The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

AP ^ | 3/24/01

[RobbyS]

Kosher to a religious Jew has sacramental value, to a Jewish Christian, something more like what it might mean to some conservative/reform Jews. But I recognize that keeping Kosher is a more serious act than being, say, a Vegan. It has deep communal value.

[ET(end tyranny)]

If Torah Observance & commandment keeping advocate a cultural change, so be it.

That's the kind of 'cultural' change that could... usher in the kingdom! ;)

[OLD REGGIE]

First, let me say I must have misinterpreted your original "Culture to Religion", "Religion to Culture" post.

Second, I still have no idea what is going on in your mind.

Third, it still appears to me you are claiming Steven's position requires a "Cultural" conversion prior to a "Religious" conversion.

Fourth, I am not interested in carrying on with the Culture/Religion discussion. It is going nowhere.

Fifth, you have raised a new question. Please explain, "No, I am actually saying that cultural conversion can be mistaken for a religious conversion (in the case of Pentecostals in S. America)..."

Are you claiming the so-called "conversions" to Pentecostalism in South America are false?

[OLD REGGIE]

For the record, and it's a shame that it has come to this, I would not throw any of you to the Inquisition for your "crimes" of heterodoxy. I think all decent people like to think that we would hide some Jews in our attic. I am among them.

At the risk of being called a pedant I must point out there is a big difference between "heterodoxy" and "heresy" insofar as doctrine, dogma, and practice is concerned.

The RCC has always allowed a certain amount of heterodoxy in practices while it has always condemned heresy.

You haven't explained how you could, and did, defend the position of a compatriot of yours that in a "Christian Monarchy" the execution of "heretics" would be an allowable practice.

I can understand you wishing to wash your hands of this subject. And, for the record, I believe you when you say you would protect a "heretic".

I do not expect you to retract your defense of the theoretical "Cristian Monarchy" and the execution of heretics.

[OLD REGGIE]

(RobbyS) Is no one here going to look at the unique historical situation that produced the Inquisition and conclude that it is about as likely to recur as African slavery?

Why would they do that? It might damage their sense of superiority.

Poor example Mr. Superior.

Slavery in Sudan Must End

Modern Child Slavery in Africa

(Does the office of the Inquisition still exist?)

[RobbyS]

But of course I am talking about slavery in the United States.

[SoothingDave]

At the risk of being called a pedant I must point out there is a big difference between "heterodoxy" and "heresy" insofar as doctrine, dogma, and practice is concerned. The RCC has always allowed a certain amount of heterodoxy in practices while it has always condemned heresy.

Now, I'm gonna be the pednat. Heterodoxy has to do with thoughts, beliefs. Practice that is wrong would be called "hetereopraxis."

I used the word heterodoxy as a softer and more accurate term for most of the folks here. They are not formal heretics. I was just trying to say that I wouldn't cooperate with the oppression of anyone for having different beliefs.

You haven't explained how you could, and did, defend the position of a compatriot of yours that in a "Christian Monarchy" the execution of "heretics" would be an allowable practice.

It's quite simple. In any monolithic society, like those in olden times, there was no seperation of church and state. Heresy and treason are not only the same thing, they are intellectually indistinguishable.

The Jews and Christians were a problem for the pagan Roman Empire because they would not give even token worship to the Roman gods. The Romans, being good polytheists, didn't care what gods you worshipped at home or in your own community. But the Roman gods were part and parcel of the unifying factor for their entire world.

To not give sacrifice to the gods was to rick their wrath and such wrath would befall all of the citizens, not just the obstinate ones.

So a Jew or Christian who refused to pay homage was in fact putting all of his fellow citizens in jeopardy. This is treason.

I am not saying this is rational today or then. And I'm not saying that I think that is a higher way to organize a society, or that I hope society becomes that way again.

But it is absolutely true that in a state such as that, heresy is treason. And treason has always been a capital offense.

SD

[ET(end tyranny)]

(Does the office of the Inquisition still exist?)

I think the name has been changed.

[ET(end tyranny)]

The Jews and Christians were a problem for the pagan Roman Empire because they would not give even token worship to the Roman gods. The Romans, being good polytheists, didn't care what gods you worshipped at home or in your own community. But the Roman gods were part and parcel of the unifying factor for their entire world.

So, the best option was to assimilate as many of the pagan practices into christianity as they could and tell the pagans it was the same religion?

You might be able to fool the pagans, but ya can't fool YHWH. ;)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And I get tired of dealing with people who can't read. He clearly says the Church (that's the Christian people)has "no choice" but to deny the Holocaust. You can either accept it, or apologize for it. But don't try to pretend it doesn't say what it says.

That was 3 or 4 paragraphs taken out of a book. In context, to which you arent privy to, it makes perfect sense. The original post 1410 said to Malakhi. "Here's one of the best definitions of replacement theology I've read." I don't have to agree with all of it for it to be the best. I don't have to pretend or apologize. Go put ashes on your forehead or something. Don't bother me.

It's really sad. Truly. Your guru tells us what the Church (again, that's Christian people) has "no choice" in believing. It doesn't matter if the author, your guru, claimed to be a Christian. Talk about a foolish response.Talk about an idiot. You should quit forgetting to take your prozac.

[SoothingDave]

So, the best option was to assimilate as many of the pagan practices into christianity as they could and tell the pagans it was the same religion?

The best option is to accept what is not immoral in a culture and work with it, including using similarities in their existing beliefs as a catechetical tool.

One always begins teaching one about God by starting where the person is and working your way to the truth. But I don't expect you to understand this subtlety.

SD

[SoothingDave]

The original post 1410 said to Malakhi. "Here's one of the best definitions of replacement theology I've read." I don't have to agree with all of it for it to be the best. I don't have to pretend or apologize.

And he's been awful silent about it. I like to think he doesn't agree that there is any context in which stating that Christians must deny the Holocaust is sensical.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And he's been awful silent about it. I like to think he doesn't agree that there is any context in which stating that Christians must deny the Holocaust is sensical.

Whoop de doo. Did I ask him to agree?

[ET(end tyranny)]

But I don't expect you to understand this subtlety.

I don't expect you to understand 'appeasement' and 'lukewarm'.

[OLD REGGIE]

Now, I'm gonna be the pednat. Heterodoxy has to do with thoughts, beliefs. Practice that is wrong would be called "hetereopraxis."

You are correct.

It's quite simple. In any monolithic society, like those in olden times, there was no seperation of church and state. Heresy and treason are not only the same thing, they are intellectually indistinguishable.

Has the RCC ever abrogated Unum Sanctum? If the entire world should become subject to the Pope would you defend the execution of heretics?

But it is absolutely true that in a state such as that, heresy is treason. And treason has always been a capital offense.

And the RCC still strives to see that state?

[SoothingDave]

A wise man said:

Jesus came in the Jewish culture to save the world and make humans everywhere whole. He did not come to make humans everywhere Jewish.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I think the name has been changed.

It was a rhetorical question. The office still exists, with the same charter, under a different name. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[SoothingDave]

Has the RCC ever abrogated Unum Sanctum?

Why would it?

If the entire world should become subject to the Pope would you defend the execution of heretics?

Not gonna happen. So don't worry about it. The cat is out of the bag. The cream is in the coffe. The eggs are scrambled.

The only way the world is going to become subject to the Pope is voluntarily.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Jesus came in the Jewish culture to save the world and make humans everywhere whole. He did not come to make humans everywhere Jewish.

Another wise man said: "Salvation is of the Jews". He forgot to mention it was only for Jews 2,000 years ago.

[SoothingDave]

Another wise man said: "Salvation is of the Jews".

Yes. Of the Jews. Not "for" the Jews. Jesus came out of the Jewish people.

He forgot to mention it was only for Jews 2,000 years ago.

Huh? You don't believe it's only for Jews today, so I fail to see your point.

SD