"True" Christianity

[anriana]

Who gets to decide what is considered Christian and what isn't? The church I was raised in defined Christian as anyone who believed in Jesus and his divinity and sacrifice and etc, believed the Bible was the Word of God, and had been baptised. Obviously this excludes many denominations of Xity. On the other side, I have a friend who doesn't believe the Bible at all yet considers himself Xtian. As Xianity doesn't have a central leader, who decides what's Xtian and what isn't?


On a side note, my church was very dedicated to campaigning against all of the "fake" Xians, especially Catholics, Mormons, and Episcopalians. My child self really thought that Catholics spent their Sundays praying to a woman and making up books to add to their Bible, then drinking and gambling until they had to get their stomachs pumped. I was a bit disappointed when I went to Mass and found it every bit as mundane and boring as SBaptist service. Why direct your energy against people who are on your side? Isn't the point of Xianity evangelizing the world? Why not spend energy on that instead of attacking each other?

[DesignFox]

Why direct your energy against people who are on your side? Isn't the point of Xianity evangelizing the world? Why not spend energy on that instead of attacking each other?

Same reason people fight about all the other stupid things they fight about.

Absolutely no reason whatsoever except that the "other way" is different and, therefore, it must be wrong. It is just another Us vs Them excuse. This is why I am not religious and don't align myself with any one faith or church.

I can't subscribe to the belief that billions of people will go to hell for worshipping God differently from me. -or- calling God by some other name. -or- just because they don't believe in God...or whatever. When I went to church, I was taught that Jesus turned the other cheek...I can't follow a teaching that on one hand says "love thy neighbor" and on the other hand came to power by slaughtering innocents because they called God Allah or they didn't believe in Jesus... :rolleyes:

Just about every religion seems to follow whatever tenets best suit it and it's hold over it's followers. and personally, I don't need to be told I'm going to hell because I'm enjoying my life to it's fullest (without murdering, stealing, or harming my fellow man.)

FTR:
I respect people who find peace in their religion. As long as they don't force their beliefs on others, or hate people because they worship differently from them. :)

I agree with you anriana, in that I never understood the separation of the churches, or why, say, when it was time to make my confirmation, I couldn't pick my best friend's mom who was a Methodist as my sponsor... (I was raised Catholic). THAT was pretty much my turning point.

[AFPheonix]

7th Day Adventists think everyone else is going to hell since they worship on Sunday, not Saturday.

I think all of it is kind of amusing, really. Most sects differ on small turns of extraneous doctrine, not on the major points. I'm sure God is just rolling his eyes big time up there.

[IDrinkaRum]

My child self really thought that Catholics spent their Sundays praying to a woman and making up books to add to their Bible, then drinking and gambling until they had to get their stomachs pumped. I was a bit disappointed when I went to Mass and found it every bit as mundane and boring as SBaptist service.

Man! If that's what happens at Catholic Churches, I'd hurry back to the Catholic Church. :p That sounds like fun. :)

And the Christians who say they know what is going on with the Catholics don't understand us at all. What has always confused me is how do they get this worship of Mary? That's what's confusing. :confused:

This is how I figure it (and you might not agree with me, but this is what I've come up with, and if it's too simplistic or "wrong", who cares? It makes sense to me and it makes me happy): Humans were given Free Will. Mary was a human. Therefore, Mary had Free Will. Because Mary had Free Will, when the Angel Gabriel came down from Heaven and said God had chosen her to bear his Son, she could have said no. She could have defied God. (And as a merciful God, would He have/could He have forced her to bear his Son?) But she didn't. She acquiesced to God's plan and bore Jesus. She raised him, loved him, and watched him die. How can one not hold a woman of religious/historical/cultural significance in high regard? It's not worshiping of Mary. It's acknowledging that she did something great and wonderful in our world.

[Giggle Goose]

On a side note, my church was very dedicated to campaigning against all of the "fake" Xians, especially Catholics, Mormons, and Episcopalians. My child self really thought that Catholics spent their Sundays praying to a woman and making up books to add to their Bible, then drinking and gambling until they had to get their stomachs pumped.

:p You forgot to say that we do shots while we pray the rosary.

But now that I've "grown up," I've learned that "true" Christianity is what I make it.

[Slytovhand]

who decides what's Xtian and what isn't?

I think that there says it all.... it's humans who are deciding, and not the one/s that really matter.

Before the Councils of Nicea, Xtianity was a big massive bundle of different stuff - reincarnation, the sun as God, etc etc..

Then a whole lot of power-brokerage went on, and christianity got 'determined'. About a thousand years later, someone without the power thought 'Hey - this is a bit of a bum deal for us, it needs to change'.. (although, I have left out the persecution of a whole stack of other christians in that period who also didn't agree with what the power-brokers came up with).

That's why in the 'How do you become' thread (I think), that xtians 'should' only take the bits about what JC actually said to be the heart and soul of what christianity should be about (also remembering, that the Bible was put together by humans.. and thus, any other piece of information written about JC from those around at the time - eg Gospel of Thomas - is just as, if not more so*, valid as the 4 in the 'official' Bible).


* more so, because they haven't been tampered with as much.


Does this sound good??

Slyt

[protege]

And the Christians who say they know what is going on with the Catholics don't understand us at all. What has always confused me is how do they get this worship of Mary?

I don't know where that comes from either. Sure, we *revere* her because she was, after all, Jesus' mother. But, she doesn't get the same worship her son or even God does. Even though I'm disillusioned with the idea of organized religion, even I know that :p It wouldn't surprise me if that rumor got started over one of those stupid Chick tracts :rolleyes:

[AFPheonix]

I'm guessing having multiple statues and frescoes and candles and whatnot in Catholic churches made a few protestants think of idol worship. If you ever go into a protestant church, notice the lack of iconic artistry anywhere in there. The most you'll have is a cross somewhere in the sanctuary.

[anriana]

Thanks for all of the responses.


As far as Mary, I was always told that Catholics prayed to her and female saints (oh gasp!) and this was the same as diefying her, as only God has the power to answer prayer.

[IDrinkaRum]

Aaaah ... now I see. However, we do pray to male saints also. But I guess they don't count? :D (Note the smiley - I'm not being snarky or mean or insulted/insulting).

We pray to the Saints (both male/female and to the Virgin Mary) to intercede to God on our behalf for our prayers. It's kinda like a kid or teen who wants to talk to their parent, but can't, so they go to another trusted adult who helps them talk to their parent. (Did that make any sense? I think I need more sleep or maybe something to take away my heat-induced headache.)

Gah! I'm babbling - so I'll stop now.

[jayel]

May I ask for what reason you would ever feel you couldn't take your prayers directly to God through Jesus?

[anriana]

Aaaah ... now I see. However, we do pray to male saints also. But I guess they don't count? :D (Note the smiley - I'm not being snarky or mean or insulted/insulting).

They count, but it's not as horrible as praying to a woman.

We pray to the Saints (both male/female and to the Virgin Mary) to intercede to God on our behalf for our prayers. It's kinda like a kid or teen who wants to talk to their parent, but can't, so they go to another trusted adult who helps them talk to their parent. (Did that make any sense? I think I need more sleep or maybe something to take away my heat-induced headache.)



I've heard plenty of people say "I pray to St. Francis, patron saint of animals, to bless these poor suffering animals" or something like that. I've always taken it to mean literally; is it more of a "St. Francis, please lobby God for this" situation?

[Boozy]

May I ask for what reason you would ever feel you couldn't take your prayers directly to God through Jesus?

May I ask why others would feel the need to go through Jesus? Why not take out all the middlemen and just pray to God?

This is a rhetorical question (please don't feel the need to address it), but it points out how silly it is that these kinds of debates to even occur. This is a difference in doctrine. Doctrine isn't based on logic, it's based on what the Church says, or what the Bible says.

It's very difficult to have a rational discussion about something that boils down to Authority A says this and Authority B says that.

[Slytovhand]

It's very difficult to have a rational discussion about something that boils down to Authority A says this and Authority B says that.


If 'discussion' also involves debate, then you can look at the relevance of those Authorities, and also the possible interpretations of what was said.

It's like that joke (the one that ends in 'the word was celebRate'...)... who knows what was the original, and what was meant, and from there, current contexts.

Speaking of which, how much meaning is related to context. For a couple of thousand years (well, maybe 1500) there were a series of attitudes which were dogma related. We hear now things like 'in this day and age'. Does that really matter? If God said something goes 2000 years ago, does it still apply equally today?

(one specific example came to mind.. Jews don't eat the flesh of cleft-hoofed animals, the most obvious being pigs. This seems to be merely a health state, as pigs back then carried various diseases that humans were prone to. These days, we have healthier pigs, and so chances of disease are greatly reduced. So... should the same rule apply?)

And what happens now that medical science can do wonderful things with our bodies? After all, we keep hearing the term 'playing god'... is it really that bad?


Slyt

[jayel]

May I ask why others would feel the need to go through Jesus? Why not take out all the middlemen and just pray to God? This is a difference in doctrine. Doctrine isn't based on logic, it's based on what the Church says, or what the Bible says.


Actually Boozy, I can answer that for you.

First of all, let me say that if this is doctrine, and based on what the Bible says, that's where we're getting our logic from. I'm interested to get to the bottom of our different interpretations, not bashing anyone. This being a debate and discussion forum, surely there's nothing wrong with asking someone to answer a question about their beliefs. I'm not being accusatory, I'm curious. IDrinkaRum has already given a certain amount of explanation regarding this belief, so I felt comfortable asking further questions.

I say pray to God through Jesus because in the Bible Jesus says "No man come unto the Father except by Me." (John 14:6) So while I feel perfectly comfortable praying to God on my own, I always pray in Jesus' name, to recognize the significance of His sacrifice in order for us to be with the Father.

The Bible also says that speaking and communicating with the dead is a sin, so praying to or through a dead person to get to God would not only be unnecessary, it would be unscriptural. (I know some will want to bring Jesus into it here, but just don't. Jesus, being God's own son, is on a totally different playing field than a man or woman).

There is nothing, however, in the Bible, that ever indicates God would be unavailable or unreachable to us except by intermediation. Jesus said "When you pray, pray like this: 'Our Father, which art in Heaven...'" (Matthew 6:9)Saying "Our Father" is contacting God directly. So this tells me that we have just as much right and ability to take our prayers directly to God as one of the Saints would have to pray to Him.

So Boozy, my question is not silly and was a sincere attempt at understanding differences and debate. It also still stands.

IDrinkaRum, I would really like to understand why you would ever feel like you couldn't pray to God directly, on what grounds the Catholic church teaches this practice, or where in the Bible it states intermediation is necessary?

[Boozy]

So Boozy, my question is not silly and was a sincere attempt at understanding differences and debate. It also still stands.

Sorry, jayel - I didn't mean to imply that your question was silly or accusatory.

I was just pointing out that discussions about religion differ from say, political debates, because you have to assume certain things to be "fact" when they are in actuality faith-based conclusions.

For Catholics and Protestants, you have the common ground of the Bible, so there's a possibility for debate based on the common belief that what the Bible says is true. So you can argue interpretations.

But in the case of say, Islam and Christianity, you've got one party saying the Koran is the word of God, and the other party saying it's the Bible. Neither side is able to present material evidence to prove the either side wrong, so it always comes down to "Well, my faith simply tells me this is so."

[Slytovhand]

Speaking of authorities, and also of what's 'true' and what's not... and also on Bible and 'how to pray' etc...

What do people here think of non-Bible Gospels? Such as Thomas' ??

[anriana]

Speaking of authorities, and also of what's 'true' and what's not... and also on Bible and 'how to pray' etc...

What do people here think of non-Bible Gospels? Such as Thomas' ??

My opinion probably isn't as relevant as I am not a practicing Xtian, but from what I've seen of the process of choosing the "official" gospels, it wasn't much of a divine experience. My mom wrote a term paper on how most of the information on strong Xtian women was taken out for for Paul's dreck. I personally think the council just chose the books they liked for political reasons - what makes that Scripture more than the books they cut out? What makes the Protestant Bible more official than the Catholic version, or the Jewish/Muslim versions of the OT?


On a side note, I had a customer with a bad phone connection tell me "Thomas, like the book of the Bible." Guess he was a firm believer that it's an official book, heh.

[IDrinkaRum]

As a Catholic, I was taught there were Saints you could pray to for everyday concerns, etc. As in, when I'm searching high and low for something (my daughter's gameboy, my car keys, etc.), I'll pray to Saint Anthony who is the patron Saint of lost things. BAM!!! within the next minute or two, I find whatever I was looking for. Maybe I would have found it without the quick prayer, but in the case of the gameboy, I was looking for it for 3 days, and I found it in the place I'd been searching for the past 3 days without seeing it before then. Why bother God with an inconsequential prayer to find something when Saint Anthony is standing right there, waiting to help me?

[Slytovhand]

I had another question come to mind today... something that people can actually answer (rather than opinion :p)

Where abouts in the Bible does it say that JC was going to do a return? Did he actually say "I'll be baaaackkk!"... or is it just mentioned in one of the Gospels that it will happen?


Slyt

[Rapscallion]

Speaking of authorities, and also of what's 'true' and what's not... and also on Bible and 'how to pray' etc...


Ah, generally speaking, "true christian/muslim etc" or "enlightened" merely means 'agrees with me'.

Happy to help.

Rapscallion

[jayel]

Why bother God with an inconsequential prayer to find something when Saint Anthony is standing right there, waiting to help me?

I understand the concept, but I still don't see where this is Biblical. The Bible says, "Cast all your care upon Him for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5: 7). It doesn't say there are problems too trivial for God to worry about, and it doesn't mention a St. Anthony. I myself have prayed to God to find lost things many times, and had them turn up shortly, or remembered a place I hadn't looked before.

You mentioned that instead of bothering God, you could pray to St. Anthony who will help you, but in an earlier post you stated that the Saints mediate between you and God. If they mediate, God is still being requisitioned. If St. Anthony can show you where your lost item is all by himself, that paints him as omniscient, something only God is, so that is another unscriptural problem.

I'm also interested to know where all these Saints came from, and how they got their assignments, since they are not mentioned in the Bible. Again, I am not trying to sound accusatory, but I see some major flaws when I try to coordinate the doctrine of the saints with Biblical scripture, and I'm trying to understand where it comes from.

[jayel]

Ah, generally speaking, "true christian/muslim etc" or "enlightened" merely means 'agrees with me'.

Happy to help.

Rapscallion

Too often, this is the case.

A true Christian will base his or her beliefs on the Bible, and be able to back it up with scripture.

[Rapscallion]

Oh, I don't know. I've heard people say that true christians would know from jesus what to do, not just rely on what's in the bible...

Hence the problem. That version is true to them.

Rapscallion

[jayel]

I agree that we can learn a lot based on Jesus' actions. As a Christian, I lean more on the side of mercy and forgiveness than law- as I feel Christ did when He was here. But how would those you mentioned know from Jesus what to do unless they read it in the Bible in the first place? Or did you mean that Jesus would tell them personally what to do?

[IDrinkaRum]

Saints are helpers to God. I don't know why they are deemed necessary, but I like them. There is a female Saint who is the patron saint of dentists & teeth because when she was martyred, her teeth were removed before she was killed. Then there is a Saint Maria Goretti who was murdered by her employer's son while he tried to "compromise her innocence". She was 12. She's the patron saint for children. It is said that while on her deathbed, she forgave her attacker. And while the attacker was in prison, he saw her in a vision. When he got out of prison, he became a monk & was the foremost pusher for her sainthood.

The first saints were the martyrs of Christianity. Saint Stephen was the first Christian Martyr & the First Christian Saint. I have books by the Christian pop group, DC Talk called "Live like a Jesus Freak" and other similar all by DC Talk. Telling about the stories of modern day martyrs and martyred saints. Then there are the Saints who were found, after being dead and buried for hundreds of years (even at least a thousand years) whose bodies were incorruptible. (All the bodies in the crypt had deteriorated as a body normally does, but save for this one body. Why is that? How can one body not mold, and give way, while the body right next to it be just a few bones?) I suppose the Christians/Catholics wanted to honor those people also.

I took the name of Saint Therese of Lisieux when I was confirmed by the Catholic church. She was a young nun who died of tuberculosis at the age of 24. She got special permission from the Pope to enter a Carmelite convent at the age of 15. She wrote poems and her life story on how she saw herself in God's plan. When she died she promised all that she would rain flowers down on the earth as a sign she was still doing God's work in Heaven. She did things in her "own little way". And people find inspiration in her words and the works she did while on this earth and up in heaven.

I'm sorry if this is disjointed. I need to get back on the phone & try to get a doctor's appointment as I'm really sick. Take care!

[IDrinkaRum]

Here are some websites that can explain the whole praying to the Saints thing better than I can whilst in my delirious state (I have a doctor's appointment at 3:15 PM today - woohoo!)

http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm
http://www.anawim.pair.com/CATHOLICS/SAINTS.htm
http://davidmacd.com/catholic/saints.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

[flybye023]

I had another question come to mind today... something that people can actually answer (rather than opinion :p)

Where abouts in the Bible does it say that JC was going to do a return? Did he actually say "I'll be baaaackkk!"... or is it just mentioned in one of the Gospels that it will happen?


Slyt

I've been looking and all I can see are mentions of it by His prophets. (these are from the King James Version)

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer livith, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.

Matthew 24:21-31 tells of it although it is very symbolic.

Zechariah 13 and 14 also deal with the Second Coming although, again very symbolic.

Sorry :o I hope these help though.

[Rapscallion]

Or did you mean that Jesus would tell them personally what to do?

More this one, though I really meant that they would say that jesus had told them what to say/do.

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm also interested to know where all these Saints came from, and how they got their assignments, since they are not mentioned in the Bible. Again, I am not trying to sound accusatory, but I see some major flaws when I try to coordinate the doctrine of the saints with Biblical scripture, and I'm trying to understand where it comes from.

the Glorification of Saints Is an Act of God himself or herself-God sanctifies the remains or relics through the Holy Spirit-thus a miracle or revelation by God that "this person is a Saint"---it is not in the Bible as it is things that are still occurring-current revelations. The Bible does not cover everything that would ever happen.(***disclaimer***I do not follow any Western religion-but I was strict Roman Catholic for many years-I was raised that way-even confirmed)


Any specific ones-I have a dictionary of saints-all 12,000 of them-how they lived, why they were cannonized, and when they became saints and for what.

And the list is online here (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron00.htm) with the information

Hey I found Santa Claus (http://saints.sqpn.com/saintn01.htm) on the list-seriously St Nicholas-and he is listed as Santa Claus

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization) is a brief Wiki article on Cannonization.


The Glorification of saints is considered to be an act of God, not a declaration of the hierarchy. When an individual who has been sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit falls asleep in the Lord, God may or may not choose to glorify the individual through the manifestation of miracles. If He does, the devotion to the saint will normally grow from the "grass roots" level. Eventually, as the Holy Spirit manifests more miracles, the devotion to the individual grows. At this point there are no formal prayers by the Church to the individual. Rather, memorial services are served at the grave of the individual, praying for him or her—though an individual may pray privately to someone who has not yet been formally Glorified, and even commission Icons, which may be kept in the home but not displayed in the Temple. The Glorification service does not "make" the individual a saint; rather, the Church is simply making a formal acknowledgement of what God has already manifested.

Sometimes, one of the signs of sanctification is the condition of the Relics of the Saint. Some saints will be incorrupt, meaning that their remains do not decay under conditions when they normally would (natural mummification is not the same as incorruption). Sometimes even when the flesh does decay the bones themselves will manifest signs of sanctity. They may be honey colored or give off a sweet aroma. Some relics will exude myrrh.

[IDrinkaRum]

Thank you BlaqueKatt for the explanation I was trying to give through a haze of sleep deprivation, a sick child, a sick me and trying to remember everything I learned in church and trying to make it coherent. :) Whew - thank goodness for you! (and I mean that very sincerely, not sarcastically at all - honest).

[Slytovhand]

I've been looking and all I can see are mentions of it by His prophets. (these are from the King James Version)

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer livith, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.

Matthew 24:21-31 tells of it although it is very symbolic.

Zechariah 13 and 14 also deal with the Second Coming although, again very symbolic.

Sorry :o I hope these help though.


Thanks Flybye... that's what I was after.. though I did think there was something in John's Revelations (not that I'd know :p).

So...it makes me wonder... if Jesus didn't say he was going to return, why are so many christians waiting for this 'second coming'???

[IDrinkaRum]

The Book of Revelations? I haven't read it yet - It scares the crud out of me just thinking about it. What does that say about the end of the world? The 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse and/or the returning of Jesus? Or the coming down of God? Or whatever?

[BlaqueKatt]

Thank you BlaqueKatt for the explanation I was trying to give through a haze of sleep deprivation, a sick child, a sick me and trying to remember everything I learned in church and trying to make it coherent. :) Whew - thank goodness for you! (and I mean that very sincerely, not sarcastically at all - honest).


hmmm maybe your screen name had something to do with it ;)

My google-fu is strong, my kickboxing needs work however.......

[AFPheonix]

I've been looking and all I can see are mentions of it by His prophets. (these are from the King James Version)

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer livith, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.

Matthew 24:21-31 tells of it although it is very symbolic.

Zechariah 13 and 14 also deal with the Second Coming although, again very symbolic.

Sorry :o I hope these help though.

The only other place I can remember that it mentions Christ's return is Acts 1:9-11:
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

[Slytovhand]

Well - I just tried a google, and really, only got 1 'definitive' answer that I was looking for (ie - something that apparently came from JC's mouth directly...).

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. John 14:1-3


Though I am curious - why would he say "if"???

And I think to myself (probably cos I'm a pagan.. but then, if I was to convert, these are the sorts of questions I would ask anyway) - if JC was to return, then why wasn't he telling everyone all about it? Instead of it only getting a line or 2 in total, and that fairly cryptic?


Slyt

(who liked reading 'The Messsengers' by Julia Ingram and GW Hardin :D)

[crashhelmet]

I always took that to be a referrence to "Judgement Day" when He is supposed to return and take everyone that has earned their place in Heaven. A place that He has prepared for them.

That continues into John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one goes unto the Father except by me."

CH

[Sylvia727]

In Sunday school, I always wondered why, when Jesus returned from the dead, he only showed himself to his disciples. Why didn't he show himself to everyone, and prove his miracles? If only 10 or 12 people actually saw him, how do we know those people aren't making it up? Especially as these people were in positions of status and purpose when he was alive and now were left bereft of Jesus' leadership, and therefore had the most to gain from rumors of his return. Did it really cheapen Jesus' teachings if he stayed dead? Especially considering that none of the gospels were distributed until after his death, when his disciples could have added passages to support their additions to his philosophy. When I asked how we knew the apostles weren't lying, I only got lectures on "Doubting Thomas", who didn't believe until he stuck his fingers in Jesus' wounds. (John 20:24-29). Which naturally led to the next question: if Jesus didn't punish Thomas for doubting him, Thomas who actually knew him and spent years as his pupil, then why would Jesus condemn modern-day doubters to hell? Christianity as a religion makes no sense to me, but the core teachings of Jesus Christ seem a sound philosophy. I mean no disrespect to Christians, merely that I personally don't "get" it.

[Flyndaran]

Didn't Jesus show himself only to a few of the disciples and then they took timie to recognize him... and of course he disappeared shortly thereafter... kind of removing the argument that it wasn't really Jesus.

Personally, I doubt the very existance of a single individual commonly called Jesus. It's right up there with the apocraphal jewish slaves of egypt... egypt didn't really keep slaves and a mass exodus would have been mentioned by someone at the time.

So, all this to me really seems silly. Huge groups of people worshiping a non-existant guy and arguing sometimes to the death about what he really meant whem he said something in usually only one of the four books dealing with his actions and teachings.

[Flyndaran]

Though that three in one trinity thing of Catholocism is right up there with Mormonism's gold plates only one or at most a few saw, and Zenu.

Only religion could get anyone to believe that 1+1+1=1

I may be spewing a little animosity. But it's partly that I hate that I'm incapable of being religious in the slightest. It never worked in my brain even as a very small and obviously odd child.
I must lack the god module, and at times I waffle between feeling special and feeling left out.

[Depot Denizen]

Not so much that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. The Holy Trinity represents three sides of the same entity. Think of it as a equilateral triangle, with each part (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) making the points of said triangle. This coming from an atheist who grew up Catholic.

[Flyndaran]

Not so much that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. The Holy Trinity represents three sides of the same entity. Think of it as a equilateral triangle, with each part (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) making the points of said triangle. This coming from an atheist who grew up Catholic.

That means that Jesus wasn't a human at all. He was the creator and therefore knew everything that would happen and makes his whole life a mockery of our human pain and ignorance.
The trinity is dope smoking religiosity at it finest. No amount of mental gymnastics will make it anything but silly. One has to be idocrinated at an early age to simply accept such things.
My father tried a little, but my brain will not accept "obviously" false ideas like that, especially without a shred of proof.
That makes your god even more evil. Intentionally making a human brain completely incapable of seeing "the truth" and refusing to give any proof of such existance whatsoever is up there with creating evil in the first place.

[Slytovhand]

I thought mathematics could make 1+1+1=1 - no?? :D

The 'Trinity' thing is most likely another thieving of paganism... there's lots of evidence to say that 3 was a good number for thousands of years before Xtianity came along (Triple Spirals as an example).

We could always take the line that God can make it any damn way He feels, and sod if it makes sense.... (which would then bring 'faith' into it).

[Depot Denizen]

I haven't studied theology at all, so I couldn't tell you. But if you really get down to it, he wasn't human, since he was hand-created by God. One could think that he wasn't bestowed with God's infinite knowledge, but that's for the theologists to argue. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, I believe it was a way to convey the idea of it to the Irish (using the clover as an example). And please don't make this a personal attack. I'm trying to convey my own experiences and knowledge from growing up as a casual Catholic. I've considered myself atheist since high school.


That means that Jesus wasn't a human at all. He was the creator and therefore knew everything that would happen and makes his whole life a mockery of our human pain and ignorance.
The trinity is dope smoking religiosity at it finest. No amount of mental gymnastics will make it anything but silly. One has to be idocrinated at an early age to simply accept such things.
My father tried a little, but my brain will not accept "obviously" false ideas like that, especially without a shred of proof.
That makes your god even more evil. Intentionally making a human brain completely incapable of seeing "the truth" and refusing to give any proof of such existance whatsoever is up there with creating evil in the first place.

[Flyndaran]

I meant you as in the general you for all monotheists. It wasn't mean as an attack on anyone specific.

[Depot Denizen]

Fair enough :) Thanks for clarifying your statement.

[Flyndaran]

No problem. I often think differently from most and that too often leads to misunderstandings.
Yes, english is my first and only language. ;)

[Slytovhand]

Don't worry, DD, we pretty much all debate the point on here, not the person. So, 'you' is usually the generic one... that's why we can :p to each other a lot :)

[Depot Denizen]

That's fine by me XD I lurk on CS often enough, so I should know that by now.

[guywithashovel]

Who gets to decide what is considered Christian and what isn't? The church I was raised in defined Christian as anyone who believed in Jesus and his divinity and sacrifice and etc, believed the Bible was the Word of God, and had been baptised. Obviously this excludes many denominations of Xity. On the other side, I have a friend who doesn't believe the Bible at all yet considers himself Xtian. As Xianity doesn't have a central leader, who decides what's Xtian and what isn't?


After hanging out on several message boards where religion is the predominant subject, it seems that many Christians will assert that a fellow Christian is not a "True Christian" if that Christian disagrees with him on any of the tenents of the faith. I have heard it said that Christians who are kind to homosexuals are not "True Christians." I have been told that Christians who accept evolutionary theory are not "True Christians" (actually, the ones who accept evolution are just intelligent people with a firmer grasp on reality than their creationist counterparts) I have also been told that the Christians who treated me like garbage in my childhood churches were not "True Christians." Similarly, it has been said that any Christian who doesn't vote Republican all the time is not a "True Christian." And in response to this, I usually point out that the first US president to be an openly born-again Christian was Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. I usually get my head bit off, but ah well.

I guess when it's all said and done, if you're a Christian and you disagree with another Christian and/or you do something to make the faith look bad, you will be accused of not being a "True Christian."

[CS-Saint]

Doesn't the pope have a say in what is currently "christian"? I was under the impression that the pope that made those decisions. But most of my info is gleaned from many different sources, and I have no formal teaching in any religon.

[Rapscallion]

Doesn't the pope have a say in what is currently "christian"? I was under the impression that the pope that made those decisions. But most of my info is gleaned from many different sources, and I have no formal teaching in any religon.

I don't have formal teaching myself, but religion generally comes in various flavours. The pope is generally regarded as the leader of the catholic church, but not (for instance) the leader of the methodist faith. Both are regarded as christian faiths.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

Historic divisions of Christianity:

Circa 30 AD: Jesus dies. The Apostles and their friends form the original Christian church (though not by that name, at that stage). As they spread out from Israel, they form various sub-sections of Christianity.
Certain minor sects of Christianity, such as the Gnostic Christians*, originate from this diaspora.
These minor sects continue to the present day, and are not descendants of the Christianity of the Roman Empire.

(* Not all Gnostics are Christians.)

Circa 300 AD: The Roman Emperor of the time legalised Christianity, putting a stop to the organised persecution of Christians within the Roman empire.

Slightly before 400 AD: The Roman Emperor became Christian, and established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Circa 400 AD: The Roman Empire split into the Eastern and Western empires, with the Eastern (aka Byzantine) centred on Constantinople (ancient Byzantium, modern Istanbul) and the Western on Rome.
The Christian Church effectively split with the Empire. The Catholic Church and its descendants are the Western half, the Orthodox Church and its descendants are the Eastern half.

The Orthodox (aka Eastern Orthodox) Church has a far simpler history than the Catholic: basically, take the history of the Byzantine empire, mix in a bit of missionary work towards the slavic nations of the north, add the development of Cyrillic writing, and that's the history of the Orthodox Church.

There was a split around 450 AD, that divided the Orthodox church into Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox. Oriental Orthodox Christians are largely found in the 'Near East' countries like Syria and Egypt, though they go as far east as India.

If it's deemed to be 'Eastern Europe', it's probably Orthodox. There are minor differences between the Orthodox churches - Greek Orthodox vs Russian Orthodox, for instance - but those differences are smaller than the differences between Orthodox and Catholic, or Catholic and Protestant.



Now to some really interesting Church History. The Roman Catholic Church, and the rise of Protestantism.

Everywhere the Western Roman Empire ruled, the Catholic Church went with it. As far north as Germany, as far west as Spain and England and (eventually) Ireland. As far south as the northern Sahara. As far east as the borders to the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire.

Over the next few centuries, trade, missionary work, intermarriage of princes, and the desire of the nobility to seem 'sophisticated' like their neighbours spreads Roman Catholic Christianity all over Western Europe. It spreads north till it runs into the Arctic wasteland, west to the Atlantic Ocean, and east to the Eastern Orthodox Church's land. South, the region of Africa north of the Sahara ends up becoming a mix of Catholic, Orthodox, and Islam: by the late middle ages, mostly Islam.

(Of note: the Muslims (Islamic people) conquered Spain during the early middle ages, and were then kicked out again by the Catholics over the course of the middle ages.)

The poor Jews during this period keep getting shoved around, kicked out of nation after nation. Still, they fare better than the pre-Christian faiths of both western and eastern Europe - almost all of those faiths become extinct, with nothing more than survival traditions like the Christian Tree and Santa Claus.

The 'holy land' - the region where Asia and Africa and Europe meet - has the misfortune to be the place where Judaism, Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and Islam all originated. It becomes disputed territory, and the ill-feeling between each of the faiths generated by those wars continues to this day.

Circa 1100: The Catharic Heresy developed. The Catholic church saw this heresy as - well, heretical. And dangerous, and all other sorts of things they found icky. Their campaign against Catharism ended up in the development of the Inquisition. Despite its name, the Inquisition was not limited to Spain - and it did not solely persecute Jews. It also persecuted Catharists, and anyone else they decided was heretical.

Circa 1500: Martin Luther.
Martin Luther was a Catholic monk in Germany, who became appalled at some of the accepted Church practices of his day. He protested them very publically, and was called before the Diet of Worms (a council in the city of Worms) and pretty much bullied to recant. He refused to, and things got very dangerous for him for the rest of his life. But he kept writing, and his works - including a bible in German - were spread around the scholarly folk of Europe.

It would be too much to say that he single-handedly created Protestantism. More accurately, he was the pebble that triggered an avalanche. There was a great deal wrong with the Catholic church at that point in time, and if things had worked out differently, the Catholic Reformation that happened as a response to Luther and Protestantism might have happened anyway, and we might all be Catholic.

But they didn't. Germany ended up creating a version of Christianity (Lutheran) that they named after Martin Luther. Many others developed other churches, based on their own theologies. Methodists, Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists - all of these churches which developed as protest against the Catholic abuse of the time are called Protestant.
Any Christian denomination which descends from a Protestant denomination is also called Protestant.


The Anglican Church (Church of England) was created because King Henry VIII of England wanted to get rid of Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
Catherine's children, save for one (Mary) died in infancy, and Henry became impatient waiting for a surviving male heir. The Pope was unwilling to annul his marriage, however. Anne had copies of Protestant books, and showed them to Henry: she also refused to become his mistress, and held out for marriage.
Long story short, Henry got impatient, broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, started the Anglican church. The history of this change is fascinating, and continues through the history of Henry's three children as well.



The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. None of the pre-300AD Christian churches recognise him as authoritative, nor do any of the Orthodox churches, nor do any Protestant churches.

[Seshat]

Did I kill this thread ded?

[AFPheonix]

Ha ha, you made everyone's eyes cross :D

Also, is it just me, or did the font all of a sudden go from gray to lime-green?

[Slytovhand]

Did I kill this thread ded?

No - you've done a very important historical precis. And relevant to the thread, to boot!! :D

[Rapscallion]

Also, is it just me, or did the font all of a sudden go from gray to lime-green?

It was a darker green before. I'm going to try and play with the style stuff to try and get it closer to what it was. This is the main reason I hate having to update the board software - new skins always need a little tweaking to get them as I want them.

Rapscallion

[Sylvia727]

Seshat, your analysis covered every major schism and explained what each group thought was true Christianity. Although I notice you didn't include the compilation of the Bible, which to me is the craziest part of Christianity. So many people believe that this book and only this book is the true word of God, and yet so many of them don't realize that which books made it in and which books got thrown out was decided purely by politics. If I ever converted, I would have to do some serious research to learn what other books were out there, including the Jewish stories, and study all of them with notes from lingual scholars on translation ambiguities. I took a Mythology class where the professor passed out the story of Tamar from the Bible, and included notes on where a word might be translated differently, or what the culture was at the time. It was very informative. I'd love to lay my hands on something like that for the entire Bible and/or the entire Torah.

What's the definition of a Christian? Someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth existed? Who accepts him as their personal savior? Who follows Christian traditions and goes to church on Sundays? What about the more recent splinter groups such as Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Seshat]

If I'd included the history of the Bible, I wouldn't have just made people's eyes cross!


To really totally foreshorten the discussion of the bible: every denomination of Christianity (IE: each of the splinter groups) has at least one version of the 'One True Bible'.

Some denominations share their 'one true version' with other denominations. Some have multiple versions (usually different versions come from different stages in the history of the denomination).

And that's without translation disagreements or outright errors!


Plus the issue of which books are which.


The Old Testament is a jumbled mess of different sections of the Jewish Scriptures: the Scriptures contain a section of history, a section of spiritual guidance, and a section of literature. Each section of the Scriptures is to be interpreted differently.
Yet in the Old Testament, in almost all forms of 'The Bible', the history, spiritual stuff, and literature is all munged together with no distinction made between them.

As for the New Testament ... well, they say "history is written by the victors".

[IDrinkaRum]

This is why I want to get my hands on a copy of the Toarh & Koran in English so I can read them. I also want to get a hold of the Book of Mormon to read it also. The more we read from other religious texts/writings, the more we learn of religion & of the people who worship in different forms of religion. I do have a King James Version of the Bible somewhere, just not sure where I put it. For the record, I'm a Roman Catholic. I've had my fair share or ignorant comments by non-catholics, but I let them slide. I try to talk to others about their religion, but they end up trying to recruit me to their side, and I end the conversation. *le sigh*

[AdminAssistant]

I would just like to say how hilarious I find it that King James I, probably one of the most openly homosexual kings in history, commissioned the first major English translation of the Bible. :lol:

Sorry, carry on...

[Boozy]

This is why I want to get my hands on a copy of the Toarh & Koran in English so I can read them.

The Torah is essentially just the first five books of the Bible.

I'm guessing that the translations used in a church vs. a temple are different, but you'll get a pretty good idea of it just reading the first five books in whatever Bible you have at home. The same Oxford Annotated Bible was used for both my Christianity and Judaism religion classes in university, so an official Torah can't be terribly different from your standard Bible.

[IDrinkaRum]

Thanks Boozy! I figured it would be different somehow ... Not sure ... Part of my own ignorance I suppose.

I'll have to dig out my Bible. :D

It's nice have a debate here on Fratching about Chirstianity as I cannot talk about it with Mr. Rum - he doesn't give two figs about it. Ah well.

[Seshat]

Be aware that the Scriptures consist not just of the Torah, but also of the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim.

To really get the comparitive-religion aspect of reading the Scriptures, I'd recommend going to a Jewish bookstore, or a library (if you're not in some hyper-sensitive 'everyone must be Christian' part of the world*), and telling the staff what you're doing.

They may be able to not just give you a copy of the Scriptures, but to point you to a beginner's-level commentary on it.



* not intended to refer to all Christians, just the subset who that description fits.

[Ghel]

All my adult life, I've felt that people should be called what they want to be called. I try to apply this to religion, race, sexual orientation, and even nicknames. In that manner, anybody who calls themselves Christian is a Christian. (At least, by their own definition. It might not fit anybody else's definition. :) )

[Flyndaran]

The sun is yellow. Anyone that disagrees is verifiably wrong.
I am an atheist no matter how you define it. I don't believe in anything supernatural or magical or godly.

Christian just means you follow what you believe to be words of some guy taken as the christ. Everything else is differences of branch.

... I try to apply this to religion, race, sexual orientation, and even nicknames. ..
So even though I'm legally hispanic, look white, have a penis, and will only ever sleep with women, I can legitimately call myself a black hetero woman?

That's a little too "liberal" for me.

[Evandril]

So even though I'm legally hispanic, look white, have a penis, and will only ever sleep with women, I can legitimately call myself a black hetero woman?


You can *call* yourself that all you want...and I reserve the right to point and laugh ;) Heck, look at some of the 'wanna-be's out there...You'd be closer to being what you claim than they are!

If someone wants to use insults towards themselves...I'll not say they are wrong...though I won't have much respect for them, either *shrugs*

[Ghel]

So even though I'm legally hispanic, look white, have a penis, and will only ever sleep with women, I can legitimately call myself a black hetero woman?

Legitimately? No. But if that's what you want me to call you, I will. And then I'll burst out laughing as soon as you leave the room. :D

Besides, how am I to know that you're not a transgendered individual who has enough of a mixed racial heritage to qualify (at least in your own mind) as black?

So if somebody tells me they're a Christian, I'll call them that. Even if I find out that the way they define Christian isn't the way I would define Christian, I'll keep calling them that. Not being a Christian myself, I don't see it as an issue. It seems like the only ones who care are those who call themselves Christians.

[Flyndaran]

....
So if somebody tells me they're a Christian, I'll call them that. Even if I find out that the way they define Christian isn't the way I would define Christian, I'll keep calling them that. Not being a Christian myself, I don't see it as an issue. It seems like the only ones who care are those who call themselves Christians.

This wanders into whether we should play into others delusions or not. Should I refer to my just out of the institution "relative" as Santa Claus as he insists? Don't I have the right to call a spade a spade?

[Slytovhand]

Aaaannnnndddd... If I choose to call myself an elephant, and expect everyone around me not only to call me an elephant, but to treat me like I'm an elephant??? And then, while I'm acting like an elephant, knock all your expensive glassware and crockery all over the place and take no responsibility for it..????

In the same way, calling yourself of a particular religion, but not acting in a way that would be consistent with it is hypocritical... and doesn't do a lot of good for the 'legitimates' trying to preach a more faithful and 'correct' version.


The sun is yellow. Anyone that disagrees is verifiably wrong. Well.... actually, no... :) "yellow" is how we interpret frequencies via the eye. Others may perceive it differently. So, 'yellow' is qualitative, not quantitative. So 'verifiably' is only going to be defined as 'we agree'. (hehehe :p)

[guywithashovel]

Well.... actually, no... :) "yellow" is how we interpret frequencies via the eye. Others may perceive it differently. So, 'yellow' is qualitative, not quantitative. So 'verifiably' is only going to be defined as 'we agree'. (hehehe :p)

I read somewhere that the sun only appears yellow to us because of our atmosphere. The gases in our atmosphere mix with the sun's light and make it appear yellow to us. If we were out in outer space looking at the sun, it would appear white.

[Slytovhand]

I read somewhere that the sun only appears yellow to us because of our atmosphere. The gases in our atmosphere mix with the sun's light and make it appear yellow to us. If we were out in outer space looking at the sun, it would appear white.

Damn.. I forgot about that bit :p

[Flyndaran]

I read somewhere that the sun only appears yellow to us because of our atmosphere. The gases in our atmosphere mix with the sun's light and make it appear yellow to us. If we were out in outer space looking at the sun, it would appear white.

It would appear whiter, but still yellow.