NationStates Jolt Archive

Okie ... problem with all of you ...

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

3] To those who argue about the Dead Sea Scrolls, well, you're the same people who argue that the VATICAN holds the Dead Sea Scrolls and won't let any translation but theirs get out. Surely you can see the logic problem of this?

4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?

5] If you truly believe in Christianity as Jesus preached it, why do you continue to hate, persecute, and/or find spiritually inadequate the exact same people that the CATHOLIC church persecuted for hundreds of years?

6] If you think the Catholics are nothing but liars, why do you take their versions of Jesus and their versions of the Apostles as the absolute truth? Make up your minds ... are the Catholics liars or not? Stop flip-flopping!

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church (No, I am not Catholic).

If you can prove me wrong, here is your thread to do it.

AMEN!

I would also like to add that we do NOT WHORSHIP MARY! We simply honor her because she after all did give birth to Jesus Christ.

y is it that there is so little toleration from people with certain religeous beliefs toward people with other beleifs.

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church - my enemy. If you can prove me wrong, here is your thread to do it.Well, a christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". So that's not really correct. But everything else is ok. :)

y is it that there is so little toleration from people with certain religeous beliefs toward people with other beleifs.Because people are always looking for an excuse to diminish someone (even if doing so goes against the beliefs you supposedly profess). Apparently we can't keep from doing it...

y is it that there is so little toleration from people with certain religeous beliefs toward people with other beleifs.

Human nature.

but one of the main themes in the bible seems to be love, y is this so often pushed aside?
we should embrace that feeling and project it towards others

Read A World Lit Only By Fire

The papacy is a farce

Can I buy some indulgences from you?

You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus...

Actually, I just bitch about how the Catholic priests in my country -- as well as some in the US -- pervert innocent children for their own pedophilic gain.

To bitch about how Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus, I'd have to believe that Jesus ever existed as a religious figure.

Read A World Lit Only By Fire

The papacy is a farce

Can I buy some indulgences from you?

You do realize that the reason for the indulgences was well, we had bills to pay. The sistein chapel doesn't pay for itself you know! Neither does those pretty buildings you see in the Vatican.

y is it that there is so little toleration from people with certain religeous beliefs toward people with other beleifs.


Because some people use their beliefs to wipe out other cultures?

Hell, man, my daughter, who is in 1st grade, had to do a little paper on Christopher Columbus. Never mind the fact that CC is the butcher of her people, she still had to color a smiley picture of him and write about him as a great explorer.

THAT is why I am intolerant. Not because of something 3-4 hundred years ago, but because of something that keeps happening TODAY.

Actually, I just bitch about how the Catholic priests in my country -- as well as some in the US -- pervert innocent children for their own pedophilic gain.

To bitch about how Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus, I'd have to believe that Jesus ever existed as a religious figure.

You do realize that the phenophile preist only makes up less than 1 percent of the Catholic Priest population don't you?

I am Anti-Protestant, even though I'm not any religion - well, I was baptised Catholic. :D so you don't have to worry about me being an anti-Catholic.

I am Anti-Protestant, even though I'm not any religion - well, I was baptised Catholic. :D so you don't have to worry about me being an anti-Catholic.

I was baptized, communizied, and Confirmed in the Catholic Church.

Actually, I just bitch about how the Catholic priests in my country -- as well as some in the US -- pervert innocent children for their own pedophilic gain.That's not really a good reason to bitch about Catholics. You should hold the individuals who did it responsible, not the Church. Note that what they did is directly opposed to what the Church teaches.

I was baptized, communizied, and Confirmed in the Catholic Church.

**Rude Post Removed**

Because some people use their beliefs to wipe out other cultures?

Hell, man, my daughter, who is in 1st grade, had to do a little paper on Christopher Columbus. Never mind the fact that CC is the butcher of her people, she still had to color a smiley picture of him and write about him as a great explorer.I just read "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" a few weeks ago. Interesting read, you should try it if you haven't already.

Can I buy some indulgences from you?

only after the advent of time travel

I just read "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" a few weeks ago. Interesting read, you should try it if you haven't already.


Yes I will. :)

Look .... this is nothing against Catholics. Your Pope, the guy who speaks for you, your GREAT CHIEF, apologized and we accept that apology.

This is more against the Protestant shit heads who stole our way of life and never once tried to apologize.

I just hate how Prostant are always telling me that I'm going to Hell, or that theres a special place in Hell for me because I choose to follow the oldest and so far the strongest church in the Christian faith.

You do realize that the phenophile preist only makes up less than 1 percent of the Catholic Priest population don't you?

u do realise that sex outside of marrige is a sin?

if ppl r really in contact with god, wouldnt they be able to ask him who is a

real christian and who will be likely to do this?

1% kiddy fiddlers in any part of society is too much

I just hate how Prostant are always telling me that I'm going to Hell, or that theres a special place in Hell for me because I choose to follow the oldest and so far the strongest church in the Christian faith.
oh come now, its not like catholics don't do the same thing to protestants. isnt it really time to acknowlege that all are christians and that different people relate to different forms of worship?

u do realise that sex outside of marrige is a sin?

if ppl r really in contact with god, wouldnt they be able to ask him who is a

real christian and who will be likely to do this?

1% kiddy fiddlers in any part of society is too much

I agree, but my point is, to judge an entire population of people on the actions of a few is stupid.

oh come now, its not like catholics don't do the same thing to protestants. isnt it really time to acknowlege that all are christians and that different people relate to different forms of worship?

Actually I was never taught that Prostant would go to Hell, and I never told a Prostant that they would go to hell. etc. etc.

oh come now, its not like catholics don't do the same thing to protestants. isnt it really time to acknowlege that all are christians and that different people relate to different forms of worship?I don't think that anyone is automatically going to hell based on what religion he is in. It is what you do, how you act that really counts. I've certaintly never told anyone that they would.

You do realize that the phenophile preist only makes up less than 1 percent of the Catholic Priest population don't you?

Actually, a full 4% (that's right, one in every 25) American Catholic Priests has been accused. Of course, some of those cases are opportunistic grabs for money and attention, and many cases have yet to come up. Which group is larger, take your guess.

I just know that I was raised Catholic, and back in the late 90s, before the official scandal broke, it was the biggest "inside joke" ever. We all had heard stories of abusive priests. Our altar boy friends made constant jokes about the priest. It was everywhere, just few people were willing to bring back such painful memories and accuse their molesters.

Anyhow, there's Christians, then there's Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and Eastern Orthodox who make up Christianity. You can even break up Protestants further, into Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calivinists, etc. So many branches.

I'm sure if you take any random cross section of the human population, 1% will be pedophiles.

Because some people use their beliefs to wipe out other cultures?

Hell, man, my daughter, who is in 1st grade, had to do a little paper on Christopher Columbus. Never mind the fact that CC is the butcher of her people, she still had to color a smiley picture of him and write about him as a great explorer.

THAT is why I am intolerant. Not because of something 3-4 hundred years ago, but because of something that keeps happening TODAY.

Are you Native American? I am and yet I still maintain a Catholic faith. I can't say I agree with everything the Church did but I can say I agree to the apostle's creed and thats all that matters. I am also not anti-protestant or anti-anything except ant-intolerant. Religious intolerance and fundementalism of any type, Christian or otherwise, is the single most dangerous force in the world.

Actually, a full 4% (that's right, one in every 25) American Catholic Priests has been accused. Of course, some of those cases are opportunistic grabs for money and attention, and many cases have yet to come up. Which group is larger, take your guess.

some cases? come on

some one called the diocicen office and said my parish deccon had molested them 20 years ago and that was it, no recall, no furth accuisations but it did put the parish in a dizzy and someone in the pews was laughing pretty hard to himself

alot of these are prank annonomous calls

Religious intolerance and fundementalism of any type, Christian or otherwise, is the single most dangerous force in the world.Indeed. Really though, some of the problem is because people just don't practice their faith...

That's not really a good reason to bitch about Catholics. You should hold the individuals who did it responsible, not the Church. Note that what they did is directly opposed to what the Church teaches.

That would be all well and good if I said that I bitched about Catholics in general.

But, as it stands, I didn't. I specified the word "priests" and only the priests who pervert children at that.

It was a dig at the broad, pathetically sweeping generalization of the post that started this can-of-worms thread in the first place.

some cases? come on

some one called the diocicen office and said my parish deccon had molested them 20 years ago and that was it, no recall, no furth accuisations but it did put the parish in a dizzy and someone in the pews was laughing pretty hard to himself

alot of these are prank annonomous calls

And then you have the bishops who routinely move their pedophile priests around the country, from parish to parish, after they've molested several boys, and cover it up afterwards.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the claims.

That would be all well and good if I said that I bitched about Catholics in general.

But, as it stands, I didn't. I specified the word "priests" and only the priests who pervert children at that.

It was a dig at the broad, pathetically sweeping generalization of the post that started this can-of-worms thread in the first place.Ok, sorry I misunderstood. :)

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".


And according to the Tanakh (or "Old Testament"), which serves as the foundation for both Catholic and Protestant scriptures, Judaism was around since Abraham, who's own lineage essentially begins at Eden. :)


2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!


And if it were not for Judaism, neither Catholics nor Protestants would have anything to base their respective religions on, considering both use the Tanakh as the first half of their holy scriptures, and the teachings of a Jewish rabbi for the other.


4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?


Actually, the Gospels are accounts of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi who envoked the power of the God of Israel as well as the Tanakh as his sources of authority. The Gospels are, therefore, of Jewish origin.


I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church ...


Yeah, but it's really a synagogue :)
(at least, if Christians could manage to read their own scriptures and bring it into existance, it would be...)

And then you have the bishops who routinely move their pedophile priests around the country, from parish to parish, after they've molested several boys, and cover it up afterwards.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the claims.
and THAT Is the sin of the church

ALL denominations have a few ministers who use their authority to sexually abuse parishoners. generally when they are discovered, they are removed from office and if appropriate, the authorities are called in.

the various bishops, archbishops and cardinals KEPT priests that they knew were sexual predators of children. they allowed them to keep positions that meant constant opportunity for finding new victims and NEVER called in the police to have one prosecuted for this vile crime

this protecting of criminals is a terrible sin that still needs to be addressed.

Yeah, but it's really a synagogue :)

psshhhhhh, the hell it is

this protecting of criminals is a terrible sin that still needs to be addressed.

gosh, if only the Catholic church had some sort of hierchy ordained by God to deal with things like this baised in a central location with a life long leader elected from among the people with the resources of the Church behind him......

This is more against the Protestant shit heads who stole our way of life and never once tried to apologize.

Be so kind as to explain to me how anyone has stolen your way of life from you by splitting away from the Roman Catholic Church, if you could do it without calling the holders of slightly different religious/spiritual beliefs to your own "shit heads" it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Are you Native American?


**Rude Post Removed**

Yes, you dumb fuck, YES!

Lower the gear there with the flaming. Your daughter could have been adopted by you, or you could have married a Native American without being one yourself.

gosh, if only the Catholic church had some sort of hierchy ordained by God to deal with things like this baised in a central location with a life long leader elected from among the people with the resources of the Church behind him......

The pope didn't do shit about this.

And according to the Tanakh (or "Old Testament"), which serves as the foundation for both Catholic and Protestant scriptures, Judaism was around since Abraham, who's own lineage essentially begins at Eden. :)

And if it were not for Judaism, neither Catholics nor Protestants would have anything to base their respective religions on, considering both use the Tanakh as the first half of their holy scriptures, and the teachings of a Jewish rabbi for the other.

Actually, the Gospels are accounts of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi who envoked the power of the God of Israel as well as the Tanakh as his sources of authority. The Gospels are, therefore, of Jewish origin.

Yeah, but it's really a synagogue :)


I just vomited a little into my mouth.

I just vomited a little into my mouth.

Why? Everything he said was true, and very important for people to realize.

Jesus was Jewish too ya know... ;)

I just vomited a little into my mouth.

Believe what you wish. The truth shall survive. :)

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

There would still be his teaching to base our life on, not the catholic churchs intrepration of his teachings :rolleyes:

Why? Everything he said was true, and very important for people to realize.

Jesus was Jewish too ya know... ;)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth diappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means diappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
-- Matthew 5:17, The Teen Study Bible, Zondervan, NIV

Basically, Jesus defended the authority of the Tanakh, the Torah specifically (the Torah is translated as the "Law" with a capital "L").

Originally Posted by Keruvalia
Yes, you dumb fuck, YES!

Woah, ease on back there, Keruvalia. I can understand your strong opinions on these matters, but lets not blow up at little misunderstandings and possibly rhetorical (non-offensive) questions.

Back to the topic (sorta), it should be noted that many Catholic priests and missionaries objected to the cruel treatment of Native Americans by conquistadors, colonists, and fellow missionaries. And as you pointed out, the Pope did apologize for the sins the Church has committed in the past.

Protestant groups are much more decentralized than the Catholic Church, and the atrocities committed by their members should, in most cases, be viewed as sinful actions on the part of individuals, as opposed to crimes committed by an organization. Plus, I'm sure many Protestant ministers objected to mistreatment of Native Americans as well.


Marineris Colonies: Actually, Christianity was originally classed as a sect of Judaism by the Romans, but after a while it became its own religion. Still, many Christians have referred to Judaism as Christianity's older brother/sister.

Jesus was Jewish too ya know... ;)

I'll ignore the smiley and talk straight for a moment: it depends upon your definition of Jewish. Yes, he had Jewish blood by matrilineal descent and was raised as a Jew, but when he entered the later phases of his life it becomes highly questionable whether he was accepted as a Jew by the wider Jewish community. He certainly was Jewish at one point, but whether he lived his whole life as a Jew is a whole 'nother question.

Still, many Christians have referred to Judaism as Christianity's older brother/sister.

Does this make Islam Christianity's younger sibling?

Marineris Colonies: Actually, Christianity was originally classed as a sect of Judaism by the Romans, but after a while it became its own religion.


Of course, but I think of "became its own religion" as being more like "went horribly horribly wrong, ignoring the very scripture that it is based upon" but that's just my opinion. :)

but one of the main themes in the bible seems to be love, y is this so often pushed aside?
we should embrace that feeling and project it towards others

The idea that the bible has ever been a source of beliefs rather than an excuse for them flies in the face of history.
Take a look at the whole anti-gay marriage thing going on right now. The Christian conservatives keep pointing to those same few lines from Leviticus and say that no matter how sympathetic we may be as people God commands us to be intollerant on this one issue. But they never seem to complain about wearing different colors of clothes or cotton-poly blend, eating shellfish, or letting two different plants grow on the same ground (any wonder Israel is a desert now?) Those things are all condemned in Leviticus.

By the same token Protestants don't object to the Catholic church because of any spiritual differences but because it's a competing power structure. Religion is the how, not the why.

Bodies Without Organs: I think I've heard some Christians say that, but I don't remember when or wear. I know plenty of Christians who are open-minded enough to recognize common threads, and respect other religions.

Marineris Colonies: LOL, you are welcome to your opinion. One of the main reasons cited for the separation (in the Romans' minds) from Judaism is that many Jews condemned some of the early Christians' beliefs. Judaism was something of a "protected" religion in the Empire, but Christianity was fair game. (I know you probably are well aware of this, but others might not have known)

Does this make Islam Christianity's younger sibling?

Yup, despite Pat Robertson's protestations that Allah refers not to God but to some pagan Moon diety. The Quran and Bible share a common cosmology. Mary is mentioned, by name, more in the Quran than in the Bible. If it wasn't for that whole thing about Jesus being both God, the son of God, and God's ghost, there wouldn't be much disagreement with them.

Now that I think about it, can anyone tell me if you ever heard that the name "Jesus" comes from the Greek "son of Zeus."

In my extensive experience with both catholics and protestants, I must say that catholics are a thousand times more reasonable and agreeable.

Most of the fundementalist taliban true believers in america nowadays are of mongrel protestants of one sort or another.

Catholicism still retains dignity, whereas many protestants act like voodoo shamanist savages when they are in church.

--

Catholicism may have killed and hurt more people in the past than protestanism, but it has left us with lovely buildings and art.
That counts for something.

because they are mainly upper class snobs that are sexist favoring men and they think they are better than everything and every one else, and there is nothing in the bible about purgatory but to be fair im atheist and i think your all idiots for believing in religion the immaculate deception :sniper: :mp5:

Now that I think about it, can anyone tell me if you ever heard that the name "Jesus" comes from the Greek "son of Zeus."

The way I've heard it, his name was Yeshua, which in turn was brought over into greek as Iêsous, which in turn, when transliterated into English, because Jesus.

Originally posted by New Granada
Catholicism still retains dignity, whereas many protestants act like voodoo shamanist savages when they are in church.

--

Catholicism may have killed and hurt more people in the past than protestanism, but it has left us with lovely buildings and art.
That counts for something.

I can only speak from experience from one Protestant church I have visited, but I would say that the "voodoo shamanist savages" is a little over the top. While some Baptist ministers may give "damnation and hellfire" sermons, and the church I visited seemed less structured than its Catholic counterparts, the people seemed relatively reserved. However, I must say that when many of the attendees began spontaneously waving their arms and uttering various religious phrases, I was slightly disturbed. I don't know why, and I respect their beliefs, but I can't help my discomfort at how spontaneous/widespread it was. I guess that is just their way of "communing" with God.

As for the ?Sig?, I should point out that Catholicism is also much older than Protestant denominations. But yes, the art isn't bad either.

I can only speak from experience from one Protestant church I have visited, but I would say that the "voodoo shamanist savages" is a little over the top. While some Baptist ministers may give "damnation and hellfire" sermons, and the church I visited seemed less structured than its Catholic counterparts, the people seemed relatively reserved. However, I must say that when many of the attendees began spontaneously waving their arms and uttering various religious phrases, I was slightly disturbed. I don't know why, and I respect their beliefs, but I can't help my discomfort at how spontaneous/widespread it was. I guess that is just their way of "communing" with God.

As for the ?Sig?, I should point out that Catholicism is also much older than Protestant denominations. But yes, the art isn't bad either.

I'm refering more to the churches that sing catchy songs and wave their arms about, and especially the ones that 'speak in tongues.'

And protestants dont seem to have the presence of mind to build lovely buildings, except of course the anglicans, but they're really catholics :)

Originally posted by KETONYA
because they are mainly upper class snobs that are sexist favoring men and they think they are better than everything and every one else, and there is nothing in the bible about purgatory but to be fair im atheist and i think your all idiots for believing in religion the immaculate deception

Okay, I'm sorry to say this, but please try to use punctuation.

Also, many people posting are Atheists.

Ever hear of South America? It is a place that is often looked down on because it is full of people who are poor and Catholic. In fact, I would say that mainly, Catholics come from the middle and lower classes. (Yes, I know this bit is just begging for someone to flame it, but I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt.)

I have never met a Catholic who thinks that they are better than anyone or anything else (although I do not doubt that some exist). In fact, the major common ground between many religions is that there is someone/something greater than you.

Read A World Lit Only By Fire

The papacy is a farce

Can I buy some indulgences from you?
No, you can't buy them from me to begin with.

Secondly, they are only a temporary removal of sin.

Thirdly, they are based upon when Jesus told the merchat that buy giving away his money he could enter Heaven.

It is believed that money is a sin, if you worship it above God, by giving some of it to the Church you relieve some of your sin. But only if you are limited by it to begin with.

No, you can't buy them from me to begin with.

Secondly, they are only a temporary removal of sin.

Thirdly, they are based upon when Jesus told the merchat that buy giving away his money he could enter Heaven.

It is believed that money is a sin, if you worship it above God, by giving some of it to the Church you relieve some of your sin. But only if you are limited by it to begin with.


Indulgences Minsmuljinces, what is done is done.

Catholics did some bad stuff and killed some people.
Protestants did some bad stuff and killed some people.

you're even!


lets focus on *real* issues affecting *real* people in the *real* world.

Originally posted by New Granada
I'm refering more to the churches that sing catchy songs and wave their arms about, and especially the ones that 'speak in tongues.'

And protestants dont seem to have the presence of mind to build lovely buildings, except of course the anglicans, but they're really catholics

That is the kind of church I visited, and while I witnessed no speaking in tongues, their pamphlet did specify that they are different because they recognize such displays as signs from God.

As for the Anglicans, be fair. They are Catholic-Lite. Same religion, half the guilt!

That is the kind of church I visited, and while I witnessed no speaking in tongues, their pamphlet did specify that they are different because they recognize such displays as signs from God.

As for the Anglicans, be fair. They are Catholic-Lite. Same religion, half the guilt!


Indeed, i'm going to become an anglican when i become a british subject.

And when people get together and get into the state of mind required for 'speaking in tongues' and other such 'signs from god' it is called shamanism.

Its what savages in voodoo cults have done for thousands of years.

Just as a useful note:

Christ does make Peter the first Pope.

When He says "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" many Protestant theologians become confused. Why? Because they know they are now wrong. The Greek word commonly translated "rock" is actually "Peter" and is simply a variation meaning "Peter the foundation" in theological terms.

What does this meean? Well it means Christ said this: "You are Peter and upon Peter the Foundation I will build my Church".

Thirdly, they are based upon when Jesus told the merchat that buy giving away his money he could enter Heaven.

It is believed that money is a sin, if you worship it above God, by giving some of it to the Church you relieve some of your sin. But only if you are limited by it to begin with.

Do you have a specific reference to scripture? The story I remember goes like this:

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'" "All these things I have kept since I was a boy," he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
-- Luke 18:18-27, The Teen Study Bible, Zondervan, NIV

It would appear that Jesus told the man to sell his stuff, and give to the poor, not the Church. At any rate, Jesus' intention was not to condemn rich people for having money. His intention was to demonstrate the futility of attemping to gain heaven by human measures (which includes "good works" like giving to the poor or the Church, see Eph. 2:8), and that salvation was possible by following him. After all, "what is impossible with men is possible with God."

Okay, I'm sorry to say this, but please try to use punctuation.

Also, many people posting are Atheists.

Ever hear of South America? It is a place that is often looked down on because it is full of people who are poor and Catholic. In fact, I would say that mainly, Catholics come from the middle and lower classes. (Yes, I know this bit is just begging for someone to flame it, but I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt.)

I have never met a Catholic who thinks that they are better than anyone or anything else (although I do not doubt that some exist). In fact, the major common ground between many religions is that there is someone/something greater than you.

i never met a catholic that wasnt, maybe its my location here in north america, but they were all white too, but again they were all born cathy and not forced into conversion and brainwashed into feeling guilty. I should have paid more attention in class when they covered punctuation. :headbang:

Originally posted by KETONYA
i never met a catholic that wasnt, maybe its my location here in north america, but they were all white too, but again they were all born cathy and not forced into conversion and brainwashed into feeling guilty.

I'm sorry to hear that your region has so many self-proclaimed Catholics who feel they are above everyone else.


Originally posted by KETONYA
I should have paid more attention in class when they covered punctuation.

It is never too late to learn. Oh, and that brick wall looks painful.

1% kiddy fiddlers in any part of society is too much

It doesn't really invalidate that part of society though does it? If 1% of doctors were paedophiles, would you want to ban medicine?

I'll ignore the smiley and talk straight for a moment: it depends upon your definition of Jewish. Yes, he had Jewish blood by matrilineal descent and was raised as a Jew, but when he entered the later phases of his life it becomes highly questionable whether he was accepted as a Jew by the wider Jewish community. He certainly was Jewish at one point, but whether he lived his whole life as a Jew is a whole 'nother question.

I don't think it is a question. He said stuff like "i come not to change the law but to complete it" and we have no evidence that he didn't follow all of the jewish laws that were customary at the time. There is no evidence either that he wasn't accepted as a Jew by the Jewish community.

The early christians considered themselves Jewish and had issues when paul started to baptise gentiles and tell people that they didn't need to obey jewish law.

There is no evidence either that he wasn't accepted as a Jew by the Jewish community.

Apart from the whole crucifixion malarky.

The early christians considered themselves Jewish and had issues when paul started to baptise gentiles and tell people that they didn't need to obey jewish law.

The specific issue was whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised before they could be saved:

"Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. ...Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ...We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." ..."It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
-- Acts 15:1-19, The Teen Study Bible, Zondervan, NIV

And so the council that met together in Jerusalem concluded that what was required from Gentiles was that they refrain "from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." In fact, one of the conclusions of these early Christians, that even Gentile believers were to avoid eating blood, is echoed in the Torah at Leviticus 17:10 which forbids "any alien living among them" from eating blood. This stands as further proof that the early Christians were Torah observant. The final sentence quoted in the passage above, where they acknowledge the continued teaching of Moses, also confirms this. That they were Torah observant makes perfect sense, as Jesus himself acknowledged the authority of the Torah at Matthew 5:17 ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7250730&postcount=45 ).

Grow up and get a life son.

And according to the Tanakh (or "Old Testament"), which serves as the foundation for both Catholic and Protestant scriptures, Judaism was around since Abraham, who's own lineage essentially begins at Eden. :)



And if it were not for Judaism, neither Catholics nor Protestants would have anything to base their respective religions on, considering both use the Tanakh as the first half of their holy scriptures, and the teachings of a Jewish rabbi for the other.



Actually, the Gospels are accounts of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi who envoked the power of the God of Israel as well as the Tanakh as his sources of authority. The Gospels are, therefore, of Jewish origin.



Yeah, but it's really a synagogue :)
(at least, if Christians could manage to read their own scriptures and bring it into existance, it would be...)

Christianity has a basis in the Jewish religion(that's fairly common knowledge) but has several key differences with Jews, namely that there's that whole new testament and that Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God. So why are you claiming them to be the same, or close to the same thing? They simply aren't and that's a matter of definition.

I don't mean this as an opening to bash jews or anything, I'm just pointing out that Jews and Christians have very different relgions.

Tired of being criticised for being a Catholic?

Why not come over to Agnostics Unite?

We cater for allsorts, and welcome anyone through our doors who is tolerant of others.

These people all joined and now look what have to say about it:

"I'm really, really, really, really pleased I joined Agnostics Unite. It's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really good."
Alan

"I joined Agnostics Unite and then I fell over."
Vera

"I went along, but I didn't think much of the decor."
Linda Barker

"I tell you what, old bean, they're a real bunch of bally good chaps, what-what!"
Colonel Abrams

I'm Catholic and I am 20 years old. I think I'm just know getting to the point where I'm really starting to respect my faith, my church, and everything involved with that. I used to not agree with a lot of things they taught, but the more I learn about why they teach what they do, the more I've come to agree with them.

To address the "Catholics have done bad things" issue, I'll just say this. The Catholic Church consists of humans and humans are imperfect. Noncatholics have done bad things, too, but that doesn't mean all noncatholics are bad people.

The doctrine, however, is sound. It is now and always has been a doctrine that teaches faith, love, tolerance of all people regardless of race, religion, or general life status (not tolerance of sin), forgiveness, respect for life, and, morality(even when the church was very corrupt and bad actions were rampant, its doctrine remained steady and good). Its morality is based on logical theology, not relativistic "whatever suits me best" idealogy that is rampant today.

Anyway, I obviously have a pretty high opinion of the Church. I wish I could answer everyone's questions about the Church, but there simply is not enough time and I'm not equipped with the knowledge to answer all of them.
If you have any questions about the church and have reletively little knowledge of our beliefs DO NOT take the word of some random person on a forum like this regardless of whether they claim to be Catholic or not.

I'd recemmond looking online for some official sites. Even better than that, you could go ask a priest any nagging questions you might have. I'm about 95% sure that he wont pressure you into converting or anything like that if you go to talk to him about it. It's generally not like Catholics to be overly pressuring when it comes to teaching thier religion. If he does, you can always tell him you're not interested or just walk away. As far as the rape issue is concerned, just make sure you take the same measure to protect yourself as you would when talking with any adult male. As already stated in this thread, it's a very small percentage of priests who have done that, but it's something to watch out for. The Church is cracking down on this behavior.

Anyway, priests are excellent sources of information because they are all required to take several years of schooling in the faith. Some know more than others, but all of them should be able to help you, without pressuring you in to anything. GOOD Catholic websites that are actually affiliated with the Church will also help you a lot. I'm sorry that I don't have any in particular to link you to; I'll have to look into some for the future.

I'm Catholic and I am 20 years old. I think I'm just know getting to the point where I'm really starting to respect my faith, my church, and everything involved with that. I used to not agree with a lot of things they taught, but the more I learn about why they teach what they do, the more I've come to agree with them.

To address the "Catholics have done bad things" issue, I'll just say this. The Catholic Church consists of humans and humans are imperfect. Noncatholics have done bad things, too, but that doesn't mean all noncatholics are bad people.

The doctrine, however, is sound. It is now and always has been a doctrine that teaches faith, love, tolerance of all people regardless of race, religion, or general life status (not tolerance of sin), forgiveness, respect for life, and, morality. Its morality is based on logical theology, not relativistic "whatever suits me best" idealogy that is rampant today.

Anyway, I obviously have a pretty high opinion of the Church. I wish I could answer everyone's questions about the Church, but there simply is not enough time and I'm not equipped with the knowledge to answer all of them.
If you have any questions about the church and have reletively little knowledge of our beliefs DO NOT take the word of some random person on a forum like this regardless of whether they claim to be Catholic or not.

I'd recemmond looking online for some official sites. Even better than that, you could go ask a priest any nagging questions you might have. I'm about 95% sure that he wont pressure you into converting or anything like that if you go to talk to him about it, it's generally not like Catholics to be overly pressuring when it comes to teaching thier religion. If he does, you can always tell him you're not interested or just walk away. As far as the rape issue is concerned, just make sure you take the same measure to protect yourself as you would when talking alone with any adult male. As already stated in this thread, it's a very small percentage of priests who have done that, but it's something to watch out for. The Church is cracking down on this behavior.

Anyway, priests are excellent sources of information because they are all required to take several years of schooling in the faith. Some know more than others, but all of them should be able to help you, without pressuring you in to anything. GOOD Catholic websites that are actually affiliated with the Church will also help you a lot. I'm sorry that I don't have any in particular to link you to; I'll have to look into some for the future.

Hurrah Boofheads - glad you seem to be doing OK.

The only thing I have against the Catholic Church at the moment is their response to the AIDS crisis in Africa, which is despicable at best, but that's people in power for you (I have a lot more respect for local priests, because their not detached from real life). Still, deliberately putting about that condoms have holes in them is plain wrong (they don't seem to be able to get their heads round the idea that most people will not abstain, so they're far better off using condoms).

Anyway, not having a go at Catholics (just their Church leaders), as I just felt maybe I could raise the issue.

Well done all you non-bigoted types who don't label every person just because someone with the same basic belief structure as them was a bit naughty six hundred years ago.

There is no evidence either that he wasn't accepted as a Jew by the Jewish community.

Apart from the whole crucifixion malarky.

Crucifying him doesn't mean they didn't think he was a Jew. It means they thought he was a pain in the arse. For all we know he was a fully full-on jewish pain in the arse. The crucified 2 criminals with him, because they were criminals not because they were apostates.

Crucifying him doesn't mean they didn't think he was a Jew. It means they thought he was a pain in the arse. For all we know he was a fully full-on jewish pain in the arse. The crucified 2 criminals with him, because they were criminals not because they were apostates.

To be technical, the Romans crucified the criminals and Jesus.

To be technical, the Romans crucified the criminals and Jesus.

Pilate couldn't crucify him for saying he was the Son of God, as the Roman Empire didn't recognise God, so had no laws against that. So, he asked the Jews to come up with a crime, or he would release him, which is when they came up with saying he was "King of the Jews", which was treasonous against the Empire.

But the romans crucified jesus on the grounds that some jews thought it was a good idea.

But the romans crucified jesus on the grounds that some jews thought it was a good idea.

No, they crucified him on the grounds that he claimed to be King of the Jews. The Jews got the Romans to crucify him because he was a pain in the arse, though, so you're basically right, and I'm a pedantic son of a bitch.

As a raised Catholic, here are my problems with them being "the church of God"

1. The countless number of people murdered by the church
2. The number of people tortured by the church
3. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while people were being tortured and murdered by others
4. Their willingness to do or say nothing while their own servants were being tortured and murdered by others
5. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while knowing their priests defiled our children
6. Their willingness to attack Kerry as a sinner because he thinks the country has no right to legislate a woman's choice, while supporting a candidate who wages war and supports the killing of convicts, whether they may be innocent or not.

This is NOT the acts of a "church of God." How many people must die and be hurt before we accept the fact that the Roman Catholic church is nothing like what it pretends to be??????

As a raised Catholic, here are my problems with them being "the church of God"

1. The countless number of people murdered by the church
2. The number of people tortured by the church
3. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while people were being tortured and murdered by others
4. Their willingness to do or say nothing while their own servants were being tortured and murdered by others
5. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while knowing their priests defiled our children
6. Their willingness to attack Kerry as a sinner because he thinks the country has no right to legislate a woman's choice, while supporting a candidate who wages war and supports the killing of convicts, whether they may be innocent or not.

This is NOT the acts of a "church of God." How many people must die and be hurt before we accept the fact that the Roman Catholic church is nothing like what it pretends to be??????

You forgot lying to Africans about the effectiveness of condoms against HIV.

As a raised Catholic, here are my problems with them being "the church of God"

1. The countless number of people murdered by the church
2. The number of people tortured by the church
3. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while people were being tortured and murdered by others
4. Their willingness to do or say nothing while their own servants were being tortured and murdered by others
5. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while knowing their priests defiled our children

To you also object to the state for similar reasons?

You forgot lying to Africans about the effectiveness of condoms against HIV.
I always thought that they tought that the best way to not get HIV was through abstinence (which really is correct), whilst neglecting to mention the use of condoms.

Although I admit, some Catholics did say that condoms were ineffective in the long run.

all religion is the same. some day mankind will be mature enough to do without it.

Just to let you know...there IS more than one religion and many of them originated 2000 years before Christianity even existed. This is a pointless thread, as with religion, you can't "debate" conflicting ideologies. Basically, you keep going round and round in a circle because everybody believes that God loves their religion and not yours or whatever. Why can't people stop trying to convert others and just get on with their lives? Live and let live.

P.S.- people don't really want to be converted in the first place

did anyone ever think that the whole mary being "mystically" impregnated by god to bear his only son, was actually just some story she made up after a wild night of drinking and cheating on Joeseph?
:mp5:

I always thought that they tought that the best way to not get HIV was through abstinence (which really is correct), whilst neglecting to mention the use of condoms.

Although I admit, some Catholics did say that condoms were ineffective in the long run.

No, there is actually a systematic campaign to misinform African Catholics. And this is by archbishops and the like - leaflets have been distributed claiming that the HIV virus passes through the latex, and this filters down through the system to the local levels, so that it is accepted as fact by most people. I wouldn't mind them doing what you said, but this is bare-faced lying.

Rather than trying to destroy condom use, their time would be better spent dispelling the other myths that are circulating and making the crisis worse, eg:

- Condoms are infected with HIV by Western nations (not that common this one, and another that the Catholic Church probably wouldn't want to touch)

- If you don't have sex in adolescence, you will have health problems/won't be able to have children later in life.

- You can't get pregnant/HIV your first time (one used to exploit young girls).

- If you have HIV, you can get rid of it by having sex with a virgin (I think you can see how much young girls are at risk).

and many, many more...

No matter they don't agree with condoms, the AIDS epidemic is so bad that they should turn a blind eye to their use in Africa, as it is the only thing that will save many people - yes, preach abstinence, but accept that many people are not going to listen, and don't stop them from getting the accurate info they need to protect themselves.

Just teach them which are the most effective ways, let them make up their own mind but, above all, protect the youth and women from exploitation.

Pilate couldn't crucify him for saying he was the Son of God, as the Roman Empire didn't recognise God, so had no laws against that. So, he asked the Jews to come up with a crime, or he would release him, which is when they came up with saying he was "King of the Jews", which was treasonous against the Empire.

When you say the Romans asked "the Jews" do you mean the entire Jewish people? In every power, there is corruption, and at the time the Jewish leaders were corrupt. Pilate had his corrupt Jewish advisors (which there were like 3 of) come up with a crime. Not the Jews. 99.99999% of Jews at the time had nothing to do with it. Do you think an entire people should be punished for some crap four guys did 2000 years ago? Because if that is the case, then Christianity "should" be the most punished religion *crusades*. Do you think that's right?

Also, it was Pilate's decision for them to come up with a crime because Pilate was scared shitless that his power would be taken away by a "King of the Jews"

Okie ... problem with all of you ...

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

3] To those who argue about the Dead Sea Scrolls, well, you're the same people who argue that the VATICAN holds the Dead Sea Scrolls and won't let any translation but theirs get out. Surely you can see the logic problem of this?

4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?

5] If you truly believe in Christianity as Jesus preached it, why do you continue to hate, persecute, and/or find spiritually inadequate the exact same people that the CATHOLIC church persecuted for hundreds of years?

6] If you think the Catholics are nothing but liars, why do you take their versions of Jesus and their versions of the Apostles as the absolute truth? Make up your minds ... are the Catholics liars or not? Stop flip-flopping!

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church - my enemy. If you can prove me wrong, here is your thread to do it.
1) just because something is around for a long time doesn't mean that it is good or right. slavery was around in America for longer than women have had the vote, so does that mean that slavery is more right than women voting? duration of existence has nothing to do with a discussion of virtues, particularly since the years the Catholic Church had its greatest power were the years regarded as the low point of post-Roman European history.

2) so you are saying that God would not have been able to spread the word of Jesus without the human institution of the Church? God would have been UNABLE of finding another way to do this? i thought your God was Almighty...?

3) no, i don't. the Vatican has the scrolls, and since they won't let anybody see them they are free to make up whatever they like because nobody can look at the scrolls and disprove their claims.

4) i don't argue this point, so i won't try to answer this.

5) i don't think all anti-Catholics do this. i'm anti-Catholic, and i don't believe in Christianity, so your statement certainly doesn't apply to me. i also know many Christians who are anti-Catholic, and they don't persecute ANYBODY, so they are way ahead of the Catholic Church (which still persecutes pretty much all the same people it always has)

6) i don't believe in any of the Christian faith, so i guess this doesn't apply to me either.

if you believe there is such a thing as a "holy Church" then there is nothing i can do to reason with you. that would be like me trying to convince somebody that the Easter Bunny is our true Lord Almighty when they insist our Savior is Santa Claus...a silly debate that would only be an embarassment to everyone involved.

Okie ... problem with all of you ...

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

3] To those who argue about the Dead Sea Scrolls, well, you're the same people who argue that the VATICAN holds the Dead Sea Scrolls and won't let any translation but theirs get out. Surely you can see the logic problem of this?

4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?

5] If you truly believe in Christianity as Jesus preached it, why do you continue to hate, persecute, and/or find spiritually inadequate the exact same people that the CATHOLIC church persecuted for hundreds of years?

6] If you think the Catholics are nothing but liars, why do you take their versions of Jesus and their versions of the Apostles as the absolute truth? Make up your minds ... are the Catholics liars or not? Stop flip-flopping!

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church - my enemy. If you can prove me wrong, here is your thread to do it.

1, Slaves was around for countless fo yers and noone did anything until the eleventh century.
2, It is nice that you who are catholic know nothing about the ortodox chruch (myself I am agnostic), you are aware of the fact that there wasn't any catholics until the split of 1056?
3, Well I don't...
4, Because that christians and koptic dissedents made the Bible and not catholics who didn't exist during Chalcedon?
5, Because protestants disagree on other things?
6, See what I said about the Bible...

II think you should learn a bit more about your religion, I am 14, agnostic and have never put my foot in sermon.

As a raised Catholic, here are my problems with them being "the church of God"

1. The countless number of people murdered by the church
2. The number of people tortured by the church
3. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while people were being tortured and murdered by others
4. Their willingness to do or say nothing while their own servants were being tortured and murdered by others
5. Their willingness to stand by and do nothing while knowing their priests defiled our children
6. Their willingness to attack Kerry as a sinner because he thinks the country has no right to legislate a woman's choice, while supporting a candidate who wages war and supports the killing of convicts, whether they may be innocent or not.

This is NOT the acts of a "church of God." How many people must die and be hurt before we accept the fact that the Roman Catholic church is nothing like what it pretends to be??????

This is so not true on so many levels:
1. Yes people were murdered by the church during the crusades, there have been many counter reformations since then and it isn't something that they are necisarilly proud of.
2. Yes, the crusades were bad, torturing scientist was bad, although they really thought that their science was good and did do a number of things to progress it. but again they have since reformed, yes even christians make mistakes protestant, catholic, whatever.
3. Ugghhh, you get my point on one and two. And as far as current times, the Catholic church as a whole does not take a pro-war stance!
4. I dont know what you are talking about give me proof. However, Christ was tortured and murdered and God did nothing. Missionaries are tortured and murdered but, what do you want another holy war? I thought you were against those?
5. Yes there were human mistakes made, these things happen, they are really trying very hard not to ever let anything like that happen again.
6. The catholic church does view murder as murder whether it is in war or from abortions. I am sure that they do view Kerry as a sinner but they view every human other than Christ as a sinner. If they didnt view Kerry as a sinner it would be herretical.

Because some people use their beliefs to wipe out other cultures?

Hell, man, my daughter, who is in 1st grade, had to do a little paper on Christopher Columbus. Never mind the fact that CC is the butcher of her people, she still had to color a smiley picture of him and write about him as a great explorer.

THAT is why I am intolerant. Not because of something 3-4 hundred years ago, but because of something that keeps happening TODAY.

True. He was a bad, bad white man.

But on the bright side, white men in the US today have to deal with the semi-officialdom of Spanish as a language, Indian Reservations making money hand over fist with casinos, and the scouge of Diversity. He knows and hates his child has a day off from school for Martin Luther King, but not for John F. Kennedy. Both are dead womanizers, but they give the day off to the black guy, not to the President.
The schools are teaching less and less about his forefathers (Dead White Men) and more about marginal figures of color just for diversity's sake.

NOTE: This is not written in anger. This is written to show that EVERYBODY has something to be annoyed about.

If you have a right to be mad about Columbus, do I have a right to be mad about Tsar Ivan IV (aka "The Terrible")? (He took the throne 50 years after Columbus sailed for America.) How about Hitler?

It's 2004. LET IT GO. Hate is bad. Hate that spans generations does no one any good, and only leads to a worse world.

You say you're angry about it happening today -- a "whitewashing" of Columbus. Have you confronted the teacher about it? Did your daughter really have to paint a "rosy" picture of him? What can make it better? What would you want?

IMHO: Columbus *was* a great explorer. He was also a man of his times, and in many ways ignorant and intolerant. A murderer? Perhaps. But he cannot be not taught in a schoolroom...

did anyone ever think that the whole mary being "mystically" impregnated by god to bear his only son, was actually just some story she made up after a wild night of drinking and cheating on Joeseph?
:mp5:

Spot on! Jesus was just a bastard love child hippy who wanted people to chill out. His ideas were too groovy for the Money/Power craving Theocracies that were vying for the minds of the meek so they killed him. The Romans were quite enamoured with how Docile christians were and thought it would be a great idea if everyone could be brainwashed this way so that they could exploit them. Hey Presto ! The ROMAN catholic Church was created. How convenient - It was still ruled by an Emperor in Constantinople later to be the Pope who was some rich Merchant in Rome! Since then they have gone on to prey on the weak ( Children), and destroy whole civilisations ( The Crusades, The Conquistadors) all in the name of Jesus - but in Reality this was a front for Imperial expansion, Gold, Controlling Trade routes and the Silk Road. Comparisons can be made to day in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S.A. is a fundamentalist Christian country who are hell bent on exploiting weakness and fear in Oil rich countries.
Get rid of the Pope and all similar opportunist Perverts and let us get on Lovin each other and exploring what this world can offer us together.

PEACE! :fluffle:

Spot on! Jesus was just a bastard love child hippy who wanted people to chill out. His ideas were too groovy for the Money/Power craving Theocracies that were vying for the minds of the meek so they killed him. The Romans were quite enamoured with how Docile christians were and thought it would be a great idea if everyone could be brainwashed this way so that they could exploit them. Hey Presto ! The ROMAN catholic Church was created. How convenient - It was still ruled by an Emperor in Constantinople later to be the Pope who was some rich Merchant in Rome! Since then they have gone on to prey on the weak ( Children), and destroy whole civilisations ( The Crusades, The Conquistadors) all in the name of Jesus - but in Reality this was a front for Imperial expansion, Gold, Controlling Trade routes and the Silk Road. Comparisons can be made to day in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S.A. is a fundamentalist Christian country who are hell bent on exploiting weakness and fear in Oil rich countries.
Get rid of the Pope and all similar opportunist Perverts and let us get on Lovin each other and exploring what this world can offer us together.

PEACE! :fluffle:

Keep on truckin'!

By the way If you really need some fantastically wealthy man in a funny hat to tellyou how to be a good human being what does that really say about yourself.

Don't be patronised by Hypocrites!!

um..... sure we'll go with that :mp5:

I really don't understand how people can follow the Catholic Church. They are amazingly frequent in changing their policies over their long history. Never mind all the violent crap they supported to keep themselves in power, but simple doctrinal changes. Papal infallibility is a major one that really gets to me. Jesus preached what should Holy Days there were that come right from the Old Testament like Antonement, Trumpets, Feasts of Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles. I'd like to see where in the Bible it says anything about Christmas. How can you eat pork? Now as I understand it the Church (at least in America) is thinking about changing policy on things like homosexuality and abortion. Whether you support these or not, how can the Church simply change it's teachings? A true religion sticks to it's basic doctrine and not change it simply becaus a teaching becomes unpopular.

I really don't understand how people can follow the Catholic Church. They are amazingly frequent in changing their policies over their long history. Never mind all the violent crap they supported to keep themselves in power, but simple doctrinal changes. Papal infallibility is a major one that really gets to me. Jesus preached what should Holy Days there were that come right from the Old Testament like Antonement, Trumpets, Feasts of Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles. I'd like to see where in the Bible it says anything about Christmas. How can you eat pork? Now as I understand it the Church (at least in America) is thinking about changing policy on things like homosexuality and abortion. Whether you support these or not, how can the Church simply change it's teachings? A true religion sticks to it's basic doctrine and not change it simply becaus a teaching becomes unpopular.

Without change how would mankind ever move on? If you didn't want the Catholic church to change EVER, women would still be burning at the stake for being devils and sinners.

Without change how would mankind ever move on? If you didn't want the Catholic church to change EVER, women would still be burning at the stake for being devils and sinners.
No because there would be countless of people to burn but noone to set them on fire. Persoally I think it is great that big institutions like religions change with the time but I can not by any means understand why people follow churches as they change their doctrines all the time but still claim to be worshipping as before (the ortodox church is an exception, they haven't changed much since 1056, they consider it wrong to do so until christianity is united. Still they are one of the more liberal churches, tricky, eh?).

When you say the Romans asked "the Jews" do you mean the entire Jewish people? In every power, there is corruption, and at the time the Jewish leaders were corrupt. Pilate had his corrupt Jewish advisors (which there were like 3 of) come up with a crime. Not the Jews. 99.99999% of Jews at the time had nothing to do with it. Do you think an entire people should be punished for some crap four guys did 2000 years ago? Because if that is the case, then Christianity "should" be the most punished religion *crusades*. Do you think that's right?

Also, it was Pilate's decision for them to come up with a crime because Pilate was scared shitless that his power would be taken away by a "King of the Jews"

Let's not split hairs, shall we. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see I didn't mean all the jewish people.

Without change how would mankind ever move on? If you didn't want the Catholic church to change EVER, women would still be burning at the stake for being devils and sinners.

Maybe I wasn't clear but I meant doctrinal changes. That is a nice point though that the Catholic Church loved to torture people. To save their victims own souls of course.

hey all of you Catholics

You got what you diserved at Lutzen, Brietenfeld, Boyne, and Colluden :sniper: In Germany, Protestansts where burned alive! :mad: Had it have not been for my ancestors, the Swedes, you would have taken over Germany, im sure you would inquisition Scandinavia(because thats all you know how to do) and have a crusade or 2 to England. God save the queen and Gustavus Adophus!

Let's not split hairs, shall we. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see I didn't mean all the jewish people.

Well, obviously, some people still think Jews should be punished, and as a Jew I think it is important to split hairs otherwise mass misconceptions can do harm.

Maybe I wasn't clear but I meant doctrinal changes. That is a nice point though that the Catholic Church loved to torture people. To save their victims own souls of course.

Doctrinal changes...same thing. People change with the times and that is why the US constitution has a little thing called AMENDMENTS. I'm not saying they loved to torture people...they obviously thought it was their god given duty or something. Save their victim's own souls? By burning them? WTF? Yeah, their intention may have been good, but that has nothing to do with the results. Hatred is no means to an end.

hey all of you Catholics

You got what you diserved at Lutzen, Brietenfeld, Boyne, and Colluden :sniper: In Germany, Protestansts where burned alive! :mad: Had it have not been for my ancestors, the Swedes, you would have taken over Germany, im sure you would inquisition Scandinavia(because thats all you know how to do) and have a crusade or 2 to England. God save the queen and Gustavus Adophus!

Damn you Swedes and your Poland-invading ways!

Okie ... problem with all of you ...

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

3] To those who argue about the Dead Sea Scrolls, well, you're the same people who argue that the VATICAN holds the Dead Sea Scrolls and won't let any translation but theirs get out. Surely you can see the logic problem of this?

4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?

5] If you truly believe in Christianity as Jesus preached it, why do you continue to hate, persecute, and/or find spiritually inadequate the exact same people that the CATHOLIC church persecuted for hundreds of years?

6] If you think the Catholics are nothing but liars, why do you take their versions of Jesus and their versions of the Apostles as the absolute truth? Make up your minds ... are the Catholics liars or not? Stop flip-flopping!

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church - my enemy. If you can prove me wrong, here is your thread to do it.
Why do people fight about religion? I mean, it's about as logical as starting a war over who has the best invisible friend. I just don't get it.

Why do people fight about religion? I mean, it's about as logical as starting a war over who has the best invisible friend. I just don't get it.

Just like some people have invisible friends, some people don't. People who do are just weird and there should be a law against it.

hey all of you Catholics

You got what you diserved at Lutzen, Brietenfeld, Boyne, and Colluden :sniper:

The battle of the Boyne? You mean the victory of the homosexual King William of Orange with his elite unit, the Blue Guards, fighting under the Papal Banner, and his army carrying the blessing of the Pope? I can only assume that you either (1) mean the Catholics deserved victory, or (2) have swallowed the Unionist/Loyalist distortion of historical fact that is annually perpetuated by the Orange Order in Northern Ireland.

you see this is why atheism rocks, don't believe in a god, therefore no god to fight for, there fore less wars and pointless massacres......





<thinks>





hmmmmm maybe not......

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".

The Catholic church hasn't even existed *now* for 1000 years, they were about 500 years before the protestants.

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

That would be the orthodox church

4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?

Orthodox interpretation

6] If you think the Catholics are nothing but liars, why do you take their versions of Jesus and their versions of the Apostles as the absolute truth? Make up your minds ... are the Catholics liars or not? Stop flip-flopping!

No liars probably isn't the right word, ignorant is a better choice.

See, here's the thing, you seem to think that the Catholic church began christianity, but the Catholic church didn't even exist until the 11th century.

The original "one true church" is the orthodox church prevalent in the East, see in the 11th century, the papacy got in an argument over certain things (like the nature of the trinity) with the rest of the orthodox church, but rather than back down into some liberal interpretation, the orthodox churches held true to their beliefs, and the Roman Orthodox church branched off and created the Catholic church.

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church - my enemy. If you can prove me wrong, here is your thread to do it.

I believe I just did, oh for the record, the Orthodox church considers Catholics "the rebellious latins" ;)

hey all of you Catholics

You got what you diserved at Lutzen, Brietenfeld, Boyne, and Colluden :sniper: In Germany, Protestansts where burned alive! :mad: Had it have not been for my ancestors, the Swedes, you would have taken over Germany, im sure you would inquisition Scandinavia(because thats all you know how to do) and have a crusade or 2 to England. God save the queen and Gustavus Adophus!
We have been keeping the flaming low so far, try to maintain it that way... If you'd know more about the thirty year war you'd know that the only reason we could fight Austria was because of french loans...

hmmmmm maybe not......

Kellarly, we have a couple of phonecalls here for you - a bunch of chaps called Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung want a word about your fascinating new ideas for avoiding slaughter and warfare by not believing in God.

Kellarly, we have a couple of phonecalls here for you - a bunch of chaps called Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung want a word about your fascinating new ideas for avoiding slaughter and warfare by not believing in God.

I think that's why he finished his post with "hmmmm maybe not..."

I think that's why he finished his post with "hmmmm maybe not..."

Yeah, I thought it 50/50 that that was what he meant: if nothing else he got some support for his view from my post.

Kellarly, we have a couple of phonecalls here for you - a bunch of chaps called Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung want a word about your fascinating new ideas for avoiding slaughter and warfare by not believing in God.
Hitler was religious, odinist. Furthermore I have got some calls for you, Richard III, the inquisition and practically everyone who has taken part of a pogrom... Don't you see that he is saying you shouldn't trust anythin but pure science and respect for other people's views?

Blame it on religion, blame it on whatever. The basic fact is, wherever you go there's bound to be some raving lunatic who claims they know what's right for everybody. It's not religion (basic beliefs and so on), it's people. People are greedy, self centered, and ignorant...it's our nature.

Hitler was religious, odinist.

That remains a debatable point - whether he actually believed in any religion, or just was extremely prepared to use its trappings in order to whip up support and enflame a national hysteria.

Furthermore I have got some calls for you, Richard III, the inquisition and practically everyone who has taken part of a pogrom...


The point here is that it is not religion qua religion which can lead to pogroms/slaughters but the belief in ideologies, be they theist or atheist.

Don't you see that he is saying you shouldn't trust anythin but pure science and respect for other people's views?

Science itself is an ideology, and 'pure' science is just a historical accident which is shaped by changing ideas of the philosophy of science which themselves are rooted in the shifting sands of epistemology. You advocate on one hand 'pure science' as if it was a be-all-and-end-all, and then add a caveat of respect for other peopl's views, when it is patently clear that science does nothing to privilege views or people: they are just bags of meat obeying physical laws of the cosmos, and as such their lives and deaths mean nothing from a scientific perspective.

People are greedy, self centered, and ignorant...it's our nature.

Yes, some people are, but there are also people who are altruistic, selfless and wise/learned. You can't damn humanity for its so-called failings, without recognising that it also has so-called virtues. Due to the lack of any objective external framework to measure humanity against we are forced to measure humanity against itself, and thus the 'good' balances out the 'ill'.

Yes, but compare the amount of greedy people to selfless ones...few and far between.

Yes, but compare the amount of greedy people to selfless ones...few and far between.

Yes, but as I said above, unless you have an external objective measure by which to judge humanity we are forced to judge humanity against itself, and so the end result is always '0' (unless we are going to enter into the fantasy of nostalgia for 'the good old days' when nobody locked their doors, and nobody stole anything, and women could walk home unmolested, and other races were inferior races and females were kept in a subjugated role and the working class were exploited to the hilt....)

That remains a debatable point - whether he actually believed in any religion, or just was extremely prepared to use its trappings in order to whip up support and enflame a national hysteria.




The point here is that it is not religion qua religion which can lead to pogroms/slaughters but the belief in ideologies, be they theist or atheist.



Science itself is an ideology, and 'pure' science is just a historical accident which is shaped by changing ideas of the philosophy of science which themselves are rooted in the shifting sands of epistemology. You advocate on one hand 'pure science' as if it was a be-all-and-end-all, and then add a caveat of respect for other peopl's views, when it is patently clear that science does nothing to privilege views or people: they are just bags of meat obeying physical laws of the cosmos, and as such their lives and deaths mean nothing from a scientific perspective.

Ok, we don't know but the religions he created remains today and are causing great troubles.

Of course, any belief that tries to put itself as an non doubtable truth is a threat, and all religions (except discordianism then) are such ideologies. To put science above all means that you trust what is proven, to besides that respect other peoples' views means that there will be debating (and flaming) but no pogroms.

Wow ....

This whole thread is proof that Keruvalia should not drink and post.

Rude am I.

Still, no typos .... zany.

This whole thread is proof that Keruvalia should not drink and post.

Note the complete absence of a look of surprise on my face at this stunning revelation.

To put science above all means that you trust what is proven, to besides that respect other peoples' views means that there will be debating (and flaming) but no pogroms.

Yes, but the mechanics of proof are themselves just historical constructs, and if you actually look at how science works we find that its emphasis is not on proving things, but rather on disproving them. How science is done now is very different from how it was done in the past, and there is no indication that it shall not undergo some other paradigm shift in methodology at some point in the future.

You come up again with the second caveat - respect people and debate with them, but don't slaughter them - but this is just an arbitrary rule/guideline. Not only does it not address how to tackle those others who would seek to slaughter you and stifle your debate, but also it doesn't give any grounds for why debate is better than slaughter.

Note the complete absence of a look of surprise on my face at this stunning revelation.

Yes ... I was rude. I apologize. It shall not happen again.

Still, no typos .... zany.

Apart from the grammatical slip that lead to you declaring the Catholic church to be your enemy -

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church - my enemy.

Yes ... I was rude. I apologize. It shall not happen again.

Is there anything salvageable of your initial position from the first page and a half, if nothing else it has stimualted some debate?

Is there anything salvageable of your initial position from the first page and a half, if nothing else it has stimualted some debate?

Well, at least there is that!

Yes, but the mechanics of proof are themselves just historical constructs, and if you actually look at how science works we find that its emphasis is not on proving things, but rather on disproving them. How science is done now is very different from how it was done in the past, and there is no indication that it shall not undergo some other paradigm shift in methodology at some point in the future.

You come up again with the second caveat - respect people and debate with them, but don't slaughter them - but this is just an arbitrary rule/guideline. Not only does it not address how to tackle those others who would seek to slaughter you and stifle your debate, but also it doesn't give any grounds for why debate is better than slaughter.

Science has the answers:

person + person + debate = 2 enlightened persons
person + person + slaughter = 1 unenlightened person

2 persons is twice as good as 1 person

Also, the following method for tackling those who would seek to slaughter is scientifically proven to be effective, at least on a short term basis:
run away very fast.

Science has the answers:

person + person + debate = 2 enlightened persons
person + person + slaughter = 1 unenlightened person

2 persons is twice as good as 1 person


Whence comes this concept of 'good'?

Whence comes this concept of 'good'?

sorry, i was kidding.

Doctrinal changes...same thing. People change with the times and that is why the US constitution has a little thing called AMENDMENTS. I'm not saying they loved to torture people...they obviously thought it was their god given duty or something. Save their victim's own souls? By burning them? WTF? Yeah, their intention may have been good, but that has nothing to do with the results. Hatred is no means to an end.

Religion is not a constitution. A constitution can flow with the times if things change. Not so with a religion. If you oppose homosexuality than you can't change just because in our modern world it is supposed to be accepted. How can you stand on principle if you change simply because people don't like it? This is simply one example of the Church's not standing on anything. It is good that they ceased their torture but it doesn't mean they can change anything they want because time moves on. It is just a ploy to keep people sending them money. True religon doesn't flipflop.

Damn you Swedes and your Poland-invading ways!

Well at least we won!!!
And the only reason Poland was invaded is because Gustav's cousin betrayed his own country who became Catholic and king of Poland. He wanted to unite Sweden and Poland under the Polish flag!!!!! This was probably what the Pope paid him to do! :mp5: you Catholics think you can pose all of these rules, like, worshiping Mary, being sprinkled(baptized) as a baby, and paying to go to confession!!!! :mad: No wonder the English, Scandinavians, Czechs, and North Germans had the Refromation!

sorry, i was kidding.

Someday someone will give me a watertight answer to that question and I will be left flabbergasted and drooling at the keyboard...

Someday someone will give me a watertight answer to that question and I will be left flabbergasted and drooling at the keyboard...

Can you really give a watertight arguement to anything? If you could than there wouldn't be an issue of it now would there?

Can you really give a watertight arguement to anything?

Yes, but probably only in axiomatic systems where the answer is essentially contained within the rules of the system (see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for more details).

If you could than there wouldn't be an issue of it now would there?

No, but you never know when someone might produce one which I am unable to disagree with either the assumptions of or the reasoning that structures it, in which case I would be forced* to agree with them.


* quite possibly kicking and screaming.

Well at least we won!!!
And the only reason Poland was invaded is because Gustav's cousin betrayed his own country who became Catholic and king of Poland. He wanted to unite Sweden and Poland under the Polish flag!!!!! This was probably what the Pope paid him to do! :mp5: you Catholics think you can pose all of these rules, like, worshiping Mary, being sprinkled(baptized) as a baby, and paying to go to confession!!!! :mad: No wonder the English, Scandinavians, Czechs, and North Germans had the Refromation!

Don't you find it a little self-serving to be giving yourself props as an invader? Oh, that's right. Only your side can be good. :rolleyes:

But, for the record:
a) Catholics adore but do NOT worship Mary.
b) Many religions have rites for their young, baptism is ours.
c) I've never paid to go to confession...

I agree that there was a lot of corruption in the Catholic Church at the time of Luther. Still is, in varying ways. But *every* organization will have some corruption. It is human nature.

People will blindly accept what the Catholic Church tells them because they say if you don't your going to hell. So I can certainly understand how people will have a hard time seeing the Church for what it is. Anyone see differences between the American church and what the Pope teaches? I don't suppose the he made some speech about gays not being sinners did he? Catholics should wonder at the contradiction.

Don't you find it a little self-serving to be giving yourself props as an invader? Oh, that's right. Only your side can be good. :rolleyes:

But, for the record:
a) Catholics adore but do NOT worship Mary.
b) Many religions have rites for their young, baptism is ours.
c) I've never paid to go to confession...

I agree that there was a lot of corruption in the Catholic Church at the time of Luther. Still is, in varying ways. But *every* organization will have some corruption. It is human nature.

I seem to remember learning that baptism only occurs when a person is ready to make a commitment to God. I don't think an infant can make that sort of choice.

...they don't seem to be able to get their heads round the idea that most people will not abstain, so they're far better off using condoms.
Not really, to us, that's compounding the sin they would do (a double mortal!). It would be far better if they just didn't have sex in the first place.

But of course, people are just incapable of deciding not to do so. [/sarcasm]


I seem to remember learning that baptism only occurs when a person is ready to make a commitment to God. I don't think an infant can make that sort of choice.The parents give their commitment to bringing the baby up in the faith. Confirmation is when the baby (now able to make decisions) decides whether or not he will still follow it.

I seem to remember learning that baptism only occurs when a person is ready to make a commitment to God. I don't think an infant can make that sort of choice.

Confirmation you're thinking of.
Have you been to a Catholic baptism? Your godparents do a "stand in" for you in a spiritual way.

Confirmation you're thinking of.
Have you been to a Catholic baptism? Your godparents do a "stand in" for you in a spiritual way.

My belief is that this is not what a baptism is as its in the Bible. Your parens don't decide for you, it is only when you are an adult that you can make such a choice not that I'd want any part of the Catholic institution. It has plenty of problems as I've mentioned above. Someone needs to deal with the issues for I don't know if anyone knows anymore just what Christ taught.

Of course, but I think of "became its own religion" as being more like "went horribly horribly wrong, ignoring the very scripture that it is based upon" but that's just my opinion. :)
You should read Rabbi Jacob Neussner's book A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. He does a very good job in explaining why Jesus was a self proclaimed Rabbi and should not be viewed as a Jewish teacher.

My belief is that this is not what a baptism is as its in the Bible. Your parens don't decide for you, it is only when you are an adult that you can make such a choice not that I'd want any part of the Catholic institution. It has plenty of problems as I've mentioned above. Someone needs to deal with the issues for I don't know if anyone knows anymore just what Christ taught.

Is fine. You're free to believe that. :)

And then you have the bishops who routinely move their pedophile priests around the country, from parish to parish, after they've molested several boys, and cover it up afterwards.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the claims.

Actually all priest are moved around. See a priest serves a church for four years, and then he goes to a diffrent church, and the cycle starts over.

Actually all priest are moved around. See a priest serves a church for four years, and then he goes to a diffrent church, and the cycle starts over.

True, but that certainly doesn't make what the church did any better. The church is there to help you and instead covers up for its very troubled priests. There is a violation of trust I don't see how you earn back. You trust these men to be alone with your children. The Catholic church should have fired the offenders to begin with. While temperarily embarassing, they would have spared alot of heartache not to mention the benefical side of avoiding a big scandal. Nothing stays secret. Moving offenders to another location to do it again is disgusting. Is this the kind of institution that people should be part of?

Okie ... problem with all of you ...

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".

Catholocism in the current form has not been around that long.

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

I am not anti-Catholic, but this is untrue. If it were not for the people who spread the Gospel, we would not know about Jesus. But there have always been many sects of Christianity, and there have always been competing views.

4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?

The Catholic Church (hell, any church) never had a monopoly on Scripture. When you read any Scripture, you are reading what someone from the past who believed themselves to be inspired by God wrote down. The Church of the time chose some of those (some of which the Protestants later rejected) to bind into a book. Of course, any scripture may hold some value.

5] If you truly believe in Christianity as Jesus preached it, why do you continue to hate, persecute, and/or find spiritually inadequate the exact same people that the CATHOLIC church persecuted for hundreds of years?

Huh?

6] If you think the Catholics are nothing but liars, why do you take their versions of Jesus and their versions of the Apostles as the absolute truth? Make up your minds ... are the Catholics liars or not? Stop flip-flopping!

I have never said that Catholics are liars. I have simply pointed out that the Catholic Church lies when it claims to do anything "the way it has always been done" as none of the current dogma has truly been in all churches, everywhere, for all time - as they claim. And many of those dogmas I disagree with.

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church (No, I am not Catholic).

So you took one out of all of the evolutions of the church and chose that one as the single most important? Yeah, that's logical.

Christianity has a basis in the Jewish religion(that's fairly common knowledge) but has several key differences with Jews, namely that there's that whole new testament and that Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God. So why are you claiming them to be the same, or close to the same thing? They simply aren't and that's a matter of definition.

I don't think I ever said that Christianity and Judaism were the same thing, as obviously they are not. What I disagree with is the seemingly common Christian idea that Judaism is made invalid by or replaced by Christianity, which is a completely absurd idea considering that Yeshua (Jesus) himself defended the authority of the Torah and Tanakh. I believe that if Christians actually read and understood their own scriptures (half of which are the scriptures of Judaism), their religion would be very different from the one they practice today (EDIT: as well as far, far closer to the one that Jesus himself practiced. )

I don't think I ever said that Christianity and Judaism were the same thing, as obviously they are not. What I disagree with is the seemingly common Christian idea that Judaism is made invalid by or replaced by Christianity, which is a completely absurd idea considering that Yeshua (Jesus) himself defended the authority of the Torah and Tanakh. I believe that if Christians actually read and understood their own scriptures (half of which are the scriptures of Judaism), their religion would be very different from the one they practice today (EDIT: as well as far, far closer to the one that Jesus himself practiced. )

Disagreed on several points. First your "Christians actually read and understood their own scriptures" point is not a strong one. I think it's a safe assumption that you made that most Catholics are not extremely knowledgable of the scriptures. However the people who are responsible for setting church practices such as priests and bishops are all very well versed in the bible- both old and new testament.

I think you're completely missing the point. The most important point of Christianity is that Jesus came down from heaven and died for us. He gave us a new covenant that replaced the old Jewish one.

The two religions have completely different points of emphasis, so why would they have the same pracitces?? This is the most important question. I dare you to answer it.

Heck, Muslims believe that Jesus was a great teacher and accept a lot of his beliefs. Does that mean I think that Christianity and the Islamic faith should have the same practices? No.

That's not saying that the entire Jewish religion and all their traditions are wrong from a Christian perspective. Christians still celebrate passover and share many beliefs with Jews. I, a Catholic, think Havah Nagilah is a great, catchy song (;. However, I don't believe that someone who believes in Jesus Christ and his message can ever place the same importance on the old testament as they do on the importance of the very words of who they believe to be the Son of God.

To repeat myself, having this sort of very important difference in their belief system invariably causes the two religions to have very different practices.

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!


Egyptian Coptic Church
Eastern Orthodox

Not that those are any better.

Not that i could really care less either, but i had to point those out.

I've read a lot of replies that have a lot of factual errors in them and I want to straighten some of them out.
The Catholic Church interprets the Bible, while many (not all) Protestant Churches take it literally.

Major differences include:
1. Moses crossing the Red Sea; Protestants believe that the Red Sea Opened and Moses walked through. Catholic teaching (CATHOLIC TEACHING, not Protestant teaching, since many Catholic in the US mistakenly take the Protestant teaching to be Catholic Teaching), says that Moses crossed near the mouth of the Nile. Why do they say this?
a. The words for Red Sea and the name of the opening of the Nile are very similar so they believe that it was a mistranslation.
b. The Red sea is many hundreds of meters deep, while at some places in the Opening of the Nile the height of the water is similar to that of a "wall" (In the Bile they said that the water was like a wall).
c. THAT WATER NATURALLY PARTS, in some places at the opening of the Nile the water (due to high and low tides) naturally parts once every few years.
D. if Moses did take the Red Sea path, then he would have gone a much longer distance, since he'd have had to have gone South East, then North West to get from Egypt to Israel.
E. The mud stopped the Chariots, as it stopped the Allies in WW2 when they tried to cross the opened area with their tanks.

2.We do not pray TO Mary or the Saints or the Apostles, We say "[Name here] pray for us" We are asking them to pray for us, just as you could ask a person here on Earth to pray for you. We only pray to the Trinity.

3. The Church CHANGES, people who point to the church's past as an indication to their present actions or beliefs, do not fully understand what they're talking about because the Church can change and so their past actions are not necessarily indications of their present actions. That is not to say the Church's history isn't important. There are only several things which are not changeable in the church and that are Permanent Doctrine, Permanent Dogma, Permanent Ethic, Permanent etc... In fact to have a (nontraditional) Catholic mass all that you really need is a priest; you don’t need the robes, buildings, carefully organized readings, etc. All other tenants of the church can change! (Of course with a good reason).
a. The Old Testament is not what it originally was! The Old Testament had been handed down orally for centuries before being written down, (which as anyone who has played telephone knows, the original message will change). So that means that people could have added things, like women can’t become priests, etc. And as the Church learns more about the credibility of the scriptures as it can change.
1. It does this by looking at other passages, like when the books were originally chosen, they left out some books, because they had inaccuracies like Jesus as a child killed another child and then resurrected him, or he made a live bird out of dirt for a bet or competition.
2. Continued intervention of God, the reason that Christians can Eat pork is that Peter had a vision where an angle tell him "what God has made holy you will not make unholy" and showed him all the food that the Jews weren’t suppose to eat, the same for circumcision, and the not eating of strangled meat was really more of a health issue.
3. You don't have to believe in every Tenant, like whether you take the interpretation that the apple represents temptation, Adam all men, and Eve all women. And that the seven days that God created the universe represent the seven stages of the universe that is: "God created the heavens" as the first stage of the universe, “Let there be light" as God created the Sun, Water, vegetation, animals, humans, etc, all follow the same pattern, and that it was used as a story for the (face it) ignorant people of the time (try imagining explaining to those people all that you know today). Or you can believe that everything was created in six 24 hour periods, and take it literally. Either way the Church does not say that you have to believe one in order to get into heaven, you can believe either and still get into heaven. As you can believe either of the two possibilities about the water and mosses.
4. The church does not say that people of different beliefs can not get into heaven. If someone tries to find the "truth" but has never heard of Christianity, like ancient Buddhists, they could still get into heaven if they live a good life (only God has the final word in who gets into heaven though).
5. The Church no longer believes in purgatory. There is no supporting scripture, and it came from the assumption that God worked like the European prison system, where if you bribed the Guard (God) with money (prayers) he would take time away from the sentence. Although you could believe in this and still get into heaven.
6. The church has specific beliefs (which it may not seem like after reading this) but not all of them are permanent. As explained in (3).

Disagreed on several points. First your "Christians actually read and understood their own scriptures" point is not a strong one. I think it's a safe assumption that you made that most Catholics are not extremely knowledgable of the scriptures.


It's not an assumption. It's a statement of fact. :)
A statement of fact, by the way, which certainly also applies to pretty much every Protestant denomination I have ever seen as well.


However the people who are responsible for setting church practices such as priests and bishops are all very well versed in the bible- both old and new testament.


An appeal to human religous authority is hardly itself a very strong argument, as Jesus himself made a regular practice of questioning and doubting human interpretation and authority. Take for instance the story found at Matthew 15:

"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to god,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the work of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'..."For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'"
-- Matthew 15:1-20, The Teen Study Bible, Zondervan, NIV

Not only did Jesus reject the authority of the religous figures of his time, but he also rejected the man-made traditions of said figures. The hand washing ritual refered to in this passage is called n'tilat-yadayim and is a tradition described in the Oral Torah. Jesus simply believed the Oral Torah to be an invention of men, and so rejected it. Jesus, however, continued to assert the authority of the Written Torah as the authoritative and binding word of God ...(read on below)


I think you're completely missing the point. The most important point of Christianity is that Jesus came down from heaven and died for us. He gave us a new covenant that replaced the old Jewish one.


"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
-- Matthew 5:17-20, The Teen Study Bible, Zondervan, NIV

Jesus said it himself, "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." According to Christians, heaven and earth, as we know them, are not scheduled to disappear until the Book of Revelation, whose events, as far as I can tell, have not yet occured. Therefore, as Jesus himself clearly said, the Law is still valid, active and binding. The "Law" with a capital "L" is the common translation of "Torah"; "Torah" itself means "teaching" but is often translated into "Law" via greek.

Sorry, but the covenant made by God to His People at Mount Sinai is still active and binding, and has not been replaced by anything. Jesus says so himself. :)


The two religions have completely different points of emphasis, so why would they have the same pracitces?? This is the most important question. I dare you to answer it.


The followers of Jesus Christ would follow many of the same practices and traditions found in the Written Torah because, as I have demonstrated above, Jesus himself recognized the authority of, and followed the same practices and traditions found in, the Written Torah.

The most obvious example I can think of, of Jesus doing exactly that, is what Christians often refer to as the "Last Supper," which was really Jesus and his followers getting together to celebrate Passover. ;)

"On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?' He replied, 'Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.'' So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover."
-- Matthew 26:17-19, The Teen Study Bible, Zondervan, NIV


Does that mean I think that Christianity and the Islamic faith should have the same practices? No.


Again, I don't recall saying that they would have the same practices, as Jesus did appear to reject the authority of the Oral Torah, but they would certainly be very similar as Jesus did accept and proclaim the authority of the Written Torah.


However, I don't believe that someone who believes in Jesus Christ and his message can ever place the same importance on the old testament as they do on the importance of the very words of who they believe to be the Son of God.


Which I don't understand since, as I have shown above, the Son of God himself did place the same importance on the "old testament" as he did on himself. :)

Hmpf, I hate the papacy, though not the Catholics, I have some good friends that are Catholic. But I do wonder at how someone can follow a group of people that have betrayed true Catholics for centuries for the sake of politics....That's just me though...

Okie ... problem with all of you ...

1] Catholics were around for 1300 years before there was any such thing as "Protestants".

2] You, who are anti-Catholic, scream and bitch and moan about how the Catholics pervert the true way of Jesus ... but ... if it weren't for the CATHOLIC church, you'd not have anything to base Jesus upon!

3] To those who argue about the Dead Sea Scrolls, well, you're the same people who argue that the VATICAN holds the Dead Sea Scrolls and won't let any translation but theirs get out. Surely you can see the logic problem of this?

4] When you read the KJV, NIV, or any other interpretation of the Gospel, you're taking a Gospel that is based on CATHOLIC scripture. If you truly hate the Catholics so much, why do you use their various bibles to prove your faith?

5] If you truly believe in Christianity as Jesus preached it, why do you continue to hate, persecute, and/or find spiritually inadequate the exact same people that the CATHOLIC church persecuted for hundreds of years?

6] If you think the Catholics are nothing but liars, why do you take their versions of Jesus and their versions of the Apostles as the absolute truth? Make up your minds ... are the Catholics liars or not? Stop flip-flopping!

I'm sorry, kids, but in my mind, there is only 1 Christian church, and that is the Holy Roman Catholic church (No, I am not Catholic).

If you can prove me wrong, here is your thread to do it.

If you are going to defend Catholics don't lie to us!

Without Catholic Church there would still be the Apostle John who wrte Revelations while the leader of the Castholic church was ruling the church. Thus the Catholics were irrevalent to Jesus.
However, they have dfone many good things but also bad things.

If you don't know Peter never gave them the authority of Apostleship and that was why John had to reveal information from Heavenly Father and not the Pope.
The Catholic church had only the Aaronic Preisthood, they could only baptise you. (and not give Holy Ghost. That requires higher preisthood)
Nothing wrong with the church except their have little Authority from Heavenly Father. Kind of like what republicans think of UN.

Jesus organized a church long ago when he was preaching. It was not the Catholic church. Where are the churches Apostles? Where are there 70 who preach and can cast out demons if needed as per the bible?
Does the catholic chur5ch know wghere the Prophet is? They have been with man since the beggining why did the Catholics stop them?
Why did they stop baptising the dead in the temples? They did it till around 100 AD. Are all the dead already baptized... I thought more people died since then...

Can any Preist in the church trace his authority back to Adam? I can...so why can't they?(sorry bragging lol)

My belief is that this is not what a baptism is as its in the Bible. Your parents don't decide for you, it is only when you are an adult that you can make such a choice not that I'd want any part of the Catholic institution. It has plenty of problems as I've mentioned above. Someone needs to deal with the issues for I don't know if anyone knows anymore just what Christ taught.

Great... that's your belief. Not ours.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that the RCC doen't agree with you.

As for knowing what Christ taught... we're talking about faith here. If you can't believe in something, you'll never know if they know what Christ taught.