This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

The close of the NT Canon... according to Protestants?

Postby WolfVanZandt » October 26th, 2006, 2:50 am

WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

Postby alecto » October 28th, 2006, 4:42 pm

Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Pizza Man » October 28th, 2006, 7:01 pm

Pizza Man
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Minnesota, USA

Postby Karen » October 29th, 2006, 12:31 am

I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library. -- Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Karen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3733
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby Kolbitar » October 29th, 2006, 1:19 pm

::There is no way that you can interpret the New Testament so as to suport the idea of a Holy War by the church. THat, like the Inquisition, is antichristian.

When the Roman Empire fell the duty to keep secular order consequently fell upon the Church -- like it or not. It wasn't a matter of finding New Testament precedent for accepting this responsibility, it was just a fact that they faced and saw no alternative to accepting. Unless there are obvious and explicit warnings against the Church not to pick up these responsibilities -- that is, unless the Bill of Rights fell out of the sky like many think the Bible did, instead of being the logical fruit of years and years of trial and error experience -- then you're criticizing people who cannot be blameworthy. You may as well criticize God for not providing the Bill of Rights directly following the book of Revelation. If you're going to search the Scriptures looking for support either way, you're going to have to contend with the fact that Christ's apostles carried swords, that he did not tell the Roman soldier that his job was inhernetly evil, and that he said render to Caesar what is Caesars. Concerning that last point, the office Caesar held was both political and religious, so although Jesus went on to say render to God what is God's, and obviously did not aknowledge Caesar's religious status, well, neither did he deny a proper view of God in the religious order by Caesar would negate religious implications of his political office.

::The wars against Hitler and Ben Laden were secular, political actions and were, thus, appropriate - they were not the church.

Aye, I'll repeat one more time and again... actually, no I won't; I reponded to Josh at length about this, so take a deep breath and, if you have the time, try to slowly digest what I wrote to him, what I'm actually saying.

::The Inquisition (and similar activities by the Protestant church) are significant because they were sponsered by the church. based on church tradition. The very people consdeed infallible by the Catholic church gave it their stamp of approval. That is significat. It's not something you can just ignore.

They didn't give their stamp to the abuses.

Good day...
The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. --Chesterton

Sober Inebriation: http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Kolbitar
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Feb 2000
Location: Exile

Postby Kolbitar » October 29th, 2006, 1:33 pm

::I'm not that guy, but I have also heard this somewhere else:
Mat 5:43-45:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Good Alecto, you're right, I want to be a real Christian like you so I will now rail against all manner of law enforcement and military protection as anti-Christian. All of you out there on the streets keeping us safe, all of you serving your country by laying down your lives for others (where have I heard that last bit before?), don't you know your violating Christ's commands? Don't you know Christ was speaking directly to you when he said to turn the other cheek? Repent, repent I say, turn form your evil ways you villainous policemen, you savage grunts... Come join Alecto and I in our pacifist stand against crime and tyranny -- I no longer call it an anarchist delusion.
The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. --Chesterton

Sober Inebriation: http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Kolbitar
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Feb 2000
Location: Exile

Postby alecto » October 29th, 2006, 2:56 pm

Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby WolfVanZandt » October 29th, 2006, 6:45 pm

Kolbitar, you're saying that if the Cathoic church had not taken the oppotunity to take control of secular power, no one else would have? I don't think so. Not only did the Roman Church take power, but they kept it, and they fought to keep it, for along as they possibly could - regardless of Jesus conviction that the church was notto be a secular power. And, yes, the church authorities approved of the abuses. It's just that they didn't consider them abuses. Some Inquisitors even out did the church in the horrors they committed - that's true enough. Henrich Kramer exceeded everyone's expectations - even his partner Jacob Springer, But Kramers method were approved of by Innocent VIII, even to the point of him issuing a bull supporting Kramer's work. I would like to see a document indicating that the Catholic church did not support the extremities of the Inquisition.
WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

Postby Kolbitar » October 29th, 2006, 6:52 pm

The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. --Chesterton

Sober Inebriation: http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Kolbitar
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Feb 2000
Location: Exile

Postby WolfVanZandt » October 29th, 2006, 7:03 pm

WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

Postby alecto » October 31st, 2006, 3:50 am

Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby WolfVanZandt » October 31st, 2006, 4:41 am

BTW, when I think of defense of Europe against the Muslims, I usually think of names like Charlemagne and Vlad Tepes and other secular players. Were not that crusades ineffective? They focused on defending Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Lands - but the Holy Lands fell. Other than giving outright criminals pardons, lands, and other inducements for going on a lark where they got to rape and pillage to their hearts content, what did the crusades do?
WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

Postby WolfVanZandt » October 31st, 2006, 4:43 am

BTW, when I think of defense of Europe against the Muslims, I usually think of names like Charlemagne and Vlad Tepes and other secular players. Were not that crusades ineffective? They focused on defending Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Lands - but the Holy Lands fell. Other than giving outright criminals pardons, lands, and other inducements for going on a lark where they got to rape and pillage to their hearts content, what did the crusades do?
WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

Postby WolfVanZandt » October 31st, 2006, 4:43 am

BTW, when I think of defense of Europe against the Muslims, I usually think of names like Charlemagne and Vlad Tepes and other secular players. Were not that crusades ineffective? They focused on defending Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Lands - but the Holy Lands fell. Other than giving outright criminals pardons, lands, and other inducements for going on a lark where they got to rape and pillage to their hearts content, what did the crusades do?
WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

Postby WolfVanZandt » October 31st, 2006, 5:20 am

BTW, when I think of defense of Europe against the Muslims, I usually think of names like Charlemagne and Vlad Tepes and other secular players. Were not that crusades ineffective? They focused on defending Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Lands - but the Holy Lands fell. Other than giving outright criminals pardons, lands, and other inducements for going on a lark where they got to rape and pillage to their hearts content, what did the crusades do?
WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

PreviousNext

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 19 guests