Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
They are all open. 1-3 are currently uncontested. 1 will likely be contested though
What? The Council of Jerusalem was a Catholic Council that was meant to settle what part Mosaic Law plays in Christianity...
Uncontested, as in nobody in running and nobody holds the seat now?
That's false. All seats are currently contested.
Uncontested as in there is only one candidate and thus not contested, if there was no candidate they would be open.
What are all the current seats? Who holds them? 1-5?
It's a precursor to what would become the Catholic ecumenical councils, sure, but it in itself is too ancient to be Catholic in its own right.
I mean, if you want to get technical, I'm fairly certain the Orthodox church is older, but it also called itself the Orthodox Catholic Church. So if you wanted to get technical yeah then Catholicism is the oldest but the current Catholic Church is not the same church from which all of Christianity branched.
Yeah that makes sense doesn't it.
Yakian is going for seat 1.
Pevvania is going for 2.
Jaden is going for 3.
Humpheria and Supting are contesting 4.
Venom is going for 5.
Rateria
I will be running for seat 1.
Rateria, Hyderbourg, The United States Of Patriots
No...The Orthodox Churches came about in the 1300s in the Great Schism with the Catholic Church...
I feel like there is some confusion so for clarification, [B]any citizen[/B] can run for [B]any seat[/B].
The seats that exist are Seats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
There are no distinctions between these seats except for the fact that you run for them individually and people typically run for seats based on who else is running for those seats.
Rateria, The Second Republic Of Libertatem
Hmm...
Person who founded a party to oppose me and my friends...
Person who ran against me and I've had contention with since...
*puts on Terra t-shirt*
Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Terra De Libertatem
They became distinct churches by then, yes, but you have a bunch of other stuff that claims to be the successor of the Apostolic Church. The Orthodox church was definitely around before the Schism, but is only recognized as what it is because of it - which by the way was in the 1100s, not 1300s.
And you do realize you've got, like, three Churches competing for the title of successor to the Apostolic church in addition to the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox church. The Anglican Communion, the Assyrian Church, Oriental Orthodoxy...
While, sure, it all came from something called a Catholic church, the Catholic Church as it currently exists is not the origin of all Christianity.
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Dred shall run for seat 3! #LetDredBeHeard #Partycity
Rateria, The Second Republic Of Libertatem
This is not true though. Not all christian churchs are break offs from the Catholic Church. Just because the Catholic Church is historicaly the first doesn't make it the only source. For example Jehovah Witnesses and the LDS Church.
They do they also have the New Testament, and where to ask them if they are Christian they would say they are. Because... they are.
They are Jews as well but defiantly fall in the category of a Christian, rather than Jewish, denominations because they believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And consequentially accept the New Testament as Scripture.
Also the use of the Talmud is not universal. Some denominations see it as going against Messianic beliefs. Some don't even accept the Pharasees as a Canonical source, saying that the Messianic teachings supersede them. further more in some cases the Talmud and Mishnah are referred to as "dangerous"
Miencraft
I've decided that a Republic is the way to go after thinking about it. But, I am more of a rebel and disestablishment politician. However, that doesn't mean I'm not willing to do my job or cooperate. The President can attest to this I hope. I would be honored to have your support, by the way.
The only argument I could see in favor of that is that the nature of the Catholic Church changed with Vatican II.
As I've explained, all non-Catholic christians are Protestants because they "protesting" the (what they perceive to be a false Christian) Church.
Thats not true though
Yes. It is. All non-Catholic churches can be traced back to at most 500 years ago with the Protestant reformation (except Orthodoxy, which at most goes back 700)
I'm not sure if I should be concerned that you're actually a citizen.
Well, considering the Roman Catholic Church technically also has only existed since the Schism, and you have several churches that developed independently of the Roman Catholic Church (the Coptic Church, for example), I would say, yes, the current Catholic Church is not the origin of Christianity, although, considering Orthodoxy has also been called the Orthodox Catholic Church, something called a Catholic church is the origin of Christianity.
It's just not the current Church as based in Rome. At all. That's totally different.
The United States Of Patriots
That also directly contradicts your earlier statement that there are three branches of Christianity. As that would mean that Orthodoxy is Protestant
Coptics. Established by Saint Mark.
The United States Of Patriots
I mean, it's called the Catholic Church now, but today's Catholic Church is the one descended from Peter.
Orthodoxy is the exception.
Again this fails to account for other non break off religions. Like the Jehovah Witnesses, the LDS church, and Messianic Jews.
Miencraft, Rateria
Oh and you're confusing your Schisms. The one that split Catholicism and Orthodoxy happened in 1054. The one in 1378 was an internal split in the Roman Catholic Church.
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
The Coptic Church has only been around since the schism following the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. They claim to be founded by Mark, but the Anglican Church of Ireland also claims to be founded by St. Patrick episcopally
Would this mean that Coptics are Protestant?
No. It doesn't. I said at MOST 500. They are still protesting the Catholic Church. Which is why Joseph Smith said he was the RESTORED church.
So be it.
Using this logic we can also say that the Catholic Church *claims* to be founded by St. Peter
Miencraft
No, because it doesn't just claim it off of episcopality. Which is why I italicized that word.
No, they're part of the Oriental Orthodox Church.
No, see, you're making the mistake of assuming that none of these ideas existed before the churches were officially split. Oriental Orthodoxy may not have been an official thing until 451, but the Churches have been around longer than the schisms that "created" them. We just see those schisms as being the start of those churches because that's when they become a unique entity.
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Which wasn't a specific protest against the Catholic Church it was against the mostly Protestant atmosphere of 1820 America.
Also I note you haven't addressed the point about Messianic Jews
Miencraft
I already did address Messianics, they're apart of Judaism
Especially considering that even among the Apostles there was doctrinal dispute
Did you even read my counter point?
Not according to Jewish law. The Supreme Court of Israel does not recognize Messianics as having the Right of Return.
here it is, Again:
They do they also have the New Testament, and where to ask them if they are Christian they would say they are. Because... they are.
They are Jews as well but defiantly fall in the category of a Christian, rather than Jewish, denominations because they believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And consequentially accept the New Testament as Scripture.
Also the use of the Talmud is not universal. Some denominations see it as going against Messianic beliefs. Some don't even accept the Pharasees as a Canonical source, saying that the Messianic teachings supersede them. further more in some cases the Talmud and Mishnah are referred to as "dangerous"
And, y'know, more importantly, Jewish law says Messianics are Christians, not Jews. Of course, they can still be ethnically Jewish just like anyone else, but it's not recognized as a Jewish faith by Jewish authorities.
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
I think good way of describing it would be Christians that remember their Jewish roots
Miencraft, Rateria
There's no real point in arguing it tbh. It really relies on your own beliefs, as a Catholic, I'd believe all Churches besides the Catholic are protesting the true church. As an Orthodox, you'd feel differently.
As a non-believer I think it's all garbage! But really none of the existing Christian churches can have the distinction of being the original, I'd say. They're too far removed from the Apostolic Church by now.
I think the Byzantine Catholics are the continuation of the old traditions, as they were unaffected by Vatican II.
Them and Messianics.
Well I was arguing this separately from various church doctrines. Plus again it fails to take into account Messianic Jews, them being Christian and not from the Catholic Church. However if you don't want to continue this discussion I will not force you to.
The Catholic Church today is a continuation of the Church founded by Peter. All other Churches are breakaways either from the Catholic Church directly or breakaways from breakaways. Messianic Jews are Jews who follow Judaism. Just because the national court of Israel says that they can't get free citizenship (which may be overturned btw) doesn't mean they're not Jews. The Supreme Court of Israel isn't the ultimate court for Jews. That would be the Temple.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
Christians though, Following christianity. No religious Jew views the New Testament as Scripture
The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria
They even flat out say they're Christians. Just Christians that follow their Jewish roots
The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria
Actually the Jerusalem Council of Messianic Jews says it's a sect of Judaism.
Catholic Church doctrine aside, there is historical debate over that.
Okay, I made a dispatch with all the candidates and the seats that they are running for, it's pinned in the WFE.
TG me if I made an error or if you would like to be added and I missed your post in the RMB.
No there's not, you can actually trace back the Papacy from Francis to Peter.
Also, I thought Supting was already a senator?
He's forfeiting his seat to run against me.
Everyone has to re-run, you can run against a senator too if you want.
"In one sense, Messianic Judaism and Christianity are the same thing. There is only one faith. Messianic Jews and Christians share the same core beliefs. Messianic Judaism is the same faith but it is expressed within the Jewish heritage." This is from the Shema Yisrael Congregation one of the largest online Messianic Judaism website. They View Christianity as the same thing as "true" Judaism.
Judaism can be extended into Christianity. Christianity can't be easily extended into Judaism
Sorry, my point wasn't clear. There is historical debate that it is the same church. As in doctrine, not as the same church
What was his seat?
But he's not rerunning for his seat. He's running against a senator.
It really depends on which Messianic you talk to. I would personally consider it Judaism, but I guess it could be another "branch" of Christianity, event though it's just one sect.
You literally said "doctrine aside"
Well there is a large variance in Messianic thought I would consider it part of the Restorationist branch.
And judging that believe in Christ I wouldn't classify them as Religious Jews
Again, my wording was not clear.
Restorationism is just another branch of Protestantism
Are we seriously back to this?
So we agree historically the Catholic Church is the Church Peter found?
Protestantism is in protest against the Catholic Church. Restorationism is in protest against all Christian churches. And generally involves some form of modern revelation.
I mean, this is the entire discussion we're having. The goals of restorationist churches is to restore the old Church. That's literally the goal of every church. Because they don't think the Catholics kept the doctrine of the founders.
I mean, it's like saying Calvinism is a whole branch. No, they're protestants. That doesn't mean that Presbyterianism isn't Calvinist, it's both.
The actual church, yes. Doctrine, No. but thats a whole separate can of beans
Yes, that's what makes them protestant. Get it?
A lot of churches have modern revelation.
Right. I already said that the entirety of that rests on individual belief
Protestant again is break offs from the Catholic Church. Restorationists can fall in this category but some don't for example. Jehovah witnesses, the LDS church, and Messianic Jews. Non of these are break off religions from any other church, with the exception of Messianic jews being a break off of Judaism.
You're taking the word Protestant to mean more than it is defined to mean.
"a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches."
Just because a church is founded in protest doesn't make it a Protestant church!
That's terrible wording. Senators don't "have" to defend their seats at all.
Rateria, Libiceland
I think the argument comes down to that you believe that there are only three branches of Christianity. I think that there are more.
That actually proves my point (Eastern being Orthodoxy) and the "principles of the reformation" literally just include restoring the church to the apostolic one.
Not break offs. Seperate.
"and follow the principles of the Reformation"
Which means Protestant churches are specifically those that split off as part of rejection of the Papacy during or after the Reformation, as based on the criticisms set forth by Martin Luther.
I literally talked about that right after.
Sure, but the Reformation specifically was a protest against the corruption of the Catholic Church, not some vague movement to restore the apostolic church.
Actually, it was both. They were protesting the "corruption" of the Catholic Church by "restoring" the original Church.
In other news, do you guys like my new flag? I really like it. I think it's a great flag despite the simplicity.
Humpheria, Rateria
I think the papal coat of arms is too small but other than that it's nice.
Hmm, I'll make it bigger.
Jesus can we stop talking about Jesus?
Rateria
I just have one question.
IS LOVING JEEEEEESUS LEGAL YET?
Muh Roads, Rateria, Terra De Libertatem
>Trump pulls the US out of its involvement in a treaty Obama had no authority to enter us into
>Somehow that means the planet is ruined
We're not causing this climate crap, guys. We've been around for 200,000 years. Earth's been here for 4.5 billion years. We've had civilization for, what, 10,000 years or so. We've had factories for a little over 200.
The planet's had to deal with a lot worse than us. It's been here longer than we can really comprehend. It'll still be here, another incomprehensible amount of time later. We'll be extinct, just like 99% of all species ever, probably replaced by some super-human species or robots or something. Whatever the Earth's doing, it's supposed to be doing that.
The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred, Libiceland
Okay, no, man made climate change is a real thing.
Sauce extremely required.
The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred
Obviously some of it is natural. The greenhouse effect is a real thing caused by methane and carbon dioxide. While this happens naturally, man has increased it by emitting carbon dioxide into the air, increasing the greenhouse effect, and I guess you could also make the argument that the agricultural industry leads to more methane by the large supply of cows they breed.
Obviously it's not a hoax "created by and for the chinese" as President Trump says, the scientific community is seriously concerned about it and the Pentagon says it's a huge threat to mankind. To deny climate change is doing so out of pure ignorance because it goes against your party's views.
Now, I don't think a carbon tax or what the Paris Agreement did is the right way to solve it. Carbon emissions have been decreasing by 12% I believe since 2005. If the government removed itself from the energy sector, people would actually be more inclined to buy more green products (like electric cars). People buy these because they themselves want to be green, not because the government forces them to. Not to mention, the government funds failing clean energy sectors like wind, but also taxes everything (carbon tax) and kills the economy, laying off thousands of workers while AT THE SAME TIME taking money from the fossil fuel industry. Ridiculous. I think the free market would be a much better solution to the issue of climate change.
Narland, Libiceland
My view on global warming is nuanced I supposed, it's clearly real, but I am highly skeptical of wild assumptions that this would lead to end of times. We will have more than enough tech in 2050 to deal with any worsened climate if it really happens.
Until then, I support getting rid of coal as gas is a cheaper alternative, improve efficiency and invest on tech like carbon capture
Not a huge fan of ''green energy'', think if we are going to adopt new energy sources, they should actually allow for far more output. Nuclear fusion is personally my long-term hope.
Libiceland
I don't think we should just rely on the future, I think we definitely should act now in the quickest and most efficient manner possible.
Also, you know that coal is gas, right? Unless you meant a different type of gas. I think I've heard of helium being used as fuel.
I agree, nuclear power is the safest, cheapest, and cleanest energy source. Although, it is non-renewable.
Libiceland
The amount of greenhouse gasses that man is responsible for is negligible when compared to the amount of natural emissions.
First off, source on that quote would be nice. Secondly define the scientific community, and why would the pentagon be an authoritative source on this?
As some one who is majoring in a field of physical science, what people throw around as science today is utterly ridiculous.
Miencraft, Narland, Fascist Dred, Libiceland
Coal is a fuel. But it is most definitively not a gas.
Also who cares if nuclear power is non-renewable?
Fascist Dred
Fusion would be awesome. But I'm still a big fan of fission. It works great for our purposes and more importantly we have it right now
Miencraft
Nuclear energy has gotten expensive, unless the sector can fix its costs, it's hard to compete with other sources.
According to Scientific American and Nature Geoscience, 74% of observed temperature increases is due to man.
Source?
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/uDFmIDPzCo4znxgzKlT0_jgv4CqHkarUrQ005ED_HbclD4Ex32hmOHsAn95kbFc_WZMiOQ1BMlRj4Fu-vDLyOgnT3syuxfWFY8KxoEWpqd9gxcPzZnQUM8q76jkJzs7IQUNr_cUt
The Scientific Community as in NASA, the Pentagon's scientists, and numerous independent scientific researchers that I just sourced. Why would the Pentagon be relevant? Because they hire scientists to study and find the biggest threat to the United States?
Coal is used to create gas. Google, "coal gas".
It's important for the energy source to be renewable because then we can have a constant supply of it.
Thats a quote from Gavin Schmidt from 2009, a Doctor of Mathematics. He did work for a while as a climatologist climate modeler (yes the same models that haven't been close to accurate for the past 18 years).
I would like a peer review paper that claims that they know that humans are responsible for the majority of temperature change.
Two of those are government employees whos job security is based on making sure that there is fear of an impending disaster. And the "independent scientific researchers" that you mention are:
Scientific American, which is a magazine. Not a research paper. They do absolutely ZERO research. Unlike the Nature Geoscience which is a peer review paper that does actually publish research. Which it is important to mention there is a diversity of thought on climate change in.
That are also affected by political agendas.
Coal gas is not Coal. It's made from coal but it is not coal.
It would be similar to calling Paper a tree. It's made from one but it isn't one.
Do you have any idea how much coal and oil there is? And in regards to Nuclear power, which I was talking about when asking why anyone cares about renewability, We have a ridiculous amount of nuclear fuel that could be used. And you don't need very much for a single reactor. In comparison to the amount of Natural gas you would need to produce the same amount of energy.
Post self-deleted by Furqanlandia.
When you're a "strong" "independent" "black" "woman"
I'm
BOTTOM TEXT
Pevvania, Rateria, Fascist Dred
Are you black hahahahaha
Is there anyone in the region who is good at making flags?
Miencraft is.
Libiceland
https://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/ Is a peer reviewed scholarly paper. Also, as for the coal-gas thing, the reason I asked what he meant was because he said "gas is cheaper then coal" yet what we call gas in everyday lingo for fuel COMES from gas. It's really a technicality that you're talking about.
As for the "political agenda part", if you seriously think the EPA, NASA, the Pentagon, as well as scientific boards and researchers (and other countries by the way, a lot of other countries such as Germany also act on climate change) are all lying for a political agenda and taking part in some huge conspiracy with other foreign governments and scientists, I seriously don't know how to respond.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.