Faith Healing

This is a forum for all off topic posts.
MorbidKate
Dungeon Master
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: GMT -5 (EST)

Post by MorbidKate »

Jeppan wrote:Eh? What about Martin Luther? Henry just expanded on his ideas!
Martin Luther had ideas but Henry VIII was King baby and ol' chubby wanted the Pope to annul his marriage to infertile Catherine of Aragon so he could drop her for the Anne Boleyn.

The Pope's refusal and the upheaval in response to being excommunicated is ground zero for the creation of the Protestant religion. In 1534, "The Act of Supremacy" declared that the King was "the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England".

Point being, if someone started a religion today to get around the laws of the day it'd surely be labelled a cult.

Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
User avatar
NickD
Beholder
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:38 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by NickD »

Joseph Smith managed it, and I don't think there was anything particularily special about him...
Current PCs:
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

And it was labeled as a cult for a long time. There's still a lot of prejudice against Mormonism here in the US where the religion started, I'm sure there's plenty elsewhere.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
Veilan
Lead Admin
Posts: 6152
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:33 pm
Location: UTC+1
Contact:

Post by Veilan »

MorbidKate wrote:And where do you think the Protestant religion came from? Good ol' Henry VIII essentially created the religion because the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce
Null Punkte.

Anglicanism != Protestantism.

Episcopals are Anglicans, but Lutherans, Calvinists and all other kinds of Protestants are not part of the Anglican community, but rather of the Protestant one.

It is true that Anglicanism did pick up some part of Protestantism - but that doesn't make it Protestant, just as it isn't Catholic just because it has confessions ;).
Last edited by Veilan on Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
The power of concealment lies in revelation.
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

Nyarlathotep wrote:Also most of the studies have been heavily Western biased, I'd be interested if the same trends held up in the former Eastern Bloc nations where Atheism was the official system of belief.
I agree, that would be interesting. It would help to control for other factors.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
User avatar
Grand Fromage
Goon Spy
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:04 am
Location: Chengdu, Sichuan, China

Post by Grand Fromage »

Mulu wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:Also most of the studies have been heavily Western biased, I'd be interested if the same trends held up in the former Eastern Bloc nations where Atheism was the official system of belief.
I agree, that would be interesting. It would help to control for other factors.
Any time a belief system (or lack of one) is forced on people en masse by their parents and culture, rather than individuals coming to it by careful critical thinking, the average intelligence in the forced population is going to be lower than the thinking one. Very few people come to their religion by critical thinking; no one can seriously try to deny that the vast majority of the religious inherited their particular sect from their parents. If you do you're clearly a moron or living on some other planet. In the west, the group with the most members who came to their philosophy by rational inquiry are the atheists, so it's no surprise studies consistently show a higher average intelligence in the atheist population. Also a significantly lower crime rate, as a tangent. That or atheists are all criminal masterminds who don't get caught and imprisoned. ;)

Anyway, if/when (hopefully when) atheism is the dominant philosophy, the differences should smooth out. I wouldn't expect the religious to suddenly become more intelligent, but instead there should be no significant difference between the groups.
User avatar
Joos
Frost Giant
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:05 am
Location: Melbourne, Oz

Post by Joos »

Grand Fromage wrote:
Joos wrote:Yes, the truth. The most likely truth is that the bible as we have it today, was put together from religous writings (copy paste as we know it today) by a non-christian Roman emperor who needed a tool to keep his empire from falling to pieces. That the roman emperor also was a high priest of Jupiter (Zeus) both before and after doesn't give the Catholic church much credence either.
Er... what emperor are you talking about, here? I've been studying Roman history for a while and this doesn't sound familiar at all. The bible WAS completely assembled by various committees through its history, and the particular stories were largely lifted from other sources (compare Jesus and the Roman Dionysus story, for example, or any of the other mystery religions like the cult of Isis), that much is true.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/a ... codex.html
Before emperor Constantine, there basicly was no bible, only evangelies and the old testament separete. He was the one who had the power and determination for the vast undertaking. Of course, its only specualtion as everything is when you regard such ancient history. But its what I believe moresoe than any other explanation.
More interesting "conspiracy theory" here that I find more believable then the official story. However, there are plenty of them out there, written by people who are more learnt on the subject than me. Have fun!
http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm
User avatar
Jeppan
Dire Badger
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:22 pm
Location: Digging gold in off-topics

Post by Jeppan »

Alara wrote:
MorbidKate wrote:And where do you think the Protestant religion came from? Good ol' Henry VIII essentially created the religion because the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce
Null Punkte.

Anglicanism != Protestantism.

Episcopals are Anglicans, but Lutherans, Calvinists and all other kinds of Protestants are not part of the Anglican community, but rather of the Protestant one.

It is true that Anglicanism did pick up some part of Protestantism - but that doesn't make it Protestant, just as it isn't Catholic just because it has confessions ;).
Good! I was just about to write this! Damn british had their own weird branch of catholic-hating branch.
User avatar
Grand Fromage
Goon Spy
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:04 am
Location: Chengdu, Sichuan, China

Post by Grand Fromage »

Joos wrote:Before emperor Constantine, there basicly was no bible, only evangelies and the old testament separete. He was the one who had the power and determination for the vast undertaking. Of course, its only specualtion as everything is when you regard such ancient history. But its what I believe moresoe than any other explanation.
More interesting "conspiracy theory" here that I find more believable then the official story. However, there are plenty of them out there, written by people who are more learnt on the subject than me. Have fun!
I suspected you meant Constantine. You're wrong on some major points; Constantine's assumption of the position of pontifex maximus had little to no religious purpose by that point, it was one of the standard honorary titles granted to the princeps (such as the title imperator, whether or not the princeps had won any battles). Since Lepidus was given the position in Augustus' time, the position had become fully political. Before his conversion Constantine certainly believed in the Roman pantheon, but not after, and he did not have any actual priestly duties.

There was little political gain in the move. Christianity had been growing in the empire, but it was still vastly overshadowed by all the other religions. The Romans were also (generally) very religiously tolerant. Constantine didn't need it to keep the empire together, as the empire was already split apart by then. He re-united it by military force; religion played no role, except that he thought his victory at Rome was because of Christianity, and sparked his conversion.

He only did three major things for Christianity. Not to downplay them, as his actions were largely responsible for Christianity's survival over all the other similar religions of the era, but he had little or nothing to do with the bible.

A) He legalized Christianity. Until then it was just a semi-tolerated cult with some occasional persecutions, not unlike the cult of Dionysus.
B) He was Christian, which implicitly made it okay for others to do the same.
C) He had the first Council of Nicaea convened. This is where the myth comes from, it's commonly thought the bible's canon was decided here. The biblical canon councils were held later though. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
They did work on some Christian canon, but not specifically about the bible. Passover, Easter, the nature of the trinity, etc were addressed here. There was probably some discussion of the book, but Constantine had little to nothing to do to it. The main councils that put together the modern bible occurred after the establishment of the Roman church, and the first works that resembled the modern new testament started showing up a century before Constantine. Damasus I and Jerome really bring about the initial canon.

Remember, at this time there were probably hundreds, if not thousands of different bibles floating around. The modern canon really doesn't get fully decided on until the 1500s, and even then there are still alterations.
MorbidKate
Dungeon Master
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: GMT -5 (EST)

Post by MorbidKate »

Alara wrote:
MorbidKate wrote:And where do you think the Protestant religion came from? Good ol' Henry VIII essentially created the religion because the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce
Null Punkte.

Anglicanism != Protestantism.

Episcopals are Anglicans, but Lutherans, Calvinists and all other kinds of Protestants are not part of the Anglican community, but rather of the Protestant one.

It is true that Anglicanism did pick up some part of Protestantism - but that doesn't make it Protestant, just as it isn't Catholic just because it has confessions ;).
Anglicanism (Church of England and others who follow the English Reformation) is just a form of Protestantism where there isn't a dominant guiding figure such as a Pope. Look back at the timeline and you'll see that King Henry VIII's desire for a divorce is why and how England became Protestant.

Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
User avatar
fluffmonster
Haste Bear
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Post by fluffmonster »

MorbidKate wrote:
Anglicanism (Church of England and others who follow the English Reformation) is just a form of Protestantism where there isn't a dominant guiding figure such as a Pope. Look back at the timeline and you'll see that King Henry VIII's desire for a divorce is why and how England became Protestant.

Kate
That seems a very peculiar criterion for similarity because it equates Protestantism with rejection of the Pope, which seems an incomplete characterisation. Please correct me here if I'm wrong, but Protestantism is as much about the rejection of any central earthly authority as rejection of the pope specifically...its about the democratisation of christianity, if you will. Anglicanism was at its genesis much more narrowly about who is the central religious authority, basically replacing the pope with the English crown.
MorbidKate
Dungeon Master
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: GMT -5 (EST)

Post by MorbidKate »

fluffmonster wrote:That seems a very peculiar criterion for similarity because it equates Protestantism with rejection of the Pope, which seems an incomplete characterisation. Please correct me here if I'm wrong, but Protestantism is as much about the rejection of any central earthly authority as rejection of the pope specifically...its about the democratisation of christianity, if you will. Anglicanism was at its genesis much more narrowly about who is the central religious authority, basically replacing the pope with the English crown.
You are correct. I used the Pope as an example of central authority but in this case the Pope is key to the actions taken by Henry VIII. Had the King of England not wanted his marriage annuled a lot of what happened never would have.

Here's a breakdown of the timeline of King Henry VIII from the Wiki that explains my reasoning on the matter:

1525

King Henry's increasing impatience with what he perceived to be Catherine's inability to produce the desired heir was given a new spur when he became attracted to a charismatic young courtier in the Queen's entourage, Anne Boleyn.

Henry ordered Cardinal Wolsey to begin formal proceedings with Rome to annul his marriage on the grounds that Catherine's brief marriage to the sickly Arthur had, indeed, been consummated. The king's secretary, William Knight, went to Rome to petition Pope Clement VII for the annulment, but the Pope was highly reluctant to grant the king’s request due to pressure from Catherine's nephew, Emperor Charles V, and an unwillingness to overturn the previous Pope's decision. Wolsey's efforts to lobby for the annulment were unavailing. These failures, concomitant with his growing estrangement from Catherine, finally led to Wolsey's dismissal as Lord Chancellor by Henry in 1529. His replacement, Sir Thomas More, seemed an even less likely candidate to secure Henry's desired end, given his scruples about the suit and his loyalty to Rome.

1529

At the same time, Henry discovered and promoted other men of a different temper. Foremost among these were two gifted young clerics, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer. It was Cranmer who first suggested in 1529 that Henry should consult the "theology faculties of the continental universities" for an opinion about the validity of his marriage. The project, abetted by apparent bribes and favours, achieved the hoped-for success, with favourable opinions offered to the English Parliament in 1530. Cranmer's support of the King's efforts to put aside Catherine of Aragon were rewarded with a position as ambassador to the imperial court, and shortly thereafter, he was appointed to replace William Warham as Archbishop of Canterbury upon the latter's death. Cromwell, meanwhile, earned a position as chief adviser to the king with his even more daring proposal that Henry consider abolishing papal supremacy and declare himself head of the Church in England. Both Cromwell and Cranmer were protégés of Boleyn, who shared her growing sympathies with Protestant doctrines taking shape on the continent.

1533

Threats of withheld papal tithes having failed to move Clement VII to action, Henry finally took matters into his own hands: he secretly married Boleyn in January 1533, and shortly thereafter, had his allies in Parliament pass a statute forbidding further appeals to Rome. Archbishop Cranmer quickly moved to declare Henry's marriage to Catherine invalid and his new one to Anne Boleyn valid. Boleyn was crowned Queen of England on June 1, and gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth (later Elizabeth I of England), three months later.

The Pope reacted by moving to excommunicate Henry in July 1533. (Historians disagree on the exact date of the excommunication; according to Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples, the bull of 1533 was a draft with penalties left blank and was not made official until 1535. Others say Henry was not officially excommunicated until 1538, by Pope Paul III, brother of Cardinal Franklin de la Thomas.)

1534

Considerable religious upheaval followed. Urged by Cromwell, Parliament passed several acts that enforced the breach with Rome in the spring of 1534. The Statute in Restraint of Appeals prohibited appeals from English ecclesiastical courts to the Pope. It also prevented the Church from making any regulations without the King's consent. The Ecclesiastical Appointments Act 1534 required the clergy to elect bishops nominated by the Sovereign. The Act of Supremacy 1534 declared that the King was "the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England"; the Treasons Act 1534 made it high treason punishable by death to refuse to acknowledge the King as such. The Pope was also denied sources of revenue such as Peter's Pence.

Rejecting the decisions of the Pope, Parliament validated the marriage between Henry and Anne with the Act of Succession 1533. Catherine's daughter, the Lady Mary, was declared illegitimate, and Anne's issue were declared next in the line of succession. Included in this declaration was, most notably, a clause repudiating "any foreign authority, prince or potentate". All adults in the Kingdom were required to acknowledge the Act's provisions by oath and those who refused to do so were subject to imprisonment for life. The publisher or printer of any literature alleging that Henry's marriage to Anne was invalid was automatically guilty of high treason and could be punished by death. Additionally, it separated his church from the Pope.

1535

Opposition to Henry's religious policies was quickly suppressed in England. A number of dissenting monks were tortured and executed. The most prominent resisters included John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More, Henry's former Lord Chancellor, both of whom refused to take the oath and were subsequently convicted of high treason and beheaded at Tyburn in 1535. Thomas Cromwell, for whom was created the post of "Vicegerent in Spirituals", was authorized to visit monasteries, ostensibly to ensure that they followed royal instructions, but in reality to assess their wealth.

1536

In 1536, an Act of Parliament allowed Henry to seize the possessions of the lesser monasteries (those with annual incomes of £200 or less). These suppressions in turn contributed to further resistance among the English people, most notably in the Pilgrimage of Grace, a large uprising in northern England in October of the same year. Henry VIII promised the rebels he would pardon them and thanked them for raising the issues to his attention, then invited the rebel leader, Robert Aske to have a royal banquet with him. At the banquet, Henry tactfully asked Aske to write down what had happened so he could have a better idea of the problems he would 'change'. Aske did what the King asked, though he had actually just written what would later be used against him as a confession. The King's word could not be questioned (as he was held as God's chosen, and second only to God himself) so Aske told the rebels they had been successful and they could disperse and go home. However, because Henry saw the rebels as traitors, he did not feel obliged to keep his promises. The rebels realized that the King was not keeping his promises and rebelled again later that year, but their strength was not as great and the King ordered the rebellions crushed. The leaders, including Aske, were arrested and executed for treason.

1539

Dissolution of the remaining, larger monasteries followed a subsequent authorizing act by Parliament in April 1539 (See main article: Dissolution of the monasteries).
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
Veilan
Lead Admin
Posts: 6152
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:33 pm
Location: UTC+1
Contact:

Post by Veilan »

Anglicanism basically used Protestantism as an excuse for Henry to go "HARHARHARHAR I'm the Pope now!", which, as fluff correctly noted, doesn't have much to do with Protestantism, where faith is a private and personal matter, not (too) governed feudally by clerical, earthly authorities.

Sure they're all Christians, but Anglicans aren't Protestants... even though neither are as uptight as the Catholics about who can share a mass with them ;).
The power of concealment lies in revelation.
MorbidKate
Dungeon Master
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: GMT -5 (EST)

Post by MorbidKate »

Alara wrote:Anglicanism basically used Protestantism as an excuse for Henry to go "HARHARHARHAR I'm the Pope now!", which, as fluff correctly noted, doesn't have much to do with Protestantism, where faith is a private and personal matter, not (too) governed feudally by clerical, earthly authorities.

Sure they're all Christians, but Anglicans aren't Protestants... even though neither are as uptight as the Catholics about who can share a mass with them ;).
Please read the timeline. My point is the why and how of it all. Look at what steps Henry VIII took to get his divorce. Had he been happily married with an heir, the Protestant religion and the Church of England specifically never would have gotten a foothold, let alone become the dominant religion of the country.

Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
User avatar
Jeppan
Dire Badger
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:22 pm
Location: Digging gold in off-topics

Post by Jeppan »

MorbidKate wrote:the Protestant religion and the Church of England specifically never would have gotten a foothold, let alone become the dominant religion of the country.
Kate
Sure. However this does not mean that the Anglican church predates Martin Luthers commandments in Germany. It was then and there the movement gained ground. I think you are arguing mainly for Britains leap from catholiscism while the rest of us are talking about the protestant church as a whole.
Post Reply