|
Cythereal posted:If God is omnipotent and created the universe and all within it, then logically speaking yes. Why, is a question I leave to God. But then we run into problems with God willing evil in itself, rather than tolerating it for a greater good. This is opposed to the goodness of God. Here is the Catholic view: Adam and Eve were created good. They sinned, and that wound was passed down to us. When God created Mary, He preserved her from that wound because He wanted her to be the Mother of Jesus. This is entirely within God's power.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Worthleast posted:But then we run into problems with God willing evil in itself, rather than tolerating it for a greater good. This is opposed to the goodness of God. And I accept that you believe that but the only part I agree with is "God created Mary." If God is omnipotent and created the universe and all within it, evil exists because he wills it so. I believe that if God didn't intend humans to have an innate capacity for both good and for evil, for virtue and sin, then we would not. All that exists, all facets of humanity and the universe, exists because God made it possible when he made the blueprints.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The theological definition of humanity is that we are flawed, sinful creatures. Only Jesus Christ was not. He is an example of what we could be, but cannot be because of sin. By your own words you are stating that Jesus was not fully human because he did not partake in the, again your words, definition of humanity. EDIT: It seems like I didn't refresh the page and there were like 30 posts after the one I quoted, so I apologize if someone else made this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And I accept that you believe that but the only part I agree with is "God created Mary." Agreed. But do you agree that there is a difference in creating something good but imperfect, and creating something evil in itself? Also, the difference between evil willed for its own sake, and evil tolerated for some other good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Agreed. But do you agree that there is a difference in creating something good but imperfect, and creating something evil in itself? The point you're missing is that God created the capacity for evil, which in my mind makes there no difference between directly creating the evil that results and tolerating it. Either way, God made it possible. quote:By your own words you are stating that Jesus was not fully human because he did not partake in the, again your words, definition of humanity. I believe that Jesus was fully human in the sense that he was what we could be, but aren't because of sin. He's the human blueprint perfected, maybe the original design, but he is both Man and God, and humans are only one of those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The point you're missing is that God created the capacity for evil, which in my mind makes there no difference between directly creating the evil that results and tolerating it. Either way, God made it possible. This seems like too much of an oversimplification. For me, there is a huge difference between directly willing an evil and simply tolerating it. That capacity for evil is Free Will. God wanted children able to love Him, not slaves forced to obey Him. With Free Will comes the possibility of abuse (see: the fallen angels), but God allowed that possibility because of the greater good which would come from it. VVVVV Owns
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
I'm gonna post Orthodox Monks with animal now     bears love Russian monks
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Yes, but are the animals sinful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Yes, but are the animals sinful? No, all of God's creation is good in accordance with Genesis
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Here is the thing about theology. You can ask me why the Anglican church got started and I'll say "Well, to boil it down, Henry VIII REALLY wanted a divorce". And then you point and laugh and say, boy, you dumb heretics. I've been struggling over the development of the Anglican church lately, and was literally about to ask about this. Thanks for your post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
I present a case study in why I'm not sure all of God's creations are good: the kitten. Photographic evidence below.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I present a case study in why I'm not sure all of God's creations are good: the kitten. Photographic evidence below. I love you kitten
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
It should be noted that, from what I've read, cats are the only mammal whose females are allowed on Mt. Athos. Nobody is going to tell cats what to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I love you kitten A fair counterpoint.  Our relationship with cats as a metaphor for God's relationship with mankind?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:It should be noted that, from what I've read, cats are the only mammal whose females are allowed on Mt. Athos. Nobody is going to tell cats what to do. Monks love cats    
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The point you're missing is that God created the capacity for evil, which in my mind makes there no difference between directly creating the evil that results and tolerating it. Either way, God made it possible. See, I belive that EVERY human was created with the capacity to sin, but we are born innocent by design. I'm--newly--Orthodox so I believe that Mary was also born with that capacity, but chose not to (consciously) sin. Also, Jesus was created as FULLY human, including that capacity to sin, but he did not. I do see that this gets kinda messy and I'm not a theologian so with my current understanding I cannot speak any more to that fact. As an aside, since I haven't said it yet, I love this thread. You guys are some of the most knowledgeable and considerate group of people that discuss religion. I have not found an internet community as level-headed as you bunch. I love you all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Our relationship with cats as a metaphor for God's relationship with mankind? Do not despise the work of thine hand. /
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Slimy Hog posted:See, I belive that EVERY human was created with the capacity to sin, but we are born innocent by design. I'm--newly--Orthodox so I believe that Mary was also born with that capacity, but chose not to (consciously) sin. Also, Jesus was created as FULLY human, including that capacity to sin, but he did not. I do see that this gets kinda messy and I'm not a theologian so with my current understanding I cannot speak any more to that fact. I suppose I should clarify for those unfamiliar with Evangelical culture: none of what I've been saying about my beliefs regarding Mary, evil, the nature of mankind, etc are universal among Evangelicals. It's a pretty individualistic movement, and what I've been saying are simply my personal conclusions, including the parts where I go "You know, that question is one only God can answer." Cats, however, may not be subject to God's laws. Like gravity. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I suppose I should clarify for those unfamiliar with Evangelical culture: none of what I've been saying about my beliefs regarding Mary, evil, the nature of mankind, etc are universal among Evangelicals. It's a pretty individualistic movement, and what I've been saying are simply my personal conclusions, including the parts where I go "You know, that question is one only God can answer." I'm also from a non-denom Evangelical background, so most of my statements are going to be colored from my protestant upbringing. I didn't even really understand Mary's sinlessness until reading what Aisha said above. But I do think that any claims about humanity also are claims about Jesus himself, so we must be careful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I didn't mean it as insulting. *shrug* I originally asked about it because it was completely alien to the theology I'm familiar with. I still don't remotely understand why Catholics believe that, but I respect your choice to believe it. I always thought that evangelicals were some of the most peculiar interpreters of the Docta Ignorantia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:I always thought that evangelicals were some of the most peculiar interpreters of the Docta Ignorantia. The what? Never heard of that book before in my life and had to look it up on wikipedia. Bear in mind that I'm very weird by most Evangelical standards for believing much of Genesis to not be literal truth. I believe it absolutely was truth, but truth told in a way that the people then would be able to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The what? Never heard of that book before in my life and had to look it up on wikipedia. Would you mind if I asked how old you are? I ask because many young Evangelicals hold this belief; and many others belive the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Slimy Hog posted:Would you mind if I asked how old you are? I ask because many young Evangelicals hold this belief; and many others belive the same. Mid-twenties, though I'll note that both of my parents, in their fifties, share my belief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
AGirlWonder posted:I've been struggling over the development of the Anglican church lately, and was literally about to ask about this. Thanks for your post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
In apology for all my arguing, further examination of God's relationship with Man through the metaphor of cats. Man's typical reaction to God's call to turn away from the world:  Man's typical relationship with sin:  It's normal to be hesitant and withdrawn when going to a new church for the first time.  conversion.jpg  Many judge those who choose to live a Godly life.  It's hard to escape sin, which has a way of clinging no matter how fast you run.  There are many denominations of Christianity, but they're all going to the same place no matter how silly they look getting there.  Even if it can all be overwhelming at first. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Okay, where's the like button? That balloon gif. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Can I have more pictures of Orthodox monks with animals? ....somebody please tell me there's like a tumblr or something on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Ms. Happiness posted:Can I have more pictures of Orthodox monks with animals? it's your lucky day http://orthodoxyandanimals.tumblr.com
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:it's your lucky day I love you. Edit: So what's with Orthodox monks and animals? Is this just a random tumblr or is there some connection I don't know about? Ms. Happiness fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:And after that, there are three centuries (at least) of Anglicans arguing with each other about just how much like the Catholic church they wanted the Church of England to be, with positions varying from "exactly like the Catholic church except no Pope" to "exactly like Lutherans except no Luther" to "brand new Church, just us and God". Which series of arguments are behind a lot of British politics of the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, and got a lot of people killed and taxed and forbidden from voting and what not. (American politics are much less tied to Church of England politics from after the Revolution onward, although there's a tricky period in which our apostolic succession was at best shaky because the USA didn't have any bishops at the time of the American Revolution.) Any time you hear somebody saying "High Church" you should think "more like Catholicism", "Low Church", "more like Protestantism", and "Broad Church", "Can't we PLEASE get along?" I disagree with some of what you've been writing about Anglican history. Maybe it's just because you've been simplifying a lot. Perhaps an effort post is in order? In respect of what I feel you may have simplified a bit too much: To go back to Henry, he didn't want a divorce, he wanted an heir. He went to the Pope for an annulment and would have gotten one if not for the fact that the Pope was under the thumb of the Holy Roman emperor and his armies, the HRE bring a relative of Henry's wife who would likely have used his military to remove the Pope from office had he permitted the annulment. As you correctly noted, however, this saga only acted as the catalyst that unleashed the forces of the English Reformation which was distinct from the continental Protestant Reformation, and which would have inevitably played out at least by the time of Henry's death and the reign of Edward VI. The development of Anglicanism during the English Reformation is something you pretty accurately summarised, though I think it somewhat fails to capture a broader definition of what the general goal of that Reformation was perceived as being (from the perspective of the reformers, at least). I've seen it summarised as an effort to restore the Catholic Church in the realm of England to the faith, order and practice of the Patristic Church under the authority of Holy Scripture. It sought to navigate a course that deleted the superstitious Roman additions to the faith while avoiding the over zealously excessive deletions to the faith of the puritans. Lastly in discussing Churchmanship, I think your definition of Broad Churchmanship leaves something to be desired because it seems to present it in terms of attempting to bridge a liturgical gap between High and Low Churchmanship when in reality it has its own theological basis distinct from the theological positions that underpin Low and High Churchmanship. Broad Churchmanship these days tends to be associated with modernism and the general disassociation with Anglicanism's Catholicity (which is maintained in both High and Low Churchmanship).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Aisha posted:(but not because of any physical uterus explosions, as Motherhood means much more than being a physical dwelling), In Catholic doctrine class they said everything else you said, but the teacher also said that for a normal, fallen human to conceive a child with the holy spirit would be like touching the Ark, or standing directly in the presence of God. Only someone in a state of grace can be exposed to that majesty without being melted, or in this case made going nova. My understanding was that everyone who is reborn after resurrection will be in a state of grace but that could be way off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:In Catholic doctrine class they said everything else you said, but the teacher also said that for a normal, fallen human to conceive a child with the holy spirit would be like touching the Ark, or standing directly in the presence of God. Only someone in a state of grace can be exposed to that majesty without being melted, or in this case made going nova. As such, the bush of Exodus 3, which burned with holy fire but was not consumed, has been taken to prefigure Mary bearing Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I'm always happy to have somebody else (A) chime in and (B) know more than I do.PantlessBadger posted:To go back to Henry, he didn't want a divorce, he wanted an heir. He went to the Pope for an annulment and would have gotten one if not for the fact that the Pope was under the thumb of the Holy Roman emperor and his armies, the HRE bring a relative of Henry's wife who would likely have used his military to remove the Pope from office had he permitted the annulment. Henry wasn't just being selfish, although he certainly was being selfish. There was a succession nightmare in front of him. Two options that were quite seriously on the table were that the Pope would give Henry a dispensation to have two wives simultaneously and that the Pope would give Henry's illegitimate son a dispensation to marry his surviving daughter Mary. The fact that both these offers were made by the Vatican demonstrates the degree to which the objections on both sides were political, not religious. The catalyst for Henry's deciding that he was going to marry Anne RIGHT NOW was her pregnancy, but if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else. *Yes, by Tudor standards, the children of his sisters are very questionable indeed: first, you've got the question of succession through a female, second that his younger sister's surviving children were daughters and his elder sister's male heir was a child and king of Scotland in his own right. Then you've got a few surviving people who are much more distantly related. AND Henry wants to be succeeded by his own son, not by a niece, nephew, or cousin. edit: You'll notice that I'm not mentioning your correction about Broad churchmanship. This is because I'm completely ignorant and assume you know what you're talking about far better than I do. edit edit for bonus hilarity. The current monarch of England has as a hereditary right the title "Defender of the Faith". This title is originally awarded by the Pope to Henry VIII for Henry's theological writing explaining that Luther was a big fat poopy-head. Henry hung on to the title (and passed it down the line of succession) long after he'd disclaimed the authority of the guy who handed it out. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Ms. Happiness posted:I love you. The idea is that the closer you get to theosis (union with God), the more you become like Adam or Eve. So, you can do stuff like talk to animals and not have them attack you and feed carnivores vegetables and stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:it's your lucky day The Ecumenical Patriarch is often seen on his official photo blog with baby animals. http://fanarion.blogspot.com/2012/03/blog-post_23.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I'm always happy to have somebody else (A) chime in and (B) know more than I do. I hadn't actually intended to write much about Henry before--I had mostly wanted to see you expand on it since I had the sense that you knew quite a bit more than you had originally said and some of the way you summed it up kind of is a pet peeve of mine. Henry's split, as you point out, was political and not religious. Even the business with the monasteries was political and again not religious. There were a lot of factors that played into the English Reformation, but far too often the view from outside (and worse yet, far too often the view of Anglicans) is that Henry wanted to make himself the supreme religious authority in England because the Pope made him mad and that it was all because he was a lusty fellow who wanted a divorce. At any rate, thank you for the follow up post! There were one or two little tidbits in there I had forgotten (or perhaps never knew). Churchmanship is something I find really quite interesting because it is something that is somewhat distinct in Anglicanism. As with many things, conceptions of Churchmanship have changed over time. Your summation of "can't we all just get along" has a good deal of merit as it in some ways originated as a way of attempting to find a compromise position between Anglicanism and Puritanism. Ultimately, the term Latitudinarianism became associated it with it (those who wanted to conform to CoE practice, but not doctrines). As Anglicanism came to dominate in respect of doctrines and there was no longer a need to compromise between the two groups, Broad Churchmanship essentially became associated with Latitudinarianism. It was essentially a view that suggested that there was merit to the Church of England as a social institution, but that people shouldn't get hung up on religious doctrine. In modern times, then, it's easy to see how Broad Churchmanship is associated with those who like the community, liturgical/traditional beauty of Church, but who are less keen on Christian faith and doctrine, and who prefer to, in essence, pick and choose in order to base what doctrine they hold more on secular faith. To use an example, in the Anglican Church of Canada (where I am, though this is true in TEC as well) the majority of the supporters of women's ordination would be considered Broad Churchmen. Unlike someone like say Bishop Wright who has made a theological and scriptural argument in support of at the very least the ordination of women as Priests and Deacons, if you look back at the arguments being presented in the 1970s in favour of women's ordination, it was on the basis of secular ethics and equality arguments, not on the basis of anything particularly Scriptural. That isn't to say that all advocates of women's ordination were that way, and it's also not to suggest that opponents of women's ordination didn't have proper arguments either, but it gives you a glimpse into the position of Broad Churchmanship today. For a more recent example, the Anglican Church of Canada held a public consultation on the issue of opening the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to homosexual partners who have been married in Canada. If you review many of the submissions, it's quite plain to see which are broad church in the sense that they worship in the Anglican setting, but they do not hold much respect for Anglican (or Christian, in many cases) doctrine. This contrasts with High Churchmanship and Low Churchmanship, which both place much higher value on Anglican (and Christian) doctrine, though they approach it from different perspectives. If I had to sum them up, I would do so in terms of sacramentalism. High Churchmanship tends to place higher sacramental value on the Eucharist, while low churchmanship tends to place a higher sacramental value (which is to say viewing it sacramentally, but not counting it as a sacrament) on God's word written. High Churchmanship tends to be associated with Anglo-Catholicism, though there are also numerous Liberal Christians who are very High Church, while the Low Church tends to be populated by the more Evangelical and Charismatic wings of Anglicanism. Churchmanship is at its base a method of realising and expressing doctrinal beliefs. High Churchmanship (more formal liturgical style) empowers the sacramental primacy of the Eucharist, while Low Churchmanship (less liturgical formality, and much more protestant in appearance in terms of priests often not being robed, lack of procession, etc) tends to express similar core doctrinal concepts while emphasizing the freedom we hold in Christ, and thus the lack of need to be confined by rigid liturgical traditions. I personally hold a more Anglo-Catholic (if you want to be pedantic I would more accurately be described as an evangelical, charismatic, Catholic Anglican) with a preference for High Churchmanship (in order to express my doctrinal views) but my home parish is much more low church simply because it more closely holds to my doctrinal beliefs. Fun times! I have experience worshipping in other Catholic fellowships (both OCA Eastern Orthodox ans Roman Catholic) but I've never quite experienced the same concept as Anglican Churchmanship. Anyone care to correct me or clue me in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
PantlessBadger posted:I hadn't actually intended to write much about Henry before--I had mostly wanted to see you expand on it since I had the sense that you knew quite a bit more than you had originally said and some of the way you summed it up kind of is a pet peeve of mine. Henry's split, as you point out, was political and not religious. Even the business with the monasteries was political and again not religious. There were a lot of factors that played into the English Reformation, but far too often the view from outside (and worse yet, far too often the view of Anglicans) is that Henry wanted to make himself the supreme religious authority in England because the Pope made him mad and that it was all because he was a lusty fellow who wanted a divorce. At any rate, thank you for the follow up post! There were one or two little tidbits in there I had forgotten (or perhaps never knew). It isn't because if someone started preaching something not along orthodox teaching, they'd get called in front of their bishop for potentially starting a heresy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
PantlessBadger posted:
There is a need for more broads at the pulpit, yes. Serious answer, I think that the idea of Churchmanship is more or less unique to the Anglican church.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
I intended to ask a while ago but this might be a good time. Can anybody recommend a book that covers or touches on the struggle between church courts and secular courts in England in the Middle Ages?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The idea is that the closer you get to theosis (union with God), the more you become like Adam or Eve. So, you can do stuff like talk to animals and not have them attack you and feed carnivores vegetables and stuff Speaking of which... do animals have souls? Most denominations would say no, but animals are apparently still self-aware enough to be worthy of kindness. So what exactly does having a soul even do for you, anyway? Apologies for the potential can of (soulless)  , but this entire topic is something I was never able to wrap my head around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 08:23
|
|
