What's your religion?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:35:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  What's your religion?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
opeboist
 
#2
atheist
 
#3
Catholic
 
#4
Anglican
 
#5
Protestant
 
#6
other Christian
 
#7
Jeiwsh
 
#8
Muslim
 
#9
other
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 73

Author Topic: What's your religion?  (Read 11757 times)
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2005, 01:49:43 PM »

Presbyterian / U.C.C. myself.

Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestant by the quiz, what a surprise.
Logged
Banana Republic
Rookie
**
Posts: 216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2005, 02:07:49 PM »

CofE
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2005, 04:32:03 PM »


The heretic church.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 18, 2005, 04:33:59 PM »


OMG BURN HIM
Logged
Banana Republic
Rookie
**
Posts: 216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2005, 05:47:05 PM »


Thanks, I'm sorry I provoked you Roll Eyes, twat
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2005, 05:59:30 PM »


My point is that the Church of England was founded in sin. The sins of Henry VIII. His belief that he had the RIGHT to divorce is more of his own vanity then any belief in true scripture. He was like the kid who never got what he wanted and got pissed and said, "I'm taking my ball and going home."
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2005, 06:16:37 PM »

Let's see if I can make a name of what my religion really is Cheesy

Umm... let's see, Christian, Agnostic, Deist, New Age...

New Chrignosist!  Chrignosist Age!  Ageistian Age!  New Deinotian!

If you really want to get specific, substitute 'Astrology' for 'New Age' and you can get Astrochrignosist, Chrignosistology, Ageistianology, or Astrodeinotian Smiley

Here's the OFISHAL SURVAY:
0.      CHRIGNOSISTOLOGY! (2983749837%)
1.    Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants  (100%)
2.    Liberal Quakers (88%)
3.    Unitarian Universalism (83%)
4.    Reform Judaism (79%)
5.    Orthodox Quaker (71%)
6.    Bahá'í Faith (60%)
7.    Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (60%)
8.    Neo-Pagan (57%)
9.    Seventh Day Adventist (57%)
10.    Sikhism (56%)
11.    Orthodox Judaism (55%)
12.    New Age (55%)
13.    Eastern Orthodox (55%)
14.    Roman Catholic (55%)
15.    Secular Humanism (53%)
16.    Mahayana Buddhism (52%)
17.    Islam (51%)
18.    Theravada Buddhism (50%)
19.    New Thought (47%)
20.    Scientology (47%)
21.    Hinduism (39%)
22.    Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (37%)
23.    Jainism (37%)
24.    Nontheist (36%)
25.    Taoism (36%)
26.    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (33%)
27.    Jehovah's Witness (23%)
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2005, 04:18:16 PM »

I'm converting to CHRIGNOSISTOLOGY!
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2005, 08:44:17 PM »

I'm converting to CHRIGNOSISTOLOGY!

I HAVE A CONVERT! Cheesy
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2005, 08:49:48 PM »

My point is that the Church of England was founded in sin. The sins of Henry VIII. His belief that he had the RIGHT to divorce is more of his own vanity then any belief in true scripture. He was like the kid who never got what he wanted and got pissed and said, "I'm taking my ball and going home."
I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2005, 08:57:18 PM »

I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.

I was under the impression Henry had to seek special Papal dispensation to marry Catherine, so how he could then turn around and claim some years later his marriage was annullable on the basis it was doctrinally invalid is beyond me.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2005, 09:02:15 PM »

I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.

I was under the impression Henry had to seek special Papal dispensation to marry Catherine, so how he could then turn around and claim some years later his marriage was annullable on the basis it was doctrinally invalid is beyond me.
Pope Julius II did grant a papal dispensation, but there were some complications. The Pope first granted the dispensation in a private brief, but later did so again in a bull; I understand, moreover, that it was charged that the dispensation was illegally obtained in the first place.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 21, 2005, 12:07:17 AM »

I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.

I was under the impression Henry had to seek special Papal dispensation to marry Catherine, so how he could then turn around and claim some years later his marriage was annullable on the basis it was doctrinally invalid is beyond me.
Pope Julius II did grant a papal dispensation, but there were some complications. The Pope first granted the dispensation in a private brief, but later did so again in a bull; I understand, moreover, that it was charged that the dispensation was illegally obtained in the first place.

I'm not to keen on English history Pete and Em so thanks for giving me more info about it. Smiley
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 21, 2005, 02:33:07 AM »
« Edited: April 21, 2005, 02:39:09 AM by J. J. »


My point is that the Church of England was founded in sin. The sins of Henry VIII. His belief that he had the RIGHT to divorce is more of his own vanity then any belief in true scripture. He was like the kid who never got what he wanted and got pissed and said, "I'm taking my ball and going home."

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.  Without an heir, the country could have very easily slipped back into one.  It was more of a (wise) political decision and a (good) economic one, as the "Peter's Pence" was draining money from the economy.

Aside from legitmate theolgical reasons, as Emsworth pointed out, there were political ones.  Rome had just been taken by the Most Catholic King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, who's (most Lutheran) German troops looted and desecrated numereous Churches, raped nuns, killed numerous priests as well as killing off the entire Swiss Guard, and had taken the Pope prisoner.  Catharine of Aragon had another name for Charles V, "Uncle Charlie."

Politically, the Pope could not act, at least not without losing his tiara and the head underneath it.

Actually, there were other examples of Papal annulments.  The King of France, Louis XII, married Jeanne of Valois, who proved to be barren.  A Papal annulment was granted.  Jeanne was later cannonized, showing there were no moral grounds for the annulment. 

Interestingly, the pope that finally ruled against Henry VIII, was Paul III, who fathered four illegitimate children.  :-)  BTW my source for that was:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0220.htm

States, is the the "Old Time Religion" you wish to return to?
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2005, 05:42:29 AM »

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.
I am afraid that I must contradict this point of view. Henry VIII's father, Henry VII, did indeed have a very weak claim on the throne due to a potentially illegitimate lineage. Henry VII, however, consoldiated his position admirably well; his son had no succession problems at all.

However, you are absolutely correct that there were political reasons. If Henry VIII did not produce an heir, succession questions would indeed have been raised. The issue of papal revenue (first fruits, Peter's Pence, etc.) was certainly an important one. 
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2005, 01:31:25 PM »

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.
I am afraid that I must contradict this point of view. Henry VIII's father, Henry VII, did indeed have a very weak claim on the throne due to a potentially illegitimate lineage. Henry VII, however, consoldiated his position admirably well; his son had no succession problems at all.


I'm referring more to the dynastic claims, as evidenced that in 70 years, there were no more Tudors.  Even with two surviving direct children, Edward VI's death set off a fairly large succession problem, with rival claims being fought over.

It was imperative that their be male succession, from the country's viewpoint.  It wasn't a matter of sin, but a matter of state
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2005, 02:16:07 PM »

It was imperative that their be male succession, from the country's viewpoint.  It wasn't a matter of sin, but a matter of state
I absolutely agree; I was just disagreeing, perhaps pedantically, on the point that Henry VIII's own claim was insecure.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2005, 05:03:35 PM »

I'm Catholic
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 14 queries.