Theology III

[The Gaffer]

Mmmmm, nice data.

One might add that the modern global infant mortality statistic is skewed by the very high rates in LDCs. If you look at a more advanced/degenerate (delete as appropriate to your agenda ) society such as the UK, our modern rate of around 5 per 1,000 births compares to "probably well above 200 per 1,000 births" in the Middle Ages.

Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-206800
National Statistics Online: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Why don't you just lay it out; this oblique snarkiness is too complicated for me. ...

Wow, your post just hit me with a 2x4 ...

I'll start out by saying that there was no "oblique snarkiness" intended at ALL. You really stunned me with that one. I thought we were all in the middle of a fun and friendly and interesting conversation. But as I read the rest of your post, I saw how you could come up with that, so I'll address your post and hopefully clear things up

And the main thing I'll say is that I think if you go back and re-read the whole exchange, starting with your post #441 (see, that's how important I think you are - I went back and took notes on each post so we could discuss it and clear things up ) and just read my posts in the voice and tone of your best friend, then you'll see that they can be read in an entirely friendly way, which was how they were written by me. Typed communication is very difficult, and it looks like this time it bit us.

The first use of 'agenda" was when I said Bible translators had their own agendas. You differed with that, in a post which used the word "claims" a lot.

I used it twice *hands sis a chill pill*
This "agenda" claim bothers me, because frankly, I think it's irresponsible debating - it's basically, IMO, a claim to be able to read someone's mind (unless the person in question has come out and said "My agenda is such-and-such!" - and even then, some people will say, "Oh, they're lying!" - again, a claim to read their mind). So I responded with "No mind-reading claims, please!" and a winkie-smilie, instead of a long, detailed response.

I responded that I would 'claim' what seems reasonable to me.

You said, paraphrase, "Then I'll see you as having an agenda." which, btw, is a lot closer to a personal attack than my discussion of the limitations of translation.

Ahh, but you didn't quote the FIRST part of my response, which was, "Sounds like the right thing to do ". You seemed to be defensive, so I was trying to find common ground, and I did - and I praised you for your attitude, which I found commendable. Then after that, I made the agenda comment, WITH a winkie-guy and some funny language ("dratted") in order to make my points of 1) everyone has an agenda, IMO (do you agree?) and 2) even though we seem to be disageeing, it doesn't affect my friendship for you.

Gwai brought up my original post, and said "Everyone has an agenda".

You responded to that with "The important thing is what the agenda IS."
Now that remark was embedded in a lot of stuff, maybe coy and cute from your POV, about a woman's privilege to be indirect and contrary and not explain, which was a fairly odd thing, imo, to bother to post in a debate thread. I mean, it's okay to wait to post until you have something to say.

But see, I don't think this is ONLY a debate thread. I think this is a thread where friends talk and learn and challenge each other and discuss things and have fun together. I think the friendships and the people are more important than the subject. I was in a goofy mood, and made a goofy post. (and I was just obeying the mod - in the first post of this thread, Earniel says to "have fun" ... )

So I asked how it related to the other stuff. In that context it seemed that you were saying either "Bible translators are permitted an agenda because they promote Christianity." or "If I agree with the agenda, it's fine."

You say that's not what you meant.

That's ABSOLUTELY NOT what I meant!!!!!!

I meant that I thought that basically any agenda, besides seeking the truth with integrity no matter where it leads, was a bad one.

I think that Count explained what I meant perfectly in his post #475 (thank you, Count - I appreciate you trying to clear up what my unclear posts meant! You got it exactly right, at least as far as it concerned me).

(And unfortunately, sis, you seemed to misunderstand the last sentence of his first paragraph and think that he was saying that I actually HAD the agenda that I described (the noble one) and you actually HAD the agenda that he thought you were describing (the distortion of truth one). I don't think he meant that at ALL! That's not like him. I think he meant that everyone has the kind of agenda how I use the word "agenda" - i.e., "purpose", and not everyone has the kind of agenda how YOU use the word "agenda" - i.e., an underlying motive that leads one to distort the truth in order to achieve a goal. Is that right, Count?)

So. Now we've caught up to this post.

And this post is very long, so I'll start another.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The first sentance references "deceiving in a debate." Who is deceiving, and in what way? Since I'm the one you've already identified as having an agenda here, I'm naturally curious.

Whoa - as I said, the agenda comment was with a winkie-smilie. Chill! I was giving you a friendly poke, and also trying to show that I think EVERYONE (including you ) has an agenda.

And I used "for example" in my sentence about deceiving - that means it was an example, NOT a specific accusation against someone. I was referring back to the "ends justifying means" thing, and saying that if it took a deception to win a debate, that I didn't think it the deception was justified.

The second sentance is "the right 'agenda' is to seek truth with integrity, no matter where it leads you." Again, there seems to be a problem implied here. Is someone displaying a lack of integrity, and you feel that's an issue?

No, there's no problem here - I don't think anyone is displaying a lack of integrity here. Again, it was referring back to the "ends/means" thing.

I haven't been noticing a widespread lack of integrity in these postings, but I'm new around here. You may have more insight into that than I do. But I'm not getting the drift from all this vague hinting around.

I'm not hinting!!

In fact, the impression I'm getting is that you have a problem with ME.

No, I don't - I like you a lot - that's why I was trying to be so careful to use the happy smilies and winkie smilies and things when I disagreed with what you were SAYING, to show that it didn't affect my liking who you ARE. I like you as a person, and I wish we agreed on more things, but we don't - but that doesn't stop me from liking you

And, since I started here being accused by Lief of being an imaginary person, and because of who I am, generally, I react to such implications, kwim?

Yes, I understand - I tend to be defensive and read things into things that aren't there

(BTW, for a long time I thought "kwim" was some African word that you were using that mean, roughly, 'ya know?' Can you believe how dense I was? Usually, people use caps for abbreviations - like KWIM - so I didn't realize it was an acronym!!!! I almost googled it to find out the language and the meaning! when it finally occurred to me that it meant "know what I mean?" Oh, sometimes I think I'm definitely an idiot/savant! *sigh* )

Perhaps you can clear up my confusion, Rian.

I certainly hope so. But sadly, I guess I don't come off too clear - I'd recommend reading Count's post again if what I said doesn't make sense - he explained what I was trying to say very well.

*cuddles up with Gaffer's snoozing cat*

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

No, there is not a sentence that says "God saw, and it was good," but the above, along with the inclusion of Esther as a book of the Bible, makes it quite clear that this is not something to be condemned.

Well, considering how important of a detail that is in day to day life, you think he could have been a little clearer on the subject.

And I'm not just kidding around (well, not completely ). There are many christians who believe killing of any kind is wrong.

[Count Comfect]

Rian - you're right. I didn't mean to say that either of you HAD that agenda, just that you used the word "agenda" to mean different things. I think you're both trying for the truth (although Rian, you may be further from it, IMHO )

BJ - I think the refuges example also points out the exemption for self-defense. And while I'm sure there are many people who believe any killing is wrong, I do beg them to read the Bible, because even if you argue about self-defense, it's got about 400 zillion death penalties

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*cuddles up with Gaffer's snoozing cat*

Good. That's why I asked. *entirely happy and friendly smile*

Rian, I can promise you...you'd be ASTOUNDED how many things we agree on. This just doesn't happen (for a number of odd reasons) to be the venue where we'll explore them, I think.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I think you're both trying for the truth (although Rian, you may be further from it, IMHO )

ROFL!!!!! you TEASE, you!

Originally Posted by sis

Good. That's why I asked. *entirely happy and friendly smile*

*and one right back atcha!*

[Rían]

My dad just emailed me this - I thought I'd share it here

On Nov. 18, 1995, Itzhak Perlman, the violinist, came on stage to give
> a concert at Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center in New York City. If
> you have ever been to a Perlman concert, you know that getting on
> stage is no small achievement for him. He was stricken with polio as a
> child, and so he has braces on both legs and walks with the aid of two
> crutches. To see him walk across the stage one step at a time,
> painfully and slowly, is an awesome sight.
> He walks painfully, yet majestically, until he reaches his chair. Then
> he sits down, slowly, puts his crutches on the floor, undoes the
> clasps on his legs, tucks one foot back and extends the other foot
> forward. Then he bends down and picks up the violin, puts it under his
> chin, nods to the conductor and proceeds to play.

>
> By now, the audience is used to this ritual. They sit quietly while he
> makes his way across the stage to his chair. They remain reverently
> silent while he undoes the clasps on his legs. They wait until he is
> ready to play.

>
> But this time, something went wrong.
> Just as he finished the first few bars, one of the strings on his
> violin broke. You could hear it snap - it went off like gunfire across
> the room. There was no mistaking what that sound meant. There was no
> mistaking what he had to do. We figured that he would have to get up,
> put on the clasps again, pick up the crutches and limp his way off
> stage - to either find another violin or else find another string for
> this one. But he didn't. Instead, he waited a moment, closed his eyes
> and then signaled the conductor to begin again

>
> The orchestra began, and he played from where he had left off. And he
> played with such passion and such power and such purity as they had
> never heard before.

>
> Of course, anyone knows that it is impossible to play a symphonic work
> with just three strings. I know that, and you know that, but that
> night Itzhak Perlman refused to know that.

>
> You could see him modulating, changing, re-composing the piece in his
> head At one point, it sounded like he was de-tuning the strings to get
> new sounds from them that they had never made before. When he
> finished, there was an awesome silence in the room. And then people
> rose and cheered. There was an extraordinary outburst of applause from
> every corner of the auditorium. We were all on our feet, screaming and
> cheering, doing everything we could to show how much we appreciated
> what he had done.

>
> He smiled, wiped the sweat from this brow, raised his bow to quiet us,
> and then he said - not boastfully, but in a quiet, pensive, reverent
> tone - "You know - sometimes it is the artist's task to find out how
> much music you can still make with what you have left."

>
> What a powerful line that is. It has stayed in my mind ever since I
> heard it. And who knows -perhaps that is the definition of life - not
> just for artists bu, for all of us. Here is a man who has prepared all
> his life to make music on a violin of four strings, who -all of a
> sudden - in the middle of a concert, finds himself with only three
> strings; so he makes music with three strings, and the music he made
> that night with just three strings was more beautiful, more sacred,
> more memorable, than any that he had ever made before, when he had
> four strings.

>
> So, perhaps our task in this shaky, fast-changing, bewildering world
> in which we live is to make music, at first with all that we have, and
> then, when that is no longer possible, to make music with what we have
> left.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I believe one was started by an avowed baptist who lives in a white house off Pennsylvania Avenue.

NB: He's Methodist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

homosexuality still existed, but its practitioners were treated in a most unmerciful way.

Or, rather, homosexuality was probably even more rampant then than it is today, especially among the educated.

Or even talk to the Orthodox Church (whose schism, I might point out, you're ignoring).

The Orthodox generally don't consider the veneration of round images as idolatrous, though they often think it tends to skirt in that direction, and of course there are some radicals who say that it is idolatrous; as a whole, though, they do not outright condemn it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

NB: He's Methodist.

n.b. - I love n.b.'s!

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The Orthodox generally don't consider the veneration of round images as idolatrous, though they often think it tends to skirt in that direction, and of course there are some radicals who say that it is idolatrous; as a whole, though, they do not outright condemn it.

That does seem to be their current position. I was thinking more of the initial schism, what with the iconoclasm and claims of idolatry...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

NB: He's Methodist.

exemplum gratium He was raised Episcopal (his family, after all, is from Connecticut) and joined his wife's Methodist church, but he's, personally, an evangelical Christian.

[Rían]

which, IMHO, is generally NOT the same thing as a Methodist!

[Lief Erikson]

You've given me a lot of things to respond to, Count Comfect . It'll probably take a while for me to get to it all.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Hey Lief - what about the rest of the world? "[26] And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
[27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father." - sounds like the whole world should be ruled, not just Europe. And it hardly signifies to argue that "Europe was the whole world to them," since God is, theoretically at least, omniscient.

This section of verses is particularly interesting to me because it says specifically that the saints will be involved in ruling and being the vessels of judgment upon the nations. Which is tied also to one of the last chapters in Psalms (as well as Psalms chapter 2).

Note that this verse says "the nations." Revelation 20 (or was it 21?) also was referring to "the nations." One of the other important times in the Bible that "the nations" is referred to is early in the Book of Acts, when Peter says that "the nations" condemned Christ. And when he said "the nations" did that, he was referring to the Jewish leaders conspiring with Pilate and Herod against Christ. So that would represent three different forms of authority, and those together equaled "the nations" to Peter. So "the nations", in the Bible, doesn't have to refer to all the world.

But here you really put your finger on a much more complex issue, for there's more than one element in this, to me.

For one thing, I'm not entirely sure that Christianity did not spread throughout the world at that time. Or at least an important block of it may have been outside of Europe (and I'm not thinking of Russia or the Byzantines).

I tend to connect the South American god Quetzacoatl with Jesus Christ for a number of reasons. The worship of that god, and the other pretty benign, peaceful South American gods that were worshipped in South America at that time, started at around 300 AD, at about exactly the same time Constantine was crowned emperor and I see the Christian era as having begun in Europe. I only found that out recently, having already connected Quetzacoatl with Christ for a long time.

Quetzacoatl was supposed to have traveled to the underground to save humanity, and he was supposed to have shed his blood to save the world. He was considered the leader of the deities, and had a virgin birth. Sometimes, he was seen as a symbol of death and resurrection. In some traditions, Quetzacoatl was seen as opposing human sacrifice. And that makes sense, seeing as he was worshipped before the more violent Toltec era.

Quetzacoatl was also supposed to have departed from South America during the dark ages of that time, when barbarians invaded everything and ended the existing time of civilization around 400 years after it had begun. The Aztecs had calculated exactly when he was prophesied to return, and that time coincided precisely with the time Cortez and the contiquistadores arrived at South America, bringing back Christianity.

I know that there are several ways in which the Quetzacoatl belief does not parallel Christianity, but there are enough ways in which it does that I think it was essentially Christianity. And that time of worship started at the same time as Christianity started in Europe.

The problem with this perspective is that the generally peaceful, highly advanced civilization that worshipped Quetzacoatl only lasted 400 years, whereas the millennial kingdom was supposed to last 1,260, in my view. That happened in Europe, but not in South America.

I haven't researched enough of the other civilizations of the world to know whether or not they might have had similar parallels to South America in religion and religious upheaval, but I looked at China and I've studied Islamic expansion, and I don't see any parallels there. So I don't know how far this new thought in my mind works.

But another aspect to this ruling the world business is that I see two different periods of Christian dominance as predicted in Revelation, and I think they overlap some. I see one as starting at 685 AD and ending in 1945. The other, the millennial kingdom, began in 305 AD and ended in 1565. But the era from 685 to 1945 I see as a time of witnessing, of measuring the size of the spiritual temple of God. And by the end of that period, Christians really did control virtually the entire world. They dominated Africa, Indonesia, India, both Americas, Asia . . . really pretty much the entire Earth. But that ended with Adolf Hitler, who I see as the beast from the Abyss predicted in Revelation.

I can show you the scriptural connections that to me point to all this, but that would take a very long post.

Part of this dashing the nations I see as having occurred through the Western Christian conquerors. And that went on throughout pretty much the entire world. One could say that there were tribes here and there, or portions of certain continents, where they didn't rule, and I don't mean to argue with that. But those local areas don't matter so much to me. The vast majority of the nations converted or were conquered. Many, many times the Christians fought against incredible odds and won anyway.

And no, I'm not justifying conquering other countries in order to force one's own religion on the inhabitants. I believe that these conquests are largely rewritten unfairly in modern history books by people with an anti-Victorian bias (that ideology really took off after WW2). But as I research these conquests further, and I've been looking at some of them carefully, particularly those in South America, North America and China, I find that the Christians were very frequently attacked by the native populace without any valid justification. The Christians were struck first, and their response was therefore justified self-defense. Not always, but usually, from what I've seen.

That's my present perspective, and that's what the history I've seen so far has indicated. With North America, it's really, really hard to get all the facts, because there were so many different tribes with different stories. There, I've only been able to look at a small handful of the big ones, like Metacom and Tecumseh, and I researched the destruction of the northwestern buffalo, the defeat of the Blackfeet and some of those other Plains tribes. But aside from those, I know my research still has a long way to go, and one can always go into more depth than I did on the specifics of those cases too, of course. Anyone researching any particular thing rather than trying to do a lot, like I am, will undoubtedly learn more about that specific case. But with South America and China, my research is going much easier.

I know that one can point to many crimes for the Christians in this period of history too. I do think that some of their biggest "crimes" were not actually crimes, like the justifications for conquest. However, others, like slavery and some of the episodes with natives like the Trail of Tears, plus tortures inflicted on natives to gain booty, those kinds of cases were certainly very sick and evil. I'm not trying to claim the Christians were perfect, and indeed, this was an era where the Enlightenment had somewhat tainted the governments too, so it should also take some of the blame. But I think that the overall theme of those conquests was Christians being attacked by powers they were trying to witness to, and defending themselves very successfully. Sometimes martyrdom is the best course, but other times, fighting and winning will prove Christ's power and goodness to the native population more effectively. That is what Christians experienced with the Incas in South America.

Anyway, this gets so, so complex, and I've only touched on a fraction of my views concerning it without getting into the evidence, from scripture or history, at all. So that's sad. And I don't feel fully equipped yet to discuss this in many countries as well as others could, for I haven't yet done my summer's planned research yet . The research I've already done was during the school year and slowly accumulated during earlier times of study.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Also, I'm not sure how the burden of proof is on me, when you're making the broad claims about a millennium of holiness.

It's just that you made a large number of unsupported claims comparing the Christian and modern eras. I should back my claims too, though, and I realize the history I've presented thus far has been sketchy, for I haven't yet accomplished the fullness of my study.


I go into some detail on divorce, remarriage, annulment and separation in post 84 in this thread.
http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.ph...hlight=divorce
Remarriage was generally considered unacceptable after divorce or annulment, and always after a separation. Even when the wife had died, it was viewed with suspicion, according to "Christianity Today".

According to "A History of Christianity," by Owen Chadwick, page 156, church lawyers were needed to get an annulment, and the annulments seem to have been primarily established when they were "the only humane course."

If church lawyers were needed, mainly the nobility would have had this access, and if remarriage was not much of an option at all, the incentive for divorce among many people would have been far smaller. People would have had more incentive to make the marriage they had work.

Even as late as the year 1700, in the post-Enlightenment environment (which was still very religious), Voltaire wrote that in half of Europe, it was impossible to get a divorce, and in the other half, it was very difficult.

Chadwick wrote that, "the total ban on divorce had long consequences in the history of the churches."


I find it interesting that your sources say syphilis was first recorded in 1495, for that brings the start of its spread to near the end of the period I'd consider to have been millennial. I find that to be a confirmation of my position about the effectiveness of Medieval laws.

Boswell's book, as cited by Wikipedia, is a very controversial one that offers a "revolutionary" perspective on the Catholic Church and monastic orders' historical perspective on homosexuality. The use of the words "controversial" and "revolutionary" imply that it's opposed to the beaten track of perception of that period. That indicates to me that it's a dubious source.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

taxes on brothels of boys available for homosexual sex continued to be collected until the end of the reign of Anastasius I in 518.

Sometimes change takes time, though that this continued as long as it did is sad to me.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

During the Renaissance, rich cities in northern Italy, Florence and Venice in particular, were renowned for their widespread practice of same-sex love, engaged in by a considerable part of the male population and constructed along the classical pattern of Greece and Rome

Okay.

But note that this only refers to Italy, and that this is also within a hundred years of the end of the period I'd see as millennial.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

They list the life expectancy in Medieval Britain at 33 years.

Okay.

Interesting that that's the same number of years Jesus was supposed to have lived. Just interesting.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia, infant mortality
World infant mortality rate declined from 198 in 1960 to 83 in 2001.
That's per 1000 live births. And the infant mortality rate has been falling since far before 1960. So your statistic (unsourced, by the way) of a billion abortions for 6 billion people = 1/7 of the population (6 billion living + 1 billion abortions). Which is approximately 14%. Compared to 20% of infants born dying in the 1960s. AND that's just deaths in the first year (couldn't find first 5 years statistics).

Okay. I accept your point, here.


The part of the Wikipedia article you quoted about pornography isn't very telling. More important, I think, are these parts:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the 16th century an attempt to print erotic material caused a scandal when Italians Pietro Aretino and Marcantonio Raimondi produced the I Modi in 1524, an illustrated book of 16 "postures" or sexual positions. Raimondi had actually published the I Modi once before, and was subsequently imprisoned by the Pope Clement VII and all copies of the illustrations were destroyed.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the 17th century, numerous examples of pornographic or erotic literature began to circulate, mostly printed in Amsterdam, and smuggled into European states. These included L'Ecole des Filles, a French work printed in 1655 that is considered to be the beginnings of pornography in France.

These citations show that pornography as such was clearly unacceptable in Medieval Europe.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Erotic scenes in medieval illuminated manuscripts were also common but meant only for those who could afford the extremely expensive hand made books. Most of these drawings occur in the margins of books of hours. Many medieval scholars think that the pictures satisfied the medieval cravings for both erotic pictures and religion in one book, especially since it was often the only book someone owned. Other scholars think the drawings in the margins were a kind of moral caution, but the depiction of priests and other ranking officials engaged in sex acts suggests political origins as well.[3]

On this, there's disagreement about what the evidence means. Considering the medieval attitudes about sex that came from the church, I think that the view that these scenes were depicted as a moral caution makes the most sense. However, some people who had such books very likely used them to satisfy their lusts and fantasies too, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

It was not until the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg that sexually explicit images entered into any type of mass circulation in the western world. Before that time, erotic images, being hand made and expensive, were limited to upper class males who deliberately kept them away from the labouring class, fearing the effect such things would have on the animal lust of the uneducated.

It doesn't look like porn was even remotely widespread in Medieval Europe. Whether that's because of ethics or technology or both will probably have to be a matter of opinion and interpretation of the evidence.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

which, IMHO, is generally NOT the same thing as a Methodist!

See? Another thing we agree on.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Render under Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's.

That's a statement against rebellion, in favor of submission to authorities. It rather parallels Paul's statements about submission to authority, in Romans (12?). The Christians didn't take over the Roman Empire by rebellion or force of arms, but by conversion. Then, after the conversion experience of Constantine and his military victory over his political opponent, Christianity moved into the political realm. It's after you've been granted rule freely that you can devote your nation to Christ and establish laws that will maintain the purity of the nation.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

Yes, he was and is the king.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

[25] And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
[26] But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
[27] For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
[28] Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
[29] And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me

And it is written that he who is trustworthy with ten talents will be given ten cities. I think that that was literally fulfilled. The Christians were faithful with the smaller authority they had, so they were given greater responsibilities. He who is less shall be the chief, and the meek shall inherit the world.

Isn't it true in everyday experience that those who are good and honest, and act with integrity in their lives, are often found more trustworthy by those around them and so benefit from the respect and love of others? It says in the scripture that against goodness "there is no law."

And God too gives his people small tasks at first, and when they prove faithful, he gives them larger tasks. King David started as a shepherd boy and was faithful with smaller things, so he was moved up steadily, piece by piece, to bigger things. He is rather a parallel of Jesus as well, in his life. He started as a shepherd, which is exactly what Jesus called himself, but through faithfulness to God in the course of trials, God gave him the position of monarch over Israel.

I think that the scripture has already been fulfilled in which Jesus said specifically to his apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones and rule over the tribes of Israel (or over the church, which is, according to scripture, the new Israel). And they were given the kingdom as well, which is awesome to conceive of.

I think that those apostles and the other martyrs reigned with Christ on thrones for a thousand years, which is why people prayed to the saints and experienced so much interaction with the saints, and believed in such authority existing with the saints, during that period.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Yes, he came in humility and was raised to glory and given a crown and authority.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Jesus was quite clear in the Bible that the kingdom of heaven is found in the heart when a person has been born again in Christ. If Christ lives in a person, the person will overflow with God's goodness and joy. That automatically creates a truly blessed quality of life. When people come into those people's presence, they receive joy and peace from those people because Christ is in them. They are tasting a piece of what heaven in the afterlife offers, by being in the presence of those people.

That is not an earthly kingdom but a heavenly kingdom, and that's what Christ was referring to in this scripture.

That heavenly kingdom within the hearts of men inspires them to do what is right.

Now it is right for nations to have just laws and proper government. So godly men should seek to bring that about. If they don't care about injustice that comes from authorities and don't try to fix it as best they can, they are not bearing "witness to the truth." They are not doing what is right. Jesus opposed the authorities of his time, the Pharisees, partly because they put weights around the necks of the common men that they refused to bear themselves, to (roughly) use his words. And Martin Luther King Jr. opposed segregation in the US because it was unjust. He was successful, thank God, because he opposed unjust laws in the government and sought to bring just ones.

The Christians, when they gained power in the Empire, got Rome's gladiatorial games abolished. I doubt that many people nowadays would see a moral problem with that.

The kingdom Christ brought is a kingdom in the heart, but it manifests itself in right action in both normal social life as well as politics.

Christians are to be servants, but there are many ways to serve, and the Lord will give a servant more responsibility and sometimes authority and leadership when that servant proves him or herself faithful with less.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

All of which sounds very much like Christ's church is not intended to be the secular (saeculum, of the world) power; that it is dedicated to the ideal that the church can exist and teach morality without being the state; that the kingdom of heaven does not need the kingdom of earth.

As you say, it does not "need" the kingdom of the earth. However, the kingdom of the earth needs it, and that goes for every dimension of the kingdom of the world- cultural, social, political, economical, etc.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

See? Another thing we agree on.

*high five*

[Lief Erikson]

By the way, Count Comfect, I very much respect your manner of arguing and the quality of posts you've been submitting in this thread. You've presented a lot of very useful historical information and have shown a level of knowledge of the Bible that surprises me. That really makes this conversation far more interesting to me, so thanks for that too .

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I've said it before, and i'll say it again:

Thank God for the Black death.

I really can't share this sentiment. It was a tragedy of unbelievable proportions for those who went through it, as you point out. If those who went through it were right, it may have been a judgment for sin. However, that doesn't prevent its being terribly sad.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Serfs you say? Free men i rejoin.

I wonder how you define "free." I think people are too free.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

really, Lief - some transposing is allowable - but wholesale selling on a late night Thursday basis????

Nay, my friend.

Eh? I don't really follow . . . what are you referring to here, exactly?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On the up side, my bank doesn't make me go off and get killed on opportunistic skirmishes. Not yet anyway.

That is a plus .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Interesting that you invoke global warming, yet we don't see the same vigour applied to reducing carbon emissions as to abortion or divorce.

I don't see any vigor in stopping divorces. As for abortions . . . the genocide of 1/7 of the human race is quite a big deal.

There is an increasing number of Christians who are focused on emissions now.

I personally am a very skeptical that cutting emissions will do any good, because I tend to think it's already too late and we've passed a point of no return after which Global Warming is self-producing and self-sustaining.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Disease: well, one third of the population was wiped out by the Black Death, so you would have to go some to beat that.

True.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But in general, disease was rampant in a way it just isn't nowadays in most of the world (they even have vaccines in Africa, you know). You may wish to ignore the benefits of the last 150 years or so of public health and sanitation, but it doesn't affect the fact that if you have a child it is far more likely to reach adulthood now than 200 years ago.

That's true, and I'm not trying to ignore public health or sanitation improvements. They are very important and valuable.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But that's OK because they go to heaven??

That doesn't explain the Black Death. That is something I'm going to want to research more, though for now, I just suspect it was the result of sin, as the people who experienced it thought.

It might explain shorter lifespans in general being not so bad, though.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You seem to be saying that it is not about health, wealth or technology, but about spiritual health. I agree that matters, but am interested in how you define it.

Righteousness, peace, love and joy. When a person has God's Spirit inside him or her, that Spirit provides goodness, thankfulness, appreciation, and many blessings, physical and spiritual.


And about wealth and technology again, I'd like to point out that in the Book of Revelation, Babylon is described as being at the height of wealth and technology when it was completely destroyed. Babylon rode on the back of the beast from the abyss, which I connect with Hitler, and many of the modern ideologies, false religions and immoral laws have been passed since 1945. And of course you can point to exceptions like the Civil Rights movement. But a lot of the Christian collapse really was finalized in the spiritual despair that followed World War 2.


So from that perspectives, if modern society is connected with Babylon, a possibility I've been pondering in the back of my mind (though I haven't yet carefully enough analyzed the details of the scriptures involved to draw solid conclusions) the immense modern technological advances and moral retreats since the collapse of the Christian age may actually be an indicator of a worse time period rather than a better one.

Not that the technology or improved economy are in themselves bad. It's the moral retreats that are bad, not the technology or wealth. Except where technology and wealth become idols, of course, though that perspective is not universal.

[Count Comfect]

Lief:

First, let me point out that your millenial period seems to get more and more diffuse as you start arguing that anything within a century of its end doesn't count as being part of it.

Second, I take strong exception to your arguments about the ancient Americas. The worship of the Feathered Serpent (the diety later appropriated as Quetzalcoatl) originated, or seems to have, in Teotihuacan at some point before that city's destruction in c.450-550AD. The Temple of the Feathered Serpent was covered by c.500 AD (Lopez Austin, p. 113). We do not see the reappearance of this cult until almost 900AD, and it does not become strong (nor accumulate the supposedly Christ-like associations) until the late Postclassic, right before the Spanish conquest. My primary source for this is Mexico's Indigenous Past by Alfredo Lopez-Austin and Leonardo Lopez Lujan. And the Quetzalcoatl-as-Spanish myth appears to have arisen in the 16th century, actually after the Spanish conquest, as a retroactive explanation for Montezuma's inaction (see The Broken Spears, a collection of native accounts of the conquest, edited by Miguel Leon-Portilla)

As for the Christians being attacked first, at least in Mesoamerica their attacks largely predate any local attacks...an amazing fact when you consider that the Spanish tended to come in with what were clearly armies invading these people's lands. The Aztecs did not do anything to the conquistadors, gift-giving aside, until the Spanish interrupted a native ceremony by trying to kill the performers, for example.

On the other points, using what time I have here:
For pornography, yes, it was banned in public, but used in private. I thought your religion was one of the heart, not one in which private sin was permitted.

On divorce, read E.P. Thompson's excellent Customs in Common about folk attitudes towards wife sales-as-divorce. It's quite interesting.

I disagree with your Biblical exegesis, because I think all the times Christ explicitly disclaims earthly lordship make a very clear statement that government "by God" or even "for God" is not Christ's desire. Rather, he wished every Christian to keep a private virtue, albeit one publicly expressed. Christ does not insist that the laws of the kingdoms of earth punish sin, but rather that the individual Christian work towards the kingdom of heaven by rejection of sin and acceptance of Christ. I read his disclaiming of earthly kingship, and claim for heavenly kingship, as an explicit insistence that the earthly kingdom does not make or break one's connection to heaven.