The next thing you know, he'll be burning his bra. Mark my words. — Sapientia

Something to look forward to in this drab, wretched world.

how does he feel about being defined by what he is not?

Forget that. I don’t care.

The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

That applies to me as well as to you of course. — andrewk

Sorry, I don't get your meaning here. In any case, this is the Catechism. Its the official stance and teachings of the Catholic Church.

You cannot claim that the Decalogue is not Christian if it is Catholic.

It's sad, for sure, but Agustino isn't American, German, or Francois. — Bitter Crank

He pretended to be French for a while, no? Or did he just pretend to know french?

You cannot claim that the Decalogue is not Christian if it is Catholic. — Akanthinos

I do though. Being a Christian is about following the ideas or teachings that one believes to have been given by Jesus of Nazareth, not about following a bunch of dogmas and rules written by a beastly bureaucracy of bishops.

As per the Catechism : "1858. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger." — Akanthinos

You left out the bit about bearing arms...

You are making a positive claim which is verifiably false. Catholicism is sect of Christianity. Catholic dogma, weither you agree with it or not, includes the Decalogue. We learned it by hearts as kids. Thus, Christianism does include the Decalogue.

The Venn circles dont lie. :nerd:

Im not defending Augustino's ridiculous OP arguments. Just the claim that the Decalogue is exclusively a jewish thing.

The Catechism, for what its worth, only speaks of arms as an evil which the nations must avoid running after.

Ah, so the right to bear arms is not part of Catholic Catechism. Further proof that Catholics are not true Scotsmen.

You are misreading my statement. I am not denying that some Christians believe the Ten Commandments are still applicable to them. What I am denying is that accepting that claim is a necessary part of being a Christian. The better class of Christian (IMHO) rejects the Ten Comms in favour of the Two. The best of all (again IMHO) focus almost exclusively on the second of the two.

Well that really is far from what you initially said. And ridiculously chauvinistic.

Which, I guess, is paid in kind. Huguenots really are a weird bunch.

And ridiculously chauvinistic — Akanthinos

Why do you think you feel that way?

I'm not a Huguenot, by the way. I'm not even a Christian any more. But I was brought up RC and know the religion pretty well.

Why do you think you feel that way? — andrewk

Because its a ridiculous line to draw in the sand. From "Decalogue is Jewish not Christian" to "Catholicism isn't Christian" to "True Christians aren't Catholics"... I mean... that's pretty much the very definition of chauvinism.

I'm not a Huguenot — andrewk

It's just a catch-all anachronistic term with which Francophones refers to Protestants of all shapes and colours.

It's just a catch-all anachronistic term with which Francophones refers to Protestants of all shapes and colours. — Akanthinos

I inferred - correctly, as it turns out - that that's what you meant, and my response was in relation to that meaning of the term. I am not any sort of Christian now, much more inclined to Eastern mysticism, although I am sympathetic to love-based versions of Christianity.

From "Decalogue is Jewish not Christian" to "Catholicism isn't Christian" to "True Christians aren't Catholics". — Akanthinos

We are still at cross-purposes. You are interpreting my statement that the Ten Commandments are not Christian as meaning that one cannot be Christian and believe they still apply, whereas what I mean is that being Christian does not mean one has to believe the 10 Comms still apply.

There are many things that some Christians do - such as believing in the Real Presence, believing in the sacrament of absolution, talking in tongues, believing that we should not accept blood transfusions, believing that the holy day should still be Saturday, believing that the book of Mormon is another instalment of divine scripture - that are not an essential part of being a Christian.

Since I am not a Christian, it is not an act of disparagement, for me to say that a practice is not Christian. Chauvinism is being prejudiced against those outside one's own club, and I am no longer in that club.

It's not news to me that the decalogue is an optional matter of belief.

I was taught that Jesus Christ in His person and sacrifice superseded the Law -- not just the decalogue but the whole corpus of Jewish law. Even so, we were required to memorize the decalogue in Sunday school, as a very significant part of the Old Testament.

Before Jesus the law applied, pure and simple. After Jesus it didn't--for those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus "fulfilled" the scriptures. "He began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Luke 4:21. At first the reviews were very good, but then JC proceeded to piss off everybody in the synagogue and had to make a quick exit.

I sold my stock in XPian doctrine, but it does seem to be the case that a lot of XPians feel under no obligation to worry about them.

XPian — Bitter Crank

What an erudite abbreviation! It was only yesterday that I first heard an explanation of the chi-rho symbol, on this In Our Time podcast about the emperor Constantine. After 50+ years of either being a Christian or being surrounded by them, I finally learned the meaning of that chi-rho symbol.

I suppose the Roman form is XR, because the greek rho corresponds to the roman letter R.

The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie — Agustino

Who is it or what is it that determines a lie has been spoken?

The speaker may just have made an error, possibly based on rumor from another source.

Free speech, a right to express what may turn out not to be true, is a better platform for that same speaker, and others, to possibly find out what is true.

Then there would be no use for the word, as no governments has ever been able to meet that specification for a theocracy. A theocracy is a government run by the church leaders. Those countries are theocracy by that definition. Most? Don't you mean all? You can't even have the rule by clergy without people willing enough to listen to the "god given" mandates. — yatagarasu

Theocracy belongs in the same category as capitalism and communism; none of these have truly been executed in the absolute sense in the real world, nonetheless, the theory exists. Theocracy is rule by a god, not by the religion's leaders. Lots of superstitious people are easily manipulated into thinking that they are serving a god, but in reality, they serve another person. So until they can prove the existence and authority of their god, then they don't serve any god, but man.

Theocracy belongs in the same category as capitalism and communism; none of these have truly been executed in the absolute sense in the real world, nonetheless, the theory exists. Theocracy is rule by a god, not by the religion's leaders. Lots of superstitious people are easily manipulated into thinking that they are serving a god, but in reality, they serve another person. So until they can prove the existence and authority of their god, then they don't serve any god, but man. — Waya

Theocracy is defined as the rule of government by priests that act as a conduit for God or a god. That form of government has existed and still does. Whether or not they actually have God/god's authority is another thing. Also, Capitalism has been achieved in a sense. The capital is owned and controlled by private citizens, communism has never been achieved on any large scale.

Through most of history, humans were socially separated into two classes; ruling class and a peasant class. There was a dual standard where only the ruling class had rights, as well as the authority to pervert these rights, for their own benefit. Human or god given rights extended this to the peasant class, allowing a checks and balance on the ruling class so there was upward mobility for the peasant class.

Freedom of speech can still be perverted and made into a lie; fake news. But freedom of speech for all also allows the truth to be heard, so the lie is not as effective. Christianity attempted to teach the good side of rights, so the dark side does not have a monopoly.

Through most of history, humans were socially separated into two classes; ruling class and a peasant class. — wellwisher

Uh no. Through most of history we were organised in tribes.

How surprising @Agustino left this thread.

Interviewer from the House UnAmerican Activities Committee: Are you now, or have you ever been a Hugoenot?

Mr. Andrew K. I am not a Huguenot!

HUAC Interviewer: But Mr. K, we have documents that prove you have aided and abetted known Huguenot conspiracies. Are you a Christian, then, Mr. K?

Not any more.

HUAC Interviewer: According to informed sources, you were brought up Catholic; do you admit you were lying under oath when you said that you are not a Christian?

Attorney for the subject of interest: Mr. K refuses to answer the question on the grounds that any thing he says may incriminate him.

HUAC Interviewer: Huguenot fellow traveler; not Christian; brought up Catholic! Obviously a lying subversive! Take him away.

NEXT

:lol:

Theocracy is defined as the rule of government by priests that act as a conduit for God or a god. That form of government has existed and still does. Whether or not they actually have God/god's authority is another thing. Also, Capitalism has been achieved in a sense. The capital is owned and controlled by private citizens, communism has never been achieved on any large scale. — yatagarasu

I define theocracy as rule by a god. Humans are far too corrupted to act in place of God, so they are not really accurate in demonstrating what God wants.

True capitalism has never existed except in theory, being that it is the complete absence of governmental restrictions on trade.

Jesus.

What about him?

Am expression of
Contempt.

God would appear far more corrupt than humans.

"To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd."