/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I would make the assumption that the early church and following generations were probably the most devout. But for the most part I agree.

I wonder about this too. Certainly, social pressures forced many to atleast outwardly look like they live a Christian lifestyle, but that does not mean much in their heart.

I now doubt there ever really was a "christian" age. Once christianity becomes easy, the followers lose their honest faith, and simply live worldly lives in a vaguely christian manner, which is what I pray to avoid, while at the same time wanting to avoid becoming overly legalistic, though I don't really see puritanical as an insult.

I don't believe a true era of Christian Faith has ever existed. Kierkgaard is good person to read to examine this thought.

Christian Faith is either deluded with lukewarmness or fiercely attacked from political powers, depending on the era.

The most zealous groups are:

-experiencing a revival (American great awakenings)

-persecuted for their Christian faith (today's Chinese, early anabaptists, English nonconformists)

Nominalism is a result of the culture being christianized. That's not a negative situation, people poorly representing your faith is favorable to people persecuting you for your faith.

>>756981

What is nominalism?

>>756981

>people poorly representing your faith is favorable to people persecuting you for your faith.

I never thought about it like that. I guess being surrounded by jew worshippers is better than being fed to lions. I’d still rather everyone be redpilled.

>>756984

Nominal means "existing in name only"

People who call themselves Christian and haven't ever opened the book

Apparently nominalism also holds a philosophical definition that I did not intend

>>756990

What's its philosophical definition?

>>757006

this. Although it was an imperfect era, and humans are sinners as always, that was the period where society at least, was focused around Christ.

>>757025

Weeb tier larp history

There have always been unbelievers in society. However, the difference between now and, for example, 12thC Europe, is that the over all cultural climate has switched from being pro-Christ, in spite of whatever sins and imperfections plagued society, to being anti-Christ, in accordance with the sins and imperfections of society.

The fact that your medieval person went to Mass every day and was surrounded by a culture that reached upwards obviously did not guarantee them personal holiness – free will is always a factor – but it was likely (and was as we can attest via the numerous biographies and histories written in the Middle Ages) that, relative to an average person today, they attained a level of faithfulness and grace inaccessible in today's world by ordinary means.

That being said, the challenges of the modern world provide an opportunity for the faithful to truly test themselves in a way someone living in a theocracy did not have access to. The average believer today is living in a desolate wasteland when compared to a medieval person; whatever little faith they can muster means all the more.

>>757049

10/10 post all over.

God bless you

>>757049

I should just correct my wording with regard to attaining faith or grace – obviously these are gifts from God and not willed into being by human effort. People in the Middle Ages had fewer distractions from God, fewer impediments in day-to-day life, and therefore were afforded fewer opportunities to sin and turn away from God's love.

As for when things went south, it is difficult to pinpoint an exact date, as if often the case with slow changes in society. Among others, the French Revolution is a key point for it is when it became explicit that human social organisation was to be for, of and by humanity, as opposed to divinity.

>>757051

Thanks lad.

Of course there throughout all of history - even in modern times you will find many communities of genuine and sincere Christians (just as you will find unbelivers and sinners) even if no country could accurately be held to be Christian.

The biggest changes though and what I guess you have in mind are times when Christianity was the dominant way people understood the world where death was near and everything outside of Christianity was a mystery. These kinds of society on a large scale were always going to be jeopardised by the development of materialist science/natural philosophy.

For instance when practices like germ theory were developed it was discovered that the use of alcohol to sterilise (or even just having doctors wash their hands) proved to be a better control for infection and survival than prayer, accordingly the perceived role of God in every day life retreated a little. Things like this developed steadily in a vast array of other areas be it evolution, the understanding of mental illness, the understanding of weather/climate, orbit of the planets, volcanoes ect. Like a death by a thousand cuts these little changes built up over time and the every day the role played by God and Satan became more abstract and indirect which in turn lead to the decline of a Christian centric understanding of reality.

In addition to this you also had the fact that as natural philosophy grew more specialised and advanced the clergy lost their ability to be a dominant source of theological and natural understanding which also diminished peoples reverence and respect for Christianity in a way that had not been seen since the days of Origen. Members of the clergy were a huge part of scientific discovery and knowledge right up until the 20th century.

>>757033

Wut

Society WAS centered around christianity. Take a look on "real crusades history" on youtube. He's excellent and shows a little bit about christian society in the middle ages, not just the crusades btw.

>>757137

If society was centered around Christianity, why does the church hoard wealth and money, direct people to war, profit from trade routes and fight each other instead of moslim?

>>757302

I was talking about society in general, the common people. The church wasn't seeking wealth, in fact they built several hospitals for the poor and the needy, and there are a lot of instances like this. Christian division was a real problem, but everyone knew that war between christian princes was bad. I think you must be thinking about the crusades, but even though they weren't perfect and certainly a lot of people sinned, they were necessary for the survival of christendom.

>>757309

>I was talking about society in general, the common people.

The common people just flows with the wind, if the church tells them to go crusade, they will, even if it ends up disastrous (the two children crusades)

>The church wasn't seeking wealth, in fact they built several hospitals for the poor and the needy, and there are a lot of instances like this.

So does the bankers and the lords. In fact, hospitals were coined by the Knight Hospitallers, who created hospitals to cure for warriors and knights, then expand to civilians. It does not excuse the clergy AND the knights to seek wealth.

>Christian division was a real problem, but everyone knew that war between christian princes was bad.

Yet no one is willing to stop them, not even the Pope. In fact the crusades failed due to infighting.

>think you must be thinking about the crusades, but even though they weren't perfect and certainly a lot of people sinned, they were necessary for the survival of christendom.

Cannot believe so, whether Jerusalem was taken or not (it was taken), Christendom in Europe still stands, hell, Constantinople was taken, yet Christianity still lingers on (shamefully).

I would say Christianity would survive with the african and chinese, not european.

>>757313

Hospitals were created in Byzantium in the 4th century by the church.

>>757316

I just recheck and it seems based greek has the first hospital (as the temple) as usual.

>>757302

We were never promised good leaders by Christ, quite the contrary.