PoeticInjustice
more magical than the magicalest
teh cut3 on3's bitch
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Posts: 300
|
Post by PoeticInjustice on Feb 1, 2005 20:00:50 GMT -5
and the catholic church has never "changed a single word" of the bible? and for that matter, have never been responsible for evils of their own?
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 1, 2005 20:40:18 GMT -5
agreed, shane. the catholic church in and of itself chose which prophets and which books would be put in the bible, there are some that were put in, and some forgotten about for centuries?...umm, yah, go go catholic church "never changing anything"
bah, humbug.
|
|
PoeticInjustice
more magical than the magicalest
teh cut3 on3's bitch
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Posts: 300
|
Post by PoeticInjustice on Feb 1, 2005 21:20:31 GMT -5
yea, forgot completely about all the things that get dropped out, like the gospel of st thomas, my favortie excerpt of which is this:
a common interpretation of which pretty much undermines any official authority of the church
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 2, 2005 11:09:30 GMT -5
Seeing as there was no Bible before the institution that became the Church assembled it, and only divinely inspired writings, any who revere the Bible as an authoritative collection of divine writings are obligated to revere the Church's judgement.
And just as a general note, you might pay a tad more respect to the single most important institution in the history of mankind. There are, of course, serious black marks in the Holy Mother's history; but no more than any industrialized power you'd care to name, all of which have existed for far shorter a time. And her contributions far, far outweigh the negatives.
Edit: As a second note, modern Bibles are not predominantly translated and disseminated by the Church; independant scholars are responsible for non-Catholic approved versions. And lastly, as an anecdote; I've paged through parts of my Catholic Study Bible (New American Bible). It's depressingly colloquial, for the most part. I frankly prefer the sound of the King James; who would have thought that the Church would be among the most progressive translators of scripture? Vatican II was a more fascinating and far-flung reform than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 2, 2005 22:44:02 GMT -5
the difference being that the industrialized powers don't claim to know the answers to everything, as wella s being infallible.
|
|
DarkNeopagan
damn i love posting here!
1st Sargeant
"One case, One kill" Broadsword Motto
Posts: 185
|
Post by DarkNeopagan on Feb 4, 2005 21:41:10 GMT -5
There are, of course, serious black marks in the Holy Mother's history... Like the platform of non-involvment during the holocaust, the churches silent consent of slave trade and the inqusition where thousands were killed for having other religous beliefs for example?
|
|
Arcadian
you people are kinda cool
Staff Sargeant Sniper
My kingdom for a save point!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Arcadian on Feb 5, 2005 23:12:47 GMT -5
The Catholic Church makes David Sarnoff look like a... well, Saint.
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 7, 2005 12:58:50 GMT -5
Like the platform of non-involvment during the holocaust, the churches silent consent of slave trade and the inqusition where thousands were killed for having other religous beliefs for example? How piddling. To counter that, we have; Germany who actually performed the Holocaust; The United States and African nations who actually traded the slaves; every communist government ever to take power, the French Revolution, Robbespierre, the Japanese execution of any foreigner to land, Rape of Nanking, persecution of the Catholics under Elizabeth, Abbassid Caliphate's unending war against Byzantium (under Islam), the Book of Joshua (Jews), the conduct of Israel since its rebirth, etc. Several of these examples, specifically England, Abbassids, and Israel are all motivated by religions other than Catholicism. And France, which included a violent secular campaign against the Church. And Naziism and the extermination of the Jews was undertaken as part of a Christian doctrine not subject to the laws or authority of the Catholic Church. Additionally, two of your examples, the Holocaust and slavery, both occured after the secular power of the Church in Europe had been ended. And are you really going to look at any government and tell me they don't claim to have all the answers? I daresay, secular governments are more guilty of it than the Church; the position of Christian sects, including Catholicism, has always been that to have faith and do good will cause good things to befall you in this life, and you will have paradise in the next (albeit given certain provisos, such as membership in the Church). By contrast, secular governments all claim to have all the answers to all of this life's problems. "My plan will create more jobs!" "I will lower taxes!" "My plan will keep your children safe!" "My plan will enable them to read!" And you can't forget everyone's response to their opposites; "He's a liar!"
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 7, 2005 14:21:55 GMT -5
you still haven't explained the changing of teh bible by the catholic church itself, bending the "word of god" to be whatever the church decided it'd be. leaving out certain prophets, etc. as discussed above.
i also beef that, even if the church is right that there is a being up there, how can he be all good, all powerful and all knowing and still leave island nations and secluded tribesmen uninformed about christianity even into the 20th century, god knows he's had time to let himself be known to them. they're people, just as we are, and, as such, wouldn't they, becuase they didn't accept christ(in fact had no chance to) go to hell? i say poor bastards to them, and shake my fist at a so called god who would claim to be all good in one respect, and yet turn a blind eye to such torture of innocents. why should i resepect such a person, let alone worship?
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 7, 2005 17:02:47 GMT -5
you still haven't explained the changing of teh bible by the catholic church itself, bending the "word of god" to be whatever the church decided it'd be. leaving out certain prophets, etc. as discussed above. Actually, I did address this very point. If you will look at the fifth post above your own, you will see how. For the sake of efficiency, I will repeat and expand; since the institution that became the Church assembled the Bible, they could not change the Bible, as there was no previous Bible to change. As for cutting out prophets, the Catholic Bible in fact contains additional books to the Protestant Bibles. 1st and 2nd Maccabees specifically, and (I think, but am not certain) several of the Letters. What you refer to is not cutting out divine writings, but the Church's resistance to the idea than any writings not already included in the cannon could be divinely inspired. This includes newer writings (as in the case of The Book of Mormon) and re-discovered older writings (such as the Gnostic Gospels). To argue that the Church unfairly cut out divinely inspired writings is a silly proposition; how is it that the Protestants are so much more qualified to determine which works God intended to be a part of his message to Mankind and which He did not? As to the second part of your post, I'm not espousing the unconditional correctness of Christian doctrine. I am defending the most important institution in history from one-sided criticism that ignores the contributions it made. For myself, I do not believe that being ignorant of Christ condemns one to hell; I don't even believe not worshiping Christ even though cognizant of His teachings sends one to hell. I, personally, do not have a relationship with Jesus, and have no conviction that He bore our sins for us. And I certainly don't think that not being a Catholic means you'll burn. What I am certain of is that there are concepts and purposes beyond Man. Whether self-aware and focused or not, powers move that are outside our conventional scientific understanding of the world around us. Christianity, and the Catholic Church specifically, provides a convenient and familiar medium for expression of that certainty. And the certainty of so many others lends these very concepts you so harshly criticize legitimacy; even as I do not hold to them devoutly myself, I am more than willing to grant them the respect and reverance something of such widespread import deserves.
|
|
DarkNeopagan
damn i love posting here!
1st Sargeant
"One case, One kill" Broadsword Motto
Posts: 185
|
Post by DarkNeopagan on Feb 8, 2005 19:08:27 GMT -5
After you argue me to the ground with the "Greatness" of the "Holy Mother Church" O prophet of catholicism, my problem is that you keep saying how much worse secular governments are than a religous group. I, not long ago, spent some time in some religous ruled countries and would rather die than live in one. For example, lets say your religion is not the predominent religion. You are now a rebel, heretic, and a traitor. How long do you think you would last in this country? Most of these countries have little freedoms, but i stray from my real point. The fact is if we didn't live in a free secular country then we wouldn't even get to argue this topic. One of us would be right and the rest of us would be dead. So I say, take your tax exempt status (for you church goers) and just be happy you can have an opinion, this goes for everyone! ;D
|
|
PoeticInjustice
more magical than the magicalest
teh cut3 on3's bitch
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Posts: 300
|
Post by PoeticInjustice on Feb 8, 2005 23:10:51 GMT -5
After you argue me to the ground with the "Greatness" of the "Holy Mother Church" O prophet of catholicism, my problem is that you keep saying how much worse secular governments are than a religous group. I, not long ago, spent some time in some religous ruled countries and would rather die than live in one. For example, lets say your religion is not the predominent religion. You are now a rebel, heretic, and a traitor. How long do you think you would last in this country? Most of these countries have little freedoms, but i stray from my real point. The fact is if we didn't live in a free secular country then we wouldn't even get to argue this topic. One of us would be right and the rest of us would be dead. So I say, take your tax exempt status (for you church goers) and just be happy you can have an opinion, this goes for everyone! ;D we need slashdot style ratings mod +1 for sure
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 10, 2005 12:52:31 GMT -5
I agree that a theocracy is a terrible idea. But simply because that is the case does not render religion a horrible evil. In example, the Ottoman Empire and its related Caliphates and Emirates were all Islamic; however, in most of them free practice of one's own religion was allowed provided certain rules were obeyed (no infidels in the sacred territory, and no preaching, for the most part). The Catholic Church's drive to bring all people under its wing motivated her to do terrible things, on occasion. This same drive, however, gave rise to literacy, public education, a massive boost to art and literature. And the Christian ideals that were spread - whether the audience was willingly receptive or not - are ultimately responsible for this same Democracy and freedom of speech we now so value. You spend so much time castigating religion for its failures, you ignore its successes.
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 10, 2005 14:55:12 GMT -5
I do believe, Blough, that it is you, this time, who has misinterpreted this post, we're not talkinga bout what the church has managed to do in the past, granted, most age old institutions have managed to accomplish good things, as well as equally bad, for example, hitler, not only killed several million jews, but he made the mark worth something, and as a result of the war, Germany is becoming one of the global economic and political leaders. however, this discussion is about whether or not the church's dogma, or any dogma, in that case, should be followed personally. My argument is that religion has played its part in the world, it's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions now instead of resorting to some lame scapegoat "oh it's ok, i believe in jesus so i'll go to heaven anyway." I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the church has done great things, however, that's not what the discussion is about.
i highly doubt that, if you were to start a thread stating "the catholic church has done a great many things for humanity," there would be much resistance to that statement. an insitution as old as the church would be hardpressed not to. </lame attempt to get discussion back on topic>
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 10, 2005 17:54:10 GMT -5
I haven't misinterpreted the post, I merely am responding to certain trends in the thread. But I suppose we could get back to being on topic; as such, I'll pose the following question:
Why is it you agnostics and atheists always see Christianity (or any other doctrine of faith) as an all-or-nothing venture? I would be willing to wager that there are precious few monotheists who accept every aspect of the dogma their churches preach; especially given the competing nature of various interpretations (in example, Matthew 16:18)
From whence the Catholic Church draws its moral authority. It simply seems a tad arbitrary to deny any belief in a greater power because several details are offensive to your sensibilities. To illustrate what I'm talking about, Ben, you seem to have as your primary obstacle to accepting God or any other power the tendency of established religions to declare themselves correct, and that to follow others is sheerest folly (in most cases, you burn in hell). Why does that deny the existence of a God? Besides, Christians are defined rather by belief in a particular representation of God on Earth (Christ). Does this in turn deny the existence of a God? Or many gods?
For myself, I ultimately find pantheonic religions a tad more appealing than monotheistic ones, if only because it seems so much truer to the human experience to have things so different in the human experience represented differently. But then again, these are all things in human experience, and we are a single species...
Incidentally, I think Hinduism is next on my list of personal research projects. For the Egyptians and Sumerians, the world was borne of Water; but for the Hindus, Vishnu birthed it of Fire. Which we'll be doing later in the semester in my Religion 103 class. Hooray!
|
|