Having recently published our misconceptions list about Islam, I promised a commenter that I would also publish a list of misconceptions about the Catholic Church – of which there are millions. With this list I am honoring that promise. I have taken ten of the most believed or written about misconceptions about Catholics or the Church and debunked them (with evidence wherever possible). I certainly hope that you all find it interesting and readable.
Misconception: The Church discourages Bible reading
The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church – compiled by Catholic scholars of the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The very first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church – printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church–the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury.
At every Mass in the world everyday, the Bible is read aloud by the priest. In the traditional Mass there is one reading from the general body of the Bible (excluding the gospels), and two from the Gospels. In the modern Catholic Mass, there are two readings from the general body of the Bible and one from the Gospels. All Catholic homes have a Bible and the Bible is taught in Catholic schools (as is its perennial tradition).
This myth has come about because Bibles were often locked away in Churches in the past, but that was not to prevent people having access – it was to prevent them being stolen. These were hand written Bibles which were incredibly valuable due to scarcity. Furthermore, people think the Church forbade people from reading the Bible by putting it on the Index of Forbidden Books, but the Bibles placed on the Index were Protestant versions (lacking 7 books) or badly translated versions – the most famous of which is the King James Version which Catholics are not supposed to use.
Misconception: Catholics worship Mary and are, therefore, committing idolatry
In Catholic theology there are three types of worship – one of which is condemned in the Bible if offered to anyone but God:
1) Latria – this is adoration which is given to God alone – giving this type of worship to anyone else is considered to be a mortal sin and it is the idolatry condemned in the Bible.
2) Hyperdulia – this is a special type of worship given to Mary the Mother of Jesus – it is only given to her and it is not considered to be idolatory as it is not adoration, merely reverence.
3) Dulia – this is the special type of worship given only to the saints and angels – it is also not idolatrous as it, too, is a form of reverence.
The distinction was made by the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 AD. The council was called to condemn the people who claimed that it was idolatrous to have statues and images of saints. The canons of the Council can be read here.
Just to clarify: “Latria is a Latin term (from the Greek λατρεια) used in Orthodox and Catholic theology to mean adoration, which is the highest form of worship or reverence and is directed only to the Holy Trinity.” – there are lower forms of worship (as is implied here). A Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it. The images of saints (whether it be in statue form or painting) serves as a reminder of the holiness of the person depicted.
Misconception: Catholics aren’t Christians
In fact, Catholics are the first Christians. When reading over the early Christian writings, you can see clearly that their doctrines and teachings are the same as the Catholic Church today. You hear of Bishops, virgins living in community (nuns), priests, confession, baptism of infants, the Bishop of Rome as head of the Christian religion, and reverence for the saints. Here are some comments by the early Church fathers who were, in many cases, the apostles of the Biblical apostles:
Bishops: For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily. — Pope St Clement, Letter to the Corinthians 1, A.D. 96.
The Papacy: “[From] Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (St Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Holy Communion: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” — St. Justin Martyr, “First Apology”, A.D. 148-155.
Infant Baptism: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (St Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Confession: “[A filial method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, “I said, to the Lord, I will accuse myself of my iniquity.” ” (Origen, Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 — A.D. 248)
From these quotes it is obvious that the practices of the modern Catholic Church are the closest to the practices of the apostles and early Christians. It should also be said that the majority of historians accept that the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church as it is verifiable from ancient texts.
Misconception: The Pope is infallible in all things
Roman Catholics believe that only under certain circumstances is the pope infallible (that is, he can not make a mistake). The Catholic Church defines three conditions under which the Pope is infallible:
I. The Pope must be making a decree on matters of faith or morals
II. The declaration must be binding on the whole Church
III. The Pope must be speaking with the full authority of the Papacy, and not in a personal capacity.
This means that when the Pope is speaking on matters of science, he can make errors (as we have seen in the past with issues such as Heliocentricity). However, when he is teaching a matter of religion and the other two conditions above are met, Catholics consider that the decree is equal to the Word of God. It can not contradict any previous declarations and it must be believed by all Catholics. Catholics believe that if a person denies any of these solemn decrees, they are committing a mortal sin – the type of sin that sends a person to hell. Here is an example of an infallible decree from the Council of Trent (under Pope Saint Pius V – 16th Century):
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
The last section of the final sentence “let him be anathema” is a standard phrase that normally appears at the end of an infallible statement. It means “let him be cursed”. The most recent pronouncement that can be seen as falling under Papal Infallibility was when Pope John Paul II declared that women could not become priests.
Misconception: The Catholic Church is opposed to science and rejects evolution
In fact, may great scientific advances have come about through Catholic scholarship and education. The most recent and interesting case is that of Monsignor Georges Lemaître (pictured above, center) a Belgian priest who proposed the Big Bang theory. When he proposed his theory, Einstein rejected it, causing Monsignor Lemaître to write to him: “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.” Eventually Einstein came to accept the theory.
Also, unlike many of the American Protestant or evangelical religions, the Catholic Church does not reject the theory of evolution. Right from the early days of the theory, the Church remained mostly silent on the issue. The first public statements specifically regarding evolution came from Pope Pius XII who said: “The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
In 2004, a Theological Commission overseen by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) issued this statement: “According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. [...] Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”
Catholic Schools all around the world (including the US) teach scientific evolution as part of their science curriculum.
Misconception: Indulgences let you pay to have your sins forgiven
First of all we need to understand what an indulgence is. The Catholic Church teaches that when a person sins, they get two punishments: eternal (hell) and temporal (punishment on earth while alive, or in purgatory after death). To remove the eternal punishment of hell, a person must confess their sins and be forgiven. But the temporal punishment remains. To remove the temporal punishment a person can receive an indulgence. This is a special “blessing” in which the temporal punishment is removed if a person performs a special act such as doing good deeds or reading certain prayers.
In the Middle ages, forgers who were working for disobedient Bishops would write fake indulgences offering the forgiveness of sins (removal of eternal punishment) in exchange for money which was often used for church building. Popes had been long trying to end the abuse but it took at least three centuries for the sale of indulgences to finally end. True indulgences existed from the beginning of Christianity and the Church continues to grant special indulgences today. Wikipedia has an excellent and honest article on the abuse of indulgences from the Middle Ages. You can read it here. Here is a BBC article on a new indulgence granted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007.
Misconception: Emperor Constantine invented the Catholic Church in 325 AD
In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity. At the age of 40 he converted to Christianity and in 325 he convened the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Because of the importance of this council, many people believe that Constantine created the Church, but in fact there had been many councils (though not as large) prior to Nicaea and the structure of the Church already existed. Constantine was at the council merely as an observer and the Bishops and representative of the Pope made all of the decisions. Before the council of Nicaea, priestly celibacy was already the norm, baptism of infants was practiced (as were all 7 sacraments), and the structure of priests and Bishops was already 300 years old.
Misconception: Catholic Priests can’t get married
This has appeared on a previous list, but it is well worth including it here as well. In order to clear this one up, we need to first understand the nature of the Catholic Church. Within the universal Church there are sections (also called churches but not in the sense that they are separate) – the most common one is, of course, the Roman (or Latin) Catholic Church. Then there is the Eastern Catholic Church (not to be confused with the Orthodox which is a different religion). Both of these churches fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope and all believe the same doctrines. There are a lot of differences between the two groups but these are all in matters of style of worship and certain rules. In the Eastern Church, priests are allowed to be married – but a married priest can’t become a Bishop.
It also happens that occasionally in the Latin Church, pastors who convert from other religions such as the Church of England are allowed to become priests even though they are married, so married priests can be found in all parts of the Roman Catholic Church. Pictured above is a Greek Catholic priest and his wife. Don’t believe me? Here is proof. And here is more proof.
Misconception: The Church added books to the Bible
The Catholic version of the Old Testament differs from the Protestant version in that the Catholic edition contains seven more books than Protestant Bibles. These “extra” books are the reason that many people consider the Church to have added to the Bible, but in fact these books were considered the official canon (list of books) by all Christians until the Protestant reformation during which Martin Luther (leader of the revolution) removed them. Interestingly some of these books contain affirmations of Catholic doctrines which Luther rejected. The reason that the Catholic Church uses the Greek edition is because the apostles used it exclusively in their preaching.
Luther decided to use the Jewish Masoretic canon (circa 700 – 1000 AD) instead of the Apostolic canon. The seven books he removed were: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch. While initially wanting to remove at least one book (The Epistle of James, because it contradicts Luther’s teaching that faith alone is needed for salvation [James Chapter 2]) from the New Testament, Luther ultimately decided to keep the Catholic New Testament in full.
Interestingly, Hanukah is mentioned only in 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is not included in either the Jewish or Protestant versions of the Old Testament.
Misconception: The Papacy is a medieval invention
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and from the beginning of Christianity he was considered the head of the Church. This fact is alluded to in many of the early Church documents and even in the Bible itself: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Greek for "rock"]; and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and he led the Church until his death in 64 AD, at which point St Linus became the second Pope. St Irenaeus mentions him here:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [office of Bishop of Rome]. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy [2 Timothy 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus [third Pope, pictured above]; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement [4th Pope] was allotted the bishopric. — Against the Heresies, 180 AD
St Irenaeus goes on to mention another six Popes and the various tasks they undertook during their reigns – such as the imposition by Pope Linus of the rule that women cover their heads in Church (a rule which, though often ignored, still exists today).














July 13th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Let the Religous Debate Begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 13th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Yet Nothing about Little Alter Boys and Priest’s? Shall i gather that is not a Misconception?
July 13th, 2009 at 1:42 am
i am a little surprised with 8 being in this list, this is such a arguing point (perhaps that is why you put it in here) The Catholic Church has essentially ignored 3/4 of the book of Hebrews et al that discuss Jesus as being our high priest, hence the papacy and the priesthood. jesus was on earth to become our high priest and remove the need to go through a “middle man” to get to God. The Catholic church has kept this middle man in the matter of priestly confession. “does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord” Jesus is that priest we can confess to not a priest
July 13th, 2009 at 2:00 am
i was a roman catholic believer before..but since childhood, i kept on wondering why i have to worship statues..and mary..and other saints when it is stated that there should only be one God to worship..and that (statue worshipping)is a sin, as per the 10 commandements.. then i found out that i am supposedly not to become a catholic my whole entire life.. i decided to become a Baptist Christian believer.. that’s when i saw what i was looking for all those years…
July 13th, 2009 at 2:15 am
hmmmm what next? misconceptions about Atheism?
July 13th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Umm … well, pretty interesting & thought provokin list but … Lets wait for some debate o begin
July 13th, 2009 at 2:18 am
good list……another battle on its way……What about the edition of Bible over time………I mean there are some verses present in older versions that have been removed from the newer ones.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:23 am
jfrater-
didn’t we already have this list? i had that big debate with you that culminated in the statement “roman catholic latin rite priests can sometimes be married, but cannot “get” married post-ordination…”
July 13th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Wow long list but a good read none the less.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:26 am
oops, i was skimming, now i see the link
July 13th, 2009 at 2:36 am
I wouldn’t consider it a misconception of the alter boys and priests . I don’t think I’ve lived in a town where there hasn’t been an acusation( probably spelt that wrong). Right now, I live in Colorado Springs where ted haggard is from lol it may not be catholic but it just show most religious leader are messed up in the head. Thats why i’m of no religion why listen to a bunch of lies.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:56 am
I was raised Catholic but got out when I was 14. The problem is not the aceesiblity of the bible but the context of it. It’s foundations are contradicitions, it preachs religious intolreance,forces a conformist society, one half, the old testament teaches that god is something to fear whilst the other the new testament traches he is something to love. This is a problem with christianity, the catholic church cannot however be criticised as a whole organisiation for it is too vast. You either prepare to be ignorant or you don’t.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:05 am
@lo (8): that was a general misconceptions list – it is linked above I think
July 13th, 2009 at 3:10 am
I actually didn’t know about No.6 as I’m way too preoccupied at laughing at American creationist theories but its true that scientific advancement was only made possible with the implementation of Christianity and Islam.
All religions have misconceptions anyway because each sacred text can be interpreted in numerous ways. For the bible, the two sides of god can be examined with the smiting/murder/favouritism in the Old testament and the forgiving god of the New. How else did religious fundamentalism arise without all the debates and uncertainties?
We need more lists! Maybe stuff on Hinduism – Buddhism – Judaism and the Mormons
July 13th, 2009 at 3:19 am
I agree with the number 2. No mention of the paedophilia, eh?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:23 am
About 6:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
July 13th, 2009 at 3:26 am
this will be controversial again!
i am from the Philippines, and we are the only catholic country in Asia
the only thing i hate in Catholicism is worshiping statue saints, those image,! it is like they threat that thing as god, king and more than people who live! they almost forgotten who really god is! our country is full of superstitious belief, almost of them is all about our religion, some of them are lame and very doubtful idk why people here believe that!
July 13th, 2009 at 3:30 am
#2 The Church added books to the Bible
I have a questions, what about the NUMEROUS number of books that didnt make it into the bible canon? There were many books that were read back then that we dont read today, how can a “man” decide which books are “ok” to go in the bible, and which ones are not “ok”?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Where did the word, “catholic” and/or “christian” come from… Where can I find it in the bible, just curious….
July 13th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Im a stubborn atheist, i hate debates about religion.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:45 am
hmmm…correct me if i’m wrong…but i think #3 could clearly be considered as “the exceptions that prove the rule”.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:19 am
The catholic church concealed the scriptures from it’s people for centuries. In the middle ages the bible was only available in latin, and even then only to persons educated enough to read it and wealthy enough to afford it. Translation into the language of the people met with strong resistance. Arguably, this enabled the clergy to maintain power and influence as the sole source of the revealed word of god. While the bible is now readily available in all modern languages today, it is debatable whether many more catholics actually read it.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:26 am
@brandiwine (11): Have your opinon, but please try to stay respectful. While you may consider the church ‘lies,’ as is your right, try to be respectful of the beliefs of others.
You lack of belief does not make you any better or worse than those who believe.
I think you would agree that people should be allowed the liberty to decide if they should believe or not…and as tolerant people, we can respectfully disagree with their choices.
Insulting eachother helps nothing.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:27 am
the catholic church, while far less radical than the osycho-mega christians, function through christianity with a hypocritical and wealth saturated beaurocracy. The mega churches and rare metals used in the megachruches characteristic of all branches of christainity (not red-letters), would disgust jesus. The catholic church also condones intolerance towards various groups of people. Bottom line, unless you’re a red letter (I am not a christian at all) you are a hypocrite
July 13th, 2009 at 4:28 am
cosmicshambles : Actually you are wrong about the Bible being kept in Latin – there are many versions in languages other than Latin that well predate the Middle ages. And let’s not forget, it was called the “vulgate” because it was in the vulgar tongue – ie, most people spoke Latin. here is a 12th Century Middle English translation of parts of the Bible. You also seem to have missed my point: every day in every Catholic church in the world, the Bible is read.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Joliver
I beleive East Timor is also predominantly Catholic.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:44 am
nice list nuthin controversial
July 13th, 2009 at 4:47 am
@jfrater
u skipped many controversial points
is that to avoid contoversy or arent they misconceptions
July 13th, 2009 at 4:53 am
I’m still hoping for an atheist list.
All this religion is just silly. We need to move beyond worshipping our fairy tales and towards solving real problems.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Top 5 Unfortunate Truths About The Catholic Church
5. The Blood On Their Hands.
By no means exclusive to the Catholic Church, but i think it’s fair to say that of all the mainstream religions catholicism really does punch with the big boys when it comes to atrocities. We have the Vatican to thank for such wonderful and enlightening episodes as the Inquisition.
4. Their Archaic Attitudes Towards Homosexuality.
Over to Pope John Paul II….
‘Homosexual acts are against nature’s laws. The church cannot silence the truth, because this would not help discern what is good from what is evil.’
Tosser.
3. Pedophilia.
The age of consent at the Vatican is just 12 years old, the lowest in Europe. I think the less said about this one the better.
2. The Catholic Church And World War Two.
I think ‘unfortunate’ is the very least that can be said to describe the Churches actions during WW2. ‘Disgusting’ is maybe a better way of putting it. Their are too many separate cases to go in to detail here, however i do recommend you have a browse at the following website as an introduction in to the church’s actions. For a more detailed analysis i recommend ‘The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany’ by Guenter Lewy.
http://nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor2
1. Faith.
Coming in at number 1 is the undeniable truth that the Catholic Church and all who follow it worship a God who simply does not exist. The actual existence of a God can, of course, never be 100% disproved. However, as a defence of religion Bertrand Russell blew this idea out of the water some time ago with his ‘teapot’ argument. The evidence against a God or creator of any sort is overwhelming, and i think it’s time that we all grew up and came to terms with this simple fact.
BONUS!
Mel Gibson.
Mel Gibson, the man responsible for ‘Braveheart’, a movie so historically inaccurate that it is said David Starkey started to bleed from the eyes whilst watching it, is himself a Catholic. This alone is surely reason enough to be wary of the Vatican.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Excellent list Jamie – raised as a semi-catholic (my mom was excommunicated because my dad wouldn’t agree to have us baptized and raised as catholic), I was familiar with most of these. Not all of them. I did know that the reason that bibles were originally in Latin is because it was the language of scholars. And of course most of the rest of the populace couldn’t even read.
The Church’s sin when it comes to the child abuse scandals has nothing to do with pedophiles becoming priests – folks need to realize that pedophiles consciously or unconsciously (I’m thinking the former) choose professions/vocations that put them in contact with children. That means coaches, clergy, librarians, boy scout leaders. Their sin was one of “keep quiet, for the good of the Church”. This type of organized abuse was not confined to the Roman Catholics. Have a read about our treatment of native children at Residential schools. Fiery bible thumping protestants that was. Or at the woman’s detention centre on the east coast. For that matter I’ve been reading lately about something similar happening in the LDS church.
By the way my family read their bible – aunts and uncles and grandparents but they kept their religion close to their hearts – not on their sleeves. Many a fundementalist fire and brimstone protestant could take a lesson from them. It irritates me no end that a relatively new religion (read up about the reformation folks) would try and take us back to the dark ages. My goodness, I watched a video yesterday where a US senator said publicly that the earth was 6000 years old. What the hell? Who votes for these yahoos?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:09 am
jfrater : I am sure there were some translations of all or part of the bible into vernacular languages in the middle ages. I should not have stated that the scriptures were only available in latin. I maintain however that latin was not the common language of the people, it would have been some form of middle english with Norman influences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English). I did not miss your point – I posted my comment because your list item made it seem that the catholic church had always encouraged the reading of the bible. The last line of my comment was meant as a throwaway jibe.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Where is the common misconception that all catholics are peadophiles?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:23 am
@18 Mastermind
Yes, it was a group of “men” that made up the Council of Nicea and it was “men” who chose the books that made up our modern-day Bible. But how were their decisions made? Did they choose as men choose with debates and arguments or were their decisions Godly-influenced?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:23 am
As a Muslim, it is good to know about this and I appreciate the work of those who took time to compile it.
Now let us see how much hatred from Muslims, if any, this list will generate compared to the ‘Misconceptions about Islam’ list.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:25 am
What about the priests and young boys. And the Pope dares to condemn the homosexuals ! !
July 13th, 2009 at 5:30 am
@12 Jamie
I think you’re misinterpreting the word “fear.” In context to God, it doesn’t mean to be afraid of Him. It means to have an attitude of respect, which includes not wanting to displease Him. The fear of the Lord is about reverence toward God, respect for Him, love and appreciation, holding Him and His beloved Son in high esteem.
I teach Sunday School at my church and I have at least one child every month ask me about this.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:30 am
great list there mate
but I sort of disagree with the part that you say that Catholics were the first Christians.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:37 am
The equivalent concept to “Islam” is not “The Catholic Church”. It is “Christianity”.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Interesting list…I knew many of these myself, although I don’t believe in any of it. Too much shoved down my throat when I was a kid, kind of made me jaded.
As for number 2….To me, that sounds more like truth then being false. Humans wrote the book so I can see where mistakes/additions/changes/removal of passages could happen. It would be very easy.
Religion is ok for those who want it. Just as long as you keep your views to yourself and not force it on others, then there shouldn’t be a problem. Worship what you want but don’t tell others what they can or cannot worship themselves.
I follow Inari and my daughter is Babtist. I wouldn’t dream of forcing her to follow the Shinto religion and I won’t have her try to convert me to hers. It works fine for the both of us that way.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:43 am
Great List. Can you do Top 10 Misconceptions About Buddhists.?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:45 am
@Enigma (35): Indeed.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Mr.plow (23) One of my main reasons I don’t care for what the Christian religion speak of is plain and simple. WTF with the virgin Mary? I’m sorry but virgin ha if you look into the history of that region now and back then not much has changed . You have a child out of wedlock you are stoned, burned , scorn , and even murdered. Now here’s an interesting way to think about it have you ever thought Mary lied to save her life? made up this story about gods baby . It funny we praise this woman but laugh when a girl tries saying she got pregnant while swimming and sperm in the water got inside her. who is to say that wasn’t gods child. science plain and simple not child with out sexual intercourse, or invetro fertility. I’m pretty sure they didn’t have that back in the time Christ was conceived.
I’ll preach what I want to preach since God is thrown in my face all the time why can’t I throw anti-god in yours? I have pamphlets left at my door, have to hear god in my pledge on my money. I’m sorry but till you can truly prove all you say is true I’m not going to believe it. Now I’m entitled to my beliefs you yours , but I will say this do I hate people who believe in god? No , My grandmother is catholic. I just believe they have a false sense of reality and are giving their money to a worthless cause. what is the point of building these big churches? To each there own I choose to be agonistic I don’t believe in your god no , I believe their is something out there but I just don’t believe in the bible.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Interesting list… I never knew that Catholicism uses more books in their Bible.
mom424, #31 – “The Church’s sin when it comes to the child abuse scandals has nothing to do with pedophiles becoming priests – folks need to realize that pedophiles consciously or unconsciously (I’m thinking the former) choose professions/vocations that put them in contact with children. That means coaches, clergy, librarians, boy scout leaders. Their sin was one of “keep quiet, for the good of the Church”.”
I think there is something to be said for the effect of the seminary system on a young man’s development. It is essentially stunting their sexual growth, and disallowing them the natural development of their personality, and to come to grips with their urges as most young people do. They are also required to distance themselves from women, and therefore when they seek human relationships they find themselves stuck with a choice between their male elders and peers, women to whom they can offer nothing, and children under their care. For many of these men, being emotionally crippled and essentially cut off from both the realisation of childhood and the acceptance of adulthood, the attraction towards children (though perhaps innocent at first) soon becomes something unnatural and wholly abominable to normal people.
Jesus. I did not intend to write that much….
July 13th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Although the list was very well put together, I believe it has nothing really that stands out for debate!
Maybe because the Catholic Church is so spread out in the world and “advertised” most people know pretty much all their is to know.
“Most Common Rumors about the Vatican”, now that would stir some comments!
For those of you pointing out the paedophilia cases it wouldnt fit in this list, cos its about misconceptions! And no one ever heard that the Catholic Church supports such digusting behavior!! Besides, paedophilia has been reported in several religious groups its not a “catholic thing”!!
July 13th, 2009 at 6:08 am
@Travis (45): Oh, hold on a second.Its okay for you to slam any ’stereotype’ about Islam but when someone brings up a stereotype about catholicism it is disgusting.
That made me laugh.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:13 am
¿How about a list of misconceptions about the Spanish Inquisition? From the top of my head:
1.Unusually bloody: If we take the highest estimates, around 5.000 were killed, but that was in more than 3 centuries. The state of Texas could beat that, easily.
2.Backwards: In fact, the Inquisition offered the first true foundations of “due process”. Of course, it is seriously flawed by modern standards, but it was an advancement at the time.
3.The Church executed the convicts: Merely a technicality, perhaps, but it was the secular authorities who killed the people.
4.Killing of jews and muslims: The authority of the Church only applied to those baptized . Therefore, only jews and muslims who had accepted baptism could be tried and executed. It is true, however, that those jews and muslims who refused baptism faced expulsion from the country.
5.Torture: It was quite rare and less brutal than the contemporary secular practices. It was also limited to the purpose of extracting a confession, as opposed to torturing as a punishment in other jurisdictions.
6.Religious motivation: The Inquisition was often used by the secular authorities to pursue secular crimes, and also because regular courts were limited by the fragmentation of jurisdictions inside Spain (roughly, Castilla and Aragon), but the Inquisition didn´t have those limitations.
Not that the Inquisition was a good thing, just not the sadistic killing machine it is purported to be.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Good list! Ya really banging the drum for religious understanding eh? I wonder why everyone attacks Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, I mean to an outsider all these beliefs may seem strange. It seems however that there are a lot of people who really get into not believing anything. They attack believers with the banner of the atheists shaky science I mean is the big bang really any more credible than creation? Further to the Atheist laughing at “American Creationists” when did Creation become American? Its all there in Genesis. America had nothing to do with it. I don’t feel like going on about it, but I have to wonder why so many self proclaimed atheists feel the need to convert people to atheism? is there an atheist bible or some sort of manifesto that requires you to win people over to Atheism? Or are you so narrow minded and critical of the idea of spirituality because you’re afraid you could be wrong and you feel threatened? I think that right now it is the hot thing to live on a purely existential level. Ok but why not just live? Why berate everyone else because you are spiritually crippled?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:23 am
@ SpaceAge (46) :
First of all, when have I ever slammed any stereotype about Islam?
Second, all I was trying to say is that paedophilia isnt only a Catholic Church problem… many other religions have been related to the horrible act! Its got nothing to do with religion!
And last, I didnt say that bringing up the topic was disgusting, I said that the act itself, of paedophilia, was disgusting!
July 13th, 2009 at 6:29 am
My understanding of 10 was that Catholics, rather than being discouraged, simply weren’t encouraged to search the scriptures in their own personal time for themselves. That said, of the catholics I have known, none of them do read the Bible in their own time.
On 9, despite Mary being the mother of Jesus, I think she is given unjustified reverence beyond that of any other. Statues just give the wrong impression, as does praying to her or before the statues. One doesn’t need a statue to remember the holiness of the saints. If they read the Bible, that would be enough.
I also disagree that Catholics were the first “Christians”. If by “Christians” you mean those annointed with the Holy Spirit, who regularly fellowshipped together and broke bread, that would be the 120 who received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Then you have those from the 3000 who also accepted Jesus on that day, followed by the churches the apostles built. The church in Rome, compared to the rest of them, was faily late.
On 7, considering the Bible says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, and God is infallible, it doesn’t hold that the Pope can be infallible even on theological matters. For starters, if a Pope can accept that there’s no conflict between abiogenesis, evolution via common descent and the Bible, he’s hardly making an infallible theological judgement.
Indeed, the church is not anti-science, but “anti-evolution” is a tricky one. It depends on what is meant by “evolution”. I believe a consistent Christian will agree that natural selection happens, but they would not agree with abiogenesis and common descent.
For 2, the reason the rest of the church does not accept the 7 apocrypha is because they were written during a 400 period between the OT and NT where it’s acknowledged that there was no revelation from God and no prophets speaking.
To quote from an article on this subject:
The 11 to 16 books of the Apocrypha were written in the 400 years between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. While the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches treat some of these books as Scripture, Protestant Christians never have. Why is this?
1.The Jews never considered them as part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They believed that there was, throughout that period, no voice of the prophets in Israel. They looked forward to a day when “a faithful prophet” would appear (1 Maccabees 9:27). For the Jews, God’s revelation of the Scriptures through the prophets ended around 430 BC with the book of Malachi.
2.Jesus and the Apostles never considered the Apocrypha as part of the Scriptures. Although there are hundreds of quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament, never did Jesus or the apostles quote from the Apocrypha. Incidentally, the authors of the Bible do refer to other books, but this does not make them Scripture. For example, Jude 14–15 refers to the book of Enoch, which is not part of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha.
3.Unlike the Old Testament prophets, none of the books of the Apocrypha ever claimed divine authority.
4.Some parts of the Apocrypha contain historical blunders.
5.The community who copied the Dead Sea scrolls never gave the same authority to books of the Apocrypha as to the Old Testament books
Finally, the Matthew 16:18 quote is often misinterpreted. If you read it in context (not only of the chapter and book but also the Bible as a whole) you get a different picture.
“When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus said that those who confess Him before people, He will confess them before His Father. Those who don’t, on the day of judgement He will say that He never knew them. He is confessing Peter here by acknowleding his full name and also the name He gave Him. (The book of Revelation speaks of people being given new names by Jesus on the New Earth).
Jesus was saying here that on the principle that He is the Son of God, He will build His church. What He used here was essentially a play on words (a device He also employed in His parables which isn’t clear in translation).
It’s useful to see the writings of Peter himself and what he said on the subject:
“So as you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but chosen and priceless in God’s sight, you yourselves as living stones are built up as a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood and to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it says in scripture ‘Look, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and priceless cornerstone, and whoever believers in Him will never be put to shame’
So you who believe see His value, but for those who do not believe, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and a stumbling-stone and a rock to trip over.” 1 Peter 2:4-8
Indeed, all who confess Jesus are the precious stones with which He builds His house, however He is the chief cornerstone. The founding rock that supports the house, and part of that rock is the principle that Jesus is the Son of God.
Thus, all are on equal standing before God, whether Bishop or not. Indeed “bishop” means a supervisor and it isn’t an office that one uses to laud authority over others. It is an office of loving, carefilled service to the people they have been placed within. It is not the head of the entire church as Jesus is the only head of the church.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:32 am
But at least the Pope knows that condoms don’t help against HIV.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Oh wow, I can already feel the “Misconceptions about Islam” arguments migrating over here….
Great list by the way.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:34 am
This is a pretty decent list I say. It clears off some things, like I didn’t know priests CAN get married
July 13th, 2009 at 6:38 am
WELCOME TO LISTVERSE : WHERE SMART PEOPLE FIGHT OVER STUPID SHIT, AND GUESS WHAT? I’M THE ONLY RASTAFARIAN BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS EITHER A CATHOLIC FANATIC OR A MOSLEM TERRORIST
July 13th, 2009 at 6:38 am
“Mr.plow (23) One of my main reasons I don’t care for what the Christian religion speak of is plain and simple. WTF with the virgin Mary? I’m sorry but virgin ha if you look into the history of that region now and back then not much has changed . You have a child out of wedlock you are stoned, burned , scorn , and even murdered. Now here’s an interesting way to think about it have you ever thought Mary lied to save her life? made up this story about gods baby . It funny we praise this woman but laugh when a girl tries saying she got pregnant while swimming and sperm in the water got inside her. who is to say that wasn’t gods child. science plain and simple not child with out sexual intercourse, or invetro fertility. I’m pretty sure they didn’t have that back in the time Christ was conceived.”
Actually, if you read the account in the Bible as it was originally written and understood, Joseph was greatly distressed when he found out Mary was pregnant if not infuriated. He considered quietly getting rid of her. But, he instead bowed to the standard that is greater than the law (that which Jesus came to proclaim) which was grace. He acted out of grace and compassion and decided to still take Mary as his wife and indeed to protect her from being stoned.
It’s also implied that many didn’t believe Mary’s pregnancy was miraculous, and Joseph only became aware of this after he was visited in a dream which led to his decision not to quietly get rid of her.
Plus the whole point of it being a miracle is that it’s something that would be beyond normal experience. Miraculous virgin births without a human father are hardly common. That modern science says it isn’t (normall) impossible further points to the fact that it was an act of God.
Admittedly, you would think that Mary’s story would be an encouragment for the church to look with compassion upon women carrying children outside of marriage. Not in a way that condones it, but also not in a way that condemns them either.
It’s also a good example to the fathers to take some damn responsibility by following Joseph’s example.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Yeah Nobkin, I agree with u
July 13th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Hey, I wonder when will the list ‘Top 10 Misconception About Judaism’ come?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:43 am
@papas (38): Papas – my sentiments exactly! As a convert to Orthodoxy, I am rather hardcore in my beliefs. Catholicism didn’t even come into exisitence until around 1054, with the great schism. The first Christians were what are today referred to as Eastern Orthodox, right?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:43 am
@Bob Marley Roxx (54): You are a nutcase
July 13th, 2009 at 6:44 am
@Random Asian (57): Oh you never knew?
Its ‘anti-semetic’ to say anything about the Jews.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Very informative list! But it seems that what people are most curious about is why child abuse isn’t somewhere in there.
Well, it’s simple: Child abuse within the church is not a misconception, or a stereotype. It’s a REALITY.
(Of course it’s not true that “everyone in the Church is a paedophile”, that’s just silly.)
You only need to take a single report to realize it: the 2009 Irish Child Abuse Commission Report. This report by the Irish Government detailed the abuse of thousands of children within Irish Catholic institutions over 70 years. This report isn’t just suggesting anything; it demonstrates through and through thousands of cases of child abuse by the Church, and there have been many consequences from this. Now, this is just one of many reports and cases of child abuse by the Church that exist, but it more than proves the reality of pedophilia in Catholic institutions. (If you want to know more check out the Wikipedia page on this report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse)
The problem is not simply that there are “pedophiles who decided to be priests”, but the fact that the church’s traditional practices of secrecy, celibacy, guilt and punishment, among many others, promote this kind of behavior in many cases. Again, this last bit isn’t something made up; the many reports and cases over the years have led to these conclusions. Check out this page for much more info about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
July 13th, 2009 at 6:55 am
I don’t think its the catholic church at fault for the pedophiles I think that most religions want to believe in the inherent goodness of the enlightened. Thing is the pedophiles are going to go “where the boys are” be it a church a school or a widow with children and hopes of a better life. Brandiwine! Antigod? That’s hilarious that you are preaching the gospel of nothing! Sounds like a Saturday night live skit.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:55 am
By the way, the catholic church clearly does not like science. The great hatred they have for homosexuals is entirely based on a refusal to listen to science.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:56 am
@Greg (62): Homosexuals are in the catholic church.
Why do you think they have altar boys lol
July 13th, 2009 at 6:59 am
Can you imagine Jesus, Mary, Joesph, and God appearing on Maurey Povich in the modern era to clear up- once and for all- just who Jesus’ father really is? That would either quell the arguments, or start new ones.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Hm… this list seems vaguely defensive…
July 13th, 2009 at 7:01 am
good one wooly
July 13th, 2009 at 7:03 am
AnonX, sarcastically, raises a good point. Surely when the Pope/Catholic Church uses it’s scientists to ‘prove’ that condoms don’t help prevent transfer of HIV then surely that is technically anti-science (or at least using biased science to proves one’s desired point!)
July 13th, 2009 at 7:05 am
@gimmemore (63): Well, you know, the holier than us heathens priests need to get their jollies somehow, and i guess little boys do the trick for the sin-absent seraphs.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:05 am
@Greg: I would have thought it was to do with what the Bible says about homosexual acts being an abomination, and it isn’t like Catholics are the only people who think so anyway. (although that said, the current record on being consistent with Bible isn’t the church’s strong suit these days)
What exactly is science saying on the subject? Far as I know, science is saying that all organisms reproduce sexually or asexually. In the case of humans, reproduction requires male and female germ cells. If everything is moving towards survival, in the case of humanity, this would seem to favour heterosexuality scientifically speaking.
Science may indeed observe that homosexual acts take place in nature, similarly to how it’s observed that some elephants try to hump rhinos, but then people would still raise an eye-brow to someone who wanted to shag a sheep.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:10 am
I used to argue with my husband (a former Baptist) till I was blue in the face that Catholics were indeed Christians, but he always believed otherwise.
Even if I show him this list, he’ll say it’s bullshit.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:12 am
@stizzy (69): Wow. Let me explain the science to you, cause i happen to be decent at biology. A gene is passed from parent to child. Genes code for proteins, and proteins build what needs to be synthesized for life. Science hypothesizes that a gene is present in homosexuals that cause a protein to not be coded for correctly, making something called epistasis occur, where one protein has many effects. Homosexuals thus have different brains and a hormonal change, as hormones are proteins. This means that it is not the fault, choice, or sin of homosexuals to be homosexual, rather, a genetic difference. As times change and nex discoveries are made, the science-less bronze age beliefs, like those in the bible need to be altered with the change in the times. If god wrote the bible, and he is all knowing, he would have known homosexuality is genetic, and would not have condoned them being stones. Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that god did not write the bible, and that the church will not revise bronze age beliefs to fit the changing times and new scientific discoveries, one of the man reasons religion needs to be changed or dropped entirely.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:14 am
@SpaceAge (59):
err…. Did I offend you by anyhow? Are you a jew or something cuz if you are……
July 13th, 2009 at 7:16 am
*stoned
July 13th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Great list!
Always like learning about other religions!
July 13th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Christianity or any other religion for that matter is a misconception. Therefore its natural to have misconceptions about a misconception.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:21 am
@Greg: I think you misread me. You may notice I specifically said “homosexual acts” and not homosexuality.
And I don’t recall anyone being stoned for having temptations or desires
Indeed, the Bible acknowledges that all are born with a sinful nature, yet it does not say that everyone should be stoned simply for being born with a sinful nature.
Also, the Bible indicates that the world and life today is not the same as it was when it was created and has suffered decay down to the genetic level.
So your conclusion is based on a false premise.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:24 am
I was raised as Catholic and was sent to Parochial School for eight years. Now I consider myself a “recovering Catholic.” We were taught to pray to Patron Saints, so I’d saty your list #9 is not correct.
From http://www.Cathloc.org> “Patron saints are chosen as special protectors or guardians over areas of life. These areas can include occupations, illnesses, churches, countries, causes — anything that is important to us.
“A patron saint can help us when we follow the example of that saint’s life when we ask for that saint’s intercessory prayers to God.”
“For example, Francis of Assisi loved nature and so he is patron of ecologists. Francis de Sales was a writer and so he is patron of journalists and writers. Clare of Assisi was named patron of television because one Christmas when she was too ill to leave her bed she saw and heard Christmas Mass — even though it was taking place miles away.”
So in order to, “ask for that saint’s intercessory prayers to God” we would have to pray to the Saint.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:28 am
@stizzy (76): To say that homosexual sex is a sinful act is ignorant and bigoted (you may want to know that i’m not gay, i have no personal stake in this). The fundamental reason why is this: What’s the alternative? They should enter into sham marriages, not loving the spouse of the opposite gender, have sex just to procreate, be miserable not being able to experience love, and live unhappy, god fearing lives like the rest of us? It can’t be “cured” and is not a choice, therefore, homosecuals having acts of love is not sinful unless you believe bronze age mythology.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:40 am
@Greg: Well if the Bible teaches that sex is the domain of a married man and woman, then it’s no different for homosexual men and women as it is for underage kids or people who aren’t married.
No marriage? No sex.
That’s hardly bigoted or ignorant.
There’s no reason someone can’t experience love or happiness outside of sex and no one was saying anything about a “cure”.
The point is, you said the reason the Catholic church is against homosexuality is because it “does not like science”, I simply explained why I think this stance is based on a false premise. How one feels about homosexuality isn’t the point.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Hmmm… I think that, compared to the one about Islam, this is a pretty lukewarm list.
How about, in a broader, Christian related topic?
- “Apostles never married”, whereas the NT states that Peter had a mother-in-law, ergo, a wife.
- “Jesus had (had no) brothers (and sisters)”, whereas the NT mentions them clearly, which begs posing another misconception.
- “Mary remained (not) virgin forever”.
- “The Bible has (not) changed or (not) being mistranslated or (not)being modified to adjust to the readers’ views since ancient times”.
- “Jesus images in icons and portraits have (not) remained unchanged since the beginning”. Young Jesuses, Sun God Jesuses, unbearded Jesuses, short hair Jesuses, Jesuses copied from roman emperors’ images in coins. The image we commonly have of him dates to the year 1000 AD, more or less.
- “The cross has (not) been the symbol identifying Christianity since the beginning”. Fishes, doves, anchors… but not crosses until Constantine. You know: “hoc signi vincis” or “Under This Sign You Will Triumph” (my Latin might be misspelled; sorry).
- “Christian churches can (not) be found earlier than 200 AD”. Where are those churches that Jesus mentioned he would build upon Peter’s stone between 33 AD and 200 AD?
- “Christians were massively prosecuted throughout history” I was surprised when a Colosseum’s guide told us that there are no traditional or historical records of Christians having being fed to lions or martyrized in any other way there.
- “Nazareth did (not) exist prior to the 3rd century AD”. Sorry, no historical records of such a place prior to the visit of Constantine’s mother to the area around that century.
- “The gospels were (not) written by the apostles/apostles’ associated to them”. Many errors indicating authors separated by time and location from the supposed facts.
Just off the top of my head whilst heading to buy lunch.
Pac
PS: For the record, I’m an atheist.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I should also add, that if one doesn’t believe in God or Jesus, no one is saying you have to live by this. But one who professes to should think twice.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:46 am
@stizzy: you don’t seem to understand my point… don’t listen to the bible, it’s bronze age mythology! Uranium 258 proves the earth is over 6,000 years old. Goodbye, adam and eve myth. A man can’t live in a big fish for 3 days. Bye, Jonah. Jack and the bean stalk is no less believable than elijah’s flying charriot. Bottom line, gays absolutely deserve the right to get married and have sex. The only part of the bible that says marriage is 1 man 1 woman has been proven false, there were no adam and eve. I really don’t want to give a lecture on half life, nuclear chem and the heterotroph hypothesis, so please, put the fairy tales down and grab a science textbook or a great piece of literature, it will do you good.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:48 am
BOO! Not a great list!
July 13th, 2009 at 7:53 am
@Greg: Radiocarbon dating is based on a set of assumptions, and it has been shown that decay rates are not constant. Uranium 258 proves that some Uranium 258 has decaryed.
Jonah wasn’t alive in the fish for 3 days. Scripture would actually seem to indicate he was dead and then brought back to life when he was spewed back onto land.
Considering there is historical and archeological support for much of the Bible and neither for Jack and the Bean Stalk (considering it is not meant to be an historical book, and it did not appear before 1807), that is hardly a logical comparison.
Marriage isn’t a right, it’s a gift. And Genesis isn’t the only part of the Bible that mentions 1 man and 1 woman.
But I’m not here to give lectures either
I will say though, that if you hold the standard that one shouldn’t be ignorant of another’s position, it may do you well to find out a bit more about what the Bible actually says.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Thank you for an interesting and thought-provoking list, and for undertaking what was clearly a great deal of work that went into it. Even though I don’t agree with every point you make or present, nevertheless your list is truly worthwhile, and I would hope that everyone would respond to it in the spirit in which it was obviously created, namely, sincere, well-researched, and honest intellectual inquiry.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:01 am
One of those rare poor lists. I thought the no 1 misconception was that catholicism is true.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:01 am
i can’t say that genesis is not the only book that says 1 man 1 woman, of course i could be wrong. Please, tell me the book and i’ll find it. Next, radiocarbon dating is less than accurate because c14 rates are based on assumptions of atmospheric levels, but, uranium dating and other forms of decay are not, as the ratio of resulting materials to original is known. I promise you, this is an issue i am correct on, i am very knowledgable in chemistry. But i digress. There is NO histroical evidence for the bible. Genesis has the following traits that are disproven: it happened at the dawn of time, 6,000 years ago; even was synthesized from a rib; apples can grow in the middle east; snakes can talk, etc. Forgive me for the jonah mistake, i believe now, as divine revival makes much more sense than living in a giant fish. Marriage is not a gift. The purpose of marriage is to join 2 people in love. It’s aboit love, not gender. Only the radical christian bigots are destroying the sanctity of marriage by making about gender and not love. But, then again, let’s bring back scarlet A’s and ban divorce before we ban gays from ebing married, eh?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:03 am
@Greg (82): Trying to change someone’s mind about their faith isn’t going to work. Let Stizzy and others like him believe what they want. It’s when they impart their religion on others is when it gets bad.
He mentioned that if you don’t believe then it’s fine.
@Stizzy (84): Marriage isn’t a right, it’s a gift.
If that is so, then everyone can have the same gift. Why does religion have to tell anyone who is NOT apart of that religion to do anything? And before you tell me that it doesn’t happen…think about California.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:05 am
@oouchan: I agree it’s fine, but, that does not mean it’s logical or that people should believe illogical things, and then impart their religion on others (like gays) like he was doing.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Howd this turn into a gay rights seminar? Atheists are sure putting in a lot of research here , hell all you gotta do is not believe in anything! Funny really you’re on a soapbox spewing scripture to support your belief why that’s um a lot like preaching eh? So many scientists and geneticists here now Its no wonder we can’t find a cure for anthing you’re all wasting time on listverse lol I’m a musician I belong here! Take ya scientific self to work! save your brilliance for the race to cure cancer!
July 13th, 2009 at 8:11 am
@Mark (29):
“we need to move beyond worshipping fairy tales”
Do you know how arrogant a statement that is? You are basically saying that the beliefs of millions of people worldwide are nonsense. In effect you are saying “there is no God”. How can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that is true? I believe in the Christian God and I know that I certainly can not prove to anyone that he exists, you believe he is as real as a fairy tale character but again you cant prove that.
Unlike you I am not so arrogant as to tell you that your belief is wrong. Your belief is as valid as mine!
Just a thought to finish on: There are not many athiests on an airoplane that is crashing!
July 13th, 2009 at 8:15 am
homosexuality is not a choice!! who would choose to be hated , ridiculed, and segregated,, the only choice involved is the choice to be true to urself and to tell your loved ones.its not a preference or a lifestyle either its just a part of life.of course its natural when puberty hits and you only have “wet dreams” about it how can that be a choice ,,cant control your dreams,, i’m so tired of other(strait) people acting like they know everything about homosexuality.
oh and for those who believe you can stop being gay you cant all you can do is lie to yourself and ACT strait
Gay is gay its how you are born nothing can change it ,,,it happens in nature therfore its natural
July 13th, 2009 at 8:19 am
@tripsyman(91): Mark has every right to say that. Why? Because ity’s true! There’s no evidence to support the bible. As i said before, there is nothing more supported in the bible than jack and the beanstalk. Just as I can’t prove the christian god does not exist, i or you can’t disprove giants in the sky or rumplestiltskin.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:21 am
If god was so against gays, why didn’t say anything about the strange and very close relationship between David and Jonathan, Saul’s son?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan
Yes, I know there is a debate. But shouldn’t the word of the almighty be clear and precise?
Pac
PS: For the record: I’m an atheist and not gay.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:22 am
It’s pretty incredible that the structure of priests and bishops was 300 years old in 325 AD considering canon says Jesus was crucified in 33 AD.
Also, @91: I’d love to know how you know what people on a crashing airplane believe in terms of religion. Do Buddhists (who often do not believe in a god since there are no deities in Buddhism) suddenly become Christians in the event of an engine failure?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:23 am
If Catholics do not worship Mary and the saints, then why do they prey to them? As a Christian, you should only pray to God through Jesus Christ.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Will one of those saying that god exist please do as Elijah and come forward, build an altar, convoke TV and newspaper media, invite J Randi and call god to light the pyre. If god does light it, as he supposedly did to prove that he was the true god and Baal a false one, then you have made your point and atheists and unbeliever alike will praise the one and true lord (you might even get to kill all of us afterwards, as Elijah did with the losers then).
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Ahhhh, wonderful list. Although I’m not Catholic, I find myself defending the faith quite a bit from over-zealous people in my classes, and it’s great to be able to fully explain the whole idolatry thing in greater detail. =D
July 13th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I’ll play. Seems like fun.
#9 – Worshiping Mary, the Angels, and the Saints is not idolatrous because… because the Church says it isn’t.
Just making sure I understand correctly. Thank you for demystifying.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am
@96
Why pray to god through Jesus? If Jesus is god, why use Jesus as proxy. Pray to god directly, in any case. Otherwise, would it be the same to pray to god through the holy ghost? You know, trinity and that stuff.
Pac
PS: By the way, we have Jesus and Mary statues and images, and also those of saints. Why aren’t there statues of the holy ghost? You know, doves in pedestals, maybe. Nobody prays to and/or through the holy ghost. Of the three members of the trinity, it is the most forgotten. I would feel for it, but it is all make-believe.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Or if you truly, truly, truly believe, do a video performing any of the following: http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/always-check-their-credentials.html
Don’t forget to invite J Randi to witness the taping!
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Since when did Jesus go from God’s son to God himself?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:49 am
#96–”Praying” to saints is not unlike asking your friends and family to say prayers for you in times of need. It isn’t worship–you are asking the saints to pray for you, to God through Jesus Christ. Or this is how I always understood intercessory prayer. . .
July 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Informative list, I will sit this one out.
All I can add is dont try and change a persons believes – you know the saying – you cant change a leopards spots.
My pennies worth.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Much as I admire the effort that goes into these religious lists, I have no interest in deciphering this superstitious garbage.
If you think you have an invisible friend then good for you. I got over that rubbish when I was five years old, and I’m not going to get drawn into your politics just because you’re a bit slow on the uptake.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Great and really informative list!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I am quite sick of seeing everyone who deviates from the list to talk garbage of others. I am by no means a religios man, but I find you people that live to tear down other’s beliefs to be repugnant. Why do you hate someone who believes in god? because you do not agree with their point of view? I do not hate people who put mayonnaise on fries, as disgusting as I find it.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you”.
If you need any more ethical advice than that then you are spiritually and emotionally retarded.
And if you act in that manner and you are not admitted to ‘Heaven’ then the people in Heaven are 100% A-grade ***holes.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:07 am
From wikipedia: To trinitarian Christians (which include Catholic Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and the majority of Protestant denominations), God the Father is not at all a separate god from the Son (of whom Jesus is the incarnation) and the Holy Spirit, the other Hypostases of the Christian Godhead. Trinitarian Christians describe these three persons as a Trinity. This means that they always exist as three distinct “persons” (Greek hypostases), but they are one God, each having full identity as God himself (a single “substance”), a single “divine nature” and power, and a single “divine will”.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 9:14 am
As a Catholic, my only complaint with this list (thanks, btw, jfrater) is with your definition of the word anathema. My understanding of the word was not that it means “cursed,” which suggests immediate and permanent damnation, but rather that it is a special form of excommunication requiring (if I recall canon law correctly) bishop’s approval to be lifted.
Additionally, it is worth noting that while a married man may become a priest (as in the case of Anglican ministers converting), a priest may not marry once he is ordained.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@ Jacob (107) see my comment @ (104) – I agree.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
@brandiwine (43):
Typical…very typical.
You assume I am Catholic, I am not. You assume I am trying to convert you or change your opinion…I could care less what you believe or don’t believe. I simply asked for a little tolerance and respect…prehaps that is too much to ask?
Not being Catholic, why do I care what about Mary? Perhaps a Catholic can enlighten you…as I am not qualified. Even if I answered them, there is no answer that will make you happy anyway.
Why do you even care what the Catholic position is? You don’t believe anyway. The only reason you ask is that it is your feeble attempt to discredit someone’s views. Why do you care so much that one believes?
You obviously do not know much of what Catholics believe in that Mary, while they do glorify her, other Christians do not place the same importance on her…the Virgin Mother is rarely discussed with the exception of Christmas in other Christian denominations.
“child out of wedlock you are stoned, burned , scorn , and even murdered.” Could you please give me some examples? I grew up among many Catholics and I cannot say i’ve seen anyone murdered, stoned, or burned in the name of anything let alone pre marital sex. Perhaps I am living in the wrong part of the world?
As for the constant ‘assault’ on your secular world view…I would submit that a simple pamphlet on your doorstep is not quite the indoctrination that you make it out to be. I get Chineese take out menus on my door all the time…what is the big deal? Should I go protest the resturant or try to persuade their patrons to not believe in Chineese food?
“I’m sorry but till you can truly prove all you say is true I’m not going to believe it.” Why would I have to prove my faith to you? It is mine not yours. Again, I don’t care what you believe. Nice little strawman you’ve constructed.
Scientists cannot ‘truly prove’ evolution…do you still not ‘believe it.’
“do I hate people who believe in god? No , My grandmother is catholic. I just believe they have a false sense of reality..worthless cause.” Methinks you have not said that to your grandmother. Easy to talk tough on the net, but I would be willing to bet that you show your grandmother the respect she deserves, even if you disagree with her religion. Your grandmother probably does not care what you think of her faith anyway.
Fine, you’re agnostic. I respect that, believe as you wish…you’ll get no static from me.
Your response is illogical and petty.
If you want respect for your beliefs, show respect for the beliefs of others.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am
@George Zadorozny (85): Very well said.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Wait, so catholics pray to jesus right? so they think he is a god or something. but then theres the actual god… so that makes 2 god? i’m not trying to offend people, i’m just curious.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:35 am
If you are gay, then you are going to defend your right to be; if you are a christian or catholic fanatic, you are probably telling everyone that gays are going to burn in hell; if you are an atheist, probably you spend your time trying to convince fanatics that the notion of a God is stupid; and in the end, you are going to find yourself where you once started.
For all I know, we should let everyone believe what they want to believe. We should stop trying to force our beliefs onto others.
I´m tired.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Nice list, shame it’s turned into a debate on homosexuality though.
Just a note, not every Catholic, Muslim or Jew is a fundamentalist. Not every priest is a paedophile. Not every Muslim hates other religions or westeners. Not every Jew is a moneygrabbing so and so. Not every Athiest is perfect so stop making out that you are, you are not superior because you don’t believe in the bible, in fact you sound like fascists and we know who one of the worlds greatest fascists is don’t we??? (Hitler).
I’m an Athiest (born jewish, marrying a catholic and have an uncle who converted to islam) and I would NEVER ever talk down peoples religious beliefs. I’m of the mindset that I won’t belive in a god until I experience it, but until then I’ll get on with my life, and get on with anybody from any path.
Rant over.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Sweet Mother of Mercy!
Thank you for this list, it was a long time coming! Afetr a couple lengthy discussions I’ve had on this site, I’m glad to have some back-up!
Thank you!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am
GUYS!!!!!! EVERYBODY LISTEN!!!! WHETHER YOU BE A CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, MUSLIM, JEW OR BUDDHIST, STOP ARGUING FOR GOD’S SAKE!!! WE CANNOT ALTER OR CHANGE IN WHAT OTHERS BELIVE THAT WE DON’T!!!! I CAN ASSURE YOU, NO MATTER HOW LONG YOU GUYS ARGUE AND DEBATE ABOUT TOPICS LIKE THIS ONE OR THE ONE ABOUT ISLAM A FEW DAYS AGO, THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY VICTORY!!!! EVEN IF THERE IS, IT IS ONLY GOING TO BE A VERY PYRRHIC VICTORY. THE ONLY WINNER OF THIS WHOLE SORRY EPISODE THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING ABOUT RELIGION RIGHT NOW ARE ATHEISTS!!!!! SO IF YOU ARE A MAN OF FAITH AND YOU BELIVE IN YOUR BELOVED RELIGION, STOP ARGUING FOR IT IS ONLY THOSE NON-BELIEVERS WHO ARE THE ONES WATCHING YOU GUYS AND CLAPPING RIGHT NOW!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
@118 Random Asian
Indeed! We atheists are licking our chops, bristling our horns, and giggling madly at how you are tearing each other’s throats over some fairy-tales! Do not read, do not compare beliefs, do not notice how contradictory they are – in sum, do not think, do not reason! And pass the popcorn, please.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 9:53 am
You should have one of these lists about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) too. It seems a little unbalanced to have a “bizarre mormon beliefs” list and a “misconceptions about the Catholic Church” list.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@shamzahm (114): jesus is god. or rather, an incarnation of god.
thats what christians beleive
July 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Actually, Random Asian, we atheists are just hoping you figure out your cap lock problem right now. We really could care less about your religion.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
@pac (119):
Pac, I don’t know anything about you. I’m not “licking my chops”. I’m just hanging out listening to music my friend. All I know is I haven’t met you but I love you anyway. It’s that simple.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:05 am
As I commented regarding the list of ‘Islamic Misconceptions’;
Contrasting the ‘perfect’ [religion of choice] ideals with the real-world exercise of this mythology is no more valid than contrasting the ‘perfect’ [other religion] with it’s real-world counterpart. There are no religious communities that live up to their own standards.
Why? Because they are based on ignorance and silly superstition. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc., etc., etc., they’re all childish and worthless.
Grow up. There is no Invisible Friend to whom you need to pray. Be responsible for yourselves and make the most of the one life you’re going to get.
Religion is slavery of the mind.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am
@123 damien
I was being sarcastic. Actually, I believe that there is no point in discussing with believers; they will not realize all the contradictions posed by religion no matter what. But I have the free time, and my debating skills require some training.
Besides, it’s funny to see how some debate their faiths with no deep knowledge of the facts, or based on what their “teachers” have told them without ever checking what is actually there.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Reading the comments to this list reinforce my belief that a person’s relationship with their God should be kept to themselves and their God.
I would like to add to Item 10 from the list–Didn’t part of the no Bible reading myth stem from the fact that traditionally, through the ages, the majority of the populace were illiterate, and couldn’t “read” the scriptures themselves? Hence illuminated Bibles and the abundance of visual representation in the churches.
And a kudos to Baxter….
@Baxter (44): “I think there is something to be said for the effect of the seminary system on a young man’s development. It is essentially stunting their sexual growth, and disallowing them the natural development of their personality, and to come to grips with their urges as most young people do. They are also required to distance themselves from women, and therefore when they seek human relationships they find themselves stuck with a choice between their male elders and peers, women to whom they can offer nothing, and children under their care. For many of these men, being emotionally crippled and essentially cut off from both the realisation of childhood and the acceptance of adulthood, the attraction towards children (though perhaps innocent at first) soon becomes something unnatural and wholly abominable to normal people.”
You have made a very valid and eloquent statement concerning the perversion of sexual desire in the priesthood that reflects my same beliefs of the stem cause. Thank-you for sharing a more clinically accurate summation of the situation, and saving me the effort of putting the theory into words.
By the same token, that doesn’t excuse the act.
And thank-you Jamie for publishing a list that strives to balance the list of Islam, and I would welcome lists that cover any and all of the other major religions of the world.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Most of this list was true at one point in history though. The church tried to keep people from reading the bible some hundreds of years ago. Indulgences were paid so people could be forgiven for their sins. (Johann Tetzel I believe)
There are others but you get the point.
Also: Interesting that you mention the fact that women should be covering their heads in church but they don’t.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Religion is the fast food of the mind, hehehe.
I’d rather have Steak ala Science!
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 10:15 am
To add on to my point about indulgences: the Pope was not trying to stop them as indulgences funded St. Peter’s Basilica.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am
@pac (125):
Pac, I’m not trying to “dissuade” you from what you believe. Believe in what you want. I applaud you for this. But I still love you brother (or sister) and thats it.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:30 am
It goes to show how much all of us need a saviour! God is concerned about relationships, not religion! We need to realize that we are all sinners, seperated from God. No one religion has it right, only God is truth! Weigh what each religion teaches against God’s truth and you will see that God is the only one that is right. “As for me and my house, we will worship the Lord!”
July 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Okay, to the people who think we pray to Angels, Saints and the Virgin Mary..I’d like to say, we do not pray TO them as we pray TO God.
For example “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death”
In this prayer, catholics ask Mary to pray for us, because as the mother with Jesus, it is as though she has greater “pull” with God–just as we (and other Christians of different denominations) ask our friends to pray for us, we also occassionally ask Mary, Angels or Saints to pray for us.
As for homosexuality; yes, Catholics believe that romantic relationships, and sex, should be between a man and a woman. If you don’t like it, fine, don’t be Catholic.
My parents took me to church pretty much on Easter and Christmas, and we had a bible in our house. When I was able to drive, I attended multiple churches for a while, and decided upon becoming Catholic. As you go through the RCIA process, you learn quite a bit more than one does from attending mass.
And to the people who have commented that “my catholic friends don’t read the bible” either 1) they do, but don’t feel the urge to tell you about it seeing as you disrespect their religion, or they just don’t. Which is fine, not all protestants read the bible on their own. Catholics are certainly allowed to read the bible, and sometimes even encouraged to read the weeks readings either before (to prepare for mass) or after, to ensure meaning has sunk in.
I’d like to say however, that the pedophile priests are the exception, not the rule, and the church does not defend them. Whenever a scandal such as that is unearthed, my priest says how it is such a shame that all through seminary people couldn’t see through the mans antics etc.
Though for me, religion isn’t something worth arguing about. Personally, I hate it when people attempt to convert one another. I will defend my religion if it is being attacked, or people are making wrong assumptions about it, but I will not attempt to convert or say someone is wrong.
Personally, yes, I believe in God, but I believe in a loving God who accepts and loves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Buddhists..everyone.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Hmmm…a lot of discussion on prayer. I find all of the commentaries on “praying” or “reverence” to saints interesting. What about the sects of Christianity who believe that God and Jesus are separate? Doesn’t that count as worshipping two gods?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am
My respects, you have taken great pains in collecting this list, but there are some points where you are a bit lopsided. For one, you have omitted the syllabus of Pius XII, condemning science, democracy and freedom of conscience which has influenced the church until Vat II. For another, the Bible clearly says that Christ alone is the foundation of the church, “and no other foundation may be laid.” Even Catholics do not believe that Peter was more than a mere man, hence they do not believe that the church is founded on a mere man. Third, in all the Acts of the apostels you find no mention of an infallible Pope Peter in Rome, and Paulus does not pay him much respect when he debates with him in Jerusalem, where the council of Apostles decides by numbers. Fourth, what you term “the Catholic church” has, while the same in name, been often so different in character as to be almost another church, like f.i. compare the church of the Medici popes to that of the 18.th century or Vaticanum II.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Ratten, maybe I’m missing the big picture or yop are. I love you.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:48 am
“you”
July 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Great list! Thanks for making lists worth reading, JFrater.
It’s entirely true that catholics do read the bible, as kitten said, we just don’t feel the urge to tell everyone that whatever they believe is wrong.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Um hi, I commented at about 60 comments on but it’s still awaiting moderation… could you please take a look at it? (It’s long and link-full…) Thanks….
July 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am
133spada27
You are right, and this question has caused much debate. The problem with theology is that it is trying to speak in words about matters which cannot be spoken of in words. As one very wise man said: “God is not a subject of our pondering.” We hardly know who we are ourselves, how can we say: “God is so and so?” From time to time the church was compelled to say: “Well, this we certainly don´t believe” – i.e. the idea that Jesus was but a human preacher, or that he was God masquerading as man, or that he was an angel etc.pp. But the modes of existence of God are quite a bit beyond our power of comprehension, so don´t be surprised if things get muddled up.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Rattenjungfer: hers the problem as I see it. It’s NOT religion it’s cynicism. Yes, I believe in evolution. Yes, I believe in the BIG BANG. But what you can’t belive is taht a person you’ve NVER met before loves you. THAT’s what faith is all about.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I’m Catholic and I’ve never worshipped a statue….wtf??
July 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
@137 Eva
I was a Catholic (and still are, because there is no way to leave this faith other to be excommunicated by performing a hideous sin); my mother and sister still are. Now I’m an atheist. During my 39+ years as a Catholic I was never requested to read the Bible. It was read during masses, only; and only after selecting specific verses. I doubt my mom, my sisters or any of my Catholic friends have read it. I have read it. Interestingly, in masses they only read a very small portion of the NT. No discussions about OT or anything that raises questions.
Whenever I have been approached by non-Catholic Christians, they have been astounded when I told them about the incongruencies I’ve found in the text. “What about the different Jesus’ geanologies in there?” I’ve asked. They didn’t know about these because they hadn’t stop to think what it’s written there.
Perhaps you’ve read the bible/qu’ran/torah/whatever, but have you read it(them), or have you read AND REASON what is written them? I have. And that’s why I’m an atheist now.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am
@#48
“wonder why so many self proclaimed atheists feel the need to convert people to atheism? is there an atheist bible or some sort of manifesto that requires you to win people over to Atheism? Or are you so narrow minded and critical of the idea of spirituality because you’re afraid you could be wrong and you feel threatened?”
Change the words “atheist” and “atheism” to a member of the religion of your choice, and said religion, respectively.
Add the words “a lack of” prior to “spirituality”.
POOF! makes atheism look like any other form of spiritual (non)belief.
Now, if only we atheists could get the same kind of respect for our belief system as actual organized religions do. No matter how strange, or even harmful, the belief may be — if it’s claimed to be under the guise of someone’s religion, we are expected to respect it.
So exactly why can’t religious people respect the lack of a belief as well? It’s no stranger than many religious beliefs I’ve heard of over the years.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
“The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and from the beginning of Christianity he was considered the head of the Church.”
I dont have the time to read all the comments but this is simply not true. until 800 the Bishop of Rome was nothing special.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I am always interested in why and how people dismiss any thought process, concept, philosophy or religion. In a sense we intellectually are all looking up from the bottom of a 30 meter deep well and see only a portion of the sky. Therefore each of us is limited by understanding and capacity. We tend to characterize (simplify and exaggerate) a thought process, then pick and choose the easiest supports for our points of view. We can dismiss a religion, or god or that matter atheism as problematic and choose to avoid understanding the varied fruits of the thought process. We kill it in our minds and avoid it in our hearts. I have often constructed tremendous walls in my mind that delivered a sense of certainty but in reality stopped my further learning.
We can arbitrarily dismiss The Catholic Church for real or apparent problems but can we also dismiss, the contributions of so many that fully attribute it as the fount of inspiration such as St. Augustine, the Church Fathers, Mother Teresa… ?
We should rather engage in understanding an institution that has played and continues to play a significant role in the molding western thought and be aware of the filters that may taint a clear understanding.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:29 am
This is an interesting list.
My comment is on the comments. After reading the comments from the misconceptions of Islam and the misconceptions of christianity prove is
1. Most people who post comments on the internet are very liberal minded
2. Most people who post comments on the internet formed their opinions in classrooms taught by liberals, and not by any real world experience.
3. Most liberal posters are hostile to opinions that don’t match theirs.
4. Most liberal posters are happy with comments that appear to support their opinions but really are sarcastic slaps at the ignorance and bigotry of liberal commentators.
5. Most comments are posted by people who hate George Bush.
6. When people give an opinion about why they hate George Bush they stick to talking points, Iraq, war on terror, when in reality their dislike was formed by a liberal American press who hated Bush because he belongs to a political party that is believed not to give handouts and taxpayer dollars to everyone.
7. Most people don’t know George Bush sent billions of taxpayer money to help Africa and South America.
8. Most liberal American’s (for those of you from other countries who are ignorant of this) did not like Bush or republicans because he did not give billions of dollars to the right people, inner city activits and unions.
9. Barack Obama is thought of as a great man here becuase he gives billions of dollars to inner city activits and unions.
10. The truth is you would be saying something completely different if Bush gave billions to inner city activits and unions.
11. Oh and most of you are not old enough to know
Kennedy set up puppet governments in central and south america, Kennedy used the CIA to run covert operations, Johnson faked an event to escalate vietnam, Kennedy did not support civil rights, Obama does not support gay marriage.
12. Finally most of you (particularly if you are young and from another country) don’t realize the real reason modern liberals hate Regan is due to a belief he hates gay people because he wanted to close bath houses in SanFrancisco (Run by Diane Feinsteins husband) where AIDS was being rapidly spread.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
One of the reasons priests cannot marry now is that in history, they could. However, land rights stayed with the owner of the land (the monk or priest) and his family. The church lost significant land and assets upon a priest’s death because they went to his children and survivors. Hence, marriage and child bearing were no longer permitted.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am
@Greg (93):
your missing my point i’m agreeing he can believe what he wants – thats his choice. Just don’t be so arrogant to tell me point blank that the God I beleive in doesn’t exist because you can’t prove it. I don’t give a sh!t what anyone believes so long as they respect my right to beleive in my God.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I love the list, and yes I am a hard-core cradle Catholic. I also go to a very good Catholic university where the biology department does teach that evolution occurs and the Earth is over 6,000 years old (even the nuns agree with that).
For starters, let’s talk about the Bible. There are lots of different literary forms throughout the Bible: poetry, history, letters, stories, etc. But all convey a truth about God, Jesus, humanity, and the world. Therefore, Genesis is not a history or science textbook, it never claims to be one. All books in the Bible are inspired, which means they have a human author and a divine author, but were written in a certain point in history as a part of history. The Catholic Church used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) from its earliest days. It was the version Jesus himself used. The Jewish leaders rejected it in 100 AD because Christians were using it. So when the Protestants began to use the Hebrew version, they weren’t going back to the earliest foundations of Christianity.
Locking up Bibles wasn’t to keep people from reading them, most people in the middle ages couldn’t read anyways. They literally cost a fortune. People heard the Bible weekly at Mass, parish festivals often had plays that acted out various Biblical stories.
Catholics and Christians: There was no need for distinction between different churches because until 1054 there were no theological differences between them. Even in 1054, the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy remained (and still remains) small.
Papal Infallibility: Refer to the Bible: Jn 16:12-13
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.”
We trust in the Holy Spirit to lead the Church in the ways of truth. We believe that God the Father would not want his children to be lead astray especially in matters pertaining his own Son.
Homosexuality: The Church condemns homosexual acts, just as it condemns any extramarital sexual acts. Yes, some Catholics may be personally homophobic, but the Church is not. We believe the main purpose of marital relations is to produce children, yes it is also enjoyable. However, biologically, the purpose or sex is children.
Here is a quick crash course on morality: that which is irrational cannot be moral. Since the goal of a sexual act is children, then to deny the goal of that act would be immoral. But to have other goals beyond that of children does not contradict the original goal. If you really want to go into that, just ask. Therefore, all are called to live celibate unless called to holy matrimony.
Any more questions?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
This is absolutely rediculous:
“Then there is the Eastern Catholic Church (not to be confused with the Orthodox which is a different religion)”
The Eastern Orthodox Church is THE “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” mentioned in the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed, the Catholic Church broke off from the Church in 1054 AD.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Good list, jfrater. You obviously did a lot of fine work on it, and it is much appreciated. It explained a lot to me, plus I learned a few new words.
I do not think that I will get involved in the debates, as I am a non-religious person. However, I do enjoy reading about it. And there have been some well thought out comments today, and some really dumb ones from very immature people. All in all, a good read with a few chuckles.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am
This list is as much whitewashing as the one about Muslims is.
1- I don’t care what you call it, “reverence” for Mary is still showing a form of worship for her. Plus, Catholics think that she was born of a virgin birth, too, that part isn’t too widely talked about.
2 – That infant baptism bit is from a non-Biblical source.
3 – Catholics not only discouraged reading the Bible, they put Tyndale and Wycliffe to death and burned Bibles when those two men published translations that allowed common people to read the Bible. Hmmmm… kind of the same way they started hassling Martin Luther when he translated the Bible into common language, you know?
4 – The “catholic” church that started in the first days was the universal church. It is not the same thing as the “Roman Catholic” church. Eastern Orthodoxy is closer to the first churches, but even they got wrapped up in idolatry. The Roman Catholic church lost its way when it granted the authority to forgive men of their sins to bishops.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
What I don’t get about christianity, and catholisism by extention, is why did Jesus have to die? Could god not have simply forgiven us, sans the blood, pain, and death? Could he not have decided to declare his love for us in a way that encourages love for each other (how many atheists would still be that way if “I love you. -God” was written on the moon?)? I’d be much more likely to believe in a moral, just, all loving god if pain and death weren’t so intrinsic to his worship.
And why does he need to be worshipped? Seems kind of petty.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Mary was not born of a virgin birth herself. She was born without sin. Big difference.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Also:
**Then there is the Eastern Catholic Church (not to be confused with the Orthodox which is a different religion)**
100% factually inaccurate.
Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church both sprang from the “catholic” church that started up in the first days of Christianity. The Eastern Catholic Church was established to try to take any primacy that the Eastern Orthodox Church would claim away from them.
Eastern Orthodoxy split off from the catholic church around the time it became the Roman Catholic Church.
**The reason that the Catholic Church uses the Greek edition is because the apostles used it exclusively in their preaching.**
Also wrong. The Protestant Old Testament the same thing as the Hebrew Bible, pretty much. The Roman Catholic OT is based on the Torah + additional books added by Western church leaders to try to bolster the claims they were making concerning their primacy and practices.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
@fredlester, American here, not liberal, former Republican. I hate George Bush because he was an idiot and an embarrassment. He started an unfounded war in Iraq to avenge his father and diverted attention from the search for Osama Bin Laden. He made his decisions based on religious convictions that were out of touch with what actual Americans believed or wanted. It has nothing to do with his funding of inner city programs and more with the fact that he banned stem cell research because he thought God didn’t like it. His disinformation on global warming and corporate responsibility is shameful. The Republican party has become a joke run by the religious right – zealots on par with some Islamic whack jobs – and is completely out of touch with the tenets of Republican philosophy. We have fewer freedoms under Bush’s policies than under any previous liberal administration. One of the main reasons liberals hated Reagan was because of his “trickle down economics” policy that rewarded the rich and burdened the middle class with enormous debt. When you are finished talking out your ass trying to represent what “real” Americans think, consider that our national debt was balanced under Clinton and immediately went sky high under Bush. I hated Clinton too, btw. By the time the politicians get to the top of the pyramid, they are all so out of touch that voting is really just choosing the lesser of evils, not selecting the best person for the job.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Mary was not born without sin.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
AND, Mary most certainly sinned in her life, it’s right there in the Bible, when she tells Jesus to make water out of wine, she is breaking the “do not tempt the Lord thy God” command.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@FATSEXY (153): I think it was Jesus who granted the ability to forgive sins to men:
And for the record, the Church does not teach that Mary was a virgin birth – it teaches that she was a virgin who GAVE birth to Jesus. The immaculate conception means born without sin, not born to a virgin mother.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
@FATSEXY (159): Are you serious? Do you think that Jesus would have TURNED the water to wine if it was to help his mother sin?
Your comment 156 shows that you have simply ignored the evidence given. The Hebrew version of the Bible did not exist for 700 years AFTER the Catholic Church formed the official canon from the Septuagint (which WAS used by the apostles as can be seen by their scriptural quotations). The text used by the protestants did not EXIST for 700 years – how can you accuse the Church of adding to something which wasn’t there?
Essentially, the Hebrew version was decided by removing anything from the Jewish canon which was not written in Hebrew – so they removed parts of the Old Testament. I even pointed out that Maccabees contains the ONLY biblical references to Hanukah. If you are honest and look at the history, you will find that the protestants removed books – the Catholics didn’t add any.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Yes, the emphasis being “sins”, i.e. people who said, “I am a sinner against the Lord.”
Not “come into the box and tell the priest your dirty little secrets”.
You can’t cherry pick verses and make them what you want them to, you have to look at the entire story of Jesus to know what He was all about.
Did Jesus ask people who called on Him to admit what their sins were, or did He call on them to admit that they had sinned and that they wanted to be freed from their sins by His power? It’s pretty clear.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@mastermind…
As i understand it, the word ‘catholic’ derives from greek, it means ‘universal’. As opposed to ‘orthodox’ – a competing faction in its early days – which means ‘correct’.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
FATSEXY:
There is an Eastern Rite Catholic Church which is different than Eastern Orthodox Churches. They have the same beliefs as the Catholic church but use the Eastern style mass.
The Bible: The Septuagint was translated by Jews in Alexandria between the third and first century BC, well before Jesus and the Apostles came along. The Hebrew canon was not closed until 100 AD. Greek was the common language of the day, (like Latin, French, and now English is), so a Greek translation would be more readily available and understood than a Hebrew one would be.
Mary: At the wedding of Cana: Jn 2: 3-5 * 3 * When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” * 4 * “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.” * 5 * His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
I don’t see how you construe this as a sin. Mary tells Jesus “Hey, we’re out of wine” not “Transform this water into wine”. She is not testing or tempting him. She then tells the waiters to do whatever Jesus tells them to, so if Jesus did not want to do it he could have sent them away.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
jfrater: you are now one of my favorite people. Thanks for knowing you Catholic Doctrine and Canon!
July 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
FATSEXY: you are doing the very same thing you accuse me of – you are taking the bits you like and ignoring the rest. Jesus said “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven” – he didn’t specify how in that text but we know from the early Church fathers that people confessed their sins specifically to the apostles and Bishops appointed by them. The Bible alone does not give us all the information that was given to the apostles – but their recorded actions tell us a lot.
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience.” Didache (70 AD – note: at least a couple of the apostles were still alive at the time of writing). This doesn’t say “confess that you have sinned”, after all, the Bible says that all men are sinners; what the Didache says is “confess your sins”. The early Christian writings show us that people mentioned specific sins because there were specific penances for different sins.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Great List! I’m not going to read the comments on this one, mostly cause I’m afraid I’ll get angry.
But, as a Catholic, this really clears up a lot of things for people. It’s much appreciated.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
@drshady (21): Yes, you are exactly right. I don’t get why this is listed as a misconception. Priests take a vow of celibacy. In the parish where I grew up one of the nuns at my school became pregnant. It turns out a priest was the father to her baby. They both had to give up their vocations in order to marry.
I respect the beliefs of those who have faith in God/Gods or those who do not, and yes, Catholics too; but as a former Catholic it troubles me that priests aren’t typically allowed to marry. If the Catholics base this on Biblical verses then why does the Cathloc Church ignore the following passage? – “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats…” (1st Timothy 4:1-3).
Before I get myself into a war of bible passages … yes, yes I realize that the bible has numerous contradictory passages about many subjects.
@ac (103): and @kitten (132): Where kitten says, “… catholics ask Mary to pray for us, because as the mother with Jesus, it is as though she has greater “pull” with God–just as we … ask our friends to pray for us, we also occassionally ask Mary, Angels or Saints to pray for us,” To me it’s still the same as praying to dead people(Saints) and asking them to pray to God on one’s behalf. But please understand that I respect your choice to believe this. As for me it strikes me as odd.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Moonbeam (168): I see you name alot on these lists.Are you some sort of internet buff?
July 13th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
@Gimmemore (170): No – but I think I’m addicted to Listverse! Yikes – maybe I better give it a rest!
July 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
debating about yours and other peoples beliefs is perfectly fine, so long as its done in a polite, decent way. the arrogant, overly-smug way some people here are talking down the beliefs of others is not only unpleasant but, frankly, stupid. people see the world differently. too me socialism is obviously right, women are obviously more attractive than men and the hitchhikers guide is obviously the pinnacle of human achievement. others will believe differently, and, although i might never understand why, i can appreciate that. religion is just the same. for some it seems obvious that only some superior being could have created us and everything around us. for others this is just too irrational. fine. its good to debate this. but don’t act like a dick whilst you’re doing it!
good list btw
are we going to get a series, or is it just a buy one get one free kind of thing?
July 13th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Great site, I now have you bookmarked to come back again.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
@Moonbeam (168): As you can see in the item itself, the tradition of celibate priests is very ancient – dating right back to the apostles. As for the quote from 1 Timothy, that is a reference to the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, and the Manicheans – all ancient heretical sects which taught that ALL marriage and meat eating was bad because of their mistaken belief that all things of the flesh were evil. Obviously there are parts of the Bible (even written by St Paul who wrote 1 Timothy) that recommend abstinence and celibacy. When read together the meaning is more obvious.
As for praying to the dead, here is a quote from Origen:
“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).”
Praying to angels and the dead (saints) was very common in the early Church – and still is obviously
Here is another quote:
“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).
That quote from the Shepherd of Hermas demonstrates prayer to angels.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@WiseMenSay (172): I like the “buy one get one free” analogy
I will probably do more in time – I am particularly keen to do an atheists one. But for now, we have had a rather religion-heavy week so I will concentrate on lighter subjects for a few days
July 13th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
@DJG (96): Obviously I was rounding for convenience. The actual day on which the hierarchy of the Church was formed is traditionally considered to be pentecost as that is when Jesus gave the apostles their powers.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
@Gimmemore (169): When I saw your comment, I saw “Jewelry” instead of “Jewry”.
@Moonbeam (171): Never give it a rest! I freely admit my addiction and hope they never come up with a cure.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
@norkio (148): That is a myth. Priest’s property always belonged to the Church – their children did not inherit (nor do they now when a priest is married in the Eastern or Western Church).
As has been previously mentioned, clerical celibacy existed from the very beginning of the Church:
“For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.” — Matthew 19:12
That quote shows Jesus commending those who have chosen to remain celibate for “the kingdom of heaven”.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
@Moonbeam (171): I agree with oouchan: listverse is a healthy addiction – so don’t worry
July 13th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Christian Jews use the same OT that Protestants use and consider the Roman Catholic OT to be non-canonical.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
@jfrater (175): ta
tbh, i’m surprised there hasn’t been a cricket list up yet this summer. thought it might seem appropriate, any chance of one?
sorry, bit off topic
July 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
@Gimmemore (181): Wow…Way to take a joke out of context there. Uptight a little? It was a joke which you failed to see. Nice language.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@174 jfrater
Hmmm… as I have said, Peter was married, according to the gospels. What happened to her wife. We don’t know. Did he keep away from her, did he “divorced”, did they live together happily afterwards? We don’t know, because nothing is said about Peter’s later in that regard.
What about the apostles? We don’t know. Oh, sure, we have heard about their deaths often times, but there are no historical records supporting most, if any of these; much less about the life they had after the supposed facts in the NT. If you have sources relating these details, I’ll love to see them posted here. But the issue is that there is no way we can say that “the tradition of celibate priests is very ancient – dating right back to the apostles”.
As for Origen, well, wasn’t he expelled from the church and branded an heretic? He also castrated himself, according to Eusebius, following Matthew 19:12 as per a personal interpretation, or to be able to better reject the attention of women, for he was very good looking.
Quite a character, wasn’t he? Should we follow his example praying to dead people and/or to castrate ourselves not to fall to lust?
Pac
Pac
And Paul’s comments on celibacy are very radical; he said that everyone, that is, everyone should maintain celibacy his whole life.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
@174 jfrater
I have just checked, and The Shepherd of Hermas is an apocryphal book. Therefore, whatever it says is not part of Catholic canon.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
As a catholic i really enjoyed this list!
July 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
i swear 8 and 10 aren’t beleived or thought by anyone. who ever claims either of those?
. although i dont believe it
the science one ignores the fact that the catholic church did clamp down upon and even kill many scientific people and theories and did hold science back for hundreds of years. the teaching of evolution is law and so the church is not accepting it by teaching it. it just HAS to. catholism is my favorite type of christianity
July 13th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
@FATSEXY (180): I have never heard of a “Christian Jew” but of course modern Jews consider the Catholic OT to be non-canonical, because those same Jews removed books from it 700 years after Christ died and Martin Luther used their version not the Christian version for his Bible.
Here is a rather long list of examples from the New Testament where the apostles are quoting from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew texts.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
@pac (185): Virtually all of the early Church father’s writings are not part of the Canon
They are still very useful for giving us a look at how the early Church practiced its faith.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
What I don’t get about christianity, and catholisism by extension, is why did Jesus have to die? Could god not have simply forgiven us, sans the blood, pain, and death? Could he not have decided to declare his love for us in a way that encourages love for each other (how many atheists would still be that way if “I love you. -God” was written on the moon?)? I’d be much more likely to believe in a moral, just, all loving god if pain and death weren’t so intrinsic to his worship.
And why does he need to be worshiped? Seems kind of petty.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
@189 jfrater
Sorry, but one can’t infer how the early Church practized its faith, simply because, in actuality, there were different churches all over that part of the world. Ebonites, Arians, Marcions, etc. Each one had its own view on Jesus’ teachings, and each one had its own gospels supporting them. And more often than not, they were at odds with each other. Catholicism is the result of one of these views raising above, and then excommunicating and/or suppressing, whenever it could, the followers of all the other churches.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
One correction: There have only been two statements made infallibly by the Popes since the doctrine of infallibility was promulgated by the first Vatican council. The first is the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the second is the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin into Heaven.
Particularly in the case of the ordination of women mentioned above, the pope was dissuaded from issuing an infallible statement, and so a new category was created: that is a definitive, non-infallible statement. Theologians, particularly those like me who specialize in ecclesiology have had gotten much grist from this new category, and will likely still be discussing its impact several decades hence.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@alexman (187): ‘even kill many scientific people and theories’
Would you be so kind as to share some the names of the murdered and theories the Catholic church killed?
Whatever your beliefs…some intellectual honesty and respect please.
WiseMenSay, great post at 172. Hell, this believer would buy you a beer.
I think that no one really believes or wants to convert someone in a comment section…those that think these discussions are about conversion are missing the point.
The point is mutal understanding of eachother’s ideas and not feeling like your point of view is misconstrued. Through this understanding, 2 different people with different ideas can, while not in agreement, respect eachother.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
@pac (190): I appreciate what you are saying, but the big difference is that the Catholic Church is the only one that was guided by Peter upon whom Jesus said he would build his Church. The heretical sects were all condemned by Peter or his successors. Even St Paul condemns these followers of false doctrines in 1 Timothy.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Why stop at 10?
You could go on allday but most of these “misconceptions” are true.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
You know how i know this website is American?
THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
July 13th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
@193 jfrater
Hmmm… I’m confused. I do not know if we are agreeing or not. I understood that you @174 were saying that it was ok to pray to dead people and angels because, in olden times, people did it.
I answered that those were heretical and apocryphal writings, not part of the current canon.
So, are were you just saying that people believed many things at that time that are no longer true/accepted?
Or what, please?
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
@dropkick102 (195): Firstly, the site is not American and neither am I. Secondly, you made insulting comments about other readers that were entirely unnecessary. If you make comments which are contributing to the lists I will allow them through.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@jfrater (197): How so?
I say “F**k” one time and i am “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
When idiots like (i could name a few) can say what they like, but just because they do no use the F word they are not insulting anyone?
Whatever.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@WiseMenSay(172)
Thank you!!!! I’m tired of people arrogantly saying their belief (or non-belief is true). Can atheists prove that God doesn’t exist? No. Can religious followers prove God does exist? No. Religion is a matter or faith and choice. So if you have made the decision to not believe don’t disrespect the decisions of those who have by smugly talking as if you have undeniable proof that God does not exist. To each his own. Now lets all just coexist knowing that we’re probably not going to agree on things. Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever you are, if it’s working for you just keep doing it and don’t be a hater when a different decision works out for someone else.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@pac (196): A lot of what Origen wrote was completely orthodox – his reference to praying to dead people referred to the common Christian practice at the time. He was condemned for other issues such as denying the nature of the trinity.
When a person speaks heresy, they are a heretic, that does not mean that everything they say is heretical. This is the case with Origen.
Furthermore, being outside the canon of the Bible does not mean that someone is completely untrue – as I said, the majority of the early Church writings are not a part of the canon of the Bible but they are considered to be extremely important historical documents which describe the activities of the mainstream Christian church.
People prayed to the saints in the early Church – as is evidenced by Origen and other early Christian writers. People still do in the Catholic Church and always have. I was merely illustrating that it is not a modern doctrine.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Jfrater, u seem to be a knowledgeable man, maybe u can answer this….(not trying to be controversial, just wondering…..)
Where did the word, “catholic” and/or “christian” come from… Where can I find it in the bible, just curious…
July 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@jfrater (187): The Jewish (Hebrew) canon closed between 100-200 AD (or to be politically correct CE I suppose) and much of it occurred at the Council of Jamnia(100 AD) not 700 AD.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I need a copy of the athiest bible.. where can I pick one up?
July 13th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Its a joke my previous post… its just that Ive noticed that its the atheists that seem the most vocal.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@mastermind357 (201): “Christian” just means a person who is a member of the group who followed Jesus – just as we refer to Lutherans as people who follow Luther.
The word “Catholic” does not appear in the Bible – it is a Greek word meaning “universal” and it refers to the fact that the Church is universal. The first use of the word “Catholic” to refer to the Church was by St Ignatius of Antioch who was a student (apostle) of St John the Apostle. It is from his Letter to the Smyrnaeans which he wrote in 108 AD (18 years after his teacher St John died.)
Here is the original Greek:
You can read the full Greek text here – it is section VIII.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
John 10:22-39 mentions Chanukkah.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@jfrater (205):
To be redundant of my earlier comment (I just figured out this reply feature): John 10:22-39 mentions Chanukkah.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@mastermind357 (201): The Bible can be found all over the place on the internet and in print. If you want an online version, try the Vatican website, the USCCB website, or something like crosswalk.
“catholic” comes from the Greek word katholikos from katholou which means throughout the whole, i.e., universal. It was used throughout ancient Greek texts. It was also used by the early Christian writers to refer to all sorts of things. The combination “the Catholic Church” (katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110.
“Christian” comes from “Christ” or “kristos” which is the Greek equivalent of Messaiah which means annointed in Hebrew. In fact, the word is used in the New Testament first in Acts 11:26 “the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch” and also elsewhere. The earliest recorded use of the term outside the Bible was when Tacitus recorded that Nero blamed the “Christians” for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
@Justin Anthony Knapp (206): Thanks for that – I should have been more clear – I am referring to the lack of a mention of it in the Old Testament as used by protestants; it is in the Old Testament as used by Catholics and, obviously, St John refers to it in the new. The argument was less about it existing at all as it was about it being an important feast whose origins were removed from the Bible by the Jews when they revised their canon and by the Protestants who chose the Jewish canon over the Christian one
July 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
jayfray: not sure if i want to jump totally into this one as we have sparred on this topic before, but one point i wanted to make…
quoting from someone early on in the timeline of the Church doesn’t automatically give them any authority if they are contradicting the scriptures they supposed to follow.
“Confession: “[A filial method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine…”
the remission of sins comes from the mediation of Christ as our One High Priest, not through the mediation of any other. to seek this sort of gift through any means other than Christ is lessening what he has done for his Church.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
@beccleroo (202): My references to 700 AD are to the Masorectic text which includes the complete modern Jewish canon (lacking the non-Hebrew books of the LXX). It should be noted that the theory that the canon was set at the hypothetical council of Jamnia is now almost completely discredited. The first mention of this hypothetical council was in the 1800s and had no actual evidence to support it except the idea that it seemed logical. Rabbinical sources that post-date the alleged council make no reference of a set canon or a council.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@DiscHuker (210): There is no contradiction: Jesus says “whose sins you forgive they shall be forgiven” and the early Christian writings confirm that this was the practice
July 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
sorry, didn’t include the verse…
1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
July 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Appreciate the feedback guys….
(ACTS 11:26) “AND WHEN HE HAD FOUND HIM, HE BROUGHT HIM UNTO ANTIOCH. AND IT CAME TO PASS, THAT A WHOLE YEAR THEY ASSEMBLED THEMSELVES WITH THE CHURCH, AND TAUGHT MUCH PEOPLE. AND THE DISCIPLES WERE CALLED CHRISTIANS FIRST IN ANTIOCH.”
Although we use the word as a synonym for a believer, the word, “Christian,” is not NECESSARILY a designation for every saved person. No one was CALLED a CHRISTIAN before Acts 11:26.
1. In the strict sense of the word, Noah was not a Christian.
2. Abraham was not a Christian.
3. John the Baptist was not a Christian.
4. The disciples of the Lord before the crucifixion were not Christians.
The disciples were FIRST called Christians at Antioch.
1. They were CALLED Christians; it is a descriptive term more than anything else.
2. A person can be a believer, and not be Christian!
July 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Also, the sacrament. How disgusting. The idea of institutionalized cannibalism never sat right with me. I always felt like I was burning a wicker man. Like “This should be celebratory but it just seems wrong.”
July 13th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
@mastermind357 (214): You know your stuff akhi.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@DiscHuker (213): That verse refers to Jesus as the mediator of redemption – to read it in any other way makes the Bible contradict itself with verses such as the one I referred to about the apostles forgiving sins.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
jayfray: but that doesn’t sit with the entirety of the rest of scripture. especially in the book of John where belief, mentioned over 90 times in the gospel, is a necessary prerequisite of forgiveness.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
@DiscHuker (218): Of course belief is necessary in forgiveness – if you don’t believe, your confession is not valid
July 13th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
By far the most terrifying nonsensical discussion imaginable, in that the list is actually perceptions and not misconceptions. As such, these perception remain completely subjective. Granted all of the lists maintain this subjectivity but no one would claim any of the other lists as truth. Everyone would recognize the subjectivity. However, with this one,the subjectivity itself is argued, authoritatively with circular and self serving constructs. Doesn’t that alone speak to the inherent flaw of any religion that claims truth?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
jayfray: so then, the mediation of the priest offers no benefit. he either confirms what was granted through belief, confession, or confirms what was earned through the sin of the individual, condemnation.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@DiscHuker (221): If it offers no benefit, why did Jesus tell the apostles to go and forgive people’s sins?
Generally the reason the Church gives for Jesus instituting confession was that (in addition to sacramental forgiveness through the binding and loosing on earth given to the Church):
1. It allows a person to truly KNOW that they are forgiven because they are physically told so – this is a great psychological comfort
2. It allows a priest to give them advice to help them refrain from committing the same acts again
July 13th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
@oouchan (177): and @jfrater (179): Well – so much for me staying away! I appreciate your comments. In “real life” I’m terribly shy, and here I enjoy participating in the debates. I just hope my comments weren’t out of line in any way.
@jfrater (174): Thank you so much for your reply. I didn’t realize that the Bible verse I quoted was addressed to specific people, and because of their idea that, “ALL marriage and meat eating was bad.” It just goes to show how easy it is to take any scriptural verses and twist them for personal views. Maybe I’d better leave the Bible quotes to the Religious scholars!
I was inspired by this list to do a little research. According to About.com no Popes married after becoming Pope, but many of them were married and had children beforehand. It does seem as though priests were at one time allowed to wed. Apparently, “the Church [had] adopted celibacy as a matter of discipline, not as a matter of doctrine.”
I have to say though, I still can’t accept the idea of celibate Priests, nuns, monks, and so on. To my way of thinking, it sends a message that somehow sex is wrong.
As to praying to Saints, I can’t get past the idea that it feels like worship. But as I said previously, I understand people’s need to believe in something greater than themselves.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
If Constantine didn’t invent the Catholic Church, then why is Catholicism basically a carbon copy of the Cult of Mithras, which was the closest thing to a state religion that Rome had prior to Constantine’s “conversion”?
Modern Christianity reminds me of a very badly stuffed animal – the skin may be the original article, but the contents show in the awkward bulges.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
jamey: i mean this in the best possible way, but you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
you say that confession to a priest is necessary for forgiveness yet forgiveness comes through belief in Christ.
as to the reason you give in #1 in 222, the confirmation of belief of any individual gives no assurance. rather, a Christian is known by “their fruit” (matthew 7:16)
July 13th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Jfrater/Dischuker: You’re both forgetting the shame thing. Sorry, but praying to God for forgiveness isn’t near as embarrassing as telling it to a living breathing human being (at least for most people – I know that you have a personal relationship with your god Disc). Shame is a good tool for preventing recidivism. The ancients were pretty practical.
Baxter et al: I disagree with the premise that the schooling of priests encouraged/created pedophiles. My Uncle, the RC Priest, was well into his teens before he went to University. Got his masters in Theology before he entered the seminary. His sexual proclivities or lack thereof were well defined already. I’ve always thought that the value of celibacy was the fact that you’re making a great sacrifice for God. It’s not supression of sexuality – it’s re-channeling. Of course Priests fail at that all the time; they’re human first.
I don’t believe that you can turn somebody into a pedophile – people who get their sexual jollies from kids just do. There is something wrong in their wiring; a power/control thing maybe? Hm, another reason that they’d be drawn to the clergy…it bears further study. But seminary on it’s own? nah. If that was the case every boy’s private school would be turning ‘em out in droves. Not that those particular settings didn’t have their fair share of sickos teaching there.
PS: Actually more than their fair share. As does the Clergy, probation officers, camp counselors, coaches, etc. People who prey on children are going to make sure that they’re around them at every opportunity.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
he New Testament manuscripts were written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic originally not English as English did not exists at this point. The Greek word for Christian found in these passages is: Christiano meaning a follower of Christos (Christ). Christos means anointed/Messiah. Mashiach is the word for Messiah in Hebrew and Paraclete is the word for Christ in Hebrew. The original disciples never had any formal “name” for themselves but were later called Christians by the Romans who occupied Antioch Greece in which the word had a very different meaning in those ancient days.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The word Bible comes for the Greek word Biblia, which literally means “books.” So, reading the Bible is like reading 66 or 73 books. Think about it…the Bible was written by over 40 different authors.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Roman Catholics weren’t the first Christians, Orthodox Christians were the first Christians. Long before Rome even made Christianity the official religion. Roman Catholicism was created the Great Schism and Roman Catholics barely qualified as Christians because they since (according to biblical law) only God can forgive sins and they claim/claimed that the Pope can forgive sins thus creating a heretical sect. Also, the original Roman Church moved to Constantinople (along with the capital of the empire, during the barbarian migrations) and was absorbed into the Orthodox Christian Church (though it continued to call itself the Roman Catholic Church until the Great Schism) which means that today’s Roman Catholic Church isn’t even descended from the original Roman Church.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@DiscHuker (225): Confession to a priest is not necessary for forgiveness – it is just the common method as prescribed by Jesus himself. An act of perfect contrition is also possible for confession but you lose the benefits that I mentioned above (hence Christ making confession to a priest the norm).
As for the “by their fruit” – are you telling me that every protestant who does a bad act ha not been forgiven by God for previous transgressions? Surely if their fruit is the only way to tell, the majority of them (who I am sure would not deny that they sin) are in a constant state of confusion over whether they actually are forgiven or not. That is the reason that a perfect contrition is not the norm by which Jesus defined confession.
In summary, Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sins – but you can go directly to God Himself. Confession to a priest is more Biblical than not – because if you refuse to accept it you must apply some twisted logic to understand:
“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” — John 20:21-23
You must take the Bible as a whole and any interpretation other than the Catholic one of the above quote leads to contradiction which is not possible.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Ask yourself this, why would Jesus ask a human to confess their sins to another human??? Does this possibly make sense to anyone?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@Truth (229): “You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church” – where is “Peter” in the Orthodox Church?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
@mastermind357 (231): Ask yourself this: why did he? Because clearly he did (see my comment 230) – he gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. Surely he didn’t do this just for fun. You are looking at the issue backwards
July 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
The main reason people are leaving the church in flocks is because they are using their brains and realizing that the Bible is totally corrupted, no one knows what to take and what to keep, its has such a human imprint that its a shame. Men came together and “chose” which books should “fit” —ARE U SERIOUS? ARE THEY GOD? DID JESUS EVEN CHOOSE THE BOOKS?
The original Bible is long gone, by centuries!!
July 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
mastermind357 – read my post above. Makes perfect sense to me, I’ve done the exact same thing with my children. Confession/admission of guilt and the accompanying shame are a tool of parenting. Jesus is a surrogate parent for us all eh? As is Mohammad?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
A long time ago listverse was full of interesting factual lists that were both informative and largely objective.
Now it’s boiled down to movie lists, “things you should know” and controversial lists. And even those 3 aren’t done particularly well or with cited information. (It’d be nice to have a bibliography/footnotes from where all the quotes and such are taken for certain lists) I think I’ll go back to cracked.com for this stuff.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Because clearly he did (see my comment 230) – he gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. Surely he didn’t do this just for fun. You are looking at the issue backward.
My issue is that how can one know with “certainty” if John 20:21-23 is correct or any other verse for that matter when “men” got together and “chose” which books where “right” and what ones were not, I cant wrap my head around Humans like me and you choosing which books “fit”. Who says the books that are not in the bible today shouldnt be in there? Did God say that? No- Did Jesus say that? No- Did man say that- yes.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
A long time ago listverse was full of interesting factual lists that were both informative and largely objective.
Now it’s boiled down to movie lists, “things you should know” and controversial lists. And even those 3 aren’t done particularly well or with cited information. (It’d be nice to have a bibliography/footnotes from where all the quotes and such are taken for certain lists) I think I’ll go back to cracked.com for this stuff.
Was that post necessary? Who cares if you leave or not? If you dont like it why post? Why not just hit the red x in the top right of the screen and call it a day? We wont miss u.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
@mastermind357 (234): The Bible hasn’t been changed since before 400 AD at which time the Church fathers put down as canon what had been orthodox for centuries already. Yes, there are always new translations, but the Bible itself has not changed.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
239 Becky: the Bible hasn’t been changed since before 400 AD at which time the Church fathers put down as canon what had been orthodox for centuries already. Yes, there are always new translations, but the Bible itself has not changed.
Even if it was before 400 ad, that’s roughly 400 years after the death of Jesus!! Also, how can we know with certainty that the “church fathers” chose the right books, Jesus didnt hand pick would books where acceptable, men did. Humans that sin everyday, chose those books, and left others out(which at one point were read everyday by followers of the time)
July 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
239 becky: There were alot of books that were considered “orthodoxy” at the time, but were not put into the canon. why? because it didnt seem to “fit” for the lack of better words.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Great list. I wish people would argue on truth rather than make up lies.
Hope some people would use this as a introduction to the truth.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
242: whats the truth, i want to know.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Please forgive my ignorance as religion is not a speciallity of mine,so i would just like to throw out a couple of questions to those far far wiser than myself.
1. I read or seen somewhere that Mary the prostitute (who apparently wasn’t a prostitute), had written a gospel (or whatever there called) and that some pope or church in general would not allow it into the bible.
2. I was told that Mary was around 12 years old when she became pregnant with Jesus,doesn’t that make God a pedophile? Although he did not physically have intercoarse with her he still impregnated a child.
3. What is it with religion and sex with minors?
I know i only said a couple of questions but hey I can’t count either.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I think the number 1 misconception should be “Catholics interpret the bible correctly.”
July 13th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
@238″Was that post necessary? Who cares if you leave or not? If you dont like it why post? Why not just hit the red x in the top right of the screen and call it a day? We wont miss u.”
My X is blue, thank you very much.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I find the idea of confession to God via a priest to be an enriching act. That you are willing to put yourself in a position of subjugation for a few minutes, in order to cleanse your soul, is an act of honoring God, of admitting your subservience to Him.
There is always a twinge of fear going into the confessional, but a feeling of lightness, weightlessness when you exit.
How do I justify all of my Science with my beliefs? I just do. I find nothing at odds with each other.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
My X is blue, thank you very much.
You keep lurking around the forum, evidently u must like something about the list. Hit that blue X and I dont wanna see any more feedback from u, got that? :/
July 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Little known facts about priests abusing minors: In the worst decade of the abuses (1970s), in the worst areas (Boston, LA), the abusers made up around 4% of the total of priests. Of those, in 80% of cases, the victim was a boy aged 13-17.
Priests abuse at a lower rate than protestant clergy.
Protestant clergy at a lower rate than teachers.
Teachers abuse at a lower rate than the general public.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
248: Whats the point jackass?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
To Hell With This List….
July 13th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
@mastermind357 (241): In 382, a synod was called in Rome to discuss canon and the decisions made there set the canon. (St. Jerome, the man who translated the Bible from Greek to Latin aka the Vulgate was in attendance- the same man whose most famous quote is “to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Jesus”) The Church formally confirmed the Canon of the Bible in the Council of Trent in 1545(during the Reformation) because before that date there had been little to no argument over which books were inspired. It is interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation did not reject the canon put in place by the Church.
Also, since the books in the Bible are inspired, do you think God would let that which he did not inspire in? If you believe that God exists and can inspire men to write beyond themselves, it must be possible for him to inspire another set of men to choose the correct books. Jesus promised the Apostles that the Paraclete would come to them to lead them in truth. They didn’t just choose books niggly wiggly. They prayed and carefully considered what was in front of them. They left some out (apocryphal books) because they contained heresies or mistruths, even if parts of them were correct.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Another thing what sins can’t you get away with when you make your dying confession?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
If you really want to argue with someone about Catholicism go to the forums at catholic.com or check out newadvent to get your facts right.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@iknownothing (252): I’m not sure I understand but let me try.
Basically, there are two kinds of sin: mortal and venial. Venial are sins, but do not damn your soul. They are the little mistakes everyday that lead you away from God.
Mortal sins are those that if you die without a heartfelt and true confession, you may be damned. Mortal sins pertain to grave matter that are done willingly and knowingly. These are the ones that must be confessed.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
love this list!
July 13th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
251 Becky: @mastermind357 (241): In 382, a synod was called in Rome to discuss canon and the decisions made there set the canon. (St. Jerome, the man who translated the Bible from Greek to Latin aka the Vulgate was in attendance- the same man whose most famous quote is “to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Jesus”) The Church formally confirmed the Canon of the Bible in the Council of Trent in 1545(during the Reformation) because before that date there had been little to no argument over which books were inspired. It is interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation did not reject the canon put in place by the Church.
Also, since the books in the Bible are inspired, do you think God would let that which he did not inspire in? If you believe that God exists and can inspire men to write beyond themselves, it must be possible for him to inspire another set of men to choose the correct books. Jesus promised the Apostles that the Paraclete would come to them to lead them in truth. They didn’t just choose books niggly wiggly. They prayed and carefully considered what was in front of them. They left some out (apocryphal books) because they contained heresies or mistruths, even if parts of them were correct.
It appears you don’t understand what im saying. For one, you said, “since the books in the Bible are inspired, do you think God would let that which he did not inspire in?” The problem with that theory is this… why would God allow 7 books to be taken out??? Why are there so many versions of the Bible also? EVERYBODY will claim they have the correct version Becky. God did not hand pick those people, and you and I know that both. Thats like saying God hand-picked a pope that would kidnap a young jewish boy by the name of, “Edgardo Mortara”-NO, that was not the case. “the church” not God chose those certain books in the canon we have TODAY, just like “the church” chose which pope there will be, not God!
July 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Why can people not except that death is the end? simple without religion people are free to do whatever they choose to do without punishment in the afterlife. Throw in some brainwashing and the fear factor of “when you die your going to hell” and you control the masses.Once you have that your followers will do almost anything for you, most wars play on the religious angle one way or another.We kill in the name of God and people will swallow that bulls**t because they believe they’ll end up in heaven….what a croc of crap.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
257: If you know for certainty that when you die it will be simply the end, why not just end it all now? If your whole life is just in vain, why not just kill yourself right now? You wont remember anything right?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
@becky (254) if i murder somebody and confess wholeheartedly and truthfully,i will be forgiven and go to heaven.Thats nice
July 13th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
After the whole Islam thing,I’m not touching this one with a 25 foot insulated bamboo pole.
What’s next, 10 Misconceptions about What the Bible Means?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
@mastermind357 thats the point “certainty” we have relegion rammed down our throats from such a young age it will always leave a little doubt of “what if”, remove the doubt and you will have nothing to fear.Remove the fear and religion wont work.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
oops meant religion getting tired
July 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
261: NOTHING in life is certain, but we as human beings BELIEVE things will happen, that’s regardless of religion. We are not even certain if we will not get fired next week, or if our car will start tomorrow, or if our electric will be on next month, but we ASSUME things, thats human nature, assumption. You ASSUME there is no afterlife, some humans believe there is. That’s just life in general.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
@mastermind357 (256): The problem with that theory is this… why would God allow 7 books to be taken out??? Why are there so many versions of the Bible also? EVERYBODY will claim they have the correct version Becky.
I understand you. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that both of us agree that the Catholic Church is that which Jesus founded upon Peter. The church begins teaching and spreading, using the Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint) the same translation the Jews are also using. The NT is also being written, some writers include heresies and thus their writings are eventually discarded even if they had been popular. 100-200 AD: Christianity is spreading, and the Jewish rabbis decide to reject the Septuagint in opposition to Christianity. Since Christianity is a distinct religion, they do no follow. !500s: The Reformation comes around. Protestants decide to get back to the basics and spite the Catholic Church, and in the process choose the OT which the rabbis had chosen to make themselves different from Christians (not Catholics since there is no difference between denominations at this point). Therefore, the Protestants took 7 books out because they were not being led by the Holy Spirit.
What differences in Bibles are you referring to?There are lots of different versions because people translate things differently. Some try to make it “modern” some make it almost medieval. There are two main differences in Bibles: Protestant and Catholic.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
@iknownothing (259): Confession is an awful term for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You must feel truly sorry for the sin, and therefore be willing to accept the temporal punishment for it. Reconciliation only absolves the eternal punishment, the priest would probably withhold absolution until you confessed your crime to the police.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
i am a Roman Catholic and I love my faith and am so glad this list was made. Except, i did not know that any Catholic would accept evolution? I know I dont
July 13th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
264 Becky: Therefore, the Protestants took 7 books out because they were not being led by the Holy Spirit.
How can you say this with “certainty” this is merely your “claim”
Also you said, “The NT is also being written, some writers include heresies and thus their writings are eventually discarded even if they had been popular.”
How can one distinguish what is heresy and what is not is the question? Just because it doesn’t “seem” right doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. There are a lot of things that doesn’t seem moral in the old testament, but who are we to question these books if they are truly inspired by God. The church are mere humans that decided which books where heresy and which one’s weren’t.
There are two main differences in Bibles: Protestant and Catholic.
You are correct Becky, two MAIN differences. However, there are many sects in christianity with their “bibles”, of course we know that some are not legit, but regardless, man started innovation with the “original bible”.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Evolution is not out of line with the Catholic faith. If you interpret Genesis chapter 1 as not necessarily referring to 24 hour days, then it works just fine. However the church doesn’t say you have to believe it or not believe it but leaves that to individual believers, as it does many things such as praying the rosary or praying through the saints.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
#7 The images of saints (whether it be in statue form or painting) serves as a reminder of the holiness of the person depicted.
The person depicted is usually not even how the actual person looked, how many portraits do we have from that era? If we dont have a photo of marry nor Jesus why are they on clocks, candles, portraits, etc?? DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?
For example, The picture you are looking at while praying could be of a cruel human being who the picture was likened after. Why not just pray without the images???
July 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Nice list, i liked it
July 13th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Mary^
July 13th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
@mastermind357 (267): The original bible was composed by hundreds of the highest thinkers and bishops in the early Christian church. They had not only studied the Christian faith almost obsessively throughout their lives. But they had first had experience of the faith from the Apostles who were taught by Jesus himself. These leaders decided which Books were authentic based on whether or not they were in accord with the Christian faith that had been preached by the apostles with the help of the Holy Spirit via Apostolic Succession (whole other topic).
Even if you didn’t believe in God at all. It is just common sense that a book complied by dozens of learned men who lived just after the time of Jesus would be more authentic to his teaching than a book that was compiled by one man 1500 years after the fact.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
@mastermind357 (267): I am no master theologian, nor great philosopher, merely a young college woman at a Catholic university. I have reached the edge of my knowledge and education. My only answer for you can be “faith”, which is rather bs and not much of an answer. I wish I could answer, but I do not want to risk telling you an untruth. Hopefully, someone else can help.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
(269): Well, we aren’t required to pray using images anyway so I don’t see why it’s a problem. I hardly ever pray using images. But they are meant to be representations, basically symbols, of the people they represent. Whether or not they are an accurate depiction of the person they are representing is almost irrelevant. You are praying to the person not the picture.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
The list was refreshing, compared to much christian bashing that this site gets, like that one that put “god” as number 1 conspiracy theory. Idc how hard of an atheist you are, the percentage of belief in god is really high, making atheism more like a conspiracy theory than god.
Also, look at my name, im so clever..
July 13th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Even if you didn’t believe in God at all. It is just common sense that a book complied by dozens of learned men who lived just after the time of Jesus would be more authentic to his teaching than a book that was compiled by one man 1500 years after the fact.
Thats not my point, the point is that there were books being read within the first 400 years after Jesus’ death that were even more popular than some of the books we read even today! At the end of the day, even if they studied 24 hours a day, they “chose” which books where the best in their “opinion”. Why is that so hard to understand.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Well on the most fundamental level your argument presupposes that nothing can be known for certain. In which case there is no point in arguing anything at all. I might as well “choose” my own “opinion” of what your words mean.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
(269): Well, we aren’t required to pray using images anyway so I don’t see why it’s a problem. I hardly ever pray using images. But they are meant to be representations, basically symbols, of the people they represent. Whether or not they are an accurate depiction of the person they are representing is almost irrelevant. You are praying to the person not the picture.
Im not speaking about you, perse, i mean certain catholics. of course i dont mean all. I think it shoul be done away with b/c we dont have any accurate depictions of them.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
278: But if it’s just a reminder of the person then what’s the problem? It does the job just fine. A picture of Jesus reminds me of Jesus and so I can pray to him with a picture in my mind. This is very helpful to people who are very visual. I don’t think Jesus is going to ignore my prayer just cause I think he has black hair when he really has brown.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Hey Matt! I’m so glad you found your way to listverse. This list is awesome!
July 13th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
@mastermind357 (267): I am no master theologian, nor great philosopher, merely a young college woman at a Catholic university. I have reached the edge of my knowledge and education. My only answer for you can be “faith”, which is rather bs and not much of an answer. I wish I could answer, but I do not want to risk telling you an untruth. Hopefully, someone else can help.
That a very respectable answer and you seem like a very respectable young lady. All I can tell you is that knowledge is infinite and dont stop at the catholic university. Read the quote in 1 Corinthians 14:33, and you will find the correct religion you are looking for. Good Luck!
July 13th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
278: But if it’s just a reminder of the person then what’s the problem? It does the job just fine. A picture of Jesus reminds me of Jesus and so I can pray to him with a picture in my mind. This is very helpful to people who are very visual. I don’t think Jesus is going to ignore my prayer just cause I think he has black hair when he really has brown.
I understand you, but understand this, lets say there was a picture of “Adolf Hitler” on the picture of jesus you have but you don’t know at the time, yet you have been seeing that same picture as a child, when you do grow up and find out that it was Hitler do you want to have his picture in your mind? Jesus, Allah or whoever should be in your heart, you should not need any type of IMAGE.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Becky and Matt im enjoying this peaceful debate as well.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints
@matermind357: I like that. I also found the correct religion years ago when I was confirmed as a Roman Catholic. Thank you for the debate. I hope you also satiate your answers and never stop asking them. May God bless you on your journey.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I think God would still answer my prayer even if I thought he looked like Hitler. And if it helped me to pray I don’t see what would be wrong with that.
Also, images of Jesus have been used since the very beginning of Christianity to SPREAD the faith to those who were not able to read (which was a lot of people). They are called Icons.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
@iknownothing (261): Religion is not about fear. It is about love. Like we pray in confession: “I detest all of my sins because I fear the pains of hell, but most of all because I have offended you my God, whom I should love above all things.” It should not be about trying not to get burned. It should be about loving God and trying to grow closer to him instead of further away.
And I’ll do you one better. Without God life wouldn’t work. Without an unchanging standard there is no way of determining whether something is better or worse than anything else, and if nothing is better or worse than anything else than making choices is pointless. Since life is made up of choices, life itself becomes pointless.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I think God would still answer my prayer even if I thought he looked like Hitler. And if it helped me to pray I don’t see what would be wrong with that.
Also, images of Jesus have been used since the very beginning of Christianity to SPREAD the faith to those who were not able to read (which was a lot of people). They are called Icons.
Of course, but why would you want the picture of just any man if you are praying to Jesus? Icons are not necessary, Islam is the fastest growing religion with more followers than catholics with no ICONS whatsoever. If muslims can do it, im pretty sure catholics can do it as well.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Nothing in your argument is NECESSITATING that images should be removed. Just that they are not necessary which I have already said.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
#7 The images of saints (whether it be in statue form or painting) serves as a reminder of the holiness of the person depicted.
The person depicted is usually not even how the actual person looked, how many portraits do we have from that era? If we dont have a photo of marry nor Jesus why are they on clocks, candles, portraits, etc?? DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?
For example, The picture you are looking at while praying could be of a cruel human being who the picture was likened after. Why not just pray without the images???
Read It 100x, maybe it will rub in then.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
“The images of saints (whether it be in statue form or painting) serves as a reminder of the holiness of the person depicted.”
This says nothing of serving as a reminder of the actual image of the person. What the person looked like is not important.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
290 matt: What the person looked like is not important
CORRECT MY FRIEND!!
July 13th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
257: How does a child in Tibet know items he used in a past life(as in the Dalai Lama)?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
So a person can use an image of God or a holy person in their prayer in order to help them to pray if they so choose without having to worry about the dangers of the image misrepresenting what the person actually looked like because as you and I have both said what the person looked like is not important.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I’m a protestant believer from a baptist church. Thanks for compiling this list in the first place – very intelligent and very well done. I’ve been trying to get my head around Catholicism, and I have some counter-misconceptions to your misconceptions:
10- discouraging Bible reading: the conception is that the Catholic Church discourages reading by the laiety, that is, the average believer. You can claim the printing press, but you cannot claim handing the bible out to the peoples. It was Luther’s work that did that. In your defense, the Church didn’t want it distributed for fear of it’s abuse, misuse, reinterpretation, and malignment – all of which happened. I still have to side with Luther tho…
9- Idolatry: I would mention praying to Mary for intercession and praying to Saints for protection of any sort to be idolatrous – the act puts them in the place of God – he alone is our intercessor. Praying to the statues would be adding insult to injury here except I side with the author when he suggests it isn’t done that way. Perhaps the church isn’t clear enough in her teaching?
Regardless, I would call the cross itself an idol if it weren’t for the perfect example of stones of remembrance in Joshua chapter 4. God told the Israelite to make an object to remember His work on their behalf.
8- Non-christians. It kills me to think that Catholics don’t consider protestants Christian. Why?
I could discuss the whole list this way – I’ll rest my case for now
July 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Not bad. The science one should start with Aquinas, since that is what made most of the Renaissance and Enlightenment science possible. Papal infallibility has only been with us for 150 years or so as doctrine. Constantine, by calling the Council at Niceae, helped regularize a lot of the practices you mention, which were common but subject then (and since) to wide-ranging regional observance or lack thereof. Even Paul spent most of his time trying to epistle various regional Christian groups into some sort of conformity, which arguably didn’t happen until the Council of Trent. The adoration of Mary only becomes an identifiably significant practice in the 4th century. The liturgy itself is largely derived from Roman practice and we know little about how it was constituted during the first two centuries when the church was largely illegal. The really interesting period is the last 200 years of the first millennium leading to the Schism with the Orthodox Church, which at the time controlled southern Italy….
Idolatry and iconoclasm? Every religion has gone through these phases.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
293 was in reference to 291 btw.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
So a person can use an image of God or a holy person in their prayer in order to help them to pray if they so choose without having to worry about the dangers of the image misrepresenting what the person actually looked like because as you and I have both said what the person looked like is not important.
Human beings have free will, you can do whatever you want in reality, however that doesn’t make it right.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
@Newnik29 (294): In regard to #10 while that may have been true in the past (I am not a Catholic Historian) it is impossible to say it is true now. The Catholic church just held a Synod of Bishops in Rome to discuss ways to increase the number of Catholic who read the bible and have access to it.
#9: By saying that asking for intercession from Mary or protection from the Saints is adultery you are asserting that God alone can intercede for us or protect us. This I think is self-evidently not true. Following your logic it would be adulterous to ask for a living friend of mine to pray for me or to call 911.
#8: We do not think that Protestants are not Christians. We see Christians as anyone who follows Christ. This includes our Protestant brothers and sisters.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Roman Catholic is a root of all religions…
July 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
@mastermind357 (297): Changing the word “can” to “may” or any other word that conveys that it would be right to do so (which is what I meant) does not detract from the veracity of my statement.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
As a practicing Catholic, I must thank you for writing a very well thought out and informative list. I’m not going to get into the “atheists vs religious” debate, because I know that it would just be a waste of time. Instead, I’ll keep in mind what Thomas Aquinus said-
“To one with faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without, no explanation is possible.” It is enough for me that I believe.
Also, there is one major misconception that has recently come into being-you can be pro-choice and still be Catholic.
WRONG!
According to The Catechism Of The Catholic Church-
“2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72″
” Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74 ”
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”
There are people out there who claim that they are Catholic and pro-choice, but they go against the basic teachings of the Church. They are CINA(Catholic in Name Alone)
July 13th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@Newnik29 (294): Concerning asking those in heaven for their prayers:
The new Testament also bears the truth on the subject we know that those in heaven (angels, and saints) have the power to intercede with God on our behalf.
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:10). Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us.
In Revelation, John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Angels do the same thing: “[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3-4).
July 13th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
The Catholic biblical practice of asking saints and angels to pray for us does not eliminate Christ’s position as the only Mediator between man and God. (1 Tim. 2:5), the Church has always taught that Christ alone holds this special position. but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4), including those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for “[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16).
July 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
When Catholics pray to Mary or the saints we are simply asking or beseeching them to present our requests before the feet of God on our behalf.
Say my friend’s grandma knows how to make amazing quilts and I really want to learn. I’m not going to go up to her to ask, I’ll ask my friend who is closer to both of us. This is an extremely facetious example, but conveys my general point.
The saints and Mary can never offer us redemption and salvation, but they can pray for us and we need all the prayers we can get.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
303 Becky:
Sure, angels intercede for us, but it’s because they are God’s messengers. We are by no means to pray for them. One only needs to read Hebrews to see that. I think the same problem comes in when we pray to anyone BUT God. The unfortunate irony there is that the Bible never suggested that Mary or John could do for you what angels do.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
We are not praying for them. If you look at the word ‘pray’ it means to ask, or beseech. Therefore I can ask you to pray for me, or I can ask the saints in heaven to pray for me. Just because someone is dead they stop praying. Even if you do not recognize that specific people are in heaven (such as St. Therese, St. Joan, St. Thomas, etc), the fact that Jesus came to save us from our sins must mean that there are souls in heaven. Would not God listen not only to our voices here on earth, but also to those closest to his ear?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
@mastermind357 (258): Just like in the Islam comments, your logic on this is totally backwards. If there is no afterlife, I wouldn’t want to end my life because this is all I got and I better make it last. But you believe there is an afterlife, and a better one at that. So I content you have more reason to end it all since what you have next is better.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
302: Women not men should have the right of choice.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
298 Matt
Not to be a jerk or anything, but it’s idolatry, not adultery. Idol worship, not cheating on your spouse.
The intercession called for in praying to Mary or a patron saint of travel is different than asking someone for help in either sense you stated. Forgive me if I didn’t trot out the whole context of intercessionary prayer. Trying to remain pithy
Regarding point #10, the Catholic church can only do damage control – the deed is done. When I first came to believe, my Catholic Mom swore to me that everything she was taught said the lay person is not qualified to read the bible. History backs that up and modern catechism tries very hard to get as close to saying it as possible without actually saying it. Again, it is intended for a good purpose.
Regarding your response to #8, I wish I believed that. I can give a whole lot of respect to the Pope, but I don’t believe he has any more ability to achieve infallibility than you or I do. For that, I’m roundly disqualified. No?
BTW – thanks for the respectful discourse. I do truly appreciate this list and the thoughtful responses!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Sorry Becky, I didn’t mean pray for them, I meant pray to them.
As for praying to someone in heaven other than Jesus, I guess it just doesn’t seem sensible. To me, that’s like walking up to my son and asking him to ask my wife a favor when she’s right next to him.
St.Paul: Oh Lord, on Newnik’s behalf, please…
God: Paul, you can stop. I heard him.
Not to be sacrilegious, I’m just trying to make a point.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
i am totally agree with HULKSMASHNOW .
July 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
lostatsea@309-
I am a woman, and I believe that once a child has been conceived that child has the same rights and privileges to life that every human being on earth has. I know it is probably very un-feminist of me.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
@kitten (133): I’d like to say however, that the pedophile priests are the exception, not the rule, and the church does not defend them.
You’re joking right?
The church has a long International history of hiding and protecting it’s kid fucking clergy. Check the link for the Irish abuse cases for just the latest in one country.
None of these people have ever TMK been exposed by the church, always by complaints to the secular authorities by their victims. At which point the church plays the three card monte routine to hide them elsewhere. Also how many of these kid fuckers (pedophile is just a namby pamby euphemism) have been ex communicated for their kid fucking?
Cheers
Lee
July 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
313: So by your reasoning, a rape victim must be reminded of her rape by having the child?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@266 baseballboy
You need to keep up with the guidelines of your faith. Benedict XVI’s words on evolution (from Wikipedia):
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution”.
Furthermore, he does not endorse creationism or intelligent design. He defends theistic evolution, the reconciliation between science and religion already held by Catholics.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
@285 Matt
“Also, images of Jesus have been used since the very beginning of Christianity to SPREAD the faith to those who were not able to read (which was a lot of people). They are called Icons.
Well, I wouldn’t say that 200 years after the supposed facts can count as “the very beginning of Christianity”. The earliest image of Jesus is a fresco dated around 235 AD. And he doesn’t look at all to the image we have of him. Here you can see images of Jesus through the ages: http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery.htm
Note three things:
1) The first three images are contested. The oldest one is the fourth.
2) Jesus’ depiction evolves through the centuries to meet the ideal in the minds of the people at the time.
3) There is no canonical image until the 11th century because no one knew what he looked like. An example of this is the image labelled “Chi-Rho Halo, British Villa
4th C”. The artist was retained to paint Jesus, but no one knew his features. So what did the artist do? He copied the image of a Roman emperor found in a coin! Here is an article about this –> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/apr/19/art.artsfeatures
Interestingly, no Christian churches are found anywhere before the 3rd century AD. Crosses, by the way, are also lacking during that time.
Pac
July 13th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
hardly. the Catholic sect of christianity(of which there were many) was around for MAYBE 240 years at the time of the Council of Nicaea, and Catholicism was not THE first sect of Christianity(that honor is up for debate). The Catholic church was merely the first powerful sect of Christianity, and therefore set the precedent of what it meant to be a Christian for at least a thousand years.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Nice lists you have here. I read your previous post concerning Islam and (having grown up in the Middle East), I’d like to thank you for doing so- it seems there are too many misconceptions about the religion in the West.
Might I suggest you create a similar list on the subject of Communism. The USSR and China have wrecked the reputation of this political theory and I think it’d be helpful to have someone correct misconceptions.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:17 am
@Greg 88: In the gospels, when asked about divorce, Jesus refers to the “beginning” and how it was that man was made for woman. Furthermore in several of the epistles, Paul speaks on marriage and it is always described as 1 man and 1 woman.
Yes, C14 rates are based on assumptions of atmospheric levels. Uranium dating is based on assumptions on the starting amount of daughter isotope and that the rate of decay is constant. It has been shown not to be constant.
“NO” historical evidence? At all? So no Jerusalem, no Ephesus, no Rome, no Ninevah (interesting one as historians and archeologists denied it ever existed, so you can imagine their embarrassment when they found it), no Egypt, heck, no Middle East? No Israel, no Hebrews, no Pilate, no Herod, no Xerses and most importantly, no Jesus? These must all be mythical figures and locations with no basis in reality what so ever.
On what basis do you say Eve wasn’t formed from a rib? We’re experimenting with cloning people from stem cells, but the idea that God could form Eve from Adam’s genetic material is really out there.
Who said anything about apples growing in the middle east? I assume you refer to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well here’s a wonderful tidbit…it wasn’t an apple…it’s never stated what the fruit was, just that it was a fruit.
God was able to make a donkey speak to Balaam by opening it’s mouth and the serpent was under the influence of Satan.
Yes, there is a biblical purpose to marriage, to join a man and a woman to become one through love. To meaningfully relate to each other and to God, to be compansions and compliment each other and also to be fruitful and multiply, raising godly children. Woman was made for man as it was not good for man to be alone. At the same time, man today comes from woman and so is to honor and love her. She was a gift and thus so was their union, just as today the gift of life is given through a woman. Such a gift is also a necessity for human existence, similarly to how life itself is a gift.
In the biblical mindset, marriage has always been about love as well as (but not only) gender. Sanctity is an interesting word, as it means the quality of being holy. If what is holy is what is right in the eyes of God, then one can’t be destroying the sanctity of it by insisting on there being a gender definition to marriage, as this is how God made it. Of course, to neglect love as the binding structure of marriage is to deny the rest of marriage and thus to completely remove love would destroy the sanctity of it. It can only be sanctified in the eys of God if both aspects are present.
@ouchan: Biblically, the gift is meant for whom it was given to. It was given to collective humanity, represented by Adam and Eve, by uniting them as one flesh. Thus the gift is to humanity to be manifest through the union of a man and a woman.
In answer to your second question, is it not a double standard to impose on the religious the views of the unreligious who think that the religious shouldn’t impose their views on the unreligious?
That said, I don’t believe it’s consistent with scripture to try and force those who don’t follow Jesus to act as if they did, because this commandment is given to those who DO follow Him. “Be Holy because I am Holy”. What those who follow Him ARE told to do, is tell people why they think it is a necessity for all humanity to no longer be estranged from God (Because in Him we live, move and have our being, therefore estrangement from Him inevitably leads to death). Whether they choose to accept this or not is entirely their choice (understanding what it would require), and they will be left to their choice.
That said, is it just to say that a state or a country is a christian country when there are those living there who are not christian? I don’t believe so. Therefore, all who live there shouldn’t be forced to abide by christian principles (specifically stated as such). Indeed, the kingdom of God is not defined by what can be seen, because it is within the hearts of the people.
However, all who do choose to live under a government must also honor that government as it is in place to make sure that there is law and justice. Therefore, if that government does not state it is strictly a government belonging to a particular religion but has values that are in agreement with it, we are all under obligation to abide by the laws we have chosen to live under.
That said, our capacity for morality (with or without belief in God) is a wonderful testament to the Creator. For apart from Him, what reason do we have for it? If the answer is survival, what reason do we have to survive? apart from God, there is no reason to believe humanity or creation is anything special or in need of preservation, as it is another insignificant speck of dust on vast, possibly infinite darkness.
Biblically, I can justify both as mankind is created in the image of God and is therefore of great worth and significance. Thus, it is right for us to do and be right as God is right. This same God who is good, also made the universe, the Earth and all life on it. Because we live in a broken and fallen world, subject to decay,(due to mankinds choice to estrange itself from God), this also makes sense of the need for life to be preserved. God’s ultimate act to ensure the survival of humanity, was to come in the form of a man to die.
As estrangement from God leads to death, the only way to reconcile man is through the death of an innocent. Yet the life of an animal is not worth the life of a man, as animals were not made in the likeness of God. Therefore it required a man. Yet all men are born estranged from God, therefore it required one who was man but also God. With Jesus’ death, the need to sacrifice animals ceased. The need to be servants of God, living under endless ceremonial rituals ceased. Man was therefore able to be reconciled to God and treated as children and not servants by accepting Jesus’ sacrifice. Being reconciled, those who live through Jesus can now concern themselves with serving their fellow man, feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, sheltering the homeless, comforting the widows and visiting the imprisoned. For if one does a such to these people, it is as if they did it for Jesus and thus for God Himself. In doing so, they proclaim that the Kingdom of God has come on Earth.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 am
I misunderstood the title I thought it was the Catholic Church’s misconceptions – like there is a god…
July 14th, 2009 at 4:07 am
I disagree with #1. The pope was the bishop of rome, however he was not considered any more powerful than other bishops. TO parallel, you can consider the bishop of a huge town, compared to a bishop in a small place. While the big towner might have a bit more influence, in terms of authority they are equal. The same is true with the early papacy and the idea of the pope being more powerful did not come about until will after the invasion of the Goths (maybe later, i dont remember).
July 14th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Oh my God.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:46 am
jooliver, a recent Asian country(2002) named Timor became the second Asian Catholic country.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:48 am
One thing that I not see in here is the mention of the books of the Orthodox that are not in the Protestant and Catholic Bibles. There are a few.
Was there a misconception article on Jews?
July 14th, 2009 at 6:00 am
@Stizzy (321): Biblically, the gift is meant for whom it was given to. It was given to collective humanity, represented by Adam and Eve, by uniting them as one flesh. Thus the gift is to humanity to be manifest through the union of a man and a woman.
Not correct. It was a gift given but it wasn’t defined like that. So it’s still a gift for all.
So to my second part…I said that I don’t force my beliefs on others so you and others cannot do the same to me. Yet, you turned it around to say I was doing just that. No…I feel you can believe what you want, but your belief should not dictate what others should or should not do with their lives or bodies…period. I wouldn’t expect you to do the same if I told you to follow a doctrine of my faith…right? Wouldn’t the just be silly?
So each of us can believe what we will and be happier for it. Each of us should be able to live by our faiths without having to be constantly on guard for attacks…that is how it should be. That way a woman has control of her body and the gay community can have their happiness too.
See? Everyone wins.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:16 am
“Not correct. It was a gift given but it wasn’t defined like that. So it’s still a gift for all.”
Biblically, it was. If you don’t accept the biblical world-view, you will not accept this. It’s subjective and arbitrary just to state it isn’t that way because you don’t agree.
“I feel you can believe what you want, but your belief should not dictate what others should or should not do with their lives or bodies…period. I wouldn’t expect you to do the same if I told you to follow a doctrine of my faith…right? Wouldn’t the just be silly?”
But see, this isn’t a consistent stance. You feel one can believe what they want, but then dictate that they shouldn’t believe they can dictate to others. If one did believe in dictating to others what they should or shouldn’t do with their lives, you would be dictating your beliefs to them because you disagree with that stance. That’s why I say it’s a double standard.
“Each of us should be able to live by our faiths without having to be constantly on guard for attacks…that is how it should be.”
Such isn’t the world we live in I’m afraid. I do believe we should be able to justify our faiths if questioned or attacked, otherwise how can we claim to be rational?
If someone’s belief involves an opinion on how a person controls their body or on extra-marital relations, and you do state that someone shouldn’t have to answer challenges to that belief, why then do you question someone who holds these beliefs? Why do you state that their belief isn’t correct?
It seems people say everyone should be left alone, but can’t actually leave those who don’t agree with them alone.
I believe this is because we have an inert desire to speak out against what we perceive to be wrong and say what we think should or shouldn’t be, which implies an ultimate standard and thus absolute morality.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I’v got to say, having read to about half way down, I haven’t come across a single militant Catholic “you will ALL burn in Hell non-believers” message, but I’ve read some amount of equally sweeping and unprovable statements from athiests. God can’t be proven, or disproven, just believed in. Being athiest doesn’t make you smarter, more learned, or more advanced that a Catholic, or a Christian; it just means you hold a different opinion. Get the stick out of your ass.
Re: the question about praying to Jesus or the Holy Ghost-in school I was taught that St. Patrick explained this very well by holding out a shamrock. Each of the three leaves is the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. But they are all connecte, and all spring from the same stalk. Various incarnations of the Lord-therefore, no Idolatry.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Why is it only Christians that judge every other religion with no knowledge of what there talking about yet seem to think they will win a debate?
July 14th, 2009 at 6:52 am
The reason people believe the Catholic Church opposed Bible reading is because they did things like burning William Tyndale alive for translating it into a language the people could actually read.
I don’t think that’s a misconception.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:01 am
@Sir
With all respect, I think your question should be rephrased as:
“Is it only Christians that judge every other religion with no knowledge of what they’re talking about, thinking they will win a debate?”
The answer being “no”, as I think you’ve kinda demonstrated.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:02 am
This list never even had the readable misconceptions.The author is either Catholic or liberal.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:17 am
@Stizzy (326): For the marriage part…I forgot that you and I are talking about two different time references so I won’t go on about that one.
For the second part, re-read what I wrote. It’s the same exact thing you said. The difference is I didn’t try to change your point of view. Still won’t. That would be pointless. I just want to make myself clear.
To make it simple, we can all get along. It’s just a matter of butting out of someone else business.
Fighting the good fight for injustice (ie. child abuse, murder, rape) that is different from instructing another on what to do with their body or mind (ie. abortion, marriage for all).
I see your point clearly. You said that in today’s society leaving what we percieve as wrong well enough alone and that it can’t be done. I seem to have no problem with that. It’s just a matter of learning to keep our opinions about such matters that don’t concern us to ourselves. With that we can concentrate on more important matters. Just my point of view.
I don’t go around preachy to others because I feel that to each his own. I only defend when others come preaching to me that I might be wrong. Let me be wrong and go on your merry way. There is nothing out there saying you need to save my immortal soul. That is my job.
What I am saying is there is no need for others to tell another what to do. Even with this post, I am not telling you what to do. You may go on as you please. I am saying how I will react when others come to me to tell me how I should be. It’s none of their business.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Is there something in particular wrong with the author being either? You speak as if there is a true neutral position this could have been written from. If there were, I doubt there would even be a misconceptions list.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:35 am
About infallibility:
The Pope was wrong about heliocentricity and he insisted it was a matter of faith, not science – Gallileo was charged with heresy.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Just to clarify, my above comment (333) was for Mr Sir.
@ oouchan: From the biblical position, anyone on this earth who thinks they can save your soul is gravely mistaken. Although, from the same point of view, they wouldn’t see it as your job as salvation doesn’t come by human will or ability but by the grace of God. So they may feel there is a need, according to what they believe, to at least tell you why they think you should be reconciled to God.
They shouldn’t over step their mark by trying to force it on you or simply bombarding you with all matter of stuff to try and beat you into submission. From the consistent biblical position, only God can draw people to Him.
So you may not think what you do and what happens to you concerns another, but this may not change the fact that they are concerned for you anyway (assuming they have no guile and have pure motives) because they believe what happens to one member of the human race concerns us all, being all born of one blood, made by one Creator.
With this in mind, do you understand why some people may get a bit over zealous in their efforts or seem like they’re trying to impose on you? In your opinion, do you think it’s wrong to allow them to follow their principles?
I do believe we should live quiet, peaceable lives and the Bible encourages this. That we should be concerned with our own affairs (I take this to also mean we should not take it upon ourselves to condemn or say what we think others deserve), and that we should show compassion to all. That way we can concentrate on meeting peoples needs, and if someone asks why, then I don’t see a problem with explaining how one’s faith led them to that point.
Do you think that’s reasonable?
July 14th, 2009 at 7:48 am
@ mastermind357
The books were written by men, and on that note most of the books that did not make it into the cannon were written a century and a half to three centries after Christ. Most were not considered reliable sources. Christian is a deriviative of Christ and Catholic is a proper noun based on catholic meaning united. In the Nicean Cread I believe there is a line “one hold catholic and apostolic church” where it is used in the context of united and not as a proper noun.
@ Stizzy
“Indeed, the church is not anti-science, but “anti-evolution” is a tricky one. It depends on what is meant by “evolution”. I believe a consistent Christian will agree that natural selection happens, but they would not agree with abiogenesis and common descent.” -> There is no conflict in between abiogenesis or common descent and the Catholic Church. They take the stance that if thats the way it happened, thats the way it happened. Basically, if God descided to create man over 15 billion years and through evolution from slime, so be it.
@ HulkSmashNow
“If Catholics do not worship Mary and the saints, then why do they prey to them? As a Christian, you should only pray to God through Jesus Christ.” -> Not praying to them, asking them to interviene on your behalf.
@ Becky
“Catholics and Christians: There was no need for distinction between different churches because until 1054 there were no theological differences between them. Even in 1054, the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy remained (and still remains) small.” -> Slightly untrue. There were the Assyrian orthodol, Ethiopian Orthodox, Gnostics and others that were no where near as big as the Catholic church in the Dark Ages, but they were not in communion with Rome.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am
@Stizzy (335):
From the biblical position, anyone on this earth who thinks they can save your soul is gravely mistaken.
Mistake or not…most (and I mean most) of those that I have come across or had dealings with do this on a regular basis.
So you may not think what you do and what happens to you concerns another, but this may not change the fact that they are concerned for you anyway (assuming they have no guile and have pure motives) because they believe what happens to one member of the human race concerns us all, being all born of one blood, made by one Creator.
True…if I cared about that or believed in that then it would make a difference. Otherwise, I find it annoying at best and feel irritated with that person. Not their fault for sure but it’s not polite for someone to just lean over and say “You shouldn’t do that.” How about letting me fall on my face or succeed on my own?
Too many want to step in and take over and that is where the problem lies. By stepping back and keeping another in your thoughts instead…you can avoid issues/conflicts against yourself or them with you.
With this in mind, do you understand why some people may get a bit over zealous in their efforts or seem like they’re trying to impose on you? In your opinion, do you think it’s wrong to allow them to follow their principles?
Yes. I can see where they get in that fashion…It works the same for both sides. I have been guilty of that myself. Having said that, I do believe it is wrong to force your princibles on another. What is the problem with following your own princibles and letting others follow theirs? That way each person is accountable for their own actions. That is what I mean when I said others jump in trying to save someone. If you and you alone are judged by your actions then by following your princibles should be all you need.
I do believe we should live quiet, peaceable lives and the Bible encourages this. That we should be concerned with our own affairs (I take this to also mean we should not take it upon ourselves to condemn or say what we think others deserve), and that we should show compassion to all. That way we can concentrate on meeting peoples needs, and if someone asks why, then I don’t see a problem with explaining how one’s faith led them to that point.
Do you think that’s reasonable?
Yes…it’s reasonable. It works for everyone no matter who or what you are or whatever you believe in.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:43 am
lostatsea- Rape is indeed a horrible crime. In no way am I condoning rape. My point is this-the child conceived by rape is just as innocent of wrongdoing as the child conceived by a loving couple. The child should not be forced to pay for the crimes of another.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:48 am
jamey and others: in regards to the concept of praying to saints or mary, point to the scriptural evidence that supports such a foundational doctrine to the catholic faith.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:53 am
@martinthewarrior (338): However…it’s ok to condemn the one who was raped.
How sad.
It is unfortunate circumstance, but that “embryo” was forced onto the victim. It’s her choice to make. It’s her ultimate decision which she will have to live with…but it will still be hers. No one else’s.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am
@PeteS (334): Papal Infallibility is very restricted. The Pope can say “Have faith that the Yankee’s will win the World Series.” And that doesn’t make it infallible. The Pope or Ecumenical Council must be issuing a statement about faith and morals (heliocentricity still falls under science, regardless of the words used), to the whole world, directly appealing to infallibility.
Just because a Pope asks someone to believe in something doesn’t mean that he is infallible. Most of the Pope’s teachings aren’t infallible. It would be increasingly difficult to claim that Pope Urban ever claimed any sort of infallibility in arguing against Galileo as the doctrine wasn’t defined until 1870, centuries later.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am
@Stizzy (330): Rhetorical question though.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:19 am
oouchan- No. I would NEVER dream of condemning the rape victim. You misunderstood me. I said that the CHILD is innocent of the wrongs inflincted on the woman-who is just as innocent.
The only person that I will condemn is the rapist.
But this does not mean that I will condone abortion in those cases. I believe that once the child has been conceived, then he or she is a separate human being with the same rights as everyone.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Sorry for the double post-but this will be my last comment on this list. I learned long ago when to back out of certain debates-and this is one of those times. Some things are not worth getting into a huge fight over, and religious beliefs are at the top of my list. I’m not backing out because I’m a coward, but because I know if I stay on then things may get ugly, and I don’t want to get into a flame war with anyone. I have a temper, and I’d much rather quit now while it is still in check.
Oouchan-I know we will never see eye to eye on this matter, but please believe me when I say I still have respect for you. I hope you can show the same towards me.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
@martinthewarrior (343):
&
@martinthewarrior (344):
I understand. I am not trying to change your mind. Each person has thier own view. I also don’t think you are a coward for backing out…not at all.
This is the only part I feel so strongly about. Having said that, abortion is not birth control and shouldn’t be taken lightly…which in many cases it is. That is truly the sad part. There has to be more regulation on it without taking so much from the individual. It’s truly a no-win situation.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I want to see a Hindu list.I know nothing about there beliefs or culture.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am
hi, I’m from Vietnam. Nice to visit your blog
July 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@DiscHuker (224): This very paradox is the reason I have quit recognizing ANY particular religion in my relationship with God.
But I do join any friend who has asked me to attend “their” church, and as of yet, I haven’t attended a service that doesn’t preach both mortal sin requiring individual redemption AND pre-conceived forgiveness of all sins of Man through the sacrifice of Jesus.
I cannot marry those two concepts enough to make me comfortable with ANY organized religion…And I’ve found that asking a clergyman of any faith I’ve come across just starts a long winded, stuttering, sputtering, verse flaunting discourse that usually just dwindles to a few mumbles and ahems.
And don’t throw in the sin of thought. You know–Thinking it is the same as doing it. Even an innocent wish or longing can be twisted into a sin, requiring confession and absolution. On that basis we’re all damned before we do anything.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Not to attempt to drag back out the homosexuality debate… Realistically, marriage is no longer simply a religious tenet. It has financial implications, and affect the persons rights regarding eachother’s property. So, in that vein of thinking, I believe that due to the concept of ’separation of church and state’ that America is SUPPOSED to practice, that there is no valid reason to deny anyone the right to marry, so long as both parties are adult and consenting. It’s an infringement on basic equal human rights.
While I personally find the belief in a God to be unpleasing to my sensibilities, I would not ever deny anyone else the right to believe in such. Religion only distresses me because so many will take up the mantle of belief simply because it gives them a scapegoat to which they can throw thier responsibility. I find it absolutely rediculous that one can still be allowed admittance to heaven after committing murder or rape, as long as they confess and fully ‘repent’ for thier sin, whereas many would be thrown to the fires of hell simply for not devoting thier lives to the worship of God. That seems quite skewed to me.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:02 am
.@Aadil (245): I’m sorry–I just can’t help myself sometimes…. but when I read your comment the first thing that came to my mind was:
My “X” is pink, and you can just kiss it.
Not that I truly have any any REAL thoughts or insight on your stay/go quandary.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
@ evad1089
If the Catholic Church say that the Bible is their foundation, yet see no conflict with 13 billion years and evolution via comment descent (which involves millions of years of death and suffering), they are hypocrites who are not consistent with what the Bible teaches, and they call the very God they worship a liar for He said He created the world in 6 days, no less than 6000 years ago, and that when He created it, it was “very good” and that there was no death and suffering.
So either they believe the Bible, or they don’t.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“I find it absolutely rediculous that one can still be allowed admittance to heaven after committing murder or rape, as long as they confess and fully ‘repent’ for thier sin, whereas many would be thrown to the fires of hell simply for not devoting thier lives to the worship of God. That seems quite skewed to me.”
I’ll try to answer this according the the biblical worldview.
The Bible says that in God we live, move and have our being. Therefore apart from Him, we will eventually perish. What we call “sin” is estrangement from God, the breaking of the relationship between God and man in the likes of between a parent and a child. Thus, one who lives in estrangement is destined to remain forever seperated from God and thus from life.
All have estranged themselves from God and fallen short of His standard of morality. His standard is greater than ours and He shows no partiality between any who are estranged from Him whether a murder, rapist, liar or a theif. All these things lead to estrangement from Him, which leads to eternal seperation from life and purpose, only found in God. All are under the same damnnation because all are born estranged from God. However, the severity of one’s punishment or the amount of their reward on the day of judgement will depend on their actions in accordance with whether they were estranged or not.
Someone is able to be received into eternal life through repentance (which means changing and essentially making a 180 turn) and faith in Jesus, because He paid the debt and accepted the punishment for all murderers, rapists etc, being the only one completely innocent. Being both God and man, His blood is able to cover all transgressions that have ever been and will ever be.
One who repents accepts this sacrifice and also accepts that they were created in the image of God, and that they should therefore behave in a way that reflects this, actively caring for others as they do for themselves, whilst being reconciled with God. God thus treats them as if they are not estranged from Him, as a child. When He sees them, He sees goodness.
It is not for us, therefore, to judge whether another has a right to go to hell or to heaven, for such things are under God’s domain.
Does this seem any less ridiculous to you?
July 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
@oouchan:
“True…if I cared about that or believed in that then it would make a difference. Otherwise, I find it annoying at best and feel irritated with that person. Not their fault for sure but it’s not polite for someone to just lean over and say “You shouldn’t do that.” How about letting me fall on my face or succeed on my own?
Too many want to step in and take over and that is where the problem lies. By stepping back and keeping another in your thoughts instead…you can avoid issues/conflicts against yourself or them with you.”
Do you not think it’s polite then for someone, if they see another doing wrong, to lean over and say “I don’t think you should do that”? What if they have a good reason to say so? If it’s not their fault, I hardly think it’s polite to tell them to simply mind their own business. I personally think people should try to be more understanding, patient and compassionate in this regard.
There is a way to do this without forcing yourself on someone. I believe if they have a good reason for why they said anything, they can’t be faulted for it.
I too believe everyone is accountable for their own actions and that they must be allowed to make their choices, as we have been created with free will. However, I don’t believe it’s wrong for another to point out that they don’t think someone should make a certain choice. Obviously they can’t or shouldn’t try and force that person not to, but surely to simply suggest as such isn’t wrong?
July 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
How about the notion that the spread of Catholicism / Christianity through the world was facilitated through intimidation, fear tactics, and brutal violence, not unlike the modern-day Mafia?
The Organized Catholic Church is no more than a pyramid scheme – like Amway – it’s all about control, power, and conquest. Always has and always will. Who needs any of that with the bevy of social services programs available to the ‘needy populace’ today…
July 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
@muddyrunnergirl (354): “Pyramid scheme”
exactly!
July 14th, 2009 at 11:48 am
@Stizzy (353): Do you not think it’s polite then for someone, if they see another doing wrong, to lean over and say “I don’t think you should do that”? What if they have a good reason to say so? If it’s not their fault, I hardly think it’s polite to tell them to simply mind their own business. I personally think people should try to be more understanding, patient and compassionate in this regard.
No it’s not polite because to me what I think, feel or do is right. See the difference? I could care less about someone else’s opinion of me. I am here on this earth for me and my daughter. I am not here to impress anyone else. So that is why I would not be happy if someone said that to me. I didn’t ask. Had I asked, then it would have been important.
There is a way to do this without forcing yourself on someone. I believe if they have a good reason for why they said anything, they can’t be faulted for it.
We both know that is not the way it will happen. It’s more like this:
“You’re wrong.”
“No, I’m not, you are.”
Preaching begins and arguments fly…..and so on and so forth. Each of us wants to impart our view on another and make that person a follower of our point of view. That is not sharing but forcing. It happens too many times and usually ends up with violence. It’s better to just butt out. Again, this is just my opinion on how I would feel if that person came to me. Defensive. Challenged.
You are entitled to your opinion as well. Just know that if you were to do that to me, you know how I (and a few others) would react. Not nicely in many cases.
too believe everyone is accountable for their own actions and that they must be allowed to make their choices, as we have been created with free will. However, I don’t believe it’s wrong for another to point out that they don’t think someone should make a certain choice. Obviously they can’t or shouldn’t try and force that person not to, but surely to simply suggest as such isn’t wrong?
It’s never a suggestion. It’s more like a command.
For example the abortion debate. Just a piece I will borrow. To those of the faith it’s wrong ANY time. To those who don’t follow that belief, it’s up to the woman for that decision. So tak a clinic that preforms these services with about 20 protestors standing outside hurling comments, insults and objects at people going in.
Now tell me…is that force or a suggestion?
Yes…that was an extreme example I used, but it’s all too common now. It’s another’s point of view being forced on others. We should all learn to not be so controlling of another’s views, opinions, ideas or thoughts. Let them be.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be.”
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.’ -CS LEWIS
July 14th, 2009 at 11:59 am
@muddyrunnergirl (354): If that were true than why would the Pope have written in his first Encyclical as the Pope:
“The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves: “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?”. Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.”
“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State.”
If the Church were really after political control I don’t think the prudent way to go about that would be by stating that the Church can’t have political control.
As an employee of the Catholic Church I can safely say that we do not sit in our board meetings plotting how to best take over the world that week. Your comments seem to be based on nothing by malice and ignorance. You have made outrageous accussations without offering any evidence to support them.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“No it’s not polite because to me what I think, feel or do is right. See the difference?”
Yes I understand, however do you think this is really reflective of reality? I’m not surprised that people think this way, I just wonder if they think it is really a wise way to live.
“We both know that is not the way it will happen. It’s more like this:
“You’re wrong.”
“No, I’m not, you are.” ”
Indeed, you’re right there, that is usually how it goes. I believe the problem is that people essentially argue over the same facts, but from different presuppositions and world-views. It’s really a conflict of perspective, so if there is to be debate, it should be over which world-view is not arbitrary, is consistent and can account for reality.
As for your example, I think it is neither force or suggestion per ce. It certainly isn’t force. Force would be if the protests blocked the way in or physically dragged a woman away from the clinic.
Suggestion would be actually attempting to have some dialogue. That is simply what it is, protesting and expressing opinion. It’s still down to the individual whether they listen.
We can’t control anothers views, opinions, ideas or thoughts. They choose all of these for themselves, and they’ve all been influenced by someone’s suggestion, force or expression.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@oouchan (356): Butting out is good and well when it is simply a matter of ones personal beliefs. It ought to go without saying that everyone is entitled to make up their own mind. This is actually a teaching of the Catholic Church.
CCC #160: “Man’s response to God by faith must be free, and… therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. the act of faith is of its very nature a free act.”
(Whether individuals adhere to this is a mute point as we are discussing the way things ought to be.)
However, when someones beliefs lead them to impede on the rights of others that changes things. If you saw someone about to shoot an innocent person in the head you would not say “Oh, well that is his own belief and who am I to tell him otherwise. I can’t impose my beliefs on him.” I would hope that you would do everything in your power to stop him. The same can be said for a whole host of other injustices from slavery to racism and even to abortion.
It is not a matter of imposing your beliefs on others. I could care less if you believe that a particular human being has the right to live. My concern is protecting their rights.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
@Matt (360): I addressed such crimes in a previous post. There’s a difference between telling someone they have to believe in god and in god’s laws and telling someone that can’t shoot a person or abuse a child.
Big difference between the two.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@stizzy: While I can understand the concept that it is beyond our human ability or comprehension to judge one’s eligibility for passage to heaven, it also seems to me (and that is of course my opinion), to be quite skewed that one’s sole ’sin’ could be that they do not implicitly believe in God, whereas they could live a perfectly sinless life, and be cast into Hell. Meanwhile, a serial killer could profess belief and repent, and be allowed to enter heaven.
I don’t profess to understand God’s motives. I just don’t really think they’re fair. But then I suppose that’s why I’m not Christian, right?
No hate, I respect what you’ve presented to me, it’s just not my cup of tea.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
That’s alright Anon.
But you see, none of us have lived or are capable of living a perfectly sinless life. No one can say that their “sole sin” is disbelieving in God. As I said, sin is estrangement from God, so sinful acts are those that distance man from God.
God’s standard is such that if one so much as hates another person, they have committed murder in their heart and it is the heart that God looks at. One may appear to do “good things” but their motives could be anything but good.
Bottom line, we are all born condemned as we are all born estranged from God, hence why we die. God has not removed this punishment because He is just and consistent, but He has also provided a way to escape eternal death, exercising grace, mercy and compassion.
So if, from God’s perspective, He views all mankind and sees them all has estranged, no matter what they’ve done to get to that position and one chooses to be reconciled to Him and another does not, is it unfair for Him to forgive the one who turned to Him and leave the other to their choice?
It is not God’s will that any should perish, but it is His will that all be given the freedom to choose their path.
There are many paths that lead away from God, and fewer paths that lead to Him, but in either direction all people may fully exercise their freedom of choice.
As such, if that’s not what you want, I hope you’re blessed in life either way.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
@Anon. E. Mouse (362): It is the Catholic Churches belief that a person who through no form of their own has never been presented with an authentic view of God, but does the best they can according to their own knowledge of right and wrong to lead the best life possible they can still enter heaven. Conversely, a man who has lead a horrible life but attempt to confess and repent to escape punishment but is not sincerely sorry in his heart would still be condemned.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
@Matt (364): Wow, Church’s* not Churches and fault* not form. I need to proof read…
July 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@oouchan (361): I think it is safe to say you ‘dominate’ Listverse, wether you take that as a compiment or an insult it is entirely up to you.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@P.I. Staker (366): Nice to think of me that way but I’m too humble for that. hehe
July 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Wow – I’m still amazed at all of the continued misperceptions going on in the comments.
Someone above made a comment (#18) about how a “man” can decide what books belong or don’t. To answer, one of the premises of Christianity is that the Triune God leads, guides and supports the Church in the areas of faith and morals. Through Godly inspiration, the books of the Bible were written and the Canon was developed. It’s ultimately an article of faith. You must decide to believe or not.
#22 made a comment about the Church “concealing” Scriptures and only making it available in Latin. The first point is patently untrue. As JFrater pointed out, Bibles were meticulously written by scribes, many times taking a lifetime to transcribe or copy thus making them very valuable. They were locked up to prevent theft and it is as simple as that. As for latin, the Church has understood that languages change (remember ‘gay’ used to mean ‘happy’) and that it was important to maintain Scriptural meaning by holding onto one language. Most languages do not translate directly, which causes problems from a theological standpoint.
As for all stabbing commentary on the pedophilla incidents, it is ultimately deserved on those who perpetrated the actions and for those who did, or covered it up, they should and will get what they deserve. But the faith itself is much bigger than the perverse actions of a few and the 99% of prayerful, good Catholics (including clergy) deserve more than to have their faith mocked. And though I understand the emotion behind those using these incidents as a reason to leave the Church, I would argue that just maybe, their faith was not all that strong to begin with.
Because if that is the standard, then we should all pull our kids out of school since acts of pedophilla and pedastery are at a higher rate of occurence with teachers than with clergy.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
@Steelman (368): Rock ‘N’ Roll.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Matt, why do I see your name so much on the comment list? Are you the author? Why must your ass DEFEND every single dose of criticism towards this article? You dont have anything better to do with your time Jackass? Get A Life Loser!! Ur worst than that son of bitch Rick on the islam list, u two probably are the same person!
July 14th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
@jerrygadsen (370): You know i wouldnt be suprised, you may be onto somethign Sherlock
July 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Try Googling anything about Old Testament cannon, and you quickly discover that the Roman Catholic Church has rigged it up so that their links dominate the first ten pages of results. The more things change, I suppose.
Where are rosary beads in the Bible, by the way?
July 14th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
@FATSEXY (372): Hard to take you seriously with your name.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
this guy in my old school was asolutley certain that being christian was the same thing as being catholic. We got pretty much everyone to tell him he was wronge, but he was convinces he was right. He would just keep repeating over and over ” If you christian your catholic, kendra, if if your christian your catholic. Thats just the way it works.”
*headpalm*
July 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
@I4gotmyMANTRA (374): Lmao. I loved the *headpalm* bit
:D:D:D:D
July 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
@stizzy and Matt: Thank you both very much! It’s always good to see the other side presented in a way one can understand. Matt, I was not fully aware of that idea in Catholic faith, thanks for broadening my view!
While I may not necessarily share your beliefs, I’m very grateful that you are willing to share with me and respect my desires to follow a different path. If only all people were as respectful of others in thier beliefs, could you imagine how fewer terrorists and fanatics there would be?
July 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
It bothers me that the vast majority of the first posts about the ‘misconceptions about Islam’ list were all positive, ‘thanks for clearing these up, this was really interesting, etc’ and the majority of the first posts on this list are negative (lol catholics, pedophiles, etc). Double standard, anybody?
July 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Show me in the Bible where it says you should kiss the Pope’s ring.
And then explain to me why Jesus explicitly says “call no man ‘father’ or ‘rabbi’”, yet the Pope is known as The Holy Father to Catholics. St. Paul also referred to himself as a spiritual “father”, which is puzzling.
And, re: the passage about forgiving sins that JFrater keeps bringing up, it’s simply Jesus telling His disciples to display forgiveness in their everyday lives to set the example for Christians that they would be guiding spiritually, that’s it. The part about the sins not being forgiven was an admonition to remember that by the standard they were judged, they would be judged, so they should remain even-minded in what judgements they passed.
Tell me one instance where someone came to Jesus and said, “I’ve sinned, Jesus!” and Jesus said, “Oh yeah, well what’d ya do?”
And then point out to me where Jesus said, “Say three ‘Hail Mary’s and it’ll be ok.”. Christ said, “Go, and sin no more.” and they