Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Big George, in 313 Catholic Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, which survived another 1500 years and gave birth to the civilization we have all inherited.
Do you even know what the Crusades were? They were a defensive response to the conquest of the Holy Land by Muslim hordes who extinguished the freedom of Christians living there. The Crusades themselves were just, though there were shameful abuses in carrying them out (not unlike our own abuses in WW-II).
Charles, please don't try to argue with me on this one. It is part of my degree field. And already I can point out several factual errors, just in this post (it wasn't 313, for instance). Also, you are quite inaccurate in your assessment of the Crusades. How can traveling 1550 miles to wage war in Jerusalem be considered "defensive"?
That said, how do you defend things such as The Spanish Inquisition? Or any of the other Inquisitions waged by the RCC? How do you defend what they did to the Anabaptists? Or the Waldensians? And those were "fellow Christians"!
If it's so simple then why are there so many translations and denominations based off of it? Shouldn't it be the same for all denominations under Christianity? Why so many versions of this "Love Story"?
To be honest, most of those "translations" are just that. Various translations. They're not saying different things. The NIV, for instance, doesn't say anything different than the KJV. It just uses more modern English.
If it's so simple then why are there so many translations and denominations based off of it? Shouldn't it be the same for all denominations under Christianity? Why so many versions of this "Love Story"?
This is another question that can be answered by reading the Bible. The early Christian were often divided and they quarreled within their own meetings - and separate congregations often disagreed. Much of the purpose of Paul's letters was to quell these disagreements and unite Christians under the one thing they usually could agree with - the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ.
Denominations are nothing new - and there isn't anything wrong with having a diverse church - and when you realize that Christianity spread across the entire planet - it isn't surprising that local culture influenced the churches in various places. The differences are mostly non-essential - Paul discusses this too and you best source for a good understanding of what I am talking about is his letters(which can be found following the book of Acts in the New Testament).
The denominations may have different ideas and slants - but they all agree on one thing: Jesus Christ is the Son of God - he died for the sins of all people - and he was ressurected on the third day - that anyone who shall confess their sins and believe in Him shall have eternal life - and that a day of judgment will take place in the future. That sums up one of the creeds(the Nicene Creed - I think).
Hope this helps - be sure to read for yourself - don't just take my word for it. God bless.
Once again - here is an example of someone who does not understand the Bible. You cherry-pick verses, but don't read the Bible as a complete integrated body of work. The New Testament cannot be fully understood without the benefit of understanding the Old Testament - and many parts of the Old Testament are really mysteries unless seen through the light of the New Testament. The Bible is not a book of "do's and don'ts" - it is a love story - about God and His relationship to his people - with every single word pointing towards Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world. If you read the Bible - or read it with an actual wish to learn - you would understand this. I am always amazed at people who pontificate what believers should do - when they have so little understanding of what they are even saying.
The "if you don't believe it, you can't understand it" canard. That is the last resort for a Christian that can't explain all of the inconsistencies and cherry picking done by them and their fellow believers.
How about we allow the United States to become a theocratic government based on the religious dogma of any god for which empirical, scientifically verified evidence exists. Until then any discussion of basing laws or government on fairy tales and imaginary sky daddies is ridiculous.
The "if you don't believe it, you can't understand it" canard. That is the last resort for a Christian that can't explain all of the inconsistencies and cherry picking done by them and their fellow believers.
How about we allow the United States to become a theocratic government based on the religious dogma of any god for which empirical, scientifically verified evidence exists. Until then any discussion of basing laws or government on fairy tales and imaginary sky daddies is ridiculous.
You write stuff like this, but expect people to respect you.
The "if you don't believe it, you can't understand it" canard. That is the last resort for a Christian that can't explain all of the inconsistencies and cherry picking done by them and their fellow believers.
Actually - you are mischaracterizing my words. I did not say "if you don't believe it, you can't understand it" - that is actually what Nancy Pelosi thinks("we have to pass this bill so we can know what is in it"). I said that cherry-picking verses when you havn't read the entire Bible is a useless activity. Being prejudiced against the Bible, refusing to read it in its entirety, and judging it based on a few verses is an exercise in futility. If you aren't going to read the book - you should not claim to be authoritative about what it means.
Perhaps the best and worst thing that was done with modern translations is dividing the Bible into chapters and verses - it makes the Bible more accessible but it also allows people who couldn't give a wit about the book, but only wish to trash it for their own agendas to pick verses out and use them out of context.
Actually - you can understand the Bible without believing it - their are many parts that will not be entirely comprehended without the help of the Holy Spirit - but God did not wish for people to be in the dark and not know why they should accept Jesus into their lives - everything is laid out - and I cannot possibly explain that entirely in a forum post(also this IS the Politics forum - NOT the religion forum - why everyone expects me to explain the Bible to them in a place where doing so is entirely off topic is beyond me - politics and religion do overlap - but there are limits to when a discussion is appropriate - hence my restraint).
That is why I am encouraging those of you who judge the Bible on one or two verses to read the entire volume - it is an integrated work and no part is truly independent of the other. When you do so - you will understand why it is silly to call a Christian a hypocrite for not following to the letter the Mosaic law.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles45
You people are sure bold in displaying your ignorance. Ferdinand and Isabella literally saved the Americas from both eternal and temporal doom. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Personally, I'm praying for Isabella's canonization.
Without Isabella the Americas were doomed because?
Actually - you are mischaracterizing my words. I did not say "if you don't believe it, you can't understand it" - that is actually what Nancy Pelosi thinks("we have to pass this bill so we can know what is in it"). I said that cherry-picking verses when you havn't read the entire Bible is a useless activity. Being prejudiced against the Bible, refusing to read it in its entirety, and judging it based on a few verses is an exercise in futility. If you aren't going to read the book - you should not claim to be authoritative about what it means.
Perhaps the best and worst thing that was done with modern translations is dividing the Bible into chapters and verses - it makes the Bible more accessible but it also allows people who couldn't give a wit about the book, but only wish to trash it for their own agendas to pick verses out and use them out of context.
Actually - you can understand the Bible without believing it - their are many parts that will not be entirely comprehended without the help of the Holy Spirit - but God did not wish for people to be in the dark and not know why they should accept Jesus into their lives - everything is laid out - and I cannot possibly explain that entirely in a forum post. That is why I am encouraging those of you who judge the Bible on one or two verses to read the entire volume - it is an integrated work and no part is truly independent of the other. When you do so - you will understand why it is silly to call a Christian a hypocrite for not following to the letter the Mosaic law.
Please explain just a few simple things:
How can shellfish, tattoos, dual fabric clothing, sleeping next to a menstruating woman = good and gays = bad, where can I find the list of which parts of god's law no longer apply?
If I have a tattoo can I still go to heaven as long as the tattoo artist was not an evil gay person? Am I doomed because I have shaved and cut the hair on my temples over and over again? Should I kill my neighbor when he does yard work on the Sabbath or is that an old rule?
How can shellfish, tattoos, dual fabric clothing, sleeping next to a menstruating woman = good and gays = bad, where can I find the list of which parts of god's law no longer apply?
Ask this in the religion forum - it is off topic - and read the Bible - why you expect me to do your work for you is a mystery. You would have loved it when their was no printing press and the catholic church controlled what the people heard concerning the Scriptures because the people were mainly illiterate. Now you can read and the Bible is in every bookstore - pick up a copy and read it - or go to a church - they will give one to you.
Charles, please don't try to argue with me on this one. It is part of my degree field. And already I can point out several factual errors, just in this post (it wasn't 313, for instance).
OK, 313 was the toleration edict. Christianity was established by Theodosius I in 380. Thanks for the correction. What are the other factual errors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big George
Also, you are quite inaccurate in your assessment of the Crusades. How can traveling 1550 miles to wage war in Jerusalem be considered "defensive"?
The same way any power coming to the aid of another might be defensive. This is your field: you should be able to come up with a few examples, e.g. Americans went to Europe in WW-II to defend other nations against the Nazis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big George
That said, how do you defend things such as The Spanish Inquisition? Or any of the other Inquisitions waged by the RCC? How do you defend what they did to the Anabaptists? Or the Waldensians? And those were "fellow Christians"!
The abuses perpetrated by the Spanish Inquisition certainly existed, but they are hugely exaggerated in what passes for modern "scholarship". And some of what modern secularists consider "abuses" - the expulsion of the Moors, for instance - were a matter of survival.
In any case, the abuses as they were are indefensible and even the Catholic Church condemns them. Today it is explicit Catholic doctrine, for instance, that torture is intrinsically immoral. Such doctrinal clarity was not available to most Christians in the middle ages, though it was always incipient. Protestants were in fact much more creative and liberal in the torturing of heretics. You might also be interested to know that the pope himself wrote to the king of Spain begging him to stop the abuses and insisting that it degrades the name of Christian.
The main problem is your underlying non-sequitor: the existence of religious intolerance in the history of the Church does not disprove the claim that religious tolerance in the West has roots in Catholic doctrine and experience. It proves only that painful experience was necessary to bring the concept to fruition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
