- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,601
- 12,132
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I have a sneaking suspicion that I am on someone's ignore list
Upvote
0
Well this "dissident Christian" as you imply I am believes in te Trinity, the Incarnation the physical REsurrection, and conditionally in sacramental theology, depending on how you define it. If you define it as Rome does, then I am against it!
Maybe you forgot before PC revision of history took over, but shortly after Catholicism took over Europe- Eiurope entered intot eh dark ages for a millenia.
You can disagree all you wish, but it is a fact that asd teh church became watered down with nominal believers , who became "Christian" because it was the proper thing to do to stay in favor (Just like in Europe and America). Doctrine and false theology took root and what was fought against int eh first century became doctrine by the fifthe and sixth century!
Conversion by compulsion is not a biblical conversion.
As I sadi there were advantages for the church being free to express itself. But when Church and state married- it brought evil to both!
I have a sneaking suspicion that I am on someone's ignore list
Then I am confused as to why you're against the historic Church which established those doctrines. You seem to want to condemn the Church after 320 but it was the same Church whose members helped to explain the theology you accept.
I'm not sure what you mean about politically correct revisions but how draw the direct connection between Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Would you then draw a connection to Eastern Christianity and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire some thousand years later and a resurgence of the west?
The Dark ages is a misnomer. They weren't particularly dark, but only refer to a lack of resources. Of course things changed when the Western ROman empire fell. It was a civilizational collapse and barbarians filled the vacuum. It was the Church which kept the candle of civilization alive and educated Europe in the midst of any such 'darkness'. This of course doesn't describe the situation in the Eastern Roman Empire.
Ideally conversion would be voluntary, but if not for the forced conversions of the heathen do you really think Christianity would have become the dominant force it was in the medieval and early modern era? You would likely think baptism of infants is not biblical either and we'll simply have to disagree. I look at the result of Christianisation and think the benefits outweigh the negatives.
I am not here denying the negatives that existed.
It changed things but how did it necessarily add more evil? You seem to have an American conception, that the Church and State should be separated and that for them to at all be aligned is to diminish the other. Historically this is an untenable position and a novel one for any Christian to take. Church and State had always been separate entities (except in the Monastic orders who ran certain states), and it was understood that this was how things should be. The King would take care of the secular realm, while the Church the spiritual. If this whole arrangement was an error, a fundamental evil, I have to wonder how you can trust the theology of that same Church.
You condemn Church for it's partnership with Rome, but what would have happened had they done what you suggest? Be implacable enemies to governing authorities. Never compromising, never listening? They would have been viewed rightfully as partisans who would never contribute to society. They would have been persecuted by those who took up power the moment they had it. There would have been no one to stop many Julians for the pagans had no such reservations.
I have a sneaking suspicion that I am on someone's ignore list
Cool, although I don't recall you giving any reasons. Which post was that?Not on my ignore list- Just being ignored, for the reasons I gave you!
Well I accept the Doctrines that align with Scripture as written! But as that church became the Roman church and did lead the world into the dark ages (not not just for resources as the phrase the enlightenment shows)
I don't know what this sentence means. Please clarify in relation to my original response.Well I will stand as the millenia from the 6th -16th centuries were the dark ages. It is not as just one-liners as you say!
Well I would call it Christendom and not Christianity! If someone does not exercise faith in teh death and resurrection of Jesus alone for their salvation, they may go to church in a "Christian sect" but they are not Christian.
I agree that Christianizing a country has its benefits! By enforcing the morals and standards of the New Testament an nation can really prosper as we see throughout Western history! But Christianity without Christ leads to what we see today- lots of religion but fewer and fewer relationships.
The state is Gods civil authority and the church is Gods spiritual authority (if it is still a believing church). By separation I am against one sect holding sway over the nation as was the practice in Europe. Separation does not appear in the constitution and the intent of the amendment was so that no one sect could dominate over another!
No we are to obey the governing authorities, not be the governing authorities. I do not argue the physical effects, but the spiritual effects of that marriage caused. The Papcy became a defacto cesar! The church the defacto Roman Empire. Kings could not reign without the blessing and acquiescence to the papacy, and you should know the great corruption of the papacy that took place because of that absolute power!
Cool, although I don't recall you giving any reasons. Which post was that?
I should have written, written records instead of resources. The reason it is known as a Dark age is because of the lack of substantial written resources when compared to later eras. Education was provided by the Church and any semblance of classical civilization was taught by them (what limited resources existed in the Latin west). But wouldn't you condemn that? Do you even think it a bad thing that Western Rome fell?
Also, by blaming Western Christianity for the fall of Rome, you borrow from the spirit of early YouTube atheists. Doesn't the migration of Barbarians and internal weakness of the West Roman State speak and the inevitable collapse of Empire speak more to it's collapse than Christianity? Or are you suggesting Christianity in Rome was a paristic force that destroyed the Roman State from within instead of strengthening it? Wouldn't you be for that?
This offers nothing in terms of judging the utility of the arrangement in medieval Europe. You're looking at things from an American perspective but if you're going to judge the historic Church it would do well to look at them from their own perspective. Power structures and governmental systems are not static and medieval Christian clergy had their place in the system.
I quite frankly appreciate the synthesis. As much as Emperor could hold physical power over his subjects and even his bishops, he could not be garunteed everything Spiritual by the Church. I think it a good thing that the Secular authority of the King was not unilateral and all powerful. You could compare it to the American system in how power is divided between the three branches.
Did the Pope become a Caesar? He was not as powerful as you seem to think and he didn't lead great armies. He never had, as far as I can tell, absolute authority. The Power of the Pope came from his spiritual authority rather than any force he might exert on those he disagreed with. While Popes at times could hold Kings to account they couldn't always and were subject to Kings and Emperors.
This is the History forum on Christian Forums, so most of the people on here have read a lot of history, some of them even teach it. It is a great place to learn; but to do that requires one check his bias at the door and be open to admitting, "I was wrong". You urged people to read Unam Sanctum and said that Kings served at the pleasure of the Pope. You could not have picked a worse example from history to make this point. So take 2 minutes and google Unam Sanctum and read the wiki article on it. Then if you would like, respond to this post with what you think.Reads the bull Unum Sanctum.
But Kings served at the pleasure of the POpe until the reformation. And though they were under the kings of the individual nations, Yes the Pope could call an enormous army if he chose to. Remember the crusades called by the popes!
And yes through history there were always ebbs and flows of the Papal stranglehold on Europe, but it was mostly kongs ceded to the pope for fear.
This is the History forum on Christian Forums, so most of the people on here have read a lot of history, some of them even teach it. It is a great place to learn; but to do that requires one check his bias at the door and be open to admitting, "I was wrong". You urged people to read Unam Sanctum and said that Kings served at the pleasure of the Pope. You could not have picked a worse example from history to make this point. So take 2 minutes and google Unam Sanctum and read the wiki article on it. Then if you would like, respond to this post with what you think.
This church was not Jesus' church ... which was a church NOT tied to temporal power.You are being woefully simplistic here.
Where is the Church as was? WHY did it change?
That's a rather subjective judgment ...I think he means how do you go from that to the effeminate religion it has become today.
Uhhh ... no ...Loving one another was about how Christians treat each other, not about how they treat unbelievers.
What has been particularly anti-Catholic about the posts here ?I was hoping that non-Catholics could get past their anti-Catholicism for this thread but clearly I was asking too much.
Men of God, placed in positions of secular power.What do you think King Hezekiah was, or King David?
Not to any overwhelming degree, ... but many of their forerunners and successors were ...So you would say that King Hezekiah, King David and King Solomon were involved in abomination?
Christ doesn't need armies.You need to re-read your Bible. Not only are we not all God's people, at the end the Kingdom is established through dividing sheep from goats and an enormous army brought for battle.
Christ doesn't need armies.
Christ destroys His enemies without any help from us ...
Revelation 19
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him