There are many incidents in the history of various religions that are a cause of embarrassment for that religion. Some are not considered embarassing to adherents of the faith – but are considered so by many people outside of the religion. Both types are included here. In no particularly order:
1. Inquisition [Catholicism]
The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Roman Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.
Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. The Inquisitors were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.
The organization is still active today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the congregation.
2. On the Jews and their Lies [Lutheranism]
Unfortunately the founder of protestantism Martin Luther was also a religous bigot. In his most famous book about Judiasm (written in 1543) we find the following gem:
“base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. They are full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine, and the synagogue is an incorrigible whore and an evil slut …
If you want to read the entire booklet, it is available here. Two other books by Luther, Against the Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil, and Against Hanswurst, are described as “rivaling his anti-Jewish treatises for vulgarity and violence of expression”, and “[are] so inexpressibly vile that a common impulse of decency demanded their summary suppression by his friends.”
3. The Book of Abraham [Mormonism]
The Book of Abraham is believed by Mormons to be the handwritten account of the prophet Abraham. In 1835 Smith was able to use his “Angel-given” tools to translate some Egyptian scrolls that he was given access to (at that time no one could read hieroglyphics). Upon inspection, Smith declared that they contained the Book of Abraham. He promptly translated the lot and it was accepted as scripture by the church (it is included as part of the Pearl of Great Price). The scrolls vanished and everyone thought the story would end there. But it didn’t – in 1966 the original scrolls were found in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. The scrolls turned out to be a standard Egyptian text that was often buried with the dead. This fraud caused a number of mormons to leave the church and is still a hotly debated topic amongst mormons and their critics.
4. The End of the World [Jehovah's Witnesses]
1914 was one of the more important estimates of the start of the war of Armageddon by the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). They computed 1914 from prophecy in the book of Daniel, Chapter 4. The writings referred to “seven times”. The WTS interpreted each “time” as equal to 360 days, giving a total of 2520 days. This was further interpreted as representing 2520 years, measured from the starting date of 607 BCE. This gave 1914 as the target date. When 1914 passed, they changed their prediction; 1914 became the year that Jesus invisibly began his rule.
Since late in the 19th century, they had taught that the “battle of the Great Day of God Almighty” (Armageddon) would happen in 1914 CE. It didn’t. The next major estimate was 1925. Watchtower magazine predicted: “The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; but it would be presumptuous on the part of any faithful follower of the Lord to assume just what the Lord is going to do during that year.”
The Watchtower Society selected 1975 as its next main prediction. This was based on the estimate “according to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 BCE, likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation.” They believed that the year 1975 a promising date for the end of the world, as it was the 6,000th anniversary of Adam’s creation. Exactly 1,000 years was to pass for each day of the creation week. This prophecy also failed.
Realizing how stupid they were looking every time they made a new failed prediction, they announced that the end of the world would occur 6000 years after the creation of Eve – a date that can not be calculated.
5. Lisa McPherson [Scientology]
Lisa McPherson (February 10, 1959–December 5, 1995) was a Scientologist who died of a pulmonary embolism while under the care of the Flag Service Organization (FSO), a branch of the Church of Scientology. Following her death the Church of Scientology was indicted on two felony charges “abuse and/or neglect of a disabled adult and practicing medicine without a license”, putting under trial the nature of Scientology beliefs and practices. The charges against the Church of Scientology were dropped after the state’s medical examiner changed the cause of death from “undetermined” to an “accident” on June 13, 2000.
A civil suit brought by her family against the Church was settled on May 28, 2004.
6. Baptist Founder [Baptist Church]
You may be wondering why there is a photograph of a Mennonite buggy in this item – the reason is that the founder of the Baptist Church, John Smyth, eventually broke away from the church he founded and joined the Mennonites! That’s right – Smyth had so little faith in his own creation that he abandoned it. In addition, he tried to convince as many of his congregation as possible to abandon the baptist church – and a majority of them did.
7. Aisha [Islam]
Aisha was the six year old girl that was betrothed to Muhammad. At the age of nine she married him – becoming one of his 11 (or 13 depending on the source) wives. While most Muslims do not object to this marriage, it is a source of great scandal to many non-Islamic people. In Islamic tradition, she is attributed as the source of many stories about the life of Muhammad. It is believed that she was his favorite wife.
8. Metzitzah [Judaism]
Metzitzah b’peh is a controversial method of circumcision performed by some Haredi and Hassidic Jews in which, after removing the foreskin, the mohel (circumciser) sucks out the blood from the wound to clean it. The mohel spits the blood into a receptacle provided. Afterwards the circumcised penis is bandaged, and the act is considered complete. Metzitzah b’peh was implicated in the transfer of herpes from mohels to eight Israeli infants, one of whom suffered brain damage. When three New York City infants contracted herpes after metzizah b’peh by one mohel and one of them died, New York authorities took out a restraining order against the mohel. In three studies done in Israel, Canada, and the USA, oral suction following circumcision has been implicated in 11 cases of neonatal herpes.
9. Miracle Wheat [Jehovah's Witnesses]
After a variety of newspaper reports claiming that a man had discovered a variety of wheat that was far more productive than normal wheat, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed it to be a sign of a covenant from God relating to the end times. As a result, they bought up a lot of the wheat and offered it for sale at exorbitant prices. The official statement from the organization was:
Brother Bohnet writes us that he has gradually accumulated a crop of miracle wheat from the few grains he obtained as a start. He prefers that the first opportunity for obtaining this wheat shall go to THE WATCH TOWER readers. He will sell it for $1 per pound, including postage, and give the entire proceeds to our Society. All orders for this wheat should be addressed, Miracle Wheat Bohnet, 17 Hicks street, Brooklyn, N. Y. This will keep mail on this subject separate from his personal mail and from ours.
At trial, Mr. Russell admitted the seed packets had been mailed from the Watch Tower offices: “For the accommodation of our readers, we allowed this seed-wheat to be put up in pound packages and mailed from THE WATCH TOWER Office, just as the U.S. Government handles such seeds at Washington.” (ZWT 02/15/1913).
Needless to say, the wheat was not miraculous and behaved exactly like normal wheat.
10. Mountain Meadows Massacre [Mormonism]
The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre,[citation needed] two men with leadership roles in local military, church and government organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack.
The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and avoid reprisals complicating the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children.























September 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
isnt no.4 and no.9 the same thing? or at least the titles are backwards?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:48 am
evan: thanks – I have fixed it.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Hello? What about the Jonestown massacre? It’s probably the number one scandal in the last 50 years!
September 6th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Pile: the cult died with it – this is a list of events that occured in mainstream or ongoing religions. Incidentally, check out the top 10 incredible recordings to hear the Jonestown death tape.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
This quote from Luther seems appropriate in light of some of his more unfortunate writings, “I more fear what is within me than what comes from without.”
He apparently did not fear it enough at times.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Joe: quite right – he was, in general, an utterly disgusting vile man. It is hard to believe that virtual all of the modern non-Catholic/Orthodox religions started with him.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I grew up a Lutheran and while they don’t really mention the bad parts of the man when he’s discussed when learning about the founding of the church, the religion is a pretty basic, yet conservative religion. I don’t mean to defend him, I just want people to know that Lutherans aren’t worshiping Luther himself and that hatred of Jews is not a part of the belief system (at least any more).
September 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Paul: thanks for that – it is nice to hear a modern perspective on the situation.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I would say the whole chatholic-pedo issue is a pretty big deal, too. Why leave that out?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
9000: I completely agree. That should definitely be up there, no doubt..
September 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I thought the inquisition was the the most famous historical embarrassment for the Catholic Church which is why I chose that one.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Mormonism is on there twice….
September 6th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
9000: so is the Jehovah’s Witness organization – I could do a whole list on both of them alone. And I have already done two Scientology lists.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:38 am
James: your comment was deleted because of the libelous sentence at the end. You are free to debate this topic but let us not make false accusations.
September 7th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Ah, bummer.. The current Pope was in the Hitler Youth though, that much is fact.
As for the Catholic Church’s failure to recognise it’s complicity in the child sex scandals I still maintain it should be up there in blazing lights. Scandalous.
September 7th, 2007 at 2:41 am
james: He was, that is true – it was obligatory for all boys reaching the age of fourteen to join. However, he refused to attend meetings because his father was bitterly opposed to the Nazis – you can read an article from the New York Times about it here.
As for the abuse – it is a terrible scandal though I still think the Inquisition is more scandalous as it resulted in deaths. Also, the Pope has spoken about the situation and some of the American Bishops have been found guilty and fined for complicity – so I don’t think it is failing to recognize the problem. Hopefully under Benedict XVI something will be done about it because JPII seemed to be too sick to do anything in the Catholic Church in his last years.
September 7th, 2007 at 2:43 am
It was funny though, no? Perhaps not..
September 7th, 2007 at 2:44 am
My comment that is, not the scandal
September 7th, 2007 at 2:45 am
James: the last sentence was not very funny, no
September 7th, 2007 at 2:49 am
BTW, where are you from Jfrater? You have a lot of US content but include obscure entries like the English Comedian Chris Morris (who I am a big fan of) who most people outside the UK wouldn’t know.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:09 am
james: some of the lists here are submitted by other people which is why there are some obscure things – I don’t know much about a lot of them to be honest. I am from New Zealand originally but I live in London at the moment.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:58 am
One last thing on Luther since I was the one that first commented on him. It’s sad to see that he fell to hatred in such a way and in the end maybe his negatives outweigh the positives. However, Luther did write some amazing things especially given the times that he lived in. His commentary on Romans was one of the best religous writings I have ever read.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Joe: He received a very good education whilst he was studying to be a monk – I have no doubt that he did have some great insights.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:30 am
In 1835 Smith was able to use his “Angel-given” tools to translate some Egyptian scrolls that he was given access to (at that time no one could read hieroglyphics).
This is incorrect. By 1823 Jean-François Champollion had “cracked” the hieroglyphic system, using the Rosetta stone, and his unique insights into language and grammar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champollion#Biography
Anyway, keep up the good work Jamie.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Che: wow – thanks – I didn’t realise that the Rosetta stone was decoded so early. Very interesting – though it doesn’t have a bearing on the problem still
September 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Look, I know you could probably do a whole list on the Catholic church, but I’m sorry, I still don’t get how 11 cases of herpes makes the list, while hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases of child molestation, a cover-up, and settlements resulting in entire dioceses going bankrupt doesn’t even garner an honorable mention?
September 7th, 2007 at 10:11 am
9000 – I think we just have to agree to disagree – there is no point debating it. Just enjoy the lists
September 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
True – no bearing on the problem.
Still – i wonder what the hieroglyphs Smith “translated” actually meant. Just out of curiosity.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I have been enjoying them, but when you use the term “TOP” 10 or 15 or whatever, it gives the impression of some sort of cumulative statistical calculation. Like the list I just read about natural disasters, ranked by number of deaths. That makes sense.
Maybe from across the pond it doesn’t seem like such a big scandal, but I know many Catholics whose faith has been shaken to the core over this. Church attendance has declined severely.
Also, few people have probably heard about the ‘Wheat Scandal’ or Lisa McPherson. Who hasn’t heard about pedophile priests, though? Wouldn’t that automatically qualify it as a bigger scandal?
I know, I know, I’m being a troll, and I have no idea why I feel so strongly about this, I don’t belong to any of the religions on this list, and I have nothing against the Catholic church. I even went to Catholic school for a short time, and wasn’t molested or anything (but they made me cut my hair, dammit).
Perhaps you should rename this list “10 arbitrarily selected religious scandals” or something. I’m not trying to be a jerk about it, I just keep imagining what it would be like to read this list IF I HAD BEEN molested by a priest.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:10 am
9000: All of these lists (with only a few selections) are arbitrarily selected. If you look at the site with that in mind, you should not be so upset over my choices
Che: they are from the book of breathings – if you look that up on google you will probably find a translation of the entire thing.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
9000: Jfrater is right about the list being arbitrary.
However unlike you I am religiously motivated in that I am an atheist (yes, bring on the comments). But I at least therefor am not religiously motivated in any direction, thus am able to comment without bias on the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church – in my opinion – is one of the most disgraceful and shameless manifestations of misplaced belief and trust there is to date. It methodically and determinedly set out to deceive it’s followers and the world. (In my opinion, JF).
Although I disagree with all religions, some more than others, I feel the Catholic Church to be the most guilty in covering up or denying guilt.
At least the Muslim religion, among others, never denies it’s faith and practices, even though I do not agree with them.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
james: Its not like the Catholic church has a monopoly on hypocrisy. I don’t think they’re any worse than most other organized religions, they’re just one of the most prolific and oldest, so their record is going to look worse on paper.
One positive element is that they at least have a central authority that can define and re-adjust their doctrine to (sloooooowly) moderate their ideals, theoretically allowing them to exist in the modern world. Lack of this type of central authority is what keeps Islam in the dark ages.
So whatever your issues with the Pope are, think about how much different, better even, interaction with the Muslim culture would be if there was a Muslim equivalent of a Pope, to definitively state what the position is on violence, women’s right, etc…
September 7th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
James: the interesting thing about your comment is what you say about Islam – Islam has a religious law that permits muslims to deny their faith if it serves them to do so – Catholicism says you must die rather than deny your faith.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Jfrater: I was referring to the faith, i.e. the Church or the religion as an institution, rather than the individual believer or believer’s rights.
9000: An interesting point, I have to admit. I have just read your post and have done no research as to which religion is longer, but longevity has little to do with it. My basic point was the Church was attempting to shrug off blame, either by sweeping it under the carpet or with token gestures by admitting to specific cases, without actually making a full apology on behalf of the entire church and those affected.
But I must disagree that a head of the Muslim faith, equivalent to the Pope, would be a good idea. My reasoning is thus:
The Pope, or any religious figurehead, has very little or no business in Politics. Many is the time religion has been mixed up in Politics, with only dire results. People’s beliefs are their own, politics affects everyone. The two should be respected in their own right, but never confused.
While often being a root cause of conflict, religion can never solve it due the die-hard resolve of those who believe it; compromise is not an option. Therefor the only way to a resolution is through talks with country leaders or spokesmen without religious motives.
The more public religious figureheads you have the more controversy and political instability you will have as a direct result of religious beliefs being brought into the limelight on a political spectrum. Personally I think it’s the worst thing you could do.
To name only some of those invloved, Clinton, Mo Mowlam, Ian Paisley and Blair were hugely effective at resolving the N. Ireland conflict, technically a religious conflict, and all were politicians.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Thanks for the info Jamie, checked it out, and surprise-surprise, apparently Smiths “translation” appears to be a lot of nonsense.
http://www.bookofabraham.com/intro.html
September 8th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Che: welcome
September 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
You may all be interested to know that the Mormon church issued an pseudo apology for the Mountain Meadows Massacre today. Article here.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
Jfrater, “he was, in general, an utterly disgusting vile man. It is hard to believe that virtual all of the modern non-Catholic/Orthodox religions started with him.”
No bias there. Hmm.
Why pick on Luther? Anti-semitism certainly didn’t begin with him. It was a long-standing Catholic tradition. Ricoldo da Monte Croce was a prolific writer of anti-semitic and anti-Muslim tracts which Luther borrowed from heavily. How many popes were anti-semitic? How many Christian (Catholic) kings were anti-semitic? It begins with the beginning of Christianity itself.
Your selectivity reminds me of Eamon Duffy’s apparent bias in _The Stripping of the Altars_. Catholic triumphalism. I also agree strongly with 9000 that the molestation scandal should be included on the list. To excuse its absence with “there is only room for 10 things” is nonsense. This site has many lists with more that 10 items on them.
Nevertheless, I really enjoy the website.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Allison: hey – I never said there was no bias, but that aside, his writing is utterly vile and you won’t find a Pope to match it. Also, as I said on one of the other lists when someone demanded I add George Bush as an evil man, we need to give history some time to see things clearly – the awful sexual abuse situation is happening now – we need time for history to really show us the repercussions of it. For now I won’t include it – just as I won’t include the Anglican sexual abuse scandals. In 50 years, if I am so lucky to be still alive, I will re-evaluate – especially for you
Glad you like the site anyway – not all of the lists will upset your religious sensibilities
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
ok people you have to realise that most religions started out as a way for a small group of people to control the populace and as such will unfortunatly result in more than a few embarasing or horrible incidents. (i know i cant spell worth a hoot)
September 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Jamie, I bet you’re catholic. Or were raised that way, right?
Its just an impression that I gather from reading some of the posts relating to religion.
Not a criticism or impeachment. Not at all. You seem like a pretty objective person. I’m just curious.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:45 am
9000: I was raised Catholic, yes
October 21st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Very good list, I like the fact that you didn’t just bash one religion, you decided to go with a plethora of them. I’d love to see a part II
October 21st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Anonymous: Thanks
I am sure I can find the items for a second 10
October 26th, 2007 at 2:51 am
It is hard to separate presons humanity from God’s work that is sometimes done through that person. I don’t know of any mature human who has always being righteous and always did God’s will.
Yes, Luther has been anti-semite, but it doesn’t mean God didn’t have a plan for him that served God’s purpose. And it doesn’t mean Luther was not saved, just cuz he was anti-semite. In those days, it was considered acceptable to hate Jews, as they were seen as murderers of Jesus. But in relation to sin, we all are murderers of Jesus.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Bjesomar: in the Catholic tradition at least two people (not counting Jesus): John the Baptist – in tradition it is believed that he was born without sin (he was conceived with original sin but when Elizabeth met Mary and John jumped in her womb, it is considered that he was cleansed of it at that moment) and lived without committing sin, the Virgin Mary is believed to have been conceived without sin and never sinned.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Well, i thought recently pope proclaimed some changes in “original sin” doctrine, and that children who die before they are baptised, don’t neccesarily have to pay for their sin?
And on other hand, why did Jesus say: Don’t stop children from coming to me, their’s is the kingdom of God?
Original sin doctrine has some serious moral flaws.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Although Mary and John were indeed very nice people, it is a loooong shot to call them unsinners. I think it is written in NT that only Jesus was without sin. That fact allowed Him to reconcile humans and God, cuz without commiting sin, He received punishment for sin.
If John the Baptist was without sin, why did he proclaim that he is not worthy to untie Jesus shoes?
Mary is mentioned in several instances in NT that she tried to provoke Jesus miracle making. Also there are harsh words that Jesus replied to his mother. Would it be possible if Mary’s life was without sin?
October 26th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Bjesomar: on comment 47 no – the Pope has not made any changes to the doctrine of original sin – Popes are unable to change doctrines – it is contradictory to infallability. On 48, I suspect John the Baptist said what he said because he was just a man and Jesus was God. I was simply telling you what the Catholic Church teaches, which is that those three people never had a stain of sin on them (except original sin in the case of John the Baptist- which was removed before he was born).
October 26th, 2007 at 7:07 am
o.k. fair enough, you presented what has been taught in CC, and i presented what seems bad idea in CC. I believe all doctrine must pass test of logic in order to be accepted, and i see no logic for children having Original Sin.
My basic motive is something what is written in 1 Thess 5:19
Do not stifle the Holy Spirit.Do not scoff at prophecies, but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. Stay away from every kind of evil.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Just a little detour here- ignore me if you want, but the thought just occured…
How does religion explain how babies have gills for a bit while in the womb, y’know if we haven’t evolved from fish or whatever?
This is such an obvious thing that someone’s probably thought up a religious explanation- but I ain’t heard it and am interested, this ain’t an attack on religion.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Hobolad: as far as I am aware that has not been discussed by any of the great Theologians of the past (who were probably unaware of that feature of a baby in the womb). Theologians generally avoided discussions on Science as it was not their field. Also, evolution is not denied by the Catholic Church – the doctrine relating to our creation is that Catholics must believe the whole movement was sparked by God – his methods do not matter (be it evolution or creationism). Of course, fundamentalist Christian religions would disagree with that entirely (but the Catholic Church is not a fundamentalist Church).
October 26th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Thanks! Learned something today
October 26th, 2007 at 7:53 am
j and bj – i felt the need to jump in here. according to heb 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
The doctrine of original sin had to apply to John and Mary because they were born of a man. This is how the curse is passed.(Rom 5:12-21) This is why the doctrine of the virgin birth is so crucial to christian theology. If Christ had been born of a man, he would have inherited the curse and thus been unable to be sinless.
John and Mary are worthy of honor but not of deification.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:59 am
DiscHuker: According to the traditions of the Catholic Church, God (who is infinite) suspended original sin in the case of Mary – obviously in the case of Christ it was not necessary, and in the case of John the Baptist – he was conceived with it – but not born with it as it was removed by Christ while he was in the womb. This is no different from God suspending the laws of nature so that Adam and Eve and their children could procreate amongst themselves without the problems that occur in man now when they interbreed. The Bible alludes to Mary being without sin as she is “Full of Grace” according to the angel that spoke to her.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:21 am
part of the problem with what you say is that this doctrine, of the RCC suspending original sin, is found nowhere in scripture. i realize that RCC says that church council and papal prouncement equates with scripture, but that poses its own problems as someone outside of scripture declaring themselves equal with God’s word.
bj – your rule about a doctrine having to be good logic seems pretty arbitrary. why do God’s ways have to make sense to you in order for them to be true?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:29 am
DiscHuker: I understand your point – I was merely pointing out the reason for the Church’s view on it – and remember – what is scriptural is the Angel saying Mary is full of grace. DiscHuker: remember, until the protestants arose in the 1500’s no Christian believed that the Bible alone was the source of God’s word. That is a long time for God to leave the planet without the truth – especially as it is the period of time right after he came to earth.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:46 am
j – well, it comes from a certain translation…
“The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says “ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. ”
here is the link for this quote in it’s context with alot of other information about “full of grace”
http://www.carm.org/catholic/fullofgrace.htm
as far as point #2 – just because no one believed “Sola Scriptura”(that scripture is the only source of authority concerning matters of God) doesn’t mean that for all that time it wasn’t the truth. how long did it take for everyone to believe that the earth was round? did that mean that it wasn’t?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:51 am
DiscHuker: Thanks for the link. I will be sure to check it out.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I just want to say that i think the world would be better off without organized religion if people just practice their faith in their own home and kept their veiws to themelves there would be fewer problems in the world
October 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
JJ: you are in the company of the majority of the people on this site – welcome
October 26th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
thanx,,, i have nothing against religion if a person has found a way to feel closer to god great, it’s when they use their religion to judge other people for their faith ,how they live, who they love or any aspect of life, it stops being religion and becomes a supiority complex
October 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
jj – work with me on a hypothetical situation. you have found out that you have contracted listverse-itis (made up disease for the purposes of this illustration). This disease will most certainly lead to death. as it so happens, a friend of yours has been working at a disease-prevention institute and have found the only known cure for the dreaded listverse-itis. would you prefer that they keep this knowledge to themselves? to tell you that they have the cure that you need implies that something is wrong with you.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
let just say that first not to sure where you are going with this,, but i would say that it depends on how much suffering is involved,, unlike most people i dont fear death ,,we all die sooner or later so i’ll say i would want them to give me the cure of course, but i dont see the relevance of this scenario to the disscusion
October 26th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
JJ: What he is saying is that
*listverse-itis=any religion other than your friends
*your friends cure=religious preaching
*you have listverse-itis you need your friends cure which will save you = you are a (insert religion here) and your friend has the religious preaching that will save you.
In other words another Bible-thumper trying to tell you that your faith in what ever you have faith in is bad for you and that unless you start believing in their faith you are doomed.
Atleast that is how I saw it…
/bah on Bible-thumpers telling you your way is wrong because it doesn’t fit their’s
October 26th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
if that is what he was saying then it’s just another case of someone using their religion to judge someone,,
ok now i’m going to say something on the topic of the “one true religion”
if there is one it would be the oldest one, the one that EVERY person on the planet followed at one time which is Wicca/Paganism in all its forms ,this was followed by all people everywhere thousands of years before christianity,juddism,islamic etc even existed so it would be the REAL faith
October 26th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
wow. why the name calling ravyn?
jj- as a christian, i see these things as life and death. from my perspective, it would be amoral to not share these truths. the same way that to withold a cure for a deadly disease would be amoral.
i would say that then intent of the average christian is not to be offensive. but the reality is that when someone tells you that something is wrong, it is offensive, whether that be the direction of your life or that you are a bad driver. nobody likes being told they are wrong.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
jj- but aren’t you using your religion, atheism/secularism to declare that my religion is wrong?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
DiscHuker: nice try – but the problem is that scientifically proven cures can not be compared to spiritual cures – you believe you have found the cure – but there is no evidence that it is truly the cure – a much large majority of the world think they have the cure too – but there is still no proof either way – therefore your reasoning will never convert anyone.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
jamie – true. just trying to explain the motivation behind why christians feel the need to share.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
DiscHuker first i’m not atheist i believe in god second i never said any religion is wrong i only said it is wrong to use your religion to judge other people
third i only said the belief that there is only one true path to god is false and yet another way to judge others
October 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
DiscHuker: how are their atheistic views (telling you you are wrong) different from you tell me the Catholic Church is wrong in its view of the Immaculate Conception? BTW, look up Χαίρε, Κεχαριτωμένη on the subject of immaculate conception, and Saint St Justin Martyr (100 AD) – both of which support the concept of the Immaculate Conception – you wanted it in Greek – there it is. This might help
October 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
DiscHuker: what makes christians think people want them to share,, a person will find god in their own way and do not need bible thumping weirdos to force it on them
and i’m not calling you a bible thumping weirdo i speak only of the ones that go into the fire and brimstone thing and think that since you are not christian that you cant feel the love and power of god
October 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
DiskHuker: My name calling is not directed at you honestly though now that I look it does appear that way. It is more of a direction of my animosity towards those who think that their way is the only way. I am a Pagan but I am not telling you that Christianity is wrong. I am telling you that pushing your beliefs on someone is wrong. I do not tell you that you have to be Pagan. Likewise, I would rather tell you that you have a great faith in what you believe and that makes you a person worth being. You have such a deep faith in your religion. That is what makes you saved. And good on you. “And ye harm none; do what ye will.” The people who do not have faith (and being athiest does not mean you don’t have faith) are the ones who need saved, not the ones who have a strong faith or even a little faith at all. The people who do not have faith, though, may not want to be shown a path. Sometimes yes sometimes no. You can ask if they want the help. If they say no…you say that is fine but if there is a time that you feel the need, give me a call. When you shove your religion down their throats, it turns them away.
For example: Your mom gives you green beans for dinner but you don’t like them. She makes you eat them anyways. More than likely you will never grow to like green beans. On the other hand, she tells you that you don’t have to eat them but they are there for you anytime you want. One of those days you will deside to give it a try and you may or may not like them. But no one forced them onto you.
Please don’t take offence to what I say. It is not ment in that aspect. But at the same time don’t try to make me not be me.
Thank you.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
i have no problem with anyone telling anybody they are wrong, supposing it isn’t an irrational, emotive argument.
i’m sick of the prevailing winds that say that everyone is right all of the time and that we can’t disagree on religous topics.
i love to disagree. it makes for fun arguments like which religion is right and which gangster movie is supreme.
i looked up those words. besides there being great disagreement about the proper translation, is it wise to create such a highly important doctrine on the disputed translation of 2 words?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
DiscHuker: who disputes them? The Church fathers from day dot believed them to mean what the Catholic church still believes – modern Greek Scholars understand the grammatical cases of the language and believe them to mean what the catholic church believes – protestants seem to be the only ones that don’t believe – despite linguistic experts agreeing with the Catholic view of that phrase. How can you ignore what the saints who lived with the apostles said? They lived with the apostles – do you seriously believe they got such an important thing wrong? They taught it from the very beginning – they lived in the same lifetime as Christ. Was Martin Luther a prophet to be able to decide that the students of the apostles and all their followers for 1500 years were wrong? Ask an Ancient Greek expert what those words mean – he will tell you the same thing Saint Justin said in 100 (only 10 years after st John the apostle died)
October 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
ravyn – i would disagree as to what makes me saved. i know the deep, dark parts of my heart. i know what i am capable of. my being saved is because of the efficacy of christ and not the merit of my faith. if it is based on the quality of my faith, what about when i doubt?
the bible is the only place that has truly exposed me for who i really am. having been shown that it knows the truth about me i believe it about other things as well.
lots of other people and religions tell me how great i am. i know this is mere flattery. if great things are hanging in the balance, i don’t want to be flattered. i want the truth. i’m sure you would agree.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
jamie – look further down on the page i linked earlier. it gives 16 different translations and none of them choose “full of grace” as the prefered interpretation, most leaning to “highly favored one”.
appealing to justin martyr, modern scholars and even martin luther still runs into the same problem, they are extra-biblical. as far as i can tell, and correct me if i’m wrong, there are no other verses used to support the idea of mary’s being sinless.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I LOVE RELIGOUS DEBATES!!!!!(sorry for caps, but I couldnt conrol my excitement)
October 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
well..as an atheist raised in a Baptist household who attended mass routinely w/ friends during childhood and is also a history buff who has studied not only world history but also a bit of theology on the side……it does pay to do some reading before entering into religious debates. so..i’ll just be on the sidelines offering aid, comfort, and cookies for anyone overcome by the heat of the discussion. *grins* bear in mind…this is just a website. granted one helluva website…but just a website. (says the totally unbiased admin.) *grins* so let’s try to keep the spirit of the debate friendly, please?
October 26th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
i totally agree, juggz.
thanks for your work here, cyn. let me know if i get out of line. where can i get some of those cookies?
October 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Cyn: Can I just have a cookie anyways
October 26th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
see that is the really cool thing about this place…there are no lines. something on which J and i agree…self policing. the ‘community’ that is growing here will take care of its own. or as i do..ignore the trolls and they will go away. feed the trolls and they’ll stay.
as for ‘first aid’…there’ll always be cookies and milk or my preference…a cuppa tea w/ some chocolate chip cookies fresh outa the oven. LOL
and yw Disc.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
now that is something that we can disagree on… tea with fresh baked chocolate chip cookies? are you outta your mind? there are very few partnerships in this world that work out better than ice cold milk with hot out of the oven chocolate chip cookies.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
pray tell…and what of those amongst us that are lactose intolerant? what say ye to them? eh?
thou must partake of the mucus of the bovine! nay, say i. thou must quench thy thrist w/ the nectar of the leaves! what better accompaniment to the rich chocolately divineness that is the chocolate chip cookie ever so freshly baked.
ROFLMAO!
oooh…someone must do a list of best and/or worst food combos!!!
October 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Okay – I am awake now – I see that I missed the cookies
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 am
i find it so funny that when it comes to religious debates on here ,christians go on the defensive and put down people,,, muslims just want to clear up misconceptions and jews dont seem to be bothered at all,, says something about christians doesnt it?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:24 am
I find it hard to believe the worst thing you can find to write about the Jews regards circumcision, a device that is still practiced to this day but chose to take a 16th century piece, edit a comment, then take it completely out of context. Just how were the Jews behaving in the 16th century that would cause Martin Luther to write a letter like that? After reading it, it seems to me they were quite arrogant and quite self serving – much as they are today? I thank God each day that Martin Luther had the balls to nail his 95 theses to the door ot the Catle Church thereby ending the idiotic practice of PAYING FOR SINS WITH INDULGENCES. Now that we are in the year 2007, and it is obvious you revile Martin Luther tell me, when was the last time any of you, Catholic or not, has paid for a forgiveness of a sin? It would be hypocrisy for any of you to answer other than yes you still follow those tenents of the Catholic church of which Luther abolished.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Rick B: It is quite common for people to have misconceptions of what indulgences are (the thing you call “paying for sins”) – according to the Catholic Church, when you sin, you automatically earn two types of punishment – eternal (hell) and temporal (purgatory or suffering of some kind on earth). Eternal punishment can only be removed through confession – indulgences relate to temporal punishment. The idea is that an indulgence is an act of mercy (remember that these are not bought – the Bishop who was “selling” them was reprimanded for doing so and new Canon Laws were passed to prevent it from happening. An indulenge was and is normally attached to something like reciting certain prayers for the dead, etc. By giving your time (not money) to do an act of Mercy, God removes some of the punishment you are due on earth or in purgatory. The misguided bishop was telling people that you could donate money for the rebuilding of the Church roof which he considered an act of mercy – and while it not directly a wrong thing, it lead to a great deal of controversy. It is a shame that 400 years later people (like you) still don’t know what an indulgence really is or understand the doctrines of sin and the remission thereof that were believed by ALL Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity, and are still believed by the majority of Christians for the last 500.
As for your comment on the Jews, I don’t know any today that are self-serving and arrogant – I think that is rather a racist view, which I guess explains why you are trying to explain away Martin Luther’s racism and hatred.
JJ: not all Christians do that – it is normally protestant Christians – you will see that the Orthodox and Catholics who have posted on the site are generally very fair and generous in their comments on these religious topics.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Jfrater: read the comments from christians on this list and the other religious list and you will see that you are right ,,not all of them do that just the majority and sorry to say but in this society “majority rules”
January 17th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I was raised Protestant, but have no problems with Catholocism in general. There are certain aspects that we will always disagree on (Immaculate Conception, for instance) but really, I don’t see the need to proclaim one side better than the other. The point is, I try to be objective (not always successfully, as I am often carried away by the need to yell at people for being stupid) to other’s beliefs, even when contradictory to my own. I think that the problem is that Protestants have been raised to defend our views as correct no matter what the situation, and it comes off as being intolerant of other beliefs. On the whole, I’d say we aren’t intolerant, but we aren’t going to sit still and let you bash our religeon without a fight either.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
i think its weird that christians will try and push their beliefs on you , but wont listen to yours and yet they call themselves tolerant ,,, you have to hear them go on and on about their religion but they cant hear yours , what are they afraid of
January 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I think it’s weird that you have to disparage Christianity based on isolated incidents and not on understanding and knowledge of it’s belief system. And any true Christian would listen to what you believe. I for one am always interested in other religeous systems and opinions. I also think there’s a difference between tolerance and blind acceptance. I’m not going to tell you that it’s okay for you to believe that but that I choose not to believe it myself, because according to my beliefs, what you believe is wrong. I will, however, tolerate the fact that you believe differently, and respect your wishes concerning my trying to evangelize you. If you tell me never to speak to you about Jesus or Christianity again, then I have to accept that you are not ready to be tolerant of my beliefs and back off.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
JJ: I think it tends to apply to anyone’s religion. I’ve done it, I’m guilty of dogging down Mormonism and Christianity in favor of my deistic and pagan views, but I’ve come to accept the view: believe what you want as long as you aren’t hurting anybody or trying to suppress anybody else’s beliefs using your own as justification.
In my encounters the worst are atheists and Evangelicals. These two groups are some of the rudest and intolerant people I know.
You get them in every religion Louis Farekhan of NOI is an asshole to the extreme. The current Pope Benedict is both a moron and an intolerant jerk.
I talk them down but in the end if they aren’t dictating by law who I can and cannot sleep with, what I eat or controlling my bodily choices, I really don’t care what they say, it when they act is when problems occur.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:16 am
shakespeare’s girl: i love how you say that if someone doesnt want to hear about christianity that they are intolerant lol maybe they just dont want to hear it !!
January 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Could you please explain where I stated that you were intolerant for not wanting to hear about Christianity? I don’t believe that I said that, but if I did and didn’t realize it, I apologize, that’s not what I meant at all. I meant to say that there is a time for me to try to convert you, and there is a time for me to shut up and leave you alone. If you aren’t going to listen to me, I’m not calling you intolerant. You’ve heard what I have to say before, but you clearly aren’t interested, and I have to live with that, but I don’t have to agree with it.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Shakespeare’s Girl what makes you think anyone wants to be converted i think thats the most narrow minded intolerant idea christians have they have no right to assume that people want to be converted your religion works for you but it doesnt work for everyone and how can you not realize that you called someone intolerant(If you tell me never to speak to you about Jesus or Christianity again, then I have to accept that you are not ready to be tolerant of my beliefs and back off.)you are the one who types your own comments right?and i just want to say i’m tolerant of all religions but i have my own and i dont wont someone to try and convert me , i will listen to someone EXPLAIN their beliefs
but when it turn into them telling me that theirs is the only true belief which it always does when it comes to you christians , thats when i no longer want to hear anymore.. every religion claims to be the on true religion so in my opion that means none of them are, that claim says to me thats its just an attempt to threaten people into following that belief(in the sense that it says believe what i say or you burn in hell) and thats just wrong,.. people should find faith not have it find them
January 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
and one more thing i do not based my opinion of christians on isolated incidents but on every christian i have ever met or seen on tv or heard on the radio you all claim acceptance but speak only of your intolerant views of just about everything from A to Z ,, all you ever hear from christians is that this is wrong or that is wrong or how everybody is going to hell
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I admit that it did sound like I was calling you intolerant, JJ. If you notice, though, in a later post I did explain that my definition of tolerance is different than most people’s.
“I also think there’s a difference between tolerance and blind acceptance. I’m not going to tell you that it’s okay for you to believe [what you believe] but that I choose not to believe it myself, because according to my beliefs, what you believe is wrong. I will, however, tolerate the fact that you believe differently, and respect your wishes concerning my trying to evangelize you.”
I don’t know that I am right about anything, but I do know that I believe I’m right. It’s only natural to try to convince others of that fact.
Also, I find it annoying that you assume I’m going to tell you that you are going to hell. While it may be common practice to “threaten people into following” Christianity, I don’t agree with the people who use that tactic. All it does is create animosity toward us from the people we should be showing love to.
Finally, I would like to apologize for any unjust treatment you may have experienced from Christianity. I am truly sorry that all your experiences have been negative ones. I would like to think that the majority of us are not like that, but that would be deluding myself. I know that there are so many people who claim Christianity as their religeon are nasty, intolerant and just plain upsetting to deal with. On behalf of all of us who are not, I apologize.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
westboro baptist church is a prime example of whats wrong with christianity
January 28th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
to some degree all christians are the same as wbc
May 21st, 2008 at 3:27 am
JJ: every religion has its nutcases and every religion has its fanatics …and brother it would be very easy to damn any of the various religions to hell because people following these religions have committed atrocities in their faith’s name…the muslims have their terrorists and certain Medieval laws to blame..the Christians have their Crusades, their forceful conversions . The jews have traditionally been considered proponents of the superior race ideology and what not. The Hindus with similar problems of religious intolerence.I could write a book about the faults of all the religions, but what does it prove?? I am a muslim and i live in India.. i have seen many instances of religious intolerance(and i for one wont hesitate to accuse other muslims of it, but i will not accuse my religion)and also seen the magnanimity of many of my fellow countrymen that rose above their personal faith .
ok long comment seemingly not going anywhere, but what i wanted to tell you guys was keep your religion personal..let it guide your life but dont force it on other people and respect others right to believe whatever they want…it is very easy to make fun or ridicule others but it is harder accept that others also have as much of a right to live and believe as you….
sorry if i have offended anyone or came across as preachy, my sole intention was just to bring some harmony to the discussion
May 31st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Well coming out (or should i say trapped for 16 years, then had to run away and leave the state) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I understand how scandalous their teachings were.
I would LOVE it if you would post a list on the scandals or wacked out teachings of the JW’s.
They are a brain warping cult. And yes, true, most of the people in the organization are kind. This is only because they are told what to believe, and are afraid to look anywhere else. I can say from experience I have never felt so controlled.
Any one else understand where I am coming from?
June 10th, 2008 at 5:48 am
#8 WTF!!!
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Religion is a SCANDAL altogether.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I was raised as a catholic.
I believe that religion is natural to man. It is, or should be, the cultivation of the relationship between the individual consciousness and the ‘over consciousness, or source of life or God.
In my opinion it is impossible to understand the Bible, or the NT anyway, without knowledge of man’s subtle body, astral body, energy system, whatever you want to call it.
Only my yogateacher could explain what was going on between Jesus and the people around him.
I maintain that without actual experience of truth (the nature of time; transpersonal consciousness; non-duality), religion is a matter of mere belief and as such meaningless.
Whoever is able to live from unconditional love however, may ignore all of this.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
religion was created by man himself..GOD never said to what religion we must believe in..God never told us what religion could save us..
what can save us is our faith and how we lived our lives here on earth..
why do you think religion is being mocked? it’s because of man’s actions..
just respect each other’s faith.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
@appie:
While agreeing with you about respecting each other’s faith, I don’t get the saving part. The essence of religion is the relationship between creator and creation, which is essentially love. So what’s there to save ? Time doesn’t exist outside our 3D thinking, it’s not a reality. Not to God and not to man connected with God. Again, what’s there to hope for or worry about ? It’s all here and now. ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’
October 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Peter:
what I am trying to say is that “our religion” is not the one that can save us from our sins but our “spiritual faith”.
so, whatever religion you believe in it’s your choice..
the most important thing here is how you live your life(to whether you do good or bad things)..
I believe in final judgment..that we will be judged according to what we have done here on earth.
I admit, I’m not a righteous person but I believe that there is a difference between being spiritual than religious and I am struggling on how to become more spiritual than being religious.
I agree with you that religion is the relationship between creator and creation.
(*_*)…(*_*)..(*_*)
October 25th, 2008 at 5:42 am
OK Appie (btw, are you Dutch ?), then we only disagree about ‘final’ and ‘here on earth’. I believe in reincarnation (it seems from several things Jesus said that this was a given for him) and I can’t see consciousness as being ‘here on earth’. It all probably doesn’t make much difference to how you and I try to live.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Peter:
I believe in reincarnation and still I believe that it would depend on how you lived your life.
…(*_*)..;-)
I said that I believed on final judgment ‘coz it is my belief as Christian that God will come to judge the living and the dead. (Apostles Creed.)
It is a very subjective statement but that’s how I believe in.
And if I die, I would judge myself according to how I lived my life,.
btw..I’m Asian…
October 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
PS..I mean not only God can judge me when I die but I would do that for myself,..
and also I believe in life everlasting..:-)…(*_*)..;-)
November 26th, 2008 at 6:47 am
I would be interested in the source of the picture in number 7. It looks like Aisha is bowing down to Muhammad. I understood that any images of Muhammad are not permitted in Islam.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Ok. Jehovah’s Witnesses never said that 1914 was the end of the world!… IN FACT, we teach that the end of this system of the world cannot be calculated and that no one not even Jesus know’s. Jehovah is the only one that know’s and is planning. How dare you say something u know nothing about?!
November 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
failiure!!!
November 30th, 2008 at 5:07 am
@ Missy,
Just generally: it is very difficult, in fact ompossible, to get a clear perspective on something you are in the middel of.
My in-laws were Jehovah’s Witnesses and I studied the organisation 30 years ago. You probably won’t want tobelieve me but
- the message is very different today from what it was 30 years ago. At the time the later abandoned theory that the UN was the sign that the end days had started, was still adhered to.
- The thing to understand is that it’s not a matter of lies or sudden drastic changes in theory. Without question JW’s were made to believe that the end of the world was coming on a certain date several times. Because there was, after the original faillure in the 19th century, always left a little room for, it’s now possible to claim the position ‘only God knows’. However, if you are sincere and interested in truth, you would find, if you studied, that in fact people that openly did not believe the predictions about Armageddon, were kicked out.
- Several policies, once written in stone and considered coming directly from the Bible, have been changed.
No doubt you will not believe the following: my study, in fact, not only mine but also those of former JW’s, have led to this answer to the question why an organisation that several times predicted things that did then not occur, continues to exist and make new policies and claims.
The answer is: the Watchtower, and with that the whole organisation, has simply become a multinational. If yoi uwant to find out for yourself: follow the money.
BTW My mother in law, when beginning to feel uneasy about the organisation, once remarked: either this is true or it is all a hoax, the Bible and God etc. This in my opinion shows how desperate and brainwashed she was.
For what it’s worth: no the Bible is not a hoax. However, religion is not about belief in interpetations and obedience to rules, but about love and connecting with the source of life.
All the best.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Metzitzah to me is absolutely disgusting and despite what has been said, it is worse than the Catholic child abuses.
The Catholic child abuses were against the most basic morals of society and would be considered a crime anywhere in the world. The church covered it up which was a heinous thing to do but they also knew that it was wrong.
I already consider circumcision to be a bewildering act, and I’m not sure whose great idea it was that a piece of foreskin is consecrated to God and the fact that its removal in infancy is still carried out all over the world is very disturbing. I’m fairly fond of my penis and the idea that anyone would want to cut a bit off it at any point in my life is a wee bit hair-raising.
But the idea of an old guy sucking blood from the member of a baby and spitting it away, being an acceptable part of this Hassidic culture is absolutely vile.
It’s a threadbare guise for being a paedophile.
‘It’s okay honey, he can suck blood off our baby’s dick, he’s a holy man.’
Rank rank rank
September 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
yea, the jewish one is a bit much with the guys sucking the baby dick.
nice list.