Duvduv

Does ANYONE know what this guy is ever talking about????

Toto

No, and everyone else has learned that asking Chili will not provide an answer.

Sheshbazzar

The 'Old' Testament does not apply to Christians ......except when they want to run a raid on some single verse of it to justify some prejudice, or to excuse some atrocity they have done or supported. Then the 'Old' Testament applies to 'christians', or anyone they wish to condemn or to demonize.
Nothing new under the sun.

Chili

Maybe not but I will voluteer, and not as preacher either.

I did Shakespeare and could already tell by the cast of charcters that a tragedy was coming, kind of like the camelhair coat of JohnB in Mark.

And no details are needed but notice that Lady Macbeth hath no name but Lady Macbeth to show that she was at the forefront to-make-the-man = the camelhair coat leading Macbeth who wanted to be 'king hereafter' (I.iii.50).

Compare this with Coriolanus where Volumnia echoed the volume of infinitity, like Elizabeth, and Valeria was the valor of Magalene and Virgilia the perpetual Virgin needed, Virgilia was released from Rome where she 'did her work in good faith' (I.iii.50).

Oh, and then Virgilia returned to Rome to once again become the life of Rome (V.v.1). Opposite this Macbeth was left with; "We have scorched the snake, not killed it./ She'll close and be herself, whilst our poor malice/ Remains in danger of her former tooth (III.ii.13-15).

Easy to see that Macbeth became a saved-sinner without Mary who the C of E denied as co-redemptorist, which now means that he becomes a trigger-happy warrior who converted monasteries into gunships-without-end now for wide-eyed fishes to enjoy in admiration.

Jaybees

Henry was definitely concerned about hot having a legitimate son, but he was also well aware that an annulment was not only possible but was easily obtained--given the proper enducements. And, recall, that Henry was regarded as being a loyal son of the Church, honored with the title "Defender of the Faith." Charles V may not have wanted his aunt back, but he was having problems of his own on the mainland, and though he was in a position to manipulate the pope, he undoubtedly valued Henry as an ally against France.

Of course, there are mixed motives here, but I hold out for money being the chief reason for Henry taking advantage of the growing reform atmosphere in his country and using it to raid the extremely rich monasteries.

Duvduv

In any event, like is described in the Byzantine Empire, England was faced with "Dissenters" from the official church who ALTHOUGH accepted the general anti-vaticanist orientation of the new emerging Church of England, went in their own direction:Plymouth Brethren, English Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, etc. etc.

So we see what happens when a regime religion is established with its won practices and texts, mixing and matching earlier practices with new ones.
Just as the Byzantine official church moved from paganism to monotheistic-friendly "Christianity."

Very similar scenario if you ask me. Constantine, Henry and Elizabeth, Athanasius, Thomas Cranmer, Theodosius, Thomas Cromwell, Cecil, etc.
I know Toto doesn't approve of this heretical description that I refer to as the Byzantine Reformation. So be it.

Toto

Is there any point in religious history that does not display a comparable amount of dissent? For that matter, look at any political movement.

Whenever the government tries to use religion as part of its nation building, you are going to find dissenters. The American First Amendment was crafted in part to avoid the corruption of belief that comes along with state religions.

Duvduv

Yes, all I am looking at are "comparative regime religions," and I think the comparison of the two cases is rather interesting and useful.

Chili

Yes, except that only the Byzantine Empire was created by religion on the way up and all the rest are tearing pieces away from it, each of them with whatever they could get and run away with it as far as they can get . . . and there eventually will die in it, and most likely because of it.

Lets first be clear that the Byzanthine Church was not Christian but Catholic, still pagan, but philosophical which his something the C of E is totally and absolutely clueless about and insist forever more that She was Christian.

It simply is the height of ignorance that never can be matched, as not only did they write their own bible, prayer book and all, but also invented Brittish Analytic Philosophy because Philosophy from the Continent was not suitable for them, and so now to this day is called opposite by them, while it has nothing to do with the Continent because philosophy is not about Geography.

Then they threw out Port Royal Logic as that was not analytic enough for them, to say that they had nothing to induce in the Form of Wisdom and argued high and low that Shakespeare must have been from Oxford instead of Stradford because even today they still do not understand a word he wrote.

Oh, and then what did I see the other day? They bury politicians in their Churches, and will pack a gun just in case someone does not like them so that they can shoot first. Paranoia anyone?

To me, this sounds like England is the mother of all dissenters.

Chili

To be hyperviligant about this must I add that this really has nothing to do with England, but with language itself, as if the words that we consume is what is what makes the man.

One must sooner or later wonder why Buddha is good for Buddhist and JC for us, and then add that they have heaven on earth and only protestants and Muslims must die first to get there . . . and here we still insist that we are rigth,and have all kinds of Universities on it even and fight wars over it without end.