pull down to refresh
81 sats \ 31 replies \ @SimpleStacker 7 Oct \ on: What is the Acts 17 Collective? Why is Peter THiel Speaking About the Antichrist spirituality
Acts 17 tells of Paul's public speaking, reasoning, and debating for the gospel. I suppose they see their mission as Christian cultural engagement.
I don't know much else about them. One thing that stands out to me is their website doesn't have a Statement of Faith or "What We Believe" page. To me, that's a bit of a yellow flag. I think it's always better for a Christian org to straight up say what they believe so there's no misunderstandings, and to establish that their faith convictions come first and cultural engagement comes second.
I wonder what church Thiel is under if any. I do think Catholics have a valid criticism of other believers being their own Pope. The older I get the more I believe that there is something deeply wrong with someone's faith when they are not a part of a church and under its authority. Frankly, if I as a very limited human can't find any other Christians that I can stand with it is far more likely that I am wrong than some church I don't like.
reply
I'm a Catholic and frankly the "you follow a pope who claims infallibility" is the worst of all the Protestant arguments.
I say that not triggered, just honestly assessing the argument on its merits. A much better argument (maybe the best Protestant argument) is that the Catholic Church has just re-created the Jewish legalism that Jesus ended via his ministry. There is some level of truth to that argument. I honestly say its hard to square things like the Church's requirements that "new catholics" jump thru the legalistic hoops it does (OCIA classes, etc) with how Jesus's ministry was actually portrayed in the Bible.
The problem with the "pope argument" is that it begs the question of "what is the alternative?"
ChatGPT tells me:
The most accepted recent academic tallies place the number of explicitly Protestant denominations (excluding Anglican, Independent, and other ambiguous groups) at approximately 8,000 to 9,000, but the number can climb if including fringe groups, marginal Protestant sects, and rapidly appearing independent congregations, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Is 1 Pope better or worse than 8000-9000 Popes (each possibly conflicting with the other)? What worse is there is literally no upper limit on the possible number of "Protestant Popes"....it becomes every single mans interpretation is as valid as the next -- a create your own religion scenario.
reply
I think arguing about who's right based on the outcomes is going in reverse. For example, Protestants can point to all the bad popes who have led the church astray in the past.
Instead, I think the debate would be more well grounded if the arguments were made based on theology. To me, the key things to argue about are 1) sola scriptura and 2) the role of the church and the sacraments in determining a person's salvation.
reply
If I didn't disagree with the Roman church I would be a part of it. Personally, I know far too many Christians that smear the Catholic church is ways that turn my stomach. For one, they are just wrong on many things and it shows me they haven't even spent a few hours to learn for themselves. They have instead listened to things other preachers have said, likely also in ignorance.
Most Christians I know(including myself) know even less about the Eastern churches. I'm not Orthodox either so obviously I have points of disagreement or further learning there.
What I really find distasteful is the ignorance of our own churches failures. The bloodshed and divisions. The scandals. None of us are perfect. I find it appalling that we protestants (myself included) are so ignorant of our own history and division. I truly believe this attitude is the work of our real enemy Satan. I don't want to smooth over the differences but I do want us all to love our brothers and sisters more than our own rightness.
reply
Its hard for me to judge if things are getting worse or getting better.
I actually tend to feel that the internet has made things better since you can see so many online debates now... and many times you realize the differences, while real, are not the massive gulfs that you might assumed existed.
Most of the time its semantics -- specific definitions involving isolated phrases.
reply
I think arguing about who's right based on the outcomes is going in reverse.
Yes, in many areas of thought this is a risky way of thinking. Think, the ends justify the means. We should look at the ends but that doesn't mean the means were correct.
debate would be more well grounded if the arguments were made based on theology
Yes, this ^^
I have very little interest in the typical bravado filled "debates" I see on all sides of Christianity. Its not helpful and turns people outside of our faith away. What doesn't turn them away is the truth, honestly, and good faith discussions.
To your specific sola scriptura I have heard many Catholics as well as Orthodox say that for the first 1500 years or so the vast majority of people were either illiterate or had no access to the full canon of Scripture. The church and her liturgy and art were what they had. I think many Catholics will falsely say that Protestants ONLY follow their interpretation of Scripture but this is a straw man as well. All of the protestant church traditions had hierarchy and traditions.
Like I've said, I think we (all) need to seek to better understand one another, church history (the good and bad), and remember Jesus command that we love one another. Doesn't mean we don't disagree but we should do so in good faith and love.
reply
Most protestants do not understand the Roman Catholic Church. I've been trying to better understand it myself from people in the church who are very good at explaining the nuance of many of the teachings.
I have found that most non-Catholics think you all believe the Pope is infallible and not that the Pope can speak ex cathedra. This infallibility is limited. I like to focus on first understanding the points of agreement and points of disagreement. It very easy to straw man others and this is done to Roman Catholicism most of the time.
I'm not equipped to argue on my points of disagreement with the Roman Church but the more I have learned the more straw men have been blown down. I will say this. I think we are all better served by understanding each other vs. making bad faith arguments to win a debate.
The counter to your point about the 8000-9000 popes is that many Catholics act as their own Pope as well by cherry-picking the teachings of the church for cultural and personal reasons. This isn't an argument against a head of the church but it is something to consider as we can all be selfish and rebellious to authority. Picking your church is more or less being your own Pope in some ways.
Clearly, we live in a very self-centered time and lack clear foundations as everything seems to be up for debate. Even the most fundamental things. I see this as a reason many are returning to Christianity and I think they will be more attracted to strong churches like the Roman and Eastern churches over the non-denomination churches in the Protestant movement.
reply
I have found that most non-Catholics think you all believe the Pope is infallible and not that the Pope can speak ex cathedra.
Correct, the easiest way to understand the reality of the Popes "infallibility" is "the buck stops here" - that is he exist as the final decision maker on formal questions of doctrine and morals. It does not mean he is inerrant. If the Pope says "the sky is green" it doesn't magically make it so, only that he is the final decision maker on dogmatic issues.
I will say this. I think we are all better served by understanding each other vs. making bad faith arguments to win a debate.
Agree 100%. I think that >95% of all Protestants and Catholics agree on almost everything. It really all comes down to how the argument is framed. I think the classic case is the "Sola Fide" question. I think in actual practice Prots and Caths believe the same from a day to day living perspective (you need to accept Christ and accepting Christ means being a good person). However, the framing of the argument can ignite needless disagreement over semantic issues.
that many Catholics act as their own Pope as well by cherry-picking the teachings of the church for cultural and personal reasons.
Its a nuanced issue. A local priest, bishop, or even the Pope can opine on any subject. For instance, they may say "We have a duty to welcome all illegal aliens".
Its fine that they say that, it can be a call for reflection. It can even be true that it exhorts Christian virtue. However, a Catholic is not bound to follow every utterance of clergy / popes / etc.
Catholics are only bound by the Catechism (whats officially defined via the Church's Magisterium). Regular public statements, calls to action, etc don't apply.
So in your example if a person is choosing not to follow the Catechism, then he is by definition not Catholic. If he is choosing not to agree with his local Bishop who made a statement against the death penalty, well because thats not a doctrinal statement, he is free to disagree.
NOTE: To clarify something in case its not clear, the Catechism is an actual written document you can reference, kinda like a "constitution". (https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM)
reply
Catholics are only bound by the Catechism (whats officially defined via the Church's Magisterium). Regular public statements, calls to action, etc don't apply.
Yep, this is what I'm referring to. Most non-Romans I have met over my life including pastors don't get this really.
if a person is choosing not to follow the Catechism, then he is by definition not Catholic. If he is choosing not to agree with his local Bishop who made a statement against the death penalty, well because thats not a doctrinal statement, he is free to disagree.
I was thinking more of people that profess to be Catholic and yet support abortion. Or have violated the churches teaching on marriage for example. Or speak openly against teachings in the Catechism.
The problem I have with this line of argument is that all of us non-Romans know people that say they are Christians or members of our church who do the same things. Or will poorly represent the teachings of our church.
It really does come down to theology and perspective and I have been more encouraged by the common ground we share, protestants, Romans, and Eastern Christians. I can see that none of our traditions are without mistakes in our histories but if we believe the words of Jesus we will all be one again. It is the enemy that seeks to divide us that is our true enemy. Not one another. Not saying we should just go along to get along. But I pray for more charity in myself when I disagree with others about our faith.
reply
I was thinking more of people that profess to be Catholic and yet support abortion. Or have violated the churches teaching on marriage for example. Or speak openly against teachings in the Catechism.
That is very true. A far far more common example is the Catechism mandates that to receive the Eucharist, you must be in "a state of Grace and anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution"
The number of Catholics who line up every Sunday to receive Communion while not in a state of grace....well lets just say the lines would be half as long if that was actually followed.
To be clear, this is something I've been guilty of many times in my life. But as I've gotten older I try to be much more honest with myself before I stand up to get in line.
reply
The more I learn the more I see the same human failings in all Christian traditions. We need Jesus. We fail. We need community. We are not intended to be islands.
reply
You are Catholic?
I thought everyone in Texas had to be Baptist lol
reply
Remember when there was a second pope in Avignon France?
Good times!
reply
Yep, I drink his wine all the time....
reply
Thanks for the recommendation
I have been drinking Meiomi Pinot noir
Good wine for 20 bucks
reply
I asked Chat and they couldn't find any public info on what church Peter Thiel goes to.
I haven't listened to any of Thiel's thoughts about Christianity. I probably should just so I can understand what people out there are saying. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's mixing in a lot of his own worldly philosophies and interpreting scripture through that lens.
reply
That's my guess. I listened to some of that interview where the guy asked him if he was the antichrist. He's always been odd and like that whole class of tech elites a lot of it is literally autism for lack of a better word. Based on that interview... I would guess he's well out of the orthodoxy of historical Christianity.
In general I find the vast majority of "antichrist" talk to be unfruitful.
reply
1 John 2:18 (ESV)
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.”
reply
Its also important to realize that (as far as I understand it) the anti isn't just meaning against in the original Greek but also an impostor. So a fake Christ that is also opposed to the King of Kings.
When we put men on pedestals and put too much faith and hope in them we are entering risky territory. We can point to many times and men where this could be true. To me, this is the practical lesson to learn about this figure. The spirit and desire to create our own fake savior.
reply
I don't think organised Christianity has anything to do with Christ's teachings. Churches are commons networks, voluntary services like the fire brigade, that's what the greek word from which the word comes from means. Its about maintaining the commons. Modern churches don't do that. Whatever they do (mostly moan from a pulpit or an alter) they don't tend to commons.
What they are is identitarian cults, exactly what Christ was opposed to.
reply
organised Christianity
Pretty broad brush there buddy. If you will humor me. Do you accept any of the common canons of Scripture? If not where does your faith in the words of Jesus come from?
And by organized Christianity you mean all branches of the church including the Roman, East, and Protestants do you not believe these words of Jesus?
Matthew 16:18 (ESV)
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
About this.
Modern churches don't do that. Whatever they do (mostly moan from a pulpit or an alter)
The modern Protestant church is different from earlier church traditions in that they were not always so strongly focused on teaching. So I wonder if you are painting a bit to broad here.
We also must remember that Jesus did NOT forsake organized religious adherents. He visited synagogue and taught in them as did his disciples. Due to persecution the very early church met in homes. Not because meeting in churches / temples is antithetical to following Jesus but because they were not free do build churches.
We know that the early church did many good works. Today's churches (all traditions) do many good works. In fact most of what makes western civilization amazing is due to the Church (Christians) and its influence.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.
reply
The word "church" means a collective that tends to be commons. That is how all of the classical literature outside biblical scholarship uses the Greek word. Bitcoin Core is a church. Your local fire brigade is a church. Any voluntary organisation of collective commons is a church. That's not an identitarian prescription. That doesn't mean that if you are not part of a designated church with a lineage back to Peter that you are not Christian.
Christianity inherited the centralised Roman institutions and effectively succumbed to regulatory capture, as centralised institutions always do. Early Christianity from Armenia to Ireland was far more decentralised and authentically Christian.
Then monarch's like the Carolingians started using Christianity as an economic weapon against competitors, engaging in economic embargoes against northern pagans that resulted in famine and caused the Vikings to cross the north sea to pillage salt production in northern France, and they sacked monasteries on the way because the embargo was employed in the name of identitarian Christianity, sanctioned by popes.
Countless other massacres like those against the Cathars in southern France were justified by identitarian Christianity to say that people who for whatever reason showed some kind of autonomy or idiosyncratic cultural tendencies needed to be burnt, literally burnt, in the name of the Pope.
And then there was the thirty years war... Jesus wept...
The idea of organised Christianity is anathema to Christianity because it is definitionally identitarian and Christianity exists to subdue identitarian tendencies. Instead of taking their proper role of tending the commons all major churches nurture identitarianism for the benefit of their own social status and position in their local or global hierarchies.
Your own post is exemplary: "I have been accepted, so I must be Christian, where as you have been rejected, so you must not" - much Christian, very universalist.
You sir, are full of shit, I think Christ would agree.
The atheists like Bertrand Russell get one thing right, it's their most cutting argument and modern identitarian Christians have no answer to it: Christians are not particularly Christian.
reply
Learn about the Baal / False Prophet / Beast (Anti Christ) / Bablyon framework here: #1225360
reply
Notice my username, "fourrules".
Baal appeal — worship blended with survival fears. Babylon — power, economy, and religion fused into one system. Beast — political authority demanding ultimate allegiance. False Prophet — religious cover for political rule.
The direct inversion of the 4 pillars of the crucifixion, and of proof of work:
- sacrifice (Baal)
- verification - the highest hill (Beast)
- sovereignty - alone (Babylon)
- universality - as the lowest man (False prophet - identitarianism)
reply
So you aren't going to answer my questions? You are putting words in my mouth btw. I'm not sure what your point is. That's why I asked the very specific series of questions.
Here's another one.
voluntary organisation
Every single church is a voluntary organization. Is it not?
As far as Christian identity... if I remember correctly the label Christian was first use as a slander. The early church referred to their group as "the way".
So do you accept the Bible as inspired by God?
reply
I don't have to tell you what I believe to follow Christ. You don't get to decide you and the little cult are the bestest Christians because you say you believe one assertion over another. Words can be said by anyone, whether they know what they mean or not. If I say that I believe one set of words over another, in order to associate with an identitarian cult in opposition to another identitarian cult, well say what you want about it but it's not Christian. Best case it's just sounds from people's faces, verbal fixed action patterns, and worst case it's the friend-enemy distinction dressed in a Christian skin-suit.
reply
Ok, again. I never said any of this. I was simply asking questions to better understand where you are coming from. You made some very broad comments and I simply was curious where you were coming from with the conclusions you have stated.
It honestly feels like you are talking with someone in your own mind, not me.
reply
You're saying that people who follow Christ without a church are wrong. You literally said that. You're wrong. Modern churches are identitarian cults with little relation to any collective commons. They are primarily and exclusively concerned with social status, defined primarily in opposition to each other.
Your comment exemplified this fact.
it's always better for a Christian org to straight up say what they believe so there's no misunderstandings, and to establish that their faith convictions come first and cultural engagement comes second.
100% this.
When I was a kid there weren't all these non-denominational churches and it was much easier to know what you were in for. Now, most churches do have a statement of faith and if you know enough about the different branches in the Protestant tree you can figure it out but most people do NOT know this stuff.
I say this as someone that is deeply evolved in a non-denominational church. Its often the case that we over-correct. I think we are in the early stages of realizing maybe the protestant non-denominational movement was an over-correction. I get why it became the trend. I dislike fracturing in the church on sometimes superficial issues. I don't think we weight disagreements very well. But, in times like this it is VERY important to know what we agree on and where we disagree.
If you don't state it yourself, someone else will and they will straw man you.
reply