If God, then which faith (if any)?

[Zoom Rabbit]

One quick point on this whole choosing one religion and identifying it as the final truth notion, before I go to work:

 

Okay. Go ahead and pick one religion. Yours, say. Apply it to humanity at large, and try convincing all of them that you have decided that it is true. You will precipitate a bloodbath whose likes would make apparent to anyone with the sense God gave a gerbil that your approach was flawed.

 

Or you can just take my word for it. Joe Schmo. No religious degree. No accreditation or even firm allegiance to one particular religion.

 

Hmph.

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest wizzywig]

Kurgan--

 

I personally believe the only way you can reconcile ALL religious traditions into one big uberbelief is to dillute many of them to the point of meaninglessness.

 

I heartily agree.

 

--wiz

 

------------------

 

"Satan, eat my shorts!" --Bart Simpson

 

 

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Zoom Rabbit, no, my post was directed more at Mentat than anyone, but I did mention some stuff of yours that I disagreed with.

 

I'm not saying the RCC is perfect, it is not, as any institution is. However, I think the Churches opponents like to exaggerate the claims against it, and even fabricate lies about it to further their claim that it is invalid (in favor of their own beliefs of course). I have read websites where people make all sorts of claims, like the RCC is Satan's plan to bring about the antichrist, and that it's anti-biblical, etc, etc, saying that every Catholic is going straight to hell (they would be wise to read Jesus's words: "Judge not, lest ye be judged"). Using the same logic and criteria, one could basically invalidate any Church or institution on the face of the earth.

 

; )

 

I feel my posts will be read by at least a few people, and perhaps understood by even fewer, but at least I said my peace, and if even one person's viewpoint is enriched by it, then that's all that matters to me.

 

============

 

Ikhnaton, I am not quite sure what you are disagreeing with that I said. Last I checked I was defending the Church from what I felt was an unjust and unreasoned attack.

 

As far as abuses go, there are many that could be leveled at the Catholic Church, many being unsound.

 

I have heard those who accuse the Church of idolatry for "worshiping Mary" which is an utter falsehood and shows a profound lack of knowledge of the faith.

 

Others have claimed that the Church was "silent" during the Holocaust. I was not alive during that time, but their side of the story is that no, much was done, however to protect those who were vulnerable (keep in mind that Mussulini in Italy was a Fascist) there was less public rhetoric against the Nazis, and more in the way of hiding Jews, paying ransoms, begging for help, etc. It was not as if nothing was done. Also many did not even believe, at the time it was happening that anyone (even the Nazis) would do such a thing. It was something only whispered about, and those who tried to warn others were laughed at, until the mass graves were discovered, and the gas chambers and ovens.

 

The genocide of the Native Americans was perpetrated by the United States Government and by private settlers and blood thirsty soldiers, it was not the result of any Church sponsored Crusade. Missionary efforts by Catholics and other Christians were sometimes ill-concieved, leading to the spread of disease in communities, but it was not a forced conversion as some claim.

 

The Crusades, like I said, I think were justifiable, but since the Christians lost in the end, it was looked upon negatively.

 

The Inquisition was shameful, as I stated before, for reasons I already mentioned.

 

Groups such as the KKK and Identity Church are not preaching Christianity, but a perverted version of the Gospel that true Christians have denounced and are horrified by.

 

People like the Rev. Phelps who preach hate and presume more of God than most people, likewise does not positively reflect the spirit of the Gospel or Christ's teachings.

 

Some have claimed, that religion is the drug of the people, lulling them to social slavery dreaming of an afterlife. Marx's bold statement was proven false in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with such movements as the civil rights movement in America, and that of the Indian movement for independance, and the liberation theology of El Salvador.

 

Then there is the sale of indulgences, which was not something instituted by the Church, but a corruption of a practice, which was perpetrated by many individuals. The RCC was never big brother, they did not have direct control over all clergy and members. Many could act on there own and say "oh the Pope gave me permission" and simply be lying.

 

Galilleo was treated unfairly for opposing the Church's acceptance of the Geocentric theory, and the Church later apologized for erring in its judgement. However, he was not burned at the stake or anything, just so you know. ; )

 

Some claim the Church does not "follow the bible" like it should, but it ought to be pointed out that no Christian tradition follows the ENTIRE bible, and thus if this is the sole determining factor of the truth in a faith, then we have all failed. (this is the subject of a class I'm currently taking on the New Testament). Christianity by nature is grounded in the teachings of Christ, which are unique and apart from the Hebrew Bible, although there are some agreements, much of it is NEW interpretations.

 

=================

 

What is it that I said that you don't agree with? Perhaps you could re-read my post and see what it was you were against.

 

Anyhow, when I say "the Church" I mean the institutional Church, not the "invisible" Church of all believers (this is not the "in your heads" church mentat mentioned, but the community of all believers in the One True God). The Second Vatican Council acknowledged the other paths to salvation, which constitute the invisible Church. This was a reinterpretation of the prouncement that there was no salvation outside of the "Church." Thus just being a Catholic doesn't mean you are going to heaven no matter what, and just because you aren't doesn't mean you are destined to Hell. This is not a faith of "The Elect" or some other such predestinational view.

 

Certainly I think the RCC has valid claims to the apostolic succession, but then so does the Orthodox Church. They claim the exact opposite of the RCC, which is that YOU split away, while WE preserved the original message. In ecumenical studies, they remain the most ardent of all Christian groups against full communion with Catholics in belief. This is one fact that the Pope lamented is that more progress was not made towards union with them before the close of the millenium (which is a year away).

 

No, I have stated before that a few hacks or kooks that happen to come out of one organization do not invalidate that institution necessarily. In the past there have been corrupt Popes, but that did not invalidate Christ's message to the world. I think the best way one could go about discrediting an institution would be to utterly discredit their founder. However some organizations have strayed from the original message of their founder(s) (for good or for ill).

 

What do you think? I tend to get really long-winded, as you can see. I figure this is better than simply posting hundreds of one sentence replies. ; )

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited January 18, 2000).]

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

ZR:

 

Okay. Go ahead and pick one religion. Yours, say. Apply it to humanity at large, and try convincing all of them that you have decided that it is true. You will precipitate a bloodbath whose likes would make apparent to anyone with the sense God gave a gerbil that your approach was flawed.

Yes, this is still a positive discussion. What you are saying is that if I choose a religion, say, my own, and then decide it is the best one, the only way I can get everyone to believe it is to force it on them. This I agree with. What I said in a previous post was that you could NOT form a global religion that included beliefs from all religions mish-mashed together and force THAT system on people.

 

Why won't a global system of religion gel with the world's masses? Because in order to melt all religions into one pot, you'd have to downplay and eliminate or sponge together incompatible beliefs. This would cause alot of resentment among those who believed strongly in those beliefs, thus alienating them. If you told somebody who's entire worldview was that there was only one God whom one cannot know except by careful meditation, that they could just cut off their genitals and hop on a comet, they would be totally horrified! (a far-fetched example, but you get my point, note the reaction of other Christians to your belief in reincarnation)

 

Any way you look at it, without violating people's human right to make up their own mind about a matter of conscience and faith, you cannot make any one religion for all people. If people do not accept it voluntarily, that's the end of it. I do not presume to force any beliefs on anyone, or to punish them for not accepting my beliefs as I see them. This is not the spirit of Christianity. I also think people should be informed about their faith, and not simply accept whatever they are told, or believe everything they read. After all, human error can corrupt even God's own message (unless you don't believe in free will).

 

Kurgan

 

[Guest Conor]

Gallileo was condemned more by the scientific community than the church. Basically, he made his ideas known without proof, and on top of that claimed his findings fundamentally contradicted Christianity, which the church had said they did not. He was also a first-class jerk, which didn't help things much.

 

Anyway, he was running around saying the Bible was proven false and Church didn't want the falsehood to spread, so they locked him up. Wrong thing to do, as they should have just spread the word that the new findings were not proven and if they were true in no way contradicted Christianity. So the church inadvertantly made the guy a 'martyr' for the whole 'science vs. religion' nonsense.

 

BTW, Gallileo was wrong. He proposed a heliocentric universe, which wasn't right either.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Guest Xx_Mentat_xX]

Conor:

 

"You said it was heresy to SPEAK LATIN!!!!????? Are you making a joke?"

 

No, actually I am not.

 

"As for 'In the name of the Rose': If you are getting your info from Hollywood movies that is pretty silly to begin with, you might as well read the book. My mother read it and she did not like the way the movie interpreted it."

 

I never rely on movies, anymore than I would a book, because ALL histroy is 'opinionated.' If you read my post again, you will notice that I referred to 'The Name of the Rose,' as a movie that was 'inspired' by the Catholics with-holding information from the people.

 

"At some point an English translation was necessary, as it was replacing Latin as the dominant language. That doesn't mean very many more people would have been able to read it though, if it wasn't for the printing press. Without that, there was no possible way to distribute the Bible. So it was not the fact that more people were able to read the Bible (a higher percentage were literate, but still nowhere near everyone), but the fact that the printing press came out that started getting it to more hands. Yes, different interpretations came out then, as they had been coming out for millenia. The new ones weren't any more accurate than the faulty old ones either."

 

This is where you are wrong. At one point, the Catholic Church didn't allow the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin. At this time, English was already very popular. It was actually John Wycliffe who had the bible translated from Latin into English:

 

[The Human Experience]

 

Page 256 - "Wycliff's most revolutionary act was translating the Bible from Latin into English so that the common people could read it for themselves. Such an act made it more difficult for the Church to keep its monopoly on religious truth."

 

Page 256 - "Wycliff himself was persuaded to moderate his views and received only a mild punishment."

 

Of you have learned like I have, to read between the lines, then you will understand that Wycliff became 'moderate' out of fear for his life(dying for heresy).

 

"Gallileo was condemned more by the scientific community than the church. Basically, he made his ideas known without proof, and on top of that claimed his findings fundamentally contradicted Christianity, which the church had said they did not. He was also a first-class jerk, which didn't help things much."

 

The scientific community 'was' the Church at that point in time. Scientists were limited on what they could say, as the story of Galileo clearly points out, without being accused of a form of heresy.

 

Kurgan:

 

I'm not saying that 'brainwashing' is all together a bad thing. I 'do' believe that children should be brought up in whatever religion that their parents see fit. It is after all a parental obligation. I just think it would be interesting, although very unlikely to ever happen, to see someone who hasn't been brainwashed from birth by a certain religion. That will most likely never happen, but nevertheless, it would be very interesting indeed.

 

"1) Simply because a large number of people believe something doesn't make it necessarily true."

 

"3) Just because a few kooks or hacks came out of a certain tradition does not mean the entire system is inherently incorrect, these could just be coincidences or heretics."

 

"4) Simply believing your faith is true blindly does not make it true either (evidenced by the vast number of wholly different faiths in the world who claim to have the truth by faith)."

 

Exactly

 

"Others have claimed that the Church was "silent" during the Holocaust. I was not alive during that time, but their side of the story is that no, much was done, however to protect those who were vulnerable (keep in mind that Mussulini in Italy was a Fascist) there was less public rhetoric against the Nazis, and more in the way of hiding Jews, paying ransoms, begging for help, etc. It was not as if nothing was done. Also many did not even believe, at the time it was happening that anyone (even the Nazis) would do such a thing. It was something only whispered about, and those who tried to warn others were laughed at, until the mass graves were discovered, and the gas chambers and ovens."

 

Yes, I agree with you there, and alot of the reason for this is the well-known photograph of a Pope shaking Hitlers hand. Just because the Pope shakes someones hand does not necessarily mean that he supports everything, nor even knows everything that that person does. It is however suspicious, and I can't blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable about it. But I for one wouldn't even shake Clinton's hand. =Þ

 

"Then there is the sale of indulgences, which was not something instituted by the Church, but a corruption of a practice, which was perpetrated by many individuals. The RCC was never big brother, they did not have direct control over all clergy and members. Many could act on there own and say "oh the Pope gave me permission" and simply be lying."

 

[The Human Experience]

 

Page 258 - "Pope Leo X wanted money to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. In order to raise the necessary funds, he authorized the sale of indulgences."

 

It was not only instituted by the church, but by the Pope himself.

 

"No, I have stated before that a few hacks or kooks that happen to come out of one organization do not invalidate that institution necessarily."

 

That is entirely true. I for one don't have much against the modern Catholic Church, and I have attended a few services that I thought were very interesting.

 

Ikhnaton:

 

"You do not judge a Church by the actions of a few misguided individuals."

 

What if it's the Pope himself?

 

"It is a fact that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, who is God."

 

I'd like to see you back that up with any biblical, scholarly document, or even a movie. How can his 'only begotten son,' actually be him? Why would he call himself the son of God? To me this sounds perposterous although many believe it.

 

"Which church has never changed its doctrine? The Catholic church."

 

That's irrelevant if they were wrong in the first place.

 

This debate is becoming very interesting, and I just hope that everyone can remain as calm as they have so far. Thanks everyone for not stepping over the line so far, I know this is a VERY touchy subject. Aggrevation is a small price to pay for education, which believe it or not, this is.

 

 

 

------------------

"Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the force as his ally, will conquer." -Jedi Master Yoda

[Zoom Rabbit]

Yes, the good benefits of nice, friendly debate are something I think we all agree on. I apologize for the gerbil comment, folks...being a simple human, and thinking I was cast in the role of Catholic-basher, my own tone may have wandered in the wrong direction.

 

So I guess I have a better understanding of your views, Kurgan, and there are some things we agree on. I would still argue that "Joe Schmo" who picks and chooses his beliefs from a number of religions is not necessarily a lost cause...although I will be the first to admit that this path is not the easiest, or the most efficient way of getting to God. But for those who choose the mystic way of life to the exclusion of organized religion as I originally did, this path may well be the only one that will work for them. The trick is faith...without faith, the path of Joe Schmo is headed nowhere; with faith, Joe Schmo becomes the pilgrim who wanders into the desert to find God and comes back with thunderbolts in his hair.

 

I just wish I could convey objectively the joy I feel when I feel God's touch in a Christian church as well as a Hindu temple, or even an American Indian ceremony. I get the feeling that God truly is everywhere, in each of our hearts...and I shake my head sadly when I see Christians and Hindus arguing about which of their descriptions of God is right--because I secretly know that they're both right.

 

If I can't communicate that one insight, then it frustrates me. But I shouldn't blame everyone else, because we all see things differently after all.

 

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Conor]

I had a fairly long post but something happened and I lost it. I will try again.

 

Basically, John Wyclif translated the Bible in the 14th century, and it never really gained popularity.

 

It wasn't until the King James I Authorized version (published in 1611) that an English Bible became a fixture. 90% of it was done by William Tyndale in the early 16th century, translated from the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale was a heretic (admitted from his own mouth) and I don't think the RCC accepts the King James Bible. I will find out for sure.

 

Oh, and I can assure you the Catholic Church has never outlawed Latin in any way. The Catholic mass was in Latin. Do you think the people going to mass didn't understand what the priest was talking to them about? Or did they just like the pretty words? Latin was the language of the Roman Empire, spoken in the Roman Empire.

 

Gallileo was not declared a heretic. He was in essence declaring himself a heretic (or maybe a heathen), as he was saying his findings contradicted the Bible. The church said his findings were not contradictory. They handled the whole thing wrong, yet it wasn't his theory they found offensive (the Pope endorsed Copernicus earlier on the exact subject).

 

During WWII, Pius XII saved over 100,000 Jews. The chief rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism at least partly in gratitude. The new state of Israel also praised him. It wasn't until the 50's or 60's when some struggling German playwright invented a script called The Deputy (pretty sure that is the name), saying the pope was the bad guy. There was no doubt before that. The pope was also one of the only leaders to speak out against Hitler even once. After he did, Hitler started slaughtering jews hidden in convents and churches. Pius decided it would be wiser to take the secret route.

 

The sale of indulgences was a horrible abuse, and has been long condemned by the RCC. Even the pope can be corrupt, although very, very rarely. Not one of the anti-popes has changed church doctrine though.

 

2 billion people believe Jesus is God and the son of God the Father at the same time. I can't explain it, and no one ever has.

 

If the Catholic Church is wrong, no christian church has ever been right, as it is the only church founded by Jesus with the annointing of Peter.

 

If you believe all history is opinionated, and can't be taken at face value, what makes your 'sources' so special? I think some people are fully capable of recording what happened objectively.

 

 

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Zoom Rabbit]

New Approach:

 

I'm going to set this question of which religion is right, correct, is true or whichever way you want to put it aside. I think there is a more fundamental question that we should look at.

 

"Why do we have so many different religions?"

 

This is the core of a lot of atheist argument...if humanity can't even agree on what or how many of this God thing there is/are, then how can we reasonably expect that such a thing could be true? While this very concern didn't cause me to abandon faith or God, it did cause me to dismiss religion as a serious influence on my thinking. I eventually came to my own conclusions about the truth behind religion, and a lot of that had to do with addressing this question of why. I have (I think) failed to sufficiently explain my position on all of this mostly because I've been trying to deal with this why instead of just answering the friggin' question. So in order to illustrate my point, I have isolated the particular notion of why we have divergent faiths...and chosen a suitable metaphor to help explain.

 

I learned this trick from TAF.

 

The Forest and the Tree

 

We live in an arid world, where vegetation is very sparse. There are no forests that we have ever seen, and we do not even have a word to describe tree, or vine, or jungle, etc. We have never seen giant tree snakes, or any river larger than a creek. We know what a stick is, having cut down many bushes to build our grass huts, but we have no word for wood, no word for log or lumber.

 

One day, a member of our tribe who has been away for several years returns to the village with a wild-eyed, fantastic tale. He speaks of a land where the creek grows wide, and many sticks reach for the sky. Even as others struggle to understand what he's talking about, he tells them of the great tree in the center of the big sticks, with delicious food hanging from its branches...like the sour roots we dig up and eat, but sweeter and wetter than we can imagine.

 

Not surprisingly, other members of our tribe leave the village to find this magical land of big sticks with wet food. The first man to find the forest draws a map, showing us how to get to the great tree.

 

Eventually, however, someone finds a new path which goes around the mountains, approaching the forest from a different angle; he returns and tells us that wait! He has found something better that any silly sticks with hanging food...it seems that there is a place where water comes from the mountains, and there he found a new place with giant bushes. These bushes it seems grow many times as tall as a man, until they block out the sky! The very biggest bush, though, in the center of this new place, has a new kind of food that is like pale, soft meat. The second explorer begins drawing maps of his new path and sending his own followers to the forest.

 

A third man discovers, quite by accident, a new route which goes along the seashore. He talks of the sand meeting the water, and together they travel on until they reach a new magic place. If the grass were like an animal's hair, then this place is like a mane springing from the ground. In this furry jungle are many different, new animals. Animals without legs live in the hair, if one could believe such a thing. In the center of this hairy thicket is a giant follicle which sprouts a bountiful supply of a new kind of food. This food is not like the roots the first guy was talking about, or the pale meat the second guy was describing...so the third guy calls his new food fruit. He draws maps, and begins sending travelers to the mane.

 

Eventually, we have hundreds of people all crashing around in the forest, looking for this magic apple tree. Most of the people are convinced that they are trying to find their way to the real tree and that the others are somewhere else altogether, lost.

 

Zoom Rabbit climbs a tree and looks around. He yells: "Hey! We're all in the same forest! It's the same tree!"

 

Meanwhile, the rest of us continue debating amoung ourselves about which path goes to the real forest and the real nature of fruit.

 

I hope this helps demonstrate what I've been getting at all along...

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

 

[This message has been edited by Zoom Rabbit (edited January 20, 2000).]

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

In other words, ZR, "I know the truth, but do YOU?" ; )

 

Okay, I'm thus convinced that The Human Experience is an bigoted Anti-Catholic source if all they do is take pot-shots at Catholicism from their slanted perspective. This is assuming your quotes are correct and taken in context of course.

 

..Church to keep its monopoly on religious truth."

 

That about sums up their feelings. They have a real axe to grind with the RCC. Who says they had a "monopoly" on religious truth? I guess all those other thousands of faiths had no religious truth..

 

Oh well, the source is what matters.

 

Is this your way of saying "don't trust opinionated sources"?

 

You claim, Mentat, that every source is brainwashed or opinionated, or biased. With that logic, I can claim that therefore, no one is to be trusted. Thus, this entire debate (and indeed any debate involving facts) is pointless, and neither one of us can be trusted to get any facts right, we'll both simply quote from lies we want to hear or make up our own. That simply justifies living in a cave and making up my own worldview purely at random. I'd have just as much chance of being right as believing anyone. Since you define facts differently than the rest of us anyway, as you claim, then perhaps we will never agree on anything.

 

For the rest of us.. I think we can still discuss if you want, just fire away.

 

As to ZR's question, I think the basic reason we have so many religions is that of human nature. We are all different but we all have free will. We have different wants, attitudes, personalities, and life experiences from which to draw, and thus a different vision of the truth we seek after.

 

Just because there are many religions does not mean they are all wrong either. I may say more on this later. I'm curious ZR, but why do you claim that organized religion is in error? Or why does anyone? Aside from the fact that you claim to already know the truth of course. ; )

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited January 19, 2000).]

[Zoom Rabbit]

Hmmm. You almost have my POV grokked, there. Allow me to clarify on the fuzzy parts...

 

No, I don't know the truth while everybody else doesn't. To me, truth is experienced (but never fully known) by everybody who finds the apple tree... All I have in this model is a point of view which allows me to see more of the forest.

 

I do claim, because of the enlightenment experience, to have experienced the final truth--which is a POV that ultimately does include everyone's. I do not even come close to knowing that truth, or even have the ability to put into words those insights I've been lucky enough to be shown. Does this mean I'm some all-knowing wise man in a cave? Again, no...it just means I'm an ordinary guy who had an extraordinary experience.

 

Does it mean I'm right and you're wrong? No, of course not. It just means I can see how we're all right in some ways...

 

I should clarify my views on the "wrongness" of religion that kurgan brings up. I wasn't meaning to imply that religions had false or ineffective beliefs, just that no one of them had all of the answers accounted for.

 

Actually, depending on how you, personally, define "right" (and right and wrong are the kind of word that no two people define exactly the same, no matter what the dictionary says)...I think that religions are very right, because they bring people to God.

 

Yes, I used to think that religions were wrong...that is to say, they were utter BS in my then limited opinion. Once God showed me His final truth, though (what little of it I could understand), I was chagrined to learn that those religions had been right after all...

 

This all dances around the basic issue: this little pipsqueak has the nerve to say he's experienced something that only the highest of the holy can experience. I just shrug and say that anyone can experience this if they commit as much time to the meditation as I did (although that's not all there is to it.) Having been given such a precious gift, though, it would be so wrong for me to deny its influence on my life.

 

Essentially: does this whole enlightenment thing make me a better person than anyone else? No. It makes me see how we're all equally small, while simultaneously being equally big, too...

 

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Zoom Rabbit]

Further clarification:

 

Zoom Rabbit does not recommend that others adopt the same approach he took to finding God. He does recommend choosing a solid religion like Christianity or any of the other major faiths...because those religions (in his forest model) are like well-worn and easily followed roads that can be relied upon to lead one to the magic apple tree.

 

If you go wandering off on your own, you might get lost. And if you climb trees, you might fall and hurt yourself. The safest bet is to stay on the path.

 

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

The only written source that claims that Jesus Christ IS God comes from the New Testament.

 

Within the texts, there are many instances of Jesus being called the "Son of God." Some have interpreted this not as being an actual divine being (how could a man be God, or how could there be more than one God if Jesus and God were both gods?).

 

Judaism (which does not believe in Jesus Christ) and Christianity (which teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and indeed God) believe in only one Almighty God. Thus a Jew or Christian who professes to believe in many gods, is viewed as heretical by their peers (and no, heresy is NOT punished by death or anything other than public disdain and possible excommunication). The early Gnostics apparently believed in many divine beings, but their teachings have been rejected by the majority of the faithful.

 

Judaism does not recognize Jesus as a prophet (if anything, they call him a false prophet), and claim the "New Testament" is merely heretical corruption of the Hebrew Bible by this man Jesus and his supporters. Muslims claim that while Jesus was a great prophet of God, he was NOT divine, and may in fact not even have been human, and only appeared to die on the cross, thus paving the way for Muhammad, and the Gospels are mere overzealousness by his followers.

 

Getting back to the Christian viewpoint:

Far from claiming he was merely a good man, or a prophetic teacher, these passages paint a different picture altogether(the writer of the Gospel of John in particular seems to believe Jesus is God):

 

John 1 1-5:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

Who could he be speaking of? Not John the Baptist, and not any of the disciples.

 

verse 14 goes on to say:

 

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

 

Confirmation that the original character referred to is indeed Jesus, thus Jesus is called God.

 

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

 

 

John 17:11

Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

 

"We" being the Father and the Son. The Father is obviously God, the Father. The Son, is Jesus.

 

John 17:22

The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one...

 

Again, they are one and the same.

 

Further, scriptural evidence for the divinity of Christ appears in 2 Corinthians 5:5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

 

Acts 10:36 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)...

 

The "Lord of all" would of course by none other than God, and since Jesus Christ is Lord of all, then JC is God.

 

Numerous times, Jesus is referred to as the Lord, a title of divine connotations in the Bible.

 

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

 

The phrase "I am" refers back to the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible):

 

Exodus 3:6 And he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

 

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.'"

 

Clearly the New Testament (the work of the Christian writers) makes the claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and also God himself, thus being divine. Christians have believed this for millenia.

 

If you accept the New Testament writings are based on real events (which archeology and history has tended to side with), then you are faced with a few possible conclusions:

 

1) Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ, and God himself. He was sent by the Father to teach his people and forgive sins.

 

2) Jesus was a crazy man with delusions of grandeur, with a wild imagination and gullible followers

 

3) Jesus was a magician, a charlaton, faker, illusionist, who sought to hoodwink people, and succeeded.

 

4) Jesus was actually a demon in disguise who came to trick the people away from the God of Judaism.

 

Traditional Christianity would of course agree with #1 and Traditional Judaism or any other non-Christian group would be forced to pick from the others. Some claim Jesus was something else altogether or that Jesus never really existed, but that cannot be reasonably argued using the New Testament.

 

Kurgan

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Something right is something good or true (and the truth is something that is real as opposed to a lie which is false and imaginary), the opposite of wrong, which is something false, bad, or "not true."

 

You might as well debate the meaning of "is."

 

Read John's Gospel if you want a proper "context" for most of the quotations I cited above. The supporting evidence comes out in other New Testament books as well, many that refer back to one another.

 

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 17:11

John 8:58

2 Corinthians 5:5

Acts 10:36

John 1:29; 36

1 Timothy 6:15

Revelation 17:14

Revelation 19:16

Revelation 21:14

Revelation 22:3

 

If you accept the New Testament as truth, then you accept that Jesus is God.

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited January 19, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

The following quotes are taken from the book <u>Where we got the Bible</u> by Henry G. Graham, a former Calvinist who became Catholic after studying the history of the True Church.

 

This book almost seems designed to counter the very statements brought up by mentat, who I now realize was even more incorrect than I first realized.

 

In order to correct something, I will say that the New Testament came into present form at the Council of Carthage in 397, and Nicea was in 332. The exact same books brought together to form the NT at Carthage are the exact books in the NT today, uncorrupted in the Catholic Church.

 

"But, at all events in regard to the New Testament, the Reformers left the books as they found them, and today their Testament contains exactly the same books as ours, and what I wish to drive home, is that they got these books from Rome, that without the Roman Catholic Church they would not have got them, and that the decrees of Carthage, 397 and 419, when all Christianity was Roman Catholic-reaffirmed by the Council of Florence, 1442, under Pope Eugenius IV, and the Council of Trent, 1546-these decrees of the Roman Church and these only are the means and the channel and the authority which Almighty God has used to hand down to us his written Word. Who can deny it? The Church existed before the Bible, she made the Bible, she selected its books, and she preserved it. She handed it down; through her we know what is the Word of God and what the word of man, and hence to try at this time of day, as many do, to overthrow the Church by means of this very Bible, and to put it above the Church, and to revile her for destroying it and corrupting it-what is this but to strike at the mother that reared them, to curse the hand that fed them, to turn against their best friend and benefactor, and to repay with ingratitude and slander the very guide and protector who has led them to drink of the water out of the Savior's fountains?"

 

 

"This is the Catholic Church, established by Almighty God as his organ and mouthpiece and interpreter, unaffected by the changes and unshaken by the discoveries of ages. To her we listen; her we obey; to her we submit our judgment and our intellect, knowing she will never lead us wrong. In her we find peace and comfort, satisfaction and solution of all our difficulties, for she is the one infallible teacher and guide appointed by God. This is a logical, consistent, clear, and intelligible method of attaining and preserving the truth, a perfect plan and scheme of Christianity. It is the Catholic plan; it is Christ's plan. What plan have any others to substitute for it that can stand a moment's analysis at the bar of reason, history, common sense, or even of Holy Scripture itself?"

 

 

"We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382."

 

Wycliff translated the Bible into English, but it was a corrupt translation, full of errors and worthless because of his own agenda. Accepted translations into English existed long before Wycliff took his hand to it. The Church makes very certain any translations are direct and unchanged from the Vulgate and thus from the original Greek and Hebrew.

 

On a side note, Wycliff was not killed or tortured or destroyed for his heresy. He was banned from teaching his fallacies and lived the rest of his days in peace.

 

The Catholic Church wrote the NT, compiled it and owns it. Only the Catholic Church has any authority to interpret the Bible. We, and we alone, have the fullness of Christian and Godly truth. Our church is perfect, and she stands as the eternal recepticle of Christ Jesus' teachings, both Biblical and traditional passed down by her perfect memory. (my words, but a summary of the author's)

 

"Admitting for the moment that the Bible was in Latin during the Middle Ages, what follows? That nobody but priests could read it? Nonsense. There were just two classes of people then: those who could read and those who could not read. Those who did read could read Latin and, therefore, were perfectly content with the Scriptures in Latin. Those who could not read Latin could not read at all. I ask, therefore, what earthly need was there of a translation of the Bible from Latin into the language of the common multitude? What good would it have done?"

 

"Latin was then the language of all men of culture and, to an extent probably far beyond what we at present realize, the common language of Europe; in those days tens of thousands of lads, many of them poor, studied at the universities and learned to talk Latin."

 

The Church did everything is her power to get the scripture to everyone it could. When they couldn't read it, her priests read it to the masses. She had loyal scribes with immense knowledge of scripture spending their entire lives in service to God recording His Holy Word. It can be understood that nearly every able-minded person in Christendom had an intimate knowledge of God's Word.

 

If you don't believe me, read the book. If you don't believe the book, study history. If you don't believe history, live in your own folly. I cannot stop you.

 

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Zoom Rabbit]

Another one of Zoom Rabbit's outlandish philoshical proposals:

 

God, being everywhere, is also everything...and by extension, everyone.

 

Which means that by Jesus realizing this about himself, he in essence 'becomes' God.

 

...Just theorizing here.

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

 

[This message has been edited by Zoom Rabbit (edited January 20, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

And I say.....Nonsense!

 

I am not God, and God is not me. God is His own, distinct being with His own, distinct mind. As am I, as are you, apart from God. We are unique. One day I plan to be with God, I will never be Him.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

 

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited January 19, 2000).]

[Guest Xx_Mentat_xX]

Conor:

 

"Basically, John Wyclif translated the Bible in the 14th century, and it never really gained popularity."

 

Exactly my point. Why do you think it didn't gain popularity?

 

"Oh, and I can assure you the Catholic Church has never outlawed Latin in any way. The Catholic mass was in Latin. Do you think the people going to mass didn't understand what the priest was talking to them about? Or did they just like the pretty words? Latin was the language of the Roman Empire, spoken in the Roman Empire."

 

The people today that go to mass don't understand the words. Only the more serious do. Why would it be any different back then? Again, you seem to think that I am only referring to the RCC. I myself find very little difference between any Catholics.

 

"If the Catholic Church is wrong, no christian church has ever been right, as it is the only church founded by Jesus with the annointing of Peter."

 

I don't see any evidence to back that up. Unless you can show me a scripture in the bible that talks of this, I personally would never even consider it even on a theoretical standpoint. I know that my church(my brain), has little or nothing to do with the Catholic beliefs. I don't believe that ANY church is right. Only a portion of some of their doctrine.

 

"If you believe all history is opinionated, and can't be taken at face value, what makes your 'sources' so special? I think some people are fully capable of recording what happened objectively."

 

Nothing makes my sources special except for the fact that to me they are special. There may be people that do record history objectively, but is that really the most effective, and honest way to record history? I am not so sure of that.

 

Kurgan:

 

"Okay, I'm thus convinced that The Human Experience is an bigoted Anti-Catholic source if all they do is take pot-shots at Catholicism from their slanted perspective. This is assuming your quotes are correct and taken in context of course."

 

My quotes are 100% accuract considering that the book sits next to me in my mini-library. Any history book that is written by a non-catholic will most likely use the same type of remarks towards Catholicism. However, so would any book written by Catholics towards protestants or what have you.

 

"That about sums up their feelings. They have a real axe to grind with the RCC. Who says they had a "monopoly" on religious truth? I guess all those other thousands of faiths had no religious truth."

 

Farah, Karls, and Kortepeler, the authors, say they had a monopoly on religious truth. not just one bigot, but 3, lol. The fact of the matter is that Catholics have been kept in the dark about what others see as common knowledge. This happened when the bible was ONLY in Latin, and it seems, strangely, to still be happening. This book happens to be a very popular history book that has been used in alot of high schools across the USA. Does that mean that it is wrong because it wasn't written by a professor at Harvard? No, it just means that Catholics can more easily deny what it says, because it's credentials can be questioned. What is a monopoly Kurgan?

 

Monopoly: An exclusive trading privilege; assumption of anything to the exclusion of others.

 

Above is Websters definition of a monopoly, and I have to say, that it describes the Catholic Churches behavior in the past, quite well.

 

Alot fo you here seem to act like it's Catholicism vs. Protestants. Well guess what? It's also Catholicism vs. Catholicism. Let's not forget that there are different types of Catholics as there are different types of protestants. Catholicism is about as pure and untouched, as any protestant religion. The difference is that Catholics have always been angery towards protestants because they knocked them off of that pedestool that I like to call,'monopoly."

 

Like I've said before, history is ALL opinionated. The only history I believe not to be opinionated, is that history within the pages of the Bible.

 

"Is this your way of saying "don't trust opinionated sources"?"

 

No.

 

"You claim, Mentat, that every source is brainwashed or opinionated, or biased. With that logic, I can claim that therefore, no one is to be trusted. Thus, this entire debate (and indeed any debate involving facts) is pointless, and neither one of us can be trusted to get any facts right, we'll both simply quote from lies we want to hear or make up our own. That simply justifies living in a cave and making up my own worldview purely at random. I'd have just as much chance of being right as believing anyone. Since you define facts differently than the rest of us anyway, as you claim, then perhaps we will never agree on anything."

 

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Debates are not pointless, they are undoubtable for education. The fact of the matter is, no ones sources can disprove anyone elses sources. Were you there Kurgan? I don't think so, nor was I. Meaning that we must 'trust' our sources. I trust mine, and you trust yours, but I have learned to be open-minded and not just simply say something is this way or that without being able to prove or disprove. The ultimate problem is, that no one can prove anything to anyone, it's all about what we prove and disprove in our minds.

 

"That simply justifies living in a cave and making up my own worldview purely at random."

 

That doesn't justify that at all, that would be perposterous. Keep your defenses up Kurgan, and look at the logic. Religion and history is deeper than any human today can possibly imagine. Be open-minded and look at the logic, don't just say it isn't so, PROVE IT. If theres one thing that religion has taught people, it is to be hard-headed, and to believe what you have learned no matter what. That is what is called brainwashing.

 

"Since you define facts differently than the rest of us anyway, as you claim, then perhaps we will never agree on anything."

 

Are you so sure? My defintion of fact came straight out of Websters dictionary, where does yours come from?

 

"I'm curious ZR, but why do you claim that organized religion is in error?"

 

Maybe he see's that not everyone can be right. When everyones truth is so different, how can anyone trust any organized religion? Catholics simply choose Catholicism because in their minds, it is the oldest christian religion, thus making them think that it is the first/correct one. Organized religion today, and alot throughout history has been nothing other than a business. Don't even bother debating that one, look at the profit they make.

 

 

 

 

------------------

"Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the force as his ally, will conquer." -Jedi Master Yoda

[Zoom Rabbit]

By Jove, I think the Mentat's understood my point. Quote:

 

"...Not everyone can be right."

 

That's it, exactly. Now, consider that the opposite, 'Not everyone can be wrong' might also be applicable.' Nonsense...until you further consider that everyone/no one can be completely right or wrong in my model.

 

Is it possible that in all of human history, in all of the religions that our world's cultures have produced, they all got it dead wrong--except one? Of course it's possible; it's also possible that I am Mickey Mouse, accessing the internet from Cartoon World. My point: the possibility of this is so remote that it cannot be considered an objective basis to begin a philosophical discussion.

 

We may as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, in that case.

 

Perhaps the question we're actually asking is: "Which faith works the best?" as opposed to "Which faith is true?" Then it becomes a completely different ballgame...

 

!

 

 

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Conor]

I doubt you read my last post, Mentat, but even if you did it is obvious there is no point in discussing anything with you. Out of your own mouth you admit that you don't even believe what you say because anything we didn't witness ourselves is irrelevant and can't be considered true.

 

As for English translations: eventually the Church came out with its official English translation, the Douay Bible. It is translated directly from the Vulgate, and is the only uncorrupted English translation.

 

No Catholic has ever said we have a monopoly on truth. We have the complete fullness of truth. That doesn't mean other religions are completely wrong, but we are the only ones who are completely right.

 

My Church is an entity all on her own, the bride of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. She saw Him rise from the dead, and has guided Catholics along the correct path for the length of the Christian era. She will guide us forever.

 

Guess what? The Catholics wrote the Bible(the NT anyway). Catholics didn't get their beliefs from the Bible, as the Church existed before the Bible was formed. The Bible is a collection of Catholic writings put to paper, Catholic writings deemed inspired by God.

 

"Here is the great contrast between the Catholic and Protestant preparation of young aspirants to the sacred ministry Prescinding even from the intrinsic error or truth of either system, one thing at least is certain: The Catholic Levite has not the least doubt what doctrines he has to believe, what is meant by them, and how they can be proved; the system (granting the foundation) is absolutely flawless and impregnable; it is a beautiful and unimprovable unity. The Protestant, on the other hand, after all his training may, and often does, find himself in intellectual and spiritual confusion; all is so changeable, undefined and contradictory. It could not be otherwise in a college where the color of the teaching depends upon the particular 'school' of the professor."

 

"I do not see how the Church of Christ could have gone wrong, as we are supposed to believe she did, for some centuries, considering the promises of our Lord that he would send the Holy Ghost to 'lead her into all truth' and that the gates of hell should never prevail against her."

 

The doctrine of sola scriptura is blatantly false and has no basis whatsoever. Not only is it mentioned nowhere in the Bible that the Bible is all that is necessary. In fact, Christianity was spread only through word of mouth and example for much of its beginning. Jesus created the Catholic Church out of the Apostles and put Peter at their head. The Apostles in turn appointed bishops to serve the growing flock. The bishops (the early Church Fathers) have been shown in their writings to be absolutely Catholic, so if you accept the Bible as true then you must admit that Jesus said His church would never die. Thus, as the Church was the RCC from the beginning, either the Catholic Church is the only correct Christian Church or there isn't one, and Jesus was wrong.

 

"To begin with, the first and most damning fact that impressed itself upon me was the utter disunity among Protestants, the multiplicity of sects and divisions, the chaotic condition of Christianity outside of Rome. I was quite sure, from what I read in the Bible and from the whole conception of the Christian revelation as delivered by Jesus Christ, that His true Church must be one, that there could not be two true churches teaching contradictory doctrines, and, whatever modern indifferentists might find it convenient to say in their excuse, still it could not be really true that one religion was as good as another, and Almighty God never meant it so."

 

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Guest Conor]

"Where, I ask, is the proof of the Church's hatred of the Bible, of any attempt to hide it, to destroy it, to dishonor and belittle it? I cannot do better than give you here two or three sentences from the work of the learned and honest Protestant student, some of whose words I have quoted before: 'I must add that I have not found anything about the arts and engines of hostility, the blind hatred of half-barbarian kings, the fanatical fury of their subjects, or the reckless antipathy of the popes (in regard to the Bible). I do not recollect any instance in which it is recorded that the Scriptures, or any part of them, were treated with indignity or with less than profound respect. I know of no case in which they were intentionally defaced or destroyed(except as I have just stated for their rich covers), though I have met with, and hope to produce several instances, in some of which they were the only, and in others almost the only, books which were preserved through all the revolutions of monasteries to which they belonged, and all the ravage of fire, pillage, carelessness, or whatever else had sept away all the others. I know of nothing which should lead me to suppose that any human craft or power was exercised to prevent the reading, the multiplication, the diffusion of the Word of God.'"

 

"The notion that people in the Middle Ages did not read their Bibles is probably exploded except among the more ignorant of controversialists. The notion is not simply a mistake; it is one of the most ludicrous and grotesque blunders." (Quarterly Review, October 1879)

 

All quotes above taken from the book <u>How we got the Bible</u> by Henry G. Graham.

 

If it wasn't for the Catholics the Bible would not exist. If it wasn't for the Catholics Christianity would not exist. God became man, and founded Christianity to be His beacon of light to the world, of which the only uncorrupted and true form is the Roman Catholic Church. Proven by history and the Bible.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

 

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited January 20, 2000).]

[Guest Xx_Mentat_xX]

Conor:

 

"I doubt you read my last post, Mentat, but even if you did it is obvious there is no point in discussing anything with you. Out of your own mouth you admit that you don't even believe what you say because anything we didn't witness ourselves is irrelevant and can't be considered true."

 

I doubt that you read my posts if you believe any word of that. What I am saying is 100% logical. If you were not there then you do not 'know' 100%. This means that you 'trust' certain historians and not others. That is all I am saying. I never said that no one could be trusted. I only said that we must choose who and who not to trust. This is another reason why facts aren't really facts. They are created by historians, who used their own eyes to view events. Would you trust the teachings of a paranoid scyzophrenic? Most people wouldn't, but some people would. No one that lives today, really KNOWS if they're trusting the RIGHT person, they just hope/think that they are.

 

"As for English translations: eventually the Church came out with its official English translation, the Douay Bible. It is translated directly from the Vulgate, and is the only uncorrupted English translation."

 

Only Catholics would agree that it's the only uncorrupted English version of the Bible.

 

"No Catholic has ever said we have a monopoly on truth. We have the complete fullness of truth. That doesn't mean other religions are completely wrong, but we are the only ones who are completely right."

 

I'm glad that you have faith in that, but there is no real evidence that Catholicism has the fullness of truth.

 

"Guess what? The Catholics wrote the Bible(the NT anyway). Catholics didn't get their beliefs from the Bible, as the Church existed before the Bible was formed. The Bible is a collection of Catholic writings put to paper, Catholic writings deemed inspired by God."

 

Not one single human being in the Bible can be tied with the Catholic Church, and can definitely not be proven to have been a member of it. If you have discovered some sort of lost scroll on an archealogical dig, then please upload some pictures, for all of us to view. =Þ

 

"Here is the great contrast between the Catholic and Protestant preparation of young aspirants to the sacred ministry Prescinding even from the intrinsic error or truth of either system, one thing at least is certain: The Catholic Levite has not the least doubt what doctrines he has to believe, what is meant by them, and how they can be proved; the system (granting the foundation) is absolutely flawless and impregnable; it is a beautiful and unimprovable unity. The Protestant, on the other hand, after all his training may, and often does, find himself in intellectual and spiritual confusion; all is so changeable, undefined and contradictory. It could not be otherwise in a college where the color of the teaching depends upon the particular 'school' of the professor."

 

I think we can all see that a Catholic wrote that, heh. Good thing I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant, or I might be in trouble there.

 

"The doctrine of sola scriptura is blatantly false and has no basis whatsoever. Not only is it mentioned nowhere in the Bible that the Bible is all that is necessary. In fact, Christianity was spread only through word of mouth and example for much of its beginning. Jesus created the Catholic Church out of the Apostles and put Peter at their head. The Apostles in turn appointed bishops to serve the growing flock. The bishops (the early Church Fathers) have been shown in their writings to be absolutely Catholic, so if you accept the Bible as true then you must admit that Jesus said His church would never die. Thus, as the Church was the RCC from the beginning, either the Catholic Church is the only correct Christian Church or there isn't one, and Jesus was wrong."

 

Funny that the Bible never once says the words Catholicism or Catholics. Why do you think that is? I think it's obvious.

 

"To begin with, the first and most damning fact that impressed itself upon me was the utter disunity among Protestants, the multiplicity of sects and divisions, the chaotic condition of Christianity outside of Rome. I was quite sure, from what I read in the Bible and from the whole conception of the Christian revelation as delivered by Jesus Christ, that His true Church must be one, that there could not be two true churches teaching contradictory doctrines, and, whatever modern indifferentists might find it convenient to say in their excuse, still it could not be really true that one religion was as good as another, and Almighty God never meant it so."

 

Darn, that counts Catholicism out then, there are different types of Catholic Churches.

 

"I know of nothing which should lead me to suppose that any human craft or power was exercised to prevent the reading, the multiplication, the diffusion of the Word of God.'"

 

Let's see, how about keeping the Bible only available in an already dead language,'Latin?"

 

"If it wasn't for the Catholics the Bible would not exist. If it wasn't for the Catholics Christianity would not exist. God became man, and founded Christianity to be His beacon of light to the world, of which the only uncorrupted and true form is the Roman Catholic Church. Proven by history and the Bible."

 

The bible existed before Catholicism. Catholicism is a form of Christianity, not Christianity. Again, no where in the bible do the words Catholic(s) or Catholicism exist. Because they didn't at that time. what did? Christians.

 

Christian: Follower of Christ.

 

And if the Catholic Bible is not corrupted, then how do you explain the names of the people of the Bible, differing from their REAL names? Names are not something that should have been changed. Names are sacred, yet they were changed anyways. Even in ALL Bibles as far as I know.

 

I think that Zoom and I play Devils Advocate very well, wouldn't everyone agree? I think that a few people are getting a little touchy, may I please remind them, that this is a friendly debate, and that none of us KNOW eachother, other than what we say here. Let's not assume too much. If you are offended by particular historical accounts, then maybe you shoudn't debate here. I am very open-minded, and realize that I could possibly be wrong, but I don't believe that I am. If anyone here can't admit the fact that they COULD be wrong, then something is really wrong with Christianity today. Faith is one thing, but hard-headedness is another.

 

 

 

 

 

------------------

"Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the force as his ally, will conquer." -Jedi Master Yoda

[Zoom Rabbit]

I am not the devil's advocate! I happen to play for the 'home' team, if you know what I mean...

 

Do Mentat and I represent the voice of those whose opinions do not conform to any particular religion? Sure...but our positions diverge markedly when the subject of religion's validity comes up. He says that he doesn't subscribe to religion and never will--or something to that effect. This used to be my position, but it has since changed; it's now my opinion that religion does indeed bring one closer to God.

 

What I think is harmful, though, is when people think that they have the only lease on God's truth. It has usually been when a population feels that it has the advantage of moral superiority (in history, anyway) that the stage is set for atrocities to take place against those of other beliefs...

 

!

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Conor]

I can't reply right now Mentat, but you are wrong when you say we cannot know what happened in history. We can know beyond reasonable doubt. True, not all doubt, but we can have suffecient evidence.

 

The Bible didn't exist until the Council of Carthage in 397, while Cathlolics existed in the 1st century. That is historical fact.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Guest Conor]

If you are not saying that we should believe what we want to believe, then maybe I am missing something. To say that all of history's recorders only wrote what the wanted to write is simply wrong. Everyone may be biased towards certain opinions, but that doesn't mean they are not capable of recording what happened objectively, without letting their bias through. As for the guy I am quoting, he was a Catholic who converted from Calvinism. He converted because he studied the historical texts backed up with solid evidence and also from studying the Bible, realizing the Bible describes the Cathlolic Church.

 

We believe people like Julius Caesar exist, people like Plato exist, because we have writings from scholars and historians stating what they did and what they wrote. Sure, we could disregard every historical text just because every person in history may have been lying for the hell of it. We do have to trust in people, but there is far more evidence for some things than others.

 

Catholic means 'Universal' so the Church was indeed entirely Catholic from the beginning because it was the only one. We have writings from the early church. They were without a doubt Roman Catholic in their statements. These are the people who are responsible for the Bible's existence. Like it or not, the original Christians spread the Good News without the help of the Bible, as they hadn't got around to writing it yet.

 

Although the Bible doesn't mention Catholics, it says that Christ's Church will never fail. That means, since the Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian church until 1054 and the Great Schism, either hell did prevail over Christ's Church immediately (and for that to happen, Jesus must have lied or been wrong), or the Catholic Church is the true Church.

 

Latin was not a dead language until recently. It was the language of science, the language of culture. Everyone who could read could read Latin, and for those who couldn't even speak it the Church authorized Biblical translations into their home tongue so they could at least hear it. It is definitive fact. There was a copy of the Bible in almost every Church, its events were told to the people orally or through plays and reinactments. The Catholic Church wants to save people, so it uses its own book, the Bible, to educate the people on Jesus' teachings. There is no historical evidence whatsoever from any reputable source that the Church in any way scorned the Bible. Even the protestants must admit this after studying history. To not do so is to choose ignorance over truth.

 

There is more than one Church that includes Catholic in its name. They split off from the Church too, and we know when they split off. Every single Protestant and non-roman church has a known origin and founder. We can point to an exact date and person and say that is when their church started. The only one not so is the Catholic Church. All we know is that immediately after Christ's death (within a generation) all Christians held Roman Catholic beliefs. We know that the apostles up bishops to care for the converts in the places they visited.

 

Did you know that not every Christian writing was included in the Bible? Many were deemed not inspired by God, such as the Gospel of Thomas and some of Paul's epistles. So who decided what was going to be included in the Bible? I want you to answer this. Did it magically form itself?

 

What in the world are you talking about in your second last paragraph anyway?

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill