Let's talk - Religion

[Edward64]

I've read a couple books that have opened my eyes to a question I've had for a while. So thought it would be good to create a "Let's talk" thread.

I hope this thread doesn't devolve into religion (pick one) bashing. Also, if you are agnostic or atheist and can't participate without being condescending, feel free to ignore this thread.

I want this thread to be normal folks, talking about their beliefs - what and why they believe, asking questions of people of differing beliefs etc.

Its not about convincing or converting someone, its about educating others and yourself.

[Edward64]

I read "Zealot - Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" recently. It was a tough read, the writing style didn't seem to flow well for me and I put it down several times. I finally finished it and felt somewhat unsatisfied so started looking at other similar books and read "The Islamic Jesus".

The Islamic Jesus was great. It provided historical context and some insights into the Islamic faith and what is in the Quran/Koran. Its an easy, conversational and light read which I would recommend to anyone (200 pages) interested in exploring more.

I've always known that Jesus was accepted as a major prophet by Muslims and never understood how there could be such a dichotomy between Christians & Muslims on who Jesus was. The 2 books help me understand better how this could be.

(Apologies for my simplified recap, any inaccuracies are likely my own!)

Basically, after Jesus died, there was a Jewish Christian movement led by James the Just (brother of Jesus) and Saul-who-became-Paul leader of the gentile Christian movement. The Jewish Christian movement did accept Jesus as a prophet but not his divinity. The gentile Christian movement did. Over time, the gentile Christian movement became the dominant Christian faith and the Jewish Christian movement faded away.

The Islamic Jesus book hypothesized about how remnants of the Jewish Christian faith influenced the Quran including a major chapter on Mary, Jesus being a major prophet second only to Mohammed etc. Additionally, the Quran points out some additional things about Jesus/Mary that are not in the Christian bible but are referred to in Gnostic & Apocrypha texts. Its fascinating to me the interrelationships between the Christian and Islamic faiths.

Next step for me is to understand what the Jewish faith thinks of Jesus and dive deeper on why people say Islam is the religion of Peace.

[Groundhog]

Atheist. I was brought up in a family that was nominally Christian (Church of England), although I did used to go to the odd religious class in high school (I think we had one a year from memory), as well as Youth Group on Fridays for years. It never really rung true for me, but I wasn’t really interested one way or the other about it until I started diving in to history books at around 18-22 years old. It was around then that I came to feel like I do today about organized religions.

I probably read a book or two a year as far as (non-secular) religious history goes – usually ancient/pre-medieval, but sometimes also on the more recent Christian-offshoots, and especially a decade or so ago I read a lot on Scientology. It’s a topic I’m interested in, but not in the “militant atheist” way I was back in my early/mid 20s.

[Edward64]

Don't know much about Scientology. What attracts you to it?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't know much about Scientology. What attracts you to it?

Mostly, how well documented it is from the start until now - the origins, core beliefs, etc. - as well as the wealth of information from former members. It's pretty unique to get this type of insight into the creation of a religion. I used to read through Operation Clambake when working nightshifts, although I haven't been there in years.

If Scientology still exists 100+ years from now, I wonder how much of this stuff will all be lost to the sands of time, and maybe Scientology looks a lot more credible.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't know much about Scientology.

Mmm - classic Sam Cooke.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Mmm - classic Sam Cooke.

Had to google it and then I remembered. Good one!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Next step for me is to understand what the Jewish faith thinks of Jesus ...

The answer is ... essentially a failed Messiah and certainly not divine. Lots of negativity due to Church persecution back when.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I read "Zealot - Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" recently. It was a tough read, the writing style didn't seem to flow well for me and I put it down several times. I finally finished it and felt somewhat unsatisfied so started looking at other similar books and read "The Islamic Jesus".

The Islamic Jesus was great. It provided historical context and some insights into the Islamic faith and what is in the Quran/Koran. Its an easy, conversational and light read which I would recommend to anyone (200 pages) interested in exploring more.

I've always known that Jesus was accepted as a major prophet by Muslims and never understood how there could be such a dichotomy between Christians & Muslims on who Jesus was. The 2 books help me understand better how this could be.

(Apologies for my simplified recap, any inaccuracies are likely my own!)

Basically, after Jesus died, there was a Jewish Christian movement led by James the Just (brother of Jesus) and Saul-who-became-Paul leader of the gentile Christian movement. The Jewish Christian movement did accept Jesus as a prophet but not his divinity. The gentile Christian movement did. Over time, the gentile Christian movement became the dominant Christian faith and the Jewish Christian movement faded away.

The Islamic Jesus book hypothesized about how remnants of the Jewish Christian faith influenced the Quran including a major chapter on Mary, Jesus being a major prophet second only to Mohammed etc. Additionally, the Quran points out some additional things about Jesus/Mary that are not in the Christian bible but are referred to in Gnostic & Apocrypha texts. Its fascinating to me the interrelationships between the Christian and Islamic faiths.

Next step for me is to understand what the Jewish faith thinks of Jesus and dive deeper on why people say Islam is the religion of Peace.

2 books you may find interesting are “power and persuasion in late antiquity” by brown. He does a good job showing how the economic and political culture played a big role in the rise. He particularly notes how the role of the Roman upper middle class and their already diverse religious faiths allowed/legitimatized the acceptance and reliance of bishops, etc.

The other book is “Christianity and the rhetoric of the empire” Cameron. This one focuses on a historical look at the literature of the emerging Christian movement. What I liked was the use and passionate embrace of the metaphor. How the “mysteries of God” could never be known, so all attempts- be art, poetry or story are all approximations of the divine, thus open to different culture and individual experiences (in other words, tapping into Jungian archetypes).
Taking the Lords Prayer as the ultimate example, using the metaphor of body and bread, freed Christian doctrine from being taken down from a single dogmatic leader/text/cult.

[tarcone]

I dont believe in Religion. It tends to warp what Christ was about.

I believe in Christ and try to learn his teachings. But I try to stay away, as best as possible, from religion.

[Edward64]

Never thought much about it but guess it makes sense.

Pope Francis Questions Traditional Translation Of Lord's Prayer | HuffPost

Pope Francis has expressed concerns about a traditional translation of the Lord’s Prayer, an ancient prayer that Jesus Christ taught his disciples and is repeated by Christians around the world today.

The current wording of the prayer in the Catholic liturgical tradition contains a line that says, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

But Francis suggested that this common translation may be misleading.

In an interview with the Italian Catholic channel TV2000, published on YouTube Wednesday, the pontiff pointed out that God isn’t the one who leads humans to sin. That’s Satan’s job, Francis said.

“It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation,” the pope said, according to a translation provided by The Guardian.

“I am the one who falls; it’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen. A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department.”

The pope then referred to the French Catholic church, which has started using the phrase “do not let us fall into temptation.”

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Never thought much about it but guess it makes sense.

Hardly makes sense - the bible includes various passages where he 'tests' people for the shits and giggles of it, heck he even asks one of them to sacrifice his own child ... Job has a really shit title of it just because God wants to prove a point to Satan ... it could even be easily argued that God made all temptation because he created everything ...

So if the Pope has an issue with that prayer he also has an issue with the Bible?

[Edward64]

Respectfully, rather not get into it.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I hope this thread doesn't devolve into religion (pick one) bashing. Also, if you are agnostic or atheist and can't participate without being condescending, feel free to ignore this thread.

I want this thread to be normal folks, talking about their beliefs - what and why they believe, asking questions of people of differing beliefs etc.

[Toddzilla]

Brings to mind the Joe Rogan bit of Cult v Religion. I'll leave it to the reader to pursue this as necessary.

[AENeuman]

Interesting book review of a book on New Testament.
This quote, perfectly sums up the NT, to me:
“The New Testament, after all, is not a store of ancient wonders like the Hebrew Bible. It’s a grab bag of reportage, rumor, folk memory, and on-the-hoof mysticism produced by regular people, everyday babblers and clunkers, under the pressure of a supremely irregular event—namely, the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


https://www.facebook.com/TheAtlantic...56098079268487

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Hardly makes sense - the bible includes various passages where he 'tests' people for the shits and giggles of it, heck he even asks one of them to sacrifice his own child ... Job has a really shit title of it just because God wants to prove a point to Satan ... it could even be easily argued that God made all temptation because he created everything ...

So if the Pope has an issue with that prayer he also has an issue with the Bible?

I read some where that the original Greek word that is translated as temptation could also be translated as test or another word that I do not remember. If you read that sentence as lead us not into the test (or, do not put us to the test) but deliver us from evil, it makes more sense. As you note, Job and others were tested in the Old Testament, so it makes a lot of sense.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Interesting book review of a book on New Testament.
This quote, perfectly sums up the NT, to me:
“The New Testament, after all, is not a store of ancient wonders like the Hebrew Bible. It’s a grab bag of reportage, rumor, folk memory, and on-the-hoof mysticism produced by regular people, everyday babblers and clunkers, under the pressure of a supremely irregular event—namely, the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


https://www.facebook.com/TheAtlantic...56098079268487

The NT is a lot of 1st person witness testimony. And a bunch of letters from Paul. And the testimony and witness of the disciples.

While the last sentence sounds like the 1st, Im referring to Revelation and the like as witness and testimony.

In the 1st sentence there are over 500 witnesses to Jesus' death. And as many saw him after he was resurrected.

I dont think all of them were "babblers and clunkers".

The resurrection is the foundation. And it cannot be disproved. Many smarter people than us have tried and failed miserably.

[Groundhog]

Sure there were hundreds of witnesses, it says so right there in the bible!

I jest, but surely you can appreciate that to a non-believer that is not exactly convincing evidence.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Sure there were hundreds of witnesses, it says so right there in the bible!

I jest, but surely you can appreciate that to a non-believer that is not exactly convincing evidence.

I guess you dont believe eyewitness testimony in a trial then?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I read some where that the original Greek word that is translated as temptation could also be translated as test or another word that I do not remember. If you read that sentence as lead us not into the test (or, do not put us to the test) but deliver us from evil, it makes more sense. As you note, Job and others were tested in the Old Testament, so it makes a lot of sense.

The contemporary Lord's Prayer translate that part into "Save us from the Time of Trial", which was considered to be more accurate to the Greek (as you say - trial).

Anyways, I don't think the whole Jewish Christian / Gentile Christian dichotomy was supported by historical evidence. The first martyr, Stephen, was Jewish Christian. There were plenty of people running around claiming to be Messiah - that wouldn't get you killed. What may get you killed is claiming some guy was actually God.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Interesting book review of a book on New Testament.
This quote, perfectly sums up the NT, to me:
“The New Testament, after all, is not a store of ancient wonders like the Hebrew Bible. It’s a grab bag of reportage, rumor, folk memory, and on-the-hoof mysticism produced by regular people, everyday babblers and clunkers, under the pressure of a supremely irregular event—namely, the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


https://www.facebook.com/TheAtlantic...56098079268487

"It’s a grab bag of reportage, rumor, folk memory, and on-the-hoof mysticism produced by regular people, everyday babblers and clunkers" - That's the Old Testament as well. I think that's why Scripture is such a great work - various different styles. People think it's all 'history' (as if such thing really existed in the way we think about it today), but it includes poetry, letters, epic poems, etc.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

"It’s a grab bag of reportage, rumor, folk memory, and on-the-hoof mysticism produced by regular people, everyday babblers and clunkers" - That's the Old Testament as well. I think that's why Scripture is such a great work - various different styles. People think it's all 'history' (as if such thing really existed in the way we think about it today), but it includes poetry, letters, epic poems, etc.

I agree. I don’t think those were criticisms at all. For such a complex and interesting topic, I’m amazed how many people get defensive over deveations from their Sunday School knowledge of the topic. (Sorry, I know that’s snarky)

[tarcone]

I assume that is directed towards me. Im not defensive. Just couldnt past the babbler and clunker comments. I felt that was a put down of people who witnessed it.
But it may be true. Im sure in group of hundreds there were some of those things.

Ironically, I just watched a movie called "Case for Christ" today. Its the story of Lee Strobel and his journey to debunk the resurrection and how it led him to Christianity.
So I was trying to question what was said. Probably pretty poorly.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I guess you dont believe eyewitness testimony in a trial then?

Don't want to derail the thread, but by itself, no I don't actually - and that's if we are talking about a trial for an every day 'vanilla' crime, let alone a miracle that happened 2000 years ago. That's why you corroborate evidence to piece together an image of what happened, rather than rely on one source when possible.

At best the NT is a collection of stories that were probably spoken aloud before being put to paper starting a decade or more after the events described. As you probably know, what we have today as the NT was originally a much larger collection of tales that was selectively trimmed by a council of humans back in 325 AD, a good 3 centuries after the events. I say humans because we haven't changed much biologically in the last 1700 years, and I don't think many today would be happy with a council of anyone re-mixing the NT while claiming to be acting under divine authority.

I don't consider anything within the NT a contemporary source of evidence that can be be corroborated with other sources, which is not to say it's not true, but that's a large reason why I'm not a Christian and why it becomes a matter of faith. If I believed in the resurrection or the NT as a factual historical source, I might feel very differently about religion. As it stands though, you could make an equally convincing argument to me about nearly any religion in the world today.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

At best the NT is a collection of stories that were probably spoken aloud before being put to paper starting a decade or more after the events described. As you probably know, what we have today as the NT was originally a much larger collection of tales that was selectively trimmed by a council of humans back in 325 AD, a good 3 centuries after the events. I say humans because we haven't changed much biologically in the last 1700 years, and I don't think many today would be happy with a council of anyone re-mixing the NT while claiming to be acting under divine authority.

Obviously there's a lot more research to process on all of this, but I found this which at least seems to be a nice brief analysis.

A Chronological New Testament | HuffPost

Or in a graphical format: The Dating of the Gospels

[tarcone]

It does come down to faith. You choose to take the leap of faith that it didnt happen. I choose to take the leap of faith that it did.

As for the evidence, again, much smarter men than us have been as skeptical as you. And come away believing.

But its your journey. I hope you take the time to really research and seek the truth. It may change your belief system or it may not. But that does come down to faith again.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It does come down to faith. You choose to take the leap of faith that it didnt happen. I choose to take the leap of faith that it did.

Not the same thing. Do you consider it a leap of faith to not accept that the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad are the spiritual successor to the NT? Or to not accept the epic of Gilgamesh at face value? Or that Joseph Smith didn't find golden plates with the gospel written on them in a language only he could understand?

As for the evidence, again, much smarter men than us have been as skeptical as you. And come away believing.

But its your journey. I hope you take the time to really research and seek the truth. It may change your belief system or it may not. But that does come down to faith again.

And smarter men than us have stayed skeptics. And I don't expect the debate to ever be settled here or anywhere else.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Obviously there's a lot more research to process on all of this, but I found this which at least seems to be a nice brief analysis.

A Chronological New Testament | HuffPost

Or in a graphical format: The Dating of the Gospels

A good read, thanks.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It does come down to faith. You choose to take the leap of faith that it didnt happen. I choose to take the leap of faith that it did.

As for the evidence, again, much smarter men than us have been as skeptical as you. And come away believing.

But its your journey. I hope you take the time to really research and seek the truth. It may change your belief system or it may not. But that does come down to faith again.

While it comes down to faith, he didn't take a leap of faith. It's that he doesn't have faith. Period.

For some reason, people frequently ask me if I believe in God (still haven't figured out why this happens). Anyway, I usually evade the question with the response of, "One can not empirically prove or disprove the existence of God, as every single Philosophy 101 class determines. It comes down to faith, which you either have or you don't."

Which is where I think so many religious arguments go awry, and why I never partake in them. Religion and spirituality are not a set of facts to be determined. They're a matter of personal religious and mystical experience (or lack thereof). To argue about religion in the traditional logic-based methodology that governs discourse (certainly in the West) is to miss the point entirely.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

As you probably know, what we have today as the NT was originally a much larger collection of tales that was selectively trimmed by a council of humans back in 325 AD, a good 3 centuries after the events.

That's not actually true, though it remains a popular myth in some circles. The canon of the New Testament was effectively set in the mid 100s. Irenaeus's books of Scripture are very similar to what is in your current NTs today. The Council of Nicea in 325AD had NOTHING to do with the establishment of Scripture. It wasn't even on the agenda (the Council was about the nature of Christ).

There were indeed Gnostic Gospels and the such, but those were considered to be unreliable because they were written so far after the events in question (ironically, some use that sort of reasoning to reject the NT in general, but they generally use much later dates that they think the NT was written - those dates actually more apply to the gnostic texts). The Gospel of Thomas may have been the only gnostic text written before 100 AD, but it also could have been written as late as 200 AD.

[Drake]

I try to explain to my religious friends that people who aren't Christians aren't necessarily hostile to God/faith/belief...it's just that asking them whether or not they've accepted Zeus as their lord and savior seems nonsensical.

They haven't rejected the God of the Bible so much as they just don't think about him any more than they do about Greek mythology.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I want this thread to be normal folks, talking about their beliefs - what and why they believe, asking questions of people of differing beliefs etc.

Its not about convincing or converting someone, its about educating others and yourself.

Though I'm not as active on the board as I was years ago, I couldn't let this thread pass without at least throwing my hat into the ring.

Someone said earlier that faith couldn't be empirically proven, and I agree (though I would leave room for the possibility that the existence of God may be reasoned from what He has purportedly created and revealed). Same person also said that there's a necessary experiential or mystical element in coming to faith. The implication, as I understand it, is that it can't be all in the head - but it must be borne in the heart/spirit. And I agree as well.

As a Christian, a former pastor, and at least a hobbyist biblical scholar, I think this jives with biblical Christianity. For Jesus said that His Father "calls" people to faith, and Paul said it is out of the "heart" that a person believes and is "saved".

I do believe that God earnestly desires all people to come to faith, and He calls to each of us in varying ways (maybe even through a FOF board), but each of us has obstacles to receiving this life-saving message. For some it's doubt, others rebellion, some get stuck on the logic or desire for scientific proof, but for all of us, speaking in biblical terms, our own sin blinds us to the Truth.

My hope and prayer for all of us is that a thread like this might be an echo of that call, a nagging whisper not easily dismissed, that leads even the most scientific of us into a heart search for a Truth that may be beyond our logic ... to discover that (to quote my favorite play), "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's not actually true, though it remains a popular myth in some circles. The canon of the New Testament was effectively set in the mid 100s. Irenaeus's books of Scripture are very similar to what is in your current NTs today. The Council of Nicea in 325AD had NOTHING to do with the establishment of Scripture. It wasn't even on the agenda (the Council was about the nature of Christ).

There were indeed Gnostic Gospels and the such, but those were considered to be unreliable because they were written so far after the events in question (ironically, some use that sort of reasoning to reject the NT in general, but they generally use much later dates that they think the NT was written - those dates actually more apply to the gnostic texts). The Gospel of Thomas may have been the only gnostic text written before 100 AD, but it also could have been written as late as 200 AD.[/quote]

Fair point, although (and full disclosure - this is entirely based on what I've just read on a wiki article in the past 5 minutes, so grain of salt and all that) the point remains that the current state of the NT was not formally agreed on until the 4th or 5th century, although some of the earliest canon texts may have been widely accepted as canon from when they were put to paper starting from the decades following the events described.

[HerRealName]

I don't want to wade into the religion side of things but I love ancient Roman history and know a lot about the early Church as well.

The Council of Nicaea's main importance was the separation of Arianism and what became the orthodox view. Most of the early in-fighting in early Christianity centered on the nature of the trinity. Arianism seems to have been more influential at this time but the orthodox bishops were able to influence enough neutrals to declare Arianism a heresy.

The debate raged on for centuries, of course.

Fun fact: Most of the barbarians in the late empire were also Christians. The Goths converted very quickly to the Arian view of Christianity as they saw it as very similar to their current beliefs with just a few name changes. The Vandals were also Christians. Geiserec the Vandal leader that sacked Rome, was raised Arian but later in life converted to orthodox.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Fair point, although (and full disclosure - this is entirely based on what I've just read on a wiki article in the past 5 minutes, so grain of salt and all that) the point remains that the current state of the NT was not formally agreed on until the 4th or 5th century, although some of the earliest canon texts may have been widely accepted as canon from when they were put to paper starting from the decades following the events described.

"Formally" perhaps, but the New Testament canon was basically determined with a few books being debated as to whether they were in or out very early. Whether or not those books should be included was a process that involved the Church deciding it though communal decision making over the years. The fact it took a bunch of centuries to have a final declaration doesn't minimize what the vast majority of early Christian communities took as their definitive texts, nor does it, IMO, minimize the texts selected as Scripture. Communal decision making is how the Church has determined interpretations of Scripture ever since.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Ironically, I just watched a movie called "Case for Christ" today. Its the story of Lee Strobel and his journey to debunk the resurrection and how it led him to Christianity.

I tried reading Strobel years ago and remember that I couldn't get thru the book. To me, it seemed to ramble without alot of substance. I know he's a popular author so it may just be me.

I've picked up a book "No God but One" by Nabeel Qureshi. Muslim converted to Christian. Not done yet but this book talks about history of the Bible and Quaran and importance of the supplementary Hadiths.

Its interesting to learn more about Islam. Some tidbits so far

(Any misinterpretation is my own)

1) Muslims say "Islam is a religion of peace" but most lay muslims wouldn't be able to discuss this in detail because the Quran and Hadiths do not support this. Many instances of Mohammed being violent. Muslims may say the OT is violent also but Jesus was certainly not violent at all

2) Mohammed did support taking women as war spoils ala ISIL

3) Whereas most Christians believe in Jesus and he is the central focus (not the Bible), Muslims believe in the Quran as the word of God. That's why burning/defiling it is so bad to them

4) The Crusades was initiated by the West only after the Muslims had conquered a large % of Christian land at that time. This was a defensive war. Additionally, whereas there was really bad stuff done to conquered Muslims, prior to the Crusades, there were really bad stuff done to the conquered Christians.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

1) Muslims say "Islam is a religion of peace" but most lay muslims wouldn't be able to discuss this in detail because the Quran and Hadiths do not support this. Many instances of Mohammed being violent. Muslims may say the OT is violent also but Jesus was certainly not violent at all

2) Mohammed did support taking women as war spoils ala ISIL

3) Whereas most Christians believe in Jesus and he is the central focus (not the Bible), Muslims believe in the Quran as the word of God. That's why burning/defiling it is so bad to them

4) The Crusades was initiated by the West only after the Muslims had conquered a large % of Christian land at that time. This was a defensive war. Additionally, whereas there was really bad stuff done to conquered Muslims, prior to the Crusades, there were really bad stuff done to the conquered Christians.

Ugh... Was it meant to be academic of more of a memoir?

1.Nearly every Muslim has been peaceful (accidentally?...hypocritically?)

3. For most Christians, their church and its interpretation of Jesus is the central focus. (This also includes supporting genocide in the name of God- #2)

4. Crusades were much more political and economic than getting land back from the evil doers. The peaceful economic success of Islam in Christian lands was a factor, for example. So was a the very political Pope Urban II

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

4. Crusades were much more political and economic than getting land back from the evil doers. The peaceful economic success of Islam in Christian lands was a factor, for example. So was a the very political Pope Urban II

Urban probably was a true believer, but, yes, the call for Crusade came not long after the Investiture Controversy between Pope and Holy Roman Emperor (which was the result of the HRE trying to nominate a rival Pope to the one nominated by the Church and the Emperor and Pope trying to depose each other). It was a way of unifying the Church under the newly powerful Papacy.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Ugh... Was it meant to be academic of more of a memoir?

1.Nearly every Muslim has been peaceful (accidentally?...hypocritically?)

3. For most Christians, their church and its interpretation of Jesus is the central focus. (This also includes supporting genocide in the name of God- #2)

4. Crusades were much more political and economic than getting land back from the evil doers. The peaceful economic success of Islam in Christian lands was a factor, for example. So was a the very political Pope Urban II

I disagree with #3. I think the Catholic church is more focused on itself with the illusion that they are focused on Jesus.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I disagree with #3. I think the Catholic church is more focused on itself with the illusion that they are focused on Jesus.

That's... unkind. To put it lightly. If I'm being uncharitable, I'd say the same of conservative evangelicals...

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's... unkind. To put it lightly. If I'm being uncharitable, I'd say the same of conservative evangelicals...

Is it? I mean this is a religion that harbors and protects child molesters.
That puts a man above all else as the next thing to God and he makes all decisions that Catholics must follow. Based on.......What? His beliefs.
Much of the violence that is always blamed on Christians is a result of Catholics.
That religion is not one that I believe has anything to do with Christ.
In my opinion, they are the modern day Pharisees.

EDIT: I also forgot about the exclusion of any non catholics to take communion in their church. Would Christ not break bread with me? How is that Christian?

[AENeuman]

Yes, men have made a mess of the Word of God, which is why I'm not buying the uniqueness of Christianity over Islam.

Also, I wonder if it is more fair to say Quran is to Hadiths as Old Testament is to New Testament. Both have peaceful origin documents that then use the supplemental text to strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Is it? I mean this is a religion that harbors and protects child molesters.
That puts a man above all else as the next thing to God and he makes all decisions that Catholics must follow. Based on.......What? His beliefs.
Much of the violence that is always blamed on Christians is a result of Catholics.
That religion is not one that I believe has anything to do with Christ.
In my opinion, they are the modern day Pharisees.

EDIT: I also forgot about the exclusion of any non catholics to take communion in their church. Would Christ not break bread with me? How is that Christian?

[JPhillips]

It was the ancestors of the modern evangelical movement that justified slavery and Jim Crow through false interpretations of the Bible.

[JPhillips]

dola

And there is no Christianity or Bible without the Catholics.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Is it? I mean this is a religion that harbors and protects child molesters.
That puts a man above all else as the next thing to God and he makes all decisions that Catholics must follow. Based on.......What? His beliefs.
Much of the violence that is always blamed on Christians is a result of Catholics.
That religion is not one that I believe has anything to do with Christ.
In my opinion, they are the modern day Pharisees.

EDIT: I also forgot about the exclusion of any non catholics to take communion in their church. Would Christ not break bread with me? How is that Christian?

I mean conservative Evangelicals are about to put a child molester in Congress, soo.... (and according to some Evangelical voices, they should be looking at the logs in their own eyes when it comes to that.

The Pope is considered the Vicar of Christ based on their Scriptural interpretation of Christ handing the keys to the Kingdom to Peter (the rock on whom He builds the church). In addition, the Pope only really makes the decisions that Catholics have to follow when he speaks ex cathedra (which has only happened like 10 times in history). Generally Catholic decision making is collaborative in Councils (Vatican II or Trent or Nicea) or among groups of Bishops. It's similar to Protestants, but generally Protestant Councils (or Assemblies) include the laity as well as the clergy in the voting.

Much of the violence is what? It's like English Protestants (Anglicans) have never existed.

IMO, the modern day Pharisees, if they are anyone, are conservative Evangelicals. I mean at least the Catholic Church fights for health care for all and for the poor and refugees.

As for barring communion, while it is not a practice I subscribe to, it is also in use by the Orthodox Church, Missouri Synod Lutherans, among others.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

And there is no Christianity or Bible without the Catholics.

Well, that's slightly overstating it - I don't think you can necessarily ascribe the first 400-500 years of Christianity to the Catholics or the Orthodox or Syrian Church or whomever. Perhaps after the fall of the Western Roman Empire it makes more sense to speak of that division.

[lungs]

Anybody ever heard of the Two By Twos (aka No-name Sect)?

That's what I was brought up in. Never really knew much about it until I actually figured out what it was called this summer. Kind of frightening when you realize you were brought up in a cult

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I mean conservative Evangelicals are about to put a child molester in Congress, soo.... (and according to some Evangelical voices, they should be looking at the logs in their own eyes when it comes to that.

The Pope is considered the Vicar of Christ based on their Scriptural interpretation of Christ handing the keys to the Kingdom to Peter (the rock on whom He builds the church). In addition, the Pope only really makes the decisions that Catholics have to follow when he speaks ex cathedra (which has only happened like 10 times in history). Generally Catholic decision making is collaborative in Councils (Vatican II or Trent or Nicea) or among groups of Bishops. It's similar to Protestants, but generally Protestant Councils (or Assemblies) include the laity as well as the clergy in the voting.

Much of the violence is what? It's like English Protestants (Anglicans) have never existed.

IMO, the modern day Pharisees, if they are anyone, are conservative Evangelicals. I mean at least the Catholic Church fights for health care for all and for the poor and refugees.

As for barring communion, while it is not a practice I subscribe to, it is also in use by the Orthodox Church, Missouri Synod Lutherans, among others.

The Romans are the ones who perverted Christianity into what it is today called Catholicism. There was power and money to be had and they jumped on board.
Thus a powerful group of "Christians" was formed.
And a very powerful one the pope is throughout history. Wielding all sorts of economic, religious and political power.
That isnt as true today as back in the day.

Protestants do not believe that Peters role had any connection to the papacy, but the Roman Catholics do. So they grab hold of Peter and hold him up.


I guess it is what you believe.

[tarcone]

As a vent my anti-catholic rhetoric. I know man is a flawed beast. And, thus, perverts everything it touches.
This is true with all religions. None are exempt.

The only perfect teacher died on the cross 2000 years ago.

Sorry if I am derailing this thread.