I never said it's unforgiveable. I said it's wrong to continue to lie to his spouse and then pass it off as if he's being noble. Part of seeking forgiveness and repenting is to own up to what you did and seek forgiveness from those you wronged. I would hope he'll do that, but it doesn't help when he has people leasing him astray by advising him to lie.

Quote:

---

Otherwise, any degeneracy under the sun is okay with you. Your vile philosophy disgusts me. There is no room for the repentant in your "church", only the unrepentant degenerate.

---

This is patently false. But you know that (I've given my thoughts on "affirming" churches plenty for you to know that you're simply spouting lies) And I'm glad my "philosophy" disgusts you. I'd be worried if a white "advocate" who embraces the temptation that Christ explicitly rejected agreed with me. My "philosophy" is my faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not surprised you find it disgusting.

FightinTexasAggie08 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

EI never said it's unforgiveable. I said it's wrong to continue to lie to his spouse and then pass it off as if he's being noble. Part of seeking forgiveness and repenting is to own up to what you did and seek forgiveness from those you wronged. I would hope he'll do that, but it doesn't help when he has people leasing him astray by advising him to lie.

Quote:

---

Otherwise, any degeneracy under the sun is okay with you. Your vile philosophy disgusts me. There is no room for the repentant in your "church", only the unrepentant degenerate.

---

This is patently false. But you know that. And I'm glad my "philosophy" disgusts you. I'd be worried if a white "advocate" agreed with me. My "philosophy" is my faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not surprised you find it disgusting.

---

Your philosophy is leftism, the vehicle is Christo-hippie syncretic pablum. The only thing you have in common with Jesus is similar hairstyles

---

Just because someone rejects a racist, anti-Christ worldview, doesn't make them a leftist, no matter how much you blather on and on about that. That you embrace fascism and oppression is evidence enough that you really have no clue as to the terms you throw around.

It is humorous that someone who advocates brutal oppression of marginalized people and that we should have allied with Hitler comments on any persons faith in Christ.

Okay, off for the night. To the racial "advocates", please do keep posting. There's nothing more effective in combating these vile worldviews than having y'all expose your own worldview for what it is. What we do know is that it looks nothing like Christ crucified. I may have errors in my theology (don't we all, amirite?) but I also know any error is rooted in love, not fear and hatred. Peace.

AstroAg17 said:

---

What? Don't be so defensive. Don't you want a similar setup to what the Muslims have? How does your goal differ from what currently exists in the Middle East?

---

I think I just posted what the set up I want looks similar to. In the very post you're replying to, actually.

Holy Roman Empire of the late Reformation period is something I would find appealing, or something similar.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I don't know what that looked like. Googling that phrase wasn't immediately helpful. Any resources you can point me toward?

---

Hmm, most of what I know is from theology classes from a ultra-conservative seminary, so that probably won't be helpful from a resources standpoint. I can try to describe it. I'll write the basics in a longer post.

AstroAg17 said:

---

That'd be nice, thanks.

---

Download EU4 and play, easiest way

Stupid computers. I had a much longer post completed when my browser errored out.

Anyway, the long and short of it was that the Empire in that period, following the Peace of Augsburg, became a unified Christian Empire in which the local rulers would choose the particular denomination for their domains (Catholic or Protestant). Anybody not willing to convert to that rulers denomination was granted a grace period in which to immigrate to another that was more sympathetic to their views.

The Constitutional Monarch was not a hereditary position, but ostensibly a merit-based one, where men were elevated to the throne by the seven Prince-Electors who each ruled an electorate. Elector John and Elector Frederick III were famous men in this role. John shielded Martin Luther and Frederick helped produce the Heidelberg Catechism.

The Empire was explicitly Christian and officially Catholic. It was usually led by a strongly religious man, such as the devout Catholic, Charles V. There was a fairly unified legal code of morality based on Christian values, for which there were civil punishments and penalties. Despite the differences between the denominations all rulers were expected to unify under a common banner when the empire faced a foreign threat.

Essentially, it was similar to the early United States, but explicitly Christian. Its biggest problem was that in those days, the differences between denominations were much more heated. I'd like to see something similar arise in the explicitly Christian areas of the US and Europe once the current governments inevitably fail.

AstroAg17 said:

---

How do y'all feel about the Muslims? The type of society you want is kind of similar to what they have in the Middle East, no?

---

No, that's not correct at all.

AstroAg17 said:

---

How do y'all feel about the Muslims? The type of society you want is kind of similar to what they have in the Middle East, no?

---

Despite have origins from the same areas of the world, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all very different religions. Why do you think they have been in a 3 way conflict for thousands of years?

Orko said:

---

Stupid computers. I had a much longer post completed when my browser errored out.

Anyway, the long and short of it was that the Empire in that period, following the Peace of Augsburg, became a unified Christian Empire in which the local rulers would choose the particular denomination for their domains (Catholic or Protestant). Anybody not willing to convert to that rulers denomination was granted a grace period in which to immigrate to another that was more sympathetic to their views.

The Constitutional Monarch was not a hereditary position, but ostensibly a merit-based one, where men were elevated to the throne by the seven Prince-Electors who each ruled an electorate. Elector John and Elector Frederick III were famous men in this role. John shielded Martin Luther and Frederick helped produce the Heidelberg Catechism.

The Empire was explicitly Christian and officially Catholic. It was usually led by a strongly religious man, such as the devout Catholic, Charles V. There was a fairly unified legal code of morality based on Christian values, for which there were civil punishments and penalties. Despite the differences between the denominations all rulers were expected to unify under a common banner when the empire faced a foreign threat.

Essentially, it was similar to the early United States, but explicitly Christian. Its biggest problem was that in those days, the differences between denominations were much more heated. I'd like to see something similar arise in the explicitly Christian areas of the US and Europe once the current governments inevitably fail.

---

You left out the part where the Thirty Years War happened and the Peace of Augsburg was an overall failure

Quote:

---

I have no dog in this hunt, but I personally have been told by three different confessors in my life (two priests and a monk) and my godfather (a layman) under no uncertain terms that a husband is not obligated to share his sins with his wife.

---

To continue on the hijack, I find this to be an interesting interpretation of "two shall become one flesh"...or even further, what possibly would be the benefit of withholding from your spouse when the bible speaks so highly of confession.

Quote:

---

Forgive me for being harsh, but I think there are plenty of things to disagree or discuss here without dredging up another's sin. If his sin or how he handled it is so objectionable to you, I think the kinder approach would simply be to avoid him rather than publicly repudiate him for something which you have no firsthand knowledge and even less authority to judge - and wasn't even part of the subject at hand.

---

You are right. I shouldn't do that. I will certainly listen to your advice re: simply avoiding him. Thank you for the accountability.

craigernaught said:

---

You should call out evil as evil and stupid as stupid, but probably should avoid the back and forth.

---

Yes, because Pacifist is certainly a good arbiter of what is good and evil.

Stopping rape through physical confrontation... EVIL!!! Homosexual marriage... GOOD!!!

No doubt, but it did last for a while and was destroyed by Napoleon, so... you know. In total, the Holy Roman Empire survived over a thousand years and for about 300 years after the Reformation. It was destroyed by external conquest. The time from Reformation to destruction of the Holy Roman Empire is longer than the founding of the United States to present day by about 50 years.

If intentionally done, it would do just fine. Its a form of Christian Constitutional Monarchy that would work well in a post-fall America areas where Christianity is strong, as many of the functions are similar to America at its founding. Electors, non-hereditary executive accession, socially conservative, state religions (little 's' state), moral laws carried out by the civic authorities, and explicitly Christian.

Orko said:

---

No doubt, but it did last for a while and was destroyed by Napoleon, so... you know. In total, the Holy Roman Empire survived over a thousand years and for about 300 years after the Reformation. It was destroyed by external conquest. The time from Reformation to destruction of the Holy Roman Empire is longer than the founding of the United States to present day by about 50 years.

If intentionally done, it would do just fine. Its a form of Christian Constitutional Monarchy that would work well in a post-fall America areas where Christianity is strong, as many of the functions are similar to America at its founding. Electors, non-hereditary executive accession, socially conservative, state religions (little 's' state), moral laws carried out by the civic authorities, and explicitly Christian.

---

Executive accession was hereditary. Just because it wasn't nominally so doesn't mean that it wasn't in practice. From 1200s to 1437 the accession was a bit tricky and pinged back and forth between several princes, but 900-1200 (Otto and Salian dynasties) and 1400 to the end of the empire (Habsburgs and Lorraine-Habsburgs) is a pretty significant portion of history for continued dynastic control.

I think you're overly idealizing the history of the HRE. Just because anyone can become emperor in EU4 doesn't mean that's how history turned out.

Quote:

---

Shrug. There is a reason the church has the practice of a spiritual father / confessor and that spiritual father / confessor is not your spouse. I have never been advised to lie or actively hide things. But, to use a clumsy metaphor, telling someone you broke your leg doesn't necessarily help the leg to heal.

I'm just spitballing, but a priest may say - yes, I'm glad you have confessed but I will not allow you to approach the chalice until you tell your wife. He may also say - this isn't symptomatic of a bigger problem and would do irreparable harm to your relationship to tell her. I don't know - I'm not a priest. Thank God, because having that responsibility is terrifying.

---

I understand, and I didn't mean to make you be accountable for the teachings of your church. I think the leg metaphor is a little lacking...as the purpose of confessing isn't only a utilitarian one.

I do think the "this isn't symptomatic of a bigger problem and would do irreparable harm to your relationship to tell her" is very strange advice for a spouse. I do agree with the concept that you shouldn't hurt someone else to make yourself feel better and some things dictate that your penance be that you take something to the grave...but the one flesh thing to make seems to exclude spouses from this.

Again, it's not for you to defend anything, just my thoughts.

canadiaggie said:

---

Orko said:

---

No doubt, but it did last for a while and was destroyed by Napoleon, so... you know. In total, the Holy Roman Empire survived over a thousand years and for about 300 years after the Reformation. It was destroyed by external conquest. The time from Reformation to destruction of the Holy Roman Empire is longer than the founding of the United States to present day by about 50 years.

If intentionally done, it would do just fine. Its a form of Christian Constitutional Monarchy that would work well in a post-fall America areas where Christianity is strong, as many of the functions are similar to America at its founding. Electors, non-hereditary executive accession, socially conservative, state religions (little 's' state), moral laws carried out by the civic authorities, and explicitly Christian.

---

Executive accession was hereditary. Just because it wasn't nominally so doesn't mean that it wasn't in practice. From 1200s to 1437 the accession was a bit tricky and pinged back and forth between several princes, but 900-1200 (Otto and Salian dynasties) and 1400 to the end of the empire (Habsburgs and Lorraine-Habsburgs) is a pretty significant portion of history for continued dynastic control.

I think you're overly idealizing the history of the HRE. Just because anyone can become emperor in EU4 doesn't mean that's how history turned out.

---

WTH is EU4? Fightin mentioned that as well, but I'm not familiar.

With regard to the rest of your post, my reply is ehh, kind of. I think it is more you that is oversimplifying the succession. While the emperors were all related, that could be said of the Roman Emperors from Augustus to Commodos as well (except for Glaba). It is pretty much a given that monarchs are going to be related to each other. The real question is how is the next chosen and is it always a direct descendant, particularly the oldest living direct descendant. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, it is all over the place. The reason for that is that it is a mix of which relative's accession is politically feasible and makes sense from a merit standpoint.

This link kind of shows what I'm talking about, though it is a little hard to parse without some thought.

Family Tree of the German Monarchs

I think Slayer has corenered the "satanic-gender-neutral" clothing market, so this will be a failed enterprise for sure

Orko said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

Orko said:

---

No doubt, but it did last for a while and was destroyed by Napoleon, so... you know. In total, the Holy Roman Empire survived over a thousand years and for about 300 years after the Reformation. It was destroyed by external conquest. The time from Reformation to destruction of the Holy Roman Empire is longer than the founding of the United States to present day by about 50 years.

If intentionally done, it would do just fine. Its a form of Christian Constitutional Monarchy that would work well in a post-fall America areas where Christianity is strong, as many of the functions are similar to America at its founding. Electors, non-hereditary executive accession, socially conservative, state religions (little 's' state), moral laws carried out by the civic authorities, and explicitly Christian.

---

Executive accession was hereditary. Just because it wasn't nominally so doesn't mean that it wasn't in practice. From 1200s to 1437 the accession was a bit tricky and pinged back and forth between several princes, but 900-1200 (Otto and Salian dynasties) and 1400 to the end of the empire (Habsburgs and Lorraine-Habsburgs) is a pretty significant portion of history for continued dynastic control.

I think you're overly idealizing the history of the HRE. Just because anyone can become emperor in EU4 doesn't mean that's how history turned out.

---

WTH is EU4? Fightin mentioned that as well, but I'm not familiar.

With regard to the rest of your post, my reply is ehh, kind of. I think it is more you that is oversimplifying the succession. While the emperors were all related, that could be said of the Roman Emperors from Augustus to Commodos as well (except for Glaba). It is pretty much a given that monarchs are going to be related to each other. The real question is how is the next chosen and is it always a direct descendant, particularly the oldest living direct descendant. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, it is all over the place. The reason for that is that it is a mix of which relative's accession is politically feasible and makes sense from a merit standpoint.

This link kind of shows what I'm talking about, though it is a little hard to parse without some thought.

Family Tree of the German Monarchs

---

I get your point, but that also doesn't seem to vibe with the merit based monarchy that I think you mentioned earlier. If it ends up being dynastic in the end, you end up with a state that takes on the image of its ruler, who may not be as Christian as you wish. The alternative is a constitutional monarchy with a branch of government checking the monarch in case he's not Christian enough, but then do you want it to be a clerical branch or a democratically elected branch? Either way, they will be vying for power with the monarch.

Also, minor quibble - the Julio-Claudian dynasty extends from Julius to Nero and ends there, and even then it involved lots of adoption, which can incorporate merit into the system. After Nero you had the Flavians (dynastic, ended in assassination) and then the Nerva-Antonines (adoptive, did well until Marcus Aurelius tried to put his son dynastically on the throne and Commodus ended up being a disaster).

Quote:

---

Also, minor quibble - the Julio-Claudian dynasty extends from Julius to Nero and ends there, and even then it involved lots of adoption, which can incorporate merit into the system. After Nero you had the Flavians (dynastic, ended in assassination) and then the Nerva-Antonines (adoptive, did well until Marcus Aurelius tried to put his son dynastically on the throne and Commodus ended up being a disaster).

---

Yep. That was the point I was trying to get across... "dynasty" doesn't necessarily mean traditional hereditary succession from dead monarch to his/her eldest direct descendant. It can mean picking the "best" available relative or even adopting in the most able. Augustus was a product of it with his adoption by Ceaser, though he was his nephew, I believe. Augustus then did something similar with Agrippa (world's greatest bestie) by marrying his daughter/niece to him, not that Agrippa succeeded him, but that may have been the plan, given that the sickly Augustus was always expecting to die early. Augustus had the right intentions, but the Julio-Claudians were some screwed up people. Anyway, regarding your first paragraph.

Quote:

---

I get your point, but that also doesn't seem to vibe with the merit based monarchy that I think you mentioned earlier. If it ends up being dynastic in the end, you end up with a state that takes on the image of its ruler, who may not be as Christian as you wish. The alternative is a constitutional monarchy with a branch of government checking the monarch in case he's not Christian enough, but then do you want it to be a clerical branch or a democratically elected branch? Either way, they will be vying for power with the monarch.

---

I think you would agree that the Holy Roman Emperor was not an absolute monarch. I think you would agree that the Holy Roman Empire was explicitly Christian for over a thousand years, despite the varying levels of piety of its rulers.

I would actually consider them to be something of a Constitutional Monarchy. I'm fine with all the Emperors in my hypothetical nation coming from a single family, provided they married in, or adopted, worthy people over time. That would naturally happen, though. I would imagine them, like the Holy Roman Empire, being held in check by the electors, who in turn are held in check by the people they rule over. Its similar to the question of, "Why didn't the emperor just violently quash the reformers?" Well, the answer is that several electors thought the reformation was a good thing and the emperor himself, though fervently Roman Catholic, didn't want to risk popular unrest, internal war, and economic disruption. Nobody is saying it would last forever, as all things fall short of a divine, direct rule by Jesus Christ, but a thousand years is not too shabby. Kind of like the Byzantine Empire as well in terms of longevity.

Christianity would be constitutionally mandated and all citizens would subscribe to an overarching constitutional catechism which leaves room for several conservative denominations, but is strict on moral law. Something like a Heidelberg Catechism, without any of the Protestant-specific proclamations, but with an added list of things that God disapproves of, such as sexual immorality. It isn't that complicated to envision how it would work, since various sovereignties have done similar things of one sort or another throughout history.

However, being that it is Christian, it would look nothing like a Muslim Theocracy. The differences are laughably obvious to someone who is religious and apparently undetectable to someone who isn't.