Jewish holy book PROMOTES idiocracy
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
Outlawing and prosecuting heretics is not the same as force converting people to Christianity. The purpose of the edict was to preserve Christianity and go after sectarians, not to baptize pagans by coercion. Theodosius ramped up anti-pagan legislation too and went after their practices and temples but didn't force them to convert.
Crusades are Rome's thing and we don't consider Rome to be part of the Church after 1054. But there were similar heretical sects which were politicized and rebelled (they were proto-commies denying private property and monogamy) in the East like the Bogomils and they had to be dealt with by force because they terrorized the locals. In general, in a Christian societies heretics were seen as dangerous - much like terrorists are seen by the regime of today.
What are the fruits of Christians? The creation of civilized society built around long-lasting tradition, community, social cohesion and shared values?
It literally produced the longest lasting empire in history - the Byzantine empire. I'm not sure how you'd define "super awesome" society but it definitely doesn't sound like you apply some objective standard to this and it's all based on your subjective ideas of what such society looks like.
How did you determine that? Such a bizarre sweeping claim. How much do you know about the history of Christian monarchies?
Doesn't it make sense to you that anyone who deviates from the faith and away from the Church's teaching is practically setting himself outside the Church and becoming a heretic? That law is called the law of identity and it's one of the laws of logic. What, you expect everyone who splits from the Church to be equally the Church as if there's no standard for determining what the true Church is? If I go to some island and declare a new nation and call it USA would that make sense?
"Market of free ideas"? Wtf are you using Adam Smith and John Lock's liberal ideas as if any of this makes sense before their time? That's an anachronism. For thousands of years, nobody gave a shit about the free market of ideas before the freemasons took over in the 18c.
"So you need to fight your enemies who seek to destroy you in order to keep yourself together? How weak are you?" You're so bad faith it's not even funny.
Polygamy was never the ideal. The ideal was monogamy in marriage and that's why God created a man and a woman to become one flesh and not a man and 5 women. The law of the OT was appropriate for the time and it regulated the existing practices of the time including polygamy and slavery. As humanity matured and with God assuming human nature, such practices were abandoned.
Every kingdom on Earth has a beginning and an end. The only eternal Kingdom is the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem which is the Church. There's no utopia and no heaven on Earth - this is an antichristian illuminist and talmudic concept.
Sorry to break it to you, but what you have in the US is not Christian rule. It never was. It's a freemasonic liberal democratic rule under republican secularism. This form of government came straight from the Enlightenment and the French revolution (mostly the right side of Parliament there - the girondins). The founding Fathers were revolutionary antimonarchists. In what clown world does the US which is worse than Rome under Nero, Babylon and Sodom and Gomorrah together pass for a Christian country? That's absolutely ridiculous.
The US is not even pagan like Ancient Greece - they were way more virtuous. Today it's outright antichristian in the most blatant way. Do you really think that just because someone stamps a marketing label on something, it becomes that thing? Is this why MAGAtards believe Trump is a Christian?
I would, but that's not happening with today's society. Also I'm not an American and my country was a monarchy less than 100 years ago. In the future if more people turn to God it would make sense for them to organize themselves in a Christian monarchy but it's not something that can be forced from the top. This is the model of the OT too - the jewish people asked God for a king and a king, Saul, was given to them.
Where? I never said the Church was the Roman government. The government and the Church were two institutions with different roles in Byzantium. The Church never deals with state matters, law and enforcement. What I said was that those who opposed the teachings of the Church which is the ultimate authority on Christian theology, i.e. heretics, were outside of it by definition and not because of some arbitrary law.
Taking quotes out of context and applying them arbitrarily. Loving one's enemies has nothing to do with fighting heretics. Romans 12:18 says live in peace if it's possible which you conveniently omitted to fit your narrative. Peace can never come at the cost of truth and this is why Christianity is not a pacifist religion and will never compromise when it comes to matters of faith. There's a time for war and a time for peace. Christians don't make peace with sin and lies - we have a duty to destroy them and set people free.
The Church doesn't persecute heretics. It condemns them and distances themselves from them. It is the government which is influenced by the Church that may decide to enact laws against them, banish or imprison them.
Ridiculous argument appealing to perception of "flow"? Come on. Again, realize that the NT and Scripture as a whole is holistic - what's said in 1 Peter here is inline with the overall teachings and philosophy of Scripture and tradition. What these ridiculous heretics have to do is to purge every reference to submitting to authority both in the Old and the New Testament which would mean rewriting the whole Bible. It's not just the epistles. Jesus Himself comes not as a rebel king, waging war against the Romans, but as a subject to the Roman law who ultimately urges His disciples to follow to submit to the authority and not interfere with the unjust death sentence He was given. The idiot Ebonites would have to rewrite the whole narrative of the Bible and not just throw away passages which explicitly refer to submitting to authority. This points to a very poor understanding of Scripture not as a whole interdependent system but as a piecemeal collection of texts. This is why forgeries and gnostic fanfic is obvious even without asking the questions like "Where did that text come from and why should we accept it as authoritative".
The claim that the Scriptures were corrupted by the Church that created and transmitted them for nefarious purposes, but a small sectarian group outside of that tradition somehow has the original uncorrupted texts and holds them is stands on no ground. It just fits neatly to the preconceived belief people have that the Church was obviously corrupted because power corrupts.
The problem is that even if I grant you that the Church corrupted the texts, then the Ebonites may also have a corrupted version or they may have still corrupted it themselves, or maybe what we have today from the Ebonite texts, has been corrupted and we don't even know what the original is. Do you see how you apply an ad hoc double standard taking their version at face value while rejecting the Church version? If you were honest, you'd at least stay fully skeptical and say "I can't know which one is true - maybe it's none." The whole reason you latch on to the Ebonites is because you want to undermine the Church, that's my point.
The logic of Scripture itself and the teachings of the Church?
The schism with Rome wasn't the first time there was a split in the Church. God wasn't cut in half and there weren't two Churches, that's the point. One side became sectarian and the other remained the Church. There may be an argument which side continues to be the Church (the EO or the RC), but it surely is that way because the Church is always one and universal.
Looking back at history - what the early Church was like and what it taught. The Church which continues to be unchanged is the true Church.
You not being convinced is not an argument. There's only one true Church according to the Nicene creed which defines what Christianity is. That's the evidence.
God's prescriptions to men change over time. His moral law is unchanged. If you are a father, you know that you set different rules to your children when they're 5 and when they're 15. That doesn't mean your morality changed, but that what was appropriate at the time when they were little was no longer appropriate later in life and vice versa. In fact much of the Mosaic law applied to the time and place and the jewish people specifically and was not universal. What's described in the OT was appropriate for the time (it's not chattel slavery btw so there's confusion with the idea of slavery in your head and what is being described). The ancient world was brutal by today's standards and warfare ended with enslavement. Deuteronomy regulates ancient warfare but just like with polygamy, it's not an endorsement - that's your (incorrect) interpretation of the text that you're looking at through a modernist lens (so out of context). In reality, the OT is the most progressive piece of legislation for the time but the irony is people today criticize it for being cruel and savage - it's literally the opposite.
They were not "outlawed" but were deemed inconsistent with the Church's teachings. Here's a close one about slavery:
1 Timothy 1:10
And here monogamy is affirmed:
Matthew 19:4–6
1 Corinthians 7:2
In Ephesians 5:25–32 polygamy is implicitly rejected by the imagery of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. The Christian marriage is and always has been monogamous so tradition itself proves it.