Best way to wank the Church of the East (Nestorians)?

Honestly, I dont want to sounds like a jerk, but those are... byzantine details. Jesus never cared about details much, as long you followed his teaching of love and good heartedness.

So yes, in a way, its silly. god dont care if you think he is one or many, I bet, at the end.

The problem, which I hope you understand, is that they didn't see them as "details". They saw them as different-to-the-point-you're-not-really-following-the-same-guy things.

And in a way its true. They are following different guys, each with their own finite understanding of Jesus, and things got divergent very easily.

If one really believes that one's salvation depends on the way one crosses one's self, then those who do it differently are at best foolishly misguided and at worst rejecting Christ.

As a naturally narrow minded person, I can sympathize with that attitude - I'm not saying its right, but its understandable.

The fact that even with what was called canon and broadly accepted across sects you can find a passage to support most arguments makes it incredibly difficult to resolve, as well. How do you tell which passage is right? How do you tell what reading of the passage is right?

When these things are considered to be part of the Way, things get...like OTL.
 

Kosta

Banned
Honestly, I dont want to sounds like a jerk, but those are... byzantine details. Jesus never cared about details much, as long you followed his teaching of love and good heartedness.

So yes, in a way, its silly. god dont care if you think he is one or many, I bet, at the end.

You don't sound like a jerk, you are a jerk. Okay, we get it, you're an atheist, you don't like religion. That doesn't give you a right to be a prick and give your two-cents.

Speaking as an agnostic student of Byzantine history and its theological disputes:

To them, whether Jesus was GodandMan or Man or God is over something both fundamentally important and about things that make a big difference in His nature.

To pick an example of something that looks ridiculously abstract, but was treated as extremely serious business because it is extremely serious business if you believe in that stuff at all.

Or take crossing yourself. Doing it improperly is not merely using the wrong fork at the table, its the difference between Godly and Ungodly.

The question is not whether or not they were hard headed. To look at it like that is to miss why it was so important that they be right on these issues.

Telling them (on either side) that it was a dispute over incredibly minor issues would be like explaining to a scientist that the disputes over Intelligent Design or Young Earth is "over incredibly minor issues".

To pick something that might give a sense of the weight of these things, though obviously only partially so - the fate of our immortal souls is not dependent on whether Terra is billions of years old or thousands of yeas old.

You missed the point completely and could not have possibly chosen any less-important issues save for maybe the colour of the clergy's vestments. And both Churches believe in evolution and that the world is four-billion years old; I don't know where that came from. How to make the sign of the cross isn't anything either side cares about. I'm talking about
*Original Sin- they believe that we're at fault for Adam and Eve's problems and humanity is naturally sinful, we believe that it's not our fault and we just inherited spiritual sickness and a fallen world.
*The Divinity or Humanity of Mary- they believe that Mary was born without sin, we believe that she was a regular person like you and I.
*Purgatory: They believe that there is a state that is either Heaven nor Hell that a soul goes to after death. We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and ask why would there be another trial after death preventing us from going to Heaven.
*They're also a lot more legalistic; whether you took confession twenty years ago and then you died or whether you took confession the day before you died matters.

So do you both want to argue with me about the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity? I've got a few more major differences, I can do this all day if you both want. I didn't even touch on the topic of Rome's-primacy; I could write you a short essay on that topic.
 
You missed the point completely and could not have possibly chosen any less-important issues save for maybe the colour of the clergy's vestments. And both Churches believe in evolution and that the world is four-billion years old; I don't know where that came from.

Last time I checked, those were important issues (specifically, between Chalcedon/nonChalcedon) that are an example of "petty" details that were treated as anything but because to those who believe in such things they are anything but.

On Creationism: An example of something that secular-minded people would treat as a big deal, not as an example of one faith vs. another. Could I have worded that better? Yes. Could you have tried harder to see what I was saying? Yes.

How to make the sign of the cross isn't anything either side cares about.
It is one of the Old Believer issues, if I'm not mistaken.

Not East vs. West, but again, one of those things that made a Great Deal of Difference - which was what I was trying to point out to The Ubbergeek.

So do you both want to argue with me about the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity? I've got a few more major differences, I can do this all day if you both want. I didn't even touch on the topic of Rome's-primacy; I could write you a short essay on that topic.
I'd rather have you recognize what I was trying to say here (that the "petty" differences such as the issues named are not petty to those who differ on them) rather than acting rude and all-but-insulting.

Other than that, I'm interested in the differences as someone who finds the issues...well, interesting.

I'm not trying to argue East vs. West was separated by how one makes the sign of the cross or by "creationism vs. evolution". I hope that's clear.
 
Last edited:
...
By 2011, most of Central Asia is Nestorian: Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kirghizes, Tajiks, part of the Uzbeks (the *Quristanis) and the northern peoples of Afghanistan (the non-Pashtuns) are quite observant church-goers, little or hardly secularized.

There's one issue with this. Central Asia was already Islamicized to a great degree by the time the Turkish empires formed. And it's clear that quite a good deal of the original, Iranian-speaking population survived and simply took up Turkish language (for example, the Uzbek or Turkmen look essentially middle eastern, while the Kirghiz look East Asian).

If the region is invaded by Christian Turks, what I think you'd see is both groups staying much more separate, in terms of genes, and maybe even language. A Muslim, caucasian-looking majority and an Asian-looking Christian ruling class.
 
This is a big misconception for people who couldn't care less about religion: Eastern and Western Christianity have very different philosophies and this whole thing about "Blah! They're the same thing, they have no reason to not reunite!" is completely wrong.

As it happens, I care a lot about religion, being a devout Christian myself. The differences between Eastern and Western Christianity are real but not very big, imho.
 
As it happens, I care a lot about religion, being a devout Christian myself. The differences between Eastern and Western Christianity are real but not very big, imho.

Eh, speaking as a fellow Christian, I do feel they do have very philosophical takes on it. The Eastern Orthodox church seems to put a lot more emphasis on the Mysteries of Faith, and of course the Catholic church has the whole Marian business going on, and all it entails. They do take very different views on the world.
 
Both sides believe in original sin. Forgive me, but I don't think it matters a whole lot *why* we're screwed up. Also, the Western Christian position on this is less monolithic than . . . ah, screw it. Believe the differences are as big as you want. This is ultimately subjective anyway.

You don't sound like a jerk, you are a jerk. Okay, we get it, you're an atheist, you don't like religion. That doesn't give you a right to be a prick and give your two-cents.



You missed the point completely and could not have possibly chosen any less-important issues save for maybe the colour of the clergy's vestments. And both Churches believe in evolution and that the world is four-billion years old; I don't know where that came from. How to make the sign of the cross isn't anything either side cares about. I'm talking about
*Original Sin- they believe that we're at fault for Adam and Eve's problems and humanity is naturally sinful, we believe that it's not our fault and we just inherited spiritual sickness and a fallen world.
*The Divinity or Humanity of Mary- they believe that Mary was born without sin, we believe that she was a regular person like you and I.
*Purgatory: They believe that there is a state that is either Heaven nor Hell that a soul goes to after death. We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and ask why would there be another trial after death preventing us from going to Heaven.
*They're also a lot more legalistic; whether you took confession twenty years ago and then you died or whether you took confession the day before you died matters.

So do you both want to argue with me about the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity? I've got a few more major differences, I can do this all day if you both want. I didn't even touch on the topic of Rome's-primacy; I could write you a short essay on that topic.
 
I think for the sake of this dicussion, we should avoid talking about the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity and talk about what would have to happen to wank the Assyrian Church. The only reason I brought up doctinal diffrences is because I think it would help the Nestorians ingratiate themselves with Persian authorities if they had something that the Persians would see as a tangible difference between themselves and the Christians in the Roman Empire. You know, something that would let them say, "Oh, you can trust us, we're not like them. In fact, we want nothing to do with them, they're HERETICS!"

This is why I also brought up possible Roman persecutions should the Byzantines get into Mesopotamia. I wanted to find something that would distance the Nestorians from Christians under Rome (or Constantinople) and make it easier for the Persians to favor and eventually adopt Nestorianism as their state religion. As I've already said, I think a genuine doctrinal difference would help, would anyone care to dispute me ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT?!
 
I would, for one reason. Would the Persians consider that to be a significant enough difference to treat them differently?

"Yeah, but you're still ______." would be easy to say from the Zoroastrian perspective for the same reason its possible from the Christian perspective to lump Sunni and Shia together.
 
I would, for one reason. Would the Persians consider that to be a significant enough difference to treat them differently?

"Yeah, but you're still ______." would be easy to say from the Zoroastrian perspective for the same reason its possible from the Christian perspective to lump Sunni and Shia together.

Ah, productive discussion at last. Well, perhaps not in and of itself, but if the Nestorians were intrumental in pushing the Byzantines out of Mesopotamia, and if their theology started taking a different track afterwards, then I think it would do. I think the Persians would be very happy to hear fiery sermons denouncing the Greek heretics for their brutal assaults on the faithful and their novel innovations like their use of pagan hellene philosophy, while the faithful speak in terms like qnome and parsopa, in the language Christ himself would have spoken, Aramaic! Why, those...See, it really is easy if you put a little thought into it.

I guess a tangible difference isn't so important for the Persians as the firm knowledge that the Assyrians hate the Christians under Rome, but again I think a doctrinal difference would help there too. Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that Zorostrianism really was moribund in the final days of the Sassanid empire, if it wasn't, I may need to think of a new route. I guess I could stick with Mongol chieftains listening to their wives a bit more...
 
Ah, productive discussion at last. Well, perhaps not in and of itself, but if the Nestorians were intrumental in pushing the Byzantines out of Mesopotamia, and if their theology started taking a different track afterwards, then I think it would do. I think the Persians would be very happy to hear fiery sermons denouncing the Greek heretics for their brutal assaults on the faithful and their novel innovations like their use of pagan hellene philosophy, while the faithful speak in terms like qnome and parsopa, in the language Christ himself would have spoken, Aramaic! Why, those...See, it really is easy if you put a little thought into it.

Oh aye. You asked if anyone would dispute you, however. Not for an unshakable argument that could not be countered. :p

I think you're on to something, though. I just love being asked to disagree. :D

I guess a tangible difference isn't so important for the Persians as the firm knowledge that the Assyrians hate the Christians under Rome, but again I think a doctrinal difference would help there too. Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that Zorostrianism really was moribund in the final days of the Sassanid empire, if it wasn't, I may need to think of a new route. I guess I could stick with Mongol chieftains listening to their wives a bit more...

The two going together might be better than either alone, though. If they hate the Romans and are clearly different than the Romans in some obvious part of the faith (obvious from the Persian point of view), that would make it really difficult to see them as Roman fifth columnists in waiting.

I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism being moribund or not to address that part, however. I'd say Mongols going with what their wives believe is more likely to work.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You don't sound like a jerk, you are a jerk. Okay, we get it, you're an atheist, you don't like religion. That doesn't give you a right to be a prick and give your two-cents.



You missed the point completely and could not have possibly chosen any less-important issues save for maybe the colour of the clergy's vestments. And both Churches believe in evolution and that the world is four-billion years old; I don't know where that came from. How to make the sign of the cross isn't anything either side cares about. I'm talking about
*Original Sin- they believe that we're at fault for Adam and Eve's problems and humanity is naturally sinful, we believe that it's not our fault and we just inherited spiritual sickness and a fallen world.
*The Divinity or Humanity of Mary- they believe that Mary was born without sin, we believe that she was a regular person like you and I.
*Purgatory: They believe that there is a state that is either Heaven nor Hell that a soul goes to after death. We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and ask why would there be another trial after death preventing us from going to Heaven.
*They're also a lot more legalistic; whether you took confession twenty years ago and then you died or whether you took confession the day before you died matters.

So do you both want to argue with me about the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity? I've got a few more major differences, I can do this all day if you both want. I didn't even touch on the topic of Rome's-primacy; I could write you a short essay on that topic.

And being a follower of a specific religion doesn't give you a pass to be a tool.

Cease & Desist.

Official warning.

CalBear in Mod Mod
 
I think more important than specific Nestorian disagreements with the Orthodox and more important even than specific Orthodox disagreements with the Nestorians are Orthodox persecution of the Nestorians where possible and especially Orthodox attempts to impose a different hierarchy in areas they control.
 
There's one issue with this. Central Asia was already Islamicized to a great degree by the time the Turkish empires formed. And it's clear that quite a good deal of the original, Iranian-speaking population survived and simply took up Turkish language (for example, the Uzbek or Turkmen look essentially middle eastern, while the Kirghiz look East Asian).

If the region is invaded by Christian Turks, what I think you'd see is both groups staying much more separate, in terms of genes, and maybe even language. A Muslim, caucasian-looking majority and an Asian-looking Christian ruling class.

It was only after the Talas battle (751) that Islam penetrated Central Asia, and only the Samanid, Qarakhanid and Ghaznavid states between the late 9th and the 10th century truly Islamicized it. Thgere's still time for significant a change. Especially if from the half of the 12th century Islamic power is more or less permanently removed from the eastern bank of the Amu Darya (the Muslim Oghuz here veer westwards, as per OTL, and are unable to do anything to restore Muslim power beyond Khurasan). More complex is the issue of Uzbeks, that is their religious allegiance, still likely Muslim, allowing an Islamic military resurgence in the 16th century, still too little and too late.
 
There was a Nestorian theologian named Isaac of Nineveh who was a believer in the Restorationist scheme of Univeralism. That could be a big theological difference if it becomes the mainstream Nestorian view.

(Restorianism holds that through the sacrifice of Christ, every created being--including Satan, ultimately--will be reconciled to God. Hell is temporary. It's probably one of the most Biblically-sound varieties of Universalism out there--it's not mushy "God loves everyone" but heavily tied in with the notion of unlimited atonement for sin.)
 
Top