BattleMaster Community

Community => General Talk => Topic started by: Chenier on February 12, 2014, 12:52:53 AM

Title: Church schisms
Post by: Chenier on February 12, 2014, 12:52:53 AM

Yeah, but I didn't say she was Pope, now did I. She was the prophet. A second coming of a religious figure (basically) worshiped. It might seem contrived, but there was this one time a jewish carpenter ran afoul with his church and then some crazy stuff happened. I don't think he ever even helped run it.

Yea, and did he go declare himself head of judaism?

I seem to recall him still not being recognized as being of any importance to judaism still today. What happened is a bunch of people started a new church in his devotion instead. You know, like Jonsu should have done?
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 12, 2014, 02:02:55 AM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Buffalkill on February 12, 2014, 02:05:31 AM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Chenier on February 12, 2014, 02:11:24 AM
My bible study's a little rusty but isn't that supposedly why they crucified him, for calling himself King of the Jews?

It would kind of go against the preachings of peace and humility to go prancing around about being the true King. If he was called that, I'm pretty sure it wasn't by himself.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on February 12, 2014, 02:22:09 AM
My bible study's a little rusty but isn't that supposedly why they crucified him, for calling himself King of the Jews?

People should avoid using the new testament of the bible without outside supporting evidence when looking for the historical basis of the events. Everything that was included in there was agreed upon by leading Bishops and Emperor Constantine purely for political expedience. They wished to ensure that the christian religion was as homogeneous as possible so that the Roman Empire would not fracture apart into factions of religious infighting. That's the reason there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 12, 2014, 02:26:53 AM
My bible study's a little rusty but isn't that supposedly why they crucified him, for calling himself King of the Jews?

That was a charge the Jewish Pharisees used when they brought him before the Roman authorities. Jesus's answer was vague, basically amounting to "so you say". The supposed reason they were able to bring this charge against him was some of his followers were already declaring him to be the Messiah.

He was also supposedly charged with preventing the payment of tax to Caesar and inciting the nation.

In the Gospel of John his does indeed confirm his kingship, however he qualifies that his kingdom is not of this world, and thus supposedly should not have been a problem with conflict between him being a King and Caesar.

Anyway Pilate finds no fault with Jesus but for some inexplicable reason leaves his fate to the crowd, who choose to free Barabbas and shout that Jesus should be crucified.


People should avoid using the new testament of the bible without outside supporting evidence when looking for the historical basis of the events. Everything that was included in there was agreed upon by leading Bishops and Emperor Constantine purely for political expedience. They wished to ensure that the christian religion was as homogeneous as possible so that the Roman Empire would not fracture apart into factions of religious infighting. That's the reason there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.

There is some truth to this, in so far as they made some Gospels canonical while condemning other texts of early Christian groups. However they didn't have these Gospels written for that express purpose more these were the text upon which they agreed. It is fair to say that any process of Canonisation will be influenced by politics.

While Constantine did wish for a unified church, there is less evidence that he had much to do with development of the cannon. It is unknown what books the 50 bible he commission for the Bishop of Constantinople contained. The process of cannonsiation had been ongoing for centuries before the First Council of Nicaea, and there is no record of the council discussing the issue at all.

the Muratorian fragment is the earliest known list of of books contained in the new testament. The fragment itself is 7th century in origin, but makes reference to being a translation of a Greek original. The date of the Original Greek text is generally agreed to be from 170 though the exact date is debated and the fragmentary nature of the Latin text complicates matters.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Buffalkill on February 12, 2014, 02:56:19 AM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Buffalkill on February 12, 2014, 03:14:57 AM
That was a charge the Jewish Pharisees used when they brought him before the Roman authorities.
Yes, that what the charge. I'm not arguing whether or not he got a fair trial. I was responding to somebody else's critique of somebody's else's analogy about the origins of Christianity. I should've known that it would turn into a wild sunday school tangent. I guess the simple point I was trying to make is that what happened here in the game, i.e. a religious order being taken over by an obscure revolutionary usurper, is not as outlandish as some here would argue. I think something similar happened early on in the Muslim religion, and probably in every religion with more than triple-digits.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on February 12, 2014, 03:36:31 AM
It's only an important distinction if SA is supposed to mirror Christianity exactly. Somebody else said that basically it was unimaginable that an obscure heretic could become the equivalent of the pope, and I was simply pointing out that that's a bollocks argument. It's perfectly believable in the context of a medieval religion.

For those of you who are still not getting Buffalkill's point (which I agree with), it is basically this: one man's heretic is another man's messiah.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 12, 2014, 03:49:53 AM
Pope Honorius I was declared Anathema after his death, does that count?
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Daycryn on February 12, 2014, 04:11:03 AM
Jesus didn't overnight become head of the whole Jewish religion and all temples and followers and gained the ability to wield ultimate power over anyone who opposed him. Minor detail, I'm sure.  Jonsu's totally like Jesus otherwise. Both names start with the letter J!
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 12, 2014, 05:04:17 AM
Did you seriously ask this and not realize it proves how absurd the current situation is? If we accept the story, Jesus was executed for challenging the authority of the Roman state and the Jewish religeon. Believe me if the game mechanics supported executing Jonsu it would have been done the day after this all started.

The rise of Christianity is a terrible analogy. Notice how there are still synagogs in the world? Christianity is a religion that branched off from Judaism and eventually grew larger and more influential. It did not usurped and replaced Judaism.

What happened in SA is the equivalent of the ranking Pharasee declaring Peter the new head of the Jewish Faith and every single temple and synagog going along with it in spite of protests from every single other Pharasee and Rabbi in the entire religion.

If Jonsu had gone out and founded a new sect and it gained traction that would be perfectly legitimate but she didn't. She tried and failed twice because no one wanted to follow her because it was obvious to just about everyone she was a sociopath who only wanted power and would say or do anything to get it.

It's patently absurd to think she would have any authority in the church when the entire clergy and noble membership is dead set against her.

Well that depends, first was he already a convicted heretic? Second did the previous pope just declare him pope or was he elected by the Cardinals?

he favoured Monothelitism, though never made a decree that institutionalised it. When that doctrine was later declared heretical he was  anathematised along with them. From my reading originally it was because he followed them in the faith. However it would appear that later debates about the infallibility of the Pope he was instead said to be anathematised not for following that belief himself, but for allowing the teaching to persist along side the orthodox view.

In Theory at that time the Pope was not declared by the cardinals, but a gathering of the clergy and sons of the Church (noblemen) and it then was ratified by the Byzantine Emperor. The current system had it roots in the 13th century.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: pcw27 on February 12, 2014, 06:47:55 AM
In Theory at that time the Pope was not declared by the cardinals, but a gathering of the clergy and sons of the Church (noblemen) and it then was ratified by the Byzantine Emperor. The current system had it roots in the 13th century.

Close enough.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Qyasogk on February 12, 2014, 08:59:01 PM
Even today, in the debate about whether Gays and Lesbians can be priests. If the main church votes to allow that, but the local priest does not, they will break their church away from the main church and form their own splinter group.

If everyone thinks its fine for someone who was excommunicated from the faith, to be able to be the head of that faith with none of the power structures available to SA able to block or undo this action in any way, then Priests should be able to protest by removing their temples from the influence and control of the main religion.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Chenier on February 12, 2014, 09:04:48 PM
Even today, in the debate about whether Gays and Lesbians can be priests. If the main church votes to allow that, but the local priest does not, they will break their church away from the main church and form their own splinter group.

If everyone thinks its fine for someone who was excommunicated from the faith, to be able to be the head of that faith with none of the power structures available to SA able to block or undo this action in any way, then Priests should be able to protest by removing their temples from the influence and control of the main religion.

That must be why there are thousands of catholic churches splitting off every year to be their own independant protestant church.

Oh wait...
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on February 12, 2014, 09:39:47 PM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Chenier on February 12, 2014, 09:57:16 PM
Really? You really want to make that statement? Well let's just turn the clock back to the Protestant Reformation... not exactly middle-ages, but definitely closer to it than you talking about the modern church. Oh what's this? Hey, many churches splitting off of the Catholic church and forming their own independent protestant church! How about that.

Chenier, please, think about what you say before you say it... I beg of you.

Even then. The protestant reforms wasn't about all individual pastor changing their church's vocation like they would change what kind of bread they feel like eating that morning.

Religions aren't just a sum of local congregations. And pastors aren't people with absolute moral authority. If all change from the top down was supposed to be 100% accepted by the followers, then there wouldn't have been so much violence between the anglicans and the catholics. Even during the protestant reforms, temples didn't just opt out on a whim, just because.

When anyone tells their followers, whether they be kings, priests, or anything else, that their old practices were wrong and that new practices are justified, they will not be considered to be legitimate by 100% of the following and as such will not have automatic 100% adhesion.

The notion that was being proposed is essentially the opposite of how things are, yet both extremes are poor choices for religion on the long term. Either 1) with the status quo, religions are at the mercy of whoever holds the top rank and thus this scares people away from investing themselves in religion or 2) religions are at the mercy of each unit that makes it up, too easy to dismember and thus scaring people away from investing in things that could too easily be taken away by a seditious unit (be that unit a priest,  a lord, or anything else).

Religions need mechanics that are more akin to realms than guilds, with built-in mechanics for governance (like elections), an option to protest out top positions (albeit it being extremely hard to protest out someone who has been leading it for a long time or the founder as opposed to someone who just took power and isn't even a priest), more complex religion definitions (drop-down menu for a variety of traits that categorize religions), heavier realm-religion interactions (national sponsored religions, prohibited religions, tithes, etc.), and so on, priest activities having more bite, and so on.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: vonGenf on February 12, 2014, 11:00:44 PM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 12, 2014, 11:03:17 PM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: OFaolain on February 12, 2014, 11:06:42 PM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Chenier on February 12, 2014, 11:31:26 PM
About the only thing united in that church is the name.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 12, 2014, 11:40:11 PM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 13, 2014, 12:27:59 AM
I didn't mean to derail the thread into a Christianity thread . I just meant that people are followed even if a group of old rich men don't like it. Religion is full of unlikely circumstances that led to crazy outcomes. Everyone seems intent on applying logic to the situation....but is that appropriate with religion? SA seemed more rational than a lot of real and BM religions, but it is still a faith-framework built on belief.

That is part of why I RP'd the peasants following the church regardless of 50 or 60 nobles. How many worshippers does SA have? If you imagine a percentage of total worshippers (character and peasant), how much do you think would give a fig about the charter? Is there one mention of the peasantry in there? Why would they care? The church treated them as cattle....do the cattle really notice shift-change at the slaughter house?

Probably because even in RL history there is scant evidence of 90% of the "lower" faithful going against the hierarchy. If the charter is a significant part of the faith, you better believe they would give a fig about it, since there would be rites/sermons whatever that enshrine its importance to the faithful.

The upheaval of the founding of the Church of England is the closest thing I can think of to what should probably be occurring within SA right now. The difference being so far as I can work out Jonsu has none of the power or support that the King of England needed to force that down the faithful's throats.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2014, 01:20:22 AM
You are a expert about my Church now?

Presbyterianism was a lot about focusing the moral authority into the local pastors, and it's now a part of the United Church. No, I'm not an expert on the United Church, but from what I gather, it rallies a number of protestant denominations and is characterized by decentralized moral authority.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 13, 2014, 01:43:30 AM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2014, 01:56:57 AM
Which is why only part of the Presbyterian church joined the united movement. United does not need to infer a single moral authority. Part of the entire point of the Uniting Church was to demonstrate that groups which had previously felt the need to identify as separate denominations could indeed function as a single church while still maintaining the separate articles of faith and interpretations important to them. The National Assembly is the centralised moral Authority, however unlike some other denominations it does not seek to make rulings on every facet of the faith. There are central articles that are deemed important, outside of that there is considerable leeway and discussion and debate is a central part of the church.

When article 52 was approved, allowing for gay and lesbian ministers it had an important restriction. It was left to each congregation to decide if they consent to allowing a gay minister to be assigned to their church. In this case the Assembly has the power and moral authority to declare that the larger church and the colleges that train ministers are allowed to ordain gay and lesbian ministers, but since the community is not of "one mind" in this matter it did not have the authority to decree their acceptance throughout the church. This should come as no surprise, decision making within the Church requires a unanimous consensus among those gathered.

Yea, well, in my eyes, there's little "United" about a Church were member denominations come and go as they please.
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: De-Legro on February 13, 2014, 02:13:49 AM
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Daycryn on February 13, 2014, 05:00:02 AM
This is getting way off topic. SA, remember?
Title: Re: Church schisms
Post by: Qyasogk on February 13, 2014, 07:05:34 PM