend :D
However, I've always considered "schismatic" to mean one who breaks away from an existing church to found their own, with "heretic" being used to describe those who defy Christian teachings. I suppose we have very different views on ecclesiology, so we probably won't agree on this :P
His Imperial Majesty
Jonathan I
(Imperator Caesar Jonathan Augustus)
By the Grace of Christ our God faithful Austenasian Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans
[Image: 8hcAM4h.png]
Reply
#66
(28 Oct 2015, 00:34:15)Tjorvi Wrote: The Pope, the one person on the planet that is the recognized leader of the Christian faith, is not recognized by roughly 1/3 of Christians (800 million of the ~2.518 billion Christians worldwide).

The Pope is not the "recognized leader of the Christian faith". Only Roman Catholics recognise him as such, and they make up just less than half of all Christians worldwide. It's more than half, not just a third, of Christians who reject papal supremacy.
[/quote]

There are a bunch of other kinds of Catholics as well. Look it up. I'm Byzantine Catholic, not Roman Catholic, but still in communion with (not under) the Pope. And I could go on and on about this.

This actually was a place to discuss Markus's antics, I thought I specified that earlier. That's why I named this "Debate from Kit's thoughts," because people were talking about Markus there when they shouldn't have.

Also, I am beginning to get tired of this myself.
 
Reply
#67
Interesting. I set my eyes somewhere outside our Forums and this long thread suddenly appears. Let me be sincerely honest.

I do believe Jesus is the only way (In other words, I may think you are wrong for not believing in God, but I am not going to harass you with my personal ideas and I will keep it to myself). But frankly (and with no intention to offend) I do believe that people must come voluntarily to Christ, and the correct way to preach the Gospel isn't "banging harder on the door" as Shamus said.

If you want to preach the Gospel, start by demonstrating it with actions. It's the most beautiful way to preach the Gospel. Instead of just quoting verses to preach the Gospel, start by being an ideal individual, and earning a good reputation. And invite people to follow the faith once. Otherwise it won't work. It will only make people fall apart from the Faith and if they didn't hate it already, they will start hating it.

And if you want to quote, Jesus said that if the disciples are to reach a house, and they are thrown away, they should clean the dust from their feet and move on. (Matthew 10:14). Sorry if I offend you Markus, but it's, in my opinion, the duty of any Christian to preach in this way.

And to the agnostics, atheists... etc... of these Forums, I do believe you should join up in the Faith, but, guess what? You aren't forced to do so! It's YOUR decision to come to Christ or no! Not mine! And the Bible calls us to have Mercy on those who doubt (Jude 1:22). So, while I believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6), that doesn't mean I will force you into it. If you have any questions, PM me. I may not be an ordained cleric, but I can answer for the Faith if you request it.
PAULUS AEMILIUS I, DUX TREBIAE
Paolo Emilio I, Caudillo of Trebia
DEUS, PATRIA, REX
Reply
#68
You can preach, just stick to a thread about religion.
[Image: buy_email_lists_21819162.jpg]
In the words of  Bill Clinton
I did was not affiliated or part take in the actions of the hackers, Dreamlight Hackerz
Reply
#69
(29 Oct 2015, 17:40:55)SoD Woods Wrote: There are a bunch of other kinds of Catholics as well. Look it up. I'm Byzantine Catholic, not Roman Catholic, but still in communion with (not under) the Pope. And I could go on and on about this.

I use "Roman Catholic" to mean /all/ those in communion with Rome. I'd use "Latin Catholic" or something to distinguish the Latin Church from the Eastern Catholic Churches. The less than half of all Christians who recognise the Pope include the Eastern Catholics such as the Byzantine Catholics.

(29 Oct 2015, 21:36:47)Emperor Markus II Wrote: The matter of dispute rests in (if I am not mistaken) the nature of the holy spirit, and the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Enlighten me, ally - you being of the eastern church, tell us, what is the source of this Schism?

I could write a page-long essay on this, but I'll keep it brief. You're correct in what you said - the main causes of the Schism were the claims of the Pope and the insertion into the Nicene Creed of the filioque (the words "and the Son") in regards to the Holy Spirit.

The reasons why papal supremacy and the filioque are unacceptable, again, could take up a whole page, but suffice to say that they were innovations unacceptable to the eastern churches. The Pope demanded they accept said innovations, they refused, he declared them excommunicated, and the Church of Rome has been in schism from the eastern Churches ever since.

The arguments were also made worse by the Latin/Greek language and cultural divide, as well as some liturgical disagreements such as the insistence by the Pope that the eastern Churches use unleavened bread in communion, but the core of the matter was doctrinal. As the years have gone past, the Schism has become more pronounced both because of more departures from the pre-Schism Faith by the RCC (Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc) as well as more geopolitical actions by them such as the Fourth Crusade and the establishment of Uniatism.

That's hugely oversimplified, of course, but it gives a general outline of why the Schism happened.
His Imperial Majesty
Jonathan I
(Imperator Caesar Jonathan Augustus)
By the Grace of Christ our God faithful Austenasian Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans
[Image: 8hcAM4h.png]
Reply
#70
One question. Why does the Eastern Church refuses the Filioque?
PAULUS AEMILIUS I, DUX TREBIAE
Paolo Emilio I, Caudillo of Trebia
DEUS, PATRIA, REX
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)